Thread: How dangerous is Vladimir Putin?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

^ another fine input from our residence waste of space I.T boy. Whats wrong? Finished your latest little boy console game and waiting for the next one to arrive from the exchange?

Now why can't you just thank me for educating you so that you don't make a tit out of yourself again?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

However, I completely accept that the Russians can elect who ever they like and that person needs to represent their interests.

Just as executive leader in the U.S. and many other countries, Putin does not necessarily always represent the interests of his fellow Russians. He represents his own interests and a select few who benefit from his position of authority, as well.

There are no angels on either side.

Originally Posted by Neo

Russia is made up of oil barons, soldiers and potato eaters, what other kind of rule do you expect them to have?

I reckon the US should have a square go.. they might be in with a chance.
After all.. when you've lost so many wars, you've gotta get lucky sometime right.?

So to be clear, you want the world to go into a full nuclear war then?

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

There are no angels on either side.

Some people are truly "exceptional", although finding the needle in the haystack does require some effort.

You may have known some people who rightly cannot be considered "exceptional" but don't tar every person with the same brush.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by Neo

Russia is made up of oil barons, soldiers and potato eaters, what other kind of rule do you expect them to have?

I reckon the US should have a square go.. they might be in with a chance.
After all.. when you've lost so many wars, you've gotta get lucky sometime right.?

So to be clear, you want the world to go into a full nuclear war then?

No dickhead, I'm being sarcastic...
I'd like to see the US get their arse kicked yet again. And they will if they try.

Originally Posted by Neo

I'd like to see the US get their arse kicked yet again

You really are stupid then. So what do you think will happen then? A few nukes and america licking their beaten arse again? No. All out nuclear destruction. Alas, you wally, it is you who is stupid.

Originally Posted by Neo

I'd like to see the US get their arse kicked yet again.

Just what wars has the US lost exactly? From purely a military standpoint they have dominated every conflict they have ever been in. Politicly it may be a different story but when you are talking in military terms there is no other country that can even come close to the power and capability of the US armed forces.

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Neo

I'd like to see the US get their arse kicked yet again.

Just what wars has the US lost exactly? From purely a military standpoint they have dominated every conflict they have ever been in. Politicly it may be a different story but when you are talking in military terms there is no other country that can even come close to the power and capability of the US armed forces.

I think it's fair to say they are good at the shock and awe but shit when it comes to urban and guerilla warfare.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by bsnub

Originally Posted by Neo

I'd like to see the US get their arse kicked yet again.

Just what wars has the US lost exactly? From purely a military standpoint they have dominated every conflict they have ever been in. Politicly it may be a different story but when you are talking in military terms there is no other country that can even come close to the power and capability of the US armed forces.

I think it's fair to say they are good at the shock and awe but shit when it comes to urban and guerilla warfare.

The US is very good at conventional warfare to include urban warfare. Look what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan. They crushed their opposition everywhere they faced it. They suppressed the shia militias in Baghdad, Crushed insurgents in Fallujah on and on. Good luck trying to find a battle that they lost in either of those wars.

They have an excellent track record when you look at the tactical and not the political. How many countries can pull off snatch and grab operations in Syria or Somalia? Rescue a ship taken over by pirates with no collateral damage?

Originally Posted by OhOh

The point of a battle is to win a war. The point of a war is to subjugate a nation and rape it's resources and labour force.

The US and NATO are very good at dropping bombs from 30,000 feet on a country defended by AK47s, machine guns mounted on pickups ........

In reality they have lost all the wars they started since the end of WWII.

Name one country that is more peaceful, more prosperous and has a contented population due to their military actions? European country, South American, Asian or African, take your time.

Find ONE COUNTRY where Americans are welcome where they were involved militarily. That is a measure of winning - hearts and minds, prosperity, contentment. The American way is to bomb the shit out of a country, create civil wars, starve the population, feed the oligarchs, rape the poor and walk away when the sadistic fun ends, leaving behind desolation and chaos.

When was the last time a POTUS stepped off his plane in a foreign country, without a 50Km military exclusion zone.

The land of the free eh, bollocks to you and all that support these monsters.

The USA is number one in one way, it has the ability to print money which the world buys, nothing else matters. As we see daily most can be bought for peanuts - governments, politicians, voters.

Resources are different, that is the USA's Achilles heel. Once resources disappear from the market, owned, exploited and utilised by a state strong enough to withstand the expected military, financial and sociological attack. Within the "exceptional" USA and it's vassal states a realisation of the value of a few trillion green backs/digital funds held and coveted will dawn.

Order out of Chaos.

Simple as that. The only interests the US go to war over is the interest to form a one world government, or Order, and the way they have chosen to do this is with Chaos.

Originally Posted by OhOh

The point of a battle is to win a war.

There are two sides to warfare. The military side and the political side. In Vietnam the US won all the major battles but still lost the war. The reason was a lack of political appetite to enter the north which ultimately made the war unwinnable. Tactically when analyzed battle by battle the US won every time.

Originally Posted by OhOh

In reality they have lost all the wars they started since the end of WWII.

That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard. Once again from a military standpoint the US won every major battle it was engaged in with regards to Iraq and Afghanistan. The Korean war is still on going and has never officially ended. So that cant be chalked as a loss.

Originally Posted by OhOh

Name one country that is more peaceful, more prosperous and has a contented population due to their military actions?

Has nothing to do with military victories on the battlefield. You are talking about nation building. Something the US should have never got involved with again after WW2.

Originally Posted by OhOh

The land of the free eh, bollocks to you and all that support these monsters.

I do not support the US government who I believe is controlled by the nations oligarchs. I am simply trying to get some who may have a hard time understanding the differences between a military victory and a political defeat.

Dominance on the battlefield does not always equate to a strategic victory.

Originally Posted by bsnub

The US is very good at conventional warfare to include urban warfare. Look what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan. They crushed their opposition everywhere they faced it. They suppressed the shia militias in Baghdad, Crushed insurgents in Fallujah on and on. Good luck trying to find a battle that they lost in either of those wars.

Well they obviously didn't or they wouldn't be running around fucking the place up now, would they?

They have an excellent track record when you look at the tactical and not the political. How many countries can pull off snatch and grab operations in Syria or Somalia? Rescue a ship taken over by pirates with no collateral damage?

Nipping in unseen to do a few little jobs is hardly an advert, and let's face it Iran and BlackHawk Down didn't exactly cover them in glory, did it?

And they were one chopper away from creating a shitstorm in Pakistan when they went to get OBL.

As for Afghanistan, what have they won? Thousands of US soldiers dead and when the leave the Taliban will take straight back over again.

Come on Snubby, you have to admit defeat on this one.

The US are uinbeatable for knocking down the walls and roofs, but clearing the site they are simply shit at.

There's no profit in ending wars. It's just good business, see.

Korea - the Stalemate is a good rational for defense spending, must protect our vassals, er, trade partners.

Vietnam - Strategic pull out, folks at home were weary and the industrialists made fair coin anyway. Provoking USSR any further would have been detrimental to profiteering, anyway.

Gulf War 1 - Soviet Union a shambles, opportunity to play in the Middle East sandbox and test out some new military toys.

Afghanistan - triggered by 9/11. A Gulf of Tonkin incident so that we could...

Gulf War 2 - Invade Iraq and take care of Cheney's unfinished business with Saddam. All the while industrialists are making bank.

U.S. may look like fools at losing wars.....but think about who is really winning.

Originally Posted by bsnub

It may eventually be a political defeat but never a military one. The US pushed the Taliban wherever they wanted to. Ultimately at the end direct engagements by the Taliban became rare and they resorted to suicide bombers and IEDs.

Oh bollocks, pushed them where you wanted to? You couldn't find the fuckers, it's like nailing jelly to a wall or herding cats.

That's why they're going to take straight back over when you leave.

Not so. If that is the case why did the Brits need our help in Basra?

Because we've pulled most of our troops out, dipstick!

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Oh bollocks, pushed them where you wanted to? You couldn't find the fuckers, it's like nailing jelly to a wall or herding cats.

Umm are you aware of the terrain of Afghanistan? Not many hiding places. The US pushed them into Pakistan for the most part. Can you point to one major engagement that the US lost there?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

That's why they're going to take straight back over when you leave.

That is still not a military defeat and we are basically gone right now. Combat operations are being conducted 100% by the Afghan army and have been for months.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Because we've pulled most of our troops out, dipstick!

You needed American help to take Basra back in 2003 at the height of British involvement in the war.

The US has never ever lost a war.

Originally Posted by spliff

The US has never ever lost a war.

Nope, check the body count

Originally Posted by bsnub

That is still not a military defeat and we are basically gone right now. Combat operations are being conducted 100% by the Afghan army and have been for months.

I'm sorry mate but that's nonsense, you still have 10,000 troops + contractors doing the work for a bunch idiots and they might as well not be there.

The end result will be the same.

When the yanks pull out there will be a lot of Afghani military uniforms appearing in the markets of Kabul.

Originally Posted by spliff

The US has never ever lost a war.

The US has never been decisively defeated militarily on the battlefield in the modern era and no one can prove me otherwise.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

When the yanks pull out there will be a lot of Afghani military uniforms appearing in the markets of Kabul.

Still not a military defeat. Nothing like this shit mess;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1842_retreat_from_Kabul

Originally Posted by bsnub

The US has never been decisively defeated militarily on the battlefield in the modern era and no one can prove me otherwise.

Winning a battle is not the same as winning a war.

Why don't you read a book...



watch a decent documentary...

https://teakdoor.com/the-multimedia-f...ml#post3059068 (Movie/tv download recommendations)

and then come back when you've grown a brain

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

9/11. A Gulf of Tonkin incident

Yup - 9/11 was an inside job.

Just as many others were.