page-loading-spinner
Home The Second Presidential Debate
Geopolitics

The Second Presidential Debate

The User's Profile Chris Martenson October 11, 2016
72
placeholder image

You're viewing just the public portion of this content

Become a Peak Insider today and unlock premium content, alerts when Chris takes personal action, and direct access to Chris and other members of our active community of like-minded thinkers.

Look, I know that there are no great choices this time for the next President of the United States. Yet many people have decided which issues matter the most to them when the time comes to cast their vote, and I fully support each person’s chosen personal priorities.

It turns out, to my great surprise, I am a single issue voter this election. I’ve never been a single issue voter before. Usually I'm of the mind that it's a complex world, and many factors need to be weighted and balanced.

So, what’s my single issue?

I'm against thermonuclear war.

That’s it. I desperately wish to avoid a major and catastrophic war. I think the neocons who have hijacked US policy are the most dangerous people alive today because they hold a set of beliefs that are not just unwise, but are singularly and spectacularly wrong.

I think continuing to demonize Russia is wildly dangerous. I think that the neocons have deluded themselves into believing that they can either push Russia around like Saddam or Gaddafi or play a game of increasing brinksmanship without really risking causing an actual war to break out.

Who knows? Maybe they even think they can effect “regime change” in Russia, or possibly even win an outright war, as some neocon think-tanks have suggested.

So I was very uncomfortable right now to watch how, in last night's second presidential debate, the rhetoric against Russia was raised to a fever pitch.

My stomach dropped at two points, which I'll discuss in a moment. I'm now extremely concerned, even more so than in the earlier posts I've written recently, that Russia has been selected as the next scapegoat and target by the neocon machinery.

This raises the possibility of direct conflict. And, sadly, the risk of a possible thermonuclear war is now a non-zero probability — even a probability is 0.001% is far too high for my comfort.

Let’s examine the rhetoric:

MR: And Secretary Clinton, let me ask you about that. Because you have asked for an increase from ten to 65,000 Syrian refugees. We know you want tougher vetting. That's not a perfect system. So, why take the risk of having those refugees come into the country?

HC: First of all, I will not let anyone into our country that I think poses a risk to us. But there are a lot of refugees, women and children, think of that picture we all saw of that

The rest is exclusive content for members

Become a Peak Insider today and unlock premium content, alerts when Chris takes personal action, and direct access to Chris and other members of our active community of like-minded thinkers.

Community

Top Comment

[quote=jerryr]
https://thinkprogress.org/9-terrifying-things-donald-trump-has-publicly-said-about-nuclear-weapons-99f6290bc32a#.im54d194u
On March 30, 2016, Trump said "Somebody hits us within ISIS - you wouldn't fight back with a nuke?". When challenged about the wisdom of...
Anonymous Author by mememonkey
0
Start Here What Do I Do?