Events in Syria and Iraq Thread #2

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Yazata, Feb 11, 2016.

  1. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    A military budget roughly 50% of the whole world, despite having no borders with states which are likely to attack it.

    First of all, they had not that many bombs, then, it was yet hard to deliver them to Moscow. Yes, they have developed plans for this, but decided to wait until their superiority is greater. So they missed this chance to become the world ruler.
    No. Civil towns are legitimate war targets only in distorted American morals. The question is not if it was legal, but that it was amoral in the extreme. As amoral as the Nazi gas chambers (which were also legal in the same sense). If America would have lost the war, nobody would have objected if those who have decided about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as about bombing many other towns in the hinterland targeting civilian population, would have received a death penalty in some analog of the Nürnberger Prozess.
    An old lie. Japan has offered surrender on essentially the same conditions before. The US simply wanted to demonstrate the world their new great ability to murder.
    I have. Because they want the world rule.
    The US is there. And the explanation has been given. To rule the world, you have to kill all those who could be able to resist. Afghanistan is unable to resist. Russia is.
    It helps others to defend themselves. Against US-paid and supported aggression.
    Of course, the aggressor always finds a pretense. Nobody attacks the US, because it makes no sense, there is no common border, except for Mexico (Kanada does not count for obvious reasons) . Of course, American soldiers, who control around the whole world the American colonial system, will be attacked from time to time - but this is natural self-defense against the American slaveholders.
    No doubt. And irrelevant, because Russia does not want to start a war. All they want to have is sufficient power to deter a US aggression. And this is much cheaper.
    It has not started the Chechen war, but finished it. It has not started the South Ossetian war, but finished it. It has not started the war in Donbass, but enforced at least a ceasefire. It has not started the Syrian war. We will see what happens there.
    Oh, you count as Russian wars what have been Soviet wars? The time when the Russian territory was controlled by clearly and openly anti-Russian gang, ruled by the Western ideology of Marxism, fighting Russian religion, ruled by Georgian and Ukrainian thugs?
    I could not care less what people like you believe. Russia is simply showing what one could do given the Russian military budget. Even in a state with a lot of corruption in general.

    The US military-industrial complex is something very special, different from other domains. It is the most socialist part of the US, with the government as the main if not only customer, almost a Soviet style planned economy. The Soviets have lost the Cold War because they have used the same deadly scheme everywhere. The West has, instead, left something remembering free markets, which is much more efficient, in other parts of the economy.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Well that's more that a bit disingenuous, isn't it? The US economy is the largest economy in the world. The US has extensive trade relationships throughout the world and in support of those trade relationships the US has an extensive number of mutual defense agreements. As you well know, an attack on any one of those countries is an attack on the Untied States. As you well know, if your beloved Mother Russia should attack a NATO member country, the US would be required to defend that country. Unlike your beloved Mother Russia the US has extensive defense agreements and commitments which far exceed its borders.

    Additionally, but not surprisingly your numbers are screwed up. US defense spending accounts for 35% of global defense spending.

    And Mother Russia doesn't have that many major cities. The US didn't need many nuclear bombs. The unfortunate fact for you comrade is the US sufficient conventional weapons and men to defeat your beloved Mother Russia. The US didn't need nuclear weapons to defeat the Russian (i.e. Soviet) army. Additionally, the US was producing 2 nuclear weapons a month at the time. Your comrades were producing none. That was more than sufficient, as I said before, there weren't that many targets in Mother Russia. Your beloved Mother Russia has lost 24 million people in the war. The US only lost 418,000 people. And whither you want to believe it or not, the US had the ability to deliver nuclear weapons to targets, including nuclear weapons, inside your beloved Mother Russia through its long ranger bombers. Japan isn't exactly next door the the continental United States. It's on the other side of the world. American bombers at the time had a range of more than 2.6 thousand miles, that's more than enough range to travel the 1,000 miles from Germany to Moscow. So yet again, your "facts" are wrong comrade.

    Oh, then why did your beloved Mother Russia attack civilian towns? Mother Russia (i.e. Soviet Union) killed tens of thousands of civilians when it attacked Berlin. The facts is comrade, that every sided attacked "civilian" towns, including your beloved Mother Russia. The fact is Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets. Those cities were integral to the Japanese Imperial Army. They produced military hardware, thereby making them legitimate military targets. And the unfortunate fact for you, is the nuclear attacks saved millions of Japanese and American lives by averting the need for a land invasion and bringing about a quick end to the war.

    Oh, well then you should be able to prove it. But as with everything else with you, you can't. Because once again it isn't true.

    You have no evidence the US "want to rule the world" as you have repeatedly alleged...none. In fact, your allegation runs contrary to history. The countries the US reconstructed after WWII are free and independent countries who often disagree with the US (e.g. France). Whereas countries reconstructed by your beloved Mother Russia were enslaved to Mother Russia. Mother Russia had to build walls to keep people from fleeing to the West. You are being dishonest or projecting your insecurities and fallibility onto the US.

    So when Mother Russia invades and annexes the lands of its neighbors, as it has repeatedly done, it is helping them defend themselves? LOL....that's what Hitler said when he invaded, occupied and annexed the lands of his neighbors. And as usual, you have absolutely no evidence of US paid and supported aggression. The fact is your beloved Mother Putina has repeatedly lied about his invasions of neighboring states.

    LOL...well so no one attacks the US, but they do occasionally attack the US? You don't see the contradiction? The US has never been a colonial power. It didn't need to be. It didn't want to be, it was too busy developing itself. The US didn't have to go overseas for new lands. It had millions of square miles of undeveloped lands. The US began as a European colony. Various parts of the US were colonies of the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Russia.

    I have repeatedly asked you why the US would want to invade your beloved Mother Russia and you haven't given a cogent answer. Just saying the US wants to rule the world without any supporting evidence isn't enough. You may as well say there are little green men running around naked on Mars, you would have as much evidence to support that assertion as you do with your claims the US desires to rule the world.

    Unfortunately for you and your Russian fellows comrade, the world is not as dumb as you need them to be.

    Did it now? Well that's again another example of your historical revisionism. Mother Russia began the Chechen Wars when it invaded and annexed Chechnya. It ended the First Chechen War by being defeated and by signing a peace treaty. Your Mother Russia got her butt kicked even though she greatly outnumbered the Chechens. And the matter is still not settled. And here is the thing, your beloved Mother Russia slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent civilians, and it's not finished. This conflict has existed for more than a century.

    Well, that's not true either is it comrade.–present)

    Unfortunately for you comrade, the world isn't as dumb as you need it to be.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    And Mother Russia wasn't the Soviet Union? You are not being honest comrade. "Russian territory was controlled by clearly and openly by an anti-Rusisan gang"...seriously comrade, it sounds like you have been indulging in the vodka again.

    Was Imperial Tsarist Russia not Russia as well? The Russo-Japanese War in which Russia started and got its butt kicked occurred before the Soviet Union and while Mother Russia was ruled by a tsar. So was the tsar a part of the Western "anti-Russian gang" too? You are not being honest comrade.

    Well obviously you do care, else you would not spend so much time trying to convince people otherwise. So once again, you have been caught in a lie. Obviously, Mother Russia isn't trying to do anything benign. It has repeatedly illegally invaded, occupied and annexed the lands of its neighbors. There is absolutely nothing benign about Russian military spending. Russia isn't a bastion of productivity or efficiency as you should well know, because we have had that discussion.

    Your beloved Mother Russia is notoriously inefficient. As I said before, Mother Russia under Putina is repeating all the mistakes of the past. It has become a pariah state. It is under multinational economic sanctions for its illegal invasions, occupation and annexation of the lands of its neighbors. And the fact remains, Mother Russia cannot possibly compete militarily with the US. If Mother Russia had competent leadership, it would be spending its precious resources building its economy rather than building its military and invading its neighbors.

    And how does that make any kind of sense? It doesn't.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    The point of mutual defense agreements is, of course, that you do not have to spend more, but less on military. If the US would have to defend themself alone against, say, Mexico (no other potential enemy available), they would need more military spending, in comparison with the situation where they are united with all the NATO states.
    Learn the history of WW II. Don't forget that Russia had a good airforce at that time, the distances would have been much larger, thus, much more chances to shot them. Whatever, they have thought about it, they had plans, but they have not done it.
    The point of mutual defense agreements is, of course, that you do not have to spend more, but less on military. If the US would have to defend themself alone against, say, Mexico (no other potential enemy available), they would need more military spending, in comparison with the situation where they are united with all the NATO states.
    You know that there is a difference between fighting in a town, to control it, and bombing towns far in the hinterland with the only purpose to destroy them?
    Noone attacks the US territory. But of course the Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans and other attacked people have a right of self-defense. Attacking occupation forces is part of this right of self-defense.
    But, nonetheless, their troops are almost everywhere. Which is what one needs if one wants to rule the world.
    That was the first Chechen war, started by the US puppet Yeltsin and his oligarchs, including Chodorkowski beloved by the US now.

    The second one was started by the Chechens, and won by Putin.
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    It wasn't. Russia was only one of 15 states in the Soviet Union. And during the communist rule, the rulers have not been Russians. Lenin, Stalin, Chruschtschow, Breshnew - none of them was Russian. The Bolshevik elite troops were not Russian troops - they were predominantly on the side of the Whites - but the Latvian riflemen and the Chechs. Among the most famous chiefs of the secret police, Dsershinsky, Jadoga, Jezhow, Beria, only Jezhow was a Russian. claims something different:
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    No, that's not the point of mutual defense agreements. The reason why countries have mutual defense agreements is to promote peace and prevent people like Putin from attacking you and stealing your lands as Putin has done.

    LOL...that's funny coming from you comrade. Contrary to your assertion and unlike your beloved Mother Russia, the US had long-range bombers that could have bombed Moscow after WWII. How do you think the US bombed Berlin and Japan if not with its long range bombers. Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had air forces too. It didn't stop the US from bombing Nazi Germany and Tokyo. The first bombing of Tokyo with American bombers occurred just days after Japan first attacked the US at Pearl Harbor.

    The fact is that is all nonsense, and endlessly repeating that isn't going to make it any less nonsensical.

    That doesn't make the US a colonial power as you have alleged. US troops are everywhere because many countries want a US troop presence in order to keep peace and prevent predator dictators like your beloved Putina from invading them.

    Yes, you have excuses. But the fact remains, contrary to your assertion, your beloved Mother Russia does start wars and often times it doesn't finish them. You were given many examples as evidence.
  10. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Well that isn't exactly true it is? Lenin's ethnicity is unknown. It is believed he was Russian. Stalin was born in Georgia but Georgia was a part of the Russian Empire at that time. Chruschtschow (i.e. Khrushchev) was a native born Russian. You are once again not being honest comrade.
  11. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    It is at least a usual consequence. If you have such agreements, you can spend much less for military. And reasonable, civilized, peaceful states would spend less with such agreements.

    After these airforces have been destroyed.

    But, of course, you have a point, the Soviet Union did not have long range bombers like the US and GB to bomb peaceful cities in the hinterland. It was simply not their aim to bomb civilians.
  12. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    The point you keep evading is the reason why the US has an extensive network of military installations around the world. It's to keep the peace. It's because other nations have requested a US troop presence and entered into alliances with the United State.

    That too simply isn't true either. The US entered the war in December of 1941. Japan attacked the US on December 7, 1941. The US retaliated by bombing Tokyo in April of 1942, just a few months after the Pearl Harbor attack. Japan's air forces were virtually untouched. And the same was true in Europe when the US entered the war there.

    Your beloved Mother Russia didn't even have radar. They had to steal it from the British.

    If the US ever wanted to rule the world, it certainly had the opportunity to do so and it didn't.
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    This is what wannabe rulers always say: Let me control everything and there will be peace. In some sense, US would rule would be peace. Not forever, of course, only up to the point when the slaves no longer accept their slavery, and this point always comes.

    Maybe there was simply no Japanese airforce to be destroyed, I have never cared about Japan. With Germany, the fight in the air was a rather serious one, and bombing German cities started only after Germany has lost this fight.
    I doubt there was really such an opportunity. What is known is that they have made plans, but have not done it. So, it seems plausible that some - those who have proposed these plans - thought that they can win such a war, while others considered it to be too risky if not impossible.

    Another plausible theory is that they have simply thought that they have much more time, that the Russians will be unable to build an own nuclear bomb. And then it was too late, to attack a country which has own nuclear weapons they were afraid.
  14. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    I think you have been hitting the vodka a bit too hard comrade.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member



Share This Page