Let me get this straight:

A Russian ex-spy is mysteriously poisoned in the UK by a (claimed to be) extremely deadly substance that did not kill him and which chemical content we are not aware of because we only know about the substance's existence from a single source. Shortly after (before an investigation or even claiming a suspect responsible), multiple countries expel Russian diplomats in cold war precedented proportions and the US announces it "now wants to step up readiness and ensure that at least 30,000 troops, plus additional aircraft and naval ships, can reach a trouble spot within 30 days of NATO commanders putting forces on alert."





Is it just me, or does this seem fishy that all this is happening at once? Why is this being brought up while the demonizing of Russia is at its height? Why do we care about a Russian ex-spy and why is there such sudden, severe backlash? Again, ...it seems fishy.

There are some big implications of this dangerous Russia escalation and we have to ask where is it headed? What is the purpose/end goal in sight? The United State's global position as setter of world policy and monetary policy is being questioned currently. This can be witnessed by China's recent decision to begin buying oil in Yuan and Iran's growing influence in the middle east despite US efforts to destabilize and control. Could this have anything to do with it? Does Russia represent a challenge to our dominance because they are not willing to stand up to us like they proved in Ukraine? Are we willing to engage in a global war as a desperate measure to protect our dominance of the world?

I wonder if humanity has lost it, if they are all depraved, if they move toward nothingness, if they are entirely blind sheep or they just do not care. I do not get it, they would be so easy to command, so easy to maneuver, they buy such easy stories. Is there such thing as morality? If there is, and we claim to believe in it, how can we sit silent when deceit carries us closer towards war? Do I care too much? Am I too serious and not laid back enough? Are these questions less pressing than they appear to me? Would they seem more pressing if a bomb was dropped, if young boys were forced to hold guns, if the starvation, bombing, and destabilization was here and not there? We have a cozy life in America. Credit is easy, goods are cheap, and we have a service based economy propped up by its debt. So many of my peers going to school for worthless majors and no direction, easy money coming to an end, socialism appears the proposed solution. No one pays any mind to wars that have been going on for years and you better speak correct or you are socially ostracized. "It's because we care about others and do not accept hate." Hate those who hate and you become a hypocrite. Apologize for the rant, though I doubt anyone read it through. But where is there hope? Why does it make sense to stand for good when it seems to be to no avail? It would be more beneficial to the individual to command the chaos, to feed people their own insanity. My question hits the ground, waiting for an answer. Is it a false assumption that good will triumph?

In our brief, forgotten contribution, we shape history and our choice is embedded in time.



Did not post that many sources because it takes a lot of time and not many people read my posts yet. Let me know if you would like me to post sources. Please answer my questions or challenge my assertions, that is why I give my thoughts. Like, resteem, and follow.