RUSSIA CLEARLY WANTS WAR with the USA!

[frigidweirdo]

What made you think US is supporting ISIS?

By leaving about 2000 Humvees to them. As Wikileaks said, it was performed by Hillary's order...

What made you think Russia is really fighting ISIS? When there's a lot of evidence they are killing more civilians than ISIS.

Ha-ha, not only Russia, every country would seems "strange" and "non-transparent", if you don't switch on a logic...

What's the benefit for Russia to spend ammunition (which costs money) for the civilians, absolutely non-significant for Russia? We are even not EU, migrants is not our problem.
Russia came to Syria to solve own problems - infiltration of ISIS terrorists and preachers through Turkey to the muslim regions of Caucas and Povolzh'e...

Do you know, how the media makes this "civilians"? ISIS don't have military uniform - so, they finding dead corpses, and hiding their weapon before the newsmaking...

1. That is incorrect. Hillary did not gave the humvees as a gift to ISIS. Actually 2,300 Humvees to be exact. Iraqi army abandoned their military installations when ISIS attacked Mosul in 2014 taking all vehicles they can find.

2. What's the benefit for Putin? They are making billions selling arms to Syria and Iran. Which they use these arms to terrorize other countries. At the end of the day.... Putin support terrorism. Do you think Putin is doing all these for free?

3. Putin thug is in Syria for one thing only. To make sure Assad will remain in power and nothing more. It's not because of ISIS. Both Assad and Putin should be charge of war crimes.

4. Are you saying that the media is part of the conspiracy in Aleppo? Is Aleppo under control of ISIS? Are you aware that there are independent Human Right Observatory in Syria? Why is that there are no news coming from Russia about your conspiracy theory? Think about this before you answer all my questions.......

1. Offcouse, she didn't gave a scissors to ISIS leader to cut red ribbon on a pack with Humvees. Offcourse, it was just an accident, because US usually stores a thousands of new Humvees in every large town at MiddleEast region )))

2. They making billions selling arms - and they spend arms for free - it's obvious, they don't want to be too rich... And for the terrorizing other countries it's enough to Putin to say "Boo" in his microphone...

3. Oh, Assad... Why Putin loves Assad too much?... It's interesting question - if Assad and Putin could say, they are gays and loving each others - would the all world society claim them, as "good" and cancel all sanctions and operations against Russia and Syria, to upkeep progressive moral and relations? For the freedom and liberty?

4. Which conspiracy theory of mine do you mean?

Which conspiracy theory? Hillary gave humvees to ISIS. Media is part of cover up. ISIS is in Aleppo.

Sorry comrade...... 1 to 4 you have not proven anything to make your buddy Putin a good guy. Try again.

"You comrades are eating horse in ravine..." )) I'm not saying, Putin is a good guy... I seek only logic - and finding giant lacks... Putin is bad, but not because any of your arguments...

As for 1-4... It would be good for me to take at least one Humvee to go hunting... Where in world I can take at least one as easy, as ISIS?

Putin is bad because he flies his military planes over other people's airspace without asking for permission, just because he can.
Putin is bad because he controls the media, he puts down the opposition to his rules, and makes sure he wins re-election with stuffed ballots and other such tricks.
Putin is bad because he doesn't value other people's lives. In Syria the US bombed some Assad forces, probably due to a mistake (I mean, they're not the best at avoiding friendly fire) and then Putin ordered a revenge attack against AID WORKERS for christ's sake.
Putin is bad because he destabilizes regions he wants, like South Ossetia, like the Crimea etc and then takes them when he sees it's the right time.

There's plenty more.

 

[Sbiker]

I know about western "silent censure", but here media could not grow the same system after USSR falling So, now we really have very different sources of news, almost all working only for money from differens sponsors and making own different picture of world...

One details could distort all landscape. Putin don't controls the media (he tries, but incompetence of lot of his officials is really great). People in mass don't love him - but really vote for him, because he's a best compromise for different social groups in Russia at this time. So, if you want to see regime, closer to classic democracy - it's now here, instead of any noise of western propaganda About real "dictatoric" role of Putin in life here - you can read a lot of this mems:

Тексты:Это Путин виноват — Русский эксперт

"Cat left their children - it's a Putin's guilty"
"Smoking, drunking, don't have a wife - it's a Putin's guilty"
"Have a little dick? - it's a Putin's guilty"

and so on

P.S. Similar jokes usually used about Stalin - "Stalin is reaches to present times". Like here http://demotivation.me/images/20100410/s9whfhphmo8r.jpg
"Stalin and Beria choosing place to planting tree <to make crush of Polish president plane in 2010 >, 10 april of 1940"

No, I think the picture you present is wrong. You say Putin is too incompetent to control the media. I don't believe this for a moment. He controls most of the media.

First channel is the most popular, then Rossiya. Both state owned.

Human Rights Watch seems to think Putin has a lot of control

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2009_web.pdf


"
Civil Society
The government continues tightening control over civil society through selective implementation of the law on NGOs, restriction and censure of protected expression and the media, and harassment of activists and human rights defenders."

"
2007 amendments to the extremism law allow any politically or ideologically motivated crime to be designated extremist. Russian authorities apply these provisions to silence government critics, and in 2008 initiated cases against NGOs, activists, and independent media, including internet sites and blogs."

This suggests a different picture to the one you're trying to present. I'm asking myself why you want to present such a view.

Offcourse, I present my view to advance my plans to conquer a whole world

I like to learn different point of views directly from different people here, without media filters. In exchange for it I'm trying to present, what I see here, in Russia, as eyewitness. It's not a secret, US is really world force №1 and all "independent" organizations from HRW to WADA are under US government control and doing, what ordered to them. If you seriously believe them - it's just an illustration, any critical approach has own borders...

I also don't trust the US government, nor do I trust the Russian govt. I see what the US govt has done and is doing, under Obama they are far more restrained than under the Republicans, although US "interests" are still at play even then.

However saying that the US is bad, doesn't mean that Russia is good. The reality is that Russia, China and the US are going to be the bain of the world for a long time to come.

Yeah, governments are bad, but details again

NATO has no reason to exist. The USSR is long gone. It should have been disbanded. Since it was not, NATO must find another enemy to keep it alive. Bingo....Russia.

You think Russia has nothing to fear from NATO, (a typical western belief entirely based on nothing) but I doubt Russians and Putin find your words reassuring.

Clinton promised not to expand NATO, then NATO expanded right up to Russian borders and regularly performs war games along that border. Stations military bases in the Baltics and throughout eastern Europe. Then, Obama/NATO commits a coup in Ukraine overthrowing an elected leader replacing him with a non-elected US puppet. This is an overt aggression in the minds of Russia. Then...the West claims Russia instigated violence in Kiev, when it was western assets...then Ukrainian rebels with Russian ties in Donbass don't like the coup and fight...the west blames Russia again....then MH17 happens and Obama and Kerry IMMEDIATELY blame Russia (clearly an attempted false flag) without EVER providing ANY evidence....then Obama places economic sanctions on Russia...an act of war.

The aggressor here is the West. Not Russia.

War is the health of the State. ALWAYS!!!

Not really. NATO is like the US and its allies come together. After the Cold War ended there was plenty of reason to keep it going.

What you're saying has actually happened with ISIS and the "War on Terror" which was used to keep the allies happy and together.

Russia was a nothingness for the US, they might want Russia weak, but it didn't help the right and their being tough on stuff rhetoric going. The Ukraine happened because there has been an internal fight within the country over whether to go west or east, the native Ukrainians wanting west, the Russians the east, and they wanted the Crimea back. Who gained from the Ukraine? Russia. The US didn't go in and fight, didn't do much at all. Much less than they have done to OPEC countries. The US sort of seemed like it didn't actually care that much.

Why shouldn't Obama put economic sanctions against Russia? Russia went and took the land of another country. They did something similar in Georgia. Somehow you've managed to ignore the fact that it's happened twice, and somehow it's the American's fault the second time. Then whose fault was it the first time if it clearly wasn't Russia's fault?

What's wrong? US advanced own case law system as world law. Excellent, let's play with it. Kosovo left the Serbia unilaterally and claim their independence - US supported this. It's a precedent. Since February 2008 US MUST support also South Osetia, leaving Georgia and Crimea, leaving Ukraine. In other case US government violates own laws. And all complaints against Russia about Crimea and South Osetia, sanctions, propaganda - it's all devoted to hide a fact of international crime...

But the law system has nothing to do with it here.

Kosovo left Serbia. Anyone with a fair mind would understand why. The Serbs treated the Kosovan Albanians like shit. Anyone who does that should lose the people and land. However the more powerful won't lose them.

Anyone looking at South Ossetia will see that it's the other way around. The US however didn't support South Ossetia much. What's the need? The Russians were supporting that.

As for hiding international crimes. No, I disagree. Why would the US need to hide them? They invaded Iraq? Previous examples show us that the US justifies any action and gets public support BEFORE they go in. The US with the Ukraine didn't do much at all. There was a little, but most Americans didn't care. And the US didn't go in. Russia did.

What? Law is a main principle in international politics. US used the law principle for a century, to get world domination... But if US want now to change game rule to brute force competition - so, don't ask anymore, who really wants war...

What do you know about Osetia and Georgia? I was there both, and also was in Abhasia. Georgians and Osetin - are gladly people, but saving mutual offenses for a centuries and dreaming about genocide. When NATO upkept Georgia, they tried to kill all civilians in Osetia - Russia just prevented it. So were with Crimea - your media didn't say about "Nazi train of death" to Crimea and nazi strike to Crimean bus group with a lot of deads...Or trying to perform terroristic acts by Ukraine special forces in Crimea... It a 100% similar situation, like Kosovo.

As for other Ukraine - there are no any Russian soldiers there... except a lot of volunteers... Putin cannot prevent them (if he try - we can elect another "Putin"...), the volunteers are learning to fight and receiving experience - to enlarge conscription reserv for Russia forces in future global war... ))

Nothing has changed much. The laws in respect to international law aren't that strong in the first place. Look at Iraq, the US basically made the law fit their desire, rather than the other way around.

Putin does the same thing, though cares less about the law. China just simply ignores it.

What military action did NATO take part in in South Ossetia? As far as I know there was none.

As for the Crimea, there was also no NATO troops or forces doing anything there, there was no killing of people by NATO troops. You sound like you're making stuff up now.

Even criminals, being organized, have own laws. Offcourse, any side cares of own benefit, but all of them usulally playing laws. If someone demonstratively ends to follow laws - it's a reason for other to strike them together. US have a lot allies by NATO, but would it be enough, when other responsible world would be against, like it was against Hitler?

What military action did NATO take part in in South Ossetia? As far as I know there was none. So, it means, you know something about NATO operations on Ukraine? lol

NATO didn't any actions in Ossetia, but trained, equipped and organized Georgian army. I meant it. Btw, Ukrainian army too )

As for the Crimea, there was also no NATO troops or forces doing anything there

but intended to...Look here: Renovation of Sevastopol School #5, Ukraine - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

and think, in which situation this renovation could be useful for US government.... If you have something to say about "humanitarian" action - I'll believe in iit only if US will do something similar for the children of Donbass, which suffer greatly more with schools, broken by Ukrainian shells...

 

[Sbiker]

Putin is bad because he flies his military planes over other people's airspace without asking for permission, just because he can.

You just said, there are no laws in international relations... He can - he flies, why you consider it as bad?

Putin is bad because he controls the media, he puts down the opposition to his rules, and makes sure he wins re-election with stuffed ballots and other such tricks.

If he controls the media - what about Dozhd channel? About opposition... Do the US have Communist party in government? But Russia, with evil olygarchic dictator Putin - DO. What else you can say about "pressing opposition"?

Putin is bad because he doesn't value other people's lives. In Syria the US bombed some Assad forces, probably due to a mistake (I mean, they're not the best at avoiding friendly fire) and then Putin ordered a revenge attack against AID WORKERS for christ's sake.

First - there are no proofs about it. You believe in it only because US army did the same in Afganistan - and it's proved fact (http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...d-ones-are-least-careless-human-life-american).

At least, Russian forces have pesmission from legal government of Syria to fly there. Do the US forces have the same?

Putin is bad because he destabilizes regions he wants, like South Ossetia, like the Crimea etc and then takes them when he sees it's the right time.

Brilliantly! Without Putin it was both slaughter in Ossetia and planned by nazi slaghter in Crimea. WITH Putin there are no mass murders - it's a fact. Follow US propaganda, Putin may be guilty in invasions, occupations, annexations, impudent behavior in international airspace - but destabilization??? Big LOL!

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I think the picture you present is wrong. You say Putin is too incompetent to control the media. I don't believe this for a moment. He controls most of the media.

First channel is the most popular, then Rossiya. Both state owned.

Human Rights Watch seems to think Putin has a lot of control

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/wr2009_web.pdf


"
Civil Society
The government continues tightening control over civil society through selective implementation of the law on NGOs, restriction and censure of protected expression and the media, and harassment of activists and human rights defenders."

"
2007 amendments to the extremism law allow any politically or ideologically motivated crime to be designated extremist. Russian authorities apply these provisions to silence government critics, and in 2008 initiated cases against NGOs, activists, and independent media, including internet sites and blogs."

This suggests a different picture to the one you're trying to present. I'm asking myself why you want to present such a view.

Offcourse, I present my view to advance my plans to conquer a whole world

I like to learn different point of views directly from different people here, without media filters. In exchange for it I'm trying to present, what I see here, in Russia, as eyewitness. It's not a secret, US is really world force №1 and all "independent" organizations from HRW to WADA are under US government control and doing, what ordered to them. If you seriously believe them - it's just an illustration, any critical approach has own borders...

I also don't trust the US government, nor do I trust the Russian govt. I see what the US govt has done and is doing, under Obama they are far more restrained than under the Republicans, although US "interests" are still at play even then.

However saying that the US is bad, doesn't mean that Russia is good. The reality is that Russia, China and the US are going to be the bain of the world for a long time to come.

Yeah, governments are bad, but details again

Not really. NATO is like the US and its allies come together. After the Cold War ended there was plenty of reason to keep it going.

What you're saying has actually happened with ISIS and the "War on Terror" which was used to keep the allies happy and together.

Russia was a nothingness for the US, they might want Russia weak, but it didn't help the right and their being tough on stuff rhetoric going. The Ukraine happened because there has been an internal fight within the country over whether to go west or east, the native Ukrainians wanting west, the Russians the east, and they wanted the Crimea back. Who gained from the Ukraine? Russia. The US didn't go in and fight, didn't do much at all. Much less than they have done to OPEC countries. The US sort of seemed like it didn't actually care that much.

Why shouldn't Obama put economic sanctions against Russia? Russia went and took the land of another country. They did something similar in Georgia. Somehow you've managed to ignore the fact that it's happened twice, and somehow it's the American's fault the second time. Then whose fault was it the first time if it clearly wasn't Russia's fault?

What's wrong? US advanced own case law system as world law. Excellent, let's play with it. Kosovo left the Serbia unilaterally and claim their independence - US supported this. It's a precedent. Since February 2008 US MUST support also South Osetia, leaving Georgia and Crimea, leaving Ukraine. In other case US government violates own laws. And all complaints against Russia about Crimea and South Osetia, sanctions, propaganda - it's all devoted to hide a fact of international crime...

But the law system has nothing to do with it here.

Kosovo left Serbia. Anyone with a fair mind would understand why. The Serbs treated the Kosovan Albanians like shit. Anyone who does that should lose the people and land. However the more powerful won't lose them.

Anyone looking at South Ossetia will see that it's the other way around. The US however didn't support South Ossetia much. What's the need? The Russians were supporting that.

As for hiding international crimes. No, I disagree. Why would the US need to hide them? They invaded Iraq? Previous examples show us that the US justifies any action and gets public support BEFORE they go in. The US with the Ukraine didn't do much at all. There was a little, but most Americans didn't care. And the US didn't go in. Russia did.

What? Law is a main principle in international politics. US used the law principle for a century, to get world domination... But if US want now to change game rule to brute force competition - so, don't ask anymore, who really wants war...

What do you know about Osetia and Georgia? I was there both, and also was in Abhasia. Georgians and Osetin - are gladly people, but saving mutual offenses for a centuries and dreaming about genocide. When NATO upkept Georgia, they tried to kill all civilians in Osetia - Russia just prevented it. So were with Crimea - your media didn't say about "Nazi train of death" to Crimea and nazi strike to Crimean bus group with a lot of deads...Or trying to perform terroristic acts by Ukraine special forces in Crimea... It a 100% similar situation, like Kosovo.

As for other Ukraine - there are no any Russian soldiers there... except a lot of volunteers... Putin cannot prevent them (if he try - we can elect another "Putin"...), the volunteers are learning to fight and receiving experience - to enlarge conscription reserv for Russia forces in future global war... ))

Nothing has changed much. The laws in respect to international law aren't that strong in the first place. Look at Iraq, the US basically made the law fit their desire, rather than the other way around.

Putin does the same thing, though cares less about the law. China just simply ignores it.

What military action did NATO take part in in South Ossetia? As far as I know there was none.

As for the Crimea, there was also no NATO troops or forces doing anything there, there was no killing of people by NATO troops. You sound like you're making stuff up now.

Even criminals, being organized, have own laws. Offcourse, any side cares of own benefit, but all of them usulally playing laws. If someone demonstratively ends to follow laws - it's a reason for other to strike them together. US have a lot allies by NATO, but would it be enough, when other responsible world would be against, like it was against Hitler?

What military action did NATO take part in in South Ossetia? As far as I know there was none. So, it means, you know something about NATO operations on Ukraine? lol

NATO didn't any actions in Ossetia, but trained, equipped and organized Georgian army. I meant it. Btw, Ukrainian army too )

As for the Crimea, there was also no NATO troops or forces doing anything there

but intended to...Look here: Renovation of Sevastopol School #5, Ukraine - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

and think, in which situation this renovation could be useful for US government.... If you have something to say about "humanitarian" action - I'll believe in iit only if US will do something similar for the children of Donbass, which suffer greatly more with schools, broken by Ukrainian shells...

When did NATO train, equip and organize the Georgian army?

NATO Opens Training Center to 'Pay Off' Georgia – German Media

I have a join NATO/Georgian training center opening in 2015, that was called "provocative" by Russia. How is it provocative that two allied nations do training exercises together? I notice you didn't provide any evidence for this.

Okay, so you admit there were no NATO troops in the Ukraine. Got it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Putin is bad because he flies his military planes over other people's airspace without asking for permission, just because he can.

You just said, there are no laws in international relations... He can - he flies, why you consider it as bad?

Putin is bad because he controls the media, he puts down the opposition to his rules, and makes sure he wins re-election with stuffed ballots and other such tricks.

If he controls the media - what about Dozhd channel? About opposition... Do the US have Communist party in government? But Russia, with evil olygarchic dictator Putin - DO. What else you can say about "pressing opposition"?

Putin is bad because he doesn't value other people's lives. In Syria the US bombed some Assad forces, probably due to a mistake (I mean, they're not the best at avoiding friendly fire) and then Putin ordered a revenge attack against AID WORKERS for christ's sake.

First - there are no proofs about it. You believe in it only because US army did the same in Afganistan - and it's proved fact (http://www.economist.com/news/asia/...d-ones-are-least-careless-human-life-american).

At least, Russian forces have pesmission from legal government of Syria to fly there. Do the US forces have the same?

Putin is bad because he destabilizes regions he wants, like South Ossetia, like the Crimea etc and then takes them when he sees it's the right time.

Brilliantly! Without Putin it was both slaughter in Ossetia and planned by nazi slaghter in Crimea. WITH Putin there are no mass murders - it's a fact. Follow US propaganda, Putin may be guilty in invasions, occupations, annexations, impudent behavior in international airspace - but destabilization??? Big LOL!

No, I didn't say there weren't any international laws. I said they weren't strong.

Something is good, or bad, in my opinion, regardless of whether there is a law against it or not. I don't have a problem with polygamy being legal, I think polygamy isn't good, however in the US it is against the law, and in other countries it isn't.

If he controls the media, what about Dozhd? Well, he controls most of the media, and he appears, based on what you've said, to attack the channel and call it anti-Russian all the time. Mind games. Also they had to leave their place of work a few years back and set up somewhere else. Just because they're still transmitting, doesn't mean A) that it's not being harassed, B) that Putin sees it as advantageous to have such a channel to show he's "fair", ie, look at the argument you're giving, but he can also keep it on a tight leash.

No proof that Russia took part in a revenge attack? No, but it's pretty clear to anyone who wants to see it. It happened days after the US's attack and the language come out at the time was "fuck you America".

Syria conflict: US air strikes 'kill dozens of government troops' - BBC News

"A spokesman for the US administration expressed "regret" for the "unintentional loss of life"."

"US envoy Samantha Power accused Russia of "pulling a stunt" by calling an emergency meeting of the council."

So, Russia was pissed off that the US killed some Assad troops. They went to the UN and called an emergency meeting, the US called Russia out on this, pissing them off again.

Russia's response was

Russia warns against US attack on Syrian forces - Evening Express

"Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said a US intervention against the Syrian army “will lead to terrible, tectonic consequences not only on the territory of this country but also in the region on the whole”."

Ie, a threat.

Three days later this happens

Syria aid convoy attack: US 'holds Russia responsible' - BBC News

"
Syria aid convoy attack: US 'holds Russia responsible'"

"Meanwhile, US officials have told the BBC that two Russian war planes were responsible for the attack."

Russia denied it;

"And the country's foreign ministry spokeswoman said the US government had "no facts" to support its claim, adding: "We have nothing to do with this situation.""

And denied it in a similar manner to when the Malaysian Airlines plane was shot down.

No craters?

Looks like one to me.

Oh, and then:

"Separately, an air strike hit a medical centre near Aleppo on Tuesday night local time, killing four medics working for the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organizations (UOSSM), the group said."

Oh, come on, coincidence after coincidence after denial after denial. It's pretty clear what happened to anyone who chooses to dot the dot.

Russia releases a statement saying they joined all the dots together and they're certain it's a horse.

 

[Sbiker]

Offcourse, I present my view to advance my plans to conquer a whole world

I like to learn different point of views directly from different people here, without media filters. In exchange for it I'm trying to present, what I see here, in Russia, as eyewitness. It's not a secret, US is really world force №1 and all "independent" organizations from HRW to WADA are under US government control and doing, what ordered to them. If you seriously believe them - it's just an illustration, any critical approach has own borders...

I also don't trust the US government, nor do I trust the Russian govt. I see what the US govt has done and is doing, under Obama they are far more restrained than under the Republicans, although US "interests" are still at play even then.

However saying that the US is bad, doesn't mean that Russia is good. The reality is that Russia, China and the US are going to be the bain of the world for a long time to come.

Yeah, governments are bad, but details again

What's wrong? US advanced own case law system as world law. Excellent, let's play with it. Kosovo left the Serbia unilaterally and claim their independence - US supported this. It's a precedent. Since February 2008 US MUST support also South Osetia, leaving Georgia and Crimea, leaving Ukraine. In other case US government violates own laws. And all complaints against Russia about Crimea and South Osetia, sanctions, propaganda - it's all devoted to hide a fact of international crime...

But the law system has nothing to do with it here.

Kosovo left Serbia. Anyone with a fair mind would understand why. The Serbs treated the Kosovan Albanians like shit. Anyone who does that should lose the people and land. However the more powerful won't lose them.

Anyone looking at South Ossetia will see that it's the other way around. The US however didn't support South Ossetia much. What's the need? The Russians were supporting that.

As for hiding international crimes. No, I disagree. Why would the US need to hide them? They invaded Iraq? Previous examples show us that the US justifies any action and gets public support BEFORE they go in. The US with the Ukraine didn't do much at all. There was a little, but most Americans didn't care. And the US didn't go in. Russia did.

What? Law is a main principle in international politics. US used the law principle for a century, to get world domination... But if US want now to change game rule to brute force competition - so, don't ask anymore, who really wants war...

What do you know about Osetia and Georgia? I was there both, and also was in Abhasia. Georgians and Osetin - are gladly people, but saving mutual offenses for a centuries and dreaming about genocide. When NATO upkept Georgia, they tried to kill all civilians in Osetia - Russia just prevented it. So were with Crimea - your media didn't say about "Nazi train of death" to Crimea and nazi strike to Crimean bus group with a lot of deads...Or trying to perform terroristic acts by Ukraine special forces in Crimea... It a 100% similar situation, like Kosovo.

As for other Ukraine - there are no any Russian soldiers there... except a lot of volunteers... Putin cannot prevent them (if he try - we can elect another "Putin"...), the volunteers are learning to fight and receiving experience - to enlarge conscription reserv for Russia forces in future global war... ))

Nothing has changed much. The laws in respect to international law aren't that strong in the first place. Look at Iraq, the US basically made the law fit their desire, rather than the other way around.

Putin does the same thing, though cares less about the law. China just simply ignores it.

What military action did NATO take part in in South Ossetia? As far as I know there was none.

As for the Crimea, there was also no NATO troops or forces doing anything there, there was no killing of people by NATO troops. You sound like you're making stuff up now.

Even criminals, being organized, have own laws. Offcourse, any side cares of own benefit, but all of them usulally playing laws. If someone demonstratively ends to follow laws - it's a reason for other to strike them together. US have a lot allies by NATO, but would it be enough, when other responsible world would be against, like it was against Hitler?

What military action did NATO take part in in South Ossetia? As far as I know there was none. So, it means, you know something about NATO operations on Ukraine? lol

NATO didn't any actions in Ossetia, but trained, equipped and organized Georgian army. I meant it. Btw, Ukrainian army too )

As for the Crimea, there was also no NATO troops or forces doing anything there

but intended to...Look here: Renovation of Sevastopol School #5, Ukraine - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

and think, in which situation this renovation could be useful for US government.... If you have something to say about "humanitarian" action - I'll believe in iit only if US will do something similar for the children of Donbass, which suffer greatly more with schools, broken by Ukrainian shells...

When did NATO train, equip and organize the Georgian army?

NATO Opens Training Center to 'Pay Off' Georgia – German Media

I have a join NATO/Georgian training center opening in 2015, that was called "provocative" by Russia. How is it provocative that two allied nations do training exercises together? I notice you didn't provide any evidence for this.

Man, read the wiki first!

The Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP) training was conducted using U.S. Special Operations Forces and U.S. Marine Corps forces from May 2002 to May 2004
Georgian Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, so you admit there were no NATO troops in the Ukraine. Got it.

Rapid Trident | U.S. Army in Europe

 

[frigidweirdo]

I also don't trust the US government, nor do I trust the Russian govt. I see what the US govt has done and is doing, under Obama they are far more restrained than under the Republicans, although US "interests" are still at play even then.

However saying that the US is bad, doesn't mean that Russia is good. The reality is that Russia, China and the US are going to be the bain of the world for a long time to come.

Yeah, governments are bad, but details again

But the law system has nothing to do with it here.

Kosovo left Serbia. Anyone with a fair mind would understand why. The Serbs treated the Kosovan Albanians like shit. Anyone who does that should lose the people and land. However the more powerful won't lose them.

Anyone looking at South Ossetia will see that it's the other way around. The US however didn't support South Ossetia much. What's the need? The Russians were supporting that.

As for hiding international crimes. No, I disagree. Why would the US need to hide them? They invaded Iraq? Previous examples show us that the US justifies any action and gets public support BEFORE they go in. The US with the Ukraine didn't do much at all. There was a little, but most Americans didn't care. And the US didn't go in. Russia did.

What? Law is a main principle in international politics. US used the law principle for a century, to get world domination... But if US want now to change game rule to brute force competition - so, don't ask anymore, who really wants war...

What do you know about Osetia and Georgia? I was there both, and also was in Abhasia. Georgians and Osetin - are gladly people, but saving mutual offenses for a centuries and dreaming about genocide. When NATO upkept Georgia, they tried to kill all civilians in Osetia - Russia just prevented it. So were with Crimea - your media didn't say about "Nazi train of death" to Crimea and nazi strike to Crimean bus group with a lot of deads...Or trying to perform terroristic acts by Ukraine special forces in Crimea... It a 100% similar situation, like Kosovo.

As for other Ukraine - there are no any Russian soldiers there... except a lot of volunteers... Putin cannot prevent them (if he try - we can elect another "Putin"...), the volunteers are learning to fight and receiving experience - to enlarge conscription reserv for Russia forces in future global war... ))

Nothing has changed much. The laws in respect to international law aren't that strong in the first place. Look at Iraq, the US basically made the law fit their desire, rather than the other way around.

Putin does the same thing, though cares less about the law. China just simply ignores it.

What military action did NATO take part in in South Ossetia? As far as I know there was none.

As for the Crimea, there was also no NATO troops or forces doing anything there, there was no killing of people by NATO troops. You sound like you're making stuff up now.

Even criminals, being organized, have own laws. Offcourse, any side cares of own benefit, but all of them usulally playing laws. If someone demonstratively ends to follow laws - it's a reason for other to strike them together. US have a lot allies by NATO, but would it be enough, when other responsible world would be against, like it was against Hitler?

What military action did NATO take part in in South Ossetia? As far as I know there was none. So, it means, you know something about NATO operations on Ukraine? lol

NATO didn't any actions in Ossetia, but trained, equipped and organized Georgian army. I meant it. Btw, Ukrainian army too )

As for the Crimea, there was also no NATO troops or forces doing anything there

but intended to...Look here: Renovation of Sevastopol School #5, Ukraine - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

and think, in which situation this renovation could be useful for US government.... If you have something to say about "humanitarian" action - I'll believe in iit only if US will do something similar for the children of Donbass, which suffer greatly more with schools, broken by Ukrainian shells...

When did NATO train, equip and organize the Georgian army?

NATO Opens Training Center to 'Pay Off' Georgia – German Media

I have a join NATO/Georgian training center opening in 2015, that was called "provocative" by Russia. How is it provocative that two allied nations do training exercises together? I notice you didn't provide any evidence for this.

Man, read the wiki first!

The Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP) training was conducted using U.S. Special Operations Forces and U.S. Marine Corps forces from May 2002 to May 2004
Georgian Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, so you admit there were no NATO troops in the Ukraine. Got it.

Rapid Trident | U.S. Army in Europe

View attachment 93133

It's your argument. You're the one who has to present evidence.

Then again I read your evidence, which you clearly didn't.

"The Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP) was an American-sponsored 18-month, $64-million program aimed at increasing the capabilities of the Georgian armed forces by training and equipping four 600-man battalions with light weapons, vehicles and communications. The program enabled the US to expedite funding for the Georgian military for Operation Enduring Freedom."

See the last part. Operation Enduring Freedom? That would be Afghanistan.

200 troops were sent in 2002. The Russo-Georgia War was in 2008. There's a timeline difference of 6 years here.

So, what do you have? The US training and sending money to a country that just happens to border Russia. The country then goes to war 6 years later, but it was started by Russia.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Putin is good because he opposes obama and it doesn't get better than that. Opposing obama is God's work. Angels do it.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Putin is good because he opposes obama and it doesn't get better than that. Opposing obama is God's work. Angels do it.

American patriotism, more twisted than twisted pasta.

 

[Sbiker]

Yeah, governments are bad, but details again
What? Law is a main principle in international politics. US used the law principle for a century, to get world domination... But if US want now to change game rule to brute force competition - so, don't ask anymore, who really wants war...

What do you know about Osetia and Georgia? I was there both, and also was in Abhasia. Georgians and Osetin - are gladly people, but saving mutual offenses for a centuries and dreaming about genocide. When NATO upkept Georgia, they tried to kill all civilians in Osetia - Russia just prevented it. So were with Crimea - your media didn't say about "Nazi train of death" to Crimea and nazi strike to Crimean bus group with a lot of deads...Or trying to perform terroristic acts by Ukraine special forces in Crimea... It a 100% similar situation, like Kosovo.

As for other Ukraine - there are no any Russian soldiers there... except a lot of volunteers... Putin cannot prevent them (if he try - we can elect another "Putin"...), the volunteers are learning to fight and receiving experience - to enlarge conscription reserv for Russia forces in future global war... ))

Nothing has changed much. The laws in respect to international law aren't that strong in the first place. Look at Iraq, the US basically made the law fit their desire, rather than the other way around.

Putin does the same thing, though cares less about the law. China just simply ignores it.

What military action did NATO take part in in South Ossetia? As far as I know there was none.

As for the Crimea, there was also no NATO troops or forces doing anything there, there was no killing of people by NATO troops. You sound like you're making stuff up now.

Even criminals, being organized, have own laws. Offcourse, any side cares of own benefit, but all of them usulally playing laws. If someone demonstratively ends to follow laws - it's a reason for other to strike them together. US have a lot allies by NATO, but would it be enough, when other responsible world would be against, like it was against Hitler?

What military action did NATO take part in in South Ossetia? As far as I know there was none. So, it means, you know something about NATO operations on Ukraine? lol

NATO didn't any actions in Ossetia, but trained, equipped and organized Georgian army. I meant it. Btw, Ukrainian army too )

As for the Crimea, there was also no NATO troops or forces doing anything there

but intended to...Look here: Renovation of Sevastopol School #5, Ukraine - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

and think, in which situation this renovation could be useful for US government.... If you have something to say about "humanitarian" action - I'll believe in iit only if US will do something similar for the children of Donbass, which suffer greatly more with schools, broken by Ukrainian shells...

When did NATO train, equip and organize the Georgian army?

NATO Opens Training Center to 'Pay Off' Georgia – German Media

I have a join NATO/Georgian training center opening in 2015, that was called "provocative" by Russia. How is it provocative that two allied nations do training exercises together? I notice you didn't provide any evidence for this.

Man, read the wiki first!

The Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP) training was conducted using U.S. Special Operations Forces and U.S. Marine Corps forces from May 2002 to May 2004
Georgian Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, so you admit there were no NATO troops in the Ukraine. Got it.

Rapid Trident | U.S. Army in Europe

View attachment 93133

It's your argument. You're the one who has to present evidence.

Then again I read your evidence, which you clearly didn't.

"The Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP) was an American-sponsored 18-month, $64-million program aimed at increasing the capabilities of the Georgian armed forces by training and equipping four 600-man battalions with light weapons, vehicles and communications. The program enabled the US to expedite funding for the Georgian military for Operation Enduring Freedom."

See the last part. Operation Enduring Freedom? That would be Afghanistan.

200 troops were sent in 2002. The Russo-Georgia War was in 2008. There's a timeline difference of 6 years here.

So, what do you have? The US training and sending money to a country that just happens to border Russia. The country then goes to war 6 years later, but it was started by Russia.

Yes, offcourse, artful Russian forces close to afternoon of 8.8.08 suddenly attacked Georgian forces which peacefully murdered civilians in Tskhinvali since evening of 7.8.08...
Official independent EU commitee, apparently, lies:

EU blames Georgia for starting war with Russia

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nothing has changed much. The laws in respect to international law aren't that strong in the first place. Look at Iraq, the US basically made the law fit their desire, rather than the other way around.

Putin does the same thing, though cares less about the law. China just simply ignores it.

What military action did NATO take part in in South Ossetia? As far as I know there was none.

As for the Crimea, there was also no NATO troops or forces doing anything there, there was no killing of people by NATO troops. You sound like you're making stuff up now.

Even criminals, being organized, have own laws. Offcourse, any side cares of own benefit, but all of them usulally playing laws. If someone demonstratively ends to follow laws - it's a reason for other to strike them together. US have a lot allies by NATO, but would it be enough, when other responsible world would be against, like it was against Hitler?

What military action did NATO take part in in South Ossetia? As far as I know there was none. So, it means, you know something about NATO operations on Ukraine? lol

NATO didn't any actions in Ossetia, but trained, equipped and organized Georgian army. I meant it. Btw, Ukrainian army too )

As for the Crimea, there was also no NATO troops or forces doing anything there

but intended to...Look here: Renovation of Sevastopol School #5, Ukraine - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

and think, in which situation this renovation could be useful for US government.... If you have something to say about "humanitarian" action - I'll believe in iit only if US will do something similar for the children of Donbass, which suffer greatly more with schools, broken by Ukrainian shells...

When did NATO train, equip and organize the Georgian army?

NATO Opens Training Center to 'Pay Off' Georgia – German Media

I have a join NATO/Georgian training center opening in 2015, that was called "provocative" by Russia. How is it provocative that two allied nations do training exercises together? I notice you didn't provide any evidence for this.

Man, read the wiki first!

The Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP) training was conducted using U.S. Special Operations Forces and U.S. Marine Corps forces from May 2002 to May 2004
Georgian Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, so you admit there were no NATO troops in the Ukraine. Got it.

Rapid Trident | U.S. Army in Europe

View attachment 93133

It's your argument. You're the one who has to present evidence.

Then again I read your evidence, which you clearly didn't.

"The Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP) was an American-sponsored 18-month, $64-million program aimed at increasing the capabilities of the Georgian armed forces by training and equipping four 600-man battalions with light weapons, vehicles and communications. The program enabled the US to expedite funding for the Georgian military for Operation Enduring Freedom."

See the last part. Operation Enduring Freedom? That would be Afghanistan.

200 troops were sent in 2002. The Russo-Georgia War was in 2008. There's a timeline difference of 6 years here.

So, what do you have? The US training and sending money to a country that just happens to border Russia. The country then goes to war 6 years later, but it was started by Russia.

Yes, offcourse, artful Russian forces close to afternoon of 8.8.08 suddenly attacked Georgian forces which peacefully murdered civilians in Tskhinvali since evening of 7.8.08...
Official independent EU commitee, apparently, lies:

EU blames Georgia for starting war with Russia

Now you believe the EU?

Well, the EU blamed all sides in this. How did Russia attack so quickly? You can't have a military just suddenly go from barracks in Moscow and be battle ready in 24 hours in South Ossetia. The Georgians would have know the Russians were there and ready to go.

But again, this isn't black and white, this is black and black and Putin made the most of it.

 

[GLASNOST]

But the law system has nothing to do with it here

Ladies and gentlemen! I present to you The Selective Anarchist!

Or maybe someone who just sees that this isn't to do with the system of law. You've not explained why you think it is the system of law that has anything to do with this topic.

I guess those are two expression you don't understand. 1). Ally and 2). International law.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But the law system has nothing to do with it here

Ladies and gentlemen! I present to you The Selective Anarchist!

Or maybe someone who just sees that this isn't to do with the system of law. You've not explained why you think it is the system of law that has anything to do with this topic.

I guess those are two expression you don't understand. 1). Ally and 2). International law.

I understand them.

 

[Sbiker]

Even criminals, being organized, have own laws. Offcourse, any side cares of own benefit, but all of them usulally playing laws. If someone demonstratively ends to follow laws - it's a reason for other to strike them together. US have a lot allies by NATO, but would it be enough, when other responsible world would be against, like it was against Hitler?

What military action did NATO take part in in South Ossetia? As far as I know there was none. So, it means, you know something about NATO operations on Ukraine? lol

NATO didn't any actions in Ossetia, but trained, equipped and organized Georgian army. I meant it. Btw, Ukrainian army too )

As for the Crimea, there was also no NATO troops or forces doing anything there

but intended to...Look here: Renovation of Sevastopol School #5, Ukraine - Federal Business Opportunities: Opportunities

and think, in which situation this renovation could be useful for US government.... If you have something to say about "humanitarian" action - I'll believe in iit only if US will do something similar for the children of Donbass, which suffer greatly more with schools, broken by Ukrainian shells...

When did NATO train, equip and organize the Georgian army?

NATO Opens Training Center to 'Pay Off' Georgia – German Media

I have a join NATO/Georgian training center opening in 2015, that was called "provocative" by Russia. How is it provocative that two allied nations do training exercises together? I notice you didn't provide any evidence for this.

Man, read the wiki first!

The Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP) training was conducted using U.S. Special Operations Forces and U.S. Marine Corps forces from May 2002 to May 2004
Georgian Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, so you admit there were no NATO troops in the Ukraine. Got it.

Rapid Trident | U.S. Army in Europe

View attachment 93133

It's your argument. You're the one who has to present evidence.

Then again I read your evidence, which you clearly didn't.

"The Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP) was an American-sponsored 18-month, $64-million program aimed at increasing the capabilities of the Georgian armed forces by training and equipping four 600-man battalions with light weapons, vehicles and communications. The program enabled the US to expedite funding for the Georgian military for Operation Enduring Freedom."

See the last part. Operation Enduring Freedom? That would be Afghanistan.

200 troops were sent in 2002. The Russo-Georgia War was in 2008. There's a timeline difference of 6 years here.

So, what do you have? The US training and sending money to a country that just happens to border Russia. The country then goes to war 6 years later, but it was started by Russia.

Yes, offcourse, artful Russian forces close to afternoon of 8.8.08 suddenly attacked Georgian forces which peacefully murdered civilians in Tskhinvali since evening of 7.8.08...
Official independent EU commitee, apparently, lies:

EU blames Georgia for starting war with Russia

Now you believe the EU?

Well, the EU blamed all sides in this. How did Russia attack so quickly? You can't have a military just suddenly go from barracks in Moscow and be battle ready in 24 hours in South Ossetia. The Georgians would have know the Russians were there and ready to go.

But again, this isn't black and white, this is black and black and Putin made the most of it.

From MOSCOW? Russia - is not only Moscow, btw, we have MORE millionaire cities than US And we have military bases at all territory of Russia. This battle were perfiormed by 58 army, based in Vladikavkaz, capital of North Ossetia. From Vladikavkaz to Tshinval directly is less than 100km.

You're ready to believe in any stupid idea, if it casts by your media, instead of switching on the mind. "Georgians knew... were ready..." They started a day before!

 

[gipper]

By leaving about 2000 Humvees to them. As Wikileaks said, it was performed by Hillary's order...

Ha-ha, not only Russia, every country would seems "strange" and "non-transparent", if you don't switch on a logic...

What's the benefit for Russia to spend ammunition (which costs money) for the civilians, absolutely non-significant for Russia? We are even not EU, migrants is not our problem.
Russia came to Syria to solve own problems - infiltration of ISIS terrorists and preachers through Turkey to the muslim regions of Caucas and Povolzh'e...

Do you know, how the media makes this "civilians"? ISIS don't have military uniform - so, they finding dead corpses, and hiding their weapon before the newsmaking...

1. That is incorrect. Hillary did not gave the humvees as a gift to ISIS. Actually 2,300 Humvees to be exact. Iraqi army abandoned their military installations when ISIS attacked Mosul in 2014 taking all vehicles they can find.

2. What's the benefit for Putin? They are making billions selling arms to Syria and Iran. Which they use these arms to terrorize other countries. At the end of the day.... Putin support terrorism. Do you think Putin is doing all these for free?

3. Putin thug is in Syria for one thing only. To make sure Assad will remain in power and nothing more. It's not because of ISIS. Both Assad and Putin should be charge of war crimes.

4. Are you saying that the media is part of the conspiracy in Aleppo? Is Aleppo under control of ISIS? Are you aware that there are independent Human Right Observatory in Syria? Why is that there are no news coming from Russia about your conspiracy theory? Think about this before you answer all my questions.......

1. Offcouse, she didn't gave a scissors to ISIS leader to cut red ribbon on a pack with Humvees. Offcourse, it was just an accident, because US usually stores a thousands of new Humvees in every large town at MiddleEast region )))

2. They making billions selling arms - and they spend arms for free - it's obvious, they don't want to be too rich... And for the terrorizing other countries it's enough to Putin to say "Boo" in his microphone...

3. Oh, Assad... Why Putin loves Assad too much?... It's interesting question - if Assad and Putin could say, they are gays and loving each others - would the all world society claim them, as "good" and cancel all sanctions and operations against Russia and Syria, to upkeep progressive moral and relations? For the freedom and liberty?

4. Which conspiracy theory of mine do you mean?

Which conspiracy theory? Hillary gave humvees to ISIS. Media is part of cover up. ISIS is in Aleppo.

Sorry comrade...... 1 to 4 you have not proven anything to make your buddy Putin a good guy. Try again.

"You comrades are eating horse in ravine..." )) I'm not saying, Putin is a good guy... I seek only logic - and finding giant lacks... Putin is bad, but not because any of your arguments...

As for 1-4... It would be good for me to take at least one Humvee to go hunting... Where in world I can take at least one as easy, as ISIS?

Putin is bad because he flies his military planes over other people's airspace without asking for permission, just because he can.
Putin is bad because he controls the media, he puts down the opposition to his rules, and makes sure he wins re-election with stuffed ballots and other such tricks.
Putin is bad because he doesn't value other people's lives. In Syria the US bombed some Assad forces, probably due to a mistake (I mean, they're not the best at avoiding friendly fire) and then Putin ordered a revenge attack against AID WORKERS for christ's sake.
Putin is bad because he destabilizes regions he wants, like South Ossetia, like the Crimea etc and then takes them when he sees it's the right time.

There's plenty more.

All those things you list apply to the US Gov far more so than the Russian Gov. Yes or No?

To think Hillary will be better than Trump on war, is not to think. Hillary has a long...very long history of warmongering. She is a WARMONGER and a dumb one at that. Her actions instigated the so called Arab Spring which has the ME on fire...and resulted in so much death and destruction. Of which, our lying media says nothing.

Trump could very well be bad on war, but he has stated he wants to work with Putin. Hillary, the so called GREAT diplomat by our lying media, calls Putin Hitler.

 

[frigidweirdo]

When did NATO train, equip and organize the Georgian army?

NATO Opens Training Center to 'Pay Off' Georgia – German Media

I have a join NATO/Georgian training center opening in 2015, that was called "provocative" by Russia. How is it provocative that two allied nations do training exercises together? I notice you didn't provide any evidence for this.

Man, read the wiki first!

The Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP) training was conducted using U.S. Special Operations Forces and U.S. Marine Corps forces from May 2002 to May 2004
Georgian Armed Forces - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Okay, so you admit there were no NATO troops in the Ukraine. Got it.

Rapid Trident | U.S. Army in Europe

View attachment 93133

It's your argument. You're the one who has to present evidence.

Then again I read your evidence, which you clearly didn't.

"The Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP) was an American-sponsored 18-month, $64-million program aimed at increasing the capabilities of the Georgian armed forces by training and equipping four 600-man battalions with light weapons, vehicles and communications. The program enabled the US to expedite funding for the Georgian military for Operation Enduring Freedom."

See the last part. Operation Enduring Freedom? That would be Afghanistan.

200 troops were sent in 2002. The Russo-Georgia War was in 2008. There's a timeline difference of 6 years here.

So, what do you have? The US training and sending money to a country that just happens to border Russia. The country then goes to war 6 years later, but it was started by Russia.

Yes, offcourse, artful Russian forces close to afternoon of 8.8.08 suddenly attacked Georgian forces which peacefully murdered civilians in Tskhinvali since evening of 7.8.08...
Official independent EU commitee, apparently, lies:

EU blames Georgia for starting war with Russia

Now you believe the EU?

Well, the EU blamed all sides in this. How did Russia attack so quickly? You can't have a military just suddenly go from barracks in Moscow and be battle ready in 24 hours in South Ossetia. The Georgians would have know the Russians were there and ready to go.

But again, this isn't black and white, this is black and black and Putin made the most of it.

From MOSCOW? Russia - is not only Moscow, btw, we have MORE millionaire cities than US And we have military bases at all territory of Russia. This battle were perfiormed by 58 army, based in Vladikavkaz, capital of North Ossetia. From Vladikavkaz to Tshinval directly is less than 100km.

You're ready to believe in any stupid idea, if it casts by your media, instead of switching on the mind. "Georgians knew... were ready..." They started a day before!

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. I was merely spicing up the language a little, rather than suggesting all troops are in Moscow. The point still remains the same. How the hell does an army march into another country with only 24 hours notice, if they're not already prepared? The answer is, they don't.

No, I'm not ready to believe any stupid ideas, you're just jumping on something you thought you might be able to score points with. Sorry, but I don't do those sorts of games.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. That is incorrect. Hillary did not gave the humvees as a gift to ISIS. Actually 2,300 Humvees to be exact. Iraqi army abandoned their military installations when ISIS attacked Mosul in 2014 taking all vehicles they can find.

2. What's the benefit for Putin? They are making billions selling arms to Syria and Iran. Which they use these arms to terrorize other countries. At the end of the day.... Putin support terrorism. Do you think Putin is doing all these for free?

3. Putin thug is in Syria for one thing only. To make sure Assad will remain in power and nothing more. It's not because of ISIS. Both Assad and Putin should be charge of war crimes.

4. Are you saying that the media is part of the conspiracy in Aleppo? Is Aleppo under control of ISIS? Are you aware that there are independent Human Right Observatory in Syria? Why is that there are no news coming from Russia about your conspiracy theory? Think about this before you answer all my questions.......

1. Offcouse, she didn't gave a scissors to ISIS leader to cut red ribbon on a pack with Humvees. Offcourse, it was just an accident, because US usually stores a thousands of new Humvees in every large town at MiddleEast region )))

2. They making billions selling arms - and they spend arms for free - it's obvious, they don't want to be too rich... And for the terrorizing other countries it's enough to Putin to say "Boo" in his microphone...

3. Oh, Assad... Why Putin loves Assad too much?... It's interesting question - if Assad and Putin could say, they are gays and loving each others - would the all world society claim them, as "good" and cancel all sanctions and operations against Russia and Syria, to upkeep progressive moral and relations? For the freedom and liberty?

4. Which conspiracy theory of mine do you mean?

Which conspiracy theory? Hillary gave humvees to ISIS. Media is part of cover up. ISIS is in Aleppo.

Sorry comrade...... 1 to 4 you have not proven anything to make your buddy Putin a good guy. Try again.

"You comrades are eating horse in ravine..." )) I'm not saying, Putin is a good guy... I seek only logic - and finding giant lacks... Putin is bad, but not because any of your arguments...

As for 1-4... It would be good for me to take at least one Humvee to go hunting... Where in world I can take at least one as easy, as ISIS?

Putin is bad because he flies his military planes over other people's airspace without asking for permission, just because he can.
Putin is bad because he controls the media, he puts down the opposition to his rules, and makes sure he wins re-election with stuffed ballots and other such tricks.
Putin is bad because he doesn't value other people's lives. In Syria the US bombed some Assad forces, probably due to a mistake (I mean, they're not the best at avoiding friendly fire) and then Putin ordered a revenge attack against AID WORKERS for christ's sake.
Putin is bad because he destabilizes regions he wants, like South Ossetia, like the Crimea etc and then takes them when he sees it's the right time.

There's plenty more.

All those things you list apply to the US Gov far more so than the Russian Gov. Yes or No?

To think Hillary will be better than Trump on war, is not to think. Hillary has a long...very long history of warmongering. She is a WARMONGER and a dumb one at that. Her actions instigated the so called Arab Spring which has the ME on fire...and resulted in so much death and destruction. Of which, our lying media says nothing.

Trump could very well be bad on war, but he has stated he wants to work with Putin. Hillary, the so called GREAT diplomat by our lying media, calls Putin Hitler.

Yes they do. However we were discussing Putin and whether Putin was bad. Plenty of leaders are bad, I didn't bring up Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-FatBoy Duterte or others out their either. Why? Well because we were discussing Putin.

Hillary would be BETTER when it comes to war in my opinion, simply because she wouldn't do anything anyone else wouldn't do unless they had a real conscience. Obama pulled back from warmongering, compared to Bush. Clinton pulled back from warmongering compared to other presidents too. Democrats seem less likely to go looking for trouble, and may flex their muscles when needed.

Trump could go both ways, he could become isolationist, pull troops out of allied nations, to try and save money, or he could go roaring into whatever war someone suggests for him. I'd guess it depends which side of the bed he gets out of on any particular day. I'd say he might be better than Bush, in that he might not go looking for massive trouble, Iran would seem to be safe for at least another 4 years, under McCain and other Republican leaders Iran was under serious threat of something or other.

Trump would work with Putin, unless Putin annoys him in which case he'll call him names.

 

[gipper]

1. Offcouse, she didn't gave a scissors to ISIS leader to cut red ribbon on a pack with Humvees. Offcourse, it was just an accident, because US usually stores a thousands of new Humvees in every large town at MiddleEast region )))

2. They making billions selling arms - and they spend arms for free - it's obvious, they don't want to be too rich... And for the terrorizing other countries it's enough to Putin to say "Boo" in his microphone...

3. Oh, Assad... Why Putin loves Assad too much?... It's interesting question - if Assad and Putin could say, they are gays and loving each others - would the all world society claim them, as "good" and cancel all sanctions and operations against Russia and Syria, to upkeep progressive moral and relations? For the freedom and liberty?

4. Which conspiracy theory of mine do you mean?

Which conspiracy theory? Hillary gave humvees to ISIS. Media is part of cover up. ISIS is in Aleppo.

Sorry comrade...... 1 to 4 you have not proven anything to make your buddy Putin a good guy. Try again.

"You comrades are eating horse in ravine..." )) I'm not saying, Putin is a good guy... I seek only logic - and finding giant lacks... Putin is bad, but not because any of your arguments...

As for 1-4... It would be good for me to take at least one Humvee to go hunting... Where in world I can take at least one as easy, as ISIS?

Putin is bad because he flies his military planes over other people's airspace without asking for permission, just because he can.
Putin is bad because he controls the media, he puts down the opposition to his rules, and makes sure he wins re-election with stuffed ballots and other such tricks.
Putin is bad because he doesn't value other people's lives. In Syria the US bombed some Assad forces, probably due to a mistake (I mean, they're not the best at avoiding friendly fire) and then Putin ordered a revenge attack against AID WORKERS for christ's sake.
Putin is bad because he destabilizes regions he wants, like South Ossetia, like the Crimea etc and then takes them when he sees it's the right time.

There's plenty more.

All those things you list apply to the US Gov far more so than the Russian Gov. Yes or No?

To think Hillary will be better than Trump on war, is not to think. Hillary has a long...very long history of warmongering. She is a WARMONGER and a dumb one at that. Her actions instigated the so called Arab Spring which has the ME on fire...and resulted in so much death and destruction. Of which, our lying media says nothing.

Trump could very well be bad on war, but he has stated he wants to work with Putin. Hillary, the so called GREAT diplomat by our lying media, calls Putin Hitler.

Yes they do. However we were discussing Putin and whether Putin was bad. Plenty of leaders are bad, I didn't bring up Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-FatBoy Duterte or others out their either. Why? Well because we were discussing Putin.

Hillary would be BETTER when it comes to war in my opinion, simply because she wouldn't do anything anyone else wouldn't do unless they had a real conscience. Obama pulled back from warmongering, compared to Bush. Clinton pulled back from warmongering compared to other presidents too. Democrats seem less likely to go looking for trouble, and may flex their muscles when needed.

Trump could go both ways, he could become isolationist, pull troops out of allied nations, to try and save money, or he could go roaring into whatever war someone suggests for him. I'd guess it depends which side of the bed he gets out of on any particular day. I'd say he might be better than Bush, in that he might not go looking for massive trouble, Iran would seem to be safe for at least another 4 years, under McCain and other Republican leaders Iran was under serious threat of something or other.

Trump would work with Putin, unless Putin annoys him in which case he'll call him names.

Agreed except on Hillary. To think because past D presidents pulled back Hillary will, is not right. She is clearly a warmonger. How much evident do you require? SHE IS A NEOCON. The D after her name means nothing.

We can only hope if Trump wins, he is an isolationist. It is time for America to pull back and stop seeking war all over the world. I much prefer calling names to bombing innocent civilians which I guess makes me different from a leftist.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Which conspiracy theory? Hillary gave humvees to ISIS. Media is part of cover up. ISIS is in Aleppo.

Sorry comrade...... 1 to 4 you have not proven anything to make your buddy Putin a good guy. Try again.

"You comrades are eating horse in ravine..." )) I'm not saying, Putin is a good guy... I seek only logic - and finding giant lacks... Putin is bad, but not because any of your arguments...

As for 1-4... It would be good for me to take at least one Humvee to go hunting... Where in world I can take at least one as easy, as ISIS?

Putin is bad because he flies his military planes over other people's airspace without asking for permission, just because he can.
Putin is bad because he controls the media, he puts down the opposition to his rules, and makes sure he wins re-election with stuffed ballots and other such tricks.
Putin is bad because he doesn't value other people's lives. In Syria the US bombed some Assad forces, probably due to a mistake (I mean, they're not the best at avoiding friendly fire) and then Putin ordered a revenge attack against AID WORKERS for christ's sake.
Putin is bad because he destabilizes regions he wants, like South Ossetia, like the Crimea etc and then takes them when he sees it's the right time.

There's plenty more.

All those things you list apply to the US Gov far more so than the Russian Gov. Yes or No?

To think Hillary will be better than Trump on war, is not to think. Hillary has a long...very long history of warmongering. She is a WARMONGER and a dumb one at that. Her actions instigated the so called Arab Spring which has the ME on fire...and resulted in so much death and destruction. Of which, our lying media says nothing.

Trump could very well be bad on war, but he has stated he wants to work with Putin. Hillary, the so called GREAT diplomat by our lying media, calls Putin Hitler.

Yes they do. However we were discussing Putin and whether Putin was bad. Plenty of leaders are bad, I didn't bring up Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-FatBoy Duterte or others out their either. Why? Well because we were discussing Putin.

Hillary would be BETTER when it comes to war in my opinion, simply because she wouldn't do anything anyone else wouldn't do unless they had a real conscience. Obama pulled back from warmongering, compared to Bush. Clinton pulled back from warmongering compared to other presidents too. Democrats seem less likely to go looking for trouble, and may flex their muscles when needed.

Trump could go both ways, he could become isolationist, pull troops out of allied nations, to try and save money, or he could go roaring into whatever war someone suggests for him. I'd guess it depends which side of the bed he gets out of on any particular day. I'd say he might be better than Bush, in that he might not go looking for massive trouble, Iran would seem to be safe for at least another 4 years, under McCain and other Republican leaders Iran was under serious threat of something or other.

Trump would work with Putin, unless Putin annoys him in which case he'll call him names.

Agreed except on Hillary. To think because past D presidents pulled back Hillary will, is not right. She is clearly a warmonger. How much evident do you require? SHE IS A NEOCON. The D after her name means nothing.

We can only hope if Trump wins, he is an isolationist. It is time for America to pull back and stop seeking war all over the world. I much prefer calling names to bombing innocent civilians which I guess makes me different from a leftist.

What evidence do you have that she's a warmonger?

Sure, you prefer name calling to bombing innocent civilians. Problem is that Trump is also easily influenced. It only takes a few influential people in the military to make him into a warmonger. Trump hasn't exactly showed much regard for other people in his life, has he?

 

[gipper]

"You comrades are eating horse in ravine..." )) I'm not saying, Putin is a good guy... I seek only logic - and finding giant lacks... Putin is bad, but not because any of your arguments...

As for 1-4... It would be good for me to take at least one Humvee to go hunting... Where in world I can take at least one as easy, as ISIS?

Putin is bad because he flies his military planes over other people's airspace without asking for permission, just because he can.
Putin is bad because he controls the media, he puts down the opposition to his rules, and makes sure he wins re-election with stuffed ballots and other such tricks.
Putin is bad because he doesn't value other people's lives. In Syria the US bombed some Assad forces, probably due to a mistake (I mean, they're not the best at avoiding friendly fire) and then Putin ordered a revenge attack against AID WORKERS for christ's sake.
Putin is bad because he destabilizes regions he wants, like South Ossetia, like the Crimea etc and then takes them when he sees it's the right time.

There's plenty more.

All those things you list apply to the US Gov far more so than the Russian Gov. Yes or No?

To think Hillary will be better than Trump on war, is not to think. Hillary has a long...very long history of warmongering. She is a WARMONGER and a dumb one at that. Her actions instigated the so called Arab Spring which has the ME on fire...and resulted in so much death and destruction. Of which, our lying media says nothing.

Trump could very well be bad on war, but he has stated he wants to work with Putin. Hillary, the so called GREAT diplomat by our lying media, calls Putin Hitler.

Yes they do. However we were discussing Putin and whether Putin was bad. Plenty of leaders are bad, I didn't bring up Robert Mugabe, Kim Jong-FatBoy Duterte or others out their either. Why? Well because we were discussing Putin.

Hillary would be BETTER when it comes to war in my opinion, simply because she wouldn't do anything anyone else wouldn't do unless they had a real conscience. Obama pulled back from warmongering, compared to Bush. Clinton pulled back from warmongering compared to other presidents too. Democrats seem less likely to go looking for trouble, and may flex their muscles when needed.

Trump could go both ways, he could become isolationist, pull troops out of allied nations, to try and save money, or he could go roaring into whatever war someone suggests for him. I'd guess it depends which side of the bed he gets out of on any particular day. I'd say he might be better than Bush, in that he might not go looking for massive trouble, Iran would seem to be safe for at least another 4 years, under McCain and other Republican leaders Iran was under serious threat of something or other.

Trump would work with Putin, unless Putin annoys him in which case he'll call him names.

Agreed except on Hillary. To think because past D presidents pulled back Hillary will, is not right. She is clearly a warmonger. How much evident do you require? SHE IS A NEOCON. The D after her name means nothing.

We can only hope if Trump wins, he is an isolationist. It is time for America to pull back and stop seeking war all over the world. I much prefer calling names to bombing innocent civilians which I guess makes me different from a leftist.

What evidence do you have that she's a warmonger?

Sure, you prefer name calling to bombing innocent civilians. Problem is that Trump is also easily influenced. It only takes a few influential people in the military to make him into a warmonger. Trump hasn't exactly showed much regard for other people in his life, has he?

See? Now when you ask a silly question like that I can't continue the debate.

You are willfully blind if you don't know she is warmonger.