It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
So let's look at the big part of the picture shall we? Besides winning over a inferior army, what has been achieved??
Originally posted by semperfoo
Your only looking at a very small part of the picture. In a conventional scenario america stands second to none IMO. Thats our bread and butter right there.
And in a conventional sense we have achieved victory.
1.A paper democracy
2.Civil War
3.Blatant Human Abuses
Wow, big achievement, considering how incredibly inferior the iraq army was.
We destroyed the conventional Iraqi military with reletive ease in a matter of 3 weeks.
Occupied a region only, taliban and Al Qaeda still exist, and still attack...besides occupying a parched country, nothing achieved.
We destroyed the safe haven for the taliban and Al Qaeda in afghanistan with relative ease.Well considering US forces had no excuse to be in Iraq but false arguements, that's pretty nice of the US.
Its the occupation part that gets messy. Your seeing American forces trying to 'prevent' collateral damage right now.Sounds like Nazi Germany to me "Let's use all our arsenal regardless of civilians, even when they are not the enemy." That's how war was waged in the 40s, not the modern age, when unnessary death and grief can be somewhat prevented.
Had we used everything that is in a superpowers arsenal we could make Iraq a parking lot.
Originally posted by centurion1211
Regarding what you stated in your last post, please accept this as me "briefly responding to you" to say that I do not agree with pretty much anything you have posted for all the reasons previously stated by myself and many others. In addition to the tedious length of your posts, your tendency towards insulting the intelligence of anyone that disagrees with you has grown more than troubling and annoying.
Now, as you stated in the title of this post, can this truly be the "end all" of posts regarding russia's (imaginary) status as a super power?
Thank you in advance!
Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Sounds like Nazi Germany to me "Let's use all our arsenal regardless of civilians, even when they are not the enemy." That's how war was waged in the 40s, not the modern age, when unnessary death and grief can be somewhat prevented.
Originally posted by rogue1
Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Sounds like Nazi Germany to me "Let's use all our arsenal regardless of civilians, even when they are not the enemy." That's how war was waged in the 40s, not the modern age, when unnessary death and grief can be somewhat prevented.
LOL, well that's exactly what the Russian did in CHechnya, they massed artillery and destroyed the capital of Grozny killing 10's of thousands of civilians, not to mention many villages being wiped out.
So you are comparing Russia to the Nazi's, I'd have to agree with you in this case.
Originally posted by aaaaa
Interesting, Galmine, because that was the picture the media from the west showed.
Grozny is a prospering city then, without major damage, devestation and depopulation?
Originally posted by K_galmine
wow that's really ignorrant! , You don't know what happened there, because I was there for 3 years!!! and NO we did not go in the house just to kill innocent civilians!!! are you out of your mind??? distressed or what?
Hate when people assume and don't know what happened there.
Originally posted by Iblis
For the sake of clarification:
The Russians did, indeed, use many ruthless tactics. Among these were launching cruise missles at a crowded market place, to mark the beginning of the war -- The first shots, so to speak -- as well as hitting a maternity ward.
[edit on 17-1-2007 by Iblis]
Originally posted by Iblis
a. Please keep on-topic. Further, Abu Gharib and any military operation are entirely indifferent, and by their nature, unable to be related. Using your speech in an attempt to derail the western media, which is an entirely other discussion in and off itself, while being off-topic, is not proper etiquette.
Please refrain from further attacks.
As to the Russian bombing of a market-place and maternity-ward.
www.reference.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...
fmso.leavenworth.army.mil...://www.worldaffairsboard.com/nato-defense-topics/1965-analysis-chechnya.html
www.gfbv.it...
As you'll note in several, often the Russians would deny accusation, or rumors, without any further evidence -- Although they were given the burden of proof.
This is not an effort to say something happened. It simply did. I apologize that you received misinformation, though this is also an entirely off-topic discussion. Please return back to subject.
Originally posted by Iblis
However, the structural damage is slightly exaggerated. While cruise missles, rockets, missles, and artillery were used excessively, a large percentage of damage came from the systematic demolition of most buildings. The Russians performed this in occupied zones, as well as post-war, as the refugees were allowed to re-enter.
[edit on 17-1-2007 by Iblis]
Originally posted by Royal76
The Chinese have way more than half the worlds population and not enough food to feed them. There leaders would love a war, they have been itching at the opportunity for decades. The normal rules of war wouldn't apply to someone with that much of a numbers advantage.