Former Soviet Countries See More Harm Than Good From Breakup

[M. Sarmad]

Yes, that's a famous quote, Although I disagree with it.

I believe that One should be a socialist right till the end of his life !!!
Always listen to your heart !!

 

[Armstrong]

Yes, that's a famous quote, Although I disagree with it.
@Armstrong , Are you young or old buddy?

I'm a 23 year old fossil !

 

[senheiser]

There was no technology to get arctic reserves back in 1940s while getting the reserves in Kaspian region was no problem.
Soviets took the oil from caspian states for free, you cant deny that.

so what even back than ural region had more reserves. Second i think the reserves in caspian sea werent even found. Only aizerbaidschan and ural region had oil drills in the early 30s

 

[rmi5]

I'm a 23 year old fossil !

BTW, your posts are awesome and always have a nice comedy point behind it.

I believe that One should be a socialist right till the end of his life !!!
Always listen to your heart !!

Our heart misguide us many times. Socialism brings corruption in a society and destroys anything by time.

 

[M. Sarmad]

Our heart misguide us many times. Socialism brings corruption in a society and destroys anything by time.

Islam itself is more socialist than capitalist !! so no plz !!

 

[rmi5]

Islam itself is more socialist than capitalist !! so no plz !!

It depends on how to look at it, Personal owning are respected in Islam, So in this sense, Islam is more capitalistic than socialistic.

so what even back than ural region had more reserves. Second i think the reserves in caspian sea werent even found. Only aizerbaidschan and ural region had oil drills in the early 30s

Anyway, revenues of USSR was dependent on Azerbaijanis oil and Turkmens gas resources.

 

[INDIC]

Living poor with honor is much better than treated like dogs and got feed in golden plates.
That's why I have a high respect for Indians. although they are poor, but they live with honor and freedom, and have the biggest democracy of the world. That's the fascinating point of your country for me.

Socialism existed in India which brought both good and bad. Some sort of socialism was needed in India which brought lots of social changes like land reforms of 1953. Although it had very bad effect on Indian economy.

 

[M. Sarmad]

It depends on how to look at it, Personal owning are respected in Islam, So in this sense, Islam is more capitalistic than socialistic.

Islamic socialism is a term coined by various Muslim leaders to describe a more spiritual form of socialism. Muslim socialists believe that the teachings of the Qur'an and Muhammad are compatible with principles of equality and public ownership drawing inspiration from the early Medina welfare state established by the Prophet Muhammad. Muslim Socialists are more conservative than their western contemporaries and find their roots in Anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism

Abū Dharr al-Ghifārī, a Companion of Prophet Muḥammad, is credited by many as a principal antecedent of Islamic socialism. He protested against the accumulation of wealth by the ruling class during ‘Uthmān's caliphate and urged the equitable redistribution of wealth.

 

[rmi5]

Socialism existed in India which brought both good and bad. Some sort of socialism was needed in India which brought lots of social changes like land reforms of 1953. Although it had very bad effect on Indian economy.

I am not looking to socialism, and capitalism with a pure dichotomy. a combination of two can be used some times in some countries. I am more opposing a pure socialism or communism indeed.

Islamic socialism is a term coined by various Muslim leaders to describe a more spiritual form of socialism. Muslim socialists believe that the teachings of the Qur'an and Muhammad are compatible with principles of equality and public ownership drawing inspiration from the early Medina welfare state established by the Prophet Muhammad. Muslim Socialists are more conservative than their western contemporaries and find their roots in Anti-imperialism, anti-colonialism

Abū Dharr al-Ghifārī, a Companion of Prophet Muḥammad, is credited by many as a principal antecedent of Islamic socialism. He protested against the accumulation of wealth by the ruling class during ‘Uthmān's caliphate and urged the equitable redistribution of wealth.

Actually, In my opinion, Islam is not socialistic or capitalistic. you can find different aspects of both of them in Islam. We have had a very strong Socialist-Islamist trend in Iran as well. Shah of Iran called them Islamic Marxists! Anyway, I do not agree with their opinions.

 

[vostok]

Actually I don't need to believe you. since I am in more contact with Azerbaijanis than you, and as you knew before I am partly from Azerbaijan Republic, and I have heard enough from my acquaintances who have lived there in that time. one clear sample of your racism against Azeris was your help to Armenians to occupy Karabakh, and you still do support them, since those backstabbers are Christians or for some other non-sense reasons...

These conflicts began while Gorbachev was destroying the USSR. They were artificially created by the West in order to incite hatred among nations. If someone somewhere is fighting against someone - then the West involved . I do not know how this conflict will be resolved in the future.

 

[rmi5]

These conflicts began while Gorbachev was destroying the USSR. They were artificially created by the West in order to incite hatred among nations.

If someone somewhere is fighting against someone - then the West involved . I do not know how this conflict will be resolved in the future.

If an intruder country, does not help Armenian occupiers, and does not protect them with her troops, the issue will be solved.

 

[vostok]

If an intruder country, does not help Armenian occupiers, and does not protect them with her troops, the issue will be solved.

Russian troops were not in Karabakh, not even peacekeepers. And no Russian soldiers fought in that war.
By the way, Armenians consider occupiers - Azerbaijanis. If you stand on one side - it means you can not take a sober look at the situation. Need an external judge.

 

[rmi5]

Russian troops were not in Karabakh, not even peacekeepers. And no Russian soldiers fought in that war.
By the way, Armenians consider occupiers - Azerbaijanis. If you stand on one side - it means you can not take a sober look at the situation. Need an external judge.

If you have some knowledge about South Caucasus, you would definitely know who are the main supporter of Armenians.
That External judge, The United Nation, and almost all of the countries of the world, has already recognized Armenians as the occupiers. I think @xenon54 provided a useful link regarding the international recognition of the Karabakh issue in an another thread before.

 

[vostok]

If you have some knowledge about South Caucasus, you would definitely know who are the main supporter of Armenians.
That External judge, The United Nation, and almost all of the countries of the world, has already recognized Armenians as the occupiers. I think @xenon54 provided a useful link regarding the international recognition of the Karabakh issue in an another thread before.

I am sure that the Armenians would find no fewer links that they are right in that situation.
If Russia supported Karabakh - she would have recognized its independence, or at least would have sent peacekeepers there.
Of course, Russia has traditionally supported the Christian nations. Moreover, in the modern world it Russia only engaged in this.

 

[rmi5]

I am sure that the Armenians would find no fewer links that they are right in that situation.

You are funny indeed

Of course, Russia has traditionally supported the Christian nations. Moreover, in the modern world it Russia only engaged in this.

Yeah, Russians racism is not only ethnic based, religion is included in it as well.