NationStates

Interesting. The Czech narrative seems to be vastly different from the Polish one, an interesting observation considering Czechs and Poles are so much alike otherwise.
Are there also any significant differences between Czechs and Slovaks on the topic of Russia and the West?

Baltenstein wrote:Interesting. The Czech narrative seems to be vastly different from the Polish one, an interesting observation considering Czechs and Poles are so much alike otherwise.
Are there also any significant differences between Czechs and Slovaks on the topic of Russia and the West?

Nothing anyone can describe as 'significant'. When someone 'smart' in EU had an idea for reverse gas transit from Slovakia to Ukraine, government and people weren't enthusiastic at all.
Even less happy, than couple years ago, when Slovaks found out they must donate Greece: whole government fell because of it, despite Slovaks being much more for membership in both NATO and EU than we are.

Baltenstein wrote:Interesting. The Czech narrative seems to be vastly different from the Polish one, an interesting observation considering Czechs and Poles are so much alike otherwise.
Are there also any significant differences between Czechs and Slovaks on the topic of Russia and the West?

Remember, you're also taking Czechia's word for it here. It's not insignificant that the alleged Czech worldview seems to overlap completely with his or her own.

Laerod wrote:

Baltenstein wrote:Interesting. The Czech narrative seems to be vastly different from the Polish one, an interesting observation considering Czechs and Poles are so much alike otherwise.
Are there also any significant differences between Czechs and Slovaks on the topic of Russia and the West?

Remember, you're also taking Czechia's word for it here. It's not insignificant that the alleged Czech worldview seems to overlap completely with his or her own.

You're right but it still is a narrative you don't hear about very often - and it makes some sort of sense, considering the Czecho-Russians relations developed quite differently from the Polish-Russian relations over the past centuries. It would also explain the traditionally very strong Czech Euroskepticism a bit. So it is interesting.

Laerod wrote:

Baltenstein wrote:Interesting. The Czech narrative seems to be vastly different from the Polish one, an interesting observation considering Czechs and Poles are so much alike otherwise.
Are there also any significant differences between Czechs and Slovaks on the topic of Russia and the West?

Remember, you're also taking Czechia's word for it here. It's not insignificant that the alleged Czech worldview seems to overlap completely with his or her own.

Should I give you a links to our President's and Prime Minister's pro-russian articles, and official national polls what people think about Russia?

Socialist Czechia wrote:

Laerod wrote:Remember, you're also taking Czechia's word for it here. It's not insignificant that the alleged Czech worldview seems to overlap completely with his or her own.

Should I give you a links to our President's and Prime Minister's pro-russian articles, and official national polls what people think about Russia?

Yeah, though perhaps not in a thread specifically about ISIS.

Laerod wrote:

Socialist Czechia wrote:
Should I give you a links to our President's and Prime Minister's pro-russian articles, and official national polls what people think about Russia?

Yeah, though perhaps not in a thread specifically about ISIS.

Well, our President had some ISIS-related problems these months too...

Czech President Zeman Refuses to Apologize for Quote From Koran Calling for Muslims to Kill Jews
Czech President Receives Threatening Letter

Norstal wrote:

Genivaria wrote:The Global Defense Initiative will become a thing any day now.

*Is only half joking.*

That's bad. That mean there's a Nod. And we all know who ended up winning that war...

Maybe this is more like the Allies fighting the GLA.
Then the Allies become GDI.

You know, Ronald Reagan's speeches make for good montages against ISIS.

See?

And surprisingly, that clip of Bush in the beginning is pretty creepy, looks like he got that right.

Organized States wrote:You know, Ronald Reagan's speeches make for good montages against ISIS.

See?

And surprisingly, that clip of Bush in the beginning is pretty creepy, looks like he got that right.

Bush was right about something? Well these are the end times I guess...

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Organized States wrote:You know, Ronald Reagan's speeches make for good montages against ISIS.

See?

And surprisingly, that clip of Bush in the beginning is pretty creepy, looks like he got that right.

Bush was right about something? Well these are the end times I guess...

I've already accepted that the end is nigh.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Organized States wrote:You know, Ronald Reagan's speeches make for good montages against ISIS.

See?

And surprisingly, that clip of Bush in the beginning is pretty creepy, looks like he got that right.

Bush was right about something? Well these are the end times I guess...

End times for USA or the world?

Seraven wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Bush was right about something? Well these are the end times I guess...

End times for USA or the world?

pls for the USA

Seraven wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
Bush was right about something? Well these are the end times I guess...

End times for USA or the world?

Both.

Iran sends military aid to Lebanon to support them against terrorism (IS).

Organized States wrote:You know, Ronald Reagan's speeches make for good montages against ISIS.

See?

And surprisingly, that clip of Bush in the beginning is pretty creepy, looks like he got that right.

The problem isn't that the US pulled out of Iraq too early. It's that we appointed a high school teacher to run the country into the ground. What happened next was pretty much the Stanford Experiments replicating themselves IRL.

We could've stayed in Iraq until 2300 AD and it wouldn't have changed the brutality of the idiot that was left in charge.

Tuub wrote:Iran sends military aid to Lebanon to support them against terrorism (IS).

That military aid will obviously go to the puppets Hezbollah, if not the units in the Lebanese army that work with hezbollah.

The problem isn't that the US pulled out of Iraq too early. It's that we appointed a high school teacher to run the country into the ground. What happened next was pretty much the Stanford Experiments replicating themselves IRL.

We could've stayed in Iraq until 2300 AD and it wouldn't have changed the brutality of the idiot that was left in charge.

The problem is your country had no right what so ever to invade Iraq and eliminate the only force capable of standing head to head against the fanatical terrorist sponsoring revolutionary Iranian regime.

Al Nahar wrote:

Tuub wrote:Iran sends military aid to Lebanon to support them against terrorism (IS).

That military aid will obviously go to the puppets Hezbollah, if not the units in the Lebanese army that work with hezbollah.

Ofcourse it wouldn't go to Hezbollah, If Iran would send weapons there they would do it through the Lebenase government. Besides that, all Lebanese units are currently working with Hezbollah to keep the borders safe, but that doesn't chang anything. Deal was made with the Lebanese government and they will say where the weapons go to, not Iran. I don't even understand where you get those wierd ideas from.

Al Nahar wrote:The problem is your country had no right what so ever to invade Iraq and eliminate the only force capable of standing head to head against the fanatical terrorist sponsoring revolutionary Iranian regime.

Fun thing though, 1.Iraq's problems aren't militia's supported by Iran, 2.Saddam Hussein killed far more people then Iranian backed militias did, 3.You do realize that those "terrorists" of yours are now saving Iraq right?
No, in het end Saddam Hussein had to be removed, the only problem afterwards was indeed the US puppet.

Tuub wrote:

Al Nahar wrote:
That military aid will obviously go to the puppets Hezbollah, if not the units in the Lebanese army that work with hezbollah.

Ofcourse it wouldn't go to Hezbollah, If Iran would send weapons there they would do it through the Lebenase government. Besides that, all Lebanese units are currently working with Hezbollah to keep the borders safe, but that doesn't chang anything. Deal was made with the Lebanese government and they will say where the weapons go to, not Iran. I don't even understand where you get those wierd ideas from.

Lol really? Come on man, you are really telling me the Lebanese government which is blackmailed and heavily influenced by Hezbollah would just sit there and let the weapons go to its Army. The lebanese army is working with hezbollah because it has to 1. because its being ordered to via the government which is blackmailed and influenced by hezbollah. 2. If hezbollah is working to protect Lebanon why dont they just merge with the Army? Oh yes because they are the puppet and instrument of Iran which needs them as a special force to save the Assad regime and continue to use Lebanon as a base to expand their influence. The whole world knows the lebanese government is at the mercy of Hezbollah, and that will remain as long as the Christians in Lebanon are divided. If you have visited Lebanon or even stayed there for a bit in areas like Achrafieh, Gemayzeh, Jounieh you will find out that Hezbollah has been buying apartments in sunni and christian areas and filling them up with hezbollah cells. At any moment any move against hezbollah in non-hezbollah Beirut can be ambushed in their own areas by Hezbollah. A unified politically independent Lebanese army would stay the hell out of Syria's affairs and protect the borders on its own.

To your second point, Saddam Hussein was a dictator of course he is gonna have more killed than an organization based in South Lebanon, that could go for any dictator. Saddam was the obstacle to the terrorist regime you support and like(I claim this based on our previous discussions). The Americans never really cared for Saddam for him to be called a puppet and expand the USs goals. I mean lets face it the Americans were supporting Saddam with intelligence and then next they were selling arms to the Iranians for funds to support the Contras in Nicaragua. Also we forgot how the Israelis were also supporting Iran. The Arab world is much better off without Terrorist sponsoring nations like Iran and Qatar.

Al Nahar wrote:

Tuub wrote:
Ofcourse it wouldn't go to Hezbollah, If Iran would send weapons there they would do it through the Lebenase government. Besides that, all Lebanese units are currently working with Hezbollah to keep the borders safe, but that doesn't chang anything. Deal was made with the Lebanese government and they will say where the weapons go to, not Iran. I don't even understand where you get those wierd ideas from.

Lol really? Come on man, you are really telling me the Lebanese government which is blackmailed and heavily influenced by Hezbollah would just sit there and let the weapons go to its Army. The lebanese army is working with hezbollah because it has to 1. because its being ordered to via the government which is blackmailed and influenced by hezbollah. 2. If hezbollah is working to protect Lebanon why dont they just merge with the Army? Oh yes because they are the puppet and instrument of Iran which needs them as a special force to save the Assad regime and continue to use Lebanon as a base to expand their influence. The whole world knows the lebanese government is at the mercy of Hezbollah, and that will remain as long as the Christians in Lebanon are divided. If you have visited Lebanon or even stayed there for a bit in areas like Achrafieh, Gemayzeh, Jounieh you will find out that Hezbollah has been buying apartments in sunni and christian areas and filling them up with hezbollah cells. At any moment any move against hezbollah in non-hezbollah Beirut can be ambushed in their own areas by Hezbollah. A unified politically independent Lebanese army would stay the hell out of Syria's affairs and protect the borders on its own.

To your second point, Saddam Hussein was a dictator of course he is gonna have more killed than an organization based in South Lebanon, that could go for any dictator. Saddam was the obstacle to the terrorist regime you support and like(I claim this based on our previous discussions). The Americans never really cared for Saddam for him to be called a puppet and expand the USs goals. I mean lets face it the Americans were supporting Saddam with intelligence and then next they were selling arms to the Iranians for funds to support the Contras in Nicaragua. Also we forgot how the Israelis were also supporting Iran. The Arab world is much better off without Terrorist sponsoring nations like Iran and Qatar.

What a load of crap...
You know what, i'm not even going to argue with you anymore, i rather have Iran and you rather have Saudi-Arabia, end of story.

Bundabunda wrote:

Organized States wrote:You know, Ronald Reagan's speeches make for good montages against ISIS.

See?

And surprisingly, that clip of Bush in the beginning is pretty creepy, looks like he got that right.

The problem isn't that the US pulled out of Iraq too early. It's that we appointed a high school teacher to run the country into the ground. What happened next was pretty much the Stanford Experiments replicating themselves IRL.

We could've stayed in Iraq until 2300 AD and it wouldn't have changed the brutality of the idiot that was left in charge.

Well, Paul Bremar really gave the insurgency teeth when he ordered the Iraqi Army to disband, if anyone he's another one to blame.

Is ISIS dead yet?

Empire of Narnia wrote:Is ISIS dead yet?

Nah, but a lot of its soldiers are.

Empire of Narnia wrote:Is ISIS dead yet?

If they were this easy to eliminate, there probably wouldn't have been so much media coverage of ISIS.