Is the US and its NATO "allies" planning to attack Russia and start World War III?

699 posts / 0 new

Wed, 2014-10-15 17:32

ikosmos

Many think that the US is planning to attack Russia DIRECTLY in the future.

Anyone not brainwashed (like the zombified Russophobic elements in Ukraine) knows that, at the very least, a second Cold War, based on fabrications and speculation about Crimean independence, Russian troops "invading" Ukraine to support the resistance in Novorossiya, and the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner over the war zone has already begun. Huge US pressure on its obsequious EU and NATO allies has caused these countries enormous and expensive sanctions, costing them billions, against Russia. Meanwhile, Russia has "pivoted" eastward, towards China, the BRICS countries, and away from the aggressive Yanqui Empire.

Is this scare-mongering or a real danger? Is this an idea that should be ridiculed, as some babblers have already done, or examined seriously as a significant global danger.

Unless you think thermonuclear war is a laughing matter, which some babblers obviously do, then the subject looks to be worthy of serious investigation.

more to follow ..

Wed, 2014-10-15 17:42

ikosmos

1. Here is a Russian domestic news and politics program (use CC to get English subtitles) discussing "America's declaration of war"

US declaration of war - a Russian perspective

The program is a remarkable contrast to much of the shallow, 20-sec soundbite approach that we see in the corporate media here in Canada and the US. Is is also good for the calm elaboration of the many reasons why the US attack on Russia is inevitable, as seen from the Russian perspective. See if you don't agree.

2. Here is S. Lavrov at the UN recently, speaking truth to power.

"Pardon us for having the temerity to exist and get in the way of your military bases ..."

Wed, 2014-10-15 17:52

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

Lol..Let's hope so.

The American military can hardly handle 'insurgents' in the desert.

Russia allied with China would crush the American Empire.

No worries.

Thu, 2014-10-16 00:05

ikosmos

alan smithee wrote:
The American military can hardly handle 'insurgents' in the desert.

Russia allied with China would crush the American Empire.

No worries? really?

Self-Assured Destruction: the climate impacts of nuclear war

(The above is a 9-page pdf file. )

Quote:
Abstract

A nuclear war between Russia and the United States, even after the arsenal reductions planned under NewSTART, could produce a nuclear winter. Hence, an attack by either side could be suicidal, resulting in self-assured destruction. Even a "small" nuclear war between India and Pakistan, with each country detonating 50 Hiroshima-size atom bombs [only about 0.03 percent of the global nuclear arsenal's explosive power] as airbursts in urban areas, could produce so much smoke that temperatures would fall below those of the Little Ice Age of the fourteenth to nineteenth centuries, shortening the growing season around the world and threaten-ing the global food supply. Furthermore, there would be massive ozone depletion, allowing more ultravioletradiation to reach Earth's surface. Recent studies predict that agricultural production in parts of the UnitedStates and China would decline by about 20 percent for four years, and by 10 percent for a decade. The environmental threat posed by even a small number of nuclear weapons must be considered in nuclear policy deliberations. Military planners now treat the environmental effects as collateral damage, and treaties currently consider only the number of weapons needed to assure destruction of opposing forces. Instead, treaties must call for further reductions in weapons so that the collateral effects do not threaten the continued survival of the bulk of humanity. Proliferation cannot be treated as a regional problem. A regional conflict hasthe potential to cause mass starvation worldwide through environmental effects.

Thu, 2014-10-16 00:30

ikosmos

“The Russian Aggression Prevention Act” (RAPA): A Direct Path to Nuclear War with Russia

Quote:
The Russian Aggression Prevention Act”, introduced to Congress by U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), will set the US on a path towards direct military conflict with Russia in Ukraine.

Thu, 2014-10-16 00:59

Webgear

There will be no war, currently there is a Russian Military Aircraft sitting in Winnipeg Airport as part of Operation Open Skies.

I even said "Hi" to a few of the crewmen tonight, nice friendly guys overall.

I even got a few pictures of the aircraft sitting next to my building.

Thu, 2014-10-16 08:27

Red Winnipeg

Seriously?

Thu, 2014-10-16 08:42

Webgear

Yes. I am very serious.

That's the difference between academics/political theorist and the truth on the ground.

Thu, 2014-10-16 10:08

6079_Smith_W

I get your point and agree. I just think you are being a bit gracious with the reference to political theorists. From the department of tinfoil studies at the university of crackerjack, perhaps?

They have produced a wealth of scholarship I know, even if they are a bit challenged in the timekeeping department:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events

I know if I was planning a sneak attack on Russia obviously the first thing I would do is pass a major piece of legislation letting everyone know.

Thu, 2014-10-16 12:45

#10

Red Winnipeg

Webgear wrote:

Yes. I am very serious.

That's the difference between academics/political theorist and the truth on the ground.

Not you. Ikosmos.

Thu, 2014-10-16 14:06

#11

ikosmos

Quote:
Nikolai Patrushev who headed the FSB from 1999 until 2008 said in an interview with the Russian government daily Rossiiskaya Gazeta that intelligence analysts established a current anti-Russian program being executed by American special services dates back to the 1970s, and is based on Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “strategy of weak spots”, the policy of turning the opponent’s potential problems into full scale crises.

“The CIA decided that the most vulnerable spot in our country was its economy. After making a detailed model US specialists established that the Soviet economy suffered from excessive dependency from energy exports. Then, they developed a strategy to provoke the financial and economic insolvency of the Soviet state through both a sharp fall in budget income and significant hike in expenditures due to problems organized from outside,” Patrushev told reporters.

The result was the fall in oil prices together with the arms race, the war in Afghanistan, and anti-government movements in Poland, all of which eventually led to the breakup of the Soviet Union, said the former Russian security chief. He stressed that each of these factors bore hallmarks of US influence.

The hostile policy exercised by the US against the Soviet Union continued into modern times, but this time the target was the Russian Federation as the only country in the world that possessed enough nuclear weapons to effectively oppose the United States.

“American strategists saw the solution of this situation in the final destruction of the state administration in our country with the subsequent breakup of its territory,” Patrushev revealed.

They are literally unable, or unwilling, to distinguish between the Soviet Union (their enemy) and today's capitalist Russia (their "friend"). Kill them all and let God sort them out. This is US foreign policy towards Russia, even today.

Quote:
“Some US experts such as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright have suggested that Moscow has power over enormous territory that it cannot develop and it prevents these territories from serving humanity’s needs. Statements are being made about the allegedly unjust distribution of natural resources and the necessity to provide free access to them for other nations,” he claimed.

I would remind babblers that the Lockian (yes, that John Locke) ideology that land "undeveloped" no longer belongs to its inhabitants was a justification for the physical extermination of First Nation in North America, the theft of their land since time immemorial, and all the ugly history that followed. This is the same as the view of Russia being quoted here. I don't see any difference between this view, of a spokesperson for Yanqui imperialism, and the view of the Nazis who needed "breathing room" to expand, etc. They're all genocidal.

Break up of USSR and today's strategy ... is the same.

Thu, 2014-10-16 14:43

#12

ikosmos

Why War is Inevitable

from May 2014 - outlines the Brzezinski and Wolfowitz Doctrines that guide US policy very well.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts wrote:

Putin is hoping that the interests of European countries will prevail over subservience to Washington. This is Putin’s current bet. This is the reason Putin remains unprovoked by Washington’s provocations in Ukraine.

If Europe fails Russia, Putin and China will prepare for the war that Washington’s drive for hegemony makes inevitable.

Incidently, those who provide anecdotal or spuriously unrelated couter-examples should also be aware that soldiers are expected to carry out the policies as directed by political leaders. Commen sense among soldiers does not translate into common sense among political leaders. This is ABC but somehow it needs to be repeated.

I realize that there are many elements of the decision-making in our own country that make Canada a kind of fake democracy, that the tail wags the dog sometimes, that economic powers outside the political leaders makes the latter mere figureheads, and so on, but for the nonce these very same leaders have the power and ability to do great harm and, indeed, start wars and conflicts that will end human life on Planet Earth.

Undoubtedly the political leaders in the USA and Russia have this power. The Russian President seems keenly aware of this while the US leader seems determined, by design or stupidity, to lead us all over the precipice. It would be nice if, instead of school boy ridicule and such, there was actually serious debate about this life and death issue. However, no matter how juvenile the replies, I think this thread can serve a useful purpose and, therefore, unless the school boys succeed in derailing the thread, it will continue. boo rah.

Thu, 2014-10-16 16:11

#13

6079_Smith_W

ikosmos wrote:

I think this thread can serve a useful purpose and, therefore, unless the school boys succeed in derailing the thread, it will continue. boo rah.

Yes, useful. Absolutely. But if it goes sideways you can always open another one to go along with the eight Russian politics threads you have started in recent months that are still all open.

(or revive one of your older ones like Litvinenko)

Maybe you can start one on that magical Russian air that cleanses people of western corruption, and has the power to turn tax-evading French actors straight. That could be why the Americans are in such a hurry to invade.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/oct/10/russian-air-purified-depardi...

Thu, 2014-10-16 17:08

#14

ikosmos

6079_Smith_W wrote:
But if it goes sideways you can always open another one to go along with the eight Russian politics threads you have started in recent months that are still all open.

Which one do you dislike the most? I'll bet it's the one on Ukrainian atrocities and war crimes, right?

Quote:
Maybe you can start one on that magical Russian air that cleanses people of western corruption, and has the power to turn tax-evading French actors straight. That could be why the Americans are in such a hurry to invade.

Non sequitur: In a non sequitur... the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion.

Thu, 2014-10-16 17:38

#15

6079_Smith_W

ikosmos wrote:

Which one do you dislike the most? I'll bet it's the one on Ukrainian atrocities and war crimes, right?

I don't know if dislike is the right word, but since you ask, I probably waste the most time in the first Ukraine thread playing whack-a-mole with stupid shit that has been repeated and corrected a dozen times.

But I am curious. We already have an evil NATO thread. Two, if you count the one about why we should leave it, and three if you count the unipolar world one. Four if you count Russophobia. Is this one special because it is supposed to be live coverage leading up to the big day?

Thu, 2014-10-16 17:50

#16

Webgear

Open Sky Treaty Links:

http://www.osce.org/library/14127?download=true

"The Treaty established a regime of unarmed observation flights over the territories of State Parties. It specifies, inter alia, quotas for observation flights, the notification of points of entry, the technical details and inspection for sensors."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Open_Skies

"The Treaty on Open Skies entered into force on January 1, 2002, and currently has 34 States Parties. It establishes a program of unarmed aerial surveillance flights over the entire territory of its participants. The treaty is designed to enhance mutual understanding and confidence by giving all participants, regardless of size, a direct role in gathering information about military forces and activities of concern to them. Open Skies is one of the most wide-ranging international efforts to date promoting openness and transparency of military forces and activities. The concept of "mutual aerial observation" was initially proposed to Soviet Premier Nikolai Bulganin at the Geneva Conference of 1955 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower; however, the Soviets promptly rejected the concept and it lay dormant for several years. The treaty was eventually signed as an initiative of US president (and former Director of Central Intelligence) George H. W. Bush in 1989. Negotiated by the then-members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the agreement was signed in Helsinki, Finland, on March 24, 1992. "

http://cns.miis.edu/inventory/pdfs/oskies.pdf

Treaty Provisions: The Treaty establishes the Open Skies regime for the conduct of short-notice, unarmed, observation flights by States Parties over the territories of other States Parties. The Treaty gives each State Party the right to conduct and the obligation to accept observation flights over their territory. The Treaty establishes a "passive quota" for each State Party, which is the total number of observation flights that each State Party is obliged to accept over its territory, and an "active quota," which is the number of observation flights that a State Party shall have the right to conduct over the territory of each of the other States Parties. A State Party's "active quota" cannot exceed its "passive quota," and a single State Party cannot request more than half of another State Party's "passive quota." Annex A details the specific numbers for both quotas. The Treaty entitled the States Parties to form groups and redistribute their "active quotas," and to have common total "active and passive quo-tas."

Thu, 2014-10-16 17:53

#17

Webgear

ikosmos wrote:

Incidently, those who provide anecdotal or spuriously unrelated couter-examples should also be aware that soldiers are expected to carry out the policies as directed by political leaders. Commen sense among soldiers does not translate into common sense among political leaders. This is ABC but somehow it needs to be repeated.

I realize that there are many elements of the decision-making in our own country that make Canada a kind of fake democracy, that the tail wags the dog sometimes, that economic powers outside the political leaders makes the latter mere figureheads, and so on, but for the nonce these very same leaders have the power and ability to do great harm and, indeed, start wars and conflicts that will end human life on Planet Earth.

Undoubtedly the political leaders in the USA and Russia have this power. The Russian President seems keenly aware of this while the US leader seems determined, by design or stupidity, to lead us all over the precipice. It would be nice if, instead of school boy ridicule and such, there was actually serious debate about this life and death issue. However, no matter how juvenile the replies, I think this thread can serve a useful purpose and, therefore, unless the school boys succeed in derailing the thread, it will continue. boo rah.

Are you referring to my posts?

Thu, 2014-10-16 20:11

#18

NDPP

US Tanks Arrive in Latvia To Ward Off 'Perceived' Russian Threat (and vid)

http://rt.com/news/196504-tanks-nato-latvia-deployed/

"The commander of the 1st Brigade of the 1st Cavalry Division, John D Giambattista said, ' This is more than just a training mission. This is more than just a trip across the Atlantic. This is more than a multinational training exercise. This is how we demonstrate our nations' commitment to reassure our NATO allies,' Reuters reports.

This is one of the largest placements of US military forces into part of the former Soviet Union.

'This is a demonstration of our solidarity and resolve,' said former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen...'Should you ever think of attacking one ally, you will be facing the whole alliance,' the former Danish Prime Minister added."

Will US-Russia Tensions Lead to New Cold War Era (and vid)

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/10/16/382499/where-are-usrussia-ties-...

"Tensions are running high between Russia and the US as Vladimir Putin hits back at Barack Obama for his rhetoric at the UN General Assembly.

This edition of The Debate interviews Tony Gosling, an investigative journalist from London and Lawrence J Korb, the former US assistant secretary of defense from Washington, to analyze recent developments..."

Thu, 2014-10-16 21:08

#19

Left Turn

I don't think there's any threat of a direct U.S. attack on Russia, now or anytime in the future, precisely because it would set off a thermonuclear war. The United States may be a agressive imperialist power, but I see no evidence that it's suicidal.

Thu, 2014-10-16 23:00

#20

bekayne

Stephen F. Cohen is someone whose writings you approve of, correct?

http://www.thenation.com/article/181399/patriotic-heresy-vs-new-cold-war

§ An even graver risk is that the new Cold War may tempt the use of nuclear weapons in a way the US-Soviet one did not. I have in mind the argument made by some Moscow military strategists that if directly threatened by NATO’s superior conventional forces, Russia may resort to its much larger arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons. (The ongoing US/NATO encirclement of Russia with bases, as well as land- and sea-based missile-defense weapons, only increases this possibility.)

Thu, 2014-10-16 23:20

#21

6079_Smith_W

Much of what he says in there I agree with, though some of it is nonsense.

Nowhere in there does he say that he thinks the U.S. is planning a direct attack on Russia

Fri, 2014-10-17 01:14

#22

Slumberjack

I believe war against Russia is inevitable as well. This is why they're working toward effective first strike capabilities, such as hypersonic weapons and missile defence systems. Planning for future capitalistic growth will necessarily have to include every square inch of the planet. This thing we call our 'economy' is not going to just stop gorging on its own at some point when it feels full enough. Additionally, during the course of the last decade alone, the North American and European political establishments have produced some of the worst criminals the world has ever known, and it seems as if standards in that regard are always being superseded by the next cabals to take office. As well, Leon Panetta outlined the US plan to initiate the use of nuclear weapons against North Korea. Similar plans for other nations around the world are part of the US nuclear doctrine and have been for decades. War can come anytime after the western oligarchs can be convinced by advances in technology that they and what's theirs can be protected from Russia's response to a first strike. This accounts for the current delay.

Fri, 2014-10-17 03:21

#23

6079_Smith_W

Yabbut... again, that's not quite the claim made in the OP.

Fri, 2014-10-17 03:28

#24

NDPP

US Works on Military 'Scenarios' Near Our Borders - Russian Defense Minister

http://rt.com/news/196664-us-military-russian-border/

"...I know US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel personally. That is why his speech at the US Army annual meeting, in what he called Russia the main enemy surprised all of us, to put it mildly,' Shoigu noted."

Fri, 2014-10-17 08:48

#25

Slumberjack

Russia probably needs a new defence minister. Nothing a US politician says or does should surprise anyone.

Fri, 2014-10-17 11:11

#26

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

I hear the plan is to fight the nuclear war part at night while everyone is asleep so nobody gets hurt.

Fri, 2014-10-17 11:22

#27

Adam T

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

I hear the plan is to fight the nuclear war part at night while everyone is asleep so nobody gets hurt.

That reminds me of the time it was suggested that it was best to send a spaceship to the sun at night so that it wouldn't burn up.

Fri, 2014-10-17 11:28

#28

Slumberjack

Well, obviously there's the everyday nonsense that we needn't look too far to find, and then there are the realities and precedence of western style geopolitics and want for control over everything.

Fri, 2014-10-17 11:29

#29

Slumberjack

It should be noted that for the US and it's lackey supporters, war is always put on the table along with every other option where a geopolitical conflict arises between the west and whichever nation they pick as their latest target, particularly when there is a military imbalance to the extent that the targeted nation is not able to defend itself.

Fri, 2014-10-17 11:44

#30

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Fri, 2014-10-17 13:47

#31

ikosmos

Oliver Stone wrote:
I think many Americans would agree with me that the United States is on the wrong path - the path of war and aggression. America can only go up, and the world domination is the goal. Russia and China remain independent powers with nuclear capabilities, and this is very important, it's good for the world in terms of the balance of power. I think that the former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger would agree with me. Without this balance, the United States would become the sole superpower. In this role America misbehaved starting wars in Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, militarizing Libya. The US has a goal to control the world's resources, control and police the whole world. Now America is trying to surround China and Russia. The prize in this fight is Eurasia where the biggest resources lie....

You know, in my opinion, an alliance between China and Russia in Eurasia is natural, as well as their partnership with other countries, such as Kazakhstan. That is the future. If the countries in the region agree that the United States is a threat in terms of control over resources, there may be problems. But America will not give it up, because the people in Washington feel that we have a right to rule the world, and so it’s in our interest to destabilize Russia: divide Ukraine, to change the government in Moscow. It started a few years ago. Remove Putin, remove new Russia, and then go after China.

And, perhaps most directly related to the topic of this thread, Stone replies to a question about John McCain:

Oliver Stone wrote:
For a man who went to war McCain seems to have learned nothing. In my mind he was on the wrong side of every political decision the United States made since the Vietnam war. I think something was wrong with him.

In fact, this is very dangerous situation. It is not only the "cold war" 2.0, but it looks like the situation with Cuba in 1962. I fear because of mutual misunderstanding there could be a war with the use of nuclear weapons and the subsequent "nuclear winter." Previously, we were scared of this, then this fear receded in front of new challenges, but the threat is still there.

I do not know whether that happens, but I'm very worried.

But, of course, our smart ass faux left babblers know better than Oliver Stone and think ridicule of such ideas is the best approach. Very wise.

Oliver Stone nails it. Again. And again. And again.

Fri, 2014-10-17 13:54

#32

6079_Smith_W

Well I think he makes entertaining films, but it bears remembering that he presents fiction (and more than a few conspiracy theories) as history.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/apr/28/jfk-oliver-stone-john-f-kennedy

Great with a side of popcorn, not so solid in the bibliography of a political science paper.

Fri, 2014-10-17 14:51

#33

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Hey that was the best exit of a character from a movie... ever...

(my opinion)

Sat, 2014-10-18 22:07

#34

ikosmos

A summary of Lavrov's courageous speech at the UN follows.

Quote:
In a courageous and brilliant speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 27, 2014, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pierced the veil of obfuscation that characterizes too many speeches at the United Nations, and delivered a scathing denunciation of Western imperialism, imperialism that can only be accurately described as global theft. Lavrov, on behalf of the Russian Federation implicitly warned that US/NATO is risking global war in embarking on its campaign to seize and dominate huge territories, while inexorably and ruthlessly determined to conquer and subjugate Russia, having learned nothing from the historic reality that Napolean’s effort to dominate Russia led to the collapse of Napoleonic France, and Hitler’s attempt to subjugate Russia led to the obliteration of his Third Reich.

Perhaps this third attempt to conquer and subjugate Russia may lead not only to war encompassing huge territories of the globe, but, dialectically, may be the catalyst leading to the ultimate decline of capitalism, an economic system which thrives almost entirely on imperialism, and is undergoing a possibly terminal crisis, as described by the French economist, Thomas Piketty in his best-selling work “Capital in the 21 Century.” In desperation, dysfunctional Western capitalism is lashing out recklessly and irrationally, unwilling and unable to preclude the disastrous consequences of its myopic policies. And one possible consequence of current US/NATO policies is thermonuclear war.

Laugh away. You know you want to. Because thermonuclear war is just, like, "so" funny.

“Pardon Us For Our Country’s Existence in the Middle of Your Military Bases”

I've just found the text and am having a read to see if there is anything else worth quoting.

Sun, 2014-10-19 09:49

#35

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Nobody is going to invade Russia with a conventional army like in WW2 or start a thermonuclear war that they think is winable from thier side.

Sun, 2014-10-19 12:31

#36

ikosmos

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
Nobody is going to invade Russia with a conventional army like in WW2 or start a thermonuclear war that they think is winable from thier side.

Yes, because you said so. lol. How typically USian. Everything is so obvious, and everyone else is stoo-pid. Why don't they just agree with everything the lidless eye in Washington says? It's so tiresome to have to "punish" the "disobedient" Rooskies for their "bad behaviour".

But as Lavrov pointed out again today, the barbarous regime in Washington expects others to agree with their repulsive bourgeois notions of international relations ...

S Lavrov wrote:
This is a common thing for the US – a consumerist approach to international relations. They believe that they have the right to punish the countries that act contrary to Washington’s vision, while demanding cooperation in other issues vital for the US and its allies.”

Can you say "two-faced Yanquis" ?

Sun, 2014-10-19 14:48

#37

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Yes, in this case, you are being stoo-pid (your words)... and silly (my words).

Sun, 2014-10-19 16:58

#38

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

You cannot defend an autocratic kleptocracy using the language of the proletariat.

Sun, 2014-10-19 17:35

#39

DaveW

Montrealer, give up, this thread is run by a poster in some kind of hermetically sealed ideological dome, intellectually dead but somehow satisfying ... no point debating

Sun, 2014-10-19 18:51

#40

ikosmos

Well, if you're unable to defend the admitedly indefensible US policies, why not attack the person who denounces those policies? But I understand babble has a policy against personal attacks.

Incidently, "bourgeois" (ie, consumerist gobble-dee-gook) is my term, not Lavrov's. He's just as entangled in capitalist memes as the USian regime is. But at least he's willing to defend some coherent foreign policy other than "might is right".

It's like shooting fish in a barrel. HTFG.

Sun, 2014-10-19 21:11

#41

Slumberjack

DaveW wrote:
Montrealer, give up, this thread is run by a poster in some kind of hermetically sealed ideological dome, intellectually dead but somehow satisfying ... no point debating

I agree that there's little point in debating if you don't have a clue of your own to contribute.

Mon, 2014-10-20 08:41

#42

MegB

Do I need to remind everyone that personal insults and petty snipes diminish the discussion?

Mon, 2014-10-20 12:19

#43

Red Winnipeg

The chances of Obama ordering a large-scale military attack on Russia is only slightly greater than the chances are of him ordering a similar attack on Mars.

Mon, 2014-10-20 12:40

#44

ikosmos

What is it with these babblers that parrot the Yanqui line? You realize that you have to actually MAKE AN ARGUMENT, USING FACTS AND IDEAS, AND NOT JUST REPEAT THE SAME ZOMBIE IDEA OVER AND OVER AGAIN, right?

Mon, 2014-10-20 13:03

#45

6079_Smith_W

Actually ikosmos, the onus is on the person claiming that the U.S. is planning a direct attack to provide evidence to back it up.

Until you ante up with that and actually establish some sort of case, we are free to call it the baseless conspiracy theory-driven nonsense that it is.

After all, you did offer that (scare mongering) as one of the options in your opening post.

Mon, 2014-10-20 17:24

#46

Webgear

ikosmos wrote:

"You realize that you have to actually MAKE AN ARGUMENT, USING FACTS AND IDEAS"

You made me piss my pants with this comment. Countless facts have been presented to you in numerous threads and you still don't get it.

Mon, 2014-10-20 17:37

#47

Paladin1

ikosmos wrote:

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:
Nobody is going to invade Russia with a conventional army like in WW2 or start a thermonuclear war that they think is winable from thier side.

Yes, because you said so. lol. How typically USian. Everything is so obvious, and everyone else is stoo-pid. Why don't they just agree with everything the lidless eye in Washington says? It's so tiresome to have to "punish" the "disobedient" Rooskies for their "bad behaviour".

lol

The US isn't going to attack Russia in a conventional war. You can't attack a near-peer or peer enemy when you're out numbered 10 to 1.

Mon, 2014-10-20 18:00

#48

Webgear

MegB wrote:

Do I need to remind everyone that personal insults and petty snipes diminish the discussion ?

Really? Because ikosmos has pretty much attempted to eliminate all forms of discussion in this thread and has been pretty much implied that all other posters in this thread are "school boys", "juvenile", "brainwashed", "zombie like", "smart ass faux left ", "two-faced Yanquis and "parrots".

Mon, 2014-10-20 18:56

#49

NDPP

Indications That the US Is Planning A Nuclear Attack Against Russia

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/06/indications-u-s-planning-nuclear-...

If Republicans Win Control of the Senate in November, Nuclear War with Russia Will Be More Likely - Here's Why

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/10/republicans-win-control-senate-no...

Mon, 2014-10-20 18:56

#50

Slumberjack

Webgear wrote:
Because ikosmos has pretty much attempted to eliminate all forms of discussion in this thread and has been pretty much implied that all other posters in this thread are "school boys", "juvenile", "brainwashed", "zombie like", "smart ass faux left ", "two-faced Yanquis and "parrots".

You mean there's no debating any of these descriptions?

Mon, 2014-10-20 19:01

#51

NDPP

omit

Is the US and its NATO "allies" planning to attack Russia and start World War III?

Pages