"Scared Chinese troops cry hysterically on the way ..." Topic

…to the border with India

"A bizarre war of words has broken out between mainland Chinese and Taiwanese media over a video of People's Liberation Army (PLA) recruits being sent to the Sino-India border, with some of them appearing to be in tears.

The video, published online last week by a local network in the eastern Chinese province of Anhui, showed the young soldiers inside a bus and singing a well-known Chinese military song "Green Flowers in the Army". Nearly all of them seemed emotional, with some crying…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Well, that IS interesting……

Xi and his generals are NOT going to like that.

Surely tears of joy at the prospect of serving the motherland?

Tally Ho!

If they know anything about how Communist Russia in WWII, their own Communist China in Korea, and Communist North Vietnam threw away the lives of their soldiers in human wave assaults when it suited the Partys' purposes, they would have plenty of reason to cry.

Tom

Some Good points … Communist regimes are known for putting the Party's "greater good" over the lives of their people and of their own troops. Of course the PRC has 20% of the World's population. They have the numbers to lose.

I think what you really meant Nick, was:

"Surely tears of joy at the prospect of serving AND dying for the motherland", right?

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

You might think that all American conscripts radiated happy smiles when they were sent to Vietnam to defend American democracy)))

This is interesting – Guandao was distributed to Chinese soldiers in the conflict zone.
I believe that they also need the support of archers or crossbowmen. And a few stone throwers)))

Cuprum2, You might think that all Russian conscripts radiated happy smiles when they were sent to Afghanistan to defend Russian Commie principles.

Of course not. But why are some here surprised by the upset look of the Chinese soldiers?
By the way, how are the soldiers of the Western coalition in Afghanistan smiling now, defending the principles of democracy in a virtually "medieval" country?))) The funny thing is that the enemy is still the same))) And the result is the same.

I can tell you that quite a number of soldiers really volunteered to fight in Afghanistan – sometimes they had no clue wnat was awaiting them there, but I've seen it myself while waiting at assembly point in Moscow.For some of the guys the decision just came after spending a week there…so there were plenty of volunteers back then, several guys of my university and even one from my class at school.
And frankly, there's a very slim chance that you can die on chinese-indian border, don't think it really should be making young men crying,

Yep, same for the Americans fighting in "the 'stan", back in the day, right after 9/11.

"Surely tears of joy at the prospect of serving AND dying for the motherland", right?

To die for the CCP !!!!

You might think that all American conscripts radiated happy smiles when they were sent to Vietnam to defend American democracy)))

Regardless the vast majority did their duty. And killed many Communists. Many drafted did not go to Vietnam. They went to Europe to defend West Germany, etc. from invasion from the USSR/WP. Or South Korea to defend against another Communist faction supported by larger Communist nations, i.e. the PRC and USSR.

Of course this is nothing new, we all know this. No matter what side you fall on.

how are the soldiers of the Western coalition in Afghanistan smiling now, defending the principles of democracy in a virtually "medieval" country?))) The funny thing is that the enemy is still the same))) And the result is the same.

Well pretty none cried, the US is an all volunteer military. After the storm caused by the draft during Vietnam. If there was no draft, the Anti-War movement would have been tiny. I'm very glad the Draft ended in '72-'73. Would rather lead troops and did that volunteered, for whatever reasons.

Another point, about 30,000 Canadians joined the US Military which AFAIK was illegal, during Vietnam. I think they also believed that stopping Communist Forces not matter who they were or where was a good idea. As if you are looking for a job to make a lot of $ USD, you won't find that in the military.

Of course the only reason the US went to A'stan was in response to the 9/11 attacks. With no draft, all volunteered to avenge the attack on our homeland. Otherwise we would of had minimal interest in that failed state.

Our support if the Muj while the USSR was there was more about payback for the USSR's support of the Communist VC and NVA. However, I believe we should have gone with the CIA's first plan to just let the USSR and Muj bleed each other out. But hindsight is 20/20.

I will freely admit the US made the mistake as many did of trying to bring them into the 20th Century. And stable the situation. But as we know the country really has no national identity. One of the reasons they continue to be a failed state. They are so strongly wedded to their tribal, ethnic, religious, warlord, mullah, etc., affiliations and beliefs, etc.

We found the same happening in Iraq. Which as far as I am concerned now. The second invasion was a mistake. For some of same reasons as A'stan.

Barin +1, plus good information and yes no one in the PRC Army should be crying on the Indian-Chinese Border.

There were no Soviet armed forces in Vietnam (apart from military advisers), and there were no Soviet armed forces in Korea (apart from the air cover). So who was the aggressor and who was the defender?)))

Revenge for 9/11? Didn't the traces of terrorists lead to Saudi Arabia?))) And isn't this revenge too long? Are you sure that this is exactly the reason for ten years of continuous war?)))

There thousand of USSR advisors in Vietnam. As well as advisors and pilots in the Korean War. The aggressor in both the wars were Communists supported by other Communists.

9/11 was carried by Arab terrorists and AQ contained members from all over the world. Just like ISIS today. We wanted to leave A'stan so as they could defended themselves and suppress terrorists. So another 9/11 wouldn't happen again.
We hoped to do the same in Iraq … But that didn't workout either.

Vietnam was a proxy war with one side being the US and some allies. Versed again the local Communists being supported by other Communists nations as I have already mentioned.

That is the way I see and don't think I'm going to change !!!

Cuprum, I'm sure the est. 15,000 Russians and 2,500 Americans that were killed in Afghanistan, none of them were smiling.

In April, Pro-GNA forces said Monday some "1,500 to 1,600 Russian mercenaries" had fled from the front lines to Bani Walid, a city 150km (93 miles) southeast of Tripoli. They said the previous day seven cargo planes had landed at the city's airport, bringing in munitions and weaponry and evacuating the fleeing fighters. Now they were smiling.

Advisors are not regular troops. Very big difference)))
The Americans in Korea and Vietnam (and many other places) fought as part of the American army, and not otherwise. Feel the difference))) This is not a proxy war – this is direct aggression.
The aggressor is, first of all, a foreigner who came to a foreign land with weapons in his hands and acts in the interests of his government))) Korean and Vietnamese communists were at home, and this was their land and their choice. By the way, why was the South Korean dictatorship better than the North Korean one?)))

I am not convincing you of something, I am just asking questions. How you answer yourself to them is none of my business.

Any war costs a lot of money. Who paid for Al Qaeda (and still does)? This is the main question)))

john snelling, the mercenary has no nationality. His homeland is money))) I am not interested in his fate.
By the way – hundreds of millions of people from the territory of the former USSR speak Russian, so how can you say that these are exactly Russian mercenaries? And why do you think that they have hired the Russian authorities? Did you manage to get acquainted with the contract?)))

Bin Laden was in A'stan, and scrambled over the border with help from his "friends" into Pakistan, where he apparently lived quite comfortably with a number of wives and/or concubines, until his sad, pathetic life was snuffed out. The Pakistani intelligence services and military were protecting him there.

That IS the reason our troops went into A'stan in small numbers originally, and then much larger numbers later.

You are correct though, Cuprum2, that the Saudis have NEVER been held properly to account for their complicity and actions relating to 9/11. Sadly, (instituting the 10 year politics rule here), Bush let the Saudis out of the country, before they could be held to account, and questioned about their involvement in the attacks. The US government is still covering that up to this day, which is criminal, in my humble opinion.

Don't you think that for the destruction of one, even a very large, terrorist, these are very, very redundant actions?))) And this terrorist has long been dead – and the war continues to this day. Perhaps there are other reasons? They have less emotion, but more cold calculation)))
There is an old Roman principle: Cui prodest? … It always works great)))

Advisors are not regular troops. Very big difference)))

Many US Advisors fought right a long side the ARVN, etc., especially in the early days of the war, e.g. MACV, etc. And of course so did US Special Forces with the tribal people in the outback. E.g. "'yards", Hmong, Nung, etc.

The Americans in Korea and Vietnam (and many other places) fought as part of the American army,

Not completely true.
I.e. many advisors trained and supported ARVN, SVAF, etc., but were not in the direct line of fire. But with no actual front lines, per se in many situations they were fired upon as well. US Advisors were not a special branch of the military they were standard US Military tasked with training the ARVN, etc. They were Infantrymen, Tankers, pilots, etc. I know many Vietnam Vets even today, in a number of organizations, etc.

Back in my youth, as an 2LT, my first Bde Cdr in the 101 was an Advisor with a ARVN Airborne unit during the war. And saw combat not surprisingly … I know the history well from many who were there. Plus all my studies, reading, etc.

We may have a different definition of "Advisor" between the USA and the USSR/Russia. We were Cold War(and still are to a point) adversaries. Those concepts, training, etc., are deeply ingrained in many of us.

Don't you think that for the destruction of one, even a very large, terrorist, these are very, very redundant actions?))) And this terrorist has long been dead – and the war continues to this day.

We have killed a lot terrorists and their supporters and will continue to. That is the nature of this type of unconventional warfare. AQ and ISIS and even the Taliban have taken heavy losses. They are not killing our people in our own streets and have not in a long time. Or very few of our troops in combat.

Killing UBL, Baghdadi, Suielmani, and many of their sub-leaders and followers has stopped this type of terrorism in the US, UK, France, etc. That is my measure of success. And if it takes killing more … so be it. It is still a war. I was an Infantry Officer, I understand this. Destroying the enemy and their supporters, in large numbers.

To destroy their leadership, support, etc., to teardown their will to fight, etc. Plus we can do much of this with drones, air assets, etc. The only thing that is keeping many of them alive is our concern for collateral damage.

They have less emotion, but more cold calculation

No it is ideology and strong corrupted religious beliefs. They believe if they kill us, i.e. the "Infidel", they will be rewarded in "Paradise", etc. They target non-combatants as policy and a tactic. We try to avoid collateral damage. If we you doubt that. You can be sure there would be many place where these terrorists/jihadis, etc., exist, that would look like the dark side of the Moon. With only using conventional munitions, no WMDs.

Again the only thing keeping many of them alive is our fear of collateral damage and our humanity. Which they use against us. We don't want to die, we want to live. Many of them don't see it that way. Again they no longer are killing us in our own streets or in combat. Part of that is because we killed their leaders, support and many of then in large numbers.

Actually, I believe Korea was a UN operation against open aggression from a communist state. One of the early attempts to fulfill the United Nations original charter.

Yes Korea was a UN operation with the US in "supreme" Command, per se. Even in '84 & '85 when serving on the DMZ, with a Mech Bn of the 2ID. We flew the UN flag on our Guard Posts and at our FOB-Warrior Base. To remind them it was still a UN mission.

Military advisers from the USSR performed the same function – training local military personnel. And they were also ordinary military personnel.

I said that the combat line units of the USSR army were not present in Korea and Vietnam and did not take part in hostilities, unlike the units of the US army.

Killing terrorists is important, but essentially ineffective. You need to destroy the cause that stimulates their appearance. And first of all, I repeat, the sources of their funding.
By the way, somewhere the USA destroys terrorists, but somewhere it supports them in its own interests. In Syria, the "rebels" are, for the most part, Islamic radicals … One hand does not know what the other is doing?

In Russia, the threat of terrorism is also known not by hearsay, and the fight against it is being conducted uncompromisingly. Here we are allies)))
And I personally think that the presence of NATO troops in Afghanistan is a blessing for Russia. Otherwise, all this infection will rapidly creep into Central Asia. Although it would be better if poppy fields were still destroyed with the same zeal as the Vietnamese jungle was once destroyed)))

When I talked about cold calculation, I meant not terrorists, but American politicians)))

The Korean War is truly a UN operation. But did the UN sanction the destruction of North Korea? And if China had not intervened, it would have happened undoubtedly.
By the way, you did not answer the question why the South Korean dictatorship was better than the North Korean one?)))

"By the way, why was the South Korean dictatorship better than the North Korean one?"

Because South Korea is now a vibrant democracy and North Korea is still an oppressive communist dictatorship.

It's simplistic to compare dictatorships and say one is better or worse than the other. All are bad. All end up abusing human rights. All should be replaced by something better.

The issue I have over South Korea is many people like to pretend it suddenly became a vibrant open democracy the moment the war ended. It took until 1987.

Even now, political corruption is a huge problem. South Korea still has a long way to go and remains a flawed democracy [no. 23 on the Democracy Index link , only slightly better than the USA [No. 25]. North Korea is in last place. Lists like this are inevitably imperfect but a useful gauge nonetheless.

'Whataboutism' is just a spin tactic. It exploits the weaknesses in the human mind.

Killing terrorists is important, but essentially ineffective. You need to destroy the cause that stimulates their appearance. And first of all, I repeat, the sources of their funding.

As a former Infantryman as long as you are killing the enemy. You are doing your job. If they replace their losses. We just kill them too. It is a simple equation. And using drones, CAS, missiles, etc. makes it just that much easier.

The US and others are tracking down were the terrorists/jihadis are getting their support, etc. Some is from Russia, BTW. To destroy the cause why they are terrorists/jihadis. We would have to go back to the Crusades. Then European colonialism in those regions, etc.

You can't stop any group that believes if they kill you because you are an Infidel and that is what it says in their holy books. Whether it says it in those books are not. Plus that is what many have been taught since their youth. You can't change that overnight. It is generational.

As well as many come from failed or failing states. They have nothing to lose. If going to Paradise by killing you is their best way out. Whether it is or not. Plus being blinded by religion.

We have all heard that by killing some of them or members of their families, etc., just makes new terrorists. We that may be true but as long as they are bent on killing us. We just have to keep killing more of them. Again the math is simple. At least to me …

By the way, somewhere the USA destroys terrorists, but somewhere it supports them in its own interests. In Syria, the "rebels" are, for the most part, Islamic radicals … One hand does not know what the other is doing?

Well with all the religious, tribal, ethnic, warlord, mullah, etc. affiliations in those regions. You need a roster with different numbered and colored jerseys. Like in football or soccer.

E.g. AQ in Syria and ISIS are deadly enemies. Even both being Sunni. Makes no difference. We can't support AQ or ISIS as they both want to kill us ! Short answer for me and most other combat arms, etc., types. Kill them both … Again, the equation is simple.

When I talked about cold calculation, I meant not terrorists, but American politicians)))

Good luck with that !

The Korean War is truly a UN operation. But did the UN sanction the destruction of North Korea? And if China had not intervened, it would have happened undoubtedly.

That is the way we fought wars then. After WWII, it worked. Destroy the enemy's infrastructure and ability to wage war, etc. Destroy his supplies and support is easier and quicker than trying to kill everyone of them.

If the PRC had not intervened the Koreas would have been unified by the non-Communist South. Was a so called Southern dictatorship better than what the Communist North Workers' Paradise had and has to offer. I think most would agree the South is much better off than the North.

And today the South has a one of the top economies in the region. Was it perfect ? No … Did it happen overnight … No. But it is much better than what the Communist North has, IMO. And many others.

As I have said many times before. Having served in the ROK with a forward deployed Mech Bn of the 2ID. 1984-'85 for 22 months with two tours on DMZ. I saw none of this oppression, etc. in the South as mentioned here.

South Korea still has a long way to go and remains a flawed democracy [no. 23 on the Democracy Index link , only slightly better than the USA [No. 25].

Well with those numbers … I guess being from the USA I don't know any better comrade.

Link does not work BTW …

link

It's a wikipedia link…missed a charater.

I am not saying that North Korea is better than South Korea. But I wonder what the result would be if South Korea had been under severe economic sanctions throughout its history, and North Korea was not? ;)

There is a solution to the problem with religious fanatics. The USSR once solved the problem of the Basmachi. You just need to give them education, a job and a decent standard of living))) It is unlikely that many will rush to a happy afterlife, when life in this world will look quite attractive)))

In Russia, about 10% of the population are peoples traditionally professing Islam, plus a huge number of guest workers from Central Asia. Naturally, there are Islamic extremists and their accomplices among them. But we are working on this problem))) And the results are quite good …

In my opinion, in Islamic countries, non-democratic regimes control the situation better than democratic ones. Where clan, tribal, and ethnic traditions are strong, democracy is just a screen, and often leads to a war of all against all. These societies are not yet ripe for democracy. Even for Eastern Europe, non-Muslim countries, this is relevant, albeit to a lesser extent. How many centuries did it take for the West to walk its path of democracy? And it is still far from perfect… So what do you want from people who still live in the Middle Ages?)))

Some great words Cuprum.The USSR had to find ways to accomodate and inspire its folks.As a polyglot nation it did its best.

You just need to give them education, a job and a decent standard of living)))

That has been talked about so often … it is a waste of time with religious fanatics, jihadis, etc. …

In my opinion, in Islamic countries, non-democratic regimes control the situation better than democratic ones. Where clan, tribal, and ethnic traditions are strong, democracy is just a screen, and often leads to a war of all against all.

Agreed … they are too busy killing each other to become any sort of democracy or have any kind of national identity.

These societies are not yet ripe for democracy.

Based on everything we have seen … this is very, very true. They aren't even in the 20th Century, they are no where near to be brought into the 21st.

How many centuries did it take for the West to walk its path of democracy? And it is still far from perfect…

Yes not perfect … but better than what we see in many places in the Mid East, Africa, and of course the prime examples, IMO, of living in the past – A'stan and Pakistan …

So what do you want from people who still live in the Middle Ages?)))

Not much, just as long as they kill each other off and not try kill us in our modern 21st Century nations. They can wantonly slaughter each other over age old religious, ethnic, tribal, etc., differences. Until they run out of bullets or bodies whichever comes first.

No matter what anyone from the US, Europe, etc., does or tries to do. These types will only move into the 20th Century let alone the 21st when they want to. Otherwise – You can't free a fish from water …

With already formed ideological jihadists, the problem can be solved only in one way – to destroy them. But it is more important to deprive them of the opportunity to recruit new members for their organization. At least – to significantly reduce this potential base. I repeat – in the USSR this, at one time, was successful and this phenomenon was completely eliminated.
After the abolition of the USSR in Central Asia, the reverse process began – the industry is now almost destroyed, the level of education has dramatically decreased, as well as the standard of living. As a result, Islamic extremism is rapidly gaining strength in these regions. People now have no other positive perspective, except for the Garden of Eden and the crowd of houris. And the ideologues of extremism can now easily sell their ideological product. In addition, if you are on the territory of them country with weapons without an invitation, you also offend their national feelings, which is natural.

With already formed ideological jihadists, the problem can be solved only in one way – to destroy them. But it is more important to deprive them of the opportunity to recruit new members for their organization.

Yep, "terminate with extreme prejudice". Dead jihads can't hurt you …

in the USSR this, at one time, was successful and this phenomenon was completely eliminated.
After the abolition of the USSR in Central Asia, the reverse process began – the industry is now almost destroyed, the level of education has dramatically decreased, as well as the standard of living. As a result, Islamic extremism is rapidly gaining strength in these regions.

Yes but that was in the former USSR, yes ?

How can the US, UK, etc., do that in moslem dominated countries/regions ? It has to get their gov't(s) involved. As we see that is very hard to do, as those gov't(s) are generally failed or failing states. It didn't work that way in Iraq or A'stan. As I said the US has tried that in a number of countries/regions. We called it "nation building". But again those gov'ts were not up to the task of moving into the 20th Century. And "nation building" is really not a usefully concept in many places. For a number of reasons.

But killing their leaders, reducing their ability to resupply, killing as many as possible as often as possible seems to have worked to a point. As again the govt's of those states/regions are not generally strong or effective. So nation building does not work. They don't want democracy, but they like doing things and living as they have, in many causes for centuries. Strongly influenced by their religious beliefs.

People now have no other positive perspective, except for the Garden of Eden and the crowd of houris. And the ideologues of extremism can now easily sell their ideological product. In addition, if you are on the territory of them country with weapons without an invitation, you also offend their national feelings, which is natural.

Yes that is well known. E.g. in Vietnam. For every Hard Core combatant in the VC/NLF. There was another who was more of a "nationalists". They didn't want outsider in the country for any reason. So became VC to get rid of the outsiders, first the French, then the US/SEATO, etc.

So with religious fanatics, jihadis, etc., you have a hard time doing anything with them. But killing them. Plus they do have some sort of support from the locals at least to a point. And of course you can't tell the jihadis from a goat herder unit they start shooting at you.