The Biden administration is discussing with other nations to form a multinational armed intervention force, but the United States refuses to send its own troops. They supported a resolution in favor of a “rapid armed intervention force”, but the resolution is still not voted on at the UN Security Council, encountering reluctance from Russia and China.
Completely excluded from any account in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal was the fact that senior US officials not only publicly authorized, but a former US official publicly encouraged, the attack to take place.
“Bomb Russia’s bridge to Crimea, Ukraine urged,” readthe headline in the Times of London on July 7, reporting the statements of US General Philip Breedlove, NATO’s former Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
…
The next day, July 8, clearly referencing Breedlove’s comments, a reporter identified only as “Howard” asked at a Pentagon background briefing, “can you talk about any preclusions? Would the — would the Kerch Bridge be not precluded as a potential target?”*
The defense official replied, “As I said, there aren’t any preclusions that I’m aware of about the Ukrainians fighting on their sovereign territory against Russia.”
At a press briefing held this morning, The War Zone asked a senior U.S. official whether or not there were any preclusions about the use of High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, or HIMARS, in Ukraine against certain targets. Speaking to reporters on the condition of anonymity, the official responded by saying that they couldn’t reveal any further information about specific targets, but that “Russian forces’ capabilities and logistics nodes within Ukraine are absolutely fantastic” targets. The War Zone followed up, asking if there were any hesitations about using the HIMARs against the Kerch Bridge. The official responded as follows.
“As I said, there aren’t any preclusions that I’m aware of on Ukrainians fighting on their sovereign territory against Russia.”
Republicans will blame gun violence on mental health, psychiatric medications, or violent video games, yet they aren’t willing to support solutions, such as affordable healthcare, affordable prescriptions, or defund the military industrial complex! As for Democrats, all they will offer is banning guns!
Speaking of mental health, and psychiatric medications, Peace Labor May made some good points in her most recent YouTube video (you may have to turn your volume up).
In light of the mass shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde, and because I’m a glutton for punishment, I’m re-posting a link to my left argument for gun rights from 2017. (One among many. See links at end of article)
Some points covered in the article:
The class concept of the state. It’s not a neutral arbiter to be trusted with a monopoly of armed power. “The concentration of wealth and the concentration of armed power in the hands of a few, are both bad ideas—and the one has everything to do with the other.”
The net effect of eliminating the right of citizens to possess firearms will be to increase the power of the armed capitalist state. Whatever strict gun-control regime is instituted, ruling-class families and institutions will still have all the guns they want.
But what about horrible mass shootings? Recognize that *gun homicides have declined even as gun ownership has increased,*. that mass shootings are a small portion of gun deaths in the US & a lousy index of the social problem of gun violence. But they do grab one’s attention.
“Social organizations from the department of Beni detained the former coup president Jeanine Añez at the airport as she was preparing to flee to Brazil. They are demanding that she answer for the deaths of Sacaba and Senkata.”
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 
You must be logged in to post a comment.