50 knuckle draggers
 

Never underestimate the tenacity of the enemy!

http://maggionews.com/wp-content/upl...S-ART-6yse.gif

Some things never change :2 cents:

http://images.realclear.com/295196_5_.jpg

And they don't give a fuck if someone blows those up? You know, there is a war in there.

And who can do it right in al-Assad International Airport? Any guesses? Now think again on how your question stupid is.

plan for world peace:

1) everybody develops nukes
2) point at america
3) tell gangsters to stay the fuck in their own country
4) world peace :thumbsup

yeah, leave it to a drunk shell-shocked serb living in a bomb crater to sort out world peace.

I've always thought it was stupid to remove Saddam. He was an evil cock sucker, but no diffrent than any of the other evil cocksuckers running around half the other third world countries. Why was he so important.. Because he wanted to sell oil in Euros and not US dollars.. That's why he was special..

I was against the Iraq war long before we went in, it was easily to see the BS lies The Bush admin was telling bout WMDs long before our troops set foot on the ground..

The bad guys always wear black and carry Russian guns?

Did you cum on your keyboard after coming up with that master plan?

Rebels with some US weapons or US alone. With some artillery fire the rebels could do it at their own with no special weapons. I guess that they know where the airport is anyways. Though I don't know are they close enough to fire that airfield with artillery.

It is anyways Assad's airport, not some Russian base, so; free for all. Not that many will care what will blow up in there.

Funny you never seem to complain when the rebels have Russian weapons..

Complain about what?

Well you seem to be making a point, that they had US weapons or even "some" US weapons.. Meanwhile 99.9999% of all terrorist, rebels and freedom fighters carry around AK's RPG's PKM's and a host of other Ruusian designed weapons..

Why? Because Russia, China, North Korea ect..ect.. Have sold them by the freight load to any asshole that wanted them.. So who is the real terrorist Supporters? The only time IS has gotten ahold of US weapons is when they over took bases in Iraq. Meanwhile they buy Russian arms right off the black market because Russia, China ect.. Allow them to easily be sold to anyone..

technology is advancing everywhere...I Know this does not suit your plutocratic agenda but the time will come when everybody will have nukes, and we will render the US army obsolete...

when I say nukes I am not talking about the US gay shit that has to be delivered from some terrorist ship on a drone, but nukes that point down to the earth and "off" all life on the globe...its just a matter of time until 95% of humanity is free from the 5% that is the USA...

you are a stupid mother fucker if you think that this day will not come :thumbsup

I'm just trying to fully understand your master plan of genocide to the scale of 350 million people.

Slowly getting there.

350 million? who said anything about just 350 million I am talking "off" to life on earth...

look its logic, nobody asks me or gives a shit about my opinion I just draw logical conclusions:
Absolute facts:
1) the USA will never leave the rest of the planet alone, war is too big to fail in the USA
2) other countries do not like being fucked in the ass by the USA
3) technology advances everywhere, the USA has no monopoly whatsoever
4) delivering a nuke to the USA is futile, the USA has 1000s of nukes, you will lose
5) the point in time will come when delivery is no longer a necessity...like having a hand grenade in an elevator for example...you do not have to deliver, you just take the mother fucker with you...

Once again.. The U.S. is the bad guys meanwhile we aren't supplying our weapons to every asshole on the planet. I wonder how many deaths world wide can be attributed to the aK47.

Russians have supplied genocides around the world by the truckload.. But hey let's talk about nukes which have only ever been used twice as a way to end a war which would of cost thousands more lives..

I wasn't making any point that is related to what you just said. Besides, don't you watch news? West is against al-Assad, I don't see how arming rebels fighting against him would be seen in bad light. Russia is different matter, but I am not Russian.

the ak47 is popular not so much because of the nazis as because of americans...it is a reaction to an action...blaming just the USA would be unfair, but keeping in mind that the USA has invaded 36 countries in 70 years (more than the roman empire in 1000 years=28 countries) and that the USA has started wars left and right either directly or indirectly, the bulk of the blame for the situation in the world today lies with the USA

You may not be supplying weapons to every asshole on the planet, but you are the worlds number one war monger and war is good business for you...you start a war in some 3rd world shit hole and it is only natural that they try to defend themselves against your terrorist government...buying weapons in a natural reaction...they will not buy 9000$ american shit....they will by a 100$ AK...

you = full of shit on that invasion #, fuckwad.

i'm not surprised.

Sly
 

I just want to make sure that I have this straight.

Germany raided Europe, North Africa, and the Eastern Mediterranean because of the United States. This led Russia to get involved and create the infamous AK-47 (Uncle Sam's fault.) After the Cold War (again fault of the United States) the Soviet Union fell apart which led to a massive stockpile being sold off around the world by its generals (United States fault, obviously.) African, Asian, and South American nations snatch up those AK-47s in fear of being bombed by the United States because? of course? an AK-47 has a glorious chance of defending against the big bad bomb from the evil powers that be.

You should write history books. This is fascinating stuff.

gofuckyourself serb

Defining invading

Several foreign-policy experts told us that while "invaded" is a familiar word in general conversation, it is used much less commonly in international law. "Aggression" and "conquest" are more common, and a variety of international agreements attempt to define them.

"The basic problem that is that everyone understands that some actions which are ?invasions? are nonetheless right and proper, and some are not," said Ted R. Bromund, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. "The world being what it is, people do not agree on exactly which actions those are."

When we asked Georgetown University professor of government and foreign service Anthony Clark Arend for his advice, he proposed a standard we could use to judge the meme?s claim. He said an "invasion" should meet each of the following three conditions:

? It violated the U.N. Charter, which says in Article 2, Paragraph 4 that member countries shall refrain "from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."

? It didn?t qualify as a permitted exception for the use of force under the U.N. Charter. The charter permits military action in the case of "self-defense if an armed attack occurs" or if the U.N. Security Council authorizes armed force.

? It involves ground troops entering another country.

Given those parameters, we went through the Facebook post?s examples, categorizing the countries from most like an invasion to least like an invasion.

There are two dozen examples here, so it?s going to take us some time to go through them all.

Three cases clearly can be considered "invasions"

Three instances would qualify as "invasions" under Arend?s framework without much argument. All were done without United Nations support and involved ground troops.

? Grenada. Following a power struggle on the small Caribbean nation, President Ronald Reagan sent troops into Grenada on Oct. 25, 1983, with the mission of protecting American nationals and assisting "in the restoration of law and order." A force of about 5,000 American troops and 300 from nearby islands prevailed, evacuating several hundred Americans, and restoring a representative form of government.

In all, 18 American forces were killed and 116 were wounded. While the invasion followed a request by five members of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution of disapproval. A U.N. Security Council resolution of disapproval failed due to a U.S. veto.

? Panama. Ironically, one of the clearest invasions wasn?t even on the list backing up the meme. Between 1988 and 1990, Panama experienced a period of instability stemming from the indictment of its leader, Manuel Noriega, for money laundering and drug trafficking charges. In December 1989, President George H.W. Bush ordered troops into the country to support 10,000 permanently stationed there. Their mission was to protect American lives and facilities, capture Noriega, and support establishment of a United States-recognized government.

These goals were accomplished, with 23 American forces killed and 324 wounded. As in the case of Grenada, the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution condemning the invasion, but the United States, joined by the United Kingdom and France, vetoed a resolution of disapproval in the U.N. Security Council.

? Iraq. When the United States led an invasion of Iraq in 2003 to oust Saddam Hussein, it did not have United Nations approval, and in fact, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan at the time called the U.S. invasion "illegal."

So these are the easy cases. What about the rest?

Seven cases might qualify as "invasions" if you use a broader definition

Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University in Lawton, Okla., said you could also use a broader definition for "invasion" -- namely, the seizure of territory by military force from the government of another country, regardless of motivation or justification.

? Using this framework, U.S. military actions in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991 and in Afghanistan in 2001 would count as "invasions," even though each had a basis for support under international law.

? A 1992 U.N.-backed, U.S.-led intervention in Somalia began as a humanitarian action but later morphed into a shooting war after militants attacked. This was in some ways an invasion, though the state of anarchy in Somalia suggests the territory taken was not controlled by "the government of another country."

? In 1994 and 1995, the United States received U.N. backing to reinstall ousted Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the president of Haiti, sending 20,000 troops at the peak. (Haiti was also omitted from the meme?s list.)

? The interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo by the United States and NATO in the 1990s might also qualify as "invasions" using this definition. In Bosnia, the U.N. supported military action, and while it didn?t officially in Kosovo, Annan was quoted saying, "It is indeed tragic that diplomacy has failed, but there are times when the use of force may be legitimate in the pursuit of peace."

? Finally, the 2011, U.N.-approved NATO campaign to oust Muammar Qaddafi in Libya might also qualify as an "invasion," though the United States didn?t send ground troops, making the label somewhat questionable. (This, like Haiti, was inexplicably omitted from the meme?s list.)

So in addition to three clear instances of "invasions" that lacked standing under international law, we have an additional seven actions that could be called "invasions" but without the meme?s pejorative use of the word, since they did have international backing.

Fourteen cases simply aren?t "invasions"

The rest of the examples cited in the meme do not qualify as "invasions" under any widely recognized definitions, experts say. They fall into a handful of categories.

? Humanitarian or disaster assistance. This category includes Zaire, now called the Democratic Republic of the Congo, where the U.S. military helped with refugees in 1996 and 1997 during the genocide in neighboring Rwanda.

? Evacuation or protection of American citizens. This covers several cases of troops being sent to Liberia, Albania and Yemen, the last in the wake of the 2000 USS Cole bombing.

? Service as U.N. peacekeepers. This covers a number of deployments to the Balkans, including a U.S. presence in Macedonia.

? Deployments requested by the country in question. This covers the stationing of American forces in Saudi Arabia prior to the Persian Gulf War in 1990 and 1991. It also describes military involvement in Colombia, Bolivia and Peru in which the United States answered a request for military assistance to counter narco-trafficking, as well as assistance to Uganda and other African nations begun in 2011 to capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army, a guerrilla group.

And this category also covers Niger, which reached an accord with the United States in 2013 that would allow intelligence gathering and drone operations targeting neighboring Mali, which was grappling with advances by al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb.

? Airstrikes. This includes the Aug. 20, 1998, strikes ordered by President Bill Clinton against targets in Sudan, after receiving intelligence -- later questioned -- of a link with the al Qaida bombing of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

This also increasingly includes drone attacks against alleged terrorist targets in countries such as Yemen. While these are clearly aggressive acts by the United States, they do not fit any conventional definition of invasion because they do not seek to take territory or overthrow a government.

? Covert operations. During its battle against international terrorism, the United States has often used covert operations, such as in the killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and inside Mali. As with airstrikes, these are aggressive actions, but due in part to the small number of troops involved, they do not fit the traditional definition of "invasion."

? No troops sent to the country. The United States took sides in Angola during a long-running civil war in the 1980s, but it is not believed to have sent military troops to the country. And the United States has not committed troops during the ongoing civil war in Syria.

And one that?s ridiculous

The meme cites the Virgin Islands, where President George H.W. Bush sent 1,000 military police following Hurricane Hugo in 1989. In reality, this can?t be an invasion because he sent them to the U.S. Virgin Islands ? part of the United States.

"If the point of the meme is to say the U.S. is sometimes a bully, or that we meddle in the affairs of many countries, that's hard to argue," Janda said. "But we don't invade sovereign states very often, and when we do we eventually leave, unless the host government asks us to stay. Even then, we don't annex foreign territory. We haven't done that since 1898."

The difference with Russia in Crimea, Janda added, is that they "invaded and have already moved to annex the region. That's a textbook case of aggression and conquest, regardless of the casualties and what the opinion polls say in Crimea."

Our ruling

The Facebook meme said that the United States has "invaded" 22 countries in the past 20 years. Using the clearest standard -- ground troops seizing foreign territory without the backing of international law --

then the actual number of U.S. invasions in the past 30 years is three.

An additional seven military actions that were supported by international law might perhaps be called "invasions" in a technical sense, even though they had official justification. The remaining examples cited by the meme aren?t even close to any conventional definition of "invasion." We rate the claim False.

Russia has been involved in 12 wars just since 1991. In ever one of those wars it's been Russian weaponry turned against it's self.. AK47s, RPGs killing their own troops.. Sounds like a legit business model..

it is produced in more than 106 countries under various names, even serbia produces the ak-47...it is cheap and simple...

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh


riiiiight you bomb a country for months every day but it does not count as an invasion? because you did not send ground toops:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1org laugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1org laugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

aK shit is $100 because Russia and its cronies dump them to the black market by the trainloads. If the U.S. Did the same then M16s could be bought for $100. We don't because we don't hand our weapon systems over to terrorists..

So once again what country is really the supporter of world wide terrorism? It's Russia and friends. They are the biggest suppliers of weapon to terrorist.. End of story..

well... to a lot of assholes... but they are youre assholes ... so it is OK:

did you miss the part where I wrote that the AK-47 is produced in 106 countries?

the biggest supplier of weapons to terrorists is the USA, it has the largest number of terrorists in the world its called the US Army, it is directly responsible for the murder of millions of civilians around the world, it is the number one bomb dropper in the world by a wiiiiiiiiiiiiide margin...its amusing to see you mention russia LOL they cant hold a candle to you guys in terms of terrorism...neither can alquaida or ISIS LOL

That percent chart is export of weapons by dollars sold not by pieces. So let's rethink your argument of how many $700 M4's that would be vs how many $100 AK47's that would be...

That 27% supplies a hell of a lot more cheaper weapons than the US's 31%...

Russia and it's friends are the biggest suppliers of weapons to ruthless dictators and terrorist. Russia supplies terrorists while the US doesnt..

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

This is part of the problem - The United States just doesn't know when to stay out of someone else's business. Yeah, Saddam was horrible, but he kept things in control. Assad is the same thing - horrible person, but he's kept the country quiet for some time. Yet still we are trying to get him removed from power, with no real plan to replace him.

Same shit, different country.

I think Syria is more of a ok why not. They are already fighting so here's some fuel. Added bonus is they are a Russian ally with a Russian military base. Meaning if the Rebels win it pushes Russia out of the area.

If Russia gets involved it ties them up in an in a war that can't be won sort of like Iraq and us, but Obama was smart enough to get us out.

Either way you look at it, it's win win for the US and we don't have to lift a finger.

Obama's been bombing Syria for the past year. $3 billion + worth of bombings.

BO ramps up military involvement in Syria

officials Monday confirmed an expanded bombing campaign in Syria that increases the risk of confrontation with forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad, possibly drawing Washington more deeply into that country?s punishing four-year war.

The Obama administration authorized the Pentagon to use force to help defend a small, U.S.-trained Syrian rebel unit against other insurgent factions ? or against fighters allied with the Syrian government, officials said.

U.S. warplanes already struck last week, bombarding Al Qaeda-linked Syrian rebels who had attacked the Pentagon-backed force.

Until now, the U.S.-led air campaign that began last August has focused almost exclusively on Islamic State, the breakaway Al Qaeda faction that controls huge parts of Syria and neighboring Iraq. President Obama has called on Assad to step down, but the U.S. military has refrained from targeting pro-Assad forces.

Pentagon ramps up airstrikes in Syria to help U.S.-backed rebels - LA Times

Are you drunk or high? Do you read your own posts? The US will attack Russian army, start WWIII and get the life on Earth destroyed because of some Assad? You mad?

Yea but that's no real risk. What I meant was keeping us off the ground.

reality: the AK-47 is produced in 106 countries, it is not something you import from russia you make it LOL

reality 2: the US supports terrorists, not only politically but also financially, like they did in my country for example, they gave political, logistical and financial support, the money went to buy serb produced AK-47 that were used against serbs...just an example...

so not only do you export 31% of global exports but you also finance local supplies :thumbsup

You don't think Russia does the same? Russia wasn't putting money and weapons in the hands of Ukrainian rebels?

The reality is you are brainwashed into blaming the US for everything.

Absolutely, just like ukranian rebels will get $upport from the USA

sure, you are right . thanks for the course on US flag kissing.

makes sense .... lol ....

let me find a flag ... one sec....

https://reclaimourrepublic.files.wor...flag.jpg?w=640

It is not Russian army, it is Syrians.. in Syria. If there is some mixup.. shit happen. There won't be WWIII because of that. Stuff like that already happened during Cold War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air-to...he_USSR_and_US

Everybody knows there are Russian pilots and technicians. So Pentagon knows it to. Don't be so naive.

I am the one being naive?

Sending troops to a country in war doesn't give any immunity for the troops, the opposite. Especially as there are several parties involved, not just Russians.

So, Syrians in Syria. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

About the main subject; based on other news the Russians fight mainly against the rebels, not the ISIS. Essentially they are there to keep al-Assad in power (to secure their own interests), nothing else.

Bravo professor! :thumbsup Of course for their own interests, not yours. If those "rebels" and ISIS (in fact they are the same people) is a treat to the Russian navy base in Mediterranean Sea, course it (the base) will be secured with all the necessary power. Every independent country like China, USA, India, Iran etc would do the same. Finland is not independent so it doesn't count :)

The rebels and ISIS are not the same folks as for starters ISIS fights against the rebels.

Finland was independent the last time I checked. I don't know about Russia, at least it isn't independent from Putin. But "Putinia" is independent (subjects aren't).

They are same and have same goals, to devastate civilized country where different religions lived in peace and get in power through terror and with a help from allah (and USA). SHit about "positive" and less bad muslim terrorists were already seen so many times before.

About Finland: How free,independent and honest politicians are, ther, small reminder:
U.S. State Department Unable to Deny Ahtisaari Corruption:
Ahtisaari?s Collusion With Albanian Mafia Confirmed Beyond Doubt - De-Construct.net

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/10/nobl-o27.html

Anyway, more interesting news:

TURNAROUND Putin "MiGs" go to the Islamic country and getting an unexpected ally.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sr&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blic.rs%2FVesti%2FSvet%2F5931 82%2FPREOKRET-Putinovi-migovi-idu-na-Islamsku-drzavu-i-dobijaju-neocekivanog-saveznika&edit-text=

Nice sources you have.

they were just first one that when I searched for that pig. There are tons of results about it, if you want to research

This is nothing new, at least here, he was caught getting money from Albanian mob for his service in support of creation of their muslim state in europe. Domestic seceret services got him long ago. I do not expect that you got those info there, of course.

In short, ex presidend of Finland, and nobel prize owner is corupted scumbag that was paid by muslim albanian mob, with money from drugs and kindapping , to support their cause since he was special UN Envoy for Kosovo.

Ah, if you say so... :winkwink:

Finland is a part of the EU so it is dependent country (depends on the EU). Not mention that EU itself is also depends on the USA. So Finland is 2x dependent. That's why you have no own Geo-political interests in the World. Just seat tight and keep a low profile like any other dependent country.

The examples of real independent countries: the USA, Russia, China, Iran, India, Brazil etc.

Hint: educate yourself.