ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
Am Sonntag000015, 15.12.2024 um 05:09 schrieb The Starmaker:
ww3
we are at war again with
North Korea!
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
This was necessary, because the flight-deck needed to be empty,
because the Japanese had no catapults.
But even very experienced Japanese plane-assemblers would need a
few minutes to bolt together each plane.
Lets say, a team needs, say, an hour and ten planes could be
assembled at once, we would need six hours to assemble the entire
Am Sonntag000015, 15.12.2024 um 05:09 schrieb The Starmaker:
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
Japan had only six carriers and no other means to bring aircraft near to Hawaii.
To start an aircraft from a carrier, the Japanese had to bring them from
the storage below the flight deck to that flight-deck, screw them
together and let them start.
This was necessary, because the flight-deck needed to be empty, because
the Japanese had no catapults.
But even very experienced Japanese plane-assemblers would need a few
minutes to bolt together each plane.
Now roughly 360 planes took part in the attack and had to start from one
of these six carriers.
This is 360 / 6 or sixty planes per carrier, which had to start there,
hence need to be assembled in advance.
Lets say, a team needs, say, an hour and ten planes could be assembled
at once, we would need six hours to assemble the entire attack formation
and let ist start from the carriers. Since ten could be assembled in
advance we could calculate with 5 hours.
In the meantime the planes, which started first would drop out off the
sky, because they are running out of fuel.
But they had to fly a long distance, drop many bombs and torpedoes and
fly back afterwards, where they had to cue in line, to be allowed to land.
But that would require fuel for:
5 hours assembly time,
1 hour flight,
10 min attack,
1 flight back and
5 hours disassembly,
(in total 12 hours and 10 min)
which these 'Zero' planes could not possibly carry.
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
If you know the True answer to that first question, then you
should know the answer to:
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
The Starmaker wrote:
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
If you know the True answer to that first question, then you
should know the answer to:
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
From the point of view of world leaders, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.. Winston Churlhill knew right away that
the Unted States will go to war with Germany.
Here are quotes from Albert Einstein on his views of Japan:
"This, however, does not cause me to consider the intrigues of Japan and the powers behind her any less damnable
than you do.I have on various occasions hinted at the possibility of an international economic boycott against Japan, only to
find that nothing could be achieved, obviously because of the powerful private economic interests that are involved!"
He shared the widespread view on the left that Japan’s attack on Manchuria was encouraged by those who sought to undermine the Soviet Union.
To Barbusse he wrote:
"Ever since Japan embarked on its Manchurian ad-venture, it has been clear to me that it was supported by powerful, invisible allies," and he
further presumed that "they are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."
"by powerful, invisible allies"????
Now, I'm going to answer the first question:
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
The answer is very simple..
In ww2, Japan was an ally of Germany.
Japan was a proxy of Germany
"by powerful, invisible allies"???? Germany of course!
Japan and Germany were the axixes of evil in ww2 days.
I love war.
No wonder Israel tried to get Albert Einstein to be President of
Israel...
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
If you know the True answer to that first question, then you
should know the answer to:
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
From the point of view of world leaders, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.. Winston Churlhill knew right away that
the Unted States will go to war with Germany.
Here are quotes from Albert Einstein on his views of Japan:
"This, however, does not cause me to consider the intrigues of Japan and the powers behind her any less damnable
than you do.I have on various occasions hinted at the possibility of an international economic boycott against Japan, only to
find that nothing could be achieved, obviously because of the powerful private economic interests that are involved!"
He shared the widespread view on the left that Japan’s attack on Manchuria was encouraged by those who sought to undermine the Soviet Union.
To Barbusse he wrote:
"Ever since Japan embarked on its Manchurian ad-venture, it has been clear to me that it was supported by powerful, invisible allies," and he
further presumed that "they are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."
"by powerful, invisible allies"????
Now, I'm going to answer the first question:
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
The answer is very simple..
In ww2, Japan was an ally of Germany.
Japan was a proxy of Germany
"by powerful, invisible allies"???? Germany of course!
Japan and Germany were the axixes of evil in ww2 days.
I love war.
As anyone can clearly see (if you understand Albert Einstein's foreign policy)
Albert Einstein is a self-appointed world Earth leader..his own one
world government.
In Einstein's view, world peace would be guaranteed only when the
leaders of individual nations answered to his single supranational government.
Albert Einstein's policy is:
that we live in peace,
without arms or armies, secure in
the knowledge that we are free from
aggression and war -- free to pursue
more profitable enterprises.
"they (Japan and Germany) are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."-- Albert Einstien
Sabotaging Albert Einstein's disarment effort.
The penalty for sabotaging Einstein's disarmament effort is too terrible
to risk.
In other words, you fuck with Albert Einstein and you're fucking dead!
Albert Einstein: "I'LL DROP A FUCKING ATOMIC BOMB ON YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY!!!!"
"I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY, AND YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY!!"
...world peace would be guaranteed only when the leaders of individual nations answered to his single supranational government.
No wonder Israel tried to get Albert Einstein to be President of
Israel...
Israel wanted to be...head of The One World Government!
Following are quotes from Albert Einstein:
But in blaming the Russians the Americans should not ignore the fact
that they themselves have not voluntarily
renounced the use of the bomb as an ordinary weapon in the time before
the achievement of supranational control, or if supranational control
is not achieved. Thus they have fed the fear of other countries that
they consider the bomb a legitimate part of their arsenal so long as
other countries decline to accept their terms for supranational
control.
Albert Einstein: "There is only one path to peace and security: the path
of supranational organization."
Albert Einstein: "to control all military forces except for local police forces, including nuclear weapons", are the only way to prevent nuclear
war.
As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of
dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of
the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative
and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations.
Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this
legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, -Albert
Einstein
The United Nations now, and world government eventually, must serve one single goal – the guarantee of the security,
tranquillity and the welfare of all mankind. -Albert Einstein
… for as long as atomic energy and armaments are considered a vital part
of national security no nation will give more
than lip service to international treaties. Security . . . can be
reached only when necessary guarantees of law and enforcement obtain everywhere, so
that military security is no longer the problem of any single state.
There is no compromise possible between preparation for war, on the one
hand, and
preparation of a world society based on law and order on the other.
-Albert Einstein
The only hope for protection lies in the securing of peace in a
supranational way. A world government must be created
which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. .
. based on a clear cut constitution which is approved by the governments
and
the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive
weapons. A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it
is ready to cede
its military force to the international authorities and to renounce
every attempt or even the means of achieving its interests abroad by the
use of force.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
So, ...did Trump already made a peace deal with Putin,
or is Putin going to drop a bomb somewhere before the end of December?
I mean, you got those thousand of north koreans fight for putin..
wat up wit dese koreans anyway???
Nixon told Kissenger "How about dropping a nucluer bomb on those North Koreans?"
Kissenger told him, "That's a little too much."
When Trump first became President, he asked Obama
"What's the biggest problem?"
Obama sez: "Those North Koreans!"
I sez Nixon shouldn't have listen to Kissenger and dropped dat bomb.
Now dat proxy might repeat history and drop it on us!
Fucking China is behind all dis...
dis world don't need chinks.
I don't get it, wats dis 'slanted eye' business, whose fucking idea was dat???
A penquin walks into a bar
and ask the bartender..
"Have you seen my brother?"
The bartender replies, "What does he look like?"
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
If you know the True answer to that first question, then you
should know the answer to:
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
From the point of view of world leaders, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.. Winston Churlhill knew right away that
the Unted States will go to war with Germany.
Here are quotes from Albert Einstein on his views of Japan:
"This, however, does not cause me to consider the intrigues of Japan and the powers behind her any less damnable
than you do.I have on various occasions hinted at the possibility of an international economic boycott against Japan, only to
find that nothing could be achieved, obviously because of the powerful private economic interests that are involved!"
He shared the widespread view on the left that Japan’s attack on Manchuria was encouraged by those who sought to undermine the Soviet Union.
To Barbusse he wrote:
"Ever since Japan embarked on its Manchurian ad-venture, it has been clear to me that it was supported by powerful, invisible allies," and he
further presumed that "they are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."
"by powerful, invisible allies"????
Now, I'm going to answer the first question:
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
The answer is very simple..
In ww2, Japan was an ally of Germany.
Japan was a proxy of Germany
"by powerful, invisible allies"???? Germany of course!
Japan and Germany were the axixes of evil in ww2 days.
I love war.
As anyone can clearly see (if you understand Albert Einstein's foreign policy)
Albert Einstein is a self-appointed world Earth leader..his own one
world government.
In Einstein's view, world peace would be guaranteed only when the
leaders of individual nations answered to his single supranational government.
Albert Einstein's policy is:
that we live in peace,
without arms or armies, secure in
the knowledge that we are free from
aggression and war -- free to pursue
more profitable enterprises.
"they (Japan and Germany) are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."-- Albert Einstien
Sabotaging Albert Einstein's disarment effort.
The penalty for sabotaging Einstein's disarmament effort is too terrible
to risk.
In other words, you fuck with Albert Einstein and you're fucking dead!
Albert Einstein: "I'LL DROP A FUCKING ATOMIC BOMB ON YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY!!!!"
"I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY, AND YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY!!"
...world peace would be guaranteed only when the leaders of individual nations answered to his single supranational government.
No wonder Israel tried to get Albert Einstein to be President of
Israel...
Israel wanted to be...head of The One World Government!
Following are quotes from Albert Einstein:
But in blaming the Russians the Americans should not ignore the fact
that they themselves have not voluntarily
renounced the use of the bomb as an ordinary weapon in the time before
the achievement of supranational control, or if supranational control
is not achieved. Thus they have fed the fear of other countries that
they consider the bomb a legitimate part of their arsenal so long as
other countries decline to accept their terms for supranational
control.
Albert Einstein: "There is only one path to peace and security: the path
of supranational organization."
Albert Einstein: "to control all military forces except for local police forces, including nuclear weapons", are the only way to prevent nuclear war.
As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of
the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative
and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations.
Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, -Albert
Einstein
The United Nations now, and world government eventually, must serve one single goal – the guarantee of the security,
tranquillity and the welfare of all mankind. -Albert Einstein
… for as long as atomic energy and armaments are considered a vital part
of national security no nation will give more
than lip service to international treaties. Security . . . can be
reached only when necessary guarantees of law and enforcement obtain everywhere, so
that military security is no longer the problem of any single state.
There is no compromise possible between preparation for war, on the one hand, and
preparation of a world society based on law and order on the other.
-Albert Einstein
The only hope for protection lies in the securing of peace in a supranational way. A world government must be created
which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. .
. based on a clear cut constitution which is approved by the governments and
the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive
weapons. A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it
is ready to cede
its military force to the international authorities and to renounce
every attempt or even the means of achieving its interests abroad by the use of force.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
On 12/20/24 11:48 PM, Bertietaylor wrote:
We will eat you alive if you dare to think we are not made of peace
Exactly :) That's U.S. government talking to Americans and other people around the world.
Great Satan.
So, ...did Trump already made a peace deal with Putin,
or is Putin going to drop a bomb somewhere before the end of December?
I mean, you got those thousand of north koreans fight for putin..
wat up wit dese koreans anyway???
Nixon told Kissenger "How about dropping a nucluer bomb on those North Koreans?"
Kissenger told him, "That's a little too much."
When Trump first became President, he asked Obama
"What's the biggest problem?"
Obama sez: "Those North Koreans!"
I sez Nixon shouldn't have listen to Kissenger and dropped dat bomb.
Now dat proxy might repeat history and drop it on us!
Fucking China is behind all dis...
dis world don't need chinks.
I don't get it, wats dis 'slanted eye' business, whose fucking idea was dat???
A penquin walks into a bar
and ask the bartender..
"Have you seen my brother?"
The bartender replies, "What does he look like?"
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
If you know the True answer to that first question, then you
should know the answer to:
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
From the point of view of world leaders, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.. Winston Churlhill knew right away that
the Unted States will go to war with Germany.
Here are quotes from Albert Einstein on his views of Japan:
"This, however, does not cause me to consider the intrigues of Japan and the powers behind her any less damnable
than you do.I have on various occasions hinted at the possibility of an international economic boycott against Japan, only to
find that nothing could be achieved, obviously because of the powerful private economic interests that are involved!"
He shared the widespread view on the left that Japan’s attack on Manchuria was encouraged by those who sought to undermine the Soviet Union.
To Barbusse he wrote:
"Ever since Japan embarked on its Manchurian ad-venture, it has been clear to me that it was supported by powerful, invisible allies," and he
further presumed that "they are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."
"by powerful, invisible allies"????
Now, I'm going to answer the first question:
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
The answer is very simple..
In ww2, Japan was an ally of Germany.
Japan was a proxy of Germany
"by powerful, invisible allies"???? Germany of course!
Japan and Germany were the axixes of evil in ww2 days.
I love war.
As anyone can clearly see (if you understand Albert Einstein's foreign policy)
Albert Einstein is a self-appointed world Earth leader..his own one
world government.
In Einstein's view, world peace would be guaranteed only when the
leaders of individual nations answered to his single supranational government.
Albert Einstein's policy is:
that we live in peace,
without arms or armies, secure in
the knowledge that we are free from
aggression and war -- free to pursue
more profitable enterprises.
"they (Japan and Germany) are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."-- Albert Einstien
Sabotaging Albert Einstein's disarment effort.
The penalty for sabotaging Einstein's disarmament effort is too terrible
to risk.
In other words, you fuck with Albert Einstein and you're fucking dead!
Albert Einstein: "I'LL DROP A FUCKING ATOMIC BOMB ON YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY!!!!"
"I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY, AND YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY!!"
...world peace would be guaranteed only when the leaders of individual nations answered to his single supranational government.
No wonder Israel tried to get Albert Einstein to be President of
Israel...
Israel wanted to be...head of The One World Government!
Following are quotes from Albert Einstein:
But in blaming the Russians the Americans should not ignore the fact
that they themselves have not voluntarily
renounced the use of the bomb as an ordinary weapon in the time before
the achievement of supranational control, or if supranational control
is not achieved. Thus they have fed the fear of other countries that
they consider the bomb a legitimate part of their arsenal so long as
other countries decline to accept their terms for supranational
control.
Albert Einstein: "There is only one path to peace and security: the path
of supranational organization."
Albert Einstein: "to control all military forces except for local police forces, including nuclear weapons", are the only way to prevent nuclear war.
As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of
the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative
and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations.
Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, -Albert
Einstein
The United Nations now, and world government eventually, must serve one single goal – the guarantee of the security,
tranquillity and the welfare of all mankind. -Albert Einstein
… for as long as atomic energy and armaments are considered a vital part
of national security no nation will give more
than lip service to international treaties. Security . . . can be
reached only when necessary guarantees of law and enforcement obtain everywhere, so
that military security is no longer the problem of any single state.
There is no compromise possible between preparation for war, on the one hand, and
preparation of a world society based on law and order on the other.
-Albert Einstein
The only hope for protection lies in the securing of peace in a supranational way. A world government must be created
which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. .
. based on a clear cut constitution which is approved by the governments and
the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive
weapons. A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it
is ready to cede
its military force to the international authorities and to renounce
every attempt or even the means of achieving its interests abroad by the use of force.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Most likely Trump already amde a peace deal with Putin, otherwise
Putin would have already dropped the bomb.
The Peace deal would consist of Putin's reason for invading Ukraine in
the first place.
When Putin first invaded Ukraine, I posted at that very moment WHY: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/v56zSjAEV2c/m/5rFiHr_dAAAJ
and it has not changed...
The Ukraine guy said if
i cannot be part of NATO
then I will put atomic bombs
pointing at Russia.
Russia said, "I cannot have that."
So, Russia needed to grab Ukraine
before it happens.
Putin wants the same deal he always wanted from the very beginning...
No atomic bombs pointing at Russia from Ukraine, and no NATO for
Ukraine.
dats the deal today.
The Starmaker wrote:
So, ...did Trump already made a peace deal with Putin,
or is Putin going to drop a bomb somewhere before the end of December?
I mean, you got those thousand of north koreans fight for putin..
wat up wit dese koreans anyway???
Nixon told Kissenger "How about dropping a nucluer bomb on those North Koreans?"
Kissenger told him, "That's a little too much."
When Trump first became President, he asked Obama
"What's the biggest problem?"
Obama sez: "Those North Koreans!"
I sez Nixon shouldn't have listen to Kissenger and dropped dat bomb.
Now dat proxy might repeat history and drop it on us!
Fucking China is behind all dis...
dis world don't need chinks.
I don't get it, wats dis 'slanted eye' business, whose fucking idea was dat???
A penquin walks into a bar
and ask the bartender..
"Have you seen my brother?"
The bartender replies, "What does he look like?"
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
ww3
Imagine if you will..
Ukraine is a proxy of
the United States...
and since there are
thousands of
North Koreans
fighting for Russia,
we are at war again with
North Korea!
Why does the
United States gets
itself in these chink wars?
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History.
Like for example, in ww2
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
But, mosts of yous..
if not all of yous,
don't know History and
don't know the answer
to that question.
And if I give you a hint..
it will make it worse!
So, I'm going to give you the
hint anyway.
The United States dropped the
Atomic Bomb on Japan, twice.
Now, the 'Fact' is..
the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan in August, 1945...
but, Albert Einstein was informed that the atomic bomb would
be used on Japan back in March 1945 that same year..
Albert Einstein didn't mentioned to anyone for 5 months, Why?
Why?
Because, Albert Einstein wanted ALL the people in Japan to die!
Now you asking yourself the Question,
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Let's go back to Question number one...
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
If you know the True answer to that first question, then you
should know the answer to:
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
Why did Albert Einstein wanted all the people in Japan to die?
From the point of view of world leaders, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.. Winston Churlhill knew right away that
the Unted States will go to war with Germany.
Here are quotes from Albert Einstein on his views of Japan:
"This, however, does not cause me to consider the intrigues of Japan and the powers behind her any less damnable
than you do.I have on various occasions hinted at the possibility of an international economic boycott against Japan, only to
find that nothing could be achieved, obviously because of the powerful private economic interests that are involved!"
He shared the widespread view on the left that Japan’s attack on Manchuria was encouraged by those who sought to undermine the Soviet Union.
To Barbusse he wrote:
"Ever since Japan embarked on its Manchurian ad-venture, it has been clear to me that it was supported by powerful, invisible allies," and he
further presumed that "they are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."
"by powerful, invisible allies"????
Now, I'm going to answer the first question:
Why did Japan bombed Pearl Harbor????
The answer is very simple..
In ww2, Japan was an ally of Germany.
Japan was a proxy of Germany
"by powerful, invisible allies"???? Germany of course!
Japan and Germany were the axixes of evil in ww2 days.
I love war.
As anyone can clearly see (if you understand Albert Einstein's foreign policy)
Albert Einstein is a self-appointed world Earth leader..his own one
world government.
In Einstein's view, world peace would be guaranteed only when the
leaders of individual nations answered to his single supranational government.
Albert Einstein's policy is:
that we live in peace,
without arms or armies, secure in
the knowledge that we are free from
aggression and war -- free to pursue
more profitable enterprises.
"they (Japan and Germany) are the same forces which are sabotaging the disarmament effort."-- Albert Einstien
Sabotaging Albert Einstein's disarment effort.
The penalty for sabotaging Einstein's disarmament effort is too terrible to risk.
In other words, you fuck with Albert Einstein and you're fucking dead!
Albert Einstein: "I'LL DROP A FUCKING ATOMIC BOMB ON YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY!!!!"
"I'LL FUCKING KILL YOU WHOLE FUCKING FAMILY, AND YOUR FUCKING COUNTRY!!"
...world peace would be guaranteed only when the leaders of individual nations answered to his single supranational government.
No wonder Israel tried to get Albert Einstein to be President of Israel...
Israel wanted to be...head of The One World Government!
Following are quotes from Albert Einstein:
But in blaming the Russians the Americans should not ignore the fact
that they themselves have not voluntarily
renounced the use of the bomb as an ordinary weapon in the time before the achievement of supranational control, or if supranational control
is not achieved. Thus they have fed the fear of other countries that
they consider the bomb a legitimate part of their arsenal so long as
other countries decline to accept their terms for supranational
control.
Albert Einstein: "There is only one path to peace and security: the path of supranational organization."
Albert Einstein: "to control all military forces except for local police forces, including nuclear weapons", are the only way to prevent nuclear war.
As one immune from nationalist bias, I personally see a simple way of dealing with the superficial (i.e., administrative) aspect of
the problem: the setting up, by international consent, of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations.
Each nation would undertake to abide by the orders issued by this legislative body, to invoke its decision in every dispute, -Albert Einstein
The United Nations now, and world government eventually, must serve one single goal – the guarantee of the security,
tranquillity and the welfare of all mankind. -Albert Einstein
… for as long as atomic energy and armaments are considered a vital part of national security no nation will give more
than lip service to international treaties. Security . . . can be
reached only when necessary guarantees of law and enforcement obtain everywhere, so
that military security is no longer the problem of any single state. There is no compromise possible between preparation for war, on the one hand, and
preparation of a world society based on law and order on the other. -Albert Einstein
The only hope for protection lies in the securing of peace in a supranational way. A world government must be created
which is able to solve conflicts between nations by judicial decision. . . based on a clear cut constitution which is approved by the governments and
the nations and which gives it the sole disposition of offensive
weapons. A person or a nation can be considered peace loving only if it is ready to cede
its military force to the international authorities and to renounce
every attempt or even the means of achieving its interests abroad by the use of force.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.
Most likely Trump already amde a peace deal with Putin, otherwise
Putin would have already dropped the bomb.
The Peace deal would consist of Putin's reason for invading Ukraine in
the first place.
When Putin first invaded Ukraine, I posted at that very moment WHY: https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/v56zSjAEV2c/m/5rFiHr_dAAAJ
and it has not changed...
The Ukraine guy said if
i cannot be part of NATO
then I will put atomic bombs
pointing at Russia.
Russia said, "I cannot have that."
So, Russia needed to grab Ukraine
before it happens.
Putin wants the same deal he always wanted from the very beginning...
No atomic bombs pointing at Russia from Ukraine, and no NATO for
Ukraine.
dats the deal today.
Stop knee jerking, people. Trump is sending signals that he is possibly even more hawkish than Biden on Ukraine. Kellogg has stated that the planned peace
proposition requires Russia and Ukraine to both lay down they arms. Refusal by
either side carries consequences. If Ukraine refuses to engage in peace talks,
On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 04:56:17 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
I object to telling Ukraine what they will do. That is what
Chamberlain did to Czechoslovakia.
That's a bogus argument I won't let you get away with. What Chamberlain did was
to give the aggressor what he wanted - the very opposite of what we're doing now.
But Ukraine HAS been consulted, continually. Zelensky is forever on the move in
western capitals cultivating support for a war Ukraine wants very much to
The USA is neither 'stomping' nor 'dictating terms' to Ukraine. Because of
In the end, Ukraine will end up losing some territory. What price Crimea?
On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 00:14:34 -0700, Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The Starmaker wrote:
Most likely Trump already amde a peace deal with Putin, otherwise
Which he can't legally do as a civilian.
Stop knee jerking, people. Trump is sending signals that he is possibly even more hawkish than Biden on Ukraine. Kellogg has stated that the planned peace
proposition requires Russia and Ukraine to both lay down they arms. Refusal by
either side carries consequences. If Ukraine refuses to engage in peace talks,
the US will stop supporting them. Otoh, if Russia refuses to engage in peace talks, Trump will arm Ukraine to the teeth without restrictions.
On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 15:05:18 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(Bertietaylor)
wrote:
Chaps are too stupid to know when they are licked.
Russia?
I agree.
NP: Go West - Never Let Them See You Sweat
On Thu, 2 Jan 2025 12:21:56 +0000, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2025 15:05:18 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(Bertietaylor)
wrote:
Chaps are too stupid to know when they are licked.
Russia?
I agree.
Because Zelensky has driven them out of Donetsk and is now going to
liberate Crimea with F16, Himars, Abrams, and many billions?
Only the terminally stupid can believe that.
Because Zelensky has driven them out of Donetsk and is now going to
liberate Crimea with F16, Himars, Abrams, and many billions?
Only the terminally stupid can believe that.
The Russians have a good strategic position in that conflict and
the Nato has a terrible one.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Because Zelensky has driven them out of Donetsk and is now going to
liberate Crimea with F16, Himars, Abrams, and many billions?
Only the terminally stupid can believe that.
And the American colonies were laughed off the continent at the silly
idea of defeating the world's super power.
The Russians have a good strategic position in that conflict and the
Nato has a terrible one.
NATO has no position. It is not fighting.
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 07:38:19 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Ships were usually preferred by the west, especially aircraft carriers.
But since the Black Sea is entirely in the reach of Russian missiles,
the USA cannot send their precious fleet there.
The Russians would know about that. They can't send their fleet there either.
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 07:38:19 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Ships were usually preferred by the west, especially aircraft carriers.
But since the Black Sea is entirely in the reach of Russian missiles,
the USA cannot send their precious fleet there.
The Russians would know about that. They can't send their fleet there either.
On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 09:05:20 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Is that why Putin's two week 'speshul operashun'
has been dragging in for three years? Is that why he's reinforcing his lines with North Korean troops who barely know which end of the gun to hold let alone
what to aim at?
"Russian paramilitary soldiers killed in friendly fire attack by North Koreans
after enlisting DPRK help"
In THAT case Nato forces would need to reach the front line in the
eastern Ukraine somehow.
Airplanes, trains, trucks or they could just open a few new fronts in Finland,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Embargo all Russian sea traffic from the
Baltic to the Pacific. The French Navy alone is stronger than Russia's!
You mean their convertibles? LOL! The Russian Navy is another joke. Perhaps
the biggest military joke on the planet. And their missiles don't work.
This would exclude support of Nato troops by ships, what would leave
only land and air-transport.
The west has plenty of planes and trucks. Western navies could easily deliver
troops via the Baltic to the new war fronts in Finland and the Baltics.
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 07:38:19 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
My bet would be, that huge numbers of Russian spies are actually part of
the Ukrainian military.
That would explain the success of so many sabotage ops deep inside Russia.
"Russian military" is a joke. Always has been, always will be.
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 07:38:19 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Ships were usually preferred by the west, especially aircraft carriers.
But since the Black Sea is entirely in the reach of Russian missiles,
the USA cannot send their precious fleet there.
The Russians would know about that. They can't send their fleet there either.
The Russians have a good strategic position in that conflict and the
Nato has a terrible one.
NATO has no position. It is not fighting.
Well, we have actually a 'proxy war', which is seemingly financed by
western powers and maintained by Ukrainians and Russians (plus solders
of fortune from various countries).
Now the Russians are the dominant power in this conflict, because
Russian military is many times stronger that the Ukrainian.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Is that why Putin's two week 'speshul operashun'
has been dragging in for three years? Is that why he's reinforcing his lines with North Korean troops who barely know which end of the gun to hold let alone
what to aim at?
"Russian paramilitary soldiers killed in friendly fire attack by North Koreans
after enlisting DPRK help" <https://nypost.com/2024/12/16/world-news/russian-paramilitary-soldiers-killed-in-friendly-fire-attack-by-north-koreans-after-enlisting-dprk-help/>
This will not change in the immediate future, if no Nato troops would
engage into that conflict, too.
Ukraine is proving you don't need NATO troops, you just need superior western weapons.
I was writing about the hypothetical possibility, that this could happen.
In THAT case Nato forces would need to reach the front line in the
eastern Ukraine somehow.
Airplanes, trains, trucks or they could just open a few new fronts in Finland,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland. Embargo all Russian sea traffic from the
Baltic to the Pacific. The French Navy alone is stronger than Russia's!
Only an idiot would expect NATO to lose to Russia.
I meant, that Russian missiles, submarines,
You mean their convertibles? LOL! The Russian Navy is another joke. Perhaps
the biggest military joke on the planet. And their missiles don't work.
mines and other weapons
could easily destroy US carriers and other ships, once they try to come
through the Bosporous.
LOL! The Russian Navy is hiding in the Sea of Azov and dares not come into the
Black Sea. Turkey and Romania have already neutralized Russians attempts to mine Ukraine's trade routes.
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult
to defeat.
Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the parade?
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in
case there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.
Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
wrote:
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are
mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly
difficult
to defeat.
Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at
the parade?
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
TH
Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult
to defeat.
Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the parade? >>
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old. >>>> But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult >>>> to defeat.
Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the parade? >>>
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
I have heard Elvis is alive.
Current estimates are about 1500 operational tanks and 3000 - 5000 old
tanks of unknown status and ranging in age of 40 to 75 years in boneyards.
A significant percentage of the old tanks require more resources to
refurbish than to build a new tank.
There are already NATO ships in the Black or have you forgotten Turkey and Romania are NATO members?
Well, yes, but Russians don't need to.
In a way, the Crimean peninsula is an 'unsinkable carrier', while
the US-carriers are not.
Therefore the Nato needs protection for them, while the Russians
don't need that many ships.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old. >>>> But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult >>>> to defeat.
Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the
parade?
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
TH
Some assembly required.
Thomas Heger wrote:
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.
NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.
In sci.physics Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old. >>>> But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult >>>> to defeat.
Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the parade? >>>
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
I have heard Elvis is alive.
Current estimates are about 1500 operational tanks and 3000 - 5000 old
tanks of unknown status and ranging in age of 40 to 75 years in boneyards.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 06:28:52 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:02 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 07:38:19 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:The current president Putin was formerly head of the 'best' secret
My bet would be, that huge numbers of Russian spies are actually part of >>>> the Ukrainian military.
That would explain the success of so many sabotage ops deep inside Russia. >>>
"Russian military" is a joke. Always has been, always will be.
service in the World: the KGB.
The KGB had agents everywhere.
And like everything else Russian, they failed. Putin serves as the most visible
example of KGB/Russian incompetence.
And there is absolutely no reason at all to think, that they had no
agents in the Ukraine.
And no reason to think Ukraine has no agents in Russia. Lots of sabotage going
on deep in the country.
Actually nothings would be easier than that, because Ukraine is just
'next door', was formerly part of the same nation USSR, they share the
same history and speak mostly the same language.
So do the US and Canada but you don't see us invading them.
To place a new FSB-agent there wouldn't cost much more than a train
ticket and a false passport.
Then we can just watch and wait for him to do something stupid - which shouldn't
take long.
In a way, the Crimean peninsula is an 'unsinkable carrier', while the
US-carriers are not.
Therefore the Nato needs protection for them, while the Russians don't
need that many ships.
Ramstein Air Base is another unsinkable aircraft carrier.
Germany does have a Baltic navy which does sail in the Baltic.
The KGB had agents everywhere.
And like everything else Russian, they failed. Putin serves as
the most visible
example of KGB/Russian incompetence.
Russians are occasionally VERY smart people.
Ramstein Air Base is another unsinkable aircraft carrier.
Germany does have a Baltic navy which does sail in the Baltic.
You didn't understand, what IÂ tried to explain.
If you (Nato in this case) have troops in the eastern Ukraine, you
need to support them somehow.
To do this, you need some kind of base in that region, where
supply could land.
You could supply your bases by land, air or sea.
The option 'sea' is hindered by the Russian control over the black
sea (caused by Russian batteries on the Crimean peninsula).
To balance these batteries the Nato would need ships, unless they
want to drive them over land to the front.
Flight is also a possibility, but rather dangerous, because
Russians have state of the art air defense.
In effect, you need to bring troops, armor and supply by land
transport from e.g. Poland, Germany or Romania.
The Baltic states are much closer, but difficult to support,
because they are tiny states, directly at the doorsteps of Russia.
In the end, Nato can only come upon land and had to bring support
through travels over the vast plains in the Ukraine.
The is exactly what the Nazis had tried - and lost.
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 20:12:26 -0800, Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@www.yahoo.com> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
There are already NATO ships in the Black or have you forgotten Turkey and >>> Romania are NATO members?
Bulgaria is also a NATO member with a Black Sea navy.
Right. I overlooked them.
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:30:17 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
But tanks are very difficult to build.
As Russia has learned to its cost.
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 09:00:49 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Mittwoch000008, 08.01.2025 um 04:34 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 06:28:52 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:02 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 07:38:19 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>>The current president Putin was formerly head of the 'best' secret
My bet would be, that huge numbers of Russian spies are actually part of
the Ukrainian military.
That would explain the success of so many sabotage ops deep inside Russia.
"Russian military" is a joke. Always has been, always will be.
service in the World: the KGB.
The KGB had agents everywhere.
And like everything else Russian, they failed. Putin serves as the most visible
example of KGB/Russian incompetence.
Russians are occasionally VERY smart people.
Being smart in Russia gets you a one way ticket to the gulag or a bullet in your
brain at the Czar's pleasure.
This is why Russians are so stupid. They've been killing off their best and brightest for decades on account of suspected loyalty issues.
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.
NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.
Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.
Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass kicked now.
I would guess, that Russia has enough missiles already positioned on the
Crimean peninsula to sink all western boats with the push on a single
button.
More likely they'll explode in their silos - if anybody can remember which button to push.
Am Mittwoch000008, 08.01.2025 um 21:09 schrieb Governor Swill:
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.
NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.
Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.
Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass
kicked now.
Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.
Thomas Heger wrote:
The KGB had agents everywhere.
And like everything else Russian, they failed. Putin serves as the
most visible
example of KGB/Russian incompetence.
Russians are occasionally VERY smart people.
Are they hiding under my bed?
Am Mittwoch000008, 08.01.2025 um 21:09 schrieb Governor Swill:
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.
NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.
Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.
Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass kicked now.
Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.
Germans are essentially scared by the bare possibility, that anything
similar might happen again.
Actually German have more a tendency to cooperate with Russia if
possible and do not really want to 'kick asses'.
The country most Germans dislike in this conflict is actually the Ukraine.
This is so, because the Ukraine was regarded as one of the most corrupt countries on this planet and essentially ruled by the mob.
At least I think so. The reason is, that I have lived some time together
with a lady from Lvow, who was sold by the mob to a German for several thousand dollars.
This why I think about this country as the pinnacle of failure of states.
I would guess, that Russia has enough missiles already positioned on the >> Crimean peninsula to sink all western boats with the push on a single
button.
More likely they'll explode in their silos - if anybody can remember which button to push.
Possible, but highly unlikely.
As far as I can tell, the Russians know how to handle their arms.
TH
W dniu 09.01.2025 o 07:55, Thomas Heger pisze:
Am Mittwoch000008, 08.01.2025 um 21:09 schrieb Governor Swill:
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case >>>>>> there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.
NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.
Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.
Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass
kicked now.
Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.
Bullshit, in 1ww Germany beat Russia and forced
to a separate peace.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:41:50 -0600, Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/8/25 6:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:30:17 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>>
But tanks are very difficult to build.
As Russia has learned to its cost.
A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest.
Not even that. Its heyday was in WWII where Guderian used it to design a
new form of war. The battlefield units weren't the infantry anymore, but
tanks, with infantry hiding behind them.
But even in that war, the role Guderian had sculpted for it eventually
changed by Russian's far inferior tanks. Russian tanks proved more
effective than German tanks!
Nowadays it is only a moveable light artillery piece. Stuff that are
still installed on it, and used to be effective a few decades back,
aren't effective anymore. It has no air defense value. The only thing it
does is throwing light artillery shells.
An excellent observation. That said, not all tanks are created equal, Just ask
the Iraqis whose Russian tanks were destroyed in boxcar lots by American tanks
which took no casualties at all.
On 1/8/25 1:33 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Dienstag000007, 07.01.2025 um 09:05 schrieb Siri Cruise:
Thomas Heger wrote:
But I would bet, the Russians send submarines or drop mines in case
there are Nato ships coming into the Black Sea.
NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.
Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.
I would guess, that Russia has enough missiles already positioned on
the Crimean peninsula to sink all western boats with the push on a
single button.
TH
Navy ships are getting obsolete too. No carrier or warship has any real defense against "Hoot" type torpedoes carrying small nuclear warheads.
They cannot be intercepted. They're too fast, as fast as missiles but
inside water!
If it was not for Iranians' Hoot torpedoes, USA had attempted 100 times
to invade Iran's southern shores. They know they cannot do it, and
that's why it never happened.
That means warships are these days just means to eat up your tax money.
They don't have much war value.
Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass kicked now.
Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.
You're lying. Russia is not in this war to defend itself against an aggressor
neighbor like Hitler or Napoleon. It's Russia that's the aggressor. Russia's
victories on those two cases were because it had broad allied support from other
major powers. Russia didn't defeat either Hitler or Napoleon all by itself.
Germans are essentially scared by the bare possibility, that anything
similar might happen again.
Actually German have more a tendency to cooperate with Russia if
possible and do not really want to 'kick asses'.
That's why they've stopped buying Russian energy, is it?
The country most Germans dislike in this conflict is actually the Ukraine.
That explains why Germany has been the biggest source of military and financial
aid in Europe.
This is so, because the Ukraine was regarded as one of the most corrupt
countries on this planet and essentially ruled by the mob.
You're describing Russia.
At least I think so.
You seem to not think at all.
The reason is, that I have lived some time together
with a lady from Lvow, who was sold by the mob to a German for several
thousand dollars.
So you got a hooker at a discount. So what.
NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.
Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now.
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.
Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass
kicked now.
Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.
Bullshit, in 1ww Germany beat Russia and forced
to a separate peace.
True but a century earlier they thrashed the French.
I would guess, that Russia has already means to destroy
US-carriers from within Turkey
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 09:13:37 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
The option 'sea' is hindered by the Russian control over the black sea
(caused by Russian batteries on the Crimean peninsula).
LOL! Such is Russia's control over the Black that it's fleet is hiding in the
Sea of Azov! LOL!
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 09:13:37 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
You didn't understand, what I tried to explain.
If you (Nato in this case) have troops in the eastern Ukraine, you need
to support them somehow.
To do this, you need some kind of base in that region, where supply
could land.
You could supply your bases by land, air or sea.
It is you who does not understand. By international treaty, a NATO member controls the Bosporus and three NATO members have ports on the Black. Four NATO
members share land borders with Ukraine.
Yes, NATO will supply it's bases by land, air and sea. It's western supply and
logistics vs Russian supply and logistics.
Thomas Heger wrote:
I would guess, that Russia has already means to destroy US-carriers
from within Turkey
Russia attacking the USA from inside Turkey.
You are so silly.
The current president Putin was formerly head of the 'best' secret
service in the World: the KGB.
The KGB had agents everywhere.
And like everything else Russian, they failed. Putin serves as the most visible
example of KGB/Russian incompetence.
Russians are occasionally VERY smart people.
Being smart in Russia gets you a one way ticket to the gulag or a bullet in your
brain at the Czar's pleasure.
The Russians will inevitably sink all NATO warships, entering the
Black Sea (treaty or not), because they would regard this as Nato
attack on the Russian main land.
In case of Nato I wouldn't sail there, because the Russians have
all means necessary to destroy Nato ships and have incentive to do
that.
Possibly the Russians have mercy with smaller boats, sailing to
Romania.
But if a carrier shows up there, they would sink it.
LOL! Such is Russia's control over the Black that it's fleet is
hiding in the
Sea of Azov! LOL!
Russians do not need ships, because they can place their batteries
on the Krim.
This peninsula is unsinkable, while Nato ships are not.
Therefore it is an unsymmetrical situation, where the Russians
have all the advantages and Nato has very few.
But if a carrier passes through the narrow Dardanelles or the
Bosporus, it is impossible to defend, because it is impossible to
hide something as big as a carrier in the middle of a busy city.
Now it is perfectly thinkable, that Russian have already built
facilities (like bunkers or similar) hidden there, which are able
to emit rockets of some kind, which could sink a carrier.
But longer ranged missiles are also possible e.g. from Syria.
Or they send submarines or use something else, we have no
imagination about.
I can be as easy as a highly dedicated person in a hole in the
ground waiting for tanks to pass by. It's been there for a couple
of days.... All of a sudden a rumble... An enemy tank is near by.
The person gets a notification on his device... He pops out of the
hole and targets the tank with a wire guided anti tank missile and
also holds a laser pointer on the tank for anti tank surface to
surface missiles to home in on? Not to mention the anti tank mine
fields galore.
Thomas Heger wrote:
But if a carrier passes through the narrow Dardanelles or the
Bosporus, it is impossible to defend, because it is impossible to
hide something as big as a carrier in the middle of a busy city.
Now it is perfectly thinkable, that Russian have already built
facilities (like bunkers or similar) hidden there, which are able
to emit rockets of some kind, which could sink a carrier.
All of us know about the Russian bunkers hid in the Oakland hills.
We just do not tell you about them.
On 1/11/2025 11:54 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
I can be as easy as a highly dedicated person in a hole in the ground
waiting for tanks to pass by. It's been there for a couple of days....
All of a sudden a rumble... An enemy tank is near by. The person gets
a notification on his device... He pops out of the hole and targets
the tank with a wire guided anti tank missile and also holds a laser
pointer on the tank for anti tank surface to surface missiles to home
in on? Not to mention the anti tank mine fields galore.
Everybody but Russia knows you send infantry alongside tanks to deal
with enemy infantry with anti-tank weapons.
The damn tank can also be hit with drones and/or surface to surface
missile barrages. Each tank should have a couple of surface to air
missiles on it.
Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult
to defeat.
Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the
parade?
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger
<ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are
mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly
difficult
to defeat.
Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at
the parade?
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
Russia has lost so many they pulled them out of
storage. Cold war models. Stuff from the 1950s.
Gronk wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger
<ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are
mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly
difficult
to defeat.
Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at
the parade?
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
Russia has lost so many they pulled them out of
storage. Cold war models. Stuff from the 1950s.
Russian tactics is to have more tanks than enemy antitank rockets
and more soldiers than enemy bullets. That way after they make
their enemy expend all ammo, Russians can march past them.
To paraphrase Stalin, psychopathy is its own quality.
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 23:42:52 -0700, Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:<snip>
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
Russia has lost so many they pulled them out of
storage. Cold war models. Stuff from the 1950s.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/07/07/russia-is-running-low-on-tanks-so-why-are-a-thousand-first-generation-t-72s-still-sitting-in-storage/
That's the thing. Putin's bootlickers want to count every tank Russia has in storage. Even the gutted rust buckets built as far back as WWII. They have, or
had, about 8000 actual usable tanks and few were actually competitive with what
the west has been using since the 1980s. Just ask Saddam Hussein how his state
of the art Russian tanks fared against American Abrams.
Even the best of Russia's weapons are junk compared to what the west has.
NP: Rob Thomas - I Am An Illusion
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 10:46:43 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(Bertietaylor)
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 7:06:14 +0000, Siri Cruise wrote:
Gronk wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger
<ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are
mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly
difficult
to defeat.
Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at
the parade?
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
Russia has lost so many they pulled them out of
storage. Cold war models. Stuff from the 1950s.
Russian tactics is to have more tanks than enemy antitank rockets
and more soldiers than enemy bullets. That way after they make
their enemy expend all ammo, Russians can march past them.
No, Putin tried to get it all on the cheap initially by not invading
with at least 4 million.
He needed 4 million to invade an agrarian nation he'd already stripped
of most
of four of it's richest and most populist provinces?
Who do you think you're fooling?
But that seeming failure made Ukraine withdraw
troops from the East. Then Putin made a strategic retreat from the West
and attacked from the East, gaining territory and slowly expanding using >>long range weapons. Not sure if this wasn't PlanB but PlanA_2. A_1 being >>prudent Ukraine surrender and replacing Zelensky.
Master strategist, Putin.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, his goal was to stop NATO expansion. Instead it increased to 31 members
and they added 800 miles to his NATO border. LOL!
His goal was to remove Zelensky and turn Ukraine into a puppet state.
750,000
dead and maimed Russians later, Zelensky is still in charge, admired
across the
planet and not only defending, but on the offensive. His nation, with
no navy,
has defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Putin has turned Russia into a vassal state of China and eliminated any chance
of future greatness for his nation.
The West's strategy is to let the Orthodox
chaps die and make Russia weak; that by using obsolete scrap weaponry
for Ukraine continuing the war, while making money for the elites with >>orders for new weapons.
The west doesn't even think about religion. The 'strategy' has been to
do as
much damage as possible to Russia's military and international standing.
If Ukraine won it would be hugely in debt and thus under absolute
control of the murky powers that would buy it all up cheap, with no
effort at all save gorging together at conferences.
Sure, in your dreams. Took the UK until the 21 century to pay off all
their
WWII debt. The Obama admin had to negotiate debt forgiveness for Russia because
they couldn't pay.
The universe still runs on a moral basis, evidently, so such bastardy
has not been rewarded with success.
If it ran on a moral basis, Putin would be dead already.
NP: Rob Thomas - All That I Am
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 10:46:43 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.comYes.
(Bertietaylor)
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 7:06:14 +0000, Siri Cruise wrote:
Gronk wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger
<ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are
mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly
difficult
to defeat.
Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at
the parade?
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
Russia has lost so many they pulled them out of
storage. Cold war models. Stuff from the 1950s.
Russian tactics is to have more tanks than enemy antitank rockets
and more soldiers than enemy bullets. That way after they make
their enemy expend all ammo, Russians can march past them.
No, Putin tried to get it all on the cheap initially by not invading
with at least 4 million.
He needed 4 million to invade an agrarian nation he'd already stripped
of most
of four of it's richest and most populist provinces?
Who do you think you're fooling?
But that seeming failure made Ukraine withdraw
troops from the East. Then Putin made a strategic retreat from the West
and attacked from the East, gaining territory and slowly expanding using >>long range weapons. Not sure if this wasn't PlanB but PlanA_2. A_1 being >>prudent Ukraine surrender and replacing Zelensky.
Master strategist, Putin.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, his goal was to stop NATO expansion.
members
and they added 800 miles to his NATO border. LOL!
His goal was to remove Zelensky and turn Ukraine into a puppet state.
750,000
dead and maimed Russians later, Zelensky is still in charge, admired
across the
planet and not only defending, but on the offensive. His nation, with
no navy,
has defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Putin has turned Russia into a vassal state of China and eliminated any chance
of future greatness for his nation.
The West's strategy is to let the Orthodox
chaps die and make Russia weak; that by using obsolete scrap weaponry
for Ukraine continuing the war, while making money for the elites with >>orders for new weapons.
The west doesn't even think about religion.
do as
much damage as possible to Russia's military and international standing.
If Ukraine won it would be hugely in debt and thus under absolute
control of the murky powers that would buy it all up cheap, with no
effort at all save gorging together at conferences.
Sure, in your dreams. Took the UK until the 21 century to pay off all
their
WWII debt. The Obama admin had to negotiate debt forgiveness for Russia because
they couldn't pay.
The universe still runs on a moral basis, evidently, so such bastardy
has not been rewarded with success.
If it ran on a moral basis, Putin would be dead already.
NP: Rob Thomas - All That I Am
Yeah, his goal was to stop NATO expansion.
In Ukraine.
Bertietaylor wrote:It also should depend upon itself on its own for its sovereignty. Or
Yeah, his goal was to stop NATO expansion.
In Ukraine.
If Ukraine is a sovereign nation, it gets to choose its alliances
on its own.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 10:01:25 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.comSee the current map of Ukraine and that before the reoccupation of
(Bertietaylor)
wrote:
True but a century earlier they thrashed the French. They also got lands >>from Persia and reduced Poland and Lithuania. Lands from China and
Japan. Beat up Sweden, expanded South. They are big for a reason and >>getting 12% of Ukraine is thin icing on the cake. Putin's main success
is political having China and thirdworld support and now buddy Trumpo in >>power.
And where are all those gains now?
Am Donnerstag000009, 09.01.2025 um 11:01 schrieb Bertietaylor:
NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.
Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now. >>>>>>
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.
Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass >>>>> kicked now.
Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war
with Russia- mostly very miserably.
Bullshit, in 1ww Germany beat Russia and forced
to a separate peace.
True but a century earlier they thrashed the French.
Napoleon was a shithead from Corsica and has invaded Prussia.
The French forced Prussia to participate in the war against Russia, what
the Prussians disliked.
The scumbag named 'Napoleon' later left the war unharmed, but the
Prussians didn't and died there in large numbers.
From Prussian perspective this war had the sole aim to decimate
Prussians.
As a revenge the Prussians helped the British to destroy Napoleon in Waterloo.
....
TH
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 08:26:23 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(Bertietaylor)
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 5:27:39 +0000, Siri Cruise wrote:
Bertietaylor wrote:It also should depend upon itself on its own for its sovereignty. Or
Yeah, his goal was to stop NATO expansion.
In Ukraine.
If Ukraine is a sovereign nation, it gets to choose its alliances
on its own.
have treaty arrangements.
Which, apparently, it now does.
NP: Carole King - Beautiful
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 03:15:48 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(Bertietaylor)
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 20:11:03 +0000, Governor Swill wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 10:46:43 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.comYes.
(Bertietaylor)
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 7:06:14 +0000, Siri Cruise wrote:
Gronk wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger
<ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are
mostly old.
But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly >>>>>>>>> difficult
to defeat.
Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at >>>>>>>> the parade?
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
Russia has lost so many they pulled them out of
storage. Cold war models. Stuff from the 1950s.
Russian tactics is to have more tanks than enemy antitank rockets
and more soldiers than enemy bullets. That way after they make
their enemy expend all ammo, Russians can march past them.
No, Putin tried to get it all on the cheap initially by not invading >>>>with at least 4 million.
He needed 4 million to invade an agrarian nation he'd already stripped
of most
of four of it's richest and most populist provinces?
Who do you think you're fooling?
But that seeming failure made Ukraine withdraw
troops from the East. Then Putin made a strategic retreat from the West >>>>and attacked from the East, gaining territory and slowly expanding using >>>>long range weapons. Not sure if this wasn't PlanB but PlanA_2. A_1 being >>>>prudent Ukraine surrender and replacing Zelensky.
Master strategist, Putin.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yeah, his goal was to stop NATO expansion.
In Ukraine.
Instead it increased to 31
members
and they added 800 miles to his NATO border. LOL!
Putin does not care about those piddlers. Ukraine was seriously taken as
a threat.
Then Putin is a fool. Finland and Sweden piddlers compared to Ukraine's military? Is there no end to the lies you'll tell yourself about
Putin's
incompetence?
His goal was to remove Zelensky and turn Ukraine into a puppet state.
750,000
dead and maimed Russians later, Zelensky is still in charge, admired
across the
planet and not only defending, but on the offensive. His nation, with
no navy,
has defeated the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
Putin has no existential threat from hostile Nato state Ukraine. He has
got extra rich property worth 12 trillion dollars.
Considering Ukraine's GDP *before* the Russian invasion was less than
$200B,
your lie becomes quickly evident.
Not bad.
Considering what he stole is so heavily damaged it can't produce squat anymore,
I'd say that far from being a master strategist, Putin is an ill advised idiot.
Made fools
out of the West, fooled their grabby desires. Now failing there, idea
for the US is to grab Greenland etc. and should have better luck there.
Now you're stopped making any sense at all. Russia has been made a fool
of. Its
military is crap, its Navy a laughing stock and its economy collapsing.
Putin has turned Russia into a vassal state of China and eliminated any
chance
of future greatness for his nation.
Nonsense. Putin is on good terms with China and India and thirdworld,
Great politician, outsmarted you fools.
That must be why India has stopped buying Russian weapons. China,
ditto.
buy just enough to copy them so they don't have to buy anymore. Both
are
getting Russian energy dirt cheap because Putin can't sell it to anybody else.
Even that's going away as his shadow tanker fleet sinks, spoiling
beaches, and
get confiscated for incompetence on the sea.
The West's strategy is to let the Orthodox
chaps die and make Russia weak; that by using obsolete scrap weaponry >>>>for Ukraine continuing the war, while making money for the elites with >>>>orders for new weapons.
The west doesn't even think about religion.
What a lie. Maga chaps are very religious.
LOL! MAGA isn't running the "west", you moron.
The 'strategy' has been to
do as
much damage as possible to Russia's military and international standing.
Has not worked. Failed miserably.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!
Is that why Putin is depending on out of date and dud shells from North Korea?
How about those heroic (/s) North Korean troops he had to buy because he can't
get Russians to sign up anymore?
American
F-14 Tomcats and Chinook helicopters built in the 1960s from 1950s
designs!
NP: Paul Davis - Sweet Life
If Ukraine won it would be hugely in debt and thus under absolute >>>>control of the murky powers that would buy it all up cheap, with no >>>>effort at all save gorging together at conferences.
Sure, in your dreams. Took the UK until the 21 century to pay off all
their
WWII debt. The Obama admin had to negotiate debt forgiveness for Russia >>> because
they couldn't pay.
The universe still runs on a moral basis, evidently, so such bastardy >>>>has not been rewarded with success.
If it ran on a moral basis, Putin would be dead already.
NP: Rob Thomas - All That I Am
Putin is still refusing to accept Trump's offer for talks.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 08:35:49 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) wrote:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 6:20:53 +0000, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 10:01:25 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.comSee the current map of Ukraine and that before the reoccupation of
(Bertietaylor)
wrote:
True but a century earlier they thrashed the French. They also got lands >>> >from Persia and reduced Poland and Lithuania. Lands from China and
Japan. Beat up Sweden, expanded South. They are big for a reason and
getting 12% of Ukraine is thin icing on the cake. Putin's main success >>>> is political having China and thirdworld support and now buddy Trumpo in >>>> power.
And where are all those gains now?
Crimea. Some 12 trillion dollars of prime real estate.
Their Navy, such as it now is, can't use the Sevastopol port because Ukraine has
cowed it.
The cities and industrial centers in the east that Putin wanted, have been, in
many cases, 100% destroyed and will have to be rebuilt from scratch.
He expended 200,000 Russian men taking Bakhmut and Avdiivka. Another 50,000 failing to retake Kharkiv. Three quarters of a million Russia dead and maimed
so far to steal a wasteland.
Ukraine controls Crimea's water supply. Without it, Crimea is useless.
Putin is still refusing to accept Trump's offer for talks.
He hasn't been hurt enough yet.
NP: Carly Simon - That's The Way I've Always Heard It Should Be
Putin is very wise. If any NATO state attacks Russia he will use
nukes.
He has made this clear. He knows that because Russia will use
mukes they
will not dare to attack. He did not want NATO to put nukes in Ukraine
and the way to do that was to invade Ukraine. No nukes from Ukraine
towards Russia, so Russia is safe from that direction. Not to invade
would have been incompetent and unpatriotic.
Putin does not see Finland and Sweden as threats. No interest there.
Poland yes has historically been an enemy but it was already
hostile as
part of Nato.
Unlike Biden and Johnson and other EU leaders he has got what he
wanted.
He has stopped the Ukraine army from shelling Russians. Liberated
India is making a fortune buying Russian oil cheap and selling it,
thanks to US sanctions on Russia. Indians never had it so good, cheap
petrol, huge profits, great distribution to the poor by handouts,
very
China and
Russia have terrific trade.
How about those heroic (/s) North Korean troops he had to buy
because he
can't
get Russians to sign up anymore?
If he declares war he can conscript as many millions ss he likes.
He wants Russians to live, enjoy life, be healthy and happy. His
communist upbringing emphasizes fraternity, and decency, on a
honestly
altruistic basis. He is not composed of selfishness, vanity, greed
and
hypocrisy as are Western elites.
Woof woof woof woof woof woof woof
Bertietaylor wrote:
Putin is very wise. If any NATO state attacks Russia he will use
nukes.
He has made this clear. He knows that because Russia will use
mukes they
France and UK have submarine launchable nuclear weapons. They will
nuke Russia even if idjt wimps out.
will not dare to attack. He did not want NATO to put nukes in Ukraine
Why would we? USA can drop nuclear weapon anywhere in Russia from
North Dakota.
and the way to do that was to invade Ukraine. No nukes from Ukraine
towards Russia, so Russia is safe from that direction. Not to invade
would have been incompetent and unpatriotic.
How does that stop British and French nukes from the Atlantic?
Everyone knows about MAD. The first one who uses nuclear weapons
against the other loses the war for everyone.
Putin does not see Finland and Sweden as threats. No interest there.
Which why he threatenned them if they tried to join NATO.
Poland yes has historically been an enemy but it was already
hostile as
part of Nato.
NATO is not hostile to Russia. NATO is reactive not hostile. As
long as Russia stays on their side of the Belarus border, no fighting.
Unlike Biden and Johnson and other EU leaders he has got what he
wanted.
Can he keep it?
He has stopped the Ukraine army from shelling Russians. Liberated
Ukraine is not dropping shells, rockets, and drones inside Russia?
Since when?
India is making a fortune buying Russian oil cheap and selling it,
thanks to US sanctions on Russia. Indians never had it so good, cheap
petrol, huge profits, great distribution to the poor by handouts,
very
Does not do Russia any good.
China and
Russia have terrific trade.
China cannot use rubbles, so they are doing barter trade.
How about those heroic (/s) North Korean troops he had to buy
because he
can't
get Russians to sign up anymore?
If he declares war he can conscript as many millions ss he likes.
Why does he not?
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 7:15:51 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000009, 09.01.2025 um 11:01 schrieb Bertietaylor:
NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.
Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now. >>>>>>>
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.
Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass >>>>>> kicked now.
Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war >>>>> with Russia- mostly very miserably.
Bullshit, in 1ww Germany beat Russia and forced
to a separate peace.
True but a century earlier they thrashed the French.
Napoleon was a shithead from Corsica and has invaded Prussia.
The French forced Prussia to participate in the war against Russia, what
the Prussians disliked.
The scumbag named 'Napoleon' later left the war unharmed, but the
Prussians didn't and died there in large numbers.
 From Prussian perspective this war had the sole aim to decimate
Prussians.
As a revenge the Prussians helped the British to destroy Napoleon in
Waterloo.
Russians and Germans were feudal and imperial whereas France was modern
and egalitarian.
Napoleon ranks with Alexander, Caesar and Hitler as among the four top European leaders, for egalitarianism and modernity.
Am Dienstag000014, 14.01.2025 um 09:53 schrieb Bertietaylor:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 7:15:51 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000009, 09.01.2025 um 11:01 schrieb Bertietaylor:
NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.
Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now. >>>>>>>>
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.
Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass >>>>>>> kicked now.
Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war >>>>>> with Russia- mostly very miserably.
Bullshit, in 1ww Germany beat Russia and forced
to a separate peace.
True but a century earlier they thrashed the French.
Napoleon was a shithead from Corsica and has invaded Prussia.
The French forced Prussia to participate in the war against Russia, what >>> the Prussians disliked.
The scumbag named 'Napoleon' later left the war unharmed, but the
Prussians didn't and died there in large numbers.
 From Prussian perspective this war had the sole aim to decimate
Prussians.
As a revenge the Prussians helped the British to destroy Napoleon in
Waterloo.
Russians and Germans were feudal and imperial whereas France was modern
and egalitarian.
Napoleon ranks with Alexander, Caesar and Hitler as among the four top
European leaders, for egalitarianism and modernity.
All of them did essentially the same thing:
they have sent their armies into territories, which were not theirs and forced the inhabitants of the occupied regions to fight in their army.
In case of Napoleon this was a disaster for the Prussians, which died in large numbers in the Russian winter.
That stupid corsian piece of shit didn't do that, however, but left the Prussians there to die together with the French soldiers.
Hitler did almost the same thing.
Hitlers occupation involved more serious crimes however, which were much
more devastating for the German soldiers.
E.g. Hitler refused to occupy Leningrad.
This was extremely stupid, because Leningrad has a harbor and having a
harbor there would allow the Wehrmacht to use ships (instead of walking through the Russian winter).
To prevent German success, the Nazis had to surround Leningrad and
starved 1 million Russians to death, which was a very serious crime,
too.
But it was also extremely stupid, because with occupation of Leningrad
the Baltic Sea would have been entirely under German control.
That in turn would allow Navi-ships to move quite safely back and forth
and that in turn would have saved millions of lifes.
Also the Stalingrad campaign was extremely stupid and extremely deadly.
It made not sense of any kind to invade that region in the first place.
But especially the city Stalingrad was of no particular interest and the campaigned served no obvious purpose (despite wiping out an entire
army).
So: Hitler was a piece of shit, too, but for very similar reasons as Napoleon.
....
TH
Am Dienstag000014, 14.01.2025 um 09:53 schrieb Bertietaylor:
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 7:15:51 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000009, 09.01.2025 um 11:01 schrieb Bertietaylor:
NATO already has ships in the Black Sea.
Possibly yes, but there is no war between Russia and NATO till now. >>>>>>>>
Important is, what would happen in the case of a conflict.
Russia would get it's ass kicked even more than it's getting its ass >>>>>>> kicked now.
Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war >>>>>> with Russia- mostly very miserably.
Bullshit, in 1ww Germany beat Russia and forced
to a separate peace.
True but a century earlier they thrashed the French.
Napoleon was a shithead from Corsica and has invaded Prussia.
The French forced Prussia to participate in the war against Russia, what >>> the Prussians disliked.
The scumbag named 'Napoleon' later left the war unharmed, but the
Prussians didn't and died there in large numbers.
 From Prussian perspective this war had the sole aim to decimate
Prussians.
As a revenge the Prussians helped the British to destroy Napoleon in
Waterloo.
Russians and Germans were feudal and imperial whereas France was modern
and egalitarian.
Napoleon ranks with Alexander, Caesar and Hitler as among the four top
European leaders, for egalitarianism and modernity.
All of them did essentially the same thing:
they have sent their armies into territories, which were not theirs and forced the inhabitants of the occupied regions to fight in their army.
In case of Napoleon this was a disaster for the Prussians, which died in large numbers in the Russian winter.
That stupid corsian piece of shit didn't do that, however, but left the Prussians there to die together with the French soldiers.
Hitler did almost the same thing.Big mistake. That is why there are those who say that Hitler was
Hitlers occupation involved more serious crimes however, which were much
more devastating for the German soldiers.
E.g. Hitler refused to occupy Leningrad.
This was extremely stupid, because Leningrad has a harbor and having a
harbor there would allow the Wehrmacht to use ships (instead of walking through the Russian winter).
To prevent German success, the Nazis had to surround Leningrad and
starved 1 million Russians to death, which was a very serious crime,
too.
But it was also extremely stupid, because with occupation of Leningrad
the Baltic Sea would have been entirely under German control.
That in turn would allow Navi-ships to move quite safely back and forth
and that in turn would have saved millions of lifes.
Also the Stalingrad campaign was extremely stupid and extremely deadly.
It made not sense of any kind to invade that region in the first place.
But especially the city Stalingrad was of no particular interest and the campaigned served no obvious purpose (despite wiping out an entire
army).
So: Hitler was a piece of shit, too, but for very similar reasons as Napoleon.
....
TH
i don't see any indication that Russia will ever use nucluer weapons on anyone...
Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war >>>>>>> with Russia- mostly very miserably.
Bullshit, in 1ww Germany beat Russia and forced
to a separate peace.
True but a century earlier they thrashed the French.
Napoleon was a shithead from Corsica and has invaded Prussia.
The French forced Prussia to participate in the war against Russia,
what
the Prussians disliked.
The scumbag named 'Napoleon' later left the war unharmed, but the
Prussians didn't and died there in large numbers.
 From Prussian perspective this war had the sole aim to decimate
Prussians.
As a revenge the Prussians helped the British to destroy Napoleon in
Waterloo.
Russians and Germans were feudal and imperial whereas France was modern
and egalitarian.
Napoleon ranks with Alexander, Caesar and Hitler as among the four top
European leaders, for egalitarianism and modernity.
All of them did essentially the same thing:
they have sent their armies into territories, which were not theirs and
forced the inhabitants of the occupied regions to fight in their army.
In case of Napoleon this was a disaster for the Prussians, which died in
large numbers in the Russian winter.
Napoleon invaded Russia as the Czar broke the earlier treaty after
losing a big battle. The idea was to contain Russia, not let it expand
by sea, stop its association with the UK.
That stupid corsian piece of shit didn't do that, however, but left the
Prussians there to die together with the French soldiers.
He lost. Russia won and the Cossacks romped in Paris. However those
serfs got ideas from France and over time they grew strong enough to overthrow the Czar.
Big mistake. That is why there are those who say that Hitler was
Hitler did almost the same thing.
actually anti-German or anti-Arya. The greatest conman ever.
Napoleon ranks with Alexander, Caesar and Hitler as among the four top
European leaders, for egalitarianism and modernity.
All of them did essentially the same thing:
they have sent their armies into territories, which were not theirs and
forced the inhabitants of the occupied regions to fight in their army.
In case of Napoleon this was a disaster for the Prussians, which died in
large numbers in the Russian winter.
That stupid corsian piece of shit didn't do that, however, but left the
Prussians there to die together with the French soldiers.
Hitler did almost the same thing.
Hitlers occupation involved more serious crimes however, which were much
more devastating for the German soldiers.
E.g. Hitler refused to occupy Leningrad.
This was extremely stupid, because Leningrad has a harbor and having a
harbor there would allow the Wehrmacht to use ships (instead of walking
through the Russian winter).
To prevent German success, the Nazis had to surround Leningrad and
starved 1 million Russians to death, which was a very serious crime,
too.
But it was also extremely stupid, because with occupation of Leningrad
the Baltic Sea would have been entirely under German control.
That in turn would allow Navi-ships to move quite safely back and forth
and that in turn would have saved millions of lifes.
Also the Stalingrad campaign was extremely stupid and extremely deadly.
It made not sense of any kind to invade that region in the first place.
But especially the city Stalingrad was of no particular interest and the
campaigned served no obvious purpose (despite wiping out an entire
army).
So: Hitler was a piece of shit, too, but for very similar reasons as
Napoleon.
Pale versions of Genghis Khan.
Am Donnerstag000016, 16.01.2025 um 09:56 schrieb Bertietaylor:
Germany has tried to do this several times and lost every single war >>>>>>>> with Russia- mostly very miserably.
Bullshit, in 1ww Germany beat Russia and forced
to a separate peace.
True but a century earlier they thrashed the French.
Napoleon was a shithead from Corsica and has invaded Prussia.
The French forced Prussia to participate in the war against Russia,
what
the Prussians disliked.
The scumbag named 'Napoleon' later left the war unharmed, but the
Prussians didn't and died there in large numbers.
 From Prussian perspective this war had the sole aim to decimate
Prussians.
As a revenge the Prussians helped the British to destroy Napoleon in >>>>> Waterloo.
Russians and Germans were feudal and imperial whereas France was modern >>>> and egalitarian.
Napoleon ranks with Alexander, Caesar and Hitler as among the four top >>>> European leaders, for egalitarianism and modernity.
All of them did essentially the same thing:
they have sent their armies into territories, which were not theirs and
forced the inhabitants of the occupied regions to fight in their army.
In case of Napoleon this was a disaster for the Prussians, which died in >>> large numbers in the Russian winter.
Napoleon invaded Russia as the Czar broke the earlier treaty after
losing a big battle. The idea was to contain Russia, not let it expand
by sea, stop its association with the UK.
That stupid corsian piece of shit didn't do that, however, but left the
Prussians there to die together with the French soldiers.
He lost. Russia won and the Cossacks romped in Paris. However those
serfs got ideas from France and over time they grew strong enough to
overthrow the Czar.
Big mistake. That is why there are those who say that Hitler was
Hitler did almost the same thing.
actually anti-German or anti-Arya. The greatest conman ever.
The exists a book called 'Hitler was a British agent' by a man nameg
'Greg Hallett'.
That guy wrote also 'Stalin's British training'.If Hitler and Stalin were British agents I suppose they were pro
So, Stalin was the greatest 'conman ever', because his head count was
much greater.
About Hitler's real identity I had assumed, that it could have been
'Noel Trevenen Huxley'.
The reason is a little difficult to explain. But the younger brother of Julian Huxley (head of 'Eugenics') would fit.
....
TH
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 15:32:22 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(Bertietaylor)
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 14:25:34 +0000, Governor Swill wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 08:26:23 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(Bertietaylor)
wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 5:27:39 +0000, Siri Cruise wrote:
Bertietaylor wrote:It also should depend upon itself on its own for its sovereignty. Or >>>>have treaty arrangements.
Yeah, his goal was to stop NATO expansion.
In Ukraine.
If Ukraine is a sovereign nation, it gets to choose its alliances
on its own.
Which, apparently, it now does.
Actually it is not a NATO member, and unlikely to become one.
I didn't say it was, idiot. Maybe you've been reading somebody else's
post.
NP: Tina Turner - Steamy Windows (Live in Arnhem)
You are not important to us, arsehole.
Fuck off.
Is this post actually showing? I might start posting again if it
is. Hey Tom (hell, I
On 1/18/25 5:40 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 05:21:29 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(Bertietaylor)
wrote:
Why doesn't Nato let Russia join them?
That was the plan in the nineties under Yeltsin. Too bad for
Russia, Putin's
belligerent determination to reconstruct the Russian Empire
scotched that idea.
 Yep, Putin has said he's on a Holy Mission to
 revive the entire USSR.
 Xi is on a holy mission to grab Taiwan and some
 extra stuff.
Gronk wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Sonntag000005, 05.01.2025 um 20:39 schrieb Governor Swill:
On Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:48 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>>
The Russian also have an insane amount of tanks, which are mostly old. >>>>> But the newer 'Armata' tanks are very powerful and certainly difficult >>>>> to defeat.
Both of them? Or just the one that broke down in Red Square at the
parade?
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
Russia has lost so many they pulled them out of
storage. Cold war models. Stuff from the 1950s.
Russian tactics is to have more tanks than enemy antitank rockets and
more soldiers than enemy bullets. That way after they make their enemy
expend all ammo, Russians can march past them.
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 05:21:29 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) wrote:
Why doesn't Nato let Russia join them?
That was the plan in the nineties under Yeltsin. Too bad for Russia, Putin's belligerent determination to reconstruct the Russian Empire scotched that idea.
Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 23:42:52 -0700, Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid>
Thomas Heger wrote:<snip>
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
Russia has lost so many they pulled them out of
storage. Cold war models. Stuff from the 1950s.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/07/07/russia-is-running-low-on-tanks-so-why-are-a-thousand-first-generation-t-72s-still-sitting-in-storage/
That's the thing. Putin's bootlickers want to count every tank Russia
has in
storage. Even the gutted rust buckets built as far back as WWII.
They have, or
had, about 8000 actual usable tanks and few were actually competitive
with what
the west has been using since the 1980s. Just ask Saddam Hussein how
his state
of the art Russian tanks fared against American Abrams.
Even the best of Russia's weapons are junk compared to what the west has.
Eventually Putin will bring out Lend Lease M4s.
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 23:42:52 -0700, Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Thomas Heger wrote:<snip>
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
Russia has lost so many they pulled them out of
storage. Cold war models. Stuff from the 1950s.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/07/07/russia-is-running-low-on-tanks-so-why-are-a-thousand-first-generation-t-72s-still-sitting-in-storage/
That's the thing. Putin's bootlickers want to count every tank Russia has in storage. Even the gutted rust buckets built as far back as WWII. They have, or
had, about 8000 actual usable tanks and few were actually competitive with what
the west has been using since the 1980s. Just ask Saddam Hussein how his state
of the art Russian tanks fared against American Abrams.
Even the best of Russia's weapons are junk compared to what the west has.
He lost. Russia won and the Cossacks romped in Paris. However those
serfs got ideas from France and over time they grew strong enough to
overthrow the Czar.
Big mistake. That is why there are those who say that Hitler was
Hitler did almost the same thing.
actually anti-German or anti-Arya. The greatest conman ever.
The exists a book called 'Hitler was a British agent' by a man nameg
'Greg Hallett'.
There is a similar story about Khomeni.
If Hitler and Stalin were British agents I suppose they were pro
That guy wrote also 'Stalin's British training'.
So, Stalin was the greatest 'conman ever', because his head count was
much greater.
American really. For along with Churchill they destroyed the British
Empire and colonialism, this made America great even to this day.
About Hitler's real identity I had assumed, that it could have been
'Noel Trevenen Huxley'.
Maybe there was a switch in identity in WW1.
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:41:50 -0600, Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/8/25 6:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:30:17 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>>
But tanks are very difficult to build.
As Russia has learned to its cost.
A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest.
Not even that. Its heyday was in WWII where Guderian used it to design a
new form of war. The battlefield units weren't the infantry anymore, but
tanks, with infantry hiding behind them.
But even in that war, the role Guderian had sculpted for it eventually
changed by Russian's far inferior tanks. Russian tanks proved more
effective than German tanks!
Nowadays it is only a moveable light artillery piece. Stuff that are
still installed on it, and used to be effective a few decades back,
aren't effective anymore. It has no air defense value. The only thing it
does is throwing light artillery shells.
An excellent observation. That said, not all tanks are created equal, Just ask
the Iraqis whose Russian tanks were destroyed in boxcar lots by American tanks
which took no casualties at all.
patdolan wrote:
Is this post actually showing? I might start posting again if it
is. Hey Tom (hell, I
No, I did not see it.
On 1/18/2025 2:36 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 16:36:57 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com (Bertietaylor) wrote:
Putin is very wise.
<laughs and points>
If any NATO state attacks Russia he will use nukes.
No, he won't. China and India have both told him not to and he knows full well
if he does, Russia will be a greasy, ashy stain on Asia.
Russia's conventional weapons suck.
Russia's military doctrines suck.
Are we to expect Russia's nuclear weapons to be in any better shape?
He has made this clear. He knows that because Russia will use mukes they >> will not dare to attack.
He knows that's not the reason the west won't attack. The west has learned that
being attacked is the path to victory. NATO will not strike first.
He did not want NATO to put nukes in Ukraine
and the way to do that was to invade Ukraine.
He would have been better off dealing with the nukes. His economy is destroyed,
his military equipment decimated and proven inferior to decades old western military tech, his military doctrines utterly discredited.
No nukes from Ukraine
towards Russia, so Russia is safe from that direction.
Russia was safe from Ukrainian nukes in any case. After all, Ukraine gave all
it's nukes to Russia in exchange for Russian guarantees of Ukrainian security
Ooops! Caught Russians lying again.
Not to invade
would have been incompetent and unpatriotic.
And smart. No weapon strengthens a nation more than a strong economy. Putin
screwed the pooch when he decided to make Russia dependent on oil revenues instead of diversifying a broader and deeper economy.
Ukraine's military was very powerful.
More powerful than Russia's, apparently.
The West wanted them to drive out
Russians from Ukraine. So they were very well armed indeed and for years >> had been fighting the Russians in Ukraine, depriving them of their
rights, etc. Of course without Western help Ukraine would have
collapsed.
All of which is a pack of lies. Putin financed rebels and sent in Russian troops in unmarked uniforms, the 'little green men'.
Putin does not see Finland and Sweden as threats.
LOL! So you admit NATO is no threat to Russia?
No interest there.
Poland yes has historically been an enemy but it was already hostile as
part of Nato.
Poland has been an enemy because it has been conquered by Russia twice.
<snip>
Considering Ukraine's GDP *before* the Russian invasion was less than
$200B, your lie becomes quickly evident.
Land value from conquest, some 15 percent of the largest country in pure >> Europe, is what the 12 t is about, nothing to do with GDP of Ukraine.
Putin has got the size of the whole of England and more.
'Wise' Putin has destroyed virtually all of it by leveling city after city. Any
real estate he might end up with will do him no good without spending trillions
rebuilding - trillions Russia doesn't have.
Your stupidity may be ignored for you are but an Einsteinian cretin.
Still, we try to put light within dark skills, futile as that effort may >> be.
Getting desperate, are you?
Not bad.
Considering what he stole is so heavily damaged it can't produce squat >>> anymore,
I'd say that far from being a master strategist, Putin is an ill advised >>> idiot.
Unlike Biden and Johnson and other EU leaders he has got what he wanted.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
He has stopped the Ukraine army from shelling Russians.
Liar. Two Russian refineries and three air force fuel dumps went up in smoke
just last week.
Liberated Crimea.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Ukraine may get to liberate Crimea following
Putin's conquest of an unwilling populace.
Stopped Ukraine from joining Nato.
Delayed, possibly, but it will happen.
Expanded Russia.
Turned it into a vassal state of China, you mean.
Made the
Western analysts look like absurd fools for their predictions. Has solid >> support from his own people and China too. Retains support from
thirdworld. And now his buddy Trump will be potus and stop supporting
Zelensky.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA! That's funny! Tell us another one!
Btw they have already repaired many cities they took.
Liar. They don't have the manpower to do the construction work. Leveled cities
don't get 'repaired' by magic.
Hard working lots, the Russians.
Lazy drunks, you mean.
Fixed up the ruins of WW2, this is nothing by contrast.
Oh, yes! Preach to us the joys of Stalinism!
Wrong on all counts. You Einsteinian cretins are a bad joke. You areMade foolsNow you're stopped making any sense at all. Russia has been made a fool >>> of. Its
out of the West, fooled their grabby desires. Now failing there, idea >>>> for the US is to grab Greenland etc. and should have better luck there. >>>
military is crap, its Navy a laughing stock and its economy collapsing. >>
habitually programmed to swallow lies from your masters via propaganda
media.
In the west, the media is controlled by private organizations who compete and
operate as checks against each other. This tends to engender mostly facts in
media. By contrast, in Russia, all media outlets are controlled directly by the
state and spout only the state line.
True that the Navy has got hits by new technology rockets but the
rest is bullshit.
Bullshit is certainly one word to describe the Russian Navy. Kuznetsov, scheduled to be re launched in 2020, is still stuck in drydock with bad engines.
The Mediterranean fleet is idling off the coast of Syria out of artillery range
so the Syrians won't fire at them. Their ships are running out of fuel and supplies. Turkey won't let them go home through the Bosporus and they don't
have enough supplies to sail to Murmansk. The relief ships *from* Murmansk still haven't sailed. Soon the fleet will be powerless, starving and adrift in
the sea.
Russia has made fools out of Nato bullies and EU
ninnies. Russian economy has managed not to collapsed and moved on.
Russian military has won 15% of Ukraine.
It was 20% but Ukraine has taken a good bit of it back.
They use far more firepower
than Ukraine which means that they are losing far less soldiers.
More lies. Russia is losing three to four soldiers for every one Ukraine loses.
This, btw, is why Putin is importing tens of thousands of North Koreans in his
futile attempt to take Kursk back. I guess you know that a recent UA counteroffensive has taken even more territory in Kursk.
Putin has turned Russia into a vassal state of China and eliminated any >>>>> chance
of future greatness for his nation.
Nonsense. Putin is on good terms with China and India and thirdworld, >>>> Great politician, outsmarted you fools.
That must be why India has stopped buying Russian weapons. China,
ditto.
India is making a fortune buying Russian oil cheap and selling it,
thanks to US sanctions on Russia. Indians never had it so good, cheap
petrol, huge profits, great distribution to the poor by handouts, very
fat salaries for all elites... India always busy weapons from Russia.
China is giving them sanctioned stuff.
India has stopped buying weapons from Russia. They're buying from the US, France and China now.
They buy just enough to copy them so they don't have to buy anymore.
Both are getting Russian energy dirt cheap because Putin
can't sell it to anybody else.
India's main strike aircraft is Russian Su30mki. Lots of them.
Drink the koolaid!
China and Russia have terrific trade.
China gets cheap oil and Russia gets whatever drivel the Chinese are willing to
risk sending them.
Then rocket launchers, tanks, guns, radars, helicopters, transport
aircraft, submarines,
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Too funny! Russia has plenty of submarines. They're all stationed at the bottom of the Black Sea!
Even that's going away as his shadow tanker fleet sinks, spoiling
beaches, and
get confiscated for incompetence on the sea.
No problem for India so far. The war has been a real bonanza for India.
Huge tankers coming from all sides.
Absolutely. The west ensured that India would still get the energy it needs and
New Delhi is thankful for that consideration.
Meanwhile, Russia' shadow fleet of tankers is finding itself banned from more
and more ports. They're being seized by other nations for violations.
The West's strategy is to let the Orthodox
chaps die and make Russia weak; that by using obsolete scrap weaponry >>>>>> for Ukraine continuing the war, while making money for the elites with >>>>>> orders for new weapons.
The west doesn't even think about religion.
What a lie. Maga chaps are very religious.
LOL! MAGA isn't running the "west", you moron.
Cretin, they elected Trump to power and if US is not part of the West
that is news indeed.
The US isn't the West. This is a fundamental misunderstanding that drives your
misperceptions and therefore failures.
"The West" is composed of the WW II participants who have allied against Russia
joined by dozens of other nations. Japan, SK, Australia and even the Philippines, are hardly in the western hemisphere but are undoubtedly part of
"the West".
Anyway the West has lost miserably in Ukraine and the sooner it accepts
that the better for all.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
To get and keep 15% of Ukraine depending upon foreign help and dud
shells is something only a brainwashed Einsteinian cretin can envisage.
Yet it's an incontrovertible fact.
How about those heroic (/s) North Korean troops he had to buy because he >>> can't
get Russians to sign up anymore?
If he declares war he can conscript as many millions ss he likes. Till
then, he is using mercenaries.
And if he declares war on "The West", those millions won't do him any good.
His best friend, Iran, is still using American F-14 Tomcats and Chinook >>> helicopters built in the 1960s from 1950s designs!
They are using more potent and relevant defensive technologies to
prevent invasions.
like spitballs and rubber bands?
Just wondering, has Russia used a lot of it's thermobaric weapons yet,
just to piss people off?
So, who's trying to invade Iran?
NP: Tina Turner - We Don't Need Another Hero (Live in Arnhem)
Israel claims to have damaged some of Iran's anti-air capabilities?
Am Donnerstag000016, 16.01.2025 um 09:25 schrieb Bertietaylor:
....
Napoleon ranks with Alexander, Caesar and Hitler as among the four top >>>> European leaders, for egalitarianism and modernity.
'egalitarianism' is apparently meant as 'socialism' and 'modernity' as 'technocracy' (which are the buzz words of the WEF).
So 'the GREAT RESET' is actually the return of Caesar and the ancient
Rome.
Well, yes, possibly.
But who wants Rome back???
Ancients Rome was a slaveholder society, where about two out of three
people were slaves.
Since slave-ownership ranks among the unforgivable sins, all successions
of ancient Rome will be destroyed by God himself.
All of them did essentially the same thing:
they have sent their armies into territories, which were not theirs and
forced the inhabitants of the occupied regions to fight in their army.
In case of Napoleon this was a disaster for the Prussians, which died in >>> large numbers in the Russian winter.
That stupid corsian piece of shit didn't do that, however, but left the
Prussians there to die together with the French soldiers.
Hitler did almost the same thing.
Hitlers occupation involved more serious crimes however, which were much >>> more devastating for the German soldiers.
E.g. Hitler refused to occupy Leningrad.
This was extremely stupid, because Leningrad has a harbor and having a
harbor there would allow the Wehrmacht to use ships (instead of walking
through the Russian winter).
To prevent German success, the Nazis had to surround Leningrad and
starved 1 million Russians to death, which was a very serious crime,
too.
But it was also extremely stupid, because with occupation of Leningrad
the Baltic Sea would have been entirely under German control.
That in turn would allow Navi-ships to move quite safely back and forth
and that in turn would have saved millions of lifes.
Also the Stalingrad campaign was extremely stupid and extremely deadly.
It made not sense of any kind to invade that region in the first place.
But especially the city Stalingrad was of no particular interest and the >>> campaigned served no obvious purpose (despite wiping out an entire
army).
So: Hitler was a piece of shit, too, but for very similar reasons as
Napoleon.
Pale versions of Genghis Khan.
Well, that shithead lived much earlier, but was actually worse than
Napoleon and Hitler combined.
....
TH
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:15:16 -0700, Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 23:42:52 -0700, Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> Thomas Heger wrote:However, they're fond of massed assets in an
<snip>
I have heard the Russians have about 12000 tanks.
That is about 40 times the number of tanks in Germany.
Russia has lost so many they pulled them out of
storage. Cold war models. Stuff from the 1950s.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2024/07/07/russia-is-running-low-on-tanks-so-why-are-a-thousand-first-generation-t-72s-still-sitting-in-storage/
That's the thing. Putin's bootlickers want to count every tank Russia has in
storage. Even the gutted rust buckets built as far back as WWII. They have, or
had, about 8000 actual usable tanks and few were actually competitive with what
the west has been using since the 1980s. Just ask Saddam Hussein how his state
of the art Russian tanks fared against American Abrams.
Even the best of Russia's weapons are junk compared to what the west has. >>
attack. What we used to call "a target rich
environment". You can't get them all and NATO
plans, read somewheres, involved resorting
to tactical nukes.
Russia's version of 'blitzkrieg'. Too bad it hasn't worked out for them.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 23:18:56 -0700, Gronk <invalide@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 22:41:50 -0600, Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/8/25 6:04 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Governor Swill wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jan 2025 08:30:17 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>>>>
But tanks are very difficult to build.
As Russia has learned to its cost.
A tank...is just...a big bullet proof vest.
Not even that. Its heyday was in WWII where Guderian used it to design a >>>> new form of war. The battlefield units weren't the infantry anymore, but >>>> tanks, with infantry hiding behind them.
But even in that war, the role Guderian had sculpted for it eventually >>>> changed by Russian's far inferior tanks. Russian tanks proved more
effective than German tanks!
Nowadays it is only a moveable light artillery piece. Stuff that are
still installed on it, and used to be effective a few decades back,
aren't effective anymore. It has no air defense value. The only thing it >>>> does is throwing light artillery shells.
An excellent observation. That said, not all tanks are created equal, Just ask
the Iraqis whose Russian tanks were destroyed in boxcar lots by American tanks
which took no casualties at all.
Not to disparage our forces, but the Iraqis were
poorly led and they followed Soviet doctrines. That's
strike one and two. They also did not have air
superiority - strike three. There's some more
bits like that but those will do.
Which also explains Russia's failures in Ukraine.
The damn tank can also be hit with drones and/or surface to
surface
missile barrages. Each tank should have a couple of surface to
air
missiles on it.
and who would supply
 drones and/or surface to surface missile barrages?
I think it just might be "beneficial" if a tank was also a
mobile SAM site wrt short/medium range anti air weapons.
Although, I think tanks are just big slow targets anyway...
I can see it now, a tank with anit-air weapons, akin to a tank/sam
hybrid. A group of state-of-the-art HARM missiles got
interested... ;^)
186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
On 1/18/25 5:40 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 05:21:29 +0000, bertietaylor@myyahoo.com
(Bertietaylor)
wrote:
Why doesn't Nato let Russia join them?
That was the plan in the nineties under Yeltsin. Too bad for Russia,
Putin's
belligerent determination to reconstruct the Russian Empire scotched
that idea.
  Yep, Putin has said he's on a Holy Mission to
  revive the entire USSR.
  Xi is on a holy mission to grab Taiwan and some
  extra stuff.
And idjt agrees.
On 1/16/2025 5:52 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/11/2025 8:32 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/11/2025 11:54 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
I can be as easy as a highly dedicated person in a hole in the ground >>>>>> waiting for tanks to pass by. It's been there for a couple of days.... >>>>>> All of a sudden a rumble... An enemy tank is near by. The person gets >>>>>> a notification on his device... He pops out of the hole and targets >>>>>> the tank with a wire guided anti tank missile and also holds a laser >>>>>> pointer on the tank for anti tank surface to surface missiles to home >>>>>> in on? Not to mention the anti tank mine fields galore.
Everybody but Russia knows you send infantry alongside tanks to deal >>>>> with enemy infantry with anti-tank weapons.
The damn tank can also be hit with drones and/or surface to surface
missile barrages. Each tank should have a couple of surface to air
missiles on it.
and who would supply
 drones and/or surface to surface missile barrages?
I think it just might be "beneficial" if a tank was also a mobile SAM
site wrt short/medium range anti air weapons. Although, I think tanks
are just big slow targets anyway...
I can see it now, a tank with anit-air weapons, akin to a tank/sam
hybrid. A group of state-of-the-art HARM missiles got interested... ;^)
I just thought of something for fun. lol. It's a crazy idea, but
kind of fun? Think of a cylinder packed with several (perhaps 10?)
fully armed drones (anti-tank bomblets, self destruct bombs,
ect...) being planted underground... A tank rolls by and triggers
the device. Around a minute later the top pops off, and the drones
start flying out of the underground cylinder targeted on that tank
and/or any other local threats. They are active and going to try
to cause damage.
Is that a stupid idea? ;^)
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 7:27:21 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000016, 16.01.2025 um 09:25 schrieb Bertietaylor:
....
Napoleon ranks with Alexander, Caesar and Hitler as among the four top >>>>> European leaders, for egalitarianism and modernity.
'egalitarianism' is apparently meant as 'socialism' and 'modernity' as
'technocracy' (which are the buzz words of the WEF).
More or less.
So 'the GREAT RESET' is actually the return of Caesar and the ancient
Rome.
Benevolent competent dictator adored by masses with increasing living standards. Ideal.
Well, yes, possibly.
But who wants Rome back???
Rome is there in legal systems where theoretically only guilty are
punished with innocents not to be harmed.
WAS<<< !!!
Ancients Rome was a slaveholder society, where about two out of three
people were slaves.
Now we have machines that work better than slaves.
Since slave-ownership ranks among the unforgivable sins, all successions
of ancient Rome will be destroyed by God himself.
I thought Jews had their slaves but Jews are very much around.
...All of them did essentially the same thing:
they have sent their armies into territories, which were not theirs and >>>> forced the inhabitants of the occupied regions to fight in their army. >>>>
So: Hitler was a piece of shit, too, but for very similar reasons as
Napoleon.
Pale versions of Genghis Khan.
Well, that shithead lived much earlier, but was actually worse than
Napoleon and Hitler combined.
Those who gladly accepted his rule were spared.
Dear Genghis dragged Europe out of the Dark ages.
Religious bigots may not be happy about that.
Am Sonntag000019, 19.01.2025 um 11:35 schrieb Bertietaylor:Other way around, monarchs generally were wonderful dictators at least
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 7:27:21 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am Donnerstag000016, 16.01.2025 um 09:25 schrieb Bertietaylor:
....
Napoleon ranks with Alexander, Caesar and Hitler as among the four top >>>>>> European leaders, for egalitarianism and modernity.
'egalitarianism' is apparently meant as 'socialism' and 'modernity' as
'technocracy' (which are the buzz words of the WEF).
More or less.
So 'the GREAT RESET' is actually the return of Caesar and the ancient
Rome.
Benevolent competent dictator adored by masses with increasing living
standards. Ideal.
Most dictators in history started benevolant and ended, because they
left too many corpses behind.
Well, yes, possibly.
But who wants Rome back???
Rome is there in legal systems where theoretically only guilty are
punished with innocents not to be harmed.
WAS<<< !!!
Actually ancient Rome is long gone and has existed two thousand years
ago.
But many Roman principles of jurisdiction have stil survived and are
still in use today.
Ancients Rome was a slaveholder society, where about two out of three
people were slaves.
Now we have machines that work better than slaves.
Slavery turned out to be very inefficinat.
So modern forms of slavery were introduced, where the slaves had to feed themselves.
Since slave-ownership ranks among the unforgivable sins, all successions >>> of ancient Rome will be destroyed by God himself.
I thought Jews had their slaves but Jews are very much around.
Well, possibly God is taking revenge now.
....All of them did essentially the same thing:
they have sent their armies into territories, which were not theirs and >>>>> forced the inhabitants of the occupied regions to fight in their army. >>>>>
So: Hitler was a piece of shit, too, but for very similar reasons as >>>>> Napoleon.
Pale versions of Genghis Khan.
Well, that shithead lived much earlier, but was actually worse than
Napoleon and Hitler combined.
Those who gladly accepted his rule were spared.
Dear Genghis dragged Europe out of the Dark ages.
Religious bigots may not be happy about that.
I would say, that the Mongols had occuption in mind, when they came to
the west.
Whether or not they wanted to bring enlightment to the people of the
'dark ages' would be a theoretical question, because they were defeated
by the people they have tried to enlighten.
TH
On 1/19/2025 10:39 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/19/2025 7:55 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Ukrainian Bradleys have gotten tank kills which should be impossible.
The damn tank can also be hit with drones and/or surface to surface >>>>>>> missile barrages. Each tank should have a couple of surface to air >>>>>>> missiles on it.
and who would supply
 drones and/or surface to surface missile barrages?
I think it just might be "beneficial" if a tank was also a mobile
SAM site wrt short/medium range anti air weapons. Although, I think
tanks are just big slow targets anyway...
I can see it now, a tank with anit-air weapons, akin to a tank/sam
hybrid. A group of state-of-the-art HARM missiles got interested... ;^) >>>
They carry a couple of missiles. If they see the tank first, they fire
their guns. Those cannot damage the tank interior. But they blast away
all the periscope and cameras so that the tank crew is left blind.
Then the Bradleys can aim their missiles that can pierce the tank
armor and kill the crew.
If the tank acts like a SAM site, it might be vulnerable to HARM wrt
fighter jets in the sky hunting for SAM sites. Unmanned drones on cap
loaded for bear wrt HARM missiles, just looking for SAM sites. If that
happens to be a tank, so be it. Then clever state of the art land mines
would also help destroy tanks.
I just thought of something for fun. lol. It's a crazy idea, but kind of
fun? Think of a cylinder packed with several (perhaps 10?) fully armed
drones (anti-tank bomblets, self destruct bombs, ect...) being planted underground... A tank rolls by and triggers the device. Around a minute
later the top pops off, and the drones start flying out of the
underground cylinder targeted on that tank and/or any other local
threats. They are active and going to try to cause damage.
Is that a stupid idea? ;^)
On 1/20/2025 7:04 AM, Jim Pennino wrote:
In sci.physics Chris M. Thomasson <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 10:39 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
On 1/19/2025 7:55 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
Ukrainian Bradleys have gotten tank kills which should be impossible. >>>>> They carry a couple of missiles. If they see the tank first, they fire >>>>> their guns. Those cannot damage the tank interior. But they blast away >>>>> all the periscope and cameras so that the tank crew is left blind.
The damn tank can also be hit with drones and/or surface to surface >>>>>>>>> missile barrages. Each tank should have a couple of surface to air >>>>>>>>> missiles on it.
and who would supply
 drones and/or surface to surface missile barrages?
I think it just might be "beneficial" if a tank was also a mobile >>>>>>> SAM site wrt short/medium range anti air weapons. Although, I think >>>>>>> tanks are just big slow targets anyway...
I can see it now, a tank with anit-air weapons, akin to a tank/sam >>>>>> hybrid. A group of state-of-the-art HARM missiles got interested... ;^) >>>>>
Then the Bradleys can aim their missiles that can pierce the tank
armor and kill the crew.
If the tank acts like a SAM site, it might be vulnerable to HARM wrt
fighter jets in the sky hunting for SAM sites. Unmanned drones on cap
loaded for bear wrt HARM missiles, just looking for SAM sites. If that >>>> happens to be a tank, so be it. Then clever state of the art land mines >>>> would also help destroy tanks.
I just thought of something for fun. lol. It's a crazy idea, but kind of >>> fun? Think of a cylinder packed with several (perhaps 10?) fully armed
drones (anti-tank bomblets, self destruct bombs, ect...) being planted
underground... A tank rolls by and triggers the device. Around a minute
later the top pops off, and the drones start flying out of the
underground cylinder targeted on that tank and/or any other local
threats. They are active and going to try to cause damage.
Is that a stupid idea? ;^)
M131 MOPMS mine system from about 45 years ago.
Nice! But it does not deploy drones?
On 1/20/25 9:04 AM, Jim Pennino wrote:
Ahah, the resident-"cook"-till-death is still shitting. Jump back inside
the bag till Arindam's report comes!
Not even sure your handicapped nature is worth the space a bag of pinto
beans takes up in a fridge.
On 1/20/25 10:52 PM, Bertietaylor wrote:
Arindam reports his great joys in India on his Facebook page,
Oh, so they kicked you out of Australia. What happened. Didn't you pay
the rent? Is that why you've been wanting Trump to kick me out of USA?
Poor Trump. If you could, he'd change 99% of Americans with
Physfitfreaks. But he can't. Some stuff are hard to find.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 506 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 117:01:08 |
| Calls: | 9,941 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,817 |
| Messages: | 6,350,416 |