Live Conflict Israel-Palestine War|Regional Escalations

Relic

Contributor
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,312
Reactions
11 2,281
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
And how did that serve the people of Iraq? Saddam led his country to pointless wars he could never win, killing hundreds of thousands of his people and leaving behind a fractured state rife with terrorists and under the influence of foreign powers.

The only good leaders of Arab nations who managed to do something for their countries are the Gulf monarchs, which offered peace, security and economic development for their people. The UAE tops the list, but Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are also doing well. On the other side, you have equally oil rich countries like Iraq and Iran who are in shambles, with a pathetic economy and a population living in poverty.

Leaders should be judged by their results, not their rethoric. The leaders of UAE, Qatar and even Saudi Arabia delivered for their people, while the leaders of Iraq (Saddam included) and Iran were strong in rethoric and very poor in results.
Lol Hussein and his massive army, armed to the teeth with some of the best Soviet made equipment they could get, got absolutely trounced in a couple of days by the West.

Less than 200 Western KIA and less than 600 Western wounded, while Iraq's army was decimated and they were literally burying their combat aircraft in the sand so as not to have them destroyed before they could even fly.

Lots of controversy about the West going there in the first place. That aside, however, the military tactics used by Schwarzkopf and company were some of the absolute best / precise we've ever seen. An absolute masterclass in destroying a well armed, reasonably well trained military.
 

Scott Summers

Committed member
Messages
273
Reactions
2 435
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Lol Hussein and his massive army, armed to the teeth with some of the best Soviet made equipment they could get, got absolutely trounced in a couple of days by the West.

Less than 200 Western KIA and less than 600 Western wounded, while Iraq's army was decimated and they were literally burying their combat aircraft in the sand so as not to have them destroyed before they could even fly.

Lots of controversy about the West going there in the first place. That aside, however, the military tactics used by Schwarzkopf and company were some of the absolute best / precise we've ever seen. An absolute masterclass in destroying a well armed, reasonably well trained military.

34 against 1.
34 against 1.
34 againet 1.

Oh my God, what a good tactics from Schwarzkopf.

If today the whole NATO attacks and defeats Singapore, you gonna celebrate it the same way because of the 'SuPeRiOuR tAcTiCs' ?

'MaY tHe BeSt WiN!'

@Admins: this forum should have a age restriction.
 

contricusc

Well-known member
Messages
333
Reactions
1 485
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
34 againet 1.

Oh my God, what a good tactics from Schwarzkopf.

You do realize that Iraq was one of the most heavily armed countries in the world at the time, with one of the largest armies? The fact that is was defeated with so few losses is an exceptional achievement from a military point of view.

As for the 34 against 1, you know very well that the war effort was conducted almost only by the US, UK and France. The rest of the coalition did not contribute much in terms of military participation.

No matter how you look at it, the first Gulf War was a great military success, and before it happened, nobody believed that Saddam’s military could be defeated in such a way.
 

Scott Summers

Committed member
Messages
273
Reactions
2 435
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
You do realize that Iraq was one of the most heavily armed countries in the world at the time, with one of the largest armies? The fact that is was defeated with so few losses is an exceptional achievement from a military point of view.

As for the 34 against 1, you know very well that the war effort was conducted almost only by the US, UK and France. The rest of the coalition did not contribute much in terms of military participation.

No matter how you look at it, the first Gulf War was a great military success, and before it happened, nobody believed that Saddam’s military could be defeated in such a way.

Who is nobody?

34 against 1 or 3 against 1, is for 99% always a military succes.

Iraq is not the Ottoman Empire to defeat 10 Westerns kingdoms in 1 battle.

Turkey, Pakistan and Azerbaidzjan could create a coalition and defeat Georgia, wow what a succes. Dont expect me cheering.
 

Scott Summers

Committed member
Messages
273
Reactions
2 435
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
Recognition of Palestinian state is ‘reward to terrorists’ – Netanyahu

The Israeli leader has said he will not be pressured into accepting a separate nation for Palestinians.

 

Afif

Experienced member
Moderator
Bangladesh Correspondent
DefenceHub Diplomat
Bangladesh Moderator
Messages
3,950
Reactions
64 7,178
Nation of residence
Bangladesh
Nation of origin
Bangladesh
Lol Hussein and his massive army, armed to the teeth with some of the best Soviet made equipment they could get, got absolutely trounced in a couple of days by the West.

Less than 200 Western KIA and less than 600 Western wounded, while Iraq's army was decimated and they were literally burying their combat aircraft in the sand so as not to have them destroyed before they could even fly.

Lots of controversy about the West going there in the first place. That aside, however, the military tactics used by Schwarzkopf and company were some of the absolute best / precise we've ever seen. An absolute masterclass in destroying a well armed, reasonably well trained military.

Iraqi army was neither well trained nor well armed by any modern standard. Only thing they had was numbers.
 

contricusc

Well-known member
Messages
333
Reactions
1 485
Nation of residence
Panama
Nation of origin
Romania
Turkey, Pakistan and Azerbaidzjan could create a coalition and defeat Georgia, wow what a succes. Dont expect me cheering.

You’re making wrong equivalencies. Iraq was not Georgia. It was one of the most heavily armed countries in the world, with a military that had over one million in personnel (one of the largest in the world).

Defeating Iraq was theoretically harder than defeating Ukraine is today, and look how Russia is faring, and keep in mind that Ukraine is on Russia’s borders and doesn’t have the extended logistics that the allies had in Iraq.

You can look at it from any angle you like, defeating a country like Saddam’s Iraq on a different continent requires excellent military planning and execution.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,361
Reactions
5 17,887
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
I dont care about the Arab states. They can go to hell together with Israel.

The only Arab nation with a true leader, strong statehood, meritocratic system and tolerance for minorities was Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

The only dictator with balls who shot 37 Scud Rockets at Israel.

And those "superiour" Western nations needed to forge a large coalition of 34 countries to attack and invade Iraq.


Yes you are right.
 

Scott Summers

Committed member
Messages
273
Reactions
2 435
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey
You’re making wrong equivalencies. Iraq was not Georgia. It was one of the most heavily armed countries in the world, with a military that had over one million in personnel (one of the largest in the world).

Defeating Iraq was theoretically harder than defeating Ukraine is today, and look how Russia is faring, and keep in mind that Ukraine is on Russia’s borders and doesn’t have the extended logistics that the allies had in Iraq.

You can look at it from any angle you like, defeating a country like Saddam’s Iraq on a different continent requires excellent military planning and execution.

Please brother, before they faced the Western coalition they were already drained and exhausted from the 10-year during war with Iran. That big sophisticated and advanced army you talk about took all the damage of the world against Iran.

What was left for the Western coalition was a huge but divided and exhausted army and heavily wounded airforce with a lot of mutinity. Like fighting against the Ottoman armies right after their defeat in World War I.

The Gulfwar of 1991 wasnt exactly a brain-like operation, despite the great Hollywood movies about it (Three Kings was very good).
 

Relic

Contributor
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,312
Reactions
11 2,281
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
And they didnt fight,the Iraqi's just gave up,surrendered.
They were extremely cowardly during that confrontation. They folded like a cheap suit as soon as American and British air power smashed their vaunted air defense network and Western armor started to roll into the theater.

Again, I don't think the West had any real business going to Iraq, but it was an utterly embarrassing attempt at defense by the Arabs, especially when you compare it to the defence being put up by the poorest country in Europe vs Russia, with only drip fed Western Support.
 

Gary

Experienced member
Messages
7,670
Reactions
21 12,211
Nation of residence
Indonesia
Nation of origin
Indonesia
Boycott actually works


Still, Frericks notes that the most successful boycotts are those that make consumers feel like they’re having an impact, which can add to the boycotts’ longevity. Those hoping for corporations to take a stance have seen developments recently. In December, the sportswear company Puma announced it would not be renewing its sponsorship of the Israeli Football Association. While Puma told TIME that the decision was unrelated to the Gaza war, the move coincided with renewed consumer backlash over its sponsorship. The company has been the target of a global boycott campaign since 2018. In January, the ice cream maker Ben & Jerry’s called for a “permanent and immediate ceasefire” in Gaza, a move that came after the brand previously tried to stop sales in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, leading to a clash with its former owner, Unilever. (The company has stated that its stance was not part of the BDS movement.)



Iraqi army was neither well trained nor well armed by any modern standard. Only thing they had was numbers.
IMO, one of the biggest misconceptions of our time. I know a Desert Storm veteran in Pakistan Defense Forum (PDF), Gambit, who didn't share this simplistic view of yours

Iraq on the eve of 1990, is the best army in the entire Middle East, arguably better than Egypt in the Arab world and if I'm going to widen the scope, Turkiye in the Middle East (I'm open for debate in other section abt this).

While technology has its role in the defeat of Iraq (no question about that), the reason whay the war is such a catastrophe, has to do with Saddam's interference in how the Iraqi air force operates. The no-show of the Iraqi air force and the decimation of the Republican guard is Saddam's own choosing.

I suggest people actually do their own research on the ORBAT of Iraq in the 1991 Gulf war.



Screenshot 2024-02-17 005553.png


Screenshot 2024-02-17 005845.png



If people think that what the Americans can do to Iraq automagically puts their country in a position to do the same, I fear the worst for them. If Iraq is dead, then your country will be dead(er) in such scenario.
 
Last edited:

Relic

Contributor
Canada Correspondent
Messages
1,312
Reactions
11 2,281
Nation of residence
Canada
Nation of origin
Canada
Good, there are lots of artillery, tanks snd IFVs lost by the Russians in a single day, with very few Ukrainian losses.
It has been an enormous week of loses for the Russians as they push into Avdiivka, which is what you would expect trying to conquer well fortified positions.

That said, Ukraine is losing reasonably high number of quality Western equipment as well. They've lost (some are likely repairable) 7 documented M777s in the last week. They've also lost at least 4 (possibly as many as 6) Western donated SPGs.

Obviously we know that Ukraine needs hundreds of thousands of artillery shells in short order, but they also need more Western artillery to keep up with expected attrition.

Namely, they need the following.

200 Additional M198 towed howitzers from USA 🇺🇸: There are roughly 400 of these units in U.S. storage as they were replaced by the M777s. They are still accurate, however, with quality range. They would serve Ukraine as a better version of the Soviet made D-30.

50 Additional M777 towed howitzers from USA 🇺🇸: Ukraine has had approximately 85 (roughly half) of the M777s donated to them damaged / destroyed in the war. A significant number of those damaged are being repaired and returned to battlefield. That said, there are also a significant number (at least 40-50) that have been completely destroyed. An additional 50'ish from U.S. stockpiles would replenish that destroyed total. BAE is restarting production on the M777 immediately, therefore, the U.S. would be able to backfill as required, with some lag time.

30-40 M109 self-propelled howitzers from the EU 🇪🇺: Ukraine has received more than 150 M109s, but like the M777s, expected attrition is taking place. Europe still has a reasonable quantity of M109s in storage, and there others in Europe that belong to private arms dealers. These could be bought up and sent to Ukraine in relatively short order.

62 Additional CAESAR self-propelled howitzers from France 🇫🇷: The French have noted that they will produce 74 CAESARS this year and they are looking for buyers to send them to Ukraine. Ukraine has purchased the first 6 units and France has purchased the next 6 units for Ukraine. Other donors have an opportunity to step up and buy the remaining 62 units that will be produced in 2024 (roughly 6 per month).

72 Additional Bohdana self-propelled howitzers made in Ukraine 🇺🇦: The Ukrainians now vlaim that they are able to produce 6 units per month of their new, domestic, howitzer. If that's indeed the case, they need to ensure that production remains constant for the foreseeable future. Replacing Soviet artillery with these new weapons would go a long way towards helping Ukraine achieve an edge in quality, accuracy and range of howitizers being used across the front.

In the short term, when combined with units that have already been ordered and are now being delivered, the above would ensure that Ukraine has plenty of quality artillery throughout 2024.
 

TR_123456

Experienced member
Staff member
Administrator
Messages
4,752
Reactions
11,653
Nation of residence
Nethelands
Nation of origin
Turkey
They were extremely cowardly during that confrontation. They folded like a cheap suit as soon as American and British air power smashed their vaunted air defense network and Western armor started to roll into the theater.

Again, I don't think the West had any real business going to Iraq, but it was an utterly embarrassing attempt at defense by the Arabs, especially when you compare it to the defence being put up by the poorest country in Europe vs Russia, with only drip fed Western Support.
It had to do with sectarianism,Saddam Hussein was suni and most of the population is shia.
Most Arab countries dont have this belonging to the country,they rather belong to their clan or sect.
There is no fighting for the flag or the leader.
Take a look at Syria,most ''refugees'' are men,out of at least 7 million.
lets say 10% of them would have stayed to fight,Assad would have been finished.
Also the GCC countries,you think they would fight for their Kings,no only for benefits,in this case money but this is understandable because they are treated like shit by their superiors in the Armed Forces,nobody would want to fight when treated like that.
Yemen was a disaster for the Saudis because of the lack of leadership and willingness.
 

Ryder

Experienced member
Messages
10,361
Reactions
5 17,887
Nation of residence
Australia
Nation of origin
Turkey
It had to do with sectarianism,Saddam Hussein was suni and most of the population is shia.
Most Arab countries dont have this belonging to the country,they rather belong to their clan or sect.
There is no fighting for the flag or the leader.
Take a look at Syria,most ''refugees'' are men,out of at least 7 million.
lets say 10% of them would have stayed to fight,Assad would have been finished.
Also the GCC countries,you think they would fight for their Kings,no only for benefits,in this case money but this is understandable because they are treated like shit by their superiors in the Armed Forces,nobody would want to fight when treated like that.
Yemen was a disaster for the Saudis because of the lack of leadership and willingness.

Not to mention the Arab world is also not monolithic from Baghdad to Fez.

Levant Arabs, Egyptian Arabs, North African Arabs, Iraqi Arabs and Gulf Arabs are all different from each other despite sharing the same language.

Dialects also cultural even appearance. Look at Syrians and Saudis in particular. Not to mention Egypt is one of the most populous of all Arab countries. Egypt was once the centre of Arab culture from religion, cinema and music.
 

Bogeyman 

Experienced member
Professional
Messages
8,135
Reactions
58 28,801
Website
twitter.com
Nation of residence
Turkey
Nation of origin
Turkey

Feb. 17 Summary of Red Sea activities TAMPA, Fla. –

Between the hours of 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Sanaa time), Feb. 17, CENTCOM successfully conducted five self-defense strikes against three mobile anti-ship cruise missiles, one unmanned underwater vessel (UUV), and one unmanned surface vessel (USV) in Iranian-backed Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen. This is the first observed Houthi employment of a UUV since attacks began in Oct. 23. CENTCOM identified the anti-ship cruise missiles, unmanned underwater vessel, and the unmanned surface vessel in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen and determined they presented an imminent threat to U.S. Navy ships and merchant vessels in the region. These actions will protect freedom of navigation and make international waters safer and more secure for U.S. Navy and merchant vessels.
 

Follow us on social media

Top Bottom