A new Cold War started in Vilnius

[Serb]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Come on though, even if you dont agree with him, you gotta hand it to Serb

The entire Western Coalition and even the Commie sympathizers are tag teaming him and that mother****er is still standing! He will never surrender!!

Russians don't surrender ('cause nobody hold them prisoners anyway).

Its that never give up attitude that saved us all from teh Fascists back in the day

Go Serb !

Thanks.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Saras


Seeing commies and righwingers teaming up in opposition, someone with a functioning brain would stop and rethink his views.

Blah...
1) I don't recall commies teaming up with righwingers in this thread.
2) Even if that's true, you are all Westerners for me - commies or not. You are a children of Western civilization, despite of your political views. And I believe you can't fully understand Russia. We are different. None is better or worse (despite what you may think about yourselves), just different.
3) I've already re-thinked my views about ten years ago. Before that I had exactly the views as you (Westerners) have. Then came knowledge, analysis and understanding.
4) Since you can't read me, my ex-friend, I think it's time for a little confession:
Saras, ya znal chto rano ili pozdno vse etim i konchitsya. I etogo opasalsya, i vsegda osterigalsya zatragivat bolnyue dlya tebya temy, tolko potomy, chto schital tebya drugom ( da i seychas schitayu). No, eto vse-taki proizoshlo, uvy, i ah.
I ponimayu, i UVAZHAYU tvoyu poziciyu. Esli by ya byl Litovcem, ya by imel takoi zhe vzglyad na istoriyu. No ya ne Litovec, ya - Russkii. I imeeyu svoe, sobstvennoe, otlichnoe ot tvoego, videnie veshei. Ty konechno mozhesh beskonechno dolgo govorit' o svoei psevdo-superiority i krichat' - "look Serb is a village fool, who doesn't accept the basics", no "let's face it" - ni odit iz nas NIKOGDA ne primet tochku zreniya drugogo. I dlya tebya, i dlya menya, eto bylo by predatelstvom. Ya eto ponimyau, i poetomu ne trebyuyu etogo ot tebya. Odnako ty, zakryvays, izvenyays za vyrazhenie, typyum lozungom "Serb - durak", trebuyesh etogo ot menya. Tak ne budet Saras. U kazhdogo iz nas est' svoya pravda. Neuzheli my obrecheny byt vragami iz-za nashih raznoglasii? Neuzheli nelzya kazhdomy ostatsya pri svoem mnenii otnositelno opredelennyh voprosov?

I ne hotel ssoritsya s toboy.

Ya ne znayu kak ty vosprimesh etot post, skoree vsego kak proyavlenie slabosti, esli tak to ty ne prav. Ya predlagayu tebe mir, no ne iz-za slabosti, a potmu, chto ne smotrya na vse nashi razlisiya, vse eshe, schitaytu tebya drugom.
Kroche, zaebal etot pafos. Ty bydesh miritsya ili net?

[Serb]

Somebody tell Saras to read my post. I really need his reply.

[Vince278]

I can't even read it.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Geronimo


Then why in your afghanistan thread do you claim that Karzai's government was not democractically elected? In the baltics you seem to claim it was impossible for the red army to influence the democractic process while in afghanistan you claim that the outcome of the democractic process was determined by the NATO occupiers.

What's the difference? Can occupiers force favorable election outcomes or not?

Since I promised, I had to reply. Sorry, Saras.

Of course the occupiers can force a favorable election outcomes.
As for this thread, I was asking how excatly and to what degree?
But, anyway, who are the occupiers?
From www.dictionary.com

an occupier-


1) To fill up (time or space): a lecture that occupied three hours.
2) To dwell or reside in.
3) To hold or fill (an office or position).
4) To seize possession of and maintain control over by or as if by conquest.
5) To engage or employ the attention or concentration of: occupied the children with coloring books.

Aside American invasion to Afghanistan and Iraq, Soviet forces enterd the Baltic States without a single shot. There was no any fighting. (actully, Soviet troops were welcomed with flowers. Yes, I know, today it's hard to believe. I can find some photos, if neccessary. Though, I fully realize it doesn't prove anything).
Furhtermore in case of Iraq, American invasion was a clear violation of the international law (UN charter), while Soviet enterance in the Baltic States has been approved by the local, LEGITIMATE governments of that time and nobody at that time had questioned Soviet prsence there (I mean the legal international institutions like the league of nations, 'cause opinions of individuals are pretty irrelevant. I myself can question the presence of US troops anywhere, but who cares?). The later elected governments of the Baltic states were recognized by the international community. The borders of the USSR (including the Baltic states) were recognized in Yalta (1945) and finally in Helsinki (1975, iirc).
The elections in the Baltic states were held within days/weeks since Sovites had crossed the border, while in Iraq and Afghanistan it took months/years for occupying forces to held an elections (to prepare the favorable outcome, I mean: bribing, shuting-up the competitors, installation of "proper" persons to "proper positions", brainwashing campaign, etc. It takes some time to get the proper result in a hostile enviroment, even with modern technologies).
You may say that governemts of Iraq and Afghanistan are also recognized by the internatinal community. And it's true, of course. I didn't say they aren't. My point was to show that enterance of the Baltic States into the USSR was "pretty legal and democratic" in 1939, in accordance with the international law of THAT time, thus it's legal now, 'cause todays' laws are powerless in regard to yestarday's situation. If tommorow you'll issue a law that forbid US bashing and posting of King George W. Bush's silly pictures by foreigners, you wouldn't be able to accuse me for doing so today). Furthermore, the enterance of the Baltic States into the USSR was by no means illegal, according to modern international law (anyone feel free to prove the otherwise).
And by no means it was an occupation, since the state of war had not been declared by any of the sides, the enterance of Soviet troops was apporved by legitimate governments of that time and enterance of the Baltic States into the USSR had been approved by the legitimate parliaments of that time.
The enterance of American troops into Iraq and Afghanistan was approved by nobody (except by US congress, perhaps. But it's no more legitimate then, say the decision of polytburo about legal occupation of USA/Canada/whatever).
In 1939 nobody questioned the outcome of the elections in the Baltic states and their new governments were recognized. Nowdays, the outcome of the elections in Georgia, Ukraine, Aghanistan and Iraq is not questioned by the world communityt either (with some exceptions, of course), but it doesn't mean those countries are not US puppets - they are. Everybody realize that, but still everything is God damn legal and of course democratic.
Karzai, who for a long time worked for the US company Unocal, and who spent most of its life time in the USA and whose family owns some serious property there, was at first appointed president by the concil of local Afghani elders. Their power is no more legitimate, according to modern standards, than the power of medieval Russian Boyare. Sure, he's been elected by the direct vote later, but that concil of old farts gave him enough power/time to appoint his people at key positions/rout out the opposition, etc. I mean, they gave him the opportunity to win the direct elections. The wives of both Georgian and Ukranian presidents are US citizens. The Ukranian one even worked for US administration for some time. One may call it a lucky accident, I call it strategy.
The annexion of Baltic states by the USSR was a hundred times more legal and democratic than that.
Could you imagine Irai or Afghani parliament voting for joining up the USA? They will revolt immidiently. But, there was no revolts in the Baltic States. Though many people there were allienated by Stalin policies later, and joined the nazi during the WW2, but there were no initial revolts or any resistance to enterance of the Soviet Army or protests to enterance of their states into the USSR.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Vince278
I can't even read it.

What's your problem, can't speak monkey language?

[DanS]

Russians placing themselves outside of Western civilization is ridiculous.

It makes me firmer in my belief that right now we need to claim all the countries that we can for the West.

[Serb]

And who said we are placing ourselves outside of the Western civilization?
Russia was always a mix of Europe and Asia. We are neither the West or the East, we are something in between. I don't know how about "outside of Western civilization", but Russia has traits of both Eastern and Western civilizations. Basically, Russia is the unique civilization, which combines the West and the East.
Yeah, go ahead, call me a nazi. But the truth is that Russia was and is a bridge between the East and the West. We were never a purely Eastern nor a purely Western, we were/are the Russians. It doesn't mean anything except, well, the geography and history, just look at map - the Russia is unique because of its location, nothing more. It's it location which formed the Russian civilization during the ages. We were doomed to be the bridge, to belong to both West and East and not to fully belong to any of them, at the same time.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Serb
What's your problem, can't speak monkey language?

It's not Russian?
I did understand one part :

Originally posted by Serb
"look Serb is a village fool, who doesn't accept the basics"

Russia's greatness should be self-evident. If you have to keep reminding us how great it is then it is not. If you need to make excuses for Russia's historical wrongs then there must be something to them. Russia will reach greatness when they can be an example for others to follow. (and even I believe they can do it given a chance ).

[Dinner]

As predicted the speech has amounted to nothing and will quickly be forgotten. So much for a new cold war.