Hillary Clinton has already made it clear that if she is elected president, she will increase the level of the conflict in Syria and she is willing to provoke a confrontation with Russia that could easily lead to war. If we have a conscience, how can we vote for this candidate?

::::::::

During the third debate, Hillary Clinton repeated her intention of imposing a "no-fly zone" over Syria.

In order for this proposal to be legal under international law, Syrian President Assad would have to ask a President Clinton to establish such a zone. Absent that request, Clinton's "no-fly zone," like an embargo, would be a declaration of war.

Russian planes are flying over Syria legally because Syria's President Assad asked for help in his fight to end a civil war, kept alive to a great extent by mercenaries paid and armed by foreign governments, including the United States.

Russia is not going to observe a "no-fly zone" because a US president issues an illegal order. If President Putin did so, it would clear the way for NATO bombs to rain down on Syria, replicating the illegal no-fly zone that led to the destruction in Libya of hospitals, schools, marketplaces, water systems, homes, roads, bridges and military installations. And thousands of deaths.

Just as in Libya, regime change would take place amid a fight among various factions for the dubious privilege of being a US puppet government.

In pursuing this strategy, would President Clinton order that Russian planes flying over Syria be shot down? There would be no point to the "no-fly zone" if she didn't. Won't a war with Russia be the outcome?

In the nineties, neoconservatives crafted a document known as the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). It has been the basis of US foreign policy for more than two decades. Its meme is that our country must be in a state of "perpetual war" until the US controls the world and its resources.

Where that effort stands now: our troops are in their sixteenth year of occupying Afghanistan, Iraq is hopelessly mired in chaos, Ukraine and Honduras roiled by US coups, Libya laid waste, Haitians in dire straits, thousands of Syrians fleeing a civil war, drone assassinations, Somalia is presently being bombed, the entire population of Yemen is on the brink of starvation. Where will it end? Not any time soon if we have a presidential candidate who is already making plans to go to war with Russia and then, if we are all still alive, with China.

In keeping with this objective of world domination, the 1% decided early on that Hillary Clinton should be the next US president. As Secretary of State she had demonstrated an unwavering commitment to serving their interests.

As we fumble our way through this farcical campaign, it has become obvious that Trump, wittingly or unwittingly, has served as a foil to rouse an apathetic electorate to get out and vote for Clinton. In reality, Trump has no chance -- none -- of becoming our president. We know that the entire Democratic Party infrastructure employed measures that insured Hillary would "win" the primaries. If necessary, the count on the electronic voting machines will be flipped in her favor on November 8^th.

In electing a US president, we have a responsibility to think globally even though the corporate-owned media and both political parties have colluded to keep our focus fastened on domestic problems and policies.

Why is it that we are so easily led into thinking only of ourselves? How can we in good conscience cast our votes for a candidate who is intent on inflicting misery, devastation, and death on innocent people in other parts of the world?

Aren't we making a terrible trade-off by sacrificing the lives of thousands in order to hold on to our illusions that if we vote for Hillary Clinton we will improve the lives of women and children; that we will have a Supreme Court that will rule in our favor; that passage of the TPP will be vetoed; that lobbying for fracking will stop; and that funds will be available for long-neglected community needs?

Maybe at this point we cannot prevent Clinton's election, but we can prevent a landslide that would give her a mandate to do anything she pleases.

Why not vote for P*E*A*C*E in our time and in our world by voting for Jill Stein?

Authors Bio:

Now retired and a writer, I am a feminist and political activist, a radical Democrat (have come to dislike the term "progressive"), and a blogger. Have done political tours of Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras, West and East (way back when)Germany, China, etc. Learned a lot about the US through other people's eyes. Wrote about my life in "Discovering America: A Political Journey." And was one of six winners of an international essay contest sponsored by Cuban ministeries.