Comments by "" (@johnnotrealname8168) on "GDF" channel.

  1.  @Gundamguy-py3ir  I used "they" for N.A.T.O. and "them" for Russia.
    2
  2. We already have a taste. The communists were willing to turn these countries into third-world @#£%holes, in Afghanistan the soviets themselves murdered a million civilians, maimed a million more and turned millions more into exiles and refugees, in Ethiopia they supported a regime that murdered half a million, they aided Idi Amin Dada Oumee directly and this is leaving aside Cambodia which they want to conveniently shunt from responsibility when the vietcong used the khmer rouge and vice-versa. That they can get away with it shows how up front America is with it's own crimes and how vile a regime they faced.
    1
  3. The soviet-Afghan War was not provoked by the Americans. Did he claim the C.I.A. was meeting with the leader of Afghanistan or something? If so, so what? If not (Which is true, the leader was a committed communist.) then the soviets as usual were @~?£s!
    1
  4. @sentientnatalie  Yeah but so did commie states. Russia is not capitalist either. In the 20th Century this argument fails miserably.
    1
  5. This is just soviet propaganda. They overthrew the Afghan government twice, invaded the country and are butthurt. Oh and you murdered a million civilians.
    1
  6.  @average_peanut_fan3059  The Tories were on the Irish side during An Drochshaol (1845-1852).
    1
  7. This is actually facetious. The British negotiated in...1973. Look up the Sunningdale Agreement which included a Council of Ireland and more. The British believe it or not were not that bothered by an United Ireland but they wished for the consent of the North and indeed propped up the North often. It was actually the Irish state that torpedoed a proposal to give Northern-Ireland independence!
    1
  8.  @lnfinite_Mind  The bit that always tickles my feathers is the soviet-union (Through commie Poland.) suppressing an independent Trade-Union while STIFLES LAUGHTER the Central Intelligence Agency was sending posters, banned books and other paraphernalia to support this budding opposition party. However yes, the working class must be suppre...I mean supported.
    1
  9.  @PrekiFromPoland  Ah yes the u.s.s.r. (Okay fine their colony of Poland.), claiming to protect workers but declaring martial law when they dare form an independent union, AH YES!
    1
  10.  @lnfinite_Mind  Often they did not have the bare necessities. The u.s.s.r. had worse health statistics than America!
    1
  11.  @VictoryLlama  You think the British Army in 1969 wanted to invade Ireland?
    1
  12.  @geoffrayylmao  Why is East-Timor not in control of all of Timor? Government of Ireland Act (1920).
    1
  13.  @VictoryLlama  I think you mean the Easter Rising (1916) and the British Army was already there.
    1
  14. Half of this @~?£ has been public knowledge since the '70s.
    1
  15. It was not. Stop making things up. Actually read history!
    1
  16. @OneInTheMosh  Maybe, however it can give a one-sided perception of it. The Americans did bad thing? Sure but they did bad thing because other side was Edit2: "busy" threatening literally everywhere on Edit: Earth.
    1
  17.  @OneInTheMosh  What?
    1
  18.  @OneInTheMosh  No.
    1
  19.  @abderahmandj3845_muslim  Iraq is a free country with a democratic state and for @~?£'s sake there are no roaming death squads! You see many Kurds being murdered? Oh wait what is that the Americans were protecting them in the '90s with a no-fly zone?
    1
  20.  @serdirtbagoftheleft4045  It is called deterrence.
    1
  21.  @keeshans5768  You commit the same error as many others in this thread of not reading what he wrote. He is writing that in the stand-off between the North-Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance (Mainly around the United States of America-Union of Soviet Socialist Republics axis.), the use of nuclear weapons is guaranteed by the doctrines of both blocs (This was indeed the case by the way.). His claim is specific to this situation and not others. For example World War I without nuclear weapons is a hot war and so is any other. The term Cold War is used in reference to the fact that both powers never engaged in that world-ending struggle because the trade-off (Mutual annihilation.) was not worth the gain (Rolling through Moscow or maybe Paris or something.). In fact the reason they wanted to fight is not because of nuclear weapons or their big armies but they built up nuclear weapons and armies to fight as a result of the profound ideological and geo-political tensions between the two.
    1
  22. No offence but when? Vietnam was definitely not out of mind in the '60s and '70s and there were protests, minor as they were comparatively, about America's foreign adventures...I wonder why there were none in the soviet union.
    1
  23.  @sbreheny  Yeah but much of England has lost manufacturing too.
    1
  24.  @DiegoLinares-m1r  You do realise even the provisional Irish Republican Army rejects this line of thinking right?
    1
  25.  @danilm5578 This statement makes zero sense given that the communists were also doing the same (Look at Eastern-Europe for @~?£'s sake.) and worse.
    1
  26. This guy is an America hater. America won Iraq people.
    1
  27.  @burnyourhabitat  They...they did not do that willingly you idiot. Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev was largely left out of discussions for independence and it was because he failed to reform (Plus he sort of sent tanks to suppress independence movements in Estonia and Georgia.), remember Gorbachev was a communist who sought to make the communist system work not a Capitalist. Secondly, the Americans were going to give the Filipinos independence at that date anyway since they had been planning it for a decade. The law was called Philippine Independence Act (1934) and planned for an independence date I guess twelve years later.
    1
  28.  @burnyourhabitat  Bruh! McCarthyism was not wrong by it's foundational premise! There were soviet agents in the U.S. government and the U.S. knew that but were smart enough not to reveal that. For all the badgering about that the worst thing Joseph Raymond McCarthy did was detract through his @#£%ty antics the real threat of communist subversion!
    1
  29. There is little evidence of the first one. The U.S. condemned Edit: "Pakistan" at the United Nations and the senate blocked arms shipments however President Richard Milhous Nixon may have sent some during the war. Ehhh, not really. The U.S. was not supportive of Southern-African regimes and I think they should have been by the way (Well except for South-Africa.). They should have stayed for longer.
    1
  30.  @socire72  You really actually just wrote that it is muh nutsis? He took grain and forced people in, the British at least let people out. The claim has never been made that the famine was only in Ukraine but forced collectivisation exacerbated it too.
    1
  31. Which is why Ronald Wilson Reagan was a great man.
    1
  32. So we are congratulating them for not killing more people?
    1
  33.  @8is  I knew the Tatars were exiled, even though they were overwhelmingly loyal by the way, but I did not know the Chechens were.
    1
  34.  @8is  WoW! That is WoW!
    1
  35.  @peenus5120  Why did the soviets murder a million civilians then?
    1
  36.  @peenus5120  The soviets invaded, murdered the leader of Afghanistan and took over the administration of Afghanistan and murdered a million civilians. I am glad that was covered. Korea was an invasion of the South by the North (Also good to know you lost suck on that.), Vietnam was not anti-colonialism unless you mean the Indochina War but that was a fight against the communist aggressors. The U.S. up to that point were not pro-French there. Angola? You mean when there was a civil-war? You crazy? Yes, the Americans supported the Cuban revolution in 1959...it was stupid.
    1
  37.  @dwbsovran  No, I imagine they were not.
    1
  38.  @atlashammercock9582 No, they hid. That makes no sense. You cannot be a civilian and vietcong.
    1
  39.  @sentientnatalie  It has little to do with the size of the military, although it is true Counter-Insurgencies require more manpower. There are force-multipliers like helicopters (Very useful.) but the population is the target so protecting them in essence is the job. If you do not, then you will lose (Unless your force-multipliers are really good wherein you can get a political victory.). Also it has nothing to do with Empires, countries today do it such as Iraq.
    1
  40. @sentientnatalie  Post-Iraq War Iraq was supported by a Coalition of countries that helped establish it. Dude, this is not the best example to espouse this @#£% about Empire. Iraq was free for the first time ever. The Kurds for goodness sake were able to live without fear of genocide. Of course more trouble came. In any case Iraq has a democratically-elected leadership which sides with Iran a lot.
    1
  41.  @sentientnatalie  They are a free and independent people, they do not need me to say that. What? It was certainly aided by the stupidity of the Iraqi government after the Americans left, treating sunnis mighty well, but extremism was already in the country from syria which had nothing to do with the West. Sure, they are not great but nowhere near as bad as our Iraqi hero. Yes, exactly. Iraq, a majority shia country, decides to be close to their shia neighbour. Not quite American Empire is it? Stopping a genocidal tyrant is an acceptable use of imperialism if that is what you will call it.
    1
  42. @kamarovcliffordsky3458  No, it is not. It is because communists claim they can give more than they can. Inevitably they fail, just shut up about class consciousness, commie countries exploited plenty.
    1
  43.  @kamarovcliffordsky3458 Russia was the fastest industrial nation in the world but notably it was not yet as industrial as Germany. Everyone thought Germany or Britain was ripe for revolution but it happened in Russia because Karl Marx was an idiot. Also many of the reforms the soviets promised the Tsardom already enacted, just too late to save them clearly.
    1
  44.  @kamarovcliffordsky3458  Yeah, this is exactly why America opposed the soviets.
    1
  45.  @kamarovcliffordsky3458  It is though. Russia was industrialising with capital investment from France, her ally. Of course it resulted in labour agitation but Russia was still a very agricultural country compared to Germany or Britain.
    1
  46. I disagree. Mutually Assured Destruction is MAD so instead there needs to be a way of countering that threat.
    1
  47. It was not a genocide. It was idiotic policy and a grievance alright but bear in mind that whilst the Liberal Party were tossers the Tories were sympathetic to the Irish.
    1
  48. Bruh! Your country is so lucky to have an ideology that basically allows you to not defend what America does.
    1
  49.  @n8zog584  The Americans were the only successful ones.
    1
  50. @kravan5063  The Germans were not capable of making nuclear weapons. The fear may have been legitimate at the time but there is no way they could have built it.
    1