« First « Previous Comments 230 - 269 of 371 Next » Last » Search these comments
So, will it or will it not? The suspense is killing me.
Patrick saysPutin is building a new civilisation, based on Christianity, tradition, nationhood
That is not correct. He is a head of mafia state, after being part of mob in st petersburg. Does carpetbombing of chechen civilians count as Christianity? Does enriching himself counts as Christianity?
5000 Russian Dead?
AmericanKulak says5000 Russian Dead?
Of course, an overestimate and propaganda, as is normal in war. Sergeant Petrenko saw Russians shooting 200 children and women in hospital and singlehandedly killed 500 occupiers with his AK-47, before dying as a hero.
However, the order of magnitude for Russian dead is correct. May be 2000 or 3000, but it is a lot still. It is comparable to losses in Armenia-Azerbaijan war, where in 1.5 months about 2500 were killed from each side. Ukrainian conflict is an order of magnitude larger, same weapons are used, so a few thousand Russian dead make sense.
Kind of hard to read any news at all then.
https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/27/7-fake-news-stories-coming-out-of-ukraine/?source=patrick.net
Ron Paul's site seems to be under attack. Can anyone load this?
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2022/february/28/it-all-comes-back-to-nato/?mc_cid=1396e7e4be&source=patrick.net
I spent years trying reading the "news" wondering to myself "well, they can't be INTENTIONALLY lying, otherwise they'd lose their entire readership" - only to realize I was their readership. Our news media is propaganda, and it's trolling propaganda. Go read the comments to this video:
When the Bush Administration announced in 2008 that Ukraine and Georgia would be eligible for NATO membership, I knew it was a terrible idea. Nearly two decades after the end of both the Warsaw Pact and the Cold War, expanding NATO made no sense. NATO itself made no sense.
Explaining my “no” vote on a bill to endorse the expansion, I said at the time:
NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary… This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution.
Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts unrelated to our national interest…
Unfortunately, as we have seen this past week, my fears have come true. One does not need to approve of Russia’s military actions to analyze its stated motivation: NATO membership for Ukraine was a red line it was not willing to see crossed. As we find ourselves at risk of a terrible escalation, we should remind ourselves that it didn’t have to happen this way. There was no advantage to the United States to expand and threaten to expand NATO to Russia’s doorstep. There is no way to argue that we are any safer for it.
NATO itself was a huge mistake.
When in 1949 the US Senate initially voted on the NATO treaty, Sen. Roberg Taft – known as “Mr. Republican” – gave an excellent speech on why he voted against creating NATO.
Explaining his “no” vote, Taft said:
… the treaty is a part of a much larger program by which we arm all these nations against Russia… A joint military program has already been made… It thus becomes an offensive and defensive military alliance against Russia. I believe our foreign policy should be aimed primarily at security and peace, and I believe such an alliance is more likely to produce war than peace.
Taft continued:
If we undertake to arm all the nations around Russia…and Russia sees itself ringed about gradually by so-called defensive arms from Norway and Denmark to Turkey and Greece, it may form a different opinion. It may decide that the arming of western Europe, regardless of its present purpose, looks to an attack upon Russia. Its view may be unreasonable, and I think it is. But from the Russian standpoint it may not seem unreasonable. They may well decide that if war is the certain result, that war might better occur now rather than after the arming of Europe is completed…
How right he was.
NATO went off the rails long before 2008, however. The North Atlantic Treaty was signed on April 4, 1949 and by the start of the Korean War just over a year later, NATO was very much involved in the military operation of the war in Asia, not Europe!
NATO's purpose was stated to "guarantee the safety and freedom of its members by political and military means." It is a job not well done!
I believe as strongly today as I did back in my 2008 House Floor speech that, “NATO should be disbanded, not expanded.” In the meantime, expansion should be off the table. The risks do not outweigh the benefits!
It also exists to demoralize those who know better and see through it.
It's not about territory.
It's about neighbors joining a hostile Alliance.
All of the above, who collectively reduced US troops in Europe ftom 500K to less than 1/10 of that?
RWSGFY saysAll of the above, who collectively reduced US troops in Europe ftom 500K to less than 1/10 of that?
Name a base that was closed. Name one, if it's been reduced to 10%.
<
richwicks saysRWSGFY saysAll of the above, who collectively reduced US troops in Europe ftom 500K to less than 1/10 of that?
Name a base that was closed. Name one, if it's been reduced to 10%.
<
Changing topic much?
Name a base that was closed. Name one,
Name a base that was closed. Name one, if it's been reduced to 10%.
Eric Holder saysrichwicks saysRWSGFY saysAll of the above, who collectively reduced US troops in Europe ftom 500K to less than 1/10 of that?
Name a base that was closed. Name one, if it's been reduced to 10%.
<
Changing topic much?
No. I don't believe the claim, and I'm posting a reason I don't believe the claim.
Western news media was infiltrated by Operation Mockingbird 45 years ago. That was revealed in the Church Committee. Any claim made by our government or it's propaganda arm, the "free press" should be questioned.
We are ALL victims of propaganda to varying degrees. The difference between propaganda and the truth, is that the truth is entirely consistent, lies RARELY are.
Anderson Barracks Dexheim closed 2008
Turley Barracks Mannheim closed 2007
Clean up your list, and try again.
Do we have a glowie on board? Having to deal with Hasbera I'm pretty adept at recognizing them.
richwicks says
Clean up your list, and try again.
There is no point. If you are hell-bent on disputing information reported to and accepted by Russians
richwicks saysDo we have a glowie on board? Having to deal with Hasbera I'm pretty adept at recognizing them.
No, all we have is Nazi Ukies hiding under your bed gassing Joos and making lampshades from their skin. RIP, richwicks' brain, you died a miserable death turning into a mush.
richwicks saysEric Holder saysrichwicks saysRWSGFY saysAll of the above, who collectively reduced US troops in Europe ftom 500K to less than 1/10 of that?
Name a base that was closed. Name one, if it's been reduced to 10%.
<
Changing topic much?
No. I don't believe the claim, and I'm posting a reason I don't believe the claim.
Western news media was infiltrated by Operation Mockingbird 45 years ago. That was revealed in the Church Committee. Any claim made by our government or it's propaganda arm, the "free press" should be questioned.
We are ALL victims of propaganda to varying degrees. The difference betwee...
So, basically, it all comes down to you declaring "if I don't like certain information it means that it's false and that's that, BECAUSE MOCKINGBIRD"?
Do you realize how childish it all looks when we are talking about HALF A FUCKING MILLION ARMY allegedly hidden in plain sight from everybody, including Russian spies, sattellites, etc?
Heard over radio Armstrong and geddy, Russian army is not fighting as expected since they feel like fighting with relatives or friends. Putin changed strategy to launch missiles from far.
« First « Previous Comments 230 - 269 of 371 Next » Last » Search these comments
Yes
No
Other answer
My take: Yes
see https://nitter.pussthecat.org/newkc14?source=patrick.net
Evacuation of civilians from Doneck, Gleiwitz-style explosions in Doneck, and a lot of shelling along border.
Less probable is that they just want to increase tensions to get something out of the West (higher oil/gas prices, promises about non-expansion of NATO, etc).
If they do invade, ZH and a lot of skeptics owe Bidet & Co an apology of sorts. Everything goes to crap if invasion happens, as in economy of the world, residual civil liberties, etc, and one can blame Russians for inflation, loss of life quality, etc, instead of real culprit Bidet.
If I'd be conspiratorial, I'd say that Bidet agents in Russia will push for Russian invasion, but on other hand current CIA and military here can only shout pronouns at enemies as seen from Afghanistan debacle.