shtfusa

Are you Prepared?

The U.S. Entered World War I On April 6, 1917 – Did Trump Just Start World War III On April 6, 2017? April 7, 2017

Did World War III begin on April 6th, 2017?  After Donald Trump fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria on Thursday night, millions of Americans were cheering, but the cheering isn’t going to last for long if a new world war erupts.  What is amazing to me is that this happened on the 100th anniversary of the United States entry into World War I.  The U.S. officially entered that war on April 6th, 1917, and now 100 years later to the day Donald Trump has essentially declared war on Syria.

If you think using the term “World War III” is alarmist, you might want to tell that to the vast numbers of people that are buzzing about a new world war all over social media.  If you don’t yet understand why a strike on Syria could be so dangerous, go back and read my article from yesterday.  If we continue striking Syria, we could very easily find ourselves in a direct military conflict with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

Hopefully last night will be the full extent of U.S. military action.  If Donald Trump and his national security advisers pat themselves on the back for “looking tough” and decide that was enough, we probably won’t see a major regional war break out.

But if the U.S. decides that regime change is necessary and continues to conduct more strikes, we will have war.  And unfortunately, there are already signs that this may happen.  On Friday, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley stated that the Trump administration “is prepared to do more”

“The United States took a very measured step last night,” Haley said. “We are prepared to do more. But we hope that will not be necessary. It is time for all civilized nations to stop the horrors that are taking place in Syria and demand a political solution.”

I don’t understand why so many Americans seem to have a thirst for war.

I have been studying war virtually all my life.  When I was just a small boy, I would check huge volumes on World War I, World War II and the Korean War out of the library and read them cover to cover.  And let me tell you, war is hell.  Nobody should actually want to see war, and now we are closer to the next world war than we have been in decades.

Needless to say, the Russians are extremely angry about what Trump has done.  Russian President Vladimir Putin has denounced it as an “illegal act of aggression”,  and Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev says that the U.S. came “within an inch” of a direct conflict with Russian forces…

Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has said the US air strike on a Syrian air base came “within an inch” of militarily clashing with their forces.

He said the action taken by the Americans was in breach of international law and their own internal procedures, and accused Washington of “barely avoiding combat clashes with Russia”.

In a post on Facebook, Mr Medvedev said the air strike had “completely ruined relations” between the two superpowers.

What in the world is Trump thinking?

The Russians very much wanted Trump to win the election because they felt that there was a very high probability of war between our two nations if Hillary Clinton would have won.

And the Russians were quite right to think that.

So the Russian people rejoiced greatly when Trump won, because they thought that it would be a new day for relations between our two great countries.

But after last night that hope is dead.

In fact, historians will probably mark April 6, 2017 as the day when the relationship between the United States and Russia officially died.

And it didn’t take long for the Russians to start to respond.  The following comes from Business Insider

The Russia Foreign Ministry announced that it suspended an agreement to avoid clashes between Russian and US-led coalition jets over Syrian airspace, while Reuters reporter Idrees Ali reports that Russia withdrew from a deconfliction channel, which the US used Thursday night to warn Russian forces of the incoming cruise-missile strikes (which took place Friday morning local time).

In addition, it has been announced that Russia will be significantly bolstering air defenses in Syria, and according to Fox News a Russian warship has been dispatched to confront the two U.S. naval vessels that fired the cruise missiles at Syria…

A Russian warship entered the eastern Mediterranean Friday and was heading toward the area where two U.S. Navy destroyers launched missile strikes into Syria, Fox News has learned.

The Russian frigate, Admiral Grigorovich RFS-494, crossed through the Bosphorus Strait “a few hours ago” from the Black Sea, according to a U.S. defense official.

Here in the United States, we need to start making our voices heard very loudly so that President Trump will understand that most Americans do not want to go to war in Syria.

And of course the same thing can be said about a potential war with North Korea.  After last night’s cruise missile display, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is warning that his nation is on the “brink of war” with the United States.

One of the angles that is not getting a lot of discussion in the mainstream media is how the events of last night were viewed by the Chinese.

Donald Trump grew up in New York City at a time when the mafia still had a dominant presence, and to put a “hit” on another rival across town when you are sitting down for a meeting with a top boss from another family sends a very, very powerful message.

The fact that Trump ordered those 59 cruise missiles to rain down on Syria at the exact moment when he was having dinner with the president of China is going to be remembered by the Chinese for a very, very long time.  In Asian cultures respect is a very big thing, and the Chinese had to be deeply embarrassed by what just happened last night.

On top of everything else, the truth is that Donald Trump blatantly violated the U.S. Constitution by conducting a military strike against Syria without the approval of Congress.  This is something that U.S. Senator Rand Paul pointed out very clearly in an editorial that was released on Friday

The Constitution clearly states that it is Congress that has the power to declare war, not the president. Even the War Powers Resolution, shoved forward by hawks as justification, clearly states criteria under which the president may act – a declaration of war, a specific statutory authorization, or a national emergency created by an attack on the United States.

That’s it. Absent those criteria, the president has no authority to act without congressional authorization. Congress must stand up and assert its authority here and now.

Conservatives always protested whenever Barack Obama violated the U.S. Constitution in this manner, and so they should protest when Donald Trump acts in the same fashion.

A lot of people will read this article and they aren’t going to grasp the importance of what is going on because they do not understand where all of this is ultimately heading.

But there are some of you that have major alarm bells going off in your head because you have been listening to the warnings and you know what comes next.

We have entered a season of time that myself and other watchmen have been warning about for many years.  I just can’t believe that it is starting to happen so quickly.  Many had been hoping for a time of peace and prosperity during a time of “reprieve” under Donald Trump, but you can forget that now.

The events of April 6th, 2017 have changed everything, and most Americans are completely unprepared for what will soon follow.

Comments Off on The U.S. Entered World War I On April 6, 1917 – Did Trump Just Start World War III On April 6, 2017?

Trump Prepares ‘Military Response’ For Syria As Tillerson Works To Form A ‘Coalition’ To Remove Assad From Power April 6, 2017

It makes me physically ill when I think that the U.S. could be on the verge of starting a disastrous war in the Middle East that will not benefit us in any way, shape or form.  I can’t believe this is happening, and a lot of other people apparently can’t either.  In fact, there were some that heavily criticized me when I suggested that Donald Trump had just committed to taking military action in Syria in part 1 and part 2 of this series of articles.  But less than 24 hours later, the front page of USA Today was running this jarring headline: “Trump team developing military response in Syria”.  It is interesting to note that this came on the 77th day of Trump’s presidency, and on Thursday it was also revealed that the Trump administration is working to put together an international coalition to remove Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power.  The following comes from Fox News

America’s top diplomat addressed the Syria crisis a day after Trump declared in the Rose Garden that the chemical strike would not be tolerated. Tillerson pointedly said Russia should “consider carefully” its support for the Assad regime, while calling for an international effort to defeat ISIS in Syria, stabilize the country and ultimately work with partners through a political process that leads to Assad leaving power.

Asked if the U.S. would organize a coalition to remove Assad, Tillerson said: “Those steps are underway.”

U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also told the press that Assad has “no role” in governing Syria in the future, and he pledged there there will be a “serious response” to the recent chemical attack in Syria’s Idlib province.

Of course it is extremely doubtful that Assad had anything to do with that chemical attack, and I am going to share some more of that evidence with you in part 4 of this series.

In terms of what that “serious response” will look like, a lot will be determined over the next 48 hours as Trump consults with his top national security advisers

Defense Secretary James Mattis will brief President Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago on military options against Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad’s regime later on Thursday in the wake of a deadly attack which activists said killed at least 100 people — including 25 children — and injured at least 400 others earlier this week.

The White House and Pentagon have had detailed back-and-forth conversations over the past two days over options including a National Security Council meeting Wednesday. Mattis and National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster have had repeated contact about the best way forward, a U.S. official told NBC News.

It is being reported that airstrikes and the use of cruise missiles against Syrian targets are among the initial options under consideration.

If Trump drops a few bombs or fires of a few cruise missiles that likely wouldn’t spark a broader conflict, but there is one option that is reportedly being considered that could bring us into direct military conflict with Russia.  According to The Intercept, the Trump team is actually considering a “saturation strike” which would result “in Russian military deaths”…

The proposed strike would involve launching Tomahawk cruise missiles to overwhelm Russian air defense systems used by the Syrian military. The Russian government currently helps maintain the air defense sites and advises the Syrian military.

According to both U.S. military officials, the current proposal would likely result in Russian military deaths and mark a drastic escalation of U.S. force in Syria.

One U.S. military official said the decision to allow the strikes, which would kill Russians, signals a significant change in policy by the Trump administration. A decision by Trump to go forward with the plan would be a reversal from the Obama administration, which denied multiple air strike proposals that would likely cause Russian personnel casualties in Syria.

If that happens, any hope for improved relations with Russia will be permanently extinguished and it could easily result in the Russians shooting back at us.

The Russians have S-300 and S-400 air defense systems already in place in Syria.  Both of those systems are some of the most advanced in the world and are a significant threat to U.S. warplanes.

As I discussed yesterday, it is not difficult to imagine what would happen if footage of U.S. aircraft being blown out of the sky by Russian missiles started rolling on our cable news channels 24 hours a day.

Even now, U.S. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are urging President Trump to consider “the grounding of Assad’s air force”

“In addition to other measures, the United States should lead an international coalition to ground Assad’s air force. This capability provides Assad a strategic advantage in his brutal slaughter of innocent civilians, both through the use of chemical weapons as well as barrel bombs, which kill far more men, women and children on a daily basis … Ultimately, the grounding of Assad’s air force can and should be part of a new comprehensive strategy to end the conflict in Syria.”

Of course if Trump goes to war with another sovereign nation without the approval of Congress that would be a blatant violation of the U.S. Constitution, and that is something else that I would be talking about in part 4 of this series.

Even though I am writing about all of this, I still have a hard time believing that this is all happening less than three months into Trump’s presidency.  The stage is being set for the kind of scenario that I outlined in The Beginning Of The End, and right now I am far more alarmed by the state of world events than I was at any point in 2016.

I am particularly disturbed by all of this talk about removing Assad.

How in the world does the Trump administration plan to do that?

Even if they conduct a massive bombing campaign that would turn Damascus into a “ruinous heap”, that would still not guarantee regime change.

The only thing that would guarantee regime change is a full-scale ground invasion and the conquest of the entire city of Damascus.

Of course the Russians, the Iranians and Hezbollah would not willingly step aside and let “coalition forces” march to Damascus, and so such a move could very easily spark World War 3 in the Middle East.

I can’t believe that Trump is actually thinking of going to war with Syria.  There is nothing to be gained and so much that could be lost.  Let us hope that someone can talk some sense to him while there is still time to do so.

Comments Off on Trump Prepares ‘Military Response’ For Syria As Tillerson Works To Form A ‘Coalition’ To Remove Assad From Power

Donald Trump Has Just Committed The United States To A Disastrous War In Syria April 5, 2017

Rumors of war are percolating in Washington D.C., and if the Trump administration is not extremely careful it may find itself fighting several disastrous wars simultaneously.  Just one day after threatening North Korea with war, Donald Trump has committed to taking military action against the Assad regime in Syria.  Trump is blaming the chemical attack in Syria’s Idlib province on Tuesday on the Syrian government, and he is pledging that the United States will not just sit by and do nothing in response.  Unfortunately for all of us, military contingents from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah are mixed in among the Syrian forces, and so any strike on the Syrian military could potentially spark World War 3.

In this article, I am going to share with you several quotes from President Trump and members of his team over the past couple of days, and if you read them carefully you will see that Trump has clearly painted himself into a corner.

This first quote comes from CNN, and it is a portion of Trump’s response when he was asked about the chemical attack in Syria by a reporter…

It crossed a lot of lines for me. When you kill innocent children, innocent babies … with a chemical gas that is so lethal that people were shocked to hear what gas it was, that crosses many, many lines — beyond a red line.

Trump has very harshly criticized Barack Obama in the past for doing nothing in Syria once Obama’s “red line” was crossed, and so for Trump to use the exact same phrase is very meaningful.  And in his remarks about this new chemical attack, Trump once again pointed the finger at Obama for making “a blank threat”

“I think the Obama administration had a great opportunity to solve this crisis a long time ago when he said the red line in the sand,” Trump said. “And when he didn’t cross that line after making the threat, I think that set us back a long ways not only in Syria, but in many other parts of the world, because it was a blank threat.”

But now that Trump has also accused Syria of crossing “a red line”, the only way that Trump can avoid the same kind of criticism that he was casting at Obama is to take military action.

White House spokesperson Sean Spicer underlined this point when he read a prepared statement to reporters during “an off-camera White House briefing”

Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world. These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable act.

And UN Ambassador Nikki Haley made it crystal clear that the Trump administration was quite prepared to “take our own action” if the UN Security Council failed to address the chemical attack in Syria…

“When the UN consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action,” she said.

Of course the UN Security Council is not going to condemn Syria, because Russia would veto any such resolution.

So the Trump administration is going to be faced with a choice.

Either they will back up their words and take military action in Syria (which would be totally disastrous), or they will be accused of making threats that turned out to be completely empty just like Obama did.

A much wiser approach would have been for the Trump administration to say that they were going to study this attack to determine who was behind it before pledging to take any action.  Because the truth is that previous “chemical attacks” that were blamed on the Assad regime have turned out to be false flags that were designed to draw the western powers into the war…

The U.N. thoroughly investigated the first 2013 attack. The U.N Commission of Inquiry’s Carla Del Ponte ultimately said the evidence indicated the attack was carried out by the Syrian rebels — not the Syrian government. Despite this, support for the Syrian rebels from the U.S. and its allies only increased, raising serious questions about Obama’s sincerity when condemning chemical attacks.

Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh found the second major attack was committed in a similar manner. Hersh found that the U.S. quite deliberately attempted to frame the evidence to justify a strike on Assad without even considering al-Nusra, a terror group with access to nerve agents that should have been a prime suspect.

And I have a feeling that this new attack is another false flag, because it wouldn’t make any sense for the Assad regime to use chemical weapons at this point.  Thanks to the assistance of Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, the Assad regime is winning the civil war, and the only thing that could possibly turn the tide now would be military intervention by the United States.

So if Assad did actually use chemical weapons against a bunch of defenseless citizens on Tuesday, it would have been the stupidest strategic move that he possibly could have made.

In any controversy such as this, you always want to ask one key question: Who benefits?

Of course the answer to that question in this case is exceedingly clear.  The radical Islamic rebels that are being backed by Saudi Arabia and Turkey will greatly benefit if they are able to draw the western powers into the war on their side.

But what would the U.S. have to gain by getting involved in such a war?

ISIS is almost totally defeated in Syria thanks to Russia, and most of the country has already been reduced to rubble at this point.  But if we did get involved a lot of Americans could end up dead, and as I will discuss in Part II of this series, there is a very real possibility that we could end up in a military conflict with Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.

Back in 2013, a much wiser Donald Trump tweeted the following

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

I could not have summed it up better myself.

Hopefully Donald Trump will take his own advice and will keep us out of a war that would be absolutely disastrous for our nation.

Comments Off on Donald Trump Has Just Committed The United States To A Disastrous War In Syria