|
Author |
Topic Options
|
ridenrain
CKA Uber
Posts: 22594
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:48 pm
Since our NATO allies can't find Afghanistan or even Bosnia on a map, maybe they can defend their own little countries now.
|
Posts: 21665
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:35 pm
Not too suprising. This is exactly what Russia has said it would do all along if the Americans developed their defence shields in Europe.
|
Posts: 65472
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:37 pm
C.M. Burns C.M. Burns: BartSimpson BartSimpson: C.M. Burns C.M. Burns: Sometimes? Western Europe is sick of being the battlefield for the USA and Russia. And this battle took place exactly when?  Over the last fifty years. Take a look at the title of this thread! No battle took place because the US & Britain held their ground against Soviet aggression in Western Europe. Had the USA pulled out and left do you think for ONE MINUTE that the Soviets would not have taken advantage of that absence to seize the rest of Europe? I'd go further with this, but it is pointless because you hate the USA and you love anyone else who also hates the USA. ![Bash [bash]](./images/smilies/bash.gif)
|
Posts: 65472
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 2:40 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish: Not too suprising. This is exactly what Russia has said it would do all along if the Americans developed their defence shields in Europe. And I am at a total loss as to why anyone would complain about defensive systems? Why, pray tell, am I supposed to LET some asstard nuke my nation (or anyone elses) if it is within our power and prowess to prvent such a thing? If the Russians put a defence shield on Cuba we would not care less, especially as that is our national policy. Considering the Russians have the most extensive ABM systems in the world I just don't get why they have a right to complain when anyone else wants to have what they have.
|
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:10 pm
Had Roosevelt listened to Churchill, this whole conversation would be a moot point. Maybe the powers that be have pushed the earth is going to end scenario to it's limit and have wrung every cent they can get out of we plebians so they're bringing up an old crisis to scare humanity into line and start the wheels of the defense industry rolling again. Like they say, there is nothing new in the world??????? So don't forget to "DUCK AND COVER" kiddies. 
|
Posts: 7835
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:18 pm
C.M. Burns C.M. Burns: commanderkai commanderkai: Holy shit they actually know where a majority of their nuclear weapons are? Damn that alone is news. Once again, you prove yourself to be a massive ocean of cluelessness. commanderkai commanderkai: I am glad though that the Americans are now stepping forth to being allies of Eastern Europe. Hell they should move some of their bases there because it sure seems like the West Europeans don't want them there sometimes. Sometimes? Western Europe is sick of being the battlefield for the USA and Russia. LOLOLOL You fail history. The Cold War was...Cold. There was no tank battles in the fields of France or house to house fighting in Hamburg. By the way, the nuke comment was a joke, nothing more. It was supposed to reflect the Russian issue of they keep losing nuclear weapons.
|
Posts: 21665
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:34 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson: Zipperfish Zipperfish: Not too suprising. This is exactly what Russia has said it would do all along if the Americans developed their defence shields in Europe. And I am at a total loss as to why anyone would complain about defensive systems? Well, I don't think there's any difference between "defensive" and "offensive" weapons or systems. In Canada and the US, we call that part of government that oversees our armed forces the Department of Defence. They are perfectly capable of offence, but defence sounds a lot "nicer." The label of "defence" has only propaganda value. The Russians could just as easily claim that any consequent militarization on their part is just the defence of deterrance. $1: If the Russians put a defence shield on Cuba we would not care less, especially as that is our national policy. Considering the Russians have the most extensive ABM systems in the world I just don't get why they have a right to complain when anyone else wants to have what they have. Considering Americans histrionics on anything to do wiht Cuba, I have trouble believing that they would allow the Russians to install missiles there. I think during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Russians repeatedly said theat the missiles were "defensive" in nature--as big a pile of crap then as the Americans claim is now. I don't know what US national policy is, but the Bush administration doesn't seem to feel particularly bound by any policy, law, treaty or convention.
|
Posts: 7835
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:48 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish: $1: If the Russians put a defence shield on Cuba we would not care less, especially as that is our national policy. Considering the Russians have the most extensive ABM systems in the world I just don't get why they have a right to complain when anyone else wants to have what they have. Considering Americans histrionics on anything to do wiht Cuba, I have trouble believing that they would allow the Russians to install missiles there. I think during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Russians repeatedly said theat the missiles were "defensive" in nature--as big a pile of crap then as the Americans claim is now. I don't know what US national policy is, but the Bush administration doesn't seem to feel particularly bound by any policy, law, treaty or convention. Not fully knowing the extent of what the Americans have today... US missile defenses consist of stuff like the Patriot Missile system which has zero offensive value except maybe anti-air capabilities. Of course this is being based on stuff from the Gulf War...I can't judge US capabilities today. If the Soviets wanted to make Cuba a massive SAM site, the Americans wouldn't have cared, placing down ballistic nuclear missiles...then that's a problem isn't it? The Americans aren't placing down offensive nuclear weapons in Poland are they?
|
Posts: 21665
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 4:18 pm
commanderkai commanderkai: Not fully knowing the extent of what the Americans have today... US missile defenses consist of stuff like the Patriot Missile system which has zero offensive value except maybe anti-air capabilities. Of course this is being based on stuff from the Gulf War...I can't judge US capabilities today.
If the Soviets wanted to make Cuba a massive SAM site, the Americans wouldn't have cared, placing down ballistic nuclear missiles...then that's a problem isn't it? The Americans aren't placing down offensive nuclear weapons in Poland are they? Again, personally, I believe that the US certainly would care if the Russians installed a similar system in Cuba. Who knows? Maybe we'll see that put to the test. 
|
Posts: 7835
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 5:57 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish: commanderkai commanderkai: Not fully knowing the extent of what the Americans have today... US missile defenses consist of stuff like the Patriot Missile system which has zero offensive value except maybe anti-air capabilities. Of course this is being based on stuff from the Gulf War...I can't judge US capabilities today.
If the Soviets wanted to make Cuba a massive SAM site, the Americans wouldn't have cared, placing down ballistic nuclear missiles...then that's a problem isn't it? The Americans aren't placing down offensive nuclear weapons in Poland are they? Again, personally, I believe that the US certainly would care if the Russians installed a similar system in Cuba. Who knows? Maybe we'll see that put to the test.  Lol maybe...then again why would the US launch a ballistic missile against Cuba? A B-2 Stealth Bomber would make more sense. Just saying. Anyway yeah I bet Russia might try something in Venezuela or something...but I'd think the Americans would just say they're wasting money. Lol
|
C.M. Burns
Forum Elite
Posts: 1240
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:43 pm
commanderkai commanderkai: By the way, the nuke comment was a joke, nothing more. It was supposed to reflect the Russian issue of they keep losing nuclear weapons. Yeah, you always say that after someone points out what a dufus you are. commanderkai commanderkai: LOLOLOL You fail history. The Cold War was...Cold. There was no tank battles in the fields of France or house to house fighting in Hamburg. I fail history?  There's more than one type of battlefield, Einstein. There's military, political, economic... love can even be a battlefield moron
|
C.M. Burns
Forum Elite
Posts: 1240
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:46 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson: No battle took place because the US & Britain held their ground against Soviet aggression in Western Europe. Had the USA pulled out and left do you think for ONE MINUTE that the Soviets would not have taken advantage of that absence to seize the rest of Europe? Another Einstein (see above post re: types of battlefields) BartSimpson BartSimpson: I'd go further with this, but it is pointless because you hate the USA and you love anyone else who also hates the USA. ![Bash [bash]](./images/smilies/bash.gif) That's right, run away like a scared little boy cause you don't have the facts or the brains with which to argue.
|
Posts: 12283
Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:51 pm
C.M. Burns C.M. Burns: love can even be a battlefield moron Pat Benatar Studies 101? 
|
C.M. Burns
Forum Elite
Posts: 1240
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 4:33 pm
|
dog77_1999
Forum Elite
Posts: 1240
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 5:22 pm
Ah, the lasts breaths of a dying country. Just ignore Russia as it gets drunk on its former glory.
|
|
Page 2 of 2
|
[ 30 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 guests |
|
|