Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

End all be all...Russia's Status as a Super Power

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:18 PM
link   
And just one question to my American opponents.

Why the USA (allegedly "superpower", if not Russia) can't win the war in Iraq for almost what.. 4 years already ? Where is your mighty army when it comes to real war ? I wonder.




posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi

Back to Buran.
Why does it look similar to the space shuttle ?..Good question. But what does it have to look like? Like a flying saucer?

You'd better study aerodynamics before even trying to compare COMPLETELY different spaceships.


Yes indeed. One actually looks like it can fly while the other one looks like a cardboard box.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
Buran isn't (and hasn't ever been) a holy grail of Russian space programme so your tiny bit of information which is irrelevant to this thread is therefore quite useless.


Sure, that's what you say now considering the state of the russian space program.


If you're proud of your shuttle programme, don't forget it wasn't as successful as you wanted it to be, 7 people died and many were put at great risk since then. I see nothing to be proud of, seriously.


soviet(russian) cosmonauts died in the service to their country as well. I'm not lowering myself by making an issue of them.


Back to Buran.
Why does it look similar to the space shuttle ?..Good question. But what does it have to look like? Like a flying saucer?

You'd better study aerodynamics before even trying to compare COMPLETELY different spaceships.
[edit on 13-1-2007 by Leevi]


The windows, thrusters and even the hatch look the same and are in the same place. Can't even give you a "nice try" on that response. Plus, using your aerodynamics "logic", all russian airplanes would look the same as their U.S. counterparts - which they don't - except for the ones the russians copied like they did with the buran.





[edit on 1/13/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
And just one question to my American opponents.


So, you still consider us to be your "opponents". Why is that? If you're a russian, we're suposed to be on the same side now. And I guess we would be except for these dumb "russia wannabe a super power again" threads.



Why the USA (allegedly "superpower", if not Russia) can't win the war in Iraq for almost what.. 4 years already ? Where is your mighty army when it comes to real war ? I wonder.


Two part answer.
1 - Can you say afghanistan, where you lost militarily?
2 - This is what happens when politicians try to run a war. Unlike your experience with the afghans, U.S. would easily defeat insurgents just like they did the iraqi army - which was based on russian weapons and "tactics", BTW. If you want to compare to viet nam, the same is true. U.S. military won all the battles, but politicians cost them the war.






[edit on 1/13/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I just wanted to add here my observation.

I'm Finnish and I understand English quite well, very well to be precise.
Stellar's posts are not for "generic" people, because "generic" people's level of understanding is generally a lot lower. I'm not trying to insult anyone but this is exactly how it looks like here. American people's responses here aren't even close to be called respectable and are in no way comparable regarding the consistency and evidence which is presented in Stellar's posts. This is not my admiration, but just a little bit of my personal observation.
It's a pity English isn't my mother tongue so I could say it better.

[edit on 13-1-2007 by Leevi]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
And just one question to my American opponents.

Why the USA (allegedly "superpower", if not Russia) can't win the war in Iraq for almost what.. 4 years already ? Where is your mighty army when it comes to real war ? I wonder.


Your only looking at a very small part of the picture. In a conventional scenario america stands second to none IMO. Thats our bread and butter right there.
And in a conventional sense we have achieved victory. We destroyed the conventional Iraqi military with reletive ease in a matter of 3 weeks. We destroyed the safe haven for the taliban and Al Qaeda in afghanistan with relative ease. Its the occupation part that gets messy. Your seeing American forces trying to 'prevent' collateral damage right now. Had we used everything that is in a superpowers arsenal we could make Iraq a parking lott.

Right now America is in a transition of becoming a smaller, more technologically sophisticated fighting force that will be better adapted to fighting gorrilla style tactics. Our FFW (future force warrior) is due to come out in 2010 and go on from there. The technology from this transformation is open ended. We are switching from a bulky force that was to combat the USSR, into a much more sleek, lethal, fast striking force with much more power and capability then the current US military exhibits.





[edit on 033131p://0401pm by semperfoo]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Hmmm..when you say "ruskies" it makes me vomit from your nationalistic behaviour. Shame on this board it cannot deal with this.

[edit on 13-1-2007 by Leevi]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Im not here to do that. Nothing personal mate.
I changed it.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
I just wanted to add here my observation.

I'm Finnish and I understand English quite well, very well to be precise.
Stellar's posts are not for "generic" people, because "generic" people's level of understanding is generally a lot lower. I'm not trying to insult anyone but this is exactly how it looks like here. American people's responses here aren't even close to be called respectable and are in no way comparable regarding the consistency and evidence which is presented in Stellar's posts. [edit on 13-1-2007 by Leevi]


You're Finnish? That makes what you posted even more hard to fathom.

Regarding your "admiration" of stellarx's writings, a key point. Quantity of writing certainly does not equate to quality of writing. Case in point. It's easy to find some nut case on a park bench that will talk your ear off for hours - without them saying anything that makes sense at all. American people's responses are often short and to the point. After all, we're not trying to get a good grade on a term paper, we're just trying to get our point across with the least amount of typing possible. So, just because post runs on for over a full screen or more of BS does not make it better than a 2 or 3 liner containing the truth.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
And just one question to my American opponents.

Why the USA (allegedly "superpower", if not Russia) can't win the war in Iraq for almost what.. 4 years already ? Where is your mighty army when it comes to real war ? I wonder.


LOL, I fond this funny, snce we are comparing to Russia. Lets look at Chechnya. A far smaller country ( or province ) with a far smaller problem took years t subdue. We can see th Russian tactics such as mass bombardment of Grozny, killing thousands of civilians and still teh rebels escaped.
It was evident that almost all of the Russians in Grozny were poorly led and trained. Maybe the US should use the same tactics in Iraq, just carpet bomb Baghdad.

So obviously the Russian army is crap by your arguments.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leevi
I'm Finnish and I understand English quite well, very well to be precise.
Stellar's posts are not for "generic" people, because "generic" people's level of understanding is generally a lot lower. I'm not trying to insult anyone but this is exactly how it looks like here. American people's responses here aren't even close to be called respectable and are in no way comparable regarding the consistency and evidence which is presented in Stellar's posts.


Unfortunately you have come in on the back end of the conversation, in countless previous threads stellars conclusions have been shown to be bogus. He presents a little fact then leaps into what he thinks reality is, which alot of the time is not supported by what he posts. I foyu disagree then you re ignorant. When stellar forst came here, he used to kiss my ass for approval of his posts, after I constqantly showed his mistakes and leaps of faith, he became agressive and attempted to be condescending - which was funny because he knows I know far more than him.
His cuts and pastes the same stuff over and over again, which is why many people can't be bothered responding, it's the same old stuff. It seems you hvae been DAZZLED BY HIS BS. Maybe you think a little more rather than be spoon fed his incorrect view of the world.
Also people have already shown his sources to be mostly fictional at best.

PS. Many of the people here who consistantly debunked stellar are not American



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
sigh stellar, you come on here posturing like you know something


If you think what i present has anything to do with my posture your missing the point. Please do your best to look at the information and not the messenger.


and yet you dont know how the US helped russia dismantle following the CTR agreement?


I know about that and it's quite funny how the US paid to dismantle weaponry that the USSR would have had to themselves considering it's old age and all. The money taken from the US tax payer were used to dismantle old warheads and equipment while the Russians spent their own money on new equipment. Get it?



I suggest you stop insulting ones intelligence when you really lack it.


Who's intelligence am i insulting here?


At least two major "consensus" definitions of intelligence have been proposed. First, from Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, a report of a task force convened by the American Psychological Association in 1995:

Individuals differ from one another in their ability to understand complex ideas, to adapt effectively to the environment, to learn from experience, to engage in various forms of reasoning, to overcome obstacles by taking thought. Although these individual differences can be substantial, they are never entirely consistent: a given person’s intellectual performance will vary on different occasions, in different domains, as judged by different criteria. Concepts of "intelligence" are attempts to clarify and organize this complex set of phenomena.[1]

A second definition of intelligence comes from "Mainstream Science on Intelligence", which was signed by 52 intelligence researchers in 1994:

a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings—"catching on", "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do (reprinted in Intelligence Gottfredson, 1997, p. 13).[2]

en.wikipedia.org...(trait)


Based on those definitions i do not think i am insulting your intelligence as you are not.


here

www.nti.org...

for someone who 'knows' so much about russia i figured you would know this.


I do and it's quite the coup when you can force your enemy to help you dismantle your old stores of weaponry... It's very interesting to note that Russian strategic projects elsewhere continued so they clearly had money enough....


I hope you learned something, also prison planet is not good medicine, in the states it's considered rat poison.


You have never actually read a article on prison planet so please do not pretend that you actually have any idea what gets said there or on any of his other websites. If you want to engage in discussion site a article or statement you have issue with so that it may become more obvious that you have read what you disagree with.

Stellar


ape

posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 04:11 PM
link   
i think it's funny that before your last post you had zero clue the US helped russia and gorbachev to dismantle because OF RUSSIAS CONCERNS. now all of a sudden you 'know'? you didnt know anything before you received an education on this forum in regards to the subject and then right after you go into condescending attack mode like usual.

i think it's funny how you have straight forward proof that the US helped russia with it's nuke issue in good faith yet you somehow still manage to take that bit of information and imply the US is idiotic.




Clever Russians to convince people to give them cash they will spend as they see fit. Why did the Russians have so much money to upgrade and deploy new strategic weapons and nuclear warheads but not enough money ( according to the west) to disband their older warheads? How powerful must you be so that others give you something for nothing which they will surely use against you? Why do the Russian have a national ABM system when the US does not? Why is the US economic and strategic position declining so very fast?






I know about that and it's quite funny how the US paid to dismantle weaponry that the USSR would have had to themselves considering it's old age and all. The money taken from the US tax payer were used to dismantle old warheads and equipment while the Russians spent their own money on new equipment. Get it?



actually it wasn't '(according to the west)' it was '(according to gorbachev)'.

"The Soviet Nuclear Threat Reduction Act of 1991" (Public Law 102-228, 12/12/91, Title II Soviet Weapons Destruction), which stemmed from Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev’s request for assistance in dismantling Soviet nuclear weapons

your postst are the epitomy of ignorance, the US not only forked out cash they sent bodies over there to assist. if you're going to try to debate please educate yourself on the subject matter before hand.







[edit on 14-1-2007 by ape]



posted on Jan, 14 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Further to what ape was saying. The SOviet practice was not to recycle old warheads but to build new ones. Therefore they had an immense pile of dangerous radioactive leaking junk warheads all over the place which probably would hvae fizzled due to Helium-3 decay in their thremonuclear fuel. The US did a service not just to Russia but the world.

Stellar once again your arguamnts are pointless. Also you keep on bringing up this mythical Soviert/RUssian ABM system which I hvae debunked on so many occassions I find it hard to laguh at you anymore. You're tactics are simple keep on repeating the same stuff over and over and make everyone bored with answering you, then you claim that as some sort of victory vindicsting your " enlightnement " - I assure you it's not as others have said as well.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:09 AM
link   
That is what I understand. The Soviets did not even do the upkeep that the US did to keep warheads viable, and average warhead lifespan for a Soviet warhead was suppose to be around 6 years, afterwhich it was stored in the belief that after the first line newer warheads were used, they would chuck those in storage into the battle whether they worked or not. The US on the other hand, kept up the stored warheads in usable condition which is a costly process, and is why the US chose to dismantle it's warheads. Overall, the US produced about 70,000 warheads, never more than 34,000 were ever "operational" at any one time, peaking around 1968. The Soviets never dismantled theirs, and just kept producing until they had around 45,000 warheads by some accounts, probably only a portion of them actually would produce the desired yield. This method also appeased the historical Soviet/Russian paranoia of being second best by being able to claim they had more warheads, even if not as many as the US had would actually work.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Further to what ape was saying. The SOviet practice was not to recycle old warheads but to build new ones.


Evidence please.


Therefore they had an immense pile of dangerous radioactive leaking junk warheads all over the place which probably would hvae fizzled due to Helium-3 decay in their thremonuclear fuel.


Evidence please.


The US did a service not just to Russia but the world.


Evidence please. All we know for sure is that the US paid to help Russia dismantle old weaponry while the Russians proceeded to build new weaponry.


Stellar once again your arguamnts are pointless.


Once again something you have never proven in the past and never managed to substantiate when requested to. If all you want to do is slander me then do so but please stop pretending it's based on flaws you found in the information i presented as you never have been able to prove that.


Also you keep on bringing up this mythical Soviert/RUssian ABM system which I hvae debunked on so many occassions I find it hard to laguh at you anymore


You stopped responding last time when after a series of posts i quoted FAS telling you very clearly that the V-1000 and the Sa-5 Gammon was in fact very much related. Please respond to my last post on that thread if you want to contest the data.


You're tactics are simple keep on repeating the same stuff over and over


What else can i do against such vapid slander when my information is never addressed or proved incorrect? Why must i keep introducing new sources and evidentiart tracts if you could not raise a logical objection to the earlier information?


and make everyone bored with answering you,


No one has to respond to what i say as i make it quite clear what is opinion and what i consider to be fact. If you do not respond to my post with nonsense i will have no reason to point out the inconsistencies. I never do start these discussions yet i am called the propagandist?


then you claim that as some sort of victory vindicsting your " enlightnement " -


I don't consider your ignorance of the information i introduced as evidence that i am in fact on the right path or that what i present must be true but since you have not introduced any information that seriously contests what i have presented , or the conclusions i reached based on it, i don't see why i should change my opinions or beliefs because you do not agree with me.


I assure you it's not as others have said as well.


Well personally don't much care if people who refuse to look at the information does not like my conclusions and if the staff of ATS seems happy with the arrangement ( as they seem to be) you can just keep slandering me for the rest my stay here as it will not prevent me from contesting your vapid propaganda inspired opinion any more than it ever did before.

Slander away Rogue!

Stellar



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Your only looking at a very small part of the picture. In a conventional scenario america stands second to none IMO. Thats our bread and butter right there.
And in a conventional sense we have achieved victory.
So let's look at the big part of the picture shall we? Besides winning over a inferior army, what has been achieved??
1.A paper democracy
2.Civil War
3.Blatant Human Abuses

We destroyed the conventional Iraqi military with reletive ease in a matter of 3 weeks.
Wow, big achievement, considering how incredibly inferior the iraq army was.

We destroyed the safe haven for the taliban and Al Qaeda in afghanistan with relative ease.
Occupied a region only, taliban and Al Qaeda still exist, and still attack...besides occupying a parched country, nothing achieved.

Its the occupation part that gets messy. Your seeing American forces trying to 'prevent' collateral damage right now.
Well considering US forces had no excuse to be in Iraq but false arguements, that's pretty nice of the US.

Had we used everything that is in a superpowers arsenal we could make Iraq a parking lot.
Sounds like Nazi Germany to me "Let's use all our arsenal regardless of civilians, even when they are not the enemy." That's how war was waged in the 40s, not the modern age, when unnessary death and grief can be somewhat prevented.



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Unfortunately you have come in on the back end of the conversation, in countless previous threads stellars conclusions have been shown to be bogus.


Please point to one such thread or even instance as i always remember you leaving a few posts after your started insulting me when i kept showing up contradictions and general errors in your statements. Why must you tell such a obvious lies to discourage other from getting involved in this discussion and investigating the history of this topic on ATS? What is your motive for not wanting people to read all the source material i have presented in the past?


He presents a little fact then leaps into what he thinks reality is,


Once again i normally base my views on relatively large volumes of evidence which are very much based on the discussion that took place in intelligence circles at various times.


which alot of the time is not supported by what he posts.


Please show a single instance so that i may point out the dozens of times i showed up your vast errors and ignorance on any given number of topics.


I foyu disagree then you re ignorant.


I do not call everyone who disagree with me ignorant as at least a few actually familiarized themselves with the evidence and managed to raise objections i had to study in far more depth... When i call you ignorant it is because you refuse to look at the information you dismiss and just behave as if it does not exist so that you may continue to say the same old thing without admitting any mistakes as i have on occasions been forced to.


When stellar forst came here, he used to kiss my ass for approval of his posts,


Please provide a reference as i don't recall every respecting the nature of your objections to my posts on ATS.


after I constqantly showed his mistakes and leaps of faith,


Please provide some instances as i think i am relatively well aware of what i have said in the past and wont mind admitting mistakes if they seem obvious now.


he became agressive and attempted to be condescending -


I don't think my behaviour towards you can be called condescending as it assumes you are actually familiar with the subject matter when that never did seem to be the case. If anything i have treated you far better than you deserve to be but i think that will also be obvious to those who have actually been following your consistent stream of insults against me over the last year.


which was funny because he knows I know far more than him.


While that may be true for every other subject ( everyone should feel free to check our posting records) it was never the case in respect to the variety of topics related to weaponry and the true nature of the cold war.


His cuts and pastes the same stuff over and over again,


Since they are normally completely ignored in the responses and insults directed at me afterwards i sometimes feel the need to restate my position and what i base it on. I do not post data i do not feel i can defend and so far i am confident that i have defended whatever i copied and pasted in the past. Once again feel free to go pick a certain quote and contest it here or wherever else.


which is why many people can't be bothered responding,


No one has to respond and they can even briefly respond saying they do not share my opinion. I always respond to your responses as they contain so much insult and general propaganda ( which i have proven to be false on many other occasions) and rarely the evidence that would substantiate claims suggested to be fact.


it's the same old stuff. It seems you hvae been DAZZLED BY HIS BS.


So because he seems to agree with at least some bits of evidence and conclusions i have presented you will now insult him too?


Maybe you think a little more rather than be spoon fed his incorrect view of the world.


How have i ever spoon fed anyone when i have asked no one to simply believe me? Show me one thread where i try propagandize people and demand they 'just believe me' as you seem to suggest here.


Also people have already shown his sources to be mostly fictional at best.


I am not aware of such people so please refer me to their responses to my posts as i have made a point on ATS to always respond to information that questions what i presented if only to admit mistakes.


PS. Many of the people here who consistantly debunked stellar are not American


Once again i do not recall anyone 'debunking' the information i have presented but any reference to such a thread will aid you no end in 'exposing' me for the 'fraud' i supposedly am.

I await your references to these threads as i am no more above admitting mistakes now than i have been in the past and i do not mind reconsidering my views if you want to resume any of the following discussions where you seemed to have run out steam.

ttp://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread144543/pg1

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Stellar



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Ah you're back posting again. They give you the weekend off from the Russian consulate down there in Capetown?

Regarding what you stated in your last post, please accept this as me "briefly responding to you" to say that I do not agree with pretty much anything you have posted for all the reasons previously stated by myself and many others. In addition to the tedious length of your posts, your tendency towards insulting the intelligence of anyone that disagrees with you has grown more than troubling and annoying.

Now, as you stated in the title of this post, can this truly be the "end all" of posts regarding russia's (imaginary) status as a super power?

Thank you in advance!




[edit on 1/16/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Ioseb.

a. In any war, one army will always be quantifiably weaker. While Iraq was, with no chance of true debate, much weaker, this was not in anyway a part of the original poster's argument. Right now, you are merely attacking the descriptions he used. You're failing to accomplish much else besides attacking other's for their point of view -- Something entirely off-topic.
Further, in what methods do you view the Democracy in Iraq as 'paper'? Those areas which are controlled by coalition or government forces are quite democratic. ie. Those which are not currently consumed in a civil uprising against opposing religions, and are under a true government, are working marvelously.
Further still, to complain about civil war is to complain about the weather on any given day. For many years, the tyrant minority ruled over a majority. Given the mistreatment, without even counting in the natural animosity between the two groups, this was the only potential outcome.
And yet further, Human Abuse happens anywhere, in any country. Under most conditions, it is the individual to blame. So unless you feel like bringing up torture practices -- Where I'll counter, easily, by their efficiency and reasoning -- Which would be entirely off-topic anyway, leave it alone.

Now, let us see if you have anything with actual reason, or depth.

a. Taliban and Al Qaeda may always exist, until interest is lost. It's eas to convert a desolated people, which includes much of the Middle-East, into a purposeful organization, which does not have any particular head to strike-at, or body to destroy. We call only hit appendages, loose, relatively worthless regions of the body at any one time, generally.
Further, as always, are you actually complaining about it being a 'parched country'? There's no actual reason behind this besides throwing in some sort of loosely-formed insult. If I'm missing something, and you weren't just continuing to complain about the weather, please describe?

b. Complaining about the reasons behind U.S. occupation has little to do with this thread. Please stay on-topic.

c. I'm fond of the metaphor between Nazi Germany and the U.S.
i. You state Nazi Germany used all of its power to flatten a helpless, largely pacifist population.
ii. The United States restricted its weapon to conventional armaments, to attack a hostile nation, which frequently, publicly touted its military force, and routinely used that force to threaten the surrounding region.
iii. Nazi Germany did not care about casualties. U.S. Forces must worry, must always take a double-take to prevent the things. This is one reason, along many why the U.S. casualty rate is so high. Attack the civillian? Did he have a gun? Does that car have a bomb? In the fourties, such as you mentioned, it was cut-and-dry. Kill anything that might pose a threat.
Here, we cannot do that.

I would request we keep empty arguments out of this thread from now on, which so far has veered largely off-course. Debating about prior and past threads, about the legitimacy of the poster rather than of his argument, and about the small details which do not at-all pertain to the discussion at hand only seek to further degrade the quality of debate.

Thank You.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join