Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's not revisionist historyGoogle is your friendIn modern warfare, size does not matter
The Soviets had large numbers of soldiers, large numbers of tanks, large numbers of planes
They were all crap
Poorly designed, no maintenance, no logistics support. Their troops were poorly trained and had horrible morale
This is not liberal propaganda, it's the post Mortem of the Soviet Union
Reagan lied to convince us that he needed to spend hundreds of billions to fight the Soviets...he didn't
What do you base these self serving assumptions on?
40 years working for the DoD
So it should be easy for you to support your non-intuitive claim....
You are welcome to look up the condition of the Soviet military and prove me wrong about how much Reagan overreacted
Got it. YOu made a claim and cannot back it up, not even a little.
I've heard the revisionist history from you libs before.
It is the worst type of self serving, self deluded nonsense.
ANyone that dismisses a military that vastly outnumbers(ed) you is a fool.
My bad...of course it was hoursHow did that work out for the Soviets?
Russia is still using that ancient equipment
It was working out fine for them until Reagan came along.
How does that relate to my point about the Carter military reduction in spending?
I worked for the DOD while both Carter and Reagan were President
Under Carter, we were drawing down our forces and regrouping. Carter did fund many modernization efforts and aircraft that we still use today
With Reagan, it was like Christmas. Any military project you proposed got approved. It was the days of Star Wars and Cold War on steroids
I also saw what happened with all the equipment and projects that Reagan green lighted. The Cold War doctrine was obsolete. Our Army was too slow to fight modern engagements. Our Air Force was built around dropping nukes and not tactical missions. Our Navy had the wrong mix of ships
By the 90s, we had to start over
Reagan inherited a military that didn't trust sentries to have bullets in war zones.
8 years later GHWBush inherited a military that won the Hundred Hours War.
Reagan used the military buildup to end his recession. Much of the money he spent did not make for a better military because it was for fighting a Cold War
Bush kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 100 days, Carter could have done the same, there was minimal resistance
I guess you do not know the difference in hours and days?
--------------------------- silly question as some on this board have been registered for the draft for close to 50 years . Some people in this conversation probably have their 50 year old draft cards still in their wallets . Draft is fine , when and if it goes into effect it provides a better mix of American than just the volunteer service BSailor !!Hey Pismoe and Kaz, are either of you two interested in registering for the draft?
So, you'd be okay with everyone in your family over the age of 18 registering for the draft?
Me? I registered the day I turned 18, and then I joined the Navy and served for 20 years.
What doesn't our military have ? What needs to be rebuilt ?
It's not revisionist historyGoogle is your friendWhat do you base these self serving assumptions on?
40 years working for the DoD
So it should be easy for you to support your non-intuitive claim....
You are welcome to look up the condition of the Soviet military and prove me wrong about how much Reagan overreacted
Got it. YOu made a claim and cannot back it up, not even a little.
I've heard the revisionist history from you libs before.
It is the worst type of self serving, self deluded nonsense.
ANyone that dismisses a military that vastly outnumbers(ed) you is a fool.
Want to look at the Soviet equipment just look at how Iraq did with it during Dessert Storm. Soviet tanks were picked off like they were nothing
Anyone who thinks numbers of tanks, aircraft and soldiers matter in modern warfar matter without considering their capabilities is indeed a fool
I love Apaches. First plane I learned to fly. Only plane I learned to fly. I sold everything that I owned to fly that shit. Everything. I just wanted to fly.
gentlemen , yes , USA military is very strong , I just want to see USA military stronger . I don't mind spending the money for more strength . Concerning Obama , hey , mrobama is a wusse and a terrible 'cic' in my opinion and my opinion is shared by millions of Americans that share my politics . .
Stronger than what? Do you know how much firepower is in just ONE carrier battle group? We have 11 carriers currently in service.
List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
68, 69, 70, 71, 72,
73, 74, 75, 76, 77
Looks like 10 to me.
I love Apaches. First plane I learned to fly. Only plane I learned to fly. I sold everything that I owned to fly that shit. Everything. I just wanted to fly.
You do realize that the Apache is an attack helicopter used to destroy tanks, right? Methinks you are confused!
The massed Soviet Army ready to storm the Fulda Gap was a farceIt's not revisionist historyGoogle is your friend40 years working for the DoD
So it should be easy for you to support your non-intuitive claim....
You are welcome to look up the condition of the Soviet military and prove me wrong about how much Reagan overreacted
Got it. YOu made a claim and cannot back it up, not even a little.
I've heard the revisionist history from you libs before.
It is the worst type of self serving, self deluded nonsense.
ANyone that dismisses a military that vastly outnumbers(ed) you is a fool.
Want to look at the Soviet equipment just look at how Iraq did with it during Dessert Storm. Soviet tanks were picked off like they were nothing
Anyone who thinks numbers of tanks, aircraft and soldiers matter in modern warfar matter without considering their capabilities is indeed a fool
I remember libs making that argument.
It was fucking hilarious.
The Iraqi military used soviet equipment and tactics it is true.
But, the PRIMARY STRATEGY of the Soviet Army was to have overwhelming numeric superiority.
But as Iraq was far smaller than the SU, it was unable to do that.
The Allied forces in the first Gulf War had equal numbers to the Iraqi.
To point at the FIrst Gulf War as evidence that the Soviet Union was a "paper tiger" is the act of either an ignorant fool, or a dishonest partisan.
DO you recall what the numerical advantage the Soviets had in men and tanks during the Cold War? I'm having trouble remembering or goggling it.
gentlemen , yes , USA military is very strong , I just want to see USA military stronger . I don't mind spending the money for more strength . Concerning Obama , hey , mrobama is a wusse and a terrible 'cic' in my opinion and my opinion is shared by millions of Americans that share my politics . .
Stronger than what? Do you know how much firepower is in just ONE carrier battle group? We have 11 carriers currently in service.
List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
68, 69, 70, 71, 72,
73, 74, 75, 76, 77
Looks like 10 to me.
USS Gerald Ford is a few weeks away from entering service, which will make it 11 again.
But if you are more interested in pedantry, so be it.
gentlemen , yes , USA military is very strong , I just want to see USA military stronger . I don't mind spending the money for more strength . Concerning Obama , hey , mrobama is a wusse and a terrible 'cic' in my opinion and my opinion is shared by millions of Americans that share my politics . .
Stronger than what? Do you know how much firepower is in just ONE carrier battle group? We have 11 carriers currently in service.
List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
68, 69, 70, 71, 72,
73, 74, 75, 76, 77
Looks like 10 to me.
USS Gerald Ford is a few weeks away from entering service, which will make it 11 again.
But if you are more interested in pedantry, so be it.
Delivered, but not operational and far from being able to deploy!
But if you are more interested in idiocy, so be it!
The massed Soviet Army ready to storm the Fulda Gap was a farceIt's not revisionist historyGoogle is your friendSo it should be easy for you to support your non-intuitive claim....
You are welcome to look up the condition of the Soviet military and prove me wrong about how much Reagan overreacted
Got it. YOu made a claim and cannot back it up, not even a little.
I've heard the revisionist history from you libs before.
It is the worst type of self serving, self deluded nonsense.
ANyone that dismisses a military that vastly outnumbers(ed) you is a fool.
Want to look at the Soviet equipment just look at how Iraq did with it during Dessert Storm. Soviet tanks were picked off like they were nothing
Anyone who thinks numbers of tanks, aircraft and soldiers matter in modern warfar matter without considering their capabilities is indeed a fool
I remember libs making that argument.
It was fucking hilarious.
The Iraqi military used soviet equipment and tactics it is true.
But, the PRIMARY STRATEGY of the Soviet Army was to have overwhelming numeric superiority.
But as Iraq was far smaller than the SU, it was unable to do that.
The Allied forces in the first Gulf War had equal numbers to the Iraqi.
To point at the FIrst Gulf War as evidence that the Soviet Union was a "paper tiger" is the act of either an ignorant fool, or a dishonest partisan.
DO you recall what the numerical advantage the Soviets had in men and tanks during the Cold War? I'm having trouble remembering or goggling it.
Their equipment was not operationally ready, they lacked the logistics support to sustain an invasion, their soldiers were poorly trained and had poor morale
Reagan convinced us that we had to be afraid of this Soviet menace
gentlemen , yes , USA military is very strong , I just want to see USA military stronger . I don't mind spending the money for more strength . Concerning Obama , hey , mrobama is a wusse and a terrible 'cic' in my opinion and my opinion is shared by millions of Americans that share my politics . .
Stronger than what? Do you know how much firepower is in just ONE carrier battle group? We have 11 carriers currently in service.
List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
68, 69, 70, 71, 72,
73, 74, 75, 76, 77
Looks like 10 to me.
USS Gerald Ford is a few weeks away from entering service, which will make it 11 again.
But if you are more interested in pedantry, so be it.
Delivered, but not operational and far from being able to deploy!
But if you are more interested in idiocy, so be it!
Did I hurt your fweelings, pedant?
Tell me, how is having 10 more supercarriers than any other military power in the world substantially different from having 11?
Too much work, I'm not going to botherThe massed Soviet Army ready to storm the Fulda Gap was a farceIt's not revisionist historyGoogle is your friend
You are welcome to look up the condition of the Soviet military and prove me wrong about how much Reagan overreacted
Got it. YOu made a claim and cannot back it up, not even a little.
I've heard the revisionist history from you libs before.
It is the worst type of self serving, self deluded nonsense.
ANyone that dismisses a military that vastly outnumbers(ed) you is a fool.
Want to look at the Soviet equipment just look at how Iraq did with it during Dessert Storm. Soviet tanks were picked off like they were nothing
Anyone who thinks numbers of tanks, aircraft and soldiers matter in modern warfar matter without considering their capabilities is indeed a fool
I remember libs making that argument.
It was fucking hilarious.
The Iraqi military used soviet equipment and tactics it is true.
But, the PRIMARY STRATEGY of the Soviet Army was to have overwhelming numeric superiority.
But as Iraq was far smaller than the SU, it was unable to do that.
The Allied forces in the first Gulf War had equal numbers to the Iraqi.
To point at the FIrst Gulf War as evidence that the Soviet Union was a "paper tiger" is the act of either an ignorant fool, or a dishonest partisan.
DO you recall what the numerical advantage the Soviets had in men and tanks during the Cold War? I'm having trouble remembering or goggling it.
Their equipment was not operationally ready, they lacked the logistics support to sustain an invasion, their soldiers were poorly trained and had poor morale
Reagan convinced us that we had to be afraid of this Soviet menace
Please support your claim that all the soviet forces in Eastern Europe was not operationally ready and could not be made ready in a timely fashion.
Stronger than what? Do you know how much firepower is in just ONE carrier battle group? We have 11 carriers currently in service.
List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
68, 69, 70, 71, 72,
73, 74, 75, 76, 77
Looks like 10 to me.
USS Gerald Ford is a few weeks away from entering service, which will make it 11 again.
But if you are more interested in pedantry, so be it.
Delivered, but not operational and far from being able to deploy!
But if you are more interested in idiocy, so be it!
Did I hurt your fweelings, pedant?
Tell me, how is having 10 more supercarriers than any other military power in the world substantially different from having 11?
I thought you were supposed to be a mod. I thought maturity would be an attribute they looked for in those that hold that position.
I guess your feeling get hurt when people prove your facts to be wrong.
Too much work, I'm not going to botherThe massed Soviet Army ready to storm the Fulda Gap was a farceIt's not revisionist historyGot it. YOu made a claim and cannot back it up, not even a little.
I've heard the revisionist history from you libs before.
It is the worst type of self serving, self deluded nonsense.
ANyone that dismisses a military that vastly outnumbers(ed) you is a fool.
Want to look at the Soviet equipment just look at how Iraq did with it during Dessert Storm. Soviet tanks were picked off like they were nothing
Anyone who thinks numbers of tanks, aircraft and soldiers matter in modern warfar matter without considering their capabilities is indeed a fool
I remember libs making that argument.
It was fucking hilarious.
The Iraqi military used soviet equipment and tactics it is true.
But, the PRIMARY STRATEGY of the Soviet Army was to have overwhelming numeric superiority.
But as Iraq was far smaller than the SU, it was unable to do that.
The Allied forces in the first Gulf War had equal numbers to the Iraqi.
To point at the FIrst Gulf War as evidence that the Soviet Union was a "paper tiger" is the act of either an ignorant fool, or a dishonest partisan.
DO you recall what the numerical advantage the Soviets had in men and tanks during the Cold War? I'm having trouble remembering or goggling it.
Their equipment was not operationally ready, they lacked the logistics support to sustain an invasion, their soldiers were poorly trained and had poor morale
Reagan convinced us that we had to be afraid of this Soviet menace
Please support your claim that all the soviet forces in Eastern Europe was not operationally ready and could not be made ready in a timely fashion.
The history of the USSR and the resulting state of their military is well documented
Look...you want to discuss the issueToo much work, I'm not going to botherThe massed Soviet Army ready to storm the Fulda Gap was a farceIt's not revisionist history
Want to look at the Soviet equipment just look at how Iraq did with it during Dessert Storm. Soviet tanks were picked off like they were nothing
Anyone who thinks numbers of tanks, aircraft and soldiers matter in modern warfar matter without considering their capabilities is indeed a fool
I remember libs making that argument.
It was fucking hilarious.
The Iraqi military used soviet equipment and tactics it is true.
But, the PRIMARY STRATEGY of the Soviet Army was to have overwhelming numeric superiority.
But as Iraq was far smaller than the SU, it was unable to do that.
The Allied forces in the first Gulf War had equal numbers to the Iraqi.
To point at the FIrst Gulf War as evidence that the Soviet Union was a "paper tiger" is the act of either an ignorant fool, or a dishonest partisan.
DO you recall what the numerical advantage the Soviets had in men and tanks during the Cold War? I'm having trouble remembering or goggling it.
Their equipment was not operationally ready, they lacked the logistics support to sustain an invasion, their soldiers were poorly trained and had poor morale
Reagan convinced us that we had to be afraid of this Soviet menace
Please support your claim that all the soviet forces in Eastern Europe was not operationally ready and could not be made ready in a timely fashion.
The history of the USSR and the resulting state of their military is well documented
Really? I would think it what you claimed was true, it would be just a few seconds to goggle it and link to a report on how the SOviet military could NOT have even mobilized, let alone stormed the FUlda Gap.
Look...you want to discuss the issueToo much work, I'm not going to botherThe massed Soviet Army ready to storm the Fulda Gap was a farceI remember libs making that argument.
It was fucking hilarious.
The Iraqi military used soviet equipment and tactics it is true.
But, the PRIMARY STRATEGY of the Soviet Army was to have overwhelming numeric superiority.
But as Iraq was far smaller than the SU, it was unable to do that.
The Allied forces in the first Gulf War had equal numbers to the Iraqi.
To point at the FIrst Gulf War as evidence that the Soviet Union was a "paper tiger" is the act of either an ignorant fool, or a dishonest partisan.
DO you recall what the numerical advantage the Soviets had in men and tanks during the Cold War? I'm having trouble remembering or goggling it.
Their equipment was not operationally ready, they lacked the logistics support to sustain an invasion, their soldiers were poorly trained and had poor morale
Reagan convinced us that we had to be afraid of this Soviet menace
Please support your claim that all the soviet forces in Eastern Europe was not operationally ready and could not be made ready in a timely fashion.
The history of the USSR and the resulting state of their military is well documented
Really? I would think it what you claimed was true, it would be just a few seconds to goggle it and link to a report on how the SOviet military could NOT have even mobilized, let alone stormed the FUlda Gap.
Bring something to the table
Your whines of link, link, link are tiresome
