HUSSEIN obama; We have no strategy regards ISIS...
- Thread starter Busybody
- Start date
Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
Stupid response. What needs to be done is wiping them out totally, by guns, bayonets, napalm and whatever it takes. You don't leave cancer cells in your body and hope they will go away by themselves.
Some people will squawk "Geneva Convention!" but these are not soldiers. They are neither more nor less than a gang of well-armed, blood-thirsty murderers.
U
unregistered
Guest
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Fool!
Obama On ISIS: “We Don’t Have A Strategy Yet” – Update: White House Tries In Vain To Spin His Remarks…
No rush, ISIS only seized Mosul in early June.
Via Business Insider:
President Barack Obama addressed a pair of escalating world crises Thursday afternoon, blaming Russia for escalating violence in eastern regions of Ukraine and discussing a still-developing strategy to confront the extremist group calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. [...]
Obama is also scheduled to meet Thursday evening with members of his National Security Council, as well as Vice President Joe Biden, on a strategy to further confront the extremist group calling itself the Islamic State (also ISIS or ISIL) in Iraq and Syria. A White House official said no new decisions are expected on how to proceed Thursday.
“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” Obama said, when asked
about the next steps in confronting the group. “We don’t have a strategy yet.”
damage control
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/Screen-shot-2014-08-28-at-5.27.39-PM-550x346.png
Obama On ISIS: “We Don’t Have A Strategy Yet” – Update: White House Tries In Vain To Spin His Remarks…
No rush, ISIS only seized Mosul in early June.
Via Business Insider:
President Barack Obama addressed a pair of escalating world crises Thursday afternoon, blaming Russia for escalating violence in eastern regions of Ukraine and discussing a still-developing strategy to confront the extremist group calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. [...]
Obama is also scheduled to meet Thursday evening with members of his National Security Council, as well as Vice President Joe Biden, on a strategy to further confront the extremist group calling itself the Islamic State (also ISIS or ISIL) in Iraq and Syria. A White House official said no new decisions are expected on how to proceed Thursday.
“I don’t want to put the cart before the horse,” Obama said, when asked
about the next steps in confronting the group. “We don’t have a strategy yet.”
damage control
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/Screen-shot-2014-08-28-at-5.27.39-PM-550x346.png
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
Poll: Majority of Americans Think Obama Is “Not Tough Enough”…
Could it be the mom jeans? Or maybe it’s because he throws a ball like an eight-year-old girl?
Via Washington Examiner:
A majority of Americans, 54 percent, don’t believe that President Obama is tough enough with foreign foes, feeding their concerns that the world has become a far more dangerous place under the Democratic administration, according to the Pew Research Center.
Pew found that 65 percent believe that the world is more dangerous than it was several years.
And they put ISIS near the top of U.S. threats. The Middle East terrorist group without borders ranks second to al Qaeda in the poll.
The poll of 1,501 was taken August 20-24, as Obama was on vacation and under attack for not being forceful enough on several foreign issues, including the war in Syria, the Israel-Palestine fight and Russia’s encroachment into Ukraine.
What it found wasn’t good for the White House. Americans more than at any other time during Obama’s presidency believe that he is “not tough enough” on foreign policy and nearly half believe America’s power has sunk under Obama.
Could it be the mom jeans? Or maybe it’s because he throws a ball like an eight-year-old girl?
Via Washington Examiner:
A majority of Americans, 54 percent, don’t believe that President Obama is tough enough with foreign foes, feeding their concerns that the world has become a far more dangerous place under the Democratic administration, according to the Pew Research Center.
Pew found that 65 percent believe that the world is more dangerous than it was several years.
And they put ISIS near the top of U.S. threats. The Middle East terrorist group without borders ranks second to al Qaeda in the poll.
The poll of 1,501 was taken August 20-24, as Obama was on vacation and under attack for not being forceful enough on several foreign issues, including the war in Syria, the Israel-Palestine fight and Russia’s encroachment into Ukraine.
What it found wasn’t good for the White House. Americans more than at any other time during Obama’s presidency believe that he is “not tough enough” on foreign policy and nearly half believe America’s power has sunk under Obama.
U
unregistered
Guest
Last edited by a moderator:
U
unregistered
Guest
U
unregistered
Guest
You folks need to understand that present obama just returned from vacation. He needs a little more time to come up with one of his super fucking smart responses, which BTW is cutting into his spinning his unconstitutional legalization of 5m illegals / 'rat voters. Give the loser some more time, only 250 Syrians were slaughtered today. Could have been way more.
Beco
I'm Not Your Guru
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2002
- Posts
- 57,795
Polls have increasingly shown that Americans view Obama as a weak commander in chief without much direction or heft t0 his foreign policy. The latest is a Pew Research Center survey, released shortly before Obama's errant statement Thursday, that showed 54 percent of Americans say he's "not tough enough" when it comes to foreign policy and national security.
Just 36 percent said Obama has shown about the right amount of toughness. Mind you, this is after he launched airstrikes in Iraq.
Just 36 percent said Obama has shown about the right amount of toughness. Mind you, this is after he launched airstrikes in Iraq.
BotanyBoy
Fuck Your Safe Space
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2012
- Posts
- 52,256
Because you can't high speed.....
http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view2/4738723/whac-a-mole-o.gif
Congrats....Obama figured out the only way to win is to unplug the fucker and walk away before any of you fucking idiots on the right had a chance.
Unless you're willing to finally admit you just want your GOP welfare turned back on
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
and tell QATAR and TURKEY, dont fund em OR ELSE
If You Want To Stop ISIS, Here Is What It Will Take
Killing the Islamic State requires neither more nor less than waging war
Angelo Codevilla
By Angelo Codevilla
August 25, 2014
If You Want To Stop ISIS, Here Is What It Will Take
Killing the Islamic State requires neither more nor less than waging war
The Islamic State’ video-dissemination of one of its goons beheading an American is an existential challenge from which we cannot afford to shrink. Until the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/IS) did that, it made sense for the U.S. government to help contain it because the Islamic world, which the IS threatens most directly, must destroy it sooner or later. But internetting that beheading was a gory declaration of America’s impotence—a dare-by-deed that is sure to move countless young persons around the globe to get in on killing us, anywhere they can. The longer the Islamic State survives, the more will take up its dare. Either we kill the IS, or we will deserve the wave of terrorism that will engulf us.
Killing the IS requires neither more nor less than waging war—not as the former administration waged its “war on terror,” nor by the current administration’s pinpricks, nor according to the too-clever-by-half stratagems taught in today’s politically correct military war colleges, but rather by war in the dictionary meaning of the word. To make war is to kill the spirit as well as the body of the enemy, so terribly as to make sure that it will not rise again, and that nobody will want to imitate it.
That requires first isolating the Islamic State politically and physically to deprive all within it of the capacity to make war, and even to eat. Then it requires killing all who bear arms and all who are near them.
Why It’s Now Our Business
The Islamic State is a lot more than a bunch of religious extremists. Its diverse composition as well as its friends and enemies in the region define its strength and its vulnerabilities. Its dependence on outside resources, its proximity to countries with the capacity and incentive to strike serious blows, and its desert location, make its destruction possible with little U.S. involvement on the ground, and providing the United States uses its economic and diplomatic power in a decisive manner.
It would have been better for America not to have taken sides in that region’s reshuffling, or to have done so decisively in a manner that commanded respect.
Geopolitically, the creation of a Sunni Arab state in western Mesopotamia should not be any of America’s business. For a thousand years, Sunni Assyrian Arabs from the northwest have fought for exclusive control of that area, against countervailing pressure from Shia Persians from the southeast and their Arab co-religionists. All the while, Kurds held fast to their northern mountains. In recent centuries, the Ottoman Empire arbitrated that ancient contest. In 1801, Sunni Wahabis from the Saudi clan invaded present-day Iraq and inflicted horrors that surpass even today’s. In response, the Ottomans nearly wiped out the Saudis and tortured the Wahabi leaders in the main cities of the empire. It would have been better for America not to have taken sides in that region’s reshuffling, or to have done so decisively in a manner that commanded respect. Alas, U.S. administrations of both parties intervened fecklessly. We are reaping the results.
Now one of the parties to the struggle is making itself our business, and is doing so globally. We have to mind that business.
How to Command Respect Again
To kill IS, take note of its makeup: Sunni Wahabis from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, Syrian Sunnis who rebelled against the Alewite regime of the Assad family, the Naqshbandi army constituted by the Ba’athist cadre of Saddam Hussein’s army and security services that fled to Syria in 2003, that ran the war against the U.S. occupation, and that now runs the IS military, plus assorted jihadis from around the world including the United States and Western Europe.
Breaking the hold of ISIS on the people it now rules will require a rude ‘awakening.’
Note, as well, that the IS did not have to exert much power to conquer Sunni majority areas in either former Syria or former Iraq. The people there want to be ruled by Sunni, unless they are given a compelling reason to accept something else. In former Iraq, the local Sunni tribes supported the Sunni Ba’athists’ fight against the Americans until, in 2006, the Shia death squads slaughtered them in such numbers as to lead these tribes to beg for a deal with the Americans. What the American spinners called “the Sunni awakening” resulted from the reality of imminent Sunni mass death. Breaking the hold of the IS on the people it now rules will require a similarly rude “awakening.”
Note the material sources of the Islamic State’s power: supplies from and through Turkey’s Muslim Brotherhood government, paid for largely with money from notables in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, as well as from the government of Qatar. Beyond religious sectarianism, the motivation for this support is the Qataris’ and the Turks’ foreign policy seemingly based on promotion of Sunni political Islam wherever possible.
The first strike against the IS must be aimed at its sources of material support. Turkey and Qatar are very much part of the global economy—one arena where the U.S. government has enormous power, should it decide to use it. If and when—a key if—the United States decides to kill the IS, it can simply inform Turkey, Qatar, and the world it will have zero economic dealings with these countries and with any country that has any economic dealing with them, unless these countries cease any and all relations with the IS. This un-bloody step—no different from the economic warfare the United States waged in World War II—is both essential and the touchstone of seriousness. Deprived of money to pay for “stuff” and the Turkish pipeline for that stuff, the IS would start to go hungry, lose easy enthusiasm, and wear out its welcome.
Next, the Air War
Striking at the state’s belly would also be one of the objectives of the massive air campaign that the U.S. government could and should orchestrate. “Orchestrate.” Not primarily wage.
Saudi Arabia has some 300 U.S. F-15 fighter planes plus another hundred or so modern combat aircraft, with bases that can be used conveniently for strikes against the IS. Because Saudi Arabia is key to the IS’s existence, to any campaign to destroy it, and to any U.S. decision regarding such a campaign, a word about the Saudi role is essential.
Wahabism validates the Saudis’ Islamic purity while rich Saudis live dissolute lives—a mutually rewarding, but tenuous deal for all.
The IS ideology is neither more nor less than that of the Wahabi sect, which is the official religion of Saudi Arabia, which has been intertwined with its royal family since the eighteenth century, and which Saudi money has made arguably the most pervasive version of Islam in the world (including the United States). Wahabism validates the Saudis’ Islamic purity while rich Saudis live dissolute lives—a mutually rewarding, but tenuous deal for all. But increasingly, the Saudi royals have realized they are riding a tiger. Wahabi-educated youth are seeing the royals for what they are. The IS, by declaring itself a Caliphate, explicitly challenged the Saudis’ legitimacy. The kingdom’s Grand Mufti, a descendant of Ab al Wahab himself, declared the IS an enemy of Islam. But while the kingdom officially forbids its subjects from joining IS, its ties with Wahabism are such that it would take an awful lot to make the kingdom wage war against it.
American diplomacy’s task is precisely to supply that awful lot.
Given enough willpower, America has enough leverage to cause the Saudis to fight in their own interest. Without American technicians and spare parts, the Saudi arsenal is useless. Nor does Saudi Arabia have an alternative to American protection. If a really hard push were required, the U.S. government might begin to establish relations with the Shia tribes that inhabit the oil regions of eastern Arabia.
Day after day after day, hundreds of Saudi (and Jordanian) fighters, directed by American AWACS radar planes, could systematically destroy the Islamic State—literally anything of value to military or even to civil life. It is essential to keep in mind that the Islamic State exists in a desert region which offers no place to hide and where clear skies permit constant, pitiless bombing and strafing. These militaries do not have the excessive aversions to collateral damage that Americans have imposed upon themselves.
Destruction from the air, of course, is never enough. Once the Shia death squads see their enemy disarmed and hungry, the United States probably would not have to do anything for the main engine of massive killing to descend on the Islamic State and finish it off. U.S. special forces would serve primarily to hunt down and kill whatever jihadists seemed to be escaping the general disaster of their kind.
That would be war—a war waged by a people with whom nobody would want to mess. Many readers are likely to comment: “but we’re not going to do anything like that.” They may be correct. In which case, the consequences are all too predictable.
The BUNNY SLIPPERS solution espoused WEEKS AGO
If You Want To Stop ISIS, Here Is What It Will Take
Killing the Islamic State requires neither more nor less than waging war
Angelo Codevilla
By Angelo Codevilla
August 25, 2014
If You Want To Stop ISIS, Here Is What It Will Take
Killing the Islamic State requires neither more nor less than waging war
The Islamic State’ video-dissemination of one of its goons beheading an American is an existential challenge from which we cannot afford to shrink. Until the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL/IS) did that, it made sense for the U.S. government to help contain it because the Islamic world, which the IS threatens most directly, must destroy it sooner or later. But internetting that beheading was a gory declaration of America’s impotence—a dare-by-deed that is sure to move countless young persons around the globe to get in on killing us, anywhere they can. The longer the Islamic State survives, the more will take up its dare. Either we kill the IS, or we will deserve the wave of terrorism that will engulf us.
Killing the IS requires neither more nor less than waging war—not as the former administration waged its “war on terror,” nor by the current administration’s pinpricks, nor according to the too-clever-by-half stratagems taught in today’s politically correct military war colleges, but rather by war in the dictionary meaning of the word. To make war is to kill the spirit as well as the body of the enemy, so terribly as to make sure that it will not rise again, and that nobody will want to imitate it.
That requires first isolating the Islamic State politically and physically to deprive all within it of the capacity to make war, and even to eat. Then it requires killing all who bear arms and all who are near them.
Why It’s Now Our Business
The Islamic State is a lot more than a bunch of religious extremists. Its diverse composition as well as its friends and enemies in the region define its strength and its vulnerabilities. Its dependence on outside resources, its proximity to countries with the capacity and incentive to strike serious blows, and its desert location, make its destruction possible with little U.S. involvement on the ground, and providing the United States uses its economic and diplomatic power in a decisive manner.
It would have been better for America not to have taken sides in that region’s reshuffling, or to have done so decisively in a manner that commanded respect.
Geopolitically, the creation of a Sunni Arab state in western Mesopotamia should not be any of America’s business. For a thousand years, Sunni Assyrian Arabs from the northwest have fought for exclusive control of that area, against countervailing pressure from Shia Persians from the southeast and their Arab co-religionists. All the while, Kurds held fast to their northern mountains. In recent centuries, the Ottoman Empire arbitrated that ancient contest. In 1801, Sunni Wahabis from the Saudi clan invaded present-day Iraq and inflicted horrors that surpass even today’s. In response, the Ottomans nearly wiped out the Saudis and tortured the Wahabi leaders in the main cities of the empire. It would have been better for America not to have taken sides in that region’s reshuffling, or to have done so decisively in a manner that commanded respect. Alas, U.S. administrations of both parties intervened fecklessly. We are reaping the results.
Now one of the parties to the struggle is making itself our business, and is doing so globally. We have to mind that business.
How to Command Respect Again
To kill IS, take note of its makeup: Sunni Wahabis from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, Syrian Sunnis who rebelled against the Alewite regime of the Assad family, the Naqshbandi army constituted by the Ba’athist cadre of Saddam Hussein’s army and security services that fled to Syria in 2003, that ran the war against the U.S. occupation, and that now runs the IS military, plus assorted jihadis from around the world including the United States and Western Europe.
Breaking the hold of ISIS on the people it now rules will require a rude ‘awakening.’
Note, as well, that the IS did not have to exert much power to conquer Sunni majority areas in either former Syria or former Iraq. The people there want to be ruled by Sunni, unless they are given a compelling reason to accept something else. In former Iraq, the local Sunni tribes supported the Sunni Ba’athists’ fight against the Americans until, in 2006, the Shia death squads slaughtered them in such numbers as to lead these tribes to beg for a deal with the Americans. What the American spinners called “the Sunni awakening” resulted from the reality of imminent Sunni mass death. Breaking the hold of the IS on the people it now rules will require a similarly rude “awakening.”
Note the material sources of the Islamic State’s power: supplies from and through Turkey’s Muslim Brotherhood government, paid for largely with money from notables in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, as well as from the government of Qatar. Beyond religious sectarianism, the motivation for this support is the Qataris’ and the Turks’ foreign policy seemingly based on promotion of Sunni political Islam wherever possible.
The first strike against the IS must be aimed at its sources of material support. Turkey and Qatar are very much part of the global economy—one arena where the U.S. government has enormous power, should it decide to use it. If and when—a key if—the United States decides to kill the IS, it can simply inform Turkey, Qatar, and the world it will have zero economic dealings with these countries and with any country that has any economic dealing with them, unless these countries cease any and all relations with the IS. This un-bloody step—no different from the economic warfare the United States waged in World War II—is both essential and the touchstone of seriousness. Deprived of money to pay for “stuff” and the Turkish pipeline for that stuff, the IS would start to go hungry, lose easy enthusiasm, and wear out its welcome.
Next, the Air War
Striking at the state’s belly would also be one of the objectives of the massive air campaign that the U.S. government could and should orchestrate. “Orchestrate.” Not primarily wage.
Saudi Arabia has some 300 U.S. F-15 fighter planes plus another hundred or so modern combat aircraft, with bases that can be used conveniently for strikes against the IS. Because Saudi Arabia is key to the IS’s existence, to any campaign to destroy it, and to any U.S. decision regarding such a campaign, a word about the Saudi role is essential.
Wahabism validates the Saudis’ Islamic purity while rich Saudis live dissolute lives—a mutually rewarding, but tenuous deal for all.
The IS ideology is neither more nor less than that of the Wahabi sect, which is the official religion of Saudi Arabia, which has been intertwined with its royal family since the eighteenth century, and which Saudi money has made arguably the most pervasive version of Islam in the world (including the United States). Wahabism validates the Saudis’ Islamic purity while rich Saudis live dissolute lives—a mutually rewarding, but tenuous deal for all. But increasingly, the Saudi royals have realized they are riding a tiger. Wahabi-educated youth are seeing the royals for what they are. The IS, by declaring itself a Caliphate, explicitly challenged the Saudis’ legitimacy. The kingdom’s Grand Mufti, a descendant of Ab al Wahab himself, declared the IS an enemy of Islam. But while the kingdom officially forbids its subjects from joining IS, its ties with Wahabism are such that it would take an awful lot to make the kingdom wage war against it.
American diplomacy’s task is precisely to supply that awful lot.
Given enough willpower, America has enough leverage to cause the Saudis to fight in their own interest. Without American technicians and spare parts, the Saudi arsenal is useless. Nor does Saudi Arabia have an alternative to American protection. If a really hard push were required, the U.S. government might begin to establish relations with the Shia tribes that inhabit the oil regions of eastern Arabia.
Day after day after day, hundreds of Saudi (and Jordanian) fighters, directed by American AWACS radar planes, could systematically destroy the Islamic State—literally anything of value to military or even to civil life. It is essential to keep in mind that the Islamic State exists in a desert region which offers no place to hide and where clear skies permit constant, pitiless bombing and strafing. These militaries do not have the excessive aversions to collateral damage that Americans have imposed upon themselves.
Destruction from the air, of course, is never enough. Once the Shia death squads see their enemy disarmed and hungry, the United States probably would not have to do anything for the main engine of massive killing to descend on the Islamic State and finish it off. U.S. special forces would serve primarily to hunt down and kill whatever jihadists seemed to be escaping the general disaster of their kind.
That would be war—a war waged by a people with whom nobody would want to mess. Many readers are likely to comment: “but we’re not going to do anything like that.” They may be correct. In which case, the consequences are all too predictable.
The BUNNY SLIPPERS solution espoused WEEKS AGO
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
That would be war—a war waged by a people with whom nobody would want to mess. Many readers are likely to comment: “but we’re not going to do anything like that.” They may be correct. In which case, the consequences are all too predictable.
The BUNNY SLIPPERS solution espoused WEEKS AGO
__________________[/B]
The BUNNY SLIPPERS solution espoused WEEKS AGO
__________________[/B]
M
miles
Guest
Liberals don't believe in fighting for anything.
Beco
I'm Not Your Guru
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2002
- Posts
- 57,795
Do you think Liberals of today would have bombed Hitler in WWII? or Japan?
M
miles
Guest
Busybody
We are ALL BUSYBODY!
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2011
- Posts
- 55,323
if you read the history
there were many that were against that
Linburgh led the PRO German faction....
U
unregistered
Guest
Lovelynice
wet at present
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2003
- Posts
- 5,696
Crazier still, there is no bloody Russian invasion.
Not a Russian invasion force in sight, CNN sent some people to go looking for it
How to Tell Whether Russia has Invaded Ukraine
If Russia invaded on Thursday, this is what the situation would like by Saturday afternoon;
1. Ukrainian artillery fell silent almost immediately. They are no longer shelling residential districts of Donetsk and Lugansk. This is because their locations had been pinpointed prior to the operation, and by Thursday afternoon they were completely wiped out using air attacks, artillery and ground-based rocket fire, as the first order of business. Local residents are overjoyed that their horrible ordeal is finally at an end.
2. The look of military activity on the ground in Donetsk and Lugansk has changed dramatically. Whereas before it involved small groups of resistance fighters, the Russians operate in battalions of 400 men and dozens of armored vehicles, followed by convoys of support vehicles (tanker trucks, communications, field kitchens, field hospitals and so on). The flow of vehicles in and out is non-stop, plainly visible on air reconnaissance and satellite photos. Add to that the relentless radio chatter, all in Russian, which anyone who wants to can intercept, and the operation becomes impossible to hide.
3. The Ukrainian military has promptly vanished. Soldiers and officers alike have taken off their uniforms, abandoned their weapons, and are doing their best to blend in with the locals. Nobody thought the odds of the Ukrainian army against the Russians were any good. Ukraine's only military victory against Russia was at the battle of Konotop in 1659, but at the time Ukraine was allied with the mighty Khanate of Crimea, and, you may have noticed, Crimea is not on Ukraine's side this time around.
4. There are Russian checkpoints everywhere. Local civilians are allowed through, but anyone associated with a government, foreign or domestic, is detained for questioning. A filtration system has been set up to return demobilized Ukrainian army draftees to their native regions, while the volunteers and the officers are shunted to pretrial detention centers, to determine whether they had ordered war crimes to be committed.
5. Most of Ukraine's border crossings are by now under Russian control. Some have been reinforced with air defense and artillery systems and tank battalions, to dissuade NATO forces from attempting to stage an invasion. Civilians and humanitarian goods are allowed through. Businessmen are allowed through once they fill out the required forms (which are in Russian).
6. Russia has imposed a no-fly zone over all of Ukraine. All civilian flights have been cancelled. There is quite a crowd of US State Department staffers, CIA and Mossad agents, and Western NGO people stuck at Borispol airport in Kiev. Some are nervously calling everyone they know on their satellite phones. Western politicians are demanding that they be evacuated immediately, but Russian authorities want to hold onto them until their possible complicity in war crimes has been determined.
7. The usual Ukrainian talking heads, such as president Poroshenko, PM Yatsenyuk and others, are no longer available to be interviewed by Western media. Nobody quite knows where they are. There are rumors that they have already fled the country. Crowds have stormed their abandoned residences, and were amazed to discover that they were all outfitted with solid gold toilets. Nor are the Ukrainian oligarchs anywhere to be found, except for the warlord Igor Kolomoisky, who was found in his residence, abandoned by his henchmen, dead from a heart attack. (Contributed by the Saker.)
8. Some of the over 800,000 Ukrainian refugees are starting to stream back in from Russia. They were living in tent cities, many of them in the nearby Rostov region, but with the winter coming they are eager to get back home, now that the shelling is over. Along with them, construction crews, cement trucks and flatbeds stacked with pipe, cable and rebar are streaming in, to repair the damage from the shelling.
9. There is all sorts of intense diplomatic and military activity around the world, especially in Europe and the US. Military forces are on highest alert, diplomats are jetting around and holding conferences. President Obama just held a press conference to announce that “We don't have a strategy on Ukraine yet.” His military advisers tell him that his usual strategy of “bomb a little and see what happens” is not likely to be helpful in this instance.
10. Kiev has surrendered. There are Russian tanks on the Maidan Square. Russian infantry is mopping up the remains of Ukraine's National Guard. A curfew has been announced. The operation to take Kiev resembled “Shock and Awe” in Baghdad: a few loud bangs and then a whimper.
Armed with this list, you too should be able to determine whether or not Russia has invaded Ukraine last Thursday.
By Dmitry Orlov
There's also a poll here, you can vote what evidence would be seen
The secret prep notes for NATO's evidence
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2014/242/8/3/the_secret_prep_notes_for_nato_s_evidence_by_samuraitaiga-d7x8l0t.jpg
Beco
I'm Not Your Guru
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2002
- Posts
- 57,795
The world is so much safer without Saddam and Colonel Gaddafi....
Right....I can finally sleep at night
Similar threads
