It's About To Go Down...

a reply to: WanderingMrM


like a putin that pushes the button?


Don't your contacts know?

originally posted by: iamthevirus
a reply to: jedi_hamster

Col. Richard Black, former Virginia Senator letter to congress Sept 27, 2022.

Dear Representatives and Senators:

I am troubled by the loose talk about launching a nuclear attack on Russia. From time to time, senior Republicans and Democrats have suggested employing such weapons. This appears to be a deliberate effort to acclimate Americans to the idea of nuclear warNow, we have Zelensky's office jumping on too. On September 21, 2022, Newsweek ran this headline: "U.S. Needs to Threaten Russia With Nuclear Strike: Ukraine". The article quotes Mykhailo Podolyak, Zelensky's senior aide, as saying, "The other nuclear states need to say very firmly that as soon as Russia even thinks of carrying out nuclear strikes on foreign territory—in this case the territory of Ukraine—there will be swift retaliatory nuclear strikes to destroy the nuclear launch sites in Russia."

Of course, it is impossible to limit retaliatory nuclear strikes to destroying only the nuclear launch sites. Not only would damage be widespread, but Russia would be forced to respond in kind to threats targeting its nuclear deterrence capability. Russia would launch an immediate, massive nuclear response, including air and ground-based hypersonic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Each Russian submarine would shower down 100 nuclear warheads, sufficient to incinerate the entire National Capital Region or the Western European industrial heartland.

As the Ukrainian War drags on, globalists are marching us relentlessly toward this nuclear Armageddon. Why?

There would have been no war had we not overthrown the democratically-elected government of Ukraine by violently ousting President Yanukovych in 2014. We promoted war by flooding Ukraine with massive arms shipments afterwards.

The U.S. could have achieved peace by simply pressing Ukraine to implement the 2014 Minsk Peace Agreements which it had signed, establishing a clear framework for setting outstanding issues peacefully. Ukraine promised to implement the Minsk agreements, but chose instead to make war on the Donbass for the next seven years. Ukraine's attacks killed 14,000 people before Russia ever entered the war.

Within two months after Russia crossed into Ukraine, Russia and Ukraine were finalizing a draft peace agreement. However, Prime Minister Boris Johnson suddenly flew to Kiev to block its implementation, undoubtedly coordinating with the U.S. State Department beforehand. War would continue, regardless of the parties' longing for peace.

NATO had ample opportunity for peace but deliberately chose war. The U.S. realized that, with Russia's back to the wall, it would have no choice to but to attack. In 2007, U.S. Ambassador to Russia William Burns pointedly warned that movement toward absorbing Ukraine into NATO might well trigger war between Ukraine and Russia. Nonetheless, the Obama administration overthrew the Ukrainian president and flooded in weapons, knowing that doing so would trigger war. 

Today, wealthy globalists have billions at stake, and they intend to have their war profits even if it means gambling the lives of hundreds of millions of people across the globe.

Few Americans knew anything about Ukraine before February 24th. Was Ukraine in South America, Asia, Africa, or Europe? Many Americans couldn't have answered that question. But now, in order to address a local border dispute on the other side of the globe, war hawks demand concrete steps toward a nuclear war that might exterminate 60% of humanity, plunging mankind into a primitive state.

Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton all approached nuclear confrontation with utmost caution. But the Obama administration changed course when it recklessly overthrew the Ukrainian government in 2014 and flooded Ukraine with weapons aimed at Russia. It did so knowing that it was threatening Russia's most vita) national interest: the defense of its territory against nuclear aggression.

Now, the Biden administration threatens to cast caution to the winds. Many of its allies suggest a game of one-upmanship where the U.S. and NATO fire nuclear missiles in response to Russia's use of such weapons to defend its territory. In other words, we would destroy the entire world as our way of saying, "Oh yeah? Well take this!"

Would simple revenge justify killing hundreds of millions of unknowing people? Should we annihilate the world's population to intervene in a border war where the U.S. has no vital national interest?

The U.S. can promptly end this war by making Ukraine a neutral, non-aligned state, just as we did during the Cold War with Austria in 1955. Yes, there would be some territorial adjustments resulting from the war. But peace would end the ongoing bloodshed, avert a nuclear conflagration, and assure Ukraine's long-term safety and independence.

Nuclear war is unthinkable; peace is the better course of action. Please consider it.”

(The path to peace is a neutral Ukraine)

Excellent post.

a reply to: WanderingMrM

Can you be more specific?

What texts?

And where do they mention the antichrist being American?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: midicon

If we can agree that the US history of secret operations is less than fine

How can you say 'less than fine'? Less than fine? Are you mental? It's not history, it's right now. Those scumbags are still spreading war and death across the globe. They are but one arm of the American protection racket which is currently playing out in Ukraine. Perhaps we can agrre that the biggest threat to world peace is the USA.

a reply to: midicon

Remind me, who is threatening to use their nukes?

a reply to: midicon

It's called euphemism.
Used to be.
But as it is with dynamic developments Russia has stolen the cake.
For the moment.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: midicon

Remind me, who is threatening to use their nukes?

Only in self defence which ultimately is what they are for. That threat is the only thing keeping the dogs of war at bay. Of course it gives virtue signallers an opportunity to say 'how dare he'.
The scum responsible for this whole debacle are not good guys, more like ''goodfellas'.

a reply to: midicon

Self defence?!!!!

Seriously?!!!

a reply to: midicon

Self defence is bull#. To stay relevant.
More likely. To get richer. More powerful.

a reply to: midicon


Are we 'scumbags' land grabbing in Ukraine?

Or is that russia?

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: iamthevirus

It will depend on which Republicans are in charge of the various committees in the house and senate.

Traditional Republicans will bring more war. They love war...for the profits.

MAGA-AF leaders will not escalate... and will do their best to bring peace, without killing thousands more.

Pretty much every red on the roster are conservatives, Trump has been touring the country nonstop for the past 2 years assuring that.

That election steal pissed people off bigtime.

a reply to: midicon


Why make stuff up?

putin's threats make no mention of any 'self defense', he threatened to use them in his land grabbing invasion if Ukraine keeps trying to defend itself

That is not 'self defense'.

That is 'first use'.

a reply to: carewemust

In fact the last time I checked it was over 200 with around just over a dozen insignificant losses.

We got this...

www.nytimes.com...

The people have voted to be part of Russia, people need to deal with that.

What putin does to defend Russia is anyone's guess.

He did say any attack on russian soil would be met with might, possibly nukes.

He has however never threatened to use nukes on a first strike basis, only if russian soil is attacked.

There is now more russian soil.

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

How do you account for a fair and open referendum when Russian Federation forces don't hold sway over the entirety of the provinces in dispute?

How does that work pray tell, and especially to the tune of 96%?

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Sure, they did.

Russia is a glowing beacon of democracy....

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

No one recognises their sham referendums, but you seem to lap up that bs.

a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Only all of Ukraine's citizens can decide if they want to let go of a significant part of the common territory.
If people living there don't like it they can go. But the land belongs to the citizens of Ukraine.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

How do you account for a fair and open referendum when Russian Federation forces don't hold sway over the entirety of the provinces in dispute?

How does that work pray tell, and especially to the tune of 96%?

It wouldn't matter how it was or is done.

People like you would just cry sham.

Truth of the matter is just like crimea they voted to be part of Russia and I'm not surprised after the 8 years of abuse they have suffered .

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Nexttimemaybe

Sure, they did.

Russia is a glowing beacon of democracy....

Nobody wants globalism, this iteration of democracy is corrupt... it's in the wrong hands.

Democracy ain't a bad thing by no means, it just needs a little purification.

Where you been?