- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,557
- Reaction score
- 19,321
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Does the phrase "wasted bandwidth" have any meaning to you?
-
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
Trump says Russia supporting his reelection 'another misinformation campaign'
- Thread starter JacksinPA
- Start date
Does the phrase "wasted bandwidth" have any meaning to you?
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 12,706
- Reaction score
- 4,190
- Location
- Republic of Texas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 12,706
- Reaction score
- 4,190
- Location
- Republic of Texas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I accept the findings of our military and intelligence services along with the Mueller investigation. Do you?
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2018
- Messages
- 11,510
- Reaction score
- 6,463
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Yes it does
and it seems that people on here both right and left are wasting bandwidth by repeating lie after lie on here
The bandwidth they are using to repeat these lies could be put to better use
and think about it the Amateur radio bands were taken away from them so people can use them to repeat their lies
Have a nice day
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 31,134
- Reaction score
- 22,292
- Location
- US of A
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Go for it, you clearly don't have an argument otherwise.
Sending weapons to the Ukrainians in 2014 would not have stopped the Russians. If you want to counter this go ahead.
You mean we asked a long time Syrian ally to convince them to stop the fighting? :shock:
You're clearly trying to imply that Obama was weak to try to invite the Russians to bomb Syria while Obama wouldn't, completely failing to grasp the situation at hand.
The Ukrainians. That's why they made initial progress before Russian troops crossed the border and attacked.
They weren't?
What doomed Ukrainian efforts was the rapid infiltration of Russian ground forces into Eastern Ukraine. They then proceeded to isolate Ukrainian forces through radio intercepts, then after pinning down with mechanized infantry and armor they blasted them apart with rocket artillery.
We actually tried to warn the Ukrainians by offering our satellite intelligence, but the Russians duped NATO by hiding their "main body" in plain sight while crossing the border elsewhere in late August. By late September they had decimated the Ukrainian forces through Donetsk and Donbass, forcing the Ukrainians to request a ceasefire on the 3rd.
Okay.
The Ukrainian military by 2014 had undergone decades of mismanagement and decay that had steadily eroded the combat readiness of the Armed Forces, so much that significant chunks of their fighting force was unprepared for combat. Between 2004-2011 nearly their entire military capacity had gone into supporting their brigades that were serving in the Middle East, leaving the vast majority of their armed forces in a state of disarray. When the Russians invaded, large numbers of troops either deserted or defected to the Russians, leaving behind a largely untrained and unmotivated fighting force.
If you think the problem was just weapons, you don't understand military affairs very well. The Ukrainians were not skilled, which is why they lost. It's the same reasons the Iraqis fell apart in 1982, 1991, 2003, and 2014, or why the Soviets fell apart in 1941. Poorly trained troops fight poorly. Giving them all the advanced hardware in the world won't solve that.
You haven't the faintest idea how the campaign against ISIS went, do you? Do you know why Obama fired so many missiles into Pakistan as part of his drone campaign?
You clearly do not know anything about what happened at Khasham.
What did happened was a couple of Russian mercenaries working with pro-Assad militia were killed.
What US forces actually did was contact their Russian counterparts in Syria, under an agreement that had been in place since Russian troops had entered into Syria during the Obama Administration, the Russian Ministry of Defense confirmed that no Russian troops were actually located in the area. American forces then opened fire.
They were not Russian forces; they were mercenaries. One of them actually went on to bitch out Putin in a blog for his "failure to support" them.
You're reaching levels of delusion that shouldn't even be possible.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 12,706
- Reaction score
- 4,190
- Location
- Republic of Texas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Agreed, and thanks for the link. I've founding that trying to persuade a political extremist to accept facts contrary to his/her beliefs to be a fruitless endeavor. OTOH, standing up to them with facts allows others to see them for what they are and to have the facts revealed.
Also note Conservatives own link. It doesn't say what he claims it says. Although I was posting about Trump's record setting deficit he derailed into National Debt then claimed the debt under Obama was higher than under Trump. That's obviously not true:
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Again, the issue of the debt isn't relevant to the American people today due to the fact that they are keeping more of what they earn. Today's deficits are being driven by higher interest expense and more entitlement spending. Trump's discretionary budget is 1.48 trillion dollars out of a 4.8 trillion dollar budget. seems rather easy to see where the real problem is but the left wants to claim that it is tax cuts causing the deficit, it ISN'T!!
FIT, CIT, Excise taxes total over 2 trillion dollars in revenue so how is it that FIT cuts caused the trillion dollar deficits?
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 30,807
- Reaction score
- 22,358
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Yes, it was also said Russia is trying to help Sanders win the Democratic nomination. Personally, I don't think Russia gives a darn on who wins. Their goal is as you state, to sow discord and I will add, not trusting our election results. Their goal is to divide us, weaken us, eliminate the trust we have in our electoral process. Which is pretty weak at the moment.
I have no doubts Russia is happy with Trump, the most obnoxious, uncouth and unliked president in our history. Now pitting Sanders against Trump, an extreme leftist furthers their cause for more disruption and more division. The seeds have been planted and are beginning to bloom. In 2020 Russia doesn't have to do much at all. Perhaps a hack or two, some facebook posts, some trolls on different sites for or against Sanders and Trump. Then viola, whoever loses automatically blames Russia and views the winner as illegitimate. More division, more discord, perhaps violence.
Russia in my opinion has succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 31,134
- Reaction score
- 22,292
- Location
- US of A
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Ignoring all the other bull****, you realize that the Ukrainian deal with regards to nuclear weapons was made in the 90s, right?
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,014
- Reaction score
- 19,478
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Since your posotion is a fait accompli on Russian aggression, I assume that you see military aid to Ukraine is a waste?
As with all Democrat defenses, you seem incapable to seeing anything that happened before the **** hit the fan...
Was Russia a threat to the US and its allies before Russia invaded Crimea? Clearly Obama didn't think so. Was it a surprise when the invasion happened? If so, why? Should we have known?
Oh right, Obama's reset button... :roll:
Huh? That isn't all that those articles stated.. but I realize that reality is something you need to avoid right now.
Obama turned control of his Syria debacle over to the Russians after he properly ****ed it up.
So clearly not the Ukrainians since the Separatists had the Russians.
Obviously they were. In fact they knew before it ever happened, and they had a plan, and they had an ally willing to back them that Ukraine wasn't prepared for. I mean seriously, do you read your own arguments?
What was missing in the Ukraine was an ally willing to help them.
Bad examples on all fronts because in all cases the numerically superior forces, and arguably more seasoned forces, in those cases lost because they had insufficient equipment. Iraqi tanks couldn't fire effectively on the run, lacked gyro stabilization, and rotated over 3 times slower than the Abrams, making it impossible to hit moving targets or hit targets while moving. The Iraqi Republican Guard were seasoned veterans, and lost because they didn't have the hardware to match the US forces.
For example, Iraqis had no concept of GPS capabilities, so they designed their defenses along common roads and landmarks because the Iraqis were incapable of operating in their own desert. Because of their extreme technological deficiencies they were not prepared for a flanking attack from the desert. By the time the US military was on their position it was all over but the explosions because Iraqi tanks had to remain stationary and slowly turn their turret to try and hit moving M1 Arams and Bradleys who could shoot almost as accurately while moving as they could when stationary...
Then there were the optics disadvantages that allowed the US troops to see Iraqis in the dark and trough dust storms, and so on.
It wasn't lack of training that caused the Iraqis to lose, it was most certainly that they were out classed is every way by US weapon capabilities.
Because there was a fledgling offshoot of ISIS claiming a new Khorasan Province for the ISIS caliphate. Hitting them with drone strikes does nothing to change the existence of the ISIS caliphate in Iraq and Levant, and didn't even manage to destroy ISIS-KP. ISIS-KP is still operating in Pakistan, and all that really happened by droning a few of their leaders is that some of the ISIS-KP forces declared allegiance with the Taliban.
Becuase you can't defeat them with air strikes alone. As SecDef Mattis showed, you defeat them by surrounding them and destroying them completely, other wise they just move around and start somewhere else.
Again, you are not actually making a counter argument. The difference in the ROE is that after the communication with the Russia representative they opened fire, not having to clear targets with the NSC.
*sigh* They were Russian irregulars, as I stated, but they were Russian.
No, I keep telling you what is happening in the real world and I'm sure that would appear delusional to you. :lol:
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 31,134
- Reaction score
- 22,292
- Location
- US of A
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
In 2014-2015? Yes.
If you want to claim that the Obama Administration misread Russian intentions, sure. But your suggestions on what they should have done are insanely idiotic and speak of someone who hasn't the first clue about what Russia wants or what Russia is like.
Ah, I see. You have no idea how Syria actually went down so you're just making **** up.
Are you suggesting we should have backed up the Ukrainians with US or NATO ground forces?
You're not making a damn bit of sense. The Ukrainians *were* winning, until the Russians intervened.
The Iraqis had numerical superiority in 1982, 2003, and 2014. They still lost.
The Iraqis in 1991 were veterans of the Iran-Iraq War where as most American troops were green with little to no combat experience. Clearly that didn't matter.
The Iraqis in 1982 had far more material than the Iranians, and the Iraqis fielded better and more equipment than ISIS in 2014. It didn't matter.
You're obsessing over technology and failing to grasp the more important matter of competence.
McMaster's Eagle Troop engaged the Republican Guard at close range, so American superiority in ranged weaponry was minimal. During the entire 23 minute engagement the Iraqis fired four times. Not hit Four times, but fired their cannons exactly four times. In 23 minutes a Polish mechanized infantry company could deplete their entire stock of ammunition, dismount their troops, and bring up their sister company alongside them. That's not a matter of technology, that's a matter of training.
Even worse was the secondary engagements! By the time MacMaster's Eagle Troop crested the ridge at 73 Easting the second Iraqi Company hadn't even moved. At that point the Iraqi first line had been crushed, their OPs overrun, their fortified village fired upon, and then eliminated the Iraqi infantry holding the trench line. None of this was done covertly, in fact should have been a red flag given the columns of smoke reaching over the horizon, yet the Iraqi commander didn't bother to do anything.
This was a problem endemic along the entire chain of command, and wasn't even the worst case:
"Late on 24 February, the commander of the 52nd [Tank] Brigade received a frantic message from the headquarters of the 48th Infantry Division - directly in front of his unit - that they were being overrun by American armored forces. Nevertheless, because he had not received orders from divisional command, the officer did nothing: he did not ready his brigade to move or fight; he did not even contact divisional headquarters to report the message and ask if he should counterattack. As a result, the 48th Infantry Division was overwhelmed by the US 1st Mechanized Division, and the 52nd Brigade was later overrun by the British 1st Armoured Division without much of a fight."
-Arabs at War, p.259
The drone campaign in Pakistan started because that's where Taliban leadership was rotating through. Obama's drone campaign was designed to kill Taliban leadership because that's how they rested and refitted. Your understanding of strategy is very poor.
Engaging in ground operations without destroying their ability to resupply is stupidly wasteful. Your complete lack of military knowledge is showing.
If you think the NSC would have told them not to return fire if fired upon you are delusional, considering the NSC gave that order multiple times.
There is a world of difference between Russian mercs and Russian Soldiers. Rather significant, given that the Russians response to the American request for information was "Nah it's not ours, waste 'em".
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,014
- Reaction score
- 19,478
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
AHAHAHA!! Riiiight. How convenient. Sit back and wait for a Russian invasion and then, and only then, defense becomes important. :roll:
Arming the US allies with technology and training capable of repulsing Russian attacks is "insanely idiotic" to you... except AFTER Russia invades, then it's super important.
Brilliant strategy there, chief. :roll:
I do, and clearly you don't.
Who said that? I stated that we should have armed and trained Ukrainian forces with the capabilities to repel a Russian attack.
The Russian intervention was part of the plan. How are you not able to wrap your head around that? It was always Putin's intention to spark a fight he would have to step into. Again, try accepting that history existed before Obama and that Obama had, and yo in hindsight had, ample evidence of how Putin operates. I mean ****, a basic understanding of history would tell you that this is how all military dictatorships justify invasions.
The point we were supposed to have learned from WWII is that you arm and, if necessary, keep a token force in border allied countries as a check against dictatorships like Putin's. But, again, Obama wanted his "reset" and by so doing, he all but sent an invitation to Putin to gin up an excuse to take Crimea, a region he had wanted as long as he has been in charge of Russia.
(continued)
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 35,014
- Reaction score
- 19,478
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Because they had overwhelmingly inferior technology. The Republican Guard was hugely experienced with the Russian T-72, but their inability to shoot on the run, or sufficiently track moving targets with it's slow rotation, combined with canon rounds that weren't able to piece M1 armor, or see it at night, or follow it in a desert that the Iraqis couldn't navigate... and so on and so on.
How is this a hill your want to fight on?
Put it this way: Put Iraq in Abrams with GPS and war experience operating the machine and put US troops in a 1970s era T-72 and is the outcome the same? No, it isn't. The US loses. Hell, the only thing that training and experience in the US forces would result in is the good sense not to engage.
Because of technology.
Again, you argue against your own point. Was ISIS a well trained and organized army? In fact, the reason that Iraq lost so much ground to ISIS was because they withdrew their superior equipment to create a defensive position to prevent attacks on the center of Iraqi power. The northern defense forces didn't even have ammunition half the time to return fire.
Another case where Obama's short sighted idiocy leading to the defeat of an ally.
Again, this was possible due to the superior US technology. Without GPS, the US forces would not have been able to navigate the Iraqi desert. Even the Iraqis couldn't do that.
The speed at which the US forces destroyed the Republican guard is not because of training, it was because the Iraqis set up there defenses pointing the wrong way, so they were not ready to engage, and they could not see through the dust storm while US forces could.
Fast rotating turrets and effective heat and sabot ammunition that could easily penetrate T-72 armor was what won the day. Had the US forces were driving T-72s and stumbled on even a handful of seasoned Iraqi crews in Abrams the engagement would have been just as lopsided, but in the other direction.
Hell, the flanking maneuver that caught the Republican guard flat footed wouldn't have even been possible without the technology that the US deployed against the Iraqi forces.
So you weren't even trying to make a point about ISIS? Holy crap, your argument was an even bigger fail than I thought.
And how did the drone strikes in Pakistan work in stemming the flow of Taliban into Afghanistan? He brought that war to a close pretty quickly, right?
... oh wait.
When you are destroying the manpower it doesn't matter how many weapons they can buy. :roll:
I guarantee you they would have. There big plan was to keep pretending that Russia is their good friends after the "reset", and firing on Russian troops would be forbidden.
LOL. You are now back tracking from the claim that they weren't Russian? Well, good... but minus points for trying to pretend that is what you meant. Also, you don't help your argument by inserting fake quotes into your argument.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 38,198
- Reaction score
- 15,841
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2018
- Messages
- 21,319
- Reaction score
- 10,526
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Truth
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2018
- Messages
- 4,903
- Reaction score
- 1,833
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 134,496
- Reaction score
- 14,621
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Then why did you support Obama? If you want truth stay out of politics. I want results couldn't care less what someone tells me
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 31,134
- Reaction score
- 22,292
- Location
- US of A
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
You would prefer that US hardware falls into Separatist hands and is used against the Ukrainians. Great plan chief.
It wouldn't have changed a damn thing, and that's why you fail. Your fascination with technology belies how little you understand of warfare.
Giving Ukrainians weapons would not have changed the outcome of the invasion, no matter how hard to masturbate to American military hardware. It was a question of skill.
What happened to the Ukrainians is the same thing that happened to the Georgians in 2008; they fell apart upon contact with an actually well trained fighting force.
Because that's stupid and makes no sense?
Euromaiden was not part of Russian planning, nor was the ousting of Yanukovych. That's why Russian forces that seized Crimea were all special forces or VDV, troops that could be rapidly mobilized and deployed with little warning.
(continued)[/QUOTE]
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 36,634
- Reaction score
- 35,661
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
That's a shill argument.MTAtech said:
Russian individual <> Russian government
The data in thr Steele dossier was provided by Russian individuals who happen to be opposed to Putin.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2011
- Messages
- 31,134
- Reaction score
- 22,292
- Location
- US of A
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Yes, you've seen the History Channel documentary on 73 Easting, very impressive.
Yeah, very easily. The Iraqis had T-72s and Abrams in 2014 and they still collapsed against ISIS. And they've done even worse before.
In 1982 they had 200,000 dug in mechanized infantry supported by tanks, artillery and airpower packed into six defensive lines over 50 kilometers deep.. The Iranians had 90,000 light infantry with 200 tanks
It took them all of less than two weeks to break through five of the defensive lines, only stopping when Iraq began literally throwing tank battalion after tank battalion against the Iranians, until they were finally halted. It was technically an Iraqi victory, but the fact that a well dug in Mechanized force was so thoroughly thrashed by a light infantry army less than half it's size (One Iraqi tank division, the 9th, had to be disbanded) just shows how poor the Iraqis were.
No, not really.
Three Iraqi Divisions collapsed In Mosul after ISIS started its offensive, thanks to the Iraqi leadership fleeing.
Tell me, what part of the T-72 inhibits an Iraqi forward observer from informing his commander their under attack? What stops an Iraqi colonel from not informing his higher ups that the divisions in front of him are being slaughtered? What technology prevents Iraqi troops from shifting positions while under fire, not reacting to being flanked, or just sitting in their positions while being overrun?
You realize that that the main drive into Kuwait was even more successful than the punch against the Republican Guard, right? Literal entire divisions fell apart within 12 hours. The left hook was envisioned under the assumption that the main drive into Kuwait would be a slugfest, instead if turned into a route and at that point some American units were moving too slow to keep up with the advance.
Actually they were very effective; Taliban leaders rotate out of Afghanistan after only a few months before they go to Pakistan for R&R, which is why the Taliban hate drone strikes into Pakistan. It's supposed to be their safe haven, and hitting them their really kills morale. It's why we kept doing it even after Obama ordered the draw down.
Yes it does. ISIS had a massive surge of manpower in 2014-2015 as their rapid success in Iraq and Syria drew tens of thousands of supporters flocking in from all over the Islamic world. What they needed was money and ammunition to outfit them.
Don't believe me? How many major victories did ISIS enjoy after they lost their primary source of income?
Which just goes to show how much of a partisan hack you were.
But then again that was ever up to debate.
When did I deny they were Russian? Being Russian doesn't make them Russian military personnel.
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,557
- Reaction score
- 19,321
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Can't go wrong with a Glock.
A patriotic, right-thinking, patriotic, hard working, patriotic, honest, patriotic, real, patriotic, true, patriotic, conservative, patriotic, Christian, patriotic, White, patriotic, American, patriotic, patriot wouldn't have anything whatsoever to do with a **F*O*R*E*I*G*N** gun like that
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2018
- Messages
- 62,557
- Reaction score
- 19,321
- Location
- Lower Mainland of BC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I asked a fellow who has PhD's in both Accounting and Statistical analysis from Trump U. to explain why some people believed that Mr. Obama's DEBT was greater than Mr. Trump's DEBT, and explained that the way to properly view the data was to add together all the figures in Mr. Obama's LOWEST DEBT (what would be 1+0+0+2+4+7+2+4+8+9+6+9+1+2= 55) and then to add together all the figures in Mr. Trump's HIGHEST DEBT (that would be 2+2+7+1+9+4+0+1+7+5+3+4+3+3=54) and, since 55 is MORE than 54 it is obvious to any properly trained person that Mr. Obama's DEBT jushazta be more than Mr. Trump's DEBT.
If that doesn't convince you, just take a look at the total DEBT run up under Mr. Obama (rounding to trillions just to save bandwidth) and you can plainly see that (10+11+13+14+16+17+18+19=137) and then take into consideration that the MOST that Mr. Trump's budgets ever exceeded income was by $1 trillion it should be completely clear to even a "librul" that the OBAMA DEBT is at least (137 ÷ 3) 45 times higher than the extra money that Mr. Trump is spending in order to Make America Great Again.
[The above form of "Internet Rebuttal" has been specifically and officially approved and endorsed by "Devoted Online Lovers of Trump" Inc. (a non-partisan, independent, research and analysis organization exempt from federal taxation that is dedicated to bringing you the true truth and not the false truth that anyone who doesn't believe 100% of what Donald Trump says tries to tell you the so-called "facts" are), "Pro-Life United Gun Enthusiasts and Manufacturers for Jesus", and “"The ‘First Amendment Rights Trust’ Foundation”.]
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2019
- Messages
- 46,115
- Reaction score
- 37,645
- Location
- Northern Nevada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Good work. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Messages
- 12,706
- Reaction score
- 4,190
- Location
- Republic of Texas
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Awesome. So what's going to be your favorite guns in the coming Civil War? Side arm? Offensive weapon?
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2018
- Messages
- 21,319
- Reaction score
- 10,526
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Really? You don't care about being lied on a daily basis by the most prodigious and prolific liar in American political and presidential history? Because you only care about 'results'? Even if not all the results are his to claim? You and I don;t know yet what the 'results' are going to be from his policy decisions. That takes time to manifest itself. But I fully expect that chickens Mr Trump has hatched are going to come home to roost one day. Maybe not before 2020 as this President is totally focused on doing whatever he can to keep the economy plugging along until then. Even it means ignoring the science and the scientists in his dealings with the corona-virus because it might negatively impact the economy and therefore his re-election chances. Not to mention how sad it is that his first concern was the virus's impact upon his re-election chances came ahead of any concerns about it's potential impact upon the safety of the American public.
Last edited: