Putin Announces Assault

[Terrywoodenpic]

Just looking at the facts.

The assumption here is that, whenever a world power or leader decides to send troops into a sovereign country, it automatically means that they will invade other countries. Such an act should be considered evidence of a desire for world conquest.

In order to support such an assumption, you would have to provide evidence that such a thing has happened in every historical instance of a country sending troops into another country. That's why I mentioned Panama, because there was an instance of a country sending in troops which did not lead to world conquest.

Since you have not done so, then your assumptions about Putin could be totally false and off the mark.

Russia has already threatened to do so in recent years.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The combined forces of NATO would greatly outnumber and outgun the Russians. The assertion that "NATO is not a threat to Russia" is rooted in some apparent (yet naive and unsupported) belief that the governments of the US and/or UK are a bunch of nice guys who are scrupulously honest and would never hurt a flea.

I mean, if we're going to use a country's record as evidence against them, then let's at least be fair about it. The political alignments of their current governments would also be relevant. The current Russian government is relatively new, less than 30 years old, so they would not be required to answer for anything before that, nor would it be fair to hold them responsible for things that happened in their country before they came to power.

On the other hand, the US is the same government as we've always had. It's the same expansionist government (with the same flag) that enslaved African-Americans and committed genocide against Native Americans. In the UK, their government is even older than ours and even worse track record of cruelty and barbarism.

Of course, both governments now claim that they've turned over a new leaf and that they're just these great bunch of wonderful people who would never hurt anyone and that they support human rights (or at least their own bizarre interpretations of the concept).

I mean, if we're going to use a country's record as evidence of who holds the moral high ground, then at least we can be fair and honest about it.

Governments have changed in most countries in that time. That is a pointless argument. However Putin was chief of the secret police of the previous regime.

The west is highly unlikely to wage war in Russia it has proved impossible in the past for all who have tried it. The size and the winters have made it impossible.

The logistics make it impossible to wage land wars war against mainland Russia China or the USA.

 

[Stevicus]

Russia has already threatened to do so in recent years.

Threatened to do what?

 

[Stevicus]

Governments have changed in most countries in that time. That is a pointless argument. However Putin was chief of the secret police of the previous regime.

It depends on how you define "change." Merely voting for one candidate or party over another does not "change the government." It's still the same government.

Washington and Jefferson were slaveowners, yet still revered as America's Founding Fathers. They were also part of the same government that exists today.

You say it's a "pointless argument," but you advanced the very same argument when you said "Russia has a record of annexing..." in post #254. Were you indicting the country and its people, or a specific government when you said that?

The west is highly unlikely to wage war in Russia it has proved impossible in the past for all who have tried it. The size and the winters have made it impossible.

The logistics make it impossible to wage land wars war against mainland Russia China or the USA.

That hasn't stopped people from trying in the past. The Mongols managed to control Russia for a few hundred years and mainly collapsed due to internal squabbling and divisions. For all intents and purposes, the Germans defeated Russia in WW1 and possibly could have maintained a long-term occupation (which probably would have severely crippled the Bolshevik regime) if not for their defeat on the Western Front. Even in WW2, it appeared the Germans were winning rather handily, and one might speculate that it was only Hitler's stupidity at Stalingrad which wrecked their campaign, more so than the Russian winter.

 

[Kooky]

you clearly do not remember that Russia had moved nuclear capable missiles to Cuba. America had no fear of Cuba but very much so of Russian missiles in reach of American soil.

Cuba isn't American soil, it's Cuban soil. Further, not only was the US not at war with the USSR, the Warzaw Pact was a purely defensive alliance! So the US had nothing to fear from a Soviet ally, or Soviet military bases, right at its border.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Cuba isn't American soil, it's Cuban soil. Further, not only was the US not at war with the USSR, the Warzaw Pact was a purely defensive alliance! So the US had nothing to fear from a Soviet ally, or Soviet military bases, right at its border.

That is laughable. Perhaps you did not live though those times.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It depends on how you define "change." Merely voting for one candidate or party over another does not "change the government." It's still the same government.

Washington and Jefferson were slaveowners, yet still revered as America's Founding Fathers. They were also part of the same government that exists today.

You say it's a "pointless argument," but you advanced the very same argument when you said "Russia has a record of annexing..." in post #254. Were you indicting the country and its people, or a specific government when you said that?



That hasn't stopped people from trying in the past. The Mongols managed to control Russia for a few hundred years and mainly collapsed due to internal squabbling and divisions. For all intents and purposes, the Germans defeated Russia in WW1 and possibly could have maintained a long-term occupation (which probably would have severely crippled the Bolshevik regime) if not for their defeat on the Western Front. Even in WW2, it appeared the Germans were winning rather handily, and one might speculate that it was only Hitler's stupidity at Stalingrad which wrecked their campaign, more so than the Russian winter.

No point in trying to rewrite history. Some of us lived through those times.

 

[Stevicus]

Cuba isn't American soil, it's Cuban soil. Further, not only was the US not at war with the USSR, the Warzaw Pact was a purely defensive alliance! So the US had nothing to fear from a Soviet ally, or Soviet military bases, right at its border.

I would also add that part of the reason for Cuba to request aid from the Soviet Union was due to the US-backed Bay of Pigs invasion which failed miserably. US warmongers wanted us to invade Cuba outright, as our government and military took it upon themselves to act as "muscle" for the pimps who turned Cuba into a whorehouse. When Castro spoiled all their fun, they were quite angry at him and wanted to get rid of him. Where else could he go for help?

The US leadership somehow had a real personal grudge against Castro and Cuba, even more so than was apparent with other countries in the Soviet Bloc. Even as relations were warming during the Detente era, Cuba was still ostracized and considered a pariah by the US government. We could buy Stolichnaya Vodka, but we still couldn't legally possess Cuban cigars. They're still illegal today, although they're legal in Mexico.

 

[Stevicus]

No point in trying to rewrite history. Some of us lived through those times.

What times? Rewrite what history?

 

[Kooky]

That is laughable. Perhaps you did not live though those times.

Perhaps you are not realizing that America is not unique in its paranoia over perceived threats.

 

[Revoltingest]

Does anyone else here sense that some are trying
to justify or minimize the wrongfulness of Russia
invading former Soviet satellites by diverting attention
to sins of the Ameristanian government?

 

[Kooky]

Does anyone else here sense that some are trying
to justify or minimize the wrongfulness of Russia
invading former Soviet satellites by diverting attention
to sins of the Ameristanian government?

At some point in time, I am sure somebody will make the effort and explain to you the difference between "explaining" and "condoning" a course of action.

 

[Revoltingest]

At some point in time, I am sure somebody will make the effort and explain to you the difference between "explaining" and "condoning" a course of action.

"Explaining" can be a cover for "condoning",
ie, taking a position with plausible deniability.

You should have some sympathy for Russia
because Ukrainians are propertarians, &
might be liberated from the tyranny of property
ownership.

 

[Kooky]

You should have some sympathy for Russia
because Ukrainians are propertarians, &
might be liberated from the tyranny of property
ownership.

Do you actually believe that, or are you simply trolling?
If the former, then you should really read up on the last 30-odd years of Russian history.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you actually believe that, or are you simply trolling?

You've advocated against owning property.
Isn't the loss thereof pleasing?

 

[Kooky]

You've advocated against owning property.

I've also advocated very strongly against human rights violations and warfare.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've also advocated very strongly against human rights violations and warfare.

One must break a few eggs to make an omelet.

 

[Kooky]

One must break a few eggs to make an omelet.

I disagree. Also, they're called crêpes.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would also add that part of the reason for Cuba to request aid from the Soviet Union was due to the US-backed Bay of Pigs invasion which failed miserably. US warmongers wanted us to invade Cuba outright, as our government and military took it upon themselves to act as "muscle" for the pimps who turned Cuba into a whorehouse. When Castro spoiled all their fun, they were quite angry at him and wanted to get rid of him. Where else could he go for help?

The US leadership somehow had a real personal grudge against Castro and Cuba, even more so than was apparent with other countries in the Soviet Bloc. Even as relations were warming during the Detente era, Cuba was still ostracized and considered a pariah by the US government. We could buy Stolichnaya Vodka, but we still couldn't legally possess Cuban cigars. They're still illegal today, although they're legal in Mexico.

The Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Missile Crisis, 1961-1962
That is a reasonable summery of what went on. How ever at the time there was a brisk trade in building nuclear shelters right across America. The fear level was astonishing.

America never invaded Cuba, but they did form a naval blockade.

 

[Stevicus]

Does anyone else here sense that some are trying
to justify or minimize the wrongfulness of Russia
invading former Soviet satellites by diverting attention
to sins of the Ameristanian government?

Does anyone else here sense that some are trying to justify involving Ameristan in yet another interventionist foreign war that could go very badly for us?