Trump Hands Putin Major Geopolitical Victory

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

1 minute ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Dense....yes great word. So the US has more fighting systems/ hardware in Europe than all of the European body?

Let you and I clear some dense fog shall we?

Not what your graph says now does it? 

And # of US systems/forces should be zero in Europe. 

[Enric + 3]

4 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

Yes Oro i get that, with that being said i wish to compliment you for your work and insights you have contributed to this forum and myself. I to experienced covid and your commentary is spot on.

Now as to these bath tub toy's.....and they are just that. Let them play dance and cry Havoc....Let us not forget the first war in Iraq...THE MOTHER OF ALL BATTLES!

Looking back it was such a foolish exercise it almost defies imagination today. Weeks if not months and billions of dollars were and most importantly hundred of thousand live were lost. Just so the US could push a few buttons and destroy and country in weeks....No War mind you just wholesale destruction.

Now to the point..if a few battle groups were to wander into that region in full battle alert there would not be one boat within 300 miles that was not friendly nor would there be a plane in the sky...as ive said bath tub games.

Perhaps the most tragic part of this new world is the fact how far hi tech has taken us...how utterly devastating it can and would be. A thought here...traversing a desert with tanks and navigation was thought to be a revolution at one time. Today my 90 yr old mother could ask Siri to take to Bagdad...and of course play good old Frank whiles shes enjoying the scenery...Providing the sattelite channel would allow her such nicety's...such is life

 

The Persian Gulf is narrow and the Hormuz Strait is very very narrow: carriers and their support ships are very vulnerable to anti-ship missiles and electric submarines in those waters. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

5 hours ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

America was never defending Europe, it was just a comfortable justification for its predatory colonial wars and the ages-old "divide and conquer" approach to ensuring distant threat can never grow strong enough (i.e. throwing wrenches into the EU decision process via eager to please Britain, bombing Yugoslavia to non-existence while snatching a few lucrative deals here and there, etc.). 

Even when hypothetical Russian invasion to Estonia was discussed, US newspapers published articles like "We won't sacrifice Chicago for Tallinn". 

What I am interested to see if Americans return the German gold that is "deposited" in Fort Knox. I believe it when I see it. 

It’s okay to pull your head out of your ass now. We all make mistakes....though usually not of the magnitude and number that you do.

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

Meanwhile, Donald Trump, apparently a great admirer of Vladimir Putin, suggests "postponing" US election (to stay in power), ignorant of the fact that the US constitution does not allows so. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/30/politics/trump-delay-election-no-authority/index.html

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

6 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

It’s okay to pull your head out of your ass now. We all make mistakes....though usually not of the magnitude and number that you do.

You must be one of those people who believe that WW2 Germany was defeated by the USA, right? Poor Hollywood victims...

[Strangelovesurfing + 737]

9 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Good Grief.  F35C has more range than the F18 superhornet or F14D... 

You really need better sources...

Only thing you got right is that the gulf is not friendly territory.... and it never has been so... why bother posting such drivel?

The F-35C having more range than 30-50 year old jets doesn't mean it’s enough for the job these days. The NGAD, which apparently still going to be centered around a manned fighter, is reportedly going to have a combat radius of 1.5-2K miles. The Navy’s next plane is supposed to have a similar profile. 
With drone tankers the pilot better have some next generation diapers for that long of a flight.

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,537]

12 hours ago, Enric said:

The Persian Gulf is narrow and the Hormuz Strait is very very narrow: carriers and their support ships are very vulnerable to anti-ship missiles and electric submarines in those waters. 

I am quite aware of the logistics, a note here to perceptions. Yes you do see a carrier look alike in the straits  and I did mention area...I do believe a carrier in that area would be a1000 miles off the coast...

Actually this war talk is just as absurd as Iran shooting up a wooden ship in off shore boats. 

Let us all hope nothing of that nature occurs. 

 

Edited July 30, 2020 by Eyes Wide Open

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

2 hours ago, Strangelovesurfing said:

The F-35C having more range than 30-50 year old jets doesn't mean it’s enough for the job these days. The NGAD, which apparently still going to be centered around a manned fighter, is reportedly going to have a combat radius of 1.5-2K miles. The Navy’s next plane is supposed to have a similar profile. 
With drone tankers the pilot better have some next generation diapers for that long of a flight.

Manned strike aircraft are stupid and UTTERLY obsolete and have been for 40 years now (you could say 60 years after the ICBM introduction and becoming an international pariah).  Only inertia keeps them building manned deep strike aircraft.  Missiles are dirt cheap and easy to build. Gun fired missiles are likewise cheap.  Fighter aircraft?  Ok, for a couple more years, but already fighters can fire, direct, track missiles in ALL directions, so what is the point of a highly maneuverable fighter?  Only mission requires being manned?  CAS.  And not even that with long ranged fired INS guided artillery.  Now add small drones requiring no runway fielded by battalions sending high res stabilized pictures down to platoons and CAS disappears as well as the platoon can carry the small missiles/guided grenades to do the job.  Now add that the platoon level effectively have IR optics allowing them to see through most buildings, foliage, along with timed grenades going through windows or exploding over ditches...

All I have to say is, it is a DAMNED good thing no one has had a major war recently.  IF anyone thought the  death totals in WWII or WWI were horrible... WWIII will be MUCH worse.  Thank God for nucs, keeps power hungry maniacs looking over their shoulders. 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

10 hours ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

You must be one of those people who believe that WW2 Germany was defeated by the USA, right? Poor Hollywood victims...

Interesting question. Before I answer could you tell me who YOU believe defeated Nazi Germany and how you came to that conclusion?

[Yoshiro Kamamura + 274]

18 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

Interesting question. Before I answer could you tell me who YOU believe defeated Nazi Germany and how you came to that conclusion?

WW2 Nazi Germany was defeated by Soviet Union, and the critical moments were the battles at Moscow and Stalingrad. When the Hollywood's beloved "Operation Overlord" took place, Germans were already pushed back to their home territory on the eastern front, losing ground quickly. The real motivation to hastily come and join the last phase of the war was that if US troops stayed home, the whole Europe could have fallen under the Soviet influence, which would equal strategic defeat for the USA. 

When French populace was queried in 1946 who defeated Hitler in WW2, 75 percent answered that Soviet Union and Red Army did. When the same question was asked in polls in France in 1990, 75 answered that USA during the Normandy invasion. That's the power of systematic rewriting of history. 

If Soviets lost Moscow and Stalingrad and their manufacturing bases far on the east, and capitulated, and Hitler consolidated his grasp over Europe, the only thing he would receive from across the ocean would be a congratulatory telegram and contract drafts for economic and trade cooperation. 

[El Nikko + 2,145]

5 minutes ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

WW2 Nazi Germany was defeated by Soviet Union, and the critical moments were the battles at Moscow and Stalingrad. When the Hollywood's beloved "Operation Overlord" took place, Germans were already pushed back to their home territory on the eastern front, losing ground quickly. The real motivation to hastily come and join the last phase of the war was that if US troops stayed home, the whole Europe could have fallen under the Soviet influence, which would equal strategic defeat for the USA. 

When French populace was queried in 1946 who defeated Hitler in WW2, 75 percent answered that Soviet Union and Red Army did. When the same question was asked in polls in France in 1990, 75 answered that USA during the Normandy invasion. That's the power of systematic rewriting of history. 

If Soviets lost Moscow and Stalingrad and their manufacturing bases far on the east, and capitulated, and Hitler consolidated his grasp over Europe, the only thing he would receive from across the ocean would be a congratulatory telegram and contract drafts for economic and trade cooperation. 

The Germans were defeated at Moscow, it was down hill from there and really they knew they were fighting a losing battle before that.

It's all about OIL and their production was a major issue which forced them to do things that the chattering arm-chair historians still scoff about today

[Tomasz + 1,608]

On 7/30/2020 at 5:51 PM, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

You must be one of those people who believe that WW2 Germany was defeated by the USA, right? Poor Hollywood victims...

The most important battles of World War II in Europe include

Moscow 1941 - the end of the Blitzkrieg, although in truth, according to military historians, the merit of the Russians as well as the Wehmacht's logistical problems. The German commanders themselves argued hotly with Hitler in 1941 as to the direction of Operation Barbarossa - ultimately opting for an offensive in Ukraine and then Moscow turned out to be a strategic mistake

The second turning point was Staliningrad - the collapse of the German offensive in 1942, 300 thousands of soldiers of the 6th Army of Paulus went into captivity

Kursk Battle - first an unsuccessful offensive and strategic defensive from Russian side, then an effective counter-offensive by the Russians. The last great offensive operation of the Wehrmacht and the final passing of the initiative into the hands of the Russians

Then we have the year 1944 and the so-called 10 Stalin strikes led by the Bagration offensive - the greatest military defeat of Germany in history and the most successful Allied offensive, although it was undoubtedly helped by the withdrawal of aviation in connection with the landing in Normandy.

Overall, on the Eastern Front, the Germans lost about 80% of their living strength, according to military historians, in the style of probably the most famous Antony Beevor, and thats maybe the end of the discussion.

 

in general, the defeat of the Wehrmacht can be reduced to the fact that in 1941 and first half of 1942 Stalin did not trust the professionals and made his own decisions. Taught by bitter experience from mid-1942, he gave command to professionals, of which at least a few, such as Chief of Staff Vasilewski and Antonov, front commanders Rokossovsky Zhukov Konev or Rodion Malinowski were, however, relatively good commanders.

And Hitler, for a change, the farther into the war, he made more of  his own unwise decisions from 1942, even though he had even better commanders and therefore lost the war.

The general conclusion is that the command should be left to a professional military man and not to an old revolutionist and a failed World War I painter-corporal with a group of nods

 

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

14 hours ago, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

WW2 Nazi Germany was defeated by Soviet Union, and the critical moments were the battles at Moscow and Stalingrad. When the Hollywood's beloved "Operation Overlord" took place, Germans were already pushed back to their home territory on the eastern front, losing ground quickly. The real motivation to hastily come and join the last phase of the war was that if US troops stayed home, the whole Europe could have fallen under the Soviet influence, which would equal strategic defeat for the USA. 

When French populace was queried in 1946 who defeated Hitler in WW2, 75 percent answered that Soviet Union and Red Army did. When the same question was asked in polls in France in 1990, 75 answered that USA during the Normandy invasion. That's the power of systematic rewriting of history. 

If Soviets lost Moscow and Stalingrad and their manufacturing bases far on the east, and capitulated, and Hitler consolidated his grasp over Europe, the only thing he would receive from across the ocean would be a congratulatory telegram and contract drafts for economic and trade cooperation. 

I agree that the Soviet Union was instrumental in defeating the Nazis. But keep in mind that early in the war that Russia had a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. This pact spelled out the partitioning of Poland between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

The Soviet Union was sitting on the sidelines, waiting on her rewards, when Hitler, their supposed non-aggressive ‘ally’, attacked them!

Now we need to consider the massive Lend-Lease program where the US supplied arms and material to the Soviet Union until they could move their armament factories East of the Urals, set them up, and start producing their own arms. Even then they still demanded Lend-Lease material.

Lastly, the Soviet Union was fighting on a single front. Due to the Europe First policy, the US was heavily involved in Europe (daylight bombing of Germany in which more Americans servicemen died than all deaths in WW2 suffered by the US Marine Corp), North Africa and Italy. The US was also required, almost singlehandedly, to stop the Japanese advance in the South and Southwest Pacific.

So yes, the Soviets were instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany, but they sure as hell didn’t do it on their own! It was a WORLD war and they only participated on the Allied side after Hitler reneged on their deal.

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 7/30/2020 at 1:31 PM, Strangelovesurfing said:

The US didn’t invade Libya, the Europeans were instigators of NATO’s involvement, quoting Obama “leading from behind...”

Iraq was hardly stable or peaceful before US invasion. Ie. Iran/Iraq war, Iraq invasion of Kuwait. 

Syria was a popular revolt triggered by a historic drought. It’s origins are a mystery to you because you choose not to look.

I heard it was the CCP in cahoots with Moscow that started the Syria war, after all those are the two countries that benefited the most.

See, we all hear the craziest things, maybe spend a little time vetting incoming information.

The dope doesn't even know that Saddam gassed the Kurds long ago, before even the first gulf war? Where does he think the Syrians got their chemical weapons from?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 7/30/2020 at 1:36 PM, ronwagn said:

It is not America's job to defend Europe for free. They should be paying the full bill. We have spent far more than we should have since 1945. What have we gotten for our effort but aggravation from the European Union? I spent 26 months defending Germany 1962 to 1965. At least in those days we were needed and appreciated because Germany could not defend itself. In fact Russia could have overrun much of Germany unless we used tactical nuclear weapons. We can still stop Russia if we have to, but Europe needs to be forced to defend itself first. I would rather help Eastern Europe, which still needs our help. 

Your reference states that the high number of weapons systems is a problem rather than a strength because they are all different and very hard to coordinate in a defensive strategy. Did you read the article?

 

Ron, I think the point about having 6 times as many defense systems is all about COST and EFFICIENCY, not just interoperability. There is good reason why USA produces "JOINT" strike fighter? Costs will fall dramatically over time, hence more can be built for a given number of dollars, meaning that there will be more left over for 6th generation AI drones?

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 7/30/2020 at 1:39 PM, Strangelovesurfing said:

I wouldn’t call the second Congo War, aka Great War of Africa, a minor armed conflict.

I would. Probably less deaths than the genocide in Somalia?

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 7/30/2020 at 1:59 PM, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

Let me call out some of your lies. US had covert operatives aiding the rebels long before the open involvement stated. Than, at the pretense of "enforcing a no-fly zone" (UN resolution), they actually bombed Quadaffi's ground installations and forces. EU then stupidly took the baton and finished the killing, to its own detriment - the refugees flow through the war-torn Lybia to European shores till this day.

"Iraq was hardly peaceful" is not a reason for war. What happened there was a war crime, and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should have been tried for it before the international court. The result was hundred of thousands of dead civilians, utterly destroyed country where normal civilian life was difficult to impossible, ravaged by various religious factions fighting for power. 

If you love dictators so much, why don't you ask America to make Trump President for life like Xi, Saddam, Gaddhaffi, Putin, Rocket Boy and Assad? 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 7/31/2020 at 2:52 AM, Strangelovesurfing said:

The F-35C having more range than 30-50 year old jets doesn't mean it’s enough for the job these days. The NGAD, which apparently still going to be centered around a manned fighter, is reportedly going to have a combat radius of 1.5-2K miles. The Navy’s next plane is supposed to have a similar profile. 
With drone tankers the pilot better have some next generation diapers for that long of a flight.

Actually, it depends on speed of the aircraft. With Scramjet technology, we might be talking about supersonic cruise at Mach 5-6?

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 7/31/2020 at 5:48 AM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Manned strike aircraft are stupid and UTTERLY obsolete and have been for 40 years now (you could say 60 years after the ICBM introduction and becoming an international pariah).  Only inertia keeps them building manned deep strike aircraft.  Missiles are dirt cheap and easy to build. Gun fired missiles are likewise cheap.  Fighter aircraft?  Ok, for a couple more years, but already fighters can fire, direct, track missiles in ALL directions, so what is the point of a highly maneuverable fighter?  Only mission requires being manned?  CAS.  And not even that with long ranged fired INS guided artillery.  Now add small drones requiring no runway fielded by battalions sending high res stabilized pictures down to platoons and CAS disappears as well as the platoon can carry the small missiles/guided grenades to do the job.  Now add that the platoon level effectively have IR optics allowing them to see through most buildings, foliage, along with timed grenades going through windows or exploding over ditches...

All I have to say is, it is a DAMNED good thing no one has had a major war recently.  IF anyone thought the  death totals in WWII or WWI were horrible... WWIII will be MUCH worse.  Thank God for nucs, keeps power hungry maniacs looking over their shoulders. 

No. It is nukes that keep power-hungry maniacs in power!?!

[Wombat + 1,028]

On 8/1/2020 at 7:29 AM, Yoshiro Kamamura said:

WW2 Nazi Germany was defeated by Soviet Union, and the critical moments were the battles at Moscow and Stalingrad. When the Hollywood's beloved "Operation Overlord" took place, Germans were already pushed back to their home territory on the eastern front, losing ground quickly. The real motivation to hastily come and join the last phase of the war was that if US troops stayed home, the whole Europe could have fallen under the Soviet influence, which would equal strategic defeat for the USA. 

When French populace was queried in 1946 who defeated Hitler in WW2, 75 percent answered that Soviet Union and Red Army did. When the same question was asked in polls in France in 1990, 75 answered that USA during the Normandy invasion. That's the power of systematic rewriting of history. 

If Soviets lost Moscow and Stalingrad and their manufacturing bases far on the east, and capitulated, and Hitler consolidated his grasp over Europe, the only thing he would receive from across the ocean would be a congratulatory telegram and contract drafts for economic and trade cooperation. 

Typical. No mention of Japan. As though Europe was the only front?

 

[Wombat + 1,028]

17 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

I agree that the Soviet Union was instrumental in defeating the Nazis. But keep in mind that early in the war that Russia had a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. This pact spelled out the partitioning of Poland between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

The Soviet Union was sitting on the sidelines, waiting on her rewards, when Hitler, their supposed non-aggressive ‘ally’, attacked them!

Now we need to consider the massive Lend-Lease program where the US supplied arms and material to the Soviet Union until they could move their armament factories East of the Urals, set them up, and start producing their own arms. Even then they still demanded Lend-Lease material.

Lastly, the Soviet Union was fighting on a single front. Due to the Europe First policy, the US was heavily involved in Europe (daylight bombing of Germany in which more Americans servicemen died than all deaths in WW2 suffered by the US Marine Corp), North Africa and Italy. The US was also required, almost singlehandedly, to stop the Japanese advance in the South and Southwest Pacific.

So yes, the Soviets were instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany, but they sure as hell didn’t do it on their own! It was a WORLD war and they only participated on the Allied side after Hitler reneged on their deal.

The Germans and the Russians don't seem to understand how lucky they are that neither of them got nuked? Hitler's Germany would have copped it either way, and if Stalin had have replaced Hitler throughout Europe, Russia would have copped it?

[Dmitry Bedin + 25]

On 7/29/2020 at 9:00 PM, Ward Smith said:

Russia is a paranoid country. Why is that? Oh wait they keep getting invaded! Sweden, France, Germany, others I'm not going to mention. The odds that Putin wants to invade Germany? Roughly 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% 

We've been there for over 70 years, and those bases aren't free. Germany hasn't kicked in their fair share ever and Trump said enough's enough. It's not like we're leaving entirely, we're just scaling back. But yeah, Trump bad, got it. 

Putin dreams to invade Latvia, Estonia ... and Poland as well, yep 😎😂

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

5 hours ago, Wombat said:

The Germans and the Russians don't seem to understand how lucky they are that neither of them got nuked? Hitler's Germany would have copped it either way, and if Stalin had have replaced Hitler throughout Europe, Russia would have copped it?

You should also note that the Soviets NEVER confronted the Japanese until the war was essentially over...

[dukeNukem + 80]

On 8/1/2020 at 8:01 AM, Douglas Buckland said:

I agree that the Soviet Union was instrumental in defeating the Nazis. But keep in mind that early in the war that Russia had a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany. This pact spelled out the partitioning of Poland between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.

The Soviet Union was sitting on the sidelines, waiting on her rewards, when Hitler, their supposed non-aggressive ‘ally’, attacked them!

Now we need to consider the massive Lend-Lease program where the US supplied arms and material to the Soviet Union until they could move their armament factories East of the Urals, set them up, and start producing their own arms. Even then they still demanded Lend-Lease material.

Lastly, the Soviet Union was fighting on a single front. Due to the Europe First policy, the US was heavily involved in Europe (daylight bombing of Germany in which more Americans servicemen died than all deaths in WW2 suffered by the US Marine Corp), North Africa and Italy. The US was also required, almost singlehandedly, to stop the Japanese advance in the South and Southwest Pacific.

So yes, the Soviets were instrumental in defeating Nazi Germany, but they sure as hell didn’t do it on their own! It was a WORLD war and they only participated on the Allied side after Hitler reneged on their deal.

@Douglas Buckland, I would suggest to have a broader look at what happen in Europe in 1930's...."Russia had a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany" it was just a tiny piece of big puzzle, you are missing whole picture.Almost everyone understood that war is coming in early 30's (even before that). Everyone was against everyone and looking for allies (, Poland-German non agression pact, Munich pact, German-UK talks in London July august 1939, UK-France-Soviet talks, and German-Soviet talks on the same time. Basically Soviet-German pact was signed only because Soviet-France-UK failed). Soviets and Germans both clearly understood, that Molotov-Ribbentrop pact August 1939 was temporary tactical deal, as they have been enemies since 1920's and been fighting in Spain in 1936-1939 against each other.

[Wombat + 1,028]

1 minute ago, Douglas Buckland said:

You should also note that the Soviets NEVER confronted the Japanese until the war was essentially over...

Yeah Doug. My Great Uncle, Ernest Putley, developed radar which helped turn the tide. My Grandfather was in the Royal Navy, one of his brothers (a paratrooper) died in action after D-Day, and his other brother was POW in Burma. My other Grandfather was leader in Dutch Jewish resistance movement. I hate the way that history is being re-written (by the losers), and it s****s me that OP.com says they don't allow trolling but whenever I react to a troll, I am the one who gets a warning! I am on my final warning, coz I told Bradley PNW that he so fascinated with Trump that maybe he wants to perform homosexual act on him. I got banned for 2 weeks, Bradley gets to keep trolling? Why Doug? Coz OP is a politically-correct communist site, and tbh, I think you not much better. I would prefer an Aboriginal bride to an Asian bride, it's a matter of trust, not race. My Chinese doctor (although the best doctor I have ever had), has been practising in Australia for 4 decades but is pro-CCP for some strange reason. My 17yo daughter speaks fluent Mandarin, and I no longer want to know her thanks to the fact she is a Sino-phile. She thinks Cantonese is "inferior"! Talk about bloody brain-washed. I stand with HK and Taiwan. All of my Grandparents would be turning in their graves if they could see what is going on now. They fought for our freedom, and now it is being taken away by stealth. Just disgusting. And OP is disgusting for hosting trolls that continually push the communist line.