Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on November 18, 2002, 03:30:16 AM
-
"North Korea has a nuclear weapon, Pyongyang Radio reported tonight. The revelation comes a month after the communist nation admitted it had a clandestine weapons program. North Korea has since said the crisis could be settled if the U.S. backed off its "hostile policy" toward the country."
Weapons of mass destruction.... (no inspectors neccessary)...... owned by a country who has full membership in the Axis of Evil.....
This is going to be a very long "war on terrorism".
-
Originally posted by Nash
"North Korea has a nuclear weapon, Pyongyang Radio reported tonight.
YA THINK?
-
Well... appearently they have the uranium to make a couple, but this would certainly be a new development...
No one this side of N. Korea knows for sure yet...
Still, it's a thing. White House administration officials hinting at something here:
"If the North Koreans were indicating in the report they have enough enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon, "that would make it more proximate for us to have to do something about it," a senior administration official said.
-
They can't possibly have a nuclear weapon. They can't even be researching how to make one.
You see, former President of the United States William Jefferson Clinton long ago proudly informed the U.S.A. that one of his greatest achievements in foreign policy was convincing the leadership of N. Korea to in essence 'Give Peace A Chance', and because they *promised* President Clinton that they would stop all research into nuclear weapons, the U.S. (on the orders of President Clinton, against the advice of those annoying military and intelligence types that all of President Clinton's appointees thought were 'like, totally uncool') then gave N. Korea alot of money, and helped them build some nuclear reactors.
Also, former President Jimmy Carter - you know, the one who is so critical of the current administration's 'overly aggressive stance with other Nations', well, he got his NOBEL PEACE PRIZE based largely on his ability to 'talk sense with them N. Koreans'.
Remember this when you see certain Democrats begin to criticize how the U.S. attempts to deal with N. Korea over this situation.
Jimmy Cater and Arafat...man has the Nobel Peace Prize been a bomb in recent history or what?
Mike/wulfie
-
Analysts have been saying NK has had a nuke since 1995, give or take a year. The difference with NK is (and has been) that they have not shown a propensity to utilize WMD.
....how dumb would it be of NK to deny (or continue to) having what we "know" they have? Considering the current state of affairs.
I tend to think NK is simply taking advantage of a situation to further thier own interests (namely security). It's not like they are going to threaten SK any more than they already have, and it's not likely China views thier admittance to nukes as a good thing really.
-
w00t.
-
Notra Trulock
Sunday, Oct. 20, 2002
North Korea has finally admitted that it has been pursuing the development of nuclear weapons despite promises to the contrary. In 1994, in a deal engineered in part by Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter, the Clinton administration tried to bribe North Korea into abandoning its nuclear intentions. In return for a pile of cash, an annual supply of fuel oil, and new, supposedly proliferation-resistant nuclear reactors, North Korea agreed to freeze plutonium production at its nuclear facilities north of Pyongyang.
The deal became known as the Agreed Framework; but North Korea also promised to remain in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and live up to its obligations under the International Atomic Energy Agreement nuclear safeguards program.
In short, the Clinton administration thought it had bought off North Korea. What started as a limited accomplishment would soon be touted as a "major diplomatic success" for an administration short on such successes. Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright and others also scored it as a major achievement in their campaign to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
Over the years, the intelligence community raised "concerns" about covert activities in North Korea, but the White House and State Department usually dismissed these as worst-case scenarios based on sketchy evidence.
Now the State Department reports that North Korea considers the Agreed Framework "nullified." If true, this suggests some very ominous "worst-case" scenarios largely forgotten or ignored by the media.
First, as part of the Agreed Framework, the North Koreans insisted that the U.S. refurbish and preserve a storage pool full of spent fuel rods, recently dumped from its production reactor. Many in the U.S. Energy Department, which eventually cleaned and canned the rods, thought this a bad idea and said so at that time. The White House and State Department, however, were intent on closing the deal and ignored those warnings.
Should they now opt to reprocess this fuel, Pyongyang would have enough plutonium for about five nuclear warheads, thanks to the Clinton administration and American taxpayers. That would be in addition to the plutonium the U.S. judged the North Koreans had produced by 1994, believed to be enough for two, possibly three nuclear warheads. An intelligence community estimate last December strongly implied that North Korea had already fabricated these weapons.
At the time of the agreement, there was much concern inside the intelligence community that North Korea would cheat on the deal by pursuing other routes to the development of nuclear warheads. The alternative to plutonium is highly enriched uranium (HEU), which is most commonly produced using gas centrifuges.
In 1999, the Washington Times reported that the North Koreans had tried to buy electrical components for gas centrifuges from Japan, but the sale was blocked. Now they have admitted what that suggested – that they had started secretly to produce weapons using highly enriched uranium. The facilities it requires are more easily hidden than the reactors that produce plutonium.
The State Department says that it has acquired evidence of North Korea's HEU production only recently. It is easy to understand why the Clinton administration would try to conceal the fact that the agreement with North Korea was an extremely costly blunder. We have poured $100 million a year in fuel and food into North Korea to keep Kim Jong-il from developing nuclear warheads, all in vain.
The continuation of this largesse in the first two years of the Bush administration raises the question of why it took so long to find that North Korea was cheating. In addition, U.S. diplomats in Pyongyang have been told that North Korea has "more powerful things as well," apparently a reference to its extensive chemical and biological weapons programs.
Many suspect that North Korea acquired gas centrifuges from Pakistan as payment for North Korean long-range missiles supplied in the late 1990s. North Korea actively markets several long-range missile systems to Iran, Egypt, Syria and others to generate revenue for its weapons-of-mass-destruction programs.
All this could throw a monkey wrench into the administration's plans for Iraq. North Korea, for example, could use this as a pretext to return to testing of a missile capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to targets in the United States.
Some of President Bush's critics have asked why he included North Korea in his "axis of evil." Last week's disclosures have answered that question. Like Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il is a cruel tyrant who starves his subjects to maintain a huge army and produce weapons of mass destruction. He has shown that his word is worthless
-
IIRC Soviet press reported that PDRK has nuclear bomb since mid-80s, but never tested it because it could uncover the fact. I have read it in maybe 1989, with some KGB reports quoted. It could be true, but I doubt the documents were real.
Anyway, why can't a souverign nation develop it's own weapons? AFAIK there is a treaty about not spreading nuclear weapons, but nothing about development.
I think that a country facing such an agressive enemy as the US has the only chance to protect it's independance - to create it's own weapons of mass destruction. They simply have to state that they posess nuclear weapons if they want to be left alone.
If they'll use nukes in an offencive operation against Southern Korea - they'll face an adequate answer from Russia, China and US.
The whole idea of "axis of evil" reminds me about anti-Comintern pact.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I think that a country facing such an agressive enemy as the US has the only chance to protect it's independance - to create it's own weapons of mass destruction. They simply have to state that they posess nuclear weapons if they want to be left alone.
The whole idea of "axis of evil" reminds me about anti-Comintern pact.
The USSR occupied a large chunk of Eastern Europe for what 40 years?
Man if only they had had nukes !
-
Originally posted by Krusher
The USSR occupied a large chunk of Eastern Europe for what 40 years?
Man if only they had had nukes !
Occupied?! Eastern Europe? For how many years?!
Peace treaty with Germany was signed in 1955. And AFAIK Germany isn't "Eastern Europe".
Post-war border lines in Europe were declared unchangable on Helsinki congress in 1975. Is there anything about occupation in that documents?!
Another wonder of American education? Did they tell you at school that US, UK and France occupied Germany too?
-
Boroda do the following name recall you something ?
Hungary ... Praha ...
-
So the Berlin Wall was actually there to keep people from rushing into the Soviet side, as opposed to out? Regardless of what was said on a piece of paper, half of Germany was occupied by the USSR.
SOB
-
Originally posted by SOB
So the Berlin Wall was actually there to keep people from rushing into the Soviet side, as opposed to out?
SOB
hehehehehehe!
-
Straffo, it was restoration of constitutional order, not occupation. I hope you see the difference. And it was performed by Warsaw Treaty troops, not by Soviet army.
Or do you expect Socialist Block governments to wait until enemy from across the ocean will deploy nuclear missiles there like they did in Turkey?
I thought we were talking about DPRK nukes. Why not tell me about innocent Chechens right now? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by SOB
So the Berlin Wall was actually there to keep people from rushing into the Soviet side, as opposed to out? Regardless of what was said on a piece of paper, half of Germany was occupied by the USSR.
SOB
Then you have to admit that all Western Europe except France in 1966-99 and some non-aligned countries is still occupied by the US? "Regardless of what is said on a piece of paper"?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Then you have to admit that all Western Europe except France in 1966-99 and some non-aligned countries is still occupied by the US? "Regardless of what is said on a piece of paper"?
yeah, identical :rolleyes:
-
You are a funny Communist Clown, Boroda. Do a dance and make me a balloon sculpture in the shape of the birth mark on Gorbechev's birthmark!
SOB
-
that's a theorical answer ... nothing more
-
Before everyone goes around blaming everyone.
"However, a South Korean Unification Ministry official told CNN Monday he could not be sure whether the radio announcer said North Korea "has come to have nuclear weapons" or that it is "entitled to have nuclear weapons" because the difference in interpretation is a matter of a single syllable. "
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/11/18/nkorea.nukes/index.html
-
I see. So the Eastern Block countries all volunteered to be part of the Soviet Union... wait, what happened? Why are they all now vying for independence?
-
Originally posted by SOB
You are a funny Communist Clown, Boroda. Do a dance and make me a balloon sculpture in the shape of the birth mark on Gorbechev's birthmark!
SOB
Following this style of discussion I should call you a brainwashed idiot and offer you to keep drinking your pissy-cola.
But I think it's better to ask you what's the difference between Soviet army group in Germany and yankee troops in NATO countries. Also please name socialist countries that had Soviet army bases, and compare the number to NATO countries. Also ask Toad to name all the US plans of nuclear attack against socialist countries since 1946. After completing this homework you can relax and think of freedom and democracy for half an hour.
Back to the topic.
I think that translation can be the real problem. I'll not be surprised if they simply want to say that any reasonable dialogue with the US is impossible and they are free of any obligations regarding nuclear weapon development.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
I see. So the Eastern Block countries all volunteered to be part of the Soviet Union... wait, what happened? Why are they all now vying for independence?
It's like talking to a 3 year old... I quit.
One question: when did Texas and Italy join the United States?
Go buy yourself a map.
I am f$%king tired of people who say things like "Yugoslavia is a former Soviet republic" or "CzSSR means Czechoslovakian Soviet Socialist Republic".
-
And you freakin cheated in the 1972 Olympic Basketball final!!!!!
-
Boroda, occupation entails adopting(in a forced upon kind of way)) the occupying country's regime.
Every country was occupied by the USSR, they had to adopt communism.
Very few countries, if any, have adopted democracy because the US don't occupy...
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Boroda, occupation entails adopting(in a forced upon kind of way)) the occupying country's regime.
Every country was occupied by the USSR, they had to adopt communism.
Very few countries, if any, have adopted democracy because the US don't occupy...
-SW
According to Grand Soviet Encyclopedia "occupation" (оккупация, okkupatsiya) means presence of armed forces on foreign territory during the state of hostilities. It is described by Hague and Geneva conventions 1899 and 1907. During occupation the authority of occupied state is abandoned and replaced by military administraton of occupant.
Military occupation must be separated from post-war occupation, set by international agreements of interested states in order to ensure the observance of peace conditions.
Soviet encylopedia, 3rd edition, article about "occupation". (http://encycl.yandex.ru/cgi-bin/art.pl?art=bse/00054/75700.htm&encpage=bse&mrkp=/yandbtm7%3Fq%3D-1540886890%26p%3D0%26g%3D0%26d%3D1%26ag%3Denc_abc%26tg%3D1%26p0%3D0%26q0%3D1995865424%26d0%3D0%26script%3D/yandpage%253F%26q0%3D1995865424%26p0%3D0%26d0%3D0%26a0d0%3D3%26a1d0%3D3%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fencycl%252Eyandex%252Eru%252Ftexts%252Fbse%252F00054%252F75700%252Ehtm%26text%3D%25CF%25CB%25CB%25D5%25D0%25C1%25C3%25C9%25D1)
Did Austria adopt "communism"?
Please define "democracy" that "noone adopted" because "US didn't occupy". Did US occupy Germany? Did US occupy France? Did USSR occupy Yugoslavia? Did USSR occupy Germany?
When you use terms clearly defined by International laws - please watch what you say.
-
And you freakin cheated in the 1972 Olympic Basketball final!!!!!
Lmfao!!!
-
Forcefully invaded, occupied, and maintained authority over them.
That's what Russia did.
The US moved in, liberated, SOME US/allied forces remained there... but they did not have to adopt our government.
Not to mention we did not acquire them as our own states... which Russia effectively did.
Sorry, but that's the way it is... Communist Russia could not wipe it's foibles from the pages of everyone else's history.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Forcefully invaded, occupied, and maintained authority over them.
That's what Russia did.
Really?!
So - Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were "forcefully invaded"? Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria were occupied? Authority was maintained in Austria?!
I am really interested in reading your history books.
I gave you a clear definition of "occupation". And you keep on wistling your propaganda crap into my ears.
Not speaking about the fact that post-war European situation was completely based on mutual agreements of Allies, one of whom was the US.
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The US moved in, liberated, SOME US/allied forces remained there... but they did not have to adopt our government.
Tell me the number of Russians in post-war Eastern European governments.
I can tell you a few names, but I want you to do some research or simply ask Toad.
Didn't US put it's government in American zone in Korea? Didn't it do the same thing in Western occupation zones in Germany, including part of Berlin? Also please look at the dates of the above-mentioned events.
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Not to mention we did not acquire them as our own states... which Russia effectively did.
Hmmm... The planet where I live, and the history of which I think we are discussing is called Earth, the third planet from the star called Sol. Maybe you are talking about different planet?
What countries did USSR aquire as "it's own states", or, to be more precise, as Soviet Republics after military occupation? Eastern Prussia doesn't count, it was a military prize, a small compensation for German occupation and a part of former Russian Empire.
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Sorry, but that's the way it is... Communist Russia could not wipe it's foibles from the pages of everyone else's history.
-SW
Unfortunately your history teachers and TV brainwashers have a very sick imagination. And they traditionaly spit on international laws, agreements and documents, substituting them by their weird fantasies.
So far you didn't answer any of my questions.
I understand that I speak Soviet propaganda now, but it's supported by international treaties and laws, while all your arguments are based on a false assumptions that "communism is evil" and "everyone knows it". And you use the wrong definition of the term "occupation".
It was a WAR between two systems, and each one had it's pros and cons. USSR and US both fought for survival of their political regimes and traditional values, so there was no "right" or "wrong" side there. Let's call it "Red side" and "Blue side" like on military maps. You know, on Russian maps "our" side is always marked red :p
-
Originally posted by Boroda
So - Poland, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia were "forcefully invaded"?
Yes, it was forcefully invaded. And don't give me that crap about being invited.
I know some Czech families that were in Prague during the Prague spring you twisted little commie.
Go revise history somewhere else.
-
Funny, you are talking about brainwashing and propoganda... yet you were raised in a communist country...
That's where this "discussion" began, and that's where it will end...
US government didn't take control of any (except Germany) WWII countries that it liberated.
Communist Russia, OTOH... well...
As for occupation... you use Communist definition, I use freeworld definition:
2 a : the possession, use, or settlement of land : OCCUPANCY b : the holding of an office or position
3 a : the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : SEIZURE b : the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force c : the military force occupying a country or the policies carried out by it
Notice how occupy and seizure go hand in hand... That's exactly what Russia did.
-SW
-
I bet that my uncle who luckily escaped warsaw was brainwashed by those capitalistic American pigs ...
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Yes, it was forcefully invaded. And don't give me that crap about being invited.
I know some Czech families that were in Prague during the Prague spring you twisted little commie.
Go revise history somewhere else.
we are talking about 1945.
unfortunately we couldn't afford Czechoslovakia joining nato in 1968, with B-52s circling our borders ready to drop 5 megaton presents.
-
SW, still no answers. Hard to find facts? :D Or they dont comply with your distorted version of history?
JFYI: GDR was formed almost 2 months after Western allies declared Western Germany. We simply answered your agressive politics.
I kindly beg you to use the definition of occupation stated in international legislation.
As for brainwashing - remember the stream of roadkill in western press that was followed by agression agaunst souverign Yugoslavia in 1999.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Following this style of discussion I should call you a brainwashed idiot and offer you to keep drinking your pissy-cola.
Oooh, pissy-cola, I've never heard of that. Is it cherry flavored cola? I do so love cherry flavored cola!
Sorry Boroda, I gave up on having any adult discussion with you a while ago, as you've been hopelessly brainwashed into thinking the USSR was something it wasn't. Communist Clown, your act is predictable but still amusing. Please continue...
SOB
-edit- and before ya spew it, don't think I have any grand illusion about the nobility of the United States and some of the things we have done in our short history.
-
Boroda:
I was rasied in the United States. Here they taught us that you red bastards were simply evil and we, the white light at the end of the tunnel, were the only thing stopping you from world domination.
You were raised in the former CCCP. There you were taught that us capitalist bastards were simply evil and you, the red light at the end of the tunnel, were the only thing stopping us from world domination.
That about sum it up?
-
we are talking about 1945.
unfortunately we couldn't afford Czechoslovakia joining nato in 1968, with B-52s circling our borders ready to drop 5 megaton presents.
So which was it.... did your country forcefully invade Czechoslovakia or didn't it? You first said it didn't happen, now you say it did. I may have the mentality of a 3-year-old, but that one was pretty easy to spot.
In 1945 America occupied parts of Germany: true. And, as did Britain and France, helped rebuild the country, then turned autonomy back over to Germans. Of course you don't have to take my word for it, ask the Germans. I know our history books aren't to be trusted.
Then of course we could talk about Japan... after the 2nd atomic bomb, Japan tried to sue for peace by going through Russian channels. Big mistake- the Russians promptly declared war and invaded. Only the swift acceptance of unconditional surrender by the Americans and British kept the Russians from swallowing up a lot of the Japanese Islands. And like Germany, once the country was rebuilt it was handed back over to the Japanese people, and autonomy restored. Again, ask the Japanese, don't trust American history books.
Our hands may not be clean all over the world, but you can't even compare the America of 1945 to the despotic leadership of Stalinist Russia.
-
It does raise an interesting question....
What do you think if in 1950-1960, Canada's population decided to go hardcore Communist with the full support of the USSR and everything that goes allong with it (read: nukes and Russian military)?
Would the U.S. have let this happen or would they have invaded Canada to preempt this? If the US invaded, how would this be different than the USSR creating a buffer zone of it's own?
-
You want answers? toejam, I thought you were just spouting Communist slogans like you've been doing since you started posting here...
"You American pigs are brainwashed and propogandized"
If I ain't listening, how could I have been brainwashed and/or propogandized?
If I didn't pay attention in school (btw, believe it or not... history books pay more attention to the space race than that "cold war") how could I have been indoctrined as you say I am?
Problem with you Boroda, is that anyone who has a viewpoint that opposes Mother Communist Russia's, then that person has been brainwashed and propogandized.
As for your government question... the US never forcefully imposed it's will or it's policies on any nation, liberated, occupied, or otherwise.
Nor did we keep our hands in their business for 30+ years...
If all of those nations were willfully Russia's, and indeed not forcefully invaded and occupied... why did they become independent with the fall of the Soviet Union?
-SW
-
Originally posted by Nash
It does raise an interesting question....
What do you think if in 1950-1960, Canada's population decided to go hardcore Communist with the full support of the USSR and everything that goes allong with it (read: nukes and Russian military)?
Would the U.S. have let this happen or would they have invaded Canada to preempt this? If the US invaded, how would this be different than the USSR creating a buffer zone of it's own?
Did we invade Cuba?
-SW
-
from a technical/juridical stand point you are perhaps right Boroda
but from a ethical point you are compleltly wrong ...
to make my point clearer : the Nazi use the exact same trick to defend their act why do you rely on such a disgusting technique ?
I'm the first to say that french are far from perfect and made lot of error in the past and will likely do some in the future ...
What can't you say something like : we screwed ?
For exemple do you seriouly thaink that the chechen are the only guilty of the current situation in chechenia ?
Having studied a bit the Algerian war I see exact same propaganda used by both side of the chechen war but almost 30 year later . ...
-
Nash, I think the US would have invaded in a second.
SWulfe, Canada is a tad bigger then Cuba.
Soviets could have used Canada as a lauching point for broad invasion into hte US.
Oh yeah, the US would have invaded.
Hell, I woulda.
-
Oh those Berliners were delighted with their concrete '8th Wonder of the Modern World'. lol!
And when they were machine gunned trying to climb over said 'Monument to the Humanity of the USSR', the Soviets were protecting them from the decadence of the West?
shreck me, Boroda. Some of the stuff you've quoted in this thread is straight out of the party 'Top Ten Arguments for why the Party is Great' handbook of 1956.
Come on, take off the blinkers, man!
- Dowding
-
It's like talking to a 3 year old... I quit.
One question: when did Texas and Italy join the United States?
Go buy yourself a map.
I am f$%king tired of people who say things like "Yugoslavia is a former Soviet republic" or "CzSSR means Czechoslovakian Soviet Socialist Republic".
Lessee... Texas applied for statehood in the mid 1800's. That's right, applied. Don't worry, there are plenty of records in the statehouse.
Oh? You mean, how did Texas become separate from Mexico? Mexico couldn't get enough settlers to go to Texas, so they offered free land to Anglos from the north. Soon there were more Anglos than they were comfortable with, and the Mexicans tried to wrest control of the situation. The first thing they tried to do was take away guns (are you listening, Beetle?). Big mistake. Texans rebelled, you have an independent country which then applied for statehood. Texas history in a nutshell.
Italy... what on earth are you talking about? Do you mean during WWII? Well, yeah... Italy had declared war on the US and its allies. You bet we hit the beach and "liberated" Italy. How long did the US stay in Italy after the war? I don't know what revisionist history book you are reading, but the US hasn't been in Italy for decades- what, 1946? 1947?
-
With the potential for Russian bombers about a 20 minute flight north of NYC and Washington, yeah, it's a pretty safe bet the US would not have allowed it to happen.
So... can we blame the USSR for not wanting their enemies right on their doorstep? It was a Cold War, afterall.
I think it's probably pretty easy to sit and judge this USSR's handling of the situation if you've had the luxury of not having had to deal with the strategic realities they had.
-
Sure, Nash, but the US formed alliances with other nations in a league of self defence against Communist expansion. Without NATO, France, the UK would be communist. Against the will of the population.
We always wanted democracy. How many Hungarians, Eastern Germans, Yugoslavs etc could say the same about communism?
-
Nash, the issue isn't what the US would/would not have done; the hijack issue is Boroda's denial of the USSR having ever occupied any territory against the wishes of its people. It's ludicrous beyond all imagination.
-
Oh I see. No question there then Kieren.
If you want to talk about whether it was strategically and morally wrong for them to have done so (in otherwords judge their actions) then that's a different story.
-
In light of current events, how could I argue otherwise? Of course the US will look after its own interests, as will any other country.
-
So.......care to point out why the "white knight" so called conservatives in the House & Senate didn't block or stymie this initiative?
After all.....EVERYONE knows so called "conservatives" are always right, and on the side of truth, justice, and the American way....
Or could the truth be they were all for it too?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
SWulfe, Canada is a tad bigger then Cuba.
Soviets could have used Canada as a lauching point for broad invasion into hte US.
Cuban missile crisis, we had ample reason to invade and occupy... But, in case you didn't notice, we haven't invaded countries without just cause. Communism wouldn't of been just cause, an attack would of been.
Oh yeah, the US would have invaded.
Maybe, but that's the what-if... What if Canada became Communist... would they have even made it?
What if indeed.
-SW
-
Boroda, what do you expect from Americans who've been hearing nothing but propaganda all their lives?
Such a pointless discussion.
Anyways: Someone set us up the bomb.
-
Username-
So are you suggesting that Boroda is right and the Russians never occupied territory without the invitation of the "host" countries? Are you suggesting the Eastern Block was a voluntary coalition? If so, why the dissolution of the USSR? Hmmm.
-
Capitalist subversion. No one can resist the temptation of a large Coke and Big Mac.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Following this style of discussion I should call you a brainwashed idiot and offer you to keep drinking your pissy-cola.
who needs pissy-cola if you can have the latest in communist refreshments. Ahhh, yummy soda with or without fruit juice.
This one is from communist Poland, but when I was in Moskaw I saw the same thing.
-
"Someone set us up the bomb."
Yegads yet another thing I've seen here that's gonna drive me crazy until I figure out where I've heard it. I'm just going to go ahead and ask... What's this from?
Nevermind - I just googlized it. From the "yer bases belong to us" thing. Someone needs to get that line into a song.
-
If they have nukes, nuke France...are they in range?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Anyway, why can't a souverign nation develop it's own weapons? AFAIK there is a treaty about not spreading nuclear weapons, but nothing about development.
Sorry, I was distracted by yet another re-fight of the cold war. I'm not sure if this was addressed or not, so forgive me if I'm going over something already covered.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is indeed designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. However, towards this end, the treaty seperates the world into the "Haves" and the "Have Nots" The "haves" included the US, USSR, UK, France, and China. Everyone else was a "Have Not"
Pakistan and India have never signed the treaty because of Article II of the treaty which states that:
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
At the time (1968) neither country had tested a nuclear weapon, but both countries had active programs. North Korea entered into this agreement in the late 80s if I recall. You may remember that the 1993 "crisis" started when North Korea threatened to withdraw from the treaty. The US sent Jimmy Carter over there to hand out a truckload of "Dane Geld" so that the North Korean's would shelve their program, and maintain compliance with the treaty. It is my belief that this current noise we've been hearing is just another appeal for hush money. But that's just me.
BTW, the full text of the NPT can be found at http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm
(sorry, the UN GA 1st page was assed up this morning).
-Sik
-
I have a few questions for Boroda and Username...
How many flag burnings (your flag, not the US flag) have you witnessed in your country?
How many times has your government been openly and viciously attacked by it citizens in your domestic newspaper articles?
How many protests have you seen in the streets?
How many opposition (as in, diametrically opposed to the status quo government) parties are on your ballot each election?
What percentage of your population privately owns guns?
I ask these questions because my propagandized news outlets carry information about many countries in the world, but I have relatively few views into the utopian worlds of North Korea and Russia. Granted, since about 1990 the news from Russia is easier to get, but still...
-
And yer women sprinters are all on ROIDS!!
Cheaters!!!!!
-
Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Boroda:
I was rasied in the United States. Here they taught us that you red bastards were simply evil and we, the white light at the end of the tunnel, were the only thing stopping you from world domination.
You were raised in the former CCCP. There you were taught that us capitalist bastards were simply evil and you, the red light at the end of the tunnel, were the only thing stopping us from world domination.
That about sum it up?
Agreed.
I have many times said that both pictures from East and West are incomplete. On this board I try to show the Eastern view, because I hate the Western propaganda, mostly based on nazi inventions.
And I go absolutely mad when our own TV feeds us nazi/yankee view on history accusing Soviet people of all possible sins.
Often I speak things I don't believe myself.
Ok, let me answer some nonsence I read below :)
-
And I go absolutely mad when our own TV feeds us nazi/yankee view on history accusing Soviet people of all possible sins.
You sweet-talker, you. ;)
-
What the fcuk are you talking about?
Remember that some of us lived in both systems.
Ask me what I think about socialism/communism. Or read my previous post, my position is very clear. Communism kills not only the individual but it also destroys the fabric of a society. Capitalism works but.... you have to work. So no wonder that some lazy losers prefer socialist "free" bowl of rice than a capitalist Filet Mignon for which you have to work your bellybutton off.
-
If you can't read what I posted above - I think it's not a problem of my English.
Originally posted by Kieran
Then of course we could talk about Japan... after the 2nd atomic bomb, Japan tried to sue for peace by going through Russian channels. Big mistake- the Russians promptly declared war and invaded. Only the swift acceptance of unconditional surrender by the Americans and British kept the Russians from swallowing up a lot of the Japanese Islands. And like Germany, once the country was rebuilt it was handed back over to the Japanese people, and autonomy restored. Again, ask the Japanese, don't trust American history books.
Again I have to answer this roadkill for the twelvth time. Soviet war against Japan was arranged in Teheran and Yalta, "no later then 3 months after the war in Europe is over". Yankees asked Stalin to help them and defeat the Japanese continental army. You asked - we did, killing thousands of Soviet soldiers after the war was over.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
As for your government question... the US never forcefully imposed it's will or it's policies on any nation, liberated, occupied, or otherwise.
I srongly recommend you to go read some books.
One example: do you know how the state of Panama appeared? How American, to use cruisers and marine corps to cut the part of a soverign country with only purpose of stealing the channel zone!
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
If all of those nations were willfully Russia's, and indeed not forcefully invaded and occupied... why did they become independent with the fall of the Soviet Union?
-SW [/B]
They didn't become "independent", they simply got a new master.
I still await for answers on questions I asked. Learn to be responsible for your words.
-
"What the fcuk are you talking about?
Remember that some of us lived in both systems.
Ask me what I think about socialism/communism. Or read my previous post, my position is very clear. Communism kills not only the individual but it also destroys the fabric of a society. Capitalism works but.... you have to work. So no wonder that some lazy losers prefer socialist "free" bowl of rice than a capitalist Filet Mignon for which you have to work your bellybutton off.
"
This is so good I am going to save it on my computer.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Did we invade Cuba?
-SW
You tried, but got your bellybutton kicked by 15 year old kids with rifles. Later the independance of Cuba relyed only on agreement between Nikita and JFK, after we forced you to get nuclear missiles out of Europe.
How about such a POV? Quite different from that stupid movie "13 days"?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Later the independance of Cuba relyed only on agreement between Nikita and JFK, after we forced you to get nuclear missiles out of Europe.
While it is true that we taded an agreement to not invade Cuba in exchange for the removal of Soviet Missiles, I'm not sure I know of any US or Nato forces that were removed from Europe? Perhaps you mean the Jupiter Missiles in Turkey? And if so I believe that you're mistaken.
-Sik
-
Boroda, are you talking about Bay of Pigs?
In which case, you may want to be informed that they were a Cuban exile force... not Americans. They had support of the CIA, but that's a lil' different than rolling our Navy to their coast and our Marines on their land.
Your POV is nothing more than dillusional Communist rhetoric that you've been fed for the past 30 years because you had nothing else to read.
Communist Russia destroyed anything they didn't want you to read or hear.
-SW
-
Originally posted by mietla
What the fcuk are you talking about?
Remember that some of us lived in both systems.
Ask me what I think about socialism/communism. Or read my previous post, my position is very clear. Communism kills not only the individual but it also destroys the fabric of a society. Capitalism works but.... you have to work. So no wonder that some lazy losers prefer socialist "free" bowl of rice than a capitalist Filet Mignon for which you have to work your bellybutton off.
It's partialy true, but the problem is too complicated to describe it in one sentence. People who worked their bellybutton off in USSR had not only Filet Mignon, but caviar too. Another example: look at China. They didn't waste the ideology as Gorby and his gang did, they only have let people work without almost any restrictions.
It can also be viewd from different points, political, economical, social, military and philosophical.
How about such a view: Russia now doesn't have to feed socialist countries, but now it faces the economical agression of so-called "developed countries", or "golden billion" living by exploiting the rest of the world.
It's a popular point of view here, but it's correct only to some extent too.
Mietla, Poland had a very liberal regime compared to the USSR.
Again: both systems have their good and bad sides. I prefer what we have now, I am still young enough to work hard, but many old people who worked all their life don't have anything now. They have spent their lives on defending our country from the enemy - and the enemy is still here.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
While it is true that we taded an agreement to not invade Cuba in exchange for the removal of Soviet Missiles, I'm not sure I know of any US or Nato forces that were removed from Europe? Perhaps you mean the Jupiter Missiles in Turkey? And if so I believe that you're mistaken.
-Sik
AFAIR Jupiters were deployed in European part of Turkey. Or just across the Marble sea.
Anyway, the whole Cuban missile adventure was worth it, and only the word given to Robert Kennedy prevented USSR from turning it into a brilliant propaganda victory.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
AFAIR Jupiters were deployed in European part of Turkey. Or just across the Marble sea.
I guess that's just a question of Geography. :)
However, I stand corrected. According to http://www.nuclearfiles.org/ The Jupiter missiles were withdrawn from Servince in Nov. 1962, just after the hulabalu.
For some reason, I thought we kept them around for a while longer.
-Sik
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Boroda, are you talking about Bay of Pigs?
In which case, you may want to be informed that they were a Cuban exile force... not Americans. They had support of the CIA, but that's a lil' different than rolling our Navy to their coast and our Marines on their land.
Your POV is nothing more than dillusional Communist rhetoric that you've been fed for the past 30 years because you had nothing else to read.
Communist Russia destroyed anything they didn't want you to read or hear.
-SW
Castro's little gang can also be described as "Cuban exile force". Anyway -you prepared an invasion agains souverign country, armed le invasion force and trained them forseveral years - and got your bellybutton kicked, being too afraid of Soviet missiles to use your own army.
Here we come to the original subject: the only way to talk to American government is the way of force. Only thing that can stop the looneys is the direct nuclear threat.
Why don't you simply leave North Korea alone?
-
Again I have to answer this roadkill for the twelvth time. Soviet war against Japan was arranged in Teheran and Yalta, "no later then 3 months after the war in Europe is over". Yankees asked Stalin to help them and defeat the Japanese continental army. You asked - we did, killing thousands of Soviet soldiers after the war was over.
Baloney. When was Yalta? When did Russia declare war? That's right, three days before Japan's surrender. Thanks for the "help".
Remember the B-29's that had to land in Russia after bombing Japan? Thanks for giving them back... oh, wait, you had a non-aggression pact with Japan, right? That's why you kept the B-29s of your allies, copied them, renamed them, and then flew them as your own in the post-war Russia. Go ahead, spin that, baby.
-
Because we have military personnel in South Korea.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I guess that's just a question of Geography. :)
However, I stand corrected. According to http://www.nuclearfiles.org/ The Jupiter missiles were withdrawn from Servince in Nov. 1962, just after the hulabalu.
For some reason, I thought we kept them around for a while longer.
-Sik
It's a question of missile ranges :)
The whole deal started after Khruschev's visit to Bulgaria, when Bulgarian leaders brought him on an excursion to Turkish border and pointed finger saying: "Look, yankees have their nuclear missiles right there!". So Nikita looked at the map and decided to place missiles on Cuba...
"13 days" is a nice movie, but I was enraged by the fact that trading Jupiters for Cuban missiles is declared "unfair" and "impossible". How else did you expect Nikita to persuade you to remove the missiles threatening European part of the USSR?
The whole Cold War was a game of countermeasures from both sides.
-
Originally posted by Kieran
Baloney. When was Yalta? When did Russia declare war? That's right, three days before Japan's surrender. Thanks for the "help".
Are you sure you are literate? I already said: ""no later then 3 months after the war in Europe is over". War in Europe ended on May, 9th. USSR declared war on Japan and Manchou-Go on August 8th. You have to visit not only history class, but reading and arithmetics too.
BTW, I can imagine your propaganda howling about "russian bastrds" in case we didn't declare war on August 8th.
Originally posted by Kieran
Remember the B-29's that had to land in Russia after bombing Japan? Thanks for giving them back... oh, wait, you had a non-aggression pact with Japan, right? That's why you kept the B-29s of your allies, copied them, renamed them, and then flew them as your own in the post-war Russia. Go ahead, spin that, baby. [/B]
The crews had a nice option of landing in Japan.
Any country studies any example of military equipment of it's ally when possible. Just like you examined T-34 and KV tanks.
AFAIK US still uses war-time Soviet weapon designs, like pontoon parks that you had to copy exactly. So what?
Your move, please. What will it be this time?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
"13 days" is a nice movie, but I was enraged by the fact that trading Jupiters for Cuban missiles is declared "unfair" and "impossible". How else did you expect Nikita to persuade you to remove the missiles threatening European part of the USSR?
The idea that reciprication would be impossible was simply following the argument against appeasment. "If we give them this, they will be encouraged to try this nonsense again and again" This goes right back to my "Dane Geld" comment form ealier. It's really funny though, when you think about the tactical nuclear situation in Europe twenty years after the events in Cuba. What did either side really get out of that, except a delay in the inevitable?
The whole Cold War was a game of countermeasures from both sides.
Agreed.
-Sik
(BTW, if anyone is unfamiliar with Dane-Geld, check out http://www.geocities.com/~spanoudi/poems/kipli05.html
There's a copy of the Kipling Poem there.)
-
Originally posted by straffo
from a technical/juridical stand point you are perhaps right Boroda
but from a ethical point you are compleltly wrong ...
to make my point clearer : the Nazi use the exact same trick to defend their act why do you rely on such a disgusting technique ?
I'm the first to say that french are far from perfect and made lot of error in the past and will likely do some in the future ...
What can't you say something like : we screwed ?
For exemple do you seriouly thaink that the chechen are the only guilty of the current situation in chechenia ?
Having studied a bit the Algerian war I see exact same propaganda used by both side of the chechen war but almost 30 year later . ...
A reasonable answer, Straffo.
From my POV the responsibility for Chechen war lays on Russian administration of 1991, both political and military. They withdrew the troops from Chechnya and left all the weapons and stocks for the gangsters. The problem is too complicated to describe it here. Yeltsyn and Grachev wanted to use Chechens as a sword of Damocles over Caucasus. A good example: Basayev's gang fought against Georgians in Abkhazia. But the situation went out of control and we faced a dangerous gangster state that couldn't be controlled by anyone :(
As for ethical point of view - Russia faced an enemy that was it's ally in WWII, and it was not USSR who started discussing war in Europe after 1945. German troops preserved in POW camps in Western occupation zones with all their weapons in stock to turn them against Russians is only one sign of what former "allies" prepared for us. The main reason was to protect USSR from the well-prepared agression.
Was "Charioter" the name of the first plan of nuclear attack against USSR? Correct me if I am wrong.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Maybe, but that's the what-if... What if Canada became Communist... would they have even made it?
What if indeed.
-SW [/B]
I thought Canada was communist, I thought the question was about what would happen if Canada joined the USSR. :confused:
"The US treats its socialism like a Catholic priest treats masturbation, it does it very rarely, with a great amount of guilt, and trie its very hardest to ignore the relief that it brings."
;)
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
The idea that reciprication would be impossible was simply following the argument against appeasment. "If we give them this, they will be encouraged to try this nonsense again and again" This goes right back to my "Dane Geld" comment form ealier. It's really funny though, when you think about the tactical nuclear situation in Europe twenty years after the events in Cuba. What did either side really get out of that, except a delay in the inevitable?
I know what Dane Geld means :)
I think that Cuban crisis was a major Soviet victory.
Is it common knowlege in the West that USSR had nuclear missiles in East Germany since late-50s? Few years ago I heard that Spiegel magazine had an article about "the recently uncovered facts that USSR deployed nukes in Germany", and it was a "sensational discovery". Damn. My Grandfather was a "Portable Missile-Technical base" commander in East Germany in 1956-65. They were stocking atomic and hydrogen warheads, missile fuel and spare parts...
It seems to me that poor Europe was a chessboard for two superpowers, and in case of major conflict they could simply count it off as "inevitable casualities", while any threat to mother countries was considered a great problem awaiting immediate solution.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
If you can't read what I posted above - I think it's not a problem of my English.
Again I have to answer this roadkill for the twelvth time. Soviet war against Japan was arranged in Teheran and Yalta, "no later then 3 months after the war in Europe is over". Yankees asked Stalin to help them and defeat the Japanese continental army. You asked - we did, killing thousands of Soviet soldiers after the war was over.
-
Originally posted by mietla
who needs pissy-cola if you can have the latest in communist refreshments. Ahhh, yummy soda with or without fruit juice.
This one is from communist Poland, but when I was in Moskaw I saw the same thing.
Mietla, funny, but we didn't have to chain the glasses to the soda machines :)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
It seems to me that poor Europe was a chessboard for two superpowers, and in case of major conflict they could simply count it off as "inevitable casualities", while any threat to mother countries was considered a great problem awaiting immediate solution.
In a geopolitical sense, I agree (sorry Euros :( ) But the same principle applies when looking at threats to the Soviet Union and United States soil in 1982. Instead of Intermediate Nuclear Forces though, we are talking about SLBM, and nuclear submarines. Within 20 years the number of deployed warheads and the shear power of those warheads made the SS-4 and Jupiter Missiles look downright silly. By that time our Day-to-day lives were lived with far and away greater tonnage pointing at them.
With regard to the Cuban Missile situation being a major Soviet Victory, the only thing that would offset that, would be if the US were already taking the missiles out of Turkey prior to the "crisis." Discussions had been ongoing since Sept of 1961 (nuclearfiles.org) but I think there is little doubt that the Cuban Missile Crisis hastened their removal.
-Sik
-
hehe, I can't believe you, Boroda.
You hold the position the Russians helped the Allies as a result of Yalta, but did absolutely nothing until it was obvious the Japanese were about to surrender. You seem to want me to believe they had picked August 9th as the day to attack, which just happened to coincide with the second atomic bomb (Nagasaki) and Japan's overture to surrender through Russian channels.
Interesting the Japanese should choose the Russians as the path to sue for peace... why would they do that, unless... the non-aggression pact they had with Russia made them believe the Russians might actually honor the intent of the message? Stupid Japanese, eh? And of course, we know the Japanese were a serious threat to Russia by this point, so it was imperative for Russia to defend itself. Hehe.
So the poor Russians had to declare war on a defenseless country because they were afraid of the propagandist Americans scathing criticisms. Oh. And I thought it was an opportunistic land grab attempt...
I read fine. I understand fine.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
A reasonable answer, Straffo.
From my POV the responsibility for Chechen war lays on Russian administration of 1991, both political and military. They withdrew the troops from Chechnya and left all the weapons and stocks for the gangsters. The problem is too complicated to describe it here. Yeltsyn and Grachev wanted to use Chechens as a sword of Damocles over Caucasus. A good example: Basayev's gang fought against Georgians in Abkhazia. But the situation went out of control and we faced a dangerous gangster state that couldn't be controlled by anyone :(
As for ethical point of view - Russia faced an enemy that was it's ally in WWII, and it was not USSR who started discussing war in Europe after 1945. German troops preserved in POW camps in Western occupation zones with all their weapons in stock to turn them against Russians is only one sign of what former "allies" prepared for us. The main reason was to protect USSR from the well-prepared agression.
Was "Charioter" the name of the first plan of nuclear attack against USSR? Correct me if I am wrong.
You know that we are more closer each other than I am to the american :)
Question of culture and education I guess ...
I guess that it make me a commie suporter for lot of american but they will be as wrong as you saying I'm a capitalist pig :p
Things are sometime hard to balance ...
As I'm an ultra communistico-anarchist-capitalist-free market pig :D
And I guess you will agree with me that using past event to read the future is not the good way things are not that simple in real world ...
Those thinking you are a commie are just wrong I bet you are like me proud of your nation and your people (but not allways ... like me :()
Sometime I think that my american fellow lack of "esprit critique" but well ... they are not arrogant frog like me :D
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I think that Cuban crisis was a major Soviet victory.
LOL!
Too bad Nikita Khrushchev wasn't quite so successful in painting it as such to his fellow high-ranking party members, eh?
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by straffo
...
I guess that it make me a commie suporter for lot of american but they will be as wrong as you saying I'm a capitalist pig :p
As I'm an ultra communistico-anarchist-capitalist-free market pig
We have a word for that here in America. We call that "French" :)
-Sik
-
The Rising Sun by John Toland, an in depth study of the decline and fall of the Japanese empire.
A great read, very informative, it also supports what Boroda is saying.
Originally posted by Kieran
hehe, I can't believe you, Boroda.
You hold the position the Russians helped the Allies as a result of Yalta, but did absolutely nothing until it was obvious the Japanese were about to surrender. You seem to want me to believe they had picked August 9th as the day to attack, which just happened to coincide with the second atomic bomb (Nagasaki) and Japan's overture to surrender through Russian channels.
Interesting the Japanese should choose the Russians as the path to sue for peace... why would they do that, unless... the non-aggression pact they had with Russia made them believe the Russians might actually honor the intent of the message? Stupid Japanese, eh? And of course, we know the Japanese were a serious threat to Russia by this point, so it was imperative for Russia to defend itself. Hehe.
So the poor Russians had to declare war on a defenseless country because they were afraid of the propagandist Americans scathing criticisms. Oh. And I thought it was an opportunistic land grab attempt...
I read fine. I understand fine.
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
We have a word for that here in America. We call that "French" :)
-Sik
hu ho :)
forgot this one :p
-
I am not saying the US in post-war wouldn't have said anything about the Russians- they did, and that's a matter of public record. What I am finding amusing is the assertion the Russians didn't grab as much land at the close of the war as they possibly could, and that they never occupied territory without the invitation of the occupied.
For the record, Russia did declare war only after it was obvious the Japanese were finished, for whatever reasons. The Russians did have a non-aggression pact with the Japanese throughout the war. Again, both points are a matter of public record.
-
When they invaded. ;)
The Russians did have a non-aggression pact with the Japanese throughout the war.
-
Originally posted by weazel
Yep, and they broke that treaty
When they invaded. :)
Filthy Stinking Reds! I knew they weren't to be trusted!
-Sik
:p
-
Look.. I'll be the first to admit that US intentions are not always honorable.. but when is Boroda gonna admit that Soviet intentions were NEVER honorable?
Does anybody here see the USSR's occupation and subsequent bloody handed stranglehold of the nations of eastern Europe for 50 years as materialy different from our treatment of western Europe, Germany and Japan during the same period???
Boroda, yah commie pinko pinhead, I dunno where in hell you think the resta the world gets it's history lessons from, but lemme assure yah, yer treasured socialist empire was a freakin dark and evil boil on the bellybutton of enlightend progress fer 50 damn years. And it's apparent you'd just love to see that evil pack of dickwads make a comeback.
In some respects it's a shame yer precious 'victory' in the october crisis of 1962 did not result in the following:
US attacks installations in Cuba, gives assembled invasion force the green light for beacheads in NE Cuba.
Russians release nukes, both stategic and tactical. Invasion force immolated. Miami, Charleston, Newport News and Washington D.C. destroyed.
US counterstrikes with its 30-1 superiority in nuclear warheads and delivery systems.
After 3 weeks of unrestricted war, 1/3 of the globe is uninhabitable, but there are no commies left anywhere. And, while the US has suffered grevious harm, it still exists and will recover, whereas there is no soviet union... no soviets.. no russians... no red chinese... nowhere.
And no damn boroda.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Mietla, funny, but we didn't have to chain the glasses to the soda machines :)
chain? who can afford a chain in communism? it's a piece of rusty wire.
-
Cause you look just like a commie and you might just be a member maaaby. Get out of Denver baby. Get out of Denver.
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
LOL!
Too bad Nikita Khrushchev wasn't quite so successful in painting it as such to his fellow high-ranking party members, eh?
-- Todd/Leviathn
His fellow party bosses knew all the situation. The problem was a word that Soviet side had to give to Robert Kennedy, to keep the details of the "bargain" in secret.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
As for your government question... the US never forcefully imposed it's will or it's policies on any nation, liberated, occupied, or otherwise.
Nor did we keep our hands in their business for 30+ years...
-SW
Well, when I was a child, and the Wall was up and working, they told me that US was our big and nice brother, that helped us to repair the damage of the war (that the US bombers made, btw).
Then I grow up, I dig a little more, the Wall fall, and more info comes...
And I discover that, and the end of the war, Italy had the more powerful in number Communist party in the western Europe.
In june 1946, we had the first vote to the govern system, and we chose the democratic republic, throwing away the king, some time later, we had the first election of the new brand democracy.
There was a founded fear that the communist party cut win, twisting Italy toward the Commie area.
This possibility had 2 big enemies:
The church, fearing an atheist state (at those times, and now, Italy it's still a one religion state).
The USA (you know, Italy have a nice strategic position in Mediterranean).
What started then is amaizing.
The priest take part of the politic, even refusing to celebrate baptism and weddings for Commies, and saying (that's true!) that the communists ate their children.
The USA refused to let the Italy enter in the Marshall plan, until the elections were made, and started secretly refunding the Democrazia Cristiana party with a LOT of money (they were even simply buying the votes).
The Democrazia Cristiana wins the election, and has been in the government (in an amaizing way that we can discuss in other place) until the 90s.
A former Head of the CIA admitted some day ago that Italy was the first experiment of "govern hidden guidance" made by the States.
In conclution,
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
As for your government question... the US never forcefully imposed it's will or it's policies on any nation, liberated, occupied, or otherwise.
Nor did we keep our hands in their business for 30+ years...
-SW
was'nt by force, but... :rolleyes:
I think both the parts of this discussion are victims of the respective propaganda, it's time you grow up, and understand that the "total evil" and "total good" does'nt exist in this poor world, and any state here have a lot of think to be ashamed.
Oh, I am sure that hase been good for us (Italy) to be on the western side, at least I can have a car now :)
The price has been high, but cut have been worse. ;)
-
Naso-
I think if you read back on the thread the preponderance of US posters admit the US is far from clean. There is one particular person of Russian persuasion that will not admit one iota of wrongdoing on the part of his native country. That has generated the bulk of the discussion.
-
I'm so sorry you had to go through all that Naso...
Propoganda or not, atleast you didn't have to live under the iron curtain.. which would of been far worse for your country than the US supporting one party in your country...
That's a far cry from what Russia did to all of the surrounding areas it invaded and occupied.
-SW
-
Yep, I know, Kieran, but I was answering mister swulf, and his declaration.
Boroda for sure exagerate in defending his country, but I am sure it is a reaction to the fanatical hate that it's spreading from a lot of people here, not enough cynic/growth/disillused/smart to understand that the truth is'nt in the words of a government, or of an organization, but somewere else.
The truth it's almost always somewere in the middle.
It's not a surprise that the "middle (ugly ;) ) american" has been prepared to fight the "dead-fight" with the worst enemy US had (politically, militarly, but most important, economically), and the hate it's necessary to "motivate" the soldiers to fight to the end, and the people to accept the losses.
But now the world has changed (well, almost :rolleyes: ) and we can start to look the story with more cold head.
BTW, back to the topic
IRAQ, next NK, and then?
Who will be next?
France?
Canada?
:p
You need soooo much an enemy!!!
Your nation cannot survive without an enemy.
-
Originally posted by Naso
You need soooo much an enemy!!!
Your nation cannot survive without an enemy.
Well, if the UN were effective...........
:D
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I'm so sorry you had to go through all that Naso...
Propoganda or not, atleast you didn't have to live under the iron curtain.. which would of been far worse for your country than the US supporting one party in your country...
That's a far cry from what Russia did to all of the surrounding areas it invaded and occupied.
-SW
Reread the end of my post, I already said that I feel fine to have born in a western country, and that cut have been worse.
And there's a lot more to say about the US foreign politic, here and in other states (South america for example), but this become too much off-topic.
The big problem I see in this board (and one of the main reasons that I had a loong breack for posting here), is that a lot of people talk with the others transferring the charateristics of the Nation in wich they born, to the person they are talking with, loosing the sight that there is a person in front of them, with the same problems and wills.
The same attitude that scare me so much when you cheerlead the bombing of the IRAQ cities like there will be only mr Saddam there, and not some poor people that is already starving, under adictature, and an huge propaganda, and have a lot bigger problems than what plane need to be perked of what cheat the other virtual pilot made yesterday in Main.
We are talking of human beings here, if we lose this contact with reality, we will become comparable to Mr. Osama and his friends.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Well, if the UN were effective...........
:D
-SW
The UN will become effective the moment that stop to be a USA puppet.
-
I understand Naso.... but if the world ain't gonna fix the problems (and Saddam *IS* a big problem, so is N. Korea if they start taunting S. Korea with their nukes), then someone had better.. or else tommorrow, there won't be any reality.
-SW
-
Yeah right Naso.. if they were our puppet, then we would of been inside Iraq months ago hunting down Saddam.
Who keeps getting the run around, and then saying "well, maybe a new resolution and we can get in there next year".... that's right, the UN...
If they were our puppets, Saddam would be very dead a year ago.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I understand Naso.... but if the world ain't gonna fix the problems (and Saddam *IS* a big problem, so is N. Korea if they start taunting S. Korea with their nukes), then someone had better.. or else tommorrow, there won't be any reality.
-SW
There is a Nation in the world that is taunting (not openly) the world with nuclear weapons since 1945, and it's still the only one that HAVE USED IT, even if maybe for good reasons.
So back to that joke that I posted in another thread, little changed:
If the US need to save the world from mass weapons menaces, soon or later have to bomb himself.
The "my business first/I am the only right here/With me or against me" attitude, is not a good start to look for peace.
Like asking one to agree with you and do what you whant, with a gun on his head.... but asking politely. :D
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yeah right Naso.. if they were our puppet, then we would of been inside Iraq months ago hunting down Saddam.
Who keeps getting the run around, and then saying "well, maybe a new resolution and we can get in there next year".... that's right, the UN...
If they were our puppets, Saddam would be very dead a year ago.
-SW
You are a little hungry (it's the correct word?) that some of the "ropes" of this puppet are in France and Russia hands?
;)
The poor and weak nations that the UN have the duty to represent are still there, waiting the next strike, starving, or licking the US and western country hands to have a bone.
Nice world, really.
Fair.
-
My work day his gone, I have to leave, will read the answers tomorrow, godnight :)
-
Originally posted by straffo
You know that we are more closer each other than I am to the american :)
Question of culture and education I guess ...
From my experience of communicating with foreigners I came to a conclusion that Europeans are muuuch closer to us then Americans... But both Euros and Americans are nice people. This "discussions" on the Net are just a way to vent our emotions :)
Originally posted by straffo
I guess that it make me a commie suporter for lot of american but they will be as wrong as you saying I'm a capitalist pig :p
Things are sometime hard to balance ...
As I'm an ultra communistico-anarchist-capitalist-free market pig :D
Hehe I can something like this myself, but I have a srong belief that planned economics is much more efficient in case of emergency then the free market. But OTOH - it will not let me work as I do now.
Originally posted by straffo
And I guess you will agree with me that using past event to read the future is not the good way things are not that simple in real world ...
Those thinking you are a commie are just wrong I bet you are like me proud of your nation and your people (but not allways ... like me :()
Sometime I think that my american fellow lack of "esprit critique" but well ... they are not arrogant frog like me :D
I have to say here that I hate modern commies at least once in two months.
Anyway, for majority of the public here "commie" doesn't mean anything but "enemy", "amazinhunk", chose any bad word here, simply because they have been told this on TV. 90% are unable to tell the difference between socialism and communism, and sbout 50% don't see the difference between nazism and "communism".
-
Yes the US used a nuclear bomb. AFAIK, there's still several nations out there with nuclear bombs that are not on our list of countries that shouldn't have them.
Do you honestly believe that a country with a crazy dictator deserves to have weapons of mass destruction?
I don't care if France or Russia are on the UN and have their hands in it. If they disagree with what the US wants to do, and Saddam turns right on around and starts taking people out with nukes, or chemicals, or bio weapons, then we (the US) get to blame France and Russia for sitting on their hands with their thumbs up their ass.
Of course, in the end the US will get blamed... nature of the beast.
If you think the world is simply going to correct itself, that just is not going to happen.
Without the US, despite what many people think, the world would be in a world of hurt.
-SW
-
Well, Naso says exactly what I think. And being a citizen ofa "free world" he gets much more attention then me, imbecilic communist bastard... /*BTW, that definition by the Warbirds "producer" is the funniest thing I have read in years, so I had to put it into my signature. It's a beautiful example that any Russian doing something that is "wrong" automaticaly becomes "i.c.b.".*/
Yes the US used a nuclear bomb. AFAIK, there's still several nations out there with nuclear bombs that are not on our list of countries that shouldn't have them.
Who the hell are you to decide!?
North Korea have chosen it's way, and they are living in their own way, not disturbing others. It's quite reasonable that they don't want to be bombed "to stone age" again, and they simply have to protect themselves by threatening their deadly enemy with nukes.
They know what they'll see if they let enemy attack them. But this time they'll not have volunteers from Russia and China fighting for them...
I don't care if France or Russia are on the UN and have their hands in it. If they disagree with what the US wants to do, and Saddam turns right on around and starts taking people out with nukes, or chemicals, or bio weapons, then we (the US) get to blame France and Russia for sitting on their hands with their thumbs up their ass.
If any country will use nukes first in an agressive war - both Russia and France will simply turn it into a hot glass. That's how it works, and the only reason why you guys could afford burning hundreeds of thousands of civilians in 1945 was that noone could give you an adequate answer. Noone uses nukes now only because it will cause an attack from other nuclear-capable countries, and everyone knows it. For example: a massive launch from China will result in both Russia and US launching at them, regardless of what was China's target.
Without the US, despite what many people think, the world would be in a world of hurt.
Tell this to Koreans, Vietnamese, Lybians and Serbs.
You guys are famous for fighting holy war with communism killing millions just because they were in a wrong place in a wrong time. No wonder that people who were your targets still pray at Soviet volunteer SAM operators.
You say USSR was evil? Now please compare Vietnam and Afghanistan, as the results of a "victory" of red and blue sides.
-
The reason I ignore you Boroda is because you're full of toejam... but I'll reply to your Vietnam/Afghanistan line..
Well, my dad was sent to Vietnam. The South Vietnamese were very happy to have the US there. They were ecstatic to fight alongside US guys to push back the North Vietnamese. They didn't want to become Commie just as much as we didn't want them to become Commie.
If it weren't for popular opinion and the world, they could of gone into North Vietnam at full strength and won.
As for Afghanistan, I don't even know what you are talking about.
-SW
-
Vietnam: a stable and relatively prosperous state that is not agressive and lives in peace since 1979.
Afghanistan: country run by gangsters and religious fanatics raised on US money, tremendous loss of poulation since 1989, a base of international terrorists and drug-dealers, remaining a direct threat to it's neighbours, that have to ask for Russian military assistance. Also please notice that "successfull" American operation "decisive something" or "enduring democracy" or " prospering revenge" whatever you called it I can't remember didn't reduce the number of terrorist gangs and drug smugglers at the Tajik border guarded by 201st Motorinfantry division and Commonwealth border guards.
-
Vietnam: a stable and relatively prosperous state that is not agressive and lives in peace since 1979.
Yeah... uhm... what happened between 1975 and 1979?
Tell me that... Exactly, North Vietnam and South Vietnam were still fighting.
Nice that you can ignore those missing 4 years.
I suppose we can ignore 4 years from Afghanistan's timeline too then...
-SW
-
Boroda-
Naso gets respect because he acknowledges his country has soiled hands just like we do. He doesn't merely come in with the "you are ignorant and propagandized" stance like, I dunno... you?
but I have a srong belief that planned economics is much more efficient in case of emergency then the free market.
That's a keeper. Better to be relatively poor all the time than to have the ability to plan ahead and work for a higher standard of living, eh? Couldn't risk an economic downturn. ;)
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Yes the US used a nuclear bomb. AFAIK, there's still several nations out there with nuclear bombs that are not on our list of countries that shouldn't have them.
So, it's not the possession of a mass destruction device that let a nation "win" the honor to be in the "evil list".
Maybe to "win" this nice prize there must be another reason, maybe to refuse to be a puppet (hint hint). :)
Do you honestly believe that a country with a crazy dictator deserves to have weapons of mass destruction?
NO!
Neither a nation that is dangerously prone to force the others to act at his wills.
I don't care if France or Russia are on the UN and have their hands in it. If they disagree with what the US wants to do, and Saddam turns right on around and starts taking people out with nukes, or chemicals, or bio weapons, then we (the US) get to blame France and Russia for sitting on their hands with their thumbs up their ass.
Again, "with us or against us".
Of course, in the end the US will get blamed... nature of the beast.
Maybe it's blamed for some real reason.
If you think the world is simply going to correct itself, that just is not going to happen.
Without the US, despite what many people think, the world would be in a world of hurt.
-SW [/B]
Check Afrika, it's already "in a world of hurt", but, since it's not disturbing US economy, or interests (a part the weapons producers, LOL, think if they start to have peace threaty and stop to kill each other, maybe the US will interfere to protect the weapons producers interests), is left alone to slowly die.
This frigging "policeman of the word" posture it's a joke, and someone that show to believe it it's for sure not an open mind person.
Again, the US it's not acting like this for "the freedom and protection of the world" :rolleyes:.
You are showing (on the other side of the coin) the same nationalistic and blind attitude that you criticize so much in Boroda.
-
actually baroda... communists, socialists and facists are all my enemy. I don't want them affecting my life.
lazs
-
EDIT: Nevermind, useless to discuss something with someone who is just going to call anyone from the US who doesn't hate their government "nationalistic and blind".
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Vietnam: a stable and relatively prosperous state that is not agressive and lives in peace since 1979.
Yeah... uhm... what happened between 1975 and 1979?
Tell me that... Exactly, North Vietnam and South Vietnam were still fighting.
Nice that you can ignore those missing 4 years.
I suppose we can ignore 4 years from Afghanistan's timeline too then...
-SW
Trap worked.
SW, I hate to say it, but I have to repeat that you need to go to history class. Very sad.
There was peace in Vietnam in 75-79. In 1979 they had a war with China, and won it.
Please tell me what do you think about my comparison. This time without silly bashing.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Trap worked.
SW, I hate to say it, but I have to repeat that you need to go to history class. Very sad.
There was peace in Vietnam in 75-79. In 1979 they had a war with China, and won it.
Please tell me what do you think about my comparison. This time without silly bashing.
It wasn't until the North Vietnamese overran the South Vietnamese that your version of "peace" could take place.
So you can say, "ours was a success"... but it wasn't, the vietcong had to invade, kill many south vietnamese, and then occupy.
Not to mention economic reconstruction of the country has proven difficult, to this day.
Lots of lives lost, over executions because they did not fit in with the communist way.
If you can call that a victory, then I guess mass-genocide is the answer to everything?
-SW
-
Originally posted by lazs2
actually baroda... communists, socialists and facists are all my enemy. I don't want them affecting my life.
lazs
I do not want anyone to interfere into my life.
-
Naso, if it wasn't for US "taunting" with nuclear weapons, you'd probably be speaking Russian now. :)
Not that there's anything wrong with speaking Russian, but I doubt life would have been fun for western Europe under Stalin's rule.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
It wasn't until the North Vietnamese overran the South Vietnamese that your version of "peace" could take place.
So you can say, "ours was a success"... but it wasn't, the vietcong had to invade, kill many south vietnamese, and then occupy.
Not to mention economic reconstruction of the country has proven difficult, to this day.
Lots of lives lost, over executions because they did not fit in with the communist way.
If you can call that a victory, then I guess mass-genocide is the answer to everything?
-SW
Hehe, American telling me about mass-genocide in Vietnam... Those B-52s burned over Hanoi and Haifon were just flying around dropping rose-leafs and having a good time.
SW, I asked you to compare Vietnam and Afghanistan. And you keep on telling me your "anticommunist" roadkill approved by party line. It's your right to believe in anything you are shown on TV and Hollywood movies.
People like you look like an "ideal" Soviet citizen back in the 50s-70s, who was supposed to believe any crap he was fed through the media.
I can't understand: do you really believe in what you say here, or you just have to say it, being too afraid to show that you disagree with the "official" point of view? I was stunned that during our conflict with iEN I recieved dozens of mails from people who were baiting me on AGW, where they told me they support our project and wish us luck, but simply can't say this in public and have to bash me and other FHR people on the forums.
-
Boroda, I do not compare Afghanistan and Vietnam because they are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT circumstances.
Sorry, I don't believe what I'm fed from the media.
FreeHost has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. I know of the evils of Communism. You may happily support a government system that will kill any dissentors.. I will happily fight that form of government.
I don't agree with my government on everything, and I probably never will... but atleast I can rally support for change.
Do that in Communism, you'll quickly find yourself dead.
-SW
-
The only similarity between Afghanistan and Vietnam is that both were wars of aggression by communist regimes against their neighbors.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Boroda, I do not compare Afghanistan and Vietnam because they are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT circumstances.
Sorry, I don't believe what I'm fed from the media.
FreeHost has absolutely nothing to do with this situation. I know of the evils of Communism. You may happily support a government system that will kill any dissentors.. I will happily fight that form of government.
I don't agree with my government on everything, and I probably never will... but atleast I can rally support for change.
Do that in Communism, you'll quickly find yourself dead.
-SW
I mentioned FH only to show that sometimes you guys have to censor your behaviour and speak only according to the "party line" in public, exactly like most of the Soviet people before late-80s. That discovery was very disappointing for me. We still idealise American "freedom", regardless to the obvious fact that most of the Western values we tried to adopt in last 15 years turned out to be the same propaganda fiction and the same tool of mind-supression as Soviet clumsy and generally unprofessional propaganda (we didn't have such propaganda genius as dr. Goebbels). From what I see now I come to a conclusion that we have much more freedom now then you had until the fall of the USSR, and American society is copying the worst sides of Soviet system eagerly.
I keep telling you Soviet official POV only to show that the opposite opinion is possible and has the right to exist. The truth is somewhere in the middle. You have won the cold war, but it doesn't prove all the roadkill they feed us is true.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
The only similarity between Afghanistan and Vietnam is that both were wars of aggression by communist regimes against their neighbors.
Yes, Tonkin bay was a clear act of agression against neighbours.
-
Boroda, I'm one of the guys who emailed you in support of FH. The FH censorship on AGW had nothing to do with politics. It had to do with the fact that Argo was banning people (myself included) who mentioned Freebirds. Argo was doing this because iEN had threatened to sue him if he didn't. Argo was in no position (financially or otherwise) to defend himself from such a suit, so he complied, and made it impossible for anyone to agree with you on AGW. His only other option was to shut down the board completely. And I don't think an enterprise of dubious legal and moral value like Freebirds would have been worth shutting down the board completely.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Yes, Tonkin bay was a clear act of agression against neighbours.
LOL, true.
But it doesn't even slightly compare to the efforts of the USSR- and China-supported Viet Cong to destroy the lawful government of South Vietnam, or the invasion(s) of South Vietnam by the NVA. USA and South Vietnam never invaded North Vietnam. But USSR and China used their puppet-state to invade South Vietnam.
And don't start with the sob-stories about B-52's. Atrocities by the VC and NVA against civilians in the South far outnumbered the casualties due to strategic bombing. The USAF and USN went to great pains to avoid civilian casualties in the North. They risked (and lost) many brave pilots' lives by conducting precision dive bombing strikes in lieu of carpet bombing.
-
Boroda, just so it's clear.. it isn't the Russian people I dislike.. it is the idealogy behind Communism. I was not raised in a Cold War society.. I was born and raised during a "relatively" peaceful time... There was no "evil Communism" mentioned in schools, or on the airwaves, atleast not that I paid attention to.
Which is what you should realise, I suffered through no propoganda indoctrination... I have formed my opinion of Communism through books, incidently not just "American" history books either... we do have books written by people of all nationalities in this country, and we are free to read them.
You're right, the Cold War was nothing but propoganda and lies.... but we should all be glad for that, or else we wouldn't be here having this discussion right now.
-SW
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Boroda, I'm one of the guys who emailed you in support of FH. The FH censorship on AGW had nothing to do with politics. It had to do with the fact that Argo was banning people (myself included) who mentioned Freebirds. Argo was doing this because iEN had threatened to sue him if he didn't. Argo was in no position (financially or otherwise) to defend himself from such a suit, so he complied, and made it impossible for anyone to agree with you on AGW.
Funked, you know, +HT+ doesn't like what we have done, so I refrain from any mentioning FHR here, especially links that can lead to DLing our software. Sorry that I made you mention it here :(
Anyway, thank you for the info - I never thought they threatened to sue Argo :( In fact I was banned 20 minutes after I posted the famous "Letter to Russian Trade Representative in the US" on AGW, with edited personal information about mr. Roberts...
Later, in 2001, iEN wrote another slander to their local FBI office, so we had talks with Russian authorities and proved that there is no criminal act. The whole story from our side can be described as "detective comedy".
You were always friendly or at least neutral towards our project on AGW, but what surprised me was that many people who threw toejam and baited me there wrote me mails and said they beg my pardon but they have to act like that in public :( I doubt that iEN threatened to sue them for not showing righteous indignation.
If the state of affairs when some looney like Jay Littman or Hot$#it can sew a law-abiding person who simply says what he thinks is considered "civilised" and a "way to go" - I prefer to remain an Asian bolshevik barbarian.
Moderators, if you think I said too much here - please delete this post.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Boroda, just so it's clear.. it isn't the Russian people I dislike.. it is the idealogy behind Communism. I was not raised in a Cold War society.. I was born and raised during a "relatively" peaceful time... There was no "evil Communism" mentioned in schools, or on the airwaves, atleast not that I paid attention to.
Which is what you should realise, I suffered through no propoganda indoctrination... I have formed my opinion of Communism through books, incidently not just "American" history books either... we do have books written by people of all nationalities in this country, and we are free to read them.
You're right, the Cold War was nothing but propoganda and lies.... but we should all be glad for that, or else we wouldn't be here having this discussion right now.
-SW
Agreed.
Some corrections now :)
In USSR we had thousands of different books from Western authors printed in large numbers. Some of the books were absolutely anti-Soviet, no open slogans - but the idea was obvious for everyone. They all had a preface written by some party preachers - but who cared... Serious historical books were eagerly translated. It's funny, but I suddenly discovered that I can't find a Soviet book on WWII history in my Father's library other then memoirs...
You'll be surprised - but we had a normal society here, not much different from the West. Most of the differences can be explained by national charecter...
And there is another thing about Cold War that shouldn't be ignored - it stimulated technical progress. Without it we couldn't even have sattelites now.
-
All wars tend to stimulate technology, but since the Cold War has been the longest running conflict (I say that because in the technical sense, it wasn't really a war) it had the longest running period of technological discovories and desire to get that technology right before the evil other side did. Evil is both sides, because to each other both sides were evil.
I didn't mean to say that you weren't free to read books by authors outside of your country or with anti-Soviet content... I meant to say that here in the US I am free to read what I wished, and I did.. so my opinion of Communism was based not upon what I was told, but what I have read from various sources.
It's just a shame that after the Cold War ended, the space race (atleast in the US) effectively ground to a halt. We still explore space and stuff, but not nearly at the rate we did when we had a reason to. If the Cold War had "peacefully" (no attacks or anything) lasted until now... I can't help but wonder where we'd be in space.
-SW
-
At least they kept tight security on their nukes and a short leash on the terrorists they sponsored.
The international scene has gone to hell in a hand basket since they fell apart.
We can thank RoNaLD RaYGunZ for it if current "conservative" information is believed.
:D
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
EDIT: Nevermind, useless to discuss something with someone who is just going to call anyone from the US who doesn't hate their government "nationalistic and blind".
-SW
Why ?
it's not the case ?
Originally posted by funkedup
The only similarity between Afghanistan and Vietnam is that both were wars of aggression by communist regimes against their neighbors.
Rotflmao :D
It was just USSR and USA playground ... nothing more nothing less
-
Boroda, you get sillier with every post. Please continue.
-
Originally posted by straffo
Why ?
it's not the case ?
Do the French always surrender?
-SW
-
Boroda brings up good points IMO.
It's always funny for me to see how different countries view the US and vice-versa. Having lived overseas and traveled quite a bit I got past US propoganda .. ok partially, one can't entirely remove oneself from it here in the states.
I don't agree with Comunism but that doesn't mean I don't agree with some of the people that live in comunist controlled states or countries.
Just like in the US, the average person doesn't have direct influence over the government once leaders are elected.
Also, just like our country, there are differences of opinions and differences in lifestyles.
all in all the people are generally the same everywhere.
it's those friggin governments that screw things up.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
Do the French always surrender?
-SW
depend ...
from a French or an American point of view ?
The more I read this BBS the more I do think that the American are a bit to nationalistic ...
I'm not sure if it's just the opinion of average American of the opinion of the Average HTC customer.
The use of the "Anti-American" trick in particuliar make me vomit ...
It's exactly the same "against the party" trick the communist used behind the Iron wall ...
-
depend ...
from a French or an American point of view ?
The answer was "no" to my question, and therefore would of been a "no" to your question.
-SW
-
straffo FWIW, I wouldn't make an opinion of the 'average' American based on this BBS.
I'd bet there are more 'nationalistic' types in this game than the typical cross section due to affiliation with the military.
for the record. the United States is the best country in the world!
:D
-
...page 347, para. 5, col. 1, American Heritage World History, 5th Edition...
Stalin ate babies, and made it the official meal of the May Day celebration.
I hope that clears this up.
-
Kieren, I cannot believe it, are you joking?
There is really a book of "History" with this sentence??
:eek:
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Naso, if it wasn't for US "taunting" with nuclear weapons, you'd probably be speaking Russian now. :)
Not that there's anything wrong with speaking Russian, but I doubt life would have been fun for western Europe under Stalin's rule.
Funkye, I were a little disctract, read some post ago (maybe in the page before).
Next time pay more attention to the lesson, for now i give you a "C".
:D
BTW, I would like to learn russian, but seem so difficult.
I speak only western languages English, french, spanish, and I would like to learn russian, japaneese, chineese, and arab.
But I have no time to study :(
-
Only a C :(
I never got a C before!!!
Damned Italians!!!
:D
Kieran, very funny. :)
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Only a C :(
I never got a C before!!!
Damned Italians!!!
:D
Kieran, very funny. :)
Dont surrender, keep working, and soon or later you will earn a B and even (maybe) an A.
I know you can do better :)
:p
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
EDIT: Nevermind, useless to discuss something with someone who is just going to call anyone from the US who doesn't hate their government "nationalistic and blind".
-SW
Ops, I missed this post, sorry for the late answer.
Wulfe, you have a little exagerated reaction, I pointed your attitude, not your person, I seem to remember in other discussions that you was open to critics on some issues that have always a "last man defence call" effect in a lot of US posters here.
It's just that in this thread you was assuming the same attitude of Boroda, in other words a complete justification of the behaviour of your country, regardless of the real (or perceived by the rest of the Humanity) reasons behind.
The question it's not to hate your government, but just to admit (as also Boroda fail to do), that some "Helping wars", "preheventive strikes", or "World's police duty" that both of your country (USA and URSS) have claimed, had little to do with the reasons publicly exposed, and more to do with the usual power/money issues.
There it's nothing clean or moral in politics or diplomacy, we can dream about an improvement, but, as now, that's the sad reality.