[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Charlotte train murder: Graphic video captures random fatal stabbing of young Ukrainian refugee Berlin in July 1945 - Probably the best restored film material you'll watch from that time! Ok this is Funny Walking Through 1980s Los Angeles: The City That Reinvented Cool THE ZOMBIES OF AMERICA THE OLDEST PHOTOS OF NEW YORK YOU'VE NEVER SEEN John Rich – Calling Out P. Diddy, TVA Scandal, and Joel Osteen | SRS #232 Capablanca Teaches Us The ONLY Chess Opening You'll Ever Need "How Bruce Springsteen Fooled America" How ancient Rome was excavated in Italy in the 1920s. Unique rare videos and photos. Reagan JOKE On The Homeless The Deleted Wisdom (1776 Report) Sicko Transfaggots video The Englund Gambit Checkmate 20 Minutes Of Black DC Residents Supporting Trump's Federal Takeover! "Virginia Public Schools Deserve This Reckoning" "'Pack the Bags, We're Going on a Guilt Trip'—the Secret to the Democrats' Success" "Washington, D.C., Is a Disgrace" "Trump Orders New 'Highly Accurate' Census Excluding Illegals" what a freakin' insane asylum Sorry, CNN, We're Not Going to Stop Talking About the Russian Collusion Hoax "No Autopsy Can Restore the Democratic Party’s Viability" RIP Ozzy "Trump floats 'restriction' for Commanders if they fail to ditch nickname in favor of Redskins return" "Virginia Governor’s Race Heats Up As Republican Winsome Sears Does a Hard Reboot of Her Campaign" "We Hate Communism!!" "Mamdani and the Democratic Schism" "The 2nd Impeachment: Trump’s Popularity Still Scares Them to Death" "President Badass" "Jasmine Crockett's Train Wreck Interview Was a Disaster" "How Israel Used Spies, Smuggled Drones and AI to Stun and Hobble Iran" There hasn’T been ... a single updaTe To This siTe --- since I joined. "This Is Not What Authoritarianism Looks Like" America Erupts… ICE Raids Takeover The Streets AC/DC- Riff Raff + Go Down [VH1 Uncut, July 5, 1996] Why is Peter Schiff calling Bitcoin a ‘giant cult’ and how does this impact market sentiment? Esso Your Butt Buddy Horseshit jacks off to that shit "The Addled Activist Mind" "Don’t Stop with Harvard" "Does the Biden Cover-Up Have Two Layers?" "Pete Rose, 'Shoeless' Joe Reinstated by MLB, Eligible for HOF" "'Major Breakthrough': Here Are the Details on the China Trade Deal" Freepers Still Love war Parody ... Jump / Trump --- van Halen jump "The Democrat Meltdown Continues" "Yes, We Need Deportations Without Due Process" "Trump's Tariff Play Smart, Strategic, Working" "Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts" "Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands "Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies" Status: Not Logged In; Sign In International News See other International News Articles Title: Nothing to see here: Russia says it has right to deploy nukes in Crimea Source: HotAir URL Source: http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/ ... ght-to-deploy-nukes-in-crimea/ Published: Mar 11, 2015 Author: Jazz Shaw Post Date: 2015-03-11 09:03:34 by Tooconservative Keywords: Putin, Crimea, Ukraine Views: 1090 Comments: 13 This popped up as what was effectively a side note to another story, but it seems to be indicative of the new, swaggering attitude of Russia these days. Their Foreign Ministry official, Mikhail Ulyanov, had a few casual comments about some of the most recent territory seized by Putin, and it certainly sounds familiar to those of us who were around during the 80s. Russia has the right to deploy nuclear arms in the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea, which Moscow annexed from Ukraine last year, a Foreign Ministry official said on Wednesday, adding he knew of no plans to do so. “I don’t know if there are nuclear weapons there now. I don’t know about any plans, but in principle Russia can do it,” said Mikhail Ulyanov, the head of the ministry’s department on arms control During one of the panel discussions on 21st century Russia which we attended last week, the topic of their nuclear weapons program came up several times. One speaker mentioned that current intelligence indicates that Putin has been flushing large sums of their oil money over the past several years (until the prices tanked) into a program aimed at reinvigorating their nuclear arsenal. In previous years, a lack of maintenance and even black market problems had international observers wondering if their readiness was in decline, and it probably was. But Putin seems to have prioritized both their tactical weapons capability and their naval strength. (We’ve already seen that their long range bombers are still in good repair.) Putin may have no interest in helping lift his people out of poverty or modernizing his nation, but he’s certainly interested in returning Russia to the role of an empire, if not a superpower. With that in mind, would it really be all that surprising if he put some nukes in Crimea? (That is, of course, assuming that they’re not already there.) If this situation expands in any way and catches wider public attention, it’s no doubt going to bring renewed scrutiny to Barack Obama’s decision to pull back on our missile defense program in eastern Europe. Just what we need, right? Because it’s not as if we don’t already have enough people to worry about fighting these days. A way must be found to deal with Putin, not over individual atrocities inside his own country or specific border incursions, but in terms of his long range plans. If we keep our gaze focused elsewhere and ignore him for long enough, we’ll be back in the cold war before we know it. Poster Comment: I notice the spokesman's denials amount to a suggestion that Russian nukes are already present in Crimea. Cagey but not an slip of the tongue. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: All, A Pole, Pericles, redleghunter (#0) ...surprising if he put some nukes in Crimea? (That is, of course, assuming that they’re not already there.) If this situation expands in any way and catches wider public attention, it’s no doubt going to bring renewed scrutiny to Barack Obama’s decision to pull back on our missile defense program in eastern Europe. Just what we need, right? Because it’s not as if we don’t already have enough people to worry about fighting these days. NATO's conventional headache seems to be turning into a strategic nuclear migraine. Thanks a lot, General Strangelove Breedlove. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-11   9:07:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: TooConservative, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#0) Russia says it has right to deploy nukes in Crimea Since might makes right and there is no one to stop them,that's very true. If we keep our gaze focused elsewhere and ignore him for long enough, we’ll be back in the cold war before we know it. Which is EXACTLY what the neo-con bastards and their leftie trust fund children pals in the Dim Party that are so heavily invested in the defense industry dream about. Not only is war good for business,dividends,union jobs,and expanding business and political empires,but so is the threat of a potential war. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) sneakypete  posted on  2015-03-11   9:23:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: TooConservative (#1) NATO's conventional headache seems to be turning into a strategic nuclear migraine. Thanks a lot, General Strangelove Breedlove. Putin is playing the "revoke these sanctions now" cards just right. Hit on all the taboos the West will worry about. However, what should be known to him is that Obolo does not care what he does. As long as Putin does not interfere with Obolo's tee times and his March madness brackets, Paris could be in Russia's grasp next week! "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23) redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-11   9:57:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: redleghunter (#3) (Edited) ...Paris could be in Russia's grasp next week! You should be a speechwriter for McStain and Lady Lindsey. Apply now, generous salary and benefits! Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-11   10:03:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: TooConservative (#4) Well the old Soviets used to boast they could be in Paris within three weeks. Just upped the timeline given the paucity of EU defenses these days. "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever." (1 Peter 1:23) redleghunter  posted on  2015-03-11   10:24:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: redleghunter (#5) (Edited) Well the old Soviets used to boast they could be in Paris within three weeks. You recall when the Soviet archives were opened and we saw their actual plans for the conquest of Europe. They planned to use nuclear and chemical attacks immediately, no nice easy escalation that was always the imagined scenario of NATO and Pentagon planners. I read some writings and even a novel on how top-level NATO staffers envisioned a steady escalation toward battlefield and then strategic nukes. The tanks and BMPS would be sealed and ready to run coming through the Fulda Gap, their munition trucks and fuel trucks following behind. They would head for the Channel and not stop until they got there. They would use refugee panic, NBC attacks and anything else to pave their way. And all without any regard whatsoever for full strategic nuclear war between American and the USSR. And the Soviets gave consideration to nuking at least one major American city like Chicago, just to show us right off the bat that they weren't afraid of our strategic nukes. We misread the Soviets so badly on that war scenario. No one ever expected them to nuke or chemically attack our German bases as the opening move in an invasion. But that was their plan all along. A Pearl Harbor on German territory. As I recall, the actual plan was to be at the Channel in about 10 days, not three weeks. They seemed to believe that if they didn't totally shock/awe us and take immediate advantage that they might fail altogether. They favored boldness and an attack so swift and ruthless that we couldn't regroup before they got out of their tanks to look across the Channel at Britain. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-11   10:48:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: TooConservative (#6) You recall when the Soviet archives were opened and we saw their actual plans for the conquest of Europe. They planned to use nuclear and chemical attacks immediately, no nice easy escalation that was always the imagined scenario of NATO and Pentagon planners. I read some writings and even a novel on how top-level NATO staffers envisioned a steady escalation toward battlefield and then strategic nukes. The irony was that it was Kennedy's abandonment of Eisenhower's "New Look" military posture that make the Soviet strategy viable. Our interests were better served by allies developing an independent nuclear deter, as France did. Eisenhower had the right idea about NATO, there should have been no troops remaining in Europe by 1961. Had his advice been heeded there would have been no NATO dragging us into the Balkans and Libya. And the policy of dividing up our strength into forward based lines that we were then committed to, and thus eliminating many other possible options in the event of war was known as "Flexible Response!" nativist nationalist  posted on  2015-03-11   12:22:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: nativist nationalist (#7) Good points all. Recall that after WW II, Canada was our ally and considered the #4 military power in the world. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-11   12:48:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: TooConservative (#0) (Edited) Russia says it has right to deploy nukes in Crimea Would any rational line of thought conclude Russia should not be able to deploy nukes on its own territory? Does the US not have a right to deploy nukes in Alaska, Hawaii or Maine? A way must be found to deal with Putin, not over individual atrocities inside his own country or specific border incursions, but in terms of his long range plans. If we keep our gaze focused elsewhere and ignore him for long enough, we’ll be back in the cold war before we know it. So a new cold war is all the fault of Putin, and not Obama & associates who violated Ukraine's sovereignty by pushing the takeover there? Who writes this crap that ignores the US empire ambitions? (Of course, it's the US major media). Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-12   11:45:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: TooConservative (#6) You recall when the Soviet archives were opened and we saw their actual plans for the conquest of Europe. The US military has similar plans to take over just about every other country on the planet. That's normal. Making such plans is what about any military of any superpower does, and it's done independent of any political authority. Consider it part of keeping their military skills on edge. Implementing such plans, or preparing same, is when things go too far. Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-12   11:50:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: Pinguinite (#9) Who writes this crap that ignores the US empire ambitions? (Of course, it's the US major media). Apparently part of the job description. Media is much worse today than at any time in my lifetime. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   12:20:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: Pinguinite (#10) The US military has similar plans to take over just about every other country on the planet. Of course, this is the job of any military capable of offensive operations. The Soviet plans were especially bloodcurdling. They planned to use nukes and chem weapon attacks to drive large populations out onto the roads and autobahns to choke the ability of NATO to bring up reinforcements. But when the Soviet armored forces came to these refugees, the plan was to drive their tanks directly over them without slowing down. They had plans on how to make sure the tank columns were led by men who could be relied upon to grind up thousands of civilians under their tank treads without question. Stuff like that. Also, their ideas about nuking a Chicago immediately just to demonstrate they weren't afraid of our strategic nukes at all. Cold-blooded as the Pentagon is, they never produced such psychopathic plans for total war. What always struck me was, as low as our opinion of the USSR was, we had no idea they would be far worse than the Nazis in a showdown. And they knew that and counted on it. And that their only chance to win was to do so much shock/awe that they could overcome us before we could rally our forces and superior technology. Tooconservative  posted on  2015-03-12   12:28:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: TooConservative (#12) Cold-blooded as the Pentagon is, they never produced such psychopathic plans for total war. There's no way to know how true this is. The US has had it's own closet skeletons about false flags (i.e. airline bombing, was it, to push an invasion of Cuba)?. Do you honestly think we've seen all plans, however serious, considered by the US military? Pinguinite  posted on  2015-03-12   12:34:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com