US unable to shoot down Yemeni missiles.

[Mushroom]

Wouldnt be surprised if your patriots couldnt given how outdated they are.

S-400. And update of the S-300 (circa 1978).

So, what is your point here, exactly? Other than the one at the top of your head?

And they are hardly "outdated". You can show me a photo of a first gen PATRIOT, and I could point out dozens of differences between it and a modern PATRIOT system.

By the way, here is literally the "First PATRIOT Launcher".

Here is a PAC-3 still being emplaced.

To me, the differences are huge. There is very little of that circa 1980 system still in use today, other than the trailer and elevator actuators (the parts that lift the missiles into launch position). Hell, even the angle the missile cans are lifted to are significantly different.

 

[CaptainRussia]

S-400. And update of the S-300 (circa 1978).

So, what is your point here, exactly? Other than the one at the top of your head?

And they are hardly "outdated". You can show me a photo of a first gen PATRIOT, and I could point out dozens of differences between it and a modern PATRIOT system.

By the way, here is literally the "First PATRIOT Launcher".

Here is a PAC-3 still being emplaced.

To me, the differences are huge. There is very little of that circa 1980 system still in use today, other than the trailer and elevator actuators (the parts that lift the missiles into launch position). Hell, even the angle the missile cans are lifted to are significantly different.

There was a good reason why Turkey, your largest ally, prefered our AA over yours.
Russia is also making the S-500, which will be based on entirely new systems that can also shoot down low orbital satelites.

 

[Mushroom]

There was a good reason why Turkey, your largest ally, prefered our AA over yours.

Yes, they have less of a need to be as mobile, and are more likely to defend static point locations than the US and her more traditional allies do.

And no, Turkey is hardly our "largest ally". In fact, if not for their being members of NATO they would not be our ally at all.

Where in the hell do you get such lies? I actually find your comments so funny, because half of the time they are almost nonsensical.

 

[irosie91]

Where in the hell do you get such lies? I actually find your comments so funny, because half of the time they are almost nonsensical.

pravda

 

[CaptainRussia]

Yes, they have less of a need to be as mobile, and are more likely to defend static point locations than the US and her more traditional allies do.

And no, Turkey is hardly our "largest ally". In fact, if not for their being members of NATO they would not be our ally at all.

Where in the hell do you get such lies? I actually find your comments so funny, because half of the time they are almost nonsensical.

Turkey is Nato's second largest army and considered to be America's most important ally, so much so that the US turned on Greece and helped Turkey take Northern Cyprus.

 

[Mushroom]

Turkey is Nato's second largest army and considered to be America's most important ally, so much so that the US turned on Greece and helped Turkey take Northern Cyprus.

What?

NATO is an alliance, it is not an "ally". Learn the difference, it is really a significant one.

And just because it has the second largest army in NATO, that does not make them the most important ally to the US.

Far above that I would place the UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and a slew of others.

The US "Turned on Greece and helped Turkey" in Cyprus? You obviously have no idea of history. The US put an embargo against Turkey for that, and US-Turkish relations took a strong downward turn for almost a decade over that.

And once again, the two nations have never been "allies", they simply belong to the same alliance. That would be like saying North and South Korea are allies because they are both in the UN and other international organizations.

It is obvious that you have absolutely no idea what you are saying, or outright lying. Because almost everything you said to try and confirm your claim is completely wrong, or an outright lie.

You know, propaganda is best when it is surrounded in truth. You know, like Pravda?

 

[irosie91]

What?

NATO is an alliance, it is not an "ally". Learn the difference, it is really a significant one.

And just because it has the second largest army in NATO, that does not make them the most important ally to the US.

Far above that I would place the UK, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and a slew of others.

The US "Turned on Greece and helped Turkey" in Cyprus? You obviously have no idea of history. The US put an embargo against Turkey for that, and US-Turkish relations took a strong downward turn for almost a decade over that.

And once again, the two nations have never been "allies", they simply belong to the same alliance. That would be like saying North and South Korea are allies because they are both in the UN and other international organizations.

It is obvious that you have absolutely no idea what you are saying, or outright lying. Because almost everything you said to try and confirm your claim is completely wrong, or an outright lie.

You know, propaganda is best when it is surrounded in truth. You know, like Pravda?

good one----LIKE PRAVDA----I am still a bit confused as to what happened in Cyprus-----I vote that it be annexed to Greece

 

[Mushroom]

good one----LIKE PRAVDA---

I actually used to read Pravda, it was commonly available in many places in the US. I also used to listen to Radio Moscow.

Here is the thing about "good propaganda", it has to mostly incorporate the truth. And for those that did not get my joke, "Pravda" is Russian for "Truth".

The Soviets were masters of propaganda. In one of their releases, it would incorporate 90% truth, and 10% misdirection. Almost never a lie, as that is most often eventually discovered and lowers the credence of the source. Hence, the Soviets love of the "Five Year Plan". It was awesome propaganda, and was completely true as that was their plan.

And if in 5 years it does not work, they ignore it, or blame the problems on other things. But still allowed them to crow over the things that they did accomplish.

Case in point, they were almost completely silent about anything during the "space race", only talking about it after something good happened. No need to discuss the disasters, and it worked as most of the world thought they were much farther ahead than the US was (who did announce things like launches before they happened, and let people know if it was a disaster). So the world saw one successful Soviet launch after another, and 1 US launch and 2 failures. That was highly effective propaganda, as they never talked about the failures, only the successful ones.

But Russia today has absolutely no idea how to use effective propaganda anymore. They have this mistaken belief it is lying about everything, as if nobody would ever figure out that it was all a lie.

Iran has the same problem, and yes I also go through PressTV on a regular basis, along with RT. And this is not even new, I found out about the 1990 Iraq invasion of Kuwait long before any of the US news covered it because I was listening to a program from Barcelona with my wife translating it for me.

Back in the 1980s and before, we had a lot of great information outlets if you knew how to find them. Radio Moscow, Voice of America, Radio Barcelona, BBC, and a slew of others on short wave. Even today, I am much more likely to turn on the BBC if something major is happening Internationally as they do not "dumb it down", and stick more to the straight facts and not try and editorialize everything and try to tell the viewer what to think about things. I find US news to largely be a joke, as each network wants to tell me not only what happened, but what I should think about it. I am not a child, I make up my own mind. Just give me the information so I can make an informed decision about something.

 

[irosie91]

I actually used to read Pravda, it was commonly available in many places in the US. I also used to listen to Radio Moscow.

Here is the thing about "good propaganda", it has to mostly incorporate the truth. And for those that did not get my joke, "Pravda" is Russian for "Truth".

The Soviets were masters of propaganda. In one of their releases, it would incorporate 90% truth, and 10% misdirection. Almost never a lie, as that is most often eventually discovered and lowers the credence of the source. Hence, the Soviets love of the "Five Year Plan". It was awesome propaganda, and was completely true as that was their plan.

And if in 5 years it does not work, they ignore it, or blame the problems on other things. But still allowed them to crow over the things that they did accomplish.

Case in point, they were almost completely silent about anything during the "space race", only talking about it after something good happened. No need to discuss the disasters, and it worked as most of the world thought they were much farther ahead than the US was (who did announce things like launches before they happened, and let people know if it was a disaster). So the world saw one successful Soviet launch after another, and 1 US launch and 2 failures. That was highly effective propaganda, as they never talked about the failures, only the successful ones.

But Russia today has absolutely no idea how to use effective propaganda anymore. They have this mistaken belief it is lying about everything, as if nobody would ever figure out that it was all a lie.

Iran has the same problem, and yes I also go through PressTV on a regular basis, along with RT. And this is not even new, I found out about the 1990 Iraq invasion of Kuwait long before any of the US news covered it because I was listening to a program from Barcelona with my wife translating it for me.

Back in the 1980s and before, we had a lot of great information outlets if you knew how to find them. Radio Moscow, Voice of America, Radio Barcelona, BBC, and a slew of others on short wave. Even today, I am much more likely to turn on the BBC if something major is happening Internationally as they do not "dumb it down", and stick more to the straight facts and not try and editorialize everything and try to tell the viewer what to think about things. I find US news to largely be a joke, as each network wants to tell me not only what happened, but what I should think about it. I am not a child, I make up my own mind. Just give me the information so I can make an informed decision about something.

ok----I read bits of PRAVDA ---way back in the 70s --way back in the 50s and 60s my brother did short wave radio. Press news is also propaganda

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Odd that the tape is edited right before the "explosion" was it abandoned then rigged to explode?

 

[para bellum]

Im not, because Russia is in Ukraine for that reason, because you are using Ukraine as a forward base against Russia, where US is also researchign bio weapons.

This one was captured in Kharkov just 2 days ago. Recongize him? Staff Sergeant E-6 of the CBRN. Kharkov happens to have a Bio Lab of the US military.

Lol. Nothing we can do about Russian paranoia, but "forward bases" in Ukraine are not needed.

A 74D MOS is equivalent to a civilian HAZMAT certification. These guys are found in every combat brigade in the US military.

 

[para bellum]

Odd that the tape is edited right before the "explosion" was it abandoned then rigged to explode?

The first shot hit the engine, the second one set the ammunition on fire. You can see the smoke coming out of the turret before the explosion.

It's an old clip. I especially liked the cosmonaut returning to earth at the ending. I thought it added a nice touch.

 

[irosie91]

Lol. Nothing we can do about Russian paranoia, but "forward bases" in Ukraine are not needed.

A 74D MOS is equivalent to a civilian HAZMAT certification. These guys are found in every combat brigade in the US military.

what is a "forward base"? why would russia
object to hazmat able persons?

 

[para bellum]

what is a "forward base"? why would russia
object to hazmat able persons?

The Russian excuse logic- a "forward base" in Ukraine is where NATO will deploy nuclear missiles that can hit Moscow without warning.

The 74D MOS identifies the captured soldier as not really there to fight Russia, but to manufacture weapons in Hunter Biden's biolabs (for use against Russia, of course).

When you're a Putin apologist, you have to get your excuses wherever you can find them...

 

[para bellum]

I was listening to Lavrov the other day. He was going on about how he couldn't understand the reaction from the West.

"It's just a little war. There are lots of wars all around the world. Why should they care about this one?"

I could only think "How disconnected can someone be?"

 

[irosie91]

I was listening to Lavrov the other day. He was going on about how he couldn't understand the reaction from the West.

"It's just a little war. There are lots of wars all around the world. Why should they care about this one?"

I could only think "How disconnected can someone be?"

Is "LAVROV" a russian propagandaist?

 

[para bellum]

Is "LAVROV" a russian propagandaist?

Sergei Lavrov is the Russian Foreign Minister. Previously he was the UN Representative for Russia.

He's been the face of Russian diplomacy for about 30 years.

This guy:

 

[Mushroom]

The Russian excuse logic- a "forward base" in Ukraine is where NATO will deploy nuclear missiles that can hit Moscow without warning.

Which makes no sense, as the US retired all of their land based missiles short of ICBMs back when President Reagan was in office. So we have nothing to put there even if we did decide to do that.

Russia however has introduced a new series of SRBM in the Iskander missile. Range of 500 km, and has a nuclear warhead from 10-50kt.

And in case anybody was not aware, they first entered service in 2006, in violation of the INF treaty. Which is why President Trump pulled the US out of that treaty. After over a decade of trying to negotiate with Russia to withdraw those missiles from service (Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump all tried to get Russia to pull them from service), we finally gave up and killed the treaty. But as of yet have not even started to work on a similar system.

And I doubt we ever will. I can't see the US ever wanting to build a "Pershing III" system. Just to give an idea how long that would take, the last system like that the US fielded was the Pershing II, in 1981. It was an upgrade-replacement for the original Pershing I (fielded in 1969), and even with the Pershing actively deployed and upgrade programs in place, it took 8 years to go from initial concept to deployed item. This time it would take much longer, as there is damned near nobody left either in the military or in the defense companies that have even worked with that system (which was pulled in 1991).

All Pershing launchers were destroyed as per the INF treaty, and all that is let are a few dummy missiles and transporters in museums.

 

[para bellum]

Russian ADA malf. Return to sender, lol.

 

[eagle1462010]