US tanks roll into Germany.....

Im 100% sure the Russians dont think in the slightest to invade Germany.

Germany is just the pit stop, not the destination

And what would be the destination? :)

All of Europe then the world what else



:) Nothing new. Russia is eternal aggressor to all western world... without any aggression precedent for a centuries :))

Does Obama really think, it would be good for Russia to have Lisboa as point of western border? :)
 
Last edited:
Im 100% sure the Russians dont think in the slightest to invade Germany.

Germany is just the pit stop, not the destination

And what would be the destination? :)

All of Europe then the world what else



:) Nothing new. Russia is eternal aggressor to all western world... without any aggression precedent for a centuries :))

Does Obama really think, it would be good for Russia to have Lisboa as point of western border? :)

Crimea was an aggressive invasion. Southeastern Ukraine invasion was aggression. Assembling armies on borders for "War Games" and drills is aggression. Making mock attacks and flyovers or flybys of US and NATO ships and planes is aggression. Deploying ballistic missiles to Russian border like was done at Kaliningrad is aggression.
Reap what you sow.
 
You didn't read the article did you?

Not all of it, but enough to get the gist. That still doesn't stop the fact that the US has had troops in Germany since 1945.
So you like tanks and arty huh frigidweirdo but apparently you hate handguns and rifles owned by Americans, Israelis and Swiss ?!

You are a very confused little boy. Or girl. Whichever it is.

It's not me who is confused. You might be a little confused about me. But then you didn't take the time to ask the questions. I'm getting a lot of assumptions being thrown my way lately. People just assume you're not able to think for yourself.
Well if I thought you were anti gun and you are not then I stand corrected.

So you believe in the 2nd Amendment then, yes ?!

Do I believe in the 2nd Amendment? What the hell does that mean? Yes, I believe the 2nd Amendment exists. In fact I know it exists. I also know what it means, which is rather rare as most people just decide it means what they want it to mean. Do I think the 2A has a positive impact on the USA? No, I do not.

Do I think the UK should get guns? No, I do no. Do I think the UK should have tanks? Yes, I do. Do I think having a standing army is different to having citizens walking around the streets with guns? Yes, I do.

I'm not confused. I'd love a world where countries didn't need militaries. I'd love it even more if those countries with militaries didn't go around invading others. However politicians get in power and start playing silly games that get people killed, oh, great. So, I see the reason for having a military. Having lived in many countries and been to even more, I also see the impact guns in the hands of citizens has on society, and it's not so positive.

Less confused yet?
The UK does not need tanks or mechanized arty.

These are continental weapons.

UK is an island nation.

Ergo the UK needs planes and ships not tanks and arty.

That has been true since the times of King Arthur.

King Henry the 8th knew it too so he built the first British navy.
 
Im 100% sure the Russians dont think in the slightest to invade Germany.

Germany is just the pit stop, not the destination

And what would be the destination? :)

All of Europe then the world what else



:) Nothing new. Russia is eternal aggressor to all western world... without any aggression precedent for a centuries :))

Does Obama really think, it would be good for Russia to have Lisboa as point of western border? :)

Crimea was an aggressive invasion. Southeastern Ukraine invasion was aggression. Assembling armies on borders for "War Games" and drills is aggression. Making mock attacks and flyovers or flybys of US and NATO ships and planes is aggression. Deploying ballistic missiles to Russian border like was done at Kaliningrad is aggression.
Reap what you sow.


Yes, Crimea was an aggressive invasion by Ukraine and NATO against Russia. One.

Assembling armies on borders for "War Games" and drills is aggression. Remember me the topic of this thread :)). Two.

Southeastern Ukraine invasion was aggression - lies. Your sattellites already count all planes at Kuznetsov - so, show me at least one photo of Russian forces at Southeastern Ukraine. So, it's an agressive antirussian propaganda. Three.

Making mock attacks and flyovers or flybys of US and NATO ships and planes is aggression. - making REAL attacks of Russian planes with victims, like Su-25 from Turkey - THAT's real agression. Four.

Deploying ballistic missiles to Russian border - deploying ballistic missile and nuclear bombs FAR OUTSIDE the US borders - an real aggression. Five.

So, who is real Warmonk in all this cases? Ok, ok, I understand, you cannot switch on any logic in your mind because you're propagated till roots of your hair. Peace to you and greetings to Orwell...
 
Not all of it, but enough to get the gist. That still doesn't stop the fact that the US has had troops in Germany since 1945.
So you like tanks and arty huh frigidweirdo but apparently you hate handguns and rifles owned by Americans, Israelis and Swiss ?!

You are a very confused little boy. Or girl. Whichever it is.

It's not me who is confused. You might be a little confused about me. But then you didn't take the time to ask the questions. I'm getting a lot of assumptions being thrown my way lately. People just assume you're not able to think for yourself.
Well if I thought you were anti gun and you are not then I stand corrected.

So you believe in the 2nd Amendment then, yes ?!

Do I believe in the 2nd Amendment? What the hell does that mean? Yes, I believe the 2nd Amendment exists. In fact I know it exists. I also know what it means, which is rather rare as most people just decide it means what they want it to mean. Do I think the 2A has a positive impact on the USA? No, I do not.

Do I think the UK should get guns? No, I do no. Do I think the UK should have tanks? Yes, I do. Do I think having a standing army is different to having citizens walking around the streets with guns? Yes, I do.

I'm not confused. I'd love a world where countries didn't need militaries. I'd love it even more if those countries with militaries didn't go around invading others. However politicians get in power and start playing silly games that get people killed, oh, great. So, I see the reason for having a military. Having lived in many countries and been to even more, I also see the impact guns in the hands of citizens has on society, and it's not so positive.

Less confused yet?
The UK does not need tanks or mechanized arty.

These are continental weapons.

UK is an island nation.

Ergo the UK needs planes and ships not tanks and arty.

That has been true since the times of King Arthur.

King Henry the 8th knew it too so he built the first British navy.
The British Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank is one of the most modern and best tanks in the world. It is a match for the best Russsian tank on the field. They were recently deployed to Estonia (October) along with the tank killer Typhon aircraft.
 
There must be some dumbazz general somewhere telling BHO what to do.

Either that or the generals are out of control under BHO.

BHO is a peacenik not a fighter.

He promised to bring all American troops home from Asia when he ran for POTUS.
 
So you like tanks and arty huh frigidweirdo but apparently you hate handguns and rifles owned by Americans, Israelis and Swiss ?!

You are a very confused little boy. Or girl. Whichever it is.

It's not me who is confused. You might be a little confused about me. But then you didn't take the time to ask the questions. I'm getting a lot of assumptions being thrown my way lately. People just assume you're not able to think for yourself.
Well if I thought you were anti gun and you are not then I stand corrected.

So you believe in the 2nd Amendment then, yes ?!

Do I believe in the 2nd Amendment? What the hell does that mean? Yes, I believe the 2nd Amendment exists. In fact I know it exists. I also know what it means, which is rather rare as most people just decide it means what they want it to mean. Do I think the 2A has a positive impact on the USA? No, I do not.

Do I think the UK should get guns? No, I do no. Do I think the UK should have tanks? Yes, I do. Do I think having a standing army is different to having citizens walking around the streets with guns? Yes, I do.

I'm not confused. I'd love a world where countries didn't need militaries. I'd love it even more if those countries with militaries didn't go around invading others. However politicians get in power and start playing silly games that get people killed, oh, great. So, I see the reason for having a military. Having lived in many countries and been to even more, I also see the impact guns in the hands of citizens has on society, and it's not so positive.

Less confused yet?
The UK does not need tanks or mechanized arty.

These are continental weapons.

UK is an island nation.

Ergo the UK needs planes and ships not tanks and arty.

That has been true since the times of King Arthur.

King Henry the 8th knew it too so he built the first British navy.
The British Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank is one of the most modern and best tanks in the world. It is a match for the best Russsian tank on the field. They were recently deployed to Estonia (October) along with the tank killer Typhon aircraft.

Oh, I understand, Estonia is not a part of US border, so assembling armies there is just an act of peace and love? :)
 
Germany is just the pit stop, not the destination

And what would be the destination? :)

All of Europe then the world what else



:) Nothing new. Russia is eternal aggressor to all western world... without any aggression precedent for a centuries :))

Does Obama really think, it would be good for Russia to have Lisboa as point of western border? :)

Crimea was an aggressive invasion. Southeastern Ukraine invasion was aggression. Assembling armies on borders for "War Games" and drills is aggression. Making mock attacks and flyovers or flybys of US and NATO ships and planes is aggression. Deploying ballistic missiles to Russian border like was done at Kaliningrad is aggression.
Reap what you sow.


Yes, Crimea was an aggressive invasion by Ukraine and NATO against Russia. One.

Assembling armies on borders for "War Games" and drills is aggression. Remember me the topic of this thread :)). Two.

Southeastern Ukraine invasion was aggression - lies. Your sattellites already count all planes at Kuznetsov - so, show me at least one photo of Russian forces at Southeastern Ukraine. So, it's an agressive antirussian propaganda. Three.

Making mock attacks and flyovers or flybys of US and NATO ships and planes is aggression. - making REAL attacks of Russian planes with victims, like Su-25 from Turkey - THAT's real agression. Four.

Deploying ballistic missiles to Russian border - deploying ballistic missile and nuclear bombs FAR OUTSIDE the US borders - an real aggression. Five.

So, who is real Warmonk in all this cases? Ok, ok, I understand, you cannot switch on any logic in your mind because you're propagated till roots of your hair. Peace to you and greetings to Orwell...

Very lame response. How did Ukraine invade itself? Crimea was (still) internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Everything else in your post is just as broken.
 
Will president Trumpski remake the CIA into the KGB? ;)

image.jpeg
 
And what would be the destination? :)

All of Europe then the world what else



:) Nothing new. Russia is eternal aggressor to all western world... without any aggression precedent for a centuries :))

Does Obama really think, it would be good for Russia to have Lisboa as point of western border? :)

Crimea was an aggressive invasion. Southeastern Ukraine invasion was aggression. Assembling armies on borders for "War Games" and drills is aggression. Making mock attacks and flyovers or flybys of US and NATO ships and planes is aggression. Deploying ballistic missiles to Russian border like was done at Kaliningrad is aggression.
Reap what you sow.


Yes, Crimea was an aggressive invasion by Ukraine and NATO against Russia. One.

Assembling armies on borders for "War Games" and drills is aggression. Remember me the topic of this thread :)). Two.

Southeastern Ukraine invasion was aggression - lies. Your sattellites already count all planes at Kuznetsov - so, show me at least one photo of Russian forces at Southeastern Ukraine. So, it's an agressive antirussian propaganda. Three.

Making mock attacks and flyovers or flybys of US and NATO ships and planes is aggression. - making REAL attacks of Russian planes with victims, like Su-25 from Turkey - THAT's real agression. Four.

Deploying ballistic missiles to Russian border - deploying ballistic missile and nuclear bombs FAR OUTSIDE the US borders - an real aggression. Five.

So, who is real Warmonk in all this cases? Ok, ok, I understand, you cannot switch on any logic in your mind because you're propagated till roots of your hair. Peace to you and greetings to Orwell...

Very lame response. How did Ukraine invade itself? Crimea was (still) internationally recognized as part of Ukraine. Everything else in your post is just as broken.


Nope. Crimea claimed itself as autonomous republic. According to Kosovo precedent (using US laws!!!) all other actions against Crimea from Ukraine and NATO - an acts of aggression. Since the Crimea people at referendum made decision to become a part of Russia and Russia agreed - it's an aggression against Russia. My response is lame fior you only because you don't respect US law... :(
 
It's not me who is confused. You might be a little confused about me. But then you didn't take the time to ask the questions. I'm getting a lot of assumptions being thrown my way lately. People just assume you're not able to think for yourself.
Well if I thought you were anti gun and you are not then I stand corrected.

So you believe in the 2nd Amendment then, yes ?!

Do I believe in the 2nd Amendment? What the hell does that mean? Yes, I believe the 2nd Amendment exists. In fact I know it exists. I also know what it means, which is rather rare as most people just decide it means what they want it to mean. Do I think the 2A has a positive impact on the USA? No, I do not.

Do I think the UK should get guns? No, I do no. Do I think the UK should have tanks? Yes, I do. Do I think having a standing army is different to having citizens walking around the streets with guns? Yes, I do.

I'm not confused. I'd love a world where countries didn't need militaries. I'd love it even more if those countries with militaries didn't go around invading others. However politicians get in power and start playing silly games that get people killed, oh, great. So, I see the reason for having a military. Having lived in many countries and been to even more, I also see the impact guns in the hands of citizens has on society, and it's not so positive.

Less confused yet?
The UK does not need tanks or mechanized arty.

These are continental weapons.

UK is an island nation.

Ergo the UK needs planes and ships not tanks and arty.

That has been true since the times of King Arthur.

King Henry the 8th knew it too so he built the first British navy.
The British Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank is one of the most modern and best tanks in the world. It is a match for the best Russsian tank on the field. They were recently deployed to Estonia (October) along with the tank killer Typhon aircraft.

Oh, I understand, Estonia is not a part of US border, so assembling armies there is just an act of peace and love? :)
Similar to US border because of NATO agreement. An attack on Estonia or any other NATO member is an attack on all NATO, including USA. Deployment of NATO to these areas in answer to Putin's aggression is a challenge to him to match NATO assets with depleting available Russian funds and economy.
 

Forum List

Back
Top