Any answers from defence experts from all countries?

[Anotherangle]

.......................................................................................The country which is going to be attacked knows that in both cases defeat is his for sure.
So what it should do according to experts here? Surrender is an ego issue!![/SIZE]

One of the best questions I have read on this forum. It is said that the victory is not only for power but also for the brave, agile, and intelligent.

(Although I am not an expert,) any way my two cents as a member:
1. I think the real problem was the courage and lack of creativity.
2. The generals are promoted not because they are brilliant like Napoleon, but because they please their seniors; they might be efficient but not thinkers and certainly they are not revolutionary especially in dictatorships.
3. There was some lack of nationalism and political will in the cases you mentioned.
4. . The lack of resources is an issue, but it was not that big issue in the first Iraq war: Iraq managed to jam US AWACS with French equipment just a few days before the war started; that opportunity could have been used for massive preemptive airstrike that could give Iraq some breathing space and might have prolonged the war and brought some respect to Iraqi commanders, but they were not very intelligent nor agile nor brave enough.

 

[asad71]

1. We live in times when USA is the modern mighty Rome. Imperial America sits at the head of WCC (Western Christian Civilization). It represents the interests of the international bankers / money barons to whom "money" is merchandise of trade.

2. Imperial America demands immediate obedience from all without protest. Only she has the rights to all resources of the planet and beyond. To assert her authority, to keep the machines of her society oiled, she needs to wage war now and then. She even has to manufacture an enemy at times. After the commies it is now the terrorists, meaning the Muslims.

3. Only China because of her huge military-industrial base, her economic power and the inner strength of her people are able to withstand Imperial America. DPRK enjoys her protection.

4. Pakistan has benefited from her alliance with China. More important, she has nukes which all know she will not hesitate to use when cornered.

5. National regimes have to show a semblance of sovereignty under these circumstances. That becomes more difficult if that nation has oil or some such valuable resource. Or it sits on a naturally strategic location. However, the common man everywhere display their rejection of Imperial America in degrees of upheaval. Imperial America will have all believe that these are al Qayeda International - which is just a disinfo.

 

[The SC]

American people in general are like all other people in the world, they want peace, tranquillity, stability in their lives and so on, with the exception that they are the most manipulated people of the world through their own media, and I am not separating the elite politicians or bankers or lawyers and the like (apart from some enlightened people, mostly scientists). Although education or should I say instruction in schools, colleges and Universities is widespread, ignorance is rampant, because of the influence and mind control by the media's constant bombardments to their subconscious minds (That is the part of the mind that once programmed will run your life in a certain direction without you noticing it and despite all conscious thoughts) that is how dangerous it is.
The Aim of the manipulators is to keep the American average people confused about most life matters if not words like competitiveness and mostly aggressive competition; for an ignorant person this means violent competition so the first thing he will think about is to grab a gun and kill the next one in his way to whatever his aim in life. And by the same logic America as a whole is manipulated in this way, and we can see this behaviour on the world stage.
Does this mean that America is governed by ignorant people (commonly named idiots, programmed subconsciously to be idiots)?
By following the logic above, I will let the members to find the obvious answer on their own.

 

[Raje amar]

Because the allies against the adversary cripple its economy by putting sanctions for many years. The adversary could not recover from it and looses its arms edge.

With the little resources you have youbdont go on war with the world powers. The wars were started by the big powers against the weak countris. If anybody tries it against any equally strong country....... well then its going to be another world war.

 

[layman]

@layman ji i am not expert like @he-man @desert warrior @scorpionx @SarthakGanguly they are seniors. (u too) i am just new active members here.
but i have short answers.
coz less powerful countris dont have more powerful army like power ful countris like china,india,usa,russia etc.

i only know 1 answer sorry.and @hinduguy @SpArKs can help u. and we will meet today after 12:30.

Why am I being summoned....

 

[Nexus]

Why am I being summoned....

what ? if u are layman than who is the solar ?

 

[layman]

what ? if u are layman than who is the solar ?

What.... Sorry lol I can't understand you.... Solar... No idea.

 

[Nexus]

What.... Sorry lol I can't understand you.... Solar... No idea.

@thesolar65

 

[OrionHunter]

If we were expert, we were never been to here in the first place.

I beg to differ!

 

[ejaz007]

@he-man, @desert warrior, @scorpionx @SarthakGanguly, @Nexus
This one of my personal query. I was thinking to write it because I have now got some knowledge relating to defense and after reading all those posts.

This is in reference to wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and now Syria. Of course these countries might have also done wrong in the first place and also I am not against any countries be these three or USA and allies. But my question is purely from the point of view of defense strategy involved.

In each of these wars the opposition (here USA and allies) gets time to built up their force, say some weeks (assemble weapons, ammunition, built plans etc.). The country which will be attacked knows this. The following are my queries.

1. Why the less powerful country does not attack first while the other begins preparation?

2. If it attacks first then the others will say, see he attacked us first while we were fishing, so we have to attack?

3. If it does not attack then also they will attack no matter what.

The country which is going to be attacked knows that in both cases defeat is his for sure.
So what it should do according to experts here? Surrender is an ego issue!!

USA does everything for her own interests and if attacking a country is beneficial for her then she shall not hesitate to do it. Remember US and some of the European countries economies depend on defense industry and they need orders to maintain their economy. After Iraq and Afghanistan their was a surge in international arms trade. So US and her allies benefited from the wars.

The answer to your question is rather simple. The world is governed by the simple rule might is right.

Now to other part and that is victory or defeat. The meaning of victory or defeat varies from person to person and everyone has his or her own parameters to describe victory or defeat.

Has the USA won in Iraq or Afghanistan? The US say they won, other party says they won. Who is going to decide who won. Rather interesting isn't it.

 

[thesolar65]

@thesolar65

thesolar65 and layman are complete two different identities residing thousand of kms. apart. I just mentioned as a layman in some of my post and you took me to be layman (a member). Henceforth just address me by my name not "layman". Other wise this type of confusion will crop up.

 

[layman]

thesolar65 and layman are complete two different identities residing thousand of kms. apart. I just mentioned as a layman in some of my post and you took me to be layman (a member). Henceforth just address me by my name not "layman". Other wise this type of confusion will crop up.

I guess it is jus premature thinking on his part...

 

[layman]

thesolar65 and layman are complete two different identities residing thousand of kms. apart. I just mentioned as a layman in some of my post and you took me to be layman (a member). Henceforth just address me by my name not "layman". Other wise this type of confusion will crop up.

Wondering why you have to mention layman in some of your posts... very funny...

 

[thesolar65]

Wondering why you have to mention layman in some of your posts... very funny...

No No you also got me wrong. I mentioned myself as a layman (who does not understand some topics where the discussion was going on), but he took it literally thinking the term layman as my identity. BTW @Nexus also must be scratching his head "Where I aimed my words and where it hit".... Any way glad to know that there is also a person with the name "Layman" in PDF exists. But you are not active as I see it. How come?

 

[Nexus]

No No you also got me wrong. I mentioned myself as a layman (who does not understand some topics where the discussion was going on), but he took it literally thinking the term layman as my identity. BTW @Nexus also must be scratching his head "Where I aimed my words and where it hit".... Any way glad to know that there is also a person with the name "Layman" in PDF exists. But you are not active as I see it. How come?

he is mod.