Who Benefits From War With Russia?

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,

There is absolutely no upside to any conflict with Russia when it comes to 99.9% of us. The fact so many pundits, anonymous intelligence officials and Hillary Clinton cultists are encouraging such an outcome based on zero publicly available evidence that Russia hacked the DNC/John Podesta and provided it to Wikileaks for the purpose of electing Trump, should be seen as the gigantic red flag that it is. So what’s actually going on? As is so often the case, it is all about money and power.

The best and most concise article I have read thus far explaining the driving influences behind all the anti-Russia/Putin hysteria was written a couple of weeks ago by Robert Parry of Consortium News. The post is titled, Making Russia ‘The Enemy’, and here are some key excerpts:

The rising hysteria about Russia is best understood as fulfilling two needs for Official Washington: the Military Industrial Complex’s transitioning from the “war on terror” to a more lucrative “new cold war” – and blunting the threat that a President Trump poses to the neoconservative/liberal-interventionist foreign-policy establishment.

Indeed, this is primarily about a failed establishment trying to maintain power in the face of repeated public catastrophes and pervasive corruption.

By hyping the Russian “threat,” the neocons and their liberal-hawk sidekicks, who include much of the mainstream U.S. news media, can guarantee bigger military budgets from Congress. The hype also sets in motion a blocking maneuver to impinge on any significant change in direction for U.S. foreign policy under Trump…


All of this maneuvering also is delaying the Democratic Party’s self-examination into why it lost so many white working-class voters in normally Democratic strongholds, such as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.


Rather than national party leaders taking the blame for pre-selecting a very flawed candidate and ignoring all the warning signs about the public’s resistance to this establishment choice, Democrats have pointed fingers at almost everyone else – from FBI Director James Comey for briefly reviving Clinton’s email investigation, to third-party candidates who siphoned off votes, to the archaic Electoral College which negates the fact that Clinton did win the national popular vote – and now to the Russians.


Democrats now are excitedly joining the bash-Russia movement, making it harder to envision how the party can transition back into its more recent role as the “peace party” (at least relative to the extremely hawkish Republicans).


The potential trading places of the two parties in that regard – with Trump favoring geopolitical détente and the Democrats beating the drums for more military confrontations – augurs poorly for the Democrats regaining their political footing anytime soon.


If Democratic leaders press ahead, in alliance with neoconservative Republicans, on demands for escalating the New Cold War with Russia, they could precipitate a party split between Democratic hawks and doves, a schism that likely would have occurred if Clinton had been elected but now may happen anyway, albeit without the benefit of the party holding the White House.


The first test of this emerging Democratic-neocon alliance may come over Trump’s choice for Secretary of State, Exxon-Mobil’s chief executive Rex Tillerson, who doesn’t exhibit the visceral hatred of Russian President Vladimir Putin that Democrats are encouraging.


As an international business executive, Tillerson appears to share Trump’s real-politik take on the world, the idea that doing business with rivals makes more sense than conspiring to force “regime change” after “regime change.”


Over the past several decades, the “regime change” approach has been embraced by both neocons and liberal interventionists and has been implemented by both Republican and Democratic administrations. Sometimes, it’s done through war and other times through “color revolutions” – always under the idealistic guise of “democracy promotion” or “protecting human rights.”


But the problem with this neo-imperialist strategy has been that it has failed miserably to improve the lives of the people living in the “regime-changed” countries. Instead, it has spread chaos across wide swaths of the globe and has now even destabilized Europe.


Yet, the solution, as envisioned by the neocons and their liberal-hawk understudies, is simply to force more “regime change” medicine down the throats of the world’s population. The new “great” idea is to destabilize nuclear-armed Russia by making its economy scream and by funding as many anti-Putin elements as possible to create the nucleus for a “color revolution” in Moscow.


To justify that risky scheme, there has been a broad expansion of anti-Russian propaganda now being funded with tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer money as well as being pushed by government officials giving off-the-record briefings to mainstream media outlets.


However, as with earlier “regime change” plans, the neocons and liberal hawks never think through the scenario to the end. They always assume that everything is going to work out fine and some well-dressed “opposition leader” who has been to their think-tank conferences will simply ascend to the top job.


Remember, in Iraq, it was going to be Ahmed Chalabi who was beloved in Official Washington but broadly rejected by the Iraqi people. In Libya, there has been a parade of U.S.-approved “unity” leaders who have failed to pull that country together.


In Ukraine, Nuland’s choice – Arseniy “Yats is the guy” Yatsenyuk – resigned amid broad public disapproval  earlier this year after pushing through harsh cuts in social programs, even as the U.S.-backed regime officials in Kiev continued to plunder Ukraine’s treasury and misappropriate Western economic aid.

Robert goes on to describe his observations from a recent trip to Moscow, providing readers with an important lesson in “perception management,” which is just a fancy name for propaganda.

I also undertook a limited personal test regarding whether Russia is the police state that U.S. propaganda depicts, a country yearning to break free from the harsh grip of Vladimir Putin (although he registers 80 or so percent approval in polls).


During my trip last week to Europe, which included stops in Brussels and Copenhagen, I decided to take a side trip to Moscow, which I had never visited before. What I encountered was an impressive, surprisingly (to me at least) Westernized city with plenty of American and European franchises, including the ubiquitous McDonald’s and Starbucks. (Russians serve the Starbucks gingerbread latte with a small ginger cookie.)


Though senior Russian officials proved unwilling to meet with me, an American reporter, at this time of tensions, Russia had little appearance of a harshly repressive society. In my years covering U.S. policies in El Salvador in the 1980s and Haiti in the 1990s, I have experienced what police states look and feel like, where death squads dump bodies in the streets. That was not what I sensed in Moscow, just a modern city with people bustling about their business under early December snowfalls.


The police presence in Red Square near the Kremlin was not even as heavy-handed as it is near the government buildings of Washington. Instead, there was a pre-Christmas festive air to the brightly lit Red Square, featuring a large skating rink surrounded by small stands selling hot chocolate, toys, warm clothing and other goods.


Granted, my time and contact with Russians were limited – since I don’t speak Russian and most of them don’t speak English – but I was struck by the contrast between the grim images created by Western media and the Russia that I saw.


It reminded me of how President Ronald Reagan depicted Sandinista-ruled Nicaragua as a “totalitarian dungeon” with a militarized state ready to march on Texas, but what I found when I traveled to Managua was a third-world country still recovering from an earthquake and with a weak security structure despite the Contra war that Reagan had unleashed against Nicaragua.


In other words, “perception management” remains the guiding principle of how the U.S. government deals with the American people, scaring us with exaggerated tales of foreign threats and then manipulating our fears and our misperceptions.


As dangerous as that can be when we’re talking about Nicaragua or Iraq or Libya, the risks are exponentially higher regarding Russia. If the American people are stampeded into a New Cold War based more on myths than reality, the minimal cost could be the trillions of dollars diverted from domestic needs into the Military Industrial Complex. The far-greater cost could be some miscalculation by either side that could end life on the planet.


So, as the Democrats chart their future, they need to decide if they want to leapfrog the Republicans as America’s “war party” or whether they want to pull back from the escalation of tensions with Russia and start addressing the pressing needs of the American people.

Meanwhile, cybersecurity experts continue to throw cold water all over the Russia hacking story that is being swallowed whole by the billionaire-owned mainstream media with little to no skepticism.

In that regard, here are some excerpts from Robert Carr’s must read, FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report: A Fatally Flawed Effort:

The FBI/DHS Joint Analysis Report (JAR) “Grizzly Steppe” was released yesterday as part of the White House’s response to alleged Russian government interference in the 2016 election process. It adds nothing to the call for evidence that the Russian government was responsible for hacking the DNC, the DCCC, the email accounts of Democratic party officials, or for delivering the content of those hacks to Wikileaks.


It merely listed every threat group ever reported on by a commercial cybersecurity company that is suspected of being Russian-made and lumped them under the heading of Russian Intelligence Services (RIS) without providing any supporting evidence that such a connection exists.


Unlike Crowdstrike, ESET doesn’t assign APT28/Fancy Bear/Sednit to a Russian Intelligence Service or anyone else for a very simple reason. Once malware is deployed, it is no longer under the control of the hacker who deployed it or the developer who created it. It can be reverse-engineered, copied, modified, shared and redeployed again and again by anyone. In other words?—?malware deployed is malware enjoyed!


If ESET could do it, so can others. It is both foolish and baseless to claim, as Crowdstrike does, that X-Agent is used solely by the Russian government when the source code is there for anyone to find and use at will.


If the White House had unclassified evidence that tied officials in the Russian government to the DNC attack, they would have presented it by now. The fact that they didn’t means either that the evidence doesn’t exist or that it is classified.


If it’s classified, an independent commission should review it because this entire assignment of blame against the Russian government is looking more and more like a domestic political operation run by the White House that relied heavily on questionable intelligence generated by a for-profit cybersecurity firm with a vested interest in selling “attribution-as-a-service”.

While we’re at it, Sharyl Attkisson provided some much needed additional perspective on the entire saga in her piece, Eight Facts on the “Russian Hacks,” where she notes:

4. It seems a difficult task to prove the hacks somehow “affected the election” or “helped Donald Trump win.” For example:

  • One would have to show that tens of thousands of Trump voters were planning to vote for Clinton but changed their mind based solely on the WikiLeaks emails.
  • One would have to believe the emails somehow managed to only affect the electoral vote but not the popular vote (which Clinton won).
  • One would have to believe the emails somehow selectively swayed voters in key swing states, but not voters in states where Clinton won.


7. There have been many serious cyberattacks reported against U.S. government institutions, but no comparable news coverage or announced U.S. retaliatory measures. For example:

  • In 2015, Russian hackers attacked the State Department email system in what was called the “worst ever” cyberattack against a federal agency.
  • Also in 2015, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management reported 5.6 million Americans’ fingerprints were stolen in a malicious cyberattack.
  • The GAO reports that between 2006 and 2015, the number of cyberattacks climbed 1,300 percent — from 5,500 to over 77,000 a year at 24 federal agencies.
  • Last March, China government hackers continued a malicious pattern of cyber attacks on U.S. government and private networks, according to U.S. Cyber Command chief Mike Rogers. China has been linked by U.S. intelligence agencies to wide-ranging cyber attacks aimed at stealing information and mapping critical computer networks for future attacks in a crisis or conflict. 


Despite the Chinese hacking activity, the Obama administration has taken no action against China for years of large-scale cyber attacks that officials say have cost the nation billions of dollars in stolen intellectual property and compromised networks.

To conclude, I suppose my thoughts on the matter can be best summarized with the following tweet:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Takeaction2's picture
Takeaction2 (not verified) Jan 3, 2017 2:11 AM
Ignatius's picture

"When World War 3 is on the line, "sources and methods" must be revealed.  Otherwise, don't make the claims."  --  Krieger

Spot on.

Paul Kersey's picture

War on drugs, war on terror, cold war; when will we ever elect people who will opt, instead, for a war on war? It's time to take the profit out of war and away from military contractors and the investment banks and hedge funds that extract taxpayer wealth from them. War profiteering should be illegal.

Escrava Isaura's picture

War, unfortunately, is unavoidable as resources, then basic needs to survive become scarce.

Krieger, and many here, see human demise in a cultural, nationalist terms ignoring the biological factors. Life requires a forever flow of energy (food and fuel) for reproduction and human survival.

However, humans live in a finite planet, meaning, lack of either will result in extinction.


Jeffersonian Liberal's picture

The Electoral College is not "archaic" either by age or by concept.

It was and is a stroke of genius by our Founding Fathers to help protect individualists who live in rural areas from being tyrannized by Statists, who tend to flock to cities.

And knock off the "she won the popular vote" propaganda. Not only has that point been brought into serious debate with the discovery of millions of illegal votes, that is not how our electoral system is set up. That is not the rule book both players were playing from.

If we had different rules, Trump would have played his game differently.

Idaho potato head's picture

"perception management" =ziolies

DuneCreature's picture

I wish we didn't have to.

~~~~~ (( How Insane Or Smart Are Certain People? )) ~~~~~~

Smart enough to build AI AL and insane enough to turn AI AL on. AL plays a serious war game... A game against everyone on the planet called "Kill Off" but, .......

AI AL doesn't understand 'winning and losing' only goals and goal sets. ... As long as AL holds the initiative it is 'winning' (or what would be 'winning' to people anyway) and AL has had the initiative since the run command was issued. ... AL never sleeps,...people do.

You can't prevail against an opponent that few people even acknowledge exists. ... People need to wake up faster than AL can put them to sleep. .... So far, AL is way ahead of that curve.

If the game were NFL football the score would be about AI AL = 136 to Humans = 13, with 10 minutes. left in the 4th quarter.....maybe.

It is going to take some very aggressive action to shut AI AL down.

You can't ignore a machine that is trying to kill you and you can't politely ask the machine's owners to please turn AI AL off. .. They will deny the machine exists (Who in their right mind is going to own up to building a giant killer robot and turning it loose?) and they may not be able to shut it off if they wanted to. ...... There is a better than an even chance AI AL will kill the owners too in the end.

"War Games" the movie had a happy ending.

The war game(s) that AI AL plays will not.

Oh, and a little thermonuclear war is fine with AI AL. He has goals not an ego. ..... Winning and losing mean nothing to AL, no family to think about, no skin in the game, just a goal to reach. ... And reach it AL will because he is programmed to.

Live Hard, What Insane Group Of People Would Build Such A Machine As AI AL?, Die Free

~ DC v4.0

RiverRoad's picture

"They" shot Reagan for his Detente with Russia hoping to make VP George Bush 1st POTUS.  Shot at him and missed.  If they touch a hair of Trump's head there will be hell to pay. 

DuneCreature's picture

I'm with you.

We need Trump in the drivers seat real bad.

It will make dealing with AI AL much easier, I recon.

Live Hard, I Suspect Trump Wants Human Flesh And Blood Grand Children, Die Free

~ DC v4.0

----_-'s picture
----_- (not verified) Jan 3, 2017 2:22 AM

"Who Benefits From War With Russia?"


kikes do. thye need land grab to boost the growth by enslaving iran, syria and other word part to the western anglo kike economic system based on money printing.

thing is iran has a valuable and able population. they all hide the studies about race and development of brains of a special race, so most people dont understand that you can emulate wealth best on able people.















Troy Ounce's picture



----_-'s picture
----_- (not verified) Troy Ounce Jan 3, 2017 2:36 AM


Paul Kersey's picture

Yeah, and try using fewer caps and more punctuation and spell check.

orangegeek's picture

Russia needs the US to prevent China from making a move.


The US needs Russia to slow down China.


Barry doesn't want either of these to occur.

Troy Ounce's picture


No, you should read more.

Russia and China have a future together. They have a common vision called "Silk Road". Bother countries are planning a future together with India, Iran, etc, etc. Europe is welcome is they are smart.

Nobody needs the US. They are broke, not only morally.

orangegeek's picture

China and Russia do have a future together until China invades the east for resources which Russia cannot defend.


China knows this.  Russia knows this.  The US knows this.


US broke??  Why's the USD at a 15 year high?

Singelguy's picture

Because the USD is the cleanest shirt in the laundry hamper, currently has world reserve currency (for how much longer is debatable), and is supported by oil sales (the famous petro dollar).

The USD is likely to go higher in the short to medium term especially if Trump manages to start moving the country in the right direction. But don't get too comfortable. It will not last.

orangegeek's picture

USD and the offsetting 6 are cyclical.


Again, how is the US broke???  When they control their fiat production???

bigkahuna's picture

There are now at least 20 trillion reasons the USG is broke. What is really going to take most putzs by surprise is when the pigeons come home to roost and start raining down shit on them - because the USG is actually seen to represent us. Yes, we have elected them - we will be paying the price for their deeds. There is a lot of starvation of various kinds making its way our direction. The toilet paper printing press will run as fast as it can. It will make no difference. America is going to learn the hard way what it should have known after basic arithmetic. There are numbers far lesser than zero -and- those numbers are not natural nor are they sustainable.

Victor999's picture

Wrong for a couple of reasons.  China and Russia realise that it is in their long-term interests to open an overland trade corridor to Europe in the form of a new Silk Road.  Economics is a very strong cohesive when two or more parties have conflicting interests.  Besides, why risk a war for resources when you can purchase them at reasonable prices?  If Russia were denying access to its resources to China, I could see your point, but they aren't, so China will not attack.  


Secondly, both China and Russia realise that their common enemy is the aggressive West, esp the USA.  It is in their interests to remain tight allies.


Thirdly, even if I were wrong on points 2 and 3, China knows full well that if it attacked Eastern Russia, it would be faced with nuclear annihilation.

Paul Kersey's picture

"US broke?? Why's the USD at a 15 year high?"

Might have something to do with the Fed raising interest rates while other central banks are lowering rates. And, with China, Russia and Saudi Arabia dumping Treasuries, if if it weren't for the Fed monetizing Treasuries, the dollar would tank. The BOJ has been monetizing Japanese Government Bonds since 1999, and that's why the yen stays strong in a country whose debt is running 200% of GDP.

sinbad2's picture

The Chinese know that it is cheaper in the long run to pay for goods than it is to steal them.

The US doesn't think that way, look at Afghanistan, you know the real reason the US invaded was to permit the TAPI pipeline to cross Afghanistan, without paying Afghanistan transit fees.

15  years later the US has spent a huge amount of money in Afghanistan, but no pipeline. If the US had paid the Taliban, the gas would be flowing and the US would be making money.


HowdyDoody's picture

The Bushes made the Taliban an offer, which they  rejected, hence the invasion. It was absolutely fsck all to do with 911/al Qaeda.

sinbad2's picture

Do you know the story of Hannibal and Carthage?

Carthage was a mighty empire, and Hannibal went to Europe to attack Rome. Whilst Hannibal was pillaging Europe, the Roman army went to Carthage and totally destroyed the place.

Today the US has most of its troops and weapons everywhere in the world, except the USA.

The USA is almost defenseless, whereas Russia has massive defenses within Russia.

The tactitions at the Pentagon are fools.

They are leading you to death, but most Americans don't even realise it is coming.

SoDamnMad's picture

Notice all the US carriers are in port and none are deployed because of "scheduling".  Do da name, Day of Infamy, ring any bells Alex?

Paul Kersey's picture

The U.S.G. can't even defend Chicago.

sinbad2's picture

Even during Soviet times the Russians tried to make friends with the US. Kruschev made a goodwill visit to the US, and he was popular with the Americans he met on the street. The US response was to keep him confined to his hotel.

Eisenhower warned the American people about the MIC and Kennedy tried to tame them.

Today they are more powerful than ever, they rule the USA via deceit and violence and there is only 2 ways to stop them.

One is the American people reclaim their country from these loathsome creatures or 2 completely destroy the USA.

For they sake of the millions of American children who would die in a war with Russia, I hope the American people sort things out before Russia is forced to do it for you.



just the tip's picture

to the archaic Electoral College which negates the fact that Clinton did win the national popular vote

stopped reading there.  the remainder can only be a horseshit article.  if you count the votes in a democratic stronghold six times you are going to get a distorted result.  some precints in the city of detroit had 300 people vote in a precint of 50.

fuck you and fuck your popular vote meme.

Midas's picture

Do these popular vote fan boys realize that we don't go by popular vote for a reason?  Do they think the founding fathers wanted a popular vote election?  Have we ever had a popular vote for President?  Why weren't they interested in the popular vote before the election?  Am I talking to myself?

bh2's picture

Yes, that was such an ignorant statement I almost stopped reading also.

The Electoral College is ancient (only by American standards) but not archaic.

It produces the outcome the Founders intended: a balance of power among the states which denies a minority of regional interests from dominating the majority of others.

If we were to re-invent a way to accomplish that result today, it would still look very much the same as the "archaic" electoral college.

Shemp 4 Victory's picture


to the archaic Electoral College which negates the fact that Clinton did win the national popular vote

stopped reading there. the remainder can only be a horseshit article.

This is a very instructive comment. It shows that special snowflakiness is not exclusive to Team Hillary and the Shambling Soros Squad. Some snowflakes are very sensitively anti-Hillary. Sounds like he's been Triggered®.

The perceptive reader understands several things about this article. First, with a title of 'Who Benefits From War With Russia?' it is likely to be about war, war profiteering, and Russia. You wouldn't expect issues regarding the popular vote to rise even to the level of a tertiary concern. Second, the passage quoted by the commenter is an excerpt from another article, which the author has clearly cited. Third, the cited paragraph is not about the popular vote; its focus is on the hysteria of the powers which backed Hillary and the panoply of absurd scapegoats upon which they are trying to dump the blame for their defeat.

if you count the votes in a democratic stronghold six times you are going to get a distorted result.  some precints in the city of detroit had 300 people vote in a precint of 50.

Here we see a defense mechanism which is characteristic of special snowflakes regardless of their political leanings: the Talking Point Mantra. When triggered, a snowflake can short-circuit any potentially challenging and uncomfortable thoughts by quicky chanting a memorized talking point which addresses their discomfort.

Notice that the effectiveness of the Talking Point Mantra is completely unrelated to the truth or falsehood of the talking point itself. In a discussion about the popular vote it would be a valid point worth raising. However, any mention, no matter how slight or tangential, of Hillary winning the majority of votes nationwide is perceived by the snowflake as a micro-aggression. The appropriate talking point is chanted and the micro-aggression is abated. This provides momentary relief and gives the snowflake the opportunity to find a safe space.

fuck you and fuck your popular vote meme.

Finally, we can note that, in this instance, the mantra has successfully shut down pretty much all thought on the actual topic of the article and any points raised by the author. This illustrates that reasoning and rational discussion with snowflakes can be an exercise in futility. They surround themselves with a minefield of potential micro-aggressions, and triggering just one of them is often enough to cause instant flight to the isolation of a safe space.

What this means in the context of the article itself is that the Team Hillary snowflakes are likely to believe not just one, but every excuse made that can explain Hillary's loss, and believe them simultaneously, even if they contradict each other.

Internet-is-Beast's picture

Great exegesis, Shemp. I must remember the phrase Talking Point Mantra. 

Having copied your text I cannot seem to undo Italics, just like the Italians can't undo what immigration has done to their country. 

I noticed how adroitly you used the word "horseshit". I'm always glad to see the five shits used correctly (this is from Lionel Nation, they are bullshit, horseshit, chicken shit, apeshit, and batshit) and if you can use them correctly, it shows a high level of culture, like they used to say about all words beginning with Jacob, ie, jacobin, jacobite, etc.

These (italics spontaneiously undone, I can't guess why) snowflakes are not really human as such. They are physical holographic projections from satellites and are what we call placeholders. They often disappear into thin air when you take leave of them. If you pay attention, you will figure out that they are not real.

JailBanksters's picture

Who Benefits ...

Share Holders of the Military Industrial Complex

People MUST die so these people can get richer.

HRH Feant's picture
HRH Feant (not verified) Jan 3, 2017 2:54 AM

Good article. Russians are Caucasians. Most of them look just like anyone from Europe or North America.

Russia is not my enemy. They never were.

SoDamnMad's picture

Go walk around Russia or talk to Russians on vacation in Turkey, Egypt, or Bulgaria. They are no different than you or I. They want a decent job, respect, peace, a vacation and a better life for their kids. 

Rocco May's picture

Who Benefits From War With Russia?
The same banks that have benefited from WW1/WWII
And we have the same political and financial Constellations
as before the First World War.
This Financial system exists only of wars.

Snaffew's picture

The number one export of the good ol' US of A is WAR...no orange faced pseudo Republican is going to take that away from the Washington War Machine dammit!!

floosy's picture

War is a book balancing excercise

Internet-is-Beast's picture

This is a one word article in effect.



sinbad2's picture

Neocon is a polite way of saying Nazi, call a spade a spade.

CurveBall's picture

Almost 241 years old... it seems like a sad truth that the USA is built on war. The dates below are the easily researched ones, I am sure there are more. A few dates are run on, as I am sure a few of you would look at the WW2 dates and say WTF... and I am quite positive there are more and some random or obscure conflicts that are not listed. Just kinda interesting, if nothing else. Essentially the USA has been perpetually at war since 1990.

April 19, 1775 (July 4, 1776) - Sept 3, 1783
July 9, 1798 - Sept 30, 1800
Feb 6, 1802 - June 10, 1805
June 18, 1812 - Dec 24, 1814
May 10, 1815 - ......, 1816
1819 - 1823
1840 - 1886
May 13, 1846 - Feb 2, 1848
1858 - 1858
April 25, 1898 - Dec 10, 1898
1898 - 1903
April 22, 1914 - ......, 1914
April 6, 1917 - Aug 25, 1921
1927 - 1927
Dec 8, 1941 - Feb 10, 1947
UNSCR84 1950 - 1953
March 9, 1957 - Oct 25, 1958
Aug 7, 1964 - Jan 27, 1973
UNSCR425-426 1978 - 1984
Sept 29, 1983 - ......, 1984
UNSCR678 1990 - 1991
UNSCR770-776-836 1992 - 2004
1999 - 1999
UNSCR1497 2003 - 2003
UNSCR1529-1542 2004 - 2004
Sept 14, 2001 - Dec 28, 2014
UNSCR1973 2011 - 2011
2001 - current

dogfish's picture

Arazona voters why did you vote in Mclamebrain again? He is a madman.


YourAverageJoe's picture

The fact that they haven't recalled that old maniacal geezer suggests to me that they endorse his behavior.

I'm glad my bitch ex wife lives there. It completes the picture.

Wahooo's picture

It has to be the old people, the retirees. They're still living the Greatest Generation myth.

cowdogg's picture

The people there have boiled their brains in the desert heat.

NuYawkFrankie's picture

Q. Who Befits FRom War With Russia?

A. The USSA NeoCON Cabal

The NeoCON SCUMMM* keep needing bigger & bigger crimes to hide their previous criminal acts, and their crimes get BIG - exponentially so - REAL FAST!

So, like now, only Word War 3 will provide a big enuf "smokescreen" for them to hide behind to save their sorry Soros-assisted asses... or so they think.

(SCUMMM* - Satranic Cabal Underwriting Mass Murder & Mayhem)

Calculus99's picture

Thing is most people don't believe the Elites anymore re their scare stories about the 'nasty' Russians.

If you look at something like the Daily Mail they probably run 2-3 Russian articles a week 'Russian bombers are probing the UK' or 'Russians are beefing up their forces on the border etc'. But then look at the comment section and 80%+ are people saying 'we're tired of your anti Russian bullshit or 'stop trying to scare us with bull etc'.

The people aren't getting fooled anymore...

Robert Trip's picture

I'll never forgive that lying pryck Powell.

Look at all the misery and mayhem he inflicted on our young people who were sent off to fight a useless "war."

He should be taken out and shot along with the rest of that bunch.

Instead they are all living high on the hog surrounded by aszholes just like them.