Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 86

Thread: Does the world seem really screwed up at the moment?

  1. #31
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I blame nobody in particular but all of you over 50 in general. You let it slip, rested on your no doubt well deserved laurels. Nothing ends that easy.

    We'll sort it.
    Rested on our laurels? We destroyed the last major Russian ally in Eastern Europe. What more did you want?
    Chimo

  2. #32
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Rested on our laurels? We destroyed the last major Russian ally in Eastern Europe. What more did you want?
    Certainly Sir and credit is due and forthcoming from me at least for your long vigilance. My point is that when the objective seemed done we effectively lost the peace, allowing more and more corruption in our own systems to the point where politics has no connection with everyday people; we studied our tummy buttons - particularly in Europe - in the hope/belief that it was the 'end of history' and other rubbish and glorious new EU would solve all, it can't and if anything it is a hindrance. History never ends and the maintenance of liberty requires unceasing vigilance; packing up and going home is never an option but it was believed we could. I am not blaming the Cold War warriors as much as the politicians but in truth we are all to blame. I mean it is either stupidity or false to act as if the whole Russo - Ukrainian thing came as surprise but this is only latest of recent failures. Certainly my criticism is directed more toward European nations, not least my own, more than American but the malaise was general.

    With regard to Russia in particular I repeat the Bukovsky argument that a form of Nuremberg Trial was required to show the Russian people the depth of the deceptions they had been living under so long - to chart the millions who died in the gulags and the abuses of the KGB. It was never happened - the criminals escaped and you wonder why they are in charge now?
    Last edited by snapper; 02 Aug 14, at 06:32.

  3. #33
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Certainly Sir and credit is due and forthcoming from me at least for your long vigilance. My point is that when the objective seemed done we effectively lost the peace,
    Peace? NATO has seen more war after the Cold War ended than all of the Cold War itself. And I'm talking official NATO missions, not the Coalitions that were used to smash Saddam out of Kuwait and to try to rescue Somalia.

    What peace? We were so in awe of our military dominance that we went on a conquering spree. We dared to destroy the last remaining Russian ally in Eastern Europe ... and that was AFTER the Cold War ended.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    allowing more and more corruption in our own systems to the point where politics has no connection with everyday people; we studied our tummy buttons - particularly in Europe - in the hope/belief that it was the 'end of history' and other rubbish and glorious new EU would solve all, it can't and if anything it is a hindrance.
    I say your politicians, and mine, staying out of the Iraq War (at least officially) was very well in contact with everyday people.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    History never ends and the maintenance of liberty requires unceasing vigilance; packing up and going home is never an option but it was believed we could. I am not blaming the Cold War warriors as much as the politicians but in truth we are all to blame. I mean it is either stupidity or false to act as if the whole Russo - Ukrainian thing came as surprise but this is only latest of recent failures. Certainly my criticism is directed more toward European nations, not least my own, more than American but the malaise was general.
    We were looking in the wrong direction but that most certainly does not mean that we've became fat and lazy. The Russians couldn't do what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq (the Soviets could have but not today's Russians) and find me a Russian General who relishes a fight with American Brigade Combat Teams being recceed and flanked by Canadian and British Mechanized Brigade Groups while enjoying F-22 and F-35 air arrogance.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    With regard to Russia in particular I repeat the Bukovsky argument that a form of Nuremberg Trial was required to show the Russian people the depth of the deceptions they had been living under so long - to chart the millions who died in the gulags and the abuses of the KGB. It was never happened - the criminals escaped and you wonder why they are in charge now?
    It's one thing to forget history. It is most certainly disastrous to recall things that never existed. You mean to tell me that you wanted us to march all the way to Moscow after the Kosovo War? You wanted us to liberate the former USSR?

    I have news for you. The Ukrainians, Georgians, Belarousians as well as the Russians would have fought us tooth and nail. The Serbs were their brothers and we just clobbered them. You actually think they would have welcome us with open arms?

    Wake up. The Ukraines ain't our fight. We're the cheerleaders but that fight is totally for the Ukraines to win or lose. I ain't going to risk one soldier for a country who was ready to kill us less 20 years ago.
    Chimo

  4. #34
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    What peace? We were so in awe of our military dominance that we went on a conquering spree. We dared to destroy the last remaining Russian ally in Eastern Europe ... and that was AFTER the Cold War ended.

    I say your politicians, and mine, staying out of the Iraq War (at least officially) was very well in contact with everyday people.
    I recall British troops in Basra and Tony Blair telling us that Iraqi WMD could reach Britain in 45mins having "sexed up" the intelligence report but I would agree with your terminology of a 'conquering spree'; the problem was that it was almost entirely misguided. When you speak of 'destroying the last remaining Russian ally in Eastern Europe' I presume you mean Serbia and though I agree the Milosovic regime was dangerous and abhorrent as a Slav and a Christian I have to question the enfeeblement of Serbia at the expense of a Greater Muslim Albania - now a great recruiting ground for ISIS etc. Look where this misguided 'conquering spree' has got us.

    But it is more than this - I mean going into Iraq and removing Saddam was not in itself a bad thing to do - nor was removing Gaddafi. The problem is the lack of understanding that if you are to fundamentally change a nation or a people you have to stay the course; it cannot be an 'in-out'. The US rejects Empire and the idea is unfashionable you have to stay and prove your methods of Government, your investment in infrastructure, your judicial system etc etc better for the average Joe than those they previously had - history proves this. The 'in-out', change the regime and hope they sort it out method leaves chaos and resentment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    We were looking in the wrong direction but that most certainly does not mean that we've became fat and lazy. The Russians couldn't do what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq (the Soviets could have but not today's Russians) and find me a Russian General who relishes a fight with American Brigade Combat Teams being recceed and flanked by Canadian and British Mechanized Brigade Groups while enjoying F-22 and F-35 air arrogance.
    Not all of us were looking in the wrong direction but that's beside the point now and I am sure they do not relish the prospect but let's face it - it ain't gonna happen. The Russians have broken the INF Treaty precisely because they the possibility of defeat in a conventional war though. I would welcome your opinion of Tom Nichols article here on this topic;The INF Treaty and Russia

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    It's one thing to forget history. It is most certainly disastrous to recall things that never existed. You mean to tell me that you wanted us to march all the way to Moscow after the Kosovo War? You wanted us to liberate the former USSR?
    No Sir nor was the march on Moscow needed, merely making the opening up of trade and other avenues conditional on real reform. Only the smallest pressure was needed to convince Yeltsin to do in mid 1990s.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Wake up. The Ukraines ain't our fight. We're the cheerleaders but that fight is totally for the Ukraines to win or lose. I ain't going to risk one soldier for a country who was ready to kill us less 20 years ago.
    So would you send troops to Eastern Germany, Poland or Romania? Didn't they want to kill us not too long ago? This is in my view a grave strategic error and I pray that longer term it does not cost us more lives in the future than an armored Brigade or two deployed now on the Dniepr may avert. With respect Sir it is not about what was the case 20 years but what might be in the next few years.
    Last edited by snapper; 02 Aug 14, at 12:43.

  5. #35
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I recall British troops in Basra and Tony Blair telling us that Iraqi WMD could reach Britain in 45mins having "sexed up" the intelligence report but I would agree with your terminology of a 'conquering spree'; the problem was that it was almost entirely misguided.
    Your eval is wrong. Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr and used fake WMDs to deter attack while keeping real WMD programs dormant. The intent and the capability was always there. The oppertunity to execute was not.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    When you speak of 'destroying the last remaining Russian ally in Eastern Europe' I presume you mean Serbia and though I agree the Milosovic regime was dangerous and abhorrent as a Slav and a Christian I have to question the enfeeblement of Serbia at the expense of a Greater Muslim Albania - now a great recruiting ground for ISIS etc. Look where this misguided 'conquering spree' has got us.
    Whoopee Doo. So we've got a bunch of mercs looking for work. When was that ever new?

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    But it is more than this - I mean going into Iraq and removing Saddam was not in itself a bad thing to do - nor was removing Gaddafi.
    It was a strategic imperative.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    The problem is the lack of understanding that if you are to fundamentally change a nation or a people you have to stay the course; it cannot be an 'in-out'. The US rejects Empire and the idea is unfashionable you have to stay and prove your methods of Government, your investment in infrastructure, your judicial system etc etc better for the average Joe than those they previously had - history proves this. The 'in-out', change the regime and hope they sort it out method leaves chaos and resentment.
    Oh horse puckey! The Romans, Eygptians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, and Mongols, and the Brits have all tried for 100s of years. Fuck up countries will remain fuck up countries no matter how many civilized centurians you put in.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Not all of us were looking in the wrong direction but that's beside the point now and I am sure they do not relish the prospect but let's face it - it ain't gonna happen.
    Says who? You?

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    The Russians have broken the INF Treaty
    No. They have not.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    precisely because they the possibility of defeat in a conventional war though. I would welcome your opinion of Tom Nichols article here on this topic;The INF Treaty and Russia
    Horse puckey!

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    No Sir nor was the march on Moscow needed, merely making the opening up of trade and other avenues conditional on real reform.
    You mean like we did to China after Tiennamen? Yeah, how did that work out for us? We stop buying their toys and what did they do? They lower their prices.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Only the smallest pressure was needed to convince Yeltsin to do in mid 1990s.
    Yelstin couldn't get out of bed sober.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    So would you send troops to Eastern Germany, Poland or Romania? Didn't they want to kill us not too long ago? This is in my view a grave strategic error and I pray that longer term it does not cost us more lives in the future than an armored Brigade or two deployed now on the Dniepr may avert. With respect Sir it is not about what was the case 20 years but what might be in the next few years.
    And those countries jump through hoops to join us and in the case of Romania, they shot their commies. The Ukraines kept electing theirs.
    Chimo

  6. #36
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,368
    Snapper,

    Please accept my apology for my tone the other day...those are my beliefs but I did not need to express them in such an unprofessional manner.

    But as far as your comment regarding the former Warsaw Pact...the Ostties were the Germans problem. The biggest problem we figured about the Poles, Romanians and Hungarians was could we keep them supplied as we counterattacked eastward with them as allies.
    “We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God… Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass – a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a day’s heat, fell dusty.”
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  7. #37
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Your eval is wrong. Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr and used fake WMDs to deter attack while keeping real WMD programs dormant. The intent and the capability was always there. The oppertunity to execute was not.
    My point was that at least the British politicians were not quite as wise as you previously said. Intelligence reports were deliberately 'sexed up' for political purposes and this is wisdom?

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Whoopee Doo. So we've got a bunch of mercs looking for work. When was that ever new?
    There is a difference between a 'bunch of mercs' and a bunch of fundamentalist Jihadis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Oh horse puckey! The Romans, Eygptians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, and Mongols, and the Brits have all tried for 100s of years. Fuck up countries will remain fuck up countries no matter how many civilized centurians you put in.
    Gaul was 'barbaric' before Caesar and Mesopotamia was 'civilised' when before the foundations of Rome were layed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Says who? You?
    Certainly I have been one but many others have watched and said the same. The catalogue of cases from Abkazia and South Ossetia to Ryazan and Beslan and the murders from Litvinenko to Anna Politkovskaya and others, the 'gas war' strategy from Georgia to North Stream which the then Polish Defence Minister called the 'Molotov - Ribbentrop pipeline'... You do not need to be mastermind to read the signs of the bear getting upto it's old tricks again, remember what Mitt Romney said? I was not the only one to notice it. An excellent (but long) commentary of the political and ideological 'missed chance' to more or less today is David Remnick's piece with for US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul here; Vladimir Putin's New Anti-Americanism Well worth reading in my opinion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    No. They have not. Horse puckey!
    You may be correct but the US State Department begs to differ; "The State Department’s annual report on international compliance of arms control agreements released Tuesday said the U.S. had determined that Russia is in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that President Ronald Reagan signed with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987." US accuses Russia of violating 1987 missile treaty - The Washington Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    You mean like we did to China after Tiennamen? Yeah, how did that work out for us? We stop buying their toys and what did they do? They lower their prices.

    Yelstin couldn't get out of bed sober.
    There was a perfect opportunity in 1992 when Yeltsin was being sued for banning the Communist Party, it was wasted. The guilty escaped and have returned.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    And those countries jump through hoops to join us and in the case of Romania, they shot their commies. The Ukraines kept electing theirs.
    Notwithstanding that against the odds they turfed out Yanukovych and been fighting off the Russians for four months...

    Sir, with respect, you seem to believe and certainly were told by politicians that you won the war. You did not, politically that chance was missed. You won the battle for parts of eastern Europe at the time and for that you have the gratitude and respect of millions. The war however was not won, the system in Russia was not changed and they're back, not as strong or as menacing as before perhaps but the threat remains. If Ukraine falls Moldova will be next and quite likely a Baltic carve up or a further Caucuses move in the medium term; while all that your generation achieved will not be lost it is a mistake in my view to not regard it as threatened. That is a fundamental lack of vigilance in the mistaken belief that the war was won. The evidence was there for all to see but our politicians for most part chose to close their eyes to it. To paraphrase as conversation I had a few days ago with a US based friend; the most part of my generation is ignorant of the threats they face due to the "willful negligence".



    Quote Originally Posted by Albany Rifles View Post
    Snapper,

    Please accept my apology for my tone the other day...those are my beliefs but I did not need to express them in such an unprofessional manner.
    No offence taken Sir. I assure you I have been addressed in far harsher terms and lived. I respect your beliefs and your right to them. I have said that I lay the blame more on Europe and certainly our politicians are primarily responsible but then we elected them; we all then share some part of the blame. I intended no disrespect to the former generation of service men and apologise if I gave that impression.


    I hope you forgive my tardy response due to work.
    Last edited by snapper; 04 Aug 14, at 10:51.

  8. #38
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,368
    Snapper,

    No apologies needed.

    Back to the discussion.
    “We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God… Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass – a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a day’s heat, fell dusty.”
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  9. #39
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    My point was that at least the British politicians were not quite as wise as you previously said. Intelligence reports were deliberately 'sexed up' for political purposes and this is wisdom?
    The intel reports was NOT wrong. St Peter's slippers, how hard was it for Saddam to do a Halifax Harbour in the Thames? Hell, how hard was it for Saddam to just blow a hole in an oil tanker in the Thames and just spill its oil cargo? 11 Sept gave Saddam ideas. We went with the "sexed up" reports mainly they were easier to sell and within Saddam's capabiliities WITHOUT giving 11 Sept copycats anymore ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    There is a difference between a 'bunch of mercs' and a bunch of fundamentalist Jihadis.
    You're right. The former is a hell of alot harder to kill.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Gaul was 'barbaric' before Caesar and Mesopotamia was 'civilised' when before the foundations of Rome were layed.
    And the Franks came in after Caesar and the Turkic raiders couldn't care less. Who cares?

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Certainly I have been one but many others have watched and said the same. The catalogue of cases from Abkazia and South Ossetia to Ryazan and Beslan and the murders from Litvinenko to Anna Politkovskaya and others, the 'gas war' strategy from Georgia to North Stream which the then Polish Defence Minister called the 'Molotov - Ribbentrop pipeline'... You do not need to be mastermind to read the signs of the bear getting upto it's old tricks again, remember what Mitt Romney said? I was not the only one to notice it. An excellent (but long) commentary of the political and ideological 'missed chance' to more or less today is David Remnick's piece with for US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul here; Vladimir Putin's New Anti-Americanism Well worth reading in my opinion.
    Listen kid, the Russians ain't the crazy ones when it came to nuclear anhilation. Every single time, it was they who backed down, not us. So, where the hell did you get the idea that we would back down? We never did. Not once. Obama may be a coward but even a coward will growl when he knows he will win. And as of right now, we have not only titled the military balance in our favour, we've anchored it. The forces in Poland can smash anything the Russians put up and not break a sweat.

    Want an example? How many NATO planes are in the skies over Poland right now?

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    You may be correct but the US State Department begs to differ; "The State Department’s annual report on international compliance of arms control agreements released Tuesday said the U.S. had determined that Russia is in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty that President Ronald Reagan signed with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987." US accuses Russia of violating 1987 missile treaty - The Washington Post
    The Russians say that the system has a range limit of 500kms. Given their technical expertise and successes in the past, I believe them. Until the Americans can dissect the missile in question, they cannot prove the Russians are in violation. It's only speculation. And the Russian reaction to the accusation was one of "what the hell are you talking about?" They have openly publized the development of this system and not hidden anything.

    And I don't have to go far back to show that the American evals have been wrong. From the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal to the BACKFIRE capabilities to the MiG-25.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    There was a perfect opportunity in 1992 when Yeltsin was being sued for banning the Communist Party, it was wasted. The guilty escaped and have returned.
    Was Yeltsin going to line up every Communist against the wall and shoot them? Was he going to kill Putin? Did Putin even ran as a member of the Communist Party?

    There was no oppertunity. None.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Notwithstanding that against the odds they turfed out Yanukovych and been fighting off the Russians for four months...
    Still not our fight.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Sir, with respect, you seem to believe and certainly were told by politicians that you won the war.
    No Young Lady. We won and we won big. So big that you are now complaining that we have not won enough. We destroyed the threat to NATO and liberated the Warsaw Pact and drove the Soviets all the way back to their borders. All without turning three continents into a nuclear wasteland. We left the USSR to rott and it broke up into small pieces and they're now fighting amongst themselves for scraps. We couldn't imagine a better scenario. The Soviet Army fighting amongst themselves for Crimea, not Gibralter.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    You did not, politically that chance was missed. You won the battle for parts of eastern Europe at the time and for that you have the gratitude and respect of millions. The war however was not won, the system in Russia was not changed and they're back, not as strong or as menacing as before perhaps but the threat remains. If Ukraine falls Moldova will be next and quite likely a Baltic carve up or a further Caucuses move in the medium term; while all that your generation achieved will not be lost it is a mistake in my view to not regard it as threatened.
    Oh come on, young lady. We didn't give a damn about the Ukraines. The Ukraines sided with Russia and Georgia and Belarouse against us during the Kosovo War. Now you're giving us grief for not saving our enemy from themselves?

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    That is a fundamental lack of vigilance in the mistaken belief that the war was won. The evidence was there for all to see but our politicians for most part chose to close their eyes to it. To paraphrase as conversation I had a few days ago with a US based friend; the most part of my generation is ignorant of the threats they face due to the "willful negligence".
    That "willful negligence" is wishful thinking by you and your ilk. The Ukraines was part of the USSR and sided with Moscow all up until recently. In short, you're blaming us for a problem that wasn't ours to begin with.
    Chimo

  10. #40
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    4,234
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The intel reports was NOT wrong. St Peter's slippers, how hard was it for Saddam to do a Halifax Harbour in the Thames? Hell, how hard was it for Saddam to just blow a hole in an oil tanker in the Thames and just spill its oil cargo? 11 Sept gave Saddam ideas. We went with the "sexed up" reports mainly they were easier to sell and within Saddam's capabiliities WITHOUT giving 11 Sept copycats anymore ideas.
    While I can understand that 9/11 may have given many lunatics ideas we cannot possibly wipe them all out nor do we need to as they do not have the capability. The Gulf Wars were before my time and I admit not my field but if the capability angle was 'sexed up' to give credence to the 'idea possibility' it is an abuse of the reality and the remoteness of fact to possibility is stretched. We could invade the world for ideas and by doing so possibly give them worse ones. Unwise in my view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    You're right. The former is a hell of alot harder to kill.
    Alot more rare, rational and expensive also.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    And the Franks came in after Caesar and the Turkic raiders couldn't care less. Who cares?
    My argument is that a failure to fundamentally change the system - the lustration in Poland etc (though it didn't go half as far as it should have done) enables the old system to creep back. Certainly with some countries or peoples it may take longer than others but unless you are ready to make that commitment then the 'in - out' programme is destabilising and can be ultimately counter productive.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Listen kid, the Russians ain't the crazy ones when it came to nuclear anhilation. Every single time, it was they who backed down, not us. So, where the hell did you get the idea that we would back down? We never did. Not once. Obama may be a coward but even a coward will growl when he knows he will win. And as of right now, we have not only titled the military balance in our favour, we've anchored it. The forces in Poland can smash anything the Russians put up and not break a sweat.

    Want an example? How many NATO planes are in the skies over Poland right now?
    From my limited experience I would agree that the bear is naturally a cautious beast but I would say the point is not how many planes we can put in the sky over Poland right now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    The Russians say that the system has a range limit of 500kms. Given their technical expertise and successes in the past, I believe them. Until the Americans can dissect the missile in question, they cannot prove the Russians are in violation. It's only speculation. And the Russian reaction to the accusation was one of "what the hell are you talking about?" They have openly publized the development of this system and not hidden anything.

    And I don't have to go far back to show that the American evals have been wrong. From the size of the Chinese nuclear arsenal to the BACKFIRE capabilities to the MiG-25.
    I do not argue with you Sir, merely report the words of the US State Department.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Was Yeltsin going to line up every Communist against the wall and shoot them? Was he going to kill Putin? Did Putin even ran as a member of the Communist Party? There was no oppertunity. None.
    On this I must disagree I am afraid. I have met people who were in Moscow in 1992 and read the reports of others. The cup was tippable and the truth could have flowed. The chance was missed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Still not our fight.
    Where does our fight start? Who signed the Budapest Memorandum that convinced Ukraine to dismantle the nuclear weapons under the NPT? Would Ukraine re-acquiring a nuclear capability represent a breach? Since the Memorandum was evidently as worthless as the Munich Agreement in 1938 who could blame them? It is a dangerous precedent to set by all accounts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    No Young Lady. We won and we won big. So big that you are now complaining that we have not won enough. We destroyed the threat to NATO and liberated the Warsaw Pact and drove the Soviets all the way back to their borders. All without turning three continents into a nuclear wasteland. We left the USSR to rott and it broke up into small pieces and they're now fighting amongst themselves for scraps. We couldn't imagine a better scenario. The Soviet Army fighting amongst themselves for Crimea, not Gibralter.

    Oh come on, young lady. We didn't give a damn about the Ukraines. The Ukraines sided with Russia and Georgia and Belarouse against us during the Kosovo War. Now you're giving us grief for not saving our enemy from themselves?
    Sir you won a great and heroic victory with so little loss of life it was almost miraculous. Regarding Ukraine siding with Russia in the Kosovo War... Poland sided with Russia in the Cold War but not willingly. Ukraine has been occupied, corrupted, blackmailed and now invaded by Russia since 'independence' but now has a real chance to break free. Not our fight? Czechoslovakia was a "far away country of which we know little".

    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    That "willful negligence" is wishful thinking by you and your ilk. The Ukraines was part of the USSR and sided with Moscow all up until recently. In short, you're blaming us for a problem that wasn't ours to begin with.
    Sir I merely maintain that a fundamental mistake was made; the belief that the war was won. If the war had been won the recent Russian invasions of Ukraine would not have occured.

    I hope also never to become an 'ilk' but, no disrespect to 'ilks', to remain a Lady.

  11. #41
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Defense Professional
    Albany Rifles's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Apr 07
    Location
    Prince George, VA
    Posts
    8,368
    So Snapper, I ask you.

    What, SPECIFIC, concrete steps would have the specific Western nations do?

    Keep in mind that what is done can not be in violation of current laws or treaties.

    What should we do that we are not already doing?
    “We had been hopelessly labouring to plough waste lands; to make nationality grow in a place full of the certainty of God… Among the tribes our creed could be only like the desert grass – a beautiful swift seeming of spring; which, after a day’s heat, fell dusty.”
    ― T.E. Lawrence, Seven Pillars of Wisdom: A Triumph

  12. #42
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    While I can understand that 9/11 may have given many lunatics ideas we cannot possibly wipe them all out nor do we need to as they do not have the capability.
    Don't you get it? Saddam was such a lunatic and he had the capability, the intent, and the audacity. I wasn't make a joke when I stated that it was a strategic imperative to get rid with him.

    Once we dropped the first bomb on Libya, getting rid of Qaddafy was also a strategic imperative but then again, you have no perspective on Lockerbie.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    The Gulf Wars were before my time and I admit not my field but if the capability angle was 'sexed up' to give credence to the 'idea possibility' it is an abuse of the reality and the remoteness of fact to possibility is stretched.
    That's the point. It wasn't stretched. We had the wrong facts. We had the right objective.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    We could invade the world for ideas and by doing so possibly give them worse ones. Unwise in my view.
    Wrong young lady. There is no such thing as the perfect decision. We could only make the best decision possible based on the best information available. Getting rid of Saddam was a strategic imperative. We could not allow that fuck the chance to use what he learn from 11 September.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Alot more rare, rational and expensive also.
    Since when? BLACKWATER is issuing shares for crying outloud.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    My argument is that a failure to fundamentally change the system - the lustration in Poland etc (though it didn't go half as far as it should have done) enables the old system to creep back. Certainly with some countries or peoples it may take longer than others but unless you are ready to make that commitment then the 'in - out' programme is destabilising and can be ultimately counter productive.
    Not our job. It's their job to jump through hoops to join us, not us twisting their arms to our standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    From my limited experience I would agree that the bear is naturally a cautious beast but I would say the point is not how many planes we can put in the sky over Poland right now.
    In case you did not get it, we have drawn the line in the sand.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I do not argue with you Sir, merely report the words of the US State Department.
    State has been wrong before about Russian weapons systems.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    On this I must disagree I am afraid. I have met people who were in Moscow in 1992 and read the reports of others. The cup was tippable and the truth could have flowed. The chance was missed.
    And Beslan and Kosovo and the Chinese would have dropped the anchor on the other side. Putin restored Russian pride if not Russian power.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Where does our fight start?
    When the Ukraines signed on the dotted line to join NATO and not one second before.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Who signed the Budapest Memorandum that convinced Ukraine to dismantle the nuclear weapons under the NPT?
    It's not a defence pact and we paid for the dismantling that the Ukrainians were going to let those nukes rot and leak. The Ukraines was going to disarm nuclear whether she likes it or not. She was not maintaining those nukes to even storage standards, let alone operational standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Would Ukraine re-acquiring a nuclear capability represent a breach? Since the Memorandum was evidently as worthless as the Munich Agreement in 1938 who could blame them? It is a dangerous precedent to set by all accounts.
    If she had the money to do so, she would not be in this mess.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Sir you won a great and heroic victory with so little loss of life it was almost miraculous. Regarding Ukraine siding with Russia in the Kosovo War... Poland sided with Russia in the Cold War but not willingly. Ukraine has been occupied, corrupted, blackmailed and now invaded by Russia since 'independence' but now has a real chance to break free. Not our fight?
    1) Ukraine sided willingly against us during Kosovo.
    2) She took Russian money without a 2nd thought.
    3) In Crimea's case, the people there couldn't leave the Ukraines fast enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Czechoslovakia was a "far away country of which we know little".
    We signed on the dotted line.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    Sir I merely maintain that a fundamental mistake was made; the belief that the war was won. If the war had been won the recent Russian invasions of Ukraine would not have occured.
    Oh we won and we won big. A Soviet civil war destroying the threat to Western Europe? We would never have dared dreamed.

    Quote Originally Posted by snapper View Post
    I hope also never to become an 'ilk' but, no disrespect to 'ilks', to remain a Lady.
    Women!
    Chimo

  13. #43
    Military Enthusiast Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Aug 03
    Posts
    5,349
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Peace? NATO has seen more war after the Cold War ended than all of the Cold War itself. And I'm talking official NATO missions, not the Coalitions that were used to smash Saddam out of Kuwait and to try to rescue Somalia.

    What peace? We were so in awe of our military dominance that we went on a conquering spree. We dared to destroy the last remaining Russian ally in Eastern Europe ... and that was AFTER the Cold War ended.
    So you tacitly admit that the basis behind US and NATO's movements was "Might makes right"

    I say your politicians, and mine, staying out of the Iraq War (at least officially) was very well in contact with everyday people.

    I have news for you. The Ukrainians, Georgians, Belarousians as well as the Russians would have fought us tooth and nail. The Serbs were their brothers and we just clobbered them. You actually think they would have welcome us with open arms?

    Wake up. The Ukraines ain't our fight. We're the cheerleaders but that fight is totally for the Ukraines to win or lose. I ain't going to risk one soldier for a country who was ready to kill us less 20 years ago.
    So why do you decry Obama for doing what you would have done in his place?

  14. #44
    Military Professional
    Join Date
    06 Aug 03
    Posts
    29,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    So you tacitly admit that the basis behind US and NATO's movements was "Might makes right"
    The only one I would put up there is the Kosovo War. The others are of strategic imperatives.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
    So why do you decry Obama for doing what you would have done in his place?
    I decry him for giving away the friggin farm to the Russians and the Chinese.

    New START is everything the Russians wanted.
    Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 05 Aug 14, at 18:29.
    Chimo

  15. #45
    Global Moderator
    Military Professional
    Bandaid

    Join Date
    04 Oct 04
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Don't you get it? Saddam was such a lunatic and he had the capability, the intent, and the audacity. I wasn't make a joke when I stated that it was a strategic imperative to get rid with him.
    Sir, I have always been confused as to what strategic advantage was gained by the US from the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
    In the subcontinent we always look at it as a US strategy of controlling crude oil global prices.

    ISIS is reported to be funded and supplied by the US/NATO.
    Since the ISIS crisis blew up in Iraq, crude oil rates have shot up and affected dollar exchange rates in favour of the former.

    Your views/ comments would be helpful.

    Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Those deer and elk are so screwed.
    By bonehead in forum Small Arms and Personal Weapons
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 10 Feb 12,, 07:32
  2. Blueskid gets screwed again.
    By Bluesman in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07 May 10,, 06:05
  3. No, seriously, these people are SERIOUSLY screwed up
    By Capt Bluesman in forum World Affairs Board Pub
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 18 Mar 08,, 08:34
  4. Us married guys are screwed
    By Officer of Engineers in forum Multimedia & Jukebox room
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 08 Mar 07,, 17:35
  5. The Recruiting Proccess: How to not get screwed
    By sniperdude411 in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12 Dec 05,, 01:22

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •