RE: President Putin is building up his military

RE: President Putin is building up his military (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Level -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/3/2007 7:00:23 PM)
LOL at "all out mutual assured crying"....

xBullx -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/3/2007 8:07:45 PM)
[;)]

meatcleaver -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/4/2007 12:47:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn At the close of the Second World War, the Soviets were left with a free hand in Eastern Europe. This is what they wanted, and it was left to them. Given the military situation right at the end of the war, there is little doubt that the United States could have imposed its will, had it so desired. If you are talking about using nuclear weapons to impose American will, maybe but I doubt it. America and the rest of the allies had seen what the Russian army did to the best of the German army, my guess there would have been no stomach for a war with the USSR because it just couldn't be won because of the land mass involved. quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn The cold war, was still a war. It had a winner, and a loser. It's pointless to debate the right and wrong of the parties involved. Neither the United States, nor the Soviet Union was forced to engage in cold conflict. This is the mistake that American politicians seem to make too which gives them a false sense of superiority. The USSR lost the cold war, the US didn't win it. The USSR was rotting from the inside from the day of its inception and with a boat load of 'allies' it couldn't trust because they hated Russia and if a war broke out were more likely to turn and fight their Russian masters. Just in the same way, the US didn't win WWII, it was on the winning side. quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Blaming the winner, is not logical, in my view. To the victor, goes the spoils. Throwing the yoke off from one power doesn't mean people want the yoke of the other power.

meatcleaver -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/4/2007 3:24:22 AM)
As for the US having won the cold war, it appears that Putin has other ideas. President Vladimir Putin yesterday declared that a new arms race and cold war with the west had begun and announced that Russia would retaliate against US missile defence plans in Europe by pointing its missiles at European cities. "We are being told the anti-missile defence system is targeted against something that does not exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you?" Mr Putin said. "The strategic balance in the world is being upset and in order to restore this balance without creating an anti-missile defence on our territory, we will be creating a system of countering that anti-missile system." http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2094839,00.html All unnecessary if the US used a little less Texas diplomacy and its European clients weren't so slavish.

SimplyMichael -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/4/2007 7:15:04 AM)
The US won WWII, the Soviets were along for the ride.

caitlyn -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/4/2007 8:40:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver If you are talking about using nuclear weapons to impose American will, maybe but I doubt it. America and the rest of the allies had seen what the Russian army did to the best of the German army, my guess there would have been no stomach for a war with the USSR because it just couldn't be won because of the land mass involved. The Soviet military system was built to defeat the Germans, and would have been no match for the Americans at the very end of the war. A few key points ... The Soviet YAK-9 and LaGG-7 didn't have a ceiling high enough to shoot down B-29 bombers, nor were they any match for American fighters. The naval gap was very large. The United States was in the process of deploying large numbers of the F8F Bearcat fighters for carrier duty. This ultra high performance carrier aircraft with a range of 1,900 miles, would have been a serious problem for the Soviets. It's fair to consider that the Ameircans would have cleared the Red Air Force from the skies in about a month. The Soviets were no match in the air, and with American carrier and bomber assets, would not have been able to use the tactic they used against the Germans, of pulling back out of range. American artillery, especially the 155mm Long Tom, with proximity fuse, had an effective range twice that of the Soviet Katuscha rocket system, and was directed to it's target by air assets. The Soviet system was built on concentration of assets, very much like the German system. To concentrate under the watchful eye of air power and advanced artillery, would have been suicide. The Soviets were not able to fight while dispursed, lacking the logistical support to accomplish this. The bottom line, is that the Soviet military was not advanced enough to fight the west, until they had captured and digested enough German technology to close that gap. Had there been additional fighting at the end of the war, there would have been no capture of German technology, and no advancement of the Soviet system.

SimplyMichael -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/4/2007 11:16:40 AM)
Wow, Caitlyn and I agreeing....world must be comming to an end!

UtopianRanger -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/4/2007 3:41:35 PM)
quote: I have a lot of issues with this country ... hell, if I had my way, we would overthrow our government and put in place, one that will actually do the will of the people. If I had my way, things like nation building and overthrowing the government of another country, would be strictly prohibited. Get down Caitlyn.....now you're talking! And don't sweat the hundred pounds....I know you'd do good in a tussle. lol quote: When you get to the constant critics from across the water ... they have no stake. This isn't their home, they don't pay taxes here, and if you know anything about the history of Europe, you know they would be the first to pick our bones if we ever fell. Hey....they gave us their bilious debt-money / central bankning system -- That's worse than picking our bones [;)] - R

meatcleaver -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/5/2007 2:44:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn The Soviet military system was built to defeat the Germans, and would have been no match for the Americans at the very end of the war. A few key points ... So thought Hitler and Napoleon and so thought Caitlyn. How many million troops do you think America would have has to deploy to defeat Russia? It can't even defeat Iraq with all its superior technolgy because at some point the troops have to get out of their armoured cars and hold the land. It might be worth your while going to Russia at some point, it even makes the USA seem small. You have a unwavering belief in technology but technolgy alone has never secured victory. Was it a captured Viet Cong officier that said when asked who will win the war. "You will but we will still be here when you go home.'

caitlyn -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/5/2007 6:25:12 AM)
I see this as a very poor attempt to counter a fact-based argument. Keep in mind that the discussion point was imposing the will of the United States in Eastern Europe, not taking and controlling the Soviet Union. The Hitler and Napoleon argument is not on point, as they had an entirely different objective. Your discussion point concerning Iraq is also not on point. The military technology of the United States did in fact defeat Iraq, quite easily in fact. The mistake (past the mistake of going in the first place), was the attempt at continual occupation of a foreign country, very much on the Hitler and Napoleon model. Technology in military conflict, while not a singular factor, is a vital one. If you have some fact-based information concerning how the Soviets would have maintained power in Eastern Europe, given the examples cited above, I would be interrested in hearing them. Changing the bar, in order to make the original point, something it never was (occupation of the Soviet Union), is of much less interest.

SimplyMichael -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/5/2007 8:48:37 AM)
Cleaver, I rarely say this but Caitlyn is right. She was refering, as was I, to pushing the Russians out of Eastern Europe, hell Germany would have beat the Russians if they had handled the Eukrainins better (sound familiar?) and they sure as hell would have welcomed us as liberators!

cyberdude611 -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/5/2007 9:25:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn The Soviet military system was built to defeat the Germans, and would have been no match for the Americans at the very end of the war. A few key points ... So thought Hitler and Napoleon and so thought Caitlyn. How many million troops do you think America would have has to deploy to defeat Russia? It can't even defeat Iraq with all its superior technolgy because at some point the troops have to get out of their armoured cars and hold the land. It might be worth your while going to Russia at some point, it even makes the USA seem small. You have a unwavering belief in technology but technolgy alone has never secured victory. Was it a captured Viet Cong officier that said when asked who will win the war. "You will but we will still be here when you go home.' The US toppled Saddam's government, took Baghdad, and took the country all in 19 days with less than 200 combat deaths. That is the fastest and most efficient invasion in modern military history. Saddam had a million-man army in 1992 and we pushed them out of Kuwait in one day. The US did win the war, both Gulf wars. The problem in Iraq right now is sectarian violence and civil war, something the US really has no business being involved in. Same issue with Vietnam... The US never lost a battle in Vietnam. The US never lost a battle in Iraq. Occupation is also the problem. The US military is not built for occupation. It is built to defend and to attack with quick and overwhelming force. This goes all the way back to General Eisenhower and Patton. Our soldiers and Marines are NOT trained to be police officers or peacekeepers. That's the problem with Vietnam and Iraq. They turned into peacekeeping missions for which the military is not designed to perform. The US could make a turn and invade Iran and that government will also fall in a matter of a few weeks. But again, the sectarian violence following that fall is the problem. Iran does not have the military capability to mount a defense against the US.

meatcleaver -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/5/2007 9:59:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Your discussion point concerning Iraq is also not on point. The military technology of the United States did in fact defeat Iraq, quite easily in fact. Why is the US still fighting in Iraq if it defeated Iraq? I suppose the US defeated North Vietnam too? The aim of the invasion was to depose the sitting government, put in a puppet government friendly to the US and leave. It has achieved none of those objectives. If the US left tomorrow the situation in Iraq and the middle east in general would be worse for the US than before the invasion, not much of a victory. Sorry, it did topple the government, it is just having trouble imposing a friendly government on the population.

meatcleaver -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/5/2007 10:09:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Cleaver, I rarely say this but Caitlyn is right. She was refering, as was I, to pushing the Russians out of Eastern Europe, hell Germany would have beat the Russians if they had handled the Eukrainins better (sound familiar?) and they sure as hell would have welcomed us as liberators! In 1945 Europe the USSR was not seen in the same light as the USSR at the height of the cold war. Many Europeans saw the USSR as liberators and the cause of WWII as a failure of capitalism. There were large percentages of communists in most European countries who made up the resistance movements and would have fought on the side of the USSR. Many Europeans remembered how bad life was before WWII and didn't want to go back to it, even the Brits kicked out Churchill because they didn't want a return to the bad old days. US aggression against the USSR would have been seen by many Europeans at the time as capitalist imperialism. There was a lot of concern in Washington at the time that the US was losing the peace to the communists which was one of the reasons for the Marshall plan. I have to agree that had Germany treated the east Europeans as allies against the USSR they would have done so much better. Many east Europeans fought in the SS anyway but many fought freely for the USSR too.

meatcleaver -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/5/2007 10:12:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn The Soviet military system was built to defeat the Germans, and would have been no match for the Americans at the very end of the war. A few key points ... So thought Hitler and Napoleon and so thought Caitlyn. How many million troops do you think America would have has to deploy to defeat Russia? It can't even defeat Iraq with all its superior technolgy because at some point the troops have to get out of their armoured cars and hold the land. It might be worth your while going to Russia at some point, it even makes the USA seem small. You have a unwavering belief in technology but technolgy alone has never secured victory. Was it a captured Viet Cong officier that said when asked who will win the war. "You will but we will still be here when you go home.' The US toppled Saddam's government, took Baghdad, and took the country all in 19 days with less than 200 combat deaths. That is the fastest and most efficient invasion in modern military history. I suppose you are still there and losing troops because you had such a decisive victory? Four years and losing 3,500 troops is a decisive and efficient victory? I guess we have different meanings of decisive and efficient.

SimplyMichael -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/5/2007 11:06:29 AM)
Cleaver, quote: In 1945 Europe the USSR was not seen in the same light as the USSR at the height of the cold war. Many Europeans saw the USSR as liberators and the cause of WWII as a failure of capitalism. There were large percentages of communists in most European countries who made up the resistance movements and would have fought on the side of the USSR. quote: In 1945 Europe the USSR was not seen in the same light as the USSR at the height of the cold war. No Shit quote: Many Europeans saw the USSR as liberators and the cause of WWII as a failure of capitalism. Italy perhaps and of course Greece but nowhere else were the communist parties all that strong AND the Russians were not much better than the Germans at winning people over. Especially if we severed their supply lines and forced them to fend for themselves off the locals. quote: There were large percentages of communists in most European countries who made up the resistance movements and would have fought on the side of the USSR. But fighting against the Germans who were occupying your country was easy, everyone supported you. So while I agree with you on the POTENTIAL power of guerillas, I DISAGREE with you strongly that they would have played a significant role in a conflict between US and Russia. I also think that the Russians would have had a harder time with them than we would have. Not every war is a guerilla war and not all guerilla wars are the same.

meatcleaver -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/5/2007 11:27:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael Italy perhaps and of course Greece but nowhere else were the communist parties all that strong AND the Russians were not much better than the Germans at winning people over. Especially if we severed their supply lines and forced them to fend for themselves off the locals. There were a few other countries than Greece and Italy that had large communist parties. France for example. Hell, even British intelligence was full of communists. Most of Europe's resistance movements were communists, hence their popularity after the war. There were many respected intellectuals and famous famous Europeans that were openly communist or had strong sympathies towards the communists. It was the collaborators that were thankful to find themselves in the west. I doubt that the US would have had the stomach to sacrifice the lives of the millions of troops it would have taken to hold so much land even if it could realistically have fought the USSR in its own back yard.

aviinterra -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/5/2007 11:37:27 AM)
quote: Italy perhaps and of course Greece but nowhere else were the communist parties all that strong AND the Russians were not much better than the Germans at winning people over. Especially if we severed their supply lines and forced them to fend for themselves off the locals. Let us not forget that Communists were represented in each country in Europe at the time ( why do you think even today there are so many social programs? ), and had they won the elections in Germany instead of Hindenburg and Hitler, WWII would probably not have happened. Italy was fascist at the time, and never into communism. It is hardly fair to compare the Russian soliders, who bled in the thousands to end Hitler's regime, to the Nazis. As for cutting off supply lines, how would the U.S. manage that when it took two years to just plan out a successful Omaha Beach ( a previous attempt ending in a bloodbath )? I think you forget how huge the USSR was at the time, and how the war machine was so pumped and frenzied that it took the use of nuclear arms in Japan to warn the Red Army that they were not welcome past Berlin. Face it, at the time the U.S. feared that the Red Army would stop on the Atlantic, and hence end all capitalistic interests the U.S. might have had/wanted in Europe. quote: But fighting against the Germans who were occupying your country was easy, everyone supported you. A silly statement. No, nobody would have supported you against the invaders at the time, and your own neighbor would gladly turn you in for conspiracy. There are plenty of cases in historical records that you can read concerning this, esp. about turning people in because they had a radio.

caitlyn -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/5/2007 2:17:40 PM)
The original goal was to remove Saddam, and force compliance with UN resolutions. That goal was easily accomplished by the military. That the goal was then foolishly changed, and has continued to change, is not the fault or failing of the military, any more than you would blame water for not being a proper fuel for your car. The blame goes with the person that foolishly put water in the fuel tank. Your insinuation that Eastern Europeans saw the Soviets as liberators, is beyond comical. The Soviets has participated in the land grab of Poland, Czechoslovakia was one of the wealthiest nation in Europe before the war, Austria was brutalized by the Soviets far in excess of anything the Nazis ever did, and Josip Tito loved the Soviets so much, he decided to set up his own country. He got away with it, because the Soviet army was so logistically stretched finishing off Germany, that they thought themselves unable to force warfare in such heavy terrain. I would though, be willing to listen to any fact-based points you might have that might prove the above theory. By the way, the Marshall Plan was considered here in the States, almost a year before the Potsdam Conference ... just so you know. I will take it from your posts, that you really have no talking points to counter the military reality as previously presented, and notice you didn't respond, either with counter-point or with a confession that you were just wrong ... which is in fact the obvious.

meatcleaver -> RE: President Putin is building up his military (6/5/2007 2:43:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn The original goal was to remove Saddam, and force compliance with UN resolutions. That goal was easily accomplished by the military. That the goal was then foolishly changed, and has continued to change, is not the fault or failing of the military, any more than you would blame water for not being a proper fuel for your car. The blame goes with the person that foolishly put water in the fuel tank. Thwe goal wasn't accomplished because you are still there! Making Iraq comply with UN resolutions was just an excuse, the US is very selective about which countries should or should not comply with UN resolutions. The legal advice given to the British government was that without a further resolution the war would be illegal which was the stance taken by the other members of the secutrity council. quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn Your insinuation that Eastern Europeans saw the Soviets as liberators, is beyond comical. The Soviets has participated in the land grab of Poland, Czechoslovakia was one of the wealthiest nation in Europe before the war, Austria was brutalized by the Soviets far in excess of anything the Nazis ever did, and Josip Tito loved the Soviets so much, he decided to set up his own country. He got away with it, because the Soviet army was so logistically stretched finishing off Germany, that they thought themselves unable to force warfare in such heavy terrain. Look what at what I wrote. Many east Europeans did see the Soviets as liberators and many freely fought in the Soviet forces just as many freely fought for the Germans. How people viewed the Soviets in 1945 was different to how they viewed them a few years later. I know enough east Europeans that fought in Soviet uniform. As for Austria, they were the enemy. If the US had lost 20 million people, my guess is the US would have had a different attitude. quote: ORIGINAL: caitlyn I would though, be willing to listen to any fact-based points you might have that might prove the above theory. By the way, the Marshall Plan was considered here in the States, almost a year before the Potsdam Conference ... just so you know. I will take it from your posts, that you really have no talking points to counter the military reality as previously presented, and notice you didn't respond, either with counter-point or with a confession that you were just wrong ... which is in fact the obvious. The Marshall plan being considered and being implimented are two different things. Most governments accepted it as a way of stopping the rise communism, their establishments being rightwing. Britain rejected it because it didn't want to subjugate the country to American conditions (there's a laugh because Britain is America's loyalist lap dog) American technology didn't make success a fact in Korea, Vietnam or Iraq so why should it have proved successful against the Soviets?

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125