Why deny Iran a Nuclear weapon.? Israel has one.? There are other countries with Nuclear weapons?!,This denial does not make any sense. ?!?

[GLASNOST]

I'll stop wasting my time with you.

Begin now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. The US started US occupation of Eastern Europe.


It were you who violated both mutual agreements and international law in the first place.


It wasn't you business until you decided to make it your business. It won't be your business when/if you decide to roll back to Elbe.


And don't trust America and Germany. And that is exactly why the peaceful coexistence is impossible, at least until NATO roll back to 1997 borders or dismounted.

No. The US started US occupation of Eastern Europe.

The US occupied Eastern Europe in 1946?

It were you who violated both mutual agreements and international law in the first place.

The US didn't violate the agreement between Hitler and Stalin.

It wasn't you business until you decided to make it your business.

I know, letting the formerly enslaved nations join NATO. Just awful!
You must have cried for weeks.

 

[Zavulon]

No. The US started US occupation of Eastern Europe.

The US occupied Eastern Europe in 1946?

No. Since 1999 and still trying to continue expansion.

It were you who violated both mutual agreements and international law in the first place.

The US didn't violate the agreement between Hitler and Stalin.

The US did violate agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev.

It wasn't you business until you decided to make it your business.

I know, letting the formerly enslaved nations join NATO. Just awful!
You must have cried for weeks.

Don't say that you believe in charity in the international relationships. NATO expansion was (and still is) preparation to attack Russia. In fact, it became actual aggression against Russia.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No. Since 1999 and still trying to continue expansion.

The US did violate agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev.


Don't say that you believe in charity in the international relationships. NATO expansion was (and still is) preparation to attack Russia. In fact, it became actual aggression against Russia.

No. Since 1999 and still trying to continue expansion.

I was right, the Soviet Union did occupy Eastern Europe.
NATO membership isn't an occupation.

The US did violate agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev.

Which one?

NATO expansion was (and still is) preparation to attack Russia.

LOL!

In fact, it became actual aggression against Russia.

How?

 

[Zavulon]

No. Since 1999 and still trying to continue expansion.

I was right, the Soviet Union did occupy Eastern Europe.
NATO membership isn't an occupation.

Warsaw Pact membership wasn't an occupation and NATO membership was an occupation. At least that's what our little European friends will be telling in 2040.

The US did violate agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev.

Which one?

About NATO's non-expansion and following international laws.

NATO expansion was (and still is) preparation to attack Russia.

LOL!

Any other rational explanation? Either you are irrational and willingly decided drastically decrease safety of American citizens for no reason, either you have some rational reason (only one I can imagine - preparation to attack Russia). As a rational thinking and highly pro-American man I prefer to think that there is a rational (while evil) plan behind US actions, not just a mix of madness, zoological Russophoby, incompetence and ideological indoctrination (as many anti-Americans believe).

In fact, it became actual aggression against Russia.

How?

You hired Ukrainians, you overthroned their legally elected president, you pay them money, you give them weapons, you send them soldiers and technicians, you tell them where to shoot and where not to shoot. Looks like pretty "hired guns" and "proxies" for me. And the formal (quite arbitrary, I agree) line between "facilitation" and "participation" was crossed by you, by using long range weapons against targets on the undisputed Russian territory.

Given rhetoric of Trump, Vance and other NATO leaders (who play fools and pretend not to understand what it all is about), the peace solution is pretty impossible. Which, in turn, means, that direct nuclear war between Russia and the USA becomes unavoidable.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Warsaw Pact membership wasn't an occupation and NATO membership was an occupation. At least that's what our little European friends will be telling in 2040.


About NATO's non-expansion and following international laws.


Any other rational explanation? Either you are irrational and willingly decided drastically decrease safety of American citizens for no reason, either you have some rational reason (only one I can imagine - preparation to attack Russia). As a rational thinking and highly pro-American man I prefer to think that there is a rational (while evil) plan behind US actions, not just a mix of madness, zoological Russophoby, incompetence and ideological indoctrination (as many anti-Americans believe).


You hired Ukrainians, you overthroned their legally elected president, you pay them money, you give them weapons, you send them soldiers and technicians, you tell them where to shoot and where not to shoot. Looks like pretty "hired guns" and "proxies" for me. And the formal (quite arbitrary, I agree) line between "facilitation" and "participation" was crossed by you, by using long range weapons against targets on the undisputed Russian territory.

Given rhetoric of Trump, Vance and other NATO leaders (who play fools and pretend not to understand what it all is about), the peace solution is pretty impossible. Which, in turn, means, that direct nuclear war between Russia and the USA becomes unavoidable.

Warsaw Pact membership wasn't an occupation

LOL!

and NATO membership was an occupation.

Are you always this funny? Or just when you're drunk?

About NATO's non-expansion and following international laws.

When did Reagan and Gorby sign this agreement?

Any other rational explanation?

The formerly enslaved nations don't trust Russia.

You hired Ukrainians,

NATO wasn't needed for that.

 

[Zavulon]

Warsaw Pact membership wasn't an occupation

LOL!

and NATO membership was an occupation.

Are you always this funny? Or just when you're drunk?

That's exactly what we are talking about. Ideological indoctrination, which leads you to illusion that there is some kind of difference between NATO and Warsaw Pact.

About NATO's non-expansion and following international laws.

When did Reagan and Gorby sign this agreement?

First of all, its common sense. If you come on our borders, if you arm our adversaries and if you are killing us - you'd better understand that it decrease your own safety.

Any other rational explanation?

The formerly enslaved nations don't trust Russia.

First of all, nobody asked those "formerly enslaved nations". There were no referendums or something. Second - I didn't ask about explanations of their behaviour. I've asked about rational explanations of American behaviour. What was American profit in taking additional obligations, additional expenses and significant additional risks for American citizens? Just mix of zoological Russophoby, incompetence and ideological indoctrination (thats what you are trying to demonstrate us) or, behind all those nonsense there are some rational thinking decision-makers?

You hired Ukrainians,

NATO wasn't needed for that.

Yep. If your goal were just raid some Russian territories - it wasn't necessary. But if your goal was (and still is) large-scale war against Russia (with further occupation of the whole Russia and genocide of Russian population), yes, you need the whole NATO.

 

[otto105]

When the leaders of a country host demonstrations in the tens of thousands advocating for the death of Isreal and the US, I tend to take them at their word.

No nukes for you.

How about killing 55,000+ people and claiming their land.

 

[Meathead]

You don't get to tell a sovereign nation what they need, twat.

He doesn't but the world does.

 

[JohnDB]

I'm not seeing how allowing Iran to create a nuclear weapon stops the volume of terrorism coming from them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's exactly what we are talking about. Ideological indoctrination, which leads you to illusion that there is some kind of difference between NATO and Warsaw Pact.


First of all, its common sense. If you come on our borders, if you arm our adversaries and if you are killing us - you'd better understand that it decrease your own safety.


First of all, nobody asked those "formerly enslaved nations". There were no referendums or something. Second - I didn't ask about explanations of their behaviour. I've asked about rational explanations of American behaviour. What was American profit in taking additional obligations, additional expenses and significant additional risks for American citizens? Just mix of zoological Russophoby, incompetence and ideological indoctrination (thats what you are trying to demonstrate us) or, behind all those nonsense there are some rational thinking decision-makers?


Yep. If your goal were just raid some Russian territories - it wasn't necessary. But if your goal was (and still is) large-scale war against Russia (with further occupation of the whole Russia and genocide of Russian population), yes, you need the whole NATO.

which leads you to illusion that there is some kind of difference between NATO and Warsaw Pact.

NATO tanks patrolling the streets of Prague since they joined NATO?

First of all, its common sense.

No Reagan and Gorby agreement? Were you lying? Or just ignorant?

If you come on our borders,

NATO troops in Poland are on Russia's borders?

First of all, nobody asked those "formerly enslaved nations". There were no referendums or something.

They didn't agree to join NATO, they were forced? Invaded?

What was American profit in taking additional obligations, additional expenses and significant additional risks for American citizens?

If Russia isn't a threat to those formerly enslaved nations, why do you care if they join NATO?

But if your goal was (and still is) large-scale war against Russia (with further occupation of the whole Russia and genocide of Russian population), yes, you need the whole NATO.

Nobody wants to invade your shitty country. Except for China. LOL!

 

[Zavulon]

which leads you to illusion that there is some kind of difference between NATO and Warsaw Pact.

NATO tanks patrolling the streets of Prague since they joined NATO?

Yep.
--------
2015.
NATO Deployment:
The movement of American tanks through Prague was part of a wider NATO deployment aimed at reassuring allies in Eastern Europe and enhancing deterrence against potential aggression, according to the fact check report from Voice of America.
------
More or less the same thing, that was declared by the Soviets in 1968.

First of all, its common sense.

No Reagan and Gorby agreement? Were you lying? Or just ignorant?

There was agreement. I'm not sure that there was something formal agreement with signed documents, but it was quite clear mutual understanding (say nothing about common sense).

If you come on our borders,

NATO troops in Poland are on Russia's borders?

Yes.

First of all, nobody asked those "formerly enslaved nations". There were no referendums or something.

They didn't agree to join NATO, they were forced? Invaded?

People definitely were not asked. And who knows, what was behind the closed doors.

What was American profit in taking additional obligations, additional expenses and significant additional risks for American citizens?

If Russia isn't a threat to those formerly enslaved nations, why do you care if they join NATO?

One more time. We care about NATOs expansion, because the only rational explanation of that behaviour, as far as we know, is the preparation of the attack against Russia. Do you have any other rational explanation? Second, who said that we are not a threat? Of course we are the threat to anyone who discriminate, abuse and kill Russian people. Like, say, Baltic Nazies. We are going to solve this problem anyway. But if you were not stupid enough to take them in NATO - it wouldn't be your problem.

But if your goal was (and still is) large-scale war against Russia (with further occupation of the whole Russia and genocide of Russian population), yes, you need the whole NATO.

Nobody wants to invade your shitty country. Except for China. LOL!

Plain lie. Officially declared NATO's goal is occupation of Russian lands, including Novorussia and Crimea. And no, there were attacks by America's controlled weapons against targets on the undisputed Russian territory. There is the difference between Russian SA missile, operated by a Russian crew hit an American plane in the skies of Vietnam, and Russian SS missile, operated by Russian crew, launched from territory of Mexico, hit American base on the undisputed American soil.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yep.
--------
2015.
NATO Deployment:
The movement of American tanks through Prague was part of a wider NATO deployment aimed at reassuring allies in Eastern Europe and enhancing deterrence against potential aggression, according to the fact check report from Voice of America.
------
More or less the same thing, that was declared by the Soviets in 1968.


There was agreement. I'm not sure that there was something formal agreement with signed documents, but it was quite clear mutual understanding (say nothing about common sense).


Yes.


People definitely were not asked. And who knows, what was behind the closed doors.


One more time. We care about NATOs expansion, because the only rational explanation of that behaviour, as far as we know, is the preparation of the attack against Russia. Do you have any other rational explanation? Second, who said that we are not a threat? Of course we are the threat to anyone who discriminate, abuse and kill Russian people. Like, say, Baltic Nazies. We are going to solve this problem anyway. But if you were not stupid enough to take them in NATO - it wouldn't be your problem.



Plain lie. Officially declared NATO's goal is occupation of Russian lands, including Novorussia and Crimea. And no, there were attacks by America's controlled weapons against targets on the undisputed Russian territory. There is the difference between Russian SA missile, operated by a Russian crew hit an American plane in the skies of Vietnam, and Russian SS missile, operated by Russian crew, launched from territory of Mexico, hit American base on the undisputed American soil.

The movement of American tanks through Prague was part of a wider NATO deployment

Right, to protect against Russia. Did NATO kill any civilians, like the Soviets did in 1968? DURR

More or less the same thing, that was declared by the Soviets in 1968.

The Soviets killed civilians in 1968 to deter Soviet aggression? DURR

There was agreement. I'm not sure that there was something formal agreement with signed documents,

Because you were lying. Reagan never said that NATO shouldn't expand to protect Eastern Europe. He was busy saying that communism would end up on the ash heap of history.

People definitely were not asked.

People definitely were not forced to join NATO.

One more time. We care about NATOs expansion, because the only rational explanation of that behaviour, as far as we know, is the preparation of the attack against Russia.

One more time. We care about NATO's expansion, because the only rational explanation of that behavior, as far as we know, is to defend against an attack by Russia.

Like, say, Baltic Nazies. We are going to solve this problem anyway.

You're going to attack the Baltics?

Officially declared NATO's goal is occupation of Russian lands,

If you sober up, post that "official declaration".

 

[Zavulon]

The movement of American tanks through Prague was part of a wider NATO deployment

Right, to protect against Russia.

And Warsaw Pact did it "to protect Czechoslovakia against NATO".

Did NATO kill any civilians, like the Soviets did in 1968? DURR

Who knows? Western media play hysterical drama queen when they describe real (or even imagined) Russian killings, and they totally hide information about murders commited by NATO or their proxies. You asked about NATO tanks on the streets of Prague - there were such tanks. Thats the plain fact. How many anti-NATO protesters were killed by the NATO soldiers, CIA or local secret police? Nobody knows.

More or less the same thing, that was declared by the Soviets in 1968.

The Soviets killed civilians in 1968 to deter Soviet aggression? DURR

No. The Soviets declared that they increased spirit of friendship to prevent NATO aggression.

There was agreement. I'm not sure that there was something formal agreement with signed documents,

Because you were lying. Reagan never said that NATO shouldn't expand to protect Eastern Europe. He was busy saying that communism would end up on the ash heap of history.

He said it, and there are even documentary confirmation of it.

People definitely were not asked.

People definitely were not forced to join NATO.

Let's wait until they are liberated from American yoke and what scary tales they will tell about "evil American occupation".

One more time. We care about NATOs expansion, because the only rational explanation of that behaviour, as far as we know, is the preparation of the attack against Russia.

One more time. We care about NATO's expansion, because the only rational explanation of that behavior, as far as we know, is to defend against an attack by Russia.

It is not "rational explanation". American safety wasn't increased with Poland in NATO. Poland adds nothing to American defence. Vice versa, American safety was significantly decreased because of it.

Like, say, Baltic Nazies. We are going to solve this problem anyway.

You're going to attack the Baltics?

Yep. At least it's highly possible, I'd even say - practically unavoidable.

Officially declared NATO's goal is occupation of Russian lands,

If you sober up, post that "official declaration".

Are you banned in google?

NATO PA

NATO Parliamentary Assembly

www.nato-pa.int

----------
To stand united and resolute in support of Ukraine, the Summit should, among others:

• send a strong message of practical and political support for Ukraine;
• increase and speed up Allied support, and sustain this support for as long as it takes for Ukraine to prevail and restore in full its territorial integrity;
• commit additional funding for a strategic multi-year NATO assistance programme for Ukraine;
• reconfirm that Ukraine's rightful place is in NATO and agree on the next significant steps towards Ukraine’s membership; and
• highlight the need for firm future security guarantees for Ukraine until acquiring NATO membership.

--------------
One of NATO goals is to "restore in full Ukrainian territorial integrity". Which means they want to take Crimea and Novorussia (which are definitely Russian lands).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And Warsaw Pact did it "to protect Czechoslovakia against NATO".

Who knows? Western media play hysterical drama queen when they describe real (or even imagined) Russian killings, and they totally hide information about murders commited by NATO or their proxies. You asked about NATO tanks on the streets of Prague - there were such tanks. Thats the plain fact. How many anti-NATO protesters were killed by the NATO soldiers, CIA or local secret police? Nobody knows.


No. The Soviets declared that they increased spirit of friendship to prevent NATO aggression.


He said it, and there are even documentary confirmation of it.


Let's wait until they are liberated from American yoke and what scary tales they will tell about "evil American occupation".


It is not "rational explanation". American safety wasn't increased with Poland in NATO. Poland adds nothing to American defence. Vice versa, American safety was significantly decreased because of it.



Yep. At least it's highly possible, I'd even say - practically unavoidable.


Are you banned in google?

NATO PA

NATO Parliamentary Assembly

www.nato-pa.int

----------
To stand united and resolute in support of Ukraine, the Summit should, among others:

• send a strong message of practical and political support for Ukraine;
• increase and speed up Allied support, and sustain this support for as long as it takes for Ukraine to prevail and restore in full its territorial integrity;
• commit additional funding for a strategic multi-year NATO assistance programme for Ukraine;
• reconfirm that Ukraine's rightful place is in NATO and agree on the next significant steps towards Ukraine’s membership; and
• highlight the need for firm future security guarantees for Ukraine until acquiring NATO membership.

--------------
One of NATO goals is to "restore in full Ukrainian territorial integrity". Which means they want to take Crimea and Novorussia (which are definitely Russian lands).

Reagan said the Soviet Union was an evil empire. He was right.

Reagan said communism would be defeated. He was right.

Sorry that Russia sucks and that you're missing reality.

Get well soon.

 

[Zavulon]

Reagan said the Soviet Union was an evil empire. He was right.

He was wrong.

Reagan said communism would be defeated. He was right.

Depends on definitions.

Sorry that Russia sucks and that you're missing reality.

Russia won and the USA were defeated in Ukraine. That's the fact. Sooner you accept reality - better chances to survive you have.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He was wrong.

Depends on definitions.

Russia won and the USA were defeated in Ukraine. That's the fact. Sooner you accept reality - better chances to survive you have.

Three years for your "victory" in Ukraine.

 

[MarathonMike]

This brave Iranian woman was shot in the eye by cowardly Islamic Republic forces during a protest. She was denied medical attention and had to fly to Italy to get a prosthetic eye. She is symbolic of the courage of the Iranian people standing up to the corrupt Mullahs who steal billions from them to support their lavish lifestyle.

Blinded Iranian activist Elaheh Tavakolian: ‘We lost our eyes on this path. Let us not lose sight of our goal’

Holly Dagres sits down with blinded Iranian activist Elahe Tavakolian to share her story and discuss the situation in Iran and what the West needs to do.

www.atlanticcouncil.org

 

[Zavulon]

Three years for your "victory" in Ukraine.

And longer you denie the reality - lesser your chances of survival.

 

[Zavulon]

And returning to the question of Iran and nuclear weapons, there are two important parts:
1) Safety of Iran should be guaranteed. For war against Iran will decrease international safety.
2) Number of nuclear powers shouldn't be increased. More missiles, more buttons, more fingers on the buttons - more temptations to push a button preemptively means less international safety.

It seems to me, that the compromise solution, acceptable to most sides concerned, might be "nuclear sharing". Russia gives Iran nuclear weapons (both land and air legs to attack Israel and sea components to attack the USA), teach Iranians to use it, but don't give codes to use it. If, and only if, Iran is attacked and Russia agrees that Iran was attacked and this attack is the threat to the very existence of Iran - Russia gives them codes.

And if France and England are eliminated (or lost their nuclear weapons) in the result of the European war - Iran might be allowed to become nuclear power itself.