Is Old Europe Really This Impotent?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

WW1 trench warfare is hardly modern warfare.

Then you learned modern warfare from the Germans and post-modern warfare from the Iraqis.

Not bad. But the problem is that we learned modern warfare from the French and not the Germans.

You are 100 years behind the times.

Read some history. Modern conventional warfare was born in World War I. Heavy firepower, the thinning of the battlefield, the industrial mobilization of the state for war, etc. Blitzkrieg doctrine was a descendant of German stormtroop tactics of 1918. A century is not that long. For example, the U.S. Army today still has basically the same personnel system it had before World War I.

And FYI, the “early modern” period begins about 1500. 1918 is certainly “modern”.[/quote]

  1. The US Army has the same personnel system as it had before the French taught us in WW1.

  2. You want to count 1500 as part of the modern period.

  3. You think trench warfare is comparable to the helicopter mobile doctrine we use today.

Three strikes, you are out.

102

Even funnier is that heavy firepower and trench warfare was really put into play in the American Civil War. Which we did not learn from the French.

GDollars, you really need to stop taking everything some college prof told you as gospel.

103

[quote]orion wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
tg2hbk4488 wrote:
The idea of everyone should be equal is all nice and sweet and would be fair…but not realistic. Chad being equal with China…please.

China is more important. The only suggestion I would be evening willing to consider would be 1) Remove Franc off permanent seat in security council. They have no historic merit for being there, unless being rescued by from invading forces in both world wars is a requirment for that seat.

Your knowledge of both history and “world issues” is pretty poor. France bled itself white (ever heard of Verdun?) in the First World War, and then taught the U.S. Army how to fight modern industrial war (whether those were the best lessons is another issue).

And today France fights a handful of little African brush wars that no one ever reads about while being second only to the U.S. as an expeditionary military power, believe it or not.

I’m sorry … I’m gonna have to throw the giant BS penalty flag on this one. France taught the US how to fight modern industrial war??? France’s attempt at modern industrial war started and stopped (horribly) with the maginot line.

Maybe you mean by getting themselves totally wiped out by the Germans who went around their defenses they demonstrated exactly how NOT to wage modern industrial warfare?

The US certainly learned that lesson … as well as a few others. Most notably how NOT to appease dictators … and how NOT to collaborate with nazis.

And we’re still learning things from France even today. Like how NOT to morally posture at the UN to prevent effective action, while at the same time raping the Oil for Food program to get billions for yourself while arming a genocidal dictator.

In fact, the US has learned many things from France but not the kind of things you’re thinking of.

(And I think the British might have thing or two to say about who is second to the US as an expeditionary military power.)

Yup, you learned modern warfare from the French.

Deal with it.

Plus, American military instructors readily admit this so your outrage is highly amusing.

WW1 trench warfare is hardly modern warfare.

Then you learned modern warfare from the Germans and post-modern warfare from the Iraqis.

Not bad. But the problem is that we learned modern warfare from the French and not the Germans.

That depends what you call “Modern warfare”. The combined effort of tanks, airforce and infantry, aka “Blitzkrieg” was undoubtedly German.

[/quote]

The Blitzkrieg innovation was a linear tactic as practiced by the Germans in WW2. They were never able to “combine” them in practice. You also left out one of the major components which is artillery. The Blitzkrieg was dropped by the Germans when faced with stronger opposition from the Russians and Americans. The US perfected a variation of the combined arms assault to face the Russians and demonstrated it’s effectiveness in GW1. The Germans failed at it due to lack of communication technology and the inability to develop situational awareness to compensate for the deficient communication systems of the day.

The US system of After Action Reports has always been uniquely American and is responsible for the majority of US adaptation to changing combat conditions. AAR reports are the key to adaptation and innovation. It is not accurate to claim the US learned Modern Warfare from the French or Germans. They observed it. Incorporated what worked and discarded what did not. This is an institutional mindset and has been for years. Lots of nations share ideas and tactics with each other, particularly allies. To be honest much more information flows from the US military to other forces then flows to it.

I don’t think any creible military instructor would make the claim that the US learned modern warfare from the French. The US may have first fought an industrialized war in France and studied with the French but the US quickly discarded the concept of trench warfare and prepared for a fire and manuver doctrine in the 20’s and 30’s. This was perfected in the 40’s and General Abrams really drove it home in the 80’s along with a lot of other reforms.

The big innovation that everyone misses is the concept of the OODA loop. Current US doctrine exploits the enemy loop and disrupts it, keeping them on the defensive and reactionary. The major weapons systems are all designed to exploit this. study any major campaign since the 80’s and you will see US forces operating at a high tempo, destoying enemy communication and command and constant movement to keep the opposition off balance. That is why it’s just a matter of time in any struggle until the enemy is defeated. The military understands this. The folks back home, particularly politicians do not.

104

[quote]hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
tg2hbk4488 wrote:
The idea of everyone should be equal is all nice and sweet and would be fair…but not realistic. Chad being equal with China…please.

China is more important. The only suggestion I would be evening willing to consider would be 1) Remove Franc off permanent seat in security council. They have no historic merit for being there, unless being rescued by from invading forces in both world wars is a requirment for that seat.

Your knowledge of both history and “world issues” is pretty poor. France bled itself white (ever heard of Verdun?) in the First World War, and then taught the U.S. Army how to fight modern industrial war (whether those were the best lessons is another issue).

And today France fights a handful of little African brush wars that no one ever reads about while being second only to the U.S. as an expeditionary military power, believe it or not.

I’m sorry … I’m gonna have to throw the giant BS penalty flag on this one. France taught the US how to fight modern industrial war??? France’s attempt at modern industrial war started and stopped (horribly) with the maginot line.

Maybe you mean by getting themselves totally wiped out by the Germans who went around their defenses they demonstrated exactly how NOT to wage modern industrial warfare?

The US certainly learned that lesson … as well as a few others. Most notably how NOT to appease dictators … and how NOT to collaborate with nazis.

And we’re still learning things from France even today. Like how NOT to morally posture at the UN to prevent effective action, while at the same time raping the Oil for Food program to get billions for yourself while arming a genocidal dictator.

In fact, the US has learned many things from France but not the kind of things you’re thinking of.

(And I think the British might have thing or two to say about who is second to the US as an expeditionary military power.)

Yup, you learned modern warfare from the French.

Deal with it.

Plus, American military instructors readily admit this so your outrage is highly amusing.

WW1 trench warfare is hardly modern warfare.

Then you learned modern warfare from the Germans and post-modern warfare from the Iraqis.

Not bad. But the problem is that we learned modern warfare from the French and not the Germans.

That depends what you call “Modern warfare”. The combined effort of tanks, airforce and infantry, aka “Blitzkrieg” was undoubtedly German.

The Blitzkrieg innovation was a linear tactic as practiced by the Germans in WW2. They were never able to “combine” them in practice. You also left out one of the major components which is artillery. The Blitzkrieg was dropped by the Germans when faced with stronger opposition from the Russians and Americans. The US perfected a variation of the combined arms assault to face the Russians and demonstrated it’s effectiveness in GW1. The Germans failed at it due to lack of communication technology and the inability to develop situational awareness to compensate for the deficient communication systems of the day.

The US system of After Action Reports has always been uniquely American and is responsible for the majority of US adaptation to changing combat conditions. AAR reports are the key to adaptation and innovation. It is not accurate to claim the US learned Modern Warfare from the French or Germans. They observed it. Incorporated what worked and discarded what did not. This is an institutional mindset and has been for years. Lots of nations share ideas and tactics with each other, particularly allies. To be honest much more information flows from the US military to other forces then flows to it.

I don’t think any creible military instructor would make the claim that the US learned modern warfare from the French. The US may have first fought an industrialized war in France and studied with the French but the US quickly discarded the concept of trench warfare and prepared for a fire and manuver doctrine in the 20’s and 30’s. This was perfected in the 40’s and General Abrams really drove it home in the 80’s along with a lot of other reforms.

The big innovation that everyone misses is the concept of the OODA loop. Current US doctrine exploits the enemy loop and disrupts it, keeping them on the defensive and reactionary. The major weapons systems are all designed to exploit this. study any major campaign since the 80’s and you will see US forces operating at a high tempo, destoying enemy communication and command and constant movement to keep the opposition off balance. That is why it’s just a matter of time in any struggle until the enemy is defeated. The military understands this. The folks back home, particularly politicians do not.

[/quote]

You win.

I think?

Now please tell us something about how that works with insurgents. Or at least how this is supposed to work.

105

[quote]orion wrote:
hedo wrote:
orion wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
orion wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
orion wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
tg2hbk4488 wrote:
The idea of everyone should be equal is all nice and sweet and would be fair…but not realistic. Chad being equal with China…please.

China is more important. The only suggestion I would be evening willing to consider would be 1) Remove Franc off permanent seat in security council. They have no historic merit for being there, unless being rescued by from invading forces in both world wars is a requirment for that seat.

Your knowledge of both history and “world issues” is pretty poor. France bled itself white (ever heard of Verdun?) in the First World War, and then taught the U.S. Army how to fight modern industrial war (whether those were the best lessons is another issue).

And today France fights a handful of little African brush wars that no one ever reads about while being second only to the U.S. as an expeditionary military power, believe it or not.

I’m sorry … I’m gonna have to throw the giant BS penalty flag on this one. France taught the US how to fight modern industrial war??? France’s attempt at modern industrial war started and stopped (horribly) with the maginot line.

Maybe you mean by getting themselves totally wiped out by the Germans who went around their defenses they demonstrated exactly how NOT to wage modern industrial warfare?

The US certainly learned that lesson … as well as a few others. Most notably how NOT to appease dictators … and how NOT to collaborate with nazis.

And we’re still learning things from France even today. Like how NOT to morally posture at the UN to prevent effective action, while at the same time raping the Oil for Food program to get billions for yourself while arming a genocidal dictator.

In fact, the US has learned many things from France but not the kind of things you’re thinking of.

(And I think the British might have thing or two to say about who is second to the US as an expeditionary military power.)

Yup, you learned modern warfare from the French.

Deal with it.

Plus, American military instructors readily admit this so your outrage is highly amusing.

WW1 trench warfare is hardly modern warfare.

Then you learned modern warfare from the Germans and post-modern warfare from the Iraqis.

Not bad. But the problem is that we learned modern warfare from the French and not the Germans.

That depends what you call “Modern warfare”. The combined effort of tanks, airforce and infantry, aka “Blitzkrieg” was undoubtedly German.

The Blitzkrieg innovation was a linear tactic as practiced by the Germans in WW2. They were never able to “combine” them in practice. You also left out one of the major components which is artillery. The Blitzkrieg was dropped by the Germans when faced with stronger opposition from the Russians and Americans. The US perfected a variation of the combined arms assault to face the Russians and demonstrated it’s effectiveness in GW1. The Germans failed at it due to lack of communication technology and the inability to develop situational awareness to compensate for the deficient communication systems of the day.

The US system of After Action Reports has always been uniquely American and is responsible for the majority of US adaptation to changing combat conditions. AAR reports are the key to adaptation and innovation. It is not accurate to claim the US learned Modern Warfare from the French or Germans. They observed it. Incorporated what worked and discarded what did not. This is an institutional mindset and has been for years. Lots of nations share ideas and tactics with each other, particularly allies. To be honest much more information flows from the US military to other forces then flows to it.

I don’t think any creible military instructor would make the claim that the US learned modern warfare from the French. The US may have first fought an industrialized war in France and studied with the French but the US quickly discarded the concept of trench warfare and prepared for a fire and manuver doctrine in the 20’s and 30’s. This was perfected in the 40’s and General Abrams really drove it home in the 80’s along with a lot of other reforms.

The big innovation that everyone misses is the concept of the OODA loop. Current US doctrine exploits the enemy loop and disrupts it, keeping them on the defensive and reactionary. The major weapons systems are all designed to exploit this. study any major campaign since the 80’s and you will see US forces operating at a high tempo, destoying enemy communication and command and constant movement to keep the opposition off balance. That is why it’s just a matter of time in any struggle until the enemy is defeated. The military understands this. The folks back home, particularly politicians do not.

You win.

I think?

Now please tell us something about how that works with insurgents. Or at least how this is supposed to work.

[/quote]

Different situation and tactics but the same principles apply. Engage the enemy and either defeat him or discover where he is weak. Initial plan didn’t work. Adapt and overcome. Kill the leaders (ongoing), disrupt communications and control(networks), take down the networks (Al-Sadr and others), cut off supplies (from Iran). Reduce opposition to the point it can be handled by local forces and police. The surge worked as advertised and the evil warlord Bush and his disciple McCain were right about it. However, the hard work and planning were done long before the troops rolled in to execute the plan. The surge of forces worked because it is what the strategy and planning called for to execute it. It was all developed from a mountain of After Action Reports.

US military strategy is working quiet well against the insurgency in Iraq and has been for awhile. Most negative news is simply political noise from the Democrats and other sympathetic parties. The outcome was never in doubt.

Simply planting a bomb and killing police recruits isn’t an effective counter attack against the opposing force. Being able to take and hold ground is what is needed to defeat an enemy. The insurgency, or what is left of it, can’t hold anything and is despised by the local population who turn them in left and right. All this takes time, tactics and execution. If the US faces insurgents again they will be defeated that much sooner.

Despite the political consternation in the rest of the world most world leaders are quiet happy to see Saddam gone, Iraq a Democratic nation for the time being, and another radical Islamic call to Jihad destroyed. They are also relieved the US, Britian and the other allies did the heavy lifting part of it.

106

I remember reading that another advantage the American Army enjoys over most is the lack of “fog of war” which makes it difficult to coordinate effectively in battle situations.

With satellites, unmanned recon drones, AWACS aircraft, etc. The USA Army can engage and defeat a much larger force simply because it use what it has much more effectively and can see and anticipate the enemy’s movement.

I remember playing the first WarCraft game in the 90s, which had “fog of war”: You couldn’t see the map until you had explored it, and unmanned regions didn’t show you enemies on them. There was a patch available to cheat and have the map show everything, all the time. It made the game completely unfair if only one of the players used it.

In real war, you want all the unfair you can get.

107

[quote]pookie wrote:

I remember playing the first WarCraft game in the 90s, which had “fog of war”: You couldn’t see the map until you had explored it, and unmanned regions didn’t show you enemies on them. There was a patch available to cheat and have the map show everything, all the time. It made the game completely unfair if only one of the players used it.

In real war, you want all the unfair you can get.
[/quote]

Very similar. Our soldiers are trained to walk through the center and around the boundries of the map immediately, so as to clear the blacked out portion of their maps. Sometimes they have to slowly edge up real close to a high level Taliban (but without agroing) in order to clear the map on the opposite side of him.

108

[quote]orion wrote:
Nich wrote:
orion wrote:
Nich wrote:
orion wrote:

What do you think Russia is? The Navajo?

this means what exactly?

That the US may be used to breaking promises over and over again, but in the case of Russia that has consequences.

what does the Dine (navajo) have to do with that statment?

ok let me ask you this,
if you would have used any other race,lets say,the asains,mexicians,irish
any of the other many many people that the us made promises to and then broke or persecuted over the years,would it be any more offensive?

how about if you said russia arent N****rs would that have been any more or less offensive?

or is it maybe you knew that there was a few of each of these races on this board,but you knew that there was no navajos so you are safe and able to say something like that?

shows your ignorance
the navajo was one of the many many tribes of people that was involved in that “witch hunt” this is true
however the navajo was able to keep there holy lands and one of the very very few that has not lost there traditions and beleifs to the europeans

they have their own government something that is also unique to native americans they are working on expanding that government and becoming toataly free from the us government,as it stands they are semi-autonomous and very little in us aide goes to these people.
you are very ignorant and you made a general statment about something you know nill about.
just another example of you need to just shut up and stop spewing media bullshit.we already have the media here thanks

Oh Jesus, I just picked one Indian tribe whose name had a nice ring to it.

[/quote]
which is what I thought
meaning you have no flipping clue what yo uare talking about
and if you have no clue about that it kind of blows your crediblity out the water with the rest of your BS statments now dosent it.

109

[quote]Nich wrote:
orion wrote:
Nich wrote:
orion wrote:
Nich wrote:
orion wrote:

What do you think Russia is? The Navajo?

this means what exactly?

That the US may be used to breaking promises over and over again, but in the case of Russia that has consequences.

what does the Dine (navajo) have to do with that statment?

ok let me ask you this,
if you would have used any other race,lets say,the asains,mexicians,irish
any of the other many many people that the us made promises to and then broke or persecuted over the years,would it be any more offensive?

how about if you said russia arent N****rs would that have been any more or less offensive?

or is it maybe you knew that there was a few of each of these races on this board,but you knew that there was no navajos so you are safe and able to say something like that?

shows your ignorance
the navajo was one of the many many tribes of people that was involved in that “witch hunt” this is true
however the navajo was able to keep there holy lands and one of the very very few that has not lost there traditions and beleifs to the europeans

they have their own government something that is also unique to native americans they are working on expanding that government and becoming toataly free from the us government,as it stands they are semi-autonomous and very little in us aide goes to these people.
you are very ignorant and you made a general statment about something you know nill about.
just another example of you need to just shut up and stop spewing media bullshit.we already have the media here thanks

Oh Jesus, I just picked one Indian tribe whose name had a nice ring to it.

which is what I thought
meaning you have no flipping clue what yo uare talking about
and if you have no clue about that it kind of blows your crediblity out the water with the rest of your BS statments now dosent it.

[/quote]

The first conclusion is true concerning the Navajo and the second one is just plain, convenient BS.

110

[quote]pookie wrote:
I remember reading that another advantage the American Army enjoys over most is the lack of “fog of war” which makes it difficult to coordinate effectively in battle situations.

With satellites, unmanned recon drones, AWACS aircraft, etc. The USA Army can engage and defeat a much larger force simply because it use what it has much more effectively and can see and anticipate the enemy’s movement.

I remember playing the first WarCraft game in the 90s, which had “fog of war”: You couldn’t see the map until you had explored it, and unmanned regions didn’t show you enemies on them. There was a patch available to cheat and have the map show everything, all the time. It made the game completely unfair if only one of the players used it.

In real war, you want all the unfair you can get.
[/quote]

Absolutely true Pookie. Fair is for the movies.

The US can not only see what the enemy is doing but can disrupt it and keep them on the defensive. Truly getting inside his loop.

The digital revolution has lifted the fog of war for the US and it’s allies. And the fog of war was a very real enemy. Smaller forces moving at lighting speed with unsurpassed leathality are the current standard.

I’ve been out of the game for nearly 12 years but I have an employee who did two tours in Iraq and some of the things he updated me on caused me to say wtf.

The integration of precision air delivered munitions and the ability of ground forces to precisely designate the targets has force multiplied the lethality of ground forces to an unbelievable degree.

111

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

WW1 trench warfare is hardly modern warfare.

Then you learned modern warfare from the Germans and post-modern warfare from the Iraqis.

Not bad. But the problem is that we learned modern warfare from the French and not the Germans.

You are 100 years behind the times.

Read some history. Modern conventional warfare was born in World War I. Heavy firepower, the thinning of the battlefield, the industrial mobilization of the state for war, etc. Blitzkrieg doctrine was a descendant of German stormtroop tactics of 1918. A century is not that long. For example, the U.S. Army today still has basically the same personnel system it had before World War I.

And FYI, the “early modern” period begins about 1500. 1918 is certainly “modern”.

  1. The US Army has the same personnel system as it had before the French taught us in WW1.
    [/quote]

What? I said the French played a big role in teaching the AEF how to fight in World War I. I did not say they created the U.S. Army from scratch, or invented its personnel system. Seems pretty clear.

EARLY modern. Did you catch that? I don’t count it that way, historians do. The point is that the 16th century is early modern, and the 20th is modern.

No. I never said that. Although the vast majority of our soldiers get around in trucks, not helicopters.

You’re either missing the point or obfuscating. The issue is not the specific details of the war. It’s not that the French taught us how to use helicopters, cruise missiles, etc. It’s that the broad doctrinal/intellectual basis of how the U.S. Army fought, and perhaps to some degree still fights, “the American way of war”, fire-power not maneuver oriented, logistically superior, and often seeking to win by attrition, has many French roots. It predates WWI to some degree, but was heavily driven by the French Army we learned from in WWI. If you’re too nationalistic or obstinate to accept that, no sweat.

112

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Even funnier is that heavy firepower and trench warfare was really put into play in the American Civil War. Which we did not learn from the French.

GDollars, you really need to stop taking everything some college prof told you as gospel.[/quote]

College prof? Sad to say, there are very few U.S. universities that actually teach military history any more. Ohio State, Yale, Duke I think, few other spots. Not where I went.

And you’re right, the Civil War, German wars, and Russo-Japanese gave hints of what was to come. But World War I was a totally different magnitude. Just compare the mobility of the armies in the field.

113

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:

WW1 trench warfare is hardly modern warfare.

Then you learned modern warfare from the Germans and post-modern warfare from the Iraqis.

Not bad. But the problem is that we learned modern warfare from the French and not the Germans.

You are 100 years behind the times.

Read some history. Modern conventional warfare was born in World War I. Heavy firepower, the thinning of the battlefield, the industrial mobilization of the state for war, etc. Blitzkrieg doctrine was a descendant of German stormtroop tactics of 1918. A century is not that long. For example, the U.S. Army today still has basically the same personnel system it had before World War I.

And FYI, the “early modern” period begins about 1500. 1918 is certainly “modern”.

  1. The US Army has the same personnel system as it had before the French taught us in WW1.

What? I said the French played a big role in teaching the AEF how to fight in World War I. I did not say they created the U.S. Army from scratch, or invented its personnel system. Seems pretty clear.

  1. You want to count 1500 as part of the modern period.

EARLY modern. Did you catch that? I don’t count it that way, historians do. The point is that the 16th century is early modern, and the 20th is modern.

  1. You think trench warfare is comparable to the helicopter mobile doctrine we use today.

No. I never said that. Although the vast majority of our soldiers get around in trucks, not helicopters.

You’re either missing the point or obfuscating. The issue is not the specific details of the war. It’s not that the French taught us how to use helicopters, cruise missiles, etc. It’s that the broad doctrinal/intellectual basis of how the U.S. Army fought, and perhaps to some degree still fights, “the American way of war”, fire-power not maneuver oriented, logistically superior, and often seeking to win by attrition, has many French roots. It predates WWI to some degree, but was heavily driven by the French Army we learned from in WWI. If you’re too nationalistic or obstinate to accept that, no sweat.[/quote]

I completely understand the point, you are going through some silly Eurocentric phase where you will make ridiculous statements and try to stick by them when called out.

114

what!?!?! me buy into propaganda? :wink:
next your going to tell me there are no WMD in iraq!
please don’t tell me our war was a blatant act of aggression too…

btw, I’m living in Canada, and I’m pretty sure they are hiding some nukes under all those hockey rinks, i think its part of a secret conspiracy (eh)! Lets get em! (plus they’ve got lots of oil!)

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
zenontheterrible wrote:
ok so… Russia had peace keepers in south osseta…

Which is part of Georgia

Georga invades south osseta killing Russian peace keepers and thousands of Russian citizens…

In response to South Ossetia shooting into Georgia. Why weren’t the Russians stopping the South Ossetians? They are supposed to be peacekeepers.

and somehow Russia responding with force, is a ‘blatant act of aggression’?

Invasion of Georgia certainly is.

i must be confused.

personally i hope if someone killed a bunch of US peace keepers and civilians we’d respond with MORE aggression.

You have been buying to the Russian propaganda.[/quote]

116

Q:Is Old Europe Really This Impotent?

A:
Well there isn’t much the US, or Old+New Europe, or China can do to Russia. So calling Old Europe impotent is silly.

The Russians are one of W. Europes main oil and natural gas suppliers, they also have a huge military, lots of $$ (from oil revenews), and nukes. So there isn’t much that can be done to them.

The best the US and W. Europe can do is rebuild Georgia and the get the Russian troops out of Georgia’s main port.

117

Well, if NATO saying the Russian invasion of Georgia was “not consistent with peacekeeping” was “impotent,” then what about Obama’s saying:

“It only adds to the tragedy and outrage of the current situation that Russia has acted while the world has come together in peace and athletic competition in Beijing. This action is wholly inconsistent with the Olympic ideal.”

Rumor has it that that statement from “The One” had Putin crying for his mommy and pleading “Make the bad man go away!!”

118

[quote]Neospartan wrote:
Q:Is Old Europe Really This Impotent?

A:
Well there isn’t much the US, or Old+New Europe, or China can do to Russia. So calling Old Europe impotent is silly.

The Russians are one of W. Europes main oil and natural gas suppliers, they also have a huge military, lots of $$ (from oil revenews), and nukes. So there isn’t much that can be done to them.
[/quote]

Exactly! It’s all rhetoric.

119

[quote]lixy wrote:

Exactly! It’s all rhetoric.[/quote]

B.S. if they wanted to they could have done something. Maybe a protest or two for a good measure. How about sanctions?

Or, of course they could build defensive missile shields to counter the Russian aggression…

But then spineless idiots would be protesting the US (while remaining silent about Russia. Nice double standard asswipes.)

120

[quote]lixy wrote:
Neospartan wrote:
Q:Is Old Europe Really This Impotent?

A:
Well there isn’t much the US, or Old+New Europe, or China can do to Russia. So calling Old Europe impotent is silly.

The Russians are one of W. Europes main oil and natural gas suppliers, they also have a huge military, lots of $$ (from oil revenews), and nukes. So there isn’t much that can be done to them.

Exactly! It’s all rhetoric.[/quote]

No, it was murder and looting.