FalconDudeLet’s face it, post Cold War the iconic Western weapons systems that threatened classic Third World despot dictators – save for maybe B-52 – we’re all pretty much retired. F-111 could literally reach out and touch them at range with high precision at the time. A good chunk of the Navy – really the crown jewels of western culture – was cut and immediately scrapped. The large dumb bomb stocks were recycled. The mini nukes were decommissioned. Much of our strategic missile force, especially the Peacekeeper, was scrapped. The cuts to the manpower and bases. The merchant marine corps. Everywhere.
Where are you going with this madrat?
FalconDudeNot at all, but it is not as simple as A led to B. Islamic extremist groups were on the rise, expanding, becoming more violent years before the first US soldier stepped foot in Iraq or Afghanistan. There is no doubt that the Iraq misadventure was a disaster that led to conditions for extremists to flourish. Are you so sure these groups would still not exist somewhere else?
Why was Al Qaeda able to set up in the failed state of Afghanistan in the first place? Get my point? The factors that led to the current Islamist wars have many fathers. Some players find it more comfortable to assign blame to the US as absolution.
Yes, and I am not if favour of assigning blame without measure and where it’s not due. However, the US and the USSR where the only powers at play that had the luxury to afford deep contemplation of the consequences of their potential actions and previous experience. In layman’s terms the US (and the USSR) should have known better! Isn’t that so?
Extremist groups were on the rise, but they were given a huge leap of capability, funding and organisation when the US got involved in Afganistan. A short sighted action; at least one that the cold war does explain.
But what about Iraq? what was the justification there? There was no cold war anymore, there was… well nothing really. And Yugoslavia? Also there are those who argue that Libya was only a few years away from a ragime change as surely Gaddafi was getting to old and too decadent to maintain power. One of his corrupt sons would eventually taken over and given their way of life they would probably be more open to subversion by the West.
You can surely start connecting the dots.
FalconDudePlease if history was that easy. Should we assign blame to the British for combining hostile tribes in the borders of modern Iraq? The French for wholesale arming and training of the Iraqi army (tanker war, invasion of Kuwait), Hence US troop on Saudi soil that led to Osama creating Al Qaeda? Or the Russian heavy handed crushing of the Chechens (who are the most feared and loyal members of Al Qaeda and ISIS?). Assigning blame from one action creating another is pointless.
Yes we should! And we are!
No it is not pointless at all! How can you say that?
That is the point of history. By that reasoning we should stop blaming Hitler for the Holocaust! You think that would be right?
What you are saying has deeper implications than you may realise. Of course you can trace the events back to a single point. Always! In any chain reaction there is one event that started the chain. You find who created that event you find the culprit of the entire unfolding. By denying that is the case you are essentially absolving everyone from anything!
Is that what you are trying to say?
FalconDudeWhatever website you get your news and information from….. You need to stop going there. ISIS grew partly out AQI surviors, so no the U.S. did not create or train ISIS despite the anti-US propaganda that states otherwise.
The U.S. did arm tribal groups that were part of the Sunni awakening, some of which did switch allegiance to ISIS when they began to overrun northern Iraq, some fought ISIS and still are.
I think one could make a strong case that your country is doing more for sustaining ISIS with fresh recruits and money.
ISIS was a direct result of US actions. Yes or No?
FalconDude_ The moderate opposition didn’t just randomly come out of no where, let not pretend like Assad is not at fault here, the country already a mess before US even came there.
_ The opposition and ISIS are not the same group.
_ There is not any solid evidence that US trained or supplied ISIS in weapons ( and dont even try to bring Taliban and Afghanistan here, it like saying Russia still supports Kim Jong Un just because they was once in the same side as North Korea)
You are either to young or too naive to understand or you are doing this on purpose. The following is not an answer to you, as you are beyond reasoning. It is so people who may read your nonsense won’t get fooled by you.
The US seems to be unable to understand (or just doesn’t care) what the long term effects of its actions on foreign affairs are going to be!
In Syria, there was Assad. A dictator (not unlike many the US have put in power in puppet states over the years) for sure.
-Did people like him? Not really.
-Was he democratic, just and cared for anything else rather than the continuation of his reign? Not really, no.
-How many Syrians died because of him every year?A few hundreds to a few thousands (maybe on a bad year) due to mostly political beliefs.
-Was that acceptable? Not really
-How was Syria overall as a country?
-Syria was stable, decent economy and although people mostly feared Assad, they carried on with their lives.
After the US got involved with it
-Is Syria a mess? Yes
-How many people have died? Hundreds of thousands killed (300.000 to over half a million)!
-How many people fled? About 4.5 million refuges!!!!!
-Is Syria destroyed beyond any reasonable measure? Yes, unquestionably so.
-How many people have lost everything? Millions!
-How many people live under the terror of ISIS? Nobody knows for sure, thousands for sure.
Do you get the picture or do you want me to go over the Afganistan, Iraq, Libya examples too?
Like it or not Al qaeda and ISIS are direct results of US careless (or intentional) policies. You will not grow as a person if you don’t finally recognise that fact.
FalconDudeIf you want to know who achieved Check Mate see 1991.
There is no coherence to what you are saying. There is no train of thought, there is no logical connection that can be made between the known historical facts and events to support your biased arguments. There is simply nothing.
FalconDudeWhich one would surrendering fall under?
Have you ever played chess?
FalconDudeWe already did. They wanted us to leave, so now it’s up to them.
Starfish, I think you’re probably 12, you know, at that age where arguing is more important that actually having anything to say?
I don’t know if you are american -not that it matters-, because your use of language is not evident of an american English speaker; It would explain a few things however.
There are two ways to look at things. Painted by your own political, racial, economic and whatever else biases, or as they are (i.e. the truth).
Iraq was and is a US made mess.
Afganistan was and is a US made mess.
Syria is a US made mess.
Now, I will not pretend to have the patience to lecture you on why this is the way it is. It is crystal clear that you do not have the capacity to learn or simply you don’t want to.
The simply fact of the matter is however that no matter how much and for how long you write your twisted opinions or beliefs on this forum or other fora you will never change the facts. Not for how good or bad the MiG-21 was, not for how good or bad US foreign policies were or are, not for anything else. Russians, Communists, Chinese, Apaches or the big blue aliens on Pandora, are simply not what you think they are.
case closed.
FalconDudeThe U.S. never lost a battlefield battle, period.
The Tet Offensive all but wiped out the Viet Cong, which was bonus for the North as they did not have to deal with the Cong later on.
Vietnam was political win for N.Vietnam, militarily they had there ass handed to them.You have to give credit to the leader of N. Vietnam for knowing Washington politics better than the assholes who supposedly work there.
That has not changed any since then either as ISIS has shown.
There are tactical victories, and strategic victories. You clearly have no understanding of which is which.
FalconDudeFalconDude[ATTACH=CONFIG]248052[/ATTACH]
Thanks, that is helpful. May I ask where this image is from?
FalconDudeThe actual load-bearing spars would be in the blue area here:
http://s018.radikal.ru/i509/1609/6e/02c66ce2125e.jpgWould they not? That’s also the area that had visually evident structural reinforcement on later prototypes.
I had the feel that it would be a bit more forward not so close to the actuators.
FalconDude[ATTACH=CONFIG]248041[/ATTACH]
wingspar?
FalconDudeOn the contrary, first remark was aimed at the ‘Cold War’ goggles. Second remark was aimed at the fact you claimed foreign countries were supplied with worse equipment, in reality it made no difference. Pilot skill is obviously a factor but the original premise put forward by others was that Soviets were well trained but proxy pilots weren’t.
My remark stands by itself. In my original post, the ‘cold war goggles’ are explained in the same sentence, and it’s not the explanation you understood.
Foreign countries were indeed supplied with worst equipment. That also sets the scene. It is a parameter we have to acknowledge. Nothing more nothing else.
FalconDudeI think what I said is fairly straight forward. I remember hearing claims about the Soviets might have thermonuclear-pumped lasers in space and all manner of crap in the 1980s.
And yes, the Soviets and Soviet pilots fought in those wars. Rimon 20 was the Soviets attempting to prove that Egyptian pilots were crap by flying against the Israelis themselves. Result – whitewash 5:0. Pakistan vs Soviets – 10:0. Korea and Vietnam were closer but the Soviets were still beaten. The aircraft were cheaper… until they started getting shot down more frequently.
The ‘what?’ was aimed at the fact that I don’t think you read the post carefully. Had you done so, you ‘d never come up with the reply you did, as it makes no sense whatsoever.
Sign In
