Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

Options
1…5960626465…148

Comments

  • Options
    #1832
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Egginacup wrote: »
    I don't even agree that they are PRIME suspect. A plane was shot down over a warzone. The Russians aren't IN that warzone. The two PRIME suspects with be parties to the "war" i.e. Ukrainian government forces and Novorussian separatists.

    Made up more and more by Russian citizens coming over the boarder with heavier and heavier weapons and training. That's been happening since the capture of Crimea. Or do you believe a huge standing army just formed over 1 night able to take on an active military and keep them hemmed in, trying to push them into open fighting.


  • Options
    #1833
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    DamagedTrax wrote: »
    first line under the headline and sub



    see, there's always an agenda. after that they could claim anything they like for all its worth to the truth.

    You do realise that there's plenty of reasons to criticise the Kremlin in, right? Curse them finding issues with a corrupt regime! You're risking your life as a journalist in Russia if you criticise the political system btw.


  • Options
    #1834
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Russia is not a Superpower anymore, the EU on it's own could win a conventional war with them. Their is no will or reason for this to happen though. Their is only one group that thinks they can go back to the glory days.

    Really? The most successful land army in European history (France) under Napoleon couldn't defeat the Russians.
    The largest invasion in history, 4 million elite German troops couldn't defeat Russia in a conventional war. And this was all before they became a nuclear armed superpower. They have lost that status simply due to the breakup of the Soviet Union. But Russia is still Russia and to think that the EU could conquer them in a conventional war is fantasy.


  • Options
    #1835
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    I agree with there being a group that would like to go back to the good ole days, but to think Europe on its own could take Russia in conventional war is folly I'm afraid..

    And this talk about Putin wanting to recreate the Soviet Union is nonsense as well. He certainly wants to to strengthen Russia's hand in the "near abroad" and create "zones of influence" but he is not a dreamer. Ethnic Russians in places like Lithuania have little desire to be consumed by Russia. The largest Russian ethnic bloc outside of Russia is in former republic Kazakhstan, a country that recently outlawed any talk of separatism or secession.

    So in essence the only people talking about recreating the Soviet Union are some muckrakers in the west and people who really don't know any better.


  • Options
    #1836
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    DamagedTrax wrote: »
    they are prime suspects to the majority of the world. just because you or me are reading the situation differently it doesnt mean that to the majority they are not the prime suspects.

    The majority of the world also believe in supernatural, paranormal or miraculous events.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1837
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Made up more and more by Russian citizens coming over the boarder with heavier and heavier weapons and training. That's been happening since the capture of Crimea. Or do you believe a huge standing army just formed over 1 night able to take on an active military and keep them hemmed in, trying to push them into open fighting.

    Well are you stating that the actions of people acting of their own volition should be held against the country of their ethnicity and origin? Because if that's the case then you should hold Saudi Arabia accountable for 9/11.

    There's quite a few Europeans fighting with Muslim extremist groups in certain parts of Asia. Should England, Holland, France, etc be punished for their actions?


  • Options
    #1838
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Egginacup wrote: »
    Really? The most successful land army in European history (France) under Napoleon couldn't defeat the Russians.
    The largest invasion in history, 4 million elite German troops couldn't defeat Russia in a conventional war. And this was all before they became a nuclear armed superpower. They have lost that status simply due to the breakup of the Soviet Union. But Russia is still Russia and to think that the EU could conquer them in a conventional war is fantasy.

    Who said invade ? I merely said defeat in a conventional war. That does not mean invading and totally destroying Russia. Just stop their pushing into the EU.


  • Options
    #1839
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Egginacup wrote: »
    Well are you stating that the actions of people acting of their own volition should be held against the country of their ethnicity and origin? Because if that's the case then you should hold Saudi Arabia accountable for 9/11.

    There's quite a few Europeans fighting with Muslim extremist groups in certain parts of Asia. Should England, Holland, France, etc be punished for their actions?

    It's not the same and you know it. They are trained and backed given weapons and wander over the border freely. And I think your trying to derail this thread TBH. Lets get back to the matter at hand.


  • Options
    #1840
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    You do realise that there's plenty of reasons to criticise the Kremlin in, right? Curse them finding issues with a corrupt regime! You're risking your life as a journalist in Russia if you criticise the political system btw.

    We could say the same thing about DOZENS of countries and regimes around the world, many of them allies or partners economically and militarily with so-called enlightened western democracies.

    Thailand often seen as an idyllic paradise with a gentle, peace-loving populace (and a fairly horrendous sex industry) is also a place wracked with corruption, cronyism and political murder. Criticise the government there and you are also in serious trouble.


  • Options
    #1841
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Egginacup wrote: »
    We could say the same thing about DOZENS of countries and regimes around the world, many of them allies or partners economically and militarily with so-called enlightened western democracies.

    Thailand often seen as an idyllic paradise with a gentle, peace-loving populace (and a fairly horrendous sex industry) is also a place wracked with corruption, cronyism and political murder. Criticise the government there and you are also in serious trouble.

    What does this have to do with Ukrainian separatists ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1842
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Who said invade ? I merely said defeat in a conventional war. That does not mean invading and totally destroying Russia. Just stop their pushing into the EU.

    You didn't mention anything about Russia's hypothetical push into the EU. You simply stated that the EU could defeat Russia in a conventional war. How do you come to that claim? Weight of numbers? Equipment? Morale? Commanders and tacticians? Terrain? Weather?
    What?

    I'm no military man but if it was up to me when "the whistle blew" to commence hostilities against the EU I'd just have Russia's thousands of short, medium and long range ballistic missiles fitted with high yield conventional warheads rain down on every airport and airstrip runway, power station, water treatment plant, reservoir and dam from Portugal to Poland. Then turn off the the oil and gas spigot and sit back and let the waterless, foodless, electricity-less, fuel-less citizens of the EU determine the outcome.


  • Options
    #1843
    Egginacup
    Site Banned Posts: 2,922 ✭✭✭Egginacup


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    What does this have to do with Ukrainian separatists ?

    Not much in fairness but it has everything to do with vilifying Putin as a corrupt murderer who should be overthrown or vanquished while not speaking a word about all the other despots and tyrants around the world many of whom are, funded, supported or enabled by the very people who are complaining about Putin and his "autocratic" ways.
    I'm merely pointing out double standards.


  • Options
    #1844
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,220 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Egginacup wrote: »
    Really? The most successful land army in European history (France) under Napoleon couldn't defeat the Russians.
    The largest invasion in history, 4 million elite German troops couldn't defeat Russia in a conventional war. And this was all before they became a nuclear armed superpower. They have lost that status simply due to the breakup of the Soviet Union. But Russia is still Russia and to think that the EU could conquer them in a conventional war is fantasy.

    I don't think anyone's saying that the EU/NATO is about to invade Russia.

    But if, for the sake of argument, they were to, and assuming no nuclear weapons were used,

    Their forces greatly outnumber Russia's.
    The technology that the EU/NATO possesses is far, far better. Both Napoleon and Hitler had armies that relied on supply chains run by horses. That's why they failed in winter. Whereas NATO forces have equipment which was designed over 40 years with Russia as the prime target. their armies wouldn't be ground down by the winter like the previous invaders were.


  • Options
    #1845
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Egginacup wrote: »
    You didn't mention anything about Russia's hypothetical push into the EU. You simply stated that the EU could defeat Russia in a conventional war. How do you come to that claim? Weight of numbers? Equipment? Morale? Commanders and tacticians? Terrain? Weather?
    What?

    I'm no military man but if it was up to me when "the whistle blew" to commence hostilities against the EU I'd just have Russia's thousands of short, medium and long range ballistic missiles fitted with high yield conventional warheads rain down on every airport and airstrip runway, power station, water treatment plant, reservoir and dam from Portugal to Poland. Then turn off the the oil and gas spigot and sit back and let the waterless, foodless, electricity-less, fuel-less citizens of the EU determine the outcome.

    Maybe before the collapse of the USSR. EU military is way more advanced, Highly trained professional armies. Not conscripts, not out dated military tech. 2.5 million of the reserves Russia can call on are ex conscripts. I'm sorry to break it to you. Russia is no longer a superpower. Where is Russia getting the money to maintain this level of military hardware ? As they have nothing like the amounts of hardware you are fantasising about. How many people do you actually think are in Russia ?


  • Options
    #1846
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    Swede517 wrote: »
    Why do you think Russia would defeat the EU?

    Because... Without America as an allie
    Who are the most powerful army's in Europe..?


  • Options
    #1847
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    Egginacup wrote: »
    And this talk about Putin wanting to recreate the Soviet Union is nonsense as well. He certainly wants to to strengthen Russia's hand in the "near abroad" and create "zones of influence" but he is not a dreamer. Ethnic Russians in places like Lithuania have little desire to be consumed by Russia. The largest Russian ethnic bloc outside of Russia is in former republic Kazakhstan, a country that recently outlawed any talk of separatism or secession.

    So in essence the only people talking about recreating the Soviet Union are some muckrakers in the west and people who really don't know any better.

    I wasn't talking about Putin or Russia, with regards "good ole days"


  • Options
    #1848
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    Grayson wrote: »
    I don't think anyone's saying that the EU/NATO is about to invade Russia.

    But if, for the sake of argument, they were to, and assuming no nuclear weapons were used,

    Their forces greatly outnumber Russia's.
    The technology that the EU/NATO possesses is far, far better. Both Napoleon and Hitler had armies that relied on supply chains run by horses. That's why they failed in winter. Whereas NATO forces have equipment which was designed over 40 years with Russia as the prime target. their armies wouldn't be ground down by the winter like the previous invaders were.

    The nazis realied on horses for supply's did they..? News to me.. They did in small numbers.. But most was mechanised I'm afraid.. You do realise they were 5-15 years ahead of EVERYONE including Russia and still couldn't beat them....... They failed because they too thought they would have the Russians bet before the winter, and so the infantry and everyone else did not have winter supply's... That's actually why.. They froze their bolloxs off while the soviets sent down from Siberia a massive force off hairy siberians that ate shate and slept snow and cold. And so got mullered


  • Options
    #1849
    Markcheese
    Registered Users Posts: 8,464 ✭✭✭Markcheese


    Egginacup wrote: »
    You didn't mention anything about Russia's hypothetical push into the EU. You simply stated that the EU could defeat Russia in a conventional war. How do you come to that claim? Weight of numbers? Equipment? Morale? Commanders and tacticians? Terrain? Weather?
    What?


    I'm no military man but if it was up to me when "the whistle blew" to commence hostilities against the EU I'd just have Russia's thousands of short, medium and long range ballistic missiles fitted with high yield conventional warheads rain down on every airport and airstrip runway, power station, water treatment plant, reservoir and dam from Portugal
    to Poland. Then turn off the the oil and
    gas spigot and sit back and let the
    waterless, foodless, electricity-less, fuel-
    less citizens of the EU determine the
    outcome.
    Except that , nuclear armed France
    and britain would fire their nukes at
    Russia if they saw a load of icbms
    coming in (no waiting to check the war
    head)

    Turning off the gas .. Probably right ... And I think the Russians would put up with a lot more hardship when the regime is broke, than us Europeans would when the gas goes off ...

    Slava ukraini 🇺🇦



  • Options
    #1850
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    I think we can all agree nuclear war is game over time for all... Don't forget the russkies dead mans hand system.. Mutual destruction..
    None of us need that now


  • Options
    #1851
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    I think we can all agree nuclear war is game over time for all... Don't forget the russkies dead mans hand system.. Mutual destruction..
    None of us need that now

    Is MAD still an option though, They can launch but will it be MAD ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1852
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Is MAD still an option though, They can launch but will it be MAD ?

    Afraid I can't answer that for you.. And Russians being very good at secrecy forever, no one really knows what they do and don't have, not even the Americans


  • Options
    #1853
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,220 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    The nazis realied on horses for supply's did they..? News to me.. They did in small numbers.. But most was mechanised I'm afraid.. They failed because they too thought they would have the Russians bet before the winter, and so the infantry and everyone else did not have winter supply's... That's actually why.. They froze their bolloxs off while the soviets sent down from Siberia a massive force off hairy siberians that ate shate and slept snow and cold. And so got mullered

    No, it wasn't that simple. Why do you think they didn't reach moscow before winter? They had very little mechanised forces that weren't combat based. The vehicles they did have couldn't travel on the Russian roads in the autumn and spring because the Russians has roads which were made from mud.
    In the winter the fuel froze in the vehicles the Germans did have. This did slow them down and did prevent them from taking Moscow before the winter set in.

    As you pointed out, the infantry did suffer ion winter. A good supply chain could have supported them, but it didn't exist. because the germans had feck all vehicles.

    From Wiki
    other divisions continued to rely on horses for towing artillery, other heavy equipment and supply-wagons and the men marched on foot or on bicycles. At the height of motorization only 20 per cent of all units were fully motorized.[citation needed] The small German contingent fighting in North Africa was fully motorized (relying on horses in the desert was near to impossible because of the need to carry large quantities of water and fodder), but the much larger force invading Russia in June 1941 numbered only some 150,000 trucks and some 625,000 horses (in Russia water was abundant and for many months of the year horses could forage – thus reducing the burden on the supply chain). However, production of new motor-vehicles by Germany, even with the exploitation of the industries of conquered countries, could not keep up with the heavy loss of motor-vehicles in Russia during the winter of 1941-1942. From June 1941 to the end of February 1942 the German forces in Russia lost some 75,000 trucks to mechanical wear and tear and combat damage – approximately half the number they had at the beginning of the campaign. Most of these were lost during the catastrophic withdrawal in the face of the Russian counter-offensive from December 1941 to February 1942. Another substantial loss was incurred during the defeat of the German 6th Army at Stalingrad in the winter of 1942-1943. So there were periods in which the percentage of motorized units was reduced to as few as 10%.


  • Options
    #1854
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Egginacup wrote: »
    You didn't mention anything about Russia's hypothetical push into the EU. You simply stated that the EU could defeat Russia in a conventional war. How do you come to that claim? Weight of numbers? Equipment? Morale? Commanders and tacticians? Terrain? Weather?
    What?

    I'm no military man but if it was up to me when "the whistle blew" to commence hostilities against the EU I'd just have Russia's thousands of short, medium and long range ballistic missiles fitted with high yield conventional warheads rain down on every airport and airstrip runway, power station, water treatment plant, reservoir and dam from Portugal to Poland. Then turn off the the oil and gas spigot and sit back and let the waterless, foodless, electricity-less, fuel-less citizens of the EU determine the outcome.

    I have to ask, what nationalty are you? Your comment above about what you would do against the EU alongside an analogy you made earlier where you quoted an area of South East London has me wondering where you are and what brought you to a .ie website.


  • Options
    #1855
    jimeryan22
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,170 ✭✭✭jimeryan22


    Grayson wrote: »
    No, it wasn't that simple. Why do you think they didn't reach moscow before winter? They had very little mechanised forces that weren't combat based. The vehicles they did have couldn't travel on the Russian roads in the autumn and spring because the Russians has roads which were made from mud.
    In the winter the fuel froze in the vehicles the Germans did have. This did slow them down and did prevent them from taking Moscow before the winter set in.

    As you pointed out, the infantry did suffer ion winter. A good supply chain could have supported them, but it didn't exist. because the germans had feck all vehicles.

    From Wiki

    You just made my point.. These things you just mentioned happend once winter had set in... Sure they had steam rollered their way across Russia UNTIL the Russian winter kicked in.. Russia of course had already made their tanks and vehicles so they didn't freeze up.. Seeing as they lived in that climate
    Don't give me guff about mechanised vehicles.. It was the largest invading "mechanised" force ever seen in a theatre of war


  • Options
    #1856
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,683 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Does anyone have any up-to-date on-scene news from the plane's resting spot?


  • Options
    #1857
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,220 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    You just made my point.. These things you just mentioned happend once winter had set in... Sure they had steam rollered their way across Russia UNTIL the Russian winter kicked in.. Russia of course had already made their tanks and vehicles so they didn't freeze up.. Seeing as they lived in that climate
    Don't give me guff about mechanised vehicles.. It was the largest invading "mechanised" force ever seen in a theatre of war

    That wasn't your point. here's what you posted. just because you have a very short term memory and an inability to scroll up the page.
    jimeryan22 wrote: »
    The nazis realied on horses for supply's did they..? News to me.. They did in small numbers.. But most was mechanised I'm afraid.. You do realise they were 5-15 years ahead of EVERYONE including Russia and still couldn't beat them....... They failed because they too thought they would have the Russians bet before the winter, and so the infantry and everyone else did not have winter supply's... That's actually why.. They froze their bolloxs off while the soviets sent down from Siberia a massive force off hairy siberians that ate shate and slept snow and cold. And so got mullered

    The maximum they ever has was 20% mechanised. They had over 600k horses.

    lets try that again. They had, and relied upon, horses.

    In french..... ils avaient des chevaux

    get my very belaboured point?

    They had horses. Just like Napoleon. Horses are something that the EU and nato wouldn't be using.

    lets quote wiki again
    In public opinion, the German military was and is sometimes seen as a high-tech army, since new technologies that were introduced before and during World War II influenced its development of tactical doctrine. These technologies were featured by propaganda, but were often only available in small numbers or late in the war, as overall supplies of raw materials and armaments became low. For example lacking sufficient motor vehicles to equip more than a small portion of their army, the Germans chose to concentrate the available vehicles in a small number of divisions which were to be fully motorized. The other divisions continued to rely on horses for towing artillery, other heavy equipment and supply-wagons and the men marched on foot or on bicycles. At the height of motorization only 20 per cent of all units were fully motorized


  • Options
    #1858
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,465 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Grayson wrote: »
    That wasn't your point. here's what you posted. just because you have a very short term memory and an inability to scroll up the page.



    The maximum they ever has was 20% mechanised. They had over 600k horses.

    lets try that again. They had, and relied upon, horses.

    In french..... ils avaient des chevaux

    get my very belaboured point?

    They had horses. Just like Napoleon. Horses are something that the EU and nato wouldn't be using.

    lets quote wiki again

    Exactly i think people get confused with loads of tanks, Vs. ability to move infantry. Very little APC’s, half tracks and all that.


  • Options
    #1859
    DamagedTrax
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    You do realise that there's plenty of reasons to criticise the Kremlin in, right? Curse them finding issues with a corrupt regime! You're risking your life as a journalist in Russia if you criticise the political system btw.

    western journalists dont exactly enjoy freedom of press either. look at the israel/palestine issue. depending on the news channel you could be looking at two seperate wars.

    so forgive me if i take any mainstream media reports with a pinch of salt, from either side.


  • Options
    #1860
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,555 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Saw an article today about a woman who lives near the crash site showing off mascara that she said was given to her by a Pro Russian Separatist who robbed it from the body of one of the victims and relatives ringing the passengers phones and strangers answering them.

    What kind of people live in that place, no respect for the dead.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1861
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,220 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    darkpagandeath wrote: »
    Exactly i think people get confused with loads of tanks, Vs. ability to move infantry. Very little APC’s, half tracks and all that.

    they outfitted some amazingly well with tanks, half tracks etc.... The rest were given a horse, two bicycles and one puncture repair kit.


Advertisement