gearhog

LOL. It's like some sort of delusional cult. Literally every question, every investigation, every mainstream news article has increasingly pointed toward US involvement and away from Russia since the day of the incident. I wouldn't be wasting my time on this issue if it wasn't completely obvious which way this was going to go. The BALTOPS exercise cover was glaringly evident months ago. It was my first response in this thread. Millions of people are going to pick up on this story, and there will be enormous pressure for some sort of admission from someone involved. You apparently believe in an alternative story, but there is absolutely nothing out there you can give me to support it with a credibility in the same ballpark as Seymour Hersh. Go waste your time looking for one if you like, but no one has even bothered to even hint that there is evidence Russia did it. Like your photo, it's comic book fantasy. I know you're just trying to make a dismissive quip without addressing the issue, but if you are intellectually sincere about finding the answer to your question, the author simultaneously published this explanation with regard to substack. I hope you read it. https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/why-substack "I’ve been told my stories were wrong, invented, outrageous for as long as I can remember—but I’ve never stopped. In 2004, after I published the first stories about the torture of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, a Pentagon spokesman responded by calling my journalism “a tapestry of nonsense.” (He also said I was a guy who “threw a lot of crap against the wall” and “expects someone to peel off what’s real.” I won my fifth George Polk Award for that work.) That’s where Substack comes along. Here, I have the kind of freedom I’ve always fought for. I’ve watched writer after writer on this platform as they’ve freed themselves from their publishers’ economic interests, run deep with stories without fear of word counts or column inches, and—most importantly—spoke directly to their readers. What you’ll find here is, I hope, a reflection of that freedom. The story you will read today is the truth as I worked for three months to find, with no pressure from a publisher, editors or peers to make it hew to certain lines of thought—or pare it back to assuage their fears. Substack simply means reporting is back . . . unfiltered and unprogrammed—just the way I like it."

So how is it that you ascertain knowledge of anything? Because someone once lied, everyone else is a liar? You're holding so tightly to the narrative "We didn't do this" that you will never publicly admit that your ill-informed gut-feeling that your leaders only act with honor and integrity and aren't capable of such things was wrong. This is obviously going to make some waves, create more questions, and the truth will come out sooner rather than later. So get prepared to cross your arms, dig in your heels, and repeat "Nuh-unh" no matter what further evidence is presented.

Of course. Everything that doesn't prop up your worldview is a lie.

The entire story in detail: https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream

I. Told. You. So. Hopefully some of you can finally wake up to the realization that we're being led down the wrong path by f'n criminals. I want to believe USA is good and Russia is bad, but "The World is Grey, Jack". I don't want these devious acts to be done in the name of America, but they are. Our allies were harmed by this and the people of Europe were lied to. How long can we keep doing this before the rest of the world turns on us?

Wow. Great post. A few pointed barbs in there, but I don't mind. 😄 I appreciate the time and effort. I think you're misplacing a large part of the responsibility for all the positive things we've enjoyed. We've enjoyed a period of relative peace and prosperity in spite of our government actions the last 80 years, not because of them. You and I came along at a period in time where humans have stumbled onto a vast amount of energy resources. An incredible exponential increase in energy available per person has lifted most of the planet out of poverty. More energy = more prosperity = more peace. It's the reason for everything. But exponential growth curves can't stay exponential. (Fusion or any other magic free energy isn't going to save us) "Tragedy of the Commons". Whatever the reasons given for supporting war, this is ultimately the reason. You don't want your standard of living threatened. What lengths are you willing to go to protect it? The determination has already been made to reduce your prosperity through back-door taxes, eliminate the competition (Russia, then China, then ?), while those who have the power to do both actually increase their share of wealth and resources. You're being tricked into believing you're only going to retain these things you value if only Russia didn't exist. Not true. They are fighting to exist. Don't discount the effect of desperation on the will to fight. I'm about halfway through the second volume of Edmond Morris's Roosevelt biography, Theodore Rex. It's amazing how history repeats itself. If you're advocating for a globalized world, you're advocating for monopolistic behavior. With the industrialization of the early 1900s, there was massive increases in wealth and with that came monopolies. Big banks, Big Coal, Big Railroad. Whenever competition is eliminated, people like you and I suffer because there are no disincentives for greed. Thank goodness he was able to break up many of these trusts or we could have seen another civil war. Globalization will need a governing body, and they'll fear no one. Do you really want the type of people currently running our government also running the world? You and I both love the USA, but do you really think our leadership does? They'd sell us down the river for a whiff of a chance to keep themselves in a position of power. They've jedi mind trick-fucked you into believing Russia is the greater threat. Again, the history of this conflict didn't start when Russia crossed the border. You're a reasonable guy, but you seem willfully blind to the obvious bullshit that was happening in the years leading up to 2022. Half of Ukraine elected a pro-Russian government and it was overthrown by a western backed violent coup. Eastern Ukraine was getting shelled by the new government while NATO influence and missile "defenses" aimed at Russia poured in with the intent of making it a NATO state when the population was staunchly divided. Yet you're led to believe that all of Ukraine was the victim here. Ukrainian territory was always intended to be the sacrificial bait. This will be another "nation-building" failure. You apparently had to deal with a psycho bitch. That sucks sorry to hear. I haven't so I can't really say what I'd do, but I imagine you were put in a position multiple times to choose from one of many bad choices. Instead of lamenting the choices, you may have asked why you were put in that dilemma in the first place? Because she wanted to manipulate you to do something that harmed you and benefited her. I'm sure there's a lot of forcibly conscripted Ukrainians asking the same. I agree with most all of this. I think there is a fourth option. Have you noticed there is a never-ending supply of boogeymen outside our borders the last 20 years? We're constantly distracted by imaginary threats on the horizon while the wolf is already in the sheep's pen. Think about it, what is the ratio to the amount of words you've used trying to convince me of foreign dangers and solutions compared to your concerns over the innumerable self-inflicted dangers. Sure, there are bad people doing bad things on the other side of the planet and they may need to be dealt with eventually, but why is that taking priority over the obvious threats here? You've been tricked. Just realize it.

It's not controversial, until I ask you how our leadership designates our enemies and opponents. If they sink a ship with causing loss of American lives - enemy. If they bomb a US naval base - enemy. If they fly planes into US buildings - enemy. Like the Mattis quote "‘I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all." But I think your definition is much more lose, and you'd seek direct conflict simply over political differences, competition for resources, a nation impeding our expansion, or possibly just for an economic benefit that a wartime economy brings. That's what's controversial. EDIT: BTW, The Defense Minister of Ukraine was just fired/resigned amid controversy. What an absolute shit show.

Oh, you were just joking… yeah. I have never said America sucks. America is undoubtedly the pinnacle of human civilization. But it’s not perfect in that we’ve allowed our system of government to be led increasingly by corrupt leadership that are not acting in our best interests. You know, the expansionist imperial types who are willing to enrich themselves and expand their power by manipulating the gullibles. The types that want to crush their enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women. You can relate.

Now that’s how you endear yourself to the world you’re dominating! 😆

Exactly 20 years ago today. Fool me once…

I recently had an overnight in Kansas City. Went to the WWI museum. Absolutely fantastic. The section at the beginning devoted to the social, economic, and political situations honestly gave me chills as they nearly identically describe the types of things we’re seeing today. Upstairs, they had a section for the conflicts in Russia. I think it’s a little to easy to be removed from the conflict as all of us are, read headlines, and make an accurate assessment as to who is more committed. This not nearly as one-sided or the outcome as predetermined as most seem to think.

Ain’t that some shit.

Yesterday, Zalensky lamented that the Ukrainian people have lost motivation. Not a good sign. “I believe that at the very beginning of the war, the spirit was stronger. We were all at war. In places where there was no occupation. We had a complete feeling that we were all at war. Now I see in some cities that they are rest. I think that this is a weakness," Zelensky said at a press conference following the Ukraine-EU summit in Kyiv. In this regard, he called on Ukrainian journalists to unite in order to strengthen the spirit of the nation. "I would like to appeal, first of all, to the journalists of our state. You need to unite as soon as possible, strengthen this spirit, remind those who are on vacation that we are all at war and remind you how it all began.” It’s the journalists responsibility to get a population to support war. The State gives instructions to the journalists, and the journalists give instructions to the people. That’s how it is supposed to work, right? https://interfax.com.ua/news/general/888952-amp.html

That does sound strange… until you realize Polyethelene glycol is in everything. Should you be injecting it? I’m not a doctor. Adding to their use in cosmetics, many PEG compounds also have other applications. Available information from these uses is included in this assessment where relevant. In the pharmaceutical industry, for instance, they are used as ointment bases or vehicles for drugs in capsules, tablet and pill binders, suppositories, and liquid prescriptions; and in veterinary drugs as part of parenteral, topical, ophthalmic, oral, and rectal preparations. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4505343/ Edit: These were the first two results when I googled polyethelene glycol injections. Wtf? She’s on to something. Thanks for the lede, I had no idea anti-freeze (PEG-2000 in this case) was actually in the vaccine and documented to have caused adverse reactions. Yikes. https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a619007.html https://www.bjanaesthesia.org/article/S0007-0912(20)31009-6/fulltext

Reminds me of the old joke: "What do you call the person who graduates last in his/her class in med school?" "Captain." I can't answer for certain as I don't know this person. But I wonder how many in the flight surgeon ranks are the "go along to get along" types. The ones who don't want to rock the boat, endanger their career progression, etc. When you subtract those out, how many are left? It's like asking how many pilots actually put it all on the line and not just refuse, but challenge the mandate and take it to court. A few, but not many, apparently. And I would have to admit that I didn't vocally challenge. I just quietly shrugged and refused, but I admire the people that had more courage. Of the flight surgeons remaining, how many are going sit down at the DMEDs database and sift through the entries, compile them, and put their career on the line by publicly releasing the findings? She'd have to been extremely confident. Data is data and apparently it would be easily accessible by any other medical member. Seems like it should be easily and immediately refuted if untrue.

I did. No real reason. Just decided to switch it up.

Let's hope they rice to the occasion. Deciding what to do in this unbelievabao situation must be tso stressful.

I don't know, but it's a wonton disregard of FAA regulations.

Massive Chinese spy balloon the size of "three buses with a large technology bay" over Northern United States. W T F https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/chinese-spy-balloon-surveilling-us-senior-official/story?id=96860718 https://twitter.com/IntelPointAlert/status/1621274273045254147?s=20&t=WY9yVcJ8nPfwHxBtFHFPXQ

Don't forget to critique the source, but not the content. Recent Data Shows 'Stunning Increase' In Serious Harm Reports In Young Healthy Pilots: Army Lt. Col. Theresa Long https://archive.is/AdbGX

Just in case anyone hasn't been sufficiently riled by what I've written, Germany has some interesting things to say the The Times. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/who-attacked-nord-stream-pipeline-russia-uk-west-ukraine-war-wv99ds7tx If you don't have a sub: https://archive.ph/GE07Q#selection-963.185-963.467 “I understand, especially in times of war, that these delicate investigations may require secrecy,” Konstantin von Notz, the chairman of the German parliamentary committee that oversees the intelligence services, told the Tagesspiegel newspaper. “[But] in a constitutional state, the public has a right to know what really happened. The federal government must break its silence very soon, create transparency, or at least present a plausible narrative.” A failure to do so is likely to spark dangerous conspiracy theories and “wild speculation”, warned Roderich Kiesewetter, the deputy head of the Bundestag committee. It is also important, analysts said, to determine how the attack was carried out at a time when other critical infrastructure could be at risk during the war in Ukraine. A western analyst, who asked not to be identified, admitted that he was surprised by the paucity of information that had so far been made available by investigators. “This was a major infrastructure attack. It’s strange that we’ve heard very little.” The Kremlin has furiously denied any suggestions that it would have targeted its own pipelines, calling the allegations “stupid and absurd”. And some western officials appear to agree. The German investigation is thought to have made little progress so far, with officials having yet to uncover any compelling evidence. However, The Times understands that they remain open to theories that a western state carried out the bombing with the aim of blaming it on Russia. August Hanning, a former director of Germany’s foreign intelligence service, argued late last year, however, that several other countries besides Russia could conceivably have had an interest in disabling the pipelines. He named the United States, Ukraine, Poland and Britain. “They all have their reasons,” he said. All four countries, as well as the Baltic states, were opposed to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline over fears that the Kremlin’s weaponisation of energy supplies would increase Russia’s political influence in Europe at a time when relations between Moscow and the West were at a post-Cold War low.

You may not be allowed to make the decisions, but you are allowed to have an opinion with regards to the immediate best interests of yourself and those around you. Can I not ask how this is making your life better? Do you really think this conflict would be happening if Ukraine were acting in a vaccum? Not only is it easy to create a situation in which a leader can be compelled to send his people to war for the benefit of another, it's happened countless times throughout history. I don't understand your analogy. In it, we're the seller, and Ukr is the buyer. What are they making purchases with? This is not a decision as to whether or not to buy a luxury item. As long as we are providing them with a means to survive in exchange for killing Russians, do you really think it's a choice? Again, when you have created a situation where you have the means to provide or deny survival, you can't pass it off as a choice. I wholeheartedly agree that all the atrocities committed by both sides is ugly. We such an environment should never have been created in the first for the earlier claimed reasons of weakening a percieved threat, increase the availability of energy, and sustain economic development. Sorry your kids got disemboweled, but we just couldn't have Europe running on Russian natgas. So hurry up and burn it all down now so we can have a head start in the aftermath. And you envy MY optimism? LOL Apparently not. But I don't think I could allow myself to tell anyone to do that. As for the rest of it: Uh.. YEAH. Debts are bad. Debts have created the mess. Debts get paid. This is going South. It's gonna be bad. Yet you spend a lot of your time trying to convince me that we should just continue debt spending and exacerbating the end result. It makes no sense. LOL. It's as if you're saying you don't like drugs, but you're going to increase your habit in hopes that you finally overdose, get hospitalized and rehabed.

No. I'm saying that you and I, as individuals, do not benefit from this or at least not enough to morally justify sacrificing Ukrainian lives. Do you believe that your personal physical and financial security has improved enough to justify this? Naturally, there is political and economic gains to be had by the leadership whom this conflict benefits. I'm not just creating these concerns out of thin air. I've done a little research before I've decided if my concerns were worth having. If anyone bothered to look at what occurred in Ukraine around 2014, this current crisis is not some noble endeavor to spread freedom and democracy. Around that time, Ukraine was being offered trade and economic incentives by the EU. Russia countered with an economic package of their own. President Yanukovych, who was elected in large part by Eastern Ukrainians who align with Russia. He began to indicate he favored the Russian deal. Obviously, this would mean a major loss to the EU and the US as they were counting on the economic and energy resources a country like Ukraine would bring to the struggling EU. Yanukovich had also signed a long term Sevastopol Naval Base lease with Russia. None of this good for the West. Coincidentally around that time, pro-EU and Western Ukrainian nationalist protests broke out. They became violent and a coup took place. There were attacks on the LDPR aligned Ukrainians in the East by nationalist forces from the West. Poroshenko was installed and Eastern Ukraine was threatened with being barred from participation in elections. He also began negotiations with the West to remove the LDPR, terminate the Sevastopol naval base lease and lease it to NATO. Russia said "No." Invaded and took Crimea without firing a shot. Russia was assisting LDPR in the east. They won battles against the Western Ukr. Then the UNSC sactioned Minsk agreements were to give LDPR autonomy, create a ceasefire, and remove foreign assistance from both sides. But those agreements were not adhered to, likely by either side. Conflict continued and a stalemate ensued. The West was getting impatient. In early 2021, Ukraine nationalists had a massive mobilization on the contact lines to take Eastern LDPR territories by force. They were receiving help from the US and NATO. Russia viewed this as a further expansion of NATO and began building forces on the border with Ukraine. You know the rest. "They have to do what we tell them to do" - How would you characterize that type of power? Yet you go on to say, "The Ukrainians want to keep fighting, and that's their choice." Have you not seen the recent videos of Ukr soldiers being beaten and executed for not fighting? It's stomach turning. "Spending on Ukraine pushes us closer to inevitable austerity, sooner, and that's good." "Responsible government spending is a fairy tale." "If you want to kill yourself, go for it" "People will die, but at least we'll win. Besides, we're overdue for a breakdown in civilization." That is a good book, BTW. Read Generations, too. I like most of what you have to say, but these ideas are all pretty dark. Maybe I'll respond later. Have a good one.

You seem to think a lot of things, and most of them untrue. Again, your preferred debate tactic is to either intentionally misconstrue or outright fabricate a position, attribute it to me, and proceed to lob darts at it. Weak. We, the United States, have expanded our global economic and military spheres of influences faster, and to a larger extent, than likely any other in history. I participated in it, as have you. I think you and I have done a lot of good in the world, but it would be intellectually dishonest for me to not also acknowledge we've overstepped many times, and also created some needless suffering. Remember Wesley Clark's claim that we had a shopping list of countries to overthrow after 9/11? We've checked them all off and have expanded the list. What about Russia? What foreign military conflicts have they engaged in around the world last 20 years that makes you believe they were capable of challenging anyone's superpower status or had any intentions of a large scale military invasion of Soviet satellites? Chechnya? Their influence has been continuously shrinking. They've thrown nearly everything at Donbass and are barely inching along. I'm sure you'll claim that "Russia was going to do this! or Russian was going to that!" But the track record to indicate such just isn't there. Compare ours. Do you think it's possible our leadership could continuously bombard you with claims of something being more dangerous than it is, fill you with fear, and convince you to allow them to aggregate vast amounts of power and wealth?... all in your best interest, of course. I think it's possible. Again with the extremes. I'm saying we need to pump the brakes, not isolate. It's as if we can no longer function as a nation unless we're in a continuous state of emergency fighting imaginary boogeymen. We have a broken foundation and until we spend our wealth and resources fixing it instead of relying on hysteria and foreign conflicts as a reason to circulate fiat currency, plunge deeper into debt, and expand our already massive empire, this only gets worse. "But imagine how much worse it would be if we didn't take these actions". Heard that before. Russia likely believes it's fighting for it's existence. What does a Russia loss look like? They have publicly asked "Why should the world exist without Russia in it?" Negotiate an end. Did the video of Zelensky rattling off a list of corporate sponsers like a NASCAR driver not give you any clue at all as to the ulterior motives that exist here? These tax dollars in these aid packages aren't being sent to Ukraine, they're being sent to the defense industry. Ukraine gets assets that are likely to depreciate to zero in .01 seconds while the cash gets deposited elsewhere: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/general-dynamics/summary?id=D000000165 Agreed. But Ukraine has repeatedly refused to even consider it.

I think the word you’re looking for is “limit”. Has that not been the central theme of my posts since this conversation began? I do have a question “Do you support negotiations to end the conflict?”