Trash attacking NATO (kneeling to Pootin's strategy)

**koriwhat** · 07-12-2018

Lol reasonable assumption.

you make assumptions of me here all the time... i'd wager my assumption of you used as a pawn on bigPharma's chessboard is dead on. why do i think i hit the nail on the head, because you keep deflecting or outright not answering. it's ok blake; we can all tell how nuts you are by what you post here so you don't have to answer the question after all.

sorry if that's the case though because our society has been riddled with pills for everything 10 fold the past couple decades. i remember when i was a kid and you knew of this kid in school on ritalin but didn't know the kid personally. then it went to everyone becoming bi-polar when i got into college and now everyone is on something because the world is cruel and dealing with issues with pills is an easier solution but a worse outcome in the end.

good luck blake.

**Brazil** · 07-12-2018

Originally Posted by hater

So let me get it straight. 100,000 troops are marching inside your border and you will blow your load on russian cities.

Do you think that will make the 100,000 troops walk back?

You dont think they will take it out on your women and children and create Russia v2.0 in baggetteland?

No thats not what nukes are for idiot. Nukes are there to prevent other countries from nuking you. Its called Mutual Assured Destruction

I'm done with you, you are not worth it

the point of having nuclear strike is to prevent to have 100 000 dudes marching on your border.. why in Russia would take the risk to put in danger 80 M of his people to invade France ?

Mutual assured destruction is one part of the equation and works for Russia and USA not for France... again why would Russia, China or USA want to erase France from the map ?... France nuclear dissuasion has never been designed for mutual assured destruction for the simple fact France does not have the necessary amount of nukes to destroy Russia entirely. French arsenal is limited and designed to specific targets and is not aimed at destroying an entire country

you have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about but I'm not particularly surprised...

**Brazil** · 07-12-2018

but yeah go ahead hater and make it sound you know your about nuclear dissuasion or nato

**Chris** · 07-12-2018

Originally Posted by hater

there were no nukes in 1940 re

We are discussing Frances current nukes not ones used on Japan

You have fail written all over you just move on

Today's Pavlov

**hater** · 07-12-2018

Originally Posted by Brazil

I'm done with you, you are not worth it

the point of having nuclear strike is to prevent to have 100 000 dudes marching on your border.. why in Russia would take the risk to put in danger 80 M of his people to invade France ?

Mutual assured destruction is one part of the equation and works for Russia and USA not for France... again why would Russia, China or USA want to erase France from the map ?... France nuclear dissuasion has never been designed for mutual assured destruction for the simple fact France does not have the necessary amount of nukes to destroy Russia entirely. French arsenal is limited and designed to specific targets and is not aimed at destroying an entire country

you have absolutely no clue of what you are talking about but I'm not particularly surprised...

Then why is France in NATO re ?

If nobody will dare attack France because they have nukes whats the point of them being in it for 50+ years?

And dont tell me to help its neighors. Pussy France did not lift a finger when Hitler took Poland, Switzerland and Luxemburg

**apalisoc_9** · 07-12-2018

Without US or Russia, Erdogan would have the confidence to go for the jagular in mainland europe.

Europeans need to be thankul daddy USA is protecting them because either putin or erdogan mean business.

**Chris** · 07-12-2018

**hater** · 07-12-2018

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

Without US or Russia, Erdogan would have the confidence to go for the jagular in mainland europe.

Europeans need to be thankul daddy USA is protecting them because either putin or erdogan mean business.

Yup pretty much

Erdopig would first open his borders to let the black/brown barbarian hordes of refugees flood entire europe and then hed march his 100,000 Turks all the way to champs delyses while Brazil is looking for the nuclear button in his pants

**Brazil** · 07-12-2018

Originally Posted by hater

Then why is France in NATO re ?

If nobody will dare attack France because they have nukes whats the point of them being in it for 50+ years?

And dont tell me to help its neighors. Pussy France did not lift a finger when Hitler took Poland, Switzerland and Luxemburg

I see you continue to be stupid

explain to me how mutual assured destruction works in the case of France ?

France left NATO and returned under special agreement to be part of a global aliance between Europe and USA to defend both interests all over the world for instance in Africa or even in Europe where NATO acted (badly btw) in the issue of ex yugoslavia... certainely not because France is afraid of a Russian invasion.

you are making a fool of yourself in this thread.. stick to soccer forum and your takes on US internal affair.. again not sure why a ing colombian is spending his time defending Trash

**boutons_deux** · 07-12-2018

Originally Posted by apalisoc_9

Without US or Russia, Erdogan would have the confidence to go for the jagular in mainland europe.

Europeans need to be thankul daddy USA is protecting them because either putin or erdogan mean business.

Erdogan doesn't have means to attack Europe. and what would be the point, the objective?

He's commandeered Turkey, will steal $Bs like all autocrats do. He's got his hands full with the Armenians.

**Blake** · 07-12-2018

Originally Posted by koriwhat

you make assumptions of me here all the time...

I assume you're a druggy because you literally say you use drugs on a regular basis.

That's why my assumption of you is reasonable.

i'd wager my assumption of you used as a pawn on bigPharma's chessboard is dead on. why do i think i hit the nail on the head, because you keep deflecting or outright not answering. it's ok blake; we can all tell how nuts you are by what you post here so you don't have to answer the question after all.

1. I've never mentioned I'm on any kind of medication. Your assumption is completely irrational. You simply made it up because you're clearly angry.

2. I've answered twice now with a "no".

3. What the is wrong with you?

**apalisoc_9** · 07-12-2018

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Erdogan doesn't have means to attack Europe. and what would be the point, the objective?

He's commandeered Turkey, will steal $Bs like all autocrats do. He's got his hands full with the Armenians.

Erdogan is the strongest NATO memeber that isnt an american pet.

All erdogan have to do is spread confusion and disaray. They would lose if all Europe not including russia fought together and cooperated but thats not going to happen.

Russia will most likely take over eastern euro

**Blake** · 07-12-2018

Originally Posted by koriwhat

...and now everyone is on something because the world is cruel and dealing with issues with pills is an easier solution but a worse outcome in the end.

good luck blake.

You smoke dope, moron.

Smh.

**koriwhat** · 07-12-2018

Originally Posted by Blake

I assume you're a druggy because you literally say you use drugs on a regular basis.

That's why my assumption of you is reasonable.

i can conclude you'd be right but it really depends on your definition of what a druggy is exactly. you drink coffee, smoke cigarettes, or any other vices? i'd say you're a druggy too if that's the case.

my definition of a druggy is one that loses all sense of reality around them due to a substance which has taken over their lives. mostly methheads, crackheads, cokeheads, pill poppers, etc but i don't consider bud a problem unless you make it so(those that have to smoke just to take a piss or put on their socks... lol).

it all depends really but i totally understand where you're coming from.

Originally Posted by Blake

1. I've never mentioned I'm on any kind of medication. Your assumption is completely irrational. You simply made it up because you're clearly angry.

2. I've answered twice now with a "no".

3. What the is wrong with you?

it might be irrational but so is your assumption that i'm clearly angry when i'm not. i simply ask you questions and because we butt heads doesn't mean i have any anger towards you at that specific moment or at any time. you are an anonymous person on the net. i don't get angry with yall i just smh. yall see me replying as anger, melting down, etc because i get it; it's yalls tactic to make it look like yall are getting under my skin and others. i don't care for any of yall personally and i don't get all flustered by anything posted her tbh.

btw, i must have overlooked your answer of "no" both times. my bad!

**hater** · 07-12-2018

Originally Posted by Brazil

I see you continue to be stupid

explain to me how mutual assured destruction works in the case of France ?

France left NATO and returned under special agreement to be part of a global aliance between Europe and USA to defend both interests all over the world for instance in Africa or even in Europe where NATO acted (badly btw) in the issue of ex yugoslavia... certainely not because France is afraid of a Russian invasion.

you are making a fool of yourself in this thread.. stick to soccer forum and your takes on US internal affair.. again not sure why a ing colombian is spending his time defending Trash

you just said nobody will dare attack france cause they have nukes

And now uou said they are in NATO to defend their interests

Pick a lane niga

**Blake** · 07-12-2018

Originally Posted by koriwhat

i can conclude you'd be right but it really depends on your definition of what a druggy is exactly. you drink coffee, smoke cigarettes, or any other vices? i'd say you're a druggy too if that's the case.

my definition of a druggy is one that loses all sense of reality around them due to a substance which has taken over their lives. mostly methheads, crackheads, cokeheads, pill poppers, etc but i don't consider bud a problem unless you make it so(those that have to smoke just to take a piss or put on their socks... lol).

it all depends really but i totally understand where you're coming from.

it might be irrational but so is your assumption that i'm clearly angry when i'm not. i simply ask you questions and because we butt heads doesn't mean i have any anger towards you at that specific moment or at any time. you are an anonymous person on the net. i don't get angry with yall i just smh. yall see me replying as anger, melting down, etc because i get it; it's yalls tactic to make it look like yall are getting under my skin and others. i don't care for any of yall personally and i don't get all flustered by anything posted her tbh.

btw, i must have overlooked your answer of "no" both times. my bad!

Tldr don't care and I probably disagree any way.

Sorry, druggy.

**koriwhat** · 07-12-2018

Originally Posted by Blake

You smoke dope, moron.

Smh.

dope huh? again, what's your definition or are you out of your league even discussing drugs, users, vices, etc?

i didn't smoke yesterday at all and wasn't freaking out to find any nor smoke any. i dropped everything for 2 yrs before just for the of it. last time i checked, druggies can't do such a thing without chills, vomiting, emotional mood swings, death...

you're out of your league man.