Sub that shadowed Russian carrier Kuznetsov was targeted and was forced to retreat, page 5

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

---

Only from my reading.

Of what, comic books?

When I'm talking about live-action adaptations, yes. When I'm talking about Russian-German combat in WW2 I usually go back to my Purnell's History of the Second World War.

Well show me which bit is nonsense...

I’ll do this one more time, and from that point I’ll just stay away for the sake of keeping ATS forum clean and mature.

BT-7 tank was a waste of time. Panzers ate them for breakfast.

In one on one combat the BT-7 proved that it was the equal of the Panzer III, but Soviet tank units were often inexperienced unit commanders who were outmatched by their German counterparts. Poor crew training and lack of spare parts also worked against the BT-7 tank fleet, and by late 1941 many of the tanks were either destroyed or captured. In fact, the German army also made use of captured BT-7 tanks, but had to mark them so that they could avoid friendly fire incidents.

They also used the T-38 (Czech) tank, British trucks in NAfrica, Char B1 and Somua hulls...

I may have overstated the case about BT-7 as a tank, but not its combat record.

KV1s were used in such low numbers they were outmanouvred and overwhelmed before they could do anything. Not much of a (nasty) surprise, as you insinuate.

KV1s overwhelmed? LOL! I’ll save you and everybody the reading time, so just watch the moving pictures and LISTEN.

KV1s were put into combat in such limited numbers that the Panzers went around them. Thus: overwhelmed. The KV1s did not provide a significant or decisive hurdle to the German advance.

its flaws were quite serious. It was very slow and difficult to steer. The transmission was unreliable. The ergonomics were poor, with limited visibility and no turret basket. Its weight tended to strain smaller bridges.

en.wikipedia.org...

It also mounted exactly the same gun as the medium tank. So what was the point?

MiG 1s and 3s were shot out of the sky in waves.

MiG-1/3 had the HIGHEST kill-to-loss ratio of ALL Soviet fighters through the ENTIREE WAR!

Wonderful, so it was the least shot down of a bad bunch. Whoo. Okay, that is exaggeration, but it's not entirely wrong. The MiG 1/3 was

forced into a low altitude and even a ground-attack role, but it was quickly found to be inferior, and withdrawn from this role.

en.wikipedia.org...

This fact is so obvious and well known that I’m not even going to bother with a source.

Again, you either have a biased agenda to slander Soviet/Russian topics or purposefully misinforming the ATS community. Knock it off.

I have proven before that I am not biased against Russian/Soviet topics, if you care to look.

The MiG 15 was faster and had a higher ceiling than Sabre, didn't do it much good.

Same thing. BASIC FACTS!!!!!! MiG-15 was NOT faster then F-86. Stop polluting this forum!!!!!

MiG 15: 668 mph, 50 m/s, 15,500 m
F-86 Sabre: 678 mph, 41.5 m/s, 15,100 m

Define faster.

Sun Tzu, a professional warrior born from a warrior class. WORLD War II was not a war of the warrior classes, it was a WORLD WAR, and that includes civilians.

Then why did you quote him if you're only going to undo him?

“Life of War” came from Leningrad and Stalingrad.

You mean you're not quoting a book or other published shource?

That means that there are no “military operations”, the life it self is turned into war in every aspect and that means pure SERVIVAL.

But it doesn't refute my statement.

There was no “scorched earth” policy

But you just said everything should be sacrificed to ensure victory.

but when it was necessary there were specific orders to take provisions from civilian population when Soviet Army was retreating, with authorized use of force.

"When it was necessary"? You started by trying to tell me that it was an organised policy of retreat, that the Germans weren't walking it in. Now you say that it was a series of ad hoc actions forced by different circumstances?...

Also, I doubt that you’d care, but my personal diligence recommend that you look into what “salting the earth” means, maybe then you’ll understand.

It's what Rome did to Carthage at the end of the Punic Wars to ensure their defeated rival could never again grow to prominence and threaten Rome. Or is it when you make your dirt taste better?

Really? Man, the Russian must literally be either the luckiest people in the world, or had some sort of a weather controlling ability since the times of the Golden Horde.

Who said anything about controlling the weather? Tell me, how many victories did you have against Napolean? All you had to do was wait for the Grand Armee to freeze to death. But Hitler's supply train was a little more sophisticated than that. And, as I said, had he not postponed Barbarossa to pull Mussolini out of the # in Greece, then he could have been sitting inside Moscow with secure supply lines when winter finally arrived.

Don't for a moment think I am saying the Soviets did not use winter as a weapon. They did, just as every Russian ruler has. But take a look at Finland to see the Russians failing to use winter as a weapon. Stalin used the same strategy as the Czars, because a) he had no choice and b) in the USSR he had the space to do it. On the Karelia he did not. On point "a", his own intransigence forced his hand. As I said, had he not put all his forces on the border then the people of Leningrad need not have "endured".

At this very moment I can’t even count how many times Russian victories are attributed entirely on luck vast lands and weather.

Talking such nonsense can only mean that in order to conquer Russia one has to be a good card player, have a really big gas tank and a double Doppler weather radar like the ones they have at TV stations.

Don't know about the cards, but the big gas tank and the weather radar would seriously help. I mean, I don't drive out into the snow without a jerry can in the boot and the radio tuned to the weather reports...A bit like going into the desert, really.

I guess Hitler and the entire German army were just idiots with short memory and forgotten what happened with Napoleons army, or the Teutonic knight Crusade into Russia.

Yes. I guess they were.

HowlrunnerIV, you might really have something there, Russian magical weather control powers is what allowed them to survive every single attempt to conquer their lands…

As I said, don't know about control, but certainly use of. A bit like the UK using a certain strip of water...

Oh ho, I should respect the commander who destroyed that first batallion? I don't think so.

What was his name and whos order was he forced to follow? Answer that one, know it all.

Ah, so Russian generals can't refuse orders and resign? Or you mean the Colonel who followed the General's order. Either way, the command authority that gave the order perfectly fits my description. No matter how far up or down the line you try passing that buck, someone gave the order and that someone earned my description "an idiot, because he was stupid".

And my comment on Russian military history is dead on. Too often through Russian/Soviet history recon has been by bodycount.

I have an original and unpublished biography of a 19 year Soviet recon paratrooper that details his recon missions, behind enemy lines, under sniper/MG and mortar fire, in teams of two or even by him self, testing river beds and taking water levels, counting haystacks to identify and mark the ones that in actually are camouflaged MG/heavy gun positions, etc.

Where do you get you ideas from?

Well obviously I don't get them from unpublished manuscripts, do I? And again, read my words "too often through Russian/Soviet history. That's Russian then Soviet, not Soviet then Russian. So the Red Army, sorry the Russian Army, actually learnt the lessons from Chechnya, did they? It would be bloody hard not to.

Even the great (and that is not sarcasm) Marshall Zhukov marched his men across minefields.

You ever bothered to find out why? Do so and then we’ll talk.

He said the casualties that resulted would have resulted from battle anyway.

cont'd

edits: quotes, itals
[edit on 8-1-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]

[edit on 8-1-2008 by HowlrunnerIV]

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush...

Originally posted by iskander
reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

---

Tell me, should I also not comment on Rumsfeld's Iraq strategy out of respect for the grunts on the ground? I know them, too, and bashing Bush in no way disrespects them. Stupid argument to make.

See above and figure out what is the difference between necessary but horrible sacrifices, however barbaric they might appear to Western mentality, and then compare the need for survival to the basic good old greed driven war profiteering.

Ah, so that first batallion into Grozny, the one with the 95% casualty rate, they were making a necessary, but horrible sacrifice for the good of Russian citizens sleeping peacefully in their beds in St Petersburg?

It’s not an argument; it’s a philosophy of life.

It's forgetting the original point is what it is. Those poor bastards wasted in Grozny were just that: wasted.

Good, because once again you've misunderstood my words. What has Prime Minister, General (ret), Yitzhak Rabin got to do with Akhmad Kadyrov, Ramzan Kadyrov or Alu Alkhanov?

Yitzhak Rabin retired General? Where have you been?

Right here:

During the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Rabin directed Israeli operations in Jerusalem and fought the Egyptian army in the Negev. In 1949, he helped draft an armistice agreement with the Arab countries that was signed on the island of Rhodes. In 1964 he was appointed Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

Under his command, the IDF achieved victory over Egypt, Syria and Jordan in the Six-Day War in 1967. After the Old City of Jerusalem was captured by the IDF

en.wikipedia.org...

Yitzhak Rabin – an assassinated "martyr for peace".

Yes, assassinated while he was Prime Minister, after he had retired from the IDF. Where was I wrong?

What does it have to do with “Proxies”, Yasser Arafat, terrorism etc? That’s ok, I’ll slow down a bit so you can get back on your little tricycle and catch up, but I seriously doubt that you care to.

No, you need to speed up again and tell me what Yitzhak Rabin has to do with attacks on Russian security forces in Chechnya. That's what I was talking about. Not the idea of proxies in general.

I do apologies for the sarcasm, but I don’t appreciate when my time is not valued.

It's not valued when you wander so far off-topic it's laughable and then blame me. I've continually shown you the way back to my original statements. As so:

I was (originally) talking about attacks on these people directly and indirectly through attacks on their administrations/forces. Those three names are the ones I was thinking about when I said "proxies". The situation in Chechnya in general was what I was referring to.

Chechnya, Sunny Muslims that practice Wahhabism and are to this day not recognized by any International Muslim community, are the proxies of which power?

See, not to do with my original point. Which was so long ago that you can't even remember it. Here's a hint: I said the Russian Army was basically crap given its performance in Chechnya. You brought up the successful re-invasion as a counterpoint. I said it still wasn't that secure and referenced attacks on Kremlin-backed local authorities. Nowhere did I compare Chechnya to the US policy of supporting proxies to fight communism for them across the globe (which was standard policy for the USSR as well, except they were fighting "for" communism, but has nothing to do with the discussion at hand).

I personally investigated their IED black market auction sites back in 1999, do you know where their financing was coming from to make the judgments that you’ve made?

I was talking about the facts of the security situation on the ground. Nothing about the right or wrong of extremism, the War on Terror or the funding of terrorism.

So where was I wrong?

Where did I say that you were?

When you originally called me ignorant and "falling for the propaganda" by discussing photos of dockyards full of rusting subs in Vladivostok in the early-mid 90s and wondering why that wasn't evidence of a depleted and less-capable navy.

Sure, just like Chernobyl and repeated reactor stalling. No sir.

Chernobyl was an act of sabotage by a man who was deeply disturbed by the death of his daughter

Ah, you're saying it isn't an indicator of either Russian (Soviet then) tech or training because he was a nut who deliberately did all the wrong things. And yet the most recent "investigation" I saw didn't once mention that. I do remember them specifically describing the Chief Engineer's repeated orders to take the reactor down further, despite guidelines and on the spot advice from underlings. I don't remember them talking about mental ilness.

Kursk “hosted guests” during a critical testing exercise. That’s the equivalent of bringing a tourist along on the first moon landing mission.

Right, so that points to good procedure, training, skill and a general climate of professionalism...

The main point with Kursk is that Putin was willing to risk his presidency by knowingly sacrificing the lives of the surviving crewman, in order to protect what ever secrets Kursk held.

Right, that's some sword he was prepared to fall on. Wow, he might have to resign. "Sorry about your father/husband/son, but to show how contrite I am I will retire to my Dacha."

Like other peoples, historically Russians have a history of committing willing and forced sacrifice in order to survive.

Er, yes, "recon by bodycount"...

Back in WWII while...

Irrelevant. We're talking about "modern" Russia, not the CCCP. That story does not justify this

Unfortunately Kursk was the unwilling but necessary sacrifice that had to be made, and even with great anger and sorrow Russians accept it, which is clearly reflected by Putins total approval rate of over 90%.

Why was it necessary? How were Mr and Mrs Middle Russia protected by the sacrifice of those young men?

Utter garbage. And you have the gall to say I have no respect.

Those men and boys died so Putin and others could save face because once it all went horribly wrong they didn't have a clue how to react. A bunch of headless chickens running around desperate to blame someone else. They took the easy way out: "There was nothing we could do. It is a horrible tragedy. Nothing will change."

Kursk, Moscow Opera, Beslan. When is the Russian leadership going to take actual responsibility for the Russian #-ups that kill Russians?

Exactly what "secrets" would western rescue crews have discovered that would have compromised Russian security? A western rescue sub would have mated to the collar and pulled Russian boys out. Russian officers could have prevented any westerner from entering the sub.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

---

HowlrunnerIV, have you ever been to Russia? I spent a better half of my professional life working with Russian “topics”, have been regularly flying to central/far east Russia since 91, personally worked lived and drank with Russians, in fact my last trip lasted for over half a year, it was in 2007, and it looks like I’ll be going for another long-haul this year as well.

I will say this, from all my years of study, personal and professional experience with Russians and Russian history, you either don’t know what you are talking about, or you are doing exactly what you intend to.

When you have been repeatedly proven to be flat out wrong, you simply elude the issue of erroneous information you posted and then divert from the topic by seeding more misinformation. Wikipedia is NOT a credible source, it’s an OPPINION forum.

Since you obviously do not care for factual information and purposefully chose to keep going around in circles, I’ll proceed as I usually do in such cases.

This happens on ATS regularly, and that’s why in such cases I always refer ATS members to FallacyFiles.org so they can identify and filter ignorance for them selves.

I hereby state that your line of reasoning is biased, that you engage in opinion motivated fact “snipping cherry picking”, and knowingly and purposefully bring misinformation to ATS board.

If you care to disagree, I can only recommend a civilized debate on all topics in this thread but under moderator board supervision and only after establishing of specific and agreed upon ground rules.

If you care to proceed, contact me via U2U and if my time allows I’ll see if we can pull some ATS experts together to moderate the debate.

Other then that, as Vojvoda said, back to the topic.

p.s. Is it my imagination or did I see that yesterday your ATS registration date was showing 2007, but today it’s showing 2004? Curious…

reply to post by iskander

---

Isk,

I don't need to travel to or live in Russia to know (and have proven) that you were wrong about Saddam and the Kurds, you were less than informed about Yitzhak Rabin, you were off-topic about Saakashvilli and the media and you misunderstood the point about Iran.

I have never claimed any knowledge about Russia/USSR/CIS-Russia other than what I have read.

You have never provedme flat out wrong. When I show (and explain) you where and why you are wrong or off-topic, you refuse to read. When you give me a source I show how it can be interpreted to match my view or I admit that I have overstated the case (as I did with BT-7). However, at least 50% of what I said in that case (and with MiG 1/3 and MiG 15) was true.

While I will not accept Wiki as a source from my students, I do not quote it here where the info itself cannot be sourced. Therefore, I am quoting other sources through Wiki.

Therefore I do care about and am quoting factual sources.

See, this is the bit I love, you refuse to shine that same light on yourself. You quoted from an unpublished manuscript. You quoted from the "life experience" of the Russian people and you have the gall to accuse me of not caring about provable facts.

We are going around in circles because you can not admit when you are wrong. Such as your assertion that the US had something to do with encouraging the Kurds in Halabja to rise against Saddam in 1988. You completely misunderstood my original reference and obviously didn't know anything about Halabja or Al-Anfil other than Saddam gassed Kurds. You managed to conflate the 1991 post-Desert Storm uprisings in the north and south with the Al Anfil campaign and Halabja attack of four years earlier.

You then, to top it all off, brought in Winston Churchill and the RAF. To a discussion about Russian sales of uranium to the Iranian government of Mahmoud Ahmedenijad at exactly the same time US President George W Bush is attempting to build a consensus in the UN against Iran's nuclear programme.

And you accuse me of needing to check out fallacyfiles.

My line of reason is biased because I cherry pick? No, I am following the standard method of presenting an argument: State your assumptions/findings/analysis then state the facts that back it up. You pretty much failed to disprove those facts.

Again I suggest you look in the mirror, as you have no problem accusing me of being biased against the USSR, Russia and the Russian people while assuming that you are, of course, the voice of reason when refusing to admit the Russian leadership has ever got it wrong.

"I hereby state that your line of reasoning is biased, that you engage in opinion motivated fact “snipping cherry picking”, and knowingly and purposefully bring misinformation to ATS board" you said.

Guess what, I herby state that your line of reasoning is biased, that you engage in opinion motivated "fact" snipping and cherry picking and knowingly or unkowingly purposefully bring misinformation to ATS board with you. Even after your knowing or unkowing error is pointed out you refuse to admit error, therboy making your misinformation deliberate. ref Saddam, Kurds, American Air Support, Winston Churchill and RAF...

jarheadjock made a statement. I countered that statement by pointing to examples that had not caused international incidents. You then decided to talk about utterly unrelated topics in an attempt to counter my point.

When I made statements about the strength of the Russian armed forces I again asked questions whose answers supported my analysis. You chose to answer different questions or (rather ironically, given your race to get off-topic) question the validity of my questions and examples.

My question about Vladivostok was initially dismissed as me falling for propaganda and lies spread by western media for the purpose of making us feel more superior before you finally admitted the truth: that I was bang on the money. But not before you'd managed to tell us all that you used to go there regularly. What was the point of that? It didn't make me any less correct, it just muddied the waters for a few extra posts.

My assertions about effectiveness of BT-7 tanks was proven by your own source. My statement about speed of MiG 15 vs F-86 was incorrect in terms of outright top speed, but true in terms of rate of climb. What I didn't point out was that MiG 15 was better armed yet had a hgher loss-to-kill ratio.

All that time spent with the Russian people and learning their history from them hasn't, in my opinion, done you much good if all it has done is to help you sympathise with the government against the people. You claim I have no respect for the Russian people, yet you are less outraged at the waste of lives wrought by their leaders with no consequences for those leaders than I am. Again, rather ironic.

You chose to deflect my criticism of the leadership by claiming I showed the (now dead) troops no respect. I dismissed this as the self-serving lie it is by showing that my questioning of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld's leadership in no way disrespects the men and women women who choose to serve their country at the risk of their lives by putting on its uniform. Your response? To dig your trench deeper by telling me you know some of the survivors. So what? I know men who went to New Guinea (now dead), Vietnam, the Falklands, Cambodia, Kuwait, Somalia, East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq. That doesn't make the political leadership that led us into Iraq any less culpable for a) lying to us and b) underplanning the operation thereby c) putting us in the mess we're in now. The same leadership that has suffered no consequences for those actions or the mess of Abu Ghraib, which it was, in my opinion, directly responsible for.

I guess I'm just too attached to my western, democratic view whereby the leadership comes from the people and is responsible to the people for caring for the people.

See, I spend a great deal of time in an ex-communist country as well and I am less than impressed with the leadership or its demands that the people make sacrifices while they drive around in Lexuses or the fact that no-one is ever held accountable for #-ups that cost lives.

Anytime you want to begin that debate, let me know. I'm particularly interested in exactly how you intend to justify the total destruction of that much-mentioned first batallion into Grozny. They weren't defending Stalingrad from attack. They weren't Mustafa Kemal (Attaturk's) troops defending the Gallipoli peninsula. They were leading an expeditionary force with basically secure supply lines and they had the city under siege. Much like Berlin. So what justifies their sacrifice?

as for my rego date, I guess that one goes to admin. 2004 is correct. My very first post was in a thread by craigandrew and I was talking about RAN Sea Furies in Korea.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

---

You teach!? Good grief.

Let’s begin with the preparation for the debate, because I find it appalling that you actually have students.

This is how it will go.

I’ll provide you with the bases of my debate by citing samples of sources which reflect my views and positions, aka “draft”, then you do the same.

When compiled, we both contact admin and ATS experts from various forums which are appropriate to the topics at hand, and then we submit our debate points and sources to them for approval.

Upon their agreement to as joint moderators of the debate and approval of our “drafts”, we determine the time needed to prepare for the debater and set a mutually approved date.

I’ll provide an example of the “draft”.

I don't need to travel to or live in Russia to know (and have proven) that you were wrong about Saddam and the Kurds

Fallacy – irrelevant reference to Russia, no supporting facts regarding the topic.

My sources;

Saddam Could Call CIA in His Defense

www.commondreams.org...

Q & A With CIA Analyst Stephen Pelletiere

Exposing the lies: Who killed the Kurds? Israel's part in a US invasion of Iraq.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Halabja: whom does the truth hurt?

www.opendemocracy.net...

you were less than informed about Yitzhak Rabin

Fallacy.

Yitzhak Rabin - Yasser Arafat, both were assassinated because they wanted piace negotiations.

That was the point, and you were not on board, so I’ll put this one to the debate list as well.

you were off-topic about Saakashvilli and the media and you misunderstood the point about Iran.

Georgia - Dictatorial puppet state government installed by Bushes administration.

Iran – Not willing to have a puppet state installed by Bushes administration.

Can’t get simpler then that, so it goes into the debate bin.

I have never claimed any knowledge about Russia/USSR/CIS-Russia other than what I have read.

And yet you keep making misleading/flat out wrong statements and feel like it’s “opinion time!”. Next.

You have never provedme flat out wrong.

MiG-1/3, MiG-15/F-86, KV7, IS3, the list goes on, but that’ll be for the debate moderators to decide, so I’ll also include that one as well.

When I show (and explain) you where and why you are wrong or off-topic, you refuse to read.

FALLACY POLICE! – fallacyfiles.org

When you give me a source I show how it can be interpreted to match my view or I admit that I have overstated the case (as I did with BT-7). However, at least 50% of what I said in that case (and with MiG 1/3 and MiG 15) was true.

“But your honor, I was not being completely honest only half the time, come on, cut me some slack over heya would ya!?”

While I will not accept Wiki as a source from my students, I do not quote it here where the info itself cannot be sourced. Therefore, I am quoting other sources through Wiki.

Therefore I do care about and am quoting factual sources.

Wiki is not a source, it’s an opinion forum, we all know it, we all been there, so don’t go there, and that’ll be one of the debate rules. NO WIKI!

See, this is the bit I love, you refuse to shine that same light on yourself. You quoted from an unpublished manuscript.

I have a hard copy, care for a scan? I’ll be more then happy to include that into the drbate, and I will submit it to the ATS forum experts for examination of authenticity.

You quoted from the "life experience" of the Russian people and you have the gall to accuse me of not caring about provable facts.

For a pedagogue, you assume entirely too much, and I feel about you student like a father would about all those young bright minds stuck in system of foster homes and juvenile detention centers.

www.saint-petersburg.com...

Book in English available here;

www.amazon.com...

Naturally foot notes and full references will be provided for a debate.

We are going around in circles because you can not admit when you are wrong.

FALLACY POLICE – fallacufiles.org

How do they let you teach?!

Such as your assertion that the US had something to do with encouraging the Kurds in Halabja to rise against Saddam in 1988.

This one I’ll save for the debate since I have PDFs that will completely fit the Above Top Secret “Conspiracy” section.

You completely misunderstood my original reference and obviously didn't know anything about Halabja or Al-Anfil other than Saddam gassed Kurds. You managed to conflate the 1991 post-Desert Storm uprisings in the north and south with the Al Anfil campaign and Halabja attack of four years earlier.

This one you should put on the debate list. You still under the impression that Saddam gassed the Kurds, so I’ll let you get your hands dirty on that one. Good luck with that.

You then, to top it all off, brought in Winston Churchill and the RAF.

Another excellent topic for the debate, let’s keep that one noted. I even have video, so I’ll have to get a youtube account and make this one a multimedia type of a presentation.

To a discussion about Russian sales of uranium to the Iranian government of Mahmoud Ahmedenijad at exactly the same time US President George W Bush is attempting to build a consensus in the UN against Iran's nuclear programme.

FALLACY POLICE – fallacyfiles.org

And you accuse me of needing to check out fallacyfiles.

Good grief, accuse?

FALLACY POLICE – fallacyfiles.org (this is not an accusation, it’s a plea!)

My line of reason is biased because I cherry pick? No, I am following the standard method of presenting an argument: State your assumptions/findings/analysis then state the facts that back it up. You pretty much failed to disprove those facts.

No, what you are doing is persuasion (it being a form of social influence), while what I’m doing is suasion (“window guidance”), it being a form of applied pressure for moral responsibility.

As an educator you should be well aware that persuasion allows for omitting facts entirely or misrepresenting them by twisting their meaning, while suasion requires full disclosure but in a matter in which the presenter chooses to, so then the target audience can make form its conclusion independently and democratically.

You don’t seem to respond to such “moral pressures”, so I think that issue should also be included in the debate. Mods/Experts will decide on this one, but I will present my vision of the rules for this one.

Again I suggest you look in the mirror, as you have no problem accusing me of being biased against the USSR, Russia and the Russian people while assuming that you are, of course, the voice of reason when refusing to admit the Russian leadership has ever got it wrong.

FALLACY POLICE – fallacyfiles.org

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth and speculating on what I believe and don’t, but feel free to ask though, because that’s what educated people do.

Even after your knowing or unkowing error is pointed out you refuse to admit error, therboy making your misinformation deliberate. ref Saddam, Kurds, American Air Support, Winston Churchill and RAF...

And so all of which shall be addressed and scheduled fore the debate. Again, mods//experts shall draw the line in the sand so we don’t stray to much into the left field, but I feel comfortable with a time-line period of about 2 or 3 hundred years.

On that thought, I’ll even get my self into a good spirit by putting on my special limited edition Lawrence of Arabia DVD. I got a new giant flat screen for the second home theater these holidays so it’ll be a great opportunity to enjoy it!

jarheadjock made a statement. I countered that statement by pointing to examples that had not caused international incidents. You then decided to talk about utterly unrelated topics in an attempt to counter my point.

FALLACY POLICE – fallacyfiles.org

Your statements are “examples”, while mine are “unrelated”. Well boo, there goes my balloon!

When I made statements about the strength of the Russian armed forces I again asked questions whose answers supported my analysis. You chose to answer different questions or (rather ironically, given your race to get off-topic) question the validity of my questions and examples.

Pardon me, “given my race”? And what might that be in your opinion and how exactly have you conjured it up? I shutter to even image how you racially profile your students since you apparently already have done so to a virtual voice in the realm of cyberspace.

Since this has nothing to do with the debater, let’s just leave this on a personal level and leave it out of the debate, just to be sure.

I certainly don’t want any racist overtones polluting these already muddy waters, and with outmost certainty I will say this, I will not debate topics of such magnitude with a racist.

Racists first have to graduate in order to participate in serious and constructive discussions.

My question about Vladivostok was initially dismissed as me falling for propaganda and lies spread by western media for the purpose of making us feel more superior before you finally admitted the truth: that I was bang on the money.

reply to post by HowlrunnerIV

---

I’m game!

I checked my U2U box and I still don’t have your prep list.

I’ll be waiting.

One thing which stood out unusually about Australia in the interior when just snooping on Google Earth was a small city called Alice Springs. What caught me so by surprise is that to the southwest of Alice springs is a set of obvious pistol and rifle ranges. They appear to be at distances of 25 yards out to 1000 yards. About five shooting ranges. Quite a set up for a nation which has clamped down very hard on private ownership of firearms. Sure wish we had a thousand yard range around here. I conclude it must be military or government. 500 to 1000 yard ranges are pretty rare in private hands..government has most of them. And I am talking here stateside. So what must it be like down under??

Hey Guys,

This is my first post on these board, but i would assume those Rifle ranges have something to do with a Listening Station called Pine Gap run by the US and Australia.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 23-3-2008 by stevoaustralis]

reply to post by orangetom1999

---

From what i can tell from the RAAF website, the base at Exmouth is a barebones forward operating base which is largely inactive outside of major exercises, with just a small support contingent there to maintain the base, it is not a base operational on a day to day basis.

Tindal in the Northern Territory and Amberley in Queensland on the other hand.....Tindal has F/A-18's and Amberley has a couple of Squadrons of F-111's.

Low-Tech Solutions To High-Tech Tyranny (Save links before they are gone)
  Posted 2 days ago with 7 member flags

Israeli Company Has FAA Permission to Fly Drones in U.S. Airspace
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags

Colt Commander, finally failed
  Posted 5 days ago with 5 member flags

Laser Firearms
  Posted 16 days ago with 4 member flags

First possible near-collision of unmanned drone and commercial aircraft in US airspace.
  Posted 9 days ago with 4 member flags

US Army Launches Phase II of competition to replace M4
  Posted 17 days ago with 3 member flags

America\'s Next Bomber: Unmanned, Unlimited Range, Aimed At China
  Posted 18 days ago with 3 member flags

The 450 million rounds of hollow point ammunition for DHS....my thoughts..nefarious....or not????
  Posted 11 days ago with 3 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: