Military Strength of Russia (and compared to other nations)

posted by iskander

Democracy? Please. American government has traditionally supported the WORST dictators and mass murderers of the 20th century, with out giving a crap about democracy. Do not confuse democracy with what is literally called "American interests", aka "liberation" of any given nation from its resources. Civil War for the greater cause? That's ridiculous. Are you a anarchists or something? What you said is that death, murder, suffering and total chaos is for the greater good. Ridiculous. [Edited by Don W]

It’s in our genes! We’re descended from a bunch of “name it and claim it” types. Full of ambition, and overflowing with hubris, they left the organized societies in Europe for the “free for all” in the Americas. Land. More land here than European could even dream about. And that in a time when land was the foundation of the economic and social structure itself. Here for the taking! In less than 3 months after our ancestors arrival at Plymouth, they had attacked a nearby village and looted its sacred grave sites.

I travel to Delonagah Georgia frequently. It is the site of the 1820s discovery of gold. The Cherokees who lived there were unceremoniously herded into manageable size groups and marched off to Oklahoma. A culture ripped up and transported from a verdant uplands to a flat prairie. Called the “Trail of Tears,” many 1000s died on the way. At least three times as many as died in the infamous Bataan Death March of 1942! Perhaps 1 Indian in 6 died. On the Death March, it was 3,000 died out of 70,000 captured solders. Not good, but then, we’ve seen worse! Uh, we’ve done worse!

Later we captured the Apache Indians and moved them in railroad box cars - shall hello Hitler - from the dry desert of Arizona to the mosquito infected, malarial swamps of Florida, where over half the Indians died. Hmm?

And I can’t help bur recount what we say was the last battle of the Indian Wars, the Battle of Wounded Knee, in the Dakotas. Over 300 Indian men, women and children were slaughter by the newly restaffed 7th Cavalry, of George Armstrong Custer notoriety, and not one US solider was killed! How was this “battle” received in Washington? The Congress awarded 14 Medals of Honor to the US Cavalry troopers. Hmm? So what is new? I say again, it’s in our genes!



[edit on 12/1/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by sbob
StellarX I agree with most of what you said

But.............

Good sign that you agree with me , well in my opinion anyways, but you should consider how you choose to disagree in the future. It's always interesting that people will agree with much of what you say ( or claim to anyways) but then get quite aggressive in defending a few easily disproved 'facts'.

When you said
"And the people of American are absolute monsters to allow for their foreign policy to be as murderous and genocidal as it is?".....................

I wrongly assumed that it would be obvious that the massive majority have no idea what is being done in their name based on the falsified accounts of history they are spoon fed from birth. I do not blame Russians for Stalin ( And if they were in fact responsible they paid dearly for that mistake... ) anymore than i blame Americans for George Bush or Richard Nixon or FDR...

Well I am not a monster, not even on Halloween. So thanks for being sooooo nice. And logical. I think Russians are monsters for having Lenin, Stalin......., oh and Putin icing people with plutonium milk shakes in Ireland and England. If you want to be that way.

If your asking someone to explain himself it's probably best to save the ridicule until they had time to respond and explain themselves...

Come on the old Soviet Union invaded Afganistan don't try to sugar coat your own country loser actions.

I am actually South-African by birth and neither of my parents are Russian.... It's not a question of 'sugar coating' as much as one of trying to discover the reality behind the popular media account of our history. The USSR had at the time far more reason to bomb Afghanistan than did the USA as there were plenty of religious 'fanatics' ( in as much as they did not want any change ) who hated the reforms the Russian backed leadership of Afghanistan were attempting and succeeding at. If it were not for the vast amounts of resources that the USA poured into the hands of these self same fanatics ( who chanted " death to the USSR' follow by a " death to America" ) there would have been as little upheaval in Afghanistan as in the other 'republics'.

It's not hard to discover the origin of 'Muslim terrorist' ( as limited as it is) when looking at how much US tax money went into their campaign against occupation by the USSR...

I think the USA had every right to invade Afganistan after 9/11. The taliban said screw you at handing over people that killed many Americans. The Taliban were harboring Al Qadea in the country, and if the taliban were not going to cooperate then they are an accessory to murder well they deserve to go down.

It's actually pretty well established that the Afghan leadership ( as radical as they were) did not want to get bombed and did their best to extricate themselves from the situation without losing too much standing among their peers. You should investigate all the behind the scenes deals they tried to make trough Pakistan and others ( since the US basically refused to really negotiate in public) to discover just how desperately Bush and his gang wanted to bomb them even further back into the stone age. If anyone tells you that a country with the relative might of America can not reach a peaceful settlement when they want to ( considering how often they have proven to everyone who reads actual history books) they are either as ignorant as you were educated to be or just lying. You don't tangle with such power and get away with it, unless you are allowed to, and this is abundantly obvious in history and right to this day.

Now the Iraq war reasons are pure rubbish, just like your Russian/Afganistan invasion.

As i said the historic record speaks for itself and the USSR had far more reason to intervene , legally and morally speaking, than the US had in Iraq since 1990.

Stellar

posted by StellarX

I am actually South-African by birth . . I wrongly assumed it would be obvious that the massive majority have no idea what is being done in their name based on the falsified accounts of history they are spoon fed from birth . . “ [Edited by Don W]

I consent - concur - to the thrust of your post, Mr S/X. OTOH, defensively speaking, it is important to me for you to keep in mind that the 2000 election saw the Blue states ahead by 500,000 votes and by 3 million plus if you include the Green’s total with the Dems. Out of 100 million votes cast, a solid majority if not overwhelming. (The Dems totally miscalculated the popularity of the environmental issues, to their everlasting chagrin. That error may rank as the single blunder with the worst consequences in America’s and the world’s political history. It must surely be of some comfort to Germans to know the mistake they made in 1933 can be duplicated elsewhere.) The Blue states lost the 2004 election by 3 million votes, as if the “swing” vote had swung the wrong way in my view and in apparently in your view, too.

This is understandable though, as the public is not so much devoted to the fine details of either history or current events. The lack of interest in acquiring knowledge of the world is a product of our own military prowess and economic success just after WW2. We did not have to know about the world. If you lived in Austria, or Czechoslovakia or the Benelux, you better know what’s going on. Your very life is at stake. In America in 2004, most people were busy making a living. For better or for worse they depend on 20 second bites the tv calls news for making their decisions.

The 2004 Dems were on the horns of a dilemma. In America, you cannot run as an anti-war party or candidate when the soldiers are dying in the field. That is the equal to high treason. The Dems decided to offer the public a pledge to “do it better.” The Iraq War. That proved unpersuasive. When it comes to war and peace, the voters (anywhere) rarely change leaders in mid-course. Despite that handicap, the Dems figured the election well. They predicted Ohio would be the decisive state. It was. Bush got 2,859,000 to Kerry's 2,741,000, losing by 118,000 votes out of 5.5 million votes cast. The Dems thought it would be closer. www.cnn.com...

If, and I know IF is a big word, the Dems had carried Ohio, they would have won 2004 in the Electoral College. To the Dem’s credit, they correctly figured the 2000 election would pivot with Florida. They nominated Joe Lieberman to carry the Jewish vote in Florida. He came oh so close. The Dems lost by an official count of 537 votes. I say the Dems have a good grasp on our political scene. Americans have tolerated - for as long a I have lived - an electoral system where close elections usually go to the people who do the counting. I doubt that will change.

Aside: If you are interested in American history, look at the 1876 Hayes vs. Tilden election, which was a watershed event in America. The North abandoned the former slaves to the cruelty of the South, in return for corporate supremacy. It was then that Americans agreed to treat corporations as natural persons before the law, giving corporations ths same legal rights as a person. Americans have no concept what “Limited” means when placed behind a corporate name elsewhere in the world. When I explain the significance of this historical tidbit, it falls on deaf ears.

Resume: You lumped my icon of the 20th century, FDR, in with others of not nearly so admirable accomplishments. Although elected in November, 1932, FDR did not take office until March 4, 1933. A constitutional amendment changed that to January 20 in time for the 1936 inauguration. Our elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, so that is about as quick a change in government you are likely to get in the US of A.

While it is true the Civil Service Commission and Interstate Commerce Commission were established in the late 19th century and the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Reserve System in the early 1900s, even those early experiments in sound governance were minuscule compared to the reforms instituted out of whole cloth by FDR in the New Deal. I’d say nearly all of what you see in America today can be dated to the period 1933-1939. The dismantling of America’s Federal government began under Ronnie Reagan and has gone full steam ahead under Bush43. Which is why I hold both in such disdain. But alas, I have digressed on an aside so I’ll end it here.

Good post, StellarX.

Post Script: Today, on CSpan2, I heard Honorable Geoffrey Robertson recount from his book, "The Tyrannicide Brief." I rate it A+. www.geofferyrobertson.com...
www.booktv.org...


[edit on 12/2/2006 by donwhite]

i actually would agree with Donwhite, i don't see any reason to position FDR in the league of Nixon or Bush....

The peoblem is with the western attitude of double standards(Thats the most polite word I can find for them) ....where uncivilized countries like Saudi Arabia, Israiel and Pakistan are considered to be "good" "friendly" states just because they prefer to play second fiddle to the West (more correctly USA )
While any country who objects to do that and looks after their own interests(in this case Russia) has to be a "BAD" State in all respects ...there cant be anything grossly good in those states .

So according to those Hypocits Russia was "good" in the 90s when Oligarths backed by the West were looting her national wealth, Prestige and backbone ...but now when someone (Read Mr Putin)is trying to make Russia think about her own interests rather than looking at the interests of Western Europe(as it had been doing in the 90s )...the man is a Criminal.

I myself dont support most of the domestic policies of Mr Putin....but believe me Putin has done a miracle to Russia ....no Honest Russian can object to that ....ask the question to someone who has been to Russia both in the 90s and recently ...and you will know the truth

As far as Military is concerned I doubt if Russia is world No 1 but I can definitely say Its not No 2 ,atleast .

To Russian soldier: respect man, from the bottom of my heart

To all the rest: there are still people in this world who do not give 2 farts about getting beat up, having their legs cut off, or even dying. These things do not happen uniquely in the Russian armed forces, they happen anywhere and everywhere on this planet. Some people get caught up in the mass-media hysteria and general negativity of it all. These are the so called "intellectuals" who can only lie on their couches and complain about how terrible it all is instead of trying to change a damn thing. They are the traitors that flee their country without as much as a second thought when times get tough. Those are the same "intellectuals" who justified stealing everything they could get their hands on after the fall of communism. Theyre the ones who rape Russia of everything she has and take off for parts unknown. Whatever, i can go on and on about this.
My point is that the Russian army is a school of life, and like life itself- its no walk in the park. Thankfully there are still many, many people out there who arent afraid of serving in it in spite of its numerous shortcomings. And that is just a testament to the strength of their character. Unlike all the other wussies (for cencis of the stronger word) out there, they actually consider it a challenge and a privilage to be serving their comrades, motherland, and the memory of their forefathers. After all, isnt that what being a man is all about?

russia would win in a war against the U.S. because crazy beats big

Russia is severly weakened militarily but may be seeing that it shouldn't focus on matching US conventional military power just yet. Russia can barely successfully occupy Chechnya (possibly the size of rhode island) meanwhile the US is successfully occupying Iraq (a few deaths a day for relative control of an entire nation).

Russia has emphasised its Nuclear assets over its conventional and Putin's directives have pushed Russia to build its economy over its army.

Originally posted by The_Investor
Russia can barely successfully occupy Chechnya (possibly the size of rhode island) meanwhile the US is successfully occupying Iraq (a few deaths a day for relative control of an entire nation).

I think you need to look up the definition of control. The Iraqi government can't step outside of the green zone for more than 5 mins. Those whom do, choose to live in areas dependant on if they are shia or sunni (there are very very few of them by the way).

Originally posted by Pendu

Originally posted by The_Investor
Russia can barely successfully occupy Chechnya (possibly the size of rhode island) meanwhile the US is successfully occupying Iraq (a few deaths a day for relative control of an entire nation).

I think you need to look up the definition of control. The Iraqi government can't step outside of the green zone for more than 5 mins. Those whom do, choose to live in areas dependant on if they are shia or sunni (there are very very few of them by the way).

The US is in control of Iraq, last time I looked Iraqis weren't self-governing, they were doing what the US tells them to do.

Originally posted by The_Investor
Russia is severly weakened militarily but may be seeing that it shouldn't focus on matching US conventional military power just yet.

I managed that ( if one assumes nuclear weaponry to be non-conventional contrary to the Soviet doctrine) in the middle or late 60's and since then conventional weaponry have become ever more redundant even if it serves as useful distraction for those who know no better.

Russia can barely successfully occupy Chechnya (possibly the size of rhode island) meanwhile the US is successfully occupying Iraq (a few deaths a day for relative control of an entire nation).

I think both countries are failing to effectively occupy ( meaning no more violence on the streets ) their these various places for quite specific reasons as both have the means to do so had they wanted to.

Russia has emphasised its Nuclear assets over its conventional and Putin's directives have pushed Russia to build its economy over its army.

Russia has both in abundance and European armies wont be able to seriously impede Russian progress in case of a invasion. The US wont be able to cross the Atlantic to do anything in respect to ground interventions and the air forces are simply too fragmented to fight effective against the widely deployed Russian air defenses.

Stellar

Originally posted by StellarX
Russia has both in abundance and European armies wont be able to seriously impede Russian progress in case of a invasion. The US wont be able to cross the Atlantic to do anything in respect to ground interventions and the air forces are simply too fragmented to fight effective against the widely deployed Russian air defenses.

Same was said for the BEF in 1914 and the finnish army during the russian invasion but both held up the advance of thier enemies and caused serious casualties for the enemy. Europe is not as fragmented as you would believe, it has one of the best submarine forces in the world, one of the best ASW forces in the world and a sizable army. Russian forces would find it very difficult to invade europe without recieving heavy losses and possible nuclear strikes from france and the UK.

posted by gone_wrong

To Russian soldier: respect man, from the bottom of my heart

To all the rest: Some people get caught up in the mass-media hysteria and general negativity of it all. These are the so called "intellectuals" who complain how terrible it all is instead of trying to change a thing. They’re the ones who rape Russia of everything she has and take off for parts unknown. My point is the Russian army is a school of life, and like life itself - its no walk in the park. Unlike all the other ‘Russies’ out there, they actually consider it a challenge and a privilege to be serving their comrades, motherland, and the memory of their forefathers. After all, isn’t that what being a man is all about? [Edited by Don W]

posted by StellarX

posted by The_Investor
Russia is severely weakened militarily but may be seeing that it shouldn't focus on matching US conventional military power just yet.

I managed that in the middle or late 60's and since then conventional weaponry have become ever more redundant even if it serves as useful distraction for those who know no better.

Russia can barely occupy Chechnya (possibly the size of Rhode Island) meanwhile the US is successfully occupying Iraq (a few deaths a day for relative control of an entire nation).

I think both countries are failing to effectively occupy their these various places for quite specific reasons as both have the means to do so had they wanted to.

Russia has emphasized . . Putin's directives have pushed Russia to build its economy over its army.

Russia has both [economic and military] in abundance and European armies won’t be able to seriously impede Russian progress in case of a invasion. The US won’t be able to cross the Atlantic to do anything in respect to ground interventions and the air forces are simply too fragmented to fight effectively against the widely deployed Russian air defenses. Stellar [Edited by Don W]

Disclaimer. I hope I have not edited out the crux of the debate. The CIA World Factbook - their ‘word’ not mine - puts the RF military expenditure at $30 billion. (2005) Disregarding exchange rates, others complain that figure is only half the actual outlay. Grant that for a moment, and admit there is a 2 to 1 equivalency - prices are cheaper in Russia - then you have the RF at about $120 billion equivalent vis a vis the United States.

Last year, we had $455 b. as the beginning DoD budget. There was a supplementary off-budget $107 b. voted to fund both Afghan and Iraq. We also voted $34 b. for all our war Veterans. That is short by about half what it should be, i.e., $51 b. There is the obligatory payment on the national debt, of which I attribute 80% to past DoD spending. This is well over $200 b. this year. The US military industrial complex cost is closer to $800 b. last year than it was to $455 b.

The major pay-outs in the $2.9 t. budget for 2008, are the entitlements, Social Security and Medicare, at about $2 t. The remainder of the budget is referred to as “discretionary” as opposed to the “entitlements.” The latter have fixed payable benefits but the number of recipients is not fixed. To date the entitlements are operating in the black.

Aside: Because the Federal government uses what is called a “consolidated” budget, that is, lumping all Federal payouts into one budget or accounting, the surplus in SS and Medicare income is spent as if it was general tax income. In order to get a real picture of the US budgetary deficits, you must add the excess collected by the specific taxes for SS (12.4% of income) and Medicare (2.9% of income.) These sums are place in dedicated Trust Funds. Under the consolidated budget, the Trust Fund surplus is properly to be added to the published deficit.

The SS and Medicare “surplus” is estimated to be about $125-$150 b. The 2007 projected budget deficit is $275 b. The actual shortfall in income compared to spending obligations is over $400 b. The Medicare Trust Fund will disappear between 2010 and 2015. The SS Trust Fund will be depleted between 2025 and 2030. Around 2040, demographics will put the SS Trust Fund back into surplus. Because our health care expense rise 8-10% a year, Medicare will never return to the black under prevailing policy.

It took me a long time to get here. It looks to me to become a member of the European Union one must agree to the song’s message, “War no more.” I know geographers define Europe by the Urals, but from my own geopolitical perspective, I think of Europe as being west of Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. I’m not decided where I’d put the Baltic states. I believe without knowing that the RF exercises suzerainty over those 3 states, at least as far as foreign policy is concerned. Free? Yes, but keep your head down.

Likewise, Americans are not much enthralled over the Balkans and throw in Bulgaria. You might say I’m not enthused over anyplace south of the Danube, expect for Greece. This is not to say the people south of the Danube are not the equal of any people anywhere. It is to say their history is much too complex for me to devote much energy. After all, most of us WASPs date our history from 1607, or if you’re “excessively” religious, from 1620. WASP - White Anglo Saxon Protestant. Surprisingly, to me anyway, US sociologists are now saying “Yuppie” Catholics are really more WASP-like than old time Catholic-like. For familial harmony I attend Catholic Mass 8-10 times a year. I have observed the homilies in GA and FL would never work in Rome.

I have accused the USSR to have been a paper tiger. I have asserted the CIA (and MI6-SIS went along to get along) of intentionally over-estimating the military and economic strength of the USSR for decades. This was for 2 reasons. First, the CIA did not want to be blamed or coming up short for any unexpected Soviet success anywhere around the world. Second, it “worked” well with what departing Pres. Eisenhower warned us about, “The accumulation of . . undue power in the military industrial complex.”

Almost all of our procurement of military equipment is essentially on no-bid, negotiated contracts. Even when one conglomerate wins a contract, the fine print requires much of the work be sub-contracted out to others, usually including the losing bidder.

The current president has “invented” (or adopted with a vengeance) a new paradigm in American politics. In more than 1,000 instances, he has “signed off” on enactments of Congress. By which he means he will not enforce or obey certain provisions of the law he is otherwise approving. He has employed what is called a “line item” veto. Which is the right or privilege of approving part of a law, and disapproving other parts. This is “extra” constitutional. That is, it is neither permitted nor banned. As long as Congress lets it happen, it grows. The newly elected 110th Congress has not had time to enact any laws. By late summer, we will see how this “signing off” goes down. I oppose it. B43's followers claims he has vetoed only 1 law in 6+ years, but in reality, he has “vetoed” more laws or parts of laws than any 10 presidents before him. Advancing the Neo Con agenda.

[edit on 3/11/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by The_Investor
Russia is severly weakened militarily but may be seeing that it shouldn't focus on matching US conventional military power just yet.

I managed that ( if one assumes nuclear weaponry to be non-conventional contrary to the Soviet doctrine) in the middle or late 60's and since then conventional weaponry have become ever more redundant even if it serves as useful distraction for those who know no better.

Russia can barely successfully occupy Chechnya (possibly the size of rhode island) meanwhile the US is successfully occupying Iraq (a few deaths a day for relative control of an entire nation).

I think both countries are failing to effectively occupy ( meaning no more violence on the streets ) their these various places for quite specific reasons as both have the means to do so had they wanted to.

Russia has emphasised its Nuclear assets over its conventional and Putin's directives have pushed Russia to build its economy over its army.

Russia has both in abundance and European armies wont be able to seriously impede Russian progress in case of a invasion. The US wont be able to cross the Atlantic to do anything in respect to ground interventions and the air forces are simply too fragmented to fight effective against the widely deployed Russian air defenses.

Stellar

I don't frankly care what you're reading - Defence analyses across the board are dictating that Europe is in a good position to defend itself now - but should that be allowed. It will defunct NATO which is in itself a useful institution. The US military posture in Europe is changing possibly just to maintain the usefulness of NATO, these plans were set before the Iraq War but it was certainly excellerated by the events which seperated western Europe farther from the NATO alliance.

Already the EU is joint training and using in join operations in the Balkans, EU forces gathered from multiple countries including the major continental ones - France, Germany and Italy.

And the US is with half the manpower as Russia in Georgia effectively subduing large portions of Iraq a population 22 times that of Georgia's.

posted by The_Investor
“Defense analysts across the board declare that Europe is in a good position to defend itself - but should that be allowed? It will bring NATO to an end which is itself a useful institution. The US military posture in Europe is changing possibly to maintain the usefulness of NATO . . “

1) “Allowed” or necessary? I ignore completely the 7,000 + nuclear weapons in possession of the RF and 2 other republics. The republics have no means to deliver such weapons, other than by truck or UPS. Very few if any of the RF’s ICBMs are serviceable. The same disastrous conditions prevail in the RF Navy. There is absolutely no military threat to the RF out past Ukraine and Belarus and none is there if both will stop stealing gas and oil in transit to Western Europe.
2) The US is converting NATO into a secondary armed force to impose its will in places where it is either inconvenient for the US to be, or for times when the US needs a temporary manpower assist. Militarism is still a strong impulse with too many older EU types who harbor dreams of the good old days, but by 2020, they will all be dead and NATO will either become a college scholarship non-profit or be disbanded.

“The EU [NATO] is in joint training and in joint operations in the Balkans . . EU [NATO] forces recruited from several countries including the major continental powers - France, Germany and Italy . . the US with half the manpower as Russia has in Georgia is effectively subduing large portions of Iraq with a population 22 times that of Georgia's. [Edited by Don W]

1) And NATO is doing more and more of the heavy lifting in Afghan. That will not continue, however, if the EU member forces sustain many casualties. The US will have to bear the brunt of the KIA and WIA in Afghan or the EU [NATO] will withdraw.
2) I don’t regard the US performance in Iraq as an example anyone would want to emulate. Americans are deeply conflicted over how to extricate ourselves from a failed mission in Iraq. Our hubris side says stay the course, like we did in Vietnam, our more thoughtful side says we are doing more harm by being there, so let’s stop doing harm and leave.

I believe everyone knows we are going to leave Iraq. No one is sure when. We have mucked up the ME for 2 reasons: 1) to secure the Persian Gulf oil and 2) to advance the ethnic cleansing by Israel in Old Palestine.

[edit on 3/11/2007 by donwhite]

If the US and Russia had a common enemy to fight and put everthing they had to defeat this one enemy.

Originally posted by donwhite
I have accused the USSR to have been a paper tiger.

You sure did and i pointed out why i disagree so completely.

I have asserted the CIA (and MI6-SIS went along to get along) of intentionally over-estimating the military and economic strength of the USSR for decades.

Maybe in the 40's and 50's ( even thought they could the first nuke test date wrong by half a decade) and even 60's but after that we little other than underestimation and lies to 'substantiate' it. Considering how well penetrated both organisations were in those earlier times it's no surprise that they overestimated the capabilities as per request of their subjects/masters in Moscow...

This was for 2 reasons. First, the CIA did not want to be blamed or coming up short for any unexpected Soviet success anywhere around the world.

The USSR were hardly involved around the world and if anywhere then only as allowed by the US. The US spent most of the cold war destroying independence and general nationalist movements around the world that had little if anything to do with 'communist' even if the USSR were never communist to start with.

Second, it “worked” well with what departing Pres. Eisenhower warned us about, “The accumulation of . . undue power in the military industrial complex.”

Personally i like this one 'better'

"There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself."
— Senator Daniel K. Inouye at the Iran Contra Hearings

Almost all of our procurement of military equipment is essentially on no-bid, negotiated contracts. Even when one conglomerate wins a contract, the fine print requires much of the work be sub-contracted out to others, usually including the losing bidder.

And all done with wealth that they US no longer has...

With the rest of your post i can't argue much if at all.

Keep up the good work.

Stellar

Originally posted by The_Investor
I don't frankly care what you're reading -

Those who do not read rarely care what those who do have.

Defence analyses across the board are dictating that Europe is in a good position to defend itself now -

Name at least some of them then...

but should that be allowed. It will defunct NATO which is in itself a useful institution. The US military posture in Europe is changing possibly just to maintain the usefulness of NATO, these plans were set before the Iraq War but it was certainly excellerated by the events which seperated western Europe farther from the NATO alliance.

NATO have very little if any power projection ( conventional) capacity without the USAF.

Already the EU is joint training and using in join operations in the Balkans, EU forces gathered from multiple countries including the major continental ones - France, Germany and Italy.

And this means what in your opinion?

And the US is with half the manpower as Russia in Georgia effectively subduing large portions of Iraq a population 22 times that of Georgia's.

Effectively subduing 'large portions of Iraq' it can not be as it's still employing aircraft to bomb wedding parties. Fact is you are not 'effectively' doing anything ( beside perpetrating a slow and gradual genocide) when your actions have led to the deaths of 600 000 or more out of a population of 22 million. As i said before the US is trying about as hard as the RF to 'subdue' the local populations and it is in my mind quite obvious that these are efforts designed to fall short of what would be required for a occupation that does not involved the deaths and serious injury to hundreds of American servicemen per month.

Stellar

posted by StellarX

Maybe in the 40's and 50's (even though they got the first nuke test date wrong by half a decade) and even 60's but after that we little other than underestimation and lies to 'substantiate' it. Considering how well penetrated both organizations were in those earlier times it's no surprise that they overestimated the capabilities as per request of their subjects/masters in Moscow . . “ [Edited by Don W]

1) My 1940s-1950s memory is that the US Gov’t constantly reminded us taxpaying citizens of the large size of the Red Army, its proximity to West Germany and points westward, and how fast the Russian - Soviet - armor could “roll” across Germany and into France. This was done in part to justify the deployment of our 280 mm M65 Long Tom cannon capable of firing off the newest and smallest of nuclear bombs. Tactical instead of strategic. Nuke’em on the battlefield. We even had a brief episode of the “safe” a-bomb, a so-called “neutron” bomb. Touted as a killer of men but a non-destroyer of property. No more Dresden or Berlin.
2) The US never infiltrated the USSR like the reverse. More Russians speak English than Americans speak Russian. Besides, the Cyrillic alphabet has too many letters. Unless we have kept it a secret the highest US official to be accused of cross-dressing in red, was an Assistant Secretary of State for Finance, Alger Hiss. He was “outed” by Whitaker Chambers, a Time magazine wrier who came in from the cold and confessed the errors of his youth. In the process he named Hiss as one of his contacts. Hiss was involved in the Breton Woods conference out of which came the IMF and World Bank. Hiss would not have been privy to much military or planning intel to forward to the NKVD, MVD or KGB as the case may have been. Because Hiss was a blueblood liberal, and Chambers was a pudgy man who was a turncoat, it was hard for me to believe him while Hiss kept up his denial until he died. FOIA revelations proved Chambers was telling the truth at least as it related to Hiss.

The USSR were hardly involved around the world and if anywhere then only as allowed by the US. The US spent most of the cold war destroying independence and general nationalist movements around the world that had little if anything to do with 'communist' even if the USSR were never communist to start with.

Apologetics.
1) You have described the outcome of US anti-communist activity correctly, but in defense of my government, I do not believe such an ulterior motive was at the root of their actions. It was fortuitious. It is easier to control a dictat Hey, America was new to the intimacies - or intricacies - of geopolitics. We had studiously avoided Europe and European colonies until 1941. We knew very few of the players and even less about the game. Our WW2 OSS - Office of Strategic Services - was formed out of FDR’s Oval Office and manned by “Wild Bill” Donovan’s Ivy League classmates. Yes, we had MI, too, but none of it was coordinated. You’ve seen the movie “Midway” I suppose.

It was not until 1947 that the CIA was formed. Even today, in 2007, we still have complaints that there is little or no cross-agency communications. The publicly released number of clandestine ops is 16. But I’d guess there is at lest 1 more, maybe more than 1, that are carried “off books.”
2) We were gullible. We were easily importuned. We were confused, and we were proud, because we knew we - the United States - had produced 90% of the materials that won War 2 for the good guys. And we had not reached 100% of capacity! Europe lay in ruins, Japan was destroyed and the rest of the world was properly labeled as 3rd world. British Commonwealth nations other than India and Ceylon excepted.

We had almost all the money, everybody owed us money and we had well over 75% of the world’s manufacturing capacity. We did not have to learn Arabic, nor Chinese, nor Russian. We had what they wanted and they would have to learn American English. A golden opportunity missed? Yes, but isn’t that always the case, looking back?

But the Russians were wily. From a position of great weakness, the USSR parlayed our ignorance and our love of and devotion to technology into a rather successful Cold War from 1946 to 1991. Nearly a half century before the USSR’s bubble burst. But when it did, we found out it was hollow.

"There exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fund-raising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself." Senator Inouye (D-HI) at the Iran Contra Hearings

Hyperbole! Posturing. It’s all true, but we’re talking about Nicaragua, and we had maybe 200 CIA operatives, 300-400 Special Forces types, 10 or 15 planes and choppers and a hall dozen high speed patrol boats not over 40 feet in length. The Democratically controlled Congress had 3 times added language to appropriations bills prohibiting American involvement in Nicaragua. Bush41 then VP but as former head of the CIA, and a gung-ho Marine orchestrated an attempt to prevent the popular Daniel Ortega from gaining control of the country. Which, as you know, he was recently elected to be president. Bush41 had to pardon Casper Weinberg in 1882 to prevent Casper from “dropping” him - B41 - into the wilful violations of law in the I-C Affair. Talk about CYA!

[In Re No bid defense contracts] And all done with wealth that they US no longer has . . With the rest of your post I can't argue much if at all. Keep up the good work. Stellar

I hate deficit spending because it is 1), an unnecessary generational shift of expenditures to our grand-children and 2), it is a socio-economic shift of tax burden from the rich to the poor. That personal view aside, the US has a $12 t. annual economy, and a total worth of around $60 t. Our national debt of $8 t. is not a cause for great concern except as I mentioned above.

How much debt can the US sustain? I would suggest twice the current amount, but the real indicator is the interest rate on US 10 year and 20 year bonds. That rate (cost of money) is set by people who are much smarter than I, and who have access to more info than we’d ever guess. That rate is currently in the high 4's and that is good for us. As our credit-worthiness declines, the interest rate will rise. When the rate rises to 6%, it is time for dramatic reforms. A national epiphany on high finance. I was surprised to hear the other day that the US manufacturing sector at $1.9 t. was still the largest in the world.

Effectively subduing 'large portions of Iraq' it can not be as it's still employing aircraft to bomb wedding parties. Fact is you are not 'effectively' doing anything (beside perpetrating a slow and gradual genocide) when your actions have led to the deaths of 600 000 or more out of a population of 22 million.

As I said before the US is trying about as hard as the RF to 'subdue' the local populations and it is in my mind quite obvious that these are efforts designed to fall short of what would be required for a occupation that does not involved the deaths and serious injury to hundreds of American servicemen per month. Stellar

Look at it like this. Bush43 is a primo Neo Con. New Conservative. A line promulgated by the Kristol’s in the 1980s. I call it quasi-fascist but then who am I? Neo Cons believe the US is “endowed by the Creator” to rule the world. They further believe that there is a 20 year window of opportunity to re-format the world according to the image the United States wants. That runs roughly from 1991 to 2011.

Because of the US’s ever rising and politically uncontrollable dependence on petroleum, it is essential (to any great power) that its sources be under its hegemony. Further, in any contest between the PRC and the US, it is advantageous to have our finger on not only supply, but on the price of crude oil and natural gas. The guy with the largest stockpile can set the price the others must follow. See our own J.D. Rockefeller. If you cannot achieve hegemony, then chaos and turmoil is next best.

The Nine Eleven Event was pure serendipity for the Neo Con government of Bush43. War trumps economy. By “playing” the national security theme the Neo Cons won the 2002 and 2004 elections. But by 2006 the public was growing weary and Bush43 had lied so much so often he lost credibility. Americans have never been anti-war. We have always been adverse to losing a war. If we can’t win, we quit. Morality has no place in our thinking. We admit to killing 1,000,000 Vietnam in our 10 years of involvement there; they say we killed 3,000,000. Do you see a national day of mourning for dead Vietnamese? No, but you see endless invocation of the 59,000 dead Americans. As in Iraq, we have sustained 3,200 KIA but there is never a reference to how many Iraqis have died to date. Do we care? Hey, we’re a Christian nation! When God’s on your side, you let the Devil take the hindmost!

We have failed in Iraq. We had no plan for post-May 1. Mission Accomplished Day. You can’t believe that, can you? But it’s true. Last night on CBS 60 Minutes, the last news program in America, Andy Rooney said the US Military has given 8,000 waivers to new recruits who had felony criminal records, which before Iraq was a disqualifier for service. This is how ill-conceived the Gang of Four - Bush43, VP Cheney, Condo Rice and the Oberfuhrer, Herr Rumsfeld - had thought this thing through. Bush43 may turn out to be right, when he “promised” last year that the US Armed Forces would be in Iraq at least through January 20, 2009, his last day in office. He said then that it will be up to his successor when to leave Iraq. (I believe the GOP is pushing him to shorten the time frame, fearing a grand debacle in 2008.)

Thx, S-X, for a good go.

[edit on 3/12/2007 by donwhite]

[edit on 3/12/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
1) “Allowed” or necessary? I ignore completely the 7,000 + nuclear weapons in possession of the RF and 2 other republics.

Always interesting how the US can maintain it's vintage 1960 ICBMs but the Russians are having trouble maintaining weapons they were newly deploying in the 80's. Why some western journalist ( note that they are rarely actual defense or intelligence people) have decided that the entire RF stockpile is just rotting away is almost beyond comprehension.

The republics have no means to deliver such weapons, other than by truck or UPS. Very few if any of the RF’s ICBMs are serviceable.

I think your buying into a myth that is not supported by anything remotely credible and i really do suggest that you attempt to find the western intelligence/defense scholars that supports this media illusion.

The same disastrous conditions prevail in the RF Navy.

According to defense specialist the RF can deploy 14 ballistic missile submarines which means that they will be operational in times of a global crisis. That is not counting the hunter subs or the cruise missile submarines and given the weaponry that they deploy the American navy is in about as much trouble as it has been since the 70's.

There is absolutely no military threat to the RF out past Ukraine and Belarus and none is there if both will stop stealing gas and oil in transit to Western Europe.

Hehe... I agree that there are no threats as the RF and China are allied while the Europeans are within range of tactical ballistic missiles as well as those 150 or more blackjack and backfire bombers. Fact is Europe is completely at the mercy of the RF and that is not considering the strategic power they derive from their alliance with China, India, Brazil or Iran...

2) The US is converting NATO into a secondary armed force to impose its will in places where it is either inconvenient for the US to be, or for times when the US needs a temporary manpower assist.

I believe that NATO has never been much other than a means of making US aggression ( they always pick up the tab and take the casualties) seem like a allied effort when it rarely if ever were... NATO simply has no teeth without the USAF...

Militarism is still a strong impulse with too many older EU types who harbor dreams of the good old days, but by 2020, they will all be dead and NATO will either become a college scholarship non-profit or be disbanded.

Personally i think the powers that be have decided that Europeans are easier to manipulate by alternative means and that they are using the US armed forces to do their ( and to a large extent Europe's) dirty work. I do not think the transfer of wealth from old Europe to the US post second world is any accident...

1) And NATO is doing more and more of the heavy lifting in Afghan. That will not continue, however, if the EU member forces sustain many casualties. The US will have to bear the brunt of the KIA and WIA in Afghan or the EU [NATO] will withdraw.

Oh for sure as there is very little if any support in Europe for these unilateral actions and their politicians are sending these troops despite the best efforts of their citizens in the vast majority of cases. Interestingly the anti-war rallies were largest in the countries that sent most troops in support of that illegal occupation occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

2) I don’t regard the US performance in Iraq as an example anyone would want to emulate.

I do not believe that any serious analyst believes ( or at least those who are attempting to discover the truth) considers the failure to have resulted form a serious attempt to occupy that country for the long run. It's pretty evident to me that the idea is to create as much chaos in that country as possible as America's involvement in the ME requires chaos for it to be sold to the US public.

Americans are deeply conflicted over how to extricate ourselves from a failed mission in Iraq. Our hubris side says stay the course, like we did in Vietnam, our more thoughtful side says we are doing more harm by being there, so let’s stop doing harm and leave.

I doubt average Americans are all that conflicted and i take serious issue with the way the questions in the polls, that determines these issues, are structured...

I believe everyone knows we are going to leave Iraq. No one is sure when. We have mucked up the ME for 2 reasons: 1) to secure the Persian Gulf oil and 2)

'Secure' being a very good word choice as Iraq has been exporting half the oil SH did after two large wars and ten years of bombardment of their infrastructure. The aim is clearly not to bring Iraqi oil to the world market...

to advance the ethnic cleansing by Israel in Old Palestine.

[edit on 3/11/2007 by donwhite]

I doubt it's that specific and i believe the ethnic cleansing is largely incidental and not something the US government finds particularly helpful ( constant bad press about their ally) even if it helps no end in creating violence that helps create to sustain the illusion that American intervention is actually required in the part of the world...

As always I'm not disagreeing, in most instances anyways, as much as i seem to be.

Stellar