| Author |
Message |
spartacus
Frequent Guest
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 76
|
 Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 6:10 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Regarding the AK-47, It is a top selling arm because it is cheap and reliable, and because the USSR would sell them to ANYONE, rebel, tyrant, terrorist, whomever. If they could sell to an enemy of the US, great. If they could sell to one of our friends, even better, as they felt it was an insult to us and increased Soviet prestiege.
The Ak is also designed to be used successfully by poorly trained troops, such as Soviet conscripts and third worlders. It is less likely to jam than a M-16, and much cheaper to build. BUT, it is not very accurate at all. An M-16/AR-15 is far more accurate and has much better range, but needs more care, and it costs more to make. The AK is thrown away when the barrel is shot out, but the M-16 barrel is replaceable. US troops are the best trained in the world (possibly falling second to the Israelis), and they are capable of keeping their weapons in fine order. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Vic
Talk Show Host
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 298
Location: Moscow, Russian Federation
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Terrorism is commiting violence against civilians for political purposes. |
Ummm, the United States did exactly that. There are tens of thousands of civilian casualties in the SOVREIGN NATION of Iraq. So even with your definition of the word, the United States is a terrorist nation. The fact that the United States has ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS for being there makes it even more so.
| Quote: | | The USSR supported dozens of terrorist groups to distract and harrass the free nations. All those European terrorist groups, the Bader Meinhof Gang, Red Brigade, etc. were financed by the USSR. |
Well, I never said that the USSR wasn't one. I do not support the USSR all that much either. Just that when the United States starts calling the USSR "supporters of terrorism" they are a pot calling a kettle "black". There are plenty of terrorist organisations that the United States supported against the USSR, and the other way around.
| Quote: | | Syria and Iran are also terrorist states, unless you think Hamas and Hezbolla are just Boy Scouts in different uniforms. |
Hezbolla was formed to fight the illegal Isreali occupation of Lebanon. So Isreal had no business being there at all. On the early stages, Hezbolla was focusing only on Isreali military targets (Making them NOT terrorists).
When the attacks against the Isreali occupants proved futile, they resorted to attacking the civilians. Just like what is happening in Iraq. Neither the U.S. or Isreal had any business doing anything there, so they brought it on themselves. Not saying it is right or anything, but it would not be fair if it was any other way.
| Quote: | | Who said terrorists=mulsims? You cannot win this argument on facts, so you try to put words in our mouths so you can refute them. That is dishonest. |
I am not saying that anybody said that. I just notice how most of these "terrorist" states tend to be muslim.
| Quote: | Saudi is in the process of reform. They suck human-rights wise, and we should not have played patty-cake with them for so long, but the alternative would have been imperialism to secure oil supplies.
Just keep in mind that all the head-chopper-offer type people in the world use AK-47's. That alone tells you where these guys get(got) their support. |
Well, this reform will continue for as long as the U.S. needs oil or untill Saudis stop supplying it to the U.S., right? And then they become a terrorist nation and we know the rest? The inaction of the U.S. proves who supports them right now.
| Quote: | | The AK is thrown away when the barrel is shot out, but the M-16 barrel is replaceable |
True. But the barrel replacement for an M-16 is only a little cheaper than a brand new AK-47.
| Quote: | | An M-16/AR-15 is far more accurate and has much better range, but needs more care, and it costs more to make. |
It is more accurate at longer ranges. At closer ranges they are identical. Most "meetings" occur at a close to medium range, which the AK-47 was built for. As you said, it is more practical and reliable too.
| Quote: | | US troops are the best trained in the world |
Do not know where you got that from. The fact that for every U.S. soldier killed in Iraq several (untrained or poorly trained) Iraqi resistance soldiers are killed (too bad we don't have figures about how many of them were innocent bystanders too) does not mean much. The fact that they may be well trained phycially in peace time does not help them that much when they panic in war time because they are not phychologically prepared. Everything looks good on paper. It is this attitude that is costing a certain percentage of the U.S. soldier's lives in Iraq now. They shoot at anything that moves and in many cases at their own men.
Vic |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vorteks
VIP
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 571
Location: European Union
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vic wrote: | So even with your definition of the word, the United States is a terrorist nation.
|
War is the terrorism of the strong, terrorism the war of weak. Partisans during WW2 were called terrorists by nazis. Imposing your values to foreign cultures by force can legitimately be regarded as terrorism, but is more usually called imperialism, be it in Iraq, Chechnya or Afganistan.
Last edited by vorteks on Fri May 13, 2005 8:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
e
VIP
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 654
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Terrorism is commiting violence against civilians for political purposes. |
The correct definition of terrorism is: threatened use of violence for the purpose of creating fear in order to achieve a political, religious, or ideological goal. Under the second definition, the targets of terrorist acts can be anyone, including civilians, government officials, military personnel, or people serving the interests of governments.
Most terror attacks in the world, particulary in Israel are towards the military and government.
About Hezbollah:
| Quote: | is a political and military organization in Lebanon founded in 1982 to fight Israel in southern Lebanon. It is regarded by the Arab and Muslim world, and by some European Union countries, as a legitimate, militant, Shia political party in Lebanon, and by the Israeli government and several Western governments as an Islamic fundamentalist, or Islamist, terrorist organization.
The organization was conceived in 1982 as a guerrilla group, started by Lebanese clerics and financed by Iran, to oppose the 1982 Israeli invasion and subsequent occupation of southern Lebanon. |
More on the web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah
| Quote: | | Bush cannot force Putin to do anything, so he has to be gentle and that means making the hardest pushes behind the scenes, while allowing Putin to save face. Bush did get pretty tough on the fact that the end of WWII marked the beginning of Soviet occupation of much of Europe, |
I disagree. They just agree to disagree. Bush genuinely likes and is very close to Putin and the U.S. finds Russia as a respectful partner convinient to its interests. Therefore, they aren't going to be "pushing" anyone.
An example: The UK maintains normal political and economic relations with the "axis of evil" (Iran, N. Korea) as well as Cuba. Does the US agree with that? No. Is the US pushing the UK to change its mind? No.
| Quote: | | the bad guys take advantage of it |
LOL! Bad guys? The world isn't an action movie spartacus.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vorteks
VIP
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
Posts: 571
Location: European Union
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| e wrote: |
LOL! Bad guys? The world isn't an action movie spartacus. |
But but but, our Holy Leader, George the Second, in name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, claimed there was an Axis of Evil. You CAN T deny Evil, it s like denying god, you unfaithful unbeliever!!!!! You can t deny it, I saw it on TV!!!
Feels Spartacus world just fell apart... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
deskware7
Frequent Guest
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 67
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spartacus wrote: | | Regarding the AK-47, It is a top selling arm because it is cheap and reliable It is less likely to jam than a M-16, and much cheaper to build. |
I have heard, you can load a clip in a AK-47, chamber a round and then bury the gun in mud for a week. Dig it up and the gun will fire as if it were clean. Don't know if it is true, but that is the reliability reputation the AK-47 has. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vic
Talk Show Host
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 298
Location: Moscow, Russian Federation
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| deskware7 wrote: |
I have heard, you can load a clip in a AK-47, chamber a round and then bury the gun in mud for a week. Dig it up and the gun will fire as if it were clean. Don't know if it is true, but that is the reliability reputation the AK-47 has. |
Hmmm, next time I am down in Abkhazia I should ask somebody to bury their AK in the mud for a week I do believe it since I have heard that it works after being stored underwater for some time  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spartacus
Frequent Guest
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 76
|
| Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vic wrote: | | Quote: | | Terrorism is commiting violence against civilians for political purposes. |
Ummm, the United States did exactly that. There are tens of thousands of civilian casualties in the SOVREIGN NATION of Iraq. So even with your definition of the word, the United States is a terrorist nation. The fact that the United States has ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS for being there makes it even more so.
Hezbolla was formed to fight the illegal Isreali occupation of Lebanon. So Isreal had no business being there at all. On the early stages, Hezbolla was focusing only on Isreali military targets (Making them NOT terrorists).
When the attacks against the Isreali occupants proved futile, they resorted to attacking the civilians. Just like what is happening in Iraq. Neither the U.S. or Isreal had any business doing anything there, so they brought it on themselves. Not saying it is right or anything, but it would not be fair if it was any other way.
| Quote: | | US troops are the best trained in the world |
Do not know where you got that from. The fact that for every U.S. soldier killed in Iraq several (untrained or poorly trained) Iraqi resistance soldiers are killed (too bad we don't have figures about how many of them were innocent bystanders too) does not mean much. The fact that they may be well trained phycially in peace time does not help them that much when they panic in war time because they are not phychologically prepared. Everything looks good on paper. It is this attitude that is costing a certain percentage of the U.S. soldier's lives in Iraq now. They shoot at anything that moves and in many cases at their own men.
Vic |
You are sadly ignorant of the facts.
First off, Saddam violated the cease fire agreement from the last war. He was shooting at UN planes that were patrolling, among other things.That is indisputable, and alone is plenty of reason for us to be there. How can you not know this?
There are not "tens of thousands" of Iraqi civilian casualties. As of 1 year ago there were about 15,000 Iraqi civilian casualties. Seeing as how over 10,000 Iraqi's were tortured and killed by Saddam's forces each year, we did pretty good. One reason why there is so much trouble now is that we did not go in trying to kill as many men as possible, which is usually what happens in a war.
Israel occupied Lebanon after Muslims took it over and used it as a base for attacking Israel. That makes it a legitimate target in anyone's book.
Where are you hearing about US Soldiers having panic attacks? We whiped Saddam's butt in record time. Look at Blackhawk down, we killed almost 2,000 Somolians and only lost 18 men. I never said well trained physically, I mean well trained in all respects. No military tops us in training, except maybe the Isreali's, but then they fight every day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
e
VIP
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 654
|
| Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | First off, Saddam violated the cease fire agreement from the last war. He was shooting at UN planes that were patrolling, among other things.That is indisputable, and alone is plenty of reason for us to be there. How can you not know this? |
You mean US, UK, French planes right. The UN never officially endorsed the no-fly zone, nor did it sanction the fly-over of US and UK planes over Iraqi territory. The UN has real no air-fleet either as no UN planes ever flew near Iraq.
| Quote: | | Israel occupied Lebanon after Muslims took it over and used it as a base for attacking Israel. That makes it a legitimate target in anyone's book. |
Acutally Lebanon was in civil war due to the fact that Muslims attacked the Chrisitan government and each other. Israel illegally invaded to go after the PLO which was based in Lebanon. Both sides began to meddle in the civil war just to gain the upper hand on each other (Israel and PLO). Israel most notriously, arming Chrisitan militias to commit genocide.
| Quote: | | Look at Blackhawk down, we killed almost 2,000 Somolians and only lost 18 men. I never said well trained physically, |
It seems to me that your history and your sense of the world seems to be based off of action movies. It was 23 U.S. killed in Somalia. The ending credits of that movie didn't point that the US lost. It completely withdrew from Somalia while the warlord it was after continued to rule and the civil war continued.
| Quote: | | Where are you hearing about US Soldiers having panic attacks? |
He means friendly fire:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire
| Quote: | Rightly so, the armed forces of the US are widely believed to be more prone to friendly fire incidents than the military of other nations. The Pentagon estimates of US friendly fire deaths are:
* WW II: 21,000 (16%)
o highest-ranking US loss of the war, Lieutenant General Lesley J. McNair
o Sinking of the Surcouf by US planes
* Vietnam war: 8,000 (14%)
* Gulf War: 35 (23%)
* Afghanistan (2002): 4 (13%)
|
I'm pretty sure that once the figures for Iraq come out that more were killed by friendly fire than from the enemy. 95% causes of friendly fire are panicky soldiers that shoot at anything, because as Vic mentioned, they aren't psycholocially trained to deal with it.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spartacus
Frequent Guest
Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Posts: 76
|
| Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
The soldiers didn't didn't lose Somalia, that chiskenshit liberal Bill Clinton pulled troops out. The US army does not lose wars, our 5th columnists in the media and Democrat politicians lose them.
As far as friendly fire accidents go, what evidence do you have that it was due to panic? Often people assume that if they would act a certain way (in this case panic) that everyone else would too. Freindly fire accidents are usually due to a breakdown in communications, ie a unit moves forward and not everyone in the theater knows about it. Much of that is unavoidable.
The US and UK planes were enforcing the no fly zones per the cease fire treaty that Iraq signed with the UN, therefore these planes were on UN missions, making them UN forces at that time.
No educated person can honestly compare civilian casualties in Iraq to what terrorists do, and no one but a fool or a liar can excuse the PLO, Hamas or Hezbolla for what they do. The Israelis are suurounded by murderous muslim nutcases who have sworn to kill all jews. If they need to kick some ass to defend themselves, so be it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
e
VIP
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 654
|
| Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The soldiers didn't didn't lose Somalia, that chiskenshit liberal Bill Clinton pulled troops out. |
I would think that pulling troops out after a major war after major loses while the "bad guys" who they went in after are still in power would characterize as a loss.
| Quote: | | The US army does not lose wars, our 5th columnists in the media and Democrat politicians lose them |
In your twisted little world of Hollywood & right-wing talk radio, i'm sure they dont.  Real life is not a war movie and the hero does not always survive to look sexy and get the girl in the final scene. There will no hard rock music playing in the background.
| Quote: | | As far as friendly fire accidents go, what evidence do you have that it was due to panic? Often people assume that if they would act a certain way (in this case panic) that everyone else would too. Freindly fire accidents are usually due to a breakdown in communications, ie a unit moves forward and not everyone in the theater knows about it. Much of that is unavoidable. |
Here you go: http://www.moqawama.tv/mil_oper/f_fire.htm
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DD1E.htm
http://ambivablog.typepad.com/ambivablog/2004/12/courage_under_f.htm
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/Shrader/shrader.aspl
| Quote: | In the past, a soldier's sense of being part of a broader mission would have helped to suppress his individual fears and antagonisms. The notion that they were fighting for something bigger than themselves, for some national or moral good, helped to create a sense of solidarity among allied forces, even while those allied forces were killing one another in blunders and 'judgements of error'. Now, in the absence of a cohering mission or definable war aim, tension among troops can easily come to the fore.
The focus on friendly fire doesn't just come from fearful troops on the ground; it is encouraged by the military authorities themselve |
| Quote: | | The US and UK planes were enforcing the no fly zones per the cease fire treaty that Iraq signed with the UN, therefore these planes were on UN missions, making them UN forces at that time. |
The United States and Britain argued that the patrols were authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 687-688, adopted April 5, 1991. The text "condemns the repression of the Iraqi civilian population in many parts of Iraq", but does not specifically mention no-fly zones. The UN security council never approved of such a thing. The US has never and will never act under UN command. People like you would never support it.
Read it yourself and tell me where does it say "creating a no-fly zone": http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/200303UNRes688.asp
http://www.fas.org/news/un/iraq/sres/sres0687.htm
| Quote: | | No educated person can honestly compare civilian casualties in Iraq to what terrorists do, and no one but a fool or a liar can excuse the PLO, Hamas or Hezbolla for what they do. The Israelis are suurounded by murderous muslim nutcases who have sworn to kill all jews. If they need to kick some ass to defend themselves, so be it. |
I don't recall anyone excusing any of those groups but we are correcting you on the lie that concocted for yourself on events there and the need for Israel to "kick some ass" as if they were headed for a football game. The testosterone flows freely in you. We're not talking about a video game or a miniseries here. It's not going to be exciting, entertaining, nor particularly fun to watch. Repeat after me: real life is not a war movie and the hero does not always survive to look sexy and get the girl in the final scene. There will be no hard rock music playing in the background.
Enough of this! What does any of this have to do with Russia or Putin? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Vic
Talk Show Host
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 298
Location: Moscow, Russian Federation
|
| Posted: Sat May 14, 2005 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow. This is getting interesting.
| Quote: | You are sadly ignorant of the facts.
First off, Saddam violated the cease fire agreement from the last war. He was shooting at UN planes that were patrolling, among other things.That is indisputable, and alone is plenty of reason for us to be there. How can you not know this?
|
He was shooting down aircraft that violated sovreign Iraqi airspace. They had every right to do this. As stated in the declaration posted below, there is no mention of a "no fly zone"
| Quote: | | There are not "tens of thousands" of Iraqi civilian casualties. As of 1 year ago there were about 15,000 Iraqi civilian casualties. Seeing as how over 10,000 Iraqi's were tortured and killed by Saddam's forces each year, we did pretty good. One reason why there is so much trouble now is that we did not go in trying to kill as many men as possible, which is usually what happens in a war. |
I do no trust any figures that the U.S. gives out after their recent actions. They are guesstimates, just like the figures of Saddam. The undisputable fact is that with Saddam, life there was much better.
| Quote: | | Where are you hearing about US Soldiers having panic attacks? We whiped Saddam's butt in record time. Look at Blackhawk down, we killed almost 2,000 Somolians and only lost 18 men. I never said well trained physically, I mean well trained in all respects. No military tops us in training, except maybe the Isreali's, but then they fight every day |
Yeah, you didn't whip anyone's butt. His army was surrendering by the truckloads because they did not want to fight FOR Saddam, but many of them are fighting you now. Great comparison too! Somalian teenagers that are using an AK47 for the first time in their life and are going against a regular army! Just wonderfull! You should also consider how many of those Somalians were unarmed and bystanders? Also, please do prove that "no military tops you in training". I mean - in the field, not on paper.
| Quote: | | No educated person can honestly compare civilian casualties in Iraq to what terrorists do, and no one but a fool or a liar can excuse the PLO, Hamas or Hezbolla for what they do. The Israelis are suurounded by murderous muslim nutcases who have sworn to kill all jews. If they need to kick some ass to defend themselves, so be it. |
No educated person can excuse the United States for what they are doing either. "Murderous muslim nutcases" only become murderous when a state that was formed several decades ago (taking some of their land that they lived on for a thousand years) and start playing god in the region. They should just lay low and shut up, give Palestine independance (and be happy that they are only giving that part of it, technically all of Isreal IS Palestine) and not interfere in the actions of foreign states.
Maybe Isreal is "more civilised" than their Muslim neighbours, but we have no right to judge them.
| Quote: | The US army does not lose wars, our 5th columnists in the media and Democrat politicians lose them.
|
Vietnam? North Korea? And now Iraq? Or was that all the democrat's fault too? In the last half century, the only war that you won was the Gulf War - and that was a coalition effort. I am not talking about armed conflicts against a couple civilians with machine guns going against a regular army, although the U.S. has a habbit of loosing alot of those too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mister_wizzz
VIP
Joined: 27 May 2004
Posts: 582
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I do no trust any figures that the U.S. gives out after their recent actions. They are guesstimates, just like the figures of Saddam. The undisputable fact is that with Saddam, life there was much better.
|
I also don't trust informations coming from US headquarters but saying life was undisputable better with Sadam than now is not a very responsible conclusion. Did you live yourself in Iraq before the war and now are you living there ? Better ask to Iraqi people to know, you don't think so ?
BTW I am sure Kurdes are living probably better now without the fear of being gazed.
| Quote: |
Yeah, you didn't whip anyone's butt. His army was surrendering by the truckloads because they did not want to fight FOR Saddam, but many of them are fighting you now. Great comparison too! Somalian teenagers that are using an AK47 for the first time in their life and are going against a regular army! Just wonderfull! You should also consider how many of those Somalians were unarmed and bystanders? Also, please do prove that "no military tops you in training". I mean - in the field, not on paper.
|
Probably Iraqi soldier didn't want to die for Sadam but Iraqi army had absolutly no chance in front of the US war machine. Iraq was alone and no jungle to hide in like in vietnam.
About Somalia, Clinton probably didn't want to lose too many soldiers, it's a poor country, no strategic position, no oil ... US came for a humanitarian purpose and also to arrest some local war leader who are simply criminals but people didn't welcome US like liberators so US simply did not insist, why help people who do not want ?
| Quote: |
No educated person can excuse the United States for what they are doing either. "Murderous muslim nutcases" only become murderous when a state that was formed several decades ago (taking some of their land that they lived on for a thousand years) and start playing god in the region. They should just lay low and shut up, give Palestine independance (and be happy that they are only giving that part of it, technically all of Isreal IS Palestine) and not interfere in the actions of foreign states.
Maybe Isreal is "more civilised" than their Muslim neighbours, but we have no right to judge them.
|
Situation is much more complex, it is not evil USA against courageous Iraqi people. USA did this war unfortunatly, it was a big mistake but if they leave now Iraq would fall into a civil war, BTW it is the case but without US troops it would be worse. The majority of attacks and bombings targeted Iraqi themselves, it is a war between Sunnite minority against Chiite majority.
| Quote: |
Vietnam? North Korea? And now Iraq? Or was that all the democrat's fault too? In the last half century, the only war that you won was the Gulf War - and that was a coalition effort. I am not talking about armed conflicts against a couple civilians with machine guns going against a regular army, although the U.S. has a habbit of loosing alot of those too. |
Vic you make me laugh, agree when you say US soldiers are cowboys and they usually shoot before thinking but US army is full of power it is undeniable. Now there is no army in the world who could compete with USA. You wondered what could happen about an armed conflict between US army and a regular Army ? Well, you had the answer with Balkan war, yougoslavian army gave up after few weeks of bombing, US didn't even use terrestrian troops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
e
VIP
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 654
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | but saying life was undisputable better with Sadam than now is not a very responsible conclusion. Did you live yourself in Iraq before the war and now are you living there ? Better ask to Iraqi people to know, you don't think so ?
BTW I am sure Kurdes are living probably better now without the fear of being gazed. |
Wanna bet? Read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4543997.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/post_saddam_iraq/html/6.stm
An excerpt from the article:
| Quote: | In some areas, the situation has worsened dramatically since the fall of the regime.
Iraqis living in Baghdad, for example, now only have about ten hours of electricity each day, half of what they enjoyed in 2003.
Mr Aktouf said it could take up to ten years to restore standards of living. |
BTW, Kurdish saftety has been a given since the enforcement of the No-fly zones. Now that the saftey zones are gone, this article will tell, the Kurds are in danger just like everyone else:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4514957.stm
| Quote: | | Probably Iraqi soldier didn't want to die for Sadam but Iraqi army had absolutly no chance in front of the US war machine. Iraq was alone and no jungle to hide in like in vietnam. |
LOL jungle to hide in?!? BTW, you are playing semantics, that isn't what Vic said. Re-read what vic posted:
| Quote: | | His army was surrendering by the truckloads because they did not want to fight FOR Saddam, but many of them are fighting you now. |
As Vic mentioned, rather than fight under Saddam with his poor military tactics, under the threat of death, and for a lost cause, they are fighting US troops now under their terms, their ideology, and better armed and funded.
| Quote: | | About Somalia, Clinton probably didn't want to lose too many soldiers, it's a poor country, no strategic position, no oil ... US came for a humanitarian purpose and also to arrest some local war leader who are simply criminals but people didn't welcome US like liberators so US simply did not insist, why help people who do not want ? |
Again with the twisty "logic" and the semantics. We aren't discussing Somalia. Somalia was only mootly mentioned by Spatacus whose "logic" is that "whiny liberals" are the reason why the US pull out of wars and Somalia, not because it was for money or humanitarian reasons for which we debunked him. Re-read the original post Whizz. BTW the reasons for the pull out had more to do with Clinton fearing that his approval ratings would slip and that the action would become unpopular as it was going to be.
| Quote: | | Well, you had the answer with Balkan war, yougoslavian army gave up after few weeks of bombing, US didn't even use terrestrian troops. |
The Serbian army and Serbia was already greatly weakened by 10 years of civil war not to mention previous allied air strikes against it in 1993-1995. If the Bosnians or the Kosovars had enough strength they would've been able to beat the Serbians back by themselves. Anyone could've at the time.
| Quote: | | US army is full of power it is undeniable. |
If it is full of power why is it that it can't beat a bunch of poor Somalian/Korean/Vietnamese/Iraqi conscripts with AK-47s? Why is it that in the last 50 years it has only attacked poorer and weaker countries, and in the instances of the affromentioned countries, can't seem to beat them as easily as they should?
And why are we discussing this in a Putin thread in a Russian message board? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jutrzenkapolska
VIP
Joined: 16 Sep 2004
Posts: 534
|
| Posted: Sun May 15, 2005 3:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
And why are we discussing this in a Putin thread in a Russian message board?[/quote]
Welcome to the Talk Lounge.  The title's a misnomer; this is a Russian message board in name only.I say we rename it to something more appropriate, like Way to the USA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
