Democrats y u no challenge Republicans on Syria?

[Frisivisia]

Once again, when your population is increasing by over 5,000%, it is not stagnating. You can live in your imaginary World all you want, but anyone who can apply the basics of the Calculus Derivative Process to the changes in Russia Population is able to, quite easily comprehend that Russia's population is growing. However, you don't give a shit about facts, you're here to repeat the "stagnant population" lie, no matter how many times you've been proven wrong about that.

In comparison to America, yes, Russia's economy is weaker. In comparison to Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Russia has one of the stronger economies, one place behind China. In terms of diversity, about 4% of Russia's 75.5 million workforce, work in agriculture, 38% in industry, and 58% in services, making Russia a service based economy. That's not very weak.

Also, thank you for demonstrating that you don't know anything about tanks. I specifically mentioned Arena and Shtora Systems, as well as Invar. You do, at least comprehend that an AK-47 with a modern night vision scope is better than an AK-74 without one, right? Probably not. And the Russian Navy is one of the top ten most powerful in the World, but explaining that to someone who cannot tell the difference between plateaued and a 5,000% increase could get complicated.

So why don't you stop bullshitting, and accusing others of that while you're at it. It's not even the first time you're doing that in this thread.




Russia isn't walking over all of Europe completely unopposed. Russia isn't touching a single NATO member. Please stop making hysterical posts, and offering unrealistic solutions.




How does Crimea help Russia become economically stable?




Once again, when talking about population, you have to use calculus derivatives and integrals. If you go from a decrease of a million to an increase of 10,000, that's actually better than going from an increase of one million to a mere 100,000. Additionally, when your double your GDP per capita in two decades, you're doing something right. Again, the $15,000 number has to be compared to Russia's neighbors. All of them. As for running 35 year old equipment, you really should take that issue up with the US Marine Corps, since they're using the M1A1 Abrams tank, http://www.marines.com/operating-forces ... brams-tank, which, BTW, was built in 1979, and used as recently as 2011 in Iraq. In terms of the Russian Air Force, again, you're wrong, but this isn't a thread about Russia's military capabilities.




Actually the Russian Navy relies more on submarines, but I didn't expect you to know that...

I'm curious as to where you got that 5,000 percent from. The Russian population was shrinking back in 2013, and apparently you're taking this change as an enormous bounce back. Mmkay.

Yes, I'm well aware that tanks could be modernized. I'm merely saying that the small number of modernized T-72's don't really make much of a difference. We in the US could have simply opted to modernize the M60 Patton, but we didn't. We opted to build the bigger and better Abrams tanks. But of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand this since your basic thinking is "durr oldoorrr tunks buttur hurr hurr."

Russia has a larger economy than a lot of European nations, probably because Russia is a a much bigger country. However, if you combine all of the EU nations together they have a larger and better economy than Russia. And, uh, in case you didn't know this (which you probably didn't) the Russian economy isn't diverse, like, at all. If Europe suddenly found a way to remove themselves from dependence on Russian natural gas then the Russian economy would likely collapse.

Please face facts. The Russian economy is completely dependent on energy exportation.

Now, onto the navy. Let me spell this out for you, and I'll try not to laugh while I do. A larger navy does not mean it is better. Just like a larger army does not mean it is better. The Russian Navy, like Russia's tanks, is old and outdated. They primarily use Soviet-era vessels. And yes, I'm well aware that they rely on submarines. You know what modern countries like the US rely on?

Aircraft carriers. And, uh, aircraft carriers > submarines.

Putin is virtually unopposed. Europe hasn't done shit. The only European leader who did anything was Merkel and all she did was call Putin up and yell at him. Europe can't do anything. All Putin has to do is cut off Europe's gas supply and they'll shut right the fuck up.

The Ukrainains are pissed, but they can't do much. They don't wanna give Russia a reason to come in and take all of Ukraine. Obama hasn't done shit besides wag his finger.

So, yeah, Putin is unopposed. Please get your head out of your ass and realize this.

And please, stop bullshitting.

Tell me, was Putin God before the black guy got elected, or has he just recently become God?

[Arkinesia]

In response to all these people saying Russia's military is lolawesome:

Noooooope!

Before you knock the (shitty) website, GlobalSecurity.org is a leading name in military analysis.

Some choice quotes:

The Russians stopped buying new military hardware nearly 20 years ago.

The armored forces are equipped with a large number of tanks of various kinds, but very few meet modern standards. The average Russian tank is over 20 years old, and a significant number are 40 years and older. Much the same can be said of Russian combat aircraft, which were for the most part designed in the 1970s and built in the 1980s.

The longer the erosion of the Russian defense industrial base is allowed to continued, the more difficult it will be to halt and reverse the decay. A substantial fraction of the workforce drifted away some time ago, in search of better career opportunities, and those who remain are generally older workers contemplating retirement. Increasingly elderly design and production facilities are suited for legacy weapons, rather than world standard designs. Oil and natural gas exports have had the perverse effect of encouraging the imports of European manufactured goods, leading to the de-industralization of the Russian economy. The emerging Russian Rust Belt cannot sustain a world class machine tool industry, which would be the foundation on which a Russian arms industry might be revived. (emphasis mine)

HIV infection rates in the Russian army are estimated to be between two to five times higher than in the general population, and tuberculosis is a persistent problem.

[Viritica]

I'm curious as to where you got that 5,000 percent from. The Russian population was shrinking back in 2013, and apparently you're taking this change as an enormous bounce back. Mmkay.

Yes, I'm well aware that tanks could be modernized. I'm merely saying that the small number of modernized T-72's don't really make much of a difference. We in the US could have simply opted to modernize the M60 Patton, but we didn't. We opted to build the bigger and better Abrams tanks. But of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand this since your basic thinking is "durr oldoorrr tunks buttur hurr hurr."

Russia has a larger economy than a lot of European nations, probably because Russia is a a much bigger country. However, if you combine all of the EU nations together they have a larger and better economy than Russia. And, uh, in case you didn't know this (which you probably didn't) the Russian economy isn't diverse, like, at all. If Europe suddenly found a way to remove themselves from dependence on Russian natural gas then the Russian economy would likely collapse.

Please face facts. The Russian economy is completely dependent on energy exportation.

Now, onto the navy. Let me spell this out for you, and I'll try not to laugh while I do. A larger navy does not mean it is better. Just like a larger army does not mean it is better. The Russian Navy, like Russia's tanks, is old and outdated. They primarily use Soviet-era vessels. And yes, I'm well aware that they rely on submarines. You know what modern countries like the US rely on?

Aircraft carriers. And, uh, aircraft carriers > submarines.

Putin is virtually unopposed. Europe hasn't done shit. The only European leader who did anything was Merkel and all she did was call Putin up and yell at him. Europe can't do anything. All Putin has to do is cut off Europe's gas supply and they'll shut right the fuck up.

The Ukrainains are pissed, but they can't do much. They don't wanna give Russia a reason to come in and take all of Ukraine. Obama hasn't done shit besides wag his finger.

So, yeah, Putin is unopposed. Please get your head out of your ass and realize this.

And please, stop bullshitting.

Tell me, was Putin God before the black guy got elected, or has he just recently become God?

God? What the fuck are you talking about?

And why do you refer to Obama as "the black guy"? Do you find him being black fascinating or something?

[Shofercia]

Once again, when your population is increasing by over 5,000%, it is not stagnating. You can live in your imaginary World all you want, but anyone who can apply the basics of the Calculus Derivative Process to the changes in Russia Population is able to, quite easily comprehend that Russia's population is growing. However, you don't give a shit about facts, you're here to repeat the "stagnant population" lie, no matter how many times you've been proven wrong about that.

In comparison to America, yes, Russia's economy is weaker. In comparison to Eastern Europe and Central Asia, Russia has one of the stronger economies, one place behind China. In terms of diversity, about 4% of Russia's 75.5 million workforce, work in agriculture, 38% in industry, and 58% in services, making Russia a service based economy. That's not very weak.

Also, thank you for demonstrating that you don't know anything about tanks. I specifically mentioned Arena and Shtora Systems, as well as Invar. You do, at least comprehend that an AK-47 with a modern night vision scope is better than an AK-74 without one, right? Probably not. And the Russian Navy is one of the top ten most powerful in the World, but explaining that to someone who cannot tell the difference between plateaued and a 5,000% increase could get complicated.

So why don't you stop bullshitting, and accusing others of that while you're at it. It's not even the first time you're doing that in this thread.




Russia isn't walking over all of Europe completely unopposed. Russia isn't touching a single NATO member. Please stop making hysterical posts, and offering unrealistic solutions.




How does Crimea help Russia become economically stable?




Once again, when talking about population, you have to use calculus derivatives and integrals. If you go from a decrease of a million to an increase of 10,000, that's actually better than going from an increase of one million to a mere 100,000. Additionally, when your double your GDP per capita in two decades, you're doing something right. Again, the $15,000 number has to be compared to Russia's neighbors. All of them. As for running 35 year old equipment, you really should take that issue up with the US Marine Corps, since they're using the M1A1 Abrams tank, http://www.marines.com/operating-forces ... brams-tank, which, BTW, was built in 1979, and used as recently as 2011 in Iraq. In terms of the Russian Air Force, again, you're wrong, but this isn't a thread about Russia's military capabilities.




Actually the Russian Navy relies more on submarines, but I didn't expect you to know that...

I'm curious as to where you got that 5,000 percent from. The Russian population was shrinking back in 2013, and apparently you're taking this change as an enormous bounce back. Mmkay.

Yes, I'm well aware that tanks could be modernized. I'm merely saying that the small number of modernized T-72's don't really make much of a difference. We in the US could have simply opted to modernize the M60 Patton, but we didn't. We opted to build the bigger and better Abrams tanks. But of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand this since your basic thinking is "durr oldoorrr tunks buttur hurr hurr."

Russia has a larger economy than a lot of European nations, probably because Russia is a a much bigger country. However, if you combine all of the EU nations together they have a larger and better economy than Russia. And, uh, in case you didn't know this (which you probably didn't) the Russian economy isn't diverse, like, at all. If Europe suddenly found a way to remove themselves from dependence on Russian natural gas then the Russian economy would likely collapse.

Please face facts. The Russian economy is completely dependent on energy exportation.

Now, onto the navy. Let me spell this out for you, and I'll try not to laugh while I do. A larger navy does not mean it is better. Just like a larger army does not mean it is better. The Russian Navy, like Russia's tanks, is old and outdated. They primarily use Soviet-era vessels. And yes, I'm well aware that they rely on submarines. You know what modern countries like the US rely on?

Aircraft carriers. And, uh, aircraft carriers > submarines.

Putin is virtually unopposed. Europe hasn't done shit. The only European leader who did anything was Merkel and all she did was call Putin up and yell at him. Europe can't do anything. All Putin has to do is cut off Europe's gas supply and they'll shut right the fuck up.

The Ukrainains are pissed, but they can't do much. They don't wanna give Russia a reason to come in and take all of Ukraine. Obama hasn't done shit besides wag his finger.

So, yeah, Putin is unopposed. Please get your head out of your ass and realize this.

And please, stop bullshitting.

When lots of future mommies and lots of future daddies have sex, and the population has a natural increase from 1 to 10,000, that would be an over 5,000 percent increase. Would you like me to go into more details on that? And yes, going from a large negative number to a small, but growing positive number, is usually a good thing, in reality. That's where I reside.

Your second paragraph sounds like fifth grade English. And your geography skills are definitely below that. I stated that Russia should be compared to the nations that are in the same economic location, namely Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and East Asia. You then brought in Western Europe, i.e. that's where most of the EU's wealth is. Are you aware that there's a difference between East and West? If not, I could find a picture of a compass for ya.

According to the facts, which I presented, but which you seem to want to ignore, repeatedly, Russia is a service based economy, meaning that most of the people who work in Russia work in a service related field. That, to anyone who actually knows what he's talking about, means that it's not completely dependent on oil and gas exports. Oil accounted for 15 percent of Russia's GDP in 2013: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/ ... -data.html

But you're not here for facts. You're here to repeat the Neocon lie, namely that Russia's weak, oil dependent, and US should like totes stand up to Russia, cause those sissies in Europe won't. That lie failed in 2003, and it'll fail now. In terms of the navy, oh how quickly you shift goalposts when you're caught lying, red handed. First you stated that Russia's mostly frigates. When I pointed out that was bullshit, you ignored that, and continued babbling. Different countries have different navies for different needs. There's no point for Russia to have a ton of aircraft carriers, not to mention that submarines will always be useful, whereas aircraft carriers will become less and less useful as more and more powerful airplane engines are developed. Aircraft carriers are, shockingly enough, used to carry aircraft. When you have aircraft that can fly around the World, your need for an aircraft carrier decreases, unless you need them for power projection, which Russia doesn't at the moment.

[Baader-Meinhof Gruppe]

Most Democrats oppose war so they wouldn't care to challenge Republicans as even the average Joe realizes that the war in Syria is much more complex then one side versus another and any military intervention will only make things worse for everyone.

[Shofercia]

In response to all these people saying Russia's military is lolawesome:

Noooooope!

Before you knock the (shitty) website, GlobalSecurity.org is a leading name in military analysis.

Judging by your quote choices...

The Russians stopped buying new military hardware nearly 20 years ago.

From other countries? Maybe. But they're building new military hardware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K720_Iskander

Why buy when you can make?

The armored forces are equipped with a large number of tanks of various kinds, but very few meet modern standards. The average Russian tank is over 20 years old, and a significant number are 40 years and older. Much the same can be said of Russian combat aircraft, which were for the most part designed in the 1970s and built in the 1980s.

You mean like the Abrams tank that the US military uses? Combat vehicles were designed in the 1980s, and are still quite effective: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-3

As for airplanes, let's look at the SU-25s air performance during the Ossetian War. After all, it fits your profile. Designed in the 1970s, built in the 1980s. The job of an airplane is to keep the pilot alive. Pilots matter more than planes. Additionally, the plane should carry out the mission. During the Ossetian War, the Su-25s from the Fourth Air Army flew over 1,000 sorties. How many pilots died? One. To friendly fire. Because his flares didn't deploy. They also carried out their mission, against an air defense force using fairly modern weaponry. But of course everyone just kept on talking about the Tu-22M instead, while neglecting to mention that the Tu-22M was flying below recommended altitude: hey guess what - an Abrams is a good tank, but if you drive into a swamp, where the opposition has numerous javelins set up, there's also a low likelihood of it surviving. The MiG-29s assisting the Su-25s were hardly noticeable - that's their job.

[Anime Daisuki]

@OP:

Because right now there is a Democratic President in office, who is pretty political (We didn't think he would be, but he turns out to be just like all the others). Worried about his legacy in history and wanting to "look strong" on foreign affairs, Obama must play politics in Syria, Palestine/Isreal, Crimea, Iran, North Korea, and everywhere else rather than come up with solutions that would actually solve these problems. Otherwise the Republicans will have a field day at painting him a weakling.

The above is why I have gained a new respect for the Democrat's eternal bogeyman Nixon. He at least, had the guts to do what he thought was right, even if it was unpopular by opening relations with China and changing the game. The same goes for Putin. They are leaders. Obama on the other hand is a politician.

[Pilotto]

I'm curious as to where you got that 5,000 percent from. The Russian population was shrinking back in 2013, and apparently you're taking this change as an enormous bounce back. Mmkay.

Yes, I'm well aware that tanks could be modernized. I'm merely saying that the small number of modernized T-72's don't really make much of a difference. We in the US could have simply opted to modernize the M60 Patton, but we didn't. We opted to build the bigger and better Abrams tanks. But of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand this since your basic thinking is "durr oldoorrr tunks buttur hurr hurr."

Russia has a larger economy than a lot of European nations, probably because Russia is a a much bigger country. However, if you combine all of the EU nations together they have a larger and better economy than Russia. And, uh, in case you didn't know this (which you probably didn't) the Russian economy isn't diverse, like, at all. If Europe suddenly found a way to remove themselves from dependence on Russian natural gas then the Russian economy would likely collapse.

Please face facts. The Russian economy is completely dependent on energy exportation.

Now, onto the navy. Let me spell this out for you, and I'll try not to laugh while I do. A larger navy does not mean it is better. Just like a larger army does not mean it is better. The Russian Navy, like Russia's tanks, is old and outdated. They primarily use Soviet-era vessels. And yes, I'm well aware that they rely on submarines. You know what modern countries like the US rely on?

Aircraft carriers. And, uh, aircraft carriers > submarines.

Putin is virtually unopposed. Europe hasn't done shit. The only European leader who did anything was Merkel and all she did was call Putin up and yell at him. Europe can't do anything. All Putin has to do is cut off Europe's gas supply and they'll shut right the fuck up.

The Ukrainains are pissed, but they can't do much. They don't wanna give Russia a reason to come in and take all of Ukraine. Obama hasn't done shit besides wag his finger.

So, yeah, Putin is unopposed. Please get your head out of your ass and realize this.

And please, stop bullshitting.

When lots of future mommies and lots of future daddies have sex, and the population has a natural increase from 1 to 10,000, that would be an over 5,000 percent increase. Would you like me to go into more details on that? And yes, going from a large negative number to a small, but growing positive number, is usually a good thing, in reality. That's where I reside.

Your second paragraph sounds like fifth grade English. And your geography skills are definitely below that. I stated that Russia should be compared to the nations that are in the same economic location, namely Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and East Asia. You then brought in Western Europe, i.e. that's where most of the EU's wealth is. Are you aware that there's a difference between East and West? If not, I could find a picture of a compass for ya.

According to the facts, which I presented, but which you seem to want to ignore, repeatedly, Russia is a service based economy, meaning that most of the people who work in Russia work in a service related field. That, to anyone who actually knows what he's talking about, means that it's not completely dependent on oil and gas exports. Oil accounted for 15 percent of Russia's GDP in 2013: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/ ... -data.html

But you're not here for facts. You're here to repeat the Neocon lie, namely that Russia's weak, oil dependent, and US should like totes stand up to Russia, cause those sissies in Europe won't. That lie failed in 2003, and it'll fail now. In terms of the navy, oh how quickly you shift goalposts when you're caught lying, red handed. First you stated that Russia's mostly frigates. When I pointed out that was bullshit, you ignored that, and continued babbling. Different countries have different navies for different needs. There's no point for Russia to have a ton of aircraft carriers, not to mention that submarines will always be useful, whereas aircraft carriers will become less and less useful as more and more powerful airplane engines are developed. Aircraft carriers are, shockingly enough, used to carry aircraft. When you have aircraft that can fly around the World, your need for an aircraft carrier decreases, unless you need them for power projection, which Russia doesn't at the moment.

Aircraft that can fly 'round the world? What are you talking about? Military aircraft, especially air-superiority craft and fighter-bombers, have extremely limited flying ranges. The F-22, for instance, has a maximum flight range of 1,850 miles with two external fuel tanks, which greatly limit the mobility and stealthiness of the craft. Without the tanks, the flight range is reduced to only 470 miles. That's actually less than the F-22's predecessor, the F-15, which had a range of approx 1150 miles. (These are land-miles btw, not nautical miles.) Fighter air-craft that can circumnavigate the globe are not even on radar. It''s actually trending in the opposite direction.

[Shofercia]

When lots of future mommies and lots of future daddies have sex, and the population has a natural increase from 1 to 10,000, that would be an over 5,000 percent increase. Would you like me to go into more details on that? And yes, going from a large negative number to a small, but growing positive number, is usually a good thing, in reality. That's where I reside.

Your second paragraph sounds like fifth grade English. And your geography skills are definitely below that. I stated that Russia should be compared to the nations that are in the same economic location, namely Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and East Asia. You then brought in Western Europe, i.e. that's where most of the EU's wealth is. Are you aware that there's a difference between East and West? If not, I could find a picture of a compass for ya.

According to the facts, which I presented, but which you seem to want to ignore, repeatedly, Russia is a service based economy, meaning that most of the people who work in Russia work in a service related field. That, to anyone who actually knows what he's talking about, means that it's not completely dependent on oil and gas exports. Oil accounted for 15 percent of Russia's GDP in 2013: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/ ... -data.html

But you're not here for facts. You're here to repeat the Neocon lie, namely that Russia's weak, oil dependent, and US should like totes stand up to Russia, cause those sissies in Europe won't. That lie failed in 2003, and it'll fail now. In terms of the navy, oh how quickly you shift goalposts when you're caught lying, red handed. First you stated that Russia's mostly frigates. When I pointed out that was bullshit, you ignored that, and continued babbling. Different countries have different navies for different needs. There's no point for Russia to have a ton of aircraft carriers, not to mention that submarines will always be useful, whereas aircraft carriers will become less and less useful as more and more powerful airplane engines are developed. Aircraft carriers are, shockingly enough, used to carry aircraft. When you have aircraft that can fly around the World, your need for an aircraft carrier decreases, unless you need them for power projection, which Russia doesn't at the moment.

Aircraft that can fly 'round the world? What are you talking about? Military aircraft, especially air-superiority craft and fighter-bombers, have extremely limited flying ranges. The F-22, for instance, has a maximum flight range of 1,850 miles with two external fuel tanks, which greatly limit the mobility and stealthiness of the craft. Without the tanks, the flight range is reduced to only 470 miles. That's actually less than the F-22's predecessor, the F-15, which had a range of approx 1150 miles. (These are land-miles btw, not nautical miles.) Fighter air-craft that can circumnavigate the globe are not even on radar. It''s actually trending in the opposite direction.

You're right, my mistake. The other problem with aircraft carriers, is that as missiles advance, aircraft carriers become more and more vulnerable, and they're a lot easier to find than submarines.

[Shanix]

In response to all these people saying Russia's military is lolawesome...

Ya'know, considering most of their equipment can be described as "Surplus. Produced in CCCP. Originally used in Korean Conflict." I can't imagine why anyone would think Russia's military is anything beyond laughably inept.

[Shofercia]

In response to all these people saying Russia's military is lolawesome...

Ya'know, considering most of their equipment can be described as "Surplus. Produced in CCCP. Originally used in Korean Conflict." I can't imagine why anyone would think Russia's military is anything beyond laughably inept.

The only thing that's laughably inept, is that comment, since the tank most used by the Russians is the T-72, which entered service in 1971, almost two decades after the end of the Korean War. Yes, Russia also has T34/85s, but those are not the tanks used for combat. Just because you have something in storage, doesn't mean that you're going to actually fight with it. During the Ossetian War, the T-55s were used by Ossetian militia, not by the Russian military.

The Russians have elite units, which use modern tanks that can go toe to toe with anyone, i.e. T-90s. You're supposed to go by what's actually used by the military, not what's in storage for the reserves.

[Geilinor]

Most Democrats oppose war so they wouldn't care to challenge Republicans as even the average Joe realizes that the war in Syria is much more complex then one side versus another and any military intervention will only make things worse for everyone.

What?
EDIT: Oh, you mean "war in Syria", not war in general.

[Arkinesia]

Ya'know, considering most of their equipment can be described as "Surplus. Produced in CCCP. Originally used in Korean Conflict." I can't imagine why anyone would think Russia's military is anything beyond laughably inept.

The only thing that's laughably inept, is that comment, since the tank most used by the Russians is the T-72, which entered service in 1971, almost two decades after the end of the Korean War. Yes, Russia also has T34/85s, but those are not the tanks used for combat. Just because you have something in storage, doesn't mean that you're going to actually fight with it. During the Ossetian War, the T-55s were used by Ossetian militia, not by the Russian military.

The Russians have elite units, which use modern tanks that can go toe to toe with anyone, i.e. T-90s. You're supposed to go by what's actually used by the military, not what's in storage for the reserves.

The Russians have fewer than 500 T-90s, though. In fact, the USMC's armor inventory almost outnumber the entirety of Russia's T-90 fleet alone, and the USMC is barely 10% of the total of US military might in terms of force strength.

Again, Russia doesn't have absolutely no modern technology, but the modern technology it does have is so limited in number that it barely even counts.

But this is all masturbation anyway. When your military is wracked with HIV and tuberculosis no amount of technology is going to make you effective.

[Shofercia]

The only thing that's laughably inept, is that comment, since the tank most used by the Russians is the T-72, which entered service in 1971, almost two decades after the end of the Korean War. Yes, Russia also has T34/85s, but those are not the tanks used for combat. Just because you have something in storage, doesn't mean that you're going to actually fight with it. During the Ossetian War, the T-55s were used by Ossetian militia, not by the Russian military.

The Russians have elite units, which use modern tanks that can go toe to toe with anyone, i.e. T-90s. You're supposed to go by what's actually used by the military, not what's in storage for the reserves.

The Russians have fewer than 500 T-90s, though. In fact, the USMC's armor inventory almost outnumber the entirety of Russia's T-90 fleet alone, and the USMC is barely 10% of the total of US military might in terms of force strength.

Again, Russia doesn't have absolutely no modern technology, but the modern technology it does have is so limited in number that it barely even counts.

But this is all masturbation anyway. When your military is wracked with HIV and tuberculosis no amount of technology is going to make you effective.

I'd say that 500 tanks, judging by how modern warfare works, is plenty, and most definitely counts. About ten T-90s helped turn the tide of a key engagement in the Dagestan War. As for HIV, that's largely not present in the front line/rapid response forces, almost all of whom, BTW, are volunteers, and likely to do the lion's share of the fighting. Sure most of the military are conscripts who stay back and protect supply lines, or do similar tasks, but they're not going to be the ones that are usually fighting the heavier engagements.

[Viritica]

I'm curious as to where you got that 5,000 percent from. The Russian population was shrinking back in 2013, and apparently you're taking this change as an enormous bounce back. Mmkay.

Yes, I'm well aware that tanks could be modernized. I'm merely saying that the small number of modernized T-72's don't really make much of a difference. We in the US could have simply opted to modernize the M60 Patton, but we didn't. We opted to build the bigger and better Abrams tanks. But of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand this since your basic thinking is "durr oldoorrr tunks buttur hurr hurr."

Russia has a larger economy than a lot of European nations, probably because Russia is a a much bigger country. However, if you combine all of the EU nations together they have a larger and better economy than Russia. And, uh, in case you didn't know this (which you probably didn't) the Russian economy isn't diverse, like, at all. If Europe suddenly found a way to remove themselves from dependence on Russian natural gas then the Russian economy would likely collapse.

Please face facts. The Russian economy is completely dependent on energy exportation.

Now, onto the navy. Let me spell this out for you, and I'll try not to laugh while I do. A larger navy does not mean it is better. Just like a larger army does not mean it is better. The Russian Navy, like Russia's tanks, is old and outdated. They primarily use Soviet-era vessels. And yes, I'm well aware that they rely on submarines. You know what modern countries like the US rely on?

Aircraft carriers. And, uh, aircraft carriers > submarines.

Putin is virtually unopposed. Europe hasn't done shit. The only European leader who did anything was Merkel and all she did was call Putin up and yell at him. Europe can't do anything. All Putin has to do is cut off Europe's gas supply and they'll shut right the fuck up.

The Ukrainains are pissed, but they can't do much. They don't wanna give Russia a reason to come in and take all of Ukraine. Obama hasn't done shit besides wag his finger.

So, yeah, Putin is unopposed. Please get your head out of your ass and realize this.

And please, stop bullshitting.

When lots of future mommies and lots of future daddies have sex, and the population has a natural increase from 1 to 10,000, that would be an over 5,000 percent increase. Would you like me to go into more details on that? And yes, going from a large negative number to a small, but growing positive number, is usually a good thing, in reality. That's where I reside.

Your second paragraph sounds like fifth grade English. And your geography skills are definitely below that. I stated that Russia should be compared to the nations that are in the same economic location, namely Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and East Asia. You then brought in Western Europe, i.e. that's where most of the EU's wealth is. Are you aware that there's a difference between East and West? If not, I could find a picture of a compass for ya.

According to the facts, which I presented, but which you seem to want to ignore, repeatedly, Russia is a service based economy, meaning that most of the people who work in Russia work in a service related field. That, to anyone who actually knows what he's talking about, means that it's not completely dependent on oil and gas exports. Oil accounted for 15 percent of Russia's GDP in 2013: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/ ... -data.html

But you're not here for facts. You're here to repeat the Neocon lie, namely that Russia's weak, oil dependent, and US should like totes stand up to Russia, cause those sissies in Europe won't. That lie failed in 2003, and it'll fail now. In terms of the navy, oh how quickly you shift goalposts when you're caught lying, red handed. First you stated that Russia's mostly frigates. When I pointed out that was bullshit, you ignored that, and continued babbling. Different countries have different navies for different needs. There's no point for Russia to have a ton of aircraft carriers, not to mention that submarines will always be useful, whereas aircraft carriers will become less and less useful as more and more powerful airplane engines are developed. Aircraft carriers are, shockingly enough, used to carry aircraft. When you have aircraft that can fly around the World, your need for an aircraft carrier decreases, unless you need them for power projection, which Russia doesn't at the moment.

So basically you're saying you got that 5,000% from yourself? That's good to know, I wasn't aware you were a source.

I'm well aware of what you were saying. I'm also aware it makes no fucking sense. Since you clearly know fuck all about the Russian economy, here. Let me educate you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#Energy

Would you care to please educate me on what part of that is unclear? You're describing it as a "Neocon lie" yet you're clearly ignoring the fact that energy makes up a huge part of the Russian economy.

Also, lol, I wasn't lying. I said Russia uses a lot of Soviet-era frigates and was I wrong? But clearly you don't know what you're talking about after you said that aircraft carriers are going to become less and less useful. Ever heard of power projection capabilities? I can tell you haven't, so here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection

My friend, you know jack shit about the military, so just stop embarrassing yourself. And aircraft that can fly around the world? Lol, the rambling continues.

[Geilinor]

I'm curious as to where you got that 5,000 percent from. The Russian population was shrinking back in 2013, and apparently you're taking this change as an enormous bounce back. Mmkay.

Yes, I'm well aware that tanks could be modernized. I'm merely saying that the small number of modernized T-72's don't really make much of a difference. We in the US could have simply opted to modernize the M60 Patton, but we didn't. We opted to build the bigger and better Abrams tanks. But of course, I wouldn't expect you to understand this since your basic thinking is "durr oldoorrr tunks buttur hurr hurr."

Russia has a larger economy than a lot of European nations, probably because Russia is a a much bigger country. However, if you combine all of the EU nations together they have a larger and better economy than Russia. And, uh, in case you didn't know this (which you probably didn't) the Russian economy isn't diverse, like, at all. If Europe suddenly found a way to remove themselves from dependence on Russian natural gas then the Russian economy would likely collapse.

Please face facts. The Russian economy is completely dependent on energy exportation.

Now, onto the navy. Let me spell this out for you, and I'll try not to laugh while I do. A larger navy does not mean it is better. Just like a larger army does not mean it is better. The Russian Navy, like Russia's tanks, is old and outdated. They primarily use Soviet-era vessels. And yes, I'm well aware that they rely on submarines. You know what modern countries like the US rely on?

Aircraft carriers. And, uh, aircraft carriers > submarines.

Putin is virtually unopposed. Europe hasn't done shit. The only European leader who did anything was Merkel and all she did was call Putin up and yell at him. Europe can't do anything. All Putin has to do is cut off Europe's gas supply and they'll shut right the fuck up.

The Ukrainains are pissed, but they can't do much. They don't wanna give Russia a reason to come in and take all of Ukraine. Obama hasn't done shit besides wag his finger.

So, yeah, Putin is unopposed. Please get your head out of your ass and realize this.

And please, stop bullshitting.

When lots of future mommies and lots of future daddies have sex, and the population has a natural increase from 1 to 10,000, that would be an over 5,000 percent increase. Would you like me to go into more details on that? And yes, going from a large negative number to a small, but growing positive number, is usually a good thing, in reality. That's where I reside.

Your second paragraph sounds like fifth grade English. And your geography skills are definitely below that. I stated that Russia should be compared to the nations that are in the same economic location, namely Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and East Asia. You then brought in Western Europe, i.e. that's where most of the EU's wealth is. Are you aware that there's a difference between East and West? If not, I could find a picture of a compass for ya.

According to the facts, which I presented, but which you seem to want to ignore, repeatedly, Russia is a service based economy, meaning that most of the people who work in Russia work in a service related field. That, to anyone who actually knows what he's talking about, means that it's not completely dependent on oil and gas exports. Oil accounted for 15 percent of Russia's GDP in 2013: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/ ... -data.html

What do you think would happen if Russia lost that 15%? The tower would come tumbling down.

[Shofercia]

When lots of future mommies and lots of future daddies have sex, and the population has a natural increase from 1 to 10,000, that would be an over 5,000 percent increase. Would you like me to go into more details on that? And yes, going from a large negative number to a small, but growing positive number, is usually a good thing, in reality. That's where I reside.

Your second paragraph sounds like fifth grade English. And your geography skills are definitely below that. I stated that Russia should be compared to the nations that are in the same economic location, namely Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and East Asia. You then brought in Western Europe, i.e. that's where most of the EU's wealth is. Are you aware that there's a difference between East and West? If not, I could find a picture of a compass for ya.

According to the facts, which I presented, but which you seem to want to ignore, repeatedly, Russia is a service based economy, meaning that most of the people who work in Russia work in a service related field. That, to anyone who actually knows what he's talking about, means that it's not completely dependent on oil and gas exports. Oil accounted for 15 percent of Russia's GDP in 2013: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/ ... -data.html

But you're not here for facts. You're here to repeat the Neocon lie, namely that Russia's weak, oil dependent, and US should like totes stand up to Russia, cause those sissies in Europe won't. That lie failed in 2003, and it'll fail now. In terms of the navy, oh how quickly you shift goalposts when you're caught lying, red handed. First you stated that Russia's mostly frigates. When I pointed out that was bullshit, you ignored that, and continued babbling. Different countries have different navies for different needs. There's no point for Russia to have a ton of aircraft carriers, not to mention that submarines will always be useful, whereas aircraft carriers will become less and less useful as more and more powerful airplane engines are developed. Aircraft carriers are, shockingly enough, used to carry aircraft. When you have aircraft that can fly around the World, your need for an aircraft carrier decreases, unless you need them for power projection, which Russia doesn't at the moment.

So basically you're saying you got that 5,000% from yourself? That's good to know, I wasn't aware you were a source.

I'm well aware of what you were saying. I'm also aware it makes no fucking sense. Since you clearly know fuck all about the Russian economy, here. Let me educate you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#Energy

Would you care to please educate me on what part of that is unclear? You're describing it as a "Neocon lie" yet you're clearly ignoring the fact that energy makes up a huge part of the Russian economy.

Also, lol, I wasn't lying. I said Russia uses a lot of Soviet-era frigates and was I wrong? But clearly you don't know what you're talking about after you said that aircraft carriers are going to become less and less useful. Ever heard of power projection capabilities? I can tell you haven't, so here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection

My friend, you know jack shit about the military, so just stop embarrassing yourself. And aircraft that can fly around the world? Lol, the rambling continues.

I'm not your friend, and I doubt we'll ever be friends. Now, if a population goes from 1 to 10,000, (which, in Russia, it did at some point, under Putin or Medvedev,) that's an increase of over 5,000%. That's a basic, basic, basic fact. In terms of energy, your original point was, and I quote: Please face facts. The Russian economy is completely dependent on energy exportation.

When I pointed out that's not true, you shifted goal posts from completely dependent to makes up a huge part of the Russian economy. That's called shifting goal posts. Completely dependent = 100%. Huge part = more than 10%. Do you comprehend that 11% is not the same as 100%? Are you able to grasp that?

Since you're now pretending that you didn't actually bullshit, let me point out where you did:

Not to mention [Russia's] navy which is mostly composed of outdated Soviet-era frigates...

That's known as either bullshitting, or lying. Take your pick. According to Wikidorkia, Russia's navy has 5 frigates, and 45 to 50 submarines. That would, of course, require utilizing Google to find out.

According to the facts, which I presented, but which you seem to want to ignore, repeatedly, Russia is a service based economy, meaning that most of the people who work in Russia work in a service related field. That, to anyone who actually knows what he's talking about, means that it's not completely dependent on oil and gas exports. Oil accounted for 15 percent of Russia's GDP in 2013: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/russia/ ... -data.html

What do you think would happen if Russia lost that 15%? The tower would come tumbling down.

Nope.

[Viritica]

So basically you're saying you got that 5,000% from yourself? That's good to know, I wasn't aware you were a source.

I'm well aware of what you were saying. I'm also aware it makes no fucking sense. Since you clearly know fuck all about the Russian economy, here. Let me educate you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia#Energy

Would you care to please educate me on what part of that is unclear? You're describing it as a "Neocon lie" yet you're clearly ignoring the fact that energy makes up a huge part of the Russian economy.

Also, lol, I wasn't lying. I said Russia uses a lot of Soviet-era frigates and was I wrong? But clearly you don't know what you're talking about after you said that aircraft carriers are going to become less and less useful. Ever heard of power projection capabilities? I can tell you haven't, so here you go.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection

My friend, you know jack shit about the military, so just stop embarrassing yourself. And aircraft that can fly around the world? Lol, the rambling continues.

I'm not your friend, and I doubt we'll ever be friends. Now, if a population goes from 1 to 10,000, (which, in Russia, it did at some point, under Putin or Medvedev,) that's an increase of over 5,000%. That's a basic, basic, basic fact. In terms of energy, your original point was, and I quote: Please face facts. The Russian economy is completely dependent on energy exportation.

When I pointed out that's not true, you shifted goal posts from completely dependent to makes up a huge part of the Russian economy. That's called shifting goal posts. Completely dependent = 100%. Huge part = more than 10%. Do you comprehend that 11% is not the same as 100%? Are you able to grasp that?

Since you're now pretending that you didn't actually bullshit, let me point out where you did:

Not to mention [Russia's] navy which is mostly composed of outdated Soviet-era frigates...

That's known as either bullshitting, or lying. Take your pick. According to Wikidorkia, Russia's navy has 5 frigates, and 45 to 50 submarines. That would, of course, require utilizing Google to find out.

What do you think would happen if Russia lost that 15%? The tower would come tumbling down.

Nope.

Dude, you're so testy when it comes to Russia. Do you have some sort of love affair with the country?

Also, would you care to point out to me where the Russian population increased from 1 to 10,000?

With the economy, I ever shifted goalposts. Russia is dependent upon energy exportation, energy exportation also makes up a huge part of the Russian economy. It doesn't need to make up 100% of Russia's economy for the country to be dependent on it. It's dependent upon energy exportation simply because, without it, the Russian economy would crumble. You know this, yet this is a point you've dodged time and time again.

As for the navy, I'll admit my wording wasn't really the best. However, I'm still loling over that "aircraft that can fly around the world" and "aircraft carriers will become less and less useful" shit that you spewed. We've both messed up. Live with it.

[Arkinesia]

When I pointed out that's not true, you shifted goal posts from completely dependent to makes up a huge part of the Russian economy. That's called shifting goal posts. Completely dependent = 100%. Huge part = more than 10%. Do you comprehend that 11% is not the same as 100%? Are you able to grasp that?

Probably because it's a lame-duck semantic argument. Speaking as a student of political science and economics, when I read “completely dependent” in economic terms, I see “a segment of the economy large enough to topple it if the market for that product or service falls out.” It doesn't have to be 100%, hell, it doesn't have to be 50% of a GDP—in many cases, 15%-20% is enough. Oil alone is 15% of Russia's GDP and natural gas is more—something so easily outsourced is not a good main leg for a national economy.

[Shanix]

Ya'know, considering most of their equipment can be described as "Surplus. Produced in CCCP. Originally used in Korean Conflict." I can't imagine why anyone would think Russia's military is anything beyond laughably inept.

The only thing that's laughably inept, is that comment, since the tank most used by the Russians is the T-72, which entered service in 1971, almost two decades after the end of the Korean War. Yes, Russia also has T34/85s, but those are not the tanks used for combat. Just because you have something in storage, doesn't mean that you're going to actually fight with it. During the Ossetian War, the T-55s were used by Ossetian militia, not by the Russian military.

The Russians have elite units, which use modern tanks that can go toe to toe with anyone, i.e. T-90s. You're supposed to go by what's actually used by the military, not what's in storage for the reserves.

Alright, so let's say they deploy super awesome elite veteran to the max T-90 units. Of which there are only...550 in Russian Inventory. Alright, a respectable number. Their competitors? Well...

• US M1 Abrams - Over 8700 in US usage.
• German Leopard 2 - Over 2350 in German usage.
• British Challenger 2 - Over 300 in British usage.

Yeah, long story short - Even if they're the best tanks, its by slim margins and any advantages are made irrelevant when someone else has 15:1 odds against you. Or even 4:1 Odds.

There's no point for Russia to have a ton of aircraft carriers, not to mention that submarines will always be useful, whereas aircraft carriers will become less and less useful as more and more powerful airplane engines are developed. Aircraft carriers are, shockingly enough, used to carry aircraft. When you have aircraft that can fly around the World, your need for an aircraft carrier decreases, unless you need them for power projection, which Russia doesn't at the moment.

Also a friend of mine pointed this comment out and I'd just like to voice our joint disapproval of this.

• It's not 1939 anymore. Aircraft carriers are still relevant, and more than likely, will be for a very long time.
• I didn't know you could use civilian aircraft as military ones. Let's real quick look at why aircraft would fly around the world - to do of the bombings, yes? Yes. Where they are immediately met with heavy air resistance because they don't happen to have escorts because they flew all the way across the world. We need some way to get those escorts closer, without sacrificing their speed and stealth! If only we could manufacture some kind of...floating island, upon which planes could launch and land... to carry them. Damn, that would be cool.
• Planes > Submarines. Only one can hit the other, and subs aren't exactly known to be good AA emplacements. But those subs will often act outside of general operating range of landbases. So, we need some kind of island, again...
• Long point short, while Russia does not need carriers, you've given the wrong reasons why they don't need them. They don't need them because they aren't trying to influence nations within their naval border area. And they can't use them because, as we've seen, their crews are inept. Same with the Chinese.

Long post short - your basis is wrong, your assumptions are wrong, your math is wrong, and your points are wrong.

[Viritica]

The only thing that's laughably inept, is that comment, since the tank most used by the Russians is the T-72, which entered service in 1971, almost two decades after the end of the Korean War. Yes, Russia also has T34/85s, but those are not the tanks used for combat. Just because you have something in storage, doesn't mean that you're going to actually fight with it. During the Ossetian War, the T-55s were used by Ossetian militia, not by the Russian military.

The Russians have elite units, which use modern tanks that can go toe to toe with anyone, i.e. T-90s. You're supposed to go by what's actually used by the military, not what's in storage for the reserves.

Alright, so let's say they deploy super awesome elite veteran to the max T-90 units. Of which there are only...550 in Russian Inventory. Alright, a respectable number. Their competitors? Well...

• US M1 Abrams - Over 8700 in US usage.
• German Leopard 2 - Over 2350 in German usage.
• British Challenger 2 - Over 300 in British usage.

Yeah, long story short - Even if they're the best tanks, its by slim margins and any advantages are made irrelevant when someone else has 15:1 odds against you. Or even 4:1 Odds.

There's no point for Russia to have a ton of aircraft carriers, not to mention that submarines will always be useful, whereas aircraft carriers will become less and less useful as more and more powerful airplane engines are developed. Aircraft carriers are, shockingly enough, used to carry aircraft. When you have aircraft that can fly around the World, your need for an aircraft carrier decreases, unless you need them for power projection, which Russia doesn't at the moment.

Also a friend of mine pointed this comment out and I'd just like to voice our joint disapproval of this.

• It's not 1939 anymore. Aircraft carriers are still relevant, and more than likely, will be for a very long time.
• I didn't know you could use civilian aircraft as military ones. Let's real quick look at why aircraft would fly around the world - to do of the bombings, yes? Yes. Where they are immediately met with heavy air resistance because they don't happen to have escorts because they flew all the way across the world. We need some way to get those escorts closer, without sacrificing their speed and stealth! If only we could manufacture some kind of...floating island, upon which planes could launch and land... to carry them. Damn, that would be cool.
• Planes > Submarines. Only one can hit the other, and subs aren't exactly known to be good AA emplacements. But those subs will often act outside of general operating range of landbases. So, we need some kind of island, again...
• Long point short, while Russia does not need carriers, you've given the wrong reasons why they don't need them. They don't need them because they aren't trying to influence nations within their naval border area. And they can't use them because, as we've seen, their crews are inept. Same with the Chinese.

Long post short - your basis is wrong, your assumptions are wrong, your math is wrong, and your points are wrong.

You have won this thread.

[ShadowDragons]

Democrats have such a weak foreign policy they stand by and watch Russia bully Ukraine and China manipulate its currency. I have to agree staying out of Syria is smart, but the way they handled Iran is dumb. Destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. America needs to lead its allies.

[Divair2]

Democrats have such a weak foreign policy they stand by and watch Russia bully Ukraine and China manipulate its currency. I have to agree staying out of Syria is smart, but the way they handled Iran is dumb. Destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. America needs to lead its allies.

And start another pointless war? No thanks.

[PariaLand]

The thing is Obama is trying to go for a global goal, he has already had a major intrest in being the next UN Leader, when the time comes. You set up a major global intrest, and then you gain global support. The issue is Obama is a horrible strategist. Russia wants to set up land bases for forward attacks all over the world. You take Crimea, you got a extra water area. You need water acces for trade, oil, and naval transport. The same as in Cuba, and other south American nations. Putin is making plans to fight against America, or any other place. While Obama runs his mouth, Putin is getting ready. Now how is the dummy in this picture ? Also, America has free-trade staus with China. Think how much tariff price we could make off a China Tarrif as much as we trade with them. To open extra areas, for extra money, you have to play nice with the world. Still, Obama should have known Workin in Syria would only arm Islamic terrorist. Its just like the lie, Assad did use some weapons. Yet, the rebels misused weapons too, that poisoned people. What the rebels didn't use they sold off, and the Islamic terrorist we deal with now have those extra weapons. So, basically Obama is a spokesman. He can wow the masses with speech, but he is not a Ronald Regan when it comes to strategy. Really in strategy, he is horrible. Also with the GOP, and other republican club, they do have some good candidate , yet too many of them are old and whinny. Same as Pelosi and Harry Reid on the democrat side. So, all I can recommend to you all, who are of age, is to vote. Currently its the only way we can affect policy, by changing the people who make the policy.

[Divair2]

The thing is Obama is trying to go for a global goal, he has already had a major intrest in being the next UN Leader, when the time comes. You set up a major global intrest, and then you gain global support. The issue is Obama is a horrible strategist. Russia wants to set up land bases for forward attacks all over the world. You take Crimea, you got a extra water area. You need water acces for trade, oil, and naval transport. The same as in Cuba, and other south American nations. Putin is making plans to fight against America, or any other place. While Obama runs his mouth, Putin is getting ready. Now how is the dummy in this picture ? Also, America has free-trade staus with China. Think how much tariff price we could make off a China Tarrif as much as we trade with them. To open extra areas, for extra money, you have to play nice with the world. Still, Obama should have known Workin in Syria would only arm Islamic terrorist. Its just like the lie, Assad did use some weapons. Yet, the rebels misused weapons too, that poisoned people. What the rebels didn't use they sold off, and the Islamic terrorist we deal with now have those extra weapons. So, basically Obama is a spokesman. He can wow the masses with speech, but he is not a Ronald Regan when it comes to strategy. Really in strategy, he is horrible. Also with the GOP, and other republican club, they do have some good candidate , yet too many of them are old and whinny. Same as Pelosi and Harry Reid on the democrat side. So, all I can recommend to you all, who are of age, is to vote. Currently its the only way we can affect policy, by changing the people who make the policy.

What are you, McCarthy 2.0? Russia isn't trying to invade the US.