• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Turkey Launches Deadly Airstrikes Against Syrian Forces

Ringo Stalin said:
You know why? Because they already there! 730 bases all around the world.
Click to expand...

Again, most of which were created during a period when various countries feared the Soviet Union or its proxies would attack them in wars of aggression to “spread the revolution”.

It was Soviet aggression in Czechoslovakia which fatally wounded communism more than anything else
 
Tigerace117 said:
It was Soviet aggression in Czechoslovakia which fatally wounded communism more than anything else
Click to expand...


No, a false report of Khrushchev at the twentieth Congress of the wounded communism.

 
Ringo Stalin said:
No, a false report of Khrushchev at the twentieth Congress of the wounded communism.

Click to expand...


Grover Furr is a laughably disreputable source, whereas Khrushchev managed to repair some of the damage Stalin had done— particularly in his last couple years where he’d been gearing up to execute a bunch of people on false pretenses again. Had Stalin not gutted the Red Army Hitler never could have gotten a tenth as far as he had into the USSR.

The crushing of the Prague Spring proved that communism could not reform, which meant that the inherent flaws would eventually destroy it. Sure enough, the walls eventually came crashing down.
 
Yet they are losing, they are losing bad the west has vicious attacked Syria and they lost after 9 bloody years of war.;)

On February 17, the Syrian Army and its allies captured over 10 locations from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other radical groups in western Aleppo. Government forces also besieged another Turkish observation point, deployed in the vicinity of the Regiment 111 area and set a foothold for an advance on Darat Izza.

Map Update: Syrian Army's Gains In Western Aleppo On February 17, 2020

Turkey will cry ceise-fire again soon.
 
TypicalRussian said:
Yet they are losing, they are losing bad the west has vicious attacked Syria and they lost after 9 bloody years of war.;)

On February 17, the Syrian Army and its allies captured over 10 locations from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other radical groups in western Aleppo. Government forces also besieged another Turkish observation point, deployed in the vicinity of the Regiment 111 area and set a foothold for an advance on Darat Izza.

Map Update: Syrian Army's Gains In Western Aleppo On February 17, 2020

Turkey will cry ceise-fire again soon.
Click to expand...

If the west had actually attacked Syria Assad would have been overthrown in about three minutes flat. The only reason why he’s still in power is the fact that nobody wants ISIS to benefit from crushing his forces.... and because he finally seems to have gotten the hint that using gas on his own people again will lead to his regime being turned into a parking lot.
 
Tigerace117 said:
If the west had actually attacked Syria Assad would have been overthrown in about three minutes flat. The only reason why he’s still in power is the fact that nobody wants ISIS to benefit from crushing his forces.... and because he finally seems to have gotten the hint that using gas on his own people again will lead to his regime being turned into a parking lot.
Click to expand...

They did attack Assad, they trained 12,00 troops to fight him, Also I doubt that Assad would have been overthrown, unlike Saddam, he had and still has the majority of support with Syria, it's why the revolution never happened, a revolution can't be prolonged because a government always has the upper hand in a long war. Libya's revolution was quick and that is why he succeeded, the west helped a little but not really, then they did the same thing with assad, but the revolution was prolonged and got bogged down

You can't win a war where the civilians are so against something, they risk their lives for it, Syrians are determined to turn into another Afghanistan. Speaking of Afghanistan, you seriously think Assad would have gotten crushed when the Taliban is still resilient after 2 decades of war by America.:lamo

Last, you think Assad chemically gassed his own people, oh yeah sure, what a ****ing fantastic move by him. When your winning a war and just took back the biggest city in your country, gas your own people and turn public opinion against you, yeah real genius ****ing move

Isn't it funny that these attacks happened when the rebels were losing in Ghouta-

Siege of Eastern Ghouta - Wikipedia

Literally every time a chemical attack happened, the SAA was attacking the rebels and winning.
 
TypicalRussian said:
They did attack Assad, they trained 12,00 troops to fight him, Also I doubt that Assad would have been overthrown, unlike Saddam, he had and still has the majority of support with Syria, it's why the revolution never happened, a revolution can't be prolonged because a government always has the upper hand in a long war. Libya's revolution was quick and that is why he succeeded, the west helped a little but not really, then they did the same thing with assad, but the revolution was prolonged and got bogged down

You can't win a war where the civilians are so against something, they risk their lives for it, Syrians are determined to turn into another Afghanistan. Speaking of Afghanistan, you seriously think Assad would have gotten crushed when the Taliban is still resilient after 2 decades of war by America.:lamo

Last, you think Assad chemically gassed his own people, oh yeah sure, what a ****ing fantastic move by him. When your winning a war and just took back the biggest city in your country, gas your own people and turn public opinion against you, yeah real genius ****ing move

Isn't it funny that these attacks happened when the rebels were losing in Ghouta-

Siege of Eastern Ghouta - Wikipedia

Literally every time a chemical attack happened, the SAA was attacking the rebels and winning.
Click to expand...

Nobody ever accused Assad of being a genius. Case in point being that the fighting started because he decided the answer of peaceful protests was to barrel bomb his own cities. And again, if the West had actually attacked Assad he certainly wouldn’t be in power right now, because there isn’t a unit in the Syrian Army which could go toe to toe with US troops and win.

The revolution in Libya succeeded because the West stopped Gaddafi— who was another psychotic thug— from bringing the full weight of his forces down on those who opposed him.

Considering that its been the better part of a decade and fighting still rages on its pretty clear that old Bashir doesn’t have the loyalty of anyone outside his own ethnic group and those the Russians and Iranians have shanghaied into the fight. If the war goes on much longer he’ll be “president” of a desert full of corpses.

Syria is not Afghanistan; it doesn’t have the mountains to hide in or the decentralized tribal system to keep pouring out new recruits. Even then the Taliban has taken horrific casualties over the years—the US has done far better than the USSR ever managed.

Not to mention, of course, that the Syrian military’s performance in the Arab-Israeli Was was downright pathetic, and there’s been nothing in the last eight years or so to think they’ve improved.

Like I said before, nobody accused Assad of being a genius. He’s a thug. Chemical weapons send a very big “if you rebel, you will die horribly” message across, and dictators thrive on that fear factor ****.

Yeah, and gas was routinely used as an attempt to cause a breakthrough back during World War One as well. He probably thought it would cause the rebel front to collapse and allow him to sweep to victory. In reality... not so much.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Nobody ever accused Assad of being a genius. Case in point being that the fighting started because he decided the answer of peaceful protests was to barrel bomb his own cities. And again, if the West had actually attacked Assad he certainly wouldn’t be in power right now, because there isn’t a unit in the Syrian Army which could go toe to toe with US troops and win.

The revolution in Libya succeeded because the West stopped Gaddafi— who was another psychotic thug— from bringing the full weight of his forces down on those who opposed him.

Considering that its been the better part of a decade and fighting still rages on its pretty clear that old Bashir doesn’t have the loyalty of anyone outside his own ethnic group and those the Russians and Iranians have shanghaied into the fight. If the war goes on much longer he’ll be “president” of a desert full of corpses.

Syria is not Afghanistan; it doesn’t have the mountains to hide in or the decentralized tribal system to keep pouring out new recruits. Even then the Taliban has taken horrific casualties over the years—the US has done far better than the USSR ever managed.

Not to mention, of course, that the Syrian military’s performance in the Arab-Israeli Was was downright pathetic, and there’s been nothing in the last eight years or so to think they’ve improved.

Like I said before, nobody accused Assad of being a genius. He’s a thug. Chemical weapons send a very big “if you rebel, you will die horribly” message across, and dictators thrive on that fear factor ****.

Yeah, and gas was routinely used as an attempt to cause a breakthrough back during World War One as well. He probably thought it would cause the rebel front to collapse and allow him to sweep to victory. In reality... not so much.
Click to expand...

Barrel Bombing is like an airstrike, american airstrikes has terrorized hundreds of thousands of people over so many decades especially Vietnam, the hypocrisy is unreal.

Gaddafi was not perfect but he had the greatest country in Africa at the time, now it is a complete ****hole that is being invaded by Turkey and their connected networks of rebels groups throughout the Middle East-

Exclusive: 2,000 Syrian fighters deployed to Libya to support government | World news | The Guardian

Gaddafi used to have nuclear weapons and the international community demanded him to get rid of it, then the west treated him like **** when he did them a favor and overthrown him, North Korea would not survive if it did not Nuclear Weapons

Haftar is a reliable solution for peace in Libya

No, rebels now own less than 5% of Syria, 95% of Syria is with Assad, the rebels are the foreign fighters here. In fact, 10,000-20,000 troops in the Idlib pocket are from a central Asia terrorist group that wants sharia law in China and Central Aisa, they are there for experience, also Al-queda fighters from Afganistan, Trukey, and Saudi all came to Idlib.Idlib is literally a loosely connected group of syrians and other arabs that are connected to outside sources and countries especially turkey and they are now going to fight in either Libya or Yemen with combat experience, it's a plan to win future wars to deploy your troops in idlib tom get combat experience. Assad is the bad guy for fighting this?

The U.S and the Soviet Union both failed in Afganistan, don't sugar coat it, it is a prime example of what happens when foreign countries and groups dumb their men for combat experience. That is what the country literally is and it is just like Idlib today.

The SAA has the most tanks in all of the Middle East? You seriously don't think that the Syrian Army hasn't improved one bit since the outbreak of the war, that is simply wrong, they have better advisors, a fantastic special forces as the tiger forces and crucial allies in Iran,Russia,and Hezbollah. This war could not have been better for Assad and especially the SAA.

You have failed to prove how Assad chemically gassed his people

No, Ghouta's chemical attacks was to slow down an enemy by forcing a refugee crisis, if you read the Wikipedia article, you would know that Ghouta's rebel fighters were all entrenched and underground, a chemical attack would do virtually nothing in that situation, but an attack to force people to move and make the SAA to distinguish civilian and soldier would be effective. The only way a chemical attack would be beneficial to a side in Ghouta would be the rebels, which proves assad committing the attack makes no sense whatsoever.
 
TypicalRussian said:
Barrel Bombing is like an airstrike, american airstrikes has terrorized hundreds of thousands of people over so many decades especially Vietnam, the hypocrisy is unreal.
coat it, it is a prime example of what happens when foreign countries and groups dumb their men for combat experience. That is what the country literally is and it is just like Idlib today.

The SAA has the most tanks in all of the Middle East? You seriously don't think that the Syrian Army hasn't improved one bit since the outbreak of the war, that is simply wrong, they have better advisors, a fantastic special forces as the tiger forces and crucial allies in Iran,Russia,and Hezbollah. This war could not have been better for Assad and especially the SAA.

You have failed to prove how Assad chemically gassed his people

No, Ghouta's chemical attacks was to slow down an enemy by forcing a refugee crisis, if you read the Wikipedia article, you would know that Ghouta's rebel fighters were all entrenched and underground, a chemical attack would do virtually nothing in that situation, but an attack to force people to move and make the SAA to distinguish civilian and soldier would be effective. The only way a chemical attack would be beneficial to a side in Ghouta would be the rebels, which proves assad committing the attack makes no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

You lot are still on Vietnam? First off, that was more than forty years ago. Secondly, considering what the USSR did in Afghanistan, you don’t have the slightest bit of room to criticize anyone else. Thirdly, no, the US did not drop bombs on peaceful protests, so your analogy is flawed in more ways than one.

Libya literally lost a border war to ****ing Chad. No offense to the Chadians but they’ve never exactly been a military powerhouse....and they still wound up kicking the Libyans’ ass. He also supplied troops to Idi Amin and helped arm and support just about every terrorist group under the sun, including directly ordering some attacks in the West. Gaddafi’s Libya was a lot of things, but “great” wasn’t one of them.

The North Korean regime is even more psychotic than Assad or Gaddafi. They’ve managed to wreck their nation so throughly that it’s an open question whether they’ll ever really recover.

If one ignores the Kurds, that is. Somehow I rather doubt they’ll be willing to meekly sit around and let Assad try to purge them.

As for the rest, Assad has literally declared anyone fighting against him a “terrorist” whether they actually are or not, so simply shrieking that they are “terrorists, all terrorists” is meaningless. And yes, the guy who started the war by bombing peaceful protests certainly is the bad guy.

The Soviet Union committed numerous atrocities in Afghanistan, broke its back and still lost. That is the “non-sugar coated” version. The US I backed government in Afghanistan is still very much in power, and the Taliban have shown no signs of being able to overthrow it.

Lots of equipment means jack **** if you can’t use it, and the fact that the war has lasted almost a decade shows they can’t. If they were actually competent fighters they would have crushed the rebellion a long time ago. I’m not surprised that you think turning the country into a massive charnel house “couldn’t be better for Assad” though— Syria is in such wreckage that if he ever does win he’ll be nothing more than a puppet.

The facts have been thoroughly addressed on numerous occasions at this point. Your argument was literally “Assad didn’t have a motive to do so”— and I pointed out that he did, in fact, have a motive to use the weapons— and did so.

In other words the Assad regime literally made an effort to “gas them out” of their positions. The fact that they killed civilians in the process, of course, was meaningless to a guy who’d spent years slaughtering peaceful protestors. The Assad regime has proven over and over again it doesn’t give a **** about the difference between civilians and soldiers, so your handwaving falls flat.
 
Tigerace117 said:
You lot are still on Vietnam? First off, that was more than forty years ago. Secondly, considering what the USSR did in Afghanistan, you don’t have the slightest bit of room to criticize anyone else. Thirdly, no, the US did not drop bombs on peaceful protests, so your analogy is flawed in more ways than one.

Libya literally lost a border war to ****ing Chad. No offense to the Chadians but they’ve never exactly been a military powerhouse....and they still wound up kicking the Libyans’ ass. He also supplied troops to Idi Amin and helped arm and support just about every terrorist group under the sun, including directly ordering some attacks in the West. Gaddafi’s Libya was a lot of things, but “great” wasn’t one of them.

The North Korean regime is even more psychotic than Assad or Gaddafi. They’ve managed to wreck their nation so throughly that it’s an open question whether they’ll ever really recover.

If one ignores the Kurds, that is. Somehow I rather doubt they’ll be willing to meekly sit around and let Assad try to purge them.

As for the rest, Assad has literally declared anyone fighting against him a “terrorist” whether they actually are or not, so simply shrieking that they are “terrorists, all terrorists” is meaningless. And yes, the guy who started the war by bombing peaceful protests certainly is the bad guy.

The Soviet Union committed numerous atrocities in Afghanistan, broke its back and still lost. That is the “non-sugar coated” version. The US I backed government in Afghanistan is still very much in power, and the Taliban have shown no signs of being able to overthrow it.

.
Click to expand...

I can say the same thing about the USSR, why are on about something that happened over 30 years ago?

" U.S.-led Coalition airstrikes have killed 14,022 people across Syria, of which: 9,170 dead were ISIL fighters, 360 Al-Nusra Front militants and other rebels, 169 government soldiers and 3,833 civilians"

Casualties of the Syrian Civil War - Wikipedia

3,000 dead to American planes, Im sure it's not intentional as they were fighting ISIS but the airstrike in 2017 on a syrian airbase was intentional and let ISIS attack a Christian town which was being defended by Assad's forces, yet another point why Christians turn to Russia not U.S for protection.

You do realize that the only reason why Chad won is because France intervened. Libya was winning but France intervened and even then, the war went on for a very long time. It's hard to fight France too, also the reason why Libya lost is because they were fighting in Chad and the civilians rushed to support Chad, you can't fight a war where the civilians are so against something,

You tell me what is better:Gaddafi as leader and a stable nation with healthcare and rights, or a war where two governments claim to be the real Libya and there are two capitals, all of which was provided by the U.S.:lamo

My point with nuclear weapons is even when you are a good little boy and throw out your nuclear weapons, your still treated like dog**** 40 years later. North Korea would have been toppled by King Bush of America if they didn't have nukes.

The rebels ARE terrorists, they aligned themselves with Al-queda, they might not be the actual terrorists but when you align yourself and allow Al-queda to fight with you, sorry but your just as bad as a terrorist.ISIS used to be part of Syrian Rebels and Abu-Albagahdi was cought in IDLIB. He escaped and saw refuge in the rebel held-areas of Syria, not anywhere else.

America is not winning in Afghanistan, they are getting their asses kicked, remember the force that the Soviets had to fight was funded by America so america created the terrorism 20 years later, in fact Osama-Bin-Laden was trained to fight the Soviets by Americans and it really backfired. The soviets simply wanted to protect a communist government but America wanted to do a whole lot more **** in Afghanistan and they ultimately paid the price.

DO you know the power of sanctions? An economy and a military can't develop when everybody puts sanctions on you, these rebels are also foreign so it might as well also be a foreign invasion of Syria and they are trained by the west!

YouTube

This is a straight invasion of another country by the west. The SAA did the best they could with their situation fighting sanctions.:)

Again, what motive? A motive from WW1, jeez do you think that maybe ideas of war has changed from WW1, do you think that? nah impossible, war can't develop any more than WW1!

Syrian Rebels admit to being behind Chemical Weapons Attack - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

They admitted it was them who committed the attack, still believe it was Assad?
 
Rogue Valley said:
I'll be sure to let everyone here at DP know that.
Click to expand...

Well I guess I shouldn't have put it that way, I live in America and the country has a fantastic standard of living but the foreign policy is not good

I was talking about in a sense to their foreign policy, you do realize that is what we were talking about, right?
 
Tigerace117 said:
Had Stalin not gutted the Red Army Hitler never could have gotten a tenth as far as he had into the USSR.
-
The crushing of the Prague Spring proved that communism could not reform, which meant that the inherent flaws would eventually destroy it. Sure enough, the walls eventually came crashing down.
Click to expand...

According to your logic let me ask you, how many American officers were arrested and killed in the brutal purges in US army before the war? Otherwise, how else can we explain the humiliating defeats from a second-rate power like Japan, which drove the American and British armies to defeat and surrender? How big were the purges in the French army's officer corps? After all, they can explain the shameful and rapid defeat of France, doesn't it? Well,and there is nothing to say about the British, their purges were so brutal that they were beaten by both the Japanese and the Germans... There were no purges? This only applies to the USSR? O. K. As you please.
In the USSR, 10 years before the war, many types of industrial production simply did not exist, there was no automobile industry, there was no chemical industry... A lot of things just didn't exist. And everything was created in 10 years with energy and speed not seen before or later. Until 1939, there was no even mass army! It is impossible, even under socialism, to have everything at once, even if public ownership of the means of production gives you advantages. The Soviet Union was hit by the huge military power of the entire continental Europe. Except for the Greeks and Serbs, almost two million volunteers from European countries joined the Nazi march to the East...
In 1812, Europe had unleashed all its power on Russia under the leadership of Napoleon, and interestingly, there were no "purges" in Imperial Russia and still russian army had to retreat to Moscow. However, with a difference in terms. Napoleon's army approached Moscow in 2 months after the start of the war.
Hitler's army approached Moscow after 5 months. Despite the presence of tanks, planes and other fast-moving means of progress of the 20th century...
Aggressor always have advantage of first strike, especially when it is backed up by material strength, not just arrogance.

As for the Czechs and other "victims of the USSR" for whom the bourgeois propaganda of the Cold war is so fond of pouring crocodile tears, the Soviet people suffered terrible losses in people and material values. Decades after the war, I remember the mood of the older generation: "If only there was no more war." I am not surprised that people who survived the threat of destruction tried to protect themselves so that death would never come from the West again. And many deaths and destruction were caused by people from the countries of the future Warsaw Union. For the sake of allied relations, propaganda kept silent about the crimes of Hitler's allies. Now you don't need to do this
The Czechs, who had one of the strongest armies and an excellent military industry before the war, surrendered all this without a fight. And then until the end of the war, they worked in a disciplined manner in factories that produced a significant part of the weapons of death on the Eastern front.
140,000 Soviet soldiers died on the territory of Czechoslovakia, many fell in the last days of the war during the liberation of Prague. My grandfather had a medal "For the liberation of Prague". Therefore, I do not see any crime in the Soviet Union's desire to have a reliable ally on its borders, and not the likeness of a modern fascist pile of ****-Ukraine.
And unlike the modern leaders of Russia, who look like pygmies in comparison with any of the leaders of the USSR (except for the traitor Gorbachev, of course), they acted decisively and quickly. I would like Russia to act like this in 2014, when the people of Eastern Ukraine rebelled against the fascist coup in Kiev... But, in Russia now f***ing capitalism... By the way, in Iraq, it seems that both the people and the government demanded that the US withdraw its troops from the country. How is it going there?
 
Last edited:
TypicalRussian said:
I can say the same thing about the USSR, why are on about something that happened over 30 years ago?

" U.S.-led Coalition airstrikes have killed 14,022 people across Syria, of which: 9,170 dead were ISIL fighters, 360 Al-Nusra Front militants and other rebels, 169 government soldiers and 3,833 civilians"

Casualties of the Syrian Civil War - Wikipedia



3,000 dead to American planes, Im sure it's not intentional as they were fighting ISIS but the airstrike in 2017 on a syrian airbase was intentional and let ISIS attack a Christian town which was being defended by Assad's forces, yet another point why Christians turn to Russia not U.S for protection.

You do realize that the only reason why Chad won is because France intervened. Libya was winning but France intervened and even then, the war went on for a very long time. It's hard to fight France too, also the reason why Libya lo has changed from WW1, do you think that? nah impossible, war can't develop any more than WW1!

Syrian Rebels admit to being behind Chemical Weapons Attack - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

They admitted it was them who committed the attack, still believe it was Assad?
Click to expand...

Global Research is not a reputable source, but hey, way to grasp at any straws whatsoever.

The Russian War in Afghanistan was far more recent than Vietnam was, and the Russians were far more brutal in Afghanistan than the US was in Vietnam, so you squawking about it is rather laughable.

Yep, we intentionally fired a shot across the bow to let Assad and the rest of his cronies know that another gas attack on civilians would lead to him being pulverized. Considering that the US has been the one to continually target ISIS--while the Assad regime and its backers spent their time fighting everyone else who they declared "terrorists".

It was the Chadian troops who utilized their Toyotas to outmaneuver and defeat the Libyans over and over and over again. The French had about 1500 men in country; the Libyans had far more. The Chadians bore the brunt of the fighting, and fought well, such as at Fada.

Libya under Gaddafi was hardly "stable" what with his constant sponsorship of terrorism, his wars of aggression, his helping out Idi Amin of all people and his general insanity.

Gaddafi ordered terrorist attacks in the West. The West had zero reason to support him or to allow him to massacre his own people to cling to power.

Oh look, more absurdity from you. The Mujahideen were very different than the Taliban; its the equivalent of claiming that Action Directe and the French Resistance of World War Two were the same. The Soviets committed extensive atrocities in Afghanistan as a matter of policy, and that's a big part of why they got their asses kicked. The US, on the other hand, has kicked the Taliban's ass on numerous occasions.

The Assad government had not been under sanctions for years before the war. The Syrian regime was sponsored for decades by the USSR with all sorts of gear and they still proved laughably incompetent over and over again.

And no, the bulk of the people fighting against Assad, especially at the beginning of the war, were Syrians, so the idiotic "its an invasion" rhetoric is garbage.

Then their "best" was pretty damn ****ty, and that just proves my point. But then again, I guess when you are used to just dropping bombs on protests, any sort of fighting is shocking.

The Syrian regime apparently thinks so. It's not like chemical weapons have been routinely used since then; the basic doctrine for the weapons remains the same.

Yes, it absolutely was Assad. Posting a CTer website is not "evidence".
 
Ringo Stalin said:
According to your logic let me ask you, how many American officers were arrested and killed in the brutal purges in US army before the war? Otherwise, how else can we explain the humiliating defeats from a second-rate power like Japan, which drove the American and British armies to defeat and surrender? How big were the purges in the French army's officer corps? After all, they can explain the shameful and rapid defeat of France, doesn't it? Well,and there is nothing to say about the British, their purges were so brutal that they were beaten by both the Japanese and the Germans... There were no purges? This only applies to the USSR? O. K. As you please.
In the USSR, 10 years before the war, many types of industrial production simply did not exist, there was no automobile industry, there was no chemical industry... A lot of things just didn't exist. And everything was createdn Kiev... But, in Russia now f***ing capitalism... By the way, in Iraq, it seems that both the people and the government demanded that the US withdraw its troops from the country. How is it going there?
Click to expand...

Japan was not even remotely a "second rate power" so your comment is rather...bizarre. Then again, the US didn't lose literally millions of troops to encirclements and wind up with Japanese troops marching deep into the CONUS....unlike the USSR. That was directly due to Stalin's idiotic purges.

Your desperate handwaving is amusing, but it doesn't change the fact that neither the British nor the Frenchs suffered as devastating a defeat in the early weeks of the war as the USSR did. The USSR's equally idiotic war of aggression against Finland meant that they were more than willing to help the Germans cut off Leningrad, with the result being a catastrophically devastating siege.....which could have been avoided entirely had Stalin not been a vicious idiot.

Czechoslovakia was a victim of Nazi Germany, not an Axis power, so your "but the Soviet Union suffered a lot in World War Two" argument rings hollow. Czechs were not "threatening" the USSR in any way; they were simply attempting to conduct reforms in order to make Communism work better for the common person. You know, the folks who communism is supposed to benefit in the first place?The Soviet invasion is what convinced people in Eastern Europe that communism wasn't workable and couldn't reform, and that directly lead to them ultimately deciding to abandon it in favor of democracy.

The Czechs had a large and very active resistance network. They were the ones who killed Reinhard Heydrich. Trying to accuse them of being "fascists" is pathetic.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Japan was not even remotely a "second rate power" so your comment is rather...bizarre. Then again, the US didn't lose literally millions of troops to encirclements and wind up with Japanese troops marching deep into the CONUS....unlike the USSR. That was directly due to Stalin's idiotic purges.
Click to expand...
The Americans lost their ENTIRE army in the Philippines. You can't say that about the Soviet army

[/QUOTE]the fact that neither the British nor the Frenchs suffered as devastating a defeat in the early weeks of the war as the USSR did. [/QUOTE]
What the hell you talking about!? French last EVERYTING and CAPITULATED. British lost ALL their heavy armament and run away with tail between their legs at Dunkirk.

[/QUOTE]The Soviet invasion is what convinced people in Eastern Europe that communism wasn't workable and couldn't reform, and that directly lead to them ultimately deciding to abandon it in favor of democracy. [/QUOTE]
Don't throw stones when you live in glass house. Look in internet how many dozen times US invade countries and change regime? Unbelievable... Such bombastic arrogance...

[/QUOTE]The Czechs had a large and very active resistance network. They were the ones who killed Reinhard Heydrich. Trying to accuse them of being "fascists" is pathetic.[/QUOTE]
Oh, hells bells! Some network. The once who killed Heydrich were send by british. Soviet army had the whole division of such czechs. Anyway, so called resistance under nazi occupation, it was worth something only when local communists or soviet prisoners of war who had escaped from the camps participated in it. The Czech communists were all shot by the Nazis, the rest were considered "a struggle in the resistance" when they put on black shirts to work at factories that produce weapons for the Nazis, in honor of mourning for the country...
 
Ringo Stalin said:
The Americans lost their ENTIRE army in the Philippines. You can't say that about the Soviet army
Click to expand...
the fact that neither the British nor the Frenchs suffered as devastating a defeat in the early weeks of the war as the USSR did. [/QUOTE]
What the hell you talking about!? French last EVERYTING and CAPITULATED. British lost ALL their heavy armament and run away with tail between their legs at Dunkirk.

[/QUOTE]The Soviet invasion is what convinced people in Eastern Europe that communism wasn't workable and couldn't reform, and that directly lead to them ultimately deciding to abandon it in favor of democracy. [/QUOTE]
Don't throw stones when you live in glass house. Look in internet how many dozen times US invade countries and change regime? Unbelievable... Such bombastic arrogance...

[/QUOTE]The Czechs had a large and very active resistance network. They were the ones who killed Reinhard Heydrich. Trying to accuse them of being "fascists" is pathetic.[/QUOTE]
Oh, hells bells! Some network. The once who killed Heydrich were send by british. Soviet army had the whole division of such czechs. Anyway, so called resistance under nazi occupation, it was worth something only when local communists or soviet prisoners of war who had escaped from the camps participated in it. The Czech communists were all shot by the Nazis, the rest were considered "a struggle in the resistance" when they put on black shirts to work at factories that produce weapons for the Nazis, in honor of mourning for the country...[/QUOTE]

....Except no, we didn’t lose our “entire army”. We lost a fair number of troops but we had plenty of other units both in the United States and elsewhere in the Pacific.

You can’t say that about any modern nation, because literally no one concentrates their entire army in one place. You can, however, point out that millions of Soviets were killed or captured due to incompetent leadership, which was the direct result of Stalin’s purges.

The Soviets lost around five million men killed, wounded and captured just during the initial Barbarossa campaign alone. You lost twenty thousand aircraft and a similar number of tanks. The Allies lost two million men killed wounded and captured in the entire Battle of France— the bulk of that being troops who surrendered after France fell.

Stalin’s purges absolutely crippled the Soviet Union with the wolf at the door, and they took losses at a rate which reflected that fact.

The US never invaded an allied country for the “crime” of trying to reform its own system. Overthrowing brutal dictators like Saddam Hussein is not even remotely comparable to crushing the Prague Spring.

The men who killed Heydrich were Czech soldiers, dispatched with the approval of Czechoslovakian government in exile, who also maintained a number of fighter pilots who fought bravely and well against the Nazis during the Battle of Britain. Heydrich was dispatched in the first place due to the fact that there was constant Czech resistance to Nazi occupation; he was being sent in because the Nazi hierarchy thought that the Czechs were being allowed to resist too much.

Again, utterly false. The Czech resistance as a whole was very active and effective; importantly, rather than engage in ideological infighting, they all focused on taking on the Nazis first and foremost.

The fact of the matter is that the Czechs were not fascists of any sort, and wanted to keep a communist government.....up until the point where the Soviets rolled tanks in to stop reform. That was the day communism was fatally wounded in Eastern Europe.
 
Ringo Stalin said:
Obviously word "hypocrite" means nothing to you...
Click to expand...

I see you have absolutely no ability to face the facts, especially since the Soviet crushing of the Prague Spring was extremely hypocritical. Even at the time it was blindingly obvious.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Global Research is not a reputable source, but hey, way to grasp at any straws whatsoever.

The Russian War in Afghanistan was far more recent than Vietnam was, and the Russians were far more brutal in Afghanistan than the US was in Vietnam, so you squawking about it is rather laughable.

Yep, we intentionally fired a shot across the bow to let Assad and the rest of his cronies know that another gas attack on civilians would lead to him being pulverized. Considering that the US has been the one to continually target ISIS--while the Assad regime and its backers spent their time fighting everyone else who they declared "terrorists".

It was the Chadian troops who utilized their Toyotas to outmaneuver and defeat the Libyans over and over and over again. The French had about 1500 men in country; the Libyans had far more. The Chadians bore the brunt of the fighting, and fought well, such as at Fada.

Libya under Gaddafi was hardly "stable" what with his constant sponsorship of terrorism, his wars of aggression, his helping out Idi Amin of all people and his general insanity.

Gaddafi ordered terrorist attacks in the West. The West had zero reason to support him or to allow him to massacre his own people to cling to power.
Click to expand...

Dont like a source? Just say it has conspiracy theories!!

Dont like CNN-Just claim it promotes conspiracy theories about Trump
Dont like Fox News-Just claim it promotes conspiracy theories about Clinton

See, problem solved!:peace

Russia was fighting the soon to be Al-Qaeda that America created yet America was blatantly invading Vietnam, there is a big difference in war justification

No, Assad has liberated a **** ton of land from ISIS, this is so wrong you have to be trolling on this one:lamo

Animated Map of Syrian Civil War - Big Think

Do you see Assad fighting ISIS, YES you do and taking a lot of land back

Dude who cares about war between Libya and Chad, we are talking about Gaddafi, he was a good leader compared to now

How was Libya unstable, there was no war, people had rights, had resources like Oil, and even had healthcare and a fantastic education, the country was stable! How can you even deny this. Do you remember any news about Libya before the revolution?

What terrorist attacks, your claims have no backing, plus anything can be considered a terrorist attack by the west, don't like a certain group of people who arent aligned with Al-queda like the Rebels-Well, there terrorists, Qaddafi wasn't listed on the terrorist watch list, was he?

Are you joking? The Taliban has won against America, America has the greatest military in the world and they can't beat the ****ing Taliban???

The Mujahadeen was the future terrorists of the world, there is no excuse for what Reagan did. The CIA made it out of their way to make it a religious war so Muslims would sign up to fight for Allah. Atrocities in Afghanistan? You Mean American ones, the atrocity of literally arming and giving terrorists a religious reason for war.

What are you even talking about? Do you understand the impact of sanctions? the USSR is old and their weapons clearly wouldn't be effective anymore especially when Turkey butt plugs the rebels with weapons.

Sanctions Imposed on Syria | ComplyAdvantage

These sanctions are stopping the country develop after the war. The West wants Syria to stay in poverty and war so they can get the sweet, sweet oil. Guess what? Mission accomplished as American soldiers are patrolling the eastern oil fields illegally. They have no right to be there.The economy is in ruins and the west does not give a ****, they hate Syria and the civilians backlash this by supporting Assad.

No, I just described that all of these syrian rebel groups are ALL linked to outside countries and sources, they are not Syrian



They won a war, how is that ****ty? Assad survived and made one of the greatest military comebacks of the 21st century.

Yet, you don't have evidence that Assad did these attacks, you claim my source isn't evidence, you haven't even used a source or have cited ANY TYPE OF EVIDENCE!!:lamo:lamo:lamo
 
"Assad's forces continue to advance on the last rebel stronghold in Idlib, despite calls from the US and Turkey to stop the operation," writes" Voice of America".
The cynicism of syrians crosses all borders! They value their right to protect the country higher than the US and Turkey's call not to do so...
 
Turkey will not leave Idlib to the Assad regime and its supporters, the Anadolu Agency reports Erdogan's words.
Did I miss statements by principled European politicians about the inadmissibility of forceful border changes? Sanctions for aggression also delayed.
 
TypicalRussian said:
Well I guess I shouldn't have put it that way....
Click to expand...

You did put it that way, and I have informed the DP community. We don't much care for 55 Savushkina Street trolls here at DP.

That said, I doubt you have ever even been to Russia. Your writing pattern is too Anglicized.

But you do display an inexplicable online affectation for Putin, expansionism, and kleptocracy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom