I think that you yourself are being a little egotistical. While the EU is indeed a larger market, it has many of the same problems that the United States market has. I would like to point out that in the EU, you manufacture very little these days, as does the United States. On my visits to nations in the EU, I have found the label which says "Fabriqué en Chine" or "Hergestellt in China" or whatever language you choose on many many products.
As for our currency, while its value is decreasing slowly, you exaggerate. It is not "worth so little" today, and I will also point out that if the United States stops investment in the world, the resultant situation would not be pleasant.
There are at least a million people who would like to cut our heads off/blow stuff up and anywhere between a few hundred million and upward of a billion that, while not having the balls to take up arms themselves would be more than happy to see it happen Maybe I'm being too superficial here, but there are certainly not hundreds of millions of people who are willing to support the radical Islamists. The Middle East situation is far more complex than that. Most of the people living there desire peace and a return to stability so they may leave refugee camps, etc. The problem is that all we hear about are the <1% extremists who truly desire to wipe off Western civilization as we know it, replacing it with the Islamic law exemplified by Iran.
Equally scary as the terrorists are some of the officials in our own government. Take the director of the CIA and FBI for example, both of whom have knowingly and willfully broken the law, even overstepping the overly broad bounds of the PATRIOT Act, without any repercussions. Or the scandal over the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys....
Usually, but in this case the vouchers are for a system delivered at a date when the user requests. Under your logic, the vouchers would only be good for a system available the day that the deal was signed: a definitively out-of-date version today.
I have to agree with you, but the interesting thing was that I read the vertical text faster than the block. Or maybe that was because I already knew the content of the paragraph.
My personal opinion is that this is just a fancy technique and some algorithms that work for some people which will lead to a patent and lots of propaganda. But to me, this is just an interesting result in a relatively useless study. Seriously people, when are we going to leave the block text style which our ancestors devised thousands of years ago?
Shakespeare! Well, there seems to be this trend of going back to Shakespearian duel-type contests to decide things. So why don't we say "a rose by any other name smells as sweet"? Or DRM by any other name is still as stupid?
I think the reason that the source code is required is not so much to open-source the machines as to make sure that the machines aren't doing anything unusual with the votes, things such as phoning home, etc. These can potentially be solved without the source, but having to reveal the source makes it much more enticing for the vendors to do no monkey business.
...that Diebold will sue California because their auditing procedures do not give an inherent advantage to awful machines, and clearly Diebold's machines are required in any electronic election [see Massachusetts for details].
I've got an idea! Turn your computer around and thick black cable with a flattened end sticking into the machine (the slot probably says "power" or something like that). Don't hesitate to take it out and stick it in your mouth. Then sit back and take deep breaths. And shut up.
Alternative: take your monitor and throw it to the ground forcefully (don't bother unplugging any cables). Then pick up the (hopefully intact) stuff on the ground and start smacking yourself with it. And knock yourself out.
In either case, once you're done, STOP BASHING SLASHDOT! If you don't like the news then shut the fuck up, don't post silly comments which waste your life and Slashdot's storage space.
Since you provoke me to respond here, I will tell you that this is a false assertion. In reality, I am just bored of arguing with you. You have not convinced me. You have not won.
More like it lasted a decade. While perhaps the ideology remained for around a decade, the period during which it had force was actually three to four. It was first around 1950 that McCarthy began to really go after people, when he made the speech claiming that he had a list of about 205 Communists working at the State Department. By 1954, he was under heavy fire at his own hearings, and he was censured by Congress on December 2, 1954, basically shutting him up. Also, while his reign of terror was by no means fun or justified, it did not involve a secret police as Stalin's purges--which killed millions--did. However, you are right, on a very simplistic level, the ideology behind both was similar.
Courts (a government institution) brought down McCarthyism, not the media, and media organizations by themselves blindly followed McCarthyism Got you! The courts had very little if anything to do with McCarthyism, or at least with Senator McCarthy himself. What actually happened was this: in 1953, members of Congress began to oppose McCarthy's unusual tactics, such as using sealed evidence which the defense was not allowed to examine or making completely unsupported accusations and not affording the accused time to respond. Also, the media, which had been tagging along with McCarthy for the first two years (that part is true) became more and more disenchanted with him. Led by Edward R. Murrow and CBS, they began to directly criticize McCarthy and greatly sped up his downfall. I know several people who lived in that time in the US and they agree with me on that.
OK, I will make two generalizations here about freedom. First, I think we must both accept that we have fundamentally different points of view here. You have not argued differently than saying that I am conditioned to feel free by US propaganda and I have not argued further than to say that I am not conditioned by US propaganda and am indeed free. So we should lay this off because we are making no progress. Second, with respect to government and corporations. Again we believe in fundamentally different points of view. You are convinced the corporations are the government's lapdogs and I am convinced to the contrary. Nothing we have said so far has changed either of our opinions. Especially since none of this discussion has to do with news reporting in Russia, I suggest we leave these topics off and go our own separate ways, believing our own separate beliefs.
I never argued that the US' decision was right. In fact, I believe that the US should have left Latin America to its own devices and let the people figure out what works best for them. The people will find soon enough that communism, like democracy, has flaws. And then they can make an honest, informed decision about their government with no US interference.
the claim that Allende was "brutal" is supported by nothing but American propaganda I never said Allende was brutal. I just said that the rightist brutal rightist leader was no better for the US than Allende. Also, "American propaganda" does not exist. What exists are misconceptions. The American government does not actively attempt to alter everyone's beliefs through control of the media or through control of textbooks. The administration in power, of course, like any other political organization in the world, releases propaganda to convince voters to support their policies, but even then, that is conspicuously label "paid for by XXX organization."
As for Hungary, it was a violent overthrow of its former government, US and its allies never blink before rolling into any country formerly allied with them or under their influence when such a thing happens OK, but this does not justify the murder of thousands of civilians. Also, when did the US "roll in" to another nation (aside from Iraq) without blinking an eye and murder thousands of civilians to inspire fear? If you are thinking Vietnam, recall that this nation was never under our influence and was never allied with us. The closest connection would be France, which is not even part of NATO.
As for Kosovo, NATO decided that the repeated human rights violations by people such as Ratko Mladi and Slobodan Milosevi were too much and sent in peacekeeping troops to avoid a total civil war in the breaking-up Yugoslavia. I will not argue whether or not this was right, but again, the United States and NATO did not enter and kill thousands of civilians to inspire terror and repress the people of Yugoslavia.
Government doesn't have to own press to control it -- it can just restrict the access to government officials, "over-regulate" the undesirable media outlets, allow monopolization of media by government-friendly outlets. But you have not provided a single instance of government control over media. It just doesn't happen. And you don't seem to be able to respond to the fact that the USSR did use massive amounts of propaganda.
I challenge you to find a single WWII or post-WWII document of Soviet origin that would prove that USSR had this kind of strategy. This is entirely an invention of US propaganda, designed to justify NATO and post-WWII growth of military-industrial complex within US. You missed the point. If you had strung the next sentence in, you would realize that all I was saying was that the reason troops were stationed around the world was to halt Soviet expansion. That was the reason, whether or not it was correct. Now as for documents, I can produce one document and at least one other example. The document: the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, signed days before Germany invaded Poland. The agreement divided up Poland into a Soviet and a Nazi region. As for the other example, Stalin made it clear in the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences that he wanted a "buffer zone" (i.e. that he wanted Eastern Europe) to slow further German attacks (the reason is irrelevant, he still was expanding). The Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact was signed by the USSR, so that counts, and Stalin spoke at both Yalta and Potsdam, so that counts also.
It did a great job when it mattered -- before the decision about starting the war was made. Once the war is going on, there was no turning back, or at least that became the tune of propaganda when initial claims of the threat were thoroughly discredited -- and by everyone but the American media that would be in the best position to report it first. Generally, given a lack of evidence to the contrary, one accepts a statement as fact. It was not until the media (yes the media, traveling with the soldiers in Iraq) reported that no WMDs had been found that we grew skeptical. After all, we are generally conditioned to trust our leaders (this is true of almost any society and the media has nothing to do with it).
Timing is important. Now, when Republicans managed to discredit themselves at the extent that they have to cede control for the next congress and presidential terms to Democrats, yet can't be touched until Bush's term expires, they allowed the press to bark at them to keep the impression of "impartial" press You are really convinced that the government runs the press, aren't you? Let me reiterate, this is not the case. Just to make sure: this is not the case. Also, remember that the Republicans want to maintain power. They do not want to be shoved aside by the Democrats because that would mean four years under a Democratic president who would probably take the nation in a direction they don't care for.
Just to make you understand: the media is NOT state-run (and state influence is minimal). Get it? If you don't, go to the beginning of this paragraph until you do.
Long-term anti-USSR/anti-Russian hatemongering is another thing -- this started right after WWII, and is not going to stop any soon, so I find it appropriate for Russia to start treating it for what it is -- a hostile propaganda effort that should be effectively countered. I am not "hatemongering"--I have as much respect for Russia as for any other nation (though this is dwindling because of Putin's repressive policies). I will not argue that this is not a propaganda effort because that would hinge on the definition of propaganda and that depends based on each person. What I will say though is that for you to make a point, evidence and facts are appreciated and accusations with little ground to stand on are worthless and only serve to make others angry. Plus, the title you chose for your first reply infuriated so many people that have since tried to rip your ideas to bits, who wouldn't have otherwise.
The number of killed in Czechoslovakia was 72 people. In Hungary Soviet military fought against armed insurgents (some from the military), not the government or civilian population, and most of the killing and imprisonment in the aftermath of it was done by Hungarian government itself. All those interventions pale compared to the US-sponsored Chile coup alone. I must apologize for the Czech invasion, I did not realize that very few people died. However, in the Hungarian Revolution, the Soviet military actually killed thousands of civilians and also began mass arrests. The coup in Chile is reputed to have killed 3000 people; however, this section does not cite a source. Even if this were the actual figure, the US' maximum role was the installation of a (brutal) military dictator (no better than Allende). While I do not agree with the action of installing a military dictator, I certainly do not agree that the US invaded and executed the coup (it was the Chilean military).
McCarthyism, anyone? Lasted all of three years. Plus, it did not involve a secret police and in fact, attacked the FBI more than the FBI attacked it or any other citizen. You over exaggerate McCarthy, who, interestingly enough, was downed by the media. No, not the state-run media (which does not exist), but the independent media which simply attended most of the hearings and got some good interviews.
US is "more free" only if you are very, very rich, Let's just say that I am not "very, very rich" (just an average citizen) but I enjoy many more freedoms than any Russian--or Belorussian--under the USSR's domination. I can speak out against the government in public, in writing or orally, I can protest in the streets, I can practice a religion of my choice (this could have also been allowed in the USSR--I don't know), I can publish anything I choose (with certain, very small restrictions [i.e. I cannot advocate the violent overthrow of the US government, however I can advocate a peaceful change in government]). See, it is a common misconception that America is a land of the rich; however, this is not really the case. I am perfectly free. I am not rich. My friends are for the most part not rich either but still are free. Eighty, 90, or more years ago your statement would have made sense, but definitely not today.
Oh, I forgot, US intervened within Northern America, too. (Latin America is South America plus Northern America until US) Your first comment is correct. I do not believe we have intervened in South America. But I fail to see your point.
USSR never "massacred" anyone in Eastern Europe. There was nothing anywhere close to a "massacre" in Eastern Europe between the end of WWII and Balkan Wars, so again, you have no idea what are you talking about. And the destruction of Czechoslovakia does not count as a massacre? In any event, regardless of what level you regard Soviet interventions as, the US did far less in Latin America. (I am not trying to defend US actions there as I am sure you are not trying to defend Soviet Actions in Czechoslovakia and Hungary).
The rest of your response is merely denial of the obvious. What I mean is that regardless of what to structure of government on paper was, it was essentially a dictatorship which answered to the Soviet Union. I mean, can you really say China is a democracy because it has the National People 's Congress?
If you are claiming that it's some supposedly innocent "media spin", please tell me how would any "major" media organizations get any access to the top government officials if not by swearing loyalty to the people who make decisions who does and who doesn't get access to their press conferences and interviews. Of course, your media is controlled by the government -- one that isn't never gets any information to report on, and is reduced to lurking outside, reporting second-hand accounts. This may surprise you, seeing as you are from Belarus under the USSR (or at least lived there), but the media is not state-run. Independent corporations run it and oftentimes come out quite critical of the state and its policies. How do we get access to top-level officials? Simple. If they don't appear often enough, the media concludes that they have something to hide and spread that rumor mercilessly. And then the official gets trounced in the next election. Or if it's an appointed position, let's take director of the FBI for example because I think that's what you are getting at. If he/she does not appear very often for press conferences or evades a lot of questions, that raises the American people's suspicions about what he's doing and whether or not it's legitimate. And then Congress is pressured into an investigation and the process goes from there. And there can't be a large conspiracy between Congress and the FBI because citizens can file Freedom of Information Act requests to get much of the substance of the Congressional investigations (obviously not the top-secret stuff but the rest of it).
50's-70's when most of the anti-Soviet myths were created I have no direct knowledge but how about all the anti-American myths created in the Soviet Union, probably things such as "the US has a secret police" or "the US has only state-run media," in the same time frame? Also, many of the rumors you call myths are not quite as false as you would like. Then, of course, there is the fact that the US government probably originated very few of those. Mostly, it was probably the media or other sources. To put it briefly, I'll say communist dictatorship was not much in vogue in the US then so people probably didn't mind nasty rumors about it, true or untrue.
In the same way as most of South America was "conquered" by US. May I ask when the United States intervened in South America? Where we intervened was in Latin America. To boot, when we intervened (not a wise choice but nonetheless it happened), we did not massacre thousands of people, we did not engage in wanton destruction to subdue Latin American nations. Anyone who believes such a thing is an extremist at the very least.
In any case only a person who knows nothing but American propaganda can pretend that an independent nation, no matter how much in the sphere of influence of some other country, can be compared to a unit within a federation. Stop talking out of your ass. Well, aside from the fact that you are simply denying the facts and responding with Soviet propaganda, I will attempt to dissect what you are saying here. First off, "American propaganda" does not exist. There is no such thing. Instead, the media puts its own spin on the facts. Anyone intelligent gets news from several sources with different political leanings and then can squeeze out the facts. OK, second, I don't know what you are talking about with respect to an independent nation vs. a unit within a federation. If you are comparing Latin American nations to Soviet satellites, then you have mooted your entire point because you tried to compare intervention between nations or within a federation yourself. Otherwise it makes no sense. So let me offer you some advice: stop talking like SCO in its many lawsuits: with no evidence, in subjects where most of your claims are dead wrong anyway.
And in US you have a bunch of three-letter agencies using exactly the same methods at the time.Name me the country, Western or otherwise, that did not have some kind of intelligence service and secret police. Well, the FBI and the CIA did not terrorize US citizens. What you believe is Soviet propaganda. None of the First World nations had secret police forces as all of the Soviet bloc did. Where is your evidence to prove the monumental accusation you made?
Again, this has nothing to do with independence of the country -- most of people in KGB would shudder or roll their eyes at the stuff Eastern European secret services did to their own population. They were horrible enough so I wouldn't say what you said with pride. And yes, a secret police force usually has a lot to do with the freedom of a nation, not its independence. You missed that point. The KGB did not detract from any of the satellites' freedom, the Soviet military did.
Only if all you want to hear is propaganda, and all you want to say does not damage the rich. You seem to blur the difference between propaganda and reality. In reality, you are spewing pro-Soviet propaganda (whether or not by choice). Maybe you did not experience it, but in the West, freedom of speech, religion, the press, etc. were respected. No ifs ands or buts. And don't disagree--you don't have experience to back yourself up.
And that does not make them any less ignorant. Really, what kind of argument is this? Lots of people were tricked into believing that something is true, and it trumps actual facts? This kind of thinking allowed Iraq war to happen, for $whatever sake! You are overly critical. The Iraq war was never popular and Bush has taken immense amounts of flak and huge public opinion slides ever since it was found out that he had used faulty intelligence to persuade us in the first place (after all, we believed that he was not lying the first time and gave him a chance....). Let me ask you, what kind of an argument is that?
So doesn't it make this point completely negated and irrelevant? No because the American actions in Latin America were not complete massacres of thousands of people as the brutal crushing of Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968. I accept that the American actions there were wrong and completely illegitimate, but they were not even close to the scale of the Soviet military interventions.
Oh yes, it is moronic. Especially because the differences were fundamental, and were only concealed from the American population to serve the goal of anti-Soviet (and now anti-Russian) propaganda. Let's disagree with you again. The differences were not even close to fundamental. That's only what Soviet propaganda says. In reality, what did most people (not government workers as you probably were) in Warsaw Pact states experience? Repressive, brutal dictatorship. What did they experience in the USSR proper? Guess. Repressive, brutal dictatorship. That's not very different, even if the countries were not the same officially, on paper. Seriously, what, precisely, were the differences?
Well now we know why your point of view was different than all of ours. In the 1950s and 1960s, why were there so many small, tense incidents such as the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Berlin Airlift? Why did the Americans care so much about a small bit of land why were the Soviets so eager to put missiles on Cuba? Each side, clearly, was afraid of the other expanding. And what's more, neither side knew that the other feared them as they feared the other side until the Soviet Union broke down.
Now you brought up an interesting point with propaganda. It's surprising that you would accuse the United States of using propaganda and having "propaganda workers" when it is undisputed that the Soviet Union used massive amounts of propaganda and Russia today does as well with almost all of the media being state-run. In the United States, the government does not own the media or influence it much; instead the media puts its own spin on the facts. And intelligent people get information from multiple news sources to gets the facts straight. Now I also happen to know a lot about history, especially the American perspective (since that's what I learned in school [for better or for worse]) and I can tell you right off the bat that the reason US troops were stationed all around the world, especially in Germany, was to halt any Soviet expansion (which the Soviets did indeed try in 1948-1949) of communism and dictatorship. Whether or not this reason ultimately played out is a different story. But that was why US troops were prominently stationed internationally. By the way, the US government did a poor job of convincing the American people that there were WMD in Iraq--many people severely doubted the accusation several days after the Iraq invasion. Plus, if you cared to notice, Bush's approval rating has gone down over 60% since 9/11, so your propaganda comment is even more worthless.
Now, for some of the above comments, I will state for the record that very little difference existed between being part of the USSR ("republics" such as Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, Belarus -- oh yes I can name them without any research) and being a member of the Warsaw Pact. There was a good reason Warsaw Pact nations were known as "satellite states." Let's look at Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and East Germany as examples. All saw dissent brutally hushed up by the Soviet military. Yes, the Soviet military. Plus, as one of the parents stated, the hat he bought off an East German soldier had a Soviet insignia on it. Find a West German soldier's hat from that time period. I am sure it won't have US insignia on it. Unlike East Germany under Soviet influence, West Germany with US military bases was free to do as it pleased.
I think it should be you accused of being moronic and spreading anti-American, pro-Soviet propaganda.
I agree with you. Either way, with or without Vista, the "Microsoft Juggernaut" will not stumble--there's still WinXP. Perhaps the Vista juggernaut will stumble, but Microsoft will keep going for a while now (I am not trying to be pessimistic just realistic).
Slashdot Mirror
I think that you yourself are being a little egotistical. While the EU is indeed a larger market, it has many of the same problems that the United States market has. I would like to point out that in the EU, you manufacture very little these days, as does the United States. On my visits to nations in the EU, I have found the label which says "Fabriqué en Chine" or "Hergestellt in China" or whatever language you choose on many many products.
As for our currency, while its value is decreasing slowly, you exaggerate. It is not "worth so little" today, and I will also point out that if the United States stops investment in the world, the resultant situation would not be pleasant.
Equally scary as the terrorists are some of the officials in our own government. Take the director of the CIA and FBI for example, both of whom have knowingly and willfully broken the law, even overstepping the overly broad bounds of the PATRIOT Act, without any repercussions. Or the scandal over the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys....
Usually, but in this case the vouchers are for a system delivered at a date when the user requests. Under your logic, the vouchers would only be good for a system available the day that the deal was signed: a definitively out-of-date version today.
I have to agree with you, but the interesting thing was that I read the vertical text faster than the block.
Or maybe
that was
because I
already knew
the
content of the
paragraph.
My personal opinion is that this is just a fancy technique and some algorithms that work for some people which will lead to a patent and lots of propaganda. But to me, this is just an interesting result in a relatively useless study. Seriously people, when are we going to leave the block text style which our ancestors devised thousands of years ago?
....Apple and Microsoft will be fighting on the same side! Now I wonder, what OS will their lawyers be using when they're working together?
Shakespeare! Well, there seems to be this trend of going back to Shakespearian duel-type contests to decide things. So why don't we say "a rose by any other name smells as sweet"? Or DRM by any other name is still as stupid?
I think the reason that the source code is required is not so much to open-source the machines as to make sure that the machines aren't doing anything unusual with the votes, things such as phoning home, etc. These can potentially be solved without the source, but having to reveal the source makes it much more enticing for the vendors to do no monkey business.
...that Diebold will sue California because their auditing procedures do not give an inherent advantage to awful machines, and clearly Diebold's machines are required in any electronic election [see Massachusetts for details].
Hasn't GDB been doing this for ages? Or is it just me?
To be blunt, no you are not the only one. :-)
I've got an idea! Turn your computer around and thick black cable with a flattened end sticking into the machine (the slot probably says "power" or something like that). Don't hesitate to take it out and stick it in your mouth. Then sit back and take deep breaths. And shut up.
Alternative: take your monitor and throw it to the ground forcefully (don't bother unplugging any cables). Then pick up the (hopefully intact) stuff on the ground and start smacking yourself with it. And knock yourself out.
In either case, once you're done, STOP BASHING SLASHDOT! If you don't like the news then shut the fuck up, don't post silly comments which waste your life and Slashdot's storage space.
It's interesting that you say that.
Since you provoke me to respond here, I will tell you that this is a false assertion. In reality, I am just bored of arguing with you. You have not convinced me. You have not won.
We don't seem to be able to agree anywhere so I am going to stop posting on all the threads where we are still arguing. Just to let you know.
OK, I will make two generalizations here about freedom.
First, I think we must both accept that we have fundamentally different points of view here. You have not argued differently than saying that I am conditioned to feel free by US propaganda and I have not argued further than to say that I am not conditioned by US propaganda and am indeed free. So we should lay this off because we are making no progress.
Second, with respect to government and corporations. Again we believe in fundamentally different points of view. You are convinced the corporations are the government's lapdogs and I am convinced to the contrary. Nothing we have said so far has changed either of our opinions. Especially since none of this discussion has to do with news reporting in Russia, I suggest we leave these topics off and go our own separate ways, believing our own separate beliefs.
I never argued that the US' decision was right. In fact, I believe that the US should have left Latin America to its own devices and let the people figure out what works best for them. The people will find soon enough that communism, like democracy, has flaws. And then they can make an honest, informed decision about their government with no US interference.
the claim that Allende was "brutal" is supported by nothing but American propaganda I never said Allende was brutal. I just said that the rightist brutal rightist leader was no better for the US than Allende. Also, "American propaganda" does not exist. What exists are misconceptions. The American government does not actively attempt to alter everyone's beliefs through control of the media or through control of textbooks. The administration in power, of course, like any other political organization in the world, releases propaganda to convince voters to support their policies, but even then, that is conspicuously label "paid for by XXX organization." As for Hungary, it was a violent overthrow of its former government, US and its allies never blink before rolling into any country formerly allied with them or under their influence when such a thing happens OK, but this does not justify the murder of thousands of civilians. Also, when did the US "roll in" to another nation (aside from Iraq) without blinking an eye and murder thousands of civilians to inspire fear? If you are thinking Vietnam, recall that this nation was never under our influence and was never allied with us. The closest connection would be France, which is not even part of NATO.As for Kosovo, NATO decided that the repeated human rights violations by people such as Ratko Mladi and Slobodan Milosevi were too much and sent in peacekeeping troops to avoid a total civil war in the breaking-up Yugoslavia. I will not argue whether or not this was right, but again, the United States and NATO did not enter and kill thousands of civilians to inspire terror and repress the people of Yugoslavia.
Since I have noticed that we are repeating ourselves and not coming to an agreement, I suggest that we lay this discussion off and agree to disagree.
Just to make you understand: the media is NOT state-run (and state influence is minimal). Get it? If you don't, go to the beginning of this paragraph until you do.
Long-term anti-USSR/anti-Russian hatemongering is another thing -- this started right after WWII, and is not going to stop any soon, so I find it appropriate for Russia to start treating it for what it is -- a hostile propaganda effort that should be effectively countered. I am not "hatemongering"--I have as much respect for Russia as for any other nation (though this is dwindling because of Putin's repressive policies). I will not argue that this is not a propaganda effort because that would hinge on the definition of propaganda and that depends based on each person. What I will say though is that for you to make a point, evidence and facts are appreciated and accusations with little ground to stand on are worthless and only serve to make others angry. Plus, the title you chose for your first reply infuriated so many people that have since tried to rip your ideas to bits, who wouldn't have otherwise.Lets do this in order.
And in US you have a bunch of three-letter agencies using exactly the same methods at the time.Name me the country, Western or otherwise, that did not have some kind of intelligence service and secret police. Well, the FBI and the CIA did not terrorize US citizens. What you believe is Soviet propaganda. None of the First World nations had secret police forces as all of the Soviet bloc did. Where is your evidence to prove the monumental accusation you made? Again, this has nothing to do with independence of the country -- most of people in KGB would shudder or roll their eyes at the stuff Eastern European secret services did to their own population. They were horrible enough so I wouldn't say what you said with pride. And yes, a secret police force usually has a lot to do with the freedom of a nation, not its independence. You missed that point. The KGB did not detract from any of the satellites' freedom, the Soviet military did. Only if all you want to hear is propaganda, and all you want to say does not damage the rich. You seem to blur the difference between propaganda and reality. In reality, you are spewing pro-Soviet propaganda (whether or not by choice). Maybe you did not experience it, but in the West, freedom of speech, religion, the press, etc. were respected. No ifs ands or buts. And don't disagree--you don't have experience to back yourself up. And that does not make them any less ignorant. Really, what kind of argument is this? Lots of people were tricked into believing that something is true, and it trumps actual facts? This kind of thinking allowed Iraq war to happen, for $whatever sake! You are overly critical. The Iraq war was never popular and Bush has taken immense amounts of flak and huge public opinion slides ever since it was found out that he had used faulty intelligence to persuade us in the first place (after all, we believed that he was not lying the first time and gave him a chance....). Let me ask you, what kind of an argument is that? So doesn't it make this point completely negated and irrelevant? No because the American actions in Latin America were not complete massacres of thousands of people as the brutal crushing of Hungary and Czechoslovakia in 1956 and 1968. I accept that the American actions there were wrong and completely illegitimate, but they were not even close to the scale of the Soviet military interventions. Oh yes, it is moronic. Especially because the differences were fundamental, and were only concealed from the American population to serve the goal of anti-Soviet (and now anti-Russian) propaganda. Let's disagree with you again. The differences were not even close to fundamental. That's only what Soviet propaganda says. In reality, what did most people (not government workers as you probably were) in Warsaw Pact states experience? Repressive, brutal dictatorship. What did they experience in the USSR proper? Guess. Repressive, brutal dictatorship. That's not very different, even if the countries were not the same officially, on paper. Seriously, what, precisely, were the differences?Well now we know why your point of view was different than all of ours. In the 1950s and 1960s, why were there so many small, tense incidents such as the Cuban Missile Crisis or the Berlin Airlift? Why did the Americans care so much about a small bit of land why were the Soviets so eager to put missiles on Cuba? Each side, clearly, was afraid of the other expanding. And what's more, neither side knew that the other feared them as they feared the other side until the Soviet Union broke down.
Now you brought up an interesting point with propaganda. It's surprising that you would accuse the United States of using propaganda and having "propaganda workers" when it is undisputed that the Soviet Union used massive amounts of propaganda and Russia today does as well with almost all of the media being state-run. In the United States, the government does not own the media or influence it much; instead the media puts its own spin on the facts. And intelligent people get information from multiple news sources to gets the facts straight. Now I also happen to know a lot about history, especially the American perspective (since that's what I learned in school [for better or for worse]) and I can tell you right off the bat that the reason US troops were stationed all around the world, especially in Germany, was to halt any Soviet expansion (which the Soviets did indeed try in 1948-1949) of communism and dictatorship. Whether or not this reason ultimately played out is a different story. But that was why US troops were prominently stationed internationally. By the way, the US government did a poor job of convincing the American people that there were WMD in Iraq--many people severely doubted the accusation several days after the Iraq invasion. Plus, if you cared to notice, Bush's approval rating has gone down over 60% since 9/11, so your propaganda comment is even more worthless.
Now, for some of the above comments, I will state for the record that very little difference existed between being part of the USSR ("republics" such as Lithuania, Estonia, Ukraine, Belarus -- oh yes I can name them without any research) and being a member of the Warsaw Pact. There was a good reason Warsaw Pact nations were known as "satellite states." Let's look at Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and East Germany as examples. All saw dissent brutally hushed up by the Soviet military. Yes, the Soviet military. Plus, as one of the parents stated, the hat he bought off an East German soldier had a Soviet insignia on it. Find a West German soldier's hat from that time period. I am sure it won't have US insignia on it. Unlike East Germany under Soviet influence, West Germany with US military bases was free to do as it pleased.
I think it should be you accused of being moronic and spreading anti-American, pro-Soviet propaganda.
I agree with you. Either way, with or without Vista, the "Microsoft Juggernaut" will not stumble--there's still WinXP. Perhaps the Vista juggernaut will stumble, but Microsoft will keep going for a while now (I am not trying to be pessimistic just realistic).