I can.Can anybody else see a parallel with 9/11?Ha-ha-ha-ha.During the Cold War era, Western Europe was crying to save it from the USSR, hence the NATO, the bases, and the financial dependency of the entire world on the US to mutually maintain the whole thing.
Nonsense.The major idea of many NATO bases was to have the short-range nuclear weapon so close to the enemy that the enemy would have no chance to launch an attack.
That's very informative.Originally Posted by Marcus
В Западной Европе после войны были посажены американские марионетки, все мало-мальски независимые правители, как де Голль, хотели от американцев избавиться. Народ там во многом был за коммунистов и никакую НАТО не поддерживал.
Все знали, что СССР новую войну не начнет, а Америка вообще была неуязвима, сейчас - тем более. Все американские планы были исключительно наступательными.
Alright, so first, please cite me saying that "the people of Western Europe were crying to save it from the USSR". I said "Western Europe was crying to save it from the USSR" and when we mention a country what we mean is the government in that country, i.e. very specific people. Some people liked the USSR, others liked the US. There is no way to issue a blanket statement saying anything about people in Western Europe in general. So, as a result of Yalta conference, the world was divided between the powers and obviously those politicians which allied with the designated power of their region got the support and others met the resistance. And those governments expressed and formed the "national opinion". And all those who serves in the military and sacrifice their lives 'for their countries' is actually serving the plans of the specific politicians with their limited understanding of what needs to be done. So, I'm not sure what you were laughing at.
That's interesting. The USSR had the mightiest ground army in the world and the best weapon in the world of the time and you're saying everybody knew the USSR will not start another war in 5-10 years? After it had successfully absorbed the entire Eastern Europe and crushed the entire Kwantung Army 'liberating' huge territories in a week? That statement is laughable.
Then why such small Japan attacked the US in 1942? Was the US less invincible then? Perhaps, Japan had more military strength in 1942 than the USSR in 1945?
That's entirely another topic. All I'm saying - put yourself in the shoes of a NATO general. That general could be born in Canada, Australia, etc.
Ha-ha-ha. All military plans of a country which possess nuclear weapon are aggressive. No exceptions. The nuclear weapon in military service ensures the defense from any military intervention. Instead of making the defensive plans any nuclear country has plans for mitigating the risks of the nuclear weapon being destroyed by an enemy. And one of the strategic solutions is to diversify the locations and the methods of delivery. There are strategic missiles in the nuclear silos and the whole tactics of attack and defense of the silos, there are mobile nuclear units, there are nuclear submarines, aircraft, etc. If the enemy is successful in neutralizing the nuclear silos, it would be attacked by the nuclear bombs deployed from the aircraft launched from three or four military bases nearby. And it's good to have more bases, if some of them are destroyed, there would be others which would be able to launch the nuclear assault. The diversification in that case is a key for the strategic planning. If you find that nonsense, I think you should at least say what are the alternatives.
Флота у Советского Союза не было, авиация была слабее американской, и сам он был разорен войной.
Ok, so let me once more repeat what I said and what has caused so much laughter from your side: "During the Cold War era, Western Europe was crying to save it from the USSR, hence the NATO, the bases, and the financial dependency of the entire world on the US to mutually maintain the whole thing." The Western Europe was more afraid of the USSR than the US. It was actually Western Europe which catalyzed the Cold War. That process ultimately culminated in the Berlin Crisis. But, then the Caribbean Crisis broke out which made the US become more and more afraid for its own security.
Ничего Западная Европа не делала. Холодная война началась из-за желания США подчинить себе мир и убрать единственного, кто этому мешает. Прошло 40 лет, прежде чем мешающий понял, чего от него хотят.It was actually Western Europe which catalyzed the Cold War
Would you be able to provide some logical and/or factual support to what you just said? Obviously, you know how the propaganda works...
They weren't in WWI by the time of occurrence of the communistic ideas in Europe
Internal security fixed the problem, obviously
I think what Lenin and Stalin used to do is probably not the worst of all possible scenarios. We know there were lots of people who resisted the collectivization of the property and the communists had to prosecute those people. But, how many people would the communists have to prosecute if they would every try to enforce other things stated in the Communist Party Manifesto, for example "the community of wives?"
А если внимательно прочитать?
Но вы, коммунисты, хотите ввести общность жен, - кричит нам хором вся буржуазия.
Буржуа смотрит на свою жену как на простое орудие производства. Он слышит, что орудия производства предполагается предоставить в общее пользование, и, конечно, не может отрешиться от мысли, что и женщин постигнет та же участь. Он даже и не подозревает, что речь идет как раз об устранении такого положения женщины, когда она является простым орудием производства. Впрочем, нет ничего смешнее высокоморального ужаса наших буржуа по поводу мнимой официальной общности жен у коммунистов. Коммунистам нет надобности вводить общность жен, она существовала почти всегда. Наши буржуа, не довольствуясь тем, что в их распоряжении находятся жены и дочери их рабочих, не говоря уже об официальной проституции, видят особое наслаждение в том, чтобы соблазнять жен друг у друга.
Буржуазный брак является в действительности общностью жен. Коммунистам можно было бы сделать упрек разве лишь в том, будто они хотят ввести вместо лицемерно-прикрытой общности жен официальную, открытую. Но ведь само собой разумеется, что с уничтожением нынешних производственных отношений исчезнет и вытекающая из них общность жен, т. е. официальная и неофициальная проституция.
Nukes are very expensive and dangerous for the owner. The main reason to join the nuclear club is to protect oneself from the intrusion of a superpower. So the aggressive politics of USA (and NATO) is the main reason of the nukes' spread over the world nowadays. BTW you can surely remove North Korea from the "roadmap", cause it is already in club. Actually, USA provides help to North Korea each year. So, either a typical NATO high-level strategic planner have a problem with strategic planning or he takes NATO aggressiveness as something uncontrolled and tries only to reduce the consequences (mainly unsuccessfully).
No?
"Россия для русских" - это неправильно. Остальные-то чем лучше?
More than 60 years have passed since the first and last actual use of nuclear weapons. The U.S. used it against their enemy at a war time, and everyone learned their lesson then. Now, these days any use of these weapons is totally unacceptable. Every sane government understands that. No U.S. war operation against dictators anywhere involved nuclear weapons. Now you say one has to have nuclear weapons to "protect themselves". Well, I think those who seriously consider resorting to this kind of weapon, no matter what the reason is, are insane and very dangerous folks, and it's only for that alone they deserve being taken down.
Would you care to provide any sort of evidence?
Sorry, I'm not sure, but in my opinion, capitalism is not idealistic system to. Because it concentrate biggest part of capital in hands of a few people, multibillionaires. It give them unlimited power from rest people and create a different possibility between poor and rich.
Communism proposed same possibility for everyone. Proposal to transfer private property the country. It means to share with every inhabitant. It humanistic, but not realistic. Because few rich people in the world understand how its important: freedom. equality. brotherhood.
I'm sorry for gramma mistakes.
So either governments of nuclear countries are all insane (including US) or you wrong. I think the second
Google helps.
USA helps NK regime to keep stability from 1995. Actually, last about 2 years USA help reduced but it is mainly because China strongly increased help.
"Россия для русских" - это неправильно. Остальные-то чем лучше?
I guess you have been banned in google
US supplied food as an aid to NK up to 2009 then NK rejected - http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...rth-korea-can/
Now they talking about resuming food aid - U.S., North Korea weigh resumption of food aid - Checkpoint Washington - The Washington Post
From WWII nuclear weapon is used in diplomacy rather than in war. And it is perfectly effective.
I don't judge who deserves what and seriously consider what. I said that after fall of USSR foreign policy of USA is the main reason of spreading nukes. Am I wrong?
"Россия для русских" - это неправильно. Остальные-то чем лучше?
No, that's a great observation.
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
7Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote