- NEW!
by cheesenugget349 on February 16th, 2008
Should NATO be scaled down to the North American Treaty Organization since the danger of Russian tanks rolling across Europe is diminished?
by -O-uknow on January 18th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
If the USSR never invaded Afghanistan, how would today be different?
by thebaconistaken on October 14th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Does the political strategy of "brinkmanship" really have any relevance to international diplomacy since the end of the Cold War?
by mumpsimus on May 20th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
When was the Cold War???
by HU Soldier-Miren83-NINE LIVES GOD on October 19th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What did Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev think about the collapse of the Berlin Wall?
by keithold is a prodigal bagger on September 13th, 2009
| 2 people like this
You're reading Do you think the day is coming that Russia and China will combine forces against the US?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Here, here. Well said. In addition, I believe the EU will combine. There already nearly there, what with the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Euro, and the trans-European passport holder security precautions (or rather lack thereof.)
by Ex Deus Victoria on August 16th, 2008
doubtful, looks like a crook acts like a crook.
not saying russia and china are crooked. but the way thay look at the world is squewed slightly offkilter. say one thing do another.
if push comes to shove, china and russia will fight it out for the oil south of them... i.e. middle east.(see georgia and pipelines now).
they are both courting iran. at some point iran, will run out of cards, playing both sides against the middle and will be forced to choose one or the other. peacefully or forcibly. and the other wont like it...nuff sedd.
by dr james on August 19th, 2008
Does not the US Government say one thing and do another? Why should Russia and China be rebuked for this attitude whilst the US remains unharmed? China also has oil, not much, but enough. If anything, Iran will be invaded.
by Ex Deus Victoria on August 19th, 2008
theres an old saying ... better the more honest accountant handling the money than the less honest.
by dr james on August 19th, 2008
if you would rather live in russia, china or usa...which one would you chose???
by dr james on August 19th, 2008
Considereing China handles American money now, your saying has rather lost its desired affect, or at least the one I supposed you desired, and the US is by no means the most honest. If I had to choose from those, I would, without a doubt in my mind, choose Russia. I am, if you didn't realize by now, a Russian sympathizer, and I support Russia in nearly all things.
I would ask the same question of you, but I already know the answer. A resounding "USA," am I right?
by Ex Deus Victoria on August 20th, 2008
I'm not really sure how you end up sympathizing with Russia, because they are holding a country captive, which leads back to my original point, that Russia wants to have some control.
But, you sympathize with Russia to the point of living there? If you want to be Russian, then why don't you go ahead and spin the wheel and pull the trigger.
by cheesenugget349 on September 12th, 2008
The reason I sympathize with Russia is because it is a victim of US imperial expansion, when all Russia is trying to do is recover the glory of lost years, when it was respected. The US, obviously, has no desire to see this happen, and is positioning itself around Russia, isolating it, its border being US vassal nations. This all came about because of Russian, nay, Soviet, glory during the Cold War years. The US started the arms race, and it ultimately ended because the USSR's economy was unable to support that sort of build-up. The US is responsible to the demise of Russian glory, and they have every right to regain it. Russia is the victim of unfair torment and hatred.
by Ex Deus Victoria on September 13th, 2008
Another thing. I would move to Russia. However, I don't know Russian, and I love Britain more.
by Ex Deus Victoria on September 13th, 2008
since you seem to be a socialist and communist why dont you go live in russia or china. talk is cheap.
i`ll even pay for a first class ticket, one way.
by dr james on September 13th, 2008
i`ll even throw in language lessons.
by dr james on September 13th, 2008
russia has not been respected in over a hundrd years and even then it was feared more than respected.
russia has had coupes and wars and internal wars for centuries.
by dr james on September 13th, 2008
if ya cant play the game stay home.
if ya cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen.
the soviet union tried to dominate the east. it invaded dozens of countries just as hitler did and made them proxies of the soviet union.
what a stupid comment that the usa started the arms race. the usa helped russia in world war two.. providing millions of dollars in aid, ammunition, and planes etc.
the russians built the berlin war starting before the cesation of hostilities... how stupid.
if their economy was such a wonderful thing then they could have easily kept up with the west and usa in the cold war.
obviously, trussias economy has always been on shaky ground. the average worker made $2000 dollars a year compared to the western worker making $2000 a month or more average.
by dr james on September 13th, 2008
I am not a socialist or communist. I like the ideas of socialism, but I am a monarchist. As to your ticket offer and language lessons, I would take them, for the travelling experience, and the knowledge of such a cool language. As to the USSR's invading of nations and such, does that not sound frighteningly familiar to what the US did under Reagan in South America, or what it is doing now in the Middle East, or what it did in the Spanish-American War? These are all examples that shoot wonderful little holes in the 'glory' that the US supposedly has. Yes, the USSR did what it did, but that was because the US populace and government were both terribly hostile to it before, during, and even after WWII.
by Ex Deus Victoria on September 14th, 2008
First off, the only thing good about socialism is that it's the stage between capitalism and communism in Maxist theory, but I think it'll be a while before we get there. Second, USSR and recent Russia invasions were for taking land, whereas US has invaded for human rights or homeland security, not for gaining territory. I agree that democracy was constantly and is still forced on other countries, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna say "I sympathize with Russia," That would just be ridiculous and outlandish. Nor am I going to move there and try to learn the language. It's altogether ludicrous, preposterous, outrageous! to say anything of the sort!
by cheesenugget349 on September 14th, 2008
Look at your history before you pass such judgements. McKinley, president during the Spanish-American War, stated that he invaded the Philippines to bring Christianity to thier lands. What he failed to say is that they had be converted hundreds of years before by the Spanish. I will support that SOME of what the US has done was in the name of civil liberty and human rights, but I abstinately maintain that the vast majority was for its own gain, and nobody elses.
by Ex Deus Victoria on September 15th, 2008
Okay, when I said democracy, I should have said anything having to do with American values. It wasn't really judgement either; I don't really agree with any type of invasion, because every country has the right to do what it wants. Oh wait, except that I said sympathizing with Russia and its government is a little crazy, but I will stand by that assertion.
by cheesenugget349 on September 15th, 2008
Sympathizing with any nation, for any moral reason is not crazy, it is merely expression, which, last time I checked, is still allowed in this country. Just barely, though. Thank you PATRIOT ACT.
by Ex Deus Victoria on September 16th, 2008
Is Russia deserving of sympathy? No. Is it a question of morality to say whether it is or isn't? Nope. The fact is that there is no substance to your argument and have made yourself look foolish by bringing morals into the debate. All I really said was that Russia could possibly combine with China to halt an attempt at worldly U.S. influence. And all it really took to say that was a little logic and know-how ;) No moral convictions or anything, just a little logic.
by cheesenugget349 on September 16th, 2008
By accusing me of having no substance to my argument, you propose that your morals are more important or better than mine. So tell me, what morals deny any nation sympathy? If, for argument's sake, Russia had the same history as the US (and they are unfortunately fairly similar after WWII), why should it be okay for me to sympathize with one nation and not the other?
by Ex Deus Victoria on September 19th, 2008
It is not an attack on your morals to say there is no substance to your argument, it means that you have no evidence to support your case.
What morals deny any nation sympathy? I'd say isolationism is about as close a doctrine as you can find, but still, there is no morality to this practice. It's government.
Also, when did I say it was okay for you to sympathize with any nation?- and if that's how you'd like to expend your powers of sympathy, go right ahead; i can't tell you what to feel.
What I am trying to say, though you still seem to be missing the point, is that sympathizing with Russia is misused emotion, and that you should focus your morals on subjects that relate to morality.
by cheesenugget349 on September 19th, 2008
Russia relates plenty of morality. Take, for example, their changeover in WWII to the side of the Allies, or the new reforms being imposed by Medvedev and Putin that have raised the standard of life in Russia since the days of the Soviet Union. Much work needs to be done in Russia to bring it up to speed, and this can only be achieved through great morality. The Georgia incident is another example. Georgia invaded an (unrecognized) independent area, and Russia came to that area's rescue. How can you say that this is immoral?
by Ex Deus Victoria on September 20th, 2008
As to focusing emotion on subjects worthy of it, I am HEAVILY pro-Britain. I know not if you could tell by my name, which roughly translates from Latin into English, saying 'Justice through God and Britain.'
by Ex Deus Victoria on September 20th, 2008
Well, congrats on the user name and your political alliance, but I cannot compliment you on your incomplete thought for your last sentence.
Besides that, how can I "say that this is immoral?" I didn't for one thing, because that would mean contrary to a moral principle. I think what you meant was amoral, meaning outside the scope of morality. Again, for a person to "sympathize" with a nation is not a moral standard, it is a political view.
by cheesenugget349 on September 21st, 2008
What we originally disagreed on was sympathy for Russia. I said that there was no reason to have sympathy for Russia because it is power hungry and has exploited its citizens and other post-Soviet Union countries for many years. The same could be said for the US which for some reason you think I "sympathize" with, but these statements aren't a reflection of my morals, it is a political opinion.
by cheesenugget349 on September 21st, 2008
Very well, I have no argument save that each person can sympathize with whatever nation they see fit. I would, however, like to know what nation you sympathize with, as it has been made fairly clear that it is not the US.
by Ex Deus Victoria on September 23rd, 2008
Poor Canada. When has anyone considered the feelings of helpless, insignificant Canada? Sure, they have the best concepts for government, health care, and insurance, but they have never participated in anything of importance. Whether it be wars or conferences, Canada has always been left out. Like Frankenstein's wretch, it has been cast away from society and matters of the world. Canada deserves a place in everyone's culture though America has reserved its Canadian influence for episodes of South Park, which has greatly increased Canada's eminence as a topic of discussion. It doesn't matter that it is the blunt of many jokes; it is more important that Canada be brought into the discussion in any form that it can attain. Poor Canada.
by cheesenugget349 on September 23rd, 2008
This is because, like Frankenstein's wretch, Canada is a freak of nature to be shunned and outcast for its bizarity. Down with Canada. I'm sorry, but being a British sympathizer makes me against everybody who decided that they were too good to be part of the British Empire. Plus, I just have always inherently hated Canada.
by Ex Deus Victoria on September 24th, 2008
Sympathizing implies that you haven't experienced the feelings of your country, but are able to understand the situation that produces these feelings for them; so how can sympathizing with Britain create the opinion that "everybody who decided that they were too good to be part of the British Empire" deserves such hatred? It doesn't. Maybe you should look to the word empathy if you wish to express your shared sentiments with Britain. Overall, your dissenting opinion of Canada is unstable in the fact that you have not said anything of sensible diction.
by cheesenugget349 on September 24th, 2008
I did, however, state that I have just always inherently hated it. I expressed my opinion of how the world should consider it, but it is obviously very biased. As to the British Empire, I am an imperialist; I support the British Empire. I, therefore, support British sentiment about the loss of said empire.
by Ex Deus Victoria on September 25th, 2008
You did state your inherent hatred of Canada, but only as an afterthough. You should've said "Only, I just..."
Your last sentence isn't quite clear. Are you supporting British sentiment about the fall of the British Empire or the isolation of Canada? The world "loss" is foggy in its definition in this instance, and since you didn't mention the word Canada in this section, the antecedent to "said empire" is unclear.
Let me know when you've owned up to your opinion and stopped being so indirect in your verbage.
by cheesenugget349 on September 25th, 2008
The fall. As I mentioned before, Canada was a break-away provence of Britain which, thinking it could do better, but not wanting to sever the umbilical completely, declared independence, but keeps the Queen. It is these self-righteous colonies of the former British Empire that I have a problem with.
by Ex Deus Victoria on September 27th, 2008
If you examine them however, the vast majority of major colonies within the Empire, now the Commonwealth, are doing unbelievably well. South Africa, Shanghai, Australia, the Burmudas, Barbados, India, Fiji, New Zealand, the US, Canada, and Ireland were all for some time under British rule, and they are now some of the most stable and put-together places on the planet (this is not trumpeting any individual area, just all in general.)
by Ex Deus Victoria on September 27th, 2008
If Britain did all this for these nations, why are they so self-righteous as not to thank the British by remaining under Imperial Rule? If you look at any colony of any other nation, the vast majority of them are unstable, or terribly inept, with huge issues of nearly civil war proportions. Britain managed to instill a sense of values that staved this off for the former colonies. Why should she not be thanked for such service? I forgot to add Hong Kong to the list, so include that too.
by Ex Deus Victoria on September 27th, 2008