French Soldiers View on US Troops in Afganistan

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

But, oh well, I am in PWI - the gay christian club where some years ago experts like you told me that the US “defeated” the “insurgents” soundly and that the middle east is now a democracy.
[/quote]

If your level of butthurt is so strong, why do you keep putting yourself through it?

God…I love Euro revisionist-history buffs.

Talking about yourself? My butt feels sore only if I squat hard- and I did not squat yesterday.

I’m fond of pointing at propaganda and laugh. If that makes your ass uncomfy, I can’t help you.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

He would of gotten crushed by the U.S.
[/quote]

No offense, but I doubt the US public would have had the will to stomach the losses necessary to even contemplate defeating the Russians. There were far too many poor Russian peasants with a ruthless leader more than willing to sacrifice millions of soldiers. If he’d attacked, about the only hope the allies would have had would be an uprising from within the Russian ranks or a generous application of atomic weapons.

As painful as it is to admit, it was the Russians who defeated the Germans in WW2 with some support from the other allies who mostly just kept the western front open enough to tie up some German troops and contributed to the demoralization of the German population through bombing.

Things like D day are small scale in comparison to battles on the eastern front. And that was only even possible because 80% of the German military was on the other side of the continent

While this doesn’t diminish the courage and valor of the individual soldiers in these battles, most people vastly over estimate US military power back then. We generally even overestimate the importance of our manufacturing in winning the war which was really late to the fight and contributed only a little to the eastern front where the vast majority of the fighting was done. I also don’t mean to claim glory for the Russian armies who’s tactics were abominable, but their leaders were far more willing to do anything necessary to win. Things not available to the commander of a free people.

The Russians could have absolutely stomped the rest of the allies as the armies stood at the end of the war. [/quote]

No offense taken. The U.S. public had already accepted huge losses in Europe and the Pacific. I’m sure the greatest generation would of handled a war against Russia.

I think you are vastly underestimating the U.S. military during WWII. Half our forces were in the Pacific as it were.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Stalin getting crushed by the US?
That’s quite a childish fantasy.
The red army would have smashed you harder then Angry Chicken PIVs feminists in their own private fantasies.
[/quote]

Lol, like this isn’t fantasy.

[quote]
Without nuclear force, Europe would have become red. [/quote]

Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Give me a break.

[quote]
So my thanks go to Einstein and not Captain America. [/quote]

Another lol.

Yet another hilariously stupid post.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No offense taken. The U.S. public had already accepted huge losses in Europe and the Pacific. I’m sure the greatest generation would of handled a war against Russia.[/quote]

Ya, but in comparison to the losses the Russians took…

In all honesty, the Russians won WWII, simply because the invasion could never have succeeded if the Germans weren’t getting destroyed by the Russians about the time the invasion came along.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Talking about yourself? My butt feels sore only if I squat hard- and I did not squat yesterday.

I’m fond of pointing at propaganda and laugh. If that makes your ass uncomfy, I can’t help you.[/quote]

HAHAHA

Such projection, impressive work.

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
No offense taken. The U.S. public had already accepted huge losses in Europe and the Pacific. I’m sure the greatest generation would of handled a war against Russia.[/quote]

Ya, but in comparison to the losses the Russians took…

In all honesty, the Russians won WWII, simply because the invasion could never have succeeded if the Germans weren’t getting destroyed by the Russians about the time the invasion came along.[/quote]

Maybe, maybe not. If the Marine Corps wasn’t occupied in the Pacific the war in Europe may have gone much differently. Point being we can play the “what if” game all day.

In my opinion if the Russians had the capability to take the U.S. they would of done it post WWII. The obviously took quite a bit in forming the Soviet Union.

Since I have only so much time arguing with 14-year olds I’ll wrap this up:

Don’t take my world, read up on ww3 scenarios or ww2 aftermath.
No real military historian shares your naive opinion.
(You know what, maybe start with few books on ww2 - spoiler: Iron Man did not win the war)

You’d be surprised how mild the US blood loss was compared to other parties. Russia, Poland, Germany, (even up to '41!) .
The average soldier had a small chance of dying, literally a few percents. Marines, who represented a fraction, had by far the highest chance due to the pacific meat grinders, at 3-4%.

That is little league shit, although it’s ten times the amount what Captain America faced in Iraq, where “friendly rape” has literally a much larger chance to hit a female NCO.

Versus the red bear, chance of dying for the average soldier would increase about tenfold (or hundredfold for the Rambos from the article).
The US would bail, with good reason.
End of story.

p.s.again, thanks Einstein.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Since I have only so much time arguing with 14-year olds I’ll wrap this up:

p.s.again, thanks Einstein.[/quote]

Oh don’t stop now, you are on such a roll.

You have a Ph.d in “what if”…why not keep on trucking?

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
whole bunch of bull shit[/quote]

Go away.

How is “Your soldiers are better at not dying than others” a argument for the other guys being the superior fighting force?

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
How is “Your soldiers are better at not dying than others” a argument for the other guys being the superior fighting force?[/quote]

Don’t try and use logic to figure it out. It won’t work.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

He would of gotten crushed by the U.S.
[/quote]

No offense, but I doubt the US public would have had the will to stomach the losses necessary to even contemplate defeating the Russians. There were far too many poor Russian peasants with a ruthless leader more than willing to sacrifice millions of soldiers. If he’d attacked, about the only hope the allies would have had would be an uprising from within the Russian ranks or a generous application of atomic weapons.

As painful as it is to admit, it was the Russians who defeated the Germans in WW2 with some support from the other allies who mostly just kept the western front open enough to tie up some German troops and contributed to the demoralization of the German population through bombing.

Things like D day are small scale in comparison to battles on the eastern front. And that was only even possible because 80% of the German military was on the other side of the continent

While this doesn’t diminish the courage and valor of the individual soldiers in these battles, most people vastly over estimate US military power back then. We generally even overestimate the importance of our manufacturing in winning the war which was really late to the fight and contributed only a little to the eastern front where the vast majority of the fighting was done. I also don’t mean to claim glory for the Russian armies who’s tactics were abominable, but their leaders were far more willing to do anything necessary to win. Things not available to the commander of a free people.

The Russians could have absolutely stomped the rest of the allies as the armies stood at the end of the war. [/quote]

No offense taken. The U.S. public had already accepted huge losses in Europe and the Pacific. I’m sure the greatest generation would of handled a war against Russia.

I think you are vastly underestimating the U.S. military during WWII. Half our forces were in the Pacific as it were. [/quote]

Yeah, the battles the US fought counted casualties in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands (like D-day). The Russian/German individual battles were sometimes in the millions. It’s almost not even comparable. Could the US have converted the majority of it’s industry to war production, and drafted to triple the size of it’s military while achieving political will to accept 8 or 10 million dead US soldiers (80 to 100 times the number we lost)? I guess it’s possible if vastly improbable. But regardless, Russian conventional forces at the end of the war were vastly superior to anything else in existence at the time by shear volume.

I’m not sure how you think we could possibly have even really put up much resistance, much less win. I think you should do some more reading about the eastern front and things like the battle of Stalingrad where the Russians killed more Nazis than died in the entire western front.

Even in the Pacific, it’s the poor Chinese peasant who’d done the majority of the fighting and dieing against Japan, not us. Nor would the inclusion of those forces in Europe have made a conflict with Russia any less lopsided.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

He would of gotten crushed by the U.S.
[/quote]

No offense, but I doubt the US public would have had the will to stomach the losses necessary to even contemplate defeating the Russians. There were far too many poor Russian peasants with a ruthless leader more than willing to sacrifice millions of soldiers. If he’d attacked, about the only hope the allies would have had would be an uprising from within the Russian ranks or a generous application of atomic weapons.

As painful as it is to admit, it was the Russians who defeated the Germans in WW2 with some support from the other allies who mostly just kept the western front open enough to tie up some German troops and contributed to the demoralization of the German population through bombing.

Things like D day are small scale in comparison to battles on the eastern front. And that was only even possible because 80% of the German military was on the other side of the continent

While this doesn’t diminish the courage and valor of the individual soldiers in these battles, most people vastly over estimate US military power back then. We generally even overestimate the importance of our manufacturing in winning the war which was really late to the fight and contributed only a little to the eastern front where the vast majority of the fighting was done. I also don’t mean to claim glory for the Russian armies who’s tactics were abominable, but their leaders were far more willing to do anything necessary to win. Things not available to the commander of a free people.

The Russians could have absolutely stomped the rest of the allies as the armies stood at the end of the war. [/quote]

No offense taken. The U.S. public had already accepted huge losses in Europe and the Pacific. I’m sure the greatest generation would of handled a war against Russia.

I think you are vastly underestimating the U.S. military during WWII. Half our forces were in the Pacific as it were. [/quote]

Yeah, the battles the US fought counted casualties in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands (like D-day). The Russian/German individual battles were sometimes in the millions. It’s almost not even comparable. Could the US have converted the majority of it’s industry to war production, and drafted to triple the size of it’s military while achieving political will to accept 8 or 10 million dead US soldiers (80 to 100 times the number we lost)? I guess it’s possible if vastly improbable. But regardless, Russian conventional forces at the end of the war were vastly superior to anything else in existence at the time by shear volume.

I’m not sure how you think we could possibly have even really put up much resistance, much less win. I think you should do some more reading about the eastern front and things like the battle of Stalingrad where the Russians killed more Nazis than died in the entire western front.

Even in the Pacific, it’s the poor Chinese peasant who’d done the majority of the fighting and dieing against Japan, not us. Nor would the inclusion of those forces in Europe made a conflict with Russia any less lopsided.[/quote]

Maybe, but you sound REALLY sure. The Russians absorbed the majority of their casualties fighting for the homeland, that was invaded…pretty powerful motivation.

Fighting in some foreign land is another thing entirely.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

He would of gotten crushed by the U.S.
[/quote]

No offense, but I doubt the US public would have had the will to stomach the losses necessary to even contemplate defeating the Russians. There were far too many poor Russian peasants with a ruthless leader more than willing to sacrifice millions of soldiers. If he’d attacked, about the only hope the allies would have had would be an uprising from within the Russian ranks or a generous application of atomic weapons.

As painful as it is to admit, it was the Russians who defeated the Germans in WW2 with some support from the other allies who mostly just kept the western front open enough to tie up some German troops and contributed to the demoralization of the German population through bombing.

Things like D day are small scale in comparison to battles on the eastern front. And that was only even possible because 80% of the German military was on the other side of the continent

While this doesn’t diminish the courage and valor of the individual soldiers in these battles, most people vastly over estimate US military power back then. We generally even overestimate the importance of our manufacturing in winning the war which was really late to the fight and contributed only a little to the eastern front where the vast majority of the fighting was done. I also don’t mean to claim glory for the Russian armies who’s tactics were abominable, but their leaders were far more willing to do anything necessary to win. Things not available to the commander of a free people.

The Russians could have absolutely stomped the rest of the allies as the armies stood at the end of the war. [/quote]

No offense taken. The U.S. public had already accepted huge losses in Europe and the Pacific. I’m sure the greatest generation would of handled a war against Russia.

I think you are vastly underestimating the U.S. military during WWII. Half our forces were in the Pacific as it were. [/quote]

Yeah, the battles the US fought counted casualties in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands (like D-day). The Russian/German individual battles were sometimes in the millions. It’s almost not even comparable. Could the US have converted the majority of it’s industry to war production, and drafted to triple the size of it’s military while achieving political will to accept 8 or 10 million dead US soldiers (80 to 100 times the number we lost)? I guess it’s possible if vastly improbable. But regardless, Russian conventional forces at the end of the war were vastly superior to anything else in existence at the time by shear volume.

I’m not sure how you think we could possibly have even really put up much resistance, much less win. I think you should do some more reading about the eastern front and things like the battle of Stalingrad where the Russians killed more Nazis than died in the entire western front.

Even in the Pacific, it’s the poor Chinese peasant who’d done the majority of the fighting and dieing against Japan, not us. Nor would the inclusion of those forces in Europe made a conflict with Russia any less lopsided.[/quote]

Maybe, but you sound REALLY sure. The Russians absorbed the majority of their casualties fighting for the homeland, that was invaded…pretty powerful motivation.

Fighting in some foreign land is another thing entirely. [/quote]

True and I mentioned that it could have caused an uprising in the Russian ranks. Also, by the end of the war Stalin was completely fucking insane, and if he attacked with gross mismanagement of his military it could have helped a lot. Hell, he might have even actually done it if we hadn’t just scared the crap out of everyone in the world by dropping A-bombs on Japan. But, fighting like what went on in the eastern front is not a challenge I’d ever want American soldiers have to overcome.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

He would of gotten crushed by the U.S.
[/quote]

No offense, but I doubt the US public would have had the will to stomach the losses necessary to even contemplate defeating the Russians. There were far too many poor Russian peasants with a ruthless leader more than willing to sacrifice millions of soldiers. If he’d attacked, about the only hope the allies would have had would be an uprising from within the Russian ranks or a generous application of atomic weapons.

As painful as it is to admit, it was the Russians who defeated the Germans in WW2 with some support from the other allies who mostly just kept the western front open enough to tie up some German troops and contributed to the demoralization of the German population through bombing.

Things like D day are small scale in comparison to battles on the eastern front. And that was only even possible because 80% of the German military was on the other side of the continent

While this doesn’t diminish the courage and valor of the individual soldiers in these battles, most people vastly over estimate US military power back then. We generally even overestimate the importance of our manufacturing in winning the war which was really late to the fight and contributed only a little to the eastern front where the vast majority of the fighting was done. I also don’t mean to claim glory for the Russian armies who’s tactics were abominable, but their leaders were far more willing to do anything necessary to win. Things not available to the commander of a free people.

The Russians could have absolutely stomped the rest of the allies as the armies stood at the end of the war. [/quote]

No offense taken. The U.S. public had already accepted huge losses in Europe and the Pacific. I’m sure the greatest generation would of handled a war against Russia.

I think you are vastly underestimating the U.S. military during WWII. Half our forces were in the Pacific as it were. [/quote]

Yeah, the battles the US fought counted casualties in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands (like D-day). The Russian/German individual battles were sometimes in the millions. It’s almost not even comparable. Could the US have converted the majority of it’s industry to war production, and drafted to triple the size of it’s military while achieving political will to accept 8 or 10 million dead US soldiers (80 to 100 times the number we lost)? I guess it’s possible if vastly improbable. But regardless, Russian conventional forces at the end of the war were vastly superior to anything else in existence at the time by shear volume.

I’m not sure how you think we could possibly have even really put up much resistance, much less win. I think you should do some more reading about the eastern front and things like the battle of Stalingrad where the Russians killed more Nazis than died in the entire western front.

Even in the Pacific, it’s the poor Chinese peasant who’d done the majority of the fighting and dieing against Japan, not us. Nor would the inclusion of those forces in Europe made a conflict with Russia any less lopsided.[/quote]

The fact that the Russians lost millions is part of my point. You don’t replace millions of trained experienced soldiers over night. It’s impossible. Further I can’t image after sustaining such huge losses Russian citizens would have the moral fortitude to attack the U.S. or the logistical capabilities to reach the U.S. without considerable effort.

Perhaps we are looking at this from two different perspectives. I don’t believe the U.S. would of crushed the Russian’s had we decided to invade their home land. I’m talking about defending against Russian aggression in Western Europe or in America.

Again, like I said earlier, had the Russians/Soviet Union had the capabilities to take the U.S. they would of.

Hey little Nazi dude. I live in Carlsbad NM. Its a small town, I’m easy to find. Look for the big white Ram truck with Jackson MMA and Army Ranger sticker on the windshield. Come find me pkease, I’ll educated you. Seriously be a man and come find me.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

He would of gotten crushed by the U.S.
[/quote]

No offense, but I doubt the US public would have had the will to stomach the losses necessary to even contemplate defeating the Russians. There were far too many poor Russian peasants with a ruthless leader more than willing to sacrifice millions of soldiers. If he’d attacked, about the only hope the allies would have had would be an uprising from within the Russian ranks or a generous application of atomic weapons.

As painful as it is to admit, it was the Russians who defeated the Germans in WW2 with some support from the other allies who mostly just kept the western front open enough to tie up some German troops and contributed to the demoralization of the German population through bombing.

Things like D day are small scale in comparison to battles on the eastern front. And that was only even possible because 80% of the German military was on the other side of the continent

While this doesn’t diminish the courage and valor of the individual soldiers in these battles, most people vastly over estimate US military power back then. We generally even overestimate the importance of our manufacturing in winning the war which was really late to the fight and contributed only a little to the eastern front where the vast majority of the fighting was done. I also don’t mean to claim glory for the Russian armies who’s tactics were abominable, but their leaders were far more willing to do anything necessary to win. Things not available to the commander of a free people.

The Russians could have absolutely stomped the rest of the allies as the armies stood at the end of the war. [/quote]

No offense taken. The U.S. public had already accepted huge losses in Europe and the Pacific. I’m sure the greatest generation would of handled a war against Russia.

I think you are vastly underestimating the U.S. military during WWII. Half our forces were in the Pacific as it were. [/quote]

Yeah, the battles the US fought counted casualties in the thousands and sometimes tens of thousands (like D-day). The Russian/German individual battles were sometimes in the millions. It’s almost not even comparable. Could the US have converted the majority of it’s industry to war production, and drafted to triple the size of it’s military while achieving political will to accept 8 or 10 million dead US soldiers (80 to 100 times the number we lost)? I guess it’s possible if vastly improbable. But regardless, Russian conventional forces at the end of the war were vastly superior to anything else in existence at the time by shear volume.

I’m not sure how you think we could possibly have even really put up much resistance, much less win. I think you should do some more reading about the eastern front and things like the battle of Stalingrad where the Russians killed more Nazis than died in the entire western front.

Even in the Pacific, it’s the poor Chinese peasant who’d done the majority of the fighting and dieing against Japan, not us. Nor would the inclusion of those forces in Europe made a conflict with Russia any less lopsided.[/quote]

The fact that the Russians lost millions is part of my point. You don’t replace millions of trained experienced soldiers over night. It’s impossible. Further I can’t image after sustaining such huge losses Russian citizens would have the moral fortitude to attack the U.S. or the logistical capabilities to reach the U.S. without considerable effort.

[/quote]
Stalin actually did exactly that several times in the war. A number of times he basically lost his whole army and created another one. and even with 8 or 10 million in military casualties, their army was still far larger than ours at the end of the war.

And it wasn’t moral fortitude with the Russians who literally fought with machine guns aimed at their backs as well as their fronts.

[quote]

Perhaps we are looking at this from two different perspectives. I don’t believe the U.S. would of crushed the Russian’s had we decided to invade their home land. I’m talking about defending against Russian aggression in Western Europe or in America.

Again, like I said earlier, had the Russians/Soviet Union had the capabilities to take the U.S. they would of. [/quote]

I’ll just say, it’s a good thing we had a trump card to conventional forces we’d just demonstrated.

[quote]BOSS wrote:
Hey little Nazi dude. I live in Carlsbad NM. Its a small town, I’m easy to find. Look for the big white Ram truck with Jackson MMA and Army Ranger sticker on the windshield. Come find me pkease, I’ll educated you. Seriously be a man and come find me.[/quote]

If you are talking to me I can assure you I’m no Nazi nor am I pro Russian in WW2. I’m only talking the logistics of trying to fight Russia at a specific point in time. Assuming that the Ranger sticker is yours I can only thank you for your service.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Stalin actually did exactly that several times in the war. A number of times he basically lost his whole army and created another one. and even with 8 or 10 million in military casualties, their army was still far larger than ours at the end of the war.

And it wasn’t moral fortitude with the Russians who literally fought with machine guns aimed at their backs as well as their fronts.
[/quote]

I’ve gotta think he could only do it so many times. I mean it’s not like he had an endless supply of people that could fight. At some point I also have to imagine the Russians would of turned and fought the guns previously held to their backs. Even the Russian’s can only take so much.

[quote]
I’ll just say, it’s a good thing we had a trump card to conventional forces we’d just demonstrated.[/quote]

It’s part of the equation. No doubt.