It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
EU Labels Anyone Calling For Peace A "Kremlin Propagandist"
page: 5share:
a reply to: CoyoteAngels
does MAD even exist any more? in the 1930s it was the bomber that provide mad as the interceptor technology wasn't there, each country could bomb their enemy back to the stone age with the idea the bomber would always get through, then like now improving interceptors broke mad and made another war possible..
both periods inhabit the same space making similar mistakes in ukraine now, sudetenland/austria then at a point where everyone was fearing the next war would be between the 2 main empires, then the us/britain now the us/china.. hitler was going to side with britain then and it looks like Putin is opting for china now..
a war now is far more possible now than at any time in my life as child in the 70s britain we grew up knowing we only had minuets to live if the soviets fired, our 3 mins gave the usa 20 mins.. neither long enough for panic sex
the shame is this move towards criminalising calls for peace as it will only lock in a war rather than save the world from one.
does MAD even exist any more? in the 1930s it was the bomber that provide mad as the interceptor technology wasn't there, each country could bomb their enemy back to the stone age with the idea the bomber would always get through, then like now improving interceptors broke mad and made another war possible..
both periods inhabit the same space making similar mistakes in ukraine now, sudetenland/austria then at a point where everyone was fearing the next war would be between the 2 main empires, then the us/britain now the us/china.. hitler was going to side with britain then and it looks like Putin is opting for china now..
a war now is far more possible now than at any time in my life as child in the 70s britain we grew up knowing we only had minuets to live if the soviets fired, our 3 mins gave the usa 20 mins.. neither long enough for panic sex
the shame is this move towards criminalising calls for peace as it will only lock in a war rather than save the world from one.
edit on
4-9-2023 by nickyw because: (no reason given)
originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: midicon
We are the arms dealer to the world. And it's good to be our friend.
I'd like that to be different. The democrat party as I knew it was anti-war. Yet democrats have started the ones in my lifetime except for the war on terror, that involved 2 countries, 1 nobody argued about, and 1 everyone argued about, except that was the one war I remember being debated on an international stage in my lifetime. But then, 'Bush lied, people died', but it was a war of consensus, except for use as a democrat hate talking point once it was over.
I don't disagree with anything you have said. Saying 'Bush lied and people died' though doesn't mitigate the reality and horrors inflected on countless men women and children.
I don't mind the US being the 'arns dealer to the world'. It's a crazy violent world after all. It's all the other stuff which is pointless to mention really.
Thanks for replying.
a reply to: andy06shake
When did Ukraine become a member of NATO?
Lets put it this way: it's US nukes that keep Russia and China in check. We have lots of them, they are accurate and reliable.
Everyone under our umbrella of protection should be grateful, not demanding of even more.
When did Ukraine become a member of NATO?
Lets put it this way: it's US nukes that keep Russia and China in check. We have lots of them, they are accurate and reliable.
Everyone under our umbrella of protection should be grateful, not demanding of even more.
a reply to: nickyw
Yes, MAD still exists. We destroyed many nukes during the Obama days but we still have superiority.
Unless Russia or China has a Star Wars initiative that will shoot down our incoming, we are going to take them out too. That's the MAD part.
It's kept the balance since the end of WW2.
Yes, MAD still exists. We destroyed many nukes during the Obama days but we still have superiority.
Unless Russia or China has a Star Wars initiative that will shoot down our incoming, we are going to take them out too. That's the MAD part.
It's kept the balance since the end of WW2.
a reply to: midicon
I guess you missed my point. Iraq was the only war in my lifetime that we asked for consensus with the rest of the world before engaging. Clinton admin, the UN, all thought Saddam had WMD. How did we know, well, we gave some to him ourselves decades earlier to use on Iran, then our puppet turned on us. Couldn't broadcast that around the world tho', as it was done by Bush 1, and Bush 2 knew it was so. It got moved to Syria with aid from Russia while Bush was building that consensus... he should have just done what he needed to do, because he was called a liar anyway.
Republicans don't start wars. Democrats do, then protest then blame republicans. I've been watching a long time.
I guess you missed my point. Iraq was the only war in my lifetime that we asked for consensus with the rest of the world before engaging. Clinton admin, the UN, all thought Saddam had WMD. How did we know, well, we gave some to him ourselves decades earlier to use on Iran, then our puppet turned on us. Couldn't broadcast that around the world tho', as it was done by Bush 1, and Bush 2 knew it was so. It got moved to Syria with aid from Russia while Bush was building that consensus... he should have just done what he needed to do, because he was called a liar anyway.
Republicans don't start wars. Democrats do, then protest then blame republicans. I've been watching a long time.
a reply to: CoyoteAngels
Where have i made any sort of claim that they are?
Dont mean that they don't have NATO support, again for very obvious reasons.
Yeah France and the UK also have those, they are overkill, and pretty much useless in this day of age as anything more than a deterrent.
NATO forces could wipe the floor with Russian forces using conventional weaponry, hence the reason Russia keeps on rattling her nuclear saber.
Who says that they are not grateful?
What is it you are after, flowers and a thank you card?
As to demanding, well if those nations whos ""gratitude"" you imagine should come without question fall, then so would your own soon after by default.
Because the fact of the matter is we are linked together in ways we cannot hope to possibly fully understand or appreciate.
Xenophobic isolationism simply does not fly in the world in which we live.
Again NATO exists for a reason, and that reason is clear as day.
www.nato.int...#:~:text=NATO's%20essential%20and%20enduring%20purpose,and%20cohesion%20among%20its%20members.[edit by]edit on 4-9-2023 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)
When did Ukraine become a member of NATO?
Where have i made any sort of claim that they are?
Dont mean that they don't have NATO support, again for very obvious reasons.
Lets put it this way: it's US nukes that keep Russia and China in check. We have lots of them, they are accurate and reliable.
Yeah France and the UK also have those, they are overkill, and pretty much useless in this day of age as anything more than a deterrent.
NATO forces could wipe the floor with Russian forces using conventional weaponry, hence the reason Russia keeps on rattling her nuclear saber.
Everyone under our umbrella of protection should be grateful, not demanding of even more.
Who says that they are not grateful?
What is it you are after, flowers and a thank you card?
As to demanding, well if those nations whos ""gratitude"" you imagine should come without question fall, then so would your own soon after by default.
Because the fact of the matter is we are linked together in ways we cannot hope to possibly fully understand or appreciate.
Xenophobic isolationism simply does not fly in the world in which we live.
Again NATO exists for a reason, and that reason is clear as day.
NATO's essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means. Collective defence is at the heart of the Alliance and creates a spirit of solidarity and cohesion among its members.
www.nato.int...#:~:text=NATO's%20essential%20and%20enduring%20purpose,and%20cohesion%20among%20its%20members.[edit by]edit on 4-9-2023 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)
a reply to: andy06shake
Since the US is such an insignificant addition to Europe's own capabilities, why is our help being demanded in the largest share of contribution to Ukraine defense effort?
ETA: why do you keep talking about NATO, but Ukraine isn't a member, like you say you never claimed?
Since the US is such an insignificant addition to Europe's own capabilities, why is our help being demanded in the largest share of contribution to Ukraine defense effort?
ETA: why do you keep talking about NATO, but Ukraine isn't a member, like you say you never claimed?
edit on 9/4/2023 by CoyoteAngels
because: (no reason given)
a reply to: CoyoteAngels
Again where has it been said that US aid is insignificant?
You're perfectly aware that's not the case.
You seem to be trying rather hard to put words in other people's mouths now.
Twice no less.
Im sure Ukraine appreciates any and all assistance given considering they are fighting for their very survival as a nation.
Again Ukraine is not a member nation but they do have NATO support never mind support from all around the globe no less.
I beginning to ponder if you somehow resent that fact.
Since the US is such an insignificant addition to Europe's own capabilities, why is our help being demanded in the largest share of contribution to Ukraine defense effort?
Again where has it been said that US aid is insignificant?
You're perfectly aware that's not the case.
You seem to be trying rather hard to put words in other people's mouths now.
Twice no less.
Im sure Ukraine appreciates any and all assistance given considering they are fighting for their very survival as a nation.
ETA: why do you keep talking about NATO, but Ukraine isn't a member, like you say you never claimed?
Again Ukraine is not a member nation but they do have NATO support never mind support from all around the globe no less.
I beginning to ponder if you somehow resent that fact.
edit on 4-9-2023 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)
a reply to: andy06shake
I guess you misunderstood my misunderstanding.
"Yeah France and the UK also have those, they are overkill, and pretty much useless in this day of age as anything more than a deterrent.
NATO forces could wipe the floor with Russian forces using conventional weaponry, hence the reason Russia keeps on rattling her nuclear saber."
Here is where you said nukes are overkill... and useless except as deterent. Well, not without US nukes there is no overkill. and yes, MAD has kept nukes from being used. No small nation with a few rockets is going to launch, and the big dogs will destroy each other. Has worked since WW2
I guess you misunderstood my misunderstanding.
"Yeah France and the UK also have those, they are overkill, and pretty much useless in this day of age as anything more than a deterrent.
NATO forces could wipe the floor with Russian forces using conventional weaponry, hence the reason Russia keeps on rattling her nuclear saber."
Here is where you said nukes are overkill... and useless except as deterent. Well, not without US nukes there is no overkill. and yes, MAD has kept nukes from being used. No small nation with a few rockets is going to launch, and the big dogs will destroy each other. Has worked since WW2
a reply to: CoyoteAngels
i would argue that the true consensus failure for the usa came in syria, as iraq had blair pushing for his religious war few would not follow the us/britain into that war, britain saying no in syria cost the democrats as much as libya did, Ukraine had Johnson pushing the west, that really got this ball rolling and the us involved as it is.
i see the collapse in consensus for the us in syria as damming as canada saying f*ck you to britain in 1923, these are the ear marked dates we can say the empire of the day starts to lose its authority among its dominions, rightly or wrongly in ukraine johnson not biden or the eu led the charge..
my personal feeling is the us/uk/france should have done more to block putin going into ukraine and costing so many lives/and so much money at this rate we#'ll all end in a global conflict anyway.
i would argue that the true consensus failure for the usa came in syria, as iraq had blair pushing for his religious war few would not follow the us/britain into that war, britain saying no in syria cost the democrats as much as libya did, Ukraine had Johnson pushing the west, that really got this ball rolling and the us involved as it is.
i see the collapse in consensus for the us in syria as damming as canada saying f*ck you to britain in 1923, these are the ear marked dates we can say the empire of the day starts to lose its authority among its dominions, rightly or wrongly in ukraine johnson not biden or the eu led the charge..
my personal feeling is the us/uk/france should have done more to block putin going into ukraine and costing so many lives/and so much money at this rate we#'ll all end in a global conflict anyway.
a reply to: CoyoteAngels
Thing is, there are also tactical nukes. Would Russia using those trigger MAD?
I don't know the answer to that.
Thing is, there are also tactical nukes. Would Russia using those trigger MAD?
I don't know the answer to that.
a reply to: CoyoteAngels
Have you seen the size of the UK CoyoteAngels?
We don't bode to well in any sort of full-scale nuclear exchange.
And chances are we would be wiped off the map given the submarine bases, arms storage facilities, and our mere proximity to Russia same time or even before America got hit.
Not that our boats would not return the favor in kind.
Anyhoo I'm sitting here munching a perfect Chicken Korma and nan bread, with a nice beer, and the sun in the sky.
To nice a night to be arguing over Putin and politics.
You have yourself a great day/evening.
I'm away to enjoy the remainder of my munch.
Have you seen the size of the UK CoyoteAngels?
We don't bode to well in any sort of full-scale nuclear exchange.
And chances are we would be wiped off the map given the submarine bases, arms storage facilities, and our mere proximity to Russia same time or even before America got hit.
Not that our boats would not return the favor in kind.
Anyhoo I'm sitting here munching a perfect Chicken Korma and nan bread, with a nice beer, and the sun in the sky.
To nice a night to be arguing over Putin and politics.
You have yourself a great day/evening.
I'm away to enjoy the remainder of my munch.
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
" But when’s the last time the US has invaded a country for the purpose of annexing the land? "
The Territory of California in 1834 from Mexico .
" But when’s the last time the US has invaded a country for the purpose of annexing the land? "
The Territory of California in 1834 from Mexico .
a reply to: Oldcarpy2
It depends. We have laws that say that we MUST retaliate any attack on the US with bio, nuclear or chemical attacks.
I believe it's why we don't just come out and say COVID was an attack by China. US law requires severe retaliation.
But not if we don't acknowledge it was an attack.
It depends. We have laws that say that we MUST retaliate any attack on the US with bio, nuclear or chemical attacks.
I believe it's why we don't just come out and say COVID was an attack by China. US law requires severe retaliation.
But not if we don't acknowledge it was an attack.
originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: Oldcarpy2
It depends. We have laws that say that we MUST retaliate any attack on the US with bio, nuclear or chemical attacks.
I believe it's why we don't just come out and say COVID was an attack by China. US law requires severe retaliation.
But not if we don't acknowledge it was an attack.
COVID 19 was First Developed in a Lab in North Carolina Illegally by one Dr. Fauci . People Seem to Forget that .....
a reply to: Zanti Misfit
We did not invade Mexico for California. We did however, buy california in 1848 via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
We did not invade Mexico for California. We did however, buy california in 1848 via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.