This thread is in reply to posts in the original thread called: "Earth calamities and Rumors of war".
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/earth-calamities-and-rumors-of-war.7974198/
--
Osama bin Laden, the enemy of Saudi Arabia, did 9/11.
Also, Saudi Arabia is working against Islamic terrorism.
Also, Syrian tyranny was so non-trifling that it led to a rebellion against Assad.
The American way is to defend itself from hostile forces before they land on American shores.
Also, the U.S. did not create ISIS.
Also, Syria was in the midst of a civil war, and so unable to take out ISIS.
Anti-U.S. source.
Also, the U.S. never targets civilians, like Russia and Syria do.
If they're embedded, you don't bomb.
The rebellion was instigated by Assad's tyranny.
Based on what?
No, ISIS was taken out by the U.S., Iraqi, and Kurdish forces.
Russia went after rebels against Assad, and Syrian civilians.
No, its propaganda language. It's like listening to North Korean news.
If I want the leftist American view of events.
Otherwise, I try to watch/read/listen to the widest variety of news sources possible, from as many countries as possible.
But, alas, you can see the bias in all of them.
It would be a rebuke to Putin to say that he has no dirt on Trump.
For if a KGB guy can't find any, he's no good at all.
Russia, which invades other countries to annex them into its tyranny.
Which is a long way of saying that Russia will nuke the U.S. if it doesn't let Russia do what it wants.
Also, there is nothing wrong with simply meeting with Russia, to let it know that it can't get away with what it wants, such as happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia backed down.
Also, the U.S. is exceptional and indispensable in maintaining freedom in the world, against the tyrannies of Russia and China.
Not because of the U.S., but because the U.S. will eventually not be able to hold back the future Antichrist.
Note that RT is neither. It's a propaganda outlet for Putin.
*******
So?
The U.S. has not annexed any part of those countries.
Based on what?
Also, are you saying that North Korea is better?
Who said that it can't?
U.S. hegemony is benign.
Russian hegemony is tyrannical.
That explains the difference in the number of bases.
Nations don't want Russian hegemony.
But they benefit under U.S. hegemony.
It still contradicts your assertion that the U.S. destroys countries.
Indeed predictable, based on Russia's continual desire to expand its territory. But not defensible, since Ukraine posed no military threat to Russia's powerful army. That is, Ukraine was not going to invade Russia, but simply wanted to break free from Russia's tyrannical hegemony.
Oh, brother. Does RT say that too?
Based on what?
Really?
That's why it's begging Russia to come in and take over? Not.
The Middle East knows that it's better off under U.S. hegemony than under Russian hegemony, or under Chinese hegemony, for that matter.
The only reason Assad turned to Russia was because he knew that the U.S. would not allow him to continue his tyranny.
It's the same with Iran, another tyrant state that turns to Russia as its ally.
No. For there is no way to cover the blood of the innocents intentionally murdered by Russia and Syria.
Also, in the future, Idlib will further prove the case regarding their utter evil.
Um, it was Russia that turned to Communism. It was not imposed on it. The Soviets were Russians.
Also, the U.S. was not conducting economic rape and pillage around the world.
Also, the dollar was turned to by the world for its own benefit. Do you think that the world wanted to turn to the ruble instead?
Russia. And if its debt is truly low, that would be because no one wants to lend to it, because its economy is so rotten, because Putin and his cronies are robbing it to death.
As if Khomeini was better than the Shah.
That's like saying that Stalin was better than the Czar.
Also, do you think that the Iranians are begging the current, despotic regime to stay in power, instead of them being liberated into freedom?
We're not talking about an ephemeral freedom, but a real freedom, like the U.S. brought to Western Europe and Japan after World War II, while Russia sank Eastern Europe into the pit of tyranny.
Because they don't have it now.
That's like saying that Reuters reporting that the dictator of North Korea got 99% of the vote in an election must mean that it's a free country.
No, people vote for tyrants if they fear reprisals if they don't.
No one is proposing any annihilation.
Not necessarily, if they have sufficient supplies.
America has no interest in invading Russia. America is simply trying to keep Russia from invading other countries.
Also, there is no liberty in Russia, only Putin's tyranny, which RT tries to prop up, while it tries to tear down the freedom of the West.
RT is no different than Pravda under Stalin.
The Russians have always been master propagandists.
Too bad the world is smarter now.
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/earth-calamities-and-rumors-of-war.7974198/
--
jgr said in post #1439 of the original thread:
If tyranny is such a concern, focus on Saudi Arabia, perpetrator of 9/11 directly responsible for thousands of American deaths, and the primary sponsor of global Sunni terrorism responsible for thousands more deaths worldwide.
Syrian tyranny is trifling by comparison.
Osama bin Laden, the enemy of Saudi Arabia, did 9/11.
Also, Saudi Arabia is working against Islamic terrorism.
Also, Syrian tyranny was so non-trifling that it led to a rebellion against Assad.
jgr said in post #1439 of the original thread:
[Re: The U.S. going to Syria to defeat ISIS]
Self-defense against an enemy of your own creation inside another sovereign nation's borders thousands of miles distant.
Must be talking about the American way.
The American way is to defend itself from hostile forces before they land on American shores.
Also, the U.S. did not create ISIS.
Also, Syria was in the midst of a civil war, and so unable to take out ISIS.
jgr said in post #1439 of the original thread:
[Re: Civilians killed by U.S. airstrikes]
Approaching 6,000 according to the article.
Anti-U.S. source.
Also, the U.S. never targets civilians, like Russia and Syria do.
jgr said in post #1439 of the original thread:
Deplorable but inevitable when rebels are embedded in civilian populations.
If they're embedded, you don't bomb.
jgr said in post #1439 of the original thread:
[Re: Casualties in Syria]
Nor would there have been absent an instigated rebellion.
The rebellion was instigated by Assad's tyranny.
jgr said in post #1439 of the original thread:
[Re: The U.S. created ISIS]
Unpresstituted fact.
Based on what?
jgr said in post #1439 of the original thread:
The U.S. went after its residual vestiges after Russia had inflicted the majority of the damage and decimation.
No, ISIS was taken out by the U.S., Iraqi, and Kurdish forces.
Russia went after rebels against Assad, and Syrian civilians.
jgr said in post #1439 of the original thread:
[Re: That language is so RT]
That language is so unpresstituted.
No, its propaganda language. It's like listening to North Korean news.
jgr said in post #1439 of the original thread:
Do you watch only CNN and read only the WaPo?
If I want the leftist American view of events.
Otherwise, I try to watch/read/listen to the widest variety of news sources possible, from as many countries as possible.
But, alas, you can see the bias in all of them.
jgr said in post #1439 of the original thread:
[Re: Putin having dirt on Trump]
Let's have some credible evidence as opposed to baseless allegations and demonizations.
It would be a rebuke to Putin to say that he has no dirt on Trump.
For if a KGB guy can't find any, he's no good at all.
jgr said in post #1439 of the original thread:
U.S. - about 800 military bases globally
Russia – about 20 military bases primarily in former Russian territories
Who is the threat?
Russia, which invades other countries to annex them into its tyranny.
jgr said in post #1439 of the original thread:
I thank God for what the U.S. has done in the past to preserve freedom in the world. But what it is now doing and becoming is a threat to humanity. If only the U.S. is exceptional and indispensable, as it has declared, then the rest of the world is by default unexceptional and dispensable. This is the insane rhetoric of confrontation and conflict.
During the worst times of the Cold War of the past, dialogue between the U.S. and Russia was maintained. This included during the Cuban missile crisis, when Kennedy and Khruschev continued to communicate, and ultimately reached a resolution.
Today, any attempts at dialogue and communication are termed treasonous. And the demonization of Russia is without precedent in the history of political discourse between the West and the East.
If the U.S. does not abandon the insanity which it is currently pursuing, the consequences are ultimately irreversible and globally disastrous.
Which is a long way of saying that Russia will nuke the U.S. if it doesn't let Russia do what it wants.
Also, there is nothing wrong with simply meeting with Russia, to let it know that it can't get away with what it wants, such as happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia backed down.
Also, the U.S. is exceptional and indispensable in maintaining freedom in the world, against the tyrannies of Russia and China.
jgr said in post #1439 of the original thread:
On its current trajectory, the world is doomed.
Not because of the U.S., but because the U.S. will eventually not be able to hold back the future Antichrist.
jgr said in post #1439 of the original thread:
It may surprise you to know that there are information sources other than RT which are credible and objective.
Note that RT is neither. It's a propaganda outlet for Putin.
*******
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
The U.S. has military bases in Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Bahrain.
So?
The U.S. has not annexed any part of those countries.
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
There is no more tyrannical regime than that of Saudi Arabia.
Based on what?
Also, are you saying that North Korea is better?
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
Why can't Russia have a naval base in Syria?
Who said that it can't?
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
Fourteen nations to one. What were you saying about hegemony?
U.S. hegemony is benign.
Russian hegemony is tyrannical.
That explains the difference in the number of bases.
Nations don't want Russian hegemony.
But they benefit under U.S. hegemony.
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
The Marshall Plan was commendable in numerous respects. But with global economic productive capacity effectively destroyed in the defeated countries, the U.S., as the sole remaining significant economic producer in the world, had an essentially captive audience for their own output. Thus the largesse of the Marshall Plan was for some period returned to America in the form of purchases by the recovering nations. Other factors are described here.
It still contradicts your assertion that the U.S. destroys countries.
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
If there was any invasion of Ukraine, it was in the neocon U.S.-instigated deposition of a democratically-elected president, and his replacement by a cabal of hostile fascists with a history going back to Hitler; and this, on Russia's doorstep.
The converse equivalent would have been the establishment of a Russian military base in Cuba.
Russia's reaction was predictable and entirely defensible.
Indeed predictable, based on Russia's continual desire to expand its territory. But not defensible, since Ukraine posed no military threat to Russia's powerful army. That is, Ukraine was not going to invade Russia, but simply wanted to break free from Russia's tyrannical hegemony.
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
[Re: Russia knowing it couldn't win in Afghanistan]
So does the U.S. But the CIA can't afford to lose the heroin revenue.
Oh, brother. Does RT say that too?
Based on what?
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
The Middle East is sick and tired of U.S. freedom.
Really?
That's why it's begging Russia to come in and take over? Not.
The Middle East knows that it's better off under U.S. hegemony than under Russian hegemony, or under Chinese hegemony, for that matter.
The only reason Assad turned to Russia was because he knew that the U.S. would not allow him to continue his tyranny.
It's the same with Iran, another tyrant state that turns to Russia as its ally.
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
[Re: Russia/Syria intentionally bombing civilians]
Covered above.
No. For there is no way to cover the blood of the innocents intentionally murdered by Russia and Syria.
Also, in the future, Idlib will further prove the case regarding their utter evil.
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
While Russia was suffering under Soviet communist collectivism, the U.S. was conducting economic rape and pillage around the world. This in turn allowed the U.S. to establish the “exorbitant privilege” of its dollar as the global reserve currency in 1944, followed by the abandonment of any monetary discipline with the disposal of the gold standard in 1971, followed by unrestrained currency printing and debt accumulation up to the present.
Um, it was Russia that turned to Communism. It was not imposed on it. The Soviets were Russians.
Also, the U.S. was not conducting economic rape and pillage around the world.
Also, the dollar was turned to by the world for its own benefit. Do you think that the world wanted to turn to the ruble instead?
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
This profligacy has resulted in a debt/GDP ratio of 105 for the U.S., vs 13 for Russia.
Which country would you say is poorly managed?
Russia. And if its debt is truly low, that would be because no one wants to lend to it, because its economy is so rotten, because Putin and his cronies are robbing it to death.
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
The U.S. should have considered the potential ultimate consequences of its misadventurism in the 1953 coup which overthrew the democratically-elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état . The 1979 Islamic revolution was a direct result of the brutality and corruption of the Mohammad Reza Pahlavi regime.
As if Khomeini was better than the Shah.
That's like saying that Stalin was better than the Czar.
Also, do you think that the Iranians are begging the current, despotic regime to stay in power, instead of them being liberated into freedom?
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
Both Russia and Iran would soon discover, as has Syria et al, that there would be a diametrical difference between the illusory promises and the stark realities of an ephemeral freedom.
We're not talking about an ephemeral freedom, but a real freedom, like the U.S. brought to Western Europe and Japan after World War II, while Russia sank Eastern Europe into the pit of tyranny.
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
But why would Russians choose “freedom”?
Because they don't have it now.
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
Vladimir Putin was favored by almost 77% in the most recent election.
That was not reported only by RT.
It was also reported by Reuters.
Reuters has not been known to be an RT stooge.
That's like saying that Reuters reporting that the dictator of North Korea got 99% of the vote in an election must mean that it's a free country.
No, people vote for tyrants if they fear reprisals if they don't.
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
Instant merciful annihilation would be preferable to slow agonizing annihilation.
No one is proposing any annihilation.
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
Shipping containers would be a dead end of the latter variety.
Not necessarily, if they have sufficient supplies.
jgr said in post #1442 of the original thread:
Russia has said it will never again fight a war on its own territory. I believe they would choose annihilation.
Would America?
“Give me liberty or give me death”; Patrick Henry; Second Virginia Convention; March 23, 1775; St. John's Church; Richmond, Virginia.
America has no interest in invading Russia. America is simply trying to keep Russia from invading other countries.
Also, there is no liberty in Russia, only Putin's tyranny, which RT tries to prop up, while it tries to tear down the freedom of the West.
RT is no different than Pravda under Stalin.
The Russians have always been master propagandists.
Too bad the world is smarter now.