Hillary Clinton slams Russia for attempting to rebuild the Soviet Union - Polidicks

Might as well throw the shitposter in too. Anyone else?

[QUOTE=Conscript;38815881]Might as well throw the shitposter in too. Anyone else?[/QUOTE] if my actual discussion posts are considered shitposts, go ahead. At least I don't engage in namecalling and bashing academia. (you still haven't replied to my last post about the military being apolitical, gg) nothing wrong with keeping it light

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38815905]if my actual discussion posts are considered shitposts, go ahead (you still haven't replied to my last post about the military being apolitical, gg) nothing wrong with keeping it light[/QUOTE] I think he meant me.

[QUOTE=Conscript;38815881]Might as well throw the shitposter in too. Anyone else?[/QUOTE] I don't want to be left out either.

[QUOTE=Itsjustguy;38815934]I think he meant me.[/QUOTE] nope I'm pretty you were classified as "nationalist fascist scum"

The European Union will clash with the upcoming Communist Union built from Russia, China, North Korea, and whoever else they can get on their side. Then the two sides will remake the Cold War but it will be with two halves of the globe until eventually DEFCON ends and we nuke each other to hell and the only survivors will be in underground bunkers whispering how war never changes... The end is nigh!

[QUOTE=Archonos 2;38815950]The European Union will clash with the upcoming Communist Union built from Russia, China, North Korea, and whoever else they can get on their side. Then the two sides will remake the Cold War but it will be with two halves of the globe until eventually DEFCON ends and we nuke each other to hell and the only survivors will be in underground bunkers whispering how war never changes... The end is nigh![/QUOTE] the chances of current china aligning with russia is near nil I mean I get that it's supposed to be a joke and all but it comes off as ignorant you might as well throw cuba in there too.

[QUOTE=Archonos 2;38815950]The European Union will clash with the upcoming Communist Union built from Russia, China, North Korea, and whoever else they can get on their side. Then the two sides will remake the Cold War but it will be with two halves of the globe until eventually DEFCON ends and we nuke each other to hell and the only survivors will be in underground bunkers whispering how war never changes... The end is nigh![/QUOTE] [img]http://imgkk.com/i/r8d5.jpg[/img]

You think the military is apolitical, and by extension the state. Then you think [Quote]A lot of people in the US support the troops in Iraq despite not supporting the concept behind the war.[/quote] Isn't political. Yea, enough said.

[QUOTE=Conscript;38815978]You think the military is apolitical, and by extension the state. Then you think Isn't political. Yea, enough said.[/QUOTE] wow. k the individual parts of the military, the troops are supposed to be apolitical. Saying that because the troops are apolitical, the military is apolitical, and then the state is apolitical is taking a major jump. The higher echelons of the military have political agendas, yes, but the individual troops are not supposed to be political in their service. it's taught to every officer at west point, etc. the fact that people support the troops isn't political at all. It's a simple expression of[B] sympathy and respect.[/B]

[QUOTE=Conscript;38815472]It sure would be if the debate was still going. Instead he offered me his bibliography, I offered my comments. I am not moving the goalposts, this is another field.[/QUOTE] No. It is exactly what you are doing. You asked for citations meeting certain criteria. You were provided with them. Then you proceed to jump through 17 different kinds of equivocation and logical loops to attempt to dismiss the information out of hand instead of addressing said information. I'd wager you'd attempt to argue against the information even when presented to you as you now claim to want it. You'd say that it wasn't covering some infinitesimally small detail or angle, and dismiss the entire picture. You're in denial. You're in denial about being in denial. It's sad.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;38816049]No. It is exactly what you are doing. You asked for citations meeting certain criteria. You were provided with them. Then you proceed to jump through 17 different kinds of equivocation and logical loops to attempt to dismiss the information out of hand instead of addressing said information. I'd wager you'd attempt to argue against the information even when presented to you as you now claim to want it. You'd say that it wasn't covering some infinitesimally small detail or angle, and dismiss the entire picture. You're in denial. You're in denial about being in denial. It's sad.[/QUOTE] I can't believe I have to explain this twice. He provided a bibliography for his paper. I asked for citations referencing one of these sources in the text he posted prior in the discussion, and included specifics. Additionally I pointed out he cites primary sources from prior to collapse, and thus prior to opening of the archives, and warned him against it, but conceded it was a non-issue since his primary sources mostly deal with small, inconsequential things, like newspaper positions. You're railing against something that has nothing to do with me. You're imagining things I'm doing and accusing me of them. I don't know what's wrong with you, but you should stop posting until you get it worked out. Start by learning what moving the goal posts means.

I fucking hate it how in these "New USSR" maps, Finland is a part of it, or pretty much any country bordering Russia. "Your country is right next to Russia, therefore, your country is heavily influenced by Russia."

[QUOTE=Garik;38816311]I fucking hate it how in these "New USSR" maps, Finland is a part of it, or pretty much any country bordering Russia. "Your country is right next to Russia, therefore, your country is heavily influenced by Russia."[/QUOTE] I don't see that on the map in OP and its not a 'new ussr'.

[QUOTE=Skelmech;38800653]I don't know nearly anything about this sort of stuff. What would be the pros and cons if the soviet union was reformed? I've always been intensely curious but never really tried to partake in a discussion about it. And my schools did shit all to teach about it.[/QUOTE] Right, I'm gonna try and take a more neutral approach to this. Let's assume the "Soviet Union" means "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". This means that it would be a union of states, all ruled in a similar fashion, semi-autonomous republics, ruled by soviets ("soviet" is Russian for "council), all controlled by a centralized force, attempting to build the perfect socialist society. Let's also assume that the nations joining it actually do it voluntarily, with the majority of the people having a non-biased and educated opinion about the matter and agreeing to it (this won't ever happen). So let's see what happens. You get this massive whale of a union, originally meant to attempt to create a perfect society (which is kind of a massive problem in itself because us humans have a way of fucking things up majorly because ego). Pros: A functional, non-corrupt communist society is, in theory, a great place to live in. A very rich, powerful country, with lots of natural and human resources at it's disposal, can achieve great things if it sets it's mind to it, things like technological advancement. (Space race anyone?) The countries that are the most likely of joining the union are quite poor by themselves, so naturally they'd get support from the stronger countries of the union, though in this case it's probably just Russia. Cons: The whole "can achieve great things if it sets it's mind to it" thing is more likely than not be military power, expansion, those kinds of things, you know. Bonus points for the leading nation of the union having a very militaristic past. Socialism isn't a very good friend with all of the birthrights, especially the ones related to freedom. The rest of the world aren't good friends with authoritarian/totalitarian regimes. The original Socialist ideology has these fun ideas of: a) being established via violent uprising; b) the Socialist Revolution has to be worldwide, uniting all of the world's proletariat in a single, great union. Though the new union might take a lesson and not do this whole thing again. Really though, it's all dependent on how the whole thing is executed and maintained. Might be horrible, might be good.

[QUOTE=Garik;38816311]I fucking hate it how in these "New USSR" maps, Finland is a part of it, or pretty much any country bordering Russia. "Your country is right next to Russia, therefore, your country is heavily influenced by Russia."[/QUOTE] It's not really unprecedented, when the USSR collapsed the finnish economy tanked.

[QUOTE=Conscript;38816452]It's not really unprecedented, when the USSR collapsed the finnish economy tanked.[/QUOTE] not the sole cause, but a contributing factor

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38815962]the chances of current china aligning with russia is near nil I mean I get that it's supposed to be a joke and all but it comes off as ignorant you might as well throw cuba in there too.[/QUOTE] So you see that it's a joke but say it's ignorant... Maybe you should take it for face value then? I read other posts and just realized how serious this thread is. I'll take my lightheartedness elsewhere, no fun allowed here.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;38816483]not the sole cause, but a contributing factor[/QUOTE] Admittedly I don't know much about finnish relations with the soviets past the WW2 era, other than they were comparable to austria. I was surprised to know how connected to the soviet economy it was, but it makes sense, who didn't trade with the USSR?

[QUOTE=Conscript;38816784]Admittedly I don't know much about finnish relations with the soviets past the WW2 era, other than they were comparable to austria. I was surprised to know how connected to the soviet economy it was, but it makes sense, who didn't trade with the USSR?[/QUOTE] a lot of people, finland's trade relations were mainly energy, as were most non-WP countries. only the WP traded a lot with the USSR itself, though there was some crossborder trade between East and West germany. still, trade accounted for only around [url=http://rs6.loc.gov/frd/cs/sutoc.html]4% of GNP.[/url]

[quote] only the WP traded a lot with the USSR itself, though there was some crossborder trade between East and West germany.[/quote] What about states in africa, the middle east, or yugoslavia? Or the chinese, vietnamese, and best korea?

[QUOTE=Conscript;38817033]What about states africa, the middle east, and yugoslavia? Or the chinese, vietnamese, and best korea?[/QUOTE] comecon, happy and they didn't trade with all of africa

[QUOTE=Conscript;38816784]Admittedly I don't know much about finnish relations with the soviets past the WW2 era, other than they were comparable to austria. I was surprised to know how connected to the soviet economy it was, but it makes sense, who didn't trade with the USSR?[/QUOTE]Theses articles summarise it fairly well. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paasikivi-Kekkonen_Line[/url] Basically, keeping the Soviet Union chummy (without pissing off NATO in the process) so they wouldn't have felt the need to make us another satellite state.

[QUOTE=Conscript;38815133]Here's an example: [url]http://sovietinfo.tripod.com/GTY-Penal_System.pdf[/url][/quote] You either are mixing up the definitions of secondary and primary sources, or have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Probably both. [QUOTE=Conscript;38815133]Alrighty.[/quote] I'm only home between jobs for 10 minutes, I shall find the specific thing I read by tomorrow. Though I'm pretty sure it was the academic journal on the Eastern Bloc by that Kramer guy. [QUOTE=Conscript;38815133]Sorry, but this is an awful system that favors propagandists more than those seeking the truth. Why even bother slapping 'peer reviewed' on a title when the reader will end up having to do the same job if he's interested in the truth. This is why cold war history is tained by greedy authors and publishers selling hysteria.[/QUOTE] ....what

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;38818045]....what[/QUOTE] I think he's saying that having to come up with a new, unique thesis on a topic when most or nearly all of the truth has been uncovered about it already by a peer-reviewed source stifles actually proliferating the truth. I'm just guessing though.

Wow, so [b]I'm[/b] a Communist and I think Conscript is wrong :v: Why have you been making such an ass of yourself the entire thread? The U.S.S.R. is dead, and it ain't coming back. Not if everyone on the face of the planet can help it.

[QUOTE=Garik;38816311]I fucking hate it how in these "New USSR" maps, Finland is a part of it, or pretty much any country bordering Russia. "Your country is right next to Russia, therefore, your country is heavily influenced by Russia."[/QUOTE] Well, this shit wasn't called [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandisation"]"Finlandisation"[/URL] for nothing!

[QUOTE=ewitwins;38819210]Wow, so [B]I'm[/B] a Communist and I think Conscript is wrong :v: [/QUOTE] you counterrevolutionary scum

USSR Capitalism edition. Thats exactly what its going to be, [I]unfortunately.[/I]

[QUOTE=laserguided;38819316]USSR Capitalism edition. Thats exactly what its going to be, [I]unfortunately.[/I][/QUOTE] I don't think they're going to start absorbing other countries again...