U.S. Planning to Sink Russia's Black Sea Fleet.

[Donald H]

I think he prefers XXX

Are you referring to porn?

 

[para bellum]

Now that has to be obvious 'confidence' instilling propaganda!

Everybody should be questioning why they feel it's necessary!

No, it's counter-propaganda, and it's factual. That's the part you can't deal with. It substitutes reason for hysteria.

You are a juvenile trying to troll adults, and it shows. Here ya go...

 

[marvin martian]

Awesome.

Let's do it.

The warmongering from the left is disgusting.

You do it, bitch. Saddle up and head to Russia.

 

[Vastator]

The warmongering from the left is disgusting.

You do it, bitch. Saddle up and head to Russia.

I agree. They are valiantly willing to throw down others lives in the name of a cause that isn’t their own. They’ll even let someone else finance it. Stunning, and brave!

“TO THE LAST UKRAINIAN”!!!

 

[Donald H]

No, it's counter-propaganda, and it's factual. That's the part you can't deal with. It substitutes reason for hysteria.

You are a juvenile trying to troll adults, and it shows. Here ya go...

What part of it do you think I'm denying?

I find it very clear cut that Russia will resort to nuclear weapons when or if the situation becomes desperate for them. Almeric will provide a purpose for an enemy's nuclear weapons, as is true of America's nuclear weapons.

Do you have a theory that you've hatched out of the article?

 

[para bellum]

I find it very clear cut that Russia will resort to nuclear weapons when or if the situation becomes desperate for them.

Which illustrates that you have no concept of Nuclear Doctrines, and that you have not sat through the video or educated yourself wrt Russia's nuclear posture.

"Escalate to de-escalate" is a western media fiction.

Your threads remind me of some angst-ridden french schoolgirl, and the only readers are this little USMB echo chamber of like-minded pearl-clutchers.

It's obvious why you get booted from the professional milboards. Serious observers don't waste time on fools.

 

[Donald H]

Which illustrates that you have no concept of Nuclear Doctrines, and that you have not sat through the video or educated yourself wrt Russia's nuclear posture.

"Escalate to de-escalate" is a western media fiction.

Your threads remind me of some angst-ridden french schoolgirl, and the only readers are this little USMB echo chamber of like-minded pearl-clutchers.

It's obvious why you get booted from the professional milboards. Serious observers don't waste time on fools.

I'll leave you to your comfort that you've found in the confidence propaganda, unless you want to address something specific on my position on which you disagree..

I'm very awar of why the military board couldn't tolerate any alternative POV that didn't agree with theirs.

The ranks are easily impressed by rational thought that interrupts their military education. I've done that in being propagandized myself.

 

[Concerned American]

Are you referring to porn?

Don't be coy, duck.

 

[para bellum]

unless you want to address something specific on my position on which you disagree..

That's the thing- you don't have a position. At least not one that can be backed up (or even articulated) with facts, doctrine, or logic.

You only have fear-mongering, like if you repeat your garbage enough times, you think Americans will run like scared little rabbits.

You are a Russian propaganda troll, and not a very good one. You repeat the same bullshit over and over like a broken record. What "mutually agreed upon rules" do you keep referring to? Where is this written down?

I asked you this before, and you ran away like a little girl. So run away little girl, and crawl into your bunker. The grown-ups are talking.

 

[Donald H]

That's the thing- you don't have a position. At least not one that can be backed up (or even articulated) with facts, doctrine, or logic.

You only have fear-mongering, like if you repeat your garbage enough times, you think Americans will run like scared little rabbits.

You are a Russian propaganda troll, and not a very good one. You repeat the same bullshit over and over like a broken record. What "mutually agreed upon rules" do you keep referring to? Where is this written down?

I asked you this before and you ran away like a little girl. So run away little girl, and crawl into your bunker. The grown-ups are talking.

They're not 'written' rules of the war, they're not even spoken. But they're implied and adhered to, with only occasional escalations.

There's no propaganda in saying that and it can't be interpreted as a bias toward Russia. It 'can' be interpreted as a bias against US aggression.

As is the message coming out of antiwar.com.

 

[Concerned American]

I've hardly participated in the 22 pages so far.

You didn't do too well with numbers and math in school, did you duck? Twenty-two pages? Look again. To this post, there have only been 70 posts in FOUR pages. You are really an ignorant POS.

 

[Donald H]

You didn't do too well with numbers and math in school, did you duck? Twenty-two pages? Look again. To this post, there have only been 70 posts in FOUR pages. You are really an ignorant POS.

You are jesus' little man,
Yes by jesus christ you am.

 

[Concerned American]

You are jesus' little man,
Yes by jesus christ you am.

You need to back off on the day drunks, duck, it's not good for your health.

 

[para bellum]

They're not 'written' rules of the war, they're not even spoken. But they're implied and adhered to, with only occasional escalations.

Lol. You said "mutually agreed upon". Now you say "implied"?

Once again, you illustrate your comprehensive lack of knowledge.

The Laws of Armed Conflict ARE written down, and agreed upon by the signatory nations.

They are comprised in part, but not limited to:

The Geneva Conventions
The UN Charter
The Helsinki Final Act
The 1954 Hague Convention on Cultural Property
The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention
The two 1977 Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to international and non-international armed conflicts
The 1980 UN Conventional Weapons Convention, with protocols
covering non-detectable fragments, mines and booby traps, incendiary weapons, and the prohibition of blinding laser weapons
The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention
The 1997 Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines
The entire body of Humanitarian law (known as IHL)

In addition:
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which recognizes the even the threat of nuclear use against a non-nuclear state is unacceptable.

 

[Donald H]

Lol. You said "mutually agreed upon". Now you say "implied"?

Once again, you illustrate your comprehensive lack of knowledge.

The Laws of Armed Conflict ARE written down, and agreed upon by the signatory nations.

They are comprised in part, but not limited to:

The Geneva Conventions
The UN Charter
The Helsinki Final Act
The 1954 Hague Convention on Cultural Property
The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention
The two 1977 Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to international and non-international armed conflicts
The 1980 UN Conventional Weapons Convention, with protocols
covering non-detectable fragments, mines and booby traps, incendiary weapons, and the prohibition of blinding laser weapons
The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention
The 1997 Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines
The entire body of Humanitarian law (known as IHL)

In addition:
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which recognizes the even the threat of nuclear use against a non-nuclear state is unacceptable.

You've gone to a lot of trouble to make the point, but you've only reinforced it by listing some of the limitations agreed upon.

But we all know very well that there are no rules that apply in love and a real war.

Can you imagine either Moscow or NYC as ground zero?

Do you think you're building confidence for anybody else, other than attempting to fortify your own?

Your personal issues are not issues for debate on this thread.

the threat of nuclear use against a non-nuclear state is unacceptable.

It became acceptable when the Zionist regime used the threat against Iran. All threats have become completely acceptable. We all hope that they remain threats!

 

[Donald H]

Lol. You said "mutually agreed upon". Now you say "implied"?

Once again, you illustrate your comprehensive lack of knowledge.

The Laws of Armed Conflict ARE written down, and agreed upon by the signatory nations.

They are comprised in part, but not limited to:

The Geneva Conventions
The UN Charter
The Helsinki Final Act
The 1954 Hague Convention on Cultural Property
The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention
The two 1977 Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to international and non-international armed conflicts
The 1980 UN Conventional Weapons Convention, with protocols
covering non-detectable fragments, mines and booby traps, incendiary weapons, and the prohibition of blinding laser weapons
The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention
The 1997 Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines
The entire body of Humanitarian law (known as IHL)

In addition:
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which recognizes the even the threat of nuclear use against a non-nuclear state is unacceptable.

America shalt not become directly involved in hostilities against Russia.
and
Russia shalt not become directly involved in hostilities against America.

And that should pretty well cover the answer to the question.

 

[para bellum]

Can you imagine either Moscow or NYC as ground zero?

You are a moron. I've lived with the threat my entire life, so have you.

Your idiocy is in your assertion that there is anything about Putin's war with Ukraine that rises anywhere near the nuclear threshold.

Your persistent repetition of YOUR threat- that we are on a path we are not really on- exposes you for propagandist you are, however you try to portray yourself on the Internet.

You have one and only one task. To spread fear among people who are not literate in the matter, in the hope that somehow this will influence political decision makers.

There are tens of thousands of you, and people just like you, engaging in this Russian psyop right now. Whoever else you think you are fooling, you will never fool me- and I will reserve the right to call you out in whatever terms I choose.

I do not need to "build my confidence" or introduce my "personal issues" because they have exactly zero bearing on how this war will unfold, and I am intelligent enough to know that.

What I will continue to do, is what I always do- observe the facts and report them when relevant to the discussion, and expose propaganda for what it is, no matter if it comes from my side or elsewhere. Ethics trumps opinion, and facts ALWAYS trump propaganda.

 

[para bellum]

America shalt not become directly involved in hostilities against Russia.
and
Russia shalt not become directly involved in hostilities against America.

And that should pretty well cover the answer to the question.

It illustrates you are full of horseshit, but we already knew that.

Soviet (Russian) pilots had no problem flying against US pilots in Korea, Soviet (Russian) ADA crews had no problem firing SA-2's at US pilots in Vietnam.

Russian {Wagner} forces in Syria attacked Americans and got cremated for their trouble, and Putin did nothing. We fired cruise missiles at Syrian (Russia's proxy and ally) army bases, and Russia didn't defend her ally, she moved her fleet out of Tartus to safety instead.

And we are NOT directly invloved in hostilities against Russia anyway, and it's a meaningless statement because "direct involvement" means whatever you want it to mean.

The US, and 49 other peace loving nations, are aiding Ukraine against a bully and war criminal- and if you can't deal with it, then who the hell cares?

Every fight the US has been in since WW2 was against Russian weapons.

Suck it up buttercup. We are free to help Ukraine in whatever way we think is appropriate, and threatening to nuke us only shows how weak and pathetic you really are.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've hardly participated in the 22 pages so far. Americans are displaying their thoughts on the war and that was my goal.

The thoughts of the MEMBERS as to what the US MIGHT DO -- are equally valid to the GUESSING from antiwar.com and PROBABLY a LOT less biased. It's fear porn. Plain and simple.

 

[toomuchtime_]

America shalt not become directly involved in hostilities against Russia.
and
Russia shalt not become directly involved in hostilities against America.

And that should pretty well cover the answer to the question.

However, these are not mutually agreed upon rules as you claimed but individually determined policies presently being followed just as there were no mutually agreed upon rules not to attack each other when the USSR provided weapons to North Korea to be used against the US or when the USSR provided weapons to the North Vietnamese to be used against the US. Nor were there any mutually agreed upon rules not to attack each other when the US provided weapons to the Afghanis to be used against the USSR. In all of these cases and in Ukraine, there were no mutually agreed not to attack each other but simply individually determined policies to avoid a direct conflict between the US and Russia/USSR.