Исходное сообщение Гей-удолбаный-в-хлам
You're lost.

In the example you cite , "now to get my point", the particle TO simply indicates the infinitive -- "to get"

But you can never say "now to your letter".

And your second example definitely come from a non-native speaker (or a thoroughly illiterate person) because there's another mistake in it, namely, Russian syntax).

Now then to your problem. What is it exactly? Are you Russo-phobic?

I mentioned this to someone here before, but here it is again:

You have a problem with my how I express myself in my journal, right?

Well, there are two things you can do about it:

1. Nothing.
and
2. Like it.

Otherwise - good luck and good bye, thanks for stopping by.

Option 1.
Thank you for replying.

Исходное сообщение DarkMagician
Jackill-MF-Clan, flat-out
------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, I’m going to repeat myself. The difference between Iraq/Afghanistan and Chechnya is the following:

American Military can and does patrol EVERY part of those two countries, so there are no territories in either Iraq or Afghanistan where American patrol haven’t been at least once (excluding mountain ranges too difficult to get to). If at any point the resistance is met while on the patrol, a bigger force is sent out to deal with the situation.

That's not usefull cause your solders can't go in every part without patrol. Some time ago I watch the documental movie (american movie) about Afganistan and some famous american woman that try to recover normal life in the country. There is a road between two cities (sorry I don't remember their names) that very dangerous to go anyone. US Army try to clear that road but had no success.

In Chechnya, there are territories controlled ONLY by the local Warlords/Chieftains where neither the Russian military nor the local Chechen Military does not dare to go into. There are maps of Chechnya with those regions clearly identified as hostile territories and NOT under Russian/Chechen government’s control. Neither Russian forces not local militia EVER patrol those territories, so the law is in the hands of the local Warlords and not the recognized government.

Yestoday there was a talkshow "Свобода слова". And there was that question too.
Our soulders can move though most area of Chechnya without patrol, there is strong local militia, and soulders from illegal armed groups (correct me - I don't know right title) are giving up from time to time.

Please keep in mind I’m not trying to put the Russian military down, I’m simply stating the fact of the matter. I would very much like for the Chechen terrorists to pay for everything that they have done, but what we want and what we have are often very different things.

I'm already understand it. I try to say that professional traning is not all that need to soldiers. Some where there (in li.ru) I notice a dairy that tells about war operations in Ch. Now I try to find it again. If I success I'll give you link.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Second of all, your arguments contain two false assumptions:

1. USA is trying to mold Iraq and Afghanistan and other countries into a mini-USA with USA-like laws and society structure.

Politics is a cold-blooded arena. If you strip away all the emotions from this, you will see that n the bigger scale no one really cares about anyone else. USA does not care what kind of government or society those little countries have, as long as don’t do anything to undermine whatever America is trying to do. America only cares about taking care of their own people and really no one else, and so is every other country in this world.

So why american is still in Iraq an Afganistan?

So it doesn’t matter what kind of government a country has- feudal, tribal, modern, as long as the country plays by America’s rules – America does not care and will not interfere.

Also something to think about – why would America want for Iraq and Afghanistan to be more modernized?? Modernized means technologically advanced. Do you really want the Arabs to have technologically advanced weaponry? As long as they live in their tribal ways, they cannot compete with America’s military technology and that’s the way USA likes it.

Please compare cost of some RPG and a tank. In partizan war there is no need advanced technology. In the mountains difference between people is than one know mountain and the second is don't.
Our forces was in Af. for ten years but we control about half of country and had a wide local support - solders had walk free.

2. The only way to control a country is through the use of your own military.

That’s simply is not true, there are a lot of other means of controlling a country – political, financial, through propaganda, etc. USA just made sure that whoever is controlling Afghanistan and Iraq will play ball with the USA, or least do not interfere with whatever America is trying to do.

So what about Kuba? :)

When American forces leave those countries, the governments of those countries will still be if not loyal, at least benevolent towards the USA. So America has achieved her goal. How long it’s going to stay that way – no one knows, nothing in this world ever stays the same, but USA will use other means to try to prolong this situation in both countries through other means – political, financial, etc.

What about loyality... It's maybe yes or maybe no - I'm not sure about Iraq. Partizan movement is growing. I'm afraid that after US had fall upon Iraq inernational terrorists got new support.

When someone new comes into the power in those counties, USA will try to play ball with him, and if he doesn’t – USA will do whatever is necessary to maintain their interest in the region for as long as possible and when that person crosses the line he’ll be taken out just like Saddam.

I don't understand what US forgot in Iraq. The last one was a small isolated country with a mad leader. There was no mass destruction weapon. Maybe US forgot the oil? Or US raise their economic?

That’s just the cold hard truth.

Please keep in mind that I might not necessarily like what the USA is trying to do, I’m simply stating that USA is very good in achieving their goals and taking care of THEIR OWN people, and you have to admire that, whether you like it or not.

Next enemy of US is Siria. New counrty - new terrorist. It's a simple - the more destroyed country the more terrorists.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here’s something off topic – I recent read an interesting article where it talked about Saddam Hussein and how USA NEEDED him to be in power in that region for all this time, so USA did not do anything about him until he crossed the line and started causing too much trouble.

Basically a strong leader is needed in that part of the world to keep the countries from breaking up and forming more and more terrorist organizations which are not under anyone’s control. Whatever you say about Saddam, but while he was in power, there were few (if any) Iraqi terrorists in the world, he simply kept them in line.

You know terrorist organization isn't raisin' up in empty place. There is always concern interests of large man group.
And I don't think that Saddam rule all of them. Saddam is a fetish and recognizble face and nothin' more.

You Russian is much better than my English so you can read my point about terrorism there: http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/jackill-mf-clan/post1552456/

That's not usefull cause your solders can't go in every part without patrol. Some time ago I watch the documental movie (american movie) about Afganistan and some famous american woman that try to recover normal life in the country. There is a road between two cities (sorry I don't remember their names) that very dangerous to go anyone. US Army try to clear that road but had no success.

I'm sure there are terrorities which have to be cleared over and over again, that's not unusual for the kind of terrain that is in Iraq and Afganistan.

Yestoday there was a talkshow "Свобода слова". And there was that question too.
Our soulders can move though most area of Chechnya without patrol, there is strong local militia, and soulders from illegal armed groups (correct me - I don't know right title) are giving up from time to time.

There are maps on the Internet of Chechnya, where some territories are clearly identified as under Chechen's warlords control. I'm not sure how accurate those maps are, but I looked at a few of them and them seem to matching. I'll see if I can find you those links.

I'm already understand it. I try to say that professional traning is not all that need to soldiers. Some where there (in li.ru) I notice a dairy that tells about war operations in Ch. Now I try to find it again. If I success I'll give you link.

Sure, any kind of information is welcomed.

Please compare cost of some RPG and a tank. In partizan war there is no need advanced technology. In the mountains difference between people is than one know mountain and the second is don't.
Our forces was in Af. for ten years but we control about half of country and had a wide local support - solders had walk free.

If a country is modernized, that means it has modern weapons. Do you really want for Arabs to have modern weapons? Such as nuclear and biological - that's what I meant. US does not want to modernize ANY arab country - it would not make any sense, they can turn against the US at any time.

So what about Kuba? :)

There is nothing valuable in Kuba besides their cigars. :) If US really wanted to badly enough they would get Kuba. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Kuba stopped being very important to the US. The price of getting Kuba would NOT be worth the price US would pay for doing it.

I don't understand what US forgot in Iraq. The last one was a small isolated country with a mad leader. There was no mass destruction weapon. Maybe US forgot the oil? Or US raise their economic?

To be honest, neither you nor me will ever know for sure exactly why the US is still in Iraq, we can speculate, but that's all we can do. US is there for a reason, when they get what they need, they'll move on.

Next enemy of US is Siria. New counrty - new terrorist. It's a simple - the more destroyed country the more terrorists.

US is not going to go after every single enemy. It doesn't make good business sense. You defeat one enemy, you show your strength, and the other enemies will be kept in line. Iraq was mostly a show of strength by the US, and they did a good job in my opinion of showing their strength.

You know terrorist organization isn't raisin' up in empty place. There is always concern interests of large man group.
And I don't think that Saddam rule all of them. Saddam is a fetish and recognizble face and nothin' more.

You Russian is much better than my English so you can read my point about terrorism there: http://www.liveinternet.ru/users/jackill-mf-clan/post1552456/

Thanks for the link, I will definitely look it up more carefully.

To be honest, neither you nor me will ever know for sure exactly why the US is still in Iraq, we can speculate, but that's all we can do. US is there for a reason, when they get what they need, they'll move on.

the reasons may look even that funny))

Politics is a cold-blooded arena. If you strip away all the emotions from this, you will see that the bigger scale no one really cares about anyone else. USA does not care what kind of government or society those little countries have, as long as don’t do anything to undermine whatever America is trying to do. America only cares about taking care of their own people and really no one else, and so is every other country in this world.

That's "бальзам на душу" (as they call it in Russia) to see this written by an american, after all the pseudo-peaceful slogans advanced by the US officials to the so-called world community.
The explanation given makes clear all the anti-US accusations you mentioned to puzzle you. They are not envy at the big-boy's misbehavior but an adequate answer to infringement of interests (don't mix it with hurting self-esteem:)).

Исходное сообщение flat-out
[QUOTE]that funny))

Wasn't it you who pointed out that I was trying to simply the issue in Iraq? Well, right now you're the one, who's doing it, my friend. :)

The reasons for the war in Iraq are numerious, I'm sure. Part of it is financial (oil), part political, part just Bush wanting to get re-elected, part of US showing off its' strength.

That's "бальзам на душу" (as they call it in Russia) to see this written by an american, after all the pseudo-peaceful slogans advanced by the US officials to the so-called world community.
The explanation given makes clear all the anti-US accusations you mentioned to puzzle you. They are not envy at the big-boy's misbehavior but an adequate answer to infringement of interests (don't mix it with hurting self-esteem:)).

Please strip away all the illussions, my friend, EVERY country cares only about its' own people and no one else. Countries that do it well - live well, countries that don't do it so well - not so much.

Do you think Russia cares about anyone else? Do you really believe in that? I'm sure Russia's outrage with the war of Iraq had nothing to do with the billions of $ Russia would lose in the oil and construction contracts, right? Two biggest opponents of the war in Europe - France and Russia. Two countries with the biggest contruction and oil contracts with Iraq before the war - guess who? France and Russia. Must be a coincidence...right? :)

America is being attacked for being "evil" not because it only care for itself (everyone else is doing it), but because it does so damn well, that other countries are complaining.

вот. в тему.
[показать]

Исходное сообщение Vesna_Olga
вот. в тему.
[показать]

А почему солдат чёрный? Типа расизм?

тебе видней. это американский скульптор сделал. я, например, даже не знаю кто там за спиной Буша прячется.
Как художественный образ, я думаю, негр больше похож на игрушку в руках Буша, белый бы так не передавал образ. Я так прочитала.