Some Allies

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
hedo:

We have had the misfortune of the World knowing that our forces are stretched to the limit…

China has the ability to a) take an objective b) stabilize that objective AND c) occupy it without the need of unreliable “allies” and a stretched Military.

“The People’s Army” has the numbers to do it all themselves…

Mufasa[/quote]

Mufasa

I’d agree with GD on this point. They can’t project around the world…yet. SO from a conventional stanpoint they’re options are limited. I’m sure they could create a lot of havoc however. Russia on the otherhand is a lot closer and more capable.

The thing about the both China and Russia is fear. The Russian Army doesn’t have the same rules of engagement that the US is hampered by. Same with the PLA. Punitive and collective punishment, as they relate to military tactics, are practiced by both of these armies.
That’s what inspires fear among potential opponents.

42

Ummmmm…

GDollar:

By no means am I disagreeing…those are some important points…

But a lot can be accomplished with a million plus soldiers… a lot of tanks and artillery and a few well placed tactical nukes…

Mufasa

43

[quote]hedo wrote:
Other supposed allies…

The Europeans Win Some

February 14, 2007: Strategypage.com

European opposition to American efforts in Iraq is expressed in many little ways. For example, American transports flying badly wounded U.S. troops back to the United States, often ask European air controllers for a more direct flight path through European air space.

This is in order to get the wounded soldier or marine to the American hospital more quickly. This is particularly useful when the aircraft have been turned into a flying ECU (Emergency Care Unit), and doctors are actually treating the seriously wounded in flight.

The European air controllers rarely allow the direct flight. It would mean some more work for them, but saying “no” is another way to stick it to those bastards who removed Saddam Hussein from power, and continue to fight Iraqis who want to destroy democracy in Iraq.

When the American medical flight reaches American air space, air controllers are quick to give the transports the shortest possible route to its destination. Some of these medical flights are non-stop from Iraq to Texas, where there are several major military hospitals. [/quote]

I wish I could say I was surprised.

44

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
…

More importantly, everyone moans (usually justifiably) about the French and the Germans, but the Israelis are supposedly these steadfast allies, our greatest supporters in the world. Sure they are.[/quote]

This is a strawman position.

45

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
I’m sorry, but none of this is true. The key ingredient is logistics. China doesn’t really have a blue water navy, let alone an air transport fleet of any real worth. They may have a large army, but they couldn’t deploy any of it overseas, certainly not much farther than Taiwan. China does not have the ability to project power around the world, the military transport and supply lines needed simply don’t exist. The same goes for every single military in the world except that of America, and to a much smaller degree, Britain and France. That’s the list.

Plenty of countries have sizeable and sometimes even well-armed militaries, but their ability to project power far beyond their borders is severely limited.[/quote]

Bingo.
Moreover, China isn’t even seriously developing force projection capabilities at this point. Their military buildup and research has been almost entirely focused on nulifying American capabilities only in the immediate vicinity (within range of ground based air cover) of China, or more specifically, the Straights of Taiwan. They’ve fooled around with Russian aircraft carriers but haven’t made significant investments in developing that area beyond the modest capabilities of the Europeans. They barely have the amphibious capabilities to attack Taiwan, let alone land PLA troops in Botswana. Most significantly, they haven’t put the effort into establishing the network of international bases that the US and Britain have over years.

This gets into an entirely different topic, but China hasn’t shown an interest in displacing the US as the next global hegemon, and the steps to achieve such status would require decades of preparation. This is why political scientists believe that the next international system will be based on regional powers acting within relatively limited spheres.

46

[quote]burntfrenchfry wrote:
Cunnivore wrote:

What’s the problem again?..Let us know when they have a carrier.

The problem is that the only fighter the U.S. has that is clearly superior is the F-22 Raptor. However, many have claimed that since the Raptor was created to fight a now non-existent enemy (the Soviet Union), it is useless and should be cut back.

Orders for the F-22 went from 750, down to only 183 now. Cost per aircraft is around 330-360 million each (this represents the cost of the entire program, R&D, etc). In other words, its not cheap by any stretch.

Now what if China decides to take back Taiwan, or invade some other Asian country? Not much could stop them.

IF the U.S. got involved, the fact that China’s military is increasingly modern means that it would be close to a fair fight, which means hefty cost, both men and machines. And it seems like most of America doesn’t have the stomach for a fight like that.[/quote]

Are you serious, a fair fight? I think the article stated that Tiawan had a superior airforce than China and with the J-10 it MIGHT give the edge to mainland China. Does anyone here think for a second that China is a match in anyway to the US or ever will be? Russia might not feel to comfortable, but I doubt anyone in the Defense Dept. is to concerned.

And the reason China was at all pissed at N. Korea testing those missles was due to the fact it took a little steam from there shooting down the weather satilite. I’m sure they didn’t advise N. Korea that they were about to do that, so they were mighty pissed that NK got more press for their tests.
IMHO

47


Look, guys…

I agree with your observations…

But you’re making China’s Army sound like a bunch of guys running around with swords, bows and arrows and some antiquated Soviet hardware. (Oh…and Thermonuclear Warheads…)

Surely you can’t believe that the “PLA” is not a formidable force?

Mufasa

48

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Look, guys…

I agree with your observations…

But you’re making China’s Army sound like a bunch of guys running around with swords, bows and arrows and some antiquated Soviet hardware. (Oh…and Thermonuclear Warheads…)

Surely you can’t believe that the “PLA” is not a formidable force?

Mufasa[/quote]
I’m sure China doesn’t have 1/100 the nuclear weaponry we have and let’s face it, when that hand is dealt, it could possibly be over anyway. We told Pakistan we would bomb them back to the stone age. I don’t think we were to concerned with their nukes. If you can get nuke stats on the net, every country knows the deal. They sit around and think about it all the time. I don’t think there is any question who will deal that hand. We have them outnumbered by about 10,000.

49

402×562 107 KB

[quote]olderguy wrote:

We told Pakistan we would bomb them back to the stone age.
[/quote]

We could do that without wasting any nukes. Pakistan is more likely to piss off India or someone else nearby. Someone who hasn’t nuked anybody yet, and might do it just to prove they can. Then of course we have to worry about any of the “minor” nuclear powers losing (or selling) one of the big ones to a third party…

Ok, I think that’s far enough off the original topic for me.

I doubt China will start any chit with an American ally, as it would give us a great out to not pay them back all the money we owe them. Hey, actually, that’s not a bad idea…

50

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Ummmmm…

GDollar:

By no means am I disagreeing…those are some important points…

But a lot can be accomplished with a million plus soldiers… a lot of tanks and artillery and a few well placed tactical nukes…

Mufasa[/quote]

You still don’t understand the deal here. Those million plus soldiers can’t get anywhere. The ships, planes, and logistics network to be able to use them far from China’s borders simply don’t exist. No one in the Middle East is scared of a Chinese invasion, because it couldn’t happen.

51

[quote]etaco wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
I’m sorry, but none of this is true. The key ingredient is logistics. China doesn’t really have a blue water navy, let alone an air transport fleet of any real worth. They may have a large army, but they couldn’t deploy any of it overseas, certainly not much farther than Taiwan. China does not have the ability to project power around the world, the military transport and supply lines needed simply don’t exist. The same goes for every single military in the world except that of America, and to a much smaller degree, Britain and France. That’s the list.

Plenty of countries have sizeable and sometimes even well-armed militaries, but their ability to project power far beyond their borders is severely limited.

Bingo.
Moreover, China isn’t even seriously developing force projection capabilities at this point. Their military buildup and research has been almost entirely focused on nulifying American capabilities only in the immediate vicinity (within range of ground based air cover) of China, or more specifically, the Straights of Taiwan. They’ve fooled around with Russian aircraft carriers but haven’t made significant investments in developing that area beyond the modest capabilities of the Europeans. They barely have the amphibious capabilities to attack Taiwan, let alone land PLA troops in Botswana. Most significantly, they haven’t put the effort into establishing the network of international bases that the US and Britain have over years.

This gets into an entirely different topic, but China hasn’t shown an interest in displacing the US as the next global hegemon, and the steps to achieve such status would require decades of preparation. This is why political scientists believe that the next international system will be based on regional powers acting within relatively limited spheres.[/quote]

Great post. America should be worried about the war on Islamic extremism (the “GWOT”), and we should be spending most of our defense budget on the real threat, not on incredibly expensive high-tech weapons to fight a “peer competitor” (China) that doesn’t exist yet and may never.

That still doesn’t make Israel supplying high-tech arms to a rival any less galling.

52

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
Ummmmm…

GDollar:

By no means am I disagreeing…those are some important points…

But a lot can be accomplished with a million plus soldiers… a lot of tanks and artillery and a few well placed tactical nukes…

Mufasa

You still don’t understand the deal here. Those million plus soldiers can’t get anywhere. The ships, planes, and logistics network to be able to use them far from China’s borders simply don’t exist. No one in the Middle East is scared of a Chinese invasion, because it couldn’t happen.[/quote]

China’s miltary is built for 2 main things, maintaining internal control and possibly swallowing Taiwan.

53

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

But you’re making China’s Army sound like a bunch of guys running around with swords, bows and arrows and some antiquated Soviet hardware.[/quote]

The J-10 was reverse-engineered from a 40-something year old American design and even then they had to turn to the Russians to build an engine for the damn thing. Not exactly the pinnacle of modern warfare. The Chinese are the ones making it sound like they’re running around with antiquated Soviet hardware.

54

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:

That still doesn’t make Israel supplying high-tech arms to a rival any less galling.[/quote]

This is just as much a non-issue as the discovery of Iranian ordinance in Iraq.

Are you even listening to etaco?

  1. Calling China a rival is a stretch. Especially considering their international military incapability and the fact that Chinese business holds a good chunk of our foreign debt.
  2. So what if Israel sold arms, parts, or intel on the F-16 to China? We sold them the planes and the design is no longer in production for the U.S. military. Would you feel better if the China bought the planes direct from Lockheed or got it off Ebay?

And if you didn’t catch it, all the F-14s patrolling the skies over Iran were “Made in the U.S.A.”.

55

More allies at work…

From today’s WSJ. Wow I can’t believe those Iranians would not obey the law I mean they promised not to export those rifles and all…maybe we should file a complaint with the UN, that’ll teach them a lesson.

Iran’s Smoking Guns
Now Austrian sniper rifles show up in Iraq.

Friday, February 16, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST - Wall st. Journal.

Following the weekend intelligence disclosures about Iranian-supplied weapons killing GIs in Iraq, we predicted Tuesday So here is the state of our public discourse: American military officials present prima facie evidence of Iranian weapons implicated in killing 170 U.S. soldiers and wounding 600 more, and Washington’s main concern is not for the GIs but in refighting the last intelligence war.

Well, here’s an item that doesn’t seem to have been manufactured by Dick Cheney. According to a report in Britain’s Daily Telegraph, U.S. forces in Baghdad have recently discovered 100 high-powered sniper rifles made by Austrian gun-maker Steyr-Mannlicher. The .50-caliber Steyr can accurately fire an armor-piercing round at a range of 1,500 meters. The weapon is good against Humvees, helicopters and body armor.

In 2004, Iran purchased some 800 Steyrs, allegedly for use against drug traffickers. At the time, both U.S. and British officials urged the Austrian government to bar the $15 million sale, fearing the weapons would fall into enemy hands.

Former Austrian Chancellor Wolfang Sch?ssel thought otherwise, and let the deal go forward. To better grease the skids, then-Steyr-Mannlicher CEO Wolfgang F?rlinger made the case that the weapons were basically harmless and that Tehran had signed “end-user certificates” guaranteeing they would not be re-sold, according to the German newsweekly Der Spiegel.

Today, the Austrian government pleads that the sale had been “checked very thoroughly,” and that “what happened to the weapons . . . is the responsibility of the Iranians”–which prompts the question of why the Austrians would have bothered with the end-user certificates. The Bush Administration took a less cavalier view and in 2005 banned Steyr-Mannlicher from bidding for U.S. government contracts.

It remains to be confirmed whether the serial numbers on the Steyrs found in Iraq match those from the 2004 sale–if they do, it ought to prompt a top-to-bottom review of all Austrian military contracts. Meantime, is it too much to expect American journalists and Members of Congress to devote as much skepticism to Iran’s motives and behavior as they do to Mr. Bush’s?

56

[quote]hedo wrote:
… Meantime, is it too much to expect American journalists and Members of Congress to devote as much skepticism to Iran’s motives and behavior as they do to Mr. Bush’s?

[/quote]

But Keith Olbermann would rather paint the Iranians as harmless so he can call Bush a liar.

57

Zap/Hedo:

One of the nice things about this board is that you can get a pretty accurate gauge of the dems’ latest scheme. If you read some of our infamous dems/Anti-Americans on this board, their tactic appears to be to downplay the iranian threat.

You’ll see various posters like dirty harry/tme/orion/reckless saying things like, “iran won’t have the bomb for 10-15 years” or “iran isn’t really a threat.”

I have no idea how they reconcile this with the fact that the u.n. has announced a massive surge in centrifuge building. Add to that the weapons and operatives that are being found all over Iraq.

I suppose in order to downplay these findings, the dems/Anti-Americans have to deny the existence of this evidence.

I guess I shouldn’t be surprised as these are the same guys that say that saddam was “contained.”

I guarantee the iranian dictator is counting on the dems not to call his bluff.

We need Rudy.

JeffR

58

The wildcard with iran is Israel.

I’m thinking that the most likely scenario is that we will unleash the Israeli’s.

I think we’ll give them access to Iraqi airspace.

It would be hard to blame the Israeli’s for feeling threatend by the a-thing.

However, I guarantee the usual suspects jtf/orion etc will be screaming bloody murder that the a-thing was no real threat.

JeffR

59

[quote]hedo wrote:
More allies at work…

It remains to be confirmed whether the serial numbers on the Steyrs found in Iraq match those from the 2004 sale–if they do, it ought to prompt a top-to-bottom review of all Austrian military contracts. Meantime, is it too much to expect American journalists and Members of Congress to devote as much skepticism to Iran’s motives and behavior as they do to Mr. Bush’s? [/quote]

This is getting to be fucking retarded. You wouldn’t hold gun manufacturers responsible for violence committed with their guns in this country, right (much less the gov’t of said country)?

Would you feel so much better if they had found Barrett (via Afghanistan!) or Accuracy International or McMillan or any of a number of other private companies can sell .50 cal. rifles to anyone they please? At least then we wouldn’t have to worry about the Austrians as well.

Suddenly the Axis of Evil is any country that allowed a gun that was manufactured in their borders to find its way into Iraq?

60

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
hedo wrote:
… Meantime, is it too much to expect American journalists and Members of Congress to devote as much skepticism to Iran’s motives and behavior as they do to Mr. Bush’s?

But Keith Olbermann would rather paint the Iranians as harmless so he can call Bush a liar. [/quote]

keith olbermann is a despicable hack.

I wonder if the dems who are so threatened by Fox News will join in the condemnation of keith olbermann.

If they don’t, they are hypocrites. If our dem pals don’t come down hard on olbermann, then they are illustrating that they aren’t trully interested in balanced journalism. They really fear messages that don’t follow their party line.

I’ll be waiting.

JeffR

P.S. None of the usual, “I don’t watch keith olbermann, so I can’t comment” crap. You feel justified in commenting on Fox news without any real knowledge.