Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives

Hamster Buddha · Feb 12, 2015

DaveFagan said:
I thought the fall of the Berlin wall was a wonderful thing. I still ponder why Poroshenko keeps
negotiating with Putin instead of the Novorussians. How does Kiev afford to keep operating an
aggressive war against its' own people when the Nation is broke. Wait, it's coming to me, the
war has something to do with collaterol and Central Banks that now run the Western oriented
World. By the way, did you vote for those banks?

Good point, except the fact that we wouldn't have said war if the Russians weren't supplying the Rebels to begin with, now would we?

DaveFagan · Feb 12, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
Good point, except the fact that we wouldn't have said war if the Russians weren't supplying the Rebels to begin with, now would we?

That's incorrect. We wouldn't have said war if Kiev had not attacked the Donbas. Kiev attacked
because their IMF loan agreement was predicated on an intact Ukraine. It's about Banking and
collaterol.

Hamster Buddha · Feb 12, 2015

DaveFagan said:
That's incorrect. We wouldn't have said war if Kiev had not attacked the Donbas. Kiev attacked
because their IMF loan agreement was predicated on an intact Ukraine. It's about Banking and
collaterol.

Of course Dave. It's all the West's fault and none of it is Putin's right?

DaveFagan · Feb 12, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
Of course Dave. It's all the West's fault and none of it is Putin's right?

All that shooting, killing, death, chaos, and destruction going on in Ukraine does
not seem to be happening in Crimea. I wonder what that could mean? Putin is in
Crimea. It is 80% the West's fault starting with NED and the CIA fomenting an
insurrection/coup to bring Ukraine into the Western Central Banking hegemony.
It's not really rocket science, but true/unbiased/non propaganda news is not found
on Commercial US TV/MSM. You think we're the good guys. I used to think that in
the 60s, but a real close up look in Vietnam revealed the truth to me. It's always
about crooked banks and big money players.

Hamster Buddha · Feb 12, 2015

DaveFagan said:
All that shooting, killing, death, chaos, and destruction going on in Ukraine does
not seem to be happening in Crimea. I wonder what that could mean? Putin is in
Crimea. It is 80% the West's fault starting with NED and the CIA fomenting an
insurrection/coup to bring Ukraine into the Western Central Banking hegemony.
It's not really rocket science, but true/unbiased/non propaganda news is not found
on Commercial US TV/MSM. You think we're the good guys. I used to think that in
the 60s, but a real close up look in Vietnam revealed the truth to me. It's always
about crooked banks and big money players.

And I suppose that Russian TV isn't propaganda hmm?

Montecresto · Feb 13, 2015

DDD said:
You are welcome to interpret the post in anyway you choose. However it may take reading again if interested to know what was really meant.

No thanks, twice was sufficient.

Montecresto · Feb 13, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
Of course Dave. It's all the West's fault and none of it is Putin's right?

Oh stop pouting, it isn't all or nothing. Clearly you have the ability to blame Putin, just accept responsibility for Western intrigue now and balance this out.

Montecresto · Feb 13, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
And I suppose that Russian TV isn't propaganda hmm?

Propaganda can be found everywhere. The broad brush approach fails though. Nobody tells the truth 100% of the time and nobody lies 100% of the time. If rt=propaganda to you! then you'll never progress.

As our SoS testified before congress. The US media is basically useless, not because it's ALL propaganda, but because its puff, and lacking substance. In contrast she upheld international news, Al Jazeera, Press, rt etc, as being informative and as winning the information war.

Hamster Buddha · Feb 13, 2015

Montecresto said:
Propaganda can be found everywhere. The broad brush approach fails though. Nobody tells the truth 100% of the time and nobody lies 100% of the time. If rt=propaganda to you! then you'll never progress.

As our SoS testified before congress. The US media is basically useless, not because it's ALL propaganda, but because its puff, and lacking substance. In contrast she upheld international news, Al Jazeera, Press, rt etc, as being informative and as winning the information war.

So we just going to to ignore that woman (or I guess it's women* at this point) who left the RT because of all the interference from Moscow? And heaven forbid if we are really wanting to consider the Islamist mouthpiece of Al Jazeera as "credible" either. I put as much trust in them as I do Goebels propaganda addresses.

Montecresto said:
Oh stop pouting, it isn't all or nothing. Clearly you have the ability to blame Putin, just accept responsibility for Western intrigue now and balance this out.

I will not. Mainly because it's so preposterous the idea that hundreds of thousands would take to the streets, a few them putting their lives on the lines in the process, for a couple of bankers. If you're assertion is that the West used this opportunity to drive a wedge between those in Kiev who supported closer ties with the West and those in the East that are still in love with Mother Russia, then fine, I can roll with that. Beyond that, it's all ridiculousness.

Montecresto · Feb 13, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
So we just going to to ignore that woman (or I guess it's women* at this point) who left the RT because of all the interference from Moscow? And heaven forbid if we are really wanting to consider the Islamist mouthpiece of Al Jazeera as "credible" either. I put as much trust in them as I do Goebels propaganda addresses.

I will not. Mainly because it's so preposterous the idea that hundreds of thousands would take to the streets, a few them putting their lives on the lines in the process, for a couple of bankers. If you're assertion is that the West used this opportunity to drive a wedge between those in Kiev who supported closer ties with the West and those in the East that are still in love with Mother Russia, then fine, I can roll with that. Beyond that, it's all ridiculousness.

That is all I'm asserting. I don't believe I've ever begrudged the fact that the mob at Maiden Square was disgruntled with Yanukovych and his decision to do business with Russia instead of the EU. I don't think for one moment that they were doing anything for a couple of bankers or an entire banking system either. What I have done is condemn the US/EU and all those at DP that have supported the violent overthrow of an elected government, the burning of government buildings and firing upon the president as he fled in his motorcade. That's not the way democracy works and neither you or anybody else would accept, let alone support the same thing happening here. There could have easily been a band of half a million pissed off Americans that could have stormed DC, burned out federal buildings and driven Bush from the WH shooting at his security detail as they attempted to evacuate him from the situation, and it would have been just as wrong as what we saw in Kiev. It's hatred of Russia that's driving this hypocrisy.

DDD · Feb 13, 2015

Montecresto said:
No thanks, twice was sufficient.

Yet it the intended meaning was missed, even when read twice.

Hamster Buddha · Feb 13, 2015

Montecresto said:
That is all I'm asserting. I don't believe I've ever begrudged the fact that the mob at Maiden Square was disgruntled with Yanukovych and his decision to do business with Russia instead of the EU. I don't think for one moment that they were doing anything for a couple of bankers or an entire banking system either. What I have done is condemn the US/EU and all those at DP that have supported the violent overthrow of an elected government, the burning of government buildings and firing upon the president as he fled in his motorcade. That's not the way democracy works and neither you or anybody else would accept, let alone support the same thing happening here. There could have easily been a band of half a million pissed off Americans that could have stormed DC, burned out federal buildings and driven Bush from the WH shooting at his security detail as they attempted to evacuate him from the situation, and it would have been just as wrong as what we saw in Kiev. It's hatred of Russia that's driving this hypocrisy.

I can respect that in a democracy, there are some things that shouldn't be done I really do. And honestly, I don't hate Russia. In truth, if you would of asked me a few years ago, I'd of taken up with Russia over aligning myself with the ****ing French. One my favorite novel series has Russia allying with the US if you can believe that. It's because that Russia has a fierce independent streak, and they won't let anyone force them into doing something they don't want. I like that. It's American after all to buck the system.

However, this is the same Russia that in the past several years have now invaded two sovereign countries and unlike the US, they don't have the intention of handing them back... at least not free and clear. Add on top of that who is leading Russia right now, an ex-KGB spymaster that seems to want to hold onto power until the day he dies, who incidentally called the fall of the Soviet Union the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century. Like it or not, Russia isn't exactly doing themselves any favor. And we all know what happens to dissidents and others who oppose Putin's regime inside Russia and isn't pretty. In fact, more and more, I'm having a hard time seeing a difference between Russia and the old Soviet Union. That's why people "hate" Russia nowadays is because in truth, this isn't Yeltsin's Russia or even Gorbachev's Russia any more.

Montecresto · Feb 13, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
I can respect that in a democracy, there are some things that shouldn't be done I really do. And honestly, I don't hate Russia. In truth, if you would of asked me a few years ago, I'd of taken up with Russia over aligning myself with the ****ing French. One my favorite novel series has Russia allying with the US if you can believe that. It's because that Russia has a fierce independent streak, and they won't let anyone force them into doing something they don't want. I like that. It's American after all to buck the system.

However, this is the same Russia that in the past several years have now invaded two sovereign countries and unlike the US, they don't have the intention of handing them back... at least not free and clear. Add on top of that who is leading Russia right now, an ex-KGB spymaster that seems to want to hold onto power until the day he dies, who incidentally called the fall of the Soviet Union the greatest tragedy of the 20th Century. Like it or not, Russia isn't exactly doing themselves any favor. And we all know what happens to dissidents and others who oppose Putin's regime inside Russia and isn't pretty. In fact, more and more, I'm having a hard time seeing a difference between Russia and the old Soviet Union. That's why people "hate" Russia nowadays is because in truth, this isn't Yeltsin's Russia or even Gorbachev's Russia any more.

KGB/CIA, are you at all familiar with the list of atrocities conducted by the CIA in Latin America (not to mention so many other places about the world) some of which occurred during GHW Bush's tenure. And he was rewarded with the presidency. What about the ill gotten gaines his grandfather had confiscated from him under the Trading With The Enemies Act, during WW2, or what about GWBush's war in Iraq that wasted nearly a trillion dollars, cost the lives of 4,500 US servicemen/women and the lives of 2-300,000 Iraqi civilians, all based upon massaged intelligence to fit a policy conceived of by Bush and others, prior to 9/11. Here's the point HB, and I think you'll understand this, when we point that foreign policy finger at Russia or China or name your country, there's three pointing back. the US has very little credibility in this regard, and really, condemnation of Putin needs to come from countries and leaders and people's who haven't the history of imperialism, hedgmony, exploitation and therefore, hypocrisy of the US.

Hamster Buddha · Feb 13, 2015

Montecresto said:
KGB/CIA, are you at all familiar with the list of atrocities conducted by the CIA in Latin America (not to mention so many other places about the world) some of which occurred during GHW Bush's tenure. And he was rewarded with the presidency. What about the ill gotten gaines his grandfather had confiscated from him under the Trading With The Enemies Act, during WW2, or what about GWBush's war in Iraq that wasted nearly a trillion dollars, cost the lives of 4,500 US servicemen/women and the lives of 2-300,000 Iraqi civilians, all based upon massaged intelligence to fit a policy conceived of by Bush and others, prior to 9/11. Here's the point HB, and I think you'll understand this, when we point that foreign policy finger at Russia or China or name your country, there's three pointing back. the US has very little credibility in this regard, and really, condemnation of Putin needs to come from countries and leaders and people's who haven't the history of imperialism, hedgmony, exploitation and therefore, hypocrisy of the US.

I'm honestly not as familiar with Latin America as I should be, except for knowing that the Soviet Union was spreading communism (largely through proxies in the region such as Cuba which was why they got onto the list of State Sponsored terrorist) in the region. It's only natural that the US wasn't going to allow the spread of such beliefs here, and we need look no further to look at the Cuban Missile Crisis to know how far we're willing to go to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, that for two hundreds years prevented foreign powers from messing with the internal affairs of the Western Hemisphere.

And then you bring up Iraq. Let me ask you something, do you honestly expect Russia to hand over the reigns to territories Russia has taken in the past few years as the US did with Iraq? Like it or not, when we left Iraq, they were free to do whatever the hell they wanted, which incidentally has bitten us in the ass and why to this day I'd rather have an enemy in Saddam than supposed "allies" we have now. After all, have you seen how close they've become with Iran? Do you think Russia is going to let either the Crimea, Georgia, or whatever happens with Eastern Ukraine get that buddy buddy with their strategic adversaries?

Montecresto · Feb 13, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
I'm honestly not as familiar with Latin America as I should be, except for knowing that the Soviet Union was spreading communism (largely through proxies in the region such as Cuba which was why they got onto the list of State Sponsored terrorist) in the region. It's only natural that the US wasn't going to allow the spread of such beliefs here, and we need look no further to look at the Cuban Missile Crisis to know how far we're willing to go to enforce the Monroe Doctrine, that for two hundreds years prevented foreign powers from messing with the internal affairs of the Western Hemisphere.

And then you bring up Iraq. Let me ask you something, do you honestly expect Russia to hand over the reigns to territories Russia has taken in the past few years as the US did with Iraq? Like it or not, when we left Iraq, they were free to do whatever the hell they wanted, which incidentally has bitten us in the ass and why to this day I'd rather have an enemy in Saddam than supposed "allies" we have now. After all, have you seen how close they've become with Iran? Do you think Russia is going to let either the Crimea, Georgia, or whatever happens with Eastern Ukraine get that buddy buddy with their strategic adversaries?

Come on Buddha. You admit to not knowing much about the CIA's atrocities in Latin America, and then defend them upon the propaganda that you've heard espoused in American media or some patronising poster at DP.

Here's just one of many examples of US policy that has been brutal on weak people in the world that have no leverage to defend themselves, in order to advance the economic interests of American oligarchs. I really do have faith that you're interested in truth and justice, just reach out and grab it.

The Guatemalan Revolution of 1944-54 had overthrown the US backed dictator Jorge Ubico and brought a democratically elected government to power. The government began an ambitious agrarian reform program attempting to grant land to millions of landless peasants. This program threatened the land holdings of the United Fruit Company, who lobbied for a coup by portraying these reforms as communist. The CIA engineered the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Jacobo Árbenz, and installed the military dictator Carlos Castillo Armas. A decades long civil war ensued in which some 200,000 people were killed, mostly by the US backed military.[21][22][23][24][25]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions

So here you have a country in which its citizens were suffering under the oppression of a dictator, a dictator that the US supported! In an attempt at desperation they overthrow the dictator and install for themselves a democracy, and a government that has their interests at heart and will divide land in an equitable fashion so that all its citizens can make a living and thrive. Viewed as a threat to the UFC, a conspiracy is hatched and the US government is lobbied to demonise the peasants as communist sympathiser, and you know how Americans get catatonic when they hear that word. So the CIA was tasked with the job of overthrowing this democratically elected government and another right wing dictator was installed who subsequently beat the citizenry into submission by killing 200,000 of them, which allowed UFC to then continue the exploitation of the Guatemalan peasants.

STOP, patronising America by thinking everything that's done is good, supports democracy and looks after the little guy or praises self determination. It isn't always so!!!

Hamster Buddha · Feb 14, 2015

Montecresto said:
Come on Buddha. You admit to not knowing much about the CIA's atrocities in Latin America, and then defend them upon the propaganda that you've heard espoused in American media or some patronising poster at DP.

Here's just one of many examples of US policy that has been brutal on weak people in the world that have no leverage to defend themselves, in order to advance the economic interests of American oligarchs. I really do have faith that you're interested in truth and justice, just reach out and grab it.

The Guatemalan Revolution of 1944-54 had overthrown the US backed dictator Jorge Ubico and brought a democratically elected government to power. The government began an ambitious agrarian reform program attempting to grant land to millions of landless peasants. This program threatened the land holdings of the United Fruit Company, who lobbied for a coup by portraying these reforms as communist. The CIA engineered the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Jacobo Árbenz, and installed the military dictator Carlos Castillo Armas. A decades long civil war ensued in which some 200,000 people were killed, mostly by the US backed military.[21][22][23][24][25]

Covert United States foreign regime change actions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So here you have a country in which its citizens were suffering under the oppression of a dictator, a dictator that the US supported! In an attempt at desperation they overthrow the dictator and install for themselves a democracy, and a government that has their interests at heart and will divide land in an equitable fashion so that all its citizens can make a living and thrive. Viewed as a threat to the UFC, a conspiracy is hatched and the US government is lobbied to demonise the peasants as communist sympathiser, and you know how Americans get catatonic when they hear that word. So the CIA was tasked with the job of overthrowing this democratically elected government and another right wing dictator was installed who subsequently beat the citizenry into submission by killing 200,000 of them, which allowed UFC to then continue the exploitation of the Guatemalan peasants.

STOP, patronising America by thinking everything that's done is good, supports democracy and looks after the little guy or praises self determination. It isn't always so!!!

I've never said that everything the US has ever done was good. But you would be naive if you didn't think that Cuba and the Soviets weren't looking to inroads into the Latin America. Grenada demonstrated that very clearly when we found Cuban advisers trying to stir up the rebels there. Also, this was prior to the time when the US policy shifted to supporting democracies as well. Think about it, there was a time in the past where US Foreign Policy supported the likes of Mubarak. But despite the fact that he considered the US an Ally, increasingly over time the US started to apply more and more pressure to his regime to the point that we called for his ouster during the Arab Spring.

Also, I question and articles legitimacy when the very post concerns Russia and our dealings with them after the Revolution I know to be patently misleading. I won't go into great detail here as it doesn't add to our current discussion, but suffice to say it leads me to question the rest of it.

Montecresto · Feb 15, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
I've never said that everything the US has ever done was good. But you would be naive if you didn't think that Cuba and the Soviets weren't looking to inroads into the Latin America. Grenada demonstrated that very clearly when we found Cuban advisers trying to stir up the rebels there. Also, this was prior to the time when the US policy shifted to supporting democracies as well. Think about it, there was a time in the past where US Foreign Policy supported the likes of Mubarak. But despite the fact that he considered the US an Ally, increasingly over time the US started to apply more and more pressure to his regime to the point that we called for his ouster during the Arab Spring.

Also, I question and articles legitimacy when the very post concerns Russia and our dealings with them after the Revolution I know to be patently misleading. I won't go into great detail here as it doesn't add to our current discussion, but suffice to say it leads me to question the rest of it.

I didn't speak to the issue of Russia and Cuba. But if you can justify dropping nuclear bombs on civilian targets, firebombing civilian targets, overthrowing democratic governments and replacing them with right wing dictators, overthrowing right wing dictators which give rise to terrorism, and the like, then you provide room for anybody to justify anything.

Hamster Buddha · Feb 16, 2015

Montecresto said:
I didn't speak to the issue of Russia and Cuba. But if you can justify dropping nuclear bombs on civilian targets, firebombing civilian targets, overthrowing democratic governments and replacing them with right wing dictators, overthrowing right wing dictators which give rise to terrorism, and the like, then you provide room for anybody to justify anything.

Are we really going to bring WW2 into this? You're talking about apples and oranges here. Two different eras entirely.

In a way, I think we're also talking about different eras as well between the Cold War and now. Look, back in the Cold War, there was a strategic adversary to deal with and that was the Soviet Union. And I guarantee that we wouldn't of had to of been as aggressive with Latin America had Russia not tried to bring Nukes over and set them up 90 miles from Florida. Today, it's all a different ball game though. For example, I doubt we would of been so liberal in our dealings with Iraq the second time around, had there still of been a Soviet Union just a short distance from it's borders. The problem of course, is that Putin hasn't left those Cold War years behind and is where we see the discrepancies.

Montecresto · Feb 16, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
Are we really going to bring WW2 into this? You're talking about apples and oranges here. Two different eras entirely.

In a way, I think we're also talking about different eras as well between the Cold War and now. Look, back in the Cold War, there was a strategic adversary to deal with and that was the Soviet Union. And I guarantee that we wouldn't of had to of been as aggressive with Latin America had Russia not tried to bring Nukes over and set them up 90 miles from Florida. Today, it's all a different ball game though. For example, I doubt we would of been so liberal in our dealings with Iraq the second time around, had there still of been a Soviet Union just a short distance from it's borders. The problem of course, is that Putin hasn't left those Cold War years behind and is where we see the discrepancies.

My post you quoted didn't just reference WW2, and your response reached back a bit as well.

Hamster Buddha · Feb 16, 2015

Montecresto said:
My post you quoted didn't just reference WW2, and your response reached back a bit as well.

No of course it didn't, but I also addressed those other points as well:

Look, back in the Cold War, there was a strategic adversary to deal with and that was the Soviet Union. And I guarantee that we wouldn't of had to of been as aggressive with Latin America had Russia not tried to bring Nukes over and set them up 90 miles from Florida. Today, it's all a different ball game though. For example, I doubt we would of been so liberal in our dealings with Iraq the second time around, had there still of been a Soviet Union just a short distance from it's borders. The problem of course, is that Putin hasn't left those Cold War years behind and is where we see the discrepancies.

I mentioned WW1 though because the article tried to argue that we were interfering with the revolution when we went into Vladivostok and that other Port that I can't recall at this moment. And as much as Khrushchev believed that we were doing as such, (I've seen videos of a speech he gave, I believe before the UN where he was ranting about it, and all the Americans at the time was like "da fuq is he talking about?") In truth we just didn't want the Bolsheviks getting their hands on all the supplies we sent to support Russia's WW1 efforts (there was also troops that were caught there, but that's a long story and immaterial to the current discussion). It was nothing like when Americans were supporting dirty dictators and such. So when I saw that as the first one and knew it was not the case, was why I dismissed the rest of the list. Not because I don't believe any of those situations occur, but at that point I don't believe the source.

Montecresto · Feb 16, 2015

Hamster Buddha said:
No of course it didn't, but I also addressed those other points as well:

Look, back in the Cold War, there was a strategic adversary to deal with and that was the Soviet Union. And I guarantee that we wouldn't of had to of been as aggressive with Latin America had Russia not tried to bring Nukes over and set them up 90 miles from Florida. Today, it's all a different ball game though. For example, I doubt we would of been so liberal in our dealings with Iraq the second time around, had there still of been a Soviet Union just a short distance from it's borders. The problem of course, is that Putin hasn't left those Cold War years behind and is where we see the discrepancies.

I mentioned WW1 though because the article tried to argue that we were interfering with the revolution when we went into Vladivostok and that other Port that I can't recall at this moment. And as much as Khrushchev believed that we were doing as such, (I've seen videos of a speech he gave, I believe before the UN where he was ranting about it, and all the Americans at the time was like "da fuq is he talking about?") In truth we just didn't want the Bolsheviks getting their hands on all the supplies we sent to support Russia's WW1 efforts (there was also troops that were caught there, but that's a long story and immaterial to the current discussion). It was nothing like when Americans were supporting dirty dictators and such. So when I saw that as the first one and knew it was not the case, was why I dismissed the rest of the list. Not because I don't believe any of those situations occur, but at that point I don't believe the source.

I'm not going to criticise you for reaching back to WW1. Anything that shows a pattern is fair play.

face your · Feb 19, 2015

DaveFagan said:
Why doesn't MSM media investigate Ukraine?

It does, for example it proved that Russia had illegally invaded the Ukraine while they were still laughably denying that they had invaded the Crimea.

Are we supporting crooks and Nazis in Ukraine?

Click to expand...

No, over half of the neo-Nazi's in the world reside in the Russian Federation, and far right parties did not make traction in the Ukrainian elections.

Is it wise to war with your largest trading partner?

Click to expand...

The Ukraine did not war with Russia, Russia warred with the Ukraine3.

Is investigative reporter Robert Parry's synopsis of events accurate? Poll Question

Click to expand...

No it's absolutely nonsense, the crisis in the Ukraine is the direct result of Russian interventionism from beginning to end, facts are stubborn things, it was Russia that started all of this first with economic warfare in order to prevent the Ukraine's right to self determination which prompted peaceful protests supported by a plurality if not an outright majority of Ukrainians which resulted in a Russian puppet at the direct behest of Putin, sending in his jack booted thugs to attack and murder the protesters which resulted in his impeachment followed by his treasonous self imposed exile to Russian occupied territory, then what happened next is Russia invaded, occupied, installed an occupation government with Spec Ops holding AKs and rocket launchers in the Crimean parliamentary building during the swearing in of a new Crimean "prime minister" and this was followed by the outright illegal annexation of sovereign Ukrainian territory by the Russian Federation through a fraudulent and illegal referendum in which only two options were offered cessation or annexation rather than maintaining the status quo and which did not allow for the majority of Ukrainians to participate in violation of both the Ukrainian and Crimean Constitutions,

DaveFagan · Feb 19, 2015

Face,your
The Ukrainian war of choice to take an army into the Eastern Ukraine and attack coal miners and
peasants. Kiev attacked and is not defending anything. Kiev's current junta was installed by Right
Sector Nazis who provided the muscle at Maidan. Azov battalion are also Nazis. Again, a war of
choice is like GW Bush(the First Torturor) invading Iraq. Could negotiations have worked???? OF
course they could have. Kiev was trapped by clauses in IMF debt package and was required to have
a complete country to be eligible for teh Money. MONEY is the key word here. Now IMF doesn't
even mind if there is a war going on because they got the collaterol guarantee. They have Ukrainians
by the balls, don't ya' know.

Nuclear War and Clashing Ukraine Narratives

Is Investigative Reporter Parry's narrative accurate?

YES!

NO!

OTHER, please explain.

More options

Hamster Buddha

DaveFagan

Iconoclast

Hamster Buddha

DaveFagan

Iconoclast

Hamster Buddha

Montecresto

Montecresto

Montecresto

Hamster Buddha

Montecresto

DDD

Hamster Buddha

Montecresto

Hamster Buddha

Montecresto

Hamster Buddha

Montecresto

Hamster Buddha

Montecresto

Hamster Buddha

Montecresto

face your

DaveFagan

Iconoclast