The Definitive Thread: US vs. Russia

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by nationalist


Paitkis, Texas is already Mexico. So is California.

Anyway, I have always been wondering why do you habve the strong hatred for the U.S.? We've been arguing about that since I first joined Polly.

Nah I don't have hate. At all I'm just trolling and feeding on the ammunition of the communist wing of Europe. (with which I dont agree and dont follow) And I just exagerate it that's all. Not hatred at all. And actually I can point out situations where the US was hugely beneficial to Greece. (and few others where it was not so beneficial )

I just troll from times to times, that's all

[nationalist]

Serb, you have been referring constantly to an American invasion of Russia. What do you think of a Russian invasion of America. I bet that any invading army would have a nice surprise when they try to invade the Appalachians. Good old boys will put up one hell of a fight, everyone older than 7 knows how to use a rifle, and most of us are very good shots.

[Serb]

I aready said that chances of such invasion now is about zero. Our army currently is not ready for such invasion.
In this scenario we will total defense for a long time, untill we gain military superiority. (If war will not end sooner, because of collapse of American economy and your famous war weariness )

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by nationalist
Serb, you have been referring constantly to an American invasion of Russia. What do you think of a Russian invasion of America. I bet that any invading army would have a nice surprise when they try to invade the Appalachians. Good old boys will put up one hell of a fight, everyone older than 7 knows how to use a rifle, and most of us are very good shots.

Lets not forget about Texas/Arkansa/Louisiana/Alabama hicks, Los Angelas gangs (most kids down town start to pack heat around age 4) and our notoriously tough vagrant biker gangs.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Serb
I aready said that chances of such invasion now is about zero. Our army currently is not ready for such invasion.
In this scenario we will total defense for a long time, untill we gain military superiority. (If war will not end sooner, because of collapse of American economy and your famous war weariness )

Perhaps you are refering to Veitnam. War wariness was tremendous during that war because we had little, if any reason for being their. Our military pretty much just kept a corrupt South Veitnamese government in place while fighting a paranoid war over 'contaiment' of communism. American boys were being killed (57,000 by wars end) for little if no reason.
However, I dont recall any major war weariness during wars that we had to fight for what we believed, in other words, pretty much any other war besides Veitnam. Even during veitnam, most of the protests were by hippies, and who cares about them? (sorry, I just wanted to use that face...)

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Serb
I aready said that chances of such invasion now is about zero. Our army currently is not ready for such invasion.
In this scenario we will total defense for a long time, untill we gain military superiority. (If war will not end sooner, because of collapse of American economy and your famous war weariness )

Hey, us rednecks are already poor. We don't own stocks, so the economy can do whatever it wants. We own our own weapons, and can make our own ammo, and grow our own food.
The South will hold out indefinately.
...sings "A Country Boy can Survive" to himself...

The most likely situation is we would let you keep California and New England. We don't want them anyway.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Kramerman


secret to defeat Russia with zero casualties...
pass out millions of gallons of vadka the night before the invasion....

Biiiiiiiiiiiig mistake, very big mistake of yours.
Sure the war will end soon in that case. When hordes of drunk Russian soldiers will swim across ocean and took Washington D.C.
The most dangerous Russian is drunk Russian. Soon after we start to drink vondka we usualy start searching for someone whose ass should be beaten. When we drunk we could be pretty agressive. Drunk fights are our national stort and one of the most favorite.
(That's why I don't drink vodka since long time)

[Serb]

Originally posted by nationalist

The most likely situation is we would let you keep California and New England. We don't want them anyway.

It's a deal

[Serb]

Originally posted by Kramerman


Perhaps you are refering to Veitnam. War wariness was tremendous during that war because we had little, if any reason for being their. Our military pretty much just kept a corrupt South Veitnamese government in place while fighting a paranoid war over 'contaiment' of communism. American boys were being killed (57,000 by wars end) for little if no reason.
However, I dont recall any major war weariness during wars that we had to fight for what we believed, in other words, pretty much any other war besides Veitnam. Even during veitnam, most of the protests were by hippies, and who cares about them? (sorry, I just wanted to use that face...)

So, are you trying to say that in case of American agression against Russia there will be no war weariness, because you will fight for your beleifs. Like supremacy of American nation for example?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Serb

So, are you trying to say that in case of American agression against Russia there will be no war weariness, because you will fight for your beleifs. Like supremacy of American nation for example?

Exactly!!!

It really would depend why we went to war. But regardless, If any sizable amount of American civilians died (say about the amount that would be killed by a cruise missle bombardment), war weariness would be a minimum. If none, then war weariness may be prevelant, again it all depends on the cause of such a war.

It would probably be to the Russians advantage to just fight a defensive war and try to stop the war on the streets of Washington, insted of on the Battlefield - kinda like the Veitnamese did.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Kramerman


Exactly!!!

It really would depend why we went to war.

Ask David about this. I guess his reason is "Hell, why not? Through ages Russians prooved that their army is total sh*t and sure we easily and pretty fast could wipe the floor with Russia". I guess because of this reason.

It would probably be to the Russians advantage to just fight a defensive war and try to stop the war on the streets of Washington, insted of on the Battlefield - kinda like the Veitnamese did.

Keep dreaming.
We are not Veitnamese. You will pay for death of every Russian citizen caused by you. You think you could kill other people forever and don't be punished for this? You will suffer like all of your previus victims suffered because of you, if you will ever dare to attack us. Some one should teach you this lesson, the lesson of misery which war brings.

[Shi Huangdi]

"Some one should teach you this lesson, the lesson of misery which war brings"

Too bad it can't be you, since the days of the Russian power are over and you were humiliated in the Cold War. Not that war is likely, as under Putin, Russia is fast becoming yet another US ***** state.

[Kramerman]

Keep dreaming.
We are not Veitnamese. You will pay for death of every Russian citizen caused by you. You think you could kill other people forever and don't be punished for this? You will suffer like all of your previus victims suffered because of you, if you will ever dare to attack us. Some one should teach you this lesson, the lesson of misery which war brings.

ok. just suggesting that a defensive war by Russia would increase war weariness on America - thus ending the war earlier and therefore saving Russian Lives. But just by killing our civilians you would enrage them all the more, and prolong the war and the death of your people. I think it has been clearly illustrated that the US would enevitablely beat Russia in an all out war, but in a defensive war, you, like Veitnam, would have a chance of winning (winning as in not being conquered) - though when we were fighting Veitnam, it wasnt an all out war (no war economy like wwii, no rationing, people still went about their lives), mind you. If you would rather be conquered but 'teach' Americans this lesson of how you wage war (attrocious death rates for many reasons, I assume), thats fine - sick - but fine. This would only result in horrible death rates on both side, plus the American occupation of Russia. By fighting defensively you would save many, many more Russian lives and have a chance of winning. But, whatever.

[joseph1944]

Serb; have you ever served in the Russian military?

[Kramerman]

Serb,
It appears that you are bitter that the US enjoys its strategic position of being seperated from the Eurasian-African landmass by two large oceans. It is this fact that has kept American CIVILIAN casualties in war so low when compared to other nations, like Russia. But what can be said of military casualties? The US has never practiced machine gunning our own troops if they retreated from battle (the axiam, 'run away to fight another day' comes to mind), and we have a practice of military strategy that minimizes our own troop casualties, unlike the old SU general strategy of throwing troops at an objective until it was taken (I am not saying Russia still practices this, or even has since WWII, merely pointing out the reasons for your high military death counts during WW2). That last tactic meant an almost guarunteed victory but at the obvious cost of lives, unlike American opperations that often risked defeat. Russia had 11 million military casualties alone during WWII, and their only enemy was Germany - who suffered 3.5 million and they had multiple enemies on multiple fronts. Do you not think US troops fought bitter battles against Japan, or Germany for that matter? It was brutal amphbious assault, tropical island jungle warefare, rinse, and repeat for our Pacific war. Yet we did not lose even 0.5 million soldiers (though that is sad enough). Does this make us lesser fighters, because we had less military casualties?
Your 7 millon civilian casualties are tragic, and mostly due to your position on the globe. Because the US was blessed with ours (our isolation), does this make you so bitter as to want to make us feel your pain? I am sorry for you if this be the case, that you wish harm onto civilians just because you want them to feel your pain.

Here is a source, in case you want to deny my stats. But I'll assume you'll just make your typical claim that this site is a biased American conspiracy to make all other countries look inferior or something like that . Its a Euro site, I believe, by the way, if that makes any difference.
casualties statistics

Kman