Understanding the Aggressive US Stance towards Russia

While Russia is of course guilty of crimes, the US is guilty of the same and far worse crimes, and is fervently supporting many other criminal groups and states. Thus, to understand why US extremists (not the US public) in control of the state are putting us all in serious potential danger by choosing to target nuclear Russia, we have to look back, and, of course, beyond the narrativepeddled by the aggressors themselves.

In 1918, US oligarchs and religious extremist Woodrow Wilson sent about 13,000 young American men to join tens of thousands of others from a Western-dominated axis and illegally invade Russia with intent to commit premeditated mass murder.

“Two years and thousands of casualties [including ~400 US] later,” Blum notes, “the American troops left, having failed in their mission to ‘strangle at its birth’ the Bolshevik state, as Winston Churchill put it.” Churchill further admitted that the Western axis forces were “invaders” who shot Russians on sight, blockaded their ports, sank their ships, and armed their enemies.

The British in Russia in 1918 committed what at the time was considered the ultimate conceivable atrocity: they killed people with chemical weapons – poison gas – as Churchill suggested the British Empire should also do against Iraqi civilians, in the hope of spreading what he called “a lively terror”.

The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, Chomsky, Gaddis (Professor of military and naval history, Yale), and other historians find, was the real beginning of the US “cold” war against Russia, which has continued essentially without break and is today being spiked by US strongman Barack Obama and his cadre.

Read More At: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/12/understanding-aggressive-us-stance-towards-russia.html

 

What's comical is that you now have a monkey doing all your talking for you. :laugh:

Relatives of little OR?

 

Conservative Support for Torture Is Progress

The contrast between the conservative and the libertarian positions on war and American foreign policy was starkly expressed in an interchange between William F. Buckley, Jr.,and the libertarian Ronald Hamowy in the early days of the contemporary libertarian movement. Scorning the libertarian critique of conservative foreign policy postures, Buckley wrote: There is room in any society for those whose only concern is for tablet-keeping; but let them realize that it is only because of the conservatives’ disposition to sacrifice in order to withstand the [Soviet] enemy, that they are able to enjoy their monasticism, and pursue their busy little seminars on whether or not to demunicipalize the garbage collectors.To which Hamowy trenchantly replied:

It might appear ungrateful of me, but I must decline to thank Mr. Buckley for saving my life. It is, further, my belief that if his viewpoint prevails and that if he persists in his unsolicited aid the result will almost certainly be my death(and that of tens of millions of others) in nuclear war or my imminent imprisonment as an “un-American”. . . .I hold strongly to my personal liberty and it is precisely because of this that I insist that no one has the right to force his decisions on another. Mr. Buckley chooses to be dead rather than Red. So do I. But I insist that all men be allowed to make that decision for themselves. A nuclear holocaust will make it for them.

To which we might add that anyone who wishes is entitled to make the personal decision of “better dead than Red” or “give me liberty or give me death.” What he is not entitled to do is to make these decisions for others, as the prowar policy of conservatism would do. What conservatives are really saying is: “Better them dead than Red,” and “give me liberty or give them death”—which are the battle cries not of noble heroes but of mass murderers.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/conservative-support-for-torture-is-progress/

 

Yeah that's what King George III said about the libertarian philosophy of our founding fathers. Control freaks throughout history have said much the same thing about people who believe in individual liberty.

It's never been anything more than a scare tactic to get people to accept tyranny instead of freedom.

What gives you and the neocons the right to force your decisions on others?

 

Can he learn how to back up your conspiracy theory with facts and evidence instead of hiding behind a wall of foolishness?

So far the only thing you have proven is that you can't prove what you're claiming.

In this case you are the "conspiracy theorist". But then again every conspiracy theorist I've ever met or listened to can provide at least some evidence to support their theory.

You and your little friend can't even do that. All you got is Bill O'Reilly's word on it and your little monkey to do your talking for you. :laugh:

You must really like the idea of getting the rest of us killed. Here's an idea . . .

Teach the monkey to play the violin then when the Russians nuke us he can play a tune while you dance a jig for joy.

 

What the heck has happened to conservatism Bro? It's like all the "neos" have the same disturbing dream about starving, bombing, killing and invading other countries now.

And they don't even seem to care what happens to this country and their fellow citizens as a result.