SOURCES: CHINA HACKED HILLARY CLINTON’S PRIVATE EMAIL SERVER

REVEALED: Chinese Govt. Killed and Imprisoned 18-20 CIA Spies After Penetrating Hillary Clinton’s Private Server

Yes Rochard, an investigation is sorely needed. It is happening.

Judge Orders State and Justice Departments to Reopen Clinton Email Case

:pimp

Again... You have no clue.

NO ONE in the United States wants to support Assad. In fact, it's been American policy for decades to remove him from office. In fact, Obama put US troops on the ground in Syria and has been providing support to everyone fighting against Assad.

You seem to have no idea what US policy with Syria is, and you have no idea what liberals want or don't want.

i am really astonished that you can find such numbers and not see the real point in them.

china and india will be the biggest economy because they have the most people.

UK is just jumping from the boat with a lot of people and things the can survive.

but no matter how poor chines and indians will be - they produce cheaper and in sum they have more busing power than every europen country on it´s own.
what do we do against that? nuke them or make something like a UNION?
maybe we could call it: THE EUROPEAN UNION ????

and regarding trump and his brainwashed white supremacists:
did you know that in 2013 was the first year when more children under 1 year have been black ?

in 2030 the white race will not be the majority in the US anymore. than you have to deal with obamas for the rest of your life.

decisions made today are made for THIS predictable future and not for a herd of stupids and their leader clown. decision made today are done for a future when this planet have not enough space to live and the climate change has made a big part of earth unhabitable.

THIS are the things todays leaders are responsible for and not the yesterday people.

this part is correct. but WHO has disempowered saddam and with what lies ?

is this NOT a part of americans history where EVERY FUTURE president have to deal with?

THIS IS BULLSHIT. he left because he sold US allies to turkey and sold the weapons to kill them also to turkey.

what shall americans do there when turkish troops come with american weapons to kill the ones that risked their asses to fight ISIS?

so better get the troops out and say later "sorry we just heard it too late".

and what do you think putin is interessted in syria?

he is interested on the oilpipeline to europe because the ONLY ME country that have the geographical position for that is syria.

so the big question is: is the trump empire partner of russia in this pipeline deal or why else he accept that US oil economy will break in pieces and all oil exports to europe will be history because the US oil is much to expensive than.

i am pretty sure he got some stocks from vladimir and sold the USA for it.

And why do you think that is, Rochard? He was elected by his people.

Short answer: Assad refused to let the Saudis build pipelines thru his country, so we (allies of the Saudis) declared that Assad is a dictator and we sent in the fake rebels (terrorists) to start a civil war. Over a fucking pipeline.

The Oil-Gas War Over Syria (In 4 Maps)

Obama and Hillary were funding and arming terrorists. Because a sovereign nation isn't allowed to say no to out allies pipeline projects. And you support this??

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Brasil%29.jpg

RANKED: These will be the 32 most powerful economies in the world by 2050
China — $58.499 trillion. REUTERS/Stringer.
India — $44.128 trillion. ...
United States — $34.102 trillion. ...
Indonesia — $10.502 trillion. ...
Brazil — $7.540 trillion. ...
Russia — $7.131 trillion. ...
Mexico — $6.863 trillion. ...
Japan — $6.779 trillion. ..

BRICS ~ 116 trillion

Need justification why the USA will fail? :1orglaugh

https://s16.stc.all.kpcdn.net/share/...inx960x640.jpg

:1orglaugh

So Trump isn't pulling troops out of Syria and Americans can stomach the tactics used by Assad. Thank you for setting me straight. :thumbsup

But Bladewire says the opposite.

So the US is trying again to change regimes in countries it has no right to. But no one must use bots to influence your vote. :upsidedow

They are getting to the top because they are getting Western industries.

That includes EU industries.

As one of the largest economies in world the UK can negotiate it's own trade deals and not be shackled by the EU.

I was always against the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan should have been a quick and brutal bombing of the country and not America taking residence there.



So the Russians aren't the most powerful force in Syria. Thank you for educating me.

Muslims killing non-Muslims is something they've been doing for centuries. Selling them the tools seems like a good idea. It's not as if no one else will sell them.

Are you now in favour of going to war over oil? Just like Bush did.

Sanders was very popular with young voters and less so with older voters. Biden would actually be the best choice when it comes to foreign policy.

Sarn you're a smart person you can't really believe anyone can predict 30 years into the future?

Please no. That ancient prick is the last thing we need. He's lost 2 times already! He would be 78 when he TOOK office - He's actually OLDER than Trump. If he were going to win he would already have. The presidency isn't a lifetime oscar.

I REALLY hope you do run Biden. He's a real hands on type of guy :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

https://www.insideedition.com/sites/...?itok=iKBHsDd_

But a "quick and brutal bombing" doesn't work. Even less so with Middle Eastern countries where the population is spread out, and the government isn't always in country in all areas.

With Iraq, we removed their government and destroyed their military. Calling Iraq a military zone isn't correct. We aren't engaged in combat in Iraq. We've had seventeen deaths in Iraq in 2018, fifteen of which was "non hostile". The two "hostile" deaths were IEDs. That's not combat.

With Afghanistan, we removed their military and their government, but that doesn't say much. It's not like they ever had a strong military to begin with. Keep in mind our original target was Al-Qaeda, and in order to get to Al-Qaeda we had to remove the Northern Alliance government / military. When talking about Al-Qaeda, you need to remember we are talking small groups of men who live in huts. We bombed the shit out of Afghanistan and quickly defeated them, but small groups continue on. Bombing them and then walking away wouldn't have solved the original problem.

I honestly do not care. If the United States goes to war, we need stay there until the end of time. We need to send a strong message that says "If we go to war will stay there until the end of time". Don't think that's possible? We still have US military bases in Germany and Japan. We always will.

By the way, we had less deaths in Afghanistan than we did in Iraq in 2018.

We can't see the future, of course, future in dynamic.
But i show how it count.

UNITED STATES $19,390,000,000,000 2017 EST
https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...01rank.html#rs

USA gdp growth 2,3% per year

30 year * 2.3% = 69% per 30 years it not rigth counting because

requred (1year * 2.3%) + (1year * 2.3%) * 2.3 + ((1year * 2.3%) * 2.3%)2.3% etc... and in the end sum will be bigest than in my example but we in gfy ))

GDP $19 + (19 * 69%) = 32

GDP in 2050 ~ $ 32 000,000,000,000 moni )

So you're in favour of the US occupying foreign lands until the end of time. And will you pay for it through your taxes?

Yes. We are still in Germany, and still in Japan.

We have two sides of war. We have what we did in WWII, and then what we have done ever since.

During WWII, we had complete warfare. We bombed the shit out of everything. "Oh, ten percent of the population of this town is involved in munitions manufacturing? We'll have to firebomb it". Over night we send one hundred bombers to firebomb a town, killing tens of thousand of people, in some cases over one hundred thousand people, destroying entire towns in the process. In Japan the United States nuked two entire cities. Over the course of the war over sixty million people died - mostly civilians. Everyone lost everything. Everyone lost family members, in some cases entire families; Everyone lost their businesses, their jobs, their houses, everything they owned, and went hungry for years at a time.

Since WWII the nature of warfare has changed. The larger countries are extremely reluctant to engage each other in open war (which is why we have proxy wars). We wanted to accomplish our goals without complete destruction, and avoid unnecessary deaths as much as possible. This is a great idea - we shouldn't kill each other - but it just doesn't work. We tested this with Korea, and here we are fifty years later technically still at war, a country divided, people still dying, and war can break out again at any time. We did this with Vietnam also. The United States never lost a battle in Vietnam, but we failed to go all out to win the war. We did the same thing with Iraq - the goal was to remove Iraq from Kuwait, and we quickly did this, but it failed to fix the problem and we had to go back a second time but still do not engage all out warfare.

Let me give you another great example.... During the Six Day War Israel bitch smacked most of the Middle East - Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq. It was quick and brutal; Egypt lost it's entire air force. It was a clear win for Israel, but the losers do not consider it a loss at all. In fact, they call it something completely different - they call it "The Setback". To this very day this is still unresolved, and people are dying.

Do you see the difference? In all out war everyone suffered, everyone lost everything, everyone lost their houses, their business, their jobs, everything they owned, family members, every one starved, and no matter what they would never ever allow this to happen again. Without all out war the losing side is like "meh" and "we are still not happy".

Limited warfare doesn't work. It accomplishes limited objectives without fixing the over all problem.

What American wouldn't be Paul?

Dominate or be dominated.

What the fuck is wrong with you Paul?

Yes we know, you feel Russia would be the best world power despite their proven history of nazi loving failure.

At least in Germany the US troops are not stationed there to control or protect the country though, it's because air bases like Ramstein are needed for access to Iraq/Afghanistan.

Most of the regular troops have been withdrawn long time ago.

PS: If history has taught us something, then that it is nearly impossible to win a war against people that don't value individual life and have nothing else to lose.

Unless you are willing to drop nuclear bombs on them.

So you're saying him wanting Hilary locked up for emails isn't the same? Oh you know, the same thing him and his family did.

The confirmation bias is so laughably present in your way of thinking and you can't seem to realize it.

Oh... and calling it now: The Squealer or one of his fake nicks will come along with a "No You!" argument anytime soon. He thinks he's brilliant with those.

Paul doesn't read. He just types. Why waste your time?

A) It amuses me.
B) It's a Sunday on a holiday week and I'm utterly borded.
C) I am giving a lecture to a Marine Corps org a week from Monday on this very subject.

:1orglaugh
https://s16.stc.all.kpcdn.net/share/...inx960x640.jpg
no one not works, where trillions moni?
:1orglaugh

Yes and no.

Originally the US built bases in Germany and Japan to continue to exert influence over them, and help during the rebuilding. At the same time, very quickly the primary mission was to counter the Russian threat in Europe (and China in Japan).

The end result was that a friendship between Germany and United States (as well as the Allied countries) was established. The same happened in Japan. Society today cannot imagine a world where Germany and Japan was not a friend.

One of the things I have not learned yet is how the Germans in East Germany thought of the Russians during the cold war. Perhaps you could fill me in on that.

complex topic...

in short: There was a gap between what was offical policy and what was reality - but as usual it wasn't all black or white.

Official policy was that Russians are friends, there were even organized friendship evenings where they put Russian soldiers together with normal people and sometimes it even ended up with Russian soldiers marrying German women.

And if you - as an Eastern German - were a believer of the GDR system, you probably had no problem.

Then again if you were not, you had a problem. That started with Russians bringing out the tanks in 1953 against an uprise of Eastern German workers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uprisi...n_East_Germany

And of course their support in putting up the wall.

It is still unknown how many Eastern Germans were deported and/or executed in the 1950ties to 70ties because they were considered opposition.

you´ve got it !

Yes, and my friend 30 years ago we were told Japan would outrank the US by looking at the charts. Things can change very rapidly.

Pretty much this is what I thought.... There was official policy, and then reality.

Then again that is usually the way.

education also helps to read and understand stats.
complain putin about the school.

btw: i met a russin tonight here in thailand and he asked me if i am from the soviet or the american germany.
your information system there seems to have some issues.

and for what bomb them ???
for not having chemical weapons and not being involved in 9/11 ?

they are NOW the most powerful FOREIGN nation there

muslims are killing muslims, moron.
is that not reason enough to difference that word?

where did you read that in my statements?
up to here i was talking to you like with a 10 year old. but if that is too much just tell me - i will try to explain to a 5 year old - maybe you get it easier.

just keep after his wife and kids, that will help

don't worry. He'll figure out in his second term.

So you're in favour of American troops using the tactics required to subdue any resistance.

Don't know where you get the Russian BS from.

Confirmation Thommy is supports all out war. Not such a hippy liberal after all.

Is he in favour of allowing more Muslims into Europe?

You misread what I wrote. The US should have bombed and invaded Afghanistan. It should have never invaded Iraq.



The Russian Defense Ministry released a video Wednesday which said that the country has sent up to 63,012 servicemen to help battle rebels and jihadis trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whose request for military assistance from Moscow was answered in September 2015.

Talking out of your ass again.

Not sure what you mean here. I'll put it down to your poor English.

Your mistake was thinking Germans are the same as Muslims. Go do some research. Japanese do have a culture of suicide in support of the Emperor, but after bombing them twice the Emperor decided to give in. So the people followed his orders.

Whether bombing civilians or industry was right is now something historians debate. Dropping Atom bombs on Japan saved more lives than it cost.

True enough, would Americans be willing to support the tactics used by the Marines in Vietnam in your scenario.

So you are in favour of adopting the same methods Israel uses.

So will you support American troops carrying out your tactics after the "war" is won to quell any uprising?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StefanG (Post 22388579) PS: If history has taught us something, then that it is nearly impossible to win a war against people that don't value individual life and have nothing else to lose. Unless you are willing to drop nuclear bombs on them.

Seems some here are in favour of American troops occupying foreign countries and will support them using tactics we're associate the Nazis with.

Or delusional enough to believe they can rule these countries using soft tactics.