Iranian channel reminds the world of the Dresden massacre . I wonder why America keeps wanting to overthrow Iran
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (130)
sorted by:
Oh sure, blame it on da Juice.
Why do these supposed 'Hollywood Jews' (not all of whom are even Jewish) get so much power? It's because the US is the world's hegemon. If people learned Mandarin as their second language rather than English, then we would not be so vulnerable to this trash.
This sounds almost like a parody.
And I don't get it. Because no one thinks that America is cool. In fact, the best arguments I can make against wokeness are less persuasive to people than just saying that it comes from America. The elites are traitors, bought and paid for, but I already knew that.
Are you seriously arguing that Senile Joe cares about what is moral? Come on man, what is this?
Its own separate state with zero independence, as it had under the Russian Empire.
If Ukraine decides to be the prostitute of the West, then sure Russia gets to change its mind about whether Ukraine is allowed to be independent. The agreement was a Ukraine that was friendly to Russia, and which allowed Sevastopol as a naval base to Russia. Otherwise, it's back to Novorossiya.
The British conquered other ethnic groups though, while Ukrainians are historically known as Little Russians. Show me where Indians speak the same language as the British and are called Little English.
Same reason the European countries gave up their colonies. Because the Philippines were not worth having. Indirect rule is more profitable than direct rule.
No one cares about that. Eisenhower worried that this would help communists, because they were major parts of independence movements.
Not the Baltic states, as they won their independence from the Bolsheviks and were only illegally annexed under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Besides, they are separate ethnic groups, who should have their independence respected unless they oppress their Russian minorities.
Be a satiated power like Bismarck had Germany be after unification. It's funny how you claim that Russia is so weak that it can't even take a puppet shithole non-country, but at the same time claim that it'll be in Madrid next week.
Because the Soviets loved to launch ill-conceived assaults that led to large encirclements.
Your argument is that the USSR only won because the Germans exhausted themselves on the offense? I guess it's a fair point, but they made major gains by being on the offense - in terms of territory, industry, population and experienced soldiers they captured and killed.
Didn't something like 1.5 million USSR soldiers surrender in Kiev because Stalin would not let them withdraw? Imagine if they had proper defenses, and hadn't been surprised, so there wouldn't been these large encirclements.
Millions of troops? Seems like a massive exaggeration regarding the non-existent threat that was the bleating sheep that was (and is) the UK.
I believe the USSR got more out of it and gave the US much less in return than the UK. Roosevelt drove a hard bargain with the UK. With the USSR, he just gave as much as he could, because he knew a USSR defeat would be disastrous for US security.
On the contrary, if the US felt threatened by Germany without defeating UK, just imagine how much it would have felt threatened after it defeated the UK.
You mean the Siberian divisions? Russian troops were fighting all along... obviously.
Ukraine got what it deserved. It lost a weak claim to empty lands primarily populated by Russians, not Ukrainins.
Obviously, he didn't believe that, but he claimed that Stalin was going to attack to justify his own attack. So he was 'playing the victim' in your terminology.
I'm pretty sure it was no different before that. The Winter War came before Barbarossa, after all.
Don't you know that people routinely lie to pretend to be cooler than they are? People lie and say "America isn't cool" and then they emulate trends they copied from America. Actions speak louder than words. My crazy ex used to say that you know someone is a hipster if they say they hate hipsters.
Sure, sure. Now Russia can impose that fantasy, of course, as long as it has the military might to enforce it. Does it? Oops, no. You only get to make the rules under "might makes right" when you actually have the might.
Ukrainians don't see themselves as Russian, Russians don't see them as Russians, and nobody else in the world sees them as Russians.
Nope, I don't think Russia could win against NATO, I just think it would keep trying to conquer until it was finally stopped.
It takes a long time for conquered territory to "turn a profit". It doesn't happen quickly enough to make a difference in a war. Germany conquered some of the Caucus oil fields, for example, and held them for a good portion of 1942, but was never able to extract significant oil from them because of sabotage and repair time. It generally takes years to consolidate and really make any gains from occupied territory. It doesn't work like a video game where the color on the map changes and you suddenly get full use of that land and people.
Usually the occupation costs outweigh any profits for quite a while.
No a lot of Russian units were held back and Stalin had a lot of more "expendable" units like Ukrainians at the front to buy time and wear down the Germans. The Russian units were held back and started to fight a lot later in Barbarossa in the Battles for Moscow & Leningrad. Unlike the non-Russian units, they would not surrender after being encircled, and even though the pockets were eventually liquidated, the fact that they fought to the end meant that it tied up a lot of German units and slowed the Germans down.
Russia didn't stop at Crimea, though.