Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If North Korea was able to pull it off, why not Bangladesh.
<sarcasm>Why bangladesh will want Missiles when it doesn't have Nukes.
we are a sovereign nation. We want to play beer pong using our missiles in bay of bengal....you got a problem with that?
Have you seen where NK is with regards to its development? People have nothing to eat.
BD can do it if they make this the sole aim as a country, but what will follow in terms of sanctions and loss of trade will make it very difficult to sustain itself.
All countries want to be powerful and have a global influence. But this comes with economic might, military might will follow. If the country follows military might with no economy,you get NK.
All these new toys in India is due to a very big and influential economy. Not the other way round. Unless BD pulls a proverbial rabit out of its hat, the chances of BD becoming a very influential nation is low in the next 5 years. Countries like Brunei and Switzerland have much bigger and influential economies, have they all started building ICBMs? Even a country like Germany, which controls the fate of Europe does not have an ICBM. Not because they can't build it, but because they have no need to.
Similarly BD does not need to build them 'cause it has no need to. You can always pander to the right wing and say India will swallow us up and some BS like this, but India is not looking to swallow things up. We have enough problems of our own than to take over BD. Don't let your insecurities get the best of you.
<sarcasm>
Are you new to this forum? BD wants to build nukes and ICBMs
Then they will mount it on the coast guard ship and have a sea based deterrent
</sarcasm>
I beg to differ. Even 'Chinese' are more 'neutral' then 'Russians' regarding assessment of conflicts involving the WEST. Russia always had been friendly to Iraq and has a history of supplying arms to it. This is not a bad thing but Russians tend to be not so neutral on the matters of WEST.
This is a hint:
A host of prominent military and civilian specialists critiqued the US led coalition war against Iraq. Their comments reflected a mixture of Cold War thinking on the one hand and a new place to update the Russian armed forces on the other.
And here is the source: Taylor & Francis Online ::
Their is no such thing as neutral source IMO. Even so-called neutral observers are not free from bias. However, declassified documents and research papers published in journals are the best sources to consider regardless of nationalities IMO.
Bro, wars are messy affairs. Extremely bad things happen in wars.
Now here is an analogy for you; one of the most controversial weapons of war is White Phosphorus (WP). This chemical has extremely damaging effects on the health of victims, including severe burns and irritation of the respiratory system.
- Russia used WP in battle of Grozny. Opponents were Islamic resistance groups.
- USA used WP in battle of Fallujah. Opponents were Islamic resistance groups.
- Israel used WP in battle of battle of Gaza. Opponents were Islamic resistance groups.
After the details of battle of Fallujah emerged, Russian parliament condemned US for using WP in battle of Fallujah. Doesn't this sounds ironic?
When it comes to battlefield, all of these nations are ruthless. However, I find it surprising that Russia has the nerve to condemn others for using controversial weapons during battles when its own forces have done the same. And you regard Russia as a neutral source?
Now keep in mind that usage of WP is not just limited to these countries. Their are more guilty parties including Taliban (<- Yes! You heard this correct).
And from where did you get the '600 American KIA' figure in Battle of Baghdad airport? Please do not quote any Russian nonsense in this regard. Provide solid evidence.
Their are things that war planners do not wish to publicize during the course of the battles. Reasons include concerns of leakage of sensitive information regarding military operations and maintaining morale of troops engaged in combat. In addition, their are concerns regarding coverage of what is often dubbed as 'collateral damage' during combat situations. Unrestricted coverage of 'collateral damage' like events can spark severe reaction from the public and unwanted pressure against war effort can develop. Then their is possibility of using media sources as 'political tools' by foreign parties not directly involved in conflicts. During wars, you cannot expect media sources to roam freely in zones of conflict and not expect any repercussions. The aforementioned factors must be kept in mind.
If you are given charge of conducting a war effort and authorities expect you to succeed; what will you do about media sources, if they will create difficulties for you?
It is very easy to pass judgements about morality of others. However, if the roles are reversed, only then one can understand the 'ground realities' of events taking place around you.
Propaganda is part of war. Both Iraq and and its enemies were engaged in propaganda warfare. My observation is that the loosing side typically conducts more propaganda then the winning side. However, truth never remains hidden forever and eventually comes out.
Tell me one thing; was Iraq a weak country in 1991?
And exercises are not the best methods to judge the capability of an airforce. Exercises are mainly meant to test some concepts of combat and educational purposes.
Very illogical statement. Of course, Jet Fighters have limited flight ranges. These limitations are based on the capacity to carry fuel.
However, some aircraft are specially designed with long range flight capabilities. Primary examples are bombers.
Right.In addition, their are other solutions too. Continue to read below.
Ever seen these?
Rolleyes emoticons make sense, right?
If Saddam Hussein did not wait for the USA to pool all their forces in Kuwait and Qatar for months both in 1991 and in 2003, how could they attack Iraq? From their aircraft carriers with F-18s? The very same F-18s that were shot down by Iraqi MiG-25s in 1991 and were locked onto by Egyptian MiG-21s in one of the exercises, probably one of the Bright Star exercises?
You need to revisit your responses. They do not make much sense.
When Americans design an aircraft; they keep its 'life span' in mind.
Their is much more detail behind the claim of 'air superiority' then just type of aircraft.
Easier said then done.
Yes Sir.Really?
Do some digging on Battle of 73 Easting, which took place during Persian Gulf War 1991.
Now see these videos:
Want me to post more?
I have even seen footages of some US soldiers talking funny 'right after' experiencing IED explosions near them. Can you imagine?
Their are brave soldiers on both sides.
Just keep in mind that humans are not drones or machines. Personalities of soldiers also matter. And war is not funny business.
Good.Thanks for the offer. Will think about it.
I beg to differ. Even 'Chinese' are more 'neutral' then 'Russians' regarding assessment of conflicts involving the WEST. Russia always had been friendly to Iraq and has a history of supplying arms to it. This is not a bad thing but Russians tend to be not so neutral on the matters of WEST.
This is a hint:
A host of prominent military and civilian specialists critiqued the US led coalition war against Iraq. Their comments reflected a mixture of Cold War thinking on the one hand and a new place to update the Russian armed forces on the other.
And here is the source: Taylor & Francis Online ::
Their is no such thing as neutral source IMO. Even so-called neutral observers are not free from bias. However, declassified documents and research papers published in journals are the best sources to consider regardless of nationalities IMO.
Bro, wars are messy affairs. Extremely bad things happen in wars.
Now here is an analogy for you; one of the most controversial weapons of war is White Phosphorus (WP). This chemical has extremely damaging effects on the health of victims, including severe burns and irritation of the respiratory system.
- Russia used WP in battle of Grozny. Opponents were Islamic resistance groups.
- USA used WP in battle of Fallujah. Opponents were Islamic resistance groups.
- Israel used WP in battle of battle of Gaza. Opponents were Islamic resistance groups.
After the details of battle of Fallujah emerged, Russian parliament condemned US for using WP in battle of Fallujah. Doesn't this sounds ironic?
When it comes to battlefield, all of these nations are ruthless. However, I find it surprising that Russia has the nerve to condemn others for using controversial weapons during battles when its own forces have done the same. And you regard Russia as a neutral source?
Now keep in mind that usage of WP is not just limited to these countries. Their are more guilty parties including Taliban (<- Yes! You heard this correct).
And from where did you get the '600 American KIA' figure in Battle of Baghdad airport? Please do not quote any Russian nonsense in this regard. Provide solid evidence.
Their are things that war planners do not wish to publicize during the course of the battles. Reasons include concerns of leakage of sensitive information regarding military operations and maintaining morale of troops engaged in combat. In addition, their are concerns regarding coverage of what is often dubbed as 'collateral damage' during combat situations. Unrestricted coverage of 'collateral damage' like events can spark severe reaction from the public and unwanted pressure against war effort can develop. Then their is possibility of using media sources as 'political tools' by foreign parties not directly involved in conflicts. During wars, you cannot expect media sources to roam freely in zones of conflict and not expect any repercussions. The aforementioned factors must be kept in mind.
If you are given charge of conducting a war effort and authorities expect you to succeed; what will you do about media sources, if they will create difficulties for you?
It is very easy to pass judgements about morality of others. However, if the roles are reversed, only then one can understand the 'ground realities' of events taking place around you.
Propaganda is part of war. Both Iraq and and its enemies were engaged in propaganda warfare. My observation is that the loosing side typically conducts more propaganda then the winning side. However, truth never remains hidden forever and eventually comes out.
Tell me one thing; was Iraq a weak country in 1991?
And exercises are not the best methods to judge the capability of an airforce. Exercises are mainly meant to test some concepts of combat and educational purposes.
Very illogical statement. Of course, Jet Fighters have limited flight ranges. These limitations are based on the capacity to carry fuel.
However, some aircraft are specially designed with long range flight capabilities. Primary examples are bombers.
Right.In addition, their are other solutions too. Continue to read below.
Ever seen these?
Rolleyes emoticons make sense, right?
If Saddam Hussein did not wait for the USA to pool all their forces in Kuwait and Qatar for months both in 1991 and in 2003, how could they attack Iraq? From their aircraft carriers with F-18s? The very same F-18s that were shot down by Iraqi MiG-25s in 1991 and were locked onto by Egyptian MiG-21s in one of the exercises, probably one of the Bright Star exercises?
You need to revisit your responses. They do not make much sense.
When Americans design an aircraft; they keep its 'life span' in mind.
Their is much more detail behind the claim of 'air superiority' then just type of aircraft.
Easier said then done.
Yes Sir.Really?
Do some digging on Battle of 73 Easting, which took place during Persian Gulf War 1991.
Now see these videos:
Want me to post more?
I have even seen footages of some US soldiers talking funny 'right after' experiencing IED explosions near them. Can you imagine?
Their are brave soldiers on both sides.
Just keep in mind that humans are not drones or machines. Personalities of soldiers also matter. And war is not funny business.
Good.Thanks for the offer. Will think about it.
and if someone said to me that I lack common sense then I would say missile is a strategic weapon. NOt F-16. If you have missile it will protect better than any other weapon.
and that is why US don't want any muslim countries to acquire or get the technology.
Really?
Do some digging on Battle of 73 Easting, which took place during Persian Gulf War 1991.
Here is hint: The Battle of 73 Easting - Greatest Tank Battles - History Television
All these new toys in India is due to a very big and influential economy. Not the other way round. Unless BD pulls a proverbial rabit out of its hat, the chances of BD becoming a very influential nation is low in the next 5 years. Countries like Brunei and Switzerland have much bigger and influential economies, have they all started building ICBMs? Even a country like Germany, which controls the fate of Europe does not have an ICBM. Not because they can't build it, but because they have no need to.
Similarly BD does not need to build them 'cause it has no need to. You can always pander to the right wing and say India will swallow us up and some BS like this, but India is not looking to swallow things up. We have enough problems of our own than to take over BD. Don't let your insecurities get the best of you.
Your point does not makes sense. Iraq emerged as much stronger state from war with Iran then the latter state actually. This is not surprising, if you take a peek at history.sure it was, that is merely 3 year after the war with Iran.
Bad weather was an issue for both but more so for US forces. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the commander of invading forces here; you have a small force to command and while venturing deep in to enemy territory, you not just encounter bad weather but also enemy forces in much larger number to halt your advance. And you have no cover from air.The sand storm was a hindrance only for the Americans or for the Iraqis as well!?
Oh now! It is United States of America, right?And please, Isn't it called The United states of America, to begin with; Iraq was as big as the smallest state of the USA.
Size does not matters much by itself. The example of USSR should teach you something.So, to counter it effectively (in case the need arises), you need a powerful United states of Islam or Asia or some kind of federation like the Russian one.
So size really matters, be it in production, economy, technology or warfare.
I assume on the basis of your responses that you are an Anti-Western personality. However, if you are trying to portray yourself like a neutral observer then at least try to keep your prejudice in check.You quoted a WESTERN author to suggest that debunked Western propaganda was never propaganda in the first place?
The purpose of my analogy is to make it clear that Russians are not exactly neutral observers of Western subjects. Some would be but many are not. And it is wrong to assume that only politicians can be hypocrites worldwide.You do not seem to make much sense. That was not an analogy at all, and why did you bring up Russian hypocrisy in this discussion? Politicians may be hypocrites around the world, but the gist of my earlier posts was that Western Jewish media propaganda about their military can not and should not be believed , ever, in view of the fact that reality stands in stark contrast to their propaganda.
As already pointed out by me, it is wrong to assume that only politicians can be hypocrites worldwide. It is also possible that most reliable Russian documents on Western conflicts have not been declassified yet or easy access to them is not available at the moment.What does the hypocrisy of Russian politicians, or any other politicians, have to do with the mythical image generated by Western propaganda units of their 'fake strength'?
Reviewing ground operations [in Iraq] analysts conclude that the desert terrain and the resulting inability of the Iraqis to fight outside of towns and villages provide the coalition with its main strategic advantage. Complete air dominance allows [the coalition troops] to locate and engage Iraqi positions and armor at maximum distance using precision-guided munitions not available to the Iraqis, while remaining outside of the range of the Iraqi weapons. Considering the course of this war and the tactics used by the coalition, [Russian military] analysts find this tactics to be far removed from the realities of modern warfare and designed exclusively against a technologically much weaker opponent. Such tactics are unimaginable on the European theater of combat with its woodlands and cross-country terrain. Foreseeing the possibility of a future military standoff between the US and North Korea the analysts are certain that the US cannot hope for a military victory on the Korean Peninsula without the use of nuclear weapons.
I am trying to highlight the Russian bias here.You are again making no sense. What does Russia's having committed war crimes got anything to do with real reports of events that happened during the illegal invasion of Iraq by Anglo American Western axis?
Ramzaj Group?Ramzaj reports were NOT OFFICIAL reports from Russian GRU, or Russian media. Again, you are making no sense. Besides, neither Western nor Russian were the only source of information.
No, I have not forgotten anything. I know that war with Iraq was based on fabricated lies. The real agenda was to remove Saddam from power, eliminate Iraqi threat to US and Israeli interests in the region, and some calculated economic benefits. However, I also blame Saddam for this mess.You forgot where the wars took place? Ask Arab members in this forum, if not, ask Arab members elsewhere. The vast majority of the Arab world and in fact, non Arab world with some ounce of brain, knew from the very beginning that the so called 'war', in reality a mindless terroristic invasion, was based on lies and carried out also based on numerous lies heaped upon one another.
Of course, US have suffered casualties in Iraq. You expected otherwise?This means that true reports, with actual videos, photographs, battlefield preparations, troop disposition, etc were also known to many an Arab or non Arab members of the world interested in the issue. Even Bangladeshis living in Saudi Arabia, for example, knew that scores of kafir invaders were killed daily in any one area, around individual cities alone based on videos of dead, wounded, captured, kafir troops.
Your assumption is misplaced. I do not consider all reports from Western sources as reliable. I have clearly pointed out before that I consider declassified documents, published papers, and properly referenced article(s) as trustworthy sources regardless of nationalities. This is norm for a researcher.How can you take all your reports from Western sources and then base your judgement on that thinking they are all unbiased and totally true when numerous facts point to the contrary?
Here is brief history;I'd be glad to hear more about this. When did the Taliban use WP and against whom? Although this is not related to the original thread, in any way, this may spawn off an interesting discussion elsewhere.
Raad Al-Hamdani was a competent man.Many commanders in battle who actually fought there, including Raad Al Hamdani, confirmed that at least 600 Americans were killed in that Battle, which is something that some Eric May (who happened to be very supportive of Western military propaganda until it dawned on him that Western propaganda had such a vast disconnect from reality that he was being fooled all along) also seems to think "forced" Americans to impose a "blackout" on news emanating from that battle scene subsequently.
Now this is a strange allegation. I work for no one. I prefer to focus on the big picture; do appropriate research; use common sense; and judge things from neutral perspective.Are you working for the public relations department of Pentagon by any chance?
Actually embedded journalism has its pros and cons. Check the book by Jim Lacey.Even if we ignore all the tripe about Western morality that can only be uttered by a shameless Western terrorist invaders, how can you forget the issue of "embedded journalists"? Who invented this idea to present realities of "war" but stopped it altogether when the "going got tough"?
With the empowerment of mass media sources, censorship is no longer easy to maintain. Go to icasaulties.org and you can read even the names of soldiers who have died in combat in recent wars. Things are a lot different now than they were during Vietnam.Who was it that resorted to lies to hide their casualties and their crimes to paint a 'rosy' picture to their (politically) illiterate public so that they dont start crying and whining and demonstrating to withdraw their terrorist troops after finding the true figures?
Hint: Geneva Conventions.Who imposed a ban on publishing pictures of dead infidel invaders' coffins?
These are ugly facets of wars. Mass graves are not a new thing in wars.Who dumped their invader terrorist infidel mercenaries' dead bodies in rivers and buried in 'dumps' to hide the truth?
I am doing fine. Thank you for your concern. However, you need to ponder over your advice yourself.It seems that you are well and truly taken in by Western propaganda machinery. I wish you a swift recovery.
Don't be unrealistic. You expect governments to expose their propaganda campaigns officially?Maybe, but if you say the West conducts propaganda warfare, can you show me any official figures or Western gov't publications that admits that they conduct propaganda warfare with examples? Indeed, truth does come out. That is not the question. The question is, who is able to dig out those truth, to uncover those truths. Who is actually able to see through the enemies' propaganda smokescreen, to sift the truth out from their chaff? How long does it take the truth to come out? These are only some questions to prod you into questioning Western propaganda reports intended for their gullible 'illiterate' public.
This is not true. Iraq was facing economic issues but remained militarily strong. I have covered this part already.Iraq was severely weakened after about a decade long mutually destructive war with Iran, a country about 3 times its size in population.
USA did not send a million men to destroy Iraq either. You have no clue about how stressful wars can be. During invasion, many military columns that you saw on the TV were part of logistics. Few divisions were on the ground which were actually fighting from both sides. For example; US 3rd Infantry Division single-handedly played a vital role in fall of Baghdad.Nor are propaganda reports (like Zionist media claims), nor are victories over an opponent that is much smaller in size, with a lot less people, sanctioned to the eyeballs for decades, with no 'modern' aircrafts in its inventory, and outnumbered in the air severely, while the opponent is surrounded on all sides by 'non friendly states'.
Yes! Your statement is illogical.Sir, what was illogical about that statement? Do you deny part or entirety of that statement? You do not as you say "Of course, Jet Fighters have limited flight ranges.". Then, why do you call it "illogical"?
Most of their combat aircrafts do not even have the necessary range to reach from the USA to most Muslim countries, or to North Korea or China or Russia, or most other countries of the world.
Bombers are for power projection. They provide long range combat capability. And show me examples of bombers being brought down with the capabilities you mentioned.Bombers dont provide you with air superiority. Furthermore, they can be brought down by any capable party (which implies dedicated group of engineers, well versed in the field of electronic, recon, ECM, and related warfare, as examples).
I have read your comments and have given appropriate responses. You are showing lack of capability in understanding even simple explanations. Now I have some questions for you:You responded to my comments without reading them? Rolleyes make no sense then, right?
Here's my earlier comment which you probably did not read?
Let me analyze your older statement for you;Sir, that is all jolly well, if you could only explain what modifications to those tactics would make much sense?
So? They suck?Sir, this is a fine candidate for " You need to revisit your responses. They do not make much sense."
The bulk, over 90%, of current American combat aircrafts were those developed in the 1970s or earlier.
You are talking about Israel?What %, approximately, of the entire process of gaining 'air superiority' could be attributed to the type of fighter aircrafts in consideration, in your estimation? Do you think Zionists can gain 'air superiority' in their neighbourhood without American donated aircrafts? If yes, what are the main components behind that attainment of 'air superiority'? If not, why would they fail to attain 'air superiority'?
It requires big budget, decent industrial capability and vice versa.And, also done a lot easier than it's made out to be in Jewish propaganda Hollywood movies, or other Jewish media.
Absolutely bollocks. I provided you the example of Battle of 73 Easting. Instead of giving me illogical responses to every comment of mine, try to focus on the examples that I am providing to support my arguments.Yes Sir.
You expect Iraqi sources to provide you detailed documentaries of their examples of humiliation?Sir, starting from the name of the battle to the source that you provided, all seem to be Western. Could it be another Western 'Televison battle', like the following three videos that you have attached?
Propaganda pieces? Everything from WEST is propaganda to you?Sir, having wasted a good portion of perhaps half an hour on these outright hilarious videos, I would like to ask what was the purpose of posting these propaganda pieces?
The soldiers came under fire, genius. You expected the Camera Man to stand up and get shot in the process?1. Nowhere in any of these videos can you see any Taliban fighter, let alone Taliban fighter outnumbering and outgunning the Western terrorists?
So you only believe in videos in which US forces suffer casualties? I pity your intelligence2. Nowhere in the videos do we see any flying Western terrorist heads, blown off knee caps, or bloodied torso, for example, good sir?
What can I do about your flawed understanding first?3. What are we to make of these propaganda videos which, as you have admitted earlier, are routinely propagated by the Western militaries in order to boost the sagging morale of their invading terrorist mercenaries, and to keep their illiterate public ignorant of reality?
War seems entertaining to you?Sir, that would be a waste of precious time if all you could find is those not so intense, 'relaxed' videos meant for propaganda. If you could entertain us with a few videos, a few snippets, showing coward American terrorists heads blown off and legs blasted, while engaged in any combat and outnumbered & outgunned by the opponent, I would not mind reassessing my opinion if the Western criminals are seen laughing and immersing themselves in the heat of the battle while their comrades next to them are blasted away. Of course, sir, such videos could be a treat to watch!
Different soldiers; Different Personalities; Different battles; Different reactions! Anything else?Alas, most Western propaganda videos of their ground troops seem to show them calling for air support when the shooting starts to increase mildly, in frequency. Sadly, for you, there is one widely distributed video of the natural reaction of these Western terrorists in action, when one of their comrades seem to have taken a hit. This video does not support your thesis at all, sir.
I can see almost every kind of video on Youtube. Their goes your argument.Bear in mind that for every video approved on Western video sharing sites for viewing, there are more than a dozen that are not approved (or deleted soon after upload, if some knowledgeable gentleman happens to upload them), and for every video of combat captured by Mujahideen, there are at least 25 or more that were not captured because propaganda was never considered as significant a part of warfare in the Mujahideen camps in general, as it was considered in the Western terrorist infidels' camps
Your doubts cannot change reality.I doubt it, but it is also not essential to our original discussion.
I feel obligated to counter your propaganda.Another series of nonessential posts by you, sir, bearing in mind the original thread and the track that the discussion had subsequently followed.
Bad weather was an issue for both but more so for US forces. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the commander of invading forces here; you have a small force to command and while venturing deep in to enemy territory, you not just encounter bad weather but also enemy forces in much larger number to halt your advance. And you have no cover from air.
Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis routed or defeated the Iranians. In the first offensive, named Blessed Ramadhan, Iraqi Republican Guard and regular Army units recaptured the Al-Faw peninsula. The 36-hour battle was conducted in a militarily sophisticated manner with two main thrusts, supported by heliborne and amphibious landings, and low-level fixed-wing attack sorties. In this battle, the Iraqis effectively used chemical weapons (CW), using nerve and blister agents against Iranian command and control facilities, artillery positions, and logistics points.
Fighting large scale insurgencies is always a highly challenging task. To expect otherwise, is a foolish assumption. US ground forces are mainly shaped to fight conventional battles against proper standing armies. However, US military planners are also focused on improving the capabilities of US ground forces against large scale insurgencies during occupational roles. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have given them tremendous experience. I have already cited the Chinese analysis of Battle of Fallujah to give you an idea.
You pretend to know these things?This is an utter lie, so making sense is not one of your virtues.
I do not make sense?So than you make no sense at all, and you forgot to talk about soldiers and civilians.
More baseless excuses from you; why I am not surprised. Please change your flag.Again lacking some analytical skills; Fallujah is a one story buildings town, and same goes for most Iraqi cities, just a soldier standing on the shoulder of another one could spot a wide area without using helicopters or testing new weaponry on Iraq.
Your lack of grasp of 'ground realities' of warfare is the issue here. You like to see things from the ROSY GLASSES - do you?If for you Iraq was powerful enough to take on the US and so many other coalition forces, than you are not really well versed in military affairs, but well versed in false propaganda.
US have history of fighting in extremely challenging wars.Following this pattern of behaviour one day or another the US Mlitary will have to face its match and we will than see how powerful and wonderful it and its soldiers are.