“As we stand here today, closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before, political elite warmongers are carelessly fomenting fear and tension between nuclear powers. Perhaps it is because they are confident that they will have access to nuclear shelters for themselves and for their families that regular people won’t have access to. So, it’s up to us, the people, to speak up and demand an end to this madness.”
-Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence
Who are these “political elite warmongers” that are “carelessly fomenting fear and tension between nuclear powers”? You know how it is. Rich people just love wiping out civilization. It is what rich people live for. And that is why we need socialism, so we can eat the rich and be done with them!
But seriously, Tulsi Gabbard is a demagogue ready to blame nuclear war on some imaginary bunch of rich people, appealing to envy and resentment. Meanwhile, our domestic socialists are ready to burn the country down because they had their heads filled with Marxist sewage in school. What idiot believes that elite Americans are threatening the world with nuclear war? But then, Tulsi Gabbard is part of the political elite, and she most certainly has a bomb shelter. Or did I miss something?
But wait! Tulsi Gabbard is also America’s Director of National Intelligence. Does her rhetoric belong to America and NATO, or does it belong to the socialist camp? What on earth just came out of her mouth?
With many Western cities now becoming majority non Western some people might argue that thermonuclear war (perhaps by provoking one with Russia) is the only way to “save” the West (as these cities, and their anti Western inhabitants, would be destroyed) – but from a moral point of view such a “cure” is WORSE, vastly WORSE, than the “disease”.
The problems caused by, in the case of the United States, the “Teddy” Kennedy Immigration Act of 1965, the Amnesty of 1986 (for which President Reagan can not himself escape some blame – although he did honestly believe that part of this deal was securing the border against further invasion, a securing of the border that did NOT then happen), and the traitor (yes TRAITOR) judges (Federal as well as State) who struck down such measures as Proposition 187 in California, passed in 1994, which limited the amount of government benefits and public services that illegal immigrants could get, will have to be solved in some other way. Nuclear war (with Russia or whoever) is NOT the way to solve this crises – whether for the United States or other Western nations.
General Flynn, the former head of military intelligence and then National Security Adviser, before he was framed by elements of the FBI (who also threatened his family – in order to make him cooperate) is certainly no socialist (Tulsi Gabbard is indeed a ex Democrat – but was always on the moderate wing of the party) is of the same opinion – he is also AGAINST nuclear war.
I am certainly not “pro Putin” or “anti Ukrainian” – for example, I am sad to see the Reform Party pull down the Ukrainian flag from various council offices – although this is what most of the people who voted for them wanted (so, yes, it is democracy in action), but it must be made clear (very clear) that aid to Ukraine does NOT include anything that might lead to nuclear war with Russia.
Given the relative strength of the parties involved in the conflict in Ukraine (and in spite of Mr Putin’s utter uselessness as a Commander in Chief – for example sending Russian soldiers into war with a, then, defective basic rifle, and with a military plan, which Mr Putin personally insisted on, that made “A Bridge Too Far” look like a moderate operation – “send the airborne forces to try and take Kiev, with the ground forces fighting their way along the long narrow roads, hundreds of miles, to their reinforcement” was, basically, the utterly insane plan of 2022) the only way to WIN the war in Ukraine was to convince enough Russians, Russians in key positions, that the Mr Putin’s war was NOT in the interests of Russia – so much so that they would overthrow Mr Putin.
Wild talk of “breaking up Russia” (utterly absurd talk as, for example, Vladivostok, as far from Moscow as it is possible to be in Russia, is more Russian, vastly more, than Los Angeles is American – Russians make up the majority of the population of most Russian cities, unlike Westerners in so many Western cities – where Westerners are either outnumbered already, or soon will be – although NOT some Western cities such as Prague) and “Russia is a gas station pretending to be a country” and other insults, rather undermined the effort to turn the Russian population against Mr Putin.
Indeed the wild schemes to break up Russia, and all the insults, played into the hands of Mr Putin – and were gleefully shown by his propagandists (who pretended that this was official Western policy – which it was NOT).
I repeat – turning Russians (especially key Russians) against Mr Putin, was the only way to win the war in Ukraine – NOT risking nuclear war.
Nuclear war, especially thermonuclear war, is the wrong policy – the wrong road to do down.
Lastly – to those Russians who sneer at the demographic crises in the West, and mock our impending doom. You have your own demographic crises – the Russian fertility rate is well below replacement level, and the followers of Islam (the enemies of Russians for a thousand years) are increasing (as Mr Navalny warned – which is why Mr Putin had him murdered) – they may be the friends of Mr Putin, but they are not friends of Russia, and nor is the People’s Republic of China Communist Party Dictatorship – to which Mr Putin has sold out Russia, food and raw materials going for (often not very good) manufactured supplies.
Mr Putin has created a, to be blunt, colonial relationship with China – and it is Russia that is the colony.
The slaughter of Ukrainians and the slaughter of Russians, in Mr Putin’s war, has led to quiet glee among both the followers of the Crescent Moon, and among the Communist Party Dictatorship that controls China.
Mr Putin has managed to convince most Russians that the war in Ukraine is a war to save Russia from a Western plot to destroy Russia – and that he, Mr Putin, is a latter day Alexander Nevsky (the Russian hero of the mid 1200s – who defeated first the Swedes and then the Teutonic Knights, and whose kin, via various different lines, ruled Russia till 1917) who is only going along with the east as Alexander Nevsky did (in Alexander Nevsky’s case the Mongols, in the case of Mr Putin both Islam and the People’s Republic of China), in order to save Russia from this Western plot
It is a LIE – there never was a Western plot to destroy Russia, just a few people in engaging in wild talk – which was taken up by Mr Putin’s propagandists (who pretended to be shocked by the talk of “breaking up Russia” and so on – but were really overjoyed that a few Westerners would say such things), but most Russians now believe it.
So most Russians now, falsely, believe that this war in Ukraine is not Mr Putin’s war (which it is) – but it is a war to save Russia, which must be won by-any-means-necessary, as the very survival of Russia is at stake (so they, falsely, believe).
Like it or not, that is the situation – and Western policy makers must understand that (which some of them do).
The quote from Ms Gabbard refers to “political elite warmongers”. Mr Nyquist somehow moves from there to asserting that she is blaming some “imaginary bunch of rich people”, and attributes it to socialist envy and resentment.
Ms Gabbard may be right or wrong, but there’s nothing in her quote to suggest socialist envy of the rich is in any way connected to what she’s quoted as saying.
I am left with the impression that Mr Nyquist wishes us to believe Ms Gabbard thinks that some rich people intend to provoke a nuclear war for their own profit, as if they were emulating Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Her actual words don’t give that impression, though.
One could reasonably rail against blundering civil servants and apparatchiks in the political life of the UK, the US, or the EU–as ignorant of Cold War history and dynamics, or military realities, as they are of almost all other matters–and that their actions may indeed raise tensions because of their fundamental ignorance of what they do and how it is perceived by those outside their bubble. One can believe such political elites drive nuclear tension, and do not care as they ought–and that underneath, if pushed, their smug excuses would boil down to: I think the risks aren’t important because even if I’m wrong, it’s not me under the mushroom cloud.
None of that concern is socialist envy or resentment speaking.
I think Putin’s escalation threats and red lines to date have been bluster and intimidation, and giving them too much credence has not truly raised the risk of nuclear war–so, to date, I think Ms Gabbard’s concern is overblown and misplaced. But the situation in Russia and Ukraine is dynamic. Putin’s economy weakens as time ticks by, and his military continues to get minor gains for a horrendous butcher’s bill. When his position grows desparate enough, maybe the time will arrive when we do need to listen to a note of caution about the careless provocations of some of our political actors.
C’mon Perry! Did you not see Kaja Kallas, Vice President of the EU Commission, dreamily pontificating “Wouldn’t it be great if we went into Ukraine and kicked Putin out, and then went into Russia, broke the country up and made them all just like us…” Putin having nukes and her not having them? – not the least impediment to her overheated imagination; she just KNOWS it’ll work-out precisely as she fantasizes it will.
The warmongers are out there; and however divorced from reality they may be, history is replete with examples of starry-eyed dreamers who made-it into the wrong place and kicked-off yet another awful, humanity-destroying conflagration. The ultimate example remains Mao, with his “Great Leap Forward” and “Cultural Revolution”, but Pol Pot and Nikolai Ceausescu did as bad, if only on a smaller scale. And I’d be remiss indeed if I failed to mention Schicklgruber, Karl Marx and Trofim Lysenko.
It only takes a few snowflakes falling in the wrong spot to trigger an avalanche…
Ah so does criticism of the ‘political elite’ make you a communist now?
Convenient.
Many of the blog posts on here are about how what are NATO countries – Britain, Canada, US, Germany, France, Spain, Italy etc- are effectively now socialist states, and the elites in these countries are largely to blame.
aid to Ukraine does NOT include anything that might lead to nuclear war with Russia.
You may hope that and reassure yourself – but you don’t KNOW that. It is probable that the US won’t use nuclear bombs, but you don’t know what Putin might do.
Putin’s way of thought might be different, and neither I nor you, know what it is.
What Tulsi Gabbard is saying is that the war in the Ukraine raises the risk of nuclear war.
That is evident. You cannot say it doesn’t. (like you tried).
Maybe you think the risk is small and worth taking, but it IS there.
Let’s make a thought experiment. Suppose Putin drops some small, tactical, nuclear bomb on some Ukrainian front town. What then? How does the US react? Armageddon or some more sanctions?
Maybe she at least in part had India and Pakistan in mind or, more seriously, Iran after the endless pussyfooting around by the likes of Biden’s handlers.
It’s just utterly bizarre that she would say we are “closer to nuclear annihilation than ever before”. Pretty much the entire period
from when we started building H bombs to well after the breakup of the Soviet Union the risk was vastly higher. There’s been nothing
remotely as scary as the Cuban Missile Crisis during my lifetime. The Democrats boldly asserted that if Goldwater won the presidency, he absolutely would
get us into a nuclear war, and it seems a fair percentage of the electorate bought it.
A weird choice of voice to amplify.
Let’s see if I have been able to parse Nyquist’s argument correctly.
– Tulsi does a PR stunt and publishes a mopey video, mentioning “political elite warmongers”.
– “Political elite warmongers” = “rich people”, because “you know how it is”. They are also “imaginary” and all of a sudden narrow down to “American”, while communists are burning your cities and taking over Latin America.
– Political elite warmongers have nuclear shelters. Tulsi is political elite (kinda-sorta, some hand-waving involved) and has a nuclear shelter. Ergo, erm, help me out here – what is the correct conclusion supposed to be? That she is a warmonger campaigning against nuclear war? That she is rich (!) and imaginary?
– “Of course, the world is getting closer to nuclear war. But rich people are not the ones proliferating nuclear weapons. It is Russia that has enabled North Korea and Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.” – So… Poor people in Russia are enabling poor people in North Korea and Iran to have nukes, is that it?
– “War may be days or hours away.” – Or minutes. Or picoseconds. Keep reading. It’ll all make sense soon.
– “Tensions are rising as the Russians continue to threaten NATO by forward deploying nuclear and conventional weapons.” – The Russians have also been trying to take the ruins of Volchansk for over a year.
– Communism is back, but also never went away. This is so because the synod of an obscure offshoot of the Russian Orthodox Church (these guys), says so, and also a couple of statues of Stalin went up in Russia.
– Trump is scared to death of a notebook some commie huckster from Vermont has been trying (and failing) to pawn for the price of a no-frills Land Cruiser.
– Some PLA general (who is retired and has been sidelined for over 20 years) said we were all going to be exterminated, so thanks, Tulsi!
Is this about right?
Make it “some elite Americans and Europeans”, and, yeah, that would be this idiot. Me.
I was going to leave my best form of withering comment to Mr. Nyquist, but “Anon” did it quite well, saying:
“The quote from Ms Gabbard refers to “political elite warmongers”. Mr Nyquist somehow moves from there to asserting that she is blaming some “imaginary bunch of rich people”, and attributes it to socialist envy and resentment.
Ms Gabbard may be right or wrong, but there’s nothing in her quote to suggest socialist envy of the rich is in any way connected to what she’s quoted as saying.”
Thank you for saving me the time to call him a blithering idiot.
Plamus,
That is a serious collection of beards. I mean those guys make Ayatollahs look modern!
In general,
I am surprised that nobody here has yet noted that the Nyquist Criterion is a to do with signal to noise ratios in feedback control systems.
What I’ll call the Trump Global Philosophy doesn’t mesh well with supporters of Ukraine. It can be jarring at times.
As a sort of tangent here, Valerie Jarret has the sadz tonight.
Yesterdays front page news:-
Global watchdog finds Iran failing to meet nuclear obligations
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce3v6w2qr12o
Today’s front page news:-
Israel targets Iran’s nuclear sites and military commanders in major attack
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c93ydeqyq71t
Events, my dear boy, events
Remember Trump giving Iran a 60-day deadline to make progress on nuclear terms?
That was 61 days ago.
Great time to be alive.
I should point out that nuke-Los-Angeles pictures are common on the internet – pictures of a nuclear mushroom cloud over the city.
I am AGAINST this idea – just as I am AGAINST a nuclear response to the Islamic Republic of Iran Dictatorship attack on Israel today. Even though Israel has attacked the Iranian nuclear weapons program, and the Iranian Dictatorship response is directed at civilians.
As Tulsi Gabbard (and others such as General Flynn) have pointed out – people who lightly talk about nuclear weapons, say risking nuclear war with Russia over Ukraine (which both the United States and Britain did not use to be interested in – even at the height of British power “liberating Ukraine” was NOT a British war aim in the Crimean War, indeed it is unclear what the war was about, as the great liberal JOHN BRIGHT kept pointing out at the time – as he pointed to the deaths and horrors on both sides), or using nuclear weapons to deal with vast anti American populations that have come into the United States, are terrible ideas, utterly awful.
People who will consider a nuclear, indeed a thermonuclear, conflict, over such matters, fail to grasp the vast number of innocent civilians who would be killed or maimed – people who are different from ourselves are still human beings, and we must not lightly commit them to nuclear horror.
Many, perhaps most, Iranian civilians OPPOSE the Islamic Republic of Iran Dictatorship – the Iranian people rose up against it – but were betrayed by the Obama Administration which backed the Islamic dictatorship.
The Biden Administration also supported, vastly supported, the Islamic Republic of Iran Dictatorship – sending them vast amounts of money, which was used for their weapons program.
Before Perry points it out – I am very much aware that the Islamic Republic of Iran Dictatorship is a close ally of Mr Putin.
An added factor to consider is that deterrence, including nuclear deterrence, does not work with sincere followers of Islam – it may work with Mr Putin (who is not a follower of Islam – although he has allied with them, but Mr Putin is a FOOL if he thinks they have forgotten that he made his name KILLING Muslims – yes decades ago, but they have long memories, and will only be his “friend” whilst he is useful to them) and it may work with NOMINAL Muslims – people who are “Muslim” because they happen to have been born into Muslim families – but NOT sincere followers of Islam who actually believe in Islamic doctrines.
To such a person being killed in conflict with infidels means automatic paradise – it is the most wonderful thing that can happen. So talking of “deterrence” or “deterring” such people is vain – which is why I was so shocked to hear the ex head of Shin Bet (the Israeli internal intelligence service that covered the Gaza Salient) talking about “deterring” attacks from Gaza – he spoke like this again and again, it was not a verbal slip (it is how he thinks).
The way he talked, and wrote, and the policies the ex head of Shin Bet followed, showed that he did not know the first thing about Islam (about people who really believe in it – such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad). They can not be “deterred” – as they believe if they die fighting infidels this is the most wonderful thing that could possibly happen to them, ditto if their families are killed (the family will also go to paradise). They may squeeze out a few tears to fool gullible Westerners – but, privately, they will not be upset (quite the contrary).
It was shocking that someone with such a total ignorance of Islam was in such a senior position – but I am told that such people were common in the Israeli security, intelligence and military (yes military) high command.
Utterly appalling.
The same is true for the Iranian Dictatorship – although it is Shia rather than Sunni, on this important point that-makes-no-difference. BUT it must be made clear that this is just the true-believers – NOT the ordinary people who are just nominal Muslims.
Mohammed (as this computer system insists I spell the Gentleman’s name) spoke in very harsh terms about nominal Muslims (people who claimed to embrace Islam – without really believing) – calling them “hypocrites”, and even saying they should be killed.
But it is likely that nominal Muslims (rather than the true believers) have always been the majority – and I believe they are the majority in Iran today.
Hence my OPPOSITION to the idea of using nuclear weapons on Iran – vast numbers of innocent people would be killed or maimed.
But it is likely that nominal Muslims (rather than the true believers) have always been the majority – and I believe they are the majority in Iran today.
I agree and believe the same is probably true in Gaza. The former head of Shin Bet might believe this as well. After all the indoctrination by UNRWA schools can hardly be any worse than that orchestrated by the Mullahs.
Well yes, it was the IDF striking after no doubt telling USA what they intended to do when they started planning. People believe Israel when they say they will take action on threats they make.
Trump? Not so much. How many “two week” deadlines has Trump given Putin to show he wants ‘peace’ or unspecified bad things will happen? Russian language sites are now using it as a mocking meme as the “two weeks” quanta have been stacking up. On Ukrainian sites, the assumption is the unspecified “bad things” Trump will do if Putin doesn’t behave will eventually happen, but probably to Ukraine.
There’s a further issue with Iran – the whole “Shi’a” thing. Could somebody who knows a lot more than I do about Shi’ite Islam comment on the Mahdi? As I (vaguely) understand it, the Mahdi will return and lead believers to their paradise – but only once the world has been destroyed by fire; which suggests that the Mullahs are actively working toward nukes as a direct trigger of the latter. This also would seem to suggest that once the Mullahs have nukes, they will use them as a matter of course, to bring-about the return of the Mahdi – It Is Written…
Some of these comments seem like an attempt to rationalize Gabbard’s nonsense. Here’s your answer: she’s loopy.
Republican wingnuts have replaced Democrat moonbats. Pass the popcorn and enjoy the show!
Sincere belief and corruption are not incompatible. The Nazi regime was profoundly corrupt – but its hatred of Jews was entirely sincere, and they devoted resources to the murder of Jews that could have been used to their own benefit.
The ayatollahs and IRGC have stolen $billions for themselves. They preach literalist Islamic doctrine, but they don’t practice it consistently. For instance, they welcomed Louis Farrakhan to Iran, even though the doctrines of his “Nation of Islam” are grossly heretical and blasphemous to any orthodox Moslem.
I very much doubt that they are as indifferent to personal risk as Mr. Marks insists.
Y Knott,
It’s all a bit vague but the Mahdi (or his Dad) might be hiding down a well ospme such sh’ite.
Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’yleh wgal’nagl fhtagn.
He is not dead but waits dreaming.
– Major General Hossein Salami, chief commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC)
Said very recently. Or rather lately… 💣💀🤣
I am told that some 12er Shia do believe this stuff about the return of the Hidden Iman and destroying the world by fire.
But Mohammed taught his followers (long before there were any Sunni or Shia) that to die fighting Infidels granted paradise – it was part of his “pitch” (if I may use the word) – basically “join me in my wars of conquest – if you live you will get gold and slave women, and if you are killed it will be even BETTER for you, indeed vastly better!”
How many Muslims really believe in Mohammed’s doctrines and how many are what Mohammed called “hypocrites” (people he believed should be killed) who only pretend to believe in the doctrines in order to get by?
I do not know.
By the way just typing the above (the sort of thing that John Bright, Gladstone and Winston Churchill said) could get a person sent to prison in Britain.
But then saying so many things can get a person sent to prison here, that it is pointless to worry about it.
‘Mr Putin is a FOOL if he thinks they have forgotten that he made his name KILLING Muslims’
I am certain that Putin does not think they have forgotten what he did. I am also certain he couldn’t care less.
Yep. Reassures me that Trump and Bibi are playing well together, are sympatico, allies, working towards the same goal vis-a-vis Israel. This is such a boost from the Obama days if you support Israel. I do.
Translation: Anyone who sees the need to not roll over & let Russia do whatever Russia wants is trying to start a nuclear war. Yes, it’s that craven & idiotic.
@bobby b
Yep. Reassures me that Trump and Bibi are playing well together, are sympatico, allies, working towards the same goal vis-a-vis Israel. This is such a boost from the Obama days if you support Israel. I do.
Trump seems to be trying to stay out of it. Which is what he should do. There are powerful forces in the swamp who REALLY want a war with Iran. I do not. Israel is no doubt right to destroy the weapons and personnel of a country who seek their genocide but, as far as I can see, they are perfectly capable of doing that on their own. And, if they want to buy weapons from the west to do it I’m fully in support of that too.
However, I for one do not want the USA dragged into another middle east war. Things are really looking positive in the middle east with huge potential for the Abraham Accords. And most of those guys hate Iran anyway. Their condemnation of Israel were not, shall we say, vehement. So I hope the US stays out of it, that Iran gets controlled, and the middle east process continues. And I especially hope that this might be a catalyst for the Iranian people, most of them decent hard working families just trying to survive the politicians and religious nuts, might overthrow their masters and turn into a peaceable friendly state. Unfortunately I think that is unlikely.
It is worth pointing out, as we watch their sad, weak response, that Iran is not what it was. It has been worn down by Israel and the few months of Trumpism. No longer are its terrorism and nuclear ambitions funded by the US taxpayer. And that is a victory for Trump, for Bibi, and for all decent people in the world.