“There is a war coming in Europe”

a reply to: Gianfar

your sources are shiiittt.

thats shiite with an e

Wrong pole. My sources are CIA, US and EU diplomats. Too bad you weren't bright enough to ask.

yes i did assume as much.

a reply to: Gianfar

The Soviet story is different from Russia story.

The dim-witted equate current Russia with Soviet Russia. That is simply not the case.

The Soviet Union was a different animal. It is dead.

The current Russia is practically a successor of the Russian empire, and so has a totally different legacy than the Soviets.

a reply to: Nikola014

"I claimed nothing. I just said, over the course of 50 years, NATO has been getting closer and closer to Russian borders."

More importantly , US have been deploying an offensive nuclear first strike capability against Russia (Cuban missile crisis in reverse).

Turkey host 60 to 70 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons on its territory at Incirlik Air Base link

"U.S. operational missile defense systems to be deployed in Romania and Poland in 2015 and 2018, respectively, are not designed to intercept potential ballistic missiles launched by Iran—the reason that the U.S. gave for introducing the missile shield," Kozin writes. "This is the task of the missile defense systems of the United States and its allies deployed in the Gulf region. The only purpose of the U.S. missile defense equipment deployed in Europe is to destroy Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Kozin also throws in some very pointed questions, such as: "Why has the U.S. Air Force completed building new underground warehouses at 13 air bases in six NATO member countries to store precision nuclear air bombs designed to destroy hard targets?"

link

originally posted by: GargIndia
a reply to: Gianfar

The Soviet story is different from Russia story.

The dim-witted equate current Russia with Soviet Russia. That is simply not the case.

The Soviet Union was a different animal. It is dead.

The current Russia is practically a successor of the Russian empire, and so has a totally different legacy than the Soviets.

Not sure how your perception of what I was saying fits into the conversation. My only focal point was that war with Russia over Ukraine would be a stalemate at best, therefore should not likely happen.

As for your linear analogy of current and past Russia, I would have to disagree on several points in your statement. If you are in effect defending Russian policy or more poignantly Putin policy, then I would like to know the justification.

a reply to: Gianfar

Putin is absolutely justified in view of the grave danger that Russia is facing due to American and European actions against it.

Putin must continue to act in favour of Russian society and Russian interests.

As far as Ukraine civil war, The Kiev junta is bound to lose. How long can they sustain this war? We shall see.

The Ukrainian public may not support the current Kiev government a year from now when they realize that none of the benefits expected from EU association are turning into reality.

We shall see. These are early days.

a reply to: GargIndia

"Grave Danger"?

The only danger Russia is in, is now as a result of their actions. Had they not tried to play silly buggers in the Ukraine, their economy would be fine, their business wouldn't be going bust leaving people stranded, their currency wouldn't be falling in value and everyone would be getting on just fine...

originally posted by: GargIndia
a reply to: Gianfar

Putin is absolutely justified in view of the grave danger that Russia is facing due to American and European actions against it.

Putin must continue to act in favour of Russian society and Russian interests.

As far as Ukraine civil war, The Kiev junta is bound to lose. How long can they sustain this war? We shall see.

The Ukrainian public may not support the current Kiev government a year from now when they realize that none of the benefits expected from EU association are turning into reality.

We shall see. These are early days.

I wouldn't disagree with much of your statement in principle. But realistically, Putin is still an old school Russian, a devoted Leninist, a worthy historian and of course a Lt Colonel of the KGB.

His most loyal business and political partners are also former KGB officers and administrative associates who broke legs and tortured their way to the top. So, this little gang of elites have become monopolists in everything from agriculture to banking to oil.

Yes, or course capitalists who make their fortunes by doing what Putin has done would certainly be a national threat. And, I gave Putin his honors in the last post by reiterating that his tax and business reforms in the first two presidential terms alleviated about 50% of Russian. Hence his popularity.

Other than sweeping public relations economics which made him heroic, he's still a communist thug wearing a suite and tie.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Nikola014

"I claimed nothing. I just said, over the course of 50 years, NATO has been getting closer and closer to Russian borders."

More importantly , US have been deploying an offensive nuclear first strike capability against Russia (Cuban missile crisis in reverse).

Turkey host 60 to 70 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons on its territory at Incirlik Air Base link

"U.S. operational missile defense systems to be deployed in Romania and Poland in 2015 and 2018, respectively, are not designed to intercept potential ballistic missiles launched by Iran—the reason that the U.S. gave for introducing the missile shield," Kozin writes. "This is the task of the missile defense systems of the United States and its allies deployed in the Gulf region. The only purpose of the U.S. missile defense equipment deployed in Europe is to destroy Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Kozin also throws in some very pointed questions, such as: "Why has the U.S. Air Force completed building new underground warehouses at 13 air bases in six NATO member countries to store precision nuclear air bombs designed to destroy hard targets?"

link

These are batteries of "defense" missiles systems, which are small and designed to target incoming ICBMs and multiple war head missiles from Russia. Russia's military planners don't like them because it prevents them from getting ICBMs into the stratosphere, at which point they are unstoppable.

a reply to: Gianfar

US has installed missiles with nucleur warheads in turkey etc, these are used as an offensive wmd against Russia with potential as first strike to wipe out as many Russian Silo's as possible to limit response.

Link

a reply to: glend

Have you just stepped out of a time warp from the 1960's?

US Missiles in Turkey is the very reason the Cuban Missile crisis happened and, as a result of that, the US withdrew it's missiles from said country.

By the way, your link does not work.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Gianfar

US has installed missiles with nucleur warheads in turkey etc, these are used as an offensive wmd against Russia with potential as first strike to wipe out as many Russian Silo's as possible to limit response.

Link

Those nuks were there during the cold war. Now that Iran and Pakistan have them, its likely more appropriate to have them in place. After-all, they are US missiles, Turkey is an ally and we still have a radical Russia and volatile Pakistan and Iran, who are considered enemies of the west.

a reply to: stumason

Re-read the article and you are correct as far as missiles are concerned. Turkey only has nuclear tactical weapons that can be delivered by aircraft. I think I have read elsewhere that 70-100x nuclear tactical weapons are stored at Turkey.

Turkey has hosted U.S. nuclear weapons since intermediate-range Jupiter missiles were deployed there in 1961 as a result of decisions made at the alliance’s 1957 Paris summit. Those missiles were withdrawn in 1963 in the aftermath of the Cuban missile crisis. Since then, no nuclear missiles have been stationed in Turkey. The only nuclear weapons that have been deployed are the bombs that would be delivered by U.S. F-16s or Turkish F-100, F-104, and F-4 “Phantom” aircraft at air bases in Eskisehir, Malatya (Erhac), Ankara (Akinci/Murted), and Balikesir.[12] All such weapons, whether on U.S. or Turkish aircraft, have been under the custody of the U.S. Air Force.

With other NATO countries such as Luxembourg and Norway supporting them, Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands have indicated a desire to reassess the case for continued deployment of U.S. nuclear weapons on their territories. Should these countries advocate withdrawal of U.S. weapons from Europe, Turkish decision-makers might conclude that two fundamental principles of the alliance, namely solidarity and burden sharing, have been seriously weakened.

June 2010

Link works here.

a reply to: Gianfar

Volatile Iran! Last country Iran tried to attack was rome and they lost that war to 20 gladiators. All wars since then have been defensive in nature so I would not call Iran volatile by any stretch of the imagination. I am sure if Iran didn't have massive reserves of oil you wouldn't hear any news about Iran in the media at all.

Iran has no nukes. They have consistently said they decided not to develop nuclear weapons out of principle. But media rarely reports that, its all about wmd in Iraq, oops meant to say Iran.

But Israel has nuclear weapons. Said to have between 60-400 which would could make them the most nuked up country on the planet (nukes per population). But eh, those peace loving Israeli's would never use em, in real safe hands there.

originally posted by: jude11

originally posted by: stirling
The bankers want it........The corporations want it.....the elite want it....itll surely happen....

The People?

Don't want it.

What if someone held a war and no one showed up?

Peace

If only all the good little soldiers of the world weren't happy to do whatever their told. Getting to kill people is just a bonus. Look at the recent protests in china being shut down with lethal force. I have always wondered how many American Soldiers would actually turn a weapon on citizens when martial law is officially declared. Not that it matters, that's what NATO troops are here for.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Gianfar

Volatile Iran! Last country Iran tried to attack was rome and they lost that war to 20 gladiators. All wars since then have been defensive in nature so I would not call Iran volatile by any stretch of the imagination. I am sure if Iran didn't have massive reserves of oil you wouldn't hear any news about Iran in the media at all.

Iran has no nukes. They have consistently said they decided not to develop nuclear weapons out of principle. But media rarely reports that, its all about wmd in Iraq, oops meant to say Iran.

But Israel has nuclear weapons. Said to have between 60-400 which would could make them the most nuked up country on the planet (nukes per population). But eh, those peace loving Israeli's would never use em, in real safe hands there.

I wouldn't disagree with that analogy. I would even say that if anything makes Iran volatile it is partly the consequence of economic pressures imposed by Washington and the fact that Iran is now under the threat of the US Air Force US bases on its borders.

Actually, the Iran of today was created by CIA incompetency, which aimed to secure control over the eastern petroleum consortium. Muhammad Mussadiq was the elected Iranian president, educated at Oxford. He was a great man and would have led Iran into a new age of democratic rule in the Middle East. Operation Ajax details the CIA's false flag communist coupe and how it had the media report Pres. Mussadiq being the master mind. He died in prison.

The revolution that ousted Washington's puppet, Pahlavi (1976) included many parties and ideologies, but religious fervor inspired the masses and the clergy who had traditionally gone to the streets for coins became the ruling elite.

If you look at what the CIA and the Mossad have done to governments, they most assuredly have created the conditions resulting in wide spread terrorism groups. Operations in Latin America, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, have turned fledgling democracies into right wing dictatorships that served as vassal states for US economics and Israeli security.

a reply to: Gianfar

You have a great knowledge of history Gianfar. Sadly majority don't want to believe the truth as it conflicts with their belief system. So we will continue to see truth replaced with lies. I just don't see terrorist groups anymore, just proxy fighting groups, funded by east or west. Because all tensions are now heightened, all it will take is just one smuggled nuclear device to start total mayhem. Russia has completed a massive bunker system for the majority of its population. It has the least to loose.

a reply to: glend

Something different is happening which I have not seen before. People in government are beginning to speak out and take actions that reflect their frustrations. The US Dept of State, the Baroness, even Israeli Jews against genocide held a recent memorial for Palestinian children at the steps of the Knesset.

Last week El Salvador, Peru and Chile announced they would recall their ambassadors from Israel for consultations.

If people continue the public discussion and pressure the politicians they vote for, at some point we will see the emergence of a world wide referendum that holds Israel accountable. This will undoubtedly come in the form of economic and trade sanctions.

I doubt that the US would comply, and in fact Washington would likely twist arms and call in favors to act against it.

Nevertheless, I think that people across the planet are finally beginning to see just what a threat US and Israeli politics poses in creating terrorist groups, especially when groups like Isis can potentially interrupt the flow of oil. We now know that the CIA gives material support to Sunni terrorist groups in Lebanon as hedge against the Shiite Hsbollah.

The price of oil effects every aspect of our security and material well-being. Since the US invasion of Iraq during the first gulf war in the 90s, the price of a barrel has gone from about $10.00 (US) to over a hundred respectively.

just woke up from a dream/nightmare of boots on the ground and explosions in my home town. thought it was a meteor that exploded, ended up running for my life from unknown soldiers, for some reason was thinking Russian....man they moved quick.
Woke up sweating like a Iraqi border guard just as i had backed myself into a corner at my old primary school.

a reply to: loam
If there is an actual war coming to Europe , it won't happend anytime close. Because of the Financial and economical reason. First Germanys economy is amazing right now , so all the small countries would probably join them , and Germany idk who would Germany join , cause if there is a war coming the biggest roles is going to take Russia and USA. So we would see those both countries getting ready like hell

a reply to: Gianfar

That's good to hear. Surprised to see some talk shows questioning Israel of late, perhaps a turn for the better, have to wait and see. South African Apartheid seemed invincible until everyone turned their backs on them, same thing could happen to Israel.