Russia entering arms race

Jesus christ what happened to this thread? Shut up jverne! You're just a troll, all the time!

The US Military is powerful. In Vietnam, they were winning. They were suffering huge casualties, because they were stupid and did a lot of stupid things. But they were winning slowly. The reason they didn't win is because of pressure from home and other factors which meant that a conventional war wasn't going to be possible - because it wasn't a conventional war, but they were fighting it as one.

The US military is one of the only armies in the world capable of deploying to any location on earth; it IS one of the most powerful. However, in the event of a fight with China or some other big nation, they could well be ****ed. They're too used to fighting against pissy little baby armies, against outdated seventies tanks, stupid dictators with armies who surrender. In the kind of war the US army is supposedly designed to fight, they would suffer heavy casualties - as they did in WW2.

ON TOPIC:

John Titor was right! D:
 
Sulkdodds said:
Jesus christ what happened to this thread? Shut up jverne! You're just a troll, all the time!

The US Military is powerful. In Vietnam, they were winning. They were suffering huge casualties, because they were stupid and did a lot of stupid things. But they were winning slowly. The reason they didn't win is because of pressure from home and other factors which meant that a conventional war wasn't going to be possible - because it wasn't a conventional war, but they were fighting it as one.

The US military is one of the only armies in the world capable of deploying to any location on earth; it IS one of the most powerful. However, in the event of a fight with China or some other big nation, they could well be ****ed. They're too used to fighting against pissy little baby armies, against outdated seventies tanks, stupid dictators with armies who surrender. In the kind of war the US army is supposedly designed to fight, they would suffer heavy casualties - as they did in WW2.

ON TOPIC:

John Titor was right! D:
Click to expand...

jesus christ!

i see you read all of my posts :rolleyes: !

yes Sulkdodds...you're really contributing to the thread.

"They're too used to fighting against pissy little baby armies, against outdated seventies tanks, stupid dictators with armies who surrender."

"In Vietnam, they were winning. They were suffering huge casualties, because they were stupid and did a lot of stupid things."

haha...nice one! :frog:
 
jverne said:
Amen!

I always said the US army are a bunch of pussies. As long as you got GPS and enough fuel you feel secure. 3/4 of your ground soldiers are retards you have awfull pilots, you might have better technology but the retards using it make it usless.
Click to expand...

What do you base this on? and what is your military experience, obviously you wouldn't call the US military pussies, unless you have more rigourous military training...
 
This entire argument is ****ing stupid.

More weapons = More bad.
End of discussion
 
I always said the US army are a bunch of pussies.
Click to expand...
What could possibly make you think that? Pussy = weak and cowardly. I don't see how the US army of soldiers which is entirely volunteer could be considered weak or cowardly. To voluntarily fight and quite possibly be killed in Iraq for something that 66% of Americans don't even believe in is not being weak OR cowardly. Imagine if we really had something to fight for, like freedom and the protection of our Country, and 100% of The US was behind it.

Maybe...but the massive war industry of the u.s.a has to keep pumping.
Click to expand...
I never learned anything of this in school. Where do you learn of things like this? Massive war industry? Is this bigger than our massive school industry, or our massive Beef industry? The US is pretty massive, being the 3rd largest nation on Earth.
If you want to invade and win you must be unforgiving. Look at world war 2. The Americans firebombed Japanese cities, then topped it off with atomic weapons. That's the kind of attitude you need to win.
Click to expand...
You know, I bet Japan got hit so hard because they scared us. It's pretty frightening to have (I'm guessing here) 500 warplanes suddenly and unexpectedly attacking your country. I think if the same thing happened today, the same thing would happen today - if you follow me. (we would strike back like what happened with Japan) I think the only good part of possessing large scale nuclear weapons is that they deter a country from attacking us. 'Theoretically' they will never need to be used again.


I would like to talk about Russia some in this thread about Russia. In case you don't know, they have the second largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth, and are now publicly voicing their intent to build upon it. This doesn't concern any of you that they sold some weapons to Iran recently?
 
Jverne, I like how you can bitch at me for 'not contributing to the thread' when your post is...oh, what is it? You being a bit of a c*nt and laughing gormlessly at what I say without actually giving any reasons? Lovely. I was really commenting on how this had become a bitch-fight between Fusion and Raziaar, but you're annoying too.

What I say saying (in a crabby, ill-considered, just-got-up-in-the-morning kind of way, I will concede) is that for a long time the US have not fought a large, heavily industrialised nation like themselves. They have fought assorted smaller, more outdated and really-not-very-threatening enemies. They haven't really had to fight a war on the scale of the second world war, or arguably an enemy on the scale of the Axis during that conflict. I'm saying they're not 'shit' or 'pathetic' - they are an extremely powerful force. But I'm not convinced that in a big war against an equivalent force with equivalent resources and technology, they'd come out on top.

And yes jverne, you do troll. In this thread alone you've laughed at everyone with a sort of feckless and false self-superiority, made huge generalisations ('blah blah, army are pussies') and expressed mirth at Raziaar's entire family getting shot. These trends can be spotted across a lot of your posts in the politics forum.
 
Sulkdodds said:
Jverne, I like how you can bitch at me for 'not contributing to the thread' when your post is...oh, what is it? You being a bit of a c*nt and laughing gormlessly at what I say without actually giving any reasons? Lovely. I was really commenting on how this had become a bitch-fight between Fusion and Raziaar, but you're annoying too.

What I say saying (in a crabby, ill-considered, just-got-up-in-the-morning kind of way, I will concede) is that for a long time the US have not fought a large, heavily industrialised nation like themselves. They have fought assorted smaller, more outdated and really-not-very-threatening enemies. They haven't really had to fight a war on the scale of the second world war, or arguably an enemy on the scale of the Axis during that conflict. I'm saying they're not 'shit' or 'pathetic' - they are an extremely powerful force. But I'm not convinced that in a big war against an equivalent force with equivalent resources and technology, they'd come out on top.

And yes jverne, you do troll. In this thread alone you've laughed at everyone with a sort of feckless and false self-superiority, made huge generalisations ('blah blah, army are pussies') and expressed mirth at Raziaar's entire family getting shot. These trends can be spotted across a lot of your posts in the politics forum.
Click to expand...



you really like to read betewn the lines!? that was sarcasm, i thought i have been clear, but apparently it's still confusing people...

all that generalizations were made on purpose...just like razziar made generalizations of US army being uber! heh...alot in my posts...well that calls for "prove it".

you see virus, what i meant when i said "more effective"?! everybody focuses on the prick-ish post and not on what i really meant!

maybe i haven't contributed to the thread much...but neither did you sulkdodds! nothing you said has any real value.

"I was really commenting on how this had become a bitch-fight between Fusion and Raziaar, but you're annoying too."

that isn't called contributing!


edit: if you want contribution....

"the US have not fought a large, heavily industrialised nation like themselves. They have fought assorted smaller, more outdated and really-not-very-threatening enemies."


think about it...if they can't win over an "assorted smaller, more outdated and really-not-very-threatening enemies" enemy. then how would they win over an adanced enemy? technologicaly supperior doesen't necceserily mean stronger! you may be thechnologicaly supperior to any other nation but why the hell would you be stronger?

lets say if the us attacked germany (modern)...the germans know they couldn't win with a full frontal attack, so they'd use simmilar tactics as the insurgents (guerilla) but the difference would be that the germans would be far more organised, better equiped, trained and so forth. the the US would probably loose badly.

todays wars aren't fought on large scale, nobody is that stupid to enmass when they know that theire every movement is being tracked...it is folly! ww2 is history my friend.
 
Ah, so you were being sarcastic and ironic all along.

However, in claiming nothing I've said has any value and that I'm not contributing, you appear to have picked some bits out of my posts and ignored...everything else I've said on the subject of the US army (topics change; threads are fluid). Oh well.

Meanwhile, I find the whole situation quite disturbing.
 
"have picked some bits out of my posts and ignored"

well...i guess there are two of us now?


see my prevous (edited) post and reply.
 
You seem to be misunderstanding me on two fronts.

1. You said:

jverne said:
maybe i haven't contributed to the thread much...but neither did you sulkdodds! nothing you said has any real value.
Click to expand...
I said: what about all that stuff I typed about the US army and wars? That's not contributing to the thread?

Also, I'm awfully sorry that I ignored parts of your post that you only edited in just now. :dozey:

2. I am saying that the US army has won in conventional wars for the last 20 years or so because they've been fighting inferior enemies (note that they're not doing quite so well in non-conventional wars - but they're not losing, for I ask you - who is occupying whose country?). I don't think they'd have as much success as they did during the initial invasion or Iraq if they were fighting a much larger enemy. Judging by your (edited) post you seem to think I reckon they'll loose against small enemies, but win against big ones.

That's not what I said.
 
Sulkdodds said:
You seem to be misunderstanding me on two fronts.

1. You said:

I said: what about all that stuff I typed about the US army and wars? That's not contributing to the thread?

Also, I'm awfully sorry that I ignored parts of your post that you only edited in just now. :dozey:

2. I am saying that the US army has won in conventional wars for the last 20 years or so because they've been fighting inferior enemies (note that they're not doing quite so well in non-conventional wars - but they're not losing, for I ask you - who is occupying whose country?). I don't think they'd have as much success as they did during the initial invasion or Iraq if they were fighting a much larger enemy. Judging by your (edited) post you seem to think I reckon they'll loose against small enemies, but win against big ones.

That's not what I said.
Click to expand...

all that stuff you posted about wars:

"The US Military is powerful. In Vietnam, they were winning. They were suffering huge casualties, because they were stupid and did a lot of stupid things. But they were winning slowly. The reason they didn't win is because of pressure from home and other factors which meant that a conventional war wasn't going to be possible - because it wasn't a conventional war, but they were fighting it as one.

The US military is one of the only armies in the world capable of deploying to any location on earth; it IS one of the most powerful. However, in the event of a fight with China or some other big nation, they could well be ****ed. They're too used to fighting against pissy little baby armies, against outdated seventies tanks, stupid dictators with armies who surrender. In the kind of war the US army is supposedly designed to fight, they would suffer heavy casualties - as they did in WW2."

it is argumented very nicely...lot's of valid facts! [/sarcasm]


"Also, I'm awfully sorry that I ignored parts of your post that you only edited in just now. :dozey:"

i meant, you made a slaughter of my original post and did not read all of my replies in which i wrote i was not being serious!

me: "i'm posting the same bullshit as razziar. nothing else!"

and

me: "i never said "i hope" not even remotely, i put a smiley to make it obvious i was being sarcastic. i'm taunting just like Razziar did with "We have real ferociousness" and other shit."


who said anything about small or big, large or anything else?
why does strenght mean that one army is better than other? the iraqis got better willpower, endurance and wits...and they seem to be keeping your army at bay quite nicely.

now add better equipment, organisation, training and you have the worlds most capable army! the US army lack many things and one of them is cleverness.

ok...ok...the US got the strongest army...satisfied?....but it's surely not the most capable!
 
jverne said:
it is argumented very nicely...lot's of valid facts! [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...
If you disagree with it, you should try raising points against it, instead of just telling me it sucks.

And yeah, okay, apparently some of your posts in this thread explain that you weren't serious. Unfortunately I can't work out what you're saying half the time. It's very hard to make sense of you, because your english is broken. So forgive me if I missed the 'sarcasm'.

In my first post in this thread, I was merely pointing out that all the people going on about how shit the US army is were, in my opinion, wrong.

I'm also from Britain, so it's not 'my' army.
 
For the money thats spent on it, the U.S. army could be better. But its still amongst the best.

Second to Britains army of course ;) .
 
The world is rapidly developing into a more frightening place than it's ever been before.
 
Ennui said:
The world is rapidly developing into a more frightening place than it's ever been before.
Click to expand...

Until it finally happens and 90% of humanity is decimated along with all technological civilisation
 
I certainly hope Russia does build up and regain strength as a world player as an ally this time around rather than an ideological enemy. While Putin does have some downfalls and things I dislike about him, he's a strong leader and I think ultimately good for Russia.

To a new era of Russian-American strength and cooperation!
 
I don't want to see a strong Russia, they have a habbit of meddling in eastern Europe
 
Mr Stabby said:
I don't want to see a strong Russia, they have a habbit of meddling in eastern Europe
Click to expand...
Russian leadership (not colonialism but economically and through influence) after the fall of the hammer and sickle isn't a bad thing. They're the big players of the region and have grown to lead their hemisphere.

There are always going to be issues like the Ukranian pipeline thing, etc but it sorts out. Russia can have some serious positive effects. I think with cooperation they could help us out in the war on terror through persuasion and influence on the Uzbekistan/Kazakhstan etc regions to the south.
 
The Belarussian elections are a good example of Russia keeping influence over the old eastern bloc, the orange revolution ended it in the Ukraine

If Poland and the Baltic states weren't 'protected' by the EU the same thing would happen there awell

The Russian leadership is incredibily corrupt, Putin and the Oligarchs having been fighting eachother for control ever since Yeltsin left power, Putin is winning by quite a marign
 
Sulkdodds said:
If you disagree with it, you should try raising points against it, instead of just telling me it sucks.

And yeah, okay, apparently some of your posts in this thread explain that you weren't serious. Unfortunately I can't work out what you're saying half the time. It's very hard to make sense of you, because your english is broken. So forgive me if I missed the 'sarcasm'.

In my first post in this thread, I was merely pointing out that all the people going on about how shit the US army is were, in my opinion, wrong.

I'm also from Britain, so it's not 'my' army.
Click to expand...


i'm glad we came to a less conflictive conversation Sulkdodds. so you're a diplomatic kind a guy, right? then you agree with me that both of us made mostly stupid unargumented claims? or are you to proud to settle with a draw?

anyway, back on topic:

my standing point is still the lack of cleverness of the individuals and especially the lower rank of officers who actually are the most important in the whole process. i'll find a good example soon, give me a minute.

here (THEY ARE FROM OGRISH, BUT THEY DON'T CONTAIN ABSOLUTLEY NO VIOLENCE OR GROTESQUE SCENES):

wtf?

wtf2?

there are more but i won't post them, i'll see where i could find something more documented...gee...stern would come in quite handy right now!
 
I don't want to drag this debate back into the realm of what bad things the US hasn't or hasn't done, but a note on Vietnam:

Some of you are astute enough to have realised that to win the kind of insurgency-war that is common nowadays, it takes something akin to genocide. Jean Paul Sartre made a very compelling argument that this was precisely what the US attempted to do in Vietnam:
http://www.tamilnation.org/humanrights/sartre.htm

Whether or not you agree with the specific allegations, it's an interesting read and gives an accurate picture of the brutality required in modern warfare. As mentioned inthis thread, similar methods were utilised by the Allies in carpet bombing Dresden, etc - more people actually died in the firebombing of Tokyo than died in the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but little attention is paid to this because carpet bombing civilian targets had become a conventional means of waging war at that point.

I agree with the earlier posts in the thread - it's futile to use morality as a lever to condemn and invade another country, because morals will ensure that you never win. Better to avoid war altogether.
 
They were suffering huge casualties, because they were stupid and did a lot of stupid things.
Click to expand...

Thats the first time we ever encountered an Insurgency. You consider the North Korean military, and it was almost always about hit and run attacks.

Towards the end, we we're winning and our casualties were dropping by the end of the war. Problem was, the public was depressed and believed in instant gratification when it came down to something like war.

However, in the event of a fight with China or some other big nation, they could well be ****ed.
Click to expand...

No, I disagree. ****ed? Hardly. But ... ****ed? Yea. My ****ed is, Red will loose today and blue will loose tommorrow. A war like that could go on for aeons.

Victory is not gaurenteed for anyone. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, its the size of the fight in the dog.

Whether or not you agree with the specific allegations, it's an interesting read and gives an accurate picture of the brutality required in modern warfare. As mentioned inthis thread, similar methods were utilised by the Allies in carpet bombing Dresden, etc - more people actually died in the firebombing of Tokyo than died in the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but little attention is paid to this because carpet bombing civilian targets had become a conventional means of waging war at that point.
Click to expand...

So, you want us to get rid of the Insurgency jverne and Mr-Fusion?

You want us to do ... THAT^?
 
K e r b e r o s said:
Was going to post but ... Sulkdodds is handling this nicely.
Click to expand...

i wouldn't say nicely, because he did the same thing as i did.


what the hell does this

"So, you want us to get rid of the Insurgency jverne and Mr-Fusion?

You want us to do ... THAT^?"

suppose to mean? why is this relevant?
 
Comrade Wolf?

Could that be a reference to the fact that Hitler was known as "Herr Wolf"?
 
Laivasse said:
I don't want to drag this debate back into the realm of what bad things the US hasn't or hasn't done, but a note on Vietnam:

Some of you are astute enough to have realised that to win the kind of insurgency-war that is common nowadays, it takes something akin to genocide. Jean Paul Sartre made a very compelling argument that this was precisely what the US attempted to do in Vietnam:
http://www.tamilnation.org/humanrights/sartre.htm

Whether or not you agree with the specific allegations, it's an interesting read and gives an accurate picture of the brutality required in modern warfare. As mentioned inthis thread, similar methods were utilised by the Allies in carpet bombing Dresden, etc - more people actually died in the firebombing of Tokyo than died in the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but little attention is paid to this because carpet bombing civilian targets had become a conventional means of waging war at that point.

I agree with the earlier posts in the thread - it's futile to use morality as a lever to condemn and invade another country, because morals will ensure that you never win. Better to avoid war altogether.
Click to expand...

Sarte was a smart guy.
 
K e r b e r o s said:
So, you want us to get rid of the Insurgency jverne and Mr-Fusion?

You want us to do ... THAT^?
Click to expand...
Of course not. I was being sarcastic, taking a jab! Many Americans are constantly yanking their own cranks at the fact they have such a mighty military force, it seems to be a weak spot when you point out the fact how useless such a force is against an insurgency without the right mentality. Ie, you literally have to be prepared to conduct genocide.

I just wish your leaders realised the level of evil it takes to get rid of an insurgency before invading countries at your choosing. You should realise any country that you invade will now employ the insurgent tactics. They know the Americans won't cluster bomb civillian areas to the 7th level of hell, its bad for the presidents rating. They have to use surgical strikes on targets of oppportunity. It's tedious, it's not as effective, it doesn't demoralise the enemy like carpet bombing would. As a result the insurgency happily continues on their rebellious ways causing just enough trouble to give the impression of failure to secure peace by the invading force...ironically also bad for the presidents rating!
 
Jandor said:
For the money thats spent on it, the U.S. army could be better. But its still amongst the best.

Second to Britains army of course ;) .
Click to expand...

Never said ours was the best. Said ours was the strongest. The two don't necessarily go hand in hand.
 
How did this thread turn into a penis contest?

You guys' armies all lose to the incredible armed forces of Luxemburg.

Anyway,

you guys really think we could have a new cold war -like era in front of us?
 
Element Alpha said:
you guys really think we could have a new cold war -like era in front of us?
Click to expand...

Not with Russia. They've got enough of their own problems.
 
I think there's going to be a new world war eventually. We've had peace for too long, it's inevitable.
 
Probably not but even if it was with China they would lose because though they have a huge army their equipment is all shitty and outdated and they won't have the balls to use their ICBM nukes.
 
A war with China would be mostly a air and naval conflict. China, while attempting to modernize its forces wont stand a chance in the air, especially with the US Air Force recieving several new fighter wings composed of F-22 Raptors. However, as we all know, air power cannot win a war. China's navy can be considered as "meh" with a few new ships and a lot of older ones.

The big worry for most in the Pentagon are the new generations of anti-ship missles. These are a far cry from the French Excocets fielded in the Falklands Campaign. These go very fast and have a long range and, unfortunatly, are very hard to defend/outmaneuver against.

If such a conflict occurs, it will be bloody and it will require a draft in order to sustain and win such a conflict.
 
Not to mention China would have a very difficult time utilizing all of their army, as it would be a nightmare trying to feed all those troops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

katsung47
Ron Paul Defends Russia After Malaysian Plane Crash
Replies
0
Views
3K
katsung47
katsung47
Sectorial
Half-Life 2 Canon (Theory)
Replies
6
Views
3K
1marcos6
1marcos6
RakuraiTenjin
Eurasian Union
Replies
10
Views
2K
Raziaar
Raziaar
Acurt1982
The Success and Failure of Silence: Gordon Freeman in 'Half Life' and 'Half Life 2'
Replies
1
Views
2K
Chowder
Chowder
CptStern
Dying Vet's letter to GW Bush and Dick Cheney
Replies
10
Views
4K
KoreBolteR
KoreBolteR
Back
Top