What is going on in Iran - A new uprising?

[Sertorio]

You are not giving Trump enough credit. He changed the rules of engagement so that war is fought by soldiers and not bureaucrats. Of course the Iraqis and the Kurds also should be given credit.

Don't forget that US soldiers are just mercenaries. Which may be fine when fighting minor wars, but dangerous when fighting a real enemy. In a major war most American soldiers will still be fighting for money, not for their country, which will put them at a disadvantage when casualties start mounting. Russian soldiers, on the other hand, would be fighting for their country, which would enable them to show NATO the same reality which Hitler had to face...

[Doc]

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/01 ... remacists/

Canadian Liberal MP Labels Anti-Islamic State Protesters ‘White Supremacists’

[Doc]

You are not giving Trump enough credit. He changed the rules of engagement so that war is fought by soldiers and not bureaucrats. Of course the Iraqis and the Kurds also should be given credit.

Don't forget that US soldiers are just mercenaries. Which may be fine when fighting minor wars, but dangerous when fighting a real enemy. In a major war most American soldiers will still be fighting for money, not for their country, which will put them at a disadvantage when casualties start mounting. Russian soldiers, on the other hand, would be fighting for their country, which would enable them to show NATO the same reality which Hitler had to face...

Indo - Sometimes you have really strange ideas.

[Jim the Moron]

This just in. Iran has just announced that English may not be taught in Iranian schools. On hearing this, an enraged Trump tweeted out that anyone in the US overheard speaking Persian would be deported, forthwith.

[Sertorio]

You are not giving Trump enough credit. He changed the rules of engagement so that war is fought by soldiers and not bureaucrats. Of course the Iraqis and the Kurds also should be given credit.

Don't forget that US soldiers are just mercenaries. Which may be fine when fighting minor wars, but dangerous when fighting a real enemy. In a major war most American soldiers will still be fighting for money, not for their country, which will put them at a disadvantage when casualties start mounting. Russian soldiers, on the other hand, would be fighting for their country, which would enable them to show NATO the same reality which Hitler had to face...

Indo - Sometimes you have really strange ideas.

Not really. Most American military join the armed forces because they have no jobs, they have little education and need a steady source of income. They don't join to die for the fatherland. That's why drug abuse is so widespread among soldiers in action. Professional soldiers want to stay alive for the duration of their contract and therefore tend not to take too many risks. Which will tend to lead to defeat if fighting a major war with lots of casualties. The fact that they are asked to fight overseas, very far from home, and thus are not fighting for their homes and their families, will make them extra cautious and less than fully motivated. Russian soldiers, on the other hand, if they are once more asked to fight a major war, will be fighting close to home or on their own soil. They will fight a lot harder and are more likely to defeat the aggressor.

[Doc]

You are not giving Trump enough credit. He changed the rules of engagement so that war is fought by soldiers and not bureaucrats. Of course the Iraqis and the Kurds also should be given credit.

Don't forget that US soldiers are just mercenaries. Which may be fine when fighting minor wars, but dangerous when fighting a real enemy. In a major war most American soldiers will still be fighting for money, not for their country, which will put them at a disadvantage when casualties start mounting. Russian soldiers, on the other hand, would be fighting for their country, which would enable them to show NATO the same reality which Hitler had to face...

Indo - Sometimes you have really strange ideas.

Not really. Most American military join the armed forces because they have no jobs, they have little education and need a steady source of income. They don't join to die for the fatherland. That's why drug abuse is so widespread among soldiers in action. Professional soldiers want to stay alive for the duration of their contract and therefore tend not to take too many risks. Which will tend to lead to defeat if fighting a major war with lots of casualties. The fact that they are asked to fight overseas, very far from home, and thus are not fighting for their homes and their families, will make them extra cautious and less than fully motivated. Russian soldiers, on the other hand, if they are once more asked to fight a major war, will be fighting close to home or on their own soil. They will fight a lot harder and are more likely to defeat the aggressor.

Between Iraq and Afghanistan I have 8 relatives that served in those wars. Seriously - You don't know what you are talking about.

[Jim the Moron]

Gallant Portuguese soldiers protecting their homeland surrendering to Indian forces in Goa (1961) -

http://www.goaholidayguide.com/history/ ... -goa-2.jpg

[Sertorio]

You are not giving Trump enough credit. He changed the rules of engagement so that war is fought by soldiers and not bureaucrats. Of course the Iraqis and the Kurds also should be given credit.

Don't forget that US soldiers are just mercenaries. Which may be fine when fighting minor wars, but dangerous when fighting a real enemy. In a major war most American soldiers will still be fighting for money, not for their country, which will put them at a disadvantage when casualties start mounting. Russian soldiers, on the other hand, would be fighting for their country, which would enable them to show NATO the same reality which Hitler had to face...

Indo - Sometimes you have really strange ideas.

Not really. Most American military join the armed forces because they have no jobs, they have little education and need a steady source of income. They don't join to die for the fatherland. That's why drug abuse is so widespread among soldiers in action. Professional soldiers want to stay alive for the duration of their contract and therefore tend not to take too many risks. Which will tend to lead to defeat if fighting a major war with lots of casualties. The fact that they are asked to fight overseas, very far from home, and thus are not fighting for their homes and their families, will make them extra cautious and less than fully motivated. Russian soldiers, on the other hand, if they are once more asked to fight a major war, will be fighting close to home or on their own soil. They will fight a lot harder and are more likely to defeat the aggressor.

Between Iraq and Afghanistan I have 8 relatives that served in those wars. Seriously - You don't know what you are talking about.

I accept your criticism but I wonder whether those 8 relatives of yours are sufficiently representative of the military personnel fighting in the ME.

[Doc]

You are not giving Trump enough credit. He changed the rules of engagement so that war is fought by soldiers and not bureaucrats. Of course the Iraqis and the Kurds also should be given credit.

Don't forget that US soldiers are just mercenaries. Which may be fine when fighting minor wars, but dangerous when fighting a real enemy. In a major war most American soldiers will still be fighting for money, not for their country, which will put them at a disadvantage when casualties start mounting. Russian soldiers, on the other hand, would be fighting for their country, which would enable them to show NATO the same reality which Hitler had to face...

Indo - Sometimes you have really strange ideas.

Not really. Most American military join the armed forces because they have no jobs, they have little education and need a steady source of income. They don't join to die for the fatherland. That's why drug abuse is so widespread among soldiers in action. Professional soldiers want to stay alive for the duration of their contract and therefore tend not to take too many risks. Which will tend to lead to defeat if fighting a major war with lots of casualties. The fact that they are asked to fight overseas, very far from home, and thus are not fighting for their homes and their families, will make them extra cautious and less than fully motivated. Russian soldiers, on the other hand, if they are once more asked to fight a major war, will be fighting close to home or on their own soil. They will fight a lot harder and are more likely to defeat the aggressor.

Between Iraq and Afghanistan I have 8 relatives that served in those wars. Seriously - You don't know what you are talking about.

I accept your criticism but I wonder whether those 8 relatives of yours are sufficiently representative of the military personnel fighting in the ME.

One got blown up in Falujah II by an IED The guy sitting beside him (His best friend) died.

SOldiers don't fight for country when they go to war. They fight for each other, as they have each other's back. I don't know how far Russia's military has evolved since the days of the Soviet Union but back then military units were more a thuggish gang then a cohesive unit. New recruits regularly got beat up by other members by hazing. Some died from it.

[SteveFoerster]

You are not giving Trump enough credit. He changed the rules of engagement so that war is fought by soldiers and not bureaucrats. Of course the Iraqis and the Kurds also should be given credit.

Don't forget that US soldiers are just mercenaries. Which may be fine when fighting minor wars, but dangerous when fighting a real enemy. In a major war most American soldiers will still be fighting for money, not for their country, which will put them at a disadvantage when casualties start mounting. Russian soldiers, on the other hand, would be fighting for their country, which would enable them to show NATO the same reality which Hitler had to face...

Indo - Sometimes you have really strange ideas.

Not really. Most American military join the armed forces because they have no jobs, they have little education and need a steady source of income. They don't join to die for the fatherland. That's why drug abuse is so widespread among soldiers in action. Professional soldiers want to stay alive for the duration of their contract and therefore tend not to take too many risks. Which will tend to lead to defeat if fighting a major war with lots of casualties. The fact that they are asked to fight overseas, very far from home, and thus are not fighting for their homes and their families, will make them extra cautious and less than fully motivated. Russian soldiers, on the other hand, if they are once more asked to fight a major war, will be fighting close to home or on their own soil. They will fight a lot harder and are more likely to defeat the aggressor.

Between Iraq and Afghanistan I have 8 relatives that served in those wars. Seriously - You don't know what you are talking about.

I accept your criticism but I wonder whether those 8 relatives of yours are sufficiently representative of the military personnel fighting in the ME.

Seriously, on this one you should quit while you're behind.