Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Boroda on May 30, 2006, 12:10:45 PM
-
Maybe I missed a thread dedicated to current situation in Afghanistan?
Russian TV shows it in every news programm, in "headlines". Euronews channel mentions it after something greatly important as municipal elections in Italy.
Does American media show this riots? Anything about Afghanistan at all?
-
Not much- A heavy vehicle suffered a breakdown ( which probably means he lost his brakes) and caused a accident in which several afghani's were injured and killed.
Several more were killed after the locals rioted and threw rocks.
I did'nt see anything on al jezzera or the drudge report, so I guess that your local media is focused on the wrong story
-
Saw a bit on the Afghan riots on the Today show this morning.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060530/ap_on_re_as/afghanistan
-
Russian TV shows massive street-fights, both sides using automatic arms. They also reported similar riots in other cities, people shouting "death to Amereeka" etc.
They said that a truck smashed several cars killing people, and it's not clear who started shooting at the angry crowd, if it was the truck crew or local police. The whole Kabul is "on the horns", people dug out their guns and hunt "invaders". I already heard some unprintable comments from my friend who was there in 85-87 (airborn troops, wounded, Combat Merit medal). He doesn't understand how can people be so naive to seriously think they have control over the situation in a way he sees it in the news.
-
It was on fox news and CNN numerous times..
butch of people yelling they hate the US, and want us to leave...
nothing really new.. stuff like that is played here on the news all the time.
-
So much for your propoganda-theory of U.S. mass medi subdueing the press of negative news there, eh Boroda? :rofl
-
I read about a bunch of afgan people geting killed after a convoy of hvy vehicles plowed into a traffic jam. When they reported over 100 civies wounded during the ensuing RIOT I pretty much figured a major incident had taken place.
We hear all sorts of bad news boroda, trust me.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
So much for your propoganda-theory of U.S. mass medi subdueing the press of negative news there, eh Boroda? :rofl
I am just curious, and find it interesting comparing different media opinions on certain events. BTW, Russian TV probably has much more material on this "events", now Afghanis have another target, most of them still remember "Shuravi" and even speak Russian.
So far difference in media coverage is much less then what I witnessed in mid-80s. Soviet media showed events in the same way American media does now. At the same time Voice of America radio hallucinated about "thousands of Soviet invaders killed by Freedom Fighters" and Soviets using chemical weapons against civilians.
Russian media doesn't have any obvious propaganda goals now regarding the situation in Afghanistan, so IMHO the truth is closer to what we see on our TV.
-
Russian media doesn't have any obvious propaganda goals now regarding the situation in Afghanistan, so IMHO the truth is closer to what we see on our TV.
wow
obvious..ya i guess to some folks....
Im sure the russians just want a Great big American Presence all along the southern portions of mother russia..I can see the mother land now.....saying USA....A... OK!!!
I think they would 1) rather have control of those "stans"
or 2) See continued fighting between rival warlords
because option 3) USA creates democracy and USA base's out there
well..I cant see the KGB enjoying that one
-
I have no doubt it is played down on our news and played up on Boroda's. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
-
The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
====
and you think of yourself as a liberal :aok
-
Boroda hates the USA because it destroyed his beloved USSR.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Russian media doesn't have any obvious propaganda goals now regarding the situation in Afghanistan, so IMHO the truth is closer to what we see on our TV.
ROFL!!
...and your observation has nothing whatsoever to do with your continued desire to see the U.S. lose as many troops in Afganistan as Soviets did.... which at the current death rate would be in about (checks calander) 1/2 an eon, or the better part of a forever or two.
-
boroda doesnt wish us ill does he? :(
-
I have been seeing those reports, mountainous region, heavy trucks, brakes fail. Muslims killed when big truck smears them, muslims mad. What else is new? How has our media covered anything up or under reported the incident?
-
It's only ok if Muslims kill other Muslims
-
Here ya go boroda, from Fox News themselves:
Afghan Riot (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197418,00.html)
This from Fox would be the minimum coverage, other networks probably provide even more. Despite what the Russian information ministry would have you believe (and probably does), we have a free and uncontrolled press. On television it shows more.
-
Originally posted by Dago
we have a free and uncontrolled press. On television it shows more.
:rofl
-
Riots in muslim a muslim country????? Really???? how is this news again?
-
Western media can be very biased and 'spin' a story in whatever way they want. If you do not believe that I think you are in denial. Hangtime, in a round about way I think that is what Baroda means. There were some cases of media making up 'facts' and printing them, that is not reporting and that is why the western media sucks. I watch the sports .. they can't mess that up, but they try.
Enough said, I have a close friend (your former squadmate Hangtime) in Afghanistan right now. He is in the thick of it, and is NOT American. There are more than just Yanks taking fire over there. But, as usual, nobody cares about those troops.....
-
Western media can be very biased and 'spin' a story in whatever way they want.
====
Im supposing you think boroda has access to pure news while the rest of the FREE world gets tooled with spin??? skernsk, the spin tool goes every which way and spares no one, yourself and boroda included.
-
Originally posted by skernsk
Western media can be very biased and 'spin' a story in whatever way they want. If you do not believe that I think you are in denial. Hangtime, in a round about way I think that is what Baroda means. There were some cases of media making up 'facts' and printing them, that is not reporting and that is why the western media sucks. I watch the sports .. they can't mess that up, but they try.
Enough said, I have a close friend (your former squadmate Hangtime) in Afghanistan right now. He is in the thick of it, and is NOT American. There are more than just Yanks taking fire over there. But, as usual, nobody cares about those troops.....
Animal?
-
Argyll.
-
No Kiddin! How's he doin? When did he go? Whats he doin? Whats his email? can he get 'packages'?
and, how the hell you douin, louis? ;)
-
Check PM's Hang...
-
Originally posted by Dago
we have a free and uncontrolled press. On television it shows more.
:rofl :lol That's a good one.
-
skernsk..you are way offf
I ...and the rest of USA who supports the reasons..care about all the allied troops..
The reason you say that..is becauase the media mostly reports about americans..
We are the #1 ..So everyone aims for you>...USA is the prime target for everything anti-Freedom
The muslims dont go around burning Canadian flags like they do USA's
We are the main target for Public Relations
-
Hey it was shown on the air over here.
I saw it myself.
It was a 5 second clip sandwiched between the 20 minute special "Corruption in Russia" and the feature story "Putnam - Dragging the Soviets back into the Cold War".
-
Will the country with the totally unbiased, completely independent, politically neutral, absolutely factual, unimpeachably vetted and entirely uninfluenced media please stand up?
I didn't think so.
Until then, it's a fool's errand to even carry on the argument about whose media to believe. Please guys...we all realize that we can't take any of the pap they feed us at face value.
If it suits politics, money, power or influence...we'll hear what suits those goals.
The best we can hope for is any system which at least allows for the communication of dissenting points of view. You can't know what the truth is for certain, but at least the questions cn keep flying...which is the common man's only protection against government.
Ours (US) is no perfect system, and our media is just as flawed as anything involving humans will inevitably be, but at least when one outlet claims 'black', another can come along and claim 'white'...keeps us perpetually asking questions, and that is our best hope. When that is augmented by other similar media systems in other parts of the world, then they, too, can question what's been said.
Like MT said...absorb it all, then split the difference...and you're still probably not getting the truth, but a reasonable facsimile thereof.
-
Originally posted by Flit
Not much- A heavy vehicle suffered a breakdown ( which probably means he lost his brakes) and caused a accident in which several afghani's were injured and killed.
Several more were killed after the locals rioted and threw rocks.
I did'nt see anything on al jezzera or the drudge report, so I guess that your local media is focused on the wrong story
Yup, brakes. Anyone whos driven a military duce / 5 ton whatever has probably had the brakes fail or come damm close to it. Steering boxes too.
Reserve units that go active esp, at home they dont get the support regular units get parts wise and the trucks suffer from years of being held together with gum, hope and spit... or parts that some gunny threw together to get it running because the Capt was riding is sphincter.
Some lowly private gets stuck driving a junk heap = international incident. Just lovely.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
ROFL!!
...and your observation has nothing whatsoever to do with your continued desire to see the U.S. lose as many troops in Afganistan as Soviets did.... which at the current death rate would be in about (checks calander) 1/2 an eon, or the better part of a forever or two.
1) I don't want American servicemen to die. Seriously.
2) Current death rate in Afghanistan is unknown. Probably because noone cares. It's a great achievement of American free media. Seriously.
3) USSR lost less then 14,000 men in Afghanistan, 1979-89. And the level of involvement was a little bit higher then Americans have now. Also I have to say that Soviet soldiers walked in Kabul unarmed, and there were no crowds shooting at them shouting "death to russkies".
Just saw a news programm on TV in my institute's lobby. They speak about heavy losses by Afghani government troops, at least one batallion completely destroyed by Taliban, no American losses mentioned. Their main topic was the arrival of 200 Ukrainian troops, they are there to train Afghanis with Ukrainian equipment, as if there are not enough locals who know old trusted Soviet stuff better...
-
Boroda,
Hvatit, oozhe. Zhisn slishkom karotkiya. V'tvayey strane zhivut samiye krasiviye devushke na svete. Ne oozhele etova ne dastatichna tebya atvelch.
Udache tebye, va vsom...
Shurik
-
boroda... if the russian press is so free then why don't you have the number of casualties in afghanistan? And... if no one cares (as you claim) then why is it a "It's a great achievement of American free media. Seriously."
you can't have it both ways.
I think one of the reasons that civilians did not attack forces of russians in town was that the russians were so much more brutal and prone to brutal retaliation than American troops are.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Neubob
Boroda,
Hvatit, oozhe. Zhisn slishkom karotkiya. V'tvayey strane zhivut samiye krasiviye devushke na svete. Ne oozhele etova ne dastatichna tebya atvelch.
Udache tebye, va vsom...
Shurik
Good point :)
I see this discussions as good mind games. I mean that men need some other things except vodka and women.
In this case I simply want to see some things from the other side.
Do you read books? I feel very uncomfortable when i have nothing to read. Same kind of brain-itching that makes me post here.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
boroda... if the russian press is so free then why don't you have the number of casualties in afghanistan? And... if no one cares (as you claim) then why is it a "It's a great achievement of American free media. Seriously."
you can't have it both ways.
Soviet losses in Afghanistan are counted to the last man. I meant losses there after 2001.
Originally posted by lazs2
I think one of the reasons that civilians did not attack forces of russians in town was that the russians were so much more brutal and prone to brutal retaliation than American troops are.
Russians traditionally were allies of the Afghanistan. I don't remember any of my friends telling stories of gun-fights in Kabul or other big cities.
Russians were acting in Central Asia since mid-XIX century. We have some experience, and Afghani adventure was the worst and stupidest attempt, thanks to our gerontocratic leadership.
General Skobelev said in 1880: "Making humans out of slaves is much more important then all our conquests and glory of the Empire".
-
Brain itches? Scratching yer bellybutton should provide relief. ;)
Economically speaking, the cost of the war varies, according to the varying Soviet figures, but the most agreeable figure is given as $8.2 billion per year. As for casualties, it too is an arguable topic, due to the strict censorship of the Soviet Union. The official 15,000 dead is a gross underestimation. Experts agree that at least 40,000 - 50,000 Soviets lost their lives in action, besides the wounded, suicides, and murders.
http://www.afghan-web.com/history/articles/ussr.html
..and the cost in afgani lives was over two million.
Just another walk in the park for the commies, enh; Boroda?
-
Hang, why not 500000? Oh, sorry, it will be almost all servicemen "rotated" there.
One out of ten is an absolutely ridiculous number.
http://www.hro.org/editions/karta/nr24-25/victim.htm
Gives you complete numbers by year, units, nationality etc.
50000 is a number of wounded (53753 to be correct).
Total losses were 14453, this includes Soviet civilian specialists. Army losses were 13833. This is a final exact number. Nothing to argue about here. This numbers also include people who died of "natural" causes, like diseases etc.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Hang, why not 500000? Oh, sorry, it will be almost all servicemen "rotated" there.
One out of ten is an absolutely ridiculous number.
http://www.hro.org/editions/karta/nr24-25/victim.htm
Gives you complete numbers by year, units, nationality etc.
50000 is a number of wounded (53753 to be correct).
Total losses were 14453, this includes Soviet civilian specialists. Army losses were 13833. This is a final exact number. Nothing to argue about here. This numbers also include people who died of "natural" causes, like diseases etc.
Horsepucky. You'll note that I used an Afgan source... and that info is even lower than most reliable western sources. Of course, I don't expect you'd ever consider a western source or an Afgan one for that matter as a 'reliable' source. Perhaps credibility is the answer...
... which your 'team' is sorely lacking, comparatively. ;)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Horsepucky. You'll note that I used an Afgan source... and that info is even lower than most reliable western sources. Of course, I don't expect you'd ever consider a western source or an Afgan one for that matter as a 'reliable' source. Perhaps credibility is the answer...
... which your 'team' is sorely lacking, comparatively. ;)
Hang, weren't you the one who doubted 2 million dead Vietnamese?
I only can say that it's the first time when I see anyone questioning Soviet losses numbers. You probably don't undersand what was going on here when this numbers were declared. It was easier to say that we lost 500000 there and everyone probably could believe it. So far even the bonehead anti-soviet imbeciles like Moscow Helsinki group agree that this numbers are correct. It's like saying that it's only 1/10th of all Americans killed in Vietnam are listed on a wall in Arlington.
Hang, Americans speaking that some other side conceals losses is more then funny. Korean air war is a great example. LOL only 79 Sabres lost, while they shot down more MiGs then USSR, DPRK and PRC had there.
And one more thing: there are no Afghani sources on Soviet losses. I hope you understand why. Estimates don't count. Same **** as we have now in Chechnya, they exaggerate 10:1. Every name is known, all are remembered. Keep believing that Russian untermenschen were all killed and your compatriots are invincible.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Hang, weren't you the one who doubted 2 million dead Vietnamese?
I only can say that it's the first time when I see anyone questioning Soviet losses numbers. You probably don't undersand what was going on here when this numbers were declared. It was easier to say that we lost 500000 there and everyone probably could believe it. So far even the bonehead anti-soviet imbeciles like Moscow Helsinki group agree that this numbers are correct. It's like saying that it's only 1/10th of all Americans killed in Vietnam are listed on a wall in Arlington.
Hang, Americans speaking that some other side conceals losses is more then funny. Korean air war is a great example. LOL only 79 Sabres lost, while they shot down more MiGs then USSR, DPRK and PRC had there.
And one more thing: there are no Afghani sources on Soviet losses. I hope you understand why. Estimates don't count. Same **** as we have now in Chechnya, they exaggerate 10:1. Every name is known, all are remembered. Keep believing that Russian untermenschen were all killed and your compatriots are invincible.
I Love how you keep adding zeros and then jumping the next fence.. and start in with Korea and Vietnam as justification for the alleged lack veracity of the Afgan losses. And no: unlike you; I question everything spewed by our media. Since you are unwilling to engage your own brain and consistently place your responses based on Soviet regimes numbers and sources.. well; we are all aware how hopeless it is to get you aknowledge any source that doesn't portray the USSR in anything but a favorable light.
Your last comment regarding 'russian sub-humans' and the 'invincible west' are excellent windows into your commie fogged brain... using Nazi propaganda phraseology to characterize an non-existent western disdain for the toll in lives garnered by the Soviets in Afganistan... well, thats another reason why you and your favored soviet/communist clowns remain marginilized by the 'west'. Spouting pure crap like that tends to unhinge any argument you made above it.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Good point :)
I see this discussions as good mind games. I mean that men need some other things except vodka and women.
In this case I simply want to see some things from the other side.
Do you read books? I feel very uncomfortable when i have nothing to read. Same kind of brain-itching that makes me post here.
I usually read a lot, but there are times when I get lazy and the same brain-itching plagues me.
The annoying thing about these boards, and perhaps the cool thing, is that once you get into a debate, it's hard to let it go without a satisfying conclusion. Unfortunately, as I have found, most heated debates end with people undermining each others' credebility with name calling and references to prior statements of questionable reason. Ultimately, opponents wind up labeling each other as insufferable conservatives, stoned hippie liberals or something of the like, and any semblence of intelligent conversation goes out the window.
Sucks, cause when the topics aren't so heated, you really do see quite a bit of intelligence and wisdom here.
-
LOL.. Boroda and I have been lampooning each other fer more years than I can count. We can both be counted upon to fall into the classic 'east vs west' roles that are requistes for our debates... we 'know' each other pretty well; and we're well past being offended by each others diatribes.
which in no way detracts from the insight and accuracy of your statement, Neubob. ;) We never 'settle' anything.. we just rotate subjects. :D
-
boroda... I was talking about loses since 2001. if the russian press is so accurate and free then why doesn't it have those numbers?
lazs
-
If the Afghans don`t like the way we drive they should stay off the friggen sidewalk.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
I Love how you keep adding zeros and then jumping the next fence.. and start in with Korea and Vietnam as justification for the alleged lack veracity of the Afgan losses.
I add zeros just mocking people like you and our pro-western imbeciles like the above-mentioned Helsinki group. They don't care about common sence, the worse "bloody commies" will look - the better.
About Korea - please compare the official number of American aircraft losses to the number of rescue helicopter flights.
I used Vietnam/Arlington to show you an attitude to Afghan war here. There is a difference, mostly because in the US people were protesting against killing of the Vietnamese, and here people mostly cared about our boys being killed. But it was a very small war, even compared to your glorious Vietnamese conflict, and there are no "unknown soldiers".
Originally posted by Hangtime
And no: unlike you; I question everything spewed by our media. Since you are unwilling to engage your own brain and consistently place your responses based on Soviet regimes numbers and sources.. well; we are all aware how hopeless it is to get you aknowledge any source that doesn't portray the USSR in anything but a favorable light.
Are you laughing at me? You used the words I wanted to say to you :)
Again, let me explain. 1989 = no Soviet regime. Agony. Numbers I posted were released in 1991, when agony ended and it was finally possible to say real numbers, without adding zeros to blame Evil Communist Regime (tm).
And there are no other sources except what I posted. Every name is listed, every accident logged. No censorship, no propaganda.
Originally posted by Hangtime
Your last comment regarding 'russian sub-humans' and the 'invincible west' are excellent windows into your commie fogged brain... using Nazi propaganda phraseology to characterize an non-existent western disdain for the toll in lives garnered by the Soviets in Afganistan... well, thats another reason why you and your favored soviet/communist clowns remain marginilized by the 'west'. Spouting pure crap like that tends to unhinge any argument you made above it.
Hang, western propaganda employing Goebbels' agenda is my own idea. Seriously. I discovered this sad fact after reading some books about that genius of propaganda and brainwashing. The only thing that was dropped is one word from "Asian hordes of Jewish bolsheviks". All the rest is the same. If you know something different between Goebbels' inventions and your "kill a commie for your mommie" - please let me know.
Hehe, my small provocation hit the target :)
Now about commies. Don't you understand that it wasn't you, it was us who were the main victim of bolshevism? I don;t care about commies, i have much more reasons to hate them then you do. But commies saved the country, and they made one great thing that justifies all the Russian history of the XX century: they destroyed nazism. I doubt that it was possible without such an ideology.
I see Communism (a philosophical/social doctrine) as a religion. In some cases it's much better then Christianity. Try to look at this east/west conflict as at a religious war. I can't see any sane reasons for the hatered you show. The guys who shot at you were not "commies", they were just fighting to protect their homes, families and land. Just as my Uncle wasn't fighting for "communist idea", but shot down planes that bombed civilians and were a direct threat to his own life. Sometimes ideological patterns are wrong, following them shows that you use them instead of thinking. So it goes.
-
Opposties cleary attract.
hangtime and boroda sitting in a tree...
(http://www.magicproshop.com/images/Bleeding%20Heart.GIF)
Love is in the air :)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Are you laughing at me?
We all are.
-
I agree with Boroda 100%. Hangtime you are just arguing for the sake of arguing,. IF Boroda said the sky was blue you would argue it is not.
Find something else to argue about. Like what acutally sunk the Kursk or if Marco Ramius actually did steal the Red October....
-
so..if russia was not a commie state..they woudl of lost ww2?
I think the motivation of them being enslaved murdered raped killed was enuff to fight
Hell you saw towns that said..F stalin..hes a bigger deak then hitler..
werent there?
Just seems odd to me..that the biggest reason they won was commie
But commies saved the country, and they made one great thing that justifies all the Russian history of the XX century: they destroyed nazism. I doubt that it was possible without such an ideology.
I disagree..I beleive you had a VERY LARGE HELPING HAND..Called USA
Lend LEase..ect..I havent read many books on what russians were shipping over to USA in convoys?..Planes..tanks?..
This in no way says russians couldnt fight with out USA...russia sacrificed the most
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Hang, weren't you the one who doubted 2 million dead Vietnamese?
I only can say that it's the first time when I see anyone questioning Soviet losses numbers. You probably don't undersand what was going on here when this numbers were declared. It was easier to say that we lost 500000 there and everyone probably could believe it. So far even the bonehead anti-soviet imbeciles like Moscow Helsinki group agree that this numbers are correct. It's like saying that it's only 1/10th of all Americans killed in Vietnam are listed on a wall in Arlington.
Hang, Americans speaking that some other side conceals losses is more then funny. Korean air war is a great example. LOL only 79 Sabres lost, while they shot down more MiGs then USSR, DPRK and PRC had there.
And one more thing: there are no Afghani sources on Soviet losses. I hope you understand why. Estimates don't count. Same **** as we have now in Chechnya, they exaggerate 10:1. Every name is known, all are remembered. Keep believing that Russian untermenschen were all killed and your compatriots are invincible.
Calm down Boroda. The reason there was a cold war was to prevent the Soviets from invadeing Western Europe. As things stand today, go ahead and invade, we really don't give a s**t.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
so..if russia was not a commie state..they woudl of lost ww2?
I think the motivation of them being enslaved murdered raped killed was enuff to fight
Hell you saw towns that said..F stalin..hes a bigger deak then hitler..
werent there?
Just seems odd to me..that the biggest reason they won was commie
What I meant was that Stalin and commies did the best to prepare to War. In 1927 USSR didn't have almost any industry, over 3/4 of the population was illiterate. What was done in 1927-41 is a miracle. And Soviet people payed a huge price for it.
If you compare Russian participation in WWI and WWII - you'll see the big difference. "Private enterprising" system showed that it was absolutley impotent by 1915. Out of the whole population of the Empire industrial workers were only 1-1.5%, and only government industry was able to do anything for the Army.
Then, in 1917-1920, bolsheviks won a Civil war, collected what was left of the Empire and got rid of separatists and foreign puppets. After Brest-Litovsk peace treaty, when Germans reached Caucasus and annexed Ukraine, with occupational troops landed in Arckangelsk and Vladivostok, with Czech corps fighting their way to the Pacific, several "supreme governments" tearing a country apart - they managed to get the country together again. Unfortunately, they were the only power that could do it :(
The fact is that the Empire was dieing, and happy liberal thievs from Temporary Government in March-October 1917 only made the things worse :(
Originally posted by BGBMAW
I disagree..I beleive you had a VERY LARGE HELPING HAND..Called USA
Lend LEase..ect..I havent read many books on what russians were shipping over to USA in convoys?..Planes..tanks?..
This in no way says russians couldnt fight with out USA...russia sacrificed the most
Not only Russians, but Soviets. Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians, Tatars, Jews, Kazakhs, over 100 nationalities.
I don't see lend-lease as an "assistance". It was a purely commercial trade. Assistance is something that isn't payed for, as we understand it. Different concepts in Russian language. And we payed 3-4 times more for the same equipment then UK did. It's also important that USSR got several times less supplys then the UK.
In your terms - USSR also helped the US to het out of the 1929-1933 crisis, just as US helped USSR to build industry from nothing. Soviet gold did help American industry, it was a really smart decision to start diplomatic relations with the USSR and encourage trade. And some serious part of Russian industry still works on equipment bought in the US before the War.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Calm down Boroda. The reason there was a cold war was to prevent the Soviets from invadeing Western Europe. As things stand today, go ahead and invade, we really don't give a s**t.
If you seriously believe it - it's a shame. USSR could reach the Atlantic in 1945 in a matter of weeks. Later American government admitted that it's impossible to prevent Soviet Army from taking control over Western Europe, Mediterranian and Middle East, even if "blue" side massively used nulcear weapons against Soviet cities - it could take no more then 6 months.
And it was us who had enemy troops at our borders, not the US. Imaginary threat as an instrument of political influence. It's quite simple and effective. You guys deserve all possible respect, we need to learn from you.
-
Originally posted by weaselsan
Calm down Boroda. The reason there was a cold war was to prevent the Soviets from invadeing Western Europe. As things stand today, go ahead and invade, we really don't give a s**t.
Thats good to hear.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
If you seriously believe it - it's a shame. USSR could reach the Atlantic in 1945 in a matter of weeks. Later American government admitted that it's impossible to prevent Soviet Army from taking control over Western Europe, Mediterranian and Middle East, even if "blue" side massively used nulcear weapons against Soviet cities - it could take no more then 6 months.
And it was us who had enemy troops at our borders, not the US. Imaginary threat as an instrument of political influence. It's quite simple and effective. You guys deserve all possible respect, we need to learn from you.
Germany would have kicked Russias butt if Germany hadn't been fighting a two front war.
The USA would have kicked Russias butt if we wanted, and hadn't been fighting a two front war.
Russia was only fighting a one front war, and weren't really all that impressive at doing that. Mostly succeeded fighting the Germans due to the harsh winter and the fact that they were willing to throw unlimited amounts of bodies in as cannon fodder.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Germany would have kicked Russias butt if Germany hadn't been fighting a two front war.
The USA would have kicked Russias butt if we wanted, and hadn't been fighting a two front war.
Russia was only fighting a one front war, and weren't really all that impressive at doing that. Mostly succeeded fighting the Germans due to the harsh winter and the fact that they were willing to throw unlimited amounts of bodies in as cannon fodder.
Oh, that Russian untermenschen! :D Anyway, I am happy that your opinions were never tested in real life.
Do you know that USSR had to keep huge forces in the Far East against Japan? Do you know what happened on December 6th 1941? Do you know what happened on August 8th 1945?
"willing to throw unlimited amounts of bodies in as cannon fodder" - another myth. Soviet losses were maybe 20-30% bigger then German and their allies, mostly because of the 1941 catastrophe. Harsh winter? There wasn't anything extraordinary with the weather in, for example, winter 1941. Last winter we had much worse frost then that year. And Russians don't ride white bears or sleep in snow. We are made of the same flesh and blood, frostbites don't check nationality.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Do you read books? I feel very uncomfortable when i have nothing to read. Same kind of brain-itching that makes me post here.
2 good political reads over the last 4 years come to mind: Pat Buchanan's Where the Right Went Wrong and Lyndon Baines Johnson: The Master of the Senate by Robert Caro.
They are very different but not to be missed.
Pax,
Hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
2 good political reads over the last 4 years come to mind: Pat Buchanan's Where the Right Went Wrong and Lyndon Baines Johnson: The Master of the Senate by Robert Caro.
They are very different but not to be missed.
Thanks, will look if there are Russian translations. I saw some LBJ biography at a store near my home, will check if it is what you advised.
-
Winter hinders long supply routes.
We are all aware of Japan & Russias battles I'm sure.
What happened is what happened & no amount of surmising will change it.
Patton wanted to kick the crap out of the red army & he died in a so called accident.
The Soviet Union was not some angelic society.
The Soviet Union almost certainly has some unknown soldiers from the Afghan conflict, if not, then I know they are lying about their casualties.
Our casualties in Afghanistan are documented.
Our media is privately owned & is free to report whatever BS they feel like reporting.
Our media isn't always correct, like during the invasion of Iraq, the media was reporting supply problems with front line troops, the govt. was saying that was absolutely untrue (of course they would, it's vital for the enemy to not to know your weakness) But,the medias video clearly showed U.S. troops armed with AK's searching a wooded area by the side of a road & their M-16's were slung over their backs. Why would they do that if not because of a lack of ammunition for one & an abundance of ammunition for the other.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Winter hinders long supply routes.
Please try to find longer ground supply routes then in USSR/Russia. ;)
Originally posted by Brenjen
We are all aware of Japan & Russias battles I'm sure.
I am not sure :( There were two major conflicts, fought by "good" Russian Empire and "evil" USSR. Showed some difference in approach. One is the most shamefull defeat in Russian history, second is a greatest offensive operation in history.
Originally posted by Brenjen
What happened is what happened & no amount of surmising will change it.
Agreed. But it isn't a reason to get into the same traps that others discovered 150 years ago. It applys to both our countries.
Originally posted by Brenjen
Patton wanted to kick the crap out of the red army & he died in a so called accident.
IMHO Patton was a lunatic. The film about him is based on Omar Bradley's "Soldier's diary", but Bradley shows Patton as a dangerous lunatic, not as a hero.
Originally posted by Brenjen
The Soviet Union was not some angelic society.
Well said. But I also know that there are no angelic societies at all. I am sure that 90% of people on this board could be absolutely happy in good old USSR.
Originally posted by Brenjen
The Soviet Union almost certainly has some unknown soldiers from the Afghan conflict, if not, then I know they are lying about their casualties.
The document I showed to Hang lists 417 men as missing in action or captured by enemy. Out of 417 - 119 were rescued. This numbers were released in 1991, so the list of rescued or returned POWs may be incomplete.
Out of this 417 some people defected intentionally, mostly Tajiks and Uzbeks, but there were a few Russians too. At least it's what they were forced to say to Western media, I am not going to blame them for it.
Originally posted by Brenjen
Our casualties in Afghanistan are documented.
May I see any detailed report, please? Something like a link i posted. If possible - including people who died of "natural causes" in hospitals.
Originally posted by Brenjen
Our media is privately owned & is free to report whatever BS they feel like reporting.
Same **** here now.
What I hate about "free media" is that it is an environment for spreading terror. There was no terrorism in USSR simply because the news about terrorist attacks couldn't be spread. Rare attempts like 1977 "Armenian" bomb in Moscow subway remained unknown to public, they were reported, but there was no attention specially drawn to them.
Originally posted by Brenjen
Our media isn't always correct, like during the invasion of Iraq, the media was reporting supply problems with front line troops, the govt. was saying that was absolutely untrue (of course they would, it's vital for the enemy to not to know your weakness) But,the medias video clearly showed U.S. troops armed with AK's searching a wooded area by the side of a road & their M-16's were slung over their backs. Why would they do that if not because of a lack of ammunition for one & an abundance of ammunition for the other.
Making such conclusions from a casual TV clips shows that your media environment is very similar to what we had in USSR, I mean - it has all the disadvantages of controlled media combined with disatvantages of free press.
Here we return to original topic. The media is free, but it doesn't want to disturb the audience with some stuff. I don't understand, what's the difference, and does it really matter who controlls media, government or private owners, or journalists themselves?...
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
But,the medias video clearly showed U.S. troops armed with AK's searching a wooded area by the side of a road & their M-16's were slung over their backs. Why would they do that if not because of a lack of ammunition for one & an abundance of ammunition for the other.
Because the AK's 7.62x39 round penetrates the local battlefield cover better than the freakin mousegun & 5.56mm ammo our kids are given to fight with. Because the AK is less affected by jamming in 'sandstorm' terrain. Because in a close in fight with bad guys, using their weapons confuses them.. weapon sound is no guarantee of 'friend or foe' doing the shooting.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Because the AK's 7.62x39 round penetrates the local battlefield cover better than the freakin mousegun & 5.56mm ammo our kids are given to fight with.
All my friends who have been "behind the river" always say that AK-74 with it's even less powerfull 5.45 round is a beautiful weapon, and never said that it lacks lethality or "battlefield cover penetration".
Any AK is very easy to maintain and clean, they said after they returned from "war" to the camp - they simply held their automats in a barrel full of kerosene and then simply damped ot with cloth.
Old 7.62 ammo is much heavier, and even with 5.45 their carried weight sometimes was up to 70kg (!!!). And AK-74 has no recoil at all.
Fortunately I never shot or carried an automat in combat, so all I said is based on the stories from people who fought in Afghanistan and other hospitable places.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
All my friends who have been "behind the river" always say that AK-74 with it's even less powerfull 5.45 round is a beautiful weapon, and never said that it lacks lethality or "battlefield cover penetration".
Any AK is very easy to maintain and clean, they said after they returned from "war" to the camp - they simply held their automats in a barrel full of kerosene and then simply damped ot with cloth.
Old 7.62 ammo is much heavier, and even with 5.45 their carried weight sometimes was up to 70kg (!!!). And AK-74 has no recoil at all.
Fortunately I never shot or carried an automat in combat, so all I said is based on the stories from people who fought in Afghanistan and other hospitable places.
the '74' is robust. But a step in the wrong direction. The AK series sucks in accuracy... (comparitively) and it's strengths are reliability and extended capacity and volume of fire. (our mouse guns have lost the full auto feature) giving it a smaller faster round didn't impove the one weak point of the design.
Given my druthers, I'd rather tote a carbine length heavy barrel FAL or M-14 and it's heavier ammo than any version of an AK or mousegun.
but, that's just me.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Because the AK's 7.62x39 round penetrates the local battlefield cover better than the freakin mousegun & 5.56mm ammo our kids are given to fight with. Because the AK is less affected by jamming in 'sandstorm' terrain. Because in a close in fight with bad guys, using their weapons confuses them.. weapon sound is no guarantee of 'friend or foe' doing the shooting.
The ones I saw were Ak-74's.....Also I own both weapons, M-4's & AK type 56 in 7.62 Both are superb weapons & my M-4's are not that prone to jams, they are more than the AK no doubt, but not that much more.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
The ones I saw were Ak-74's.....Also I own both weapons, M-4's & AK type 56 in 7.62 Both are superb weapons & my M-4's are not that prone to jams, they are more than the AK no doubt, but not that much more.
AFAIK AK-74s were never exported. AKs in Iraq are mostly Chinese and Romanian-made.
BTW, are you sure you can tell an AK-74 from 7.62 AK models? The differences in appearence are slightly different gas-chamber shape and a muzzle compensator that 7.62 models don't have.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
AFAIK AK-74s were never exported. AKs in Iraq are mostly Chinese and Romanian-made.
BTW, are you sure you can tell an AK-74 from 7.62 AK models? The differences in appearence are slightly different gas-chamber shape and a muzzle compensator that 7.62 models don't have.
Yup. The demand for 7.62x39 ammo has skyrocketed here in the US.. prices up by 30% or more... when you can get it here. Reason why is Iraq and Argentina both adopted the AK-47 (not the 74) for their military.. and the lions share of 7.62x39 ammo coming outta Russia is going to them.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
AFAIK AK-74s were never exported. AKs in Iraq are mostly Chinese and Romanian-made.
BTW, are you sure you can tell an AK-74 from 7.62 AK models? The differences in appearence are slightly different gas-chamber shape and a muzzle compensator that 7.62 models don't have.
You are correct about the differences in appearance & that was all I had to go by from the news medias clip. But Russia exported quite a few to Afghanistan, at least enough that good ole Bin Laden has one. I know I'm being facetious, they were exported in the same sense as our M-16's were to North Vietnam.
I will modify my statement & say the AK's I saw had the AKM-74 muzzle brake. They could have been the 7.62 chambered rifles as I have an AKM-74 style muzzle brake on my SKS & indeed it's no AK-74
My AKM-84 in .223 is an excellent weapon & I have always wanted to try out the AK-74, I saw a show that described a hollow air pocket behind the nose of the 5.45 ammuniton that casues the round to yaw violently in ballistic gell. That beats the hell out of a hollow point doesn't it.