Russian jets buzz U.S. destroyer in the Baltic Sea.

My apologies if I misunderstood your post. There are disadvantages to being quite so cryptic and laconic.

Okay, I was not cryptic nor laconic, just differentiated and careful, because it is a sensitive topic. Only so much: Let's be careful with bold conclusions. Cold war has already started. The press has a key role during war, in the West, in Russia and everywhere else, so let's be more skeptic. And yes, the russian flights were very dangerous, yet unarmed. Maybe they had a reason, maybe not. Considering what military activities already happened since 2014*, this is a rather minor event. Probably there will be many more events like this in the future, and each side will report or be silent differently. Hope my point is more clear now.

(*) "...The landing craft, especially the mega hovercraft of the Americans, were monstrous, on a scale that would have awed D-day veterans." [Nato shows its teeth to Russia with elaborate Baltic training exercise]

 
What was the destroyer's mission? Flight operations. But maybe also a little bit spying by the way. We don't know.
Hard to believe this was just for fun without an agenda. Military activities have multiplied in eastern europe since 2014, and this is just the tip of the ice berg.
Nobody is accusing Russia of flying over the same international waters, right?
Tell us is this looks right to you, on any level:
Cf8cetgWQAAYSzC.jpg
 
@Deja-Vu
Honestly, a European is going to talk about other countries being militaristic? How many died in World War I, started by Germany, which the U.S. entered only in the latter stages to save the bacon of the Allies? That was a rhetorical question. The answer is 18 million.
Ah, our top conspirator theorist. I wouldn't even try to convince him that earth goes around the sun, or beg him to post something relevant to the thread. :)
 
Last edited:
Gallup International’s poll of 68 countries for 2014 found the US as the greatest threat to peace in the world, voted three times more dangerous to world peace than the next country.

Since the United States was founded in 1776, she has been at war during 214 out of her 235 calendar years of existence.

To put this in perspective:
* Pick any year since 1776 and there is about a 91% chance that America was involved in some war during that calendar year.
* No U.S. president truly qualifies as a peacetime president. Instead, all U.S. presidents can technically be considered “war presidents.”
* The U.S. has never gone a decade without war.
* The only time the U.S. went five years without war (1935-40) was during the isolationist period of the Great Depression.

US-war-graph.jpg


The United States spent more on its military than the next 13 nations combined in 2011
4A8078449E794DFB8CC33ADD00A6F1AF.gif


2014.5.13.Rasor.Chart.jpg


  • U.S. military spending dwarfs all other countries:
“The United States is responsible for 41% of the world’s total military spending. The next largest in spending are China, accounting for 8.2%; Russia, 4.1%; and the United Kingdom and France, both 3.6%. . . . If all military . . . costs are included, annual [US] spending amounts to $1 trillion . . . . According to the DOD fiscal year 2012 base structure report, ‘The DOD manages global property of more than 555,000 facilities at more than 5,000 sites, covering more than 28 million acres.’ The United States maintains 700 to 1000 military bases or sites in more than 100 countries. . . .”


  • The U.S. launched 201 out of the 248 armed conflicts since the end of WWII:
“Since the end of World War II, there have been 248 armed conflicts in 153 locations around the world. The United States launched 201 overseas military operations between the end of World War II and 2001, and since then, others, including Afghanistan and Iraq ….”


  • Around 90% of all deaths in war are civilians:
“The proportion of civilian deaths and the methods for classifying deaths as civilian are debated, but civilian war deaths constitute 85% to 90% of casualties caused by war, with about 10 civilians dying for every combatant killed in battle.”

  • Swanson notes: “A top defense of war is that it must be used to prevent something worse, called genocide. Not only does militarism generate genocide rather than preventing it, but the distinction between war and genocide is a very fine one at best.”


The U.S. Is Still No.1 at Selling Arms to the World
http://time.com/4161613/us-arms-sales-exports-weapons/

The United States remains the world’s preeminent exporter of arms, with more than 50 percent of the global weaponry market controlled by the United States as of 2014.
Arms sales by the U.S. jumped 35 percent, or nearly $10 billion, to $36.2 billion in 2014, according to the Congressional Research Service report, which analyzed the global arms market between 2007 and 2014.
Trailing the U.S. in weapons receipts is Russia, with $10.2 billion in sales in 2014, followed by Sweden with $5.5 billion, France with $4.4 billion and China with $2.2 billion, reports The New York Times.
The top weapons buyer in 2014 was South Korea, a key American ally, which has been squaring off with an increasingly belligerent North Korea in recent years.
Iraq was the second biggest weapons buyer, as the country seeks to build up its military capacity following the withdrawal of the bulk of American ground troops there. Brazil was the third biggest buyer, primarily of Swedish aircraft.


Not that I totally disagree with what you say but I can sense a bit of biased hatred when I read it. Wasn't Sweden a bit of a bogeyman and bully during the 17th and early 18th centuries? The invasion of Poland and Lithuania caused the rape, murder and destruction of their people and historical treasures, which by the way, Sweden still has possession of historical artifacts that it stole from Poland that Poland have asked to be returned. These things intrigue me immensely because I am of part Swedish ancestry. Again, I don't necessarily disagree, I just read a lot of history. Nobody is pure or blameless.
 
As for America's military, it's the only reason Western Europeans were never serfs of the Soviets like the poor Eastern Europeans. It's the only reason that South Koreans had the freedom to develop a system where they are educated, prosperous, and modern instead of starving, ill, automatons like the North Koreans. It's the only reason Japan was able to develop its modern economy and maintain its independence.

So true. My history teacher attempts to paint post-WW2 America as an evil imperialistic power, who wrongly used Western Europe for US businesses and wrongly prevented the spread of communism. He puts the Soviet Union and communism(which is from the Soviet Union) as freedom-fighters and the true Democracy. I'm not exaggerating at all. I peacefully say exactly what you just layed out, so my classmates don't get brainwashed. The US definitly was too aggressive and imposing at times. The US basically conquered Guatemala in the 1950s, for US business interests. You have to include that and not present it as one-sided.
 
Not that I totally disagree with what you say but I can sense a bit of biased hatred when I read it. Wasn't Sweden a bit of a bogeyman and bully during the 17th and early 18th centuries? The invasion of Poland and Lithuania caused the rape, murder and destruction of their people and historical treasures, which by the way, Sweden still has possession of historical artifacts that it stole from Poland that Poland have asked to be returned. These things intrigue me immensely because I am of part Swedish ancestry. Again, I don't necessarily disagree, I just read a lot of history.
On his defence of not knowing Swedish history is that he is Macedonian who lives in Sweden.

Nobody is pure or blameless.
It is so true and simple statement and yet most of us find hard to believe it. What is wrong with people?!!! Is our "vision" skewed to see faults and sins of others and only good deeds and superiority in ourselves?
Well, it is important to have good self esteem and confidence but it shouldn't serve as blinds over our eyes.
 
Last edited:
So true. My history teacher attempts to paint post-WW2 America as an evil imperialistic power, who wrongly used Western Europe for US businesses and wrongly prevented the spread of communism. He puts the Soviet Union and communism(which is from the Soviet Union) as freedom-fighters and the true Democracy. I'm not exaggerating at all. I peacefully say exactly what you just layed out, so my classmates don't get brainwashed. The US definitly was too aggressive and imposing at times. The US basically conquered Guatemala in the 1950s, for US business interests. You have to include that and not present it as one-sided.
Agreed, the self interest of US roughed up many nations around the globe, but honestly in a scale of empires, meaning cruelty and sucking nations dry, (if US truly belongs to this category) US is a kitten.
 
So true. My history teacher attempts to paint post-WW2 America as an evil imperialistic power, who wrongly used Western Europe for US businesses and wrongly prevented the spread of communism. He puts the Soviet Union and communism(which is from the Soviet Union) as freedom-fighters and the true Democracy. I'm not exaggerating at all. I peacefully say exactly what you just layed out, so my classmates don't get brainwashed. The US definitly was too aggressive and imposing at times. The US basically conquered Guatemala in the 1950s, for US business interests. You have to include that and not present it as one-sided.

I don't excuse America's actions toward Latin America. However, imperialism was hardly an American invention. Look at the British, the French, the Dutch, the Russians. Germany and Italy were just ticked off because they unified late and so got into the game late. It was also not a uniquely "whites" taking advantage of the "colored" nations phenomenon. What was Japan in the 20th century? What was China for most of its history? They were imperialist nations. People either don't study history, or they have very short memories, or as LeBrok suggested, they see only the transgressions of other countries, never those of their own.

Also, if Europeans want to talk about militarism they should look at their own history before presuming to judge other countries. There's no comparison at all in terms of militarism between the history of the European powers and the history of the U.S.

As far as communism is concerned, I don't just have an academic knowledge of the subject. Half of my family was anarchist and communist, people who were partisans during the war. I honor their bravery, and their idealism, and mourn their losses, but they were deluded one and all about communism itself. Some of the older ones won't admit to this day what went on in Russia with the Kulaks, the show trials of the thirties, the gulag, the repeated famines and forced migrations. It's willful blindness.

They can't admit that they were hoodwinked, hoodwinked because they were idealists who wanted to lift up the poor of their country, but hoodwinked none the less. If you read some history of the period, the mental gymnastics that party members engaged in to support the Hitler-Stalin non aggression pact is beyond pathetic. Or read the accounts of the show trials to see how a perverse ideology can so degrade intelligent, capable people that they'll confess to bizarre lies not just because they hope for mercy, but because they've convinced themselves they must be guilty if the party has arrested them. It's truly tragic.

What's also tragic is that you're being taught this bilge in school. Not that my own children didn't have to endure some of that. I raised holy hell with the principal though, and I was far from the only one. At least we got them to present the opposing point of view as well. Americans as a whole wanted nothing to do with the war in Europe, and had Japan not attacked Pearl Harbor I don't think Roosevelt could have bucked public opinion. Once the war was over what was the U.S. supposed to have done, let Russia gobble up all of Europe? That turned out so well for Poland and Czechoslovakia and Hungary and the others. Or perhaps it should never have passed the Marshall Plan and should have let Europeans sit and die among the rubble? Or, they could have stolen everything that wasn't bolted down, and even some that were, like the Russians. Would that have been better?

Instead, they poured millions into Europe. Yes, a rebuilt Europe was a market for European* goods, but Europe could and did eventually produce their own goods in the factories set up with American help so that now they are our competitors, and set updemocratic, representative governments.

The largest town in the area, where my grandfather worked all his life, and where my father also worked, LaSpezia, was totally leveled, as was the local commune where I was born and raised. People were starving, there was no fresh water, and they were suffering from typhus, TB, you name it. The American forces fed us, housed us, eventually helped us rebuild our port, the Arsenale, and on and on. Eventually we recovered, and in what’s called the postwar miracle, more than recovered, in fact came fully into the modern world in ways never possible before that time, leaving us in a far better position than we were in before the war, and it was done with a good heart, and no rancor that we could see for having fought against them for the first years of the war.

What European victor in a war ever acted like that? Certainly none that ever fought in Italy. Starting with the fall of Rome all we ever got from the other Europeans was pillage, death, and massive destruction. The Germans added wholesale theft of our agricultural and industrial production, leaving us to starve, the looting of our art treasures, the wholesale hijacking of our young men for slave labor in Germany, the transportation and annihilation of the Jews we couldn't hide, and they threw in the burning and mass killing of any village suspected of giving aid to the partisans, most of whom were women, children, and old men. America has been a far better friend to Italy than any European country.
 
Last edited:
I don't excuse America's actions toward Latin America. However, imperialism was hardly an American invention. Look at of the British, the French, the Dutch, the Russians? Germany and Italy were just ticked off because they unified late and so got into the game late.
I don't quite understand your line of thinking. Why do you compare yourself to other countries? You are surrounded by natural defense, two oceans Atlantic and Pacific, why go to foreign countries?
A couple more questions.
1]Why do you make jokes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA
2]Why do you turn on your people when they have no jobs and money and in of need help? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOsIB5VMSQ
3]Are these true events? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJLwqBfrcu8
4]Why do you not invest in your cities, healthcare,quality of life; but invade foreign lands? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL_YdRxBhzI
 
@ Angela

I like the way you think,

plz open further your eyes,
this has nothing to do with USA people,
it is a global game,
THEY CALL IT GLOBALIZATION,

I will share 2 stories/movies, from youtube,
first is this,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGiu6e7oqzE

''well except aquadect shewers education etc etc what else Romans do to us'',
''Nice race that Romans'' 'today they hung me at normal position, not upside down'
'Judea national front? No the National front for Judea, and the Judea poppular front'
away from them, crussifiction awaits

the second is a song from Thin Lizzy
how to exterminate a culture,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqG5LKI8JGA
but a deeper analysis of that story also can provide us the same
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGW7hNcMMf4

The largest town in the area, where my grandfather worked all his life, and where my father also worked, LaSpezia, was totally leveled, as was the local commune where I was born and raised. People were starving, there was no fresh water, and they were suffering from typhus, TB, you name it. The American forces fed us, housed us, eventually helped us rebuild our port, the Arsenale, and on and on. Eventually we recovered, and in what’s called the postwar miracle, more than recovered, in fact came fully into the modern world in ways never possible before that time, leaving us in a far better position than we were in before the war, and it was done with a good heart, and no rancor that we could see for having fought against them for the first years of the war.
.


finnaly stange is n't it?
Canada, they accept and welcome immigrants but what happens to ameridians?
the above story of USA Buffallo killing, but not at 18nth century, at 2016
aboriginal_b2.jpg


http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...icide-epidemic-attawapiskat-indigenous-people

Globalisation and imperialism does not accept any different culture,
so America helped your village, and that is an honor, and Europeans maybe never did such, even Italian central goverment might not or never act such,
but America also destroyed, and continues to do, her previous cultures, when same time is accepting immigrants to work as cheap labour, or to show a good looking abroad, diplomacy affairs,


USA and Canada skyscrapers were build by Mohawk tribe indians,
but their contracts were not equal with others,
<<Their contracts offered lower than average wages to the First Nations people and limited labor union membership>>
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohawk_people

anyway I see no difference among British empire, France colonial times, Spanish conquistadors, Dutch India etc etc

anyway, WE ARE ALL LIVING IN AMERICA
USA pizza with chopped meat, not Italian prosuto and mozzarela
Coca Cola
HAMBURGers for Halal food or vegeterian style for India,
American NIKE from Indonesia
etc etc

<font color="#252525"><span style="font-family: sans-serif">


PS
It is an honor to remember and respect the one who trully help you, with out asking repay, cause then it is a bargain,
and is also a honor to make a good and fair burgain.


 
Last edited:
Silesian;478688]I don't quite understand your line of thinking. Why do you compare yourself to other countries? You are surrounded by natural defense, two oceans Atlantic and Pacific, why go to foreign countries?

We're obviously suffering from a mutual lack of comprehension, because I don't understand how a Canadian, in particular, could ask such a question. I do understand that Europeans might get their information from leftist rags and the internet, and so I make some allowances, but a Canadian? Surely they teach a little bit of American history? We certainly learn a bit about yours. Well, I take some of that back, almost half of America itself has drunk that particular Kool-Aid. That's what comes of letting the education system be hijacked by left wing 60's radicals starting from the universities on down, and not countering the half baked ideas promoted by Hollywood.

American isolationism: foundations set during the presidencies of Washington and Adams.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIt...mXAKGcfRxKZf9CvITeOoSq8k1HKalOp_ly_s8a8vSBMoG

The only wars fought were with the British, first the Revolutionary War, and then the War of 1812, the latter because of the impressment of U.S. sailors and the attacks against U.S. merchant ships, and which included British troops attacking and burning down parts of Washington, D.C.

In case you think I don't acknowledge the darker aspects of American history, a type of history shared by Canada, by the way, and Australia, and New Zealand in taking over land inhabited by Native Americans:

Manifest Destiny:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIt...mXAKGcfRxKZf9CvITeOoSq8k1HKalOp_ly_s8a8vSBMoG

The vast majority of the land was acquired by purchase from other European powers. The wars were against the Native Americans and the Mexican-American War over the southwestern states and California. I don't think you'd find a single American who thinks the Native Americans were treated fairly.

The Monroe Doctrine: in some ways a restatement of American isolationism versus Europe and in some ways the assumption of a protectionist policy toward the other countries in the Western Hemisphere. Of course, it also protected the economic interests of the U.S.The closest analogy would be the protectionism (and exploitation) of Eastern Europe and the Balkans by the Russian Empire, made more palatable in the Russian case by claims of brotherhood of blood and language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjt...bmsJKvuAelMk7SuEkVqc44RcQ6Tu4htRO8v1Mqr90ZrOO

The Roosevelt Corollary: imperialism in the Western Hemisphere
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0HEMUoVrh4

On current attitudes toward isolationism versus world engagement. More Republicans (the more conservative Americans) are in favor of isolationism than Democrats:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMqCrSYQxns

As to why America fought in the first and second world wars, I won't go into detail since I assume everyone knows that the U.S. came into World War I late, and only after the American public was inflamed by reports of German atrocities, and the fact that the Germans sank American ships. I also think the special relationship between the U.S. and Britain had a great deal to do with it. Even that late entrance resulted in huge protests by those who vehemently didn't want to get involved. Unfortunately, our President at the time, a liberal Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, was hell bent on saving the world.

The disillusionment that followed thrust the country into its most extreme period of isolationism. Most Americans were totally against getting involved in a second European war, as was exemplified by the "America First" movement. As I said above, had the Japanese not bombed Pearl Harbor, I highly doubt that even the wily Franklin Roosevelt could have gotten a declaration of war through the U.S. Congress.

On the Cold War:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpYCplyBknI

The Policy of Containment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vdXLkWUjrU

This is a very intelligent, informed, and polite discussion, densely packed with content, between William Buckley, Christopher Hitchens, and that touches upon imperialism, the Cold War, and the special relationship between Britain and the U.S. One pithy take away: Stalin pushed America into the Cold War and into an acceptance of Churchill's push to have America take over Britain's role in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZMVKwmeprY

The 60s and the left:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JKFSWl4f4o

All you really need to know about Christopher Hitchens is revealed there: he was a Trotskyite and was in Cuban as a supporter of Castro and Che Guevara, although he here tries to distance himself with some unsuccessful fancy footwork. It was people like him, lionizing murderers and autocrats, who helped to turn me against the left. It's one thing to support dictators as the best choice among worse players, it's another thing to admire them and want to adopt their systems.
 
Silesian:A couple more questions.
1]Why do you make jokes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5YgJx8VGRA
2]Why do you turn on your people when they have no jobs and money and in of need help?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNOsIB5VMSQ
3]Are these true events? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJLwqBfrcu8
4]Why do you not invest in your cities, healthcare,quality of life; but invade foreign lands?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL_YdRxBhzI

If I had clicked on the links and read this more carefully I wouldn't have bothered to give a thoughtful reply to your initial question. This is b.s. anti-American propaganda.

1. Really? That's the response to the fact that every intelligence service in the world thought Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction? Sometimes, if you don't laugh, you'll cry, which he has done a plenty, especially during his innumerable meetings with vets, meetings which he doesn't allow to be publicized. Is this supposed to mean that he did know? That's ridiculous. Does it mean the decision was correct, a decision supported by the entire Congress including Hillary Clinton? No, it doesn't. Even given he was working from faulty intelligence, he should have been more cautious. He, and a lot of American planners gave the Iraqis far more credit than they deserved.

2. Enlighten me. Are you so fortunate that you are a citizen of a country of whose every decision you're in favor, even those taken before you were born? Do I approve of the army throwing tear gas at these ex-soldiers? No, I don't. Neither do I approve of a virtual army of angry men surrounding the Capitol of this country and putting legislators in fear of their lives because they don't agree with a law passed by Congress. That kind of crap should be for other countries, not the U.S. Neither, by the way, do I approve of Kent State or the actions of the Chicago police in putting down the riots at the Chicago Democratic convention. It's not smart policing. However, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. The "Occupy Wall Street" protesters in Oakland shut down a whole part of the city, destroying the livelihood and even buildings in the area. The black protesters in Baltimore destroyed their whole city, and over a lie, a lie perpetuated by their leaders.

3. You want to know why Detroit is an utter disaster and emblematic of what is happening to a lot of primarily minority inner city areas in the U.S.?

a. The total breakdown of the traditional family structure, and the frequent pregnancies of unmarried women, often starting at a very young age is a prime cause. This leads to a situation where young girls leave school before graduation or even any technical training, which ensures that they will never be able to earn a living wage, and further ensuring that their children grow up not only as financial wards of the community, but without the stability and discipline of a two parent home.

b. The decline of high paying unskilled factory jobs, which is what drew a lot of African-Americans from the south in the first place, is another big factor. The fact that African Americans in these underclass communities, both male and female, drop out of school and don't even get technical training means that they're not equipped for decently paying white collar jobs. Their choices are to get minimum wage service jobs or stay home and go on welfare, which isn't much different in terms of buying power.

c. The ever increasing use of drugs and alcohol fuels a myriad of social ills, starting from an inability to keep a job even if you get one, to gang membership, violence both in the community and among family members, the disruption of familial relationships, and the birth of drug addicted and otherwise mentally and physically impaired children who will never be able to pull their own weight.

d.The creation of a whole generation of children who are barely socialized,and therefore have not internalized the ethos necessary for responsible adulthood, and who are very prone to anti-social behavior.

e.All of this means that you can throw all the money you want at the schools, give free health care to all of them (Medicaid), which has already been done, build brand new housing blocks, and you still have incredibly high school drop out rates, poor utilization of health resources, and the new housing blocks are trashed within a generation.

f. Speaking of "free" everything, you can add the policies of the Democratic administrations which have run almost all of these once industrial cities for decades. Their solution was to give as much "free stuff" as possible to keep them quiet and to get elected. Never have they suggested that some of the responsibility for this situation lies with the community itself. Instead, they've stoked the fires by maintaining that every time a cop, white or black or Hispanic, and increasingly the cops are from the latter two communities, shoots a young black man it's some sort of targeted racist assassination. Are there racist cops? Yes. Are there cops who should never have been given a gun and use excessive force? Yes. When it happens, they're prosecuted, no ifs, ands or buts. I know that for a fact. Most of the time, some street thugs with guns or knives are threatening a police officer, and have to be shot for the police officer's own safety. These politicians don't tell their constituents that; they feed the hysteria and misinformation, and when there are riots, they tell the police to stand aside and let the entire city burn. That's one reason so much of Detroit looks like a crater of the moon. Who do you think did it? For a long span of time it was considered fun by the young people in Detroit to celebrate Halloween by setting fires in the city. Did that news make it to Canada? Is it any wonder that the police aren't anxious to do real policing, and companies don't want to build businesses in the inner cities?

g. Related to the above, these local governments rely to a great extent for the financing of some social programs, but even more for maintenance of the infrastructure, for the police department, for the fire department, on the receipts from local taxes. However, the vast majority of their local population doesn't work and so it pays no taxes. Trying to make it up by increasing the taxation burden on the working part of the population resulted in what is called "white flight" to the suburbs. So, nothing gets fixed, get it?

I think that's basically it, although I'm sure I'm forgetting some things. Plus, I know attention spans are now short. It's a tragic, horrible situation, and my heart breaks for these people, but throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it.

4. We've thrown billions at poverty programs, and the result has been a big fat O. All the money in the world won't help if you're dealing with a dysfunctional family and community structure.

We certainly would be better off if the billions we spent carrying Europe's (and Canada's) water in terms of security and stability had been spent on our own infrastructure, and health care, and promoting and helping our own industries. You may be in luck, however, if Trump does win. He'll be inclined to let you all sink and to hell with you. We'll see how Europe likes it when it's totally on its own against ISIS, Russia, and economically, at least, China. If forced to it, I think the U.S. could be self-sufficient, certainly in terms of energy. Europe, on the other hand, will get strangled by Russia and destroyed economically by China.

Oh, and even without any military expenditures, Europe can't continue to pay for the social services it has promised. Not with an aging work force, and a shrinking population, and especially not when all of a sudden it has a large underclass of its own which soaks up millions in benefits and pays not taxes. Let's see how they do when they have to add military expenditures into the mix.
 

That is one of the biggest nonsense claims/arguments spred especially by anti-West conspiracy theorists.

Of course Iraq had WMDs, just because you didn't found them, after you warned them month before, that you would attack, is no proof.

If Iraq didn't had WMDs with what did they gas the people in Halabja? My origin is next to the Syrian/Iraqi border. And we have people from the region who swear that before the Iraqi war started hundreds of trucks crossed the Syrian border from Iraq obviously bringing something there. Take a gues what this could have been.

Where do you think Assad had his stock of Chemical weapons from? Just as reminder Assad and Saddam, both buddies of the same Baath party.

But this whole WMD thing is again just childish nonsense to distract from the main point. Namely that there was a cause of war. Even when there wasn't WMD's(there were WMD'S), aggressions against Kuwait, the killing and oppressing of a milion Kurds, Shia's and non loyals was reason enough.

I don't care if someone is anti or pro west but if he starts to defend a brutal genocidal dictator and his regime just out of his hate for the country who was involved in the war, than he is crossing the line.
 
Russia-US-Map-Joke-1024x337.jpg



We need more sob story and subliminal manipulation from Angela & LeBrok.
 
That is one of the biggest nonsense claims/arguments spred especially by anti-West conspiracy theorists.

Of course Iraq had WMDs, just because you didn't found them, after you warned them month before, that you would attack, is no proof.

If Iraq didn't had WMDs with what did they gas the people in Halabja? My origin is next to the Syrian/Iraqi border. And we have people from the region who swear that before the Iraqi war started hundreds of trucks crossed the Syrian border from Iraq obviously bringing something there. Take a gues what this could have been.

Where do you think Assad had his stock of Chemical weapons from? Just as reminder Assad and Saddam, both buddies of the same Baath party.

But this whole WMD thing is again just childish nonsense to distract from the main point. Namely that there was a cause of war. Even when there wasn't WMD's(there were WMD'S), aggressions against Kuwait, the killing and oppressing of a milion Kurds, Shia's and non loyals was reason enough.

I don't care if someone is anti or pro west but if he starts to defend a brutal genocidal dictator and his regime just out of his hate for the country who was involved in the war, than he is crossing the line.


So many stories, what to believe?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk35suofbYQ
 
Russia-US-Map-Joke-1024x337.jpg



We need more sob story and subliminal manipulation from Angela & LeBrok.

We need more sob story and subliminal manipulation from Angela & LeBrok.

Do you know the definition of subliminal manipulation?

http://subliminalmanipulation.blogspot.com/

You think I'm sending images and thoughts out that are presented so quickly that people can't register it consciously, just subconsciously? :LOL:

Wow, I didn't know I had that kind of power! Scary stuff!!! You should all be very afraid.:petrified:

I also have telepathic powers, by the way, :grin: so I know all your secrets, like how many Balkan posters were part of the genocide or had family members who were involved. That's part of why some of them so hate the U.S. We stopped their party before it was finished, and exposed all their dirty secrets before the world. Can't have that, might make people think you're uncivilized, so shoot the messenger.

Actually, what I'm doing is called the logical presentation of historical fact and international law and the application of common sense as regards a current event.

Before opining further you might want to review the provisions of NATO and other security agreements between the U.S. and various European countries. Putin has been making threatening gestures toward the Baltic states and some of the eastern European states. He obviously has designs on them. He needs to be reminded that NATO and the U.S. aren't done for yet, and that the security agreements between the U.S. and these countries still stand. Military exercises are a standard part of preparedness for any possible attacks. In case you're unaware of it, the Russians do it all the time as well.

Since you like maps, here is a map of countries where Russia was seeking permission to dock and resupply their ships (2014).
map-russia_0.jpg


Russian war ship spotted near Georgia nuclear submarine base:
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/...war-ship-near-georgia-nuclear-submarine-base/

Chinese navy ship actually entered U.S. territorial waters off Alaska:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/04/politics/china-ships-alaska-us-waters/

I could go on and on, but the main point is that we didn't send young flight crews on almost suicidal buzzing missions over the ships. We leave that to megalomaniac, reckless dictators who fancy they can remake the Soviet Empire.
 
If I had clicked on the links and read this more carefully I wouldn't have bothered to give a thoughtful reply to your initial question. This is b.s. anti-American propaganda. ............

I don't want to derail the thread sorry.Thank you for taking the time to express your perspective/insight. Looking at the old footage of Detroit is amazing. A once vibrant beautiful city.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxAIg_Hv7gU
Modern day looks something out of a zombie apocalypse movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2IScU_q_zY
 
I think the world is turning mad,

Lets burn the planet.
 

This thread has been viewed 40671 times.

Back
Top