Vladimir Putin................

[o_uber]

Whenever someone says there's something wrong with a person, it's all so typical of far leftists to spin that in to satirically (and erroneously) mimicing them with something like "Oh we ought to attack their country!"

Anyway, here's an opinion piece I saw in my local newspaper the other day:

Originally Posted by Charles Krauthammer

Russia stepping forward on world stage

Vladimir Putin -- Russia's president, although the more accurate title would be godfather -- made headlines recently with a speech in Munich that set a new standard in anti-Americanism. He not only charged the United States with the "hyper-use of force,"disdain for the basic principles of international law" and having "overstepped its national borders in ... the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations." He even blamed the spread of weapons of mass destruction, which the United States has been combating with few allies and against constant Russian resistance, on American "dominance" that "inevitably encourages" other countries to defensively acquire them.

There is something amusing about criticism of the use of force by the man who turned Chechnya into a smoldering ruin; about the invocation of international law by the man who will not allow Scotland Yard to interrogate the polonium-soaked thugs it suspects of murdering Alexander Litvinenko, yet another Putin opponent to meet an untimely and unprosecuted death; about the bullying of other countries decried by a man who cuts off energy supplies to Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus in brazen acts of political and economic extortion.

Less amusing is the greater meaning of Putin's Munich speech. It marks Russia's coming out. Flush with oil and gas revenues, the consolidation of dictatorial authority at home and the capitulation of both domestic and Western companies to his seizure of their assets, Putin issued his boldest declaration yet that post-Soviet Russia is preparing to reassert itself on the world stage.

Perhaps the most important line in his speech was the least noted because it seemed so innocuous. "I very often hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs," he said. "It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so."

Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko once boasted that no conflict anywhere on the globe could be settled without taking into account the attitude and interests of the Soviet Union. Gromyko's description of Soviet influence constitutes the best definition ever formulated of the term superpower.

And we know how Putin, who has called the demise of the Soviet Union the greatest political catastrophe of the 20th century, yearns for those superpower days. At Munich, he could not even disguise his Cold War nostalgia, asserting that "global security" in those days was ensured by the "strategic potential of two superpowers."

Putin's bitter complaint is that today there remains only one superpower, the behemoth that dominates a "unipolar world." He knows that Moscow lacks the economic, military and even demographic means to challenge America as in Soviet days. He speaks more modestly of coalitions of aggrieved have-not countries that Russia might lead in countering American power.

Hence his increasingly active foreign policy -- military partnerships with China, nuclear cooperation with Iran, weapon supplies to Syria and Venezuela, diplomatic support as well as arms for a genocidal Sudan, friendly outreach to other potential partners of an anti-hegemonic (read: anti-American) alliance.

Is this a return to the Cold War? It is true that the ex-KGB agent occasionally lets slip a classic Marxist anachronism such as "foreign capital" (referring to Western oil companies) or the otherwise weird adjective "vulgar" (describing the actions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which infuriated Putin by insisting upon a clean election in Ukraine). He even intimated that he might undo one of the unequivocal achievements of the late Cold War era, the so-called "zero option" agreement of 1987, and restore a Soviet-style medium-range ballistic missile force.

Nonetheless, Putin's aggressiveness does not signal a return to the Cold War. He is too clever to be burdened by the absurdity of Socialist economics or Marxist politics. He is blissfully free of ideology, political philosophy and economic theory. There is no existential dispute with the United States.

He is a more modest man: a mere Mafia don, seizing the economic resources and political power of a country for himself and his mostly KGB cronies. And promoting his vision of the Russian national interest -- assertive and expansionist -- by engaging in diplomacy that challenges the dominant power in order to boost his own.

He wants Gromyko's influence -- or at least some international acknowledgment that Moscow must be reckoned with -- without the ideological baggage. He does not want to bury us; he only wants to diminish us. It is 19th-century power politics at its most crude and elemental. Putin does not want us as an enemy. But at Munich he told the world that vis-Ã*-vis America his Russia has gone from partner to adversary.

[o_skull]

I still don't know what you guys are talking about.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Skull, it's front page stuff. Read what you can (if you're interested) and reach your own conclusions. The resurrection or reinvention of the Hammer and Sickle seems in the works...has for a while.

[o_soundchaser]

For those that HATE or DISLIKE the United States listen to this.

If it wasn't for the United States in WWII coming in for the Big Win, we would ALL be speaking German right now under a facist government with absolutely NO INTERNET or cool games to play. Also Japan would OWN all Asian countries (including China) and would probably be a vicious super power today.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Originally Posted by soundchaser

For those that HATE or DISLIKE the United States listen to this.

If it wasn't for the United States in WWII coming in for the Big Win, we would ALL be speaking German right now under a facist government with absolutely NO INTERNET or cool games to play. Also Japan would OWN all Asian countries (including China) and would probably be a vicious super power today.

The US was late to get into that War officially SC. We were providing support for the British war effort but it was indirect. We even had military personnel that volunteered to serve with British units prior to any declaration of war by the US. We did not, however do it alone. We had the benefit of having a War Industry that was free to build without having facilities destroyed due to our tremendous distance from the front line.

[o_()))crayola))_>]

Originally Posted by soundchaser

For those that HATE or DISLIKE the United States listen to this.

If it wasn't for the United States in WWII coming in for the Big Win, we would ALL be speaking German right now under a facist government with absolutely NO INTERNET or cool games to play. Also Japan would OWN all Asian countries (including China) and would probably be a vicious super power today.

Yeah, it was all you guys. I mean, forget France, Britain, Canada, fuckin' anyone else involved. No really, I mean, we wouldn't have made it if you didn't watch us get bombed to shit for a couple years before realizing you might wanna help.

The US was significantly less important in the world wars than they'd like to think. In fact, their only real impact was in hindering Germany after WWI, and essentially forcing Germany and Hitler into WWII.

[o_soundchaser]

Originally Posted by ()))Crayola))_>

Yeah, it was all you guys. I mean, forget France, Britain, Canada, fuckin' anyone else involved. No really, I mean, we wouldn't have made it if you didn't watch us get bombed to shit for a couple years before realizing you might wanna help.

The US was significantly less important in the world wars than they'd like to think. In fact, their only real impact was in hindering Germany after WWI, and essentially forcing Germany and Hitler into WWII.

Oh..I forgot...the Canadian Mounties were all over that war like stink on shit....my bad.

You mention FRANCE??? hahahhaha...they got pwned hardcore. REMEMBER a little tiny maneuver called D-Day?? That was the U.S. and the Allied forces gang raping the Germans on French soil.
The French lost before the war began...HAHAHAHA

Don't forget the Aussies...they helped too.

The Brits kicked ass as usual cuz they speak the queens english and are anglo saxon like and w.a.s.p. like and just kick ass.

[o_uber]

Originally Posted by ()))Crayola))_>

Yeah, it was all you guys. I mean, forget France, Britain, Canada, fuckin' anyone else involved. No really, I mean, we wouldn't have made it if you didn't watch us get bombed to shit for a couple years before realizing you might wanna help.

The US was significantly less important in the world wars than they'd like to think. In fact, their only real impact was in hindering Germany after WWI, and essentially forcing Germany and Hitler into WWII.

Er, I don't think he said it was only the U.S. But to negate the U.S.'s influence in the war would be imprudent. But this is grossly off topic, anyway.

[o_()))crayola))_>]

Wow, you're a fucking idiot.

Look it up, Canada had a much bigger involvement than the US, especially in WWI. Canada executed some of the most successful missions of both wars, and many of Canada's soldiers were highly decorated. We were also among the first to allow blacks into our military. The only difference between us and you americans, is that we didn't decide to make a billion shitty movies about how it was all us and nobody else.

And yeah, if the US was right next to Germany and got blitzkrieged out of thin air, you'd be fucked to. It's easy to talk about how pathetic France is when you're literally an ocean away from all the action.

YOUR homes weren't being bombed in the night, YOUR citizens weren't at risk. You have no position at all to be mocking the country that was flattened in a year, completely obliterated, and then raped of its dignity by ignorant asshole americans such as your uneducated self.

EDITS: MY internet is slow as shit right now, so I apologize for all this discrepency.

This post was at Soundchaser.

@Uber: Anything to get the topic off Darken's bullshit is fine with me.

[o_heed]

The truth is that we were going to let the world settle it's own problems (remember laisse' faire?). Yes, we were supplying Britain before the war started, but it was on a limited scale. We didn't want to get dragged into another loss of life like the first world war (which the European powers did most of the oppression of Germany).

Then the war was dropped on our back doorstep. That's when we stepped in.

Everyone was doing a bang up job of fighting before we got in. Europe was lost all the way to Spain and Britain was spending all their time keeping thier planes in the air in the Battle of Britain, and nobody was even dealing with the Japanese Empire expansion.

Yes, it was a coalition effort, but the U.S. made victory possible. It was Eisenhower's logistic's genius that got all the war machines for everyone to fight with, and the American industrial machine that made most of it with Earth shattering production rates (e.g. 12,000 B-17s in three years!). This doesn't even count the brave men sent out to fight and hold off two different fronts.

Yes, it was a group effort, but you couldn't have done it without U.S.

[o_skull]

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

Skull, it's front page stuff. Read what you can (if you're interested) and reach your own conclusions. The resurrection or reinvention of the Hammer and Sickle seems in the works...has for a while.

Oh, this isn't good

[o_jinx]

Originally Posted by uBeR

Whenever someone says there's something wrong with a person, it's all so typical of far leftists to spin that in to satirically (and erroneously) mimicing them with something like "Oh we ought to attack their country!"

After we invaded Iraq, it's hard not to be a little sarcastic, Uber. And like you said, it is a satirical jest.

I think you misunderstood me, though. I wasn't suggesting that we should, or that the right wanted to, attack Russia or Iran. My point is that our diplomacy would be more effective if we had more of our military muscle free to back us up. We are stretched so thin at this point that countries like Iran, Russia, and North Korea may feel little need to back down from us. Rather than cow the world into submission by showing the US's military prowess, the invasion of Iraq has had quite the opposite effect. Our preoccupation with that country has "emboldened" other players on the world stage to stand up and rattle their sabres.

BTW, looks like the Brits are getting out of Iraq... :/

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Guys, if you want to fight about contributions to WW2 why not make your own thread. Uber's right...it's off-topic. So who thinks that the possible re-emergence of the Soviet Union is not a bad thing?

Jinx, you say we're stretched thin and I see the mainstream media saying the same thing. IIRC we have something like 133,000 troops there as opposed to the total number of active duty troops being like 1.2 million. Does that sound stretched thin?

[o_()))crayola))_>]

I don't care. Someone needs to stand up to the US and put them in their place.

Start flaming now.

[o_|404|innoc-tpf-]

Originally Posted by ()))Crayola))_>

I don't care. Someone needs to stand up to the US and put them in their place.

Start flaming now.

Please make your own thread.

[o_soundchaser]

Originally Posted by ()))Crayola))_>

Look it up, Canada had a much bigger involvement than the US, especially in WWI. Canada executed some of the most successful missions of both wars, and many of Canada's soldiers were highly decorated. We were also among the first to allow blacks into our military. The only difference between us and you americans, is that we didn't decide to make a billion shitty movies about how it was all us and nobody else.

And yeah, if the US was right next to Germany and got blitzkrieged out of thin air, you'd be fucked to. It's easy to talk about how pathetic France is when you're literally an ocean away from all the action.

YOUR homes weren't being bombed in the night, YOUR citizens weren't at risk. You have no position at all to be mocking the country that was flattened in a year, completely obliterated, and then raped of its dignity by ignorant asshole americans such as your uneducated self.

EDITS: MY internet is slow as shit right now, so I apologize for all this discrepency.

This post was at Soundchaser.

@Uber: Anything to get the topic off Darken's bullshit is fine with me.

lies
<--- Yea.. I can see those Canadians taking on any country with those cute hats with the fuzzy cute ball on top. Scares the hell out of me.

Originally Posted by ()))Crayola))_>

Wow, you're a fucking idiot.

HAHAHAHAHA...truth hurts eh?

[o_()))crayola))_>]

Hey jackass, you asked this

'So who thinks that the possible re-emergence of the Soviet Union is not a bad thing?'

And I gave you my reply. Don't bitch when you get what you ask for.

EDIT: This at Innoc

And Soundchaser, you're doing a great job of living up to my portrayal of you as an idiot.

[o_backstaber]

In most respects, the French played a major role in World War Two despite being defeated early in the war due to their incompetent military commanders that got a lot of their own men killed and in addition to the new Blitzkrieg tactics employed by the Germans. The French are the ones who fought the hardest in the opening months of the war, and even after defeat, they still fought in the French Underground. They were the ones who damaged railroads and supply depots used by the Germans hindering their effort to fight the war, especially after we landed on D-Day.

Then it was the French themselves that took back their capital when much of the population rose up against the Nazi oppressors. They are fortunate though that Allied divisions which included some French outfits arrived in time to prevent a German counterattack.

Every country played a significant role in World War Two, all just aren't recognized as much. But to diminish one would hurt the Allied effort severely, and you cannot doubt that in fact that if the United States had not entered the war at it's crucial timing that the allies would quite possibly lost the war.

As for World War One, I will say that if the United States didn't enter with it's fresh troops that the war would have lasted longer then it actually did, only furthering the devastation of Western Europe.

[o_jinx]

Originally Posted by |404|Innoc-TPF-

Jinx, you say we're stretched thin and I see the mainstream media saying the same thing. IIRC we have something like 133,000 troops there as opposed to the total number of active duty troops being like 1.2 million. Does that sound stretched thin?

Actually, yeah. Here's a report on the issue from those left-wingers at FOX News:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,240821,00.html

Currently, about 507,000 soldiers are on active duty in the U.S Army and 180,000 Marines are in active service. The U.S. military has 520,000 National Guard and reservists. According to reports, all but 90,000 of these part-time soldiers have been mobilized at least once since Sept. 11, 2001, and current guidelines say they cannot be redeployed yet.

So when you say "1.2 million" you have to remember that a big chunk of those are reserve and national guard. Plus the fact that we have military bases in the US and all over the world that need manned.

[o_yomamashouse]

Wait, I haven't been reading anything on this but this is what i could make from this thread. The USSR is mad because the US is making it impossible to launch nuclear warheads from country to country?