# Forum About Russia Politics  An alternative view of the USA & some other countries

## Will

This is a spin-off of the thread "Liberties of the Russian people".

----------


## Hanna

> First, I don't think that the picture is strongly differ from any country around the world. All politicans are crooks and liars, didn't you know that? Second, Russia was run like that for centuries, patriotism has nothing to do with this, do you think that we never had some patriotic feelings?

 I really don't think that all politicians are corrupt. It depends on what country you compare with. In several smaller countries in Europe there is practically no corruption among politicians. It's certainly not perfect, but there is no unholy alliance between business and politicians to rip off the people and manipulate politics, like there seems to be in the USA and Russia at the moment. 
...

----------


## lemoni

> You need to make a distinction between the country and the state. One can love his country but hate the state.

 Dear Ramil and Hanna, it's like I've watching the conversation between a greek and a foreigner. The whole same stuff happens in Greece over the past few years. And yes, Ramil, you're sooo right as for the distinction between state and country.
As I have discussed with other russians as well, I've come to conclusion, that one way or another, the situation in your country is quite similar to mine. Everybody lies. People don't care about anything anymore, they're just struggling to survive, nothing else is important to them.
But I quite agree with Chaika as well. Many peculiar deaths have occurred among russian journalists. Therefore, Ramil, I guess that "somebody" cares after all about what is being said, or is going to be said... isn't it?
Anyway, it comes to a conclusion, that corruption is well established in Russia as well as in many other countries one of which is also Greece.

----------


## Misha Tal

> All politicans are crooks and liars, didn't you know that?

 Absolutely true. This is not just a usual politician-baiting rant from Basil. It's a basic fact. Not a single politician has become a politician for the good of the public. Politics is an endless quest for power. And corruption is in the nature of power. There's no room for optimism. 
Hanna, you originally come from one of the most democratic parts of the world, and live in one of the oldest continuous democracies. It's no surprise that you find Basil's (and Ramil's) views rather cynical. But a Greek, or an Iranian, would be much more likely to agree with them. 
 ...

----------


## Will

Thank you , and for the record , I'm not comparing our country's .  I'm just curious .

----------


## E-learner

The "Empire of Evil" stuff definitely didn't sit well with Russians.
Soviet propaganda wasn't very fond of America either, but Reagan crossed the line.
That was the first time I felt like the USA was a real enemy, not just a bitter competitor.

----------


## Hanna

The Axis of Evil is a myth - those countries are only "evil" towards their own citizens, if at all. But there might possibly be an Empire of Evil which thinks nothing of manipulation & deception, starting wars and placing nukes at its' bases across the world, supporting ruthless dictators etc, etc. Just as long as its corporations can continue to rake in the money, and its citizens can eat burgers and drive gas monster cars everywhere they go....  
...  *And about my country being democratic*: Yes; we've been "lucky" and are traditionally hard working and well organised. But the political correctness has exceeded all reasonable limits now and if it continues like that; our whole area will go to the dogs.  
BUT: I am going back anyway though.. Can't stand London anymore. In April I am OUT of here --- hurrah, at last! And I am taking a big detour East before I go back to Sweden.. More about that in my MR blog that I am about to start.

----------


## Vincent Tailors

Hanna, I don't know what country you come from, but if it's Sweden, then (no offence) you should understand that Sweden is not a major power in the world politics and it's very small with a tiny (relatively) population. That means Swedes have no ambitions on the world stage and they tend to keep to themselves. Hence the level of corruption is very low since it's always quieter in a tiny hamlet where you know everyone, than it is in a huge metropolis where many many many warring parties are fighting over influence and resources. 
Russia on the other hand is 1) a major power player 2) is very rich in resources 3) has means to influence world politics 4) very huge and scarcely populated (which means people in different provinces do not really feel connected) And to add more to that, Russia suffered a total state and economy collapse 20 years ago (yes - it shook the very foundations of society and reshaped them - in a bloody and violent way). Also Soviet Socialism was an artificial construct, an experiment going against all human nature which severely traumatized and twisted your average Russian's mentality. Russians are recovering, but it's a slow process, it'll take tens of years (if not a hundred) to change something if nothing happens (like a full-scale war or a natural disaster). 
Also Russia is an empire and all empires are very corrupt by definition. Also Russians generally do not associate themselves with Russia and its future. They hate their country and are always willing to sabotage the state (even if they themselves do not realize it). Also tomorrow doesn't look promising to Russians, so you really want to hoard as much resources as you can to secure your and your family's future. 
But this stuff is really subtle. You wouldn't notice anything like that if you just came and lived in Russia for a while. You would find it very kind, calm and hospitable. I would say I feel much more freedom in Russia than in any EU state. In Russia noone cares about you as long as you're not a threat to others. You can be yourself, not someone other poeple want you to be. 
America is too an absolutely corrupt and cynical state. The only difference is that its average citizen is wealthier and that it didn't have to build its economy from the scratch in the last 20 years, but if America experiences something similar to what Russia had in 1991, mark my words - you'll not recognize it and I certainly wouldn't want to be caught in the middle. It was a wonder that Russia remained a single state, America would not be so lucky.

----------


## Misha Tal

> Another famous video of Zhirinovsky (Warning, a lot of swearing!):

 "Не сметь стрелять по Багдаду. Лучше вместе ...нем по Тбилиси!!" 
Laughed my AZZZZ off!

----------


## fortheether

> The "Empire of Evil" stuff definitely didn't sit well with Russians.
> Soviet propaganda wasn't very fond of America either, but Reagan crossed the line.
> That was the first time I felt like the USA was a real enemy, not just a bitter competitor.

 As an American I am very proud that Ronald Reagan was president of the USA.  Not specifially for the "evil empire" stuff but for his whole conservative approach to his presidency.   
Scott

----------


## Hanna

...  
@fortheether: Ok you have every right to like Ronald Reagan even though few on the forum think very highly of him.... So give a practical example of something that he did that you think was good? 
...

----------


## Basil77

> As an American I am very proud that Ronald Reagan was president of the USA. Not specifially for the "evil empire" stuff but for his whole conservative approach to his presidency.  
> Scott

 Ok, Scott, I can understand you perfectly well, he was a guy whos leadership made your country a Cold War winner blah, blah. More important for Americans, I think, he was a leader who greatly improved the level of life-quality in America. But have you ever think by what cost? The foundation of policy of blowing American financial bubble was founded by Reagan's goverment. Have you ever thought about how much money an average American family owes to China goverment? And how much your grandchildren will owe if United States will continue current policy?

----------


## Misha Tal

Now that this has turned into a Reagan talk... 
My country is probably even less significant than Hanna's (even if it is significant, it certainly can't be significant in a pleasant way for an American). The one bad thing that Iran has ever done to America is the hostage craziness in late 70s. Reagan did next to nothing to solve that problem, but he was lucky enough to have the problem solved at the beginning of his presidency. So in this way, we have somehow contributed to his popularity among Americans. 
(Funny stuff: the monkey who is the current president of Iran was also among the students who took part in the hostage-taking. Reagan must have been grateful to him.)

----------


## Ramil

> I know my country is insignificant, and a lot easier to run than Russia

  ::  Don't be so agreeable. I think the world will be forever grateful to Sweden for Abba, Roxette, Europe and Ace of Base. There is something in Sweden that gives birth to greatest musicians.

----------


## Basil77

> .. the monkey who is the current president of Iran..

 You are in Tehran and don't afraid to write such things?  ::  I myself as the majority of people on this planet think that this Ahmadinejad guy is a moron, but I thought it's very dangerous to say such things in Iran.  ::

----------


## Basil77

> Don't be so agreeable. I think the world will be forever grateful to Sweden for Abba, Roxette, Europe and Ace of Base. There is something in Sweden that gives birth to greatest musicians.

 You've forgotten about E-type!  ::  Really, Hanna, don't be so shy about your country. It's played a very important role in European history and in Russian history in particular. Moreover, I think that Swedish culture and Swedish people are great. Also I like the way how your country is run, I think it's one of the best and fairest societies on the face of Earth. My mom visited Sweden a couple of years ago and she literally fell in love in the country. So you should be very proud to be a Swede! !  ::

----------


## Misha Tal

> You are in Tehran and don't afraid to write such things?

 Afraid? Of what? Trash-talking on the internet? Well, we've said infinitely worse things on the streets, a mere 5 meters from the Revolutionary Guards.

----------


## Ramil

> Afraid? Of what? Trash-talking on the internet? Well, we've said infinitely worse things on the streets, a mere 5 meters from the Revolutionary Guards.

 I gather that all those talks about 'no freedom of speech in Iran' are just those -- talks?  ::  Somehow it restores my beliefs in the world order.

----------


## fortheether

> Don't be so agreeable. I think the world will be forever grateful to Sweden for Abba, Roxette, Europe and Ace of Base. There is something in Sweden that gives birth to greatest musicians.

 I have to agree with you on the musicians from Sweden.  I love progressive rock and boy does Sweden have a boat load of great players.   
Scott

----------


## fortheether

[QUOTE=Hanna;209074]  
@fortheether: Ok you have every right to like Ronald Reagan even though few on the forum think very highly of him.... So give a practical example of something that he did that you think was good?   
/QUOTE] 
He beat Jimmy Carter in the election.

----------


## fortheether

> Ok, Scott, I can understand you perfectly well, he was a guy whos leadership made your country a Cold War winner blah, blah. More important for Americans, I think, he was a leader who greatly improved the level of life-quality in America. But have you ever think by what cost? The foundation of policy of blowing American financial bubble was founded by Reagan's goverment. Have you ever thought about how much money an average American family owes to China goverment? And how much your grandchildren will owe if United States will continue current policy?

  
I disagree with your financial bubble comment - please look into FDR and Woodrow Wilson presidencies. I do agree that the USA financial policy is a disaster. It is not just Obama and democrats. It is Bush and republicans also. See the election coming up in November for what direction America thinks we should be going in. 
I think it's ironic that Ronald Reagan is being discussed in a "Liberties of the Russian people" thread. I know there were many factors in the collapse of communism but isn't Ronald Reagan one of them? We'll never know but if Carter won again and then followed by other "weak" presidents like Obama - would you be able to freely have a discussion on the liberties of the Russian people?   
Scott

----------


## Hanna

> He beat Jimmy Carter in the election.

 Admit it, you can't name anything!  of course he beat his opponent.... But what did he do during the course of his presidency?
Basil77 and Misha Tal are right - And certainly, most people in Europe (apart from England) think he was terrible, like Bush, 
And you Americans are not quite as "free" as you may think you are! You only believe it because you are constantly told it. 
Some of the stuff about the greatness of the USA is laughable - nothing unique about it: every country in Europe has it too.  
You are free in the USA if you are able to make a decent amount of money so you can afford to pay for everything that is free in Europe... 
and assuming your politics are capitalist/christian.... and reasonably PC...  
Did you know that Germany is now putting in place many of the EXACT same policies that East Germany had under socialism? 
People want that security and level of organisation and they realise now what they were a bit fast to bin a system that had many good (along with the bad...) qualities.  
And don't worry about your grand kids Scott... Although they will be broke, maybe China, Russia and some future moslem super power can give them some aid....  ::   
That's if the USA doesn't have some "Plan B" for world domination to try when everything else has failed.
For example: "Pay us, or one of those nukes we keep on our base(s) in your country might accidentally go off... " 
Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but I really don't see the USA as the Force of Good that you believe it to be... 
I just want to make you see an alternative view.

----------


## it-ogo

> I think it's ironic that Ronald Reagan is being discussed in a "Liberties of the Russian people" thread.  I know there were many factors in the collapse of communism but isn't Ronald Reagan one of them?  We'll never know but if Carter won again and then followed by other "weak" presidents like Obama - would you be able to freely have a discussion on the liberties of the Russian people?

 Main reasons for USSR collapse were internal.  At the end of USSR people didn't really believe in soviet ideals, propaganda etc. Everybody became cynic. But yes, maybe external factors played some role. Namely, maybe aggressiveness and insane rhetorics of Reagan prolonged USSR a bit more. He gave many good confirmations to communist propaganda. We'll never know...

----------


## Crocodile

> We'll never know but if Carter won again and then followed by other "weak" presidents like Obama - would you be able to freely have a discussion on the liberties of the Russian people?

 Well, Misha Tal seems to enjoy the 'free' talk, so why not?  ::  
I'm not sure the reasons for the 'fall of the communism' are quite obvious. Like, look at North Korea. All the so-called 'reasons for the fall' are still there (and perhaps there are even more), but the present regime seems to be rather stable. Some people think at the August of 1991 the SU was very close to abandon the Perestroyka and going back to the roots (=the strong dictatorship). 
Having said that, I remember the early '80s and all I can tell is that the SU seemed to be preparing for a big war. It was apparent the SU couldn't match the SDI and the preemptive strike was required to save the regime. Gorbachev allowed a lot of ugly things to happen, but he didn't allow the big war to start.

----------


## Ramil

Sooooo, about SDI, do you really think it was a real threat? Observing US's struggling with ABM now (which is a mush humbler project than SDI was), watching its doubtful effectiveness, I doubt US was capable of SDI in the early 1980s.
Some say that SDI was a bluff in order to hurl USSR into more expenses it could afford, well, if it was it was a very successful one, I'd say the Soviet leaders believed it. Still, I don't see how KGB missed this fact and generally I cannot imagine a bluff of that magnitude and I find it hard to believe. 
I think USSR was destroyed from within, not from outside. By its own people, not by some clever US president.

----------


## fortheether

> Admit it, you can't name anything!  of course he beat his opponent.... But what did he do during the course of his presidency?
> Basil77 and Misha Tal are right - And certainly, most people in Europe (apart from England) think he was terrible, like Bush, 
> And you Americans are not quite as "free" as you may think you are! You only believe it because you are constantly told it. 
> Some of the stuff about the greatness of the USA is laughable - nothing unique about it: every country in Europe has it too.  
> You are free in the USA if you are able to make a decent amount of money so you can afford to pay for everything that is free in Europe... 
> and assuming your politics are capitalist/christian.... and reasonably PC...  
> Did you know that Germany is now putting in place many of the EXACT same policies that East Germany had under socialism? 
> People want that security and level of organisation and they realise now what they were a bit fast to bin a system that had many good (along with the bad...) qualities.  
> And don't worry about your grand kids Scott... Although they will be broke, maybe China, Russia and some future moslem super power can give them some aid....   
> ...

  I'm going to make a new thread called "An alternative view of the USA" to continue this.  See you all there...

----------


## Crocodile

> Sooooo, about SDI, do you really think it was a real threat? [...]  I doubt US was capable of SDI in the early 1980s.

 Honestly, I have no idea. But if you remember the early '80s you'd remember "the Pershing II and the SDI threat" talk was looking for you even if you'd opened your fridge.  ::     

> Some say that SDI was a bluff in order to hurl USSR into more expenses it could afford, well, if it was it was a very successful one, I'd say the Soviet leaders believed it.

 I think so too. At least, that's how it looked from the outside.   

> Still, I don't see how KGB missed this fact and generally I cannot imagine a bluff of that magnitude and I find it hard to believe.

 I think that question was more of the GRU's competence than of the KGB's, but that doesn't make much difference. I mean, the Cold War era intelligence games are a way too complex for a simple-minded crocodile like myself. There's never an end to it. For example, perhaps the SU preparation for the preemptive war was also a disinformation campaign so that the US would spend more money on the SDI (while the Soviet Leaders spent much less on the 'preemptive war preparation' than the US Government on the 'SDI implementation') and the US government realized that fact ('I know that you know that I know') and spent more money in order to really impress the Soviet Leaders more and the SU made the 'preemptive war' looking more realistic, and so the game of who's fooling whom goes on and on.  ::    

> I think USSR was destroyed from within, not from outside. By its own people, not by some clever US president.

  Yes and no. I think the clever US president might have significantly contributed to a situation in which it was beneficial for some people to get more independence (=more local power) and sacrifice the power of the USSR. The 'own people' rode a wave (which was partially created by the US president) to their own benefit.

----------


## fortheether

> Main reasons for USSR collapse were internal.  At the end of USSR people didn't really believe in soviet ideals, propaganda etc. Everybody became cynic. But yes, maybe external factors played some role. Namely, maybe aggressiveness and insane rhetorics of Reagan prolonged USSR a bit more. He gave many good confirmations to communist propaganda. We'll never know...

 Can you please elaborate on the statement: 
He gave many good confirmations to communist propaganda. 
What did the propaganda say?   
Thank you, 
Scott

----------


## Lampada

> I'm going to make a new thread called "An alternative view of the USA" to continue this. See you all there...

 О, хорошо!  Тогда я туда перенесу все подходящие посты.

----------


## it-ogo

> Can you please elaborate on the statement: 
> He gave many good confirmations to communist propaganda. 
> What did the propaganda say?   
> Thank you, 
> Scott

 They said: "USA is our enemy. They hate us just because we are different, just because we are Russians. They want to destroy our country, split it into pieces. They call our country "Evil empire".  All we want is to live in peace but they do not agree. They have military bases and nukes all around the USSR while USSR has no nukes near the USA. We propose mutual disarmament but they build SDI to be completely safe when they will bomb our cities. We have to unite against them to save our country and our lives. Just read what their president say and you will see. He hates us." 
Funny that at the time of late USSR all of it was true. Sometimes even propaganda may be true.

----------


## Hanna

*Well - one mans propaganda is another mans truth!* 
Where I lived, we heard both sides of this story, presented in a relatively unbiased way.  
But I agree with it-ogo: Media from the socialist countries were always on about "friendship", "solidarity", "brotherhood" and Peace etc, etc..  
Whereas the US films were always picturing Russians as bad people. 
And then now - Russians always have extreme roles in films: Gangsters of some kind or another, for example.

----------


## Ramil

> Honestly, I have no idea. But if you remember the early '80s you'd remember "the Pershing II and the SDI threat" talk was looking for you even if you'd opened your fridge.

 Yes, I even remember being very afraid after watching Международная панорама. I understood very little, only that the Americans want us all dead and they're building many bombs. Funny thing, I'd learned about Reagan's Star Wars first and of Lucas's much later.    

> I think that question was more of the GRU's competence than of the KGB's, but that doesn't make much difference. I mean, the Cold War era intelligence games are a way too complex for a simple-minded crocodile like myself. There's never an end to it. For example, perhaps the SU preparation for the preemptive war was also a disinformation campaign so that the US would spend more money on the SDI (while the Soviet Leaders spent much less on the 'preemptive war preparation' than the US Government on the 'SDI implementation') and the US government realized that fact ('I know that you know that I know') and spent more money in order to really impress the Soviet Leaders more and the SU made the 'preemptive war' looking more realistic, and so the game of who's fooling whom goes on and on.

 The spy game was very complicated but it's not like guess what the other side is thinking. You can't really hide the fact that you're building something of such a grand scale as SDI. There could be tons of evidense even to the stupidest spy.    

> Yes and no. I think the clever US president might have significantly contributed to a situation in which it was beneficial for some people to get more independence (=more local power) and sacrifice the power of the USSR. The 'own people' rode a wave (which was partially created by the US president) to their own benefit.

 I really don't think that Brezhnev in 1980 could think coherently about US threat. Because of his illness I don't think he cared much just about anything. He was old and ill and there were many around him who were simply filling their pockets. It's the stagnation, the lack of progress which undermined the socialist ideas. The generation of 1960s grew up in tranquil times when virtually nothing major was happenning. There were no shocks, no goal, no focus. They yawned through this time and got pretty bored with anything 'made in USSR'. The west offered much more attractive things to the young and the most idiotic thing the leaders could do was forbidding all new and fresh ideas (old farts in Politbureau saw to that). They should have given way to the young. I honestly think that if Brezhnev had resigned or died in the mid-seventies things would be much better now. Then again, who knows...

----------


## Crocodile

> I really don't think that Brezhnev in 1980 could think coherently about US threat. Because of his illness I don't think he cared much just about anything. He was old and ill [...] I honestly think that if Brezhnev had resigned or died in the mid-seventies things would be much better now.

 No, no, and no!  ::  
First, everything we used to find attractive about the SU (stability, etc.) should be attributed to the stagnation time of Brezhnev. The life before him and after him used to be rather challenging to the ordinary people.  
Second, the whole 'preemptive war preparation' started at 1983 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strateg...nse_Initiative)  after Brezhnev died (at 1982) and should be attributed to Andropov who was the Secretary General of the CPSU 1982—1984 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Andropov). (Just a reminder that Andropov was previously a Chief of the KGB.) Some people said Andropov died at 1984 (in the Central Governmental Hospital in Moscow from the sudden kidney failure) because he was very successful in the preparation.

----------


## Ramil

> They said: "USA is our enemy. They hate us just because we are different, just because we are Russians. They want to destroy our country, split it into pieces. They call our country "Evil empire".  All we want is to live in peace but they do not agree. They have military bases and nukes all around the USSR while USSR has no nukes near the USA. We propose mutual disarmament but they build SDI to be completely safe when they will bomb our cities. We have to unite against them to save our country and our lives. Just read what their president say and you will see. He hates us."

 No, not like that. It would be too simple. They said that the capitalists who oppressed the worker class in many countries were afraid of the 'inevitable' triumph of the communism in the whole world. In order not to lose their wealth and power they strove to destroy the socialist countries. These were the reasons.  ::

----------


## Ramil

> No, no, and no!  
> First, everything we used to find attractive about the SU (stability, etc.) should be attributed to the stagnation time of Brezhnev. The life before him and after him used to be rather challenging to the ordinary people.  
> Second, the whole 'preemptive war preparation' started at 1983 (Strategic Defense Initiative - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)  after Brezhnev died (at 1982) and should be attributed to Andropov who was the Secretary General of the CPSU 1982—1984 (Yuri Andropov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). (Just a reminder that Andropov was previously a Chief of the KGB.) Some people said Andropov died at 1984 (in the Central Governmental Hospital in Moscow from the sudden kidney failure) because he was very successful in the preparation.

 Perhaps, but nonetheless:   

> I honestly think that if Brezhnev had resigned or died in the mid-seventies things would be much better now.

----------


## fortheether

> They said: "USA is our enemy. They hate us just because we are different, just because we are Russians. They want to destroy our country, split it into pieces. They call our country "Evil empire".  All we want is to live in peace but they do not agree. They have military bases and nukes all around the USSR while USSR has no nukes near the USA. We propose mutual disarmament but they build SDI to be completely safe when they will bomb our cities. We have to unite against them to save our country and our lives. Just read what their president say and you will see. He hates us." 
> Funny that at the time of late USSR all of it was true. Sometimes even propaganda may be true.

 
So the Soviet submarines with nuclear weapons in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans was propaganda?  Until a minute ago I thought Nikita Khrushchev said when referring to the USA "We will bury you", but I looked it up:  We will bury you - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
which says he didn't say it.  Most Americans think he said it.   
Scott

----------


## Crocodile

> Perhaps, but nonetheless.

 Oh, I like whenever the "perhaps, but nonetheless" starts. That's the most fun part of the conversation.  ::

----------


## Ramil

> So the Soviet submarines with nuclear weapons in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans was propaganda?  Until a minute ago I thought Nikita Khrushchev said when referring to the USA "We will bury you", but I looked it up:  We will bury you - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> which says he didn't say it.  Most Americans think he said it.   
> Scott

 
It was said that the subs were sent there to balance the missiles deployed in Turkey )))

----------


## Ramil

> Oh, I like whenever the "perhaps, but nonetheless" starts. That's the most fun part of the conversation.

 Oh, I don't want to convince anyone with anything. I just told what I think, that's all. Besides, I'm not in the position to judge because I don't know how life had been in USSR before Brezhnev or even in his early years as a leader. In 1982 I was only 6 years old and my understanding of the situation was a bit limited.

----------


## fortheether

> Admit it, you can't name anything!  of course he beat his opponent.... But what did he do during the course of his presidency?
> Basil77 and Misha Tal are right - And certainly, most people in Europe (apart from England) think he was terrible, like Bush, 
> And you Americans are not quite as "free" as you may think you are! You only believe it because you are constantly told it. 
> Some of the stuff about the greatness of the USA is laughable - nothing unique about it: every country in Europe has it too.  
> You are free in the USA if you are able to make a decent amount of money so you can afford to pay for everything that is free in Europe... 
> and assuming your politics are capitalist/christian.... and reasonably PC...  
> Did you know that Germany is now putting in place many of the EXACT same policies that East Germany had under socialism? 
> People want that security and level of organisation and they realise now what they were a bit fast to bin a system that had many good (along with the bad...) qualities.  
> And don't worry about your grand kids Scott... Although they will be broke, maybe China, Russia and some future moslem super power can give them some aid....   
> ...

 Hanna - my work has been too busy for me to reply to above - I am looking forward to when I can reply though. 
Scott

----------


## Crocodile

> So the Soviet submarines with nuclear weapons in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans was propaganda?

 Those were real. As real as the nuclear silo installations across Western Europe. By the way, the SDI concept was next to useless against those subs.  
As far as I remember, the war concepts of that time were based on not allowing the counterpart to launch the strategic (ballistic) missiles. Those were for the retaliation purpose only if one of the sides were to lose the war. The Soviet military concept was based on the principles of: 
1. Sending the special forces to each and every nuclear silo to attack the silo personnel just hours before the war starts and thus prevent the launch of the strategic missiles. 
2. Disrupt the command and the communication channels of the counterpart so that to prevent the orders to be issued or delivered. That included one-time mass-assassination of the major political figures and their deputies.  
3. The sudden one-time shock attack on the air-carriers by means of the nuclear subs destroying the air fleet and getting the overwhelming dominance in the air. 
4. The massive ground assault with the tanks which would be almost invincible given the Soviet dominance in the air. 
As a result, the entire Europe would be conquered and the US paralyzed. Then the new leaders of the US would have no choice but to acknowledge the expansion of the Soviet Union in the entire Europe given the Soviet Union would leave the rest of the NATO members alone. As a consequence, the major communist revolutions would spark in Africa, Middle East, and Asia. Having NATO forces without decent command and inability to make the hasty vital decisions, those revolutions would most likely succeed. That would leave the Soviet Union expanded over the entire Eurasia and Africa continents. Those would be 'accepted' as the new soviet republics as additions to the already 15 present. The North and South America would be left alone. For how long?  ::

----------


## Ramil

Perhaps, US had similar plans regarding us. ))) Still, according to Soviet propaganda of these days, USSR was a peaceful country  ::  Our nuclear forces were merely the means of defense against the frothing lunatics in the White House who dreamed about world's domination.

----------


## Crocodile

> Perhaps, US had similar plans regarding us. ))) Still, according to Soviet propaganda of these days, USSR was a peaceful country  Our nuclear forces were merely the means of defense against the frothing lunatics in the White House who dreamed about world's domination.

 Well, they should have had different plans.  ::  Honestly, I think the NATO's strategic situation was hopeless by the early '80s. The NATO might have had some local tactical victories, but strategically in Europe it had nothing to prevent a possible SU assault and had to solely rely on its strategic ballistic missiles. So, the only question the SU had - will the Soviet Army be successful enough to deactivate the missiles to prevent the SU from the total destruction? The US made all the attempts to distribute their nuclear weapons and make them hard to reach. However, at some point someone woke up in NATO (perhaps they realized what Andropov's ascending to the Soviet Throne might mean), so they started the SDI out of no other choice available. Which definitely made the situation much worse right away.

----------


## Ramil

So you're suggesting that if Gorbachev had waited for another ten years or so USSR would have won the Cold War? Or if Andropov lasted for a few more years.

----------


## E-learner

> Until a minute ago I thought Nikita Khrushchev said when referring to the USA "We will bury you", but I looked it up:  We will bury you - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> which says he didn't say it.  Most Americans think he said it.

 In the USSR even a better story circulated: he said it at the UN meeting, yelling and banging his shoe upon the desk to make his point more clear.
I don't know how many people actually believed that, but I did hear several people mentioning it as if it were a fact.

----------


## Ramil

> In the USSR even a better story circulated: he said it at the UN meeting, yelling and banging his shoe upon the desk to make his point more clear.
> I don't know how many people actually believed that, but I did hear several people mentioning it as if it were a fact.

----------


## Crocodile

> So you're suggesting that if Gorbachev had waited for another ten years or so USSR would have won the Cold War? Or if Andropov lasted for a few more years.

  Quite the opposite. The SU might have started the WWIII within a few years and had the war won or made the entire globe uninhabitable for large mammals like Homo Sapiens. Think about it this way: will the newly appointed fresh US political command launch the few of the remaining strategic missiles if they know the US itself will not be conquered and the Europe has already been conquered?

----------


## Ramil

> Quite the opposite. The SU might have started the WWIII within a few years and had the war won or made the entire globe inhabitable for large mammals like Homo Sapiens. Think about it this way: will the newly appointed fresh US political command launch the few of the remaining strategic missiles if they know the US itself will not be conquered and the Europe has already been conquered?

 Of course they would. But you're insisting upon the fact that USSR wanted to strike first. Your logic is flawless if one accepts this fact but what gave you this idea in the first place? I have not heard of this.

----------


## Crocodile

> Of course they would. But you're insisting upon the fact that USSR wanted to strike first. Your logic is flawless if one accepts this fact but what gave you this idea in the first place? I have not heard of this.

 Let's start with the comparison: what was the focus of the pure assault weapon in the USSR and NATO? The USSR heavily invested in tanks. The main Soviet Army special forces were both airborne - ВДВ and Спецназ. The NATO heavily invested in aircraft carriers. The NATO's main special forces - marines. Start thinking from that point.

----------


## Ramil

> Let's start with the comparison: what was the focus of the pure assault weapon in the USSR and NATO? The USSR heavily invested in tanks. The main Soviet Army special forces were both airborne - ВДВ and Спецназ. The NATO heavily invested in aircraft carriers. The NATO's main special forces - marines. Start thinking from that point.

 A little bit thin. Aside from Mexico and Canada all other US borders are naval. US marines were basically the same thing as were the Soviet paratroopers. You don't defend homeland with marines, you know. They had carriers so they could transport their armies (and airfields) overseas. 
USSR had the land border with NATO and its tanks, according to the doctrine I've seen were to reach the Atlantic in 48 hours should the war start. This was necessary to neutralize the medium and short range missiles deployed in Europe. And, according to the stats I've seen, US almost all the time had more missiles and warheads than USSR (though it didn't really matter since it was 4x overkill). And USSR was ever the second in the arms race (if you count warheads only).

----------


## fortheether

> It was said that the subs were sent there to balance the missiles deployed in Turkey )))

 Just responding to this: 
They have military bases and nukes all around the USSR while USSR has no  nukes near the USA.

----------


## fortheether

> Perhaps, US had similar plans regarding us. ))) Still, according to Soviet propaganda of these days, USSR was a peaceful country  Our nuclear forces were merely the means of defense against the frothing lunatics in the White House who dreamed about world's domination.

 
Did the citizens of the USSR hear about the Cuban missile crisis as it was happening?

----------


## Ramil

> Did the citizens of the USSR hear about the Cuban missile crisis as it was happening?

 Till October, 26th 1962 USSR denied it had deployed missiles on Cuba.

----------


## Hanna

During the Cold War, the USA started and participated in many more wars than the USSR did!
The USA came across as aggressive, imperialist, expanionist and ultra-capitalist.
The USSR came across as paranoid and insular.

----------


## Basil77

> Perhaps, US had similar plans regarding us. ))) Still, according to Soviet propaganda of these days, USSR was a peaceful country  Our nuclear forces were merely the means of defense against the frothing lunatics in the White House who dreamed about world's domination.

      ::

----------


## Hanna

_PLEASE NOTE: I LIKE lots of things about the USA and I have nothing  against American people in general.  I just hate the foreign policies of  the USA and I don't think decent Americans would support them if they knew  how unpopular this really is. _ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
But here is an "alternative" view of the USA for you.    
Somebody posted about this in another part of the forum. The text is about how the USA should pack up their bases in Germany and go home (+ a few other things). 
Plus the person who made the video is unhappy about the influence English is having on the German language.  
I can't stand these American bases! They have long since served their purpose. But it seems, once a country allows the USA to set up a base, they hang on like a leech. 
There are tons of those bases in certain European countries.  
Same theme from South Korea:     
Same theme from Japan:     
And if the USA goes ahead with the war that it seems really keen on against Iran, then Misha Tal from this forum could be killed and many others like him.

----------


## Crocodile

> US marines were basically the same thing as were the Soviet paratroopers. You don't defend homeland with marines, you know.

 Of course, not. The marines are meant for the assault. The SU also had marines. What I meant, marines are not meant for attacking the nuclear silos. No country would ever station a nuclear silo near the sea shore.  ::  That's why the airborne special forces are different in principle from the marines. They have different potential targets, different equipment and different training. In the US there weren't a lot of the paratroopers and so they weren't enough to "neutralize" so many Soviet silos. On the other hand, the importance of the airborne special forces in the Soviet military doctrine could be seen even from the fact that the ВДВ were named the 'kind of the military force' (род войск) equal in importance to the naval, the airforce, and the ground forces. There were a lot of the paratroopers in the Soviet Army. A lot. Enough to form a 'kind of the military force'. All of them could be used only if the Soviet Army would have an absolute dominance in the air. The US marines are legacy from the WWII in which the major operations were done in the islands and the seashore. The marines are meant to assault and hold the ground for a very short time until the 'heavy' equipment (like tanks) is unloaded to the sea shore.  
The US seemed to have a different approach to attacking the nuclear silos. Do you remember the first Iraq war (1990-1991)? That was the first time the world had seen the so-called 'high precision' weapons that were designed to penetrate the underground bunkers. By the time of the war, those weapon system were already delivered to the US Army. So, those were designed and built during the Cold War era apparently for a different purpose - to penetrate and destroy the undeground Soviet nuclear silos. Those high-precision missiles were to be delivered over the oceans by the aircraft carriers, then the Stealth jets would deeply penetrate the territory of the USSR and those high-precision bombs/missiles would then be deployed to destoy the silos. No absolute air dominance is required, therefore no need to strike first. The first thing the Soviet Army should have done was to destroy all/majority of the aircraft carriers. By means of the nuclear subs which were to deploy tactical nuclear warheads which did not even require the direct hit of the aircraft carrier. Just a nearby small nuclear exposion would be enough to make the carrier overturn with all its aircraft. As a result: (i) the absolute dominance in the air have been obtained, and (ii) the US has no means to attack the Soviet nuclear silos. The conclusion of this lengthy explanation: the Soviet Army had to strike first. And the US Army had not (but of course it could). A strategic military doctrine sometimes could be deduced from the way an army is structured.    

> USSR had the land border with NATO and its tanks, according to the doctrine I've seen were to reach the Atlantic in 48 hours should the war start.

 Exactly. So, by the time the newly appointed US government takes over the power and gather to work out any type of decision the war over Europe has already finished. Nothing the US could do for Europe. And the SU has no means and no intention to ground assault the US. Any nuclear strike to the SU would get a nuclear response. Why would the US do that? I think - they wouldn't. Then the local revolutions would start within a month and here you go - the entire Eurasia and Africa are communist.  
As you said, Brezhnev government was lazy and unmotivated. Andropov actually started some new initiatives. What would you do if you were the US president?

----------


## it-ogo

> So the Soviet submarines with nuclear weapons in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans was propaganda?

 If you remember, my point was that Reagan's aggressiveness probably prolonged life of USSR a bit more rather than shortened it. What I gave in quotation is not an exact formulations but a brief summary to provide a general idea of the point of Soviet propaganda so you can see that Reagan gave many good confirmations to it. Do you see?   

> Until a minute ago I thought Nikita Khrushchev said when referring to the USA "We will bury you", but I looked it up:  We will bury you - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 
> which says he didn't say it.  Most Americans think he said it.

 Yeah, he could say that. Khrushchev was old stinky pig, hysterical goop, very non-diplomatic. Sill he had one merit: during Caribbean crisis he was one who stopped. He was not ready to destroy the World for his ambitions like beautiful and noble Mr. Kennedy was. So there are words against deeds.

----------


## Ramil

1) The paratrooper corps is the legacy of the WW2. This branch of arms (or 'kind' as you put it) was created long before US even had any missile silos. They've proven themselves useful and nearly universal. They could attain a wide range of combat tasks, they were swift, they were flexible and everyone in the general staff saw that. But they were not the main fighting force. They merely speaheaded the assault. Their task was always just as simple -- to hold the ground until the main force arrives. The only difference is that they were airborne since USSR had more ground to cover and you could deliver them to any point on the map pretty quickly. 
2) Let's be real, despite the fact that Russian military aircraft are probably the best in the world (or at least they were in 1980s), but when things came down to combat co-operation systems and radioelectronic warfare support, US had the upper hand. Thus, air-superiority couldn't be attained quickly enough. In all scenarios of military conflict between NATO and Warzaw Pact you only had hours (if not minutes). We could, probably, destroy all the aircraft carriers quickly enough, but we couldn't establish air-superiority over the US territory itself. 
3) About this task of attacking the silos -- I doubt the attack on it would be successful. Think. You should transport a large body of paratroopers over the ocean deep into the US territory (losing 50%-70% to AA fire even before they are deployed). You won't approach undetected and the course of your attack will give the Americans plenty of time to co-ordinate the measures to repel the attack. Now, a Silo is not that 1 missile buried underground. It's a complex of many underground structures (individual missiles are scattered 20-40 km apart to minimize the chances of being all destroyed by a single nuclear hit. It has two command centers and in order to 'neutralize' the silo you should either sabotage every single missile (which is impossible in that short period of time you would have) or find and destroy all command centers (which is also extremely difficult since they are heavily defended and are built to sustain at least one direct nuclear hit. How you you open it to get in?
Now, US missiles were solid-fuel propelled and thus required no time for fueling up. They can be launched within minutes. Any number of paratroopers would have no chance of neutralizing them all within such a short period of time. I'm afraid that the only thing the surviving Soviet paratroopers see at the doors of the US silo command center would be a spectacular launch of the ICBMs. 
Now, about US plans for attacking USSR.
1) In the early 80s US had no stealth technology available to them. They relied on cruise missiles and SRBM launched from nuclear subs (by the way, US had more ballistic missile carriers than Russia at any time).
2) Russian stationary silos are too scattered over large territories to prevent them being destroyed all at once and had several 'spare' command centers.
3) Russia had quite a number of mobile launch sites (refrigerator cars and mobile launchers) so you couldn't get them all in time.  
As far as I know, neither side could think up a winning strategy for WW3. Perhaps, we are lucky they couldn't.  
And finally, about USSR striking first.
It was US who started the so called nuclear blackmail in 1947.  It was US who's changed several war plans for atomic bombardment of the USSR during 1948-1955. We attained parity in nukes by the end of 70s (past Cuban crisis and when a number of treaties were already signed), no I don't think anyone planned to strike first in 1980. Neither USSR, nor USA. Back in 50s maybe, but not in 80s.

----------


## Crocodile

> They merely speaheaded the assault. Their task was always just as simple -- to hold the ground until the main force arrives.

 That's not what the Paratrooper #1 General Margelov had thought:   

> (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9C%...B2%D0%B8%D1%87) 
> Он категорически отверг установку на удержание захваченного десантом  района до подхода наступающих с фронта войск методом жёсткой обороны как  пагубную, ибо в этом случае десант будет быстро уничтожен.

 It's ok that we have different opinions, after all, neither you nor me had access to the top secret documentation of the Soviet Army.  ::

----------


## Misha Tal

Wow! I just took one day off and you guys have brought this discussion to new horizons! For now, I'll just leave a short comment:   

> ..And if the USA goes ahead with the war that it seems really keen on against Iran, then Misha Tal from this forum could be killed and many others like him.

 Honestly, I don't think it's a very real possibility. Don't laugh at my naivety. Much before things come down to any military stand-off like that, the Iranian regime will be struggling against it's own people. Only an ill-wisher of the United States might suggest an ambush against Iran. Such a war will have absolutely unpredictable impacts on the entire world. I think it's totally uncalled for, as long as Iranians themselves are against this regime. Attacking Iran will put the United States in the role of the aggressor, and will give the Iranian regime enough excuse for any devilish deed. 
And there will be blood. Really. I rue to say this, but it will be a thousand times worse than Iraq. 
I'm not a preacher. I'm not an unrealistic pacifist. I don't freak out at the idea of a war. But my crooked political philosophy goes like this: "_If someone is screwing up, don't cut in his action. Just let him screw up all the way. If you go all-out against him, you'll make a goddamn martyr out of him. Remember JFK and you'll know what I mean._" 
I'm sure Obama's America is wise enough to be aware of all that. The most aggressive country in the world is not America. It's a 70-year-old mini-state located a few short steps to our west.

----------


## Crocodile

> Only an ill-wisher of the United States might suggest an ambush against Iran. [...] 
> I'm sure Obama's America is wise enough to be aware of all that. The most aggressive country in the world is not America. It's a 70-year-old mini-state located a few short steps to our west.

  Alright, so what if the mini-state would be paranoid enough and think the present threats from the Iranian government are real and strike first? (After all, they have their own experience of the 1968 war and 1973 war so they know how beneficial it might be to be preemptive.)

----------


## Misha Tal

> Alright, so what if the mini-state would be paranoid enough and think the present threats from the Iranian government are real and strike first? (After all, they have their own experience of the 1968 war and 1973 war so they know how beneficial it might be to be preemptive.)

 Then all the nonsense that Ahmadinejad has blabbered over the years would come true.

----------


## Crocodile

> Then all the nonsense that Ahmadinejad has blabbered over the years would come true.

  I'm not sure that is so simple. There's no border between Israel and Iran for the ground forces to fight, so Iran would be limited to employ its vast human resources. The war might look more like the Battle of Britain (Battle of Britain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) where the technology might mean more than the quantity of the fighter jets. So, do you think Iran might be ready to take it to the next level and use the chemical/biological weapons? Or WMDs?

----------


## Ramil

Apparently, Israelis thought up of something brand-new. Stuxnet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------


## Crocodile

> Apparently, Israelis thought up of something brand-new. Stuxnet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  Wow! Never heard of it before. So, is it going to be like another MOO ("An unknown virus has struck the research database destroying X points of research data and it might take years to recover?)  ::

----------


## Misha Tal

> ...There's no border between Israel and Iran for the ground forces to fight...

 Well, between us and them, you got a whole lot of Arabs. Their opinion of Israel is well-known [although, if they are Arab, you can't be sure they won't change their minds at the last moment]. Anyway, _if_ it happens, the entire Middle East is bound to get engaged.

----------


## Ramil

> Wow! Never heard of it before. So, is it going to be like another MOO ("An unknown virus has struck the research database destroying X points of research data and it might take years to recover?)

 It's too sophisticated to be just an ordinary virus. It is targeted at 'patterns' of specific instruction sets (though it's difficult to determine the target by reverse-engineering, specialists agree that it was specifically targeted at only some industrial equipment. It used two stolen (!) digital sertificates of known maufacturers (I heard of Realtek Semiconductors) to embed itself into the target machine and finally -- by the number of infected machines, many specialists concluded that target might be not the power plant, but the uranium enrichment facility.
(There are rumors that at least something had happenned there that disrupted the production). 
It's a weapon grade, 2nd generation computer virus. It can even kill people. Here's some more:  Stuxnet: война 2.0 / Информационная безопасность / Хабрахабр  e_kaspersky - Торжественная речь по случаю... Stuxnet сократил количество рабочих центрифуг в Иране

----------


## Basil77

> Then all the nonsense that Ahmadinejad has blabbered over the years would come true.

 I absolutely agree with Misha here.

----------


## Crocodile

> although, if they are Arab, you can't be sure they won't change their minds at the last moment

 Wow! Have you started speaking disparagingly about the entire race??!!! Makes me wonder ...  ::    

> Anyway, _if_ it happens, the entire Middle East is bound to get engaged.

 The previous history shows that might not necessarily be true. I mean, there are concerns, but in practice it had never really happened.  ::   
About the Stuxnet as a weapon, if that's true that kind of war seems much better to me than killing live people. _Feel free to disagree (TM)._  ::

----------


## Ramil

> About the Stuxnet as a weapon, if that's true that kind of war seems much better to me than killing live people. _Feel free to disagree (TM)._

 But it can kill people. One can arrange some explosion or poisonous gas leak with it.

----------


## Crocodile

> But it can kill people. One can arrange some explosion or poisonous gas leak with it.

 You're right, it's probably possible. Ok, I was wrong. All wars suck.  ::

----------


## Misha Tal

> Wow! Have you started speaking disparagingly about the entire race??!!! Makes me wonder ...

 First, they're not a race. The Arab world is composed of different races. What makes them united is the Arabic language (and culture). Thirteen centuries ago, the only countries that accepted Islam but retained their language were Persia (Iran) and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey). Others adopted the Arabic language, which gradually resulted in a cultural change, but that doesn't change their race. So, my statement wasn't a racy one. 
Second, yes, in a broader sense, my statement might seem to be disrespectful of their great culture. But it's got nothing to do with race. Iranians' dislike of Arabs is more of a cultural/historical matter. Throughout our history, Arabs have not proven to be the perfect people to team up with. So maybe we should learn a lesson or two from history? In my opinion, one of the most venomous aspects of my country's foreign policy is the strong reliance on Arabs. 
And last, if all the above is not enough, I offer my apologies to any Arab who might be reading this. I stand in awe of their deep-rooted culture. And our historical clashes bring me nothing but sorrow. 
Actually, some of my own countrymen in south-western provinces are of Arab descent. I have many friends among them, and have enjoyed their hospitality on several occasions. They're honest, courageous, and extremely patriotic. 
@Crocodile: Only you could make me say all that! A racist is the last thing I could be, hand on my heart.

----------


## Hanna

What I don't get is what people like Ahmadinejad actually want from the Israelis...?  
That they pack up and leave (where??) 
That they commit mass suicide...? 
That they scrap their army and wait to be invaded and killed? 
That they all convert to Islam (would they be left alone if they did?) 
And who wrote that virus that attacked the Iranian nuclear plant? The US or Israel? 
I have no issue at all with Iran having nukes - just as long as it's not specifically for a preemptive strike against Israel. For all its faults... I think Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state and I hope I don't annoy anyone here too much by saying that. 
The other thing i don't quite get is: Why does Iran even care about Israel?  Iranians are not Arabs, Israel is nowhere near Iranian territory and it has no interest in invading Iran. So why exactly is it such a big deal to Iran? I think the rhetoric from the Iranian leadership about Israel is very offputting.  
And about invasion of Iran: 
Anyone who is stupid enough to invade Afghanistan...  and greedy enough to invade Iraq... (after having previously supported the exact regimes that they later turned against) .... would probably drool at the thought at "liberating" Iran (including its oil..) . 
Unless the American people come to their senses and do something about their rotten politicians I think all the signs are there that thats exactly what they'd like to do after they are done in Iraq and Afghanistan.

----------


## Crocodile

> First, they're not a race. [..] So, my statement wasn't a racy one. [..] A racist is the last thing I could be, hand on my heart.

 Wow! With that kind of words play you could do a fair politician.  ::  So, based on what you said, I can safely say something like French are this bad and that bad, and I won't be racist, because French is not a race.  ::  Ok, so if you insist on the strict meaning of that word, your statement wasn't racist, but chauvinistic. Would your really prefer a chauvinist over a racist? I don't really see much practical difference.  ::  
To tell the truth, Persians is a nation like any other nations with some of the Persians reliable and others are not. Also, when it comes to the foreign politics only rare nations perhaps could boast reliability in alliances.  ::

----------


## Misha Tal

> So, based on what you said, I can safely say something like French are this bad and that bad, and I won't be racist, because French is not a race.

 This argument, despite being impressive and eloquent, is not "based on what I said". What I said was not "Arabs are this bad and that bad". My point was very specific: the history of our political relationships. Generalizing this to a racist manifest must have taken a fair amount of creativity. 
Accusing people of racism is easy. I understand that it can be great fun. Yet I have always stayed away from this kind of pleasure.

----------


## Crocodile

> 1. What I said was not "Arabs are this bad and that bad". My point was very specific: the history of our political relationships.
> 2. although, if they are Arab, you can't be sure they won't change their minds at the last moment
> 3. Generalizing this to a racist manifest must have taken a fair amount of creativity.

  ::  
Ok, so the ZOG theory (Zionist Occupation Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is not a racist manifest at all. Just an insight into a certain political aspect.  ::

----------


## Crocodile

> [...] you got a whole lot of Arabs. Their opinion of Israel is well-known [although, if they are Arab, you can't be sure they won't change their minds at the last moment].

 Ok, let's set aside our previous discussion which was more or less for lulz, and let me ask you a serious question. _Based on Iran's history of its political relationships_, of course. 
If Arabs hate Israel and Arabs aren't to be trusted (as you insist based on their culture, history, or what not) then Israel is doing a right thing when it doesn't believe Arabs want the peace and does a wrong thing when it believes so. Would you agree with that?

----------


## it-ogo

Trollodile is to be encouraged to work off some excess weight.

----------


## Crocodile

> Trollodile is to be encouraged to work off some excess weight.

 It could work well when I try to jump on board.  ::

----------


## sperk

> Ok, so the ZOG theory (Zionist Occupation Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) is not a racist manifest at all. Just an insight into a certain political aspect.

 is Jew a race?

----------


## Ramil



----------


## Basil77

> 

 Have I missed something? I what to participate!

----------


## Crocodile

> is Jew a race?

 Jewish and Arabs are part of the Semitic race (Semitic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

----------


## Crocodile

> Have I missed something? I what to participate!

 No, you haven't. It's just Ramil likes the popcorn.  ::

----------


## Lampada

> Trollodile is to be encouraged to work off some excess weight.

  :: 
Was it meant to be funny?

----------


## it-ogo

> Was it meant to be funny?

 Имелось в виду, что троллинг в данном случае слишком толстый. АккуратнЕе надоть, изячнее.

----------


## Crocodile

> Имелось в виду, что троллинг в данном случае слишком толстый. АккуратнЕе надоть, изячнее.

 Да, это я понял. Просто такая редкая птица - слёзы наворачиваются.  ::

----------


## Hanna

_Crocodile isn't the troll here I am..._ __ _Sometimes, at least. I just type whatever comes into my head and half the time I haven't got the time or energy to follow up on discussions. Plus I am rather flexible about my opinions and sometimes I change my mind after reading what someone else says..._  
But back to Israel; regardless of what you think is wrong with Israel and zionism (probably plenty....),I think people who are Christian should bear in mind that Israel coming into being is pretty much considered to be the fulfillment of biblical prophecy... Or do you simply disregard that? It doesn't mean one has to support everything that Israel does.. but it's not just any little country causing mischief... It's a bit special. I can't help but being willing to give it an extra chance, for that reason. That said; I certainly think they should stop building on the West Bank and try to be the most inclusive society they possibly can. In my current job I recieve software releases from a company in Israel and almost everyone I deal with seems to be Russian.

----------


## Crocodile

> But back to Israel; regardless of what you think is wrong with Israel and zionism (probably plenty....),I think people who are Christian should bear in mind that Israel coming into being is pretty much considered to be the fulfillment of biblical prophecy...

 I think the point of view you exhibit is called the Christian Zionism. If you're really believe in that aren't you afraid of what's coming?

----------


## Ramil

> I think the point of view you exhibit is called the Christian Zionism. If you're really believe in that aren't you afraid of what's coming?

 According to assorted prophets the 4th seal has already been opened with Obama being Anti-Christ, of course. Three more to go. 
The next apocalypse is scheduled for 2012.  ::  
Not even that. Even if 2012 fails, each subsequent year till 2020 will have at least one, but usually 2 to 3 'ends of the world'. Can't wait to see them. So far, I've been through the assorted apocalypses of 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2008.

----------


## Crocodile

> According to assorted prophets the 4th seal has already been opened with Obama being Anti-Christ, of course. Three more to go.

 Shush, you cynical non-believer! I'm waiting for the troll's Hanna's response.  ::

----------


## Hanna

> Shush, you cynical non-believer! I'm waiting for the troll's Hanna's response.

 *Take heed ye' heathens!! The end is near.... Repent before it is too late!*  ::  
No but seriously:  It is FAITH, right..? We don't KNOW for sure...  
In general I think that people who say they are Christians should at least TRY to believe in the Bible.  
Here is my view:
Some very unlikely things that were predicted in the Bible have actually occurred quite recently. It seems to be quite a bit beyond chance. I can't remember the exact details but it certainly made an impact on me when I heard about it.  
As far as I can recall, the prophecy from the Book of Revelations predicts that a series of events like the rise of the antichrist and the battle of Armageddon will take place before the end of the world (after which everyone who believes goes to heaven).  
The Battle of Armageddon will be the most terrible war the world has ever seen, starting in Israel... *Doesn't sound entirely unlikely to me!* 
And then afterwards somebody will come to power who unites the world in peace... i.e. like the UN with superpowers. Again, that could quite easily be where the world is heading, given globalism etc, etc.  _Another interpretation of the Book of Revelations is that there were quite a lot of magic mushrooms growing near where John (who wrote it) lived. So it's either that, or he was divinely inspired.... But if he was just stoned or made it up, then it's quite remarkable how accurate it was. Personally I choose to believe that he was honest about having had a revelation, and that it may very well have been divine._

----------


## Basil77

> _Another interpretation of the Book of Revelations is that there were quite a lot of magic mushrooms growing near where John (who wrote it) lived._

 "Magic" mushrooms, yeah. That explains it all.

----------


## Crocodile

> 1. The Battle of Armageddon will be the most terrible war the world has ever seen, starting in Israel... *Doesn't sound entirely unlikely to me!* 
> 2. And then afterwards somebody will come to power who unites the world in peace... i.e. like the UN with superpowers. Again, that could quite easily be where the world is heading, given globalism etc, etc.

 Alright, those were two very important points on which I would really appreciate to get some more clarifications. So, based on those points and the belief the Armageddon battle will take place between Jesus Christ and the Antichrist and also your belief those events might be just around the corner, WHO do you think might play the role of the Antichrist so that the Antichrist will be defeated and the peace represented by the globalization will reign for one thousand years? Who (what country) is the major driving force of the globalization? And who might, therefore, be the Antichrist who should be against the worldwide peace (=the globalization)? Or, do you think the very opposite and the Antichrist will unite all the countries (=the globalization) and the Jesus Christ will come thankful for the Antichrist who had helped Him to unite the world, and subsequently dismiss (=the battle) the Antichrist as being useless from that point on taking over the global throne for the one thousand years (until the fire comes down etc.)?

----------


## Crocodile

An official disclaimer: 
So, my previous post to Hanna was an example of trolling. I wrote that post just to demonstrate what the trolling actually _is_. Trolling is a provocative question with no real answer possible or injection of a provocative information with no meaningful response possible. Like if I start posting in MR something of the type: "Oh, I think all Russians hate all foreigners". That would just incite a negative reaction from all sides, nothing meaningful could come out of that. The same thing about the Apocalypse. Nobody knows anything about it, so all "discussions" around it would either provoke negative or senseless responses. And so the trolls would get their lulz.  
I think my discussion with Misha Tal was meaningful (at least from my side) in terms of: 
1. Arabs is a group of nations just like anybody else. There should be no prejudice of any kind towards them. In general, I think prejudice is a stupid and dangerous thing.  
2. Israel have their valid points. And misunderstanding of those points is a wrong thing for a thinking person to do. The perception of the Zionism as a means for Jews to 'exercise their superiority', 'just another form of Fascism', 'genocide ideology' or something like that is stupid and dangerous. And could lead to a big war. 
So, I'm fine with being called a trollodile as a joke. No issues with it-ogo's comments. Misha Tal seems to be a pure and idealistic person and could certainly serve a delicious food for a troll. I had different intentions though.

----------


## capecoddah

> During the Cold War, the USA started and participated in many more wars than the USSR did!
> The USA came across as aggressive, imperialist, expanionist and ultra-capitalist.
> The USSR came across as paranoid and insular.

 USSR and USA had proxy armies and "advisers". But who gave away sold all 75 million of those AK-47s?  
Proxies were used in conflicts in Afghanistan, Angola, Korea, Vietnam, the Middle East, and Latin America. 
The first proxy war in the Cold War was the Greek Civil War, which  started almost as soon as World War II ended. The Western-allied Greek  government was nearly overthrown by Communist rebels with limited direct  aid from Soviet ally or client states in Yugoslavia, Albania, and  Bulgaria.  
I think Cuba _just might_ be different if not for the USSR.

----------


## Hanna

@Croc: Maybe we should start a religious discussion; what do you think? But if we do, then people have to put the cards on the table and admit what they actually believe in (if anything).  
@capecoddah: Cuba might be a lot more successful if the USA hadn't done its darndest to blockade, sanction, overthrow and generally sabotage its' government! I am not saying it's perfect by far  (and I have never been there to judge for myself). But from what little I know, it's not worse than many other places in South/Central America. It's educating all its citizens, feeding them and giving them free healthcare. They are living in a reasonably equal society without those horrible inequalities that exists in many of th (US supported) South American states which are no more democratic than Cuba is. Oh btw, just remembered: My sister went there on some kind of nurse exchange program and said that the healthcare and conditions for nurses there were much better than any other third world country she's visited (she's been on several of those exchanges).

----------


## it-ogo

> USSR and USA had proxy armies and "advisers". But who gave away sold all 75 million of those AK-47s?

 AFAIK, main exporter of AK was China. Well, isn't the idea of providing cheap reliable and effective weapon to everybody who wants in perfect correspondence with "American Dream"? God made men, but AK-47 made them equal.    

> I think Cuba _just might_ be different if not for the USSR.

 Maybe but USA undoubtedly always had much more influence on Cuba and its fate than USSR anyway. BTW Cuba is not so bad place now. Many people say that it is much better than it was before Castro's revolution.

----------


## Crocodile

> @Croc: Maybe we should start a religious discussion; what do you think?

 Maybe just for the trolling purposes.  ::  
(I think it's been a common knowledge the religious discussions are fruitless.)

----------


## capecoddah

> Maybe but USA undoubtedly always had much more influence on Cuba and its fate than USSR anyway. BTW Cuba is not so bad place now. Many people say that it is much better than it was before Castro's revolution.

 Having lived in "North Cuba" (South Florida), I've met people from the Cuban Yacht Club that came to the US on rafts. Something about having to leave a country in such a fashion makes me think things aren't all rosy there. I know people that left during the revolution that hate Castro with every fiber of their being.
  They have lovely tourist beaches there, but the locals can't go to them. They have a lot of lovely things the average Cuban never sees but is wonderful window dressing. I can count the number of present Cubans on this board with both hands behind my back (read: no internet). Satellite television is a criminal offense for most people there. Hell, Fidel took his family's farm (his mother never forgave him), and his sister spied for the CIA refusing payment. Cuba si, Castro no. 
Central and South America are screwed up because of the Spanish and Portuguese. WAY before the Colonies became the USA.

----------


## it-ogo

> Having lived in "North Cuba" (South Florida), I've met people from the Cuban Yacht Club that came to the US on rafts. Something about having to leave a country in such a fashion makes me think things aren't all rosy there. I know people that left during the revolution that hate Castro with every fiber of their being.
>   They have lovely tourist beaches there, but the locals can't go to them. They have a lot of lovely things the average Cuban never sees but is wonderful window dressing. I can count the number of present Cubans on this board with both hands behind my back (read: no internet). Satellite television is a criminal offense for most people there. Hell, Fidel took his family's farm (his mother never forgave him), and his sister spied for the CIA refusing payment. Cuba si, Castro no.

 So you listened to Castro's enemies (including US politicians) and did not listen to Castro's friends. You really expect your idea of Cuba to be adequate? According to some sources, before Castro there was a small class of relatively rich people, all the rest were extremely poor. Those formerly rich people are enough to hate but not enough to make noticeable resistance with all US help. Now poor people are still poor but they have relatively good medicine, education, sport etc. According to UN Human Development Index Cuba is about 4-5th place in Latin America, which is not so bad (remember that income is taken into account in this index). Maybe if they were able to sell to USA their cigars, they were 1st?  ::  
As for Yacht Club, yes, people always look for better life, especially when they expect some privileges because of the politics. And for those privileges they are ready to say whatever you like to hear. You know, how many people from democratic NATO Turkey moved to Germany? I don't speak about Mexico...   

> Central and South America are screwed up because of the Spanish and Portuguese. WAY before the Colonies became the USA.

 Err... What is "screwed up"?  ::   
Spanish and Portuguese Empires provided Latin America with its contemporary population. Now they are no more for a long time. USA is still there, has great influence - political, economical, military - and use it, so USA is responsible for everything happened there in much bigger measure than USSR  (which is BTW also no more).  There is "white man's burden" and "white man's" responsibility whether you like it or not. Castro did not want USA people to use Cuba as a cheap brothel any more. He can be understood.

----------


## Hanna

Agree with it-ogo and in addition:  
Didn't South Americans invent the expression "Yankee go home"?  They kicked out the Spanish several hundred years ago and it's old news..  But where the Spaniards stopped, the USA took over!

----------


## it-ogo

> Didn't South Americans invent the expression "Yankee go home"?

 I thought it was invented in Virginia.  ::

----------


## Ramil

> I thought it was invented in Virginia.

  ::

----------


## Crocodile

Depends what the home of a Yankee is:  ::    

> To foreigners, a Yankee is an American.
> To Americans, a Yankee is a Northerner.
> To Northerners, a Yankee is an Easterner.
> To Easterners, a Yankee is a New Englander.
> To New Englanders, a Yankee is a Vermonter.
> And in Vermont, a Yankee is somebody who eats pie for breakfast.

----------


## Ramil

And there must be someone who Yankee is for those who eat pie for breakfast in Vermont.

----------


## Misha Tal

Yeah! I'm back. Been to some village up north for a short vacation. This discussion has moved way ahead, but I'll catch up. Нужно время!

----------


## Hanna

@ Misha: Sounds good! Have you got any pictures? 
@Croc: Yeah, maybe you are not entirely innocent of trolling....

----------


## Seraph

> In general I think that people who say they are Christians should at least TRY to believe in the Bible.

 
Mat. 13:34 '...and without a parable spake he not unto them.'   
Isaiah 29:11 & 12  And the vision of all is become unto you as the  words of a book that is  sealed, which [men] deliver to one that is learned, saying, Read this, I  pray thee: and he saith, I cannot; for it [is] sealed: And the book is  delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee:  and he saith, I am not learned.'
Isaiah 44:18 They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that  they cannot see; [and] their hearts, that they cannot understand.

----------


## Lampada

> ...@Croc: Yeah, maybe you are not entirely innocent of trolling....

 I think that oldtimers are allowed to troll... a little. A we can call it differently. Ranting? Venting?

----------


## Crocodile

> I think that oldtimers are allowed to troll... a little. A we can call it differently. Ranting? Venting?

 Let's settle with hunting.  ::

----------


## Misha Tal

> @ Misha: Sounds good! Have you got any pictures?

 Very few of them are "postable"! For some of the things I've said on this forum, I don't think it's a good idea to post photos of myself (or other "gang members"). This one will give you an idea of what it was like (none of the guys you see there are members of our gang...):  IMG_0281.jpg

----------


## Lampada

> ...I don't think it's a good idea to post photos of myself (or other "gang members").

 I agree.

----------


## capecoddah

:: 
You just don't get it. Che Guevara shirt wearing college freshmen. Cuba "Enemies" are 99%, friends are 1%. Grow up... I'll toss you out to Calle Ocho (8th Avenue), Miami and see if you last more than a day. Castro is an idiot, so is Chavez. If they are so damn smart, why are their citizens coming to USA? South Americans going to Russia?  ::  The few that show up are treated how well? 
I love my J-1 visa Russian, Belorussian, Ukrainian and other Eastern European workers. They complain when they arrive, then cry when they have to go home.. You have a failed economy.  Sorry, you got a fail.

----------


## it-ogo

Oh, man! Looks like Soviet brainwashing was baby talk in comparison to American one. At least I am sure that it was unable to put human being into such a condition.

----------


## Lampada

> Oh, man! Looks like Soviet brainwashing was baby talk in comparison to American one. At least I am sure that it was unable to put human being into such a condition.

 Judging by your comment it was not. ::

----------


## it-ogo

> Judging by your comment it was not.

 Um? :Confused:  ::

----------


## Hanna

> Oh, man! Looks like Soviet brainwashing was baby talk in comparison to American one.

 Exactly!    

> You have a failed economy.  Sorry,  you got a fail.

 By your definitions, but you are comparing apples with pears here. 
They started of from a feudal state, much later than the USA, and their aim was to create something fair for everyone. 
They didn't get their wealth exploiting the third world etc. 
Plus if the USA is so great, what about the terrible murder rates, the black ghettos, white trash....

----------


## Crocodile

> They started of from a feudal state, much later than the USA

 The feudal Russia was much wealthier than the USA at the time.   

> and their aim was to create something fair for everyone.

 No comments as they would be perceived as a pure trolling.  ::    

> They didn't get their wealth exploiting the third world etc.

 Exploiting, exploiting, exploiting ... Do you really think the biggest issue of the third world is being exploited by the US?  ::    

> Plus if the USA is so great, what about the terrible murder rates, the black ghettos, white trash....

 Ah, so let's compare apples with apples now. Do you feel like comparing the murder/poverty rates globally?

----------


## Crocodile

> Oh, man! Looks like Soviet brainwashing was baby talk in comparison to American one.

 The Soviet brainwashing was a bit more skillful that's all. The truth is multi-faced, so all of us are brainwashed more or less.

----------


## it-ogo

> The Soviet brainwashing was a bit more skillful that's all.

 Skillful? Oh, no! It was too primitive and straightforward and was really effective only along with extensive terror, which was over at 1953.    

> The truth is multi-faced, so all of us are brainwashed more or less.

 The brainwashing is a technology to make a person to be completely unable to perform the critical analysis of certain ideas or statements or just words and words combinations. 
When a brainwashed person hears something that is presumably questions an idea-focus, (s)he suffers an uncontrollable negative emotional reaction that makes a person temporarily unable to perform intellectual activity. 
This is just disgusting and has nothing to do with faces of truth. 
I believe that everything is possible without brainwashing effects. Even faith. Brainwashing phenomenon is an evil, which can be avoided completely.

----------


## Ramil

Why avoid it while it's so great a tool? As soon as everyone seems to understand that every ruler in the world is an unscrupulous, disgusting moral bankrupt, what would you expect from them? Justice? Honor? Dedication? Don't be absurd.

----------


## Crocodile

> Skillful? Oh, no! It was too primitive and straightforward and was really effective only along with extensive terror, which was over at 1953.

 I'm not so sure about that. I mean, I don't think our grandparents were all stupid and cowards. I think the opposite would better reflect the reality. People were idealistic, progressive, strove to overthrow worn and torn stigmas etc. I think the communistic ideology is smart and cunning, not the primitive and straightforward.    

> When a brainwashed person hears something

  like the word "USA"  ::   

> (s)he suffers an uncontrollable negative emotional reaction

  exactly. Even if you watch the reaction of Hanna some of the forum members here, you'd notice that. And that being said of the [relatively] open and intellectual members. Now, can you notice what kind of reaction the word "exploitation" causes in our Soviet minds?    

> This is just disgusting and has nothing to do with faces of truth.

 Not really. Do you strongly associate "black" with evil and "white" with good? Most people do. But, the KKK members, for example, wore white robes. Were they good or evil? Black or white? It's all relative, as usual.  ::    

> I believe that everything is possible without brainwashing effects. Even faith. Brainwashing phenomenon is an evil, which can be avoided completely.

  I don't think the brainwashing is evil. It's just a part of the culture.

----------


## capecoddah

In case you forgot, the USA and the Americas were settled by Europeans. There are places with blue-eye blond Swedes. I know this because I've worked with them. They hate brown people. 
Murder rates in USA? pretty high among the immigrants. The Brazilians, Colombians, Venezuelans and Mexicans that come here bring their gangs and drugs. Check the murder rates there. 
People cry in anguish when they are deported. People cry in joy when they become citizens. I flew to Chicago to see Belorussian Natalia become USA Citizen Natalia. I'm very happy for her, but sad for her friends in Belarus. Somehow  I can't get a visa to Belarus. Russia and Ukraine are happy to let me in to see my "kids".  
I've lost track of most of my "kids" because there are so many. I hear from a few for 2-3 years then they vanish. I get some e-mail though: (paraphrased)  
"I hated you, I hated the Motel, I hated the USA. I am now a Manager for a hotel in Russia. You were right. I miss you, the Motel and USA. Please come here and speak bad French with the Canadians. Correct my English. Speak bad Russian. Learn German. Are you hiring for next season?" 
People actually wonder why I love the J-1 Visa kids.

----------


## Hanna

Well what do you want me to say then... ?  *Stuff my nationality, my language, my culture and my values.. * *After all, the USA knows what's best for everyone* all over the world, particularly when it comes to economics... It has the right to have military bases anywhere it wants... to invade any country in the world, at any time, for any reasons, real or fake....  
I am well aware that the USSR did some terrible things, particularly to its own citizens. But that was many decades ago and the country doesn't even exist anymore. It's old news.
The USA on the other hand is still around though and more aggressive than ever.   *AS to who has the most effective brainwasing:* 
Well, which one of these countries basically dismantled itself, and which country is still convinced that it's the best country on earth? USA 1 - USSR 0! _
This is an awesome song about a brainwashed American, who started as a good person and a Christian but believed in all the BS he's heard on TV.. and kills some innocent people in a war, and becomes indifferent to the damage he causes.. Old song. This is the best rock group in Scandinavia for three decades but they usually don't sing in English._

----------


## it-ogo

> I'm not so sure about that. I mean, I don't think our grandparents were all stupid and cowards. I think the opposite would better reflect the reality. People were idealistic, progressive, strove to overthrow worn and torn stigmas etc. I think the communistic ideology is smart and cunning, not the primitive and straightforward.

 "Primitive and straightforward" was not about ideology. It was about brainwashing technology.  
Of course there is nothing about "stupid and cowards". В тридцатые годы в СССР происходило что-то очень странное и уникальное. Какие-то очень глубокие и непонятные запредельные вещи. Современному человеку это представить невозможно, для него такое может быть только в измененном состоянии сознания: "вещества" и т.п. Существовала острая эйфорическая атмосфера какой-то немыслимой экзистенциальной свободы, в том числе и в лагерях, независимо от убеждений и судеб. До нас она доходит отражениями в тогдашних фильмах и книгах как прямо (Герман, Гайдар, Каверин...), так и косвенно (Булгаков, Ильф&Петров...) и даже через вторые руки (Искандер, "Стоянка человека", например.) Кстати, Михалков в первых "Утомленых солнцем" ухитрился ее воспроизвести. Обычные рациональные трактовки здесь не срабатывают. Я долго думал над этим и отчаялся подвести под какой-то шаблон.  
Но сама технология, то есть последовательность действий властей, была достаточно простая.   

> like the word "USA"   exactly. Even if you watch the reaction of Hanna some of the forum members here, you'd notice that. And that being said of the [relatively] open and intellectual members.

 Yeah, you can say this is subjective and a problem of degree, not of quality. There are no exact proofs, still I feel a big difference between prejudice+templates and physiological rejection. It is very different. First is a controllable simplification tool of the intellect, second is an uncontrollable block for it.   

> Black or white? It's all relative, as usual.

 Let us assume someone say you that black is white. What is your reaction? My reaction is: "oh, really? So, give the definition of black and white, let us see, maybe in some context it is really true". I can be skeptic but I can play around. The brainwashed in "black and white" guy (if such were) will fall into hysterics and start to abuse an interlocutor in a way he normally would find unacceptable himself.    

> I don't think the brainwashing is evil. It's just a part of the culture.

 Everything is either a part of nature or a part of culture, still there are things we can get rid of. There are people invulnerable to that (I don't mean myself  :: ) maybe there are even invulnerable cultures idunno.

----------


## Hanna

I am not brainwashed!    :: Top 10 great things about the USA: 
Amazing nature
Positive and outgoing people
Rock music
Cool art
Gospel music
Great sci-fi movies
Entrepreneurship of Silicon Valley
Cultural melting pot
Homesteading
Lots of great literature.

----------


## Ramil

USA is not such a bad country as many think. When I was younger (say very young) I almost idealized it. It it really free... to a degree. The difference is that freedom is understood differently in different places on Earth. Freedom in USA first and foremost means 'free enterprise'. That's what USA is about. It's ideal for making money (if you're not a complete incompetent at everything). Say, you're a doctor and you don't know anything about making money. All you know is that you know how to heal injuries -- no problem. There will always be a guy who would 'sell' your talent to others. Or imagine you know how to make delicious cookies (well, I am simplifying things a little, but I'm doing it deliberately) -- you'll have a loan in no time at a very low interest rate for opening your business. People do not care where low interests come from they're only interested in them staying low. They do not care about politics and they care even less about what's hapenning in the rest of the world. Many Americans live through their lives without ever travelling abroad (many don't even bother to visit a neighboring state). Well, they're free and probably happy.
It's when you start to mess with politics, it's when you start to think about the rest of the world when the ugliness of the 'regime' starts to emerge. 
Nearly all other countries hate USA for being the most prosperous country probably because their inhabitants secretly envy their well-being and of course get frustrated about how unfair things are at the moment.
What? USA treats other countries unfair -- everybody outside US knows that but them, in US just don't care. Am I envious? Oh, probably I am. But no, I'm too 'brainwashed' to go live there.

----------


## Hanna

They are not the most prosperous country though! 
Several countries in Europe have a much higher GDP *per capita* than the USA has. 
And there are terrible problems with poverty and segregation in the USA.

----------


## chaika

Interesting discussion about culture and "brainwashing." One of the best things Hanna left out of her list is that we live under the rule of law. Of course, it gets bent from time to time, but generally it is the standard. I am afraid that some people here view the US through the lens of their own society. Not every government is as bad as some extrapolate from Russia's government.  
Here's a list of how corruption is seen to permeate various countries. Russia is very low on the list, but when you say things like "all governments are corrupt" you are basing your thinking on your own experience without realizing that the pattern does not necessarily map to other countries. I am not saying that the US is an angel, just that it may not be as bad as some think.  Corruption Rating Barely Changed | Business | The Moscow Times

----------


## Ramil

> Here's a list of how corruption is seen to permeate various countries. Russia is very low on the list, but when you say things like "all governments are corrupt" you are basing your thinking on your own experience without realizing that the pattern does not necessarily map to other countries. I am not saying that the US is an angel, just that it may not be as bad as some think.

 Have they stopped taking bribes in the Senate and the Congress? They're all right, aren't they?

----------


## Hanna

Plus, the normal view seems to be that anyone who doesn't love and adore the USA is "brainwashed" and must explain themselves.  
While it's perfectly ok to throw around the most outrageous, exaggerated and hateful comments about other countries (interestingly the ones that the USA don't like is suspicious against...)  
If you ask me, that's a perfect example of very successful brainwashing!

----------


## chaika

Ramil, yes, much better than yours. Let me know when you find a link to a bribe scandal in Congress.

----------


## Ramil

2 secs of googling revealed this link: Congressman Admits Taking Bribes, Resigns - washingtonpost.com 
I could dig up more, still I'm sure you can do it yourself, just type 'bribes in congress' in the search field.
And I should probably point out that this scandal hapenned because somebody got actually caught. They don't take bribes and announce the fact from the highest balcony in Washington, so I'm practically sure that the practice exists.

----------


## it-ogo

> Have they stopped taking bribes in the Senate and the Congress? They're all right, aren't they?

 Hey, lobbyism is legal in USA, didn't you know?  ::

----------


## Ramil

> Hey, lobbyism is legal in USA, didn't you know?

 Well that too. ))) Official bribes are the best. Still I wasn't talking about these. 
chaika, you may find this interesting: Congressional Culture of Bribes

----------


## Misha Tal

There's but one thing about the American society that I can't bring myself to admire: their ignorance of their own greatness. Most Americans wholeheartedly believe that they are great, without knowing exactly why. Ask average Americans if they've ever heard of William Faulkner, or Richard Feynman, or Bobby Fischer. Few people might have a vague idea, while those guys were absolutely the best ones in their area of expertise. 
Russians, on the other hand, are much more conscious of their pluses and minuses. Their contribution to science, art, sports, etc is no less than Americans'; the difference is, Russians are aware of it. Their criticism of their own setbacks is harsh and severe (especially in matters dealing with politics), but they're also truly proud of their national identity. 
In America, it looks like following the orders: you believe that you're great, just because that's what you are told to do. Or rather, that's what everybody does without knowing why. 
National Consciousness. I suppose this is ultimately what makes a nation a Nation.

----------


## Ramil

> National Consciousness. I suppose this is ultimately what makes a nation a Nation.

 What nation?  ::    

> There's but one thing about the American society that I can't bring myself to admire: their ignorance

 Put a period here.

----------


## Crocodile

> I am not brainwashed!  Top 10 great things about the USA: 
> Amazing nature 
> [...]

 Ha-ha!  ::  That reminds me of an old saying from the Soviet Union times:  
- What's great about the USA?
- The Great Lakes.  
It's very natural you think those are the thoughts of your own. The good propaganda differs from the bad one specifically in that point. 
Here's a poster from the olde times that goes along the lines of your perception of the USA:  ::    
So, my sincere congrats to you - you've been bamboozled!! brainwashed like everybody else.  ::

----------


## Hanna

Don't be silly Croc!  And any brainwashing you recieved in the USSR seems to have been reversed, to the exact opposite, so it can't have been very good! 
Why should I be brainwashed? There was some mildly socialist stuff going on when I was a kid, but nothing compared to the USSR for example. 
If they didn't get to you, then they surely didn't get to me! Some of that socialist stuff was pretty darn irritating, come to think about it. 
It puts you OFF, if anything.  
And note: I have no issue with Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan etc... They don't do any of the aggressive things that the USA do!  *Plus, like I said, I really like American people* (just a shame they are so brainwashed!!) ::

----------


## Crocodile

> Don't be silly Croc!  And any brainwashing you recieved in the USSR seems to have been reversed, to the exact opposite, so it can't have been very good!

 Ok, so re-phrasing what Ramil likes to say about the democracy and freedom, at least I realize I am brainwashed too. And since you don't, that makes you much more severely brainwashed.  ::    

> Why should I be brainwashed?

 Because, the only way you can't be brainwashed is when you start judging using your own experience. Then you would be subjective, but not brainwashed. As of now, you just repeat what other people say with the logical stresses that other people make. Sometimes, you have admitted a couple of times, you can't even repeat the logic of the other people, only remembering they were convincing.  ::    

> There was some mildly socialist stuff going on when I was a kid, but nothing compared to the USSR for example.

 Ok, so let's go back to our example with the USA. You mentioned [with heat] a couple of times you hate the US's military bases all across Europe. What have those bases ever done to you [as a kid]? Were the military personnel used to destroy your sand box with their military boots?  ::     

> And note: I have no issue with Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Japan etc... They don't do any of the aggressive things that the USA do!

 That's just because you were brainwashed differently.  ::  For example, N. Korea & China perceive Japan as an aggressor. Also, do you know that Russia is still formally at war with Japan over the islands? The military actions could technically resume at any moment.  ::    

> *Plus, like I said, I really like American people* (just a shame they are so brainwashed!!)

 I'm pretty sure American people would gladly accept your highly intellectual and unbiased pity.  ::  ::

----------


## Hanna

I could easily write another ten great things about the USA. 
But it sounds like you are determined to believe that I am brainwashed instead of considering the possibility that I siimply have some valid objections about US foreign policy based on undisputable facts...  
So, I challenge you Crocodile!  *
Write ten good things about Russia or the USSR (pick either!)*

----------


## it-ogo

> *
> Write ten good things about Russia or the USSR (pick either!)*

  :: Top 10 great things about the USSR: 
Baikal
Rockets
Yenisei dam
Ballet
Vodka
Balalaika
Bears
Matroska
Cultural melting pot
Lots of great literature

----------


## Misha Tal

Pioneer Camps? Chess? Boris Grebenschikov?

----------


## Crocodile

> Top 10 great things about the USSR:

 +1  ::

----------


## Seraph

...

----------


## Seraph

...

----------


## Hanna

Croc don't cheat! You should come up with *your own*... 
Давай!!

----------


## Crocodile

> Croc don't cheat! You should come up with *your own*... 
> Давай!!

  Oh my ... Ok ...  ::  
Amazing nature
Sincere people
Classic music
Cool art
Pop music
Great WWII movies
The best weapons
Cultural melting pot
Science
Lots of great literature. 
PS. So, what was the challenge all about?

----------


## Hanna

Hmmm ok!   Well if everyone is a bit brainwashed then I guess I am a bit too. 
And you are right that I really can't stand those bases in Europe. There are some very good personal/national reasons for that but I don't want to bang on about Sweden when this is a forum about Russia. But yo summarise: the US did a couple of sneaky and rather underhand things.  
Plus, you see these American military transports in Germany and other places -- it's extremely offputting. Now they want it in Eastern Europe too. Turn on the radio and you get American airbase radio station... like.. whose country is this!!??  Here in the UK I worked on a military IT project a few years ago (had to undergo security clearance for that) The work was partly at a British defense facility and my movements were pretty restricted - the limited access made it hard to work efficiently. Meanwhile, American officers, including techies were in and out like the owned the place!   *
Why do Americans want their country to do this? 
Or is it done against their will?*

----------


## Ramil

> Why do Americans want their country to do this? 
> Or is it done against their will?

 Because:   

> Nearly all other countries hate USA for being the most prosperous country probably because their inhabitants secretly envy their well-being and of course get frustrated about how unfair things are at the moment.

----------


## Seraph

...

----------


## Hanna

Well personally I don't hate America for being prosperous, and I am not jealous about their prosperity (actually I personally am as well off, or better, as the average American anyway).  I have nothing against them having a nice lifestyle their and doing whatever they like *within the borders of their own country*.  
There are a few things about America that I admire and would like to see more of in Europe, but I am not _jealous_ about it, per se.  
I can see that people in less prosperous part of the world might feel pure jelaousy towards material prosperity in America though, and I think many in the the Moslem world are disgusted by what they percieve as a very promiscuous and excessive lifestyles in America; spurred on by media. They feel threatened that these values are imposed from the outside, on their own countries.   *My own issue is simply with the USAs military presences outside of its' own borders... and with some aspects of its' foreign policy*, such as serious meddliing in the affairs of other countries, imposing all encompassing economical sanctions on countries they don't like, etc.   _(I just read in the paper today that the USA had set up an office in Oslo to spy on Norwegian citizens, without bothering to inform the state there. It was just discovered and Norwegians are pretty upset. If it goes on there, then its safe to say it goes on in every single European country. Norway is my neighbour/brother country - very fond of it. They should not be spied on by anyone!)_

----------


## Crocodile

> Hmmm ok!   Well if everyone is a bit brainwashed then I guess I am a bit too.

 Hmm.. a nice hopping from "no, I'm not brainwashed" through the "challenge" to "ok, I'm brainwashed". Could you spell it out for me?    

> And you are right that I really can't stand those bases in Europe. There are some very good personal/national reasons for that [...]

 Would you be able, at least, to provide a hint? I mean, I can provide a typical personal reason why the military bases are good. They very noticeably contribute to the local economy. The term "national reason" sounds like a pure result of brainwashing. Do you have any idea what the national reasons might be? Those are, in fact, a biased interpretation of some decisions by a group of politicians fighting with another group of politicians over the influence. As an intelligent person, you might realize there are pros and cons to just about anything done on the political arena. The decisions are made based on many [sometimes contradicting] factors. Subsequently, the decisions are presented in various ways with various interpretation. Please-please-please, when you reason with people, try to avoid the term "national reasons/interests/etc." as that would be an insult to their intelligence.  ::    

> _Norway is my neighbour/brother country - very fond of it._ _They should not be spied on by anyone!)_

 Why not? If they have nothing to hide except for me and my monkey?  ::

----------


## Hanna

Let's bring back those Russian spies to the USA then. Maybe they can live next to you and use your PC and wireless connection, and pass back the latest news on your movements to spying headquarters in Moscow! You haven't got anything to hide, do you?  
It's impossible to argue with you about this Croc, because you essentially see the US and it's military as a power of goodness to be embraced by all the world, while I don't! It's great that you like your new home country, and you are sure going all the way with the US patriotism. Good for you, but like I said, I don't like it.  *
Just in case there is any confusion: I don't want any Russian, Chinese or other spies, bases etc in my backyard either!* 
However, by far the biggest culprits on this front is the USA. Russia packed up its bases from Europe in the early 90s and the USA should have done the same. We don't need them and France and UK have nukes enough to defend Europe.   
I'll explain the national reasons some other time, it's a bit complex and long winded and I doubt anyone else is interested. But it sure p-d me off to learn about it.

----------


## Crocodile

> It's impossible to argue with you about this Croc, because you  essentially see the US and it's military as a power of goodness to be  embraced by all the world, while I don't! It's great that you like your  new home country [...]

 Ah? When have I ever said the US is a power of goodness? That's another sign you've been brainwashed: you think whoever disagrees with the propaganda you believe in would surely believe in the other side propaganda.  ::  Also, my new home is not the US, so unfortunately you've been mistaken in that as well.  ::    

> Let's bring back those Russian spies to the USA then. Maybe they can  live next to you and use your PC and wireless connection, and pass back  the latest news on your movements to spying headquarters in Moscow! You  haven't got anything to hide, do you?

 No, I haven't. In fact, I don't need to wait for the spies to use my PC as they have much more powerful PC and I would really like to use theirs.  ::  Also, almost everything you do in the Internet would be kept in logs and almost any [seemingly secured] data transfer could be recorded and decoded. The real spies use different types of connection.  ::  Also, it's well-known that most of the information could be dug up from the legitimate sources, no need for conspiracy. The latter is used for the disinformation of their own governments to justify the maintenance of the headquarters. Most of the operational costs are covered by the fully legitimate sources, so no connection with the spying state could be detected. I'm pretty sure the loss of the so-called 'Russian spies' that you mentioned had not disrupted to the least the information flow and the analysis.   

> I'll explain the national reasons some other time, it's a bit complex and long winded and I doubt anyone else is interested.

 Well, Lampada hadn't banned both of us so far, so I can say with some degree of confidence she would not ban you for explaining the national interests either. Also, if the explanation is so complex as you said, you can open a new thread about the national interests and whoever is bored with that topic would just skip it. You challenged me, remember? So, now it's your turn not to evade the answer.  ::

----------


## Hanna

Ok I'll answer your question about that other stuff later. (don't have time today).  
As for the rest: I don't like to argue for the sake of it. I have already explained my view and nothing so far has convinced me to change my mind.  
I am personally convinced that the Europe would be a better place if the USA withdraw its bases from it, and that the world would be a better place if the US stopped starting wars and getting involved in conflicts far from its own territory. 
I have no extremist views and I don't wish America bad in any way.
But I think that if Americans thought about it objectively they'd probably prefer their tax money to be spent on something better than supporting the war industry, creating mayhem abroad and making them inpopular in large parts of the world.

----------


## Crocodile

> I have already explained my view and nothing so far has convinced me to change my mind.

 Yeah... as they say: don't underestimate the power of the brainwashing...  ::  People pick up their opinions easily and arbitrarily, but are very reluctant to re-evaluate them. QED.  ::

----------


## Hanna

Yeah but this is a fruitless discussion. We're just going round in circles. 
Face-to-face over a nice dinner I'd enjoy this discussion though! Maybe sometime!!!

----------


## it-ogo

Crocodinner to be expected.

----------


## Nerms

I usually dont agree with Hanna.    But in this case i agree.  I dont understand why we(the US) need 30k troops in S Korea.  The South Koreans are rich enough and can take care of themselves now.  I could not believe the base i was stationed at as a child (in Germany) was just shut down 2 years ago. Seems to me its like 15 years and probably 75 million $'s too late.  The only reason for the base i was stationed at to exist was to blunt a USSR attack.  Seems pointless when there is no USSR.  For that matter i dont understand why we are still in NATO.  We usually end up doing 70% of the dying on NATO outtings.  Sound like a bad deal for the US.  Outside of Afgahnistan i dont see any pressing reason for having bases anywhere other then in the US.

----------


## Crocodile

It's not that I approve or disapprove of the US bases. It's just been many times already that Hanna threw the "brainwashed" label in the face of the others (or the other nations altogether). I think I was able to show that Hanna is not less brainwashed than a typical person. And when two brainwashed people start 'discussing' their 'point of view' then - yes - it's fruitless as they can't even justify their point logically let alone change their mind. I think having such conversations over dinner would just ruin the dinner. That's why I guess it's not allowed to mention politics "in the best homes of Paris".  ::

----------


## Hanna

Well, I argue about it because I care about it! 
Part of the reason I mention it is because I hope that someone who sees it (particularly an American) would think: "Why is my country doing this?" 
But if you, Crocodile don't care either way, then why get involved in the discussion!?  
If I am brainwashed because I want countries to look after themselves, not invade other countries and not meddle in the affairs of other countries and because I don't want multinational corporations to run the world.... then I am proud to be brainwashed!

----------


## Crocodile

> If I am brainwashed because I want countries to look after themselves, not invade other countries and not meddle in the affairs of other countries and because I don't want multinational corporations to run the world.... then I am proud to be brainwashed!

 Nuff said.  ::

----------


## Ramil

Well, if a person has opinions that doesn't automatically mean he or she is brainwashed. As it-ogo pointed out earlier, the difference lies in the fact that a person with opinions still have the ability for critical thinking while a brainwashed person doesn't. Ideas or ideology are nice until the moment you stop being openminded. It's when you put your brains to stone about something there is nothing to talk about. As far as I know there is no such thing as 'good ideology'. The world changes every minute and so must the assorted ideas. The idea that doesn't change is trash.

----------


## Crocodile

> Crocodinner to be expected.

  Please read the following link before being so sure: Наш ответ Чемберлену - Blogs - MasterRussian.NET  ::

----------


## Lampada

> ...But if you, Crocodile don't care either way, then why get involved in the discussion!? ...

 Let me! Because he can. And I'd say that there is no chance that he wouldn't care.

----------


## Hanna

Sorry I got a bit carried away on this thread! I really have to stop my ranting in this forum! Will start that blog I keep talking about... 
Gosh, I need to remember that I come here to learn Russian, not to rant about political matters beyond my control....

----------


## it-ogo

Well, political ranting (in France it is called "discours", in Russia - "срач") can be very useful for your learning if performed in Russian. In addition it is a good way to enjoy just "because one can".

----------


## Ramil

Yes, Hanna, you should try ranting in Russian. )))

----------


## Lampada

> Sorry I got a bit carried away on this thread! I really have to stop my ranting in this forum! Will start that blog I keep talking about... 
> Gosh, I need to remember that I come here to learn Russian, not to rant about political matters beyond my control....

 Hanna, please don't worry about it. It fine to get carried away here and there. We all do. ::

----------


## Hanna

> Yes, Hanna, you should try ranting in Russian. )))

 Watch this space or stay tuned, as the Americans would say!!  ::   
Thanks for the encouragement! I am practicing every day, and getting better but we'd have to rename the lounge to "Comedy" if I tried ranting in Russian....  _Russian is easily three times harder than any other language I studied - because of the grammar. So it's taking me longer to make progress than I had ever imagined._

----------

