LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksEven as somebody solidly on the American Left, I have to say -- Michael Moore is a nutcase. Almost nobody takes him seriously, and for good reason.Originally Posted by Johanna
Even as somebody solidly on the American Left, I have to say -- Michael Moore is a nutcase. Almost nobody takes him seriously, and for good reason.
Пожалуйста, исправляйте мои бесконечные ошибки!
That sounds like a good idea. And as we all know there already is such thing. It's called the "peacekeeping forces of the UN". So far, they proved incapable of controlling any major military conflict. Their fighting abilities are well-known. Basically, those guys are good firefighters. They are not bad helping to deliver the humanitarian aid, but they can't fight any military force. They couldn't and wouldn't stop Saddam Hussein from invading Kuwait. And they won't be able to evict him from there should the UN order so. Unfortunately.
I really doubt that. Whoever Russians I talked to prefer Putin's "vertical of power" to the gang fights of Yeltzin's time. Regardless of how much freedom there was. The ordinary people prefer the "Law & Order" to the "Wild West". Call them "silly penguins who hide their body from the tempest" if you want, but don't forget to include a simple-minded crocodile to that list of penguins.
Do you happen to remember the fable: "A Swan, a Crayfish and an Esox?" That's how the army looks if the commanders and the soldiers do not have the same interests. It's a clear recipe for defeat. Such army is incapable of fighting. What you can do is to plant a 'power vertical' parallel to the main military command. Something like the 'political command' in the Soviet Army. With the 'political commanders' having the same rights as the main commander including the right to immediately execute the commander they've been attached to (or any subordinate) and take over the command. That worked. But it came with a price.
I like that idea. One of the ways to control the police is to devise a system of laws they have to abide. And use the international courts to prosecute the abuses. Which is not happening today.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not that happy to see the US/NATO taking over that role. We all saw the 'WMD in Iraq' story. It sucks. No one was held accountable for that story. NATO's political reputation is in a very bad shape. If anything happens now, no sane person is going to support NATO, but many will resist. I hated Saddam Hussein, but I think Bush and Blair should be tried by the international tribunal. To maintain the morale in the army, the ordinary NATO soldiers have to know their commanders would be also held accountable if they fail.
Could you be more specific about the type of their business? Do you think Saddam Hussein minded his own business when he invaded Kuwait? The SU 'helps' Afghanistan, the US 'helps' Afghanistan... Who minds their own business? If a person's own business is to sell heavy drugs on the streets to the 14-year-old kids, would you allow him to mind his own business? If no, on what grounds would you not? And how could you enforce that?
I think you can perhaps mind your own business with respect to what type of government you want (even that is a big question mark), but you just can't when it comes to the international affairs.
One shouldn't discard a good idea even it's not working right now.
UN forces are complimented by regiments from different countries.
It's the chain of command that is important. I've a good example - Légion étrangère. Imagine if a soldier joining the UN Forces was granted a citizen of the world status. He formally renounces his former citizenship as a part of his vow and takes orders only from the UN (or UN Forces generals who can be promoted only from within such people). They sign a contract for 5-10-15 years of service with due benefits afterwards (tax extemptions, a right to take residence in any country that has membership in the UN, etc - this service can be made attractive, after all). The idea is UN having its own strong army. There also should be certain requirements for candidates (military background, physical shape, etc).
Ideally, a UN member state can completely disband its own army in exchange of guarantees of protection from the UN Forces. An utopia? I think not.
Your comarison of two sovereign nations with 'local gangs' has a flaw I think. It's not correct to go into such primitivism. Besides, American army has not yet brought 'Law & Order' anywhere. And even if we speak in terms order vs. chaos I think armies are uncapable of restoring order.I really doubt that. Whoever Russians I talked to prefer Putin's "vertical of power" to the gang fights of Yeltzin's time. Regardless of how much freedom there was. The ordinary people prefer the "Law & Order" to the "Wild West". Call them "silly penguins who hide their body from the tempest" if you want, but don't forget to include a simple-minded crocodile to that list of penguins.Since nobody really cares about human life (and I would never believe some American politician does) this would probably be the wisest course.If two neighboring countries are at war, the intervention of the third side can deteriorate things even further.
You're oversimplifying things again. After all, a combined military body consisting, let's say of Indian and Pakistani soldiers can be sent to restore peace in some Latin-Аmerican country and even though they are antagonists they would have their orders and a common task. It may even lead to improving of the relations between these two countries.
Send me a PM if you need me.
That is not all that bad an idea. I think the only real obstacle to that would be rather simple: a country signing up for the UN Armed Forces would be giving up much of its national interests upfront and handing them over to the UN. And how will the UN make the decisions? Who will be the dominant players? That comes down to the standard politics with all its flaws.
Why not? The true principles work in both the micro and the macro scale equally good. I don't see how the so-called "sovereign nations" ruled by the criminals (according to you, by the way) are any different than the gangs? They clash, they dispute, they have their laws and agreements.
To that I agree. I already mentioned that I don't think the US is fulfilling that role very well.
Ok, let me tell you a secret: in the army things should be VERY simple. Anything that makes the soldiers start thinking, comparing, doubting, spying after each other is a VERY VERY bad thing. If you don't trust the shoulder of your army comrade, you won't be moving anywhere from your personal trench. Trust me.You're oversimplifying things again.
That's utopia. The commanders will try to push as much responsibility as they can over to their counterparts. No one wants to die if they can live. Trust me. There should be only one command. Permanent foes / temporary allies don't fight well together. That has proved true over the centuries.
It is a great idea. I like it.That is not all that bad an idea. I think the only real obstacle to that would be rather simple: a country signing up for the UN Armed Forces would be giving up much of its national interests upfront and handing them over to the UN. And how will the UN make the decisions? Who will be the dominant players? That comes down to the standard politics with all its flaws.
But right now the UN is quite strongly (but not fully) dominated by the United States. In order for this to work the UN would have to be COMPLETELY independent and not susceptible to any manipulation.
If this could be achieved, then it is perfect.
Maybe they should set up camp on the Moon or something..
Also; FYI in case you forgotten or never heard of it; This type of world order is what's predicted in the Book of Revelations as the start of the era of the Antichrist....
I am not sure that I think it was justified to go to war with Iraq over Kuwait. If an African country invades its' neighbours, not much happens. They are not rich, have not got important natural resource and are not strategically important.Could you be more specific about the type of their business? Do you think Saddam Hussein minded his own business when he invaded Kuwait? The SU 'helps' Afghanistan, the US 'helps' Afghanistan... Who minds their own business? If a person's own business is to sell heavy drugs on the streets to the 14-year-old kids, would you allow him to mind his own business? If no, on what grounds would you not? And how could you enforce that?
I think you can perhaps mind your own business with respect to what type of government you want (even that is a big question mark), but you just can't when it comes to the international affairs.
Saddam's official reason for invading Kuwait was that Kuwait had been extracting oil from Iraqi territory underground. Iraq told them to stop, they didn't.... Saddam then had an excuse that he (may or may not...) have waited for...
In US media, from the propaganda angle (I just watched CNN for the first time around then....) the Kuwaitis became lovely peaceful allround fantastic people... (despite not being a democracy which is the usual criteria for being good, and despite also having serious human rights problems) The Iraqis were devils from HELL...
Of course, the Americans "bought" it; CNN is a moderate channel compared to some others there... I was able to compare with Swedish state TVs coverage which was a lot more balanced. [was in my teens at the time]
There was one story on CNN about Iraqi soldiers going into a maternity hospital and deliberately ripping babies out of incubators... And much more along those lines. Clearly fabricated or hugely inflated propaganda for the purpose of making people believe that going to war was a moral duty....
('cause it's certainly has nothing to do with oil....)
Honestly; I don't see how that invasion was our business in Europe, or their business in America. Perhaps the immediate neighbours might have been justified to have a view and get involved as a mediator or apply some pressure. But that's about it.
I hate to sound as if I am justifying the USSRs invasion of Afghanistan (I am not!!!) but at least it was marginally more understandable because:
1) It was a neighbouring country of the USSR
2) There were serious problems there that could easily spill over into the other "stan" countries. Fanaticism, lawlessness, drugs...
3) They were asked by local communists (a large group) for support...
4) There was a power vacuum and if they didn't step in, they US would have; and they would have had the US right on their doorstep; another cold war border.
Compare with the US:
-Not neighbouring
-Problems not spilling over into their country since it's a very poor country on the other side of the planet from them.
-Nobody asked them to get involved.
-There was no chaos; the Taliban were running their (very unpleasant but quite efficient) regime....
I said it will be possible, but not necessary. There IS an obstacle you didn't see for some reason. FUNDS! UN lives on a very limited budget, by the way (approximately $2 billion a year). A modern army would require ten to hundred times more than that. That's why I suggested that it might be appropriate for small countries to fund one 'common' army than have its own underdeveloped one.
Or there should be some additional revenues from somewhere.
As for your questions about who will make the decisions, I think that the Security Council is the most logical body for laying out the strategic goals. Of course, the pure military matters should be decided by the general staff. UN would have to be reformed greatly, and the first thing is decentralization and independence from any particular government. The 'standard politics' has its place in this world but when it's done in the council chamber BEFORE any decisions are made it's perfectly normal. Of course there will be a clash of interests but the united nations army could finally enforce the norms of 'international laws and agreements' (now it's merely paper). There would be none of that 'let's go bomb some country since they are bad guys'. The only purpose of the UN forces will be peace keeping - that means not allowing everyone else to fight/commit atrocities.
Perhaps, perhaps not. If you take some petty urban gang consiting of a bunch of halfwits you wouldn't expect much of them and any attempt to control fairly large area/number of businesses/people will end in an epic fail pretty quickly. There must be some smart guy who will hold the rest in line. Now, let's grow our gang a little bit bigger. A criminal organization that controls part of the city has its structure, hierarchy and it commits less outrageous crimes (racket instead of robbery, for example). Mafia bosses who control whole regions already have some legal business and try to maintain 'law & order' within their ranks. Their speciality is corruption, drug and arms trafficking and occasional [s:sqi3xbrz]murder[/s:sqi3xbrz] assasination. They have their laws, army, financial institutions, etc. Finally the very top of this 'hill' - a government of a whole country (well, not those who appears on TV screens, but the real government - those who make the decisions). This evolution shows that the larger the criminal organization is the more it strives for 'law & order'. We observed this situation ducint 1990s in Russia. The surviving petty gangsters became first 'serious businessmen', then they legalized their assets thus becoming bankers or oligarchs, they made their way into the Duma and finally they've become (or created) the ruling party.
I agree with that but only partly. But what really 'permanent foes' are? Those conflicts are mostly based on prejudices inspired by local propaganda which displays the other side as having hooves and horns eating children for breakfast. Seeing the real people might change some things in their minds.
Send me a PM if you need me.
Easy of you to say, you're not a Kuwaiti.
Yes, it might. B-U-T a professional army is like a professional killer. Whoever pays more. What countries constitute the Security Council and are more vocal? Whoever pays more. So, if ten small African countries would pitch in, they still won't be able to match combined what the US, China, France, the UK and Russia contribute separately. That's one of the starting points to the "politics" I was referring to. There are other factors as well.
Please see above.
Whoa!!! That is so not simple. Let's take a look at some recent events. So, Hizbollah bombed Israel from Lebanon. The result? Israel assaulted Lebanon (=conducted an anti-terrorist operation if you want). The UN peacekeeping forces did nothing. Because, what the UN peacekeeping forces should have been doing in that scenario? Should they kill Hizbollah fighters? Israeli army? Separate Hizbollah from Israeli army to allow Hizbollah rockets to bomb Israeli cities and not allow Israeli army to fight back? Catch the rocket-propelled grenades with their bare hands? Can you see my point? The UN peacekeeping forces can not solve any serious military clashes. And who would vote on the UN forces to intervene? A bunch of small African countries? Saudi Arabia + Egypt + Syria + Jordan + Lebanon + Iran + Iraq + ... for sure are capable to contribute to the UN more than Israel could ever do. What the outcome would be for Israel to give up on its local army and rely on the UN army?
The local army is like your personal security guys: just tell them the other guy was making faces at you. And the UN army is like a police: first you have to prove you're in trouble, then to prove the other person is a bad guy, and then to prove you're a good guy for the police to actually do something. But, if a police would get a call someone throwing a rotten tomato towards a MP, they would beat the offender, jail him for some time, and only then start thinking.
Yes, that makes sense. So, what happens when the two 'serious businesses' clash? I mean, if all the 'diplomatic' ways are exhausted? Can you comment on the 'mask show'?
It might, but I highly doubt that would have any practical implications. The countries are 'permanent foes' more or less because their political (=business) interests are different. If at some point a common victory is achieved, each country would like the bigger share of that pie. And if the defeat would occur, the blame would pop about like the "hot potato". The soldiers do not realize that, but the officers do. Also, the higher-rank officers would most likely be the veterans of the conflicts between those two countries. And killing each other usually doesn't add to the sense of comradery. Those would be the officers who would be giving the orders.
I think the only person on this thread who is close to the truth is Seraph, however it seems that no one even responds to him. The discussion about which president wants this and what country did that is irrelevant. I think Seraph is wrong on one point and that is blaming Bush/Chenry etc yadayadayada! I think that is thinking "small". The conspiracy is international and based on "money". I blamed the "leftwing" (And that includes FOX News.) media earlier, not because they are doing it, but because they are the mouthpiece for the Moneymen Elites, who have been ruling this world for 200 years, now. The Czar of Russia was being coerced by Rothschild at the time of the US Civil war and even offered to put Russian warships in San Fransisco and at New York (which he did) to protect Lincoln from a war against the North by European countries that Rothschild threatened to arrange, if Lincoln did not accept Rothschilds financing for the Civil War in the form of a Central Bank. Lincoln, like Andrew Jackson before him was dead set against a central banking system ....ie The federal Reserve. This has been going on for 200 hundred years while the sheeple argue over where Missiles should be put or which country needs to be disciplined. All of our governments are in on it and the UN too! America had the best and last chance to escape this system but as our Founding Fathers wrote,
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic.”
- Benjamin Franklin
“A democracy is always temporary in nature;
it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover
that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally collapse
due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship”
- Alexander Tytler 1787
This is precisely why America was to be a "Republic". It was never meant to be a democracy. We can thank our Socialist school teachers for teaching our children lies about America, such as "America is a democracy" and "the Constitution is a living document" that led to the USA's decline. They were used by the Moneymen Elites!
Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself. - Chief Joseph, Nez Perce
...
Maybe I was confused then. I don't feel like searching back to see where I went wrong though, Maybe I just made a presumption.
Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose, free to choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to talk, think and act for myself. - Chief Joseph, Nez Perce
Okay, I have decided to add my opinions to this topic. I have been a member of the United States military for over two years now, and I can tell you with quite a bit of confidence that they aren't monsters or anything, like some of you may think. They have children and families, and many I have met are actually against the wars overseas. We just do what we are told - and try to think we're making the world a better place.
I really doubt the United States government is really as powerful as some think it is. And you have got to look a little closer: we are not the only country with soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead, countries such as the United Kingdom, Poland, and the Netherlands have troops there. If there wasn't a legitimate threat in these countries, do you honestly believe the country would agree for its military to be deployed there? Or do some of you think that the United States has poisoned these government's leaders? If you think that is true - then maybe we do already control all of the world. (Which obviously isn't true and is absolute rubbish.)
Sure, I do not support a lot of things the United States government does, especially with overthrowing democratically-elected leaders to replace them with ones that are more friendly towards the United States. I also dislike how they believe that they can have nuclear weapons, but other countries cannot (Not saying I want a nuclear Iran or North Korea, but it's really not for us to decide).
Also, for those of you who think that the United States has lost all freedom, and no longer operates as a democracy: try joining the military or actually visit the country if you haven't. You will see that freedom does exit in this country, and it is the most free and best country in the world. We stick to our history and love our free country.
Sure, not everything can be 100% free - for that would be an anarchy. And as you know - no civilized people would ever support an anarchy.
And an international money conspiracy? Not sure if I know what you are talking about - but if you are somehow thinking that there is a conspiracy to get us all revolved around money - then that's absolutely true....can't say I have a problem with it either: sure as hell better than trading old leather boots for a chicken, or something like that.
And as for people comparing the concentration camps to deaths in Vietnam, etc. War is never pretty. No, instead there are always civilians (including women and children) that die, simply because they are at the wrong place, at the wrong time. I also understand that there are corrupt military leaders that take part in horrible acts (this happened several times in Europe). HOWEVER, comparing the United States' actions to the concentration camps in Europe during WWII is absolutely -- retarded.
The United States government would never support ethnic cleansing or genocide. As some of you know, Hitler hated anyone who he thought could threathen them. He not only invaded these people, but he commited mass murder, and placed people in concentration camps (WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS NEVER DONE). He also wanted to wipe out the Jews and Poles....how can you compare this to the United States?
And before anyone says that the United States had concentration camps: the United States had internment camps, which did not do anything horrible, like the ones in Europe did.
And, for my conclusion. For those of you who believe the United States has too much power and his hell-bent on world domination: Thank Germany. Because, when you look at history - we got a taste of control with our occupation of Europe after WWII (started by Germans), and then entered the Cold War - in which we wanted to do anything to hurt the Soviet Union.
And as many have also said - who's going to step up when the U.S. falls? I don't see the United States "falling" anytime soon, but what would happen if we did? Iran and other extremist regimes would take over Israel, probably kill off a lot of the Jews. Violence would break out in the middle east even worse. Everything would get much worse than it is now - and the European countries would be threatened by attacks from a nuclear Iran or expanding China.
Кори, I'll try to comment some quotes from your post if you don't mind.
No one here have said that American militarymen are evil, I am pretty sure the absolute majority of them are good people.
No one saying that America rules the world, but it surely rules NATO block. During cold war times the reason for smaller countries to "lay under" this rule was simple: US provided the protection for them from those "evil Russkies". Frankly speaking this was only somethat actual when Stalin was still alive till 1953. You know, when France withdrew from NATO in 1966 because Charles de Gaulle felt that US became more and more dominative in the block, many people were certain that Soviet tanks will enter Paris several hours after that happened.I really doubt the United States government is really as powerful as some think it is. And you have got to look a little closer: we are not the only country with soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead, countries such as the United Kingdom, Poland, and the Netherlands have troops there. If there wasn't a legitimate threat in these countries, do you honestly believe the country would agree for its military to be deployed there? Or do some of you think that the United States has poisoned these government's leaders? If you think that is true - then maybe we do already control all of the world. (Which obviously isn't true and is absolute rubbish.)And some politicans in countries like Baltic states, Poland and Georgia still think that way. And Serbia bombing? Do you really think European members of NATO highly supported that act? You know, NATO decision to bomb Serbs (who are Orthodox slavs, like us, Russians), wich was made under strong pressure of US State Department, turned anti-American ten times more Russians than a ten invasions in countries like Afganistan or Iraq would do.
You love your country and think that it's the best country on the planet. I respect you for that, it's absolutely natural human feeling. I feel the same about mine (exept maybe "most free"Also, for those of you who think that the United States has lost all freedom, and no longer operates as a democracy: try joining the military or actually visit the country if you haven't. You will see that freedom does exit in this country, and it is the most free and best country in the world. We stick to our history and love our free country.
Sure, not everything can be 100% free - for that would be an anarchy. And as you know - no civilized people would ever support an anarchy.
Supports? No. Closes the eyes when those acts provided by US goverment's "friends"? Yes.The United States government would never support ethnic cleansing or genocide.
If bombings of Dresden, and especially Hirosima and Nagasaki weren't mass murder when what are they?mass murder... (WHICH THE UNITED STATES HAS NEVER DONE).
Jews and Gypsies you mean? Poles as other Slavic nations (including Russians) were considered "untermensch", subhuman by nazis, considering Hitler policy the number of these untermensch supposed to be greatly decreased and the rest should be "germanized" and serve the Arians like slaves.He also wanted to wipe out the Jews and Poles....
Maybe you partially true, but only partially. At least for cold war, I think US goverment were fully responsible for it. Of course Stalin was no angel, I say more, he was a monster, but our country was hell-bleeding after WWII, we needed to restore our heavily damaged economy and the cold war was unnecessary even for Stalin at that time. I belive if FDR lived a decade more and stayed in power in US the Cold War would never happened. You know, I think that America owes it's current position of World's most rich and powerfull country to Roosevelt. You were lucky to have such a great leader at those hard times and we were unlucky to have that bastard DjugashviliAnd, for my conclusion. For those of you who believe the United States has too much power and his hell-bent on world domination: Thank Germany. Because, when you look at history - we got a taste of control with our occupation of Europe after WWII (started by Germans), and then entered the Cold War - in which we wanted to do anything to hurt the Soviet Union..
No one saying that there should be an anarchy on our little planet. But it's like democracy and free elections, when only one party is dominating, then democracy ends. There should be balance of powers in the world. May be such structures like U.N. and G20 should have more weight.And as many have also said - who's going to step up when the U.S. falls? I don't see the United States "falling" anytime soon, but what would happen if we did? Iran and other extremist regimes would take over Israel, probably kill off a lot of the Jews. Violence would break out in the middle east even worse. Everything would get much worse than it is now - and the European countries would be threatened by attacks from a nuclear Iran or expanding China.
Please, correct my mistakes, except for the cases I misspell something on purpose!
Кори you are a good man but you are missing a few points.
Soldiers simply do their job, it's those high-ranked civilians who give the orders who are criminals.
We were not speaking of the 'official' government. This world is ruled by corporations and big business. It's them who give money for the elections, it's them who tell the nominal rulers what to say and whom to bomb.I really doubt the United States government is really as powerful as some think it is.
One thing for you to note about Afghanistan - the heroin production has tripled since the time US had entered into the country. I still think that the main reason for US troops being in Afghanistan is to secure the heroin production which is now under full control of CIA. It's big money and nobody would leave this business in the hands of a bunch of illiterate Afghan shepherds.
Freedom is just a word. The ways people understand this word in different parts of this world is different. There is no such thing as the absolute true definition of freedom. In some regards, people in Russia have much more freedom than you Americans do (and yes, I've been to USA). I think that the main problem you have lies with the concept of 'the justice for all'. That's absurd and this absurd idea may lead you very far from, say, my views on good and healthy society. Nobody says this concept is bad, it's simply absurd and Utopian like Communism. Communism isn't bad either in its true 'canonical' form, but every attempt to build it so far has failed miserably.Also, for those of you who think that the United States has lost all freedom, and no longer operates as a democracy: try joining the military or actually visit the country if you haven't. You will see that freedom does exit in this country, and it is the most free and best country in the world. We stick to our history and love our free country.
Sure, not everything can be 100% free - for that would be an anarchy. And as you know - no civilized people would ever support an anarchy.
Here again, you miss the general idea. I do not say that money are bad. It's interest which is bad. Interest on debt is what the conspiracy is all about. This and the fact that the US dollar real value is cheaper than the paper its printed on. The conspiracy lies in the fact that FRS prints uncontrollable amounts of money and lends it to your government (among others) for an interest. Everyone owes money to the FRS in the end and FRS doesn't even support this paper they print with gold or something else. They can print more and buy out banks, businesses, resources, whole industries - just for pieces of green paper. And FRS is an organization owned by private capital.And an international money conspiracy? Not sure if I know what you are talking about - but if you are somehow thinking that there is a conspiracy to get us all revolved around money - then that's absolutely true....can't say I have a problem with it either: sure as hell better than trading old leather boots for a chicken, or something like that.
This doesn't really justify their actions. Hitler has to be put down because of that and generally this was one of the reasons a WORLD WAR happened.HOWEVER, comparing the United States' actions to the concentration camps in Europe during WWII is absolutely -- retarded.
Directly - no, US government washes hands 'just in time' and then it looks elsewhere when something like that is done by its allies. (Kosovo, Turkey, Pakistan).The United States government would never support ethnic cleansing or genocide.
Your conclusion is generally correct. US became a superpower BECAUSE of the WW2, but who said everyone else should like this? An unopposed leader can turn into a dictator pretty quickly.And, for my conclusion. For those of you who believe the United States has too much power and his hell-bent on world domination: Thank Germany. Because, when you look at history - we got a taste of control with our occupation of Europe after WWII (started by Germans), and then entered the Cold War - in which we wanted to do anything to hurt the Soviet Union.
As I said many times - I don't think this world needs a 'ruling country'. Every country who tries to rule the world would eventually fail (very painfully for its people).And as many have also said - who's going to step up when the U.S. falls?
Send me a PM if you need me.
USMC Cadence. Listen to what our soldiers think of their job.
Great post Ramil!
Chaika I could not understand what they were saying; the expressions are unfamiliar to all but native US English speakers. Hopefully it was something against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I would like America a lot if it was a NORMAL country and did not start wars to try to force its ideology and economical interests on everyone else...
Tell that to the dead and handicapped civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam, Panama, Korea, Nicaragua and many more! I've seen some of the suffering caused in two of these countries and it changed my view of the US forever.
I honestly don't think most American people know what suffering their country is bringing about by meddling in the affairs of others. And how can you swallow all that BS about democracy and freedom, they are relative terms, like Ramil said.
All America needs to do is just stop being so aggressive abroad and focus on it's internal affairs. Withdraw all foreign bases and become a normal country and nobody will have a problem any more.
I realise US soldiers are not necessarily bad people, but they are following bad orders! I don't know how you can voluntarily serve in an army like that!
"Normal" national armies are there to defend their own country in case of an attack, but the US army seems to exist to actually start wars in foreign locations, or keep the pro-US government in the countries they are deployed to.
Hanna
What do you think about the USSR invasion of Afghanistan or the Russian action in South Ossetia?
В основном безвреден.
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
Reply With Quote