Putin to US: Danger of Mutual Destruction!

Originally posted by semperfoo
Your kidding right? It was a role reversal question. My question to him is totally justifiable in the sense that it was EXACTLY what he was asking me but in reverse. Basically my point I was trying to make by asking those questions was am I to alienate and stereotype an entire nations population because they dont know the capitols of those cities? ....Does that mean that they are arrogant and ignorant for not knowing better?
[edit on 023131p://3405am by semperfoo]

Well no, I'm not kidding.

The point is this. Its reasonable to expect an American to know more about the US than someone from outside the country.

Its reasonable for a Russian to know more about Russia than someone from outside the country.

The point (I think) that was being made is that it appears - and it may be wrong - that non-US citizens seem to know more about the world in general than US ones do.

This can be understandable because the US is fairly well self contained, and as such people there do not need to know so much about other places, whereas people tend to travel from smaller countries, and deal with more outside influences.

Originally posted by neformore
[
Well no, I'm not kidding.

The point is this. Its reasonable to expect an American to know more about the US than someone from outside the country.

Its reasonable for a Russian to know more about Russia than someone from outside the country.

The point (I think) that was being made is that it appears - and it may be wrong - that non-US citizens seem to know more about the world in general than US ones do.

This can be understandable because the US is fairly well self contained, and as such people there do not need to know so much about other places, whereas people tend to travel from smaller countries, and deal with more outside influences.

Exactly what I'm trying to say. Like I said in my post earlier, this doesn't have to be a good or bad thing and i'm not pointing it out as a right or wrong thing, atleast i'm not intending or trying to

Thank you Neformore

Regards,
Maestro

[edit on 9-5-2007 by maestro46]

Originally posted by semperfoo In the end we all are inhabitants of this planet. Its our home. We all breathe the same air, share the same water, and the very ground we walk on etc. we dont always get along with one another, and this is not americas fault only, borders are drawn, and national interests come first in every nation. you cant blame america for just doing what everyone else is doing. Even if its slightly on a larger scale. Hopefully someday in the not to distant future we can all put the past behind us and start looking forward to what the future 'might' hold for us all.

Now lets see, I think that the US is doing what everyone else is doing (as you put it) around the world on a far larger scale to be a fact. You called it an opinion - and never responded to me asking why you thought it was an opinion and what was your opinion in that case. Lets look for suggestions and evidence of it in your posts that point to it being a fact -

Originally posted by semperfoo
America is the richest, most powerful nation this planet has ever seen. Stronger then the roman empire at its peak, stronger then the british empire, etc..

hmmm, slightly larger scale, yes....

Originally posted by semperfoo
But nobody bitched and moaned and asked what russia, china, or europe were doing. Even though they were doing considerably less then the US was.

So you've just said there that the US does considerably more then Russia (largest country in the world), Europe (anybody wanna count how many countries got stabbed there?) and China (not sure but isn't that like a 6th of the world's population). And I agree, it probably does, so what I'm saying is in fact - a fact.

Originally posted by semperfoo
For instance the United States millitary.. Its prowess is unmatched, perfectly built to take life.

Your military might is silghtly larger according to your comments too isn't it. While people may argue about which military is better blah blah blah. The US has the largest military budget to ensure that it stays on top. The US does spend more money on arms and troops then anyone else. Consider those numbers and tell me they're slightly larger.

Originally posted by semperfoo
We're talking about 10s of billions of dollars.

Slightly larger scale yet again ladies and gents.

Alright - just some of your own words. According to you America is the largest number one country with the strongest military and enough money to spare to aid most third world countries. That's slightly on a larger scale then everyone else? Modest are we?

Oh and you're talking about the world "bitching and moaning" about the US not giving enough aid and talking about how the world isn't thankful enough. Perhaps you're closing yourself to the actual thanks and appreciation extended to the US. But you infact are the person who's "bitching and moaning" in a forum about how unappreciated your country is. This isn't a place to do so, and it's not on topic. And last but not least - real respect can't be asked for, it can only be given. Now I'm sure the victims of the tsunami give your nation alot of the respect it desreves for helping them. But has it even crossed your mind? You seem to care more for other nations being greatful the those who you actually help. And I strongly doubt any nation that recieves aid from the US is ungreatful for it. They thank you atleast in some extent even if they don't show it. Understand that a refugee in Africa can't get on line, make an account on ATS and thank you. Assume the best in people. But going on about "America isn't appreciated, we're talked down, other nations only see bad in us" - you're the one whinning.

Regards,
Maestro

[edit on 9-5-2007 by maestro46]

Originally posted by maestro46
Now lets see, I think that the US is doing what everyone else is doing (as you put it) around the world on a far larger scale to be a fact. You called it an opinion - and never responded to me asking why you thought it was an opinion and what was your opinion in that case. Lets look for suggestions and evidence of it in your posts that point to it being a fact -

I was in a bit of a hurry when I was typing to you the last time. I must have missed your question. I never met to make it into some long drawn out debate over those words only. America has its special interest scattered all over the place. A strong military as well as political power is a necessity in this crazy world today. And in regards to the "slightly larger scale".. That was a form of expression with a bit of unfunny humor on my part...

Originally posted by semperfoo
America is the richest, most powerful nation this planet has ever seen. Stronger then the roman empire at its peak, stronger then the british empire, etc..

hmmm, slightly larger scale, yes....

The US is the worlds sole superpower.. I happen to think all this is true. I also happen to think that this world is getting richer at the same time, thus closing the gap. Toes are bound to be stepped on in the future based on 'special interests' from around the world. (The US is a microcosm of things to come in other words.)

Originally posted by semperfoo
So you've just said there that the US does considerably more then Russia (largest country in the world), Europe (anybody wanna count how many countries got stabbed there?) and China (not sure but isn't that like a 6th of the world's population). And I agree, it probably does, so what I'm saying is in fact - a fact.

But love, In form of aid the US does a lot more then the countrys mentioned above. Now this doesnt mean the countrys in question here arnt doing anything... Theyre just doing considerably less. Anyways...the reason why I wrote what I wrote was because I feel that the US is judged a bit to soon. In this case, its guilty until proven innocent for everything the US has done, the bad out weighs the good and so on and so forth....

Your military might is silghtly larger according to your comments too isn't it. While people may argue about which military is better blah blah blah. The US has the largest military budget to ensure that it stays on top. The US does spend more money on arms and troops then anyone else. Consider those numbers and tell me they're slightly larger.

I understand the point your getting at. But remember this.. The US is the worlds sole superpower, some say america is beyond the superpower status, they say its whats known as a Megapower. That military budget used to be around 275 billion dollars in the late 90's. Now I understand that that is a # tone of money but it was dropping off. We still had a huge military industrial complex (some ppl hate the word, but its true) left from the cold war. Russia to this day is a perceived threat as is china, north korea and Iran. Now, remember 9/11 2001? That kicked started americas war on terror. We decided instead of giving in (like spain), we were going to fight a bitter fight with the terrorist till the end. We were not going to let the terrorist push us around. This 'war on terror' is going to take alot of funds and resources. Arguably by going after the terrorist, this is another thing america who has taken the lead role here, is doing to better this world. However even with all that power, allies are needed. We cannot do this on our own. This problem is bigger then americas problem. And as neformore's signature states, "terrorism did not start on 911".

Originally posted by semperfoo
We're talking about 10s of billions of dollars.

Slightly larger scale yet again ladies and gents.
I was talking about the remittances that the illegal aliens send back to there home countrys to there familys.

Alright - just some of your own words. According to you America is the largest number one country with the strongest military and enough money to spare to aid most third world countries. That's slightly on a larger scale then everyone else? Modest are we?

Indeed it is...But then again who is the worlds sole superpower at this moment in time?

Oh and you're talking about the world "bitching and moaning" about the US not giving enough aid and talking about how the world isn't thankful enough. Perhaps you're closing yourself to the actual thanks and appreciation extended to the US. But you infact are the person who's "bitching and moaning" in a forum about how unappreciated your country is. This isn't a place to do so, and it's not on topic. And last but not least - real respect can't be asked for, it can only be given. Now I'm sure the victims of the tsunami give your nation alot of the respect it desreves for helping them. But has it even crossed your mind? You seem to care more for other nations being greatful the those who you actually help. And I strongly doubt any nation that recieves aid from the US is ungreatful for it. They thank you atleast in some extent even if they don't show it. Understand that a refugee in Africa can't get on line, make an account on ATS and thank you. Assume the best in people. But going on about "America isn't appreciated, we're talked down, other nations only see bad in us" - you're the one whinning.

it may come off as whining to you but its the truth. How many threads here on ATS have to do with the "coming collapse of america"? Its as if most ppl here would love to see it come to pass.. How about the Iraq war? I happen to think that we shouldnt be there, but based on the intel we as well as the rest of the world had, its somehow supposed to be americas fault. A suicide bomber detonates a car bomb in a market place killing himself as well as 30 other ppl, more are injured. Where does that finger get pointed? At the insergent who did the 'dirty deed'? No, that finger gets pointed at the US.. People say that we are just there for their oil, and thats probably true to an extent. But whats wrong with the US buying oil from a free Iraq at market prices, when before none of the benefits were going to the Iraqi people? How about the US actions which have put a stop to the Oil-for-food scandal?.. These never come to ppls minds. They are just hell bent on bashing the US. Is that aimed at you? Nope, infact, and correct me if Im wrong but, I believe this is the firs time our paths crossed..so I dont know where you stand on such issues. And if you dont feel the same way then great, I have some respect for ya... I just get tired and fed up with all the anti american sentiment that flourishes all over this site.



[edit on 113131p://0405am by semperfoo]

[edit on 113131p://0605am by semperfoo]

Originally posted by semperfoo

Arguably by going after the terrorist, this is another thing america who has taken the lead role here, is doing to better this world. However even with all that power, allies are needed. We cannot do this on our own. This problem is bigger then americas problem. And as neformore's signature states, "terrorism did not start on 911".

See. Now Heres a problem. And its one that keeps coming up. And as you quoted my signature I'll tell you why its there.

You see - I didn't see any B52's carpet bombing Dublin and sections of Ireland when the IRA was blowing up large chunks of UK cities.

In fact, for a long time lobbyists in the US Senate kept open several loopholes that allowed US groups to fund the IRA.

So when someone from the US decides to harp on about "America fighting terrorism" my signature is there to try and remind you that you sat on your backsides as a nation while other people were getting the crap blown out of them for the previous 30 years in the UK.

Kudos to Bill Clinton. He shut the loopholes.

But it was only after the planes hit on Sept 11th 2001 that you decided we all really should do something about it, and then you invaded two countries.

Problem was we'd been dealing with it for years already, which oddly brings us back to the topic of Americans being percieved as overbearing and arrogant...... doesn't it?

[edit on 9/0507/07 by neformore]

Originally posted by maestro46
alright....spare me me from the "you're wrong, I'm right". I'm not gonna bother screaming no every time you say yes. I don't have time for that. I made my point pretty clear so feel free to continue calling me a stereotype.

Im sorry, but when ever you base your opinion on an entire nations population off of some geographically challenged ppl what else do you expect me to call you?

Well lets see, yes, based on my life experiences. And again, considering you don't know me, I wouldn't "lol" them. I've just listed you examples of what I've seen and heard. And yes, considering the fact that I've known and met hundreds of Americans who tell me this (jokingly or not) this is the struggle that forms in my mind: who do I believe? This one guy who gets drunk and yet still decides to post here actually bothering to tell people that he's buzzed like it's a credibility, or every single american I knew who told me contradictory to what he's saying. Dang that's a hard fight there. Oh and not to mention that I've been in the US and lived there. So I'm not just sitting at home comming up with this, I am as a matter of fact, telling you what I've seen in my life. And that i'm telling you my own experiences and you're simply discarding them as nonsense - that's ignorance my friend.

Yes, I came on here buzzed.. honestly, Im human. Yes I probably should have had my computer taken away from me at the time but im not going to try and hide and deny something thats irreversible. I also dont care what anyone on here (who I will never meet) thinks of me either.

And you're no lawyer so stop trynig to be one. Yhea slavery was abolished after the civil war. Don't think I dont know that. That still didn't grant blacks equal rights, they were still sub-human pretty much. And if you are gonna try to catch me on my words atleast read my posts carefully next time. ---->

I refuse to defend the actions of the ppl who committed such hateful acts. My family immigrated to the US from Sweden and Germany just before WWII. I dont consider myself a part of the discriminatory acts committed..

"Yhea, I see your point. However I find it rather funny that America tells countries how to treat their people after America went through how many years of oppresion and slavery? And now the claim is "we've changed."

This is what you wrote. You did throw in the word oppression but you still used slavery in there as if it hadnt ever been abolished. And then you faulted the US for something that has been dead for 172 years atleast on the federal and state levels. And yes we have changed. America is a very cultural diverse nation now. We've had to change.

So what Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't fighting oppression? Segregation was oppression of blacks? OUCH

he was fighting for equal rights and opportunities among all men and women. And I admire the man. EVERYONE could have learned a thing or two from him. But slavery...was dead before he came along. That was the point I made. And while segregation is bad, its not near as bad as being someones slave till the day you die.

Were you buzzed again?

mebbe...

It was never a question of being a priority. It;s an option you have more then others due to: easier grants for visa, and more money (you have to admit an avarage american is richer the most other avarage people, weather by a small or large margin, that depends on who we're comparing to)...those are the 2 main things off the top of my head. There are more if you ask me to list more.

I agree, but take into consideration that the cost of living is also higher in america as well. Luxurys such as leaving the country are not more important then paying the bills etc... They can be a nice thought though..

No, the reason I'm saying I want America to do so....look at the title of the thread and what we're discussing.

You didnt answer my full question.. Even if these countrys (in regards to this thread) want these ABM systems? America is not pushing anything on them. We're just letting them know that the keys to the storage lock to the guns is is under the mat if they so wish to use them

Right, what won't you say. To all you foreigners out there, you should all go mind your own buisness. The US conquer *cough* fix your nation for you. Way to go semper I swear. Telling the world to mind it's own buisness when the US has it's nose in everyone's buisness.

So its alright for other nations to judge the US while being completely oblivious to what there own country is doing? It goes back to the house of cards expression.


[edit on 113131p://5205am by semperfoo]

Originally posted by semperfoo
.

The decision, to be announced later in the day, came a year after the administration ordered a competition between Lawrence Livermore near San Francisco and Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because it had not been formally announced.
abcnews.go.com...
U.S. picks design for new nuclear warhead
www.msnbc.msn.com...

looks like your wrong bud…

It just means that i did not read the last two months worth of news on the topic and that i were thus unaware that the US administration PLANS to pick designs for future nuclear warheads. The Russian have obviously deployed new land based and sea based nuclear weapons while also having plans for newer one's.

Do you understand the difference between having done and possible doing in the future?

Get over yourself Marry...

Stop responding while pretending to be under the influence.

It was in the "End all be all..." Thread.. You look it up yourself. Many posters pointed out how the US had to go over to russia to help maintain and protect russias nuclear arsenal.

And i corrected them and showed that the US did do some of that but that the weapons were largely old and the money generally mismanaged by the Russians and probably employed for other adventures. I can re-post the sources if you do not even want to link us to your claims.

That seemed to have slipped your mind in that very thread as it has in this one, if memory serves correctly.

My memory rarely lets me down when it comes to who said what and when and i suggest you start backing your claims. In this instance you should at least show that i did not in fact respond to the claims that the Russians 'could not managed their own nuclear weapons'.

Also it was proven that Russias "vast" nuclear arsenal was bloated, bogus numbers due to the fact that russia never properly disposed (replaced) of its nukes.

No it was not shown and i in fact showed that the USSR had by the mid 80's build up a massive superiority in ICBMs and SLBM's deploying thousands more missiles with generally far larger warheads than the slightly less accurate weapons required.

If your not going to be making a list or object in terms of pure numbers and the hard data western and Russian/Soviet journals give us your not contributing by making unsupported claims.

Thus the bogus bloated numbers...

What bloated bogus numbers? Where is the evidence?

Like you, as man from south africa would honestly know any better then the US, the worlds sole hyperpower....

Well i am only quoting defense journals and the like so my nationality does not at all matter. Why on Earth do so many attempt to use my location as 'evidence' that my claims are somehow 'untrue'? What do you think you know about me?

Alls that you are known for around here is looking up bogus material up on the internet and claiming it as if it were fact, when in actuality it couldnt be further from the truth..

Who decides what material is bogus? Why do you think FAS/Janes/Global security and all the rest of the WESTERN sources i use are bogus or lying? What evidence have you presented to show this?

You have no photographic evidence, no statistics etc, nothing!

I certainly do not and that is why i rely on western defense and intelligence journals for all the data i supply and base my claims on. Why do you never cite your sources as i do?

You really need to get out more. How many hours a day do you spend online looking up such "vapid" lies. (sound familiar

)

Thanks for the concern but i am doing what i like when objecting and pointing out the lies and misrepresentations ignorants such as yourself attempt to spread as gospel

Whats funny is that it would seem that, in order to find out whats 'really' going on in russia , all is that one would need to do is look it up on the internet...

That's probably not enough but given that going to Russia would not allow me to inspect their ICBMs and strategic submarines it really is quite irrelevant. What i am doing is showing you what those who are supposed to know what is going on in Russia is telling us.

You are not objecting to the data and are apparently just here to object to the conclusions that sane people come to when looking at it.

so forgive me for NOT takeing you seriously.

Since you did not supply any legitimate reason for objecting to my claims i don't much care for your opinions.

I, like various other posters in the past, (ape, westpoint, rogue, and centurian, just to name a few) have come to the conclusion that you really are not worth the time it takes to type out a response.

Then stop typing. Since i am simply objecting( by posting corrections ) to lies you and others are attempting to spread it would be supremely easy to shut me up; inform yourself before posting or do not knowingly post lies.

I don’t grace this site all that much with all my glory anyways. But im not going to waste the little time that I actually do take on here in debating your overrated ass.

You are not 'debating' me as you rarely go so far as to support your opinions with data from official sources. I would ideally use this time in discussion with informed people but your particular brand of ignorance and arrogance does work well in enticing me to respond to all the nonsense you consider fact.

Well 3 at the very least..Im sure it is more however..

The United States estimates that only about 40 percent of Russia's nuclear storage sites are up to U.S. security standards.
www.answers.com...

I wouldnt be surprised if it was more..

Well fact is there is no specific and hard evidence that any Russian nuclear weapons have been 'stolen' and this article offers nothing in defense of your position.

Im not going to get into the specifics here mainly because I just dont care to continue on with such discussions with you.

And while i feel that you can not continue because the data does not support your views your free to withdraw and i will as always do my best not to kick you while your once again on the ground.

I think Afghanistan is a great measuring stick if you ask me.. Both nations have been there, Russia got its ass kicked while america is the one kicking ass and taking names.

The great question here is whether the Russians were in 2001 or just before supplying the Taliban with weapons and funds to prosecute a war against the US. How Afghanistan is better able to resist a invasion after two decades of civil war and a Russian invasion is obviously quite beyond me but i suppose it makes 'sense' when one wants it to.

We unlike russia are actually conducting a successful military campaign in that country.

I would not call it 'successful' but it's certainly killing less people than the Soviet actions caused. That being said the Afghan government called for Soviet Union to come aid them against the rebel forces while the Taliban did not. How many nation states are currently furnishing the Afghan resistance with arms, money and general resources? One might compare Vietnam with the Soviet Afghanistan but to compare that earlier war with the one today is not accurate and can not be supported.

It also is a well known fact that the CIA trained and funded the Afghani warlords to fight the Soviets. Are you somehow denying this?

Since i don't deny reality i did not deny that. Without the arms and resources from United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Egypt, China and United Kingdom one wonders how effective the resistance would have been.

ATTENTION! School is in session..

I wish...

America gave saddams army WMDs which helped shut up the Iranians once and for all. That was an 8 year war. So I don’t know how you can conclude a win for either side.

The fact that the Shatt al-Arab returned to Iraq in 1988 after the lost it in 1975 kinda tells me who 'lost' even if the equipment and manpower numbers could/would not. Iraqi military strength and 'prosperity' increased during the war while it declined in Iran. The Soviet Union 'won' the second world war even thought it lost more than four times as many citizens as Germany and while your fascination with body counts is noted i must point out the irrelevance of it all.

Both lost more then they gained.

Iraq gained more than they lost if one works from the supposition that they considered their citizens as expendable as the US considers the hundreds of thousands of soldiers that have been permanently disabled or killed by the last two wars in Iraq.

Hell, during that war, Iran began attacking tankers and we sent the US navy in to protect the oil flow. When the Iranians got aggressive and nasty, our navy destroyed half the Iranian navy in an afternoons time.

What Iranian 'navy'? You mean the few old American ships they were operating at the time?

So where are you getting that the US was ‘helping’ the Iranians?

Iran-Contra? Israel? Do you do any research?

I believe the Iranians were using SOVIET equipment along with outdated American equipment as well…

Their armed forces were almost entirely based on American equipment as is widely known by those who do research.

The US lost Vietnam NOT on the battlefields with the equipment provided, but on the political fields.

As i have repeatedly said but then that's exactly what happened to the USSR in Afghanistan which you probably wont admit to.

Continued

The Navy SEALS themselves had a 200-1 kill ratio over Charlie.

Which is something only chest thumping nationalistic ignorants like yourself chooses to believe.

Korea was never lost as the US successfully defended the prosperous south and still continues that ritual even today.

The North were in fact the industrialized 'rich' part of Korea in 1950 and once again that is something you would have known had you been studying your opinions for 'truth'. The 'prosperous' South only become so a few decades after the North and that's once again something you can check with the UN or the CIA/state department. North Korea were in fact the second most industrialized 'country' after Japan until the late 70's and it's growth rate and general living standards exceeded that of the South until the mid 70's.

And I believe the enemys suffered far greater casualties then the US forces did in those conflicts…

Actually the US army and it's South Korean allies suffered greater casualties in wounded and dead than did the North Korean army and their later Chinese allies. Once again this is quite easy to verify even if popular perception had you arriving at the opposite conclusion. Your biggest problem is not that you are ignorant but that you want to stay that way rather believing what you like than what is supported by the historic record. .

Lets look at Iraq war 1 and 2. Iraq, which was sculpted after the Red army itself just before the final days of the USSR, was UNSUCCESSFUL against the US military.

The Iraqi army could and was not sculpted after the red army and you should not believe something without supporting evidence. The Iraqi army were unsuccessful against the US army but only after eighth years of war with Iran, one war where it was attacked while retreating back to Iraq from Kuwait and 15 years of sanctions and air bombardment. One should quite probably be surprised that they managed any resistance at all given the condition of their armed forces by 2003.

In gulf war one, The ground campaign only lasted a measly 3 DAYS!

And the air campaign? Did you know that the Iraqi's were outnumbered and that they had completely lacked the logistical system to support their relatively large armed forces in a 'real war'? Does it matter that the 'ground war' lasted three days in largely desert conditions where one can from the sky do as much damage as you liked?

American equipment went up against the best Russian equipment available at the time and OWNED!!!

I supplied you with a large number of sources showing that they did not operate any modern Russian equipment but you just completely ignored it. Why do you feel you need to igore all the information that contradicts your opinions?

However, the tanks used by Iraqis were mostly copies of 50 year old Soviet design and the shells these tanks used had Chinese steel penetrators or Soviet penetrators, which were decommissioned in 1970's, because they were outdated then (in 1970's). The same situation held for other branches of Iraqi military.

en.wikipedia.org...

Even back in 03 after the crushing of the Iraqi military FOR THE SECOND TIME, Russian generals were in total shock and dismay at the outcome.

Some said that they were and i addressed their claims in the following link

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I do not demand responses when i correct people ,or even that they admit their ignorance, but i do get slightly upset when they make a habit of restating their position while never acknowledging my responses. The Iraq armed forces of 2003 were a shell of a former shell and lacked even the semblance of strength that it had in 1991.

Many chose to accept reality and concede to the fact that the American armed forces were and are FAR superior to Russias.

Many? Based on what evidence?

Some chose to make up excuses saying that the US payed off the Iraqi military!

Well there is good evidence to suggest that they did 'buy' off some generals but then i'm not sure how much that changed.

Funny how you seemed to forget those conflicts in your ‘examples’…;

Funny how you 'forget' all the rest.

]How predictable. Buddy ANYONE and there mother, can EDIT wiki to there preferences.

Funny you how turn into a raving conspiracy theorist when it suits you. Who are these 'any one's' and what is their motive for conspiring to give us a false picture of history by randomly editing this specific online source? Do you have any specific objections that you could not investigate or substantiated based on the supplied source pages in the wiki articles or should i presume that this is the best evasion of the truth you could manage at the time?

Fact is the people on wikipedia MUST reference their primary claims and when that is not done it's marked with a *source required* tab to ensure that everyone notices. The problem with you is not that you have no credibility but that you would rather attack all sources that disagrees with your opinion instead of attempting to establish some for yourself by citing your own sources.

Its not the best site to be quoting when trying to give an accurate measure in regards to the facts. Get what Im saying?...

Frankly i don't care WHAT sources people employ for their claims as long as they are at least willing to tell me where they got their information from. Since you are so rarely willing to do even this any sane party must regard your opinions as suspect even if so relatively few goes to the trouble of exposing your lies and misrepresentations.

The Soviet Union was a "one trick pony".. Its trademark was to blitzkrieg everything.

Who did it "blitzkrieg'? One trick poney?

They couldn’t achieve that with the gorilla style warfare fought in Afghanistan.

Nor could the US In Vietnam with saturation bombing and general genocide.

The rough terrain prohibited alot of the success as well for the Soviets. I would have to say that overall they got there asses kicked where as the US forces now are holding their own, unlike the soviets were able to.

The Soviet Union were able to 'hold their own' as there was no way for the rebels to actually 'win' the way by inflicting more casualties on the enemy than they were. Just like in Vietnam Soviet forces entered for political reasons and left for the same reason and no amount of resistance on the inhabitants part could really lead to a victory on their own terms. In these cases all you can do is bleed and hope that by doing so you can make the enemy bleed more than he is willing to for any given political aim.

Us forces will eventually leave Afghanistan and for the same reasons the USSR did.

Stellar

Originally posted by Muaddib
Funny how some people would try to claim "Communist regimes were/are the good guys" when it is a known fact that through Communist regimes more civilians have perished and been imprisoned than in all world wars, and subsequent wars put together....

I think i can show that Capitalist forces have killed far more people than communist/fascist forces have so just let me know when we start doing some math. I am not claiming that the Communist are not bad but that the so called good guys have done even more damage...

All people have to do is make a search of "Communist wars" to see that you are not telling the truth...

What is a 'communist war' in your opinion and when does it become such?

Communist forces have tortured, imprisoned and killed many native people of those countries where Communism was brought...

Not so and it's documented that US and western interventions have led to as many if not more torture and death than anything so called communism have. Once again it depends entirely on how you classify national liberation struggles and what the aid to those forces means in this context. It's not a clear cut issue but i'm willing to get involved if you are.

hey were not there to defend the people, but rather to expand Communism and destroy all those that didn't want to accept it..

That is what capitalism did under the guise of communist expansion which in fact never seriously approached to anywhere near the levels of US expansion and terror. Not much talked about areas but the world of William Blum, Noam Chomsky, John Pilger and many others to show quite clearly ( by means of declassified US documents) who the real criminals and terrorist of the cold war were and who and what they supported.

Here is a short non exhaustive list.

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

You can try to argue all you want, but Cubans have been sent to such communist countries to fight against democracy and instead to expand Communism around the world.

Democratic forces is not something the US supported unless they felt they could control the process to get their chosen candidates elected. When democratic forces yielded people who the American national security state did not like they were gotten rid of in one way or another of their people made to suffer horrible atrocities for believing that they had a say in their own futures.

Stellar

Originally posted by maestro46
No man I was agreeing with you.

Some agreements are stranger than others.

Now hold on a second. You're asking me to find evidence of Spetsnaz's involvment in conflicts around the world? Are you joking?

I'm not as much asking as suggesting that it was never ever on any scale comparable to American and Western intervention in the world. I am not asking for proof as i imagine that should be hard to come by considering the secrets that can be kept by such a form of government.

They're top secret and will remain so for a long time.

US actions in dozens of foreign countries have been declassified or written/documented so it's not hard to imagine that if Soviet forces were so widely deployed and active they should have left a record ( at least local ) of their activities; there should at least be SOME proof.

Now about angola, I haven't tried looking for evidence of this online. I give you my word on what I posted if that means anything to you.

I have found your post's on this thread to be general agreement with what i have researched to be true so i have no specific reason to doubt to word even if i can not make use of it without more specific and sourced material.

I watched a whole documentary about it in a Russian TV program called "Sovershenno Sekretno". But I think if it was in a documentary there must be something on the net about it.

There should be and i am sure some searching in either English or Russian will get you to online sources...

Oh by the way - do you speak Russian? I actually can giv you a link on a documentary about the Spetsnaz which shows a bit about them opperating in Vietnam.

I don't speak Russian and i have no problem with a few hundred Soviet special forces and advisers/technicians operating in Vietnam during that long war.

Soviets sent ALOT of troops there. This was top secret. Most who died were listed as cubans, others were simply erased from history. Families never knew where these soldiers were serving, or how they died. I don't remember the number of casualties but it numbered in thousands.

I would be extremely surprised to find that to be true but the truth tends to be stranger than fiction so i will believe it given more reason. I just wonder how the South African and UNITA forces could have gotten off so lightly given a large scale Cuban and Soviet presence. South African security/defense forces were good but i wonder if they were THAT good...

To suffer as many casualties as you suggest would have required a deployment strength of as much of a Soviet style division and such would have seriously impeded South African offensive power which were already thought to be over matched by Cuban and Angolan forces.

I stand by what I say here. Then again I understand I'm making an unsupported claim. Just hoping you won't regard it as total BS.

I just don't see how so many casaulties could have been inflicted by the South-African forces without telling casualties of their own.

If i can't prove something one way or the other , or have not researched something, i am open to any and all opinions so your claims have been noted and wont be forgotten either.

Stellar

Originally posted by semperfoo
Ahh but your under the false assumption that russia plays by the rules. Part of the reason those treatys were signed in the first place was because russia wouldnt be able to keep pace with the US military machine since the dissolve of the USSR.

The USSR were far ahead by 1989 and still in my opinion retains that lead. The treaties in the end were always in favour of the USSR/Russia and if you think that is a 'coincidence' or not a problem your not thinking straight. Any political regime that sacrifices the strength and ability of it's country based on the 'logic' that it does not want to become too superior to it's enemies is quite insane and should be lined up and shot for high treason.

That was a problem Russia saw. Lets get few things straight. We wont nuke anyone first.

You ( the USA) already did on at least one occasion and in my opinion tried a few other times.

But if we can deny them that ability to inflict massive casualty's just think about how much better off this place would be? Nuclear weapons would become obsolete.... Since when did russia play by the rules?

This place would be a whole lot better if the United States stopped sponsoring terrorist and dictators the world over while ensuring that democratic movements gets bombed on as many occasions as is possible.

why does everyone try to turn it into being Americas fault?

Because that's the way it would seem for the average well informed person who does not suspect or consider the fact that the US might be nothing but the tool of a even greater power.

Stellar


Mod edit: fixed broken quote tag

[edit on 2007/5/23 by Hellmutt]

Just a few statements i noticed...

Originally posted by Muaddib
Since when does the U.S. have a say as to what other countries can or can't do?....

Ever since it had a navy and some guns that could be carried to foreign countries in 'defense' of one thing or another?

Riiight... I guess Poland and the Czech republic are also part of this "Russian federation" and that's why the Kremlin blackmails and threatens them?....

That it does because it's a powerful country with massive volumes of strategic and conventional weapons.

no wonder Russia and China wanted to form the "Shangai Cooperation Organization"... to combat "terrorism, separatism and extremism huh?.....

The 'extremist' they had in mind were in fact the United States and it's allies as is made strangely clear in some of their additional mission statements. I can refer you to official Us state department documents that made it clear that additional aid and general assistance would only come if they broke away from Yugoslavia and held their own elections. That sort of intervention and separatism i would want stopped as well. As for the 'terrorism' the United States of America is the biggest sponsor of it and even the lethargic UN agreed by convicting the US of state sponsored terror.

A nation that according to your own intelligence agencies and your own president was planning on making terrorist attacks on U.S. soil...

The same intelligence agencies and president that mere months before 9-11 told the world that Iraq was no danger to even it's neighbours?

Now you can read people's minds too? How can you know "that the U.S. would have gladly helped the Chechen separatists fight against Russia" when the U.S. didn't do so?....

You are grabbing at straws now....

The US did do so by use of foreign intermediaries and the like. Do you think the average Chechen WANTS to break away from Russia or for that matter wants to take on Russia?

Oh so you are still mad at what happened when your country pronouced itself to the world to be Communist, and tried to take control of the Middle East and the U.S. helped Middle Eastern countries fight against Communism?... I thought you were saying Russia is not Communist anymore and there are no Communists who want to "get back at the U.S." for what happened when our countries were in conflict those years back.....

The US showed that communism was not really very important to them, especially not when a few oil companies would take a ten percent hit in profits from Iran, by overthrowing Mossadeghhe the elected prime minister of Iran who was very much pro west and anti-'communist'.

I wonder why Iraq owed billions of dollars to Russia?... As a matter of fact Russia is the country that Saddam's regime owed the most to in the world....

Really?

Oh so now the Girl Scouts are par tof the CIA too?...

The drug running operations brings in plenty of funds so there never has been a need to recruit girl scouts.

Maybe because there was a lot of evidence which seemed to coincide with what the Russian government was claiming about Saddam... i wonder if any of this has anything to do with the fact that Russia called for a new economy to rule the world?...

The fact is that Iraq never has attacked the United States directly TEN YEARS after the US intervened to attack Iraq despite the best efforts of the Iraqi regime to get out of dodge ( after being suckered into invading Kuwait by April Gillespie ( sp?) and the US state department) while retaining some modicum of 'standing' in the middle East. The US wanted war so it managed to avoid negotiating for settlement and finally started a invasion and bombing campaign followed by sanctions which killed a million or more Iraqi's. Despite all that Iraq NEVER attacked the US or for that matter THREATENED to attack the United states. While both the Chinese and Russians publicly say that they will attack the US if it ever intervened in their affairs.

The US government attacks those it chooses and rarely if ever attacks the enemies of the average American citizen.

Except for the fact that "it was Russia among some others" who helped Saddam against the U.S.

But it was the CIA that installed SH in Iraq and supported him against Iran by supplying all kinds of interesting weaponry and intelligence including chemical and Biological weapon. The US knew that Iraq had such weapons because they GAVE it to Iraq and just decided not to believe the weapons inspectors who told them that Iraq no longer had chemical or biological weapons but also lacked the means to employ it. As things stand these weapons have not been discovered or used on American forces in the last war showing that the US administration will tell any and all lies for the sake of their agenda. The vaccines and 'depleted' Uranium are far more deadly to American troops than anything Iraq could ever deploy against them and they are dying by the hundreds of thousands for it.

I remember also that there were Russian high ranking officers saying they were keeping a close look at the war with Iraq to see the capabilities of the U.S. I will repost in here those articles later, and i'll respond to the rest later as I have to go.

Feel free as what i have seen tells me that the Russian officers in question are doing their best to play dead and pretend that Russia has no conventional ability. One wonder if the true strength of the Rf is now also a state secret one is best advised not to reveal unless you like Siberia.

Stellar

Originally posted by Strangerous
Not sure about that - the treaty was signed in 1972.

I think at the time Russia was developing an ABM system and Nixon was keen to avoid the idea that either side could have a survivable first-strike capability - which would have increased the chances of someone pushing the button - the MAD concept was being preserved.

Both sides had functional ABM defense systems by 1972 and the US signed on mainly because it's policy makers were seeking to disarm the United States so as to ensure that it involve the American public in foreign adventures for lack of a credible defense at home.

That concept is a valid today as it was then. Bush seems to have taken the WoT as an excuse to not update the treaty. Given that it was about mutual trust (or less distrust) as much as technology Bush seems to have gone out of his way to rack the distrust back up (assuming, I imagine, that Russia is no longer a threat).

The USSR/Russia never honoured the ABM treaty and to this day operates a national Anti ballistic missile defense system numbering in the thousands of missiles with their thousand or more support radars and tracking systems of various sizes.

There was never in fact mutual trust on any side as the USSR kept arming itself while the US disarmed trough the 60's and 70's while destroying it's resources in futile expeditions against third world countries that never posed a threat to the interests of the American people.

Putin is merely IMO echoing / reinforcing the original reasons for the treaty.

As he would considering the reality that Russian inherited a illegal ABM defense system from the USSR in open contradiction to the treaties the US politicians pretend to honour by disarming the US in their own interest.

Immediately prior to the signing of the ABM treaty, the Soviets had developed a surface-to-air missile, the SA-5, which was observed to have a peculiar trajectory. The SA-5 was fired high above the atmosphere and then would descend to intercept and destroy enemy bombers. While technically such a trajectory could not be ruled out, logically, however, it could not be accepted as this type of trajectory represents the least efficient way to shoot down enemy aircraft. On the other hand, the SA-5?s trajectory would be just the ticket for shooting down incoming ballistic missiles which themselves travel above the atmosphere. Taking this into account, the SA-5 had to be an ABM weapon. But with the ABM treaty almost in hand, this fact was ignored and the treaty went into effect. The treaty remains in effect, limiting development of a U.S. ABM system. Meanwhile, Russian dual-purpose (anti-aircraft/anti-missile) missile systems like the SA-5 continue to exist.

www.thenewamerican.com...

However, Soviet and Russian sources, including former Premier Alexei Kosygin and the Chief Designer of the original Moscow ABM system, confirm that: the SA-5 and SA-10 were dual purpose antiaircraft/missile systems (SAM/ABMs), and that the Hen House and LPAR radars provided the requisite battle management target tracking data. These and other sources cited in The ABM Treaty Charade are not exhaustive.

Nevertheless, CIA has not revised its position on this issue, nor have the U.S. Congress and the public been informed that the ABM Treaty was a valid contract from beginning to end.

In the late 1960s the U.S. sacrificed its 20-year technological advantage in ABM defenses on the altar of "arms control." As Russian sources now admit, the Soviet General Staff was in total control of Soviet "arms control" proposals and negotiations, subject to Politburo review, which was largely pro forma. The Soviet military's objective was to gain as much advantage as possible from "arms control" agreements (SALT).

www.jinsa.org...

[quote[On any given day I trust the US far more than Russia / USSR, we're part of your club and have many US sigint/elint facilities here plus Fylingdales which is part of your early-warning system.

We're as much in the firing line as CONUS.

I would not trust either but based on the actions it seems the Russian government is more interested in the future survival of their people than the American one is. That being said i do not envy the position of the majority of Russians if their current living standards is a reflection of how their government intends to protect them!

The US may have more allies but would or could they effectively fight for their own or American survival against the forces now arrayed against them?

Stellar

Originally posted by neformore
Sometimes I wonder if people are incapable of seeing two sides of a story.

I'll put it simply.
Country A has nukes.
Country B has nukes.
There is a balance.
Both sides respect the balance. Its called MAD.

Only MAD was a invention of American policy makers and was never something the Russian leadership believed in or acted on. Since the dying days of the second world war the USSR have spent truly vast amounts of resources and man hours towards constructing civil defense and fortifying it's industrial capacity against nuclear attack by any and all means possible. At the start they were obviously hopelessly outclassed in strategic terms, and their passive defense response was the best they could at the time , but as time went along and their strategic potential grew their passive and active defenses quickly allowed them to reach parity and then gain superiority while their agents and allies in the west helped them to get arms reduction talks going on a basis that would disarm only the United States.

Country A has nukes + missile shield.
Country B only has nukes.
Country B gets nervous, because now it can either be wiped out, or significantly damaged with less potential damage to its rival.
Country B either then develops a missile defence of its own, or comes up with a way of nullifying Country A's missile defence in order to restore the balance.

And while we may put up with politicians that do not act in our interest we can never allow them to arm/disarm us on the notion that our potential allies might play along.

New arms race ensues.
New Cold War.

Rather everyone armed to the teeth than anyone or few without any means of defense. It's not a perfect world and while we fix it lets ensure we can protect ourselves when our best efforts ( and the US has never tried to 'fix' the world or make it a better place for anyone but a few thousand) at peace or honest negotiation fails us; those who would disarm you are those you should be arming yourself against

Now I don't know a plainer way of putting it than I have done. If you can't see from what I've written that it will lead to problems from other countries perspectives then I don;t really know what else I can say.

There are very few people who are not better understood when they keep typing so just keep at it until we do or you are.

MAD was something only ignorant people believed in as is obvious by the number of bunkers and private islands the rich and policy makers of the time were constructing or buying.

Stellar

Originally posted by Muaddib
No...back then the U.S. funded rebellious Arabs to fight against the Communism.

But the Arabs was actually fighting capitalism and western imperialism that had been , and still were, doing them by far the most harm? How do you figure?

The U.S. never owned Osama or any of his terrorist buddies, and they made the decision to attack the U.S. after taking care of the Russians.

Before the Russians even invaded Afghanistan 'they' ( the extremist which is not even including OBL) were shouting 'death to America' before they were shouting 'death to Russia' and were mostly killing Russians because those happened to be closest at the time. When they ran out of Russians they went right back to killing the people that were REALLY doing them the harm as must have been well understood by the CIA who so dramatically increased the funding to them.

You can find in the history of the world that enemies sometimes unite to fight a common enemy, back then the U.S. didn't know Osama would turn against the U.S.

Oh i don't think they were all that in the dark about his motives or where he stood considering the massive volumes of money they poured into his family in general and later into him in particular. The problem with your theory is that the Intelligence people knew that Osama had a problem with the US foreign policy long before he had one with the USSR's.

and the rest of the world, but it happens.

How did he turn against the 'rest' of the world? What exactly did he do to countries who's regimes did not support US imperial policy?

Read up on history and you will find it riddled with stories of friend backstabbing "supposed" friends...enemies uniting to fight common enemies and then turning on each other. The old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" holds true to this day.

I don't know what Maloy knows or does not know but based on what i know and what he is saying i am thinking that your the one that should read a few more history books. The strong tends to use who they can for as long as they can for whatever reason they choose and for the most part they are the one's that destroys both their enemies and their useful idiot friends. Do not tell me that the CIA could spend billions of dollars, on people who were self declared enemies of the US as represented by it's foreign policy, without understanding that at least some of it would be employed to kill American citizens or America's allies? What can that kind of money by in terms of explosives and big trucks you can drive into buildings? Was the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan ( and they were invited in by it's then government) really worth fighting by giving money to KNOWN enemies of the US foreign policy? Could those billions not have saved millions of lives elsewhere? Would the Afghan people have suffered nearly as much if resistance there collapsed due to a lack of foreign support?

The U.S. uses a civilian agency to launch satellite,

It is civilian only in name and only the first administrator of NASA was in fact a 'civilian' by any stretch of the imagination. NASA is a military operation ( the shuttle is spacecraft with obvious military application) first and foremost and whatever spin-off's there are to the American public is largely coincidental. In fact i think i can show that there is not much more NASA could have done to mismanage it's funds and waste the resources that could have by now enabled the US public ( it's their tax money after all) to shop at Walmart's on the Moon.

Russia has a military force which only purpose is the defense of space. China also has militarized space since their agency is military.

The US also did it's best to militarise space but as far as i can tell they were pretty much kicked out of it by the USSR.

Stellar

Since i have already filled a page and still have these marked for correction i suppose i should go on....

Originally posted by semperfoo
Now I by no means want to come off as the chest thumping type

Too late.

when I say that the Russian Federation CANNOT afford to get herself into another cold war with the US, the results will be the same as they were the first time around.

And the first time round the USSR held a strategically superior position at the time it decided to reform into a more efficient version of it's former self. The relatively large decline in armed forces were mostly a reflection of how much they could do without while still maintaining their lead. The decline in US abilities were as sharp and yet the US is spending more and more on this ever less able force.

It simply doesnt have the funds to compete with america.

But since it did and succeeded i suppose that must be considered evidence that 'funds' are not all that important? How many trillions must the pentagon waste or 'lose' before you acknowledge that a large budget does not prove superiority or much anything related?

The US spends over 500 billion dollars on its military, and those numbers I believe are not even taking into consideration the spending on iraq and Afghanistan. The United States military expenditure is more then Russias entire GDP I believe... Also, we spend some 70Billion dollars on research and development in the military sector alone. thats more then you brits spend on your entire military..

That's lots of numbers , non of which are accurate by the way, that once again should be inspected for relevence.

WHAT HAPPENED TO $1 TRILLION?

Though Defense has long been notorious for waste, recent government reports suggest the Pentagon's money management woes have reached astronomical proportions. A study by the Defense Department's inspector general found that the Pentagon couldn't properly account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent. A GAO report found Defense inventory systems so lax that the U.S.

"The (Pentagon's) inability to even complete an audit shows just how far they have to go," he said.

Kutz contrasted the department's loose inventory controls to state-of-the- art systems at private corporations.

"I've been to Wal-Mart," Kutz said. "They were able to tell me how many tubes of toothpaste were in Fairfax, Va., at that given moment. And DOD can't find its chem-bio suits."

www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL

While the committee staffers are neither elected nor open to public input, they remain accessible to program contractors. "The contractors who stand to benefit from the funding decisions," Aftergood says, "are free to lobby the staffers."

According to the Sept-Oct 1995 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, published by the Educational Foundation of Nuclear Science, all of the top ten defense contractors in the U.S. were convicted of or admitted to fraud during the period from 1980 to 1992.

www.metroactive.com...

One of the hand-outs from the committee was a diagram of the system used by the Defense Department to track contract and vendor payments. It looked like several spider webs superimposed on each other. The Senate report says that officials at DoD are making more than 57,000 purchases a day. "Unfortunately," it adds, "these same officials can't tell us what they bought and whether they even needed what they got.

The General Accounting Office said that DoD could not reconcile a $7 billion difference between its available fund balances and the Treasury's. The Senate report says the Navy wrote off more than $3 billion in inventory as "lost," but much of it was later delivered. However, it was impossible to determine if the Navy really needed the property. In 1999, the Army found it had 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 aircraft guided-missile launchers for which it had not centrally located records. The implications are astounding. This means the Army may not realize when classified and sensitive defense department equipment is missing or stolen. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd, known for arranging pork barrel projects for his state of West Virginia, has been very critical of the Pentagon's bookkeeping practices. He says, "The Defense Department…is talking about needing an additional $50 billion a year to meet readiness requirements. Yet the Defense Department does not know with any certainty how much money it currently has available." But before spending more money, Senator Charles Grassley said Congress "needs to know more" about where the money is going, and that the Pentagon needs "a sound accounting system." This matter goes far beyond expensive toilet seats and hammers — topics that used to be popular with the media. We need some good investigative reporting aimed at the Pentagon.

www.aim.org...

GDP numbers are not relevent when it comes to aquiring military technologies or weapon systems and a better index of that might be PPP. Unlike the CIA i don't believe one can estimate what a given type of weapon system would have cost you to build and then use that as some kind of reference as to the military spending of other nations. As far as my sources goes we do not really have any idea what the Russian federation spends on it's armed forces or for that matter what the Chinese do.

Now I don't know a plainer way of putting it than I have done. If you can't see from what I've written that it will lead to problems from other countries perspectives then I don;t really know what else I can say.

Maybe it's time to stop saying stuff?

We would have to have alot more ABM interceptors then the ten planned in order for it to be an effective countermeasure against russias vast nuclear arsenal. It still doenst compare to the Cuban missile crisis IMO.

Yet the Russian federation operates thousands of launchers with several thousands missiles that acknowledge to be able to shoot down ICBMs. How can a country that is not spending money have upgraded these forces while deploying two new types of ICBMs?

Stellar