The U.S. Needs To Act Against Russian Threat To Ukraine!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why not? Do you think there were any significant differences?

If you can't see any......you're drinking too much vodka.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You see, exceptionalism is one of most popular misconceptions in the world. The Russians believe that they are exceptional, the Americans believe that they are exceptional, the Chineses believe that they are exceptional...
And no, from their point of view, it's not "inferiority complex". They (many of them) take is an evidence of their moral superiority. The part of "Holy Russia" myth.

But Russia is a shithole.

 

[AlexanderPK]

But Russia is a shithole.

USA is s shithole. How is that for an argument?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

USA is s shithole. How is that for an argument?

Your argument is weak. Like your country.

 

[AlexanderPK]

Your argument is weak. Like your country.

Yours was the same, it stands to reason then to call your country weak.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yours was the same, it stands to reason then to call your country weak.

Are you still sad that the Soviet Union fell apart?
Miss the Berlin Wall?

 

[ESay]

Why not? Do you think there were any significant differences?

What a silly question. Did the US carry out, in West European countries, something similar the USSR did in Budapest-1956 and Prague-1968 and almost did in Warsaw in the early 80s?

 

[Silver Cat]

What a silly question. Did the US carry out, in West European countries, something similar the USSR did in Budapest-1956 and Prague-1968 and almost did in Warsaw in the early 80s?

American politic in Western Europe was more 'iron hand in the velvet glow', but sometimes yes, there was need to use some soft power (military coups and civil unrests) - as in Greece and France.
Of course, American diplomatic control over our satellite states was better (sometimes the commies were not able to control even their own republics), but it doesn't make it generally different.

 

[ESay]

American politic in Western Europe was more 'iron hand in the velvet glow', but sometimes yes, there was need to use some soft power (military coups and civil unrests) - as in Greece and France.
Of course, American diplomatic control over our satellite states was better (sometimes the commies were not able to control even their own republics), but it doesn't make it generally different.

The Western bloc was a place the majority of people were striving for, but the Eastern one was the other way around. No matter how hard you the Russians are trying to prove the opposite.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course, American diplomatic control over our satellite states was better (sometimes the commies were not able to control even their own republics), but it doesn't make it generally different.

Commies used walls and soldiers to keep their people in, allowed no free elections and crushed uprisings with tanks. How is that "generally the same" as the US presence in Europe?

 

[Silver Cat]

The Western bloc was a place the majority of people were striving for, but the Eastern one was the other way around. No matter how hard you the Russians are trying to prove the opposite.

Ok. The family of Abrahams have more money (and better house) than the family of Bryans. Does it mean, that relationships between the Abrahams are more liberal than between Bryans? Does it prove that the old Abraham don't rape his granddaughter?

 

[Silver Cat]

Commies used walls and soldiers to keep their people in, allowed no free elections and crushed uprisings with tanks. How is that "generally the same" as the US presence in Europe?

Commies used economy, ideology, tanks and walls to fight capitalists. Capitalists used more economy and ideology, and less tanks and walls (in Western Europe) to fight commies. But the general conception was the same.

 

[Silver Cat]

You still have bread and meat lines. Your poor are dependent on the west's donations for just basic needs. It hasn't changed since the 70s since I visited. There are other ways to receive scars.

UN names Moscow best world city to live in

The UN has named Moscow the best large city in the world for quality of life and infrastructure development

www.rt.com

UN names Moscow best world city to live in​

The Russian capital beat out major European and North American rivals to claim the top spot

The UN has published its global cities ranking for 2022, and has awarded Moscow the top spot among large cities for quality of life and infrastructure, commending the metropolis for its transportation and its citizens’ well-being.

A draft of the report, the full version of which will be released in March, was made available online on Wednesday. Experts analyzed the 50 largest cities globally and ranked 29 “world cities” according to six metrics: productivity, infrastructure development, quality of life, equity and social inclusion, environmental sustainability, and urban governance and legislation.

The Russian capital came out first in terms of “quality of life” and “infrastructure development,” and was third overall in the “City Prosperity Index,” which considered all the categories together. The first and second spots were taken by Singapore and Toronto respectively, and the fourth and fifth by Sydney and London.

The report defines quality of life as “how an individual’s life or society’s condition is in comparison to another person or society, i.e. how good (or bad) someone’s life is compared to other individuals’ lives. Therefore, this is the measurement of a city’s average achievements for ensuring general well-being and satisfaction of its citizens.”

Infrastructure development is defined as “the set of basic physical systems, organizational structures, facilities, and installations needed for the functioning of a society, or economy. The prosperity of a city largely depends on the development of infrastructure, including transportation, communication, or provision of [basic] services, among others.”

Among the 29 cities, Moscow was ranked 12th for productivity, 13th for equity and social inclusion, 17th for environmental sustainability, and 10th for urban governance and legislation.

Around 20 million people officially live in the Russian capital and its surrounding region, though measurements of the population vary according to methodology. Some estimates suggest the real figure is substantially higher.

By any accepted measure, with at least 13 million inhabitants, Moscow city proper is the largest wholly within Europe, beating out London, St. Petersburg, Paris and Berlin.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Commies used economy, ideology, tanks and walls to fight capitalists. Capitalists used more economy and ideology, and less tanks and walls (in Western Europe) to fight commies. But the general conception was the same.

I know. And they really sucked at it.
That's why the commies lost. That's why the commie countries suck.
The conception was, the commies kept nations in prison.
The capitalists freed them. Not the same at all.

 

[Silver Cat]

I know. And they really sucked at it.
That's why the commies lost. That's why the commie countries suck.
The conception was, the commies kept nations in prison.
The capitalists freed them. Not the same at all.

Of course, no. Capitalism often means imperialism and colonialism, and colonialism means prison (sometimes economic, sometimes - real).
Commies didn't lost - China is still alive and kicking. We can say more - commies came to rule even in the USA.
Before WWII European counties were more or less free to choose their own way. After occupation by the Soviet and American forces their freedom of actions was significantly decreased - NATO countries became anti-communistic, and WP countries became anti-capitalistic. All attempts to change a side have been punished by economical, political and military intervention.

 

[ESay]

Ok. The family of Abrahams have more money (and better house) than the family of Bryans. Does it mean, that relationships between the Abrahams are more liberal than between Bryans? Does iprove that the old Abraham don't rape his granddaughter?

Dude, it is not about money. Didn't you even get examples of the Soviet oppression of its 'allies' I listed above?

The point isn't about the Abrahams having more money and good house. The point is that Mr Abrams allows his family a freedom of choice what they want to be and what to do, while Mr Bryan is a home tyrant who keeps his family in constant fear.

Damn it, why you Russians are so simple minded?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Of course, no. Capitalism often means imperialism and colonialism, and colonialism means prison (sometimes economic, sometimes - real).
Commies didn't lost - China is still alive and kicking. We can say more - commies came to rule even in the USA.
Before WWII European counties were more or less free to choose their own way. After occupation by the Soviet and American forces their freedom of actions was significantly decreased - NATO countries became anti-communistic, and WP countries became anti-capitalistic. All attempts to change a side have been punished by economical, political and military intervention.

Capitalism often means imperialism and colonialism, and colonialism means prison

Western Europe wasn't colonized or imprisoned by the US.

Before WWII European counties were more or less free to choose their own way. After occupation by the Soviet and American forces their freedom of actions was significantly decreased

You're half right.

NATO countries became anti-communistic, and WP countries became anti-capitalistic.

You don't have to keep listing reasons why western Europe did much better than eastern Europe.

 

[Silver Cat]

Dude, it is not about money. Didn't you even get examples of the Soviet oppression of its 'allies' I listed above?

Everything is about money, you know.

The point isn't about the Abrahams having more money and good house. The point is that Mr Abrams allows his family a freedom of choice what they want to be and what to do, while Mr Bryan is a home tyrant who keeps his family in constant fear.

Actually, no. The USA didn't allow anybody from their part of Europe to became really independent. The Soviet Union allowed Austria, Finland, Yugoslavia and even Albania became independent and choose their own way (except joining anti-Soviet alliances).

 

[Silver Cat]

Capitalism often means imperialism and colonialism, and colonialism means prison

Western Europe wasn't colonized or imprisoned by the US.

They weren't colonized, but they were controlled.
Anyway, the statement "Capitalism=freedom, Socialism=unfreedom" is false.

Before WWII European counties were more or less free to choose their own way. After occupation by the Soviet and American forces their freedom of actions was significantly decreased

You're half right.

May be. May be no. Explain your point of view. How exactly changed freedom of, say, Western Germany under the American control? Increased or decreased?

NATO countries became anti-communistic, and WP countries became anti-capitalistic.

You don't have to keep listing reasons why western Europe did much better than eastern Europe.

The main reason was quit simple. The western Europe was occupied by the rich USA, and the eastern Europe was occupied by the poor Soviet Union. What is even more important - Western Europe was richer even before the WWII.

 

[ESay]

Everything is about money, you know.

Actually, no. The USA didn't allow anybody from their part of Europe to became really independent. The Soviet Union allowed Austria, Finland, Yugoslavia and even Albania became independent and choose their own way (except joining anti-Soviet alliances).

These countries never were in the Soviet sphere of influence as Eastern Europe was. Finland was never occupied by the Soviets, Austria had 4 occupation zones, Yugoslavia retained socialist government (though, with great autonomy from Moscow).