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

The story was that there was no war between Russia and USA. F-22 approached the fighter which got close to American base in Syria. Recently there used to be attacks on Russian base and the aggression is possible. F-22 mission was to make the fighters change their route and make sure the base is safe. Then the Russian interceptor (Su-30 I suppose) who was guarding the fighters came to the scene. The interceptor showed the air-to-air missiles to F-22 pilot. This is considered to be the last warning in international language. F-22 is not able to show anything like that so it couldn't communicate well enough. Besides, the Su-30 as more maneuverable had a position at a tail of the F-22. So American pilot had to go away with hopes that Russians wouldn't fire ground missiles to their base. Russians didn't.

Whose victory it is? Russian pilots accomplished their mission (guarding the caravan from air) Russian interceptor accomplished its mission. The mission for F-22 was first of all set in a wrong way. He was made for different puprpose. Secondly whatever his mission was he hasn't accomplished it and had to leave after the actions of Su-30. All the discussions of what would have happened if F-22 could fire a rocket staying unnoticed, can be endless and thus useless. Geftdone wrote it short and correct. If Russia and US start a war then the whole world is at best dead and in worst case has to survive in terrible conditions at the level of living much worse than thousands of years ago (no trade, no technology, no environment, no readiness for such a poor life). It only matters in case that US and Russia use their arms having a war at someone else's land.

 

I agree that technology has changed the game and we are struggling to keep up

The reason is our bad education system

And too many unproductive people due to the war on poverty

Also stupid economic decisions that have allowed enemies like red china to gain at our expense

Conventional weapons are still important but information technology is crucial and we are weak in that area

 

I agree with your "bad education system" comment in general but we do manage to produce some best and the brightest - and if not produced we import them. In Eastern Europe - Romania for example - they are starting calculus in Gr. 9-10. What baffles me is that through 12 years of school we manage not to teach a kid the "basics" of Philosophy - Logic, Logical Fallacy, what constitutes a valid argument. I have asked a number of teachers about this and the response was "we don't want kids arguing with us" ??

The number of unproductive people is largely a function of outsourcing most of our manufacturing sector - and allowing products produced in slave labor countries with no environmental regulations to be sold here along with allowing the international financiers to keep the profits from sale of these slave labor good offshore. Nike for example produces a shoe in some poor nation for 1 dollar. What they do is sell that shoe to their holding company in Cayman for 1 Dollar (this is a paper transaction - the shoe never actually arrives in Cayman). The Cayman company then sells that shoe to the US affiliate for $80 Dollars. The shoe is sold in the US for 100 Dollars. Cost of sales (storefront, min wage employees and so on) is $18 Dollars. Nike then pays tax on $2 in profit when they should be paying tax on $81 dollar in profit.

I agree that conventional weapons are important. The main question here is how much of a conventional force to we need to secure the homeland. The answer to this question is probably something like 5% of our force. The reality is that no one is going to attack us directly - sans a nuclear war in which case we can all just bend over and kiss our backsides goodbye anyway.

The second question is who much to we need to go out and fight rag tag bands such as ISIS and Al Qaeda. First thing we might consider is not arming these groups with sophisticated US technology ( shoulder launched anti aircraft missiles and TOW- anti-tank weapons) but even so.... one Aircraft carrier and a small ground force is overkill x 10.

A country like Iran/ N. Korea ? Again we could decimate either with 1 Carrier... enough damage to send what ever message we were sending. Iran is not attacking the Homeland any time soon. Do we really need 800 bases around the world ?

The reason so much is spent is to put money in the pockets of the international financiers who run this nation.

The Military however is just one head of the multi headed "Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster". The healthcare monster is another.
How is it we spend way more per person than other first world nations yet have no universal healthcare like these others ? - and in fact out service is middle of the pack. These other Gov't run programs are massively inefficient out of control bureaucratic nightmares. It is hard to imagine how it is even possible to have a system worse than this... yet somehow we manage. How is this possible ?

We have the same bureaucratic nightmare and then we tack on a bunch of extra for the Healthcare Oligopolies. Drug prices are multiples more for the same drug from the same company as in other nations - despite the fact that we have greater purchasing power and so should be getting lower prices. It's called "price fixing". Why do we have private insurance companies ? What is the point ? Obviously these companies would not be doing what they do if there is no profit in it. Why not just have a state run Gov't insurance company like in these other nations. The price is then set according to the usage. Why do we allow the medical college to restrict the number of medical students to a level of absurd ridiculousness. (anti- competitive practice to keep the wages of doctors high) .... same with dental college.

At least in the case of the doctors an dentists the profits are spend in the local economy. In the case of these Healthcare Oligopolies (owned by the same international financiers as the Banks, Military Industrial Complex, Media, Transnational food companies, Energy and so on) much of that profit goes to some nameless faceless shareholder who may not even live in the country never mind spend in the local economy.

 

Look - sitting in the peanut gallery and throwing out unsupported claims is not an argument for much.

This is just a repetition of a nonsensical State Dep't false narrative. Surely you have figured out that half the time the Pentagon or State Dept comments on foreign policy it is hogwash.

Just because the Taliban and Al Qaeda were friendly towards each due to shared religious ideology (both offshoots of Saudi Inspired Islamist radical ideology - and both groups supported by the Saudi's who have been exporting this ideology all over the world for decades) is not justification for starting a war with them. The Taliban condemned the 911 attacks immediately after.

There is something called the "Rule of Law" - one person is not responsible for the actions of another. Just because some dude who happened to rent out your basement decides to go out and commit a crime does not make you responsible for that crime - harboring a criminal.

Regardless... - the bar for going out and attacking a whole group - including killing a bunch of innocent women and children over a period of 16 years - destroying the country which resulted in a major increase in opium production - is a whole lot higher.

Troops in Afghanistan for 16 years has zero to do with Al Qaeda. If we really cared that much about Al Qaeda ... then why have we been arming Al Qaeda/Al Nusra (in conjunction with Saud, Qatar and others) in Syria ?

If we really cared about "Safe Havens" then why did we turn Syria, Iraq and Libya into terrorist wonderlands ?

 

Exactly ... Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab , the nutjobs doing suicide bombings in India and various other groups all share the same Saudi Inspired radical Islamist Salafi religious ideology. Saud has been exporting this ideology all over the world for decades and supporting these groups funding and arms.

The majority of the 911 attackers were Saudi and none were from Iraq - nor did they have any connection to Saddam ... yet, 911 was used as a justification to attack Iraq.

 

Guy, Su-25 doesn't fight with planes. For this targets there are SU-35 in the Russian Air Forces. Understands? Though , I am sure you don't

 

The only way they might have saved themselves short of turning over the perps was to expel them from the country immediately.

We're not looking at U.S. domestic law.

What should the U.S. should have done? You can't expect the U.S. would do nothing.

 

https://www.rt.com/usa/415540-trump-norway-f52-jets/

What a moron.

America's Commander In Chief and he has no idea what her military aircraft are called?

Senile, old, piece of ****.

 

You mean like the US having 57 states? The article says where the mix up was, he obviously was given the 52 number by someone so he either misheard or misunderstood what it was.

 

1) Your comments are borderline childish. Do you seriously think that some group (Taliban in this case) not fighting US war, justifies demonization and attacking them over 16 years resulting in tens of thousands of direct and indirect civilian deaths, chaos in the nation, increased extremism, increase in opium production.

Should go after Germany, France and Canada for not joining the war in Iraq ?

2) You are not forgiven for not knowing that the "Rule of Law" applies to international law. Holy carp man - get with the program - seriously.

3) We should have gone after Al Qaeda (and the root cause and supporter of Al Qaeda - Saudi Arabia) rather than attack groups (Iraq and Taliban) who had nothing to do with 911.

Do you not see that there is something seriously wrong with this picture ?

 

I think we should have toppled the Taliban and then left.

For being smarter than us?

You applied U.S. dometic law to an international situation. That was wromg.

We should have done both, IMO. We could have been out of Afghsnistan is less than a year.

 

1) If you are going to call "strawman" then at least state what that strawman is ?! Otherwise this is childish name calling.
2) Just because US Domestic Law includes the rule of law does not mean the Rule of Law is not also part of international law.
3) Glad we agree on something - "We should have done both" (as in going after Saud and Al Qaeda) however, this has nothing to do with the question at hand which is why we have been fighting the Taliban for 16 years.

Your post is then one big red herring as it completely diverts from and avoids the central question.

 

Look it up yourself.

Domestic U.S. law is not synonymous with international law.

You'll have to consult the pols for answers as to why we're there.

 

You blubbering nonsense. I did not say Domestic US law as synonymous with international law Mr. Strawman.

 

You lectured the following with regard to my point that the ruling Taliban gave safe haven to the perps who attacked the World Trade Center:

"There is something called the "Rule of Law" - one person is not responsible for the actions of another. Just because some dude who happened to rent out your basement decides to go out and commit a crime does not make you responsible for that crime - harboring a criminal."​

I pointed out you can't compare domestic law ("rent out your basement") to international law. You came back with this nonsense:

"You are not forgiven for not knowing that the 'Rule of Law' applies to international law. Holy carp man - get with the program - seriously."​

Sorry, my program is in this universe. The "blubbering nonsense" is all yours.

 

This was already covered. The Rule of Law is part of international law. The fact that US domestic Law also uses the Rule of Law is irrelevant.

Disingenuous ignorance much ?

 

Where is your cat?

If she went for a walk by herself you could replace her with this Siberian pussycat with the pure Siberian character. Look at his friendly face and think about us,
Russians

 

He (she?) apllied U.S. domestic law to a situation where international law applies. In this case, we went to war with another country and there's no parallel to parties going to war in domestic law.

Of course, the rule of law applies.

https://www.ictj.org/our-work/transitional-justice-issues/criminal-justice​

 

I came across some of our posts that were interesting and well thought out the other day. That you are desperately clinging on to this very stupid argument (even though at some level you understood what was intended as evidenced by the end of your post "of course the rule of law applies) is nonsensical.

1) I did not check to see that you were a US citizen ... so saying "If someone rents out your basement" assumes nothing about US Law
2) even if I did know you are a US citizen the above statement still assumes nothing about US law.
3) It was a hypothetical example designed to illustrate one of the principles of the Rule of Law (One person is not to be punished for the actions of another)) that in no way was couched in the context of "US domestic Law"
4) Glad you posted a link that supports my claim ... perhaps now you can resurrect this topic from the Rabbit hole you have dragged it down and same something relevant ?

 

You were comparing a domestic law situation where you were talking about someone renting an apartment to international law where one country is attacking another. There is no comparable domestic law situation where people are legally entitled to attack each other. In a domestic situation, I'm entitled to defend myself but once the immediate threat is over, I'm supposed to call the police for assistance. There is no one to call internationally.

Okay. So which country's domestic law were you talking about in terms of renting an apartment?

We were talking about one country attacking another until you veered off into renting an apartment.

If your only point was that the "rule of law" applies, you might have bothered to explain what international law applied to the situation.

You're the guy who brought up renting an apartment.

 

I was only using the domestic situation as an example or what the the particular "Rule of Law" in question. You then tried to claim that domestic law does not apply when I never said that it did (aka Strawman) . What applies is the Rule of Law principle (one person not make responsible for the actions of another).

You then spent a bunch of posts trying to beat on the strawman you created and defend a silly position.

The fact of the matter is that the Rule of Law is part of international law. Attacking the Taliban for the crimes of Al Qaeda is then a violation of this Rule of Law principle.

Regardless - the justification "harboring Al Qaeda" was a nonsense justification to begin with and further ceased to exist many years ago.
As it turned out it was Pakistan that was harboring Bin Laden. Did we make war on Pakistan ?

The reason we are in Afghanistan may have had a little to do with Al Qaeda many years ago but I doubt even that. The idea that we have been in Afghanistan for 16 years because of some threat from Al Qaeda is patent nonsense.

If we really cared that much about Al Qaeda and that crowd in general (such as ISIS and other Islamist extremist groups ) we would not be arming them with sophisticated US technology in Syria.

 

I'm not a cat person, but that is a cool looking breed of cat.

 

it's the Pallas's cat, we name one as a manul. It's a wild cat, but there is a home edition of the similar beast. This breed is called "Siberian Cat". It has a very kind character, big size and a great intellect. It's very difficult to live without the mind in Siberia because Siberia isn't Europe

But I'd like to write about other animal here. This is a rook. It's a Russian attack aircraft SU-35. Only two countries have attack aircraft. They are the USA and Russia. Do you remember we talk about Russian tech? Look at the real Russian High Technology. This plane still can fly.

 

Costs a lot less and at least in these charts, has some advantages. http://www.aviatia.net/f-22-raptor-vs-sukhoi-su-35/ I know nothing about this website but it says the SU-35 is hopelessly outclassed. https://hushkit.net/2017/11/27/su-35-versus-f-22-raptor-analysis-from-rusis-justin-bronk/ Let's hope we don't have to find out which one is best in actual combat.

 

Double standards are so double...