Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: tikky on December 12, 2005, 12:23:39 AM
-
Could USSR have been saved or was it beyond repair or just too late?
Could USSR have been like the current Peoples Republic of China if USSR survived?
(keep it civil:))
-
The USSR was saved.
-
Originally posted by tikky
(keep it civil)
You must be new here.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The USSR was saved.
You mean half-arsed liberated? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Russian
You mean half-arsed liberated? :rolleyes:
??
Nobody "liberated" the USSR.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
??
Nobody "liberated" the USSR.
USSR was liberated from USSR (with a help from unfree-freedom givers)
-
Now, no country is under the control of the USSR. Some things just work out well and good.
-
It's a good thing that the USSR went away.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
It's a good thing that the USSR went away.
The world was a much safer place when there was a balance of powers. So IMHO, no, it was not a good thing.
-
The USSR would probably still be together if the hardliners hadn't overreacted. Thanks guys!
It could probably have stumbled along with perestroika pumping some life into the economy as needed.
-
Not much changed in russia.. The state level corruption just switched to private level corruption. Most people are still poor, some even poorer than before mostly because some are now filthy rich through stealing from what used to be common property.
The power structures had a chance of moving away from dictatorship but Mr. Putin seems to realize russia needs to be led by a strong hand. They can't deal with freedom and democracy.
As what happened with KGB it was namely a name change.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Not much changed in russia.. The state level corruption just switched to private level corruption. Most people are still poor, some even poorer than before mostly because some are now filthy rich through stealing from what used to be common property.
The power structures had a chance of moving away from dictatorship but Mr. Putin seems to realize russia needs to be led by a strong hand. They can't deal with freedom and democracy.
As what happened with KGB it was namely a name change.
Talking about KGB, did you guys see it?I did!
Some russian guys with laods of medals were giving a declaration to the press and the realtives of the victims about the Kursk Acident when a women(mother of one of the killed in the accident) stood up and started shouting like: murdereres!butchers!gay! and then a women comes to calm her down. At first, me and the world thought that it was her friend, but then they replayed it and froze it in a moment,the women was a KGB agent and she drew a tranquilizer and 'calmed down' the women, she also ofered a cup of water that some people believe taht also had tranquilizers.
I saw this on a tv program,but maybe you will find the video online,if you want.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
As what happened with KGB it was namely a name change.
Exactly.
The hardliners are still there and still abundant. If the chance is ever allowed to arise it would be the same old boat.
-
The question I have is why anyone in their right mind would have wanted the USSR to survive. That government killed and imprisioned more people than Hitler and the NAZI's could ever have hoped to. The entire government was based on fear, and corruption. The idea of communism as a viable form of government is absurd. When a government is run by a handfull of people that answer to no one, least of all the people they govern, then you end up with what the USSR became. A populace that is unable to speak out against their own government for fear of being imprisoned or killed by that government.
The USSR was doomed to fail from the start. Glad it happened, and I would willingly lay down my life to prevent it from happening again.
-
From Dilbert:
Dogbert: You know what's Communism? The most painful way to go from Capitalism to Capitalism. :D
Daniel
-
This is just my POV so don't take it the wrong way Boroda.
When or if (depending on your pov) they get the proper policy reforms in place, Russia stands a good chance to become an economic super power. They have the natural resources with more than twice the OIL reserves of the US and China combined. They also have slightly less than 1/3 of all the natural gas reserves in the world. Russia has an educated, English speaking work force. They also have a proven record of industrial might.
What might hold them back is the shrinking, aging population, and the climate makes resources tough to get to. Not to mention their political system seems to be regressing and they can't seem to get over the past. Given the problems, I still think it will work out and they are better off in the long run.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
The question I have is why anyone in their right mind would have wanted the USSR to survive. That government killed and imprisioned more people than Hitler and the NAZI's could ever have hoped to. The entire government was based on fear, and corruption. The idea of communism as a viable form of government is absurd. When a government is run by a handfull of people that answer to no one, least of all the people they govern, then you end up with what the USSR became. A populace that is unable to speak out against their own government for fear of being imprisoned or killed by that government.
The USSR was doomed to fail from the start. Glad it happened, and I would willingly lay down my life to prevent it from happening again.
How many years of propaganda fed news did you have in order to spit something like that? ‘willingly lay my life’ ….un-freaking-believable… ..
-
Hmmm Name of Russian, living in California....yeah I can see why you don't get it. You probably belive in outlawing all firearms, the press is evil, and freedom of speech is ok only as long as it agrees with your political view.
Well I'm an American, and I'm exercising my RIGHT to disagree with you. I think communism is the worst possible form of political system in the world. Is democracy perfect?? Far from it, but at least I can express my opinion openly and freely without having to worry about the government tossing my butt in prison because "they" don't like it.
Do I think California is a communist state?? You bet I do. Right now, I would be a fellon as soon as I walked in the state because I happen to own firearms that are now illegal there. Would I willingly give up my 2nd ammendment RIGHT to "Keep and bare arms"?? Hell no!!! I would fight anyone who tried to take them away from me.
You obviously think that communism is something that should have survived, and that the "good old USSR" should still be around. Since it isn't you live in California which I guess is the next best thing to the USSR.
Me...I love my freedoms that are guaranteed under the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America. Yes I would willingly die to protect and defend those freedoms.
How many years of propaganda fed news did I listen to in order to spit this out. NONE!!!! I have read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independance. I choose to belive that the rights afforded to me and YOU by those laws and ideas are worth dying for. Anyone that loves their freedom should feel the same way. My opinion is that if your not willing to give up everything including your life to defend what you have...you don't deserve it in the first place.
-
http://www.thoseshirts.com/lousy.html
-
You assume too many things, Hornet33. My position on this; world powers should be balanced. Keep your freedom to yourself and within your own land boundaries. Do not impose anything on others since others do not share same values as you. It’s that simple.
Also, people enjoyed living under USSR and they did not gain anything which they didn’t have after USSR collapsed. People actually lost more than gained, and what they gained appears negative on the society. Do not give me this ‘evil empire’ BS, learn something about Russia and then spur out your ‘free’ opinions.
(FYI: I’m a US citizen, Republican, served in US military, weapons owner and hate Kali, just as you)
-
OK here's my thoughts on the USSR. Under communist rule, all the basic freedoms we hold dear in this country were not allowed there. I agree to each there own, but I also consider a political system such as that a threat to my way of life. I also belive that all human beings no matter where they live have the right to basic freedoms. The fact that a majority of the worlds population is denied this is a traject fact of life.
-
Could you elaborate this ‘basic freedom’?
And what gives you the right to impose your ‘basic freedom’ on others?
How exactly was other political system ‘threat to [your] own life’?
-
My take on this is that many of the ugly things about the USSR were in fact rehashed ugly things from Tsarist Russia, and are still there in modern "free" Russia.
Those saying that FSB = KGB might just think of them as replacements for the Tsarist Okrana. Same old, same old.
So at the end, communism there has been the most painful transition from a quasi medieval feudal system to a "cleptocracy". I suspect the average Russian just tries to drink his way past it all.
-
Originally posted by Russian
Could you elaborate this �basic freedom�?
And what gives you the right to impose your �basic freedom� on others?
How exactly was other political system �threat to [your] own life�?
Lets start with being free to eat your own food?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/08/news/famine.php
-
Originally posted by Suave
Lets start with being free to eat your own food?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/08/news/famine.php
Lets start with something 'more' modern. I can bring out many things on US too from 'old' times. Try to find something from 70-80s. During 'Stalin' times, Russia was evil with which I do not disagree.
-
Famine was a bad heritage from Russian Empire. USSR avoided mass-starvations since late-40s. Under Czar such things happened almost every year.
I love such arguments. "Talking about the taste of lobsters with people who did eat them" (c) Michail Zhvanetskiy.
-
Originally posted by Russian
Could you elaborate this ‘basic freedom’?
And what gives you the right to impose your ‘basic freedom’ on others?
How exactly was other political system ‘threat to [your] own life’?
Basic freedom's. The right to free speech, the right to practice whatever religion I choose. The right to question the political leaders of my country. The right to choose where and how I live. The right to pretty much do whatever I want to do as long as it does not take away the rights of other people. Most importantly the right to defend my rights.
I never said I was going to impose my belives on others, however there are many governments out there, the USSR being one of them when it was around, that would and do impose "their" belives on others. During the time of the USSR, if I were to go on National TV in the USSR and say that I thought Stalin was a raging lunitic and needed to be kicked out of office, I would have been shot, and my family sent to the gulag if they were lucky. I would not have had the right to speak out against the government.
Any political system that would take away my right to all of the above is a threat to my WAY of life. Never said it was a threat to my physical self. I would however fight to protect my rights, and if that means putting myself in physical danger to do it, so be it.
-
Russia is da shizzle
-
Funny. I know 5 or 6 people who immigrated to America from Russia. All of them are intelligent and hardworking, VERY outspoken, and very UNcritical of the homes they left behind. To a person, economics was their driving force to immigrate, not politics. I've never been to Russia. I acknowledge that our govornment is filled with lying bottomfeeders, and likely so is theirs. Why should I believe what basically amounts to propaganda from either side? Someday when I have the time to travel, I hope to visit and see for myself what it's like.
If you just automatically buy into the crap the govt. had a vested interest in having you believe, you are a bit naive.
-
The thing is I have traveled to some of the former soviet states and have seen first hand what goes on there. The people I got to meet were great. The Governments sucked. That was my observations while I traveled there in 2001.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Basic freedom's. The right to free speech, the right to practice whatever religion I choose. The right to question the political leaders of my country. The right to choose where and how I live. The right to pretty much do whatever I want to do as long as it does not take away the rights of other people. Most importantly the right to defend my rights.
I never said I was going to impose my belives on others, however there are many governments out there, the USSR being one of them when it was around, that would and do impose "their" belives on others. During the time of the USSR, if I were to go on National TV in the USSR and say that I thought Stalin was a raging lunitic and needed to be kicked out of office, I would have been shot, and my family sent to the gulag if they were lucky. I would not have had the right to speak out against the government.
Any political system that would take away my right to all of the above is a threat to my WAY of life. Never said it was a threat to my physical self. I would however fight to protect my rights, and if that means putting myself in physical danger to do it, so be it.
Why are you stuck in this mindset that Russia = Stalin? All those rights which you mentioned, Russian people already have.
“the USSR being one of them when it was around, that would and do impose "their" belives on others.”
So when USA, since its early beginning, imposed others, that is OK? But when other nations do it, it is bad? You still haven’t answered - why US politicians think that it is acceptable to impose on others (and feel proud of doing so) without asking local population?
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
The thing is I have traveled to some of the former soviet states and have seen first hand what goes on there. The people I got to meet were great. The Governments sucked. That was my observations while I traveled there in 2001.
So are you saying that Democratic goverment 'sucks'?
-
Originally posted by Russian
Why are you stuck in this mindset that Russia = Stalin? All those rights which you mentioned, Russian people already have.
Never said Russia = Stalin. The rights I mentioned the Russian people have now but they did not have them under the USSR which I belive was the point of this thread.
Originally posted by Russian
"the USSR being one of them when it was around, that would and do impose "their" belives on others.”
So when USA, since its early beginning, imposed others, that is OK? But when other nations do it, it is bad?
Name me 1 country that the U.S. has taken over by force, and then occupied, and then made a part of our country. Answer 0. You can't say the same thing about the USSR can you? I don't see the U.S. imposing our belives on anyone.
Originally posted by Russian
You still haven’t answered - why US politicians think that it is acceptable to impose on others (and feel proud of doing so) without asking local population?
You never asked. Even if you did I can't speak for what politicians in this country think. I can only speak about what I think.
All in all nice troll Russian, but I'm going to spit this hook back in the water.
-
I've just come back from 5 days in Berlin. I think most people there are happy the USSR decided to leave them alone.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Basic freedom's. The right to free speech, the right to practice whatever religion I choose. The right to question the political leaders of my country. The right to choose where and how I live. The right to pretty much do whatever I want to do as long as it does not take away the rights of other people. Most importantly the right to defend my rights.
This rights are a nice, but unnessesary addition to the rights to live, to feed, to have accomodation, education, job and rest. All this rights were 100% guaranteed in USSR, and it's a fact.
Originally posted by Hornet33
I never said I was going to impose my belives on others, however there are many governments out there, the USSR being one of them when it was around, that would and do impose "their" belives on others. During the time of the USSR, if I were to go on National TV in the USSR and say that I thought Stalin was a raging lunitic and needed to be kicked out of office, I would have been shot, and my family sent to the gulag if they were lucky. I would not have had the right to speak out against the government.
Well, in fact several Soviet leaders said what you wrote officially. Both were dangerous idiots, one of them didn't have time to completely destroy the country, another one did it.
JFYI: main goal of any government is to impose beliefs on population.
Originally posted by Hornet33
Any political system that would take away my right to all of the above is a threat to my WAY of life. Never said it was a threat to my physical self. I would however fight to protect my rights, and if that means putting myself in physical danger to do it, so be it.
Any individual that opposes the society is in danger. You can't live outside of society.
The problem with USSR was that it was different from the other countries. It was the most successfull social and economical project in human history. From illiterate agricultural country that starved every few years in 10 years it became an industrial and military power, with millions of educated people appearing out of nowhere, from the grey mass of peasants. After the most devastating war in human history it recovered in less then tree years, and twelve years later it reached into Space, beating Western powers technologically and socially. Yes, it didn't provide some of that imaginary "rights" you mentioned, but it wasn't an Orwellian dictatorship as it's portrayed by propaganda now. It was simply a different way of life, that's all.
USSR could be saved. The Chinese way is wise: not to get rid of ideology and allow some private economical initiative, in the way it was going in 1983-84 under Andropov. Counter-propaganda work had to be done, all the dangers were understood, but, unfortunately, corrupt leadership literally made all Soviet propaganda machine work for enemy - we were spreading enemy propaganda on our own expense.
The roots of the crisis were in the 50s, when economical stimulation system, built under Stalin, was destroyed.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Famine was a bad heritage from Russian Empire. USSR avoided mass-starvations since late-40s. Under Czar such things happened almost every year.
I love such arguments. "Talking about the taste of lobsters with people who did eat them" (c) Michail Zhvanetskiy.
Yes I'm sure those 2 million Ukranians that Stalin starved to death deserved it though, right? Of course this is a low number, I gave you the benefit of the doubt since the real number of 7-11 million, which most likely represents the real number, HAS to be western propoganda, right?
http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/genocide/
Whoops! I see you said "Since the late 40's" Nice of you to forget a 25 year period in history.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Name me 1 country that the U.S. has taken over by force, and then occupied, and then made a part of our country. Answer 0. You can't say the same thing about the USSR can you? I don't see the U.S. imposing our belives on anyone.
You kidding, right?
Try to read something about how Panama appeared on a map. Funny story, keywords "marines", "cruisers". It's just one of the many examples.
Can you also enlighten me about countries that USSR has taken over by force, and then occupied, and then made a part of our country?
-
animals in the zoo live with free food and free healthcare and the people who run the zoo live in relative freedom and luxury.
socialism is dehumanizing and evil.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yes I'm sure those 2 million Ukranians that Stalin starved to death deserved it though, right? Of course this is a low number, I gave you the benefit of the doubt since the real number of 7-11 million, which most likely represents the real number, HAS to be western propoganda, right?
http://www.faminegenocide.com/resources/genocide/
Whoops! I see you said "Since the late 40's" Nice of you to forget a 25 year period in history.
[sarcasm]
Rip, all the progressive humaity knows that Stalin the Allmighty didn't allow any rains over Ukraine in 1933, and his only goal was to starve all Ukrainians, just because he thought it will be funny.
[/sarcasm]
Rip, at the same time millions were starving in Volga region, they were Russians, so - noone cares. Russians are not humans. I am probably half-human, my Mother is Ukrainian.
Funny to see how intelligent people repeat this idiotic "gladomor" propaganda crap as parrots.
Can you tell me any reasons for intentionally starving 2 million citizens of the second nation of the Union?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
You kidding, right?
Try to read something about how Panama appeared on a map. Funny story, keywords "marines", "cruisers". It's just one of the many examples.
Can you also enlighten me about countries that USSR has taken over by force, and then occupied, and then made a part of our country?
panama was a province of colombia which had long held a separatist movement, (much like the basque region in spain) the TR administration exploited those sympathies to advance it's agenda. panama was established as an independant republic the only area administered by the US Government was the canal zone and under treaty for a specified period of time. at the end of the specified time the canal was turned over to panama. please explain how you equate that to what the USSR did? while you're at please explain what happened to an estimated thirty million soviet citizens who vanished under stalin. on a minor note why did kruschev use his shoe as a gavel? is that a ukranian thing?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
[sarcasm]
Rip, all the progressive humaity knows that Stalin the Allmighty didn't allow any rains over Ukraine in 1933, and his only goal was to starve all Ukrainians, just because he thought it will be funny.
[/sarcasm]
Rip, at the same time millions were starving in Volga region, they were Russians, so - noone cares. Russians are not humans. I am probably half-human, my Mother is Ukrainian.
Funny to see how intelligent people repeat this idiotic "gladomor" propaganda crap as parrots.
Can you tell me any reasons for intentionally starving 2 million citizens of the second nation of the Union?
Can you tell me why the USSR murdered those at Katyn? You've dodged this question 3 times so far.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Can you tell me why the USSR murdered those at Katyn? You've dodged this question 3 times so far.
Karaya
10 times I answered that I don't know who killed Poles in Katyn, and I don't see any reason why USSR had to do it. All evidence other then post-war fakes proves that they were not killed by Soviets.
It's a fact that they were shot from German weapons. It's a fact that there was a recreational zone in Katyn in 1940. Anyway you know better because you have been told on TV that Russians are evil. I don't argue with religious fanatics.
90% of what I read here from my opponents is too stupid to argue with. Sorry. You guys all know better then me, you have been told this on TV. It's like as if i'll try to persuade you that all Americans hang black people on weekends for fun and you are all lucky to have a janitor's job, only the upper class has enough to eat.
You don't have a slightest idea of life in USSR. Admit it. It was an alternative to modern society, and it had it's pros and cons.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
JFYI: main goal of any government is to impose beliefs on population. [/B]
Ah, the "crux of the biscuit"
The purpose of goverment is to protect the rights of individuals.It's the critical part of the puzzle you seem to be missing.Thats not meant to be a flame, but a simple statement of fact.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
You kidding, right?
Try to read something about how Panama appeared on a map. Funny story, keywords "marines", "cruisers". It's just one of the many examples.
Can you also enlighten me about countries that USSR has taken over by force, and then occupied, and then made a part of our country?
No I'm not kidding. Please name one. Better yet answer me this. How many countries did the USSR take over after WWII? Pretty much all of Eastern Europe huh? Tried to take Germany untill the U.S. with the help of some of our friends decided that the USSR had taken enough and stopped them. Then the USSR decided to build a wall and would shoot anyone that tried to leave. But yeah your right those people had all the same freedoms and rights that I have, and the government wasn't impossing it's will on the people.
If the U.S. had been like the USSR we would own France, Italy, Germany, Libya, Tunisia, Spain, Belgeium, Holland, Japan, and whole host of other nations that we "captured" in WWII. However we did not capture them we liberated them and let the people of those countries elect their own leaders and choose their own path. That didn't happen in the USSR as was seen all over the world in Poland when Moscow sent in the Red Army to restore control because the Polish people decided that the Government in Moscow sucked and they didn't want to be a part of it anymore. But once again the government wasn't imposing it's will on the Polish people, they really invited the Red Army into their country to kill people.
-
Originally posted by storch
panama was a province of colombia which had long held a separatist movement, (much like the basque region in spain) the TR administration exploited those sympathies to advance it's agenda. panama was established as an independant republic the only area administered by the US Government was the canal zone and under treaty for a specified period of time. at the end of the specified time the canal was turned over to panama. please explain how you equate that to what the USSR did? while you're at please explain what happened to an estimated thirty million soviet citizens who vanished under stalin. on a minor note why did kruschev use his shoe as a gavel? is that a ukranian thing?
Beautiful. Sending marines supported by navy guns is "exploiting separatist movenent". Incredible lie.
Now tell me how many times was Panama occupoed by US forces.
Same time, different country: Russia didn't blackmail China to build Chinese-Eastern Railway (CERW). Russia payed Chinese for renting Port-Arthur for 99 years, and after USSR returned this ports and CERW in 1945 - it gave it back to Chinese 50 years before the rent was over. I hope that you understand that the only reason for Panama to appear was the Colombian conditions on building the canal. Cruisers and marines saved a lot of money. Certainly, I can't equate it to what USSR did in Manchuria.
Estimated 30 million Soviet citizens vanished in Great Patriotic War, if it's what you meant.
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
No I'm not kidding. Please name one. Better yet answer me this. How many countries did the USSR take over after WWII? Pretty much all of Eastern Europe huh? Tried to take Germany untill the U.S. with the help of some of our friends decided that the USSR had taken enough and stopped them. Then the USSR decided to build a wall and would shoot anyone that tried to leave. But yeah your right those people had all the same freedoms and rights that I have, and the government wasn't impossing it's will on the people.
If the U.S. had been like the USSR we would own France, Italy, Germany, Libya, Tunisia, Spain, Belgeium, Holland, Japan, and whole host of other nations that we "captured" in WWII. However we did not capture them we liberated them and let the people of those countries elect their own leaders and choose their own path. That didn't happen in the USSR as was seen all over the world in Poland when Moscow sent in the Red Army to restore control because the Polish people decided that the Government in Moscow sucked and they didn't want to be a part of it anymore. But once again the government wasn't imposing it's will on the Polish people, they really invited the Red Army into their country to kill people.
1) US still de-facto occupies half of Europe, while USSR withdrew it's troops. Countries of people's democracy never were a part of the Union.
2) You didn't let anyone elect what they wanted, they elected what you wanted instead. Example: elections in Italy without communists. So-called "democracy" doesn't have anything common with a freedom of choice.
3) West is responsible for the situation in Europe after the War. Soviet side only reacted on their hostile actions. Check the dates.
4) What did you say about Poland? Please, I want details, I am really curious where did you get such information. It seems to me that you said total nonsence, but I am not sure that I understood what you wrote, can you please repeat it in other words?
I only can recommend you to find some books with some text apart from pictures and try to read them. But you are quite funny this way ;) Didn't they tell you that Russian Bolsheviks crucified Christ? :noid
-
It's amazing. I just understood that Hornet33 thinks that Eastern-European countries were a part of USSR. Kinda difficult to argue :(
I am sure - people will never stop surprising me.
-
tell me about Hungary in 1956
-
The USSR was just visiting for coffee! They were invited!
:D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
It's amazing. I just understood that Hornet33 thinks that Eastern-European countries were a part of USSR. Kinda difficult to argue :(
I am sure - people will never stop surprising me.
The fact is Boroda, that people on both sides of the curtain were fed a lot of propaganda to demonize the opposition and justify the the Cold War. Being American I have a tendency to believe the Soviets were just a little bit more nasty than us. Just curious, do you have the Russian equivelant of this picture?-
(http://www.furballunderground.com/freehost/files/52/soviet%20soldier%20defects.bmp)
;)
-
Originally posted by Hornet33
Never said Russia = Stalin. The rights I mentioned the Russian people have now but they did not have them under the USSR which I belive was the point of this thread.
And I say they had those rights, and more more like free healthcare, free education etc.
[/b]
Name me 1 country that the U.S. has taken over by force, and then occupied, and then made a part of our country. Answer 0. You can't say the same thing about the USSR can you? I don't see the U.S. imposing our belives on anyone.
Apparently you are unaware of your own history. Why don’t you look up “Manifest Destiny”.
You never asked. Even if you did I can't speak for what politicians in this country think. I can only speak about what I think.
This is rephrase of the question number 3 I asked earlier.
All in all nice troll Russian, but I'm going to spit this hook back in the water. [/B]
Troll? So when I say opposite of what TV tells you, I’m a troll now? …interesting ideology.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The USSR was just visiting for coffee! They were invited!
:D
You are partially true. We could just stop at the Soviet border, only annexing East Prussia, and let poor Poland free from Soviet "occupation", they were so happy under Hitler! Seriously, instead of "occupation" we could save several million lives of Soviet soldiers.
I am drinking beer and listening to Gong, please forgive my sarcasm. I just can't resist.
-
Originally posted by storch
tell me about Hungary in 1956
Our ally has a CIA-sponsored rebellion and mob starts to hang our supporters on lamp posts. Can I remind you of what USA usually does under such circumstances?
-
Boroda, it all well and good to liberate a country from Nazi occupation. To then deny those people democratic rights is to occupy that country again.
Tell me, why do you think the Berlin wall was built? To keep Western Europeans from flooding the Communist utopia in the East? And why were 152 East Berliners shot trying to get to the West between 1961 and 1989?
And while we're at it, how do you explain the 1953 massacre of East Berlin construction workers who had the cheek to demand democratic freedoms?
-
Originally posted by Skilless
The fact is Boroda, that people on both sides of the curtain were fed a lot of propaganda to demonize the opposition and justify the the Cold War. Being American I have a tendency to believe the Soviets were just a little bit more nasty than us.
Agreed 100%.
I am far from believing what Soviet propaganda said about US (see paragraph about hanging black people). I tried to develop my own opinion on the problem. Both sides were equally bad, the problem was that we couldn't afford things that "blue" side did, the country was in ruins after the War, and the main problem was to rebuilt it, at the same time spending huge effort on making a Bomb to survive as a nation. Another problem was that Soviet propaganda machine was ineffective compared to Western: look, some people here prefer to be happy with their so-called "freedoms" while they can't afford to rent a room without a room-mate and have to pay for their cars for several years or go to Iraq so Army will pay for third-grade college education if they'll survive.
Obvious Soviet "nastyness", that I can't deny, was because we are not as rich as our opponents, we had our country completly destroyed two times in the last 100 years, while America usually profits on wars.
As for the picture: the reason for closing the borders was obvious, USSR spent huge funds on raising a citizen and giving him education, and couldn't afford to waste it for some imaginary "freedoms". We were in hostile environment, surrounded by enemies who could strike us without hesitation if only they could have 50% probability of victory.
You have to understand that most of the things in USSR before that idiot Gorbachev were practical. I mean - there was no special "evilness", only measuring pros and cons. Without such approach USSR simply couldn't withstand 50 years of competition with world's richest country.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Our ally has a CIA-sponsored rebellion and mob starts to hang our supporters on lamp posts. Can I remind you of what USA usually does under such circumstances?
At 5:20 a.m., Hungarian Prime Minister Imre Nagy announced the invasion to the nation in a grim, 35-second broadcast, declaring: "Our troops are fighting. The Government is in its place." However, within hours Nagy himself would seek asylum at the Yugoslav Embassy in Budapest while his former colleague and imminent replacement, János Kádár, who had been flown secretly from Moscow to the city of Szolnok, 60 miles southeast of the capital, prepared to take power with Moscow's backing.
On November 22, after receiving assurances of safe passage from Kádár and the Soviets, Nagy finally agreed to leave the Yugoslav Embassy. But he was immediately arrested by Soviet security officers and flown to a secret location in Romania. By then, the fighting had mostly ended, the Hungarian resistance had essentially been destroyed, and Kádár was entering the next phase of his strategy to neutralize dissent for the long term.
[Sarcasm]Wow... the CIA installed a mole who achieved the office of Hungarian Prime Minister. That is the first time I have ever heard the CIA being so successful.[/Sarcasm]
-
Originally posted by Dowding
Boroda, it all well and good to liberate a country from Nazi occupation. To then deny those people democratic rights is to occupy that country again.
Didn't "blue" side do the same thing? Don't tell me about "democracy", in Western version it's only a way to sell Coke and chewing-gum.
Originally posted by Dowding
Tell me, why do you think the Berlin wall was built? To keep Western Europeans from flooding the Communist utopia in the East? And why were 152 East Berliners shot trying to get to the West between 1961 and 1989?
I answered about keeping borders closed in previous post. I only can add that an "emigration" problem, raised by the West, was 100% artificial propaganda issue. Look, now it's impossible for anyone living in "democratic" post-USSR country to get a working visa in the West: they have enough competition on job market to allow anyone with better skills in to work for lower wages. It's pretty simple if you'll try to think about it.
Originally posted by Dowding
And while we're at it, how do you explain the 1953 massacre of East Berlin construction workers who had the cheek to demand democratic freedoms?
Sorry, I don't know anything about it. I am too busy explaining obvious facts about Katyn' and other crimes of Evil Communist Regime (tm) ;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
As for the picture: the reason for closing the borders was obvious, USSR spent huge funds on raising a citizen and giving him education, and couldn't afford to waste it for some imaginary "freedoms". We were in hostile environment, surrounded by enemies who could strike us without hesitation if only they could have 50% probability of victory.
The Americans spent millions of dollars in western Europe with the Marshall plan but I did not see a 'Western' wall being constructed to keep western Europians from fleeing to the East.
You would not have been in a hostile environment if you had just liberated the country and then returned home.:eek:
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
[Sarcasm]Wow... the CIA installed a mole who achieved the office of Hungarian Prime Minister. That is the first time I have ever heard the CIA being so successful.[/Sarcasm]
From an obviously biased Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagy%2C_Imre
He became Prime Minister again during the brief anti-Soviet revolution in 1956, through popular support, replacing the hardliner Andras Hegeduso But was forced to work with hardliner Ernő Gerő who remained the First Party Secretary.
On 1 November he appealed to the West for help for Hungary.
Check your sources, please, before you post.
Next, please.
-
Originally posted by MiloMorai
The Americans spent millions of dollars in western Europe with the Marshall plan but I did not see a 'Western' wall being constructed to keep western Europians from fleeing to the East.
LOL Marshall plan! Just an investment with huge profit.
Originally posted by MiloMorai
You would not have been in a hostile environment if you had just liberated the country and then returned home.:eek:
We could simply have our cities inside enemy strategic bombers range. See Drop Shot plan.
Next, please.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Check your sources, please, before you post.
Next, please.
Born on June 7, 1896, into a peasant family in Kaposvar, Hungary, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Nagy left school at an early age and was apprenticed to a locksmith. At the outbreak of World War I, he was conscripted into the Austro-Hungarian army, fighting until he was captured by the Czarist army. Nagy joined the Bolshevik Party and the Red Army and became a Soviet citizen.
After World War I, following the communist revolution in Hungary led by Bela Kun, (a Hungarian who had also been a Russian prisoner of war and become a Bolshevik), Nagy held a minor position in Kun's government. When the government collapsed on August 1, 1919, Nagy was forced to flee. During the authoritarian Horthy regime (1920-1944), Nagy returned to Hungary, secretly helping to organize an underground Communist Party, but he was arrested in 1927 and escaped back to Moscow.
Nagy remained in the Soviet Union for the next 15 years (1929-1944), studying agriculture at the Moscow Institute and serving as a member of both the Institute for Agrarian Science and a collective farm committee. After World War II, during the Soviet occupation of Hungary, Nagy returned to Budapest and held several positions in the new government, including interior minister and agriculture minister. In 1949 he protested several party agricultural policies and was expelled from the Politburo. After performing "self-criticism" he was readmitted to the Politburo in 1951 and was forced to carry out the very policies he had protested. He was made deputy premier under communist leader Matyas Rakosi but was elevated to premier after Stalin's death, when Malenkov, who became premier in the U.S.S.R., favored Nagy over the other Hungarian communists.
Nagy advocated a reformist "New Course" that included relaxing the pace of industrialization, allowing peasants to leave collective farms and relaxing police terror. However, when politics in Moscow shifted in 1955 and Malenkov fell out of favor, Nagy fell out of favor, too. He was forced to resign his post and was kicked out of the Communist Party.
The reappointment of Rakosi, a Stalinist, and Khrushchev's "secret speech" to the 20th Communist Party Congress contributed to disquiet in Hungary. To stave off widespread popular discontent, another Hungarian communist, Erno Gero, was appointed first secretary. But events in Poland, as well as domestic events in Hungary, including the reburial of victims of the Hungarian Stalinist purges, led to widespread unrest. By October 23, student demonstrations in downtown Budapest and the unauthorized shooting of demonstrators led to chaos. An emergency meeting of the party Central Committee on the night of October 23 appointed Nagy prime minister, a position he held for little more than 10 days.
My sources seem sound. Please show me in the bio of Nagy where he was recruited by the CIA or could have been. Perhaps you should look at sources that do not agree with your world view and use some common sense instead of parroting the party line.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
1) US still de-facto occupies half of Europe, while USSR withdrew it's troops. Countries of people's democracy never were a part of the Union.
2) You didn't let anyone elect what they wanted, they elected what you wanted instead. Example: elections in Italy without communists. So-called "democracy" doesn't have anything common with a freedom of choice.
You have cleverly used only Axis nations in your example. did you see America occupy and install a puppet regime in France after the war? Our occupation of "half of Europe" was in fact our former enemies Germany and Italy. The USSR, on the other hand, basically annexed every country it rolled through. You do understand the basic difference between the words "liberate" and "annex" don't you?
-
Originally posted by Skilless
You have cleverly used only Axis nations in your example. did you see America occupy and install a puppet regime in France after the war? Our occupation of "half of Europe" was in fact our former enemies Germany and Italy. The USSR, on the other hand, basically annexed every country it rolled through. You do understand the basic difference between the words "liberate" and "annex" don't you?
Yes I understand. You don't. Maybe you'll say that USSR "annexed" China?
The idea was to build a country-specific version of socialism. Stalin said to Mao in 1949: "You can't copy Soviet methods, you are a diffeent nation and will have to do everything by yourself" after he asked for instructions on socialistic constuction.
You make me remember how in 1999 one American guy told me that Yugoslavia is a former Soviet republic ;)
Both sides liberated their occupation zones, noone annexed anything (except East Prussia). In fact - Western "allies" drew a border by declaring BRD in 1948.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
My sources seem sound. Please show me in the bio of Nagy where he was recruited by the CIA or could have been. Perhaps you should look at sources that do not agree with your world view and use some common sense instead of parroting the party line.
I doubt that there were collective farms in Hungary. I doubt that there was something like planned industrialiation there. I don't know, and I may be wrong.
I know that "revolutionaries" in Hungary hanged and tortured Soviet people and our supporters. I know that troops sent there were ordered "not to shoot their guns at buildings" and to try to scare locals rather then kill them. After what insurgents did - they couldn't expect anything else but a full-scale war. Fortunately they didn't get the support from the West they relied upon, West wasn't ready to start another world war without any chance for them to win. At the time of the uprising high CIA officials were in Austria on Hungarian border, but Ike was too smart to let them act.
Inability to act instead of talking was what really doomed USSR. If you are so angry about Soviet operation in Hungary - then what do you think about 11 American invasions into Panama? Or Iraq? How many Americans did Saddam hang on lamp posts?
You try to demonise USSR only to make your own insane aggressive politics look acceptable. The whole issue of "fighting communism" was about coca-cola and chewing-gum sales.
-
We now have a new cold war. Congratulations.
Anyway, this:
"The USSR would probably still be together if the hardliners hadn't overreacted"
I found to be possibly true.
Well, some just belive HARDLY in the old Commie stuff though....
Remember the thread about the Katyn killings. Denialism to the death...
-
Originally posted by Angus
We now have a new cold war. Congratulations.
If one side refuses to take part in a war - it doesn't mean the war is over. Did you really think it really was over?
Originally posted by Angus
Anyway, this:
"The USSR would probably still be together if the hardliners hadn't overreacted"
I found to be possibly true.
It's all more complicated. Hardliners with idiotic desire to "set everything free". Soviet leadership in late-80s was an example of schizophrenic government.
Originally posted by Angus
Well, some just belive HARDLY in the old Commie stuff though....
Remember the thread about the Katyn killings. Denialism to the death...
I don't "believe" in anything. As for Katyn' - I have pure facts that proves Soviet side not guilty, but I still admit that it could happen. Faith is for people like Toad. I always doubt.
-
Originally posted by Angus
Remember the thread about the Katyn killings. Denialism to the death...
off topic but... didnt Gorbachev already admited the Soviet involvement in Katyn incident in 1990?:huh
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The USSR was just visiting for coffee! They were invited!
:D
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by 1K3
off topic but... didnt Gorbachev already admited the Soviet involvement in Katyn incident?
Gorby also admitted that Soviets crucified Christ. Purely political decision. Poles still refuse to show "documents" provided by Gorbachev. Recent Russian General Procecutor's Office investigation stated that 1800 Polish citizens died on Soviet territory after 1939, and "genocide" didn't happen. BTW, since when execution of 4500 people is "genocide"? Were they the last Poles on Earth? If so - then who are that people who want us to apologise for it? :confused:
Hard to imagine Evil NKVD executing 4500 Poles from German automatic pistols (not 110% reliable Nagant revolvers) in a park where people from Smolensk were walking on weekends. Frankly speaking - I'd like to see it myself, an idiotic scene from an American movie about Evil Communist Regime (tm) :aok
-
Typical Boroda response to save face due to his fear of being possibly wrong (Hurts the stolic ego)
"LIES!" (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/blah.gif) "Propoganda!" (http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/images/smilies/blah.gif)
Face it Soviet man, you wouldn't admit being persuaded to the truth if the truth had a ball gag in your mouth and the facts were slapping your balls.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Face it Soviet man, you wouldn't admit being persuaded to the truth if the truth had a ball gag in your mouth and the facts were slapping your balls.
I see you're familiar with KGB/FSB interrogation techniques.
-
Originally posted by 1K3
off topic but... didnt Gorbachev already admited the Soviet involvement in Katyn incident in 1990?:huh
Don't let Boroda know.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Boroda
If you are so angry about Soviet operation in Hungary - then what do you think about 11 American invasions into Panama? Or Iraq? How many Americans did Saddam hang on lamp posts?
You try to demonise USSR only to make your own insane aggressive politics look acceptable. The whole issue of "fighting communism" was about coca-cola and chewing-gum sales.
What makes you think I am angry? You say that it was a CIA sponsored rebellion when it needed some amount of popular support in order to take place. You say that during a rebellion, soviet supporters were hanged; well, royal supporters in France were beheaded during their revolution, so killing the opposition is a common tool of revolution.
I made no mention of paralells of US vs CCCP foreign policy.
But if you want, all the people the USA has wronged throughout history pales in comparison to Soviets killed by Dzhugashvili.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
well, royal supporters in France were beheaded during their revolution, so killing the opposition is a common tool of revolution.
Don't be so restrictive ... supporter of the revolution where beheaded too... as some others (for fun I suppose ?)
-
boroda = the king of political comedy relief. thanks boroda for your thoughtful anwsers my sides hurt from laughing.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
This rights are a nice, but unnessesary addition to the rights to live, to feed, to have accomodation, education, job and rest. All this rights were 100% guaranteed in USSR, and it's a fact.
Unnecessary rights???? Your joking right??? The right to free speech, freedom to worship how I want, freedom of the press, the right to keep and bare arms. Everything contained within the U.S. Bill of Rights is absolutly necessary for a free society. Your so called rights that were 100% garanteed to you in the USSR were only available as long as you toed the party line. Get out of line and get squashed. Some rights.
Originally posted by Boroda
Any individual that opposes the society is in danger. You can't live outside of society..
Thats the nice thing about the U.S. As long as your not hurting anyone else you can pretty much do as you please. I don't belong to a political party. I'm what we call here in America, an Independent. I go my own way when it comes to politics. I have the ability to choose on my own if I want to follow a political leader or not. I also have the ablility to walk up to a politician in my country and tell him to his or her face if I think he or she is an idiot and NOTHING will happen to me. If I don't like what they are doing I can vote for someone else. If enough people vote like I do that idiot is out of a job.
Originally posted by Boroda
It was the most successfull social and economical project in human history. From illiterate agricultural country that starved every few years in 10 years it became an industrial and military power, with millions of educated people appearing out of nowhere, from the grey mass of peasants. After the most devastating war in human history it recovered in less then tree years, and twelve years later it reached into Space, beating Western powers technologically and socially. Yes, it didn't provide some of that imaginary "rights" you mentioned, but it wasn't an Orwellian dictatorship as it's portrayed by propaganda now. It was simply a different way of life, that's all.
And yet the U.S. is still here as a super power and the USSR is where??? For being so successfull you guys sure didn't last that long. For an economic power house you guys sure aren't doing to well now a days are you? As far as beating the U.S. into space, it wouldn't have happened without the German scientist and technical documents you captured at the end of the war. It was the same for us also, but how many of those Germans that you guys captured get full citizenship "rights" in the USSR? I know all the German scientist that came over to the states got full citizenship here. Also how many of your former states are trying to join NATO now?? I know the Ukraine is. I was there in Odesa in 2001 for a joint NATO exercise. I also know that the Republic of Gerogia is using old U.S. Coast Guard ships that we sold them because the stuff they had from the USSR was crap. I know because I helped train the crews on those 2 patrol boats we sold them. They are based in Poti. I spent a week there working on those boats and the crews told me all sorts of stuff about how "great" the USSR was. (Insert Sarcasm).
I'm a pretty opened minded person, but I have had the oppertunity to travel all over the world and see different countries and cultures first hand. For all the mistakes the United States makes, there is no way I would want to live anywhere else. The "imaginary" rights you say I have are VERY REAL and I don't take them for granted. As I said before I will fight anyone who would try to take them away, because they are so important. I only wish you could come here and see first hand what it is I'm talking about.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
You are partially true. We could just stop at the Soviet border, only annexing East Prussia, and let poor Poland free from Soviet "occupation", they were so happy under Hitler! Seriously, instead of "occupation" we could save several million lives of Soviet soldiers.
Funny, you mock Poland, but they had balls you will never have. Go hump a Yak Boroda (plane or animal). You have nothing in common with sarcasm, nor are you funny.
Karaya
PS - Still wondering why for the 4th time, you've avoided the Katyn Massacre? Afraid to back former COMMIE Gorbachev?
-
Katyn Massacre then freed Poland from Germans,
Kind of cancel each other out.
-
Well, to answer the original question....
The USSR was a military empire that had been over-extended for decades. By the late 80's the Russian economy was collapsing in on itself under the strain of a failed war of conquest in Aphaganistan, a thiry-five year long arms and space race with the west, all of which had immediately followed a catastrophic war. And all this was preceded by two and a half decades of gross mismanagement of agriculture, the military and the economy, thanks to Stalin's paranoia.
In 1989, when it became evident to everyone that the threat of soviet military might was no longer real and the leaders of Russian client states could no longer be assured of soviet military power to back up their hold on their people, the soviet empire dissolved.
All military empires eventually dissolve is a truism. Military empires have to either turn into economic empires or they will die. That the Russian experiment with it can be measured in only decades just shows how flimsy the foundations of its empire really were. It wasn't capable of turning its military power into economic power. So no, it could not have been saved.
asw
-
The USSR was liberated from Russia.
-
Ok Gorbachev introduced the reforms to save the USSR . That was Gorbachev's real intention right?
-
Boroda can you explain why each country your country 'liberated' had closed borders, KGB roaming about sending people to gulags, communism, large Russian immigration, russian school system and Russian as the second language?
Aside from sticking 'Soviet Union' label on the top of the box, you can't get much more annexed than that.
-
Originally posted by tikky
Could USSR have been saved or was it beyond repair or just too late?
Yes. It could be saved.
Could USSR have been like the current Peoples Republic of China if USSR survived?
No.
I will not give you detailed answers. Mostly because you will not understand them. To understand all politicial machinery of the USSR you should live here not just for a lot of years, but for all of your life.
-
Originally posted by Estel
Yes. It could be saved.
No.
I will not give you detailed answers. Mostly because you will not understand them. To understand all politicial machinery of the USSR you should live here not just for a lot of years, but for all of your life.
Most appropiate answer i've seen in 2 pages.
-
Boroda, you took that bait about Katyn, and call it faith!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
"I don't "believe" in anything. As for Katyn' - I have pure facts that proves Soviet side not guilty, but I still admit that it could happen. Faith is for people like Toad. I always doubt."
Is thousands of corpses just faith???????? Yer NUTS!
-
well... we may have all been fed a lot of propoganda.... I tend to think that soviet stuff was particulary strange tho but...
The only real way to look at it is... anyplace that has to build walls to keep it's citizens in is doomed....
I think the soviet union was doomed as soon as it was easy to see how the rest of the world lived.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Most appropiate answer i've seen in 2 pages.
What I find ironic about his NO answer is...I've seen the same argument used here on this board when someone defends American politics or culture, then that person is labled a bigot, or racist...
-
Originally posted by lazs2
well... we may have all been fed a lot of propoganda.... I tend to think that soviet stuff was particulary strange tho but...
The only real way to look at it is... anyplace that has to build walls to keep it's citizens in is doomed....
I think the soviet union was doomed as soon as it was easy to see how the rest of the world lived.
lazs
What I find fascinating is their staunch defense of a ideology that was so deeply flawed that it failed in a matter of decades. The way they keep talking about the USSR in the present tense (like a loved one they refuse to believe is dead) speaks volumes...
-
Yet, the USSR was not completely without merit.
They also had their moments.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
What I find ironic about his NO answer is...I've seen the same argument used here on this board when someone defends American politics or culture, then that person is labled a bigot, or racist...
Wolfala is a friend of Boroda, remember his trip to Russia a year or two back Rip? Of course, he'll type something like that Rip. You are also correct on bigot, racist thing.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Wolfala is a friend of Boroda, remember his trip to Russia a year or two back Rip? Of course, he'll type something like that Rip. You are also correct on bigot, racist thing.
Karaya
Ah, now things are more clear. THanks.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Wolfala is a friend of Boroda, remember his trip to Russia a year or two back Rip? Of course, he'll type something like that Rip. You are also correct on bigot, racist thing.
Karaya
Be careful Karaya. Its like saying "Could New York City be saved from thinking its the center of the universe?" Simple answer is no, and the reason is for those who lived there, its for what experiences has colored for them. So as a result it'll remain the only city on the planet where 'fuc' isn't a word anymore but a comma; potholes are craters, and subway pretzles, like twizzlers are more addictive then crack.
And I am from New York, btw.
Having been to Russia several times over the last 2 years and friends w/ several folks over there who are on this BB as well as others is incidental to its value. One could say that my wife comming from a military family based in the far east colored my experience, which it certainly has in the most positive way. But that is not what the discussion is supposed to be about - Afterall, the topic was IF the USSR could've been saved and the theory behind that.
Try to stay on track.
Wolf
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ah, now things are more clear. THanks.
Yes, Alex is my friend, I am proud to think so.
That's why I don't expect him to "type something like that". I agree with Estel.
Both of us have our own views, and I respect his POV that doesn't correspond with mine. I think it's obvious.
I have talked with Alex about Soviet times, and he is smart enough to understand that it's too hard to understand many things about USSR. Perpendicular planes of reality. I don't know why I try to persuade people who don't understand what they are speaking about. Alex understands much more, and it's probably why we didn't participate in this discussion.
Example: you all speak about Katyn as a "biggest crime of the USSR". My list of Soviet crimes includes crimes against people of the USSR, and it's absolutely different, you simply don't understand. But it's already beaten by our "democratic" regime, Gorby, Yeltsin and their successors. who did things that you don't know and will never understand.
What could probably save USSR was to open the borders, so millions of Soviet people, educated and willing to work, could try to go to the West. What follows: in two weeks Western countries close their borders because Soviet engineers and workers beat any competition from locals. Those who are lucky to get jobs in the West tell the truth when they come back. 10% or so stay in the West, the rest return in horror. Western propaganda machine aimed at USSR fails in two months. It was based on the absolute incompatibility of life in USSR and West. In fact - Western radios were telling the truth, but - incomplete truth. It could work both ways, but there was no such a genius as Goebbels in USSR :( Advantages of Soviet system were obvious, but the drawbacks were, and still are not understood by Western people. All that GULAG horror stories you were fed were exaggerated dy high margin, while you were, and still are unaware of real problems. So it goes.
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Be careful Karaya. Its like saying "Could New York City be saved from thinking its the center of the universe?"
Current Cosmological theory says that as everything including empty space expanded from the single point of the bang, and the universe is finite but has no boundary (much like the surface of the earth has no boundary but in finite in area) New york is indeed the very center of the universe. (as is everywhere else.)
-
Originally posted by Angus
Boroda, you took that bait about Katyn, and call it faith!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
"I don't "believe" in anything. As for Katyn' - I have pure facts that proves Soviet side not guilty, but I still admit that it could happen. Faith is for people like Toad. I always doubt."
Is thousands of corpses just faith???????? Yer NUTS!
Thousands of corpses "discovered" by Germans in 1943. Nazis forced some European humanitarians to sign their "investigation protocols", that people later said that they were threatened to sign it.
Fact: prisoners in Katyn were shot from German pistols.
Fact: there was a recreational park there in 1940 when mass executions took place according to nazi version.
Please, try to use your brain.
I admit that NKVD could spend money on buying German weapons to shoot people in a park, being 100% sure that nazis will never get to Smolensk, but there is such thing, called Occam's razor.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
What I find fascinating is their staunch defense of a ideology that was so deeply flawed that it failed in a matter of decades. The way they keep talking about the USSR in the present tense (like a loved one they refuse to believe is dead) speaks volumes...
Ideology isn't flawed.
It was the implementation that failed.
Even in the golden age of Soviet power (we still live on what was built before 1956) ideology already got twisted. I think I'll finally break through Stalin's "Problems of Leninism", just to understand what he meant by "abolishing government by it's streggthening".
OTOH - it's all bla-bla. The real ideology was Soviet imperialism. USSR was a successor of Russian Empire. Russian Empire in fact wasn't a "classic" empire. In some aspects it was more liberal then the US. It was an empire based on true diversity, it wasn't "colonial" as British and it never genocided local cultures as the US. Again - it was different. See quote from Chairman Mao in my sig.
-
angus... the soviet union had it's moments but.... I feel that they had em in spite of sabotaging their progress...
I believe that the russian people are every bit as bright as any other country and that even living under such an oppressive government was not enough to completly quash the human spirit.
Even living behind walls with secret police and informers everywhere wasn't enough to completly destroy the human spirit..
Human spirit is the only thing that kept the soviet union propped up as long as it was.... It is ironic that the government was doing everything it could to destroy the only thing that kept it alive..
so yeah.... the political soviet union was doomed from the start.
lazs
-
Lazs, why not admit that you don't understand anything in what you post about instead of repeating propaganda slogans?
May I ask you a question? What exactly is Russian? What does this word mean?
What is Soviet? I already explained it some time ago.
Everyone's welcome with your versions.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
What could probably save USSR was to open the borders, so millions of Soviet people, educated and willing to work, could try to go to the West. What follows: in two weeks Western countries close their borders because Soviet engineers and workers beat any competition from locals. Those who are lucky to get jobs in the West tell the truth when they come back. 10% or so stay in the West, the rest return in horror. Western propaganda machine aimed at USSR fails in two months. It was based on the absolute incompatibility of life in USSR and West. In fact - Western radios were telling the truth, but - incomplete truth. It could work both ways, but there was no such a genius as Goebbels in USSR :( Advantages of Soviet system were obvious, but the drawbacks were, and still are not understood by Western people. All that GULAG horror stories you were fed were exaggerated dy high margin, while you were, and still are unaware of real problems. So it goes.
:rofl your kidding , right ?
-
The most fascinating thing about Russians is the patriotism.
In US i see every commercial block has something like
"God bless America","Proud to be an American","United we stand" and so on and so forth.....
It's like they need to be reminded to be "Proud" for some reason,they proud because life is good in US,if it weren't they wouldn't be as proud i guess
Russians ....they don't need to be motivated they don't need to be reminded,they love their country just because it's their country.
It is corrupted,economy is in pooper,military force is not what it used to be.
But they just love their land,i believe that's the key.
You don't have to be proud of your..let's say Mother,she may not be a good mother but she still your mother.And your love you mother,you are bastage if you don't.
That's the reason why Russians,true Russians will never give up on their
MOTHERLAND.
-
Originally posted by Flit
:rofl your kidding , right ?
Do you know that it's almost impossible for a young Russian to get a US visa if he is single and doesn't have kids? We lifted the "iron curtain", but at the same time it was closed from the other side.
All this hysteria about "closed borders" is simply propaganda. Russian/Soviet people are not wanted in the West. It's a fact.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Ideology isn't flawed.
It was the implementation that failed.
Hey Boroda.
As you know, I've been in Russia twice. Also went to Bulgaria, which was an Easter Bloc country.
And, people, there are quite an amount of individuals there who think it was better during communism. A good deal of them are right as things are right now. Both Russia and Bulgaria have Wild West Capitalism, rampant and in-daylight corruption and a large group of people who have absolutely nothing.
It's my belief that once their capitalism matures, this will be fixed. Right now though you have your have-everything and you have you have-very-little people.
Having said that, I believe you are utterly and totally wrong about the ideology not being flawed. It is, on an ethical and moral scale, a total disaster for any man or woman who want to extend themselves, to realize their potential, to take risks and gain rewards. To do good for the sake of doing good, rather than to avoid punishment.
Communism, at best, takes material care of the masses by directing the masses. The populace is seen as an entity at itself, which must be given specific orders as to what to do. The focus is not on the individual but on the entity which is the population.
That is, until you reach the higher echelons, where individuality is very evident. This individuality then directs the masses as if every individual within is merely a neuron running through a nerve. Flex that arm, entity!
I refuse to be reduced in my humanity to such a degree. Should I have to give up security to gain freedom, I will do so, gladly.
No one shall direct the path I walk, no matter how well- or ill intentioned they are. That, my friend, is the bottomless flaw of communism of a philosophical scale.
Humans are not mere vessels through which other more privileged individuals carry through their will. We are, each end everyone of us, both potential nuclear bombs and cures to cancer.
We are not muscles. If we are a part of something greater, it is a side effect. Humans should never be considered as one entity to be used as seen fit by a dominant few.
It is my view (and yours may differ Boroda) that communism does not allow for full individuality. That is the ideological flaw. The actual attempts at implementations we've seen so far in history has been littered with abuse, but that's not the point of my argument.
The US skydive team at one time donated rigs to their Soviet counterparts (the Russians were all military, because civilians weren't allowed to skydive in general). It took a while but now, after the fall of communism, the Russians are beating the Americans at a game the Americans invented.
I like Russia, I like the Russian people, grim and grumpy as they may be. They're pragmatic, very pragmatic, very resilient and in many ways less phony than the people here. But communism, both as an ideal and as implemented, is not a good idea
-
Santa, you, again, as many people in this thread, think that communism is total control. It's not true. /*we only tried to build communism, what we had was defined as "developed socialism"*/
Socialism: from everyone according to abilities, to everyone - according to his work (labour? effort?).
Communism: from everyone according to abilities, to everyone - according to his needs (nessessities?).
Communism is what is Lennon's "Imagine" about.
What we tried to build is descrided in "Midday, XXII century" by Strugatsky brothers. It's a sci-fi novell, and I really want to live in such society.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Do you know that it's almost impossible for a young Russian to get a US visa if he is single and doesn't have kids? We lifted the "iron curtain", but at the same time it was closed from the other side.
All this hysteria about "closed borders" is simply propaganda. Russian/Soviet people are not wanted in the West. It's a fact.
And you think thats to keep all the highly trained Soviet scientist's and engineers from coming to the US and taking all of our high-tech jobs away?
-
Originally posted by Flit
And you think thats to keep all the highly trained Soviet scientist's and engineers from coming to the US and taking all of our high-tech jobs away?
I don't know, fact is fact.
If you know better and more simple explaination - please share it. You have been fighting for our rights for 50 years, then why you suddenly changed your mind?
Anyway, regardless of the reasons - if USSR opened the border, Western reaction had to be the same. Isn't it easy to understand?
-
Communism, at best, makes sure everyone has an equally crappy standard of living.
-
boroda... I don't understand anything I read on this? I am wrong? You are telling me that soviet russia had no secret police or walls to keep people in?
If you admit this much how can you possibly say that soviet russia was not doomed as a political force?
I thought that was all we were talking about. I am sorry if I am making it too simple but... it really is that simple....
If you have to build walls to keep your people in you are ultimately doomed to fail.
How am I wrong?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I don't know, fact is fact.
If you know better and more simple explaination - please share it. You have been fighting for our rights for 50 years, then why you suddenly changed your mind?
Anyway, regardless of the reasons - if USSR opened the border, Western reaction had to be the same. Isn't it easy to understand?
When the USSR fell, the borderes were opened. What happened to all the Russian scientists ready to take all of our jobs?
-
Originally posted by detch01
Well, to answer the original question....
The USSR was a military empire that had been over-extended for decades. By the late 80's the Russian economy was collapsing in on itself under the strain of a failed war of conquest in Aphaganistan, a thiry-five year long arms and space race with the west, all of which had immediately followed a catastrophic war. And all this was preceded by two and a half decades of gross mismanagement of agriculture, the military and the economy, thanks to Stalin's paranoia.
In 1989, when it became evident to everyone that the threat of soviet military might was no longer real and the leaders of Russian client states could no longer be assured of soviet military power to back up their hold on their people, the soviet empire dissolved.
All military empires eventually dissolve is a truism. Military empires have to either turn into economic empires or they will die. That the Russian experiment with it can be measured in only decades just shows how flimsy the foundations of its empire really were. It wasn't capable of turning its military power into economic power. So no, it could not have been saved.
asw
Very insightful....and absolutly correct.
-
The United States actually was the first Country to try Communism. Long before Karl Marx was even born. The Pilgrims that landed at Plymouth Rock authored a document called " The Mayflower Compact". It was basically a blueprint for a form of collective government in which all wealth was shared equally among the group. It was a miserable failure for the simple reason that some in the group would not pull their weight and allowed others to do the work. There was no incentive to produce. The same principle applys with Communism. From each according to his means, to each according to his needs. Unfortunately the system doesn't allow people to create the means. And "needs" are subjective.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
When the USSR fell, the borderes were opened. What happened to all the Russian scientists ready to take all of our jobs?
They all went to work at the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey :)
No ****.
But i'm tired - glad to see the discourse is still flowing like a drunken friday night.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Very insightful....and absolutly correct.
It is so wrong that I didn't bother to argue.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
boroda... I don't understand anything I read on this? I am wrong? You are telling me that soviet russia had no secret police or walls to keep people in?
If you admit this much how can you possibly say that soviet russia was not doomed as a political force?
I thought that was all we were talking about. I am sorry if I am making it too simple but... it really is that simple....
If you have to build walls to keep your people in you are ultimately doomed to fail.
How am I wrong?
lazs
USA also has secret political police. Any state is a way of opressring it's population.
90% of Soviet people never encountered "secret police".
A decision to keep people inside was not wise IMHO, but it was a traditional policy for centuries. Now borders are open, but we are not welcome in the West, so - I see usual hypocricy and propaganda from your side.
Keeping people in wasn't one of the reasons to the USSR falling apart. Isn't it obvious?
I have never seen anyone who is happy that Union felt apart. Gorbachev and Yeltsin are two most hated people here. So it goes.
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Be careful Karaya. Its like saying "Could New York City be saved from thinking its the center of the universe?" Simple answer is no, and the reason is for those who lived there, its for what experiences has colored for them. So as a result it'll remain the only city on the planet where 'fuc' isn't a word anymore but a comma; potholes are craters, and subway pretzles, like twizzlers are more addictive then crack.
And I am from New York, btw.
Having been to Russia several times over the last 2 years and friends w/ several folks over there who are on this BB as well as others is incidental to its value. One could say that my wife comming from a military family based in the far east colored my experience, which it certainly has in the most positive way. But that is not what the discussion is supposed to be about - Afterall, the topic was IF the USSR could've been saved and the theory behind that.
Try to stay on track.
Wolf
You have provided NOTHING of worth to this thread. Move along. Thanks for calling. Rip understands the "perspective now", which was the PURPOSE of my post. I never look over my shoulder, life is too short.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You have provided NOTHING of worth to this thread. Move along. Thanks for calling. Rip understands the "perspective now", which was the PURPOSE of my post. I never look over my shoulder, life is too short.
Karaya
I feel like I need a smiley that isn't in a window to the left.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
It is so wrong that I didn't bother to argue.
December 1979, Aphganistan (attempted and failed).
August 1968, Czechoslovakia (invaded and normalized).
October 1956, Hungary (invaded and normalized).
June, 1941, Finland (again attempted and failed).
November 30, 1939, Finland (attempted and partially failed).
September 1939, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, complicit & concurrent with Hitler's invasion of Poland.
Taking the "right & wrong" out of the argument, the facts are that the Soviet Union was a military empire which was controlled in Moscow. The empire was in the main built on military conquest and maintained with the threat of military power. The worth of the Warsaw Pact treaty was demonstrated by the invasion of Hungary when Russian troops invaded in direct contravention of the treaty. The Brezhnev doctrine (his speech at the Polish United Workers' Party Congress on November 13, 1968) was formal recognition (12 years after the fact) of the Soviet policy on the true independance of Warsaw Pact states.
Eduard Shevardnadze's speech of Oct 23, 1989 (the so called Sinatra doctrine) formally recognized the death of the Brezhnev doctrine, which was followed by the breakup of the soviet empire over the next few years. With the pact being dissolved in the summer of 1991.
No doubt you interpret the history differently. However, the facts remain the facts regardless of the interpretation.
asw
-
Detch, list of American aggressive military actions in XX century in 10 times longer. And again - you lie. All actions you losted were successfull. Baltic states joined the Union after a legitimate democratic procedure.
USSR never was a "military empire which was controlled in Moscow". You have been told so to justify your own aggressive "crusade against communism". It's obvious.
Funny that you are sure that you can teache me about evilness of USSR. You saw it on TV, I lived inside it. Part of my family is from "evily opressed and starved" Ukraine. I expect you to tell me how opressed my family was.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
USA also has secret political police. Any state is a way of opressring it's population.
90% of Soviet people never encountered "secret police".
A decision to keep people inside was not wise IMHO, but it was a traditional policy for centuries. Now borders are open, but we are not welcome in the West, so - I see usual hypocricy and propaganda from your side.
Keeping people in wasn't one of the reasons to the USSR falling apart. Isn't it obvious?
I have never seen anyone who is happy that Union felt apart. Gorbachev and Yeltsin are two most hated people here. So it goes.
No, it's not obvious to me.Could you be so kind as to tell why You think the USSR fell apart ? (I'm not even gonna touch the "USA Secret Political Police")
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I have never seen anyone who is happy that Union felt apart. Gorbachev and Yeltsin are two most hated people here. So it goes.
Just for the record. I'am Russian, was born in Leningrad and was living there for 35 years. So I am old enough to remeber socialism, Brezhnev, Andropov, Gorbachev, etc.
I want to say that quoted statement is incorrect. I don't think that Gorbachev did something wrong. Moreover, polls in Russia show that only about 30% of population wish back to USSR. I am sure that similar polls in former Soviet Republics would show much less percentage
-
Originally posted by Flit
No, it's not obvious to me.Could you be so kind as to tell why You think the USSR fell apart ? (I'm not even gonna touch the "USA Secret Political Police")
There was Russian Empire, in 1918 it lost Poland and Finland, then independant republics appeared like RSFSR, Ukraine, Far-East republic etc. On Dec. 30, 1922, a treaty was signed, founding the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics. The Repuclics were: Russian Soviet Federative Socialistic Republic, Ukrainian, Belorussian and Trans-Caucasian Soviet Socialistic Republics.
By 1940 there were 16 republics. During and after Great Patriotic War some other countries and terrirories were included into Republics after proper democratic procedures (Tuva) or annexed (Kaliningrad region). In 1956 (IIRC) Karelo-Finnish republic was
In 1991 local political leaders, speculating on declared right of every Republic to leave the Union, announced "independance". USSR ceased to exist. Inheritor of the USSR was RSFSR in 1991 borders, after Yeltsin't coup in 1993 renamed into Russian Federation.
So, Soviet Union as one state felt apart. Is it clear?
For me it means that half of my family now leaves abroad. Good reason to pity good old USSR.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Detch, list of American aggressive military actions in XX century in 10 times longer. And again - you lie. All actions you losted were successfull. Baltic states joined the Union after a legitimate democratic procedure.
USSR never was a "military empire which was controlled in Moscow". You have been told so to justify your own aggressive "crusade against communism". It's obvious.
Funny that you are sure that you can teache me about evilness of USSR. You saw it on TV, I lived inside it. Part of my family is from "evily opressed and starved" Ukraine. I expect you to tell me how opressed my family was.
Nowhere in this thread have I made that claim that the soviet empire was evil (until now). As a matter of fact I made no comparison to the USSR and the USA, or USA's history of gun-boat diplomacy in the Americas or around the world. These are entirely yours and irrelevent to the founding post of this thread. Your personal experiences living in Russia while it was the principal member and chief enforcer of the USSR are irrelevant to my arguments and the initial question in this thread, unless of course you were intimately involved in the high-level decision making. As are my mine on my side of the fence. What is relevent are the historical facts.
As for me, I'm an old cold-warrior. And I do hold the opinion that the USSR was an oppressive tyranny and that opinion is justified by an objective look at the history of the Russian "socialist" experiment from 1920 onwards. There is little difference between the soviet empire and the empires of the other European powers of the 19th century. Having said that the soviet experience was arguably still a better one for the people of Russia than they had living under the czars.
As for the legitimatacy of the "democratic" process in the Baltic states, you can perhaps provide independant proofs? After all, the only people in the world that I know of that actually consider that process a democratic one are Russians. The people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania somehow seem to have had a different view of the process.
And I don't believe you honestly expect me to believe that Aphganistan was a victory.... Or the two wars against Finland. The next thing you know you'll be expecting me to believe there was no non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin and that the Poles willing ceded the eastern half of Poland to the USSR in 1939.
Re: the Ukraine. The artificially created famine and intentional starvation of peasant farmers who resisted the collectivization of farms is historical fact. What is uncertain is the number of victims, but it is likely between 3 and 6 million who were starved to death. Whether or not your family experienced this I do not know, but their experience (or lack of it) was most likely due to their support or opposition to the collectivization process if they were farming. I suppose their experience would also have been due to their support of or opposition to the party if they were not on the farm.
asw
-
Originally posted by Boroda
There was Russian Empire, in 1918 it lost Poland and Finland, then independant republics appeared like RSFSR, Ukraine, Far-East republic etc. On Dec. 30, 1922, a treaty was signed, founding the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics. The Repuclics were: Russian Soviet Federative Socialistic Republic, Ukrainian, Belorussian and Trans-Caucasian Soviet Socialistic Republics.
By 1940 there were 16 republics. During and after Great Patriotic War some other countries and terrirories were included into Republics after proper democratic procedures (Tuva) or annexed (Kaliningrad region). In 1956 (IIRC) Karelo-Finnish republic was
In 1991 local political leaders, speculating on declared right of every Republic to leave the Union, announced "independance". USSR ceased to exist. Inheritor of the USSR was RSFSR in 1991 borders, after Yeltsin't coup in 1993 renamed into Russian Federation.
So, Soviet Union as one state felt apart. Is it clear?
For me it means that half of my family now leaves abroad. Good reason to pity good old USSR.
No.
Sorry, but that tells that it fell apart, not what You think caused it to fall apart.
-
Originally posted by Vad
Just for the record. I'am Russian, was born in Leningrad and was living there for 35 years. So I am old enough to remeber socialism, Brezhnev, Andropov, Gorbachev, etc.
I want to say that quoted statement is incorrect. I don't think that Gorbachev did something wrong. Moreover, polls in Russia show that only about 30% of population wish back to USSR. I am sure that similar polls in former Soviet Republics would show much less percentage
I only shared my presonal experience. Everyone from rich businessmen to Georgian taxi-drivers hate that two bastards.
As for polls - their only goal is to manipulate public opinion.
I don't pretend to be a final wisdom, but even people who live much better now then in Soviet times wish Gorby to be tortured to death for what he did.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I only shared my presonal experience. Everyone from rich businessmen to Georgian taxi-drivers hate that two bastards.
As for polls - their only goal is to manipulate public opinion.
I don't pretend to be a final wisdom, but even people who live much better now then in Soviet times wish Gorby to be tortured to death for what he did.
It is your opinion, and you have right to have it now thanks to Gorbachev. I just want to let our American friends know that there are other opinions. Among my friends and relatives there are just few who want USSR back and who blame Gorbachev and Yeltsin for what they did.
Actually, it means that Russia becomes democratic country - we are allowed to have and actually have different opinions. :)
-
Originally posted by Flit
No.
Sorry, but that tells that it fell apart, not what You think caused it to fall apart.
sorry.
It felt apart because local leaders prefered to be a king in a ****hole then to be on a second place in a great country. It was a result of irresposible policy of Gorby and gang, like sending troops everywhere but being too scared to use them. In 88-91 I had tanks going behind my windows at least 5 times (I live on Leningrad highway, so they woke me up at 5AM). National policy was a chain of failures and crimes, like sending troops to Baku to restore order only after several days of slaughter, when there were already no Armenians to protect.
So-called "economical collapse" was caused by absolutely incompetent leadership, it's a long story, but prime-minister Ryzhkov did his best to ruin consumer market.
In general - all Gorby's attempts to look civilised ended up in hardening living conditions for population. Soviet joke: Perestroyka and Glasnost' for a dog - a chain is 1m longer, a food dish moved 2m away so it's unreachable now, but you are allowed to bark as loud as you can.
It's all about trading basic rights for all that idiotic "freedom of press" etc.
The whole story is much more complicated and probably hard to understand for people unaquainted with Soviet life.
To explain it all I'll have to write a book, oh, sorry - two books, one - about how it was, and another - about what was done wrong.
-
Originally posted by Vad
It is your opinion, and you have right to have it now thanks to Gorbachev. I just want to let our American friends know that there are other opinions. Among my friends and relatives there are just few who want USSR back and who blame Gorbachev and Yeltsin for what they did.
Actually, it means that Russia becomes democratic country - we are allowed to have and actually have different opinions. :)
Frankly speaking - me and millions of other people will prefer to have food, accomodation, education and medical care instead of current right to bark as loud as we can.
"Democracy" in American meaning is only a way to increase coca-cola and chewing-gum sales.
-
and you somehow feel that you are incapable of achieveing all these things and so must turn to an autoritarian socialist government to provide for you?
didn't work last time.... why will it work this time? what will your benevolent government do differently?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and you somehow feel that you are incapable of achieveing all these things and so must turn to an autoritarian socialist government to provide for you?
didn't work last time.... why will it work this time? what will your benevolent government do differently?
lazs
Lazs, you just don't understand one thing wich is clear for us. We don't need Coca-Cola and right of speach if we have nothing to eat. "Autoritarian Socialist goverment" did a lot of wrong things. But at the same time, the population didn't starvate. And you knew that at evening you can go to the shop and buy food without problems.
When Gorby-El'tsin team seized to rule, the population began starve. And not because of the strange diet. But because of that team just ruined economical system.
How do you think, do you need food for your kids or an abstract "democracy principals" wich bring you to situation, when you have nothing to feed your children? For me it's clear.
And another thing. ATA is right. "Motherland" means for us something more even just the place where you live. And we always issue that maybe we'll live better/worse, but we'll live here. Not looking onto political principals. And we do not need principals wich are extraneous to us. Just because of you live somewhere over the ocean and we live here. With our own rules and principals.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I feel like I need a smiley that isn't in a window to the left.
Problem is, you seem to be a pathological liar. You deny and refuse to give an inch, you are the "Katayn Expert, WMD Expert, Chernobyl Cleanup Expert, KGB Expert, the Communism was great for us Expert", and anything else you've spewed in here over the years.
I don't a smiley, I post facts.
Karaya
-
Then join a Communist club, set up an agenda and run in an Election. Become Dictator then. Stop crying over spilled milk, and do something about it.
Karaya
PS - Flit, you'll go round and round with Boroda. He is the "end-all, know-it-all" you're just wasting your time. He can tap dance with Mikhail Baryshnikov.
-
Ok, I'm Russian, and old enough to remeber Socialism, Brezhnev, Andropov, KGB, etc.
Originally posted by tikky
Could USSR have been saved or was it beyond repair or just too late?
No, it was impossible. And it was not the timing problem, it was by design.
Could USSR have been like the current Peoples Republic of China if USSR survived?
I know what happened in 82-89 in the USSR, and I predict that China will get the same or very similar end. And it will be the end of the world as we know it. Pray that they will get their own Gorbachev, but there are few chances that it will happen. More likely the world will get new Franko or Pinochet, but with A-bomb and 1/4 of the Earth population.
To explain or prove that I need a lot of time and people who are really want to know how it was and why it happened. Most of folks here just want to prove that the USSR was Empire of Evil, and I have no intentions to argue with them.
-
Asking for yet another chance to do it "right," the sign of a truly brainwashed communist.
-
I notice both estel and boroda bring up the "food or freedom" choice. If you value life more than liberty you could be happy there? I wonder how people who valued freedom of speech more than food got along in old ussr.
Actually I don't wonder at all. It's history.
Do a google search about Ukrainian farmers who didn't want to give up their farms to state collectivisation.
Here's one of the many links.
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/famine.html
-
Suave those were odd deviants, thankfully they learned quickly.
-
Originally posted by Suave
I notice both estel and boroda bring up the "food or freedom" choice. If you value life more than liberty you could be happy there? I wonder how people who valued freedom of speech more than food got along in old ussr.
Actually I don't wonder at all. It's history.
Do a google search about Ukrainian farmers who didn't want to give up their farms to state collectivisation.
Here's one of the many links.
http://www.ibiblio.org/expo/soviet.exhibit/famine.html
Sueve, you just don't understand what are you talking about. Did you ever starve? Not for diet purpose, not because of lost of canned SPAM in camp.
You have a full time job, you are working 8 hours 5 days a week. You make a lot of money. After the work you visit supermarket, and there is NOTHING there. Absolutelly nothing, all shelfs are empty. You have full pocket of useless money but you can't buy anything. You come back home, and you see your 2 years old daughter who cries because she is hungry. She needs milk, or bread , or anything what is suitable to put into the stomach. But you have nothing. You see your wife, but you don't want to look into her eyes....
And you definitly know that this situation won't change tomorrow. Or next week. Or in any time in the near future. There is no food in this country! And you don't have passport and visa to leave this country, or just go abroad to eat SOMETHING! You have money, a lot of money but they cost nothing, you can't use them anywhere.
No, actually you can. There is "black market" but prices there so high that you can spend your monthly salary to buy bottle of milk for your daughter. Finally you will do that, because it is impossible to hear cry of your child 24x7 and see how she is dying. And after that you realize that you have no money for the next 2 weeks. No money at all. And there are no places around where you can steal something, and there is no reason to rob your neighbors because they have nothing to take from them.
And you would think about "freedom of speech" in that circumstances?
-
The world is full of graveyards of people who decided they would not live on their knees.
Vad thankfully I live in a place where I am permitted to enjoy both basic human necesities, food and liberty. I would chose that always over the ussr where you were permited to have one or the other, but never both.
The only reason I can think of to have food in a country where there is no freedom of speech is if one has a hope of leaving such a prison. If there is no hope of ever leaving, it's better just to be dead.
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"
-
Originally posted by Suave
The world is full of graveyards of people who decided they would not live on their knees.
Vad thankfully I live in a place where I am permitted to enjoy both basic human necesities, food and liberty. I would chose that always over the ussr where you were permited to have one or the other, but never both.
The only reason I can think of to have food in a country where there is no freedom of speech is if one has a hope of leaving such a prison. If there is no hope of ever leaving, it's better just to be dead.
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"
How often do you practice this..... freedom of speech?
-
Originally posted by Suave
The world is full of graveyards of people who decided they would not live on their knees.
Vad thankfully I live in a place where I am permitted to enjoy both basic human necesities, food and liberty. I would chose that always over the ussr where you were permited to have one or the other, but never both.
The only reason I can think of to have food in a country where there is no freedom of speech is if one has a hope of leaving such a prison. If there is no hope of ever leaving, it's better just to be dead.
"Get busy living, or get busy dying"
If you are living in a place where you are permitted (by others who really had to make a decision - live or die) to enjoy everything, don't be stupid and blab about something you have never experienced. You never had "no hope of leaving", and you have never really had to choose should your child live or die.
You argue with Boroda or Estel, or anybody else in the world about issues you have never seen and even don't know how they look like.
You are trying to teach real pilots how to land this aircraft having seen plane only on the pictures.
-
My location doesn't affect facts or logic. To say it does would be stupid.
Because you lived there you are allowed to tell boroda and estel how the ussr sucked but I am not ?
Sorry, but in this country I'm free to state my opinion about anything I want.
And by the way, I would never be so stupid as to try to argue with boroda and estel.
-
Originally posted by Suave
My location doesn't affect facts or logic. To say it does would be stupid.
Because you lived there you are allowed to tell boroda and estel how the ussr sucked but I am not ?
Sorry, but in this country I'm free to state my opinion about anything I want.
And by the way, I would never be so stupid as to try to argue with boroda and estel.
"If there is no hope of ever leaving, it's better just to be dead." - are that your words?
In this country you can chat about what ever you want, but when you plump something like " I would better die but never... (add anything)" anybody has right to ask: are you really understand what are you talking about?
And in this country everybody has right to prove that you are nothing more than loudmouth.
-
Originally posted by Vad
If you are living in a place where you are permitted (by others who really had to make a decision - live or die) to enjoy everything, don't be stupid and blab about something you have never experienced. You never had "no hope of leaving", and you have never really had to choose should your child live or die.
You argue with Boroda or Estel, or anybody else in the world about issues you have never seen and even don't know how they look like.
You are trying to teach real pilots how to land this aircraft having seen plane only on the pictures.
:rofl :cry :rofl :cry
Post this rhetoric somewhere else.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
:rofl :cry :rofl :cry
Post this rhetoric somewhere else.
Karaya
What for? According to mentality of local population it is the exact place where it has to be.
-
Originally posted by Vad
What for? According to mentality of local population it is the exact place where it has to be.
I'm in America, don't talk about places you have no idea about please.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Vad
"If there is no hope of ever leaving, it's better just to be dead." - are that your words?
In this country you can chat about what ever you want, but when you plump something like " I would better die but never... (add anything)" anybody has right to ask: are you really understand what are you talking about?
And in this country everybody has right to prove that you are nothing more than loudmouth.
I'll suppose at this point that the reason for your oneryness towards me is that you disagree with something I've said. Could you tell me and the readers what this is please.
-
Originally posted by Vad
"If there is no hope of ever leaving, it's better just to be dead." - are that your words?
If I were in a place so horrible as you described, with no hope of escaping. Why on earth wouldn't I want to die?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I'm in America, don't talk about places you have no idea about please.
Karaya
I'm in Toronto, Canada, and have been living and working here last 6 years. Been in US a lot of times.
Have you ever been in the USSR?
Please, don't talk about places you have no idea about!
-
Originally posted by Vad
Please, don't talk about places you have no idea about!
Please stop telling people that because they have never been to a place they have no idea about it.
-
Originally posted by Suave
If I were in a place so horrible as you described, with no hope of escaping. Why on earth wouldn't I want to die?
Because I am alive. And Boroda, and Estel, and my parents, and a lot of people in modern Russia. We all overcame and survived. And now my daughter who was almost dead in 1991 is studing busyness management in Toronto university.
And we don't like when somebody who has never experinced anything worse than cut on the finger is trying to teach us what we had to do and when we had to die.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Please stop telling people that because they have never been to a place they have no idea about it.
Please, tell this Karaya. It is his idea.
-
Originally posted by Vad
Because I am alive. And Boroda, and Estel, and my parents, and a lot of people in modern Russia. We all overcame and survived. And now my daughter who was almost dead in 1991 is studing busyness management in Toronto university.
And we don't like when somebody who has never experinced anything worse than cut on the finger is trying to teach us what we had to do and when we had to die.
Then you must've had hope.
Now, what did I say that you disagree with?
-
ok boroda... you admit that 10% of your people had dealings with the secret police... this is a huge amount... if one in ten people dissapear round here.... I will be paranoid.
now... you admit that keeping people out and in was a bad idea? no kidding... but you had no choice.. they left if you didn't.... not welcome? we never had russians round here till the walls fell. now you can't swing a dead gullag guy without hitting a russian.
as for the political part.... go ahead... try communism without walls.... tell the productive that they will be supporting the drunks and morons they see on the street....
Are you saying that communism could compete on a manufacturing or farming basis? are you saying that russian workers were hard working and dedicated and efficient...
you only have to look at the basic political philosophy of the productive carrying the non productive to see why you failed.
socialism is evil... and yes... I would rather starve than live under socialism... not just bold talk... in the depression we had people who got no help from the government.... how many starved? not one case.
people here will help willingly but when you force them to... you take away their ability to feel responsible for their fellow man.... a socialist will watch a man starve.... a capitalist won't.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Suave
Then you must've had hope.
Now, what did I say that you disagree with?
I think Russians basically dont like anybody criticizing their country, even if it was a hellhole for them and nearly starved their 2yr old daughter to death until they fled to the west and its useless personal and economic freedoms and widely availble food.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
"Democracy" in American meaning is only a way to increase coca-cola and chewing-gum sales.
along with all the food and goods imaginable. We lack nothing because of capitalism.
To imply that captitalism is just a way to market worthless, non critical consumer goods is just ignorant.
We have always had an abundence of anything we needed, you never have. Our system is and waqs better, and you can't stand that.
-
Yep Boroda, and communism is just a way to reduce bread and milk sales.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Are you saying that communism could compete on a manufacturing or farming basis?
lazs
How is about China, Lazs? You want to say that China is capitalist country? Or you want to convince us that half of the goods on US market are not "Made in China"?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I think Russians basically dont like anybody criticizing their country, even if it was a hellhole for them and nearly starved their 2yr old daughter to death until they fled to the west and its useless personal and economic freedoms and widely availble food.
Grun, you definitly have some problems with mathematics.
We had serious problems in 1989-1992, after the prestroika which happened in 1986, after the collapse of socialist system. Russia was already "democratic" at that time, with "market economics".
It is exactly waht Boroda is talking about - there is no sence to switch from socialism to capitalism in the name of "freedoms" if as a result you will get starvation.
BTW, I came in Canada in 1999 when Russia had already been member of "Great 7". So, I run from Russian "capitalism"
-
first of all.... china is not soviet russia.
the goods produced are for the most part inferior throw away goods that we have come to accept because of price.
china does not produce anything so far as infrastructure and... if they are producing so well.... where is the benifiet? How are their people doing? what is the normal income of the people?
There are no capitalists in china? there are no stratas of wealth? no rewards for productivity? no contracts with capitalists?
When I was growing up we never seen a russian unless it was on TV with his bodyguards/secret police masters.
vad... are you saying that socialism works? that taking from those who produce and giving it to those who won't is a good system?
Are you saying that secret police and walls to hold people in is a good way to live?
Are you saying that you had free speech in soviet russia? KGB would just ignore grumblings against the state?
No rich and poor in soviet russia... no masters for you to kneel before and lick their hand?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Vad
How is about China, Lazs? You want to say that China is capitalist country? Or you want to convince us that half of the goods on US market are not "Made in China"?
China is just a workshop. The west has set up most of their goods to be produced in China, because it's cheap.
-
Lazs, I 've never told that socialism is good. If you take a look into my first postings in this thread you will see that I support Gorbachev's actions, and I am among Russians who don't want back to socialism. And in this I desagree with Boroda.
But reasons why I think so are absolutely different from what are you writing here. Believe me, not because of KGB or "freedom of speech" or any BS like that.
Your arguments and comments about the USSR look really stupid, sorry. Clever man woudn't discuss or insist on subject which he has no idea about.
KGB was nothing more than CIA and FBI in one. Any state on this planet has its own intellegence service, and you hate KGB becase it was very effective, like Mossad. Actually, any citizen in the USSR would be more than happy to help KGB if he would ask, because we are all patriots of our country. Yes, there was one department which worked with "dissidents", and this department wasn't much popular among common people. But, for the first time, it worked not very effective otherwise you would never know about even existing of dissidents in the USSR. Second, there were hundred dissidents in the country with 250 millions population, so it wasn't very busy. And last - MI5, for example, is working against terrorists, and some of them as we know now are British citizens. Dissidents were the threat to the state, exactly like terrorists. Do you understand what I want to say?
China is communist country, but its economy is growing up very rapidly. Yes, it is still poor country , but it won't be so in 5-10 years. It means that there is a way to build effective economics under the Communist rule. And BTW, nobody told that co-existing of market economy and socialism is impossible. Actually, it is what China is trying to do right now.
You are talking about normal income of the people... But Mexico, Caribbean (excl. Cuba), South America, Malasia, India, etc... are all capitalist countries. But standards of living in that countries much low than it was in the USSR. Hope, you have been on Caribbean on your vacations and know what I am talking about.
So, may be the problem is not in the type of society but the level of country development? And we should compare not the existing level because everybody had different start point but the speed of grouth? Socialism showed unbelievable results there when in few years restored devastated country and got military parity with the most powerful country in the world.
So, once again. I don't want back to the socialism. But the reasons why I don't want are absolutelly different from what are you talking about. And I can't explain my reasons to you because you won't understand. Actually, you don't want to understand. You want to prove something to me. And this is funny.
-
Mexico is corrupt from top to bottom. They have all the resources they need to become a great country, except a halfway decent government.
-
Originally posted by Vad
Lazs, I 've never told that socialism is good. If you take a look into my first postings in this thread you will see that I support Gorbachev's actions, and I am among Russians who don't want back to socialism. And in this I desagree with Boroda.
I didn't say I want to go back to Soviet times. I am a stalinist: I mean that what we need now to live better is to make every brass-hat responsible for his actions, that's all. What we got now is not "rotten system" but "rottenness that is a system". A country that lives on Soviet heritage, with a small gang of crooks exploiting what was created by 250 millions working their bellybutton off.
On December, 4th, we had elections into Moscow city Duma (parliament). For the first time in my life I voted for communists. Despite of all frauds - commies got 4 places out of 35. I voted for them mostly because they'll at least be happy to disturb the happy idiotic "party and government" that's selling everything left and only stealing money. Êîðî÷å - õîòü ïîäíàñðóò îò äóøè.
The longer I look at current "democratic leadership" - the more I am convinced that it's impossible to change anything without mass executions (i hope you understand that it's only a figure of speech).
"Democratic reforms" implemented by the same corrupt Party *******s could not turn into anything else. That's why I think that Gorby and Yeltsin are criminals.
-
Boroda is Stalinist, there we go, out in the open and clear...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I am a stalinist:
and that pretty much says it all.
asw
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Boroda is Stalinist, there we go, out in the open and clear...
Define stalinism please.
BTW, noone answered my simple questions about what words "Russian" and "Soviet" mean.
For Russian-speakers, explaining a trick: áoëüøèíñòâî ìeñòíûõ çaâñeãäàòåâ íå ô êyðñå ïðo òo, ÷òo ðyññêèé - ýòo íe òoëüêo ãðaæäàíñòâo, à èñ÷î è íaöèoíaëüíîñòú. Ïðo òî ÷òo Ñoâeò - ýòo "êàóíñèë" ïî èõíeìó - oíè òoæå áeç ïoíÿòèÿ. Àäè¸òû. Sorry for spelling - i intentionally make it impossible to translate with robotranslators.
-
And how many people actually know definition of that word, other than similarities with someone’s name…. No one? ….I though so.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I didn't say I want to go back to Soviet times. I am a stalinist: I mean that what we need now to live better is to make every brass-hat responsible for his actions, that's all. What we got now is not "rotten system" but "rottenness that is a system". A country that lives on Soviet heritage, with a small gang of crooks exploiting what was created by 250 millions working their bellybutton off.
In this case I take my words back, we have more common than I thought before.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to come into the same river once again.
About me... ok
I would like to see in power in Russia sombody who is strong enough to keep power without unnecessary repressions and fake elections, who is responsible enough to think about peolple not his own pocket, and who won't invent new "economical theories" but will use proven methods.
Absolute monarchy like Sauds or something like that. Or Pinochet.
Unfortunately, such people are very rare in this best of the worlds.
For our American friends - don't get me wrong, I wish it for Russia, not for any other country. Every country has its own way through ages and own history. Democracy is working good for Europe or USA - great, nobody wants and never wanted to take it from you! Live as you wish.
Most of the disputes with Russians on this board spin around the same old subject:
All: - Russia is totalitarian country, Russians do that in a wrong way, Russians should value freedoms, demjcracy, blah-blah-blah
Rissians: - We don't need democracy, especially in its Western form, it doesn't work for us. We have our own way.
All -You are stupid and don't understand what is better for you.
After this point Boroda has all the rights to say whatever he wants about Americans or Europians, it will be self defence.
-
LOL you Russian people are such sheep and idiots, all you will ever get is a load of corrupt power hungry wannabe dictators with that attitude. And you flat out unashamedly sk for it, wow!
Amazing stupidity.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Mexico is corrupt from top to bottom. They have all the resources they need to become a great country, except a halfway decent government.
You are going in right direction, let do next step. Mexico has been democratic country since middle of 1800's if memory serves me well. And during this 150 years they were so unhappy that couldn't elect good goverment? What are unlucky guys! And during the same 150 years the USA were unbelievably lucky with thier goverment, just one little problem in hotel!
Do you really believe in that? Or, may be, there is more simple explanation. And democracy just doesn't work for Mexicans. At least, in its European form.
I don't want Mexican destiny for my country. Going this way Russia will become the second Mexico or Brazil, being the second most powerful country in the world in near past. Nobody who is considering himself patriot would wish this for his country.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
LOL you Russian people are such sheep and idiots, all you will ever get is a load of corrupt power hungry wannabe dictators with that attitude. And you flat out unashamedly sk for it, wow!
Amazing stupidity.
Insults without any attempts to prove you point tell more about you than about insulted.
-
Vad, bottom line is that Mexico is corrupt from top to bottom. It's amazing to me that the Mexicans didn't revolt a long time ago. Of course they have no guns now.
The people of Mexico are being robbed of their own countries wealth. To get anything done in Mexico, you pretty much have to pay bribe money.......
Mexico has oil, timber, precious metals, work force willing to work........you name it, they have what they need as far as resources. The problem is that the government, police and laws are just a perversion of democracy.
Mexicans are good people. They are hard working good people that are being screwed by their government.
The reason I posted about Mexico being corrupt, yet having all the resources they need......because Russia is the same way.
-
Vad what point is there to prove? You said it yourself, Boroda said it too - yiu want a singular strongman charismatic leader to run the country and take accountability away from individuals and put it on the state's power to punish people who dont execute his orders.
Punishing people who dont follow orders exactly is not making them accountable, it simply makes them mindless robots - it makes them Russians.
Which why you are so comfortable in that, its all yiur perople have known for hundreds of years under the mongols, czars, soviets, and now Putin.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The reason I posted about Mexico being corrupt, yet having all the resources they need......because Russia is the same way.
Exactly! You hit the nail!
I would say more, Russia is more corruped than 10 mexicos.
But one problem - it happened 5-10 years ago. When Russia was capitalist country already.
Of course, corruption existed in the USSR in 1975, but it wasn't more than in modern Canada, which means almost didn't exist. Yes, there were some scandals but Canada faces Christmas election this winter because if sponsorship scandal too.
Ok, Canada and the USSR didn't have corruption because of different reasons, but result was the same.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Vad what point is there to prove? You said it yourself, Boroda said it too - yiu want a singular strongman charismatic leader to run the country and take accountability away from individuals and put it on the state's power to punish people who dont execute his orders.
Punishing people who dont follow orders exactly is not making them accountable, it simply makes them mindless robots - it makes them Russians.
Which why you are so comfortable in that, its all yiur perople have known for hundreds of years under the mongols, czars, soviets, and now Putin.
ok, something intelligible.
I just want to remind you that I have been living in Canada since 1999, and I am Canadian citizen, so I know what I'm talking about. Here, in America, we have absolutelly the same situation but role of strong charismatics leader plays not your President or Prime Minister but your employer. You have thousands of leaders with even more rights than I would suggest to give to goverment. And most of them are not strong or even clever enough.
Yes, you can find another job here if you like. But:
1) Sometimes it is not easy
2) You have to worry about career, resume, references, etc.
3) (and the most important) In Czar's Russia there were no problems for Russians to visit abroad, ruble was one of the most strong currency in the world. I've never said that I suggest to close borders. If country is rich enough any country in the world would be more than happy to have you as a tourist or even resident. Sauds don't have any problems with visas to Europe or America, do they? If you don't like to live in rich and prosperous country, don't want to have very good and stable income but pay for this by some restrictions in your rights and freedoms - ok, no problem, you are free to go wherever you want.
This mechanism worked for centuries, it works know for middle east monarchies, and I believe it would work for Russia.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Then join a Communist club, set up an agenda and run in an Election. Become Dictator then. Stop crying over spilled milk, and do something about it.
Karaya
PS - Flit, you'll go round and round with Boroda. He is the "end-all, know-it-all" you're just wasting your time. He can tap dance with Mikhail Baryshnikov.
I know :D
-
Lazs got it. Both Boroda and Vad are like animals in a Zoo. And please don't take it as a personal attack. I myself was a Zoo animal as well. I came here from Poland in '82.
Boroda and Vad,
You have a Zoo/Plantation mentality (the right to free education, remember?). As long as I am fed and as long I have a "right" to work, I don't need no stinkin "phony" rights. You probably can't understand why blacks in US fought on the Union side either. In your view, they were fighting "against their own good interests", huh?
The reason that you were hungry is not that the state failed to provide you with food. You were hungry, because the state prevented you from making your own food. Not in a literal sense of course, but as in clipping your wings. People are yearning to achieve and produce, and unless you are a lazy bum, you're capable of not only to feeding yourself and your family, but you are able to produce much more. That's where the progress comes from. Let the people be, and they will specialize, produce surplus and then exchange with others thus creating a thriving society.
There is probably a lot of reasons why Russia, Poland and a lot of other formerly commie states have so many economic problems. In my opinion, the major one (if not the top one) is that people's minds are fcucked up by decades of socialist garbage. Just like you two, when someone is hungry, he does not try to find a way to produce, he waits for the state to bring the food to him. After all this is his "right" to be fed. As a result the "smart ones" turn to stealing from others and crime in general, the timid rest "the dumb ones" is starving and dreaming about the good old times of Stalin when at least we had a tree bark to chew on.
I've never regreted any of the commie "rights" I left in Poland. I came to the US with one wish. And the wish was to be left alone and be "permitted" to "make" my own food. In Poland I felt like tiny, worthless, dispensible ant. Here I feel a man. I came here with my wife, two daughters under 2, one suitcase and thousands of dollars in debt because I had to borrow money to get here. No one ever gave me anything and I've never expected any one to do so. For every buck I've earned, I've produced 3 or 4 for my employer. And let's leave it at that since this thread is not about me.
I don't mean to belittle you, but I honestly pity you both.
BTW, anything that requires another person's property or labour by definition can't be a right. There is a simple test of what is right and what is not.
If you can exercise it being by yourself on a deserted island, it IS a right. If you can't, it is NOT.
Now, just try this...
food? no, you have to get/produce it yourself.
healthcare? don't think so
shelter? see above...
not being a victim of an accident?
having someone else to support you in your old age? nope
freedom of speech? sure, why not
freedom to bear arms? would be stupid if you did not
freedom from gov opression (including taxes) ? sure
you get the gist of it, I hope.
-
MIlking the Zoo analogy some more...
You can take any Zoo animal one at the time and set it free (sometimes if requires some training in a wilderness first).
But you can't just open all the cages in a Zoo and expect that everything will just work out the day one.
-
Oddly enough if people from a “Zoo” get released, they are stronger than the ones running in the wild. But let’s say, we take away living necessity (electricity) from wild, they’ll just die. Maybe staying in higher echelons of Maslow’s pyramid is not healthy after all….
-
Originally posted by Vad
I just want to remind you that I have been living in Canada since 1999, and I am Canadian citizen, so I know what I'm talking about.
If you live here and you can equate Russia to Canada you obviously haven't got a friggin clue. There is food here. The queen's cowboys won't show up in the middle of the night to arrest you. The only way to get arrested in this country is to be accused of committing a crime that is listed in the Canadian criminal code. You won't get arrested for pissing off a politico. Kidnapping isn't a national pass-time, nor is it considered "just good business". As a matter of fact, the whole kidnapping/assassination gig doesn't go over well here. I could go on.
Buy a book about Canada. Spend some time with the book open and your nose buried in it. You might learn something.
asw
-
I heard you could get arrested in Canada just for saying, "Hockey sucks!"
-
Originally posted by Russian
Oddly enough if people from a “Zoo” get released, they are stronger than the ones running in the wild.
Exactly. Just a fact that you chose to leave the Zoo, is a testiment of your character and temperament. This is a major test actually.
The choice is pretty simple, really.
Either you (as an entity in yourself) are responsible for providing yourself and your family, or you are just a little piece of a collective run the state and waiting for the scraps of refuse to fall in your hungry mouth (calling it "manna"), not from heaven of course, from but from the government.
Or... you can say FCUK IT, I can be a person.
-
Originally posted by detch01
show up in the middle of the night to arrest you.
You do realize that after Stalin’s death, there was no more disappearing? Oh, wait! You do not since you’ve been watching TV for ‘educational’ purposes.
-
Originally posted by mietla
a little piece of a collective run the state and waiting for the scraps of refuse to fall in your hungry mouth
I don’t know about Poland, but in Russia no one ‘collects’ anything for free. Other than a house and medical care, everything else is earned. Can you educate me of otherwise?
-
Originally posted by Russian
I don’t know about Poland, but in Russia no one ‘collects’ anything for free. Other than a house and medical care, everything else is earned. Can you educate me of otherwise?
Do I really have to say anything after that?
You just have no concept of a property, now do you? Remember that free education by the state of course is a fundamental "right" of each approved citizen.
"Just what the world (everything outside of my body) owes me?"
ask yourself that.
You see, I was "free" educated just like you were. Obviously, I wasn't as good of a student as you were I guess.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Remember that free education by the state of course is a fundamental "right" of each approved citizen.
That is not an explanation. In US, high school is free, just as in Russia. (Is that a bad thing?) Except in Russia if you do not earn high grades, you will not get any higher education, and PTU (ÏÒÓ) does not count as higher education. But in States, you wave little many and any college/university will accept you. So who actually ‘earns’ education?
-
Originally posted by Russian
That is not an explanation. In US, high school is free, just as in Russia. (Is that a bad thing?) Except in Russia if you do not earn high grades, you will not get any higher education, and PTU (ÏÒÓ) does not count as higher education. But in States, you wave little many and any college/university will accept you. So who actually ‘earns’ education?
I was hoping you ( or the other "Soviet" guys) ask this. Yes it is wrong. US started on great foundation, but unfortunately the commies are nibbling on it for decades now. What we have left in the good'n Old USA is a socialism. Slow, I grant you that, but nore and more Americans catch the Boroda's "right to food and all the rest of the goodies" bacillus.
Free education (with a curriculum chosen by the parent), have a very mild problem with it.
A mandatory, government provided (paid by the taxes extorted from the citizens) and government controlled curriculum, absolutely not.
-
Originally posted by Russian
So who actually ‘earns’ education?
Those who can absorb it, and take advantage of it. Force feeding a moron precious knowledge he can't possibly comprehend and at the same time denying a bright kid an access to it because of some f*ng "do gooder , egalitarian nonsense mentality" gov regulation is a crime.
-
And Vad,
My daugthers will never, ever go hungry unless the dudes like Boroda and you are effective enough to convice the good US folks that freedom sucks, and that the goverment is the source of all the goodies and food as well.
With all due respect, stay where you feel comfortable. Why screw Canada. They are screwed enough without imported commie lovers. My sister's family lives there, I know :)
-
Man, did I kill this thread?
Sorry guys, I'll never post again.
-
One big difference between the KGB and free countries' law enforcement agencies. The KGB wasn't held accountable to the people. In soviet russia, government tells you what to do.
-
Originally posted by mietla
And Vad,
My daugthers will never, ever go hungry unless the dudes like Boroda and you are effective enough to convice the good US folks that freedom sucks, and that the goverment is the source of all the goodies and food as well.
With all due respect, stay where you feel comfortable. Why screw Canada. They are screwed enough without imported commie lovers. My sister's family lives there, I know :)
The USA has always had an over abundence of whatever we needed, the USSR and Russia have always been left wanting.
Our system was and is better, just a fact. Boroda is like a clown.
-
The USSR controlled an area much larger, and with more resources than the US ever had, yet they went tits up.
Israel turned a piece of crap land into an oasis.
Free people will produce, oppressed people will just take whatever is given to them.......like sheep.
-
Originally posted by mietla
Man, did I kill this thread?
Sorry guys, I'll never post again.
Yes, you did, but don't worry.
We will be waiting for somebody who are intelligible enough to continue talk about topick of this thread. Looks like it will take a lot of time but we are patient.
-
Insults sail when logic does fail.
I busted a ryhme :cool:
-
Originally posted by Vad
ok, something intelligible.
I just want to remind you that I have been living in Canada since 1999, and I am Canadian citizen, so I know what I'm talking about. Here, in America, we have absolutelly the same situation but role of strong charismatics leader plays not your President or Prime Minister but your employer. You have thousands of leaders with even more rights than I would suggest to give to goverment. And most of them are not strong or even clever enough.
Yes, you can find another job here if you like. But:
1) Sometimes it is not easy
2) You have to worry about career, resume, references, etc.
3) (and the most important) In Czar's Russia there were no problems for Russians to visit abroad, ruble was one of the most strong currency in the world. I've never said that I suggest to close borders. If country is rich enough any country in the world would be more than happy to have you as a tourist or even resident. Sauds don't have any problems with visas to Europe or America, do they? If you don't like to live in rich and prosperous country, don't want to have very good and stable income but pay for this by some restrictions in your rights and freedoms - ok, no problem, you are free to go wherever you want.
This mechanism worked for centuries, it works know for middle east monarchies, and I believe it would work for Russia.
Your emplyer does not own you.
You really dont get it.
-
Oh, those Russians.....:p
-
I've been reading this thread with intrest, and one thing that the former Communists and current Stalinistdon't seem to get is this....
Basic human rights are NOT "given" by a government, rather they are divine rights that are inherent in all men. Basically, man has a basic right to be free by his very nature. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Governments may abridge these rights, but they do not "grant" them. Inteference with these rights are what seperate free societies from opressed ones. The belief that thse rights are "granted" by a government, instead of being a basic fact of human existance, is what seperates freedom from totalinarism.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Your emplyer does not own you.
You really dont get it.
Czar doesn't own me too. He has right to make laws, or order me to do something in scope of my responsibilties. It is the same what democratic presidents or parlaments can do.
Only difference between president and Czar that Czar rules forever, but President is elected for limited time.
If you have good person on Czar's job why should you change him?
And I would say more.
Free people will produce, oppressed people will just take whatever is given to them.......like sheep.
Nuke tried to insult but actually he is right. European countries have no natural resources, their prosperity based on the necessity to produce goods. Free market and competition were proved to be the most suitable to achieve success in this. And democracy society is most adequate for such type of production.
If country prosperity bases on natural resources competition doesn't work, and it's even harmful. There are limited number of minefields, and you can't increase this number. If they were private very limited number of companies or persons would get the major part of national income. Any competition would be senseless because you can't compete with the pipe of oil. It doesn't matter how hard you work, how good products you produce, how effective methods and innovations you are using. That guy with pipe will get more money anyway.
The results of this disparity is the actual control of the goverment by the small group of those who own resources. They have money, more money than all others taken together, and they will win elections. Controlling elected goverment they have actual control over country, more effective than Czar or Stalin had.
It is not a fantasy. It is exactly what happened in Russia in 1990-1995.
And you hate democracy IN RUSSIA because Russian democracy in fact becomes more totalitarian than even stalinism. Stalin, at least, didn't think about his own pocket, he thought about contry. New "democrats" who control oil are thinking only about their inerests. And have enough power and money to do whtever they want.
If other world was clever enough they would pray about new Czar in Russia. That morons with the oil are thinking about only their interests, and don't worry about others. In fact they have enough power, all power of Russia, and complete control over everything but have no responsibility.
BTW, Russia has nuclear weapons, and they control it too...
-
Originally posted by Vad
Czar doesn't own me too. He has right to make laws, or order me to do something in scope of my responsibilties. It is the same what democratic presidents or parlaments can do.
Only difference between president and Czar that Czar rules forever, but President is elected for limited time.
If you have good person on Czar's job why should you change him?
From what source does the "Czar" have the right to make laws? On what authority is he named Czar? How does he have the "right" to order you to do ANYTHING (unless you have done something to accept his authority, such as join the military)?
You seem to have a severe misunderstanding of what rights mean to Americans, and exactly what the President can and can not do.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Vad what point is there to prove? You said it yourself, Boroda said it too - yiu want a singular strongman charismatic leader to run the country and take accountability away from individuals and put it on the state's power to punish people who dont execute his orders.
Punishing people who dont follow orders exactly is not making them accountable, it simply makes them mindless robots - it makes them Russians.
Which why you are so comfortable in that, its all yiur perople have known for hundreds of years under the mongols, czars, soviets, and now Putin.
I don't mean execution or cutting trees in the North as a punishment. I only expect a person at the high position who's making stupid decisions to be fired. What we need is just some responsibility, now there's no responsibility above certain "level of command". But according to Western understanding of "democracy" any attempt to make people responsible is declared a violation of human rights and neo-stalinism. That's why I call myself a stalinist.
Stalinism = a regime where responsibility corresponds to a level of decisions, especially in emergency conditions. I don't want to see bastards like Gaidar or Kirienko hanged on lamp posts, but I'll not regret if they'll be, and I'll be the last person to stop people from doing it. I'll be quite satisfied if they'll get fired with a ban for any administration jobs.
-
Originally posted by detch01
If you live here and you can equate Russia to Canada you obviously haven't got a friggin clue. There is food here. The queen's cowboys won't show up in the middle of the night to arrest you. The only way to get arrested in this country is to be accused of committing a crime that is listed in the Canadian criminal code. You won't get arrested for pissing off a politico. Kidnapping isn't a national pass-time, nor is it considered "just good business". As a matter of fact, the whole kidnapping/assassination gig doesn't go over well here. I could go on.
Buy a book about Canada. Spend some time with the book open and your nose buried in it. You might learn something.
I am sorry to blow your bubble - but the same thing worked in USSR. You got arrested only if you committed a crime listed in Criminal codex. Kidnapping was a crime punshed severely.
USSR wasn't an inhuman killing regime, as you have been told. It's another myth of XX century.
Your common mistake is that you believe what you have been told, and we know how it really was, we lived in USSR. Some things you say really make us laugh.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I don't mean execution or cutting trees in the North as a punishment. I only expect a person at the high position who's making stupid decisions to be fired.
But since Stalinism sent three million of "those responsible" to their death in Kolyma, then I guess you are not a Stalinist.
-
Originally posted by Shaky
From what source does the "Czar" have the right to make laws? On what authority is he named Czar? How does he have the "right" to order you to do ANYTHING (unless you have done something to accept his authority, such as join the military)?
You seem to have a severe misunderstanding of what rights mean to Americans, and exactly what the President can and can not do.
Czar, or President, or Parlament can do that and alwasy did that the same way - using law.
They issue a law, and you must have insurance to drive a car, you must report any car incident to police, you must pay taxes and social insurance. You must don't smoke in public places, you must serve in military (ok, the last is in democratic Israel and Europe, not in America)
They order to that - and you do that. And have no chances to change anything here.
-
Originally posted by mietla
And Vad,
My daugthers will never, ever go hungry unless the dudes like Boroda and you are effective enough to convice the good US folks that freedom sucks, and that the goverment is the source of all the goodies and food as well.
With all due respect, stay where you feel comfortable. Why screw Canada. They are screwed enough without imported commie lovers. My sister's family lives there, I know :)
Well, the hidden secret of prosperity is: don't have your country invaded every 50 years, look at wars as a good investment and build your country at a warm place (NYC is at the same latitude as Kiev, and in Moscow we have less then 20 days a year when warmer then +20C).
I never starved in my life. My Father was born in 1926, and he lived in Leningrad during the War... My Mother is from Ukrainian family, and my grandparents were starving in 1933. After 1947 there was no hunger in USSR. More to say, since 1991 average meat consumption decreased two times! Yes! Hail Democracy! We are ****ing free now! ß ñâîáîäåí, ÿ çàáûë ÷òî çíà÷èò ñòðàõ, âàøó ìàòü!
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Well, the hidden secret of prosperity is: don't have your country invaded every 50 years,
Germany seemed to do pretty good within a few years of it's total destruction, twice within 50 years. Try again.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
But since Stalinism sent three million of "those responsible" to their death in Kolyma, then I guess you are not a Stalinist.
I asked you to define "stalinism". If it's your definition - then I'm not a stalinist. I simply picked up a term used by our liberal-right bastards who still want to seize and divide what's left here in Russia. It's obvious that they don't want to be responsible for what they do.
Pure numbers: in 1996 RF with it's population of 150 millions had 2 (two) times more government administration employees then USSR (approx. 300 millions) had in 1990. I work to feed all that army of parasites. In last 9 years it had grown at least twice, statistics is not availible any more. Hail Democracy! 4 times more parasites then in USSR! 8 times more per capita! Hail! Heil!
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Hail Democracy! 4 times more parasites then in USSR! 8 times more per capita! Hail! Heil!
Everyone under communism was a parasite.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Germany seemed to do pretty good within a few years of it's total destruction, twice within 50 years. Try again.
Thanks for an advise.
The situation now is worse then in Germany in 1932. Guess what can happen, and don't tell me that I didn't warn you. :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Thanks for an advise.
The situation now is worse then in Germany in 1932. Guess what can happen, and don't tell me that I didn't warn you. :(
Why is the situation so bad? Is it because you have no resources, or is it because you have corrupt people running the place?
-
Originally posted by Vad
Czar, or President, or Parlament can do that and alwasy did that the same way - using law.
They issue a law, and you must have insurance to drive a car, you must report any car incident to police, you must pay taxes and social insurance. You must don't smoke in public places, you must serve in military (ok, the last is in democratic Israel and Europe, not in America)
They order to that - and you do that. And have no chances to change anything here.
The President does not "issue" laws, the various legislatures do, local, state and federal. If we do not like the laws they are passing, we can vote em out. BIG difference between the Czars and "President" there.
Additionaly, our constitution specifies what the government can do. What few seem to realize outside this country is that the U.S. constitution was created to LIMIT governmen, and its power. It specifies that our government is derived by the consent of the people, and, by extrapolation, that consent can be removed. This is the major diference between a free society and one that is not.
Again, by what authority is the Czar granted this power?
-
Originally posted by Vad
3) (and the most important) In Czar's Russia there were no problems for Russians to visit abroad, ruble was one of the most strong currency in the world. I've never said that I suggest to close borders. If country is rich enough any country in the world would be more than happy to have you as a tourist or even resident. Sauds don't have any problems with visas to Europe or America, do they? If you don't like to live in rich and prosperous country, don't want to have very good and stable income but pay for this by some restrictions in your rights and freedoms - ok, no problem, you are free to go wherever you want.
This mechanism worked for centuries, it works know for middle east monarchies, and I believe it would work for Russia.
Well, you are not right. Borders were closed by Alexey Mikhailovich during a famine in Europe, and since that time it was... well... not easy to leave Russia. In modern times (since Nikolay Pavlovich) you had to get a "foreign passport" approved by authorities. In that times it was obviously easier to control emigration this way, commies simply copied this practice, IMHO it was a great mistake. Countries of people's democracy had much softer emigration laws, ask Mietla ;)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The USSR controlled an area much larger, and with more resources than the US ever had, yet they went tits up.
Israel turned a piece of crap land into an oasis.
Free people will produce, oppressed people will just take whatever is given to them.......like sheep.
Yes. Israel is an oasis. But 50 years they live in state of permanent war.
Free people? What is your freedom? You are the same slaves as any others. You must pay taxes and follow rules. You can't look at women because she can accuse you in 'sexual harassment', you can't name negro as negro because you will be accused in racism. All your life you are playing in the 'Democratic elections' games and always getting the bastard who just payd for PR a little much more then other candidates. You will die in ER room just because you had nothing to pay for you medical insurance. Is it your freedom? You are teaching the whole world for how to live, but can't solve your own problems with criminal.
-
Boroda, here is what I am trying to tell you:
You have a country of great natural resources, smart, edjucated people, a people more than willing and able to work. You guys have all the building blocks that you could ever need to rebuild your country into a GREAT country.
The only thing you guys lack is the realisation within the people that they control their fate and their country.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The only thing you guys lack is the realisation within the people that they control their fate and their country.
NUKE, the only you need to teach us is to come here to Russia and live here for 2-3 years.
-
Originally posted by Estel
NUKE, the only you need to teach us is to come here to Russia and live here for 2-3 years.
Maybe you should live here in the US for a few years, then re evaluate your outlook.
-
Estel, do you ever wonder why Tawain is so successful, for so many years? They have a fraction of resources that you have. What about Japan? They have few resources. What do you think makes the difference for them?
Why are they successful and rich, while you guys can't even feed yourselves?
South Korea and North Korea........what's the difference between them?
Do you think it's just luck?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Estel, do you ever wonder why Tawain is so successful, for so many years? They have a fraction of resources that you have. What about Japan? They have few resources. What do you think makes the difference for them?
Why are they successful and rich, while you guys can't even feed yourselves?
South Korea and North Korea........what's the difference between them?
Do you think it's just luck?
Nuke, it is impossible to keep any conversation if we would up again and again the same old subjects.
North Korea cut from the world market. Economical sanctions, lack of access to modern technologies, lack of investments, etc... South Korea enjoes military and economical support from USA, and doesn't need to spend a lot of money for self defence.
It is politics, not economics. USA and "free" world punish North Korea for not being like others. Psychology of hordes - those who are not like we should die.
If you want to talk about pure economics let talk about Mexico and the USA. The same continent, the same start positions, the same political system, no UN sanctions and no need for Mexico to worry about self defence, but so huge difference - why? Corruption and incompetent goverment? But why Mexican democracy didn't solve this problem during the last 150 years?
-
Originally posted by Vad
If you want to talk about pure economics let talk about Mexico and the USA. The same continent, the same start positions, the same political system, no UN sanctions and no need for Mexico to worry about self defence, but so huge difference - why? Corruption and incompetent goverment? But why Mexican democracy didn't solve this problem during the last 150 years?
Not the same political system, not even close. Mexico does not have a US constitution or bill of rights. Mexican law presumes guilt until proven inocent, US law presumes innocence until proven guilty. A HUGE difference right there.
Mexico has probably more resources than the US. The only thing that keeps Mexico a watermelon hole is it's government.
-
North Korea was cut from the world market? Why? What does North Korea produce that the world needs?
North Korea cut itself off from the world market. North Korea can't feed itself, South Korea is rich.
-
Originally posted by Vad
If you want to talk about pure economics let talk about Mexico and the USA. The same continent, the same start positions, the same political system, no UN sanctions and no need for Mexico to worry about self defence, but so huge difference
Why do you think that Mexico doesnt have to worry about self defence, yet North Korea does? The US borders Mexico, not North Korea. You think we invade countries for no reason? Why is Mexico not worried?
-
I do not need to live in USA. Mostly because I don't want to live in the country where I can't name the things with their original names.
Originally posted by NUKE
Estel, do you ever wonder why Tawain is so successful, for so many years? They have a fraction of resources that you have. What about Japan? They have few resources. What do you think makes the difference for them?
Why are they successful and rich, while you guys can't even feed yourselves?
South Korea and North Korea........what's the difference between them?
Do you think it's just luck?
You are taking wrong start point. It's incorrect to compare Russia and Tawain. Why? Because of territory and population. How many people live in Tawain and how many in Russia? Tawain with paradise climate and 23 millions of population (this is population of Moscow and St.Petersburg) and Russia where we have only few regions where we can grow food for 3 months in year and climate with 9 winter months.
It's more correct to compare Russia and Canada. But Canada didn't had revolution and wars from 1900. At least on their own territory. We builded industry from zero twice. After Civil war (maybe you remember, that USA didn't meet Antanta engagements to help Russia) and after WW2. And nobody helped us. Only prevented.
North Korea? Maybe you forgot, but USA is number 1-st who is preventing NK from prosperity. With economical sanctions and permanent military threats. They are forced to spend money and make every effort to resist your indefatigable wish to make them another sheep in consumers herd. Only they want is to live where they want and to live how they want.
-
The problem with Boroda and other ex USSR citizens like him, is that they went from a tightly controlled society. It was their norm. They were used to it and comfortable with it. Most people are not dissidents in any country so would not draw attention to themselves. Indeed they would have been educated to believe in their way of life. Everyone had a job whether they wanted it or not. There was some sense of security, a sense of being a wider community.
Contrast that with the Russia of right now. Corruption, crime, no job security, no sense of community, Incompetent leadership. No wonder he wants to go back to the old Stalinist ways.
The problem is that the old ways did not work nor will they every work. That's what Boroda and others cannot face up to.
On the other hand we in the west cannot understand this desire to return to the certainties of communism. In the west we have stable systems of democracy. We have a freedom of expression we usually don't need because of the society we live in. We are used to have to find our own jobs and expect to be mostly left alone to earn what we can or live where we want to. There is a safety net in social security but for the most part it is too low to have a decent standard of living and even if it did most of us have been conditioned to be ashamed to take it. The system isn't perfect but it works brilliantly most of time. You don't have to be a thief or corrupt to get rich.
Boroda and Russians in general need stop harking back to the mythical 'good old days'. What they need is to look to the west and take the best of what we have and apply it to Russia. Right now what they have is a bastardised amalgam of old Soviet thinking and unchecked capitalism. That is the real problem. Democracy is not an 'ism'. It's simply the means people use to have a say in what happens in their country if they want to express it.
Don't say it wouldn't work in Russia. People are the same everywhere. All we want is enough to eat, somewhere to live and the freedom to be left to get on with it for the most part.
Forget Stalinism that 'ism' is a dead as it's instigator. Look to the future not the past.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Not the same political system, not even close. Mexico does not have a US constitution or bill of rights. Mexican law presumes guilt until proven inocent, US law presumes innocence until proven guilty. A HUGE difference right there.
Mexico has probably more resources than the US. The only thing that keeps Mexico a watermelon hole is it's government.
Does Mexico have democratic system? Yes.
Does France have democratic goverment? Yes. But law principles are difference in France, they use Napoleon code, which differs from English code. But it doesn't affect level of living standards, they have approximatelly the same in Britain and France.
Once again. We are talking about democracy. If democracy is panacea it should work regardless of other circumstances. But it doesn't work in Mexico, in South America, in Iraq, and actually it works only in Europe, USA and Canada. That is it. Even in Japan it works so-so, but I don't want to waste your time to prove it.
If it doesn't work with necessarity you shouldn't enforce it for those who are not ready or don't want to use this system.
-
Originally posted by Estel
North Korea? Maybe you forgot, but USA is number 1-st who is preventing NK from prosperity. With economical sanctions and permanent military threats. They are forced to spend money and make every effort to resist your indefatigable wish to make them another sheep in consumers herd. Only they want is to live where they want and to live how they want.
After an entirely stupid comment like that. Nothing you say can have any credibility. You should do some research on North Korea and find out the reality of the situation.
Incredible:O
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
The problem with Boroda and other ex USSR citizens like him, is that they went from a tightly controlled society. It was their norm. They were used to it and comfortable with it. Most people are not dissidents in any country so would not draw attention to themselves. Indeed they would have been educated to believe in their way of life. Everyone had a job whether they wanted it or not. There was some sense of security, a sense of being a wider community.
Contrast that with the Russia of right now. Corruption, crime, no job security, no sense of community, Incompetent leadership. No wonder he wants to go back to the old Stalinist ways.
The problem is that the old ways did not work nor will they every work. That's what Boroda and others cannot face up to.
On the other hand we in the west cannot understand this desire to return to the certainties of communism. In the west we have stable systems of democracy. We have a freedom of expression we usually don't need because of the society we live in. We are used to have to find our own jobs and expect to be mostly left alone to earn what we can or live where we want to. There is a safety net in social security but for the most part it is too low to have a decent standard of living and even if it did most of us have been conditioned to be ashamed to take it. The system isn't perfect but it works brilliantly most of time. You don't have to be a thief or corrupt to get rich.
Boroda and Russians in general need stop harking back to the mythical 'good old days'. What they need is to look to the west and take the best of what we have and apply it to Russia. Right now what they have is a bastardised amalgam of old Soviet thinking and unchecked capitalism. That is the real problem. Democracy is not an 'ism'. It's simply the means people use to have a say in what happens in their country if they want to express it.
Don't say it wouldn't work in Russia. People are the same everywhere. All we want is enough to eat, somewhere to live and the freedom to be left to get on with it for the most part.
Forget Stalinism that 'ism' is a dead as it's instigator. Look to the future not the past.
Good post. You are nearer to the truth that anybody else.
Unfortunatelly, it is easy to say than to do... You can't change people at once , it takes a lot of time. Moses moved them 40 years until the last slave died. If they got land before that had happened they would establish state based on slavary.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
After an entirely stupid comment like that. Nothing you say can have any credibility. You should do some research on North Korea and find out the reality of the situation.
Incredible:O
Stupid post.
You have never been in North Korea, and there are no researches what can prove your point.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Not the same political system, not even close. Mexico does not have a US constitution or bill of rights. Mexican law presumes guilt until proven inocent, US law presumes innocence until proven guilty. A HUGE difference right there.
By the way, is it possible in Mexico who doesn't have US consitution and bill of rights?
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democratic House leaders called Sunday for an independent panel to investigate the legality of a program President Bush authorized that allows warrantless wiretaps on U.S. citizens, according to a letter to House Speaker Dennis Hastert.
"We believe that the President must have the best possible intelligence to protect the American people, but that intelligence must be produced in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our laws, and in a manner that reflects our values as a nation," the letter says.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.nsa/index.html
-
There is a safety net in social security but for the most part it is too low to have a decent standard of living
The standard of living in the Soviet Union matches pretty closely to the level which you can achieve with western social security. In finland for example you get free housing, electricity, medicare, education up to university level and $500 a month to spend if you're a single person. For each child that goes up a few hundred so if you are a Somalian with 7 children you earn $2500 a month + the other benefits doing nothing.
For most people that level is unimaginably low and they find a job instead. But for many many refugees, especially gypsies, this sounds appealing and we're getting targeted by 'economical' refugees.
Stupid post.
You have never been in North Korea, and there are no researches what can prove your point.
I've seen documentaries from North Korea and the whole country is surreal. The people there are 100% brainwashed. Each family has a mandatory government radio in the kitchen which broadcasts daily propaganda. The frequent power cuts are explained to the people by saying that the imperialist Americans steal their electricity. :huh
The streets of the capital of NK are empty. You see nobody out in the middle of the day.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
I've seen documentaries from North Korea and the whole country is surreal. The people there are 100% brainwashed. Each family has a mandatory government radio in the kitchen which broadcasts daily propaganda. The frequent power cuts are explained to the people by saying that the imperialist Americans steal their electricity. :huh
The streets of the capital of NK are empty. You see nobody out in the middle of the day.
Is there a name for that documentary? I would like to check it out.
-
Unfortunately it's been so long since I saw them that I don't recall the name. I've seen a couple documentaries anyway. At least one was from BBC and the other may have been finnish made. The idea was anyway that journalists smuggled film cameras inside NK off-limits areas. They control very strictly what you can film in NK and they arrange huge propaganda displays for foreign media. But even from those you can see how sick that society is - the preteen children playing in the displays are 100% robotic.
The show in itself looks great, but you could aswell look at a bunch of robots doing an automated task, not something you expect from a bunch of 8-year olds.
This is not the report I saw, but something similar. The film I saw actually displayed the illegal street markets and starving children filtering dropped rice from the mudpools in the ground for food.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4363534.stm
The busy streets of the capital: (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39344000/jpg/_39344090_desertedstreets203.jpg)
-
Yeah NK is a fascinating place. I like their TV/radio in everyhome "the box". It only gets 2 state run stations that broadcast propoganda. You can reduce the volumn but you can't turn it off.
Oh yeah, and their president is a guy who's been dead since '94.
-
Originally posted by Estel
You are taking wrong start point. It's incorrect to compare Russia and Tawain. Why? Because of territory and population. How many people live in Tawain and how many in Russia? Tawain with paradise climate and 23 millions of population (this is population of Moscow and St.Petersburg) and Russia where we have only few regions where we can grow food for 3 months in year and climate with 9 winter months.
It's more correct to compare Russia and Canada. But Canada didn't had revolution and wars from 1900. At least on their own territory. We builded industry from zero twice. After Civil war (maybe you remember, that USA didn't meet Antanta engagements to help Russia) and after WW2. And nobody helped us. Only prevented.
North Korea? Maybe you forgot, but USA is number 1-st who is preventing NK from prosperity. With economical sanctions and permanent military threats. They are forced to spend money and make every effort to resist your indefatigable wish to make them another sheep in consumers herd. Only they want is to live where they want and to live how they want.
Maybe you could compare Finland and Russia: After WW2 large percentage of our industry was producing goods for Russia as war reparations (= free for you): For example only ships manufactured for Russians would had made over 20km long solid line and other goodies transferred from FInland to Soviet Union needed over 140000 rail cars.
Oh... let's not forget about those 45000 square km Soviet Union took from us so we had to find new jobs, homes and farms for 430000 people.
We have no paradise climate, no oil, not much minerals and we have Russia as our neighbour.
What Finland is today is a prospering country without corruption, with plenty of paper- and hightech industry and which is competitive with any country in the world.
Russia isn't any of those.
Anyways enjoy your life in there and I'll do the same in here and pretty please; stay on Your side of border... OK ? :aok
-
cpxx... I understand what you are saying about the stalinists here living in a tightly controled environment and being used to it... but...
What I don't understrand is... guys like mileta who came here and understood our system and reveled and thrived in it... compared to the stalinists here who get on BB and bemoan the loss of control over their lives... what is a free house if it is a **** hole that I don't want to live in? what is free education if you are still using a mule to plow fields or it takes 10 man hours to make a pair of gloves that have two left hands and I wouldn't wear even if I could afford em?
what I don't understand it the system that collapsed would never have allowed these stalinists to converse with us.... if "us" ignorant capitalists have no idea of former soviet life it is because of the walls...
These guys never got to be heard... if they would have spouted off against their government like they are doing they would have been arrested.... that is what they want to return to? they want to build the walls back up?
How can we understand? I see former soviets all the time these days. I have never seen one that would rather not be here... never seen one that would rather return to the old soviet russia.
Before the walls came down.... the only soviets I seen were on TV with KGB agents at their side so that they wouldn't run away.
How am I supposed to reconcile that with what these commies here are telling me?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Staga
Maybe you could compare Finland and Russia:
WHy we have to compare Finland and Russia? Finland wasn't destroyed twice in the last centure, Finland doesn't spend half of its national income to self defence, Finland thnx to the USSR had huge and stable market for goods which, actulaly, weren't good enough to compete with Western but were more than satisfactory for Russians.
Let talk about Mexico. The same or even better starting conditions as the USA, the same political system but so huge difference...
Anyways enjoy your life in there and I'll do the same in here and pretty please; stay on Your side of border... OK ? :aok
No way! :)
You spent so much efforts to destroy Empire of Evil - enjoy the results. Now you will enjoy us in your home forever :)
-
Originally posted by Vad
Let talk about Mexico. The same or even better starting conditions as the USA, the same political system but so huge difference...
:huh
-
Originally posted by Vad
WHy we have to compare Finland and Russia? Finland wasn't destroyed twice in the last centure, Finland doesn't spend half of its national income to self defence, Finland thnx to the USSR had huge and stable market for goods which, actulaly, weren't good enough to compete with Western but were more than satisfactory for Russians.
Let talk about Mexico. The same or even better starting conditions as the USA, the same political system but so huge difference...
No way! :)
You spent so much efforts to destroy Empire of Evil - enjoy the results. Now you will enjoy us in your home forever :)
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Vad
Let talk about Mexico. The same or even better starting conditions as the USA, the same political system but so huge difference...
They were doing well, until someone decided to liberate them, except they didn’t use liberate term but instead: manifest destiny.
-
Do I need to run down the list of how the US legally aquired all of it's land again?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Do I need to run down the list of how the US legally aquired all of it's land again?
ROFLOL, this will be good...sure...go ahead. I like to laugh.
-
Manuscript for debate
US – USSR was evil
RU – No, it’s not. I lived here and it’s OK.
US – You are a fool, you have no basic rights.
RU – What basic rights? We had more rights then you.
US – Oh yeah! At least I have no KGB visiting me at night.
RU – What?
US - HA HA! You see, USSR was evil!
RU – No, it’s not. I lived here and it’s OK.
(Repeat until both parties call each other names and topic gets locked… )
-
lol u forced the mexicans to sell California and others at VERY low price when the *destiny* seekers destroyed Mexico for not giving up their land years ago.
On February 2, 1848, The Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo was signed, later to be ratified by both the U.S. and Mexican Congresses. The treaty called for the annexation of the northern portions of Mexico to the United States. In return, the U.S. agreed to pay $15 million to Mexico as compensation for the seized territory.
-
Originally posted by tikky
lol u forced the mexicans to sell California and others at VERY low price when the *destiny* seekers destroyed Mexico for not giving up their land years ago.
On February 2, 1848, The Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo was signed, later to be ratified by both the U.S. and Mexican Congresses. The treaty called for the annexation of the northern portions of Mexico to the United States. In return, the U.S. agreed to pay $15 million to Mexico as compensation for the seized territory.
Yeah, they lost a war.
Louisianna Purchase from France (most of the land between the Mississippi river to the east and up to the Rocky mountains, War of Indepedence, Texas joined the US, we purchased Alaska from Russia, Mexico ceded Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevada and Colorado land after a war and treaty in which we paid them for it.
All legally.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, they lost a war.
Louisianna Purchase from France (most of the land between the Mississippi river to the east and up to the Rocky mountains, War of Indepedence, Texas joined the US, we purchased Alaska from Russia, Mexico ceded Arizona, New Mexico, California, Nevada and Colorado land after a war and treaty in which we paid them for it.
All legally.
…let me get this straight. US invaded Mexican land, destroyed their army, attacked and seized their capital, but all that was legal? Care to re-read your own history without propaganda glasses?
Let me help you. Mexico was looking for ways to increase population in Texas (Mexican land). They allowed US residents to enter Mexican land under three conditions; they must convert to catholism, they cannot bring slaves and they must become Mexican citizens. None of dements were met. Once Mexico realized that, it was too late. US claimed, based on idiotic idea of Manifest Destiny, that Texas was theirs.
So you call…this is legal?
-
Texas was not part of the US when they declared independence from Mexico. Texas was it's own country.
Mexico then attacked US troops in Texas. They lost the war.
Texas was a Spanish/Mexican territory that Amewricans had been settling in.
By the way, how do you think Mexico and Spain got that land? We got it after a war, fair and square.......and signed a treaty and paid for it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Texas was not part of the US when they declared independence from Mexico. Texas was it's own country.
Mexico then attacked US troops in Texas. They lost the war.
Texas was a Spanish/Mexican territory that Amewricans had been settling in.
By the way, how do you think Mexico and Spain got that land? We got it after a war, fair and square.......and signed a treaty and paid for it.
Is this thing on? Can you hear me?
It was MEXICAN land (granted it was taken away from natives, just as US did). You invaded it. Those are facts.
-
Also, just before Mexico crossed into the Nation of Texas ( 10 years old), the British ceded Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and part of Montana to the US.
Texas had American and Mexican settlers since before Mexico won it's independence from Spain. The people of Texas, both Mexicans and Americans, declared idependence from Mexico.
-
Originally posted by Russian
Is this thing on? Can you hear me?
It was MEXICAN land (granted it was taken away from natives, just as US did). You invaded it. Those are facts.
Texas was setteled by Americans before Mexico was a country. Texas declared it's independence from Mexico, just as Mexico did from Spain.
Texas was an independent nation recognized by Britain, France and the US........for 10 years. Then Mexico invaded it.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Also, just before Mexico crossed into the Nation of Texas ( 10 years old), the British ceded Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and part of Montana to the US.
Texas had American and Mexican settlers since before Mexico won it's independence from Spain. The people of Texas, both Mexicans and Americans, declared idependence from Mexico.
Wow….this is unbelievable. So you are saying that US was there before Mexicans(Spanish)? Why don’t you pick up history book, preferably from neutral source, and read it.
-
Originally posted by Russian
Wow….this is unbelievable. So you are saying that US was there before Mexicans(Spanish)? Why don’t you pick up history book, preferably from neutral source, and read it.
The Spanish were there. I'm saying that Americans settled in the area before Mexico was a country. When Mexico gained independence from Spain, Texas was largly neglected. The American and Mexican settlers who had lived there since before Mexico became a nation, declared their independence from Mexico.
Mexico then attacked Texas the first time, and Texes won it's independence.
10 years later, Mexico wanted to get Texas back, and the poeple of Texes were also concerned that the British were about to annex Texas, along with the Oregon territories. They decided to seek the protection of the US, which then annexed Texas and sent troops to the border. Mexico crossed the border and the US declared war on Mexico.
Britain decided to cede the Oregeon territories to the US rather than push another war.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The Spanish were there. I'm saying that Americans settled in the area before Mexico was a country. When Mexico gained independence from Spain, Texas was largly neglected. The American and Mexican settlers who had lived there since before Mexico became a nation, declared their independence from Mexico.
Mexico then attacked Texas the first time, and Texes won it's independence.
10 years later, Mexico wanted to get Texas back, and the poeple of Texes were also concerned that the British were about to annex Texas, along with the Oregon territories. They decided to seek the protection of the US, which then annexed Texas and sent troops to the border. Mexico crossed the border and the US declared war on Mexico.
Britain decided to cede the Oregeon territories to the US rather than push another war.
The land was Spanish, then when Mexico declared independence, the land became theirs. Those are facts. You can twist all you want to, but US invaded other nation under false pretenses and gained land. Maybe next you will tell us how US saved poor natives from themselves. Those evil savages! :rolleyes:
Can you return to original topic. Please keep telling Russian people how evil and terrible their life was during ‘oppression’.
-
The nation of Texas gained it's idependence from Mexico it then became theirs, as you say, just like Mexico did from Spain. What's the problem?
10 years later, the NATION of Texas aligned with the US for protection against Mexico.
That's not twisting anything, that's history.
And by the way, I never said how evil and terrible Russian life was.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
How am I supposed to reconcile that with what these commies here are telling me?
lazs
I don't think it's the Russians who moved west who think like that by and large.
I know a few Russians and others from the Soviet Union living here in Ireland. They have take to capitalism like a duck to water. If they don't have a business of their own, then they have two jobs. One Russian friend has a full time job, drives a DHL truck on his days off and buys and sells German cars. He certainly is no Stalinist nor does he hark back to the 'good old days'.
Unfortunately Boroda has probably never lived in the west at all. That I believe has coloured his perception. Quite a few Russians are like that. All they see are the negatives. It was indoctrinated into to them form many years. Western Capitalism = Bad. Communism, socialism = good.
Boroda has quite rightly pointed out that currently Russia is corrupt and badly run to the benefit of only a few. What he probably doesn't realise is that it was probably always so just that he never got to hear of it. Until the USSR collapsed that is.
Communism doesn't work and in any case is rarely practised as it usually ends up as a totalitarian state.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The nation of Texas gained it's idependence from Mexico it then became theirs, as you say, just like Mexico did from Spain. What's the problem?
10 years later, the NATION of Texas aligned with the US for protection against Mexico.
That's not twisting anything, that's history.
And by the way, I never said how evil and terrible Russian life was.
Land was Spanish. Fact
After independence land was Mexican. Fact
Spain/Mexican allowed US residents/citizens to enter land. Fact
After majority of population became US citizens, US declared Texas theirs. Fact.
Therefore, US entered land of foreign nation and declared it its own. Is that not illegal? Since currently California’s and Texas’ population is majority by Mexicans, should they declare ‘independence’? Do you not see irony here?
-
Originally posted by Russian
Land was Spanish. Fact
After independence land was Mexican. Fact
Spain/Mexican allowed US residents/citizens to enter land. Fact
After majority of population became US citizens, US declared Texas theirs. Fact.
Therefore, US entered land of foreign nation and declared it its own. Is that not illegal? Since currently California’s and Texas’ population is majority by Mexicans, should they declare ‘independence’? Do you not see irony here?
So, you ignore the fact that Texas won it's independence from Mexico and became it's own nation? Thats a fact, and if you are okay with Mexico becoming a nation by declaring idependence from Spain, then you should be okay with the Texas declaring it's idependence from Mexico.
You are amazing.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So, you ignore the fact that Texas won it's independence from Mexico and became it's own nation? Thats a fact, and if you are okay with Mexico becoming a nation by declaring idependence from Spain, then you should be okay with the Texas declaring it's idependence from Mexico.
You are amazing.
I’m amazing, thank you. ;)
I would be OK if it was done by Spanish/Mexicans. It was done by ‘illegals’ jumping fences (border line). Then those illegals declare that land magically becomes theirs.
-
Originally posted by Russian
I’m amazing, thank you. ;)
I would be OK if it was done by Spanish/Mexicans. It was done by ‘illegals’ jumping fences (border line). Then those illegals declare that land magically becomes theirs.
It wasn't done by people jumping the fence. It was a spanish territory and had mexicans and americans living there long before mexico declared independence. BOTH American AND Mexican citzens of Texas declared, then won their independence from Mexico. Fair and square.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
It wasn't done by people jumping the fence. It was a spanish territory and had mexicans and americans living there long before mexico declared independence. BOTH American AND Mexican citzens of Texas declared, then won their independence from Mexico. Fair and square.
Mexicans were Spanish until they declared independence. Americans being on foreign soil and not of Spanish citizenship cannot declare foreign land their own just because they had majority of population (8000 Mexicans to 30,000 US ‘illigals’)
(I’ll be back in few hours.)
-
Originally posted by Russian
Mexicans were Spanish until they declared independence.
Really? No people lived in the area before the Spanish came over? Amazing.
-
Yes the spanish american war is an unfortunate example of american imperialism. I know this because It was not censored form our history books.
Now why can't soviets admit any of the evils perpetrated by the USSR?
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
It was indoctrinated into to them form many years. Western Capitalism = Bad. Communism, socialism = good.
No, No and again No. We are not talking about an abstract capitalism model. We are talking about entirely particular, USA model. Western capitalism includes Swedish system. Wich is named as "Swedish Socialism". And for me, it's pretty good one system. I'm not basing on postulates of Goodness versus Evilness.
I'm looking onto living standards, law, medical care, education etc. And basing on this data I can say, do I want to live in that country or not. The same I can say about Socialism system. Because of unlike you, I live here. And I remember, what was Socialism. If you remember only KGB, ballet, Gagarin and GULAG, I remember free medical care. Free education. And really, I remember who were that KGB guys, because of some of them shared with me my breakfast :-)
Do you know, that in times of USSR, the crime level was the lowest in Europe? I remember, that our district militia officer didn't carry his gun in a holster. There was his lunch. Because there wasn't such idiots who just could take in mind to attack a militian.
What now? In USA blessed capitalism times? I can't go out from home without a gun. Because now, the city reminds me the battle field. Where every geek inludes me in target list.
Do you still think that Socialism time was so bad? Not for me.
Communism doesn't work and in any case is rarely practised as it usually ends up as a totalitarian state.
Every politicial system can end up as a totalitarian. Every one. And nobody proved that Communism will not work. It will.
-
Originally posted by Estel
Every politicial system can end up as a totalitarian. Every one. And nobody proved that Communism will not work. It will.
It works alright - by simple fear and the dehumanizing of the common citizen.
-
now this is getting confusing... we add that mexico belonged to the spaniards?
Ok.. so I will admit that maybe in the west we did not know what soviet russia or it's satalites were like...
boroda has told me that everything was free... free housing. free education and free food and medical..
let's start from the beggining... everyone in the soviet union had the same house and medical care?
Everyone worked hard at their job and the factories and farms gained by this and became the most productive in the world and.... just because there are russians everywhere in the U.S. and the world now and there weren't any before does not mean that the walls of soviet russia were any worse than the immigration policies of today?
I am having a hard time understanding how such a paradise failed.
You could of course have hot rods and firearms right? Bet it was fun going from one russian garage to the next to see what trick parts your buddies were putting on their hot rods after they got home from school eh?
or maybe... you guys just went out into the country and plinked with your handguns and then went home and reloaded ammo?
maybe they jumped on the BB and talked politics or wrote angry letters to the editor about minor slights?
What other hobbies did soviets enjoy in all their free time? What did they do with all that wealth that such a productive society made it's citizens?
I had allways heard soviet life was kinda grim and full of cheap vodka but.... maybe I am wrong.
lazs
-
You guys ever think that it may not be "Communism" or "Capitalism" that destroyed country?
Do you think if mighty USA had corrupted(as USSR ) government it would last longer that USSR?
-
(http://www.sportbikes.com/UBBimages3/840937-Beatingadeadhorse.gif)
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Problem is, you seem to be a pathological liar. You deny and refuse to give an inch, you are the "Katayn Expert, WMD Expert, Chernobyl Cleanup Expert, KGB Expert, the Communism was great for us Expert", and anything else you've spewed in here over the years.
If you didn't have basic Civil Defence training - you certainly should consider me an expert, especially if you think that VPHR detector tubes contain Zarin.
As for Chernobyl - here (http://ibcp.chph.ras.ru/lab_modelling.html) is a link to a department where I worked before our current IT department was formed. It's in Russian, so it's probably useless for such a great mind like you.
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I don't a smiley, I post facts.
Let me refrain from defining what you post in public.
A smile that I missed: (http://www.kolobok.wrg.ru/smiles/standart/fool.gif)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Really? No people lived in the area before the Spanish came over? Amazing.
The Spanish practiced assimilation tactics which allowed marriage to indigenous people. By the time they were done with locals, they were practically Spanish….
-
Originally posted by Estel
And nobody proved that Communism will not work. It will.
Define "working".
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You could of course have hot rods and firearms right? Bet it was fun going from one russian garage to the next to see what trick parts your buddies were putting on their hot rods after they got home from school eh?
or maybe... you guys just went out into the country and plinked with your handguns and then went home and reloaded ammo?
maybe they jumped on the BB and talked politics or wrote angry letters to the editor about minor slights?
What other hobbies did soviets enjoy in all their free time? What did they do with all that wealth that such a productive society made it's citizens?
lazs
You’re judging someone by your standards. As I said before: to you, it will look like a ‘craphole’. Instead of guessing, be more diplomatic and ask questions that are not filled with assumptions. That is the only was to find common language and learn about other side. If you start assuming, person talking to you will put up a barrier which is very difficult to break down. As Da1e Carnegie said: Sincerely ask questions. What was USSR education like? How did people spend free time? Etc.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Unfortunately Boroda has probably never lived in the west at all. That I believe has coloured his perception. Quite a few Russians are like that. All they see are the negatives. It was indoctrinated into to them form many years. Western Capitalism = Bad. Communism, socialism = good.
I have spent 4 weeks in the US in 1989. My Mother is an Australian citizen now.
I don't say "good" or "bad". I say - "different". Let a hundreed flowers blossom istead of bombing people who want to be different.
The idea of the USSR as a place where you could get arrested for a "political" joke or being late to work and disappear is very wrong.
-
Originally posted by Russian
You’re judging someone by your standards.
We are well aware of your bias on this subject. But practice what you preach on 'judging standards'.
Originally posted by Russian
As I said before: to you, it will look like a ‘craphole’.
No No No; It's a veritable Shangri-La. Yeah, thats how most describe it if I remember correctly.....
I've got a few Russian friends here. None of them are itchin to get back. Funny
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
I've got a few Russian friends here. None of them are itchin to get back. Funny
Some people like priest, some like priest's daughter.
I have many friends and aquaintances who came back to Russia from the US and regret that they went there.
Could be funny if you have known people who decided to come home from the US.
-
Originally posted by Black Sheep
We are well aware of your bias on this subject. But practice what you preach on 'judging standards'.
I have accumulated views from both systems since I lived in each side. I have most neutral view, unlike most people here….
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Some people like priest, some like priest's daughter.
I have many friends and aquaintances who came back to Russia from the US and regret that they went there.
Could be funny if you have known people who decided to come home from the US.
I can confirm that, not only from my friends, but also from my personal experience. It is extremely difficult to live where everything is foreign. This is not about politics, but about ‘people’.
-
Originally posted by Russian
I can confirm that, not only from my friends, but also from my personal experience. It is extremely difficult to live where everything is foreign. This is not about politics, but about ‘people’.
(hate jumpin' in late on these things....)
Just to clarify what you are saying....
It was ok for Mexico to declare it's independance from Spain, but Texas doing the same thing is wrong how?
Texas was it's own country for 10yrs.
Mexico invaded them.
Not sure how you can dispute that.
-
Originally posted by WMLute
(hate jumpin' in late on these things....)
Just to clarify what you are saying....
It was ok for Mexico to declare it's independance from Spain, but Texas doing the same thing is wrong how?
Texas was it's own country for 10yrs.
Mexico invaded them.
Not sure how you can dispute that.
I thought I explained my view point in previous posts. I say that it is not OK for illegals to declare independence. If they had citizenship from a country they are declaring independence from, they are welcome to do as they please.
-
I think the thing that most amazes me is all the commies and socialists here talking about all the "free" stuff they got with socialism/communism
They never got a "free" thing in their lives.... it was all paid for by someone.
Maybe their non productive butt never paid for it but someone did.
I am not making fun of crapholes because they can't be helped.... I am saying that expecting "free" stuff and thereby lowering the productivity of an entire country is what is creating the craphole.
You can get the same effect of course if your government is corrupt enough and siphons off enough money even under democracy/capitalism.... look at mexico and the other south and central american countries that go from one corrupt regieme to another.
as for soviet hobbies.... Who cares if they don't allow the ones I want?
lazs
-
Originally posted by mora
Define "working".
Both politicial and economical systems? Hmmm. It will be be not only hard to do, but also hard to understand.... I'll try in the morning. Not now.
-
Work under communism is in vain.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think the thing that most amazes me is all the commies and socialists here talking about all the "free" stuff they got with socialism/communism
They never got a "free" thing in their lives.... it was all paid for by someone.
Maybe their non productive butt never paid for it but someone did.
lazs
Isnt the basic point of both socialism and communism that that 'someone' who paid for their free stuff, was in fact 'everyone', including those receiving the 'free' stuff?
The thing I find amazing is the perceived threat from the West and a need to protect the USSR, or Mother Russia , or the Soviet Union, or whatever you wish to call it.
Protection from what?
If the Soviets never had a nuclear arsenal, do you think the West would have overtaken Russia?
The Nazis sure as hell werent going to, they were a bit thin on the ground in the late forties. Western nations had a fair bit to do with that too.
Would America have invaded Russia? Would Britain or the Commonwealth Nations?
What the hell for?
Where was the threat?
-
Well, the fact is that they DID have nukes, a big military, and a stated objective of crushing the west. Blue sky all you want, the west was reacting to a direct and unsubtle threat.
Also, are you arguing that the person who works super hard deserves to get no more than the person who sits back and does nothing?
-
Chairboy, im not arguing anything, just saying that Lazs' 'someone' who was paying for the free stuff was infact everyone, so no one person was copping any more or less of a raw deal than any other person.
And I believe socialism in fact doesnt distribute goods equally to all, but on a basis of what you put in.....ie put in heaps, get heaps out.....put in next to nothing, get next to nothing back.
And the nukes thing is my whole point.........would the West have used nukes to invade russia if russia didnt have any? I seriously doubt it.
So why the need for Russia to defend herself? Where was the threat.
The nuclear threat from the West was a threat only if Russia attacked.
There was never any danger whatsoever of the West nuking Russia, if Russia stayed at home and lived peacefully.
Im not trying to blue sky anything, I am questioning why Russia felt threatened by the West, when in fact we posed no threat at all.
I whole heartedly agree, the cold war and the arms race was a Western
reaction to Soviet actions, and their stated goal of crushing the west.
A Russian might say that the Soviet nuclear build up was in response to America having a worldwide nuclear capability, what I want to know, is why
did /does Russia consider that a threat?
Do Russian believe that the West would invade and destroy or occupy Russia, if it werent for the threat of nuclear world destruction?
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
Chairboy, im not arguing anything, just saying that Lazs' 'someone' who was paying for the free stuff was infact everyone, so no one person was copping any more or less of a raw deal than any other person.
Actually, the person who works super hard is getting the raw deal BECAUSE they get the same as the person who does nothing.
Later in your post, you mention a hypothetical where the people who did more work would get more, but that's not socialism. That's a concept called capitalism, and it has experienced some pretty good success over the past few hundred years.
-
I have to admit, my knowledge of how communism, socialism etc work is pretty much non-existant, so Im not going to argue the point on that on e Chairboy, and dont get me wrong, I'm not saying communism is a good thing. ( or a bad thing for that matter, just not my thing)
Basically all Im saying is that over the years on these boards I've seen several times Russian people talk about the need to protect Russia from the 'evil' West.
The whole thing is, us western democratic nations are all about freedom of choice (not just freedom of speech), so if Russians choose to be communists in Russia, we dont have any problem with that.
It is only when people outside Russia are denied freedom of choice by force of Russian arms that we become even the slightest threat to Russia.
The Russia with a huge armed forces was no safer (from western democratic nations) than a Russia with a bare minimum armed force....we still arent going to attack, the huge armed force was a farce, and used up a whole ****load of funds that could have bought food and fed millions.
The only people who were a threat to Russia after 1930 or so were the Nazi Germans and the Japanese, both of whom the western allies fought to near destruction.
I just dont get why suddenly the western allies were such a threat to Russia, nukes or not.
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
Do Russian believe that the West would invade and destroy or occupy Russia, if it werent for the threat of nuclear world destruction?
Exactly.
And we it has been proven that it would happen for sure.
Iraq didn't have WMD, and it was invade and occupied just because you don't like Saddam.
I don't want to say that Saddam is good, or I like him. But anyway it is not the reason to invade.
What do you think if Saddam had 100 ballistic missiles 20M each would the USA attack Iraq?
I think that from your point of view Stalin wasn't better than Saddam. What would stop your from attack the USSR if nothing stopped you from invade Iraq?
-
bluedog... socialism does not distribute equally that is correct... except... everyone is paying for a certain level of service that is distributed to anyone regardless of if they contribute or not... the result is... $6 a gallon gasoline and 6 month waits to see a dentist and a very high tax rate for everyone. this is not "free".
My point is that it is not free... someone pays for it. The only people who get "free" stuff are the ones who do nothing at all to contribute. This is wrong. I like the U.S. limited government that allows me to keep more of my money that I earn. I wish it were more like it was supposed to be according to our constitution... things would be even better but... even so.. it is the best there is right now.
As for democracy... I am no fan of democracy. Democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep all voting on what is for dinner. I believe in either democracy or a representitive republic with a constitution that sevely limits governments powers and with all inallienable rights clearly called out.
If that happens then such a government can never turn to tyranny. Any government that says that powers are derived from the government is doomed. it matters not if the powers the government has/gets come from the people voting on em or from a tyrant or socialist leader.
if, there is no constitution that limits the power of government and calls out human rights that can not be infringed... that government is doomed to tyranny induced by well meaning voters or iron fisted tyrants... it makes no difference.
The thing about this whole discussion is... we could never have had it back in "the good old days" of soviet Russia.... no North koreans are involved in this discussion.... no chinesse... no cubans.
Canadians and brits and aussies and russians and mexicans are all on here talking tho... They can own a computer and talk to each other. They don't have state radios tuned to 2 stations that never shut off or newspapers that are written by their government... or...
Walls to keep them in.
lazs
-
and.... russian...
I will bite.. What do people in russia and/or former soviet russia do for hobbies?
More specifically... what do they do for hobbies that I can't do right here in the U.S. ?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and.... russian...
I will bite.. What do people in russia and/or former soviet russia do for hobbies?
More specifically... what do they do for hobbies that I can't do right here in the U.S. ?
lazs
You can't go hitch-hiking from Moscow to Krasnoyarsk visiting Central Asia on the way.
You can't go kajaking on Tunguska.
You can't join an archeological expedition in Crimea, Central Asia or Siberia.
Visiting Central Asia or Caucasian autonomies and being a guest, not a target for criminals, was exclusive for USSR.
I could add some stuff like amateur song fesivals (a great and complicated cultural layer) - but now such festivals in California or Israel are sometimes bigger then "Razgulyay" (OTOH - not nearly as big as Grushin's festival or "Island").
-
Lazs you forget that the countries that have a free public healthcare sport also private healthcare where anyone can go with zero waiting time if they want to pay the premium (less what you pay in US btw.) Just recently a new law was passed giving a 'care guarantee' meaning that the public instances are obliged to provide certain health services during a time limit. Critical services such as acute toothache must be provided without waiting time. Non critical services must be examined within 3 days and the actual care must be done in 6 months.
Even if we have $6/gallon fuel we pay as much as you do in the end because we drive more fuel efficient cars which are also way more enviroment friendly due to lower greenhouse emissions.
Russia still has incredibly cheap gasoline and if I felt like it I could get a refill behind the border daily. Only one but..I'm not going to risk going through corrupt border guards and expose myself to 20km of russian highway crime (which it takes to drive to the nearest gas station from the border).
-
And what else is new?
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Lazs you forget that the countries that have a free public healthcare sport also private healthcare where anyone can go with zero waiting time if they want to pay the premium (less what you pay in US btw.) Just recently a new law was passed giving a 'care guarantee' meaning that the public instances are obliged to provide certain health services during a time limit. Critical services such as acute toothache must be provided without waiting time. Non critical services must be examined within 3 days and the actual care must be done in 6 months.
Here emergency (life-critical issues and traumas) are provided for everyone immediately without any payment. It is still so. In April I had gangrenous peritonitis, I was on a surgeon's table in less then 3 hours after I called 03, they literally saved my life, while I still haven't got my medical insurance card. But it's Moscow, not some Muhosransk. OTOH hospital doesn't have modern medicines, I had to ask friends to buy everything for me, if I had ordinary insurance - doctors could simply not allow me to do it, because I could then send the bills to insurance company and they'll sue hospital for "unnessessary expences". The price of the problem was less then $40.
In Soviet times payed medical care existed as well as many other free-market stuff. It included expensive dental care and stuff like cosmetical surgery, non-vital things.
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Even if we have $6/gallon fuel we pay as much as you do in the end because we drive more fuel efficient cars which are also way more enviroment friendly due to lower greenhouse emissions.
Russia still has incredibly cheap gasoline and if I felt like it I could get a refill behind the border daily. Only one but..I'm not going to risk going through corrupt border guards and expose myself to 20km of russian highway crime (which it takes to drive to the nearest gas station from the border).
Well, Scandinavia highway seemed quite safe for me. And our petrol prices are exactly the same as in the US now, while average income is 10-50 times lower. Funny, isn't it?
-
A funny text (http://www.livejournal.com/users/17ur/100155.html) in Russian for Vad and other Russian-speakers.
We had an "anti-fascist march" in Moscow last weekend. One guy got arrested for carrying a slogan "Glory to Russia!"... According to "human rights activists" everyone who remembers that he's Russian by nationality is a fascist. It's like we're back in the post-Revolution times...
-
Ok... so who pays for all this "free" stuff? No one has answered.
I'll tell you who... all of you do with less of everything... you claim that your costs are lower because you drive cars that we don't want to but... we have the freedom to drive any kind of car we want.... little crapboxes to limmos...
So why is U.S. healthcare so expensive? How much can you sue doctors for? Who pays for malpractice suits against doctors in your country?
boroda... are you saying that we can't hitchhike to other countrys here if we want? That is silly. If we want we can drive from the top of Alaska down to the tip of chile... we listen to any kind of music we want.
So what other hobbies do you have there?
Ok... what do I like to do? travel.... work on hot rods and race.... play around with motorcycles... collect, repair and shoot a myriad of guns and reload ammo in my home for them... remodel and work on my home... watch movies on DVD and mess around on these BB and play AH.... Read whatever seems interesting...
Those are things that I feel I have a right to do. How many would I have been able to do in Soviet Russia?
I don't buy it that communism is good.... it just hasn't been done right yet...
It can't be done right... when you take from the productive and give to the non productive it is a recipe for failure.
socialism is the same.... no government run program can be any good or efficient unless it rules with an iron fist and severly limits individuality and choice..
for me... freedom means the rights of the individual and choice. for socialists... it appears that some sort of security is the ultimate freedom... so long as those are the parameters of our needs then we will not only disagree but we will go to war with each other. If you take from me by force to give to someone else... we will never get along. I may give twice as much freely and by my choice but... that is a up to me.. I don't think you have a right to vote on it.
lazs
-
Lazs2, of course free stuff isn't actually "free". I agree with you that somebody always pays the bills. You (USA) pay from your pocket, socialism ( Canada, Sweeden, other European countries) pays by higher taxes, the USSR paid by artificially low salaries. I would say that in this the USSR had more common with Canada and Europe than with the USA. So, I would suggest to forget about Evil Empire for a while, and talk about Canada and the USA.
In general, result is the same, everybody get helth care, for example. If we are going in deep, we will see difference.
If we pay health care from our pocket the wealthy gets the better quality. As I see from your post you agree with that. Majority of Canadians prefer public health system. I don't want to express my opinion on this issue but I am far from the thought that they don't know what are they doing. And democracy in Canada works very well - the first step toward private health system cost Conservatives power in Ontario.
You accuse the USSR in what democratic, free and capitalistic systems in Canada and Western Europe do right now.
May be, from the begining of this thread we should discuss not the differences between the West and the Soviet Union what now have just historical interest but differences in implementation of capitalism and social programs in the USA and other developed capitalist countries?
BTW, in this case I would be on your side. I didn't like low salary, but I HATE TAXES now!!!
-
Originally posted by lazs2
It can't be done right... when you take from the productive and give to the non productive it is a recipe for failure.
Kill all handicapped and sick. One regime in Europe tried to do it in 1933-45. It's quite hard to draw a line, isn't it?
Many union-wide programms in USSR simply coundn't be completed without global resources management inside the country. For example: no private company can afford geological surveys and development of oil-fields in Siberia. If we want to be "economically effective" on your conditions - it will mean that 80% of population will have to starve to death. Your "capitalism" is possible only for colonial empires.
-
Ok boroda.. kill all the ineffective workers... course that would take a special kind of ruler wouldn't it? one that might possibly be insane and kill millions of his own people for even worse reasons... someone like say.... stalin..
Course... once the killing started... you would have to build walls around the place...
could be done. Wonder why no one tried that yet?
As for oil exploration? are you saying that no capitalist with a representitive repuplic and a constitution limiting governments powers has ever explored for oil?
Are you saying that your people are too dumb and helpless to do things without a strong government? Not sure what you are saying at this point except...
"waaaaa... the free stuff is all gone now and I have to think for myself"
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So why is U.S. healthcare so expensive? How much can you sue doctors for? Who pays for malpractice suits against doctors in your country?
So you're saying that it's less expensive than it appears, because some people may be able to extort millions in a case of a malpractise?
Law suits against doctors are very rare and the compensations are usually from a few thousands to even tens of thousands in a case of gross neglience. Every hospital has a patient insurance which covers malpractise.
Patient insurance would naturally cover all the patients medical costs and loss of income. For pain and suffering it would pay from a few hundred to even thousands in a severe case. For permanent disability the compensation would be roughly from 1000€ up to maybe 100 000€ in a severe case(like paralysis).
If a patient is subjected to a malpractise, and the hospital denies it, then the patient would have to submit the case to a review board. The hospitals are covered by insurance and state, and don't have big reasons to dispute malpractise cases, and they don't have armies of lawyers either. The review board is independent, if they deside not to take it forward then the person can file a law suit, but the chances of winning are very slim.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok boroda.. kill all the ineffective workers... course that would take a special kind of ruler wouldn't it? one that might possibly be insane and kill millions of his own people for even worse reasons... someone like say.... stalin..
Course... once the killing started... you would have to build walls around the place...
could be done. Wonder why no one tried that yet?
As for oil exploration? are you saying that no capitalist with a representitive repuplic and a constitution limiting governments powers has ever explored for oil?
Are you saying that your people are too dumb and helpless to do things without a strong government? Not sure what you are saying at this point except...
"waaaaa... the free stuff is all gone now and I have to think for myself"
lazs
Lazs, you come to such strange conclusions that I sometimes think you are hallucinating, sorry :(
I spoke about oil in Siberia. Compare it to oil regions in US or Middle East. Add permafrost. Add huge distances. Add horrible continental climate. Calculate the expenses. Ask yourself if any capitalist will invest there, especially when he understands that investment will bring profit in maybe 30 years, it it will be profitable at all. We still live on Soviet heritage.
I am glad that you share progressive views and want to kill "ineffective" people, just as some modern Russian politicians in power now and human-rights activists, but I think I'll disagree with your "final solution": I am one of the "ineffectives" who works in an Academic institute instead of selling coca-cola and chewing-gum.
What I understand pretty well is that if we were "effective" in a "capitalist" way - I probably couldn't discuss it with you here, because both nazis and then NATO "freedom fighters" prepared death camps for me and my people, making those who were left alive speechless slaves. It's funny, but American plans for occupation in USSR included your "effectiveness" concept. Looks like in your area it's a common moral tradition, no surprise for a nation who genocided millions of native Americans without any doubt.
-
You think Alaska and the Artic Ocean are a tropical climate Borada?
Where do you think the money came from for the oil exploration and wells there if capitalists did not invest money?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Countries of people's democracy had much softer emigration laws, ask Mietla ;)
Actually... no.
Since WWII it was close to impossible to leave Poland with your family. They needed the hostages so you'll return, you know that.
It's only after the Solidarity stomped on commies and before the commies stomped back, the window has opened. Before 1981 it took 8-12 weeks to get a passport (for all you non-commie guys, in a commie state you do not own your passport, the state does). Getting a passport involved the "background check". The secret police talked to your employer, co-workers, neighbors, and if you were deemed good enough they would decide to "lend" you your passport. Your family had to stay behind of course. Just in case. The Ministry of the Interior was the ONLY legal entity allowed to "lend" passports.
In spring 1981 everything magically changed. Not only you could get a passport in 3-4 days, but no background checks, entire families can go, and you can get a passport at your local tourist agency. No one knew what is going on, but it was mega weird. I left Oct 26, Dec 13 everything became obvious. The commies were simply trying to get rid of folks like myself. Fairly young, pissed with commies, ready to "do or die". Why would they want me there, to stir trouble?
FWIW, I was one of the founding members of Solidarity my work place. It trully was a grass roots movement you know. I was just a time ant though and got disillusioned very quickly. Thus, the only option left to me was to leave.
-
There`s over a million russian immigrants in israel.
I made friends with many of them, there are some great people among them.
OTOH without generalizing there are things that are hard to overlook.
The older ones look at the soviet times as the greatness of russia, when they ruled over half the world.They think of themselves as the top of high cultured people, and that in the end Russia will win over America. They simply refuse to see all the suffering they caused to many other nations that were too small to break out of the communist block.They are willing to take no responsibilty for anything that happened, saying all was decided on the top....they just followed as sheeps(this they don`t actually admit)
The other thing is the lack of their personal hygens...it sucks to work with someone who won`t take showers as he should be doing in this climate.
I just heard a story about a thief caugh in an office building. He stole a laptop on monday, and was dumb enough to return on thursday. He was recognised with the help of the security cams....he was wearing the same shirt.
-
Hay Caligula, check yer PM box.
-
Caligula, if I was not an American by birth, I would hope to be Israeli. You have one hell of a great country and your history is amazing. Nothing can keep you down.
The USSR was an evil empire, just like RR said it was.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
There`s over a million russian immigrants in israel.
He was recognised with the help of the security cams....he was wearing the same shirt.
Thers only jews in Esrael,russian speaking jews.
And dirty thief is always a dirty thief:)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Caligula, if I was not an American by birth, I would hope to be Israeli. You have one hell of a great country and your history is amazing. Nothing can keep you down.
Well,end of yearly transaction US dollars and weapons to ISRAEL will end Israel existance within few month.
-
boroda.... we are even... I feel that you are probly hallucinating also.
To even think that communism is a viable system for human beings is some sort of drug or potato juice induced hallucination..
Tell you what tho.... since you are incapable of exploring for oil... Give the U.S. the rights to it and we will get it out of the ground for ya...
maybe even sell a few bags of potato chips and some coca cola along the way too.
lazs
-
No need to,you'll see many russian gazstations in US soon.
Lukoil already all over the place(eastcost).
-
Originally posted by lazs2
boroda.... we are even... I feel that you are probly hallucinating also.
To even think that communism is a viable system for human beings is some sort of drug or potato juice induced hallucination..
You make conclusions of the thigs that you can't even define. :(
What you mean by "communism" (that isn't communism by any definition other then Western propaganda vocabulary) probably really can't work.
You also don't want to understand that communists have built a reasonable, non-segregated and comfortable society at least saving people from starvation for the first time in 1500 years of Russian history (I start from foundation of Kiev). We never saw anything like that before and after communists. It's a fact, and I know it better then you, I hope that you can admit it. If you don't admit that my opinion here counts more then yours - I don't know what else should I say.
Originally posted by lazs2
Tell you what tho.... since you are incapable of exploring for oil... Give the U.S. the rights to it and we will get it out of the ground for ya...
maybe even sell a few bags of potato chips and some coca cola along the way too.
It's what you guys are aimed at since 1991, seizing control of oil that is marginally profitable because all the investments were made at the expense of the whole 300 million of Soviet people. Look at the Hodorkovskiy's case: the guy is accused of theft, and all the West screams about "gulag" and "freedom", meaning only the right to steal. Thanks, we don't need such freedom.
-
"Proper communism": an credible explanation by Boroda
Let's hear it..
-
Originally posted by moot
"Proper communism": an credible explanation by Boroda
Let's hear it..
There was no "proper" or "improper" communism. There was no communism.
It's more and more funny. Please, define "communism" and "communists".
Total mash in brains.
-
Yeah Boroda, like you know the rest of the world like the back of your hand.
My dad went to work in CCCP for about 10 years, on and off, and I still have a lot of Soviet paraphernalia...
Let's hear your version of whatever you want to call it. AFAIK it involves being forced to give up what one worked for.
-
Originally posted by moot
Yeah Boroda, like you know the rest of the world like the back of your hand.
My dad went to work in CCCP for about 10 years, on and off, and I still have a lot of Soviet paraphernalia...
Let's hear your version of whatever you want to call it. AFAIK it involves being forced to give up what one worked for.
Well, as usual - you don't answer my questions, probably because you have imprinted "communism is bad" and "russia=communism" concepts.
As for giving up what you worked for - can you give me any details? Maybe you mean internal loan obligations issued before 1955? Hehe, my Father kept all that useless paper, and in the 80s he got all money back with serious profit.
Don't you have to give up what you work for as taxes? Maybe I'm too dumb to understand "capitalism"? :rofl
-
No, actually I steered from any conclusions until the end of my teens because politics, as far as I could tell, was about 70% BS crowd tactics, 20% covert backstabbing and 10% honest common sense.
I know the textbook definition of communism, I've heard lots of card-carrying communists of various ages and nationalities, and both first-hand and hearsay accounts of what it was like to live in the CCCP, but apparently that's all false.. because you say so from fifty trillion electrons away.
I admit I know next to nothing about the specifics of taxes (no doubt entire library shelves dedicated to tax law means something), because my specialty is biochemistry. In my sense, the least taxes and the more I'm left to pay everything I want by myself, and keep everything I earned for myself, the better.
But you're an authority on not-communism, so let's hear it.
-
Originally posted by Vad
Stupid post.
You have never been in North Korea, and there are no researches what can prove your point.
So you are going on the backpedaling answer of "if you've never lived here, how do you know?" Good luck in life.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Vad
WHy we have to compare Finland and Russia? Finland wasn't destroyed twice in the last centure, Finland doesn't spend half of its national income to self defence, Finland thnx to the USSR had huge and stable market for goods which, actulaly, weren't good enough to compete with Western but were more than satisfactory for Russians.
Let talk about Mexico. The same or even better starting conditions as the USA, the same political system but so huge difference...
No way! :)
You spent so much efforts to destroy Empire of Evil - enjoy the results. Now you will enjoy us in your home forever :)
Stalin wanted half of Poland, he made his bed, and you slept in it for him. To blame WWI and WWII battles for the destruction is asinine. However, both wars involved a worthless Ideology of Communism. We've seen the result. You are trying put the problems YOU CREATED on the rest of the world.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Bluedog
I just dont get why suddenly the western allies were such a threat to Russia, nukes or not.
Paranoia, nothing more, nothing less.
Karaya
-
After reading these posts, I am still very confused.
I though that Karl Marx Communism, versus Adam Smith Capitalism, were two different economic systems. I thought that US Republicanism, versus USSR Totalitarianism, were two different political systems.
I did not know, that politically, the US was a Democracy. I thought it was a Republic, that democratically elected it’s representatives. I did not know, that economically, the USSR was Communist. I thought it was from each of the ninety percent non party members, according to their abilities, to each of the ten percent party members, according to their needs.
Of course, all this just goes to show, how little I know…
-
This thread is a very good read. I think both sides are confused about the others point of view. So many things I've read that I'd like to comment on, but I jumped in too late to take part in. The one thing I'd like to point out however, is directed at whoever used the example of covert wiretaps approved by George Bush.
This is a terribly inaccurate way to point out the similarities between Soviet and American governments and their tactics. The difference is, there are realistic rumblings of President Bush being IMPEACHED over this. Couple this with the WMD debacle in Iraq, and it's safe to say there is a possibility he will be removed from power. Not going to say what my personal belief on the matter is, but I'm pretty sure if it was revealed that, say, Stalin had secret wiretaps, there wouldn't be a way to remove him from power.
I think that's the main difference between our Republic, and your Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist form of government. We elect the people to make the laws, and if we don't like the laws made or the people that made them, we have recourse to change the situation. In the C.C.C.P., as I understand it, there was no way to affect these things.
I'm not saying Communism is evil, and I'm not saying it's not the right form of government for you. I'm also not saying the American Republic is ideal for you either. What I am saying however is, as I understand it through independant research, our Republic grants many more personal freedoms than your form of government did, and for us Americans, those freedoms are more important to us than a house or food.
It's why our army fights and dies, not for our government or our land, but for our way of life.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You are trying put the problems YOU CREATED on the rest of the world.
I know quite a many Russians and that is quite common feature with them: They really create problems with their own behaviour but put the blame on others. Quite fascinating to watch when you know the drill.
Don't get me wrong; Russians I've met have been very friendly and hospitable people but they have their own habits like one above.
-
Originally posted by moot
my specialty is biochemistry.
Colleague.
http://ibcp.chph.ras.ru
I work in Bio-Chemical Physics Institute of Russian Academy of Science.
-
boroda.... Ok... I will go with you on there not being any real communism...
If that is true then I will take the form of communism that we have here in the states so long as we can get rid of some of the socialism we have here now..
say, let's go back to the laws we had before FDR socialism.
lets say that the last place I would like to live would be old soviet russia.
you talk on nonsegregation .... that is laughable... you had to import a colored guy to play othelo.... when the walls came down... every jew worth a damn (plus anyone else who could) left your paradise of diversity... you are not getting along with your muslims at all but ours are running 7/11's and seem happy as hell.
lazs
-
hiya :)
Basic problem with getting a good leader is.. they never last long enough.
All you get is a coupla decades .. then it's time to go through the whole 'who's gonna fill his shoes?' routine.
The US gov't at least tries for some kind of transition that doesn't involve shooting between changes of leadership.
Personally.. I like the fact that there are not only limits on what can be done, there is also a huge amount of inertia to overcome to get anything done at all.
The President is just the point man.
He can't do anything without sellin it to the Judicial and House branches.
And to make anything 'permanent' .. LOL .. you need massive popular support for that to happen .. which those guys who signed the Declaration engineered. They were some of the sharpest knives in the drawer when it came to making a govenment 'for the people .. of the people.'
As to the original thread question. . I am glad the USSR is gone.
It was an 'Evil Empire.' -tm Ronald Reagan
-
As to National Attitudes:
After Pearl Harbor the US determined that it would never be caught out like that again. So the US armed itself for worst case scenarios.
After Belarossa, the USSR determined it would never be caught like that again. So it armed itself for worst case scenarios.
It's a wonder no mistakes happened that led to WW3.
With a single individual holding the trigger, it would have been easy.
(anyone can have a bad day)
Thank God it wasn't a single individual on either side.
-
Comment was made about South Korea not havin to pay for its defense ..
..not true.
US forces there are very much the minority.. training, leadership, and restraint is what I saw.
The South Korean military would rather settle North Korea's hash right now .. and they feel it would only take a couple of days tops.
They are balls out, all the time, 24/7.
Did you know they bought an entire factory to build F-5's decades ago .. and other things.
Can you imagine a second lootenant in an F-5 *not* being King of the World?
Did you know they have *thousands* of them?
(both the planes, and the pilots).
-
Funny thing about 'Mother Russia' ..term coined by leaders in Moscow to motivate their troops in WW2. It worked so they named the conflict 'The Great Patriotic War' and created 'Hero's of the Soviet Union' ..morale booster terms coined in Moscow during the dark days when most didn't know if the Axis could be stopped.
The US created 'Aces' and war bond tours were done by its more well known airmen/soldiers/seamen.. same reasons.
-just my two coppa from an ex-USAF Electronic Warfare troop who helped keep some of those 'Yankee Air Pirates' from gettin shot down instead of Jane Fonda, posturing with the gunners below, exercising her right to be blonde, bimbo, and stupid.
-GE
-
That's cool Boroda, I might have to pick your brains sometime..
-
Originally posted by *NDM*JohnnyX
This is a terribly inaccurate way to point out the similarities between Soviet and American governments and their tactics. The difference is, there are realistic rumblings of President Bush being IMPEACHED over this. Couple this with the WMD debacle in Iraq, and it's safe to say there is a possibility he will be removed from power.
LOL...You can relax, the only thing the Dummycrats can do for the forseeable (Far Distant) future is fillibuster. They don't have the political power to do squat. It's amazing how they took a political party that had a 3 to 1 ratio of registered voters, into a minority party.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Caligula, if I was not an American by birth, I would hope to be Israeli. You have one hell of a great country and your history is amazing. Nothing can keep you down.
The USSR was an evil empire, just like RR said it was.
Thanks..
U should come visit..plenty of great places to see,from ancient ruins to knocked out russian tanks. Red sea scuba diving...and the hottest women that love americans and their money.Cheap russian vodka(better than absolute IMO)...lebanese hash...I could go on and on...
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
Thanks..
U should come visit..plenty of great places to see,from ancient ruins to knocked out russian tanks. Red sea scuba diving...and the hottest women that love americans and their money.Cheap russian vodka(better than absolute IMO)...lebanese hash...I could go on and on...
There should be planty of Israeli's burnt down by Egipt army tanks left also.
Where would you be without USA,you were given a country,could not even create one....after 5000 years.
-
Deleted.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Deleted.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Originally posted by ATA
There should be planty of Israeli's burnt down by Egipt army tanks left also.
Where would you be without USA,you were given a country,could not even create one....after 5000 years.
What did you do to earn your place in America?
-
Originally posted by ATA
There should be planty of Israeli's burnt down by Egipt army tanks left also.
Where would you be without USA,you were given a country,could not even create one....after 5000 years.
we got ANTI Semite here caught red handed :O
-
Originally posted by ATA
There should be planty of Israeli's burnt down by Egipt army tanks left also.
Where would you be without USA,you were given a country,could not even create one....after 5000 years.
I haven`t seen any israeli tanks knocked out and left around like that. Israel happened to win all these wars.Regardless of what the origins of the weapons(not all from US..merkava, kfir, s-99...) it was the people who fought and won these wars.
BTW we survived the assirians,persians, babilonians, seleucids (happy hannuka),romans,spanish inqusition,russian pogroms, german nazis etc.....make no mistake, we`ll survive U and ur kind as well!
-
Originally posted by NUKE
What did you do to earn your place in America?
And what did you do?
You were born here.....
-
Originally posted by 1K3
we got ANTI Semite here caught red handed :O
I'm armenian,my best freind is a jewish.
Two countries in a world did not accept Armenian jenocide...
Usa and Israel........i wonder why?
-
Originally posted by ATA
I'm armenian,my best freind is a jewish.
Two countries in a world did not accept Armenian jenocide...
Usa and Israel........i wonder why?
I thought Turkey was the third. And I thought that Israel accepted it...
From true crimes of bolsheviks: according to Brest treaty they gave up Armenian territories that were liberated from Turkey in 1914-17. Who cares now?...
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
I haven`t seen any israeli tanks knocked out and left around like that. Israel happened to win all these wars.Regardless of what the origins of the weapons(not all from US..merkava, kfir, s-99...) it was the people who fought and won these wars.
BTW we survived the assirians,persians, babilonians, seleucids (happy hannuka),romans,spanish inqusition,russian pogroms, german nazis etc.....make no mistake, we`ll survive U and ur kind as well!
Listen,Israel needs help to survive no matter how brave you are.
Egypt was bombed by Brits,French and Israel.
If USA it troble Israel will be gone without his big brother.
Of course you'll survive,as long as USA around
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I thought Turkey was the third. And I thought that Israel accepted it...
From true crimes of bolsheviks: according to Brest treaty they gave up Armenian territories that were liberated from Turkey in 1914-17. Who cares now?...
Oh yeah i forgod the turkey,but who cares about Armenians if we have Jews yelling about discrimination.
Richest people of Russia,USA are Jews...and oh my God they still discriminated,lol
-
Originally posted by ATA
And what did you do?
You were born here.....
Yeah, I was born here.
You are a disgrace and I hope Skuzzy wipes out your bs from this thread.
-
He proly will,but so far your BS is being wiped from this thread
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Yeah, I was born here.
Yeah you really had to earn the right to be born in America
-
Originally posted by ATA
I'm armenian,my best freind is a jewish.
Two countries in a world did not accept Armenian jenocide...
Usa and Israel........i wonder why?
You're wrong, Armenian Genocide was long recognized/accepted by USA. Even the state of California was 1st to recognized/accepted that the genocide against Armenians happened between 1915-1918.
I see lots of Armenian-owned businesses in Los Angeles (in 90029 area code) close every Apr 24 each year.
USA Recognizes the Armenian Genocide
Genocide Commemorated During Capitol Hill Reception
http://www.cilicia.com/armo10i_usa.html
*Governor Kean and Professor Simpson receive ANC Freedom Awards for defense of academic integrity in Armenian Genocide scholarship
WATERTOWN, Mass.-Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) and Congressional Armenian Caucus Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) joined with over 30 members of Congress and some 300 Armenian-Americans from throughout the United States at an April 30 Capitol Hill observance marking the 82nd anniversary of the Armenian Genocide. The three hour program, held in the historic Senate Caucus Room, was sponsored by Sen. Reed, Representatives David Bonior (D-Mich.), Joseph Knollenberg (R-Mich.), Martin Meehan (D-Mass.), George Radanovich and the Armenian National Committee.
The program opened with a moving invocation by Reverend Father Khoren Habeshian of Soorp Khatch Armenian Church. The master of ceremonies for the evening, Armenian National Committee of America Board member Bedros Bandazian, then formally opened the program by introducing ANC-Eastern United States Chairman Dikran Kaligian, who thanked the members of Congress who have supported us each time we’ve asked for their help to pursue the Genocide as a political issue, the different members of the diplomatic delegations and other individuals in academia who have supported us, including our two ANC Freedom Award winners, and finally each of you in the Armenian community who have made the Armenian Genocide a current issue. You have pursued it with your representatives in Congress, you have pursued it with the members of the media, and you have pursued it in academia - and because of that the Armenian Genocide is a live topic, it’s a very important topic and it is very gratifying to see all of you here to remind the world that the Armenian Genocide cannot be forgotten and justice must be gained for it if there is to be justice in this world.
Bipartisan Group of Legislators Emphasize Importance of Genocide Commemoration
Among the Senators and Representatives who offered their words of remembrance and commemoration of the Armenian Genocide were senators Jack Reed, Paul Sarbanes (D-Md.) and James Jeffords (R-Vt.) and Representatives William Delahunt (D-Mass.), Jon Fox (R-Penn.), Sue Kelly (R-NY), Joseph Kennedy (D-Mass.), Joseph Knollenberg, James McGovern (D-Mass.), Connie Morella (R-Md.), Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Frank Pallone, Steve Rothman (D-NJ), Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.), Robert Weygand (D-RI). Many other members attended the program but did not offer formal remarks.
"Parev Paregamner (hello friends), we are here to commemorate and remember the sufferings of the Armenian people," began the evening’s co-host Senator Jack Reed. In his remarks, he relayed the story of Armenian Genocide Survivor Noyemzar Alexanian who had traveled from Rhode Island to attend the event. "Mrs. Alexanian was only six years old when her village was surrounded by Kurdish cavalry. She lost her father, her mother, her two sisters and her home before she emigrated to Cuba and then to the United States. Her husband, Krikor, is also a refugee from Armenia... It is painful to note what took place then, but it is noble and glorifying to note that despite those horrors the Armenian people could not be broken," explained Senator Reed. Among the other Armenian Genocide Survivors at the Capitol Hill Observance were Ashkhen Shamigian and Berjouhie Shamigian from Maryland and Asdghig Alemian from Massachusetts.
During his remarks, long time supporter of Armenian-American Issues, Rep. Joe Kennedy, noted "If you look at what has happened in the Congress and, even to be perfectly frank, why this Genocide resolution hasn’t passed since I’ve been in the Congress of the United States, it has been because of the continued influence of an Ottoman regime of a bygone era, and ladies and gentlemen, it is time to put history in its proper perspective. Rep. Kennedy emphasized the importance of the Armenian-American community’s continued vigilance in obtaining the proper recognition of the Armenian Genocide. -Understand that it is your individual actions, by coming here to Washington, DC, by coming from places as far away as California and New Jersey and, yes, Watertown Mass., to come here to Washington to make sure that no one ever forgets the fact that the Genocide took place, the fact that there are causes that we need to stand up for not because of the almighty power of the dollar but because it is simply the right thing to do."
-
"I continue to shake my head in disbelief that we still, as a government, do not officially recognize that tragedy that took place years ago," stated Massachusetts Democrat James McGovern. "I’m a freshman member of Congress and I’m here to tell you that I will join with others here- Senator Reed; my colleague, Congressman Weygand; and others-to try to correct that tragedy and to pass a bill in this Congress to officially recognize the Genocide."
"America has a special responsibility to pay more attention to the Genocide because this is a country of immigrants," explained Rep. Knollenberg. "We came to America to make things better by the sweat of our brow. The Armenians that came to America came because they were forced. They had to go. But thank God they came to America because they made our communities better. I know they’ve contributed so much to my community."
Pennsylvania Republican Jon Fox discussed the importance of having such an observance on Capitol Hill. "We’re meeting tonight to make sure genocide never happens again. We must remain vigilant. We must work together." Rep. Connie Morella (R-Md.) restated her long-standing support for the commemoration of the Armenian Genocide. "We’re with you. We’re behind you. It is a genocide that we should always remember because it reminds us of the importance of human rights throughout the world. If people have blinders on and are myopic, this can happen. It is a symbol to all of us so that it does not happen again."
New Jersey freshman Congressman Steve Rothman explained "I am delighted to be a person you can count on to speak the truth and remind the world of this terrible, terrible tragedy and I offer my services to this community to do whatever I can to continue to help in that regard." Rep. Rothman went on to note that as a member of House International Relations Committee "I have offered some thoughts and some amendments to some programs to emphasize the need for justice with regard to Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh and how its neighbors are treating those very important areas of interest to me."
"The Armenian National Committee always keeps me up to date," explained New York Congresswoman Sue Kelly. "When I call and have a question or ask for help in understanding an issue, the Armenian National Committee is always there, willing and able to help. I applaud all of you." Rep. Peter Visclosky echoed these remarks and added "I come here to thank you for your untiring effort and dedication to human rights, not only for the Armenian people, but for all people who have been oppressed through the centuries and who are oppressed today. It is a privilege to represent you in the United States Congress and to continue to work on issues important to all of us."
ANC Freedom Award Given to Former NJ Governor Tom Kean and Prof. Christopher Simpson
President of Drew University and former governor of New Jersey Thomas Kean was the first of two ANC Freedom Awards recipients. Kean, a vocal advocate against so-called scholars who continue to deny the Armenian Genocide, last week coordinated a Drew University Conference entitled "The Armenian Genocide: ‘Controversy and Academic Responsibility.’" On accepting the award, Kean stated "The first time we had such a memorial-when I was governor-I got letters of complaint, an official protest from the Turkish Embassy, and a call from our own State Department saying you really should not do that, which made me resolve to do it every year, which I then did. It is a crime-or should be-to deny history, to claim that historic events did not occur, to destroy evidence-which has been done in the case of the Genocide-and to pretend that an event of this importance did not happen."
Kean went on to explain, "We have had, in the last 15 years, a genocide in Asia, a genocide in Africa, attempted Genocide in Europe. If we do not understand that fellow human beings can act this way then we will never be able to prevent it in the future. It will occur to somebody else, and what happened to the Armenian people should never happen again happen to any people. And so it is important that we study it, that we understand it. It is important that all the world understands that it happened, understands why it happened, why it was perpetrated, the tragedy of the people against whom it was perpetrated. That is why, as a university president or in any other way that I can, I will try to discover the facts, to learn more about this genocide and to make sure that we know enough about it to prevent it."
The second ANC Freedom Award recipient was American University Professor and Armenian Genocide researcher Christopher Simpson. Prof. Simpson is the author of the award-winning book "The Splendid Blond Beast," which demonstrated how the international failure to address the Armenian Genocide set key legal precedents that have obstructed international responses to other crimes against humanity. In his remarks, Simpson explained "we see the failure of the international community to address the Armenian Genocide driven, in part, by greed, frankly, and particularly by a desire for oil wealth, leading to laying the basis for the non-response to the Holocaust in the next generation."
Simpson added, "non-Armenian Americans have a lot to learn from Armenians in terms of its success in organizing, in speaking to Congress, and in getting their message across; and also in standing up to an organized campaign of revisionism, of organized forgetting, of organized distortion of what took place during World War I that is being bankrolled by the Turkish government, at least in part with the cooperation of multinational companies that do business in Turkey... it is an important example to other communities who are facing some of the same types of problems from other parts of the world."
-
Originally posted by ATA
Yeah you really had to earn the right to be born in America
exactly. Just like you being wherever you are. You said that Caligula was given a country, so you appear to be ignorant on many levels.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
exactly. Just like you being wherever you are. You said that Caligula was given a country, so you appear to be ignorant on many levels.
Nuke Jews were given a country,is it not true?
-
1K3
my apologies,i did not know that
-
Originally posted by ATA
Nuke Jews were given a country,is it not true?
Not true. Arabs and Jews lived in that area for thousands of years. More and more Jews began settleing there after being slaughtered in Europe.
In 1948, Israel declared itself a nation. Then, they were attacked and defended themselves. They created their nation, they were noit given a nation.
Are you saying that the nation of Isael was created by someone other than the people that had settled there? If you think that, then you are wrong.
-
Originally posted by ATA
Nuke Jews were given a country,is it not true?
nah man..jews had and still have to fight and die for each square inch of it up to this very day
-
Nuke i never said nation,i said country.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
nah man..jews had and still have to fight and die for each square inch of it up to this very day
Apparently nobody asked Palestine when the give part of it to Jews
-
Originally posted by ATA
Nuke i never said nation,i said country.
I'm tired of you. You are ignorant.
The only reason why you came here was to sling your garbage. No other reason for the comments you made.
-
See ya Nuke
-
Originally posted by 1K3
You're wrong, Armenian Genocide was long recognized/accepted by USA. Even the state of California was 1st to recognized/accepted that the genocide against Armenians happened between 1915-1918.
I may be wrong, but in UN SC American representative vetoed the resolution cincerning genocide of Armenians. Wasn't it so? IIRC there were two countries against that resolution, US and Turkey.
Maybe it's because Armenia is now a strong ally of Russia and Iran in Trans-Caucasus? US supports Turkish nations there, Turkey is already a NATO member, and Azerbaijan works with American corporations, declaring that they want to become a NATO member too (North Atlantic my ass! Why not Antarctic Liberation Front?)...
It's interesting that Iran supported Armenia in a war of early-90s...
And as far as I understood - a resolution about Armenian Genocide wasn't passed by US Congress in July, am I wrong? Searching the news in Russian about it now.
About Israel denying 1915 genocide - it's an official position of their government, while some Israeli religious leaders admit it and compare it to Holocaust. This story very well shows that political issues prevail in some cases, and 99% of Western talks about "human rights" is plain hypocricy.