International Politics Thread

[sputnik monroe 102]

It's meaningless to judge people for how many people they have killed. And besides it isn't known how many people died in Stalins USSR. Bourgeois historians who got their information from the hitler-propaganda apparatus, (Hearst-press in the USA) wrote about tens of millions. The Soviet Archives have a max of 1-2 millions. In total including victims of famine.

Are these the same Soviet archives where people magically disappear out of photographs?

 Perfect question. Game set and match.

[sputnik monroe 102]

I've read enough information over the past couple years and can honestly say that the world would be a better place with out Spokesperson.

[echo1 0]

+1 to that. And just re-reading what Spokesperson I noticed something I missed before;

Quote[/b] ]It's meaningless to judge people for how many people they have killed.

It's only meaningless because it doesn't suit your Stalin fanboyism for people to question it. What you said there could easily be applied to events like the Holocaust (don't those idiots like David Irving claim that all the German documentation of the holocaust was forged en masse by Jewish conspirators?) as someone said above Spokesperson, you're little better than a holocaust denier.

[ShadowY 0]

It`s `bout time some of you get back on-topic instead of aiming at one person

It`s international politics not historical politics thread as far I can understand.

I am not a fan of pat buchanan but this interview says enough about the south Osettia v georgia conflict and alot more during the interview.

Anyone with a biased opinion or brainwashed by the western media/press/PROPAGANDA machine and hypocritical leaders/politicians or whomever had a say since (lets say)1914...you can simply snap out of it now..pat tells

 <--video

I don`t agree with pat....I already knew before he came clean

Above all he was one of them, maybe still is

*edit

Here is your georgian hero...attacking a city with artillery made him feel powerfull but a Russian plane makes him run

[-Snafu- 78]

It`s `bout time some of you get back on-topic instead of aiming at one person

It`s international politics not historical politics thread as far I can understand.

If someone comes in and says 'I think the millions killed by Stalin was a good thing' which the moderators don't do anything about because the above sentence isn't about the Holocaust or is racist then I will aim at them all I want.

When you debate politics and political systems you are going to have to look back in time to see how they worked or have advanced etc.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]If someone comes in and says 'I think the millions killed by Stalin was a good thing' which the moderators don't do anything about because the above sentence isn't about the Holocaust or is racist then I will aim at them all I want.

I guess as always it´s a matter of who says it. If a 5 year old claims such you simply pat his head and dunk him into his cheeseburger. Spokesperson has already posted so much nonsense that I feel almost the same way about him sometimes but still in the end he doesn´t break the rules with such statements here. It´s waste of forum space and time for sure, but in the end it´s freedom of speech.

[-Snafu- 78]

My views on Stalin are pretty commonly held amongst the WW2 generation here.

Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt.

We funded the Russian Revolution (dirty capitalists that we are).

Well not with my grandparents.

Are you sure we funded it? If so, in what way? It just seems a little strange that Britain would fund that given Russia was on our side fighting the Germans and allowing them to be knocked out of the war would put more pressure on the Western Front. We know that eventually happened anyway.

Also, on the Georgian front.

Possible Independence for S.Ossetia and Abkhazia

Also, I wonder if I will be getting a Russian passport in the mail.

[kavoven 4]

Quote[/b] ]If someone comes in and says 'I think the millions killed by Stalin was a good thing' which the moderators don't do anything about because the above sentence isn't about the Holocaust or is racist then I will aim at them all I want.

Thats the difference between our society and Russian society. Here people are allowed to say what they want and aren't killed afterwards.

Spokesperson can talk whatever he wants, everyone else knows it isn't true and therefor shouldn't bother reading it. I didn't read most of his posts at all. But he has the right to have his opinion. Period.

Quote[/b] ]When you debate politics and political systems you are going to have to look back in time to see how they worked or have advanced etc.

Thats absolutly true. Why did we learn about history? To learn from the past. And if we didn't use our knowledge of the past to make progress in present times, learning about the past would be nonesense

[sputnik monroe 102]

I can't believe people are turning on Georgia and saying they started this because they "attacked" South Ossetia. South Ossetia is Georgia and it is well within their right to reclaim territory that belongs to them. The Georgia/South Ossetia situation is exactly the same as the Russia/Chechnya situation

 In the past I supported Russia's claim to Chechnya and it was well within their right to keep the province from seceding from them. However after Russia's hypocritical response to Georgia I have completely changed my opinion. If Chechnya were to declare independence now and Russia were to move in to restore order, well I can honestly say that Russia would deserve from the rest of the world the same response as it gave to Georgia.

 In short if Georgia truly deserved to be "punished" for trying to control South Ossetia, then Russia deserves to be "punished" for Chechnya.

 For the past 18 years I've been a Russian apologist. I nearly always would take Russia's side in most debates, I would argue that the west unfairly judges Russia with the stigma from a cold war era mind set. The Invasion of Georgia showed me to be a fool for all these years. I wont make the mistake of trusting Russia or it’s intentions again.

[USSRsniper 0]

Stalin may well not have been one of these people. He may in fact have been a complete homocidal monster.

I don't know.

I never met him.

It's not beyond my imagination that he might have been.

But ultimately it doesn't matter to me in the slightest how many people I don't care about that he killed.

It's how many I do care about that he saved that I shall judge him by.

Some evils are necessary.

Considering you never exactly explain why this evil was necessary, of just how exactly his seemingly purposeless acts of murder saved those you love, all that still doesnt really account for his motivation now does it? I mean, if I was a raging anti-Semite, I could repeat most of what you said about the holocaust. Unless of course you don't care what other people think about Stalin and you're asserting that you admire him, which is barely a half-step up from what Spokesperson is doing.

And Stalin is georgian not russian, and georgians still admire him, just like Spokeperson does , you still can see Stalin monuments in Georgia... and they want to be part of nato? lol... Nato flag near Stalin monument... nice combination...

And Russians in South Ossetia doesn't mean they are in georgia.. South ossetia is considered independent countyr by russia, west doesn't agree though. And georgians did genocide twice, one happend in 90's agains't ossetian, and now today, where they bombed and sheleld south ossetia, and then finish off unarmed civilians with rifle... And US slways invaded, for example yugoslavia, what right they have to take away land from Bosnia? US did "peacekeeping" while ni reality what US always did was peacemaking, if you don't want democracy then bombs will fall on you (example Iraq), why russia can't do the same?  

And all the actions what NATO and Russia is doing now, jsut shows me that POLITICIANS learned absolutely nothing from the history.....

[Brendon 0]

Wrong Politics thread.

[Baff1 0]

My views on Stalin are pretty commonly held amongst the WW2 generation here.

Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt.

We funded the Russian Revolution (dirty capitalists that we are).

Well not with my grandparents.

Are you sure we funded it? If so, in what way? It just seems a little strange that Britain would fund that given Russia was on our side fighting the Germans and allowing them to be knocked out of the war would put more pressure on the Western Front. We know that eventually happened anyway.

The Germans backed the counter revolutionaries.

[-Snafu- 78]

So the British who were allied with Russia against Germany decided to fcuk their ally by supporting the Communist revolutionaries while Germany fighting Russia on the Eastern Front supported the Monarchy which would keep them fighting the Russians?

[chris330 0]

People are what society makes them. Socialism will not end all exploitation but it will end the capitalist exploitation. If a society provides care for all, with no need for competition for work or food, people will be different, more generous. People feel that they are a part of a community instead of some competitive consumerist society.

I'm not too sure about some of the other things you say, but I really liked this. It's a lovely notion and I think one that would breed much more progress.

[Baff1 0]

Stalin may well not have been one of these people. He may in fact have been a complete homocidal monster.

I don't know.

I never met him.

It's not beyond my imagination that he might have been.

But ultimately it doesn't matter to me in the slightest how many people I don't care about that he killed.

It's how many I do care about that he saved that I shall judge him by.

Some evils are necessary.

Considering you never exactly explain why this evil was necessary, of just how exactly his seemingly purposeless acts of murder saved those you love, all that still doesnt really account for his motivation now does it? I mean, if I was a raging anti-Semite, I could repeat most of what you said about the holocaust. Unless of course you don't care what other people think about Stalin and you're asserting that you admire him, which is barely a half-step up from what Spokesperson is doing.

I don't give a damn about your motivation, just so long as you have it.

World War isn't a competition for who can lay claim to be the nicest person.

You could repeat most of what I said about the Holocaust, but that would place you on the losing side.

The side of my enemies. The side of Stalin's enemies.

For what it's worth I am perfectly able to respect and admire my enemies too.

No one gave a monkey's about the holocaust until Germany attacked them. No one at all.

Someone you don't know dying does not have the same emotional equivalence as someone you do.

We didn't go to war to save the Jews. Millions of us didn't die to save the Jews. None of us did.

I care about what other people think about Stalin.

But not what anyone, or everyone, thinks about Stalin.

My objective is not to re-inforce or discredit political corrects.

It may be part of your cultural heritage to consider Stalin an evil man, it is part of mine to consider him a great leader.

Let me explain to you why fighting the Germans was a necessary evil.

They were attempting to kill my family and enslave all the male members of it they could capture, (to send them abroad to work as forced labour).

They had the capability and will to do so. (They almost suceeded).

Nothing Stalin ever did came even remotely close to this.

His leadership, on the otherhand, perhaps did more to prevent this than any other person in history.

So if you consider him an evil man, for whatever things he has done against you and yours, good luck to you. History affects us all differently.

He will always be a hero to me. I am proud to honour his name.

[Baff1 0]

So the British who were allied with Russia against Germany decided to fcuk their ally by supporting the Communist revolutionaries while Germany fighting Russia on the Eastern Front supported the Monarchy which would keep them fighting the Russians?

So Britain who had been allied with Russia against the Germans (and before that the French), decided to back the half of the Russian civil war that wasn't backed by the Germans. (The so called "counter revolutionaries").

And no, I'm not entirely sure about this, I'd welcome further illumination.

I know we had a military presence in Georgia at the time.

I'm of the opinion that a divided Russia was of strategic intrest to Britains domination of middle eastern oil and that the socialist movement was domestically ascendant in Britian at the time.

The public were sympathic.

Not all of the "Russian" factions had been fighting against the Germans. Just as in World War 2, and even today, the region has split allegiances. Nothing has changed.

We provided safe haven to the monarchists. Our protection of Russian dissidents; commmunist, monarchist and (today) democratic is a means by which we back two horses so to speak.

A way of ensuring that whoever comes out on top is someone we can deal with.

[MehMan 0]

People are what society makes them. Socialism will not end all exploitation but it will end the capitalist exploitation. If a society provides care for all, with no need for competition for work or food, people will be different, more generous. People feel that they are a part of a community instead of some competitive consumerist society.

I'm not too sure about some of the other things you say, but I really liked this. It's a lovely notion and I think one that would breed much more progress.

I do agree with this statement, well, because of what has been told to me by people who lived under Tito's Yugoslavia. It was a much friendlier place, despite people being not so well off. As it was more or less equal for all it was also pretty much pointless to try and grab as much as you can, because, well, everybody could grab an equal ammount, so being a dick/bitch was just pointless.

[Baff1 0]

And US slways invaded, for example yugoslavia, what right they have to take away land from Bosnia? US did "peacekeeping" while ni reality what US always did was peacemaking, if you don't want democracy then bombs will fall on you (example Iraq), why russia can't do the same?  

Russia can do the same, it just did.

But just as with Iraq, there are repercussions from world opinion when you do.

(Yugoslavia was primarily a European instigated and lead intervention and Russia was a part of it too).

[Maximus_G 0]

I can't believe people are turning on Georgia and saying they started this because they "attacked" South Ossetia. South Ossetia is Georgia and it is well within their right to reclaim territory that belongs to them. The Georgia/South Ossetia situation is exactly the same as the Russia/Chechnya situation

I guess you wouldn't be saying that, if you remembered the official status of this conflict: pledges of the conflicting sides including Georgia of course, and role of the peacekeeping forces. Read the Dagomys agreement of year 1992 and later documents. They are not about bombshelling towns and villages. They are quite the opposite.

So, in order to reclaim its territory by using artillery and tanks, Georgia first should declare invalid all the peacekeeping agreements is had signed. At least it would be the very clear warning, and it would save the lives of so many people.

It would be honest too in respect to its own Georgian people -to tell the soldiers, reservists, that they're going to war.

Strangely the things happened in a very different way, sneaky, unexpectedly, at night. I don't think some country has the right to brake its words by sudden attacks such as this. That's simply criminal.

[akm74 1]

Quote[/b] ]Thats the difference between our society and Russian society. Here people are allowed to say what they want and aren't killed afterwards.

This is golden. Let me fix it a little.

Thats the difference between our society and Russian society. Here people are allowed to say what they want and  everyone else knows it isn't true and therefor shouldn't bother reading it.

That’s the reason they allow to talk in first place :-)

I live in US and read most russian newspaper online. I have a feeling they have more "freedom to spech" the we do. It all change in the past 5-8 years.

Example: www.inosmi.ru

Government sponsored site. They have a translation for almost all major world media if they mention politics in Russia (with links to original materials). Most of it not “pleasant†to read and some of them very hostile (if you live in Russia). But they have it…

Point me to single western media news portal who offered same service, please.

PS:

None of the world media agency free or independent. Not a single one. They simply can’t afford it.

[-Snafu- 78]

So the British who were allied with Russia against Germany decided to fcuk their ally by supporting the Communist revolutionaries while Germany fighting Russia on the Eastern Front supported the Monarchy which would keep them fighting the Russians?

So Britain who had been allied with Russia against the Germans (and before that the French), decided to back the half of the Russian civil war that wasn't backed by the Germans. (The so called "counter revolutionaries").

You said that Britain backed the Russian Revolution which was during WW1. Remember Russia was on our side at this time tying a significant number of Germans down at the East. It would make no sense for Britain to support the revolution which would take Russia out of the war releasing loads of Germans to the Western Front.

[echo1 0]

So the British who were allied with Russia against Germany decided to fcuk their ally by supporting the Communist revolutionaries while Germany fighting Russia on the Eastern Front supported the Monarchy which would keep them fighting the Russians?

So Britain who had been allied with Russia against the Germans (and before that the French), decided to back the half of the Russian civil war that wasn't backed by the Germans. (The so called "counter revolutionaries").

You said that Britain backed the Russian Revolution which was during WW1. Remember Russia was on our side at this time tying a significant number of Germans down at the East. It would make no sense for Britain to support the revolution which would take Russia out of the war releasing loads of Germans to the Western Front.

Indeed, and didnt British and American troops back the counter-revolutionaries during the civil war in 1920?

[kavoven 4]

I live in US and read most russian newspaper online. I have a feeling they have more "freedom to spech" the we do. It all change in the past 5-8 years.

Example: www.inosmi.ru

Government sponsored site. They have a translation for almost all major world media if they mention politics in Russia (with links to original materials). Most of it not “pleasant†to read and some of them very hostile (if you live in Russia). But they have it…

Nice find, thank you for that. Though I only speak a tiny bit Russian I can use bablefish for that

[scubaman3D 0]

I live in US and read most russian newspaper online. I have a feeling they have more "freedom to spech" the we do. It all change in the past 5-8 years.

Example: www.inosmi.ru

Government sponsored site...

How can you admit this website is government sponsored and yet not admit they are turning out propaganda?

And who is 'they' and who is 'we' in your reply. Are you a Russian living in the US? You do not seem like a native speaker and that would just be some juicy irony.

[USSRsniper 0]

Nobody has freedom of speech even in US (its jsut an illusion), for that internet exists. But in real world there is no freedoom of speech, there is political correctness....

And this is BS, that russia has no freedom of speech, you can protest (without things getting out of control) agains't Putin and nobody will kill you, just watch out for OMON