Democrats y u no challenge Republicans on Syria?

[Irona]

Read a actually history book, not social studies. Read over World war 1 and world war 2 economic plans.

I have read a actually history book.

We loaned the Europeans money and ships. They were to pay us back.

This guy is a troll don't bother

[Shofercia]

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.

You don't think that Russia uses oil and natural gas for their own consumption? And again, a single good isn't going to destroy the Russian economy. Not to mention that others will buy oil and natural gas from Russia, albeit for less.

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.

Do you understand how modern militaries function? If you're talking about sheer numbers, Russia's got over 9,000 T-72s, But that's neither here nor there, since modern warfare isn't about who has the most tanks. It's about limited engagements in order to achieve various goals. Thus far, the Russian Military under Putin has achieved all of their goals, and that counts as more important than who can haz shinier tanks in big, big, big numbers.

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.

Modern stealth subs can easily avoid airplanes and carry out their missions. A submarine can lay dormant for a while, and then launch a salvo of devastating missile fire at just the right moment. Why do you think the US is doing all of those drills with Swedish subs, the ones with the best stealth capacity of any NATO subs? For shits and giggles, or because Hagel and Bildt are secretly having a love child? As for Russian or Chinese crews of an aircraft carrier, they're never really been tested, so it'd be a bit hard to determine their aptitude.

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

Fixed for accuracy.

[Arkinesia]

Yes in the past they were. Put by inactive I mean affected the course of anything. Most of the operations once stopped reverted back to what it was before. They tend to try put it right but usually fail.

What the hell are you even trying to say?

You don't think that Russia uses oil and natural gas for their own consumption? And again, a single good isn't going to destroy the Russian economy. Not to mention that others will buy oil and natural gas from Russia, albeit for less.

If there's no guarantee that Russia won't invade such and such a country, Europe is less likely to be interested in buying Russian gas and oil. It's a powerful weapon of sanction that the European nations can levy against Russia IF they are willing to use it.

Do you understand how modern militaries function? If you're talking about sheer numbers, Russia's got over 9,000 T-72s, But that's neither here nor there, since modern warfare isn't about who has the most tanks. It's about limited engagements in order to achieve various goals. Thus far, the Russian Military under Putin has achieved all of their goals, and that counts as more important than who can haz shinier tanks in big, big, big numbers.

Except eventually if he wants to restore the Russian Empire he IS going to have to contend with Europe. That's not a matter of debate.

As for Russian or Chinese crews of an aircraft carrier, they're never really been tested, so it'd be a bit hard to determine their aptitude.

That's sort of the point. Russian and Chinese crews are going to be hard-pressed for success against US crews in particular, almost all of which have at least limited combat experience, and frequently train in larger war games.

[Shanix]

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.

You don't think that Russia uses oil and natural gas for their own consumption? And again, a single good isn't going to destroy the Russian economy. Not to mention that others will buy oil and natural gas from Russia, albeit for less.

If 15% of your GDP is based on products that are being slowly reduced in usage by the green movement, not to mention can be fought with by other untapped sources (Canada, anyone?), then you're setting yourself up for a grand ole' shitty time.

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.

Do you understand how modern militaries function? If you're talking about sheer numbers, Russia's got over 9,000 T-72s, But that's neither here nor there, since modern warfare isn't about who has the most tanks. It's about limited engagements in order to achieve various goals. Thus far, the Russian Military under Putin has achieved all of their goals, and that counts as more important than who can haz shinier tanks in big, big, big numbers.

So, you're uh, you're saying putting things in places to make them worth while? Like the US military can, as seen by actively deploying and support several thousand tanks that still measure on gallons per mile, nearly halfway across the world. Again, it must be said, Russia cannot into what you're making them into. Because apparently grammar and spelling is thrown out window.

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.

Modern stealth subs can easily avoid airplanes and carry out their missions. A submarine can lay dormant for a while, and then launch a salvo of devastating missile fire at just the right moment. Why do you think the US is doing all of those drills with Swedish subs, the ones with the best stealth capacity of any NATO subs? For shits and giggles, or because Hagel and Bildt are secretly having a love child? As for Russian or Chinese crews of an aircraft carrier, they're never really been tested, so it'd be a bit hard to determine their aptitude.

We have things. Called Anti-ballistic missiles. Every nation worth nuking has them, or next to someone willing to use theirs for their defense. That sub can come up, but it'll do jack shit.

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

Fixed for accuracy.

I would ask you sir not to edit my words to make myself look as incompetent and lacking as the Russian Military.

[Shofercia]

You don't think that Russia uses oil and natural gas for their own consumption? And again, a single good isn't going to destroy the Russian economy. Not to mention that others will buy oil and natural gas from Russia, albeit for less.

If there's no guarantee that Russia won't invade such and such a country, Europe is less likely to be interested in buying Russian gas and oil. It's a powerful weapon of sanction that the European nations can levy against Russia IF they are willing to use it.

Russia has yet to invade an EU nation, so I doubt the EU will risk wrecking their economy over Ukraine or Georgia. And in the latter case, Georgia started it.

Do you understand how modern militaries function? If you're talking about sheer numbers, Russia's got over 9,000 T-72s, But that's neither here nor there, since modern warfare isn't about who has the most tanks. It's about limited engagements in order to achieve various goals. Thus far, the Russian Military under Putin has achieved all of their goals, and that counts as more important than who can haz shinier tanks in big, big, big numbers.

Except eventually if he wants to restore the Russian Empire he IS going to have to contend with Europe. That's not a matter of debate.

Why? Russia's big enough, EU and Russia won't attack each other, why the need for massive military confrontation?

As for Russian or Chinese crews of an aircraft carrier, they're never really been tested, so it'd be a bit hard to determine their aptitude.

That's sort of the point. Russian and Chinese crews are going to be hard-pressed for success against US crews in particular, almost all of which have at least limited combat experience, and frequently train in larger war games.

Doesn't make them absolute shitheads as the previous post implied.

You don't think that Russia uses oil and natural gas for their own consumption? And again, a single good isn't going to destroy the Russian economy. Not to mention that others will buy oil and natural gas from Russia, albeit for less.

If 15% of your GDP is based on products that are being slowly reduced in usage by the green movement, not to mention can be fought with by other untapped sources (Canada, anyone?), then you're setting yourself up for a grand ole' shitty time.

So how's Canada transporting that gas to China?

Do you understand how modern militaries function? If you're talking about sheer numbers, Russia's got over 9,000 T-72s, But that's neither here nor there, since modern warfare isn't about who has the most tanks. It's about limited engagements in order to achieve various goals. Thus far, the Russian Military under Putin has achieved all of their goals, and that counts as more important than who can haz shinier tanks in big, big, big numbers.

So, you're uh, you're saying putting things in places to make them worth while? Like the US military can, as seen by actively deploying and support several thousand tanks that still measure on gallons per mile, nearly halfway across the world. Again, it must be said, Russia cannot into what you're making them into. Because apparently grammar and spelling is thrown out window.

I'm not making Russia into numero uno. I am pointing out that a military in the top ten doesn't suck.

Fixed for accuracy.

I would ask you sir not to edit my words to make myself look as incompetent and lacking as the Russian Military.

If you think a top ten military nation is incompetent, then my edits to your post was 100 percent correct.

[Shanix]

If 15% of your GDP is based on products that are being slowly reduced in usage by the green movement, not to mention can be fought with by other untapped sources (Canada, anyone?), then you're setting yourself up for a grand ole' shitty time.

So how's Canada transporting that gas to China?

There's this big ole' ocean, actually. Huge, I mean, huge. No way you could've missed it.

So, you're uh, you're saying putting things in places to make them worth while? Like the US military can, as seen by actively deploying and support several thousand tanks that still measure on gallons per mile, nearly halfway across the world. Again, it must be said, Russia cannot into what you're making them into. Because apparently grammar and spelling is thrown out window.

I'm not making Russia into numero uno. I am pointing out that a military in the top ten doesn't suck.

Well, uh, it does, sadly. It's like saying you're in the top ten navies. It really doesn't matter because the bigger dude is the other top 9 combined. Even if Russia is as good as you're making it out to be, it's still not that great.

I would ask you sir not to edit my words to make myself look as incompetent and lacking as the Russian Military.

If you think a top ten military nation is incompetent, then my edits to your post was 100 percent correct.

I again point to the naval thing. Just because you're top ten of a world where half the developed and high HDI nations are being protected by the biggest stick thrower in human history, doesn't mean your nation's military isn't full of incompetent, hot-headed, and over-reaching soldiers with equipment that was manufactured when The Great and Venerable Leader Stalin demanded them.

[Arkinesia]

So how's Canada transporting that gas to China?

The PRC is home to Asia's largest oil company, SINOPEC. Pretty sure they don't need to import oil.

[Lemanrussland]

So how's Canada transporting that gas to China?

The PRC is home to Asia's largest oil company, SINOPEC. Pretty sure they don't need to import oil.

China is actually the world's larger net importer of oil.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15531

[Trelso]

So how's Canada transporting that gas to China?

The PRC is home to Asia's largest oil company, SINOPEC. Pretty sure they don't need to import oil.

relevant

PS - Also relevant is the population of China being quite high.

[Shanix]

The PRC is home to Asia's largest oil company, SINOPEC. Pretty sure they don't need to import oil.

China is actually the world's larger net importer of oil.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15531

Yeah, but what's the demand? The US imports oil and gas and whatnot, but that's also because we can refine it better than anyone else. Are they greatest need-based importer, or greatest importer total?

[Shofercia]

So how's Canada transporting that gas to China?

There's this big ole' ocean, actually. Huge, I mean, huge. No way you could've missed it.

And have you realized the logistical problems of transferring natural gas over the ocean? China will only pay so much for gas, irrespective of the supplier's transport costs, and Canada's costs are going to be bigger than Russia's.

I'm not making Russia into numero uno. I am pointing out that a military in the top ten doesn't suck.

Well, uh, it does, sadly. It's like saying you're in the top ten navies. It really doesn't matter because the bigger dude is the other top 9 combined. Even if Russia is as good as you're making it out to be, it's still not that great.

If someone's very good, they don't suck.

If you think a top ten military nation is incompetent, then my edits to your post was 100 percent correct.

I again point to the naval thing. Just because you're top ten of a world where half the developed and high HDI nations are being protected by the biggest stick thrower in human history, doesn't mean your nation's military isn't full of incompetent, hot-headed, and over-reaching soldiers with equipment that was manufactured when The Great and Venerable Leader Stalin demanded them.

If you're in the top ten, you aren't protected by an army primarily made in the 1950s, with hot-headed and over-reaching soldiers. That's just basic common sense.

China is actually the world's larger net importer of oil.

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15531

Yeah, but what's the demand? The US imports oil and gas and whatnot, but that's also because we can refine it better than anyone else. Are they greatest need-based importer, or greatest importer total?

Importer: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/profile/hs/2709/ and http://atlas.media.mit.edu/profile/country/chn/

[Arkinesia]

If you're in the top ten, you aren't protected by an army primarily made in the 1950s, with hot-headed and over-reaching soldiers. That's just basic common sense.

Because nobody has accused China of overreaching recently. Nope. Nobody at all. Not a chance.