Ukraine II: The Fight Against Russian Aggression

#3,851
#3,851
Burhead said:
Going to be an interesting next few weeks with Vostok-2018 in the works. The Russians are planning their largest ever military exercises (300,000 troops, 36,000 vehicles, and 1,000 aircraft plus some Chinese units involved as well. There have been reports that the Russians are even digging T-62 and BTR-60s along with some T-55s out of reserve stocks. Now you add in Alexander Zakharchenko's assassination yesterday and there is valid reasons to be concerned if you're in the Ukrainian military establishment.
Click to expand...
its bad if they are digging out t62s and possible t55s.
 
#3,852
#3,852
The media doesnt cover it much or at all...keep in mind i am a Patriot thru and thru...but it looks like we have abandoned the kurds, rebels, etc in the middle east and left them all to die ...again. i dont think we should have ever been involved in a Syrian civil war to begin with...and i dont know what we could have done differently with the Russians having been invited there, and us basically trespassing to aid rebels...but i do know that anyone around the world who is under the foot of a despotic ruler and would like to rebel has seen us start off aiding rebels...again...and then when the going got tough, abd we stood to lose something, we bailed on them and they were slaughtered. I know we were offering close air support, artillery, weapons, i am sure boatloads of cash and diesel, rations, etc...as well as training and intel in the beginning, boots on the ground, now, the syrian rebels are cornered in their last stronghold...along with 3 million civilians...and the russians are front and center moving in for the death blow with air strikes that cannot be countered, as syrian forces mass to clean up the mess and claim the victory. Another proxy war lost to the Russians. Sweet.

What do yall thjnk we should have done? Never been there at all? There was proof that the Syrians were using barrel bombs as well as nerve agents on rebels, even in civilian territory. So, morally, we could justify protecting the innocents since both are outlawed by the UN...how far should we have gone? The Russians basically told us to stay the hell out of the way or fight them. Should we have engaged Syrian or russian aircraft to protect innocents and show we arent scared? She we have launched a huge volley of patriot cruise missiles at the Syrian capital and destroyed their command centers and commhnications, giving the Russians no real government to support? Shock and awe campaign like Baghdad? And give the country back to the people?

How much "chicken" should we play with Russia to defend innocents?

I am not sure, but my ego as an American hates the way we always back down and **** up when they get involved. They will never launch nukes at us, due to mutually assured destruction. Despite the fact that we believe them to have far more warheads than we do. It would take only a fraction of what either of us has in our silos and subs to bring about a nuclear winter, and perhaps end of man. A single US sub carries enough Trident nuclear missiles to destroy every major city in the USSR, and toss a couple at China just for the hell of it, too. About 30 warheads . There arent 30 cities worth hitting in Russia. Thats 1 sub, which you can rest assured we have within striking distance of Moscow, 24-7...

So how much crap should we take? When do we tell them to back the hell off, or risk a toe to toe with us? How many more times do we hang rebel groups out to die (dry)??
 
#3,853
#3,853
marcusluvsvols said:
The media doesnt cover it much or at all...keep in mind i am a Patriot thru and thru...but it looks like we have abandoned the kurds, rebels, etc in the middle east and left them all to die ...again. i dont think we should have ever been involved in a Syrian civil war to begin with...and i dont know what we could have done differently with the Russians having been invited there, and us basically trespassing to aid rebels...but i do know that anyone around the world who is under the foot of a despotic ruler and would like to rebel has seen us start off aiding rebels...again...and then when the going got tough, abd we stood to lose something, we bailed on them and they were slaughtered. I know we were offering close air support, artillery, weapons, i am sure boatloads of cash and diesel, rations, etc...as well as training and intel in the beginning, boots on the ground, now, the syrian rebels are cornered in their last stronghold...along with 3 million civilians...and the russians are front and center moving in for the death blow with air strikes that cannot be countered, as syrian forces mass to clean up the mess and claim the victory. Another proxy war lost to the Russians. Sweet.

What do yall thjnk we should have done? Never been there at all? There was proof that the Syrians were using barrel bombs as well as nerve agents on rebels, even in civilian territory. So, morally, we could justify protecting the innocents since both are outlawed by the UN...how far should we have gone? The Russians basically told us to stay the hell out of the way or fight them. Should we have engaged Syrian or russian aircraft to protect innocents and show we arent scared? She we have launched a huge volley of patriot cruise missiles at the Syrian capital and destroyed their command centers and commhnications, giving the Russians no real government to support? Shock and awe campaign like Baghdad? And give the country back to the people?

How much "chicken" should we play with Russia to defend innocents?

I am not sure, but my ego as an American hates the way we always back down and **** up when they get involved. They will never launch nukes at us, due to mutually assured destruction. Despite the fact that we believe them to have far more warheads than we do. It would take only a fraction of what either of us has in our silos and subs to bring about a nuclear winter, and perhaps end of man. A single US sub carries enough Trident nuclear missiles to destroy every major city in the USSR, and toss a couple at China just for the hell of it, too. About 30 warheads . There arent 30 cities worth hitting in Russia. Thats 1 sub, which you can rest assured we have within striking distance of Moscow, 24-7...

So how much crap should we take? When do we tell them to back the hell off, or risk a toe to toe with us? How many more times do we hang rebel groups out to die (dry)??
Click to expand...
in the case of Syria we never should have responded. My issue with all of these "wars" we have been taking part in is we never go all the way. so what we end up with is just a mess that goes no where. my response might be different if we were going in guns blazing to create a kurdistan. but for the rest we still should have stayed out. the weapons/money never stay in the area of conflict, and unless it all gets used we tend to see our stuff pop back up. as Ras has said Syria is Russia's play ground. it wasn't even an Afghanistan, this was Russias toy.

I also maybe would have been fine supporting a UN push. but would never have had the US as the leader/pusher for it. and at worst (most) we should only match the rest of the UN's support on a war if they want it.
 
#3,854
#3,854
LouderVol said:
in the case of Syria we never should have responded. My issue with all of these "wars" we have been taking part in is we never go all the way. so what we end up with is just a mess that goes no where. my response might be different if we were going in guns blazing to create a kurdistan. but for the rest we still should have stayed out. the weapons/money never stay in the area of conflict, and unless it all gets used we tend to see our stuff pop back up. as Ras has said Syria is Russia's play ground. it wasn't even an Afghanistan, this was Russias toy.

I also maybe would have been fine supporting a UN push. but would never have had the US as the leader/pusher for it. and at worst (most) we should only match the rest of the UN's support on a war if they want it.
Click to expand...


I agree. Why we half ass it i will never understand. These days, we dont have to put our men in real danger against far inferior forces like Syria...while it is true that you cannot hold ground with air power, you can only conquer it...we have enough cruise missiles (tomahawks...just realized i called them patriots last post, sorry) and aircraft to defeat any resistance from a country like Syria...and the Kurds have shown their toughness. If we wanted to create their Kurdistan, we could mount a "shock and awe" campaign like we did over baghdad...then let the kurds claim their chunk of mountain and sand while the Syrians decided who their new leaders should be. Syria would probably end up a military coup at first, some high ranking general would establish that might makes right in a vacuum, but it couldnt be worse than the guy who gasses and barrel bombs his own people...

Again, i am not saying we should be there at all...but if you go to the party, wear your dancing shoes and cut the floor up a bit...we tend to walk around and have a little punch until the Bully (russia) shows up and tells us to go stand in the corner. Have you ever read the truth about operations linebacker1 and linebacker2 in viet nam?? We had 2 missions where we fought correctly, saturation carpet bombing with b52s that leveled everything the VC had that wasnt in an underground tunnel. Huge success....so what did we do?? Never. Ever did it again. Guess the politiicans with stock in the defense industry figured the war would end and they wouldnt get as rich...you cant tell me that those pissant NVA had the military might to push us all the way south into the damn ocean...so we ran home with our tails between our legs. Should have bombed them into oblivion, had them so scared to come above ground rhat they would never get the chance to point an AK47 at a scared 19 year old American kid.
 
#3,855
#3,855
marcusluvsvols said:
The media doesnt cover it much or at all...keep in mind i am a Patriot thru and thru...but it looks like we have abandoned the kurds, rebels, etc in the middle east and left them all to die ...again. i dont think we should have ever been involved in a Syrian civil war to begin with...and i dont know what we could have done differently with the Russians having been invited there, and us basically trespassing to aid rebels...but i do know that anyone around the world who is under the foot of a despotic ruler and would like to rebel has seen us start off aiding rebels...again...and then when the going got tough, abd we stood to lose something, we bailed on them and they were slaughtered. I know we were offering close air support, artillery, weapons, i am sure boatloads of cash and diesel, rations, etc...as well as training and intel in the beginning, boots on the ground, now, the syrian rebels are cornered in their last stronghold...along with 3 million civilians...and the russians are front and center moving in for the death blow with air strikes that cannot be countered, as syrian forces mass to clean up the mess and claim the victory. Another proxy war lost to the Russians. Sweet.

What do yall thjnk we should have done? Never been there at all? There was proof that the Syrians were using barrel bombs as well as nerve agents on rebels, even in civilian territory. So, morally, we could justify protecting the innocents since both are outlawed by the UN...how far should we have gone? The Russians basically told us to stay the hell out of the way or fight them. Should we have engaged Syrian or russian aircraft to protect innocents and show we arent scared? She we have launched a huge volley of patriot cruise missiles at the Syrian capital and destroyed their command centers and commhnications, giving the Russians no real government to support? Shock and awe campaign like Baghdad? And give the country back to the people?

How much "chicken" should we play with Russia to defend innocents?

I am not sure, but my ego as an American hates the way we always back down and **** up when they get involved. They will never launch nukes at us, due to mutually assured destruction. Despite the fact that we believe them to have far more warheads than we do. It would take only a fraction of what either of us has in our silos and subs to bring about a nuclear winter, and perhaps end of man. A single US sub carries enough Trident nuclear missiles to destroy every major city in the USSR, and toss a couple at China just for the hell of it, too. About 30 warheads . There arent 30 cities worth hitting in Russia. Thats 1 sub, which you can rest assured we have within striking distance of Moscow, 24-7...

So how much crap should we take? When do we tell them to back the hell off, or risk a toe to toe with us? How many more times do we hang rebel groups out to die (dry)??
Click to expand...

The situation in Syria and Ukraine would both be totally different if the Obama Administration had reacted aggressively and without fear. Marking a red line in Syria and then not defending it gave Russia a green light in both Syria and Russia. If we had launched a complex bombing campaign that would have taken out the Syrian command and control in fracture and airforce in Syria Russia would have had time to war in Ukraine and defend the Assad regime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: newarkvol
#3,858
#3,858
Bombing the hell out of a place makes the few that survive angry enough for entire civilizations
 
#3,860
#3,860
marcusluvsvols said:
The media doesnt cover it much or at all...keep in mind i am a Patriot thru and thru...but it looks like we have abandoned the kurds, rebels, etc in the middle east and left them all to die ...again. i dont think we should have ever been involved in a Syrian civil war to begin with...and i dont know what we could have done differently with the Russians having been invited there, and us basically trespassing to aid rebels...but i do know that anyone around the world who is under the foot of a despotic ruler and would like to rebel has seen us start off aiding rebels...again...and then when the going got tough, abd we stood to lose something, we bailed on them and they were slaughtered. I know we were offering close air support, artillery, weapons, i am sure boatloads of cash and diesel, rations, etc...as well as training and intel in the beginning, boots on the ground, now, the syrian rebels are cornered in their last stronghold...along with 3 million civilians...and the russians are front and center moving in for the death blow with air strikes that cannot be countered, as syrian forces mass to clean up the mess and claim the victory. Another proxy war lost to the Russians. Sweet.
Click to expand...

The "good guys" are winning in Syria. The so-called "rebels" are the true terrorists.

marcusluvsvols said:
What do yall thjnk we should have done? Never been there at all? There was proof that the Syrians were using barrel bombs as well as nerve agents on rebels, even in civilian territory. So, morally, we could justify protecting the innocents since both are outlawed by the UN...how far should we have gone? The Russians basically told us to stay the hell out of the way or fight them. Should we have engaged Syrian or russian aircraft to protect innocents and show we arent scared? She we have launched a huge volley of patriot cruise missiles at the Syrian capital and destroyed their command centers and commhnications, giving the Russians no real government to support? Shock and awe campaign like Baghdad? And give the country back to the people?
Click to expand...

We have our own problems we need to be concerned with. Why stick our noses into something halfway around the globe with no strategic interests to us or the average American?

marcusluvsvols said:
I am not sure, but my ego as an American hates the way we always back down and **** up when they get involved. They will never launch nukes at us, due to mutually assured destruction. Despite the fact that we believe them to have far more warheads than we do. It would take only a fraction of what either of us has in our silos and subs to bring about a nuclear winter, and perhaps end of man. A single US sub carries enough Trident nuclear missiles to destroy every major city in the USSR, and toss a couple at China just for the hell of it, too. About 30 warheads . There arent 30 cities worth hitting in Russia. Thats 1 sub, which you can rest assured we have within striking distance of Moscow, 24-7...

So how much crap should we take? When do we tell them to back the hell off, or risk a toe to toe with us? How many more times do we hang rebel groups out to die (dry)??
Click to expand...

Why risk nuclear annihilation over a conflict that doesn't even matter to us that is halfway around the globe? Why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pacer92
#3,870
#3,870
marcusluvsvols said:
Lol
They dont remember how to lose. If you said "worshiping idols" i would have believed you. Ask egypt and Jordan about it.
Click to expand...

They’re losing a proxy war! We are losing the same proxy war! ISIS were/are CIA/Mossad assets...

It’s why they came up with excuses to bomb said Iranian military...to bomb Assad using the chemical weapons lie...

If anything, Iran is strengthening their hold in Syria...

Ask Hezbollah if Israel remembers how to lose...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top