This will end well.....

[Rugger]

...not...

Russia provides 10 MiG fighter jets to Lebanon for free - Times Online

 

[suncloud]

could be worse....


i remember when the USSR collapsed, and everyone government employed was getting paid in vouchers. in summer time, in Jane's intelligence review (july or august 1997), they stated russia had lost accountability of 35% of its nuclear arsenal during the changeover.

 

[Lacradocious]

could be worse....


i remember when the USSR collapsed, and everyone government employed was getting paid in vouchers. in summer time, in Jane's intelligence review (july or august 1997), they stated russia had lost accountability of 35% of its nuclear arsenal during the changeover.

I remember that too. Basically all of the satellite states suddenly became freed and a whole bunch of weaponry became unaccounted for (but was certainly put to use in the Balkans and elsewhere due to the power vacuum).

I wouldn't worry too much about the Lebanese military having those jets. They are just as capable, if not more so, than comparable American jets. But they are only as good as the capability and knowledge of the pilot in the seat.

A good pilot can beat another one without firing a shot. In the 1st Iraq war, an unarmed EF-111 pilot (unarmed electronic jamming plane) took out a Mig 23 pilot that was stupid enough to chase it. Our pilot climbed, the Mig followed him up. Our pilot then swept the wings back, dove down at a high speed (idiot Iraqi followed) and then swept the wings forward for the lift and leveled off at low altitude. The Mig slammed straight into the sand.

An Israeli or American pilot even in inferior F-16's would smoke Lebanese pilots with those new Migs. Different story if they faced Russian pilots, like we did in the Korean conflict.

One of my best friends is flying A-10's in Afghanistan right now and I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of one of those. Knowing what kind of training our pilots go through, I have no worries about it. And better trained Israeli's have succeeded in fighting off much larger combined forces several times in the last 50 years.

 

[Sergiu]

Good excuse to promote the building of the anti-nuke shield in Europe.

 

[Zero V]

Awesome. You know by 2015 Russia is supposed to have its militry rearmed and more efficient than ours or chinas. Also their economy is well on the road to recovery. They are also some of the most hardcore fighters to ever see a battlefield. Spetznaz.

Russia i think will be the one to tumble capitalist societies. They have the ability to.

Personally. I think WWIII would be good for the world. I mean if you shoot an American, you will just see mcdonalds grease shoot out of them...

BTW it would be Russian specialty pilots flying those Migs. Not Lebanese ones.

 

[Sergiu]

Zero V, the problems with Western societies aren't economical or military wise. The problem is at an ideology and cultural level.

Right now the Western societies just want their entitlement check, they don't want to fight for anything. What I'll say hurts me, but unless they change their approach, they are doomed.

And Western Europe isn't capitalist. That's a myth. Most of the EU countries are social democracies.

 

[Lacradocious]

Europe is basically a power like the United States. But it's a bunch of Socialist Democracies connected economically through the Euro Dollar and their union. I see the problem with the West being greed. Most American's see the USA as the best country in the world. For a while, I think we were, but we may have squandered that opportunity due to greed and allowing corporate types to make up and influence our government in order to serve corporate greed rather than the people. The auto and banking industry bailouts are examples.

Before WWII, America was more isolationist. The Nazi and Imperial Japanese threat forced us to act and we built a tremendous military machine that turned those tides. But we never went back to being isolationists. We got sucked into the cold war - causing us to spend ungodly amounts of money on military innovation, subsidizing "freedom fighters" all over the world to fight commies, and we built an extremely expensive network of military bases across the globe, many that persist even though we haven't needed them for decades.

We spent a lot of capital and lives lost in Korea and Vietnam. No one won the Korean War, the fighting just stopped, and a fence went up along the North / South border. Vietnam speaks for itself. Our country is so far in debt that I wouldn't be surprised if we are still paying off the debt of these wars, which we really have nothing positive to show for it in terms of economics or security.

The WWII generation did great things, but the following generations have done poorly with what that generation sacrificed and passed to us. Our government is in massive debt and our people are too. It wasn't like this 70 years ago. Our economy is in big trouble right now and I fear all of this poor financial management is finally catching up to us. Could it be possible that we may collapse like the Soviet Union inevitably did? I certainly hope not.

Russia and to some extent China may be the next superpower. India appears to have the Brains and the will to rank with them as well should they continue to build a solid economic base.

If we don't fix our economy and make fundamental policy changes, then we are in big trouble. I fear that the time to act passed a long time ago. People have been thinking short term for too long. I also fear that the fundamental change we need may not be consistent with the beliefs of our next President, who will likely try to solve our problems by throwing more money at the problem.

Ron Paul was ahead of his time in terms of the past election, the problems we face, and how to go about solving them. The hard part for Americans I think was admitting to and accepting how bad things have gotten. The epitome was the bailouts. It's pretty bad when the government spends billions of dollars to prop failing businesses in a "free market" society. That is socialism and is inconsistent with what our principles used to be. And we are in store for more of it. Once we socialize our economy, which is what is happening, I believe we risk collapse.

Just my opinion on the subject and I hope I am wrong.

 

[jakellpet]

Before WWII, America was more isolationist? They we're quietly becoming colonialists. Philipines? Hawaii? They we're sniffing around Central America as well.

 

[Lacradocious]

Before WWII, America was more isolationist? They we're quietly becoming colonialists. Philipines? Hawaii? They we're sniffing around Central America as well.

They were isolationists as far as as the Western Hemisphere is concerned. American policy was to keep European colonial influence out of the Americas, and we were willing to go to war over it. We wanted to be the powerhouse of the Americas, for its security and its economic benefits.

It started with the Monroe Doctrine and it heavily influenced future presidents, especially Theodore Roosevelt's policy. It was a catalyst for the Spanish American war, which basically ended Spain's status as a colonial player everywhere. Once we went to war with them, we engaged their forces in the pacific as well, and easily overtook Guam and the Phillipines.

I am not sure about Hawaii, or how we got involved there. As the closest of the Polynesian islands, maybe for security purposes - but I would bet that American business had a financial stake there.

We have been in a state of open ended war since WWII. We never left West Germany or Western Europe. The cold war was an extension of WWII - and we fought the cold war on many fronts both in the open and covertly (Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America). The communist excuse for war has now been supplanted by the terrorism excuse for war. It is an open ended war and ironically, we are fighting our former covert cold war allies in this one.

 

[RobInKuwait]

They were isolationists as far as as the Western Hemisphere is concerned.

That's all true if you ignore the small detail of WORLD WAR I. The US decided that European war which isn't particularly isolationist.

American policy was to keep European colonial influence out of the Americas, and we were willing to go to war over it. We wanted to be the powerhouse of the Americas, for its security and its economic benefits. It started with the Monroe Doctrine and it heavily influenced future presidents, especially Theodore Roosevelt's policy. It was a catalyst for the Spanish American war, which basically ended Spain's status as a colonial player everywhere. Once we went to war with them, we engaged their forces in the pacific as well, and easily overtook Guam and the Phillipines.

Great theory, the Monroe Doctrine was actually to prevent European powers from interfering with independent states in the western hemisphere. Keep in mind that Spain had colonies in the western hemisphere from the time of Monroe in 1823 until 1898 when the Spanish American War happened. There is nothing isolationist about the Monroe doctrine either. That's a silly argument to make.

I am not sure about Hawaii, or how we got involved there. As the closest of the Polynesian islands, maybe for security purposes - but I would bet that American business had a financial stake there.

You're grasping for straws. You need to learn a whole lot more history before you randomly try to connect dots.

We have been in a state of open ended war since WWII. We never left West Germany or Western Europe.

Define a state of open ended war? We haven't had a battle in "West Germany" (try Germany, this isn't 1989) or Western Europe since 1945.....

The cold war was an extension of WWII

How? Because it followed WWII? We fought Germany and Japan in WWII and the cold war was against the USSR.

The communist excuse for war.....

So by "excuse", are you referring to the hostile communist country with over 10,000 nuclear weapons pointing at every major city in the US for 40 years? Sounds like a good "excuse" to me.

has now been supplanted by the terrorism excuse for war.

I don't know how you can tie the cold war in with the "war on terror", but apparently you can, as long as you don't have to inconvenience yourself with facts.

It is an open ended war and ironically, we are fighting our former covert cold war allies in this one.

That's a stretch. Imagine that.

 

[Lacradocious]

We only got involved in WWI because Wilson feared the repercussions of it would threaten the American economy and Democratic freedom in general. After the war, we reverted back to our non-intervention, isolationist policy. We fought in the "war to end all wars" in the name of protecting freedom, but the US senate refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles and we didn't even bother to join the League of Nations afterward.

I clearly stated that I don't know the history of Hawaii.

I would define an open ended war as a state of perpetual war without a clearly defined means to an end. We are in that state now. Our government could decide to at any moment to invade several countries for the same or better reasons than the Iraqi invasion. I highly doubt that Obama will finish the job in Iraq. I think he is just going to re-emphasize the Afghan front.

I was using West Germany in the past tense. The cold war grew right out of WWII and the division of Germany, and the refusal of Russia to allow free elections in Eastern Europe. True, we haven't had a battle in West Germany since 1945. But it is true that we never left, and even after the Cold War, we are still spending a lot of money maintaining our presence in a free country more than competent in it's self defense.

By Excuse, I did mean the hostile country of Russia. And I would be absolutely surprised if their nukes still aren't pointed at our cities. I don't think the Cold War caused the War on Terror, I simply implied that it is the new open ended conflict we are in. It is not a stretch to say that we are now fighting former allies. We armed the Afghan mujahaideen to fight the Soviets, and we have engaged what became of them. We fought the Iraqi's, after we armed and supported them in their war with Iran after the Iranian Revolution.

My only point is that we made some serious mistakes after WWII. I recognize it's easier to say that looking back, but I think our government at the time did what it thought was right, with what it knew at the time.

I am not heavily critical of Bush's handling of the War on Terror or the toppling of Saddam. I do think that the we are bogged down in the war, and that the public has gotten complacent about it - just like people are complacent that our government is $10,000,000,000,000 in debt. It will be extremely difficult to win this war if our economy continues to stumble. I can accept that we will make mistakes along the way when we have a chance to look back afterward. It just seems to me like we haven't focused as hard on winning the war as we are in fighting it. To win it, we basically need to eradicate terrorism. I would believe we would have a better chance at eradicating mosquito's than eradicating terrorism.

 

[RobInKuwait]

We only got involved in WWI because Wilson feared the repercussions of it would threaten the American economy and Democratic freedom in general. After the war, we reverted back to our non-intervention, isolationist policy. We fought in the "war to end all wars" in the name of protecting freedom, but the US senate refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles and we didn't even bother to join the League of Nations afterward.

You said this.

Before WWII, America was more isolationist.

You're saying after we sent millions of troops to war then we became isolationist again? I'd think "the war to end all wars" would be a test of isolationism, not a blemish on your isolationist record

As for the League of Nations, it was a impotent organization that took away American autonomy. Not joining it was the best decision we made.

I clearly stated that I don't know the history of Hawaii.

Then don't try to use it to support your half-baked arguments.

I would define an open ended war as a state of perpetual war without a clearly defined means to an end.

So, how would you go about ending the cold war? You said the cold war was an open ended war brought about by the "communist excuse". What was the alternative?

We are in that state now. Our government could decide to at any moment to invade several countries for the same or better reasons than the Iraqi invasion. I highly doubt that Obama will finish the job in Iraq. I think he is just going to re-emphasize the Afghan front.

Brilliant.

I was using West Germany in the past tense. The cold war grew right out of WWII and the division of Germany, and the refusal of Russia to allow free elections in Eastern Europe. True, we haven't had a battle in West Germany since 1945. But it is true that we never left, and even after the Cold War, we are still spending a lot of money maintaining our presence in a free country more than competent in it's self defense.

Tell me how the combined forces of western europe could've repelled the once imminent invasion of the USSR, when as it stood with the US there, they outnumbered us 20 to 1.

By Excuse, I did mean the hostile country of Russia. And I would be absolutely surprised if their nukes still aren't pointed at our cities. I don't think the Cold War caused the War on Terror, I simply implied that it is the new open ended conflict we are in. It is not a stretch to say that we are now fighting former allies. We armed the Afghan mujahaideen to fight the Soviets, and we have engaged what became of them. We fought the Iraqi's, after we armed and supported them in their war with Iran after the Iranian Revolution.

It is a stretch. It was 30 years ago we armed them. Its likely none of the people we armed are in any way involved in the current conflict. Yes, we armed the region, no its not the same people.

My only point is that we made some serious mistakes after WWII. I recognize it's easier to say that looking back, but I think our government at the time did what it thought was right, with what it knew at the time.

Yes, it is easy to say that looking back.

I am not heavily critical of Bush's handling of the War on Terror or the toppling of Saddam. I do think that the we are bogged down in the war, and that the public has gotten complacent about it - just like people are complacent that our government is $10,000,000,000,000 in debt. It will be extremely difficult to win this war if our economy continues to stumble. I can accept that we will make mistakes along the way when we have a chance to look back afterward. It just seems to me like we haven't focused as hard on winning the war as we are in fighting it. To win it, we basically need to eradicate terrorism. I would believe we would have a better chance at eradicating mosquito's than eradicating terrorism.

You're right the debt is a bigger issue, and its actually 50 trillion if you count entitlements.