Is Russia had right to afraid from West agenda? ?

[Estro Felino]

I think it's very well known that he was a paedophile,he had sex slaves boy"s and girls,he committed war crimes too and crimes against humanity,Russia also supported him,Gadaffi and Assad supported by another tyrant Putin

I am very sorry.
Assad and his wife are enlightened wonderful people. They both graduated in Britain.
I will not believe anything without evidence about them.

As for Gaddafi, he was practically home in Italy. Nobody has ever suspected those rumors were true.

 

[Stevicus]

I think it's very well known that he was a paedophile,he had sex slaves boy"s and girls,he committed war crimes too and crimes against humanity,Russia also supported him,Gadaffi and Assad supported by another tyrant Putin

If they knew all this about Gadaffi, then why didn't they say that at the outset, even going back to 1986? That was when the US bombed Gadaffi over his alleged involvement in the bombing of a Berlin nightclub.

Then there were reports that Libya wasn't involved in that, and then they turned around and said Libya was involved after all. There was a lot of confusion and misinformation. A lot of people thought the US was wrong to bomb Gadaffi without clear evidence of his responsibility in the bombing.

But if he was a paedophile and they knew it, they should have said so immediately. That would have changed the public's attitude about the bombing.

 

[Estro Felino]

If they knew all this about Gadaffi, then why didn't they say that at the outset, even going back to 1986? That was when the US bombed Gadaffi over his alleged involvement in the bombing of a Berlin nightclub.

Then there were reports that Libya wasn't involved in that, and then they turned around and said Libya was involved after all. There was a lot of confusion and misinformation. A lot of people thought the US was wrong to bomb Gadaffi without clear evidence of his responsibility in the bombing.

But if he was a paedophile and they knew it, they should have said so immediately. That would have changed the public's attitude about the bombing.

Obama: Libya disaster was a great mistake I regret.

 

[Mock Turtle]

That was US policy during much of the Cold War. I recall when leaders of the nuclear powers each pledged to never be the one to use nuclear weapons first - except the U.S. Our policy was that, if the Soviets launched an attack on Western Europe, even if it was just using conventional weapons, we would respond with nukes.

So, it's a question of who would be madder: The one who uses nukes or the one who pushes the other into a corner giving them no choice?

I pointed this out long ago, as to the MAD doctrine being so despicably immoral, and it still applies. So why are we still using such weapons - when they impact so many others beyond any local conflict. No morality for those involved? Putin is just the latest of any using such bluff, but unfortunately he appears so deranged as to use such. Russia is under no threat as to being attacked.

 

[Stevicus]

Obama: Libya disaster was a great mistake I regret.

I hate to say it, but the last US President who had any real talent and skill in the area of foreign policy was Richard Nixon, even if he was corrupted and compromised. None of his successors could really measure up to his knowledge and experience.

Carter was a good man, but he seemed too naive and ill-prepared to deal with the world.

Reagan was senile and stupid. Bush Sr. should have had some understanding of the world as former head of the CIA, but he was a spoiled rich kid and an out-of-touch elitist.

Clinton, Bush Jr., Obama, Biden were all products of political machines. They're great for photo ops and kissing babies, but when it came to doing man's work, they were clearly amateurs.

That's how US politics seems to work. The political machines usually find some "pretty boy" or "pretty girl" - usually someone who is charismatic, popular, and can carry themselves on stage or TV (like an actor or newscaster). But it can't be anyone who is too smart or anyone who might think for themselves. That seems to be the M.O. these days.

 

[Estro Felino]

I pointed this out long ago, as to the MAD doctrine being so despicably immoral, and it still applies. So why are we still using such weapons - when they impact so many others beyond any local conflict. No morality for those involved? Putin is just the latest of any using such bluff, but unfortunately he appears so deranged as to use such. Russia is under no threat as to being attacked.

Erdoğan invaded Syria in 2019.
Turkey is not exactly first place as for human rights, women's rights, and minorities' rights but I understand that all these years the topic has exclusively been Russia and Putin.

 

[Stevicus]

I pointed this out long ago, as to the MAD doctrine being so despicably immoral, and it still applies. So why are we still using such weapons - when they impact so many others beyond any local conflict. No morality for those involved? Putin is just the latest of any using such bluff, but unfortunately he appears so deranged as to use such.

It seems that nuclear weapons are analogous to what some people say about suicide: It's a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

We did survive the Cold War, and hopefully, humanity will survive this.

I recall in another forum a few years back, there was a Navy guy who kept saying that fears of nuclear winter were overblown, that the radiation would dissipate more quickly than is generally believed and that civilization would recover (just as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt). I lacked the scientific and military knowledge to be able to argue against him, but it did sound quite compelling.

Even during the Cold War, there were a few people who thought that we could win a nuclear war.

The general theory is that nations won't be able to stop launching nukes once they cross that line. I can only imagine the kinds of scenarios they're dreaming up in the war room. In the end, we'll have to stand firm and keep them from stealing our precious bodily fluids.

 

[Wandering Monk]

The time to recover from the damage caused by Electromagnetic Pulse on the power distribution grids could take years. Transformers for substations would be the limiting factor.

- THE EMP THREAT: EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES.

 

[Audie]

I pointed this out long ago, as to the MAD doctrine being so despicably immoral, and it still applies. So why are we still using such weapons - when they impact so many others beyond any local conflict. No morality for those involved? Putin is just the latest of any using such bluff, but unfortunately he appears so deranged as to use such. Russia is under no threat as to being attacked.

Morality has nothing to do with it.
There no morality in war nor its weapons,
tho one could give nukes some credit in
preventing big - power wars.

In the event, once nukes came to be,
MAD was inevitable.

 

[Audie]

The time to recover from the damage caused by Electromagnetic Pulse on the power distribution grids could take years. Transformers for substations would be the limiting factor.

- THE EMP THREAT: EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES.

" many, many years"

 

[Mock Turtle]

It seems that nuclear weapons are analogous to what some people say about suicide: It's a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

We did survive the Cold War, and hopefully, humanity will survive this.

I recall in another forum a few years back, there was a Navy guy who kept saying that fears of nuclear winter were overblown, that the radiation would dissipate more quickly than is generally believed and that civilization would recover (just as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt). I lacked the scientific and military knowledge to be able to argue against him, but it did sound quite compelling.

Even during the Cold War, there were a few people who thought that we could win a nuclear war.

The general theory is that nations won't be able to stop launching nukes once they cross that line. I can only imagine the kinds of scenarios they're dreaming up in the war room. In the end, we'll have to stand firm and keep them from stealing our precious bodily fluids.

Whatever happens we will no doubt be said to deserve it but it's only the few making the decisions who deserve it, not the rest of us.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Wondering of sending a UN peacekeeping force into Ukraine would slow or stop the Russians. If Russia were to attack them, maybe this would trigger and international MILITARY response against Russia.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Morality has nothing to do with it.
There no morality in war nor its weapons,
tho one could give nukes some credit in
preventing big - power wars.

In the event, once nukes came to be,
MAD was inevitable.

Well that is not actually true - as to no morality in war, since we do have war crimes. But when a war spills over to affect so many innocent others - why isn't this considered the worst war crime?

 

[Audie]

Well that is not actually true - as to no morality in war, since we do have war crimes. But when a war spills over to affect so many innocent others - why isn't this considered the worst war crime?

Young men being forced to kill eachother
hardly sounds moral to me.

As for war crimes, MAD has neither war nor a crime, so, " worst crime" no.

The biggest effect has been to prevent great- power wars. Which tend to adversely affect numbers of people.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The time to recover from the damage caused by Electromagnetic Pulse on the power distribution grids could take years. Transformers for substations would be the limiting factor.

- THE EMP THREAT: EXAMINING THE CONSEQUENCES.

Always keep a spare (updated regularly) laptop or similar in your oven - my advice.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Young men being forced to kill eachother
hardly sounds moral to me.

As for war crimes, MAD has neither war nor a crime, so, " worst crime" no.

The biggest effect has been to prevent great- power wars. Which tend to adversely affect numbers of people.

Well it might have done once but now we have nine countries with nuclear weapons. All behaving as per MAD?

 

[Stevicus]

Well it might have done once but now we have nine countries with nuclear weapons. All behaving as per MAD?

I recall there were proposals to construct ABM systems which, theoretically, could thwart MAD. One side could launch their missiles and then use ABMs to shoot down the enemy's counterstrike. The ABM Treaty came about in response to that.

It's also why the Soviets balked over Reagan's "Star Wars" program. That would have allowed the US to launch a first strike on the Soviet Union, while using space-based weapons to prevent the Soviet counterattack. That also would have thwarted the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction.

 

[Audie]

Well it might have done once but now we have nine countries with nuclear weapons. All behaving as per MAD?

Once? Its still in effect.

Also, we rather doubt France will mix it up
with India.

 

[Revoltingest]

Tulsi Gabbard does not agree.
I do not think Hillary is a good person.

It appears that she agrees with me about not
using so much violence in our foreign policy.

This is something that few here on RF understood
about the 2016 election, ie, that keeping Hillary out
of office because of her violent policies was a major
factor. Those who had only hatred of Trump on their
minds were blind to her danger.
I consider us lucky that 2016-2020 saw no escalated
or new wars....we dodged the bullet posed by those
2 hideous candidates.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Once? Its still in effect.

Also, we rather doubt France will mix it up
with India.

I've lost track over the years but wasn't it the policy never to use nuclear weapons other than in retaliation, and which Putin seems to have changed recently - declaring to use such if and when conventional weapons failed to deliver?

 

[Audie]

I've lost track over the years but wasn't it the policy never to use nuclear weapons other than in retaliation, and which Putin seems to have changed recently - declaring to use such if and when conventional weapons failed to deliver?

If you seem to know what Putin seems to be doing or how that seems relevant to MAD,
let us know how ya did it.