The Rassah's idea is simple. The end justifies the means. Whether it's right is debatable.
Topic: Could someone provide evidence that the majority of Russians aren't insane? - page 5. (Read 10589 times)
September 11, 2014, 03:28:00 AM
September 11, 2014, 03:05:06 AM
USA invades to disrupt what's happening in those countries,
And who asked them to do so? Using their logic, it's not their business what happens outside of their borders, am I right?You are right, and I agree (unless they ARE asked by the country they go into). So, why don't you apply the same standard to Russia?
but doesn't actually try to take control of them and make them be a part of USA.
Yeah, they just turn them into colonies, raping their economy, buying all agricultural lands and stealing natural resources. That's much better than make them be a part of USA of course. Better for the USA.None of those countries you listed are American colonies. I think USA has maybe two or three colonies that are island, at most. And, again, why don't you apply the same standard to Russia? Russia is the one "raping" the economy and oil fields in Iraq right now. No issues with that? And will you complain just as much when Russia starts raping the economy in Eastern Ukraine and taking their natural gas, too?
I won't ask whether you are a troll or you really believe in what you write, but USA can't make anyone democratic and capitalist because they're themselves neither democratic nor capitalist.
Huh. So, how are things going in Korea? Vietnam? Chile to name a few? Are they communist dictatorships like China or North Korea? Yes, they can't make anyone be democratic and capitalist, but they can help keep invading communist dictators at bay. And, again, I don't support either side invading, but at least the outcome of these guys is better than anything USSR and communists invaded.
We have to be lenient with our younger brothers. Because before the beginning of 1980s many of us employed a very similar pattern of behavior, you know what I mean... The blind belief into the democratic values... A persistent usage of the democracy as an excuse for military interventions and economical sanctions, combined with incredibly strong belief into the need of bringing the order to chaotic environment. It's all the same, but unlike them we've seen this before. 
And then you went right back to believing it, with your moronic defense of Russian military intervention to "spread democracy and bring order to the chaotic environment" in Eastern Ukraine. Pathetic.
The fact of the matter is, vast majority of those nations who allied themselves with US got the better end of the deal, and unprecedented degree of phenomenal success, whether through direct US aid or indirect US influence.
Just like how every anti american fool ignores the sargat chemical research and manufacturing facility when bitching and 'NO WMD', these fuckers tend to try and not talk about obvious facts staring them in the face.
September 11, 2014, 03:02:41 AM
Russian mentality is perfectly rational for anyone with even a drop of knowledge about their history.
As an American, I congratulate the russians on being steadfast, strong, and resilient, all the qualities Americans appreciate. They may be our adversaries, but that's why they are our equals more or less.
They may be irritating, but their hearts are in the right place - they are the other half of the equation for world stability.
As an American, I congratulate the russians on being steadfast, strong, and resilient, all the qualities Americans appreciate. They may be our adversaries, but that's why they are our equals more or less.
They may be irritating, but their hearts are in the right place - they are the other half of the equation for world stability.
September 10, 2014, 05:27:24 PM
USA invades to disrupt what's happening in those countries,
And who asked them to do so? Using their logic, it's not their business what happens outside of their borders, am I right?You are right, and I agree (unless they ARE asked by the country they go into). So, why don't you apply the same standard to Russia?
but doesn't actually try to take control of them and make them be a part of USA.
Yeah, they just turn them into colonies, raping their economy, buying all agricultural lands and stealing natural resources. That's much better than make them be a part of USA of course. Better for the USA.None of those countries you listed are American colonies. I think USA has maybe two or three colonies that are island, at most. And, again, why don't you apply the same standard to Russia? Russia is the one "raping" the economy and oil fields in Iraq right now. No issues with that? And will you complain just as much when Russia starts raping the economy in Eastern Ukraine and taking their natural gas, too?
I won't ask whether you are a troll or you really believe in what you write, but USA can't make anyone democratic and capitalist because they're themselves neither democratic nor capitalist.
Huh. So, how are things going in Korea? Vietnam? Chile to name a few? Are they communist dictatorships like China or North Korea? Yes, they can't make anyone be democratic and capitalist, but they can help keep invading communist dictators at bay. And, again, I don't support either side invading, but at least the outcome of these guys is better than anything USSR and communists invaded.
We have to be lenient with our younger brothers. Because before the beginning of 1980s many of us employed a very similar pattern of behavior, you know what I mean... The blind belief into the democratic values... A persistent usage of the democracy as an excuse for military interventions and economical sanctions, combined with incredibly strong belief into the need of bringing the order to chaotic environment. It's all the same, but unlike them we've seen this before.
And then you went right back to believing it, with your moronic defense of Russian military intervention to "spread democracy and bring order to the chaotic environment" in Eastern Ukraine. Pathetic.
September 10, 2014, 04:10:08 PM
@Balthazar, I couldn't agree more. And Rassah is a living proof of how powerful this brainwashing machine is.
Because it looks like he really believes that these interventions into sovereign states were actually for some idealistic democracy values. What a naivety.
We have to be lenient with our younger brothers. Because before the beginning of 1980s many of us employed a very similar pattern of behavior, you know what I mean... The blind belief into the democratic values... A persistent usage of the democracy as an excuse for military interventions and economical sanctions, combined with incredibly strong belief into the need of bringing the order to chaotic environment. It's all the same, but unlike them we've seen this before. Because it looks like he really believes that these interventions into sovereign states were actually for some idealistic democracy values. What a naivety.
September 10, 2014, 01:53:36 PM
@Balthazar, I couldn't agree more. And Rassah is a living proof of how powerful this brainwashing machine is.
Because it looks like he really believes that these interventions into sovereign states were actually for some idealistic democracy values. What a naivety.
Because it looks like he really believes that these interventions into sovereign states were actually for some idealistic democracy values. What a naivety.
September 10, 2014, 12:31:50 PM
USA invades to disrupt what's happening in those countries,
And who asked them to do so? Using their logic, it's not their business what happens outside of their borders, am I right?but doesn't actually try to take control of them and make them be a part of USA.
Yeah, they just turn them into colonies, raping their economy, buying all agricultural lands and stealing natural resources. That's much better than make them be a part of USA of course. Better for the USA.On the other hand, when Russia invades countries, it's usually to make them actually be a part of Russia.
Let's try to use your own logic.Finland - still independent country;
Poland - still independent country;
Germany - still independent country;
Iran - still independent country;
Mongolia - still independent country;
China - still independent country;
Hungaria - still independent country;
Vietnam - still independent country;
Afghanistan - still independent country;
Abkhazia - still independent country;
South Ossetia - still independent country;
invades to try to make the countries democratic and capitalist
Oh yeah, I saw it in several countries with my own eyes. 
Also, the biggest difference between the intents is that USA invades to try to make the countries democratic and capitalist, while Russia invades to try to make the countries totalitarian and socialist/communist.
What planet are you from? 
I won't ask whether you are a troll or you really believe in what you write, but USA can't make anyone democratic and capitalist because they're themselves neither democratic nor capitalist. It's a crony capitalist totalitarian regime which is supported by incredibly powerful brainwashing machine. And they're trying to establish the same crony capitalist regime everywhere, under guise of spreading the "democratic values". In the same way as the Soviet Union did it. September 10, 2014, 11:34:59 AM
Where is the list of countries USA decided to invade and control as part of USA?
This list is only partial, as I have not included countries such as (Western) Germany, Italy and Japan, which are under American military occupation ever since the World War 2.
While I don't support USA taking my tax money to set up military bases around the world...
You have a funny definition of "occupation." USA is paying Italy to keep their bases there. Germany started WW2, so kind of deserved being under watch for a while. Note that Germany is not actually occupied or owned by USA, USA just has a military base there, and Germany actually partners with USA to combine its military forces. Japan actually pays USA to keep their military base there, since it's easier for Japan to rent out US military for their defense, rather than build up their own (plus they were banned from having anything but defensive forces after WW2). Plus having a military base on your soil is not the same as "occupation." At least not the same as the way Russia typically occupies. Do you consider that every country that has McDonald's owning some land in it as "occupied" too?
1949 Greece - Still independent country.
1952 Cuba - Invasion failed, still communist socialist country, economy still sucks. Still independent country.
1953 Iran - Still communist socialist country, economy still sucks. Still independent country.
1953 British Guyana - Still independent country.
1954 Guatemala - Still independent country.
1955 South Vietnam - Still independent country.
1957 Haiti - Still independent country.
1958 Laos - Still independent country.
1960 South Korea - Still independent country.
1960 Laos - Still independent country.
1960 Ecuador - Still independent country.
1963 Dominican Republic - Still independent country.
1963 South Vietnam - Still independent country.
1963 Honduras - Still independent country.
1963 Guatemala - Still independent country.
1963 Ecuador. - Still independent country.
1964 Brazil - Still independent country.
1964 Bolivia - Still independent country.
1965 Zaire. - Still independent country.
1966 Ghana - Still independent country.
1967 Greece - Still independent country.
1970 Cambodia - Still independent country.
1970 Bolivia - Still independent country.
1972 El Salvador - Still independent country.
1973 Chile - Still independent country.
1979 South Korea (Pro-USA government wanted) - Still independent country.
1980 Liberia - Still independent country.
1982 Chad - Still independent country.
1983 Grenada - Still independent country.
1987 Fiji - Still independent country.
1989 Panama - Still independent country.
2001 Afghanistan - Invasion was supported by Afghanis under Taliban oppression. Still independent country.
2002 Venezuela - Still independent country.
2003 Iraq - Many of USA citizens protested the invasion as based on lies. In the end it was proven that USA government lied to citizens to start the war, and almost everyone agrees this was a bad thing. Still independent country.
2004 Haiti - Previous presidential election was considered fraudulent by Haitians. Still independent country.
2009 Honduras - Still independent country.
2011 Libya - Was asked for help by Lybians themselves. Still independent country.
2011 Tunisia - Still independent country.
2013 Egypt - Anti-government protests against dictator supported by US were started by Egyptians. US didn't intervene to keep their "puppet" in power. Still independent country.
2014 Ukraine - Anti-government protests were started by Ukrainians due to concerns of their president being a Russian puppet, not USA. Still independent country.
1952 Cuba - Invasion failed, still communist socialist country, economy still sucks. Still independent country.
1953 Iran - Still communist socialist country, economy still sucks. Still independent country.
1953 British Guyana - Still independent country.
1954 Guatemala - Still independent country.
1955 South Vietnam - Still independent country.
1957 Haiti - Still independent country.
1958 Laos - Still independent country.
1960 South Korea - Still independent country.
1960 Laos - Still independent country.
1960 Ecuador - Still independent country.
1963 Dominican Republic - Still independent country.
1963 South Vietnam - Still independent country.
1963 Honduras - Still independent country.
1963 Guatemala - Still independent country.
1963 Ecuador. - Still independent country.
1964 Brazil - Still independent country.
1964 Bolivia - Still independent country.
1965 Zaire. - Still independent country.
1966 Ghana - Still independent country.
1967 Greece - Still independent country.
1970 Cambodia - Still independent country.
1970 Bolivia - Still independent country.
1972 El Salvador - Still independent country.
1973 Chile - Still independent country.
1979 South Korea (Pro-USA government wanted) - Still independent country.
1980 Liberia - Still independent country.
1982 Chad - Still independent country.
1983 Grenada - Still independent country.
1987 Fiji - Still independent country.
1989 Panama - Still independent country.
2001 Afghanistan - Invasion was supported by Afghanis under Taliban oppression. Still independent country.
2002 Venezuela - Still independent country.
2003 Iraq - Many of USA citizens protested the invasion as based on lies. In the end it was proven that USA government lied to citizens to start the war, and almost everyone agrees this was a bad thing. Still independent country.
2004 Haiti - Previous presidential election was considered fraudulent by Haitians. Still independent country.
2009 Honduras - Still independent country.
2011 Libya - Was asked for help by Lybians themselves. Still independent country.
2011 Tunisia - Still independent country.
2013 Egypt - Anti-government protests against dictator supported by US were started by Egyptians. US didn't intervene to keep their "puppet" in power. Still independent country.
2014 Ukraine - Anti-government protests were started by Ukrainians due to concerns of their president being a Russian puppet, not USA. Still independent country.
USA invades to disrupt what's happening in those countries, but doesn't actually try to take control of them and make them be a part of USA. Even then, I agree, what it is doing isn't necessarily a good thing. On the other hand, when Russia invades countries, it's usually to make them actually be a part of Russia. Also, the biggest difference between the intents is that USA invades to try to make the countries democratic and capitalist, while Russia invades to try to make the countries totalitarian and socialist/communist. Note that in that list, every country that USA invaded where USA lost, and the country remained socialist with either a dictator or a corrupt government, the economy REALLY sucks. While in every country where the invasion successfully repelled communists and/or opened the country to international trade, the economy has been improving considerably.
September 10, 2014, 01:56:28 AM
Where is the list of countries USA decided to invade and control as part of USA?
This list is only partial, as I have not included countries such as (Western) Germany, Italy and Japan, which are under American military occupation ever since the World War 2.
1949 Greece
1952 Cuba
1953 Iran
1953 British Guyana
1954 Guatemala
1955 South Vietnam
1957 Haiti
1958 Laos
1960 South Korea
1960 Laos
1960 Ecuador.
1963 Dominican Republic
1963 South Vietnam
1963 Honduras
1963 Guatemala
1963 Ecuador.
1964 Brazil
1964 Bolivia
1965 Zaire.
1966 Ghana
1967 Greece
1970 Cambodia
1970 Bolivia
1972 El Salvador
1973 Chile
1979 South Korea (Pro-USA government wanted)
1980 Liberia
1982 Chad
1983 Grenada
1987 Fiji
1989 Panama
2001 Afghanistan
2002 Venezuela
2003 Iraq
2004 Haiti
2009 Honduras
2011 Libya
2011 Tunisia
2013 Egypt
2014 Ukraine
September 09, 2014, 01:32:12 PM
In their own words, those attending the Atlantic Council gathering describe the battle for Ukraine being fought to “complete” their socioeconomic consolidation in Europe – this includes “integrating Russia.” Secretary John Kerry at the gathering would literally state:
Our European Allies have spent more than 20 years with us working to integrate Russia into the Euro-Atlantic community.
By “integrating” Russia, of course, Kerry means overthrowing any independent national political order that exists in Moscow and replacing it with one that answers to Wall Street, London, and now Brussels. This can be seen clearly in attempts by the West to replicate its model of “color revolution” within Russian territory itself.
Our European Allies have spent more than 20 years with us working to integrate Russia into the Euro-Atlantic community.
By “integrating” Russia, of course, Kerry means overthrowing any independent national political order that exists in Moscow and replacing it with one that answers to Wall Street, London, and now Brussels. This can be seen clearly in attempts by the West to replicate its model of “color revolution” within Russian territory itself.
This is a good example of Russian insanity. When "The West" talks about integrating countries into its community, they are talking about opening up trade restrictions and expanding economic relations, mainly between private companies. When the Russia hears about integration, they immediately think "imperialistic expansion and installing puppet governments." Because that's what the Russia's policy itself is, or was, most of the time. (Sure, USA is guilty of that too at times, but USA is not the entirety of "the west")
Riiiiiiiiiight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
Almost none of those list anything other than what I described, trying to open up countries to foreign trade and such, even if by deposing communist dictators. Where is the list of countries USA decided to invade and control as part of USA?
To "open up countries to foreign trade and such" is the most hilarious excuse for USA interventions into sovereign states that I've ever read. Ever.
September 09, 2014, 12:11:16 PM
The racism...
This term is not quite suitable here because russian people belongs to the indo-european race. Unless author of this question is a member of other race. September 09, 2014, 11:52:39 AM
The ordinary Russians are relieved that the US puppet (drunkard Yeltsin) was replaced with a strong minded person.
That's funny, and tragically ironic. The ordinary Germans were also relieved that European puppet Paul von Hindenburg (who was printing money and handing out wealth to others at an alarming rate) was replaced with a strong minded person.
Wonder how many will get the Hitler reverence...
September 09, 2014, 11:48:28 AM
True but when you open up trade relations between private companies thats for a corporate agenda to kill nationalist companies and to do a wealth transfer to the richer nations.
Pretty much give us the raw material we will process it for you and then sell it back at triple the price.
Pretty much give us the raw material we will process it for you and then sell it back at triple the price.
Wealth transfer is pretty much a communist socialist myth: Those materials were already there. So why weren't you mining them yourself? If you were mining them, with a nationalist company that is pretty much always more wasteful, then getting a private company will reduce the waste and increase profits. Even if the private company is completely foreign and takes all the resources out of the country, they still pay the local people to build the mining and refinery factories, and still pay the local people to work to get the resource mined, refined, and delivered. The only wealth the company gets to keep is the small percentage of profit between the amount they sell it for, and the cost of getting it out of the ground (the cost that went entirely too the country). And you can't just decide to sell something at "triple the price." Things are sold on the market for whatever people will buy them for. A private company will pay labor whatever people will be willing to work for in that country, and sell the resources at the global rate. If you just take over and nationalize the mines and factories, and sell the materials at triple the price, all your workers will starve due to you not being able to sell anything.
For a real historical example, compare Venezuela, which is doing things exactly as you suggest, with nationalized resources, who's economy is in shambles and people are poor, and Poland, which after the fall of USSR privatized and sold everything to foreign investors, who came in and used their expertise to greatly improve the quality and efficiency of their factories, hired more people to work and increase production, and where, despite the "wealth being shipped elsewhere," living and economic conditions have improved drastically, and the country is much more wealthy than it was when it was nationalized.
September 09, 2014, 11:31:28 AM
In their own words, those attending the Atlantic Council gathering describe the battle for Ukraine being fought to “complete” their socioeconomic consolidation in Europe – this includes “integrating Russia.” Secretary John Kerry at the gathering would literally state:
Our European Allies have spent more than 20 years with us working to integrate Russia into the Euro-Atlantic community.
By “integrating” Russia, of course, Kerry means overthrowing any independent national political order that exists in Moscow and replacing it with one that answers to Wall Street, London, and now Brussels. This can be seen clearly in attempts by the West to replicate its model of “color revolution” within Russian territory itself.
Our European Allies have spent more than 20 years with us working to integrate Russia into the Euro-Atlantic community.
By “integrating” Russia, of course, Kerry means overthrowing any independent national political order that exists in Moscow and replacing it with one that answers to Wall Street, London, and now Brussels. This can be seen clearly in attempts by the West to replicate its model of “color revolution” within Russian territory itself.
This is a good example of Russian insanity. When "The West" talks about integrating countries into its community, they are talking about opening up trade restrictions and expanding economic relations, mainly between private companies. When the Russia hears about integration, they immediately think "imperialistic expansion and installing puppet governments." Because that's what the Russia's policy itself is, or was, most of the time. (Sure, USA is guilty of that too at times, but USA is not the entirety of "the west")
Riiiiiiiiiight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_regime_change_actions
Almost none of those list anything other than what I described, trying to open up countries to foreign trade and such, even if by deposing communist dictators. Where is the list of countries USA decided to invade and control as part of USA?
September 03, 2014, 02:31:27 PM
drunkard Yeltsin
What should you do if you wish to become a genuine president?- Use machine guns to kill more than 3000 parliament supporters when democratically elected parliament tries to impeach you for violation of constitution.
- Force adoption of hyper-presidential constitution, force the MPs to surrender by shelling the parliament building.
- Grant a non-revocable and lifetime legislative immunity to himself.
So BBC is right, Putin and Medvedev are dictators who are increasingly restrict human rights while Yeltsin was truly democratic & liberal indeed... I even think it's safe to bet that blablahblah and other members of Yeltsin's fan club would be happy to have him as their president. I don't doubt it, but I have to ask you, are you sure that usage of machine gun against the crowd doesn't violate any human rights?
It was possible to restore pre-1993 constitution before formation of new state bodies (i.e. between 1994 and 1995) but now it's too late. Now it's required to develop a new constitution which will be equal to pre-1993 constitution in terms of power distribution without losing compatibility with current system of state bodies. There is a project of new constitution, developed by National Movement for Freedom (coalition of parliamentary factions led by UR politician Eugene Fedorov), but it's unknown when it will be ready for adoption.
September 03, 2014, 02:24:38 PM
The racism...
September 03, 2014, 02:13:45 PM
Why didn't Putin or Medvedev fully reverse the policy outcomes of Yeltsin's power grab?
Whether you like it or not, Putin was legitimately elected by the voters of Russia, with more than 60% of the votes. Some vote rigging is definitely there, but even without that he could win effortlessly. Popularity of Putin has remained much higher than that of his party (United Russia). So in short, he doesn't need to "grab" power, unlike the drunkard.
September 03, 2014, 06:00:09 AM
drunkard Yeltsin
What should you do if you wish to become a genuine president?- Use machine guns to kill more than 3000 parliament supporters when democratically elected parliament tries to impeach you for violation of constitution.
- Force adoption of hyper-presidential constitution, force the MPs to surrender by shelling the parliament building.
- Grant a non-revocable and lifetime legislative immunity to himself.
So BBC is right, Putin and Medvedev are dictators who are increasingly restrict human rights while Yeltsin was truly democratic & liberal indeed... I even think it's safe to bet that blablahblah and other members of Yeltsin's fan club would be happy to have him as their president. I don't doubt it, but I have to ask you, are you sure that usage of machine gun against the crowd doesn't violate any human rights?
September 03, 2014, 05:23:20 AM
drunkard Yeltsin
What should you do if you wish to become a genuine president?- Use machine guns to kill more than 3000 parliament supporters when democratically elected parliament tries to impeach you for violation of constitution.
- Force adoption of hyper-presidential constitution, force the MPs to surrender by shelling the parliament building.
- Grant a non-revocable and lifetime legislative immunity to himself.
So BBC is right, Putin and Medvedev are dictators who are increasingly restrict human rights while Yeltsin was truly democratic & liberal indeed... I even think it's safe to bet that blablahblah and other members of Yeltsin's fan club would be happy to have him as their president. I don't doubt it, but I have to ask you, are you sure that usage of machine gun against the crowd doesn't violate any human rights?
Careful with the smear campaign! Putin hasn't finished being president yet.
Do some research on past dictators, then come back here and tell us why Putin's high popularity is different this time.
September 03, 2014, 02:41:20 AM
drunkard Yeltsin
What should you do if you wish to become a genuine president?- Use machine guns to kill more than 3000 parliament supporters when democratically elected parliament tries to impeach you for violation of constitution.
- Force adoption of hyper-presidential constitution, force the MPs to surrender by shelling the parliament building.
- Grant a non-revocable and lifetime legislative immunity to himself.
So BBC is right, Putin and Medvedev are dictators who are increasingly restrict human rights while Yeltsin was truly democratic & liberal indeed... I even think it's safe to bet that blablahblah and other members of Yeltsin's fan club would be happy to have him as their president. I don't doubt it, but I have to ask you, are you sure that usage of machine gun against the crowd doesn't violate any human rights?
Jump to: