Iranian Navy in Running for Darwin Award

[M.Dancer]

Why don't we all take a moment to look at a map? And what do we see on the shores of the Straits of Hormuz? Do we see anything inside of the Beltway? Do we see anything inside of the Eastern Seaboard? Do we see any part of the United States of America? Do I see M.Dancer hoisting Condy Rice on a pike pole? Do we see anything that might give the US a legitmate claim to the waterway?

What i see is some one prevaricating to avoid admitting they are wrong. There are no sovereignty dispute over the strait

Enquiring minds want to know.

I assume you're not talking about yourself...

[M.Dancer]

Ding ding ding! New candidate for most ridiculous statement right here.

I wish you and others would you the quote feature. We have a candidate and I have no idea who it is.

[DogOnPorch]

But what about CHINA you say. Sure they have the manpower but they dont have the ability to project that force. In a conventional battle in this day in age, nobody in the whole wide world would stand a chance against the US. And to think otherwise is comical at best.

I agree. While Red China would indeed be a handful on their own home turf in a partisan war, they are almost ineffective outside their own borders. Their 1979 war vs Viet-nam (one of the best land armies in the world at that point) really pointed out this weakness to all parties. Military reforms in China are only just now coming into effect...but they are still so far behind both the US and the Russians in terms of command control that they are sure to lose any encounter in an open battlefield vs the US. China is still forced to deal with its vast army in big, easy to move blocks...big, easy to kill blocks.

What's command control? The ability to give effective orders to your forces as well as having an accurate picture of the battlefield in which you're fighting. It is also the ability to combine you various forces to make a force much greater than the sum of its individual parts. Air, land and sea...and even space.

In a well trained army, command control works both ways. That is to say, a 1st Lt on the ground has the ability to make decisions on his/her own that the generals on the top assist and enhance...not just the other way around...ie 'do as I say'.

Command control degrades in rough terrain: cities...mountains...swamps...forests. Technology counters these degrading effects. May the higher technology win...thus the worry over Red China stealing, renting, buying military capable technologies from the US and other Western countries...Canada in particular.

As far as Iran goes in a non-partisan style war with the US (or Israel for that matter).......very, very, very bloody. It would be truely horrible. Iraq's army was thought to be 'elite' next to Iran's mainly untrained, poorly equiped 'hordes'. A quick peek at the history of the Iran/Iraq War will detail the extent of this lack of training. While some things have improved in Iran's military...other things have actually gone down hill since the 1980s...the airforce in particular. Mostly old US planes...not too many parts for them these days.

A great treasure of photos from the Iran Iraq War taken by soldiers on the ground and such...click here (Iran Defence Forum)

{Warning...real photos of war}

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tact is the knack of making a point without making an enemy.

---Sir Isaac Newton

Edited January 9, 2008 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

....Command control degrades in rough terrain: cities...mountains...swamps...forests. Technology counters these degrading effects. May the higher technology win...thus the worry over Red China stealing, renting, buying military capable technologies from the US and other Western countries...Canada in particular.

Agreed....China watched way back in 1991 as the Americans and allies methodically destroyed the best "defenses" that Saddam's oil money could buy, and that included French and German kit, not just the FSU. The Americans are far more lethal today, realizing "full spectrum dominance" from orbit to seabed. Ordnance can be delivered on target by a ROV controlled half way around the world from a van in Nevada.

Or as the telephone ad used to say.....Reach out and touch someone.

[DogOnPorch]

Or as the telephone ad used to say.....Reach out and touch someone.

Aye...or as ol' Westy said in Viet-nam..."bullets before bodies." Saves lives...our guys lives, anyways.

--------------------------------------------------------

It has been well said that a hungry man is more interested in four sandwiches than four freedoms.

---Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr

[kengs333]

And your opinion isn't going to make Jane's monthly.

If they would, do you think I'd waste my time posting here? Besides, neither would yours--so what's your point?

[kengs333]

How has that proven that? They took out the Iraqi armed forces in not time flat. In fact, they took them out SO fast it was part of the problem with the insurgency after.

So what? Any major European country, Russia, China, India, Japan or probably even Chile could have done the same if they had the political desire to do so, and if the Americans wouldn't bully and threaten them into not doing so. Defeating the Iraqi armed forces is proof of little, which is why I'm still skeptical about the Americans being able to do all that well in a real conventional war. They seem to know it too which is why they always seem to go after petty dictatorships and failed states when in fact the greatest threats to their future global supremacy are clearly China and possibly Russia.

The problem with the insurgency is not how fast they took out the Iraqi army, rather how the remnants were treated afterwards.

Your postings and politics are bizarre and non-sensicle in every one of the subjects that you post in.

They are also quite often self contradictory. Have you not noticed this?

I don't know what you're talking about. I simply have my perspective on how things are and post accordingly. If you find them "bizarre and non-sensicle" that's your problem--I tend not to understand everything political anylists with more knowledge and experience than I do have to say. That's only natural, we all can't be on the same level when it comes to knowledge and understanding. Besides, there's not one person who holds opinions that doesn't contradict themselves at times. It's so irrelevant that I'm not even sure why you'd make a point of something like that.

[kengs333]

In staight up combat americans rule the battlefield. You must rememeber the insurgents in any of the battles they have chosen to stand, they have been devastingly defeated. The only area where the insurgents have any impact is in mine laying and terrorism. And while hoping that attrition wouyld weaken the US resolve, the insurgents were attritted to an even greater degree. What is the loss ratio? 50 to 1?

The American public took notice when the war was bringing home 100 troops a month. If that number stays below 50, (oct 40, Nov 40, Dec 23) they could stay there indefinately without much political fall out.

There once was a war in a country called Vietnam where the Americans placed so much importance in "bodycounts". And the Americans lost. So I'm not sure you're proving anything here. Ultimately, victory or defeat will be measured in what becomes of Iraq and the Middle East, and I think history will show that this war is another loss for the Americans.

[kengs333]

You misunderstand. I critiquing Kengs for his claim that in a "straight up fight" the US would not "fare near as well" as people believe. Rither kangs is talking about knife fighting in which case he is correct but his comment is irrelevant, or he is talking about full deployment of assets, in which case I am not sure what to make of his statement except that it strains credulity.

I'm not a 100% on what you're talking about here. I never said anything about a "knife fight". I'm talking about combat where the American technological advantage is mitigated or a non-factor, and there have been instances in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq this has occurred and the Americans didn't do all that well. Reliance on technology necessitates a loss of more fundamental combat skills, and in all likelihood, if the Americans had to engage in a protracted conventional war with a country like Russia or China, it would eventually boil down who has more men and how good fighters they would make. My guess is that the Chinese and Russians would have an edge in this respect seeing that half the American population is spoiled, pampered and obese.

[kengs333]

Go to youtube and search Canadians in Afghanistan. You'll find videos of the boys in action. The Red Devils on patrol get ambushed by a numerically superior foe. A firefight ensues. They're outnumbered about ten to one and at the end of the battle the tally stands at 0 Canadian casualties and over a hundred enemy dead. Pretty inferior fighting men eh?

Ding ding ding! Newer candidate for most ridiculous statement right here.

Oh, yeah, I've seen those videos; many of those were produced by the CF and are little more than propaganda; absolutely no evidence of any enemy aside from gunfire which could be easily staged. You don't really believe those videos, do you? Just goes to show hoe gullible people still are when it comes to propaganda.

Edited January 9, 2008 by kengs333

[kengs333]

Agreed....China watched way back in 1991 as the Americans and allies methodically destroyed the best "defenses" that Saddam's oil money could buy, and that included French and German kit, not just the FSU. The Americans are far more lethal today, realizing "full spectrum dominance" from orbit to seabed. Ordnance can be delivered on target by a ROV controlled half way around the world from a van in Nevada.

Or as the telephone ad used to say.....Reach out and touch someone.

The proble was that the Americans were running out of cruise missles after a couple of weeks, among other things. Unless the Americans can dominate an opponent and defeat them in the short term before stockpiles run out and men and material begin to strain and breakdown faster than they can be replaced, then they've got problems.

[jbg]

The US hasn't fought a real war for quite some time, and lost the last one that they did. Until this fact changes, I'm of the opinion that they're all bluff.

We fought both Viet Nam and Korea with two hands tied behind our back. It would be a mistake to regard the US as "bluff".

[kengs333]

We fought both Viet Nam and Korea with two hands tied behind our back. It would be a mistake to regard the US as "bluff".

Please elaborate.

[jbg]

Please elaborate.

The generals were severely restricted in both wars as to where they could bomb, whether they could invade the aggressors' territories, etc. This resulted in at least the Viet Nam war being fought in South Viet Nam, thus ensuring the maximum casualties for friendlies and allowing the North Vietnamese forces to fight without fear of counterattack. Basically, a coin toss of heads the Communists win, tails South Vietnam loses.

[M.Dancer]

So what? Any major European country, Russia, China, India, Japan or probably even Chile could have done the same if they had the political desire to do so,....

Either you have no clue what you are spouting about and Aren't afraid who knows or that was for rhetorical effect.

Japan by their own law has little offensive capability, Chile has an armed force slightly less capable than Canada's......

Of all the countries you lump together, only one could be considered the equal of the task.

[AngusThermopyle]

Ding ding ding! Newer candidate for most ridiculous statement right here.

Oh, yeah, I've seen those videos; many of those were produced by the CF and are little more than propaganda; absolutely no evidence of any enemy aside from gunfire which could be easily staged. You don't really believe those videos, do you? Just goes to show hoe gullible people still are when it comes to propaganda.

Damn! You're right! I hear the next one will feature another fake Moon landing as well.

Are you really serious with this post? I guess it just goes to show how ignorant of military operations some people really are. So if these are just "staged" as you claim why don't you show us some proof of this? Or is this just another of your vacuous opinions with nothing to back it up? Sort of like when you claim that anyone who doesn't share your faith is a bad person.

Reality does exist Kengs, you should try it on for size and see how it feels. Or perhaps your post was merely fueled by the envy of seeing people who are more than you could ever imagine being. Still, even if you are envious I see no reason to insult those who do what you could never envision having the stones to do yourself.

[M.Dancer]

There once was a war in a country called Vietnam where the Americans placed so much importance in "bodycounts". And the Americans lost. So I'm not sure you're proving anything here. Ultimately, victory or defeat will be measured in what becomes of Iraq and the Middle East, and I think history will show that this war is another loss for the Americans.

Vietnam and the iraqi invasion are as comparable as a well thought out post and one of yours.

Vietnam wasn't a conventional war. It was a jungle insurgency. Care to look at the tally of killed?

56,000 US vs over 1 million vietnamese fighters.

Had the US fought a conventional war, North Vietnam would have been invaded and conquered.

You were initially talking about straight up combat, now you are talking about straight up combat a la knife fight where both sides get evenly matched. Here's a news flash, wars aren't fought that way. Wars are fought with overwhelming superiority aimed at weak targets.

Edited January 9, 2008 by M.Dancer

[AngusThermopyle]

Vietnam and the iraqi invasion are as comparable as a well thought out post and one of yours.

Vietnam wasn't a conventional war. It was a jungle insurgency. Care to look at the tally of killed?

56,000 US vs over 1 million vietnamese fighters.

Had the US fought a conventional war, North Vietnam would have been invaded and conquered.

You were initially talking about straight up combat, now you are talking about straight up combat a la knife fight where both sides get evenly matched. Here's a news flash, wars aren't fought that way. Wars are fought with overwhelming superiority aimed at weak targets.

The last part of your post really hits the nail on the head. The equivalent on MLW would be the average posters comments as compared to Kengs. Overwhelming points aimed at weak arguments.

[kengs333]

Either you have no clue what you are spouting about and Aren't afraid who knows or that was for rhetorical effect.

Need we really engage in this kind of hostility?

Japan by their own law has little offensive capability

I'm aware of something like this being the case, but I think I was postulating hypothetically.

, Chile has an armed force slightly less capable than Canada's......

Chile could easily field a 250,000+ of highly trained and professional soldiers and because of its military tradition, I believe that it would make a better fighting force.

Of all the countries you lump together, only one could be considered the equal of the task.

Europe isn't a country. I'd say that Germany, France, Great Britain, maybe even Poland could easily have taken down Iraq. Of course China would have no problem, and they'd probably have done it right with a force large enough to occupy conquered regions. But what does it matter, there is no legitimate reason for the Iraq war, none of those countries would be stupid enough to do what the Americans did.

[kengs333]

Damn! You're right! I hear the next one will feature another fake Moon landing as well.

It's not exactly a big secret that the military is producing many of these videos.

Are you really serious with this post? I guess it just goes to show how ignorant of military operations some people really are. So if these are just "staged" as you claim why don't you show us some proof of this? Or is this just another of your vacuous opinions with nothing to back it up? Sort of like when you claim that anyone who doesn't share your faith is a bad person.

Maybe you'd like to find me a video where the enemy is actually visible, or where there is indisputable evidence that incoming fire is actually directed towards Canadian soldiers. I've watched many, many videos, but all I've seen is Canadians shooting, or what sounds to be enemy fire. Like I said, it's possible that they could be staged--I never said that they were--because the videos were being produced for a specific purpose.

Reality does exist Kengs, you should try it on for size and see how it feels. Or perhaps your post was merely fueled by the envy of seeing people who are more than you could ever imagine being. Still, even if you are envious I see no reason to insult those who do what you could never envision having the stones to do yourself.

The fact that you have to resort to this kind of nonsense just goes to show how incapable you are of making a reasoned argument. Am I to assume you are or were in the military? Is that why you have to resort to petty taunts? Why exactly would I feel envious about people in the military? I have better things to do than associate with (or wish to be a) subpar-IQed state-sanctioned killer. It's interesting that people in the military feel that they need to pat themselves on the back, congratulate themselves for being part of an institution that nobody really cares about.

Edited January 9, 2008 by kengs333

[kengs333]

Vietnam and the iraqi invasion are as comparable as a well thought out post and one of yours.

Vietnam wasn't a conventional war. It was a jungle insurgency.

So because it was fought in a jungle, it's not a conventional war? Nice excuse. You should try reading up on the Vietnam war before you make such retarded assertions.

Care to look at the tally of killed?

56,000 US vs over 1 million vietnamese fighters.

Yeah, and look at who controls Vietnam. Again, bodycounts me nothing if the ultimate objective isn't achieved.

Had the US fought a conventional war, North Vietnam would have been invaded and conquered.

It was invaded, it wasn't conquered.

You were initially talking about straight up combat, now you are talking about straight up combat a la knife fight where both sides get evenly matched. Here's a news flash, wars aren't fought that way. Wars are fought with overwhelming superiority aimed at weak targets.

Sorry, where's this "knife fight nonsense coming from? I never said anything about a knife fight. But whatever the case, Vietnam is a perfect example of the Americans not being able to win a war in a straight up combat situation--even though they did have the advantage in terms of air superiority. I really don't think you're in a position to be giving me "news flash[es]" on this topic.

[eyeball]

It stands to reason that an army is only going to be as effective or good as the government directing it. It is after all just a projection of that government. Same thing works in reverse in a country ruled by a military junta.

Edited January 9, 2008 by eyeball

[DogOnPorch]

It was invaded, it wasn't conquered.

North Viet-nam was never invaded. North Viet-nam, however, invaded the South in 1972 (Year of the Rat...remember?). Time to read up a wee bit more on this period of history before continuing on with this discussion...me thinks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

-----------------------------------------

Once upon a time our traditional goal in war and can anyone doubt that we are at war? - was victory. Once upon a time we were proud of our strength, our military power. Now we seem ashamed of it. Once upon a time the rest of the world looked to us for leadership. Now they look to us for a quick handout and a fence-straddling international posture.

---Barry Goldwater

[DogOnPorch]

It stands to reason that an army is only going to be as effective or good as the government directing it. It is after all just a projection of that government. Same thing works in reverse in a country ruled by a military junta.

Nazi Germany had the finest military in the world. Bar none.

------------------------------------------------------

Be sincere; be brief; be seated.

---President Franklin D. Roosevelt

[DogOnPorch]

kengs333: Chile could easily field a 250,000+ of highly trained and professional soldiers and because of its military tradition, I believe that it would make a better fighting force.

See my post re: command control

The average Latin American soldier is lucky to have a working radio.

------------------------------------------------------

I always knew I was destined for greatness.

---Oprah Winfrey