CIA sabotaged Soviet Union in 1982

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DanS
One question that I have is whether similar actions are justified against current enemies.

Why would you imagine they wouldn't be?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by DanS
One question that I have is whether similar actions are justified against current enemies. For instance, is it OK to sabotage the technology that the Iranians and North Koreans either buy or steal?

Well, sabotage that kills human life is terrorism. If you use terrorist tactics, then you will be exposed to it. Wait... doesn't that ring a bell?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
"My claim was simply: the USSR had no global, world conquest strategy."

Oh dear........ You know, with an education like that, I'm surprised the West didn't fall. Kudos to you FB. On top of it all as always.

As always, you prove your idiocy. That's what happens when you learn your history in Reader's Digest.

[Harry Tuttle]

Yay! It's opposite day!

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
USSR was not a threat

Was to them. Of course it ain't imperialism if its close to home .

And do you think America was lifting a single finger for the populations of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania? No, it was not.
I said that the USSR was not a major threat to America, as they fully acknowledged that America's sphere of influence was not their own. Don't you know that both England and America agreed, after WW2, to let EE fall to the USSR? That's how it worked: countries liberated by the Allies became capitalist, countries liberated by the USSR became communist. The USSR didn't have any strong intent to bring Communism elsewhere.

So? It ain't imperialism, when they've stopped aiming for more. They got EE, and then they shut up.

So you are mad because the US was more successful than the Soviets in installing its own loyal governments around the world?

Both, when successful, were equally tyrannic. When you look at what the US did to Chile, Indonesia, Vietnam and Nicaragua, you can only recognize that it wasn't any better than what the USSR did to EE.

What pisses me off, however, is to see FVCKING ignorants who think the USSR had some plan of world conquest. That's false. They were happy with EE, and, in fact, it is America that worked hard to bring capitalism everywhere (i.e, opening up the natural resources for their corporation).
USSR's strategy was passive: support the communist guerillas for the facade only. For instance, the Soviet Union never came close to do the effort that was done by the US in Chile or Nicaragua. Even Castro won the war by himself: he started to receive help from the USSR a full year after his coup.

Africa? Does Angola ring a bell at all? And it wasn't like the Commies didn't help back socialists in Chile and Nicaragua. Oh wait... I guess they did. That whole Comintern thing and backing of foriegn communists doesn't exactly make your claim seem very truthful .

Yes they DID. Because it was required by prestige. But they didn't really give a FVCK. USSR never sent agents to Chile FIVE YEARS in advance to prepare a coup. The help they gave to the Sandinists was minimal, not because they couldn't do better, but because they didn't really care about South America, which was outside of their 'sphere'.

And about Angola: why is it that it was the only 'successful' communist coup, even though Communism had huge popular support in the whole of Africa? Because, again, the USSR had no diamond mines to protect. America, Britain and France had, and they made sure decolonization would not fvck capitalism up.

Infiltrating a great amount of another country's government agencies is bit more than the normal course.

Well, their tactics were on part with America.

[Harry Tuttle]

Sumbody needs a nap...

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by DanS
One question that I have is whether similar actions are justified against current enemies. For instance, is it OK to sabotage the technology that the Iranians and North Koreans either buy or steal?

If it's been approved, and done above-board, no.

If it's something they're trying to acquire underhandedly, then yes, absolutely.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They were happy with EE

So, I'm guessing Afghanistan has been relocated to Eastern Europe?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

They were happy with EE

So, I'm guessing Afghanistan has been relocated to Eastern Europe?

Yeah, I knew you would bring this up. Well, I think the point was to get access to the sea. The country was insignificant, and it was adjacent, so I guess the USSR thought it was 'theirs'. Just like they recognized Latin America to be the US' playground, they expected to be left alone in Afghanistan (esp. because the West had absolutely no economic interests there).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, I knew you would bring this up. Well, I think the point was to get access to the sea. The country was insignificant, and it was adjacent, so I guess the USSR thought it was 'theirs'. Just like they recognized Latin America to be the US' playground, they expected to be left alone in Afghanistan

So what else did they think was 'theirs'? Did they think Cuba was part of US's playground before or after they backed Castro's revolution? And taking Afghanistan doesn't give anyone access to the sea .

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Yeah, I knew you would bring this up. Well, I think the point was to get access to the sea. The country was insignificant, and it was adjacent, so I guess the USSR thought it was 'theirs'. Just like they recognized Latin America to be the US' playground, they expected to be left alone in Afghanistan (esp. because the West had absolutely no economic interests there).

Yes, for fresh fish. Obviously.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So what else did they think was 'theirs'? Did they think Cuba was part of US's playground before or after they backed Castro's revolution? And taking Afghanistan doesn't give anyone access to the sea .

Yeah, my bad for Afghanistan. Sincerely, I've never read anything serious about it, so I'm at a loss on this one.

As for Cuba, they didn't back Castro until he rose to power- which tells a lot about their real intent. When they saw he was successful, they jumped on the opportunity, but they didn't create it in the first place.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Yeah, my bad for Afghanistan. Sincerely, I've never read anything serious about it, so I'm at a loss on this one.

So how can you make such extravagant statements about Soviet intent? You just said that you have never read anything serious about the war.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle


So how can you make such extravagant statements about Soviet intent? You just said that you have never read anything serious about the war.

About Soviet Union and AFGHANISTAN- the rest is common knowledge, any Soviet Politics 101 course will teach you this.

The age of Soviet imperialism ended in 1922.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As for Cuba, they didn't back Castro until he rose to power- which tells a lot about their real intent. When they saw he was successful, they jumped on the opportunity

Yeah, he satisfied their ends of expanding their influence. They didn't back him before because he could have lost. When he won, it was safe to declare support.

[DanS]

If it's been approved, and done above-board, no.

By law, no American company is allowed to do business with these countries. By this definition, these countries are stealing American technology every time they boot up their PCs.

Why would you imagine they wouldn't be?

I'm still formulating my opinions on this. At first blush, it seems somewhat unfair, at least with regard to Iranian private industry. On the other hand, I have no desire to lend even indirect support to the Iranian theocracy.

Anyway, this gives an awful lot of coercive power to the US government in today's day and age through globalization.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris



The age of Soviet imperialism ended in 1922.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


About Soviet Union and AFGHANISTAN- the rest is common knowledge, any Soviet Politics 101 course will teach you this.

The age of Soviet imperialism ended in 1922.

Yes, I'm sure the Czechs will agree.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

They were happy with EE

So, I'm guessing Afghanistan has been relocated to Eastern Europe?

Afganistan asked for Soviet help against CIA armed terrorists. And what horrible things did the Soviets do while there? Hmmm, built roads, hospitals, schools, etc.

Since the U.S. backed forces took over what happened? They destroyed the hsoitals and schools and re-enslaved the women. Then they attacked their benefacted and massacred 3,000 Americans. Good plan guys.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yeah, he satisfied their ends of expanding their influence. They didn't back him before because he could have lost. When he won, it was safe to declare support.

Actually, Castro had never been a true communist. He settled for Communism only after his coup, and only then he got support from the USSR.

Most socialist revolutions were successful because of popular support, while most right-wing ones were successful because of US intervention.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Afganistan asked for Soviet help against CIA armed terrorists. And what horrible things did the Soviets do while there? Hmmm, built roads, hospitals, schools, etc.

Since the U.S. backed forces took over what happened? They destroyed the hsoitals and schools and re-enslaved the women. Then they attacked their benefacted and massacred 3,000 Americans. Good plan guys.

Che, that's a troll right? You're baiting the less suspecting on, right?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Ted Striker

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Yes, I'm sure the Czechs will agree.

Idiots. EE fell under Soviet influence, because EE had NEVER been independant. Throughout history, it had been either under Ottoman rule, Prussian, Austrian, Russian, etc.

Stalin took the opportunity left by the demise of Germany- just like America and Britain installed capitalism in the countries they liberated themselves. Once, however, he had annexed this territory, he would obviously do what's required to keep it. Politics 101: 'Internal security', however oppressive it may be, is not imperialism.

[Verto]

Yeah, I knew you would bring this up. Well, I think the point was to get access to the sea. The country was insignificant, and it was adjacent, so I guess the USSR thought it was 'theirs'

Taking Afghanistan to gain access to the sea was not imperialism?

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Stalin took the opportunity left by the demise of Germany- just like America and Britain installed capitalism in the countries they liberated themselves. Once, however, he had annexed this territory, he would obviously do what's required to keep it. Politics 101: 'Internal security', however oppressive it may be, is not imperialism.

Are you a complete loon?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Che, that's a troll right? You're baiting the less suspecting on, right?

No, that's the truth.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Stalin took the opportunity left by the demise of Germany- just like America and Britain installed capitalism in the countries they liberated themselves.

Actually, it's a bit more sinister than that. Given that the resistence to the Nazi-occupation in Europe was led by Communists almost everywhere, it was imperative for the great powers (including the USSR) to insure there was no power vacuume which could lead to a revolution.

Far from being betrayed by Stalin, the Western Allies sold-out Eastern Europe, in exchange for Stalin yanking the leash of the Communists in Allied territory, like Italy, Greece, France, etc. Given the nature of the Stalinist regime, communist revolution was as dangerous to him as it was to the Allies, as a democratic communist state would show the lie that was the USSR,

Furthermore, because the war wrecked Eastern Europe, the Allies wanted to see the Soviets stuck with the rebuilding effort, which would drain the Soviet economy (and it did for fifty years). Only in East Germany, where the Soviets packed up whole factories and shipped them to the USSR did the USSR see any economic benefit to grabbing Eastern Europe.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Verto
Taking Afghanistan to gain access to the sea was not imperialism?

I was mistaken on this one. Read Chegitz's post.

Are you a complete loon?

Was the war of Secession an imperialist move?

Stalin didn't intend to attack EE- he jumped on the opportunity. Chegitz's post makes lots of sense: a democratic communist revolution would have been a threat to Stalin.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, it's a bit more sinister than that. Given that the resistence to the Nazi-occupation in Europe was led by Communists almost everywhere, it was imperative for the great powers (including the USSR) to insure there was no power vacuume which could lead to a revolution.

True.

Far from being betrayed by Stalin, the Western Allies sold-out Eastern Europe, in exchange for Stalin yanking the leash of the Communists in Allied territory, like Italy, Greece, France, etc. Given the nature of the Stalinist regime, communist revolution was as dangerous to him as it was to the Allies, as a democratic communist state would show the lie that was the USSR,

True, that Stalin didn't betray the Allies: already in 1943, Churchill agreed on zones of influence.
It also may be true that some communists could have been, in fact, a threat to Stalin- but weren't most resistance communists also those who became Stalin's puppets?

Furthermore, because the war wrecked Eastern Europe, the Allies wanted to see the Soviets stuck with the rebuilding effort, which would drain the Soviet economy (and it did for fifty years). Only in East Germany, where the Soviets packed up whole factories and shipped them to the USSR did the USSR see any economic benefit to grabbing Eastern Europe.

What, they knew they'd rebuild France and Italy while USSR would fail with their own?

[Ted Striker]

Good lawd

You guys have been listening to too much Pacifca radio

I and the people of the United States of America personally apologize for picking on the poor, defenseless, benevolent Soviet Union.

The Russians never did anything wrong. It was the USA's fault, completely. 100%

Chegitz if you love Russia so much then get the **** out of the USA and move there

[Shi Huangdi]

"Idiots. EE fell under Soviet influence, because EE had NEVER been independant. Throughout history, it had been either under Ottoman rule, Prussian, Austrian, Russian, etc."

That isn't true. Czechoslovakia was independent before as the Kingdom of Bohemia, Hungary was it's own independent kingdom, Poland was independent until the 18th century and was at one time a great power, Albania was around, etc. Moreover, all of the states had been independent after Versailles or a little before that in some cases, and then the Soviet Union forced them into their cruel system and made them sattelites. I can't see how you can possibly justify putting them under your yoke just because they were under a different yoke previously.

In addition to Czecholsovakia, what about supporting the NK attack on South Korea? Or the clampdown on Hungary? Or demands made on the Turkish government for a base in the Straits? Or Backing the North Vietnamese against the South? Or any number of pro-Soviet people they backed abroad...

Trying to use historical imperial domination of this area as an excuse to justify the Soviet's action smashes your credibility.

"Given the nature of the Stalinist regime, communist revolution was as dangerous to him as it was to the Allies, as a democratic communist state would show the lie that was the USSR,"

What!? The foreign communists were all Pro-Soviet. What about the Italian Communists saying that in a war with the Soviet Union they would back the USSR?

[Harry Tuttle]

Shi, save your hands from carpal tunnel. These geniuses need something to latch onto to feel special and the great red menace is it.