Meanwhile in Ukraine

[Xant]

Must be nice being delusional.

[Vovka]

Only if you love to live in the expectation that the neighboring country is about to attack on you is to grab your lovely backyard

[Tibe]

oh Estonian teach how to keep money in the country and how not to ruin the industry, 

Yeah, cause it has worked so well for us. We produce that which the clients require and expand in many industries. Not plough only potatoes and later cry to the government how the US potato or the Polish potato is stealing markets. Some money goes and some money comes back in.

I hope it is, the more enjoyable is to annex this territory later 

Why? You will just make it poor again, like the rest of your country.

[Vovka]

Why? You will just make it poor again, like the rest of your country.

cos it  the right thing to do as this serve to restore a "historical justice" 

[Smoothrich]

Russia should just annex or enslave or simply nuke all of Southern Europe, no one would complain there at least. NATO and Russia could carpet bomb third world shitholes like Greece and Serbia together in order to restore international trust and cooperation between civilized nations. Its probably the only thing that could save the European Union from imminent economic collapse at this point too.

I would also like to remind Finland and the Baltic states of their insignificance to world history and complete lack of culture or prestige.

[Tibe]

Fatpoor, yuo do dis?

[Xant]

Don't worry, all you have to do is mention his youtube video and he's forever gone from the thread. It's like an exorcism.

[ecorcheur_brokar]

Finland attacked the USSR first in 1939?

  The USSR's morbid fantasy of fighting a war with the US led to their economic collapse, which resulted in billions of dollars of weaponry flooding into the 3rd world and destabilizing it like it never was before. Name one war after 1920 where the US was not acting as a reactionary force, that is the difference.

  The most controversial conflicts were Iraq and Vietnam, as controversial as they were they were still reactionary. Saddam was living on borrowed time after breaking several international treaties and a failed assassination attempt on a US president, and refusing an ultimatum. The Vietnam war started as a civil war which was initiated by communists first against the French territorial government then against the Vietnamese Republic, again a reaction.

Wow now, liberating people and country from an imperialist (senso-stricto) foreign country is declaring war against US??? Maybe you should start attacking Algeria, Congo, Mali, etc and give them back to their original owners?

Anyway the liberation war against french occupation (or if you prefer "civil war") stopped after an agreement which stipulated the country should reunited after national elections. However, the governement of the south (christian dictatorship oppressiv against the bouddhist minority) backed by US didn't respect the agreement and didn't held those election which led to the Vietnamese war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conference_%281954%29#On_Indochina
US then faked an attack on its own ship, to have a justification to interviene more strongly in this civil war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#Distortion_of_the_event

The list of US intervention and influence in foreign affairs without provocation is endless. Even tho there were not always direct wars the work of the US intellegencies has been enxtremly efficient in provocking mass murder (chile, indonesia, etc).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

I think you perfectly know the truth but for some reasons refuse to see it, the number of evidence on US misconducts across the world is countless. There is nothing bad to realise and admit the wrong doing of your governement. The people of the united states are not responsible for their governement errors, as your democracy is far from perfect nor is it transparent. Plus, the US population has often protested against the governement actions when they were wrong.

"Those who don't learn (from) history are doomed to repeat it". You'll get fooled by your governement again and again until you realize all the times the governement has played with its citizens.

[Grytviken]

(click to show/hide)

Wow now, liberating people and country from an imperialist (senso-stricto) foreign country is declaring war against US??? Maybe you should start attacking Algeria, Congo, Mali, etc and give them back to their original owners?

Anyway the liberation war against french occupation (or if you prefer "civil war") stopped after an agreement which stipulated the country should reunited after national elections. However, the governement of the south (christian dictatorship oppressiv against the bouddhist minority) backed by US didn't respect the agreement and didn't held those election which led to the Vietnamese war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conference_%281954%29#On_Indochina
US then faked an attack on its own ship, to have a justification to interviene more strongly in this civil war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident#Distortion_of_the_event

The list of US intervention and influence in foreign affairs without provocation is endless. Even tho there were not always direct wars the work of the US intellegencies has been enxtremly efficient in provocking mass murder (chile, indonesia, etc).  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Condor

I think you perfectly know the truth but for some reasons refuse to see it, the number of evidence on US misconducts across the world is countless. There is nothing bad to realise and admit the wrong doing of your governement. The people of the united states are not responsible for their governement errors, as your democracy is far from perfect nor is it transparent. Plus, the US population has often protested against the governement actions when they were wrong.

"Those who don't learn (from) history are doomed to repeat it". You'll get fooled by your governement again and again until you realize all the times the governement has played with its citizens.

Really are you sure there wasn't more to it, like heavy Soviet and Chinese involvement, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu  , a refusal of the Soviet Union that blocked a UN resolution on an internationally observed election that followed with a Viet Cong invasion across the 17 parallel military demarcation line after the Geneva Convention? It was the breakdown of a failure of both sides to negotiate a resolution that would be seen as legitimate. Surely the US was looking for a reason to intervene after the North had invaded the Republic of South Vietnam.

 Also the Korean War, which saw the Chinese send 1.3 million troops to intervene on North Korea's behalf was fresh in our politicians minds , a similar build up in North Vietnam was taking place which saw the North Vietnamese military double in size. 320,000 Chinese served with the North Vietnamese.

 Like I stated before, US intervention has always been driven by reaction, if your perception of "American Imperialism"  and misconduct was true then nothing would have stopped the United States from succeeding in those goals with it's massive arsenal and military size short of a nuclear war with the soviet union.

  It clearly wasn't the  intentions or policy of the US to occupy and invade countries at leisure or the world would look much different today, the policy has always been focused on a very reasonable practice of restraint compared to it's military power. The USSR was viewed as a hostile state which was illegally occupying half of Europe and communism was seen as a tool to increase it's sphere of influence around the globe.

 As controversial as some of these reactions were do you believe the USSR or Russia would practice the same amount of restraint that the USA has in the past or present with no major power to counter-balance their military and expansion? Given the precedents they have set in the past it's highly unlikely. The United States government and Constitution were created with the idea of non-intervention in European affairs in mind, not to keep sociopath communist regimes in check, so obviously extreme measures had to be taken in certain circumstances to counter-balance this peculiar, oppressive and strange shift in world power when European power had dissolved into absence. Communism was the leading ideological killer in the 20th century by far dwarfing even fascism.

The Chinese and N. Vietnamese got severely handled militarily just like they did in Korea. The US's eventual withdrawal was inevitable due to there being no option of a political end to the conflict, not due to losing militarily which can be seen by the lopsided statistics. The mistakes you talk about are hindsight and not relevant to the calculated risks taken at the time or the present.

[Kafein]

Don't worry, all you have to do is mention his youtube video and he's forever gone from the thread. It's like an exorcism.

Yeah, his head turns 360 degrees and then his girlfriend's lung cancer shows up.

[Smoothrich]

The way I see it, America always fights for freedom, and the USSR would always fight for equality.

Of course that means the freedom for American corporations to open up shop and suck out the money for Wall Street and megabillionare CEOs, and equality for Russian arms and energy profits to keep flowing when the free market drives them out due to undercutting the Politburo or nowadays some fat fucker oligarch/Putin's slush fund, but that is just nitpicking at the expense of Ideological Righteousness.

[ecorcheur_brokar]

Really are you sure there wasn't more to it, like heavy Soviet and Chinese involvement, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dien_Bien_Phu  , a refusal of the Soviet Union that blocked a UN resolution on an internationally observed election that followed with a Viet Cong invasion across the 17 parallel military demarcation line after the Geneva Convention? It was the breakdown of a failure of both sides to negotiate a resolution that would be seen as legitimate. Surely the US was looking for a reason to intervene after the North had invaded the Republic of South Vietnam.

 Also the Korean War, which saw the Chinese send 1.3 million troops to intervene on North Korea's behalf was fresh in our politicians minds , a similar build up in North Vietnam was taking place which saw the North Vietnamese military double in size. 320,000 Chinese served with the North Vietnamese.

 Like I stated before, US intervention has always been driven by reaction, if your perception of "American Imperialism"  and misconduct was true then nothing would have stopped the United States from succeeding in those goals with it's massive arsenal and military size short of a nuclear war with the soviet union.

  It clearly wasn't the  intentions or policy of the US to occupy and invade countries at leisure or the world would look much different today, the policy has always been focused on a very reasonable practice of restraint compared to it's military power. The USSR was viewed as a hostile state which was illegally occupying half of Europe and communism was seen as a tool to increase it's sphere of influence around the globe.

 As controversial as some of these reactions were do you believe the USSR or Russia would practice the same amount of restraint that the USA has in the past or present with no major power to counter-balance their military and expansion? Given the precedents they have set in the past it's highly unlikely. The United States government and Constitution were created with the idea of non-intervention in European affairs in mind, not to keep sociopath communist regimes in check, so obviously extreme measures had to be taken in certain circumstances to counter-balance this peculiar, oppressive and strange shift in world power when European power had dissolved into absence. Communism was the leading ideological killer in the 20th century by far dwarfing even fascism.

The Chinese and N. Vietnamese got severely handled militarily just like they did in Korea. The US's eventual withdrawal was inevitable due to there being no option of a political end to the conflict, not due to losing militarily which can be seen by the lopsided statistics. The mistakes you talk about are hindsight and not relevant to the calculated risks taken at the time or the present.

Sometimes, when your fight is not right you can send all the weapons and men you want, if the people are really willing to have self-determination, the only way to win is to kill the entire population. Vietnam, Afghanistan and the fight for Kurdistan are good exemple.

The battle of dien bien phu came before the Geneva convention. And ofc Vietnam had to be supported by foreign forces, how could it win alone its fight for self-determination against the french colonial empire. And China can be proud to have sided on the right side of the history with its support to the decolonisation in Asia and Africa.

After the non-respect of the convention (there were nothing more to be negotiated, the convention had to be respected) by the south Vietnam dictatorship backed by US, which stipulated for democratic election, the only mean to settle Vietnam destiny without shading blood, the north had to cross the 17th parallel to reunite their country. Maybe US could have won the war but at which cost? Already 3.8 million death plus long lasting dramatic damage to the environment (agent orange and mines, still mutilating and causing complication to the population of vietnam and its neighbours) and the conflict was far from over. After the withdraw of US troops, the North quickly won the war, which shows on which side the majority of the vietnamese population was.

How can you call the socialist and/or independentist militant in Latin-America "sociopath communist regimes" when they were killed before arriving in power or right after their democratic elections? And when nowadays, socialist countries in Latin-America are democratic and among the most progressiv countries. I wouldn't call a reaction, hindering the right to self-determination of a population, especially when the population expressed its will to self-determination by democratic meanshttps://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Allende.

There's a distinction to be made between Communist super-power which contributed to win the 2nd WW, and that have nothing to fear for their independence and third world countries still subjected to colonialism and imperialism, in which the claim for equality was fought along side with the claim for independence. The smaller socialist countries (many succeded in Africa) killed way fewer (on their scale ofc) than the communist regime or military dictatorship and don't start with Cambodia as an example, it had nothing to do with communism (plus it had US/western support).

The mistakes you talk about are hindsight and not relevant to the calculated risks taken at the time or the present.

That's exactly what I blame US government and intelligences for, supporting any military dictatorship no matter the cost in life as long as its commercial interest where defended.

[Grytviken]

 And again your stacking 14 millions deaths in wars spreading democracy up against 94 million killed by communist regimes and the spreading of communism. Communism is by far the worst perpetrator and dwarfs any actions done by the US and was the deadliest of all ideologies combined including Nazee fascism. You're also leaving out all the covert actions and rogue armaments Russia and China sent throughout the world to incite revolution and warfare, billions and billions of dollars worth of armaments being tossed around to every 3rd world country in existence with no insight or care just done hoping war and chaos would spread because the Soviet Union was collapsing and they wanted to spite the United States. Wherever there is mass murder and mass killings there are Russian made weapons involved, whether they are dictatorships oppressing their people or terrorists.

[ecorcheur_brokar]

As I said, I distinguish between the two big communist regimes (USSR and China) and the socialo-indenpendantist countries (Vietnam, Congo, Burkina-Faso, Cuba, Chile, etc), I am not saying they didn't kill anybody but they didn't kill so many for this agitated period and didn't commit mass murder like the US backed dictatorship have done.

I am not covering the action of furnishing weapons done by China and Russia. As I said, I think they can be proud to have taken part in the overthrow of colonialist empire and the independence of many countries.

Nowadays, they are selling weapons just like any other countries. Russia and China tends more to selling to guerilla while the west is more tending to selling to dictatorship, meh everybody got his business....

I think the weapon business is one of the dirtiest (worst than drugs, maybe equal to human trafficking) and I consider all weapons trafficker and manufacturer as criminals. But I also know that most of the people are selfish pricks, as we had the opportunity here to vote about banning weapons exportations and this iniative got rejected by a big majority so it seems people are ok with selling weapons abroad as long as it makes money, I don't know why China and Russia shouldn't take part in this wealthy business.

[Grytviken]

As I said, I distinguish between the two big communist regimes (USSR and China) and the socialo-indenpendantist countries (Vietnam, Congo, Burkina-Faso, Cuba, Chile, etc), I am not saying they didn't kill anybody but they didn't kill so many for this agitated period and didn't commit mass murder like the US backed dictatorship have done.

I am not covering the action of furnishing weapons done by China and Russia. As I said, I think they can be proud to have taken part in the overthrow of colonialist empire and the independence of many countries.

Nowadays, they are selling weapons just like any other countries. Russia and China tends more to selling to guerilla while the west is more tending to selling to dictatorship, meh everybody got his business....

I think the weapon business is one of the dirtiest (worst than drugs, maybe equal to human trafficking) and I consider all weapons trafficker and manufacturer as criminals. But I also know that most of the people are selfish pricks, as we had the opportunity here to vote about banning weapons exportations and this iniative got rejected by a big majority so it seems people are ok with selling weapons abroad as long as it makes money, I don't know why China and Russia shouldn't take part in this wealthy business.

  Really are you sure there weren't 170,000 business owners and farmers murdered in North Vietnam to bring about their communist reforms? You must think all of these "socialo-independent" nations magically instituted communism without making hundreds of thousands of people who disagreed disappear.