What is the 3rd best military ??

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
[Look in the mirror.

You look in the mirror.

Besides, we Germans already defeated Russia during WWI. Russia's loss led to the fall of the Romanov dynasty. The new Russian government - the communist government - made a cease-fire with Germany.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by AtheiX]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
I don't follow your logic.

touche!!

Israel is even smaller than the minnows it has toyed with all its existence. Only Lebanon could be said to be smaller.

I'm talking about military minnows..No offence but besides the Iraqis and Iranians no arab nation knew squat about the art of waging a war.

Israel didn't piss its pants over Iraq, they destroyed Osirak.

That was a long range deep strike mission to take out a nuclear facility...It wasn't no sustained war..They did that cause they were scared about Iraq's nuclear ambitions..Iraq was dumb enough to NOT employ appropriate SAM batteries there cause they presumed(and so did all of us) that Osiraq was WAY beyond the reach of Israeli a/c..

If Iran and Iraq were so capable, why did the I/I war last for so long and cost so many lives to no purpose?

Thats cause both were good.. You proved my point.. I rest my case..

Saddam had all the west's toys to play with and yet he couldn't defeat some frontal attacks by infantry? . Just look at the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait.

Both countries had toys from the west..I would say the IRan had more american toys than Iraq..The Iraqi military was more soivet oriented..
Remember?IT was always MiG25s vs. tomcats and Mig 23/21s vs. phantoms??

If Saddam was so good why did he never tangle with the Saudis?

Because he never had a problem with them..Because prir to kuwaitsaudi assurance that they would not interfere in his kuwaiti campaign.. Infact many sources point to him(Saddam) having had US assurances as well.. But then what can one do..It was/is the age of back stabbing..
Saddam was back stabbed by more than one country during his Kuwait campaign..
shamefully India and the USSR/Russia too..

Pakistani AF is better than than Israeli? How much combat experience does PAF have?Who has Pakistan fought? Aside from India? And how did that go?

Definitely not.. But we're comparing militaries in toto aye?..
And contrary to popular belief both the PAF and the InAF were/are very able AFs.. As I said PAF pilots have flown in almost all arab-israeli wars
(as soviets did in korea)..And didn't lose a single jet.. And if I'm not mistaken they took out 15-20 IAF jets in the bargain..
Almost let me note that in both the 65 and 71 wars(esp 65) the PAF matched up well against the InAF..though this was mostly attributed the fabled F-86 Sabre and the improper use of a/c by the InAF (using fighter bombers hunters/mysteres w/o fighter escort)
And now the PAF will ahve about 100 F-16s.. top-ve-the line stuff..
I'm not kidding.. They got awesome pilots.. I'm Indian..but I still say..they got a snazzy bunch, the PAF ..

My criteria are not who has the best toys, or who has the most men, but who's men are the most effective with their toys?

And my ONLY criterion is who wins..If you pair a pak army, the size of an Israeli one, against the Israeli army then by all means the israelis would win. But c'mon size does matter a bit..

And on that score Israel definitely ranks above Russia and China. How's Russia doing in Chechnya these days?
Hell, hands up who want the Russians to come riding to the rescue in a hostage situation!

Don't bulshiet me man.. The russians have dealt with more hostage situations than anyone else on this planet.. And they've handled MANY with total precision/zero casualties etc. etc. The west ain't any better believe me..
Chechnya is what one faces in Iraq.. Islamic terrorsim was prevalent long before Al-Qaeda rose.. In chechnya and kashmir.. The west has only been exposed to it now.. I don't see the coalition doing any better than our comrades in chechnya..

And aside from wasting a million men in North Korea and being bled white to
no purpose by the Vietnamese it seems that the PLA can only kill non-violent opponents, such as their "internal security" operations in Tibet and their stellar effort at government-student relations in the square of heavenly peace.

I don't argue with that...But they're a force to be reckoned with today..

And in their twenty year process of de-colonisation, name a situation where the British went home with their tails between their legs. The only one I can think of that comes close is Cyprus. India/Pak/Bangladesh doesn't count as it wasn't an armed nationalist uprising. The whole point is that it was the opposite.

Nonetheless.. study falklands.. Then we can sing "don't cry for me ARgentina" together.. It was a botch-up by the argentianians.. A botch-up of the highest degree..

I didn't see an answer about China/India, I would have expected you to be better informed on that one. I'll admit it has never crossed my reading, I know nothing about it.

You've lost me one this one.. I have no idea what you're talking about..

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV


If Iran and Iraq were so capable, why did the I/I war last for so long and cost so many lives to no purpose?

Thats cause both were good.. You proved my point.. I rest my case..

No, it doesn't. That's just it. By that logic the opposing sides in the Congo are the world's best fighters, given how long that has been going on.

If Saddam was so good why did he never tangle with the Saudis?

Because he never had a problem with them..Because prir to kuwaitsaudi assurance that they would not interfere in his kuwaiti campaign.. Infact many sources point to him(Saddam) having had US assurances as well..

But then what can one do..It was/is the age of back stabbing..

Saddam was back stabbed by more than one country during his Kuwait campaign..
shamefully India and the USSR/Russia too..

Sources don't point, they quote (but I can't tell you where!). The US ambassador gave a vaguely non-committal, and terribly worded, statement that was supposed to dissuade Saddam and instead he thought he had the green light from the US gov't. And Arabian politics has been 2,000 years of back-stabbing, treachery and betrayal, after all, what else do you call Saddam invading Kuwait?. Much like Europe really!

Hell, hands up who want the Russians to come riding to the rescue in a hostage situation!

Don't bulshiet me man.. The russians have dealt with more hostage situations than anyone else on this planet.. And they've handled MANY with total precision/zero casualties etc. etc. The west ain't any better believe me..

Aside from WACO, which was civilian, when was the last time the west screwed up an HRT mission as badly as Beslan or the Moscow theatre? If Russia's record is so good why'd they get these so very, very wrong? It ain't male cow manure, it's the truth, who wants Russian HRT backstopping them? Not me. The whole point of HRT is contingency planning, working every angle, every worst-case scenario. How could they not take into account the effect of the gas in Moscow?
The hostages are in a theatre, what's the most likely place they'll be? Sitting in the stalls. What happens when we pump them full of this gas? They sleep. What happens if they are sitting down? Their heads drop. What happens if their heads drop? They can't breathe. What happens if they can't breathe?

And in their twenty year process of de-colonisation, name a situation where the British went home with their tails between their legs. The only one I can think of that comes close is Cyprus. India/Pak/Bangladesh doesn't count as it wasn't an armed nationalist uprising. The whole point is that it was the opposite.

Nonetheless.. study falklands.. Then we can sing "don't cry for me ARgentina" together.. It was a botch-up by the argentianians.. A botch-up of the highest degree..

Once they were on land where did the Brits get it wrong? Every battle they fought was a win. The screw-ups on the Brit side belonged to Rear-Admiral Sandy Woodward (is that his name?). Brigadier Julian Thompson (is my memory correct?) got his end of things pretty much right. And the British Army and Royal Marines got their end exactly right.

Piss-ups and Argentine breweries or not, a victory against a numerically superior force of that size is worth a favourable comment.

Does anyone excuse the Japanese victory in 1905 by pointing out that the Russians were useless, or do they talk about it as a prime example of how a properly trained and organised smaller force can defeat a far larger force which suffers from inadequate leadership and training. Do you know the details of Rorke's Drift? No-one points out that rifles will always defeat spears because that morning at Isandlwana they didn't.

India and China have never had a confrontation? Guess I'm starting to imagine things, wonder where I got that idea? Ignore at will.

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
[Look in the mirror.

You look in the mirror.

Besides, we Germans already defeated Russia during WWI. Russia's loss led to the fall of the Romanov dynasty. The new Russian government - the communist government - made a cease-fire with Germany.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by AtheiX]

This isn't an argument.

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. Look, if I argue, I must take up a contrary position.

Yes, but that isn't just saying "No it isn't".

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Danke schoen, Monty Python und der Fliegander Zirkus!

ps. Atheix, I'm still waiting to find out what types of Russian tanks were destroyed at Balikab...Bellycan...Balikpapan (no, wait, that's in Borneo!), the place with the commie name, and, more importantly, what they were destroyed by, tanks or HS 129s and Ju 87s?

Military imbecility aside, the rifles vs spears thing at Isandlwana demonstrated that your rifles needed to be able to fire more often and led to the introduction of the machine-gun. The spears vs rifle ratio was so far out the rifle wielding Welsh were overwhelmed. Rourke's Drift demonstrated that the numerically inferior imperial troops should take up defensive postions that channelled attackers into predictable fields of fire and rely on rifle drill, 'first rank fire, second rank fire, third rank fire...etc.' to focus their firepower and create localised superiority. British Army musketry has been second to none since the Napoleonic wars and with the Lee-Enfield bolt action rifle, attacking German troops in 1914 mistook the rapid and accurate rifle fire of defending British troops as machine gun fire.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

And aside from wasting a million men in North Korea and being bled white to
no purpose by the Vietnamese it seems that the PLA can only kill non-violent opponents, such as their "internal security" operations in Tibet and their stellar effort at government-student relations in the square of heavenly peace.

the casulties of the korean war were 500,000. killed wounded captured. thats only half of the figure you gave. the korean war was fought againest american aggression. it did its job againest amazing odds. lighty clad poorly armed with no air support to speak of. a mix-match of japanese american russian arms.

The 1979 sino-vietnamese war was for polictical reasons. pre1979 china was facing a two front war . russia and in the north and vietnam in the south. she had to get rid of the vietnamese threat. so she attacked and russia didn't do anything, this showed the viets that russian was un-reliable.

the casulties of the sion-vietnamese war was 20,000 a piece give or take some. the PLA army at the time number over 6million men. is that bleeding them dry.

Tibetian insurgents? they were gone after 1959. find some recent info about tibetian "freedom" fighters that are fighting the PLA.



HowlrunnerIV it seems that you dont have a clue what the capablilites of chinas modern army can do. please dont post your BS here.

But where has the west recently seen a hostage crisis like the one in beslan or moscow??
And oh yeah.. I was talking about the Argentinians botching up...the british played their cards right..
I still don't understand your India/china point.. What are you trying to say..

[edit on 2-8-2005 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by chinawhite
the korean war was fought againest american aggression.

Really????And all this time here I was thinking Kim Il Sung invaded South Korea. Silly me.

The 1979 sino-vietnamese war was for polictical reasons.

No! Really?

The problem is that like every other example of "playing politics through other means" it didn't come off quite the way you wanted. Unless you subscribe to the Nixon "madman theory of war". Vietnam retained suzerainty over Cambodia and gave up no territory and China's ally, the KR, were forced back into the jungles where, like the savages they were, they belonged

Tibetian insurgents? they were gone after 1959. find some recent info about tibetian "freedom" fighters that are fighting the PLA.

Small point, but they're Tibetan. And given that ethnic Han immigrants now outnumber Tibetans in their native land, obviously the Tibetans are a crazed, violent bunch who have been tutored in the Shamil Basayev school of thinking.

HowlrunnerIV it seems that you dont have a clue what the capablilites of chinas modern army can do. please dont post your BS here.

As I have never been to China and don't get to read CIA/DOD briefing documents it is a little difficult for me to know what the exact capabilities of China's modern military is. However, historically the only people China has defeated are the Tibetans (those damn Tibetans) and the Chinese and given that you have no blue-water navy worth speaking of given the size of your military you don't rate as the world's 3rd best.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I still don't understand your India/china point.. What are you trying to say..

That I was clearly wrong on that point.

Originally posted by Cilandak
with the Lee-Enfield bolt action rifle, attacking German troops in 1914 mistook the rapid and accurate rifle fire of defending British troops as machine gun fire.

Much of that is the equipment itself. The Lee-Enfield could be fired faster than Mauser and needed reloading half as often. Thus the Germans thought the Brits were issued one machine gun per twenty men, instead of the actual ratio of 1 per 200.

Either way, Rorke's Drift is an outstanding example of a tiny force defeating a far superior one (through correct use of its toys). Much like the SAS action at Mirbat in Oman.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV

Really????And all this time here I was thinking Kim Il Sung invaded South Korea. Silly me.

i would call that a civil war. america shouldn't have got involved. two groups of the same country

The problem is that like every other example of "playing politics through other means" it didn't come off quite the way you wanted. Unless you subscribe to the Nixon "madman theory of war". Vietnam retained suzerainty over Cambodia and gave up no territory and China's ally, the KR, were forced back into the jungles where, like the savages they were, they belonged

cambodia wasn't the main reason for going into vietnam. it was polictical

Small point, but they're Tibetan. And given that ethnic Han immigrants now outnumber Tibetans in their native land, obviously the Tibetans are a crazed, violent bunch who have been tutored in the Shamil Basayev school of thinking.

the HAN chinese are not the only ethnic group in china. there are over 50 different groups living in china. each of them are chinese. the HAN might be the majority but not the only ones

However, historically the only people China has defeated are the Tibetans (those damn Tibetans) and the Chinese and given that you have no blue-water navy worth speaking of given the size of your military you don't rate as the world's 3rd best.

historically only defeating the tibetians??

umm. are you forgeting how big china is? it didn't get big by losing wars.

china had a number of enemys during her lifetime.

japan mongolia vietnam the tatars. russians.


and the chinese navy is quite capable in her own backyard which it is suppose to do. not invade soveriegn countries in distance lands in the middle east. *hint hint*

chian has not intentions to rule the seas. only to protect or oil supply lines/maritine trade

Originally posted by chinawhite

i would call that a civil war. america shouldn't have got involved. two groups of the same country

A civil War is when one country fights itself, such as the Roundheads versus the Cavaliers or the secessionist Confederate States versus the United States. The Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are, would you credit it, two different countries.

I'd call it a perfect example of why the UN was set up, to stop wars of aggression such as had finished so recently and at such great cost of life.

No doubt you think life would be so much better had both Korea's been unified under Kim Il Sung.

cambodia wasn't the main reason for going into vietnam. it was polictical

China was searching for a way to punish the USSR, it chose to attack Vietnam, which had just invaded a client state, DK-era Cambodia, as punishment for the Vietnamese and a warning to the Soviets. What was acheived? Nothing. The KR were still in the jungle where, like the savages they were, they belonged, the Viets had lost not one inch of territory and still maintained hegemony over Indochina and the USSR still occcupied the entirety of China's northern border.
It was "politics by other means", a failed policy throughout history.

the HAN chinese are not the only ethnic group in china. there are over 50 different groups living in china. each of them are chinese. the HAN might be the majority but not the only ones

Yet every report from Tibet quotes the immigrants as being HAN Chinese. And I'm aware that the Uighars are not ethnic HANs but thanks for the tip, what you didn't mention were the militant fundamentalist Buddhists that you need that military whose prowess you are so proud of to defeat.

historically only defeating the tibetians??

umm. are you forgeting how big china is? it didn't get big by losing wars.

china had a number of enemys during her lifetime.

japan mongolia vietnam the tatars. russians.

Defeated Japan all by yourselves, did you? The Communists and Nationalists spent so much time preparing to fight each other that they had no impact on World War Two, you can strike that one from the list.

When did you last fight Russians?

Got some film footage of those Mongols have you?

Those bloody Tatars. With their pillaging and their burning and their looting and raping. Let's get 'em, I say. Um, can anyone tell me where the Tatars are so I can show them what's what.

and the chinese navy is quite capable in her own backyard which it is suppose to do. not invade soveriegn countries in distance lands in the middle east. *hint hint*

No. You just want to invade sovereign nations across the Taiwan Strait. *nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more* Some of us are sophisticated enough to catch your meaning without the need for the dramatically raised eyebrows and aside spoken behind your hand.

chian has not intentions to rule the seas. only to protect or oil supply lines/maritine trade

Or even oil supplies that aren't yours, such as the Spratlys.

[edit on 3-8-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
[Look in the mirror.

You look in the mirror.

Besides, we Germans already defeated Russia during WWI. Russia's loss led to the fall of the Romanov dynasty. The new Russian government - the communist government - made a cease-fire with Germany.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by AtheiX]

And our citizen army (which didn't exist in '14) took on your army in its best, 'final' defensive position and defeated it.

You may have come close with the French but you didn't defeat us (even after you declared war on civilians / children)!

What was it 'a comtemptible little army'? - Kindermord Bei Ypren mean anything to you?

[edit on 4/8/05 by CTID56092]

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
A civil War is when one country fights itself, such as the Roundheads versus the Cavaliers or the secessionist Confederate States versus the United States. The Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are, would you credit it, two different countries.

korea is one country. but its split into two sides. one controlled by the DPRK and one by the ROK. these two are different parties of the same country. In 1950 these two countries wont split up as they are now. only after the korean war these two countries are two different distinct sides.

one example of this is Germany

China was searching for a way to punish the USSR.

punish the vietnamese or soviets?

Yet every report from Tibet quotes the immigrants as being HAN Chinese.

yes every western/american report

Defeated Japan all by yourselves, did you? The Communists and Nationalists spent so much time preparing to fight each other that they had no impact on World War Two, you can strike that one from the list.

japanese invasion of korea 1592. chinese and korean forces defeated japan. i wasn't refering to world war 2

When did you last fight Russians?

1969.

Got some film footage of those Mongols have you?

after the fall of the yuan dynasty. the ming dynasty which followed nearly completey wided them out

No. You just want to invade sovereign nations across the Taiwan Strait.

the civil war is not over. its still china

Or even oil supplies that aren't yours, Nansha Islands
[edit on 3-8-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]

you mean Nansha Islands ?

these islands are chinese

Originally posted by chinawhite

one example of this is Germany

No, again, two different nations.

Defeated Japan all by yourselves, did you? The Communists and Nationalists spent so much time preparing to fight each other that they had no impact on World War Two, you can strike that one from the list.

japanese invasion of korea 1592. chinese and korean forces defeated japan. i wasn't refering to world war 2

Tell your story walkin', son. The Turks besieged Vienna. Alexander built the world's biggest empire. No-one is shaking in their boots at the threat of the Macedonians.

When did you last fight Russians?

1969.

Defeated them did you?

Got some film footage of those Mongols have you?

after the fall of the yuan dynasty. the ming dynasty which followed nearly completey wided them out

That would be a "No", then.

No. You just want to invade sovereign nations across the Taiwan Strait.

the civil war is not over. its still china

Funny, the Korean War isn't officially over, but you don't hear Seoul telling the world that they're prepared to go in and finish it. The civil war has been over since 1949. Deal with it. The people of Taiwan have chosen the system of government they want, deal with that, too.

Or even oil supplies that aren't yours, Nansha Islands
[edit on 3-8-2005 by HowlrunnerIV]

you mean Nansha Islands ?

these islands are chinese

No, I mean Spratlys. Don't try and fudge things. I did not edit my post to read "Nansha". A weak effort, I'm going to be generous and assume you don't know how to work the quote mechanism correctly and thus left in my unrelated edit credit.

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
No, again, two different nations.

before the fall of the berlin wall. you think east and west germany were different countries

Tell your story walkin', son. The Turks besieged Vienna. Alexander built the world's biggest empire. No-one is shaking in their boots at the threat of the Macedonians.

huh. i dont get what your saying

Defeated them did you?

no stalemate

That would be a "No", then.

no for what?

Funny, the Korean War isn't officially over, but you don't hear Seoul telling the world that they're prepared to go in and finish it.

because seoul cant go in and finish it. but the north koreans make that threat daily

The civil war has been over since 1949. Deal with it. The people of Taiwan have chosen the system of government they want, deal with that, too.

that system was actually forced on them when the KMT retreated to taiwan.

No, I mean Spratlys. Don't try and fudge things. I did not edit my post to read "Nansha".

sorry bout that. i had a whole in with Nansha in it and posted it on Spratlys.

i was looking for where i put it.

and i wrote nansha because that was its orginal name for over 500years

Originally posted by American Mad Man
and BTW - the UK has either the 2nd or 3rd largest military budget in the world, behind only the USA and maybe Russia (I'm confident they are 2nd though)

www.oldamericancentury.org...

The UK has the fifth largest military budget.

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
No, again, two different nations.

before the fall of the berlin wall. you think east and west germany were different countries

Yes. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall that is exactly what they were. Two countries, two governments, two intelligence organisations, two militaries, two populations living under two different constitutions and two different sets of laws.

Defeating the Japanese 500 years ago does not make you the world's third best military now.

no stalemate

Then why did you list them in the group of enemies you have defeated?


No, you don't have film footage of the Mongol Hordes being defeated. So again, it has no relevance on the modern Chinese military. Unles you armour your men in snappy terracotta.

Funny, the Korean War isn't officially over, but you don't hear Seoul telling the world that they're prepared to go in and finish it.

because seoul cant go in and finish it. but the north koreans make that threat daily.

Yes they do, but that's what you get when a loony dwarf runs your country. And the RoKs are wary of the size of DPRK's army, but not its sophistication or training. The country is living on WFP handouts, how long do you think it would last in a conflict? And what do the DPRK fly? What does the RoKAF fly?

The civil war has been over since 1949. Deal with it. The people of Taiwan have chosen the system of government they want, deal with that, too.

that system was actually forced on them when the KMT retreated to taiwan.

In 1949. Since then there has been major political reform. As such the system that was "forced" on them no longer exists. Just as today's RoK has little resemblance to that of 30 years ago.

and i wrote nansha because that was its orginal name for over 500years

Prove it. Give me a link that can comprehensively prove that the name is Nansha and they're Chinese in the same way the South Koreans have proven the true name is Dokdo and the islands are Korean. Or the Brits have proven the Falklands are British. I want to see the historical facts. Wikipedia is not acceptable.

im going to finish it off here.

this is about the 3rd best military. but some how us two have veered off to discussing chinas past military history.

come back to the disscusing on the ranking

i had to reply your really annoying me

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
Yes. Before the fall of the Berlin Wall that is exactly what they were. Two countries, two governments, two intelligence organisations, two militaries, two populations living under two different constitutions and two different sets of laws.

they might have been different "countrys" but after the fall of the berlin wall why did they unify again.

Defeating the Japanese 500 years ago does not make you the world's third best military now.

i never said it did

Then why did you list them in the group of enemies you have defeated?

that wasn't the time we defeated the russians. you asked when was the last time we fought

No, you don't have film footage of the Mongol Hordes being defeated. So again, it has no relevance on the modern Chinese military. Unles you armour your men in snappy terracotta.

why would i need footage.

Yes they do, but that's what you get when a loony dwarf runs your country. And the RoKs are wary of the size of DPRK's army, but not its sophistication or training. The country is living on WFP handouts, how long do you think it would last in a conflict? And what do the DPRK fly? What does the RoKAF fly?

it lives on chinese hand-outs. the massive amount of artillery the DPRK has aimed at seoul could level in 24hours.

In 1949. Since then there has been major political reform. As such the system that was "forced" on them no longer exists. Just as today's RoK has little resemblance to that of 30 years ago.

taiwan was under a state of martial law until 1987. First presidential elections in 1996.

Prove it. Give me a link that can comprehensively prove that the name is Nansha and they're Chinese in the same way the South Koreans have proven the true name is Dokdo and the islands are Korean. Or the Brits have proven the Falklands are British. I want to see the historical facts. Wikipedia is not acceptable.

www.fmprc.gov.cn...
www.fmprc.gov.cn...