US Govt. Hackers Ready to Hit Back If Russia Tries to Disrupt Election

Oberon · 11-05-16, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yubba

I hope they don't send that uranium back atop of a icbm

But Vlad is your new best friend! At least according to the Donald.

So what's wrong with giving them 'the nuclear'?

yubba · 11-05-16, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

But Vlad is your new best friend! At least according to the Donald.

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

Oberon · 11-05-16, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yubba

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.

Rockstar · 11-05-16, 12:19 PM

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

Quote:

"A transatlantic demonstration of rock-solid support for our Allies.

I am proud to announce that many other Allies confirmed contributions to these forces today.

Albania, Italy, Poland and Slovenia will contribute to the Canadian-led battalion in Latvia.

Belgium, Croatia, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, and Norway will join the German-led battalion in Lithuania.

Denmark and France will contribute to the UK-led battalion in Estonia.

And Romania and the United Kingdom will join the US-led battalion in Poland.

Our forces will be truly multinational. Sending an unmistakable message: NATO stands as one. An attack on any Ally will be considered an attack on us all."

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.

Oberon · 11-05-16, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar

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.

Rockstar · 11-05-16, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

True, but who puts the most money and manpower into it? I doubt it's the UK.

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

Oberon · 11-05-16, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rockstar

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

Skybird · 11-05-16, 12:31 PM

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.

yubba · 11-05-16, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

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

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.

Oberon · 11-05-16, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yubba

who's funding this one world government I'd say that would be the Saudis

So it's not the Jews?

I've been lied to again!

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

August · 11-05-16, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

So it's not the Jews?

You seem to throw the anti-semite implication around quite a bit.

11-05-16, 12:31 PM	#8
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,655 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 11-05-16 at 12:42 PM.