Tuesday, November 22, 2016

Russia moves nuclear missiles closer to Europe



The Telegraph is reporting that "Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, said on Monday he would move nuclear-capable missiles closer to Europe in response to Nato's expansion in the Baltic states. In a bold display of force against Western allies, Russian S-400 surface-to-air missiles and a ballistic Iskander system will be deployed in Kaliningrad, which is situated between Lithuania and Poland. Iskander missiles have a range of 450 miles, which means they could hit Berlin if launched from Kaliningrad."

Hillary Clinton was the one that sold him the weapons grade uranium for his nuclear missiles.

12 comments:

  1. so what if she sold the stuff to him. It wasn't her personally, it was the U.S.A. and if they hadn't, some one else might have. They also know the quality of the produce.

    Now as to the missiles. I do believe these are the smaller newer types, which if they were to be used are less "dangerous"/ O.K. any nuclear bomb can ruin a good day, however, there are new ones which impact less area, therefore if one were to be launched, it wouldn't impact as big an area. Not great if you're the area which gets hit, but it is great if you are outside of the intended area.

    there has been some discussion of these new pin point nuclear missiles. Because of the destructiveness of the old ones, they were much less likely to be used. The new ones, some one might take a chance with because the impacted area would be less.

    Of course Putin is moving them around. He wants Latvia, Estonia back. This is part of the chess game. Given his relationship with Trump he most likely feels he can get away with what he is doing.

    Whatever Putin does, is not Clinton's fault, its Putin's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No offense but that's a little dysfunctional. If I sold a gang member a gun and he shot someone with it, then that makes me an accessory to murder. I am criminally culpable. If I sold Communist China weapons grade uranium and they in turn sold it to North Korea who in turn used it on the US, then I'm an accessory to murder. I can't say, it's not my fault they used what I sold them. It is my fault. I shouldn't have sold it to them in the first place.

      Delete
  2. You are so very wrong, Mr. e.a.f. Educate yourself. Start with watching Clinton Cash to find out about the people you're defending. Trump's bad in your eyes right? Ever hear of treason? Hilary should be locked the fk up already.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My point is Clinton personally did not sell Russia anything. The U.S.A. sold the material to Russia. Now if either of you could demonstrate that Clinton had a supply of the stuff some where, she personally owned, then I'd listen,

    As to the comparison to selling a gun, I have yet to see a gun dealer be charged for selling a gun which killed some one. Really if that where the case, thousands of American gun dealers would be in jail.

    Now you may not like Clinton, but I consider her a much better choice than Trump. Clinton is no different that other former Republican Presidents. although some want to refer to Clinton as crooked she has not been charged or convicted of anything. In my opinion she is simply a normal politician except she is female and as such has been much more harshly critized.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The New York Times reported that the Clintons personally sold Russia weapons grade uranium and made a lot of money from doing so. You may not like Trump but blindly endorsing Hilary's documented criminal activity since Mena, Arkansas is simply dysfunctional.

      I was at the new gun range in Langley last week. The front desk was plastered with pro Trum anti Hilary bumper stickers. Gun activists hate Hillary because she supports gun control. That means you don't have to be a racist to support Trump. I know you support gun control. I do not. Neither do a lot of voters in the United States.

      Delete
    2. Gun control is not about guns. It's about control.

      Delete
  4. At a young age my mother told me not to believe everything I read in the papers. I really don't know where the Clinton's would have kept a supply of uranium. I would suggest our difference stem from the fact I don't consider Clinton to have a "documented criminal activity since Mena."

    As to gun control, you're right, I support if but that isn't the only thing I like about Clinton and yes there would be opponents to gun control who would then support Trump. We all pick out lines in the sand and that is what makes the horse race and life interesting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It was reported in the New York Times.

      Delete
    2. EAF, if you take the time to watch Dinesh D'Souza's documentary 'Hillary's America' (which is the top documentary of 2016) you will be given clear, indisputable evidence of the Clintons' criminal activity.

      Delete
  5. Just because its in the New York Times doesn't make it true. That was my point, you can't belie e everything which is in the newspapers. I'd want more than a report. I'd want details.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rolleyes: The details are in the article. It's all over the Internet:

      http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/08/memo-sheds-new-light-on-clinton-russia-uranium-scandal.php

      http://ijr.com/2015/04/305269-2-hillary-clinton-influence-russian-nuclear-fuel-deal-clinton-foundation-received-millions-dollars/

      Delete