Probably more reliable. :03:

hum, let's see, NBC news has been one of the most biased pro-Clinton news media.

Now NBC news has a so-called "News" story 3 days before the election that Russia might manipulate votes all based on "un-named" sources and "secret" documents....:hmmm:

My money is on the Clinton campaign being behind the story. You have had a slew of "Russia is trying to elect Trump"/"Trump is a Russian stooge/spy" stories that have come out in the past week, all seem to come straight from the Clinton campaign.

Russia has a smaller GNP than italy, its military budget is 10% that of the USA, according to most experts its Army would struggle just to overrun Ukraine. Democrats are blowing it up as an existential threat just to gain a short term electoral advantage. A very short sighted view IMHO.

Eh, it's not a new game, I've lost count of the amount of times that Russia has been painted as the aggressor and the new threat by political parties, and if it's not Russia then it's China and if it's not China then it's Daesh, and if it's not Daesh then it's Al'Qaeda...

It's been interesting watching Trump throw the Republican stance on Putin in the dustbin though, wonder how many Republicans will swallow their words on Putin if Trump wins and decides to buddy up to him. :hmmm:

Also, by the way, Russia is not exactly sitting back and calming things down, I mean even their weather forecasts come with advice on the coming nuclear apocalypse:

https://themoscowtimes.com/news/russ...r-strike-55628

The way Hillary let Russia have 20% of our uranium,, and how Obama whispered in the Russian Prime minister's ear,,'' tell Valad I'll would have more flexibility,, I would have thought we were the
best of buds,, I hope they don't send that uranium back atop of a icbm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsFR8DbSRQE

And while we are being played by a bunch of crooks

But Vlad is your new best friend! At least according to the Donald. :hmmm: So what's wrong with giving them 'the nuclear'?

So why is the PU and NATO poking the Bear did the Saudis convince you to join their islamic civil war ,, so your lads can join forces with ISIS

I don't know, you guys run NATO and got us involved in the war in the Middle East, so you tell me. :hmmm:

The US runs NATO? I thought it was some Norweigian going by the name of Jens Stoltenberg. It was Jens who said:

Note the words 'us', 'we', 'our', 'allies' 'UK led battalions' words like those would seem to indicate it is a multi-national organization rather than a U.S. one.

True, but who puts the most money and manpower into it? I doubt it's the UK.
Don't get me wrong, I'm pro-NATO, and I'm concerned at current Russian activities, sure I know that we're no apostles of mercy, but at the same time I can't look at the whole Ukrainian situation with much sympathy for Russia. Maybe it's my Baltic ancestry, I like Russian culture, music and I have a great respect for her people, but I also have a great distrust of 'Strongman' leaders who rule through fear and intimidation.

These force are tripwires at best. Take American intel, cyber capacity, platform numbers and forces deployed, and firepower out of the equation and then see if NATO still is a threat the Russians need to worry about.

Behind the curtain, behind the stage, the show is run, maintained and supported by the US, there can be zero doubt about it. Nato minus the US is not even close to be even 50% of what it now is.

There is also a legislation that bans any US forces to obey command to a non-US commander. That is one of the reasons why every NATO supreme commander so far has been an American.

In NATO nothing works against the will or without the approval of Wshsington. Nothing. ;) Which may even be just fair, considering that the US bears the by far biggest share of NATO's combat power - and its costs.

To me the problem is not that the American side is so strong in NATO, but that the European "partners" have decided to want to be so weak. For many Europeans, even a running war is not so much a military problem, but an issue of abstract politics that obeys to politics's ways - not to military needs and military events. And when it gets demonstrated by reality that this is a big self-deception and wars get run by bombers and tanks and cannons and riufles, the same polticians run around like chicken with a lot of wing beating and loud and noisy cackling, thinking this makes thing stop. Strength is to cackle loud and show a colourful featherdress.

Hahaha.

However, the relation between the US and Europe is clear. The one is the dominant hegemon, the other is the sometimes more, sometimes less obedient vasall, at least in military affairs. The gulf wars and Afghanistan have illustrated that quite clearly.

You guys in the PU and the Democrats had both hands up when Bush asked for a show of hands to go into Iraq ,you all couldn't wait to turn that into a quagmire like Vietnam, Remember Obama wanted to lead from the rear, so who's funding this one world government I'd say that would be the Saudis ,,the leaders of the PU have sold out their own citizens,, just like the Clintons for middle eastern cash.

So it's not the Jews?

I've been lied to again! :doh:

But who is funding the Saudis? Must be Soros...he's behind everything else...and then maybe the Jews are behind him?

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...74/948/f43.png

So what you're saying then is your nation has relinquished its free will to another and prostituted itself for money? :D