PDA

View Full Version : The debate continues - Communist V Capatalist



Chevan
10-05-2006, 02:35 AM
Nope, broadly similar levels of evil people appear in each country. The difference is that Russia and Germany were unfortunate enough to have said evil bast***s come into power during the first half of the 20th century, while places like the US and UK have been spared this.
Furthermore, I would note that a number of people I consider similarly evil have existed in a number of other countries in positions of power. Cambodia, China and Uganda are very obvious examples.
pdf , your statement that in Russia and Germany bast***s come into power is just the consequence of the losing the WW2 by the Germany and Cool war by the USSR.
Certainly i don't refuse the bolshevik's and nazi's evil , but tell honestly : weren't in USA the racism?
Weren't there a public executions and killing the afro-americans?
Weren't a "only for white" singboards?
How many of imperialist war USA had in 20th century...
"Against communism" , "for democraty" now "against the islam" - slogans are different but the the reasons and the resaults are the same - captured the zones of influences and killing the people.
And all is this for what? For money.
I can agree with you what "evil's countris" were in first half of 20th century, but its quite obviously who play its role today.
In your place i would

Nickdfresh
10-05-2006, 11:08 AM
Nope, broadly similar levels of evil people appear in each country. The difference is that Russia and Germany were unfortunate enough to have said evil bast***s come into power during the first half of the 20th century, while places like the US and UK have been spared this.
Furthermore, I would note that a number of people I consider similarly evil have existed in a number of other countries in positions of power. Cambodia, China and Uganda are very obvious examples.


Correct. In the US at least, there were evil *****s certainly bent on power that were given a voice after the Great Depression bagan causing civil unrest and massive unemployment. They may well have taken power had FDR not launched the New Deal and the ineffective Hoover or a staunchly-conservative Hoover-like President remained in power.

pdf27
10-05-2006, 01:37 PM
pdf , your statement that in Russia and Germany bast***s come into power is just the consequence of the losing the WW2 by the Germany and Cool war by the USSR.
No idea where you're getting this from. So far as I'm concerned the evil bas***s mentioned fell from power in 1945 for the Germans and gradually over the period 1953-89 for the Russians. Thankfully, neither country is currently even remotely resembling the situation in the first half of this century. Putin may be autocratic, but that's a long way from genocidal nutcases like Lenin and Stalin who you once had in power.


Certainly i don't refuse the bolshevik's and nazi's evil , but tell honestly : weren't in USA the racism?
Weren't there a public executions and killing the afro-americans?
Weren't a "only for white" singboards?
Yep. Nowhere near as many as the tens of millions killed as a result of Nazi or Soviet policy though. Over the same time frame, at the very worst the number for the US would be in the tens of thousands.


How many of imperialist war USA had in 20th century...
"Against communism" , "for democraty" now "against the islam" - slogans are different but the the reasons and the resaults are the same - captured the zones of influences and killing the people.
I think you're barking up the wrong tree here. The US tends to fight because it believes (rightly or wrongly) it had been attacked by those it was fighting. Hence the number of people in the US believing Saddam launched the 9/11 attacks


I can agree with you what "evil's countris" were in first half of 20th century, but its quite obviously who play its role today.
Note that the countries I mentioned in the latter half of the 20th century were Uganda, Cambodia and China. Nowhere on earth today (since Rwanda, which was caused by a non-state actor) is that level of killing going on, thankfully.

Dani
10-05-2006, 02:16 PM
Hence the number of people in the US believing Saddam launched the 9/11 attacks

Come on! Are you serious?

Nickdfresh
10-05-2006, 06:28 PM
Come on! Are you serious?

Unfortunately, there is some truth to this. But people are finally waking up here...

Chevan
10-06-2006, 04:16 AM
No idea where you're ggradually over the period 1953-89 etting this from. So far as I'm concerned the evil bas***s mentioned fell from power in 1945 for the Germans and gradually over the period 1953-89 for the Russians. Thankfully, neither country is currently even remotely resembling the situation in the first half of this century. Putin may be autocratic, but that's a long way from genocidal nutcases like Lenin and Stalin who you once had in power.

You have very tupical western version oh Russian history.
"Bas.....s gradually fell from power ...over the period 1953-89".
And then it became the "democraty", really?
So, now listen the REAL the history. After the 1991 in Russia take the power the real bas..ds (Eltsin's command) who under the rulling of its western "friends" (mostly from USA) destroed a power state (USSR) and under ruling of bas..ds from IFBB got a tens billions external depts.( Like Eastern Europe states).
And just after the Putin's coming Russia began (very little while) to defend its own interests(under the shrills of western mass-media about "return to the autocraticy' - this good sign, its mean we get a right way ).


Yep. Nowhere near as many as the tens of millions killed as a result of Nazi or Soviet policy though. Over the same time frame, at the very worst the number for the US would be in the tens of thousands.

tens millions killed? Don't you forget it was a WW2 ( which in eastern front was a much worst then in western).
Or may be do you mean the billshit about "20 millions in GULAG" and "6 million of jews" ;)
You may say what you want , but don't try please to teach me of my history :)


... The US tends to fight because it believes (rightly or wrongly) it had been attacked by those it was fighting. Hence the number of people in the US believing Saddam launched the 9/11 attacks

They can believes in any shit which want, this is theirs personal problems.
But if looked to the resault : 2 million killed in Vietnam, about 1,5 in Korea.
Camboja, Laos, Panama, Timor, Ugoslavia ,Afganistan, now the Iraq.
As you may be know ( watch the "Farengate 911" ) the most of the terrorist of 9/11 were from the Saudy Aravia. But Americans blamed the Iraq and Afganistan. Nice politic ;) (Thank's for the god, not the Belorussia)




Note that the countries I mentioned in the latter half of the 20th century were Uganda, Cambodia and China. Nowhere on earth today (since Rwanda, which was caused by a non-state actor) is that level of killing going on, thankfully.
Communist-evil China , pdf , with its great economic rose (about 11-12 per year) could easy (through 10 -15 years) overturn the American gegemony in the Asia and possibly in the World.
So we better look who will get a name as the "bas..ds" ;)

Cheers.

Nickdfresh
10-06-2006, 04:42 AM
You have very tupical western version oh Russian history.
"Bas.....s gradually fell from power ...over the period 1953-89".
And then it became the "democraty", really?
So, now listen the REAL the history. After the 1991 in Russia take the power the real bas..ds (Eltsin's command) who under the rulling of its western "friends" (mostly from USA) destroed a power state (USSR) and under ruling of bas..ds from IFBB got a tens billions external depts.( Like Eastern Europe states).
And just after the Putin's coming Russia began (very little while) to defend its own interests(under the shrills of western mass-media about "return to the autocraticy' - this good sign, its mean we get a right way ).

tens millions killed? Don't you forget it was a WW2 ( which in eastern front was a much worst then in western).
Or may be do you mean the billshit about "20 millions in GULAG" and "6 million of jews" ;)
You may say what you want , but don't try please to teach me of my history :)

Somebody needs too. I doubt the US "destroyed" the Soviet Union, I think the CP did a pretty good job on their own...


They can believes in any shit which want, this is theirs personal problems.
But if looked to the resault : 2 million killed in Vietnam, about 1,5 in Korea.
Camboja, Laos, Panama, Timor, Ugoslavia ,Afganistan, now the Iraq.
As you may be know ( watch the "Farengate 911" ) the most of the terrorist of 9/11 were from the Saudy Aravia. But Americans blamed the Iraq and Afganistan. Nice politic ;) (Thank's for the god, not the Belorussia)

It's true most of the terrorists were Saudis, and the invasion of Iraq has turned to a huge foreign policy abortion for the US and never should have happened. But the attacks were likely planned in Afghanistan at the behest of the Taliban. The volunteers were mostly Saudi, but most had spent time in Afghanistan. The US was right to destroy the Taliban. And the United States started none of the other Wars you listed, other than Panama; and Noriega was a ***** in his own right. It's one thing to condemn the United States, but those other states aren't exactly innocent little utopias of peace and joy. The US mostly became involved in those conflicts and as I recall, in each case, the other side was just as responsible for many of those deaths as the US was.

And BTW, since you mentioned "F911" (a film I agree with BTW), have you seen the film on the Belsan School Raid: "Three Days In September" ("http://www.sho.com/site/threedaysinseptember/home.do)? It's rather critical of Putin's handling of the crisis and his subsequent suppression of any independent inquiry into the events surrounding the debacle.


Communist-evil China , pdf , with its great economic rose (about 11-12 per year) could easy (through 10 -15 years) overturn the American gegemony in the Asia and possibly in the World.
So we better look who will get a name as the "bas..ds" ;)

Cheers.

China may indeed turn over American hegemony. Their economy is a response of their autocratic gov't liberalizing economically, but not politically or socially. So I wouldn't be so happy about it if I were you. When have Russians and Chinese ever got along? And you can say what you want about the United States, but our policies could be a lot worse towards other nations. I think we buy a lot of your oil and what consumer goods Russia offers.

And there may come a day when you yearn for the old days of American hegemony--because there are alternatives that are far worse...

Chevan
10-06-2006, 04:52 AM
Unfortunately, there is some truth to this. But people are finally waking up here...
...and fall asleep again soon after the next elections.
Nick , we are all too good know the mass-media technologies to direct of social opinion to the "right side".
Or may be you think that americans war corporation (and companies like sadly known Halliberton) will want to refuse of billions contracts in Iraq's war supplies.
You can play in "democraty" of the "freedom of selection" as much as you wish. But USA NEVER will return back the troops from the Iraq.
Not becouse "somebody sleep" but because American rule elite never will do it.
Political resaults of it could be a catastrophic for the US positions and it immediately feel the Israel.
I hope you don't wish to offend the jews, Nick.;)
Therefore American guys ( and Britain and ets) will continue to die for the jewish politic in the Near East.

Nickdfresh
10-06-2006, 05:19 AM
...and fall asleep again soon after the next elections.

Nobody's asleep here. It's actually one of the most divisive times in American history actually. Well, some are asleep, but that's everywhere.


Nick , we are all too good know the mass-media technologies to direct of social opinion to the "right side".

LMAFO!!:lol: Oh Chevan, if you only heard the relentless complaining form the "right side" regarding "liberal" (left side) media bias in the US!


Or may be you think that americans war corporation (and companies like sadly known Halliberton) will want to refuse of billions contracts in Iraq's war supplies.

I'm well aware of the corrupt cronyism in my gov't. But things like this will be changing shortly.


You can play in "democraty" of the "freedom of selection" as much as you wish. But USA NEVER will return back the troops from the Iraq.
Not becouse "somebody sleep" but because American rule elite never will do it.

When did I ever say "democracy" or "freedom," in fact I think that argument is utter shit.


Political resaults of it could be a catastrophic for the US positions and it immediately feel the Israel.
I hope you don't wish to offend the jews, Nick.;)
Therefore American guys ( and Britain and ets) will continue to die for the jewish politic in the Near East.

LOL We're not dying for "Jewish politics." Certainly, many Neoconservatives like Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have cited Saddam's support of terror against Israel as a reason to topple Saddam. These are the same Neoconservatives that used to exaggerate Soviet military power BTW, in order to justify massive spending on new military tech. and to try to unify the American people through fear by using some of the same (boogyman/"Snowball" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_(Animal_Farm))) techniques that Communists did (actually, a lot of Neoconservatives were themselves Marxists or Maoists while in college during the 1960s believe it or not, so they share the same stilted ideology over reality world view sadly). So, yes there is an "Israeli Lobby" in the US that will attack any politician that speaks out against Israel's immoral policies that are tantamount to Apartheid. But Israel has overplayed its hand these days. People are now questioning why we're giving them billion$ a year, only to have them increase the risk of terrorism for the US and arrogantly attack other nations like Lebanon, decrying the killing of 60-or-70 Israeli civilians by Hezbollah rockets, while killing over 1000 Lebanese in what amounts to thinly veiled collective punishment.

We invaded Iraq mainly for the oil. Not to save Jews from destruction from Iraq/Iran/Syria/Hezbollah (which is a pretty laughable assertion since no one can challenge Israel militarily with her 200 nuclear weapons, unless Israel stupidly attacks fortified positions head on). And if you remember, Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy, ex-Pres. George HW Bush. So there are many reasons there.

And if you think that American soldiers won't be withdrawn, you are both right and wrong. They will eventually be redeployed to friendly Kurdistan. And the Sunnis that fought them can build their country with no oil, and the Shias can build their Iranian-backed Theocracy. And Iraq will no longer exist...

Chevan
10-06-2006, 06:02 AM
Somebody needs too. I doubt the US "destroyed" the Soviet Union, I think the CP did a pretty good job on their own...

Not US destroed the SU Nick , just our own the "bas...ds" according the CIA recomendations and some "experts" (like the main american rusofob Zbignev Bzezinckij )


It's true most of the terrorists were Saudis, and the invasion of Iraq has turned to a huge foreign policy abortion for the US and never should have happened. But the attacks were likely planned in Afghanistan at the behest of the Taliban. The volunteers were mostly Saudi, but most had spent time in Afghanistan. The US was right to destroy the Taliban. And the United States started none of the other Wars you listed, other than Panama; and Noriega was a ***** in his own right. It's one thing to condemn the United States, but those other states aren't exactly innocent little utopias of peace and joy. The US mostly became involved in those conflicts and as I recall, in each case, the other side was just as responsible for many of those deaths as the US was.

No one doubt in American right to destroy the Taliban, but capturing the Iraq is another the story ...;)


but those other states aren't exactly innocent little utopias of peace and joy

So Nick lets install the American "standarts of democraty" by bombing and tanks. This "other states" hasn't right to choose its fate and style of life??


And BTW, since you mentioned "F911" (a film I agree with BTW), have you seen the film on the Belsan School Raid: "Three Days In September" ("http://www.sho.com/site/threedaysinseptember/home.do)? It's rather critical of Putin's handling of the crisis and his subsequent suppression of any independent inquiry into the events surrounding the debacle.

I didn't see this film, but necessary will watch as soon as i could it get.
I excellent know the western critic of Putin.
I'm not delight from him, but he is the first Russian president who try to do something for the country.


China may indeed turn over American hegemony. Their economy is a response of their autocratic gov't liberalizing economically, but not politically or socially. So I wouldn't be so happy about it if I were you.

I'm not happy Nick, i know the threat of China, inspite of today officially our both states have a excellent partnerships.
But honestly speaking ,"autocratic China" don't creat the enemy banan states (sponsored by CIA or Jorge Souros fund) in the russian border(Gorgia) .
I know just one thing , we must to create the power( and meanly effective) army and newest wearpon ( including nuclear:for our China-"friendship " will became more strong) .And we haven't much time for this.
This not mean the new Race of weaponry , of couse and we need to interact with NATO but don't forget about national interests.


When have Russians and Chinese ever got along? And you can say what you want about the United States, but our policies could be a lot worse towards other nations. I think we buy a lot of your oil and what consumer goods Russia offers.

Your policies could be a lot worse towards other nations, becouse Russia not enemy for the USA, but its not mean thet we cuoldn't to defends our interests. Or the interests of our brother-nation like Belorussians and Ukrainians.


And there may come a day when you yearn for the old days of American hegemony--because there are alternatives that are far worse......
You right Nick much more ever you though - manys russians already yearn for the old days of USSR :)

pdf27
10-06-2006, 07:53 AM
You have very tupical western version oh Russian history.
"Bas.....s gradually fell from power ...over the period 1953-89".
And then it became the "democraty", really?
I'm not actually too bothered what it became. Kruschev didn't kill anywhere near as many who disagreed with him for whatever reason as Stalin or Lenin did. Gorbachev didn't kill as many as Kruschev. So far as I can tell, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin are/were all behaving reasonably well by historical standards (not up to what I would expect of a western country, but Russia doesn't yet have the institutions and public mindset that would allow it that luxury).


And just after the Putin's coming Russia began (very little while) to defend its own interests(under the shrills of western mass-media about "return to the autocraticy' - this good sign, its mean we get a right way ).
I believe the western media also disliked Idi Amin and Pol Pot. Just because they dislike you does not mean that they are wrong.
The main objection I have to Putin is that he is being inconsistent. I have no objection to him prosecuting the various oligarchs (who would have been described as robber-barons in an earlier age, by and large). However, what I do object to is the way that various oligarchs get away with it until they offend the Kremlin. That's a really bad foundation to build a state on.

pdf27
10-06-2006, 08:00 AM
tens millions killed? Don't you forget it was a WW2 ( which in eastern front was a much worst then in western).
Or may be do you mean the billshit about "20 millions in GULAG" and "6 million of jews" ;)
You may say what you want , but don't try please to teach me of my history :)
In the Soviet list I'm including all those killed for example by famine when the Kulaks were liquidated (thus removing a major part of the agricultural economy - with nothing yet in place to replace the food they generated), those sent to the Gulags who died there, those who died in Stalin's purges, those killed when for example the Soviets suppressed the Hungarian uprising, etc. My best estimate is that between 1917 and 1989, the total number of dead will exceed 10 million by a substantial margin.
For the Nazi list, I'm including all the dead in Europe from WW2 (which was after all started by the Nazis - so for instance the 4 million or so Soviet PoWs they deliberately starved to death count here, as do the Soviet troops killed in action and the German civillians killed in bombing raids), the Jews, Gypsies, etc. killed in the Holocaust (and yes I do think that number was of the order of 6 million). The total number here is of the order of 50 million or so.


Communist-evil China , pdf , with its great economic rose (about 11-12 per year) could easy (through 10 -15 years) overturn the American gegemony in the Asia and possibly in the World.
Not during the cultural revolution, which is when I consider the evil types really were running the place. Then tens of millions died from starvation and other reasons, the economy was nearly destroyed, etc. All in the name of "ideological purity".
While I have issues with the current Chinese government (e.g. indiscriminate use of the death penalty), they are not what I would describe as evil.

Chevan
10-09-2006, 03:55 AM
Nobody's asleep here. It's actually one of the most divisive times in American history actually. Well, some are asleep, but that's everywhere.

So why another countries must feel on itself's skin the american "divisive times" , Nick? May be another peoples are asleep too, but nobody try to be "world policeman" exept the USA.


LMAFO!!:lol: Oh Chevan, if you only heard the relentless complaining form the "right side" regarding "liberal" (left side) media bias in the US!

I know, therefore "right side" is the (right side) today.And no left side could change the situation.



We invaded Iraq mainly for the oil. Not to save Jews from destruction from Iraq/Iran/Syria/Hezbollah (which is a pretty laughable assertion since no one can challenge Israel militarily with her 200 nuclear weapons, unless Israel stupidly attacks fortified positions head on). And if you remember, Saddam tried to kill Bush's daddy, ex-Pres. George HW Bush. So there are many reasons there.

So do you undestand what you talk about. It's mean that USA get a IMPERIALIST war in Iraq for the OIL. This is very serious accusation for US gov.
All of your called reasons is just personal US reasons and its mean that "official" version of invasion of Iraq:"weapon of mass-destruction" and the "liberation" of of Iraq - are just political lie, which were nessesary to justify the agression. And tens thousand victims of Iraq population were the resault of fight for the oil. ?????
My congratulations , Nick , you live in new "Empire of Evil" .... ;)



And if you think that American soldiers won't be withdrawn, you are both right and wrong. They will eventually be redeployed to friendly Kurdistan. And the Sunnis that fought them can build their country with no oil, and the Shias can build their Iranian-backed Theocracy. And Iraq will no longer exist...
Yea , now thank's for the USA , Iraq will no longer exist, but it by strange way it existed befor the invasion.

Chevan
10-09-2006, 04:55 AM
I'm not actually too bothered what it became.

That's what really importaint pdf, you don't try to compare and think.Just common mass-media oppinion ..


Kruschev didn't kill anywhere near as many who disagreed with him for whatever reason as Stalin or Lenin did. Gorbachev didn't kill as many as Kruschev. So far as I can tell, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin are/were all behaving reasonably well by historical standards

It's wrong conclusion, becouse each state leader responsible for all country , not just secret police and army.
Yeltsin are guilty in destraction of state, appearing war conflicts (so called "hot points") in territory of USSR - about 300 000 peoples since 1992-1998 + victims of criminal illegality (political murders, mafia and ets) about 1 000 000 (!!!) victims + Chechen war about 300 000 civilians + sharp worsening in living conditions and as consequence is the increased level of deads (in comparison with THE USSR) About 5 millions since 1992 = 6.5 millions deads on "Yeltsin company" and as the evident resault the decreasing of Russian population to 6-8 millions during 1992-1998.
Gorbachev began this "nightmare". Together with Yeltsin both are guilty in criminal "henocide" of 1990 -yy.
In comparision with Yeltsin, Stalin look like a kid, and Krushev -like a "holy" almost.
Even during worst times of Linin and bloody bolsheviks in 1917-1923 was the simular the situation.


(not up to what I would expect of a western country, but Russia doesn't yet have the institutions and public mindset that would allow it that luxury).

Now all of russian understand that a building the "freedom society" is the resault of hard and long time work, not the stupid listening of western's bas...rd recomendations. We get a go to the right way without a such "friends"


I believe the western media also disliked Idi Amin and Pol Pot. Just because they dislike you does not mean that they are wrong.

Agree, just because Putin dislike them that's don't mean they are right.


The main objection I have to Putin is that he is being inconsistent. I have no objection to him prosecuting the various oligarchs (who would have been described as robber-barons in an earlier age, by and large). However, what I do object to is the way that various oligarchs get away with it until they offend the Kremlin. That's a really bad foundation to build a state on.

I told already , i am not delight from Putin. And i agree that he is being inconsistent.
While one oligarh (Hodorcovskij) go to the prison , Putin kiss to the *** the another oligarh Abramovich.
All this ba...ds are the real robber-barons. In 1994-1998 when "Yeltsin command" ( or the "family") made its dirty bisiness , those f..nk oligarhs rob the state. The simple fact they they were survived and got a billions don't mean they could live in honor. Almost all from them are the criminals.
Putin justice - is a the chosen justice, but this is better than the full absence of the justice during Yeltsin's period.

Firefly
10-09-2006, 06:47 AM
Guys, Ive split this off from the original topic. Enjoy your debate and play nice!

Chevan
10-09-2006, 08:03 AM
Guys, Ive split this off from the original topic. Enjoy your debate and play nice!
We are plaing enough nice ;)
Firefly , when did you get the idea to name this thread as "Comunist V Capitalist"?
Who is comunist , me??
Not so a long time ago Nickdfresh called me as Nazi :)
And some members like to repeat about my tend to the "David Irving and Ko".
I just talk about peoples life in USSR, but this is absolutly don't mean i supported the ComParty.
My point is the bad idea to made a responsible for all evil in history just Nazi and Communists.

Cheers, my capalists comrades ;)

pdf27
10-09-2006, 01:19 PM
It's wrong conclusion, becouse each state leader responsible for all country , not just secret police and army.
Yeltsin are guilty in destraction of state, appearing war conflicts (so called "hot points") in territory of USSR - about 300 000 peoples since 1992-1998 + victims of criminal illegality (political murders, mafia and ets) about 1 000 000 (!!!) victims + Chechen war about 300 000 civilians + sharp worsening in living conditions and as consequence is the increased level of deads (in comparison with THE USSR) About 5 millions since 1992 = 6.5 millions deads on "Yeltsin company" and as the evident resault the decreasing of Russian population to 6-8 millions during 1992-1998.
Gorbachev began this "nightmare". Together with Yeltsin both are guilty in criminal "henocide" of 1990 -yy.
Ummm.... only partially. While Yeltsin cocked up some things royally (e.g. first Chechen war) and is clearly at fault for them, other things are the result of long term historical trends that long predate his accession to power (indeed his birth). I personally think that the economic problems faced by both him and Gorbachev substantially predate their birth, and are in fact based on flawed Marxian theory. Because the Soviets were saddled with an economic theory that simply didn't work (i.e. a command economy - effectively where a central authority tells people what to produce, rather than a market) they could never compete economically with the capitalist societies they saw as enemies. When Gorbachev initiated Glasnost, the system ceased to cover up it's failings and instead started to disintegrate. IMHO the previous ability to cover up economic failings (with for instance staged displays of military might in Red Square, the space race, etc.) was one of the vital props keeping the Soviet Union together. When that fell apart, the whole edifice came down. Gorbachev started it without realising what he was doing, and Yeltsin finished the task with a display of incompetence and corruption.
The population crash is another instance of ongoing trends being made worse by a reduction in the power of the state. What details I have seen suggest that alcohol abuse was common in the USSR prior to the fall of communism, and the relaxation of border controls with the fall of communism has meant that this has morphed into a combined drug and alcohol problem (some accounts also suggest that the Heroin problem was to a large extent brought back by veterans of Afghanistan - very much a Soviet war). This is IMHO one of the major reasons for the population crash. Another is the decline in religious belief and the increase in abortions - largely due to the suppression of the Orthodox church by the Bolsheviks.

pdf27
10-09-2006, 01:27 PM
Now all of russian understand that a building the "freedom society" is the resault of hard and long time work, not the stupid listening of western's bas...rd recomendations. We get a go to the right way without a such "friends"
Maybe, maybe not. The problem the west has is that we've seen demagogues who go out of their way to subvert the democratic process and destroy freedoms before (the various 20th century fascists are prime examples). For whatever reasons (and they may be very good reasons) Putin is using many of the same tactics - muzzling the press to an extent, politically inspired trials of those who oppose him, wars to distract the attention of the populace onto an external threat, etc. This combined with the fact that Russia is a potentially hostile power right on the edge of Europe makes us nervous.


Agree, just because Putin dislike them that's don't mean they are right.
Concur.


Putin justice - is a the chosen justice, but this is better than the full absence of the justice during Yeltsin's period.
Ummm... maybe, a lot depends on what he does with it. Successfully subverting the justice system leaves him in an extremely powerful position, somewhat similar to the old Soviet system. Whether or not he then subverts the system depends on if he is honest and if he has the best interests of the people at heart. This may work out fine, but what if his successor doesn't? This is why the west as a whole has adopted the concept that the guilt of anyone must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, before a jury of their peers (i.e. those like them), and that it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man goes to prison. Again, when we see people doing this it makes us very nervous.

Oh, and sorry for splitting the posts up. For some reason my PC has issues with long posts on this type of board software.

Firefly
10-09-2006, 03:09 PM
We are plaing enough nice ;)
Firefly , when did you get the idea to name this thread as "Comunist V Capitalist"?
Who is comunist , me??
Not so a long time ago Nickdfresh called me as Nazi :)
And some members like to repeat about my tend to the "David Irving and Ko".
I just talk about peoples life in USSR, but this is absolutly don't mean i supported the ComParty.
My point is the bad idea to made a responsible for all evil in history just Nazi and Communists.

Cheers, my capalists comrades ;)

Almost all of the posts are related to the Soviet Union times, so almost all of the posts surely relate to Communism?

Chevan
10-11-2006, 03:19 PM
Ummm.... only partially. While Yeltsin cocked up some things royally (e.g. first Chechen war) and is clearly at fault for them, other things are the result of long term historical trends that long predate his accession to power (indeed his birth)

agree, but those proceses as :distruction of USSR and as the resault all other the reasons this is doing of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Both weren't stupid leaders and they must be calculated the worst resaults of downfall of USSR.


. I personally think that the economic problems faced by both him and Gorbachev substantially predate their birth, and are in fact based on flawed Marxian theory.

indeed Maxial theory was rejected to the "dump of the history" in 1985 after Gorbachev came to the power. He tryed to create the new economic using the marcet principles and private capital ( so caller cooperatives). And it instantly had the good resault in 1987-89


Because the Soviets were saddled with an economic theory that simply didn't work (i.e. a command economy - effectively where a central authority tells people what to produce, rather than a market) they could never compete economically with the capitalist societies they saw as enemies.

I well know about deficiencies in the command (planned) system. But don't forgot about China, where as and in USSR firstly was applied the market principles ( but instead of SU China was able to saved the state).
And as you know the China's command economic in till 1985 was copy of USSR planned economic.
Today using the market mechanisms and power state controled economic ( tupical for the command system) China was able to archieve the great increase 11-12 % per year for a long time (already 10 years) this is absolutly unpossible for the purely market-liberal economic with its lifts and decreases)




When Gorbachev initiated Glasnost, the system ceased to cover up it's failings and instead started to disintegrate. IMHO the previous ability to cover up economic failings (with for instance staged displays of military might in Red Square, the space race, etc.) was one of the vital props keeping the Soviet Union together. When that fell apart, the whole edifice came down.

Im sure the "whole edifice" would be never "came down" without active help and destructing role of some evil persons.


Gorbachev started it without realising what he was doing, and Yeltsin finished the task with a display of incompetence and corruption.

absolutly agree, Gorbachev didn't realise what he was doing, but as leader of state he had a responsible for this.



The population crash is another instance of ongoing trends being made worse by a reduction in the power of the state.
What details I have seen suggest that alcohol abuse was common in the USSR prior to the fall of communism,

This is tupical the error. According the resault of the interrogations: medium russians drunk less then as example germans or the finns.


and the relaxation of border controls with the fall of communism has meant that this has morphed into a combined drug and alcohol problem (some accounts also suggest that the Heroin problem was to a large extent brought back by veterans of Afghanistan - very much a Soviet war). This is IMHO one of the major reasons for the population crash.

According the cosial tests the main reason of decreasing the population is the increased dead's level mainly because of high costs and inaccessibility of qualitative medical-services and reduction in the birth rate because of the high costs of life (mostly education and ets).
As you know in USSR the all kind of education was the free.


Another is the decline in religious belief and the increase in abortions - largely due to the suppression of the Orthodox church by the Bolsheviks.

Not correct, comunists tryed to increase the population by all the methods.
Medium soviet family had 3 children in 1960-1970 and 2 in 1970-1985 , but today this became the unpossible for the most family in russia.
The icrease of the aborts level is the resault of the high cost of living and absence of sexual-culture (deficiency in secondary education). In this parameters USSR education was much better.

Cheers

Chevan
10-11-2006, 03:43 PM
Maybe, maybe not. The problem the west has is that we've seen demagogues who go out of their way to subvert the democratic process and destroy freedoms before (the various 20th century fascists are prime examples). For whatever reasons (and they may be very good reasons) Putin is using many of the same tactics - muzzling the press to an extent, politically inspired trials of those who oppose him, wars to distract the attention of the populace onto an external threat, etc. This combined with the fact that Russia is a potentially hostile power right on the edge of Europe makes us nervous.

Putin do what he must do.
muzzling the press to an extent - din't forget the press controlled of different oligarh was the practicaly the "fifth column" since Yeltsin times ,who by its anti-state acting practicaly parallized the the judicial and political system. Some bas..ds made a billions dollars private Imperias just for 1-3 years via the insolent robbery of the state. They had its own "personal" mass media for the personal political fight.
The limitation those "independent press" must be the first condition of continuing the reforms.
Of couse i understand this is autocratic step, but it's nessesary.


Ummm... maybe, a lot depends on what he does with it. Successfully subverting the justice system leaves him in an extremely powerful position, somewhat similar to the old Soviet system. Whether or not he then subverts the system depends on if he is honest and if he has the best interests of the people at heart.

Ummm . whithout pomantic words - he is very progmatic leader ( and it's main today). And he have to modernized the sistem (he must will do it , althout because he promised the peoples).
Sometimes i worry , Putin do it very slowly, but this much better the like Yeltsin did.


This may work out fine, but what if his successor doesn't? This is why the west as a whole has adopted the concept that the guilt of anyone must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, before a jury of their peers (i.e. those like them), and that it is better that ten guilty men go free than one innocent man goes to prison. Again, when we see people doing this it makes us very nervous.

.

;) don't worry, everything will be OK. I believe this.

pdf27
10-11-2006, 05:50 PM
I well know about deficiencies in the command (planned) system. But don't forgot about China, where as and in USSR firstly was applied the market principles ( but instead of SU China was able to saved the state).
And as you know the China's command economic in till 1985 was copy of USSR planned economic.
Today using the market mechanisms and power state controled economic ( tupical for the command system) China was able to archieve the great increase 11-12 % per year for a long time (already 10 years) this is absolutly unpossible for the purely market-liberal economic with its lifts and decreases)
Ummm.... From what I've seen (and the company I work for does a lot of business with China) the explosive growth they're experiencing is mostly coming from private enterprise. What state owned sectors there are aren't growing much if at all. China has a very cheap workforce and a government willing to allow foreign investment while providing stability, reliable electricity, etc. Any country like that will experience explosive growth, just like Taiwan and South Korea did a few years ago.
The upshot is that I suspect that this growth level is a transitional phase, rather than some new economic theory that is better long term than either marxist or market economic theories. It is worth noting that the Nazis used a combination of state intervention on a huge scale and private enterprise in the 1930s and while it worked for a while it proved unsustainable. China is not acting in nearly so unsustainable a manner, but I strongly suspect that the growth will slow down once the labour resource is finally starting to be nearly tapped in a few years time.


According the cosial tests the main reason of decreasing the population is the increased dead's level mainly because of high costs and inaccessibility of qualitative medical-services and reduction in the birth rate because of the high costs of life (mostly education and ets).
As you know in USSR the all kind of education was the free.
Interesting. Have you got any good sources on that, I'd like to read up more on it.

pdf27
10-11-2006, 05:54 PM
Putin do what he must do.
muzzling the press to an extent - din't forget the press controlled of different oligarh was the practicaly the "fifth column" since Yeltsin times ,who by its anti-state acting practicaly parallized the the judicial and political system. Some bas..ds made a billions dollars private Imperias just for 1-3 years via the insolent robbery of the state. They had its own "personal" mass media for the personal political fight.
The limitation those "independent press" must be the first condition of continuing the reforms.
Of couse i understand this is autocratic step, but it's nessesary.
Hmmm... It might be an idea to find some way of giving the press free rein while limiting the editorial control any one person can have. Criticism is essential to keeping the democratic process honest, while going too far can subvert it. Some sort of worker's cooperative owning it perhaps, with maybe the government keeping some sort of limited veto to prevent a nutter taking over?


;) don't worry, everything will be OK. I believe this.
Seriously, I do hope it works out. Russia will be a rather less nice place to be if it doesn't.

Chevan
10-12-2006, 04:59 AM
Ummm.... From what I've seen (and the company I work for does a lot of business with China) the explosive growth they're experiencing is mostly coming from private enterprise. What state owned sectors there are aren't growing much if at all. China has a very cheap workforce and a government willing to allow foreign investment while providing stability, reliable electricity, etc. Any country like that will experience explosive growth, just like Taiwan and South Korea did a few years ago.

I agree , all of those the reasons is the resauls of strong state's ruling the economy ( considered it as new modernized planned economy). And therefory China (in difference with Taiwan and South Korea ) has a long time progress.
Cheap workforce is not the single condition for the great economic rose.
Main the reason IMHO the state economy policy: stabile governmant guaranties for the foreight investor - this is particular China's rule.



The upshot is that I suspect that this growth level is a transitional phase, rather than some new economic theory that is better long term than either marxist or market economic theories. It is worth noting that the Nazis used a combination of state intervention on a huge scale and private enterprise in the 1930s and while it worked for a while it proved unsustainable. China is not acting in nearly so unsustainable a manner, but I strongly suspect that the growth will slow down once the labour resource is finally starting to be nearly tapped in a few years time.

There are no reasons for the futured slow down of China's growth.
Not limitation of labour resourses could be the reason of this, but shortage of material and energy sourses: oil and gas.
But China's gov very active find the new sourses of energy: in the Iran and Russia.
Already today we have the contract to bilding oil-pipe to the China. Also perhaps Russian companies could win the 10-billions contract for the building the 3 new Atomic station in China.
So in nearest future there are no the reasons to doubt in china's economic success.

So why i told you all this: I'm sure , pdf, that USSR had all the chances to be the powerful and rich state till today. All the talks about economic deadline of USSR in 1985 just the slobbery politic propoganda of Cool war.
USSR had a much more the potential then China in 1985-90. More power industry, modern high-tech science and plants and the main the reason - much more capable the people.
So when i hear about "economic death" of USSR (besause the planned system) i will never believe this. Those bas..ds who specialy distructed the USSR are the criminals.


Interesting. Have you got any good sources on that, I'd like to read up more on it.

Certainly i could be, but it's in russian and i doubt that you will get the enjoy from the russia text ;)

Cheers.

Nickdfresh
10-12-2006, 05:27 PM
We are plaing enough nice ;)
Firefly , when did you get the idea to name this thread as "Comunist V Capitalist"?
Who is comunist , me??
Not so a long time ago Nickdfresh called me as Nazi :)
And some members like to repeat about my tend to the "David Irving and Ko".
I just talk about peoples life in USSR, but this is absolutly don't mean i supported the ComParty.
My point is the bad idea to made a responsible for all evil in history just Nazi and Communists.

Cheers, my capalists comrades ;)


I don't recall ever directly calling you a Nazi Chevan, feel free to contradict this with any post I may have made. I think what I said was that you were adopting the exact same racist mentality you once supposedly decried in the Nazi-white trash pictorial thread you started a while back.


I just find it a slight contradiction to attack Americans (which you did, primarily despite being proven wrong on several points), then recite the exact same anti-Semitic, conspiratorial racist crap that one could easily find at the very sites you were indicting....

Nickdfresh
10-12-2006, 05:48 PM
So why another countries must feel on itself's skin the american "divisive times" , Nick? May be another peoples are asleep too, but nobody try to be "world policeman" exept the USA.

Most countries also didn't have 3000 of their citizens murdered in a matter of less than an hour in recent times. I've never defended the U.S. as "world policeman," in fact this is a mentality I detest. But still, it seems that many nations don't understand the trauma of going from the feeling of utter invincibility to fear and paranoia, in a matter of hours.


I know, therefore "right side" is the (right side) today.And no left side could change the situation.

Well, apparently you don't follow U.S. politics, because the "left side" (Democrats) are on the verge of taking back the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate as well...


So do you undestand what you talk about. It's mean that USA get a IMPERIALIST war in Iraq for the OIL. This is very serious accusation for US gov.

Yes I understand, but that's not the end of it nor the sole explanation. Most Americans will wonder why their paying high gas prices (by U.S. standards, not European) when we've imperialistically "taken the oil."


All of your called reasons is just personal US reasons and its mean that "official" version of invasion of Iraq:"weapon of mass-destruction" and the "liberation" of of Iraq - are just political lie, which were nessesary to justify the agression. And tens thousand victims of Iraq population were the resault of fight for the oil. ?????
My congratulations , Nick , you live in new "Empire of Evil" .... ;)

Chevan, few things annoy me like posters that make claims for me, and cite posts, that I've never made. Feel free to show where I have ever tried to justify the War in Iraq. You see, I, unlike you, actively criticize what I believe to be what is wrong with my government. I never believed the WMD-bullshit, though many did. I can in fact cite thousands of posts that I have made against US policy in Iraq, on a different website. Links will be provided upon request.

And I could also say how the Soviet Union supported a murderous dictator in Saddam Hussein, because it served their interests. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own population, and he did it by and large with Soviet weaponry, with no questions asked.


Yea , now thank's for the USA , Iraq will no longer exist, but it by strange way it existed befor the invasion.

Iraq was the typical nation-state created arbitrarily, a typical example of imperialism. The nation's borders were essentially drawn up by British military officers at the end of WWI, borders that penned in three distinct, and often opposing, ethnic groups --which a recipe for utter long term disaster. Why do you think Saddam was so brutal? Because he was essentially the head of a minority faction controlling a population that was largely comprised of a different ethnicity.

I agree the brutality going on in Iraq is largely the consequence of US failures to secure the nation, but here is a lot of blame to go around. Soviet made weapons have killed a lot of people around the world too, and it was Soviet weapons that Saddam used to invade Kuwait, and murder his own civilian population...

*Addendum* And Chevan, you can say what you want about the U.S. being an 'imperialistic vampire,' sucking the oil out of the poor defenseless Iraqis country. But in fact, one of the primary criticisms of the War is the massive U.S. spending on the rebuilding of the country, which is well into the billion$ now. And it is money the U.S. will never get back. Some "imperialism."

Chevan
10-14-2006, 02:29 PM
Most countries also didn't have 3000 of their citizens murdered in a matter of less than an hour in recent times. I've never defended the U.S. as "world policeman," in fact this is a mentality I detest. But still, it seems that many nations don't understand the trauma of going from the feeling of utter invincibility to fear and paranoia, in a matter of hours.

What's 3000 murdered an hour ?
Yeterday i wath on TV report that according newest US's research in Iraq were killed 650 000 peoples since the invasion. I think this is exaggeration ( probably this is begining of new anti-war politic show).
But in any way its evidentally that todey in Iraq died more peoples then at the times of Saddam. Being in Iraq USA provokes an increase in the Islamic terrorism , because Arab peace (that previously separated) begins to be united in the anti-American hysteria. And this is abnormal for the other world ( particulary for the Europe).


Well, apparently you don't follow U.S. politics, because the "left side" (Democrats) are on the verge of taking back the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate as well...

Nick, i think you don't understand one important thing for the other (not USA) world.
What's different between Democrats ( which bombed the Ugoslavia) and Republicans ( who begin the war in Iraq).
ANY USA goverment continie imperialist policy, don't depend from who has the power. It absolutly clear for all the world.
Therefore i mean "rigt side" as the right choose- the choose of US ruling elite.



Yes I understand, but that's not the end of it nor the sole explanation. Most Americans will wonder why their paying high gas prices (by U.S. standards, not European) when we've imperialistically "taken the oil."

USA couldn't get the cheap oil and gas while conflict to be continied, therefore war in Iraq is needed for the perspective. But it seems today Americans begin to doubt in this "good perspective".



Chevan, few things annoy me like posters that make claims for me, and cite posts, that I've never made. Feel free to show where I have ever tried to justify the War in Iraq. You see, I, unlike you, actively criticize what I believe to be what is wrong with my government.

Oh , no...
This is wrong statement that i never criticize my gov.
I told many times already that i don't like the Putin's "the chosen justice", and i hope that something will change to better way..
And i have the reasons to critize my gov in Chechen war, but i strongly sure that it nessesary to stop the Radical Islamic agression in Kavkaz ( where i personaly live in distance of 300 km from the Chechen border).
I can critized the gov in details but not in general questions.
It's needed for the safety of people, who are lived here ( not only russians).
And Nick, your gov has a real imperialist war in Iraq ( which located at a distance over 12 000 km from THE USA coast) and you have no reasons for the justify of this .
You know it ( i see you are honest), and any not americans know it.
You know why is unjust and this angers you, you pass to the personal insultings (surely you think that no one besides Americans can criticize THE USA). It's look like childish.

Did you hear tha last statement of the British war minister: he absolutly crized the Blair's pro-american policy.Althout Britain prime minister refused his statement, but this obviously that Britains already wish back home from the Iraq. they has already been convinced of the uselessness of this war.


I never believed the WMD-bullshit, though many did. I can in fact cite thousands of posts that I have made against US policy in Iraq, on a different website. Links will be provided upon request.

I know you poin, therefore i never had nothing agains personaly you ( unlike you).
I know in america are the much of pragmatic and clever peoples, but do you know what's strange?
in spite of Americans inner discuss they are continie to do the evil - Iraq war. And all of you arguments (which i agree) just like "imitation the freedom of the opinions", nothing more..


And I could also say how the Soviet Union supported a murderous dictator in Saddam Hussein, because it served their interests. He killed hundreds of thousands of his own population, and he did it by and large with Soviet weaponry, with no questions asked.

Soviet weaponry ..... ummmn.
Do you here about supplies of American chemical weapon ( the officially forbidden as weapon of mass-destruction of population).


http://www.faststart.ru/viewnews.php?action=more&ncid=1&artid=83317
...Omar Ben Tumi, the Algerian attorney of Saddam Hussein asserts that he has available the certified copies of contracts about the deliveries to Iraq of American chemical weaponry, signed by the present US Secretary of Defense by Donald Rumsfeld. Algerian attorney is hired for the protection Saddam Hussein by the nephew of the Iraqi eks- President and enters into the numerous group of foreign defenders. In the interview for the Algerian newspaper "ale -Xabar" the jurist said that these documents have the enormous value, proving the deliveries TO THE USA of chemical weapons, which a baasistskiy regime was used for the destruction of Kurds in 1988 in the course of the operation of Iraqi army on the north of the country under the code name "al -Anfal".
Then Iraqi army used a weapon of mass-destruction against the Kurd rebels and inhabitants of a number of the populated areas, including Khalabdzhu city, where 5 thousand people were killed. Thus, emphasized attorney, American administration is the participant of the crimes of the regime Saddam Hussein against the Kurd people and the humaneness. Attorney also reported that it will represent on the law court of the photographs, in which zapechatlen the moment of signing by Donald Rumsfeld and by Saddam Hussein of supply agreements to Iraq of the elements of chemical weaponry at the end of the 80th is annual.

But don't worry about this the real evil was the "soviet weaponry" and Donald Ramsfeld just tryed to defence the democraty in Iraq by this supplies. :) ;)


Iraq was the typical nation-state created arbitrarily, a typical example of imperialism. The nation's borders were essentially drawn up by British military officers at the end of WWI, borders that penned in three distinct, and often opposing, ethnic groups --which a recipe for utter long term disaster. Why do you think Saddam was so brutal? Because he was essentially the head of a minority faction controlling a population that was largely comprised of a different ethnicity.

OK good information i didn't knew it.


I agree the brutality going on in Iraq is largely the consequence of US failures to secure the nation, but here is a lot of blame to go around. Soviet made weapons have killed a lot of people around the world too, and it was Soviet weapons that Saddam used to invade Kuwait, and murder his own civilian population...

Read above...


*Addendum* And Chevan, you can say what you want about the U.S. being an 'imperialistic vampire,' sucking the oil out of the poor defenseless Iraqis country. But in fact, one of the primary criticisms of the War is the massive U.S. spending on the rebuilding of the country, which is well into the billion$ now. And it is money the U.S. will never get back. Some "imperialism."
*Addendum* for Nickdfresh.
You forgot to say that to the restoration of Iraq were allowed only American companies.
And please don't be the naive , this money is the very advantageous investment of money into the Iraqi (now already American) oil.
And this is obviously prove the fact that USA army it will not leave from Iraq in the near future.
This mean that the slaughter will be continied....

Nickdfresh
10-16-2006, 07:42 PM
What's 3000 murdered an hour ?

What was 350 school children murdered in a 36-hour period at Belsen? Was it not traumatic or shocking?? Did it not make you hate and seek vengeance on your enemies to the point of irrationality?

And yet, how many more Chechen children been killed than Russian children?



Yeterday i wath on TV report that according newest US's research in Iraq were killed 650 000 peoples since the invasion. I think this is exaggeration ( probably this is begining of new anti-war politic show).

It may or may not be an exaggeration. Certainly, no one said all those deaths were directly attributed to US combat, and many have been killed in the civil war. But a shocking number that must have some basis in reality, though I suspect there is some exaggeration for partisan political purposes...


But in any way its evidentally that todey in Iraq died more peoples then at the times of Saddam. Being in Iraq USA provokes an increase in the Islamic terrorism , because Arab peace (that previously separated) begins to be united in the anti-American hysteria. And this is abnormal for the other world ( particulary for the Europe).

I couldn't agree more, the invasion of Iraq was one of the stupidest things America has ever done. It was an invasion supported largely out of fear and ignorance, and formulated by Machiavellian political calculation of the Neoconservatives, even before September 11, 2001.


Nick, i think you don't understand one important thing for the other (not USA) world.
What's different between Democrats ( which bombed the Ugoslavia) and Republicans ( who begin the war in Iraq).

There was bipartisan support, and it was NATO that bombed Yugoslavia, which was actually Serbia-Montenegro by that time. And I believe there was a bloody civil/sectarian war there for about seven years when NATO, under American leadership, finally ended it and helped the Serbian people to topple their own dictator, which is the way that things should be done, people changing their own gov'ts. I mean, well, the Serbs were kind of massacring Bosnians and Kosovo, and they also held UN peacekeepers hostage --using them as human shields, publicly insulting and embarrassing NATO. With displays of such arrogance, Milosevic deserved what he got. It was also a War largely devoid of civilian casualties because of the precision air-strikes, and the fact that NATO (not the Democrats) had allies on the ground, and the vast majority of the people on the ground welcomed us. A totally different situation from the US invasion of Iraq.


ANY USA goverment continie imperialist policy, don't depend from who has the power. It absolutly clear for all the world.
Therefore i mean "rigt side" as the right choose- the choose of US ruling elite.

I dunno, a lot of Europeans seemed to prefer the "imperialism" of Clinton to the current assclown. He didn't alienate everybody with the stupid "freedom fries" mentality (the whipping up of hatred of the Germans and French mostly). Clinton built coalitions while someone else just bribed the weak to form one.


USA couldn't get the cheap oil and gas while conflict to be continied, therefore war in Iraq is needed for the perspective. But it seems today Americans begin to doubt in this "good perspective".

That depends on who you believe, some have alleged that the War was in fact fought largely to destabilize the oil markets, and drive up prices in the short term. I have no idea, and I am not a big believer in the conspiracy theories, so I don't know. And as far as Israel, the war has done nothing but weaken her long term strategic interests by strengthening Iran.



Oh , no...
This is wrong statement that i never criticize my gov.
I told many times already that i don't like the Putin's "the chosen justice", and i hope that something will change to better way..
And i have the reasons to critize my gov in Chechen war, but i strongly sure that it nessesary to stop the Radical Islamic agression in Kavkaz ( where i personaly live in distance of 300 km from the Chechen border).
I can critized the gov in details but not in general questions.
It's needed for the safety of people, who are lived here ( not only russians).

Well, I've never supported Chechen terrorists. But Russian did occupy her beginning with the Tsars, so there is a real grievance there. But then again, Russia withdrew in 96' and the Chechens chose to live in a feudal, lawless anarchy. So perhaps Russia had little choice in the end but to go back in.


And Nick, your gov has a real imperialist war in Iraq ( which located at a distance over 12 000 km from THE USA coast) and you have no reasons for the justify of this .

Ultimately, it's partially the oil, but not just the oil. But it's a greedy self-interest coupled with a very naive, unrealistic, and almost childlike belief that the US could just build a democracy, as a positive example for other middle easterners living under despots, (that the US has supported in the past) where no tradition previously existed. This of course is foolish. But to call it crass imperialism is also a misnomer, since again, the US has invested and sent billion$ to "rebuild" Iraq, money that we will never see again. That is hardly a comparison to the "Age of Imperialism" in the 19th century, where the opposite was true.


You know it ( i see you are honest), and any not americans know it.
You know why is unjust and this angers you, you pass to the personal insultings (surely you think that no one besides Americans can criticize THE USA). It's look like childish.

I have no problem when people criticise the US, I do it often myself. I only ask that they keep it perspective, and as Jesus said in the New Testament, "let he who has never sinned cast the first stone," or something like that. There are no innocent countries that act benevolently with total devotion to beautiful Utopian notions, some of the ones paying the highest prices for America's errors are Americans.


Did you hear tha last statement of the British war minister: he absolutly crized the Blair's pro-american policy.Althout Britain prime minister refused his statement, but this obviously that Britains already wish back home from the Iraq. they has already been convinced of the uselessness of this war.

It was the the Army Chief, and he is absolutely correct. I agree 100%.


I know you poin, therefore i never had nothing agains personaly you ( unlike you).
I know in america are the much of pragmatic and clever peoples, but do you know what's strange?
in spite of Americans inner discuss they are continie to do the evil - Iraq war. And all of you arguments (which i agree) just like "imitation the freedom of the opinions", nothing more..

Americans do no more evil than any country or empire in a similar positions of power. America maintains its interests, but has also acted benevolently and with real leadership when at her best (the Marshall Plan for instance), and like a dangerous, immature child lashing out at even her friends at her worst (the Iraq War).


Soviet weaponry ..... ummmn.
Do you here about supplies of American chemical weapon ( the officially forbidden as weapon of mass-destruction of population).

But don't worry about this the real evil was the "soviet weaponry" and Donald Ramsfeld just tryed to defence the democraty in Iraq by this supplies. :) ;)


Actually, it was a German company you are thinking of that supplied most of the chemical components, the US supplied intelligence and satellite IMINT to Saddam in order to settle a score with the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War, and the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon. It was the HindD gunships they used to prosecute "Anfal" massacres of Kurds however. And I believe AKs did most of the shooting, and T-55s rolled over the villagers.



OK good information i didn't knew it.

Read above...

*Addendum* for Nickdfresh.
You forgot to say that to the restoration of Iraq were allowed only American companies.
And please don't be the naive , this money is the very advantageous investment of money into the Iraqi (now already American) oil.
And this is obviously prove the fact that USA army it will not leave from Iraq in the near future.
This mean that the slaughter will be continied....

Another fact that I cannot dispute and have denounced myself, louder than anyone. I think the Haliburton scandals are disgusting, but don't worry, Congressional investigations are on the way shortly.:)

Chevan
10-23-2006, 06:16 AM
What was 350 school children murdered in a 36-hour period at Belsen? Was it not traumatic or shocking??

Certainly it was shocking, but don't forget those bastards (bandits) all were the shahids (ready to die) and they had the purpose to kill all the hostages( as much as they could to kill).
They hadn't intentions to survive , just draw the world's attention - tupical terrorist tactic, cause its cruelty. They trued to terrorize the native population of Beslan ( not russians , the Nothern Ossetic peoples) for it's dirty political purposes.
The muss murdering of peoples was able because those bast.. drived the peoples into the school sports-room and mined this by a lot of charge.
And when they bagan to kill the hostages , the storm has began. After that the bandits exploded the sharge and a lot of peoples died for instant.
I have one very seriouse accusation to the russian gov. -- the storm bagan too late. They must be to know the intention's of bandits and must acting nore quickly.


And yet, how many more Chechen children been killed than Russian children?

Nick i see you too much are processed by the anti-russian propaganda.
You nothing know about russian , who were killed in criminal nationalistic hysteria in Chechnij till 1994( till the war).
In 1990 the capital of Chechnij - Groznij was populated 70-80% not islamic (mostly russians) peoples. This was one of the butiful and modern city on Kavkaz - for universities , three big plants , good infrastructure and perspective for the youngs.
So where those puoples now, how do you think? At least half of those were killed, another become the refugees(they lost all the property) and ALL OF THEM HAD a great humiliation JUST BECOUSE THEY WERE RUSSIAN.
I don't support the the desigion to enter the troops in 1994. This was a "Eltsin family & oligarh" desigion. This was a criminal order. Those bast... send the russian soldiers to die for money , although the offisial version was to "save the Russian federation from the disintegration".
Certanly they must do something to stop the criminal illegality in Chechnij in 1994 but ....
instead of "pressing of the eggs" in Russia ( or **** the chechen mafia in Moscow) they decided to make a "little victoriously war" for monay. FOR ITS OLIGARH MONEY.
Therefory the Eltsin personaly was guilty for this slaughter.
Putin, when come into power, just do what he want to do.
He trued to create the friendly regime (good knowen for you "our bastards" method). Like USA do it in Iraq - to create the "democratic iraqi gov".
Today i wath on TV the creation of new "cult of person" for the Ramzan Kadirov. I think this disgusting, but do you know Nick another good decision?.


There was bipartisan support, and it was NATO that bombed Yugoslavia, which was actually Serbia-Montenegro by that time.
So where are the thanks of the "happiness Serbians", Nick?
Do you hear some thanks from the not-islamic peoples?
NATO just supported the islamic extremists in Ugoslavia and helped them to reached its political purposes.
Yes, they stop the civil war, but for what price, Nick?
The price was the blame "Bad Serbians" - as the single reason of evil.
This propogandic anti-serbian histeria in western Mass media befor the NATO's agression: HONDRETS thousands croatian victims( which was established be the mostly mythical).
Nobody did't see the cruel killed serbians by islamic extremists.
I undertsand Nick , NATO had its own interests in Balcans ( Milishevich was against NATO - the "bad guy".)
I could understand the US point in Balcan, but where did see the Europe, whan supported US action?
I hope that mass islamic riots in Paris last year would be a good lesson for the europeans, who so much love islamic "freedom brothers" on the Ugoslavia in 1995-1999.


I mean, well, the Serbs were kind of massacring Bosnians and Kosovo, and they also held UN peacekeepers hostage --using them as human shields, publicly insulting and embarrassing NATO. With displays of such arrogance, Milosevic deserved what he got.

I don't like the Miloshevic , but it's obviously that you nothing hear about cruel mass murdering of Serbs ( cut of heads, ears,*****ing the eyes of living peoples) by islamic "freedom fighters"


It was also a War largely devoid of civilian casualties because of the precision air-strikes, and the fact that NATO (not the Democrats) had allies on the ground, and the vast majority of the people on the ground welcomed us.
Prescions air-strikes ?!!!
Ha ,when US "precision" bomb hited the china's ambassador's bilding in Belgrad?
(Were killed a some diplomats). Was it a precision strike,Nick?
You forgot that NATO's supporting helped for the islamists to made a henocide for the Serbs till UN forces occuped the country.
NATO had a presicions strike , but it's islamists friends got the "all the dirty work".


Clinton built coalitions while someone else just bribed the weak to form one.

Do remember "Farengate911"?
I liked the scene where the author told about "US coalition" befor the invasion to the Iraq:
"-Who supported us in this war action?
Afganistan- a great military state becouse american soldiers are there;
Hunguary - this a "great" our ally becouse Dracula was born here."
The next was a litle banan country ( african) and then author conclude - "what's a great war alliance united USA"
:)


That depends on who you believe, some have alleged that the War was in fact fought largely to destabilize the oil markets, and drive up prices in the short term. I have no idea, and I am not a big believer in the conspiracy theories, so I don't know.
what's conspiracy theories?
Don't nessesary belive in something to know that any war actions in middle east region will has influence to the oil market.


Well, I've never supported Chechen terrorists. But Russian did occupy her beginning with the Tsars, so there is a real grievance there.

Occuped with the Tsars times ?
i.e. 150-200 years ago Russia come to the Kavkaz, and today a millions russians and and other not-native nations are lived here. And never will go back...
If you worry about a moral aspects ,you firstly turn back please America to the Indians.


But then again, Russia withdrew in 96' and the Chechens chose to live in a feudal, lawless anarchy. So perhaps Russia had little choice in the end but to go back in.

This personal matter of chechens is which system chose:feudal or maybe primitive after 1996 whan they were "free".
Just one condition -don't make the problems for the neighbours. But this was a unpossible for them: stealing the peoples and solding for the money ( or cruel killing th hostages if the relatives could find enough money) - this was the "lovely" bisiness of Chechens.
And you know what's strange - nobodis of those media -bitchs ( so called "human right activists") don't worry about illegality in "freedom" Chechnij.Even when Islams extremists attacked the Dagestan. How much russians (and other nation's peoples including wester jornaliss , engeneers and doctors) were killed in 1996-1998 yy, nobody correctly know.



Americans do no more evil than any country or empire in a similar positions of power. America maintains its interests...
So Nick know you agree that US look today like empire for the other world.
But what i say you , our problem not US politic in middle east( it's amazing but for Russia today has extremaly big profit of oil selling because war in Iraq).
But US could be danger for Russia when trying to create the anti-russians states in border(Ukraine, Gorgia) and i think that this is the main RF-US problem today. This is geo-politic - the fight for resourses of Kaspij and Asia.



Actually, it was a German company you are thinking of that supplied most of the chemical components, the US supplied intelligence and satellite IMINT to Saddam in order to settle a score with the Iranians during the Iran-Iraq War, and the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Lebanon. It was the HindD gunships they used to prosecute "Anfal" massacres of Kurds however. And I believe AKs did most of the shooting, and T-55s rolled over the villagers.

Oh, of couse those "evil" Germans are again.
Well , well Nick ;)
May be you don't know that the main seller of the weapon to the Iraq was the Cheshoslovakia - not USSR. (Chechs build a good combat tanks, aircraft and ets)
But this is absolutly don't mean that USSR gov "nothing know " about this.
So why do you say that Germany - member of NATO and docile US ally sold the chemical weapon to the Iraq and US "just supplied intelligence".
Nick , this fullshit.
And do you seriously think that Saddan's laywer will openly lie on court telling about Donald Ramsfeld , who signed a contract to sell the chemical weapon.
Who will consider seriously after this if he lie?


Another fact that I cannot dispute and have denounced myself, louder than anyone. I think the Haliburton scandals are disgusting, but don't worry, Congressional investigations are on the way shortly.:)
OK I willn't worry , if you promised that Congressional investigations will be sucsesfull ;)

TW1Kell
11-15-2006, 04:34 PM
I hate to interject anything into you guys' hot discussion, but I see a trend going on here. It seems that neither side is as informed as to what is REALLY going on and can NEVER be. Propaganda is going to educate all members of this debate, and none of us will ever know the "whole truth" of the matter. I do not mean this as an insult, far from that, just making the statement of "step back abd take a deep breath."

I am former US Military as both an Enlisted Man and as an Officer, and all I can really add is that both sides of this debate, discussion, conflict, whatever you want to call it, is much closer to being the same than you could ever realise. We all want peace and a safe, protecting government. Might not ever happen for any of us. We are all trapped in a world full of hatreds, lies, deceit, corruption, what have you. There are no real answers, because no one is ever going to act on the questions in a way that would transcend nationalism and national interest.

We are Mankind, collectively, and I am not a tree-hugger, tho I seem to be a little more moderate than some. HAHA! Why don't we all sing Kumbaya and have another marshmellow! hahaha!

Egorka
02-01-2007, 03:37 PM
Quote:
It was also a War largely devoid of civilian casualties because of the precision air-strikes, and the fact that NATO (not the Democrats) had allies on the ground, and the vast majority of the people on the ground welcomed us.
Prescions air-strikes ?!!!
Ha ,when US "precision" bomb hited the china's ambassador's bilding in Belgrad?
(Were killed a some diplomats). Was it a precision strike,Nick?
You forgot that NATO's supporting helped for the islamists to made a henocide for the Serbs till UN forces occuped the country.
NATO had a presicions strike , but it's islamists friends got the "all the dirty work".
Regarding the presision strikes i Ygoslavia... Appart from the well known bombing of the Chineese Ambassy, there was an other case. I can not remember when it was (I think before the ambassy bombing), but what happened was that NATO plane fired a rocket against a ground target. The rocket missed and flew all the way to Bulgaria and hit a train while it was crossing a bridge.

Has any one heard about it?

Chevan
02-02-2007, 12:35 AM
Not only in Bulgaria , but also Romania , Makedonia and Albania was objects of "precision" NATO air-straikes

...Fifth time within the period since the beginning of the military operation OF NATO against Yugoslavia the combat missile OF NATO fell by last night to the territory of Bulgaria approximately 20 km west of Sofia near the village Of Lyulin. By sheer luck not there were victims.
On this reported today the representative of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Bulgaria. NATO rockets, bombs and their fragments already repeatedly struck the territory of Bulgaria, Rumania, Macedonia and Albania. Thus, on 28 April the rocket, released by the aircraft OF NATO, applied damage to apartment house in the suburb of Sofia, find in 50 km from the boundary with Yugoslavia

Also some interesting cases of "precision" attack of the Ugoslavian "war objects"


At least seven people perished, many were injured as a result of the entry of today NATO bombs into the region of urban market in the Hiche - one of the large citiy of Yugoslavia, located in 250 kilometers to the southeast of Belgrade. On this reported to speq.korr.ITAR- TASS, which arrived today in Niche in the composition of the group of Yugoslavian and foreign journalists, the priest from the located near church Of sv.Panteleymona the Zhivorad Marinkovich.
http://airbase.ru/news/youg/99-05-07.htm

Cheers.

Nickdfresh
02-24-2007, 02:21 PM
Prescions air-strikes ?!!!
Ha ,when US "precision" bomb hited the china's ambassador's bilding in Belgrad?
(Were killed a some diplomats). Was it a precision strike,Nick?
You forgot that NATO's supporting helped for the islamists to made a henocide for the Serbs till UN forces occuped the country.
NATO had a presicions strike , but it's islamists friends got the "all the dirty work".

Actually, it was a perfect strike --precision-wise.

The USAF hit the exact building they were aiming for. It was the intelligence part that failed...:)




Not only in Bulgaria , but also Romania , Makedonia and Albania was objects of "precision" NATO air-straikes

Also some interesting cases of "precision" attack of the Ugoslavian "war objects"

http://airbase.ru/news/youg/99-05-07.htm

Cheers.

Yes, well, as those countries took in 10,000s of Kosovo-Albanian civilian refugees, and had their territories often shelled by Serbian forces, I think they considered that part of the price of allowing NATO to use their territories...

And yes, you can ridicule all of the misses you want, but there is no comparison to how accurate these weapons are and to how many people they've saved.


BTW, doesn't your gov't use "precision" weapons (http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-PGMs-July-04-P.pdf) in Chechnya? I think the Russian Air Force has a whole host of guided munitions, and some have missed their targets and killed civilians.

I know they use cluster bombs (http://mcc.org/clusterbombs/resources/research/death/chapter3.html) against civilian targets, which is illegal. Should we expect a war crimes trials post out of you anytime soon? Much like when they levelled Grozny in 1996.

Or when the Serbs murdered whole villages of their male populations in Bosnia and Kosovo, with precision guided AKM assault rifles...