1. #13641
    Quote Originally Posted by Trollskalden View Post
    So yeah, wasting fuel on "trolling" even though everyone knows the US clearly has the superior military force by margins, including the Russians.

    Honestly, I doubt it's trolling, Russians send away airplanes all the time to neighbouring countries just to provoke them, it's like a guy putting a small Post-It-note on a neighbour's door telling them "HAHA I WAS IN YOUR GARDEN FUCK YOU WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT" and then running away. Like, of course we care they're in our backyards but that's not because we're really threatened by the guy but rather because they're fucking annoying when they do this stuff without any rhyme or reason.
    So it is/was effective, they don't intend to be threatening. Tell me the difference (in this case) between trolling and being an annoyance?

  2. #13642



    The Ukrainian soldiers are helpless, they are clearly just kids. They clearly don't want to attack their fellow citizen, but the illegitimate government in Kiev continues to push them. Yatsenyuk even went as far as to request UN "peacekeepers" against his own citizen.

  3. #13643
    I am Murloc! Tomatketchup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    European State of Gautland
    Posts
    5,485
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMuch View Post
    So it is/was effective, they don't intend to be threatening. Tell me the difference (in this case) between trolling and being an annoyance?
    You troll to get an emotional response. The airplane got told to get out of the airspace but otherwise there was no real emotional response.
    Kalle Anka-partiet in i svenska riksdagen 2014!

    My baby loves though she acts I'm not there~

  4. #13644
    Scarab Lord Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    4,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    Don't forget national guard can be built with very little timber and gold, while t-72 are very expensive on steel and oil. It takes like 5 turns to build one t-72.
    With upgraded barracks you can build 2 national guard for the price of one.
    The US National Guard is better equipped, better trained, and has more combat experience than the Russian Army, and they are our reserve troops.
    And why waste the resources on a T-72 that will last ~20 seconds against 3 guys and a TOW?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by TooMuch View Post
    So it is/was effective, they don't intend to be threatening. Tell me the difference (in this case) between trolling and being an annoyance?
    The biggest thing is the US Navy was concerned the Su-24 would crash into the ship.

  5. #13645
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    The US National Guard is better equipped, better trained, and has more combat experience than the Russian Army, and they are our reserve troops.
    And why waste the resources on a T-72 that will last ~20 seconds against 3 guys and a TOW?
    O'rly? May I ask, where did they get their "combat experience"? And please, do tell me where you've picked up silly idea that they are better trained/equipped?
    Banned.

  6. #13646
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    The US National Guard is better equipped, better trained, and has more combat experience than the Russian Army, and they are our reserve troops.
    And why waste the resources on a T-72 that will last ~20 seconds against 3 guys and a TOW?
    Yes but to get the national guard you have to upgrade the barracks twice.
    T-72 is available as soon as you build the factory.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    O'rly? May I ask, where did they get their "combat experience"? And please, do tell me where you've picked up silly idea that they are better trained/equipped?
    Silly question. With upgraded barracks national guards already come out with +1 level.
    You can upgrade in "commando", "barricade" or "assault".
    Don't tell me you're still playing version 1.9?

  7. #13647
    Scarab Lord Kellhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    4,940
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    O'rly? May I ask, where did they get their "combat experience"? And please, do tell me where you've picked up silly idea that they are better trained/equipped?
    Funny thing, the National Guard is trained and equipped to the same standards as the Active Duty Army, and they conduct combat tours alongside them. Besides, it isnt hard to be better trained than most Russian troops, they are only in for a year.

  8. #13648
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    Funny thing, the National Guard is trained and equipped to the same standards as the Active Duty Army, and they conduct combat tours alongside them. Besides, it isnt hard to be better trained than most Russian troops, they are only in for a year.
    Combat tours where? Did US openly wage war in past decades? Why would they send brave American soldiers anywhere, when they got countries like Poland and Latvia in their puppet organization, NATO. Whom do you think they send to the vanguard of conflicts such as Kosovo? Right, baltic people. And they are happy to oblige, they're itching to shit into Russia's backyard, more than anyone in EU probably.
    They are funny, the balts, locked in a never-ending fight against soviet past.

    Russian regular troops maybe in for a year, but you have to remember that a lot of people decide to stick to the army till their retirement/death.
    Banned.

  9. #13649
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    Combat tours where? Did US openly wage war in past decades?
    Lol wut? ...

  10. #13650
    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    Combat tours where? Did US openly wage war in past decades?
    National Guard brigades do combat tours to Afghanistan and did them for Iraq. The weekend warrior thing went away over a decade ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    CWhy would they send brave American soldiers anywhere, when they got countries like Poland and Latvia in their puppet organization, NATO.
    Well, one reason would be many of these countries fought along side US troops in the NATO mission to Afghanistan (ISAF) and many of them contributed to Multinational Force - Iraq, even though it was not a NATO operation (rather, it was a Coalition / UN one).


    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    Whom do you think they send to the vanguard of conflicts such as Kosovo?
    What the hell? Are you engaging in some weird "anti-balticism" or something? I just had to make up a word right here to describe something so weird.

    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    Right, baltic people. And they are happy to oblige, they're itching to shit into Russia's backyard, more than anyone in EU probably.
    They are funny, the balts, locked in a never-ending fight against soviet past.
    Because Russia invaded, subjugated and dominated them for decades. Estonia is an independent nation, and they had until a couple of years ago, some monuments to Vladmir Lenin lying around. A foreigner. A Russian. Like what the hell? And then Estonia gets electronically assaulted, by Russia, for having the gumption to throw down these monuments to a foreign leader whose successor conquered them?

    They're entirely right to resent Russia. They are entirely in the right. Russia did that itself.



    Quote Originally Posted by Skulkgra View Post
    Russian regular troops maybe in for a year, but you have to remember that a lot of people decide to stick to the army till their retirement/death.
    That's not what the data that I linked indicates at all. Furthermore it's a mathematical impossibility. With 190,000 conscripts per year, if a large proportion of them were to stay on as you said "until retirement or death", both of which would necessarily happen at a slower rate than very broad recruitment, the Russian Army would grow in size at an extremely rapid annual rate. Except... the opposite is happening. It's shrunk, dramatically over the last decade and a half.

    I'm calling bullshit on this and I think you made it up on the spot for some reason. I don't know why. It's not a fact... it doesn't have meaning... if it just exists in your head.

  11. #13651
    Quote Originally Posted by Haven View Post
    For Freedom!
    Prisoners also want freedom...give it to them

  12. #13652
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMuch View Post
    So it is/was effective, they don't intend to be threatening. Tell me the difference (in this case) between trolling and being an annoyance?
    No. It wasn't effective in the slightest. if it effective, the US would have fired warning shots or lodged a diplomatic protest or something. Instead, just like we do with your Tu-95s, we let you do your stunt and just watch you burn jet fuel.

    And furthermore... what the hell are you talking about? "Trolling" is not a tactic of any sort between countries and militaries. Like what are you doing? Why are you trying to contort a behavior that sniveling brats on the internet do to be something a "proud" Russian military would do? That's embarrassing. Militaries do combat, shows of force... stuff of that nature. When the US military wants to send North Korea a subtle message, it stages war games with South Korea. North Korea whines, but gets the message. What message is "trolling" sending? That Russia is insecure? That Russia is 2 generations behind militarily? Is that where Russia is in 2014? Kruschev put warheads in Cuba in 1961. That got a reaction. And Putin sends a 50 year old unarmed attack aircraft? And that's supposed to send a message.

    For fucks sake, have some dignity.

    Basically what Kellhound and Trollskalden said. Also Russia sent out the SU-24 because it's what they have, not because it's their shittiness. It's antiquated nature is incidental. It's simply what Russia uses, because it's Armed Forces are not at all modern.

  13. #13653
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    No. It wasn't effective in the slightest. if it effective, the US would have fired warning shots or lodged a diplomatic protest or something. Instead, just like we do with your Tu-95s, we let you do your stunt and just watch you burn jet fuel.

    And furthermore... what the hell are you talking about? "Trolling" is not a tactic of any sort between countries and militaries. Like what are you doing? Why are you trying to contort a behavior that sniveling brats on the internet do to be something a "proud" Russian military would do? That's embarrassing. Militaries do combat, shows of force... stuff of that nature. When the US military wants to send North Korea a subtle message, it stages war games with South Korea. North Korea whines, but gets the message. What message is "trolling" sending? That Russia is insecure? That Russia is 2 generations behind militarily? Is that where Russia is in 2014? Kruschev put warheads in Cuba in 1961. That got a reaction. And Putin sends a 50 year old unarmed attack aircraft? And that's supposed to send a message.

    For fucks sake, have some dignity.

    Basically what Kellhound and Trollskalden said. Also Russia sent out the SU-24 because it's what they have, not because it's their shittiness. It's antiquated nature is incidental. It's simply what Russia uses, because it's Armed Forces are not at all modern.
    My Tu-95? Where do you get the idea I am Russian? Proves even more that you just read what you want to read... I am opposed to power games if they are being done by any country. Also I am very much in favor of showing more sides than just the one-sided "Russia is bad, US is good". Check for example my post where i explained how dependent Russia is on the Ukraine... Too many people in this thread don't know shit and are very one-sided, but behave like they know everything. Guess they had some drunken talk in the pub or something?

  14. #13654
    Elemental Lord Haven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia
    Posts
    8,260
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    The Ukrainian soldiers are helpless, they are clearly just kids. They clearly don't want to attack their fellow citizen, but the illegitimate government in Kiev continues to push them. Yatsenyuk even went as far as to request UN "peacekeepers" against his own citizen.
    Yanukovich should've used these methods on Maidan. Well, he paid for being decent enough to not shoot his people. The new government will just shoot anyone who disagrees. Democracy!
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    Metzenphrenia. As defined in the DSM: "To be so badly written, that it drives the character into insanity." It's symptoms are similar to schizophrenia but even crazier.
    "There are no answers, only choices" - Solaris.

  15. #13655
    Fluffy Kitten Puupi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    3,797
    I'm beginning to think Djalil and TooMuch are siblings. Both live in the anonymityland, are anti-US, pro-Russian and argue just for the sake of argument.
    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H. L. Mencken

  16. #13656
    Quote Originally Posted by Haven View Post
    Yanukovich should've used these methods on Maidan. Well, he paid for being decent enough to not shoot his people. The new government will just shoot anyone who disagrees. Democracy!
    Excuse me? What the fuck were the snipers in Maidan then?

    Inb4:CIA

  17. #13657
    Well, considering the nigh-Godlike abilities of the American military as some posters here seem to think of it, I'm sure the US could go in militarily, clean up the Russian presence in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, make sure the Russians are never in a position to do so again, and head home with minimal casualties, right?

    I mean, it's the giant and the gnat, David and Goliath, right?

    So...why doesn't the US do it and just be done with the situation instead of sniveling internationally and writing angrily-worded letters?

  18. #13658
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroesec View Post
    No. It wasn't effective in the slightest. if it effective, the US would have fired warning shots or lodged a diplomatic protest or something. Instead, just like we do with your Tu-95s, we let you do your stunt and just watch you burn jet fuel.
    Just like when US sent their planes to disputed Chinese air defense zone then?

  19. #13659
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMuch View Post



    I have no bigger disdain for warmongers like you (see I can do it too), basically you proved my remark about a certain mindset. You have to admit that a military as the US has is basically just show, my dick is bigger than yours! A tool for an aggressive bully. If the US had NOT declared themselves to be the world police, the size of the army could be much, much less.
    You make wrong assumptions about "utopian one-worlders", I am far from one. But a very small army can be as effective as a bloated big one. Currently in the US the cost doesn't justify the size of the military. "We will use the army for humanitarian reasons." As if that worked out so good the last few times it really was needed, even inside the US. And then you condemn companies like Lockheed for trying to get the most out of the contracts with the DoD? To me that is a kind of contradiction
    I'm not a war monger. I don't want us to fight anyone. But at the same time, I'm a strong believer in the idea that the safest way to be secure in a law of jungle that is the international community is to be the strongest, smartest one in the room and amass as much power as possible at the expense of the competition. I make no apologizes about that. I fundamentally do not care what happens to Russia. If Putin turns it into North Korea and it's people spend the next twenty years getting reacquainted with the bread line, I do not care. If Putin turns it into some kind of Russian Orthodox Saudi Arabia, I do not care. If a black hole passed through the earth and sucked Russia into it, I would not care. So long as Russia's bad policies effect only Russians, I do not care.

    The problem is, right now, it's effecting our friends, people who want to be friends with us, and our interests. And that I do care about, very, very much. Power is not to be shared on terms we do not set.

    The US Military is not for show. It's for use. You may not understand that because in Russia, when Vladmir Putin rolls the latest in Russian hardware down Red Square what he is actually saying is "This is the Russian state. It is strong. I am the man who made the state strong, and thus Russia. I can protect you." By contrast, when was the last time the US Military put on a parade in the Russian, or hell, even the Bastille Day, style... where we roll a bunch of tanks, combat troops, some ICBMs, a brigade, and stuff like that, down Pennsylvania avenue in Washington DC or Fifth Avenue in New York, for some inane display of military might? When was the last time we've engaged in such an infantile display of state power? I don't think it's ever been done. I think the closest we get is "Welcome home" Parades of unarmed troops on foot that happen in small towns and big cities from time to time and flying the Blue Angels over the Superbowl or something. I imagine if the President of the United States asked for a flyover of 4 B-2s in formation during his inaugural parade, a bunch of Air Force generals would resign in protest and Congress would launch an investigation.

    Americans don't do crap like that. We're cut from a different cloth. Hell if we really wanted to "wave our dicks around", as you basically put it, we'd build more, cheaper Nimitz Class carriers and float 20 of them around for some reason, rather than buy Ford Class carriers at a slower rate, at twice the cost, because they promise to be far more capable when actually used.

    Our armed forces are very far from bloated by the way. If anything, they were too small for most of the Iraq / Afghan War, "right sized" for the last five or six years, and now a little too big and "Army/Marines" heavy when they need to be Navy/Air Force heavy for the problem of China. We cant afford them to be bloated because unlike a low cost one year conscript a contracted US service member is a rather expensive employee to have. Our massive military budget? Mostly personnel and maintenance costs.

    As for being "World Police"... well... we did build the modern world order. And the fact is, we're the most secure superpower in history. We have no existential threats, dozens of military allies, most of them among the most militarily powerful and richest nations in the world. We have friendly neighbors to the north and south, and major advantages in technology and experience. That's the dirty little secret of US foreign policy since 1992. We became the "World Police" when having to be the vanguard against... I don't know... the likes of the USSR... passed into history. After all, it was the free world that won the Cold War.

  20. #13660
    Quote Originally Posted by Puupi View Post
    I'm beginning to think Djalil and TooMuch are siblings. Both live in the anonymityland, are anti-US, pro-Russian and argue just for the sake of argument.
    Show me any post where I show that am pro-Russian? Like said before, people like your are so one-side minded that discussing with you guys is just no use. Djalil and I both try to show that there are multiple sides to any issue, but alas...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •