Insurgents + civilians.

 

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/


So lets say 100,000 to have a nice fat round number...

that puts his claim at 309,000-1.1 Millions insurgents dead.

I don't think so... those numbers don't add up.

 

Lets face it, we go to war with Russia and we are going to get nuked at least once... and it's coming from a 25yr old missile...

 

I don't think they could pull off a successful launch - they could barely do it back in the Cold War days.

Suitcase nukes man, I'm telling you.

And if the Russians are REALLY sneaky - they will blame it on Islamic terrorists.

And I'm sure +1 million people have not died in Iraq, I was just correcting a little bit as not all of our bombs kill just insurgents - there is a massive civilian death toll from collateral.

 

dont worry guys, we got Palin to fight putin!!!

you dont want to puck with the wrong ice president!

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1831461

 

gay.

 

IBsputnik

 

LAWL. I think Wikipedia got hacked, heres the transcript of Sputnik (I had to look it up, it's been a while):

"Sputnik 1 (Russian: "Спутник-1" Russian pronunciation: [ˈsputnʲɪk], "Satellite-1", ПС-1 (PS-1, i.e. "Простейший Спутник-1", or Elementary Satellite-1)) was the first artificial satellite. BEN SMITH IS A GAY PIECE OF ****!!!Launched into geocentric orbit by the Soviet Union on 4 October 1957, it was the first of a series of satellites collectively known as the Sputnik program. The unanticipated announcement of Sputnik 1's success precipitated the Sputnik crisis in the United States and ignited the Space Race within the Cold War.
The satellite helped to identify the density of high atmospheric layers through measurement of its orbital change and provided data on radio-signal distribution in the ionosphere. Because the satellite's body was filled with pressurized nitrogen, Sputnik 1 also provided **** Which stands for **** Unexpected Certain Kids."

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

 

^^^^^



Well, maybe he is?

 

Hmmm... okay let me take this back a few pages.

Obviously you don't like reading avation history. So let me school ya.

He who has the best technology, isn't always the winner.

Point 1: The USAF says that in a dogfight the f-22 is unmatched in the sky. The only aircraft THAT COULD POSSIBLY COME CLOSE TO MATCHING IT (USAF quote) is the Eurofighter Typhoon. so a small country called israel picked up the phone and took em up on that statement. USAF supplied 2 F-22 Lightning's in a 2v2 Guns Only simulated dogfight against 2 Israeli F-16 Netz's (their version of the block 52 F-16 CJ). 2 simulations were ran, and the Israeli's PWNED the f-22's in a fighter designed in the 70's. FACE mother****er.... FACE!

Point 2: Vietnam. You know what North vietnamese fighter shot down more USAF and USN Aircraft in that entire war? The mig 17. A single engine, barely mach 1 capable fighter RARELY ARMED WITH MISSILES! MACHINE GUNS AND CANNON ONLY!! And that was being flown against the brand new F4b/n's, f-104's, f-105, f-100's, a-7, f-8's, and at the very tail end of the conflict the F-14A. The main lesson from vietname was just because you have radar and missles doesn't mean you can win every engagement in the sky.

Point 3: No one, NO ONE has made a 360 degree radar module for combat aircraft yet. Yes we have lookdown-shoot down radar, but that is still no match for the small nimble fighter like the mig 21, or mig 29 who takes off from a small dirt runway in the middle of gods nowhere, hides in the clouds and waits for you to fly over and then WHAM! AA-12 archer up your *** before you know what hit ya.

The worst....WORST thing the US has done is retire the F-14. It was the most stable weapons platform the US has ever built. Never been lost to enemy fire, and has won every, EVERY A2A engagement it has ever been in.

Russia isn't a concern. That country will blow itself up before it blows anyone else up.

There's only 1 thing we need to worry abou:The PlanetX (Nibiru) crossing in 2012-2013.

End of story.

 

very good points Matt

 

Be realistic man, they dont put "links" to stats like that. However if you use common sence you will figure it out for yourself...

Example, the top russian tank is the T-90. ( http://russianarmor.info/Tanks/MBT/t-90.html ) the big problem here is armor. While the T-90 MBT (main battle tank) packs a huge 125mm cannon, it lacks the ability to take even a single hit from a A1 Abrams MBT used by all nato coutries. ( http://www.army-technology.com/proje...ams/specs.html ) This is in the most part due to the explosive reactive armor used on the M1

The nuke stats I wont get into too much detail, but modern "MX" series missles we have now, are y2k tech, where as the most modern russian ICBM are of the RT-23 ( http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-23.htm ) "rail" launched system. The big problem here is, the RT-23 requires PTP (like our older minuteman2 system) tracking in flight. Because the russian GPS/tracking system in orbit were last updated in, what late 80's, your looking at a end of life for the batteries someplace around 99-2000. Now logic tells me, having been a WT in the navy, that a in flight transmitter system on a satalite just wouldnt have the power to stay active 8+ years past its EOS/EOL. There is a reason why we are constantly putting new satalites up in orbit and having the shuttle do "mission repair" runs constantly.

Now lets dive into china and its finance base.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_.../FA23Dj01.html

is a short article from 2004 about the problem. Now if you understand how world economics works, you can see the big problem. If the US were to go down, causing them to have to devalue all bonds to zero, it would, in affect cut china's investments in the world market to junk bond status, and *BOOM* down goes the world.

UgLiEz: go back and re-read what I said, you will note the russians do NOT have anyting even in the class of the F-22. The fact that a "computer simulation" said the older jets would win, is not germane to the talk. RL flight and fight is a far differnt cry from wargames, as our boys learned in the first days of iraqi freedom. A prime example, it was thought the A-10 could not fly without its computer systems. yet a pilot, a FEMALE pilot no less, brought one back in, missing half its right wing, all of its right tail, hydro systems down, no electronics/avionics, one engine dead, and her leg wounded in 3 places.

also kid, it shows such a great mature attitude to post "face" try facts and real life examples ok.

 

You somewhat gave me your reasoning for #1... and I guess 3 doesn't need any clarification...

but #2... China having over half the US T Bonds... I don't think it's a big deal. I mean, those serve little interest and we'd just end up paying them back if they wanted the money and then turnaround and print more money (inflation, but we'd do it.). It sucks that we borrow from them, but it's not a deal breaker. They'd give up the money if it meant true world dominance.

 

By whom was it thought that an A-10 could not fly without it's computer systems? The A-10 is a traditionally designed aircraft with straight wings unlike the F-16 or the like which absolutely requires avionics to stay up. The A-10 was designed to fly whilst missing a significant amount of it's flight surfaces, one engine and without electronic or hydraulic controls operating - the systems back each other up. It has "gear up" landings factored into it's design as well. It was designed to be able to be flown home in the example you mentioned above.

 

Thats the point, we don't have the money to pay the t-bonds back if we wanted to. Were china to "call them in" it would bankrupt the US, hence why its in both countries intrest to keep things going.

Now, its also important to note we did not borow the money from them directly. See T-bills are used as curency across the world, it just happens that china has been tradeing goods for them for a long time,making them the majority holder of the notes.