# Have you all been watching the news?



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Have you all been watching the news?

This forum is strangely absent the news of the escalation of tension in the new cold war. I know some of you have taken a "break". From the doom. But this is getting down right interesting.

For a recap of what is happening.

1 Russia isn't leaving the country of Georgia.
2 We just agreed to Arm Poland with Patriot missiles and Anti continental Missile batteries.
3 We gave Ukraine Advanced Early warning radar.
4 Russia has stated that the response to #3 and #4 will be more than diplomatic.
5 Russia has signed a protection pact with Syria and has stated they will put nuclear weapons their. Also, they have said they plan on putting strategic bombers in Cuba.
6 In regard to #1 Bush said yesterday that we won't let Georgia's territory be taken.


So what will the next move of the west be due to Bush's statement?
Get prepped and learn to build expedient shelters. It may be getting close to a time when these provisions and Info could save your life. 

Have a nice day.


----------



## diane (May 4, 2002)

What better cure for a recession/depression than a good war?
I noticed that when they have been talking about the new jobs coming to my state 1/2 of them are defense contract jobs. 
I guess it is easy to kill people than to feed them.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I've been following. It ain't pretty. Putin has outmaneuvered Bush at every turn. And Bush and his hawks keep right on talking tough and boxing us into statements that we can't back up. This nonsense will keep right on escalating past November and I have no doubts that Obama or McCain will do any better. We need a Churchhill and what we're getting is Deputy Fife.

I don't believe we'd win a war with Russia. It would spill over all across the European theatre and half our troops would be killed just trying to get them into place where they could fight. Not to mention how we've frittered our forces away since 2001. Meanwhile Russia has been building its forces up and solidifying. 

What will happen is that Russia will destroy everything we have to send against them and then when we're weakened enough they'll come here.


----------



## sweetmusicj (Mar 5, 2008)

I think our foreign policy is messed up. We expect Russia to not care when we're putting missle sheilds all around it, supposedly because we think Iran has an intercontinental missle (which is highly suspect)?

Then this whole Georgian conflict...the media fails to report that it was GEORGIA who went into South Ossentia, killed a bunch of Russian citizens there (over 1/2 of people there are), and when Russia went in to defend their citizens, Georgia screamed "Invasion! Invasion!"

Now, I don't want to say Russia did NOTHING wrong, because doing things gracefully or in proportion is not their strong suit. An interesting quote however from one of the Russian Officers was roughly "If the US can march into Baghdad, why can't we march into Tblisi?".

Put the shoe on the other foot and lets see how we'd react if Russian was putting anti-missle defense shields in Mexico and Canada...I'm sure we'd get pretty anxious.

Anyways, there's my rant on the current foreign policy of the US.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

Yes, Russia has finally reached the point that she feels like she can start making overt steps to rebuilding her former empire. She orchestrated a war with Georgia, moved in with enormous force and is now showing every sign that she's not going to pull out again. Why should she? She knows that most of the West will just wring their hands and moan about it.

The Cold War NEVER ENDED. At best it died down a bit, but other than that it has been the normal state of affairs for at least the last eighty years. Before that it was Great Game and it was played between the global powers of the time such as Great Britain, France, Germany, and the Russian Empire. Nothing new about any of this.

Here we have a number of former subject states of the Russian Empire (also known as the U.S.S.R.) who would like to not be forcibly reincorporated back into that empire and we have legions of people only too ready to sell them out. How chicken hearted we have become.

.....Alan.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Ernie said:


> I've been following. It ain't pretty. Putin has outmaneuvered Bush at every turn. And Bush and his hawks keep right on talking tough and boxing us into statements that we can't back up. This nonsense will keep right on escalating past November and I have no doubts that Obama or McCain will do any better. We need a Churchhill and what we're getting is Deputy Fife.
> 
> I don't believe we'd win a war with Russia. It would spill over all across the European theatre and half our troops would be killed just trying to get them into place where they could fight. Not to mention how we've frittered our forces away since 2001. Meanwhile Russia has been building its forces up and solidifying.
> 
> What will happen is that Russia will destroy everything we have to send against them and then when we're weakened enough they'll come here.


I'd be curious to hear your suggestions for a solution, Ernie.

If the US does anything more than talk, we'll hear all of the "warmonger" accusations. Half of this country has tied our hands so that we'll ALL get slapped someday without being able to defend ourselves.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Ernie said:


> I've been following. It ain't pretty. Putin has outmaneuvered Bush at every turn. And Bush and his hawks keep right on talking tough and boxing us into statements that we can't back up. This nonsense will keep right on escalating past November and I have no doubts that Obama or McCain will do any better. We need a Churchhill and what we're getting is Deputy Fife.
> 
> I don't believe we'd win a war with Russia. It would spill over all across the European theatre and half our troops would be killed just trying to get them into place where they could fight. Not to mention how we've frittered our forces away since 2001. Meanwhile Russia has been building its forces up and solidifying.
> 
> What will happen is that Russia will destroy everything we have to send against them and then when we're weakened enough they'll come here.



Ernie,
While I agree that it would be a very bad situation to get into a war with Russia, I disagree on the outcome.

Our weapons are vastly superior. They have more tactical nukes than we do and have said they would use them but if they did it would mean a total annihilation. The ruskies aren't that Crazy. 

The weapons they don't have.
Precision guided munitions.
Modern planes
Modern tanks
a Modern Navy

What they have
Nuclear weapons 
Troops

The Ruskies figured out in the 70's that a ground invasion of the USA, Isn't possible due to the patriotic nature of the populous and our general high availability of guns and ammo. This is where the M.A.D. doctrine came from.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

If they ever want to really try "Red Dawn", they'd better be smarter than to pick the boonies. We're probably some of the best interior defense this country has.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

sweetmusicj said:


> I think our foreign policy is messed up. We expect Russia to not care when we're putting missile Shields all around it, supposedly because we think Iran has an intercontinental missile (which is highly suspect)?
> 
> Then this whole Georgian conflict...the media fails to report that it was GEORGIA who went into South Essential, killed a bunch of Russian citizens there (over 1/2 of people there are), and when Russia went in to defend their citizens, Georgia screamed "Invasion! Invasion!"
> 
> ...


No that would be like putting missiles in Siberia off AK, Ohh wait they have them there. They don't like the missile shield because it prevents them their former glory. Thats all. The threat we have and they have collectively will not change and has not changed in regard to each other. Think of it like this. Which is the faster route to Russia. South Dakota via Europe to Russia. Or over the North Pole. Russia sits less than 50 miles for our coast and we from theirs. The Over the Pole route is the one that would be Used by both sides in a conflict. This is one of the reasons we went into a partner ship with the Canadians. They are the early warning system.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

stanb999 said:


> Have you all been watching the news?
> 
> This forum is strangely absent the news of the escalation of tension in the new cold war. I know some of you have taken a "break". From the doom. But this is getting down right interesting.
> 
> ...


I've been keeping up and it's scary!


----------



## JGex (Dec 27, 2005)

I've been keeping up with it.

We need to learn that every conflict around the world it is not our duty to get involved.


----------



## marvella (Oct 12, 2003)

sweetmusicj said:


> I think our foreign policy is messed up. We expect Russia to not care when we're putting missle sheilds all around it, supposedly because we think Iran has an intercontinental missle (which is highly suspect)?
> 
> Then this whole Georgian conflict...the media fails to report that it was GEORGIA who went into South Ossentia, killed a bunch of Russian citizens there (over 1/2 of people there are), and when Russia went in to defend their citizens, Georgia screamed "Invasion! Invasion!"
> 
> ...


and i agree with it. well said.

isn't it a bit odd that this fighting has been going on for years and we are all of a sudden real concerned and making threats? why wasn't the shrub worried about it when he visited putin and came back and told us what a great guy he is??

oh yeah, it's the OIL again.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

JGex said:


> I've been keeping up with it.
> 
> We need to learn that every conflict around the world it is not our duty to get involved.


AHHH, Running away screaming!!!!!

I agree with JGex.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

JGex said:


> We need to learn that every conflict around the world it is not our duty to get involved.


No kidding!!!!!


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

I've been ignoring it and hoping it would go away. Having it share equal billing with big foot and the olympics makes it seem so, well....cartoonish.

Considering recent cold war history this peeing match is so ridiculous it is almost funny, funny excpet for the total annihilation part. Seriously, weren't these bobble heads paying attention the last time this great Nation had a generation who lived in fear? As if the terrorist boogie men aren't enough to digest.

I think it's like an elaborate ruse, okay hope. See we get on red alert, sphincter pucker panic alert a few months. Then it all mellows out much to our relief. Then any war games in the mid east will seem like a cake walk.

Typical bait up and switch back so you shut up game just like gas prices. Either that or the cockroaches will be eating our preps.

.......and were the fanatics? Yeah, as if power hungry war mongers are oh so "normal".

to the victor the spoils, heil to the king. (spelling error intentional)


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

From the Georgian ministry of Foreign Affairs..... Today

11:00 Ambassador of France to Georgia Eric Fournier is being blocked near Gori by Russian troops on his way from Satchkhere to Tbilisi and is prevented to continue his drive. He has been allowed to continue at 13:00.

10:30 Russian troops dig entrenchments in Poti

â¢ Russian occupants start digging entrenchments in Poti. Russian `BMP` armored tanks and `URAL` trucks are located at the Nabadi territory at the entrance of the city

As reported, Russian troops open fire on Humanitarian Airplanes above Gori. 
Posted by Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia at 2:49 PM 






These are our planes no?


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

marvella said:


> why wasn't the shrub worried about it when he visited putin and came back and told us what a great guy he is??
> .



not a shrub, noxious weed.


----------



## LostnEurope (Feb 26, 2007)

stanb999 said:


> Ernie,
> While I agree that it would be a very bad situation to get into a war with Russia, I disagree on the outcome.
> 
> Our weapons are vastly superior. They have more tactical nukes than we do and have said they would use them but if they did it would mean a total annihilation. The ruskies aren't that Crazy.
> ...


Stan I have to agree with Ernie on this one...It would be very costly if not impossible for us to defend Europe at this time..I speak as a former soldier that served 3 active tours in Germany in the 80's and 90's and as an Army employee that has recently returned to the States after working in Germany for 10 years.....The Army's ONLY heavy armor division is in Germany but with deployments (to Iraq and Afgahnistan) and the Realignment of forces from Europe is at less than half strength...All told the Army Corps there is a Corps in name only..Mainly a mishmash of Brigade and Battalion sized Elements...There are more support troops stationed in Germany than combat Elements..There is currently NOT ONE intact full strength Division in Germany..There is very little Artillery and Aviation elements are extremely limited........Add to that the fact that it would take a minimum of 30 days to deploy any sizable reinforcements, most of these made up of reservists or National Guard or troops pulled straight from Iraq or Afgahnistan and we are severely in trouble...At the curent time I think that if Russia rolled across the Polish frontier there is very little we could do to stop them...And our NATO allies are not in much better shape..The German Bundeswehr is noticeably smaller than 10 years ago but COULD Probably rapidly mobilize 3 or 4 Divisions of half trained but well equipped troops, the British Army Of the Rhein exists in name only with an understrength Brigade in place, and they are stretched thin....It would be like watching the Germans roll up the Low Countries in WWII...Our only hope is that we could stop them at the Rhine River to give us a foothold to retake Europe and that would be a hard bloody road......LnE


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

LostnEurope said:


> Stan I have to agree with Ernie on this one...It would be very costly if not impossible for us to defend Europe at this time..I speak as a former soldier that served 3 active tours in Germany in the 80's and 90's and as an Army employee that has recently returned to the States after working in Germany for 10 years.....The Army's ONLY heavy armor division is in Germany but with deployments (to Iraq and Afgahnistan) and the Realignment of forces from Europe is at less than half strength...All told the Army Corps there is a Corps in name only..Mainly a mishmash of Brigade and Battalion sized Elements...There are more support troops stationed in Germany than combat Elements..There is currently NOT ONE intact full strength Division in Germany..There is very little Artillery and Aviation elements are extremely limited........Add to that the fact that it would take a minimum of 30 days to deploy any sizable reinforcements, most of these made up of reservists or National Guard or troops pulled straight from Iraq or Afgahnistan and we are severely in trouble...At the curent time I think that if Russia rolled across the Polish frontier there is very little we could do to stop them...And our NATO allies are not in much better shape..The German Bundeswehr is noticeably smaller than 10 years ago but COULD Probably rapidly mobilize 3 or 4 Divisions of half trained but well equipped troops, the British Army Of the Rhein exists in name only with an understrength Brigade in place, and they are stretched thin....It would be like watching the Germans roll up the Low Countries in WWII...Our only hope is that we could stop them at the Rhine River to give us a foothold to retake Europe and that would be a hard bloody road......LnE



Two things to consider. If it came to all out war with Russia.

1 Europe would be on their own at least at the onset. Sorry nations have interests not friends. Sad but true.

2 Think of the Boomers leaving Minot and doing single bomb runs to Baghdad.
Also those forces in Iraq and Afghanistan are well in theater. If a real war happened we would stop all the niceties and get the real making of war. We do know how. It's just been a while.


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

It's true that our military forces in Europe aren't what they used to be and neither are the European forces.

But at the same time neither are the Russian forces. If we took the fight to them they'd probably do well, but I don't think they could take a fight very far beyond their own borders right now. 

.....Alan.


----------



## LostnEurope (Feb 26, 2007)

Stanb999, I have a question....How much military time do you have???? Do you really think the European nations are going to let us drop nuclear weapons in their countries?? In Germany they are shutting down Safe Nuclear Power plants due to protests by the Green Party.....And I do realize that the US can wage war seriuosly, but at this time all branches are seriously stretched thin....The Air Force has continued to downsize even with ongoing commitments..Plus our planes are old and being grounded for maintenance problems....The average age of most of our combat jets is over 20 years old, transports 30+ with some dating back to Vietnam....It would take a minimum of 1 year to train up a sizable increase in the Army's combat forces and that would mean recalling thousands of well trained but older prior service veterans...YOU CANNOT TRAIN A COMBAT SOLDIER OVERNIGHT and putting together cohesive effective units takes months and months...I know, I helped field and train 2 new battalions on a new weapon system in the 80s..It meant months of training most in the field on manuevers...Don't believe me, pick up any book written by a combat vet from WWII about the units they built up from scratch, one example is Band of Brothers, read the book...You can't take a kid off the street and give him a uniform and a rifle and call him a soldier and send hih into combat, thats the equivilant of Homicide...We tried that in the opening stages of the Korean conflict and again later in Vietnam.....I really don't want to hijack this thread, but these are hard facts and you need to think about it...........LnE


----------



## CowgirlGloria (Jun 19, 2008)

I've been watching the news. Yes, it is a concern. Everyone is talking big. 

I always preferred the notion: Speak softly and carry a big stick. Talking big whilst being vastly over-extended militarily is a lot less impressive.

I'm not ready to head for the bunker just yet. Call me an old dog, but I've seen so much during so many years of Cold War, that I am rather doubtful this will go nuclear. I thought as a child that I might not survive to adulthood, things looked so grim sometimes. And, as a young woman, I wondered if I would live to see my child grow up, things looked so grim sometimes. I'm still here, my child is grown, and things still look grim.

Of course, it could heat up and go nuclear. That has always been the risk. But likely, it won't.

I prep. I don't panic.


----------



## nathan104 (Nov 16, 2007)

It really worries me seeing as the anti-christ is running for president of the US. :stirpot: :banana02:


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

LostnEurope said:


> Stanb999, I have a question....How much military time do you have???? Do you really think the European nations are going to let us drop nuclear weapons in their countries?? In Germany they are shutting down Safe Nuclear Power plants due to protests by the Green Party.....And I do realize that the US can wage war seriuosly, but at this time all branches are seriously stretched thin....The Air Force has continued to downsize even with ongoing commitments..Plus our planes are old and being grounded for maintenance problems....The average age of most of our combat jets is over 20 years old, transports 30+ with some dating back to Vietnam....It would take a minimum of 1 year to train up a sizable increase in the Army's combat forces and that would mean recalling thousands of well trained but older prior service veterans...YOU CANNOT TRAIN A COMBAT SOLDIER OVERNIGHT and putting together cohesive effective units takes months and months...I know, I helped field and train 2 new battalions on a new weapon system in the 80s..It meant months of training most in the field on manuevers...Don't believe me, pick up any book written by a combat vet from WWII about the units they built up from scratch, one example is Band of Brothers, read the book...You can't take a kid off the street and give him a uniform and a rifle and call him a soldier and send hih into combat, thats the equivilant of Homicide...We tried that in the opening stages of the Korean conflict and again later in Vietnam.....I really don't want to hijack this thread, but these are hard facts and you need to think about it...........LnE



First, We wouldn't be using the tacticals in Europe. That would Russia that has threated to use then. To the fact that we are under staffed or worn thin, We would drop the existing conflicts in a quick second if it meant our nation was in a real war. Training troops? We have quite a bit of troops. 

For instance: How did Saddam and his tanks do against us? He got them from the Ruskies. How about the air power? Yeah, them too.
Did you notice the Israeli conflict with Syria last spring? How they had the most modern Russian anti-aircraft batteries? How the Israelis flew in bombed and flew out. With a "JAM" proof system in place. Yup, they said it was difficult but do able.

I'm not in Europe, So I don't worry about ground forces. I worry about Nuclear conflict. This is what I mentioned in the first post.


----------



## CowgirlGloria (Jun 19, 2008)

nathan104 said:


> It really worries me seeing as the anti-christ is running for president of the US. :stirpot: :banana02:


You rotten pot-stirrer! THAT is for chat!!!!! We don't have to have EVERY thread turn into that, do we??? :nana::rotfl:


----------



## Guest (Aug 21, 2008)

nathan104 said:


> It really worries me seeing as the anti-christ is running for president of the US. :stirpot: :banana02:


I've been seeing that all over the net for months.

Just in case you're serious- my understanding is the antichrist will come from the EU.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

ladycat said:


> I've been seeing that all over the net for months.
> 
> Just in case you're serious- my understanding is the antichrist will come from the EU.


My understanding is he wont come till MaGog rules Gog, and sends troops against Isreal????

The online speculation is MaGog is Putin as the leader of Gog/Russia.
Didn't they just offer to put Nukes in Syria.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

Stop looking for the anti-christ, it can't be John McCain for the antichrist came and went by about 1945 years ago and the antichrist was a masonic, Syrian Jew:

http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/paul_was_a_deceiver.htm


----------



## CowgirlGloria (Jun 19, 2008)

Take your pick of end of the world mythologies. Personally, I'm looking forward to 12-12-2012. 

:buds:


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

Movement of massive American Naval armada:

http://www.idigmygarden.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10267


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> And I do realize that the US can wage war seriuosly


I don't think so. The US is no longer able to fight & win. It isn't necessarily the militarys fault though. The public doesn't want them to wind. Of course, IMO, the military-industrial complex doesn't want them to win either; they want the equipment to get destroyed so that the pentagon will buy more. The M-I complex wants perpetual conflict, regardless of what they may say publically.



.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

The United States and Russia are stll locked into a '*M*utually *A*ssured *D*estruction' mode, like it or not and there could be no limited exchange between the 2.

It wouldn't do no good to have a shelter if a 500 mph wind of 500 degrees in temperature comes rolling thru your neighborhood (and thats if you are dozens of miles out from the center of a nuclear blast).


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

CowgirlGloria said:


> Take your pick of end of the world mythologies. Personally, I'm looking forward to 12-12-2012.
> 
> :buds:


That is: 12-*21*-2012 
We'd joke a friend about it being her birthday, and how we should have the party a day early!

Just pointing it out because I wouldn't want you to be disappointed when the 12th came and went.


----------



## jlxian (Feb 14, 2005)

hintonlady said:


> I've been ignoring it and hoping it would go away. Having it share equal billing with big foot and the olympics makes it seem so, well....cartoonish.
> 
> Considering recent cold war history this peeing match is so ridiculous it is almost funny, funny excpet for the total annihilation part. Seriously, weren't these bobble heads paying attention the last time this great Nation had a generation who lived in fear? As if the terrorist boogie men aren't enough to digest.
> 
> ...


Hintonlady --- my thoughts, too. And I agree with "noxious weed" as well.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

..................Putting Patriot missle batteries in Poland is probably equivalent too the Russians putting nukes in cuba .  For the life of me , I can't figureout , WHY , the Bush Adm. openly advertised the signing of the treaty with Poland when the Russians are still camped out in Georgia ! That has GOT too be the dumbest move yet on their part . Putin is just a cloned Stalin without the mustache , but George must have thought he was a communist boy scout .  , fordy


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

hillsidedigger said:


> The United States and Russia are stll locked into a '*M*utually *A*ssured *D*estruction' mode, like it or not and there could be no limited exchange between the 2.
> 
> It wouldn't do no good to have a shelter if a 500 mph wind of 500 degrees in temperature comes rolling thru your neighborhood (and thats if you are dozens of miles out from the center of a nuclear blast).


Go look up nuclear survival. You are still drinking the coolaid of the Russian "lecturers" from the 70's and early 80's that wanted us to rid ourselves of the fallout shelters.

Here is a nice tutorial....
http://www.ki4u.com/survive/doomsday.htm


----------



## Crickandkit (Oct 23, 2007)

I've been trying to ignore it but I'm feeling scared.

*sigh* Red Dawn, I remember having panic attacks in school every time I heard a helicopter fly over after watching that movie...


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

EasyDay said:


> That is: 12-*21*-2012
> We'd joke a friend about it being her birthday, and how we should have the party a day early!
> 
> Just pointing it out because I wouldn't want you to be disappointed when the 12th came and went.



Whew.. I am glad because we have an " end of the world" party planned for the 20th...that's just how crazy my group is...they all want to have a party just in case it is the last..lol.. Theme is doom and gloom.. black attire of course...My youngest son ( 21 and the one planning it)..says one of two things.. we will either go out in style or wish we had...lol I know I raised them.. but they ain't right...


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

ladycat said:


> I've been seeing that all over the net for months.
> 
> Just in case you're serious- my understanding is the antichrist will come from the EU.


That is my understanding as well... he gives me a bad feeling but I can't see him as the AC...it doesn't fit.. although I presume nothing as I am not to know until I am shown...


----------



## CowgirlGloria (Jun 19, 2008)

Oops. I tend to transpose numbers when I type. Thanks for proofreading that for me. Yes, it is 12-21-2012.

And for the last year or so we have also been talking about an End of the World party. Seems like the thing to do.


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

stanb999 said:


> Go look up nuclear survival. You are still drinking the coolaid of the Russian "lecturers" from the 70's and early 80's that wanted us to rid ourselves of the fallout shelters.
> 
> Here is a nice tutorial....
> http://www.ki4u.com/survive/doomsday.htm


Technically, I suppose the blast would only travel dozens of miles from one of the very high-yield nuclear bombs or multiple smaller ones or ones on all sides even 100 miles away might make for some really bizarre weather.

The Hiroshima blast only reached about about 2.5 miles, the Nagasaki blast less but those were only about 1/100th. the power of a typical one megaton bomb.


----------



## NorthernWoods (Jan 10, 2006)

Georgia has no short list of atrocities it has committed itself, especially to the people of the north. This war ought to be real good. Once our troops enter the town and proclaim âCongratulations, you are Georgians againâ they turn around and say, âObviously the fact we want to be Russians didnât make it to your tv sets.â

Lets not forget Georgia STARTED the war. First day, media was all over the fact that Georgia attacked Russia. Now, it is spin-doctored the other way around. I wonder why? Seems mighty strangeâ¦ 

Eye for an eye. How can we expect to put missals in Poland and not expect Russia to place missals in Cuba! I say someone needs to slap that idiot in office some common sense. Agree to no missals in Poland, for no missals in Cuba. Russia isnât a country with toy soldiers like Iraq was. We canât just go in and ponder up a joke of a war. Mess with Russia and we just might find ourselves with a limb blown off.

Putin has taken the Russian economy GDP and increased it by six fold. While Bush, wellâ¦need I say more?


----------



## virtualco (Feb 3, 2006)

Now where did I put my Nukalert and my Potassium Iodide Anti-Radiation Pills?


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Aintlifegrand said:


> Whew.. I am glad because we have an " end of the world" party planned for the 20th...that's just how crazy my group is...they all want to have a party just in case it is the last..lol.. Theme is doom and gloom.. black attire of course...My youngest son ( 21 and the one planning it)..says one of two things.. we will either go out in style or wish we had...lol I know I raised them.. but they ain't right...


Of course you'll have a party! Who wouldn't?  Right up there with our hurricane parties as peoples' lawn furniture flew by... oh, yea, and our lawn furniture flew out into the middle of the lake! We LAUGHED... we're a bunch of sick puppies, I tell ya!


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Aintlifegrand said:


> That is my understanding as well... he gives me a bad feeling but I can't see him as the AC...it doesn't fit.. although I presume nothing as I am not to know until I am shown...


ALG and ladycat, it was my understanding that the AC would come from the ME. 

He was referred to as "king of the north" and the "Assyrian"... Jeremiah called Assyria (Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran) and Babylon the "land of the north", so I just figured...

Also, Ezekiel refers to him as Gog, the chief prince, from the land of Magog. Magog included some of what is now present day Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Georgia, Armenia, and maybe Russia.

If this is right, Obama fits the bill.
I wouldn't bet on him being the AC, but he's come closer to the descriptions given than anyone in history, IMO.

We'll know for sure in the end. We should always be ready.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

NorthernWoods said:


> Georgia has no short list of atrocities it has committed itself, especially to the people of the north. This war ought to be real good. Once our troops enter the town and proclaim âCongratulations, you are Georgians againâ they turn around and say, âObviously the fact we want to be Russians didnât make it to your tv sets.â
> 
> Lets not forget Georgia STARTED the war. First day, media was all over the fact that Georgia attacked Russia. Now, it is spin-doctored the other way around. I wonder why? Seems mighty strangeâ¦
> 
> ...


Their is a big difference in the type of missiles being proposed. We plan on putting defensive missiles, They wish to put offensive ones. 

The fact that you don't see the difference is rather strange? 

Also, Russia armed and encouraged the georgia seperatists. So the russians prodded the war to start.
It would be kinda like this 

Mexico sends weapons to San Diego to help the Mexican citizens there defend themselves from the oppressive laws of California, Like taxes.
The USA sends troops to make them pay the taxes because they blew up the court house, shot the judge, and freed the law breakers. Well with these weapons the Mexicans were able to drive the government back. Over time a weak peace is made. They the Mexican Government says here have these weapons too, See if you can get more ground. A low level conflict starts. Shelling from both sides, the occasional rocket. Not unlike the Palestinian / Israeli "battles". Then one day the Mexican Government decides to end the "hostilities" to help the civilians. So they roll in and take over.

Who was wrong in this?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

The majority of you watch way too much TV. There won't be a big war between the U.S. and Russia (not a conventional war at least).

A likely scenario is Israel attacks Iran. I mean MAJOR attacks and basically eliminates any long range danger that Iran may possess. Then Russia attacks Israel (with basic world consensus, even by the left in America). Then you'll have to read Ezekiel to see what happens.

But afterwards, some cool slick world leader steps into the scene a brokers a 7 year peace with Israel.

Don't be alarmed if you see me stop posting if this scenario played out... I'll be in a much better place.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

stanb999 said:


> Their is a big difference in the type of missiles being proposed. We plan on putting defensive missiles, They wish to put offensive ones.
> 
> *The fact that you don't see the difference is rather strange? *
> 
> ...


It is rather strange, I mean a defensive missile that has NO offensive capability is only a threat to... well who exactly? If you put 2+2 together then you figure out why Russia is so upset... they don't get to invade Poland, threaten nuclear fallout, etc.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

EasyDay said:


> ALG and ladycat, it was my understanding that the AC would come from the ME.
> 
> He was referred to as "king of the north" and the "Assyrian"... Jeremiah called Assyria (Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran) and Babylon the "land of the north", so I just figured...
> 
> ...


Are you sure? I thought it was MaGog from Gog. :shrug:

Don't worry about Barrack he will not win. He is already falling in the polls. He really must do an about face on his liberal policies and get to the middle if he wants a chance. But he has a long row to hoe for that to happen.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

stanb999 said:


> Are you sure? I thought it was MaGog from Gog. :shrug:
> 
> Don't worry about Barrack he will not win. He is already falling in the polls. He really must do an about face on his liberal policies and get to the middle if he wants a chance. But he has a long row to hoe for that to happen.


I'm going by memory, so now I'll have to look it up. :shrug:

Yep, Obama is sliding back a little. I don't think he'll regain his footing because he's just not good at what he's trying to do!


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

Will the American crews that have been in Russia repairing their rusted out navel ships and subs for over five yrs be comming home before or after they are sea worthy if war starts.


----------



## NorthernWoods (Jan 10, 2006)

stanb999 said:


> Their is a big difference in the type of missiles being proposed. We plan on putting defensive missiles, They wish to put offensive ones.
> 
> The fact that you don't see the difference is rather strange?


Thanks for the reminder, I need to take my bullets back to WalMart because they say defensive on them instead of offensive. You know, I don't want to see a deer and not be able to shoot it because my bullet is labeled "defensive."  



stanb999 said:


> Also, Russia armed and encouraged the georgia seperatists. So the russians prodded the war to start.
> It would be kinda like this
> 
> Mexico sends weapons to San Diego to help the Mexican citizens there defend themselves from the oppressive laws of California, Like taxes.
> ...


Kind of sounds likes how America gained its independence. Thanks France...


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

NorthernWoods said:


> Thanks for the reminder, I need to take my bullets back to WalMart because they say defensive on them instead of offensive. You know, I don't want to see a deer and not be able to shoot it because my bullet is labeled "defensive."
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of sounds likes how America gained its independence. Thanks France...


Sure, History is written by the victors.... I bet it goes my way.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

sweetmusicj said:


> An interesting quote however from one of the Russian Officers was roughly "If the US can march into Baghdad, why can't we march into Tblisi?".
> .


 He's 100% right.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

nathan104 said:


> It really worries me seeing as the anti-christ is running for president of the US. :stirpot: :banana02:


Oh come on, McCains bad, but he's not the anti-Christ


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

NorthernWoods said:


> Thanks for the reminder, I need to take my bullets back to WalMart because they say defensive on them instead of offensive. You know, I don't want to see a deer and not be able to shoot it because my bullet is labeled "defensive."



Hmmm, perhaps you should read up on them a bit if you are comparing them to "bullets". Do you own any "bullets"?

They are light and fast with minimal explosive because they are intercept missiles. 

They would be totally useless for an assault, they are hooked into a large network of missiles and radar. 

Using them offensively would be sort of like arming a sniper with a shotgun with number 7 shot (those are sorta like "bullets", but they are shells instead of cartridges) and a full choke.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> *sigh* Red Dawn, I remember having panic attacks in school every time I heard a helicopter fly over after watching that movie...





Good movie.


.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Lots of good points here. I don't know for a fact that Russia would beat us, but it wouldn't be the cakewalk many think it would be.

Yes, they do not have the highly-technical weaponry that we have, however they've got more tanks, more infantry, and more basic guns. Something I observed in the first Gulf war ... we would use a $300,000 missile to blow up a $7000 Honda pickup truck that happened to have two Iraqi grunts carrying 5 barrels of jet fuel. That's not winning a war. Essentially all warfare is a financial endeavor and that's NOT winning.

Plus, these high-tech weapons don't hold territory. They blow people and buildings up, but they don't hold territory. That's boots-on-the-ground, which we don't have a lot of. Plus, Russians have a mentality that isn't found much in America. It's a do or die mentality. An enduring mindset. We don't have that any longer. Let the Russians sink a ship full of coffee destined for Starbucks and you'll have protest lines a mile long outside of the Pentagon calling for surrender.

As far as training and fielding more troops, your average Russian 18 year old male has been pounding iron in a factory or tilling in a field. Your average American 18 year old has been playing video games and surfing porn. They've faced privation and hardship. We've had childhood obesity and juvenile crime. They're hard men ready to bring back the glory of the great bear and we're ... not.

The American public _might_ have the will to stomach mass casualties if the Russians landed on American soil, but will the have the will to stomach their sons coming up in boxes to protect some Slavic group in some geographically irrelevant location who doesn't even speak our language? You tell me what you think about that.

I do believe in protecting allies and interests, but you've absolutely got to pick those battles wisely. Poland must be defended. Georgia? It's a nation of 4.6 million people, the majority of which are women over the age of 40. They have 69,000 square kilometers of land. By comparison, Ted Turner (the nation's largest private landowner) owns about that much property. Their largest export is SOIL. Dirt. They send us dirt. 

Even more importantly, it's almost completely surrounded by Russia. It has a 723km border with Russia, which is over 75% of all of its border. You can't defend that.

So why are we going to draw a line in the sand there? In Georgia? It would be wiser to defend something more defensible. Something with a little more strategic value. Especially when you start considering the cost.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

If this were solely about Georgia we wouldn't be too involved in it. It's really about NATO and Russia's expansion. 

Georgia is the litmus test that Russia is putting out there, to test the West's resolve.

And if you'll notice we AREN'T making a stand in Georgia. We ARE showing Russia that we willing to get involved if they want to pick a fight, especially with Poland on the line. There are plenty of young Polish men and woman who are willing to give their lives because they have lived under the shadow of a communist Russia for a long time and they don't want that again.

I don't think ANY war or conflict is a cake walk, but don't underestimate America's fighting force based on TV talking points.

Let me put it this way, if our fighting capability was as diminished as even military talking heads (those are the ones that usually sit in D.C.) I can guarantee you it wouldn't be advertised... it's all about the political bang for the buck.

I don't want ANY conflicts, but this is bigger than just "Georgia".


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Ernie said:


> Yes, they do not have the highly-technical weaponry that we have, however they've got more tanks, more infantry, and more basic guns. Something I observed in the first Gulf war ... we would use a $300,000 missile to blow up a $7000 Honda pickup truck that happened to have two Iraqi grunts carrying 5 barrels of jet fuel. That's not winning a war. Essentially all warfare is a financial endeavor and that's NOT winning.


Jeeez, for a few more hundred thousand, we could have used the high-tech weaponry that you mention.

In PGMs, the mission is never to simply "blow things up". It's much more complicated than that... a better example would be, "disable communications at this comsta for 24 hrs". This means not 8 hours, not 48 hours... but 24 hours. Why do people think that all missiles are designed for total annihilation? We are far more technically advanced than the standard armchair warriors realize.


----------



## NorthernWoods (Jan 10, 2006)

seedspreader said:


> Using them offensively would be sort of like arming a sniper with a shotgun with number 7 shot (those are sorta like "bullets", but they are shells instead of cartridges) and a full choke.


Exactly...couldn't agree more. And when you're standing two feet away from whatever you want to shoot like Poland is, it really doesn't matter what gun you use.

PS: And I think your analogy would be better with no chokeâ¦(you know that thing you screw into the end of the barrel, take that out).


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

All I watched through my binoculars was things being blown up. Didn't seem all that technically advanced to me.


----------



## BRYAN (Jul 5, 2008)

I have read all these post with great interest, just as I have followed the developements in Georgia with interest. Without taking the time and trouble to resond to individual quotes and post, I still want to throw my thoughts out on this. I weary of hearing how we can't win a war, overtaxed, etc. how America is always wrong. There is no moral equivalency between Russia's actions and America's. Every country that we have conquered has been returned to them, to govern as they see fit today and we only ask for enough ground to bury our dead. The Russians have never willingly given up an inch of ground and they oppress all liberty. Do any of you believe that you would be able to post your comments against the Government in Russia. You would be in the Gulag. 

So Russia has finally thrown down another gauntlet. If we talk real soft and kiss their behinds they will stop their expansion and back away and everyone will be friends. What are some folks smoking? They will continue after the pattern they followed for the last 60 years in expansion. The only question is how far is far enough before someone draws a line?

Can't win a war? Sorry to tell you and disappoint everyone so invested in America's defeat, but the world has never witnessed the current might of the US Military in conventional force on force combat. Yes, we are tired of fighting, yes equipment must be reset and redeployed as well as more troops trained etc., but there are many factors of which most people are ignorant. Compare the US ability to raise and train troops in the past with the limited effort we are making. Concerns over civilian casualties and infrastructure means the rules of engagement are very stringent and is also why many very effective weapons stay locked in the arms room. The world has not witnessed any shock and awe compaign even though it was talked about during to onset of war. It never was employed here in Iraq or Afganistan as part of the stratagy. About smart bombs, in WWII's days of total warfare against nations only one in thousands of bombs dropped landed within miles of the intended target. In respect to taking out the target, the high tech bombs are cheaper by far. I did detect a slight on those reservist so I might as well step on out there and touch that too. I am serving with a NG unit and our BN is about 2/3 NG/AD respectively and the Command group is all NG. it is the largest Battalion in Iraq and we are exceeding every standard for performance. Many here are on second and third tours just like their Acive Duty counterparts. When we have suffered loss we collected our dead and Charlie Miked ("continued the mission" for the uninformed). 

We are proud to provide you this ability to discourse freely and I strongly encourage it. Just know that even though everyone here is ready to go home and live their days in peace, we stand ready to deploy where ever our duly elected Goverment decides and we will win. I really don't care if you agree or don't, I served in Desert Storm and in this conflict and I will serve in the next if need be. I know what weapons are available and how many are not used because they are too "destructive". They would be employed in a Force on Force conflict. Pray for peace with fervency, prepare for war with diligence, then sleep well, there are still Soldiers and Marines on the wall who do not believe in failure. They are also led by leaders who do not believe in failure.

Sincerely,

From Taji, Iraq


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

BRYAN said:


> I have read all these post with great interest, just as I have followed the developements in Georgia with interest. Without taking the time and trouble to resond to individual quotes and post, I still want to throw my thoughts out on this. I weary of hearing how we can't win a war, overtaxed, etc. how America is always wrong. There is no moral equivalency between Russia's actions and America's. Every country that we have conquered has been returned to them, to govern as they see fit today and we only ask for enough ground to bury our dead. The Russians have never willingly given up an inch of ground and they oppress all liberty. Do any of you believe that you would be able to post your comments against the Government in Russia. You would be in the Gulag.
> 
> So Russia has finally thrown down another gauntlet. If we talk real soft and kiss their behinds they will stop their expansion and back away and everyone will be friends. What are some folks smoking? They will continue after the pattern they followed for the last 60 years in expansion. The only question is how far is far enough before someone draws a line?
> 
> ...


:clap::clap::clap: Thank you, For your service.


----------



## paddymurphy (May 23, 2008)

NorthernWoods said:


> Georgia has no short list of atrocities it has committed itself, especially to the people of the north. This war ought to be real good. Once our troops enter the town and proclaim âCongratulations, you are Georgians againâ they turn around and say, âObviously the fact we want to be Russians didnât make it to your tv sets.â
> 
> Lets not forget Georgia STARTED the war. First day, media was all over the fact that Georgia attacked Russia. Now, it is spin-doctored the other way around. I wonder why? Seems mighty strangeâ¦
> 
> ...


Sorry, Georgia did not attack Russia---South Ossettia is a part of Georgia. The majority of the residents are a minority in Georgia and secede. This much is true. Russia wants them to because then they gain the territory. Russia has been issuing passports to South Ossetians in an attempt to add South Ossetia to Russia. There has been a conflict there for years---Russia has "peace keepers" in SOuth ossetia, and the Georgians pulled their troops out. The Georgian attack was a response to repeated mortarings and snipings from South Ossetia into Georgia proper that the Russians refused to do anything about.

Look at it this way. Castro issues Cuban passports to all the Cubans in South Florida. Then he says hey that is part of Cuba but we say no. The US pulls troops out and Cuba puts in peace keepers. When those peace keepers reported do nothign about repeated mortarigns of North Florida we send in the Army. Is this an attack on Cuba by the US??? I think not.

Or you could use the civil war comparison---part of the US tried to secede and the rest said no.

The media did not get it wrong. You bought the Russian propoganda. 

For the Poster criticizing Bush and saying we need a Churchill. After Chamberlin caved in with peace for our time he was out. Churchill then wrote a bunch of checks that Great Britian could not cover. The US bailed them out. Don't get me wrong, Churchill was a great man. However, how was his tough talk to Germany that British and French forces could not back up different or superior than what you are saying Bush is doing?


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

paddymurphy said:


> Sorry, Georgia did not attack Russia---South Ossettia is a part of Georgia. The majority of the residents are a minority in Georgia and secede. This much is true. Russia wants them to because then they gain the territory. Russia has been issuing passports to South Ossetians in an attempt to add South Ossetia to Russia. There has been a conflict there for years---Russia has "peace keepers" in SOuth ossetia, and the Georgians pulled their troops out. The Georgian attack was a response to repeated mortarings and snipings from South Ossetia into Georgia proper that the Russians refused to do anything about.
> 
> Look at it this way. Castro issues Cuban passports to all the Cubans in South Florida. Then he says hey that is part of Cuba but we say no. The US pulls troops out and Cuba puts in peace keepers. When those peace keepers reported do nothign about repeated mortarigns of North Florida we send in the Army. Is this an attack on Cuba by the US??? I think not.
> 
> ...


Their eyes are wide, shut... I totally agree tho.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

BRYAN
thank you for your information and a huge thank you for you and all the groups for being there.

It helps to have real information, and not just info that the general news sources wish to give out.

Stay safe.
Angie


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Real information? Exactly what "real information" has been provided?

I find it ridiculous that those who are against any conflict are considered either armchair generals who don't know what they're talking about or the genuine debate gets lost in the rah-rah of nationalistic pride. 

I grow weary of this. And soldier, your statement of "We are proud to provide you this ability to discourse freely and I strongly encourage it" couldn't be more wrong. The Constitution and God-given intelligence provides us the ability to discourse freely. The government and the flag-wavers would like to take it away _in your name_ lest we say anything bad about our soldiers.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> We are proud to provide you this ability to discourse freely and I strongly encourage it


Sorry, the military and government did NOT provide me with the ability to discuss anything. Sorry, but you come across as arrogant. You give the military/government more power/influence than they should have. IMO, we had no right to invade Iraq in the first place and said so to my elected officials from the beginning. Before you try to slam me for being an ignorant civilian, I am retired Navy.




> Can't win a war? Sorry to tell you and disappoint everyone so invested in America's defeat, but the world has never witnessed the current might of the US Military in conventional force on force combat.


While we may win the battles, we will never win a war again. 





.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

Ernie said:


> in your name[/I] lest we say anything bad about our soldiers.


The Constitution would no longer exist if it wasn't for the people that have defended it. What have YOU done in your lifetime to defend the rights of ALL Americans? (Aside from exercising your right to insult our military and patriots?)


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

uyk7 said:


> While we may win the battles, we will never win a war again.
> 
> .


The negativity from you, et al, has a hand in the above statement. So much for being a team player, eh? You must have left the Navy in a very bitter frame of mind.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Ladies and Gents - please be careful in how you are wording your replies so they don't get into insulting other members.

****

That being said, if someone is at a place and reports of how it is there, I consider that more REAL than the general reports on the tv news.

Rather like Chuck that has been in Afganistan and reporting
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/blogs/bootsontheground/
especially the 
Aug 16th report of "They Call them Heros".

Not much news about that, but he was there and saw it. If I am to believe that BRYAN is where he says he is, I'll expect that his first hand report may be just a bit more real than someone in NY that isn't there.

Also, It takes the people to make the Consitution and Bill of Rights, more than just paper with ink on it.

Angie


----------



## Rowdy (Jul 9, 2004)

EasyDay said:


> That is: 12-*21*-2012
> We'd joke a friend about it being her birthday, and how we should have the party a day early!
> 
> Just pointing it out because I wouldn't want you to be disappointed when the 12th came and went.


You know, if the Mayans were so good at predicting the future, you'd think that their calander would have ended in the 1700s.


----------



## sweetmusicj (Mar 5, 2008)

First of all, I want to say there have been a lot of good points made here. I forgot about this thread I wrote on and just remembered.



paddymurphy said:


> Sorry, Georgia did not attack Russia---South Ossettia is a part of Georgia.


It's not as cut and dry as this. South Ossettia has been operating as a pretty much independent nation (though not recognized by the United Nations) since 1991. The majority of the people there are not ethnically Georgian, and do not want to be ruled by Georgians, and they have lived in the area for centuries (so they are not like the South Floridians who WANT to be citizens of the US, and do not have century old ties to the land).



paddymurphy said:


> The media did not get it wrong. You bought the Russian propoganda.


It's all about spin...you ask the average American and they believed Russia started this mess by invading "peaceful Georgia". Nothing is said about Georgia initially invading a region that has been operating independently for the past 10 years even though Russia had assured them they will respond.

It's hard to see through the "fog of war", but here is a first hand account of what happened from the eyes of a South Ossentian:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ[/ame]

One final point on the background of the situation. South Ossentia wants to break away and form a country because they are the ethnic majority in the region and the US doesn't back them, BUT we DO back you to start your own country if you're a Muslim from Kosovo or Albania. Enough so to send our troops in to defend your independence in a historic area that has belonged to the Serbians for centuries....

In regards to the soldier posting, I appreciate his imput and I think it's good that our military is confident in their ability. They should be! I have two brothers (one in Iraq, one just returned) and a sister-in-law in the Army, so I'm not by any means anti-soldier (seems like a disclaimer that one needs to post in this day in age). I do not see how the current soldier is defending my freedom of speech by going into Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq. An argument could be made that the soldiers are fighting for our SAFETY by being in Afghanistan.

Anyways, just my humble thoughts...could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time!


----------



## LostnEurope (Feb 26, 2007)

I just want to set the record straight for some people that don't know who I am...I am a combat vet who served 13 years active duty Army and also helped field, train up and forward deploy 2 MLRS battalions during the 80's early 90s..One of these battalions I was in as a launcher section chief during Desert Storm....I fired the fire mission on the airfield in Southern Iraq that was later found to probably having a stockpile of chemical weapons...I am not saying I was in the unit that fired that mision..My launcher fired that mission....As to the guard and reserve soldires that THOUGHT they might have been slighted, I have served alongside many of both..Many are just as well trained and professional as many Active Army units..But, some are not..Plus from what I have seen many of these units have older or worn out equipment but I understand that is changing ...And I am not a defeatist, I am a realist and a student of History.....And I do understand that we have plenty of technological advantages, but comparing the Iraqi army with Russian Equipment and the Russian Army with their own equipment is just ignorant....The Iraqi's during desert were a demoralized, beaten down force using poorly maintained, worn out equipment even though it was RUSSIAN...Many of these soldiers that we took prisoner had not eaten a decent meal in weeks and wer more than happy to give up..And to think that we could mobilize and RAPIDLY forward deploy our guard and reserve units is not realistic...First of all they would have to make equipment differences, second of all even though they may be professional and well trained, throwing a large number of units together and calling them an effective fighting force is also not realistic...It takes training together to know how each other operate and what to expect from your brother and sister units.....And not to downplay the professionalism of our troops in current conflicts this is NOT a full scale war on the level you could expect if the Ruskies were to start a major conflict in Europe....I don't know of anyone in the military today that has endured hours upon hours of incoming artillery and then had to repell and attack fo a large mobile Armor force supported by Infantry fighting vehicles and attack helicopters all the while worrying about a chemical attack or the fast movers flying overhead.....I have nothing but RESPECT for our current armed forces be they Active, Guard or Reservists, but it does irritate me when people that DO NOT HAVE A CLUE and have never been there or done that think it would be a cake walk to take on the Russians...It would not, it would be a long , bloody conflict with horrendous casualties on both sides that could very easili spiral out of control into a nuclear exchange..Thanks to the powers that be in Washington and the peacenicks our military is not as strong as it should be and we are at risk because of that.....Remember that the invasion force that forced Saddam out of Kuwait was larger than our total active Army today......So to conclude, BEEN THERE/DONE THAT and have the aches and scars to prove it, and if I stepped on any toes I apologize but I look at things realistically..................LostnEurope


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

seedspreader said:


> The majority of you watch way too much TV. There won't be a big war between the U.S. and Russia (not a conventional war at least).
> 
> A likely scenario is Israel attacks Iran. I mean MAJOR attacks and basically eliminates any long range danger that Iran may possess. Then Russia attacks Israel (with basic world consensus, even by the left in America). Then you'll have to read Ezekiel to see what happens.
> 
> ...



I see it that way as well.. I think no one will do anything to stop Russia... EU will sit on their hands and look the other way..and the US will not be able to go it alone and won't have the stomach for a war with Russia...Israel will be made to look like the bad guys and Russia the good guys during that period of time by most of the world and the US will be isolated..

Oh and I wil be happy when you stop posting... lol... :angel: don't take offense.. ya know what i mean


----------



## sweetmusicj (Mar 5, 2008)

_"Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule. I do not know whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: "Do not go fighting with your land armies in China". It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives. "_

Field Marshal Bernard Law Montgomery


----------



## diane (May 4, 2002)

Interesting.
One person can come on here claiming to be a soldier in Iraq and all of a sudden he knows better than everyone else? Well excuse me!!!!!!! My son just got back from Iraq and he certainly doesn't not share this soldier's opinion. While I appreciate his willingness to serve his country, I certainly don't agree that the military is defending our constitutional rights. If anything the military/industrial complex puts our country and the world at great risk.
Please remember soldier, you get your news in a vaccum that is completely controlled by those who manage you.


----------



## EasyDay (Aug 28, 2004)

diane said:


> I
> Please remember soldier,
> 
> You speak with such authority! Who authorized that?
> ...


And the rest of you don't? You're controlled by the media, for goodness sakes. I'd trust my OIC or CO long before I'd trust MSNBC or CNN.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

diane said:


> Interesting.
> One person can come on here claiming to be a soldier in Iraq and all of a sudden he knows better than everyone else? Well excuse me!!!!!!! My son just got back from Iraq and he certainly doesn't not share this soldier's opinion. While I appreciate his willingness to serve his country, I certainly don't agree that the military is defending our constitutional rights. If anything the military/industrial complex puts our country and the world at great risk.
> Please remember soldier, you get your news in a vaccum that is completely controlled by those who manage you.


..............Thank you Diane , I couldn't agree more ! Those of us who felt this war was un necessary from the Getgo and Poorly Initiated by Mr. Bush and his subordinates are characterized as UN American or , as Liberals , and I am neither ! I just happen too disagree . , thanks , fordy


----------



## diane (May 4, 2002)

EasyDay said:


> And the rest of you don't? You're controlled by the media, for goodness sakes. I'd trust my OIC or CO long before I'd trust MSNBC or CNN.


Actually, I get my news from neither of the sites you list. I would agree that you can trust your OIC or CO better than those sites.

Please, this is not a slam at our service people. I simply do not think it is in the government's best interest for you to make informed decisions.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

NorthernWoods said:


> Exactly...couldn't agree more. And when you're standing two feet away from whatever you want to shoot like Poland is, it really doesn't matter what gun you use.
> 
> PS: And I think your analogy would be better with no chokeâ¦(you know that thing you screw into the end of the barrel, take that out).


Again, do a little homework... 


> The PAC-3 missile is a totally new interceptor, featuring a Ka band active radar seeker, employing 'hit-to-kill' interception (in contrast to previous interceptors' method of exploding in the vicinity of the target, destroying it with shrapnel), and several other enhancements which dramatically increase its lethality against ballistic missiles. It has a substantially lower range of 15 km.[2] The specific information for these different kinds of missiles are discussed in the "Upgrades" section.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot

It's not an offensive weapon.

In fact, it's susceptible to artillery, which means it's not placed near the border, it's a defense against incoming missile attacks. 

I don't know why I am wasting the time posting this except that maybe someone who actually is interested in learning more than they hear on truthout, the Daily Kos, or the Democratic Underground might be encouraged to look up the information. 

PAC 3 is only good for knocking down missiles (or planes) out of the sky. Purely defensive.


----------



## sweetmusicj (Mar 5, 2008)

seedspreader said:


> It's not an offensive weapon.


I agree with you 100% that it is a defensive weapon.

Russia's complaint is that it is throwing off the balance of power (if we missled them, they couldn't missle us). This whole missle defense thing has been going on for a while, I remember Russia being upset when we were in the beginning stages of developing the technology.

America has a good argument that states that Russia has hundreds of ICBM's and our technology could never shoot them all down, so Russia has nothing to worry about.

My disagreement with American Foreign Policy lies in our insistance on meddling in the affairs of Eastern Europe (pro-Albanian, Bosnian, and Kosovo Independence, anti-South Ossentian independence).

Why do we keep poking the bear??? Even if we think we can take them on (both sides lose in nuke war), what do we gain by messing in Eastern Europe? Why did we NOW announce about the missles in Poland when our relations are already going downhill?

Edit: Here's a quote I just came across that summerizes how I feel about the situation:

_"It's one thing that US foreign policy wonks imagined that Russia would remain in a coma forever, but the idea that we could encircle Russia strategically with defensible bases in landlocked mountainous countries halfway around the world...? You have to ask what were they smoking over at the Pentagon and the CIA and the NSC?"_
http://jameshowardkunstler.typepad.com/cluster----_nation/2008/08/reality-bites-again.html


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

diane said:


> Actually, I get my news from neither of the sites you list. I would agree that you can trust your OIC or CO better than those sites.
> 
> Please, this is not a slam at our service people. I simply do not think it is in the government's best interest for you to make informed decisions.


I don't want to argue.. as I save that for GC..lol

But I think it is a wrong conclusion to believe that our military soldiers do not seek news from all different sources just as we civiliians do... no one is controlling their thoughts and I think it is wrong to insinuate that.. by your very own post saying that your son in Iraq does not agree with Bryan is proof that our soldiers think, seek out various news, and form thier own opinions concerning this country and what they are doing just as we do...

My son and son in law both serve...one is in iraq now..and those two opinions on the war couldn't be further from the other...


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> The negativity from you, et al, has a hand in the above statement. So much for being a team player, eh? You must have left the Navy in a very bitter frame of mind.


Stating a fact is "negativity"? When was the last time we won a war? I'll tell you, it was WW II. I guess you have difficulty with written english. I stated that our military can (and do) win the battles. The American public, politicians, and the M-I complex do not want our military to win. 

Team player? Why would I want to play for a "team" if my I am called names for disagreeing with the decisions that have been made? Seems to me that, in this instance, a team player means someone who goes along with what the political leaders say (i.e. unable to think for themself). A patriot is willing to question their leaders. Those who blindly follow their leaders are not patriots.

BTW, I did not leave in a "bitter frame of mind".


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

sweetmusicj said:


> I agree with you 100% that it is a defensive weapon.
> 
> Russia's complaint is that it is throwing off the balance of power (if we missled them, they couldn't missle us). This whole missle defense thing has been going on for a while, I remember Russia being upset when we were in the beginning stages of developing the technology.
> 
> ...



You know, I am not even commenting on the foreign policy, either. I just get tired of hearing things that just aren't true, or are bad comparisons.

I totally understand Russia feeling it "unbalances" the power, but as you stated, we couldn't shoot down all the ICBM's anyway... it's truly to eliminate getting nailed by limited scope attacks or rogue nations... and THAT is what Russia doesn't like.

They don't like that short of a full scale nuclear conflict that they won't be able to waltz in to Poland under the auspices of a threatened limited nuclear attack or even an air attack. 

There is a lot of policy I don't like that we ideally shouldn't have to deal with... but we don't live in Utopia.


----------



## JGex (Dec 27, 2005)

uyk7 said:


> A patriot is willing to question their leaders. Those who blindly follow their leaders are not patriots.


I really wish more people would grasp that concept.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

It's not unpatriotic, nor is it disrespectful of our soldiers to want them NOT to be killed on a foreign field or to die for some cause which serves nobody but old men in Washington and Wall Street.

EasyDay, you ask what I've done? I've already fought in one war and survived it to come home and raise four patriotic, Christian sons. I provide for myself and for others. I'm a taxpayer, a good citizen, and a good husband. Nobody out there can ask more from me, and I don't have to answer to you for it. You haven't defended me from anything, nor have you put food on my table, guarded my family, or stood with me in the long nights. No soldier has, and if anyone has earned the right to criticize our soldiers, it's an ex-soldier.

I'll say no more on this. We can now wait and see for ourselves how it plays out.


----------



## diane (May 4, 2002)

Ernie, I like your spirit. Thank you. Thank you also for your Eisenhower quote. He and JFK were for me the last presidents who actually served their country and not themselves......well add Ford to the list. Eisenhower gave repeated warnings about the military industrial complex, but no one paid attention.

I leave this thread to watch and wait. It's getting harder and harder for me to see good outcomes for my country. But, my strawberries in my little everbearing patch are so delicious, my bees are making honey at a breakneck pace, the corn is tasty and the night sound of the crickets is awesome. No matter what is going on in the world, right here, right now in my tiny little patch of the world.........life is good.


----------



## paddymurphy (May 23, 2008)

sweetmusicj said:


> First of all, I want to say there have been a lot of good points made here. I forgot about this thread I wrote on and just remembered.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I understand the ossetian minority issues. I agree that something has to happen. I also agree that it could have been handled better. However, stating that Georgia attacked Russia when they went after South Ossentians attacking them, that the Russians were supposed to stop and refused to do anything is stretching the truth. Putin has been very open about wanting to add to Russia's territory. There is a reason Georgia and others are trying to join NATO and Russia is doing everything it can to stop it. It is not for the best interests of those countries. This problem has been on going and ignored by many(I had heard of the issue seeveral years ago). That it came to this is no real surprise. Putin is former KGB and a fanatic. 

Was going after the OSSETIANS a bad move in hind sight yes. But as some one who has been shot at more than once it only happens so many times before you have to do something, even if it is not the best solution. If Georgia had continued to suck up the damage it would not have prevented anything it only would have delayed it. 

Actually, the Cuba example is relevant---many parts of South Florida now have a Cuban majority of the population. If they decided to get Cuba passports the scenario plays. Many of the ethnics besides ossetians have a history of being in the area for centuries as well. So how is it not relevant IF the hypothetical of the cubans in an area where they are a majority wanted to become part of Cuba???


----------



## Andy Nonymous (Aug 20, 2005)

Anyone remember "the collapse of communism"? The theory goes that the US outspent the USSR, and their economy collapsed under the strain trying to keep up militarily. 

Guess what? The US government pulled it off only because investors continued to buy their debt. The US is well beyond broke, that is if you don't consider well over 9 TRILLION in national debt, well in excess of REAL (production) GDP, in any sense still solvent. It seems the Russians realized their fiscal mistakes before they got beyond the point of fiscal no-return (like the US currently is, short of hyper-inflating the debt away - watch for it); they regrouped and solidified their economic base, and DO have the financial means to 'bury the US', as does China, without a shot being fired.

War is always expensive to 'the people' (and often highly profitable to its financiers), and believe it or not, every act of YOUR congressional reps is done in YOUR name and in the name of all other citizens of the US (and that's another deep subject of split legal hairs). If it wasn't for the 'greater fools' that keep buying into the 'treasury bonds' that keep the US afloat, those mil paychecks and contract payments (and dozens of other 'social welfare' programs) would bounce. I fully expect to see those checks bounce in my lifetime (or the next 6 years, whichever comes first). If they don't, it would be no smaller miracle than seeing pigs fly. Then again, that might be a bad analogy, as with GMO's these days....

Yup, I'm watching, but not the "news".


----------



## JGex (Dec 27, 2005)

diane said:


> Ernie, I like your spirit. Thank you. Thank you also for your Eisenhower quote. He and JFK were for me the last presidents who actually served their country and not themselves......well add Ford to the list. *Eisenhower gave repeated warnings about the military industrial complex, but no one paid attention.*
> 
> I leave this thread to watch and wait. It's getting harder and harder for me to see good outcomes for my country. But, my strawberries in my little everbearing patch are so delicious, my bees are making honey at a breakneck pace, the corn is tasty and the night sound of the crickets is awesome. No matter what is going on in the world, right here, right now in my tiny little patch of the world.........life is good.


Ayup. 

Another good warning from a historical figure:

âThose who don't know history are destined to repeat it.â


----------



## JGex (Dec 27, 2005)

Andy Nonymous said:


> Anyone remember "the collapse of communism"? The theory goes that the US outspent the USSR, and their economy collapsed under the strain trying to keep up militarily.
> 
> Guess what? The US government pulled it off only because investors continued to buy their debt. The US is well beyond broke, that is if you don't consider well over 9 TRILLION in national debt, well in excess of REAL (production) GDP, in any sense still solvent. It seems the Russians realized their fiscal mistakes before they got beyond the point of fiscal no-return (like the US currently is, short of hyper-inflating the debt away - watch for it); they regrouped and solidified their economic base, and DO have the financial means to 'bury the US', as does China, without a shot being fired.
> 
> ...


Spot on.

Again, âThose who don't know history are destined to repeat it.â

:stars:


----------



## sweetmusicj (Mar 5, 2008)

seedspreader said:


> I totally understand Russia feeling it "unbalances" the power, but as you stated, we couldn't shoot down all the ICBM's anyway... it's truly to eliminate getting nailed by limited scope attacks or rogue nations... and THAT is what Russia doesn't like.


Yeah, logically the argument doesn't hold since we wouldn't be able to shoot all the ICBM's down.

I've studied in Russia, and while I'm by no means and expert, I think I can give an insight into the Russian mind. They are a VERY paraniod country that feels like after the collapse of Communism they weren't given the respect they deserved in the world. They felt like they were promised a partnership with the west after communism and that the West didn't fulfill that promise, so they're reverting to cold war policies, in which they are taken seriously. When I was in Russia, the thing that struck me the most is how much they wanted ME to see them as a superpower still.

Going back centuries before communism, Russians always had an inferiority complex with the west because we were always one step ahead of them in technology (and perhaps political evolution, Russia had serfs later then the rest of Europe). During communism, for the first time Russia was actually feared by the west and it gave them a power and influence in the world they never had before, and now they feel that power is gone and they need to flex their military power to restore it. 

The difference between now and the cold war is there is no ideological force driving Russia and we're located on the other side of the world with two oceans between us. Basically, Russia could care less about what happens in our sphere.

Ok, sorry, I could resist going on a lecture about Russian history and foreign policy.



seedspreader said:


> There is a lot of policy I don't like that we ideally shouldn't have to deal with... but we don't live in Utopia.


We will never have perfection, this is true, but we should always strive for it. I'm a believer in the foreign policy of Thomas Jefferson who said:

_"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none." _

We've been defending Europe and spending our hard earned tax dollars for almost a century now...if they fear Russia, it's time for them and their "European Union" to do so, but I don't see how this is our fight.


----------



## sweetmusicj (Mar 5, 2008)

paddymurphy said:


> However, stating that Georgia attacked Russia when they went after South Ossentians attacking them, that the Russians were supposed to stop and refused to do anything is stretching the truth.
> ....
> Was going after the OSSETIANS a bad move in hind sight yes. But as some one who has been shot at more than once it only happens so many times before you have to do something, even if it is not the best solution. If Georgia had continued to suck up the damage it would not have prevented anything it only would have delayed it.


Well, that's why it's called the "fog of war". The questions are if the South Ossentians were harrasing the Georgians in Georgian territory how bad was it? We have the Georgians claiming one thing, and the South Ossentians/Russians claiming another. However, first hand accounts from the South Ossentian side claim thousands of civilian casualties when Georgia moved in.



paddymurphy said:


> Putin has been very open about wanting to add to Russia's territory. There is a reason Georgia and others are trying to join NATO and Russia is doing everything it can to stop it. It is not for the best interests of those countries. This problem has been on going and ignored by many(I had heard of the issue seeveral years ago). That it came to this is no real surprise. Putin is former KGB and a fanatic.


I agree that going into Georgia was not only about the South Ossentian issue, but an excuse to flex their military muscle in the region as a warning to other countries in the region. I just don't believe, as some Americans, that Russian just invaded Georgia without due cause. The Georgian president is an idiot in my opinion, for not knowing that he would face the brunt of the Russian military for going into South Ossentia.




paddymurphy said:


> Actually, the Cuba example is relevant---many parts of South Florida now have a Cuban majority of the population. If they decided to get Cuba passports the scenario plays. Many of the ethnics besides ossetians have a history of being in the area for centuries as well. So how is it not relevant IF the hypothetical of the cubans in an area where they are a majority wanted to become part of Cuba???



Sorry, I still don't buy this comparison. You need to look at the history.

1.) Cuban's have no historical claim to South Florida, unlike the South Ossentians who have been there and been the majority for CENTURIES, I believe indians were in Southern Florida, not Cubans (descended from Spaniards) before the west came.

2.) But theCubans in Miami do not WANT to be citizens of Cuba, unlike almost every South Ossentian who wants to be a member of Russia. I mean, we can pretend all we want, but if we have to pretend that Cubans have ruled the area for centuries, and that Cubans have been in Miami for centuries, it kind of makes for a bad comparison, since these are major factors in South Ossentia.

If we want a good comparison between the Cubans in Florida and another conflict...let's look at Kosovo. A muslim ethnic groups moves into a historically Serbian Christian land, becomes a majority, and eventually wants their own country or to join Albania. We, in our infinate wisdom, back the Muslims and help them create their own country in what, since pretty much the beginning of time, had been Serbian territory (and we ignored the Muslim burning of churches and monasteries).


----------

