Talk:Debate:Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?
as america we love democracy right? we wage war for it, wilson stated durring ww1 that we need to protect democracy, we calim to "spread" democracy in iraq. putin was elected by the russian people, and the communist part makes up 25% of the russian parliment(acording to the financial times world desk refrence) if the people are looking to move in a more socialst direction, who are we to stop them? the only call for any action would be if russia started to invade other coutries, and then we should only do it through the u.n.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Americaman (talk)
- Are you familiar with Chechnya? And no, the communist party only holds 12% of the duma. Bohdan 19:23, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
to begin with, chechnya is russian land, it has been russian sence the times of the tzars of russia(conqured when looking land for warm water ports) its not much more different than our civil war i supose, but are you trying to tell me we should get involved in a civil war? of wait we are in a civil war in iraq.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Americaman (talk)
- No, Chechnya is not "Russian land". It was conquered in the eighteen hundreds. I guess you really like imperialism. Funny you criticise our involvment in Iraq. Do you know anything about the situation in Georgia? (by the way, your above comment makes very little sense)Bohdan 21:31, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
as i said conquered under the tzars lokonig for warm water ports( yes tzars did rule in 1800's), did you know nealry half of america was conqured in the 1800's too, i guess its not american land either? what about the land we took from the indians? i hate imperialsm, its wrong the people are for lack of a better word made slaves, it is usaly done for wrong reasons( exploitation, slaves, gold) chechnya has been considerd russian land for years, yes it has been conqured, but it is/has considerd russian land, in any ww1/ ww2 treaty invovling russia(soviet union) over land it has been considerd russian land they are revolting to break free, its a civil war, lets not get involved like we are in iraq--Americaman 22:52, 19 July 2007 (EDT) we should only do it through the u.n
- "as i said conquered under the tzars lokonig for warm water ports( yes tzars did rule in 1800's)" That is completely false. It is not at all the reason for the Russian conquest.
- "did you know nealry half of america was conqured in the 1800's too, i guess its not american land either? what about the land we took from the indians?" I don't really don't care. Look at the top of this page. Its about Russia.
- "i hate imperialsm, its wrong the people are for lack of a better word made slaves, it is usaly done for wrong reasons( exploitation, slaves, gold)" evidently you don't
- "chechnya has been considerd russian land for years, yes it has been conqured, but it is/has considerd russian land, in any ww1/ ww2 treaty invovling russia(soviet union) over land it has been considerd russian land" True, it was considered Soviet land much like the rest of the nations in the oppressive Soviet Union which, if you didn't know, DISSOLVED. Why don't the Chechens deserve independence? Bohdan 00:05, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
to begin with, please tell me why the tsars loked to conqure, why did peter the great wage the great northern war to gain land to build saint pertersburg, a port. why did kathrin the great invade poland and eventully have a hand in disolving in it looking for water sutable for ports. why then, did russia get involved in the ruso-japanes war over coste land in china? please tell me
2nd, i knwo this topic is about russia but you cant claim one thing and have it both ways. you say the entire western half of america is america tho it was conqured, but russia conqured chechnya but thats not their land.
3rd, im so glad you resorted to child like name calling. because we all knwo thats im suposed to be super ofended by being called imperialist. now tell me why i am an imperialsit because i pointed out that is done for bad reasons but given good names like: we are bringing them "culture", bringing them "christianity" so please i dont like it, clearly you dont either so
4th, it was 'russian' land. when the soviet union disolved after russia left, chechnya was brought i with it because chehnya was russia, not a seperate country within the soviet union, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldovia, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan, poland, east germany these made up the soviet union. chcnya was in russia. now i never said they dont deserve independece, if thats what they want i hope they win, what i think is that the united states should not get militarily involved in that. and im sorry about my misfact about the duma, the book is 5 years old.
- Oh, please. I have no intention of continuing this discussion. I'm glad you support Chechen independence, and for the record, if you read over my comment carefully, I never said that I think the US should get militarily involved either. I do think you are confused about the causes of Russian imperialism and the Partitions of Poland. You have also made some factual errors in your comments. Here is a map of the Soviet Union . Notice that Poland and East Germany are not included. They were satellite states, not directly part of the USSR. Bohdan
- we should only do it through the u.n
- I was just reading some stuff this morning about how the UN is a commie orgainzation created by commies for commies that only employs commies.  RobS 21:06, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
what? a commie organization? you are aware that the u.n was created in part moslty by the united states and our western capitolist allies. its even based on the leauge of nations which was an all american idea.--Americaman 21:15, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
- Look at the intro paragraph :
CHAPTER NINE: THE HOME TEAM
In 1950 the State Department issued a volume entitled Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-45. It described in detail the policies and documents leading up to the creation of the United Nations and named the men who shaped these policies. This and similar official records reveal that the following men were key government figures in UN planning within the U.S. State Department and Treasury Department: Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Virginius Frank Coe, Dean Acheson, Noel Field, Laurence Duggan, Henry Julian Wadleigh, John Carter Vincent, David Weintraub, Nathan Gregory Silvermaster, Harold Glasser, Victor Perlo, Irving Kaplan, Solomon Adler, Abraham George Silverman, William L. Ullman and William H. Taylor. With the single exception of Dean Acheson, all of these men have since been identified in sworn testimony as secret Communist agents!
- Comment: Odd, this book was written decades before Venona documents were declassified. And the John Carter Vincent article we haven't written yet, but its coming soon. RobS 21:23, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
- As the cite says, Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation, 1939-45. This was long before McCarthy. RobS 21:48, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
ok, you have me beat, there were people from the united states who have been a part of forming of the u.n who had implimented by people to be part of communism( which i remind you is not a crime in this country), but that still does not make the u.n communist, the u.n actually helped keep the cold war only a cold war, it gave a place for both the u.s and the soviet union to air out problems, how can you dislike the u.n? it does great things for the world, for people,you have some rediculouse notion that the u.n is bad, maybe from fear that it is taking away our soverignty? we need to work with the u.n, it does have the power to heavy damage to the u.s(that does not make it anti-america or communist) working with the u.n helps prevent war,working with it can realy only bring good, no harm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Americaman (talk)
- (a) membership in the CPUSA by government employees was a crime at the time in question (i.e. membership in an organization advocating the violent overthrow of the Constitution); (b) the question today is, will China have a use for the UN when it becomes the worlds leading Superpower. The UN was created by Great Britain and the US to run the planet after the demise of the French, British, and German Empires. When the US is nolonger top dog (sometime soon), will China keep it, or will China reorder the planet along lines more acceptable to them. RobS 23:03, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
a:you have done nothing to prove the un is bad, and now proved its not communist because if it was communist china would look to keep it B: china is already a world power, it has alot of power ni the u.n, and is a perminet member on the un security council, europe is back on the rise two, the eu has boosted their economy so much its better than ours, they will always remain a major power in the world, it would be very vey hard to get rid of the u.n, how would they? they can pull out but get rid of it? they could threaten people to withdraw, but at risk of their own country?
- (a)I didn't say it was bad, it's just useless and has always been so. It never had any power, and sure doesn't today.
- (b)You're still missing the point. The UN is a creation of the US State Department. Britain had an hand in shaping it, too. China was convinced by the US State Dept & Britain to go along. When China becomes top dog, as the US was when it created the UN, China will be free to keep the UN as its means of governing the planet (as the US & GB have done since 1945) or dispose of it and start over with a creation of its own.
- (c)Sorry for the crash course on Realpolitick. RobS 00:48, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
Russia never had "stealth" communism before - they had an overt system of psuedo-communism. As they never had stealth communism in the past, Russia is unable to reinstall it, whatever it is. --LiteratiChamp 19:31, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Communism never left Russia
But some people left Russia for a better life while they had the opportunity.