The OutNumbered, the Dead, the Republican Guard

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterBlaster
Whoever told you that is a complete fooking moron and you need to tell them to stfu and read about the history of NATO and post war europe. You are a very naive poorly educated individual if you think that was all that Stalin was doing. Stalin made his intentions for soviet occupation in europe very clear.

---

The occupying of countries was part of the Cold War. Both the Soviet-Union and the USA tried to spread respectively the communism and the capitalism over the world. The reason for this was to constantly balance the power. Stalin used Eastern Europe as a buffer-zone against the capitalism. That way he could protect the Soviet-Union against the capitalism.

In other words: the only reason why Stalin occupied some countries was protection, not domination; it was a result of the Cold War, not of the ideology. The USA's policy was no different. The financial help for Western Europe, the 'liberating' of Vietnam and Korea, was all part of the same development.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
if you feel safe living in a world where people like saddam have WMD's and promote and aid terroistic groups, that's your perogative...But most of us don't. Nor will we sit idly by and wait for another attack to take place.

---

I did feel safe, because Saddam didn't have WMDs and didn't aid terrorist groups. And I don't feel safe with George Bush having WMDs and playing the biggest terrorist.

If you care to dispute those statements, take a moment to read my other thread Liar Liar which has two URLs, the BBC one clearly refuting both claims by US government that Iraq had WMDs and was helping terrorist groups, notably Al Qaeda.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheVader
The US should for once respect a country's sovereignity and culture.

---

You are asking too much. There ain't no culture in the US and there ain't no soverignty inside it :rolleyes:

.

I read in newspapers and books that during the Vietnam war, the American citizens finally protested against the war which didn't seem to stop consuming young American men, and finally the government had to pull out the troops. That one war certainly didn't end in the US' favour. Why the economy was so down many of the war veterans had to live as beggars, with "I am a Vietnam war veteran" written on a board beside them.

I have read figures of about 3000-odd Iraqi soldiers and about 1300-odd Iraqi civilians being killed in the war (add to that a 20-odd figure for post-war killing of civilians: Mosul etc.) And going by the reports of the war, it's simply unbelievable that 100,000 Iraqi soldiers died. I doubt if these many numbers even faced the US military. The main battlefields were only Nassiria, Umm Qasr, Basra and Baghdad. In Baghdad too, the actual resistance was quite less because probably most of the Iraqi militia merged with the civilians and did not battle it out. Tikrit fell without any resistance at all.

It seems the figure of Iraqi casualties is another effort to portray a huge victory, which it's not.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xanith
Actually the US lost around 58,000 and I have heard anything from 660,000 to over 1 million for the North Vietnamese.

X

---

+ 250 odd Australians and the Pro-North Vietnamese in South Vietnam. ;)