Chinese, Russian, Central Asian leaders show off military might

Most current officials are not well educated people,I don't think they have enough intellegence to carry out democracy.
----------
I agree!

Robespierre wrote:

<quoted text>
Ha, ha, ha...
So, not only you are anti-Russia, but you are anti-China too!!
Something wrong with their plumbing too I suppose?
Who is going to question China about democracy when it will be the number one superpower? You?

----------
The Chinese people themselves...hope so..
But honestly, they have been home-schooled by the PPC...

-what wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually most of our country isn't.. Most super powers and most people alive to date can figure out that starting a war with any of the 1st world countries is pretty stupid. As far as military force goes? The countries you specified are just now getting up to the capabilities of the us forces. Which yeah is a little bit of a leap and bounds type deal. Put it this way though. The USAF is just now going to start updating its aircrafts and such as china and russia and other countries are finally able to put up a extremely good fight. The army is changing all the time. But again look at iraq. Even if the US was invaded and the army and such got beaten and they won the war. There would be massive amounts of urban combat to still be fought. And the reason I brought up iraq is because they are killing US troops daily and doing it by the most simple and unconventional tactics. It doesnt matter how well you build your military up if it can n ot adapt to new combat situations(which I dont think china russia and the such could because even the US cant) that the country would lose.
#2 they wont use nukes because well that would bring about world outrage.
#3 And honestly I think if the US did get attacked we would probably see a all time high on enlistment rates and patriotism just like we did with 9/11.
so yeah big deal woohoo they finally got things that were availble 20+ years ago.

I'm afraid that Americans don't have the will to wage the kind of urban insurgency that Al-Quaeda in Iraq does if the US ever got taken over because most Americans are too used to high level living standards and stability.

Our enemies would not be so stupid as to use the restrictive rules of engagement that hindered us against the insurgents in Iraq either.

Most likely we'd just retaliate with hundreds of nukes if we ever get in a situation where our conventional army is defeated, then everyone dies.

Why_Me wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, China and Russia would make great allies seeing how they are both backwards, barbaric, and have the Mongul Horde in common. Try using your brain before you post that lying drivel on this board.

To be fair the Mongolians had the most advanced military in their time, both technological and organizational. They had the greatest landlocked Empire in history.

So you using the term Mongol Horde in context of an insult means you don't understand history.

Contributions wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm afraid that Americans don't have the will to wage the kind of urban insurgency that Al-Quaeda in Iraq does if the US ever got taken over because most Americans are too used to high level living standards and stability.
Our enemies would not be so stupid as to use the restrictive rules of engagement that hindered us against the insurgents in Iraq either.
Most likely we'd just retaliate with hundreds of nukes if we ever get in a situation where our conventional army is defeated, then everyone dies.

Excuse me, Contributions.

Americans would never wage the kind of insurgency that AQ does because Americans are not the animals that the AQ terrorists are.
Oh sure, we have the occasional psychopath. Who doesn't?
But Joe Sixpack American Citizen would not condone the systematic, deliberate targeting of innocent people that the animals called AQ condones, encourages, even demands.
I wish I could show you some of the things the AQ animals have done to innocent men, women, and even children that I have seen. It would turn your stomach. Anything that would do those things deliberately is not human in my opinion.
AQ is in the process of suffering its greatest strategic failure in Iraq right now because of their insane cruelty. Every Iraqi (even the Sunni extremists) have had it with the AQ cruelty and barbarity. That's why the AQ animals are on the run from the grass roots "Awakening" going on in Iraq.
Don't worry about the US being invaded. Ain't gonna happen.
Terrorism - be worried. It will happen again.
But you don't need to worry about driving out an invading, occupying force.
I promise.

Keith wrote:

<quoted text>
Excuse me, Contributions.
Americans would never wage the kind of insurgency that AQ does because Americans are not the animals that the AQ terrorists are.
Oh sure, we have the occasional psychopath. Who doesn't?
But Joe Sixpack American Citizen would not condone the systematic, deliberate targeting of innocent people that the animals called AQ condones, encourages, even demands.
I wish I could show you some of the things the AQ animals have done to innocent men, women, and even children that I have seen. It would turn your stomach. Anything that would do those things deliberately is not human in my opinion.
AQ is in the process of suffering its greatest strategic failure in Iraq right now because of their insane cruelty. Every Iraqi (even the Sunni extremists) have had it with the AQ cruelty and barbarity. That's why the AQ animals are on the run from the grass roots "Awakening" going on in Iraq.
Don't worry about the US being invaded. Ain't gonna happen.
Terrorism - be worried. It will happen again.
But you don't need to worry about driving out an invading, occupying force.
I promise.

You need to read what I was responding to. The poster said there would be alot of urban warfare after the theoretical takeover by invaders.(Insurgency)

Frankly the only way to run a successful insurgency against a vastly superior occupying force in a place like Iraq is to use the tactics Al-Quaeda has been using. You have to not only target military targets but civilian ones too in order to keep the country unstable because a stable Iraq means we won.

While killing civilians and bombing markets may not be morally right they are strategically sound if the Insurgents want to distablize the country and keep us tied down in Iraq for the near future and drain our resources.

Contributions,

Yes, I see your point.

But I would offer you this - AQ Iraq is not, and has not been running an insurgency. They have been running a terror campaign. Big difference.

You see, an "insurgency" has the intent of destabilizing, overthrowing, and eventually replacing a sitting government. The Sunni tribes and groups, whether they are the Former Regime Loyalists or Sunni Extremists, have a common goal of replacing the current government of Iraq with thier own version - and of course they need to drive out the Coalition forces to achieve those ends. Their tactics have been quite brutal. Against government, against Shia peoples, and against coalition forces. This is just as you describe.

The Sunni's constitute insurgent forces.

But AQ Iraq has no intention of replacing the sitting government. AQ in general has no sane plan to replace governments. Thier rhetoric, as it comes from the "top" includes fuzzy mentions of a new Caliphate. But there is no substance beneath their rhetoric in terms of practicalities of providing actual governance, infrastructure, social services, etc that the Sunni (and all true insurgencies) generate and publicize.

AQ does not deserve the title "insurgent forces". They are simply terrorists. They are no more "insurgents" than Black September was, than AUM Shirinkyo was(is), than the Baader-Meinhof Gang was, than any of the other wacked out, crazy terrorist organizations have been.

AQ is bigger by far that others in history due to its penchant for twisting a very popular and passionate religion and due to the capabilities provided by global communications and media. But it is not an insurgent force.

I know it's a subtle distinction, but it is a very important one.

Sorry to preach and you are correct about insurgencies.

tolivr wrote:

<quoted text>
I suppose we'll never know how China would have developed under Chang Kai-shek, but it could hardly have been worse than under Mao.

I agree Mao united the nation, but at what cost?

Well, that's the point, Chang Kai-shek was in power long enough for anyone to see that he was not enclined to put China through the social reforms it needed.
The Kuomingtang was in power a good 20 years, hampered by intestine dissent, damaged by several split and never controlling the country completely. Kuomingtang troops never dared to venture in some regions ruled by warlords.

Chang Kai-shek himself was a military and took a political role at the death of Sun Yatsen but never had his moral authority.
Chang Kai-shek relied too much on traditional Chinese blind obedience and confusianist philosophy (although he was himself christian I believe)to hold China together, without paying attention to the message he received from his subordonates about the urgent need of social reforms and modernism; worse, he fought against it!

As for the Kuomingtang, its treatment of the native Formosans when 3 millions of nationalists on the run landed on Taiwan island after the deroute against the communists was shocking, but one of the big mysteries in history. Kuomingtang troops apparently massacred many Formosans to take over their land. Freshly liberated from the Japanes, the Formosans didn't put a fight and were almost exterminated by the Kuomingtang.

Keith wrote:

Mr. Robespierre!
Surely you are joking! But it's not funny!
Even in China the Mao years are recognized as the greatest tradgedy in thier long history of tragedies.
Next you'll be defending the Kim regime in North Korea! Yup, Kim senior and junior sure did a great job in uniting the north! What great progress they have achieved! After all, they have created the Worker's Paradise!
My God, man! What would the real Robespierre think of your assessments?! I'm sure he would want to slap you for using his name!
tolivr has it right.

You have your opinion, I have mine; let's leave it at that.
I doubt very much that without going through the painful Mao years, China would be on the edge of becoming a superpower as it is now.
Mao was in power long enough to make terrible mistakes, maybe, but also to launch the country on the path it is today.
His reforms were clumsy at time, cruel at other time, but I don't think you would have a 1.3 billion educated nation now, if it was not for the discipline and rigour he instituted in China.

Chiang Kai Shek was a traditional soldier, a warlord, invested with the moral authority any leader inherited in China at the time, a modern emperor if you wish. But he had not concept of social reforms, progress, no vision for his country.
His entourage was very corrupt if we go by the accounts of US military who helped China during the war, like General Stillwell ("Vinegar Joe" if I am correct)and Chiang was actually completely dominated by his wife who was running China by proxy. This is all very well documented, if you care to read.

So, it maybe hard for you to accept it, but Mao was far more visionary for his country that Chiang would ever have been. I attribute Chiang's military defeat against the communists to him being stuborn and arrogant; some of his officers were so pi$$ed off by him and Mrs Chiang, they swapped side!

On the human right side of things, Chiang was no angel either, nor was Mrs Chiang!!

Robespirerre was a revolutionar, NOT a social worker!!

BRAVO "Robespierre"!!!

Robespierre wrote:

<quoted text>
You have your opinion, I have mine; let's leave it at that.
I doubt very much that without going through the painful Mao years, China would be on the edge of becoming a superpower as it is now.
Mao was in power long enough to make terrible mistakes, maybe, but also to launch the country on the path it is today.
His reforms were clumsy at time, cruel at other time, but I don't think you would have a 1.3 billion educated nation now, if it was not for the discipline and rigour he instituted in China.
Chiang Kai Shek was a traditional soldier, a warlord, invested with the moral authority any leader inherited in China at the time, a modern emperor if you wish. But he had not concept of social reforms, progress, no vision for his country.
His entourage was very corrupt if we go by the accounts of US military who helped China during the war, like General Stillwell ("Vinegar Joe" if I am correct)and Chiang was actually completely dominated by his wife who was running China by proxy. This is all very well documented, if you care to read.
So, it maybe hard for you to accept it, but Mao was far more visionary for his country that Chiang would ever have been. I attribute Chiang's military defeat against the communists to him being stuborn and arrogant; some of his officers were so pi$$ed off by him and Mrs Chiang, they swapped side!
On the human right side of things, Chiang was no angel either, nor was Mrs Chiang!!
Robespirerre was a revolutionar, NOT a social worker!!

As I said earler, we'll never know how China would have turned out if Mao had lose.

However, to define the deliberate deaths of 40 to 70 million Chinese as "terrible mistakes" and the man responsible for it as "visionary" is truly Orwellian. I suppose if you're of "the ends justifies the means" school, it's acceptable. However, by your standards, Stalin should be nominated by sainthood, though atheist and the murderer of over 20 million Russians, because he defeated Hitler.

Keith wrote:

Contributions,
Yes, I see your point.
But I would offer you this - AQ Iraq is not, and has not been running an insurgency. They have been running a terror campaign. Big difference.
You see, an "insurgency" has the intent of destabilizing, overthrowing, and eventually replacing a sitting government. The Sunni tribes and groups, whether they are the Former Regime Loyalists or Sunni Extremists, have a common goal of replacing the current government of Iraq with thier own version - and of course they need to drive out the Coalition forces to achieve those ends. Their tactics have been quite brutal. Against government, against Shia peoples, and against coalition forces. This is just as you describe.
The Sunni's constitute insurgent forces.
But AQ Iraq has no intention of replacing the sitting government. AQ in general has no sane plan to replace governments. Thier rhetoric, as it comes from the "top" includes fuzzy mentions of a new Caliphate. But there is no substance beneath their rhetoric in terms of practicalities of providing actual governance, infrastructure, social services, etc that the Sunni (and all true insurgencies) generate and publicize.
AQ does not deserve the title "insurgent forces". They are simply terrorists. They are no more "insurgents" than Black September was, than AUM Shirinkyo was(is), than the Baader-Meinhof Gang was, than any of the other wacked out, crazy terrorist organizations have been.
AQ is bigger by far that others in history due to its penchant for twisting a very popular and passionate religion and due to the capabilities provided by global communications and media. But it is not an insurgent force.
I know it's a subtle distinction, but it is a very important one.
Sorry to preach and you are correct about insurgencies.

There are no such distinctions. All terroristic acts are done for the sake of strategic goals, regardless of how brutal or immoral the acts are. Terrorists don't kill people and blow up places for the sake of killing people and blowing up places. They do so to achieve their strategic goals. In this case it is to force us to withdraw so they can implement their religious state in Iraq.

Russia and China are allies with Iran and Syria which is a counter balance to American and Zionist hegemony in the region.

Invisible Stranger wrote:

<quoted text>
You should be for these countries at some point will be running the world. The time on America being a superpower is winding down relatively quickly.

We can thank the Clintons for enabling China for becoming a super power.
They financed his Election and re-election and he repayed them with our Military projects from Sandia NM labs...Remember that?
When Clinton said he Loathed the Military, he meant it.

....And BTW, Hillary is STILL accepting money from the Chinese.

Contributions wrote:

<quoted text>
There are no such distinctions. All terroristic acts are done for the sake of strategic goals, regardless of how brutal or immoral the acts are. Terrorists don't kill people and blow up places for the sake of killing people and blowing up places. They do so to achieve their strategic goals. In this case it is to force us to withdraw so they can implement their religious state in Iraq.

Ok. I concede the point to you.

From a military perspective, "terrorism" is defined as, "The calculated use of violence or threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological."

And "insurgency" is defined as, "An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict."

Personally, I make a distinction between the two, in that insurgents often use terrorism to help achieve their goal of government replacement but not all terrorists are insurgents because there are groups constituted primarily of criminals and crazies - no agenda other than to coerce governmental acquiescence.

But even Field Manual 3-24, the new counterinsurgency manual, describes AQ activities as insurgency.

You win, sir.

Robespierre wrote:

<quoted text>
You have your opinion, I have mine; let's leave it at that.
I doubt very much that without going through the painful Mao years, China would be on the edge of becoming a superpower as it is now.
Mao was in power long enough to make terrible mistakes, maybe, but also to launch the country on the path it is today.
His reforms were clumsy at time, cruel at other time, but I don't think you would have a 1.3 billion educated nation now, if it was not for the discipline and rigour he instituted in China.
Chiang Kai Shek was a traditional soldier, a warlord, invested with the moral authority any leader inherited in China at the time, a modern emperor if you wish. But he had not concept of social reforms, progress, no vision for his country.
His entourage was very corrupt if we go by the accounts of US military who helped China during the war, like General Stillwell ("Vinegar Joe" if I am correct)and Chiang was actually completely dominated by his wife who was running China by proxy. This is all very well documented, if you care to read.
So, it maybe hard for you to accept it, but Mao was far more visionary for his country that Chiang would ever have been. I attribute Chiang's military defeat against the communists to him being stuborn and arrogant; some of his officers were so pi$$ed off by him and Mrs Chiang, they swapped side!
On the human right side of things, Chiang was no angel either, nor was Mrs Chiang!!
Robespirerre was a revolutionar, NOT a social worker!!

"La terreur n'est autre chose que la justice prompte, sévère, inflexible; elle est donc une émanation de la vertu; elle est moins un principe particulier, qu’une conséquence du principe général de la démocratie, appliqué aux plus pressants besoins de la patrie."

That's scary, Max. Very scary.

Eid

Playing, recreation, and eating on the day of Eid:

These are permissible as log as they stay within the acceptable bounds of Islam. Anas said: When the Prophet, sallaallahu `alayhe wa sallam, came to Madinah, they had two days for amusement. The Prophet, sallaallahu `alayhe wa sallam, has exchanged these days for two better days:the day of breaking the fast and the day of sacrifice.(Related by An-Nasa'e and Ibn Hibban)

Taking women and children to the prayer area:

The Prophet sallaallahu `alayhe wa sallam, used to take his wives and daugthers ot the two Eids. Umm Atiyah said: "We were ordered to go out with the single and menstruating women to the two Eids in order to wtiness the good and the supplications of the Muslims. The menstruating women though would stay away from the prayer area." (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim)

Going to the prayer area:

The Prophet, sallaallahu `alayhe wa sallam, used to go to the prayer area by walking. Jaber narrated: "On the days of Eid, the Prophet, sallaallahu `alayhe wa sallam, would go to the prayer area by one route and come back by another route." (Related by al-Bukhari)

Eating before going to the prayer area:

Since Eid al-Fitr is the day on which Muslims break their Ramadhan fast, it is preferable to eat before going to the Eid prayer. It is a Sunnah of the Prophet, sallaallahu `alayhe wa sallam, to eat an odd number of dates before going to pray Salat al-Eid. Anas reported: "The Prophet, sallaallahu `alayhe wa sallam, would not go out on the day of Eid al-Fitr without eating an odd number of dates."(Related by al-Bukhari.)

Preparation for Eid prayer:

It is preferred to make Ghusl (take a bath), wear one's best clothes and, for men, to put perfume before going to Salat al-Eid. Ibn Al-Qayyim said: "The Prophet, sallaallahu `alayhe wa sallam, used to wear his best clothes for the Eid prayers and eh had clothes that he reserved for the two Eids and Jumu'ah."

Making Takbeer:

Takbeer starts from the nght of Eid's eve until the Imam comes ot to start the prayer. Allah says (S2 A185): "You should complete the prescribed period and then you should glorify Allah (i.e., say Takbeer) for having guided you so that yo may be grateful to Him." The form of takbeer is related by `Umar and Ibn Mas`ud: "Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, La illaha illallah. Allahu Akbar. Allahu Akbar wa lillahil-hamd."

Congratulating each other:

It has been narrated that when the Prophet's companions met each other on the Eid day, they would say to each other: "May Allah accept from us and from you." (Related by Ahmad.)

"eat an odd number of dates"!
Now THAT'S a serious faith, and not useless mumbojumbo and superstition used by ruthless leaders to control their people!

funny how some of you say RUSSIA is islamic, it just shows what islamic education is really like backwards into the ston age. i only wish to get of this freaking planet and leave you stupid muslims to burn in hell,

serbia fight in many wars, it fight against the world powers ,usa,uk,germeny, many other countries yet serbia is still strong and going head to head with anybody that gets on its way. for such small country its crazy. you can thank the balkan wars for stoping muslims inveding lands in the middle east. and the jews got nukes now. i hope they use them all