what happened to the großrossiya thread

[Dauphin]

NATO? How many NATO countries contributed soldiers?

[Bereta_Eder]

Yeah, but he was talking about ALL NATO in his speech. And that's what ALL participating NATO soldiers did in Vietnam. So, while he didn't personally do ALL of it, ALL of it was done by "defensive" NATO in Vietnam. And it wasn't the only "defensive" NATO operation.

My point was that Russians are not stupid to believe that NATO is a "defensive" military alliance. Especially when NATO is THE most offensive military alliance in entire Earth, by far.

NATO was not in vietnam. The one killing children who were fighting for a more prosperous future where american murderers as always.

And that's why they are called "murderers of peoples"

[rah]

I didn't know that Vietnam was a NATO exercise. Which NATO country did the North Vietnamese attack?

x-post

[Bereta_Eder]

John Kerry tells to Russian people

http://sputniknews.com/military/20161004/1045983676/kerry-nato-russia.html

What John Kerry told he personally did to Vietnamese people
http://patriotpost.us/pages/210

****ing hell. Is that the same kerry that's now foreign minister?





gotta be glad for poly.
You always learn something

[Bereta_Eder]

Don't be ****ing stupid. The Russian military today is a shadow of what it was during the Cold War.

That's not stupid.
That's a reality.

Russia's sphere of influence if you will, well and firmly expands to its former satellites.

America is certified to bomb some tiny nations with no army and will probably crap its pants in the sight of russian determination. She will probably launch nukes because it's so ****ing stupid and murderous as its internal violence demonstrates everyday.

The baltics are gone, so is poland and nearly everyone else.

The only time there was (ok two times) a european war with russia it ended in the capitals of said countries be that berlin or paris.

[Proteus_MST]

...

The only time there was (ok two times) a european war with russia it ended in the capitals of said countries be that berlin or paris.

Uhm ... you shouldn't forget that in both cases it wasn't europe united against russia, but rather an attack by a country, that was at war with other european countries as well.
While the french surely lost their grande armeé in russia, I doubt that the war would have ended in Paris, if france had been at peace with the other european countries (like prussia, austria and the UK). More likely it would have ended with some formal declaration of peace and keeping intact of the borders (and Napoleon remaining n power)

Likewise, had nazi germany been at peace with the other countries (like UK) and hadn't the USA massively supported russia with their lend-lease-pact, the war against russia might have turned out desastrous for russia (germany might have been capable of putting more forces inbto the war against russia (not needing fighters against britain or a german korps inb Africa) and russias logistic capabilities and capabilities to build tanks would have been severely decreased)

[The Mad Monk]

Let's see. "Credibility of statement" can't apply because i used official video, so it's not my credibility. And basic logical reasoning about shadows is, again, not my invention either.
Practical reasoning. Again, there is nothing wrong with my reasoning, and if there is something practically wrong, it should be easy to argue without Ad hominem - after all, shadows are common sense and some geometry, school level stuff that everyone knows. So every single capable person on earth with a school education is good enough for reasoning about shadows, you included (hopefully).

So, what's left? Moral reasoning about shadows? I'm not morally superior enough to reason about wrong shadows? That's your argument?

You are, quite literally, incredible.

[Ellestar]

****ing hell. Is that the same kerry that's now foreign minister?





gotta be glad for poly.
You always learn something

Seems so.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Kerry

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/25/hughes.kerry.vietnam/

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4772030/ns/meet_the_press/t/transcript-april/

GUEST: Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, presidential candidate
MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert, NBC News

I guess USA thinks a person like that fits USA foreign policy the best. So they made him a foreign minister.

[Ellestar]

Uhm ... you shouldn't forget that in both cases it wasn't europe united against russia, but rather an attack by a country, that was at war with other european countries as well.
While the french surely lost their grande armeé in russia, I doubt that the war would have ended in Paris, if france had been at peace with the other european countries (like prussia, austria and the UK). More likely it would have ended with some formal declaration of peace and keeping intact of the borders (and Napoleon remaining n power)

Likewise, had nazi germany been at peace with the other countries (like UK) and hadn't the USA massively supported russia with their lend-lease-pact, the war against russia might have turned out desastrous for russia (germany might have been capable of putting more forces inbto the war against russia (not needing fighters against britain or a german korps inb Africa) and russias logistic capabilities and capabilities to build tanks would have been severely decreased)

Yup. Do you remember Might and Magic: World of Xeen? Your post reminded me of that Sheltem phrase:

http://lparchive.org/Might-Magic-World-of-Xeen/Update%2093/

Sheltem; -Admit your defeat, Corak!
Corak: - I do. Iniciate self-destruct. Code 0-0-1.
Sheltem: - What? No! Noo...

That's why if you'll start WW3 we'll just nuke you. There is no practical way for Russia to fight WW3 without nuking NATO. Actually, USA will be nuked first, together with all hard-to-access NATO and allies (UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Oman etc). We can't reasonably assume that we can fight a conventional war against them in any reasonable timeframe. So that's a 100% nuke targets at the start of the war, there is no other way no matter what. I guess Europe can be spared... For like 15 minutes, until you'll respond with a nuclear launch back at us, and then we'll nuke the rest of NATO+allies.

So in your place i wouldn't be so happy about it.

[Aeson]

I guess USA thinks a person like that fits USA foreign policy the best. So they made him a foreign minister.

As usual, you seem to have little to no comprehension of the context of the text you are quoting. There's some good reasons to go after Kerry IMO (like his stance on Syria), but his opposition to the Vietnam War is a very weird one to pick given your perspective.

[Proteus_MST]

Yup. Do you remember Might and Magic: World of Xeen? Your post reminded me of that Sheltem phrase:
http://lparchive.org/Might-Magic-Wor...n/Update%2093/

That's why if you'll start WW3 we'll just nuke you. There is no practical way for Russia to fight WW3 without nuking NATO. Actually, USA will be nuked first, together with all hard-to-access NATO and allies (UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Oman etc). We can't reasonably assume that we can fight a conventional war against them in any reasonable timeframe. So that's a 100% nuke targets at the start of the war, there is no other way no matter what. I guess Europe can be spared... For like 15 minutes, until you'll respond with a nuclear launch back at us, and then we'll nuke the rest of NATO+allies.

So in your place i wouldn't be so happy about it.

You, of course also shouldn't be happy with such a scenario ... as it wouldn't only be mad, but also MAD

And very likely i would end with an islamist stone age, as in the aftermath there would neither be european countries, nor the USA who would be able to prevent them from seizing power in the nuclear wastelan ds that had been europe, russia or the USA.

On the other hand it seems to me like neither the NATO countries nor Russia are crazy enough to disregard the MAD-principle.
Else russia already had taken Ukraina by force in an open war and Europe probably would have reacted ... and we already would live in a conventional WW3 scenario

[Ellestar]

And very likely i would end with an islamist stone age, as in the aftermath there would neither be european countries, nor the USA who would be able to prevent them from seizing power in the nuclear wastelan ds that had been europe, russia or the USA.

Actually, India is a likely future superpower in that scenario. They're unlikely to be nuked by either side, they're neutral and they have good relations with both sides. Islamists like ISIS, not so much. Logic tells that Russia should nuke them too in case of a nuclear exchange so to have any chances that whatever is left of Russia will be able to survive (unlikely, but in that scenario you're doing whatever increases your chances, and that includes getting rid of all enemies). Islamists are just too close to Russia.

On the other hand it seems to me like neither the NATO countries nor Russia are crazy enough to disregard the MAD-principle.
Else russia already had taken Ukraina by force in an open war and Europe probably would have reacted ... and we already would live in a conventional WW3 scenario

Please... Spare me from this propaganda. It's not like EU protected Yemen from Saudi Arabia, for example. And EU participated in the annihilation of Libya. Let's not forget that future key EU members betrayed multiple obligations to defend other countries and fed Hitler in a much less apocalyptic scenario than MAD. So, no. Not only you wouldn't risk fighting a WW3 over some random country, you're not morally above militarily destroying other countries by yourself either.

There is a simple responsibility principle here. "You took it, you keep it." YOU destroyed government of Libya and made things 100 times worse, so now it's YOUR responsibility. Ok, let's say EU made a mistake. Did EU fix the situation? No. EU destroyed Lybia and left it like it's meant to be that way. Hence, EU is evil aggressor. Simple as that. So your attempts to portray EU as a good side are laughable.

[Ellestar]

As usual, you seem to have little to no comprehension of the context of the text you are quoting. There's some good reasons to go after Kerry IMO (like his stance on Syria), but his opposition to the Vietnam War is a very weird one to pick given your perspective.

How it matters? USA plans to attack Vietnam again, and Kerry will stop it?

His stance on Vietnam doesn't matter. His stance on Syria matters. The fact that he admitted that he participated in war crimes matters. The fact that participant of war crimes is good enough to be a top diplomat in a "morally superior" USA also matters.

But most importantly, when someone like that tells to the people of Russian Federation that USA is not an aggressor and NATO is a "defensive" alliance, double facepalm is not enough.

[Aeson]

It matters because Vietnam was what you latched onto and were focusing on, and obviously didn't understand at all.

[Ellestar]

NATO was not in vietnam. The one killing children who were fighting for a more prosperous future where american murderers as always.

And that's why they are called "murderers of peoples"

Not as always but as usual. And it doesn't really matter because all members of NATO are a part of a military alliance. USA can do what it does ONLY because it's supported by the rest of the NATO. United NATO front against USA would have easily stopped all USA aggression with politics alone. So all of you are accomplices.