need help with religion

[JT_55]

He posted the following:

MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?

MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.

Apparently he means that this person represents all of Canada (I have no idea who he is) and that we are not a "great" country because this person (whoever he is) doesn't reconize freedom of speech.

It turns out he's a "INTERNET “investigator” for the Canadian Human Rights Commission" and whatever he says is now going to be the motto of Canada and I'm sure the whole country is 100% backing his statements.

[benji]

Right. Exactly. Hit the nail on the head there. Idiot.

I'm sure Cyanide knows exactly what I truly mean, he's been here for four years.

Even if he is from a disgusting little totalitarian country.

[Joe']

If you wanna know what a current great country is, take a look at ... Canada.

If you wanna know what a current great country is, take a look at ... Canada.

If you wanna know what a current great country is, take a look at ... Canada.

If you wanna know what a current great country is, take a look at ... Canada.

Someone is smearing great countries by including Canada.

MS KULASZKA: Mr. Steacy, you were talking before about context and how important it is when you do your investigation. What value do you give freedom of speech when you investigate one of these complaints?

MR. STEACY: Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value.

I know your post had a little sarcasm in there, but I think it's worth posting this anyway:

I, living in one of the worst Western European countries, think Canada is a great country. One Canadian man not giving freedom of speech any value doesn't make it any less of a great country IMO.

What does that even mean, great in terms of what?

Literacy rate, GDP per capita, education, crime rate, HDI, GPI, life expectancy, etc.

1. Russia has democraty for nerly 15 years already
2. muslim is muslim Geogrian is georgian, and don't tell me i'm wrong. i live here for 21 year already!
3. SmileSmile communism isn't religion. it's a political regime
4. sorry bout dat, ill try speak correct, it's my emotions
5. Russia didn't lose any war, that took part in, we have unbreakable spirit and most beautiful women
6. sorry bout dat, ill try speak correct, it's my emotions
7. i know bout afganistan, my uncle was a military surgent there

good evening!

1. Most western countries have had democracy for over two hundred+ years now.

My point was, I've always been taught history exactly how it happened, your country hid that for over seventy years, and since you're twenty-one, your first years of school you've been taught that way.

2. What's your point here? A Muslim is a Muslim and a Georgian is a Georgian?

You're practically telling me I'm right here. I was the one to tell you Georgian people aren't Muslims (and especially weren't during the first 1900's).

3. The phrase "Communism was his religion" was a way of telling you that during those times lots of people followed Marxism/Communism. Communism as you may know forbids every kind of Religion.

4. "bout dat" isn't exactly spelling correctly.

5. I never told you Russia lost any war. I just said that Russia is a big country today because it was easier for the Russians to expand their territory than most other European civilizations at the time, because of the fact that those territories they conquered were occupied by much inferior civilizations.

As a matter of fact, though, Russia did lose the Russo-Japanese war in 1905, losing sovereignty of Manchuria (and it railroad system) and other smaller territories.

And, of course, the USSR (of which Russia was a big part of) did lose the Cold War. This fact is accepted by almost every Western country.
The USSR lost the Aghanistan War too, in 1989. This was one of the main reasons of the collapse of the Communist Government.

Having beautiful women doesn't have anything to do with being a great country.

6. See #4.

7. You do know the Russian army killed over 300,000 Muslims civilians then, managing, being the great country it is, to lose the war.

Even if he is from a disgusting little totalitarian country.

Forgive my ignorance but what makes Canada a "little totalitarian country"?

[diddy]

first of all let me tell you, that i'm glad, that i finally speak with smart man, i like our discussion. and as i'm not very well in English - i can't tell correctly all the things that in my mind.

1. Russia has democraty for nerly 15 years already
2. muslim is muslim Geogrian is georgian, and don't tell me i'm wrong. i live here for 21 year already!
3. SmileSmile communism isn't religion. it's a political regime
4. sorry bout dat, ill try speak correct, it's my emotions
5. Russia didn't lose any war, that took part in, we have unbreakable spirit and most beautiful women
6. sorry bout dat, ill try speak correct, it's my emotions
7. i know bout afganistan, my uncle was a military surgent there

good evening!

1. Most western countries have had democracy for over two hundred+ years now.

My point was, I've always been taught history exactly how it happened, your country hid that for over seventy years, and since you're twenty-one, your first years of school you've been taught that way.

[/quote]

yeah, those as*hol*s like Lenin, Stalin, Brejnev broked our country inside, as u know Lenin was some kinda spy, and his aim was - distruckting of the present political regime - monarchy. when we had tsar (king) it was really cool for the country, but when those communists(idiots) came they broke down all system, all intellegence people were killed, and stupid village crew become on their place - worst for the country just couldn't be imagine.

2. What's your point here? A Muslim is a Muslim and a Georgian is a Georgian?

You're practically telling me I'm right here. I was the one to tell you Georgian people aren't Muslims (and especially weren't during the first 1900's).

may be, but my point was that even if the man is georgIAN he is some kinda muslim on his mind and doings

3. The phrase "Communism was his religion" was a way of telling you that during those times lots of people followed Marxism/Communism. Communism as you may know forbids every kind of Religion.

yes, it was kinda religion for some part of people, but bigger part was traditional

4. "bout dat" isn't exactly spelling correctly.

i'll consider it

5. I never told you Russia lost any war. I just said that Russia is a big country today because it was easier for the Russians to expand their territory than most other European civilizations at the time, because of the fact that those territories they conquered were occupied by much inferior civilizations.

As a matter of fact, though, Russia did lose the Russo-Japanese war in 1905, losing sovereignty of Manchuria (and it railroad system) and other smaller territories.

And, of course, the USSR (of which Russia was a big part of) did lose the Cold War. This fact is accepted by almost every Western country.
The USSR lost the Aghanistan War too, in 1989. This was one of the main reasons of the collapse of the Communist Government.

it was an american provocation

Having beautiful women doesn't have anything to do with being a great country.

but from the other hand...

6. See #4.

7. You do know the Russian army killed over 300,000 Muslims civilians then, managing, being the great country it is, to lose the war.

and what number of Russians did the muslim civilization killed ??

[Joe']

yeah, those as*hol*s like Lenin, Stalin, Brejnev broked our country inside, as u know Lenin was some kinda spy, and his aim was - distruckting of the present political regime - monarchy. when we had tsar (king) it was really cool for the country, but when those communists(idiots) came they broke down all system, all intellegence people were killed, and stupid village crew become on their place - worst for the country just couldn't be imagine.

History happens to tell it really wasn't "cool" for Russia during Nikolay II's rule.

Russia was by far technologically inferior to pretty much every other European civilization at the time of the coronation of the last Tsar (Nikolay II) and he proved unable to manage the situation, by doing terrible in the Great War and by not providing any kind of help to the Russian population that was practically starving. This was the main reason the "stupid village crew" actually supported Communism and, later on, the Bolshevik Party and Lenin.

may be, but my point was that even if the man is georgIAN he is some kinda muslim on his mind and doings

Mind getting more into it? I don't really get what you're trying to explain here.

yes, it was kinda religion for some part of people, but bigger part was traditional

How could the majority of the people be "traditional" and thus Christian if, at the time, Communism ruled the country, and forbid every kind of Religion whatsoever, sending religious people to working camps?

i'll consider it

You might want to consider capital letters, punctuation and paragraphs as well.

it was an american provocation

What are you talking about here? The Russo-Japanese War, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan or what?

and what number of Russians did the muslim civilization killed ??

The Afghan army did not kill any Russian civilians during the Soviet Invasion of Aghanistan in the 1980's. If you're talking about soldiers here, it was Russia's fault they died, it was the USSR's decision to invade Afghanistan to prove that the it was still the strongest and the best country of the world.

Unfortunately, though, truth had the best here.

[diddy]

yeah, those as*hol*s like Lenin, Stalin, Brejnev broked our country inside, as u know Lenin was some kinda spy, and his aim was - distruckting of the present political regime - monarchy. when we had tsar (king) it was really cool for the country, but when those communists(idiots) came they broke down all system, all intellegence people were killed, and stupid village crew become on their place - worst for the country just couldn't be imagine.

History happens to tell it really wasn't "cool" for Russia during Nikolay II's rule.

yeah, maybe, but people didn't understand what are the doing

Russia was by far technologically inferior to pretty much every other European civilization at the time of the coronation of the last Tsar (Nikolay II) and he proved unable to manage the situation, by doing terrible in the Great War and by not providing any kind of help to the Russian population that was practically starving. This was the main reason the "stupid village crew" actually supported Communism and, later on, the Bolshevik Party and Lenin.

Russia's backwardness form the other European countries was coused by:1. tataro-mongols, 2. napoleon, 3. revolution(it happens with 1 aim - westers coutries wanted to keep Russia weak, they was always scared that we could become the most powerfull country in the world and keep pressing us, but we stand napoleon and gitler no matter what), 4. gitler, 5. stalin and a cold war (the stupidiest leader and the stupidiest war)

may be, but my point was that even if the man is georgIAN he is some kinda muslim on his mind and doings

Mind getting more into it? I don't really get what you're trying to explain here.

/

okay, let's forget about that mess

yes, it was kinda religion for some part of people, but bigger part was traditional

How could the majority of the people be "traditional" and thus Christian if, at the time, Communism ruled the country, and forbid every kind of Religion whatsoever, sending religious people to working camps?

that was a point, communism doesn't prevented Christianism. Russians beleaved into God no matter what. even when Stalin was the head of our country peple was REAL scared, nobody couldn't say a word against him - or hi we'll be killed. even neibours was supergrassing on their neibours, that black car arrived, took man or whole family and nobody saw them ever. it was real scary times... but when at the Great War 2 Russian soldiers atacked the enemy crying " for the fatherland and for Stalin"

and we stand, that's why i told Russia - is the great country - we have the most reach language, the greatest poets - Pushkin, Lermontov, wrighters - Tolstoy, Soljenicin and more and more. and we have great history, and culture.
yeah to live he ain't easy, but Russia on the rise right now. salaries are rising, but still oldmen and young families still faces hard times.

it was an american provocation

What are you talking about here? The Russo-Japanese War, the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan or what?

[/quote]

afganistan was stupid war, Russia hasn't any interst in it. but communist desides that we need to go the, no matter that after it there were thousands of funerals and hundreds of soldiers gone mad.
and didn't u know that afganistan was supported by america, and it was another chapter of distruckting Russian empire.

and as a matter of fact we loss the Russian - Japanese war only because of 2 reasons:1. it was a revolution in moscow, 2. our main army - 1.1. mln people - was in moscow, ST. Peterburg, and on the east was only 350000. and transsibirean magestral couldn't handle more that 3 military eshelons a day.

[diddy]

Joe' i now u ask me why should europe be scare of Russia - the fack of having natural resource like oil, gas, gold, silver, diamonds, coal... and a lot of others, and the fack of wining the most powerfull army in the wold - napoleon, the battle on ladonejskoe lake agains crusaders.

[J@3]

Yeah, the rest of Europe should be scared of Russia because they apparently won a war in the 1800's.

[diddy]

Jae, man, i'm talking about past times, when Russia was on the rise!

[Joe']

yeah, maybe, but people didn't understand what are the doing

Once again: What?

Russia's backwardness form the other European countries was coused by:1. tataro-mongols, 2. napoleon, 3. revolution(it happens with 1 aim - westers coutries wanted to keep Russia weak, they was always scared that we could become the most powerfull country in the world and keep pressing us, but we stand napoleon and gitler no matter what), 4. gitler, 5. stalin and a cold war (the stupidiest leader and the stupidiest war)

I'm talking about Nikolay II's rule, that started in the late 1800's and finished with the February Revolution.

Tatar and Mongol campaigns in Russia had been over for more than 300 hundred years, Napoleon had already died more than half century ago in Saint Helena, the Revolution didn't start until early 1917 (and Western countries did not want to keep Russia weak, Russia was weak), Hitler was in diapers and the Cold War was two World Wars away, so what the hell are you talking about?

and we stand, that's why i told Russia - is the great country - we have the most reach language, the greatest poets - Pushkin, Lermontov, wrighters - Tolstoy, Soljenicin and more and more. and we have great history, and culture.

I disagree with everything you've said here, but to each his own I guess?

afganistan was stupid war, Russia hasn't any interst in it. but communist desides that we need to go the, no matter that after it there were thousands of funerals and hundreds of soldiers gone mad.
and didn't u know that afganistan was supported by america, and it was another chapter of distruckting Russian empire.

Russia did have interest in the Afghanistan War because if it would've won it would have saved the USSR's reputation. You're forgetting that Russia and "communists" were the same thing back in the day.

As for Afghanistan, first of: it wasn't a USSR vs Afghanistan kind of war. The USSR fought with the Afghan Soviet government against the opposition groups that were trying to bring it down.

Second, I didn't know the Mujahiden troops were supported by America because it is 200% not true, just bullshit created by your government to make your country look good in the eyes of the people.
It is true, though, that the United States, as well as several European countries, the Saudi Arabia and the Chinese government armed the opposition groups to help free the country from Communism.

The Afghanistan War started in 1978 (and is still ongoing as of 2007) as a civil war between the Democratic Party of Afghanistan (which was in control of the country at the time and wasn't really Democratic since it was pro-Soviet and had a de facto leader) and the Mujahiden troops of Afghanistan.

It then morphed into the "Soviet war in Afghanistan" as the USSR joined the conflict trying to demonstrate that the rumors about a nationwide crisis weren't true. We all know how it went: the USSR had to withdraw and could not hide that its government had been falling in pieces since Khrushchev's rule. Then came Gorbachev, perestroika, glasnost, blah blah blah.

Point is, nobody ever tried to disrupt the Russian Empire because no such thing ever really existed. I mean, yeah, the USSR was a military (maybe the biggest in the world at the time of the Post-War) superpower but, in my opinion, it never reached an economy nearly as strong as that of the United States or the British Empire (later Commonwealth).

And the Russian Empire (prior to the February and October Revolutions), well I think most people agree with me, was just a big piece of land.

and as a matter of fact we loss the Russian - Japanese war only because of 2 reasons:1. it was a revolution in moscow, 2. our main army - 1.1. mln people - was in moscow, ST. Peterburg, and on the east was only 350000. and transsibirean magestral couldn't handle more that 3 military eshelons a day.

The revolution didn't start until early January 1905, and as of December 1904, the Russian Army had already lost 10 of the 16 decisive battles of the Russo-Japanese war. In fact, the 1905 campaign lasted only a fraction that of 1904.

As for the size of the army: while it's true, the Russian Army wasn't at its full during the battles of the Russo-Japanese war, Japan's army was the same size (or smaller) than that of Russia.

Joe' i now u ask me why should europe be scare of Russia - the fack of having natural resource like oil, gas, gold, silver, diamonds, coal... and a lot of others, and the fack of wining the most powerfull army in the wold - napoleon, the battle on ladonejskoe lake agains crusaders.

Western Europe is and never was scared of Russia. The fact that you have an enormous number of natural resources doesn't scare us because a) you still don't have the technology to make the most out of it, and b) your currency is worth more than thirty times less than ours, so we can buy your goods with a really small fraction of what it would costs us to buy it from another European country.

The fact of winning against the La Grande Armeé is irrelevant now because a) It was two-hundred years ago, for crying out loud! Times have changed, b) The Russian Army was really helped by the vast territories and the extremely cold weather of Russia. In normal circumstances, the French Army would've wiped it off the map in no time, and c) Unlike you (so it seems), we don't plan to fight another War, especially in the times we're living in right now, where a "simple" War could turn into the extinction of the whole human population.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread, I'm going way off-topic, I just wasted ten minutes of my time writing this and I can't help but start feeling like a doctor trying to explain to an immigrant, long-time alcoholic that drinking is bad for his liver.

[el badman]

Second, I didn't know the Mujahiden troops were supported by America because it is 200% not true, just bullshit created by your government to make your country look good in the eyes of the people.

It is true, though, that the United States, as well as several European countries, the Saudi Arabia and the Chinese government armed the opposition groups to help free the country from Communism.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? Providing weapons and training means "supporting" in my world.

I can't help but start feeling like a doctor trying to explain to an immigrant, long-time alcoholic that drinking is bad for his liver.

Just because he's trying to defend how he feels his country should be valued doesn't give you the right to be all high and mighty on him.

[Joe']

Aren't you contradicting yourself? Providing weapons and training means "supporting" in my world.

Supporting means more than just selling weapons; Supporting, in my opinion, means going to the battle field, providing troops. It means the war would've been US+Europe+Saudi Arabia+Mujahideen vs Afghanistan+USSR.

[el badman]

Supporting means more than just selling weapons; Supporting, in my opinion, means going to the battle field, providing troops. It means the war would've been US+Europe+Saudi Arabia+Mujahideen vs Afghanistan+USSR.

Well, it's up to personal interpretation, but I think most people will consider that as long as you have anything to do with one of the belligerents (financing, weapons, training, military consulting,...), you're supporting their cause, even if you don't actually send troops in the conflict.

Last edited by el badman on Fri Jan 18, 2008 5:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

[Drex]

We're discussing religion AND politics now? Damn, this will last forever

[diddy]

el badman, thanks man, glad that u understand me!

Joe' i'm shocked, u' re just like American government - we can talk bout support EVEn if was traded 1 box of weapone, providing troops - is already participating.

i'm sorry, but u're not a Russian and u will never understand what is the real matter in comunism for russian man, and don't be disagree - it's just waisting my time to explain that the feelings means more than facts.

The revolution didn't start until early January 1905, and as of December 1904, the Russian Army had already lost 10 of the 16 decisive battles of the Russo-Japanese war. In fact, the 1905 campaign lasted only a fraction that of 1904.

As for the size of the army: while it's true, the Russian Army wasn't at its full during the battles of the Russo-Japanese war, Japan's army was the same size (or smaller) than that of Russia.

as i thought u didn't know - Russia has a LOT of revolutions!

Second, I didn't know the Mujahiden troops were supported by America because it is 200% not true, just bullshit created by your government to make your country look good in the eyes of the people.

believe me it's true

It is true, though, that the United States, as well as several European countries, the Saudi Arabia and the Chinese government armed the opposition groups to help free the country from Communism.

u tell it by your selve! they were supported!

u know, i don't want to discuss this subject with u, it become real stupid, cuz the man, who lives in Russia trying to explain the historical facts of his own country to somebody, who lives only-hell-knows-where-apart-from-Russia and doesn't understand that giving money and weapons to the opposing country in the war-time is a kind of support!
i'm shocked!

[J@3]

I'm with Joe on this, he clearly knows what he's talking about and while we could argue forever about what constitutes "supporting" someone, the fact is he knows his history and he's constantly presenting facts and such whereas Diddy just seems to degernate into rambling with the only real evidence to back up what he says being that he lives in Russia. That means nothing. There are people who live in Thailand that know more about Australian history than I do. I just find it sad that the only point you've been able to pick on is that you are interpreting buying weapons as supporting a war effort. It isn't a strong argument.

[el badman]

I'm with Joe on this, he clearly knows what he's talking about and while we could argue forever about what constitutes "supporting" someone, the fact is he knows his history and he's constantly presenting facts and such whereas Diddy just seems to degernate into rambling with the only real evidence to back up what he says being that he lives in Russia. That means nothing. There are people who live in Thailand that know more about Australian history than I do. I just find it sad that the only point you've been able to pick on is that you are interpreting buying weapons as supporting a war effort. It isn't a strong argument.

I don't deny that he knows his history, but that has nothing to do with common sense. Saying that selling weapons to a particular belligerent in a midst of a conflict is not "supporting" their cause is simply outrageous. I don't care which is a great country and which is not, that means nothing anyway, I just think that any kind of action in a war should be considered, not disregarded.

[Joe']

i'm shocked, u' re just like American government - we can talk bout support EVEn if was traded 1 box of weapone, providing troops - is already participating.

How original, a Russian insulting the American Government. You should really start opening your eyes and look at your own damn country's governments (past and present).

Let's just put it this way, everybody is entitled to his own damn opinion, you have an opinion on something, I can disagree.

You think Russia has been and is a great country, I disagree, just as I disagree on the fact that selling weapons to nations in war is supporting its cause.

I just think it's business: Most European countries and the United States themselves sell weapons to African tribes in war, does that mean they support their cause? No, it's just a great chance to make good money.

i'm sorry, but u're not a Russian and u will never understand what is the real matter in comunism for russian man, and don't be disagree - it's just waisting my time to explain that the feelings means more than facts.

And you explained that in your posts? All I really got is that Russian kids are taught Russia is and has always been a great country, and that the Communists are at fault for everything bad that's happened to it.

I'm sorry, I might agree on the fact that Russia could turn out to be a great country someday and that the Soviet Union harmed the Russian people, but I disagree on this.

Also, great countries aren't determined by its people's feelings, especially if those feelings include extreme nationalism.

The revolution didn't start until early January 1905, and as of December 1904, the Russian Army had already lost 10 of the 16 decisive battles of the Russo-Japanese war. In fact, the 1905 campaign lasted only a fraction that of 1904.

As for the size of the army: while it's true, the Russian Army wasn't at its full during the battles of the Russo-Japanese war, Japan's army was the same size (or smaller) than that of Russia.

as i thought u didn't know - Russia has a LOT of revolutions!

Only one Revolution took place during the Russo-Japanese War and that's the Russian Revolution of 1905, that started in early January, 1905.

As I said, by then, the Russian Army had already lost 10 of the decisive 16 battles of the War.

believe me it's true

And you're so sure how?

u know, i don't want to discuss this subject with u, it become real stupid, cuz the man, who lives in Russia trying to explain the historical facts of his own country to somebody, who lives only-hell-knows-where-apart-from-Russia and doesn't understand that giving money and weapons to the opposing country in the war-time is a kind of support!
i'm shocked!

You're not trying to explain historical facts, you're actually bending history, creating this whole fairy tale where Russia is the best country in the world. That is not reality, my friend.

Your country has affected my native country in many (negative) ways, so we know just about as much as you do (actually more I'd say, since we don't bend reality and/or history) about your country.

As I said before, everyone is entitled to his own opinion, my opinion is that giving/selling weapons to a country in war-time could be because of a more economic reason.

You're shocked? I'm the one that's shocked that Russia still hides history as it happened and keeps fooling its own people.

[J@3]

I don't deny that he knows his history, but that has nothing to do with common sense. Saying that selling weapons to a particular belligerent in a midst of a conflict is not "supporting" their cause is simply outrageous.

I think to call it outrageous is outrageous itself... if a nation gives weapons or whatever, they doesn't mean they support the "cause", it could mean anything... they might have their own agenda, they might have an agenda against whoever the particular country is fighting with, they might just flat out want to suck up to a country who has something they want. Obviously if they give weapons or money or anything they are supporting that nation, but that doesn't mean they're supporting the cause aswell. They are two independent things.

[el badman]

Don't know what to say to that...I guess I'll leave it at that, there's some radically different points of view here.

[Ty-Land]

I don't deny that he knows his history, but that has nothing to do with common sense. Saying that selling weapons to a particular belligerent in a midst of a conflict is not "supporting" their cause is simply outrageous.

I think to call it outrageous is outrageous itself... if a nation gives weapons or whatever, they doesn't mean they support the "cause", it could mean anything... they might have their own agenda, they might have an agenda against whoever the particular country is fighting with, they might just flat out want to suck up to a country who has something they want. Obviously if they give weapons or money or anything they are supporting that nation, but that doesn't mean they're supporting the cause aswell. They are two independent things.

It is purely circumstantial. The American weapons provided to Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion was support for their cause, cause both nations held a common interest in seeing the Communists defeated. America wasn't providing weapons and other resources purely for economic reasons, there was strategic gains to be made in the Cold War environment if the Mujahadin were victorious.

This example is different to say the recent sales of MiG jets to Syria by Russia. This (seemingly at present) seems to be motivated by economics. The Russians don't appear to be supporting Syria's strengthening of position against Israel and the 'West' (even though this very relationship existed between the USSR and Syria/UAR in the 60's and 70's).

Therefore, I think the parties intentions in combination to the surrounding circumstances need to be analysed and considered when determining whether nations are merely providing weapons or supporting the cause.

[J@3]

Therefore, I think the parties intentions in combination to the surrounding circumstances need to be analysed and considered when determining whether nations are merely providing weapons or supporting the cause.

That's a much smarter version of what I was trying to say.

Don't know what to say to that

Save your supercilious bullshit for someone else, seriously.

[benji]

I don't know if economics is the motivation for Russia (One of the G8 countries after all! I'll ignore they just whined until they got in...) to re-establish its influence in the region. I think it could be a side benefit of that re-establishment of influence. (Not that Russia has ever loved Israel or Jews, let alone the West.)

The Soviets certainly loved selling to the Middle East for the money, but they also liked the influence it gave them. They've been basically ignored in world affairs since the USSR broke up (ignored on Iraq aside from trying to avoid their UN veto, for example, despite having been it's number one military trade partner), I assume they want attention again on things like Iran (who they have also recently increased material support for), etc.

The Afghani resistance was hardly an ideologically homogenious group, as evidenced by it's post-war break up into the various warlords. But I don't see how it can be said the US was not supporting the cause of defeating the Soviets in one of many proxy wars. Any other cause, such as having Muslims murder Russians (the original discussion?) was likely unimportant to or ignored by the Western realists.

[el badman]

Quote:
Therefore, I think the parties intentions in combination to the surrounding circumstances need to be analysed and considered when determining whether nations are merely providing weapons or supporting the cause.


That's a much smarter version of what I was trying to say.

Fair enough, I get what you meant.
I still believe that any type of intervention during a war can be eventually interpreted as "supporting", whether or not it's about sharing the same ideas or for purely economic reasons, since it does affects the outcome in some way. But I see your point.

[Ty-Land]

I don't know if economics is the motivation for Russia (One of the G8 countries after all! I'll ignore they just whined until they got in...) to re-establish its influence in the region. I think it could be a side benefit of that re-establishment of influence. (Not that Russia has ever loved Israel or Jews, let alone the West.)

The Soviets certainly loved selling to the Middle East for the money, but they also liked the influence it gave them. They've been basically ignored in world affairs since the USSR broke up (ignored on Iraq aside from trying to avoid their UN veto, for example, despite having been it's number one military trade partner), I assume they want attention again on things like Iran (who they have also recently increased material support for), etc.

The notion of influence in the Middle East is an interesting one. The Russians have always had a desire to be power players in that particular region, going back several centuries. As soon as I read it, I saw that possibility of reasserting some power in that theatre as a blatantly obvious justification for some of their recent foreign policy maneuvers.

The economic reason I proposed was based on the amount of money Russia had gained from Syria thanks to this arms deal. It was a significant amount by memory, and involved a large number of aircraft.

Either way, the re-establishment of influence in the Middle East and, in general, on an international level combined with the economic gains ascertained from such an agreement still suggest that Russia is making such moves for their own incentives rather than supporting the goals of the Syrian government in regards to the region and Israel.