This is funny even though I am a Patriot. Btw we are not conquering the oil fields, they are a trade asset that are in danger from the troubled middle east. Look up the word "Imperialism" commie
@Sahibsocialist i've never noticed that. well, at least we got something out of it, haha, in way, steping over the american fag...ahhem...flag infront of the president himself
@TheJodofe Iraq is free. Who do you think keeps Iraq more free? The army that allows the people to vote, the women to go to school, and the minorities to live without fear or the Iraqi army before that was known for gassing their own people, attempting to build crude atomic weapons and has not gotten along with any other nation in the region.
@quarterxchange I don't know of such an army in Iraq. Perhaps you mean the US Army, but that's only there for the oil, and is obsessed with hunting terrorists that they can't even beat. Oh, and I forgot all the innocent civilians and children that were killed by the US Army in Iraq, as well in Afganistan, Vietnam and Korea, and Japan and Germany during WWII. Free Iraq!
@TheJodofe Yes, it is vital to the west to keep the oil supply stable. It is also vital to the Middle East which is why many Arab countries have sent sent soldiers and give the U.S. authorization to use their airpases and seaports. Yes in those following wars, communist bullets could differntiate between enemies and noncombatants which is why no civilian deaths should be atributed to North Korea, North Vietnam, Pol pot, Viet cong, the USRR, China, etc. They were all killed by the yanks.
@quarterxchange I never said that others are innocent. Those nations and groups also have their share of crimes. But they never dropped napalm on Vietnamese villages because there just might be a Vietcong guy inside. And they didn't drop any nukes on Japan, while it was already as good as defeated. And they don't invade countries that didn't ask for that invasion. They just do that to further their goals.
@TheJodofe South Vietnam was a military ally of the U.S. and was becoming a member of the SEATO alliance, just like NATO, except for nations on the other side of the globe. They were an ally that was under an attack. It would have been justified if we went into th UK if the Soviets were attacking so it was justified for us to go into SV. Also the soviets invaded Finland, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and the East bloc while North Korea invaded Sk and the NVA invaded South Vietnam.
@quarterxchange South Vietnam and South Korea were NOT members of the SEATO. And even if they were, unlike NATO, SEATO countries weren't obliged to help when one of them was under attack. Russia invaded Finland and the eastern bloc only to defeat the Nazis. If you count things like that as unjustified invasions, we must also count the American invasions of France, Belgium The Netherlands and Germany as invasions. Those invasions were justified because those peoples wanted to be liberated.
I never said South Korea was but it's true that South Vietnam was trying to be a member. We gave them billions in arms and funding and the 4th largest air force in the world. We had the right to defend an ally that we supplied that well. The U.S. never took portions of the countries we invaded for ourselves. We don't own pieces of Germany, France, Belgium, South Korea, etc while the USSR took parts of Finland and half of Europe, they were out for land, not liberating the people.
@TheJodofe the USSR had bases in North Korea so we had bases in South Korea. Then the USSR backed a North Korean invasion of the South so we backed a South Korean defense. And seeing as how the North turned out being the most secluded nation in the world and is constantly critisized by human rights organizations, it's a good thing we did defend the South.
@quarterxchange The difference being that the USSR didn't really participate in that war (except for a few volunteer aircraft and pilots) and the US fought there with a large army. And it would've been okay if they had just defended like you say. But after they had repelled the Northern invasion, they launched their own invasion of North Korea, and almost reached the Chinese border. North Korea was only saved by Chinese intervention. Sounds more than just defending to me.
@TheJodofe We should have liberated North Korea. There is physical evidence proving that North Korea is a terrible place to live. Satellite photos show that North Korea has no urban areas compared to the South while they spend 1/4 of their GDP on their military and are subject to the whim of a dictator who has consistently been critisized by human rights organizations and even his closest allies for being, in layman's terms, crazy.
@quarterxchange Sure, but at that time, that dictator wasn''t even in power yet. And the US actually couldn't care less about that dictator. It's only because he's communist. If Kim-Jung-Il would've been a capitalist dictator the US would most likely have supported him, because he could be an important ally against China.
@quarterxchange In an effort to gather information about Castro's army, people were pulled in by Batista's secret police for questioning. Many innocent people were tortured by Batista's police, while suspects, including youth, were publicly executed as a warning to others who were considering joining the insurgency Additionally, Hundreds of mangled bodies were left hanging from lamp posts in a grotesque variation of the Spanish colonial practice of public executions. This guy was US supported..
@TheJodofe We had to support somebody, sadly neither of them were good choices. Certainly Batista was terrible and it's no high mark on the U.S. for supporting him but the deaths that followed Castro's regime make Batista's crimes seem like a drop in the ocean. People didn't leave in mass when Batista was in power.
@quarterxchange People didn't leave because they simply couldn't. Or they didn't leave because they hoped that Castro and Che would make things better. And as far as I know Castro didn't mass murder innocent civilians. Except for some political purges, Castro's regime is not known for it's mayor crimes. Castro and the Communist Party improved life for all Cubans drastically. Castro is in any way, better than Batista was. Castro didn't kill and torture innocent people like Batista did.
@TheJodofe People were allowed to leave so maybe many people thought castro and che were better. Castro has mass murdered civilians and you can read more about the mass murders and persecution of the Cuban people at the hands of Castro by yourself since the entire civilized world already acknowledges it.
@quarterxchange Well, I couldn't find anything about mass murders (other than US supported Batista's) in Cuba. Perhaps you would be so kind as to give me a link, comrade?
@TheJodofe Youtube doesn't allow us to post links so you have to look up most of it for yourself but you can look up "left wing bloodbaths" and you can scroll down to cuba, but this is just one source.
@quarterxchange Let me tell you that all of the articles I found were written and/or gathered by either Americans or right-wing capitalists and fascists, who are known for constantly making up stories to make socialists look bad, so that they get more votes for themselves. And none of the stories I found has ever been proven true. Now if we start talking about right-wing crimes on the other hand... Or do you people rather forget that fascists and imperialists are on the right-wing too?
@TheJodofe Most of the articles claiming Americans killed 6 million innocent vietnamese and millions of innocent koreans in two unjust wars or that the Americans have no right to be in the middle east or that the Reagan policies regarding communism were evil and murdered millions are written by socialists or leftwingers.
No there are many communist fascits and imperialists. Right wingers took east Europe? Right wingers launched an invasion of South Korea and South Vietnam?
@quarterxchange Yes, but those articles (although overreacted maybe) are proven true. Even Americans themselves protested against the Vietnam war, knowing that they were killing a lot of innocent civilians there.
And yes, the right-wingers (nazis) did take East Europe, and the rest of Europe with it. And the right-wingers did launch an invasion of North Korea, and they let those wars escalate to a large scale. If America wouldn't have intervened, there would've been a lot less death.
So have Castros murders, even cubans who escaped have protested against castro's regime.
The Soviet Union took Eastern Europe and annexed Chechnya and North Korea launched an invasion of the South which justified an American invasion of the North. If the U.S. had not intervened millions of South Koreans would have been subjected to the poverty, death and terror that the North Koreans experiance and the only group that experianced large amounts of death after the U.S. intervened were the enemy
@quarterxchange No, it didn't justify a invasion of the north. Invasions are only justified if people want to be invaded. Like D-Day and the Russian invasion of Eastern Europe. The North Koreans didn't want to be invaded, so the US had no right to do so. They had the right to defend the south, but they became the invaders themselves. And in those days, North Korea wasn't the villainous regime it is now. It is good that China intervened and pushed the US back.
@TheJodofe That's ridiculous. The USSR invaded Germany, Poland, and Finland, and they all fought tooth and nail to keep them from coming. Even the civilians took up arms to defend their country and millions of German, Polish and Finnish civilians died fighting advancing Russian armies. And as a matter of fact most of the North Korean prisoners we took chose to remain in the South. Obviously our POW camps provided a better standard of living than North Korea.
@quarterxchange Most Polish actually welcomed the Russians, because the Nazis saw them as 'inferior beings'. And the Russians left after the war. The Germans and Finnish were Nazis themselves, and the USSR was their most hated enemy, and those civilians had been indoctrinated by Nazi propaganda about the 'evil' USSR, so it's logical that they fought back. A lot of Vietnamese civilians also fought back when the US invaded their country and massacred their people without reason.
Russia left after a 40 year occupation and to this day former satelites of the USSR are eager to begin a membership with NATO such as Ukraine and Georgia, even Poland accepted U.S. ABM systems being installed in their country. We didn't invade Vietnam, South Vietnam was a major military ally of ours that was under attack and we intervened. The civilians that fought were indoctrinated by the VC and the North. In fact after the NVA won the war hundreds of thousands of civilians fled the country.
@quarterxchange Yes, Russia annexed Chechnya. So what? the US annexed half of the north-american continent and almost exterminated the native population. The US is nothing more than a bunch of fat, lazy, ignorant and violent people. Even their own country doesn't belong to them. It was taken by force from it's rightful owners.
What nearly exterminated the native americans were the various diseases that Europeans brought over, not the U.S. The Louisianna purchase was originally French, which we bought and the other territory came from Mexico which started a war with us and lost. Both the French and Spanish had already taken the land from the native americans and we've compensated them long ago. Today they are integrated into american society, we aren't still blowing them up and shooting them with helicopters.
@quarterxchange Those diseases were brought by people that would become US citizens. They didn't do anything to help the natives, even though they had the right medicines for most of the diseases. And the fact that territory was bought from European nations doesn't make it legal. They had stolen it from the native Americans, and buying stolen goods is ilegal, right? And besides, most territory wasn't bought from European nations, but taken by force, by the US from the native Americans.
@TheJodofe It wasn't that they weren't sharing their medication it was that they had naturally developed immunities for those diseases, in fact many diseases carried by the indians were carried back to Europe and killed Europeans. Most of the indians were killed when the Spanish and French came, not the British and Dutch. It's less illegal than outright stealing it yourself and killing the owner, which is what Russia has been doing to the Chechnyans for the past century.
@quarterxchange The Indians were killed by diseases, and the Europeans could have done a lot to prevent the spreading of those diseases, but they didn't. And most Indians were killed by the US. GB and France were too busy fighting each other to be bothered with massacring Indians. They actually used the Indians as allies. The Spanish didn't have any significent presence in North America and the Dutch were only focused on trade and profit, so they sold their territories to the British.
Most indians weren't killed by the U.S. there were tens of millions of indians. We would have barely have had enough bullets to commit a genocide of that scale. In the wars France and the UK fought, Indians were used as the buffer and were constantly being massacred and fought by both sides. You can look up all of the fights the U.S. had with indians and tally up the casualties, the amount of indians killed don't account for all of the millions that were here before Euro powers came
@TheJodofe You can look up the history behind the depopulation of the native Americans, most historians atribute as much as 90% of the total dead due to diseases such as smallpox. You can look up a list of the small pox epidemics and you can easily see how millions of natives died. And the Europeans initially came with a few boats and established small outposts and villages, they had by no means the resources at hand to prevent the millions of deaths diseases killed across the continent
@TheJodofe Look up Guns Germs and Steel: Smallpox on google. You will see an article posted by the pbs website. Scroll down towards the end and you will see that it states
"They had never experienced smallpox, measles or flu before, and the viruses tore through the continent, killing an estimated 90% of Native Americans."
Making your statement, "most Indians were killed by the US". outright nonsense and an abject lie.
@quarterxchange I never said most Indians were killed by the US, I simply said that a lot of indians were killed by the US. The native American population and civilization only started to collapse after the US was formed and expanded westwards, taking the Indian's lands without respect for their ancient culture and customs.
"And most Indians were killed by the US". I suppose I misread that, yes thousands were killed by the U.S. along with hundreds of U.S. soldiers. It's also not as if the U.S. were to leave them alone the indians would live in peace from then on, they simply would have been taken by other powers. We didn't start fighting the indians until they started harassing our settlers trying to move westward. They only had a few hundred thousand in number yet lay claim to 4/5 of the modern U.S.
@quarterxchange But their claim was justified, they had lived there for thousands of years. What right did the Europeans, and later the US, have to take their lands? What would you do when some foreigners come to your country where you and your ancestors lived for thousands of years, and say: Go find a new place to live, this land is now ours, because we are superior and you are all a bunch of stupid savages. What would you do? Would you just let them have their way?
@TheJodofe If I village lives in all of North America and only use a small portion of the land to live, they can't claim all of North America to themselves and keep everyone else out. It also doesn't matter if it was several large tribes. The couple hundred thousand or so indians had no right to claim land that makes up most of the modern U.S. They weren't occupying or using the land so they had no right to claim so much that they didn't need or use.
@quarterxchange There weren't just a couple hundred thousand, but it is estimated there were more than 50 million before the arrival of the Europeans. The Europeans were with far less. Racism was common in those days, and people were actually encouraged to kill Indians, which were seen as non-sentient savages. Lots of Indian villages were massacred. The last massacre was the Wounded Knee massacre in 1890, were the US 7th cavalry killed 150-300 Sioux men, women and children.
@TheJodofe After the diseases kille them that's all there were in modern day U.S. Eventually European expansionism and manifest destiny made the new settlers outnumber the Indians. People were not encouraged to kill indians, we were terrified of them and we were afraid that they would attack our settlements in the west and we didn't want to give them reason to do so. The conflict with indians also resulted in many U.S. civilian settlements being massacred as well.
@TheJodofe The USSR gave the North the necessary training and equipment to launch an invasion. It was such a well prepared invasion that the South Koreans were quickly overwhelmed and took position at the Pusan perimeter. After the Soviet Union repelled the Nazi invasion they launched their own invasion of the Germany. Was that unjustified as well?
@TheJodofe That's ludicrous. The Russian invasion and destruction of the Nazi empire is arguably the most righteous justified fight known to mankind. Germany was a country that layed waste to millions of lives and plunged the world in turmoil, the people incharge had to be eliminated once and for all to stop the largest war in human history and we all owe a great debt to the millions of heroic red army soldiers that gave their lives to do so.
@quarterxchange Indeed we do, comrade. But the invasion wasn't justified. Did the Germans want to be invaded by the Russians or the other allies? No. Was it good that the Red Army invaded Germany and put an end to Nazi rule? Yes. Killing people can never be justified, no matter how righteous the cause may be.
@TheJodofe I don't care what the Germans wanted. Their country plunged the world into the most destructive war in human history in no small part to them. We couldn't afford to take the chance of letting their government and leaders stay in power or let them keep their factories of war. Killing can be justified. If you wouldn't kill in self defense or kill a murderer threatening your family then you are truly a terrible person with no sense of morality.
@quarterxchange Of course you should defend yourself against a murderer if he attacks you. But if he breaks of the fight and runs back to his home, would you follow him and kill him there? Because he tried to kill you?
In world war 2 there was no "police", therefore your analogy defining the homeowner as the soviet union who could simply call upon the police to deal with the murderer, Nazi germany, is flawed. The only people who had the ability to eliminate the Nazi threat were the brave men of the Red Army. That's why instead I said that the police would represent the USSR. But according to your logic it would have been unjust for the police to bust into a serial killer's home to arrest or kill him.
@TheJodofe The city of Dresden housed 110 factories and over 50,000 factory workers in support of the Nazi war effort. It was merely an act of strategic bombing and due to the primitive technology regarding bombs the only way to effectively eliminate weapons and materials of war being built in a city was to bomb the city.
@quarterxchange And that's why they used fire bombs and told the pilots to drop their bombs at whatever target they liked, as long as there wasn't a fire going yet. Bombings wheren't as precise as today, but it wasn't necessary to level an entire city just to destroy a few factories. Production in Dresden was actually pretty small-scale compared to other German cities. The only real reason they bombed Dresden was to break the German morale and fighting spirit.
@quarterxchange Which was small compared to other German cities. Besides, the Wehrmacht was already reduced to almost nothing and it was highly unlikely that those few factories would've been able to produce that much to equip a new German Army. The only real reason they bombed Dresden was to break the German morale and fighting spirit.
@TheJodofe Hundreds of factories can produce thousands of arms and millions of bullets. Over 100 factories were bombed and carpet bombing cities has the innate property of breaking morale.
@TheJodofe Civilians die in every war, it's a factor you have to take in when you declare war on a country that may or may not begin kicking your ass.
@TheJodofe Bombing factories is necessary. Factories have to be located in cities, that's were the Nazi's put them, so that's where we bombed them. Had the industrial might of Nazi Germany been all out in the middle of a desert then civilians would not have died due to the bombing of factories.
@quarterxchange Bombing isn't neccessary anymore when your enemy is already defeated. The Allies were closing in from all sides already, and almost the entire German army was already destroyed on the Eastern Front. They could've made new tanks and weapons in those factories perhaps (if they'd had any supplies), but that isn't of much use when your army is already defeated.
@TheJodofe What fooled us was the fact that they were still shooting us. Yes they were defeated but they hadn't given up. Hitler's insanity cost the lives of many people, it's a tragedy, but not the U.S's fault or responsibility to make sure insane people don't become elected and lead their nations to global conflicts and refuse to admit defeat. They still had men, they still had guns and tanks, we were still killing each other and their factories made it possible.
@quarterxchange Those factories weren't the target. They were only an excuse. Those factories weren't even working anymore because the transportation lines had all been destroyed already. The only real goal was to kill as many people as possible to break the German fighting spirit.
@TheJodofe In fact the police in your scenario would represent the USSR. It would be justified for the police to bust down that mans door and haul him away just as it was for the USSR to storm Berlin and take out the Nazi regime.
@TheJodofe In fact the police in your scenario would represent the USSR. It would be justified for the police to bust down that mans door and haul him away just as it was for the USSR to storm Berlin and take out the Nazi regime.
@TheJodofe My other comment didn't post so I'll post again. The U.S. did have a lot of influence but we never used it to force countries to stay in NATO. In fact France left NATO in 1966, and the U.S. let them. France didn't suffer anything at the hands of the U.S.
@TheJodofe Again, those nations I listed have invaded nations that didn't ask for their invasion and as a direct result the Winter War, the Korean War, the Vietnam war, etc, were all direct results of Communist aggression. They have dropped bombs on villages and cities to get a few combatants and simply to terrify the populace and nuking Japan was a necessity since the only other option was an invasion that was predicted to cause millions of Japanese Civilian deaths.
@quarterxchange Well, the civilian casualties during the Winter War were very low, for obvious reasons. And I have never heard of communists dropping napalm, nukes and lots of ordinary bombs on villages and cities during any war. But I repeat: I never said that communist nations are innocent, only that they fight their wars much 'cleaner'.
@TheJodofe Russia did drop bombs on Villages during the winter war and even 'molotov bread baskets", which bombs designed to catch their target houses and buildings on fire. The North did drop tons of bombs and artillery shells on the South during their invasion and the USSR launched a massive air war in afghanistan. The fact that I can't list many more atrocities from the air due to communist aggression is simply due to the fact that they had substandard air forces.
@quarterxchange Once again, I never said they were innocent. I am only saying that the US does this things a lot more. And Russia never took half of Europe. They were all united in the USSR, which was a union of independent republics, who worked closely together and of which Russia was the most influental.
@TheJodofe I never saw this comment. Russia did in fact take half of Europe and Russia was not letting them become independent. The Soviet Union installed were puppet governments and directly worked for Russia. The people hated it so much that the Berlin wall had to be built to prevent any more berliners from leaving East berling, but not before 2 million or so already escaped. All of those countries were taken hostage and many want to join the west in military alliances.
@TheJodofe They were all required the join the warsaw pact and become allies. Thier leaders were replaced by the Soviet Union and all had to enact the same form of government as the soviet union. When the U.S. boycotted the olympics being held in the USSR, we asked other countries to do the same, when the USSR wanted to boycot our olympics, they forced the Eastern bloc to do so as well. If they were truly independant they would have joined NATO by now.
@quarterxchange In the same way the US 'forced' most Western European states in the NATO. The Warsaw Pact was formed in response to the NATO. The NATO was exactly the same as the Warsaw Pact, but in the NATO, the US was the big boss, while in the Warsaw Pact, it was the USSR. The only thing that was really different was the ideology of both organisations.
@TheJodofe Any NATO power was allowed to leave. We were not in control of the NATO armies and we did not run their governments with our own representatives. They each had the right to disobey a request from the U.S. in terms of military, government or economics and we didn't install our own laws in their countries.
@quarterxchange That may be, but the US influence was very, very strong. In theory each country could make their own choices, but in reality, the US pulled the strings regarding foreign policy. Do you really think that the US would have let for example, France join the Warsaw pact if they wanted? I don't say NATO is bad and Warsaw Pact was good and stuff like that, I just say that they were pretty much the same.
@TheJodofe Again I don't think one of my comments posted, After nearly all of the indians were killed off by diseases the rest were simply killed in wars with European, American, and even other Indian armies and the others assimilated into modern american society
@quarterxchange It's ridiculous to state that almost 50 million indians died of diseases. After a while, the indians also developed resistance against those diseases. Although the majority might have died of diseases, the surviving ones were killed by the American settlers that expanded westwards. And I ask you again, what right did you have to take their lands?
@TheJodofe The initial 50 million indians who lived here had no previous contact with the diseases Europeans carried to the new world.
We desperatly needed the land and the Indians had no claim to territory that they hadn't paid for or used.
That would be as if I moved to the middle of nowhere, built a house, and claimed that all the territory that wasn't already sold or claimed around my house was mine.
@quarterxchange The Indians had lived there for hundred thousands of years. It would be the same if the Chinese suddenly showed up in Europe and said: We need more land for our people, and you Europeans are just a bunch of savages, so just find a new place to live. The indians had much more claim to their territory than the US.
@TheJodofe That's irrelevant. They had no ties to the land around them. Not using and not paying for land means you aren't the owner. It was because it was such a small group laying claim to a horrendous amount of land that was unused, unpopulated, etc that we could put to good use. Had the Indians not retalitated against our expansion moving into land that was unpopulated and unused there would have been less conflict and they could have been integrated into american society.
@quarterxchange That's not irrelevent at all. They had lot's of ties to the land around them and were using almost all of it. Hunting needs lots of room you know. And I wouldn't call them a small group, since there were millions of them. Your statement that they didn't pay for their land so that it wasn't theirs, is crazy. 1. They didn't even know what money was. 2. Europeans, Asians and almost all people in the world also didn't pay for their lands. 3 US didn't pay for most of its land as well.
@TheJodofe U.S. settlers were not preventing indians from hunting in open territory, in fact hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of U.S. citizens at the time had to rely on hunting to eat as well in the West and we managed to get along fine with each other and build a first world nation.
1. That's irrelevant, I was simply showing they had no reason to claim it
2. Asians and Europeans use all their land or sell or rent it to foreigners.
@quarterxchange You managed to get along well with each other?? Is that why the settlers and the natives slaughtered each other?? Because they liked each other??? Sure...
1. That's not irrelevant, if you don't have money you can't pay for it so your argument makes no sense.
2. But the Indians used all their land too.
3. You didn't needed it, you were living in Europe already. And even if the Indians weren't using all their land, you took the land that they were using as well.
No I mean that millions U.S. settlers who needed to hunt to live managed to populate the west and managed to eat just fine. Why did the indians who were less in number need more land to hunt?
1. Yes and since they didn't pay for it the only other reason they can claim it is if they used it all, which they didn't.
2. We managed to move millions of settlers in the west who didn't interfere with the Indians ability to get food and resources
@quarterxchange The main source for food for the settlers was agriculture, not hunting.
1. That's just stupid logic. By your logic, Russia would have no right to claim Siberia, because they barely use it. And your logic also doesn't explain why the US also took the land that the Indians WERE using. And I say once again, hunting needs lots of space. The main food source for the US settlers was agriculture, not hunting.
2. It would've been no problem if they had stayed in the West....
Everything settlers ate, Indians ate. They both relied heavely on agriculture and hunting to live. Yet millions of settlers were still able to eat fine so the hundreds of thousands of Indians did not need for their own well being. Nobody starved as a result of manifest destiny.
They do use Siberia, it is where they get the majority of their natural resources such as oil, minerals and materials to build nuclear weapons and nuclear power.
@quarterxchange The Indians were mostly hunters. Only a few tribes relied on agriculture. They ate very different things. There weren't millions of settlers at first.
Most parts of Siberia are still unused though. The Indians used their lands more than the Russians use Siberia.
@TheJodofe We were hunters too, we weren't vegans and meat was a necessity back then and people weren't dying due to lack of food caused by overpopulation. We ate a lot of what th indians ate as well, our foods had similar ingrediants.
Russia can back up their claim in Siberia and also mine large amounts of minerals, fuel and radioactive material in Siberia.
@quarterxchange Colonists barely hunted, they had domesticated animals for meat and only hunted for furs and stuff like that. And the Russians still only use very small parts of Siberia, so according to your theory, they have no claim.
2. So I suppose when humans figure out away to visit other solar systems we should scrap that technology and all of the inventions and discoveries that come of it because we may come into conflict with 10 very territorial martians who live on a planet made of gold who live 30,000 kilometers on the other side from where we land simply to avoid problems.
The indians were not using the land, they did not pay for the land, and they did not occupy the land, therefore they had no claim
@quarterxchange 10 martians... That's very exaggerated. The Indians were using the land, they didn't have to pay for their land cause none of all the peoples in the world did and they didn't even know what 'paying' was.
And they did occupy the land, there were more than 50 million of them, and therefore they have claim. A lot more claim than the settlers had.
@TheJodofe No they weren't. Again we managed to have millions of settlers live on the same land with no shortages in food.
There weren't 50 million, again nearly all died due to diseases by the time settlers got there and the rest died in wars with either themselves or with the U.S.
@quarterxchange There weren't millions of settlers at first, it took a hundred years or longer before there were millions of settlers. There were more than 50 million before the arrival of the Europeans, and while the diseases and wars killed most, there were still a few million left. I would've been okay if the US just had stuck to it's original territiory and the lands they purchased from European nations, but why did they took ALL the land. They didn't need half a continent for themselves!
3. Establishing trade ports and getting resources was needed. Even if we weren't using all of our current resources look what the U.S. turned out to be as oppose to what would have happened if the Indians were still in charge of North America. A good amount of the worlds wealth, medicine, products, technology, and ideas would be gone.
Had there been no conflict ignited by the indians being so territorial they could have been peacefullly assimilated.
@quarterxchange Most of the world's wealth, medicine, products, technology and ideas are from Europe.
The US never invented anything that is unmissable. The Indians assimilated? That's why they resisted against the European invaders! They DIDN'T want to be assimilated. They were proud of their own culture, and wanted to keep it that way.
Yes, barely, seeing as they have 3 times as many people they manage to barely top our GDP
It's a fact that the U.S. produces 30% of the world's medical drugs, 20% of the worlds GDP, invented the Car, rockets that can visit the moon(still not done by Europe), Airplanes, with only 5% of the total population
Eventually everything would have been discovered or invented yes, but we sped up the process. Theoretically if the only country in existence was zimbabwe eventually they'd visit Mars.
@quarterxchange The US became a world power after the World Wars, which left the European nations, that used to be the great world powers, in ruins. The Europeans had to completely rebuild their infrastructure and economy, while the US was left undamaged. If the World Wars had never happend, the US would have never been a world power. The car was invented before the US even existed, and I would like to see some sources about the medicines. And the Russians build better spaceships than the US.
Regardless we became a superpower while we were a developing nation.
The car you are thinking of was an experiment and was not practical, hence nobody had one.
Simply look up various products, methods and technologies of the medical field and many, not most, will be American made, designed or produced.
No they don't, in fact during the space race they build a lot of shotty equipment, in fact in the book Red Moon Rising, it explains how people were constantly killed in ridiculous accidents
@quarterxchange Yes, Americans developed a lot of stuff. Europeans still developed more. The Russians didn't build 'shottty' equipment. That's what American propaganda wanted you to believe. In Russia, people actually believe that Americans make crap equipment that falls apart instantly. The book Red Moon Rising is not a reliable source. It is written by an American and a lot of facts in it have never been proven true. The Soviet space programme was far more succesful than the American.
@TheJodofe In a hasty attempt to beat the U.S. the Russians had a lot of ridiculous plans and poorly designed material
Look up Cosmonaut Crashed into Earth Crying in Rage
In Red Moon Rising it goes over events were during launches soldiers, mechanics and workers would constantly be killed in launches due to mistakes
You can also look up several stories based on leaked information from high ranking ex-soviets that many cosmonauts sent to space died in several unsafe and poorly planned attempts
Σ' ευχαριστώ πολύ Νίκο μου για το βιντεάκι ! Το γεγονός της χρονιάς που φέυγει , κατά τη γνώμη μου πάντα....Και τον είδες πως έσκυψε για να μην τον πάρουν τα σκάγια ;; Σαν γυναικούλα και μετά παρίστανε τον άνετο , ότι και καλά δεν φοβήθηκε ..
This is funny even though I am a Patriot. Btw we are not conquering the oil fields, they are a trade asset that are in danger from the troubled middle east. Look up the word "Imperialism" commie
TheClassyJanitor 7 months ago
@Sahibsocialist i've never noticed that. well, at least we got something out of it, haha, in way, steping over the american fag...ahhem...flag infront of the president himself
wwftherocklegend 1 year ago
Free Iraq! Destroy US imperialism!
TheJodofe 1 year ago
@TheJodofe Iraq is free. Who do you think keeps Iraq more free? The army that allows the people to vote, the women to go to school, and the minorities to live without fear or the Iraqi army before that was known for gassing their own people, attempting to build crude atomic weapons and has not gotten along with any other nation in the region.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange I don't know of such an army in Iraq. Perhaps you mean the US Army, but that's only there for the oil, and is obsessed with hunting terrorists that they can't even beat. Oh, and I forgot all the innocent civilians and children that were killed by the US Army in Iraq, as well in Afganistan, Vietnam and Korea, and Japan and Germany during WWII. Free Iraq!
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe Yes, it is vital to the west to keep the oil supply stable. It is also vital to the Middle East which is why many Arab countries have sent sent soldiers and give the U.S. authorization to use their airpases and seaports. Yes in those following wars, communist bullets could differntiate between enemies and noncombatants which is why no civilian deaths should be atributed to North Korea, North Vietnam, Pol pot, Viet cong, the USRR, China, etc. They were all killed by the yanks.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange I never said that others are innocent. Those nations and groups also have their share of crimes. But they never dropped napalm on Vietnamese villages because there just might be a Vietcong guy inside. And they didn't drop any nukes on Japan, while it was already as good as defeated. And they don't invade countries that didn't ask for that invasion. They just do that to further their goals.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe South Vietnam was a military ally of the U.S. and was becoming a member of the SEATO alliance, just like NATO, except for nations on the other side of the globe. They were an ally that was under an attack. It would have been justified if we went into th UK if the Soviets were attacking so it was justified for us to go into SV. Also the soviets invaded Finland, Chechnya, Afghanistan, and the East bloc while North Korea invaded Sk and the NVA invaded South Vietnam.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange South Vietnam and South Korea were NOT members of the SEATO. And even if they were, unlike NATO, SEATO countries weren't obliged to help when one of them was under attack. Russia invaded Finland and the eastern bloc only to defeat the Nazis. If you count things like that as unjustified invasions, we must also count the American invasions of France, Belgium The Netherlands and Germany as invasions. Those invasions were justified because those peoples wanted to be liberated.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
I never said South Korea was but it's true that South Vietnam was trying to be a member. We gave them billions in arms and funding and the 4th largest air force in the world. We had the right to defend an ally that we supplied that well. The U.S. never took portions of the countries we invaded for ourselves. We don't own pieces of Germany, France, Belgium, South Korea, etc while the USSR took parts of Finland and half of Europe, they were out for land, not liberating the people.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@TheJodofe the USSR had bases in North Korea so we had bases in South Korea. Then the USSR backed a North Korean invasion of the South so we backed a South Korean defense. And seeing as how the North turned out being the most secluded nation in the world and is constantly critisized by human rights organizations, it's a good thing we did defend the South.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange The difference being that the USSR didn't really participate in that war (except for a few volunteer aircraft and pilots) and the US fought there with a large army. And it would've been okay if they had just defended like you say. But after they had repelled the Northern invasion, they launched their own invasion of North Korea, and almost reached the Chinese border. North Korea was only saved by Chinese intervention. Sounds more than just defending to me.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe We should have liberated North Korea. There is physical evidence proving that North Korea is a terrible place to live. Satellite photos show that North Korea has no urban areas compared to the South while they spend 1/4 of their GDP on their military and are subject to the whim of a dictator who has consistently been critisized by human rights organizations and even his closest allies for being, in layman's terms, crazy.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Sure, but at that time, that dictator wasn''t even in power yet. And the US actually couldn't care less about that dictator. It's only because he's communist. If Kim-Jung-Il would've been a capitalist dictator the US would most likely have supported him, because he could be an important ally against China.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe His father wasn't any better and that's a big "if" statement.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange In an effort to gather information about Castro's army, people were pulled in by Batista's secret police for questioning. Many innocent people were tortured by Batista's police, while suspects, including youth, were publicly executed as a warning to others who were considering joining the insurgency Additionally, Hundreds of mangled bodies were left hanging from lamp posts in a grotesque variation of the Spanish colonial practice of public executions. This guy was US supported..
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe We had to support somebody, sadly neither of them were good choices. Certainly Batista was terrible and it's no high mark on the U.S. for supporting him but the deaths that followed Castro's regime make Batista's crimes seem like a drop in the ocean. People didn't leave in mass when Batista was in power.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange People didn't leave because they simply couldn't. Or they didn't leave because they hoped that Castro and Che would make things better. And as far as I know Castro didn't mass murder innocent civilians. Except for some political purges, Castro's regime is not known for it's mayor crimes. Castro and the Communist Party improved life for all Cubans drastically. Castro is in any way, better than Batista was. Castro didn't kill and torture innocent people like Batista did.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe People were allowed to leave so maybe many people thought castro and che were better. Castro has mass murdered civilians and you can read more about the mass murders and persecution of the Cuban people at the hands of Castro by yourself since the entire civilized world already acknowledges it.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Well, I couldn't find anything about mass murders (other than US supported Batista's) in Cuba. Perhaps you would be so kind as to give me a link, comrade?
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe Youtube doesn't allow us to post links so you have to look up most of it for yourself but you can look up "left wing bloodbaths" and you can scroll down to cuba, but this is just one source.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Let me tell you that all of the articles I found were written and/or gathered by either Americans or right-wing capitalists and fascists, who are known for constantly making up stories to make socialists look bad, so that they get more votes for themselves. And none of the stories I found has ever been proven true. Now if we start talking about right-wing crimes on the other hand... Or do you people rather forget that fascists and imperialists are on the right-wing too?
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe Most of the articles claiming Americans killed 6 million innocent vietnamese and millions of innocent koreans in two unjust wars or that the Americans have no right to be in the middle east or that the Reagan policies regarding communism were evil and murdered millions are written by socialists or leftwingers.
No there are many communist fascits and imperialists. Right wingers took east Europe? Right wingers launched an invasion of South Korea and South Vietnam?
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Yes, but those articles (although overreacted maybe) are proven true. Even Americans themselves protested against the Vietnam war, knowing that they were killing a lot of innocent civilians there.
And yes, the right-wingers (nazis) did take East Europe, and the rest of Europe with it. And the right-wingers did launch an invasion of North Korea, and they let those wars escalate to a large scale. If America wouldn't have intervened, there would've been a lot less death.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
So have Castros murders, even cubans who escaped have protested against castro's regime.
The Soviet Union took Eastern Europe and annexed Chechnya and North Korea launched an invasion of the South which justified an American invasion of the North. If the U.S. had not intervened millions of South Koreans would have been subjected to the poverty, death and terror that the North Koreans experiance and the only group that experianced large amounts of death after the U.S. intervened were the enemy
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange No, it didn't justify a invasion of the north. Invasions are only justified if people want to be invaded. Like D-Day and the Russian invasion of Eastern Europe. The North Koreans didn't want to be invaded, so the US had no right to do so. They had the right to defend the south, but they became the invaders themselves. And in those days, North Korea wasn't the villainous regime it is now. It is good that China intervened and pushed the US back.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe That's ridiculous. The USSR invaded Germany, Poland, and Finland, and they all fought tooth and nail to keep them from coming. Even the civilians took up arms to defend their country and millions of German, Polish and Finnish civilians died fighting advancing Russian armies. And as a matter of fact most of the North Korean prisoners we took chose to remain in the South. Obviously our POW camps provided a better standard of living than North Korea.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Most Polish actually welcomed the Russians, because the Nazis saw them as 'inferior beings'. And the Russians left after the war. The Germans and Finnish were Nazis themselves, and the USSR was their most hated enemy, and those civilians had been indoctrinated by Nazi propaganda about the 'evil' USSR, so it's logical that they fought back. A lot of Vietnamese civilians also fought back when the US invaded their country and massacred their people without reason.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
Russia left after a 40 year occupation and to this day former satelites of the USSR are eager to begin a membership with NATO such as Ukraine and Georgia, even Poland accepted U.S. ABM systems being installed in their country. We didn't invade Vietnam, South Vietnam was a major military ally of ours that was under attack and we intervened. The civilians that fought were indoctrinated by the VC and the North. In fact after the NVA won the war hundreds of thousands of civilians fled the country.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Yes, Russia annexed Chechnya. So what? the US annexed half of the north-american continent and almost exterminated the native population. The US is nothing more than a bunch of fat, lazy, ignorant and violent people. Even their own country doesn't belong to them. It was taken by force from it's rightful owners.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
What nearly exterminated the native americans were the various diseases that Europeans brought over, not the U.S. The Louisianna purchase was originally French, which we bought and the other territory came from Mexico which started a war with us and lost. Both the French and Spanish had already taken the land from the native americans and we've compensated them long ago. Today they are integrated into american society, we aren't still blowing them up and shooting them with helicopters.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Those diseases were brought by people that would become US citizens. They didn't do anything to help the natives, even though they had the right medicines for most of the diseases. And the fact that territory was bought from European nations doesn't make it legal. They had stolen it from the native Americans, and buying stolen goods is ilegal, right? And besides, most territory wasn't bought from European nations, but taken by force, by the US from the native Americans.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe It wasn't that they weren't sharing their medication it was that they had naturally developed immunities for those diseases, in fact many diseases carried by the indians were carried back to Europe and killed Europeans. Most of the indians were killed when the Spanish and French came, not the British and Dutch. It's less illegal than outright stealing it yourself and killing the owner, which is what Russia has been doing to the Chechnyans for the past century.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange The Indians were killed by diseases, and the Europeans could have done a lot to prevent the spreading of those diseases, but they didn't. And most Indians were killed by the US. GB and France were too busy fighting each other to be bothered with massacring Indians. They actually used the Indians as allies. The Spanish didn't have any significent presence in North America and the Dutch were only focused on trade and profit, so they sold their territories to the British.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
Most indians weren't killed by the U.S. there were tens of millions of indians. We would have barely have had enough bullets to commit a genocide of that scale. In the wars France and the UK fought, Indians were used as the buffer and were constantly being massacred and fought by both sides. You can look up all of the fights the U.S. had with indians and tally up the casualties, the amount of indians killed don't account for all of the millions that were here before Euro powers came
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@TheJodofe You can look up the history behind the depopulation of the native Americans, most historians atribute as much as 90% of the total dead due to diseases such as smallpox. You can look up a list of the small pox epidemics and you can easily see how millions of natives died. And the Europeans initially came with a few boats and established small outposts and villages, they had by no means the resources at hand to prevent the millions of deaths diseases killed across the continent
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@TheJodofe Look up Guns Germs and Steel: Smallpox on google. You will see an article posted by the pbs website. Scroll down towards the end and you will see that it states
"They had never experienced smallpox, measles or flu before, and the viruses tore through the continent, killing an estimated 90% of Native Americans."
Making your statement, "most Indians were killed by the US". outright nonsense and an abject lie.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange I never said most Indians were killed by the US, I simply said that a lot of indians were killed by the US. The native American population and civilization only started to collapse after the US was formed and expanded westwards, taking the Indian's lands without respect for their ancient culture and customs.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
"And most Indians were killed by the US". I suppose I misread that, yes thousands were killed by the U.S. along with hundreds of U.S. soldiers. It's also not as if the U.S. were to leave them alone the indians would live in peace from then on, they simply would have been taken by other powers. We didn't start fighting the indians until they started harassing our settlers trying to move westward. They only had a few hundred thousand in number yet lay claim to 4/5 of the modern U.S.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange But their claim was justified, they had lived there for thousands of years. What right did the Europeans, and later the US, have to take their lands? What would you do when some foreigners come to your country where you and your ancestors lived for thousands of years, and say: Go find a new place to live, this land is now ours, because we are superior and you are all a bunch of stupid savages. What would you do? Would you just let them have their way?
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe If I village lives in all of North America and only use a small portion of the land to live, they can't claim all of North America to themselves and keep everyone else out. It also doesn't matter if it was several large tribes. The couple hundred thousand or so indians had no right to claim land that makes up most of the modern U.S. They weren't occupying or using the land so they had no right to claim so much that they didn't need or use.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange There weren't just a couple hundred thousand, but it is estimated there were more than 50 million before the arrival of the Europeans. The Europeans were with far less. Racism was common in those days, and people were actually encouraged to kill Indians, which were seen as non-sentient savages. Lots of Indian villages were massacred. The last massacre was the Wounded Knee massacre in 1890, were the US 7th cavalry killed 150-300 Sioux men, women and children.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe After the diseases kille them that's all there were in modern day U.S. Eventually European expansionism and manifest destiny made the new settlers outnumber the Indians. People were not encouraged to kill indians, we were terrified of them and we were afraid that they would attack our settlements in the west and we didn't want to give them reason to do so. The conflict with indians also resulted in many U.S. civilian settlements being massacred as well.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange But there were many more Indians that were massacred. If I'm correct, it are the Indians that were nearly exterminated, not the US.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe The USSR gave the North the necessary training and equipment to launch an invasion. It was such a well prepared invasion that the South Koreans were quickly overwhelmed and took position at the Pusan perimeter. After the Soviet Union repelled the Nazi invasion they launched their own invasion of the Germany. Was that unjustified as well?
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Yes, the Russian invasion of Germany was unjustified.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe That's ludicrous. The Russian invasion and destruction of the Nazi empire is arguably the most righteous justified fight known to mankind. Germany was a country that layed waste to millions of lives and plunged the world in turmoil, the people incharge had to be eliminated once and for all to stop the largest war in human history and we all owe a great debt to the millions of heroic red army soldiers that gave their lives to do so.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Indeed we do, comrade. But the invasion wasn't justified. Did the Germans want to be invaded by the Russians or the other allies? No. Was it good that the Red Army invaded Germany and put an end to Nazi rule? Yes. Killing people can never be justified, no matter how righteous the cause may be.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe I don't care what the Germans wanted. Their country plunged the world into the most destructive war in human history in no small part to them. We couldn't afford to take the chance of letting their government and leaders stay in power or let them keep their factories of war. Killing can be justified. If you wouldn't kill in self defense or kill a murderer threatening your family then you are truly a terrible person with no sense of morality.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Of course you should defend yourself against a murderer if he attacks you. But if he breaks of the fight and runs back to his home, would you follow him and kill him there? Because he tried to kill you?
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe If the guy had a vendetta out to kill me and kill others of course I would.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange You should call the police instead.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
In world war 2 there was no "police", therefore your analogy defining the homeowner as the soviet union who could simply call upon the police to deal with the murderer, Nazi germany, is flawed. The only people who had the ability to eliminate the Nazi threat were the brave men of the Red Army. That's why instead I said that the police would represent the USSR. But according to your logic it would have been unjust for the police to bust into a serial killer's home to arrest or kill him.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange I hadn't read your comment regarding the USSR being the police yet when I posted that.
But, you are right, the Nazis were filthy scumbags and the USSR did a good job putting them out of business.
But it wasn't neccesary to bomb German cities like Dresden, just to kill as many innocent civilians as possible.
That would be like the police storming a house and killing everyone inside it, even though they are innocent.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe The city of Dresden housed 110 factories and over 50,000 factory workers in support of the Nazi war effort. It was merely an act of strategic bombing and due to the primitive technology regarding bombs the only way to effectively eliminate weapons and materials of war being built in a city was to bomb the city.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange And that's why they used fire bombs and told the pilots to drop their bombs at whatever target they liked, as long as there wasn't a fire going yet. Bombings wheren't as precise as today, but it wasn't necessary to level an entire city just to destroy a few factories. Production in Dresden was actually pretty small-scale compared to other German cities. The only real reason they bombed Dresden was to break the German morale and fighting spirit.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe It wasn't a few factories. It was over 100 factories with 50,000 workers supporting the Nazi war effort.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Which was small compared to other German cities. Besides, the Wehrmacht was already reduced to almost nothing and it was highly unlikely that those few factories would've been able to produce that much to equip a new German Army. The only real reason they bombed Dresden was to break the German morale and fighting spirit.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe Hundreds of factories can produce thousands of arms and millions of bullets. Over 100 factories were bombed and carpet bombing cities has the innate property of breaking morale.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange And causes tenthousands of civilian deads.
TheJodofe 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheJodofe Civilians die in every war.
quarterxchange 10 months ago
@TheJodofe Civilians die in every war, it's a factor you have to take in when you declare war on a country that may or may not begin kicking your ass.
quarterxchange 10 months ago
@quarterxchange But it is not neccesary, nor good to kill them deliberately.
TheJodofe 10 months ago
@TheJodofe Bombing factories is necessary. Factories have to be located in cities, that's were the Nazi's put them, so that's where we bombed them. Had the industrial might of Nazi Germany been all out in the middle of a desert then civilians would not have died due to the bombing of factories.
quarterxchange 10 months ago
@quarterxchange Bombing isn't neccessary anymore when your enemy is already defeated. The Allies were closing in from all sides already, and almost the entire German army was already destroyed on the Eastern Front. They could've made new tanks and weapons in those factories perhaps (if they'd had any supplies), but that isn't of much use when your army is already defeated.
TheJodofe 10 months ago
@TheJodofe What fooled us was the fact that they were still shooting us. Yes they were defeated but they hadn't given up. Hitler's insanity cost the lives of many people, it's a tragedy, but not the U.S's fault or responsibility to make sure insane people don't become elected and lead their nations to global conflicts and refuse to admit defeat. They still had men, they still had guns and tanks, we were still killing each other and their factories made it possible.
quarterxchange 10 months ago
@quarterxchange Those factories weren't the target. They were only an excuse. Those factories weren't even working anymore because the transportation lines had all been destroyed already. The only real goal was to kill as many people as possible to break the German fighting spirit.
TheJodofe 10 months ago
@TheJodofe In fact the police in your scenario would represent the USSR. It would be justified for the police to bust down that mans door and haul him away just as it was for the USSR to storm Berlin and take out the Nazi regime.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Okay, so you win on that one XD. But the Russians also killed many civilians as revenge for what the Nazis did in Russia.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quarterxchange Okay, so you win on that one XD. But the Russians also killed many civilians as revenge for what the Nazis did in Russia.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheJodofe In fact the police in your scenario would represent the USSR. It would be justified for the police to bust down that mans door and haul him away just as it was for the USSR to storm Berlin and take out the Nazi regime.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@TheJodofe My other comment didn't post so I'll post again. The U.S. did have a lot of influence but we never used it to force countries to stay in NATO. In fact France left NATO in 1966, and the U.S. let them. France didn't suffer anything at the hands of the U.S.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@TheJodofe Again, those nations I listed have invaded nations that didn't ask for their invasion and as a direct result the Winter War, the Korean War, the Vietnam war, etc, were all direct results of Communist aggression. They have dropped bombs on villages and cities to get a few combatants and simply to terrify the populace and nuking Japan was a necessity since the only other option was an invasion that was predicted to cause millions of Japanese Civilian deaths.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Well, the civilian casualties during the Winter War were very low, for obvious reasons. And I have never heard of communists dropping napalm, nukes and lots of ordinary bombs on villages and cities during any war. But I repeat: I never said that communist nations are innocent, only that they fight their wars much 'cleaner'.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe Russia did drop bombs on Villages during the winter war and even 'molotov bread baskets", which bombs designed to catch their target houses and buildings on fire. The North did drop tons of bombs and artillery shells on the South during their invasion and the USSR launched a massive air war in afghanistan. The fact that I can't list many more atrocities from the air due to communist aggression is simply due to the fact that they had substandard air forces.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Once again, I never said they were innocent. I am only saying that the US does this things a lot more. And Russia never took half of Europe. They were all united in the USSR, which was a union of independent republics, who worked closely together and of which Russia was the most influental.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe I never saw this comment. Russia did in fact take half of Europe and Russia was not letting them become independent. The Soviet Union installed were puppet governments and directly worked for Russia. The people hated it so much that the Berlin wall had to be built to prevent any more berliners from leaving East berling, but not before 2 million or so already escaped. All of those countries were taken hostage and many want to join the west in military alliances.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange Sure, but they were independent countries nonetheless.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe They were all required the join the warsaw pact and become allies. Thier leaders were replaced by the Soviet Union and all had to enact the same form of government as the soviet union. When the U.S. boycotted the olympics being held in the USSR, we asked other countries to do the same, when the USSR wanted to boycot our olympics, they forced the Eastern bloc to do so as well. If they were truly independant they would have joined NATO by now.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange In the same way the US 'forced' most Western European states in the NATO. The Warsaw Pact was formed in response to the NATO. The NATO was exactly the same as the Warsaw Pact, but in the NATO, the US was the big boss, while in the Warsaw Pact, it was the USSR. The only thing that was really different was the ideology of both organisations.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe Any NATO power was allowed to leave. We were not in control of the NATO armies and we did not run their governments with our own representatives. They each had the right to disobey a request from the U.S. in terms of military, government or economics and we didn't install our own laws in their countries.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange That may be, but the US influence was very, very strong. In theory each country could make their own choices, but in reality, the US pulled the strings regarding foreign policy. Do you really think that the US would have let for example, France join the Warsaw pact if they wanted? I don't say NATO is bad and Warsaw Pact was good and stuff like that, I just say that they were pretty much the same.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe No NATO is not so bad, but China is a piece of shit, China is the most dirty country in the world and Chinese are the SICK MEN OF ASIA
Chinese should SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT GOING BACK IN THEIR COUNTRY BEFORE WE KILL THEM ON THE STREETS like the fucking rats they are :)
DemocracynowChina 11 months ago
@DemocracynowChina 1. We weren't talking about China at all.
2. You are a stupid taiwanese shit-eater.
3. Shut the fuck up
4. China is awesome.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@DemocracynowChina 1. We weren't talking about China at all.
2. You are a stupid taiwanese shit-eater.
3. Shut the fuck up
4. China is awesome.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe Again I don't think one of my comments posted, After nearly all of the indians were killed off by diseases the rest were simply killed in wars with European, American, and even other Indian armies and the others assimilated into modern american society
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange It's ridiculous to state that almost 50 million indians died of diseases. After a while, the indians also developed resistance against those diseases. Although the majority might have died of diseases, the surviving ones were killed by the American settlers that expanded westwards. And I ask you again, what right did you have to take their lands?
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe The initial 50 million indians who lived here had no previous contact with the diseases Europeans carried to the new world.
We desperatly needed the land and the Indians had no claim to territory that they hadn't paid for or used.
That would be as if I moved to the middle of nowhere, built a house, and claimed that all the territory that wasn't already sold or claimed around my house was mine.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange The Indians had lived there for hundred thousands of years. It would be the same if the Chinese suddenly showed up in Europe and said: We need more land for our people, and you Europeans are just a bunch of savages, so just find a new place to live. The indians had much more claim to their territory than the US.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe That's irrelevant. They had no ties to the land around them. Not using and not paying for land means you aren't the owner. It was because it was such a small group laying claim to a horrendous amount of land that was unused, unpopulated, etc that we could put to good use. Had the Indians not retalitated against our expansion moving into land that was unpopulated and unused there would have been less conflict and they could have been integrated into american society.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange That's not irrelevent at all. They had lot's of ties to the land around them and were using almost all of it. Hunting needs lots of room you know. And I wouldn't call them a small group, since there were millions of them. Your statement that they didn't pay for their land so that it wasn't theirs, is crazy. 1. They didn't even know what money was. 2. Europeans, Asians and almost all people in the world also didn't pay for their lands. 3 US didn't pay for most of its land as well.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe U.S. settlers were not preventing indians from hunting in open territory, in fact hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of U.S. citizens at the time had to rely on hunting to eat as well in the West and we managed to get along fine with each other and build a first world nation.
1. That's irrelevant, I was simply showing they had no reason to claim it
2. Asians and Europeans use all their land or sell or rent it to foreigners.
3. No but we needed it and nobody was using it.
quarterxchange 11 months ago
@quarterxchange You managed to get along well with each other?? Is that why the settlers and the natives slaughtered each other?? Because they liked each other??? Sure...
1. That's not irrelevant, if you don't have money you can't pay for it so your argument makes no sense.
2. But the Indians used all their land too.
3. You didn't needed it, you were living in Europe already. And even if the Indians weren't using all their land, you took the land that they were using as well.
TheJodofe 10 months ago
No I mean that millions U.S. settlers who needed to hunt to live managed to populate the west and managed to eat just fine. Why did the indians who were less in number need more land to hunt?
1. Yes and since they didn't pay for it the only other reason they can claim it is if they used it all, which they didn't.
2. We managed to move millions of settlers in the west who didn't interfere with the Indians ability to get food and resources
quarterxchange 10 months ago
@quarterxchange The main source for food for the settlers was agriculture, not hunting.
1. That's just stupid logic. By your logic, Russia would have no right to claim Siberia, because they barely use it. And your logic also doesn't explain why the US also took the land that the Indians WERE using. And I say once again, hunting needs lots of space. The main food source for the US settlers was agriculture, not hunting.
2. It would've been no problem if they had stayed in the West....
TheJodofe 10 months ago
Everything settlers ate, Indians ate. They both relied heavely on agriculture and hunting to live. Yet millions of settlers were still able to eat fine so the hundreds of thousands of Indians did not need for their own well being. Nobody starved as a result of manifest destiny.
They do use Siberia, it is where they get the majority of their natural resources such as oil, minerals and materials to build nuclear weapons and nuclear power.
quarterxchange 10 months ago
@quarterxchange The Indians were mostly hunters. Only a few tribes relied on agriculture. They ate very different things. There weren't millions of settlers at first.
Most parts of Siberia are still unused though. The Indians used their lands more than the Russians use Siberia.
TheJodofe 10 months ago
@TheJodofe We were hunters too, we weren't vegans and meat was a necessity back then and people weren't dying due to lack of food caused by overpopulation. We ate a lot of what th indians ate as well, our foods had similar ingrediants.
Russia can back up their claim in Siberia and also mine large amounts of minerals, fuel and radioactive material in Siberia.
quarterxchange 10 months ago
@quarterxchange Colonists barely hunted, they had domesticated animals for meat and only hunted for furs and stuff like that. And the Russians still only use very small parts of Siberia, so according to your theory, they have no claim.
TheJodofe 10 months ago
@TheJodofe
2. So I suppose when humans figure out away to visit other solar systems we should scrap that technology and all of the inventions and discoveries that come of it because we may come into conflict with 10 very territorial martians who live on a planet made of gold who live 30,000 kilometers on the other side from where we land simply to avoid problems.
The indians were not using the land, they did not pay for the land, and they did not occupy the land, therefore they had no claim
quarterxchange 10 months ago
@quarterxchange 10 martians... That's very exaggerated. The Indians were using the land, they didn't have to pay for their land cause none of all the peoples in the world did and they didn't even know what 'paying' was.
And they did occupy the land, there were more than 50 million of them, and therefore they have claim. A lot more claim than the settlers had.
TheJodofe 10 months ago
@TheJodofe No they weren't. Again we managed to have millions of settlers live on the same land with no shortages in food.
There weren't 50 million, again nearly all died due to diseases by the time settlers got there and the rest died in wars with either themselves or with the U.S.
We had more people and we had use for the land.
quarterxchange 10 months ago
@quarterxchange There weren't millions of settlers at first, it took a hundred years or longer before there were millions of settlers. There were more than 50 million before the arrival of the Europeans, and while the diseases and wars killed most, there were still a few million left. I would've been okay if the US just had stuck to it's original territiory and the lands they purchased from European nations, but why did they took ALL the land. They didn't need half a continent for themselves!
TheJodofe 10 months ago
3. Establishing trade ports and getting resources was needed. Even if we weren't using all of our current resources look what the U.S. turned out to be as oppose to what would have happened if the Indians were still in charge of North America. A good amount of the worlds wealth, medicine, products, technology, and ideas would be gone.
Had there been no conflict ignited by the indians being so territorial they could have been peacefullly assimilated.
quarterxchange 10 months ago
@quarterxchange Most of the world's wealth, medicine, products, technology and ideas are from Europe.
The US never invented anything that is unmissable. The Indians assimilated? That's why they resisted against the European invaders! They DIDN'T want to be assimilated. They were proud of their own culture, and wanted to keep it that way.
TheJodofe 10 months ago
Yes, barely, seeing as they have 3 times as many people they manage to barely top our GDP
It's a fact that the U.S. produces 30% of the world's medical drugs, 20% of the worlds GDP, invented the Car, rockets that can visit the moon(still not done by Europe), Airplanes, with only 5% of the total population
Eventually everything would have been discovered or invented yes, but we sped up the process. Theoretically if the only country in existence was zimbabwe eventually they'd visit Mars.
quarterxchange 10 months ago
@quarterxchange The US became a world power after the World Wars, which left the European nations, that used to be the great world powers, in ruins. The Europeans had to completely rebuild their infrastructure and economy, while the US was left undamaged. If the World Wars had never happend, the US would have never been a world power. The car was invented before the US even existed, and I would like to see some sources about the medicines. And the Russians build better spaceships than the US.
TheJodofe 10 months ago
Regardless we became a superpower while we were a developing nation.
The car you are thinking of was an experiment and was not practical, hence nobody had one.
Simply look up various products, methods and technologies of the medical field and many, not most, will be American made, designed or produced.
No they don't, in fact during the space race they build a lot of shotty equipment, in fact in the book Red Moon Rising, it explains how people were constantly killed in ridiculous accidents
quarterxchange 10 months ago
@quarterxchange Yes, Americans developed a lot of stuff. Europeans still developed more. The Russians didn't build 'shottty' equipment. That's what American propaganda wanted you to believe. In Russia, people actually believe that Americans make crap equipment that falls apart instantly. The book Red Moon Rising is not a reliable source. It is written by an American and a lot of facts in it have never been proven true. The Soviet space programme was far more succesful than the American.
TheJodofe 10 months ago
@TheJodofe In a hasty attempt to beat the U.S. the Russians had a lot of ridiculous plans and poorly designed material
Look up Cosmonaut Crashed into Earth Crying in Rage
In Red Moon Rising it goes over events were during launches soldiers, mechanics and workers would constantly be killed in launches due to mistakes
You can also look up several stories based on leaked information from high ranking ex-soviets that many cosmonauts sent to space died in several unsafe and poorly planned attempts
quarterxchange 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@quarterxchange Those accidents have never been proven true, and that's why they are not believed by mainstream historians to have occurred.
TheJodofe 10 months ago
@TheJodofe The biggest diseases on this planet are the 1.3B Chinkroaches who are polluting everything they touch
LMAO
DemocracynowChina 11 months ago
@TheJodofe1 Who cares what you brainwashed retard is talking about
2 YOu are a stupid Chinkroach, the worse kind of bacteria on this planet
3 Shut your mother`s cunt
4 China is a SHITHOLE because you too don`t live in there
5 Did you drink Sanlu this morning?
DemocracynowChina 11 months ago
@DemocracynowChina Shut up, I do not wish to talk to you. You are impolite and insulting, and you smell. Go wash yourself.
TheJodofe 11 months ago
@TheJodofe LOl a BRAINWASHED CCP drone saying that someone smells, I gues you have the nose too close of your mouth
In fact, Communist Chinese never wash themselves, they think soap is an American bacteriological weapon :)
DemocracynowChina 11 months ago
@TheJodofe Shit China is So Great that 16 of 20 most polluted cities in the world are Chinese
IN fact, the MOST polluted city in the world is Linfen off course a Chinkroach city
It`s funny in China when you try to film something you can`t because the smog is clouding your vision and you cannot breathe :)
China truly is GREAT if you want to die of Cancer HAHAHA
FACT
DemocracynowChina 11 months ago
that journalist deserve a medal
outskool100 1 year ago
Eagle0videos; WIN!
GoldBoysProductions 2 years ago
I like when the video starts bush looks like hes giving nazi salute
ga24ward 2 years ago
deri papana
lanesakorane 2 years ago
lol, good eye
insurgentdude 2 years ago
why do good president,like linchon and JFK , HAVE TO DIE WHY CAN'T BAD PRESIDENTS LIKE RICHARD NIXION AND GEORGE.W BUSH DIE....
Eagle0videos 2 years ago 8
@Eagle0videos becuase nothing good lasts, my friend.
TheKillerK15 11 months ago
lol :P i wish they all started throwing their shoes haha entire audience
vetteed 2 years ago
WHOEVER DID THAT DESERVES A MEDAL
BOLSHEVIXTREME 2 years ago 9
id like to present it to him lol he got shoed like a bitch
iliketheairforce 2 years ago
he should've thrown a pot of naffatun (a very volatile flammable substance). u no give him some medicine from the past
whatsamidgetodo 2 years ago
Hahahahahah that is what bush gets ....I would have been funnier if it had hit him!
gundamDH 2 years ago
He may have been lame, but he could duck!
wmichswingers 2 years ago
super dodge.
SpicyHam 2 years ago
Wery well done. I think Family Clinton deserve more of this. They killed almost that much milions like Bush!
MMariaMMcG 3 years ago 4
Where????
wmichswingers 2 years ago
he deserved both size 12s to bad neither hit him
chasvv 3 years ago 2
george forgot to put his soles back in the journalists shoes so he threw them at him saying
"YOU STOLE MY SOUL!"
rangerfromthedead00 3 years ago
NOOO,i wish he got assinated!
Eagle0videos 3 years ago 4
The motherfucker has cat reflexes O_o
willchefa 3 years ago 4
lol, but for me that represent the fury of the iraq people
Gerard785 3 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The guy missed twice and now might be getting 15 years jail for attempting to assault a head of state. LOL.
TheManbearpig1 3 years ago
That journalist almost scored a headshot
letter101 3 years ago
Hopefully the next journalist to have a tantrum will throw a long sharp pencil and nail Dubya right in the eye! LOL
ScreamingSadist 3 years ago 3
Americans are descended from Europeans who stole other people's land.
And murdered the original population, quite happily.
American's are descended from slaves stolen from Africa.
The American government leaves blacks to drown when there is a flood.
Throw shoes at the West, make it duck and cover.
BlackRights4Whites 3 years ago 2
He deserved a lot more!
worldcitizen08 3 years ago
the exploited=nazi
FerminGalan1930 3 years ago
PWNED!!
flanke14 3 years ago
Да класно Буша обосрали так ему и надо народ его за мировую демократию отблагодарил
gurganadze 3 years ago
finaly!
Eagle0videos 3 years ago
Take that, dog!
Socialism4Ever 3 years ago 5
Thanks a Lot comrade Yuri!
nikolaos333 3 years ago 5
Σ' ευχαριστώ πολύ Νίκο μου για το βιντεάκι ! Το γεγονός της χρονιάς που φέυγει , κατά τη γνώμη μου πάντα....Και τον είδες πως έσκυψε για να μην τον πάρουν τα σκάγια ;; Σαν γυναικούλα και μετά παρίστανε τον άνετο , ότι και καλά δεν φοβήθηκε ..
Phaidra69 3 years ago
με κείνο το ηλίθιο, απλανές βλέμα ...που είναι πιο ηλίθιο και από βόδι ή κατσίκα ..όπως το προτιμάς ..
Phaidra69 3 years ago