The Cold War has been over for 20 years, did US leaders not get the memo?

[Nocturnal]

We won the cold war, but we have kept our same policies and leaders in place. We continue to support a cumbersome and costly military industrial complex, with bases around the world. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries.(we spend 1/3 of the world's total) Our presence in so many countries is irriating their populace and causing more problems every day.

So what gives?

To those that are a little weak in history, our plan during the cold war was to encircle the soviet union with our forces (or our allies) and prevent the spread of communism. That is why we had bases in Japan, Italy, Germany, the Philipines, South America, Taiwan etc.

The Soviet threat is gone, but we keep building the same weapons.

Our brilliant leaders regularly trick our country into spending billions of dollars on the latest weapons. Supposedly this is to keep our military advantage over everyone else. My argument is that if we didin't sell our military technology to other nations we wouldn't need so much investment.

Take for example the F-15's, we recently sold a bunch to Japan, allowing the manufacturer to make millions of dollars. Next the pentagon goes to congress and says, "hey, these everybody has these planes now, we need better ones", so we build the FA 22. Brilliant.

The only way these policies make sense is if you look at it as imperialism. We won the cold war, and we are cashing in on that. It's hard to kick out a superior force once you let them set up shop.

We are marching down a path of doom for the US. It's called imperial overstretch, we are supporting this massive structure, fostering anger among the people of other countries, and weakening ourselves.

Just look at how Rome fell, the empire grew too large and was hurting financialy, political divides at home, and external pressures.

Now for the US, our debt is increasing ever more, this Red vs Blue states thing is only going to get worse, and we are being attacked by a skilled and tactically effective enemy.

Be sure to send thanks to your friendly neighborhood cold warrior. The US sold it's soul to defeat the Soviets, we have a chance to get it back, unfortunatly we are not taking that chance.

And don't bother replying with weak comments about how all those countries need our protection, S. Korea has an army 3/4 the size of the North, with the latest in technology, Japan also has a sizable army, etc. And the Russians are not going to roll through Italy and Germany any time soon.

[Devastation]

Fuck those Commies!

We need a military because we still don't fully trust Russia yet.

Sure, they're about 98 percent weaker than they once were, but they could easily roll over the countries they once ruled.

Until we can trust Russia and China, we'll have military surrounding them.

You can agree or not agree, but that's what's going on.

[Nocturnal]

we spend triple the amount that the following nations spend on their military combined

Russia, China, Iraq,
Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea

doesn't seem like much of a threat to me

found some more numbers,

we spend $1400 per citizen, our current policy is to be able to fight 2 major wars at once, our military does not account for the fact that it would be next to impossible to invade our country, givent we are surrounded by water. Also any threat would face the worlds largest nuclear stockpile.

What if we dropped our military to half, so that we could only fight one war at a time, 200 billion in savings.

Bam, Social Security fixed, Bam Bam, federal defecit gone within a decade or 2, Bam Bam Bam, maybe we wouldn't be hated so much. Spice it up a notch. :D

Our polices aren't about protecting ourselves, they are about being the undisputed world leader, and feeding our leaders ego's.

[CdocZ]

The F22 was started several years ago.......the original project was started I believe in 1984.

EDIT: So yeah, I don't think it was "because we sold some F15's to Japan", as we rather recently sold them to Japan. Practically everything besides that is correct though.

[Nocturnal]

The F22 was started several years ago.......the original project was started I believe in 1984.

point is that the F-15 wouldn't be obsolete if we kept it for ourselves

[CdocZ]

point is that the F-15 wouldn't be obsolete if we kept it for ourselves

True. But after awhile, it gets harder and harder to just keep upgrading a single design. And, if your allies want it and you owe them.....those plans might end up on the blackmarket for the next Islamic country walking around the auction block. This is something Israel planned for. They built the "plate-cylinder-plate" armor type that is currently used in our tanks, then because they knew we would sell it off, invented the Copperhead Antitank Missile. This missile system is a shoulder fired system, that even yet is the only infantry carried rocket that can even damage that armor type at all.

We should follow Israel's example, instead of building 50 trillion different things, but instead, just a few that supplement the other thing's weaknesses. You end up with a much mroe powerful army, and it costs a hell of alot less, in research, and in the fact that it is alot less to build. Israel is a smart little country, the Arabs learned that the hard way.....the ridiculously hard way.

[Sparky_07]

I do believe this issue is being addressed in the military. I read a report recently about them removing the base in Germany altogether. It is supposed to be shut down very soon. It has been there since the end of WWII.

I think these are issues that they are working on. I don't know the extent or detail, but I know the base in Germany is set to close. They are discussing closing others that were there because of the 'cold war'.

[Sparky_07]

We should follow Israel's example, instead of building 50 trillion different things, but instead, just a few that supplement the other thing's weaknesses. You end up with a much mroe powerful army, and it costs a hell of alot less, in research, and in the fact that it is alot less to build. Israel is a smart little country, the Arabs learned that the hard way.....the ridiculously hard way.

Israel may as well be considered an American country. I seriously don't understand that whole situation. It isn't necessarily smart, it is because of all that is invested and protected by the US. There are many problems the US has because of this blind faith backing of Israel. It has been the root of many US world problems and why so many people hate us.

[CdocZ]

Israel may as well be considered an American country. I seriously don't understand that whole situation. It isn't necessarily smart, it is because of all that is invested and protected by the US. There are many problems the US has because of this blind faith backing of Israel. It has been the root of many US world problems and why so many people hate us.

True, but if we move out.......well, the Arab's are not exactly great friends with Israel. Israel would sadly probably (again) crush all their armies however, and that would just generate a serious problem for Israel, and for leaving Israel would be pretty damn pissed if they got attacked.

[Sparky_07]

True, but if we move out.......well, the Arab's are not exactly great friends with Israel. Israel would sadly probably (again) crush all their armies however, and that would just generate a serious problem for Israel, and for leaving Israel would be pretty damn pissed if they got attacked.

I know it isn't going to happen, I just think it was the root of so many problems that are long past fixing. This is our legacy. Yay.

[CdocZ]

I know it isn't going to happen, I just think it was the root of so many problems that are long past fixing. This is our legacy. Yay.

Could be worse. Alot worse. Like if we nuked a country till it looked like an unpainted parking lot.

[Sparky_07]

Could be worse. Alot worse. Like if we nuked a country till it looked like an unpainted parking lot.
North Korea are the maniacs that I would suspect would do that. They are freaking scary if you read about the lunatic that runs that place.

[CdocZ]

North Korea are the maniacs that I would suspect would do that. They are freaking scary if you read about the lunatic that runs that place.

That's true. Then again, some B2 stealth bombers might take off from Arizonda/Nevada (Wherever base those things are based at, I think it's one of those 2), and then return a few hours later, just before dawn. Then on the morning news we have Pres. Bush saying "There has been a disaster........it was destructful and horrible because there was a disaster......North Korea has disapeared, never to be seen again. The rocke........asteroids hit at around the same time some B2's were flying in the region, doing an excersize, which was at aproximately 1 AM here in our wonderredneckful country of ours. By the way, CIA, NSA and the Pentagon will decline all interviews about this, and say they did not do it. God bless America, and I am an idiot." :rolleyes: :icon_rofl

EDIT: Yeah, I am mostly joking, with the exaggerations about Bush's intelligence. But it is just too much fun to do :D

[Sparky_07]

He will be sure to use the word, "nukuler" as he gives his press conference, it is his favorite. :p

[CdocZ]

He will be sure to use the word, "nukuler" as he gives his press conference, it is his favorite. :p

Ah, that isn't what I find hilarious. "Senior citizens have the highest death rate in the country. There are senior citizens dying every day!"

I laugh at what he means to say/does say :icon_rofl

[Liberator13]

wow, I never saw this thread started, I'm glad its here though, great, great posts

[Kenyan]

We won the cold war

ummm the cold war had no "winners." Could you please elaborate on why you think america "won" the cold war?

[Victory]

Israel may as well be considered an American country. I seriously don't understand that whole situation. It isn't necessarily smart, it is because of all that is invested and protected by the US. There are many problems the US has because of this blind faith backing of Israel. It has been the root of many US world problems and why so many people hate us.
the US has because of this blind faith backing of Israel. We don't blindly back Israel. When you are a population of roughly 5 million surrounded by a few hundred million muslems that feel you have no right to existance because of Religious differences you need friends. Isreal is our good friend.
Victory

[Blue25]

ummm the cold war had no "winners." Could you please elaborate on why you think america "won" the cold war?
could it be because america is here and the USSR isn't?

great stuff guys and Nocturnal, i agree 100% america is going down a road which has a dead end. expecially with their military might.....interestingly enough the Pope once said somethin along the lines of this "capitalisom is the flip side of communisom, we must find a place inbetween"

once againt, he's great intelligence tells us the truth, both sides are dommed to end somehow, we have to find a way to live inbetween.

[Nocturnal]

We are essentially a people that love freedom and justice, yet we have been so blinded by our need for oil that we havn't even looked towards the middle east and said, "what right do we have to control their destiny?"

could it be because america is here and the USSR isn't?

great stuff guys and Nocturnal, i agree 100% america is going down a road which has a dead end. expecially with their military might.....interestingly enough the Pope once said somethin along the lines of this "capitalisom is the flip side of communisom, we must find a place inbetween"

once againt, he's great intelligence tells us the truth, both sides are dommed to end somehow, we have to find a way to live inbetween.

interesting that you should say that, I've been reading on the topic that the US may yet not survive the cold war. It's almost as if we were 2 scorpions in a bottle, stinging each other to death.

ummm the cold war had no "winners." Could you please elaborate on why you think america "won" the cold war?

We survived intact, the soviet empire collapsed,

of course that is only what has happend so far, it may be that we will collapse because of cold war repercussions

[vchampionl70]

we spend triple the amount that the following nations spend on their military combined

Russia, China, Iraq,
Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea

doesn't seem like much of a threat to me

found some more numbers,

we spend $1400 per citizen, our current policy is to be able to fight 2 major wars at once, our military does not account for the fact that it would be next to impossible to invade our country, givent we are surrounded by water. Also any threat would face the worlds largest nuclear stockpile.

What if we dropped our military to half, so that we could only fight one war at a time, 200 billion in savings.

Bam, Social Security fixed, Bam Bam, federal defecit gone within a decade or 2, Bam Bam Bam, maybe we wouldn't be hated so much. Spice it up a notch. :D

Our polices aren't about protecting ourselves, they are about being the undisputed world leader, and feeding our leaders ego's.

A lot of that spending is to develop new technology that will reduce the amount of casualties we might suffer in battle. Keep in mind that whether or not the Chinese spend as much as we do, they still have a 10 million man army. With numbers that large we can not afford to cut military spending to pre-Cold War levels without increasing our insecurity.

ummm the cold war had no "winners." Could you please elaborate on why you think america "won" the cold war?

I know it was already said, but I think it's pretty clear that the Cold War did have a winner. Since the world was divided into two ideologies, only one of which remains dominant, the leader of the winning ideology would, by default, be the winner of the cold war. Just my two cents though.

Blue25, I never heard you cite the Pope's wisdom while he was alive. Let's keep things in perspective and remember that he's a religious icon, which - like actors - does not designate him to be a good political leader.

[pidgeball6]

A lot of that spending is to develop new technology that will reduce the amount of casualties we might suffer in battle.
I agree. The military budget today is going towards construction massive aircraft carriers that are essentially a huge, mobile, military base. Aside from the moster bill for the carrier itself, they are now being equipped with high dollar vehicles to accomodate the new direction of the military. We're also developing the unmanned drones that are more expensive but reduce casualties and collect better surveillance. They run quite a bit as well. Then there's the new weapon to replace the M-16 (OICW?). It's capable of looking around corners and can use "smart" rounds that explode at a designated distance. These advantages will, again, cost more but save lives. If I remember correctly, the whole point of the 4th ID's re-invention was to make a faster, smaller, more capable, fighting force that was technologically superior to the enemy. The impression I get is that the changes in the military are to prepare for the "not-so-big" enemy troops in places like Somalia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Forces that are typically imbedded within a civilian population and use generally guerilla tactics.

[Nocturnal]

I'll have to find the numbers, but I'd doubt more than 10% is spent on research, the bulk of the money is simple maintainence and supply

[Liberator13]

I agree. The military budget today is going towards construction massive aircraft carriers that are essentially a huge, mobile, military base. Aside from the moster bill for the carrier itself, they are now being equipped with high dollar vehicles to accomodate the new direction of the military. We're also developing the unmanned drones that are more expensive but reduce casualties and collect better surveillance. They run quite a bit as well. Then there's the new weapon to replace the M-16 (OICW?). It's capable of looking around corners and can use "smart" rounds that explode at a designated distance. These advantages will, again, cost more but save lives. If I remember correctly, the whole point of the 4th ID's re-invention was to make a faster, smaller, more capable, fighting force that was technologically superior to the enemy. The impression I get is that the changes in the military are to prepare for the "not-so-big" enemy troops in places like Somalia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Forces that are typically imbedded within a civilian population and use generally guerilla tactics.


The military doesn't fund R&D, and the DoD doesn't give R&D much funding as it is.
The new infantry weapon set to replace the M-16/M4 rifles is the M-8 series of guns. Made by H&K, they are less expensive, more reliable, and overall a great improvement from the Colt family.
Also, SpecOps are adopting the SCAR rifle, a very versatile and adaptive weapon, which is also less expensive than the basic M4A1 rifle.

I'd like to stress my last point...
If it saves human life, spend the extra money. You cannot ever put a price on an individuals life, why are we trying to with our military budget? I could bring up the Vietnam War and the decision to adopt the M-16/CAR-15, but I won't.

[Phantome]

ummm the cold war had no "winners." Could you please elaborate on why you think america "won" the cold war?

Because Ronald Regan told Gorbachev to tear down the wall, of course!

... or, simply, due to the fact that socioeconomic policy in the Communist countries collapsed under pressure from "Solidarnosc" movements in Poland.

[Nocturnal]

I'd like to stress my last point...
If it saves human life, spend the extra money. You cannot ever put a price on an individuals life, why are we trying to with our military budget? I could bring up the Vietnam War and the decision to adopt the M-16/CAR-15, but I won't.

I worry that the more we reduce our probable casualties in a conflict the more warlike we will become, thereby endangering our citizens because of blowback.

[Liberator13]

I worry that the more we reduce our probable casualties in a conflict the more warlike we will become, thereby endangering our citizens because of blowback.

Again, very valid arguement, and I cannot refute that. I will say that I will support almost any system that will protect American/Coalition lives, as long is it isn't biological/chemical/nuclear warfare.

[gigatonblast]

World War 2 (yes I hate this anology ) has been over for 59.5 years.

Theres STILL things that are unresolved.

The Cold War has been over since. :confused: I'm putting it at about 1991 ish....

And you think things are all peachy keen in just 14 years ?

The world is not a video game...

Healing/resolutions can take a very long time.
*See WW2*

[Devastation]

Uh, Kenyan, I'm pretty sure that Democracies won the Cold War.

The Soviet Union collapsed. They lost. We Won.

[Nocturnal]

Again, very valid arguement, and I cannot refute that. I will say that I will support almost any system that will protect American/Coalition lives, as long is it isn't biological/chemical/nuclear warfare.

that is why I'm realy torn on that issue,

protect american soldiers = good

unnecessary war = bad

[Liberator13]

that is why I'm realy torn on that issue,

protect american soldiers = good

unnecessary war = bad

Definately agreed....

Avoiding the Iraq War for sake of staying sane and calm, what do you personally deem "enough" to go to war? Do you include Special Operations in the word "war"? Or are SpecOps not war?

For me, any threat to human rights and safety is enough to justify a war. Look at Sudan and Rwanda... I can guarentee you that so many people would still be alive if we did get involved, even on just a humanitarian basis.

Also, I don't count Special Operations as "war." SpecOps are low-intensity, not the conventional stuff most of us think of when we hear the word.

[Kazimierz]

We won the cold war, but we have kept our same policies and leaders in place. We continue to support a cumbersome and costly military industrial complex, with bases around the world. We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries.(we spend 1/3 of the world's total) Our presence in so many countries is irriating their populace and causing more problems every day.

So what gives?

To those that are a little weak in history, our plan during the cold war was to encircle the soviet union with our forces (or our allies) and prevent the spread of communism. That is why we had bases in Japan, Italy, Germany, the Philipines, South America, Taiwan etc.

The Soviet threat is gone, but we keep building the same weapons.

Our brilliant leaders regularly trick our country into spending billions of dollars on the latest weapons. Supposedly this is to keep our military advantage over everyone else. My argument is that if we didin't sell our military technology to other nations we wouldn't need so much investment.

Take for example the F-15's, we recently sold a bunch to Japan, allowing the manufacturer to make millions of dollars. Next the pentagon goes to congress and says, "hey, these everybody has these planes now, we need better ones", so we build the FA 22. Brilliant.

The only way these policies make sense is if you look at it as imperialism. We won the cold war, and we are cashing in on that. It's hard to kick out a superior force once you let them set up shop.

We are marching down a path of doom for the US. It's called imperial overstretch, we are supporting this massive structure, fostering anger among the people of other countries, and weakening ourselves.

Just look at how Rome fell, the empire grew too large and was hurting financialy, political divides at home, and external pressures.

Now for the US, our debt is increasing ever more, this Red vs Blue states thing is only going to get worse, and we are being attacked by a skilled and tactically effective enemy.

Be sure to send thanks to your friendly neighborhood cold warrior. The US sold it's soul to defeat the Soviets, we have a chance to get it back, unfortunatly we are not taking that chance.

And don't bother replying with weak comments about how all those countries need our protection, S. Korea has an army 3/4 the size of the North, with the latest in technology, Japan also has a sizable army, etc. And the Russians are not going to roll through Italy and Germany any time soon.

As the rest of the world's economies explode, we're left with arms manufacturing. And we need to support the economy, and the people who elect our leaders somehow.

I think the ban on Cuban goods is one of the stupidest, most hypocritical policies we have: We cant buy cigars from one communist country, but we import trillions of dollars from China?

[Blue25]

I think the ban on Cuban goods is one of the stupidest, most hypocritical policies we have: We cant buy cigars from one communist country, but we import trillions of dollars from China?
holy shit i never realized that...good stuff kaz.

[kevinsmith]

As the rest of the world's economies explode, we're left with arms manufacturing. And we need to support the economy, and the people who elect our leaders somehow.

I think the ban on Cuban goods is one of the stupidest, most hypocritical policies we have: We cant buy cigars from one communist country, but we import trillions of dollars from China?


I could be wrong here, but isn't saying that we embargo Cuba because they are communist over simplifying things a bit? I think it has more to do with the fact that they aligned themselves with Russia during the whole cold war thing. I mean, didn't Russia and China have their problems as well, and we aligend ourselves with the "lesser" of two evils kind of thing. The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

[CdocZ]

I forget who said it, but they brought up the 10-million may Chinese army? Seriously, by putting more money into technology, and less into just creating more things with simpler technology, we would rape them even with the severe personel-handicap. War is won with technology, and intelligence, not massive manpower, even though massive manpower is useful.

For example: If you have 10 tanks in your defenses, that is good. But they can easily be replaced by the even more effective combination of a Paladin mobile artillary tank and supplement it's strength with a UAV-Predator. This way, you save a few million dollars on tanks, and fuel, and you have an intelligence system giving perfect coordinates for a gun that can kill another tank at 11 miles if it has a "spotter", such as a Predator. This specific example would not work for offensive as well, but it is a seriously power unit, when together. On the 10 tanks, you need to spend more money on ammo especially if they try to even attempt hitting a target at 4 miles, you save gas as it is only 1 tank instead of 10, and then you save personel costs.

War is won by high powered shells that are directed well by god intelligence, not by having 50 trillion high powered rounds all trying to hit 2 targets that you do not know the location of.

This is also why America is not doing too well against guirrila warfare. We need to move smaller units faster, not more units but slower too.

[Devastation]

I think the ban on Cuban goods is one of the stupidest, most hypocritical policies we have: We cant buy cigars from one communist country, but we import trillions of dollars from China?
I agree (wow, I agree with Kaz, are there any pigs flying yet?). Cuban cigars are good and we can't let the Cubans smoke them all.

[Phantome]

Also, I don't count Special Operations as "war." SpecOps are low-intensity, not the conventional stuff most of us think of when we hear the word.

That could be dangerous, not to classify certain authorized military operations as "war". If one does not classify authorized military operations as "war", then not only does one not need to follow the guidelines of the Geneva Convention, but one is not protected by it, either.
As an example, civilian "militia" are currently employed by the US government in places where the US military is tight on personnel. However, what would happen if a member of such a "militia" were to be captured by foreign forces? Is that person a US soldier? Well, not exactly, he isn't wearing a US uniform. Is that person a spy? He could be, by the rules of the Geneva convention. Does the foreign government have to treat him as a prisoner of war? Can the foreign government simply shoot him on the spot? What is this guy? What if the US hasn't formally declared "war" at all by using these forces? You see, it makes for a very sticky issue.

[CdocZ]

That could be dangerous, not to classify certain authorized military operations as "war". If one does not classify authorized military operations as "war", then not only does one not need to follow the guidelines of the Geneva Convention, but one is not protected by it, either.
As an example, civilian "militia" are currently employed by the US government in places where the US military is tight on personnel. However, what would happen if a member of such a "militia" were to be captured by foreign forces? Is that person a US soldier? Well, not exactly, he isn't wearing a US uniform. Is that person a spy? He could be, by the rules of the Geneva convention. Does the foreign government have to treat him as a prisoner of war? Can the foreign government simply shoot him on the spot? What is this guy? What if the US hasn't formally declared "war" at all by using these forces? You see, it makes for a very sticky issue.

True. But the Iraqi insurgents just torture the hell out of them anyways. They don't care, to them it's just another American. Whether they cut off their head or slit their throat, those guys don't care, as long as the American dies.

[Liberator13]

True. But the Iraqi insurgents just torture the hell out of them anyways. They don't care, to them it's just another American. Whether they cut off their head or slit their throat, those guys don't care, as long as the American dies.

exactly my thoughts..

Yes, Special Operations is a very sticky and controversial subject. Everybody hates other people secretly snooping around their backyard, don't they? SpecOps is always the exception in my book, without them, god only knows what the world would be like today.

[shade]

We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries.Swap point of view: The next 10 countries dont have to spend as much on military because they are allied with the US.

That is why we had bases in Japan, Italy, Germany, the Philipines, South America, Taiwan etc. Most of those bases were acquired during and immediately after WW2 through treaties.

My argument is that if we didin't sell our military technology to other nations we wouldn't need so much investment. I agree. Even to our allies.

Now for the US, our debt is increasing ever moreYet relative to GDP, countries like Canada, Italy, and other European nations have more total debt.

this Red vs Blue states thing is only going to get worseThe result of people realising that if they are politically aligned, half the country will suddenly like them. That is how for example, Michael Moore's movie was successful. Likewise... Mel Gibson's movie too.

[CdocZ]

exactly my thoughts..

Yes, Special Operations is a very sticky and controversial subject. Everybody hates other people secretly snooping around their backyard, don't they? SpecOps is always the exception in my book, without them, god only knows what the world would be like today.

God bless Mossad. So many terrorist-leaders who........suddenly "short curcuited" their cell phone......oh dear......

Spetznaz and IDF/SF. Deifnitely the best non-counter-terror special forces units. (SAS in both England and Australia are counter terror, so is Delta Force, and Navy SEAL's.......just not as good)

[Chewy]

God bless Mossad. So many terrorist-leaders who........suddenly "short curcuited" their cell phone......oh dear......
The Mossad have played by their own rules far too long, their actions are no different that a terrorist organization, biggest difference could be they are better funded.

[Garbage Can Lid]

I dunno what the hell we're talking about in this thread, but I can offer you some facts.

-The U.S.S.R. had a 20-30 million-man army.

-The U.S.S.R. spent 85% of their GPD on their military.

-The U.S.S.R. had 15 times more tanks than America.

The bad countries of the world:
China
North Korea
Iran
Egypt
Vennezuela

The borderline countries of the world:
Russia
India
Pakistan

[bergshadow]

kevinsmith
I could be wrong here, but isn't saying that we embargo Cuba because they are communist over simplifying things a bit? I think it has more to do with the fact that they aligned themselves with Russia during the whole cold war thing. We embargoed Cuba because the new Cuban government had overthrown our pet dictator and evicted his corrupt, US-allied government. Castro had made several attempts to ally the US with this revolution, and only turned to Russia as a last resort (he was no fool, and Russia was nobody's first choice of ally). The US rejected his overtures, because he was engaged in overthrowing our choice of proxy ruler and seizing the assets of the ruler's criminal syndicate support (these people had good rapport with the US government, somehow. Also the Mafia). To this day, the embargo against Cuba has nothing to do with anti-communism or Russia and everything to do with the needs of empire (showing the potentially recalcitrant a lesson in consequences) and corrupt US politics. Every presidential candidate needs the Florida vote and the Florida campaign contributions.

shade Most of those bases were acquired during and immediately after WW2 through treaties. That is indeed the US pattern: invade and occupy (with a good reason, if possible, or a good story, if not), allow installation of friendly local government, negotiate treaty formalizing continued presence of occupying forces (which are stationed nearby during negotiations, in case of trouble), proclaim the virtue of defending said government against its enemies (renamed "enemies of freedom"), and bring the corporate pie-divviers in to enjoy the stable, progressive business climate.

The end of the Cold War did not change the resource-rich Third World's need for such climatological progress, so other emergencies have been and will be necessary.

[Nocturnal]

Swap point of view: The next 10 countries dont have to spend as much on military because they are allied with the US.

Most of those bases were acquired during and immediately after WW2 through treaties.



we not only outspend our allies :D

end of WW2 signaled that start of the cold war
we spend triple the amount that the following nations spend on their military combined

Russia, China, Iraq,
Iran, Syria, Libya, Cuba, and North Korea

doesn't seem like much of a threat to me

found some more numbers,

we spend $1400 per citizen,

[CdocZ]

The Mossad have played by their own rules far too long, their actions are no different that a terrorist organization, biggest difference could be they are better funded.

They have killed at most one civilian.......they do precision assasinations. How is that being like a terrorist? Terrorists blow innocent people up. I highly doubt a cell phone bomb with 50 grams of explosive will kill anyone but the single person they want to kill. If you are talking about what the soldiers are doing, that is different. Mossad is the Israeli version of NSA.

Also, if you want, I can share some pretty sickening stories of things that the terrorists have done. They come from an actual soldier, not the news, or any "uber factual website" that talks about aliens abducting people, but a soldier (family friends).

One night, he was out on patrol, which he didn't know, but this saved his life. Some terrorists snuck in, and hid, in the barracks. When he went on on patrol, and the shift before went to sleep, the terrorists came out, and killed the soldier's as they slept, stabbing them from under the sheets. Next night, this same group tries to do the same thing, but they are caught this time in the escape. This second time, they tried not against, soldiers, but the home of a single family. If you really, think Israel is acting like terrorists, remember that Israel would never send people to kill innocent people, such as you even, in your sleep. Imagine waking up, or going back home from a night at the bar, finding 5 of your friends dead, and your family stabbed in their sleep.

Also, tell me, which do you think is worse. Israel's destroying a few homes, or a party being ruined because some decided to blow him and all of his friends up? Or watch a bus full of kids suddenly knocked over by a bomb that was controlled by a waiting terrorist, and you, running towards the bus, seeing the body parts of kids......just some random kids, on their way home from school, who just got unlucky, and if they were incredibly fortunate, only lost an entire limb.

I once met someone who survived one of those bombs. The blast put them into a coma for 2 and a half months. She was barely recognizeable, she was so burned, that her husband could only recognize her by the ring she wore.

But seriously. Tell me. Which would you rather have? Your house broken down, or go to your friends wedding, only to be blown up by someone who was supposedly a friend of this new couple.

[Nocturnal]

-The U.S.S.R. spent 85% of their GPD on their military.

The bad countries of the world:
China
North Korea
Iran
Egypt
Vennezuela

The borderline countries of the world:
Russia
India
Pakistan

Egypt is an ally, Vennezuela is not a bad country, neither is India

And that 85% of GDP figure is really suspect, 85% of 4 trillion dollars (ballpark uSSr GDP) is huge.

[PWSH44]

Now for the US, our debt is increasing ever more, this Red vs Blue states thing is only going to get worse, and we are being attacked by a skilled and tactically effective enemy.

I'm not 100% which tactically effective enemies your talkin about, but if you are talkling about whats left of Saddams regime lemme tell you what some of there "tactics" are(Coming straight from my cousin whos a ranger in the army).

One of their most favorite games to play is to get a pepsi bottle or a coke bottle, one of those 24oz plastic ones. Theyd fill it with a bunch of rocks and gun powder, and towards the middle theyd fill it with a little sack of gun powder. Theyd run down near by allies(and the really smart ones would get at the top of house with no way of escape :D ) and throw them as hard as they could at the Ranger camp. Only about half of them went off and noone was ever found dead from them, just a couple injuries. Once they were thrown the rangers would iether dispatch a team to go get them or Hummers/Bradleys would capture them. And im pritty sure once they were lookin down the barrel of a bradley they were thinking something along the lines of "shit, i just through a plastic bottle filled with rock and it didnt do shit. Now im running away about to be captured, with no route of escape, and to top it all off theres this big metal machine infront of me with a big barrel."

[Chewy]

They have killed at most one civilian.......they do precision assasinations. How is that being like a terrorist? Terrorists blow innocent people up. I highly doubt a cell phone bomb with 50 grams of explosive will kill anyone but the single person they want to kill. If you are talking about what the soldiers are doing, that is different. Mossad is the Israeli version of NSA.
Execution without the benefit of trials come on. Condoning that is ludicrous. Not to mention covert operations in foreign countries.




Also, if you want, I can share some pretty sickening stories of things that the terrorists have done. They come from an actual soldier, not the news, or any "uber factual website" that talks about aliens abducting people, but a soldier (family friends).

But seriously. Tell me. Which would you rather have? Your house broken down, or go to your friends wedding, only to be blown up by someone who was supposedly a friend of this new couple. WTF is that all about?? I mean its a nice heart felt story and all but what does that have to with the Mossad??


In 1973, Ahmed Bouchiki, an innocent Arab waiter in Lillehammer, Norway, was killed. He had been mistaken for Ali Hassan Salameh, one of the leaders of the Black September, a Palestinian terrorist organization, which was responsible for the Munich Massacre. ooops


not to mention the Mossad’s habit of using Canadian passports to get around. and British and New Zealand. They act like they above the International Law.

[Garbage Can Lid]

Egypt is an ally, Vennezuela is not a bad country, neither is India

Egypt is not an ally, the C.I.A. says that they're trying to build nuclear missiles/other W.M.D.s behind our back. They're also helping the insurgency in Iraq. They have vowed to protect Iran, if it's attacked. They also hate America and Isreal's guts, and I wouldn't call a country of evil, bloodthirsty anti-American/Israeli towelheads a country that's an ally.

Vennezuela is A BAD country. They HATE America, they're cutting off oil supplies to the U.S., and have ordered 400,000 AK-47s from Russia, incase of a future war with America, or any other civilized country.

India is a poor country, and would probably side with a country that gave them the most money, so they're boarderline. ;)

Once again, I'm only stating MY opinions, and my opinions might seem fucked up to some people.

[Liberator13]

Egypt is not an ally, the C.I.A. says that they're trying to build nuclear missiles/other W.M.D.s behind our back. They're also helping the insurgency in Iraq. They have vowed to protect Iran, if it's attacked. They also hate America and Isreal's guts, and I wouldn't call a country of evil, bloodthirsty anti-American/Israeli towelheads a country that's an ally.

Egypt may not be an ally, but they are not our enemy either.


Vennezuela is A BAD country. They HATE America, they're cutting off oil supplies to the U.S., and have ordered 400,000 AK-47s from Russia, incase of a future war with America, or any other civilized country.

Venezuela and the US have been on good terms in the past, but events in Venezuela recently have me wondering if we should be more wary of them. And Russia doesn't produce AK-47s anymore.

[Garbage Can Lid]

Egypt may not be an ally, but they are not our enemy either.



Venezuela and the US have been on good terms in the past, but events in Venezuela recently have me wondering if we should be more wary of them. And Russia doesn't produce AK-47s anymore.

Okay, let's upgrade Egypt to boarderline.

Russia does still produce AK-47s, but they're upgraded now days, so they're called AK-74s. My uncle has a Russian AK-47 that was made in Russia, in 2003.

[Nocturnal]

I'm not 100% which tactically effective enemies your talkin about, but if you are talkling about whats left of Saddams regime lemme tell you what some of there "tactics" are(Coming straight from my cousin whos a ranger in the army).



Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and other muslim terrorist groups, most Iraqi insurgents do not fall under these groups



Venezuela and the US have been on good terms in the past, but events in Venezuela recently have me wondering if we should be more wary of them. And Russia doesn't produce AK-47s anymore.

Egypt does what we tell them to do,

That is our problem with Venezuel, it's not as if they are attacking us, they are currently asserting their sovereignty, that is why they are being branded as anti-america

[Liberator13]

Russia does still produce AK-47s, but they're upgraded now days, so they're called AK-74s. My uncle has a Russian AK-47 that was made in Russia, in 2003.

Actually, the AK-74 is a whole different rifle. It uses 5.45mm rounds, rather than the 7.62mm the -47 uses. Also, the Russians now use the AK-101, AK-105, and AK-108 in their military, from what I've seen. The AK-106 wasn't a great hit, so they dropped that, and the AN-94 was a very short-lived dream.

[Garbage Can Lid]

Actually, the AK-74 is a whole different rifle. It uses 5.45mm rounds, rather than the 7.62mm the -47 uses. Also, the Russians now use the AK-101, AK-105, and AK-108 in their military, from what I've seen. The AK-106 wasn't a great hit, so they dropped that, and the AN-94 was a very short-lived dream.

Yeah, I know all that. I'm just stating what CNN said. They said AK-47s.

[Liberator13]

Yeah, I know all that. I'm just stating what CNN said. They said AK-47s.

*giggle* CNN *giggle*


*chuckle*


*cackle*


*laugh?*

:lol: :lol: :lol:

this quote is from Rainbow Six by Tom Clancy (I THINK)

"... people listen to the media when those reporters can't even put a magazine in a damn gun..."

[shade]

That is indeed the US pattern: invade and occupy (with a good reason, if possible, or a good story, if not)WW2 was our single largest expansion of bases across the world. Surely you dont believe that falls into this category.

You probably wouldnt even be able to make a list of ten bases that we now have due to dubious circumstances.

end of WW2 signaled that start of the cold warBases acquired during WW2 and from treaties that ended WW2 were not related to the cold war yet. It was purely for our own long term strategic positioning. Now, base expansions during and after the Korean war on the other hand can absolutely be attributed to the Cold War.

Vennezuela is not a bad countryThey have the communist leader who overthrew the Coke plant and is now buying hundreds of thousands of AKs from Russia. Doesnt sound like a "good" country to me.

And that 85% of GDP figure is really suspect, 85% of 4 trillion dollars (ballpark uSSr GDP) is huge.And explains why Russian families were packed together in tiny shithole apartments and why only one condom was made per male per year.

However, I do not know if 85% is accurate. I am just saying that it is very plausible.

[bergshadow]

shade WW2 was our single largest expansion of bases across the world. Surely you dont believe that falls into this category. But I do.
Bases acquired during WW2 and from treaties that ended WW2 were not related to the cold war yet. The Cold War started with Truman immediately after WWII - he of the Doctrine and the Loyalty Oaths and the peace-time draft and the National Security Act (1947) and the commie hysteria. It was a device to keep the US military/industrial complex well-fed, in a world that lacked any military threat whatsoever to the US. The Korean War was a consequence of it, as was the Vietnam War and the USSR's Afghan War. It was an evil and a tragedy, and the effects may yet kill the first and best representative government ever to govern a nation.

[Garbage Can Lid]

*Sigh* - Jesus Christ, think about it! We spend $400,000,000,000 on our military, and we have 1,300,000 Soldiers. The Soviets had at least 20,000,000 soldiers. The math isn't hard to do. :banghead:

[PsiRedEye22]

*Sigh* - Jesus Christ, think about it! We spend $400,000,000,000 on our military, and we have 1,300,000 Soldiers. The Soviets had at least 20,000,000 soldiers. The math isn't hard to do. :banghead:

The Soviets used 1 gun for every 2 live men, no training whatsoever aside from basic rifles (conscription), and never outfitted their soldiers to live long if stranded. This makes the math a bit imbalanced.

[Garbage Can Lid]

The Soviets used 1 gun for every 2 live men, no training whatsoever aside from basic rifles (conscription), and never outfitted their soldiers to live long if stranded. This makes the math a bit imbalanced.

:wtf: No wonder why they sucked at combat. 1 gun for every 2 live men? -Not discrediting you, but any sources?

[shade]

But I do.You truely live in an alternate reality, and it isnt just your warped view on economics/financials.

It was a device to keep the US military/industrial complex well-fed, in a world that lacked any military threat whatsoever to the US. Wow. Take a history class.

[pidgeball6]

I'll have to find the numbers, but I'd doubt more than 10% is spent on research, the bulk of the money is simple maintainence and supply
OK?
Remove R&D from the equation. It doesn't matter if the military didn't spend the money developing something, they have to spend the money implementing it. If the new personal weapon for the troops cost a gazillion dollars to develop but is cheaper in cost than the M-16, it's still going to cost the military X amount to supply each soldier the new weapon. Even if the military didn't spend the $20 billion developing the unmanned drones, they're going to pay to implement the fleet. Supplying the troops with the best equipment possible is a never ending cycle. Whether it's the newest NVGs or better MREs, there'll always be something that needs to be supplied. Look at police departments. Everytime a new crime comes along, law enforcement is required to come up with, and implement, an effective way to stop it. Look at speeding. Cops used to pace a vehicle to determine how fast it was speeding. Courts eventually stopped accepting it, so cops went to the radar guns. Companies developed radar detectors so that people could speed and avoid the radar traps. Cops came up with a laser that radar detectors couldn't pick up, so the same companies that made the radar detectors came up with laser detectors. So on and so forth. Police departments might not have been the ones who developed all of the technology involved, but they were the ones that ultimately had to pay for it to be put into use.

[bergshadow]

No wonder why they sucked at combat. 1 gun for every 2 live men? The Russian army defeated the the major thrust of the main German army in WWII, and was beginning to push it back when the US entered the war. The threat of Soviet Russia capturing Germany was real, and an important motive behind the size and speed of the large US entry into the European theater. US soldiers were greeted with flowers and open legs and arms not only because they weren't German, but also because they weren't Russian.

We didn't just hand over East Germany out of the goodness of our hearts, y'know?

But the Russians had to build their First World military from a Second, or even Third, world economic base. They were plowing with oxen in the Ukraine, getting water from bucket wells, into the '50s. They were geniuses at making do, and very well educated (education is cheap), but too much military will kill any economy. And of course they ended WWII economically trashed, surrounded by aggressive and threatening enemies, remembering 20 million dead and their borders overrun, and governed by paranoids and generals, so the military was supported above all.

They only lasted as long as they did, getting outspent 10 to 1, trying to match their defensive capability to a US offensive capability supported by an economic engine the likes of which the world had never seen (and may never see again - RIP US industrial hegemony), because defense is cheaper than offense, and they weren't as burdened with $498 hammer syndrome or Weapon Of The Month Club nonsense.

[Nocturnal]

*Sigh* - Jesus Christ, think about it! We spend $400,000,000,000 on our military, and we have 1,300,000 Soldiers. The Soviets had at least 20,000,000 soldiers. The math isn't hard to do. :banghead:

so by your logic China spends 8x what we spend on our military :rolleyes: ,

Sorry, but soviet military spending was about 15-17 percent of it's GDP. Very high for a country, but no where near the laughable 85% figure.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/mo-budget.htm

The Soviets used 1 gun for every 2 live men, no training whatsoever aside from basic rifles (conscription), and never outfitted their soldiers to live long if stranded. This makes the math a bit imbalanced.

not to mention that an AK-47 is much much cheaper to produce than our standard m-16's.

[CdocZ]

Ok, if you invade Russia, as China, Japan, and Germany have tried in the past century or so, you get fucked over. They fight like they live in a country the size of Rhode Island, and want to keep every square inch. They will force you out after hafl your men freeze to death, then beat the hell out of you as you run for your life.

[Nocturnal]

Ok, if you invade Russia, as China, Japan, and Germany have tried in the past century or so, you get fucked over. They fight like they live in a country the size of Rhode Island, and want to keep every square inch. They will force you out after hafl your men freeze to death, then beat the hell out of you as you run for your life.

actually they fight like they live in the largest land mass around, letting attrition and the enviornment hammer your troops while they retreat deeper into their country, giving up ground that you have to commit forces to control. :D

[Chewy]

actually they fight like they live in the largest land mass around, letting attrition and the enviornment hammer your troops while they retreat deeper into their country, giving up ground that you have to commit forces to control. :D

Scorched Earth Policy probably one of the best defensive strategies ever enacted.
http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/page-06.html

[Liberator13]

Scorched Earth Policy probably one of the best defensive strategies ever enacted.
http://www.infoukes.com/history/ww2/page-06.html

Oh definately agreed...
that was simple, brilliant, and very effective..

[Chewy]

Oh definately agreed...
that was simple, brilliant, and very effective..
and the cool thing is it works for most divorces too. ;)

[Bergs]

If you dont mind destroying your country to the point that millions would end up starving.

[Liberator13]

and the cool thing is it works for most divorces too. ;)

lmao
Yes, lets give that advice to all us youngins!

[Garbage Can Lid]

so by your logic China spends 8x what we spend on our military :rolleyes: ,

China isn't facing Terrorism.

Sorry, but soviet military spending was about 15-17 percent of it's GDP. Very high for a country, but no where near the laughable 85% figure.
Okay, I saw the 85% thing on some military website, but I can't find the damn thing. The only thing I can find is that they spent 33% of their GDP on their military. :banghead:


not to mention that an AK-47 is much much cheaper to produce than our standard m-16's.
Yeah, I know that, I have both :D : AK-47=$2,335 M16=$25,113

[Liberator13]

Yeah, I know that, I have both :D : AK-47=$2,335 M16=$25,113

There is no way in hell the M16 costs 25 grand.
The M4A1 is just over $4,000
The base M8 is going to be $2,200 or so

[vchampionl70]

The Russian army defeated the the major thrust of the main German army in WWII, and was beginning to push it back when the US entered the war. The threat of Soviet Russia capturing Germany was real, and an important motive behind the size and speed of the large US entry into the European theater. US soldiers were greeted with flowers and open legs and arms not only because they weren't German, but also because they weren't Russian.

We didn't just hand over East Germany out of the goodness of our hearts, y'know?

You're terribly wrong. Try reading a foreign policy book first.

The "threat" of the Soviets capturing Germany was nonexistent. For all intents and purposes the Germans had nearly conquered Russia prior to our arrival. If Stalin had not made the Russo-Japanese Pact Russia would have likely been swallowed up. It was a nice twist of fate, but hardly would have resulted in the Soviet Union capturing Germany.

If indeed that was the case, as you suggest, I would find it hard to believe that we wouldn't have attacked and defeated Japan first. After all, it would have taken considerable time for the Soviet armies to actually "capture" East Germany.

Indeed, if we were so concerned with preventing a Soviet takeover of East Germany and East Europe, why did we not do as Churchill suggested and sweep up through Italy and blast right into Germany, months before the Soviet army would be able to do so? I'll tell you why: Roosevelt wanted to employ the Soviet army in a war on Japan; it was a tradeoff - East Europe for a successful Japanese defeat.

The reason we entered into WWII, which was far from speedy, was because it looked as if Hitler was going to be able to topple Britain, and possibly the Soviet Union, as well as the obvious attack on Pearl Harbor. It was just convenient for us that Hitler decided to declared war on us only four days after.

[Chewy]

China isn't facing Terrorism.
How the Hell is the US "facing" terrorism? While youve been in Iraq you turned your backside to Osama .......... who got away.

[Nocturnal]

You're terribly wrong. Try reading a foreign policy book first.

The "threat" of the Soviets capturing Germany was nonexistent. For all intents and purposes the Germans had nearly conquered Russia prior to our arrival. If Stalin had not made the Russo-Japanese Pact Russia would have likely been swallowed up. It was a nice twist of fate, but hardly would have resulted in the Soviet Union capturing Germany.



I disagree, the Soviets were tearing through East Germany with a couple million troops, we held back a little to let them bleed the Germans a little more but there was a real danger of the Soviets taking the whole country. Towards the end it we were in a mad rush to at least meet the soviets in the middle of the country. To see how afraid we were of the Soviets controlling all of Germany you need only look at our post war agreemets with Stalin. We were bargaining out of fear, if the Soviets had pushed they would have had a good chance of pushing us right off the continent.

Perhaps the Russians couldn't have done it without us taking some of Germany's attention on the western front, but we wanted to get Germany out of the way, and out of Soviet hands, to releive the pressure on England.

[CdocZ]

There is no way in hell the M16 costs 25 grand.
The M4A1 is just over $4,000
The base M8 is going to be $2,200 or so

"M8"? Aren't they switching to the OICW? Or is that the OICW's military name?

[Liberator13]

"M8"? Aren't they switching to the OICW? Or is that the OICW's military name?

The OICW project was cancelled in 2001/2002 or so
OICW was officially called the XM29
the XM8 was created from the rifle base of the XM29

[CdocZ]

The OICW project was cancelled in 2001/2002 or so
OICW was officially called the XM29
the XM8 was created from the rifle base of the XM29

Can't they just take a bullpup-type weapon already? I mean.......they want a compact but accurate assault rifle. Bullpup-technology was designed for that very reason.

Tavor:
Overall length: 720 mm
Barrel length: 460 mm

M8:
Overall length: 838 mm in basic configuration, butt extended
Barrel length: 318 mm in basic configuration; also 229 mm in Compact and 508 mm in Sharpshooter and SAW

The Tavor is shorter, can be a SAW type weapon, can be turned into a 300 meter+ "compact short range sniper", can be fitted with a multipurpose grenade launcher (not just HE, anything that fits in the barrell can be shot). The Tavor uses the same ammo.
And the major advantage, is smaller, with a longer barrel (not too mention the Tavor is one of the most modifiable guns in the world). As an addition, it is just as easy to silence as the M4, if not easier.

[Liberator13]

Can't they just take a bullpup-type weapon already? I mean.......they want a compact but accurate assault rifle. Bullpup-technology was designed for that very reason.

Tavor:
Overall length: 720 mm
Barrel length: 460 mm

M8:
Overall length: 838 mm in basic configuration, butt extended
Barrel length: 318 mm in basic configuration; also 229 mm in Compact and 508 mm in Sharpshooter and SAW

The Tavor is shorter, can be a SAW type weapon, can be turned into a 300 meter+ "compact short range sniper", can be fitted with a multipurpose grenade launcher (not just HE, anything that fits in the barrell can be shot). The Tavor uses the same ammo.
And the major advantage, is smaller, with a longer barrel (not too mention the Tavor is one of the most modifiable guns in the world). As an addition, it is just as easy to silence as the M4, if not easier.


the M8 has all that as well, with interchangeable barrels, and is able to use both the 5.56 and the 6.8 rounds.
Plus, its from H&K... no gun beats H&K guns

[Garbage Can Lid]

There is no way in hell the M16 costs 25 grand.
The M4A1 is just over $4,000
The base M8 is going to be $2,200 or so

My uncle (who is in the military) has an M16A4, with almost every accessory immaginable (I call it my gun in order to sound serious :rolleyes: ).


It has all the shit on it:

-Detachable Tripod
-Zooming-Standard/Measuring/Heat/Night vision scope
-Specialized Silencer & Flash Supressor in one.
-Armor-Piercing Depleted Uranium Shells.

That's $25,000 right there... unless you're talking about the regular M16s, which I've only seen as low as $14,000 :D .

[CdocZ]

H&K is good.....but really, The base Tavor is smaller, and only with the sharpshooter barrel does it have a longer barrel. The Tavor can be made into a sniper too, and just about any gun can be belt-fed and be turned into a SAW. Same ammo, so power isn't a deal between the two. The Tavor has so many mods, it's ridiculous. I will name a few.
-Laser sights, under each side of the barrel, can be used as a target marker (for a scope, or to paint a target for an air strike for example), or to measure range. As there can be 2 of them, they are accurate to within a few millimeters.
-Grenade Launcher, any size from 40mm-60mm, and can fire anything that is as wide as the barrel. Remember the Splinter Cell grenade launcher? It is more or less another version of that.
-A small shotgun. the M4 had a sawed off shotgun type addition under the barrel. So can the Tavor.
-Just about any sight you can ever want. The sight rails can be changed very easily on the Tavor, and each sight rail can hold multiple types of scopes. Want a sniper scope? Not a problem (except for the massive kind on something like the M24).
-Air pressure gauge, an idea IMI is toying with for their grenade launchers. Instead of making the soldier's judge it, and even then being only partly accurate, they will soon be able to have a small 40mm-60mm mortar with them.
-Sniper barrel, the M8 is not alone in the "changeable barrel's idea". The Tavor can change, from a ~520mm sniper barrel, to the tiny compact "micro-Tavor", which is barely bigger then an Uzi submachine gun, yet it fires 5.56 nato assault rifle rounds. As for a bigger caliber.......that's mostly useless, as America has stayed with the 5.56 rounds for a reason: they are more accurate then bigger, yet have nearly the same power. So the use of the 6.8 caliber rounds will be very limited.

Other smaller things:
-Infrared scope, instead of a launcher. Great for night, as because of it's size and length will be MUCH more accurate then goggles. It is connected to the actual scope that the soldier looks through.
-Flashlight.......every gun has, and compared to the infrared scope, it's useless.

The tavor also can fire faster, yet for accurate shooting, has a single shot option. (3 round burst is only truly useful when you do not have a scope, but the standard Tavor has a rather nice one).

Tell me, what advantages does the M8 have over this? And if you want to win an argument, please, do not say stuff like "but it's an H&K, they are the best", because you sound like an ignorant fanboy. I am not saying this to offend you, as all it really does is help your arguments in the future. Just something I have learned over the past few years.

[bergshadow]

vchampionl70
You're terribly wrong. Try reading a foreign policy book first.

The "threat" of the Soviets capturing Germany was nonexistent. For all intents and purposes the Germans had nearly conquered Russia prior to our arrival. Here's a site with some links.
http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~bhull/war.html
I think you'll be comfortable with the overall tone of the site, which is not at all disconcerting from your apparent viewpoint (it dismisses offhand the otherwise unremarkable observation that FDR had cornered the Japs, and was expecting some kind of attack, for example).

If you scroll down far enough, you'll find a link to an animated map of the Eastern Front from '42 to '44, before D Day, which will perhaps give you an idea of who was conquering whom in the months after the battle of Kursk (the turning point of WWII in Europe, and maybe the largest tank battle ever fought).

[vchampionl70]

vchampionl70 Here's a site with some links.
http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~bhull/war.html
I think you'll be comfortable with the overall tone of the site, which is not at all disconcerting from your apparent viewpoint (it dismisses offhand the otherwise unremarkable observation that FDR had cornered the Japs, and was expecting some kind of attack, for example).

If you scroll down far enough, you'll find a link to an animated map of the Eastern Front from '42 to '44, before D Day, which will perhaps give you an idea of who was conquering whom in the months after the battle of Kursk (the turning point of WWII in Europe, and maybe the largest tank battle ever fought).

I'm really not arguing with the fact that the Russian armies did push the Germans back. But to suggest that the Germans would have been conquered by the Russians is nonsense.

One of your maps demonstrates an approach that we took, which if pressed harder could have resulted in our total domination of Germany, as I said earlier. http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/s_approaches_1942-1945.jpg

I can't find the map you referred me to. If you could leave a link it would be appreciated.

[CdocZ]

Ok, even though I don't really understand what you two (see right above this post) are arguing about, I would like to point out that Russia did indeed help the war go a bit easier on the other fronts.

[bergshadow]

[/b]vchampionl70[/b] It's the one labeled "Eastern Front [Nov] 1942 - [Apr] 1944", I guess more in the middle than toward the bottom.
http://www.bibl.u-szeged.hu/bibl/mil/ww2/map/orosz_2.html

Before D Day, in other words, the Russians were within 500k of Berlin with advancing armor that had already defeated both the bulk and the best of the German armor. What was going to stop them? Exhaustion, maybe.

CdocZ though I don't really understand what you two (see right above this post) are arguing about, A worldview, in which the Cold War can be placed so that it makes sense.
If one believes that WWII in Europe was largely fought between the US and Germany, with the US largely responsible for Germany's defeat and Russia a minor concern all around, then one's views of the Cold War are apt to be confused. Russia comes from nowhere, apparently, and grabs half of Europe. This makes one vulnerable to propaganda presenting the USSR post WWII as an expansionist, aggressive, dangerous country needing firm curbing regardless of risk and expense.

[vchampionl70]

If one believes that WWII in Europe was largely fought between the US and Germany, with the US largely responsible for Germany's defeat and Russia a minor concern all around, then one's views of the Cold War are apt to be confused. Russia comes from nowhere, apparently, and grabs half of Europe. This makes one vulnerable to propaganda presenting the USSR post WWII as an expansionist, aggressive, dangerous country needing firm curbing regardless of risk and expense.

I think he's [CdocZ] more at risk from your propaganda.

The USSR, or Russia, has a long history of expansionist, aggressive foreign policies.

"The irony was that, after a certain point, expansionism no longer enhanced Russia's power but brought about its decline. In 1849, Russia was widely considered the strongest nation in Europe. Seventy years later, its dynasty collapsed and it temporarily disappeared from the ranks of the Great Powers.... A few Russian leaders, such as Gorchakov, were wise enough to realize that, for Russia, 'the extension of territory was the extension of weakness,' but their views were never able to moderate the Russian mania for new conquests. In the end, the /communist empire/ collapsed for essentially the same reasons that the tsars' had. The Soviet Union would have been much better off had it stayed within its borders after the Second World War and established relations with what came to be known as the satellite orbit comparable to those it maintained with Finland" (Kissinger, Diplomacy, 176).

Now, per our original argument: By May of 1945, "Allied forces were in control of nearly a third of the area assigned to the Soviet zone of occupation in Germany, including most of the industrialized portion. Churchill proposed using this territory as leverage in the forthcoming negotiations" (Kissinger, Diplomacy, 429).

Russia was in no position to take control of Germany.

[CdocZ]

That is definitely unfair. They may not have been able to actually take Germany, but they sure as hell diverted alot of resources away from the Allies. Plus, they did advance very quickly, which definitely put alot of stress on the Germans about defending against the Russians.

You have to give them some credit for helping. 20 million lives were lost to help divert some of the German's attention. Give them what they deserve.

[vchampionl70]

That is definitely unfair. They may not have been able to actually take Germany, but they sure as hell diverted alot of resources away from the Allies. Plus, they did advance very quickly, which definitely put alot of stress on the Germans about defending against the Russians.

You have to give them some credit for helping. 20 million lives were lost to help divert some of the German's attention. Give them what they deserve.

Please read the first line of my post that is four posts above yours. I did accredit them with pushing back the Germans. I just feel that your blind love for the Russians is shielding you from reality.

They might have lost 20 million lives to prevent the Germans from taking Russia, but it was Stalin who ensured another 20 million were lost. So if Russia was successful under Stalin for modernizing, is he not also responsible for their being beaten back as a result of all his purges?

With all the lives lost in the Soviet Union it was inconceivable that they could have beaten back Germany, which was potentially the second, if not first most powerful military in the world.

[bergshadow]

vchampionl70
Now, per our original argument: By May of 1945, "Allied forces were in control of nearly a third of the area assigned to the Soviet zone of occupation in Germany, including most of the industrialized portion. Churchill proposed using this territory as leverage in the forthcoming negotiations" (Kissinger, Diplomacy, 429).

Russia was in no position to take control of Germany. The ever reliable Kissinger, who goes on to describe somebody else as exhibiting a "mania for new conquests". To Henry, the world was a mirror.

That was May of '45, when indeed Russia was in no position to take control of Germany - not because the Germans would have stopped them for sure, but because the Americans had. In May of '44, Russia was rolling in - and the US was very, very interested in seeing that not happen (as was France, and probably a good many others).

The USSR, or Russia, has a long history of expansionist, aggressive foreign policies. Tiddlywinks in comparison with the US, of course, and mostly 1800s - but the time we are considering is 1947, when Truman launched the Cold War. At that time there was exactly one country on the planet capable of projecting military force across a major ocean, or doing much in the way of "expanding", and that country was itself in absolutely no danger from anyone. The USSR was in bad shape, having all but exhausted itself defeating Germany, China was disorganized and insular, who else?

With all the lives lost in the Soviet Union it was inconceivable that they could have beaten back Germany, - - They already had. It was the US they couldn't handle - the US was just getting into full war production in '45 (still on the upcurve - the US is littered with half-finished ammo plants and the like, due to go on line in '46, '47, '48, and just abandoned upon victory) a truly awesome spectacle.

So the US had no trouble surrounding the USSR (and the rest of the planet) with military bases, and projecting its interests worldwide, while the USSR had trouble feeding itself, keeping a port to a warm ocean, and controlling a few buffer states on its border. That was the relative security situation when Truman started the Cold War.

During the Cold War, the US expanded its archipelago of colonies, protectorates, treaty ports, proxy governments, US Banana republics, and military bases farther, on all continents and in many dozens of countries. The USSR, despite its "mania for conquest", did little of that. At last count, the US had 378 military bases in other people's countries.

[vchampionl70]

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.javlb.org/bridges/issue8/map.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.javlb.org/bridges/issue8/brezinski.html&h=306&w=375&sz=40&tbnid=IWIlKzEsCsAJ:&tbnh=96&tbnw=118&start=2&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSoviet%2Bexpansion%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D% 26safe%3Doff

There's a map that shows Soviet expansion.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/russia/interactive/map/former.soviet.map.gif&imgrefurl=http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/russia/interactive/map/map.exclude.html&h=314&w=398&sz=19&tbnid=ARSJZG7iKSwJ:&tbnh=94&tbnw=119&start=1&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSoviet%2Bmap%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe %3Doff

This one shows the Soviet Empire and an alternate map of the Russian Federation, outlining those countries which broke away from Russia's grasp.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://library.ucsc.edu/maps/ucsmg/soviet.jpg&imgrefurl=http://library.ucsc.edu/maps/ucsmg/soviet.html&h=1530&w=3000&sz=432&tbnid=oO8qZkSlUn4J:&tbnh=76&tbnw=149&start=13&prev=/images%3Fq%3DSoviet%2Bmap%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe %3Doff

This is a chart outlining countries with Soviet military presence and dominance.

Here's what I'd like you to explain: If the US was more prone to expansionist policies, why is it that the land area of the United States shrunk after WWII, while that of the Soviet Union grew tremendously?

[Nocturnal]

Now, per our original argument: By May of 1945, "Allied forces were in control of nearly a third of the area assigned to the Soviet zone of occupation in Germany, including most of the industrialized portion. Churchill proposed using this territory as leverage in the forthcoming negotiations" (Kissinger, Diplomacy, 429).

Russia was in no position to take control of Germany.

They had control of Berlin,

And if they had a weak hand in the matter why did we give up so much to keep them happy? We were afraid of an immediate war with them, that' why. The Russians had a much larger army on the ground.



Here's what I'd like you to explain: If the US was more prone to expansionist policies, why is it that the land area of the United States shrunk after WWII, while that of the Soviet Union grew tremendously?

Our post WWII/cold war area of control was much larger than the soviets, I think we generally ruled with less of an Iron fist, but our client states were no less dependent on us.

[bergshadow]

If the US was more prone to expansionist policies, why is it that the land area of the United States shrunk after WWII, Forget about Alaska and Hawaii, did we? Right on the border with the USSR, btw, and heavily militarized - - - - Or maybe you are counting all area owned and/or under military control (you seem to be happy counting Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia), in which case a good share of South and Central America, the South Pacific, and SE Asia goes on the US side of the balance sheet (with Mexico a problematic case).

And that makes no allowance for the global reach of the US expansion - The USSR was dealing on its own borders. The US, with no nearby or dangerous enemies, was expanding into Korea, Vietnam, places on the other side of the planet. The Soviets invaded not one country in the Western Hemisphere, South Pacific, or SE Asian regions.