Just STOP the war mongering -- Russia is a very weak nation

[uawchild]

Endless media stories about Russian aggression and Russia's sinister resurgence, many of which get linked to here on DU as "Late Breaking News", bombard us non-stop -- trying desperately, it seems, to increase military spending at best or possibly start a shooting war at worst.

It is all just INSANE. Here's a graphic of NATO versus Russia's military spending:



How on God's green earth could anyone look at these numbers and not think calls for MORE military spending is nuts?

In terms of invasions by conventional forces Russia is simply no threat at all and is totally outclassed by the US and NATO. Urging even more spending on the military by the US and NATO is wasting money that could be better used elsewhere solving a whole host of social issues.

The only arena militarily where Russia can hold its own is in nuclear weapons, and lets all hope that circumstance don't conspire that nuclear weapons ever actually get used again. Any first use of nukes by Russia outside of Russian territory itself would just be a death warrant for the entire Russian nation. They know that, and we know that.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

1. Facts Facts Facts - hey you are killing all the Fear Fear Fear

...

[Cayenne]

2. If Assad is attacked he will be defended with nukes

The Russians have made that clear and probably have nukes on site. If the Russians are attacked on their own territory they will use nukes to defend themselves.

That spending scale is not useful. The Russians don't buy '$700 hammers' like we do. Our military industrial complex is too bloated with corruption to be effective. Trillions have been spent and we still have the planes of the 60's to the 80's and only about 180 F-22's to show for it. The F-35 is outrageously expensive and it may still be a target on Russian radars.

They have mostly closed the technology gap. They have very impressive missiles and stealth defeating radar.

[uawchild]

3. Link please -- I have to call you out on this one.

"If Assad is attacked he will be defended with nukes The Russians have made that clear"

Ok, I have to call you out on this. Please post a link that shows the Russians have made it clear that they will defend Assad with nukes under any circumstance.

Honestly, I don't think you can.

Please provide a link that actually mentions the use of nuclear force to defend Assad.

If you can, I will apologize profusely.

[Cayenne]

6. Iskander tactical nukes

Iskanders in

Nuclear saber rattling.

For 5 mins of research that is what I found. I did not find the video of Putin explaining nuclear doctrine but to the effect they will use nukes to defend Russian troops in Syria.

Iskanders are not in Syria to blow up the garden variety insurgent, they have rocket artillery for that. Iskanders were made to take out military bases and large formations.

[uawchild]

8. Ah so you could NOT post a link where Russia made it clear they would use nukes to defend Assad

Still waiting for that link. Your videos don't support your contention that Russia has made it clear they would use nukes to defend Assad.

In fact that SECOND video was about Russian missiles in Russia being placed possibly near the border. What site did you get those videos from anyways? They certainly don't seem like they are off a major news site. Is that a real news site or some conspiracy theory thing? We all know Russia has tactical nuclear weapons. Please provide a legitimate news source stating that Russia says it will use them to defend Assad.

Honestly, if Russia actually DID say what you claim -- that it would use nukes to defend Assad -- it would be front page news around the world. Where's the NY Times article on it? You simply made a claim that you can not substantiate.

I will still gladly apologize if you can actually back up your assertion that Russia made it CLEAR they would use nukes to defend Assad. Failing that, I can't help but classify that assertion as yet more war mongering. Sorry, but that is my honest opinion.

[Cayenne]

10. He did say they will defend Russians in Syria

but not Assad personally. If he defends Russians in Syria he is, in effect, defending Assad although he did not say that.

Any targets threatening Russian forces in Syria must be immediately destroyed - Putin

What do you call legitimate? The corporate media? The alternative press is the only press, crackpots and all.

[uawchild]

11. Nice back pedaling.

So, your original claim remains unsubstantiated that Russia made it clear itwill defend ASSAD with nukes. Glad that is settled.

[Igel]

13. That's called a "pyrrhic victory."

"Obama is a great, American President."

No, no, no. That sentence is wrong! It's simply incorrect, in a couple of ways.

Fifteen minutes, the person finally "admits":

"Obama is a great, American Ppresident."

See, I told you it was incorrect, and it's good of you to admit it.


(What were the mistakes? Wrong comma usage--notice the strike-through--and bad capitalization. Correct in a pointless way.)

[Maru Kitteh]

15. The information you were provided still challenges the myth of Russia as "weak."

Guns allow hideous states to rise behind armies of child soldiers.

There are many ways to measure weakness, and in the last half-century or so of warfare, cash on hand and/or expenditure has failed frequently to provide a very reliable measure. Looking back further perhaps it failed more often than we would think, for reasons nearly as diverse as the collective experience of human history.

[AntiBank]

12. Risking Nuclear War for Al Qaeda?

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/02/18/risking-nuclear-war-for-al-qaeda/

Exclusive: The risk that the multi-sided Syrian war could spark World War III continues as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and U.S. neocons seek an invasion that could kill Russian troops — and possibly escalate the Syrian crisis into a nuclear showdown, amazingly to protect Al Qaeda terrorists, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

When President Barack Obama took questions from reporters on Tuesday, the one that needed to be asked but wasn’t was whether he had forbidden Turkey and Saudi Arabia to invade Syria, because on that question could hinge whether the ugly Syrian civil war could spin off into World War III and possibly a nuclear showdown.

If Turkey (with hundreds of thousands of troops massed near the Syrian border) and Saudi Arabia (with its sophisticated air force) follow through on threats and intervene militarily to save their rebel clients, who include Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, from a powerful Russian-backed Syrian government offensive, then Russia will have to decide what to do to protect its 20,000 or so military personnel inside Syria.

A source close to Russian President Vladimir Putin told me that the Russians have warned Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Moscow is prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons if necessary to save their troops in the face of a Turkish-Saudi onslaught.

Since Turkey is a member of NATO, any such conflict could quickly escalate into a full-scale nuclear confrontation.
Given Erdogan’s megalomania or mental instability and the aggressiveness and inexperience of Saudi Prince Mohammad bin Salman (defense minister and son of King Salman), the only person who probably can stop a Turkish-Saudi invasion is President Obama. But I’m told that he has been unwilling to flatly prohibit such an intervention, though he has sought to calm Erdogan down and made clear that the U.S. military would not join the invasion.

snip

Robert Parry (born June 24, 1949) is an American investigative journalist best known for his role in covering the Iran-Contra affair for the Associated Press (AP) and Newsweek, including breaking the Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare (CIA manual provided to the Nicaraguan contras) and the CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US scandal in 1985. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984 and the I.F. Stone Medal for Journalistic Independence by Harvard's Nieman Foundation in 2015. He has been the editor of Consortium News since 1995.

snip



Will Russia Nuke ISIS in Syria?

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/will-russia-nuke-isis-syria-14577

Russian president Vladimir Putin seemed to raise the possibility this week that Moscow might consider using nuclear weapons to combat Daesh terrorists in Syria. But Putin quickly added that he hopes such weapons will never be used and are not needed for use against terrorists.

“We must analyze everything happening on the battlefield, how the weapons operate. The Kalibrs and KH-101 have proved to be modern and highly effective, and now we know it for sure—precision weapons that can be equipped with both conventional and special warheads, which are nuclear,” Putin said during a meeting with Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu, according to Russian television. “Naturally, this is not necessary when fighting terrorists and, I hope, will never be needed.”

Russian military forces have been demonstrating their ability to hit targets at long ranges using cruise missile strikes launched from Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack supersonic bombers, diesel-electric submarines and even tiny corvette-class ships in the Caspian Sea. Moscow has, in effect, been testing the Russian military’s ability to fight a thoroughly modern war during its campaign in Syria. Some of the latest Russian hardware—including the Su-30SM Flanker, Su-34 Fullback, S-400 missile defense system and the Tu-160 bomber—have made their debut during Moscow’s intervention in the Middle East.

However, Russian forces are still heavily reliant on their formidable nuclear arsenal, which was inherited from the Soviet Union. While Russia has made significant strides in improving its conventional forces since 2008, reforms are incomplete. Moscow still has a long way to go before it can field a completely modern force. As such, Russia has to rely on its nuclear forces to make up for its relative conventional weakness.

While the Soviet Union maintained an explicit “no first use” policy regarding nuclear weapons, Russia today reserves the right to use nuclear weapons first during a conflict. That new doctrine is paradoxically called ‘de-escalation.’ As former Soviet and Russian diplomat Nikolai Sokov, and current senior fellow at the Vienna Center for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, writes in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:................................


snip


The National Interest (TNI) is an American bi-monthly international affairs magazine published by the Center for the National Interest. It is associated with the realist school of foreign policy thought. It was founded in 1985 by Irving Kristol and until 2001 was edited by Anglo-Australian Owen Harries. The National Interest is not restricted in content to "foreign policy" in the narrow, technical sense but attempts to pay attention to broad ideas and the way in which cultural and social differences, technological innovations, history, and religion impact the behavior of states.

TNI has an international readership, and excerpts from its articles have been published in The New York Times, the Financial Times, The Australian, International Herald Tribune, Shin Dong-A, The Spectator, and Austria's Europäische Rundschau, as well as on online sites such as the Russian InoSMI.ru.

In 2006, the magazine adopted a new, glossier cover format, based around a central image and tagline, making it look more like the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs or Foreign Policy as opposed to the staid, text-only covers of Foreign Affairs or Commentary. The magazine also added daily online content to its website.

Since July 2013, the magazine's editor has been Jacob Heilbrunn. The Advisory Council was chaired by James Schlesinger until his death in 2014. The magazine's honorary chairman is Henry Kissinger. Dimitri K. Simes is the Publisher, while Paul J. Saunders is the Associate Publisher.



snip


Threatening nuclear weapons in Syria is Putin's attempt to get Russia treated like a superpower again

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/threatening-nuclear-weapons-syria-putins-attempt-get-russia-treated-like-superpower-again-1532600


The stakes appear to have been raised in Russia's Syria gamble, as President Vladimir Putin casually let it drop that Russia will "hopefully" not have to use nuclear weapons against Islamic State (Isis). The key word here, however, is "appear".

It's important to remember that military involvement in Syria, and the harsh statements that regularly accompany it, serve a dual purpose for the Russian government.

On the international front, Russia is busy expanding its comparatively limited sphere of influence and seizing whatever opportunity it can to one up the West. Prolonged confusion over how best to deal with Isis specifically and the Syrian civil war in general gave the Russian government a golden opportunity to seem proactive and decisive next to the likes of Barack Obama and David Cameron.

Sure, Russia threw its lot in with dictator Bashar al-Assad but to Russian officials, those are merely details. What's important is that Russia is acting as though it knows what it's doing, while the West, all the way until the horrific, Isis-orchestrated Paris attacks, has demonstrated much more self-doubt.


snip


Did Putin just threaten to go NUCLEAR on ISIS? Russian leader says new cruise missiles can be equipped with warheads – but he hopes they would never need them

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3353095/Putin-threatens-NUCLEAR-ISIS-Russian-leader-says-new-cruise-missiles-equipped-warheads-hopes-never-need-them.html

Vladimir Putin has warned that a new underwater missile system deployed by Russian submarines in the war against ISIS in Syria could be equipped with nuclear warheads.
The Russian president said that although using nuclear weapons was a possibility, he hoped that they would 'never be needed' in the fight against terrorism.
His warning came as Russia stepped up its barrage on Syrian rebels with its first submarine-launched cruise missile strikes combined with bombing raids from the air.

Speaking on Russian state television today, Putin claimed his military had struck '300 targets of different kinds' in the past three days and helped Syrian special forces recover the black box of a Russian warplane downed by Turkey last month.
President Putin said the cruise missiles, launched from the submarine in the Caspian Sea, could be equipped with nuclear warheads but said he hoped they would 'never be needed in the fight against terrorism'.

snip



German minister warns Nato against 'warmongering'

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36566422


German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has warned Nato against "warmongering", after it conducted military exercises in Eastern Europe.
Mr Steinmeier said that extensive Nato manoeuvres launched this month were counterproductive to regional security and could inflame tensions with Russia. He urged the Nato military alliance to replace the exercises with more dialogue and co-operation with Russia.

Nato has carried out a 10-day exercise simulating a Russian attack on Poland.

The drill, which ended on Friday, involved about 31,000 troops, as well as fighter jets, ships and 3,000 vehicles.
Russia has been strengthening its military presence near its borders. In February it held a combat-readiness exercise involving 8,500 troops in a southern region near areas of eastern Ukraine held by pro-Russian rebels. In 2013, Russian jets staged a simulated attack on the Swedish capital Stockholm.

'Do not create pretexts'

"What we shouldn't do now is inflame the situation further through sabre-rattling and warmongering," Mr Steinmeier said in an interview to be published in Germany's Bild am Sontag newspaper. "Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance's eastern border will bring security is mistaken. "We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation," he said, adding that it would be "fatal to search only for military solutions and a policy of deterrence".


snip

[CanonRay]

4. The entire "red menace" was pretty much a fraud

Russia had trucks without wheels and most of the subs were death traps. The bulk of 5he Soviet fleet was in drydock at any given time.

[uawchild]

5. Current menace is certainly overblown

I think that Russia will continue to assert itself along its borders against non-NATO states, like its support of the 15 mile wide "rebel" state in the Ukraine, but the calls to spend more on the US and NATO militaries to counter aggression against NATO is simply non-sensical. Heck, there isn't any need to spend more to counter any of Russia's military escapades, we are armed to the teeth.

[840high]

9. .+1

[DetlefK]

37. There was this itsy-bitsy thing of nuclear weapons on intercontinental ballistic missiles.

[Lithos]

51. Not true

Back in the 1950's and 1960's the Soviet military was very competent. As the economy waned in the 1970's and 80's, the effectiveness dropped. Also, the size of the Soviet Union in the 1970's represented a much larger nation than Russia today.

But I do agree that Russia today is a paper tiger compared to the glory days of the Soviet Union. However, I do think Putin is doing his best to strengthen the military to become a more competent instrument.

L-

[Nevernose]

7. It's both things:

Russia is dangerous and unpredictable, at least currently (certainly not inherently). Putin is a nationalist and just as much a war monger as most Anerican presidents.

We definitely spend too much on the military. Not on troop pay, but on fancy toys. On the books we spend as much or more as the rest of the world combined. With more accurate accounting, we spend closer to 1.2 trillion a year (things not in the military budget: mercenaries, embassy security, nuclear weapons, Veteran's benefits, education and many physical structures, etc.)

[Maru Kitteh]

16. Yes. Thank you. Russia is both dangerous and weak, and we spend WAY too much

on the military. All of these things are true. No one thing negates the other.

[uawchild]

19. Serious question, are we, the US, dangerous too?

Are we, the US, dangerous too? Which country do you think has killed or caused the death of more people since, say, World War II the US or Russia. Please take into account Vietnam and the Iraq war. The Korean War I think we should get a pass on since we reacted to a North Korean invasion. But honestly, we Americans just don't see ourselves as a dangerous nation to others -- but the death toll says otherwise.

[Mosby]

20. Soviet Communist death toll: 61,000,000 people.

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

The US isn't even close to the Russians, the Russians have committed more mass murder and genocide that any other country in human history.

[Monk06]

24. Your numbers are from a blogger pimping his ebook Death by Government with no attribution for

the data he uses Totally cooked In fact stewed to perfection

From what, if any legitiate sources was that data derived?

[Mosby]

39. the author is a Prof Emeritas at U of Hawaii

PhD in Political Science.

His CV:

https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/LONGVITA.HTM

[Monk06]

42. Well hardly a major author or expert in his field and his use of statistics lacks rigor and clarity

Not all PhDs are geniuses or even competent for that matter

For instance how does he justify his quotes of non military deaths due to political oppression from Russia during the first and second world wars or the Japanese Empire again during the second world war?

Both regimes were totalitarian and negative information was heavily sensored by both countries

So where do the numbers come from and how reliable are they?

And he has been retired for a considerable amount of time so his present comments are made in a private not a professional capacity

In other words just another internet commentator, just another member of another small institute with no prestige or academic reputation. You can take his opinion for gospel if you want

[Mosby]

43. and you have presented absolutely nothing to prove he's wrong

[Monk06]

45. It's up to you to prove his conclusions can be trusted My criticism is legitimate his tables of

political deaths from former or even existing oppressive regimes contain data that shouts out for verification

So where are the citations for the sources of that data?

It's not my job to provide it

[uawchild]

47. Relax, he moved the goal posts

Oldest trick in the book, not answer the question asked. Embarrassed that the US probably killed more people than Russia since WWII, he had to change the time frame for Russia, but yet not for the US/English past misdeeds.

Instead of discussing the current world situation, Mosby here wants to go back centuries (he mention why not go back to 1800) as if the actions of any nation 200-300 years ago have any relevance to the current political landscape. Its simply a dishonest dodge to avoid answering the question asked.

[Mosby]

54. your goal post is meaningless

I'm done playing your games.

And you still haven't presented anything in terms of numbers.

Both Korea and Vietnam were defensive wars to stop communist aggression and conquest.

Iraq death toll was somewhere between 20 and 40K.

[uawchild]

59. You living in the year 1800 is meaningless

As I said previously, events since WWII have more relavence then ones further back in time when appraising the current geopolitical landscape, certainly more relavence then you wanting to go back to the year 1800!

The last 70 years or so seem recent enough and also a long enough period to make rational judgements on.

[uawchild]

26. 61 million deaths since WWII umm NO

Going back further means we should include the genocide of American Indians and enslaved Africans on our ledger .

Try answering the question asked this time, has the US or Russia killed more people or caused more deaths since WWII. Or continue to avoid reality of our own actions.

[Mosby]

40. Russia by a mile

Don't like my answer, then prove me wrong, I already presented evidence from a university researcher about the Soviet/Russian death toll. What do you got?

Moreover your time frame is irrelevant, why start post WW2? How about we start from 1800? If not why?

[uawchild]

46. Are you really claiming Russia killed 60 MILLION people since WWII? Boggle

Or did you move the goal posts? I bet you moved the goal posts. Fess up.

And who are you to say the time frame was irrelevant? It was chosen as the time the US and the USSR/Russia emerged as the two world super powers and corresponds to pretty much our current lifetimes.

Trying to keep moving the goal posts further back in time while failing to including the US/English caused total deaths by genocide, slavery and colonization during the same period is simply just disingenuous.

So, tell us, did 61 million people get killed by Russia since WWII? No, of course not. Embarrassing as it may be, I think the US actual caused more deaths SINCE WWII then Russia has. Sorry, but the butcher bills from Korea, Viet Nam, and Iraq alone are, well, staggering.

[uawchild]

49. "Don't like my answer, then prove me wrong" easily done

"Don't like my answer, then prove me wrong, I already presented evidence from a university researcher about the Soviet/Russian death toll. What do you got?"

Your "answer" didn't actually answer the question asked now, did it? No.

I repeat, has the US or Russia killed or caused the death of more people since WWII.

Lets actually answer THAT question since its relevant to our current political landscape.

What do I got? Lets start with Viet Nam...

NVA/VC military deaths 444,000
Civilian deaths (North and South Vietnam) 587,000

Uppsala University in Sweden maintains the Armed Conflict Database. Their estimates for conflict deaths in Vietnam are 164,923 from 1955 to 1964 and 1,458,050 from 1965 to 1975 for a total of 1,622,973. The database also estimates combat deaths in Cambodia for the years 1967 to 1975 to total 259,000. Data for deaths in Laos is incomplete.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

That's 444,000 combatants and 587,000 civilians. Lets not haggle over whether the US is responsible for waging the war and hence ALL the civilian deaths, lets just consider half of them as on the US ledger. That's almost three quarters of a MILLION deaths just in Vietnam.
Whoops my bad, I missed the Upsalla University number of 1,458,050 deaths for that period. So double that previous estimate.
What do you have for Russia in the same time period?

[Eko]

52. Afghanistan.

Mujahideen: 75,000–90,000 killed, Civilians (Afghan): 850,000–1,500,000 killed, 5 million refugees outside of Afghanistan
2 million internally displaced persons, Around 3 million Afghans wounded (mostly civilians).

[Eko]

53. 80,000 killed

in The 1st Chechen war. Total killed military/civilian: ~50,000–80,000 in the 2nd Chechen war, there is more, you can go here to see them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia

[uawchild]

57. 1.3 million dead by US led war on terror

How do you calculate the human costs of the U.S.-led War on Terror?

On the 12th anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, groups of physicians attempted to arrive at a partial answer to this question by counting the dead.

In their joint report— Body Count: Casualty Figures after 10 Years of the 'War on Terror—Physicians for Social Responsibility, Physicians for Global Survival, and the Nobel Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War concluded that this number is staggering, with at least 1.3 million lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan alone since the onset of the war following September 11, 2001.

However, the report notes, this is a conservative estimate, and the total number killed in the three countries "could also be in excess of 2 million, whereas a figure below 1 million is extremely unlikely."

Furthermore, the researchers do not look at other countries targeted by U.S.-led war, including Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Syria, and beyond.

Even still, the report states the figure "is approximately 10 times greater than that of which the public, experts and decision makers are aware of and propagated by the media and major NGOs.

In Iraq, at least 1 million lives have been lost during and since 2003, a figure that accounts for five percent of the nation's total population. This does not include deaths among the estimated 3 million Iraqi refugees, many of whom were subject to dangerous conditions during this past winter.

Furthermore, an estimated 220,000 people have been killed in Afghanistan and 80,000 in Pakistan, note the researchers. The findings follow a United Nations report which finds that civilian deaths in Afghanistan in 2014 were at their highest levels since the global body began making reports in 2009.

The researchers identified direct and indirect deaths based on UN, government, and NGO data, as well as individual studies. While the specific number is difficult to peg, researchers say they hope to convey the large-scale of death and loss.

Speaking with Democracy Now! on Thursday, Dr. Robert Gould, president of the San Francisco Bay Area chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility and co-author of the forward to the report, said:

"[A]t a time when we’re contemplating at this point cutting off our removal of troops from Afghanistan and contemplating new military authorization for increasing our operations in Syria and Iraq, this insulation from the real impacts serves our government in being able to continue to conduct these wars in the name of the war on terror, with not only horrendous cost to the people in the region, but we in the United States suffer from what the budgetary costs of unending war are."

According to Gould's forward, co-authored with Dr. Tim Takaro, the public is purposefully kept in the dark about this toll.

"A politically useful option for U.S. political elites has been to attribute the on-going violence to internecine conflicts of various types, including historical religious animosities, as if the resurgence and brutality of such conflicts is unrelated to the destabilization cause by decades of outside military intervention," they write. "As such, under-reporting of the human toll attributed to ongoing Western interventions, whether deliberate of through self-censorship, has been key to removing the 'fingerprints' of responsibility."

[uawchild]

58. That make about 2,700,000 deaths for the US

And thats just from Vietnam and the war on terror so far. Astounding, isn't it?

[uawchild]

64. "U.S. has killed 20-30 million people since WWII"

But we must continue our efforts to develop understanding and compassion in the world. Hopefully, this article will assist in doing that by addressing the question “How many September 11ths has the United States caused in other nations since WWII?” This theme is developed in this report which contains an estimated numbers of such deaths in 37 nations as well as brief explanations of why the U.S. is considered culpable.

The causes of wars are complex. In some instances nations other than the U.S. may have been responsible for more deaths, but if the involvement of our nation appeared to have been a necessary cause of a war or conflict it was considered responsible for the deaths in it. In other words they probably would not have taken place if the U.S. had not used the heavy hand of its power. The military and economic power of the United States was crucial.

This study reveals that U.S. military forces were directly responsible for about 10 to 15 million deaths during the Korean and Vietnam Wars and the two Iraq Wars. The Korean War also includes Chinese deaths while the Vietnam War also includes fatalities in Cambodia and Laos.

The American public probably is not aware of these numbers and knows even less about the proxy wars for which the United States is also responsible. In the latter wars there were between nine and 14 million deaths in Afghanistan, Angola, Democratic Republic of the Congo, East Timor, Guatemala, Indonesia, Pakistan and Sudan.

But the victims are not just from big nations or one part of the world. The remaining deaths were in smaller ones which constitute over half the total number of nations. Virtually all parts of the world have been the target of U.S. intervention.

The overall conclusion reached is that the United States most likely has been responsible since WWII for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts scattered over the world.

http://www.countercurrents.org/lucas240407.htm

[uawchild]

44. opps replied to myself, reposted correctly n/t

[uawchild]

48. Indigenous Americans might disagree with you.

"Advocates of the “yes it was genocide” position have generally accepted high estimates for the pre-Columbian population and a correspondingly very high figure for initial depopulation. If 75 million people lived in in the Western Hemisphere in 1491 and the death toll from epidemic disease was 70, 80, or even 90 percent (as was sometimes the case), the sheer numbers (50–60 million) are overwhelming and compel recognition as genocide when measured against the numbers for commonly accepted cases of genocide in the twentieth century.2"

http://americanhistory.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199329175.001.0001/acrefore-9780199329175-e-3

That's for both North and South America, so the Spanish share that butcher bill with the English/Americans.

And we haven't even discussed deaths cause by European enslavement of Africans....

[Mosby]

55. your blaming Americans for the effects of pathogens that were not even understood at the time

[uawchild]

60. Small Pox blankets

During Pontiac's uprising in 1763, the Indians besieged Fort Pitt. They burned nearby houses, forcing the inhabitants to take refuge in the well-protected fort. The British officer in charge, Captain Simeon Ecuyer, reported to Colonel Henry Bouquet in Philadelphia that he feared the crowded conditions would result in disease. Smallpox had already broken out. On June 24, 1763, William Trent, a local trader, recorded in his journal that two Indian chiefs had visited the fort, urging the British to abandon the fight, but the British refused. Instead, when the Indians were ready to leave, Trent wrote: "Out of our regard for them, we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect."

Just one example of American/English colonialists using small pox as a bio weapon. Smallpox was the number one killer of Native Americans. Despite your claims that the Americans did not understand the nature of the pathogens, well, facts prove you wrong. Sorry.

[Mosby]

61. those were british not americans

There is no evidence that any American gave infected blankets to native Americans.

Moreover the virus only lives outside the body for several minutes so the whole story is scientifically impossible. It's an anti-american myth.

Try again.

[uawchild]

62. Please don't lie about small pox, you are so totally wrong

"There is no evidence that any American gave infected blankets to native Americans. Moreover the virus only lives outside the body for several minutes so the whole story is scientifically impossible. It's an anti-american myth.
Try again."

OK, lets try to get thru your "disinformation" again,

Smallpox spreads from contact with infected persons. Generally, direct and fairly prolonged face-to-face contact is required to spread smallpox from one person to another. Smallpox also can be spread through direct contact with infected bodily fluids or contaminated objects such as bedding or clothing.
https://www.health.ny.gov/.../smallpox/fact_sheet

Um, it seems you were TOTALY WRONG about small pox infected blankets being, and I quote you, "scientifically impossible".
Man, you will go to any lengths it seems to deny the genocide of Native Americans by the English settlers.

[uawchild]

63. "those were british not americans" Woah, nice try lol

That DOCUMENTED example was from 1767, the Americans WERE British then. lol You really are getting desperate in your denials, hmmm?

But lets give another example just to put an end to such evasions:

Genocide & Intent Of The Infected Blankets

During the Seminole War the Federal Soldiers used germ warfare weapons,such as leaving small pox infected blankets for the Seminole to take and catch the disease.
This was a tried and true tactic of warfare in the Americas. The British attempted this against Washington's troops at Yorktown and Europeans used germ warfare against native Americans in New England. At Yorktown, the National Park Service explains the role of Slaves as germ warfare weapons in the plaque reproduced here. I guess the incentive for slaves was 'you're free if you go cause small pox among American forces ... if you survive.'
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/7/368353/-

But why bother, people can google small pox blankets and read the numerous stories about it, including some from denialists trying to rewrite history, much as you seemed to have tried here.

Smallpox CAN be spread by infected bedding and apparently it was used as a bio-weapon against Native Americans. You denied blankets could spread smallpox and you were proven wrong.

[mythology]

70. The high end of the population in North America is generally around 18 million

But also much of the death was not due to intentional acts. The overwhelming majority of deaths were due to disease little of which can be attributed to reported smallpox blankets as the diseases spread from first contact.

That isn't to say that the English, the Spanish and the Portuguese didn't commit violence against native populations, but it's not nearly as cut and dried as you make it sound as if it was all intentional murder. There was no realistic understanding of viruses at that point.

[uawchild]

71. They understood smallpox was contagious and how to transmit it

Thank you for your other discussion points though. The degree of intention probably did wax and wane when it came to "Indian Removal" via contagion. Often less esoteric means were used ala The Trail of Tears.

[Maru Kitteh]

56. All concentration of power is dangerous. The absence of power presents it's own danger.

But you present here one half of a logical fallacy. In short, the danger presented by our nation does not in any way negate the danger presented by Russia.

I would also assert that most Americans understand very well the danger we present to others.

[PufPuf23]

14. Russia is building military relations and there are those in the West that want to put a "hit"

on Russia and blunt Russia's growing strength before Russia becomes more competitive.

The USA and NATO (the "West&quot have impinged into the former Soviet republics that border Russia as part of the neo-conservative global project.

The West has been losing ground since 2005 and Russia growing in influence.

The Russian army kicked butt and Georgia lost territory when it took surprise military action against areas of Georgia with Russian population (South Ossetia).

Russia has been efficient in Syria, in large part to maintain its only Mediterranean naval base. It is not often mentioned that Gaddafi was negotiating with Russia on a lease arrangement for a Russian military base in Libya when Libya became a hot issue and then war. The regime change of Assad is not now viewed by many in the West as such a sure thing if not infeasible.

The main access to Afghanistan for much of the Afghan War was through Manas base in Krygyzstan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_Center_at_Manas

Transit Center at Manas (formerly Manas Air Base and unofficially Ganci Air Base) is a former U.S. military installation at Manas International Airport, near Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan. It was primarily operated by the U.S. Air Force. The primary unit at the base was the 376th Air Expeditionary Wing. On 3 June 2014 American troops vacated the base and it was handed over back to the Kyrgyzstan military.[1]

https://www.rt.com/politics/russia-kyrgyzstan-military-base-852/

Russia has established four military bases in Kyrgyzstan and signed a 15 year basing agreement.

"Kyrgyzstan and Russia officials are putting the final touches on a contract that allows Russian military sites to remain in the Central Asian republic for 15 years."

The USA had a base in Uzbekistan also an access to the Afghanistan war from the West.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Uzbekistan_relations

In the aftermath of the May 2005 unrest, Uzbekistan demanded that the United States leave the base at Karshi-Khanabad. Additionally, Uzebkistan left GUAAM, which again became GUAM. On 14 November 2005, both presidents Islam Karimov and Vladimir Putin signed a mutual cooperation agreement in Moscow.[8][9]

In 2014 Russia forgave nearly all of the Uzbek debt to Russia in order to boost the relations between the two countries.[14]


Russia has successfully annexed Crimea and maintained a warm water port on the Black Sea and has essentially annexed Russian ethnic parts of the Ukraine.

Several months ago tensions were high over Turkey shooting down a Russian war plane. This week Turkey has backed down and apologized for the incident.

Russia is a main cog in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and India and Pakistan have just this week been added to the military alliance. SCO is a formidable alliance. Note that the USA is also playing who blinks first with China in the South China Sea as China expands its territorial influence at the expense of USA allies (proposed members of the TPP).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) is a Eurasian political, economic, and military organisation which was founded in 2001 in Shanghai by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan. These countries, except for Uzbekistan had been members of the Shanghai Five, founded in 1996; after the inclusion of Uzbekistan in 2001, the members renamed the organization. On July 10, 2015, the SCO decided to admit India and Pakistan as full members.

India and Pakistan signed the memorandum of obligations on 24 June 2016 at Tashkent, thereby starting the formal process of joining the SCO as a full member, the process will take some month's, by which they are expected to become full members by the next meeting at Astana in 2017.[1]


---------------------------------------------

There are folks in the USA that always want an expansion of military spending regardless and are hungry for conflict with Russia. The situation is one to watch, I am anyway.

[Nye Bevan]

17. Russia annexed Crimea (nt)

[uawchild]

18. Just for fun explain the difference

This is a tongue in cheek response, but here goes...

Just for fun explain the difference between when Crimea declared its independence from the legitimate Ukraine government and got annexed by Russia and when Texas declared its independence from the legitimate Mexican government and got annexed by the USA. Next we can ask the same question about the US annexation of Hawaii when Anglo planters thru s coup against the legitimate Hawaian monarchy. Is it just the passage of time that makes our actions ok? Will we consider Russia's action ok too in s hundred years or so? Probably, I guess.

[Nye Bevan]

21. In 1845 my answer to your question would indeed have been different (nt)

[uawchild]

27. Hawaii was annexed by US in 1898

So it's OK for us to keep both Texas and Hawaii even though both were annexed against the wishes of legitimate governments. Got it.

[pampango]

28. All countries have done bad things throughout history. We do not make a better world

by using those examples to justify their repetition for the rest of eternity.

The US practiced slavery for hundreds of years. We should not condone or permit its repetition in modern times.
We interned Japanese Americans. That does not mean we should condone or ignore another country (or our own) doing something like that again.
Many Western countries had colonies in Asia and Africa. Let's not go back to "You did it first" as a justification for repeating that evil.

There are many, many other examples. If the best another country can come up with is "Oh yeah. Well you did it a couple of hundred years ago so it's OK if we do it now." Well that can be used to justify, we will never make the world a better place. We'll bring back slavery, colonization and big countries eating up smaller ones - Hitler did it, Stalin did it, the US has done it. Enough is enough.

The USSR 'encouraged' Russians to immigrate to Ukraine during Soviet times. Let's say they 'encouraged' Tartars and other residents in Crimea to emigrate from Crimea. And, of course, there is an extremely important Russian military base in Crimea. Most of us can figure out that Russia did what many other countries have done in the past.

Liberals should condemn past and present abuses. Conservatives can go with the "might makes right" and "my country is always right" mottos.

[uawchild]

29. The problem is demonization and overlooking our own actions.

Viet Nam was not that long ago and the aftermath of the Iraq War is still going on.

[pampango]

32. I don't mind 'demonizing' the US for Vietnam/Iraq AND Russia for Crimea.

I don't let either off the hook because of the transgressions of the other. If we condone one because of the other, we promote 'my country is exceptional'. Neither country is exceptional. The same rules should apply to everyone in a just world.

Authoritarians always use demonizing of THEM (THEY are out to get us) to justify their authoritarian rule. ("I may be bad but THEY are worse.&quot

[uawchild]

34. Excellent reply

Thank you for adding to this discussion.

[Bluenorthwest]

65. Just by way of fact Stalin removed the Muslim Tatar majority in 1945, swift forced relocation at

gunpoint. A couple of hundred thousand people packed on to boxcars and shipped to the other side of the USSR. Most say this was the world's fastest and most complete forced relocation of a minority population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars

[uawchild]

66. Just by the way of fact Roosevelt moved 120,000 ethnic Japanese Americans to internment camps

The internment of Japanese Americans in the United States during World War II was the forced relocation and incarceration in camps in the interior of the country of between 110,000 and 120,000[2] people of Japanese ancestry who had lived on the Pacific coast. Sixty-two percent of the internees were United States citizens.[3][4] President Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the incarceration shortly after Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment_of_Japanese_Americans

The WWII era seems to have been a horrible time for human rights. I don't think the imprisoned Japanese Americans ever recovered the economic value of the property they were forced to sell or leave behind. This actually was a semi-ethnic cleansing of the Pacific Northwest, the Japanese American population didn't return to its pre internment levels there.

I am not exactly sure when our government released these captive Japanes Americans. Was it in 1945? Or later?

[KingCharlemagne]

68. if you don't include what our government did to our indigenous populations, or what the Brits pulled

off in South Africa during the Boer Wars.

If you're going to attack Stalin, you should begin with the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement which gave the final green light to Nazi aggression.

[uawchild]

73. Its interesting that Russia and Germany are treated differently...

We explored in this thread how the US has probably killed or caused the death of moe people than Russia since WWII, but posters keep wanting to push that timeframe back so as to include a more horrible period in Russia's history, like the Stalin era, to use to condemn the current country.

Like 70 years isn't long enough having turned over a new leaf, so to speak?

OK, but how come no one uses the same standard to smear the current German government? Hitler and Stalin were contemporaries, but no one goes "Germany sucks, can't trust the bastards, Hitler killed 20 million people". They only pull that stunt on Russia. If they want to condemn a government for its current actions, by all means do so, but one guy just posted about population removals during the last world war as if that is currently relevant. Go figure.

[KingCharlemagne]

78. A very smart Frenchman, La Rochefoucauld, noted a few

centuries ago that "hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue." I'm thinking of making that my personal motto.

AKA: It's OK when America does it becuz . . . freedom.

On edit: Japan also seems to get a free pass here, speaking of lively double standards. I have Korean and Vietnamese students for whom that history still lives and breathes. my Japanese students seem largely ignorant of their own history.

[KingCharlemagne]

67. Most of the American Southwest was stolen from Mexico after 1850. Continuing the

storied tradition of great land theft upon which this nation was founded.

[Adrahil]

80. Well for one...

Russia had agreed to honor the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine giving up the nukes on its territory.

Guess that was just a big "Psych!"

[Little Tich]

22. The warmongering will cease when Russia withdraws from Crimea, ends military support of the civil

war in Ukraine and stops threatening its neighbors.

Until then, Russia will remain a threat to peace in Europe, and will treated accordingly.

[KG]

23. russia and its military capabilities is a joke. but makes a convenient redherring to deflect

Last edited Sun Jul 3, 2016, 08:37 AM - Edit history (1)

from the dem party's continuation of the failed bush policies. 'but, but, russia!'

let's stop pretending any russian action in its sphere of influence is comparable to the US actions in the ME: three massive invasions

no entity is more of a threat to world peace than the us military.

[Monk06]

25. Russia's military capacity is no joke It is leaner, more targeted, more asymmetrical and more agile

than Western forces and technologies

And they have an export market for their hardware that will elevate, to a significant extent, the domestic cost of military acquisitions This is especially true with the recent military/economic pact between Russia and China

Russia will never confront NATO in a large invasion scenario Any build up of NATO forces on Russia's border will be answered with a non military or paramilitary response elsewhere as they are doing in Syria

Another example is Brexit Everyone is obsessed with the political and economic consequences of Brexit
Meanwhile Putin sees it as a wedge to divide or even destroy NATO

Ol Putey is laughing his bag off at all this NATO posturing

[JNelson6563]

30. But war is so exciting and so profitable!

[bemildred]

31. I do find people who assert Russia is going to conquer Europe amusing.

If we cannot conquer Afghanistan or Iraq, and we cannot, how the hell is Russia going to conquer Europe? Nobody really does mass maneuver war any more, Gulf War I was it's swan song, it costs too much and the result is rubble, you don't win anything. Now ground war is all about protective armor, preventing too many soldiers from dying while we lose.

[bemildred]

33. U.S. accuses Russian warship of aggressive maneuvers near U.S. navy ship

See, this stuff is just pathetic, "aggressive and erratic maneuvers" near our warship.

A Russian warship carried out aggressive and erratic maneuvers close to a U.S. Navy ship in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, the second such Cold War-style incident there in a matter of weeks, the U.S. military said on Saturday.

The U.S. European Command said the Russian frigate, Yaroslav Mudry, came unnecessarily close to the guided-missile cruiser USS San Jacinto on June 30 and maneuvered in its wake.

In a statement, EUCOM said the U.S. ship had not been threatened and it maintained course and speed. "But the closing distance by Yaroslav Mudry before the ship turned away from San Jacinto is considered a high risk maneuver, highly unprofessional, and contrary to international maritime regulations."

Referring to the Yaroslav Mudry's close "aggressive, erratic maneuvers", EUCOM SAID: "These actions can unnecessarily escalate tensions between countries, and could result in dangerous miscalculations or accidents."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-usa-navy-idUSKCN0ZH64S

[bemildred]

35. U.S. says Russian ship raised false signal in incident

The United States on Wednesday accused Russia of deliberately displaying the wrong naval signals and interfering with a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Mediterranean Sea, in the latest salvo about a June incident that both countries blame on each other.

Captain Danny Hernandez, spokesman for U.S. European Command, said the Russian warship Neustrashimy (FF 777) conducted unsafe and unprofessional maritime maneuvers, which could have led to miscalculation, injury or even death.

A number of Cold War-style incidents have occurred at sea and in the air in recent months, with the militaries of Russia and the United States accusing each other of dangerous actions in international waters and airspace.

"This most recent incident comes on the heels of other unsafe air and naval incidents on the part of the Russian military," Hernandez said in a statement to Reuters.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-navy-idUSKCN0ZG01L

Have we descended to this? Whining about false signals from the supposed new global threat? I'll tell you what the false signal is here, it's all this warmongering bullshit, which is really just the Pentagon's marketing strategy.

[uawchild]

38. there's a sig file in there!

"it's all this warmongering bullshit, which is really just the Pentagon's marketing strategy."

I totally agree, the war mongering is just the Pentagon's marketing strategy.

[merrily]

36. Sorry. War mongering will continue until someone figures out a way people get richer on peace. nt

[KingCharlemagne]

69. Thread winner! If Russia did not exist, it would be necessary to

Invent her.

OTOH, the prospect of watching NATO get ground into the dust should it invade the Russian Federation does fill one with mirth. I nominate those military geniuses Generals David Petraeus and Ricardo Sanchez for command of the illustrious venture.

[Ilsa]

41. But Trump et al want us living with Cold War fear again. nt

[mythology]

72. Perhaps you should ask the people of Georgia, Ukraine and chechnya about how

peaceful Putin's Russia is. Putin is a war mongering ass. Just because we could beat Russia in a direct fight, doesn't mean he isn't using his military to take over parts of other countries or to support Assad.

If you'd like to look at how money isn't always the most important way to measure military power, look at Vietnam. We directly spent 168 billion (adjusted for inflation about 1 trillion dollars). We destroyed much of their farmland, killed far more of their people, and we still lost. Look at Russia in Afghanistan.

[uawchild]

74. And we should also ask the people of Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan

how peaceful the US is, right? OH, wait, I forgot its ok when we "protect our strategic interests". Its interesting that the warmongers in the media and elsewhere want to hold Russia to a different standard then we apply to our selves. "Russia invaded Georgia!!!!" the same people don't seem so outraged or consider the US as warmongering for invading Iraq. Why? It seems like a consistent double standard.

"If you'd like to look at how money isn't always the most important way to measure military power, look at Vietnam."
Vietnam had very little military power and could NEVER have invaded the US as we invaded Vietnam. The only reason Vietnam prevailed was due to the bravery and sacrifice of its people. The death ratio was onerously weight against the Vietnamese, they suffer immensely.

If perhaps you meant certainty of out come in a war, that's a different matter. But in any case Vietnam could never have inflicted as many casualties on the US as we inflicted on them.

[uawchild]

75. Lets talk about Chechnya

Since Russia's involvement in Georgia and the Ukraine is minuscule compared to our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, lets focus on Chechnya.

Chechnya is not an independent country, you do know that , right? It was a province in rebellion. A bloody one sided civil war ensued, and civil wars always seem to be notoriously brutal. The Russian government won hands down, just like the US government won hands down in our own brutal civil war. Oops, there I go again, daring to hold the US to the same standard some warmongers want to hold Russia to.

But OK, please tell me if you think Russia was wrong for winning their civil war in chechnya but we were right in winning ours.

[NobodyHere]

76. Leave Russia ALONE!

[uawchild]

77. LOLOLOLOLO

This wins the thread! lol

I might steal it as a sig file. lol

[Odin2005]

79. Ukrainians would disagree about Russia being a "weak nation".

But please, continue with this inane "Hate America First" shit.

[uhnope]

81. fascinating thread during which your cred has been destroyed

I won't bother repeating the points made by others on this thread but your attempt to whitewash the Kremlin has failed miserably & even backfired. So good job

FREE CRIMEA
PUSSY RIOT TO THE KREMLIN