Russian diplomat: Moscow may strike back at the West by changing its stance on Iran.

bubab

How many countries has Iran attacked?

How many countries has Israel attacked?

Fill me in with facts please.

Why do you require past actions to project future actions?

There was a time on Earth when the USA had not yet attacked anyone, then one day that changed. Why do you personally require past tendencies to accept potential future actions?

God Bless,

ElohimJD

bubab

How many countries has Iran attacked?

How many countries has Israel attacked?

Fill me in with facts please.

Why do you require past actions to project future actions?

There was a time on Earth when the USA had not yet attacked anyone, then one day that changed. Why do you personally require past tendencies to accept potential future actions?

God Bless,

Past decisions and actions are ususally a good indicator of future decisions and actions.

ElohimJD

bubab

How many countries has Iran attacked?

How many countries has Israel attacked?

Fill me in with facts please.

Why do you require past actions to project future actions?

There was a time on Earth when the USA had not yet attacked anyone, then one day that changed. Why do you personally require past tendencies to accept potential future actions?

God Bless,

Not to derail this even more, but since there has been USA, there have been attacks by its forces, that is a historically verifiable fact. Ask the whole of south and central america.

bubab
Let's look at this with open eyes... and more importantly.. FACTS..

Which country on Earth HAS used nukes in anger... America
Which country on Earth HAS used nukes more than once in anger... America

How many nukes has Russia, Iran or North Korea used in anger? ... None.

Which country has nukes but claims to not have them and threatens global armageddon via a Samson option... Israel

Only one country has used nukes (2) against the civilian population of another country (USA against Japan).

It is up to the individual to determine if those were used in "anger" or in "defense"; as both "reasoning's" can be applied to that single action based on perception and perspective, and all are entitled to their opinions.

Keep in mind Russia has there "dead hand" and "Czar" and "Satan" options which also threaten global Armageddon, in the same manner as Israel's "Sampson" option.

Years from now, when we look back at how this got so out of control so quickly; and the dust begins to settle over the bodies of the dead, mankind will understand; until then our "opinions" will be FACTS to each of us, until it is too late matter.

God Bless,

ElohimJD

bubab
Let's look at this with open eyes... and more importantly.. FACTS..

Which country on Earth HAS used nukes in anger... America
Which country on Earth HAS used nukes more than once in anger... America

How many nukes has Russia, Iran or North Korea used in anger? ... None.

Which country has nukes but claims to not have them and threatens global armageddon via a Samson option... Israel

Only one country has used nukes (2) against the civilian population of another country (USA against Japan).

It is up to the individual to determine if those were used in "anger" or in "defense"; as both "reasoning's" can be applied to that single action based on perception and perspective, and all are entitled to their opinions.

Keep in mind Russia has there "dead hand" and "Czar" and "Satan" options which also threaten global Armageddon, in the same manner as Israel's "Sampson" option.

Years from now, when we look back at how this got so out of control so quickly; and the dust begins to settle over the bodies of the dead, mankind will understand; until then our "opinions" will be FACTS to each of us, until it is too late matter.

God Bless,

I am quite sure America didn't use the Nukes as 1) a joke, or, 2) a firework for celebration.

90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki
Total: 150,000–246,000+ killed

If that is not anger, what is?

Yusomad

Not to derail this even more, but since there has been USA, there have been attacks by its forces, that is a historically verifiable fact. Ask the whole of south and central america.

Fair opinion, but does nothing to negate the point.

The USA was attacked first (1812) before going on the offensive to accomplish "manifest destiny"; but regardless of the poor choice in example.

Why are past actions required for acceptance of future actions?

bubab

I am quite sure America didn't use the Nukes as 1) a joke, or, 2) a firework for celebration.

90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki
Total: 150,000–246,000+ killed

If that is not anger, what is?

To many it can be understood as self defense, and not anger.

Killing a murderer before he can kill you is called "self-defense"; not "anger".

The world was at war. Japan attacked the USA first (murderer). It was projected that the USA would have lost over 500,000 people in any type of land invasion of Japan.

If you were the USA which would you choose, these were the two options to end the war in victory for the Allies:

1. Land invasion to end the war = 500,000 dead Americans + 1,000,000 dead Japanese.
2. Nuclear strikes against Japan to end the war = 150,000-250,000 dead Japanese and 0 dead Americans.

I am not saying WW2 was righteous, or pretty, and handled perfectly. But it was handled logically, and the side that was attacked, eliminated the threat from their attacker in what some might call "defense".

ElohimJD

bubab

I am quite sure America didn't use the Nukes as 1) a joke, or, 2) a firework for celebration.

90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki
Total: 150,000–246,000+ killed

If that is not anger, what is?

To many it can be understood as self defense, and not anger.

Killing a murderer before he can kill you is called "self-defense"; not "anger".

The world was at war. Japan attacked the USA first (murderer). It was projected that the USA would have lost over 500,000 people in any type of land invasion of Japan.

If you were the USA which would you choose, these were the two options to end the war in victory for the Allies:

1. Land invasion to end the war = 500,000 dead Americans + 1,000,000 dead Japanese.
2. Nuclear strikes against Japan to end the war = 150,000-250,000 dead Japanese and 0 dead Americans.

I am not saying WW2 was righteous, or pretty, and handled perfectly. But it was handled logically, and the side that was attacked, eliminated the threat from their attacker in some people's opinion of "defense".

"Killing a murderer before he can kill you is called "self-defense"; not "anger". "

huh what?

You have been brainwashed by the Bush doctorine of pre-emptive killing.

Fracking loonatick.

bubab


"Killing a murderer before he can kill you is called "self-defense"; not "anger". "

huh what?

You have been brainwashed by the Bush doctorine of pre-emptive killing.

Fracking loonatick.

lol

Use logic, not emotions.

I have never hit any man in my life, never even been in a fist fight; and certainly never a "preemptive killing".

Japan already killed American's before we even fired a shot in WW2.

If a murderer breaks into your home and kills a member of your family (pearl harbor), and has a gun to your head (WW2); and you kill him before he can accomplish his will to kill you (end the war with the least amount of death to your family).

Is that action done in anger or defense?

ElohimJD

bubab


"Killing a murderer before he can kill you is called "self-defense"; not "anger". "

huh what?

You have been brainwashed by the Bush doctorine of pre-emptive killing.

Fracking loonatick.

lol

Use logic, not emotions.

I have never hit any man in my life, never even been in a fist fight; and certainly never a "preemptive killing".

Japan already killed American's before we even fired a shot in WW2.

If a murderer breaks into your home and kills a member of your family (pearl harbor), and has a gun to your head (WW2); and you kill him before he can accomplish him will to kill you.

Is that action done in anger or defense?

Listen to yourself man, your sick man sick.

Attacking somebody before they attack you is self defence?

Youre twisted.

bubab
Listen to yourself man, your sick man sick.

Attacking somebody before they attack you is self defence?

Youre twisted.

It is obvious you are not able to read effectively what is being presented to you.

Japan attacked first in WW2.

USA attacked someone who already attacked them first in self defense.

Stop attacking my character as "twisted" or "sick" or "brainwashed" or "lunatic"and think for your own; think about what is being written and attack that rather then a man who has never attacked any other man physically in his entire life.

God Bless,

bubab

ElohimJD

bubab

I am quite sure America didn't use the Nukes as 1) a joke, or, 2) a firework for celebration.

90,000–166,000 killed in Hiroshima
60,000–80,000 killed in Nagasaki
Total: 150,000–246,000+ killed

If that is not anger, what is?

To many it can be understood as self defense, and not anger.

Killing a murderer before he can kill you is called "self-defense"; not "anger".

The world was at war. Japan attacked the USA first (murderer). It was projected that the USA would have lost over 500,000 people in any type of land invasion of Japan.

If you were the USA which would you choose, these were the two options to end the war in victory for the Allies:

1. Land invasion to end the war = 500,000 dead Americans + 1,000,000 dead Japanese.
2. Nuclear strikes against Japan to end the war = 150,000-250,000 dead Japanese and 0 dead Americans.

I am not saying WW2 was righteous, or pretty, and handled perfectly. But it was handled logically, and the side that was attacked, eliminated the threat from their attacker in some people's opinion of "defense".

"Killing a murderer before he can kill you is called "self-defense"; not "anger". "

huh what?

You have been brainwashed by the Bush doctorine of pre-emptive killing.

Fracking loonatick.

The Japanese military killed 111,000 Americans and 253,000 Americans wounded.

The Japanese military killed over 22 million Chinese (18 million were civilians) plus more from other countries.

I hate wars and deaths and killing, but ...... Many Japanese civilians supported that war effort.

The Pacific War Online Encyclopedia

ElohimJD

bubab
Listen to yourself man, your sick man sick.

Attacking somebody before they attack you is self defence?

Youre twisted.

It is obvious you are not able to read effectively what is being presented to you.

Japan attacked first in WW2.

USA attacked someone who already attacked them first in self defense.

Stop attacking my character as "twisted" or "sick" or "brainwashed" or "lunatic"and think for your own; think about what is being written and attack that rather then a man who has never attacked any other man physically in his entire life.

God Bless,

edit on 19-3-2014 by ElohimJD because: (no reason given)

These are YOUR words not mine not anybody elses, YOUR words and I quote

"Killing a murderer before he can kill you is called "self-defense"; not "anger". "

Feck pearl harbour, feck nukes, my comment is about YOUR statement that you made.

This is the main issue I have with people like YOU, is crazy statements like THIS and THIS I do have problems with. I expect it from people like Bush or Svoboda or delusional people who bought into the BUSH CHENNY songs.

YOU are delusional if you think that statement is defendable. The only way bush got away with it is because everybody saw him for the idiot he was. YOU want to be thought of as a moron like Bush? Keep comming out with little gems like that

America blah America blah blah BLA


US this US that blah blabbadi bahhh


Do us all a favour, wake up... we're talking about Ukraine


Oh that's right they're nazis even tho they have been invaded and killed in there own country by a foreign power


Why you not questioning the hundreds of other UN members and countries around the world speaking out and condemning Russia's actions,

Is this because it doesn't fall in line with your beliefs ideologies and conspiracy's?

Bless

Boscov
reply to post by whyamIhere

 

Putin has his eyes on the ball. Economic sanctions will not distract Russia from reabsorbing Crimea and possibly Eastern Ukraine. Obama is not opposing Putin on an ethical basis, rather legal technicalities after the fact, to appear as a condemnation. Crimea was brokered by the Obama Administration in early 2012, prior to Obama's re-election and the easement of Iranian sanctions.

The question yet to be asked and/or answered is, what did or will Obama get in return?

Obama and Putin have a working relationship, do not be fooled by Obama's clicking of his pen, Biden's Eastern Front Tour in Poland, or Putin's antagonist tone and advancement into Pro-Russian regions. Ukraine is not EU or NATO, therefore it is free game.

The worst move on the board would be for Putin to snatch up Estonia, but maybe that is being negotiated or already has been as well.

Obama prefers two in the bush over one in the hand, and his foreign policy reflects that. Everything will pay off later, yada yada yada. We shall see.

Could not agree with you more

reply to post by TritonTaranis


A few have no interest in the topic....Ukraine

They want to bash America while Russia invades it's neighbor.

Who exactly is the aggressor now?

reply to post by bubab


I would really like to not have to call you out on this one, but if you would simply read his posts in their entirety before throwing accusations around that he is sick, I would not have too.

The facts are that japan attacked first in ww2. The US struck back with a means that kept Americans safe.

This is what he is trying to say.

What he is NOT trying to say is:

- Its OK to use nukes.
- Killing people is OK.
- America is perfect.

Please use logic before going on tangents and accusing people of things.

andr3w68
reply to post by bubab

 

I would really like to not have to call you out on this one, but if you would simply read his posts in their entirety before throwing accusations around that he is sick, I would not have too.

The facts are that japan attacked first in ww2. The US struck back with a means that kept Americans safe.

This is what he is trying to say.

What he is NOT trying to say is:

- Its OK to use nukes.
- Killing people is OK.
- America is perfect.

Please use logic before going on tangents and accusing people of things.

edit on 19-3-2014 by andr3w68 because: (no reason given)

I even quoted what he said, not what he TRIED TO said, he came out with that little gem of a line that it was ok to attack people before they attack you as that is aparently self defence, my comment was no longer about Japan and Nukes it was about his statement that it is "self defence" if you attack somebody before they attack you, that is crazy talk. You really should have read my post in it entirety. Once I saw that little gem of his, I could care less about the thread anymore.

It is obvious his generation is hooked on pre-emptive attacking. Sad state of the American generation now.

reply to post by bubab

"Killing a murderer before he can kill you is called "self-defense"; not "anger"."

huh what?

You have been brainwashed by the Bush doctorine of pre-emptive killing.

The two are unrelated, Japan attack on Pearl Harbor made them the "murderer."

Bush Jr's attack on Iraq was premeditated before 9/11 and unrelated. "Murder" if you will.

Russia changing it's stance on Iran's nuclear capability in retaliation to the western backed coup in Kiev and further western blustering is simply them saying "Put up or shut up." This is another case of world power's playing chess with other peoples lives.

Ukraine already threatened going nuclear again and the US is supporting that new regime. Countries that want to play in the big sandbox expect a little sand in their faces when they mouth off to others.

whyamIhere
reply to post by TritonTaranis

 

A few have no interest in the topic....Ukraine

They want to bash America while Russia invades it's neighbor.

Who exactly is the aggressor now?

You know what they say my friend

You can't argue with stupid