www.iraqwar.ru - an anti american pro iraqi russian site

[wulfstan]

Check this site out for some pics of burning US hardware, i can't help thinking that this russian site has spent ages trying to find images of US casualties and 'problems' in a kind of 'rubbing your nose in it' way. Maybe the old enemy is just upset that coalition forces invaded a massive country successfully in less than a month. If it's burning armour and failed occupations this site is dedicated to, they'll be plenty of stuff about Chechnya!!!

www.iraqwar.ru

[Maciek]

The site is about US in Iraq and not about Chechnya. Read the site name.

There are some interesting analysis about the invaded afganistan by soviet and the war in iraq

[steel bonnet]

Well surprised it`s taken this long,as Iraq & Russia have had a long "Understanding" of each other for sometime now.

It`s moreso to deal with as said shifting attention of there behaviour in Chechnya.

Where coalition forces are trying to bring Safty & security to Iraq. Russia is looking to reform some of it`s old Pac & that was partially by force & Intimidation the first time round. Having a harder time this time,as people won`t bow down so easily.
Ja
Steel bonnet

[GazB]

Ohh come on... even mainstream western media tried to send in journalists to get footage of chechen ambushes on Russian conscripts. You find one kook site showing the Russian equivelent and it proves what?

There is still some mistrust and hate and anger between the former cold war opponents... wow what a surprise!!! After all the love and assistance the US gave the Russians after the end of the cold war I am surprised this site wasn't Pravda.
(If America had poured as much money into the former Soviet Union when it stopped being communist, the way they helped Germany and Japan when they stopped being the bad guys then the Russian mafia would not exist to the extent they do today. Economically the US treats Communist China better than they do Russia.... so what they lost the cold war, we don't owe them anything. Let me just say that the Scud isn't their most advanced missile... a Topol-M is better than any US ICBM, and it is carried and launched from the back of a truck. Their Chem and Bio warfare capability far outperforms that of any western country. The situation today could have been an economic competitor, but a stable democracy, or a mafia ridden corrupt government with weapons 1000 times more deadly than Saddam ever had.)

BTW I love the english translation on the site... "Bush the smaller" instead of "Bush jnr"... :lol:

[96B]

Its always automatically America's fault... BTW I do not see how you draw a similarity of post 1988 Russia with WWII Japan and Germany, the situations were entirely differant.

I will give you that Russia without a doubt has more chemical and biological weaponry but that is because they kept persuing the development whereas the US built up an arsenal but decided not to further mass produce them.

I find it hard to believe that they have anything more technologically advanced than any current modern western nation especially America. I understand you are a fan of eastern block weaponry but sometimes you go a little too far with your claims. If you want to talk about mobile launch platforms and their capabilities you should research the Navy's ballistic missile submarines which define the word deterrance. But maybe they should spend less money on developing new nuclear weapons and more on improving the lives of its people.

Beyond the "whos better" arguement I do get your point that it is a very dangerous situation because of the corruption and lack of stability. I dont even know if they would immediately notice a missing nuclear warhead because they have so many. Perhaps the US should have helped after the cold war ended, but that does not necessarily make it our fault that Russia is the way it is today. Although we are the "worldwide 911 force" it is not our responsibility to bail everybody out of financial crisis.

[burnt by the sun]

well said marine.

[Kingpin]

http://www.iraqwar.ru/?userlang=en

Use this link 'cause this part of the site in English

[Ngati Tumatauenga]

What an incredibly generalised and over simplified view of the world you have gaz.

How does pouring money into a country turn it into a stable democracy?.

How does handing out cash suppress or defeat organised crime?.

Finally built that extension on top of your ivory tower, obviously.

[wulfstan]

Looks like some lively and intelligent replies to my initial post. Thanks guys.

Steel Bonnet - that's exactly what i was getting at, it was basically a gallery of pics of destroyed US equipment rather than the war/aftermath in a wider scope.

There are loads of sites like this on the net, all portraying various political angles of the conflict. Some are more laughable than others tho....

[Vance]

:roll: I like how they only show the negative pictures from Iraq....which is to say, isn't many.

[SOG]

Ohh come on... even mainstream western media tried to send in journalists to get footage of chechen ambushes on Russian conscripts. You find one kook site showing the Russian equivelent and it proves what?

There is still some mistrust and hate and anger between the former cold war opponents... wow what a surprise!!! After all the love and assistance the US gave the Russians after the end of the cold war I am surprised this site wasn't Pravda.
(If America had poured as much money into the former Soviet Union when it stopped being communist, the way they helped Germany and Japan when they stopped being the bad guys then the Russian mafia would not exist to the extent they do today. Economically the US treats Communist China better than they do Russia.... so what they lost the cold war, we don't owe them anything. Let me just say that the Scud isn't their most advanced missile... a Topol-M is better than any US ICBM, and it is carried and launched from the back of a truck. Their Chem and Bio warfare capability far outperforms that of any western country. The situation today could have been an economic competitor, but a stable democracy, or a mafia ridden corrupt government with weapons 1000 times more deadly than Saddam ever had.)

BTW I love the english translation on the site... "Bush the smaller" instead of "Bush jnr"... :lol:

hahha yah, i mean russian technology is so great remember when our fleet of hunter subs pinged the russian fleets subs all at once at the same exact time and ALL the russians **** themsleves that they were being secretly tracked? oh man that was a good one. GAME OVER!

[Mortimer]

you guys should have seen the stuff this site was publishing during the war, everyday 3 page reports on the war.

heres a similar site
http://www.aeronautics.ru/

i think its a bit less biased but as a different perspective none the less.

[Mortimer]

here we are
http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news066.htm

[Vance]

Well, they were wrong. The second Gulf War was different than the first - the air bombardment was miniscule. Sure, 'shock and awe' did pound Baghdad pretty good, but it wasn't a sustained thng - the US/British military was already racing through the desert like John Wayne on go pills.

[He219]

Morty,

You seem to forget that Saddam was a threat, especially to his own people.

http://i.timeinc.net/time/daily/2003/0304/down0409.jpg


You can debate the pretense for the action all you want. It certainly appears you prefer Saddam had stayed in power.

[Mortimer]

http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news079.htm
http://www.aeronautics.ru/news/news002/news080.htm

[Mortimer]

Morty,

You seem to forget that Saddam was a threat, especially to his own people.

http://i.timeinc.net/time/daily/2003/0304/down0409.jpg


You can debate the pretense for the action all you want. It certainly appears you prefer Saddam had stayed in power.

lol no

This argument has been had many many times before in millions of differeny places, lets not start it again.

I just submitted those links so you guys could read them, as i said its a different perspective then say CNN or BBC....simply FYI

[He219]

Cool. I'll take that. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle....

;)

[GazB]

"I will give you that Russia without a doubt has more chemical and biological weaponry but that is because they kept persuing the development whereas the US built up an arsenal but decided not to further mass produce them.

I find it hard to believe that they have anything more technologically advanced than any current modern western nation especially America."

Yes, that makes sense. The Americans stopped persueing Chem and Bio weapons technology, while Gorbachev tripled funding for it for most if his term, but there is no way that the Russians could have anything as good as what the Americans have.

"If you want to talk about mobile launch platforms and their capabilities you should research the Navy's ballistic missile submarines which define the word deterrance. But maybe they should spend less money on developing new nuclear weapons and more on improving the lives of its people. "

Yes, lets compare the cost of billion dollar submarines with the cost of a truck with a missile on top. The US had complete air dominance over Iraq... a relatively small country. They also had the support of Britain, France etc etc. Their satellite coverage was total... Iraq was in no position to interfere with them or the other recon assets the US used. How many Scuds were being launched per day? How many Scuds were destroyed before they could launch their missiles?
What is the likelyhood of the US getting that level of control over Soviet airspace. How much harder would it be to find a truck in the worlds largest country?

"Beyond the "whos better" arguement I do get your point that it is a very dangerous situation because of the corruption and lack of stability."

I suggested one Russian weapon was better than an American one. That is all. The strategic effect is roughly zero. All it means is that the American attempts at first strike capability to win a war is not going to happen. (Remember the Bomber gap and then the missile gap... both were assumed to be in favour of the Soviet union and both later turned out to be BS. The result was that capacity for producing large numbers of bombers and missiles respectively to catch up,b but when it was found that the gap didn't exist, or if it did it was in favour of the US did they stop? ...no, they changed their goals to first strike capability. It wasn't until the 80s that the Soviets caught up in missile numbers, and they never really got close with bomber numbers.)

"I dont even know if they would immediately notice a missing nuclear warhead because they have so many. "

Yes, only the Russians are incompetant and corrupt. Nothing ever goes missing from US army bases. Tell me, do you write scripts for hollywood movies?
Stereotypes are always true though... look at stereotypes for French people, or Women, or Black people... or how about stereotypes of Americans.

"Perhaps the US should have helped after the cold war ended, but that does not necessarily make it our fault that Russia is the way it is today."

It is certainly not your fault. There is no rule that you have to help your former opponent. But with all this bleating about Terrorist threats and WMDs making the US unsafe for the first time you'd think it was in your interest that one of the countries that has so much technology and infrastructure and human knowhow in these areas is not left to fend for itself.

"Although we are the "worldwide 911 force" it is not our responsibility to bail everybody out of financial crisis."

Not my words... the words of the US financial consultant the US sent to Moscow to look at their problems and offer solutions to Yeltsin when the cold war was officially ended. It was comments from him that led me to believe that the West let down the Soviets, and while it is the Soviets that have paid the price and the West had no responsibility (legal anyway) to help at all, it might be the west that shares in the pain sometime in the future. The Soviets had backpack nukes every bit as powerful and easy to use as the US did. For use by Spec Ops they ranged in power from 200 tons of TNT equivelent right through to 900 tons or 0.9KT for taking out whole buildings, Dams, Power Stations or even city blocks. They have samples of Ebola and Marburg Fever (the latter similar to the former... both result in the internal organs disolving and all the cells in you body hemmoraging... ie think of X-Men 1 the movie when that bad senator turned into water... except replace the water with blood) and many other diseases and chemicals.

"How does pouring money into a country turn it into a stable democracy?. "

Take all of the money out of a country (which the communists did when they could while they had power) and see who steps up to take power. Survival of the fittest means wolves rule, not sheep, or rabbits. Vote for me or I'll kill your family.

"How does handing out cash suppress or defeat organised crime?."

How do ordinary cops that haven't been paid for 6 months and are unlikely to be paid before winter deal with an organised crime boss who has paid the local ex spetsnaz hoods for protection, and offers financial incentives to turn the other way... or lose some evidence. Those that don't take the money can always "disappear".

[96B]

"Yes, that makes sense. The Americans stopped persueing Chem and Bio weapons technology, while Gorbachev tripled funding for it for most if his term, but there is no way that the Russians could have anything as good as what the Americans have."

What do you mean? I thought that they had all of the types of chemicals and bio weapons that we have and more of them?

As for the mobile launchers, it would be REALLY hard to find them over Russia. In Iraq the scud hunt missions were largely ineffective in neutralizing even most of the launchers and by the time we could get to the launch site from tracking the path of the missile, they could be already packed up and gone. I believe we have a better defense today from missiles like that because the new PAC3 Patriot is supposed to be alot better than the one from GW1 which missed most of its targets. Also our technology is much better today than in GW1 and today Saddam would not use Scuds as it would validate the war even more.

With that said, it is nearly impossible to find a US Navy ballistic missile sub because only the bigger western nations can build anything even remotely competitive to Americas not to mention they have more firepower than a single launcher including with non nuclear weapons. I believe the Navy claims that their subs make about as much noise as a school of plankton! I dont know if that is exaggeration but it sure sounds quiet to me (no pun intended). Obviously a scud launcher would be infinitely cheaper than a sub but I believe we were mainly discussing effectiveness and stealth.

I never said that nothing goes missing from US military bases, but I will say with confidence that it would be far more likely for a Russian nuke or WMDs to go missing because of many of the reasons you stated such as the financial problems and mafia.

Also, I am likely only smart enough to write ****o movie scripts if that says anything :D