It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What have we learnt from the Russian weaponary in the brief Russia / Georgia war

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Yup very convenient you forgot my sentence on Kosovo there. The US has no moral high ground, look at what they did for Israel also, took Palestine and gave it to the Jews with no real right or permission, then armed and supplied the Jews in there wars and land grabs. As far as Russia wishing to make a region or two that is predominately Russian, into a Russian state, they are doing no more or no less than the US, UK, France and majority of Europe has already done many times.


Are you honestly blaming the existence of Israel on the United States?
I missed the part where the United States was either the U.N., or Britain..
For land grabs?
If I recall, most of the land they seized was during wars they did not start.



Nato is nothing more than a paper tiger. Everyone who laughs at Nato is justified, they backed down from there promises, after all those years of acting like a tough guy. Those who bash Russia are just ignorant fools who belive everything the media shovels them.


What have they backed down from? Defending a _prospective_ member from what could have turned into an extreme conflict? A prospective member who was by no means clean of fault?


Logic and historical accuracy are a beautiful thing.




posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saf85
Heck Kosovo can be forcefully made independent by the USA, but when Russia tries it, everyone is up in arms and complaining.


Umm go ahead and support the Serbs actions in the 90's if you must, they were thugs to their former Yugoslav brothers. I don't recall Russia exploring every diplomatic route before resorting to taking over the peacekeeping in those regions of Georgia. I don't recall the U.S. giving U.S. citizenship to the residents of Kosovo, do you?

You are so for self determination of others except for Chechnya huh? Give me a break.

As for your assertion that "Well you guys did the same thing long ago, what's wrong with us doing it now?" It's 2008, hopefully as signatures to the UN charter you wouldn't go about annexing another countries internationally recognized border territories for your own. Why don't you just go and grab back all of the former USSR regions as well then? Very thuggish if you ask me. No wonder you supported the Serbs if that is your attitude.



posted on Oct, 22 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
What is with all these assumption I am Russian? I am bloody English ffs lol.

I am just saying Russia has as much right to be a thug as the USA is doing so, it may not be right, but heck, they are powerful enough to do as they wish, just like the USA sees its self.

Sure The kosovan and serb issue was there, but what about the Georgia, Ossetian issue? Is it ok for the Georgians to kill innocent civilians to try and stop them breaking away from the country? So what, Russia may bring Ossetia under its wing for protection, in reality, the people liveing there wish for that protection. Just like the Kosovans wish for the USA, NATO and UN to protect them. More than likely Kosovo will become part of Europe and a NATO member, yet again there will be no objection to either, but Russia receives all the condemnation going, just because people are ignorant and see any such move as the reforming of the USSR etc.

In reality, the US and Europe fear Ossetia and the other region (forget the name, begins with A), they see either or both regions joining Russia like this; Former USSR satellite states, see that the US and NATO are powerless against Russia, then these states decide to realign themself with Russia for protection, weapons, natural resources etc. Also not to mention the loss of militray bases and ports for the US and Europe, also the planned missile shield the US has on the board. The above reasons are why there is really so much fuss over the move.

In reality Russia no longer needs anything resembling the good ol USSR anymore, they have China, India, Iran, Kazakstan, Tajikistan and a # load more as there close and military allies (Iran may not be at present, but once it enters SCO, they will be). The current Russian allience, eclipses the former USSR.

The way I see it is; let Russia do as it pleases in its own area of interest and influence, that way no one has to worry about cold war 2 or even ww3, triggered off the back of global pressure and threats against a nation, the US and Europe know, do not have the manpower to deal with.
At best we see global peace through mutual fear of each other, at worst, we see a new USSR (only 10x bigger and powerfuler).



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Iblis
 


Ib, history and logic do not matter with some folks, and facts only make them mad. They just rant over whatever pet peeve happens to be the weed up their butt of the moment.

Unless I'm entirely mistaken, Israel was formed from the British territory which was collectively called Palestine.

So this is all America's fault. Israel's existence is America's fault. The global economy is America's fault. Global warming is America's fault. The decline of the British Empire is America's fault. The absence of solar spots is America's fault. The extinction of the dinosaurs is America's fault.

My suggestion is to not continue. It's useless to argue with biased ignorance. You see, some folks enjoy their ignorance through bitter, biased hatred.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Umm go ahead and support the Serbs actions in the 90's if you must, they were thugs to their former Yugoslav brothers.


After the US openly instigated and provided the incentive for territories trying to break away from the Yugoslav federation. Serb actions were brutal but not more so than that of those Albanians or other 'ethnic' groupings.


I don't recall Russia exploring every diplomatic route before resorting to taking over the peacekeeping in those regions of Georgia.


It's a UN mandate and given the US history of flaunting what it does not VETO outright there isn't much left of it that similar well armed countries have to respect.


I don't recall the U.S. giving U.S. citizenship to the residents of Kosovo, do you?


Yes, the Kosovor's got absolutely nothing in reward for the devastation caused by US senate voting to not allow further monetary aid unless territories claimed formal independence. If the US would at least give Iraqi's, Afghans and Albanians US citizenship then there would be some kind of reward but as it stands it's just suffering and destruction.


You are so for self determination of others except for Chechnya huh? Give me a break.


Right. I don't have much sympathy with the Chechen cause but it's not like the Russians endeared themselves to anyone but handling a internal struggle with so much violence. Having said that i would rather countries keep their violence internal than to invade so many others based on obvious lies.


As for your assertion that "Well you guys did the same thing long ago, what's wrong with us doing it now?"


The US is currently engaging in two illegal occupations of two quite formally sovereign nations; the Russian federation hasn't so far done that despite having the power to try.


It's 2008, hopefully as signatures to the UN charter you wouldn't go about annexing another countries internationally recognized border territories for your own.


Can't we deal with the most flagrant of offenders first before discussing what Russia did to Georgia because Georgie shelled Russian peacekeepers fulfilling a UN mandate? Has the Russian armed forces killed a million Georgians yet or is the body count more like a few hundred?


Why don't you just go and grab back all of the former USSR regions as well then?


The moment the US attempts to employ those regions as bases for aggressive operations they very well might. If NATO provides the pretext other former 'republics' will get something similar to the Georgian treatment.


Very thuggish if you ask me. No wonder you supported the Serbs if that is your attitude.


Your going to call the Russians thugs for defending their territorial integrity ( border regions) while the US invades countries that are on other continents? Why don't you support the Serbs who attempted to defend all the gains the people of that region have made in the Southern Slav federation otherwise called Yugoslavia? How are any of the 'liberated' territories better off today than they were back in the 90's?

Stellar



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by Iblis
 


Ib, history and logic do not matter with some folks, and facts only make them mad. They just rant over whatever pet peeve happens to be the weed up their butt of the moment.

Unless I'm entirely mistaken, Israel was formed from the British territory which was collectively called Palestine.

So this is all America's fault. Israel's existence is America's fault. The global economy is America's fault. Global warming is America's fault. The decline of the British Empire is America's fault. The absence of solar spots is America's fault. The extinction of the dinosaurs is America's fault.

My suggestion is to not continue. It's useless to argue with biased ignorance. You see, some folks enjoy their ignorance through bitter, biased hatred.


Haha looks like someone is still pissed he got shamed in another thread, still waiting for that u2u mr war hero, internet warrior lol.



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by pavil
Umm go ahead and support the Serbs actions in the 90's if you must, they were thugs to their former Yugoslav brothers.


After the US openly instigated and provided the incentive for territories trying to break away from the Yugoslav federation. Serb actions were brutal but not more so than that of those Albanians or other 'ethnic' groupings.


I don't recall Russia exploring every diplomatic route before resorting to taking over the peacekeeping in those regions of Georgia.


It's a UN mandate and given the US history of flaunting what it does not VETO outright there isn't much left of it that similar well armed countries have to respect.


I don't recall the U.S. giving U.S. citizenship to the residents of Kosovo, do you?


Yes, the Kosovor's got absolutely nothing in reward for the devastation caused by US senate voting to not allow further monetary aid unless territories claimed formal independence. If the US would at least give Iraqi's, Afghans and Albanians US citizenship then there would be some kind of reward but as it stands it's just suffering and destruction.


You are so for self determination of others except for Chechnya huh? Give me a break.


Right. I don't have much sympathy with the Chechen cause but it's not like the Russians endeared themselves to anyone but handling a internal struggle with so much violence. Having said that i would rather countries keep their violence internal than to invade so many others based on obvious lies.


As for your assertion that "Well you guys did the same thing long ago, what's wrong with us doing it now?"


The US is currently engaging in two illegal occupations of two quite formally sovereign nations; the Russian federation hasn't so far done that despite having the power to try.


It's 2008, hopefully as signatures to the UN charter you wouldn't go about annexing another countries internationally recognized border territories for your own.


Can't we deal with the most flagrant of offenders first before discussing what Russia did to Georgia because Georgie shelled Russian peacekeepers fulfilling a UN mandate? Has the Russian armed forces killed a million Georgians yet or is the body count more like a few hundred?


Why don't you just go and grab back all of the former USSR regions as well then?


The moment the US attempts to employ those regions as bases for aggressive operations they very well might. If NATO provides the pretext other former 'republics' will get something similar to the Georgian treatment.


Very thuggish if you ask me. No wonder you supported the Serbs if that is your attitude.


Your going to call the Russians thugs for defending their territorial integrity ( border regions) while the US invades countries that are on other continents? Why don't you support the Serbs who attempted to defend all the gains the people of that region have made in the Southern Slav federation otherwise called Yugoslavia? How are any of the 'liberated' territories better off today than they were back in the 90's?

Stellar



I have been reading alot of your posts Stellar, I'm impressed with your knowledge. I hope your neutral view on topics continue.
Great poste, I'm myself am studying the albanian harassment on the serbs, I'm not pro serb or albanian, I just want to know why the albanians is accused to be the abused and the innocent.

I'm glad your view is as allways well educated and neutral!
I think you got yourself a fan



posted on Oct, 23 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
After the US openly instigated and provided the incentive for territories trying to break away from the Yugoslav federation. Serb actions were brutal but not more so than that of those Albanians or other 'ethnic' groupings.


Not surprised you are defending their actions. Par for the course.

I noticed you never really addressed the giving of Russian citizenship in your comments, why didn't you. Was Russia right in giving citizenship to members of another nation?


Having said that i would rather countries keep their violence internal than to invade so many others based on obvious lies.
Hmmm interesting considering that it was Russia Attacking Georgia proper, I don't recall Georgia attacking Russian land.




Can't we deal with the most flagrant of offenders first before discussing what Russia did to Georgia because Georgie shelled Russian peacekeepers fulfilling a UN mandate? Has the Russian armed forces killed a million Georgians yet or is the body count more like a few hundred?


Nice sidestepping of the question. Would Russia be right in topple the Govt. of Georgia and installing a more favorable regime toward them?




The moment the US attempts to employ those regions as bases for aggressive operations they very well might. If NATO provides the pretext other former 'republics' will get something similar to the Georgian treatment.


Truly scary thought process there, you do realize the former members of the USSR left on their own accord right? They are seeking NATO protection not to launch attacks on Russia but to protect themselves from Russian aggression, like we have just witnessed.







Your going to call the Russians thugs for defending their territorial integrity ( border regions) while the US invades countries that are on other continents?
Why don't you support the Serbs who attempted to defend all the gains the people of that region have made in the Southern Slav federation otherwise called Yugoslavia? How are any of the 'liberated' territories better off today than they were back in the 90's?


Huh? Russia defending their territorial integrity by attacking a sovereign bordering nation and threatening to remove it's government? When did the Georgians invade Russia? Or is Georgia part of a "Greater Russia"? You would think that they (Russia) would try to set the example of the "good neighbor" rather than the course they have taken.

It's fairly obvious that the breakaway Nations of the Slav Federation had had enough of the heavy handedness of the Serbs. As for being better off than in the 90's, well yeah, they aren't being herded into concentration camps and removed from their villages anymore, i would say that would be an improvement. You may differ.................



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Not surprised you are defending their actions. Par for the course.


Ditto. I mean it's nothing new to see you ignore every atrocity that doesn't serve as ammunition against this or that country.


I noticed you never really addressed the giving of Russian citizenship in your comments, why didn't you. Was Russia right in giving citizenship to members of another nation?


I explicitly addressed the issue and i recommended that the US/NATO also start doing similar things for Iraqi's and Afghans so that they may flee the devastation in very large part caused by US/NATO aggression. I know your biased like the rest of us but it's interesting that you don't even notice entire paragraphs....


Hmmm interesting considering that it was Russia Attacking Georgia proper, I don't recall Georgia attacking Russian land.


The Israeli's recently invaded Lebanon because of 'attacks' from there. I think in this case it was pretty obvious that the rather large artillery bombardments emanated from Georgia proper and that they kept shelling both Russian peacekeepers and relief troops? Can we at least agree that neither country should do this but that it does nothing but expose one's bias and hypocrisy when you to condemn Russia while Israel does this half a dozen times a year without you commenting?


Nice sidestepping of the question. Would Russia be right in topple the Govt. of Georgia and installing a more favorable regime toward them?


Sure? I mean that's what the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan without either countries attacking the United States or their UN mandated peacekeepers? Did Russia impose more than a decade of genocidal sanctions on Georgia that drove it to attack two 'breakaway' territories that Russia has as much right to as Georgia does? I mean how can Russia be made the preeminent problem when hundreds died in their week long war while hundreds die every week in Iraq? Where is the fair consideration given to the quick 'solution' imposed by Russian without destroying Georgia and all it's civilian infrastructure?


Truly scary thought process there, you do realize the former members of the USSR left on their own accord right?


Well they did not as they didn't have the power to do so. If Russia had sent in the troops they could have and would have crushed the very small scale rebellions taking place. To suggest that the USSR collapsed due to some kind of sudden internal rebellion is in my mind to admit to not having studied the issue at all. How many were killed by security forces during that period? I mean obviously the people of those various nations wanted independence but that was hardly a new movement.


They are seeking NATO protection not to launch attacks on Russia but to protect themselves from Russian aggression, like we have just witnessed.


Since the second world war ( and obviously before; Russia were invaded three times up to the second world war by the western powers ) NATO has been the aggressor all around the world and to claim that one gains 'protection' against Russia by joining is once again in my opinion a typical misrepresentation. The reason one gains protection by joining NATO is basically because NATO will then no longer attack you to further it's western imperial ends. Russia was then and is now subject to the same external aggression the SU and USSR 'leaders' ( and yes, that is another topic) were preparing for for much of the last century.


Huh? Russia defending their territorial integrity by attacking a sovereign bordering nation and threatening to remove it's government?


Yes. I am obviously referring to Chechnya as the Georgia incident were in my reading very clearly as result of NATO support for Georgian territorial ambition.


When did the Georgians invade Russia? Or is Georgia part of a "Greater Russia"? You would think that they (Russia) would try to set the example of the "good neighbor" rather than the course they have taken.


They attacked Russian peacekeepers that were assigned to those former Georgian territories ( ever since Stalin designated them so at least) to enforce the ceasefire agreements as negotiated between the factions. I would think such a very small neighbour would be smarter than to believe it could take the violent approach the Georgian leadership did when settling 'internal' ( or so they claim any ways) problems. Shelling the capitol of such a territory ( ala Grozny) is not exactly something you do unless you can give the rest of the world the finger and dare them to stop you. As the Georgians discovered they could be and were stopped very suddenly. Sure the Russians could have negotiated a settlement without using troops but why should they do that when other major powers do not even do so for nations on other continents that they can in no way claim has anything to do with their 'sphere of influence' unless one ( rightly in this case ) presume that the US national security state believes that the entire planet is there's to control?


It's fairly obvious that the breakaway Nations of the Slav Federation had had enough of the heavy handedness of the Serbs.


Nonsense. The people were apparently ( at least that's the impression you get from studies and polls ; if you believe in such things) working out their age old issues and misunderstandings and Serbia can not be said to have had all the power or to have misused it so terribly. To suggest that people suddenly got sick of the Serbs in 1991 ( incidently a month after the gulf war were concluded) and took up arms without incentive is a strange claim to say the least. The breakup of the USSR and the US actions all around the world( to say nothing of financial and political incentives) clearly convinced the Slovenian and Croatian republics ( or at least their leaders; you can go check if the people voted for it or had any say in it) that they could get out the federation without too much fear of Serbian or any other reprisal.


As for being better off than in the 90's, well yeah, they aren't being herded into concentration camps and removed from their villages anymore, i would say that would be an improvement. You may differ.................


I should have said the 80's but either way you are far too caught up in all the propaganda ( hundreds of thousands dead, etc) to notice how comparatively well it was going in that area of the world as compared to the 90's and even to this day. That's what neo liberal economic policies and the wars they bring tends to result in but obviously this is all , according to popular western propagandist mythology, what 'brining democracy to the world' is all about.

Sure.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX


I explicitly addressed the issue and i recommended that the US/NATO also start doing similar things for Iraqi's and Afghans


So it's allright to give citizenship enmasse to a whole part of another country. I seem to remember that being done somewhere......now where was that?




Well they did not as they didn't have the power to do so. If Russia had sent in the troops they could have and would have crushed the very small scale rebellions taking place. To suggest that the USSR collapsed due to some kind of sudden internal rebellion is in my mind to admit to not having studied the issue at all. How many were killed by security forces during that period? I mean obviously the people of those various nations wanted independence but that was hardly a new movement.


Ya lost me there... So the Eastern Europe and the Former parts of the USSR that turned away from Mother Russia were merely rebellions that could have been crushed? Do you really think they could have kept all of those countries under their thumb? The USSR collapsed from both the internal desires of Eastern Europe and many of the Republics to be free from the USSR as well as the outside pressure the US put on. I bet you think it was all just the US fomenting problems that caused these countries to leave the Warsaw Pact and the USSR.



Since the second world war ( and obviously before; Russia were invaded three times up to the second world war by the western powers ) NATO has been the aggressor all around the world and to claim that one gains 'protection' against Russia by joining is once again in my opinion a typical misrepresentation.
NATO is at it's heart a mutual defense network ie an attack against one is an attack against all. It's basic military doctrine has not been an offensive attack against the USSR/Russia but rather a "hold the defense" till the Bulk of NATO (US) troops can make it over. Granted NATO has delved into some areas (Balkans and Afghansitan) which are beyond that mandate, but those two actions are hardly attacks against Russia.



They attacked Russian peacekeepers that were assigned to those former Georgian territories ( ever since Stalin designated them so at least) to enforce the ceasefire agreements as negotiated between the factions.
I'll grant you it was stupid of Georgia to try and militarily take back those areas, but Russia's response would have been to overrun the whole country if not for the political outcry.



Nonsense. The people were apparently ( at least that's the impression you get from studies and polls ; if you believe in such things) working out their age old issues and misunderstandings and Serbia can not be said to have had all the power or to have misused it so terribly. To suggest that people suddenly got sick of the Serbs in 1991 ( incidently a month after the gulf war were concluded) and took up arms without incentive is a strange claim to say the least. The breakup of the USSR and the US actions all around the world( to say nothing of financial and political incentives) clearly convinced the Slovenian and Croatian republics ( or at least their leaders; you can go check if the people voted for it or had any say in it) that they could get out the federation without too much fear of Serbian or any other reprisal.
The only thing that held Yugoslavia together was Tito, it was just a matter of time as you put it for "working out their age old issues and misunderstandings". The Federation had run it's course especially with Serbia still trying to hold it all together with a heavy hand.



I should have said the 80's but either way you are far too caught up in all the propaganda ( hundreds of thousands dead, etc) to notice how comparatively well it was going in that area of the world as compared to the 90's and even to this day.


Really? I guess that would depend on your area of the world. I for one would rather have been many places other than the Balkan region during those times. I understand you don't believe what most of the world does when it comes to this subject.

I do enjoy discussing this with you though.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Thank you for a good discussion on a good topic. It was interesting to read.
Let me answer from the Russians. Because I am Russian.
The conflict has taught us a lot and finally opened our eyes.
1. As in the good old days, Russia today has no allies but its army and navy.
2. World public opinion does not exist. International law does not exist.
3. Russia must act very decisively in their favor.
4. U.S. remains the principal potential enemy of Russia, which Russia is not afraid.
5. Russia has failed to meet the primary strategic objective of war, which she performed well in the past - destruction of the causes of aggression. I am referring to Saakashvili's regime.
6. The professional rapid reaction forces, equipped with all the necessary modern weapons (SPEZNAZ) - the main task of military construction.

Lessons learned. Let's work! (the first 30 helicopters, "Alligator" for special forses yesterday launched into production)
Alex.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:33 AM
link   
It would have been intersting to see what would have happened if the US had trained the Georgians to fight an enemy like Russia rather nthan equipping thwm with light weapons to fight terrorists internally. I imagine they would have been far more dead Russians.
What we probably do know that if it were the Russian Amry in Iraq they would have been decimated by now.



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
It would have been intersting to see what would have happened if the US had trained the Georgians to fight an enemy like Russia rather nthan equipping thwm with light weapons to fight terrorists internally. I imagine they would have been far more dead Russians.
What we probably do know that if it were the Russian Amry in Iraq they would have been decimated by now.


Wow your so smart (sarcasm if your getting big headed by now).

First of all, the US and Israel (not one military power but two!), were training Georgians for guerilla warfare with Russia. They did not supply light arms only, they gave support vehicles, hightech weapons and loads of ammo and training to go with them.

Why? To side track Russia from the Iran issue, once Russia is tied up in a costly guerilla war, they will have little forces of resources to send Irans way when Israel and the US start there war there.

What happened? Russia smelt the crap miles away, took the bait only to lay their own, then ripped a hole not only into the Georgians, but also into the mercenaries hired by/through the US/Israel (combat hardened vets of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Africa etc etc). The US and Israel ran like dog with their tail between their legs, left so many sensitive documents because they underestimated the Russians response capability, as a result the planned air strike from Georgia on Iran was discovered and foiled. Not to mention countless info that Russia is keeping close to its cheast for the time being.

Any info comeing out about heavy Russian loses, nothing beyone propeganda, apparently Russia lost a whole brigade! (funny how there is no evidence from either side to back this claim up), the planes Russia lost, were old 70's/80's era jets (with no modern upgrade packages), heck anyone with a modern Russian shoulder mount anti air missile, could take down an entire fleet of them old things.

Finally if Russia was to have been the ones in Iraq, they would not have been decimated, they more than likely would have majority of the country under control (like they done in Afghansitan), not some flimsy green zone around Baghdad airport and inner city.
Also they would have left a long time ago, unlike the oil desperate US who cling to Iraq for dear life. Saddam threatended the petro dollar economy with his plans for oil to be traded in Euros and other currency (currently oil is exclusively traded in Dollar and Pound). Iran is threatening the US the same way, that is the only real reason either country face/faced US aggression.

Nukes, terrorism and any other charge are just false justification for aggression.

P.S It is the US who will be decimated in Iraq, they have set themself up in the capitol of Iraq, depend on long supply lines and aircraft for supplies. Once the Iraqis deem it necessary, they will whip out Russian tech and cripple the air supplies, cut off land supplies, leave the coalition to rot in the green zone, when they finally decide to make a run for the boarder, you will have no fuel for any heavy armour, they have well over 200 miles in any direction to travel, in massive unsecurable convoys, limited air support and therefore easy picking for the Iraqis (considering any gunships that have fuel to fly, will be shot down pretty damn fast by Russian anti air missiles and any carrier fleet will more than likely be tied up in a war with Iran/Russia/China).



posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Saf85
 

Strange talk of a possible war Russia vs Iraq. USSR invaded Afghanistan because Afghanistan had with us a common border. USA had plans to install a puppet regime. It was dangerous for the USSR.
Iraq has never threatened Russia. Even if it were American states.
The Soviet Union not to interfere in the Iran-Iraq war. Because it understood that this war has produced no result except the weakening of both nations.
But if US decide to attack Iran, Russia is unlikely to be on the sidelines.
Iran border with Russia. Any destabilization of the situation in Iran is dangerous for Russia. So I hope that the U.S. government enough common sense to understand.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saf85


Wow your so smart (sarcasm if your getting big headed by now).

First of all, the US and Israel (not one military power but two!), were training Georgians for guerilla warfare with Russia. They did not supply light arms only, they gave support vehicles, hightech weapons and loads of ammo and training to go with them.

Why? To side track Russia from the Iran issue, once Russia is tied up in a costly guerilla war, they will have little forces of resources to send Irans way when Israel and the US start there war there.


How ridiculous. Georgia was never going to attack Russia. Use some common sense. What high tech weapons did they recieve ? The latest MANPADS from the US ? The latest ATGM's? EFP's? They recieved nothing of the sort.
They didn't recieve anything necessary to wage war with Russia. By support vehicles you mean HUMVEE's ?
Come on don't you think you sound a little paranooid.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saf85
Finally if Russia was to have been the ones in Iraq, they would not have been decimated, they more than likely would have majority of the country under control (like they done in Afghansitan), not some flimsy green zone around Baghdad airport and inner city.


You are joking right? Either you know nothing about the Afghan War or you're fed way to much propaganda.
Russia only ever had some control over the cities, never in the country side. In fact the mujahideen staged frequent attacks in "Russian controlled" cities. To say they had control of most of the country is laughable, I wouldn't even say they controlled 5%. Even with the mass destruction of villages, they still couldn't control the land.

Hmm as for being decimated, out fo an Amry of 100,000 men 15,000 were killed let alone the injuries of the survivors. that sounds like decimation to me. Sorry.

Russia got an ass kicking.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Saf85
Finally if Russia was to have been the ones in Iraq, they would not have been decimated, they more than likely would have majority of the country under control (like they done in Afghansitan), not some flimsy green zone around Baghdad airport and inner city.


You are joking right? Either you know nothing about the Afghan War or you're fed way to much propaganda.
Russia only ever had some control over the cities, never in the country side. In fact the mujahideen staged frequent attacks in "Russian controlled" cities. To say they had control of most of the country is laughable, I wouldn't even say they controlled 5%. Even with the mass destruction of villages, they still couldn't control the land.

Hmm as for being decimated, out fo an Amry of 100,000 men 15,000 were killed let alone the injuries of the survivors. that sounds like decimation to me. Sorry.

Russia got an ass kicking.
You as well as I know Russia has cruise missiles, and they could have easily fired them into the Georgian Presidents Palace and offed him, so don't post STUPID things, about Russia could get the Gov out of power, there's a reason they left them in there, and BTW Russia DID control Afgahnistan, please provide MULTIPLE respectable sources that show Russia didn't and got beat up by Afghans.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Now this sounds to me like a pissing contest. It seems that two sides have different opinions, and neither side is willing to admit that they're even in the slightest bit wrong.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Rogue, you are wrong. Soviets did control entire Afganistan, and many mujaheddin just simply were crossing to Pakistani border, and USSR didn't want be involved in a war with Pakistan. Read up your history.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kiltedninja
Now this sounds to me like a pissing contest. It seems that two sides have different opinions, and neither side is willing to admit that they're even in the slightest bit wrong.
If your talking about me then your wrong, as we all know Russia has these type of weapons.







 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join