Happy New Year!
Vladimir Makarenko
VM.
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
> everybody. Put on delay all problems - I did, drink some alcohol.
>
> VM.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99_c04gHC-M&feature=related
/P
Dmitry
Vladimir Makarenko
Thanks, haven't been there for ages.
VM.
Vladimir Makarenko
This is Dima exactly the place for you to visit if you come to NYC:
"Blue Note". Just make sure to reserve a seat in advance of couple of
weeks if you want to see some a Legend performing. AmEx card gives you
some privileges in booking but not really much.
Happy 2010!
VM.
Andrzej Adam Filip
> everybody. Put on delay all problems - I did, drink some alcohol.
>
> VM.
Some? Has it been sufficient?! ;-)
Happy New Year anyway :-)
--
[pl>en Andrew] Andrzej Adam Filip : an...@onet.eu : Andrze...@gmail.com
"Your attitude determines your attitude."
-- Zig Ziglar, self-improvement doofus
Vladimir Makarenko
> Vladimir Makarenko <vma...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>> everybody. Put on delay all problems - I did, drink some alcohol.
>>
>> VM.
>
> Some? Has it been sufficient?! ;-)
Still in a process of taking and registering experimental data: I am a
die hard experimentalist after all. I just hope not to wake up as broken
as the Infamous Collider.
> Happy New Year anyway :-)
And to you too.
VM.
>
daniloff
"Vladimir Makarenko" <vma...@nospamgmail.com> О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫/О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫ О©╫ О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫
О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫: news:reydnbeES8UPeaHW...@giganews.com...
> everybody. Put on delay all problems - I did, drink some alcohol.
I join in greetings.
О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫ О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫ О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫ О©╫ О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫ О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫.
>
> VM.
>
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Vladimir Makarenko
>
> "Vladimir Makarenko" <vma...@nospamgmail.com> О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫/О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫ О©╫
> О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫ О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫: news:reydnbeES8UPeaHW...@giganews.com...
>> everybody. Put on delay all problems - I did, drink some alcohol.
>
> I join in greetings.
> О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫ О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫ О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫ О©╫ О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫ О©╫О©╫О©╫О©╫.
I am in difference with Dima is a warsneak I do believe in the power of
guns (I am A Rooskie - no complains are accepted) - still hope for all
of us there will be much less blood in the Year to come.
Happy New Year to you and your siblings.
VM.
J. Anderson
Laimiigu Jauno gadu!
Laimingu nauju metu!
John
Dmitry
> daniloff wrote:
>
> > "Vladimir Makarenko" <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> ÓÏÏÂÝÉÌ/ÓÏÏÂÝÉÌÁ ×
> > ÎÏ×ÏÓÔÑÈ ÓÌÅÄÕÀÝÅÅ:news:reydnbeES8UPeaHW...@giganews.com...
> >> everybody. Put on delay all problems - I did, drink some alcohol.
>
> > I join in greetings.
>
> I am in difference with Dima is a warsneak I do believe in the power of
> guns (I am A Rooskie - no complains are accepted) - still hope for all
> of us there will be much less blood in the Year to come.
>
> Happy New Year to you and your siblings.
>
> VM.
I hope no more wars will be started in the next decade and the
existing ones will end soon -))
Happy and peaceful New Year to all!!!
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
I hope many more wars will be started where they are necessary. And
admit it, Dima -- I was right re Obama. And he will start at least a
couple, and he will be right (even if he is a less than mediocre
president). See the Nobel speech.
But Happy New Year anyhow!
/P
Dmitry
<cedr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 31 dec., 23:13, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 31 Dec, 18:31, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > daniloff wrote:
>
> > > > "Vladimir Makarenko" <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> ÓÏÏÂÝÉÌ/ÓÏÏÂÝÉÌÁ ×
> > > > ÎÏ×ÏÓÔÑÈ ÓÌÅÄÕÀÝÅÅ:news:reydnbeES8UPeaHW...@giganews.com...
> > > >> everybody. Put on delay all problems - I did, drink some alcohol.
>
> > > > I join in greetings.
> > > > ÷ÓÅÇÏ ÓÁÍÏÇÏ ÎÁÉÌÕÞÛÅÇÏ × îÏ×ÏÍ çÏÄÕ.
>
> > > I am in difference with Dima is a warsneak I do believe in the power of
> > > guns (I am A Rooskie - no complains are accepted) - still hope for all
> > > of us there will be much less blood in the Year to come.
>
> > > Happy New Year to you and your siblings.
>
> > > VM.
>
> > I hope no more wars will be started in the next decade and the
> > existing ones will end soon -))
> > Happy and peaceful New Year to all!!!
>
> I hope many more wars will be started where they are necessary.
What kind of wish is this? Wish you people more wars in the next
decade, because they are necessary?
> And
> admit it, Dima -- I was right re Obama.
Of course you were. I didn't expect Obama to end the Afghan war by
Dec 09 either.
> And he will start at least a
> couple,
I doubt it, but what countries do you think he will occupy?
> and he will be right (even if he is a less than mediocre
> president). See the Nobel speech.
I've heard some of it on radio, but not all of it. Which part are you
refering to?
>
> But Happy New Year anyhow!
I's more of a Sad New Year ((-
>
> /P
Anton
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99_c04gHC-M&feature=related
>> /P
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb83o2sZckQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOiN5TQhP2Q
Merry New Year everybody! :)
--
Anton
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On 31 Dec, 21:21, Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
>
>
>
> <cedr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 31 dec., 23:13, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > > On 31 Dec, 18:31, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > daniloff wrote:
>
> > > > > "Vladimir Makarenko" <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> ÓÏÏÂÝÉÌ/ÓÏÏÂÝÉÌÁ ×
> > > > > ÎÏ×ÏÓÔÑÈ ÓÌÅÄÕÀÝÅÅ:news:reydnbeES8UPeaHW...@giganews.com...
> > > > >> everybody. Put on delay all problems - I did, drink some alcohol.
>
> > > > > I join in greetings.
> > > > > ÷ÓÅÇÏ ÓÁÍÏÇÏ ÎÁÉÌÕÞÛÅÇÏ × îÏ×ÏÍ çÏÄÕ.
>
> > > > I am in difference with Dima is a warsneak I do believe in the power of
> > > > guns (I am A Rooskie - no complains are accepted) - still hope for all
> > > > of us there will be much less blood in the Year to come.
>
> > > > Happy New Year to you and your siblings.
>
> > > > VM.
>
> > > I hope no more wars will be started in the next decade and the
> > > existing ones will end soon -))
>
This is a viciously anti-American statement, Dmitry.
>
> > > Happy and peaceful New Year to all!!!
>
> > I hope many more wars will be started where they are necessary.
>
Spoken like a true American politician. You have a future in the
American politics.
>
> What kind of wish is this? Wish you people more wars in the next
> decade, because they are necessary?
>
Yes, it is the sacred duty of all Americans to spread peace and
democracy to countries with oil deposits and/or oil pipelines by
invading and killing them and destroying their infrastructure.
>
> > And
> > admit it, Dima -- I was right re Obama.
>
> Of course you were. I didn't expect Obama to end the Afghan war by
> Dec 09 either.
>
> > And he will start at least a
> > couple,
>
> I doubt it, but what countries do you think he will occupy?
>
> > and he will be right (even if he is a less than mediocre
> > president). See the Nobel speech.
>
> I've heard some of it on radio, but not all of it. Which part are you
> refering to?
>
The hip-hop song in the middle of the broadcast:
Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly,
We are Americans: we occupy!
And then the Tom Lehrer's "Send the Marines" march from the 1960s, as
relevant as ever, towards the end of the speech:
Fortunately in times of crisis just like this America always has this
number one instrument of diplomacy to fall back on. Here's a song
about it:
When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first -- send the Marines!
We'll send them all we've got,
John Wayne and Randolph Scott,
Remember those exciting fighting scenes?
To the shores of Tripoli,
But not too mississippily,
What do we do? We send the Marines!
For might makes right!
Until they've seen the light,
They've got to be protected,
All their rights respected,
'Till somebody we like can be elected.
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means.
Stop calling it aggression,
Oooh we hate that expression!
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go,
So when in doubt --
Send the Marines!
>
> > But Happy New Year anyhow!
>
> I's more of a Sad New Year ((-
>
There is always hope that the Iraq and Afghan disasters will effect
the US public opinion the way the Vietnam disaster did 40 years ago,
creating a decade-long distaste for more wars.
So, Happy New Year everybody!
anita
Anita
Vladimir Makarenko
> Wishing all of you the best in 2010...
>
> Anita
You are the only Lady around, who drops word from time to time.
You are very welcome, -and happy 2010 to you. Your every word is very
much valued.
VM.
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
Labrīt!
Here is the full text of the speech, Dmitry --
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRWjTDaT4JuS0nFj9APZAues8vjAD9CGFID00
Vysu lobu,
/P
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
>
> Vysu lobu,
> /P
If you want a paragraph I was referring to --
"I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens
are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose
their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester,
and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to
violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe
became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war
against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that
protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined,
neither America's interests — nor the world's — are served by the
denial of human aspirations."
And yeah, that's an American politician, a pretty good one. Unlike
Karlamov, I don't think that's an insult. I think most of Eastern
Europe far prefers America to its much more intimate big brother to
the east for very good reason, and always will.
/P
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Vladimir Makarenko
This is Petya just an idea, beautiful still just an idea. I do not
believe in miracles - one day we wake up and everybody out of blue start
to value civil society. (maybe in Finland). I am rather a New York or
Volgograd - we need trigger happy police. I came from a country which
for a while followed idealist path, we all know - especially Baltics (if
forget about us Russians), what was the end of the story.
So, yes this paragraph has to be taught to children in school but next
hour has to be given to a policeman explaining how bad is life in a prison.
This is why I am for Putin - one step a time, go slow. (Just fighting
hangover - but yesterday - it was such fun!)
VM.
Tadas Blinda
I certainly agree with your last line. And I agree that Obama is good
value.
However it was disturbing to watch something on TV recently where they
were asking Americans in the street what country USA should occupy
after it's finished with Iraq. The disturbing thing is that one after
another all the people questioned starting naming countries (mostly
Iran). None bothered to ask "Why do we necessarily have to invade
some other country?" (Admittedly, one or two respondents may have
said something like that and the footage on them may not have been
shown so as not to spoil the party. However, there are clearly a lot
of Americans-in-the -street quite comfortable with the idea of USA
being in perpetual invade-and-occupy mode. But again, if some big
brother is inevitably going to do it, then sure, better USA than
Russia or China.)
Tadas Blinda
Even nostalgia ain't what it used to be. :-)
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
Happy New Year again, Tadai, Vladimir, Dmitry, et al.,
I sure do miss this place!
Yeah, I agree with the above, Tadai. I started answering Vladimir's
post re an American sense of justice like so, then dropped it:
In re "the American thing" -- we've been through this before, Gospodin
Makarenko, and I don't think it holds water. Ideals (and myths, and
practical approaches) to justice (especially social justice) vary
dramatically by individual, experience, education, ideological
persuasion, generation, class, region, background, etc. I won't look
up the stats, but you're doubtless aware of the fact that very many
Americans don't know the Bill of Rights at all. Add that segment of
the population that think rights are a dandy thing but ought to be
severely limited at whim.
I grew up Latvian-American, which is rather different from
unhyphenated "American," in a period of educational experimentation;
we were required to take non-Western history in high school, for
example, and the US history textbooks were full of perspectives that
the US right would find offensive. I first went to Europe at age ten
and spent summers in Sweden and Germany from age 11; the most
influential political thought on my young brain was from a Latvian
Social Democrat, the late Vilnis Zaļkalns, in Sweden. In my teens, I
took a brief, immature excursion to the extreme left, arguing the
beauties of Fidel with my exceedingly pro-Baltic, right-wing history
teacher in American h.s. and helping a Trotskyist group plaster the
city with posters.
Experience is multifaceted and contradictory always, isn't it -- I
really didn't understand discrimination at all until I made friends
with a black guy, for instance, and I didn't think there was anti-
Semitism in the States (except among Eastern Europeans, khe) until I
had a Jewish girlfriend. Then there were the shit jobs. I had a lot of
those -- but being in the skin of the folks who will never have a
better job isn't possible. I'm never going to be a black Jewish
female, and I'm not condemned to a life of shit jobs.
I came to Latvia in 1991. Assuming some sort of political sentience
around puberty, the differences between me and a Latvian under the age
of 30 are far more subtle and complex than simply coming from the US
(and, of course, they're again generational -- people from *anywhere*
who're under 30 seem like different animals to me). I don't think
sweeping generalizations about nationality work. Experience matters
the most -- but a Riga yuppie educated in the West and regularly
spending time abroad is closer to me than he is to, say, an Old
Believer he grew up next to on a farm in the *rajons*.
...
I was pretty offended by Dmitry's comments re my response to 9/11.
Bear in mind that I opposed the invasion(s), explicitly so. I oppose
most of those opposed, too, though.
If to an average, Tadai -- and aren't you yourself in "Shit-cargo"
these days? -- haven't all of us given up on the ideals of
fantastically enlightened peoples going about their business?
If we talk about peace (and Pound's "rot in womanish peace" comes to
mind, khe), the points Obama makes are valid even though they can
actually be shot down rather easily. The idea of not invading anybody
sounds hunky-dory, but what about the people we committed to?
Before, I offered the individual view of Latvia -- if those British
and French ships hadn't helped us out in November 1919, we wouldn't be
here. Neither would most of you be.
If you're gonna be so gung-ho about peace at any price, go tell it to
some Afghan girl with acid thrown in her face, Dmitry.
Kindly remember that the US intervened in two European wars.
Karlamov's vile posing aside, I think most people recognize that the
liberation of Paris by Americans was unutterably different from the
Soviet "liberation" of anybody. And the US went on to win the Cold
War, no matter how you slice it, and to most people that's a *good*
thing.
Viso gero,
/P
Vladimir Makarenko
Petya, I am ready to sign up to every word above - but in the end of the
day I am a coward - with family history - if they don't kill your
siblings - Life is Good. And "They" were coming from all corners - Civil
War, famine, WWII, etc etc.
So I put on the top of everything a Right To Stay Alive.
In my book everything else comes as second.
Btw, you Have to watch this movie: Dog's Heart. Because it became a
cliche in Russian since the movie nobody dares to address somebody as
"Gospodin" - except on TV - "Vse godspoda kak izvestno v Parizhe". I am
just a hard working New Yorker.
>
> I grew up Latvian-American, which is rather different from
> unhyphenated "American," in a period of educational experimentation;
> we were required to take non-Western history in high school, for
> example, and the US history textbooks were full of perspectives that
> the US right would find offensive. I first went to Europe at age ten
> and spent summers in Sweden and Germany from age 11; the most
> influential political thought on my young brain was from a Latvian
> Social Democrat, the late Vilnis Zaļkalns, in Sweden. In my teens, I
> took a brief, immature excursion to the extreme left, arguing the
> beauties of Fidel with my exceedingly pro-Baltic, right-wing history
> teacher in American h.s. and helping a Trotskyist group plaster the
> city with posters.
I think Churchill said that if you were not an extremist in your young
years you worth nothing, you didn't really live.
My grandma was repeatedly telling me - you shut up or they will put you
in prison. Very wise woman. My good luck fortunes of Communists changed,
or I would be writing this from prison library at Kolyma.
>
> Experience is multifaceted and contradictory always, isn't it -- I
> really didn't understand discrimination at all until I made friends
> with a black guy, for instance, and I didn't think there was anti-
> Semitism in the States (except among Eastern Europeans, khe) until I
> had a Jewish girlfriend. Then there were the shit jobs. I had a lot of
> those -- but being in the skin of the folks who will never have a
> better job isn't possible. I'm never going to be a black Jewish
> female, and I'm not condemned to a life of shit jobs.
I understand this very well - born Russian I never knew how it is to be
Non Russian in Russia. The understanding came slowly, too slowly to say
the truth.
>
> I came to Latvia in 1991. Assuming some sort of political sentience
> around puberty, the differences between me and a Latvian under the age
> of 30 are far more subtle and complex than simply coming from the US
> (and, of course, they're again generational -- people from *anywhere*
> who're under 30 seem like different animals to me). I don't think
> sweeping generalizations about nationality work. Experience matters
> the most -- but a Riga yuppie educated in the West and regularly
> spending time abroad is closer to me than he is to, say, an Old
> Believer he grew up next to on a farm in the *rajons*.
But this is exactly what we have to do - to push the youngsters to go
abroad. Because when they locked in their close quarters they grow up
tribalists: and not that they stick to national culture, but skinheads.
>
> ...
>
> I was pretty offended by Dmitry's comments re my response to 9/11.
> Bear in mind that I opposed the invasion(s), explicitly so. I oppose
> most of those opposed, too, though.
>
> If to an average, Tadai -- and aren't you yourself in "Shit-cargo"
> these days? -- haven't all of us given up on the ideals of
> fantastically enlightened peoples going about their business?
This is a one million $$$ question. The question of course is where to
draw a line in the sand: "You can kill me but I will not step back
anymore". It is a personal choice.
>
> If we talk about peace (and Pound's "rot in womanish peace" comes to
> mind, khe), the points Obama makes are valid even though they can
> actually be shot down rather easily. The idea of not invading anybody
> sounds hunky-dory, but what about the people we committed to?
>
Here I agree - I am a trigger happy. But on the other hand I understand
Tadas - we lack culture and structure and rules: today everybody big in
size can explain in all right terms why it was a good idea to go to some
smaller country and beat shit out of it.
> Before, I offered the individual view of Latvia -- if those British
> and French ships hadn't helped us out in November 1919, we wouldn't be
> here. Neither would most of you be.
That is because Petya you are a pessimist. If not for these ships
something different would happen. One way or another Baltics grew up out
of Umbrella of the Empire - you would won your independence anyway.
>
> If you're gonna be so gung-ho about peace at any price, go tell it to
> some Afghan girl with acid thrown in her face, Dmitry.
>
Poor Dima, - everybody yells at him for peace mood, starting from Soviets.
> Kindly remember that the US intervened in two European wars.
> Karlamov's vile posing aside, I think most people recognize that the
> liberation of Paris by Americans was unutterably different from the
> Soviet "liberation" of anybody. And the US went on to win the Cold
> War, no matter how you slice it, and to most people that's a *good*
> thing.
The story as you said is very one sided - Americans and probably you
included do not know what Hatyn' means (do not confuse with Katyn').
So - yes, we brought hate and murder to Europe but it was a payback. We
Soviets are the last to blame. You started the whole thing.
VM.
>
> Viso gero,
> /P
>
>
>
>
>
>
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
> Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
> Btw, you Have to watch this movie: Dog's Heart. Because it became a
> cliche in Russian since the movie nobody dares to address somebody as
> "Gospodin" - except on TV - "Vse godspoda kak izvestno v Parizhe". I am
> just a hard working New Yorker.
Tagad mēs visi esam kungi. Yes re Bulgakov, and that insult was
intentional. ;)
But you're a good guy.
/P
Vladimir Makarenko
> On 2 Janv., 01:33, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>> Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
>
>> Btw, you Have to watch this movie: Dog's Heart. Because it became a
>> cliche in Russian since the movie nobody dares to address somebody as
>> "Gospodin" - except on TV - "Vse godspoda kak izvestno v Parizhe". I am
>> just a hard working New Yorker.
>
> Tagad mēs visi esam kungi. Yes re Bulgakov, and that insult was
> intentional. ;)
That is embarrassing: I thought I got you instead you got me.
Oh, maybe tomorrow will be my day.
I really like the movie and the book.
>
> But you're a good guy.
Thank you Petya, but I remember when I visited first scb (-remember
there was no scb but a mailing list?) I was very different - I really
thought along the Empire lines teachings - all Baltics are Nazis.
Period. Then came hangover - after I wrote something really ugly one
Estonian guy wrote me directly on email how his family found his grandpa
shot in the back of his head in Tallinn prison after Soviets left. The
grandpa was a baker running a private bakery. Such a crime. It fell so
close to home I started to reconsider.
When you grow up in Empire everything is simple - enemies, friends, etc:
Rome.
But it is good to hear that you are around and OK. And kicking!
VM.
>
> /P
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On Jan 1, 1:46 am, Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
> > > > > > existing ones will end soon -))
> > > > > > Happy and peaceful New Year to all!!!
>
> > > > > I hope many more wars will be started where they are necessary.
>
> > > > What kind of wish is this? Wish you people more wars in the next
> > > > decade, because they are necessary?
>
> > > > > And
> > > > > admit it, Dima -- I was right re Obama.
>
> > > > Of course you were. I didn't expect Obama to end the Afghan war by
> > > > Dec 09 either.
>
> > > > > And he will start at least a couple,
>
> > > > I doubt it, but what countries do you think he will occupy?
>
> > > > > and he will be right (even if he is a less than mediocre
> > > > > president). See the Nobel speech.
>
> > > > I've heard some of it on radio, but not all of it. Which part are you
> > > > refering to?
>
Obama’s lecture seems to be the most militaristic and warmongering
speech in Nobel Prize history. As you recall, Obama was given his
Nobel Prize for making highly articulate speeches in which he promised
to end war, torture, bring torturers to justice, and to give health
insurance to poor Americans in the nearest future.
His Nobel victory was announced back in January 2009, but his
acceptance took place in December 2009. In these 11 months, not only
has Obama not been allowed to fulfilled a single one of his promises,
but had to almost do the opposite. In particular, just a week prior to
his Nobel Lecture he further escalated the war in Afghanistan, thus
technically, in terms of actual deeds, making himself look as even
more of a warmonger than Bush:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121000453.html
Obama accepts Nobel Peace Prize with speech defending reasons for war
The Washington Post
OSLO | President Barack Obama delivered an impassioned rationale for
war in accepting the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize on Thursday.
He acknowledged the irony even as he defended America’s record abroad
in promoting human rights, individual freedom and global security.
Just over a week after announcing an escalation of the U.S. war effort
in Afghanistan, Obama spoke candidly to an audience in Oslo that
included officials representing countries deeply opposed to the
conflict. He did not receive applause until more than halfway through
his speech — and even then not for his defense of “just war,” but for
his decision to close the military brig at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and
prohibit torture.
The remarks offered a lofty, ideological justification for his
decision to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan and
stood in sharp contrast to the more technical argument he made in
favor of escalation last week.
The apparent contradiction of a wartime president accepting a prize
for peace provided the fulcrum for Obama’s 36-minute acceptance
speech.
But Obama also used the speech to acknowledge the criticism that, less
than a year into his presidency, he is undeserving of the prize.
In Norway, some protesters implored the president to go earn his
prize, while back in the United States civil libertarians said that
Obama still hadn’t matched his campaign rhetoric on human rights or
moved away sufficiently from Bush-era policies on issues such as state
secrets.
‘Evil in the world?’ ‘Just war?’ What was hovering over this speech “
was G. W. Bush,” said Aaron David Miller of the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars in Washington, using a nickname for
Bush.
“It’s an exquisite-but-must-be-painful irony for him to accept. He
couldn’t come to Oslo and give any other speech than the one he
gave.”
One explanation, Miller said, was political expediency: “You stand up
to the Euros and tree-huggers, you co-opt the Republicans.
“The second explanation, which is equally intriguing, would be that
the reason he gave this speech is that, as a consequence of the legacy
he bequeathed, George W. Bush has created parameters within which
future presidents are going to have to operate.”
>
> > > > > But Happy New Year anyhow!
>
> > > > I's more of a Sad New Year ((-
>
> > > Here is the full text of the speech, Dmitry --
>
> > >http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRWjTDaT4JuS0nFj9AP...
>
> > If you want a paragraph I was referring to --
>
> > "I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens
> > are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose
> > their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent up grievances fester,
> > and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to
> > violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe
> > became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war
> > against a democracy,
>
This is a horrible and outrageous argument: “It is perfectly OK to
invade, destroy and occupy other countries, as long as your victims
are not democracies”.
When Hitler occupied Poland in 1939, Poland was not a democracy. And
when Stalin occupied the Baltic states in 1940, they were not
democracies either.
But does that mean that Hitler and Stalin were justified?
>
> > and our closest friends are governments that
> > protect the rights of their citizens.
>
Bull. No matter how many times you say it, Saudi Arabia does NOT
protect the rights of their citizens. Quite the opposite.
>
>> No matter how callously defined,
> > neither America's interests — nor the world's — are served by the
> > denial of human aspirations."
>
If Obama were indeed sincere about protecting human rights in foreign
countries, he would have started with deposing his Saudi Arabian
buddies, who are among the worst human rights abusers in the World.
But instead:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/03/obama.mideast.trip/index.html
Shortly after his arrival Wednesday in Saudi Arabia, Obama and King
Abdullah went to the Saudi ruler's farm for a welcoming reception.
Obama said he was "struck by his wisdom and his graciousness.
Obviously the United States and Saudi Arabia have a long history of
friendship. We have a strategic relationship. And as I take this trip,
I thought it was very important to come to the place where Islam began
and to seek his majesty's counsel.”
>
> > And yeah, that's an American politician, a pretty good one. Unlike
> > Karlamov, I don't think that's an insult. I think most of Eastern
> > Europe far prefers America to its much more intimate big brother to
> > the east for very good reason, and always will.
>
> I certainly agree with your last line. And I agree that Obama is good
> value.
>
In terms of his words, Obama is very good. But so is Putin. Putin says
beautiful domestic policy speeches, exalting freedom and democracy.
No wonder in her biting anti-Putin song “Screw”, Natella
Boltyanskaya’s refrain is:
On govorit poleznye I vazhnye slova,
Zakruchivaya gaechku za gaechkoj.
He is saying beautiful, useful and important words,
While quietly tightening one screw after another.
With Obama, unlike Putin, it is not just words, he clearly seems to
mean them. But he has little chance of turning his words into deeds,
because he doesn’t exist and act in a vacuum. Like leaders of most
other countries, he has to follow the majority will of the political
and business establishment, where the term “majority” may mean both
“majority of Congress votes” and “majority of special interest
money”.
But compared to his predecessor Bush, Obama seems like a god-sent, the
same way that Gorbachev seemed great compared to Chernenko or
Brezhnev. And who knows – maybe in a few years Obama will do what
Gorbachev did: end the hopeless war in Afghanistan. However, Gorbachev
had to deal with only 1 war, while Obama inherited 2 wars plus a
prospect of a war with Iran.
>
> However it was disturbing to watch something on TV recently where they
> were asking Americans in the street what country USA should occupy
> after it's finished with Iraq. The disturbing thing is that one after
> another all the people questioned starting naming countries (mostly
> Iran). None bothered to ask "Why do we necessarily have to invade
> some other country?" (Admittedly, one or two respondents may have
> said something like that and the footage on them may not have been
> shown so as not to spoil the party. However, there are clearly a lot
> of Americans-in-the -street quite comfortable with the idea of USA
> being in perpetual invade-and-occupy mode. But again, if some big
> brother is inevitably going to do it, then sure, better USA than
> Russia or China.)
>
Unlike Cedrins, I don't think that USA must keep on attacking other
countries. I know some say that war is good for the economy and point
out how World War 2 pulled the US economy out of the aftermath of the
Great Depression. On the contrary, I believe that the insane military
spendings have been ruinous to the US economy.
Moreover, the whatever few extra $billions that Exxon and BP will be
able to make thanks to the fall of Saddam (who didn’t allow American
and British oil companies to exploit Iraqi oil and dealt only with the
German, French and Russian companies), they will never come even close
to compensating for $500 billion or so, that has already been wasted
on the invasion and occupation of Iraq,
It would have been much cheaper back in 2003 to take, say, $50 billion
out of the taxpayers’ money and give it as a present to Exxon and
other oil companies, instead of invading Iraq.
Vladimir Makarenko
Holy smoke. We are in the middle of the War and you want Obama what?
The boys are dying every day. He is a Commander in Chief.
He never asked for this Prize. They gave it - he came and said what he
thinks. - I think very close - you go after us - we will kill you.
He said how things are - not what is pleasant to hear. We will kill them
all.
Enough already this Euro crap - "let's be nice".
We didn't bring it to them - they flew planes in our buildings.
Now our turn. We will terrify them. They have no clue what we are
capable of.
VM.
Vidas
> Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
>
Say what ???
"If to an average, Tadai -- and aren't you yourself in "Shit-cargo"
these days?"
Gintas in Shit-cargo ? The very heart of his uber despised
Yankeeland ? I cant believe it. Stepping onto the Yankeeland O'Hare
tarmac must have caused him to instantaneously burst into flame ! At
the very least !
Vidas
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
The future too ain't what it used to be. :-(
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 1, 9:03 am, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote:
[snip]
> Unlike Cedrins, I don't think that USA must keep on attacking other
> countries.
You haven't aged well, Karlamov!
/P
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Were you still in the USSR when it was in the same predicament in
Afghanistan as USA is now? What did people think? How did you feel
about the CIA training and funding the Islamic extremists like Bin
Laden to kill Russian soldiers?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
According to this 1998 interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the CIA's
intervention in Afghanistan preceded the 1979 Soviet invasion. This
decision of the Carter Administration in 1979 to intervene and
destabilise Afghanistan is the root cause of Afghanistan's destruction
as a nation.
The CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National
Security Adviser
Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his
memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services
began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet
intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to
President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that
correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid
to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet
army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly
guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979
that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the
opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I
wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my
opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But
perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to
provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but
we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that
they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United
States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was
a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had
the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want
me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the
border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of
giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years,
Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a
conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup
of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic
fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or
the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the
liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic
fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
B: Nonsense!
-----------------------------------
So, the current American war in Afghanistan was Presidents Carter and
Reagan's makings and, according to B., not a big deal at all. Taliban,
9-11, and Islamic terrorism are of no bother to USA, according to
him.
Dmitry
>
> > Here is the full text of the speech, Dmitry --
>
> >http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRWjTDaT4JuS0nFj9AP...
>
> > Vysu lobu,
> > /P
Liels paldies.
>
> If you want a paragraph I was referring to --
>
> "I reject this choice. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens
> are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please, choose
> their own leaders or assemble without fear.
Occupying other countries makes peace even more unstable.
> Pent up grievances fester,
> and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to
> violence.
Both wars of George Bush showed that violence lead to more violence.
> We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe
> became free did it finally find peace.
Free from who? Or does he refer to ex-Socialist block?
> America has never fought a war
> against a democracy,
This is not a good excuse for creating more wars.
> and our closest friends are governments that
> protect the rights of their citizens.
Germany and France also protect the rights of their citizens, yet they
refused to participate in invasion of Iraq.
Dmitry
> Bear in mind that I opposed the invasion(s), explicitly so. I oppose
> most of those opposed, too, though.
Whatever my response was, I didn't intend to offend anyone.
>
> If to an average, Tadai -- and aren't you yourself in "Shit-cargo"
> these days? -- haven't all of us given up on the ideals of
> fantastically enlightened peoples going about their business?
>
> If we talk about peace (and Pound's "rot in womanish peace" comes to
> mind, khe), the points Obama makes are valid even though they can
> actually be shot down rather easily. The idea of not invading anybody
> sounds hunky-dory, but what about the people we committed to?
Bush administration was never committed to people of Afghanistan and
Iraq. Now America is committed to new regimes that it installed in
these countries. The results of any more "commitments" of this kind
can be catastrophic.
>
> Before, I offered the individual view of Latvia -- if those British
> and French ships hadn't helped us out in November 1919, we wouldn't be
> here. Neither would most of you be.
The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is not the same as British and
French help to Latvia in 191.
>
> If you're gonna be so gung-ho about peace at any price, go tell it to
> some Afghan girl with acid thrown in her face, Dmitry.
Whilst you tell about the "necessary" war to those Afghans who lost
their family due to US invasion. If you were to go there and conduct
a survey you would be very likely to discover that hardly anyone there
favours US invasion. The girl&acid story is a good example of how
brutal Taliban regime was/is, but not very good excuse for starting
this long war and for human lives taken because of this.
Dmitry
> > > > existing ones will end soon -))
>
> This is a viciously anti-American statement, Dmitry.
Not a statement - just a wish/hope. I have never experienced war
myself, but knew and still know many people who did and according to
them war is a devastating experience.
> Yes, it is the sacred duty of all Americans to spread peace and
> democracy to countries with oil deposits and/or oil pipelines by
> invading and killing them and destroying their infrastructure.
It was gold in the past, now oil. Whatever the reasons - forcing
faith/ideology on people is wrong, particularly when the violence is a
chosen method.
> But first -- send the Marines! We send the Marines! Send the Marines!
Certainly not the best way of promoting democracy.
> There is always hope that the Iraq and Afghan disasters will effect
> the US public opinion the way the Vietnam disaster did 40 years ago,
> creating a decade-long distaste for more wars.
This is my hope too, but I also know from Sovok experience that the
power of brainwashing can be very strong and people can be easily made
to think that what their government is doing is right. It is
particularly easy when the war is fought on the other side of the
globe. I doubt that many American war supporters know how these wars
affect people in places where the war is actually taken place.
Dmitry
> Europe far prefers America to its much more intimate big brother to
> the east for very good reason, and always will.
Naturally, it was only 20 years since the collapse of Sovok. Eastern
Europe had enough of "big-brotherhood" from further East. However, I
didn't hear of any radical American involvement in helping Latvia to
overcome the current economical disaster. Isn't it what the big
brother should be there for?
>
> /P
Vladimir Makarenko
I trimmed it, but there is this special point I want to address:
> I understand this very well - born Russian I never knew how it is to be
> Non Russian in Russia. The understanding came slowly, too slowly to say
> the truth.
Three stories reside in my memory - which make me feel a Shame against
Glory of being and feel Russian. I tell only one - I had not close but
good friend a Kazakh, and he trusted me that once after we had a drink
he relaxed and told me how he while being a student in college he was
refused a job " because you are not Russian - you would steal and be lazy".
You see Petya, this was one of the most hard working guys I ever met.
And honest.
The whole world went upside down - it takes a while to see that what you
see is falling apart. As I mentioned - Rome.
You know who mostly died in Afghanistan during Soviet invasion? Uzbeks.
Because they could speak the language. Russians were in the beginning
after many of troops were Uzbeks.
It is not simple to be a Russian. Such a load.
VM.
daniloff
"Tadas Blinda" <tadas....@lycos.es> сообщил/сообщила в новостях
следующее:
news:62dcaba3-21fd-4f21...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
You would prefere Hiroshima or Belgrad then GULAG?
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
>
>
> > > Unlike Karlamov, I don't think that's an insult...
>
>
> > > Karlamov's vile posing aside….
>
>
> > Unlike Cedrins, I don't think...
>
>
> You haven't aged well, Karlamov!
>
You, on the other hand, are the same old and vile self, Cedrins. And
you aren't even smart enough to recognise it when you are being given
a little taste of your own vile medicine.
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
Labdien!
The surveys I have seen have indicated considerable support for the US
in the past, Dmitry -- I linked to one here a couple of years ago.
It's true that this support has declined precipitously, mostly because
of the air strikes. You are totally wrong, though, if you think there
wasn't support -- support for US intervention *was* massive, with 83%
of Afghans having a favorable opinion of the US in 2005, higher than
in any Muslim country with the possible exception of Albania. Here is
an article on the decline in support --
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=6787686&page=1
The fortunes of war often shift dramatically. I bring up the Latvian
example because the freshly proclaimed Republic had very little public
support when it was recognized by Britain.
You should also be aware of the fact that this isn't only America's
war, much less only Bush's war -- as Obama says, it is "a conflict
that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other
countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and
all nations from further attacks." Peace-loving countries ranging from
the Baltic states to neutral Switzerland are also contributing to the
war effort, as is the country that gives out the Nobel Peace Prize.
Most of the people killed are killed primarily by other Afghans, not
Americans. Ditto in Iraq.
What's your solution -- surrender? I think you are very wrong. I'm
also quite certain that I'll be able to come back and say "I told you
so" when Obama intervenes elsewhere, whether that is in Pakistan,
Iran, or Yemen. I can't predict the future, but judging from how
things are going at the moment, the Democrats look set to lose their
majority in Congress and one of Obama's major difficulties is in the
area of national security.
Re this view: "Bush administration was never committed to people of
Afghanistan and Iraq." That's your interpretation, and I think it is
incorrect. Though I have little admiration for Dubya, I don't doubt
his sincere commitment to freedom and democracy. Never met the dude
myself, but I do know people who have and they were astounded by the
depth of his commitment to Eastern Europe in particular, as well as
his knowledge of it.
It's in nobody's interest, no matter what their ideology, to be
against "the people." If anything, Obama is more pragmatic -- he is
willing to keep his mouth shut about the horror taking place in Iran,
because it does not do us any good to whine about it. But when I say
people -- people are very different, especially in countries in deep
conflict. Calling forth the "tauta" or "narod" in Latvia in 1919,
you'd be deeply opposed to intervention also, based on what you
write.
Karlamov misinterprets what is meant re never making war on a
democracy -- it's not to excuse attacking countries that aren't but
simply an acknowledgment of the fact that democracies do not often go
ballistic on their neighbors. No, nobody had a right to invade Poland
in 1939 -- but Poland wasn't attacking anybody.
How many did Saddam kill, Dmitry, from Marsh Arabs to Kuwaitis, Kurds
to birds? See the UN resolutions on Iraq that preceded the invasion --
I posted them for you before. You seem to have considerable difficulty
accepting the fact that Afghanistan was a haven for a group that
attacked the US and still tries to do so today.
As to the supposedly terrible oppression of the occupations -- excuse
me, but both countries have their own governments. Severely flawed to
the point of dubiousness in Afghanistan's case, sure -- but it does
have a Parliament confident enough to reject most of Karzai's nominees
--
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f60b3d52-f7cd-11de-b251-00144feab49a.html
As to Iraq, here is the ABC/BBC poll, which is fully sourced re
methodology, etc. (.pdf document). --
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_09_iraqpollfeb2009.pdf
Those who think the US occupation is the single biggest problem? Only
7%. Those who think the invasion was "absolutely right"? 19% "Somewhat
right"? 23%. "Somewhat wrong"? 28%. "Absolutely wrong"? 28%.A slight
majority thinks it was wrong, indeed -- but that's a heck of a lot of
people who don't, Dmitry, despite the carnage.
When you go to war, you make a commitment to specific forces -- in
these cases, to those who would try to build a democracy. All you are
saying is "fuck 'em." Then you can let Afghanistan (or Punjabistan --
Pakistan is at least as much of a problem) descend into Medieval
darkness and offer a haven to more people.attacking the West. And then
we can bomb them some more and more people will die, mostly at the
hands of the Taliban, and more girls will get acid splashed in their
faces just for going to school... but it will satisfy some absurd
"principle" about the horrors of imperialism or make some "pacifist"
feel good somewhere.
Vysu lobu,
/P
daniloff
"Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <ced...@gmail.com> �������/�������� �
�������� ���������:
news:08c84fbc-6557-4a47...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
Karlamov misinterprets what is meant re never making war on a
democracy -- it's not to excuse attacking countries that aren't but
simply an acknowledgment of the fact that democracies do not often go
ballistic on their neighbors. No, nobody had a right to invade Poland
in 1939 -- but Poland wasn't attacking anybody.
*************************************************************************************
You should study history better.
IIt was Poland that together with Germany and Hungary began redivision of
the world first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Conference
The Czechoslovaks were greatly dismayed with the Munich settlement. With
Sudetenland gone to Germany and later southern Slovakia (one third of Slovak
territory) occupied by Hungary and the area of Zaolzie occupied by Poland
(the area west of the Olza River - 801.5 km? with a population of 227,399)
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
> "Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <cedr...@gmail.com> ñîîáùèë/ñîîáùèëà â
> íîâîñòÿõ ñëåäóþùåå:news:08c84fbc-6557-4a47...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Karlamov misinterprets what is meant re never making war on a
> democracy -- it's not to excuse attacking countries that aren't but
> simply an acknowledgment of the fact that democracies do not often go
> ballistic on their neighbors. No, nobody had a right to invade Poland
> in 1939 -- but Poland wasn't attacking anybody.
>
> *************************************************************************** **********
>
> You should study history better.
> IIt was Poland that together with Germany and Hungary began redivision of
> the world first.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Conference
>
> The Czechoslovaks were greatly dismayed with the Munich settlement. With
> Sudetenland gone to Germany and later southern Slovakia (one third of Slovak
> territory) occupied by Hungary and the area of Zaolzie occupied by Poland
> (the area west of the Olza River - 801.5 km? with a population of 227,399)
>
Daniloff,
I think that's way below the belt and beyond idiotic. The Black Monk
already addressed the concrete issue.
/P
daniloff
"Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <ced...@gmail.com> ???????/???????? ?
???????? ?????????:
news:b43fc9fd-7b55-407d...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...> "Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <cedr...@gmail.com> ???????/???????? ?
> ????????
> ?????????:news:08c84fbc-6557-4a47...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Karlamov misinterprets what is meant re never making war on a
> democracy -- it's not to excuse attacking countries that aren't but
> simply an acknowledgment of the fact that democracies do not often go
> ballistic on their neighbors. No, nobody had a right to invade Poland
> in 1939 -- but Poland wasn't attacking anybody.
>
> ***************************************************************************
> **********
>
> You should study history better.
> IIt was Poland that together with Germany and Hungary began redivision of
> the world first.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Conference
>
> The Czechoslovaks were greatly dismayed with the Munich settlement. With
> Sudetenland gone to Germany and later southern Slovakia (one third of
> Slovak
> territory) occupied by Hungary and the area of Zaolzie occupied by Poland
> (the area west of the Olza River - 801.5 km? with a population of 227,399)
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
Daniloff,
I think that's way below the belt and beyond idiotic. The Black Monk
already addressed the concrete issue.
Would you not ticket me but patiently explain my fault to me?
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
> "Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <cedr...@gmail.com> ???????/???????? ?
Go back to what the Black Monk said and then consider the issues.
Redivision of the world started rather earlier -- if you really
consider it, nobody lost as much as the Hungarians. Germany? Who were
the aggressors? Not people who took a chip here or there when the
shithouse came down -- but those who destroyed the system? As a
Latvian, I'm pretty happy with the redivision of the world. All I want
is my little land, and for my country to be decent. As it has been. I
think that -- no matter how much Karlamov rants -- that's pretty much
all anybody has ever wanted. Unfortunately, we get to live next to a
sick Russia.
Regards,
/P
daniloff
"Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <ced...@gmail.com> ???????/???????? ?
???????? ?????????:
news:8e0eb33b-c772-4e50...@l30g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Do all people must read Black Monk? I would know that.
> Redivision of the world started rather earlier -- if you really
I know that. Redivision of the world started started Neanderthal and
Cro-Magnon men
> consider it, nobody lost as much as the Hungarians. Germany? Who were
> the aggressors? Not people who took a chip here or there when the
> shithouse came down -- but those who destroyed the system?
Who did that?
Destroying the system begins from destroing the principles.
And people who took a chip here or there began destroying them.
> As a Latvian, I'm pretty happy with the redivision of the world. All I
> want
> is my little land, and for my country to be decent. As it has been. I
> think that -- no matter how much Karlamov rants -- that's pretty much
> all anybody has ever wanted. Unfortunately, we get to live next to a
> sick Russia.
You bet!
But redivision of the world when Latvia get her territory started from
Latvian Red Riflemen.
All long journeys start from little step.
Sick Russia endeed.
> Regards,
> /P
>
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
[snip]
> You bet!
> But redivision of the world when Latvia get her territory started from
> Latvian Red Riflemen.
> All long journeys start from little step.
> Sick Russia endeed.
Um, no. It started from the Riflemen, perhaps. How many of the
Riflemen were Red?
The redivision of the world, again, is perfectly fine with me. Free
people get free countries. The nostalgia for empire is especially
strong in Russia, mixing the Czarist and the Soviet. No one takes it
seriously, unless mentally crippled.
I see our country as starting from a premise of freedom, in an
Enlightenment long retarded by Russia. Everybody else has moved on.
Russia rarely moves, unfortunately.
/P
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
How dare you, Daniloff, bring up the actions of Poland from more than
70 years ago! Poland is a NATO member. Only Russia can be criticised
for its actions.
>
> and beyond idiotic.
>
Yes, only an idiot doesn't know that only the Molotov-Ribbentrop Peace
Treaty can be quoted. The Munich Pact is not allowed to be mentioned.
And if you mention it - you are a Stalinist and an idiot.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> "Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <cedr...@gmail.com> ???????/???????? ?
What Peteris says is that he cannot find the relevant paragraph that
he attributes to Black Monk. Instead he wants you to read through
hundreds of very long articles posted by Black Monk and find arguments
that favour Cedrins' point of view, if any.
Cedrins values his precious time more than yours.
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
One expects people to read what others write, Karlamov. Discussions
and debates work best that way. That's not necessary to your style of
half-deaf, puerile, pointless sparring, of course.
There's also a search function if you miss anything. The post by Black
Monk I referred to is here --
As Alexander Etkind writes:
"To be sure, Britain's Neville Chamberlain and France's Edouard
Daladier signed a shameful treaty with Adolf Hitler and Benito
Mussolini in Munich. But when Hitler breached the treaty, both
Chamberlain and Daladier lost popular support, and, by the start of
World War II, neither was still in office. The dictators remained,
however, Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and Stalin among them.
"Moreover, while the Munich Agreement cynically blessed Hitler's
dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, it was a public document that meant
what it said. But the truly important part of the Molotov- Ribbentrop
Pact was its secret protocols, which divided Europe into two imperial
domains, Stalin's and Hitler's, without the consent — or even the
knowledge — of the nations consigned to them. Molotov, who remained in
power throughout the war and until 1956, denied the existence of the
secret protocols until his death 30 years later.
"Democracies make shameful mistakes, but they eventually correct them,
or at least apologize for them. And they dethrone those who got them
into trouble. It is wrong, and even immoral, to equate democratic and
dictatorial practices. But this is the new Russian equation."
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20090920a1.html
...
Dmitry, here is a fresh article on one of the accomplishments of the
invasion of Afghanistan --
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/asia/04hazaras.html?ref=global-home
I'm sure that you would find some support for ISAF among those
described in the article -- and surrender would doom them.
Vysu lobu,
/P
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Do I have to explain to you the obvious? If you are in the middle of a
discussion with another person, especially Daniloff who doesn't
frequent SCB often, you simply cannot say "You are wrong. I am not
going to give you the reason why, but if you search and read through
all of articles posts by a person named X, you will find my argument."
>
> There's also a search function if you miss anything.
>
Exactly. So why don't you use it to find the words that you want to
say?
When I want to present an argument to somebody, i do the searching.
You, instead, expect the others to do the searching for you.
You expect you discussion opponent to provide support for your point
of view.
Moreover, your post is being read by hundreds of people. Do you
expect all of them to keep current on all articles to SCB and to
remember all of them by heart and/or do the searching for you?
Wouldn't it be more efficient if you alone did the the searching,
presented the link in your post and allow the hundreds of readers just
read it without having to spend hours searching? Is it because your
personal time is more important than the time of all other readers
combined?
Moreover, some users don't use Google Groups, so they may not have a
Usenet search engine. And those who do use Google Groups, like myself,
find its search engine to be obscenely inadequate and impotent.
>
> There's also a search function if you miss anything.
>
Yet another problem is that not only you don't do the searching for
your own post, but you don't even tell the reader the key words to use
for the search. I tried to query search Google Groups for "Poland
Czechoslovakia Black Monk Germany Hungary Zaolzie", I got only 1
return and it had nothing to do with Black Monk:
[Poland]-Two photos per post - Page 32 - SkyscraperCity
20 posts - 5 authors - Last post: Oct 17, 2009
Two years later the monastery received its famous Black Madonna ...
During World
War I the town came under German occupation, ... Founded in 1382 by
Pauline
monks who came from Hungary at the invitation of Władysław, Duke of
Opole. ...
the two newly created states of Poland and Czechoslovakia and ...
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=859180&page=32
>
> The post by Black
> Monk I referred to is here --
>
> http://groups.google.lv/group/soc.culture.baltics/browse_thread/threa...
>
> As Alexander Etkind writes:
>
> "To be sure, Britain's Neville Chamberlain and France's Edouard
> Daladier signed a shameful treaty with Adolf Hitler and Benito
> Mussolini in Munich. But when Hitler breached the treaty, both
> Chamberlain and Daladier lost popular support, and, by the start of
> World War II, neither was still in office. The dictators remained,
> however, Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and Stalin among them.
>
> "Moreover, while the Munich Agreement cynically blessed Hitler's
> dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, it was a public document that meant
> what it said. But the truly important part of the Molotov- Ribbentrop
> Pact was its secret protocols, which divided Europe into two imperial
> domains, Stalin's and Hitler's, without the consent — or even the
> knowledge — of the nations consigned to them. Molotov, who remained in
> power throughout the war and until 1956, denied the existence of the
> secret protocols until his death 30 years later.
>
> "Democracies make shameful mistakes, but they eventually correct them,
> or at least apologize for them. And they dethrone those who got them
> into trouble. It is wrong, and even immoral, to equate democratic and
> dictatorial practices. But this is the new Russian equation."
>
> http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20090920a1.html
>
Wait a second. How does this address Daniloff's point on the role of
Poland in occupying Czechoslovakia:
>
> > > >> > You should study history better.
> > > >> > IIt was Poland that together with Germany and Hungary began
> > > >> > redivision of the world first.
>
Poland is not even mentioned in Black Monk's post that you have
quoted.
How can the reader search for the article that you want him to find if
it doesn't address the issue being discussed?
I feel like I am trying to explain the trivial things to an anti-
social 6-year-old with no abilities.
>
> your style of
> half-deaf, puerile, pointless sparring, of course.
>
Check that. An anti-social 6-year-old with an incredible ability and
proclivity for acting as an insulting jack-ass.
J. Anderson
"Peteris Cedrin� (Peteris Cedrins)" <ced...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:60c8d081-a120-4bac...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> As Alexander Etkind writes:
> "To be sure, Britain's Neville Chamberlain and
> France's Edouard Daladier signed a shameful
> treaty with Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in
> Munich. But when Hitler breached the treaty,
> both Chamberlain and Daladier lost popular
> support, and, by the start of World War II,
> neither was still in office. ---"
Wrong, both were still in office. Daladier resigned in March 1940 after
having failed to organize French military aid to Finland during the Winter
War. Chamberlain resigned in May 1940 for similar reasons: the failure of
the British-French expeditionary force to aid Norway.
daniloff
> On 3 Janv., 20:59, "daniloff" <mdanil...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> You bet!
>> But redivision of the world when Latvia get her territory started from
>> Latvian Red Riflemen.
>> All long journeys start from little step.
>> Sick Russia endeed.
>
> Um, no. It started from the Riflemen, perhaps. How many of the
> Riflemen were Red?
Practically all of them.
Enough for example to carry out Red Terror or to repress a ESER's riot in
Moscow at 1918
They initiated the bolshevik's dictature and drowned Russia in blood then.
There was saying after October Revolution : "Soviet power was held up by
Latvian bayonets, Jewish brains and Russian fools.
http://wot-god.narod.ru/latviya.html
>
> The redivision of the world, again, is perfectly fine with me. Free
> people get free countries. The nostalgia for empire is especially
> strong in Russia, mixing the Czarist and the Soviet. No one takes it
> seriously, unless mentally crippled.
>
> I see our country as starting from a premise of freedom, in an
> Enlightenment long retarded by Russia. Everybody else has moved on.
> Russia rarely moves, unfortunately.
However what would you say about South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Russia's roke
in those events?
Sure you, as supporters of right of nation to self-determination have to
admit that Enlightenment already came in Russia.
daniloff
"Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_be...@hotmail.com> ???????/????????
? ???????? ?????????:
news:1b47652b-22eb-4c18...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
______________________
Maybe he has right for that for he imust be a Big Boss in Latvia now and
has too little time because of very important state problems.
You should know Latvia has too much problems now.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
daniloff
"Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <ced...@gmail.com> �������/�������� �
There's also a search function if you miss anything. The post by Black
Monk I referred to is here --
"Poland only occupied the majority ethnic Polish part of Czechoslovakia
that Czechoslovakia had grabbed while Poland was fighting Ukrainians
in the east. "
_______________________________________________________
Due to that rule Russia has right to occupy half of Kazakhstan and all
Latvian Riga :-)))))))))
As Alexander Etkind writes:
"To be sure, Britain's Neville Chamberlain and France's Edouard
Daladier signed a shameful treaty with Adolf Hitler and Benito
Mussolini in Munich. But when Hitler breached the treaty, both
Chamberlain and Daladier lost popular support, and, by the start of
World War II, neither was still in office. The dictators remained,
however, Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov and Stalin among them.
______________________________________________________
Good deal!
As Stalin would say: No Daladier - no problem, but all other are in white
clean garments.
"Moreover, while the Munich Agreement cynically blessed Hitler's
dismemberment of Czechoslovakia, it was a public document that meant
what it said. But the truly important part of the Molotov- Ribbentrop
Pact was its secret protocols, which divided Europe into two imperial
domains, Stalin's and Hitler's, without the consent � or even the
knowledge � of the nations consigned to them. Molotov, who remained in
power throughout the war and until 1956, denied the existence of the
secret protocols until his death 30 years later.
____________________________________________________
Morbid, perverted logic - public crimes is better than hidden ones
"Democracies make shameful mistakes, but they eventually correct them,
or at least apologize for them.
____________________________
Said pedophile
And they dethrone those who got them
into trouble. It is wrong, and even immoral, to equate democratic and
dictatorial practices. But this is the new Russian equation."
_______________________________________________
bursting into tears because of that beautiful pathetic words!
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20090920a1.html
...
Dmitry, here is a fresh article on one of the accomplishments of the
invasion of Afghanistan --
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/asia/04hazaras.html?ref=global-home
I'm sure that you would find some support for ISAF among those
described in the article -- and surrender would doom them.
Vysu lobu,
/P
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
vello
>
Why? surely one can quote Munich agreement, a shameful agreement of
free countries leaving free hands to Nazis. Just one must not compare
it to Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, a pact of two predators about
annihilating big part of Eastern europe.
Maris
<vma...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>P?teris Cedri?� (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
>> On 2 Janv., 01:33, Vladimir Makarenko <vmak...@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>>> P?teris Cedri?� (Peteris Cedrins) wrote:
>>
>>> Btw, you Have to watch this movie: Dog's Heart. Because it became a
>>> cliche in Russian since the movie nobody dares to address somebody as
>>> "Gospodin" - except on TV - "Vse godspoda kak izvestno v Parizhe". I am
>>> just a hard working New Yorker.
>>
>> Tagad m?s visi esam kungi. Yes re Bulgakov, and that insult was
>> intentional. ;)
>
>That is embarrassing: I thought I got you instead you got me.
>Oh, maybe tomorrow will be my day.
>I really like the movie and the book.
I saw the movie in Latvia in 1988, I think, with Latvian subtitles.I
enjoyed it so much I went out and bought the book (in English) but was
disappointed that it was quite a thin volume.
Maris
>
>>
>> But you're a good guy.
>
>Thank you Petya, but I remember when I visited first scb (-remember
>there was no scb but a mailing list?) I was very different - I really
>thought along the Empire lines teachings - all Baltics are Nazis.
>Period. Then came hangover - after I wrote something really ugly one
>Estonian guy wrote me directly on email how his family found his grandpa
>shot in the back of his head in Tallinn prison after Soviets left. The
>grandpa was a baker running a private bakery. Such a crime. It fell so
>close to home I started to reconsider.
>When you grow up in Empire everything is simple - enemies, friends, etc:
>Rome.
>But it is good to hear that you are around and OK. And kicking!
>
>VM.
>
>
>>
>> /P
J. Anderson
As so often when the Hitler-Stalin Pact (called 'Peace Treaty' above by
Kharlamov!) is mentioned, the Munich Agreement is immediately brought
into the discussion by Stalin's apologists. As if these two shameful
(p)acts were somehow on the same level:
1) The Munich Agreement had its background in the failed peace treaties
after WWI. Czecho-Slovakia was given an area that was based on historic
borders, not on demographic facts. It was meant to become a federation,
but in the end not even the Slovaks were given minority rights, not to
mention the Poles, Austrians ('Sudeten Germans'), Hungarians or
Ukrainians ('Ruthenes'). Unfortunately Masaryk was not able to create a
state that would have corresponded to his high democratic and humanistic
ideals.* So from a Czecho-Slovak domestic point of view one could
coarsely say that their political leadership had it coming. Naturally
that does not justify the decisions taken at Munich above their heads.
The important point is, however, that the Munich Agreement was meant to
-- and initially believed to -- pacify Hitler and to secure 'peace in
our time' as Chamberlain announced.
2) Now the Hitler-Stalin Pact again (or 'Molotov-Ribbentrop', as if
these two guys would have had any say in the matter) was something
entirely different -- it was not an attempt to secure peace, it was a
joint agreement to start war.
To equate the two agreements shows that you either don't know or
understand history or that you have your own agenda.
*) I've had the honour to meet and interview Herberta Masaryková, T.G.
Masaryk's granddaughter (whose father Jan was murdered by the commies),
and to discuss the sad fate of Masaryk's republic with this wise old lady.
daniloff
"vello" <vell...@hot.ee> сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:
news:7e0005c0-d882-4a9f...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
There is some difference endeed.
Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - two big predators
The Munich Pact - one big predator and two little jackals.
vello
> "vello" <vellok...@hot.ee> сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:news:7e0005c0-d882-4a9f...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
Why jackals? Jacals are about pieces from prey, but western allies
don't ask even square centimeter foreign land in Munich - and even
don't cut Germany after war when it was defenseless and land robbing
would be easy.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
I stand corrected. The name is not 'Peace Treaty' but 'Treaty of Non-
Aggression'. I guess, except for the Spanish Civil War in 1936,
Germany and USSR were not at war with each other in 1938, so there
was no need for a peace treaty.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
By 'jackals' he probably meant Poland and Hungary, which divided up
Czechoslovakia with Nazi Germany.
The Western allies played the role of ostriches.
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
> "Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <cedr...@gmail.com> ???????/???????? ?
[delete]
> > Um, no. It started from the Riflemen, perhaps. How many of the
> > Riflemen were Red?
>
> Practically all of them.
No, you're very wrong.
Of the ca. 35 000 Riflemen active before the Christmas Battles, 4000
were killed or wounded, 200 joined the Troitsk or Imanta regiments,
and
more than 25 000 were demobilized, many later joining the Latvian
Army.
Of ca. 1000 officers, 770 took part in the Latvian War of Liberation.
Of the Reds -- of the 16 333 men in the "Latvian Division" that took
the Crimea, only 6278 were ethnic Latvians.
This has been discussed here repeatedly, but there is really no point
in incessantly arguing against the same stale Soviet disinformation.
As John wrote in an earlier thread: "I must say that I'm starting to
admire the Red Riflemen. They must have been one helluva bunch to have
achieved all that they are being blamed for."
/P
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
As phrased by the Lithuanian historian Alvydas Nikzentaitis:
"In speaking of World War II and condemning its perpetrator, Germany,
the role of the USSR should not be forgotten. The USSR was the state
which in a very decisive manner entered the war not on the side of the
anti-Hitlerite coalition, but actually on the side of Germany. I have
in mind not only the occupation of the Baltic countries, but first and
foremost the annexation of the eastern part of Poland. In taking this
step, the USSR simply helped Germany to finish off Poland as a state.
"Any attempts to compare the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact with the Munich
Agreement are almost a crime. In evaluating those two historic
agreements, it is necessary to speak not only of their consequences,
but also of the goals that guided them. If the Munich Agreement made
maximum concessions to Germany, it was because it was assumed that
this would prevent the aggressor from starting a world war. But the
Soviet-German pact openly spoke of aggression against third countries
and the partitioning of Central-Eastern Europe."
http://halldor2.blogspot.com/2005_02_01_archive.html
/P
vello
separate case.
daniloff
"vello" <vell...@hot.ee> сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:
news:787a6bdc-b4b5-4164-b704-
Why jackals? Jacals are about pieces from prey, but western allies
don't ask even square centimeter foreign land in Munich - and even
don't cut Germany after war when it was defenseless and land robbing
would be easy.
Bender is right.
I meant Poland and Hungary as Jakals and beneficiaries of Munich
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
daniloff
"vello" <vell...@hot.ee> сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:
news:1a0224f2-17a1-419f...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> By 'jackals' he probably meant Poland and Hungary, which divided up
> Czechoslovakia with Nazi Germany.
>
nor Poland nor Hungary were parts in Munich agreement so they are
separate case.
_______________________________________________________
I do not dare to discuss nuances of agreements.
I ventured to insinuate some doubts relative to words of Peteris Cedrins
only, nothing else.
Peteris Cedrins wrote:
"Karlamov misinterprets what is meant re never making war on a
democracy -- it's not to excuse attacking countries that aren't but
simply an acknowledgment of the fact that democracies do not often go
ballistic on their neighbors. No, nobody had a right to invade Poland
in 1939 -- but Poland wasn't attacking anybody."
Actually Poland was attacking.
Moreover there proves attacking without any agreement :-)
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
> "vello" <vellok...@hot.ee> сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:news:1a0224f2-17a1-419f...@f5g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Excuse me, but here is the Wiki condensation of the history of the
area --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie
I think this is a little bit different than overrunning sovereign
nation-states, slaughtering thousands, deporting hundreds of
thousands, and attempting to russify whole nations, sorry, Daniloff.
/P
daniloff
> On 4 Janv., 13:50, "daniloff" <mdanil...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>> "Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <cedr...@gmail.com> ???????/????????
>> ?
>
> [delete]
>
>> > Um, no. It started from the Riflemen, perhaps. How many of the
>> > Riflemen were Red?
>>
>> Practically all of them.
>
> No, you're very wrong.
>
> Of the ca. 35 000 Riflemen active before the Christmas Battles, 4000
> were killed or wounded, 200 joined the Troitsk or Imanta regiments,
> and
> more than 25 000 were demobilized, many later joining the Latvian
> Army.
When? In 1920?
But it is time when Civil War had ended and Bolsheviks already won a
victory.
> Of ca. 1000 officers, 770 took part in the Latvian War of Liberation.
> Of the Reds -- of the 16 333 men in the "Latvian Division" that took
> the Crimea, only 6278 were ethnic Latvians.
>
> This has been discussed here repeatedly, but there is really no point
> in incessantly arguing against the same stale Soviet disinformation.
>
> As John wrote in an earlier thread: "I must say that I'm starting to
> admire the Red Riflemen. They must have been one helluva bunch to have
> achieved all that they are being blamed for."
Not all helluva bunch but considerable part, well united and merciless part
of it.
Praetorian guard of Bolsheviks.
Sure there was others.
As I wrote "Soviet power was held up by Latvian bayonets, Jewish brains and
Russian fools"
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
>
> > /P
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
The Christmas Battles were in 1920? Why don't you read something
instead of spouting rancid Soviet shit mixed with Russian chauvinist
vomit.
You're not worth *anybody's* "precious time," sorry.
/P
daniloff
"Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)" <ced...@gmail.com> сообщил/сообщила в
новостях следующее:
news:bc3ea8a9-a184-4687...@35g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie
Beneš then turned to the Soviet leadership in Moscow, which begun a partial
mobilisation in eastern Belarus and the Ukrainian SSR and threatened Poland
with the dissolution of the Soviet-Polish non-aggression pact.[37]
Nevertheless, the Polish leader, Colonel Józef Beck believed that Warsaw
should act rapidly to forestall the German occupation of the city. At noon
on 30 September, Poland gave an ultimatum to the Czechoslovak government. It
demanded the immediate evacuation of Czech troops and police and gave Prague
time until noon the following day. At 11:45 a.m. on 1 October the Czech
foreign ministry called the Polish ambassador in Prague and told him that
Poland could have what it wanted. The Polish Army, commanded by General
Władysław Bortnowski, annexed an area of 801.5 km² with a population of
227,399 people.
The Germans were delighted with this outcome. They were happy to give up a
provincial rail centre to Poland; it was a small sacrifice indeed. It spread
the blame of the partition of Czechoslovakia, made Poland a seeming
accomplice in the process and confused the issue as well as political
expectations. Poland was accused of being an accomplice of Nazi Germany – a
charge that Warsaw was hard put to deny.
What's wrong, Cedrins?
Oh, sorry, sure you're right.
Poland wasn't attacking anybody.
She annexed an area of 801.5 km² with a population of 227,399 people only.
It is very amusing to see as you try to prove an false statment.
Ne'er the less as Wiki said little jackal was accused of being an accomplice
of Nazi Germany – a charge that Warsaw was hard put to deny.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
vello
> "vello" <vellok...@hot.ee> сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:
> news:787a6bdc-b4b5-4164-b704-
> Why jackals? Jacals are about pieces from prey, but western allies
> don't ask even square centimeter foreign land in Munich - and even
> don't cut Germany after war when it was defenseless and land robbing
> would be easy.
>
> Bender is right.
> I meant Poland and Hungary as Jakals and beneficiaries of Munich
>
talk was about Western allies undersigning Munich pact. They don't
"cut" anyone and anything.
daniloff
"Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <ced...@gmail.com> ???????/???????? ?
???????? ?????????:
news:3161a9b4-fec4-4ea4...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
_____________________________________________________
You suppose it is your Latvian chauvinist vomit I have to read?
You're not worth *anybody's* "precious time," sorry.
__________________________________________________________
Sure spend your precious time for composing more convincing lie then
"Poland wasn't attacking anybody"
/P
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
> "Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <cedr...@gmail.com> ???????/???????? ?
When were the Christmas Battles, Daniloff? What "false statement" have
I made?
Here's my personal take --
http://lettonica.blogspot.com/2006/12/christmas-battles.html
Sorry, but your contention -- that most Riflemen were Red -- is pretty
fucking false.
Sympathy for Reds at that time, in context (both shifting unbelievably
rapidly in that era) means what? In terms of destroying the murderous,
autocratic Russian Empire -- well, sorry, but unlike some here at
s.c.b. I think that's a great thing and still do. Russia was the
prison house of nations and still is. The sooner your shithouse and
false "federation" comes down, the better for everybody -- Russians
included.
/P
daniloff
"vello" <vell...@hot.ee> сообщил/сообщила в новостях следующее:
news:24d2900e-ec90-46a5...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
You are wrong. Talk wasn't about Munich pact.
Talk was about Poland wasn't attack anybody
Dmitry
>
> The surveys I have seen have indicated considerable support for the US
> in the past, Dmitry -- I linked to one here a couple of years ago.
> It's true that this support has declined precipitously, mostly because
> of the air strikes. You are totally wrong, though, if you think there
> wasn't support -- support for US intervention *was* massive, with 83%
> of Afghans having a favorable opinion of the US in 2005, higher than
> in any Muslim country with the possible exception of Albania. Here is
> an article on the decline in support --
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=6787686&page=1
Labvakar!
I simply can't imagine how representative such survey could be. I
can't remember the links you posted, but were they limited to the
territories held by NATO and NA? Also, how independent were the
surveys? If 83% of Afghans were in favor of US occupation, why do you
think Taliban is still not defeated, why do they still have so much
support and no shortage of new recruits?
> The fortunes of war often shift dramatically. I bring up the Latvian
> example because the freshly proclaimed Republic had very little public
> support when it was recognized by Britain.
How little? I would be surprised that Latvian republic could
establish if 83% of Latvians were against independence from Soviet
Russia. Britain helped, but would Latvian Republic happen without
public support? I was told by numerous people who witnessed this
period that creation of independent Latvian State was very much
favored by Latvian people. I never had an impression that
independence was forced on Latvia by Brits.
> You should also be aware of the fact that this isn't only America's
> war, much less only Bush's war -- as Obama says, it is "a conflict
> that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other
> countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and
> all nations from further attacks." Peace-loving countries ranging from
> the Baltic states to neutral Switzerland are also contributing to the
> war effort, as is the country that gives out the Nobel Peace Prize.
The idea of invading Afghanistan came from Bush administration, the
rest is politics. Note, that the following invasion (Iraq) didn't
have an overwhelming support. Tony Blair joined in, which costed him
enormous unpopularity among British people and alienation of many
members of Labor party in senior position. Spanish leader also joined
in support, but that was more moral than practical. Germany and
France were very explicit in their disapproval. Many Western European
countries learn from mistakes and learn very quickly.
Iraq war question is now under investigation here and Tony Blair will
have to answer many questions. A few days ago John Major hit the
headlines, here is BBC coverage
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437422.stm
"There are many bad men around the world who run countries and we
don't topple them, and indeed in earlier years we had actually
supported Saddam Hussein when he was fighting against Iran.
"The argument that someone is a bad man is an inadequate argument for
war and certainly an inadequate and unacceptable argument for regime
change."
Here an anti-conservative Dmitry agrees with the Conservative leader.
I can't help not to add that "we" also supported Osama Bin Laden when
he was fighting against Soviet invaders. And the argument that an
international terrorist is possibly living on the territory of a
country doesn't make the invasion legitimate. Taliban is/was a brutal
regime, I repeat, but Afghanistan has never attacked United States.
> Most of the people killed are killed primarily by other Afghans, not
> Americans. Ditto in Iraq.
Yes, but it was "Bush" who created the environment. More were killed
in Afghanistan during Bush's "liberation" than during NA vs Taliban
struggle. American invasion of Iraq made the country more unstable
(internally) than it was under Saddam.
> What's your solution -- surrender?
As I said before, my solution is to learn the lesson and not start any
more wars. There is no need to surrender, because neither US nor UK
have any threat of occupation by Iraq or Afghanistan. I think we
should get out our military forces out of these countries as soon as
possible. I would also like to see Tony Blair held responsible for
his military adventures.
> I think you are very wrong.
You do because you disagree with me on this issue. I don't mind, but
those who are in favor of Bush wars are in the minority in today's
Europe.
> I'm
> also quite certain that I'll be able to come back and say "I told you
> so" when Obama intervenes elsewhere, whether that is in Pakistan,
> Iran, or Yemen.
>I can't predict the future, but judging from how
> things are going at the moment, the Democrats look set to lose their
> majority in Congress and one of Obama's major difficulties is in the
> area of national security.
However powerful, I can’t see how US military can stretch to two or
three more occupations. Is Syria off the hook now?
> Re this view: "Bush administration was never committed to people of
> Afghanistan and Iraq." That's your interpretation, and I think it is
> incorrect. Though I have little admiration for Dubya, I don't doubt
> his sincere commitment to freedom and democracy.
He probably is in his own little world, but whether his insanity can
be a good enough excuse for what he did is another question.
> Never met the dude
> myself, but I do know people who have and they were astounded by the
> depth of his commitment to Eastern Europe in particular, as well as
> his knowledge of it.
He probably comes across as a nice fella, but happened to be in a
wrong business. Not long ago I’ve seen BBC documentary about
Ahmadinejad, he came across as a nice chap too.
Bush’s commitment to Eastern Europe seems to me as more artificial
than real. I can’t believe in Bush’s depth – to me, he is a very
shallow individual, I’m sorry.
> It's in nobody's interest, no matter what their ideology, to be
> against "the people." If anything, Obama is more pragmatic -- he is
> willing to keep his mouth shut about the horror taking place in Iran,
> because it does not do us any good to whine about it. But when I say
> people -- people are very different, especially in countries in deep
> conflict. Calling forth the "tauta" or "narod" in Latvia in 1919,
> you'd be deeply opposed to intervention also, based on what you
> write.
I can’t be sure what my thoughts of intervention would have been if I
lived in Latvia in 1919. Most likely I would have supported
independent Latvian Republic and oppose Bolsheviks. But in any case,
I don’t think there is much parallel – the background of foreign
intervention in post-Russian-revolution era was different from recent
US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The circumstances were also
different.
> Karlamov misinterprets what is meant re never making war on a
> democracy -- it's not to excuse attacking countries that aren't but
> simply an acknowledgment of the fact that democracies do not often go
> ballistic on their neighbors. No, nobody had a right to invade Poland
> in 1939 -- but Poland wasn't attacking anybody.
Democracy is just a word that has a particular definition, but can be
interpreted differently by different individuals and political
systems. Soviet regime had also claimed to be a democracy (as an
extreme example).
>
> How many did Saddam kill, Dmitry, from Marsh Arabs to Kuwaitis, Kurds
> to birds? See the UN resolutions on Iraq that preceded the invasion --
> I posted them for you before.
As if I have any sympathy to Saddam Hussein. I’m not questioning the
amount of Saddam’s crimes against humanity, but the legitimacy of US
occupation of Iraq.
> You seem to have considerable difficulty
> accepting the fact that Afghanistan was a haven for a group that
> attacked the US and still tries to do so today.
International terrorists are trained in many countries including USA
and Britain. Of course the major training grounds are in economically
deprived countries, so should Bush invade all of them? I think you
have a difficulty to see a wider picture, which I find strange (does
make me worry about you). What you are saying is: Saddam was a brutal
dictator and Taliban is an oppressive regime – so it was right to
start wars against these countries. Let’s go for it and invade any
place that violates human rights? Are you capable to operate any
killing equipment? You’ll never ever convince me that you’re able to
bomb villages, Peteris. I can’t imagine that you would be able to
kill a person just because you were told that this is a good cause. I
don’t believe you are that type. Besides, you already said that you
don’t support invasion of Iraq.
> As to the supposedly terrible oppression of the occupations -- excuse
> me, but both countries have their own governments.
Crimes committed by US and British military personnel (yes, Abu Ghraib
included) are not made up. There is enough evidence of it available.
> Severely flawed to
> the point of dubiousness in Afghanistan's case, sure -- but it does
> have a Parliament confident enough to reject most of Karzai's nominees
Meanwhile, Taliban controls vast part of the country and has support
from local population.
> As to Iraq, here is the ABC/BBC poll, which is fully sourced re
> methodology, etc. (.pdf document). --
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_09_iraqpollfeb2009.pdf
I couldn’t find the breakdown by area. Population of Iraq is around
31.000.000.
> Those who think the US occupation is the single biggest problem? Only
> 7%. Those who think the invasion was "absolutely right"? 19% "Somewhat
> right"? 23%. "Somewhat wrong"? 28%. "Absolutely wrong"? 28%.A slight
> majority thinks it was wrong, indeed -- but that's a heck of a lot of
> people who don't, Dmitry, despite the carnage.
I have a friend who came from Iraqi Kurdistan. He is a very talented
film maker. He is very much Kurdish nationalist. When he was a boy
he was loading the guns for Kurdish rebels. He doesn’t feel any guilt
for helping to kill Arabs, after what they did to his people. He told
me very disturbing stories he has witnessed. Yet he is totally
against American occupation of Iraq. He says that his opinion on
American invasion is a common one amongst Kurds. I trust a genuine
individual more than ABC/BBC polls.
> When you go to war, you make a commitment to specific forces -- in
> these cases, to those who would try to build a democracy.
I didn’t hear of any forces in Afghanistan and Iraq who were trying to
built democracy and ask Bush to come and help them out.
> All you are
> saying is "fuck 'em."
I’m saying that democracy should be driven by local people, not by
bombs sent by a fella from Texas.
>Then you can let Afghanistan (or Punjabistan --
> Pakistan is at least as much of a problem) descend into Medieval
> darkness and offer a haven to more people.attacking the West.
What do you mean by descend? Have they ever ascended? There was an
analyst from Slovenia on BBC Hard Talk very recently who believes that
the pre-Soviet occupation (or liberation, as people tend to
interpreted these terms in the way that is most convenient to their
views) Afghanistan was one of the most democratic countries in the
world. He is also a supporter of Lenin’s idea of communism.
> And then
> we can bomb them some more and more people will die, mostly at the
> hands of the Taliban, and more girls will get acid splashed in their
> faces just for going to school... but it will satisfy some absurd
> "principle" about the horrors of imperialism or make some "pacifist"
> feel good somewhere.
Taliban feeds pacifism? Interesting idea – very inventive.
> Vysu lobu,
Visu labu. I hope you’re OK. There was a snow disaster in North West
Kurzeme. How is it in South East Latgale?
> /P
Dmitry
> invasion of Afghanistan --
>
>
> I'm sure that you would find some support for ISAF among those
> described in the article -- and surrender would doom them.
Great! Should we invade Israel so all Palestinian refugees can return
to their lands? Some positive outcomes of the war without listing the
negative can easily fall into propaganda category. People are dying as
a result of violence there as we speak.
I know somebody who's been stationed in Afghanistan twice. He
actually did what you believe is a good thing to do, he killed lots of
them. He believes that all Afghans are bad people and deserved to be
killed, he also believe that anti-war protestors here in England are
fascists.
>
> Vysu lobu,
> /P
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
> > Labdien!
>
> > The surveys I have seen have indicated considerable support for the US
> > in the past, Dmitry -- I linked to one here a couple of years ago.
> > It's true that this support has declined precipitously, mostly because
> > of the air strikes. You are totally wrong, though, if you think there
> > wasn't support -- support for US intervention *was* massive, with 83%
> > of Afghans having a favorable opinion of the US in 2005, higher than
> > in any Muslim country with the possible exception of Albania. Here is
> > an article on the decline in support --
>
> >http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=6787686&page=1
>
> Labvakar!
> I simply can't imagine how representative such survey could be. I
> can't remember the links you posted, but were they limited to the
> territories held by NATO and NA? Also, how independent were the
> surveys? If 83% of Afghans were in favor of US occupation, why do you
> think Taliban is still not defeated, why do they still have so much
> support and no shortage of new recruits?
Here's the note on methodology for the latest poll in Iraq by the same
news organizations --
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=7067400&page=1
I'm sure that it's quite difficult to do reliable polling in either
Iraq or Afghanistan (e.g., how Afghan women answer is doubtless
strongly affected by the culture), but these polls track support and,
as noted, it has declined steeply; there's no reason I can see to
suspect that the earlier numbers were wrong.
Iraq has held fairly decent elections, so it is easier to gauge
opinion there. It would probably have been best to discuss these wars
separately, since they're so very different.
As to why the Taliban still isn't defeated (and I wouldn't ask why
they *still* have so much support; I think their support grew, or
rather -- grew again) -- lots of reasons, among them disappointment
with the situation after their defeat. The air strikes, as I said, are
a major factor.
Like the recent poll says: "frustrated by ongoing violence and uneven
development, Afghans have grown sharply more critical of U.S.
efforts..." Bear in mind, too, the tactics that the Taliban uses, and
those of the competing warlords.
> > The fortunes of war often shift dramatically. I bring up the Latvian
> > example because the freshly proclaimed Republic had very little public
> > support when it was recognized by Britain.
>
> How little? I would be surprised that Latvian republic could
> establish if 83% of Latvians were against independence from Soviet
> Russia. Britain helped, but would Latvian Republic happen without
> public support? I was told by numerous people who witnessed this
> period that creation of independent Latvian State was very much
> favored by Latvian people. I never had an impression that
> independence was forced on Latvia by Brits.
There were no ABC/BBC polls back then, but I would say that support
was lower for the Republic of Latvia when it was proclaimed than it
was for the recent invasion of Afghanistan, from what I've read. This
is why I said the fortunes of war shift dramatically; the people of
Latvia really only came together in response to Bermondt-Avalov's
attack, nearly a full year after the Republic was proclaimed. Two
years before then, in the autumn of 1917, support for the Bolsheviks
was higher here in Southern Livland (Vidzeme) than it was almost
anywhere in Russia, in the elections to the Duma. Much of Latvia came
under prolonged German occupation, detested by the Latvian population.
Ulmanis' provisional government was distrusted because of its alliance
of convenience with the Germans. The Bolsheviks lost much of their
popularity because of the horrors of their brief rule and their
failure to give the peasants land. Even so, we are talking about
shifting multinational forces; the Poles and the Landeswehr (under
Harold Alexander) played a much larger role in the liberation of
Latgola than Latvians did, for example. The Estonians played the major
role in the defeat of the Germans at Cēsis. The British and French
were instrumental in breaking the siege of Riga. If there were polls,
I am sure you would have seen radically differing views shifting
dramatically over short periods of time. Some of those views were
irreconcilable (e.g., among many of the Bolsheviks and
> > You should also be aware of the fact that this isn't only America's
> > war, much less only Bush's war -- as Obama says, it is "a conflict
> > that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 43 other
> > countries — including Norway — in an effort to defend ourselves and
> > all nations from further attacks." Peace-loving countries ranging from
> > the Baltic states to neutral Switzerland are also contributing to the
> > war effort, as is the country that gives out the Nobel Peace Prize.
>
> The idea of invading Afghanistan came from Bush administration, the
> rest is politics.
I don't see what you're trying to say by that. Politics precede wars
and certainly don't cease during war. Afghanistan didn't even have a
legal government in 2001; more precisely, the government most
countries recognized did not control most of the country -- the
Taliban, which did, was a regime unrecognized by most of the world.
The country had been in a civil war since 1978. Al-Qaeda, its
leadership based in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, attacked the US.
The US then issued an ultimatum to the Taliban. The Taliban did not
comply. As I suggested to you before, it's likely that any US
President would have attacked after 9/11; Obama most definitely would
have, and if you think he wouldn't have now that he has escalated the
war, you must be loopy.
Politics don't cease in war; following the invasion, there was the
Bonn Agreement and then a loya jirga. If you don't remember it,
there's an excellent documentary called "Hell of a Nation" that you
can watch here --
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/hell-of-a-nation/introduction/935/
In Afghanistan as in Iraq, agreeing or disagreeing with the decision
to invade is one thing; what happened and happens after are another
thing. You can't return to the status quo ante in either case; there
is no Saddam, and I don't think even you would like to see Afghanistan
again under Taliban rule. Debate about the legality of the invasions
is one thing; the legitimacy of what took and takes place afterwards
are another. In other words, politics are also the way out of war and
the best hope there is of something better.
> Note, that the following invasion (Iraq) didn't
> have an overwhelming support.
True. But doing nothing had no support, either. When we last argued
about this, I gave you links to some of the resolutions passed by by
the Security Council. I personally believe that the invasion of Iraq
was a violation of international law. Once it was invaded, however, it
had international legitimacy. Invading and then leaving, dropping a
country into a worse hell than that which preceded an invasion, is far
worse than attempting to re-establish a state.
> Tony Blair joined in, which costed him
> enormous unpopularity among British people and alienation of many
> members of Labor party in senior position. Spanish leader also joined
> in support, but that was more moral than practical. Germany and
> France were very explicit in their disapproval. Many Western European
> countries learn from mistakes and learn very quickly.
I think France has one of the most hypocritical, selfish foreign
policies on the planet. Consider what it does in its former African
colonies --
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/world/africa/13francophone.html
It's interesting that you concentrate on Western European opinion
(though I would point out that the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy,
Iceland and Norway, all of which contributed troops to the coalition,
are also in Western Europe... and two of those, Iceland and Denmark,
were the most significant countries to the Baltic states in their
early and strong support for the restoration of our independence,
largely for moral reasons).
I don't see any reason to think Western Europe is wiser than Eastern
Europe, where most governments supported the US. In fact, I think it's
quite the opposite. As Vaclav Havel said:
"I think it's not by chance that the idea of confronting evil may have
found more support in those countries that have had a recent
experience with totalitarian systems compared with other European
countries that haven't had the same sort of recent experience....The
Czech experience with Munich, with appeasement, with yielding to evil,
with demanding more and more evidence that Hitler was truly evil --
that may be one reason that we look at things differently than some
others....It's a matter of the functioning of the world's immune
system, whether the world can deal with such a case of extreme evil
before it is too late."
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/02/17/030217fa_fact1
> Iraq war question is now under investigation here and Tony Blair will
> have to answer many questions. A few days ago John Major hit the
> headlines, here is BBC coveragehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8437422.stm
> "There are many bad men around the world who run countries and we
> don't topple them, and indeed in earlier years we had actually
> supported Saddam Hussein when he was fighting against Iran.
> "The argument that someone is a bad man is an inadequate argument for
> war and certainly an inadequate and unacceptable argument for regime
> change."
> Here an anti-conservative Dmitry agrees with the Conservative leader.
> I can't help not to add that "we" also supported Osama Bin Laden when
> he was fighting against Soviet invaders. And the argument that an
> international terrorist is possibly living on the territory of a
> country doesn't make the invasion legitimate. Taliban is/was a brutal
> regime, I repeat, but Afghanistan has never attacked United States.
I have a lot more respect for Havel than I do for Major (or Blair, for
that matter).
You're veering into weird conspiracist absurdity with the word
"possibly," as you've done before. What's this "possibly"? Before the
US began bombing, the Taliban said it would be willing to try Bin
Laden in an Islamic court. Once it began bombing, it offered to
discuss handing him over to a third country (but not the US) if the
bombing were to stop.
I would remind you, too, that the attacks on the US by al-Qaeda did
not begin on 9/11. Bin Laden had already charged for the bloody
attacks on the US embassies in Africa in 1998. Clinton launched a
missile attack on bin Laden's bases in Afghanistan back then.
If you knowingly harbor a murderer in your house, you're a criminal
and will be treated as such.
> > Most of the people killed are killed primarily by other Afghans, not
> > Americans. Ditto in Iraq.
>
> Yes, but it was "Bush" who created the environment. More were killed
> in Afghanistan during Bush's "liberation" than during NA vs Taliban
> struggle. American invasion of Iraq made the country more unstable
> (internally) than it was under Saddam.
I don't think that argument is valid, at least as phrased. Fighting
Hitler probably killed a lot more people than just letting him take
over Europe would have -- so what? I also don't think it's especially
easy to quantify the lives ruined by regimes like Saddam's or the
Taliban.
Neither do I think that your obsession with Bush causing these wars is
reasonable. Bin Laden *wanted* and *wants* a war. Saddam, already
responsible for a great deal of war and carnage, could have defused
the situation in the Gulf but didn't.
> > What's your solution -- surrender?
>
> As I said before, my solution is to learn the lesson and not start any
> more wars. There is no need to surrender, because neither US nor UK
> have any threat of occupation by Iraq or Afghanistan. I think we
> should get out our military forces out of these countries as soon as
> possible. I would also like to see Tony Blair held responsible for
> his military adventures.
We should indeed get our military forces out as soon as possible --
i.e., when the situation permits.
> > I think you are very wrong.
>
> You do because you disagree with me on this issue. I don't mind, but
> those who are in favor of Bush wars are in the minority in today's
> Europe.
Popular opinion is fickle. Europe was and maybe still is rather
enthused by Obama, but is pretty deaf to what he says about
Afghanistan. Europe can't provide for its own security.
> > I'm
> > also quite certain that I'll be able to come back and say "I told you
> > so" when Obama intervenes elsewhere, whether that is in Pakistan,
> > Iran, or Yemen.
> >I can't predict the future, but judging from how
> > things are going at the moment, the Democrats look set to lose their
> > majority in Congress and one of Obama's major difficulties is in the
> > area of national security.
>
> However powerful, I can’t see how US military can stretch to two or
> three more occupations. Is Syria off the hook now?
Intervention doesn't necessarily mean occupation. There's little point
in occupying Yemen, methinks, and the US experience in Somalia (not a
"Bush war," to use your term) suggests that intervention there would
probably be disastrous.
Like I said -- I can't predict the future. I can tell you that another
successful major terrorist attack on the US would almost certainly
produce a military response no matter who the US President is.
Total breakdown in Pakistan? Iran getting the nukes it so desires? If
the US stands back in the latter case, what will Israel do? I don't
know.
> > Re this view: "Bush administration was never committed to people of
> > Afghanistan and Iraq." That's your interpretation, and I think it is
> > incorrect. Though I have little admiration for Dubya, I don't doubt
> > his sincere commitment to freedom and democracy.
>
> He probably is in his own little world, but whether his insanity can
> be a good enough excuse for what he did is another question.
I don't think it's insanity. The arguments you make wouldn't fly with
his opposition either, Dmitry -- Hillary Clinton, Obama's Secretary of
State, is not a pacifist (regarding a US response if Iran launched a
nuclear attack on Israel: "we would be able to totally obliterate
them.") If you read Obama's speech, you must see that your views are
diametrically opposed to his, too.
> > Never met the dude
> > myself, but I do know people who have and they were astounded by the
> > depth of his commitment to Eastern Europe in particular, as well as
> > his knowledge of it.
>
> He probably comes across as a nice fella, but happened to be in a
> wrong business. Not long ago I’ve seen BBC documentary about
> Ahmadinejad, he came across as a nice chap too.
> Bush’s commitment to Eastern Europe seems to me as more artificial
> than real. I can’t believe in Bush’s depth – to me, he is a very
> shallow individual, I’m sorry.
I'm not sure what the distinction between "artificial" and "real" is.
He came to Latvia twice for a reason. He worked to expand NATO, and
many Eastern Europeans are delighted that he did. He supported
Georgia.
And he's extremely popular in Albania [grin].
> > It's in nobody's interest, no matter what their ideology, to be
> > against "the people." If anything, Obama is more pragmatic -- he is
> > willing to keep his mouth shut about the horror taking place in Iran,
> > because it does not do us any good to whine about it. But when I say
> > people -- people are very different, especially in countries in deep
> > conflict. Calling forth the "tauta" or "narod" in Latvia in 1919,
> > you'd be deeply opposed to intervention also, based on what you
> > write.
>
> I can’t be sure what my thoughts of intervention would have been if I
> lived in Latvia in 1919. Most likely I would have supported
> independent Latvian Republic and oppose Bolsheviks. But in any case,
> I don’t think there is much parallel – the background of foreign
> intervention in post-Russian-revolution era was different from recent
> US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The circumstances were also
> different.
I agree that there's no parallel -- I'm raising it as a hypothetical
simply because many of your views as I perceive them make you opposed
to practically any intervention anywhere. I take a completely
different view. I agree with Obama's speech, essentially:
"Yet the world must remember that it was not simply international
institutions — not just treaties and declarations — that brought
stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have
made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped
underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of
our citizens and the strength of our arms."
There were many factors in the free world's victory over the USSR, but
it would have never have happened without a strong US. Unlike some
here, I'm glad the free world won.
> > Karlamov misinterprets what is meant re never making war on a
> > democracy -- it's not to excuse attacking countries that aren't but
> > simply an acknowledgment of the fact that democracies do not often go
> > ballistic on their neighbors. No, nobody had a right to invade Poland
> > in 1939 -- but Poland wasn't attacking anybody.
>
> Democracy is just a word that has a particular definition, but can be
> interpreted differently by different individuals and political
> systems. Soviet regime had also claimed to be a democracy (as an
> extreme example).
Claiming to be one and being one are very different things. Yes, there
are different kinds of democracies and degrees of democracy. There are
also undemocratic and anti-democratic regimes. I do not think
democracy is just a word.
> > How many did Saddam kill, Dmitry, from Marsh Arabs to Kuwaitis, Kurds
> > to birds? See the UN resolutions on Iraq that preceded the invasion --
> > I posted them for you before.
>
> As if I have any sympathy to Saddam Hussein. I’m not questioning the
> amount of Saddam’s crimes against humanity, but the legitimacy of US
> occupation of Iraq.
See above; the legitimacy of the invasion and of the occupation are
different things. All you seem to offer as a solution is immediate
withdrawal, damn the consequences. The fact that more than forty
countries make an effort in Afghanistan and that Bush is long gone
doesn't seem to matter to you at all.
> > You seem to have considerable difficulty
> > accepting the fact that Afghanistan was a haven for a group that
> > attacked the US and still tries to do so today.
>
> International terrorists are trained in many countries including USA
> and Britain. Of course the major training grounds are in economically
> deprived countries, so should Bush invade all of them? I think you
> have a difficulty to see a wider picture, which I find strange (does
> make me worry about you). What you are saying is: Saddam was a brutal
> dictator and Taliban is an oppressive regime – so it was right to
> start wars against these countries. Let’s go for it and invade any
> place that violates human rights? Are you capable to operate any
> killing equipment? You’ll never ever convince me that you’re able to
> bomb villages, Peteris. I can’t imagine that you would be able to
> kill a person just because you were told that this is a good cause. I
> don’t believe you are that type. Besides, you already said that you
> don’t support invasion of Iraq.
I said I did not support the invasion, yes; again, that's different
with regard to views on what to do in its aftermath. Again, Bush is
long gone.
The wider picture? What's yours? Disarm and let the Caliphate take
over? I can't help but think that you labor under the illusion that
there is no evil in the world. Or, perhaps, like "democracy," "evil"
is just a word?
> > As to the supposedly terrible oppression of the occupations -- excuse
> > me, but both countries have their own governments.
>
> Crimes committed by US and British military personnel (yes, Abu Ghraib
> included) are not made up. There is enough evidence of it available.
I'm certainly not denying that crimes have been committed. It's
terrible, and Obama is well aware of the fact that the crimes caused
America's standing in the world to nosedive. Crimes are committed in
every war, though -- and despite Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.
(all far worse than Abu Ghraib by many a magnitude, and I'm not even
going to wander into the Soviet crimes here), I'm still damn glad that
Nazi Germany and Japan were defeated.
Like I said, I'm not a Dubya fan. I think waterboarding is torture,
I'm not fond of bellicose unilateralism, etc., etc.
Again from Obama's speech: "Where force is necessary, we have a moral
and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of
conduct." Tell me if I'm wrong, but you don't seem to believe that
force is ever necessary. That is our fundamental disagreement,
Dmitry.
> > Severely flawed to
> > the point of dubiousness in Afghanistan's case, sure -- but it does
> > have a Parliament confident enough to reject most of Karzai's nominees
>
> Meanwhile, Taliban controls vast part of the country and has support
> from local population.
It has some support, yes. It also uses tactics that terrorize the
population into silence and/or support.
> > As to Iraq, here is the ABC/BBC poll, which is fully sourced re
> > methodology, etc. (.pdf document). --
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/13_03_09_iraqpollfeb2009.pdf
>
> I couldn’t find the breakdown by area. Population of Iraq is around
> 31.000.000.
I gave a link to the methodology used at the beginning of this post.
This discussion is so long that I'd rather not stretch it into the
believability of polls. Perhaps we can simply agree that while they're
probably not especially reliable in these countries, they do give an
indication of what people think. Fair?
> > Those who think the US occupation is the single biggest problem? Only
> > 7%. Those who think the invasion was "absolutely right"? 19% "Somewhat
> > right"? 23%. "Somewhat wrong"? 28%. "Absolutely wrong"? 28%.A slight
> > majority thinks it was wrong, indeed -- but that's a heck of a lot of
> > people who don't, Dmitry, despite the carnage.
>
> I have a friend who came from Iraqi Kurdistan. He is a very talented
> film maker. He is very much Kurdish nationalist. When he was a boy
> he was loading the guns for Kurdish rebels. He doesn’t feel any guilt
> for helping to kill Arabs, after what they did to his people. He told
> me very disturbing stories he has witnessed. Yet he is totally
> against American occupation of Iraq. He says that his opinion on
> American invasion is a common one amongst Kurds. I trust a genuine
> individual more than ABC/BBC polls.
I haven't been to Iraq, but I did spend over a month in Syria and
spoke to many people, including Iraqi refugees and Kurdish
nationalists. Views varied between yours, mine, and everything in
between.
Even if you doubt polls deeply, they have always showed considerable
contrasts between different groups in Iraq, and Kurds have been
*extremely* supportive of the coalition; a 2004 survey showed that 87%
(!) of Iraqi Kurds thought the invasion was right, Dmitry, compared to
51% of Shi'ite Arabs and 24% of Sunni Arabs --
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/WorldNewsTonight/iraq_poll_040317.html
If you don't trust surveys at all, you can Google just as well as I
can and find countless interviews and articles showing Kurdish support
for the US. You'll also find opposition, of course (just as you'll
find Stalin's apologists at s.c.b.), but the main thing with Kurds is
that they are rightfully wary of the US. They worry about being
betrayed; they've been horribly betrayed before. And I hate to break
it to you, but a position like yours would be a betrayal.
> > When you go to war, you make a commitment to specific forces -- in
> > these cases, to those who would try to build a democracy.
>
> I didn’t hear of any forces in Afghanistan and Iraq who were trying to
> built democracy and ask Bush to come and help them out.
Huh? The Kurdish peshmerga was the second largest force in Iraq after
the US (larger than Britain's). In Afghanistan, it was the Northern
Alliance that did the ground fighting at first, taking Kabul with US
and UK air support.
> > All you are
> > saying is "fuck 'em."
>
> I’m saying that democracy should be driven by local people, not by
> bombs sent by a fella from Texas.
And here do see a logical parallel with Latvia in 1919, again only as
a hypothetical -- without the British ships, Riga may well have fallen
to Bermondt-Avalov, and it's quite possible that there wouldn't be a
Latvia today. I usually resist what-if games, but your logic provokes
me!
> >Then you can let Afghanistan (or Punjabistan --
> > Pakistan is at least as much of a problem) descend into Medieval
> > darkness and offer a haven to more people.attacking the West.
>
> What do you mean by descend? Have they ever ascended? There was an
> analyst from Slovenia on BBC Hard Talk very recently who believes that
> the pre-Soviet occupation (or liberation, as people tend to
> interpreted these terms in the way that is most convenient to their
> views) Afghanistan was one of the most democratic countries in the
> world. He is also a supporter of Lenin’s idea of communism.
Tribal societies *can* be quite democratic in their way; French
travelers said the same of Chechnya before the Russians took it (I
mean, took it originally). Whether Afghanistan can actually build a
modern nation-state -- I don't know. I hope it can, but it doesn't
look good.
Just as there are degrees of democracy, there are degrees of darkness.
I think a lot of good has been done in Afghanistan since the invasion
-- I don't see why you simply discount that.
India, for instance, is the second largest donor to the country after
the US --
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/2009/05/the-india-factor-in-afghanistan.html
I think providing electricity, building schools, teaching women how to
grow vegetables, sending young Afghans to Indian universities, etc.
are all great things. And the Taliban's reaction is to do whatever it
can to destroy everything being done.
And please, don't give me your "the Soviets also said that" line. Many
of the countries in the coalition are exemplary democracies working
with the best of intentions, hoping to improve the lives of Afghans
and actually doing so. Obama spoke of "enlightened self-interest"; I
don't think there's anything wrong with self-interest per se,
especially not if it coincides with these sorts of efforts. India
obviously has strategic reasons for doing what it's doing, just as the
US and UK do -- and indeed, as Latvia does. But what we're doing is
good, especially by comparison to the Taliban and what would happen if
we were to simply abandon our allies.
[snip]
War is hell. I'm not a warmonger -- Osama Bin Laden is, and that's
something I don't think you, er, appreciate. Everybody here (even
Karlamov, khe) would doubtless like to see peace in a beautiful world
lickety-split. We have different views of what that peace should look
like and how to get there.
I don't think anybody is saintly (esp. not any politician!) and I
don't think any system is perfect. Even the countries I admire the
most are severely flawed. I don't think the levels of consumption in
developed countries are sustainable, I think the US has done a lot of
truly nasty things in addition to the good, etc., etc.
Not all peaceniks are saintly, either! You might consider this --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement
I basically agree with Obama's speech -- he struck some themes similar
to those I tried to strike in a speech I wrote for VVF. I think it's
incumbent on people who live in and/or grew up in decent societies to
realize how those societies were built, ugliness and all. I see a lot
of gray areas, and the black-and-white was Dubya's biggest flaw in my
eyes. The "you're either with us or against us" rhetoric was
profoundly disturbing. But at the same time, I find the sort of moral
relativism indulged in by some here repugnant; it's quite devious, the
"whataboutery" and the slippery parallels.
Western Europe's peace and security emerged by force of arms. "The
rest is just politics"? Like Obama said, non-violent protest wouldn't
have stopped Hitler's armies. It didn't stop the Chinese in Tienanmen
Square -- nor did it stop the Soviet tanks in Vilnius. You may believe
that leaving everybody alone, caving to Islamists, etc. would bring
about world peace -- I don't. The UN is wonderful for some things, but
it hasn't brought about peace. One of its most effective actions --
the reason there's still a South Korea and not an insane dictatorship
on the entire peninsula -- took place only because the Russians were
boycotting the UN.
No, Dmitry, I don't want to bomb villages. I don't think too many
people are really into that -- it's more a question of "do you *have*
to bomb and how do you do it. There's a reason Serbs felt free to
gather on bridges during the NATO bombing campaign. If you think Osama
Bin Laden would hesitate to bomb a bridge because people were
protesting on it, you're wrong -- it would probably make him *more*
likely to bomb it, even if the people on it were his fellow Muslims.
More notable, more likely to provoke the war he wants.
As to invading every miserable country that breeds terrorists -- can't
do it. Shouldn't do it, because it would often cause more death and
destruction. And simply breed more terrorists. So one tries to kill as
few people as possible, especially civilians. Do we still commit war
crimes? Yes. Punish them. There are a lot of things in what you call
Bush's wars that are truly horrible. All wars are horrible. That's not
what I'm arguing, though. To quote Obama again: "So yes, the
instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And
yet this truth must coexist with another — that no matter how
justified, war promises human tragedy."
It's my impression that you don't believe there's such a thing as a
just war. I do. So we have a strong disagreement on principle.
Merry Christmas!
/P
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
> > Dmitry, here is a fresh article on one of the accomplishments of the
> > invasion of Afghanistan --
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/asia/04hazaras.html?ref=globa...
>
> > I'm sure that you would find some support for ISAF among those
> > described in the article -- and surrender would doom them.
>
> Great! Should we invade Israel so all Palestinian refugees can return
> to their lands?
Way too much stuff already, so I won't wade into Israel at this time.
My answer, though, is no -- we shouldn't invade Israel.
> Some positive outcomes of the war without listing the
> negative can easily fall into propaganda category.
Yep -- but the reverse is also true: looking only at the negative
without looking at the positive can also fall into the propaganda
category.
> People are dying as
> a result of violence there as we speak.
Many people were dying of the violence there before the US invasion,
too. You think a simple count of the killed answers all the questions?
> I know somebody who's been stationed in Afghanistan twice. He
> actually did what you believe is a good thing to do, he killed lots of
> them. He believes that all Afghans are bad people and deserved to be
> killed, he also believe that anti-war protestors here in England are
> fascists.
Excuse me, but I did not ever say that killing lots of Afghans is a
good thing to do.
As to anti-war protesters being fascists -- most aren't, but some are.
It so happens that some of the people I know personally who are the
most fervently opposed to these wars are of a red-brown tint , though
they'd never see themselves that way. Some protests have included
remarkably vile rhetoric. There is, of course, some fascism on the
other side, too.
And then there's "Islamofascism"; Christopher Hitchens mounts a
defense of that term here --
http://www.slate.com/id/2176389/
Vysu lobu,
/P
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Yes, the Pact was signed by the big sharks: Nazi Germany, France,
Britain, and Italy. Hungary and Poland were too small to participate,
but their occupation of Czechoslovakia was a more direct and immediate
consequence to the Munich Pact than the Soviet attack on Finland was
to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Interesting how when Nazi Germany agrees with communist USSR to divide
the spheres of influence - Western propagandists call it a "Pact"",
but when the very same Nazi Germany agrees with England to divide
Czechoslovakia between Nazi Germany, fascist Hungary and dictatorial
Poland - they call it a benign nice-looking word "agreement".
Why don't we ask the main subject of the Munich Pact - Czechs - what
the proper word should be:
The Munich Pact (Czech: Mnichovská dohoda; Slovak: Mníchovská dohoda;
German: Münchner Abkommen; French: Accords de Munich; Italian: Accordi
di Monaco) was an agreement permitting Nazi German annexation of
Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland.
Because the state of Czechoslovakia was not invited to the conference,
the Munich Agreement is sometimes called the Munich Dictate by Czechs
and Slovaks (Mnichovský diktát). The phrase Munich betrayal
(Mnichovská zrada) is also used because military alliances between
Czechoslovakia and France were not honoured. However, today the
document is typically referred to simply as the Munich Deal
(Mnichovská dohoda) even in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
---------------------------------------------
Is it a deal?
Anton
>> http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=6787686&page=1
>
> Labvakar!
> I simply can't imagine how representative such survey could be. I
> can't remember the links you posted, but were they limited to the
> territories held by NATO and NA? Also, how independent were the
> surveys? If 83% of Afghans were in favor of US occupation, why do you
> think Taliban is still not defeated, why do they still have so much
> support and no shortage of new recruits?
Belive it or not, one reason is money: Taleban pay better salaries than
the Afghan government.
--
Anton
daniloff
"Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <ced...@gmail.com> ???????/???????? ?
???????? ?????????: news:0160de6b-ab0c-40bf-
> When were the Christmas Battles, Daniloff? What "false statement" have
> I made?
>
> Here's my personal take --
>
> http://lettonica.blogspot.com/2006/12/christmas-battles.html
I have read your personal take.
But I find out only your emotions there, no sources and quantitative data.
Latvian rifle men was courageous warriors, died for Tzar and hated Germans.
I agree to those assertions but there are emotions only, nothing else.
>
> Sorry, but your contention -- that most Riflemen were Red -- is pretty
> fucking false.
>
> Sympathy for Reds at that time, in context (both shifting unbelievably
> rapidly in that era) means what? In terms of destroying the murderous,
> autocratic Russian Empire -- well, sorry, but unlike some here at
> s.c.b. I think that's a great thing and still do. Russia was the
> prison house of nations and still is. The sooner your shithouse and
> false "federation" comes down, the better for everybody -- Russians
> included.
Emotions only again, sorry
>
> /P
>
>
>
>
>
>
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
vello
Your logic is a bit childish, you agree? Hungary and Poland made their
move after Germany brokes the munich pact and forces Chechoslaovakia
to give parts of land to hungary and Poland, too, under Vienna Award,
where players were Germany and Italy - not France or UK.
But Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was straightforward pact of predators -
you read there what parts each predator wants to annihilate, and
exactly this way happens in reality.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
<cedr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2:38 am, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > > Dmitry, here is a fresh article on one of the accomplishments of the
> > > invasion of Afghanistan --
>
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/asia/04hazaras.html?ref=globa...
>
> > > I'm sure that you would find some support for ISAF among those
> > > described in the article -- and surrender would doom them.
>
> > Great! Should we invade Israel so all Palestinian refugees can return
> > to their lands?
>
> Way too much stuff already, so I won't wade into Israel at this time.
> My answer, though, is no -- we shouldn't invade Israel.
>
Whew! Great that Israel is not on the long list of countries for USA
to invade, now made even longer with the inclusion of Yemen after some
Nigerian boy was caught on an American plane with a bomb up his
pants.
>
> > Some positive outcomes of the war without listing the
> > negative can easily fall into propaganda category.
>
> Yep -- but the reverse is also true: looking only at the negative
> without looking at the positive can also fall into the propaganda
> category.
>
> > People are dying as
> > a result of violence there as we speak.
>
> Many people were dying of the violence there before the US invasion,
> too.
>
Well, I know that few if any Iraqis were dying of violence in the
decade prior to the US invasion in 2003, but I am not an expert on
Afghanistan and am not aware of many people dying of violence there in
the 6 or so years of Taliban rule right before the American invasion
in 2001. Wasn't Afghanistan under the Taliban rule much less violent
than it has been under the American occupation?
>
> > I know somebody who's been stationed in Afghanistan twice. He
> > actually did what you believe is a good thing to do, he killed lots of
> > them. He believes that all Afghans are bad people and deserved to be
> > killed, he also believe that anti-war protestors here in England are
> > fascists.
>
> Excuse me, but I did not ever say that killing lots of Afghans is a
> good thing to do.
>
Yes, the US Marines hate the thought of war, and killing off the
natives by peaceful means would be prefereble to violence:
http://www.stlyrics.com/songs/t/tomlehrer3903/sendthemarines185498.html
Tom Lehrer - Send the Marines anthem (from 1960s)
When someone makes a move
Of which we don't approve,
Who is it that always intervenes?
U.N. and O.A.S.,
They have their place, I guess,
But first -- send the Marines!
Members of the corps
All hate the thought of war,
They'd rather KILL THEM OFF BY PEACEFUL MEANS.
Stop calling it aggression,
Ooooh we hate that expression!
We only want the world to know
That we support the status quo.
They love us everywhere we go!
So when in doubt -- send the Marines!
> As to anti-war protesters being fascists -- most aren't, but some are.
> It so happens that some of the people I know personally who are the
> most fervently opposed to these wars are of a red-brown tint , though
> they'd never see themselves that way.
>
Tom Lehrer, the professor of mathematics at MIT and one of the most
famous satirists in American history, never sees himself as a fascist,
but if Cedrins chooses to call him "red-brown" - then he is one. I
suspect the lythmus test would be Leherer's view on Russia. If he
likes Russia - he is a red fascist. And since Lherer was a math-
russian language major at Harvard, he probably likes Russia...
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
>
No. It is just that little children don't understand adult logic, and
mature logic seems childishto them.
>
> Hungary and Poland made their
> move after Germany brokes the munich pact and forces Chechoslaovakia
> to give parts of land to hungary and Poland, too, under Vienna Award,
> where players were Germany and Italy - not France or UK.
> But Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was straightforward pact of predators -
> you read there what parts each predator wants to annihilate, and
> exactly this way happens in reality.
>
I don't quite understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the
occupation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Gemrany, Hungary and Poland was
NOT a direct and immediate consequence of the Munich Pact?
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
What did the Munich Agreement say about Czechoslavakia? That England
and france will do nothing to protect Czechoslavakia when Hitler
annexes Sudetenland. This Pact is signed on September 1938.
So, immediately - Hitler annexes Sudetenland and Poland annexes
Zaolzie, and a month later - Hungary annexes the southern third of
Slovakia and southern Carpathian Ruthenia, weakening Czechoslavakia
to the point of helplessness.
Then 6 months later, in March 1939 - Germany occupies the rest of
Czechia, and transforms Czechia and Slovakia into protectorates of
the Reich.
And what did the Allies - UK and France - do in March 1939? Exactly
the same as they did in September-October 1938: nothing. So, how was
their actions in March 1939 any different than during the annexation
of Sudetenland in October 1938?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Pact
1. Germany occupies the Sudetenland (October 1938)
2. Poland annexes Zaolzie (October 1938).
3. Hungary occupies border areas (southern third of Slovakia and
southern Carpathian Ruthenia) in accordance with the First Vienna
Award (November 1938)
4. Carpathian Ruthenia receives autonomy.
5. In March 1939 the remaining Czech territories become the German
satellite Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
6. From the remainder of Czechoslovakia, Slovakia is created, becoming
another German satellite.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> > move after Germany brokes the munich pact and forces Chechoslaovakia
> > to give parts of land to hungary and Poland, too, under Vienna Award,
> > where players were Germany and Italy - not France or UK.
>
Poland occupied Zaolzie immediately after the Munich Pact was signed.
The Vienna Awards were signed later.
>
> > Your logic is a bit childish, you agree?
>
> No. It is just that little children don't understand adult logic, and
> mature logic seems childishto them.
>
> > But Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was straightforward pact of predators -
> > you read there what parts each predator wants to annihilate, and
> > exactly this way happens in reality.
>
Annihilate? Where is annihilation mentioned or implied in the USSR-
Germany Non-Aggression Pact? The worst interpretation would be that
Germany promised not to interfere if and when USSR tried to reclaim
the former territories of the Russian Empire: Latvia, Estonia, Finland
and parts of Belarussia and Ukraine annexed by Poland in 1920. Latvia,
Estonia and Finland used to be colonies of the Russian Empire but they
were never annihilated, were they?
In fact, Germany's role here was exactly the same as UK and France's
in the Munich Pact: Germany promised not to interfere if USSR attacked
Latvia, Estonia, and Finland; while UK and France promised not to
interfere if Germany attacked Czechoslovakia.
vello
>
Read and think - maybe you will understand, maybe not. Munich pact was
about Sudetendeutsche. Vienna awards were about latter cutting of
Czechoslovakkia. first pact was undersign by UK and France, second was
not.
Now read secret part of Mol-Rip: there is exactly marked who wants to
eat what and where are borders of hinting areas of both predators.
vello
what's the difference? Would be Turkey more justified to occupy
hungary then swiss on basis that hungary once was a Turkish colony?
>
> In fact, Germany's role here was exactly the same as UK and France's
> in the Munich Pact: Germany promised not to interfere if USSR attacked
> Latvia, Estonia, and Finland; while UK and France promised not to
> interfere if Germany attacked Czechoslovakia.
a) Munich pact was about letting sudetendeutsche rejoin their nation -
any plebiscite would given exactly the same result as Munich pact.
b) You by some weird reason take to describe just half of Mo-Rib pact:
other half sets there that also SU will not react if Germany will
attack Poland.
c) and there was third thing also - marking lines where twwo predators
will stop to avoid collision. nothing like this in Munich pact.
And of course main difference - UK and France, undersigning Munich
pact had no territorial interests. They don't stop a predator, but
they don't become a predator by themselves.
>
>
>
>
>
> > I don't quite understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the
> > occupation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi Gemrany, Hungary and Poland was
> > NOT a direct and immediate consequence of the Munich Pact?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
vello
And you see UK and France are responsible for all that? Sure, they
don't stop Hitler. But the same grave sin is in soul of Holland,
Portugal, USA, Australia etc etc. no country went to stop Hitler, one
country even allies with Hitler to share the pride.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
I was talking about your claim that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Agreement
included plans to "annihilate" Finns and Balts.
>
>
> > In fact, Germany's role here was exactly the same as UK and France's
> > in the Munich Pact: Germany promised not to interfere if USSR attacked
> > Latvia, Estonia, and Finland; while UK and France promised not to
> > interfere if Germany attacked Czechoslovakia.
>
> a) Munich pact was about letting sudetendeutsche rejoin their nation -
>
I am glad that you respect Hitler's "justification" for his rape of
Czechoslovakia - the desire to let "sudetendeutsche rejoin their
nation".
How come you are not as receptive to the desire of South Ossetians to
rejoin the rest of the Ossetian nation? Why is it that only Nazi
territorial conquests find a receptive ear in you?
What about Stalin's conquest in 1939 of Ukrainian, Belorussian and
Lithuanian territories, which Poland stole in 1920? Don't Ukrainians,
Belorussians and Lithuanians have the same right to "rejoin their
nations"?
And how about the German aggression on Poland in 1939? Weren't the
German people of Pomerelia and Danzig entitled to "rejoin their
nation" too? Why does Czechoslovakia have less rights to keep its
territories with large German populations than Poland?
What if the people of Daugavpils in today's Latvia or Crimea in
today's Ukraine decide to "rejoin their nation" of Russia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_City_of_Danzig
The Free City of Danzig was a semi-autonomous Baltic Sea port and city-
state that was created on 10 January 1920, against the wishes of the
local population [1] but in accordance with the terms of the Treaty
of Versailles of 1919. The Free City included the city of Danzig and
over two hundred nearby towns, villages, and settlements, all of which
had been a part of the former German Empire. As the League of Nations
decreed, the region was to remain separated from the nation of Germany
The Free City had a population of 357,000 (1919), 95% of whom were
Germans
The Treaty of Versailles, which had separated Danzig and surrounding
villages from Germany, now required that the newly-formed state had
its own citizenship, based on residency. German inhabitants lost their
German Citizenship with the creation of the Free City, but were given
the right within the first two years of the state's existence to re-
obtain it; however, if they did so they were required to leave their
property and make their residence outside of the Free State of Danzig
area in the remaining part of Germany.
The Free City was to be represented abroad by Poland and was to be in
a customs union with it. The German railway line that connected the
Free City with newly-created Poland was to be administered by Poland,
as well as all rail lines in the territory of the Free City. After
local dockworkers had refused to unload ammunition supplies throughout
the Polish-Soviet War in 1920,[3] the Westerplatte peninsula (until
then a city beach), was also given to Poland to built up an ammunition
dump and a military post within the city's harbour.
Meanwhile concern and paranoia about subversive conspiracies prompted
Poland to assert its authority in, and over, the Free City; early on,
the Polish government pushed the limits of "economic rights" by
creating a military presence in the area
In May 1933, the Nazi Party won the local elections in the city. They
received 57 percent of the vote.
The German governments, both before and after 1933, made several
proposals to renegotiate Danzig's anomalous position but Poland
refused, and as late as April 1939 Professor Burckhardt was told by
the Polish Commissioner-General that any attempt to alter its status
would be answered with armed resistance on the part of Poland.
---------------------------------
Surely, the Nazi-minded German people of Danzig had the same right to
"rejoin their nation" of Nazi Germany as did their Nazi brethren in
Sudetenland.
>
> any plebiscite would given exactly the same result as Munich pact.
>
Oh you respect the results of plebiscites? Then how come you don't
respect the results of elections in Nazi Danzig? How about plebiscites
and elections in Transdniestria, S. Ossetia and Abkahzia? How about
plebiscites in Serb regions of Bosnia or Croatia?
Clearly, you are just fishing for justifications for the Munich Pact.
>
> b) You by some weird reason take to describe just half of Mo-Rib pact:
> other half sets there that also SU will not react if Germany will
> attack Poland.
>
How is that different from the Munich Pact in which France and UK
promised that they will not react if Germany attacks Czechoslovakia?
In fact, Germany ended up occupying up **all** of Czechia without the
Western allies helping the Czechs one iota, didn't it?
>
> c) and there was third thing also - marking lines where twwo predators
> will stop to avoid collision. nothing like this in Munich pact.
>
So what? They agreed to avoid war.
Look, there is no denying that the Soviet occupation of Baltics in
1940 and again in 1945 was a horrible act. But the Molotov-Ribbentrop
Non-Aggression Agreement doesn't add to or subtract much from this
deplorable fact. What the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact accomplished is the
promise that Nazi Germany would not help the Finns and Balts to defend
themselves against USSR. And true - the French and British never
promised to Stalin that they would not help the Finns and Balts to
defend themselves against USSR. But yet, they didn't help you guys,
did they?
But Germany didn't actually help (nor promised to help) USSR conquer
Baltics or Finland. They just said that they would not interfere. So,
chances are that even if the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact didn't take
place, the Nazis would still not have helped you defend against USSR,
and you would have been conquered in the exactly same way. So, how did
the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact make any difference to anything that
happened in Europe in the 1930s-40s? What exactly would have the Nazis
done to help the Balts if there were no Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact? Did
you expect the Nazis to selflessly help the Balts?
>
> And of course main difference - UK and France, undersigning Munich
> pact had no territorial interests. They don't stop a predator, but
> they don't become a predator by themselves.
>
That's true. As I said, there is no denying that Bolshevik plans to
turn the entire World into "Workers' Paradise" and the Soviet
occupation of Baltics in 1940 and again in 1945 were horrible,
regardless of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. And so was the Soviet
occupation of Eastern Europe in 1945, regardless of the Molotov-
Ribbentrop Pact.
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Read and think: We are talking about Poland and its occupation of a
part of Czechoslovakia in October 1938, which was right after the
Munich pact and before the Vienna Awards. Do you have temporal
reasoning capabilities? Then use them.
The Black Monk
Actually Poland's occupation of part of "Czechoslovakia" was one of
the few decent things that interwar Polish state did. The territory
was ethnically Polish, grabbed by Czechoslovakia opportunistically as
Poland was grabbing western Ukrainian territory and unable to defend
itself against the Czechs (I appreciate the irony and Polish hypocrisy
here). Poland did not ask the Germans to split Czechoslovakia between
them, indeed it had previously told the Czechs that if they gave back
the small piece of Polish-inhabitted territory they would fight for
Czechoslovakia, including for the sake of keeping Sudatenland out of
German hands. The Czechs refused. After Germany began carving up
Czechoslovkia with the western Allies' copnsent, Poland took back this
Polish-inhabitted territory, saving those ethnic Poles from being
annexed by Germany.
While the way that Ukraine obtained Crimea is different from the way
Czechoslovakia obtained Teschen, an analogous situation would be if
Ukraine were being swallowed by Nazi Germany, Russia annexed Crimea,
rejoining its Russians to Russia and sparing them German rule. Would
you consider Russia a "fellow aggressor" in this case?
Or, if the USSR was not a Stalinist nightmare but really was a union
of free republics would you consider the reunion and salvation of
western Ukraine's people with the rest of Ukraine, and their
avopidance of Nazi rule, also aggresion?
regards,
BM
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On 3 Janv., 15:02, "daniloff" <mdanil...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > You should study history better.
> > > > > > > > > > > > IIt was Poland that together with Germany and Hungary began
> > > > > > > > > > > > redivision of the world first.- Hide quoted text -
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
Unfortunately, this justification doesn't fly. Just look at the map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M%C3%BCnchner_abkommen5%2B.svg
The Sudetenland, taken by Germany in October 1938, is disjoint from
Zaolzie taken by Poland in October 1938. Thus, Germany would have
occupied Zaolzie not in October 1938 but in March 1939, and that's
when Poland would have been justified in annexing Zaolzie.
>
> While the way that Ukraine obtained Crimea is different from the way
> Czechoslovakia obtained Teschen, an analogous situation would be if
> Ukraine were being swallowed by Nazi Germany, Russia annexed Crimea,
> rejoining its Russians to Russia and sparing them German rule. Would
> you consider Russia a "fellow aggressor" in this case?
>
> Or, if the USSR was not a Stalinist nightmare but really was a union
> of free republics would you consider the reunion and salvation of
> western Ukraine's people with the rest of Ukraine, and their
> avopidance of Nazi rule, also aggresion?
>
Would I? Of course. And not just the western Ukraine that used to be
part of the Austrian Empire.
Indeed, Stalin was completely justified in attacking Poland from the
east while Germany was conquering it from the west. By doing so,
Stalin saved a great many people (including my fellow Jews) from the
Nazi occupation, although his military incompetence allowed Hitler to
occupy all these lands and much more 2 years later, in 1941. In fact,
the lands that Stalin annexed in 1939 from Poland were exactly the
lands of Belorus, Ukraine and Lithuania that Poland stole in 1920.
Thus, the Soviets saved their fellow Ukrainians and Belorussians,
along with Lithuanians and Poles of Wilno area, from the Nazis.
Moreover, it is similarly argued that if the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
didn't exists and/or Stalin didn't occupy the Baltics in 1940, Hitler
would have done so just a few months later. That's why I consider
Stalin's re-occupation of the Baltics in 1940 to be a much lesser
crime than the re-re-occupation in 1945.
However, this entire discussion is about the traditional accusation by
the Western propaganda that by annexing Poland's territories in 1939,
Stalin "colluded" with Hitler and "helped" Hitler conquer Poland.
Stalin didn't help Hitler conquer Poland. Hitler would have have
finished conquering all of Poland with ease. What Stalin did was save
tens of millions of people from the Nazi occupation and, in the case
of Jews, from death.
My point is that if we label Stalin's actions against Poland in 1939
as "crimes", then other countries' actions - and in particular
Poland's actions in October 1938 - would be equal crimes.
Just look at the start of this discussion:
>
> On 3 Janv., 15:02, "daniloff" <mdanil...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
> > "Peteris Cedrins (Peteris Cedrins)" <cedr...@gmail.com>
>
>> No, nobody had a right to invade Poland
> > in 1939 -- but Poland wasn't attacking anybody.
>
J. Anderson
"Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_be...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6141d65-dbe3-45ec...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> My point is that if we label Stalin's actions against Poland
> in 1939 as "crimes", then other countries' actions - and in
> particular Poland's actions in October 1938 - would be
> equal crimes.
This is such a beautiful example of "Relativierung" that I simply had to
point it out. It's exactly what I meant in an earlier post about trying to
equate offences that are in fact on totally different levels.
It's an outrage even to suggest that what Stalin did against Poland in 1939
was somehow "equal" to the Polish annexation of a Polish-inhabited little
corner of Czechoslovakia. For instance: how many Czech officers did the
Poles murder, where was their ' Katyn'? Did the Poles treat any Czechs the
way Stalin betrayed the Polish resistance in Warsaw 1944? Etcetera.
The Black Monk
> "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:b6141d65-dbe3-45ec...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
You are correct, but I think that Ostap meant the act of annexation
itself, rather than the methods used while carrying it out. I don't
have time to do this now, but it would be interesting to compare the
arrest rates/deportation rates/death tolls, per capita, of the Nazi
administration in Poland from 1939-1941 to that of the Soviet
administration in 1939-1941. I suspect there was little difference
between the two at that time.
There is a double standard reminscent of the other one concerning
Kosovo and Ossetia there, though. If the annexation of western
Ukraine is justified as he says, then the annexation of Teschen by
Poland is equally justified, although Ostap condemns it.
regards,
BM
Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr.
> On Jan 8, 7:33 pm, "J. Anderson" <anderso...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ostap S. B. M. Bender Jr." <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:b6141d65-dbe3-45ec...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > My point is that if we label Stalin's actions against Poland
> > > in 1939 as "crimes", then other countries' actions - and in
> > > particular Poland's actions in October 1938 - would be
> > > equal crimes.
>
> > This is such a beautiful example of "Relativierung" that I simply had to
> > point it out. It's exactly what I meant in an earlier post about trying to
> > equate offences that are in fact on totally different levels.
>
> > It's an outrage even to suggest that what Stalin did against Poland in 1939
> > was somehow "equal" to the Polish annexation of a Polish-inhabited little
> > corner of Czechoslovakia. For instance: how many Czech officers did the
> > Poles murder, where was their ' Katyn'? Did the Poles treat any Czechs the
> > way Stalin betrayed the Polish resistance in Warsaw 1944? Etcetera.
>
> You are correct, but I think that Ostap meant the act of annexation
> itself, rather than the methods used while carrying it out.
>
Exactly.
>
> There is a double standard reminscent of the other one concerning
> Kosovo and Ossetia there, though. If the annexation of western
> Ukraine is justified as he says, then the annexation of Teschen by
> Poland is equally justified, although Ostap condemns it.
>
No. I don't condemn it. I don't know enough about that region to form
judgment. It may indeed be the case that Poland in 1938 had as much
right to that region stolen(?) by Czechoslovakia in 1920 as Ukraine,
Belarus and Lithuania had a year later, in 1939 to recover their lands
stolen by Poland in 1920.
I have no double standard. it is my opponents who have the double
standard: they condemn the Belarusan and Ukrainian recovery of
territories stolen from them, while defending the Polish and
Lithuanian recoveries. All I am doing is pointing out their
hypocrisy.
In any case, I am happy that today's Czechoslovakia is one of the
greatest democracies in the World; Czechoslovakia and Poland are best
friends; and both countries are part of the great, fair and wise EU
and of NATO as well. So, I am sure this region now belongs to its
rightful owner. Whom does it belong to today, btw? If to
Czechoslovakia - then would Poland be justified if it re-annexed it
tomorrow?
Tadas Blinda
Sounds like it's back to the status quo of 1920:
Teschen Dispute A small area surrounding the city of Teschen, ruled by
the Austrian Habsburgs from the eighteenth century until World War I.
It became highly industrialized in the later nineteenth century.
Conflicting claims by Czechoslovakia and Poland led to violent clashes
in 1919, which were arbitrated by the League of Nations in 1920.
Accordingly, the area was divided so that the northern half, which
included the city, went to Poland, while the southern half, with its
rich coalfields, went to Czechoslovakia. The issue soured the
relations between the two countries for twenty years. However, in
1938, Poland became an often-overlooked beneficiary of the Munich
Agreement, which allowed Germany to invade the Sudetenland, while the
Poles were granted the annexation of the Czech part of Teschen. In
1945 the Soviet Union decreed that the 1920–38 compromise be restored.
JAN PALMOWSKI. "Teschen Dispute." A Dictionary of Contemporary World
History. 2004. Encyclopedia.com. 8 Jan. 2010 <http://
www.encyclopedia.com>.
Pēteris Cedriņš (Peteris Cedrins)
<ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> I don't know enough about that region to form
> judgment.
Awwwww, please. That never stopped you before.
/P