(nice cut and paste though from a soviet source - mine was from world sources)
You saw firsthand that USSR didn't built any projects in Afganistan and you tell me not to trust USSR sources? You saw firsthand that USA didn't fund Taliban so to overthrow Afganistan government before USSR started to help Afganistan to defend against these fanatics?
Besides, it's not only "official sources" that claim that we helped many countries, you can find mentions about that in memoirs of our generals who defended these factories and power plants aganst USA-funded Taliban. I don't know first-hand about anything in Afganistan but i trust my family enough so to believe them that they participated in making some of these projects in other countries. Anyway, it was a common knowlege in USSR that we help many countries and teach their specialists. That tells a lot about your censorship if you never even heard about it!
Also, your sources are not world sources. Your sources are written on english so they're enemy sources (to USSR). And your sources never tell truth about your enemies because of censorship. You can't read Afganistan sources or Egypt sources or Iran sources or Iraq sources or India sources or any other sources of these 75 countries we helped. So, how dare you say that you use "world sources"?
Soviet economic aid between 1979 and 1985 totalled about $1.6 billion. Under the current Five-Year Plan, Soviet supported projects include a hydropower plant, tunnels on key transportation routes between Kabul and the Soviet border, technical schools and road construction and improvement. It is also easy to see that these types of projects also support Soviet military and political efforts. Again, in 1985, there were a reported 5,000 Soviet technicians working on 63 projects.
If you'd spend half as much time LEARNING what the old USSR was like and what the world was like (then and now) we could have some intelligent conversation.
We could have some intelligent conversation if you'll try to back up your ridiculous claims with at least some proof (like i do). So far you posted only about Afgan civil war (like i never knew about it) instead of countering my words.
Last Edit: Nov 22, 2006 1:58:39 GMT -5 by Ellestar
muslim fanatics who were funded by USA some decades ago so to overthrow civil government
Yes, the US eventually provided assistance to the insurgency group that was fighting the Soviet forces (as did the UK and Pakistan) but it wasn't until 6 years after the initial invasion in the mid 1985
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From the Shadows], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
you're continued posts on this subject remind me of the old "soviet system" of the press censorship, the then VERY biased soviet education system, and what was then the TOTAL "soviet black-out" of these activities to it's general public.
Your continued posts on this subject remind me of the old "USA system" of the press censorship, the then VERY biased USA education system, and what was then the TOTAL "USA black-out" of these activities to it's general public.
I already gave you an advice, don't trust any official statements (be it USSR or USA or any other country) because it's inherently biased. Also, never trust school textbooks for the same reason. In our "very biased USSR education system" our history teachers taught us not to trust textbooks if we want to know the truth. Unfortunately, in your "very non-biased USA education system" you teachers didn't taught you to do the same.
Although your country is improving on a daily basis, it REALLY wasn't a very nice place before the failure of communism.
the soviet army built schools and factories there?? ... factories and schools - you really crack me up, LOL!
Army? Not the army, of course. We had a lot of such agreements with many countries. I'm surprised that you never heard about it. USSR built infrastructure in many countries.
В 1976 СССР имел соглашения об оказании экономического и технического содействия в сооружении промышленных и других объектов с 75 странами. На 1 января 1976 Советским Союзом построено, строилось и было намечено к строительству 3103 промышленных предприятия и других объектов, из которых 2001 уже введён в строй и успешно эксплуатируется.
January 1976 - 3103 industrial plans and other projects built, in construction and planned for construction in 75 countries (2001 already finished).
Well, if you want you can translate what exactly we built in Afganistan - ginneries (as early as 1930-1939), power plants, gas extraction, irrigation of a land not suited for agriculture before irrigation, food industry, light industry, roads, ports, university (i think, i'm not sure how to translate it).
Last Edit: Nov 21, 2006 13:43:42 GMT -5 by Ellestar
Moallem also countered US and Iraqi complaints about poor control of the long border between Iraq and Syria, saying that Washington was unable to control its border with Mexico and had resorted to constructing a wall.
On Sunday, close to 13,000 people marched through Jakarta carrying banners reading "Bush: Wanted dead or alive for crimes against humanity" and dragging an effigy of the US president.
In other news today, USA is being owned in Iraq so badly that now they need help of Syria (!) and Iran (!!!). BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHA (imagine the best "Evil Overlord" laughter here). I thought that it's USA paladin's task to fight evil all over the world and bomb countries until the only surviving thing there will be a democracy. Why the hell "Paladins of Holy Grail" (TM) now need help from "Axis of Evil" (TM) countries?
Well, at least things go well in Afganistan after US intervention. As a result of a democratic reforms, Afganistan illicit drugs production was imroved 3-fold to 17-fold (depending on illicit drug). Real GDP is growing as well, production of ONE illicit drug is equal to 40% of the official GDP and it creates 1.5-2 million workplaces. Surely, all these drugs will help to improve the world stability. Also, Taliban (muslim fanatics who were funded by USA some decades ago so to overthrow civil government) are really happy after they recieved another present from USA. Now they control south of Afganistan and get lots of money from illicit drugs production. You know, evil USSR communists made schools and factories in Afganistan. USA proved that it's the wrong they, instead they improve a production of opium.
Last Edit: Nov 20, 2006 6:50:52 GMT -5 by Ellestar
Yes financial times is a uk paper but it also states under methodology online interviews with 2000 ppl in each country or there abouts so i guess thats where the poll came from not much of a poll really considering the amount of population in europe and they only asked approximately 10,000 people out of the entire europen community
owe and id vote Iran too if i was asked
'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'
But whatever, i'll try.
Margin of error is 3 per cent. These polls are considered to be quite accurate for generations and everyone takes them serious. Everyone but people with a political blindness.
In practice pollsters need to balance the cost of a large sample against the reduction in sampling error and a sample size of around 500-1,000 is a typical compromise for political polls. (Note that to get 500 complete responses it may be necessary to make thousands of phone calls.)
P.S. Tell me if you need a bigger font because of your blindness.
Last Edit: Sept 21, 2006 7:15:17 GMT -5 by Ellestar
In European opinion, the axis-of-evil is Bush’s America. Almost twice as many British, whose Prime Minister Tony Blair is complicit in Bush’s war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, see the US as the greatest threat to world stability than see Iran as the danger. In Spain three times more people regard the US as the threat than see Iran as the threat. Only in Italy does Iran edge out the US as the greatest perceived threat, a result no doubt due to the propaganda that spews from the media empire of Silvio Berlusconi, the Rupert Murdoch of Italy.
Last Edit: Sept 21, 2006 6:18:43 GMT -5 by Ellestar
Yes the US used nuclear weapons on 2 Japanese cities to end the war in the Pacific.
There was a discussion about that on that forum. Find it and read the links that are there before saying another bullshit.
Stalin is georgian, he isn't russian. Blame georgia ok? Thanks.
Can you provide any particular information substanstiating this claim since the 1900? I'm sure there were more Christians killed in Soviet Russia than CHristians killing others worldwide.
Soviet Russia was mostly atheist. Besides, this is not the point. It's mostly non-russian leaders who did it so there is no point to blame russia. Also, it's our internal business while here we're talking about killing of a foreign citizens and about holy wars.
I think the opperative words here are "according to a senior Palestinian politician. That holds alot of water!
www.bushwatch.com/evangelist.htm "The Washington Post subsequently reported that a call to the White House for clarification went unanswered. A number of reports* cautioned that Bush's exact words may have been lost in translation, but no alternate translation or attendee has contradicted the meaning expressed in the Ha'aretz translation. Bush's belief that he is acting as the hand of God has been well documented this past year, and his comments to Abbas wouldn't be the first time Bush has used his religious beliefs to score political points. Anyone who is capable of calling an empty trailer found in Iraq a Weapon of Mass Destruction is perfectly capable of telling a religious Arab that God told him to invade Iraq. --Politex, 07.01.03"
"Earlier, Jackson Lears in the New York Times reported Bush as saying, "''Events aren't moved by blind change and chance''..., but by ''the hand of a just and faithful God.'' From the outset he has been convinced that his presidency is part of a divine plan, even telling a friend while he was governor of Texas, ''I believe God wants me to run for president.'' This conviction that he is doing God's will has surfaced more openly since 9/11. In his State of the Union addresses and other public forums, he has presented himself as the leader of a global war against evil. As for a war in Iraq, ''we do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them.'' God is at work in world affairs, he says, calling for the United States to lead a liberating crusade in the Middle East, and ''this call of history has come to the right country.''""
"BUSH, LIKE FUNDAMENTALISTS IN GENERAL, IS LEADING THE COUNTRY ASTRAY WITH HIS MISPLACED BELIEF IN HIS OWN ABSOLUTE CERTAINITY"
"God speaks through me," he said. (We're not making this up. This story was first reported in the local papers, including the Intelligencer Journal and the Lancaster New Era, on July 16, 2004.) www.irregulartimes.com/godspeaksthroughme.html
We all know that Bush is the most fanatical Christian USA president of all time. So, i guess that first statement is true as well.
Actually the Russians walked out because the west would not pay reparations to rebuild East Germany for the Russians; The Soviets pushed the Allies for reparations from West Germany's industrial plants, though this had not been agreed to. Predictably, Harry S. Truman refused to give the Soviet Union reparations; Joseph Stalin responded by splitting off the Soviet sector of Germany as a Communist state. This had nothing to do with the currency and was used as a smoke screen by the Russians.
Any links? So far i'll believe wikipedia more than you.
For your information, North Vietnam was a province of France and with both Russian and Chinese involvement supported Ho Chi Minh with arms and training to start the revolution. After years of war the French bailed out and the US sent advisors to South Vietnam. This was legal due to the following; In 1954 it was determined by the Geneva Conference that the State of Vietnam would rule the territory of Vietnam south of the 17th parallel, of which the former colony of Cochin-China formed the heartland, pending unification on the basis of supervised elections (see Geneva Conference (1954)) in 1956. The elections and unification did not take place as planned (see below). When the territory was divided in this way, approximately 800,000 to 1 million North Vietnamese, mainly Vietnamese Roman Catholics, fled south due to what they perceived as "communist persecution" in the North. The Republic of Vietnam was proclaimed in Sàigòn by Ngô Ðình Diệm on October 22, 1955, after the Emperor Bảo Ðại was deposed.
Are you the second coming of Yakov Smirnov? Winter Clothing?? What, Russia was sending wool shorts to this tropical island? That may be the most absurd statement I have ever read.
Who said it should be a wool shorts? Only USA citizens are stupid enough to imagine something like that (i saw a winter clothing on russian soldiers while they were on a tropical islands in USA films). I have no idea about a tropical outfit of a USSR soldiers but i guess you need a different clothing if there is a rain season, for example.
I'm just saying what i heard in an iterview with one of the commanding officers who was on a submarine that had orders to defend that transport (interview was on one of the national channels). Besides, they had the permission to attack USA ships (Aircraft carrier and destroyer) if USA ships will attack USSR transport so to not let it pass the blockade.
Anyway, nuclear missiles were already deployed for sure because all of that started when USA recon plane saw them in Cuba. So you're wrong in any case.
Wikipedia once again en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis "The missiles were placed to protect Cuba from further planned attacks by the United States and were rationalized by the Soviets as retaliation for the United States placing deployable nuclear warheads in the United Kingdom, Italy and most significantly, Turkey." "The photographs were shown to Kennedy on October 16 . By October 19 the U-2 flights (then almost continuous) showed four sites were operational." "Kennedy reasoned that a blockade would be an act of war (which was correct) and war had not been declared between the U.S. and Cuba." "There were a number of issues with the naval blockade. There was legality - as Fidel Castro noted, there was nothing illegal about the missile installations; they were certainly a threat to the U.S., but similar missiles aimed at the U.S.S.R. were in place in Europe (sixty Thor IRBMs in four squadrons near Nottingham, in the United Kingdom; thirty Jupiter IRBMs in two squadrons near Gioia del Colle, Italy; and fifteen Jupiter IRBMs in one squadron near İzmir, Turkey)." "At the same time, Soviet merchant ships were nearing the quarantine zone."
Last Edit: Aug 22, 2006 1:35:50 GMT -5 by Ellestar
and i dont really understand the logic behind whips statement, arabs kill each other so it s ok that Israel and USA slaugther Arabs aswell?
I'm refering to what gets reported in the media and "world opinion". Muslim vs Muslim persecution seems to be tolerated; but Israel is condemned for what you call "slaugther Arabs".
Well, if others are bad because they do something you can't claim that you're good AND do the same... So, if you want to say that Israel isn't any better than Fundamentalist Muslim fanatics, then yes, i agree with you.
It's amazing how a Russian can accuse the US of being more aggressive than any of the aforementioned trio.
Well, you can read further about wars so i don't need to answer that question again.
USA has a biggest military spending and a strongest army that is obviously focused on fighting on a foreign territory. And USA actually uses it all the time. Besides, USA is the only country that purposefully used a nuclear weapons specifically against a civilians.
Since we are living in the the Muslim era we can quickly identify how threatening they can be. Here's a little fact: countries which have a majority of Muslim people (using data from the CIA World Factbook) total 11,883,889 square miles (20.6% of the world's land area), 1.4 billion people (22% of the world's population), and US$ 4.3 trillion of GDP on a purchasing power parity basis (8.7% of the world's GDP). Total world trade with these nations adds to over US$ 800 billion. Military spending totals over US$ 60 billion. Once the militant Muslims eliminate the Jews they will consume the entire Middle East and then start on the rest of the world. There are 8.77 million Muslims in France, Germany and England. It is estimated that between 1.1 and 7 million Muslims live in the United States today with the large majority from South Asian, African-American and Arab backgrounds. There are an estimated 14 to 20 million Muslims in Russia, constituting approximately 14 percent of the population. Take oil away from the world and place 1,000 terrorist with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons in each of these countries with a mission and they couldn't be stopped. It is the belief of the extremists to spread Islam world wide.
Well, the problem is that Christians has a significantly bigger military spending, GDP etc. And Christians do actually invade Muslim countries, kill their citizens, wage wars against Muslims etc. So it's obvious that Christians are even more threatening.
www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1586978,00.html (stupid forum engine doesn't work with this link so just copy-paste it instead of just clicking on it) George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.
^^ Talking about a religious fanatics.
The Russians imposed their will on the majority of Europe after WWII. They went so far as to put up a wall separating Berlin.
However, relations between the Western Allies (especially the United States and the United Kingdom) and the Soviet Union quickly deteriorated, and so did their cooperation in the administration of occupied Germany. Against Soviet protests, the two Anglo-Saxon powers pushed for a heightened economic collaboration between the different zones, and on 1 January 1947 the British and American zones merged to form the Bizone. Over the course of 1947 and early 1948, they began to prepare the currency reform that would introduce the Deutsche Mark, and ultimately the creation of an independent West German state. When the Soviets learnt about this, they claimed that such plans were in violation of the Potsdam Agreement, that obviously the Western powers were not interested in further regular four-power control of Germany, and that under such circumstances the Control Council had no purpose anymore. On 20 March 1948, Marshal Sokolovsky, the Soviet representative, walked out of the meeting of the Council, never to attend one again.
Now, who broken treaties and who was the cause of a separation of Germany?
They also supported and aided the Vietnamese during that war.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam#The_Vietnam_War_and_Reunification I don't know what do you want to say by that idiotic statement, but last time i checked it was USA who invaded an independent country so to kill their people who had other political regime (Communism). So, obviously it's USA who was an agressor there. USSR only helped one of the sides in a civil war in an independent country, but USSR never invaded it.
Attempted to place nuclear weapons 90 miles from the US in Cuba.
Another bullshit. USSR placed nuclear weapons there. USA blocked only a last transport that transported a winter cloths for USSR soldiers. Anyway, it's USA who started all that shit with a nuclear weapons so they should be last who can accuse others in doing the same.
How different is the crisis in the Middle East from the months leading up to WW2? Germany only wanted what they claimed to be their lands. The Europeans (England, France, Russia) placated the German overtures and we all know what it fostered. Denial of what is in front of you does not alter it's path.
Israel also wants what they claimed to be their lands. And most of their neigbours don't agree with it. So, according to your own statements, Muslims must unite and pacify the agressor.
The Islamist militants are the Nazis of the 30's and 40's and the Communists from the 50's to the 80's.
Nah. USA participated in about 45 wars on foreign territory after WWII. So USA is already more agressive than Nazis, Islamists or Communists.
As both sides claim the site is holy based on pure blind faith in their religion, I don't really see how it matters which one has more "evidence" that it's a holy site. The concept of holiness in the first place is completely subjective to their specific faith.
Heh true story. It always make me laugh when different kinds of religious fanatics argue with each other about some of their faith-related nonsense and which one "is more right". All of that is a fiction anyway. It's like agruing about what is more real - Mickey Mouse or Tom&Jerry.
I don't see that as "stupid"; I see it as "resolve". One must consider that these were formulated in 1948 when the Jews were starting off with virtually nothing.
I see it as if it's written by someone who needs to go to a mental hospital IMMEDIATELY so not to infect people who still aren't insane.
Anyway, i like p. 3. According to it, Muslims have an absolute right to conquer Israel land with a sword as well ;D
There is solid proof, however, that this is the site of the original Temple of Solomon. So once again, the historical record and evidence support the position of the Jews; while the positions of the Muslims are often just "because the Mulah says so".
Ok, some fanatics made some structure they call a "holy temple". That's still isn't any hard evidience. I guess in a pure virtual sence (if you believe in all that religion etc.) a word of a God has a bigger weight than a word of some mortals. So muslims are right
Ellestar, if you pay attention to the trend in the price of crude oil you might realize how stupid your comments have been.
OH REALLY .......::Modified Avogadro:::? Now say what's wrong in my statements instead of that bullshit.
::Sorry Ellestar, I like you and complettely concur with your analysis, but to use the words you called Whip....I cannot allow, your posting priveledges have been suspended for 3 days, come back smart as ever but not so snappy ::
Last Edit: Jul 7, 2006 10:07:43 GMT -5 by Avogadro
bleh USA should really get rif of their government (they d if korea had oil resources)
it s same bad as taliban - let own people starve to buy weapons. these military dictatorships are really hard to accept but also hard to counter in modern world
Nah they're poor but they don't starve. And USA doesn't care about any countries as long as they don't have anything worthy there.
Also, people DO starve in Africa in huge numbers and kill each other every day, and yet noone cares at all (say, even you). Well, in Africa in these countries in addition to an absence of oil there is also an absence of WMD (contrary to a North Korea) so it doesn't even worth talking about it, i guess.
Anyway, WMD doesn't matter as long as we talk about an invasion. Iraq didn't have any and still they were attacked. So even with WMD Korea is safe from an invasion as long as they don't have oil.
I don't have a lot of time to write so I will address one thing now and maybe the rest later.
When you say the U.S. is the greatest polluter you have to compare that to what we produce vs other nations not per capita. What percentage of the worlds goods and services compared to what percentage of pollution we expel would be a better comparison. Can you get a couple of sources on those figures and get back to me.
Nah what's the point? USA still consumes far more than it produces. So, real USA pollution is even bigger because pollution produced during production of other goods USA consumes should be counted as well. It's total pollution caused by USA citizens.
Last Edit: Jun 27, 2006 0:24:19 GMT -5 by Ellestar
The U.S. is making steady improvement through technological innovations to produce more with less waste.
And that's why USA is a biggest polluter on earth, both in absolute numbers and per capita.
China and India will be the major pollution pumpers for the next few decades at least but somehow it's all the U.S. fault.
See above. Per capita their pollution is nothing, and even with their population their absolute pollution is lower. I hope you'll get some more hurricanes like Catrina on your ass. Then MAYBE you'll think about a climate changes that IMHO cause them. So far it's fair - biggest polluter on earth suffers the consequences of his actions. Too bad it's still not enough.
All not friends of the U.S. and western society. The question we need to ask ourselves is, how can we get the scientists to stop predicting dome and gloom and start coming up with practical ways to improve the situation. And get entrepreneurs to invent the solutions.
For that, you need to spend money on it instead of financing wars all over the world.
Last Edit: Jun 26, 2006 8:29:32 GMT -5 by Ellestar
The journal, History Teacher, wrote of the Journal of Historical Review that the "magazine is shockingly racist and anti-Semitic: articles on 'America's Failed Racial Policy' and anti-Israel pieces accompany those about gas chambers... They clearly have no business claiming to be a continuation of the revisionist tradition, and should be referred to as 'Holocaust Deniers'." (History Teacher, Vol 28, No.4, p 526)
The journal has halted publication since 2002 however, due to "lack of staff and funding", according to the organization's website.
That still doesn't prove that they're wrong. That only proves that it's a non-official source of information that is likely to say something that is contrary to official position and so will not be spoken by others.
I don't understand you, do you really that naive to believe that in USA your government, CIA etc. really says you the truth? I'll not believe a single word from officials (or anyone who conveys official position like schools, history books etc.) as long as there is a contrary point of view that is backed up by a more reliable sources of information like known official documents and memoirs of certain people who held positions of power.
P.S. Well, memoirs may be trusted only when people say that they were wrong (like in this case). People tend to try to convice themselves that they were right so if they say it memoirs are not reliable as well.
Last Edit: Jun 15, 2006 8:59:54 GMT -5 by Ellestar