Guys, I can't believe how things have developed just since I started this thread. It has become clear that elements both within the gov as well as the shadow gov forming under Obama are going to convince (with no evidence) enough people along with congress that Trump has a connection to Russia and they will use that to impeach him as well as throw out all administration people they do not want.
Yeah, and that will almost certainly start a war as it will be seen as a violet coup by most Americans. The eGOP will be in on it was well, so they will reap the whilrwind just like the Dems. My Wife is very concerned the Deep State has larger plans than simply removing Trump however--she thinks they are trying to get us pushed into an all out war with Russia in order to "save the dollar" or simply hide the effects of the collapse. I think there is some merit to this, as that is what Western Powers did the last two times they were in major economic distress.. My son is 15. That means he could potentially be drafted into such an action.. and she wants to send him elsewhere overseas... I don't see the point. My son isn't going to to fight in such a war --and if I have to kill the draft board and any soldiers coming to get him on my way out, that is fine with me.
Between the left being totally pacificist and the right refusing to fight, it might be a very short war. One in which liberal cities are nuked ala Titor. Putin has been out there playing the rational guy in the room, and given how Obama as snubbed our allies, and our allies are already being overrun by Muslim forces, I think the US would find itself very alone is such a fight if it started.
For all I know Trump really was working with the Russians to get into office- so what if he were? Clinton was exposing state secrets and 100% in bed with the Chinese and that didn't bother liberals one bit. And did you see here tweet trolling Trump with Pizzagate references? That was announcing some victory of some kind that will prevent that information from surfacing. They probably killed someone. But if those were our choices, between a proxy for Chinese control and a proxy for Russian control, then I'll take the Siberian Candidate for $1000 Alex.
We have a war going on within the deep state right now, and we are just watching blasts come to the surface from two subs in battle. We have no idea what is really going on below the surface here, nor who is in the better tactical position. I have no illusions about Putin. He is a thug. But the CIA and KGB were pretty cozy at one point, and perhaps now those connections are the only thing stopping the leftist deep state from simply rolling over us. I do think that Putin has more sympathies with Western Culture, I think he really does love Russia and is trying to do what is in Russia's best interests, and as such is dictatorship while not benign, probably isn't motivated entirely by personal and selfish motivations either. I certainly see my own government as more of a threat to the safety of me and my family than I do Putin's government.
There is a civil war in the United States that starts in 2005. That conflict flares up and down for 10 years. In 2015, Russia launches a nuclear strike against the major cities in the United States (which is the "other side" of the civil war from my perspective), China and Europe. The United States counter attacks. The US cities are destroyed along with the AFE (American Federal Empire)...thus we (in the country) won. The European Union and China were also destroyed. Russia is now our largest trading partner and the Capitol of the US was moved to Omaha Nebraska..... . - John Titor
Again, I don't present John Titor as some sort of truth, but as an interesting thought experiment. I often find it useful to posit some scenario and just investigate where it is true and where it is false. I find this exercise often leads you to realizations about a given situation that you would not otherwise have. I think Horoscopes, Te Ching, and other sooth-saying techniques and the like are an example of this- they may predict things that aren't true, but in asking if that situation is true, you end up understanding the real situation better.
So, in that light, I offer the following essay to ponder:https://temporalrecon.wordpress.com/2014/03/06/checkmate/
The point remains that public support for military action has been a very large component to legitimately enter a military conflict. Woodrow Wilson knew it, Teddy Roosevelt knew it, FDR knew it, Johnson knew it, Bush knew it and as it would appear, our friend John knew it.
To reiterate, we are speaking about the typical and historical profile for a country at war; that a government can and may go to war only with the consent of the citizens of that nation. We are not talking about indiscriminate military “police actions” or operations “other than war” that have become the norm of world affairs and American foreign policy in recent decades....
o, if the will to wage war by a national government is derived from its citizens, then the primary aim of any adversary would be to break the will of that population to continue making war. Once the support of the people is lost or broken to continue, political support also evaporates and the adversary wins. This is an example of strategic thinking to win a war.
The important take-away from the above is that, in the adversary’s eyes, the national government and the citizenry are considered one entity. Destroying the civilian’s will to fight (through either bombs or propaganda) simultaneously destroys the national government’s ability to fight. This truism has been acknowledged throughout all of human history. Only in recent decades has it become “fashionable” to restrict warfare to actual soldiers (terrorists notwithstanding) of the opposing nation, and only in the eyes of the western world.....n light of the recent military invasion and occupation by Russia of the Ukraine, I was reminded of a statement made by our friend, John. Specifically he said:
I want to add a twist to your thinking. Russia’s enemy in the United States is not you, the average person. Russia’s enemy is the United States government.
John Titor – Feb 8th, 2001
I find this statement quite intriguing. In Titor’s story, and as represented in the above quote, Titor departed from the accepted concept of warfare and explicitly stated that Russia’s target was the American government and not the people of the United States. At the risk of being accused of logical contortions, it would appear that Titor is stating that the Russian leadership perceived his enemy (the US Government) as completely separate from the citizenry of the United States. Why would Russia’s strategy against their enemy change and run completely counter to all of human history? Why was Russia’s adversary (the American Government) specifically divorced from the population that supposedly supports it?
What Titor appears to be saying is that the Russian leader drew a distinction between the American government and the average American citizen. Doesn’t literally all of human warfare argue in the opposite?
Is it possible that the Russian leader of Titor’s story believed that a schism existed between the American public and their government; a gulf so wide that it would be counter-productive to treat them as one entity? Is it possible that the Russian leader knew that the American people did not support their government or its actions and might actually support just such an attack?
This line of thinking eerily parallels the Bush administration’s own expectations at the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship in 2003. Many within the administration fully expected (and were immediately proven correct) that the Iraqi people would welcome American troops as the French welcomed the Allies when France was liberated in 1945, irrespective of the fact that their welcome quickly evaporated with the power vacuum that was immediately created.
This statement is not meant to pass judgment on the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the assumption, but only to highlight the very real strategic variables that any invading aggressor must account for: the reaction to the invasion by the local population. The Bush Jr. administration accounted for it in the invasion of Iraq, the Bush Sr. administration accounted for it in its liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi aggression, Putin has accounted for it in invading the predominantly Russian enclave of the Crimea and it appears Putin will account for it again when the time comes to account for the American reaction to a similar attack on their own country.
Conviction of a Time Traveler sufficiently identified the times we are living in now as the times Titor spoke about in 2000. Because of that, we can now identify the Russian leader of Titor’s story as Vladimir Putin. From there we can see that Titor indirectly indicated Putin’s own current perception of the American government’s actions and the fact that those actions did not reflect the wishes of the American people. Otherwise, Putin would also have attacked civilian targets as legitimate military objectives.
To restate, Titor’s statement:
The “enemy” that was attacked by Russia in the U.S. was the forces of the government you live under right now.
John Titor – Feb 8th, 2001
hightlights the fact that Russia’s leadership (now known to be Vladimir Putin) believes the Government of the United States as separate and not representing the interests or wishes of the American people. Otherwise, if Putin DID believe that the American people supported the current military adventurism exhibited by American actions on the world stage, civilian targets would be considered legitimate military targets for any impending (and eventual) attack by Russia’s military. But according to Titor, they were not.
We can also infer a potential corollary to Putin’s outlook on the schism that he perceives to exist between the American people and their government.
Is it possible that, by directing his once and future attack on the American government, he is setting the stage to win the hearts and minds of everyday Americans after the decapitation of the American government is effected? If Titor’s words are to be studied at all, it would appear that Titor actually held the Russian attack in some measure of esteem wherein he actually appreciated the attack! Titor even went so far as to describe the post-attack economic state between Russia and the New United States as quite robust:
Russia is now our largest trading partner and the Capitol of the US was moved to Omaha Nebraska.
-John Titor, November 7, 2000
Is this statement also a future indication that Putin’s gambit to win the propaganda war will work? And, if we care to extrapolate even further, since international trade is a prime role for any national government, we can also infer that the new national government instituted post-attack is actually friendly with their former ally/adversary. How could this be if not for a complete “reboot” of the American government so as to be more in line with its citizens wishes and desires?
To play chess competently, one needs to think both tactically and strategically and some of the world’s most renown chess masters have been Russian. Can the scenario above support the contention that Putin is playing (and winning) the chess game that is geopolitics? Should we welcome just such a win?
So in the larger geo-political game we see unfolding - is this scenario plausible? Is it consistent with the speeches Putin has made and the relative positionof the Russian Government and military? http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/722203/US-Russia-Putin-WW3-nuclear-war-vladimir-putin
He said: “So here we are today and they’ve placed their missile defence system in Romania always saying ‘we must protect ourselves from the Iranian nuclear threat’.
“Where’s the threat? There is no Iranian nuclear threat. You even have an agreement with them and the US was the instigator of this agreement, where we helped. We supported it. But if not for the US then this agreement would not exist which I consider President Obama’s achievement. “I agree with the agreement, because it eased tensions in the area. So President Obama can put this in his list of achievements. So the Iranian threat does not exist.
“But the missile defence systems are continuing to be positioned. That means we were right when we said that they are lying to us. Their reasons were not genuine, in reference to the ‘Iranian nuclear threat’. Once again, they lied to us.
“So they built this system and now they are being loaded with missiles.”
And we all know now that the Iran Agreement was really an agreement to give Iran Nukes. Put yourself in Putin's shoes. http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/07/the-kremlin-really-believes-that-hillary-clinton-will-start-a-war-with-russia-donald-trump-vladimir-putin/
Let’s not mince words: Moscow perceives the former secretary of state as an existential threat. The Russian foreign-policy experts I consulted did not harbor even grudging respect for Clinton. The most damaging chapter of her tenure was the NATO intervention in Libya, which Russia could have prevented with its veto in the U.N. Security Council. Moscow allowed the mission to go forward only because Clinton had promised that a no-fly zone would not be used as cover for regime change.
Russia’s leaders were understandably furious when, not only was former Libyan President Muammar al-Qaddafi ousted, but a cellphone recording of his last moments showed U.S.-backed rebels sodomizing him with a bayonet. They were even more enraged by Clinton’s videotaped response to the same news: “We came, we saw, he died,” the secretary of state quipped before bursting into laughter, cementing her reputation in Moscow as a duplicitous warmonger.
As a candidate, Clinton has given Moscow déjà vu by once again demanding a humanitarian no-fly zone in the Middle East — this time in Syria. Russian analysts universally believe that this is another pretext for regime change. Putin is determined to prevent Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from meeting the same fate as Qaddafi — which is why he has deployed Russia’s air force, navy, and special operations forces to eliminate the anti-Assad insurgents, many of whom have received U.S. training and equipment.
Given the ongoing Russian operations, a “no-fly zone” is a polite euphemism for shooting down Russia’s planes unless it agrees to ground them. Clinton is aware of this fact. When asked in a debate whether she would shoot down Russian planes, she responded, “I do not think it would come to that.” In other words, if she backs Putin into a corner, she is confident he will flinch before the United States starts a shooting war with Russia.
That is a dubious assumption; the stakes are much higher for Moscow than they are for the White House. Syria has long been Russia’s strongest ally in the Middle East, hosting its only military installation outside the former Soviet Union. As relations with Turkey fray, the naval garrison at Tartus is of more strategic value than ever, because it enables Russia’s Black Sea Fleet to operate in the Mediterranean without transiting the Turkish Straits.
Two weeks ago, Putin redoubled his commitment to Syria by conducting airstrikes with strategic bombers from a base in northwest Iran — a privilege for which Russia paid significant diplomatic capital. Having come this far, there is no conceivable scenario in which Moscow rolls over and allows anti-Assad forces to take Damascus — which it views as Washington’s ultimate goal, based in part on publicly accessible intelligence reports.
Clinton has justified her threatened attack on Russia’s air force, saying that it “gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia.” This sounds suspiciously like the “madman theory” of deterrence subscribed to by former President Richard Nixon, who tried to maximize his leverage by convincing the Soviets he was crazy enough to start a world war. Nixon’s bluff was a failure; even when he invaded Cambodia, Moscow never questioned his sanity. Today, Russian analysts do not retain the same confidence in Hillary Clinton’s soundness of mind.
Her temper became legendary in Moscow when she breached diplomatic protocol by storming out of a meeting with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov just moments after exchanging pleasantries. And the perception that she is unstable was exacerbated by reports that Clinton drank heavily while acting as America’s top diplomat — accusations that carry special weight in a country that faults alcoholism for many of Boris Yeltsin’s failures.
How is that "reset" button working out?
Another factor that disturbs Russian analysts is the fact that, unlike prior hawks such as John McCain, Clinton is a Democrat. This has allowed her to mute the West’s normal anti-interventionist voices, even as Iraq-war architect Robert Kagan boasts that Clinton will pursue a neocon foreign policy by another name. Currently, the only voice for rapprochement with Russia is Clinton’s opponent, Donald Trump. If she vanquishes him, she will have a free hand to take the aggressive action against Russia that Republican hawks have traditionally favored.
Moscow prefers Trump not because it sees him as easily manipulated, but because his “America First” agenda coincides with its view of international relations. Russia seeks a return to classical international law, in which states negotiate with one another based on mutually understood self-interests untainted by ideology. To Moscow, only the predictability of realpolitik can provide the coherence and stability necessary for a durable peace.
For example, the situation on the ground demonstrates that Crimea has, in fact, become part of Russia. Offering to officially recognize that fact is the most powerful bargaining chip the next president can play in future negotiations with Russia. Yet Clinton has castigated Trump for so much as putting the option on the table. For ideological reasons, she prefers to pretend that Crimea will someday be returned to Ukraine — even as Moscow builds a $4 billion bridge connecting the peninsula to the Russian mainland.
Moscow believes that Crimea and other major points of bipolar tension will evaporate if America simply elects a leader who will pursue the nation’s best interest, from supporting Assad against the Islamic State to shrinking NATO by ejecting free riders. Russia respects Trump for taking these realist positions on his own initiative, even though they were not politically expedient.
In Clinton, it sees the polar opposite — a progressive ideologue who will stubbornly adhere to moral postures regardless of their consequences. Clinton also has financial ties to George Soros, whose Open Society Foundations are considered the foremost threat to Russia’s internal stability, based on their alleged involvement in Eastern Europe’s prior “Color Revolutions.”
Russia’s security apparatus is certain that Soros aspires to overthrow Putin’s government using the same methods that felled President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine: covertly orchestrated mass protests concealing armed provocateurs. The Kremlin’s only question is whether Clinton is reckless enough to back those plans.
Putin condemned the United States for flirting with such an operation in 2011, when then-Secretary Clinton spoke out in favor of mass protests against his party’s victory in parliamentary elections. Her recent explosive rhetoric has given him no reason to believe that she has abandoned the dream of a Maidan on Red Square.
That fear was heightened when Clinton surrogate Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, recently accused Putin of attempting to rig the U.S. election through cyberattacks. That is a grave allegation — the very kind of thing a President Clinton might repeat to justify war with Russia.
Well lets see what Russian Propaganda site SUptnik News wants people to beleive:https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201701081049374470-us-in-deep-trouble/
As a New York Times report put it: “What’s the big deal? asks Trump’s supporters on Russian hacking report”.
Among ordinary voters far removed from the Washington Beltway Bubble the consensus is one of derision towards the once-revered US intelligence community.
“Sore losers”, “sour grapes”, “crybabies” and “absurd” were just some of the disbelieving responses from ordinary folks about claims that Russian agents directed by Russian President Vladimir Putin had tipped the US November election in favor of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton.
“I don’t believe the [US] intel report,” said one man in Louisiana. “Why is everybody so afraid of Russia? I’m not against Putin.”
© Flickr/ Steve Rhodes
WikiLeaks: US Intel Report on Russia Hacking 'Has Poor Sourcing and No Evidence'
Another man, a retired US air force officer, added: “From the parts of the [US intel] report I’ve seen it seems silly.”
Down through history, the American rulers got away with their charade of inciting wars and conflicts through false flags and contrived catastrophes: the not-so-secret Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the fabricated Gulf of Tonkin incident that escalated the US genocidal war on Vietnam, the dubious 9/11 terror attacks and Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, to mention just a few.
This same warmongering American ruling class want another arms race, Pentagon-pumping Cold War with Russia. But this time they have played a card that is all too evidently blank. The US spooks and their elitist establishment know that Trump, the American people, Russia and the rest of world all know that they have nothing to offer.
No credibility, no morals and no authority, the US Deep State is in deep trouble.
So Russian Progaganda - at least - wishes to separate the American People from the acts of their government. ( and we know that we see it this way as well, regardless of what the Russians would prefer we think)
see also : http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-18/damaging-deep-state-trump-russia-and-china
So was John Titor a Time traveller? Irrelevant.
Does the story he told us present a plausible scenario for our current situation?
Where is it right, where is it wrong? Can we learn anything from asking those questions?