View Full Version : Europeans: Is this a game changer?
I remember the arguments I had with certain members of this board on Europe's defense capabilities (:laugh4:), and it was said again and again that Russia was not significant threat. Do you consider this (http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20110228/wl_csm/366331) to be a game changer? Do you still think that Russia is no significant threat?
Greyblades
03-01-2011, 21:24
Eh, it was going to happen sooner or later.
As for the question: maybe, but not yet, its still going to take a few years, maybe a decade, to build 100 warships etc.
Kagemusha
03-01-2011, 21:24
Russia has had several re armament plans ever since the end of Soviet Union. Non of which have fully materialized. You can plan on being the master of universe, but with GDP of Spain, that is hardly possible. If Russia wants to bancrupt herself with armaments programs, then they wil only be less of a threat. The fact is that currently Russia is doing lot of nice business with EU and vice versa, which benefits both parties. War would be bit bad for such business.
Rhyfelwyr
03-01-2011, 21:58
The article didn't portray it is a big threat...
"These are all designs from the late Soviet period, and not really new at all," says Alexander Golts, military expert with the online newsmagazine Yezhednevny Zhurnal. "The lack of fresh designs shows the underlying weakness of our military-industrial complex."
...
Critics say that despite the huge sums of money slated to be injected into the rearmament program, it is far short of the amounts needed to revive Russia's moribund military-industrial complex, which has lost the vast network of subcontractors that existed in Soviet times.
"This is not the first time the Kremlin has talked about military modernization," says Golts. "But all previous programs have failed."
And looks like it's not like this hasn't been tried before either...
gaelic cowboy
03-01-2011, 22:04
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if half the money is merely to pay people there actual wages and prevent stuff they already have from falling apart.
ten euro says half the money will never spent and the other will be badly spent.
Soone or later all this will be integrated into the European Defense Force that we're going to establish, so we can only benefit in the long run. ~;)
Louis VI the Fat
03-02-2011, 03:52
It means that Russia can be added to the long list of sad countries that give preference to the army over social considerations. One of the lowest life expectancies in Europe, but the oil revenue is diverted towards satisfying the wishes of sad little men and their love of all things military.
Not all is bad though. I'm sure a lot of Russian boys, and men, are reading about this with their trousers down their ankles. :shrug:
Louis VI the Fat
03-02-2011, 03:55
Soone or later all this will be integrated into the European Defense Force that we're going to establish, so we can only benefit in the long run. ~;)In the short run we are benefitting too, the orders are flooding in. They sell us oil, we sell them warships.
Then they can use these warships to threaten not to sell us oil. Which, of course, they won't do, because then they can't buy more warships. It is a sad world, ran by sad little men.
Furunculus
03-02-2011, 11:08
"No"
read you own article:
1. russia has been promising money for years
2. most new money is subject to massive fraud
3. russia's military remains under-trained and badly led
4. russia would struggle to deploy, support and sustain more than a battlegroup (~1500 men) out of theatre
5. russia has under-invested in design for twenty years now
6. russia is dependent on western countries for microprocessor and software microcode skills
7. russia is a demographic wreck
8. russia is a commercial development wreck
9. russia is only propped up by petro-chemical exports and nukes
and most importantly:
10. russia is set to remain a declining medium power, it isn't a threat now, and will be even less of a threat in forty years time.
does that help?
PanzerJaeger
03-02-2011, 11:10
It would take more than $650 billion to make the Red Army viable again.
Cute Wolf
03-02-2011, 12:49
hmm, that was actually a good News. Since the upcoming WW3 won't be Westerns vs Russians, but more like Westerns vs China or Westerns vs Muslims, Russians will be your ally.
HoreTore
03-02-2011, 12:54
Well....
Russia was in a far, far worse condition in 1941. Hunger in the country, a shattered economy, an untrained and disorganized army lacking equipment, recovering from a massive defeat, a mad man executing all commanding officers with brains, etc etc. And they still managed to defeat one of the most effective armies the world has ever seen.
I don't think we should contemplate war with Russia any time soon.
Well....
Russia was in a far, far worse condition in 1941. Hunger in the country, a shattered economy, an untrained and disorganized army lacking equipment, recovering from a massive defeat, a mad man executing all commanding officers with brains, etc etc. And they still managed to defeat one of the most effective armies the world has ever seen.
I don't think we should contemplate war with Russia any time soon.
And if they roll over a few smaller countries, the plunder and labour may just give them what they need to be a serious threat. War makes authoritarian countries rich and powerful (think: Ottoman Empire). All they need to do is use their nukes as a threat to small neighboring countries and they could get momentum to start rolling through other countries.
HoreTore
03-02-2011, 16:04
As Russia is a friend and a trading partner, that doesn't really matter much.
gaelic cowboy
03-02-2011, 16:36
And if they roll over a few smaller countries, the plunder and labour may just give them what they need to be a serious threat. War makes authoritarian countries rich and powerful (think: Ottoman Empire). All they need to do is use their nukes as a threat to small neighboring countries and they could get momentum to start rolling through other countries.
This would merely strengthen Nato and European resolve to face them down, the whole thing would end with russia losing even more influence in the long run.
Russia's main and basically only aim is high gas and oil prices
As Russia is a friend and a trading partner, that doesn't really matter much.
lmao, so were so many countries at starts of great wars. What do you mean BTW by the word friend? Not at war?
This would merely strengthen Nato and European resolve to face them down, the whole thing would end with russia losing even more influence in the long run.
Russia's main and basically only aim is high gas and oil prices
lol, Europe has a history of appeasement. Let's look at the Georgia incident just a few years ago. Where was Europe's hard stance on that? They just made excuses to justify Russia's actions.
Kagemusha
03-02-2011, 19:05
lmao, so were so many countries at starts of great wars. What do you mean BTW by the word friend? Not at war?
lol, Europe has a history of appeasement. Let's look at the Georgia incident just a few years ago. Where was Europe's hard stance on that? They just made excuses to justify Russia's actions.
And where was US? They trained Georgian army, but once Russians strolled in where were they?
gaelic cowboy
03-02-2011, 19:09
lmao, so were so many countries at starts of great wars. What do you mean BTW by the word friend? Not at war?
lol, Europe has a history of appeasement. Let's look at the Georgia incident just a few years ago. Where was Europe's hard stance on that? They just made excuses to justify Russia's actions.
Once your past Poland your barely considered european to a Frenchman so I wouldnt get all worried about it Vuk if russias are threatening europe they mean the central european plain and specifically germany
Not all is bad though. I'm sure a lot of Russian boys, and men, are reading about this with their trousers down their ankles. :shrug:
and the same could be said for the cold war revivalists on the other side as well.
Funny. When I read about it a few days ago my first thought was "Vuk will make a post about this!" And no, it won't be a "game changer". The article already describes the issues.
rory_20_uk
03-02-2011, 20:54
Russia is spending in a decade or so what America spends per year.
They're building a lot of old junk that the current NATO army is designed to destroy. Even if they built new stuff there's not the personnel to use it properly.
They have a massive border so require a large force merely for relatively light cover
They're a lot closer to China which is much more quickly increasing and modernising their forces - not just making press announcements. China also thinks a massive part of Siberia is theirs.
The future might not contain the same level of Pax Americana as previous years, but this isn't a game changer.
~:smoking:
Louis VI the Fat
03-02-2011, 21:15
Once your past Poland the Rhine the périphérique your barely considered european to a Frenchman Teh fix
And where was US? They trained Georgian army, but once Russians strolled in where were they?
This is an issue that I disagreed with American policy strongly on. The US should have made a great show of force, courted the Chinese and threatened the Eurowieners into joining them. They should have made it clear to Russia that if they did not leave the region, they would be attacked...and they should have kept their word.
This however has nothing to do with my point about Europe.
Russian egos combine with vested military industrial interest + a bit of Keynesianism.
Strike For The South
03-02-2011, 21:59
This is an issue that I disagreed with American policy strongly on. The US should have made a great show of force, courted the Chinese and threatened the Eurowieners into joining them. They should have made it clear to Russia that if they did not leave the region, they would be attacked...and they should have kept their word.
This however has nothing to do with my point about Europe.
To even waste on American life on some petty level sphere of influence struggle is tantamount to stupidty
None of this even matters, Russia is important becuase it has allot of nukes and will remain so. Some piddily spending which probably won't happen is inconsequntial
haha I missed the ottoman empire analogy. I only find solace in the fact that the gene pool isn't being weakend
Praise Yaweh
To even waste on American life on some petty level sphere of influence struggle is tantamount to stupidty
None of this even matters, Russia is important becuase it has allot of nukes and will remain so. Some piddily spending which probably won't happen is inconsequntial
Attacking a US ally is an afront to the US. This 'petty sphere of influence' happens to be full of innocent lives, and America had made it its policy to stand behind them. Should we be in the habit of breaking our word?
Allowing a potential threat to exist longer does not save lives, but only serves to make the maximum possible number of lives lost greater at some point in time.
Strike For The South
03-02-2011, 22:05
Attacking a US ally is an afront to the US. This 'petty sphere of influence' happens to be full of innocent lives, and America had made it its policy to stand behind them. Should we be in the habit of breaking our word?
Well we shouldn't be so willy nilly with our word in the first place
But in the case of Georgia, yes, we should. I do not care one second for a group of strongmen who made some US coin after the cold war simply becuase they share a border with the worlds angeriest alcoholics
Allowing a potential threat to exist longer does not save lives, but only serves to make the maximum possible number of lives lost greater at some point in time.
This would of course mean that the 650Billion is a threat which its not
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPIN THE WHEEL AGAIN
Well we shouldn't be so willy nilly with our word in the first place
But in the case of Georgia, yes, we should. I do not care one second for a group of strongmen who made some US coin after the cold war simply becuase they share a border with the worlds angeriest alcoholics
This would of course mean that the 650Billion is a threat which its not
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPIN THE WHEEL AGAIN
So would you be willing to apply your 'hands off' policy to the 1990's situation in the Balkans? Do you think that we did the wrong thing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dft7RFqB1_A
Strike For The South
03-02-2011, 22:09
Those aren't even bloody letters
And yes I would have sex with her. I would have sex with allot of women though, doesn't mean I’m willing to get involved in the comic affairs of their useless pieces of territory
This 'petty sphere of influence' happens to be full of innocent lives, and America had made it its policy to stand behind them.
The world is full of innocent lives that America supposedly stands behind but very little is done about it. Georgia isn't the exception, it's the rule and when the US (or NATO or the EU) does intervene it is invariably because they have (or believe they have) something to gain - they don't do it for humanitarian reasons.
Should we be in the habit of breaking our word?
I'd argue the US has been in the habit of breaking its word for quite some time.
As for the original topic, no this isn't a gamechanger. I don't agree with some others statements about the poor quality of Russian forces, you are wildely underestimating them, but this is nothing new to NATO and it has been taken into account when making decisions regarding European armament.
Those aren't even bloody letters
And yes I would have sex with her. I would have sex with allot of women though, doesn't mean I’m willing to get involved in the comic affairs of their useless pieces of territory
lol, she is Ukranian, not Georgian. :P
Strike For The South
03-02-2011, 22:15
EXACTLY we've been doing this for years
In fact invading for humanitarian reasons is a break in US doctrine supported by all political parties
Therefore Vuk is Hitler :wink:
EXACTLY we've been doing this for years
In fact invading for humanitarian reasons is a break in US doctrine supported by all political parties
Therefore Vuk is Hitler
Keeping an ally strong against a hostile power, protecting gas lines, etc. does not qualify as in our best interests?
If we did what was in our best interests, we would have invaded China and Russia directly after WWII, put the Chinese Emporer back into power, and freed the Russians from a bloody and horrible dictator. THAT would have been in our best interests, but we did not do it.
Strike For The South
03-02-2011, 22:28
Keeping an ally strong against a hostile power, protecting gas lines, etc. does not qualify as in our best interests?
If we did what was in our best interests, we would have invaded China and Russia directly after WWII, put the Chinese Emporer back into power, and freed the Russians from a bloody and horrible dictator. THAT would have been in our best interests, but we did not do it.
Maybe becuase that would've been logistically impossible and the American people wouldn't have stood for it
Armies and nations are not simply the inexhsuastable monoliths video games portray them as
I would have never had to explain this two years ago
Maybe becuase that would've been logistically impossible and the American people wouldn't have stood for it
Armies and nations are not simply the inexhsuastable monoliths video games portray them as
I would have never had to explain this two years ago
Actually, it is General Douglas McArthur suggested, and he enjoyed a great deal of popularity amongst the American people. (so much in fact that if he had run for President, he almost definately would have won)
You are right, nations are not inexhaustable, which is exactly why it would be possible. The US had been drained far less than any country in the war. Russia and China esp had been bled almost dry. It would not have taken a lot to make either of them fall, and we would have been able to rely on the support of friendly nationals whose country we would have been freeing. (esp in the case of China, but also very much in the case of Russia)
Also, when we were done, Europe would have been bled even whiter than it ended up being, Russia would take a century to recover. China would be weak, but not having a communist government, it would soon become a strong ally. The two world super-powers would have been the US and China, both would be on the same side for at least a few decades, and the US would be the strongest by far.
HoreTore
03-02-2011, 23:21
lmao, so were so many countries at starts of great wars. What do you mean BTW by the word friend? Not at war?
I mean that if Norway is not able to maintain a friendly relationship with Russia and keep the traditional trade going, we might as well abandon northern Norway.
Now.... While that may not be something I would be against, I have to deal with realities, and that reality is that's never going to happen. So, since we are going to keep a few hundred thousand people living there, I would prefer an economy up there so the people living the can have jobs instead of relying on subsidies from southern Norway. And the only way to have an economy up there is to maintain a friendly and cooperative relationship with Russia, something which we finally have. Russia is Norway's neighbor, whether we like it or not, and having them on friendly terms benefits both of us, as we have seen recently, with the resolution of the Stockman oil field and finally settling the 50-year old border dispute we had with them. Both of those thingd are crucial to economic development in the north, and neither had been resolved without the friendship we currently have.
HoreTore
03-02-2011, 23:23
Keeping an ally strong against a hostile power, protecting gas lines, etc. does not qualify as in our best interests?
If we did what was in our best interests, we would have invaded China and Russia directly after WWII, put the Chinese Emporer back into power, and freed the Russians from a bloody and horrible dictator. THAT would have been in our best interests, but we did not do it.
Probably because both would've been impossible...
Invading Russia simply cannot be done.
Probably because both would've been impossible...
Invading Russia simply cannot be done.
A: You don't need to invade and conquer Russia to force it to negotiate. Defeating its armed forces and bombing/nuking the heck out of it (or simply the threat of that) would go a long way.
B: Yes actually, it could be done.
rory_20_uk
03-02-2011, 23:37
I'm with HoreTore. Post WW2 the USSR had the most fearsome army on the planet. Allied tanks were a joke, but had better planes and Navy. The reason the two sides didn't go for each other was that neither side saw a way of winning without losses that were so vast as to make any victory pointless.
The Germans would have taken the Russians with more preparation - especially if the Italians hadn't screwed up in the Balkans. Attack as the Spring progresses. There was basically the one chance - but with their nukes no chance.
~:smoking:
I'm with HoreTore. Post WW2 the USSR had the most fearsome army on the planet. Allied tanks were a joke, but had better planes and Navy. The reason the two sides didn't go for each other was that neither side saw a way of winning without losses that were so vast as to make any victory pointless.
The Germans would have taken the Russians with more preparation - especially if the Italians hadn't screwed up in the Balkans. Attack as the Spring progresses. There was basically the one chance - but with their nukes no chance.
~:smoking:
Sorry, but I disagree.
Russia had two main advantages:
Terrain/hometurf
Good armour
The US had:
Significant anti-government forces (Tzarists amongst them) to coordinate with.
Better airforce.
Much better economy.
More professional military.
Better equipment overall.
Large recruitment pool.
The burnt out ends of Europe.
The fact that there would be no war on their turf.
The fact that Russians could not take much more war.
The possibility of China aiding the invasion.
The possibility of aid from the many liberated countries that Russia would be broken into.
etc.
HoreTore
03-02-2011, 23:48
Both Napoleon and Hitler has proved that no, invading Russia cannot be done.
Both invasions were supposed to be done in a summer, both failed completely and lead to the demise of both aggressors. Logistics will kill any such adventure in the winter.
Edit: swap "China" with "Japan" on that list, and you will have Hitlers situation in 1941. He failed. Hard.
Also, may I point out that the post-ww2 US army completely failed to defeat the much small and utterly bonkers mad army of Kim Il Sung? They didn't win against that tiny strip of land, and you believe they had a chance against the vast Russian steppe....?
Greyblades
03-03-2011, 00:20
This is so offtopic it hurts.
PanzerJaeger
03-03-2011, 00:30
The US had:
More professional military.
More professional? Maybe at the lower levels. More effective? Nein.
Both Also, may I point out that the post-ww2 US army completely failed to defeat the much small and utterly bonkers mad army of Kim Il Sung? They didn't win against that tiny strip of land, and you believe they had a chance against the vast Russian steppe....?
Ummm... what?
Also, may I point out that the post-ww2 US army completely failed to defeat the much small and utterly bonkers mad army of Kim Il Sung? They didn't win against that tiny strip of land, and you believe they had a chance against the vast Russian steppe....?
Correction. We pounded the much small and utterly bonkers mad army of Kim Il Sung, all the way to the Chinese border. Then the vast and utterly bonkers Chinese Red Army joined the fun...
gaelic cowboy
03-03-2011, 00:38
Correction. We pounded the much small and utterly bonkers mad army of Kim Il Sung, all the way to the Chinese border. Then the vast and utterly bonkers Chinese Red Army joined the fun...
Hence the old adage never fight a land war in Asia and basically you swap that for Eurasia and you get the same result
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-03-2011, 02:15
Actually, it is General Douglas McArthur suggested, and he enjoyed a great deal of popularity amongst the American people. (so much in fact that if he had run for President, he almost definately would have won)
You are right, nations are not inexhaustable, which is exactly why it would be possible. The US had been drained far less than any country in the war. Russia and China esp had been bled almost dry. It would not have taken a lot to make either of them fall, and we would have been able to rely on the support of friendly nationals whose country we would have been freeing. (esp in the case of China, but also very much in the case of Russia)
Also, when we were done, Europe would have been bled even whiter than it ended up being, Russia would take a century to recover. China would be weak, but not having a communist government, it would soon become a strong ally. The two world super-powers would have been the US and China, both would be on the same side for at least a few decades, and the US would be the strongest by far.
Why would China be a strong ally?
Anyway, had your plan failed Russia would have rolled all the way to the Norman coast, and you're be utterly screwed.
I fail to see how China would have been useful in any way, shape or form just after the Allied victory.
a completely inoffensive name
03-03-2011, 03:55
As far as I can tell this is what Vuk has said:
A. OMG, Russia is big powerhouse now, MW2 campaign inevitable? Help from China!?!?!
B. Nah, Russia can be invaded, just threaten them with nukes or use nukes at them (oblivious to Cold War).
Centurion1
03-03-2011, 03:56
haha this doesnt mean crap. we spend more money than that yearly.
thumbs down for dumb questions
As far as I can tell this is what Vuk has said:
A. OMG, Russia is big powerhouse now, MW2 campaign inevitable? Help from China!?!?!
B. Nah, Russia can be invaded, just threaten them with nukes or use nukes at them (oblivious to Cold War).
No, Vuk never said that Russia was a 'big powerhouse'. I simply said that you cannot completely discount it and say that it is incapable of waging or winning wars.
a completely inoffensive name
03-03-2011, 04:30
No, Vuk never said that Russia was a 'big powerhouse'. I simply said that you cannot completely discount it and say that it is incapable of waging or winning wars.
Against countries like Georgia? Yeah, you are right.
Against countries that are not like Georgia? No, Russia isn't really a threat in conventional war.
ajaxfetish
03-03-2011, 05:18
invading Russia cannot be done.
Unless you're the mongols.
Ajax
Sarmatian
03-03-2011, 08:28
Unless you're the mongols. Ajax
Yeah but some preconditions would have to be met first:
1) That Russia holds only 1/50 of the territory it holds today
2) That that 1/50 is divided between 10+ princes who don't like each other
3) That you win only against a few of them and that you get them to pay you some money
Russia isn't a threat to EU and there is at the moment strong commercial interest for both parties to continue developing relations...
Even with 650bn Russian military isn't a threat to EU. In a few decades they might be, but I don't see how Russian interest would be served by attacking rest of the Europe...
a completely inoffensive name
03-03-2011, 09:25
YOU GUYS WANT TO TALK ABOUT A GAME CHANGER? HERE ITS IS: CHANGING THE GAME:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaKcl0Qg13o
Furunculus
03-03-2011, 11:22
No, Vuk never said that Russia was a 'big powerhouse'. I simply said that you cannot completely discount it and say that it is incapable of waging or winning wars.
since you haven't bothered to answer any of my objections, i am unable to counter this "fear-russia" fallacy any further.
Tellos Athenaios
03-03-2011, 13:50
@Vuk's MacArthur-mania:
Except China would not be an ally. Public support in China leaned actually (in as much as it wasn't a case of a pox on all their houses) towards the communists after the WW2 because they were at that time basically the only party that didn't treat the average Chinese like dirt or otherwise expendable. At that time there was a strong party discipline which among other things proscribed that members had to treat other Chinese --including those who were ostensibly lower in traditional social rank-- with basic respect and common courtesy. This obligation was met enough to leave a favourable impression on a society where people were used to being downtrodden and intimidated on a near daily basis. This was rather different from the nationalists who were much the same as the despots and the Japanese before them in this regard: simply take what you want, and who cares about some poor person anyway?
Communists weren't successful at that time their influence pretty much centered around Manchuria alone, but that changes rapidly in the aftermath because they essentially were the only option if you didn't fancy yourself being treated as dirt/expendable. Of course once Mao had secured his rule things changed, but in 1947 for instance this was not yet the case.
ICantSpellDawg
03-03-2011, 16:48
World War 3 will start between China and Russia in the Northern Pacific and on their contiguous border. These spending increases are meant to deter China, using the ruse that it is intended to deter Japan and NATO
Greyblades
03-03-2011, 17:28
I'm guessing the americans will be sitting back giggling to themselves as it's rivals kill each other.
Sarmatian
03-03-2011, 21:53
Except that Russia and China have pretty good relations that will in all probability get even better, just like EU-Russia relations. Bah, no threat there, move along...
CrossLOPER
03-03-2011, 21:55
Where is that "small, mobile, modernized force" that we were talking about a few years back, boys?? Anyway, I guess they intend to pay this off with tourism revenue from Sochi.
AND NO IT'S NOT A GAME CHANGER.
Where is that "small, mobile, modernized force" that we were talking about a few years back, boys??
Are you talking about a European or Russian force? Not that it matters much, both could be called a 'work in progress' :laugh4:.
Edit: Here (http://www.da.mod.uk/colleges/arag/document-listings/russian/Russian%20Series%2010_11%20%28WEB%29.pdf) is a rather interesting article about Russian military doctrine as of 2010 that I found which discusses some of the issues raised in this thread.
HoreTore
03-04-2011, 00:33
Except that Russia and China have pretty good relations that will in all probability get even better, just like EU-Russia relations. Bah, no threat there, move along...
Russia = full of natural resources
China = desperate to buy more resources
A war between those two has got to be one of the most unlike scenarios ever. It's much, much more likely that they'll form a block or something together. Why would China want to invade Siberia anyway? What could possibly be gained from such an adventure, considering how it's likely to drain and cripple the nation on the tundra?
Meneldil
03-04-2011, 00:37
Everytime Vuk opens a new topic, it makes me wonder. In what kind of alternate reality are you living?
Me thinks someone should stop playing Red Alert and CoD.
Everytime Vuk opens a new topic, it makes me wonder. In what kind of alternate reality are you living?
Me thinks someone should stop playing Red Alert and CoD.
Two games that I have never played. ~;)
ICantSpellDawg
03-04-2011, 01:26
Why did Germany invade Poland? Land - because it had the people and needed a place to settle them. Russia has the largest supply of natural resources on the planet earth. This, combined with the fact that they have a small and shrinking population to defend it could make the situation interesting.
Russia is a big and blinking target for a growing, xenophobic and insatiable China. They have never been friendly because nation states are never friendly.
Why did Germany invade Poland? Land - because it had the people and needed a place to settle them.
It was because Hitler wanted Lebensraum, not some pseudo deterministic factor. Germany in 2011, with a higher population and smaller area than in 1939, should be rolling out the panzers soon if it was all about things like population and land.
They have never been friendly because nation states are never friendly.
Nation states? Same states you see in like Europe that seem very friendly? And I guess the improved relations between China and Russia is all a charade before the big yellow storm?
ICantSpellDawg
03-04-2011, 04:49
It's a charade.
Crazed Rabbit
03-04-2011, 06:43
No, the game hasn't changed.
Also go to war with Russia, over Georgia? You want WWIII, with the threat of nuclear war, for that tiny country?
M. A. D. N. E. S. S.
You seem so obsessed with projecting an image of strength that you forget the whole point of strength - protecting yourself.
Why in the world would China ally with us in such foolishness? And you talk of threatening Europe? Would you point nukes at the whole world to make them do what you want?
As if somehow Russia spending a fraction of what we did bailing out a few banks will make them a military force to be reckoned with. All they can do is beat up on tiny countries like Georgia.
And if they roll over a few smaller countries, the plunder and labour may just give them what they need to be a serious threat.
No, no it won't. This isn't a TW game.
CR
Louis VI the Fat
03-04-2011, 10:47
Menendil and Rabbit own this thread. Sanity at last.
No, no it won't. This isn't a TW game.
Actually we Eurowieners are craving the day where we can do slave labour for our heroic soviet overlords, we'll invite them with open arms because we have no spine and stuff. :laugh4:
Isn't Vuk a Russian-American? Might explain a couple of things.
Isn't Vuk a Russian-American? Might explain a couple of things.
lol, no Vuk is not. :P He is an Anglo-Sicilian-Norwegian-Irish-Scottish-Native American-African-American. (and that is the simple version :P)
EDIT: I hate Sicilians, I hate the English, I am not proud of my Scottish ancestory, indifferent about the African, don't know enough about the Native American (not even what tribe), only marginally proud of the Irish and Norwegian, so I prefer to simply identify myself as 'American'. :P
I hate the English
You and pretty much everyone else! :smash:
p.s. you only hate us because you are all just jealous!
Furunculus
03-04-2011, 18:17
I hate the English
we'll cope, as you may have noticed were often accused of arrogance........
it is well founded, and permits us scant regard for the concerns of others.
we'll cope, as you may have noticed were often accused of arrogance........
it is well founded, and permits us scant regard for the concerns of others.
lol, no offense by the way. I did not mean that directed at anyone, simply the history and culture of the country I cannot stand. :P
gaelic cowboy
03-04-2011, 18:30
lol, no Vuk is not. :P He is an Anglo-Sicilian-Norwegian-Irish-Scottish-Native American-African-American. (and that is the simple version :P)
EDIT: I hate Sicilians, I hate the English, I am not proud of my Scottish ancestory, indifferent about the African, don't know enough about the Native American (not even what tribe), only marginally proud of the Irish and Norwegian, so I prefer to simply identify myself as 'American'. :P
You "Hate" them jeez hates a strong word for your own family, I feel sorry for you to be honest VUK.
You "Hate" them jeez hates a strong word for your own family, I feel sorry for you to be honest VUK.
Men are defined by their actions, and not their blood. Therefore I am not bound to the English anymore than I am to a farm animal. I dislike the English for the beliefs and actions; beliefs not held by my current family and actions not taken by them. Also, I don't discriminate against family; if a member of my family is an @$$#0&$, I will tell him to his face and cut off contact with him. Family ties should be emotional and logical, and have nothing to do with blood.
Furunculus
03-04-2011, 18:38
lol, no offense by the way. I did not mean that directed at anyone, simply the history and culture of the country I cannot stand. :P
lol, just wanted to get off a wise-crack about arrogant limeys.
on the other hand, the history and culture is precisely the thing about england i do like.
Greyblades
03-04-2011, 19:26
Yup we have a history going back to the dark ages, had the largest empire and went toe to toe with allmost everyone in the world. We even won most of the fights! Pity we had to do alot of bad things to get there, but we didnt know/believe they were bad at the time and hey everyone else was doing it too!
Now if only we could do something about the food...
Yup we have a history going back to the dark ages, had the largest empire and went toe to toe with allmost everyone in the world. We even won most of the fights! Pity we had to do alot of bad things to get there, but we didnt know/believe they were bad at the time and hey everyone else was doing it too!
Now if only we could do something about the food...
And the gals. ~;)
Greyblades
03-04-2011, 19:56
You my friend have never been to essex.
You my friend have never been to essex.
I am sure the Essexians are thankful for that. :P
Don't they make jokes about East Seaxe girls?
gaelic cowboy
03-04-2011, 21:21
Men are defined by their actions, and not their blood. Therefore I am not bound to the English anymore than I am to a farm animal. I dislike the English for the beliefs and actions; beliefs not held by my current family and actions not taken by them. Also, I don't discriminate against family; if a member of my family is an @$$#0&$, I will tell him to his face and cut off contact with him. Family ties should be emotional and logical, and have nothing to do with blood.
But you likely know very little about those people Vuk in order to have 6 ethnicities in your make up before your American you would have to go back 150 yrs.
But you likely know very little about those people Vuk in order to have 6 ethnicities in your make up before your American you would have to go back 150 yrs.
And what is your point? Just because Italians *#&$ in general does not mean that a given Italian individual *#&$s. Of course judge everyone on an individual basis, but there are ways of thinking that I find deplorable, and I dislike those who think that way.
EDIT: and just because I am related to them does not mean that I have to like them. ~;)
gaelic cowboy
03-04-2011, 22:15
And what is your point? Just because Italians *#&$ in general does not mean that a given Italian individual *#&$s. Of course judge everyone on an individual basis, but there are ways of thinking that I find deplorable, and I dislike those who think that way.
EDIT: and just because I am related to them does not mean that I have to like them. ~;)
Fine
It just seems very strange to me is all.
Fine
It just seems very strange to me is all.
lol, what? That I do not like my ancestors just because they are related to me? Some of the most loathsome people I have met are relatives.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-04-2011, 23:52
Fine
It just seems very strange to me is all.
I find it offensive.
If I say, "I hate black people, but you're ok Dave" I'd be tarred and feathered, but Vuk think's it's ok to be racist so long as the race is white.
Not very enlightened.
Greyblades
03-05-2011, 00:12
Don't they make jokes about East Seaxe girls?
Yep
EDIT: Removed hotlinked picture. Please host pictures yourself. BG
HoreTore
03-05-2011, 00:24
lol, just wanted to get off a wise-crack about arrogant limeys.
on the other hand, the history and culture is precisely the thing about england i do like.
I find it highly unlikely that you, or anyone else for that matter, likes the puddings....
Also, is Dave black? :dizzy2:
I find it offensive.
If I say, "I hate black people, but you're ok Dave" I'd be tarred and feathered, but Vuk think's it's ok to be racist so long as the race is white.
Not very enlightened.
Racist? Too be racist, I would have to be referring to race. I made it quite clear that I was referring to culture and a way of thinking, which I find despicable. Where exactly does race figure in? Pardon me for not engaging in ancestor worship.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-05-2011, 00:58
Racist? Too be racist, I would have to be referring to race. I made it quite clear that I was referring to culture and a way of thinking, which I find despicable. Where exactly does race figure in? Pardon me for not engaging in ancestor worship.
Are the English not a "race"? Is race something only defined by skin colour for you? Do you think everyone black in Africa is the same?
If they were Rwanda wouldn't have happened.
Even if it isn't "racist" it's still offensive. I am English, my friends are English, so are my family, we are English - and apparently you hate us.
I think you need to adjust your attitude to the people around you, you might start fewer silly threads if you did.
Are the English not a "race"? Is race something only defined by skin colour for you? Do you think everyone black in Africa is the same?
If they were Rwanda wouldn't have happened.
Even if it isn't "racist" it's still offensive. I am English, my friends are English, so are my family, we are English - and apparently you hate us.
I think you need to adjust your attitude to the people around you, you might start fewer silly threads if you did.
lol, no, the English are not a race. They are a bunch of people (of many different heritages) camping out on a little backward island. ~;) That would be like me claiming that American was a race. (Please Megas, don't start with the Native Americans are true Americans stuff ~;))
You have no reason to be offended. I said that there were too things that I hated about the English. One was England's history, which does not involve anyone living, and therefore cannot be directed at you or your family. The other was a certain attitude, which I admitted not all English possessed, but is common in England. (thus the need for individual judgment) If you or your family don't hold that attitude, then you are a recipient of my pity, and not my disdain.
And I am sorry, but it is my right to dislike certain ways of thinking, because some are very harmful. If you don't like it, I am sorry, but that is no reason to get all anal.
In case you couldn't tell Philly, I was hardly being serious about anything I was saying in the last few posts (I thought the tone of the whole thread in the last few posts was pretty light-hearted), so chill the heck out and go take your anger out on some Irish children or something. :)
Louis VI the Fat
03-05-2011, 01:35
Both within the British Isles, and without, it has strangely become PC to speak about the English in a most disparaging manner. What have those genocidal maniacs done to deserve thi Why should that be okay? One would not dare speak about Jews or Blacks or Irish in the same the way the English are spoken about.
It think it is considered PC to slag off the English for the same reason it is considered PC to slag off white, heterosexual middle class men. They are thought to be on top of the pyramid. The 'standard'. A standard against which deviancy is measured. the majority against which others are minorities. (Even when several of these minorities are majorities).
While this is fine with me within the British Isles, where it makes some sense, I naturally have issues with the English being the standard elsewhere. The English are but a provincial race. Island dwelling upstarts. The standard against which other peoples should be judged deviant minorities ought not to be the Anglosaxon race, but the standard bearers of Western civilization for fifteen hundred years, the French. Therefore every time somebody says he hates the English, he insults my national pride.
Both within the British Isles, and without, it has strangely become PC to speak about the English in a most disparaging manner. What have those genocidal maniacs done to deserve thi Why should that be okay? One would not dare speak about Jews or Blacks or Irish in the same the way the English are spoken about.
It think it is considered PC to slag off the English for the same reason it is considered PC to slag off white, heterosexual middle class men. They are thought to be on top of the pyramid. The 'standard'. A standard against which deviancy is measured. the majority against which others are minorities. (Even when several of these minorities are majorities).
While this is fine with me within the British Isles, where it makes some sense, I naturally have issues with the English being the standard elsewhere. The English are but a provincial race. Island dwelling upstarts. The standard against which other peoples should be judged deviant minorities ought not to be the Anglosaxon race, but the standard bearers of Western civilization for fifteen hundred years, the French. Therefore every time somebody says he hates the English, he insults my national pride.
That's not true, I like to pick on everyone you weak little Frenchman. ~;)
Before the thread devolves into going more off-topic, for example "Why is it called the French Tricolour when there is only one colour?", we should return to talking about the threat of Russian Bear Riders looming on the doorstep of Europe, and the amount of concern we should express about this.
Tellos Athenaios
03-05-2011, 02:18
Therefore every time somebody says he hates the English, he insults my national pride.
Hmm, is the hate towards your general direction from French outside of the Périphérique insufficient to keep up your hopes of being among the most reviled in the world?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
03-05-2011, 11:23
lol, no, the English are not a race. They are a bunch of people (of many different heritages) camping out on a little backward island. ~;)
Starting with "lol no" means you start at minus one.
Whether or not the English are a "race" aiming hate at 45 million people is pretty disgusting.
Furunculus
03-05-2011, 11:48
Don't they make jokes about East Seaxe girls?
yup, thick as planks.
I find it offensive.
If I say, "I hate black people, but you're ok Dave" I'd be tarred and feathered, but Vuk think's it's ok to be racist so long as the race is white.
Not very enlightened.
i believe Vuk refers to a cultural meme, rather than a racial trait, which if true is something i can understand. as a rough example; i can only thank my lucky stars that the same electorate that chooses to keep berlusconi in power, and doesn't enmasse demand his resignation for unacceptable behaviour, is not an electorate who's choices i have to be governed by.
I find it highly unlikely that you, or anyone else for that matter, likes the puddings....
Also, is Dave black? :dizzy2:
what's with this pudding business........?:dizzy2:
While this is fine with me within the British Isles, where it makes some sense, I naturally have issues with the English being the standard elsewhere. The English are but a provincial race. Island dwelling upstarts. The standard against which other peoples should be judged deviant minorities ought not to be the Anglosaxon race, but the standard bearers of Western civilization for fifteen hundred years, the French. Therefore every time somebody says he hates the English, he insults my national pride.
as noted before, we english (read: British) are an arrogant bunch, so it had never occurred to a one among us that you might have such feelings, even know i struggle to understand it.
HoreTore
03-05-2011, 12:13
Thanks to the wonders of the EU, however, Berlusconi's electorate does govern the brits.... :smash:
HoreTore
03-05-2011, 12:17
Starting with "lol no" means you start at minus one.
Whether or not the English are a "race" aiming hate at 45 million people is pretty disgusting.
Racism doesn't mean " hate towards race". Racism means "hate towards a group of people". So, if you hate all blacks, you're racist. If you hate all jews, you're racist. If you hate all catholics, you're racist. If you hate all english, you're racist.
Few, if any, "anti-racists" believe there is such a thing as race, but that does not mean that "racist" is a fitting term for those with hate as described above.
Except if you hate Liverpool. That makes you enlightened.
Banquo's Ghost
03-05-2011, 13:49
Not only have we veered from the topic, but we are charting some very unpleasant waters.
Enough.
:closed:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.