Putin's Armageddon Weapon

[obsidian]

[Matt]

This is why, for the life of me, I don't understand why Getbig's liberal community wants to go to war with Russia.

As Mark Felton says in that video: it's nuclear weapons which have prevented war since 1945 - the guarantee of mutually assured destruction is what is doing it.

Also, if a power like Russia is struggling so badly to take what is essentially a second world White country in Europe, how will things work out when rich nuclear powers go to war?

IMO, let Putin take Ukraine. Give him the same terms that the Allies gave to Stalin after WWII: draw a line in the sand, and if he crosses that line, Russia will be at war with NATO.

NATO - led by the donkeys currently leading the West - decided to encroach too closely to Putin's territory. You know...KIND OF LIKE WHAT STARTED THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS OF THE 1960's. And low and behold - just like the USA felt in the 1960's - that was too close for comfort for Putin.

Exactly what did anyone expect?

Like Fortress said, Western governments needed to be humbled.

Hopefully Putin takes Ukraine, and that's the end of it. A nuclear war is not going to be good for ANYONE.

But I must say, I am absolutely flabbergasted at Getbig's liberals, who are foaming at the mouth for this war. Blows my mind. The same allegedly anti-war group, who hated the Iraq War because it was started by a Republican, are somehow ok with a war which will ABSOLUTELY GO NUCLEAR if started. It's just mind-blowing to me.

But hey, just like blood is "tested" [as if that guarantees blood safety 100%], I guess they think that since the USA has a more advanced nuclear arsenal, that it will be some quick and easy finish. 

Think about the massive failure of the Iraq War - but taking on RUSSIA will be some easy feat?

When did liberal Democrats become warmongers?

I guess they always were - it seems like it's less about principles, and more about just doing whatever their party leader says...

[obsidian]

This is why, for the life of me, I don't understand why Getbig's liberal community wants to go to war with Russia.

As Mark Felton says in that video: it's nuclear weapons which has prevented war since 1945 - the guarantee of mutually assured destruction is what is doing it.

Also, if a power like Russia is struggling so badly to take what is essentially a second world White country in Europe, how will things work out when rich nuclear powers go to war?

IMO, let Putin take Ukraine. Give him the same terms that the Allies gave to Stalin after WWII: draw a line in the sand, and if he crosses that line, Russia will be at war with NATO.

NATO - led by the donkeys currently leading the West - decided to encroach to closely to Putin's territory. You know...KIND OF LIKE WHAT STARTED THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS OF THE 1960's. And low and behold - just like the USA felt in the 1960's - that was too close for comfort for Putin.

Exactly what did anyone expect?

Like Fortress said, Western governments needed to be humbled.

Hopefully Putin takes Ukraine, and that's the end of it. A nuclear war is not going to be good for ANYONE.

But I must say, I am absolutely flabbergasted at Getbig's liberals, who are foaming at the mouth for this war. Blows my mind. The same allegedly anti-war group, who hated the Iraq War because it was started by a Republican, are somehow ok with a war which will ABSOLUTELY GO NUCLEAR if started. It's just mind-blowing to me.

But hey, just like blood is "tested" [as if that guarantees blood safety 100%], I guess they think that since the USA has a more advanced nuclear arsenal, that it will be some quick and easy finish. 

Think about the massive failure of the Iraq War - but taking on RUSSIA will be some easy feat?

When did liberal Democrats become warmongers?

I guess they always were - it seems like it's less about principles, and more about just doing whatever their party leader says...

USA was in Afghanistan for years. Same with Iraq. And they never really conquered Afghanistan. The goal was never to do that because they easily could have. If Russia wanted to they could have bombed the crap out of Ukraine the first day and had them surrender the second. But that was not their goal. I don't see Russia struggling with Ukraine. To me they are trying to be careful to prevent too many civilian casualties. Unlike when USA attacked Iraq. BTW, I have spoken to numerous people from Iraq and they all say the country was better off with Saddam. The US ambassador also lied to an misled Saddam. She told Saddam they had no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflict and his border disagreement with Kuwait. This basically gave Iraq the greenlight to proceed in engaging Kuwait.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/01/09/wikileaks-april-glaspie-and-saddam-hussein/

[Matt]

USA was in Afghanistan for years. Same with Iraq. And they never really conquered Afghanistan. The goal was never to do that because they easily could have. If Russia wanted to they could have bombed the crap out of Ukraine the first day and had them surrender the second. But that was not their goal.

I wonder what it's like being active duty American military personnel, knowing that your fellow military service members were actually sent to die in a war that never had as its intention to be won - only sustained.

I heard the Vietnam War was fought to just sell helicopters and other military equipment. It's absolutely sickening.

I don't think Germany was fighting the global financial order for any reason but for their own independence, given they were starved and murdered into submission in the interwar period.

I'm just thinking of Hitler's point of view being a soldier in war, seeing the politics of war to advance financial interests. Then you got WWII, where nobody really "won" [IMO].

I feel like one of these days, this type of fuckery warmongering for financial interests is going to mess with the wrong person/soldier, who leads a military to start a conflict not so easy to control.

What do you think about this war just being another bullshit financial matter? Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum said that Putin was another one of his "young global leaders", so is this just another staged military conflict for global financial powers? It seems too risky, and too possible for the Western powers to lose control of this war for that to be the case.

I don't know what the current alliances are - and on paper, it still seems to me that USA can take on the entire world and win - but at what cost? I can't see a war between the West and Russia/China/Iran resulting in any less than 500,000,000 casualties - with a huge change in the current global order.

I think this at the top all feel like they are untouchable...but these past two years, I didn't get the sense that we in the West are being governed by a patient elite. Somehow, it seems like they are uncomfortable with the current status quo, and that's why there was the push to get us on a global QR code social credit system.

Am I way off here?

I'm just having a hard time making sense of what's been going on in the past two years, and I've never lived in a period where this much authoritarianism has been pushed.

I don't see Russia struggling with Ukraine. To me they are trying to be careful to prevent too many civilian casualties. Unlike when USA attacked Iraq. BTW, I have spoken to numerous people from Iraq and they all say the country was better off with Saddam. The US ambassador also lied to an misled Saddam. She told Saddam they had no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflict and his border disagreement with Kuwait. This basically gave Iraq the greenlight to proceed in engaging Kuwait.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/01/09/wikileaks-april-glaspie-and-saddam-hussein/

My thoughts exactly.

You should check out "House of Saddam" [2008] if you haven't already.

Say what you will about Saddam - but he was absolutely a boss. Just the way he walked to his death in the gallows, looking so stoic, with his life about to end. It's almost chilling.

I know a lot of people say they have no fear, but there are only a few things that I truly fear - my children being hurt for one. Death, for another.

I really don't think I would be walking to my death like Saddam did.

His life truly was one of "Live By the Sword, Die By the Sword".

I have strong views on the Iraq War, and Saddam Hussein - as I quit the Canadian Army over the lies surrounding him.

It's incredible for me to think about his rise and fall - and given how well he kept the multiple extremist elements of Iraq in check, I still have no view aside from believing that Iraq WAS better off under Saddam.

I feel the same way about Muammar Gaddafi in Libya - the GDP per-capita in Libya has dropped by something like 50% since Gaddafi was killed, and apparently there are sexual slave markets on the streets of Libya.

I don't see how anyone can argue that either Iraq or Libya are better off since deposing Hussein and Gaddafi, respectively.

[Humble Narcissist]

USA was in Afghanistan for years. Same with Iraq. And they never really conquered Afghanistan. The goal was never to do that because they easily could have. If Russia wanted to they could have bombed the crap out of Ukraine the first day and had them surrender the second. But that was not their goal. I don't see Russia struggling with Ukraine. To me they are trying to be careful to prevent too many civilian casualties. Unlike when USA attacked Iraq. BTW, I have spoken to numerous people from Iraq and they all say the country was better off with Saddam. The US ambassador also lied to an misled Saddam. She told Saddam they had no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflict and his border disagreement with Kuwait. This basically gave Iraq the greenlight to proceed in engaging Kuwait.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/01/09/wikileaks-april-glaspie-and-saddam-hussein/

Exactly! Russia has been using kid gloves on Ukraine because they want to absorb them back into Russia. If they would have bombed the shit out of Kiev and other cities on day 1 this would have been over with fast.

[Flexacon]

USA was in Afghanistan for years. Same with Iraq. And they never really conquered Afghanistan. The goal was never to do that because they easily could have. If Russia wanted to they could have bombed the crap out of Ukraine the first day and had them surrender the second. But that was not their goal. I don't see Russia struggling with Ukraine. To me they are trying to be careful to prevent too many civilian casualties. Unlike when USA attacked Iraq. BTW, I have spoken to numerous people from Iraq and they all say the country was better off with Saddam. The US ambassador also lied to an misled Saddam. She told Saddam they had no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflict and his border disagreement with Kuwait. This basically gave Iraq the greenlight to proceed in engaging Kuwait.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/01/09/wikileaks-april-glaspie-and-saddam-hussein/

And, not an.

[Matt]

Exactly! Russia has been using kid gloves on Ukraine because they want to absorb them back into Russia. If they would have bombed the shit out of Kiev and other cities on day 1 this would have been over with fast.

Do you know if there is an estimate of the casualties thus far? Wikipedia still shows that it's only into the few thousand.

Contrast that with the ongoing civil war in Ethiopia, which is over half a million so far:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-tigray-war-has-seen-up-to-half-a-million-dead-from-violence-and/

[IroNat]

You can only die once.

[Rambone]

You can only die once.

Sounds like a James Bond movie

[Humble Narcissist]

Do you know if there is an estimate of the casualties thus far? Wikipedia still shows that it's only into the few thousand.

Contrast that with the ongoing civil war in Ethiopia, which is over half a million so far:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-tigray-war-has-seen-up-to-half-a-million-dead-from-violence-and/

Don't let those in Washington know this or we'll be bringing millions of Ethiopians into North America soon.

[El Diablo Blanco]

Lol at saying liberals want to go to war and conservatives don’t. God you’re a fucking moron.

[visualizeperfection]

Lol at saying liberals want to go to war and conservatives don’t. God you’re a fucking moron.

EDB, in most cases I think you’re correct, but recently I feel that the tables have turned.

I see nothing but the idea of an escalation of force from the left, especially with this current situation. And trump, remember the whole “muh kurds” shit?

I’m an happy Brandon brought the afghan nonsense to a close, I suppose just to ramp up Europe though.

[beakdoctor]

Lol at saying liberals want to go to war and conservatives don’t. God you’re a fucking moron.

In this particular situation this seems to be the case though?

[obsidian]

And, not an.

I saw that before you posted lol! Oh well we can't all be perfect.

[obsidian]

What do you think about this war just being another bullshit financial matter? Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum said that Putin was another one of his "young global leaders", so is this just another staged military conflict for global financial powers? It seems too risky, and too possible for the Western powers to lose control of this war for that to be the case.

Anything is possible as far as I am concerned. Putin could be playing a predefined role here. Same goes for Trump. We just don't know. I guess if Putin and Trump really do succeed in bringing down the Deep State then I'll think they were the real deal. But it's all about the results. If they achieve nothing like Trey Gowdy then you know they were also swamp creatures.

Ghadafi received a long blade up his rectum on camera! And Hillary Clinton laughed about it. She's an evil bitch - hopefully karma will pay her a visit.

[Slapper]

I heard the Vietnam War was fought to just sell helicopters and other military equipment. It's absolutely sickening.

THIS!

I used to work in the anti money laundering business during the second invasion of Iraq and we were amazed at how much money government-associated accounts were moving to really far off places like the Bank of Bhutan or financial entities in the Seychelles and the like. Huge sums of money that never came back and we lost track to as soon as they left US jurisdiction.

All wars are money laundering exercises of massive proportions. 

You're making great points by the way. Good on you dude!

[Humble Narcissist]

THIS!

I used to work in the anti money laundering business during the second invasion of Iraq and we were amazed at how much money government-associated accounts were moving to really far off places like the Bank of Bhutan or financial entities in the Seychelles and the like. Huge sums of money that never came back and we lost track to as soon as they left US jurisdiction.

All wars are money laundering exercises of massive proportions. 

You're making great points by the way. Good on you dude!

This is the reason for the new Cold War.

[FitnessFrenzy]

Russia has recently treatened to nuke the waters outside United Kingdom, which would drown all of UK under massive radioactive waves. I assume they have plans to evacuate Henda before that happens.

[funk51]

   

    brought to you by the same people who gave us Chernobyl.

[Slapper]

   

    brought to you by the same people who gave us Chernobyl.

Would you believe the KGB had two agents walk up all the rubble right at the edge of the reactor and take pictures of the burning reactor?

Those pictures are still around somewhere... even the commentator says "whoever took this picture is surely gone of a painful death."

Such was the misery of the moment.

[Humble Narcissist]

Would you believe the KGB had two agents walk up all the rubble right at the edge of the reactor and take pictures of the burning reactor?

Those pictures are still around somewhere... even the commentator says "whoever took this picture is surely gone of a painful death."

Such was the misery of the moment.

And yet they didn't die. Only 2 people died from the accident directly and there were no solid cancer increases. Thyroid cancers increased but over 90% survived.

[joswift]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

[Humble Narcissist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

This is different from the documentary they just showed on Nat Geo.

[joswift]

This is different from the documentary they just showed on Nat Geo.

The soviet stance is that it was a CIA bomb at one point
https://www.voanews.com/a/europe_russian-tv-series-blames-cia-chernobyl-nuclear-disaster/6169810.html

[Humble Narcissist]

The soviet stance is that it was a CIA bomb at one point
https://www.voanews.com/a/europe_russian-tv-series-blames-cia-chernobyl-nuclear-disaster/6169810.html

In the doc I watched a few weeks ago they said that western media got a report of 2000 deaths soon after the incident based on one woman they interviewed on the street and ran with it.