F-22 (Raptor) attacked a Russian attack aircrafts Su-25

I do not know how it is in Britain, but I know for sure that the difference between us is much less than many would like

 

Great. Now I know what to do with my chainsaw now I've cut down all the trees...

 

Exactly. National differences are accentuated to cause strife, but humans are pretty much the same the world over.

 

We are, but we don't want to be.
We all want to be different.
So we do whatever it takes to make us so.

 

That's the MO of the extrovert, ever eager to be noticed.

Carl Jung, the Swiss grand-daddy of Analytical Psychology, said of extroverts that they will go into a restaurant and ask the waiter to open a window if it is closed, or close one if it is open. They must be noticed and generally exist by bouncing off other people.

Introverts generally stay away from the flame and internalise things.

 

It's common to all humans. The need to distinguish ourselves may be felt less in some than others but it is present in us all.

While an extrovert may seek external recognition of his individuality an introvert may only seek his own inner acknowledgement.

Chelsea vs Arsenal.... this part of our human nature extends into group dynamics.
Russians vs Americans, Commies, vs Liberals. Rich vs poor. Catholic vs protestant. Left vs right. Introvert vs extrovert!
We differentiate ourselves from each other willingly. Fashionable vs unfashionable. Mod vs Rocker.

We don't wish to be all the same.

 

It's arguable, I think. People's psychology is very different and there are many factors that contribute to those differences - and these often change over time.

There are many self-effacing people who abhor public attention. One of those may distinguish himself/herself in a vastly different way that you might.

 

And by abhorring public attention they seek to differentiate themselves from those who revel in it.
They consciously set themselves apart from others.

There are as may ways to do this as there are people, but all people do it just the same. People like to be different.
If everyone else wore red, I wouldn't.

Classic example, Japan.
A more socially conformative society you will never meet, and yet each one of them has their own unique dress style.

 

Who said anything about wanting to be the same? Perish the thought. What both faces do is tend towards stroking their ego's, which is another far deeper subject altogether.

But I do agree that we all have common traits amongst humans as a species, which was a point I was making earlier. You say Chelsea Arsenal, I say Liverpool vs Everton. But all these are, in fact, hangovers from tribal days and there is a genuine need to be able to rise above this antique psychology, even while enjoying it distractedly - because it is the ego that can quickly lead us into destructive situations.

Good discussing this with you. I can see we're pretty much from the same era.

 

Not really. The last thing that happens is consciousness These are "unconscious" psychological traits we're discussing --- else people wouldn't need a psychologist to sort out their complexes:

My bolding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_unconscious

On the other hand, one can just wear what takes ones fancy, not as a rebellion against what others wear. No disrespect intended but clearly you're an extroverted type and the world you see is through and coloured by that lens. It can only ever be a part of a far bigger picture.

Btw, I knew of Japanese bankers in London who committed suicide rather than returning to Tokyo when recalled from their posting, so your description of a (I would say "stifling") conformative society has a resonance for me. Victorian society was equally stifling - that is in society -- but in the underworld it was anything but.

 

Wear what you fancy then.
£10 says you don't fancy identical clothes to the next person.

 

Yes. I read it. And frankly speaking I read it when I was looking for something like that in the Internet. Because it all looked like a planned war starting tragedy. The war with Spain started with a provocation with the ship. During this provocation more americans died than during the war itself. And this looks as a tradition to me. In order to start a war the US needs some of its citizens to get killed. But still since I don't have (obviously) a 100% proof I need to keep the most spread explanation. All the theories including conspiracy theories have the right for existence.

 

1. Refuelling is not something that restricts the area for long range bombers. It is not a problem nowadays and there is no need to take off the bombers just for the reason they need some refueling. All of them are flying regularly near the territory of the USA (not crossing the border) and they are regularly followed by the US interceptors, which is a common cold war practice. In case of hot war all of them will be in battle. If we exclude now the B-52 and old minutemen just for being old it would reduce the might of the USA. On paper. But in reality they will also be used.

2. The full range of bombers is the following:
- Tu-95MS Bear (it has the unbeaten record of staying in the air for 43 hours and its rockets allow to attack the aims much further than anti-air defense systems, besides it cannot be tracked by SBIRS sattelites, which locate the jet bombers from space, so I would rather count every plane of these)
- Tu22M3 Backfire (Jet-bomber capable to fly at different altitudes and speeds carrying the same rockets is much younger, but no longer produced)
- Tu-160 Blackjack (most speedy, most heavy and the very most bomber)

But again. If we discuss the air superiority in terms of the quantity of modern strategic bombers it is a strange method. The air superiority in the battlefield is caused by interceptors. And the bombers are just capable of hitting the target with nuclear (or Tomahawk like) rocket. Basically they do the same job with strategic and tactical rockets based on mainland and subs. There is no difference for the target if it is hit by any of these 3 means of transportation of a nuke.

If we start to discuss the possibility for air superiority outside Russia then on paper we have an overwhelming advantage of the US. It has more bases more planes and more money. But if we talk about practice in Syria we see that US forces didn't cope with ISIS, while Russian air forces did. It can be debatable though because the ground forces also matter and americans had allies on the ground who basically were ISIS themselves, while Russia had regular forces of Syria backed by Iran. So they could use the advantage of bombing. But it is all debatable.

 

It was KSA not Afghanistan... Anyway you attacked Iraq so the reason you told about is obviously not the main one.

 

Taliban was made by USA to fight with soviet attempt to install a civil regime in Afghanistan. After that the same guys attacked WTC or at least that it is said so.

 

Afghanistan had a state possible to control under the USSR military help (or 'invasion' if you like to put it that way) since the soviet withdrawal they cannot control even the drugs cropped in their area. And this is much easier, because the crops don't hide like terrorists. And anyway Afghanistan didn't plan the attack as a state. They didn't finance the attack. They were just too poor and disorganized to fight with terrorists.

 

Wow, is there a middle ground on that?

 

Blah blah, US is evil, blah blah, Anti-US, yada yada.

You act like "false flag" attacks are an invention of the US and that anything the US does is evil. I am all for talking to anyone from any country about the Pro's and Con's of each countries decision and what may come of it, but sitting there trying to talk about how the US is "evil" and claiming that everything they do is as such makes you look like nothing but a partisan shill and is a big reason why we can't simply have conversations anymore.

 

Nope, now days you are either a Far Right "Trumpite" or a Far Left "Social Justice Warrior".

Trying to actually speak normally to people now days during the age of social media is literally not possible

 

Thanks, you Just made most of my points for me the United States airforce Capabilities worldwide is unmatched on that there is no debate, Sure Russia can Put up a fight Locally, in Order to claim air superiority you need to be able to project power way beyond your borders. Russia has only 1 aircraft carrier compared to our 19 even if we took our EU bases of the table it wont be a fair fight.

 

Well, I don't know if I like Yazverg's statement of "US forces didn't cope with ISIS" as I find it a bit dishonest and frustrating to those who aren't hyper PC.

Russia/Putin did WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE when you go to war, you wipe them out, you level cities. The US cannot do that or we are lambasted by the Western Media all the way around the world, so we are stuck with "surgical strikes" that do such limited damage that the troops of ISIS can never be fully controlled with BS war tactics like so.

Russia on the other hand, literally flattened cities in Syria (and rightfully so!). If you want to get rid of ISIS, you need to be violent in order to do so. The people of the US are not willing to do so and that is why when Trump was running, he was against going into Syria and Hillary wanted to go into Syria.

That was a big part of why some of the people of America voted Trump and not Hillary, she was seen as a "Hawk".

Russia, on the other hand, understands that power is necessary. When they do stuff, they go all out. Funny thing is that the rest of the world seems to either understand this and just hates America, or they are just "whatever" when it comes to Russia and end up saying "Oh there go those Russians again, just doing Russian things".

It's all a very interesting thing to watch, but if the gloves were taken off the US airforce and their full capabilities were used, the devastation would be ridiculous.

 

That's just the key difference in politics. Russia simply does not feel much need for aircraft carriers, because unlike the US, it does not spread its interests far from its borders. And never in the history did not distribute. But the United States, it's just that, they always stick their noses to all corners of the globe

And to those places where Russia has interests, Russian cruise missiles and planes fly straight from the territory of Russia.

 

Well, stop already listening to these primitive myths. Mosul also bombed Russia? What about Raqqa? At that time, as in Aleppo or Palmyra already there is a normal life and people are celebrating Christmas..

 

The US is too young to be responsible for evil in the world. If I ever blamed the US or the americans for that - it might be because English is not my native tongue. But I can't take the responsibility on me, on Russia or the Russians for the cases which were made by the US political elite.

You picked my words where I say that I did read what is considered to be a conspiracy theory. But you yourself quoted that I don't have 100% evidence and need to keep the most spread explanation. Although in order not to offend a guy who personally was polite and helpful to me I mentioned that even a 'conspiracy theory' might turn true... What's wrong? Why do you refuse to talk after these very lines of mine?

9/11 I was in the US. My flight should have happened on the 11/11 or 12/11, but it didn't happen because it all was cancelled. I had to spend days in New York watching what was happening with my own eyes. I saw the reaction of the media. I saw the ads 'America strikes back' with eagle animation etc. I heard drunk guys shouting 'we will win'... Do I have the right to make a suggestion that no terrorist would ever plan anything like that? Do I have the right to see the actual benefit of 9/11 to the ruling class of the USA? Who are you to refuse me of this right - to think, to evaluate, to make conclusions? I am not anti-American. But lots of people in Russian Internet think that I am an American just because I tell them that people in the US are different and even the state is different and all of that is a value for the world and for Russia not less than Russia and Russians themselves... My problem is not that you are not talking to me. My problem is that there are a lot of people on both sides who are stupid enough to drag our countries into war, which is absolutely not needed.

 

I would agree that if Russia has to fight with the US in the remote regions as Africa or South America there is no question that US is much more stronger. This makes Russia out of the powers (in term of power) capable to rule the whole world. But that is a purely hypothetic view. Russia and the US won't fight openely in any of these wars. And an open fight would grow into global nuclear conflict. But if we speak about a possible fight for Russia I wouldn't be that sure that the US has that big advantage. The conflict in Syria showed the capabilities of Russian aircraft and fleet to perform the strikes which were more efficient and lead to a victorious result.
The US is getting weaker comparing to where it has been a decade ago. But it is still the only power in the world which can name itself the world superpower. It will take a long way to see how the world transforms to change this fact.