CIA sabotaged Soviet Union in 1982

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanS
One question that I have is whether similar actions are justified against current enemies.

Why would you imagine they wouldn't be?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by DanS
One question that I have is whether similar actions are justified against current enemies. For instance, is it OK to sabotage the technology that the Iranians and North Koreans either buy or steal?

Well, sabotage that kills human life is terrorism. If you use terrorist tactics, then you will be exposed to it. Wait... doesn't that ring a bell?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
"My claim was simply: the USSR had no global, world conquest strategy."

Oh dear........ You know, with an education like that, I'm surprised the West didn't fall. Kudos to you FB. On top of it all as always.

As always, you prove your idiocy. That's what happens when you learn your history in Reader's Digest.

[Harry Tuttle]

Yay! It's opposite day!

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
USSR was not a threat

Was to them. Of course it ain't imperialism if its close to home .

And do you think America was lifting a single finger for the populations of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania? No, it was not.
I said that the USSR was not a major threat to America, as they fully acknowledged that America's sphere of influence was not their own. Don't you know that both England and America agreed, after WW2, to let EE fall to the USSR? That's how it worked: countries liberated by the Allies became capitalist, countries liberated by the USSR became communist. The USSR didn't have any strong intent to bring Communism elsewhere.

So? It ain't imperialism, when they've stopped aiming for more. They got EE, and then they shut up.

So you are mad because the US was more successful than the Soviets in installing its own loyal governments around the world?

Both, when successful, were equally tyrannic. When you look at what the US did to Chile, Indonesia, Vietnam and Nicaragua, you can only recognize that it wasn't any better than what the USSR did to EE.

What pisses me off, however, is to see FVCKING ignorants who think the USSR had some plan of world conquest. That's false. They were happy with EE, and, in fact, it is America that worked hard to bring capitalism everywhere (i.e, opening up the natural resources for their corporation).
USSR's strategy was passive: support the communist guerillas for the facade only. For instance, the Soviet Union never came close to do the effort that was done by the US in Chile or Nicaragua. Even Castro won the war by himself: he started to receive help from the USSR a full year after his coup.

Africa? Does Angola ring a bell at all? And it wasn't like the Commies didn't help back socialists in Chile and Nicaragua. Oh wait... I guess they did. That whole Comintern thing and backing of foriegn communists doesn't exactly make your claim seem very truthful .

Yes they DID. Because it was required by prestige. But they didn't really give a FVCK. USSR never sent agents to Chile FIVE YEARS in advance to prepare a coup. The help they gave to the Sandinists was minimal, not because they couldn't do better, but because they didn't really care about South America, which was outside of their 'sphere'.

And about Angola: why is it that it was the only 'successful' communist coup, even though Communism had huge popular support in the whole of Africa? Because, again, the USSR had no diamond mines to protect. America, Britain and France had, and they made sure decolonization would not fvck capitalism up.

Infiltrating a great amount of another country's government agencies is bit more than the normal course.

Well, their tactics were on part with America.

[Harry Tuttle]

Sumbody needs a nap...

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by DanS
One question that I have is whether similar actions are justified against current enemies. For instance, is it OK to sabotage the technology that the Iranians and North Koreans either buy or steal?

If it's been approved, and done above-board, no.

If it's something they're trying to acquire underhandedly, then yes, absolutely.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They were happy with EE

So, I'm guessing Afghanistan has been relocated to Eastern Europe?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

They were happy with EE

So, I'm guessing Afghanistan has been relocated to Eastern Europe?

Yeah, I knew you would bring this up. Well, I think the point was to get access to the sea. The country was insignificant, and it was adjacent, so I guess the USSR thought it was 'theirs'. Just like they recognized Latin America to be the US' playground, they expected to be left alone in Afghanistan (esp. because the West had absolutely no economic interests there).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, I knew you would bring this up. Well, I think the point was to get access to the sea. The country was insignificant, and it was adjacent, so I guess the USSR thought it was 'theirs'. Just like they recognized Latin America to be the US' playground, they expected to be left alone in Afghanistan

So what else did they think was 'theirs'? Did they think Cuba was part of US's playground before or after they backed Castro's revolution? And taking Afghanistan doesn't give anyone access to the sea .

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Yeah, I knew you would bring this up. Well, I think the point was to get access to the sea. The country was insignificant, and it was adjacent, so I guess the USSR thought it was 'theirs'. Just like they recognized Latin America to be the US' playground, they expected to be left alone in Afghanistan (esp. because the West had absolutely no economic interests there).

Yes, for fresh fish. Obviously.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So what else did they think was 'theirs'? Did they think Cuba was part of US's playground before or after they backed Castro's revolution? And taking Afghanistan doesn't give anyone access to the sea .

Yeah, my bad for Afghanistan. Sincerely, I've never read anything serious about it, so I'm at a loss on this one.

As for Cuba, they didn't back Castro until he rose to power- which tells a lot about their real intent. When they saw he was successful, they jumped on the opportunity, but they didn't create it in the first place.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Yeah, my bad for Afghanistan. Sincerely, I've never read anything serious about it, so I'm at a loss on this one.

So how can you make such extravagant statements about Soviet intent? You just said that you have never read anything serious about the war.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


So how can you make such extravagant statements about Soviet intent? You just said that you have never read anything serious about the war.

About Soviet Union and AFGHANISTAN- the rest is common knowledge, any Soviet Politics 101 course will teach you this.

The age of Soviet imperialism ended in 1922.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As for Cuba, they didn't back Castro until he rose to power- which tells a lot about their real intent. When they saw he was successful, they jumped on the opportunity

Yeah, he satisfied their ends of expanding their influence. They didn't back him before because he could have lost. When he won, it was safe to declare support.