[commanderkai]

Scape Scape:

It was sending warships that are nuclear capable:

The McFaul, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, is outfitted with an array of weaponry, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads, and a sophisticated radar system. For security reasons the Navy does not say whether ships are carrying nuclear weapons, but they usually do not.

So wait, just because a destroyer has some cruise missiles, the Russians are going crazy? Christ, I'll bet you nearly every US navy vessel has some Tomahawks on it, should the Americans just sent a few paddle boats to cross the Black Sea? I mean, just about every large cruise missile can have a nuclear weapon on it.

We should pull a fit every single time we see a Russian warship playing around near or in our Arctic waters because they might or might not have nuclear warheads on their cruise missiles.

[Scape]

commanderkai commanderkai:

So wait, just because a destroyer has some cruise missiles, the Russians are going crazy?

Like, totally dude.

I think this would make them crazy however.

[commanderkai]

Scape Scape:

commanderkai commanderkai:

So wait, just because a destroyer has some cruise missiles, the Russians are going crazy?

Like, totally dude.

I think this would make them crazy however.

You're the one who posted the article. Explain your reasoning. Should the US Navy send unarmed vessels? Smaller ships? That destroyer BUT just remove the weaponry, thus delaying it for a few weeks? Seriously, tell me why the Russians should care because it has Tomahawk missiles?

Next, about this new article completely separate from the issue at hand. I wonder, did you read the article? The Russians are upset that the Americans are calling Russia on its actions? It has given the threat of tyranny, thus quoted in the same article, a bit further down
"Ukraine is deeply divided over whether to join Nato, and Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin has threatened to train missiles on the country if it becomes a member of the alliance."

Oh shit look, you join, we'll aim nukes at you. That's not a threat at all.

Economic blackmail...hmm...would shutting off natural gas pipelines to Europe just because the governments in Europe disagree with the Moscow talking point not considered economic blackmail?

Military invasion. Well I think Georgia is the proof on that. You try to be more West friendly, we're start up a secessionist movement, provide Russian passports for those rebels, send in "peacekeepers"...and oh, if you try to fight back, we're blow anything away that isn't owned by a Russian state corporation.

Yeah, I think Ukraine has the right to make whatever sort of political decision without blackmail or threats from Russia, and my only issue with the article is that the Americans haven't said this earlier to put off Russian aggression.

[saturn_656]

Scape Scape:

It was sending warships that are nuclear capable:

The McFaul, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, is outfitted with an array of weaponry, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads, and a sophisticated radar system. For security reasons the Navy does not say whether ships are carrying nuclear weapons, but they usually do not.

TLAM-N's were withdrawn, likely as a cost reduction measure shortly after the end of the First Cold War.

But like I said before, I'd like to see Russia mess with an American DDG. Why would the USA risk sending an unarmed defenceless supply ship to deliver aid with the belligerant Russians a stones throw away.

That'd be nothing short of stupid. Russia will bitch and moan but they will not interdict any American warships. They will sail the Black Sea as long as they like.

[saturn_656]

Scape Scape:

commanderkai commanderkai:

So wait, just because a destroyer has some cruise missiles, the Russians are going crazy?

Like, totally dude.

I think this would make them crazy however.

Russia doesn't get a VETO on the NATO membership process last time I checked.

Has that changed?

[Scape]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Should the US Navy send unarmed vessels?

Turkey is the one who has the agreement about warships, look it up.

commanderkai commanderkai:

I think Ukraine has the right to make whatever sort of political decision without blackmail or threats from Russia, and my only issue with the article is that the Americans haven't said this earlier to put off Russian aggression.

Ukraine has as much right to autonomy and joining up with military alliances as Cuba or Taiwan does and with the exact same repercussions. Are you so naive to think there would not be a reaction? As for the bullying who started this but Georgia anyway and who armed and financed them? Who is now threatening Russia with WWIII after touring the region to stoke the flames?

Seriously, got your sun block SPF 5000?

[djakeydd]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

$1:

Stop bitching America, you lost your right to bitch about other militarys presence when you decided you were a so called Alpha Dog and started invading shit as you pleased, and threatening everybody and boosting military presence everywhere.

GOOD ONE

[CommanderSock]

$1:

You're the one who posted the article. Explain your reasoning. Should the US Navy send unarmed vessels? Smaller ships? That destroyer BUT just remove the weaponry, thus delaying it for a few weeks? Seriously, tell me why the Russians should care because it has Tomahawk missiles?

Next, about this new article completely separate from the issue at hand. I wonder, did you read the article? The Russians are upset that the Americans are calling Russia on its actions? It has given the threat of tyranny, thus quoted in the same article, a bit further down
"Ukraine is deeply divided over whether to join Nato, and Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin has threatened to train missiles on the country if it becomes a member of the alliance."

Oh shit look, you join, we'll aim nukes at you. That's not a threat at all.

Economic blackmail...hmm...would shutting off natural gas pipelines to Europe just because the governments in Europe disagree with the Moscow talking point not considered economic blackmail?

Military invasion. Well I think Georgia is the proof on that. You try to be more West friendly, we're start up a secessionist movement, provide Russian passports for those rebels, send in "peacekeepers"...and oh, if you try to fight back, we're blow anything away that isn't owned by a Russian state corporation.

Yeah, I think Ukraine has the right to make whatever sort of political decision without blackmail or threats from Russia, and my only issue with the article is that the Americans haven't said this earlier to put off Russian aggression.

In this situation, the United States cannot lead by example. Everything you have accused Russia of doing (and rightfully so), the US has done numerous times in the past 17 years. Russia knows it will get away because America has. Perhaps America's new leadership will try and not be so punitive and it will give the Americans good grounds for reason against Russian aggression. Other than that, this is over.

Nothing to see here, move on.

[commanderkai]

CommanderSock CommanderSock:

In this situation, the United States cannot lead by example. Everything you have accused Russia of doing (and rightfully so), the US has done numerous times in the past 17 years. Russia knows it will get away because America has. Perhaps America's new leadership will try and not be so punitive and it will give the Americans good grounds for reason against Russian aggression. Other than that, this is over.

Nothing to see here, move on.

First, define accused, because Russia has done that, all within the last year or two. Second, when has the United States told nations that we're target nukes at you if you don't comply? Just curious

[commanderkai]

Scape Scape:

Turkey is the one who has the agreement about warships, look it up.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...what does that have to do with either article you posted. The US used its warships to bring in relief supplies to Georgia, Russia cries about it, and you defend Russia's bitching about the ships by saying Tomahawk missiles may be equipped with nuclear warheads.

Tell me what exactly should the Americans have done. Or better yet, give me a link to whatever you're talking about instead of saying something that is completely irreverent.

$1:

Ukraine has as much right to autonomy and joining up with military alliances as Cuba or Taiwan does and with the exact same repercussions. Are you so naive to think there would not be a reaction?

And the Americans provided a reaction to the reaction. Are you naive enough to think that Russia threatening Ukraine about joining NATO would not get a reaction from NATO's largest member, the United States?

$1:

As for the bullying who started this but Georgia anyway and who armed and financed them? Who is now threatening Russia with WWIII after touring the region to stoke the flames?

Seriously, got your sun block SPF 5000?

Georgia started the actual military action, however Russia played just as big of a role in fanning the flames as the Americans did. Tell me how those separatist forces in Georgia got Russian passports, thus giving Russia a reason to send "peacekeepers" into these two breakoff provinces.

Also, these two articles don't really point out that Russia threatened war first with pointing nuclear weapons at these states if they decide to join NATO. So now the Americans are telling the Russians that they can't just bully these former Warsaw Pact states, and then you say that the Americans are doing the bullying and stoking the flames.

Your anti-Americanism is shining.

[ShepherdsDog]

Georgia and Ukraine were never Warsaw Pact nations. For most of recent history both have been part of the Russian Empire(you can count the number of years on two hands that Ukranians have been independent in the last thousand years - the longest when they were a Nazi protectorate/Ally - Ukranians forming the 3rd largest volunteer ethnic group within the Waffen SS, after the Germans and the French), and its successor, the Soviet Union. If anything, they shoud try and follow the lead of Finland, don't make waves and chances are your former masters will leave you alone.

This is a situation of 6 to 1, half a dozen to the other. The Georgians(and the Americans) seriously miscalculated how the Russians would react when they started poking. The Russsians aren't the good guys, but neither are the georgians innocent victims.

[Scape]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Scape Scape:

Turkey is the one who has the agreement about warships, look it up.

Okay, maybe I'm missing something...

That's why I told you to look it up. Do some research for gods sake, are you that lazy and stupid?

commanderkai commanderkai:

Tell me what exactly should the Americans have done. Or better yet, give me a link to whatever you're talking about instead of saying something that is completely irreverent.

NO. You want to remain ignorant that's your prerogative. Again, GET OFF YOUR LAZY ASS AND DO SOME WORK.

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

The Georgians(and the Americans) seriously miscalculated how the Russians would react when they started poking. The Russsians aren't the good guys, but neither are the georgians innocent victims.

Exactly.

[Bacardi4206]

Russia is a super-power, but last time I checked one super power cannot stand against many. That was Nazi German's big problem, they bit off more then they could chew and that is Russia's problem that they have not yet learned that lesson since the last time they got destroyed. As soon as Russia gets back a military, they go back to there agressive ways. Whenever there economy is down, and military is weak. There back to kissing everybody else's ass unti'll they get back there military power to back stab all the trust they got from all there ass kissing.

Russia is strong, but the U.S. can dispatch of them. Iraq is a entirely different situation, and shouldn't even be compared. They are fighting soldiers who hide out in civilian clothes, and ambush soldiers whenever they get a chance by road side bombs or just hide and shoot whenever they can. Whenever they take out a batch of the insurgents, they start recruiting again and get a whole new batch.

Defeating a situation like Iraq militarily, is virtually impossible. Defeating Russia Militarily is a different scenario, as they won't be fighting soldiers hiding out in civilian clothes hiding amungst civilians like pussies. Russia will be fighting in full view in there military uniforms and vehicles. Having a actual real war, and when that happens. Sure Russia will give U.S. a run for there money, if anybody could it would be Russia but honestly, they do not match the U.S. Military. The U.S. Military is far stronger, superior tech, far superior tech and a much better in everything. Infantry, Airforce, Navy. The only most threatening thing coming from Russia is the spetsnaz, but the U.S. has far more Special Forces type groups then Russia and a lot more in them. Navy Seals, Special Forces, etc and even the USMC to a degree. I think Russia would meet its match regarding that. Let's also not forget NATO. Sure Russia supplies some NATO countries with oil, but so does every other NATO country that trades with each other. You think they will back out of NATO just because Russia has a oil supply, and supplies them with it. So does most countries, Canada has a oil supply. I am pretty sure U.S. does, including there reserve oil.

[Scape]

If your talking about a full on confrontation with Russia then what is to stop them from using nuclear weapons if they are facing all but certain defeat? War is a gamble and can never be totally predicted even with apparent and vast superiority, just ask Goliath.

[ShepherdsDog]

$1:

they do not match the U.S. Military. The U.S. Military is far stronger, superior tech, far superior tech and a much better in everything. Infantry, Airforce, Navy. The only most threatening thing coming from Russia is the spetsnaz, but the U.S. has far more Special Forces type groups then Russia and a lot more in them. Navy Seals, Special Forces, etc and even the USMC to a degree.

Hmmmmm... five situations that come to mind, where having bigger and better toys didn't work:

1. The French Army vs. the German Wehrmacht 1940
2. The Arabs vs. the Israelis 1947 - 1967
3. The Nationalist Chinese vs. the Communist Chinese 1927 - 1949
4. The Americans vs. the Vietnamese 1964 - 1975
5. The Soviets vs. the Mujahadin 1979 - 1989

In all cases the guys with the most money, the biggest guns and the larger, better trained military lost everything.