Bush warns Russia to pull back in Georgia, come on!

Oh, this can't be good. May lead to military involvement in their affairs, and nobody has won against Russia in a war. Napoleon went downhill after that, as did HitlerVideo_Game_King

Japan?

Russo–Japanese War

Afghanistan?

Soviet-Afghan War

Just off the top of my head.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Russia needs to pull back. What's the problem?SaintLeonidas

yes, I mean I thinnk this thread is proof of people who jumped on the "hat Bush" band wagon. I mean, I hate Bush for many things, but Im totally with him on this, and he is not a moron for saying this like others are saying.

I agree with this.

Bush is doing the right thing. If no one tells russia to stop invading a country, then do you think they'll shy away from doing it again the next time?

Actually, do you guys know why hitler could be so successful in WW2? There were all kinds of treaties saying Germany couldn't get a big army again, and that germany was forbidden to invade another country. Hitler slowly began building up a military force, and other countries didn't feel like doing anything about it. Germany became stronger and stronger, and eventually it was too late. Sure, both cases are nowhere near identical, but you get the idea.

Bush is doing the right thing. If no one tells russia to stop invading a country, then do you think they'll shy away from doing it again the next time?

Actually, do you guys know why hitler could be so successful in WW2? There were all kinds of treaties saying Germany couldn't get a big army again, and that germany was forbidden to invade another country. Hitler slowly began building up a military force, and other countries didn't feel like doing anything about it. Germany became stronger and stronger, and eventually it was too late. Sure, both cases are nowhere near identical, but you get the idea.

11Marcel

You could say the same about the US, I guess.

[QUOTE="11Marcel"]

Bush is doing the right thing. If no one tells russia to stop invading a country, then do you think they'll shy away from doing it again the next time?

Actually, do you guys know why hitler could be so successful in WW2? There were all kinds of treaties saying Germany couldn't get a big army again, and that germany was forbidden to invade another country. Hitler slowly began building up a military force, and other countries didn't feel like doing anything about it. Germany became stronger and stronger, and eventually it was too late. Sure, both cases are nowhere near identical, but you get the idea.

BlackAlpha666

You could say the same about the US, I guess.

[QUOTE="11Marcel"]

Bush is doing the right thing. If no one tells russia to stop invading a country, then do you think they'll shy away from doing it again the next time?

Actually, do you guys know why hitler could be so successful in WW2? There were all kinds of treaties saying Germany couldn't get a big army again, and that germany was forbidden to invade another country. Hitler slowly began building up a military force, and other countries didn't feel like doing anything about it. Germany became stronger and stronger, and eventually it was too late. Sure, both cases are nowhere near identical, but you get the idea.

BlackAlpha666

You could say the same about the US, I guess.

Actually.....not at all.

[QUOTE="11Marcel"]

Bush is doing the right thing. If no one tells russia to stop invading a country, then do you think they'll shy away from doing it again the next time?

Actually, do you guys know why hitler could be so successful in WW2? There were all kinds of treaties saying Germany couldn't get a big army again, and that germany was forbidden to invade another country. Hitler slowly began building up a military force, and other countries didn't feel like doing anything about it. Germany became stronger and stronger, and eventually it was too late. Sure, both cases are nowhere near identical, but you get the idea.

BlackAlpha666

You could say the same about the US, I guess.

[QUOTE="BlackAlpha666"][QUOTE="11Marcel"]

Bush is doing the right thing. If no one tells russia to stop invading a country, then do you think they'll shy away from doing it again the next time?

Actually, do you guys know why hitler could be so successful in WW2? There were all kinds of treaties saying Germany couldn't get a big army again, and that germany was forbidden to invade another country. Hitler slowly began building up a military force, and other countries didn't feel like doing anything about it. Germany became stronger and stronger, and eventually it was too late. Sure, both cases are nowhere near identical, but you get the idea.

LJS9502_basic

You could say the same about the US, I guess.

Bush reminds me of that little kid that just blurts out whatever he has in mind and you have to hold him back constantly to keep his mouth shut.WINDWAKER1

theres countries fighting all over the world all of the time. idk why the Bush's love war so much? itz not like he's the one out there with the ammo and cammo on. he needs to sit his ass down and stop picking what fight he thinks the US should get involved in. shyskillz

You know though, WW2 boosted America's economy.... hmm ... no still would never want one.SimpJee

WW2 boosted america's economy because they got into the fight at the last minute, lost minimal amounts of men, and made huge amount of money manufacturing for Europe. Basically, America was getting rich while millions were dying.

[QUOTE="SimpJee"]You know though, WW2 boosted America's economy.... hmm ... no still would never want one.smarb001

WW2 boosted america's economy because they got into the fight at the last minute, lost minimal amounts of men, and made huge amount of money manufacturing for Europe. Basically, America was getting rich while millions were dying.

I know because we weren't fighting for a good cause. :roll: Wars happen. "So long as there are men, there will be wars." Albert Einstein.

[QUOTE="SimpJee"]You know though, WW2 boosted America's economy.... hmm ... no still would never want one.smarb001

WW2 boosted america's economy because they got into the fight at the last minute, lost minimal amounts of men, and made huge amount of money manufacturing for Europe. Basically, America was getting rich while millions were dying.

You're forgetting that We were fighting Japan for several years....

War can be good for the economy buddy.

Seriously, people:

1. It was Dick Cheney who said something.

2. The President cannot declare war; only Congress. And since our Congress (albeit full of apes and Kindergarteners) is Majority Democrat, there's no way in hell that war will be declared against Russia.

3. Let's say war is declared, just for giggles. No chance in HELL will there be a World War.

Theokhoth

Sergeant: "Correct, there is no obligation."
Bender/Fry: *giggling, signing up for army*
Sergeant: "Unless of course, war were declared." *alarm goes off*
Fry: "What's that?"
Sergeant: "War were declared."

[QUOTE="Flotsam"][QUOTE="alexmurray"][QUOTE="Flotsam"][QUOTE="alexmurray"][QUOTE="Flotsam"][QUOTE="twinsfan12"][QUOTE="Flotsam"][QUOTE="twinsfan12"][QUOTE="Flotsam"][QUOTE="twinsfan12"][QUOTE="Flotsam"][QUOTE="UrbanSpartan125"][QUOTE="Half-Life_man"]

Russia is frickin huge he better not be poking around in their business, we'll all be banished to Siberia.

Vuurk

Nukes never gets old, russia has twice as many nukes.

you sure about, mind giving me a source

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

apparently only 6000 are active so they wouldnt be able to use 20000

What they mean by active is that its ready to be fired. Total there are 16000.

so whats the time frame for using the other 10000

Meh, 6000 is enough

You would have to fuel the new nukes and set them up would be very time consuming.

You dont need 6000 nukes anyway you just need 2, 1 for moscow and 1 for st.petersburg, russia gone

Well same goes for USA, one for New Yourk another goes to Washington.

Los angles, Denver, Houston, , Boston to name a few

The uks at risk you need just 1 london

And what people from those cities will take m16's and go to war?

You obviously have NO IDEA what you're talking about. The U.S. military is made up of people from EVERY state and there are military bases in EVERY state. That was an ignorant statement. M16s aren't even the key to war. It's about aircraft.

So goes same thing for russia, its 3 times biggesr than US.

Oh, this can't be good. May lead to military involvement in their affairs, and nobody has won against Russia in a war. Napoleon went downhill after that, as did HitlerVideo_Game_King

Hitler also tried fighting Britian and the U.S at the same time tough. He probably would've won had he gone 1v1 with them or us and then the other afterwards.

This whole thing by Russia seems to be some attempt at intimidation of Georgia because of their favoritism towards the US. Something else that bothers me is that from what I heard on the radio (from different sources, so I guess it has to have at least some truth), Georgia has one of the last oil pipelines from Asia to Europe that is not under Russian control, which could also be causing this action by Russia. This seems like much more than a simple order dispute.

Also, what was Bush supposed to do? Russia is openly invading a sovereign nation. I don't think going to war over it would be right at all, but we can't just let stuff like that happen uncontested.

Also, anyone who is saying Russia could be taken down is a moron. Noone has ever beaten them and then kept Russia. Russia is just too damn big to take control of. They also have 2 tactics which make it even harder. 1. They use citizens to fight when they are invaded. If they are old enough to take up a gun, they are forced to fight. 2. When enemies are going through the country, Russia destroys cities making it so that those invading are further and further from supplies and aren't getting any as they go. Eventually, they run out and are so far away from their supplies that they're screwed.

Nukes work but that will start WW3.

I loled at you people who think America could win an outright war with Russia.

First of all, Im pretty sure no war that the U.S. has faught alone was ever won. We've alway's had allies, so you must be dumb if you think the U.S. would single handedly take on Russia. It would be a job for NATO combined if anything as Russia has high millitary standing.

Secondly with actual recruitments being at an all time low and spread thin as is between the current conflict in the middle east, a conventional war as of now would probably be lost.

And lastly, nukes =/= win. If we fired anything, they would respond quickly before it even hits, and with the U,S, having a much denser population as apposed to the vast land of Russia, technically they would win by taking out more people.

[QUOTE="dukebd699"]

Also, anyone who is saying Russia could be taken down is a moron. Noone has ever beaten them and then kept Russia. Russia is just too damn big to take control of. They also have 2 tactics which make it even harder. 1. They use citizens to fight when they are invaded. If they are old enough to take up a gun, they are forced to fight. 2. When enemies are going through the country, Russia destroys cities making it so that those invading are further and further from supplies and aren't getting any as they go. Eventually, they run out and are so far away from their supplies that they're screwed.

Nukes work but that will start WW3.

Vuurk

That's because people don't fight wars to gain land....this isn't the 14th century anymore. Also, we would easily be able to supply ourselves in a war. Do you think we're getting any supplies from Iraq cities? No, matter of fact we're supplying their citizens with food. You guys act like we're fighting back before the time of airplanes and helicopters.

But we're just going to drop down in the middle of Russia? It doesn't matter that we aren't fighting for land because you still have to get to the capital. You can't just magically appear there and take it. You have to get to the capital and the further you go in, the longer it takes for supplies. Plus, we are getting supplies sent there, they aren't just there. As said before, the further you go in, the longer it takes for supplies to get to you. At some point, supplies will start running out and you either have to A) turn around or B) keep going and get plowed down.

[QUOTE="Penguin_dragon"]

I loled at you people who think America could win an outright war with Russia.

First of all, Im pretty no war that the U.S. has faught alone was ever one. We've alway's had allies, so you must be dumb if you think the U.S. would single handedly take on Russia. It would be a job for NATO combined if anything as Russia has high millitary standing.

Secondly with actual recruitments being at an all time low and spread thin as is between the current conflict in the middle east, a conventional war as of now would probably be lost.

And lastly, nukes =/= win. If we fired anything, they would respond quickly before it even hits, and with the U,S, having a much denser population as apposed to the vast land of Russia, technically they would win by taking out more people.

Vuurk

While we may have "allies" who help us "fight" in wars, we do 95% of the fighting. It wouldn't make that big of a difference if you took out our small number off ally troops helping.

Second, Russia does NOT have a higher military standing. We have the most powerful and best trained military in the world.

Also, our military recruitments are not even close to an all time low. The U.S. military is currently giving great benefits to anyone who joins which has caused recruitment to go way up. Some examples of the benefits they offer for joining the military are- paying for your college education, $20,000 signing bonus, free dental care, awesome retirement.

I honestly have no idea how you guys can be so ignorant as to thinking the U.S. wouldn't be able to defeat Russia in a war.

Best military training doesn't always beat numbers. Remember a thing called the Civil War? Do you really think the North would have won if we had even numbers? Of course not. The North won because they had so many more people even tough they weren't trained. Russia has always had good soldiers and the sheer numbers(and the fact that no country is going to help us out if we go after Iraq and Russia) will tear us to shreds.

But we're just going to drop down in the middle of Russia? It doesn't matter that we aren't fighting for land because you still have to get to the capital. You can't just magically appear there and take it. You have to get to the capital and the further you go in, the longer it takes for supplies. Plus, we are getting supplies sent there, they aren't just there. As said before, the further you go in, the longer it takes for supplies to get to you. At some point, supplies will start running out and you either have to A) turn around or B) keep going and get plowed down.

dukebd699

[QUOTE="dukebd699"]

But we're just going to drop down in the middle of Russia? It doesn't matter that we aren't fighting for land because you still have to get to the capital. You can't just magically appear there and take it. You have to get to the capital and the further you go in, the longer it takes for supplies. Plus, we are getting supplies sent there, they aren't just there. As said before, the further you go in, the longer it takes for supplies to get to you. At some point, supplies will start running out and you either have to A) turn around or B) keep going and get plowed down.

LJS9502_basic

Ever heard of AA?