Russia to the US: If you want a confrontation, 'you'll get one everywhere'

a reply to: corblimeyguvnor

You'll loose

I've already lost it some would say?

F R E E D O M

Can I just say again for the record that I am astounded that I have lived long enough to see right-wingers praising Russia.

I guess there just isn't an upper limit on irony.

I'm a medically retired scout:Go for it.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Can I just say again for the record that I am astounded that I have lived long enough to see right-wingers praising Russia.

I guess there just isn't an upper limit on irony.

The fact that you would use such rhetoric and hyperbole in the face of such imminent danger tells me that your astonishment is worthless.

Go worldkillers!

a reply to: ufoorbhunter
Ah Winston Boris Johnson the next Wartime Prime minister he’s a big fan of Churchill (not the car insurance company) “where is the stop the war coalition” “war criminals have been prosecuted decades after their offences” …… long list of suspects there then………..

Robert Walpole (1721–42)

• Spencer Compton (1742–43)
• Henry Pelham (1743–54)
• Thomas Pelham-Holles (1754–56; 1st time)
• William Cavendish (1756–57)
• Thomas Pelham-Holles (1757–62; 2nd time)
• John Stuart (1762–63)
• George Grenville (1763–65)
• Charles Watson Wentworth (1765–66; 1st time)
• William Pitt, the Elder (1766–68)
• Augustus Henry Fitzroy (1768–70)
• Frederick North (1770–82)
• Charles Watson Wentworth (1782; 2nd time)
• William Petty-Fitzmaurice (1782–83)
• William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck (1783; 1st time)
• William Pitt, the Younger (1783–1801; 1st time)
• Henry Addington (1801–04)
• William Pitt, the Younger (1804–06; 2nd time)
• William Wyndham Grenville (1806–07)
• William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck (1807–09; 2nd time)
• Spencer Perceval (1809–12)
• Robert Banks Jenkinson (1812–27)
• George Canning (1827)
• Frederick John Robinson (1827–28)
• Arthur Wellesley (1828–30; 1st time)
• Charles Grey (1830–34)
• William Lamb (1834; 1st time)
• Arthur Wellesley (1834; 2nd time)
• Robert Peel (1834–35; 1st time)
• William Lamb (1835–41; 2nd time)
• Robert Peel (1841–46; 2nd time)
• John Russell (1846–52; 1st time)
• Edward Geoffrey Stanley (1852; 1st time)
• George Hamilton-Gordon (1852–55)
• Henry John Temple (1855–58; 1st time)
• Edward Geoffrey Stanley (1858–59; 2nd time)
• Henry John Temple (1859–65; 2nd time)
• John Russell (1865–66; 2nd time)
• Edward Geoffrey Stanley (1866–68; 3rd time)
• Benjamin Disraeli (1868; 1st time)
• William Ewart Gladstone (1868–74; 1st time)
• Benjamin Disraeli (1874–80; 2nd time)
• William Ewart Gladstone (1880–85; 2nd time)
• Robert Cecil (1885–86; 1st time)
• William Ewart Gladstone (1886; 3rd time)
• Robert Cecil (1886–92; 2nd time)
• William Ewart Gladstone (1892–94; 4th time)
• Archibald Philip Primrose (1894–95)
• Robert Cecil (1895–1902; 3rd time)
• Arthur James Balfour (1902–05)
• Henry Campbell-Bannerman (1905–08)
• H.H. Asquith (1908–16)
• David Lloyd George (1916–22)
• Bonar Law (1922–23)
• Stanley Baldwin (1923–24; 1st time)
• Ramsay Macdonald (1924; 1st time)
• Stanley Baldwin (1924–29; 2nd time)
• Ramsay Macdonald (1929–35; 2nd time)
• Stanley Baldwin (1935–37; 3rd time)
• Neville Chamberlain (1937–40)
• Winston Churchill (1940–45; 1st time)
• Clement Attlee (1945–51)
• Winston Churchill (1951–55; 2nd time)
• Anthony Eden (1955–57)
• Harold Macmillan (1957–63)
• Alec Douglas-Home (1963–64)
• Harold Wilson (1964–70; 1st time)
• Edward Heath (1970–74)
• Harold Wilson (1974–76; 2nd time)
• James Callaghan (1976–79)
• Margaret Thatcher (1979–90)
• John Major (1990–97)
• Tony Blair (1997–2007)
• Gordon Brown (2007–10)
• David Cameron (2010–16 )
• Theresa May 2016-

www.britannica.com...

Vietnam only = Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford

Other Bushes Clintons

www.theguardian.com...

Court in session

a reply to: Profusion
Thank God he's a retired General. His opinion means as much as mine.

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Profusion
Thank God he's a retired General. His opinion means as much as mine.

Not to russsuans I think he has thr edge there. What's even more troublesome is obama's statement saying he is looking into retaliations for Russian hacks. Claims they gave thr info to wiki leaks but funny thing is Assange said it wasn't the russians. So the US is going to retaliate for something they have zero evudence of occurring. That's very disturbing to say the least since I'm sure the wiki leaks came from the DNC staffer that was murdered.

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
Funny because the anti-Russian lobbyists are working overtime here in the west and this feeds into their agenda perfectly.

Here in the U.K the rhetoric has been ramped up calling for all parties to work together in agreeing an aggressive stance against Russia, regardless of personal beliefs.

Boris Johnson has called on people to protest outside of the Russian Embassy. Nice bit of diplomacy, what?

Let's call for the same outside of the Saudi Embassy and Israeli Embassy.

I think our great leaders are trying to get us all killed... lower that population you know. I dont know.. all I know is that Im older and Ive seen a lot. Ive been involved with the Mil for decades.. Ive NEVER seen whats happening now. I guess the younger folks are not as shocked as us older ones.. and I understand it, but wake up folks.. this is bad voodoo.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Profusion
Thank God he's a retired General. His opinion means as much as mine.

Not to russsuans I think he has thr edge there. What's even more troublesome is obama's statement saying he is looking into retaliations for Russian hacks. Claims they gave thr info to wiki leaks but funny thing is Assange said it wasn't the russians. So the US is going to retaliate for something they have zero evudence of occurring. That's very disturbing to say the least since I'm sure the wiki leaks came from the DNC staffer that was murdered.

Its horrifying, BUT.. to the astonishment of many, Obama did Jack of what he said and was yet another neocon in Dems clothing. I HOPE this is yet another of his blustery empty BS statements.

a reply to: Profusion
If you look at history, this is nothing new, and should not be a shock or unexpected. Remember that before the USSR and Germany got into a war, Hitler and Stalin divided up Europe. And even when the USSR was with the Allies, Europe was divided up, as to who would have control over it, with Stalin wanting much of Eastern Europe under his control, raising an Iron Curtain to divide such.

When the Eastern block broke up, it dealt a blow to the USSR, and then when it started to break up, there has been a longing by its leaders, for the good old days when they were in control over all of that territory. In fact the only thing that Russia has been wanting and never had was a warm water port. So if you look at where the interest of Russia that it want to move into, is the same areas that it had when it was the USSR, and its interest are in that direction.

And lets just say in this high stakes poker game, Russia has a few more aces than the rest of the western powers and the USA.

So right now Europe is going to back down, and hold the USA back. We can only hope that this does not end badly or the return of either the USSR or the eastern bloc. Russia is going to do all it can to show up or embarass the USA at every turn right now.

a reply to: odzeandennz

When it comes to Syria, both are guilty. It was a Civil war, and neither side should have gotten involved, rather isolate the country from all sides, and keep it from spreading out of control which is what it is doing.

As far as Iran, well here again it is both, as the USA created the mess in Iran, and Russia is going to exploit it for their own benefit.

When you look at the way the world is moving and the different politics, the question we should be asking is do the Russians trust the Chinese enough to where they can not be so watchful and move without fear? During the cold war, the one of the main reason that the USSR was cautious was that they did not trust the Chinese at all, and would not leave their south eastern flank unmonitered.

Personally, I think that in some parts of the world, the USA should just pull back, and in the UN hand it right over to the Russians, giving them a more free hand. It would have 2 purposes. 1) It would show that the USA is not the police of the world or war mongering. 2) It would make the Russians to put up or back down. And if they make it a disaster, then the USA can come in and clean up the mess, and look better in the eyes of the world.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I have serious issues in how our country is run ideologically at this point. Where we a coming from a position of weakness instead of strength. This is the time where Russia has to make their power moves before the next administration. I personally think they'd prefer to have the current administration which seems to let them have their way. Maybe there will be a Gulf of Tonka moment. Perhaps that already happened. I agree with your last two points, except we have to reevaluate our role in the middle east. I think our politicians have themselves tangled in a web with that area and we need to reevaluate our strategy there. Or we'll be sucked into another war before we know it. I think we already entered another Cold War. Russia has been solidifying and expanding its influence while we have seemed to taken a back seat, which is viewed as weak. Then throw the Globalist agenda into the mix and our country will decline even further. There's seems to be a lot of different forces at play and not in our best interest.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: superman2012
a reply to: Profusion
Thank God he's a retired General. His opinion means as much as mine.

Not to russsuans I think he has thr edge there. What's even more troublesome is obama's statement saying he is looking into retaliations for Russian hacks. Claims they gave thr info to wiki leaks but funny thing is Assange said it wasn't the russians. So the US is going to retaliate for something they have zero evudence of occurring. That's very disturbing to say the least since I'm sure the wiki leaks came from the DNC staffer that was murdered.

Thank God the US doesn't have a history of retaliating for something they have zero evidence on! Then I might be scared! /sarcasm

a reply to: mkultra11

The first problem with US foreign policy is that they are working under the assumption that every other country wants to be the USA, or like them, and fail to take into consideration many things. Culture, language and even how the everyday people look at their government should be as important intelligence wise, and dictate policy more so than what the strategic needs happen to be at the time. Often the USA gives money to different countries, but along with said dollars, comes strings that are attached that make things not so good, or far worse than many aspects.

I would say that perhaps now is the time not to show strength and pull back, to let other countries take the lead on many issues around the world, rather than be the first in. Do we really need to be involved in the middle east as much as the USA has been or used as a pawn in the political games over there?

Hey Russia

# or get off the pot.

IMeversoHO, more likely "inside job" nuke attack ...
Ruskies now being set up to be [naturally] blamed.
Maybe some Russian complicity.

USA is the de-stabilizer

This song was ahead of its time.

a reply to: Fingle

It is worth noting that Winston Churchill has returned to the UK's £5 pound note.

Such changes serve as harbingers and heralds of future policy and plans of the government or rather the controllers in the shadows and the deep.

a reply to: dragonridr


What's even better is anybody can hack the Russians and America will be on the hook for it.

Obama/Biden said they were going to do it and "saying is the same as doing"!