Picture of the Day - "Progress" in Iraq / Update

[mabadesc]

Completely irrelevant pics and taken out of context.
Repeat after me, in a chorus: "Blatant generalization/stereotyping", and "We are envious of the US army".

As to inahurry's comment about "no major fighting taking place in Irak", I don't know where you get your news. Maybe "Libertatea"?

And about Maresal's pics, they're so out of context. According to you, an analogy would be: Because that poor Romanian soldier was killed in Afghanistan last week, it proves that all romanian soldiers are worthless and can't handle a fight. See what I mean? It's completely false, of course, just like the conclusions you draw from your pics.

Well, I suppose you guys are acting normally: you're anti-american, and you're green with envy at the US's military might. Therefore, you'll try do deny any US military successes or praise. What makes it even harder to swallow for you is that Romania will join NATO despite of your opinions.

Someone said that the US is on the decline. It may be, who knows? I'm not denying the possiblity.
But as boonicutza said, it will take at least 50 years of decline for them to lose their supremacy.

So it looks like you'll have to wait 50 years before your wishes will be fulfilled. In the meantime, you can continue with your sarcasm and denying reality.

Don't take this personally, guys. You're the ones who started with out-of-context sarcasm.

Perhaps we should end this discussion and re-focus on WWII again. We're in much better agreement on that subject.

[Geto-Dacul]

mabadesc wrote :

QUOTE

I'm not denying the possiblity.   But as boonicutza said, it will take at least 50 years of decline for them to lose their supremacy.

Actually, I see it even closer... A possible conflict with China could be very hard for the Americans, and they know that. Thta's why they are in Iraq ; to prevent China of having the oil at a good price, directly from the Iraqis. A China-Korea-Japan alliance would be fatal for the Americans, think about it... If America is trembling when talking about N.Korea's nuclear plan... !

QUOTE

And about Maresal's pics, they're so out of context. According to you, an analogy would be: Because that poor Romanian soldier was killed in Afghanistan last week, it proves that all romanian soldiers are worthless and can't handle a fight. See what I mean? It's completely false, of course, just like the conclusions you draw from your pics.

Those pics actually prove that the American Army is not invincible... American tanks CAN be destroyed. During the War against Iraq, there was that psychosis of US invincibility. Iraqi propaganda showed wisely the contrary.

Best regards,

Getu'

[Geto-Dacul]

And why should we be envious of an army with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars, but who cannot keep peace and order in a city? With that budget, it's a shame to loose tanks in battle, or to have prisoners taken by the much inferior adversary...

[Victor]

QUOTE

And why should we be envious of an army with a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars, but who cannot keep peace and order in a city? With that budget, it's a shame to loose tanks in battle, or to have prisoners taken by the much inferior adversary...

There is no such thing as an infailable army. But what matters is the final result. The Soviets lost a heap of tanks and aircraft in WWII (even to inferior opponents), but eventually won the war.

[Geto-Dacul]

Victor wrote :

QUOTE

There is no such thing as an infailable army. But what matters is the final result. The Soviets lost a heap of tanks and aircraft in WWII (even to inferior opponents), but eventually won the war.

Agree. But I remain with my opinion that a satelitary power as the USA, should be ashamed of its actual losses. Look, today some other 2 American helicopters crashed, killing some 16 soldiers... They loose more than in time of war.

Getu'

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

A possible conflict with China could be very hard for the Americans, and they know that. Thta's why they are in Iraq ; to prevent China of having the oil at a good price, directly from the Iraqis. A China-Korea-Japan alliance would be fatal for the Americans, think about it...

This is fantasy world more funny than Snow White and the seven dwarves. North Korea & Japan allied ??? Japan in an alliance against US ??? Time to re-evaluate planetary geopolitics, Geto.

QUOTE

If America is trembling when talking about N.Korea's nuclear plan... !

To be fair not only America is wary about North Korea getting the bomb. Better not hope they get it, you never know where it's going to fall. Alas it's probably too late.

QUOTE

Those pics actually prove that the American Army is not invincible... American tanks CAN be destroyed. During the War against Iraq, there was that psychosis of US invincibility. Iraqi propaganda showed wisely the contrary.

Why should they be "invincible" ? Who believes they are ? Did you watch the show in Vietnam ? When facing determined guerilla warfare no army in the world, no mattter how good it is, is going to get through intact. As for raw conventional warfare power, the US is effectively unparalleled. How/why they use that military is more questionable.

[Geto-Dacul]

Chandernagore wrote :

QUOTE

This is fantasy world more funny than Snow White and the seven dwarfs. North Korea & Japan allied ??? Japan in an alliance against US ??? Time to re-evaluate planetary geopolitics, Geto.

Ah, fantasy? So be it! What do you think of the numerous cases of "rape" done by American soldiers stationed in Japan? Or of the big anti-American riots in South Korea? Or of Chinese pressure on pro-American Taiwan? Don't you think that commonly they dream to see the Americans out of Asia? And the fuel, from where will she get it, eigh? To whom China was selling T-72s for oil in the during the last 15-20 years?

QUOTE

Why should they be \"invincible\" ? Who believes they are ? Did you watch the show in Vietnam ? When facing determined guerilla warfare no army in the world, no mattter how good it is, is going to get through intact. As for raw conventional warfare power, the US is effectively unparalleled. How and why they use that miltary is more questionable.

With the famous "Star Wars" program, the Americans basically reformed their warfare... A new image of the armed forces was forged with it... Very logical, eigh?

Getu'

[Chandernagore]

QUOTE

What do you think of the numerous cases of \"rape\" done by American soldiers stationed in Japan?

Not much. There are many more Japanese women raped by Japanese men.

QUOTE

Or of the big anti-American riots in South Korea?

If I was American I would be pissed off, say thank you for 1950, remove all military assistance, leave the country and let the South Koreans deal with North Korea alone. But perhaps the South Korean government thought otherwise than the rioters.

QUOTE

Or of Chinese pressure on pro-American Taiwan

?

Wether Taiwan is pro this or pro that is irrelevant. It's the last bastion of old Chinese nationalism and, like Honk Kong, sooner or later it will become Chinese again.

QUOTE

Don't you think that commonly they dream to see the Americans out of Asia?

The Americans did not base themselves in Okinawa to please the Japanese but because they won a war against them... to the greatest relieve of almost every existing Asian nation, China included.

[Victor]

QUOTE

Agree. But I remain with my opinion that a satelitary power as the USA, should be ashamed of its actual losses. Look, today some other 2 American helicopters crashed, killing some 16 soldiers... They loose more than in time of war. Getu'

So? The Germans also lost a lot of men to the Maquis or the Soviet partisans. Did that make them feel ashamed? You must understand that every army is generally trained to fight another army, not guerillas. There is no shame in loosing men to an unseen enemy.

[inahurry]

mabadesc,

Quoting you:

QUOTE

As to inahurry's comment about \"no major fighting taking place in Irak\", I don't know where you get your news.  Maybe \"Libertatea\"?

I’m pretty tired of you falsifying my comments. You’re not the only one toying with others texts, but it is pretty gross when you go beyond common picking of a sentence out of context and you remove the original meaning and replace it with yours.

I said :

QUOTE

In Baghdad there were practically no major fights.

not in Iraq, in Baghdad.

There were serious fights around and within every significant city there. Nevertheless the Americans drive toward Baghdad was hurried by avoiding stalling engagements that would have implied the conquering of above mentioned cities. They could avoid centers of resistance because of their air and technological supremacy which prevented the Iraqis to engage in successful counter-attacks. Nevertheless, the Iraqis strategy wasn’t to resist indefinitely and with no concern for human losses, the proof you have it these last weeks. Do you think any other country who knows its inferiority in terms of firepower will engage in “the charge of the light brigade” when protracted guerrilla warfare always proved efficient in the long run? Even the American sources admit the resistance is organized by Iraqi officers and it is carried according to pre-established plans. Those officers wouldn’t be available today if the strategy would have been a Japanese-like suicidal one. You don’t carry guerrilla actions with tanks and aircraft so they didn’t care what would happen with them. By the way, some of the military equipment was destroyed by the Iraqis themselves or was abandoned and destroyed by Americans. There are lots of things that aren’t too clear anyway, both parties have interest to cover parts of the truth, apparently for US is easier because it controls much of the media channels but as time goes by many pieces of the puzzle fall into place.

I’m sorry, but I have no envy for the American military might or their ambitions for empire, it comes at a “dumb-ing” down price within their society that more and more Americans are unwilling to pay.

I never read Libertatea, I’m glad you do, I hope it amuses you, I understand they have pictures there.

[inahurry]

Victor,

US administrations disregard for US Constitution would make Nastase pale with envy. They didn’t officially declared war, as their Constitution demands, because that would mean the Congress would be too involved and the administration would be limited in its actions. The administration, nevertheless, gets some convoluted approvals, sort of a recognition US is engaged in military operations. This is the gradual (started long ago) transformation from republic to empire. The American Constitution is de facto abolished for quite some time but you wouldn’t expect those in power would admit such a thing.

US was involved in a war in Vietnam. I’m not sure about the exact terminology used after the Tonkin incident, but signing a peace agreement in Paris, in 1973, rewarded with a Nobel peace prize for those who signed it, recognized there was a state of war between US and (then) N.Vietnam.

I suppose Russia can’t engage in major foreign military adventures unless her existence is threatened. I don’t know about China because it’s long since it was involved outside its borders, but the last time it was a smashing success – the “punishment” incursion in Vietnam in 1979, the Vietnamese were quickly defeated even if it’s true some of their best troops were involved in Cambodia. The Chinese withdrew immediately after they proved their point.

If Russia or China can or can’t carry 2 minor-but-not-so-minor simultaneous conflicts is your contribution, interesting btw. Mine was about US and regarded their official doctrine that states US must be capable to engage with success in 2 simultaneous conflicts. Imo it is not the case.

Please, refrain to use too general assertions about me. I don’t dislike America and especially I don’t dislike the Americans (idiots excluded). You don’t know anything about me, my connections, friends and so on, so don’t rush with conclusions. I dislike : the current American model (forced integration, consumerism, politically correctness, coca-cola culture etc.); the current administration policies (to my disappointment because I thought Bush jr. would be an improvement after Bill); the drive for empire; the economic colonialism; anything that comes against my country’s interests as I perceive them. Some of these flaws can’t be entirely blamed on the US political actors because often they are exactly this: actors.

[Victor]

QUOTE

If Russia or China can or can’t carry 2 minor-but-not-so-minor simultaneous conflicts is your contribution, interesting btw. Mine was about US and regarded their official doctrine that states US must be capable to engage with success in 2 simultaneous conflicts. Imo it is not the case.

I was under the impression that the discussion was triggered by the fact that you and others did not consider the US Army as good as mabadesc and others think. The fact that they cannot engage into two conflicts far away from home in the same time is not relevant, since the other major powers would have big problems even supplying their forces in asimilar situation. The Chinese are at thismoment incapable of actually invading Taiwan because they lack the neccessary number of transport ships/airplanes. Nobody said that the US Army was invincible, but they have the necessary numbers and some of the best equipment in the world and can overcome any opponent in a conventional war. The fact that they lost some tanks and men is IMO a normal thing. You lose men in wars.

QUOTE

Please, refrain to use too general assertions about me. I don’t dislike America and especially I don’t dislike the Americans (idiots excluded). You don’t know anything about me, my connections, friends and so on, so don’t rush with conclusions. I dislike : the current American model (forced integration, consumerism, politically correctness, coca-cola culture etc.); the current administration policies (to my disappointment because I thought Bush jr. would be an improvement after Bill); the drive for empire; the economic colonialism; anything that comes against my country’s interests as I perceive them. Some of these flaws can’t be entirely blamed on the US political actors because often they are exactly this: actors.

Ok. I will rephrase.
"The fact that you dislike the American government, model, imperialism etc should not cause you to lose your objectivity regarding the US Army, should it?"

[mabadesc]

Well, Victor summed up my point exactly:

QUOTE

I was under the impression that the discussion was triggered by the fact that you and others did not consider the US Army as good as mabadesc and others think. The fact that they cannot engage into two conflicts far away from home in the same time is not relevant, since the other major powers would have big problems even supplying their forces in asimilar situation. The Chinese are at thismoment incapable of actually invading Taiwan because they lack the neccessary number of transport ships/airplanes. Nobody said that the US Army was invincible, but they have the necessary numbers and some of the best equipment in the world and can overcome any opponent in a conventional war. The fact that they lost some tanks and men is IMO a normal thing. You lose men in wars.

Inahurry, Getu', I really don't know why you're having such a tough time understanding the issue. We are discussing *military* power, not politics.
Examples from this thread:
1. Post-war Irak administration
2. No declaration of war by US congress
3. US = Empire
4. Anti-American riots in South Korea
5. Negotiations with North Korea
These are all *political/diplomatic* issues. Completely irrelevant to my point, which limited itself to US *military* might.

But I suppose you had to inject the issue with these remarks because you are blinded by anti-american sentiments and refused to admit that the US is currently the most powerful *military* force.

It's ok to be anti-Bush, anti-american, or whatever. Each person is entitled to his own opinion. But at least try to be objective and acknowledge what is real.

Now, Inahurry, if you want to discuss american politics, that's fine. I'll open a new thread. We can debate the US constitution and your so-called American Imperial tendencies there.

I'm far from agreeing with everything the US does. I do realize they make mistakes (just like any country). But I also think your views regarding the US are rather extreme and radical, and you have false perceptions about America.

I look forward to discussing these with you and Getu as long as you can do it in a civilized way.

[inahurry]

It is correct. I don’t think the US military is as powerful as mabadesc thinks it is.

I don’t think US army can “overcome any opponent in a conventional war”. I think they might even lose sometimes – this is what “not being invincible” means, isn’t it ? But US doesn’t engage in wars where there’s a significant risk it won’t obtain victory in a relatively short time. It is certain Iraq lost, not because US won’t leave, probably soon, and maybe the puppet regime it installs will be overthrown shortly after, but because of the destruction inflicted to the country, piled upon the long time destruction after 12 years of silent war. In a way, they pay for their major mistake – the invasion of Kuwait – Talleyrand was proved right: mistakes are worse than crimes in politics. Strategically, US won vs. Iraq but I doubt it won toward the goal of establishing a world empire. I’d say the reverse. Considering this was an “offensive” invasion there was no ”desperate”, no “back to the wall” situation that might trigger fundamental policy changes but, on the other hand, the more US becomes imperial inside the more will need to use its military this way and after a few conquests without honor and without palpable economic gains US could be in trouble. This has to be taken in conjuction with the case of Israeli interests the neo-cons put before American ones. I think it was a gamble, Israeli needing 3 lucky strikes in a row to eliminate all their potential worries for a while, I doubt it will happen so I think not even Israel will gain anything from all this mess.

US can’t take even very limited casualties because this Iraq-type wars are as much media campaigns as military ones. This is why guerrilla inflicted casualties are even more difficult to be accepted. US could ignore the public only if it turns into a police state because media manipulation can go this far, maybe it will, the signs are not encouraging, for now the government can’t ignore the public for long. And the speed with which the anti-war, or even anti-American, forces can mobilize their pressure groups is the internet speed, much faster than in Vietnam era. From what I see now the Iraqis pre-invasion plans took this factor into consideration. It is crucial for them to exist a strong media covering in Iraq and keep it on the forefront of the news because, even if many reporters are “embedded”, the simple presence of many witnesses will reduce significantly the capabilities of US troops there as an occupying force, but even if US would recourse to more brutal methods I don’t think it can crush the resistance. As for the casualties, around 2200-2400 permanently lost soldiers (dead, mutilated and other irreversible damage) from almost 7000 injured and evacuated, in 7 months, is not too low. Probably there’s more of them, but it’s logical the military is evasive about this.

It would be interesting to compare US military with the next 2 important military powers : Russia and China. The immediate comparison would state US is stronger than any of them and possibly stronger than the 2 combined ( the later not so obvious though). But each of them has different goals. China’s is pretty clear has no ambitions outside its Asian area of interest for the foreseeable future. The Russians goals are unclear. From this point of view, the US goals are far more ambitious and the inability to engage successfully in 2 simultaneous conflicts is very relevant for their possibilities.

China doesn’t attack Taiwan for the same reason US doesn’t recognize it. Both countries avoid a direct military confrontation. For now. There’s no question who wins if US leaves Taiwan alone. China was pointed as the US’ main adversary in the next 20-40 years but before any military confrontation will occur there are other battlefields (economic for sure) where to wage war, as was during the US-USSR confrontation. Until now, China avoided Afghanistan-like traps and without moving a finger (except maybe the cooperation with Pakistan but that one is old and has to do with the balance of power in South Asia) gains sympathy in the Islamic world while US is hated. But this is already another huge topic.

Russia has a matching nuclear capability, China not. Russia has outstanding scientists but I wonder where many of them are now, China probably has some of its own too but apparently comes a distant n-th place behind US and Russia. The financial possibilities and the dynamics of military build-up seem to put China in an advantageous position over Russia and from a result per dollar invested and military burden per economic efficiency even in a better position than US but this will have to be sustained over a couple of decades to matter. If US defense costs continue to increase (even if it’s a widespread mistake that all the funds are actually used for military purposes when in fact they often cover pure research) and if corruption, which seems to be important considering the connections many politicians have with the military industry, chews at the financial efficiency US can very well collapse too.

My objectivity is relative, lately not even the Pope is regarded as infallible (*deep sigh*), but it’s acceptable considering how much disinformation I have to shovel away when I want to find some truth from the sources available. The future, as it configures now, will need a lot more shoveling.


For mabadesc : The second half of the thread title is : “progress” in Iraq update. Apparently is the thread where those who have doubts about the performance of US in Iraq can post. I don’t think I’m farther from topic than others posting here.
Can you discuss in a civilized way ? I think you can, so leave this kind of rhetorical questions away because no one can guarantee your immunity in advance either.

[Der Maresal]

QUOTE

But as boonicutza said, it will take at least 50 years of decline for them to lose their supremacy. So it looks like you'll have to wait 50 years before your wishes will be fulfilled.  In the meantime, you can continue with your sarcasm and denying reality.

:roll:
I'm not denying reality - in fact I got some more pictures for you.
You think it will be 50 years before America collapses, though things in this world happen much quicker and alot more unexpectedly then you think.The Third Reich also was supposed to last one-thousand Years!
..but it lasted about 12 years. Hitler and Speer were planning geat buildings and futuristic projects for the year 1950 and after..
Do you know what Germany was doing in 1950? It was divided in half, conquered and destroyed compleatly with all of her great cities reduced to rubble. What makes you think that the US will not suffer a similar fate?
Things happen faster then you think in this world.

Look at the Viet-Nam war - who won it? Did the Americans not have the technology and best military back then? Of course they did - but they lacked something else, - something that they still lack today -
A reason to fight, and a will! They lost in Viet Nam -
"they lost because they did not achieve Victory."

At the moment they seem to be involved in a conflict in Irak - similar to the one the Soviets faced in Afghanistan.- Partisan warfare. They are not in controll of the country - the whole coutry is against them. (Think what happened to the Germans at around 1943 - the poppulation no longer was with them and they put their differences aside and fought to throw the invader out)

Air Supremacy does not matter - when you face a mob of angry people. All the technology in the world will not help you if you don't have a brain. The Americans seem to have 'lost contact with the battlefield' reliying instead on technology too much. For them - Warfare means pushing a button, firing a missile, 'sattelite guided bomb' etc etc..
Don't be too optimistic about the US military - if you remeber - the Germans too were beaten by an ennemy who was technologically inferior.
(and the germans were much better soldiers and men, then the Americans are today!)The american army is very undisciplined. Soldiers panick in battle very easily! They don't know what to do - They rely very much on their commander! If he dies, the others don't know what to do, they simply panick. That is exactly what happened in Somalia, everybody was panicking- nobody knew what he was doing. Complete chaos.
A german general once said that 'Americans practice chaos on a daily basis'

*Ever since the end of World War 2, the americans have been reading too many German books on the military and tactics.. They have been studying too much 'blitzkrieg' - air support, C3, and how to fight wars with incredibly expensive and sophisticated weapons. They did not read Russian books on World War 2 & Partisan Warfare, and how an army inferior in training and technology, but determined and with a strong will, -defeated a superior one. They should have read them to know what awaits them in the future. .... :?
8) They have not been trained for guerilla warfare - they have been training for technologically advanced opponents - like the Soviet Union.

-They believe that by having the most modern Fighterplanes available in the world they will be able to hold air-superiority forever and therefore dominate every conflict.
-They think that the biggest threat is an ennemy's airforce.
They are wrong :!:
The biggest threat for them comes from the ground - from surface to air missiles (that shot down 3 helicopters recenty). Air to air combat is just what they are looking for - in this case you must not give it to them. Shooting their pilots dead while they sleep in their baracks at night is another method of destroying their airforce. 8) Who's gonna fly their F-22's if the pilots are missing? :shock: It takes years and years to train a pilot. Aircraft can be replaced easily - but pilots are much harder to replace.
Why rely only on high-tech stuff - you would be surprised how much you can accomplish with a sharp knife or an axe A knife is quiet, does not smell when fired, and does not need reloading. From now one, in Iraq Americans will come up against crude weapons such as these and others like home made-bombs, trucks filled with explosive, hit and run attacks, RPGs, Snipers, mines, booby-traps, grenades, mortars, small arms, local insurgents and and the average iraqi (of whom there are many) that is fed up and is willing to use any method to drive the ennemy out.

The high-tech US military is facing an unconventional method of warfare which it was not prepared for - not did it train for! The fact that the largest mobolization of the National Guard (including the Ceremonial 'Tomb of the Unknown Soldier' guard) - 80 000+ is being send to Iraq should be a wakeup-call to many, don't you think ? :shock:

Let's not overestimate the US military here- their whole principle of war is to destroy Command Controll and Communications - C3.
What good is it when there is no Command Controll and Communication?
And when resistance comes from ordinary people?And when you don't clearly know who the ennemy is, and where every citizen can be a potential ennemy. .. :?
I think the US has gotten itse;f in a pretty bad situation in Irak -as one Iraqi said, in about two years evem the Iraqi Police will turn against them.
Until then we can expect more of the same, and the conflict to widen - and "sadly " ( ) watch the most modern military pick up helicopter pieces and dead bodies fron roof-tops or stuck in between power lines....



"no nation has ever profited from prolonged warfare"