For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Russia and Georgia -- how serious is it?
Until yesterday, the energy and precious metal markets brushed off this recent Russian aggression. Our media are certainly reporting it, but possibly not with the caution it deserves. Isn't it possible that this represents the beginning of a new wave of Russian imperialism with rather ominous portent?
To a large extent, the Soviet Union collapsed because it went bankrupt and didn't have the money to control all of its people anymore. With oil over $100, Russia now has the funds it needs to become a super power again. Is that Putin's goal, and should we not only be concerned, but be doing something about it? If the latter, what?
Comments Policy
Russia has the second strongest military in the world
August 22, 2008 - 09:24 ET by PopularTechWhatever we decide to do it should not involve armed conflict with Russia since they have the second strongest military in the world.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Poptech, how ever you want
August 22, 2008 - 09:59 ET by bassndudePoptech, how ever you want to look at it, Russsia may have one of the largest military in the world, but they still use old equipment. The T-72 is there primary battle tank. The best they have. The M1 tank is the main battle tank of the US. The T-72 was around during the Vietnam war. There planes are where they have concentrated their inovation, and compared to the F-22, fall way short. In other words, it may be big, but it is not that strong. It would fall into the same catagory as China.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
That all may be
August 22, 2008 - 10:22 ET by bradbenj5952That all may be true...Russia's ability to make conventional warfare pales in comparison to the United States and NATO forces, however, they are still in control of about half of the strategic nuclear weapons that exist on the planet in addition to a massive amount of chemical weapons, hence their boldness and the world's caution.
"Russia possesses the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in the world. Russia declared an arsenal of 40,000 tons of chemical weapons in 1997 and is said to have had around 6681 nuclear weapons stockpiled in 2005, making its stockpile the largest in the world. The Soviet Union ratified the Geneva Protocol on January 22, 1975 with reservations. The reservations were later dropped on January 18, 2001." http://en.wikipedia....
If you want to know their ultimate destination, see http://www.youtube.c...
"Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house." Acts 16:31
Russian military is a
August 22, 2008 - 11:31 ET by SemperrightRussian military is a joke.
We have stealth fighters, stealth bombers, and guess what stealth ICBMs. What they could get in the air would be shot down immediatly. Whe have the addresses of the rest of the stuff. Size does matter but not in this case.
Not to be too cocky but it would be like a man fighting a child.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Semperright, you are
August 22, 2008 - 11:51 ET by bassndudeSemperright, you are correct. Russia just lost a critical part of their early warning system in the Check Republic. They are no longer in control of all of their former nukes. Russia is headed for the restoration of the old soviet states. The Russian history is exactly what we are seeing now in Georgia. Russia moves troops into an area, "peacekeepers". Russian special forces move in to train and equip rebels. They send the rebels in to create problems, kill civilians and destroy villages. Russia sayes they will stop the rebels. Rebel attacks increase. The country in question moves to quell said rebels. Mean time Russia has quitely built up the troops to the point of about 3 to 1. When the country moves to defend their population, Russia pounces.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Can't buy me superpower status
August 22, 2008 - 15:38 ET by Unsanebass, I would add that their logistical infrastructure is still horrifyingly bad, and that since their military is constituted mostly of sullen conscripts, that makes for additional problems. (Their shenanigans in Georgia against civilians is a major mark of an undisciplined, unprofessional military.)
Not to be complacent but I would offer that in some ways the modern-day Russian military is weaker than the Red Army of old.
You cannot buy your way into superpower status. Russia may be awash in oil money, but it has invested this poorly, and is highly exposed to a shock when oil prices head south (Isaac Newton lives in economics too, surprisingly.) In some ways I see a repeat of 19th Century Russia, only back then it was awash in wheat money until Canada, Argentina, and some other country called the United States began offering different sources of wheat (American varieties were found to be superior to the Russian and became high demand). It didn't know what to do with it then, either.
The Olympics are now under way in Beijing. May the people of Beijing get thoroughly sick of hearing The Star Spangled Banner. May the Beijing Olympic Committee run out of U.S. flags for the medal ceremonies! USA! USA!! USA!!!
As long as we dont have to
August 22, 2008 - 11:52 ET by Dan The Man 2As long as we dont have to fight with boots on teh ground we are vastly superior. But boots on gound requires mega logistics and effort. I say we go and wipe out their tanks and make sure there is air superiority and let the Georgians do the rest. Im sure in taking out the armor and planes we could soften the boots up a bit also.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
I agree Dan. We should have
August 22, 2008 - 12:02 ET by bassndudeI agree Dan. We should have taken action when the Russians took the humvees. Should have destroyed them and all the Russians around them. We should have had the planes in the air when the Russians were not out when they said they would be. Violate a peace agreement, or a cease fire? 1000lb bombs on your heads.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Forget the bombs. Just
August 22, 2008 - 12:31 ET by Tim the EnchanterForget the bombs. Just gather up all the Thunderbird, Cisco, Night Train, Wild Irish Rose, Everclear, MD20/20 and cheap vodka you can lay your hands on, and drop that instead. Then, just stand by and watch them drink themselves to death.
The most ridiculous idea I have ever heard
August 22, 2008 - 14:27 ET by PopularTechIf you want to see REAL casualties try to start taking out Russian tanks. You think Putin is going to let us bomb his tanks? He could wipe out a carrier battle group with one bomb.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Poptech, dont be
August 22, 2008 - 14:48 ET by bassndudePoptech, dont be rediculous. Do you really think that the Russians would elevate a confilct to the nuke level, just because of a few outdated tanks or dead soldiers? All that would do is cause Moscow to melt away, and they know it.
You evidently have bought into the propaganda that Russia fields. The Russian army is using outdated equipment. There have been no up grades in their equipment sense the 80's. The T-80 is the best tank they have and can be taken out with an RPG. Either a 4 or an 18. There upgrades amount to reactive armor. Not effective aginst the AT-4 or Javalin. The Hind is the most effective weapon they have. And aginst any US aircraft, places second best.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Russian RPG-29s can disable M1 Tanks
August 22, 2008 - 15:37 ET by PopularTechThey don't need to use a high yield nuke. You think Putin would just melt away? Where does this come from?
The T-90 is the best tank they have and there are MANY variants of RPGs. The ones we most encountered in Iraq are mostly RPG-7 variants but RPG-29s can disable M1 Tanks.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
RPG-29 can damage an M1,
August 22, 2008 - 15:43 ET by bassndudeRPG-29 can damage an M1, but the M1 is still effective even when it cannot move. M1's have light side armor, and the rear can be penetrated by 30mm weapons fire to disable the engine. But the M1 can still shoot even when disabled. The RPG-29 is not a tank killer anymore than the 18. The RPG-28 is the tank killer. Kind of an AT-4 type weapon. Not really an RPG at all. Putin will not just melt away, not untill he is thrashed.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Once a tank is disabled it is a sitting duck for artillery ect..
August 22, 2008 - 17:37 ET by PopularTechOnce a tank is disabled you get pound it with artillery (which the russians have plenty) hit it with aircraft or attack it with RPGs. We would not be facing outdated T-72s with no air support, effective artillery or missile systems.
The Russians are well aware of what works against M1s, they can field test by seeing what has worked based on what they sold, who do you think made the RPG-29 that disabled the M1? They would know what to deploy and it is not going to be the surplus we are going against in Iraq.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Wrong Again
August 23, 2008 - 11:09 ET by CobraMan"Once a tank is disabled you get pound it with artillery (which the
russians have plenty) hit it with aircraft or attack it with RPGs."
Wrong again. It’s beyond foolish to use artillery on mobile tank formations (the Russians know this), even if one or more of those tanks are disabled. Artillery is fixed to a specific location while prepping and firing. Once an artillery piece fires it's first round, it‘s location has been revealed. If they don’t MOVE that piece soon after firing it‘s first round, it comes under fire from our MOBILE anti-tank weaponry like Apache Helicopters, A-10 Warthogs, Bombers, Tanks, etc. That artillery isn’t going to last long after it’s first shot.
As for attacking aircraft, we supply close air support to our tank formations. That support includes anti-aircraft defenses. That attacking aircraft won't even get close enough for the pilot to scream obscenities over the radio before they're blown out of the sky.
As for man portable anti-tank weapons like an RPG, they are short-ranged weapons and the person using it must have a clear line of fire. Once spotted, a single A-10 or Apache would shred any approaching infantry unit or individual into tiny little pieces. The only time someone would attack an M1 with a short range weapon is in a urban environment where concealment is readily available. Too bad for the that attacking soldier that they won't be alive long enough to gloat about their first hit. Remember that close air support?
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Mobile?
August 23, 2008 - 18:43 ET by PopularTechIf the tank is disabled it is not mobile anymore. All that Air Support is going against Russian air support and defenses, this is not Iraq. Keep dreaming about delusions.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
lets compare
August 22, 2008 - 12:34 ET by midnight cowboyThe Soviets went into Afghanistan 1979 and retreated in defeat ten years later.
The U.S. eneters Afghanistan October 2001. In January 2002 the enemy is vanquished.
Nuff said "Some people
August 22, 2008 - 13:10 ET by SemperrightNuff said
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Vietnam - nuff said
August 22, 2008 - 14:18 ET by PopularTechThe Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Poptech..what about
August 22, 2008 - 14:37 ET by bassndudePoptech..what about Vietnam?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
We effectively lost
August 22, 2008 - 15:30 ET by PopularTechWe entered and left roughly ten years later in defeat. It did not reflect on our true military power just like Russia's experience in Afghanistan did not reflect it's own.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Pop, we did not leave
August 22, 2008 - 15:55 ET by bassndudePop, we did not leave Vietnam in defeat. We left in 73. Congress cut off South Vietnam supplies, bullits and spare parts to repair the equipment. Siagon fell in 75. We had been gone 2 years. The only American military there were at the embassy. North Vietnam agreeded to the peace agreement because they were defeated. Your uncle Ho was ready to surrender when offered the deal, and he took it, used the 2 years to rebuild the NVA and attacked from Laos and Cambodia. The American military did not leave in defeat at all. Seems like with all your cut and paste, you would at least read some history. I mean real history instead of repeating what you hear.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Oh my bad we really won Vietnam
August 22, 2008 - 17:28 ET by PopularTechAs evident by it's democratic government today. Next you will tell me we won Korea too.
Oh I am well aware of the history of Vietnam, now please explain how Russia "leaving" Afghanistan is any different.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Korea
August 22, 2008 - 17:35 ET by UnsaneWe did win Korea. To this day there is a nation called the Republic of Korea.
Now, it would have been better had we totally destroyed the DPRK. But nonetheless, as the Republic of Korea was not pushed into the sea, we won, and the DPRK's objective of enslaving the entire peninsula was not met.
The Olympics are now under way in Beijing. May the people of Beijing get thoroughly sick of hearing The Star Spangled Banner. May the Beijing Olympic Committee run out of U.S. flags for the medal ceremonies! USA! USA!! USA!!!
We won Korea?
August 22, 2008 - 17:40 ET by PopularTechThen why is there a DMZ manned by thousands of our troops and a nuclear armed Communist Dictator in the North?
Funny about Korea we got pushed back by an "inferior" chinese army.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
We lost Korea?
August 22, 2008 - 17:53 ET by UnsaneThen what the hell was I doing living in South Korea two-three years ago? Why is there a South Korea with the third largest economy in Asia and 11th largest in the world, with 650,000 troops under arms?
The Olympics are now under way in Beijing. May the people of Beijing get thoroughly sick of hearing The Star Spangled Banner. May the Beijing Olympic Committee run out of U.S. flags for the medal ceremonies! USA! USA!! USA!!!
Because it was a draw
August 22, 2008 - 17:55 ET by PopularTechIn a draw neither side wins.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I think something
August 22, 2008 - 22:52 ET by HillbillyKingneeds to be pointed out with regard to Vietnam and Korea.
The US military, in both conflicts, performed exceedingly well. It was the constraints placed upon them by the politicians that caused the "draw' in Korea and the "loss" of Vietnam, NOT the poor performance of the military itself.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Right you are HBK, right
August 22, 2008 - 23:04 ET by BlazerRight you are HBK, right you are. The TET Offensive was really an overwhelming victory by the U.S. forces. No surprise whatsoever why some think that the MSM and most Democrats in Congress are actually the " Fifth Column".
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Thanks Blazer,
August 24, 2008 - 00:21 ET by HillbillyKingright you are about TET (and countless others in Vietnam) and the "Fifth Column"(thank God we didn't let them do that again in Iraq).
I would like to point out a battle in Korea, that demonstrates our point;
Chosin Reservoir
Check out the bottom of the page, 12 Medal of Honor receipients for a "retreat". Consider that Iwo Jima had 27 in 2 months. Chosin had 12 in 15 days.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
HK since WWII and the
August 24, 2008 - 00:32 ET by BlazerHK since WWII and the propagation of the MSM, I fear there isn't a war the Dems in Congress wont' try to lose for us. Unless of course it includes bombing an Eastern European country back to the stone age for fighting a war on terror. My 2 cents anyway.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Really, you see no
August 22, 2008 - 17:43 ET by SemperrightReally, you see no differences?
How about these reasons why they left
1) They couldn't afford it.
2) They were surprised by the advanced weaponry (3 guesses were they got it)
3) They were outmatched in training (guess who trained the Afgani rebels)
4) Or maybe they left because of all those dirty hippies burning thier draft cards and soon to be politboro officials throwing someones medals onto the lawn of the kremlin. Your right it was the same. The commies left because of public outcry.
4)
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Russian vs. U.S. Combat Deaths
August 22, 2008 - 18:20 ET by PopularTechOh and Russia did not train or give equipment to the NVA?
What were the Russian Combat Deaths in Afghanistan as opposed the U.S. in Vietnam? The Russians certainly did not leave Afghanistan because of being defeated on the battlefield which is why it is a perfect comparison to Vietnam. This is why I find it ironic to use Afghanistan as some sort of example of the Russian military being ineffective.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT
August 22, 2008 - 18:21 ET by SemperrightThe russians lost about 15k in ten years. so you are right, they lost a fraction of what we lost. But they also killed over 1,000,000 civilians doing it. It is easy to keep your casualties down if instead of fighting the rebels you just destroy they city they are in.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
Again my point
August 22, 2008 - 18:52 ET by PopularTechWas that Russia just like the U.S. in Vietnam did not lose militarily on the battlefield. They decimated their opponent.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Again my point, We
August 22, 2008 - 19:06 ET by SemperrightAgain my point,
We decimated our opponents,
The russians decimated their opponents, thier opponents grandparents and their opponents children .
Our code of conduct prevents us from wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians. It's step one in the soviet handbook.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
The Russian way works better to keep combat deaths down
August 22, 2008 - 20:18 ET by PopularTechThe Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
According to Wiki, the
August 23, 2008 - 15:15 ET by BlazerAccording to Wiki, the Soviet army lost 14 427, the KGB - 576, MIA - 28 people dead and missing
469,685 sick and wounded,
Thats over 9 yrs.
In comparison of casualities of the U.S. over 7 yrs. in Afghanistan , 361 died in hostile action and 146 in non-hostile incidents
But yea, the Russian way works better. -sarc
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Combat Deaths not casualties
August 23, 2008 - 18:21 ET by PopularTechYes the Russian way works better.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT, the Russians had over
August 23, 2008 - 23:23 ET by BlazerPT, the Russians had over 14,000 killed, 400,000 k wounded and you dont think thats a big deal ? Thats like the population of Baltimore or D.C. Not to mention how many of these guys were physically incapacitated for life or suffered from extreme P.T.S.D.
Remember this from fighting some simple bedouin goatherders. The Russians did kill over 1 million Afghans including women, children and the old, but I think you grossly overestimate the Russians ability to project force.
Human wave attacks went out with the Mongols and if thats what they would bring to bear against us it would be like shooting fish in a barrel, a meatgrinder.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
The Vietnam and
August 22, 2008 - 20:35 ET by general companyThe Vietnam and Afghanistan comparison is not really relevant. We both have hindsight and this is a different world. Making oil cheaper will keep Putin at bay. Dems are Putins best friends right now.
This is a great thread
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Oh I am well aware of the history of Vietnam
August 22, 2008 - 22:17 ET by sick_puppyAre you? A few Facts 1968 and after:
1968- Tet Lunar Holiday surprise offensive by the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong Guerillas was smashed by the US Military and Army of the Republic of Viet Nam, the Organization of the Viet Cong Units in the South never recovered.
1971- Last of USMC combat units withdraw from Viet Nam.
1972- Most all of remaining US Military combat units withdrawn for Viet Nam.
1972- April, Easter offensive launched by North Vietnamese Army. NVA attack is decisively defeated by ARVN with massive air and naval support.
1973- Peace settlement was signed in Paris on 27 January 1973. Peace settlement insured no further invasions of the South by the North Vietnamese
1974-1975 US Congress defunds all support for the Republic of Viet Nam.
1975- Fall of Saigon, 30 April 1975. Republic of Viet Nam military folds under attack from NVA. Can an Army withstand attack having no funds to operate?
What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender!
It was the same at the battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew it. But we were elated to notice your media were definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields. We were ready to surrender. You had won!"
-General Giap, North Vietnam (memoirs)
If you can't remember . . . the claymore is probably pointed at you.
Outstanding post s_p........
August 23, 2008 - 00:54 ET by BEGRUNTEverything you stated is the truth!! Boy, how we blew that one.......
"If a man does his best, what else is there"?
General George S. Patton Jr.
Is Vietnam a Democracy today?
August 23, 2008 - 08:23 ET by PopularTechThis is all nice and good but the final outcome is all that matters.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Pop Tech
August 23, 2008 - 18:23 ET by sick_puppyNothing "nice and good" about any of it actually.
If you can't remember . . . the claymore is probably pointed at you.
The only terrain that is truly controlled is the terrain upon which you're standing. Murphy's Laws of Combat
Nothing nice about failing I agree
August 23, 2008 - 18:27 ET by PopularTechWe failed in Vietnam, it sucks I agree but propagandizing the war does not help.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Pop Tech
August 23, 2008 - 21:41 ET by sick_puppyI think we agree on your original point but for different reasons.
Can our stuff smash their stuff? Undoubtedly. What next? The American people will not support a war with Russia. They don’t have the patience for an ugly war. Never have (with the exception of WW11). The American people lost the Viet Nam war, they elected the congress that lost that war. The American people were ready to give up on Iraq, until the surge. Somewhere around half still want to give up.
So we smash their stuff. What next? Russia just slinks way? Everything is just fine in a couple of months? Europe and NATO jump in and help? Boots on the ground? How many, for how long? I doubt we have that many boots. What about logistics and costs?
The American people don’t have the stomach for it.
Russia can’t afford a war, but when you are talking about their homeland they will not give up. We could end up wining the battles and losing the war.
IBD Editorials
“There isn't an area of technology we're not ahead in. Russia will spend about $31 billion this year on defense, and has planned a $189 billion, 5-year expansion. Even so, that's about what the U.S. spends in five months.”
The war is won by the US military until the congress (elected by the American people) loses it. So you can call all the veterans of the Viet Nam war losers if it makes you feel better but I don’t like it. I don’t care how smart you think you are.
If you can't remember . . . the claymore is probably pointed at you. Murphy's Laws of Combat
Russia is not a joke
August 23, 2008 - 23:38 ET by PopularTechCan our stuff smash Russia? Not remotely easily and not without heavy - heavy casualties.
Georgia has no business being a part of NATO and Russia is making that clear. This is not some aggression on the part of Russia but a warning to the West about pushing too far.
I have yet to call any Vietnam veteran a loser but I am used to people not listening to what I actual say.
Vladimir Putin's mastery checkmates the West (The Times, UK)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I have yet to call any Vietnam veteran a loser
August 24, 2008 - 00:41 ET by sick_puppy“Lost the Viet Nam war” sounds like all the other media libs and other leftist I’ve heard for 40yrs. US Congress lost the Viet Nam war. (Sore spot with me)
I haven’t ‘heard’ anything you have said. On the other hand I’ve read much of what you have posted for sometime. You usually make good points, but not always. Yes Russia is very dangerous, but did you read the link in my post? Did you read my post? Do you read all of a post or just jump to a conclusion about what was written, or maybe I wasn’t clear. I was actually agreeing with much of your position but for different reasons. I was talking about their stuff (military equipment) not “Russia”.
There is a difference don’t you think.
If you can't remember . . . the claymore is probably pointed at you. Murphy's Laws of Combat
sick_puppy, I have yet to
August 24, 2008 - 00:43 ET by Blazersick_puppy, I have yet to call any Vietnam veteran a loser also, I value my teeth. It was the libs in Congress and the political generals beholden to them that lost that war for us plain and simple not our soldiers.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Blazer
August 24, 2008 - 00:51 ET by sick_puppyThanks Blazer.
I've had to listen to crap for years about this.
Stick up for our new vets.
If you can't remember . . . the claymore is probably pointed at you. Murphy's Laws of Combat
No thanks needed sp.
August 24, 2008 - 01:02 ET by BlazerNo thanks needed sp. Hopefully one day the gasbags in D.C. will realize they aren't the smartest guys in the room, when it comes to fighting wars, our guys and gals in uniform are. Wars are best fought in the field, not in the halls of Congress.
At least it looks as if we've almost won the war in Iraq, although the Dems in Congress did their best to try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Dude, learn some history!
August 23, 2008 - 11:15 ET by CobraManDude, learn some history! The only reason that South Vietnam lost against the SECOND invasion by the North is because we DIDN'T send in our troops to support them. If we had, South Vietnam would still exist.
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
more history
August 23, 2008 - 11:37 ET by botgactually it's worse than that:
while we were there we could have over-run the north but due to political crap we'd take a portion then retreat, take a portion-retreat, repeat, repeat, repeat. It should have been over in 70!
"You can not support the Troops if you do not support their Mission"
Is Vietnam a Democracy today?
August 23, 2008 - 18:23 ET by PopularTechKeep crying, the outcome speaks for itself.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT here's some history
August 23, 2008 - 23:26 ET by upcountrywaterYep congersses fault yt clip 69 seconds of newt
---------------------------------------------
This is our fault too:
Is venezuela still a democracy today?
Venezuelan inflation may accelerate
to 27 percent in 2008, above the government's 19.5 percent
target,
Chavez is using a windfall from oil exports to take control
of more ``strategic'' industries this year, scaring off
investors even as record crude prices fuel a fifth year of
economic growth in the South American country.
IranianUranium
Is Vietnam a Democracy today? - answer the question
August 23, 2008 - 23:45 ET by PopularTechInstead you give me a video from the hypocrite.
Vietnam was a failure and we lost get over it, I have.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT, humm, CorbaMan, sick_puppy, bassndude, unsane...
August 24, 2008 - 00:16 ET by upcountrywaterhave a differnt view...
South Vietnam was a democracy for a short time.. then it got wiped out .. so to answer your question...
Today: Vietnam is not a democracy. Thank x ,be to the democratic congress of the day..
bassndude said it to you here and above
Liberals62%
IranianUranium
Can't only blame dems
August 24, 2008 - 00:25 ET by RESTLESS 1Gerald Ford did not send the bombers as Nixon had promised when the North broke the peace treaty.
The commies were on the run and on their last legs, but he political pressure, added with Watergate, was too much, and Nixon gave in. And, Nixon had none too kind a Congress to deal with as well.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Ahem...
August 24, 2008 - 01:00 ET by adamI think what people need to realize is that the "Vietnam 'War'" was not a "war". It was a "U.N. Conflict" as was the "Korean Conflict". It's no different than saying "it's not surgery, it's a procedure" (simpsons quote). The only times we've lost "wars" were when the U.N. was involved labeling it a "conflict". Nixon knew there were arms and troop buildups in Cambodia and Laos but "international law" forbade us from entering these areas. Even when Nixon allowed the entering of these areas in a clandestine manner yielding incredible results, he was condemned. Let us not forget that FDR was in violation of many laws, including the neutrality act, but we won and it was worth it. Eat it. If you get into a fight, don't trade punches evenly, hit first hit hard and don't hold back. Don't kick them while they're down but let's remember that WWII was not won by playing by Victorian rules. There's no such thing as fighting dirty.
CobraMan
August 23, 2008 - 18:44 ET by sick_puppyActually SVN didn’t need troops. What they needed was supplies and massive naval and air support. SVN kicked the NVA’s ass in their 1972 Easter invasion with our supplies and naval and air support. Our democrat controlled congress cut all support in 1975. No money, no defense.
Yes, South Viet Nam would probably still exist. With a dim congress NVN knew it could do anything it wanted.
If you can't remember . . . the claymore is probably pointed at you. Murphy's Laws of Combat
Poptech, your ignorance
August 23, 2008 - 15:14 ET by bassndudePoptech, your ignorance is baffling. How can you lose, if your not there to play? We left Vietnam in 1973. Last soldiers out, except the standard embassy marine guards, which are at all embassys. We left 2 years before the South fell. How is that losing? I mean, while we were there, the North got there butts kicked at every major engagement. An Loc was the last battle we were involved with. And that was only advisors and some LRRPS. The majority of the fighting was by SVN regulars, and SVN pilots. Russia left the Afgan areas, not with a peace agreement to be broken, but left because they lost. The enemy was on their heels so to speak. Nothing like VN.
For someone that sayes they are well aware of the history of Vietnam, you sure dont demonstrate it.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Is Vietnam a Democracy today?
August 23, 2008 - 18:56 ET by PopularTechFunny how desperate people are to rewrite history they would call me ignorant. I know it sucks we lost Vietnam but at least own up to it.
Please stop with the Vietnam propaganda it is getting embarrassing.
Funny I am not the one who said Russia only had T-72s - ignorance is bliss.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Pop,
August 24, 2008 - 00:29 ET by RESTLESS 1The only reason the North took Saigon was because we were not there. The SVN did not have a military any where near the task of defending itself.
I also seem to recall hearing of strict order not to go into Cambodia, Laos, or move into the North during the last stages of the war. Hard to fight when you are allowed only defensive positions.
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Why vs. What Happened
August 24, 2008 - 00:49 ET by PopularTechI am well aware why we lost. Since our troops pulled out before the final collapse means we did not lose? Just like if we had pulled our troops out during WWII and Hitler took over Europe we would not have "lost" WWII - this is idiotic thinking and dangerous propaganda.
The point again is the comparison to Russia in Afghanistan, they too were never defeated on the battlefield but lost the war. The idiotic usage of this as some example of the weakness of Russia's military power is mind boggling dumb - thus the comparison to Vietnam.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Understood Pop,
August 24, 2008 - 01:09 ET by RESTLESS 1And I agree with you in reagards to Russia. I don't think they are as weak as some here believe.
That being said, who here believes that any engagement with Russia would be against Russia alone? I have not seen anyone raise the question of what China or North Korea would do if we did engage. I can see a scenario where both would ally themselves with Russia, not to mention, maybe Syria?
Who is there that could be any help to us? Britain? France? GERMANY? Israel could help, but can they afford to take their eyes off of their own problems?
I sympathise with the Georgian people, but can we afford to take this beyond sanctions?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
The Chinese couldn't afford
August 24, 2008 - 01:27 ET by BlazerThe Chinese couldn't afford to do it for one. Their economy is too beholden to our purchasing power, they would literally bite the hand that feeds them and commit economic suicide if they did. Historically the Chinese have never been fans of the Russians even during the Cold War when they were both Communist countries and at the same time bitter rivals due to Maoism and Stalinism.
Syria is but a gnat on a Donkeys ass, they couldn't project force outside of their small neighborhood.
Believe it or not I actually fear the D.P.R.K. fighting force more than the Russians. I once read they have the ability to rain down about 60,000 heavy artillery shells an hour within the Seoul city limits and with their proximity so close to most of urbanized South Korea not to mention they are bat-shit crazy, I believe they have the ability to be a nightmare.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Okay,
August 24, 2008 - 01:36 ET by RESTLESS 1So, assuming China stays out of it. Could they do just enough to keep Japan at bay, (don't know if they could be much help anway). Could they posture just enough to deny us allies?
Syria may be blather, but they do have nukes and could kick us in the crotch by keeping Israel occupied. Iran is weak, but they too could do just enough to keep Israel's attention over there. Not to mention, all of this could keep Europe from being much help, (not that they would be right now any way).
It just seems like a double edged sword. If we don't push back, we invite more agression, and to be clear, IMO, what is going on in Georgia is as much for us as for them, and if we do, we could be in for a long slog. I believe we would win, but what is the cost-benefit right now?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
RD if a conflageration
August 24, 2008 - 10:31 ET by BlazerRD if a conflageration erupts I look for a lot of players on the Risk board to settle up on their grudges. Israel I believe would effectively shut Syria down within a week, together the U.S. and Israel could wreak havoc on both the Syrian and Iranian infrastructure and military. We would own the skies, nothing could move.Their only real threat is using the Hezzbols to fight a shadow war.
China will become a big problem if they decide to move on Taiwan, but could also tie Russia up if they decide to take territory back from them. We also have about 1 billion Allies in India who could give China and Iran a slight headache.
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious. "
- Ben Kenobi on Liberals, and the MSM.
" The Cake is a lie."
Hey, Blazer
August 24, 2008 - 01:41 ET by HillbillyKingthey actually fought in 1969.
I think the chinese would make a grab for Siberia if we started fightin the russians.
As for Kim's guys, yep bat sh!t 100%. It would be a bloody mess, but IF the 5th column didn't rear it's ugly head, we'd win.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
PT, I gotta
August 24, 2008 - 01:34 ET by HillbillyKinghand it to ya, replying to what, like 8 different people on this topic, damn! But I'm at a loss, why no classic PT list? :-}
Anyway my .5 cents worth:
On the one hand Russia and here.
On the other the USA , and here , and here.
Looks like the USA is ahead of the Russians everywhere that counts, EXCEPT WMDs. It still looks like MAD if we went down that road.
We, being the USA, would win a conventional war with the Russians. I think the facts speak for themselves. However, it would be incredibly bloody (for BOTH sides) and could quite possibly lead to a nuclear exchange. The russian psyche is different than ours and if only one tactical nuc was used our doctrine for retaliation could lead to escalation rather quickly and good-bye world. The Joint Chiefs know this and thats why, barring an invasion of Poland, (which as was pointed out is NOT gonna happen) no war with Russia. Thank God for that.
I also want to point out this site for, IMHO, the best military information.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
HBK,
August 24, 2008 - 01:45 ET by RESTLESS 1Pop agrees with you as far as not opening that can of worms. It would be hard and bloody. What he is taking issue with is the small number of posters here who have said engagement with Russia would be easy. I don't think he thinks Georgia is worth getting to riled about at this point, and my sympathies for the Georgian people aside, I tend to agree with him on that count.
I do wonder though, do we invite further agression if we do too little?
"This
liberal would be all about socialize -- uh, uh, would be about
basically taking over and the government running all of your companies."-Maxine Waters 2008
Rest 1,
August 24, 2008 - 02:14 ET by HillbillyKingI agree with both of you about not gettin involved. Sorry Georgia, but you ain't worth it. That's the real world. It's a bit@h, but so's life sometimes.
As for further aggression, I might as well bring the heat down on me, I think we helped provoked this whole thing. Puttin the anti missle system, like 600 miles from Moscow? What did we think the Russians were gonna do? Consider the Ukraine for full Nato membership? Again, what did we think the russians were