So, Russia and Belarus are organising joint wargames near Polish border. The best part is that the games are called "Zapad 2009" ("West 2009") and the scenario is defending against an invasion from and counterattacking against NATO forces.
This is precious, considering there are idiots within NATO itself who are afraid of even coming up with anti-Russian contingency planning because it would offend Russia.
Fucking Western European pussies. :lol:
Why would Poland have to be defended in the first place?
I can't wait for the Bundesweher and the Armadapolska organizing "Barbarossa 2010" next year.
:D
Btw, the proper name for the Polish Military is Wojsko Polskie.
The British will be dropping manuals to tell you how to build Sten guns. Good luck!
Could the Russkie-Belarus militayr, in its current state that it's been in the last decade or so, even get past just the Polish military? They seemed more like a drunken mob invading Georgia against no resistance; contrasted with what the Red Army once was.
Quote from: KRonn on September 24, 2009, 07:36:59 AM
Could the Russkie-Belarus militayr, in its current state that it's been in the last decade or so, even get past just the Polish military? They seemed more like a drunken mob invading Georgia against no resistance; contrasted with what the Red Army once was.
A drunken mob invading Aghanistan against no resistance?
Quote from: KRonn on September 24, 2009, 07:36:59 AM
Could the Russkie-Belarus militayr, in its current state that it's been in the last decade or so, even get past just the Polish military? They seemed more like a drunken mob invading Georgia against no resistance; contrasted with what the Red Army once was.
Russian-Georgian War = Armed mobs chasing each other around the mountains?
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2009, 05:21:05 AM
Btw, the proper name for the Polish Military is Wojsko Polskie.
Like the bear?
Stop provoking them, you smelly polacks.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 07:43:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2009, 05:21:05 AM
Btw, the proper name for the Polish Military is Wojsko Polskie.
Like the bear?
LOL the bear was named Wojtek. :P
Actually both names have a similar origin as "Woj" means "warrior" in old Polish. :P
Kentucky will send some jockeys and horses to simulate tank-charging Poles for the Russians/Belarussians. :)
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2009, 07:45:47 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 07:43:39 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 24, 2009, 05:21:05 AM
Btw, the proper name for the Polish Military is Wojsko Polskie.
Like the bear?
LOL the bear was named Wojtek. :P
Actually both names have a similar origin as "Woj" means "warrior" in old Polish. :P
So basically you have a decreped septuagenarian bear watching the Belorussian border? Well, I suppose it is enough....
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fthxforthe.info%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F04%2Fbear-cavalry.jpg&hash=e2320b7f091669718f232b0268acc2a08c7080cb)
Martinus' we dream.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F2b%2FPolska_okupacja_1944.png%2F250px-Polska_okupacja_1944.png&hash=32d2ccecae669a525024e41b6a6538e2d45bbcdc)
Reality.
Quote from: Caliga on September 24, 2009, 07:48:28 AM
Kentucky will send some jockeys and horses to simulate tank-charging Poles for the Russians/Belarussians. :)
No self respecting Kentucky Colonel should lift a hand in defense of the aggressor poles.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2009, 07:50:14 AM
No self respecting Kentucky Colonel should lift a hand in defense of the aggressor poles.
L2R. The Kentuckians are roleplaying Poles to help the Russians and their little White Russian brothers out. :)
Quote from: Caliga on September 24, 2009, 07:55:16 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2009, 07:50:14 AM
No self respecting Kentucky Colonel should lift a hand in defense of the aggressor poles.
L2R. The Kentuckians are roleplaying Poles to help the Russians and their little White Russian brothers out. :)
I don't want to read. Reading is for losers.
How capable is the Polish military Marty? And idea?
I wonder if their willingness to engage in Iraq and Afghanistan was driven, at least in part, by the simple desire to get their military some combat experience.
Probably not much - not like you are going to get that much experience anyway, and it wouldn't be very good training to beat off the Russian hordes anyway.
Do the Russian even have hordes anymore?
Quote from: Fireblade on September 24, 2009, 07:40:02 AM
Quote from: KRonn on September 24, 2009, 07:36:59 AM
Could the Russkie-Belarus militayr, in its current state that it's been in the last decade or so, even get past just the Polish military? They seemed more like a drunken mob invading Georgia against no resistance; contrasted with what the Red Army once was.
Russian-Georgian War = Armed mobs chasing each other around the mountains?
Yeah, perhaps, at least when the Russian troops were sober enough to do so. News reporters on the scene described drunken troops a number of times.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 08:30:42 AM
Do the Russian even have hordes anymore?
Population of the Russian Federaton: 142 million
Population of the United States: 307 million
Our human waves > their human waves.
Why exactly would we want to invade Russia or Belorussia? Our supply of Vodka and mail order brides is unlikely to run low anytime soon.
Quote from: KRonn on September 24, 2009, 08:30:42 AM
Yeah, perhaps, at least when the Russian troops were sober enough to do so. News reporters on the scene described drunken troops a number of times.
Same thing happened in '45. Little fuckers love their booze, looting and raping.
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2009, 08:39:07 AM
Population of the Russian Federaton: 142 million
Population of the United States: 307 million
Our human waves > their human waves.
Except we're not willing to use human waves
Quote from: KRonn on September 24, 2009, 07:36:59 AM
Could the Russkie-Belarus militayr, in its current state that it's been in the last decade or so, even get past just the Polish military? They seemed more like a drunken mob invading Georgia against no resistance; contrasted with what the Red Army once was.
I'm unsure about the Polish military but certainly if you swap the Polish military for the French, German or British one and it'd be a close fight with the advantage likely being against the Russians.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 24, 2009, 09:09:27 AM
Except we're not willing to use human waves
Well we prefer to try waves of expensive ordinance and AFVs first.
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2009, 09:13:32 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 24, 2009, 09:09:27 AM
Except we're not willing to use human waves
Well we prefer to try waves of expensive ordinance and AFVs first.
Then send in Burnside's negro troops.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 08:30:42 AM
How capable is the Polish military Marty? And idea?
No idea really. But I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't suck. :P
We do have rather good special ops units, though, I am led to believe.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 08:30:42 AM
Do the Russian even have hordes anymore?
They have a horde of abused and brutalised conscripts :(
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 24, 2009, 09:14:45 AM
Then send in Burnside's negro troops.
I tried to find a pic from Family Guy to post of the "Future Soldiers of America" float with all of the little black kids, but I couldn't find one...
:(
Quote from: Tyr on September 24, 2009, 09:12:07 AMI'm unsure about the Polish military but certainly if you swap the Polish military for the French, German or British one and it'd be a close fight with the advantage likely being against the Russians.
As long as there are no nukes involved, it wouldn't be close. The Western European countries are vastly more productive, have more manpower, would rule the seas etc.
Quote from: Zanza on September 24, 2009, 11:18:03 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 24, 2009, 09:12:07 AMI'm unsure about the Polish military but certainly if you swap the Polish military for the French, German or British one and it'd be a close fight with the advantage likely being against the Russians.
As long as there are no nukes involved, it wouldn't be close. The Western European countries are vastly more productive, have more manpower, would rule the seas etc.
Nah, the Russian army is BIG. They've thousands of tanks- not all in great condition but a few thousand of them are. Their air force is similiarly huge. Navies wouldn't really come into play in a theoretical only Poland defence.
Quote from: Tyr on September 24, 2009, 12:04:32 PM
Nah, the Russian army is BIG. They've thousands of tanks- not all in great condition but a few thousand of them are. It'd be hard but eventually the western air force would win out.
meh, it's easier to blow up fuel trucks than tanks.
No number of tanks will do you any good when you cannot get them supplies or fuel.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 12:06:11 PM
No number of tanks will do you any good when you cannot get them supplies or fuel.
Russia is certainly an oil exporter though. I don't know their refining capacity.
And don't forget that the Russians would immiately turn off the gas pipes to western europe in the event of hostilities.
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2009, 12:12:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 12:06:11 PM
No number of tanks will do you any good when you cannot get them supplies or fuel.
Russia is certainly an oil exporter though. I don't know their refining capacity.
And don't forget that the Russians would immiately turn off the gas pipes to western europe in the event of hostilities.
In teory we would have 90 days of Gas. That means we would need 90 days to break the Russians
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 12:06:11 PM
No number of tanks will do you any good when you cannot get them supplies or fuel.
And how can't they do that?
Their airforce is nothing to sniff at either, you can't fly around with impunity blowing up their lorries.
Quote from: Tyr on September 24, 2009, 12:04:32 PM
Nah, the Russian army is BIG. They've thousands of tanks- not all in great condition but a few thousand of them are. Their air force is similiarly huge. Navies wouldn't really come into play in a theoretical only Poland defence.
Hah! I'll bet that the armies of Western Europe could be in Moscow before the winter!! :unsure:
No American blood for European's oil.
Quote from: Tyr on September 24, 2009, 12:22:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 12:06:11 PM
No number of tanks will do you any good when you cannot get them supplies or fuel.
And how can't they do that?
Their airforce is nothing to sniff at either, you can't fly around with impunity blowing up their lorries.
Not with impunity, but with enough freedom that the Western superiority in precision standoff weapons would make moving around rather difficult.
Russia today would be crushed by Germany or France in a defensive war.
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2009, 12:12:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 12:06:11 PM
No number of tanks will do you any good when you cannot get them supplies or fuel.
Russia is certainly an oil exporter though. I don't know their refining capacity.
All the gas in the world does them no good unless they can get it to the front lines.
Quote
And don't forget that the Russians would immiately turn off the gas pipes to western europe in the event of hostilities.
So? They have lots of other sources for fuel in a wartime situation.
Quote from: I Killed Kenny on September 24, 2009, 12:21:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2009, 12:12:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 12:06:11 PM
No number of tanks will do you any good when you cannot get them supplies or fuel.
Russia is certainly an oil exporter though. I don't know their refining capacity.
And don't forget that the Russians would immiately turn off the gas pipes to western europe in the event of hostilities.
In teory we would have 90 days of Gas. That means we would need 90 days to break the Russians
No, Norway has 90 days to jack up the price of north sea natural gas, Sweden has 90 days to make 150 million axeheads to export to central europe for chopping wood, Finland has 90 days to start a peat bog export business and Denmark has 90 days to arrange for transport.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 12:30:48 PM
So? They have lots of other sources for fuel in a wartime situation.
Not really, and none that could be implemented in 90 days.
Realistically, they'd have 90 days to introduce strict rationing of natural gas.
Quote from: Barrister on September 24, 2009, 12:35:45 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 12:30:48 PM
So? They have lots of other sources for fuel in a wartime situation.
Not really, and none that could be implemented in 90 days.
Realistically, they'd have 90 days to introduce strict rationing of natural gas.
90 days in winter or in summer?
And I disagree - in a wartime situation, I think you would be rather surprised on both how long you can make the reserves last (like you said, rationing would start immediately), and how fast you can come up with alternatives when needed.
And natural gas is hardly the only kind of fuel out there. It might be what they predominately use now because it is cheap, but there are other alternatives.
I bet that 90 day supply estimate is based on peak consumer consumption.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 12:29:48 PM
Not with impunity, but with enough freedom that the Western superiority in precision standoff weapons would make moving around rather difficult.
Russia today would be crushed by Germany or France in a defensive war.
Western superiority- yeah, sure. NATO vs. Russia its just a question of how much it'll cost and how many will die. NATO can win easily. Perhaps it could even put up a good fight without troops on the ground.
But a single western European nation? I don't think we have such great stocks of cruise missiles.
Which of course calls for a super ninja SAS-wankathon.
I do think that Germany, France or Britain would win but it would be very hard going.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 12:37:49 PM
90 days in winter or in summer?
And I disagree - in a wartime situation, I think you would be rather surprised on both how long you can make the reserves last (like you said, rationing would start immediately), and how fast you can come up with alternatives when needed.
And natural gas is hardly the only kind of fuel out there. It might be what they predominately use now because it is cheap, but there are other alternatives.
I bet that 90 day supply estimate is based on peak consumer consumption.
So you're not actually disagreeing with me then. It's not so much a factor of finding alternate supplies, but of rationing supplies so they can last much longer.
And I don't know about the 90 days. I was taking that solely from IKK's and Viking's comments.
Quote from: Berkut on September 24, 2009, 12:29:48 PM
Russia today would be crushed by Germany or France in a defensive war.
Maybe if the Germans would leave their barracks.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 24, 2009, 12:52:45 PM
Maybe if the Germans would leave their barracks.
I wonder if Germany was invaded if there would still be people protesting the war.
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2009, 01:38:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 24, 2009, 12:52:45 PM
Maybe if the Germans would leave their barracks.
I wonder if Germany was invaded if there would still be people protesting the war.
There was last time.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 24, 2009, 09:09:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2009, 08:39:07 AM
Population of the Russian Federaton: 142 million
Population of the United States: 307 million
Our human waves > their human waves.
Except we're not willing to use human waves
That was before Obama. Now we have ACORN suicide squads.
Quote from: citizen k on September 24, 2009, 02:19:24 PM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 24, 2009, 09:09:27 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 24, 2009, 08:39:07 AM
Population of the Russian Federaton: 142 million
Population of the United States: 307 million
Our human waves > their human waves.
Except we're not willing to use human waves
That was before Obama. Now we have ACORN suicide squads.
And the white pimp shall lead them.
The EU gets about 25% of it's gas from Russia IIRC. If it came to a proper war then this is merely a minor inconvenience, wearing an extra layer, that sort of thing.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 12:31:38 PM
No, Norway has 90 days to jack up the price of north sea natural gas, Sweden has 90 days to make 150 million axeheads to export to central europe for chopping wood, Finland has 90 days to start a peat bog export business and Denmark has 90 days to arrange for transport.
No, because all those places will be occupied by the Russians.
Quote from: Neil on September 24, 2009, 06:14:18 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 12:31:38 PM
No, Norway has 90 days to jack up the price of north sea natural gas, Sweden has 90 days to make 150 million axeheads to export to central europe for chopping wood, Finland has 90 days to start a peat bog export business and Denmark has 90 days to arrange for transport.
No, because all those places will be occupied by the Russians.
Show me a Soviet, eh Russian Motor Rifle Division which can advance 100 kilometers and I'll care.
Quote from: Tyr on September 24, 2009, 12:48:02 PM
I do think that Germany, France or Britain would win but it would be very hard going.
I don't. Numbers have a magic all of their own. And I would not be surprised to find that the Russians were still maintaining a vast reserve of mothballed obsolete tanks and other weapons, the same way the Soviets did. Once Britain, France or Germany had run through their stockpiles of "precision weapons" I doubt wartime production could come remotely close to the required expenditure to stop the Russians.
I believe the 19th motor Rifle division advanced about 100 KM last year through South Ossetia and into Georgia.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 24, 2009, 06:36:20 PM
I believe the 19th motor Rifle division advanced about 100 KM last year through South Ossetia and into Georgia.
Ok, so now they have reached the Norwegian Border. Another 100 km later they will have reached the second village.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 06:18:01 PM
Show me a Soviet, eh Russian Motor Rifle Division which can advance 100 kilometers and I'll care.
Show me a Norwegian government that wouldn't immediately surrender.
Quote from: Neil on September 24, 2009, 06:54:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 06:18:01 PM
Show me a Soviet, eh Russian Motor Rifle Division which can advance 100 kilometers and I'll care.
Show me a Norwegian government that wouldn't immediately surrender.
Good point. I concede on the issue.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 06:55:58 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 24, 2009, 06:54:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 06:18:01 PM
Show me a Soviet, eh Russian Motor Rifle Division which can advance 100 kilometers and I'll care.
Show me a Norwegian government that wouldn't immediately surrender.
Good point. I concede on the issue.
Question: Has the Norwegian attitude towards Russia deteriorated or improved since the collapse of communism?
Quote from: Neil on September 24, 2009, 07:14:11 PM
Question: Has the Norwegian attitude towards Russia deteriorated or improved since the collapse of communism?
Now Norway can legitimately hate Russia since they no longer have ideological reason to oppress their own people. I suspect you approve.
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 07:47:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 24, 2009, 07:14:11 PM
Question: Has the Norwegian attitude towards Russia deteriorated or improved since the collapse of communism?
Now Norway can legitimately hate Russia since they no longer have ideological reason to oppress their own people. I suspect you approve.
While I approve of the hatred of Russia, I have a hard time looking upon peoples who are soft on leftism with anything but contempt.
Quote from: Neil on September 24, 2009, 09:13:14 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 24, 2009, 07:47:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 24, 2009, 07:14:11 PM
Question: Has the Norwegian attitude towards Russia deteriorated or improved since the collapse of communism?
Now Norway can legitimately hate Russia since they no longer have ideological reason to oppress their own people. I suspect you approve.
While I approve of the hatred of Russia, I have a hard time looking upon peoples who are soft on leftism with anything but contempt.
Norwegians are leftists and do not hate themselves. I do my best to change that.
It turns out that Zapad2009 is only part of the military exercises going on around Russia's borders. Onega2009 is happening on the Norwegian border near. In effect it seems to be exercising the transport of a para brigade from Yekaterinburg to Petsamo (it's not called Petchenga you Russian Imperialist scum) and manoeuvres by the Russian Atlantic Fleet.
Which is actually worrying because Norway rarely has more than 3-5 F-16s operational (out of a total of 48) at any time.
Cold War style sabre rattling. :wub:
Quote from: Syt on September 25, 2009, 05:38:31 AM
Cold War style sabre rattling. :wub:
Makes the "peace dividend" look even more like nonsense than it did then, doesn't it...
I understand that Russia's nuclear second-strike capabilities are still in a shitty state, is this correct? Would a preemptive strike be worthwile?
France is 90% nuclear and could export energy if needed.
In a fight-to-the-death-total-war scenario, France and England would blow the russian airforce out of the sky within a week.
I don't see why we'd lift a finger for Poland though.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 10:35:44 PM
France is 90% nuclear and could export energy if needed.
In a fight-to-the-death-total-war scenario, France and England would blow the russian airforce out of the sky within a week.
I don't see why we'd lift a finger for Poland though.
Because they're in the EU and in NATO?
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 10:35:44 PM
France is 90% nuclear and could export energy if needed.
In a fight-to-the-death-total-war scenario, France and England would blow the russian airforce out of the sky within a week.
I don't see why we'd lift a finger for Poland though.
I agree - you didn't do anything in 1939, so why change now?
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2009, 11:05:19 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 10:35:44 PM
France is 90% nuclear and could export energy if needed.
In a fight-to-the-death-total-war scenario, France and England would blow the russian airforce out of the sky within a week.
I don't see why we'd lift a finger for Poland though.
I agree - you didn't do anything in 1939, so why change now?
We didn't? :huh:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 25, 2009, 10:50:57 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 10:35:44 PM
France is 90% nuclear and could export energy if needed.
In a fight-to-the-death-total-war scenario, France and England would blow the russian airforce out of the sky within a week.
I don't see why we'd lift a finger for Poland though.
Because they're in the EU and in NATO?
It was just a jab at Martinus' paranoia.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 11:26:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2009, 11:05:19 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 10:35:44 PM
France is 90% nuclear and could export energy if needed.
In a fight-to-the-death-total-war scenario, France and England would blow the russian airforce out of the sky within a week.
I don't see why we'd lift a finger for Poland though.
I agree - you didn't do anything in 1939, so why change now?
We didn't? :huh:
It was all the Austrian's fault. :shifty:
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 11:26:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2009, 11:05:19 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 10:35:44 PM
France is 90% nuclear and could export energy if needed.
In a fight-to-the-death-total-war scenario, France and England would blow the russian airforce out of the sky within a week.
I don't see why we'd lift a finger for Poland though.
I agree - you didn't do anything in 1939, so why change now?
We didn't? :huh:
Sorry, I saw a chance to make an anti-French quip and I took it. :blush:
But no, it's not like France (or Britain) did a hell of a lot during the 1939-1940 period to help poor Poland.
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2009, 01:21:18 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 11:26:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2009, 11:05:19 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 10:35:44 PM
France is 90% nuclear and could export energy if needed.
In a fight-to-the-death-total-war scenario, France and England would blow the russian airforce out of the sky within a week.
I don't see why we'd lift a finger for Poland though.
I agree - you didn't do anything in 1939, so why change now?
We didn't? :huh:
Sorry, I saw a chance to make an anti-French quip and I took it. :blush:
But no, it's not like France (or Britain) did a hell of a lot during the 1939-1940 period to help poor Poland.
To be honest, France and England didn't expect Poland to reach debellatio within 3 weeks.
On paper, the Poles had an Army strong enough to reasonanly expect it to withhold the Germans at least until Winter, which would have given time to the French and English to organise their first offensive.
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2009, 01:21:18 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 11:26:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2009, 11:05:19 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 10:35:44 PM
France is 90% nuclear and could export energy if needed.
In a fight-to-the-death-total-war scenario, France and England would blow the russian airforce out of the sky within a week.
I don't see why we'd lift a finger for Poland though.
I agree - you didn't do anything in 1939, so why change now?
We didn't? :huh:
Sorry, I saw a chance to make an anti-French quip and I took it. :blush:
But no, it's not like France (or Britain) did a hell of a lot during the 1939-1940 period to help poor Poland.
Well, since when is going to war for nearly 6 years nothing? Must have missed the memo
Quote from: Drakken on September 26, 2009, 02:03:38 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 26, 2009, 01:21:18 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 11:26:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 25, 2009, 11:05:19 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 10:35:44 PM
France is 90% nuclear and could export energy if needed.
In a fight-to-the-death-total-war scenario, France and England would blow the russian airforce out of the sky within a week.
I don't see why we'd lift a finger for Poland though.
I agree - you didn't do anything in 1939, so why change now?
We didn't? :huh:
Sorry, I saw a chance to make an anti-French quip and I took it. :blush:
But no, it's not like France (or Britain) did a hell of a lot during the 1939-1940 period to help poor Poland.
To be honest, France and England didn't expect Poland to reach debellatio within 3 weeks.
On paper, the Poles had an Army strong enough to reasonanly expect it to withhold the Germans at least until Winter, which would have given time to the French and English to organise their first offensive.
Well, I guess that "paper" you speak of didn't mention having to deal with the second invasion from the Soviets.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 26, 2009, 02:17:49 AM
Well, since when is going to war for nearly 6 years nothing? Must have missed the memo
Wow, you are really serious, aren't you? What were the military operations that France undertook against Germany before it itself got invaded by the nazis? :lol:
France "went to war for nearly 6 years" because it got completely overrun, not because it was desperate to help Poland.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 10:35:44 PM
In a fight-to-the-death-total-war scenario, France and England would blow the russian airforce out of the sky within a week.
Is this the general consensus on that match up?
How big are the Anglo-French militarizes?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 26, 2009, 03:57:12 AM
How big are the Anglo-French militarizes?
UK 112,000 men 446 tanks
France 134,000 men 400 tanks
Poland 76,000 men 994 tanks
Germany 200,500 men 2350 tanks
Russia 395,000 men 6500 tanks
so even at half strength, we win.
Quote from: Martinus on September 26, 2009, 03:02:06 AM
France "went to war for nearly 6 years" because it got completely overrun, not because it was desperate to help Poland.
France was overrun in 1939?
They weren't big on teaching history in the Soviet bloc, were they?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 26, 2009, 03:22:15 AM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 25, 2009, 10:35:44 PM
In a fight-to-the-death-total-war scenario, France and England would blow the russian airforce out of the sky within a week.
Is this the general consensus on that match up?
No.
I do not share the blind optimism in the superiority of Western aircraft based on performances against powers such as Iraq; export versions of Soviet equipment were normally not as good as the models operated by the VVS.
Fighter strength (as example.) Figures from Wikipedia, presumably reasonably up-to-date.
Russia - 823 (MIG-29SM, MIG-31M, SU-27-SM, SU-30M, SU-35 with at least a further 150 of these modern types in training or reserve)
Germany 319 (including 65 old F4 Phantoms; the majority of the rest are Tornado IDS models.)
France 181 (AD Mirage 2000 and Rafale-B and C multi-role. Presumably some of the other Mirage 2000 types could be used in a pinch.)
UK 94 (Tornado and Eurofighter specifically listed as fighter/Air defence. Presumably, in an all out war, the Eurofighter Trainers, Harrier GR7s and Hawks could be deployed.)
The moral of the above is that as of now, 2009, thanks to the "peace dividend", the Russian airforce has, on paper, superiority over the British, French and German airforces. At the moment, for example, Germany is reliant on Tornados for the bulk of its air defence, and the fighter version of the Tornado has never been particularly highly regarded.
Once the Eurofighter enters service in great numbers, then the situation will be transformed.
Quote from: Viking on September 26, 2009, 05:10:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 26, 2009, 03:57:12 AM
How big are the Anglo-French militarizes?
UK 112,000 men 446 tanks
France 134,000 men 400 tanks
Poland 76,000 men 994 tanks
Germany 200,500 men 2350 tanks
Russia 395,000 men 6500 tanks
so even at half strength, we win.
Wait which side are you on?
Quote from: Viking on September 26, 2009, 05:10:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 26, 2009, 03:57:12 AM
How big are the Anglo-French militarizes?
UK 112,000 men 446 tanks
France 134,000 men 400 tanks
Poland 76,000 men 994 tanks
Germany 200,500 men 2350 tanks
Russia 395,000 men 6500 tanks
so even at half strength, we win.
Quality>Quantity.
Give me one real soldier over five forced conscripts anyday.
QuoteMakes the "peace dividend" look even more like nonsense than it did then, doesn't it...
In internet national-penis comparison scenarios; yeah, its silly and shameful.
In the real world though; the Irish military FTW.
Quote from: Neil on September 26, 2009, 05:44:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 26, 2009, 03:02:06 AM
France "went to war for nearly 6 years" because it got completely overrun, not because it was desperate to help Poland.
France was overrun in 1939?
They weren't big on teaching history in the Soviet bloc, were they?
God, you are dense. That is my point. France did not join military operations until it was attacked, almost a year after it "joined the war" by declaring war on the nazis and then doing nothing. Then it got overrun.
Quote from: Tyr on September 26, 2009, 07:32:43 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 26, 2009, 05:10:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 26, 2009, 03:57:12 AM
How big are the Anglo-French militarizes?
UK 112,000 men 446 tanks
France 134,000 men 400 tanks
Poland 76,000 men 994 tanks
Germany 200,500 men 2350 tanks
Russia 395,000 men 6500 tanks
so even at half strength, we win.
Quality>Quantity.
Give me one real soldier over five forced conscripts anyday.
QuoteMakes the "peace dividend" look even more like nonsense than it did then, doesn't it...
In internet national-penis comparison scenarios; yeah, its silly and shameful.
In the real world though; the Irish military FTW.
Poland has forced conscripts too. :P
Quote from: Martinus on September 26, 2009, 07:44:50 AM
God, you are dense. That is my point. France did not join military operations until it was attacked, almost a year after it "joined the war" by declaring war on the nazis and then doing nothing. Then it got overrun.
Obviously Soviet-era education never taught you guys about the Saar offensive in September 1939.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 26, 2009, 05:50:30 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 26, 2009, 05:10:05 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 26, 2009, 03:57:12 AM
How big are the Anglo-French militarizes?
UK 112,000 men 446 tanks
France 134,000 men 400 tanks
Poland 76,000 men 994 tanks
Germany 200,500 men 2350 tanks
Russia 395,000 men 6500 tanks
so even at half strength, we win.
Wait which side are you on?
The one shooting at the russians.
Quote from: Tyr on September 26, 2009, 07:32:43 AM
QuoteMakes the "peace dividend" look even more like nonsense than it did then, doesn't it...
In internet national-penis comparison scenarios; yeah, its silly and shameful.
In the real world though; the Irish military FTW.
I must confess that I have read this five times, rechecked the thread for where I made the original post twice, and I still haven't really got a clue what you are saying here. :huh:
Quote from: Tyr on September 24, 2009, 12:04:32 PM
Nah, the Russian army is BIG. They've thousands of tanks- not all in great condition but a few thousand of them are. Their air force is similiarly huge. Navies wouldn't really come into play in a theoretical only Poland defence.
IIRC the Russians have bought six fighter aircraft since the fall of the USSR. Not six models. Six airframes. Survey says Russian Air Force is absolute third-world shit.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 24, 2009, 06:36:20 PM
I believe the 19th motor Rifle division advanced about 100 KM last year through South Ossetia and into Georgia.
100 km in a year? Color me unimpressed.
QuoteIIRC the Russians have bought six fighter aircraft since the fall of the USSR. Not six models. Six airframes. Survey says Russian Air Force is absolute third-world shit.
Where'd you hear this? I've never read ought that bad.
But anyway.
Third world= 30 shitty old soviet aircraft.
Russia=3000 shitty old soviet aircraft (probally OTT, can't be arsed to check the real number but it is crazy,1000+)
Modern western fighters can only carry so many missiles. They probally will win out but it will not be easy going.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 26, 2009, 04:51:55 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 26, 2009, 07:32:43 AM
QuoteMakes the "peace dividend" look even more like nonsense than it did then, doesn't it...
In internet national-penis comparison scenarios; yeah, its silly and shameful.
In the real world though; the Irish military FTW.
I must confess that I have read this five times, rechecked the thread for where I made the original post twice, and I still haven't really got a clue what you are saying here. :huh:
Peace dividend= nonsense in these internet 'my country is better than yours' pissing contests.
In real world terms though- if you can get away with a military like that of Ireland (i.e. pretty much nought) then all the better for you.
Fuck the Russians, all I care about is the asshole who kept me from achieving threesome fun tonight. Feeling a pseduo-Jessica Alba's vagina for half an hour, while enjoyable in itself, still isn't half as nice as actually having sex with her. Fuck that guy with his Goddamn sob stories and lack of cooperation.
Also, I presume the new RKKA will destroy you Euros, because you're a conglomerate of pusses.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2009, 06:17:44 AM
Fuck the Russians, all I care about is the asshole who kept me from achieving threesome fun tonight. Feeling a pseduo-Jessica Alba's vagina for half an hour, while enjoyable in itself, still isn't half as nice as actually having sex with her. Fuck that guy with his Goddamn sob stories and lack of cooperation.
Also, I presume the new RKKA will destroy you Euros, because you're a conglomerate of pusses.
Hello, more interesting subject.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2009, 06:17:44 AM
Feeling a pseduo-Jessica Alba's vagina for half an hour,
More details plz.
Don't know, Korea was really drunk last night.
Sorry, didn't want a start a whole new thread complaining about it, but needed to vent and was too distracted to look for the OTT. : / The promised land remains elusive, although we've got the chick's number. :shifty: She's actually pretty cool (for reasons beyond the obvious), and I think Korea, she, and I would hang out regardless. Plus, she called me handsome, which is always nice. :wub:
Quote from: Tyr on September 26, 2009, 09:36:09 PM
Peace dividend= nonsense in these internet 'my country is better than yours' pissing contests.
I think you are agreeing with me that the increase in security that was used to justify the "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War was purely an illusion born out of an overly simplistic world view, and that we are paying now for the misplaced ideals of the politicians of 20 years ago.
Quote from: Tyr on September 26, 2009, 09:36:09 PM
In real world terms though- if you can get away with a military like that of Ireland (i.e. pretty much nought) then all the better for you.
Unfortunately, most countries aren't as secure as Ireland is due to accidents of history and geography.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2009, 04:46:12 PM
Sorry, didn't want a start a whole new thread complaining about it, but needed to vent and was too distracted to look for the OTT. : / The promised land remains elusive, although we've got the chick's number. :shifty: She's actually pretty cool (for reasons beyond the obvious), and I think Korea, she, and I would hang out regardless. Plus, she called me handsome, which is always nice. :wub:
So, was this going to be a MFF one (cool) or an MMF one (EWW!)?
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 07:14:50 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2009, 06:17:44 AM
Fuck the Russians, all I care about is the asshole who kept me from achieving threesome fun tonight. Feeling a pseduo-Jessica Alba's vagina for half an hour, while enjoyable in itself, still isn't half as nice as actually having sex with her. Fuck that guy with his Goddamn sob stories and lack of cooperation.
Also, I presume the new RKKA will destroy you Euros, because you're a conglomerate of pusses.
Hello, more interesting subject.
:perv:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 04:55:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2009, 04:46:12 PM
Sorry, didn't want a start a whole new thread complaining about it, but needed to vent and was too distracted to look for the OTT. : / The promised land remains elusive, although we've got the chick's number. :shifty: She's actually pretty cool (for reasons beyond the obvious), and I think Korea, she, and I would hang out regardless. Plus, she called me handsome, which is always nice. :wub:
So, was this going to be a MFF one (cool) or an MMF one (EWW!)?
MMMMFF
Quote from: Korea on September 27, 2009, 05:00:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 04:55:16 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2009, 04:46:12 PM
Sorry, didn't want a start a whole new thread complaining about it, but needed to vent and was too distracted to look for the OTT. : / The promised land remains elusive, although we've got the chick's number. :shifty: She's actually pretty cool (for reasons beyond the obvious), and I think Korea, she, and I would hang out regardless. Plus, she called me handsome, which is always nice. :wub:
So, was this going to be a MFF one (cool) or an MMF one (EWW!)?
MMMMFF
WTF? I hope there is at least one extra M in there.
DP's for everybody!
Quote from: Armyknife on September 27, 2009, 05:04:19 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 05:02:12 PM
Quote from: Korea on September 27, 2009, 05:00:18 PM
MMMMFF
I want to vomit.
google it and see what you get. :ph34r:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/camera_dave/3067867467/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/camera_dave/3067867467/)
Sigh.
Quote from: Armyknife on September 27, 2009, 04:54:52 PM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:47:50 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 26, 2009, 09:36:09 PM
Peace dividend= nonsense in these internet 'my country is better than yours' pissing contests.
I think you are agreeing with me that the increase in security that was used to justify the "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War was purely an illusion born out of an overly simplistic world view, and that we are paying now for the misplaced ideals of the politicians of 20 years ago.
Quote from: Tyr on September 26, 2009, 09:36:09 PM
In real world terms though- if you can get away with a military like that of Ireland (i.e. pretty much nought) then all the better for you.
Unfortunately, most countries aren't as secure as Ireland is due to accidents of history and geography.
Do you mind not spamming the thread up. :P
I'll post what I like related to the discussion of the thread topic... :P
I have no real interest in what it has evolved into...I'm supposed to be a nerd, remember? :lol:
Sorry for thread hijacking. I will leave now.
I am a firm believer that more than one dick spoils any party.
Quote from: Korea on September 27, 2009, 05:11:52 PM
Sorry for thread hijacking. I will leave now.
Women are never at fault in a thread hijacking, as in real life; please do not construe my post as any form of criticism of your good self.
Quote from: PDH on September 27, 2009, 05:12:34 PM
I am a firm believer that more than one dick spoils any party.
You are correct sir.
Ed's Rule: 1 penis per room. If in MFF threesome, the women using a strap-on each other or dildos do not count.
As noted, though, the last M probably doesn't count.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 05:16:09 PM
Quote from: Korea on September 27, 2009, 05:11:52 PM
Sorry for thread hijacking. I will leave now.
Women are never at fault in a thread hijacking, as in real life; please do not construe my post as any form of criticism of your good self.
:hug:
Tim: Pervert
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 05:17:40 PM
Quote from: Korea on September 27, 2009, 05:10:43 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 05:02:12 PM
Quote from: Korea on September 27, 2009, 05:00:18 PM
MMMMFF
I want to vomit.
Actually more like MF in one room and MMMF in the other.
egads, sloppy thirds.
I don't think I would have actually fucked any of them though. I think we were more just fooling around and having sexy drunken fun.
I would've. :goodboy:
Well, actually probably not, because afaik I don't have any condoms around here. I was in likelihood going to max out at oral. I much enjoy fellatio from two chicks at once.
As for the gender makeup, if one of the Ms hadn't foolishly pissed his girlfriend off, we'd have had more balance and, indeed, I think things would have run more smoothly.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2009, 05:36:13 PM
As for the gender makeup, if one of the Ms hadn't foolishly pissed his girlfriend off, we'd have had more balance and, indeed, I think things would have run more smoothly.
getting Korea's unattached friends would be easier. Just sayin'. :whistle:
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 05:39:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2009, 05:36:13 PM
As for the gender makeup, if one of the Ms hadn't foolishly pissed his girlfriend off, we'd have had more balance and, indeed, I think things would have run more smoothly.
getting Korea's unattached friends would be easier. Just sayin'. :whistle:
With kids these days, it's all easy.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on September 27, 2009, 05:30:35 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 27, 2009, 05:03:19 PM
Quote from: Korea on September 27, 2009, 05:00:18 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 04:55:16 PM
So, was this going to be a MFF one (cool) or an MMF one (EWW!)?
MMMMFF
WTF? I hope there is at least one extra M in there.
You were hoping for a MMMMMFF?
I meant I hope she hit M at least one more time than she meant to, so MMMFF or MMFF.
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2009, 05:42:05 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 27, 2009, 05:39:31 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2009, 05:36:13 PM
As for the gender makeup, if one of the Ms hadn't foolishly pissed his girlfriend off, we'd have had more balance and, indeed, I think things would have run more smoothly.
getting Korea's unattached friends would be easier. Just sayin'. :whistle:
With kids these days, it's all easy.
All I had to do was treat my wife's (then gf) friend decently and wham bam, thank you ma'am.
God, easy 23 year old pussy. Those were the days.
Glad to see some members are making it a point to bring that hint of trash to the forum. :)
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2009, 05:48:33 PM
Glad to see some members are making it a point to bring that hint of trash to the forum. :)
And yet it's less irritating than any mention whatsoever of homosexuality.
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2009, 05:50:00 PM
And yet it's less irritating than any mention whatsoever of homosexuality.
Who said anything about being irritated?
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2009, 05:55:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2009, 05:50:00 PM
And yet it's less irritating than any mention whatsoever of homosexuality.
Who said anything about being irritated?
I did. Can't you read? Are you retarded?
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2009, 06:02:37 PM
I did. Can't you read? Are you retarded?
Your comment was rather apropos of nothing.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 04:47:50 PM
I think you are agreeing with me that the increase in security that was used to justify the "peace dividend" at the end of the Cold War was purely an illusion born out of an overly simplistic world view, and that we are paying now for the misplaced ideals of the politicians of 20 years ago.
Nope, the total opposite.
In internet pissing contests you do of course want your country to have wasted billions on all sorts of flashy military equipment its never going to use.
Internet pissing contests are not a valid argument for government spending however.
Quote
Unfortunately, most countries aren't as secure as Ireland is due to accidents of history and geography.
Very iffy.
Countrys just generally don't attack each other these days, Russia is one of the few exceptions of a country which could possibly do that.
And with the way the world works who cares if your neighbour invades and overruns you- the UN will bitch about it and the US will come swooping in to throw out your attacker.
I could well imagine some western European countries doing away with all but a token military quite easily (again ignoring economic effects and all that)
But anyway. My point there was 'if you can get away with it'. i.e. the less you can actually have in practical real world terms the better.
Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2009, 06:37:05 PM
Nope, the total opposite.
In internet pissing contests you do of course want your country to have wasted billions on all sorts of flashy military equipment its never going to use.
Internet pissing contests are not a valid argument for government spending however.
I believe you could quite legitimately argue that your comment is invalid for the UK, given the history of the last two decades. Nor does it invalidate the fact that the world was not made significantly safer by the end of the Cold War, despite the rush for savings carried out by all western Democracies. What should have happened was a redirection of resources (less MBTs, more transport capacity etc.) not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2009, 06:37:05 PM
Very iffy.
Countrys just generally don't attack each other these days, Russia is one of the few exceptions of a country which could possibly do that.
And with the way the world works who cares if your neighbour invades and overruns you- the UN will bitch about it and the US will come swooping in to throw out your attacker.
I could well imagine some western European countries doing away with all but a token military quite easily (again ignoring economic effects and all that)
But anyway. My point there was 'if you can get away with it'. i.e. the less you can actually have in practical real world terms the better.
And when the "real world" comes a calling, who do you complain to? :lmfao:
You strike me as a hopeless optimist - yes, near neighbours in Europe are less likely to attack each other than ever before. This does not mean that only one or two nations in the world are likely to wage war - I can think of a dozen candidates off the top of my head.
And as for relying on the Americans, as an example they don't seem to be very interested in sub-Saharan Africa, where several invasions have happened in the last few years. The Western Powers don't even really notice them.
Incidentally, since viable defence industries really need a decent home market to develop in, I have to say that the Armed Forces have been fairly economically beneficial to the UK over the years, so I can't really agree with the "less you have the better" argument.
Quote from: garbon on September 27, 2009, 06:04:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 27, 2009, 06:02:37 PM
I did. Can't you read? Are you retarded?
Your comment was rather apropos of nothing.
Nevertheless, it was mine, and thus excellent.
Swingers. :x
Strange that Korea accused me of thinking all adults should be sluts...
She seems to be taking that idea to heart. :D
:blush:
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 07:05:50 PM
I believe you could quite legitimately argue that your comment is invalid for the UK, given the history of the last two decades. Nor does it invalidate the fact that the world was not made significantly safer by the end of the Cold War, despite the rush for savings carried out by all western Democracies. What should have happened was a redirection of resources (less MBTs, more transport capacity etc.) not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Britain is one of the nations which really needs a military yes- if at least because we'd lose our security council seat without it.
And the world certainly has gotten safer since the end of the cold war. This war on terror stuff is a joke compared to a real war.
Or are you referring to Russia still being the bad guy? True there but they're not quite so bad as the soviets were- they're ruled by buisnessmen and any move against the west would ruin their economy before a shot is even fired. Also of course they're smaller, have no decent allies of note and their military is a shambles.
Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2009, 06:37:05 PM
And when the "real world" comes a calling, who do you complain to? :lmfao:
On the rare occasion it does; the UN.
Their track record for getting other nations to handle cross border invasions is very good.
Quote
You strike me as a hopeless optimist - yes, near neighbours in Europe are less likely to attack each other than ever before. This does not mean that only one or two nations in the world are likely to wage war - I can think of a dozen candidates off the top of my head.
I'm a realist, not a optimist. The world just doesn't work like a strategy game. Britain could invade and overrun Ireland in five minutes....but that's stupid. There's no way they're ever going to do that.
QuoteAnd as for relying on the Americans, as an example they don't seem to be very interested in sub-Saharan Africa, where several invasions have happened in the last few years. The Western Powers don't even really notice them.
We're not speaking about Africa though, I specifically said western Europe.
Nations in Africa work by completely different rules to the rest of the world.
But nonetheless actual foreign invasions remain rare there. Its far far more internal rebels and the like that make Africa a shit hole. I really struggle to think of any actual invasions in the last few years barring Ethopian involvment in Somalia and Eritrea's little local squabbles.
Quote
Incidentally, since viable defence industries really need a decent home market to develop in, I have to say that the Armed Forces have been fairly economically beneficial to the UK over the years, so I can't really agree with the "less you have the better" argument.
Yes, see the mention of economic effects.
I'd still doubt though that Britain makes a net profit out of military stuff, foreign sales help recoup some costs but not much.
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 09:35:36 AM
Quote from: Agelastus on September 27, 2009, 07:05:50 PM
I believe you could quite legitimately argue that your comment is invalid for the UK, given the history of the last two decades. Nor does it invalidate the fact that the world was not made significantly safer by the end of the Cold War, despite the rush for savings carried out by all western Democracies. What should have happened was a redirection of resources (less MBTs, more transport capacity etc.) not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Britain is one of the nations which really needs a military yes- if at least because we'd lose our security council seat without it.
And the world certainly has gotten safer since the end of the cold war. This war on terror stuff is a joke compared to a real war.
Vehemently disagree, the world is far more unstable and dangerous with the end of the cold war.
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 09:35:36 AM
On the rare occasion it does; the UN.
Their track record for getting other nations to handle cross border invasions is very good.
You must be joking.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:37:25 AM
Vehemently disagree, the world is far more unstable and dangerous with the end of the cold war.
That's not true.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 28, 2009, 10:54:37 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:37:25 AM
Vehemently disagree, the world is far more unstable and dangerous with the end of the cold war.
That's not true.
Don't you think he would know better than you whether he disagrees? Or are you questioning the vehemence of said disagreement?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 28, 2009, 09:37:25 AM
the world is far more unstable and dangerous with the end of the cold war.
:blink:
Definitely less dangerous, but a strong case could be made for more unstable.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 27, 2009, 09:13:13 PM
Quote from: Alcibiades on September 27, 2009, 08:51:08 PM
Swingers. :x
I thought it was a pretty good movie.
The answering machine scene always annoys me. Yet, its genius always impresses me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 11:29:24 AM
Definitely less dangerous, but a strong case could be made for more unstable.
More dangerous in some parts of the world (though less so for the civilized world). Definitely less stable.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 10:36:43 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 09:35:36 AM
On the rare occasion it does; the UN.
Their track record for getting other nations to handle cross border invasions is very good.
You must be joking.
No.
How?
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 12:45:04 PM
No.
How?
When did the UN get anyone to do anything? The only reason the US led coalition in Korea had UN sanction is because the Russkies were off pouting. There have been plenty of cross-boarder invasions the UN has done Jack Shit about--Suez 56, Israel 67, Israel 73, India-Pakistan 1.0 & 2.0, India-China, China-Vietnam, Hungary 56, Czechoslovakia 68, South Vietnam-North Vietnam 76 (?), Iran-Iraq, Falklands, there are probably others.
The one great shining example of UN authorized force is Iraq-Kuwait. So let me ask you again: who did the UN convince to take part? Not the Egyptians, who had to be bribed with loan foregiveness from the US. Not the Syrians, who had to be bought off with a free hand in Lebanon. Not the Gulf states, who were fighting for survival. If you want to claim a Danish minesweeper and a Norwegian hospital ship, fine.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 12:58:15 PM
When did the UN get anyone to do anything? The only reason the US led coalition in Korea had UN sanction is because the Russkies were off pouting. There have been plenty of cross-boarder invasions the UN has done Jack Shit about--
Suez 56, Israel 67, Israel 73, India-Pakistan 1.0 & 2.0, India-China, China-Vietnam, Hungary 56, Czechoslovakia 68, South Vietnam-North Vietnam 76 (?), Iran-Iraq, Falklands, there are probably others.
Vietnam is pretty much the only semi-relevant one and these these events were during the cold war. The world was a very different place back then.
Even with this though...
Suez- the UN sorted the situation.
Israel- neither side were listening to the UN. Not really relevant here anyway as the defender won. Had Israel been overran and conquered then you would have saw something.
Kashmir- The UN did arrange a cease fire on both occasions.
Falklands- The UK won before the UN could do anything.
Iran-Iraq- Both sides thought they could win and fought hard, it was the UN who eventually arranged the cease fire.
Hungary/Czechs- Not officially cross border invasions. The local governments asked the Soviets in to help against the rebels. And of course, the UN isn't going to encourage WW3, its job is not to do that.
Quote
The one great shining example of UN authorized force is Iraq-Kuwait. So let me ask you again: who did the UN convince to take part? Not the Egyptians, who had to be bribed with loan foregiveness from the US. Not the Syrians, who had to be bought off with a free hand in Lebanon. Not the Gulf states, who were fighting for survival. If you want to claim a Danish minesweeper and a Norwegian hospital ship, fine.
The US, UK, Canada, Saudi, France, etc....
The UN has fought 2 wars and authorized 1. The UN fought and won WWII. The UN fought the Korean War and signed a ceasefire. The UN explicitly authorized the first Gulf War.
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 01:27:36 PM
Vietnam is pretty much the only semi-relevant one and these these events were during the cold war. The world was a very different place back then.
Even with this though...
Suez- the UN sorted the situation.
Israel- neither side were listening to the UN. Not really relevant here anyway as the defender won. Had Israel been overran and conquered then you would have saw something.
Kashmir- The UN did arrange a cease fire on both occasions.
Falklands- The UK won before the UN could do anything.
Iran-Iraq- Both sides thought they could win and fought hard, it was the UN who eventually arranged the cease fire.
Hungary/Czechs- Not officially cross border invasions. The local governments asked the Soviets in to help against the rebels. And of course, the UN isn't going to encourage WW3, its job is not to do that.
Suez: what the fuck did the UN do? The US threatened to cut off IMF money to the UK and that killed it.
Israel: the one example of UN imposed cease fires affecting events on the ground.
Kashmir: what the fuck did the UN do? India had beaten Pakistan, gotten everything they wanted, Pakistan knew they were beaten, both sides were ready to stop.
Falklands: :lol: Man, it took like 6 months to get your bloody troops down there.
Iran-Iraq: So the UN is awesome at arranging cease fires when both sides are ready to cease fire. :golfclap:
Hungary & Czechoslovakia: I know the formally constituted government of Hungary asked the West for help, pretty sure the same is true in Czechoslovakia.
Quote
The US, UK, Canada, Saudi, France, etc....
:lol: You're telling me if the UN didn't exist the US, UK and Saudi Arabia would have taken a nap after Iraq invaded Kuwait?
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 09:35:36 AM
Britain is one of the nations which really needs a military yes- if at least because we'd lose our security council seat without it.
And the world certainly has gotten safer since the end of the cold war. This war on terror stuff is a joke compared to a real war.
Or are you referring to Russia still being the bad guy? True there but they're not quite so bad as the soviets were- they're ruled by buisnessmen and any move against the west would ruin their economy before a shot is even fired. Also of course they're smaller, have no decent allies of note and their military is a shambles.
The bipolarity of the cold war actually exercised a restraining effect on a good portion of the regional crazies, because of the active involvement of both sides in finding proxies in the various regions of the world. With the end of the Cold War, one of the Superpowers disappeared, and the other lost a lot of interest in large chunks of the world. As has been seen over the last few years, this has let a lot of the crazies off the leash, even in Europe. We may have pulled back from the "press the button and the world is dead" situation, but that has to balanced in the increased dangers from the increased instability.
As for who I am thinking of, see below.
Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2009, 06:37:05 PM
On the rare occasion it does; the UN.
Their track record for getting other nations to handle cross border invasions is very good.
As Yi has pointed out, it is in fact spectacularly bad at this, and depends on the interest of the USA being aroused and local nations being willing to co-operate with the USA. Fundamentally, this is not a stable situation.
Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2009, 06:37:05 PM
I'm a realist, not a optimist. The world just doesn't work like a strategy game. Britain could invade and overrun Ireland in five minutes....but that's stupid. There's no way they're ever going to do that.
No, because due to accidents of geography and our own history with that nation we'd be the first ones springing to their defence if attacked. So no, there's no way we'd ever do that. Not all nations see their neighbours in the same way though.
Besides, as I said, one of the things the so called "peace dividend" should have been redirected to was Heavy Lift capacity. Even if I am a man engaged in a "jingoist pissing match" I don't want to invade Ireland. :)
As for potential war initiating nations (just the first 12 I can think of.)
Russia
China
North Korea
India
Pakistan
Iran
Syria
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Venezuela (the only one on this list who is a little iffy; the rhetoric and the threats are their, but I am not convinced Chavez has the willpower to ever go beyond his own overblown threats.)
Quote from: Tyr on September 27, 2009, 06:37:05 PM
We're not speaking about Africa though, I specifically said western Europe.
Nations in Africa work by completely different rules to the rest of the world.
But nonetheless actual foreign invasions remain rare there. Its far far more internal rebels and the like that make Africa a shit hole. I really struggle to think of any actual invasions in the last few years barring Ethopian involvment in Somalia and Eritrea's little local squabbles.
The recent troubles in the Congo/former Zaire is the prime example of this in recent years. It was far from being a simple albeit multi-sided, civil war.
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 09:35:36 AM
Yes, see the mention of economic effects.
I'd still doubt though that Britain makes a net profit out of military stuff, foreign sales help recoup some costs but not much.
Net profits are tricky with regard to military hardware. After all, we are getting a lot of service out of the hardware we have bought, at which point politics come in to any assessment as to how much this use is worth to the country.
As for specific arms sales though, it appears that Britain sells about a billion dollars of weapons a year (less than I thought and have heard previously) compared to a 60 billion dollar defence budget. This does look grim from the view of claiming that Britain makes a "net profit" from arms sales.
Something's very odd though, see -
QuoteOxford Economic Forecasting states that in 2002 BAE's UK businesses employed 111,578 people, achieved export sales of £3 billion and paid £2.6 billion in taxes. These figures exclude the contribution of Airbus UK.[74]
£3 billion is just under $5 billion dollars, which does not at all square with the figures for arms sales from various other sources.
The benefit of employing over a 100000 people to the economy from the perspective of their purchasing power can't be all that bad either.
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 11:08:47 AM
Don't you think he would know better than you whether he disagrees? Or are you questioning the vehemence of said disagreement?
I always question Tim's vehemence. No-one can feel that much :P
QuoteDefinitely less dangerous, but a strong case could be made for more unstable.
I'm not convinced on the stability part either.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 28, 2009, 02:10:38 PM
I'm not convinced on the stability part either.
Border changes, new states, ethnic cleansing.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 02:07:37 PM
The bipolarity of the cold war actually exercised a restraining effect on a good portion of the regional crazies, because of the active involvement of both sides in finding proxies in the various regions of the world. With the end of the Cold War, one of the Superpowers disappeared, and the other lost a lot of interest in large chunks of the world. As has been seen over the last few years, this has let a lot of the crazies off the leash, even in Europe. We may have pulled back from the "press the button and the world is dead" situation, but that has to balanced in the increased dangers from the increased instability.
As for who I am thinking of, see below.
Where have nations lost interest?
Africa has never been of interest beyond a very passing glance at the height of the cold war. Asian interest dropped off temporarily for a while but with the war on terror its back again.
With the end of the cold war things are much safer in general, if one angsty 3rd world shit hole invades its neighbour it will not be doing so with the permission of one super power thus leading the other to be dubious about helping.
Quote
As Yi has pointed out, it is in fact spectacularly bad at this, and depends on the interest of the USA being aroused and local nations being willing to co-operate with the USA. Fundamentally, this is not a stable situation.
As I pointed out though there were no comparable situations.
1: The cold war was a very different place to the modern world.
2: Vietnam was the only one of those situations that sort of compared- but even then it was heavily the S.Vietnamese viet-minh mainly involved with the north only getting involved later.
Quote
No, because due to accidents of geography and our own history with that nation we'd be the first ones springing to their defence if attacked. So no, there's no way we'd ever do that. Not all nations see their neighbours in the same way though.
In western Europe we do though.
If Portugal got rid of its military tomorrow bar a few thousand men for emergencies and some patrol boats would Spain attack? No.
If by some random chance someone did invade Portugal (not going to happen) Spain would jump in to help however.
Quote
As for potential war initiating nations (just the first 12 I can think of.)
Russia
China
North Korea
India
Pakistan
Iran
Syria
Eritrea
Ethiopia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Venezuela (the only one on this list who is a little iffy; the rhetoric and the threats are their, but I am not convinced Chavez has the willpower to ever go beyond his own overblown threats.)
You've got a few groups in there though.
Azerbaijan-Armenia, Ethiopia-Eritrea, Pakistan-India.
Beyond these groups they aren't going to be starting any wars (except for Djibouti in the African one of course).
Russia is the only real big threat to a large number of its neighbours. China are iffy.
Quote
£3 billion is just under $5 billion dollars, which does not at all square with the figures for arms sales from various other sources.
The benefit of employing over a 100000 people to the economy from the perspective of their purchasing power can't be all that bad either.
Yep but...well the liberal in me can't help but choke a little at the government employing people 'just because'.
Quote from: Yi
:lol: You're telling me if the UN didn't exist the US, UK and Saudi Arabia would have taken a nap after Iraq invaded Kuwait?
If the UN didn't exist we'd be in a alternate history scenario so who knows, everything would be different. As it is though it does and it was the one who said go.
Quote from: Viking on September 28, 2009, 01:34:15 PM
The UN fought and won WWII.
That is going to leave a mark.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 02:15:23 PM
Border changes, new states, ethnic cleansing.
That's true.
On the other hand there's now some agreed ways of dealing with a civil war. International intervention and ceasefire brokering to end civil wars was relatively rare during the cold war (and unprecendented prior to that). I think globalisation has similarly stabilised the world as a new international structure trying to aim towards some form of economic governance. I think fundamentally what's changed is that there's no two systems competing which inherently destabilises every situation because one side or the other would involve themselves with local partisans in some global battle.
Cold War summits involved two powers, in the nineties there was the G8, right now we have the G20 - which is proving to have taken over quite surprisingly peacefully. We've seen in the past week a remarkable thing happen. A Chinese leader's called for concerted international action on climate change, he's got together with a secularist PM from India and a socialist President from Brazil to plead for the world not to retreat into protectionism. Meanwhile a French President's calling for global dirigisme to cap bankers' bonuses. Now little of that may actually come of those statements but what they show is incredible in that these governments of about 90% of the world economy and 80% of the world's population are invested in one sort of global ideology. There are very few states that aren't connected to that sort of global consensus.
I think a world in which the biggest threats are terrorist groups and rogue states seem more unstable because there can be an intense lack of stability in certain effected areas, but many of these groups only present a real threat on a localised level. So I think while there's local destabilisation - as there was in the Cold War - there's no overarching global threat. Europe's stable and almost united - though it wasn't even a decade ago. The America's have two or three mildly troublesome problems. The Pacific Rim's pretty stable, as is most of Asia. I think Africa's got far less problems than they had in the 80s - with the exception of the DRC and Zimbabwe - I think Africa's made tremendous progress in the last 20 years. The Middle East is difficult because frankly its extreme stability is the problem. The only area I think is less stable now than it was in 89 is South Asia - which is troubling. But I think everywhere else has made progress. Though, of course, there was an element of chaos in the immediate post-Cold War, as there was in the immediate post-war.
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 02:18:55 PM
If the UN didn't exist we'd be in a alternate history scenario so who knows, everything would be different. As it is though it does and it was the one who said go.
Sure, and the sun rises in the morning because the rooster crows. All of Bush Sr.'s much touted phone diplomacy--meaningless. All the quid pro quos for the Arab states--meaningless. Plus you have three of the principal participants (US, UK, France) holding permanent seats on the UNSC. So in effect they ordered themselves to go. You're probably right, if they hadn't ordered themselves to go they might not have gone.
Quote from: Agelastus on September 28, 2009, 02:07:37 PM
Venezuela (the only one on this list who is a little iffy; the rhetoric and the threats are their, but I am not convinced Chavez has the willpower to ever go beyond his own overblown threats.)
That and I don't think the Venezuelans would put with it.
Quote from: Viking on September 28, 2009, 02:49:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 02:26:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 28, 2009, 01:34:15 PM
The UN fought and won WWII.
That is going to leave a mark.
UN /= UN Organisation
Huh?
Please, do tell me how you are going to spin the idea that the UN (established in 1945) won WW2.
Quote from: Armyknife on September 28, 2009, 02:47:22 PM
:huh:
I think it was something like 6 weeks; we're not even late to the start of our own wars. ;)
edit:
according to wiki, Falklands invaded 2nd April, main landing at San Carlos on 21st May so 7 weeks.
quibblequibblequibble
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 03:02:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 28, 2009, 02:49:10 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 02:26:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 28, 2009, 01:34:15 PM
The UN fought and won WWII.
That is going to leave a mark.
UN /= UN Organisation
Huh?
Please, do tell me how you are going to spin the idea that the UN (established in 1945) won WW2.
The Allies were referred to as the United Nations as early as 1942.
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 03:02:56 PM
Huh?
Please, do tell me how you are going to spin the idea that the UN (established in 1945) won WW2.
FDR used the phrase 'United Nations' to describe the Allies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 02:45:24 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 02:18:55 PM
If the UN didn't exist we'd be in a alternate history scenario so who knows, everything would be different. As it is though it does and it was the one who said go.
Sure, and the sun rises in the morning because the rooster crows. All of Bush Sr.'s much touted phone diplomacy--meaningless. All the quid pro quos for the Arab states--meaningless. Plus you have three of the principal participants (US, UK, France) holding permanent seats on the UNSC. So in effect they ordered themselves to go. You're probably right, if they hadn't ordered themselves to go they might not have gone.
:mellow: Well of course.
What else is the UN but a collection of states? United nations so to speak.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 28, 2009, 03:09:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 03:02:56 PM
Huh?
Please, do tell me how you are going to spin the idea that the UN (established in 1945) won WW2.
FDR used the phrase 'United Nations' to describe the Allies.
So? That doesn't make them the "UN" in the rather clear context that we are talking about the UN and the rather clear context that HE was talking about the UN, as in a list of things the "UN" has done.
I guess we can now list all the things the UN did, and as long as they were actually done by some group of nations working in a United way, why, the UN did it!
Like invade the USSR in 1941! The Germans and Romanians were "United Nations"!
I agree. Viking's being preposterously pedantic.
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 03:10:28 PM
:mellow: Well of course.
What else is the UN but a collection of states? United nations so to speak.
Your orginal post was that the UN is good at getting states to stop cross-border invasions, wasn't it? As as has been pointed out, there have been tons of cross-border invasions the UN has not gotten states to do anything about. If you're talking about the two "UN successes," then your argument is reduced to "the US is good at getting the US to stop cross-border invasions (except when they don't) and the UK and France are good at getting themselves to stop cross-border invasions (except when they don't).
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 28, 2009, 03:09:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on September 28, 2009, 03:02:56 PM
Huh?
Please, do tell me how you are going to spin the idea that the UN (established in 1945) won WW2.
FDR used the phrase 'United Nations' to describe the Allies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_II
Yes
QuoteDuring December, 1941, U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt devised the name "United Nations (UN)" for the Allies
The sole condition for joining the United Nations Organisation was being a member of the United Nations and at war with one or more members of the Axis. This is why Iceland didn't join until 1949, we refused to declare war on Germany.
While I agree that my argument is slightly pedantic; but true nonetheless. The first act of the united nations was to fight and defeat the axis. The criticism of the UN is effectively criticizing the UN for not being the World Policeman or imposing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on sovereign nations or stopping wars by means of committee. These are fundamentally unfair criticisms. Given the purpose assigned to the UN, the resources assigned to the UN and decision making procedures imposed on the UN (the Bureaucracy) by the member states (the UN) asking the UN (the Bureaucracy) to behave like an all powerful member state. Blaming the UN (the Bureaucracy) for the failures of the member states is just unfair.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 11:29:24 AM
Definitely less dangerous, but a strong case could be made for more unstable.
You guys ain't helping much.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 05:18:05 PM
You guys ain't helping much.
Sorry about the countries Iraq has invaded recently. We have to pretend they're an independent state.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 05:19:40 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 05:18:05 PM
You guys ain't helping much.
Sorry about the countries Iraq has invaded recently. We have to pretend they're an independent state.
Because Iraq with containment and massive no fly zones was just about to unleash their 40 year old tanks all over the known world, right before Dubya mission-accomplished them. Phew.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 05:22:50 PM
Because Iraq with containment and massive no fly zones was just about to unleash their 40 year old tanks all over the known world, right before Dubya mission-accomplished them. Phew.
:lol:
Only a matter of time before your Baghdad paymasters told you to end the no fly zones.
And we don't all have the charm to invite a 3rd world dictator to Paris and get him to change his behavior with just a kiss on the cheeks.
I don't get it. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 05:46:09 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 05:22:50 PM
Because Iraq with containment and massive no fly zones was just about to unleash their 40 year old tanks all over the known world, right before Dubya mission-accomplished them. Phew.
:lol:
Only a matter of time before your Baghdad paymasters told you to end the no fly zones.
And we don't all have the charm to invite a 3rd world dictator to Paris and get him to change his behavior with just a kiss on the cheeks.
Gaddaffi?
Mugabe
I didn't get the paymasters part.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 06:37:24 PM
I didn't get the paymasters part.
That's a reference to the fact that 60% of Iraqi imports under the food for oil program came from France, the French politicians implicated in the food for oil bribery case, and the oil deals awarded to French companies.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 06:43:27 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 06:37:24 PM
I didn't get the paymasters part.
That's a reference to the fact that 60% of Iraqi imports under the food for oil program came from France, the French politicians implicated in the food for oil bribery case, and the oil deals awarded to French companies.
Well, yes. :huh:
I mean I don't see how we could have ended the no-fly zones, you know, with them being enforced by F 16s from the Alabama national guard and not a bunch of rafales from Marseille.
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 06:46:37 PM
Well, yes. :huh:
I mean I don't see how we could have ended the no-fly zones, you know, with them being enforced by F 16s from the Alabama national guard and not a bunch of rafales from Marseille.
The WMD inspections were being conducted by Norwegians, that didn't stop you.
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 03:10:28 PM
:mellow: Well of course.
What else is the UN but a collection of states? United nations so to speak.
A large NGO.
God, they breed them stupid up in coal-mining country, don't they?
Quote from: Viking on September 28, 2009, 04:03:07 PM
This is why Iceland didn't join until 1949, we refused to declare war on Germany.
And nobody cared about Iceland's pro-Nazi stance, because they were occupied for the whole war anyways.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 06:55:33 PM
Quote from: Zoupa on September 28, 2009, 06:46:37 PM
Well, yes. :huh:
I mean I don't see how we could have ended the no-fly zones, you know, with them being enforced by F 16s from the Alabama national guard and not a bunch of rafales from Marseille.
The WMD inspections were being conducted by Norwegians, that didn't stop you.
I must be on crack, I have no idea what the fuck you've been talking about for the last 5 posts...
Stop us from what?
Quote from: Neil on September 28, 2009, 07:10:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 28, 2009, 04:03:07 PM
This is why Iceland didn't join until 1949, we refused to declare war on Germany.
And nobody cared about Iceland's pro-Nazi stance, because they were occupied for the whole war anyways.
We got invaded by the allies. That would usually result in a country joining the axis, but no, we didn't.
Quote from: Neil on September 28, 2009, 07:01:46 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 28, 2009, 03:10:28 PM
:mellow: Well of course.
What else is the UN but a collection of states? United nations so to speak.
A large NGO.
God, they breed them stupid up in coal-mining country, don't they?
NGO as in "non-governmental organization"? :blink: WTH are you talking about?
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 04:17:53 AM
We got invaded by the allies. That would usually result in a country joining the axis, but no, we didn't.
Of course. You were already conquered.
Quote from: Neil on September 29, 2009, 06:08:31 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 04:17:53 AM
We got invaded by the allies. That would usually result in a country joining the axis, but no, we didn't.
Of course. You were already conquered.
By whom?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 28, 2009, 03:25:53 PM
Your orginal post was that the UN is good at getting states to stop cross-border invasions, wasn't it? As as has been pointed out, there have been tons of cross-border invasions the UN has not gotten states to do anything about. If you're talking about the two "UN successes," then your argument is reduced to "the US is good at getting the US to stop cross-border invasions (except when they don't) and the UK and France are good at getting themselves to stop cross-border invasions (except when they don't).
Except in only a few of your examples was the UN needed to send aid to the defender, in most they handled things themselves. And as I pointed out in many of your examples the UN was eventually a big part of the peace process.
And as I've said a few times the cold war world was a very different place to the modern world. There's very little risk of a small war between two third world shit holes erupting into world war 3 these days.
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 06:13:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 29, 2009, 06:08:31 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 04:17:53 AM
We got invaded by the allies. That would usually result in a country joining the axis, but no, we didn't.
Of course. You were already conquered.
By whom?
By the Allies, the forces of good.
Quote from: Neil on September 29, 2009, 07:45:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 06:13:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 29, 2009, 06:08:31 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 04:17:53 AM
We got invaded by the allies. That would usually result in a country joining the axis, but no, we didn't.
Of course. You were already conquered.
By whom?
By the Allies, the forces of good.
pathetic invasion... the captain in charge of the invasion knocked on the PM's door and asked for permission to invade
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 07:53:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 29, 2009, 07:45:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 06:13:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 29, 2009, 06:08:31 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 04:17:53 AM
We got invaded by the allies. That would usually result in a country joining the axis, but no, we didn't.
Of course. You were already conquered.
By whom?
By the Allies, the forces of good.
pathetic invasion... the captain in charge of the invasion knocked on the PM's door and asked for permission to invade
Who knows that really happened - you are the guy who thinks the UN was formed prior to WW2.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 07:58:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 07:53:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 29, 2009, 07:45:41 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 06:13:30 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 29, 2009, 06:08:31 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 04:17:53 AM
We got invaded by the allies. That would usually result in a country joining the axis, but no, we didn't.
Of course. You were already conquered.
By whom?
By the Allies, the forces of good.
pathetic invasion... the captain in charge of the invasion knocked on the PM's door and asked for permission to invade
Who knows that really happened - you are the guy who thinks the UN was formed prior to WW2.
I did not claim that the UN was formed prior to WWII. If I were grumbler I'd be going on about strawmen and ad hominem attacks.
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 08:05:09 AM
I did not claim that the UN was formed prior to WWII. If I were grumbler I'd be going on about strawmen and ad hominem attacks.
You are retracting your claim that the UN won WW2 then?
Or is my error in the presumption that the UN would have to actually exist in order to win a war, and hence must have been formed prior to said war, as opposed to when it was actually formed, in 1945?
It is cool - everyone makes mistakes. I am sure lots of people were not aware that the UN was formed in 1945. Sounds like one of those funny questions Leno could ask random people on the street...
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:12:31 AM
You are retracting your claim that the UN won WW2 then?
Well there is no doubt that the UN was a continuation of the wartime alliance and FDR clearly intended for the alliance to become the new League of Nations. Heck one of the main reasons everybody rushed to declare war on Germany and Japan in the last couple months of the war was just so they could join the UN.
However, it simply was not the UN as we know it. It was not like the Security Council met in 1939 to vote on UN Resolution 1: The Really Mean Letter to Germany about the invasion of Poland that was then vetoed by the Soviet Union.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:12:31 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 08:05:09 AM
I did not claim that the UN was formed prior to WWII. If I were grumbler I'd be going on about strawmen and ad hominem attacks.
You are retracting your claim that the UN won WW2 then?
Or is my error in the presumption that the UN would have to actually exist in order to win a war, and hence must have been formed prior to said war, as opposed to when it was actually formed, in 1945?
It is cool - everyone makes mistakes. I am sure lots of people were not aware that the UN was formed in 1945. Sounds like one of those funny questions Leno could ask random people on the street...
Text of the German Instrument of Surrender (the scan was too big).
QuoteOnly this text in English is authoritative
Act of Military Surrender
1. We the undersigned, acting by authority of the German High Command, hereby surrender unconditionally to the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and simultaneously to the Soviet High Command all forces on land, sea, and in the air who are at this date under German control.
2. The German High Command will at once issue orders to all German military, naval and air authorities and to all forces under German control to cease active operations at 2301 hours Central European time on 8 May and to remain in the positions occupied at that time. No ship, vessel, or aircraft is to be scuttled, or any damage done to their hull, machinery or equipment.
3. The German High Command will at once issue to the appropriate commanders, and ensure the carrying out of any further orders issued by the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and by the Soviet High Command.
4. This act of military surrender is without prejudice to, and will be superseded by any general instrument of surrender imposed by, or on behalf of the United Nations and applicable to Germany and the German armed forces as a whole.[ 2 ]
5. In the event of the German High Command or any of the forces under their control failing to act in accordance with this Act of Surrender, the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force and the Soviet High Command will take such punitive or other action as they deem appropriate.
Signed at Rheims at 0241 France on the 7th day of May, 1945.
On behalf of the German High Command. Alfred Jodl
in the presence of
On behalf of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force. Walter Bedell Smith
On behalf of the Soviet High Command. Ivan Sousloparov
Major General, French Army (Witness)
François Sevez
I'd like to refer to article 4 of the Instrument of Surrender
Quote4. This act of military surrender is without prejudice to, and will be superseded by any general instrument of surrender imposed by, or on behalf of the United Nations and applicable to Germany and the German armed forces as a whole.[ 2 ]
Translation: We the Allied Expeditionary Force and the Soviet High Command accept your surrender on behalf of the United Nations.
So you are sticking to your claim that the UN was formed prior to 1945 then?
I refer you to, oh wikipedia on the United nations. Note the date it was formed. I haven't actually looked at the wiki article, but I am confident it won't claim that the UN was formed during or prior to WW2, as you are claiming.
Oh what the hell, I will take a look, lets see....
QuoteThe UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.
ZOMG! Someone call wiki and tell them they have made a terrible error!
<chalks up viking in class of people who don't know very basic dates in 20th century history>
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:24:14 AM
So you are sticking to your claim that the UN was formed prior to 1945 then?
I refer you to, oh wikipedia on the United nations. Note the date it was formed. I haven't actually looked at the wiki article, but I am confident it won't claim that the UN was formed during or prior to WW2, as you are claiming.
Oh what the hell, I will take a look, lets see....
QuoteThe UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.
ZOMG! Someone call wiki and tell them they have made a terrible error!
<chalks up viking in class of people who don't know very basic dates in 20th century history>
The United Nations and The United Nations Organisation are not the same thing.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:24:14 AM
So you are sticking to your claim that the UN was formed prior to 1945 then?
I refer you to, oh wikipedia on the United nations. Note the date it was formed. I haven't actually looked at the wiki article, but I am confident it won't claim that the UN was formed during or prior to WW2, as you are claiming.
The wiki supports both your point that the United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, and Viking's point that the term was in use during WWII to describe the Allies.
Quote from: WikiThe earliest concrete plan for a new world organization was begun under the aegis of the U.S. State Department in 1939. Franklin D. Roosevelt first coined the term 'United Nations' as a term to describe the Allied countries. The term was first officially used on January 1, 1942 when 26 governments signed the Atlantic Charter, pledging to continue the war effort.[3] On 25 April 1945, the UN Conference on International Organization began in San Francisco, attended by 50 governments and a number of non-governmental organizations involved in drafting the Charter of the United Nations. The UN officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 upon ratification of the Charter by the five permanent members of the Security Council—France, the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States—and by a majority of the other 46 signatories.
Viking already made the "UN" != "UN Organization" point earlier in the thread, so this is a bit redundant.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:24:14 AM
So you are sticking to your claim that the UN was formed prior to 1945 then?
The UN is based on the Atlantic charter and the first UN conference actually happened in April of 1945 while the war was still going on. The charter was not ratified until October 1945 though. I think this is really splitting hairs.
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 08:25:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:24:14 AM
So you are sticking to your claim that the UN was formed prior to 1945 then?
I refer you to, oh wikipedia on the United nations. Note the date it was formed. I haven't actually looked at the wiki article, but I am confident it won't claim that the UN was formed during or prior to WW2, as you are claiming.
Oh what the hell, I will take a look, lets see....
QuoteThe UN was founded in 1945 after World War II to replace the League of Nations, to stop wars between countries, and to provide a platform for dialogue. It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions.
ZOMG! Someone call wiki and tell them they have made a terrible error!
<chalks up viking in class of people who don't know very basic dates in 20th century history>
The United Nations and The United Nations Organisation are not the same thing.
Whatever, you said the "UN" won WW2, while talking about the United Nations and all the wonderful things it has done. You were not talking about some random group of countries that referred to itself as united nations, you were talking specifically about the UN, and in fact you used that exact term interchangeably while citing things the UN actually had done.
Hence you clearly thought the UN was in fact formed prior to the end of WW2. Which is really ok - I bet lots of people think the UN was formed after WW1, or maybe in response to the Napoleonic Wars, or who really knows about all that complicated history stuff, amiright?
Don't let it get to you, just learn and grow from these little (gigantic) errors of basic historical knowledge that are instrinsic to the very subject matter you are debating. I mean, one can still be an amateur expert on the history of the UN, what it has accomplished, and it's capability without actually knowing when it was formed. Don't let it get to you.
Quote from: ulmont on September 29, 2009, 08:26:35 AM
Viking already made the "UN" != "UN Organization" point earlier in the thread, so this is a bit redundant.
Only after it was pointed out that his claim that the "UN won WW2" in a list of things the United Nations has accomplished betrayed a rather basic lack of knowledge about the history of the UN.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 08:27:20 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:24:14 AM
So you are sticking to your claim that the UN was formed prior to 1945 then?
The UN is based on the Atlantic charter and the first UN conference actually happened in April of 1945 while the war was still going on. The charter was not ratified until October 1945 though. I think this is really splitting hairs.
It is not "splitting hairs" to say that an organization that was formed at the end fo the war could not have possibly won the war, in a debate about what that organization is capable of accomplishing.
You don't get to hold up WW2 as an accomplishment of the UN - it wasn't. The countries that won WW2 did not do so via Security Council resolutions, votes of the General Assembly, or any of the others means by which the actual UN tries to get things done.
WW2 was won by a group of countries that did not in any way act in any kind of organizational structure similar to the UN. It was won by a group of countries that then went on to form the UN, but that doesn't mean the UN won WW2 - far from it.
This is NOT splitting hairs.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:32:22 AM
Quote from: ulmont on September 29, 2009, 08:26:35 AM
Viking already made the "UN" != "UN Organization" point earlier in the thread, so this is a bit redundant.
Only after it was pointed out that his claim that the "UN won WW2" in a list of things the United Nations has accomplished betrayed a rather basic lack of knowledge about the history of the UN.
Just to make this clear -
Do you believe that it is more likely that I think the United Nations Organisation fought and won WWII rather than that I think that the Allies of WWII referred to themselves as The United Nations and then founded the United Nations Organisation after the war?
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 08:40:04 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:32:22 AM
Quote from: ulmont on September 29, 2009, 08:26:35 AM
Viking already made the "UN" != "UN Organization" point earlier in the thread, so this is a bit redundant.
Only after it was pointed out that his claim that the "UN won WW2" in a list of things the United Nations has accomplished betrayed a rather basic lack of knowledge about the history of the UN.
Just to make this clear -
Do you believe that it is more likely that I think the United Nations Organisation fought and won WWII rather than that I think that the Allies of WWII referred to themselves as The United Nations and then founded the United Nations Organisation after the war?
No idea. What I do know is that in a list of accomplishments of the "UN" you listed "The UN won WW2".
That means 1 of 2 things:
1. You think the UN was formed prior to WW2, or
2. You intentionally obfuscated the term knowing that in fact the UN was NOT formed prior to WW2, the UN as being discussed had nothing do do with WW2, but decided to use very similar terms to deliberately mis-represent the "UN" in order to make a meaningless and cheap rhetorical point.
I chose what I thought was the less onerous interpretation, because you seem like a nice guy.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:44:07 AM
No idea. What I do know is that in a list of accomplishments of the "UN" you listed "The UN won WW2".
That means 1 of 2 things:
1. You think the UN was formed prior to WW2, or
2. You intentionally obfuscated the term knowing that in fact the UN was NOT formed prior to WW2, the UN as being discussed had nothing do do with WW2, but decided to use very similar terms to deliberately mis-represent the "UN" in order to make a meaningless and cheap rhetorical point.
I chose what I thought was the less onerous interpretation, because you seem like a nice guy.
There is a third option where he took the reference to the United Nations in the Atlantic Charter to be the initial formation of the UN instead of the ratification of the UN Charter in 1945.
Not that I think this means the current structures of the UN should be credited with winning WWII mind you...
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 08:30:57 AM
Whatever, you said the "UN" won WW2, while talking about the United Nations and all the wonderful things it has done. You were not talking about some random group of countries that referred to itself as united nations, you were talking specifically about the UN, and in fact you used that exact term interchangeably while citing things the UN actually had done.
I do believe I just showed you the German Instrument of Surrender where the OKW surrenders to the AEF and STAVKA on behalf of the United Nations.
Quote
Hence you clearly thought the UN was in fact formed prior to the end of WW2. Which is really ok - I bet lots of people think the UN was formed after WW1, or maybe in response to the Napoleonic Wars, or who really knows about all that complicated history stuff, amiright?
How about we debate the issue at hand rather than calling each other stupid? And "prior to the end /= prior to", if you are going to misrepresent my opinions please at least try not to misquote me when you do?
Quote
Don't let it get to you, just learn and grow from these little (gigantic) errors of basic historical knowledge that are instrinsic to the very subject matter you are debating. I mean, one can still be an amateur expert on the history of the UN, what it has accomplished, and it's capability without actually knowing when it was formed. Don't let it get to you.
I do believe I made it clear that I know the United Nations Organisation was formed after the end of WWII.
And now bringing this discussion back to where I joined it. The UNO is not the world policeman. It does not make it's own decisions and it does not do it's own deeds. It is a talking shop and a forum for cooperation, that is what it was intended to do and designed to do. It was also designed to allow the member states to act in concert when that was required. It is NOT the World Justice League.
It is unfair to blame the UNO for Rwanda, Year 0, Idi Amin, Apartheid, Israeli-Arab wars, Female Genetal Mutilation and the laughable membership of the Human Rights Commission. The members chose not to act and the members elected Lybia and Cuba.
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 08:05:09 AM
I did not claim that the UN was formed prior to WWII. If I were grumbler I'd be going on about strawmen and ad hominem attacks.
If you were Viking, though, you would still insist that the UN won a war that ended two months before the UN came into existence, rather than admit that you made a mistake! :lol:
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 08:19:46 AM
I'd like to refer to article 4 of the Instrument of Surrender
Quote4. This act of military surrender is without prejudice to, and will be superseded by any general instrument of surrender imposed by, or on behalf of the United Nations and applicable to Germany and the German armed forces as a whole.[ 2 ]
Translation: We the Allied Expeditionary Force and the Soviet High Command accept your surrender on behalf of the United Nations.
No, this isn't what this means in English. What it means in English (the only authoritative language for the text) is that the surrender signed here could be superseded by a more general surrender instrument that may later be imposed by a "United Nations."
There is absolutely nothing in this document whereby the Commander, Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Force, or the Soviet High Command say anything at all, let alone your erroneous interpretation of what the Germans said.
I understand that English isn't your first tongue, so your confusion about technical documents written in it is understandable.
Quote from: Viking on September 28, 2009, 01:34:15 PM
The UN has fought 2 wars and authorized 1. The UN fought and won WWII. The UN fought the Korean War and signed a ceasefire. The UN explicitly authorized the first Gulf War.
Just to refresh everyone memory.
Viking lists several things the "UN" has done. One of those things is winning WW2.
Except the UN did not win WW2. It did those other things, however - at least I think it did - perhaps by "UN" in those other things he really doesn't mean "The United Nations" as in that organization formed in 1945, but some other "UN", like Unlikely Naturalists? Unsavory Natives? Universally Negatives?
Well ok the UN did not fight WWII in a comparable way to how it fought Korea. The two situations are completely different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_by_United_Nations
QuoteThe Declaration by United Nations was a World War II document agreed to on January 1, 1942 during the Arcadia Conference by 26 governments: the Allied "Big Four" (the USA, the UK, the USSR, and China), nine American client states[citation needed] in Central America and the Caribbean, the four British Dominions, British India, and eight Allied governments-in-exile, for a total of twenty-six nations.
During December 1941, Roosevelt devised the name "United Nations" for the Allies of World War II, and the Declaration by United Nations, on 1 January 1942, was the basis of the modern UN.[1] The term United Nations became synonymous during the war with the Allies and was considered to be the formal name that they were fighting under.[citation needed]
By the end of the war, a number of other states had acceded to the declaration, including the Philippines, France, every Latin American state besides Argentina, and the various independent states of the Middle East and Africa. Although most of the minor Axis powers had switched sides and joined the United Nations as co-belligerents against Germany by the end of the war, they were not allowed to accede to the declaration.
We all agree that the Allies sometimes refereed to themselves as the United Nations.
That still doesn't mean that the UN was formed in time to "win WW2", as you claimed.
But keep digging in there viking - your stubborn refusal to admit to the error is even more amusing than the error was to begin with.
Quote from: VikingThe UN won WWII.
There were at least two, and maybe more, "united nations." It is easy, perhaps, to confuse the different ones, but when the differences are pointed out, the response of "okay, didn't know that - thanks!" is generally wiser than "no, they are all the same."
It's hard to tell on this one. Both Viking and Berkut are often dismally ignorant, and they both have a tendency to disbelieve facts that conflict with their world view. Though I think Berkut is right on this one.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 10:24:07 AM
I think Berkut is right on this one.
Crap.
Sorry viking, you have my apologies.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:30:34 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 10:24:07 AM
I think Berkut is right on this one.
Crap.
Sorry viking, you have my apologies.
Don't feel bad. I, too, thought you were right until Raz disproved your position.
Quote from: Viking on September 29, 2009, 09:18:32 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_by_United_Nations
QuoteThe Declaration by United Nations was a World War II document agreed to on January 1, 1942 during the Arcadia Conference by 26 governments: the Allied "Big Four" (the USA, the UK, the USSR, and China), nine American client states[citation needed] in Central America and the Caribbean, the four British Dominions, British India, and eight Allied governments-in-exile, for a total of twenty-six nations.
During December 1941, Roosevelt devised the name "United Nations" for the Allies of World War II, and the Declaration by United Nations, on 1 January 1942, was the basis of the modern UN.[1] The term United Nations became synonymous during the war with the Allies and was considered to be the formal name that they were fighting under.[citation needed]
By the end of the war, a number of other states had acceded to the declaration, including the Philippines, France, every Latin American state besides Argentina, and the various independent states of the Middle East and Africa. Although most of the minor Axis powers had switched sides and joined the United Nations as co-belligerents against Germany by the end of the war, they were not allowed to accede to the declaration.
What does that matter to a discussion about the United Nations that was formed in SF?
A news update:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/6480227/Russia-simulates-nuclear-attack-on-Poland.html
Quote
Russia 'simulates' nuclear attack on Poland
Russia has provoked outrage in Poland by simulating an air and sea attack on the country during military exercises.
The armed forces are said to have carried out "war games" in which nuclear missiles were fired and troops practised an amphibious landing on the country's coast.
Documents obtained by Wprost, one of Poland's leading news magazines, said the exercise was carried out in conjunction with soldiers from Belarus.
The manoeuvres are thought to have been held in September and involved about 13,000 Russian and Belarusian troops.
Poland, which has strained relations with both countries, was cast as the "potential aggressor".
The documents state the exercises, code-named "West", were officially classified as "defensive" but many of the operations appeared to have an offensive nature.
The Russian air force practised using weapons from its nuclear arsenal, while in the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, which neighbours Poland, Red Army forces stormed a "Polish" beach and attacked a gas pipeline.
The operation also involved the simulated suppression of an uprising by a national minority in Belarus – the country has a significant Polish population which has a strained relationship with authoritarian government of Belarus.
Karol Karski, an MP from Poland's Law and Justice, is to table parliamentary questions on Russia's war games and has protested to the European Commission.
His colleague, Marek Opiola MP, said: "It's an attempt to put us in our place. Don't forget all this happened on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland."
Ordinary Poles were outraged by news of the exercise and demanded a firm response fro the government.
One man, identified only as Ted, told Polskie Radio: "Russia has laid bare its real intentions with respect to Poland. Every Pole most now get of the off the fence and be counted as a patriot or a traitor."
Donald Tusk, Poland's prime minister, has tried to build a pragmatic relationship with the Kremlin despite widespread and vocal calls in Poland for him to cool ties with Moscow.
After spending 40 years under Soviet domination few in Poland trust Russia, and many Poles have become increasingly wary of a country they consider as possessing a neo-imperialistic agenda.
Bogdan Klich, Poland's defence minister, said: "It is a demonstration of strength. We are monitoring the exercises to see what has been planned.
Wladyslaw Stasiak, chief of President Lech Kaczynski's office, and a former head of Poland's National Security Council, added: "We didn't like the appearance of the exercises and the name harked back to the days of the Warsaw Pact."
The Russian troop exercises will come as an unwelcome sight to the states nestling on Russia's western border who have deep-rooted anxieties over any Russian show of strength.
With a resurgent Moscow now more willing to flex its muscles, Central and Eastern Europeans have warned of Russia adopting a neo-imperialistic attitude to an area of the world it still regards as its sphere of influence.
In July, the region's most famed and influential political figures, including Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, wrote an open letter Barack Obama warning him that Russia "is back as a revisionist power pursuing a 19th-century agenda with 21st-century tactics and methods."
Moscow and Minsk have insisted that Operation West was to help "ensure the strategic stability in the East European region".
Russia is doing its best to convince people of the relevance of NATO... thank you Russkies for keeping the Alliance alive.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on November 01, 2009, 04:45:46 PM
Russia is doing its best to convince people of the relevance of NATO... thank you Russkies for keeping the Alliance alive.
I'm pretty sure that Western Europe has no interest in defending Eastern Europe.
Don't practice, just do it you fucking Slav 'tards.