gambit
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 28,569
- Reaction score
- 148
- Country
- Location
That is just outright idiotic.Why you find that harsh reality hilarious?
A military with a proper air force equipped with modern fighter jets,army with proper training and equipment for halting attacks from it,s enemy and a navy with the ability to stop invasion from sea is called an overall modern military.
Every country can be conquered, even US. The issue is the might required. We are not talking about tanks versus horse cavalry here but tanks versus tanks. We are not talking about WW II era tanks versus the M1 Abrams. We are not talking Korean War era jet fighters versus the F-16 but about Iraqi MIG-25s and MIG-29s. We are not talking about muskets versus M-16s but AK-47s versus M-16s. I can go on and on.
I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that you are not old enough to remember Desert Storm but I was in Kuwait a few days after we routed the Iraq out of the country. By 1990s standards, the Iraqi military met all the criteria that constitute a 'modern military'. No one in the region could take on Iraq. China could not take on Iraq. The press and military experts, including the Soviets and Chinese military leaderships, were predicting tens of thousands of casualties for the US. Why would they make those predictions if the Iraqi military was not a 'modern military' in their eyes?
The fact that Iraq was easily defeated was because everyone, from the Iraqis to the Soviets to the Chinese, severely underestimated US and became unprepared. Preparations for war takes decades on continuous examinations of current doctrines, history, exploitation of technology, manpower quality and quantity, organization, and most important -- self criticisms. And no one did self criticisms better than US after the Vietnam War.
Spare me your feeble attempt at playing 'military analyst' and criticize US by way of reducing Iraq.
Are you saying we did not sought out any diplomatic solutions? If yes, then you are even more sorry than thought. Further, diplomacy does not mean one should be unarmed or even appear weak. Diplomacy is worthless without at least the appearance of being able to physically resist should diplomacy fail.look for a political solution rather than posing a military threat
Wrong. The US does very much pose a military threat to both Russia and China. Clearly you are someone with no military experience.Your politicians follow a typical brutal style against such poor countries but when it comes to argue with powers like china and russia you people look for a political solution rather than posing a military threat
That is funny. We blockade Cuba and the Soviets backed down and removed those missiles. So who got scared?And the whole world knows what soviets did with you back there in 1960,s you were scared like goats during Cuban missile crisis
Har...We can take NKR out easier than Iraq. Go back to playing video games, little boy.Even north korea is enough for you.
Direct conflict of interests does not automatically equate to war. But it is funny that you do not apply the same argument to them. Why are they so afraid of US? After all, they are 'modern', right?Finally there is no absence of modern military powers and these military powers have direct conflict of interests with you.
What a pathetically laughable line of 'logic'.