Debate Underscores Fact Both Candidates Are Warfare State Advocates

clinton-trump-3By Kurt Nimmo

No matter who is elected in November, the wars will continue.

Donald Trump made this perfectly clear last night. He said NATO should be sent into the Middle East to clean out the Islamic State.

“I think we have to get NATO to go into the Middle East with us, in addition to surrounding nations, and we have to knock the hell out of ISIS and we have to do it fast,” Trump said.

This is nothing new. Trump has talked about reformulating NATO since at least March.

“I like the idea of using NATO and also neighbors that aren’t in NATO and take them out. You gotta take them out,” he said June during a campaign stop in Manchester, New Hampshire.

“It’s going to have to be either readjusted to take care of terrorism or we’re going to have to set up a new — a new coalition, a new group of countries to handle terrorism because terrorism is out of control,” he declared in March.

Readjustment is the key word here. The NATO invasion of Afghanistan was clearly illegal under international law. Article 2(3) and Article 2(4) of the UN Charter state peaceful means and dialogue between parties must be used to resolve hostilities.

Rabia Khan notes “the most crucial aspect… that proves that the invasion of Afghanistan was illegal under international law was the fact that the UN Security Council had not given authorization for the invasion of Afghanistan, which would have been necessary in order for NATO to legally pursue Al Qaeda.”

War is inevitable, according to Trump. Tens of thousands of troops will be required to get rid of the Islamic State. “We really have no choice. We have to knock out ISIS,” he said last October. “I would listen to the generals, but I’m hearing numbers of 20,000 to 30,000.”

Neocons love this sort of talk. They are also enamored by Trump saying he will build up the military.

“Rebuilding America’s military, one of Trump’s campaign planks, is a sine qua non for success. Russia as well as China should fear America’s technological prowess today as much as Gorbachev feared Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s. Russia and China are closing the technology gap with the United States, and if the United States does not reverse that, not much else it does will matter,” the neocon and former LaRouche editor David P. Goldman wrote last month.

Most neocons and unabashed warmongers support Hillary Clinton. In 2008, when Clinton was appointed secretary of state, the neocon house organ, Weekly Standard, hailed her transformation from “First Feminist” to “Warrior Queen, more Margaret Thatcher than Gloria Steinem.”

The neocons have “Hillary Clinton. And she’s weaponized the State Department. She really likes regime change. And her nominating convention not only embraced the military, but it sanctified the very Gold Star families that Neocon-style interventionism creates,” JP Sottile wrote in August. “It kinda feels like reality has slipped off its axis and we’ve landed on a Bizarro World version of America. Democrats are acting like Republicans… And the Neocons are fleeing from a party they’ve used like a geopolitical cudgel for the better part of three decades.”

Either way, no matter who you vote for in November, and if you don’t vote at all, the warfare state will continue. Clinton made it obvious last night the path to toward Armageddon will be followed. She blamed Russia for the cyberattacks.

We need to make it very clear — whether it’s Russia, China, Iran or anybody else — the United States has much greater capacity. And we are not going to sit idly by and permit state actors to go after our information, our private-sector information or our public-sector information.

And we’re going to have to make it clear that we don’t want to use the kinds of tools that we have. We don’t want to engage in a different kind of warfare. But we will defend the citizens of this country.

“We will be ready with serious political, economic, and military responses,” she said earlier this month. “So we have got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us.”

There is little if any information implicating the Russians, but that does not matter. The warfare state continually seeks new enemies and reinvents old ones.

Trump may or may not go toe-to-toe with the Ruskies, but Clinton and the neocons are chomping at the bit to get something going, even if it slides into thermonuclear war.

Kurt Nimmo is the editor of Another Day in the Empire, where this article first appeared. He is the former lead editor and writer of

Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

4 Comments on "Debate Underscores Fact Both Candidates Are Warfare State Advocates"

  1. the United States has much greater capacity. And we are not going to
    sit idly by and permit state actors to go after our information, our
    private-sector information or our public-sector information.–Clinton–What about Israel’s constant spying and theft, patent infringement and illegal US lobbying?

  2. Nothing is what is seems and we are always being played in the Matrix.

    Trump slips in a globalist meme: NATO plus other nations in a Mega Coalition to wipe out ISIS = introduction of global military and police force. Another example, in a speech several weeks ago he emphasized the need to help young people build up their credit scores = iteration of China’s Social Credit Score system that ranks citizens on everything they do, purchase, and say, who they know, what websites they visit, etc. The CEO of FICO said last year he supports using what people say on Facebook as part of their score. Programs for these kinds of systems are actively being developed in the US, Europe, and Russia.

    Hillary is a hawk against Russia we are told, but she and her buddies in Rockefeller’s Trilateralist Commission backed the development of Skolkovo, Russia’s version of Silicon Valley and through her State Dept “Russia Reset” program transferred sensitive and classified technology to Russia that boosted their military, according to an FBI warning – in return, Hillary and her campaign manager received at least $35 million for their foundations from Russian oligarchs. It was another Trilateralist, Kissinger as Sec of State in the Nixon admin who transferred advanced missile technology to the USSR to close a wide gap. BTW, Ester Dyson, the founding chairwoman of ICANN and proponent of an international committee controlling the internet has been a huge supporter of the Skolkovo project,

  3. Ummm? If we just quit sending money and arms to Israel (oops, I meant ISIS) they would probably just fade away.

  4. What IS out of control is the number of people killed by US and Nato troops in the Middle East over the past few decades.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.