The Russian invasion of Ukraine.
That is simply Putin being Soviet.

Tsh, Russia's never actually invaded Ukraine, it invaded (at request of) the Crimean Republic. There was no Ukrainian authority in Crimea when Russia took it.

Something most folk don't realise:
If Russia invaded Ukraine, Ukraine would be Russian now.

Name something like that in the last 30 years that the US hasn't started, besides perhaps the Vietnam War.

Crimean Crises/Ukrainian civil war (Ukraine and Russia)
Bangladesh Liberation War (India,Bangladesh,and Pakistan)
Yom Kippur War (Israel and pretty much everyone who borders them)
2008 invasion of Anjouan (Sudan,Senegal,Tanzania, backed heavily by France)
Russo-Georgian War (Do I really need to list the combatants for this one?)

You asked for one, I give you five. This is far from a full list. There is an endless amount of conflicts that have taken place in the past half-century and plenty of them didn't even involve the U.S.

I told you why Crimean Crisis is not applicable.
The Bangladesh Independence War is an independence war, not an invasion. Also in the 70s (40 years ago)
Yom Kippur War: Ditto
Comoros: Independence (failed)
Russian-Georgian: Maybe

Edited 3/25/2015 21:14:26

Alright, more modern then:

Iran-Iraq War.
Transnistria War.
Eritean-Ethiopia War.

3 Large scale conflicts that occurred after 1980 and did not involve the U.S. It's also fair to note several civil wars in the Caucasus Region and Eastern Europe that saw Russian involvement. (Russia really loves getting involved in civil wars of ex-U.S.S.R countries it seems)

Iran-Iraq war directly included only two countries, but folk certainly chose their sides, here, including US. US was a humongous supporter of Iraq, providing intelligence through spy satellites and more than several big payments. US was certainly "involved" to some extent.

Transnistria War: Independence War

In the Eritrean-Ethiopian war, US certainly picked sides as well, same thing as Iran-Iraq war.

Civil Wars? Other than the Artsakh war and the Abkhazian conflict and the various happenings in south of Kazakhstan, in which you should thank Russia that Tajikistan is not Islamic Tajik State

Edited 3/25/2015 21:22:50

see, here is Xypapy raping two kittens and a dog

Also, there is only one thing wrong with american and ONE THING ONLY; the government. it is the single most fucked up government the world has ever seen. In fact, it is so fucked up that i think Xypapy is right when he complains about how much america sucks. jk. But name ONE OTHER THING that is wrong with america. one

Taisho, perhaps I should clarify. I was talking about invasions, not military operations. A military operation does not constitute an invasion, many of the things on the above lists are airlifts, supporting legitimate groups already occupying any area, exercises, and so forth.


By invasion I meant large scale ground troops taking and occupying territory for a long period of time, fighting against the government of the local country, asserting full authority over the area. Name me some of those besides Iraq/Afghanistan that have occurred semi-recently.

Seems you're changing the definition of invasion to suit your viewpoints. A majority of those operations were not legitimate and were of no benefit to the civilians involved. Just saying.

Alright, more modern then:

Iran-Iraq War.
Transnistria War.
Eritean-Ethiopia War.

3 Large scale conflicts that occurred after 1980 and did not involve the U.S. It's also fair to note several civil wars in the Caucasus Region and Eastern Europe that saw Russian involvement. (Russia really loves getting involved in civil wars of ex-U.S.S.R countries it seems)


Iran-Iraq War.

Iran-Iraq War.

Iran-Iraq War? You sir, are a fool (this is not a personal attack, it's a fact). The US more or less instigated the whole event. They literally encouraged both sides to go to war with each other, allying back and forth between the two.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/iran_iraq_war_american_interest.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4859238

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/26/world/us-secretly-gave-aid-to-iraq-early-in-its-war-against-iran.html

Eritean-Ethiopia War.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/mountain1.html

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4185591?sid=21106243418723&uid=3737864&uid=2&uid=4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean%E2%80%93Ethiopian_War

Eklipse, read some books and don't come back until you have something semi-intelligent to say. You're so ignorant of what your own government is doing, it's nothing short of pathetic.

US was certainly "involved" to some extent.

Perhaps I should of chose my words more carefully. However, you did ask me to find wars that the U.S started. They certainly did not start Iraq-Iran war. They also were not directly involved in any combat despite whatever support was given.

In the Eritrean-Ethiopian war, US certainly picked sides as well, same thing as Iran-Iraq war.

Doesn't matter in this context. The U.S did not start said conflict and did not do any full scale invasions of either country that I know of.

Civil Wars? Other than the Artsakh war and the Abkhazian conflict and the various happenings in south of Kazakhstan, in which you should thank Russia that Tajikistan is not Islamic Tajik State

They've also been in Georgia on more than one occasion, and there is the matter of their current meddling with Ukraine. (Not just referring to Crimea.)

To Taisho: I'm not even going to dignify your post with a proper response until you learn how to debate without ad-hominems and personal attacks.

Edited 3/25/2015 21:33:12

Yes please use Wikipedia as a source! PLEASE.

Wikipedia is the only true encyclopedia. It offers an unbiased viewpoint on a variety of subjects because anybody can edit it, and an administration system so that people can't troll, or regular people who help out here and there. Wikipedia articles also usually have a healthy amount of credible sources, so there's that.

tl;dr have some faith in humanity.

>Funny story.
>Present.
>Surfing the WL forums.
>Havetowalkthroughallthedebategarbage.jpg
>Find a link.
>Instinctively click on it.
>Old Lawlz thread "Dont lie to yourselves".
>Finds good quote that summarizes these political debates very well.

"

I am highly tempted to take the bait. But why stir a debate regarding Israel-Palestine ? The views each person holds would be too dear to them and it would be a ceaseless debate with no practical outcome.

"
-Ehrmantraut

>Applaud.

Worth trying.

They've also been in Georgia on more than one occasion, and there is the matter of their current meddling with Ukraine. (Not just referring to Crimea.)

The Russian Federation was just fighting a Soviet war still going on, and it's just like when you are the new PM during a war: You don't just immediately sign a peace treaty, it won't get accepted, or it will be accepted with losses to you. The war started as a Soviet civil war contained in the GeoSSR, and the rest was just the going on with it.

And also, I thought Novorossiya was very obvious.

I'm not even going to dignify your post with a proper response until you learn how to debate without ad-hominems and personal attacks.

Had to translate ad hominem...still didn't make sense. Please speak English.
Also, this isn't a debate, it's a quarrel.

and now we watch as Xypapy continues to rape two kittens and a dog. and... OH WAIT , WHATS THIS?! HES HAVING ANAL SEX WITH THEM! A round of applause for Xypapy everyone!

Had to translate ad hominem...still didn't make sense. Please speak English.
Also, this isn't a debate, it's a quarrel.


A simple Google search would of helped, but here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
That part of my post wasn't even directed at you though.

Online a quarrel just equals people flaming each other and throwing around insults, seems pretty pointless to me. I'd rather have a civil debate but maybe that's not possible here.

You can't tell apart Latin and English. In normal worlds, they call it "Attacking person, not idea", not in Neo-Roma USA 2015.

And frankly, being called a fool is not that big an insult; you should be able to take that without whining too much.

@Genghis

Maybe unbiased but its a sufficiently reliable source. Anyone can edit, but who actually edits? Experts? I don't think so.

Edited 3/26/2015 12:44:37

Typical Ek loose. Ignore valid points which you cannot answer by criticising argument style. Grow up.

The only ones who need to grow up are the ones who can't debate without throwing out petty insults.

I'm not going to let this degrade to a flame war.