 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Imran is giving Che a shellacking.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
 |
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
A lot of people don't seem to know anything about the history of the USSR and the reason they didn't simply go back to Moscow after pushing all the way to Berlin. Too much anti-communist propaganda is the cause...
1. Russia just pushed the Nazis back. They lost nearly 20 million people in the war. A lot of ignorant people don't seem to realize the sacrifice Russia made.
2. Russia had constantly been invaded and attacked from imperial forces from the West. The US had constantly been meddling in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union ever since the Russian Revolution. Russia could not trust the US. And after losing 20 million people, they weren't about to simply let their guard down. If Russia pulled back to their original borders, you can bet your ass the US would have lined their border with forces. Eastern Europe was a buffer zone.
3. In terms of starting wars and installing or supporting brutal dictatorships, the US wins by far. The US supported the Taliban, Iraq, Iran, Pinochet in Chile, Manuel Noriega, Panama rebels, the list goes on...
You guys seem to be suffering from "my sh1t don't stink" syndrome. Che is right here, and it's disappointing that no one is informed enough to realize it. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Romania and Bulgaria weren't invaded by the USSR nor did they invade anyone. Vietnam was fully justified in its invasion of the South and of Cambodia. It still doesn't come close to the number of wars initiated by the United States. The USSR hardly had the free reign you claim.
Unless you're talking about WWII, in which case I can say the US invaded Morroco, Algeria, Tunia, Italy, France, Luxemburg, Belgium, Holland, Germany and Austria (and I'll ignore Asia). My, what an evil aggressive country we were in throwing the Nazis out. Gosh darn those damn Commies for driving all the way to Berlin. |
hi ,
ahem , it might be intresting for you to look on some maps from those days ones in a while , ....
the US invading those countries , .... 
they liberated them 
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yes, the US is the only country ever to have used such weapons on another country and it is the only country ever to threaten to use such weapons on another country (and has done so consistantly with ever set of hostilities since the end of WWII).
We are the only country that cannot be trusted with these weapons. |
hi ,
huh , reading a newspaper ones in a while would give you the facts that ; china has issued warnings to even the US they would use WMD against forces that would help Taiwan in case the chinese would reclaim the territory , .... pakistan has talked about the same , libiya has done so , the ussr , algeria (!) , iraq , iran , kazachstan (!) , syria , egypt , etc , ........
well at least the US is the only country to have used nuke's on a large scale , they have yet to ues them against some of the people who live inside the US , unlike one mr saddam who has used WMD , including injecting prisoners of war with plutonium and plutonium dioxide , ......
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
Let me make this clear, I don't think the US has necessarily "invaded" the countries in Western Europe. They simply kept a strong military presence there (and continue to do so). The US did not need to invade and hold any countries. They have two huge oceans protecting them from a surface attack. And since WW2, they've had massive aerial and naval superiority. Don't think that this makes the US military involvement and it's foreign policy any better than the ground occuption of Eastern bloc countries by the Soviets, though. The US simply didn't need to conquer any countries to create a buffer zone from a Soviet ground invasion. |
You apparently are willing to go to any length to justify Soviet policies. Well, its transparent and we don't buy it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sava
|
|
GO GO GO!
Mar 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
You apparently are willing to go to any length to justify Soviet policies. Well, its transparent and we don't buy it. |
Not in the least. You, and many others, are simply not consistent. Whether or not you believe Soviet and US policies are justified or not, it's wrong to pick one or the other. That's my point. Soviet policies are only justified if US policies are. It's as simple as that. You need to learn a big lesson that JFK taught this country during the Cuban Missile Crisis. "We're all human, we all breathe the same air, we all want the best for our children." The Soviet policies were motivated by the desire to protect their population from the horrors of another war. The US policies, while equally misguided, are generally of the same motivation. While you may equate the Russian people with some kind of "Commie/Red/Evil" stereotype. More intelligent people tend to realize that everybody is human. It's all about looking at things from a different point of view. And many conservatives (and liberals alike) tend to have tunnel vision and an inherent self-righteousness that blinds their actions and views of the world.
Arrian: If you're refering to the hope that I'll become a mindless sheep believing in conservative American propaganda, or becoming a self-dilluded conservative seeking to justify an immoral and grossly hypocritical foreign policy... then you are correct.
Oerdin: Perhaps I misinterpreted your point. I thought you were refering to my statement rather than the aura of fear itself. You'll have to forgive me, I'm dumb, slow, and generally ignorant; and coupled with 4 hours of sleep, no coffee... I'm even slower than usual
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
Hey Dino: which Walt wrote this, the old man Walt of realpolitick, or the Walt currently in harvard?
I think this is a finely argued piece of IR theory, something none of the pro-war folks have ever ,matched, certainly not on this forum.
Several hawkish, realists like Mearshimer and Pape agree fully with this line of argument.
As fr some of the weak rebuttals here:
That Iraq is more like NK: NK has not ionvaded anyone in 50 years, NK does not sell WMD but Basllistic missiles, and it seels these to other states, not Non-states enteties. To say that Iraq acts like NK means nothing, if one can argue successfully that NK behaviopr falls within what would be reasonable in the realist line of IR theory. Since it does fall in line, to say Iraq is like NK mean nothing.
As for calling this "outdated thinking": plase give us an equally cleary laid out and argued piece of writting on this new-fangled thinking you guys seem to follow.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
|
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:25
|
|
At its height, the USSR had a GDP of about 2 trillion, it had over 200 million people, a space program, a huge fleet, so forth and so on. The USSR was a Superpower. Iraq has never been and will never be anyting greater than a local power. Iraq does not have the ability to stir rebellion anywhere, and I would add that while the USSR may have given aid, it never started a single damn rebellion: the Stalinist leadership was actually rebellion adverse (hence killing the real revolutionaries like trotsky) and never started anything. Revolutions abroad were begun by local revolutionaries with local beefs: had the US understood that back in 1950 it's life would have been much easier: it is ironic that someone with a 1950;s view of the USSR and its relation to international revolution could try to argue against a theory of deterence calling it '1950's arguments'.
THe article makes a clear point: anyone who argues for a war on Iraq based on lines of arguments that call Iraq a clear and present danger to the US today do so without much evidence or theory to back them. If you guys wish to seel a moralistic argument for war, go ahead, but stop making arguments that are baseless.
SAVA:
Do you agree with the piece or not? If so, just say so, the piece is strong enough to stand by itself, without your 'help'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
We actually decided to leave meaning we LIBERATED those countries and gave them back their countries. The USSR invaded and took countries. |
In France, Germany, Italy, and Greece we interfered in the elections, consitutions, or militarily. We set up a secret plan, Operation Gladio which targetted left-wing organizations with harrassment and assassination and which carried out operations to destablize left-wing governments (the Bologna train bombing, the fall of the Labor government in the early 1970s, etc.) Don't act like we are somehow innocent of the same crap the USSR pulled.
quote:
And of course the USSR had no free reign. |
Ahhhh, but you said it did, which is what this is all about.
quote:
They could basically do whatever they wished because of the power of nukes. |
But they couldn't, could they. They couldn't put missiles in Cuba. They couldn't invade the Middle East during the various Arab-Israeli Wars. They couldn't send troops or MiGs to Nicaragua. The USSR was extremely constrained by the power of the US.
Oerdin, given that the West invaded the USSR twice during the last century and the USSR invaded the West zero times, the USSR had plenty more reason to be afraid of us than vice versa. We were afraid because our government told us to be afraid. So were they. We said we would destroy them. They said they would bury us (in consumer goods--but no one remembers that part). They decided the best way to ensure not having to fight a war on their soil again was to have an offensive doctrine, i.e., if war seemed iminent, they'd attack. But they were never looking to start a war. And as far as being agressive goes, the US has invaded or overthrown far more countries in the period between the end of WWII and the fall of the USSR than the USSR ever did.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-01-2003 13:18
|