Russia vs. the World, part whatever....

Jan 10, 2007
140
2
18
No, I never said they had legal possession. I said they had possession. As in they were the ones who were, from a practical standpoint, in actual possession. Whose claim should be considered legal is another matter entirely. Same with the Crimea. The Ukraine had actual possession from a practical standpoint, but both Russia & the Ukraine have territorial claims. Which claim should be considered legal is a totally separate question from which nation had actual practical possession. The Falklands are still a bad example for trying to prove your point, as the political situation in the Falklands was entirely different from the political situation in the Ukraine. Argentina's only possible excuse for invading the Falklands was to press their territorial claim. Russia has that as a reason for moving troops in, but can also claim to be protecting the interests of the people of the Ukraine against an illegal armed coup. Additionally, they can claim to be trying to ensure that unrest doesn't reach their borders and pose a threat to their national security. That's why it's a bad example.
WOW a big sorry for the bad example I really wasn't trying to go and move this to a Falkland Island discussion.

Please disregard my previous discussion about the Falkland as "Thatotheguy" has clearly proven my inaccuracy and I don't want this distract from what I am really trying to say.

What I am really trying to say is that we need to be aware that there are two sides to every conflict and it is really not black and white even though the politicians and media in the West may view it as such.

We need to be aware of the "west centric" (I apologize in advance as that is not a word) view points.

We also really need to look in the mirror and see if we have the moral high ground.
 

Thatotherguy

Active member
Jan 31, 2008
1,132
12
38
WOW a big sorry for the bad example I really wasn't trying to go and move this to a Falkland Island discussion.

Please disregard my previous discussion about the Falkland as "Thatotheguy" has clearly proven my inaccuracy and I don't want this distract from what I am really trying to say.

What I am really trying to say is that we need to be aware that there are two sides to every conflict and it is really not black and white even though the politicians and media in the West may view it as such.

We need to be aware of the "west centric" (I apologize in advance as that is not a word) view points.

We also really need to look in the mirror and see if we have the moral high ground.
And on that I agree with you. Personally I believe that Russia's move into the Crimea is abhorrent, but there are a whole lot of things that various western countries (especially the USA) have done recently that are much worse. Russia at least has some reasons for doing this that could be considered legitimate. The same cannot be said of the recent invasion of Iraq (I say recent to distinguish it from Desert Storm).
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,185
0
0
Putin won`t be handing Crimea over to the West because Obama is having a hissy fit

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...lains-its-intense-hold-on-the-nations-psyche/

Russia’s bloody history in Crimea explains its intense hold on the nation’s psyche
Matthew Fisher, Postmedia News | March 5, 2014 | Last Updated: Mar 5 7:23 PM ET
SEVASTOPOL, Ukraine — Vladimir Putin’s military gambit in Crimea has caused consternation in Kyiv and outrage in the West.

For Irina Niverova, Russia’s occupation of the peninsula last week is simple to understand and totally justified.

“The Crimea has been and will always be Russian,” said the henna-haired guide as she led a small group of Russian tourists and two foreigners around Sevastopol’s Panorama museum, which was built more than a century ago on a hill with a sweeping view of the storied city.

The building’s masterpiece is a magnificent 360-degree mural depicting the 349-day siege of Sevastopol, when about 33,000 Russian troops were trapped by 62,000 British and French troops during the winter of 1854-55.

Mr. Putin had many motivations for sending troops to secure the peninsula and to cut it off from the Ukrainian mainland last week after a coup in Kyiv installed a western-oriented government.

There was wounded pride at what Russians perceive as a lack of international respect and influence since the end of the Cold War, NATO’s expansion into Poland and the Baltic states, and the fear the new government in Kyiv intended to join the western military alliance. There was also Russians’ belief the Kremlin must safeguard the Russian diaspora in what they call the “near abroad,” including Crimea’s large Russian community.

As they see it, these were all compelling reasons for Mr. Putin to defy the international community by intervening. But perhaps the biggest reason he ordered troops into Crimea is the intense hold the peninsula has on the Russian psyche. This powerful sentiment exists because of the first siege of Sevastopol, in which the czar’s troops withstood a brutal artillery bombardment for nearly a year, and a second siege in 1942, when the Red Army held out for eight months against even more intense fire from the Nazis during what Russians call the Great Patriotic War.

Only 12 years later, a drunken — or so the story goes — Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev ended two centuries of Russian rule by giving the territory to Ukraine.

“It is now considered to have been a great mistake, but juridically it is a fact and impossible to correct,” said Alexei Makarkin, deputy director of Moscow’s independent Centre for Political Technologies. “But rulers and the public do not always think in juridical terms.

“Yes, Crimea is part of Ukraine, but psychologically Russians do not accept that. So much Russian history took place there. From society’s point of view, Russia was correct to defend its right to this territory.”

Noting Hitler had called Crimea an “unsinkable aircraft carrier,” Sergey Kiselev of Tavrichesky National University in Simferopol said Russians have not forgotten one of every 10 soldiers in the Red Army who died during the Second World War was killed on this neck of hilly land that is half the size of Nova Scotia.

“The Crimea is the cradle of the Russian Orthodox religion, and the Russian empire came into existence as a result of the struggle for the Crimea and adjacent areas,” the geography professor said.

“Having affirmed its position in the Crimea and having built the Black Sea fleet, it could expand to the Balkans, the Caucasus and Central Asia.”

Although it has slowly become a strategic backwater, Crimea has transfixed the world many times before.

It lies on a direct path between Europe and Asia. To the south are the choke points of the Dardaelis and the Bosphorus. Just to the east of Sevastopol is Yalta, where Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt carved up postwar Europe. Closer yet is the port of Balaklava, where it’s still possible to see stones laid when it was briefly a British possession.

It was in 1854 at the Battle of Balaklava, Lord Cardigan, the lame-brained British cavalry officer, led the infamous Charge of the Light Brigade. Queen Victoria’s poet laureate at the time, Alfred Tennyson, immortalized the massacre with the words, “Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred … Boldly they rode and well, into the jaws of Death, into the mouth of Hell.”

Leo Tolstoy’s magnum opus, War and Peace, drew heavily on his experiences as a fiercely patriotic young officer in the Russian army during the siege of Sevastopol. He first made his reputation in his Sevastopol Sketches, chronicling the horrors of battlefield medicine, the ghastly plight of foot soldiers and the futility of war.

The Crimean War was also where Florence Nightingale gained renown for her heroic care of the wounded and her advocacy for soldiers.

It is curious how history often repeats itself. During the Crimean War the Russians scuttled their fleet to prevent the British and French navies from entering Sevastopol Harbour. This week, Russian ships blocked the exit to the harbour at the same spot to prevent Ukraine’s tiny fleet from making a getaway.

The West’s position on Crimea is based on a firm legal principle. It is part of a sovereign Ukraine and must not be hived off through military adventurism and opportunism. It is a concept that finds virtually no traction here.

“The Siege of Sevastopol taught us is that all wars are useless, but what this city endured is a symbol of courage to the entire world,” Ms. Niverova said.

“Every stone and every tree here is covered with the blood of brave Russians, and that is what is in our hearts.”

Postmedia News
 

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,486
8
38
on yer ignore list
i don't imagine anybody noticed that kerry promised to give $1 billion to ukraine to cover their 'loans' - which just happen to include the subsidy on fuel prices that ukraine has been enjoying from russia

so in effect the u.s. is laundering funds through ukraine into russia

i'm not sure why yet, maybe putin just told obama outright to give him a bunch of money and he would constrain his activities to the present level of involvement

also the e.u. is talking about a $15 billion aid package

maybe this is how putin pays for the olympics - by extorting money from the west

i mean, hey... anything is possible!! :confused:
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,185
0
0
The CBC has a piece on the financial situation that Ukraine faces

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-crisis-7-questions-answered-1.2558317

6. Who will fund a bankrupt Ukraine?

Ukraine is on the brink of defaulting on its debt and needs about $35 billion US over the next two years to stay solvent, according to its interim finance minister. With the $15 billion Russia promised the country under Yanukovych's regime now off the table, Ukraine needs a new benefactor — and fast.

The International Monetary Fund has pledged its support and will likely provide short-term financial aid to shore up the country's currency and ensure that basic payments such as pensions and government salaries are made, but ensuring that whoever comes to power in the elections planned for May puts future bailout funds to good use is the greater challenge, says Sahadeo.

"I think there are a lot of questions that the U.S. and Europe have to ask themselves about whom do they tie their fortunes to," he said.

"The U.S. and the EU are just kind of avoiding the question right now. In a way, the focus on Russia makes it a little bit easier for them to not talk about it."

The smart move for Putin would be to de-escalate the current situation and sit back and watch the West try to deal with the mess that is the current state of Ukraine's economy, Sahadeo said.

"Putin could probably look good just by sort of swooping in a year from now and saying, 'OK, the West has failed you. I'm here now … I have your interests at heart,'" he said.
Of Course, the IMF has a habit of forcing austerity on the Nations that they "Help" which is why Yanukovych was more interested in Russia's 15 Billion offer over the EU/IMF offer that has now been "sweetened" by the USA's 1 Billion.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
You're comparing it wrong. If we're equating the current Crimean situation with the Falklands War (which isn't actually a great comparison in the first place), then Russia is Argentina, and the Ukraine is Great Britain. Here's why: in the Crimea and in the Falklands, the nations involved have territorial claims to the land in question. In the Falklands Great Britain was the nation that actually had possession of the territory, while Argentina moved military forces in to pursue their territorial claims and take that possession away. In the Crimea Ukraine was the nation that actually had possession of the territory, while Russia has moved military forces in - presumably to pursue their territorial claims and take that possession away (although it could be argued that they have yet to actually take that step).

Like I say though, the comparison with the Falklands isn't a good one. The main reason is that the Falklands wasn't in a state of civil unrest and government collapse, and there was no possible concern that a volatile situation there could cause significant problems to other nations. In other words, if you're going to compare the Crimea to the Falklands, then Russia is the equivalent of Argentina, but Russia has a much better excuse for moving military forces in than Argentina did.
There is also the problem that Argentina never really had a valid claim to the islands in the first place. It had been occupied at various times by the French, Spanish and English. Argentina based their claim on the assumption that anything occupied by the Spanish in the general area was theirs, but they themselves had only actually had control there for about a year in 1832. The hundreds of years before and after that the place had belonged to other people. So it is not in any way comparable to the Crimea. At the time of the Argentinian invasion the Falklands were inhabited by British civilians, and had been for a very long time. It was British territory. The British were absolutely entitled to beat that invasion off.

The reason Argentina invaded had nothing to do with strategic necessity, it was a way for the military dictatorship who ran the country at the time to rally public support behind them under the banner of a nationalistic cause. Unfortunately they lost the war, and the population subsequently forced them out of power. So it sort of backfired.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
I'm no scholar of history but didn't Austria welcome becoming part of the Third Reich?
There was a Nazi party in Austria, and obviously the people who supported them welcomed the annexation, but everyone else was too scared to say anything because by then the reputation of the Nazis in Germany was well known. Prior to the annexation there had been a lot of strife in Austria between the Nazis and those who opposed them. Hitler had been pressing for union. To prove the majority of the Austrian people did not want it, their government had ordered a referendum on the subject, but just before that could happen, Germany marched in. And after that everything was rigged to make it appear as though Austrians welcomed the move, when in reality most did not. The Germans held their own referendum that showed that "99.7%" of the population was in support. For example, in one village they had voted early in Austria's referendum prior to the German invasion, and recorded a vote of 95% in favor of continued independence, but in the subsequent German referendum, the same village vote was 73% in favor of annexation. That gives you some idea about Austrians really thought about it, but after the invasion the bully boys were in complete control. After the annexation the Germans immediately rounded up members of all the political groups opposed to them (about 70000) and sent them off to concentration camps. A further 400000 were disenfranchised.
 

grusse

Well-known member
Feb 18, 2010
3,872
2,089
113
There was a Nazi party in Austria, and obviously the people who supported them welcomed the annexation, but everyone else was too scared to say anything because by then the reputation of the Nazis in Germany was well known. Prior to the annexation there had been a lot of strife in Austria between the Nazis and those who opposed them. Hitler had been pressing for union. To prove the majority of the Austrian people did not want it, their government had ordered a referendum on the subject, but just before that could happen, Germany marched in. And after that everything was rigged to make it appear as though Austrians welcomed the move, when in reality most did not. The Germans held their own referendum that showed that "99.7%" of the population was in support. For example, in one village they had voted early in Austria's referendum prior to the German invasion, and recorded a vote of 95% in favor of continued independence, but in the subsequent German referendum, the same village vote was 73% in favor of annexation. That gives you some idea about Austrians really thought about it, but after the invasion the bully boys were in complete control. After the annexation the Germans immediately rounded up members of all the political groups opposed to them (about 70000) and sent them off to concentration camps. A further 400000 were disenfranchised.
thx for that, Tugela

interesting how the 99% anti turned into 73% pro after the invasion,ppl want to survive after all.
as in most dictatorships, stats don't show true feelings or preferences,just ppl afraid of govt.

a few yrs ago on the History channel I saw film clips of the time.

one showed the Nazis marching in Vienna with crowds of cheering citizens waving Nazi flags.

another one, which really surprised me,was the Imperial Japanese army marching through Jakarta in what was then a Dutch colony,Dutch East Indies(?) or Java(?)
the thing which stunned me was this was about the same time as their brutal conquests of much of China, Hong Kong,Singapore,Manila,etc.....and the crowd
was cheering and waving flags,welcoming their "liberators" from Dutch oppression!

as we all know, it didn't take long before the days of Dutch rule wouldn't've seemed so bad,as the "liberators" put their brutal stamp on the place.
 

grusse

Well-known member
Feb 18, 2010
3,872
2,089
113
Couldn't be said better.

And that West-centric view of the world is what fuels, for example, the nit-picky mean bullshit every time a country like Russia or China holds a world event, like the Olympic Games, instead of looking at what holding these events mean in the context of the financial and political status of that nation. Or even worse, in military affairs when China wants to arm itself and secure its borders, or crush violent uprisings, or seize breakaway states like Tibet, the West is all over it like blood-sucking mosquitoes on pregnant cows - ignoring its own vastly worse record of actual ethnic cleansing of First Nations peoples or awful illegitimate wars like the Iraq War or Vietnam War where hundreds of thousands of civilians perished in totally asymmetrical warfare or under the use of cruel weapons like napalm.
agree with all of the above.

and let's not forget the genocide carried out by Japan as it conquered much of Asia.
anti-Japanese sentiment persists to this day, especially amongst Koreans and Chinese.

come to think about it, western intervention was probably not such a bad thing in ousting the Japanese from the Philippines,Singapore,Hong Kong,New Guinea
Thailand,Indonesia,Malaysia,Korea,and I'm likely missing one or two.

most South Koreans would probably say that western intervention saved them from being a puppet state of China in the 1950-1953 war.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,185
0
0
First Deputy Prime Minister of Crimea, Rustam Temirgaliev, says in the video that "Crimea is Russian"

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26471450

Crimea will be part of Russia 'in a few days' - Deputy PM

6 hours ago

First Deputy Prime Minister of Crimea, Rustam Temirgaliev, says that he is confident that the region will be part of the Russian Federation "in a few days".

Speaking to the BBC's World Affairs editor John Simpson, he said that he was confident that up to 75% of Crimean citizens would support such a move.

MPs in Crimea have asked Moscow to allow the southern Ukrainian region to become part of the Russian Federation. There will be a referendum to ratify the parliament decision on 16 March.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,185
0
0
The USA has sailed USS Truxtun into the Black Sea http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/03/07/nr-watson-turkey-us-warship.cnn.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Truxtun_(DDG-103) She's a Arleigh Burke class Guided Missile Destroyer equipped with 96 RIM-66 SM2 Anti-Aircraft/Anti-Ship Missiles and BJM-109 Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-66_Standard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109_Tomahawk

It's beginning to look like the world is headed for a shooting war.
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,185
0
0
LOL.

Now look up and post the current order of battle of the Russian Black Sea Fleet along side one US destroyer. Then repost your last comment with a straight face.
Here's the straight face:

Two separate sources say that the Soviet Black Sea Fleet is antiquated. Remember also that the Ukraine got a number of the newer ships in 1991. So, to match the Moskva, the Ukraine has it's sister ship Ukrayina (ex Admiral Flota Lobov)

http://flot.sevastopol.info/eng/ship/today.htm

The Washington Post had an article on the Russian Black Sea Fleet a few days ago.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...cf005c-a160-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html

Q. How strong is Russia’s Black Sea Fleet?

A. As a war-fighting force, it’s not particularly impressive. Its main vessel was basically built to fight other ships and so is only useful in fighting a naval war. It’s got the Moskva, an aging guided-missile cruiser; a large anti-submarine warfare cruiser — very dated; a destroyer and two frigates, which are more versatile; landing ships; and a diesel attack submarine. It’s not a particularly powerful force. The Italian navy alone could easily destroy it.
http://www.diploweb.com/Russia-s-Black-Sea-fleet-in.html

Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, the Russian fleet in Sevastopol is almost obsolete and not combat ready, as the ships and infrastructure, which date back to the Soviet times, have not been modernized. “The base is not worth even US$0.5 billion”, argued Ariel Cohen, a leading expert at the Heritage Foundation. This is likely why the Russian government is insistent on pur¬chasing the French Mistral-class amphibious assault ship ; if everything goes according to schedule, Moscow and Paris will strike a deal by the end of 2010
Here's what was operable for the Ukraine Navy in 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Ukrainian_Navy_ships

Anyway, USS Truxtun is easily the better of Moskva which is close to being at the same status of the Ukraine's Ukrayina, which isn't considered to be in operating condition.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
Naval battles are fought with missiles, the Russians don't need ships, they have a very big ship that can't be sunk in the form of their country.

The main thing ships are used for are projecting power far from home, and protecting commercial shipping. The only thing they need a surface navy in the area for is anti-submarine ships to protect commercial shipping from submarines in the black sea, and that task can be accomplished with relatively small ships, such as frigates.

If the US gets into a shooting match the only force they will be fighting is the Russian air force, and the only ships that will be sunk will be theirs.
 

Ms Erica Phoenix

Satisfaction Provider
Jun 24, 2013
5,314
7
0
60
In Your Wildest Dreams!
LOL.

Now look up and post the current order of battle of the Russian Black Sea Fleet along side one US destroyer. Then repost your last comment with a straight face.

1.
Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Sailed the three hundred.
"Forward, the USS Truxtun!
"Charge for the guns!" he said:
Into the valley of Death
Sailed the three hundred.


2.
"Forward, the Truxtun!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the sailers knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
sailed the three hundred.


3.
Cruisers to right of them,
missiles to left of them,
bombers in front of them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they sailed and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
sailed the three hundred.


4.
Flash'd all their missiles bare,
Flash'd as they flew in air,
firing at the cruisers there,
Charging a flotilla, while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunging cross the sea in smoke
Right towards the ships she broke;
Cossack and Russian
Targets of her missile strokes
to be shatter'd and sunder'd.
Then to sail back, but not
Not the three hundred.


5.
Cruisers to right of them,
Missiles to left of them,
Bombers behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with bomb and shell,
While sailing heroes fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of three hundred.


6.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made?
Folly! was all we said,
Pity the three hundred.



With apologies to Alfred Tennyson
Yup. I've been waiting for a Tennyson reference for a week now...and there it is! Congratulations! I'll have your prize waiting... :eyebrows:
 

vancity_cowboy

hard riding member
Jan 27, 2008
5,486
8
38
on yer ignore list
i think too many of you are in awe of the paper tiger that is the 'legendary' russian military. it's a legend all right... this was a piece of cold war propaganda carefully cultivated by the u.s. so they could fleece the u.s. taxpayers out of yet more of their hard-earned dollars

like everything else in what was the soviet union - the ships can't sail, the planes can't fly, the tanks don't have any diesel and the soldiers have to share guns that hardly have any bullets... the tractors don't run, there are no spare parts, they have to steal technology from the west, they can't pay anybody's wages and the mines don't operate at anywhere near full capacity

what they do have is a plentiful supply of rot-gut vodka to keep the population sedated

they do have it slightly better than the days of feudalism, which ended in 1917, but not much

i'll bet you here and now that there will NOT be a shooting war between the u.s. and russia - or russia and anybody else for that matter

you all seem to forget that the u.s. and russia share a border that they have shared since 1867 - alaska and siberia! i hear that a large piece of field artillery could actually lob a shell across if either country so wished

but how many times has that happened?

no folks, this is yet another peice of propaganda to fleece somebody out of more money
 

sdw

New member
Jul 14, 2005
2,185
0
0
Naval battles are fought with missiles, the Russians don't need ships, they have a very big ship that can't be sunk in the form of their country.

The main thing ships are used for are projecting power far from home, and protecting commercial shipping. The only thing they need a surface navy in the area for is anti-submarine ships to protect commercial shipping from submarines in the black sea, and that task can be accomplished with relatively small ships, such as frigates.

If the US gets into a shooting match the only force they will be fighting is the Russian air force, and the only ships that will be sunk will be theirs.
Which is why the Black Sea Fleet has no major capital ships. The Aircraft Carriers and Cruisers were removed a long time ago. Turkey - a NATO country - controls the Bosphorus, which makes the Black Sea Fleet only useful as a regional set of gunboats.

Crimea is important to Russia as a base for those regional gunboats and because it prevents Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO.

The Black Sea, Bosphorus, Mediterranean route is how Russian Crude Oil gets from Russia to Southern Europe. Russia also has a Baltic route that gets Russian Crude Oil to Northern Europe.

Thanks to Snowden, the NSA whistleblower, the US strategy has been know for some time. (ever wonder why Putin let Snowden stay in Russia?) Here are excerpts of a conversation with the US Ambassador to Ukraine. http://www.theguardian.com/environm...e-crisis-great-power-oil-gas-rivals-pipelines

Russia turned the taps off on the Gas Pipelines that run through Ukraine in 2006 and again in 2009. It's not a sudden, short length crisis. The USA has been involved in the background for some time. Here's a map of the Gas Pipelines.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/h...ias-invasion-of-crimea-pulls-in-europe-2014-3

http://burycoal.com/blog/2010/09/03/europes-fossil-fuel-dependence-on-russia/

http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/11/14/russias_pipelines_of_empire.html

If the USA doesn't back away, I think that Europe is going to find themselves a proxy in an American attempt to control fossil fuels to American advantage.
 
Last edited:

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
i think too many of you are in awe of the paper tiger that is the 'legendary' russian military. it's a legend all right... this was a piece of cold war propaganda carefully cultivated by the u.s. so they could fleece the u.s. taxpayers out of yet more of their hard-earned dollars

like everything else in what was the soviet union - the ships can't sail, the planes can't fly, the tanks don't have any diesel and the soldiers have to share guns that hardly have any bullets... the tractors don't run, there are no spare parts, they have to steal technology from the west, they can't pay anybody's wages and the mines don't operate at anywhere near full capacity

what they do have is a plentiful supply of rot-gut vodka to keep the population sedated

they do have it slightly better than the days of feudalism, which ended in 1917, but not much

i'll bet you here and now that there will NOT be a shooting war between the u.s. and russia - or russia and anybody else for that matter

you all seem to forget that the u.s. and russia share a border that they have shared since 1867 - alaska and siberia! i hear that a large piece of field artillery could actually lob a shell across if either country so wished

but how many times has that happened?

no folks, this is yet another peice of propaganda to fleece somebody out of more money
That was at the fall of the Soviet Union, it is NOT the case with the current Russian military. They are much smaller now, but have re-equipped with modern weapons and are well trained.
 

Jethro Bodine

Well-known member
Feb 17, 2009
4,456
1,882
113
Beverly Hills. In the Kitchen eatin' vittles.
Russia could soon find itself fighting against a second Jihad. The ethnic Tatars are not going to take another Russian occupation lying down.
Wonder what the people of Moscow will feel about Crimea when subways are bombed and Russian boys start coming home in body bags?

[video]http://www.aljazeera.com/video/europe/2014/03/crimea-tatars-fear-repeat-history-201437114045697170.html[/video]
 
Jan 10, 2007
140
2
18
Russia could soon find itself fighting against a second Jihad. The ethnic Tatars are not going to take another Russian occupation lying down.
Wonder what the people of Moscow will feel about Crimea when subways are bombed and Russian boys start coming home in body bags?

[video]http://www.aljazeera.com/video/europe/2014/03/crimea-tatars-fear-repeat-history-201437114045697170.html[/video]
What my simple mind doesn't understand is why the desire by the US to control the world?

I understand the need for oil and to ensure a reliable supply.

(From US Energy Information Association) Top sources of net crude oil and petroleum product imports:
Canada (28%)
Saudi Arabia (13%)
Mexico (10%)
Venezuela (9%)
Russia (5%)

Only 18% is from outside the Northern hemisphere.

Almost 30% is from Canada their friendliest neighbour.

Afghanistan has been at war since the beginning of time. It is kinda egotistical of the US or western powers to think they can change that.

So let them beat the shit out of each other.

The same for most other areas of conflict around the world.

Spend the same money on those wars inside the US.

Make sure that everyone who wishes to reside in the US pledges allegiance to the US.

If they wish to protest against the US and for another country (be they Muslim, Christian what ever) kick them out the the US ASAP.

Protests about internal US issues is fine.

Same for Canada. If you wish to immigrate here fine but don't reside here and support a side in a war that Canada is not involved in.

(I am sure I am going to be called racists for this) But if you are an immigrate to Canada you MUST learn to speak English or French. Why the fuck shouldn't we demand that any immigrant learn to speak one of the two OFFICIAL languages. And for those that are going to accuse me of being racist please explain why any country that accepts someone as an immigrant not have to expect that they are able to speak the country's official language.

Otherwise stay the fuck out.

Spent all that aid that is spent around the world in Canada and the US.

Build up the economies of the US and Canada.

The US has the population and industrial power (or at least can build up the lost industrial power), Canada has the resources (including water). What else do we need?

Sure I'll have to drive a Ford instead of my Porsche but that is something I am willing to sacrifice.

Build up our standard of living again and fuck the rest of the world.

I am going to assume that this is too simple so I'll let those smarter than me explain why this is wrong.
 
Ashley Madison
Vancouver Escorts