From: alexander koryagin
Hi, Anatoliy Kovalenko!
I read your message from 06.05.2013 07:29
ak>> As for attacking America IMHO it is nonsense. No reason.
AK> Do you think there is a reason in ANY war? It's only in prehistoric
AK> times that the guys from one tribe attacked another tribe to get
AK> their women as wives and men as slaves :)
Your are mistaken. There is no war without the reason. and reason are
always seen well. For instance, a war is very probable when we have a
rich, insolent country which is armed to the teeth and spits on
international community. We saw it perfectly well at the end of 1930s.
If, in addition, it is a racist country and it has a doctrine to widen
its living space - a war is inevitable. But the North Korea is not such
a state. As in a very closed society it looks like a sick, blind person
surrounded by hostile cries. Such a paranoia is understandable and not
very dangerous if aggressors do not cross the line.
But look, for instance, at Israel - its paranoia is more dangerous
and fraught with consequences to all the world. Just look what they have
done a few days ago -- they thought that Iran sent rockets via Iraq and
Syria to Lebanon. It was enough for killing hundreds of Syrian people.
No remorse. Israel hasn't even shown any proof that those rockets really
existed. It didn't show any justification for this terrific mass murder,
just because it doesn't consider people around the world worthy to be
presented with any proof.
AK> the newspapers. All the "reasons" of wars that they talk about on a
AK> TV are fake, most of us will never know the real reasons of the
AK> things that happen in this world.
I just told that Russia and the North Korea have no reason for waging
a war. There are no gains that can be riched if they wage a war first.
ak>> But the West works hard to get rid itself off from dependency on
ak>> Russian, Iran and other nations oil.
AK> Are you serious? They have IT ALL, oil, gas, coal. Everything is in
AK> working state but conserved and waits for the right time. There is
The idea is simple -- nobody knows what will be in the future. But
for the West countries it is necessary to have _now_ a mighty weapon
against the countries I mentioned above. That's why it is important for
them to invent ways which will allow them to plunge down oil, natural
gas prices, for instance. It is as an effective weapon as hundreds
H-bombs. Actually such a weapon had been already used against the USSR.
ak>> bloodless. I can remind that only several people were killed
ak>> during the capture of power in October Revolution in 1917.
AK> I don't think "several" is a good word here. I don't even mention
AK> the rivers of bood that appeared after the revolution happened and
AK> continued though the years.
Well, the rives of blood are on the conscience of Western countries.
The situation is very similar that is in Syria now. Many countries for
some reason want to overthrown the government they don't like. Amount of
blood in this country doesn't matter at all. That's how an enormous
amount of money and weapon flowed into Russia after the revolution 1917.
That's why the rivers of blood flowed.
AK> Maybe in the soviet histroy books they write that the reds came and
AK> said "hi, we are the new government since now" and the whites said
AK> "ok, ok, we give up, just don't kill us", and all the people were
AK> happily screaming "we are very happy with the new government".
Without the western (the Entente's) "help" rivers of blood would not
have flowed in Russia. That revolution was not a business of a small
group of people. The situation in the country itself paved the way to
such an outcome. And if the West was more clever it would have
understood that financing resistance will bring just rivers of blood but
not a restoration of former order, hated by majority of people (the main
cause of revolution).
AK> But everyone knows that a soviet history book looks more like a
AK> book of fairy tales :) It was the times when a man could be simply
AK> executed and killed without a possibility to explain anything just
AK> because he had a windmill in a village and worked hard on it to
AK> produce bread - this is a really hard work - and of course he was
AK> richer than other neighbours who didn't do so much work and had
AK> little money. Lots of people lost their family businesses, were
AK> killed or sent to the places where they died of hunger or horrible
AK> living conditions. We cannot say "several people were killed". A
AK> lot of people were killed, we don't know about them, some of them
AK> were good, some of them were bad, but there were many of them.
All books are useless if we accept them without thinking. Atrocities
of so called "White" army is also well known. However, "White"
historians prefer not to tell about them. Probably, any Civil war cannot
be without such things. That's why it is a crime to wage such a war, or
to help it, as do many countries today in relation to Syria's civil war.
In other words we see two bright examples - the successful Red Coup
in 1917 and the botched White Coup in 1918. The first one is example how
to do a coup correctly, when the country is ready for a revolution and
people eager for changes. The second one -- how to spill rivers of blood
trying to impose the will of the minority.
Bye, Anatoliy!
Alexander Koryagin
fido7.english-tutor 2013
--- ifmail v.2.15dev5.4
* Origin: NPO RUSnet InterNetNews site (2:5020/400)
|
