By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump is over - Chemical Attacks Staged

 

Will you vote for Trump in 2020?

No 82 70.69%
 
Yes 34 29.31%
 
Total:116
Trumpstyle said:

Also people not to stop worrying about a "conflict" between Russia and Usa, if there ever will be one Russia dies in 2 seconds. People need to learn Russia is a weak country now where theirs GDP is lower than Italy's.

True, of course. I have my doubts that the US would be in a good shape after that, though. It's much, much, much harder to create a system of defence impenetrable to a missile than creating the missile itself. 

 

We're reliant on the fact that Russia has the good sense to know that it isn't in their interest to start a war.



Bet with PeH: 

I win if Arms sells over 700 000 units worldwide by the end of 2017.

Bet with WagnerPaiva:

 

I win if Emmanuel Macron wins the french presidential election May 7th 2017.

Around the Network
palou said:
Trumpstyle said:

Also people not to stop worrying about a "conflict" between Russia and Usa, if there ever will be one Russia dies in 2 seconds. People need to learn Russia is a weak country now where theirs GDP is lower than Italy's.

True, of course. I have my doubts that the US would be in a good shape after that, though. It's much, much, much harder to create a system of defence impenetrable to a missile than creating the missile itself. 

We're reliant on the fact that Russia has the good sense to know that it isn't in their interest to start a war.

No one wins when the missils start flying... no one.

MAD = mutually assured destruction

Trumpstyle, theres no case where you can handle all the missils the russia could fire,... so even if you destroy russia, they ll surely destroy the usa too.
There can be no winners, dont fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

Theres no good outcome to a war between the US and Russia.



d21lewis said:
This video was uploaded in March...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=LmYCgK2zHCI

*Puts on tin foil hat*

lol you really should avoid RT, it's little more than Putin's personal video blog.

They'd been blaming everyone under the sun outside of Assad for multiple chemical attacks dating back to near the start of the Arab Spring... heck, Russia blamed three seperate people in succession for the attacks in 2013, saying it was rebels, then someone I've since forgotten, but finishing by claiming the UK gave the chemical weapons to that volunteer white helmet rescue force to use (lol) in order to serve as an excuse for an attack.

Of course, the western world settled that particular issue by signing a deal with Russia and Assad saying there'd be no further use of chemical weapons and that they'd stop producing them/destroy their supply, so those motives seem pretty unlikely given they didn't act on them whatsoever. :p

This "false flag" accusation has been cast about every time they've been used, but if it had been an actual false flag the western powers would have actually capitalized on one of them and invaded by this point. Occam's razor suggests that the local regime, headed by a murderous autocrat which actually possesses all of the chemical weapons that have so far been used and has been linked to their use time after time, may in fact be behind some of these attacks heh



Wyrdness said:
DaaaBeast said:

Are you retarded or what? Russians have 1 200 000 army and something like 70 000 tanks, not to mention nuclear weapon, how do you imagine ending them in 2 seconds? Who will go to Russia and kill them all? You kid? Lol

Too much Rambo does that to people.

Russia has absolutely no hope of sustaining a prolonged war as with each passing year they grow weaker. Their economy is in shambles (seriously, a drop from $2.2 trillion in 2013 to around $1.5 trillion today GDP), their diplomatic position is weaker than its ever been, and their reputation across the globe is in the gutter. The one thing they had going for them were their relations with China, but those have been chilling for ages now and there's absolutely zero chance China would actually engage the US in a war on Russia's behalf, both because their military is no where near prepared for such things and because the US is essential to their continued growth.

Right now their best hope would be to deliver a kind of non-nuclear knock out punch early (unlikely) or keep the war localized in the form of a "proxy war" (a bit more likely), as they would have zero hope against a US/NATO coalition in the long term. They have an exceedingly strong military and navy, but those matter little when after a few months you can't afford to keep them in the field, and much of your territory across an enormous expanse is kept in check via expensive occupations (Crimea, Chechnya etc). Russia's erratic, reckless behavior as of late are signs of desperation, not strength.

What would almost certainly happen is Russia would be chased out of its positions abroad and peace talks would begin once they were largely contained to Russia proper, as at that point there'd be no benefit to anyone if the war went any further. People certainly aren't interested in invading Russia, fighting those large armies, or pushing them to a desperation point that they might actually contemplate using nuclear weapons (wouldn't put it past Putin), and Russia's economy is already on the brink without a full scale war as it is. 

There's only two real reasons Russia has been so adamant in their defense of Assad: Assad leases them their only year-round warm water naval port in the Mediterranean and is the only nation in an important region of the world that they share close ties with (the warm water naval port is also the primary reason Putin wanted Crimea, as it has one that is available for use for most of the year in the Black Sea). If war broke out and the US/NATO forces immediately destroyed Tartus (the leased naval port), and you can be assured they would do that virtually day 1, and thereafter they actively fired upon the Assad regime, most of the motive for the war would vanish in an instant. For that reason I can't really see it ever venturing much beyond a short proxy war, though no doubt there'd be all kinds of threats and bluffs thrown both ways.

The only country that would actively benefit from a full scale war, after all, would be a neutral China sitting back and watching. All countries involved know total war is not in their best interest, which is why we've been fighting proxy wars for decades now.



o_O.Q said:

if hitler had been successful in taking over the world and running the economies of those countries that would've been capitalist?

Globalism isn't inherent to socialism or capitalism.  It can work equally good in either.  

o_O.Q said:

why do people that do not know what capitalism and socialism are keep talking like they do?

It's almost as bad as the people that think Hitler was bad because he was "socialist".  As if it had nothing to do with the death camps, because apparently if he wasn't socialist, he would've been a much better person...  



Around the Network
Johnw1104 said:

lol you really should avoid RT, it's little more than Putin's personal video blog.

Reasons ?



KingofTrolls said:
Johnw1104 said:

lol you really should avoid RT, it's little more than Putin's personal video blog.

Reasons ?

Are you familiar with RT? I thought this was common knowledge, it's basically state-sponsored propaganda.



the-pi-guy said:
o_O.Q said:

if hitler had been successful in taking over the world and running the economies of those countries that would've been capitalist?

Globalism isn't inherent to socialism or capitalism.  It can work equally good in either.  

o_O.Q said:

why do people that do not know what capitalism and socialism are keep talking like they do?

It's almost as bad as the people that think Hitler was bad because he was "socialist".  As if it had nothing to do with the death camps, because apparently if he wasn't socialist, he would've been a much better person...  

I think it all stems from an inherent lack of understanding about what exactly constitutes "socialism" and "capitalism", as if they exist only in one form in practice. Hitler was nothing remotely close to a typical private property, free market capitalist, but neither was he an advocate for a completely state-run economy. 

When people talk about "Globalism", it can (and does) take many forms. Even if there were suddenly a singular world government, that would not necessitate that it be socialist or more capitalist-oriented. I suspect people spend more time being afraid of scary words and concepts than actually thinking them through.



He's been a giant hypocrite since before day one. His base never cared. I doubt they would budge even if he starts a war with Russia.

Last edited by Hiku - on 14 April 2018

Hyperbole much? I mean, there's a good point there, but man.