Conquer Club

Qwert wrote:
well i have this list , but only source what have casualty numbers are wikipedia, so this could be check to see how many casualty of intervention are responsible of US and how many Russia.

brake of international law(after 1945)(no approval of UN)

US
1965-Ocupation of Dominican Republic
1956-Vietnam War
1961-Cuba attack
1964-laos bombardment
1983-Granada Invasion
1986-bombing of libya
1989-Panama Invasion
1992-Iraq no fly zone
1998-Bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan
1999-SR Yugoslavia bombardment
2001-Ocupation of Afghanistan
2003-Ocupation of Iraq
2011-LIbya bombardment (violation of Un resolution 1973)
2014-drone Campaign in PAkistan and Yemen


SSSR
1956-Hungary
1968-CSSR invasion
1979-Afghanistan occupation

Russia
2008-Georgia
2014-Ukraine

according on this US lead 14-5 against USSR/Russia in brake of international law. If i miss something please help to fill a list.

jefjef wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Before we go screaming for War, have you learned anything from WW1?

Yes. It is best to supply arms and behind the scenes support to the side you wish to be victorious and NOT directly enter the conflict until either all belligerents are worn down and used up OR if the side we are supporting is overwhelmingly getting it's ass kicked and only if we could win by entering.

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jefjef wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jefjef wrote:Here is what we Americans understand about foreign policy.

Sometimes there are Hitlers, Saddams, Karadzics, Kadaffys, Kim Jong-ils, Idi Amins, Al qaedas, Talibans, and on and on and on

and

sometimes the world needs America to set things on the better path.

Isn't that Battlefield 2?

I'm convinced. jefjef has won me over to a 100% interventionist US foreign policy. Nobody is safe until the jefjef's and JB's of Uhmeria feel safe.

Funny stuff BBS. You would much rather have Hitlers and Karadzics and Soddoms committing genocides and various other atrocities than UN intervention?

That's a reasonable tradeoff. Every conflict is like Hitler + WW2 or Saddam Hussein v. the Kurds---UNLESS Uhmerica gets involved!

Before we go screaming for War, have you learned anything from WW1?

You're arguing with someone who has a flag-tattooed eagle as his avatar...

-TG

jefjef wrote:International law is really only what America decides it is...

jefjef wrote:

Qwert wrote:
well i have this list , but only source what have casualty numbers are wikipedia, so this could be check to see how many casualty of intervention are responsible of US and how many Russia.

brake of international law(after 1945)(no approval of UN)

US
1965-Ocupation of Dominican Republic
1956-Vietnam War
1961-Cuba attack
1964-laos bombardment
1983-Granada Invasion
1986-bombing of libya
1989-Panama Invasion
1992-Iraq no fly zone
1998-Bombing of Afghanistan and Sudan
1999-SR Yugoslavia bombardment
2001-Ocupation of Afghanistan
2003-Ocupation of Iraq
2011-LIbya bombardment (violation of Un resolution 1973)
2014-drone Campaign in PAkistan and Yemen


SSSR
1956-Hungary
1968-CSSR invasion
1979-Afghanistan occupation

Russia
2008-Georgia
2014-Ukraine

according on this US lead 14-5 against USSR/Russia in brake of international law. If i miss something please help to fill a list.

Qwert - enough of your list. Just because the UN doesn't "approve" of an action it doesn't equate to breaking of international law. International law is really only what America decides it is...

Your list is a bit inaccurate too.. Why is Cuba isted? It was exiles trying to get home and oust a dictatorship that wasn't the lawful gov.. Why isn't Vietnam on the USSR list? They were there too...

Seems like you would rather have the Saddams of the world and your crying that they aren't here anymore.

You also fail to acknowledge that the Soviet/Russian actions were for Empire building. The US hasn't absorbed any of the countries you have listed.

International law is really only what America decides it is...

jefjef wrote:qwert and friends (comrades)

Here is a link - just one of several - for you to view. This is what is openly admitted to.

http://rt.com/news/ussr-secret-vietnam- ... speak-out/

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jefjef wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Before we go screaming for War, have you learned anything from WW1?

Yes. It is best to supply arms and behind the scenes support to the side you wish to be victorious and NOT directly enter the conflict until either all belligerents are worn down and used up OR if the side we are supporting is overwhelmingly getting it's ass kicked and only if we could win by entering.

Screaming for war and constant sabre-rattling led to a world war. Why have you been taking this stance?

jefjef wrote:qwert and friends (comrades)

Here is a link - just one of several - for you to view. This is what is openly admitted to and well the numbers could easily be 10 times what is admitted to.

http://rt.com/news/ussr-secret-vietnam- ... speak-out/

Qwert wrote:

jefjef wrote:qwert and friends (comrades)

Here is a link - just one of several - for you to view. This is what is openly admitted to and well the numbers could easily be 10 times what is admitted to.

http://rt.com/news/ussr-secret-vietnam- ... speak-out/

this its irrelevant, its same like US military presence in Afghanistan, where US give full military training and other support to TAlibans and Osama Bin laden during USSR occupation of Afghanistan (wow, sound so unbelievable ,one day Allies, next day enemies)

jefjef wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

jefjef wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:Before we go screaming for War, have you learned anything from WW1?

Yes. It is best to supply arms and behind the scenes support to the side you wish to be victorious and NOT directly enter the conflict until either all belligerents are worn down and used up OR if the side we are supporting is overwhelmingly getting it's ass kicked and only if we could win by entering.

Screaming for war and constant sabre-rattling led to a world war. Why have you been taking this stance?

It wasn't Americans screaming for war and it wasn't American sabre-rattling that led to either world war... It wasn't the US that started them but we sure had to enter and end them.

What don't you understand?

GoranZ wrote:This is gonna be interesting US threatens China with Russia-like sanctions over territorial disputes

The question is: What if the sanctions against Russia dont have significant effect? In that case does that mean that China can over run what ever they want? If I was China I would read US threats that way.

GoranZ wrote:This is gonna be interesting US threatens China with Russia-like sanctions over territorial disputes

The question is: What if the sanctions against Russia dont have significant effect? In that case does that mean that China can over run what ever they want? If I was China I would read US threats that way.

muy_thaiguy wrote:

GoranZ wrote:This is gonna be interesting US threatens China with Russia-like sanctions over territorial disputes

The question is: What if the sanctions against Russia dont have significant effect? In that case does that mean that China can over run what ever they want? If I was China I would read US threats that way.

If I'm not mistaken, China's economy is far more influenced by the US than Russia's. So, there is that.

Dukasaur wrote:I think Putin is already feeling the heat from western sanctions. For instance, he won't be able to get a decent taco if and when he visits Buffalo.
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4450211-buffalo-s-mighty-taco-bans-vladimir-putin/

GoranZ wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:I think Putin is already feeling the heat from western sanctions. For instance, he won't be able to get a decent taco if and when he visits Buffalo.
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4450211-buffalo-s-mighty-taco-bans-vladimir-putin/

what is taco and who are they?

mrswdk wrote:They should just nuke Russia until there's nothing left but lizards. No one likes Russia.

Qwert wrote:Its look that US sanction also hit Sergei Ivanov to(worker in Saint Petersburg). He try to buy a snickers from Online shop from US, and they decline hes order, because he its on Black List .

Who will be next ,and how long will Russia resists this serious sanctions?

Jmac1026 wrote:Taco is delicious Hispanic food. And without Taco, Putin will certainly fail in his endeavors to become the next Taco-Fueled-Nazi Empire.

Symmetry wrote:

mrswdk wrote:They should just nuke Russia until there's nothing left but lizards. No one likes Russia.

I don't even think you're trying anymore, mrsdwk. What happened?