Truthseeker: US plans 'first strike' on Russia

[LostDutchman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvKucpTckjA
What do you think about this?

Horseshit.

[Nik1ab]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvKucpTckjA
What do you think about this?

Horseshit.

Why?

Not going to happen. Wars need popular support. Average Americans would not support another war any where. The outcry over getting involved in Syria was a great example of that.

The US government has control over all mainstream media outlets. How do you think the public would not support war?

Yes.

We are all lead to believe anything beyond the US border are evil.

And being a good Christian, it is our duty to eradicate the evil.

Didn't Jesus say that the people should not send their gold to Caesar and instead keep it themselves?
Wasn't he against the government?

[DooMAD]

I can't take that show seriously.  They should call it "The Conspiracy Theory Seeker".  RT is a decent network in some ways, covering lots of stories other media outlets shy away from, but I think it would be better without nonsense like this on there.

[bryant.coleman]

I can't take that show seriously.  They should call it "The Conspiracy Theory Seeker".  RT is a decent network in some ways, covering lots of stories other media outlets shy away from, but I think it would be better without nonsense like this on there.

No one is asking you to believe any of it. You can watch those crappy NATO-backed news channels such as CNBC, CNN, and BBC. Anyone with some commonsense will agree with what was shown in the RT.

[Nemo1024]

I can't take that show seriously.  They should call it "The Conspiracy Theory Seeker".  RT is a decent network in some ways, covering lots of stories other media outlets shy away from, but I think it would be better without nonsense like this on there.

What was shown there is an entirely plausible scenario, out of many other scenarios. The main question is: will there be anyone reckless/stupid/self-righteous enough to put such a scenario into action.

[bryant.coleman]

The main question is: will there be anyone reckless/stupid/self-righteous enough to put such a scenario into action.

Looking at the American politicians, I can find more than a dozen, including Jeb Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Mitt Romney. All the potential POTUS 2016 candidates with the exception of Rand Paul and Chris Christie (?) are pro-war.

[DooMAD]

I can't take that show seriously.  They should call it "The Conspiracy Theory Seeker".  RT is a decent network in some ways, covering lots of stories other media outlets shy away from, but I think it would be better without nonsense like this on there.

No one is asking you to believe any of it. You can watch those crappy NATO-backed news channels such as CNBC, CNN, and BBC. Anyone with some commonsense will agree with what was shown in the RT.

I'll continue to watch RT, just not that one show.  They can continue to make out like the US is the only government in the history of the world ever to have ever considered a first strike against another nation if that's what gets their viewing figures up by attracting drooling tinfoil-hat-wearing crackpots.  But anyone giving it even the slightest amount of rational thought is going to recognise that every single country with a nuclear arsenal has made similar plans of their own.  No one sits on a pile of nukes without some sort of idea on what they plan on doing with them.   No one's plan involves getting wiped out before firing a shot.  Sure, the US are probably the biggest warmongering profiteers on the planet, but they're not the only ones.  If you believe otherwise, then way to buy into some lame propaganda.

[nickenburg]

I can't take that show seriously.  They should call it "The Conspiracy Theory Seeker".  RT is a decent network in some ways, covering lots of stories other media outlets shy away from, but I think it would be better without nonsense like this on there.

No one is asking you to believe any of it. You can watch those crappy NATO-backed news channels such as CNBC, CNN, and BBC. Anyone with some commonsense will agree with what was shown in the RT.

I'll continue to watch RT, just not that one show.  They can continue to make out like the US is the only government in the history of the world ever to have ever considered a first strike against another nation if that's what gets their viewing figures up by attracting drooling tinfoil-hat-wearing crackpots.  But anyone giving it even the slightest amount of rational thought is going to recognise that every single country with a nuclear arsenal has made similar plans of their own.  No one sits on a pile of nukes without some sort of idea on what they plan on doing with them.   No one's plan involves getting wiped out before firing a shot.  Sure, the US are probably the biggest warmongering profiteers on the planet, but they're not the only ones.  If you believe otherwise, then way to buy into some lame propaganda.

Ive been a subcriber to Russia today for more then a year now, they indeed cover some news that main stream media wont touch.
I dont believe America will drop something on Russia, just because they wouldnt do it like that.
If they start something they will do it smarter so they can brainwash the public it was a justified attack.
Just like the twin towers you think they would falseflag 9/11 and then just drop bombs on russia like it's nothing?
I would like to think they are smarter then that, and if WW3 breaks out see you Holland im off to Aruba!!!

[bryant.coleman]

I would like to think they are smarter then that, and if WW3 breaks out see you Holland im off to Aruba!!!

Lol... what makes you think that Holland will be safe in the event of a likely World War? The Netherlands is a full-fledged member of NATO. Aruba is a colony of the Netherlands, and therefore it too comes under the NATO umbrella.

[nickenburg]

I would like to think they are smarter then that, and if WW3 breaks out see you Holland im off to Aruba!!!

Lol... what makes you think that Holland will be safe in the event of a likely World War? The Netherlands is a full-fledged member of NATO. Aruba is a colony of the Netherlands, and therefore it too comes under the NATO umbrella.

Holland wont be safe, thats why I will go to Aruba, ofcourse Aruba is part of The Netherlands but I dont think they will invade such a small island, they dont even have there own army.
Also they dont have the same laws and rules on Aruba as in The Netherlands, so do you really think Aruba would be involved in WW3?

[cbeast]

If anyone is stupid enough to make a nuclear first strike it will be North Korea, Pakistan, or India. I was going to include Israel, but they are more likely to use chemical.

[LostDutchman]

I would like to think they are smarter then that, and if WW3 breaks out see you Holland im off to Aruba!!!

Lol... what makes you think that Holland will be safe in the event of a likely World War? The Netherlands is a full-fledged member of NATO. Aruba is a colony of the Netherlands, and therefore it too comes under the NATO umbrella.

Yeah but even the smallest of tactical nukes or a bunkerbuster dropped onto one of the dikes and The Netherlands becomes a glorified swamp.

[Benjig]

 It's quite unlikely that the US would launch a first strike. They are in no position to. The only way this could happen is total insanity officially occurs in American's. That is a threat but the WORLD isn't allowing this to happen.

[bryant.coleman]

It's quite unlikely that the US would launch a first strike. They are in no position to. The only way this could happen is total insanity officially occurs in American's. That is a threat but the WORLD isn't allowing this to happen.

The United States remains as the only country which has ever used nukes against a civilian population (1945, Japan). And I am quite sure that if there is a second time, it will be the same perpetrators.

[LostDutchman]

It's quite unlikely that the US would launch a first strike. They are in no position to. The only way this could happen is total insanity officially occurs in American's. That is a threat but the WORLD isn't allowing this to happen.

The United States remains as the only country which has ever used nukes against a civilian population (1945, Japan). And I am quite sure that if there is a second time, it will be the same perpetrators.

Don't get me started on the history of the use of The Bomb on Japan unless you want a well-founded and educated justification for its use, after which you will feel thrashed.

You should also remember that both Japan and Germany were working on the Bomb and would have used it first, or at least a dirty bomb, had those two evil governments not been stopped.

[Nemo1024]

Don't get me started on the history of the use of The Bomb on Japan unless you want a well-founded and educated justification for its use, after which you will feel thrashed.

Please let us hear why there was a need to destroy two civilian targets with large population density and against a country that already was on the verge of capitulation. Even Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack against a military target.
I heard that one of the cited reasons was to prevent Japan from capitulating to the "wrong" country - i.e. Soviet Union.

[nickenburg]

It's quite unlikely that the US would launch a first strike. They are in no position to. The only way this could happen is total insanity officially occurs in American's. That is a threat but the WORLD isn't allowing this to happen.

Whether this can or can't happen is a matter of power and the US is in the process of loosing its world dominating power, namely the number one spot in the world economy. How far will they go to avoid loosing that? This is the worlds most militarised nation and wars are vital to their economy. Imho that was a large part of the reason for wanting to attack Syria, the US economy is facing collapse and desperately needs another war and the public backlash over Syria has made that situation more even more desperate.

The internet has given the world a voice and a means of avoiding propaganda, the old tried and tested means of control aren't as effective any more. Even Bitcoin has seriously threatened that power, its a poxy little 10 billion cap but the genie's out of the bottle and central banking's days are numbered. The only way of putting those genie's back in the bottle is boarders on communications between nations and the most effective way of achieving that is turning nations into enemies. I really hope that's just the tinfoil hat doing the thinking but those that forget the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them and history has many examples of powers corruption.

Yes very well said,
I would like to add that The Usa has alot of weapon manufacturer's, and they have alot of money and lobbyists.
So there are alot of people and companies that will profit from war, Also the people that control the debt of America (fed) would like to see them at war.
Just because they are spending there dollars, they have to pay them back so that's profit for the people that control the fed again.
So the American soldiers and people are told they are fighting for there 'freeworld' but they are just the lowest pawns, in a war giving there life just for money, power and control.

I would like to believe America wouldn't start a war just out of nothing, but as history has proven they will just do a falseflag attack and invade any country they fucking want.
Just to force democracy on them, that is supposed to be freedom.

[Ron~Popeil]

Don't get me started on the history of the use of The Bomb on Japan unless you want a well-founded and educated justification for its use, after which you will feel thrashed.

Please let us hear why there was a need to destroy two civilian targets with large population density and against a country that already was on the verge of capitulation. Even Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack against a military target.
I heard that one of the cited reasons was to prevent Japan from capitulating to the "wrong" country - i.e. Soviet Union.

Because to finish the war we would have had to invade Japan and even their civilians were training for combat. We would have lost millions more allied troops and eradicated 90% of the population of Japan to end a way they started. That is the kind of thing you get when politics and religion are mixed in such a way.

[LostDutchman]

Don't get me started on the history of the use of The Bomb on Japan unless you want a well-founded and educated justification for its use, after which you will feel thrashed.

Please let us hear why there was a need to destroy two civilian targets with large population density and against a country that already was on the verge of capitulation. Even Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack against a military target.
I heard that one of the cited reasons was to prevent Japan from capitulating to the "wrong" country - i.e. Soviet Union.

Because to finish the war we would have had to invade Japan and even their civilians were training for combat. We would have lost millions more allied troops and eradicated 90% of the population of Japan to end a way they started. That is the kind of thing you get when politics and religion are mixed in such a way.

Thank you for your kind and accurate post!

[LostDutchman]

Don't get me started on the history of the use of The Bomb on Japan unless you want a well-founded and educated justification for its use, after which you will feel thrashed.

Please let us hear why there was a need to destroy two civilian targets with large population density and against a country that already was on the verge of capitulation. Even Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack against a military target.
I heard that one of the cited reasons was to prevent Japan from capitulating to the "wrong" country - i.e. Soviet Union.

That's what you get for "hearing" instead of doing some research.