Should Japan Receive Sakhalin Island?
- Thread starter Silverbackman
- Start date
Crazy Russian
Banned forever!
- 24 Feb 2006
- 94
- 4
nurizeko said:
Hi! Taking the opportunity I have a favour to ask of you: could you send my regards to Irvine Welsh?
What does he think about this problem? I'm sure that he has his own opinion.The condensed version (plus additional information) especially for you:
According to Yalta agreements Kuril Islands and Sakhalin were returned to the USSR for ever.
Potsdam declaration (drawn up by the USA, Great Britain and China) confirmed the islands' belonging to the USSR.
On 29th January 1946 military government of the United States issued the Directive Number 677 that read as follows: 'Kuril Islands including Shikotan and Habomai Islands (which are the parts of Kurils) must belong to the USSR'.
Japan signed San Francisco peace treaty in 1951 and relinquished Sakhalin with adjacent islands and Kuril Islands to the USSR. The USA signed the treaty as well.
On 19th October 1956 the USSR and Japan signed the Declaration. The Declaration implied concluding of peace at first and after that the 'transfer' of two islands (Shikotan and Habomai). The transfer is a good will act and willingness to dispose of our own territory 'meeting the wishes of Japan and taking into account the interests of the state of Japan'. But Japan insisted on the 'return' before concluding of peace, because the use of the term 'to return' means already an admission of illegality of the fact that these territories belong to Russia. It is a revision of not only the results of the World War II, but the principle of firmness of these results.
By signing the Declaration, Nikita Khrushchev wanted to keep Japan from concluding a military co-operation treaty with the USA. However, Japan and the USA signed such a treaty on 19th January 1960. The treaty consisted in covenanting for perpetual American armed forces' staying in Japan.
In concluding the treaty with the United States, Japan broke the Soviet-Japanese Declaration and so-called 'rebus sic stantibus' principle of it. In breaking the Declaration, Japan nullified the 'obligation' of the USSR to give the present of Shikotan and Habomai Islands to Japan. But the USSR wanted to help Japan and on 27th January 1960 made another offer: 'The USSR will give the present of Shikotan and Habomai Islands to Japan if the USSR and Japan sign peace treaty and all foreign armed forces leave Japan'...
...All the islands belong to Russia LEGALLY. Japan can easily receive two islands (Shikotan and Habomai). Now you know what she must do...
...If you have some questions, read my posts again and more carefully. Read them until you understand everything. And stop accusing Russia, please. Frankly speaking, I am irritated with:
or
et cetera... Are such phrases your aces of trumps?
The blokes don't know the history, don't know anything about the problem. Nevertheless, they dare write absolutely ludicrous things.
Though I respect their right to have the different opinion.
Russia and Germany haven't signed the peace treaty either. So what? We have perfect relations.
You are barking up the wrong tree, my American friend. It is much more advantageous for the USA if Japan is not influential and sovereign. Unlike many other countries (including the USA), Russia is interested in Japan's being a superpower. Russia is also interested in good relations with her neighbours. Unlike the United States, Russia has no Monroe doctrine. If you want Japan to be a superpower, address yourself to your politicians. Japan will not become a superpower until the USA get out of the Pacific Ocean region.
Once Nietzsche wrote: 'No American future! No English patterns! Long may mixing, and friendship between, the Russian and German nations!'
I can also wish Japan no American future. Japan will become a superpower if she moves closer to her neighbours (especially to China). Long live friendship between Japan and China!
I should pose the question in the different way: 'What does Sakhalin have that the USA wants so bad?'
Thank you.
Russia violated that.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/s1.htm
term of validity is 5years.
expiration of a term was 1946.april.
then Russai annunced that 1945 April.
is was justied for Russia.
However, treaty was...."It is needed for no-extension notice for abandonment the expiration before one year "
The expiration date of the agreement is five years.
it is unchanged...
it means" Russia one-sidedly annulled a still effective agreement. "
Russian was a looter at the scene of a fire.
Crazy Russian
Banned forever!
- 24 Feb 2006
- 94
- 4
I have the different information.
Moreover, Japan signed the San Francisco peace treaty in 1951 and relinquished Sakhalin with adjacent islands and Kuril Islands to the USSR. It is the most irrefutable argument for the islands' belonging to Russia.
Furthermore, don't forget that: 'As a result of the victory over Nazi Germany and its allies Kaliningrad (Koenigsberg) region and Kuril Islands were recognised the territories of the USSR; Alsace and Lorraine became French in spite of having sometimes been parts of Germany during a century. Poland got Silesia in spite of its having been Prussian for four centuries (the well-known border was traced by the Oder-Neisse line). Dodecanese Islands transferred to Greece in spite of having been Italian since the Versailles Agreement (earlier used to belong to the Ottoman Empire).'
Japan was a looter after the Russo-Japanese war as well.
The American politicians are glad that we blame each other. It's exactly what they want. I am not a politician. I can't take political decisions. I just express my opinion and respect yours. You are my friend. If you want, you may hate me. Political problems must not strain relations between the people of our countries. Here I stand.
Moreover, Japan signed the San Francisco peace treaty in 1951 and relinquished Sakhalin with adjacent islands and Kuril Islands to the USSR. It is the most irrefutable argument for the islands' belonging to Russia.
Furthermore, don't forget that: 'As a result of the victory over Nazi Germany and its allies Kaliningrad (Koenigsberg) region and Kuril Islands were recognised the territories of the USSR; Alsace and Lorraine became French in spite of having sometimes been parts of Germany during a century. Poland got Silesia in spite of its having been Prussian for four centuries (the well-known border was traced by the Oder-Neisse line). Dodecanese Islands transferred to Greece in spite of having been Italian since the Versailles Agreement (earlier used to belong to the Ottoman Empire).'
Japan was a looter after the Russo-Japanese war as well.
The American politicians are glad that we blame each other. It's exactly what they want. I am not a politician. I can't take political decisions. I just express my opinion and respect yours. You are my friend. If you want, you may hate me. Political problems must not strain relations between the people of our countries. Here I stand.
MajideSaiaku
tsuyaku o tsukete kudasai
- 19 Jan 2005
- 1,381
- 59
Russia wasnt actually at the signing of the treaty thet signed over the Japanese kurils, and since the treaty was made under occupation I assume the japanese considor any agreement made at that signing (which again, russia didnt attend) was null and void and so continued their claims on those islands.
I dont think Japan however has any active claim on sakhalin.
In my own opinion I see no reason for Russia, which streaches across two continents and is the biggest country on earth, to have any reason to maintain occupation of the Japanese Kurils, just a lingering pointless aspect of a long finished war.
If i was the Russian leader IMHO I would just hand them over and be done with it but ohwell.
Edit: also forgot to add, Russia and Japan met and made agreements that were to lead to their return, so technically Russia has made moves to surrender the islands, if only in intention, so really, theres no reason not to follow through.
I dont think Japan however has any active claim on sakhalin.
In my own opinion I see no reason for Russia, which streaches across two continents and is the biggest country on earth, to have any reason to maintain occupation of the Japanese Kurils, just a lingering pointless aspect of a long finished war.
If i was the Russian leader IMHO I would just hand them over and be done with it but ohwell.
Edit: also forgot to add, Russia and Japan met and made agreements that were to lead to their return, so technically Russia has made moves to surrender the islands, if only in intention, so really, theres no reason not to follow through.
Mamoru-kun
Wanderer
- 25 Aug 2005
- 256
- 9
Hi Caster! I've watched the movie on your first link and wow...I don't get a word, but it was...how to say in english...kanjou shita!caster51 said:
Also, who said that sentence on the stone of your picture? Was it one of those girls before...well, doing "the last thing a human can do", or the one who created the stone?
Crazy Russian
Banned forever!
- 24 Feb 2006
- 94
- 4
It is of little significance. 51 countries (including the USA and Japan) signed the treaty in San Francisco. Japan did abdicate Kurils and Sakhalin. It does mean that Japan has no right to own them now. At the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences the islands were recognised the territories of the USSR. Consequently, they must belong to Russia.
Generally speaking, it is absolutely useless dispute.
Even historians disagree.
2 Nurizeko. You should have read my first message. Read it and you'll understand why Russia must own the islands. Russia cannot reject them. If I were the Russian president, I shouldn't present Sakhalin and especially Kurils to Japan. The USA is a very serious terroristic threat. The islands are very important strategical positions of Russia in the Far East.
Crazy Russian
Banned forever!
- 24 Feb 2006
- 94
- 4
My friend, I know what I am talking about. Unlike you, I learn history. You don't know all the awful truth about your country. If you know it, you'll feel shock. E.g. Monroe Doctrine can drive anyone crazy. Don't forget that it is your country that keeps on waging the Cold War, not Russia. I am just call the things by their right names. That's all. Someone must tell the truth...
So many American politicians avowed that the USA didn't invade Russia, simply because Russia had nuclear weapons. Holy mother ... !!! Haven't you known that?!?!?!?
The main purpose of the USA is demolishing Russia.
So many American politicians avowed that the USA didn't invade Russia, simply because Russia had nuclear weapons. Holy mother ... !!! Haven't you known that?!?!?!?
The main purpose of the USA is demolishing Russia.
- 18 Oct 2004
- 2,497
- 110
Crazy Russian said:My friend, I know what I am talking about. Unlike you, I learn history. You don't know all the awful truth about your country. If you know it, you'll feel shock. E.g. Monroe Doctrine can drive anyone crazy. Don't forget that it is your country that keeps on waging the Cold War, not Russia. I am just call the things by their right names. That's all. Someone must tell the truth...
So many American politicians avowed that the USA didn't invade Russia, simply because Russia had nuclear weapons. Holy mother ... !!! Haven't you known that?!?!?!?
The main purpose of the USA is demolishing Russia.
I can forgive you for your point-of-view considering your youth and inexperience.
I have lived though the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. I have two degrees in political science. I have worked in the government. I have worked in four presidential campaigns. So I don't have to "learn" history, I have lived it.
I hate to be the one to disillusion you, but we have no desire to "demolish" Russia.
- 4 Aug 2006
- 40
- 0
Crazy Russian said:
Please letus know what kind of different information you have. Or, you just want to change the topics which is very clear you will lose?
- 4 Jun 2006
- 561
- 39
Ummm.... for the record, most Americans don't blame the Russians for anything. We blame the Soviets, or, to be more precise, Soviet leaders. The only problem Americans would have with Russians is that they might one day have been shooting AK-47s at them, because if they didn't, their Commissars would have shot them for treason to the "glorious motherland". By the way, I'd like to know how standing in line for 3 hours for bread is "glorious".Crazy Russian said:
As a side note, I also liked Mikhail Gorbachev. I think gradual change was preferable to sudden transition, like under Yeltsin, but in a strange way, his drunken yin was perfect for Bill Clinton's wanton frat-boy yang.
Actually, I must seriously disagree. There is chronological and cultural continuity, even if there is no political continuity. This also gets into a deeply philosophical discussion as to the actual definition of "nation" or "state", which I'm not going to touch with even a ﾆ津脆陳ｿﾆ津?#943;ﾆ津脆津脆陳ｿ. (Note: If anyone gets this, I'll give them a cookie.) Just because, constitutionally, they are theoretically different entities doesn't mean that they are culturally, especially in the minds of the citizenry.
As for TR's role in the Russo-Japanese War and subsequent negotiations, I can not apologize or defend our actions. They were, simply put, imperialist. However, so were Russia's. We were trying to get a slice of the Far East, just like everyone else. We were no better than anyone else, but no worse either.
This was discussed in another thread, but honestly, I fail to see how Japan is not sovereign. There are limitations on their military actions in their constitution and in the peace treaty, but these things are gradually growing more and more defunct. If anything, the Yakuza controls Japanese politics more than the Americans. We are moving most of our troops out of Japan and over to Guam instead. In short, we are weaning ourselves away from Japan. The people who have big issues with Japanese sovereignty are Koreans, Chinese, and Taiwanese. It doesn't benefit the Americans if they are not sovereign. Besides, if they are a vassal state (I prefer the term "client state" myself), why don't they pay tribute to the U.S., as was common in previous ages?
You are right, he's barking up the wrong tree, but not necessarily for the reasons you stated.
I have very little respect for Nietzsche. His philosophy formed a cornerstone to Nazism, especially since der fuhrer was an ubermensch.
Besides, England is German (Angles, Saxons, and Jutes), and by extension, so is the United States (being of Anglo-Saxon founding, with a huge dose of German immigration during the 18th and 19th centuries). In addition, as a Roman historian, the modern world was born from the 5th century AD Germanic invasions of the Western Roman Empire. Russia was dominated by Viking kings before the Mongols invaded, Vikings who were closely related to the Germanic peoples.
So, you see, an American or English future or pattern is, in reality, a German one.
Besides, the Battle of Stalingrad was a fantastic example of Germans and Russians mixing it up and having tons of fun, right Friedrich?
For such a smart guy, this comment shows an enormous lack of understanding about Japan and China in the modern political arena. Getting Japan and China to reconcile would be like having Southerners forgive Northerners for winning the U.S. Civil War.
Abso-frickin'-lutely nothing. Which is why we don't want it. Hell, we don't give two shits about it at all! You act like it's on the U.S. Nightly News at 8:00 pm every night or something. "THIS IS A CBS SPECIAL BULLETIN!!! RUSSIA AND JAPAN STILL ARGUING ABOUT SAKHALIN!"
Ummm... no.
Wow. Next thing you're going to be telling me that little green men from Area 51 are controlling the U.S. government mind-control rays. Please. Actually, the United States would prefer it if people got along. It's better for trade and business. People like to claim that the current business in the Middle East is so we can get cheap oil. Unfortunately, that theory's patently false, because ever since the war started, gas prices have risen 250%.
Go figure. I guess peace and harmony are good for business.
In addition, I've gotta hand it to you, right now, we are more concerned with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Israel/Lebannon/Palestine. Russia and Japan squabbling over Sakhalin is far below our radar. We honestly don't think that hard about Russia now that you don't have Soviet hardliners arguing to blow us up.
Awesome. My respect for you has just shot up. This is one thing that you've said that I can agree wholeheartedly with.
I am an historian. It's my job. I'm all but finished my MA in history, so I know what I am talking about, too.
You are 21? That's too young to remember the Cold War. You weren't in the United States when there were bombing drills. You never saw the television commercials and ads for bomb shelters. You weren't there when Khruschev decided it'd be smart to park nuclear missiles 90 miles from Florida. You have no idea how terrified my grandparents were that, any day, they'd be dead because your leaders decided they wanted to extend the ComIntern.
You don't remember movies like Red Dawn or War Games or TV series' like The Day After. I do. Even in the 1980s, we were certain that the clock was ticking to Doomsday.
I remember being 5 years old, and asking my 23-year-old father why "They" wanted to kill us? What was an Iron Curtain? What are those big rockets on TV, with all those marching soldiers and that big red flag? Who were "They"? Why did they want us destroyed?
You didn't have to live with that kind of fear. You were, what, 5 when the Wall came down? You may have heard stories, but you have no idea what kind of terror we had to live with. We were pretty certain our leaders weren't going to push the button on the End of the World first. But we didn't know about yours. And given such iconic nutcases as Stalin filling the Soviet historybooks, we didn't have a great deal of faith in the Soviets being rational.
By the way, American history textbooks are full of our mistakes. Chapters on Andrew Jackson's policy of forced removal, the Indian Wars, slavery, and Vietnam all exist in American school textbooks. We are also highly divided on our current international involvements. It's part of living in a free country. We have dissent, but it is mostly peaceful because we all have the right to vote. We have freedom of speech and of the press. Our deeds are not very shocking to us. What might shock us is how misinformed people may be, and how utterly biased they are against us.
You say you don't want to hate someone based on international politics. Well, I'm sorry to say, the United States is comprised of its people. If you hate the United States, you hate its people, period. In a democratic republic, the people are sovereign.
You've read Nietzsche. Now do me a favor. Go read John Locke.
http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/22336.htmlMamoru-kun said:
After reporting the happenings of the previous few hours, the final message from the last of nine young telephonists at the exchange at Maoka, 22 year-old Itoh Chie, ended with these poignant words.[11]
Last edited:
MajideSaiaku
tsuyaku o tsukete kudasai
- 19 Jan 2005
- 1,381
- 59
ArmandV said:
I think this is what is called "0wned". ☝
◆◆KUMANODAI Class presents...◆◆
ﾂ。
http://www.dogo-giyaman.jp/kankou/17/index.htm
http://www.ehime-u.ac.jp/whatsnew/826/826.html
http://www.tbs.co.jp/inpaku/warabe/ehi_intro06.html
German and Russian pows in Narashino
http://www.city.narashino.chiba.jp/kouhou/sansaku/sansaku003.html
http://www.mii.kurume-u.ac.jp/~abe/jaus8.html
http://www.city.narashino.chiba.jp/siyakusyo/kyouiku/nichiro/index.html
- 4 Aug 2006
- 40
- 0
Crazy Russian said:
It is great to hear from Russian friend!
I have a questions.
1: Is Yalta "Secret" agreement officail international agreement? Is there any signed public documents?
2: Which section of Yalta "Secret" agreements has a sentense you mentioned?
3: Which section of Potsudam declaration has a sentense you mentioned?
4: SCAPIN 677's section 6 said like it should not be read as final teritoly dicision polycy by united nation. Did you read that?
5: Did USSR or Rossia signed the San Francisco treaty? If not, Should Japan pass the sakhalin to Rossia?
Thanks for your responce in advance.
Mamoru-kun
Wanderer
- 25 Aug 2005
- 256
- 9
It just...makes me sick...Thank you for your links and info Caster51...caster51 said:
- 4 Jun 2006
- 561
- 39
Today I read an article by Victor Davis Hanson about the Arab world and its general attitude of "victimization". Here is the article in case you are interested.
Anyway, the point isn't the article itself, but rather that the article got me to thinking about scapegoats and victimization, and cultural concepts such as pride and honor. And I have to ask myself, how much does Japan's claim to Sakhalin goes back to those themes?
Scapegoat? Maybe not.
Victimization? Somewhat. Caster51's posts about how the island was taken don't paint the Soviets as liberating heroes. However, it happened 60 years ago. And how many Japanese citizens either know or care about it?
Pride and honor? A whole bunch. Japan lost the Second World War, and with the war, its empire. There is a possibility that reacquiring Sakhalin may be more of a matter of cultural pride and honor, a small victory in a century marred by ignoble defeat.
As for my own opinion, I don't see why Russia needs to hold onto it. On the other hand, I don't see why Japan needs it. As I said before, northern Hokkaido is already a cultural hinterland. I think it is more a matter of pride. The island is strategically and economically worthless, unless someone finds trillions of dollars worth of oil beneath it, which I doubt. It is not much of an asset. Therefore, it must be a pride issue. Therefore, I believe it is something either Japan or Russia (or both) should decide to concede on. Basically, either they should compromise, or one country should "be the bigger man".
Anyway, the point isn't the article itself, but rather that the article got me to thinking about scapegoats and victimization, and cultural concepts such as pride and honor. And I have to ask myself, how much does Japan's claim to Sakhalin goes back to those themes?
Scapegoat? Maybe not.
Victimization? Somewhat. Caster51's posts about how the island was taken don't paint the Soviets as liberating heroes. However, it happened 60 years ago. And how many Japanese citizens either know or care about it?
Pride and honor? A whole bunch. Japan lost the Second World War, and with the war, its empire. There is a possibility that reacquiring Sakhalin may be more of a matter of cultural pride and honor, a small victory in a century marred by ignoble defeat.
As for my own opinion, I don't see why Russia needs to hold onto it. On the other hand, I don't see why Japan needs it. As I said before, northern Hokkaido is already a cultural hinterland. I think it is more a matter of pride. The island is strategically and economically worthless, unless someone finds trillions of dollars worth of oil beneath it, which I doubt. It is not much of an asset. Therefore, it must be a pride issue. Therefore, I believe it is something either Japan or Russia (or both) should decide to concede on. Basically, either they should compromise, or one country should "be the bigger man".
- 4 Aug 2006
- 40
- 0
GodEmperorLeto said:
My idea to solve this issue is this. Russia return it to Japan, and Japan let Russia govern the island for long time, say 100 years?
Crazy Russian
Banned forever!
- 24 Feb 2006
- 94
- 4
2 the Americans:
I insisit on my point of view. If you want, you may think that I am infantile and/or stupid. Frankly speaking, I don't care.
I'm not surprised that Mr ArmandV writes: 'We have no desire to "demolish" Russia.' Saying so is his obligation. He is much smarter than Cheney.
Concerning Nietzsche:
Have you read Nietzsche? I'm not sure. I agree that his philosophy had an influence on Hitler. But in the different way. Nietzsche considered the Russians and the Jews to be the greatest people in the world. He loved and respected only them.
He hated the Germans. He considered them to be a primitive nation. If you had read Nietzsche works, you would have understood the following: 'Mein Kamf and Nietzsche works are absolutely polar opposites.'
So it is vain to try to persuade you. Better read Nietzsche works.
And don't think that I hate the Germans. I love them.
'Besides, England is German (Angles, Saxons, and Jutes), and by extension, so is the United States (being of Anglo-Saxon founding, with a huge dose of German immigration during the 18th and 19th centuries).'
You discourse like Hitler. It reminds me of his 'doctrine'. Why? Think it over yourself.
'Long live friendship between Japan and China!' was just my best wishes. I'd like them to leave behind all their disagreements.
Concerning the USSR and the Cold War:
It's so nice of you to make the USSR responsible for the Cold War! (By the way, it was unleashed by Churchill.) The idiots both in the USA and the USSR almost destroyed the world. I'd like to make your leaders responsible for that as well.
The USSR was the only country that hindered the USA in establishing a terroristic regime all over the world. The USA has wanted the whole world to suck American... - I guess, I should say more politely - to kiss American arse. (The USSR, in its turn, wanted to make the world red.) I'm not sure that the present-day USA is better then the USSR. The Soviet regime disappeared. The American one still exists.
It's so nice to blame the USSR! The Russian Revolution was financed by England. The English politicians were afraid of strong Russia. They thought the Revolution to destroy Russia and the Russians. But they were wrong. After the WWII Russia became strong again. The Cold War was another attempt to destroy both Russia and the Russians. Many Americans think that it is the USA that destroyed the Soviet regime. But the Soviet regime was destroyed by the Russians. We didn't want to live in such a country anymore.
The USA is afraid of strong Russia as well. Yeltsin betrayed Russia. The country was in sh!t: corruption, violating human rights, lack of freedom of speech, etc. But the American politicians say that the country under Yeltsin was the pattern of democracy and freedom. They say so 'cause it was easy to manipulate Russia. Under Putin the country is getting stronger. It is impossible to manipulate Russia anymore.
The American politicians called upon to boycott the G8 summit. In Latvia Mr Cheney declaimed: 'Russia holds a candle to the devil again. Democracy and freedom are brutally raped in Russia.' I.e. just another the Cold War talking b*llocks. Let the American politicians stuff their 'freedom' and 'democracy' up their arses! I don't need American freedom and democracy.
'You say you don't want to hate someone based on international politics. Well, I'm sorry to say, the United States is comprised of its people.'
Believe me, I like the Americans.
2 Poke-mon master.
Please, read my first message again.
I insisit on my point of view. If you want, you may think that I am infantile and/or stupid. Frankly speaking, I don't care.
I'm not surprised that Mr ArmandV writes: 'We have no desire to "demolish" Russia.' Saying so is his obligation. He is much smarter than Cheney.
Concerning Nietzsche:
Have you read Nietzsche? I'm not sure. I agree that his philosophy had an influence on Hitler. But in the different way. Nietzsche considered the Russians and the Jews to be the greatest people in the world. He loved and respected only them.
He hated the Germans. He considered them to be a primitive nation. If you had read Nietzsche works, you would have understood the following: 'Mein Kamf and Nietzsche works are absolutely polar opposites.'
So it is vain to try to persuade you. Better read Nietzsche works.
And don't think that I hate the Germans. I love them.
'Besides, England is German (Angles, Saxons, and Jutes), and by extension, so is the United States (being of Anglo-Saxon founding, with a huge dose of German immigration during the 18th and 19th centuries).'
You discourse like Hitler. It reminds me of his 'doctrine'. Why? Think it over yourself.
'Long live friendship between Japan and China!' was just my best wishes. I'd like them to leave behind all their disagreements.
Concerning the USSR and the Cold War:
It's so nice of you to make the USSR responsible for the Cold War! (By the way, it was unleashed by Churchill.) The idiots both in the USA and the USSR almost destroyed the world. I'd like to make your leaders responsible for that as well.
The USSR was the only country that hindered the USA in establishing a terroristic regime all over the world. The USA has wanted the whole world to suck American... - I guess, I should say more politely - to kiss American arse. (The USSR, in its turn, wanted to make the world red.) I'm not sure that the present-day USA is better then the USSR. The Soviet regime disappeared. The American one still exists.
It's so nice to blame the USSR! The Russian Revolution was financed by England. The English politicians were afraid of strong Russia. They thought the Revolution to destroy Russia and the Russians. But they were wrong. After the WWII Russia became strong again. The Cold War was another attempt to destroy both Russia and the Russians. Many Americans think that it is the USA that destroyed the Soviet regime. But the Soviet regime was destroyed by the Russians. We didn't want to live in such a country anymore.
The USA is afraid of strong Russia as well. Yeltsin betrayed Russia. The country was in sh!t: corruption, violating human rights, lack of freedom of speech, etc. But the American politicians say that the country under Yeltsin was the pattern of democracy and freedom. They say so 'cause it was easy to manipulate Russia. Under Putin the country is getting stronger. It is impossible to manipulate Russia anymore.
The American politicians called upon to boycott the G8 summit. In Latvia Mr Cheney declaimed: 'Russia holds a candle to the devil again. Democracy and freedom are brutally raped in Russia.' I.e. just another the Cold War talking b*llocks. Let the American politicians stuff their 'freedom' and 'democracy' up their arses! I don't need American freedom and democracy.
'You say you don't want to hate someone based on international politics. Well, I'm sorry to say, the United States is comprised of its people.'
Believe me, I like the Americans.
2 Poke-mon master.
Please, read my first message again.
- 4 Jun 2006
- 561
- 39
They've killed more Russians than the Americans have. I think that reveals just how biased you are.Crazy Russian said:
I find this hard to reconcile with the rest of your arguments.
Well, then after the gigantic argument that was on another thread, I'll keep this brief.
If you are not openminded about the possibility of being misinformed (or, simply put, just plain wrong), then you aren't here for a dialogue, you are here to preach about how the world's been victimized by the United States.
If that is the case, do me and the forums as a whole a favor: keep your anti-Americanist propaganda and scapegoatism to yourself. It is insulting, offensive, and detrimental to these discussions. And quite frankly, I'm tired of reading people's snipes and off-topic America-bashing. Take it to Eupedia instead.
This goes to everyone, not just Crazy Russian, by the way.
Yes, I have. Several of his books in fact. He was arrogant, self-absorbed, and whiny. He didn't have everything handed to him in life, so he decided to blame God, and then attempted to prove God didn't exist in order to justify his selfish, egotistical behavior. His nihilistic doctrine is what fueled Nazism: the idea that morality only exists to you if you are a weakling, and "great men" like him rise "above morality" and fuel their own wantonly selfish desires.
Similar to how China and the United Kingdom agreed on Hong Kong, right? That's actually not a bad idea. However, Hong Kong was actually an economically viable sphere of influence within China. It helped make England wealthy. I don't see any real value in Sakhalin except as bragging rights at this point.Poke-mon Master said:
