Trump to Russia: 'Get ready' for US missile attack

It doesn't matter much who is/was President. As far as US foreign policies goes in the ME, you guys are compromised. I wrote it for some time: The elected President may have control of the gas pedal in the ME (and Trump floors it), but not the steering wheel, which remains in either Tel-Aviv or Ryahd. When the two of them agree on something, there's hardly anything the US can do but oblige.

 

Name me two groups of rebels (apart from the non-indigenous Kurds) that are not radical Islamists.

 

This statement is so false it hurts.

Everyone but you knows that Assad is fighting radical islamists.

 

At the USSR's beginning, many of their White Russian relative have gone to neighboring places and their army was utter shytte, as badly led as it was shod.

Don't piss off the bear; He doesn't mind body bags as much as Yanks/occidentals do.

 

Let's ignore the fact that the Soviet Union was allied with Germany in 1939 when they both invaded Poland. Let's also ignore tremendous allied contributions to this war. Let's also ignore the contributions of 14 non-Russian republics of the Soviet Union, so yeah great victory for Russia.

My great grandfather fought for the Soviet Army and won a medal for saving 11 wounded soldiers. He told stories about how men were sent to their deaths. Many times the Soviet army knew that hey outgunned, but they were ordered into battlefield as cannon fodder. My great grandfather was pulled the last minute before one such battle took place and everyone of his comrades died. Early in the war, the military leadership was incompetent.

I am Russian and have been to Russia numerous times. I am sure I have seen a lot more neo nazis in Moscow than I have seen in the West. I remember back in the 1990s I was traveling in a train outside of Moscow, where I saw a huge sign that said "Beat Jews, Save Russia". No one complained.

Now let's get back to the topic of war. Russia's military cannot win against U.S, let's alone NATO.

Almost entire Russian Duma has their kids living in the West. Do you honestly think they will order bombs on their own kids? They also have investments in the West.

So while Russian politicians might claim to be patriotic, they are stockpiling millions in the Swiss Bank accounts. Money that they stole from ordinary Russian citizens.

Another reason why Russia will not fire at U.S. is because they are not ideologically opposed to capitalism the way Soviet communists were.

 

Many White Russians have joined the Soviet Union. The NKVD was a direct descendant of Russian Okhrana. The Revolution was a disaster for Russian history. Millions of innocent people died.

 

I won't quibble with you on anything you wrote, except you miss one big fact: Russia is not the one driving this agenda that needs Russia as a bogeyman. The Russians you mention can forsake the future to protect their wealth and see their children live in the US, but eventually Russia will realize it has no choice. The role assigned to it is to act as a bogeyman and rival power and that is the role it must fulfill. Otherwise, it will be humiliated and indeed ruined from within and without.

 

It was very clear that this was merely a delay between their impeding clashe to everyone who knew "mein kampf". Americans and Russians today are, too, allies of convenience in the fight against islamism just like Germany and the USSR were against Poland - until there is no Poland/Islamists left. When USSR attacked Finland in the Winter War, it attacked an ally of Germany.

Fine with me. Allies contributions to the USSR were solely made so the Russians could die by the millions while the Anglos waited for odds they like before opening an Atlantic Front. All of the material send to the USSR was next to useless - when did you ever heard of the Hawker Hurricanes' exploits on the Eastern Front? You didn't because this gear was misadapted, deficient and un-reliable. The Soviets beat the Nazi with T-34s assembled in tractor shops and by dying around them by the thousands - as you wrote.

That's why it was the Soviet Union, and not just the Russians. Doesn't change things much, thought.

It isn't just a Soviet affair; Before Hitler, Napoleon too went out to war against the feeble, laughable Russians. How could he lose?

 

And yet never has Russai been as powerful as when they were the Soviet Union. Before and after that, it is but a large, poor country.

 

Nepravda, drug moi.

 

Claimed by whom? People promoting Genie shares? We'll see how much oil is there. Besides, there's no shortage of oil in the world, but there is a need to stop burning much of it in the next few decades.

If you want heavy oil, there's 150 billion barrels of proven reserves in Alberta. You can probably double that with new technologies.

 

Care to cite your sources for these innocent 'rebels'?

Earlier you refused to answer the question about who's arms the US weapons systems ended up in when we armed the "rebels".

 

My source:

Yours?

 

That's it - Army Soldier is a commie!

Always knew it.

 

Soooo true my friend...

Let's remember, when Brzezinski was helping to theorize an updated grand US agenda back in the 90s, he centered his strategy on "averting a potential Eurasian alliance by winning China". This supports your argument about China being practical because by the end of the 90s China was made a production hub of the continent by the western powers.
China has always been too strong/dense/closed to implement "divide&conquer" strategy on. It might have easily allied with enemies of the US once sensed there's risk mounting on its national security. They have always been this practical. Couldn't have made it thousands of years at the same region if they hadn't been.

 

Is there a reason you refuse to cite it?

Below are sources that the US inadvertently armed ISIS by arming the rebels you strongly support. Please tell us (lol) how this is false as you repeatedly claim.

https://www.cnn.com/2015/12/08/politics/amnesty-international-isis-weapons-u-s-/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/20/middleeast/us-weapons-telegram-syria-intl/index.html

 

I like that. Good cover.

 

(CNN)A new report from a prominent human rights group has found that ISIS has built a substantial arsenal, including U.S.-made weapons obtained from the Iraqi army and Syrian opposition groups.

Amnesty International's 44-page report, released late Monday, found that much of ISIS' equipment and munitions comes from stockpiles captured from the U.S.-allied Iraqi military and Syrian rebels.

...

So? This doesn't equate to us arming ISIS, since that is not our intent, nor does it bolster your false argument that there are no rebels who aren't jihadists or some such radicals.

 

What rebel faction are you backing in your argument? Can you cite it so we can better understand? I know you support arming rebels, so tell us which ones? You do know there are different factions, right? lol

 

That's OK. This is getting off topic.

 

Oh, please--they don't want Iran to challenge them. Netanyahu wants to keep Israel at a fever pitch to hold on to power.

Iran is being a pain in the ass. Ditto Putin.

 

There are two answers to that question - the first concerns policy in general and the second concerns the Syria situation in specific:

1) A deliberate policy break from the predictability of his predecessor. While predictability is appropriate in some circumstances it is not appropriate in war where you want to maintain the element of surprise.

and

2) The fluidity of this specific situation. At this moment it isn't necessary for Trump to commit to any (or no) response.

Consistent with this, keep in mind what I've been telling you and the others about the USS Harry S. Truman and its strike group (HST CSG) sailing out of Norfolk two days ago. Since that CSG routinely patrols the Mediterranean Sea with the other CSGs that we rotate in and out of those waters, sending the Truman to the Med does not qualify as a commitment to a military strike. On the other hand, the CSG's presence in the Med provides the assets that would be needed to mount a full scale attack or support ships conducting a limited strike. So, who knows what the HST CSG will do? All we know for certain is that it puts all options on the table.

 

What faction of Syrian rebels are you claiming to support us arming?

 

On your first point, you are right to an extent. In particular, despite the rhetoric, I don't see either anxious to go to war themselves. But Israel and Saudi Arabia do want to drag the US to war against Iran. That is a fact established by not just wikileaks showing both pushing the US in that direction in meetings they had with US officials in the past, but also something that has been mentioned by American officials as well. But, certainly, Netanyahu also likes to keep Israel at fever pitch for political gain.

On your second point, I think your characterization of Iran (as it relates to its foreign policy) would be correct only if you feel the US has the right to go around bombing and invading and subjugating various countries and throwing them into chaos. Or that Israel should have a carte blanche to do as it pleases and have no one so much as utter a word in protest. Otherwise, Iran has long passed the stage when it was a truly ideological revolutionary state and has been pretty much a status quo power for some time.

 

Put it this way--they want us to solve their Iran Problem. Netanyahu will then move on to some other "devil" to keep Israelis at a fever pitch.

Huh? I said Iran is being a pain in the ass.

Pushing Shia religious claptrap on the world, or even on their own people, is never justified. The same goes for pushing Christianity on people, here or there.

Israel is a different matter. They're not pushing their religious claptrap on other countries, although they did grab some land in order to protect their ethnicity and religion. It's complicated and I won't go into it here.