Are they trying to start a war

[ukjason]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/09/07/raf-scare-off-russian-jets-89520-19747726/

[LordOpie]

Jason's back!

We thought you were dead. Figured a woman hit you with her car and smashed you to bits.

[ire]

Putin is trying to tell the world that Russia is being built into a super power again. Kinda reminds me of Kim Jong launching missiles over Japan to scare them. Did anyone notice that bomber looked like a prop plane, not jet? A WWII style bomber just doesn't really scare me.

[Silver]

It's not the bomber, it's what you can hang under them. And you can hang some pretty lethal stuff under the wings of a Bear, IIRC...

[Secret Squirrel]

It's not the bomber, it's what you can hang under them. And you can hang some pretty lethal stuff under the wings of a Bear, IIRC...

not to mention a f*ckin' lot of it....

[ire]

It's not the bomber, it's what you can hang under them. And you can hang some pretty lethal stuff under the wings of a Bear, IIRC...

So...is it a prop plane? Really, we wouldn't fight a nuclear war with bombers, it will be fought with ICBMs.....we might use some bombers to finish off the last couple.

[Reactor]

So...is it a prop plane? Really, we wouldn't fight a nuclear war with bombers, it will be fought with ICBMs.....we might use some bombers to finish off the last couple.

Pretty hard to take out a moving fleet of bombers or submarines with a first strike.....

[ire]

Pretty hard to take out a moving fleet of bombers or submarines with a first strike.....

I don't agree (I guess it depends on what you're saying), if they strike first, or try to, we keep tabs on everything they do. And with that token, if we strike first we would knock out these sites/weapons first. Thats why our first priority in war is to destroy the infrastructure, and more specifically, the air fields.

[Silver]

So...is it a prop plane? Really, we wouldn't fight a nuclear war with bombers, it will be fought with ICBMs.....we might use some bombers to finish off the last couple.

And yet we still have large fleets of B-52s hanging around. We've been using them to bomb brown people every ten years or so since Vietnam...

[ire]

And yet we still have large fleets of B-52s hanging around. We've been using them to bomb brown people every ten years or so since Vietnam...

The B-52 is a good plane and they have revamped the fleet with current technology. If it ain't broke, why fix it? That is the best carpet bomber in the world. If we needed to launch a first strike, nuclear attack, we would use the B-2. Each plans serves its purpose.

[Silver]

Yeah, and the Bear can carry these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raduga_Kh-55

[Westy]

Nukular winter is the Bush Administrations solution to global warming.

[ire]

Yeah, and the Bear can carry these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raduga_Kh-55

Whats your point? The B-52 can carry just about anything. My point has been we shouldn't fear their shotty technology. We spend way too much money on our military. When we went after Iraq in Kuwait they had the most sophisticated Soviet tech at the time (along with the 3rd largest military in the world) and we stomped them. A lot of Soviet weapons are good, don't me wrong, but they are line of sight weapons and this hinders them. An Apache can lob missles over a hill without exposing themselves....the beauty of GPS.

[blue]

Yeah, it's not like the cargo plane the US Army is most dependent on isn't a turboprop or anything... :rolleyes:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules.jpg/750px-Lockheed_C-130_Hercules.jpg

A Tu95 Bear and B52 Stratofortress are fairly evenly matched (and from the same era - zomg!...in fact, the Bear is a year newer. If 1956 is newer). They're both horrendously outdated planes that are falling apart and kept around simply because they're cheap to operate and good to blow up brown people with.

And the Apache doesn't use GPS for beyond-LOS combat, it uses the massive FCR Longbow pod on top of its rotors. Or it uses a Kiowa.

Quit pretending like you know what you're talking about.

On the actual topic of the thread, the Russians are currently involved in some ceremonial cock-waving to make the rusty KGB-types feel better about a military that has been mothballing for the past 15 years. And perhaps to scare off the Chinese.

[SkaredShtles]

UKJ! Glad you're still alive. I ran across this website recently and it reminded me you'd been laying low for awhile on the Monkey: http://www.cimwch.com/

:rofl:

[V-Dub GTI]

Why does everyone forget we have a missle defence system in place?

[blue]

Why does everyone forget we have a useless missle defence system in place?

Fixed.

[Westy]

Why does everyone forget we have a missle defence system in place?

Certainly not the Russians flying bombers containing cruise missiles that an ICBM missile defense system is not designed to handle.

[1453]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2007/09/07/raf-scare-off-russian-jets-89520-19747726/

the real question is, why are you bringing two-months old story back to life? :think:

on topic, it may have something to do with this:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1590967,00.html

now with both Ivanov and Medvedov want to be the president of Mother Russia. What better way to please you ex-KGB buddy who also happens to pick the next president than send a few bombers to the UK and say, "hey Limeys, we are still here with nukes" :wave:

Oh did I mention Ivanov is the, drum rolls, Minister of Defense? hmm, now who has the power to call out a few bears from hibernation? there is the president, then there is...

Russian politics, transition between leaders in particular may be dirty, but it's an entertaining show. We see tanks shooting at Parliament, Walls collapsing, guys getting drunk(er). It would all be funny if they weren't a member of the Security Council.

[DaveW]

the real question is, why are you bringing two-months old story back to life? :think:

on topic, it may have something to do with this:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1590967,00.html

now with both Ivanov and Medvedov want to be the president of Mother Russia. What better way to please you ex-KGB buddy who also happens to pick the next president than send a few bombers to the UK and say, "hey Limeys, we are still here with nukes" :wave:

Oh did I mention Ivanov is the, drum rolls, Minister of Defense? hmm, now who has the power to call out a few bears from hibernation? there is the president, then there is...

Russian politics, transition between leaders in particular may be dirty, but it's an entertaining show. We see tanks shooting at Parliament, Walls collapsing, guys getting drunk(er). It would all be funny if they weren't a member of the Security Council.


Not quite mate, please note the storys date. :lighten:
Also previously the Russian had only used one or two aircraft.... This time they sent 8 directly at the UK mainland, previous ones were not coming straight in.

Bit of a different story this time, I'd say it was a bit more of serious provocation.

[MarinR00]

Also, keep in mind that America’s defense budget is hitting $450 billion, NOT INCLUDING what we are spending on the war through supplemental funding.

Russia, I think is somewhere around $40 billion. Sure, they have nukes, but as a conventional force, they are still lacking. Their most dangerous weapon is that they control massive amounts of natural resources and the EU is dependent on them for it. Russia has already used it as a political weapon.

Sure the Bear is as old as a B-52, and the B-1 is similar to the Blackjack, but they have nothing similar to the B-2. But our real strength comes in our integrated and digital military. Having trained with a bunch of different armies, man-for-man they are just as good (The Brits and Aussies come to mind as probably better). As a peer of mine from Estonia told me “When you fight the U.S. Army, you have to fight the Marines, Air Force and Navy as well.”

The Air Force and Navy will use this as a reason to justify aircraft carriers, Virgina-class Subs, Littoral Combat ships, F-35's and F-22’s. I could make a case either way for each one. They are having a hard time justifying their budgets since a counter-insurgency is a ground based type of warfare. The bet there are A LOT of generals who are loving this “come-back”.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

I can tell you this, why would anyone want to fight us conventionally, when everyone sees that a couple of artillery rounds with a wire detonator is enough to foil us?

-=R0b=-

[rockwool]

Surely stuff is going on and being planed on a level that is beyond our collective intelligence gathering together. What came to my mind was that maybe they're not "trying to start a war", or maybe they're not the agressive part at all.

Maybe these Bear flights are answers to something; they could be scared and trying to avoid a war by showing that a victory over them will cost too much to be a victory worth having. We have to remember that the Soviet/Russian/Warsaw Pact defence has always been about defending Voina Rodina (Mother Russia, not sure about spelling).

One thing we know, because your president told us, is that the war on terror is going to go on for indefinate time. The war being about controling natural resources and Russia having plenty, and even more together with its former union countries (which it might feel some possesiveness over), it will probably feel pretty threatened by now.

With the US is fighting in two countries (currently..) pretty close by and controling more and more ex friendly nerghbouring countries (Balticum and Eastern Europe), I would say that they for sure feel threatened.

How hasn't the US reacted as soon as a government in Latin America that was a hint of socialist, or even simply just tried to have a normal diplomatic and trade relationship with the Soviet Union, been classified as hostile and a "threat to the nation"?

Totally out of proportion. Each and one of those governments, many of which were democraticly elected, were overthrown with the help of the US (only places were they've failed is in Cuba and Venezuela).

Looking how the US has reacted when feeling "threatened" a few flights with military planes to mark once precence and readiness is actually pretty normal procedure.

Maybe they're trying to avoid a war?

[MarinR00]

I don't think the U.S. is feeling threatened at all. They haven't invaded U.S. airspace, but they have with Norway and Britain. The U.S. doesn’t scramble fighters to shadow these flights, NATO does. We know that the status of the once proud Russia military is a joke. While they do have some very capable systems (RPG-29s, Su-35, MIG-29SMT and the soon-coming SU-50) they do not have the money for training and maintenance. This may change over the next few years, but right now… not so much.

Most countries, with even modest military, conduct regular surveillance flights, to include Russia, China, Japan, Germany, Britain and of course, the U.S.

Europe should be very nervous about a resurgent Russia (I live in Germany), because Europe is at Russia’s mercy in terms of energy. Russia can use that leverage to try and limit or eliminate the EUs interference with its foreign policy.

[valve bouncer]

Also, keep in mind that America’s defense budget is hitting $450 billion, NOT INCLUDING what we are spending on the war through supplemental funding.

Russia, I think is somewhere around $40 billion. Sure, they have nukes, but as a conventional force, they are still lacking. Their most dangerous weapon is that they control massive amounts of natural resources and the EU is dependent on them for it. Russia has already used it as a political weapon.

Sure the Bear is as old as a B-52, and the B-1 is similar to the Blackjack, but they have nothing similar to the B-2. But our real strength comes in our integrated and digital military. Having trained with a bunch of different armies, man-for-man they are just as good (The Brits and Aussies come to mind as probably better). As a peer of mine from Estonia told me “When you fight the U.S. Army, you have to fight the Marines, Air Force and Navy as well.”

The Air Force and Navy will use this as a reason to justify aircraft carriers, Virgina-class Subs, Littoral Combat ships, F-35's and F-22’s. I could make a case either way for each one. They are having a hard time justifying their budgets since a counter-insurgency is a ground based type of warfare. The bet there are A LOT of generals who are loving this “come-back”.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

I can tell you this, why would anyone want to fight us conventionally, when everyone sees that a couple of artillery rounds with a wire detonator is enough to foil us?

-=R0b=-

Good post.

[rockwool]

I don't think the U.S. is feeling threatened at all. They haven't invaded U.S. airspace, but they have with Norway and Britain. The U.S. doesn’t scramble fighters to shadow these flights, NATO does. We know that the status of the once proud Russia military is a joke. While they do have some very capable systems (RPG-29s, Su-35, MIG-29SMT and the soon-coming SU-50) they do not have the money for training and maintenance. This may change over the next few years, but right now… not so much.

Most countries, with even modest military, conduct regular surveillance flights, to include Russia, China, Japan, Germany, Britain and of course, the U.S.

Europe should be very nervous about a resurgent Russia (I live in Germany), because Europe is at Russia’s mercy in terms of energy. Russia can use that leverage to try and limit or eliminate the EUs interference with its foreign policy.

Your prez hardly shuts up about all those various foreign threats that the US has. There can hardly excist a people that is more scared of "things" than the US-Americans. Well maybe the Jews in Israel. If Russia has invaded US air space? Dunno, I wasn't talking about Russia.

I was talking about how the US has percieved threats from Latin American countries that have had governments that weren't directly socialist hatful. Those governments have been seen as a major threat, and that view wasn't limited to LA alone.

Ever heard of the "domino effect" that would sweep over the globe?

About feeling unease because of the Russians invading territorial space, I live in Sweden and the issues have been so few during all years that they're practicly non excistant (with exception for a sub insident in -82).

In Greece on the other hand (I'm of Greek origin) I haven't been there one single summer where there hasn't been an incident with Turkish fighters invading air space, or when actual dog fights really have happened.

Now both countries are NATO, but the Greeks are scared as this has for decades been a continuous threat from an agressive nation (external and internal policy wise) that out guns the Greeks with upto 4 to 1, and has always had the advantage of being favoured by the US.

In reality this favoritism has meant that they have been "allowed'' to continue with their violations, but also in the way of AMRAAMs for Turkish F16's but not Greek as it would "imbalace the area". That's how big the US influence is in that part of the world.

As I said, Russia/Soviet never consisted a threat to Scandinavia as they were only interested in not living through another catastrophy like an invasion from Nazi Germany, Napoleon or like during the years after the revolution where there was a civil war going on for years in wich the White side was helped from several divisions from western countries.

So the Russians have several reasons to be scared that some western countries again are on the move close to their soil. Millions upon millions of human lives and being bombed several decades of infrastructure back in time for at least a fifth time in 200 years.

You living in Germany I see why you conseder Russias natural gas to be of such importance. The issue is not as big here, and Russia using their non military recourses as a leverage isn't anything unique to their foreign policies.

Seems like "stuff" are ok when we do them but bad and totally different when others immitate them..

[ire]

A Tu95 Bear and B52 Stratofortress are fairly evenly matched (and from the same era - zomg!...in fact, the Bear is a year newer. If 1956 is newer). They're both horrendously outdated planes that are falling apart and kept around simply because they're cheap to operate and good to blow up brown people with.

And the Apache doesn't use GPS for beyond-LOS combat, it uses the massive FCR Longbow pod on top of its rotors. Or it uses a Kiowa.

Quit pretending like you know what you're talking about.

Didn't claim I knew all of the tech with plane, I was illustrating a point that using prop planes as a long range bomber is outdated...on average prop planes are slower than jets. And regardless, its an attempted show of strength....they are flexing what muscle they have (which isn't much). And if the B52 is so outdated why does the Air Force intends to keep the B-52 in service until at least 2040?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress

<edit> I would fear China more, article is a bit old http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1019rumsfeld19.html
but if the $50 billion number for Russia is correct China is spending almost double that.

[Toshi]

Didn't claim I knew all of the tech with plane, I was illustrating a point that using prop planes as a long range bomber is outdated...on average prop planes are slower than jets. And regardless, its an attempted show of strength....they are flexing what muscle they have (which isn't much). And if the B52 is so outdated why does the Air Force intends to keep the B-52 in service until at least 2040?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-52_Stratofortress


did you even read the original article? said the Bear is the fastest prop plane. 500 kts. your wikipedia B52-H specs say that it can hit 560 kts. whatever.

[ire]

did you even read the original article? said the Bear is the fastest prop plane. 500 kts. your wikipedia B52-H specs say that it can hit 560 kts. whatever.

Your point was....? This still goes towards my point...prop planes are slower than jets. I fail to see how you even have an argument.

[1453]

Not quite mate, please note the storys date. :lighten:
Also previously the Russian had only used one or two aircraft.... This time they sent 8 directly at the UK mainland, previous ones were not coming straight in.

Bit of a different story this time, I'd say it was a bit more of serious provocation.

and so what will the UK do about it? :brow: :popcorn:

I maintain that these tactics are all a part of the transition between presidents(notice I didn't say election), nothing more. The last thing the Russians need is to lose income from the gas fields due to a war with NATO.

[ire]

and so what will the UK do about it? :brow: :popcorn:

I maintain that these tactics are all a part of the transition between presidents(notice I didn't say election), nothing more. The last thing the Russians need is to lose income from the gas fields due to a war with NATO.

There is a fine line walked....The Russians need the gas money, but countries like the Ukraine will die without the gas. So Russia tries to pressure these former USSR countries by withholding gas, but they can't hold out too long becuase they lose money and cause serious problems within Russia.

[valve bouncer]

Your point was....? This still goes towards my point...prop planes are slower than jets. I fail to see how you even have an argument.
It's hardly a difficult point to grasp. Obviously speed isn't the most important thing for a bomber.

[DaveW]

Your point was....? This still goes towards my point...prop planes are slower than jets. I fail to see how you even have an argument.

The fact that it's only 60 knots slower than the american equivalent makes his point relevant
The fact that it uses's props is the not really an issue, it works just as well as a jet for getting the plane from A to B.
As a ultra long range maritime recon and stand off weapons platform (ie it sits 200 miles away and fires 20 missiles at you) the bear is still highly effective. And one of the very few things that put's the sh*ts up an aircraft carrier group
For maritime recon it's as good or better than the western equivalent the orion due to superior range, speed and payload.

[rockwool]

There is a fine line walked....The Russians need the gas money, but countries like the Ukraine will die without the gas. So Russia tries to pressure these former USSR countries by withholding gas, but they can't hold out too long becuase they lose money and cause serious problems within Russia.

I wrote this before but it is normal tactics for countries, and especially powerful countries to do so. The UK and the US continued doing it to IRAQ until it was ridiculous. Just as an example.


About the Bear vs B-52. The difference isn't that big that it seemed to mind the Soviets when they planed to build it. The B-52 being 1 year older must have given them sufficient time to decide wether to counter that with similar engines or turbo prop.

Dunno for sure but I bet turbo prop gives better milage, and that may have to do with their decission. In the end it's enough if they get 3000km from their target to let their load go (if it's those missiles Silver linked to).

[MarinR00]

I think we need to get away from prop vs. jet! They are both fine platforms for they are used for! :banghead:


What the heck was the original topic of debate? Because I can’t open the link that started this thread, all I’ve gotten is that there is some guy from Sweden pissed off at the US about Latin America, some dude pissed off that someone got Bears and -52’s mixed up, and this guy (Me ) just kinda confused. Though that might be the sun! :huh:

Though I’m always up for debate… next topic… :banana:

[rockwool]

Summary:

Everybody thinks it is an agressive move from Russia to be sending bombers with Nuclear armed missiles towards UK, guy from Sweden said it might be a reaction to something that they found agressive and made them scared as there is a lot of fighting aswell as overtaking of previous friendly countries in their near or emediate neighbourhood.

Guy from Sweden also pointed out that those are the things that we know of and that there probably is a lot of stuff that hasn't come up to surface yet (or might not ever).

[rockwool]

<edit> I would fear China more, article is a bit old http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/1019rumsfeld19.html
but if the $50 billion number for Russia is correct China is spending almost double that.

Cut from your article:

In an interview with reporters accompanying him from Washington, Rumsfeld said the United States and other countries would like to know why the Chinese government has understated its defense spending. He mentioned no budget figures, but the Pentagon said last summer that China may be spending $90 billion on defense this year, three times the announced total.

"I think it's interesting that other countries wonder why they would be increasing their defense effort at the pace they are and yet not acknowledging it," Rumsfeld said. "That is as interesting as the fact that it's increasing at the pace it is."

$90 billion is a **** load to spend on weapons for sure.

From the same atricle:

President Bush's proposed Pentagon budget for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1 is $419 billion, not counting as much as $50 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and against terror worldwide.

The Chinese active military numbers about 1.7 million soldiers; the U.S. total is 1.4 million.

Maybe those $470 billion dollars are the reason the Chinese are increasing their defence budget? It's still 5 times as much as the Chinese are spending, how can Rumsfeld even think that the increased US defence spending since 911 wouldn't lead to reactions?

Fear China? I fear the US five times more. Chinas 300.000 more soldiers aren't going to do them any good looking at the massive numbers IRAQ had in the 1st Gulf war agaist the coalition.

Take into perspective that 1.7 million soldiers out of a population of 1.32 billion. The US has 1.4 million soldiers out of a population of 0.3 billion. Looking at the US on that thing alone one comes to the conclusion that it's not peace they're after, but that is just one thing out of a lot of things that indicate the theoretical/actual hostility of the US.

[lovebunny]

so ire. are you saying that the orion, the spectre, the hercules, and the hawkeye are all out of date simply because they are prop driven? in a long range strategic bomber speed is not the issue. so whats the point in using a jet engine if you can get the same payload capacity as a jet. and since jet engines are the end all be all then why does the b-52 need 8 jets when the tu-95 uses 4 turboprops?

[1453]

Maybe those $470 billion dollars are the reason the Chinese are increasing their defence budget? It's still 5 times as much as the Chinese are spending, how can Rumsfeld even think that the increased US defence spending since 911 wouldn't lead to reactions?



the you should look into the fixed exchange ratio and the concept of "purchasing power":clapping:

you can buy a lot more stuff in china with 90 billion than 410 billion in the western world. it's just a simple fact.

the standard to measure how much the country is spending on military is the military spending to GDP ratio, not just the amount in terms of dollar alone.

[blue]

the standard to measure how much the country is spending on military is the military spending to GDP ratio, not just the amount in terms of dollar alone.

%GDP military spending:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.PNG

However, in terms of per capita spending, the U.S. ranks third behind Israel and Singapore. It is also number 27 in terms of military spending per dollar GDP.

[SkaredShtles]

Ooooohhhh... pretty colors...

[valve bouncer]

Look at the OECD countries, now pick the odd man out.

[ire]

so ire. are you saying that the orion, the spectre, the hercules, and the hawkeye are all out of date simply because they are prop driven?

Wow, way to turn what I said. Are those bomber you listed? They are early warning/cargo planes. Props have their place, and yes the Russian bomber comes close to the speed of the B-52....so maybe they are on more equal ground. My point was that Russia doesn't have sh** on us and it's a show of what little bit of strength they have. They are resuming flights in response to the fact that we have invaded two countries in five years and gone by a "you're with us or against us" policy since Bush has been in office. This tends to make other countries nervous.

[rockwool]

the you should look into the fixed exchange ratio and the concept of "purchasing power":clapping:

you can buy a lot more stuff in china with 90 billion than 410 billion in the western world. it's just a simple fact.

the standard to measure how much the country is spending on military is the military spending to GDP ratio, not just the amount in terms of dollar alone.

We saw that with the Soviet Union where they went for cheap stuff in big numbers compared to the US who went with expensive high tech in far lesser mumbers, and what did we learn from conflicts where these weapon systems have met? Maybe the Soviets got paid to well, which made their weapons too expensive.. :D

Never the less, what the US is accusing Venezuela for doing; starting an arms race, it is rather the US that should look its self in the mirror. You can't hold anything against China as it is only a reaction of your action; raising the defence budget to a world conquest proportion.

[MarinR00]

Hmmm, I could be mistaken, Lord knows, I have been before.... but it seems that rockwool has a problem with U.S. Foreign Policy. Well, great, becuase about 70% of Americans and 99% of the world feel the same way.

Nothing new there.

[Inclag]

Ah the ol' military-industrial complex. Eisenhower is probably rolling in his grave.

[bohorec]

I'm sure that this russian games are only a response to US
Anti-rocket shield games going on in Polland and they could be also
used for focus attention of russian people from real problems, just like
the war in Irak is used to distract american people.
Can you imagine Russians deploying radar system in Canada and
controling US air space?

I'm also sure that all normal people know, that there could be no
winner in nuclear war and that there wouldnt be any conventional
forces left after launching thousands of nukes that both sides have.
And there is no defence system against that.

People talking about positive aspects of war should sign in army
so less soldiers who don't want to go there would be send to Irak.

And before worshiping great new or old weapons one should read
some books from Kurt Vonnegut, or some other guys
who saw real war rather than watching Rambo or listening to words
from pilots of "Champagne Unit" who used F-102 to shuttle tropical
plants from Florida while other were forced to fight in remote
countries just because someone have to test new weapons.

[rockwool]

Hmmm, I could be mistaken, Lord knows, I have been before.... but it seems that rockwool has a problem with U.S. Foreign Policy. Well, great, becuase about 70% of Americans and 99% of the world feel the same way.

Nothing new there.

You're correct, glad you didn't call me anti American, freedom hater or what not. But I have trouble reading your stance in this post, don't you have a problem with US foreign policy? Shouldn't people around the world have a problem with it when you're everywhere effin up peoples lives and their countries for over 60 years now (outside the Americas)?

Ah the ol' military-industrial complex. Eisenhower is probably rolling in his grave.

Have you seen the BBC documentary Why We Fight? The teachings of Eisenhower have a major part in it. It's a must watch otherwiese, it's that good really.

Here's a link to it (cut to 4 short parts):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-354061731360218518&q=why+we+fight&total=26621&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Another documentary that I just have to recomend, while I'm at it :) , is Zeitgeist the Movie. Absolutely fantastic too. Can only find it in small parts on google vids though. Here's Part I (the intro is missing):

Zeitgeist - Religion: The Greatest Story Ever Told

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-354061731360218518&q=why+we+fight&total=26621&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Part II is called: All the World's a Stage

Part III: Don't Mind the Men Behind the Curtain.

The whole film:

http://thepiratebay.org/search/zeitgeist/0/3/200

I'm sure that this russian games are only a response to US
Anti-rocket shield games going on in Polland and they could be also
used for focus attention of russian people from real problems, just like
the war in Irak is used to distract american people.
Can you imagine Russians deploying radar system in Canada and
controling US air space?

Good points!



Quotes from Why We Fight:

Today, the United States spends more on defence than on all other parts of the federal budget combined.

US Congressman: -Our country spends more on defence than all of the other 18 members of NATO plus China, Russia...

Rumsfeld: -From my standpoint, I think numbers almost are distracting.

[Spero]

Here's another for those of you discussing military spending. It's pretty recent, but i forget the source so don't shoot me if it's inaccurate.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-11/1109557/military-spend-per-gdp-top-50-nations.jpg

[bohorec]

Here are different datas, but I'm not sure if they are correct:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.html

I'm not sure but I think this might not be included:

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/mil_cos_of_the_mil_pergdp-military-cost-per-gdp

Then we might add costs for the last line of defence:

http://www.amazon.com/Stopping-Power-Million-Americans-Guns/dp/1584450576/ref=sid_dp_dp/104-9364493-4590366

And collateral damage:

http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:21XBAOLBh18J:www.michiganstudentcau cus.org/entries/292/+spend+approximately+%24675+million+per+year+on+he alth&hl=sl&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=si&client=firefox-a

It seems to me that security is big issue in some parts of the world.

[MarinR00]

Rockwool, look at my location. Do you really think I am going to come on here and start expressing my views? You bet your ass not. I'm on a government server which means I play by the rules.

While your anti-American stance is hurtful (since I have lost 8 of my West Point classmates, in addition to 3 other friends, because of our foreign policy), I will not get into a political debate. Besides, its nothing I haven’t heard before.

I can tell you that what is wrong with Europe. The EU is content to sit back, cut back on military spending (A very good way to influence external national interests) and become isolationist. This has had some serious drawbacks, such as conceding much pull in the developing world to Russia and China (who both have military personnel all over the place [specifically Africa], looking to gain control of natural resources). Slowly, the EU has woken up to this fact, such as when it became apparent that Europe can’t protect its newest members against Russia, or itself for that matter (Europe is at Russia’s mercy because they are dependent on its energy). However, with the newly assertive Russia, even France is stepping up, recently saying that they are strongly considering rejoining the military-arm of NATO after a 60-year absence.

History has repeatedly shown that countries who have chosen isolationist policies, and had oversees interests (this includes America) have come back to be bitten by it.

So be it, time to go back to my job.

[Changleen]

MarinR00 not expressing his views:

since I have lost 8 of my West Point classmates, in addition to 3 other friends, because of our foreign policy

:thumb: We understand.

But I do pretty strongly disagree with you about Europe being isolationist. It really, really isn't. There is more than one way to do things than with weapons.

[ohio]

But I do pretty strongly disagree with you about Europe being isolationist. It really, really isn't. There is more than one way to do things than with weapons.

Limp-wristed diplomacy with neither a carrot nor a stick to offer equals isolationist despite whatever intentions they may have to be more than that. Call it isolationism-by-default if you want to.

[DaveW]

Limp-wristed diplomacy with neither a carrot nor a stick to offer equals isolationist despite whatever intentions they may have to be more than that. Call it isolationism-by-default if you want to.



Ohio *sigh*..... not using military violence/threats as the be all end all to further internal political/economic goals does NOT constitute isolationism. :disgust1: :bonk:

[bohorec]

I can tell you that what is wrong with Europe. The EU is content to sit back, cut back on military spending (A very good way to influence external national interests) and become isolationist. This has had some serious drawbacks, such as conceding much pull in the developing world to Russia and China (who both have military personnel all over the place [specifically Africa], looking to gain control of natural resources). Slowly, the EU has woken up to this fact, such as when it became apparent that Europe can’t protect its newest members against Russia, or itself for that matter (Europe is at Russia’s mercy because they are dependent on its energy). However, with the newly assertive Russia, even France is stepping up, recently saying that they are strongly considering rejoining the military-arm of NATO after a 60-year absence.




I live in EU (Slovenia) and I can tell you that nobody here thinks that Russia is threat to us.
But we all see Poland acting in strange manner last few years, their
twin leaders threatening Russia, Germany and rest of EU claiming
rights they don't deserve. The disagreement between Poland and
other EU members is the latest difficulty in the EU's efforts to
approve a cut-down version of the stalled European constitution.

However Russia was always a part of the Europe and I do not know
why should we fear them.

It's true-parts of EU are dependend on Russia natural gas, but natural
gas is not the most important source of energy here and rather than
developing new weapons (since we do not want to attack them and
steal their gas) EU decided to develop other, cleaner energy sources.
It's their gas so they have right to determine the price for it.

Here the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute is described and you can see that
Ukraine did not want to pay regular prices for gas as all other countries did.
Besides high prices of gas are good for the environment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia-Ukraine_gas_dispute

China investing in Africa is also no threat to EU, since the risk factor is
very high.
Bunch of EU countries have learned that there is not much you can do
in Africa with millitary forces.
Besides their investment could stop the flow of african refugees to EU,
increase the market, stability,...


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6079838.stm

And finally who has military personnel all over the place?

10 years ago:

http://allcountries.org/uscensus/580_u_s_military_personnel_on_active.html

now:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0883073.html

[MarinR00]

Enough with the links! I can’t access them!

Interesting about Poland.

Like I said again, most people agree with you. And it is indisputable that the US has forces deployed all over the place and it has really overextended us (TRUST ME). The good news for you Europeans, is that history has shown that when countries do that (Roman Empire and Britain come to mind), it is followed by a period of withdrawal.

I currently live in Europe and there will never be agreement on the topic of foreign policy. So I respectfully bow out of this one.

(The one good thing is, no one has come on here with the America Kicks Ass At Everything mentality or as I call it, being dumb)

[fluff]

What's this new country called Europe?

[Spero]

What's this new country called Europe?

I think its where whore babies come from.

[fluff]

I think its where whore babies come from.

Or apostrophes perhaps?

[Spero]

Or apostrophes perhaps?

:twitch:

[Changleen]

Limp-wristed diplomacy with neither a carrot nor a stick to offer equals isolationist despite whatever intentions they may have to be more than that. Call it isolationism-by-default if you want to.I bet you right now most of the major European powers could get much more out of nearly any ocountry on the planet just by asking nicely than the US could.

[bohorec]

What's this new country called Europe?

It's state of mind, not country. It has nice future If people will be able to deal with stupidty. Of course we shall never underestimate the power of stupidity.

Here are some ideas:

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=799

[rockwool]

Rockwool, look at my location. Do you really think I am going to come on here and start expressing my views? You bet your ass not. I'm on a government server which means I play by the rules.

I would like to comment that but I will leave it as we have enough already.

While your anti-American stance is hurtful (since I have lost 8 of my West Point classmates, in addition to 3 other friends, because of our foreign policy), I will not get into a political debate. Besides, its nothing I haven’t heard before.

I'm anti-American? I just wrote that I was glad that you didn't call me anti-American as I don't see my self as one.. Then I have to ask you to define what things you consider American and what not, this we have to discuss.

About your classmates/friends, I can't feel sorry for their lives as my sympathies are with the Iraqi people who, unlike your classmates/friends, didn't volonter to go fight a war on a safe distance from their loved ones and their infrastructure, much less live in the middle of it as an opressed civilian.

Shots also go out to those in the Iraqi resistance who defend their country against a foreign power that wants to force their ways upon them, while steal the wealth of their country from them. Guns High!

I can tell you that what is wrong with Europe. The EU is content to sit back, cut back on military spending (A very good way to influence external national interests) and become isolationist. This has had some serious drawbacks, such as conceding much pull in the developing world to Russia and China (who both have military personnel all over the place [specifically Africa], looking to gain control of natural resources). Slowly, the EU has woken up to this fact, such as when it became apparent that Europe can’t protect its newest members against Russia, or itself for that matter (Europe is at Russia’s mercy because they are dependent on its energy). However, with the newly assertive Russia, even France is stepping up, recently saying that they are strongly considering rejoining the military-arm of NATO after a 60-year absence.

Dunno about what France is upto or why, but you've got it all wrong about the EU. The EU has no wishes at all to become isolationistic, how could it when all major economic countries of the world, primarily the US (do we count in Canada here?), China and Russia are out in the world securing energy reserves for the future.

Don't you think that the EU has ambitions of future economic growth? Well, growth needs energy, lots of it. Don't be surprised if you see the EU every five years or so look more and more like your own country.

There are powers that trying to turn the EU into a single nation, with each member country taking the role of your 50 states. This is of course not something "official" but the're sneaking changes upon us leading more and more to that every year or so.

For instance, lately the EU found problems with their proposed constitution when a few member countries did the democratic thing and let their people deside in a referendum whether they wanted it or not.

On a side note, the late government of Sweden did not alow us to vote on the matter as they feared that we would vote against it as we did with the Euro, despite a silly unequal funding for ads to the advantage of the pro Euro side.

Is Europe at large cutting back on military spending? Good, our kids need better education, our elders need better care, we still don't have any dental health plan (Sweden at least) and sick people are forced to sleep on the streets in a country where polar bears walk them at night time.

If the military has good funding then they are going to want to fight. If they have poor crappy wheapons they gonna chicken out and stay within their borders, where they should be.. :bonk:

No one in Sweden fears the Russians as a military force with offensive ambitions, or that they do as they please with their own natural resources. Haven't seen anything about this in Greece eather.

History has repeatedly shown that countries who have chosen isolationist policies, and had oversees interests (this includes America) have come back to be bitten by it.

I don't know which countries you're thinking about except the US which never was isolationistic. The US called it self isolationist because its colonial ambitions were limited to the two American continents. That is not isolationist, more like self limiting your exploiting greed.

In Latin America and the Carribean you were just as much a colonizing force as the Belgians were in Congo, French in Mozambique but foremost the Brittish in all corners of the world.

The US was never bitten by it, as Pearl Harbour was purposedly sacrifised to get the majority of the US public to want to go to war (there's a lot of evidence to this among Aussie inteligence warnings of a huge Japanese fleet closing in).

Basicly what they did with Pearl was repeated on 11/9; They sacrifised their subjects to fool the masses to a war so that some stock holders can get stinkin rich from weapon sales and rebuilding contracts of foreign infrastructure.

[builder666]

Bomb The Russians!!!

[DaveW]

Bomb The Russians!!!

*sigh* so hard to find a good troll these days. :disgust1:

[MarinR00]

Rockwool, your logic is impeccable, and you have won me over.

I am sure the evidence that you have amassed to support your theories that both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were perpetrated by the U.S. Government is irrefutable. If the evidence you have is as bulletproof as you have led me to believe, I implore you to share it with the world, so that everyone can know the truth.

The fact that historians have missed the entire reason for American’s formal entry into WW II for the past 66 years is despicable, because as you know, nothing good came out of WW II. I look forward to seeing your evidence presented to the masses.

In addition, the historical revision to foreign policy that you have given (that countries do not need militaries or armies based on the European model you have presented) is again irrefutable. I will immediately go out into the city (Baghdad) and tell the Sunnis and Shias that weapons and fighting are not the answer. You have solved the Middle East Peace Process riddle.

Because I am not allowed to leave here for another year, please go to Brussels (NATO), Washington D.C., Moscow, Beijing , and then the Balkans and Africa as well. Spread the word. Also, please let the EU know they should disband the European Reaction Force and stop all peace keeping operations immediately, please also let the U.N. know. All funds that were directed to militaries should now be used for education and social improvement.

Having little or no military capability is the way to world peace, because as you have said “they will be chicken and stay in their borders.” I can guarantee you that no other country would take advantage of that to invade or attack that country’s interests, because they of course would have no military either!

Peace Breaks Out. If we extrapolate this theory, the same can go for police forces! Why if countries can learn to get along, why can’t individual people! Those same funds that were once dedicated to law enforcement, can now be redirected to education of this revisionist history!

Al Qaeda will be happy to know they don’t have to blow themselves up anymore.

In the face of such irrefutable evidence, logic and good grammar, I humbly concede the debate to you. And as started before, will have no more part of it.

[rockwool]

In the face of such irrefutable evidence, logic and good grammar, I humbly concede the debate to you. And as started before, will have no more part of it.

Aint that a cunt picking on my grammar. But obviously your not humble enough to offer to discuss this in my first language instead of yours. Twat. Your whole post was low, must have triggered you by saying that I don't feel for your buddies. Don't expect to be looked upon as a righteous liberator by everyone just cus your president says you are one.

Of all the things you wrote in your previous post, which I then adressed, you chose not to answer the one specific thing I asked you to. Instead you picked and raved on the matter that I expressed about that money could be better spent than on weapons that are enriching a powerfull loby.

Silly me, should have known better than to pick on something that puts food on some peoples table and expect them to agree with that.

I am sure the evidence that you have amassed to support your theories that both Pearl Harbor and 9/11 were perpetrated by the U.S. Government is irrefutable. If the evidence you have is as bulletproof as you have led me to believe, I implore you to share it with the world, so that everyone can know the truth.

The fact that historians have missed the entire reason for American’s formal entry into WW II for the past 66 years is despicable, because as you know, nothing good came out of WW II. I look forward to seeing your evidence presented to the masses.

Evidence about Pearl Harbour? In post nr47 I recomended all of you to watch the documentaries Why We Fight and Zeitgeist. In the latter they talk about the Aussie intelligence warnings. This is nothing new, evidence of how Pearl Harbour was possible has been in at least a few documentaries I've seen. How come you missed that? See no evil, hear no evil, say no evil?

Amazed that you've been lied to about Pearl and 9/11 too? How about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? You know that that was a lie to get you in a war in Vietnam, don't you? Never happened! If the military industrial complex wants a war, they get a war. Don't believe me? Take a look at Why We Fight.

Want proof of 9/11? That is another current thread, and many more if you search, but as you will watch Why We Fight and in particular Zeitgeist you will get some from there as well. See those first and then get back to me for more.

In addition, the historical revision to foreign policy that you have given (that countries do not need militaries or armies based on the European model you have presented) is again irrefutable. I will immediately go out into the city (Baghdad) and tell the Sunnis and Shias that weapons and fighting are not the answer. You have solved the Middle East Peace Process riddle.

Because I am not allowed to leave here for another year, please go to Brussels (NATO), Washington D.C., Moscow, Beijing , and then the Balkans and Africa as well. Spread the word. Also, please let the EU know they should disband the European Reaction Force and stop all peace keeping operations immediately, please also let the U.N. know. All funds that were directed to militaries should now be used for education and social improvement.

Having little or no military capability is the way to world peace, because as you have said “they will be chicken and stay in their borders.” I can guarantee you that no other country would take advantage of that to invade or attack that country’s interests, because they of course would have no military either!

Peace Breaks Out. If we extrapolate this theory, the same can go for police forces! Why if countries can learn to get along, why can’t individual people! Those same funds that were once dedicated to law enforcement, can now be redirected to education of this revisionist history!

Al Qaeda will be happy to know they don’t have to blow themselves up anymore.

There is non such European model dumbass, that was a picture I painted. The EU is almost as gready as the US, and as I pointed out in my previous post (in answer to your previuos post where you said the EU was isolationist and a lot of other dumb ****) it has ambitions to become the worlds 2nd superpower and probably with wishes to surpass your greed.

Now, can you answer my original questions? Among those was that you called me an anti-American, because of what? Which things considered American am I against? I'll make it easy for you, just list all things considered "American" and those considered "non-American" and I'll check the y/n boxes. Start a new thread, this topic needs to be discussed propperly.

I didn't mean to trigger you with what I said in my previous post, but don't excpect every one to tap you on the shoulder or be indifferent about what you with your actions are supporting/allowing to happen in Iraq and where else the US is effing it up for people.

So why we fight? I think we fight because to many people are not standing up saying "I'm not doing this any more". -Karen Kwiatkowski ex Lt. Col. USAF

[bohorec]

Hey man you can't blame US for all wars. Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan and yes US gave them cause for that attack, but it was war between two rising superpowers and history is written by the victors. Beside what goes around comes around...

Some reasons for Japan attack:
http://www.theamericancause.org/patwhydidjapan.htm

Few thoughts about surprise and Pearl Harbor
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_the_Japanese_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor_truly_a_su rprise_attack

Swedish joke:
Sweden: The war in Iraq is bad! btw we've developed some new weapons, wanna try em out?
USA: Sure.

[ire]

I'll make it easy for you, just list all things considered "American" and those considered "non-American" and I'll check the y/n boxes.
Things American
Big boobs [ ] (lots of plastic surgery here, in abundance)
Beer [ ]
Hotdogs [ ]
Hamburgers [ ]
Big Cars [ ]
Baseball [ ]
Football [ ]
Soccer ------- Just kidding

[rockwool]

Hey man you can't blame US for all wars. Pearl Harbor was attacked by Japan and yes US gave them cause for that attack, but it was war between two rising superpowers and history is written by the victors. Beside what goes around comes around...

Some reasons for Japan attack:
http://www.theamericancause.org/patwhydidjapan.htm

Few thoughts about surprise and Pearl Harbor
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Was_the_Japanese_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor_truly_a_su rprise_attack

Swedish joke:

You're right, WWII wasn't started by the US. Struck me that I found the thought quite amazing that they weren't to blame that time. :D

The Swedish joke was excellent! :busted: Didn't think that the ambiguouity (spelling?) of our weapons exporting politics were that known in other countries.. We actually have a law that porhibits us to export weapons to countries that are in a war, but when asked about the exports to the UK/US the former prime minister Göran Persson said that Swedens relationship to those two countries were of greater interest to Sweden that following the law. :dead:

[rockwool]

Things American
Big boobs [ ] (lots of plastic surgery here, in abundance)

:picsstfu:

[n00dlez]

I like the fact that in the picture the article offers the fighter is not the same type of fighter they describe. The fighters described in the articles are F3's and the fighter in the picture is a Eurofighter....

[Westy]

...... but when asked about the exports to the UK/US the former prime minister Göran Persson said that Swedens profits from those two countries were of greater interest to Sweden that following the law. :dead:

Fixed.

[rockwool]

Fixed.

And don't forget all the other things we export and what would happen to all that income if we put those two heavy buyers of Swedish products on a "black list"..