Missile

[H.A.W.K]

Why bangladesh will want Missiles when it doesn't have Nukes.

 

[wild_fire1979]

If North Korea was able to pull it off, why not Bangladesh.

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.

Why bangladesh will want Missiles when it doesn't have Nukes.

<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>

 

[MilSpec]

we are a sovereign nation. We want to play beer pong using our missiles in bay of bengal....you got a problem with that?

beer pong is haram...

 

[kalu_miah]

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>

The post is mostly correct, except that India actually have big interference in our country starting from 1947, and I will be called right wing for stating the truth, as I see it. But we don't need nukes or ICBM's to solve this problem. We will continue to have economic and trade relations with India, but we are working to look East. That is our national policy:
http://www.bipss.org.bd/images/Focus-ARF(1).pdf

It is not just another copy of Indian look east policy. While Indian policy is for trade and commerce, in my opinion, Bangladesh should eventually apply for ASEAN membership along with Sri Lanka, PNG, Timor Leste and Maldives. I believe Bangladesh can solve its strategic imbalance and security problem by grouping together with this expanded ASEAN+Japan+unified Korea. Nukes and ICBM's are a drain on resources. They do not increase the size of our native market and our competitive edge, which is what we seek in this ASEAN+ group.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

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 ::

You quoted a WESTERN author to suggest that debunked Western propaganda was never propaganda in the first place?

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.

No comments.

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?

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.

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'?

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?

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 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. 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. 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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are you working for the public relations department of Pentagon by any chance? 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"? 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? Who imposed a ban on publishing pictures of dead infidel invaders' coffins? Who dumped their invader terrorist infidel mercenaries' dead bodies in rivers and buried in 'dumps' to hide the truth?

It seems that you are well and truly taken in by Western propaganda machinery. I wish you a swift recovery.

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.

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.

Tell me one thing; was Iraq a weak country in 1991?

Iraq was severely weakened after about a decade long mutually destructive war with Iran, a country about 3 times its size in population.

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.

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'.

Very illogical statement. Of course, Jet Fighters have limited flight ranges. These limitations are based on the capacity to carry fuel.

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"?

However, some aircraft are specially designed with long range flight capabilities. Primary examples are bombers.

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).

In addition, their are other solutions too. Continue to read below.

Right.

Ever seen these?

Rolleyes emoticons make sense, right?

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?

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.

Sir, that is all jolly well, if you could only explain what modifications to those tactics would make much sense?

When Americans design an aircraft; they keep its 'life span' in mind.

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.

Their is much more detail behind the claim of 'air superiority' then just type of aircraft.

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'?

Easier said then done.

And, also done a lot easier than it's made out to be in Jewish propaganda Hollywood movies, or other Jewish media.

Really?

Yes Sir.

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

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?

Now see these videos:

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?

1. Nowhere in any of these videos can you see any Taliban fighter, let alone Taliban fighter outnumbering and outgunning the Western terrorists?
2. Nowhere in the videos do we see any flying Western terrorist heads, blown off knee caps, or bloodied torso, for example, good sir?
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?

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?

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!

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.

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

Their are brave soldiers on both sides.

I doubt it, but it is also not essential to our original discussion.

Just keep in mind that humans are not drones or machines. Personalities of soldiers also matter. And war is not funny business.

Another series of nonessential posts by you, sir, bearing in mind the original thread and the track that the discussion had subsequently followed.

Thanks for the offer. Will think about it.

Good.

 

[Banglar Lathial]

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 ::

You quoted a WESTERN author to suggest that debunked Western propaganda was never propaganda in the first place?

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.

No comments.

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?

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.

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'?

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?

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 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. 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. 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.

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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Are you working for the public relations department of Pentagon by any chance? 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"? 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? Who imposed a ban on publishing pictures of dead infidel invaders' coffins? Who dumped their invader terrorist infidel mercenaries' dead bodies in rivers and buried in 'dumps' to hide the truth?

It seems that you are well and truly taken in by Western propaganda machinery. I wish you a swift recovery.

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.

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.

Tell me one thing; was Iraq a weak country in 1991?

Iraq was severely weakened after about a decade long mutually destructive war with Iran, a country about 3 times its size in population.

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.

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'.

Very illogical statement. Of course, Jet Fighters have limited flight ranges. These limitations are based on the capacity to carry fuel.

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"?

However, some aircraft are specially designed with long range flight capabilities. Primary examples are bombers.

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).

In addition, their are other solutions too. Continue to read below.

Right.

Ever seen these?

Rolleyes emoticons make sense, right?

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?

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.

Sir, that is all jolly well, if you could only explain what modifications to those tactics would make much sense?

When Americans design an aircraft; they keep its 'life span' in mind.

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.

Their is much more detail behind the claim of 'air superiority' then just type of aircraft.

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'?

Easier said then done.

And, also done a lot easier than it's made out to be in Jewish propaganda Hollywood movies, or other Jewish media.

Really?

Yes Sir.

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

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?

Now see these videos:

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?

1. Nowhere in any of these videos can you see any Taliban fighter, let alone Taliban fighter outnumbering and outgunning the Western terrorists?
2. Nowhere in the videos do we see any flying Western terrorist heads, blown off knee caps, or bloodied torso, for example, good sir?
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?

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?

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!

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.

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

Their are brave soldiers on both sides.

I doubt it, but it is also not essential to our original discussion.

Just keep in mind that humans are not drones or machines. Personalities of soldiers also matter. And war is not funny business.

Another series of nonessential posts by you, sir, bearing in mind the original thread and the track that the discussion had subsequently followed.

Thanks for the offer. Will think about it.

Good.

 

[The SC]

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.

Mostly Muslim nations with flat terrain and deserts like Iraq, SA and all the middle eastern ones, to Algeria in the west and Egypt to the east, their victory will be assured with High tech missiles in the appropriate numbers, Massive powerful air defences and powerful air forces, this is to deter any kind of misadventure.

 

[The SC]

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

The sand storm was a hindrance only for the Americans or for the Iraqis as well!?
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.
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.

 

[The SC]

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.

The thread is about missiles, although we all agree on a good economy, let us discuss what matters here.
North Korea was doing good economically until it was hit by nature.
Germany, is where the Central command of the NATO or The US is situated, so it is under some kind of protection, namely under the nuclear umbrella of NATO, so it can concentrate most of its capacities on development, which benefits by the same Token its protectors, and the cycle goes on with other European or Pro western countries "under protection".
So, if one day Bangladesh decides to have advanced weapons, that its economy allows for, and without any Indian related issues, but just for its own defence capabilities, than they have the right to acquire or make whatever they need and/or want, including ICBMs.

 

[shree835]

As I believe …Bangaladesh don have security issue…So BD should concentrate 100% on country devlopment… getting more and more weapon is no use for BD.

 

[LeGenD]

sure it was, that is merely 3 year after the war with Iran.

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.

It is important to analyse Iraqi performance in final years of Iran-Iraq war:

Believing it could win the war merely by holding the line and inflicting unacceptable losses on the attacking Iranians, Iraq initially adopted a static defensive strategy. This was successful in repelling successive Iranian offensives until 1986 and 1987, when the Al-Faw peninsula was lost and Iranian troops reached the gates of Al-Basrah. Embarrassed by the loss of the peninsula and concerned by the threat to his second largest city, Saddam ordered a change in strategy. From a defensive posture, in which the only offensive operations were counterattacks to relieve forces under pressure or to exploit failed Iranian assaults, the Iraqis adopted an offensive strategy. More decision-making authority was delegated to senior military commanders. The success of this new strategy, plus the attendant change in doctrine and procedures, virtually eliminated Iranian military capabilities. The change also indicated a maturing of Iraqi military capabilities and an improvement in the armed forces' effectiveness.

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.

Three subsequent operations followed much the same pattern, although they were somewhat less complex. After rehearsals, the Iraqis launched successful attacks on Iranian forces in the Fish Lake and Shalamjah areas near Al-Basrah and recaptured the oil-rich Majnun Islands. Farther to the north, in the last major engagement before the August 1988 cease-fire, Iraqi armored and mechanized forces penetrated deep into Iran, defeating Iranian forces and capturing huge amounts of armor and artillery. In the fall of 1988, the Iraqis displayed in Baghdad captured Iranian weapons amounting to more than three-quarters of the Iranian armor inventory and almost half of its artillery pieces and armored personnel carriers.

Source: http://www.ndu.edu/library/epubs/cpgw.pdf (Final Report of Persian Gulf War submitted to US congress in 1992)

As you can notice, Iraqi military capabilities were improving with passage of time, regardless of the impact of war. And these improvements started to reflect on battles in the final years of conflict with Iran. This is akin to the situation of Allied powers during WWII.

Iraqi military capabilities during 1990:

At the time of the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqi armed forces were, by any measure, a formidable and battle-tested fighting force. Iraq began the crisis with one of the world's larger armies, equipped with great numbers of tanks, armored personnel carriers and artillery, some of which were state-of-the-art models. It had a sizable air force with many top-line fighters and fighter-bombers (F-1s, MiG-29s and Su-24s) and a modern air defense command and control (C2) system. During the last six months of the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqi army had demonstrated a capability to conduct multi-axis, multi-corps, combined-arms operations deep into hostile territory. The staff could conduct long-range planning; coordination of air and artillery preparations; timing of movements and operations; coordination of complicated logistics requirements; and movement of supplies, equipment, and troops to the right place at the designated time. They had developed excellent operational security and deception.

Iraqi armed forces were structured similarly to the British forces, but their operations were modeled more closely on Soviet armed forces. The senior military echelon in Iraq is the General Headquarters (GHQ), which integrates operations of the Republican Guard, Army, Navy, Air and Air Defense Forces, and Popular Army. It is dominated by ground force officers.

Iraqi ground forces were the largest in the Persian Gulf at the time of the invasion of Kuwait. They included the Republican Guard Forces Command, the regular Army, and the Popular Army. Iraqi ground forces had more than 5,000 main battle tanks, 5,000 armored infantry vehicles, and 3,000 artillery pieces larger than 100mm. These forces were supported by enough heavy equipment transporters to move a three-division heavy corps at one time. Iraqi troops were well practiced in conducting short-notice division moves across considerable distances, as well as other tactical operations.

The Iraqi military supply and transportation infrastructure was extensive and well-equipped, with ample supplies of ammunition, water, food and fuels. A modern transportation system had been built inside Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war to ease unit movement to and from combat areas and to keep them supplied. The logistic system was a hybrid of the Soviet system, in which materiel is delivered forward from higher echelons before it is needed, and the British system, in which lower echelons draw materiel as needed. In the Iraqi system, materiel was sent automatically from GHQ to the corps, based on estimated consumption requirements. Once at the corps depot, divisions and brigades drew replenishment supplies.

Source: http://www.ndu.edu/library/epubs/cpgw.pdf (Final Report of Persian Gulf War submitted to US congress in 1992)

The sand storm was a hindrance only for the Americans or for the Iraqis as well!?

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.

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.

Oh now! It is United States of America, right?

And your logic is really EPIC. Iraq is not a small nation for military engagements.

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.

Size does not matters much by itself. The example of USSR should teach you something.

 

[LeGenD]

Continued......

You quoted a WESTERN author to suggest that debunked Western propaganda was never propaganda in the first place?

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.

I have cited a research paper to support my argument regarding Russian bias and not some Western mass media propaganda material. Nationality of the author is irrelevant argument.

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.

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.

My point is that Russian sources are usually not among the most reliable ones to consider for Western subjects. They are often filled with shortsighted personal beliefs and speculations rather than critical analysis of the subjects. This observation of mine is not based on my bias towards Russian sources, and neither am I claiming that Russians are incapable of critical analysis or reliable Russian reports do not exist. My focus is always on the quality of the work that I get access to. Being a researcher myself, I can easily distinguish between works based on personal assessments, speculations, and critical analysis.

I accept that mass media sources are generally not reliable enough to be used as supportive materials in discussions regarding foreign affairs related subjects of sensitive nature. I also endorse the view that mass media sources are popular but effective tools of propaganda and politics. But these assumptions are valid for mass media sources of all nations and not just the Western nations. However, I also believe in the concept of professional journalism. Some journalists are honest, very good writers, and use references to support their arguments.

War based journalism is certainly susceptible to strong propaganda and political motives. Independent coverage of war is indeed a difficult and risky venture. You cited the example of injustices done to Al-Jazeera in Iraq; here is even more interesting revelation:

Independent journalists have often been looked at with suspicion, for they cannot be guided and controlled as much as &#8220;embedded&#8221; journalists, potentially. For example, four independent journalists (two from Israel and two from Portugal) were beaten by American troops and expelled. Embedded journalists have not suffered from the same problems, as military spokesmen on television reveal. Other journalists have been fired for airing dissenting views, or in the case of a well known American NBC reporter, Peter Arnett, for simply being interviewed by an Iraqi television station. The previous link, to the BBC, also points out that he was one of the few U.S. correspondents left in Baghdad. (Courtesy of Anup Shah; an independent writer)

However, this is just one side of the story. The other side of the story is misreporting in mass media sources. Misreporting can cause confusion, sow the seeds of doubts, and pave way for conspiracies. Mass media sources tend to report the bad things. Western mass media sources are no exception to this. This has happened in Iraq too.

I recommend this book:

Takedown: The 3rd Infantry Division's Twenty-One Day Assault on Baghdad (Jim Lacey)

The details provided in this book corroborate with the details provided by Iraqi commander Raad Al-Hamdani in one of his interviews (link provided below). You can connect the dots between the provided information in both of these sources. This book also reveals about journalism related dilemmas.

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'?

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.

However, when you are citing Russian assessments like these:

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.

What do you expect from me in response?

Here is detailed Chinese assessment about US military capabilities and performance in major combat operations after Vietnam; http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/AN00039.pdf

And here is very informative read about the most famous battle between US forces and Iraqi resistance groups to have taken place during the occupation of Iraq from a Chinese author; http://sa.rochester.edu/jur/issues/fall2007/chang.pdf

My sincere advice to you; do not just focus on raw footages of clashes in wars and speculations. They reveal nothing significant about successes and failures of military operations in the field. Focus on the big picture.

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?

I am trying to highlight the Russian bias here.

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.

Ramzaj Group?

Check this: Iraq War - CDI Russia Weekly #251

Now if you think that reports by Ramzaj Group are free from speculations and baseless assumptions then here is a significant hint:

[Ramzaj's report, dated 0723 gmt 24 March] A combat helicopter is being reported lost. Commanders have said several times that their detachments cannot start the attack because the soldiers are demoralized by the opponent's serious resistance.

[Correspondent] Reports about the helicopter being shot down were circulated by news agencies only by mid-day. It was the same Apache which, according to the Iraqi side, had been shot down by an ordinary peasant.

You see the highlighted part and the tone behind it?

Were US troops really so demoralized by Iraqi resistance?

I understand the reasons behind Anti-Western sentiments but I have doubts about the credibility of the Russian backed mass media sources like Ramzaj Group as well. Given the history of Iraq, it wasn&#8217;t such a peaceful nation either.

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.

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.

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.

Of course, US have suffered casualties in Iraq. You expected otherwise?

US army may not be the best in the world but US military (as a whole) is designed to be highly effective in combat. Just keep this in mind.

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.

Here is further evidence; http://www.comw.org/qdr/fulltext/0709hoffman&metz.pdf

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?

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.

I have even cited Chinese publications to support my points. You need to open your mind.

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.

Here is brief history;

White phosphorus was first used in World War I and was subsequently used extensively in World War II and the Vietnam War. Over the past two decades, white phosphorus has been used by the Taliban and NATO forces in Afghanistan (2003-2011), Israel in Gaza and Lebanon (2008 and 2006, respectively), Ethiopia in Somalia (2007), the United States and the United Kingdom in Iraq (2004), and Russia in Chechnya (1994-1995).

Source: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/arms_incendiary_0412.pdf

The example of Razia in 2009 is particularly a controversial one. Both US and Taliban deny responsibility in this case. Taliban may not be frequent user of this chemical. US certainly is.

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.

Raad Al-Hamdani was a competent man.

Check this interview of Raad Al-Hamdani: Interviews - Lt. Gen. Raad Al-Hamdani | The Invasion Of Iraq | FRONTLINE | PBS

Salute to this brave soldier. However, if you will read the book which I have referred to you, you wil see a side of the story that Raad Al-Hamdani is not telling here.

However, those claims regarding casualties in Baghdad airport are hogwash. Raad Al-Hamdani commanded troops in different regions. If I am missing something in this case then let me know.

US armor moving in to Baghdad Airport prior to its capture:

US military personal inside Baghdad Airport while capturing it:

Do you recall Saeed Al Sahaf? Do you think that his claims were true?

Are you working for the public relations department of Pentagon by any chance?

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.

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"?

Actually embedded journalism has its pros and cons. Check the book by Jim Lacey.

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?

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 imposed a ban on publishing pictures of dead infidel invaders' coffins?

Hint: Geneva Conventions.

Who dumped their invader terrorist infidel mercenaries' dead bodies in rivers and buried in 'dumps' to hide the truth?

These are ugly facets of wars. Mass graves are not a new thing in wars.

It seems that you are well and truly taken in by Western propaganda machinery. I wish you a swift recovery.

I am doing fine. Thank you for your concern. However, you need to ponder over your advice yourself.

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.

Don't be unrealistic. You expect governments to expose their propaganda campaigns officially?
Sometimes, certain elements within the mass media sources have the tendency to conduct propaganda to attract viewership. However, certain elements within the mass media sources also have the tendency to be as transparent as possible. This is true for Western mass media sources as well.

Iraq was severely weakened after about a decade long mutually destructive war with Iran, a country about 3 times its size in population.

This is not true. Iraq was facing economic issues but remained militarily strong. I have covered this part already.

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'.

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.

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"?

Yes! Your statement is illogical.

Recheck it here;

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.

What are you trying to imply here?

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).

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.

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?

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:

1. How many F-18s have been downed in Iraq by Iraqi Air Force?

2. What I have I told you about exercises?

Sir, that is all jolly well, if you could only explain what modifications to those tactics would make much sense?

Let me analyze your older statement for you;

-> "Flatten their airbases"; Ok! Makes Sense

-> "send in special forces to blow the few squadron of planes they have during peace time"; when did this happen in Iraq?

-> "send in trained operatives through the Mexican and Canadian borders to open a two front 'infiltration' of enemy ranks to carry out subversive activities (like they do against their 'enemies')"; what the hell are you talking about?

-> "and there are numerous other options that I have not yet mentioned"; please do

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.

So? They suck?

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'?

You are talking about Israel?

And, also done a lot easier than it's made out to be in Jewish propaganda Hollywood movies, or other Jewish media.

It requires big budget, decent industrial capability and vice versa.

Yes Sir.

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.

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?

You expect Iraqi sources to provide you detailed documentaries of their examples of humiliation?
JSTOR: International Security, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 147-150

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?

Propaganda pieces? Everything from WEST is propaganda to you?

May be this is also propaganda video in which a B52 bomber blasted the sh*t out of Taliban and the soldiers watching are making fun of the fallen:

U.S. Air Force B-52 Airstrike In Afghanistan - YouTube

Open your eyes now. You are too much misinformed on these matters.

1. Nowhere in any of these videos can you see any Taliban fighter, let alone Taliban fighter outnumbering and outgunning the Western terrorists?

The soldiers came under fire, genius. You expected the Camera Man to stand up and get shot in the process?

2. Nowhere in the videos do we see any flying Western terrorist heads, blown off knee caps, or bloodied torso, for example, good sir?

So you only believe in videos in which US forces suffer casualties? I pity your intelligence

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?

What can I do about your flawed understanding first?

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!

War seems entertaining to you?

Here is one of IED explosion near US convoy;

Here is another one;

You see? Different soldiers; Different Personalities; Different battles; Different reactions!

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.

Different soldiers; Different Personalities; Different battles; Different reactions! Anything else?

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

I can see almost every kind of video on Youtube. Their goes your argument.

I doubt it, but it is also not essential to our original discussion.

Your doubts cannot change reality.

Another series of nonessential posts by you, sir, bearing in mind the original thread and the track that the discussion had subsequently followed.

I feel obligated to counter your propaganda.

If you wish to start another thread on this topic, you are welcome to do so.

 

[The SC]

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.

This is an utter lie, so making sense is not one of your virtues.

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.

So than you make no sense at all, and you forgot to talk about soldiers and civilians.

 

[The SC]

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.

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.

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.
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.

 

[LeGenD]

This is an utter lie, so making sense is not one of your virtues.

You pretend to know these things?

The man who led that group into battle was then-Maj. Douglas Macgregor, who writes about the lead-up and the aftermath of the battle in a new memoir called Warrior's Rage: The Great Tank Battle of 73 Easting.

His unit was ordered to confront a contingent of the Republican Guard dug in along a defensive line in southern Iraq. That morning, as Cougar Squadron made its way toward 73 Easting, bad weather and a sandstorm obscured its range of vision. Macgregor tells the story in a play-by-play manner:

"You had black rain [from the oil fires] mixed with sand ... filling the skies with black soot. Most of us were covered with this by the time the battle ends," Macgregor tells Guy Raz.

Source: One Battle Ensured U.S. Return To Iraq, Author Says : NPR

So than you make no sense at all, and you forgot to talk about soldiers and civilians.

I do not make sense?

Chemical weapons have been used by many countries in wars. Your bias towards Iraq is disturbing.

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.

More baseless excuses from you; why I am not surprised. Please change your flag.

Fallujah is not a one story building town. Thousands of buildings of different sizes exist in that city.

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.

Your lack of grasp of 'ground realities' of warfare is the issue here. You like to see things from the ROSY GLASSES - do you?

Firepower is not everything. Tactics and competence of boots on the ground are equally important elements. Sometimes, terrain can also influence the course of battles.

Do you recall the disaster of Battle of Grozny in 1990s for the Russians? Do you think that Chechens were powerful enough to take on Russia militarily?

Now read these;

http://www.bdcol.ee/files/docs/bdreview/07bdr299.pdf

http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/mccafferty.pdf

If US military gains victory in a 'difficult battle' in which its technological superiority is compromised to a certain level by terrain and tactics adopted by the opponent? The excuse is that the opponent is not powerful enough to take on US?

The battle was so intense and severe in Fallujah that 70% of its buildings got destroyed in the process.

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.

US have history of fighting in extremely challenging wars.