US/NATO rule out halt to expansion,reject Russia demands.

So I was right.

But what else is new?

 

So you didn't go back and read the link this time either.

 

Or...and this may sound crazy, you could get back to the thread topic instead of trying to derail the thread.

Just a thought.

 

I was just responding to a point made by another poster that fission bombs would somehow become safe because they were older technology, by pointing out how nonsensical a position that is with a parallel strategic level weapon that is best as a threat than a thing you actually use.

Just a thought.

 

So I give examples of a point and they are strawmen.
Today WSJ spoke of an epidemic of lawlessness in Germany as trust in authority errodes.

 

I made a single post admitting that the US government had been involved in germ warfare, when making a point that the age of a technology does not render it 'safe' and that to deny such was silly. Additionally: Such admission is not from a place of self hatred or hatred of country.

You then gave a screed that had 1) nothing to do with the OP and 2) nothing to do with my post, that 3) propped up a ton of strawmen for no apparent purpose but deflection.
In this latest post you simply double down on the strawmen.

 

I figured you would split that hair. If that makes you feel better go for it. The facts of what happened are clear.

 

Point taken.
Now if you wish to point out your nation once weaponized germs for warfare
then point out other nations doing it - now. And others are using it now, ie Russia's
chemical weapons, banned under treaty, but slipped out to deal with Russia's
domestic problems.
Otherwise we have a situation where America does this and America does
that, without context or comparison.

 

Again: The point of bringing it up was to point out that there are technologies that are strategic level (like nukes or bio weapons) that are venerable in age yet still unsafe to loose upon the world.
The point being: Yes we used nukes, and bio weapons, which is why we know you should use those are threats not actual weapons.

No one is talking **** about America: calm down and take a ****ing breath

 

Taking deep breath...

 

The totally unnecessary horrific February 1945 US/UK repeated firebombing of Dresden... a non-military target overflowing with civilian war refugees because it was considered to be safe... was an Allied war atrocity.

You guys burnt the place down, turned it into a single column of flame. More people died there in the firestorm, in that one big flame, than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Kurt Vonnegut, Jr

[American POW in Dresden during the firebombing who witnessed the horror.]

.

 

This is typical anti-establishment talk
Let's quote
UK National Archives


Why was Dresden targeted?
Dresden was a key transport junction. To Churchill and his war cabinet, this made Dresden a
strategic target. Bombing the city might halt the flow of German troops and speed the
advance of the Soviet army into Germany. Bombing Dresden might help the Russian war
effort.

 

Ok... have it your way... forget the word of an American POW in Dresden who personally witnessed the horrific US/UK firebombing and its aftermath... and let's take the word of the UK government who did the firebombing.

Bombing the city might halt the flow of German troops and speed the advance of the Soviet army into Germany

Wasn't that nice... the vast majority of those civilian refugees in Dresden firebombed to death were fleeing Stalin's brutal red army... but the US/UK intentionally horrifically mass-murdered them to allow the US/UK's communist ally, Stalin, to torture and enslave half of Europe. Later the USA had the nerve to repeatedly send Americans to be maimed and killed "fighting" communists.

.

 

Yeah, and as Cambridge itself now teaches - Britain is as bad as Nazis. There's this slow shift
from hating Nazis and Communists to hating ouselves.
Dresden was just another German city - many were bombed, maybe all - don't know. But the
cities that were hit were military targets. You have so many bombs, so many planes, so little
time - where do you direct your bombing? Blowing up civilians while munition factories keep
humming, rail networks keep moving and key bridges remain open is simply nuts.
Dresden was a major rail hub.
Many other major rail hubs were also hit - Germany did the same: Stalingrad was a prime
example.

 

explain how I'm wrong then?

 

Russia has NEVER been at war with Ukraine. Let me remind you of the chronology of events. After the violent overthrow of the government in Kiev, on March 17, pro-Russian citizens of the Luhansk region tried to stop the tanks of the armed forces of Ukraine sent to suppress the protests.

On April 10, the armed forces of Ukraine made a second attempt with the participation of armored vehicles.

On April 11, 40 VOLUNTEERS from Russia (among whom there were no military personnel in the contract service of Russia, nor military of the active army. That is, there were volunteers who served in the ranks of the armed forces of the Russian Federation, but went into reserve) arrive in the Luhansk region.

On April 13, the Government of Ukraine announces an anti-TERRORIST operation. (Not the war of Russia, which the government will shout about at every turn, they are going to conduct a counter-terrorist operation against their own citizens and 40 volunteers from Russia with the help of tanks, artillery and the regular army. In parallel, administrative offices were seized in Donetsk.

Further, volunteer detachments were already formed from local residents. If we count the Russian volunteer detachments, there were ONLY 2 of them! If you think that military actions against 2 volunteer detachments are a war with Russia, then how do you explain the presence of US and EU citizens in these detachments

 

Moreover, what then, in this case, were US citizens doing there as part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine?https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christopherm51/craig-lang-ukraine-war-crimes-alleged

 

I just LOVE these 'volunteers'
These 'volunteers' brought their BUK missiles into the war zone too. Imagine being in an
army where you can take yourself, your uniforms, your weapons, your trucks, your missiles
and so on, and just go invade another country in your spare time. And there's people who
believe this.
Think China used 'volunteers' in the Korean War.
And there's about 150,000 'volunteers' on the Ukrain border now.
Russia promised not to invade Ukraine if it handed back the USSR's nuclear missiles. It calls
the current anxiety in Europe 'hysteria.' Given Russia's history, and those 150,000 'volunteers'
I would be hysterical too.

 

Let's start with the fact that there is no evidence of the presence of the Russian military troops on the territory of Ukraine. There is not a single captured Russian soldier, there is not a single witness from Ukraine who would show evidence of the presence of the Russian military. The information that took place in the Ukrainian media about the presence of Buryat special forces (which in itself is very funny) is a very mediocre fake, from which even the residents of Ukraine themselves laughed.

About the BUK system. Again, it can be stated that the missile on MH17 was fired by the Ukrainian military. Just a question - why would the rebels shoot at a civilian plane? The rebels, who surrounded the enemy troops quite easily, were opposed by a fairly well-equipped regular army, so stupidly make a mistake and launch a rocket into a civilian plane? And what if it was the Ukrainian troops who fired this very missile? The Ukrainian government stated that the BUK system was not part of the regular army of Ukraine, and most importantly, there was no 223 military unit. But these photos say the opposite.

And everything seems to be fine and falls under your reflections, but why does Ukraine hide the presence of its BUK systems in the Donbass so much in July 2014? And another moment. There is evidence that the missile presented as evidence of the incident was sent to the Ukrainian SSR. This information was received by JIT from the manufacturer of this rocket under the number 9M38 No. 8868720

 

Communism was threatening to take over the entire planet one country at a time. That was a horrific threat to us.

I deeply regret the atrocities that many of our allies committed (and note how quickly the US dropped those particular allies the moment the Cold War ended). But sadly, your above phrase (that I bolded for emphasis) is true: during the Cold War, the ends did justify the means. We had no choice if we wanted to survive.

 

I'm no expert on the UK's bombing, but I suspect that an expert could make a case that the UK was trying to destroy legitimate targets.

Our firebombing of Japanese cities was aimed at destroying Japan's war industry. We warned the civilians with leaflets so they could flee the cities when our bombers approached.

There were atrocities committed against Serbs as well. It is wrong to act like the Serbs were universal bad guys and everyone else was a victim.

 

The Serbs were also victims of it. America stopped that too when we convinced all sides to sign the Dayton Accords.

 

I have not read the links. If the awards were for some other action, fine.

But the captain should still have been prosecuted for any atrocities that he committed, even if he also did something that merited awards.

 

If Russia invades the EU, the invasion will be repelled.

Conventional force will almost certainly be sufficient to repel an invasion of the EU.

However, if conventional force somehow fails to dislodge such an invasion, then the invading force will be attacked with nuclear weapons.

If Russia chooses to not invade the EU in the first place, then we will not need to worry about any of this happening.

 

That is incorrect. The agreement was unfair and one-sided, and Serbia rightfully never agreed to it.

Serbia engaged in ethnic cleansing in Kosovo only after NATO started bombing them.

The ethnic cleansing was a desperate attempt NATO from stealing Kosovo from them.

Keep in mind that a very small nuclear explosion only produces a little bit of fallout.

These new tactical nukes that the Obama Administration developed are considered usable for good reason.