Are US policy makers actually TRYING to start WW III?

[barbos]

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/04/needed-obama-putin-summit-on-ukraine/
There is no doubt that former CIA agents are on a payroll from Putin.

 

[boneyard bill]

Jayjay writes:

I got it from Nuland's phone conversation! Do a search. It's on the internet. She called him "Klitsch" and she called Yatsenyuk "Yats." Apparently, Klitscko is some kind of national hero. I think he was a professional boxer so he was more of a non-partisan figure than the other prospects. Of course, Nuland is an idiot. She was talking to the American Embassy in Kiev. We have secure diplomatic lines, but she was so stupid that she discussed this on an open line that the Russians were obviously intercepting.

I'm familiar with the transcript. It says absolutely nothing about Klitschko being EU's pick. If you think it does, it should be easy for you to quote the relevant part? (Also, I have to correct myself, Klitschko was elected in previous elections for the first time.)

Well, what was "fuck the EU" all about? I haven't reviewed the actual transcript, but she talks about keeping Klitschko out of the deal and then says "fuck the EU" so the context supports the conclusion. I may have heard that Klitscko was being put forward by the EU in a separate news story.

Maybe you should actually read the transcript before pretending to know what it contains. Here it is:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26079957

First, she and Pyatt say nothing about keeping Klitschko out of the deal, but what roles "the big three" should have. Nuland thought Klitscko shouldn't be a deputy premier due to his inexperience, but that he should be talking to Yatsenyuk daily. And no reference to EU in that context whatsoever: EU is mentioned later, when they are talking about having Dutch diplomat and former ambassador to Ukraine Robert Serry to help seal the deal. If anything, US was at least doing something to resolve the situation, though in retrospect those efforts didn't work out. But neither did EU's inaction.

That is not a reasonable reading of the transcript at all. The Dutch diplomat is being brought in to help them smooth the way for the plans that they have just discussed. Those plans are about fucking the EU. It is not reasonable to conclude that the Dutch diplomat is the antecedent to her comment.

Nobody ever suggested that Klitscko should be the prime minister, or that he would have been EU's favourite. The idea that Yatsenyuk was in power only becuas of US meddling is ridiculous, as he had plenty of political clout all by himself being the leader of the largest bloc in parliament.

The largest bloc in Parliament was Yanukovych's party. They were talking about a coalition government which, presumably, would have included the opposition but not necessarily one that would have made an opposition member the Premier. It would be reasonable in such a coalition to give the opposition, which is in the minority, the office of Deputy Prime Minister as well as other important cabinet positions. This conversation is going on a month prior to the coup so we don't know what the actual deal was that was worked out.

What it does show is that we were working to make Yatsenyuk Premier a month before he actually got installed. And he got installed by a coup so it is reasonable, also, to conclude that he wouldn't have gotten that job in the compromise settlement. That position would likely have gone to a member of the majority party.

Ukrainian puppets such as Yanukovich (who incidentally was the first one to openly call for referendums all over Ukraine and the escalation of violence that ensued). Nor did RUssian state media move a finger to stop or delay the referendum, quite the opposite.

More propaganda! Yanukovych was the legally-elected President of the Ukraine, he was not a puppet. Yatsenyuk is far closer to being a puppet. He was put into power by force and violence by elements that were supported and financed by the US! As I've pointed out before, use of propagandistic terms do not enhance their argument since they are not convincing. If you've got evidence that he's on the payroll of the FDS or whatever the successor to the KGB is, then provide it. If you have that kind of evidence, of course, the you don't NEED to call him a puppet. So your propagandistic language reduces your credibility and is, in any case, totally unconvincing of anything.

Yatsenyuk was allegedly about to resign, but then changed his mind after talking to his "advisers". He now resides in Russia. I don't think we need to have a payslip frm KGB to tell that he's pretty much acting on behalf of Putin right now.

I assume you mean Yanukovych. Of course he's in Russia. He had to flee for his life. You can infer absolutely nothing else from that except, possibly, that he felt safer there than fleeing to the West. Again, this is just propaganda with no basis at all for your claim. He's in Russia for the same reason that Snowden is in Russia. The Russians have given them asylum, and they don't dare go anywhere else.

Putin publicly asked the Ukrainian separatists to delay the referendum so I have no idea what you're talking about in you last sentence.

Putin may have made one comment saying requesting postponement of the referendums, but not only was this proposal not widely broadcast on Russian state TV channels that are watched in Ukraine, those same channels actively promoted the referendum by telling people where they can vote and so on. Furthermore, in Moscow there were polling places for expatriates that were not only tolerated but received official protection from Russian army. Putin's actions with regards to the referendum speak louder than his words.

All you're saying here is that Putin called for a delay of the referendum but did nothing to sabotage it. But that just suggests that he is NOT intent on imposing his will on the east Ukrainians.

So you accuse Yanukovych of being the first to call for "escalating" the violence. Boy, that's a good one. That's simply a way of ignoring the point about who STARTED the violence in the first place, and somehow trying to pin the blame who asking for retribution. Here in the US we call that, "blaming the victim."

I misspoke. I meant that Yanukovich called for the referendums, and that lead to the escalation of the violence when the separatists started taking over buildings. My original wording was a bit jumbled and I apologize for that.

But if that's what you're referring to, then there was no violence to be escalated until Kiev's Interior Ministry sent in its thugs. Even the Ukrainian military units didn't start any violence. They either joined the separatists or fled when confronted with unarmed protestors.

Putin si doing what he's doing because of territorial ambitions in Ukraine, not because he's being provoked.

Nonsense! If that's the case, why didn't he act back in 05 during the "Orange Revolution" or even sooner? Why now. Remember that Yanukovych WON that election in 05, but protests broke out in the Maiden back then claiming the elections were rigged. Yanukovych was prevented from taking office and a compromise was worked out where neither Yanukovych nor Yuschenko took office and someone else was put in. But Timoshenko became Prime Minister during that period. You had anti-Russian governments in Kiev. But the situation was worked out peacefully. And then, when that term expired, new elections were held under international supervision and Yanukovych STILL won. So Putin has had provocations before, but he didn't intervene because Ukraine settled it's matters peacefully and, almost at least, constitutionally.

Again you're playing fast and loose with the facts. Yanykovych didn't win the election in 2005, though he did accuse the other side of cheating. Also during the election there was the small matter of Yuschenko being poisoned with Dioxin, largely blamed on Russia. It's pretty naive to think that Russia did not intervene even then.

Putin has ONLY intervened when provoked. ONLY when Georgia attacked Russian peace-keepers did he intervene in South Ossetia. ONLY when an illegal coup occurred in Kiev did Putin act in Crimea, and ONLY if Kiev's "national guard" continues to shoot unarmed protestors in Donestz is he likely to intervene there, but even if you talk about overt military intervention, it's rather absurd to say that Russia should be commended for graciously not militarily invading another country, as if they had that right to begin with.

The US has been provoking Russia at least since the Clinton administration with the annexation of Eastern Europe into NATO and the annexations of the Baltic republics. With the war on Serbia. With missile bases in Eastern Europe. And now we're even introducing troops into Eastern Europe.

School yard bullies like putin get "provoked" if you look at them the wrong way. Those countries rushed to join NATO because they wanted to get away from Russia fucking them over for the better part of a century, and you twist this to be "provocation" that somehow gives Russia carte blanche to do whatever it can get away with, including military action and annexations? Please.

That Russia had anything to do with Yuschenko being poisoned is entirely speculative. In fact, I don't know that it's even been established that Yuschenko was poisoned at all.

But the fact is that Putin has NEVER acted in the region until he has been provoked, and while we have been provoking Russia for decades, they have mostly responded only with diplomatic complaints. They haven't acted except, briefly and ineffectively, in Kosovo. And that was when Yeltsin was in power.

The obvious pattern to anyone who has eyes to see is that the US and NATO have steadily expand EASTWARD while Russia has not expanded at all except when the West has sought expansion by violent means as in Georgia and now in Ukraine.

And in fact, in the current crisis, Putin as done NOTHING AT ALL. He's letting the West destroy itself in Ukraine.

It's really ironic. We're going to advance Ukraine money, and the first place it will have to go is to pay Ukraine's $2.2 billion gas bill to Russia. Why should Putin WANT Ukraine? Let the West deal with all of its debts and crumbling economy.

 

[boneyard bill]

http://consortiumnews.com/2014/05/04/needed-obama-putin-summit-on-ukraine/
There is no doubt that former CIA agents are on a payroll from Putin.

Excellent advice, but will Obama take it? Of course not. For one thing, from what I understand, he and Putin hate each other. For another, Obama is too clueless on foreign policy so he relies in his advisers who, of course, have worked their way into positions of power due the influence of various special interests.

I would add one more point to the ones they make, however. "What will you do, Mr. President, if Putin sends troops into the Ukraine? Your only option is to accept it or start World War III. But accepting that fact will make you look weak in the eyes of the entire world, and surely you don't want the second option. So a peaceful, diplomatic solution is clearly the optimal way out for all concerned."

 

[barbos]

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn...nt-plan-to-bring-ukraine-situation-to-a-head/
Kissinger is a filthy KGB agent too!

And germans appear to support Putin.
Don't want to dig out links but they asked on TV to vote over a phone and ~80% supported Putin.
TV host was very confused.

I think US/EU bureaucrats need a working face saving strategy. I hope Putin is wise enough to give it to them.
As for Putin If decides to "invade" then I hope he gets approval from Belarus and Kazakhstan and it would be great if he gets Belarus to participate in it. Remember Iraq invasion? when US had to create coalition of the willing or something?

 

[angelo]

Yes you saw a youtube video...of what? <snip> No one needs to rig a referendum. Those people don't want the stinking murderers and thieves from NATO and the IMF. No one is going to vote for NATO. Wake up.

If you believe they haven't rigged these referendums, then *you* are the gullible one.

A referendum where there's armed guards outside the polling stations; where there's no privacy in the way you cast your vote (no booths, glass boxes, etc), where there's people caught on video voting more than once, where they let people with russian passports vote, where there's people caught going around with hundreds of thousands ballots already filled in days before the vote, where independent pre-referendum polls show 70% against but the results supposedly show a near 90% in favor; that is an *obviously rigged* referendum by any sane measure.

If you believe what you're saying, you're one of the most naieve people on the planet...

...if not, you're just a puppet yelling out RT propaganda in the hopes that someone will take you serious.

Either way, nobody's buying it.

The only way these referenda will have any credibility is if they are done by the UN methinks.

 

[Togo]

The largest bloc in Parliament was Yanukovych's party. They were talking about a coalition government which, presumably, would have included the opposition but not necessarily one that would have made an opposition member the Premier. It would be reasonable in such a coalition to give the opposition, which is in the minority, the office of Deputy Prime Minister as well as other important cabinet positions. This conversation is going on a month prior to the coup so we don't know what the actual deal was that was worked out.

What it does show is that we were working to make Yatsenyuk Premier a month before he actually got installed. And he got installed by a coup so it is reasonable, also, to conclude that he wouldn't have gotten that job in the compromise settlement. That position would likely have gone to a member of the majority party.

We're in danger of ignoring the context though. The reason why this conversation was taking place was that the existing government was crumbling. There were open protests against it, people had been shot, emergency legislation banning protests had been passed, and the majority party was offering a variety of posts, including that of Prime minister, to the opposition. This was refused. It's entirely reasonable for the opposition parties to be getting their act together and holding a series of meetings to work out what to do and sort out their differences, so that they're ready with a platform, alliances and policies when the government crumbles.

It's also perfectly reasonable to be talking to the US. The protests were in part about the rejection of a deal to strengthen ties with the EU, and partly about the perception of the president as being a corrupt Kleptocrat with strong financial ties to Russia. Whether you think the rejection of the EU deal was about balancing influence in the Ukraine between East and West, or about rejecting the EU in favour of closer ties to Russia, it's not hard to see why this would be unpopular. Either way, the country was negotiating various deals with the EU and with Russia for funding to prop up the economy, so it's entirely reasonable that the opposition be making their own arrangements, in advance, so that they have a credible shot at running the country. Similarly, since the EU is closer to Russia, it's entirely sensible to set up deals with (right-wing?) officials and advisors in the US, either in preference to the EU, in addition to the EU, or as a plan B in case the EU doesn't come to a decision.

Putin publicly asked the Ukrainian separatists to delay the referendum so I have no idea what you're talking about in you last sentence.

Putin may have made one comment saying requesting postponement of the referendums, but not only was this proposal not widely broadcast on Russian state TV channels that are watched in Ukraine, those same channels actively promoted the referendum by telling people where they can vote and so on. Furthermore, in Moscow there were polling places for expatriates that were not only tolerated but received official protection from Russian army. Putin's actions with regards to the referendum speak louder than his words.

All you're saying here is that Putin called for a delay of the referendum but did nothing to sabotage it. But that just suggests that he is NOT intent on imposing his will on the east Ukrainians.

No, he's saying that Russian state television worked in conjunction with the rebels in the Ukraine to organise an illegal referendum.

But if that's what you're referring to, then there was no violence to be escalated until Kiev's Interior Ministry sent in its thugs. Even the Ukrainian military units didn't start any violence. They either joined the separatists or fled when confronted with unarmed protestors.

That's a bit disingenuous. The protestors took over government buildings, and shut down media centres that broadcast Ukrainian channels. The army had the choice of shooting the rebels or retreating, and under the advice of their own government, who were terrified of Russians using violent suppression of protest as an excuse to send in troops, they didn't shoot. But just because there wasn't gun battles in the street doesn't mean there wasn't any violence. You don't think all those people were expelled from their workplace via sunshine roses and gentle persuasion, do you?

Putin si doing what he's doing because of territorial ambitions in Ukraine, not because he's being provoked.

Nonsense! If that's the case, ...

So if Putin doesn't have any territorial ambitions, why has he annexed Crimea? Are you saying it was an accident? He was laying out troops movements and his pen slipped?

Putin has ONLY intervened when provoked. ONLY when Georgia attacked Russian peace-keepers did he intervene in South Ossetia.

Um.. Russian troops deployed in South Ossetia, even as peacekeepers, is intervention.

ONLY when an illegal coup occurred in Kiev did Putin act in Crimea,

Hm.. That's a rather odd response, isn't it? Georgia tries to break away, so you grab a pro-Russian province by force. Kiev gets an unfriendly government, so invade Crimea. I'm struggling to see how the reaction is related to the initial incident you claim is provoking it.

and ONLY if Kiev's "national guard" continues to shoot unarmed protestors in Donestz is he likely to intervene there,

So he won't intervene as long as the government doesn't try and get their government buildings back?

The US has been provoking Russia at least since the Clinton administration with the annexation of Eastern Europe into NATO and the annexations of the Baltic republics. With the war on Serbia. With missile bases in Eastern Europe. And now we're even introducing troops into Eastern Europe.

NATO deployment in Europe is not particularly new.

The obvious pattern to anyone who has eyes to see is that the US and NATO have steadily expand EASTWARD while Russia has not expanded at all except when the West has sought expansion by violent means as in Georgia and now in Ukraine.

You've not provided any evidence at all that the West has sought change by violent means. It would be a bit stupid of them too, since economic expansion is working so much better. The problem for Putin in the Ukraine is not NATO troops, which he outnumbers easily, but rather that Poland is really quite a nice place to live now, and various former Warpact countries are asking why the same can't happen to them.

It's really ironic. We're going to advance Ukraine money, and the first place it will have to go is to pay Ukraine's $2.2 billion gas bill to Russia. Why should Putin WANT Ukraine? Let the West deal with all of its debts and crumbling economy.

Well, one strong incentive is the upcoming proposal of a second gas pipeline deal to provide Gazprom gas to Southern Europe.

 

[angelo]

In Europe alone, Hitler attacked Great Britain, Poland, France, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Estonia, the Soviet Union, Monaco, Latvia, Lithuania and Greece. Napoleon attacked Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Austria, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Syria and Haiti (Saint-Dominique).

My poor country, forgotten, on both lists.

The Netherlands were insignificant!

 

[4321lynx]

It is a crackpot site, but shows facts about the other crackpots, those in the Ukraine. Western "non-crackpot" but heavily tendentious and self-censored media do not give a balanced account by any means. And that Svoboda is a fascist organization has been known for years. But not to McCain & Nuland??

Just because you like what it says doesn't make a crackpot site credible.

The same goes for the one-sided presentation by Western media, which you think entirely credible.

 

[barbos]

Um.. Russian troops deployed in South Ossetia, even as peacekeepers, is intervention.

You need to actually read about issue before you start making stuff up
Russian peacekeepers were let in by both sides - South Ossetia and Georgia, and they have been there since forever
Well, since SU collapse. And they were reasonably neutral keeping status quo.

Of course ossetians knew that without russian peace-keepers they are dead, and georgians knew the same - ossetians are dead without russians. So there was a bit of bias in that regard

 

[barbos]

https://vine.co/v/MgHWTQPlzFw
We know that CNN still does not know where Ukraine is.
I think it's not such a stretch to suggest that CIA learned about Ukraine only recently. CIA director recently visited Ukraine so he knows where it is now. So this whole mess stems from the ignorance, that's the only explanation why US administration supported neo-nazi coup and why it was so surprised to learn that Crimea was actually populated by pro-russian russians and has always had boat loads of russian soldiers in there. CIA simply did not know that.

 

[Sabine Grant]

https://vine.co/v/MgHWTQPlzFw
We know that CNN still does not know where Ukraine is.

Considering the extensive media coverage of Chernobyl which certainly included CNN, I am not sure how anyone can claim that "CNN still does not know where Ukraine is".

I think it's not such a stretch to suggest that CIA learned about Ukraine only recently. CIA director recently visited Ukraine so he knows where it is now.

What evidence do you have that the CIA director did not know where Ukraine is prior to his recent visit in view of your stating " so he knows where it is now"? Considering that a search through the US State Dept.website will reveal a page dedicated to Ukraine covering several dated topics and reports, what is it that the US State Dept would have learned about Ukraine that the CIA would not have?

So this whole mess stems from the ignorance, that's the only explanation why US administration supported neo-nazi coup and why it was so surprised to learn that Crimea was actually populated by pro-russian russians and has always had boat loads of russian soldiers in there. CIA simply did not know that.

Related to my above and as you portray the CIA as ignorant and "learned about Ukraine only recently", do you have insights into all the intel data the CIA will gather as part of their FCI operations? The answer can only be "no, I do not".

Are you envisioning the CIA isolated from both domestic and foreign intel agencies? Are you not aware that since the failed CIA report on alleged WMD in Irak, US Congress impressed on the importance to have all FCI operations conducted by other federal agencies being shared in between them? Do you think that the CIA does not have access to intel data gathered by the French, British, etc...nations considered allies to the US?

 

[dystopian]

In Europe alone, Hitler attacked Great Britain, Poland, France, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Estonia, the Soviet Union, Monaco, Latvia, Lithuania and Greece. Napoleon attacked Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Austria, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Syria and Haiti (Saint-Dominique).

My poor country, forgotten, on both lists.

The Netherlands were insignificant!

But!

We were instrumental in Napoleon's eventual defeat...

...and we destroyed enough of the luftwaffe in the invasion to seriously hamper their efforts elsewh--

oh forget about it...

...I'll go stand in the corner now.

 

[Togo]

Um.. Russian troops deployed in South Ossetia, even as peacekeepers, is intervention.

You need to actually read about issue before you start making stuff up
Russian peacekeepers were let in by both sides - South Ossetia and Georgia, and they have been there since forever
Well, since SU collapse. And they were reasonably neutral keeping status quo.

And how is that not intervention?

 

[Togo]

In Europe alone, Hitler attacked Great Britain, Poland, France, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Estonia, the Soviet Union, Monaco, Latvia, Lithuania and Greece. Napoleon attacked Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Austria, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Syria and Haiti (Saint-Dominique).

My poor country, forgotten, on both lists.

The Netherlands were insignificant!

But!

We were instrumental in Napoleon's eventual defeat...

...and we destroyed enough of the luftwaffe in the invasion to seriously hamper their efforts elsewh--

oh forget about it...

...I'll go stand in the corner now.

In case you missed it, the original claim, that Obama invaded more countries than Hitler, is based in ignorance. It's hardly going to reflect historical truth.

(Also you forgot the contribution of the Netherlands in the South Pacific!)

 

[tupac chopra]

In case you missed it, the original claim, that Obama invaded more countries than Hitler, is based in ignorance.

what you missed is that that claim was never made. But feel free to claim it was made.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...YING-to-start-WW-III/page11&p=15621#post15621

 

[tupac chopra]

You still aren't being clear. How many countries are you claiming? Just say the number please.

It is shocking that anyone would portray the Obama administration as having attacked more countries than Germany did during the Third Reich.

Well lets have look at the numbers. You say Hitlers numbers and I'll respond with Obamas.
Is that fair?

Are you somehow unable to read data presented to you especially when historically correct? Maybe a map will be more compatible with your mental construct?

We are talking about 15 countries....with the addition of German offensives in Northern Africa and Egypt.

It's easy to find a metric that makes the Obama administration look far worse. 15 Countries?? Is that all?

Obama easily has aggressive military operations in at least 5 times that number of countries. this includes counties bobmed invaded attacked or where secret armies are fighting.
there is plenty of info on the web.
http://stpeteforpeace.org/factsheets/obama.html

 

[Sabine Grant]

In case you missed it, the original claim, that Obama invaded more countries than Hitler, is based in ignorance.

what you missed is that that claim was never made. But feel free to claim it was made.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...YING-to-start-WW-III/page11&p=15621#post15621

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-to-start-WW-III&p=15659&viewfull=1#post15659

By you :So you think that maaaybe Hitler was worse than Obama. Maaaybe Stalin was worse than Obama, and maaaybe napoleon was.
But you're not really sure if they were or not. But you won't actually commit yourself and explain how they invaded or attacked more countries than Obama. You're not doing very well.

To note : " how they invaded or attacked...". It appears you expected an explanation covering BOTH attacks or invasions. Some of us have a very good memory. I also recall that your DEMANDS were met to provide numbers regarding the number of nations Hitler attacked escorted by the reality that the Germans invaded the vast majority of them. And those numbers were supported by historically documented data linked to in this thread.

 

[tupac chopra]

In case you missed it, the original claim, that Obama invaded more countries than Hitler, is based in ignorance.

what you missed is that that claim was never made. But feel free to claim it was made.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...YING-to-start-WW-III/page11&p=15621#post15621

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-to-start-WW-III&p=15659&viewfull=1#post15659

By you :So you think that maaaybe Hitler was worse than Obama. Maaaybe Stalin was worse than Obama, and maaaybe napoleon was.
But you're not really sure if they were or not. But you won't actually commit yourself and explain how they invaded or attacked more countries than Obama. You're not doing very well.

To note : " how they invaded or attacked...". It appears you expected an explanation covering BOTH attacks or invasions. Some of us have a very good memory. I also recall that your DEMANDS were met to provide numbers regarding the number of nations Hitler attacked escorted by the reality that the Germans invaded the vast majority of them. And those numbers were supported by historically documented data linked to in this thread.

But I never claimed that Obama invaded more countries than Hitler.
Clearly Obama is worse by some metrics...but the nature of "warfare" has changed so much with secret armies, that direct comparisons don't easily work

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But I never claimed that Obama invaded more countries than Hitler.
Clearly Obama is worse by some metrics...but the nature of "warfare" has changed so much with secret armies, that direct comparisons don't easily work

So ... when you asked other people to explain how Hitler and Napoleon invaded or attacked more countries than Obama, you were doing something other than taking the position that Obama had invaded more counties than the?

 

[Sabine Grant]

In case you missed it, the original claim, that Obama invaded more countries than Hitler, is based in ignorance.

what you missed is that that claim was never made. But feel free to claim it was made.
http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...YING-to-start-WW-III/page11&p=15621#post15621

http://talkfreethought.org/showthre...-to-start-WW-III&p=15659&viewfull=1#post15659

By you :So you think that maaaybe Hitler was worse than Obama. Maaaybe Stalin was worse than Obama, and maaaybe napoleon was.
But you're not really sure if they were or not. But you won't actually commit yourself and explain how they invaded or attacked more countries than Obama. You're not doing very well.

To note : " how they invaded or attacked...". It appears you expected an explanation covering BOTH attacks or invasions. Some of us have a very good memory. I also recall that your DEMANDS were met to provide numbers regarding the number of nations Hitler attacked escorted by the reality that the Germans invaded the vast majority of them. And those numbers were supported by historically documented data linked to in this thread.

But I never claimed that Obama invaded more countries than Hitler.

Your reply which I quoted clearly questions why there was no commitment to explain how they invaded or attacked. Are you now withdrawing the " invaded" part of your comments?

Clearly Obama is worse by some metrics...but the nature of "warfare" has changed so much with secret armies, that direct comparisons don't easily work

To documented data presented to you linked to websites dedicated to cover world history, you seem to believe that digging up a political partisan rag constitutes a valid support to your original claim which I will quote :

By you :If you believe that then you'll have no trouble finding an administration anywhere in the world at any time that has waged war or attacked or bombed as many nations.

Come on...lets hear it

That was in reply to :

The notion that this all this administration knows how to do is to start wars is not based on facts, but tinfoil logic

Since you stated "anywhere in the world at any time", surely you must have a solid academic knowledge regarding the period of European Colonialism and which wars were waged by several European nations in their conquest of colonies in Northern Africa and Sub Sahara Africa alone. Surely you must have an equally solid academic knowledge that such period extended to other continents such as Asia.

So..... what I am going to do is start a thread in the appropriate Forum, General World History and submit an OP presenting the claim that the US between 2008 and 2014 waged more wars or attacked more countries than any other "anywhere in the world at any time". I will invite our history savvy members (quite a few from what I recall from their highly educated contributions on FRDB) to discuss that claim. And those history savvy members are not the type to link to political partisan rags.