• 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!

US policy drives Russia, China together ahead of summit

Rogue Valley said:
The Russians and Chinese had perhaps 100,000 troops combined.

Creative accounting. If they used a battalion from a division, they counted the entire division.

Besides, numbers don't address effectiveness.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Oh come on now!

Didn't you read the history books in High School? Don't you watch FOX News?

  • The US won WWI all by itself.
  • The US won WWII all by itself.
  • The US won the Korean War all by itself.
  • The US won the War on Poverty.
  • The US won the War on Terrorism.
  • The US won the Afghanistan War all by itself.
  • The US won the war against Iraq all by itself.
  • The US didn't lose the Vietnam War (and that's the same thing as winning it).
  • The US is winning the war in Syria all by itself.

How can you possibly say that "the US hasn't won a WAR in centuries".

Why the closest that the US has ever come to losing a war was in 1812-14 and even then it didn't lose because it came out of the war with exactly what it went into it with (not counting the dead soldiers, of course).

Now if you want to say something like "The 'American Temperament' is such that the US has a great deal of difficulty in coping with 'The Long War' since the 'American Temperament' demands instant results.", I'd be willing to agree with you.

However, you should also note that "has a great deal of difficulty in coping" does not mean the same thing as "cannot cope".

The American people CAN cope with "The Long War" provided that they are sufficiently motivated and are led by people of clear, consistent, vision who are able to explain what is happening, what is proposed to be done about it, and why that has to be done to cope with it in an open, honest, forthright, and lucid manner without resorting to either "weasel words" or the equivalent of "It's all Mikey's fault.".

I suggest that you examine today's political scene and then draw your own conclusions based on both the current reality and what is actually needed in order to "win".
Click to expand...


:lamo:lamo


You've forgotten the enormous US successes in Somalia when they went in and taught those Somali militiamen a lesson they won't forget.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Oh come on now!

Didn't you read the history books in High School? Don't you watch FOX News?

  • The US won WWI all by itself.
  • The US won WWII all by itself.
  • The US won the Korean War all by itself.
  • The US won the War on Poverty.
  • The US won the War on Terrorism.
  • The US won the Afghanistan War all by itself.
  • The US won the war against Iraq all by itself.
  • The US didn't lose the Vietnam War (and that's the same thing as winning it).
  • The US is winning the war in Syria all by itself.

How can you possibly say that "the US hasn't won a WAR in centuries".

Why the closest that the US has ever come to losing a war was in 1812-14 and even then it didn't lose because it came out of the war with exactly what it went into it with (not counting the dead soldiers, of course).

Now if you want to say something like "The 'American Temperament' is such that the US has a great deal of difficulty in coping with 'The Long War' since the 'American Temperament' demands instant results.", I'd be willing to agree with you.

However, you should also note that "has a great deal of difficulty in coping" does not mean the same thing as "cannot cope".

The American people CAN cope with "The Long War" provided that they are sufficiently motivated and are led by people of clear, consistent, vision who are able to explain what is happening, what is proposed to be done about it, and why that has to be done to cope with it in an open, honest, forthright, and lucid manner without resorting to either "weasel words" or the equivalent of "It's all Mikey's fault.".

I suggest that you examine today's political scene and then draw your own conclusions based on both the current reality and what is actually needed in order to "win".
Click to expand...
See what you did there and it isn't even April first yet.:lol:

Well done and respect, Sir.:thumbs::thumbs:
 
Westphalian said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Good question.

I wonder if the answer is going to address the difference between "military efficiency" and "military effectiveness".

To illustrate, during WWII the Germans were more "militarily efficient" than the Russians but the Russians were more "militarily effective" than the Germans.

That, of course, shows precisely why Germany defeated Russian in WWII.

Oops.
 
Westphalian said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...
The Russian MoD grossly exaggerating the number of troops actually involved.

IOW lying as it is prone to and was in military exercises in the cold war period. A tactic you of all people are surely familiar with.:roll:

Given that the reported number of 300,000 military personnel amounts to about one third of the whole Russian military and given the shrinking Russian defence budget and Russian military commitments elsewhere in the world, the financial cost for moving around 30 percent of the entire Russian military establishment and material would not only be exorbitant, Russian military’s logistical support infrastructure would also find paralyzation.

RV's estimate is most likely too generous, the total of Russian military personnel probably didn't even reach 100,000

Outlined not so much for your benefit but for those of serious readers.
 
Westphalian said:
:lamo:lamo


You've forgotten the enormous US successes in Somalia when they went in and taught those Somali militiamen a lesson they won't forget.
Click to expand...
What the so battle-unready Chinese (another one of your reporting boo boos of late as seen here ):
Westphalian said:
The Chinese lack military preparedness. Participation is exercises such as this, the first such time with Russia albeit only small scale, are vital for the continued development not just of inter-operability but also the professionalisation of Chinese forces.

China may be viewed by the West as the senior partner about to gobble up Russia (that old falsehood) but the fact is that its military is light years behind in terms of war fighting experience, capability, and readiness.
Click to expand...
have not forgotten is the Ussuri conflict.

Apart from Zhenbao island now being Chinese (some place most Chinese will never have even visited) there's a captured Russian T 62 in the Chinese Military Museum to this day. That's in Beijing if you ever get a chance to visit. Something which you'll no doubt avoid as you do with anything that conflicts with your narratives.:lamo:lamo
 
Last edited:
TU Curmudgeon said:
Oh come on now!

Didn't you read the history books in High School? Don't you watch FOX News?

  • The US won WWI all by itself.
  • The US won WWII all by itself.
  • The US won the Korean War all by itself.
  • The US won the War on Poverty.
  • The US won the War on Terrorism.
  • The US won the Afghanistan War all by itself.
  • The US won the war against Iraq all by itself.
  • The US didn't lose the Vietnam War (and that's the same thing as winning it).
  • The US is winning the war in Syria all by itself.

How can you possibly say that "the US hasn't won a WAR in centuries".

Why the closest that the US has ever come to losing a war was in 1812-14 and even then it didn't lose because it came out of the war with exactly what it went into it with (not counting the dead soldiers, of course).

Now if you want to say something like "The 'American Temperament' is such that the US has a great deal of difficulty in coping with 'The Long War' since the 'American Temperament' demands instant results.", I'd be willing to agree with you.

However, you should also note that "has a great deal of difficulty in coping" does not mean the same thing as "cannot cope".

The American people CAN cope with "The Long War" provided that they are sufficiently motivated and are led by people of clear, consistent, vision who are able to explain what is happening, what is proposed to be done about it, and why that has to be done to cope with it in an open, honest, forthright, and lucid manner without resorting to either "weasel words" or the equivalent of "It's all Mikey's fault.".

I suggest that you examine today's political scene and then draw your own conclusions based on both the current reality and what is actually needed in order to "win".
Click to expand...

Your comment borders the Cretinous and is a Complete LIE

1. NONSENSE
2.COMPLETE NONSENSE
3.NONSENSE,CONSIDERING THAT WAR IS NOT YET OVER
4.THERE IS MORE POVERTY THAN EVER IN THE USA
5.THE US CREATED MORE TERRORISM THAN EVER REDUCED IT
6.TOTAL NONSENSE
7.UTTER NONSENSE,BUT YOU DID CREATE ISIS BECAUSE YOU CREATED A SCHISM BETWEEN THE SHIA's AND THE SUNNIE's,ENABLING ISIS TO FILL THE VOID
8.DRECONIAN,OF COUSE YOU LOST IN VIETNAM,WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON?????THAT IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW
9.SUCH HOG WASH AS TO LABLE YOU A CRETIN


REALLY ONE HAS TO QUESTION YOUR MENTAL STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Tigerace117 said:
Uh.....Desert Storm was in 1991.

Just to name an obvious recent example
Click to expand...

As I said a Battle but NOT THE WAR,anyway you left with your Tail Between Your Legs...FACT
 
theliq said:
As I said a Battle but NOT THE WAR,anyway you left with your Tail Between Your Legs...FACT
Click to expand...

Lol when did I "leave with my tail between my legs"?

Your fantasies are not the same thing as a "FACT" buddy.

Do you even know what Desert Storm was?

Because it sounds like you have it mixed up wth Iraqi Freedom.
 
theliq said:
Your comment borders the Cretinous and is a Complete LIE

1. NONSENSE
2.COMPLETE NONSENSE
3.NONSENSE,CONSIDERING THAT WAR IS NOT YET OVER
4.THERE IS MORE POVERTY THAN EVER IN THE USA
5.THE US CREATED MORE TERRORISM THAN EVER REDUCED IT
6.TOTAL NONSENSE
7.UTTER NONSENSE,BUT YOU DID CREATE ISIS BECAUSE YOU CREATED A SCHISM BETWEEN THE SHIA's AND THE SUNNIE's,ENABLING ISIS TO FILL THE VOID
8.DRECONIAN,OF COUSE YOU LOST IN VIETNAM,WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON?????THAT IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW
9.SUCH HOG WASH AS TO LABLE YOU A CRETIN


REALLY ONE HAS TO QUESTION YOUR MENTAL STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Uh, yes, your caps lock filled rant to a poster who spends all his time whining about the US would make one question your mental state.

Trying to blame the US for creating the Sunni- Shi'ite divide is idiotic. They were killign each other long before there was a US.

Do you have evidence for the claim that the US "creates terrorism"?

The rest of your post, like I said, really does make one question your mental state.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Lol when did I "leave with my tail between my legs"?

Your fantasies are not the same thing as a "FACT" buddy.

Do you even know what Desert Storm was?

Because it sounds like you have it mixed up wth Iraqi Freedom.
Click to expand...

Like a lot of Americans,YOU do not live in REALIY,It's bloody SAD but true...You are a Laughing Stock...You Watch Too Many Hollywood Movies
 
Tigerace117 said:
Uh, yes, your caps lock filled rant to a poster who spends all his time whining about the US would make one question your mental state.

Trying to blame the US for creating the Sunni- Shi'ite divide is idiotic. They were killign each other long before there was a US.

Do you have evidence for the claim that the US "creates terrorism"?

The rest of your post, like I said, really does make one question your mental state.
Click to expand...

No they were NOT because Saddam and the Baathist Party were between them controlling the Country...YOU INVADED ON A LIE,YOU FCUKED UP ON A LIE,EXITED ON A LIE,AND YOU STILL LIE...Little Boy Blue,who ate your Pie,is that which makes YOU LIE...You are a JOKE...LOL


[URL="http://:www.youtube.com/watch?v=T75LZpcFulA


O Yeah Ace(LOL) Lost Your Mummy,Little Boy Blue,In a Reggae Stylee
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
theliq said:
Like a lot of Americans,YOU do not live in REALIY,It's bloody SAD but true...You are a Laughing Stock...You Watch Too Many Hollywood Movies
Click to expand...

And another post from you short on facts, evidence or sanity but long on incoherent rambling.

You clearly have no idea what Desert Storm(or the Gulf War, to use the overall name of the conflict) was.
 
theliq said:
No they were NOT because Saddam and the Baathist Party were between them controlling the Country...YOU INVADED ON A LIE,YOU FCUKED UP ON A LIE,EXITED ON A LIE,AND YOU STILL LIE...Little Boy Blue,who ate your Pie,is that which makes YOU LIE...You are a JOKE...LOL


[URL="http://:www.youtube.com/watch?v=T75LZpcFulA


O Yeah Ace(LOL) Lost Your Mummy,Little Boy Blue,In a Reggae Stylee
Click to expand...

:lamo

Yep, you've quite clearly proven you don't know what you are talking about.

Read up buddy.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/sunni---shia-divide-explained/article19337058/

Saddam Hussein brutally oppressed the Shi'ites. For example....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_Massacre

Lol oh really bud? Because Saddam did have WMDs---he used them against the Kurds, for instance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

And no matter how much you shriek and wail and go into hysterics.....it doesn't change reality.

Learn some history before you try posting again.
 
theliq said:
Your comment borders the Cretinous and is a Complete LIE

1. NONSENSE
2.COMPLETE NONSENSE
3.NONSENSE,CONSIDERING THAT WAR IS NOT YET OVER
4.THERE IS MORE POVERTY THAN EVER IN THE USA
5.THE US CREATED MORE TERRORISM THAN EVER REDUCED IT
6.TOTAL NONSENSE
7.UTTER NONSENSE,BUT YOU DID CREATE ISIS BECAUSE YOU CREATED A SCHISM BETWEEN THE SHIA's AND THE SUNNIE's,ENABLING ISIS TO FILL THE VOID
8.DRECONIAN,OF COUSE YOU LOST IN VIETNAM,WHAT PLANET DO YOU LIVE ON?????THAT IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW
9.SUCH HOG WASH AS TO LABLE YOU A CRETIN


REALLY ONE HAS TO QUESTION YOUR MENTAL STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahaahhahahaha

point.png
 
Tigerace117 said:
:lamo

Yep, you've quite clearly proven you don't know what you are talking about.

Read up buddy.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/sunni---shia-divide-explained/article19337058/

Saddam Hussein brutally oppressed the Shi'ites. For example....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dujail_Massacre

Lol oh really bud? Because Saddam did have WMDs---he used them against the Kurds, for instance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

And no matter how much you shriek and wail and go into hysterics.....it doesn't change reality.

Learn some history before you try posting again.
Click to expand...

Sadam NEVER HAD WMD they did have Chemical Weapons and used them on the Kurds,with the endorsement of the American Government...BUT WHO SOLD SADAM THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS...THE FILTHY YANKS AND FROGS...AKA THE DEALERS OF DEATH....Now do you BOZO's GITIT
 
theliq said:
Sadam NEVER HAD WMD they did have Chemical Weapons and used them on the Kurds,with the endorsement of the American Government...BUT WHO SOLD SADAM THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS...THE FILTHY YANKS AND FROGS...AKA THE DEALERS OF DEATH....Now do you BOZO's GITIT
Click to expand...

Chemical weapons are WMDs buddy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

"A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g., buildings), natural structures (e.g., mountains), or the biosphere. "

Do you have any evidence for your claim that the US endorsed the Halabja attack?

The only thing to "get" is that your loose grip on sanity appears to have slipped even further.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Chemical weapons are WMDs buddy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

"A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g., buildings), natural structures (e.g., mountains), or the biosphere. "

Do you have any evidence for your claim that the US endorsed the Halabja attack?

The only thing to "get" is that your loose grip on sanity appears to have slipped even further.
Click to expand...

You should note that on your wiki list,the USA are proud members of this Exclusive CHEMICAL Club....IRAQ are not...You need a Labotamy,Spewing such JUNK-SPEAK...you Sad Little Man
 
theliq said:
You should note that on your wiki list,the USA are proud members of this Exclusive CHEMICAL Club....IRAQ are not...You need a Labotamy,Spewing such JUNK-SPEAK...you Sad Little Man
Click to expand...

Yes, your hysterical delusions are extreme sad, as is your pathological inability to handle reality.

Do have any any evidence for your claim that the US endorsed the Halabja attack?

Or simply more insane ranting?
 
I have been trying to tell people that Russia and China have teamed up for several years now, with me getting abused in the process.....seems that a few others are beginning to catch on.

What is really interesting is India....if they join up Americas ride to the bottom is going to be quick.

Europe could make a deal and sort of save themselves.

Not much will be on offer to us.

SAD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom