Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply US-PHARMACIES UGL OZ
Raptor Labs UGFREAK OxygenPharm
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplyUS-PHARMACIES UGL OZUGFREAKRaptor LabsOxygenPharm

Top Chinese General warns U.S. over attack.

bdog527

New member
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/28cfe55a-f4a7-11d9-9dd1-00000e2511c8.html


China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese general said on Thursday.


“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.

Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its territory included warships and aircraft.

“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's National Defence University.

“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”



Chilling.
 
Believe me when I tell you this. If a conflict over Taiwan erupts, China's nukes are the going to be the first casuality, even if we have to use nuclear armed cruise missiles to do it. Not a pleasent thought, a war with China.

Zig
 
Who cares about Taiwan, it's a matter of time before China invade this country. The US wont lose their business relationship with China cuz of some small time island.
 
eat big said:
China could rape us in war I think.
You're fuggin' nuts! :Chef: :tuc:
 
Y_lifter said:
They have how many planes and bombers that can fly ?
Diesel Electric Subs LOL

I bet their Rockets couldn't hit the broad side of smurfy's tits.


Don't forget about Kung-Fu bro.
 
bdog527 said:
And???


CNOOC is 70% owned by the communist government of China. Apples and Oranges.

One could argue that large American conglomerates are also government subsidised and they have major oil stakes in foreign countries like China. Not arguing your point, I just see it a little differently when we look the other way when our companies do it yet scream when the Chinese do the same.

Loved the communist reference by the way, good job with the hyperbole ;)

Just bugging ya.
 
the chinese are taking the same position as the north koreans after the 'altruistic' actions of the US in afghanistan/iraq - and that is that it isnt enough to deal with the US honestly, you have to deal with them from a position of power, or youre lost.

the chinese know that they cant move their people from china to the US, rendering their military impotent against the air power of the US, and so they have to fall back on what they have, which is nuclear. the US cant go to china without being obliterated by a few million chinese, and the chinese cant set foot outside asia without being bombed from above, meaning stalemate. which is good.

if either had an advantage, there might be war. as it is....i dont see it happening. not over taiwan. if the chinese started moving, maybe...
 
chefbone said:
You're fuggin' nuts! :Chef: :tuc:


Well considering they have 1.3 billion people, the fastest growing economy by far and enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world, I think they could do just fine.
 
Armageddon. "And they will have an army of 200,000,000." China has already boasted of this.
 
little nipper,s are pretty brave,NOT,why would th US attack anyways,and why the fuck use nukes,I thought the cols war was long over
 
they want taiwan, US doesn't want them to have taiwan
US supplies Taiwan and backs them up

lol Biteme, was that thing in the bible the 200 millionman army, I think by now soldiers/troops are obsolete in a battle between superpowers, it'd just be nuclear holocaust, plus 10 megatons can clear a city (as seen in Japan), think of 1000 megaton ICBMs they have now lol
 
The Red Dragon said:
they want taiwan, US doesn't want them to have taiwan
US supplies Taiwan and backs them up

lol Biteme, was that thing in the bible the 200 millionman army, I think by now soldiers/troops are obsolete in a battle between superpowers, it'd just be nuclear holocaust, plus 10 megatons can clear a city (as seen in Japan), think of 1000 megaton ICBMs they have now lol

That is not what it means. Revelation is a great mystery written like much of the bible. We need a biblical scholar here as I'm not qualfied to go into detail. Anyway, time will tell. Oh and yes, it will be nuclear. "Flesh will melt off the bones."
 
biteme said:
That is not what it means. Revelation is a great mystery written like much of the bible. We need a biblical scholar here as I'm not qualfied to go into detail. Anyway, time will tell. Oh and yes, it will be nuclear. "Flesh will melt off the bones."


Curling has assumed a more likable identity.
 
jnevin said:
Curling has assumed a more likable identity.

LOL. Poor Curling. Would you associate Bill Gates and other genius Christians with Curling?
 
GoldenDelicious said:
the chinese are taking the same position as the north koreans after the 'altruistic' actions of the US in afghanistan/iraq - and that is that it isnt enough to deal with the US honestly, you have to deal with them from a position of power, or youre lost.

the chinese know that they cant move their people from china to the US, rendering their military impotent against the air power of the US, and so they have to fall back on what they have, which is nuclear. the US cant go to china without being obliterated by a few million chinese, and the chinese cant set foot outside asia without being bombed from above, meaning stalemate. which is good.

if either had an advantage, there might be war. as it is....i dont see it happening. not over taiwan. if the chinese started moving, maybe...

The United States and Great Britain have had a fiduciary relationship with Formosa/Taiwan since WWII. I lived and served there. You will not find a more loyal and strong group of Chinese people.

It is a fugging shame these fine people are stuck in the middle like this while nuclear sabers rattle over their heads.

It is my belief and hope that business is more important than war to the Communist leaders of mainland China. One General does not a policy make.
 
this isnt news, I mean I remember having the exact same discussion about geopolitics ten years ago, even further with tianmen square demonstrations etc...this is a continuation of policy, the US would crush China in a war, those who think otherwise are idiots who dont read or study current policy and the military reality of it all, grasping numbers and figures and statements out of the air based on NOTHING.
THe US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. All battlefield simulations and conflicts with China have ALL been drawn up and our ready to go, as part of preparations, its called having a professional army and nitwits like cfzb and GD dont realize that you make all plans and possibilities in the unlikely event something fucks up. Well you dont want to be caught there with your knickers down around your knees and pull a stupid face when some shit goes down. Thats why these plans and memos are in place. DUH! Now would all of you neophytes quit talking about the Downing Street Memo as if it actually existed, does it make sense now? Get it?
 
luciasbrown said:
THe US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. All battlefield simulations and conflicts with China have ALL been drawn up and our ready to go, as part of preparations, its called having a professional army and nitwits like cfzb and GD dont realize that you make all plans and possibilities in the unlikely event something fucks up. Well you dont want to be caught there with your knickers down around your knees and pull a stupid face when some shit goes down. Thats why these plans and memos are in place. DUH! Now would all of you neophytes quit talking about the Downing Street Memo as if it actually existed, does it make sense now? Get it?

exactly. the US 'knows' it can win a war with china. the simulations, supercomputers, and technology tells us this. it is in place folks, dont be scared by empty threats from china. they too know they would loose. the reason for the statement is too scare the general public and hopefully have an outsry from scarry cats.
 
eat big said:
I think they could too. Most Americans are ignorant and think we are better at war etc. etc.

Really??? Ignorant?? You are just flat out wrong, where do you base that statment on? All the experts who study this issue in Washington think tanks and institutes and fellows all disagree with you. You see these brilliant people spend their whole life studying one particular area and they put together reports that the US government and the Pentagon uses to draw up scenarios and war games. What do you think they do, sit on their thumbs like obviously you do on a daily basis. You just need to read listen and be educated on these issues. Where's Redguru, he likes to lay the smack down with knowledge that tards cant refute, I prefer to just let you live in your ignorance of the world
 
luciasbrown said:
Really??? Ignorant?? You are just flat out wrong, where do you base that statment on? All the experts who study this issue in Washington think tanks and institutes and fellows all disagree with you. You see these brilliant people spend their whole life studying one particular area and they put together reports that the US government and the Pentagon uses to draw up scenarios and war games. What do you think they do, sit on their thumbs like obviously you do on a daily basis. You just need to read listen and be educated on these issues. Where's Redguru, he likes to lay the smack down with knowledge that tards cant refute, I prefer to just let you live in your ignorance of the world


All I was saying is most people assume that the US can dominate anyone in war. Yet that is not true at all. Plus, the governmental agencies lately have been quite faulty with their intelligence. They do have 1.3 billion people and that is much more than the 300 million in the US. Yet you also stated that I dont have the hard facts but you havent presented any either. And also, dont say I sit on my thumbs because lately the intelligence agencies have.
 
ziggyziggy said:
You don't know much about US and Chinese military capabilities, do you?

Zig


Well China does have the largest Army in the world. Its almost 2.5 million I think. Although their tanks are much slower. Most of their planes are from the 60's and 70's and outdater as are their subs and surface ships.

US is the exact opposite.

So who wins quality or quantity?
 
eat big said:
Well considering they have 1.3 billion people, the fastest growing economy by far and enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world, I think they could do just fine.

China has about 20 - 40 nuclear weapons, including gravity bombs. Hardly enough to destroy the world. Their economy is the fastest growing according to their numbers, and I trust economic data from communist countries about as much as I trust a starving grizzly. Wonder why China's oil consumption has actually decreased over the last couple of months? I have a hint for you ....... it has nothing to do with economic growth ......

Zig
 
eat big said:
All I was saying is most people assume that the US can dominate anyone in war. Yet that is not true at all. Plus, the governmental agencies lately have been quite faulty with their intelligence. They do have 1.3 billion people and that is much more than the 300 million in the US. Yet you also stated that I dont have the hard facts but you havent presented any either. And also, dont say I sit on my thumbs because lately the intelligence agencies have.

Here we go, as Sponge pointed out there will be scaredycat alarmists trying to spin people up like you are trying to do.
The US will annihilate 1.3 billion people in the blink of an eye, that doesnt mean jackshit, do you think we are going to stand up and march and battle with swords or something. ITs the technology age if you havent forgotten, we have weapons that dont even need people to operate them and can kill hundreds of of enemy soldiers. The Chinese are hugely disadvantaged in technological war and have only a handful of nukes. You are just bloody wrong on the issues. Go read and research man before you start your scaretactics here. Redguru spends time in an instant to crush people like you and they cant respond but I dont have time to run up and educate you on things you should already know before you start yelling fire. No one can beat the US in a war, if you are stating that then you are wrong save for Russia and its nuclear arsenal and there are plans in place for that too. Have you ever paid attention to whats happened in the world. The US is the ONLY superpower currently, China is an emerging superpower some theorize but is far from it currently. You just dont know how the world works is all Im saying, the number of people has nothing to do with it when technology comes into the mix but then when they get technology they move towards democracy so it solves itself thats why we engage with China and trade with them, to open doors rather than close them. Thats why we do the things we do. Bah, I get sick of trying to explain shit to you guys that hate the US and want to put it down, its the best there is currently and if you think you can do better, go do it and STFU already with the bitching about the US
 
ziggyziggy said:
China has about 20 - 40 nuclear weapons, including gravity bombs. Hardly enough to destroy the world. Their economy is the fastest growing according to their numbers, and I trust economic data from communist countries about as much as I trust a starving grizzly. Wonder why China's oil consumption has actually decreased over the last couple of months? I have a hint for you ....... it has nothing to do with economic growth ......

Zig

I think you mean 300-400.
 
luciasbrown said:
Here we go, as Sponge pointed out there will be scaredycat alarmists trying to spin people up like you are trying to do.
The US will annihilate 1.3 billion people in the blink of an eye, that doesnt mean jackshit, do you think we are going to stand up and march and battle with swords or something. ITs the technology age if you havent forgotten, we have weapons that dont even need people to operate them and can kill hundreds of of enemy soldiers. The Chinese are hugely disadvantaged in technological war and have only a handful of nukes. You are just bloody wrong on the issues. Go read and research man before you start your scaretactics here. Redguru spends time in an instant to crush people like you and they cant respond but I dont have time to run up and educate you on things you should already know before you start yelling fire. No one can beat the US in a war, if you are stating that then you are wrong save for Russia and its nuclear arsenal and there are plans in place for that too. Have you ever paid attention to whats happened in the world. The US is the ONLY superpower currently, China is an emerging superpower some theorize but is far from it currently. You just dont know how the world works is all Im saying, the number of people has nothing to do with it when technology comes into the mix but then when they get technology they move towards democracy so it solves itself thats why we engage with China and trade with them, to open doors rather than close them. Thats why we do the things we do. Bah, I get sick of trying to explain shit to you guys that hate the US and want to put it down, its the best there is currently and if you think you can do better, go do it and STFU already with the bitching about the US

Oh yes we do have the technological advantage. We can kill them all without a person stepping foot in their country.

I DO NOT hate the US. Do not ever say that again. My next door neighbor who I grew up with died in Iraq in January. He was 20. Do not ever say that again. I love this country. Just because I am debating for the other side does not mean I HATE the US. You need to think before you make accusations about someone you don't even know.
 
eat big said:
Well China does have the largest Army in the world. Its almost 2.5 million I think. Although their tanks are much slower. Most of their planes are from the 60's and 70's and outdater as are their subs and surface ships.

US is the exact opposite.

So who wins quality or quantity?

size means nothing. just think about what everyone said about afhganistan and iraq. also think about what people said about the first gulf war. the second gulf war will be studied for years on how to whomp some ass.

we dont know half the shit the US has or is capable of. small example. i was stationed on the USS Enterprise. over 1000ft long and 300ft wide. was said to be able to do about 35knots. WOW a ship that size doing 35knots, incredible right? classified was that it could do 60+knots. WOW!!@@!

just an example of the fact that the military is capable of way more than MOST people know.

this is just an opinion. i believe the US has capability to take car of any nukes fired this way without a problem. but the enemy does not.

like i said, i have no doubt the military think tanks are the greatest in the world and already know they can win a war.
 
TheLion2005 said:
The United States and Great Britain have had a fiduciary relationship with Formosa/Taiwan since WWII. I lived and served there. You will not find a more loyal and strong group of Chinese people.

It is a fugging shame these fine people are stuck in the middle like this while nuclear sabers rattle over their heads.

It is my belief and hope that business is more important than war to the Communist leaders of mainland China. One General does not a policy make.


I used to travel to Taipei once every three months to qualify a product for the company I worked for. Taiwan is well worth defending and we've had a pact to do so since Eisenhower. Believe me, not one Chinese nuclear weapon would leave the ground to reach US soil before we obliterated it.

China does not have troop transport capability to attack the US, or capture Taiwan for that matter. Any transport that attempted to cross the strait of Formosa would be a sitting duck for our Seawolfs. Taiwan's Indigenous Defense Fighter is far better than any of its Chinese counterparts and we have an Aegis cruiser tasked there continouosly for air defense. Air transport is out of the question. The Chinese 200,000,000 man army is if they used every man they had trained for one week in arms. They wouldn't have enough rifles for 1 out of every 10 of them.

This General also has been outed as a hard-liner who does not have access to inner circle strategy. He probably is going to be working a desk on the Siberian border after this statement.
 
China will pay part of the US huge debt and increase their imports of US goods and the US will close their eyes while China will annex Taiwan
 
anthrax said:
China will pay part of the US huge debt and increase their imports of US goods and the US will close their eyes while China will annex Taiwan


Not really, in fact if anything we have moved closer to a "Two Chinas" policy in the last few years.

Normally when Beijing sabre-rattles like this, it is to affect a decision in Taipei's parliament or to influence an election.
 
perkele said:
China will walk over USA.


Discuss

Perkele, they would have to walk over the Arctic Ice to hit the US, because they wouldn't have a ship or a plane left to reach us. By the time they got near here, even the Canadians would be able to wipe them out with hockey sticks.
 
A war between the US and China is as probable as Paris Hilton being next US president
 
biggest thing US has to worry about is the ones that are already over here.This country we let anyone in who has money.They get in and corrupt our government and intellagence hell we elect them as top officials.China dont have the resources to mobilize a significant amount of troops, so unless there was a ground war they are useless.With that said all they really have is nukes.If China were to strike the US the only possible way it could be effective is to fire all they had at once.Reason I say that is because US and there diplomatic responsabilitys (that so many seem to complain about) China is allways surrounded and within striking distance.
 
Uh....................our nuclear subs??

Last time I checked we can destroy the world 1000x over +.

We could wipe out China before David Caradine could lite a fucking firecracker.

In my opinion.
 
just take out all the American companies giving jobs to hundreds of thousands of chinese and they are fucked.
 
ziggyziggy said:
Believe me when I tell you this. If a conflict over Taiwan erupts, China's nukes are the going to be the first casuality, even if we have to use nuclear armed cruise missiles to do it. Not a pleasent thought, a war with China.

Zig


They outnumber us... and that's an understatement if there ever was one.
 
I think the chinks are all talk, the USA would destroy them in a war hands down. qaunity means nothing over the qaulity of the USA military !!!
 
Anyone that claims the Chinese would walk over the US doesn't know a whole lot about the Chinese's recent military history. Sure they have one of the fastest growing economies in the world, but you know why? Because they have been living in the stone age up until the past 20 years or so. An economy can only grow fast that has lied dormant most of its modern life. There is nowhere else for it go. There economy and infastructure is still light years behind the US and other developed countries so using that as an excuse is ridiculous. China still has many years to go before it is on the same stage as Western Nations and Japan. The only advantage they have is their size, both geographically and population wise. All of their technology, wealth, and success can be attributed to the investment and knowledge of Western countries.

There large army wouldn't do any good unless the US invaded China, and I think we all know that isn't ever going to happen. Even if it did, the Japanese sure never had a problem walking all over them. People believe this hype and mystery that China is some superpower unstoppable beast that is just waiting to attack, when in reality, they are simply a growing country that has some old Soviet weapons and nuclear capabilities. They have the capability of being a superpower, but they aren't there yet. Plus, if they did attack, that could easily start a world war, with all of the hostility in nearby countries (N. Korea, Japanese/Chinese history, etc.).
 
luciasbrown said:
THe US spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined. All battlefield simulations and conflicts with China have ALL been drawn up and our ready to go, as part of preparations, its called having a professional army and nitwits like cfzb and GD dont realize that you make all plans and possibilities in the unlikely event something fucks up. Well you dont want to be caught there with your knickers down around your knees and pull a stupid face when some shit goes down. Thats why these plans and memos are in place. DUH! Now would all of you neophytes quit talking about the Downing Street Memo as if it actually existed, does it make sense now? Get it?
nitwit? ;)

i dont think there is any doubt that the US would lose a ground war with the chinese. its all well and good to have a large, professional standing army, but as we have seen in the case of iraq, some simple tactics (suicide bombers and roadside bombs) have proven very effective in a conventional war against the vaunted technology of the US.

and after the iraq disaster, i dont know how you can have so much faith in your government, brothabill. for a bunch of supposedly smart guys, they do some really, really dumb things
 
hanselthecaretaker said:
They outnumber us... and that's an understatement if there ever was one.

Yes, they do outnumber us, but that has nothing to do with the unpleasentness in my mind. A war with China would last about 72 hours, with little or no ground troops involved. However, there would be massive loss of life on the Chinese side as the US would methodically knock out dams, power plants, bridges, rail hubs, communications hubs, munitions dumps (including chemical and biological weapons), fuel distribution centers, and all of China's nukes. China's nukes are what I am concerned about, because the US would resort to using our own nuclear devices to destroy them. In this case, most likely TLAM-D's, with 200 kiloton W-80 thermonuclear warheads, or ground penetrating mini-nukes. If you believe that the US no longer carries nukes on its warships and submarines, as the government would like you to, then once again, I have some prime beachfront property in Kentucky to sell you.

One other thing pertaining to nukes here. Is there anyone here who actually believes that the military is actually asking for permission from congress to develop earth penetrating mini-nukes? Before you answer that, just remember that the "black" budget for the DoD is on the order of billions of dollars per year, and is subject to little or no oversight. The safe bet would be that we already have them, and asking congress was just a way of announcing to the rest of the world that we have them.

Zig
 
GoldenDelicious said:
nitwit? ;)

i dont think there is any doubt that the US would lose a ground war with the chinese. its all well and good to have a large, professional standing army, but as we have seen in the case of iraq, some simple tactics (suicide bombers and roadside bombs) have proven very effective in a conventional war against the vaunted technology of the US.

and after the iraq disaster, i dont know how you can have so much faith in your government, brothabill. for a bunch of supposedly smart guys, they do some really, really dumb things

LOL, Im just generating discussions and putting forth positions. Calling the American people ignorant deserves a smack down. If people want to do that then Im going to lay it down. Just like you are wrong about about losing a ground war with China. You are making the same mistake that countries have made throughout history, thinking in terms of the last wars fought. Thats what the military strategists have already thought of, people that spend their lives, people alot smarter than you have drawn up plans on how to win against china, its all planned out and alot of it is classified but alot of it is also on the internet if you spent the time to read and google like I have. Ive studied these issues for many many years. B/c you fail to be well informed and chooose not to understand this stuff I enjoy tweaking your nose when you attack the US, why do you do that? I think its just fundamentally that you dislike the US, Bush and the American way of life, democracy and free market systems, that is the core statement behind your posts, you despise corporations yet dont understand what efficiency is and why they come into being, its about learning economic theory and business models, you just dont understand the systems, I do. How can you debate someone that makes blanket statements that all corporations are evil? To see complex issues like that in black and white means you lack the ability to understand the good as well as bad and things that can be improved. Its simple, you offer criticism yet offer no solutions to the issues. If you want to put the US down then offer a solution as well. Its easy to be an armchair general or an armchair president and complain incessantly but offering solutions is beyond your intellect, thats why you dont do it.
You cant stop suicide bombers, is that your argument, that we are losing b/c some people decide to kill themselves? We didnt lose the Iraq war, were not going to lose or leave b/c you just cant realistically do that and history will record this as reshaping the middle east and lead to democracy in the region. Thats what a neocon foreign policy is about. But I dont want to go to far with neocon b/c none of you understand the definition of it which Ive explained several times. Neocon does not mean Christian Conservative. Its a move from the intellectual left into having a moral foreign policy such as why we had the Berlin airlift, why the US does things. Its all about knowing your history and terminology my man. I have faith in the US govt. b/c I dont want to live my life as a pessimist. These people, and Ive studied their positions and statements are PHds, experts and all of their opinions and analyses of the situations. I watch and learn from them and I can tell you they are smarter than you or I and are top in their fields of coutries, teaching at universities, working for the govt. being called to talk on political talk shows. I form my opinions based on what the experts discuss, you should try it. I choose to have faith just like you choose not to have faith. I walk around secure and confident and enlightened on the issues while you choose to walk around with a hole in you. You could fill that hole by reading and learning if you wanted to but we you choose to be a pessimist and a cynic. To each their own, Im bored and in the mood to bug you and everyone else that puts down the US, I can be a mirror and reflect that right back on you. Dont hate the mirror, you say it and I reflect it back, not necessarily with my own beliefs or arguments, I can argue all sides to these issues and many times in the last fifteen years b/c Ive studied these issues.
 
we would have the upper hand by far. where are their closest troops, ships, or planes to us right now? Look where ours are to them. Even if they did send a missile to us, we would have them leveled before it hit us

Whiskey
 
There's no doubt that the US would win a war with China. Unlike Iraq we wouldnt be trying to spare civilian lives - our guided missiles would create such havoc and confusion that they wouldnt know what to do.
 
luciasbrown said:
LOL, Im just generating discussions and putting forth positions. Calling the American people ignorant deserves a smack down. If people want to do that then Im going to lay it down. Just like you are wrong about about losing a ground war with China. You are making the same mistake that countries have made throughout history, thinking in terms of the last wars fought. Thats what the military strategists have already thought of, people that spend their lives, people alot smarter than you have drawn up plans on how to win against china, its all planned out and alot of it is classified but alot of it is also on the internet if you spent the time to read and google like I have. Ive studied these issues for many many years. B/c you fail to be well informed and chooose not to understand this stuff I enjoy tweaking your nose when you attack the US, why do you do that? I think its just fundamentally that you dislike the US, Bush and the American way of life, democracy and free market systems, that is the core statement behind your posts, you despise corporations yet dont understand what efficiency is and why they come into being, its about learning economic theory and business models, you just dont understand the systems, I do. How can you debate someone that makes blanket statements that all corporations are evil? To see complex issues like that in black and white means you lack the ability to understand the good as well as bad and things that can be improved. Its simple, you offer criticism yet offer no solutions to the issues. If you want to put the US down then offer a solution as well. Its easy to be an armchair general or an armchair president and complain incessantly but offering solutions is beyond your intellect, thats why you dont do it.
You cant stop suicide bombers, is that your argument, that we are losing b/c some people decide to kill themselves? We didnt lose the Iraq war, were not going to lose or leave b/c you just cant realistically do that and history will record this as reshaping the middle east and lead to democracy in the region. Thats what a neocon foreign policy is about. But I dont want to go to far with neocon b/c none of you understand the definition of it which Ive explained several times. Neocon does not mean Christian Conservative. Its a move from the intellectual left into having a moral foreign policy such as why we had the Berlin airlift, why the US does things. Its all about knowing your history and terminology my man. I have faith in the US govt. b/c I dont want to live my life as a pessimist. These people, and Ive studied their positions and statements are PHds, experts and all of their opinions and analyses of the situations. I watch and learn from them and I can tell you they are smarter than you or I and are top in their fields of coutries, teaching at universities, working for the govt. being called to talk on political talk shows. I form my opinions based on what the experts discuss, you should try it. I choose to have faith just like you choose not to have faith. I walk around secure and confident and enlightened on the issues while you choose to walk around with a hole in you. You could fill that hole by reading and learning if you wanted to but we you choose to be a pessimist and a cynic. To each their own, Im bored and in the mood to bug you and everyone else that puts down the US, I can be a mirror and reflect that right back on you. Dont hate the mirror, you say it and I reflect it back, not necessarily with my own beliefs or arguments, I can argue all sides to these issues and many times in the last fifteen years b/c Ive studied these issues.


as thorough of an owning as i have ever seen...goldenshower never misses a chance to put down the usa...his insults towards Bush are merely thinly veiled insults at the American people. Golden when and if you visit America I guarantee you will eat a large slice of humble pie...
 
eat big said:
I think they could too. Most Americans are ignorant and think we are better at war etc. etc.

We would ruin China in a heartbeat if we wanted to, without mobilizing a single ground division.

That and one other thing are for sure, China wont go quietly, and it would be a very messy war.

I would assume the only way to ensure no American lives are lost are to completely blanket the country with warheads from nearby subs, thereby reducing the amount of time China has to retaliate. A 1 minute warning isnt that beneficial.
 
GoldenDelicious said:
nitwit? ;)

i dont think there is any doubt that the US would lose a ground war with the chinese. its all well and good to have a large, professional standing army, but as we have seen in the case of iraq, some simple tactics (suicide bombers and roadside bombs) have proven very effective in a conventional war against the vaunted technology of the US.

and after the iraq disaster, i dont know how you can have so much faith in your government, brothabill. for a bunch of supposedly smart guys, they do some really, really dumb things

100% wrong. The "simple tactics" have only been proven effective against our PC attitude, not our military.
 
GoldenDelicious said:
nitwit? ;)

i dont think there is any doubt that the US would lose a ground war with the chinese. its all well and good to have a large, professional standing army, but as we have seen in the case of iraq, some simple tactics (suicide bombers and roadside bombs) have proven very effective in a conventional war against the vaunted technology of the US.

and after the iraq disaster, i dont know how you can have so much faith in your government, brothabill. for a bunch of supposedly smart guys, they do some really, really dumb things

It has already been proven, even when caught off guard, elements of one US division, using conventional arms with no technological advantage can hold off an onslaught of 8 divisions of Chinese soldiers backed by artillery. Look it up, or don't you remember we already fought the Communist Chinese. That was over 50 years ago and now, including our massive technological advantage, the Chinese would not stand a chance.

Nuclear weapons. Every single Xia submarine has at least one Los Angeles or Seawolf sub tasked to it. As soon as the Chinese boomer made an attempt to go to launch depth, it would be an expensive sardine can on the ocean floor. The Chinese Ballistic Missile Regiment is weak. China does not even store thier warheads with thier ICBMs, therefore, nearly incapable of a first strike capability. A majority of Chinese warheads are gravity bombs, requiring aircraft. Tell me how many surviving bombers would China get to US territory, or Japan for that matter? Even the Russians could wipe out thier bomber fleet.

The tactics you are describing as effective are only so in an occupation situation, not in a ground war. Those attacks are ineffectual against a mobile army. In an all-out war with China, we would consider it a fight for survival, the PC gloves would come off.

Our military, since WW2, has prepared for ground assault against an army vastly numerically superior to our own. We are pretty good at it. Tactically, we are immensely more mobile, our field commanders have decision capability (where the Chinese do not), and we have a vastly superior technological advantage. I bet a majority or in fact, all, of Chinese military electronic equipment is not shielded. One high-altitude air burst over China and they are fighting in the stone age.
 
75th said:
100% wrong. The "simple tactics" have only been proven effective against our PC attitude, not our military.

I was looking for a way to say that, but you got it right on.
 
First, let me say AGAIN there will never be a war US/China for Taiwan

This being said, if ever there were a war, we may want to consider that Russia could help the Chinese.....
 
redguru said:
It has already been proven, even when caught off guard, elements of one US division, using conventional arms with no technological advantage can hold off an onslaught of 8 divisions of Chinese soldiers backed by artillery. Look it up, or don't you remember we already fought the Communist Chinese. That was over 50 years ago and now, including our massive technological advantage, the Chinese would not stand a chance.

Nuclear weapons. Every single Xia submarine has at least one Los Angeles or Seawolf sub tasked to it. As soon as the Chinese boomer made an attempt to go to launch depth, it would be an expensive sardine can on the ocean floor. The Chinese Ballistic Missile Regiment is weak. China does not even store thier warheads with thier ICBMs, therefore, nearly incapable of a first strike capability. A majority of Chinese warheads are gravity bombs, requiring aircraft. Tell me how many surviving bombers would China get to US territory, or Japan for that matter? Even the Russians could wipe out thier bomber fleet.

The tactics you are describing as effective are only so in an occupation situation, not in a ground war. Those attacks are ineffectual against a mobile army. In an all-out war with China, we would consider it a fight for survival, the PC gloves would come off.

Our military, since WW2, has prepared for ground assault against an army vastly numerically superior to our own. We are pretty good at it. Tactically, we are immensely more mobile, our field commanders have decision capability (where the Chinese do not), and we have a vastly superior technological advantage. I bet a majority or in fact, all, of Chinese military electronic equipment is not shielded. One high-altitude air burst over China and they are fighting in the stone age.
"No more task force smtihs"

Task Force Smith
‘What we carried was all we had.’

LTC Keith K. Fukumitsu



On July 5, 1950, the morning dawned rainy and windswept in the bleak hills of Korea between Suwan and Osan. Atop three of those hills that straddled the road between the two towns, 406 soldiers of Companies B and C of the 1st Battalion, 21st Infantry, 24th Infantry Division were arrayed in a mile-long position astride the main road and railway connecting Seoul and Pusan. They had spent a miserable, rain-soaked night in the hills, after previously arriving on a hasty night flight from Japan followed by four days of truck and train travel from Pusan. As the soldiers roused, some opened their C-Rations while others attempted to dry out themselves and their equipment. They soon found their radios inoperative because of the rain. Some of their equipment, most notably their ammunition, was still stacked by the side of the road at the bottom of the hills. About a mile to their rear, similarly wet and miserable soldiers in Battery A of the 52d Artillery Battalion were supporting with six 105-millimeter (mm) howitzers.

Under the command of LTC Charles "Brad" Smith, these US Army units, dubbed "Task Force Smith," represented the farthest forward US ground combat force on the Korean Peninsula. To their rear, the rest of the 24th Infantry Division was hurriedly organizing a defensive line to stop the North Korean attack. Aside from the 105-mm artillery, the commander had two of his four 75-mm recoilless rifles that few of his soldiers knew how to use, six obsolete 2.36-inch "bazooka" rocket launchers (none of the newer, more effective 3.5-inch launchers in the Army inventory had been issued to Far East units), and two mortar platoons armed with four 60-mm and two 4.2-inch mortars. Because of weight constraints on the C-54 aircraft, the rest of the 4.2-inch mortar platoon was left behind for later shipment. Somewhere to the northwest, in the direction of Seoul was the North Korean People’s Army.

The North Korean People’s Army was on a roll. The North Korean People’s Army had invaded the Republic of Korea in South Korea only 11 days earlier and overwhelmed the ill-equipped Republic of Korea armed forces. The North Korean People’s Army steamrolled into Seoul, driving refugees and regrouping Republic of Korea Army units before it, clogging roads and throwing the countryside into a panic.

Their invasion caught General Douglas MacArthur and his Far East Command and Eighth Army by surprise, despite recent intelligence reports that North Korea was planning for an attack on the Republic of Korea. General MacArthur had disregarded the reports, saying he did not believe war with North Korea was imminent. In fact, both the Far East Command analysis and the US National Security Council analysis did not include Korea as one of the US Far East interests. Earlier, in 1947, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had declared Korea "a military liability" and directed withdrawal of all US troops by June 1950. By June 1949, the only US military presence in Korea was the 472-man US Korean Military Advisory Group. The Far East Command was responsible only for support to the US Korean Military Advisory Group.

The Republic of Korea Army of 1950 was a 64,600-man force advised by the US Korean Military Advisory Group and equipped with US surplus equipment, mostly small arms and light artillery. No tanks, heavy artillery, aircraft or ships were allocated the Republic of Korea by the US because of the Republic of Korea military’s "peaceful purpose." A US Korean Military Advisory Group advisor observed: "It (Republic of Korea Army) could have been the American Army of 1775." Also, the Far East Command assessed Korea as "not tank country."

In contrast, the North Korean People’s Army had over 130,000 soldiers and 3,000 Soviet advisors with the Soviets providing a full array of heavy weapons, aircraft and, notably, the formidable T-34/85, arguably the best tank to come out of World War II. On the morning of July 5, 1950, the North Korean People’s Army was a proven, battle-tried combat force.

On the US side, the nation’s military was still in the throes of the post-World War II drawdown, going from a force of 12 million to a congressionally mandated force strength of 1,070,000 from 1945 to 1947. The Far East Command’s US Army Command, Eighth Army, had four divisions - 1st Cavalry, 7th Infantry, 24th Infantry and 25th Infantry - totaling 50,000 soldiers. These divisions were all based in Japan on constabulary duty as occupation forces. Though this looked good on paper, these units were manned with poorly trained draftees and a cadre that put little emphasis on training or readiness during what one observer called the "unabashed sloth" of occupation duty. Of these soldiers, only one in six had seen combat duty in World War II. In fact, by June 1950, unit strengths for combat units had fallen to 48.8 percent, and combat service support units had sunk to 25.9 percent. For combat service support units, this meant an increasing dependence on local civilian labor and facilities for routine combat service support activities and total unpreparedness for wartime mobilization.

Postwar budget cuts had severely shrunk the key logistics capabilities of the other services too. The US Air Force maintained only two dozen C-54 aircraft in Japan. At the time of Task Force Smith’s deployment, several were undergoing maintenance and only six were available. The US Navy’s sealift was also a victim of budget cuts that left the 24th Division "scrounging" for ships in which to deploy. The rest of the 1/21 Infantry, for example, had to commandeer civilian freighters and some US Navy LSTs (landing ships, tank) that were on loan to the Japanese Self Defense Force in order to sail to Korea to link up with Task Force Smith. As one commander put it: "It was a hell of a way to go to war."

In The Korean War, author Max Hastings writes that General MacArthur’s "absolute lack of attention to the combat training of the divisions in Japan can be explained by his conviction that they would not be called upon to fight." The general’s staff also had a condescending attitude toward what General MacArthur called "a barefoot Asian army." Ordered to counter the North Korean invasion, General MacArthur thought sending the 24th Infantry Division - as, in his words, an "arrogant display of strength" - would suffice to intimidate and ultimately stop their advance.

General MacArthur ordered the 24th Infantry Division to mobilize and prepare to move to Korea. Its mission was to secure the port of Pusan and insert a delaying force by air north of the port. The 1/21 Infantry was the designated delaying force and was hastily loaded on six C-54 transport aircraft. Only enough aircraft were available to load out two Infantry companies and some selected equipment. The rest of the battalion, Companies A and D, along with other heavy equipment and weapons, were left behind in Japan to follow-on by sealift. The rest of the division with its organic tank battalion would also deploy by sea.

Task Force Smith landed at Pusan on July 1-2 and began a three-day journey by truck and train to its battle position. The roads were clogged with refugees and retreating Republic of Korea units, and the road surfaces were churned to a quagmire by the rain and traffic. Troops slept in sidings and school houses along the way. Some became sick from drinking from local water supplies. As they neared the front, the civilian drivers refused to proceed, and the soldiers drove the trucks the rest of the way. When they arrived at the position on July 4 in the darkness and rain, the Republic of Korea Army unit that was supposed to link up with Task Force Smith was not there. Supplies were offloaded but not all moved uphill into the battle positions.

While Task Force Smith was moving into position, Pusan was struggling to transform itself into a major supply base. At the southeastern corner of the Korean Peninsula, Pusan was 185 miles southeast of Task Force Smith and 275 road miles away, separated by two mountain ranges. The Pusan Logistics Command was still organizing, finding the port facilities underdeveloped and the rail and motor transport systems in a state of confusion. Many of the networks had been damaged by air strikes from both sides. There was no centralized system of asset management, and no one was quite sure of supplies on hand. By July 5, 7,600 tons of Class V (ammunition), and 3,200 tons of general supplies had been offloaded, but there was still no coherent system to move the supplies forward.

Back at the Far East Command, the staff was acting as the combat service support staff, trying to mobilize the available forces without a theater logistics plan. The staff had neither identified a communications zone (COMMZ) nor organized support architecture. There was no plan to synchronize the deployment of combat service support units with the combat units. Because of the perceived superiority of the US forces, no preparations had been made for the retrograde, resupply or reinforcement of Task Force Smith.

The soldiers of Task Force Smith were minimally supplied, also based on the anticipation of their mission as a short "police action." They had been issued two days’ C-Rations and about the same amount of ammunition (120 rounds per man). According to LTC Smith, "What we carried was all we had." There were no barrier materials or mines available. Many of their 2.36-inch rockets were deteriorated and old, as were the mortar rounds.

At 0700 on July 5, 1950, the North Korean People’s Army attacked Task Force Smith with a lead element of eight T-34/85 tanks. The tanks moved through an initial barrage of A/52 Artillery unfazed. The 75-mm recoilless rifle gunners engaged the tanks, but did not score a single kill despite many hits. Task Force Smith bazooka gunners also fired many rounds at the tanks, likewise with little effect. One gunner fired over 20 rockets at the tanks at close range without managing to inflict any serious damage. A 105-mm howitzer, firing in direct fire mode, managed to knock out one tank. By 0900, more than 30 tanks had driven through Task Force Smith’s position, cutting the single communications line between the task force and A/52 Artillery. At 1100, two regiments of North Korean People’s Army infantry assaulted Task Force Smith. With LTC Smith’s radios inoperative as a result of the rain, he had to use runners between his elements.

Faced with being overrun and caught between the North Korean troops and tanks in the rear, LTC Smith ordered a phased withdrawal beginning with Company C on the right flank. Company B, holding the left flank position and straddling the main road through which the tank attack came, saw the withdrawal of Company C and began to fall back on its own. The withdrawal turned into a rout with soldiers stumbling through the rice paddies and abandoning weapons and equipment. Of the 406 Task Force Smith soldiers who started the battle, only 185 could be mustered a week later after reaching friendly lines.

Task Force Smith’s mission was doomed to failure for many reasons, but foremost was the failure by General MacArthur’s Far East Command and Eighth Army to anticipate the threat. Given the proximity of communist and Soviet influences in the theater of operations, leaders should have had contingency plans in case hostilities erupted. These plans should have also contained logistics support to include prepositioned reserve equipment. Anticipating the threat also would have prompted the staff to develop training that supported contingency plans instead of allowing the deterioration of both combat and combat service support forces.

On the plus side, the decision to secure Pusan was crucial to establishing a support base for reinforcing the Republic of Korea Army and ultimately deploying heavy ground forces and attendant combat service support. Having "friendly" port of entry into the theater was better than forcing a lodgment on hostile shores.

After Task Force Smith was committed, no plan for its continuous support was evident. Given the state of training and readiness in Eighth Army, effective execution of a combat service support plan was questionable, even if such a plan had existed. This must have been obvious to the soldiers of Task Force Smith, after their experiences just before the battle. Their lack of training, frantic deployment and poor outfitting, followed by their sporadic and haphazard movement into position could only have been viewed as harbingers of the future, hammered home by North Korean People’s Army on the morning of July 5, 1950.

The events that unfolded on the Korean peninsula some 45 years ago offer a telling reminder of what happens when a force goes to war unprepared. Disaster lurks around every bend. There are lessons here especially pertinent to the logistics community.

The Army either learns from its history or runs the risk of repeating past mistakes on some future battlefield. This is what General (Retired) Gordon R. Sullivan meant when he said repeatedly throughout his tour as Army Chief of Staff: "No more Task Force Smiths."
 
4everhung said:
"No more task force smtihs"

Task Force Smith
‘What we carried was all we had.’

LTC Keith K. Fukumitsu


LOL, I was talking about the Choisin retreat, but Task Force Smith shows mostly what happens to those who do not prepare for battle!
 
anthrax said:
First, let me say AGAIN there will never be a war US/China for Taiwan

This being said, if ever there were a war, we may want to consider that Russia could help the Chinese.....

I think Russia's more likely to oppose the Chinese. They see China as a threat.
 
Mr. dB said:
They see China as a threat.

Sure but between the US and China, Russia is still closer to China
 
redguru said:
LOL, I was talking about the Choisin retreat, but Task Force Smith shows mostly what happens to those who do not prepare for battle!
yeah I know
typical mistake too of underestimating your opponent
though I don't believe we do that with China

our military doesn't make many errors any more
and it's ironic but I feel that our soldiers performed their finest in vietnam

I'm not impressed with the two gulf wars because the tech gap is so large and we have numerical superiority,complete air supremacy etc,etc

much is made of the quick advance into Baghdad,and I was impressed with Blount's decision to go for the coup de grace with his bold advance into an urban area
but Guderian's 2nd Panzergruppe advanced nearly as far and just as quickly at the opening of Barbarossa
with 40s era equipment,in diffcult terrain and against considerable opposition

It's no wonder that the US military studied the German Wehrmacht extensively following WWII
it wasn't until vietnam though that we adopted German squad tactics
 
Last edited:
4everhung said:
yeah I know
typical mistake too of underestimating your opponent
though I don't believe we do that with China

our military doesn't make many errors any more
and it's ironic but I feel that our soldiers performed their finest in vietnam

I'm not impressed with the two gulf wars because the tech gap is so large and we have numerical superiority,complete air supremacy etc,etc

much is made of the quick advance into Baghdad,and I was impressed with Bount's decision to go for the coup de grace with his bold advance into an urban area
but Guderian's 2nd Panzergruppe advanced nearly as far and just as quickly at the opening of Barbarossa
with 40s era equipment,in diffcult terrain and against considerable opposition

It's no wonder that the US military studied the German Whermacht extensively following WWII
it wasn't until vietnam though that we adopted German squad tactics


Isn't it funny how after 60 years a mechanized army still can't seem to advance more than 250 miles beyond its supply chain? The distance and speed were very comparable.
 
red, do you think china will step up the pace of modernizing their military in the next few decades? Maybe they are weak and floppish now but in 50 years they could be a force to reckon with...agree???

the biggest myth of mechainized warfare is the speed...
 
Gambino said:
the biggest myth of mechainized warfare is the speed...
yeah I would say it's more about penetration and envelopement
the armor "skin" allowing a force to get into their opponents rear area
overrun their regimental HQs and arty parks etc
and have the armor to survive counterattacks
as well as having the ability to bring relatively heavier ordinance into play
 
Last edited:
Gambino said:
red, do you think china will step up the pace of modernizing their military in the next few decades? Maybe they are weak and floppish now but in 50 years they could be a force to reckon with...agree???

the biggest myth of mechainized warfare is the speed...

I think the biggest problem with China having a modern military model is thier inability to allow forward commanders flexibility. True with all armies based upon the Soviet model. The win by attrition method is brutal and effective, but a much smaller German force was able to invade Russia and push all the way to Stalingrad. I would never suggest invading China, but stopping them from moving out of thier territory and pushing them back to thier original borders would be relatively easy.

Also, they trust none of thier people with more powerful weapons so they may have a bunch of nukes on paper, but since the warheads are never near a delivery system, what use are they? Technologically, I think they will modernize some of thier components but it will be a relatively small portion of thier total force strength. If you think waste is abundant in a relatively capitalistic economy, you should see what it is like in Communist China. Everyone in the government has thier own little cashcow bailiwick.
 
good thread...


Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,

----Rudyard Kipling



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
4everhung said:
but Guderian's 2nd Panzergruppe advanced nearly as far and just as quickly at the opening of Barbarossa
with 40s era equipment,in diffcult terrain and against considerable opposition

and then were utterly defeated by the russianans...seems to disprove the point you are trying to make about german superoity
 
Gambino said:
and then were utterly defeated by the russianans...seems to disprove the point you are trying to make about german superoity

not to get off topic but i agree with hilters invasion of russia in 1941 (summer)

1. needed resources
2. taking over crete/greece did longer then they thought but still victories
3. winter of 1941 was one of the worst winters off all time(bad luck) got screwed
4. the war going well eveyhwere else (from the north atlantic to North Africa)
5. russia was unprepared and also there mass of troops werent on the boader but ways back far after germany and russia split poland in 1939(easy first gains)
6. mobilzied army in the world (dont even compare to napolean since he had horses compared to hitlers panzers) but the t34> early panzer models 1-3
7. russia got beat up in finland in 1939-1940 winter time and gave off the idea they were weak and would break
 
luciasbrown said:
LOL, Im just generating discussions and putting forth positions. Calling the American people ignorant deserves a smack down. If people want to do that then Im going to lay it down.
american people are, in general, ignorant. that is an unfortunate product of a tame domestic corporate media. i can assure you, the rest of the world sees a vastly different picture of the war in iraq, and in fact many international issues, than do the americans on their home ground.

luciasbrown said:
Just like you are wrong about about losing a ground war with China. You are making the same mistake that countries have made throughout history, thinking in terms of the last wars fought.
really? just like your citizens looked at the last war they fought? gulf war 1?

if you guys are so smart, lucius, why are you getting your arses handed to you in iraq? you certainly arent winning, what with a growing resistance (notice i did not use the word 'insurgency', which i believe to be innaccurate) and you guys bleeding at...2 or so lives a day? with a dissapearing 'coalition of the willing'? with mounting international condemnation? with crumbling treaties and embargoes, as per russian/chinese/iranian arms sales contra to american wishes?

your army was not built to counter assymetric warfare. not conventional army is. its why youre losing.

luciasbrown said:
Thats what the military strategists have already thought of, people that spend their lives, people alot smarter than you have drawn up plans on how to win against china, its all planned out and alot of it is classified but alot of it is also on the internet if you spent the time to read and google like I have.
you sound a tad condescending, lucius. you 'googled' it? really? you mean, like, google.com. you mean, THE google.com. ? the one that i can tap in anytime i want? please. if its classified, then its not on google, meaning, you havnt seen it. and if it is on google, then i can see it whenever i want, meaning you cant preach to me. so dont :)

all youve said, at best, for you, is that niether of us have any idea what would really happen if war came...but if logic prevailed, given the US disaster in iraq, against an enemy 20 million or so strong, in open terrain, after a decade of sanctions, as opposed to another enemy 1300 million strong, unweakened by sanctions, with mountinous terrain and a shocking willingness to give up its citizens lives....i dont know. id say youre in a bit of trouble

luciasbrown said:
Ive studied these issues for many many years. B/c you fail to be well informed and chooose not to understand this stuff I enjoy tweaking your nose when you attack the US, why do you do that? I think its just fundamentally that you dislike the US, Bush and the American way of life, democracy and free market systems, that is the core statement behind your posts, you despise corporations yet dont understand what efficiency is and why they come into being, its about learning economic theory and business models, you just dont understand the systems, I do.
the american way of life? what issue could i possibly have against the american way of life? what do i give a toss? come on. and bush? bush offends me because he is a lying, conniving, stupid bastard. im insulted. at least let me be deceived by someone likeable, and clever. like clinton, for example. i liked that guy.

i understand economics rather well, by the way. its one of those subjects God gave me. i misse most of my eco classes, and still wound up with the second highest mark in the school, and probably top 5 in the state, so really, honestly, i get whats going on. i just dont like the way US corporations in particular use their market and political power. the iraq war is, indirectly, an example of that.

luciasbrown said:
How can you debate someone that makes blanket statements that all corporations are evil? To see complex issues like that in black and white means you lack the ability to understand the good as well as bad and things that can be improved.
firstly, i never said corporations were evil. soulless maybe, but never evil. therefore, i have no idea how you could argue against such a person, since i have not encounteres them before. do you need advice? ill think about it for you, if you like. pm me :)

luciasbrown said:
Its simple, you offer criticism yet offer no solutions to the issues. If you want to put the US down then offer a solution as well. Its easy to be an armchair general or an armchair president and complain incessantly but offering solutions is beyond your intellect, thats why you dont do it.
no, i dont do it because i cant be arsed. its hardly beyond my intellect. really.

luciasbrown said:
You cant stop suicide bombers, is that your argument, that we are losing b/c some people decide to kill themselves?
no, that wasnt my point. but, given that youve been so condescending throughout your post, i could step forward and offer my argument, though i could sit here and let you flounder in your own rhetoric...

...my point is that the 'superpower' that is the US, of which we speak, is in conventional terms. trying to match a conventional military with an assymetric enemy just doesnt work, and is why the US is falling on its arse in iraq....because while your tanks and trucks are better than anyones anti tank and anti plane millies etc etc....theyre still beatable by people willing to lose thier lives in doing so.

the US makes equipment etc etc based on the premise that soldiers want to survive. the jihadists willingness to die exploits that vulnerability, because at the end of hte day, with all their trillions of dollars, the US military cant develop a bomb as efficint, or cheap, or accurate, or devastating, as a suicide bomber and 50 bucks worth of explosive wrapped in ball bearings.

luciasbrown said:
We didnt lose the Iraq war, were not going to lose or leave b/c you just cant realistically do that and history will record this as reshaping the middle east and lead to democracy in the region. Thats what a neocon foreign policy is about. But I dont want to go to far with neocon b/c none of you understand the definition of it which Ive explained several times. Neocon does not mean Christian Conservative. Its a move from the intellectual left into having a moral foreign policy such as why we had the Berlin airlift, why the US does things. Its all about knowing your history and terminology my man.
uhuh. soooooo then, was it useful for the US to spend a couple of trillion bucks in ousting saddam, only to have iraq fairly well amalgamate with iran?

the word neoconservative has changed meanings a few times anyway, lucius.

luciasbrown said:
I have faith in the US govt. b/c I dont want to live my life as a pessimist. These people, and Ive studied their positions and statements are PHds, experts and all of their opinions and analyses of the situations. I watch and learn from them and I can tell you they are smarter than you or I and are top in their fields of coutries, teaching at universities, working for the govt. being called to talk on political talk shows. I form my opinions based on what the experts discuss, you should try it.
it isnt about wanting to be a pessimist, its about seeing life as it is. the US has been acting very shittily lately. me saying so doesnt make me a pessimist...its just a reflection of what i see.

also, i dont trust 'experts' on television. some things they say are correct, but in general, logic would indicate that i take everything i see on tv with a grain of salt.

also, you may think that these people are smarter than you, but as to whether theyre smarter than me, well...first, you sont know me well enough to make that call, and secondly, ill only agree with you if i spend a couple of moths chatting to the person and they somehow truly floor me with their intellect. until then, those mofos are just another bunch of guys

luciasbrown said:
I choose to have faith just like you choose not to have faith. I walk around secure and confident and enlightened on the issues while you choose to walk around with a hole in you. You could fill that hole by reading and learning if you wanted to but we you choose to be a pessimist and a cynic. To each their own, Im bored and in the mood to bug you and everyone else that puts down the US, I can be a mirror and reflect that right back on you. Dont hate the mirror, you say it and I reflect it back, not necessarily with my own beliefs or arguments, I can argue all sides to these issues and many times in the last fifteen years b/c Ive studied these issues.
brotheabill, im tired. its 7am. ive been out drinking, partying, and doing my thang, and im devastatingly tired. ill see yo uin the morning, and ill tell you about some girls. maybe :)

gnite :)
 
Dont take our kindness for weakness.
were not losing war in Iraq.We definatly are feeling them allot more than we should.US death toll is allot higher than it should be.But the only reason that it is, is because we havent said fuck the ungreatfull basterds and labled everyone as a target....Yet.
 
GoldenDelicious said:
american people are, in general, ignorant. that is an unfortunate product of a tame domestic corporate media. i can assure you, the rest of the world sees a vastly different picture of the war in iraq, and in fact many international issues, than do the americans on their home ground.

You and your generalizations. I suppose you think English can't cook and have bad teeth, Frenchmen are stuck up, Germans are all engineers, and Greek guys smell bad and take it up the ass (well, I guess you do know the last one by personal experience).

GoldenDelicious said:
if you guys are so smart, lucius, why are you getting your arses handed to you in iraq? you certainly arent winning, what with a growing resistance (notice i did not use the word 'insurgency', which i believe to be innaccurate) and you guys bleeding at...2 or so lives a day? with a dissapearing 'coalition of the willing'? with mounting international condemnation? with crumbling treaties and embargoes, as per russian/chinese/iranian arms sales contra to american wishes?

The average death rate for US Soldiers in Iraq is cyclical, and is actually lower than the daily deathrate per 100,000 soldiers as compiled by the pentagon over the last 20 years.
PDF Chart Of Active Duty Deaths from 1980-2004

The average length of post-war insurgency during the 20th Century was nine years, not two. Why should we care about mounting international condemnations from the French? Lets not go into French military history, it isn't pretty.

Battle is a flowing situation, you don't give up because someone throws an unknown tactic at you. You adapt to the tactics. The insurgency is in decline, if you notice the insurgency is mostly targeting the indigenous people not the troops. Also, there is an intense rivalry between the Ba'athists and the foreign insurgents that has touched off into an insurgent civil war.
 
GoldenDelicious said:
american people are, in general, ignorant. that is an unfortunate product of a tame domestic corporate media. i can assure you, the rest of the world sees a vastly different picture of the war in iraq, and in fact many international issues, than do the americans on their home ground.

really? just like your citizens looked at the last war they fought? gulf war 1?

if you guys are so smart, lucius, why are you getting your arses handed to you in iraq? you certainly arent winning, what with a growing resistance (notice i did not use the word 'insurgency', which i believe to be innaccurate) and you guys bleeding at...2 or so lives a day? with a dissapearing 'coalition of the willing'? with mounting international condemnation? with crumbling treaties and embargoes, as per russian/chinese/iranian arms sales contra to american wishes?

your army was not built to counter assymetric warfare. not conventional army is. its why youre losing.

you sound a tad condescending, lucius. you 'googled' it? really? you mean, like, google.com. you mean, THE google.com. ? the one that i can tap in anytime i want? please. if its classified, then its not on google, meaning, you havnt seen it. and if it is on google, then i can see it whenever i want, meaning you cant preach to me. so dont :)

all youve said, at best, for you, is that niether of us have any idea what would really happen if war came...but if logic prevailed, given the US disaster in iraq, against an enemy 20 million or so strong, in open terrain, after a decade of sanctions, as opposed to another enemy 1300 million strong, unweakened by sanctions, with mountinous terrain and a shocking willingness to give up its citizens lives....i dont know. id say youre in a bit of trouble

the american way of life? what issue could i possibly have against the american way of life? what do i give a toss? come on. and bush? bush offends me because he is a lying, conniving, stupid bastard. im insulted. at least let me be deceived by someone likeable, and clever. like clinton, for example. i liked that guy.

i understand economics rather well, by the way. its one of those subjects God gave me. i misse most of my eco classes, and still wound up with the second highest mark in the school, and probably top 5 in the state, so really, honestly, i get whats going on. i just dont like the way US corporations in particular use their market and political power. the iraq war is, indirectly, an example of that.

firstly, i never said corporations were evil. soulless maybe, but never evil. therefore, i have no idea how you could argue against such a person, since i have not encounteres them before. do you need advice? ill think about it for you, if you like. pm me :)

no, i dont do it because i cant be arsed. its hardly beyond my intellect. really.

no, that wasnt my point. but, given that youve been so condescending throughout your post, i could step forward and offer my argument, though i could sit here and let you flounder in your own rhetoric...

...my point is that the 'superpower' that is the US, of which we speak, is in conventional terms. trying to match a conventional military with an assymetric enemy just doesnt work, and is why the US is falling on its arse in iraq....because while your tanks and trucks are better than anyones anti tank and anti plane millies etc etc....theyre still beatable by people willing to lose thier lives in doing so.

the US makes equipment etc etc based on the premise that soldiers want to survive. the jihadists willingness to die exploits that vulnerability, because at the end of hte day, with all their trillions of dollars, the US military cant develop a bomb as efficint, or cheap, or accurate, or devastating, as a suicide bomber and 50 bucks worth of explosive wrapped in ball bearings.

uhuh. soooooo then, was it useful for the US to spend a couple of trillion bucks in ousting saddam, only to have iraq fairly well amalgamate with iran?

the word neoconservative has changed meanings a few times anyway, lucius.

it isnt about wanting to be a pessimist, its about seeing life as it is. the US has been acting very shittily lately. me saying so doesnt make me a pessimist...its just a reflection of what i see.

also, i dont trust 'experts' on television. some things they say are correct, but in general, logic would indicate that i take everything i see on tv with a grain of salt.

also, you may think that these people are smarter than you, but as to whether theyre smarter than me, well...first, you sont know me well enough to make that call, and secondly, ill only agree with you if i spend a couple of moths chatting to the person and they somehow truly floor me with their intellect. until then, those mofos are just another bunch of guys

brotheabill, im tired. its 7am. ive been out drinking, partying, and doing my thang, and im devastatingly tired. ill see yo uin the morning, and ill tell you about some girls. maybe :)

gnite :)


Only someone as ignorant and blinded by their political leanings as you would think that we are "losing" in Iraq.

Just how are you judging this? Body Count? Reforms? Opinion of Iraqi citizens?

Those seem like the 3 major ones, and I dont see how anyone in their right mind could think we are "losing" on any of them.
 
redguru said:
You and your generalizations. I suppose you think English can't cook and have bad teeth, Frenchmen are stuck up, Germans are all engineers, and Greek guys smell bad and take it up the ass (well, I guess you do know the last one by personal experience).



The average death rate for US Soldiers in Iraq is cyclical, and is actually lower than the daily deathrate per 100,000 soldiers as compiled by the pentagon over the last 20 years.
PDF Chart Of Active Duty Deaths from 1980-2004

The average length of post-war insurgency during the 20th Century was nine years, not two. Why should we care about mounting international condemnations from the French? Lets not go into French military history, it isn't pretty.

Battle is a flowing situation, you don't give up because someone throws an unknown tactic at you. You adapt to the tactics. The insurgency is in decline, if you notice the insurgency is mostly targeting the indigenous people not the troops. Also, there is an intense rivalry between the Ba'athists and the foreign insurgents that has touched off into an insurgent civil war.

Nice. Now that he has no argument, he will cease to reply on this thread.
 
GoldenDelicious said:
american people are, in general, ignorant. that is an unfortunate product of a tame domestic corporate media. i can assure you, the rest of the world sees a vastly different picture of the war in iraq, and in fact many international issues, than do the americans on their home ground.

really? just like your citizens looked at the last war they fought? gulf war 1?

if you guys are so smart, lucius, why are you getting your arses handed to you in iraq? you certainly arent winning, what with a growing resistance (notice i did not use the word 'insurgency', which i believe to be innaccurate) and you guys bleeding at...2 or so lives a day? with a dissapearing 'coalition of the willing'? with mounting international condemnation? with crumbling treaties and embargoes, as per russian/chinese/iranian arms sales contra to american wishes?

your army was not built to counter assymetric warfare. not conventional army is. its why youre losing.

you sound a tad condescending, lucius. you 'googled' it? really? you mean, like, google.com. you mean, THE google.com. ? the one that i can tap in anytime i want? please. if its classified, then its not on google, meaning, you havnt seen it. and if it is on google, then i can see it whenever i want, meaning you cant preach to me. so dont :)

all youve said, at best, for you, is that niether of us have any idea what would really happen if war came...but if logic prevailed, given the US disaster in iraq, against an enemy 20 million or so strong, in open terrain, after a decade of sanctions, as opposed to another enemy 1300 million strong, unweakened by sanctions, with mountinous terrain and a shocking willingness to give up its citizens lives....i dont know. id say youre in a bit of trouble

the american way of life? what issue could i possibly have against the american way of life? what do i give a toss? come on. and bush? bush offends me because he is a lying, conniving, stupid bastard. im insulted. at least let me be deceived by someone likeable, and clever. like clinton, for example. i liked that guy.

i understand economics rather well, by the way. its one of those subjects God gave me. i misse most of my eco classes, and still wound up with the second highest mark in the school, and probably top 5 in the state, so really, honestly, i get whats going on. i just dont like the way US corporations in particular use their market and political power. the iraq war is, indirectly, an example of that.

firstly, i never said corporations were evil. soulless maybe, but never evil. therefore, i have no idea how you could argue against such a person, since i have not encounteres them before. do you need advice? ill think about it for you, if you like. pm me :)

no, i dont do it because i cant be arsed. its hardly beyond my intellect. really.

no, that wasnt my point. but, given that youve been so condescending throughout your post, i could step forward and offer my argument, though i could sit here and let you flounder in your own rhetoric...

...my point is that the 'superpower' that is the US, of which we speak, is in conventional terms. trying to match a conventional military with an assymetric enemy just doesnt work, and is why the US is falling on its arse in iraq....because while your tanks and trucks are better than anyones anti tank and anti plane millies etc etc....theyre still beatable by people willing to lose thier lives in doing so.

the US makes equipment etc etc based on the premise that soldiers want to survive. the jihadists willingness to die exploits that vulnerability, because at the end of hte day, with all their trillions of dollars, the US military cant develop a bomb as efficint, or cheap, or accurate, or devastating, as a suicide bomber and 50 bucks worth of explosive wrapped in ball bearings.

uhuh. soooooo then, was it useful for the US to spend a couple of trillion bucks in ousting saddam, only to have iraq fairly well amalgamate with iran?

the word neoconservative has changed meanings a few times anyway, lucius.

it isnt about wanting to be a pessimist, its about seeing life as it is. the US has been acting very shittily lately. me saying so doesnt make me a pessimist...its just a reflection of what i see.

also, i dont trust 'experts' on television. some things they say are correct, but in general, logic would indicate that i take everything i see on tv with a grain of salt.

also, you may think that these people are smarter than you, but as to whether theyre smarter than me, well...first, you sont know me well enough to make that call, and secondly, ill only agree with you if i spend a couple of moths chatting to the person and they somehow truly floor me with their intellect. until then, those mofos are just another bunch of guys

brotheabill, im tired. its 7am. ive been out drinking, partying, and doing my thang, and im devastatingly tired. ill see yo uin the morning, and ill tell you about some girls. maybe :)

gnite :)


LOL, you just hate the US thats all hahaha! Plus I made you write a lengthy response which was funny, I have total control over you!! I have studied this stuff for years and met with many people and discussed it personally with them. I had a personal tour with a friend who was highly placed in the FBI and which I posted about a coupla years ago, Ive been in the FBI warroom for 9-11, stood at the podium with the FBI seal on where they gave press conferences. Seen the inner workings and the computer systems, the wiretap systems, all of that. Discussed the patriot act with the lead counsel for the FBI where I wont disclose where and he was my neighbor and we watched football games together. When I was at the headquarters I met the consulate general from Japan, the head of the FBI region as we met in the elevator and continued talking as we toured the facility. I know alot more than I let on or could let on. Its a fascinating system setup, your jaw would drop on the floor if youve been to where Ive been lolol. I have faith in the US b/c Ive seen with my own eyes and ears what men and women dedicate their lives in preserving, willing to die for freedom and have, talked about people he knew that died in Oklahoma city, talked about the nations most notorious, discussed terrorism and plans and pitfalls and issues that are trying to be addressed. Its a mad mad mad world.
Ill explain it some time to you when we grab a beer when I come to Australia soon, although I dont know why anyone would live in the Northern territory, Id like to hear a logical explanation of that as well :beer:
 
redguru said:
I think the biggest problem with China having a modern military model is thier inability to allow forward commanders flexibility. True with all armies based upon the Soviet model. The win by attrition method is brutal and effective, but a much smaller German force was able to invade Russia and push all the way to Stalingrad. I would never suggest invading China, but stopping them from moving out of thier territory and pushing them back to thier original borders would be relatively easy.

Also, they trust none of thier people with more powerful weapons so they may have a bunch of nukes on paper, but since the warheads are never near a delivery system, what use are they? Technologically, I think they will modernize some of thier components but it will be a relatively small portion of thier total force strength. If you think waste is abundant in a relatively capitalistic economy, you should see what it is like in Communist China. Everyone in the government has thier own little cashcow bailiwick.
and contrary to popular knowledge
in russia as well as france the germans scored their greatest victories with considerably inferior armor
outnumbered too
it wasn't until the eastern front had been largely decided that the germans were able to field tigers and panthers
the few tigers the germans had at kursk scored incredible kill ratios
the panthers at kursk are a myth
overall the battle of kursk(largest tank battle in history) is still popularily portrayed as some great soviet victory
in fact against considerable dug in and fortified defensive positions and outnumbered as usual
the germans were able to almost force the river psel and triumph
prochorovka
Hitler called off the offensive due to the allied landings in sicily
 
Gambino said:
and then were utterly defeated by the russianans...seems to disprove the point you are trying to make about german superoity
12million russian KIA
2 million german KIA
incredible

facing the western allies as well as the soviets
it's absolutely astounding how well the german's performed
considering too that in late '43 Hitler's decisions were becoming fantastic
 
Top Bottom