Russia to target cities with nuclear missiles again

Andrew Jackson and General Winfield Scott had their share of blood on their hands as well as the Bush1/Clinton/Bush2 Iraq saga. Stalin was a monster, no doubt. But that didn't mean all of their successive leaders were (anymore than what's usual for leaders). But for you to say I'm apologising is the height of childish reasoning. We were talking about what Kruschev said and I stated that the Cold War was more ballyhoo, propaganda and was keading towards it was a way for some people to get rich off of the military when that money could have been better spent or saved.


You seem to be ignoring the fact that the soviet expanded across most of europe killing millions more in the process. They demonstrated very clearly that their intention was to take over the entire world. The only reason they never tried for us or our allies is because of the military might we wielded. To believe for a moment that anything but our military kept them from attacking us or our allies is very naive indeed.
 
Werbung:
You seem to be ignoring the fact that the soviet expanded across most of europe killing millions more in the process. They demonstrated very clearly that their intention was to take over the entire world. The only reason they never tried for us or our allies is because of the military might we wielded. To believe for a moment that anything but our military kept them from attacking us or our allies is very naive indeed.

They purposefully formed a land buffer after suffering enormous losses during both World Wars.
 
Those bloody Soviets

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the soviet expanded across most of europe killing millions more in the process. They demonstrated very clearly that their intention was to take over the entire world.

Whoa! Soviets never dropped nuclear bombs on an innocent civilians. Soviets never had such amount of military bases around the Globe like the USA had.
So, who has an intention to take over the entire world?:)
 
Whoa! Soviets never dropped nuclear bombs on an innocent civilians.

They were too busy killing their own civilians:

It is believed that with the purges, forced famines, state terrorism, labor camps, and forced migrations, Stalin was responsible for the death of as many as 40 million people within the borders of the Soviet Union.

At least we had a legitimate reason for bombing Japan.

So, who has an intention to take over the entire world?

How many slave states does America have? The Soviets had many.
 
They were too busy killing their own civilians
Most historians agree today that the good Mr. Stalin was responsible for more civilian deaths than Hitler.


At least we had a legitimate reason for bombing Japan.
Funny story: My grandfather actually worked on the Manhattan Project.


How many slave states does America have? The Soviets had many.

Have? Not all that many. Had? There were a few.
 
Where are they now? Were they nations we invaded after WW2?

No, they were nations that we used money to support unpopular dictators in.

South Vietnam, Iran, Cuba, Nicaragua (although they never really benefited us with anything)...

I'd call propping up a dictator that the people of the country despised as keeping a slave state. The language is a bit harsh but there it is.
 
No, they were nations that we used money to support unpopular dictators in.

That is not the same thing as a slave state. We did not exercise direct control.

I'd call propping up a dictator that the people of the country despised as keeping a slave state.

I do not agree with your definition. I think it is too broad. "Propping up" is also a bit vague.
 
That is not the same thing as a slave state. We did not exercise direct control.

Are we talking Russia using the rest of the republics in the Soviet Union as slave states or the Soviet Union using the Warsaw Pact as a group of slave states? There's a big difference. I was comparing the Soviet Union's treatment of the other Warsaw Pact nations to how we treated certain dictatorships, but Russia's treatment of the rest of the USSR went way beyond anything we ever did. In that respect you're absolutely right - we've never had "slave states" in quite the way the Russians had the Ukraine and Belarus, just for example.
 
Are we talking Russia using the rest of the republics in the Soviet Union as slave states or the Soviet Union using the Warsaw Pact as a group of slave states?

Both. The Soviets directly imposed their will on other nations to their personal benefit.

I was comparing the Soviet Union's treatment of the other Warsaw Pact nations to how we treated certain dictatorships
There was no real distinction between the Warsaw pact nations and the Soviet government. One operated as an arm of the other. That is what made them slave states...they had no option. The Soviets directly controlled the products of their labor.

By contrast, even in situations such as Saddam's Iraq, we only provided him with weapons...and as the Gulf War made obvious, he was not directly controlled by us. And the same is true of every other dictator and oligarchy we have backed.

I am not arguing that such backing was not wrong, just that it did not make those nations slave states.
 
Really? Japanese bombed a Naval base while you bombed two cities, filled by civilians.

We were defending ourselves. That is not true of the Japanese who bombed our naval base.

The initiative was their's. They could have avoided being nuked by surrendering, or by simply not attacking us in the first place. They had a choice. We did not.

What is your definition of a "slave state"?

I have already given it. Please pay attention.

Sadistic Savior said:
There was no real distinction between the Warsaw pact nations and the Soviet government. One operated as an arm of the other. That is what made them slave states...they had no option. The Soviets directly controlled the products of their labor.

By contrast, even in situations such as Saddam's Iraq, we only provided him with weapons...and as the Gulf War made obvious, he was not directly controlled by us. And the same is true of every other dictator and oligarchy we have backed.
 
No. He was saying that he would bury us. And his predecesors didn't change the rhetoric much. Sorry the soviet didn't work out for you but apologizing for them is right up there with apologizing for islam. They killed 30 million of thier own and would have done the same for us if they thought for a minute that they could have won.

thats it twist it around to something it isnt always the same with you. why is that?
 
Werbung:
I read Putin's speech. If anybody can find the part where he says he's going to aim missiles at European targets, i'd like to see it. Here are a few excerpts from his speech.

Putin:

“Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves---wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. More are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasise this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.”
 
Back
Top