# Forum About Russia Politics  G8 Summit and Russia's Prez

## RusskiSlav

As we all know (hopefully  ::  ) Russia hosted the G8 Summit this year in St. Petersburg. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, is a former KGB colonel who was stationed in East Germany. He's probably a communist at heart, and if he isn't he's got a funny was of showing it: he's revised the Russian constitution to expand government control on everything, including the media, and limit public voting for office. He's slowly turning the country back to Soviet times. In fact, he called the collapse of the USSR "the worst political disaster of the century" or something along those lines. Those weren't his exact words but it was the same general idea--he's not happy the Soviet Union is no more, and unless something can be done to stop what he's done to the political situation in Russia, a Soviet-like regime may be back  ::   
Any thoughts on any of this?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Well, the fact that the communist party is in opposition to him, kind of counters those points. I doubt a soviet-like government will ever come back, in fact most "reforms" point away from that. Like removing subsidies of the pensionists, making the rouble fully convertable, encouraging foreign investors (stockman for example), etc. etc. 
I would rather call him a neo-tsar than a neo-communist. He just wants a strong and stable Russia.

----------


## mishau_

> Well, the fact that the communist party is in opposition to him, kind of counters those points.

 No, communists are those who are in power now. The people you've mentioned are just marginals that are held up by the retired and their nostalgia about the Soviet time. They can't be the true opposition, because as a factor of matt we have a one-party system. The party that's governing now is a clone of the former CPSU. In addition the communistic anthem has been restored.  
[/code][/quote]

----------


## pisces

And he's gonna make bears back to the streets! That's for sure!

----------


## Ramil

Russia is like a tram. No matter who sits on the driver's seat, it will still go along the rails.

----------


## JJ

> a Soviet-like regime may be back

 It would be great man, yeah, it would be really great. I'm missing free education, free apartments, the low crime level, free medecine and the real freedom for all. Unfortunatly it never comes back.

----------


## Scorpio

> As we all know (hopefully  ) Russian hosted the G8 Summit this year in St. Petersburg. Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, is a former KGB colonel who was stationed in East Germany. He's probably a communist at heart, and if he isn't he's got a funny was of showing it: he's revised the Russian constitution to expand government control on everything, including the media, and limit public voting for office. He's slowly turning the country back to Soviet times. In fact, he called the collapse of the USSR "the worst political disaster of the century" or something along those lines. Those weren't his exact words but it was the same general idea--he's not happy the Soviet Union is no more, and unless something can be done to stop what he's done to the political situation in Russia, a Soviet-like regime may be back   
> Any thoughts on any of this?

 I completely agree, what the collapse of the USSR was a worst political disaster of the century.
I don't think, what Putin is "slowly turning the country back to Soviet times", however. Because: 
- in Soviet times, there was no open multi-party system (and one-party system was even declared in Soviet constitution until 1990). Now, the parties and social movements are really countless.
- in Soviet times were no free alternative elections (and almost no elections at all, only 100% formal elections of the deputies of the Supreme Council). Now there are lots of elections, with are alternative: there are typically up to 10 candidates to President's post, and 20-30 parties/movements participating in Duma elections.
- there was almost no freedom of speech and non-government media did not exist. Now, there is a lot of private newspapers, radio and TV companies.
- finally, there was almost no economical freedom -- and now there are a lot of private and partially private companies and corporations. 
So, where's the "turning back to the USSR"? Putin is smart enough not to repeat mistakes of the old...

----------


## pisces

> Originally Posted by RusskiSlav  a Soviet-like regime may be back   It would be great man, yeah, it would be really great. I'm missing free education, free apartments, the low crime level, free medecine and the real freedom for all. Unfortunatly it never comes back.

 Well, while I'm not a Putin-hater, I have to disagree.
Education is still free if you mean universities. Not very easy to enter one for free but still possible. If you mean ultra-popular universities of Moscow, there sould be some "filter" anyway. Are bribes and блат better than official payment?
Free appartments - if you mean коммуналки, then yes. I used to live in one. I would prefer a rented flat to living in коммуналка.
Low crime level - I see no difference. Except that in USSR crimes were not so widely spoken about on TV (which perhaps was good).
Free medicine - there was one but the quality was on the same level as the price (paid indirectly through taxes).
Real freedom - well we were free and still we are free. Who took your freedom away?
The positive thing the present government is trying to do is not the restoration of USSR, but actually bringing Russia to a normal social and economic level - the thing that was equally missing in USSR and after its breakdown. 
But, JJ, they respect your opinion about free appartments and will retain the last 5-floor "хрущевка" building in Moscow as a memorial: http://www.vesti.ru/news.html?id=96350

----------


## Scorpio

> Originally Posted by JJ        Originally Posted by RusskiSlav  a Soviet-like regime may be back   It would be great man, yeah, it would be really great. I'm missing free education, free apartments, the low crime level, free medecine and the real freedom for all. Unfortunatly it never comes back.   Well, while I'm not a Putin-hater, I have to disagree.
> Education is still free if you mean universities. Not very easy to enter one for free but still possible. If you mean ultra-popular universities of Moscow, there sould be some "filter" anyway. Are bribes and блат better than official payment?

 Formally, the higher education is still free, but in fact...
As time goes, more and more "commercial" faculties, less and less free ones.   

> Free appartments - if you mean коммуналки, then yes. I used to live in one. I would prefer a rented flat to living in коммуналка.

 Why necessary communal flats? Lots of people got a quite normal, 1-, 2- and even 3-room apartments. Now these flats cost a significant amount of money.   

> Low crime level - I see no difference. Except that in USSR crimes were not so widely spoken about on TV (which perhaps was good).

 The crime level *definitely* was much lower! If you compare number of really hard crimes (like, with use of firearms...) -- I'm afraid, the present rate is *orders* higher than in Soviet times!   

> Free medicine - there was one but the quality was on the same level as the price (paid indirectly through taxes).

 For free, the Soviet medicine was really not bad (which was admitted by the UNHCR, for examples).
And, BTW, the modern medicine isn't so good, especially thinking how non-free now it is.  ::    

> Real freedom - well we were free and still we are free. Who took your freedom away?

 I always thought, what *freedom* is a very personal thing in fact. Like, if some person want to be free -- he *will* be free (in any country and any times). Alas, 99% of people just don't want and need to be free (regardless of country and political system, too).   

> The positive thing the present government is trying to do is not the restoration of USSR, but actually bringing Russia to a normal social and economic level - the thing that was equally missing in USSR and after its breakdown.

 Agreed completely.

----------


## mishau_

That's pretty stupid to compare what's going on now with the Soviet times. In both cases we live much worse than people in the West. While the West went ahead in profress, with our free good for nothing education we learnt how to take out tonsils by gas-cutting through the anus. What's the use in getting educated for free if you could not apply your knowledge. We heard of plenty of good engineers who never saw their inventions introduced.  
Now medicine, all I remember for the retired there was only baralgin in cemists's, not like it is now. That's what free medicine could suggest. And nothing from diareha, except manganese crystals. All good farmaceuticals were in deficit. All good things were in deficit.  
But the worst thing about the Soviet styile was that a bunch of gray and stupid people directed you how you must live. Especially when you know that those people think more about their own prosperity than the prosperety of the state. So, all that you see now did not appear yesterday, but was fostered by the Soviet regime. People who never had anything can only bow at the foot of authorites to ask for some food and drink a lot and call it freedom.  
The moral degradation of the Homo Sovetucus was growing so rapidly that eventually it was about to take over the Soviet power and burst out (for example to occupy some new European or Asian countries).

----------


## TATY

> Why necessary communal flats? Lots of people got a quite normal, 1-, 2- and even 3-room apartments. Now these flats cost a significant amount of money.

 I stayed with a babushka in Kazan who had a nice 2 bedroomed, good sized apartment that was given to her and her husband in the Soviet days. I imagine it's worth a lot now.  
The fact is RussiSlav, Americans think Communism is evil? Why?.... it just is. The reason why they think so is because America was basically a major capitalist country from the start, so communism therefore goes against everything it stands for (on paper). 
I am from the UK. Although there is the general idea that communism is bad, we take (and took) a far more rational view. We aren't so millitantly anti-communist. In fact there was quite a large Socialist movement in Britain in the 50s and 60s or somethin (I think). 
The whole point is, if you compare life in today's Russia with life in the Soviet Union you will find: 
There is now more crime (you didn't wanna mess with a authoritarian regime).
There was free education then.
There was free accomodation then. 
There was free medical care then. (The Soviet Union was well known for it's excellent doctors) 
So what about freedom of speech and personal freedom? If your own and your family's life was good and safe would you really be too bothered if the newspaper was actually telling you the truth or some propoganda to keep you happy?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Well, all coins have their back sides. While Communism might have had some benefits it had also alot of disadvantages. Communism per se isn't necessarily bad, it is how it is implemented that has gone awry.  
For all the great promises of communism, it has one major flaw: It doesn't work.

----------


## SSSS

I say that now it's overall better in Russia than it was during Soviet times... And if any consolation there is some progress in a right direction which matters the most...

----------


## Dogboy182

I dont think most american's realize that you can't ever really choose your own goverment. In a capitalist society, the govt is run by big business. In a communist society, the govt runs big business. 
One of the many things people fear from communism is the govt owning all of the property. But let's say you by a 400,000 dollar house in America, and take out a 30 year loan to pay it off, with a rediculous interest rate. Are you ever going to really own this house? No. Most people move withing a few years anyways, taking the equity and using it as a down payment on another house they, themselves will never own, making endless payments to bank who is run by a billionair who sits behind at a cushy office desk. 
Id'd much rather live in a house that was own by the state.  Communism and capitalism are two diffrent types of goverments for diffrent types of people. If your dream is to make big money by taking big risks and spending lots of money. Then America is the place for you. But face it, not EVERYBODY can be a CEO. Not everybody will ever own their own busniess. 
Freedom of religion is also kind of scary... Not, that the fact that people shouldn't be able to practice whatever religion they want... But the fact that our president makes public statements about how he talks to god and has visions and such, when not everybody believes in his god. 
Last week he veto'd the bill to increase funding for stem cell research because it uses live cells from embreyos (spelling) of fetuses that will never be born. Well sorry if thats against your religion, but its not against mine. If im dying from lung cancer and i could be saved by growing cells from my own body, but its against the law because the presedent doesnt think its what 'god' would want. F*** that. I need a new lung.  
Lets face it. The state religion, officially or unofficially of the United States is Christianity... And if you arn't a christian you don't fit in. 
Its not like people couldnt practice religions in the soviet union. If this were so then all of the the cathedrals and churches and palaces would have been torn down in the name of atheism. People could practice whatever religion they wanted as long as they didn't shove it in other peoples faces, and there was no gov't to say "This is, or isnt going to be against the law because its against my religion". 
The only downside ive seen so far to soviet communism is you can never be a millinaire, on paper. But hey, Im not a millionaire right now, I probly never will be. 
Id trade in my 2005 Mercedes and summer home in vermont (if i had these) for free healthcare, free education, free housing, and not having to worry about being mugged walking home from the store after dark. But hey thats just me, call me crazy. 
Its not as if life was so diffrent between CCCP and USA to begin with. In USA, you want to drop out of highschool, well good for you. Go work at mcdonalds. In CCCP, you dont go to school, go plow a field in kazakhstan. In USA, if you have the money for college, well you're lucky. In CCCP, you have a talent. Here go take some classes. The system wasnt that much diffrent than what I've seen in most other modern europian countries, or even australia for that matter.  
You go to school to learn about what you're good at. You want to be a doctor, be a doctor. You want to be a linguist (Yes please!) be a linguist. Want to be a bum? Go plow a field.

----------


## JJ

+1
+1 
Actually, there were some wrong things in that time but for sure they were not a lack of freedom... there were just another rules for playing... just another life goals.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Last week he veto'd the bill to increase funding for stem cell research because it uses live cells from embreyos (spelling) of fetuses that will never be born. Well sorry if thats against your religion, but its not against mine. If im dying from lung cancer and i could be saved by growing cells from my own body, but its against the law because the presedent doesnt think its what 'god' would want. F*** that. I need a new lung.

 Well, that is quite an oversimplifaction, young Jedi. He vetoed the bill that would allow stem cell research using live cells from embryos. The veto doesn't put any limitation on stem cell research using adult cells. The difference is that to get the stem cells from embyros you have to kill the embyro, being a potential human being, while adult cells you can just scrape off your skin to grow more skin. So your statement: "if I could be saved by growing cells from my own body" isn't against the law, unless you are an embyro. But if you were an embyro, you wouldn't need a lung in the first place. So that's that.

----------


## Scorpio

> Now medicine, all I remember for the retired there was only baralgin in cemists's, not like it is now. That's what free medicine could suggest. And nothing from diareha, except manganese crystals. All good farmaceuticals were in deficit. All good things were in deficit.
> ...

 Messages like these always make me wonder: why there's no remedy from *verbal* diarrhea in drug stores?  ::

----------


## scotcher

> Well, that is quite an oversimplifaction, young Jedi. He vetoed the bill that would allow stem cell research using live cells from embryos. The veto doesn't put any limitation on stem cell research using adult cells. The difference is that to get the stem cells from embyros you have to kill the embyro, being a potential human being, while adult cells you can just scrape off your skin to grow more skin. So your statement: "if I could be saved by growing cells from my own body" isn't against the law, unless you are an embyro. But if you were an embyro, you wouldn't need a lung in the first place. So that's that.

 That in itself is a bit of a simplification. He didn't veto a bill allowing the research, he vetoed a bill allowing _federal funding_ for that research.

----------


## mishau_

> Messages like these always make me wonder: why there's no remedy from *verbal* diarrhea in drug stores?

 Listen, if you don't know what to say on the subject, shut please your mouth up and remain quiet. Comment on the subject, not on messages that are not to you, ok? If you want to comment on someone's messages, start your own thread and post your unsubstantiated comments about everythinhg you want, ok?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie  
> Well, that is quite an oversimplifaction, young Jedi. He vetoed the bill that would allow stem cell research using live cells from embryos. The veto doesn't put any limitation on stem cell research using adult cells. The difference is that to get the stem cells from embyros you have to kill the embyro, being a potential human being, while adult cells you can just scrape off your skin to grow more skin. So your statement: "if I could be saved by growing cells from my own body" isn't against the law, unless you are an embyro. But if you were an embyro, you wouldn't need a lung in the first place. So that's that.   That in itself is a bit of a simplification. He didn't veto a bill allowing the research, he vetoed a bill allowing _federal funding_ for that research.

 True you are. The state of California has allowed such research through a proposition not long aho, but I think the Senate is challenging it...

----------


## Scorpio

> Messages like these always make me wonder: why there's no remedy from *verbal* diarrhea in drug stores?
> 			
> 		  Listen, if you don't know what to say on the subject, shut please your mouth up and remain quiet. Comment on the subject, not on messages that are not to you, ok? If you want to comment on someone's messages, start your own thread and post your unsubstantiated comments about everythinhg you want, ok?

 OK, very well. If you want serious comment on your (as usual, more than predictable) remarks -- you'll get it. This thread is going to be boring and full of flames, but if you insist…   

> That's pretty stupid to compare what's going on now with the Soviet times. In both cases we live much worse than people in the West. While the West went ahead in profress, with our free good for nothing education we learnt how to take out tonsils by gas-cutting through the anus.

 I'm quite sure, the anal tonsil surgery was unique invention of yours -- the rests of Soviet scientists were busy with different matters.
For example, due to their efforts USSR became the first country in space. USSR was one of the first in nuclear research, and first discovered lots of trans-uranium elements. Until the 1970’s, USSR was one of the world leading countries in computer industry (BESM-6 was first computer, which achieved millions register ops per second). USSR constructed arctic and antarctic research stations, conducted deep ocean researches, etc, etc.   

> What's the use in getting educated for free if you could not apply your knowledge. We heard of plenty of good engineers who never saw their inventions introduced.

 So, come on and give me a list of engineers, who “never saw their inventions introduced”, with the list of inventions and reasons, why they did not.   

> Now medicine, all I remember for the retired there was only baralgin in cemists's, not like it is now. That's what free medicine could suggest. And nothing from diareha, except manganese crystals. All good farmaceuticals were in deficit. All good things were in deficit.

 This statement surely counts as direct and obvious lying.
USSR had a powerful pharmaceutical industry, and all medicaments actually needed for health care were available without problems and by very low price. For example, antibiotics, vitamins, analgetics, sedatives — most of these were domestically produced. There were lots of medicines imported from Poland, Hungary, India and other countries. 
(BTW, if I right, manganesia can’t help much from diarrhea — actually, it have exactly opposite effect  ::  ).   

> But the worst thing about the Soviet styile was that a bunch of gray and stupid people directed you how you must live.

 Some of these “gray and stupid” leaders look for me like the geniuses, compared with some modern ones…   

> Especially when you know that those people think more about their own prosperity than the prosperity of the state.

 And how you can so surely know, what these people are thinking “more about their own prosperity”? Have a working telepathy skills?   

> So, all that you see now did not appear yesterday, but was fostered by the Soviet regime.

 Typical excuse of any lousy politician — blame his predecessors for all his own stupid mistakes.   

> People who never had anything can only bow at the foot of authorites to ask for some food and drink a lot and call it freedom.

 Pure and demagogic BS, which don’t worth much commenting.   

> The moral degradation of the Homo Sovetucus was growing so rapidly that eventually it was about to take over the Soviet power and burst out (for example to occupy some new European or Asian countries).

 Not understood.

----------


## laxxy

[quote=kalinka_vinnie] 

> Originally Posted by "kalinka_vinnie":1x8ikeon  
> Well, that is quite an oversimplifaction, young Jedi. He vetoed the bill that would allow stem cell research using live cells from embryos. The veto doesn't put any limitation on stem cell research using adult cells. The difference is that to get the stem cells from embyros you have to kill the embyro, being a potential human being, while adult cells you can just scrape off your skin to grow more skin. So your statement: "if I could be saved by growing cells from my own body" isn't against the law, unless you are an embyro. But if you were an embyro, you wouldn't need a lung in the first place. So that's that.   That in itself is a bit of a simplification. He didn't veto a bill allowing the research, he vetoed a bill allowing _federal funding_ for that research.

 True you are. The state of California has allowed such research through a proposition not long aho, but I think the Senate is challenging it...[/quote:1x8ikeon]
Er? I am confused, does the state of California have any authority over the federal funds? And if this is about state funds, what does the Senate have to do with it?

----------


## mishau_

Probably you or your parents used to work in the GosPlan or something. Thusyou do not know at all how people lived during the Soviet time.  
>>So, come on and give me a list of engineers, who “never saw their inventions introduced”, with the list of inventions and reasons, why they did not.  
Read "Дело Хинта", it's just a drop in the see, but so significant.  
>>This statement surely counts as direct and obvious lying.
USSR had a powerful pharmaceutical industry, and all medicaments actually needed for health care were available without problems and by very low price.  
You defeintely was a major.   
>>For example, antibiotics, vitamins, analgetics, sedatives — most of these were domestically produced. 
However, people perefered American aspirin when  they got a chance to catch it. But you can't know, you lived under communism. 
>>Some of these “gray and stupid” leaders look for me like the geniuses, compared with some modern ones…  
The modern ones formerly are the same CPSU members, that you know. I see them every day. 
>>And how you can so surely know, what these people are thinking “more about their own prosperity”? Have a working telepathy skills?  
No, I just work with them side by side. Affiliated compamies, relationship of godparents, sabotage, and so on. Very predicalbe. 
I wish you were a victim of their numerous plots; it'd be a good lesson for you. 
>>So, all that you see now did not appear yesterday, but was fostered by the Soviet regime. 
The school is the same, obvuously. They are the same. 
>>Pure and demagogic BS, which don’t worth much commenting.  
the Radio Svobody today at around 12:50 was translating pager messages. They were all similar to my idia.  Too many demagogs, don't you know, and all of them are only on the Bristish radio station. Too strange, isn't it? The western propaganda.  
>>For example, due to their efforts USSR became the first country in space 
Yes, and the people who contgributed a lot, lived and still live much worse than the party functioners. The state has forgotten them as those once who worked at the Chernobyl.

----------


## Scorpio

> Probably you or your parents used to work in the GosPlan or something. Thusyou do not know at all how people lived during the Soviet time.

 Nope, you missed completely.
My father worked (and works) as translator from German and English. In these times, he worked in ЦБНТИ (Central Bureau of Scientific and Technical Information) and translated technical articles in various magazines.
My mother worked in one of the GLAVK's of Minmedprom, on some insignificant post.
Neighter of my parent was even a Party member.   

> >>So, come on and give me a list of engineers, who “never saw their inventions introduced”, with the list of inventions and reasons, why they did not.  
> Read "Дело Хинта", it's just a drop in the see, but so significant.

 Do you want to say, what I.A. Hint is an engineer, who actually invented something? He was director and administrator of constructor bureau, and was sentenced to prison for purely economic affairs. 
BTW, do you know, who was one of the main inspirators of this doubtful criminal case? It was Telman Gdlyan, the future hero of Perestroyka and fighter with the totalitarian system.  ::    

> >>This statement surely counts as direct and obvious lying.
> USSR had a powerful pharmaceutical industry, and all medicaments actually needed for health care were available without problems and by very low price.  
> You defeintely was a major.

 Who-who?  ::    

> >>For example, antibiotics, vitamins, analgetics, sedatives — most of these were domestically produced. 
> However, people perefered American aspirin when  they got a chance to catch it. But you can't know, you lived under communism.

 Yes, it was a serious social stratum -- a clinical idiots, considering everything western-produced to be better. Even Edichka Limonov ironised in some of this novel about some soviet-breed idiots, who detested Soviet-made 100% cotton shirts and preferred western-msde synthetic ones. (And when he emigrated to USA, he discovered, what values are slighttly different there -- pure cotton shirts are worn by millionaires, and synthetic -- by young bandits in negro ghettos.  ::  )
The same is true for aspirin, which is just an acetil-salicilic acid and is absolutely identical, regardless of where it is produced.
And idiots, even if they are numerous, remain an idiots.   

> >>Some of these “gray and stupid” leaders look for me like the geniuses, compared with some modern ones…  
> The modern ones formerly are the same CPSU members, that you know. I see them every day.

 You did not understand me -- I'm talking about most of the modern political leaders, including ones from the West. (I guess, the later ones never were members of CPSU  ::  ).   

> >>And how you can so surely know, what these people are thinking “more about their own prosperity”? Have a working telepathy skills?  
> No, I just work with them side by side. Affiliated compamies, relationship of godparents, sabotage, and so on. Very predicalbe. 
> I wish you were a victim of their numerous plots; it'd be a good lesson for you.

 So, you are working now, or *was* working? I have absolutely no illusions about the modern politicians -- but I guess we were discussing the situation of the past, not the present times.
[/quote]   

> >>Pure and demagogic BS, which don’t worth much commenting.  
> the Radio Svobody today at around 12:50 was translating pager messages. They were all similar to my idia.  Too many demagogs, don't you know, and all of them are only on the Bristish radio station. Too strange, isn't it? The western propaganda.

 I'm astonished. Didn't you really know, what RL ("Radio Liberty") is 100% controlled by USA state dept.? Of course, it is an instrument of propaganda (and not vaguely "western" -- but, specifically, US officious). Denying this is kinda like deny the "Pravda" was an official paper of CPSU. 
(And, personally, I'm not surprised, what "Radio Liberty" shares lots of your views. I expected something like this.  ::  ) 
>>For example, due to their efforts USSR became the first country in space   

> Yes, and the people who contgributed a lot, lived and still live much worse than the party functioners.

 The leading scientists and engineers (like Korolev) had exactly everything, what the higher Party functioners had. BTW, this was quite a modest life level by modern standarts.   

> The state has forgotten them as those once who worked at the Chernobyl.

 *Which* "state" you're talking about? Soviet Union ceased to exist 5 years after Chernobyl disaster. In Russia Chernobyl "liquidators" have some social priveleges. I have no idea about situation in modern Ukraine and Belorussia (for which the leaders of these countries are responsible).

----------


## mishau_

> BTW, do you know, who was one of the main inspirators of this doubtful criminal case? It was Telman Gdlyan, the future hero of Perestroyka and fighter with the totalitarian system. Smile

 I've read all the materials including Gdlyan's interrogationprotocols written and signatured by his own hand. It was nonsence. Gdlayn was a cop, so he was totally a Sobiet man, like now Gryslov (who used to be a cop) and Putin how was (and I think is) a KGB'ist. So cops are governing the country now and people are so glad.  But it seems you didn't read the book.  ::  
Now his invention is in practice in Europe, but not in Russia. Besides TV Set was invented in the USSR first and introduced in Britain later. And all soviet engeneers were aimed to work for the affairs of defence. So, try to read Zadornov to recall what was going on in Soviet Cunstruction Buerous. But if you still don't remember anything about the quality of goods in the USSR, just look at Russian cars now or elevators that always break down.    

> Yes, it was a serious social stratum -- a clinical idiots, considering everything western-produced to be better. Even Edichka Limonov ironised in some of this novel about some soviet-breed idiots, who detested Soviet-made 100% cotton shirts and preferred western-msde synthetic ones. (And when he emigrated to USA, he discovered, what values are slighttly different there -- pure cotton shirts are worn by millionaires, and synthetic -- by young bandits in negro ghettos. Smile )
> The same is true for aspirin, which is just an acetil-salicilic acid and is absolutely identical, regardless of where it is produced.
> And idiots, even if they are numerous, remain an idiots.

 May be you mean only vodka. Edichka Limonov is a greatist idiot himself. How can you write "even"? Don't forget, *most* of rather good products came from Hungary, GDR, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Poland.  
Tobacco was too bad, just incomparable with the import (Java by Java was was the best sort of cigarets, but the Camel and Marllboro were out of competition).  
French wines and cognac were in favour, Czechic beer (did you forget long queues?) was in deficit. Jeans from the USA and snickers from the Adidas or Botas were the best.  
Musical intruments from Germany, Bulgaria and the CSSR, remember Leningradskaya guitars? They were total rubbish comprated to those from abroad.  
Finnish smoked sausages were at the top as I remember.  
Tape-recordes and Video- recorders, you know, were no match at all for the import ones.  
I'll laugh at you if you tell me that Russian cassetes like (МК-60-1) were better than  Agfa, Sanio or Maxell. 
And finally computers, especially Russian and Bulgarian disckettes (Izot) that were banned to use in all labs I knew (people were idiots like you say). And we couldn't compare Russian Iskra's and Poland Masovia's, not to say about American ibm's. 
I can keep you telling all this for half a year or more, but what was crusual in all those things that there was a very big shortage of all of them.

----------


## Scorpio

> BTW, do you know, who was one of the main inspirators of this doubtful criminal case? It was Telman Gdlyan, the future hero of Perestroyka and fighter with the totalitarian system. Smile
> 			
> 		  I've read all the materials including Gdlyan's interrogationprotocols written and signatured by his own hand. It was nonsence. Gdlayn was a cop, so he was totally a Sobiet man, like now Gryslov (who used to be a cop) and Putin how was (and I think is) a KGB'ist. So cops are governing the country now and people are so glad.  But it seems you didn't read the book.

 Missed you point. If you want to say, what Gdlyan is mostly responsible for this case, I agree. I guess, Putin and Gryzlov have nothing to do with it.   

> Now his invention is in practice in Europe, but not in Russia.

 So, Johannes Hint did invent something? And what? And which was his contribution?   

> Besides TV Set was invented in the USSR first and introduced in Britain later.

 TV set was invented in USSR? Never heard of this! More facts, please.   

> So, try to read Zadornov to recall what was going on in Soviet Cunstruction Buerous.

 Which Zadornov do you mean, the humorist?  ::    

> But if you still don't remember anything about the quality of goods in the USSR, just look at Russian cars now or elevators that always break down.

 First, I thought we were discussing the goods made in USSR, not Russia? But, anyway: 
I'm looking at Russian cars every day. I'm living in Moscow, remember?  ::  Even here in Moscow (with relatively high life level) 30-35% of personal cars are LADA's of various modifications. Some of them are (judging by their looks) in use from middle of 70's -- and still not broken. LADA's and NIVA's were exported to the rest of the world, and were quite popular. 
And I'm also using the Russian elevator every day! Yes it's working perfectly -- from my memory, it was broken one or two times for last 4 years. (And this was mostly due to vandalism of some cretins, I think.)   

> Yes, it was a serious social stratum -- a clinical idiots, considering everything western-produced to be better. Even Edichka Limonov ironised in some of this novel about some soviet-breed idiots, who detested Soviet-made 100% cotton shirts and preferred western-msde synthetic ones. (And when he emigrated to USA, he discovered, what values are slighttly different there -- pure cotton shirts are worn by millionaires, and synthetic -- by young bandits in negro ghettos. Smile )
> The same is true for aspirin, which is just an acetil-salicilic acid and is absolutely identical, regardless of where it is produced.
> And idiots, even if they are numerous, remain an idiots.

 May be you mean only vodka. Edichka Limonov is a greatist idiot himself. [/quote] 
I'm agree he's quite an idiot -- but it's no reason to think, what people he is writing about are smarter than him.  ::    

> Don't forget, *most* of rather good products came from Hungary, GDR, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia and Poland.

 Another over-general stetement -- *which* products?
And in which aspect they were so good -- prettyly looking packing case?   

> Tobacco was too bad, just incomparable with the import (Java by Java was was the best sort of cigarets, but the Camel and Marllboro were out of competition).

 Can't even comment cigars quality -- I'm not a smoker, and wish you too...   

> French wines and cognac were in favour, Czechic beer (did you forget long queues?) was in deficit.

 Neither I'm expert in alcohol. But you must remember, what things like "French wines and cognac" are world-known brands, and were popular not only in USSR.   

> Jeans from the USA and snickers from the Adidas or Botas were the best.

 Ha ha. Do you know, what *lots* of these "best" jeans were actually made in Poland or southern respublics of USSR? They just had stickers like "Levy's" or "Wrangler" on them.
So theyr popularity were due to widespread idioticy, and have nothing to do with their objective quality.   

> Musical intruments from Germany, Bulgaria and the CSSR, remember Leningradskaya guitars? They were total rubbish comprated to those from abroad.

 Not expert in musical instruments.   

> Finnish smoked sausages were at the top as I remember.

 Good sausages. As wines, they were popular in the other countries of the world.   

> Tape-recordes and Video-recorders, you know, were no match at all for the import ones.

 First, this depends from how you match them. 
Do you know, what audio reproducing equipment depends from its class?
Classes are from highest (0) to lowest (4). As far as I know, this is european standart, and Soviet-made audio equipment conformed to this standarts precisely.
For example, "Elektronika-302" tape recorder sounded exactly like class 3 tape recorder must sound -- neither better, nor worse.
As far as I know, some Soviet-made audio equipment (especially, lamp-based) is quite popular among modern audiophiles. I hope, this is telling something to you.   

> I'll laugh at you if you tell me that Russian cassetes like (МК-60-1) were better than  Agfa, Sanio or Maxell.

 Before starting to laugh, remember, what only idiots compare consumer goods by they quality alone. They are *always* compared by quality/price ratio. 
Yes, audiocassetes like MK-60 and MK-90 were a bit worse -- but they also were at least 2 times cheaper! As far as I remember, MK-60 costed 4 R, and most cassetes from abroad -- 9-10 R (with normal ferrite tape, and something like 15R with chromdioxide tape).   

> And finally computers, especially Russian and Bulgarian disckettes (Izot) that were banned to use in all labs I knew (people were idiots like you say).

 Yes, this sounds quite idiotic. Why did they ban quite a normal floppy disks? As I remember, "Izot" produced both 8" and 5.25" floppy diskettes (which were not much worse, the the other ones I encountered  ::  )   

> And we couldn't compare Russian Iskra's and Poland Masovia's, not to say about American ibm's.

 Well, let's be a bit more specific. There was no computer caleed "Iskra", for example.
If we are talking about IBM-PC compatibles made in USSR, I know two of them "ES-1840/41" and "Iskra-1030". (I'm sure you aren't talking about "Iskra-226", which was weird and *not* PC compatible). 
In the good old times I worked both on ES-type and Iskra-1030 PCs. IMHO, by their functional parameters they were not worse, than normal IBM PC/XT clones. Both worked OK with all available software, from Borland and Microsoft compilers, to dBase III, Lotus 123 and games. There were lot of weird things about them (for example, Iskra-1030 had only monochrome monitor; ES series had a color one, but no HD at all) -- but such was most of PC compatibles made in various parts of the world. 
I have on idea, what was Poland "Masovia", because I never met one. But I strongly doubt, what it was really better, than ES-1840, for example. 
Uffff.... this was a lot of work. Hope, you're satisfied, at last.  ::

----------


## mishau_

So you seem you are not good prepared for this discussion. You either are not an expert or never heard or haven't read or need evidence or so.  
When I say import goods were the most part better, you say people were idiots.  
When I mention the Radio Leberty you say it's propaganda (btw they are a British station, not American)  
When I provide some info, you say you never heard of that. 
When I bring up some facts you require confirmation. 
Buy wait, why should I? Who are you? Here I just want to share the info I know; I'm not writing for only you. And if you disagree with the info I'm presenting, you'd better find your own evidences to upset my ideas and provide them here!

----------


## Scorpio

> So you seem you are not good prepared for this discussion.

 Oh, really?   

> You either are not an expert or never heard or haven't read or need evidence or so.

 If I'm not competent in certain area, I just said so. In the areas, in which I consider myself more or less competent -- like computers and audio equipment -- I provided my arguments (which you are, obviously, not going to refute).   

> When I say import goods were the most part better, you say people were idiots.

 You gave no reasons, *why* these goods are actually better. Your appeal to opinion of ordinary Homo Soveticus'es is not convincing for me. Yes, these people were idiots. Everybody judging things not by their objective qualities, but by adverts, nicely colored stickers, or auntie Manya's opinion *is* an idiot.   

> When I mention the Radio Leberty you say it's propaganda (btw they are a British station, not American)

 Maybe, you meant some other Radio Liberty?
The only one I know is RL/RFE. It is obviously American, it is sponsored by US government, and it's even not much of a secret:  http://www.rferl.org/about/organization/brief.asp  _RFE/RL in Brief
RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO LIBERTY
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is a private, international communications service to Eastern and Southeastern Europe, Russia, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East, and Southwestern Asia, funded by the U.S. Congress through the Broadcasting Board of Governors._   

> When I provide some info, you say you never heard of that.
> When I bring up some facts you require confirmation.

 Precisely. I really have this nasty habit -- when I'm face some information,  which I never heard before, and which don't look as credible for me, I'm asking for some confirmation.
You'll be surprised, how frequently this "information" appeared to be complete and utter BS.   

> Buy wait, why should I? Who are you? Here I just want to share the info I know; I'm not writing for only you. And if you disagree with the info I'm presenting, you'd better find your own evidences to upset my ideas and provide them here!

 If you are so offended by the need to prove your point -- better keep away from Internet forums. Discuss things with internet bots -- they never argue back.

----------


## mishau_

> I really have this nasty habit -- when I'm face some information, which I never heard before, and which don't look as credible for me, I'm asking for some confirmation

 I, me, my - who are you after all, the moderator or administrator something? I'd defenitely provide a lot of evidences for everyone except you; you don't need any. No one but you ask for evidences all the time. I don't think you deserve even a wee bit my free time to provide them for you. You were quite impolite and sharpshooting me all the time. So what can you excpect from me?  
And please, do not advise me which forums I should visit. You are not the moderator and actually in this case it's not quite your business what I should do. 
And when you come across some info you never heard of, it's up to you wether to believe it or not. It's your own ignorance and if you like to point it out, it's up to you to ask evendence or stuff. I'm providing my own ideas and impressions and I do not wish to teach you history or how to use the wiki or google or stuff. If you don't like the ideas what I'm speaking of, just upset them.  
But if you don't know how to upset one's ideas, please do not intervene and do not make a trash of the thread saying that it's is a "verbal diarrhea" or "give me evidence" or stuff. I'm providing my own ideas and 
if you haven't learnt how to respect someone's opinion yet (either in the Soviet times or now), I must say it's too bad for you then.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> For all the great promises of communism, it has one major flaw: *It doesn't work.*

 Thank you, kalinka. SOMEONE sums it up for the rest of us... 
If it really _did_ work, how come the Soviet Union collapsed?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

[quote=laxxy] 

> Originally Posted by scotcher        Originally Posted by "kalinka_vinnie":1r2nmypp  
> Well, that is quite an oversimplifaction, young Jedi. He vetoed the bill that would allow stem cell research using live cells from embryos. The veto doesn't put any limitation on stem cell research using adult cells. The difference is that to get the stem cells from embyros you have to kill the embyro, being a potential human being, while adult cells you can just scrape off your skin to grow more skin. So your statement: "if I could be saved by growing cells from my own body" isn't against the law, unless you are an embyro. But if you were an embyro, you wouldn't need a lung in the first place. So that's that.   That in itself is a bit of a simplification. He didn't veto a bill allowing the research, he vetoed a bill allowing _federal funding_ for that research.   True you are. The state of California has allowed such research through a proposition not long aho, but I think the Senate is challenging it...

 Er? I am confused, does the state of California have any authority over the federal funds? And if this is about state funds, what does the Senate have to do with it?[/quote:1r2nmypp] 
California wants to provide funds for stem cell research on a state level. But last I heard was that some senators were trying to block it based on that it is unconstitutional or something... Heck, maybe it was the state senate!  ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie   For all the great promises of communism, it has one major flaw: *It doesn't work.*   Thank you, kalinka. SOMEONE sums it up for the rest of us... 
> If it really _did_ work, how come the Soviet Union collapsed?

 Well it didn't work for USSR, maybe it will work for Vietnam? Or China? Communism is like capitalism, there are many different flavors.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> I would rather call him a neo-tsar than a neo-communist. He just wants a strong and stable Russia.

  
PUTIN IS A COMMUNIST, PEOPLE! WOULD A *NON*-COMMUNIST STAND BETWEEN THE FLAG OF THE SOVIET UNION AND ONE THAT SAYS СОВЕТСКИЙ (SOVYETSKY) ON IT?!

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

a) that is not the soviet flag
b) why the hell not? Didn't Reagan stand next to Gorbachov? Doesn't that make him a communist too?

----------


## Бармалей

> a) that is not the soviet flag
> b) why the hell not? Didn't Reagan stand next to Gorbachov? Doesn't that make him a communist too?

 Duh. Of course it does. He was the one that said Доверяй, но проверяй, which means he spoke Russian. And as we all know, if you speak Russian, you are at least a communist if not in the mafia. Or you are a mail-order bride or sex-slave, but I'd prefer not to think of Reagan in that sense. :shudder:

----------


## RusskiSlav

> a) that is not the soviet flag
> b) why the hell not? Didn't Reagan stand next to Gorbachov? Doesn't that make him a communist too?

 OK so the hammer and sickle's white there instead of yellow.  It's the same general idea. And Reagan was a president which meant he had to travel to the USSR so no duh he'd wind up standing next to Gorbachev. Putin looks like he's voluntarily giving a speech between those communist flags.

----------


## gRomoZeka

Ok, he was a communist, so what? Is it a crime?

----------


## RusskiSlav

Yes..look what communism did to Russia. Was killing millions of innocent people a crime? Was creating food shortages a crime? Was taking people to the gulag at midnight to have them work there for years a crime? Yes.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Yes..look what communism did to Russia. Was killing millions of innocent people a crime? Was creating food shortages a crime? Was taking people to the gulag at midnight to have them work there for years a crime? Yes.

 You mix an ideology (distorted by the politicians, btw) and ordinary people. Average soviet communist of 80-th had nothing to do with Gulags or cilling innocent people. No more than other average soviet citizen. Some communist among the old people were just idealists (though they were rare), and a lot of communists at the time were "career" communists (you had to be the member of "the Party" to get some kinds of jobs).
Most of the population of the USSR was absolutely politically indifferent, including some communists. The ideology was everywhere, but it was routine, and nobody paid to much attention to it. 
(I'm not defending Putin here. I'm just trying to say that position communist=evil is childish)

----------


## RusskiSlav

Yes, most Soviet citizens were just average people with nothing to do with gulags. My point was that the government, which was run by communists, was the one that _did_ have somethin to do with gulags... 
And yes, I know you had to join the Party just to get a job. My dad had a friend from Czechoslovakia who had to do that. They themselves are not necessarily corrupt, because they don't necessarily like communism, they just want to get jobs. I'm only criticizing those who _do_ like communism, i.e. those in power who ran the system.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> The fact is RussiSlav, Americans think Communism is evil? Why?.... it just is. The reason why they think so is because America was basically a major capitalist country from the start, so communism therefore goes against everything it stands for (on paper).

 And Soviets think captialism is evil? Why? ...it just is.  If we're a capitalist country, no duh we're gonna dislike communism. The Soviets were the same way with us---they thought capitalism was evil because it went against everything communism stands for, so why don't you complain about that? And maybe if YOU had missiles pointed at your coast, just maybe you'd think the Soviet government was evil too....   

> So what about freedom of speech and personal freedom? If your own and your family's life was good and safe would you really be too bothered if the newspaper was actually telling you the truth or some propoganda to keep you happy?

 Well, in the USSR you had no freedom of speech and you weren't really good and safe with your family. If the KGB found out you opposed the government, you're in the gulag...if you were lucky. They might've just shot you. Or perhaps the people _thought_ they were safe and happy because "Pravda" (inappropriately called "Truth") told them they were, and the citizens didn't know any better than to believe it...

----------


## gRomoZeka

> If the KGB found out you opposed the government, you're in the gulag...if you were lucky. They might've just shot you. Or perhaps the people

 You're sooo exaggerating. Or probably you read too much Orwell.
Again don't mix Stalin's era and post-Stalin times. It's the same as to claim Bush is evil because USA tried to wipe out native-Americans population (though Bush IS evil, no doubt   ::  ).

----------


## RusskiSlav

Well I do read a lot of Orwell. I know the times after Stalin weren't nearly as brutal as the time of Stalin, but I was only talking about the Stalinist era. And Bush wasn't the one who wiped out the Native Americans, as you know. And today's 9/11---please show some respect and don't make fun of our president or our nation. Спасибо.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> And Bush wasn't the one who wiped out the Native Americans, as you know. And today's 9/11---please show some respect and don't make fun of our president or our nation. Спасибо.

 Well, Putin communist or not didn't send people to Gulag either.
But you're right. That's not time for such a discussion. Sorry.

----------


## Бармалей

> And today's 9/11---please show some respect and don't make fun of our president or our nation. Спасибо.

 The fact that today is 9/11 didn't stop you from making FIVE posts on this subject, attacking Putin, who by the way, was one of the first leaders to express solidarity with us and who didn't biatch and moan about letting us set up bases in Kyrgystan and Uzbekistan so we could deal with the Taliban (which is what basically every single Russian political figure said he SHOULD do). Just saying... 
Does Putin = the greatest thing since sliced-bread? No, of course not. But is he the communist satan incarnate? Not even close. By Russian historical standards he's one of the most mellow guys. Boris and Gleb were two of the traditional Russian heroes of old, and they ended up getting whacked by their own brother. Carry that on through the days of the Tatar occupation and their vassal kings, the Romanov dynasty, and the ACTUAL communist leaders and he comes out smelling like a peach.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Originally Posted by RusskiSlav  And today's 9/11---please show some respect and don't make fun of our president or our nation. Спасибо.   The fact that today is 9/11 didn't stop you from making FIVE posts on this subject, attacking Putin, who by the way, was one of the first leaders to express solidarity with us and who didn't biatch and moan about letting us set up bases in Kyrgystan and Uzbekistan so we could deal with the Taliban (which is what basically every single Russian political figure said he SHOULD do). Just saying...

 I meant for others not to bash the US, since this attack happened to us, not Russia...And I wasn't attacking Putin in ALL of them, mostly attacking the Soviet government. And no, Putin is not as evil as Stalin or other communists leaders, but that wasn't my point. My point was that he was still a communist, whether he'll admit it or not, but I never said he was an evil mass murderer who sent people to the gulag.

----------


## mishau_

Вы спорите ни о чём. В ГУЛАГ попадали кто угодно - вот в чем фишка! Туда попадали не только так называемые "враги народа", а вообще кто угодно, в т.ч. те же следователи которые отправляли других в лагерь, а потом следователи, отправившие тех следователей и т.д. В квартирах люди сидели и ждали чья же будет очередь. Моя бабушка, увидев милиционера, переходила на другую строну улицы, на всякий случай.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Вы спорите ни о чём. В ГУЛАГ попадали кто угодно - вот в чем фишка! Туда попадали не только так называемые "враги народа", а вообще кто угодно, в т.ч. те же следователи которые отправляли других в лагерь, а потом следователи, отправившие тех следователей и т.д. В квартирах люди сидели и ждали чья же будет очередь. Моя бабушка, увидев милиционера, переходила на другую строну улицы, на всякий случай.

 Как раз о Гулаге мы и не спорим. Мы спорим, можно ли считать человека (в данном случае Путина) плохим, только потому, что он коммунист (или был им).   ::

----------


## Lampada

> Originally Posted by mishau_  Вы спорите ни о чём. В ГУЛАГ попадали кто угодно - вот в чем фишка! Туда попадали не только так называемые "враги народа", а вообще кто угодно, в т.ч. те же следователи которые отправляли других в лагерь, а потом следователи, отправившие тех следователей и т.д. В квартирах люди сидели и ждали чья же будет очередь. Моя бабушка, увидев милиционера, переходила на другую строну улицы, на всякий случай.   Как раз о Гулаге мы и не спорим. Мы спорим, можно ли считать человека (в данном случае Путина) плохим, только потому, что он коммунист (или был им).

 Нет, нужно судить по делам.  А дела, можно сказать, неважные. Взять хотя бы процесс по делу Ходоровского.

----------


## Ramil

> Yes..look what communism did to Russia. Was killing millions of innocent people a crime? Was creating food shortages a crime? Was taking people to the gulag at midnight to have them work there for years a crime? Yes.

 I was not communism itself but some rampant communists.
I don't know what flag is it but hammer and sickle are not being used by communists alone. In fact, neo-nazi's adopted that symbolic as well. 
Check this flag, for example: 
Here's the leader of National-Bolsheviks Limonov. I woudn't call his views communistic. 
Moreover some military units retain their flags from USSR times. But this relates more to stars than hammer and sickle. 
Communism did nothing to Russia just because it had never existed there. 
USSR was 'building' communism but had it never actually built.

----------


## Ramil

> Yes, most Soviet citizens were just average people with nothing to do with gulags. My point was that the government, which was run by communists, was the one that _did_ have somethin to do with gulags... 
> And yes, I know you had to join the Party just to get a job.

 Bullsh|t.
There were people running the major industrial plants and they were беспартийные (беспартийный - a man who doesn't belong to party).
My father worked at Ministry and he wasn't a party member.
You had to be a party member in order to occupy some position in government. It was a plus for your career but it wasn't mandatory.
There were some positions (usually of a high rank) that required a party members only but there weren't that many of them.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by mishau_  Вы спорите ни о чём. В ГУЛАГ попадали кто угодно - вот в чем фишка! Туда попадали не только так называемые "враги народа", а вообще кто угодно, в т.ч. те же следователи которые отправляли других в лагерь, а потом следователи, отправившие тех следователей и т.д. В квартирах люди сидели и ждали чья же будет очередь. Моя бабушка, увидев милиционера, переходила на другую строну улицы, на всякий случай.   Как раз о Гулаге мы и не спорим. Мы спорим, можно ли считать человека (в данном случае Путина) плохим, только потому, что он коммунист (или был им).

 My mother is a communist. She was a communist back in USSR and she is a communist now (a member of CPRF - the successor of CPSU). Well, having read this discussion should I consider my mother evil as well? 
It's an idiocy to say people are evil just because they are communists. In fact - there were quite more 'good' members of CPSU than 'evil' ones.  I'm speaking of ordinary people who were sincere in their views and notions.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> It's an idiocy to say people are evil just because they are communists. In fact - there were quite more 'good' members of CPSU than 'evil' ones.  I'm speaking of ordinary people who were sincere in their views and notions.

 I hope you're not arguing to ME, because that's exactly what I'm trying to tell.   ::    

> Bullsh|t. 
> There were people running the major industrial plants and they were беспартийные (беспартийный - a man who doesn't belong to party).

 You're not quite right. To be a communist wasn't mandatory but made it easier to get better job. 
Well, my aunt was a communist. She Joined the Party because it gave her better chances to get a job in a very prestige military health centre (she is a nurse). Now she isn't a member of any party and not interested in politics.  
My mom was offered by her boss to join the party because he thought it was an hounor and wanted to give an incentive to her (she was a constructor, they built air-cushion ships, hydrofoil boats and other advanced technology stuff).  
She said to him that she believes the party meetings unbelievably boring and refused. And know what (*RusskiSlav*, are you reading?   ::  ) nobody called to KGB and nobody tried to send her to Gulag. She worked in that design office happily until the collapse of the USSR.

----------


## mishau_

> It's an idiocy to say people are evil just because they are communists. In fact - there were quite more 'good' members of CPSU than 'evil' ones. I'm speaking of ordinary people who were sincere in their views and notions.

 Честно говоря, некоторые западные недоброжелатели меня тоже называют коммунистом. А люди из Балтийких республик делают так непременно. Из чего я могу заключить вывод, что им вообще не важно коммунист человек по своим убеждением или нет. НА ЗАПАДЕ НЕНАВИДЯТ РУССКИХ! Даже чеченские террористы не являются злодеями. Почему? Потому что они ПРОТИВ РУССКИХ!  
Почему-то Китай никто не критикует, хотя они самые что ни на есть краснофлажистые. И формально-преформально поддерживают все эти идеи.  
Я не приемлю коммунистические идеи, однако меня называют коммунистом, следовательно  меня считают осью зла и готовы уничтожить. Таких как я их миллионы, ну и что, спрашивается, делать? На самом деле хотят уничтожить русских, уничтожить Россию.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> She said to him that she believes the party meetings unbelievably boring and refused. And know what (*RusskiSlav*, are you reading?   ) nobody called to KGB and nobody tried to send her to Gulag. She worked in that design office happily until the collapse of the USSR.

 Yeah, but that was AFTER Stalin died. I only meant all this stuff about the gulag and KGB sending people there to appy to Stalinist times, not after. And I didn't say all communists were "evil", but they aren't exactly the type of people who I'd want running my nation. However, Stalinist communism and gulags were evil, you can't deny that....  
Sigh...I haven't met a single person on this board who _isn't_ a communist, or who doesn't disagree with communism. If I had known that practically everyone here is like that I wouldn't have joined.   ::

----------


## Бармалей

> Sigh...I haven't met a single person on this board who _isn't_ a communist, or who doesn't disagree with communism. If I had known that practically everyone here is like that I wouldn't have joined.

 Yes, oh sage one, you have uncovered this super-secret evil plot! MasterRussian is actually <drum roll, please> funded by all that Communist Party money that dissappeared after the USSR collapsed. You see, MasterAdmin, was actually head of KGB Secret Section MARGARITA, which sought to spend huge amounts of hard currency on "language learning websites" (which they found out about through their psychic time machine, since there wasn't really much internet back then). These "language learning websites" are of course, just a mechanism for KGB sleeper cells! GO GO COMMUNIST SHARKS WITH THE LASER BEAMS MOUNTED TO YOUR HEADS! TAKE OVER THE CAPITALIST WORLD! SWIM MY PRETTIES, SWIM! MWHAHAHA. 
Seriously, you need to grow up and/or quit smoking the reefer. Please, if you think we're all "communists", then by all means leave. After all, you're obviously incredibly ignorant, since if you'd read much of anything here you'd realize that there are MANY different view points on ANYTHING. 
That's all I've got time to say right now. I'm on my way to the plenum to see if I can figure out a way to whack some of my commie buddies.  ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

Geez I didn't say you were ALL communists, I just said the only people I've met seem to support that point of view. I know there are surely other people here who don't, but I was only saying that OF THE ONES I'VE SPOKEN WITH, that's not the case. I made no mention of other people here whom I haven't spoken with liking communism. Before you go calling people ignorant perhaps you should actually READ their posts carefully and figure out that they're not generalizing and saying EVERYONE is a commie.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Sigh...I haven't met a single person on this board who _isn't_ a communist, or who doesn't disagree with communism. If I had known that practically everyone here is like that I wouldn't have joined.

 Don't give up your hopes, may be you'll find some ferocious anticommunist here.   :: 
But I think it's more intersting to have a discussion with those who have different points of view, than to be a member of forum where everybody moans: "Oh, these communists are evil! Oh, Putin is dangerous! I hate Stalin! He sent people to Gulag!"   ::   
But first, it's not a poltical forum where people gather up to discuss their political ideas.
Second, communism hardly has anything to do with Stalin (and with Soviet Union as well). Communism is utopia which had in mind social justice, equality, satisfaction of all your needs and so on, and so on. Blah-blah-blah. In short communism is universal and total hapiness (in theory). So tell me what's wrong with happiness (exept the fact it's unachievable   :: ). In the end all people want the same: happy life and more opportunities for their children. 
What I was talking about? *cough* Ah! So your hate for communism has no sense. it's just an echo of old "anticommunism" propaganda. Well, we were taught to hate capitalism, and you were taught to hate (and to fear?)communism. 
For all the terrible crimes commited against russian (and other) people we should blame not the idea but the political regimes, IMHO. Because building an utopia always ends up in blood even if you try to bring Kingdom of God on Earth. So should idea/God be blamed for people's crimes? Don't think so...

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Second, communism hardly has anything to do with Stalin (and with Soviet Union as well). Communism is utopia which had in mind social justice, equality, satisfaction of all your needs and so on, and so on. Blah-blah-blah. In short communism is universal and total hapiness (in theory). So tell me what's wrong with happiness (exept the fact it's unachievable  ). In the end all people want the same: happy life and more opportunities for their children. 
> What I was talking about? *cough* Ah! So your hate for communism has no sense. it's just an echo of old "anticommunism" propaganda. Well, we were taught to hate capitalism, and you were taught to hate (and to fear?)communism. 
> For all the terrible crimes commited against russian (and other) people we should blame not the idea but the political regimes

 That's the problem--since the theory of communism is unachievable it shouldn't even be attempted. Yet the Bolsheviks did attempt it and disaster ensued...at least while Stalin was alive. In theory communism denounced war, but the Soviets were involved with Vietnam and Korea (yes, we were too, but our government isn't run by some theory that says "no war ever"), not to mention they invaded Finland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Afghanistan, and pointed missiles at us. 
And perhaps your hate of capitalism is an echo of old "anticapitalism" propaganda...? 
And I _was_ blaming political regimes. And the theory of communism is more than just "happiness", it involves everyone being equal in every way, i.e. no one has more money than anyone else. That is not the way people naturally are--we can never all be equal in that sense. Some of us work harder than others so we're rewarded with better pay..we're not all equal.  
Pure utopia is, as you said, unachievable. In fact, utopia means "no place" in Greek.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> In theory communism denounced war, but the Soviets were involved with Vietnam and Korea, not to mention they invaded Finland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Afghanistan, and pointed missiles at us.

 Should I mention they invaded most of that countries to oppose to USA, who invaded these countries as well? Do you mean, that's ok for USA to keep acting that way nowadays just because it's not a communist country? Well, I see double standart here.    

> And perhaps your hate of capitalism is an echo of old "anticapitalism" propaganda...?

 Nope.   ::  Actually, I don't hate it. There is not too much difference between the two (cap. and com.). Just different sides of the same coin. 
Living in USSR gives you a good antidote for mind games, you know. So don't believe so devoutly to everything your government (or Oprah) says.   ::     

> And the theory of communism is more than just "happiness", it involves everyone being equal in every way, *i.e. no one has more money than anyone else*.

 Oh, that's a big problem, isn't it? You, wannabe rich.   ::   ::     

> That is not the way people naturally are--we can never all be equal in that sense.

 Agree. That's why I called it utopia.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Should I mention they invaded most of that countries to oppose to USA, who invaded these countries as well? Do you mean, that's ok for USA to keep acting that way nowadays just because it's not a communist country? Well, I see double standart here.

 No, the US did not invade Finland, we did not invade Hungary or Czechoslovakia, and we did not invade Afghanistan in 1979 (our current invasion is a completely different story and I don't want to get into that since this is not an American politics forum). Anyway, the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia and Hungary to crush anti-communist revolts, not to stop the US. I dunno where you got that... 
And yes, we did point missiles at you that were based in Turkey, but they were there to counter yours in Cuba, in case you fired them. Ours weren't just put there cuz we felt like it. 
And believe me...I don't believe everything my government says. Creeping socialism (which is ...here we go again   ::  ...similar to communism) is becoming a problem in this country, and several of our Congressmen/Senators are complete whackos whom I have no trust in. 
And I don't want to be rich, either...just make a good enough living to get by. And I don't watch Oprah   ::

----------


## Бармалей

> Geez I didn't say you were ALL communists, I just said the only people I've met seem to support that point of view. I know there are surely other people here who don't, but I was only saying that OF THE ONES I'VE SPOKEN WITH, that's not the case. I made no mention of other people here whom I haven't spoken with liking communism. Before you go calling people ignorant perhaps you should actually READ their posts carefully and figure out that they're not generalizing and saying EVERYONE is a commie.

 On the contrary READ YOUR OWN POST:_Sigh...I haven't met a single person on this board who isn't a communist, or who doesn't disagree with communism. If I had known that practically everyone here is like that I wouldn't have joined._ 
Now, having reread your post, what does it say? I don't know how this gets any simpler. When you say you haven't met a single person on this board who isn't a commie, then that's what you mean. You made a silly broad-brush statement, whether you intended it or not (not to mention the fact that you actually contradict yourself in the very next sentence there).

----------


## RusskiSlav

That means I haven't met anyone who's not a communist. So I haven't. That doesn't mean I said EVERYONE is a communist here, it just means I haven't met any non-commies.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> No, the US did not invade Finland, we did not invade Hungary or Czechoslovakia, and we did not invade Afghanistan in 1979 (our current invasion is a completely different story...

 Well, I said MOST of these countries (I'm careful with my words). What's about Afghanistan, there was an attempt to depose USSR-friendly regime by *cough* some country. I'm sure you know that. 
And btw USA supported at the time notorious Osama bin Laden and political forces, that added their power to modern terrorism (way to go, guys!)   

> and I don't want to get into that since this is not an American politics forum.

 ?? It's pretty close to the topic we're discussing.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> And I don't watch Oprah

 Oh, at least we have something in common.   ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Well, I said MOST of these countries (I'm careful with my words). What's about Afghanistan, there was an attempt to depose USSR-friendly regime by *cough* some country. I'm sure you know that. 
> And btw USA supported at the time notorious Osama bin Laden and political forces, that added their power to modern terrorism (way to go, guys!)

 Yeah, but our country isnt governed by some philosophy that says "no war ever" as communism does. I was highlighting an example of the Soviets' failure to stick to the anti-war part of the communist theory, not tryin to say who invaded more countries. And Afghanistan is only ONE of the four countries I mentioned, it's not "most".  
And we're trying to get rid of bin Laden NOW, hence the current Afghanistan, so it comes full circle. (I'm sure I'm gonna get a slew of posts about this one...  ::  )

----------


## gRomoZeka

> And Afghanistan is only ONE of the four countries I mentioned, it's not "most".

   ::  Vietnam? Korea?

----------


## RusskiSlav

Oh yeah, my bad I forgot about those... 
As for Korea, we were there to --again-- stop communism from taking over. As for Vietnam, I really have no opinion on whether we should've been there or not. I'm still in high school (last year thankfully) and I haven't really been taught a whole lot about Vietnam, so I don't have enough information to form an opinion. 
And again, I'm not saying it was OK for the US to invade Vietnam/Korea, I'm just saying that we, unlike the Soviets, didn't violate an anti-war philosophy in the theory of our own government, because we don't have one to violate...I was pointing out the Soviets' violation of their own govt's principal.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> As for Vietnam, I really have no opinion on whether we should've been there or not.

 It's nice you're trying to form your own opinion.
But IMHO NO country has right to military invade ANY other country to change or influence that country's politics. 
I don't believe in liberation crusades. they are never altruistic no matter what the invader claims.   

> As for Korea, we were there to --again-- stop communism from taking over.

   ::  Yeah, it looks like we vehemently tried to stop each other crashing other countries between our bodies.
But still can't understand your self-righteous position. What right did you have to make decisions for other country? 
The whole situation reminds me of one funny cartoon I saw in my teenage magazine back in late 80th. They took it from some french paper or magazine. 
Two clowns face each other, both holding nuclear missiles behind their backs. Their dialogue (abridged):
Hi, I'm very friendly and want peace.
I'm friendly too and want peace as well.
So why are you holding that missile?
To defend myself from you.
But you don't need this! Drop it!
Why is that?
Hey, I told you I'm friendly, ain't I?! 
Of course I forgot most of it and probably spoiled the idea, but the dialogue was hilarious and I almost laughed my head off.
Now I think it's very sad that 15 years later nothing changed.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> ]  Yeah, it looks like we vehemently tried to stop each other crashing other countries between our bodies.
> But still can't understand your self-righteous position. What right did you have to make decisions for other country?

 Well I dunno, I wasn't in the government. I didn't say I thought it was OK for us to invade--well, I didn't intend to say that, I just explained why we did.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

OK, Russki, so you agreed that being a communist doesn't mean you are a bad person. You are simply a person who strives for an ideal (a utopia). So why is the fact that Putin was a communist so bad?  
Now, if you wake up and smell the fish, Russia is only 15 years past the collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism per se. You expect that politicians who are older than 15 years and lived their whole lives in communist Russia do not have any communist ties in the past? Get real! 
I say: So what if Putin was a communist, so was Yeltsin! You'll be hard pressed to find a politician who wasn't! I don't see the problem here!

----------


## Ramil

> Geez I didn't say you were ALL communists, I just said the only people I've met seem to support that point of view. I know there are surely other people here who don't, but I was only saying that OF THE ONES I'VE SPOKEN WITH, that's not the case. I made no mention of other people here whom I haven't spoken with liking communism. Before you go calling people ignorant perhaps you should actually READ their posts carefully and figure out that they're not generalizing and saying EVERYONE is a commie.

 You regret about people who believe that communism is not that bad, right? Well, have you read the theory? Marx, Engels? 
Communism is an utopia much like "perfect societies" described by Thomas More, Claude Henri de Rouvroy or Robert Owen.
It is a dream, a chimerical one, but beautiful nevertheless. In theory, communism is much more attractive than capitalism.
People of my country tried that and have shed a lot of blood for this dream to come true. I respect that regardless of my own views.
Capitalism praises and encourages the worst in a man's character proclaiming it to be a vitrue. It is working though, unlike the communism.
Russia has tried communism and failed. The realization has gone awry but the dream of a perfect society still lives on. Spare the dream. Who knows, maybe in a distant future communism will have another chance. And who knows, it may even work some day.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by gRomoZeka  Second, communism hardly has anything to do with Stalin (and with Soviet Union as well). Communism is utopia which had in mind social justice, equality, satisfaction of all your needs and so on, and so on. Blah-blah-blah. In short communism is universal and total hapiness (in theory). So tell me what's wrong with happiness (exept the fact it's unachievable  ). In the end all people want the same: happy life and more opportunities for their children. 
> What I was talking about? *cough* Ah! So your hate for communism has no sense. it's just an echo of old "anticommunism" propaganda. Well, we were taught to hate capitalism, and you were taught to hate (and to fear?)communism. 
> For all the terrible crimes commited against russian (and other) people we should blame not the idea but the political regimes   That's the problem--since the theory of communism is unachievable it shouldn't even be attempted. Yet the Bolsheviks did attempt it and disaster ensued...at least while Stalin was alive. In theory communism denounced war, but the Soviets were involved with Vietnam and Korea (yes, we were too, but our government isn't run by some theory that says "no war ever"), not to mention they invaded Finland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Afghanistan, and pointed missiles at us.

 Firstly USA threatened USSR with the bomb in 1945 and our first missiles flew only in late 1950s. Pointing missiles was an answer to the threat. USA named USSR as its primary enemy in 1945 while we were still allies. 
And communism has nothing to do with that "no war ever" thing. Communism cannot be built in a separate country (a grave misconception of Post-Stalin Soviet leaders). According to primary sources it can be built only on an entire globe.   

> And perhaps your hate of capitalism is an echo of old "anticapitalism" propaganda...?

 Perhaps, perhaps not.    

> And I _was_ blaming political regimes. And the theory of communism is more than just "happiness", it involves everyone being equal in every way, i.e. no one has more money than anyone else.
>  That is not the way people naturally are--we can never all be equal in that sense. Some of us work harder than others so we're rewarded with better pay..we're not all equal.

  ::  Red one is a funny thing. A part of American 'ideology' (if I can use that word) states that all men are born equal. I may be wrong but something like that is written in the constitution of USA. What about that?  
And where did you hear about money? Communism provides everything for everyone. That means that there is no money at all. Everyone can get everything he wants for free. Just because he needs it. And to repay for the benefits he shoud work voluntarily. The main motto of communism states 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs'. Communism doesn't need money.   

> Pure utopia is, as you said, unachievable. In fact, utopia means "no place" in Greek.

 True. I believe though, that some day people will have managed to create a society that is very close to the described theory.

----------


## Ramil

> Oh yeah, my bad I forgot about those... 
> As for Korea, we were there to --again-- stop communism from taking over.

 And who gave you a right to stop anything that happens in sovereign country?  Who gave you the right to say what is good for them and what is evil? Who gave you the right to ram your lifestyle down into throats of others? What makes you think that American way is the best?
Mind your own business. Every nation has a right to live as they want.
Wars are about resources and money, not ideology.   

> And again, I'm not saying it was OK for the US to invade Vietnam/Korea, I'm just saying that we, unlike the Soviets, didn't violate an anti-war philosophy in the theory of our own government, because we don't have one to violate...I was pointing out the Soviets' violation of their own govt's principal.

 There weren't anything in Soviet military doctrine that went across the ideology. The doctrine was defensive but technically, our invasion to Afghanistan was not an invasion but providing military help for the new government of Babrak Karmal.  ::  The fact that the old president Amin was killed by the "A" unit of KGB was kept in secret. The original plan was to seize Amin, bring him to Moscow and force him to sign an agreement between USSR and Afghanistan which would have effectively blocked any attemts of CIA to penetrate to this region. It hasn't occured to Brezhnev that Amin might himself shoot back so he was killed by accidental grenade explosion. A pure accident that resulted in 10 years of war and about 13000 of soviet soldiers dead. Nobody wanted this war.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> And who gave you a right to stop anything that happens in sovereign country?  Who gave you the right to say what is good for them and what is evil? Who gave you the right to ram your lifestyle down into throats of others? What makes you think that American way is the best?
> Mind your own business. Every nation has a right to live as they want.
> Wars are about resources and money, not ideology.

 Uh, then what were you doing in Afghanistan in 1979?

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  And who gave you a right to stop anything that happens in sovereign country?  Who gave you the right to say what is good for them and what is evil? Who gave you the right to ram your lifestyle down into throats of others? What makes you think that American way is the best?
> Mind your own business. Every nation has a right to live as they want.
> Wars are about resources and money, not ideology.   Uh, then what were you doing in Afghanistan in 1979?

 Protecting our geopolitical interests.  ::  I've never said that I justify our invasion there. It was accidental though, nobody wanted it. (see my previous post). Neither do I jusify our actions in Czechoslovakia or in Hungary. But these are lame excuses for America's actions now and during the whole 20-th century. At least presently Russia states that it fully supports inviolability of borders and doesn't create jobs by increasing military expenses in the budget.
Russia learnt from its experience, apparently USA didn't.

----------


## Guin

> Protecting our geopolitical interests.  I've never said that I justify our invasion there. It was accidental though, nobody wanted it. (see my previous post). Neither do I jusify our actions in Czechoslovakia or in Hungary. But these are lame excuses for America's actions now and during the whole 20-th century. At least presently Russia states that it fully supports inviolability of borders and doesn't create jobs by increasing military expenses in the budget.
> Russia learnt from its experience, apparently USA didn't.

 +10 and respect!!!

----------


## RusskiSlav

> I may be wrong but something like that is written in the constitution of USA. What about that?

 First of all it was the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. Second, it states that people are equal UNDER THE LAW. That means we all have a fair opportunity for a trial and should be treated fairly in court, etc. Everyone has an opportunity to achieve, but not everyone is capable of that. We're not all equal in the sense that we're all the same. Some people work harder and succeed, some people slack off and don't care, and you get back what you put in. We're not all rewarded equally for doing different amounts of work. (Except in socialist school systems like mine where we work in groups and the industrious students like myself do the work while the others slack off yet we all get the same good grade...  ::  )

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Protecting our geopolitical interests.  I've never said that I justify our invasion there. It was accidental though, nobody wanted it. (see my previous post). Neither do I jusify our actions in Czechoslovakia or in Hungary. But these are lame excuses for America's actions now and during the whole 20-th century. At least presently Russia states that it fully supports inviolability of borders and doesn't create jobs by increasing military expenses in the budget.
> Russia learnt from its experience, apparently USA didn't.

 Our business right now in Afghanistan is to get rid of terrorists. What's wrong with that?

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Protecting our geopolitical interests.  I've never said that I justify our invasion there. It was accidental though, nobody wanted it. (see my previous post). Neither do I jusify our actions in Czechoslovakia or in Hungary. But these are lame excuses for America's actions now and during the whole 20-th century. At least presently Russia states that it fully supports inviolability of borders and doesn't create jobs by increasing military expenses in the budget.
> Russia learnt from its experience, apparently USA didn't.   Our business right now in Afghanistan is to get rid of terrorists. What's wrong with that?

 Your business is over entire globe. And FYI Usama Bin Laden is the creation of yours. He was a paid agent of CIA in the past and received trainig on how to do terrorism. You've created him and now he turned his back on you. Your media created yet another 'devil' to frighten children.
In reality CIA wants to Afghanistan in order not to subdue the Taliban which exists no more but to put its dirty hands on the heroine trade flourishing in the region. Drugs trade is a very profitable business and USA desperately needs money to finance its illegal operations all over the world. A world-scale racketeer.

----------


## Lampada

> ...In reality CIA wants to Afghanistan in order not to subdue the Taliban which exists no more but to put its dirty hands on the heroine trade flourishing in the region. Drugs trade is a very profitable business and USA desperately needs money to finance its illegal operations all over the world. A world-scale racketeer.

   ::   Where did you get it from?

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  ...In reality CIA wants to Afghanistan in order not to subdue the Taliban which exists no more but to put its dirty hands on the heroine trade flourishing in the region. Drugs trade is a very profitable business and USA desperately needs money to finance its illegal operations all over the world. A world-scale racketeer.      Where did you get it from?

 Regional analytical reports. But wait. Goodle returns about 6800000 links on that:  Check for yourself

----------


## RusskiSlav

> And who gave you a right to stop anything that happens in sovereign country? Who gave you the right to say what is good for them and what is evil? Who gave you the right to ram your lifestyle down into throats of others? What makes you think that American way is the best? 
> Mind your own business. Every nation has a right to live as they want. 
> Wars are about resources and money, not ideology.

 And what gave YOU the right to ram communism down the throats of 14 other nations and bring them into the Soviet Union? Mind your own business.

----------


## Guin

> And what gave YOU the right to ram communism down the throats of 14 other nations and bring them into the Soviet Union? Mind your own business.

 And what gave YOU the right to assassinate millions of American Indians, to capture their lands, to impose them your laws? What gave YOU the right to import slaves from Africa and to exploit them?

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Originally Posted by RusskiSlav  *And what gave YOU the right to ram communism down the throats of 14 other nations* and bring them into the Soviet Union? ...   And what gave YOU the right to assassinate millions of American Indians, to capture their lands, to impose them your laws? ...

 Yeah, and to ram _capitalism_ down _their_ throats...   ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Guin        Originally Posted by RusskiSlav  *And what gave YOU the right to ram communism down the throats of 14 other nations* and bring them into the Soviet Union? ...   And what gave YOU the right to assassinate millions of American Indians, to capture their lands, to impose them your laws? ...   Yeah, and to ram _capitalism_ down _their_ throats...

 Yeah, and give us back Alaska  ::

----------


## Бармалей

> Originally Posted by gRomoZeka        Originally Posted by Guin        Originally Posted by RusskiSlav  *And what gave YOU the right to ram communism down the throats of 14 other nations* and bring them into the Soviet Union? ...   And what gave YOU the right to assassinate millions of American Indians, to capture their lands, to impose them your laws? ...   Yeah, and to ram _capitalism_ down _their_ throats...     Yeah, and give us back Alaska

 We'll trade you Alaska for Evgenii Malkin? Fair?

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Yeah, and give us back Alaska

 YOU sold us Alaska, we didn't take it over.  
OK, the score is US forced our stuff on Indians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Africans, (and some will argue Iraq/Afghanistan). USSR shoved their stuff on Belorussians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Kyrgyzs (or however you spell that), Turkmenis, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Moldavians, Georgians, Latvians, Lithuanians, and Estonians. And you kept Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia as satellite nations, forcing communism on them too. So tell me who needs to mind their business more? 
And LOL about Evgeni Malkin! He'll be a great addition to the Penguins!   ::

----------


## Vincent Tailors

> YOU sold us Alaska, we didn't take it over.

 We didn't sell it to the USA. Read the treaty. There was no word "sold", there was "ceded" (I just hope I picked the right word, cos I saw only russian version of the treaty)..  По крайней мере в русском варианте есть слово "уступать". А "уступать" в значении того времени "временно давать в управление". 
Так что вот так вот  ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

> YOU sold us Alaska, we didn't take it over.
> 			
> 		  We didn't sell it to the USA. Read the treaty. There was no word "sold", there was "ceded"

 Alright, _ceded_. Whatever. My point was we didn't just march in and take it away from Russia.

----------


## Бармалей

> YOU sold us Alaska, we didn't take it over.
> 			
> 		  We didn't sell it to the USA. Read the treaty. There was no word "sold", there was "ceded" (I just hope I picked the right word, cos I saw only russian version of the treaty)..  По крайней мере в русском варианте есть слово "уступать". А "уступать" в значении того времени "временно давать в управление". 
> Так что вот так вот

 What is your point exactly? That it was signed over under duress? Or that it was in some other way illegitimate? Because you can split hairs over "sold" or "cede" all you want, but at the end of the day you're still saying the same thing: A large amount of money was given to the Government of Russia for Alaska.

----------


## MalenkayaKatinka

> Originally Posted by pisces  Free medicine - there was one but the quality was on the same level as the price (paid indirectly through taxes).   For free, the Soviet medicine was really not bad (which was admitted by the UNHCR, for examples).
> And, BTW, the modern medicine isn't so good, especially thinking how non-free now it is.

 Sorry, I don't know about the doctors in Russia, but the Russian doctors over here definitely don't know what they're doing. A person who is treated by a Russian doctor either is misdiagnosed or becomes sicker than they were. For example, I have a friend who had just the common cold. He went to a Russian doctor since he's Russian and because they're usually much cheaper to go to than an American doctor. Well, my friend's cold actually worsened due to these 'remedies' this Russian doctor gave him. The cold eventually developed into pneumonia and he was sick for months. 
another occasion, a Russian dentist was working out of a basement, or something like that. The same friend has something wrong with his tooth. I'm not sure what procedure he was supposed to have done, but the dentist never finished and left an open wound in his mouth. 
Now, you would think that my friend would be smart enough to go to another doctor after these 2 occasions, but unfortunately he's not. He went to an eye doctor because his eyes have been extremely red. He went to the doctor and was diagnosed with pink eye. My friend was given eye drops to clear it up.. Well, 3 months later, my friend still has red eyes. Pink eye does not ever last that long and it is highly contagious.. No one else around him has it.   ::   
As far as the education goes over there, I hear it is much better than over here. However, many of the degrees obtained there don't transfer here. They're sort of lost in translation.

----------


## MalenkayaKatinka

> Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie  
> Well, that is quite an oversimplifaction, young Jedi. He vetoed the bill that would allow stem cell research using live cells from embryos. The veto doesn't put any limitation on stem cell research using adult cells. The difference is that to get the stem cells from embyros you have to kill the embyro, being a potential human being, while adult cells you can just scrape off your skin to grow more skin. So your statement: "if I could be saved by growing cells from my own body" isn't against the law, unless you are an embyro. But if you were an embyro, you wouldn't need a lung in the first place. So that's that.   That in itself is a bit of a simplification. He didn't veto a bill allowing the research, he vetoed a bill allowing _federal funding_ for that research.

 Correct! People can still donate money to the research.. private and public companies I mean.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> OK, the score is US forced our stuff on Indians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Africans, (and some will argue Iraq/Afghanistan). USSR shoved their stuff on Belorussians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Kyrgyzs (or however you spell that), Turkmenis, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Moldavians, Georgians, Latvians, Lithuanians, and Estonians. And you kept Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia as *satellite nations*, forcing communism on them too. So tell me who needs to mind their business more?

 First USA is keeping as satellite nations half of the world. 
Second, you probably don't know a lot about your own history. 
Most recent military invasions to other independent states by USA (including air bombings):
Most of these acts caused thousands and millions of innocent lifes (not soldiers or terrorists,but civilians).
Korea (early 50th)
Cuba (1961, failed)
Dominican Republic (1965)
Vietnam (1965-1973)
Laos (approximately the same time)
Grenada (1983-1985)
Libya (1986)
Panama (1988 or 1989)
Afganistan, Sudan (199 :: 
and don't forget former Yugoslavia and Iraq, which you keep bombing since 1991. 
That's only what I remember, I'm sure there are more.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

What happened in 1998 in Afghanistan?

----------


## gRomoZeka

> What happened in 1998 in Afghanistan?

 Missile strikes. Actually they wasn't large-scale and I'm not sure there were a lot of victims. Still it was intrusion.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Oh yeah, that was when Bill Clinton sent a couple of cruise missles to try to take out Osama... It is all coming back to me!

----------


## mishau_

> It is all coming back to me!

 With Osama sitting astride!   ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

> First USA is keeping as satellite nations half of the world.

 Yeah? Where? What nations do we keep as our property where we force them to follow our form of government and invade them and crush revolts if they don't?

----------


## Бармалей

> Originally Posted by gRomoZeka  First USA is keeping as satellite nations half of the world.   Yeah? Where? What nations do we keep as our property where we force them to follow our form of government and invade them and crush revolts if they don't?

 Canadia. All your Polar Bears are belong to us.

----------


## RusskiSlav

USSR: 
Missiles in Cuba, ready to fire at US: 1962
Afghanistan invasion: 1979
Finland invasion: 1939
Czechoslovakia invasion: 1968*
Hungary invasion: 1956 (that year may be wrong)*
6 million Ukrainian kulaks dead, thanks to Stalin: 1924-1953
20 million Russians, Kazakhs, Latvians, etc.... killed, thanks to Stalin: 1924-1953
Vietnam: 1960s-70s*
Korea: 1958 (that may be wrong year, but you were there nonetheless)*
Missiles/weapons sold to Iran: 2003-ish-2006
Missiles/weapons sold to Lebanon: 2006
Georgia (the country, not state): 2006 
*=IF NO COUNTRY HAS THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE POLITICS OF OTHERS, WHAT WERE YOU DOING HERE?!

----------


## gRomoZeka

> USSR:
> Missiles in Cuba, ready to fire at US: 1962

 ha ha   ::  There were missiles on both sides "ready to fire" for 40 years, so what?   ::     

> 6 million Ukrainian kulaks dead, thanks to Stalin: 1924-1953
> 20 million Russians, Kazakhs, Latvians, etc.... killed, thanks to Stalin: 1924-1953

 Ok, that's our inner business. I was talking about intrusion to other countries affairs.   

> Afghanistan invasion: 1979
> Finland invasion: 1939
> Czechoslovakia invasion: 1968*
> Hungary invasion: 1956 (that year may be wrong)*
> Vietnam: 1960s-70s*
> Korea: 1958 (that may be wrong year, but you were there nonetheless)*

 That's true, though there were NO soviet regular troops in Vietnam and Korea and we didn't drop napalm bombs on villages. 
Btw in Czechoslovakia there were not only soviet army, but also 4 other armies, including polish. So is Poland now "evil empire"?   ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

Our missiles were in Turkey to counter yours in Cuba (or, the _Caribbean_) in case you fired yours. We didn't jut put em there because we wanted to.  
And I already said I didn't think the US was right to bomb My Lai, remember? 
Well Poland was communist, because it was a Soviet satellite, and their communists aren't any better than yours. I wouldn't call it an "evil empire", however, because communism was forced upon them, they didn't choose it.

----------


## RusskiSlav

P.S. I'm sure you're going to have something to say, but don't expect a reply for awhile because I've gotta go somewhere and won't be back for a little bit.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> P.S. I'm sure you're going to have something to say, but don't expect a reply for awhile because I've gotta go somewhere and won't be back for a little bit.

 Ok, I'm not professor of american history though I'm sure USA wasn't more peacefull than USSR. Actually it expanded the same way as Soviet Union - by annexing other countries territories (sure you know about American-Mexican wars). 
So I'll do some Google research on USA military intrusions (yeah, I'm single-minded   ::  ) and post the results later. You're welcomed to do the same on USSR.   ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Cuban missiles vs. Turkey missiles. Do you guys even know your history or has it been rewritten since I last learned it? 
The USSR was constructing missile sites in Cuba, but there were never any missiles. That was the outcome of the whole Cuban missile crisis. The Soviets were _transporting_ the missiles to Cuba and America blockaded them. There were never any missiles ready to launch on Cuba itself. Ever. 
The deal struck by USA and USSR was that no Cuban missiles would equal to no Turkish missiles. It therefore follows that there were no missiles in Turkey. 
Capiche?  ::

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Do you guys even know your history or has it been rewritten since I last learned it?
> .......
> Capiche?

 Capiche.   ::  
Your sober view of things spoils our leading-to-nowhere argumant.   ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

And why couldn't you assemble them in your own country? A little suspicious they had to be shipped to a location 90 MILES AWAY FROM THE US to be assembled...  
And BTW gRomoZeka, about the Yugoslavia bombings, I told you I didn't support them earlier, and I agree they never should've happened.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> And why couldn't you assemble them in your own country? A little suspicious they had to be shipped to a location 90 MILES AWAY FROM THE US...

 Because we were to far for missiles to hit target, while your missiles were close enough.   ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

> *Because we were to far for missiles to hit target*, while your missiles were close enough.

 Your target being the US. So you _were_ planning to fire them then...hear that, kalinka?

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Originally Posted by gRomoZeka  *Because we were to far for missiles to hit target*, while your missiles were close enough.     Your target being the US. So you _were_ planning to fire them then...hear that, kalinka?

   ::   ::  No, we wanted to scare you, and we couldn't achieve the desireable effect because you were too far.

----------


## Бармалей

> Cuban missiles vs. Turkey missiles. Do you guys even know your history or has it been rewritten since I last learned it? 
> The USSR was constructing missile sites in Cuba, but there were never any missiles. That was the outcome of the whole Cuban missile crisis. The Soviets were _transporting_ the missiles to Cuba and America blockaded them. There were never any missiles ready to launch on Cuba itself. Ever. 
> The deal struck by USA and USSR was that no Cuban missiles would equal to no Turkish missiles. It therefore follows that there were no missiles in Turkey. 
> Capiche?

 Are you sure about that? _A U-2 flight in late August photographed a new series of SAM (surface-to-air missile) sites being constructed, but on September 4, 1962 Kennedy told Congress that there were no offensive missiles in Cuba. On the night of September 8, the first consignment of SS-4 MRBMs was unloaded in Havana, and a second shipload arrived on September 16. The Soviets were building nine sites — six for SS-4s and three for SS-5s with a range of 4,000 km (2,400 statute miles). The planned arsenal was forty launchers, an increase in Soviet first strike capacity of 70%. This matter was readily noticed by the Cuban population, and perhaps as many as a thousand reports of such reached Miami, and were evaluated and then considered spurious by U.S. intelligence [1]._  _In early 1992 it was confirmed that key Soviet forces in Cuba had, by the time the crisis broke, received tactical nuclear warheads for their artillery rockets, and IL-28 bombers [5], though General Anatoly Gribkov, part of the Soviet staff responsible for the operation, stated that the local Soviet commander, General Issa Pliyev, had predelegated authority to use them if the U.S. had mounted a full-scale invasion of Cuba. Gribkov misspoke: the Kremlin's authorization remained unsigned and undelivered. (Other accounts show that Pliyev was given permission to use tactical nuclear warheads but only in the most extreme case of an American invasion during which contact with Moscow is lost. However when American forces seemed to be readying for an attack, (after the U-2 photos, but before Kennedy's television address), Khrushchev rescinded his earlier permission for Pliyev to use the tactical nuclear weapons, even under the most extreme conditions. Whether because of the clear American nuclear dominance, or simply out of benevolence, Khrushchev wanted to avoid nuclear war at all costs.)_  _In 1961, the U.S. started deploying 15 Jupiter IRBM (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) nuclear missiles near İzmir, Turkey, which directly threatened cities in the western sections of the Soviet Union. These missiles were regarded by President Kennedy as being of questionable strategic value; an SSBN (ballistic submarine) was capable of providing the same cover with both stealth and superior firepower._
From the wikipedia article. It would seem that the nukes were in play in both countries...unless, this is one of those times when wikipedia has failed us. There were NOT the missiles themselves, as you noted, but the launchers were being constructed and the intent was clear enough. The missiles WERE in Turkey though.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Bah, facts are always a nuisance. The history DID change, damn that wiki! So, after reading the article a little more nuance is provided.  
"They [US Intelligence] were unaware that 12 kiloton-range nuclear warheads had already been delivered to the island and mounted on FROG-3 "Luna" short-range artillery rockets, which could be launched on the authority of the Soviet commander on the island, General Pliyev [4], in the event of an invasion." 
and 
"Kennedy responded by publicly accepting the first deal and sending Robert F. Kennedy to the Soviet embassy to privately accept the second that the fifteen Jupiter missiles near İzmir, Turkey would be removed six months later. " 
But it is essentially what I said  ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

> USSR: 
> Missiles in Cuba, ready to fire at US: 1962
> Afghanistan invasion: 1979
> Finland invasion: 1939
> Czechoslovakia invasion: 1968*
> Hungary invasion: 1956 (that year may be wrong)*
> 6 million Ukrainian kulaks dead, thanks to Stalin: 1924-1953
> 20 million Russians, Kazakhs, Latvians, etc.... killed, thanks to Stalin: 1924-1953
> Vietnam: 1960s-70s*
> ...

 Oh yeah, I might add the Berlin Wall and the coercion of communism on the people of East Germany and the low living standards endured by those people. (I know of someone whose friend's sister was from East Germany and she had to wait several years before getting the car she ordered, and when she did get it, it looked like crap.) And the KGB agents stationed at the wall shot anyone who attempted to get into West Berlin. It was the US who carried out the Berlin Airlift and dropped food and supplies to the starving East Berliners. We're not all _that_ evil, eh?   ::

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Oh yeah, I might add the Berlin Wall and the coercion of communism on the people of East Germany and the low living standards endured by those people. (I know of someone whose friend's sister was from East Germany and she had to wait several years before getting the car she ordered, and when she did get it, it looked like cr@p.) And the KGB agents stationed at the wall shot anyone who attempted to get into West Berlin. It was the US who carried out the Berlin Airlift and dropped food and supplies to the starving East Berliners. *We're not all that evil, eh?*

 No, that wasn't, taking into consideration 30 mln soviet citizens killed in WW2.   ::  
Starving? When was that?
Anyway it was very kind of you. Did you also drop supplies to Hiroshima and Nagasaki after dropping nuclear bomb on them?

----------


## RusskiSlav

You guys made a non-agression pact with Hitler, and if he hadn't violated it and invaded the USSR, who knows? You may have kept it....  ::   
And yes, the Germans did wrongly kill millions of Soviet citizens but that doesn't mean you need to punish German citizens who had nothing to do with it. 
And we _did_ donate money to Japan and help them rebuild, and today they're one of our best friends.

----------


## gRomoZeka

> And yes, the Germans did wrongly kill millions of Soviet citizens but that doesn't mean you need to punish German citizens who had nothing to do with it.

 Well , we were not punishing them in the strict sense of word. Do you know that Eastern Germans lived not worse but even better than people in Russia, so Russians themselves believed they acted fair and even generous.   ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

> *Do you know that Eastern Germans lived not worse but even better than people in Russia*, so Russians themselves believed they acted fair and even generous.

 Ahh...Soviet communism fails once again to achieve happiness...

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Ahh...communism fails once again to achieve happiness...

 Ahh... Somebody's told you already that there were no communism in USSR, that was socialism.   ::   
And I see you ignored my bait about nuclear bomb. Nothing to say?

----------


## RusskiSlav

I said we helped Japan rebuild... 
Japan was still going after us, not wanting to end the war. We had to take em out in one fell swoop or they'd do the same to us by continuous warfare in the Pacific.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

Actually, if I can dwell on that last point of yours. There is much debate on the necessity of dropping the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bomb. At that point in the war Japan was losing on all fronts: Germany had surrendered and USSR had just declared war on Japan. USA had invaded Okinawa and were at the doorsteps of Japan. Japan was close to surrendering. So why drop the bombs? Several reasons: yes to end the war a little sooner, avoiding the need to invade Japan, possibly losing many valuable soldier's lives. A couple of hundred thousand civilians will make Japan think twice. Most importantly it was to test the nuclear bombs, after all they have never been used before in combat. That is why they used two _different_ bombs. Thridly, and the main reason: To scare the living daylights out of the Russians. A new, super weapon the world had never seen before. Prove American superiority and prevent any monkey-business from Stalin.  
All this for the cost of a couple of hundred thousand Japanese civilians! Not a bad deal, eh?

----------


## RusskiSlav

::  Well geez at least we didn't deliberately go out of our way to assemble missiles 90 miles off your coast.  
Anyway, it's late here and I gotta go. Goodbye until tomorrow...

----------


## gRomoZeka

> Well geez at least we didn't deliberately go out of our way to assemble missiles 90 miles off your coast.

 You mean trying to assemble missiles within somebody's coast is the same as using 'em or droping nuclear bombs on civilians? 
At least we can be content that USSR never used it's nuclear power killing innocent people. You obviously can't say the same.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> You mean trying to assemble missiles within somebody's coast is the same as using 'em or droping nuclear bombs on civilians?

 No, I wrote that to counter kalinka's point that we tried to scare the Russians by using an atomic bomb. I was just saying that you scared us with missiles. 
Anyway, how could we have been sure that the Japanese wouldn't have killed more of our innocent soldiers if we didn't drop the bomb? Still though, maybe we should've just dropped it on a Japanese naval base or something instead of on a city full of civilians.   ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

::  That's the first time I heard the term "innocent soldiers"! A soldier, by definition, can not be innocent! His main purpose, after all, is to kill. 
But I understand your point, it was obviously going to be a difficult invasion of the Japanese isles and to brandish this new weapon made everybody stop and think (and surrender). 
I personally believe all this mutual missile building is based on silly paranoia that the other is out to get them. USA was so scared of the USSR that they formed NATO (1949), which made USSR scared and they formed the Warsaw pact (1955), USSR was afraid of capatilist swines having nuclear weapons bent on destryoing them so they built their own, which made USA more scared of the commie bastards and deploy missiles in Europe, which made USSr scared and deployed missiles in Cuba etc. etc. It was a silly viscious cycle. You can hardly blame either part.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> I personally believe all this mutual missile building is based on silly paranoia that the other is out to get them. USA was so scared of the USSR that they formed NATO (1949), which made USSR scared and they formed the Warsaw pact (1955), USSR was afraid of capatilist swines having nuclear weapons bent on destryoing them so they built their own, which made USA more scared of the commie bastards and deploy missiles in Europe, which made USSr scared and deployed missiles in Cuba etc. etc. It was a silly viscious cycle. *You can hardly blame either part.*

 I suppose so, that makes sense. So maybe gRomoZeka and I should call a truce here.   ::

----------


## Lampada

> I suppose so, that makes sense. So maybe gRomoZeka and I should call a truce here.

 *+1*

----------


## Dogboy182

Its pretty clear that if the United States would have invaded Japan, more civilians would have died in the fighting that would have taken place as opposed to how many died in the two bomb explosions. We did them a favor, who else was gunna get them off their high horse.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Its pretty clear that if the United States would have invaded Japan, more civilians would have died in the fighting that would have taken place as opposed to how many died in the two bomb explosions. We did them a favor, who else was gunna get them off their high horse.

 Uhh... what, why would more civilians die if we invaded Japan? Are you saying that the American soldiers would go and kill civilians? 
70 000 killed instantly in Hiroshima alone. Similar number injured. Then the countless of people who died later of radiation and babies born mutant... Similar numbers in Nagasaki... I don't think you can justify it by saying we did them a favor!

----------


## gRomoZeka

> I suppose so, that makes sense. So maybe gRomoZeka and I should call a truce here.

 Fine with me.   ::  
Now after that posts race we know how arms race worked.   ::

----------


## Dogboy182

> Uhh... what, why would more civilians die if we invaded Japan?
> Are you saying that the American soldiers would go and kill civilians?

 Yes. For a few reasons. Civilians were known throughout the war to be just as hostile to the Allies as the regular army. When Allied planes were shot down, farmers would flock to the site of the crash and immidiately kill any survivors with pitchforks or shovels. It is most likely due to the propoganda spread by the Japnanese goverment, warning the Japanese population that Americans were bloodythirsty cannibals, and would kill their families, eat their babies... etc... But this is what happend. Havnt you ever seen those videos when from when americans landed on Okinawa, they approach villages and the civilians throw their children off of the cliffs and drown them in the ocean because they were afraid that the Americans would kill them and eat them? When in reality they were just medics, or supply units trying to liberate the villages, and look for wounded.  Its on the history channel all the time. 
Second, The same thing that happend in Germany would have happend in Japan... All civilian males who could pick up a rifle, or sword or shovel, would have been mobilized, and probably every teenage girl age 16+ who could carry a weapon would have been rounded up and ordered to fight along with the army. They would have found untill American forces reached the steps of the goverment building and draped the American flag off of the balcony, Much like the Soviets did to the Reichstag. Ever seen pictures of the Reichstag? The Soviets hanging their flag while buildings burn and fighting rages in the backround? 
It would have been a simalur scene in Tokyo, or wherever the emperor was giving his orders. 
Official publications from the American side estimate AT LEAST 1,000,000 dead US soldiers, twice that wounded, and an uncountable number of Japanese army, civilian deaths within the first DAYS of the invasion of mainland Japan. 
Every able Japanese person would have fought to the death, weather because they were scared of the Americans, or because they were following their "Samurai" (Spelling) code. 
Sure 70,000 is a lot, and deing in a nuclear bomb must not be the best way to go. But I assure you, Dropping the 2 bombs did both sides a favor in the long run. 
-Now I am going to quote the Beastie Boys and go ahead and say 
"Yeah, You can't front on that".

----------


## Dogboy182

While we're on the subject.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

*No*. You can not go from the supposition that a civilian is a potential military threat and therefore must be wiped out, that sounds a little like a moustached teetotal vegetarian in leather boots would say. You can't morally justify killing a thousands of 1-year-olds because their mother might have drowned them anyway if we came knocking on their door.  
Here is a quote for you:  *The United States Strategic Bombing Survey*, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."   http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/USS ... tml#jstetw 
Based on a purely military standpoint of view, the bombings were unnecessary.  
Besides, if the Germans had dropped a nuke on Miami, wouldn't we have treated that as a warcrime? The winners always write the history!  ::

----------


## Dogboy182

Well that's one hippies opinion.  But the true facts are there. Japan would have fought to the death just like their allies Germany did. 
Besides, thats germanies fault for not figuring out how to use heavey water properly to build an automic bomb. All is fair in love in war untill you say it isn't, but you're wrong.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

LOL, did you just call me a hippie or the US Strategic bombing survey? This hippie's ass is helping YOU in the Air Force, buster!   ::   
On topic, so we agree to disagree  ::    babykiller!

----------


## Dogboy182

The brigader general who wrote that survey. Hes probly a hippie. 
Anyways, Its dumb to argue about things that never took place. But Uh, i dont know how its plausable to assume that the second US forces set foot on Japanese soil they woulda just gave up and embraced us when every single battle that took place on the defenders homeland in the history of the world proves otherwise. 
But whatever, there no prerequisite for non hippies in the air force so im sure everyone's oppinion is out there somewhere.

----------


## Ramil

Guyz, you never should be left alone for the weekend. 3 damn whole pages to read!  ::   _..EAST is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet..._
                                                                             (Rudyard Kipling)

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Now after that posts race we know how arms race worked.

 LOL   ::

----------


## Бармалей

> LOL, did you just call me a hippie or the US Strategic bombing survey? This hippie's ass is helping YOU in the Air Force, buster!    
> On topic, so we agree to disagree    babykiller!

 You're in the USAF?

----------


## RusskiSlav

[quote=Бармалей] 

> LOL, did you just call me a hippie or the US Strategic bombing survey? This hippie's ass is helping YOU in the Air Force, buster!    
> On topic, so we agree to disagree    babykiller!

 You're in the USAF?[/quote:2kazl0z2] 
I thought you were Russian  ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

I am neither in the AF or Russian  ::  The Air Force is simply our customer  ::

----------


## adoc

> Originally Posted by Ramil  And who gave you a right to stop anything that happens in sovereign country? Who gave you the right to say what is good for them and what is evil? Who gave you the right to ram your lifestyle down into throats of others? What makes you think that American way is the best? 
> Mind your own business. Every nation has a right to live as they want. 
> Wars are about resources and money, not ideology.   And what gave YOU the right to ram communism down the throats of 14 other nations and bring them into the Soviet Union? Mind your own business.

 Yeah Ramil, wtf?  Bad Ramil, baaaaad Ramil.

----------


## Бармалей

[quote=kalinka_vinnie][quote="Бармалей":31kc8idw]
You're in the USAF?[/quote]
No, but we have a multi-million dollar contract with the Air Force   ::   
[url="http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/missions/dmsp.html"]http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/heasarc/missions/dmsp.html[/url] 
All built be me!   ::  (and thousands of other people) 
And no, I am not Russian   :: [/quote:31kc8idw]
Oh, ok. So you're a hippy who has penetrated our government's contracting organs, eh? At least now, I know that I can get Rtyem to sell me nuclear reactors (what ever happened to him anyway?) and that I can procure satellites through you. Mwahahaha. _Disclaimer (for the *cough* admins): All of the above was said in a JOKING manner. Please do not assume that I a)am truly impugning KV's integrity or b) seriously am trying to buy that stuff._

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

What are you smoking, Barm? I never posted that!

----------


## Бармалей

> What are you smoking, Barm? I never posted that!

 Jigga what!??!

----------


## Ramil

> I am neither in the AF or Russian  The Air Force is simply our customer

 Sell them rusty bolts  ::

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by RusskiSlav        Originally Posted by Ramil  And who gave you a right to stop anything that happens in sovereign country? Who gave you the right to say what is good for them and what is evil? Who gave you the right to ram your lifestyle down into throats of others? What makes you think that American way is the best? 
> Mind your own business. Every nation has a right to live as they want. 
> Wars are about resources and money, not ideology.   And what gave YOU the right to ram communism down the throats of 14 other nations and bring them into the Soviet Union? Mind your own business.   Yeah Ramil, wtf?  Bad Ramil, baaaaad Ramil.

 I didn't do that, believe me. If I were the one who did that the whole world would have been communistic by now. Say amen to that  ::  I don't ram anything down the throat. I ram it directly in a brain.  ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Wars are about resources and money, not ideology.

 Clearly you missed the point of WW2 then, which was to defeat fascism--an ideology. It had nothing to do with money and resources.

----------


## Бармалей

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Wars are about resources and money, not ideology.   Clearly you missed the point of WW2 then, which was to defeat fascism--an ideology. It had nothing to do with money and resources.

 Did you for get about that whole "Lebensraum" thing?   ::

----------


## Vincent Tailors

> Clearly you missed the point of WW2 then, which was to defeat fascism--an ideology.

 An ideology cannot be defeated. It does not rely on military strength, missiles, tanks, rifles, resources, plants, cities... It does on people's brains. And in order to defeat an ideology you must destroy the planet itself. To make sure noone is able to bear or express dangerous ideas.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  Wars are about resources and money, not ideology.   Clearly you missed the point of WW2 then, which was to defeat fascism--an ideology. It had nothing to do with money and resources.

 Germany's economy after the WWI was utterly destroyed. Unemployment, inflation were disastorous. Hitler made an "economic miracle" but to finance all that he desperately needed resourses. Firstly he annexes Austria, then Czhechoslovakia. He rushes in Romania with its oil deposits, his army group "South" in Russian campaign had Caucasus as its target also because of oil. 
And persecution of Jews in Germany had its aim among other things to nationalize their property to fund military orders placed in industry thus creating jobs. 
War is a very expensive thing and you need a lot of money when time comes to feeding soldiers. Where do you suppose he intended to get all this from? 
Ideology is an instrument of policy, not the other way around.

----------


## RusskiSlav

So? That was Hitler's problem, not ours. OUR purpose in WW2 (which is what I was talking about) was to defeat the IDEOLOGY of fascism and stop it from spreading around the globe.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Originally Posted by RusskiSlav        Originally Posted by Ramil  Wars are about resources and money, not ideology.   Clearly you missed the point of WW2 then, which was to defeat fascism--an ideology. It had nothing to do with money and resources.   Did you for get about that whole "Lebensraum" thing?

 Lebensraum was Hitler's business. I meant _our_ business in WW2 had nothing to do with money and what not. It was only to defeat Hitler and his fascist empire.

----------


## mishau_

I must remind that the USSR supported German Fascism until Germans invaded on the Soviet Union itself.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> I must remind that the USSR supported German Fascism until Germans invaded on the Soviet Union itself.

 I know that. So? I wasn't talking about the USSR, just saying that the US entered the war (European front) to try to put an end to fascism.

----------


## Vincent Tailors

> the US entered the war (European front) to try to put an end to fascism.

 The end of fascism was inevitable. They entered the war to not allow the USSR to be the first to capture Berlin and gain full control of Europe.

----------


## Ramil

> So? That was Hitler's problem, not ours. OUR purpose in WW2 (which is what I was talking about) was to defeat the IDEOLOGY of fascism and stop it from spreading around the globe.

 You forget that the jews have a very strong lobby in your country. Besides, war created many jobs, the gold reserve of France was moved to Fort Knox entirely and had never been returned after the war. United States became a major power after the WW2 because of the fact that Europe was in ruins and, of course, the bomb, which was invented mostly by European physics who fled from Hitler. 
States had a boosted economy and gained fantastic profits when Europe began rebuilding. 
And remember - USA supported Hitler in 1930s.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Originally Posted by RusskiSlav  So? That was Hitler's problem, not ours. OUR purpose in WW2 (which is what I was talking about) was to defeat the IDEOLOGY of fascism and stop it from spreading around the globe.   You forget that the jews have a very strong lobby in your country. Besides, war created many jobs, the gold reserve of France was moved to Fort Knox entirely and had never been returned after the war. United States became a major power after the WW2 because of the fact that Europe was in ruins and, of course, the bomb, which was invented mostly by European physics who fled from Hitler. 
> States had a boosted economy and gained fantastic profits when Europe began rebuilding. 
> And remember - USA supported Hitler in 1930s.

 The USSR supported Hitler until his invasion, and if he hadn't invaded, you may have kept your non-agression pact with him. And yes, war does create many jobs, but I was saying the PURPOSE of going to war was to defeat Hitler, we didn't enter with the intent of becoming an economic power in the back of our minds.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> The end of fascism was inevitable. They entered the war to not allow the USSR to be the first to capture Berlin and gain full control of Europe.

 Oh please, don't start this crap. We didn't even know we'd be racing the Soviets to Berlin when we entered the war. And the end of fascism was not inevitible. Hitler had conquered nearly all of Europe cuz Chamberlain didn't have the guts to stand up to him so he appeased him, and none of the other European powers (with the exception of Britain) seemed capable of defeating him. If they _were_ capable, they wouldn't have all been conquered.

----------


## Vincent Tailors

> And the end of fascism was not inevitible.

 Em? You mean Stalin suddenly becomes a very friend of Hitler and recalls all his forces back home leaving Hitler all alone?  
That's something new to the world history...   

> We didn't even know we'd be racing the Soviets to Berlin when we entered the war.

 *you* didn't.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Em? You mean Stalin suddenly becomes a very friend of Hitler and recalls all his forces back home leaving Hitler all alone?  
> That's something new to the world history...

 Geez no.   ::   I meant most of Europe couldn't defend themselves and the Soviets weren't doing the greatest job at it either--the Germans pasted 'em until Stalingrad when you guys kicked them out. We came in in 1944 to kick the Germans out of France, then Belgium and Holland, all the way to Germany. The race to Berlin with the Soviets didn't begin until we knew you were also trying to get to Berlin (when our forces met yours on the Elbe). And if Hitler hadn't invaded the USSR you'd probably still have kept your non-agression treaty. And so what if we were trying to keep the Soviets from taking over post-war Europe? We were trying to prevent communism from taking over. You may not have liked that but we would have been just as mad if you had tried to stop capitalism from doing the same.

----------


## Vincent Tailors

> and the Soviets weren't doing the greatest job at it either--the Germans pasted 'em until Stalingrad when you guys kicked them out

 If they really wanted to stop fascism they would put up a united front with the USSR as early as 1941 or even 1939 when the WWII began. They were waiting for one side to almost destroy another, or make the possible victory of one side clear. When the winner showed up , they began bustling. 
It's clear as noonday.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> If they really wanted to stop fascism they would put up a united front with the USSR as early as 1941 or even 1939 when the WWII began

 No, not in 1939 because the USSR wasn't an enemy of Hitler until 1941 when they were invaded. And after that we did become your "ally", in the sense that we were both fighting against Hitler. And you mention the US not joining up with the Soviets, but why didn't the Soviets join with us? They raced us too.

----------


## Vincent Tailors

The fact is, the second front hadn't been opened until it became clear that the Soviets were winning the war. Come to think about it.

----------


## RusskiSlav

It wasn't just the Soviets who were winning. Britain held off the Nazis for years on their own. But yes, it was clear the US and USSR didn't like each other. And indeed after WW2 came the Cold War. So history proceeds...

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by mishau_  I must remind that the USSR supported German Fascism until Germans invaded on the Soviet Union itself.   I know that. So? I wasn't talking about the USSR, just saying that the US entered the war (European front) to try to put an end to fascism.

 The reasons for USA to land in Europe were preventing Stalin from capturing the rest of Europe and V2 rocket technology from Penemunde.

----------


## Бармалей

Hmm...what's the longest thread in MR history? Anyone know?

----------


## RusskiSlav

> Hmm...what's the longest thread in MR history? Anyone know?

 Probably this one   ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

No not this one, we had a competition long ago and we came quite far (20+ I am sure) 
Anyway, I am appalled at the knowledge of history on this forum. Everybody is politicizing every single action in World War II, which is a bunch of baloney. USA didn't enter the war to stop Russia, USA didn't land in Europe to stop Russia, Russia wasn't planning to have any lasting peace with Germany (plans for a pre-emptive strike against germany was ready and that is why most of the Russian equipment was destroyed during the opening hostilities), etc. 
Despite your present misgivings and biases, USA was allied with the Soviet Union during the second world war. Completely. The USA provided SU with most of their trucks, machine guns (tommy guns seem familiar) and even included planes and tanks by convoys. Only towards the end of the war did a cooler enviroment occur when for the "west" it seemed like SU wanted too much (influence in east europe). Eventually compromises were made (balkans became outside SU's hemishpere for example. So did Norway, even though SU liberated them).   *Nobody "won" the war more than anybody else*
It was a mutual effort and without each other's help it would have been much harder. Stop bickering. You all think in black and white, time to upgrade to a color brain!  ::  
History is alot more complicated and involves many more factors than you can imagine. There is no "one" reason for doing anything.

----------


## basurero

> *Nobody "won" the war more than anybody else*
> It was a mutual effort and without each other's help it would have been much harder. Stop bickering. You all think in black and white, time to upgrade to a color brain!  
> History is alot more complicated and involves many more factors than you can imagine. There is no "one" reason for doing anything.

 *+1*   

> Hmm...what's the longest thread in MR history? Anyone know?

 This is the longest I know of: http://masterrussian.net/mforum/view...0684&start=420 
Amazing effort considering there are only 3 contributors haha.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

The one I was thinking about was: http://masterrussian.net/mforum/viewtop ... &start=405 
But it is only 28 pages, I guess the Japanese thread has now surpassed that!   ::

----------


## basurero

Looks like a very.... interesting... thread. Fortunately it was a little before my time.

----------


## Бармалей

Wow. The London Terror thread I get, but the Manga? That's dedication!

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Vincent Tailors  The end of fascism was inevitable. They entered the war to not allow the USSR to be the first to capture Berlin and gain full control of Europe.   Oh please, don't start this cr@p. We didn't even know we'd be racing the Soviets to Berlin when we entered the war.

 You didn't probably, but Roosevelt, Churchill and Truman did. And there is a lot of historic facts proving that.   

> And the end of fascism was not inevitible. Hitler had conquered nearly all of Europe cuz Chamberlain didn't have the guts to stand up to him so he appeased him, and none of the other European powers (with the exception of Britain) seemed capable of defeating him. If they _were_ capable, they wouldn't have all been conquered.

 Britain and France simply sold off Czhechoslovakia to Hitler in Munich in 1938 in hopes that his appetites would cease. There was no military force in Europe capable of stopping Hitler so until December 1941 his army had been thought of as unstoppable. Take a wild guess - who had finally stopped his offence? Britain? or USA maybe? 
Simple facts:
The "Second front" should have been opened in 1942 to provide a real help to the USSR in a war. Churchill had been delaying its opening as long as he could. Allies didn't keep their promises given to Stalin in 1943 also, hoping that the war would weaken USSR and it loses its influence.
"Land lease" which you're referring to was not a gratuitous help. USSR had to pay for every can of stew, airplane or tank it received.
In 1944 Hitler has about 200 divisions fighting USSR on the "Eastern front" and about only 20 to oppose USA and Britain on the "Western front". 
USSR fought Hitler 4 years and finally made it to Berlin in 1945, losing 20 million men in the process, and now you came and declared that USA and Britain were the only two real winners of the WW2!

----------


## Vincent Tailors

> It was a mutual effort and without each other's help it would have been much harder. Stop bickering. You all think in black and white, time to upgrade to a color brain!

 На этот счет есть очень хорошая русская поговорка: "Мы пахали". (Из какой-то басни про вола и муху).

----------


## RusskiSlav

> and now you came and declared that USA and Britain were the only two real winners of the WW2!

 I did not say the US and Britain were the only winners. I said the Soviets were not the only ones winning the war--Britain was holding off the Nazis IN ADDITION to the Soviets.

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> "Land lease" which you're referring to was not a gratuitous help.* USSR had to pay for every can of stew, airplane or tank it received.*

 Errr... now, really? References please, because the books I've read say something different. Here are some excerpts from the web: 
"Lend-Lease was the major United States program 1941-1945 which enabled the United States to supply Britain, the Soviet Union, China and other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material (mat

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  "Land lease" which you're referring to was not a gratuitous help.* USSR had to pay for every can of stew, airplane or tank it received.*   Errr... now, really? References please, because the books I've read say something different.

 Долгосрочная задолженность СССР (по основному долгу) составляла 1,1 млрд дол.: 443 млн дол. приходилось по кредитам Экспортно-импортного банка, направленным на поддержание экспорта США, а остальная сумма - по соглашению 1972 г. между США и СССР по ЛЕНД-ЛИЗУ. В соответствии с этим договором, СССР осуществил три безоговорочных платежа на сумму 48 млн дол. Погашение оставшихся обязательств по ленд-лизу в сумме 674 млн дол. было увязано с предоставлением США режима наибольшего благоприятствования по экспорту из СССР в соответствии с Торговым соглашением 1972 г. между США и СССР, к-рое до 1982 г. в силу не вступило.  http://www.cofe.ru/finance/russian/5/296.htm 
Долг оплачен не полностью - но это долг. Он остаётся в силе и США требуют его возврата. Это - не безвоздмездная помощь. Кстати, в русском языке после этого появилось устойчивое выражение "помощь по-американски".   

> Britain and France simply sold off Czhechoslovakia to Hitler in Munich in 1938 in hopes that his appetites would cease. There was no military force in Europe capable of stopping Hitler so until December 1941 his army had been thought of as unstoppable. Take a wild guess - who had finally stopped his offence? Britain? or USA maybe?

 Гитлер просто хотел посадить на английский трон опального герцога Виндзорского и не хотел воевать с Англией. Наоборот - он надеялся таким образом получить Англию в союзники. И вот когда у него этого не получилось - только тогда он начал боевые действия против Англии.

----------


## BappaBa

> *О Дне Победы, ленд-лизе и долгах ...*
> Во вторник мы отмечали День Победы. Который порохом пропах, со слезами на глазах, с сединою на висках. Иногда вопрос возникает – а сколько мы его еще праздновать будем? Пока жив хоть один участник? Пока не проржавеет насовсем последний Ford, Dodge или Studebaker, бывшие костяком военного автотранспорта? А их доставили в СССР в количестве 427 700 штук. А были еще пароходы, паровозы, железнодорожные вагоны, тракторы, электростанции и многое другое.  
> Помню, у отца было кожаное капитанское пальто, полученное по ленд-лизу из Америки. Буйволовая кожа необычайно крепости. Он рассказал, что однажды во время шторма его смыло волной, потащило за борт, но зацепился за какой то крюк петлей и остался живым. Это спасительное пальто я потом взял себе, было оно потертое и потому его приходилось каждый год красить в специальной мастерской. Красили там особой нитрокраской, как автомобиль. Носить его было нелегко, но защита была полная. Ночью ли накрыться в холодной сибирской гостинице, сквозь автобусную давку ли протиснуться – вещь была незаменимая, сделанная на совесть.  
> Ветераны еще помнят американскую тушенку, шоколад, яичный порошок и соевое молоко, про которое ходил анекдот. Девочка пишет отцу на фронт: «Папа, убей всех фрицев и соевых коров!» Все это возили через океан караванами судов типа «Либерти». Они имели секционную конструкцию и их строгали с такой американской деловитостью, что поставленный тогда рекорд до сих пор не перекрыт – океанское судно на 12 тысяч тонн построили за 8 дней 17 часов и сколько-то минут. Короче, по тогдашним деньгам поставили в Союз товару на 13,5 миллиардов долларов. Сейчас это, по моим грубым подсчетам, тянет примерно на полтриллиона.  
> Война кончилась, по договору от 11 июня 1942 года американцы попросили заплатить. Нет, за военные поставки платить было не нужно, это было подарком безвозмездным, но за гражданские поставки хотя бы, граждане, отдайте, как положено по закону. В 1948 году советская сторона предложила отдавать по чуть-чуть, американцы отказались наотрез. Переговоры 1949 года тоже ни к чему не привели. В 1951 году Америка дважды снизила сумму до 800 миллионов, СССР предлагал только 300 миллионов. Так оно и тянулось до брежневского периода. Только в 1972 году СССР обязался до 2001 года заплатить 722 миллионов долларов, включая проценты. К июлю 1973 года были осуществлены три платежа на общую сумму 48 миллиона долларов, после чего дальнейшие выплаты прекратились.  
> В июне 1990 был установлен новый срок окончательного погашения долга — 2030 год, и сумма — 674 миллионов долларов. Вот когда расплатимся, тогда в День Победы можно дышать вольготно, во всю грудь. Не только победили, но и никому ничего не должны.
> Сева Новгородцев, Би-Би-Си

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/blogs/a...47199037.shtml

----------


## Ramil

Вот я и говорю - Лэнд Лиз никогда не был безвозмездной помощью.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> *USA didn't enter the war to stop Russia, USA didn't land in Europe to stop Russia*

 Thanks kalinka. Someone finally gets this point across.

----------


## Vincent Tailors

They did, they did. You're acting like little kids, believeing in kindness and unselfishness. Ха!

----------


## RusskiSlav

How did we go from talking about Putin to arguing aver WW2?   ::  
Man I should've never started this thread!   ::

----------


## Бармалей

> How did we go from talking about Putin to arguing aver WW2?   
> Man I should've never started this thread!

 I'll jerk the car back on the road! http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ess29.html
Read and discuss.

----------


## RusskiSlav

Ummm....I don't have much to say about that one! A nice change from politics though  ::

----------


## Guin

> Ummm....I don't have much to say about that one! A nice change from politics though

 Oh, no! Please, stay a little longer on politic and read this outstanding article through: The New American Cold War.  
I'm sure you'll love it.   ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

Uhhh....well I'd have to say that the Cold War, to a certain extent, is sort of still going on, but I wouldn't call it the most serious threat to US security.   
And sorry...I really don't have the patience to read through 9 whole pages. (I read only the first)

----------


## Guin

> Uhhh....well I'd have to say that the Cold War, to a certain extent, is sort of still going on, but I wouldn't call it the most serious threat to US security.   
> And sorry...I don't have the patience to read through 9 whole pages right now

 You're right! US is still carrying on the Cold War against Russia, and still trying to undermine it's security. And this article is great for those who would like to understand motives of US - Russia relationships in the last 20 years. I hope you'll have red it sometimes.

----------


## laxxy

> Uhhh....well I'd have to say that the Cold War, to a certain extent, is sort of still going on, but I wouldn't call it the most serious threat to US security.   
> And sorry...I really don't have the patience to read through 9 whole pages. (I read only the first)

 I read only the last  :: 
There are people in Russia who would very much like to see Russia as a current or future superpower a la USSR. There are people in the US who would wish the world to return to simpler times of a struggle between two great but seemingly equal powers. Let them. The harder they try, the sooner they'll see the errors of their ways.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> And this article is great for those who would like to understand motives of US - Russia relationships in the last 20 years. I hope you'll have red it sometimes.

 I probably will  ::  I just had a lot of reading at school today and wasn't up for it. Maybe tomorrow...when it's Saturday  ::

----------


## laxxy

> Originally Posted by Guin  You're right! US is still carrying on the Cold War against Russia, and still trying to undermine it's security. And this article is great for those who would like to understand motives of US - Russia relationships in the last 20 years. I hope you'll have red it sometimes.   I probably will  I just had a lot of reading at school today and wasn't up for it. Maybe tomorrow...when it's Saturday

 reading can never hurt you, as long as you don't believe everything you read of course  ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

> reading can never hurt you, as long as you don't believe everything you read of course

 Yes   ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie        Originally Posted by Ramil  "Land lease" which you're referring to was not a gratuitous help.* USSR had to pay for every can of stew, airplane or tank it received.*   Errr... now, really? References please, because the books I've read say something different.   Долгосрочная задолженность СССР (по основному долгу) составляла 1,1 млрд дол.: 443 млн дол. приходилось по кредитам Экспортно-импортного банка, направленным на поддержание экспорта США, а остальная сумма - по соглашению 1972 г. между США и СССР по ЛЕНД-ЛИЗУ. В соответствии с этим договором, СССР осуществил три безоговорочных платежа на сумму 48 млн дол. Погашение оставшихся обязательств по ленд-лизу в сумме 674 млн дол. было увязано с предоставлением США режима наибольшего благоприятствования по экспорту из СССР в соответствии с Торговым соглашением 1972 г. между США и СССР, к-рое до 1982 г. в силу не вступило.  http://www.cofe.ru/finance/russian/5/296.htm 
> Долг оплачен не полностью - но это долг. Он остаётся в силе и США требуют его возврата. Это - не безвоздмездная помощь. Кстати, в русском языке после этого появилось устойчивое выражение "помощь по-американски".

 так. Напомню что ты сам написал:   

> "USSR had to pay for every can of stew, airplane or tank it received."

 и источники говорят:   

> Нет, за военные поставки платить было не нужно, это было подарком безвозмездным, но за гражданские поставки хотя бы, граждане, отдайте, как положено по закону.

  

> "[After the war and Roosevelt's death] Truman demanded that the Soviets repay the U.S. for many non-military supplies, including cargo ships, worth more than $2.5 billion."

 может быть, _может быть_, ты не видишь противоречие, но я вижу его и оно не красивое!!!   ::  
так, что не надо морочить нам голову, и признайся что ты перепутал!  ::  И я буду признаться, что вики надо исправлять  ::  Получается, что мы все что-то учили! 
вывод:
ленд-лиза помогла СССР (хотя, они не хотели этого признать из-за понятные идеологические причины) и СССР приходилось выплачивать только 10% помощи ($1.1 млрд из всего $11), и это 30 лет спустя (и без процентов). Нет, США не помогли(-о?) СССР, они были злые, жадные...   ::   ::

----------


## Тоби

I have read alot on this post.  
I have to honestly state that kalinka_vinnie, you know the one who starts with a K and ends with a E, has really made some valid factual points.

----------


## RusskiSlav

Ahh...I see we're back on WW2 again. What, are we trying to beat that 28 page thread or something?   ::   ::

----------


## Ramil

> так, что не надо морочить нам голову, и признайся что ты перепутал!  И я буду признаться, что вики надо исправлять  Получается, что мы все что-то учили!

 Признаю, что перепутал, но я лишь хотел возразить против того, что США якобы осуществляло помощь, как они говорят: for free. I've never met American who will ever do anything for free.  ::  
And the fact that USA keep demanding repayment for WW2 debts is true also.

----------


## adoc

> Uhhh....well I'd have to say that the Cold War, to a certain extent, is sort of still going on

 Just like a broken nail to a certain extent is sort of a national disaster.    ::   
If the cold war was still going on, this forum wouldn't exist to start with.

----------


## adoc

> I've never met American who will ever do anything for free.

 Then you probably haven't met too many of them.  Americans are at least not less helpful than an average Russian. 
Can that random bickering stop?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie  так, что не надо морочить нам голову, и признайся что ты перепутал!  И я буду признаться, что вики надо исправлять  Получается, что мы все что-то учили!   Признаю, что перепутал, но я лишь хотел возразить против того, что США якобы осуществляло помощь, как они говорят: for free. I've never met American who will ever do anything for free.  
> And the fact that USA keep demanding repayment for WW2 debts is true also.

 I guess you have not met many Americans. BTW, hello, I am American and I volunteer at the hospital for FREE.  ::  Now you have met one!   ::   
But yes, technically you are right: Lend-lease wasn't entirely free. As it turned out, USSR had to pay for 10% of it.

----------


## Бармалей

+1 +1 = +2 to Adoc's posts...  ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

> If the cold war was still going on, this forum wouldn't exist to start with.

 That's why I said *to a certain extent*. The new "Cold War" is not nearly as heated as the last one, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

----------


## RusskiSlav

> I've never met American who will ever do anything for free.

 You have now.

----------


## Бармалей

> Originally Posted by adoc  If the cold war was still going on, this forum wouldn't exist to start with.   That's why I said *to a certain extent*. The new "Cold War" is not nearly as heated as the last one, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

 Then maybe it's just a cool war? Or a lukewarm war? Or a kind-of, sort-of slightly chilly war? Or maybe it's NOT a cold war at all, but people just enjoy using irrelevant terms because they are "high-dollar" terms and make them sound cool.

----------


## mishau_

Я бы не сказал, что это даже "war". Это пока что позиционные маневры и рекогносцировка. Даже во взаимоотношениях Запада с Ираном или Кореей нет такого, что было при СССР. Но постепенно, если Запад или Россия не извлекли уроков из новейшей стории, есть возможность ее возобновления.

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil  I've never met American who will ever do anything for free.   You have now.

 When buseness comes to giving money, not.

----------


## RusskiSlav

Hey Бармалей, I like the Ak Bars too  ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Originally Posted by RusskiSlav        Originally Posted by Ramil  I've never met American who will ever do anything for free.   You have now.   When business comes to giving money, they do not.

 So you say that Americans do not donate money to charity?

----------


## RusskiSlav

Just because you've never met any, Ramil, doesn't mean they're not out there. There are 280 million people in America; you can't speak for all of them. And of course we donate to charities, kalinka is right.

----------


## Бармалей

You can speculate on motives all you want (*cough* tax-breaks *cough :: , but I've yet to see anyone convincingly say that Americans/American companies don't give to charity -- it's an enormous amount of money, actually.

----------


## mishau_

Американцы делают вещи за так, но для нуждающихся. Никому не известно слово "халява"?

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> Американцы делают вещи за так, но для нуждающихся. Никому не известно слово "халява"?

 известно, ну и что? Я не понял, что ты хотел писать... Американцы делают вещи для нуждающихся, но не "просто так"?

----------


## Guin

> известно, ну и что? Я не понял, что ты имеешь в виду, когда пишешь... Американцы делают вещи для нуждающихся, но не "просто так"?

 И ещё, твоя подпись немного "не того"... Лучше так напиши: "Не дури, голосуй! Калинку_винни в президенты!" 
PS. Не помню, можно ли тебя поправлять? Ну, извини, если что...

----------


## Ramil

> Originally Posted by Ramil        Originally Posted by RusskiSlav        Originally Posted by Ramil  I've never met American who will ever do anything for free.   You have now.   When business comes to giving money, they do not.   So you say that Americans do not donate money to charity?

 I say, that they may willingly go send some money and old stuff to starving people of Africa or some crime victims they saw on TV but won't move a finger to help distressed people in the neighborhood personally.
Well, of course, I can be wrong in my sayings here.  ::  But i'll quote a dialog from Брат-2 to express my views: 
- Что такое How are you? 
- Как дела.
- Им что, действительно интересно, как у меня дела?
- Нет
- А чего спрашивают?
- Просто так. В Америке вообще всё "просто-так", кроме денег. 
And the fact that Americans on this forum are good an decent people raises my views on Americans as a whole. You make me think better of Americans than I did before.

----------


## mishau_

> известно, ну и что? Я не понял, что ты хотел писать... Американцы делают вещи для нуждающихся, но не "просто так"?

 Нет, если очень нужно американцы будут делать вещи за так. Но если дело касается извлечения прибыли, то уступать они не намерены. А почему бы и нет? Сравним два примера. 
В России: тебе нужно выдать справку, почему бы не содрать с тебя за это денег?
А Штатах: прошел Чемпионат Мира по футболу, почему бы не продать квадратики травы с футбольного поля на аукционе? 
Ну и наоборот.  Я бы куски поля роздал бесплатно туристам. Но за любую мелочь на формальном уровне я бы драл много. 
Это не значит, что у американцев или у русских все плохо, просто все по-разному и надо знать что мы все-таки ожидаем друг от друга.  
Еще пример, моему другу в Австрии срочно понадобилось позвонить. Для этого он по российской привычке заходил в офисы на первом этажах зданий просил позвонить. И практически везде ему отказывали и советовали воспользоваться таксофоном. Он очень расстроился.  
С другой стороны, американец мне сказал, он просил в Москве у прохожих мобильник срочно позвонить и ему тоже отказывали. Зато пивом поили так, что ни встать.   ::

----------


## RusskiSlav

Wow are we now arguing about the decency of the American people?   ::  
First it was the G8 Summit and Putin (I named this thread for a reason!  ::  ), then it was the Cold War, then it was Vietnam, then it was who is more evil, US or USSR?, then it was WW2, and now it's whether or not Americans are generous or greedy people. We sure know how to go off on tangents!  ::

----------


## kalinka_vinnie

> PS. Не помню, можно ли тебя поправлять? Ну, извини, если что...

 конечно можно! и за это у тебя есть моя искренняя благодарность! Думаю, что только одному человеку, изучающему русский, не хочется, чтобы ты его исправлял. Не буду говорить имени, но можем звать его "Шарик" (понял о ком?   ::  )   

> Нет, если очень нужно американцы будут делать вещи за так. Но если дело касается извлечения прибыли, то уступать они не намерены. А почему бы и нет? Сравним два примера.  
> В России: тебе нужно выдать справку, почему бы не содрать с тебя за это денег? 
> А Штатах: прошел Чемпионат Мира по футболу, почему бы не продать квадратики травы с футбольного поля на аукционе?  
> Ну и наоборот. Я бы куски поля роздал бесплатно туристам. Но за любую мелочь на формальном уровне я бы драл много.  
> Это не значит, что у американцев или у русских все плохо, просто все по-разному и надо знать что мы все-таки ожидаем друг от друга.  
> Еще пример, моему другу в Австрии срочно понадобилось позвонить. Для этого он по российской привычке заходил в офисы на первом этажах зданий просил позвонить. И практически везде ему отказывали и советовали воспользоваться таксофоном. Он очень расстроился.  
> С другой стороны, американец мне сказал, он просил в Москве у прохожих мобильник срочно позвонить и ему тоже отказывали. Зато пивом поили так, что ни встать.

 Я не понимаю как это "если очень нужно, американцы делаем за так"? очень кому нужно? 
Я знаю очень много волонтёров, которые собирают мусор или работают в больницах или работают в парках и т.п. это никому "очень" нужно, но просто хорошо. Конечно, вы о них не слышали, потому что это не подходит стереотип "деловитый американец". Ну как все американцы думают, что русские все пьянствуют и грязные. Я знаю иначе - это не правда - потому, что я вас видел и с вами жил  ::  
так, что не надо бросать стереотипы нам и говорят, что это правда. 200 миллионов людей - это очень много!   ::

----------


## Бармалей

There's a total difference in asking questions in asking superficial questions like "How are you doing?" and truly not giving a d@mn. It's just a social norm, nothing more.

----------


## Guin

> конечно можно! и за это тебе моя искренняя благодарность! Думаю, что только одному человеку, изучающему русский, не хочется, чтобы ты его исправлял. Не буду говорить имени (называть имя), но можем звать его "Шарик" (понял о ком?   ) 
> Я не понимаю как это "если очень нужно, американцы делают за так"? кому очень нужно? 
> Я знаю очень много волонтёров, которые собирают мусор или работают в больницах или работают в парках и т.п. это никому "очень" не нужно, но (это) просто хорошо. Конечно, вы о них не слышали, потому, что это не подходит под стереотип "деловитый американец". Ну как все американцы думают, что русские все пьянствуют и грязные. Я думаю иначе - это не правда - потому, что я вас видел и с вами жил  
> так что, не надо бросаться стереотипами и говорить, что это правда. 200 миллионов человек - это очень много!

----------

