Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

Oh and Kikapu, while we are at it, you forgot to mention the Falklands War.

let's look at it now shall we. There were 2 sides - Argentina Vs UK.

Ronald Reagan, was on Argentina's side. in fact, Reagan and Thatcher were at blows because the US was in support of the Argentine Junta and the National Reorginisation Process.

And it wasn't only the US supporting the Argentines. France was very much in bed with the Argentines.

hence why Australia and Canada never entered the conflict, despite the UK War Cabinet trying to get Australia and Canada to enter the war. The US however, had far greater influence and power over Australia and Canada and in the end they stayed out.

So who was on the right side of History?

Argentina with its CIA backers? Or UK?

Bit of a no win there...

USA gave the UK 100 sidewinders to help win the war against Argentina, therefore USA was not neutral at all.

But since we are in the Americas, USA did many dirty plays in helping depose many of the left wing presidents freely elected in many countries in support of Right wing dictators, where thousands of people were murdered in central and South American countries.

UK would have contracts for those missiles and can also build them under lucence - plus they had another 7000 of them so its not as if they needed the missiles.

The UK aksed for Australia to send its Aircraft carrier HMAS Melbournme. RTeagan, callked Fraser and gave Australia an ultimatum that if this occured, there would be consequences for Australia and the ANZUS Alliance. In other words, it was a threat. Australia was also more pre-occupied with its external territories in Antarctica and wanted to get along with the Junta and they even shared borders and an EEZ.

The US and France were sending aid and weapons to Argentina worth Billions.

Reagan and Thatcher were at blows and not even on speaking terms at the time over this matter.

The Argentine Junta was a staunch US and French ally.

Reagan was pissed off that the UK would go to war with Argentina which had a US Sponsored or supported Military Dictatorship or Junta.

So the question remains! Who was on the right side of history? UK or US/France? You should try answering the question for a change! Someone has to be on the right side of history. Who is it? US or UK. They were not together. The UK decided to wage war against a US puppet and the US wasn't happy about it.

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... at-us-knew

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/ ... entina.usa

The United States provided military assistance to the junta and, at the start of the Dirty War, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger gave them a "green light" to engage in political repression of real or perceived opponents.

The US Congress approved a request by the Ford Administration, to grant $50,000,000 in security assistance to the junta. In 1977 and 1978 the United States sold more than $120,000,000 in spare military parts to Argentina, and in 1977 the US Department of Defense granted $700,000 to train 217 Argentine military officers.

In 1978, president Jimmy Carter secured a congressional cutoff of all US arms transfers for the human rights violations.
Viola met with Ronald Reagan and Argentine Ambassador Jorge A. Aja Espil at the White House on March 17, 1981.

American-Argentine relations improved dramatically with Ronald Reagan, which asserted that the previous Carter Administration had weakened US diplomatic relationships with Cold War allies in Argentina, and reversed the previous administration's official condemnation of the junta's human rights practices. However, relations soured after the U.S. supported the United Kingdom in the Falkland Wars.

The re-establishment of diplomatic ties allowed for CIA collaboration with the Argentine intelligence service in arming and training the Nicaraguan Contras against the Sandinista government. Argentina also provided security advisors, intelligence training and some material support to forces in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras to suppress local rebel groups as part of a U.S.-sponsored program called Operation Charly.

[Pyrpolizer]

Amazing interview with Andrei Martyanov. Warning: Not suitable for IQ < 0

[Kikapu]

If America did what Ruzzia is doing, it will be condemned and it will face the wrath of the international community and rightfully so I may add. But thankfully, America isn't like that at all. On the contrary. They have always been on the right side of history.
..

Sorry to disappoint you Paphitis, but America and the West in general has been on the wrong side of history for centuries.

But let’s not go so back and just stay with times since the WWII starting with the destruction of Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria and a few more.

So now Russia is in their crosshairs. This may not end well either for those pushing for this war in Ukraine with Russia! This kind of war is not Russia’s first Rodeo as they have proven throughout history to have the durability to fight at any cost, especially when it comes to protecting mother Russia.

I have a friend in San Francisco who was drafted to go to Vietnam and once he served his tour (sounds like a vacation, doesn’t it?) he never went back again, but some from his unit voluntarily went back for another 2-3 tours. When I asked him why would they do that, his answer was very chilling. He said, because they loved to kill. Yes, the killings of Vietnamese, and not necessarily killing those in battle with the enemy. Many indiscriminate killings of ordinary citizens too because of no accountability. So, what repercussions did the US faced from the world for committing such atrocities? What about in Iraq where hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis were killed? The list goes on my friend. NATO and the collective West are never held accountable to all the atrocities they have committed in the past, present or in the future. Those are the facts.

PBS America (Public Broadcasting Service) makes wonderful unbiased documentaries of major events and topics. Try to watch the ones on Vietnam which is covered very extensively. No doubt the war in Ukraine will be presented sometime in the future where facts will be shown as well as the misinformation and propaganda.

Gosh Kikapu, but did you make all hat up much???

I'm so sorry but the west hasn't been on the wrong side of history.

Japan - the US was part of the alliance that was defending against the AXIS. Albeit a late entrant into the war, as a result of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour. Otherwise, the Americans were actually quite happy to sit the war out. Luckily for us though, they didn't sit it out and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour was a big strategic mistake because the US contributed a great deal to the defeat of both Germany, and Japan. Right side of history.

As for Vietnam. This war was kicking along for 10 years before America and Australia got involved. the reason why they entered the war was because of the Soviet Union's influence on North Vietnam. France, Australia and US entered the war to defend South Vietnam from North Vietnamese attack.

No soldier relishes killing anyone. In fact, most soldiers close their eyes the first time they squeeze the trigger knowing that they are about to kill someone. And it doesn't get easier after that neither. Soldiers just get desensitized to it, but it isn't a task any particularly enjoy or relish. Unless of course they are part of the 2% of sociopathic individuals who are incapable of empathy. The vast majority however (98%) do not fall in that category.

Secondly, Australian and US soldiers were drafted to go to Vietnam. There was no choice. And the vast majority of deployed soldiers never saw combat or killed anyone. In western military doctrine, for every 1 soldier at the front lines or in a combat role, there are at least 5 supporting soldiers behind in a logistical role. Cooks, Medics, Logistics and so on. So for every 100 deployed soldiers, only 20 are combat soldiers. They 80 will never see combat or kill anyone. Ruzzia is different, hence why they are losing. For every 1 combat soldier, there is just 1 in support. hence, nearly non existent logistics. no food for the soldiers, or field hospitals, and this is the reason why they are losing. Logistics wins wars.

Secondly, Australian and US Soldiers, who served in Vietnam are entitled to a lifetime pension. This is tax free, and they can continue to work with their pensions unnafected and not counting towards their income tax. Those who returned for a second tour and a third tour, in the main part had no choice in the matter. Especially fnthey were specialists like a Seal, SAS, Pilots, Medics, Doctors, Engineers and so on and so on.

As for the combat soldiers, well not many wanted to go back. Vietnam wasn't fun for them - on patrol through dense tropical jungles and an enemy that can appear from anywhere. Yes they killed - mainly the enemy VC they were fighting in support of the South Vietnamese Military. Right side of history.

Iraq - well they invaded kuwait. And during desert Storm, got their arses kicked and Kuwait was liberated. Right side of history.

But if you are referring to Iraq 2 and WMD - probably that was wrong of the US. But still, they really screwed up a tyrant so meh.

Afghanistan - well the US was under direct attack during 9/11, and that couldn't go unanswered. Al Qaeda were responsible and the Taliban were given a chance to hand them over to the US. They didn't, so therefore, the US attacked them. The US destroyed Al Qaeda, kille Osama Bin Laden (YAY!) and started chasing the mullahs all over the countryside. Right side of history.

Yugoslavia - the US had a no fly zone over Bosnia to protect Muslims from Sebian shelling and sieges. Do you remember the Sarajevo siege? That was brutal. Not only this but war criminals were bought to justice. Right side of history.

Syria - the US was fighting ISIS. And they destroyed them with the help of the coalition. The only bad thing the Americans did here was abandon the Kurds when the kurds deserved much better than that because they were important players and integral part of the destruction of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. America did bad, but they were still on the right side of history because they really fucked ISIS over big time. In my opinion, America's work in Syria is still unfinished. America needs to remove Asad at all cost.

As for LAOS and Cambodia - sorry but I don't know enough about them but as with Vietnam, these were not wars started by the US neither.

And Happy New Year.

Happy New Year to you too Paphitis.

Let me just say that I do not agree with most of what you wrote for the US/NATO/West to justify their brutality in the deaths of millions of ordinary people all over the world which took place on others territory. If the US wanted to take out certain leaders such as Bin Laden for 9/11, than go ahead and do it, but do not kill hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens, occupy and destroy their country. You do realize that most of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis, and yet, Saudi Arabia were never attacked by the collective West because they sold oil to the West. How can the West be on the right side of history? Well, they cannot, but since there isn’t a greater power to punish them, they get away with murder, no?

As for attacking Iraq in 1990 for invading Kuwait after Saddam getting a passive green light from US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie to do so, the one time US supported strong man Saddam became the monster overnight and got his country destroyed with thousands dead after the USA put together 500,000 men from various countries called the “coalition of the willing” (more like the coalition of the coerced). That was the typical “bait and switch“ job done on Saddam. Saddam was bad, but he was our bad boy along with many other ruthless dictators the west supported at one time or the other. So yes, there to the West was on the wrong side of history. Same in Japan by a large margin. Vietnam takes the cake for the USA being on the wrong side of history that will never be forgotten where millions died creating a chain reaction where millions more died in Laos and Cambodia. What the fuck did the Vietnamese do to the USA to deserve such punishment?

So Paphitis, if you can make justifications for the West in invading and killing millions since WWII, why do you also not make justification for Russia invading and killing Ukrainians, some being NAZIS for they were killing thousands of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas regions since 2014? Surely using your examples for the reasons in what the West has done, you should be supporting Russia also and condemning Zelensky and those before him. Shouldn’t the West be helping Russia to get rid of corrupt and Nazi loving Zelensky? Oh, I forgot. The USA always supports fascists as long as they are our useful idiot fascists.

[Paphitis]

If America did what Ruzzia is doing, it will be condemned and it will face the wrath of the international community and rightfully so I may add. But thankfully, America isn't like that at all. On the contrary. They have always been on the right side of history.
..

Sorry to disappoint you Paphitis, but America and the West in general has been on the wrong side of history for centuries.

But let’s not go so back and just stay with times since the WWII starting with the destruction of Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria and a few more.

So now Russia is in their crosshairs. This may not end well either for those pushing for this war in Ukraine with Russia! This kind of war is not Russia’s first Rodeo as they have proven throughout history to have the durability to fight at any cost, especially when it comes to protecting mother Russia.

I have a friend in San Francisco who was drafted to go to Vietnam and once he served his tour (sounds like a vacation, doesn’t it?) he never went back again, but some from his unit voluntarily went back for another 2-3 tours. When I asked him why would they do that, his answer was very chilling. He said, because they loved to kill. Yes, the killings of Vietnamese, and not necessarily killing those in battle with the enemy. Many indiscriminate killings of ordinary citizens too because of no accountability. So, what repercussions did the US faced from the world for committing such atrocities? What about in Iraq where hundreds of thousands of ordinary Iraqis were killed? The list goes on my friend. NATO and the collective West are never held accountable to all the atrocities they have committed in the past, present or in the future. Those are the facts.

PBS America (Public Broadcasting Service) makes wonderful unbiased documentaries of major events and topics. Try to watch the ones on Vietnam which is covered very extensively. No doubt the war in Ukraine will be presented sometime in the future where facts will be shown as well as the misinformation and propaganda.

Gosh Kikapu, but did you make all hat up much???

I'm so sorry but the west hasn't been on the wrong side of history.

Japan - the US was part of the alliance that was defending against the AXIS. Albeit a late entrant into the war, as a result of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour. Otherwise, the Americans were actually quite happy to sit the war out. Luckily for us though, they didn't sit it out and Japan's attack on Pearl Harbour was a big strategic mistake because the US contributed a great deal to the defeat of both Germany, and Japan. Right side of history.

As for Vietnam. This war was kicking along for 10 years before America and Australia got involved. the reason why they entered the war was because of the Soviet Union's influence on North Vietnam. France, Australia and US entered the war to defend South Vietnam from North Vietnamese attack.

No soldier relishes killing anyone. In fact, most soldiers close their eyes the first time they squeeze the trigger knowing that they are about to kill someone. And it doesn't get easier after that neither. Soldiers just get desensitized to it, but it isn't a task any particularly enjoy or relish. Unless of course they are part of the 2% of sociopathic individuals who are incapable of empathy. The vast majority however (98%) do not fall in that category.

Secondly, Australian and US soldiers were drafted to go to Vietnam. There was no choice. And the vast majority of deployed soldiers never saw combat or killed anyone. In western military doctrine, for every 1 soldier at the front lines or in a combat role, there are at least 5 supporting soldiers behind in a logistical role. Cooks, Medics, Logistics and so on. So for every 100 deployed soldiers, only 20 are combat soldiers. They 80 will never see combat or kill anyone. Ruzzia is different, hence why they are losing. For every 1 combat soldier, there is just 1 in support. hence, nearly non existent logistics. no food for the soldiers, or field hospitals, and this is the reason why they are losing. Logistics wins wars.

Secondly, Australian and US Soldiers, who served in Vietnam are entitled to a lifetime pension. This is tax free, and they can continue to work with their pensions unnafected and not counting towards their income tax. Those who returned for a second tour and a third tour, in the main part had no choice in the matter. Especially fnthey were specialists like a Seal, SAS, Pilots, Medics, Doctors, Engineers and so on and so on.

As for the combat soldiers, well not many wanted to go back. Vietnam wasn't fun for them - on patrol through dense tropical jungles and an enemy that can appear from anywhere. Yes they killed - mainly the enemy VC they were fighting in support of the South Vietnamese Military. Right side of history.

Iraq - well they invaded kuwait. And during desert Storm, got their arses kicked and Kuwait was liberated. Right side of history.

But if you are referring to Iraq 2 and WMD - probably that was wrong of the US. But still, they really screwed up a tyrant so meh.

Afghanistan - well the US was under direct attack during 9/11, and that couldn't go unanswered. Al Qaeda were responsible and the Taliban were given a chance to hand them over to the US. They didn't, so therefore, the US attacked them. The US destroyed Al Qaeda, kille Osama Bin Laden (YAY!) and started chasing the mullahs all over the countryside. Right side of history.

Yugoslavia - the US had a no fly zone over Bosnia to protect Muslims from Sebian shelling and sieges. Do you remember the Sarajevo siege? That was brutal. Not only this but war criminals were bought to justice. Right side of history.

Syria - the US was fighting ISIS. And they destroyed them with the help of the coalition. The only bad thing the Americans did here was abandon the Kurds when the kurds deserved much better than that because they were important players and integral part of the destruction of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. America did bad, but they were still on the right side of history because they really fucked ISIS over big time. In my opinion, America's work in Syria is still unfinished. America needs to remove Asad at all cost.

As for LAOS and Cambodia - sorry but I don't know enough about them but as with Vietnam, these were not wars started by the US neither.

And Happy New Year.

Happy New Year to you too Paphitis.

Let me just say that I do not agree with most of what you wrote for the US/NATO/West to justify their brutality in the deaths of millions of ordinary people all over the world which took place on others territory. If the US wanted to take out certain leaders such as Bin Laden for 9/11, than go ahead and do it, but do not kill hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens, occupy and destroy their country. You do realize that most of the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudis, and yet, Saudi Arabia were never attacked by the collective West because they sold oil to the West. How can the West be on the right side of history? Well, they cannot, but since there isn’t a greater power to punish them, they get away with murder, no?

As for attacking Iraq in 1990 for invading Kuwait after Saddam getting a passive green light from US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie to do so, the one time US supported strong man Saddam became the monster overnight and got his country destroyed with thousands dead after the USA put together 500,000 men from various countries called the “coalition of the willing” (more like the coalition of the coerced). That was the typical “bait and switch“ job done on Saddam. Saddam was bad, but he was our bad boy along with many other ruthless dictators the west supported at one time or the other. So yes, there to the West was on the wrong side of history. Same in Japan by a large margin. Vietnam takes the cake for the USA being on the wrong side of history that will never be forgotten where millions died creating a chain reaction where millions more died in Laos and Cambodia. What the fuck did the Vietnamese do to the USA to deserve such punishment?

So Paphitis, if you can make justifications for the West in invading and killing millions since WWII, why do you also not make justification for Russia invading and killing Ukrainians, some being NAZIS for they were killing thousands of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the Donbas regions since 2014? Surely using your examples for the reasons in what the West has done, you should be supporting Russia also and condemning Zelensky and those before him. Shouldn’t the West be helping Russia to get rid of corrupt and Nazi loving Zelensky? Oh, I forgot. The USA always supports fascists as long as they are our useful idiot fascists.

I don't agree with everything you say neither Kikapu and especially your assertion that the US/West/NATO has killed millions of people over the decades.

The US/NATO/West have never behaved anywhere near to that which we see from Ruzzia in Ukraine.

The last time the west did that was WW2 when these tactics were necessary - allied bombardments of Dresden and Germany in general and the Nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All of which were sadly necessary in the context of WW2 but are just not done since then.

Another war you forgot to mention was the Korean War between South and North Korea. Another example of the west being on the right side of history in support of South Korea - a vibrant economic superpower as opposed to North Korea which is a terrorist rogue state.

[Kikapu]

I don't agree with everything you say neither Kikapu and especially your assertion that the US/West/NATO has killed millions of people over the decades.

It’s OK Paphitis, nobody is perfect!

The US/NATO/West have never behaved anywhere near to that which we see from Ruzzia in Ukraine.

The last time the west did that was WW2 when these tactics were necessary - allied bombardments of Dresden and Germany in general and the Nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All of which were sadly necessary in the context of WW2 but are just not done since then.

Another war you forgot to mention was the Korean War between South and North Korea. Another example of the west being on the right side of history in support of South Korea - a vibrant economic superpower as opposed to North Korea which is a terrorist rogue state.

Korean War much like the Vietnam war was similar to the war we now have in Ukraine between the West and Russia/China. Same shit, different location. If you think for one moment that the West’s interests in entering these wars are in saving the people there from any oppression by the evil Russia or China, then think again. It is all about controlling those territories so to enrich themselves. South Korea is no exception. Not every country needs to or wants to follow the West’s ideology.

[repulsewarrior]

...interesting

[repulsewarrior]

...some history,

[Kikapu]

Another interesting video with substance!

[Pyrpolizer]

Another interesting video with substance!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JevjG0A183g

I don't miss any of his videos. There's a Telegram channel on his name operated by his friends, as he is not so good himself on internet things. They provide daily links. I agree he's one of the few with substance.

There's a problem though with all those analysts, either pro Russian or pro Ukrainian.
That NONE of them is any where near the front line, so they often rely on "news" that are either lies or not the whole truth. Col Mac Gregor, is one of my favorites, but he still admits there are many things he doesn't know.
There is only one journalist reporting from near the front line, his name is Patrick Lancaster, but he only reports from the Russian side and usually just interviews local people.
Best reliable info comes from soldiers on the front line reporting to some channels. Not very often, but that's really reliable information. Νone reports in English though so you'd have to Google translate hundreds of posts to sτumble upon something...

I will post a collection of video interviews with pro Ukrainian "analysts" and just one from Mac Gregor for comparison purposes.

[Pyrpolizer]

I will post a collection of video interviews with pro Ukrainian "analysts" and just one from Mac Gregor for comparison purposes.

Petraeus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khe86U2t-hs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m_omkt0QG4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rffCIXQNyU
(15 days from 22 Nov 22!!)

Jack Devine(?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQaH40KKYm8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvu7v58769I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Oylu7IWBh8

Matt Van Dyke
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahBp-Mll-WM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1CB7B9Roew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2BQpxJ7d8o

MacGregor
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbuZYRtBfWI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH3iGOPNCiM