Posted on 10/05/2016 10:58:28 PM PDT by Trump_vs_Evil_Witch
Veteran broadcaster Vladimir Pozner told the BBC: "There's a real feeling now that America is out to prove it is the only superpower.
"The continued expansion of Nato is seen by the Russian leadership, perhaps incorrectly, is seen as being a real threat.
"There is a danger of real confrontation, perhaps leading to some kind of military engagement and war."
It has previously been reported that Putin is preparing for war with the West.
Russia is already staging a massive evacuation drill to prepare for nuclear war.
(Excerpt) Read more at thesun.co.uk ...
“I don’t know why Obama thinks a nuclear war right now is beneficial to the United States or the world.”
__________________________________
It benefits islam.
All the damage he’s inflicted on the US - doubling the deficit, destroying healthcare, inciting racial hatred, weakening the military, destroying companies - benefits islam.
Islam can’t defeat a strong US. He’s done his best to bring us down to their level.
A direct military conflict with Russia, hopefully nuclear, is the ultimate way to level the playing field. But he’s running out of time, and it’s becoming apparent hitler won’t be defeating Trump.
You made your point.
Thank you.
I say oil but realize natural gas also comes from the Gulf region.
Moving natural gas would make the big difference for Europe but a pipeline system for oil going west would mean no need for tankers to navigate waters that Iran could shut down.
By saying it takes two minutes to explain to someone-—I did not mean to you. I meant in general. Sorry, I guess I worded that poorly.
I sat down with my daughter (23) who has a good grasp of whats going on, but not as well as us “old folk.”
I showed her on a map, and the light just came on.
They used to say that the US went to war so we could learn geography. Looking at maps might be a good thing to start doing!
US Sec of State John Kerry - Leaked audio on Syria - INCREASED VOLUME
https://youtu.be/t3grHmI44mg
Congrats!
And if the don't?
Good point!
I have no knowledge of what I speak here, but is it possible that Trump and Pence, along with a top General could meet with Putin and have a chance at diffusing this situation. Why wait until the election?
But they don't TAKE or STEAL his, actually OUR, lunch. He freely gives it to them.
If they don’t, they will blame it all on Trump. Which is the dumbest thing on earth they can do. But 50 million Democrats will believe it to be true. Our nations is filled with the dumbest sheep in the entire world. The average Muslim living in Chad is smarter than the average Democrat living in California
Sure. John Boehner and Paul Ryan.
http://www.unz.com/pbuchanan/isis-not-russia-is-the-enemy-in-syria/
Maybe you will enjoy this since is “old school” conservative.
Friends share but then Ryan and Cryin’ Boehner don’t qualify as leaders just puppets.
Cruelly, the moderator invited Trump to respond first. The look in the Republican nominee’s eyes made it instantly clear that Holt could have been speaking Farsi for all he understood. A lesser candidate might then have begun with the nuclear equivalent of “What is Aleppo?”
Yet Trump being Trump, he gamely -- or naively -- charged headlong into the ambush that Holt had carefully laid, using his allotted two minutes to offer his insights into how as president he would address the nuclear conundrum that previous presidents had done so much to create. The result owed less to early Cold War thinkers-of-the-unthinkable like Herman Kahn or Albert Wohlstetter, who created the field of nuclear strategy, than to Dr. Strangelove. Make that Dr. Strangelove on meth.
Trump turned first to Russia, expressing concern that it might be gaining an edge in doomsday weaponry. “They have a much newer capability than we do,” he said. “We have not been updating from the new standpoint.” The American bomber fleet in particular, he added, needs modernization. Presumably referring to the recent employment of Vietnam-era bombers in the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, he continued somewhat opaquely, “I looked the other night. I was seeing B-52s, they're old enough that your father, your grandfather, could be flying them. We are not -- we are not keeping up with other countries.”
Trump then professed an appreciation for the awfulness of nuclear weaponry. “I would like everybody to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike. I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over.”
Give Trump this much: even in a field that tends to favor abstraction and obfuscating euphemisms like “fallout” or “dirty bomb,” classifying Armageddon as the “nuclear alternative” represents something of a contribution.
Still, it’s worth noting that, in the arcane theology of nuclear strategy, “first strike” and “first use” are anything but synonymous. “First strike” implies a one-sided, preventive war of annihilation. The logic of a first strike, such as it is, is based on the calculation that a surprise nuclear attack could inflict the “nuclear alternative” on your adversary, while sparing your own side from suffering a comparable fate. A successful first strike would be a one-punch knockout, delivered while your opponent still sits in his corner of the ring.
Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump’s vow never to order a first strike -- not the question Lester Holt was asking -- was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked his “no first strike” pledge by insisting, in a cliché much favored in Washington, that “I can't take anything off the table.”
Piling non sequitur upon non sequitur, he next turned to the threat posed by a nuclear-armed North Korea, where “we’re doing nothing.” Yet, worrisome as this threat might be, keeping Pyongyang in check, he added, ought to be Beijing’s job. “China should solve that problem for us,” he insisted. “China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea.”
If China wouldn’t help with North Korea, however, what could be more obvious than that Iran, many thousands of miles away, should do so -- and might have, if only President Obama had incorporated the necessary proviso into the Iran nuclear deal. “Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran has power over North Korea.” When the Obama administration “made that horrible deal with Iran, they should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea.” But why stop with North Korea? Iran “should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places,” he continued, wandering into the nonnuclear world. U.S. negotiators suitably skilled in the Trumpian art of the deal, he implied, could easily have maneuvered Iran into solving such problems on Washington's behalf.
Veering further off course, Trump then took a passing swipe at Secretary of State John Kerry: “Why didn't you add other things into the deal?” Why, in “one of the great giveaways of all time,” did the Obama administration fork over $400 million in cash? At which point, he promptly threw in another figure without the slightest explanation -- “It was actually $1.7 billion in cash” -- in “one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history.”
Trump then wrapped up his meandering tour d’horizon by decrying the one action of the Obama administration that arguably has reduced the prospect of nuclear war, at least in the near future. “The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems,” he stated with conviction. “All they have to do is sit back 10 years, and they don't have to do much. And they're going to end up getting nuclear.” For proof, he concluded, talk to the Israelis. “I met with Bibi Netanyahu the other day,” he added for no reason in particular. “Believe me, he's not a happy camper.”
On this indecipherable note, his allotted time exhausted, Trump’s recitation ended. In its way, it had been a Joycean performance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.