18,000 Russians dead in Ukraine War .

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: Ksihkehe


biden is not involved in a foreign war, only russia is, and in case you haven't been paying attention, I disagree with nearly everything the biden idiot says and does.

I am not pro war, russia should not have started one.

russia should immediately end the foreign war that putin started by invading his non threatening neighbor.

I agree we should stop, especially that non-threatening Syria we seem to be tied up in.

It's slightly inconvenient we're bombing a sovereign nation while you cheerlead our Ukraine effort.

Where do you stand on our other extracurricular activities warmonger?

a reply to: Ksihkehe


I don't think we should be in syria either, they no longer pose any threat to Israel or U.S. forces in the region and haven't for a long time.

Most of our forces there have already relocated to Jordan, at the invitation of Jordan, and we really only go into syria to destroy offensive weapons deliveries from iran.

As long as syria isn't setting up medium range missles and heavy drones for iran to attack Israel and U.S. forces we shouldn't be involved there anymore at all.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


We stopped using the 117s after a former president used them improperly and russia finally figured out that they were always extremely vulnerable with the doors open in daylight.

Why do keep bringing up 1985 technology that we discarded decades ago?

Iraq has s300s from Iran after we mostly left.

Syrians have fired on us hundreds of times with both s400 and the russian operated s500 test bed parked on the coast.

S500 screws up Israeli airport systems every time russia turns it on for testing and they've been publicly complaining about it for a long time.

There wws nothing for Russia figure out, the incident involved the Yugoslavia army. Not Russia.

Russia wasn’t involved in the conflict.

Soviet 1960s beat US 1985 technology were you always seem to put down soviets and Russians as inferior due to your over patriotism.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: Ksihkehe


I don't think we should be in syria either, they no longer pose any threat to Israel or U.S. forces in the region and haven't for a long time.

Most of our forces there have already relocated to Jordan, at the invitation of Jordan, and we really only go into syria to destroy offensive weapons deliveries from iran.

As long as syria isn't setting up medium range missles and heavy drones for iran to attack Israel and U.S. forces we shouldn't be involved there anymore at all.

Syria is allowed to have offensive weapons.

US shouldnt be invading a sovereign nation just because they have offensive weapons. Your overpatriotism is absurd and blatant. At least keep it subtle.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101


russian technicians were involved in both.

Why do you keep bringing up a weapon we stopped using decades ago after a president ordered them to be used improperly.

Is this your way of bragging about the russian spy who snuck the coordinates of a chinese property into a target list, causing that president to order visual confirmation of every target?

a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Syria is not allowed to host iranian offensive weapons being repeatedly used against U.S. forces and Israel in nation state terror attacks.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Soviet 1960s beat US 1985 technology

No.

You seem to mention talking points without understanding the background to them.

What happened is the Serbians took advantage of U.S. air planners ignoring a standing order given by a British officer in North America in 1759:

Take a different route so you won't be ambushed.

The timing and routes of the air missions had become too predictable, which allowed the Serbians to successfully engage the F-117.

That -was- an impressive feat on the part of the Serbs, but not a case of older technology "beating" newer technology.

Cheers

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


russian technicians were involved in both.

Why do you keep bringing up a weapon we stopped using decades ago after a president ordered them to be used improperly.

Is this your way of bragging about the russian spy who snuck the coordinates of a chinese property into a target list, causing that president to order visual confirmation of every target?

Why am I bringing up historical events? Why not. It adds context, reminds us of previous failures.

In some cases it humbles us, but not with you apparently mr “US tech is the most superior”. Delusional.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Syria is not allowed to host iranian offensive weapons being repeatedly used against U.S. forces and Israel in nation state terror attacks.

Syria have a mutual defense pact with Iran. Absolutely they can host there.

Are you out of your mind??? Whats USA doing there? Thats the real question. No defense pact with Israel.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Bring up past failures is okay, and in some cases, educational.

But at least get the specifics correct with leaping to conclusions like "older tech 'beat' newer tech".

Cheers

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Soviet 1960s beat US 1985 technology

No.

You seem to mention talking points without understanding the background to them.

What happened is the Serbians took advantage of U.S. air planners ignoring a standing order given by a British officer in North America in 1759:

Take a different route so you won't be ambushed.

The timing and routes of the air missions had become too predictable, which allowed the Serbians to successfully engage the F-117.

That -was- an impressive feat on the part of the Serbs, but not a case of older technology "beating" newer technology.

Cheers

And yet it was older tech beating new technology as the end result?

F-117 shot down in a heap of flames, the worlds most advanced stealth plane. Multi billion dollar project to ensure that it never got shot down for obvious reasons.

All I hear are excuses, there should be non for such a stealtharcraft who should always have remained inconspicuous regardless. It cost a HELL lot of money.

S-125? Cost 3000 bucks.

We can all afford one.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Have we flown a 117 in the past couple decades?

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: ISeekTruth101

Bring up past failures is okay, and in some cases, educational.

But at least get the specifics correct with leaping to conclusions like "older tech 'beat' newer tech".

Cheers

I felt I added all the context needed to make my point.

End result, a 3000 dollar S-125 soviet missile from 1960s made its way to USAs premier stealth aircraft with billions of dollars in development costs.

And the F-117 got shot down. We never got a chance to see if it could have been repeated, but the fact that it happened once says everything.

Besides the only education people need is that stealth aircraft is NOT invisible,
NOT impossible to deal with. We need to end this US propaganda hyperbole because its coming from the wrong people. You should pay attention military analysts who are impartial that say stealth craft can very well be shot down by advanced SAMs. Only question is at what range.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101

No. Again, you push a faulty conclusion.

If your "older tech versus newer tech" was at all correct, there would have been more than ONE F-117 shot down by the Serbs.

Clearly, their tech did not beat the tech fielded by NATO.

That is why, when only ONE aircraft is considered, one has to examine the details of the incident.

I told you why it happened. Ambushes are easy to execute when the opponent fails to vary their route and timing.

Your "conclusion" is flawed because your notion of what happened is ill informed.

Yes, an airplane was shot down.

No, it was not a case of "better technology". It was an opportunity granted by faulty employment of the aircraft.

Cheers

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Have we flown a 117 in the past couple decades?

This is the kind of discussion that results when one party is determined to push a narrative point to absurd extremes.

Told ISK101 twice what happened, no more repetition needed.

Cheers

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


Have we flown a 117 in the past couple decades?

You seem to drift off into your own conversations and questions.

The incident took place in 1999. Why is that so hard to grasp? We are comparing the tech used at that time specifically.

Let me repeat for the slow learners. 1999 when an F-117 was downed by an s-125 missile, the missile being based on a platform that was AT THE TIME, 1999, 20 years older.

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2


He knows.

I'm just not gonna leave some of the absurdities out there unchallenged.

I usually stop once someone clowns them self enough for what you stated to become clear to all future readers.

a reply to: ISeekTruth101


A few things may have changed since then, eh?

117s have nothing to do with the russian invasion of Ukraine.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2


He knows.

I'm just not gonna leave some of the absurdities out there unchallenged.

I usually stop once someone clowns them self enough for what you stated to become clear to all future readers.

You’ve clowned yourself enough on every thread you visited on ATS to the point that you have left a trail of posters exclaiming, “you’re full of crap”... and “i usually dont agree with anything you say but in this particular instance you make some sense”.

I’ve done nothing but relay the facts. An s-125 downed an F-117 stealth aircraft. It found something you claim to be invisible, capable of slipping by the Russians with ease.

originally posted by: PatriotGames4u
a reply to: ISeekTruth101


A few things may have changed since then, eh?

117s have nothing to do with the russian invasion of Ukraine.

Oh and just because you work in manufacturing doesnt mean you have any idea about the engineering that goes into whats being manufactured. You’re not an engineer. Stick to what you know.