For the interests of the oligarchs or for the Motherland?

stalker7162534
There was Nazism in Germany at that time. Fascism was in Italy.
RussianQuaker
"For example, a war has begun (or is foreseen). How to determine, in this or that case, people will eventually go to fight for the interests of the oligarchs (who will promote patriotism) or really for the Motherland (that is, for the interests the people themselves). What is your opinion on this? "
Nonsense. Are oligarchs promoting patriotism? They benefit from war in the first place, they are businessmen, and war is the most profitable business. He'll get a little hot - going abroad to calm lands on his own private transport. If you have money, you will be welcome everywhere. They do not need to be fought for them, to give their lives in battle. They'd better give your life to work for him for many years. But it is even more nonsense that the Motherland represents the interests of the people themselves. After all, if the people are not interested in joining an unnecessary war, and the Motherland is eager to go there (well, to bomb, shoot someone in Syria, Turkey, Afghanistan, etc.), then whose interests does the Motherland defend, if not the people? If there is a war of destruction (in fact, taking into account the mechanization of production, slaves in factories and plants are not really needed), then no one will ask you for whose interests you want to fight.

Wing42
well, bomb there, shoot someone in Syria, Turkey, Afghanistan, etc.), then whose interests are defended by the Motherland

Motherland is this, the boy Vova, who grew up and became president? Someone was asked - does the Russian Federation need to get into someone else's civil war?
Our pilots are fighting there to save the dictator Assad, who buys weapons from Russian oligarchs. So for whose interests?

stalker7162534
I don't really care who calls it because of my stupidity. I don't even care what form it will take in fact, if need be. I'm trying for my own.

I will repeat my question: is it good or evil to punish the enemy? Well you are a fan of these criteria, you should know better.

Wing42

How would he know. He's only got a dedyevale, there is no more information or thoughts in the head of others.

After all, if people are not interested in entering into an unnecessary war and homeland there and tears (well, there pobombit, shooting someone in Syria, Turkey, Afghanistan, etc.)

I have a greater degree what we invaded much something, but on the contrary - to us. How to rate?

stalker7162534
"Our pilots are fighting there for the sake of preserving the dictator Assad ..."
They are fighting because they were ordered. The military has such a thing as an "order". Homeland is where you feel good and what is dear to you. And it's always good where you are not. And only that which you never had is dear to you.

RussianQuaker
"To a greater extent, I have not that we invaded somewhere, but on the contrary - to us. How to evaluate?"
Yes, as you want, and regard it. First, survive in this war, and then judge for whom you fought and who is right, for the dead do not have shame and do not bite.

I am for my Motherland, for my Motherland is Israel, a country that does not betray
or abandon its soldiers.

warp 37 The
number of murders in the Kiev region has grown 8 times, you drive into Google and you are convinced that according to Ukrosmi, in reality it is more, in fact, your Ukraine has lost several tens of thousands of lives on "peaceful territory". And there are still people who were deprived of their property, they stole the last money, which will not physically return the loans. Lumpen will grow out of all this and completely bend the country.
A fool is one who destroys everything in a stable country, instead of peaceful ways.
A fool is one who sits like a rat during a complete chaos.
You're just option number 2.

I think during the attack there is no matter what to fight for, to get out.

RussianQuaker
I repeat my question: is it good or evil to punish the enemy?

And I, too, stubborn, and just like you, I only hear myself and do not hear others. Therefore, I will repeat with my question - When the German Hans first shouted hurray to Hitler, and then fought for Hitler - did he benefit Germany, the German nation?

Wing42
"Homeland is where you feel good and what is dear to you"
Russia is dear to me, but it could be better to live in it (and the meanings "good" or "bad" are very relative. For example, compared to the serf of the 19th century, I have a TV, and I do not I live well with him, but he had his own hut, and I don't have my own apartment - am I living badly?). The fact that in civilized countries people live better than me means only one thing - we, too, could live better. But since we are stupid, then we live worse than we could. Does it mean that Russia is not my homeland? Russia is my Motherland anyway.
"And only that which you never had is dear to you."
What a silly definition. I have never had gonorrhea. ))))

Tokrem
"A fool is the one who destroys everything in a stable country, instead of peaceful ways."
Impeachment of the president is a peaceful path. Has anyone, anywhere, invited the former president to lead them? No. Nafig he is not needed by anyone, because he has already crumpled while he was in charge. For example, Nixon was impeached, who then called him for a second term? No. Because in a country where people are thinking, everyone understands a simple truth - if the president ruled well, then he can be elected for a second term; if he did not justify the hopes, then he will not be elected for a second term, they will choose another; and after the end of the term of the new president, it would never occur to anyone to nominate that crap president again, although the Constitution says that you can be president for two terms; normal people already understand that if the president did not cope with the first term, did not live up to expectations, was crap, then they won’t vote for this anymore; and only in one country, to clarify this elementary truth, an explanation was added to the Constitution "in a row" - an explanation to fools: If the president ruled well, then he can be left for a second term, but if he was not re-elected after the first term, then it’s okay for him again after a while propose your candidacy. But in one country it was interpreted so that you can rule more than twice, they say, if not in a row, then you can again.
It is useful to think here, why in civilized countries the presidency is limited to two terms?

stalker7162534
And I, too, stubborn, and just like you, I only hear myself and do not hear others. Therefore, I will repeat with my question - When the German Hans first shouted hurray to Hitler, and then fought for Hitler - did he benefit Germany, the German nation?

Well, at least for a while they had prosperity, before that they lived in shit, so what? And I have already given you a couple of options. Is it really not to the cashier, although in fact? In any case, I was not interested in the events of 1933 in such detail to explain EVERYTHING about it.

Russia is my Motherland anyway.

And what kind of people are you defending?

stalker7162534
You are simply attached to the place where you were born and raised.
"What a stupid definition. I've never had gonorrhea.))))"
Stupid because you misunderstood me. I meant "own" and "possess", and you only understood about gonorrhea.

stalker7162534
Nixon was impeached for listening to competitors and a journalist, Obama is listening and collecting data from everyone in a row there is no impeachment, no one even hinted. Because for a long time, small honest media disappeared, everything belongs to global corporations.
A family named Bush has 2 presidents, now the third is climbing, the wife is climbing from the Clintons to the presidency. Here is a miracle, 2 terms of limitation, but family clans in politics for a couple of decades, or even centuries.

Well, at least for a while they had
Taki's prosperity for a very short time, because at the expense of others.

For your motherland, your mother!

Although, purely my opinion, well, burn these oligarchs, they will be replaced by new ones from the middle class, a dynasty of crooks and thieves. The circle will close. It has been and always will be. World nuclear armageddian will fix everything: D

RussianQuaker
I was not interested in the events of 1933 in such detail

. And the subsequent ones too. Hence, you believe in the myth that there was prosperity in Germany under Hitler.

Tokrem
Because small honest media have disappeared long ago, everything belongs to global corporations.

Have you studied this issue well enough to make such statements?

opticor
Well, burn these oligarchs, new ones will come in their place

. Perhaps. In case the old mentality of the society remains. Then everything will go as before. A revolution is not a change of a particular ruler. A revolution is a change in thinking. The collapse of the USSR was not a revolution. Nothing has changed in the sense that the people, both under the communists and under the capitalists, were passive, obediently obedient to the authorities.
By the way, the current ruling oligarchs really want the people to remain passive - hence the suggestion “expel these crooks, others will come”, “vote, don’t vote ....”, “all oppositionists are exactly the same, their goal is to take the place of crooks in order to steal by themselves. "

Since childhood, we have heard about the German fascist invaders, about the fact that we were attacked by the Nazis. I do not see the difference in the concepts of "fascist" and "Nazi". We know from childhood that fascism is bad. And when now you hear that in Germany there was not fascism, but Nazism, and that in Italy there was fascism - then it seems to me that these are neo-Nazis bred suckers - at first they tell you that there was no fascism in Germany, then they tell you stories about how Hitler raised Germany from his knees, how the Germans began to live better with him, and then they turn the conversation to the fact that the
lumps came in large numbers .... And then we remember how the connivance of the fascists ended for the Germans.

stalker7162534
and then they transfer the conversation to the fact that the lumps have come in large numbers ....

Well, how do you feel about this?

stalker7162534
I do not see the difference in the concepts of "fascist" and "Nazi".
This is the misfortune of many people of a certain mindset. In accordance with your convictions, neo-Nazis should be called neo-fascists, but you prefer to clumsily juggle with an ideology that has not been entirely correct in your head since childhood. Although this is not a matter of your impressionability, but of the level of education of people who influenced you in childhood and their desire to invest in you what they need.

Wing42
And in his ignorance too.

The point is to explain one and a half freaks that they are freaks?

stalker7162534
Well, I would like to find out who these people are, even if it will even hurt them. Pointing with your finger, of course, is not good, but you deserve special treatment, raise your eyelids and show me these ignoble gentlemen.