TRUMP CLAIMS “WWIII” IN THE MIDDLE EAST IF HILLARY ELECTED. HOW FAR OFF IS HE?

Well, it’s a commonly known fact that Donald Trump has a talent for saying outlandish things, so making a bold statement about World War Three is not that surprising.  So, if that statement didn’t shock you enough, here is one that might make you tilt your head! Is he really that far off the truth? Could Hillary’s nomination set the wheels in motion for a conflict between what everyone use to call, “Superpowers”?

Yes! The answer is yes, but the answer is “yes” for any US President in any past, present or future election and the same holds true for any head of state who comes to power in Russia, China, India, France, England, Pakistan….you get my drift!  Any leader who assumes power in a nation with nuclear weapons can set the world up for disaster, so technically, Trump was correct! Now, that is not the point he was trying to make, so let’s take a look at what he was really alluding to.

Is there real friction between Putin and Clinton? Yes.

Is it serious, more serious than normal personality conflicts? Yes.

Does that mean a President Clinton would deliberately engage in a conflict with Russia over Syria? Now, that is a good question!

To better understand how this personality conflict could lead to an actual confrontation, let’s take a look at what makes both of these world leader’s tick.

A down and dirty look at Hillary Clinton: (My opinion)

A women who has been driven by her passion to be someone important from an early age.

A women who has endured a marriage to a man who has forced her to stand in his shadow from day one. Look, Bill had the charisma and Hillary never did and never will!

A women who grew to despise the very kind of man she was married to… an Alpha Male that looked at Women as inanimate objects for the sense of his pleasure. Men who reeked of self-confidence and could constantly put anyone on the defensive with just a few well placed, sharp words.   Bill had what she longed for, public trust, but yet, she was the one that gave Bill the opportunity to become President of the US.

Simply put, it’s her turn now and nobody is going to get in her way, especially an Alpha Male. She has endured too much to get to the end of this quest, a quest snatched  from underneath her when her own party turned on her in 2008 and nominated Obama; another Man should couldn’t stand.

A man hatter? Maybe not totally, but her dislike for strong confident men is not hard to spot.

Last but not least, a women who framed Putin as a “Bully” that must be handled firmly.

A down and dirty look at Putin: (My opinion)

A man who is driven by past. A past that saw the nation he served virtually dissolve overnight when he was working for the KGB stationed in Germany. Rumor has it, he feared he couldn’t even get his Wife back home the collapse happened so suddenly.

A man who felt like the West was responsible for destroying the country he had worked his whole life to secure.

An Alpha Male who’s quiet demeanor allows him never to overreact. (Hint… an Alpha Male).

A man who has set a vision for not only his future but the future of his beloved Mother Russia and is not willing to let anyone or anything alter that future.

A man who has survived in the Russian political climate by being paranoid.

A man who see a conspiracy behind every tree!

Last, but most certainly not least, a man who has absolutely no respect for Hillary Clinton and is convinced she has had a plan to limit or even destroy his vision.

Can these two personalities with all their flaws, lead to a confrontation?

As I have said before,  in the history of “civilized man, countless conflicts have their history based upon personality conflicts and unintended consequences.

These two people really don’t like each other and both have personality issues that make them more very likely to overreact at the spur of the moment.

 In the end, a Clinton, Putin struggle is a very dangerous issue.

Could it lead to WWIII? 

She is not the only person that gets to make that decision.

The beginning of each conflict has at least two sides.

“I am Women… hear me roar” vs “ Do not interfere with my plans”.

Now, that is dangerous! 

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S LEGACY  IN THE MIDDLE EAST….MOSUL?

I’ve attached a rather hard hitting sort article that is very representative of the perceptions of the US in Saudi and the much of the Middle East.  If the author’s intent is to show a selfish image of the US President, an image of “I need to end my time in office with a victory against ISIS”, well, this young man really doesn’t understand US politics. It’s always about the “me factor”! Legacy and the items that make up the total picture that is a trademark of political leadership.  So, Yes. That could very well be what the battle for Mosul is all about, from President’s Obama’s viewpoint.

The author’s second point is the topic that should worry US citizens more than just another “legacy” event, with the exception that this particular “legacy” event has US military member’s lives at risk!  Yes, the US President is conducting US policy in a selfish mindset. The author needs to remember, this is the President that worked hard to kill of American Exceptionalism and in doing so,  walked away from being the leader of the free world! It shouldn’t come as a surprise the US President is acting is a selfish fashion.  Now, back to his second point!

Is the support of the US in the battle for Mosul part of a plan to support the Democratic nominee for President? Well, it’s not too difficult to make that argument. A victory, however hollow it would be, against a tangible item, such as a city, in the conflict with the Daesh, from the same administration that Hillary Clinton served under would be spun into a great achievement. Well, that’s if President Obama was willing to share the accolades.

If someone wants to make the events of Mosul a discussion point in the US election and I don’t think they do, then here is the fundamental question that should be addressed. 

Will the recapture of Mosul truly make a difference to the people of the US and if so, please explain how?

I would love to hear the talking heads in DC spin that question, but then again, the American people have to care enough to even ask.

If Mosul is retaken before January, will President Obama take a victory lap? How would that help Hillary Clinton in the next two weeks? I can tell you this, Mosul will not fall in the next two weeks! The slice of success the Hillary camp may be looking for is associating with the administration that started the support for the recapture of Mosul.

Next set of questions:

If she is elected and the battle for Mosul is not over by January, will she continue the support?

Will she knowingly continue a process that will result in pushing the Daesh fighters back into Syria where the Russians will have to deal with them?

Is she willing to deal with the response the Tsar will have to such an event as you can be assured, there will be a reaction to such a plan?

Will the Daesh simply take a loss of Mosul as the final phase of their demise, a theory the pro Obama media in the US continues to try to sell to the US public?

In the end, the original question is the most important.

If Mosul is retaken, how will it benefit the US?

The sad news is the Candidate that is hoping to leverage US involvement in the battle of Mosul knows full well the American people don’t understand and really don’t care.

Sad, but true.

As for the author of this article, sorry my friend, the US has lost the leading part in the battle for world freedom and that is just the way the US President wants it.

https://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/news/middle-east/2016/10/24/OPINION-The-danger-of-Obama-s-last-days-as-President.html

 FIRST 100 DAYS. LET'S LOOK AT THIS TOPIC ONE MORE TIME: 

It’s always entertaining to me when I hear US Presidential Candidates expounding on what their “first hundred days” in office are going to look like. It doesn’t matter what political party the candidate is from, the stance is always the same. “I’m going to really shake things up”. My Administration will do this…or that… and so on and so on! Like most, I’ve never put much stock in anything these folks say. The words over the entry doors of the United States Army’s Sergeant Major Academy at Biggs Army Airfield in El Paso Texas are alien to both US political parties. “Deeds before words”! Hollow promises are just part of the political process and it’s depressing to realize that just about every modern society has come to expect that fact. Not only is it depressing, it is becoming dangerous!

The First One hundred Days:

The concept of The First One Hundred Days has another fatal flaw. Regardless of the “Visions” political leaders have, the rest of the world gets a vote! What does that mean? Who votes? Well, let me explain. Does anyone believe that any nation that is close to changing leadership is not analyzed for possible impacts on other nations?  Why Is Europe’s hair on fire over the possibility of Donald Trump winning the election in the US? What are they “anticipating”? Most of them have gone to great lengths to express their disapproval of Donald Trump and have done so based on some analytical review of his possible actions in the US White House. As another example, take a look at the visual word of the ex-President / Drug Dealer / from Mexico…Mr. Fox! Yes... I said Drug Dealer…trust me on that one! So, my point is this. As much as Donald Trump and or Hillary Clinton may make glamorous statements about what will take place once they are in the White House, what both of them cannot predict is the actions taken by those who oppose the US. Like I said, others get a vote!

What is the Tsar’s plan for “The First Hundred Days” of President Trump?

What is the Tsar’s plan for “The First Hundred Days” of President Clinton?

What are the plans of the Chinese, Iran, and Turkey? Yep, I tossed our NATO partner in there. If you don’t understand why, then you need to work on your world awareness.

Will a President Trump or a President Clinton have time to think about all the promises they made; as if they intended on keeping them anyway!

The elections in the US are in two weeks. The change of leadership doesn’t take place until January 2017.

Will those who don’t like the US wait to make “The First Hundred Days” manageable?

Who is most likely to challenge the new President, something that takes place from time to time?

If you are in the US and you are still listening to the visions of ether Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, I would suggest you wonder about what will take place in those first hundred days, or for that matter the next four years?

It’s easy to make pie in the sky promises when you realize the public doesn’t believe you to begin with. It becomes catastrophic when a new President is unprepared for the challenges place in front of them, even before they place their hand on the Bible? Just look back to 2009 if you need an example.

CYBER ATTACKS . "STRONGER TOGETHER", UNLESS YOU ARE AGAINST HER!

WikiLeaks and soon to be President of the US, Hillary Clinton, if you listen to the mainstream media in the US, are starting off on a very bad note. Clinton supporters may not believe it, but the rest of the world equates the banning of Julian Assange by Ecuador’s government as a direct result of his attacks on Hillary’s campaign.  

Would the government of the greatest nation in the free world exert such influence on another nation for the sake of one party’s political campaign? Well, in the past eight years in the US, anything is possible.  

The speed of the US Department of State’s denial, clever use of words in this post, for responsibility of Assange’s blocked internet access was more than suspicious.

Think about the gravity of this accusation. The “Fix” is in so hard by the seated US administration for Hillary Clinton to become the next President that the Department of State demands an individual’s rights to internet access must be denied? Is that not just a little be Orwellian?

So, here comes the other side of this story. Today, the US and parts of Europe suffered a Denial attack on multiple internet access sites. The US press went with the story all the way up to someone mentioning it might be a retaliation for the actions taken by the US on Assange. Good grief, even one of the primary Clinton campaign media support groups, NBC, ran the story for at least a few hours.

Is this it? Is this how the next President of the US is going to react to people exposing issues about her?

“Stronger together”….unless you are against her and then you better watch out!

Oh, by the way. Did anyone notice how fast the US once again tied this whole issue to the Russians? All of a sudden, whenever the Progressive Liberals in the US have something not go their way, “It’s the Russians fault”!

When I was a kid, living in Florida in the early 60s, every time a Hurricane came close to us, my Mother would say, “It’s that Communist Weather Machine the Russians have”!

I wonder how long before Global Warming is a Russian event?

Well. I better stop there before my internet access turns off!

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-urged-ecuador-act-against-assange-n669271

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/21/technology/ddos-attack-popular-sites/index.html

 THE BATTLE FOR MOSUL. IS THERE SOMETHING THEY ARE NOT TELLING US?

I can remember back when journalism in the US was still a profession and a somewhat honorable one at that. Even back then, the question would of unadulterated reporting would come up.  In the Viet Nam conflict, never a declared War, as if that has mattered for some time now, the question of government influence on journalistic coverage was almost a daily topic. Have time really changed?

It seems odd the US is “involved” in “supporting” the battle for Mosul, but the topic doesn’t seem to make the news. Yes the US is weeks away from a Presidential election, one that will have no real victor, at least from the perspective of the American people, but, just how is the “support / Alliance” doing?

For the past 24 hrs. or so, the rumors of the Iraqi advance stalling has grown in coverage, but, not from the US media. Why? If the US has its military members in harm’s way, and they do, then where is the update? “The most transparent Administration ever”!

So, here is the rumor and in my book, it’s one that has real legs.

Kurdish fighting forces are poised to move on the city and that is something the Turks are more than upset with. Not to mention the Turks are not being invited to the table by the Iraqi government. Remember, the Ottomans’ goal is to suppress the Kurds, not destroy the Islamic State fighters.  Not to mention the Kurds are now asking for the Turkmen fighters to be categorized as “Terrorist”! You know, now days, if you don’t get along with some group, you just call them “Terrorist” and that levels out the playing field.

The newer version of the Mosul conflict seems to stim from the US and the Iraqi government not agreeing on the status of two issues.

1.      The US doesn’t want the ISIS fighters to be able to retrograde into Syria; as if they have not already done so prior to the start of the Mosul operation. That’s what happens when you telegraph what you are going to do for months in advance. Side note. Did the Tsar “telegraph” his movement into Syria? Remember my analysis…. Checkers vs Chess. So, the US wants the Iraqi fighters, to include the Shia militias controlled by Iran, to cut off the escape routs into Syria. Rumor has it that has become a major bargaining chip between Iraq and the US.

2.      It seems the fear that everyone who understands the region was worried about it coming true. The Shia militias along with the Iraqi forces, forces trained by the West / US / but under the control of Iran, are going to exert pain upon the Sunni population of Mosul. What is the end result of this? Yep. Yet another mass refugee issue. An event that was so predictable, the UN even prepared for it to take place.

Is this all an indication of just how bad the Mosul operation is going? Yep.

Can it get worse? Oh ya. Way worse!

If ISIS “Terrorist” are allowed to exit Mosul, and that is if they start to lose, and fall back into Syria, how does the West / US / believe the Russians will not see that as a deliberate act? How does anyone awake in DC not understand that the Mosul supported event is nothing more than the US pushing the ISIS issue off on the Syrian government? Does anyone in DC not think that is the perception of the Tsar? Worse yet, did the US actually anticipate this consequence?

Weeks away from a Presidential election in the US and somehow key leadership is under the impression that detreating the relationship with the Russian is a step forward?

Now, let’s think for a minute. Who is the key fighting group that will actually enter the streets of Mosul?

The Kurds? Not unless you want to see the Turks respond.

The Iraqi “Special Forces… Counter Terrorist… what every else they call themselves? They look good standing there with their Western uniforms on. Some have actually leaned how to properly wear a helmet. Are

Are These the forces that will go door to door in Mosul? On Iraqi TV that might be staged, but some of us know who the real killers are.

Yes. The Shia Militias. The ones that actually do kill women and Children just as barbarically as the ISIS Terrorist do.  These are the units that will enter the city with Iraq’s blessing. They will be under the command of Iran and that is why Soleimani is there.

Are the Russians going to allow the Iranians to push ISIS into Syria and take credit for saving Mosul?

Is the Tsar willing to trade Mosul for more problems in Syria?

Is he going to talk to the Ottomans again?

What version of the battle for Mosul is the US press willing to dig into? 

Does the US Press even understand what is taking place or might that jeprodize their Presidential Candidate?

Professional journalism! A thing of the past!

Are you confused?

DC is!

http://www.debka.com/article/25723/Obama-vs-Baghdad-on-Sunni-cleansing-of-Mosul-

DR. MIRELES AND YET ANOTHER “RUMOR”!

For those that know me, you are not surprised that I am once again addressing the latest “rumor” on the status of the good Doctor. For those of you that don’t know me, I will simply state I’ve been following this person and the events surrounding him in Mexico for the past several years.

Short version of that comment:

Dr. Mireles is the person most of Mexico’s government fears the most. It’s not just the good Doctor’s actions, but the movement that Mireles expounded upon in Mexico that worries the Mexican government. Simply put, he is the flame that could launch social revolution in Mexico and they know it.

So, yet another “Rumor” of his pending release? I would say this is ether the sixth of seventh time that story has hit the internet since he was tossed in prison over three years ago and that was after the Mexican government tried to kill him.

I’ve stated this before, but given this “rumor” is out there again, I will repeat myself at least one more time.  

Can the Mexican government afford to turn Dr. Mireles lose? Has his ability to influence the working class population of Mexico passed? Is the danger zone he possess to the government past? How do they know?

What is the advantage of turning setting him free?

Have most of his followers grown accustom to not having him in the struggle?

Is it safe to set him free?

Has the threat of the fire he threaten to ignite in Mexico expired?

If I see him actually freed, it will be far more interesting what takes place after that.

If that happens, you can bet I will spend a great deal more time addressing who he is and what his movement could mean to the stability of Mexico.

My bet is, he is not getting out, but if he does, it will be important to track the good Doctor.

http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2016/10/doctor-mireles-might-soon-leave-prison.html

THE BATTLES FOR ALEPPO AND MOSUL: MONGO'S PERSPECTIVE 

For several months now, the outrage over the air strikes on Aleppo have been sticking close to the front page of the news. The UN has been approached to address the issue Aleppo, a worthless event that amounted to little more than political theatrics given the veto power of Russia. Air strikes that were “war crimes” at worst or at best ‘unacceptable”, that has been the topic when it comes to the conflict for the city of Aleppo.

Aleppo:

Is Aleppo key to the Syrian government regaining control of Syria? Yes.

Are those who are bombing Aleppo in a declared “Alliance”? Yes.

Are the attackers deliberately targeting innocent civilians? Well, that depends on your stance on the Syrian conflict.

Is there total confusion as to who is fighting for what reason in the battle for Aleppo? Yes.

Does each of the parties in the attacking “alliance” have their own agenda?  Yes.

Is the West supporting the attacking “alliance”? No.

Mosul:

Is Mosul key to the Iraqi government regaining control of Iraq? Yes.

Are those who are attacking Mosul in a declared “Alliance”? Yes.

Are the attackers targeting innocent civilians? Well, that depends on your stance on the Iraqi conflict.

Is there total confusion as to who is fighting for what reason in the battle for Mosul? Yes.

Does each of the parties in the “alliance” have their own agenda? Yes.

Is the West supporting the attacking “alliance”? Yes.

What is the difference? 

Why is the West outraged at the actions in Aleppo and quietly supporting the actions in Mosul?

If your answer is, “we are attempting to help the Iraqi government defeat the Terrorist who occupy Mosul” then just switch the side you are on and you have the answer for Aleppo.

What moral high ground do you take over Aleppo and then place your hand over your eyes in Mosul?

To the five year old child in Mosul or Aleppo, why someone is killing your family is not important. Just getting them to stop is all that matters.

Strange how justification is a relative term.

In Mosul, the fear of Shia militias, supported and controlled by Iran, victimizing Sunni civilians has some of the so called “allies” quietly at odds with each other, not to mention the Turks  demands on the event given the support being provided by the Kurdish fighters.

Read an article today that equated the battle for Mosul to a modern day Tower of Babel.  Frankly, the whole region has become the Tower of Babel!  

So, somehow, tonight in DC, the stance seems to be this. “Aleppo bad…..Mosul good”!

Sound childish?

The idiot Mongo from Blazing Saddles. I’m not so sure he couldn’t win in three weeks!

Oh, by the way. If you are one of those “talking Heads” or so called “experts” on the region and you try and reply with some comical explanation as to why Aleppo and Mosul are “different”, then you should audition for the remake of Blazing Saddles!