The †roll Cave ®™

[SirWarriant]

Against a professional force your idea of not being perceived a threat would be wrong

I really can’t add to techniques on pistol shooting because I’ve received no training. How ever most shooters aren’t trained. There are exceptions to this yes like Charlie Hebo but 99% of the time a person with CC would have far more training and experience with shooting.

Obviously the movie theatre shooter was afraid of someone with CC thats why he choose the theatre that didn’t allow it. If that theatre allowed for CC i would say there could be at least 2-3 people in there out of the 90 people in the theatre carrying a gun. Im pretty confident they could have taken him down.

The same situation happened in Texas. But the difference is that theatre allowed CC. The shooter was put down before he could kill anyone in the theatre.

Yeah, but we didn’t send there secret service operatives in the 1980s to train Taliban/Al Qaeda in the first place.

Better dead than red. You have to realize the middle east will always be in a state of constant war as long is there is oil to pump from the ground.

We actually might have been able to pull of the invasion but we did the stupid ass thing and disbanded the fucking army. I guess one good thing did come out of the invasion we got to test all of our shit.

I do find it quite shitty we aren’t doing more to fight ISIS. Obama being the smart man he is decided the Iraq army was in a good place and that they were good enough to protect the country. Sure he brought our troops home but they’re probably going to have to go back now.

But @snejdarek what if we train the Ukraine troops and give them weapons and they end up using that against us in 20-30 years

Also did you fellows know that Bush and Cheney had very close ties with Halliburton an oil/ arms company? The Iraq war made them very rich but i’m sure that was just a coincidence.

[snejdarek]

But @snejdarek what if we train the Ukraine troops and give them weapons and they end up using that against us in 20-30 years

The weapons we give them today will be obsolete in 20 years. Anyways, they don’t need “weapons”, they have more than enough of those, they just need some modern tech. Artillery radars, surveillance drones, encrypted communication, night visions, modern command systems, and a few other things. That is nothing that Russians already don’t have or what Ukrainians could not develop themselves within 5 years if they wanted to.

It’s not like they are asking for a missile shield that the Poland is getting now.

[SirWarriant]

The weapons we give them today will be obsolete in 20 years.

Kinda like the with Taliban and Al Qaeda right?

Artillery radars, surveillance drones, encrypted communication, night visions, modern command systems, and a few other things. That is nothing that Russians already don’t have or what Ukrainians could not develop themselves within 5 years if they wanted to.

It’s not like they are asking for a missile shield that the Poland is getting now.

I have mixed feelings about this. Most of their tech ends up in the hands of the “rebels” (Russian troops on “vacation”). But at the same time i feel like this is some what like Vietnam. We promised support yet we’re standing by and watching them get wrecked by Russia.

I think we should be training their troops and i would have no issue with giving them long range artillery something that could be placed far enough away from the rebels so it doesn’t end up in their hands.

In the VICE video on it that one Ukrainian guys said we should be helping them jumpstart their own vehicle factories. That way they can make their own tanks and stuff like that.

Theres also another problem. We have a president in office who has no clue about in thing military wise and he has no balls what so ever. We need a president who’s willing to stand up to Putin. Because frankly i don’t see any other western leaders doing that.

I just wish we still had all those old ww2 generals. The ones who had the balls to tell Russia to go fuck its self. Hell Patton threatened a Russian general one time by brandishing his revolver . We need a leader like that. Force seems to be the only thing they understand.

[snejdarek]

Kinda like the with Taliban and Al Qaeda right?

The difference is that US got Taliban & Al Qaeda to power. If Ukraine turns against us, it will be a very different country from what we see now.

I think that good comparison to Ukraine would be Iran and its fleet of C-130s and F4s.

In the VICE video on it that one Ukrainian guys said we should be helping them jumpstart their own vehicle factories. That way they can make their own tanks and stuff like that.

I agree with that. EU needs to start buying “Ukrainian”. Their economy went down 17,5% in last quarteryear. If the economy continues failing at this pace they will have pro-Russian government within two years.

I just wish we still had all those old ww2 generals. The ones who had the balls to tell Russia to go fuck its self. Hell Patton threatened a Russian general one time by brandishing his revolver . We need a leader like that. Force seems to be the only thing they understand.

Well as much respect as I have for them, they came to the Czechoslovakia and sat on their hands in Pilsen. In line with Yalta Agreement, but still, pretty fucking wrong thing to do, especially since they were 50kms from Prague where the uprising was getting pretty much butchered.

But still better than what the British fuckers did. The Czech 311 RAF Squadron wanted to go help the Prague uprising on May 7th when the war was pretty much over everywhere else and they almost flew even despite higher orders not to do so, but in the end didn’t after the Brits threatened to shoot them down if they fly off. They must have felt pretty fucking great at that moment after spending 4 years defending Britain.

(311 was formally under British command but the Czech government paid down for everything from planes to the last shoe of the Czechoslovak crewmembers)

[SirWarriant]

Well as much respect as I have for them, they came to the Czechoslovakia and sat on their hands in Pilsen. In line with Yalta Agreement, but still, pretty fucking wrong thing to do, especially since they were 50kms from Prague where the uprising was getting pretty much butchered.

Im afraid Eastern Europe being handed to Russia was the fault of Truman, Roosevelt and Churchill. Generals like Montgomery and Patton wanted to go to war with Russia. Patton was very out spoken about that and was pissed that Eastern Europe was given to the soviets.

Patton’s out spoken nature is what gotten him relieved of command. I wouldn’t be surprised if Patton did do something if he were still alive. He was known for not always following the chain of command.

But still better than what the British fuckers did. The Czech 311 RAF Squadron wanted to go help the Prague uprising on May 7th when the war was pretty much over everywhere else and they almost flew even despite higher orders not to do so, but in the end didn’t after the Brits threatened to shoot them down if they fly off. They must have felt pretty fucking great at that moment after spending 4 years defending Britain.

Yeah thats pretty shitty.

[TheDivineInfidel]

I really can’t add to techniques on pistol shooting because I’ve received no training. How ever most shooters aren’t trained. There are exceptions to this yes like Charlie Hebo but 99% of the time a person with CC would have far more training and experience with shooting.

Obviously the movie theatre shooter was afraid of someone with CC thats why he choose the theatre that didn’t allow it. If that theatre allowed for CC i would say there could be at least 2-3 people in there out of the 90 people in the theatre carrying a gun. Im pretty confident they could have taken him down.

The same situation happened in Texas. But the difference is that theatre allowed CC. The shooter was put down before he could kill anyone in the theatre

im sure they would of put him down . people would of still been killed though as i said you cant save everyone but yes the losses would of been massively reduced .
but there is a huge difference between a nut job with a gun gone mad and a organised , trained terror attack who will be much for efficient in dealing with anyone attempting to put them down .
to think of these people as idiots will be the last mistake you ever make . they know what they’re doing . so there is a huge distinction between the two types of gun men .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3219, topic:21032”]
I do find it quite shitty we aren’t doing more to fight ISIS. Obama being the smart man he is decided the Iraq army was in a good place and that they were good enough to protect the country. Sure he brought our troops home but they’re probably going to have to go back now
[/quote] so am i to be honest although i can assure you there are more boots on the ground than is known to the public . british and american special forces are deployed in numbers out there . guiding in the airstrikes and carrying out ground tasks . ill be very surprised if we dont go in fully though if it doesnt start swinging in the iraqis favour

[TheDivineInfidel]

Theres also another problem. We have a president in office who has no clue about in thing military wise and he has no balls what so ever. We need a president who’s willing to stand up to Putin. Because frankly i don’t see any other western leaders doing that.

I just wish we still had all those old ww2 generals. The ones who had the balls to tell Russia to go fuck its self. Hell Patton threatened a Russian general one time by brandishing his revolver . We need a leader like that. Force seems to be the only thing they understand.

i agree they do only seem too understand force but currently we are not in the position to back up any forceful words . europe simply can not afford an all out war or have the capabilities to do so and the US certainly isnt going to fight russia on their own and putin knows it , obama knows it and just about every other leader knows it .

[SirWarriant]

im sure they would of put him down . people would of still been killed though as i said you cant save everyone but yes the losses would of been massively reduced . but there is a huge difference between a nut job with a gun gone mad and a organised , trained terror attack who will be much for efficient in dealing with anyone attempting to put them down . to think of these people as idiots will be the last mistake you ever make . they know what they’re doing . so there is a huge distinction between the two types of gun men .

They still have a far better chance than someone who’s defenseless. Would you rather be armed or un armed in that situation? Thats all it comes down to.

i agree they do only seem too understand force but currently we are not in the position to back up any forceful words . europe simply can not afford an all out war or have the capabilities to do so and the US certainly isnt going to fight russia on their own and putin knows it , obama knows it and just about every other leader knows it .

The U.S could easily back up our strong words. How ever it would probably require us moving a lot of troops over in Europe and i just don’t see that happening. Putin does what he wants because like you said Europe won’t stand up to him.

[TheDivineInfidel]

But still better than what the British fuckers did. The Czech 311 RAF Squadron wanted to go help the Prague uprising on May 7th when the war was pretty much over everywhere else and they almost flew even despite higher orders not to do so, but in the end didn’t after the Brits threatened to shoot them down if they fly off. They must have felt pretty fucking great at that moment after spending 4 years defending Britain.

Yeah thats pretty shitty.

depends that unlikely to be the full story . it was most likely possibly down to a deal with the soviets or doing so would of risked the overall objective

[SirWarriant]

depends that unlikely to be the full story . it was most likely possibly down to a deal with the soviets or doing so would of risked the overall objective

A deal we should have never made. We shouldn’t have given up eastern Europe. All that did was subject millions to suffering and death for decades. Had we gone to war like Patton, Churchill, and Montgomery wanted then there would have never been an iron curtain and close to 60 million people may not have been killed under the soviet union. Plus Russia could be like Germany is today.

the US couldnt take russia on their own no way not in eastern Europe anyway .

As i said it would require us moving a ton of shit over there and fortifying the area. Which would never fly.

i was playing csgo with a guy called pol pot yesterday. he was bragging about how his kill death ratio was so low >:)

That is fantastic

so what should we have done .

Yes exactly. We had nuclear power as well and the soviets didn’t. Plus all the Eastern countries were fucked up pretty bad mean while the U.S remained untouched. We had the industrial power and man power to beat them. We also could have supplied all the other allied countries like Britain who had been hit hard during the war.

[TheDivineInfidel]

They still have a far better chance than someone who’s defenseless. Would you rather be armed or un armed in that situation? Thats all it comes down to.

armed of course .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3226, topic:21032”]
The U.S could easily back up our strong words. How ever it would probably require us moving a lot of troops over in Europe and i just don’t see that happening. Putin does what he wants because like you said Europe won’t stand up to him.
[/quote] the US couldnt take russia on their own no way not in eastern Europe anyway .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3226, topic:21032”]
Putin does what he wants because like you said Europe won’t stand up to him.
[/quote] its not that we wont its that we simply cant we dont have the forces to do it or the money our words would be empty

[Daniel_Boon]

i was playing csgo with a guy called pol pot yesterday. he was bragging about how his kill death ratio was so low >:)

[TheDivineInfidel]

A deal we should have never made. We shouldn’t have given up eastern Europe. All that did was subject millions to suffering and death for decades. Had we gone to war like Patton, Churchill, and Montgomery wanted then there would have never been an iron curtain and close to 60 million people may not have been killed under the soviet union.

so what should we have done .

[TheDivineInfidel]

. Had we gone to war like Patton, Churchill, and Montgomery wanted then there would have never been an iron curtain and close to 60 million people may not have been killed under the soviet union.

had we gone to war alot more than 60 million would of died . the entire soviet force was deployed as was our entire force the death toll would have been huge . and considering we just had 6 years of war not many were really feeling another 6

@SirWarriant it should also be remembered that operation unthinkable was deemed highly unlikely to succeed . meaning even churchill etc conceded we simply couldnt beat the soviets which is why they devolved a second plan that was defensive to resist any further soviet advances

[SirWarriant]

had we gone to war alot more than 60 million would of died . the entire soviet force was deployed as was our entire force the death toll would have been huge . and considering we just had 6 years of war not many were really feeling another 6

Doubtful. Russia was completely fucked after the war and not capable of fighting another. The U.S was completely untouched and we an industrial giant and more powerful then we were before the war. You’re also forgetting we could have just nuked the soviet army. That would have ended the war quite quickly

@SirWarriant it should also be remembered that operation unthinkable was deemed highly unlikely to succeed . meaning even churchill etc conceded we simply couldnt beat the soviets which is why they devolved a second plan that was defensive to resist any further soviet advances

Just read what i said above. Theres even a chance Russia would have surrendered due to nukes. It was more a political reason. Truman used the nuke to negotiate with Russia during the post war talks on how Europe should be divided. Stalin under stood Truman was basically threatening him thats why Russia agreed to help us with japan.

meaning even churchill etc conceded we simply couldnt beat the soviets

No Churchill wanted to fight them and Patton and Montgomery were with him on the issue. Churchill got voted out of office thats part of the reason it didn’t go through.

[TheDivineInfidel]

Doubtful. Russia was completely fucked after the war and not capable of fighting another. The U.S was completely untouched and we an industrial giant and more powerful then we were before the war. You’re also forgetting we could have just nuked the soviet army. That would have ended the war quite quickly

and more than 60 million would of died . your in dream world again .

firstly we didnt possess enough atom bombs to destroy the soviet forces . secondly russias industrial industry was also untouched in the east and was at full flow by war’s end . i think i will go with the general’s opinions on chances of success over your’s and they all said we couldnt beat the soviet forces .

and the plan was only ever to be considered if russia failed to abide by the agreements of how europe was to be drawn up

[TheDivineInfidel]

No Churchill wanted to fight them and Patton and Montgomery were with him on the issue. Churchill got voted out of office thats part of the reason it didn’t go through.

yes but his generals told him it wasnt doable .

Operation Unthinkable

The first of the two assumed a surprise attack on the Soviet forces stationed in Germany in order to “impose the will of the Western Allies” on the Soviets and force Joseph Stalin to honour the agreements in regards to the future of Central Europe.[citation needed] When the odds were judged “fanciful”, the original plan was abandoned.

The Chiefs of Staff were concerned that given the enormous size of Soviet forces deployed in Europe at the end of the war, and the perception that the Soviet leader Joseph Stalin was unreliable, there existed a Soviet threat to Western Europe. The Soviet numerical superiority was roughly 4:1 in men and 2:1 in tanks at the end of hostilities in Europe.[1] The Soviet Union had yet to launch its attack on Japanese forces, and so one assumption in the report was that the Soviet Union would instead ally with Japan if the Western Allies commenced hostilities.

[SirWarriant]

and more than 60 million would of died . your in dream world again .

You’re the one living in dream world. You have no way of knowing that.

firstly we didnt possess enough atom bombs to destroy the soviet forces . secondly russias industrial industry was also untouched in the east and was at full flow by war’s end . i think i will go with the general’s opinions on chances of success over your’s and they all said we couldnt beat the soviet forces .

It took 2 nuclear bombs to make Japan who were more fanatical and brain washed than the Nazis to surrender. The Soviets would have surrender had we dropped one on Moscow or one of their armies.

i think i will go with the general’s opinions on chances of success over your’s and they all said we couldnt beat the soviet forces .

yes but his generals told him it wasnt doable .

Again i’m talking about just war with Russia not nessicarly operation unthinkable. The allies would have won. For the reasons of Russia being heavily impacted by the war and the U.S was not. Nuclear power man. Both Patton and Montgomery wanted a war with Russia and believed it was win able.

We would have had to use nukes but in the end no one can keep fighting when one bomb can obliterate an entire army or destroy an entire city.

[TheDivineInfidel]

You’re the one living in dream world. You have no way of knowing that.

well considering 70 million died in the 6 years before its not hard to come to the conclusion that a similar number would die in the fight between us and russia .

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3236, topic:21032”]
It took 2 nuclear bombs to make Japan who were more fanatical and brain washed than the Nazis to surrender. The Soviets would have surrender had we dropped one on Moscow or one of their armies.
[/quote] dropped one of Moscow . how you going to do that exactly ? we was only able to drop one on japan because we had air superiority we didnt have that over russia im afriad

[quote=“SirWarriant, post:3236, topic:21032”]
obliterate an entire army
[/quote] you are hugely over estimating the blast range of the atom bombs of the day

[TheDivineInfidel]

lets stay factual here . this is the official conclusion of the discussion between US and british chiefs of staff on the fight against the USSR if it was top happen

We conclude that:

(a) If we are to embark on war with Russia, we must be prepared to be committed to a total war, which will be both long and costly.

(b) Our numerical inferiority on land renders it extremely doubtful we could achieve a limited and quick success, even if the political appreciation considered that this would suffice to gain our political object.

http://web.archive.org/web/20101116152301/http://www.history.neu.edu/PRO2/

The plan was based on several optimistic assumptions:

A force of 100,000 German soldiers could be raised and equipped for the fight against the USSR
Further Polish forces would be available
The US would fight alongside Britain
The war aims would be limited to “a square deal for Poland”

All of these assumptions were dubious.

The US expressed no enthusiasm for the plan when it was unofficially mooted. Operation UNTHINKABLE did serve as the basis for US-British discussions about what would happen if war broke out between the USSR and Britain and the US but the consensus was far more pessimistic: debate centered around the question if the US and Britain could hold onto a bridgehead in Europe or would be driven out of continental Europe.

Poland had been undergoing a thorough Soviet cleansing since 1944, A spontaneous Polish uprising against the Red Army without weapons was not a possibility.