gdy

37 ms·

481.
by gdy 6y ago
Have you actually read the content?
482.
by gdy 6y ago
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. The fact is that the USSR and Germany signed a non-aggression pact, not a treaty of alliance. You can read the text [0] yourself and see that there is nothing resembling a war
483.
by gdy 6y ago
I suppose you would've preferred to be an American pilot dropping nuclear bombs on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
484.
by gdy 6y ago
"Would it be possible if there was only one front?" The second front was opened only in 1944 when the outcome of the war was clear. "Truth should be respected." The truth clearly isn't respected in the West. You cou
485.
by gdy 6y ago
You are not making sense. Nothing in what you have written has any relation to your statement: "In Russia it is believed that after taking Berlin soldiers should have fought Allies".
486.
by gdy 6y ago
"between 1939 and 1941 Russia and Germany had an accord and were allies" That's false. Russia and Germany had a non-aggression pact. Also you should read about the Munich Agreement[0], that preceded the Molotov-Ribbentrop pac
487.
by gdy 6y ago
"Then they would certainly beat Japan by themself - it is just an island." Why not? It took the USSR only 11 days to defeat the Kwantung Army (0.7 million soldiers) in the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation. [0] [0] https:&
488.
by gdy 6y ago
"In Russia it is believed that after taking Berlin soldiers should have fought Allies." [Citation needed]
489.
by gdy 6y ago
"They believe USSR won WW2 by itself" Considering that about 80% of German losses happened on the Eastern front, this isn't far from the truth. Meanwhile, the White House claims that the war was won by the US and the GB [0].
490.
by gdy 6y ago
I don't understand why you are redefining a call for ostracism as "deciding who your friends are" and then classify ostracism as "the opposite of harassment". This pretty much looks like harassment to me: "the
491.
by gdy 6y ago
I find your argument to be quite disingenuous considering that the intention of the ostracism it to harm by denying job opportunities and by exclusion from social relations. Have some decency to call your actions what they are. If you want
492.
by gdy 6y ago
"to what extent are they actually being used for good? Stuxnet is the clearest example I know of these tools almost certainly decreasing a threat to US citizens" By this logic an equally good use would be to sabotage American mili
493.
by gdy 6y ago
Kardashians have many more followers and are successfully engaging their audiences. Their posts must be really smart.
494.
by gdy 6y ago
It also lists Chechen terrorists. The same kind of list for the US would include thousands of people killed by drone strikes.
495.
by gdy 6y ago
"FSB is men who regularly drink vodka" And have a pet bear that plays balalayka.
496.
by gdy 6y ago
Dissenters? Skripal is a former GRU traitor.
497.
by gdy 6y ago
And who gets to decide what is 'better'?
498.
by gdy 6y ago
That wasn't pointing a bias out, that was just an unsubstantiated statement. The rest in your comment is just your perception and projection of your perception.
499.
by gdy 6y ago
It probably doesn't.
500.
by gdy 6y ago
Just wait until someone you love gets murdered or maimed.
501.
by gdy 6y ago
"There's a good reason why those became uncommon" Oh, right, now I know the purpose of 11 supercarrier groups. Pirates. "But it's hard to tell how each state actor would behave if they treated their nearby internati
502.
by gdy 6y ago
"Consider the annexation of Crimea. That's what happens in a power vacuum" Yeah, let's consider it. It's a direct response to the US-sponsored coup in the Ukraine and the threat of NATO expansion into Ukraine. The C
503.
by gdy 6y ago
"there's also governments that could threaten blockades or charge steep fares to pass by. Check out this map and consider how many ships are passing by China, the Middle East, and Africa" That's ironic considering that i
504.
by gdy 6y ago
No, this means that your entire military industrial complex is geared towards offensive wars on the other side of the globe. Russia has no such goals.
505.
by gdy 6y ago
"Russia and China will be able to continue to threaten us" Really? Russia and China threaten you? How?
506.
by gdy 6y ago
"no other country is providing global free trade" Who is threatening global free trade? Pirates? Are they why the US needs eleven supercarriers?
507.
by gdy 6y ago
Congrats from Russia! That was awesome.
508.
by gdy 6y ago
I don't know much but perhaps this link could give you a starting point. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-air-force-bein...
509.
by gdy 6y ago
Yep, China has already figured out how to work with its Muslim minority.
510.
by gdy 6y ago
I don't think China will forgive or forget this and other American efforts to stifle its technological development. Does the US really want to antagonize 1.5 billion people?

More ›