Blaming Russians

[Ludmila]

A former colony itself, the early United States expressed its opposition to Imperialism, at least in a form distinct from its own Manifest Destiny, through policies such as the Monroe Doctrine. However, beginning in the late 19th and early 20th century, policies such as Theodore Roosevelt’s interventionism in Central America and Woodrow Wilson’s mission to "make the world safe for democracy"^[86] changed all this. They were often backed by military force, but were more often effected from behind the scenes. This is consistent with the general notion of hegemony and imperium of historical empires

At the start of World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was opposed to allowing European colonialism to be maintained, but he pulled back when Britain's Winston Churchill demanded that victory in the war be the first priority. Roosevelt expected that the United Nations would take up the problem of decolonization.

In 2015, the United States reportedly had nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries around the world

[Ludmila]

SPANISH IMPERIALISM
Concomitant with Spanish endorsement and sponsorship of transatlantic expeditionary voyages was the deployment of Conquistadors, which further expanded Spanish imperial boundaries through the acquisition and development of territories and colonies.

[Ludmila]

As I stated previously, civilized countries, those governed by a rule of law, do not invade sovereign nations. 

A list of civilized countries over here, please.

[Ludmila]

msmob,
 In another thread you opined recently and said the following answering to your interlocutor:
<blockquote>
Google is good at finding what someone ( a 'journalist' [?]) wrote about the news..perhaps as they wanted to portray it ... or were just too lazy to check
</blockquote>
Whether it is factual - or not - is for you to decide ....

A QUESTION TO YOU, msmob, DO YOU OR DON'T YOU TRUST JOURNALISTS?
AND ONE MORE FOR YOU :HOW DO YOU LEARN ABOUT EVENTS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES? THROUGH JOURNALISTS OR YOU HAVE DIRECT LINE OF COMMUNICATION WITH POROSHENKO, PUTIN, THERESA MAY, OBAMA, TRUMP, ETC?

[Boethius]

A list of civilized countries over here, please.

No, you list the countries that invaded a sovereign nation without provocation in the 21st century.

I also apologize. I hit modify rather than quote in responding to you. I did restore your original post.

[jone]

SPANISH IMPERIALISM
Concomitant with Spanish endorsement and sponsorship of transatlantic expeditionary voyages was the deployment of Conquistadors, which further expanded Spanish imperial boundaries through the acquisition and development of territories and colonies.

Living in California, I can tell you that the Spanish version of Imperialism is more closely associated with the Missionaries and the Catholic Church.

[jone]

I don't want to get mixed up in a bar brawl over this topic, but having spent a good deal of time in Kazakhstan three years ago, I would ask if members on this forum believe that the Soviet Union was made up of acquisition or simply association (as is the European Union)?  Aside from excusing myself from the menu offerings when horse was being served there, my impression was that the Kazakhs believed that their inclusion in the Soviet Union was through looking down the barrel of a gun. 

As an aside, I spent a summer living in Ukraine and also have spent multiple summers living in Russia.

[msmob]

A former colony itself, the early United States expressed its opposition to Imperialism, at least in a form distinct from its own Manifest Destiny, through policies such as the Monroe Doctrine. However, beginning in the late 19th and early 20th century, policies such as Theodore Roosevelt’s interventionism in Central America and Woodrow Wilson’s mission to "make the world safe for democracy"^[86] changed all this. They were often backed by military force, but were more often effected from behind the scenes. This is consistent with the general notion of hegemony and imperium of historical empires

At the start of World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was opposed to allowing European colonialism to be maintained, but he pulled back when Britain's Winston Churchill demanded that victory in the war be the first priority. Roosevelt expected that the United Nations would take up the problem of decolonization.

In 2015, the United States reportedly had nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries around the world

Ludmila, the USA existed during the cold war ... the USSR has gone..

Whilst I can't condone some very crude regime changes (  and massive failures, like in Cuba) - let's not forget that the Soviet's were intent on their own form of hegemony and regime changes - often using Cuban troops - to claim 'non-involvement'.

The UK has tried to undermine the revolution in Russia from the earliest days and the Soviets gave money to the UK Unions - who nearly broke the UK to her knees in the 70's- these games go on without public knowledge

I've seen - first hand - in Cyprus - how Kissinger encouraged the Greek Junta to try to take over the island - knowing that Turkey would intervene- splitting the island in two - but removing the 'risk' of President Makarios giving a base to the Soviets.

In Ukraine, no matter which party ruled from 2001 - 2014 - there was NEVER a move to join NATO .... Now most Ukrainians - insulted by the direct intervention in their nation by Russia - want NATO membership (

Russians were told that "NATO wanted the bases on the Peninsula".....   ))

Simply controlling the Bosphorus and Dardanelles  means the Black Sea becomes an inland lake.

[msmob]

msmob,
 In another thread you opined recently and said the following answering to your interlocutor:
<blockquote>
Google is good at finding what someone ( a 'journalist' [?]) wrote about the news..perhaps as they wanted to portray it ... or were just too lazy to check
</blockquote>
Whether it is factual - or not - is for you to decide ....

A QUESTION TO YOU, msmob, DO YOU OR DON'T YOU TRUST JOURNALISTS?

I am not 'deaf' ..)

A good question ..No really, but in the case of TV news, I worry more about the policy of the News agency..

Camera's don't lie - but they aren't always on - or in the right place, either..

I prefer to see things for myself ..


 

AND ONE MORE FOR YOU :HOW DO YOU LEARN ABOUT EVENTS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES? THROUGH JOURNALISTS OR YOU HAVE DIRECT LINE OF COMMUNICATION WITH POROSHENKO, PUTIN, THERESA MAY, OBAMA, TRUMP, ETC?

Like I said, I prefer to see things for myself..  In our place we watch RU news, Euronews and the BBC.   

I grew up believing the British were 'perfect' and the Irish were 'bad' and bred Terrorists ....  Now I realise there is often - at least - two perspectives.

Hence, I question 'news' and look for the obvious howler ... like 'Trampu' suddenly deciding not to visit the UK being because he "doesn't agree with it"

[ML]

ELENUSHKA, YOU ARE VERY ATTRACTIVE AND SMART AND CAN FIND A LOT OF EXCELLENT AMERICAN GUYS OF YOUR AGE HERE IN US.

Yes, she can find them and even marry and move to the west.

However, the marriage is unlikely to be successful when it starts to sink in to the western guy the feelings, beliefs and interpretations she has about Russia's past and current actions on the world stage.

So she would be setting herself up for big heartache down the road.
And it won't be successful (over time) for her to try to hide her feelings and beliefs.

[msmob]

Yes, she can find them and even marry and move to the west.

However, the marriage is unlikely to be successful when it starts to sink in to the western guy the feelings, beliefs and interpretations she has about Russia's past and current actions on the world stage.

So she would be setting herself up for big heartache down the road.
And it won't be successful (over time) for her to try to hide her feelings and beliefs.

 

I thought ... "I didn't write that"...

My 'bad' I left some of Ludmila's post in a response to her ..

But as you raised it ...

I have dated a lass  who's Mum lived ( I use the past tense as I don't know her situation, now) in Mariupol - which has changed hands twice.

We disagreed on some stuff - but it was educational for both of us - understanding two perspectives...

I don't live with my long-term biz pal in Cyprus - but we ( nearly daily) 'discuss' what's happening and often disagree

I've lived with a Russian who is Conservative in outlook and has closer views to mine re foreign affairs, politically.  We aren't together...

My Uncle and Aunt voted Labour and to 'leave' the EU ( ask them now and they'd admit they may have called that wrong )

I lived in N.Ireland and would not abandon my pre-school friends because they "kicked with the wrong foot"

What I'm trying to say is, one's roots / early days and even teachers tend to shape one's  thinking and trying to talk through differences can actually bring you closer together ?

[Elena020118]

4/ apolitical - because they genuinely feel that there is NOTHING they can do to change their countty's system and THAT is exactly what VVP wanted...  They know that from the top down the system is corrupt.. ( including the Police and legal system) and the way the system is set up almost impossible to fight if one falls foul of it. They just want to get on with their lives. - feeling that life is better than the late 80's and early nineties.

5/ Those that would like a more open political system - but the state ensures that new parties, new opponents cannot meet in the places they want and get only negative publicity - leaders with the potential to be a 'problem' ( win a sizeable vote) are  found guilty of corrupt practices and excluded from the (official) political arena

So true. I suppose 4 is quite popular among my fellows. No way you can change the whole system.
I had gone through some issues with court and no justice there also they would delay court sessions in order that changes in law would take place and therefore the opponent would get away with it. My lawyer told me I should have written a letter to some supreme instance in case I suspected them in delaying sessions on purpose. I hope I will never ever have to deal with that anymore. Is't worth wasted time and nerves.

And it is definitely 4 rather than 2 speaking of categories.

For once, I agree with you ( in their outlook ) and that's a problem for USA'ians to put right ...    Right know, more women want Europe or the Antipodes
 

they say "The place is best of all where we haven't been at all"


I think most women would agree with me that we would prefer stable political situation, peace, respectful attitude and just to be sure that our family members are safe and sound, financially secure, and the future of our children is also safe and full of happiness. As for me those are the key factors, but you never know. Europe does seem attractive, but I am sure they have their own issues. Btw any news from Australia? What have they got? Does anything ever happen over there?

And what about cutting gas to Ukraine?  Same argument, same rationales.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-steals-gas-owned-by-eu-says-russia-1223061.html

"Russia's gas export monopoly Gazprom accused Ukraine of stealing gas in transit."

even though, as far as I remember Ukraine used to have some benefits in terms of price

Everything that is against you opinion is propaganda. Rusophobia

A list of civilized countries over here, please.

 :thumbs up:

[Boethius]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-steals-gas-owned-by-eu-says-russia-1223061.html

"Russia's gas export monopoly Gazprom accused Ukraine of stealing gas in transit."

even though, as far as I remember Ukraine used to have some benefits in terms of price

Were you familiar with my posts, you would be aware that I know of Ukrainian politicians' theft of gas.  I've named many of them in the past, and have stated that this has been an issue pretty much since 1992.  But, there are two issues here.  One is theft of gas in transit.  That stopped, actually, because it was monitored by both Russia and the EU, so gas could no longer be stolen.  Ukraine was paid transit fees for that gas.  Russia stopped that, and it was not because of theft (though that was the justification).  It was to punish Ukraine for seeking closer EU ties.

I was not referring to the transit gas issue.  I was referring to Russia's refusal to honour its contract to sell Ukraine gas for domestic consumption.  Ukraine ended up going to an EU supplier.  Naftogaz, whose contract Gazprom broke, was based on volumes of gas purchased.  Gazprom lodged a complaint in an international tribunal in 2014, and lost that case last year -

http://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-wins-battle-with-gazprom-in-contract-clash/a-39101679

The point I was making, though, was that the electricity was cut for the same reasons - political, and that is objectively true.

:thumbs up:

Ludmila didn't list the countries that have not invaded other countries in the 21st century, as I requested she do.  However, as you gave her a thumbs up, I'll note my country (Canada) has never invaded another nation. Germany  has never invaded another country in the 21st century.  Japan has not invaded another country in the 21st century.  Should I go on?

My country has a strong separatist movement.  It was dealt with by laws, not by Canadian troops invading Quebec.

[BillyB]

I'll note my country (Canada) has never invaded another nation.

Canada had operations in Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria all in the 21st century. I wouldn't call it invasion but we have to understand, some people will. Canada has troops in Ukraine. Some people feel they're not invited and helping the rebel Fascists.

[Boethius]

invasion (verb) to enter a country by force in order to take possession of it:


Russia's invasion of Crimea fits this definition.  The 2003 invasion of Iraq fits this definition.  Canada refused to take part in the invasion of Iraq.  Its current role there is to train Iraqi troops.

[BillyB]

invasion (verb) to enter a country by force in order to take possession of it:


Russia's invasion of Crimea fits this definition.  The 2003 invasion of Iraq fits this definition.  Canada refused to take part in the invasion of Iraq.  Its current role there is to train Iraqi troops.

Some people don't believe Russia invaded Crimea and Crimeans voted to be part of Russia. Some people believe Canada is in Iraq and other countries to take them over by installing Western friendly puppet presidents so they believe Canada invaded in order to control those nations. I'm not one of those people but there is another reality out there people live in. Just got to understand where they're coming from even if it doesn't make sense to us.

[Gator]

invasion (verb) to enter a country by force in order to take possession of it:


Russia's invasion of Crimea fits this definition.  The 2003 invasion of Iraq fits this definition.  Canada refused to take part in the invasion of Iraq.  Its current role there is to train Iraqi troops.

The operative word is "possession."  Please show me evidence where the US intended to possess Iraq, or even its oil.  You are too smart to overlook this fact.   

[Gator]

Yes, she can find them and even marry and move to the west.

However, the marriage is unlikely to be successful when it starts to sink in to the western guy the feelings, beliefs and interpretations she has about Russia's past and current actions on the world stage.

So she would be setting herself up for big heartache down the road.
And it won't be successful (over time) for her to try to hide her feelings and beliefs.

Feelings of RW in America:

Political Fellings - The RW I know who have decided to make America their home know, confess and lament the fact that the Russian government is corrupt.  They will even state how Russia with its people and natural resources would today be a great economy  if not for its corrupt governement.  For peace in the family, we do not have deep discussions about it.  And why should we - we all agree.

Social and Cultural Feelings - These same RW are so inculcated from birth in Russian culture, that they will forever believe many parts of Russian culture are better than what America offers.  For example, last night my wife and I saw "Swan" Lake performed by the Moscow Ballet Festival associated with the Bolshoi.  As soon as the music started, she swooned and remarked how she grew up with this music, this art form.  I thought it amazing; my wife thought she was in heaven.  She still talks about it today.   I can not think of anything comparable for an AW, other than attending a family reunion and meeting dear family whom she has not seen for a long time.  It is her and I do not want her to lose that part of her soul. 

[ML]

Feelings of RW in America:

Political Feelings - The RW I know who have decided to make America their home know, confess and lament the fact that the Russian government is corrupt.  They will even state how Russia with its people and natural resources would today be a great economy  if not for its corrupt governement.  For peace in the family, we do not have deep discussions about it.  And why should we - we all agree.

Social and Cultural Feelings - These same RW are so inculcated from birth in Russian culture, that they will forever believe many parts of Russian culture are better than what America offers.  For example, last night my wife and I saw "Swan" Lake performed by the Moscow Ballet Festival associated with the Bolshoi.  As soon as the music started, she swooned and remarked how she grew up with this music, this art form.  I thought it amazing; my wife thought she was in heaven.  She still talks about it today.   I can not think of anything comparable for an AW, other than attending a family reunion and meeting dear family whom she has not seen for a long time.  It is her and I do not want her to lose that part of her soul.

If your first part were true . . . there would be little or no problems.

However, as you can read from some RW here . . . the first part is NOT true for them.
They are the ones that will suffer (eventually) heartaches for themselves and their men.

As for the second part, that would cause little problem . . . if it were not forcefully thrown up often.

[Boethius]

The operative word is "possession."  Please show me evidence where the US intended to possess Iraq, or even its oil.  You are too smart to overlook this fact.

Were Iraq not sitting on huge oil reserves,  it never would have been invaded.

The neoconservative architects of the invasion of Iraq, who authored the Project for a New American Century, and pushed for its invasion, did so to benefit from Iraqi oil.  Of course, the invasion was not the cake walk they assumed it would be.  Still, many of them, most notably Richard Perle (who is reported to have said Americans would benefit from Iraqi oil), were and some still are, involved in the extraction of Iraqi oil. 

[BillyB]

If Iraq was not sitting on huge oil reserves,  it never would have been invaded.

America went into Iraq to free Kuwait, not to steal oil. America left leaving Saddam to remain in power. Saddam repeatedly violated UN Resolutions and every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam was pursing WMD's. America didn't get a drop of Iraqi oil and the war cost us money so the getting rich scheme is just a theory.

[SANDRO43]

Saddam repeatedly violated UN Resolutions and every intelligence agency in the world said Saddam was pursing WMD's.

Billy, despite any evidence to the contrary that surfaced later, YOU still believe in that WMD nonsense ? You are really hopeless .

[Gator]

If your first part were true . . . there would be little or no problems.

However, as you can read from some RW here . . . the first part is NOT true for them.
They are the ones that will suffer (eventually) heartaches for themselves and their men.

A forum persona is not a true personality, especially when the exchanges become contentious.  RW tend to stand their ground when challenged, even if wrong.  On a forum with no personal relationships, they are not shy about dishing out some bullshit.   

As for the second part, that would cause little problem . . . if it were not forcefully thrown up often.

Sarcasm is a good foil.

[Boethius]

A forum persona is not a true personality, especially when the exchanges become contentious.  RW tend to stand their ground when challenged, even if wrong.  On a forum with no personal relationships, they are not shy about dishing out some bullshit.   

I think Elena made clear she is a Russian nationalist.  Nothing wrong with that, unless one is too blind to, or refuses to address, outright lies.

[Gator]

If Iraq was not sitting on huge oil reserves,  it never would have been invaded.

I don't know, and neither do you.   There was no oil in Afghanistan.  Go through the list and work backwards:   Granada....Panama..... 

The neoconservative architects of the invasion of Iraq, who authored the Project for a New American Century, and pushed for its invasion, did so to benefit from Iraqi oil.

Speaking of bullshit from someone with Slavic genes....The invasion had many objectives.  World opinion would have gone bonkers if the Brits and Yanks had kept the oil, regardless of Trump saying we should keep the oil.   

Of course, the invasion was not the cake walk they assumed it would be. 

No, the invasion was indeed a cake walk as told to me by one of my son's friends who was a Marine grunt in the leading column.  The decisions made afterwards were disastrous.  The hard part was finding the WMD.   I guess we stopped looking a long time ago. 

Still, many of them, most notably Richard Perle (who is reported to have said Americans would benefit from Iraqi oil), were and some still are, involved in the extraction of Iraqi oil.

Don't know him.  Having a contract to produce oil is not the same as keeping the revenue from selling the produced oil.  We maybe should have diverted some of the oil revenue to repay part of the trillions we spent. 

Bottom Line:  Your claim is false.  We were in complete control to take oil, yet we did not take the oil.  Instead, of benefiting, we wasted trillions in attempting to stabilize the post-invasion Iraq.    We did not keep the oil in Kuwait either.