Top Middle East Militaries

[KJ]

The original issue of discussion was how to counter a culture that can bypass traditional military methods and take war straight to a target nation's citizens on their home soil at will with no real hope of the target nation's security forces being able to provide its citizenry any real comprehensive protection.

The answer to that is that any culture able to do so must be made to understand that doing so will ensure their total and complete and immediate destruction. Otherwise there is no real counter due to the originating terror nation being able to draw the conflict out for as long as desired until it's goals are met, even if it takes generations of bloodshed.

Ok I think we might have been talking about different issues here.
Although I submit that you could use the tactics in another form in a future conflict I was more into the subject of the current conflicts.

True, in Iran you have zero back up from friendly tribes/inhabitants thus giving you no viable option to all out balls to the wall war.
In the "low intensity" guerilla wars at hand right now I can see many applications of the tactics used in for one the Malaysia conflict.
Destroy the guerillas powerbase, undermine their influence by winning both the hearts and mind campaign AND the military engagements.

HOWEVER I think in the current climate an all out war against Iran and or a few other countries are not a viable option.
The political will to take responsibility for such an action isn´t there.

//KJ.

 

[KJ]

Our only responsibility is to protect our own. That is it. That is all. That is the only. If they cant clean up their mess without making it our problem then we have every single right to end their existence.

quote]

As for the Nurnberg remark..
Please qoute the entire passage, I told you that I for one would think twice before carrying out an order to destroy an entire city and anything in it.
Anyway you ****ing cut it, carrying out such an order has alot of things incommon with what certain blackclad men did during the second big war..
I understand your anger and frustration, but this is the point I was arguing.
You can´t fight this war being the meanest dog in the yard, your opposition just doesn´t care.
We´ll have tro keep our wits about us and people needs to start to THINK about the strategy and/or tactics of the current campaign and also start to think about how to be able to use those tactics in tomorrows conflicts.

Still just my opinion(s), but I think I might have stumbled upon something here the last time a thought hit me over the head...

 

[Grimmy]

KJ:

Yeah, it is difficult to respond appropriatly in written conversations on a point by point basis without creating some confusion or seeming to selectivly quote out of context. I do apologize if that happened.

But to address a single point, that of the Nazi reference I'll go broad brush on just that specific.

1. There is zero similarity. It has become a common tactic, started by radical leftists a generation ago, to proclaim anyone attempting to deal aggressively with a threat to their nation as samey same as Nazis as a way implying moral equivalently evil. That's b******t, start to finish, b******t.

The Nazis, like the Marxist communists were an aggressively expansionistic imperial police state socialism. Nothing other than aggressively expansionistic imperial police state socialisms can be morally equated to such murderous regimes.

In such cases, Communism, Nazism and Fascism stack up perfectly well side by side. They differ only in rhetoric and in some internal details but otherwise share exactly the same murderous irrationale. It was their design to impose their will on all others at the point of the gun without prior provocation and without being threatened.

The case currently in front of us and under discussion is how to survive against an aggressive global enemy that follows no rules of conduct, obeys no rules or laws other than what fits their needs of the moment and purposely target defenseless civilian populations and have proven the ability to maintain aggressive and murderous efforts up for over half a century without interuption so far.

When dealing with psychopathic cultures, kindness is weakness and weakness will be exploited. You have evidence of that shoved in your face on a daily basis. Pick up any newspaper or watch any MSM news broadcast and you see our weakness being exploited, highlighted and used to such an extent that it can even cause a feeding frenzy among our own citizens.

We have mullahs preaching hatred of us and the righteousness of destroying us from mosques on our own soil, as do you in your own lands. We are weak from bottom to top and inside and out. We are rotten to the core with weakness and inability to stand up to rationally face these monsters.

Now, there's reason for that weakness, of course. A full generation of gramsci dogma preached as self hatred of western culture has been burned into us non stop from every angle. There are many many of our own citizenry that are openly aligned with the cause of the enemy. You can write that off as simple paranoia on my part, of course, but you would be wrong. Take a look around. Look at how desperate your and my own politicos are to avoid offending those who openly declare their desire to see us all dead, declarations given from within our own borders by openly aggressive enemy under protection from our own police.

Now, do you really, honestly, believe that ALL Americans are going to go gently into dhimmitude without getting mean in their own defense first? Do you honestly believe that because the idiot leftists rule much of the discourse today, that it will always be that way?

And, do you honestly believe that once the American Street is fully awakened and inraged enough to begin fighting back that there will be any shred of gentleness in the method and means of that fight?

Our enemy is merciless, as we will be in addressing them. Our enemy has openly declared the "end goal" to be our destruction, so that is the only end goal viable for them as well.

This will be a winner take all fight. We're still in the opening phases of this fight and it's not gotten anywhere near as nasty as it will end up being, yet.

This is something I've been watching unfold for over 20 years and have had direct experience in fighting. I know this enemy first hand. I know what is required and what it will take to finally end this.
Many others do too. But, as you said, and rightly so, there is not yet the political will to do what is required. That will may still be a full decade away in developing fully, but it will because it must.

There are only 2 options for "end game" in this fight.
1 Our destruction.
2. Their destruction.

Our = all the "western" cultures
Their = islam.

This has been established by the enemy, not by ourselves. We are operating purely on the defensive, not as imperial aggressors.
The Nazis in this case are the islamists. Same methodology, same tactics, same police statism, same murderous intent. Same expansionistic designs.

 

[Englander2]

Well ,well Grimy, in post 10, you have explained the US foreign policy better than anyone else I know. It still does not explain however why 3333 good soldiers have lost their lives in a war against a country which was no danger. As an officer said on CNN today "Iraq is in a worst state than it was when we arrived." Seems to me using the hammer just does not work! How about using common sense?

 

[Somalia]

Englander2, I agree with you Iraq was not a threat to us, we in fact defeated Iraq in 1991 and ever since had embargo on that country that crippled their military potential to rebuild and their economy. The UN, the Europeans (except for England), The IAEA, The Russians and the Chinese all said their was no substantiative prove that Iraq had WMD and that it had the capability to build one. We were told to hold of until the IAEA proved otherwise and we were also told to refrain from invasion not sanctioned by the UN.

The Senate committe and the CIA both recently stated that their were no connection between Al'qada and Saddam and everyone knew that Al'qada was actually enemy with Saddam. The september 11 hijackers were all Saudis, and all the money came from Saudi Arabia fund raisings or through Al'qada itself.

Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld fooled the world and used Powell as a front to lie to the world and convince them that one, Saddam had WMD and that two, Saddam had links to Al'qada. This war was set up so Iraq who as the world's second largest oil reserves and the one of the largest gas reserves could be conquered for the benefit of West and especially America oil companys.

I think This war was a bad choice Saddam was a less of a threat then such regimes as North Korea who actually admitted and then tested Nuclear weapons and we seem to fail to take conceret actions against them. I can't help but think that the reason we failed to act against North Korea is that their is less of an enticement and reward in an invasion of them then their would be if we conquered Iraq withs its enormous Black Gold.

Another thing about that Iraq war besides the fact that we could have been focusing on far much more dangerous regimes who now flaunt at us because we are tied down in the quagmire we created in Iraq is; we overstepped our boundery when we unilateraly invaded Iraq without UN and international sanctioning of an invasion.

In the 1st Gulf War we said we were liberating Kuwait because Iraq invaded Kuwait a sovereign country without authority from the UN. In the UN charter it says a nation cannot invaded another sovereign nation without the explicit decree from the UN and if that country is deemed a threat by the International community as whole, not unilateraly. Well, we acted double standardly and hypocritically by invading Iraq a sovereign nation without a UN decree and after Iraq was deemed not a threat by the international community, so it is us who did the very samething we said were stopping Saddam from doing in the first Gulf War: Invading a sovereign nation without the authority of the UN.

How are we gona lecture the rest of the world in following international norms, and listening to the UN when we actually unilateraly overstepped the UN.

As Putin once pointed out; the Europeans went into Africa and the Americas and Said they were Civilizing the Indigineous people because they were primitive and converting them to christianity in order to save them from their ways but what actually happend was the blundering of these continents of their natural resources and more so their people through slavery to work in Europe and their colonies. Now America and Britain are using Democracy as an excuse and saying they are stabalizing Iraq and making it democratic when in fact the opposite is happening, the true motive is Iraq's natural resources. This feels like deja vu all over again.

 

[phoenix80]

^^^^^ blah blah blah ^^^^^

 

[Somalia]

Phoenix80, the more you incoherently say "blah, blah, blah" without actually disproving anything I said the more i feel like im getting at something.

Anyone who carefully reads my last post will actually understand what I am saying. All I want people to do is just read what I am saying you don't have to agree with it and I promise you, you will understand what I am getting at.

 

[fingolfin361]

How are we gona lecture the rest of the world in following international norms, and listening to the UN when we actually unilateraly overstepped the UN.

Yes, quite the moral dilemma, isn't it?

Oh wait, never mind- hasn't ever really been an issue, now has it? :bang:

 

[KJ]

Somalia, try doing a search for Operation ARTEMIS.

Your points were valid a few hundred years ago, they are now seriously outdated and by using them you are making another assumption.

And you know what they say:
"When you assume you make an ass out of you and me."

 

[Somalia]

KJ how are my points outdated can you specify, because right now I don't know what you are getting at. And My point about the Iraq war and the utter uselessness of that war besides the fact that it created carnage. My point seems valid and that fact that this whole war was orchastrated and America overstepped the UN while we preach to the world to follow the UN seems to me valid and relevant. Care to explain yourself ? Because you seem to not state what you found in my argument to be outdated.

 

[bulldogg]

Try reading Machiavelli if you're really interested in politics and drop all the Pollyanna pie in the sky idealist manure... if it were possible for ideals and values to be upheld through politics communism would have succeeded on more than just paper.

 

[fingolfin361]

Try reading Machiavelli if you're really interested in politics and drop all the Pollyanna pie in the sky idealist manure... if it were possible for ideals and values to be upheld through politics communism would have succeeded on more than just paper.

Hmm i dunno bout that, Socialism maybe, Communism isn't all that moraly upright in my opinion.

 

[KJ]

KJ how are my points outdated can you specify, because right now I don't know what you are getting at. And My point about the Iraq war and the utter uselessness of that war besides the fact that it created carnage. My point seems valid and that fact that this whole war was orchastrated and America overstepped the UN while we preach to the world to follow the UN seems to me valid and relevant. Care to explain yourself ? Because you seem to not state what you found in my argument to be outdated.

Did you do the search?
What was your findings?
What can you find in the texts about the mission that would be relevant to your post?

I gave you the tools, I am NOT going to do your work for you.
The best way to learn things is to put the work in yourself.
That way you will not forget it as fast.

On the US ignoring the UN.
Yes and No, there were several UN mandates in place to restrict several parts of the Iraqi trade, freedom of movement and complience with inspectors.
I reckon the US had enough to invade.
Some countries decided not to be a part of that operation, but that is their perogative as free states..

Once the build up had started this animal was already out of control.

 

[Englander2]

Looking back at Optio's quotation, in Post 21 regarding of the original issue of discussion post by Grimmy, one might ask which culture we are trying to save from whom. On the one side claims are being made that a war is going on against Terrorism based on radical Islam, on the other people such as, Professor Tibbi from Syria, free to speak in Europe and America about the need to accept a new form of Islam within these countries. Is it possible to have an Islam which does not follow the Koran, in which, the call for violence against non-believers is not approved?
True, Christians have also in the past also tried to spread their religion by force, but the actions of those involved were in no way covered by the teachings of Christ. Should we really make the same mistake with democracy?
To call for destruction as many on these lines do, is asking for a form of policy dating back to prehistoric times. Destroy all the people who disagree with you, and you can live in peace! Sounds good, but it has never worked!. Winning both the hearts and mind can only be done, by showing that our western way of life is better.
Military threats and actions just cause yet more violence and hate. Such methods are a sign of failure a bringing only anguish to those affected. It seemed quite clear after WW2, that an effective army is one that is so strong, that it does not have to be used. Many of today's politicians choose to disagree with this definition, with the result that we are further from peace now, than we were before Bush and Blair took their role in world history.
KJ 's View as I understand it, is that he agrees with Grimmy's comment "Our only responsibility is to protect our own. That is it. That is all." May I remind you, this was the type of driving thought behind Hitler's policies, he wanted the injustices done to Germany following WW1 corrected, what this led to is fairly well known. Unfortunately some of the remarks about Nazis these days, even within the German government itself, show an enormous lack of historic knowledge. Organisations such as The British Empire League or Klu Klux Klan were no better and grew up within our own societies. Evil s not specific to a nation or race, but All to often facts are not wanted if they do not agree with the policies being pursued,
If it is true to say, "We have mullahs preaching hatred of us" surely the first question should be: Why?
Treating the symptoms by using force may give respite, it does not cure the illness or stop its cause.
The winner take all fight is a dream, the more killed, the more will wish to take revenge may be not now, but possibly at some future date when we are not expecting it, as was the case with 9/11.
Somalia put it fairly clearly " The Senate committee and the CIA both recently stated that their were no connections between Al'qada and Saddam," so why are we making enemies of people who for years were allies in the fight against communism? Were they considered to be monsters in those days? This is not the only case where double standards and dishonesty on our side have dirtied the sort of culture we claim to be fighting for.
Some say, my country right or wrong? Surely as a true patriot it would be my first duty (as far as I can), to make sure we are right! Anything else means I am no better than those I am fighting. Phoenix80 might disagree, and from a democratic point of view this is allowed, but is "blah, blah, blah" a culture worth defending?

 

[KJ]

KJ 's View as I understand it, is that he agrees with Grimmy's comment "Our only responsibility is to protect our own. That is it. That is all."

As a soldier your first duty is to protect the citizens of your nation.
No way around THAT.
If you have a grievens with your country,s politicians you wait untill election and place your vote on the party/person you decide is worth it.
When your goverment is elected however, you as a soldier is their tool to use to do what they (as elected officials) decide is protecting your own civilians, whatever that may be.
That is my firm conviction.

The thing is, YOU also have accountability for the actions you take while under orders, but that was the part me an Grimmy saw in different ways.

//KJ.

 

[Englander2]

Take orders first, obey them and ask any questions afterwards. That's the way of a soldier's life as I knew it. It was the way the Wehrmacht also operated. This was however not accepted, in many trials of German soldiers after WW2 and that is one reason I ask, if we all too often use double standards. Do we condemn others for that which we also would have done under the same conditions?

 

[Somalia]

We can talk about the rights and wrongs of going into Iraq with both side arguing their views and beliefs infinitely but this thread was suppose to be about comparing Middle East militaries and discussions on Middle East armies lets stop turning it into a political battle on War in Iraq because letting that can of worms out will lead to a heated politcal debate that neither side will budge.

So guys lets keep this thread limited to discussions on Middle East militaries.

 

[Somalia]

Looking at middle east militaries and which militaries have the greatest capability to inflict harm on the other, from the list I first made it comes down to Iran, Israel, Egypt, Turkey and Syria (the reason why Syria is amongst those 4 powers is 2 reasons despite the fact that its military is not as modern at those other 4, those reasons are its highly trained Special forces with equipped with night vision and anti-tank missiles and its highly modern chemical and biological weapons which it can use as a last resort)