 |
|
Lord Merciless
|
|
If there was not a 9/11, the US would be in a far bigger mess right now. Enrons and Worldcoms are a far bigger threat to the US than Al Qaeda right now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by paiktis22
Perhaps we should finance a nice little war and give those Mexicans immigrants plenty of ammo... 
Texas is Mexico again in no time 
after all, who won Alamo?   |
Hmmm, I live just a few miles north of the Alamo...
3000 Mexican soldiers took 13 days to capture an old spanish mission garrisoned by 189 men, including such famous American icons as Davey Crockett and Jim Bowie. All 189 combatants were killed when the garrison fell, 1600 Mexican soldiers died in the siege.
I guess it is technically a Mexican victory, but not really. Besides, it is among the American trend of fighting wars without attrocious casualties of our own, but inflicting them on our enemies
As for Mexican immigrants, there is indeed a high concentration in Texas and other border states too. My city is about 54% hispanic, if I recall correctly. Most of these Hispanics are native and see themselves as true Americans, much like my Italian/Polish/English/Irish/Scotch/etc ancestors felt after they arrived here. I know you werent serious when you said Texas will be Mexico's again soon, but I just wanted to clear this up.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
|
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
I aready said that chances of such invasion now is about zero. Our army currently is not ready for such invasion.
In this scenario we will total defense for a long time, untill we gain military superiority. (If war will not end sooner, because of collapse of American economy and your famous war weariness ) |
Perhaps you are refering to Veitnam. War wariness was tremendous during that war because we had little, if any reason for being their. Our military pretty much just kept a corrupt South Veitnamese government in place while fighting a paranoid war over 'contaiment' of communism. American boys were being killed (57,000 by wars end) for little if no reason.
However, I dont recall any major war weariness during wars that we had to fight for what we believed, in other words, pretty much any other war besides Veitnam. Even during veitnam, most of the protests were by hippies , and who cares about them? (sorry, I just wanted to use that face...)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kramerman
Perhaps you are refering to Veitnam. War wariness was tremendous during that war because we had little, if any reason for being their. Our military pretty much just kept a corrupt South Veitnamese government in place while fighting a paranoid war over 'contaiment' of communism. American boys were being killed (57,000 by wars end) for little if no reason.
However, I dont recall any major war weariness during wars that we had to fight for what we believed, in other words, pretty much any other war besides Veitnam. Even during veitnam, most of the protests were by hippies, and who cares about them? (sorry, I just wanted to use that face...) |
So, are you trying to say that in case of American agression against Russia there will be no war weariness, because you will fight for your beleifs. Like supremacy of American nation for example?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
|
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
Keep dreaming.
We are not Veitnamese. You will pay for death of every Russian citizen caused by you. You think you could kill other people forever and don't be punished for this? You will suffer like all of your previus victims suffered because of you, if you will ever dare to attack us. Some one should teach you this lesson, the lesson of misery which war brings. |
ok. just suggesting that a defensive war by Russia would increase war weariness on America - thus ending the war earlier and therefore saving Russian Lives. But just by killing our civilians you would enrage them all the more, and prolong the war and the death of your people. I think it has been clearly illustrated that the US would enevitablely beat Russia in an all out war, but in a defensive war, you, like Veitnam, would have a chance of winning (winning as in not being conquered) - though when we were fighting Veitnam, it wasnt an all out war (no war economy like wwii, no rationing, people still went about their lives), mind you. If you would rather be conquered but 'teach' Americans this lesson of how you wage war (attrocious death rates for many reasons, I assume), thats fine - sick - but fine. This would only result in horrible death rates on both side, plus the American occupation of Russia. By fighting defensively you would save many, many more Russian lives and have a chance of winning. But, whatever.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb; have you ever served in the Russian military?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
|
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:21
|
|
Serb,
It appears that you are bitter that the US enjoys its strategic position of being seperated from the Eurasian-African landmass by two large oceans. It is this fact that has kept American CIVILIAN casualties in war so low when compared to other nations, like Russia. But what can be said of military casualties? The US has never practiced machine gunning our own troops if they retreated from battle (the axiam, 'run away to fight another day' comes to mind), and we have a practice of military strategy that minimizes our own troop casualties, unlike the old SU general strategy of throwing troops at an objective until it was taken (I am not saying Russia still practices this, or even has since WWII, merely pointing out the reasons for your high military death counts during WW2). That last tactic meant an almost guarunteed victory but at the obvious cost of lives, unlike American opperations that often risked defeat. Russia had 11 million military casualties alone during WWII, and their only enemy was Germany - who suffered 3.5 million and they had multiple enemies on multiple fronts. Do you not think US troops fought bitter battles against Japan, or Germany for that matter? It was brutal amphbious assault, tropical island jungle warefare, rinse, and repeat for our Pacific war. Yet we did not lose even 0.5 million soldiers (though that is sad enough). Does this make us lesser fighters, because we had less military casualties?
Your 7 millon civilian casualties are tragic, and mostly due to your position on the globe. Because the US was blessed with ours (our isolation), does this make you so bitter as to want to make us feel your pain? I am sorry for you if this be the case, that you wish harm onto civilians just because you want them to feel your pain .
Here is a source, in case you want to deny my stats. But I'll assume you'll just make your typical claim that this site is a biased American conspiracy to make all other countries look inferior or something like that . Its a Euro site, I believe, by the way, if that makes any difference.
casualties statistics
Kman
Last edited by Kramerman on 09-08-2002 at 21:47
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-08-2002 10:21
|