one can also say that peak oil happened when Saudi Arabian reserves were discovered, because since then there was never a discovery that big, all discoveries were much smaller in size. We will not find another reserve that big and this can be also counted as peak of oil, peak of oil discovery. The major discovery of oil in SA happened in the seventies.
When it concerns Newton, he has created a duality. I mean the guy believed in alchemy too, doesn't make alchemy a science, same with the rest of them. They have to suspend their intelligence when it comes to religion.
It's amazing, you managed to go a whole post without making any comment relevant to my post.
- you are just not seeing it. What possibly could Christians, Muslims or Taoists say about atheists? That atheists are not thinking for themselves or that they are bullshitters? That would be one retarded argument:)
There are intelligent, well informed people of every mainstream religion, yet in the eyes of the GP it is ok to sledge them as being irrational, stupid and self-delusional.
- if truly intelligent and well informed people chose to follow some faith in invisible gods, zombies and such, then these people are either uneducated (even though they believe themselves to be well informed) or these people are self-delusional.
Why, is it impossible to be self-delusional while still being intelligent and even well informed? Even some intelligent and well informed people sometimes chose to believe irrational things. In a very peculiar manner they just turn off that intelligence where it concerns those blind believes.
Besides, as long as deluding oneself does not actually cause any physical damage to a person, then it doesn't really matter that much.
If a religious person came on here and made the same comments about another religion or atheism then they would be rightly modded flamebait. Yet the moderators appear to have modded the GP insightful because he shares their irrational stereotyping of religious people.
- when one religious person starts making comments about religion of another person it can lead to veryinterestingoutcomes.
Atheism is not a movement or a coherent organization of any kind. It is absence of any faiths or believes based on religious ideas.
(Of-course people being people can turn everything on its head, so people who are likely to have religious believes in the first place, can be turned into people who are just as anti-religion as they would be pro-religion. It depends on who has worked on their brain-washing last. These are not generally speaking extremely thoughtful people, they are easily lead. Some of these people are the kind who would sacrifice themselves in the name of a religion. They can be turned into the craziest revolutionaries who will actually kill the religious with fanaticism that is normally reserved for the religious. But this only proves that some people are predisposed for having faith one way or another).
Of-course I don't count such people as actually atheists, it's just that their religion was renamed really. Atheists like me usually do not conflict with the faithful, but sometimes it is just the thing to do to have a laugh. Yes, I do think that in order to be religious a person has to be either of lower education (not necessarily of lower intelligence, lower education is enough) or that the person has to cheat to him/herself and create a duality within themselves and refuse their intelligence/education to be involved much when it concerns their religion. As long as it doesn't hurt their chances of procreation (I worked in the Evolution into this) it won't do much harm.
atheists don't believe in any good without proof, but except for that fact and probably better education on average, there probably will be less common grounds between any set of atheists then between people within any religion.
Saw Bill Maher show a few days ago, I liked this comment on US Republicans who are financially below average and are against government ran health care:
(from memory, so not exact comment)
...Like those Republicans with not even basic health insurance, those who have only a couple of good teeth left... 'It's like their brains are damaged and they need to have their heads checked. Only they don't have health insurance and so they can't afford to have their heads checked.
Same here, many people don't realize how basically dumb they are, because if they realized it and tried to do something about it, that would be the proof that they are not that dumb after all.
-- (note, that I am not pro state ran health care, I am for a dual system)
Once again your "knowledge" of history proves to be highly entertaining. The German nuclear program never really got off the ground and was never taken seriously by the German leadership. Granted, the West didn't know this at the time, which led to Einstein's letter and the launch of the Manhattan Project.
- you are highly entertaining indeed. Somehow the Germans with all their accomplishments in war technology should not have been taken seriously, while who else but Saddam Hussein must be stopped because he is working on such incredible projects as moving pipes around that could possibly be used for... nukelar weapons.
Oh, noes, by god, the poor US of A has a small army that can only be used once it becomes crystal clear that they just might be late into the world dividing party.
You are still wasting time on this discussion, how quaint.
I like the false equivalence here -- because the United States is interested in making money our actions are somehow worse than those of a regime that was interested in retaining territory and spreading it's ideology. If you were being objective you might be able to make the case that both sides were wrong -- but you go out of your way to dismiss the crimes of the USSR while condemning the United States. You could at least pretend to be looking at history objectively instead of looking for examples that reinforce your pre-convinced view of the world.
- well that's my point, USSR wasn't after any new territories once Stalin was gone, they were trying to survive while Americans found that WAR is extremely profitable and were interested in having at least one going on anywhere at any time. Americans have brainwashed its population to believe that they have some sort of moral superiority and this is laughable, there is no morality in making money through killing.
I am not discussing USSR here, because there are no Soviets involved in this discussion.
Amazing how we can say that with full benefit of hindsight. At the time the war was started most western nations (including those that opposed the war) and the UN thought it likely that he had WMDs. You can argue about the merits of going to war based on that perceived threat (for the record, I opposed the war) but trying to say that we knew he had no WMDs is just factually incorrect.
- my position stays the same as it was for the past 7 years, however you should get your head out of that sand. Bush and Co have manufactured the entire WMD premise, selling it quite nicely to the US citizens, but it didn't work at all for The Rest of The World (tm).
This is just too easy
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
You are one of the brainwashed individuals if you truly believe that American government did not manufacture a pretense to go to Iraq to make money for various corporate interests. The intelligence that you are talking about was not able to find any evidence of any secret weapons programs in Iraq, they were pushed by the government you protect so passionately. Most importantly no weapons of any kind of destruction could ever be used by Iraq to attack the States.
You see, no matter how much the US hated the USSR, they never attacked the country because that would really be the end of it. Because both countries actually have WMDs. The simplest test for whether a country has WMDs is this: if the US is attacking the country, there are no WMDs there. It's that simple.
---
By the way, I am not going to 'root' for any country whatsoever ever, I'll leave that to you and such.
Didn't you promised to 'stop wasting time' on me? USA had moral ground in the WW2? What a joke. England was bombed since 39, USSR was invaded in 41, Germany was working on nuclear weapons and USA had moral high ground waiting well into the game until it was clear who was going to win while its corporations were making money selling equipment to the Germans (GE, IBM, Ford.......)
History lesson: the victory of Stalin over Trotsky in the politburo in the 20s WAS essentially the victory of "socialism in one country" ideals over "worldwide revolution" ideals. In that light, saying they switched to socialism in one country after Stalin died reads a little funny.
- except that you didn't read it in any of my posts. You are behaving like a good politician, not talking about the point that was made, but talking about a point you wish was made.
USSR being socialist at any point has nothing to do with my statement, which still holds correct. Post Stalinist Soviet Union did not attempt to gain new territories.
The examples given above are all missing this simple point. Stalin died in 53. Korean war started in 1950. Vietnam was started by the US and USSR sent about 3000 troupes there afterwords. Hungary, Czech were not new territory. Hungary had a revolution by the people and the party was removed, USSR did what amounted to a police action and eventually withdrew. Czech incident involved the government splitting in half and one half called in Soviet forces from Romania and Bulgaria I believe. Afghanistan was a similar situation, don't forget it borders 3 former Soviet republics. Having a war on the border is difficult enough, getting into the conflict when the government of the country is asking for it is sort of good politics.
Afghan war was the last for the former USSR, it helped to split the country, the USA may be awaiting a similar situation due to Iraq and the shape of economy.
Well, I am not Russian, don't live in Russia either, comrade (or should I call you something else, is it not the US that just decided to change its point of view on the socialism as it concerns the economy?)
Certainly North Korea attacked South Korea, not that it has anything to do with my argument. These events took place in 1950 and I am talking post-Stalinist era (after 53, for the specially gifted), but don't let that kind of trivia spoil your perfect view of the world.
My standards don't mean much, what is funny though, is that the US was apparently certain that it had the moral high ground. Certainly it made trillions on war, but it made trillions on war while successfully brainwashing its public that the war was for some sort of greater good.
Apparently nothing was learned in the latest wars either.
In both countries once the USSR stopped propping up the Communists they lost elections. So neither was really your territory in the first place. Same with Poland, the Communist governments only survived because people knew the Russians would invade if they were toppled. Omce that threat disappeared so did the government.
- this is obvious but it has nothing to do with the original statement that no new territories were occupied by the former USSR after Stalin died and that the anti-communist propaganda was widely used in the US to justify its military complex that made quite a profit for various corporations while brainwashing its own population to believe whatever was necessary.
How profitable was it for the USSR to dismantle East Germany factories and ship them back home. Or run Eastern Europe as a sort of neo empire for the good of the USSR?
- I suppose not more profitable than for another country to start a war just to make sure that the pork makes it to the home towns of the cities, where the war machinery is being manufactured. Not that other countries didn't take all the lute they could from the defeated Germany.
And the USSR was pushing propaganda at home telling it's people that the imperialists wanted to conquer the Soviet Union. What's your point?
- basically no difference except that the US was doing this to make money, not only to keep their own people in check.
Now you've just lost any shred of creditability that you might have had. Most of the World (including France and Germany) thought Saddam had WMDs. You can argue whether or not it was necessary to take those WMDs away from him but saying that the US Government knew he didn't have any is an outright lie.
- not a lie. That was my position 7 years ago, it is still my position. Iraq had no WMDs that it could use against the US and that became clear especially when the US attacked that country. If I had WMDs and some maniacs attacked me, I would certainly use them.
The US has lost all of its credibility with the world after it attacked Iraq on the false pretenses. I bet that credibility is much more important to a country than to any individual.
The only person I think who is being played is the person that has is willing to excuse aggression and conquest on the part of the USSR while simultaneously condemning the United States. If you were interested in having an honest dialog about history you wouldn't be so willing to whitewash crimes committed by nations not called the United States. It seems to me that you are more interested in spreading your anti-Americanism than you are in having a dialog so I don't really see any point to wasting anymore time on you.
- please, don't waste your time on me. Thank you.
I get it when a country wants to push its interests around the world and if the country succeeds, well, good for them. What is ridiculous is that notion that such interests can be pushed while maintaining some sort of a notion that this country has superior morality.
Morality of pushing one's military agenda is not superior, while it might be a good tactic for a while, strategically speaking it is bound to become a problem in the long term. Iraq is just a proof of this.
Why are you excusing the USSR's history of aggression because they haven't "added any new territories" while condemning the United States as the "main aggressor"? What new territories has the United States added to it's borders?
- I am not pro Soviet nor am I pro American.
My entire point is that the USA used anti-USSR propaganda to make more money in the wars that were basically approved by the US population. The USSR was actually trying to survive in a newest type of planned economy, while USA was really doing well in the newest type of planned war economy.
It does matter. The USA was pushing propaganda at home that the USSR is going to attack Americans because the USSR cared to change American way of life based on some ideals. Well that's hogwash. USA made trillions in the past 60 years on war and that was the main cause to maintain this propaganda.
This is the same BS that is being forced fed to the American citizens after 9/11. Same exact propaganda provided the US government with necessary domestic support to attack Iraq. The government of the US knew full well that Iraq was not a danger, had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs to speak of that could be of any danger. But it was extremely profitable for various corporate players to be in that war anyway, so there you go. That is why it is important to understand when you are being played.
By the way, you should really read more about the Afghanistan conflict before spewing out bullshit. I already answered that question anyway.
All of the other examples that you cited have no legs to stand on. USSR didn't attack any of those countries but it was trying promote pro socialist governments, that is correct. It was giving out cash. Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Bolivia etc., there was no fighting between forces of those countries and the Soviet forces. Which cannot be said about forces of those countries and the USA military.
Manufacturing in this case all came from the USA, it manufactured something for its citizens to be scared of and acted militarily.
No, they were not new conquests and they are not exception from the rule, the USSR was not attempting to gain new territory, it had problems holding on to existing already.
I think I replied to this here quite sufficiently. To reiterate in both cases there was an attempt to remove the EXISTING government, which was certainly pro Soviet (part of the post war Eastern block). In both cases the USSR had done sort of a police action and it was not about new territory, it was really about holding out their existing influence.
The difference between the two was that in case of Hungary it was the people who decided to remove the existing government and they succeeded at the end too. In Czech republic there was a divide in the government itself, while a part of it decided to redefine what the party line was, the other half actually loyal to the USSR called the Soviets for help. Again, no new territory was on the table.
Korea 1950 - Stalin died in 1953, reread my previous statement.
Hungary 1956 - It is very convenient to forget that this was followed by a revolution against the Communist government of the country at the time. Again, this was not a new territory as such, this was protection of the existing territory. Revolution succeeded of course and the Soviets withdrew and a new government was established. Saying that this was an attempt to gain new territory is disingenuous at best.
Vietname 1965 - pull your head out of the gutter. The USSR sent a few thousand troops to Vietnam but it was exactly after the US attacked the country. Was this an attempt to 'gain new territory' or are you full of shit?
Israel 1967 - isn't this exactly the same what the USA did with Saddam Hussein? Israel was getting their hands on nuclear weapons (and what, the US didn't have anything to do with it?) The USSR was in bed with some Arab countries, no doubt about it, so it prior to the 6 day war Soviet planes bombed nuclear reactor in Dimona. Weapons of Mass Destruction anyone?
Czechoslovakia 1968 - oh yes, I remember, 'socialism with a human face'. This story is somewhat similar to the Hungarian story, only in this case it wasn't 'the people' driving a revolution against a government. This was a case of a government reformist weakening the communist party line from the inside. In this case there was actually a request by a number of party members in Czech government to use force.
Afghanistan 1979 - maybe the government of that country should have taken care of their mujaheddin by themselves, without requesting the USSR to intervene multiple times. Maybe the drugs and people should not have moved between Afghanistan and the 3 soviet republics. Who knows what it is, in any case this was not an attempt to gain more territory, however what country would resist getting more buffer zone for themselves and establishing a friendly regime nearby especially after convenient requests by the government of the country.
In any case, it is still correct that the USSR has not attempted any new territories after Stalin died, the and that the USA is still the main aggressor for the past 60 years.
But you are just confirming my statement. After the death of Stalin there was no new conquests, no new territories. Afghanistan was an attempt at showing off, also an attempt to stop the inflow of drugs into the 3 USSR republics bordering it. The same cannot be said about the USA that was and still is in constant state of war. USA was and is the main international aggressor for the past 60 years, whether the US people understand this or not, they should try and look at their own country the way the rest of the world sees it from the outside.
Afghanistan was a problem on its own, it borders 3 former soviet republics (tajikistan, uzbekistan and turkmenistan). Drugs were flowing over the border into the country, that was one of the problems.
However understand that US policy in Vietnam, Korea, Africa, Europe did not allow the USSR to sit idly and do nothing. The US of A was seeing as an aggressor from point of view of the USSR. Maybe to the people in the US it looked different, but from the outside it looked like the US is taking over. American bases were set up all around the Soviet Union, it had to create more buffer zone and also it had to show itself off as someone also capable of running a war.
The US continues the same BS right now, with the 'rocket shield' being installed around Russia, obviously this is seeing as just another act of aggression, and actually it is.
Those nuclear bombs stationed outside US borders (and the US nuclear stockpile in general) were probably the only thing keeping the Soviets from rolling their tanks all the way to Paris. And if you think US imperialism is bad, try living under the Soviet version.
- you may believe this, but this is just a bunch of propaganda that was pushed into the throats of the US citizens to make sure they shut the fuck up and only cheer as the US pushed their weaponry into every possible hole in the world.
Stalin was a maniac, that can be said with certainty, however after his death the USSR quickly got away from the idea of 'spreading the communism' onto the rest of the world and just tried to survive in its own planned economy. It was already the biggest country in the world (even now Russia is almost twice as large as the next contender, Canada) and holding onto that territory with hundreds of nations living on it was a challenge in itself, adding more territory with people who had completely different mentality would not work and it was understood.
Slashdot Mirror
you are mistaken, the GP did not generalize about all politicians, he merely stated that he had never seen a politician who kept his promise.
I have seen some politicians who kept some promises but this happens very rarely.
one can also say that peak oil happened when Saudi Arabian reserves were discovered, because since then there was never a discovery that big, all discoveries were much smaller in size. We will not find another reserve that big and this can be also counted as peak of oil, peak of oil discovery. The major discovery of oil in SA happened in the seventies.
When it concerns Newton, he has created a duality. I mean the guy believed in alchemy too, doesn't make alchemy a science, same with the rest of them. They have to suspend their intelligence when it comes to religion.
It's amazing, you managed to go a whole post without making any comment relevant to my post.
- you are just not seeing it. What possibly could Christians, Muslims or Taoists say about atheists? That atheists are not thinking for themselves or that they are bullshitters? That would be one retarded argument :)
There are intelligent, well informed people of every mainstream religion, yet in the eyes of the GP it is ok to sledge them as being irrational, stupid and self-delusional.
- if truly intelligent and well informed people chose to follow some faith in invisible gods, zombies and such, then these people are either uneducated (even though they believe themselves to be well informed) or these people are self-delusional.
Why, is it impossible to be self-delusional while still being intelligent and even well informed? Even some intelligent and well informed people sometimes chose to believe irrational things. In a very peculiar manner they just turn off that intelligence where it concerns those blind believes.
Besides, as long as deluding oneself does not actually cause any physical damage to a person, then it doesn't really matter that much.
If a religious person came on here and made the same comments about another religion or atheism then they would be rightly modded flamebait. Yet the moderators appear to have modded the GP insightful because he shares their irrational stereotyping of religious people.
- when one religious person starts making comments about religion of another person it can lead to very interesting outcomes.
Atheism is not a movement or a coherent organization of any kind. It is absence of any faiths or believes based on religious ideas.
(Of-course people being people can turn everything on its head, so people who are likely to have religious believes in the first place, can be turned into people who are just as anti-religion as they would be pro-religion. It depends on who has worked on their brain-washing last. These are not generally speaking extremely thoughtful people, they are easily lead. Some of these people are the kind who would sacrifice themselves in the name of a religion. They can be turned into the craziest revolutionaries who will actually kill the religious with fanaticism that is normally reserved for the religious. But this only proves that some people are predisposed for having faith one way or another).
Of-course I don't count such people as actually atheists, it's just that their religion was renamed really. Atheists like me usually do not conflict with the faithful, but sometimes it is just the thing to do to have a laugh. Yes, I do think that in order to be religious a person has to be either of lower education (not necessarily of lower intelligence, lower education is enough) or that the person has to cheat to him/herself and create a duality within themselves and refuse their intelligence/education to be involved much when it concerns their religion. As long as it doesn't hurt their chances of procreation (I worked in the Evolution into this) it won't do much harm.
Good night.
dude, you don't get it, do you? While you are arguing about merits of ideas and such and you think that on the other side there is also some thought process going on beyond simple trolling, you are actually being trolled. Blatantly trolled by a very long time, quasi-professional troll, and you just don't get it.
atheists don't believe in any good without proof, but except for that fact and probably better education on average, there probably will be less common grounds between any set of atheists then between people within any religion.
Saw Bill Maher show a few days ago, I liked this comment on US Republicans who are financially below average and are against government ran health care:
(from memory, so not exact comment)
...Like those Republicans with not even basic health insurance, those who have only a couple of good teeth left... 'It's like their brains are damaged and they need to have their heads checked. Only they don't have health insurance and so they can't afford to have their heads checked.
Same here, many people don't realize how basically dumb they are, because if they realized it and tried to do something about it, that would be the proof that they are not that dumb after all.
--
(note, that I am not pro state ran health care, I am for a dual system)
Once again your "knowledge" of history proves to be highly entertaining. The German nuclear program never really got off the ground and was never taken seriously by the German leadership. Granted, the West didn't know this at the time, which led to Einstein's letter and the launch of the Manhattan Project.
- you are highly entertaining indeed. Somehow the Germans with all their accomplishments in war technology should not have been taken seriously, while who else but Saddam Hussein must be stopped because he is working on such incredible projects as moving pipes around that could possibly be used for ... nukelar weapons.
Oh, noes, by god, the poor US of A has a small army that can only be used once it becomes crystal clear that they just might be late into the world dividing party.
I am not convinced.
You are still wasting time on this discussion, how quaint.
I like the false equivalence here -- because the United States is interested in making money our actions are somehow worse than those of a regime that was interested in retaining territory and spreading it's ideology. If you were being objective you might be able to make the case that both sides were wrong -- but you go out of your way to dismiss the crimes of the USSR while condemning the United States. You could at least pretend to be looking at history objectively instead of looking for examples that reinforce your pre-convinced view of the world.
- well that's my point, USSR wasn't after any new territories once Stalin was gone, they were trying to survive while Americans found that WAR is extremely profitable and were interested in having at least one going on anywhere at any time. Americans have brainwashed its population to believe that they have some sort of moral superiority and this is laughable, there is no morality in making money through killing.
I am not discussing USSR here, because there are no Soviets involved in this discussion.
Amazing how we can say that with full benefit of hindsight. At the time the war was started most western nations (including those that opposed the war) and the UN thought it likely that he had WMDs. You can argue about the merits of going to war based on that perceived threat (for the record, I opposed the war) but trying to say that we knew he had no WMDs is just factually incorrect.
- my position stays the same as it was for the past 7 years, however you should get your head out of that sand. Bush and Co have manufactured the entire WMD premise, selling it quite nicely to the US citizens, but it didn't work at all for The Rest of The World (tm).
This is just too easy
We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26030573/
You are one of the brainwashed individuals if you truly believe that American government did not manufacture a pretense to go to Iraq to make money for various corporate interests. The intelligence that you are talking about was not able to find any evidence of any secret weapons programs in Iraq, they were pushed by the government you protect so passionately. Most importantly no weapons of any kind of destruction could ever be used by Iraq to attack the States.
You see, no matter how much the US hated the USSR, they never attacked the country because that would really be the end of it. Because both countries actually have WMDs. The simplest test for whether a country has WMDs is this: if the US is attacking the country, there are no WMDs there. It's that simple.
---
By the way, I am not going to 'root' for any country whatsoever ever, I'll leave that to you and such.
Didn't you promised to 'stop wasting time' on me? USA had moral ground in the WW2? What a joke. England was bombed since 39, USSR was invaded in 41, Germany was working on nuclear weapons and USA had moral high ground waiting well into the game until it was clear who was going to win while its corporations were making money selling equipment to the Germans (GE, IBM, Ford.......)
Whatever.
History lesson: the victory of Stalin over Trotsky in the politburo in the 20s WAS essentially the victory of "socialism in one country" ideals over "worldwide revolution" ideals. In that light, saying they switched to socialism in one country after Stalin died reads a little funny.
- except that you didn't read it in any of my posts. You are behaving like a good politician, not talking about the point that was made, but talking about a point you wish was made.
USSR being socialist at any point has nothing to do with my statement, which still holds correct. Post Stalinist Soviet Union did not attempt to gain new territories.
The examples given above are all missing this simple point. Stalin died in 53. Korean war started in 1950. Vietnam was started by the US and USSR sent about 3000 troupes there afterwords. Hungary, Czech were not new territory. Hungary had a revolution by the people and the party was removed, USSR did what amounted to a police action and eventually withdrew. Czech incident involved the government splitting in half and one half called in Soviet forces from Romania and Bulgaria I believe. Afghanistan was a similar situation, don't forget it borders 3 former Soviet republics. Having a war on the border is difficult enough, getting into the conflict when the government of the country is asking for it is sort of good politics.
Afghan war was the last for the former USSR, it helped to split the country, the USA may be awaiting a similar situation due to Iraq and the shape of economy.
Well, I am not Russian, don't live in Russia either, comrade (or should I call you something else, is it not the US that just decided to change its point of view on the socialism as it concerns the economy?)
Certainly North Korea attacked South Korea, not that it has anything to do with my argument. These events took place in 1950 and I am talking post-Stalinist era (after 53, for the specially gifted), but don't let that kind of trivia spoil your perfect view of the world.
My standards don't mean much, what is funny though, is that the US was apparently certain that it had the moral high ground. Certainly it made trillions on war, but it made trillions on war while successfully brainwashing its public that the war was for some sort of greater good.
Apparently nothing was learned in the latest wars either.
In both countries once the USSR stopped propping up the Communists they lost elections. So neither was really your territory in the first place. Same with Poland, the Communist governments only survived because people knew the Russians would invade if they were toppled. Omce that threat disappeared so did the government.
- this is obvious but it has nothing to do with the original statement that no new territories were occupied by the former USSR after Stalin died and that the anti-communist propaganda was widely used in the US to justify its military complex that made quite a profit for various corporations while brainwashing its own population to believe whatever was necessary.
How profitable was it for the USSR to dismantle East Germany factories and ship them back home. Or run Eastern Europe as a sort of neo empire for the good of the USSR?
- I suppose not more profitable than for another country to start a war just to make sure that the pork makes it to the home towns of the cities, where the war machinery is being manufactured. Not that other countries didn't take all the lute they could from the defeated Germany.
And the USSR was pushing propaganda at home telling it's people that the imperialists wanted to conquer the Soviet Union. What's your point?
- basically no difference except that the US was doing this to make money, not only to keep their own people in check.
Now you've just lost any shred of creditability that you might have had. Most of the World (including France and Germany) thought Saddam had WMDs. You can argue whether or not it was necessary to take those WMDs away from him but saying that the US Government knew he didn't have any is an outright lie.
- not a lie. That was my position 7 years ago, it is still my position. Iraq had no WMDs that it could use against the US and that became clear especially when the US attacked that country. If I had WMDs and some maniacs attacked me, I would certainly use them.
The US has lost all of its credibility with the world after it attacked Iraq on the false pretenses. I bet that credibility is much more important to a country than to any individual.
The only person I think who is being played is the person that has is willing to excuse aggression and conquest on the part of the USSR while simultaneously condemning the United States. If you were interested in having an honest dialog about history you wouldn't be so willing to whitewash crimes committed by nations not called the United States. It seems to me that you are more interested in spreading your anti-Americanism than you are in having a dialog so I don't really see any point to wasting anymore time on you.
- please, don't waste your time on me. Thank you.
I get it when a country wants to push its interests around the world and if the country succeeds, well, good for them. What is ridiculous is that notion that such interests can be pushed while maintaining some sort of a notion that this country has superior morality.
Morality of pushing one's military agenda is not superior, while it might be a good tactic for a while, strategically speaking it is bound to become a problem in the long term. Iraq is just a proof of this.
Why are you excusing the USSR's history of aggression because they haven't "added any new territories" while condemning the United States as the "main aggressor"? What new territories has the United States added to it's borders?
- I am not pro Soviet nor am I pro American.
My entire point is that the USA used anti-USSR propaganda to make more money in the wars that were basically approved by the US population. The USSR was actually trying to survive in a newest type of planned economy, while USA was really doing well in the newest type of planned war economy.
It does matter. The USA was pushing propaganda at home that the USSR is going to attack Americans because the USSR cared to change American way of life based on some ideals. Well that's hogwash. USA made trillions in the past 60 years on war and that was the main cause to maintain this propaganda.
This is the same BS that is being forced fed to the American citizens after 9/11. Same exact propaganda provided the US government with necessary domestic support to attack Iraq. The government of the US knew full well that Iraq was not a danger, had nothing to do with 9/11 and had no WMDs to speak of that could be of any danger. But it was extremely profitable for various corporate players to be in that war anyway, so there you go. That is why it is important to understand when you are being played.
By the way, you should really read more about the Afghanistan conflict before spewing out bullshit. I already answered that question anyway.
All of the other examples that you cited have no legs to stand on. USSR didn't attack any of those countries but it was trying promote pro socialist governments, that is correct. It was giving out cash. Cuba, Nicaragua, Chile, Bolivia etc., there was no fighting between forces of those countries and the Soviet forces. Which cannot be said about forces of those countries and the USA military.
Manufacturing in this case all came from the USA, it manufactured something for its citizens to be scared of and acted militarily.
No, they were not new conquests and they are not exception from the rule, the USSR was not attempting to gain new territory, it had problems holding on to existing already.
I think I replied to this here quite sufficiently. To reiterate in both cases there was an attempt to remove the EXISTING government, which was certainly pro Soviet (part of the post war Eastern block). In both cases the USSR had done sort of a police action and it was not about new territory, it was really about holding out their existing influence.
The difference between the two was that in case of Hungary it was the people who decided to remove the existing government and they succeeded at the end too. In Czech republic there was a divide in the government itself, while a part of it decided to redefine what the party line was, the other half actually loyal to the USSR called the Soviets for help. Again, no new territory was on the table.
Korea 1950 - Stalin died in 1953, reread my previous statement.
Hungary 1956 - It is very convenient to forget that this was followed by a revolution against the Communist government of the country at the time. Again, this was not a new territory as such, this was protection of the existing territory. Revolution succeeded of course and the Soviets withdrew and a new government was established. Saying that this was an attempt to gain new territory is disingenuous at best.
Vietname 1965 - pull your head out of the gutter. The USSR sent a few thousand troops to Vietnam but it was exactly after the US attacked the country. Was this an attempt to 'gain new territory' or are you full of shit?
Israel 1967 - isn't this exactly the same what the USA did with Saddam Hussein? Israel was getting their hands on nuclear weapons (and what, the US didn't have anything to do with it?) The USSR was in bed with some Arab countries, no doubt about it, so it prior to the 6 day war Soviet planes bombed nuclear reactor in Dimona. Weapons of Mass Destruction anyone?
Czechoslovakia 1968 - oh yes, I remember, 'socialism with a human face'. This story is somewhat similar to the Hungarian story, only in this case it wasn't 'the people' driving a revolution against a government. This was a case of a government reformist weakening the communist party line from the inside. In this case there was actually a request by a number of party members in Czech government to use force.
Afghanistan 1979 - maybe the government of that country should have taken care of their mujaheddin by themselves, without requesting the USSR to intervene multiple times. Maybe the drugs and people should not have moved between Afghanistan and the 3 soviet republics. Who knows what it is, in any case this was not an attempt to gain more territory, however what country would resist getting more buffer zone for themselves and establishing a friendly regime nearby especially after convenient requests by the government of the country.
In any case, it is still correct that the USSR has not attempted any new territories after Stalin died, the and that the USA is still the main aggressor for the past 60 years.
But you are just confirming my statement. After the death of Stalin there was no new conquests, no new territories. Afghanistan was an attempt at showing off, also an attempt to stop the inflow of drugs into the 3 USSR republics bordering it. The same cannot be said about the USA that was and still is in constant state of war. USA was and is the main international aggressor for the past 60 years, whether the US people understand this or not, they should try and look at their own country the way the rest of the world sees it from the outside.
Afghanistan was a problem on its own, it borders 3 former soviet republics (tajikistan, uzbekistan and turkmenistan). Drugs were flowing over the border into the country, that was one of the problems.
However understand that US policy in Vietnam, Korea, Africa, Europe did not allow the USSR to sit idly and do nothing. The US of A was seeing as an aggressor from point of view of the USSR. Maybe to the people in the US it looked different, but from the outside it looked like the US is taking over. American bases were set up all around the Soviet Union, it had to create more buffer zone and also it had to show itself off as someone also capable of running a war.
The US continues the same BS right now, with the 'rocket shield' being installed around Russia, obviously this is seeing as just another act of aggression, and actually it is.
Those nuclear bombs stationed outside US borders (and the US nuclear stockpile in general) were probably the only thing keeping the Soviets from rolling their tanks all the way to Paris. And if you think US imperialism is bad, try living under the Soviet version.
- you may believe this, but this is just a bunch of propaganda that was pushed into the throats of the US citizens to make sure they shut the fuck up and only cheer as the US pushed their weaponry into every possible hole in the world.
Stalin was a maniac, that can be said with certainty, however after his death the USSR quickly got away from the idea of 'spreading the communism' onto the rest of the world and just tried to survive in its own planned economy. It was already the biggest country in the world (even now Russia is almost twice as large as the next contender, Canada) and holding onto that territory with hundreds of nations living on it was a challenge in itself, adding more territory with people who had completely different mentality would not work and it was understood.