NationStates Jolt Archive

Great, way to escalate tensions even further, dipshit.

Putin is such a twit.

Edit: MY THREAD NOW! MINEMINEMINEMINEMINE!!!! *salivates greedily* :D

I thought we were done with the Cold War...

I thought we were done with the Cold War...

Cold War II.

Thank you, Bush. :rolleyes:

Cold War II.

Thank you, Bush. :rolleyes:

And Putin:rolleyes::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::head bang:

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Russia's President Vladimir Putin says the world is engaged in a new arms race and Nato is failing to accommodate Russia's concerns.
In a nationally-televised speech, he condemned Nato's expansion and the US plan to include Poland and the Czech Republic in a missile defence shield.

"It is already clear that a new phase in the arms race is unfolding in the world," Mr Putin said.

"It is not our fault, because we did not start it," he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7234817.stm

In a sense, I have to congratulate Mr. Putin. While I oppose war, as it is the health of the state, Boris Yeltsin's pandering to Western interests did a great deal of harm to Russia, and someone has to stand up against the US Federal government before they end up controlling everything.

And Putin:rolleyes::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::head bang:

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Putin is also at fault for feeding the troll.

and someone has to stand up against the US Federal government before they end up controlling everything.
You mean they don't already? ALERT THE MEDIA!

"It is not our fault, because we did not start it," he said.

Which justifies not making any attempt to stop it?

Which justifies not making any attempt to stop it?

[/thread]

I'd hoped that we had left this behind at the end of the 80s. :(

Putin is stirring up tensions for no other reason than to continue to solidify his power base. The missile defenses put in place in Poland have nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with preventing missiles from the Middle East. Putin must know this, but he doesn't give a damn because he's going to use the ignorance of his populace for his own benefit.

Sadly, Bush will not do anything to make this situation better. I don't know what needs to be done, but diplomacy must be utilized and Bush is horrible with diplomacy.

Putin is stirring up tensions for no other reason than to continue to solidify his power base. The missile defenses put in place in Poland have nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with preventing missiles from the Middle East. Putin must know this, but he doesn't give a damn because he's going to use the ignorance of his populace for his own benefit.

Sadly, Bush will not do anything to make this situation better. I don't know what needs to be done, but diplomacy must be utilized and Bush is horrible with diplomacy.

You could see how putting missiles defenses in Poland is a little like (I said a little, don't get all flipped out) like them putting one in Cuba. It's the whole doorstep thing, and he has a right to get ansy about his doorstep.

Though, I thought we'd reached an agreement about this months ago. What happened to that?

Also-this stupid countries media-
Mr Putin was speaking less than a month before Russians elect his successor.

Shouldn't this get at least a little coverage, seeing as it's pretty important...(granted I get a lot of my shit from NPR when I'm driving and I haven't been driving so it might be at least 50/50 not being covered me not paying attention...)

Didn't the Russians learn their lesson the first time. The cannot beat the economy of the United States. They tried it in the 80's and lost.

Shouldn't this get at least a little coverage, seeing as it's pretty important...(granted I get a lot of my shit from NPR when I'm driving and I haven't been driving so it might be at least 50/50 not being covered me not paying attention...)

Why bother? The election has already been concluded. Dmitry Medvedev will win, and the joke option - Vladimir Zhirinovsky - will get a handful of votes as well.

You could see how putting missiles defenses in Poland is a little like (I said a little, don't get all flipped out) like them putting one in Cuba. It's the whole doorstep thing, and he has a right to get ansy about his doorstep.

But it's not really on his doorstep, not in the same way. Missile defenses do not work the way you might think. If you want to intercept missiles, you need to place the defenses midway or so. That's why our missile defenses against Russia and China are in Alaska and California, not, say, Hawaii or Japan.

Poland and the Czech Republic just happen to be positioned just right for missile defenses against the Middle East. Remember the number we put there: twelve. That wouldn't even be even remotely a slight dent in Russian missiles.

Putin knows this too. He's not stupid. What he is doing, however, is using the ignorance of his populace on this subject as a way to help solidify his power base through support for his chosen successor in the election.

Though, I thought we'd reached an agreement about this months ago. What happened to that?

I dunno.

Didn't the Russians learn their lesson the first time. The cannot beat the economy of the United States. They tried it in the 80's and lost.

Bit of a difference. Russia back then was still dealing with the consequences of Stalin-esque communism. Russia nowadays is more like China, in terms of being autocratically capitalistic. Russia's economy is not that great even so, but you're making a serious mistake if you try and count them out for that alone.

Didn't the Russians learn their lesson the first time. The cannot beat the economy of the United States. They tried it in the 80's and lost.

Things are a tad different at the moment. The US economy seems kinda shaky at best and there are two wars sucking money from the pot at a rate of knots.

But whoever eventually wins, it's the whole Cold War brinksmanship malarky all over again. We've already got Bears over the North Sea, so an arms race would just make the memory complete.

Who says history doesn't repeat itself...

Who says history doesn't repeat itself...

Fools do. :p

Didn't the Russians learn their lesson the first time. The cannot beat the economy of the United States. They tried it in the 80's and lost.

No, that's because they tried to imitate bourgeois capitalist and Brezhnev's 'socialist profit' 'reforms'. what was abolished, along with the Soviet Union, in 1991 virtually without opposition, was not -socialism, but a particularly corrupt -and undemocratic form of capitalism akin to fascism. The Brezhnev stagnation and decline was a direct result of the use of the profit motive and market mechanisms that the revisionist usurpers of Stalin implemented.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7234817.stm

In a sense, I have to congratulate Mr. Putin. While I oppose war, as it is the health of the state, Boris Yeltsin's pandering to Western interests did a great deal of harm to Russia, and someone has to stand up against the US Federal government before they end up controlling everything.

You do realize that Russia's westernization began long before Yeltsin I hope. It actually goes back to the Tsars.

You do realize that Russia's westernization began long before Yeltsin I hope. It actually goes back to the Tsars.

Lol, the Tsars did nothing, they left 90% of the population living in abject poverty, ignorance and superstition, dying of the common flu. Industrialization and true 'modernization' was done by the Bolsheviks.

Lol, the Tsars did nothing, they left 90% of the population living in abject poverty, ignorance and superstition, dying of the common flu. Industrialization and true 'modernization' was done by the Bolsheviks.

They just built on what the Tsars did Andaras. And the Bolsheviks did not care about the people at all anymore than the Tsars did.

They just built on what the Tsars did Andaras. And the Bolsheviks did not care about the people at all anymore than the Tsars did.

True.

Lol, the Tsars did nothing, they left 90% of the population living in abject poverty, ignorance and superstition, dying of the common flu. Industrialization and true 'modernization' was done by the Bolsheviks.

He said 'Westernization' which began in Russia under Tsar Peter I, with his reforms such as the creation of a Russian Navy and adoption of Western European customs bringing Russia more in the line with the Western European concept of the Imperial power like Britain, France and Spain rather than a petty medieval style kingdom.

He said 'Westernization' which began in Russia under Tsar Peter I, with his reforms such as the creation of a Russian Navy and adoption of Western European customs bringing Russia more in the line with the Western European concept of the Imperial power like Britain, France and Spain rather than a petty medieval style kingdom.

We have a winner :D

Of course, capitalism creates the framework for the victory of socialism.

And then Communist USSR died on December 25, 1991

They just built on what the Tsars did Andaras.
Of course, capitalism creates the framework for the victory of socialism.

Of course, capitalism creates the framework for the victory of socialism.

That's nothing more than ideological claptrap, just like the libertarians who go blabbering on about the beauties of an unregulated free market.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7234817.stm

In a sense, I have to congratulate Mr. Putin. While I oppose war, as it is the health of the state, Boris Yeltsin's pandering to Western interests did a great deal of harm to Russia, and someone has to stand up against the US Federal government before they end up controlling everything.

This is going to be great for my debates (in real life of course)!

Go Putin!

Looks like Putin has given up trying to hide the fact he is channeling Stalin.

And then Communist USSR died on December 25, 1991

no actually they just went West (http://youtube.com/watch?v=39KZ2afBtLU)

because crowds of men in funny outfits is what communism is all about!

yes I had to work pet shop boys in somehow

Well honestly, who's to say that Marx's predictions won't ultimately come true? Machiavelli wrote far before the unification of Italy, but his advice was well modeled by Cavour who completed Machiavelli's dream half a millenium later.

Machiavelli wasn't really on the same subject as Marx though was he?

I wonder how many political books (hell why not just fiction in general) have not come to life?

That's nothing more than ideological claptrap, just like the libertarians who go blabbering on about the beauties of an unregulated free market.

Well honestly, who's to say that Marx's predictions won't ultimately come true? Machiavelli wrote far before the unification of Italy, but his advice was well modeled by Cavour who completed Machiavelli's dream half a millenium later.

Of course, capitalism creates the framework for the victory of socialism.

I guess there's not really any point in arguing with you, since CLEARLY you're absolutely devoted to the ideology. Otherwise you'd actually discuss the issue and not just echo empty dogma (rather humorously ironic, when you think about it).

Machiavelli wasn't really on the same subject as Marx though was he?

I wonder how many political books (hell why not just fiction in general) have not come to life?

Exactly, especially since Marxism has been tried in far more places than just Russia. It has also continuously proved itself to not work in reality, as good as it might sound on paper.

Exactly, especially since Marxism has been tried in far more places than just Russia. It has also continuously proved itself to not work in reality, as good as it might sound on paper.

then again I seem to remember democracy being rather idolized (the government of peace my hairy arse)

point being monkeys shouldn't have such dreams

Machiavelli wasn't really on the same subject as Marx though was he?

I wonder how many political books (hell why not just fiction in general) have not come to life?

The point is that ultimately, Marx's ideas must be given much more time. Machiavelli was criticized much in his time and after, many considered his ideas immoral or simply wrong, and yet it was his ideas, almost exactly, that were used to achieve his exact goal, but 500 years after he expected it. You've got to give Marx a few more centuries.

Uh-oh.

At least we'll get some shiny planes out of this.

Of course, Moscow has an economy roughly equal to that of the Netherlands, so I'm not to worried about them becoming an economic power. Besides that oil. And Europe is working around that

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7234817.stm

In a sense, I have to congratulate Mr. Putin. While I oppose war, as it is the health of the state, Boris Yeltsin's pandering to Western interests did a great deal of harm to Russia, and someone has to stand up against the US Federal government before they end up controlling everything.

Exactly.

Great, way to escalate tensions even further, dipshit.

Putin is such a twit.

Edit: MY THREAD NOW! MINEMINEMINEMINEMINE!!!! *salivates greedily* :D

What do you want him to do? Say "fine put antinuke empalecments wherever you want...forts...airstrips...bases... Honestly now. Putin is 100% justified to US Imperialism.

I thought we were done with the Cold War...
Well the US doesn't apparently. NATO still exists and the US is putting defence weapons next to Russia.

And Putin:rolleyes::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::head bang:

ARGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

And no. Putin is perfectly justified. You can blame it all on Bush and the US.


How can you people really think that Putin should not react at all and let the US stomp all around the world freely? You people are sick.

Well honestly, who's to say that Marx's predictions won't ultimately come true? Machiavelli wrote far before the unification of Italy, but his advice was well modeled by Cavour who completed Machiavelli's dream half a millenium later.

Not exactly, Marx was no prophet, he simply theorized that antagonistic class contradiction is crystallized by industrialization because it puts two classes (the proletariat and bourgeois) into direct and irreconcilable conflict, which can only end with revolution.

And then Communist USSR died on December 25, 1991
As I said, what 'fell' in 91 was basically a bourgeois state-corporatist monstrosity which Brezhnev created. Full collectivization and proletarian control only existed during the Lenin and Stalin periods.
http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html

Not exactly, Marx was no prophet, he simply theorized that antagonistic class contradiction is crystallized by industrialization because it puts two classes (the proletariat and bourgeois) into direct and irreconcilable conflict, which can only end with revolution.

I am yet to see a classless society, produced by the this class struggle.

I am yet to see a classless society, produced by the this class struggle.

:rolleyes: Sorry but that's all your 'comment' deserves, I am tired of you people...

Uncle Vlad is no idiot. Come on, the guy is ex-KGB. He knows damn well how the United States under Coke Snorting Chimp had overextended itself and eroded its credibility next to nothing. This is just more calculated moves from someone whose whole life was spent calculating them.

Great just what the world needs another Cold War those dam russians didn't they learn their lesson with making their control sound strong, anybody remember the Soviet-Afgan War? Yeah that war created the taliban which is now plaguing the U.S. forces in Afghanistan and in the middle east. The russians just intervened in Afghanistan just so they can have more territory for more missile silos. Now Putin is trying to become a powerful leader with another Cold War. WE NEED GORBACHEV!!!! But sadly Putin has turned the russians against Gorbachev and are blaming him for everything bad in Russia. Well at least I'm ready to fight any Russians that dare to mess me. I'll go freakin go Red Dawn on them!!!:mp5::mad:

Putin seems like the kind of guy who think's he's the reincarnation of Stalin. He hates the fact that Poland is no longer Soviet territory. He hates the fact that Poland is picking the US over him. He's power-mad.

Well honestly, who's to say that Marx's predictions won't ultimately come true?

Many people who study such things?

I am yet to see a classless society, produced by the this class struggle.

Even Communist Russia, the sameone that Andaras is holding up, had different "classes"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7234817.stm

In a sense, I have to congratulate Mr. Putin. While I oppose war, as it is the health of the state, Boris Yeltsin's pandering to Western interests did a great deal of harm to Russia, and someone has to stand up against the US Federal government before they end up controlling everything.

I completely disagree. The Soviets squandered communism on a stupid arms race which they lost ... why the hell do that again?

"Someone needs to stand up" is crazy talk. The US needs to bloody well sit down!

Many people who study such things?

and many people who study such things say it could come true. Lets put your people up against my people and see who wins.

As if 'democracy' is perfectly implemented in practice. Also, for communism to have been truly succesful, wouldn't it have been necessary for there to be communist systems in the rest of the world, theoretically speaking.

Also, about labor being a commodity and the price of labor: I think things are even worse than Marx suggested. With so many people around for unskilled jobs, many positions in the US for example don't even pay enough for the sustainment of their labor, ie for the basic cost of living of the laborer. People have to work 2 jobs to be able to afford food and shelter. Capitalism hasn't turned out so great for many people either. The thing is, it doesn't even look that great on paper.

and many people who study such things say it could come true. Lets put your people up against my people and see who wins.

As if 'democracy' is perfectly implemented in practice. Also, for communism to have been truly succesful, wouldn't it have been necessary for there to be communist systems in the rest of the world, theoretically speaking.

You do realize that communist-esque systems have been tried before and ulimately failed?

Cold War II.

Thank you, Bush. :rolleyes:


Sorry, cant blame Bush, even though its the cool thing to do these days, the blame lies at the feet of the Russian people for electing a KGB General as its leader,what did you expect him to do? become a model reformer? the man IS a communist, he wishes to return to the days of the Soviet Union.


It's really a no Duh.

"Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain."

- Vladimir Putin

Putin stands in the right here,it doesn't matter if his elections are rigged or not..if he wants to oppress his peoples,let him.

...

Because he,Like the Soviet Union,is not about to let some beady eyed meglomaniacal thug of a president bully him into submission. When obviously,they've no right to do so!

Wow.

In my opinion,this is all the United States' doing.
Regaurdless,if it's Russia or the Soviet Union,Putin is merely stating,and enforcing what every country in the world has tried to do so many times before.
The United States of America has a bad habit of shooving their noses where it doesn't belong. For Instance,the Debacle with Iran,The Iranians,are a developing nation,and as such,have the will to advance their technology in the form of Nuclear Energy. What right does the United States have to tell Iran "NO"...and disguise it as the brash and baseless propoganda of "The Nuclear Armed Iran" when,there is absolutly no incriminating evidence of any attempts to build nuclear missiles.
Honestly,How would you like it,if,to light your nation,you built a nuclear powerplant,and some foreign government came along and said "No,because we don't like you"...Wouldan't you be a bit upset?
Back on topic,Putin's elections angered the United States,Putin stands in the right here,it doesn't matter if his elections are rigged or not..if he wants to oppress his peoples,let him. It's none of the United State's buisness what he does with his country. That's why Putin is mad. Because he,Like the Soviet Union,is not about to let some beady eyed meglomaniacal thug of a president bully him into submission. When obviously,they've no right to do so!
I stand by Vladmir Putin's political stance,America needs to quit brown-nosing into other country's affairs,and worry about domestic issues,such as the crashing dollar,unemployment rates,social security and illegal's crossing our borders!
Where's the Soviet Union when you need them?

You do realize that communist-esque systems have been tried before and ulimately failed?

The Reason for this is obvious,that is if you study the Soviet Union...


The reason the Soviet Union failed at communism was quite simple. They were to worried about superceding other nations in heavy industry and military,to even think about things like living standards and consumer goods.
In lamens terms,the Soviet Union had an impressive military and heavy industry,but people weren't happy living in rat infested dumps.

For Communism to function,you have to balance these things,and if all else,cater more to your people than anything. Consumer goods and living standards.
Thats what killed the Soviet Union,it's a shame that none of their premiers,Mikhail Gorbachev aside,failed to recognize this aspect.
It can also be noted that Boris Yeltsin,even with his newely made democratic republic,also failed at this.
It's not the governmental systems that are at fault,it's the way it is implemented.

In my opinion,this is all the United States' doing.
Regaurdless,if it's Russia or the Soviet Union,Putin is merely stating,and enforcing what every country in the world has tried to do so many times before.
The United States of America has a bad habit of shooving their noses where it doesn't belong. For Instance,the Debacle with Iran,The Iranians,are a developing nation,and as such,have the will to advance their technology in the form of Nuclear Energy. What right does the United States have to tell Iran "NO"...and disguise it as the brash and baseless propoganda of "The Nuclear Armed Iran" when,there is absolutly no incriminating evidence of any attempts to build nuclear missiles.
Honestly,How would you like it,if,to light your nation,you built a nuclear powerplant,and some foreign government came along and said "No,because we don't like you"...Wouldan't you be a bit upset?
Back on topic,Putin's elections angered the United States,Putin stands in the right here,it doesn't matter if his elections are rigged or not..if he wants to oppress his peoples,let him. It's none of the United State's buisness what he does with his country. That's why Putin is mad. Because he,Like the Soviet Union,is not about to let some beady eyed meglomaniacal thug of a president bully him into submission. When obviously,they've no right to do so!
I stand by Vladmir Putin's political stance,America needs to quit brown-nosing into other country's affairs,and worry about domestic issues,such as the crashing dollar,unemployment rates,social security and illegal's crossing our borders!
Where's the Soviet Union when you need them?

*Troll Alert Troll Alert*

Men, Battle stations! GO GO GO! Get on that fifty! Get in that Abrams!

AIM.........Hold your fire......

anybody remember the Soviet-Afgan War? Yeah that war created the taliban which is now plaguing the U.S. forces in Afghanistan and in the middle east. The russians just intervened in Afghanistan just so they can have more territory for more missile silos. Now Putin is trying to become a powerful leader with another Cold War.

I hope this is just a troll. I don't think someone this foolish could type and breathe at the same time, so he probably fell of his chair and hit his head, causing even more damage.

The US armed the Taliban. and kept arming them, again and again. They promoted the Taliban. There are documented records of significant US figures saying how they'll give USSR a "Vietnam". Look up Richard Helms. The US, is the principal power responsible for making the Taliban the power they were, and still are.

I think the US have a slightly higher military build up than anyone in the world, so you have to lay a significant part of any cold war on them.
.
In regards to the earlier nuclear comment someone said. I completely agree. Only 1 county in history has used Nuclear Weapons. It's a bit rich that country having nukes, but demanding no-one else have them.

The Reason for this is obvious,that is if you study the Soviet Union...

Which I did and got a B in the class.

The reason the Soviet Union failed at communism was quite simple. They were to worried about superceding other nations in heavy industry and military,to even think about things like living standards and consumer goods.

Something they never truly cared about to begin with.

In lamens terms,the Soviet Union had an impressive military and heavy industry,but people weren't happy living in rat infested dumps.

Anymore than they did when under the Tsars.

For Communism to function,you have to balance these things,and if all else,cater more to your people than anything. Consumer goods and living standards.

Which do not work under a communist system.

Thats what killed the Soviet Union,it's a shame that none of their premiers,Mikhail Gorbachev aside,failed to recognize this aspect.

And Gorbachev resigned as premier and the USSR ended. I see you do not follow the fact that when Gorbachev instituted his reforms, the people literally forced the end of the communist regime.

It can also be noted that Boris Yeltsin,even with his newely made democratic republic,also failed at this.

The only thing here that is partially true.

It's not the governmental systems that are at fault,it's the way it is implemented.

Communism can not work and it has been proven to not work.

In a nationally-televised speech, he condemned Nato's expansion and the US plan to include Poland and the Czech Republic in a missile defence shield.
I wonder what Nato and the US were thinking when they made a missle defence system, right next to Russia.
Clearly a threatening move against Russia, but Putin could have voiced his concern earlier, rather than declaring an 'arms race'.

It has also resumed long-range patrols by its bomber aircraft.
The practice was suspended after the collapse of the Soviet Union and was revived last August, as part of a more assertive foreign policy pursued by President Putin.

Higher oil prices have enabled Russia to re-invest in its armed forces, but its military capabilities remain far below what they were during the Soviet era.

So Vladimir Putin is worried, but doesn't appear to have enough military strength to threaten NATO and USA.
Is there any proof of Russia rebuilding it's Military?
If so where would Russia attack first? One of it's old Soviet countries, or somewhere in the Middle East?
Is this just Sabre rattling?
Or will Communism Return under a new banner?

You do realize that communist-esque systems have been tried before and ulimately failed?

Its not communism that failed, its the implementations that had very little to do with Marx's ideals. So any talk of communism having failed makes no sense when you refer to systems that were hardly Communistic.

Also, you fail to acknowledge the second point I made, about labor and cost of the 'production of labor'.

EDIT: Also, in my original post, I mean that the whole world would have to be communist, theoretically.

Well Japan did dispatch 22 fighters in response to a Russian Bomber violating its air space.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/02/09/1288842-russian-bomber-violates-japan-airspace

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/J/JAPAN_RUSSIA_INTRUSION?SITE=WIFON&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

We can agree to disagree then,Comrade Corneliu 2.

I agree with historical facts not wishful thinking.

I will agree with that. I will also agree with the fact that,Miscreants like Stalin should not have ever been allowed to touch a Soviet post of office. Thats what made the Soviet Union such a hated country,was his regime.

Stalin should never have become the General Secretary of the USSR.

And because of the squander of the economy on the emphasis of beating the United States at an arms race,something the Soviet Union obviously could not do,Gorbachev had not the finances to make his reforms work anyway. And it seemed,Boris Yeltsin and the people allready knew it.

And now Putin has declared another arms race. An arms race that Russia cannot handle.

We can agree to disagree then,Comrade Corneliu 2.

However,think of this
By the time Gorbachev had his reforms in place,the people allready were tired of the undue suffering that former premiers placed on them. So,they were weary of the Soviet Government,regaurdless of whos premier it was.
I will agree with that. I will also agree with the fact that,Miscreants like Stalin should not have ever been allowed to touch a Soviet post of office. Thats what made the Soviet Union such a hated country,was his regime.
And because of the squander of the economy on the emphasis of beating the United States at an arms race,something the Soviet Union obviously could not do,Gorbachev had not the finances to make his reforms work anyway. And it seemed,Boris Yeltsin and the people allready knew it.

It's not so much the arms race,it's the principle of it.

It is true,that Russia,and the Soviet Union alike CAN NOT..absolutly CANNOT defend,or have any hope of an offencive against the United States in any aspect..

This was Proven by Nazi Germany.
The United States (Estimated) Could build 4 Sherman tanks when Germany could only produce 1 Panther.
The United States can out produce any nation on the planet.
That is they key to the United State's success. Drown somone in their blood more or less.

But also think about this.
With the majority of the United States army in Iraq and Afghanistan,and the toll it's taking,whos to stop Russia from crossing the Alaskian border at any moment...A draft would have to be instituted,which I think they want to do anyway.

But also think about this.
With the majority of the United States army in Iraq and Afghanistan,and the toll it's taking,whos to stop Russia from crossing the Alaskian border at any moment...A draft would have to be instituted,which I think they want to do anyway.

Let's just leave any combat considerations out of this one, and just look at environmental factors.

The Bering Strait? The total lack of infrastructure and resources in that part of Alaska? The cost? The lack of a major port facility in that area (on either side)? The amount of equipment that would be required?

And the Grizzly bears, of course.

I wonder what Nato and the US were thinking when they made a missle defence system, right next to Russia.
Clearly a threatening move against Russia, but Putin could have voiced his concern earlier, rather than declaring an 'arms race'.


Refer to Kyronea's posts at the beginning of the thread.

The missile defense system is not, under any conditions, a threat to Russia, and Putin knows it. He's using it politically as a diversion, though, because the people of Russia don't know better.

With today's technology it is feasable,I didn't say easy,but feasable.Of course,reliable supply lines would have to be established,this will be very problematic,because of the United States Navy and airforces. But if it can be done,the Russian Federation flags would fly over Alaska,even if it was for only a month or so. As far as the grizzly bears,yes. Thats a problem


They're scary,even when you are drunk from Stolichnaya!

With today's technology it is feasable,I didn't say easy,but feasable.Of course,reliable supply lines would have to be established,this will be very problematic,because of the United States Navy and airforces. But if it can be done,the Russian Federation flags would fly over Alaska,even if it was for only a month or so.

No, it would quite simply be impossible. You're wrong. The resource expenditure that would be required, the turbulence of the Bering strait (it's volatility would regularly disrupt shipping), and the lack of a significant port facility in that general area of Alaska would doom such an invasion from the start.

Further, the amount of resources required to sustain an expedition such as this for even a month would so drain the Russian army that NATO forces in the west would prove an existential threat to Russia, in a way that a Western European army has not since the Second World War.

And of course, the nukes, we can't forget those.

As far as the grizzly bears,yes. Thats a problem

They're scary,even when you are drunk from Stolichnaya!

They are horrifying, aren't they?

I'm talking in terms of a combined effort from the Russian airforce and Russian navy.
And whos to say? Like the Nazis did in WWII,and the Imperial Japanese.
Submarines can be outfitted to carry supply as well. Allthough,not nearly enough to sustain an invasion force.
And it's not the military rammifications I speak of,what about the United State's Moral and prestige?
An Invasion on the North American Homeland. Imagine that,the United States has not been invaded since it's beginnings (Don't quote me on it,I'm not very good with United States history that early,clue me in maybe?) And whos to say that this invasion force would be a slug-fest style situation,army vs army. It could be executed the same way the mean 'ol terrorists in Iraq are killing American soldiers now. (Nothing against American Soldiers,without the Veterans,the United States couldan't be what it is today,hats off to them)

I want everyone in this forum to note that,I've nothing against the American Soldiers or their families,in fact,since moving to the United States,I have made a few friends in the guard. I just don't like the government right now.
In case my wording of what I wrote is taken the wrong way...'Kudos to the vets!
Not only are grizzlys just all out mean,they don't fight by our rules...Stupid meanies..:(

I'm talking in terms of a combined effort from the Russian airforce and Russian navy.

And there's insufficient port facilities, for both shipping and aircraft, in that part of Alaska.

And it's not the military rammifications I speak of,what about the United State's Moral and prestige?
An Invasion on the North American Homeland. Imagine that,the United States has not been invaded since it's beginnings (Don't quote me on it,I'm not very good with United States history that early,clue me in maybe?)

It would likely weird the international community out, more than anything. A general international response would probably include "What? The Russians invaded Alaska? Why? That makes no sense? I don't see what they'd gain from invading Alaska, besides a rain of Minuteman III missiles. How odd."

Let's not beat around in the bush, the US would not tolerate such an attack, and would likely respond with strategic nuclear weapons. In such a situation, world opinion would likely mean somewhere between nothing and a pile of burned toast.

And whos to say that this invasion force would be a slug-fest style situation,army vs army. It could be executed the same way the mean 'ol terrorists in Iraq are killing American soldiers now.

Insurgency-type campaigns can only be carried out by a defender, not an invader. The Russian military could not carry out an insurgent type campaign in the US.

Further, the US Military is not suffering particularly heavy casualties in Iraq, but is inflicting heavy casualties on insurgent groups. Some 4,000 Americans have died in Iraq in the past five years. Likely, more American soldiers have died in the US in car accidents than in Iraq.

I want everyone in this forum to note that,I've nothing against the American Soldiers or their families,in fact,since moving to the United States,I have made a few friends in the guard. I just don't like the government right now.

That's like saying you know how to breathe.


Not only are grizzlys just all out mean,they don't fight by our rules...Stupid meanies..:(

They cheat with their size.

You do realize that Russia's westernization began long before Yeltsin I hope. It actually goes back to the Tsars.

Wow, you managed to pull the most bizzare meaning out of what I said. I was referring to Yeltsin's sweetheart deals for foreign interests through "shock therapy" that robbed the Russian people of what rightly belonged to them for the benefit of a merged Russian and Western political elite. The criticism heaped at Putin is largely because he is not a sycophant for the West and won't hand over valuable assets to them.

-snip-

I agree completely.

Putin is stirring up tensions for no other reason than to continue to solidify his power base. The missile defenses put in place in Poland have nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with preventing missiles from the Middle East. Putin must know this, but he doesn't give a damn because he's going to use the ignorance of his populace for his own benefit.

Critics of missile defense argue that a national missile shield, such as the prototype the United States has deployed in Alaska and California, would be easily overwhelmed by a cloud of warheads and decoys…. They are right: even a multilayered system with land, air-, sea-, and space-based elements, is highly unlikely to protect the United States from a major nuclear attack. But they are wrong to conclude that such a missile-defense system is therefore worthless — as are the supporters of missile defense who argue that, for similar reasons, such a system could be of concern only to rogue states and terrorists and not to other major nuclear powers. What both of these camps overlook is that the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one — as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield.

Basically, the missile shield is useless to stop a first strike by Russia. What it CAN do is stop the remaining nuclear missiles that would be fired in retaliation after the US nukes Russia. (Not to mention that placing them in Poland would necessarily draw Poland into any war between NATO and Russia.) Also, US technology is such that a defense against any kind of attack by some two-bit Middle Eastern dictator and then incinerate him, as many generals and admirals have attested have attested in an open letter to President Bush.

Sadly, Bush will not do anything to make this situation better. I don't know what needs to be done, but diplomacy must be utilized and Bush is horrible with diplomacy.

Maybe the US should stop pushing everyone around? After all, what this boils down to is a game of prisoner's dilemma; if Russia chooses to collude while the US competes, Russia loses by way of the United States finlandizing Eastern Europe and other parts of the world and thus increasing its strength. If Russia competes while the US competes, they suffer losses but nothing as severe as they would have been.

This isn't the least bit surprising.

Maybe the US should stop pushing everyone around? After all, what this boils down to is a game of prisoner's dilemma; if Russia chooses to collude while the US competes, Russia loses by way of the United States finlandizing Eastern Europe and other parts of the world and thus increasing its strength. If Russia competes while the US competes, they suffer losses but nothing as severe as they would have been.

Well said!

Looks like Czar Vladmir I is serious about how much he liked the old USSR being a feared country:rolleyes:

What's actually quite funny is that traitors like Gorbachev and Yeltsin are only venerated outside Russia, inside Russia you wouldn't find a person alive who wouldn't spit on them.

What's actually quite funny is that traitors like Gorbachev and Yeltsin are only venerated outside Russia, inside Russia you wouldn't find a person alive who wouldn't spit on them.

Nonsense, my guide in Russia was sympathetic to the old Soviet Union (and he himself noted that this was a radical opinion for Russian people), yet he still thinks that they saved Russia, and still prefers Russia as it is today rather than what it was like then.

What's actually quite funny is that traitors like Gorbachev and Yeltsin are only venerated outside Russia, inside Russia you wouldn't find a person alive who wouldn't spit on them.

You really believe that don't you?
*shakes head *

I don't think neither the Russian Federation,nore the United States,in any case of war,would use nuclear weapons. Because both of them posess a nuclear aresenal that could annihalate the world 10 times over. Both Putin and Bush know this,if one launches,the other can be expected to launch as well,thus,the end of both Russia and the United States.

I think it would have more of an impact,foreign invaders on homeland soil. It would go to show the world,and the United States,that the United States is not invincible or impervious.

The Grizzlys also have more strength,and bigger claws than we do...well..some of us..*Looks at his wife's finger nails* :rolleyes:

What's actually quite funny is that traitors like Gorbachev and Yeltsin are only venerated outside Russia, inside Russia you wouldn't find a person alive who wouldn't spit on them.

Do you have an actual LEGIT source for that?

I think it would have more of an impact,foreign invaders on homeland soil. It would go to show the world,and the United States,that the United States is not invincible or impervious.

The last time the US was invaded was in 1942 and that was the Alaskan Territory done by Japan. Oh and while we are on this topic of invading homelands, the last time Britain was successfully invaded was 1066.

Do you have an actual LEGIT source for that?

I'd like to add: Pravda is not a legit source, Andaras. ;)

The last time the US was invaded was in 1942 and that was the Alaskan Territory done by Japan.

Would you care to tell us how this means that Russia would automatically fail in invading the US?

Would you care to tell us how this means that Russia would automatically fail in invading the US?

Care to tell me how Russia is going to successfully invade the US when they do not have the capacity to do it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7234817.stm

In a sense, I have to congratulate Mr. Putin. While I oppose war, as it is the health of the state, Boris Yeltsin's pandering to Western interests did a great deal of harm to Russia, and someone has to stand up against the US Federal government before they end up controlling everything.

Putin is a fucktard. End of.

Let's build another Berlin wall. Who's with me......

Putin is stirring up tensions for no other reason than to continue to solidify his power base. The missile defenses put in place in Poland have nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with preventing missiles from the Middle East. Putin must know this, but he doesn't give a damn because he's going to use the ignorance of his populace for his own benefit.

Sadly, Bush will not do anything to make this situation better. I don't know what needs to be done, but diplomacy must be utilized and Bush is horrible with diplomacy.

ditto

The U.S. is fucked when they have to fight a war in their own land... Let's do it!

Care to tell me how Russia is going to successfully invade the US when they do not have the capacity to do it?

Current capacity.

We're talking about a new arms race remember.

Care to tell me how Russia is going to successfully invade the US when they do not have the capacity to do it?

I never said that, and I do not think they could do so without a little luck. But the fact remains that the last date that America was invaded is hardly relevant to the question of whether Russia could successfully invade the United States, just the same as saying that because JFK being elected in 1960 is proof that a Catholic will not be elected to the Presidency. (i.e., what you said was a non-sequitur.)

Welp, everybody wants to rule the world. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9Q49FeUrxw&feature=related)

Thats what I've been saying all along.
Do you honestly believe that an invasion of Alaska would deplete Russia's army?
Granted,they don't have the grandest army in the world by no means. But really.
Their economy,since Putin has been in power,has increased yearly by 7%,So I'm sure financial woes are eased as well.
And capacity? If Putin wanted to invade the United States,he would find the capacity. He would allocate forces and equipment and he would invade.
Apparently Comrade,you think that the Russians are like the middle easterners and live in the stone age of warfare. Which is not the case.

Thats what I've been saying all along.
Do you honestly believe that an invasion of Alaska would deplete Russia's army?
Granted,they don't have the grandest army in the world by no means. But really.It's not the army that needs to be depleted to turn that into a disaster, it's the navy and airforce.
Their economy,since Putin has been in power,has increased yearly by 7%,So I'm sure financial woes are eased as well.Ah, yeah. Wait until the fact that he's kept food prices fixed will come back to bite him economically.
And capacity? If Putin wanted to invade the United States,he would find the capacity. He would allocate forces and equipment and he would invade.
Apparently Comrade,you think that the Russians are like the middle easterners and live in the stone age of warfare. Which is not the case.Capacity is all about getting the people from point A to point B, and then getting bullets and food to point B. Building up the capacity to challenge the world's largest navy is going to take time and it won't go undetected. It will allow the US to engage in a similar arms race, which it happens to be better equipped to win.

Thats what I've been saying all along.
Do you honestly believe that an invasion of Alaska would deplete Russia's army?
Granted,they don't have the grandest army in the world by no means. But really.
Their economy,since Putin has been in power,has increased yearly by 7%,So I'm sure financial woes are eased as well.
And capacity? If Putin wanted to invade the United States,he would find the capacity. He would allocate forces and equipment and he would invade.
Apparently Comrade,you think that the Russians are like the middle easterners and live in the stone age of warfare. Which is not the case.

No one is saying that CWP.The problem however is that the United States has never been successfully invaded. The people tend to look at hostiles in a very bad light and will take care of it. I like to see how Russia is going to occupy the US, especially NYC, Miami, LA, and various other cities. Not to mention the fact that the US is one of the most resourceful nations on earth and we can make the Insurgency in Iraq look like a walk in the freaking park.

Do you firmly think that Putin would survive something like that? I mean...look at the fighting that occured in Afghanistan. We can make that far far worse on our own soil.

Its not about capacity but how many casualties is he willing to take? Oh and let us not forget the USAF and the USN. They too would have something to say about it as well. And just how the hell are they going to supply the invasion of the Mainland and better yet, how are they going to invade the mainland?

Don't blame Bush. I knew this fucking communist would turn Russia into the Soviet Union again..Me and my brother predicted it would happen in 2008, and it's almost happening! If you want to blame Bush, blame congress.You're pretty damn late with your prediction...

Don't blame Bush. I knew this fucking communist would turn Russia into the Soviet Union again..Me and my brother predicted it would happen in 2008, and it's almost happening! If you want to blame Bush, blame congress. Putin was in the damn KGB for christ sake, and almost everyone in their government were also. We will have so many allies if they turn into communism again. Maybe even China, it's possible because we trade with them so much.

Thats what I've been saying all along.
Do you honestly believe that an invasion of Alaska would deplete Russia's army?
Granted,they don't have the grandest army in the world by no means. But really.

Yes it would deplete Russia's army, when the entire world goes up in a mushroom cloud

Their economy,since Putin has been in power,has increased yearly by 7%,So I'm sure financial woes are eased as well.

The economy is at least six times smaller than that of Portugal for a much larger nation with many more people. Theres no way in hell

And capacity? If Putin wanted to invade the United States,he would find the capacity. He would allocate forces and equipment and he would invade.
Apparently Comrade,you think that the Russians are like the middle easterners and live in the stone age of warfare. Which is not the case.

No. They live in a world where they would be almost immidiantley invaded by the EU. I can assure you, the EU likes us much more than it likes Russia. And we also live in a world where we have 70,000+ troops very, very close to Russia. (In South Korea and Japan). In addition to that, we have the national guard. And we also have Canada. I can guarantee you Canadians would much rather have the U.S. in Alaska than Canada.
We have over a million men in the continental U.S. We have about 90,000 men in Europe. This is compared to Russia's grand (drum roll please) 400,000 men total. They would have to completley deplete their forces to stand a chance at invading Alaska, which would then leave them open to invasion from our soildiers abroad. They don't stand a chance in hell

Don't blame Bush. I knew this fucking communist would turn Russia into the Soviet Union again..Me and my brother predicted it would happen in 2008, and it's almost happening! If you want to blame Bush, blame congress. Putin was in the damn KGB for christ sake, and almost everyone in their government were also. We will have so many allies if they turn into communism again. Maybe even China, it's possible because we trade with them so much.

How is it the fault of Congress?

The U.S. is fucked when they have to fight a war in their own land... Let's do it!

I'm with you, Comrade Anti Neo-Cons B en H
If we somehow make so the Liberalist attacks the Neo-Cons, make a rise again to the cynical left organizations, and the Superpower country engulfed in the civil war, we can invade that land after the winner has been made!

Why we invade after the civil war over? To make them not united againts us, of course...!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7234817.stm

In a sense, I have to congratulate Mr. Putin. While I oppose war, as it is the health of the state, Boris Yeltsin's pandering to Western interests did a great deal of harm to Russia, and someone has to stand up against the US Federal government before they end up controlling everything.
Well, we broke them last time in the arms race. But that was a communist USSR that couldn't plan and just didn't have the means to support the effort. I don't think Putin has learned enough of the lessons of capitalism to fund a substantial arms buildup.

If we start seeing them spending large percentages of their GDP on arms again, we'll know we've beaten them yet a second time.

I suspect this is more about internal Russian politics than anything else. Not unlike an American President due for re-election promising to get tough on 'evil countries' or somesuch nonsense.

I suspect this is more about internal Russian politics than anything else. Not unlike an American President due for re-election promising to get tough on 'evil countries' or somesuch nonsense.And look what good that did for the world... :rolleyes:

The problem however is that the United States has never been successfully invaded.


The British did a good job of burning down Washington some two odd centuries ago I believe.


Do you firmly think that Putin would survive something like that? I mean...look at the fighting that occured in Afghanistan. We can make that far far worse on our own soil.

Bollocks. Afghanistan's territory and environment is harsh. Even before the Soviets showed up, there were tribes and small warlord like groups running the outer reaches of the territory beyond the cities. If there were any soft Afghani's, they were very, very, very, few. Hardship and banditries were facts of life then.

America? America has got a fairly high rate of obese people, and most people are soft, what with never actually undergoing anything even close to the hardships the average Afghani underwent. Those living in the poor or crime ridden districts come close though.

Having guns or being born in a militarily strong country doesn't automatically make you some kind of battle hardened guerrilla group.

Putting aside logistics, if Russia actually successfully took cities in the US and promised the inhabitants Chechnya style treatment for resisting, you can bet your last dime most people wouldn't resist.

If people can willingly stand by and let people die right in front of their eyes, unsurprisingly common, what makes you think they'd stand up and fight?

The British did a good job of burning down Washington some two odd centuries ago I believe.

Noticed I said successfully invaded.

If people can willingly stand by and let people die right in front of their eyes, unsurprisingly common, what makes you think they'd stand up and fight?

Because we value freedom and if any nation comes here, they are going to have to contend with it NAS. There will be a resistence movement and I am willing to bet a pretty strong one to.

Noticed I said successfully invaded.

Unless Washington DC belonged to, I don't know, maybe Mexico, at the time of the burning, British forces did enter, take, hold and raze Washington, which was part of their objectives. I would say that constitutes a successful invasion. American style. Come in, break things, go home.


Because we value freedom and if any nation comes here, they are going to have to contend with it NAS. There will be a resistence movement and I am willing to bet a pretty strong one to.

You mean the same freedom that religious fundamentalists and their representatives willingly block in the name of Jeebus almighty? Like equal rights, or heck, acknowledgment that non-Christians or those with different sexual orientations are human.

Or how about the freedom of speech? That's a good one, especially those who rant about how any critic of the American government is a traitor to America and should leave or be shot.

All Russia has to do is to promise to round up gays, non-Christians, liberals, hippies, democrats and a significant portion of the conquered populace would fall head over heels to help them.

Americans, in the generally vocal crowd, don't love freedom. They want oppression.

No, I lie. They love freedom. For themselves. To oppress their fellow Americans.

You can try to deny it of course, but America's historical, and current, societal movements provide plenty of blips to feed exploitable bigotry and hatred.

Oh, and I note that you said nothing about the average softness of Americans when it comes to hardship. Shall I take that as an agreement?

good or evil?

Unless Washington DC belonged to, I don't know, maybe Mexico, at the time of the burning, British forces did enter, take, hold and raze Washington, which was part of their objectives. I would say that constitutes a successful invasion. American style. Come in, break things, go home.
This is very true


You mean the same freedom that religious fundamentalists and their representatives willingly block in the name of Jeebus almighty? Like equal rights, or heck, acknowledgment that non-Christians or those with different sexual orientations are human.

Or how about the freedom of speech? That's a good one, especially those who rant about how any critic of the American government is a traitor to America and should leave or be shot.

All Russia has to do is to promise to round up gays, non-Christians, liberals, hippies, democrats and a significant portion of the conquered populace would fall head over heels to help them.

Americans, in the generally vocal crowd, don't love freedom. They want oppression.

No, I lie. They love freedom. For themselves. To oppress their fellow Americans.

You can try to deny it of course, but America's historical, and current, societal movements provide plenty of blips to feed exploitable bigotry and hatred.

Oh, and I note that you said nothing about the average softness of Americans when it comes to hardship. Shall I take that as an agreement?

I agree with you...

Unless Washington DC belonged to, I don't know, maybe Mexico, at the time of the burning, British forces did enter, take, hold and raze Washington, which was part of their objectives. I would say that constitutes a successful invasion. American style. Come in, break things, go home.

BUT they did not successfully invade the United States. Remember they were turned back at Fort McHenry and were being defeated in the Northern Tier of the Country. In other words, the invasion of the United States ultimately failed.

Besides that, the war ended in a draw. No one won the War of 1812.

Now do you have something of more substance or are you just going to sit there and tell me that there will be no resistance movement.

So with the Cold War as good as back, who has the upper hand militarily now, short term and long term?
Will we see a resurgance in proxy wars? Or will it build up (eventually) to one large conflict?

So many questions...

When lefties speak of "diplomacy", they generally mean groveling and appeasement. When fascists speak of "diplomacy", they mean bullying. A more balanced approach is haggling.

When lefties speak of "diplomacy", they generally mean groveling and appeasement.Untrue. When I speak of "Diplomacy", I'm talking about this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_%28game%29).

When fascists speak of "diplomacy", they mean bullying.
not really. When I speak of diplomacy, I mean tricking....

BUT they did not successfully invade the United States. Remember they were turned back at Fort McHenry and were being defeated in the Northern Tier of the Country. In other words, the invasion of the United States ultimately failed.

What are you on? Invasion is the entry of one nation's army into another nation, and though it can be argued that it generally includes the objective of conquest or government toppling, they are not mandatory.

Britain wanted neither. Britain did however, make the cessation of hostilities on its terms its objectives, and the razing of Washington, even if they failed to do the same to Boston, New Orleans and one other which I can't remember the name of, accomplished said objectives.

If you want to argue semantics of what constitutes an invasion, go right ahead, but you'd be doing it alone.


Now do you have something of more substance or are you just going to sit there and tell me that there will be no resistance movement.

There was substance, but you chose to ignore it. Any American resistance movement will be rubbish compared to the Afghani resistance person for person.

Many resistance tribes in Afghanistan at the time of the Soviet occupation had long experience in the terrain, including potential hiding and ambush points, and the hardships native to the place made them accustomed to real deprivation and the prospects of messy death.

Can you say the same for the majority of Americans?

Or are you going to wrap yourself in the flag and pretend it confers magical bulletproofing, bravery and guerrilla tactics to its wearer?

Any resistance movement worth a damn will consist of veterans, national guard units, and private security firms. At best, you'd get some sporadic resistance from survivalist groups and street gangs. But that's it insofar as resistance deserving the title gets.

Putin is stirring up tensions for no other reason than to continue to solidify his power base.
Same goes for Bush.

The missile defenses put in place in Poland have nothing to do with Russia and everything to do with prevent attacks from the Middle East.

Ehm. Simple exercise.
Take the world's surface. Trace the great circle (the geodesic curve) that passes through Baghdad and New York. Then remember that Bush declined Putin's offer of placing the radars in Caucasus instead of Czech Republic.

Psst! She is confused because of Captain America!

What are you on? Invasion is the entry of one nation's army into another nation, and though it can be argued that it generally includes the objective of conquest or government toppling, they are not mandatory.

Not just army but Air Space as well. The invasion was repulsed and therefor did not succeed.

Britain wanted neither. Britain did however, make the cessation of hostilities on its terms its objectives, and the razing of Washington, even if they failed to do the same to Boston, New Orleans and one other which I can't remember the name of, accomplished said objectives.

That would be Baltimore. As I said, the invasion failed.

If you want to argue semantics of what constitutes an invasion, go right ahead, but you'd be doing it alone.

I know what an invasion is. As I said, the last invasion of the United States was in 1942. Actually it was in 1941 with the Philippines and Guam and Wake Island. They tried to invade Midway and they failed.

There was substance, but you chose to ignore it. Any American resistance movement will be rubbish compared to the Afghani resistance person for person.

You truly underestimate people. That's your perogative.

Any resistance movement worth a damn will consist of veterans, national guard units, and private security firms. At best, you'd get some sporadic resistance from survivalist groups and street gangs. But that's it insofar as resistance deserving the title gets.

As I said, you underestimate Americans. You assume this is going to be the case but you know what they say about assumptions. I'll leave you to your opinions, all of them.

An invasion fails if the invasion does not achieve its objectives. Britain's objectives were achieved.

Actually..no they were not achieved.

Not just army but Air Space as well. The invasion was repulsed and therefor did not succeed.

If the British army of the 1800s, or any army for that matter, held an airforce at the time, you might have a point. In either case, this is a general term for military application. Besides, you can't take or hold any land with just an airforce.


That would be Baltimore. As I said, the invasion failed.


An invasion fails if the invasion does not achieve its objectives. Britain's objectives were achieved.


You truly underestimate people. That's your perogative.


I think you overestimate them. Especially the kind who treat war as a faraway thing, never to bother them, and never exposed to the realities of war. And don't even try to pull out that Twin Towers crap. One bombing does not a war constitute.


As I said, you underestimate Americans. You assume this is going to be the case but you know what they say about assumptions. I'll leave you to your opinions, all of them.

I find it ironic that you argue that my assumptions are invalid, while providing your own unproven assumptions, mine at least had solid backing, that you claim are superior to mine.

I was worried for a while when you expressed approval for Obama, even if it was only over Hillary. I had wondered if I had fallen into an alternate universe. But this proves things beyond a doubt that I am here in my original reality. Thank you for reaffirming this reality, and the Corny I know.

Actually..no they were not achieved.

Revenge for the burning of York? Demoralizing American forces and politicians? Treaty of Ghent? How was that not achieved?

Revenge for the burning of York? Treaty of Ghent? How was that not achieved?

You want the Truth NAS? No one got what they wanted from the war of 1812. The only thing that the US got was the British out of their far western territory that they should have evacuated after 1783 and the British to stop harrassing their ships even though the Brits stated they would but the decision did not arrive in the US till after the US had already declared war.

The Treaty of Ghent never mentioned any point of contention that led to the war.

Treaty of Ghent? This addressed the original reasons for going to war how?

It never did.

This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 9 seconds.

Revenge for the burning of York? Demoralizing American forces and politicians? Treaty of Ghent? How was that not achieved?Treaty of Ghent? This addressed the original reasons for going to war how?

BUT they did not successfully invade the United States. Remember they were turned back at Fort McHenry and were being defeated in the Northern Tier of the Country. In other words, the invasion of the United States ultimately failed.

Besides that, the war ended in a draw. No one won the War of 1812.

Now do you have something of more substance or are you just going to sit there and tell me that there will be no resistance movement.

If your military enters a country, takes and burns down the capitol, I'd call that a successful invasion.

You want the Truth NAS? No one got what they wanted from the war of 1812. The only thing that the US got was the British out of their far western territory that they should have evacuated after 1783 and the British to stop harrassing their ships even though the Brits stated they would but the decision did not arrive in the US till after the US had already declared war.

The Treaty of Ghent never mentioned any point of contention that led to the war.

Where on earth did I say the Treaty of Ghent was what they wanted at the start of the whole mess? It was a return to status quo which following Napoleon's defeat, was what they wanted. If Napoleon had gone on undefeated for years to come, the Treaty of Ghent would never have come about.

America wanted Britain out of the way with its blockades and press gangs, and Britain wanted America to stop trading with France. With Napoleon out of the way, razing Washington DC let America know in no uncertain terms that continuing the war, much less taking Canada, would be ruinous to them.

Britain didn't need to fight America anymore, but it also needed to show America that continued fighting would have been a dumb move. The treaty of Ghent may not have mentioned it, but razing Washington cannot be denied to have had an effect in its creation.

Objectives change according to the situation.

Wow. Napoleon actually won the Napoleonic wars? The Russians successfully invaded Afghanistan?

Big difference between a successful invasion and successful occupation.

If your military enters a country, takes and burns down the capitol, I'd call that a successful invasion.Wow. Napoleon actually won the Napoleonic wars? The Russians successfully invaded Afghanistan?

Wow. Napoleon actually won the Napoleonic wars?
Nope, big difference between a successful invasion and winning a war.
The Russians successfully invaded Afghanistan?

Yes, actually they did.

Cold War II.

Thank you, Bush. :rolleyes:

It's no more just Bush's fault than it is just Woody Allen's fault. These things happen.

~ Romandeos

There were some valid points made,and some of them have shot holesin my arguments.
I forgot to think of the EU's men and the United State's dictatorship control over NATO and United Nations. If Russia invaded the United States,they would have England and Germany,Plus assorted Americans at the Russian border in the blink of an eye in Europe,they would have to pull out to defend their borders. So,I stand corrected.
However,the 400,000 troops figure is more than likely an estimation rather than factual. Do you honestly believe that a country,especially an aggressive country like Russia would allow another country to see what they have in their inventory? They may have 400,000 men definate,but I'm sure they've got quite a bit more than that. Russia has lied to America before about their military infastructure and manpower,I highly doubt they would hesitate to do it again.
Take it from me,I lived in the Soviet Union.
Now,as for the successful invasion argument.
A successful invasion is somewhat like the politics of war.
To constitute success,the invading force has to meet what it feels is success.
For example,the United States occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq,both at the moment,are failures. Because,the objective of invading was to..1 Topple the government,which was successful,and 2,quell the turmoil in the area,which has been a total disaster,regaurdless to what the media percieved as "gains". What constitutes to a victory in an invasion,is what one sets as objectives,and wether or not they achieve them.
As for the United States ever being successfully invaded? Thats what the Romans said,and look what happened to them. And in a way,America is being invaded,peacefully of course,by Illegal minorities.
Now,on to the resistance topic,I agree with both parties,but I disagree with both parties. It is true that the people in Afghanistan are die hard fighters due to where they live and what their society is like. And that it would be a bad idea to get into a knife fight with an Afghani. However,you seem to forget about the proverbial "Back woods hill-billy" That flies a tattered American flag and owns about 30 brands of different caliber shot-guns. There are about 10 Million gun owners in the United States of America,and the average weapon count per these 10 million are roughly 11(I own about 15 myself,Russian of course ;)) guns per house.
More than enough to arm that home,and their neighbores next door. I'm not saying everyone is going to take up arms,but 10M gun owners,and the army combined? I stand corrected,Russia,if they invaded,would take HEAVY casualties. My argument has been shot down.
I aplogize for the extremely long winded post,but there was alot to cover.

I forgot to think of the EU's men and the United State's dictatorship control over NATO and United Nations.

I thought that a dictatorship implied absolute power. The US didn't exactly have absolute power over the UN or NATO during the invasion of Iraq.

Wow. Napoleon actually won the Napoleonic wars? The Russians successfully invaded Afghanistan?

Nope and as to Afghanistan...

I thought that a dictatorship implied absolute power. The US didn't exactly have absolute power over the UN or NATO during the invasion of Iraq.

Logic and facts are often ignored when attacking a hated one, whether it be fundies attacking homsexuals or hippies attacking Bush and possibly the United states as a whole (because Bush is its president).

Oooh, what a coincidence...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iZnc42XeC-4PKplrnx74ylj3JSLAD8UOM8TG0
Navy Intercepts Russian Bombers

WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. fighter planes intercepted two Russian bombers, including one that buzzed an American aircraft carrier in the western Pacific during the weekend, The Associated Press has learned.

A U.S. military official says that one Russian Tupolev 95 flew directly over the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz twice, at a low altitude of about 2,000 feet, while another bomber circled about 58 miles out. The official was speaking on condition of anonymity because the reports on the flights were classified as secret.

The Saturday incident, which never escalated beyond the flyover, comes amid heightened tensions between the United States and Russia over U.S. plans for a missile defense system based in Poland and the Czech Republic.

In Moscow, the RIA Novosti news agency reported Tuesday that the head of the Russian Air Force information service, Alexander Drobyshevsky, said the Russian bombers "were carrying out their assigned flights" and in strict compliance with the international airspace rules. "We are surprised by the noise that has been raised (over the flights)," he was quoted as saying.

Such Russian encounters with U.S. ships were common during the Cold War, but have been rare since then. Russia revived the Soviet-era practice of long-range patrols by strategic bombers over the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic oceans last August.

[...]

Nope, big difference between a successful invasion and winning a war.


Yes, actually they did.You have a screwed up definition of "successful invasion".

Oooh, what a coincidence...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iZnc42XeC-4PKplrnx74ylj3JSLAD8UOM8TG0

Looks like the AeroFlot is taunting the U.S. now.
Since they're in international waters,unless there was a direct attack,theres nothing,without causing an international incident,that the U.S. could do.
It's apon us now,the 2nd Cold War.

And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7241470.stm

Basically, if the Ukraine joins NATO and deploys a missile defense shield, Russia will be even more antagonized.

And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7241470.stm

Basically, if the Ukraine joins NATO and deploys a missile defense shield, Russia will be even more antagonized.

And what is Russia going to do? Invade?

Speaking of arms races and threats... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7241470.stm)


Such a tactful move on his part.

Speaking of arms races and threats... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7241470.stm)


Such a tactful move on his part.

Well, he has to go with what he knows, and considering his background is his acting like a schoolyard bully that surprising?

Or maybe he's looking at what Dubya has done and considering it a winning style?

The U.S. should get out of Europe completely (militarily, that is) and NATO should be disbanded.

And what is Russia going to do? Invade?

No, they'll do something economic in retaliation, probably through oil and gas. The Federal Government has itself to blame for whatever suffering the American people endures because of economic retaliation by the Russians. (People suffering because of the Feds being quite common, unfortunately.)

Change 'Europe' to 'the rest of the world', and I'll agree.

I agree.

The U.S. should get out of Europe completely (militarily, that is)

Change 'Europe' to 'the rest of the world', and I'll agree.