Comments by "remliqa" (@remliqa) on "Matsimus" channel.

@harrywillisdick8660 "past 100years China has not invaded anyone's land " India and Vietnam would want a word with you. I would put Korea, but that in that case The North Koreans asked for their assistance.
9
@3dQQ The problems with asymmetric war is the loss is also asymmetric as aptly demonstrated in Vietnam and in Indonesia's own war for independence. They only succeeded because the country the fought against succumbs to both internal and external pressure to end the war. I don't think that same scenario could be applied to the Communist Chinese as not only are they resistant to that type of political pressure, but they have the industrial and manpower (they have over 5 time Indonesia's population) to sustain prolonged warfare.
3
Reminds of Dawn of War 2 METAL BAWKES!!!!
3
@1652HCU " Iraqi T62 killed X2 Abrams in ODS." Where do you get that info? As far as I know zero Abram wee destroyed by Iraqi forces during Desert Storm. Out of the two Abram that weren't destroyed by friendly fire , both were destroyed by the US forces themselves after they were damaged and irretrievable behind enemy lines.
3
@opiniawam9205 Again, Indonesia industrial and population cannot match China's own with China producing much higher quality local armament (J10 fighters eg) . Being an archipelago will also work against Indonesia as owning both the seas and air( It is impossible for Indonesia to stop China form gaining both sea and air supremacy) means China can isolate any island and destroy any industrial capability that Indonesia have, thus thus severely disrupting the logistic for the defenders. I think the only bias here is coming form blind patriotic Indonesian who fail to see that there is no way Indonesia can win against China is one-on -one war. I mean I am proud of my country too but even I know my country can' t defeat any of our "poorer" neighbour or even a richer but smaller neighbour (to be fair, that neighbour had arguably the most powerful military in the region and can even defeat Thailand and Indonesia on a straight fight) in term of military might.
2
@opiniawam9205 The point us to destroy most of your enemy forces or severely softening them before putting boots on the ground. I some circumstance (it happened during the 1990 Gulf War, Iraqi soldiers surrendering to UAVs) even those can force as surrender without landing troops .
1
@adinnaikhwani6255 While would China cares that countries like Vietnam ( whom China fought in the Sino-Vietnamese of 1979) and Indonesia are willing to sacrifice ton of their people and infrastructure just to lose very engagement? You just proved my point the war will be more costly to Indonesia than China. China would look at that and think " Our job is now easier that they are willing to kill themselves for us".
1
@adinnaikhwani6255 Did you forget that Vietnam had to withdraw form all those countries (much like the American did) and Indonesia soundly lost their Konfrontasi (which was a low level attempt at guerrilla warfare) against the new founded (at the time ) Malaysian Federation . The only successful military campaign by Indonesia was the attack on East Timor (highly unimpressive). China on the other hand are still holding the territory they seize form India (Aksai Chin and even part of Kashmir) Xinjiang and even Tibet (despite the international pressure) . They have shown that they are capable and willing to hold to captured territories despite the cost.
1
@adinnaikhwani6255 Of course everyone know that a war with China is extremely unlikely right now because of how intricate the global economy is, but this conversation is based on the assumption that a one-on-one war with China is inevitable and thus we are operating on that assumption. Again, China have successfully invaded Vietnam in 1979 so no, China have shown that it can seize Vietnam if it wanted to. Especially with it current orbat (the gap between China and Vietnam is far grater now than in 1979. As for Indonesia, there is no way they can beat China on conventional front so guerrilla and insurgency ins the only option. Judging by China's own history, it is doubtful that opting for such a costly strategy (for Indonesia) would yield much for them.
1
@adinnaikhwani6255 "withdraw"?? That's because UN interfere, and indonesia "soundly lost" is also incorrect, why?? Because that's in malaysia or more specificly in commonwealth perspective, not in indonesia perspective. Come on dude, 1 ," Yes, Vietnam (like the US and Dutch) fell to political pressure. As shown, China is far more resistant to them. As for the Konfrontasi, Indonesia's objective was to dismantle Malaysia ("ganyang Malaysia") .The fact that Indonesia (after Suharto seized power from Soekarno ) later acknowledged Malaysia is a legitimate country and Malaysia is still thriving (one of the best country in the region) as a country today, it is safe to say that Konfontasi failed miserably for the Indonesian (specifically for the Soekarno's regime). This despite that Malaysia and her allies (in the The Commonwealth ) fought purely a defensive war and did not launch attack towards Indonesia.
1
@adinnaikhwani6255 ""tiber, xinjiang, etc" maybe being told by western "a captured territory by china", but on the other hand, it's history are in fact "BELONG TO CHINA"" Tibet was at best a tributary state(much like Korea, Vietnam, Malacca and even Japan) and did not "belong to China" in any real historical sense. As for Xinjiang (which was seized in the Qing dynasty) , why not asked the powple thare how do they feel about China ? "You forgot about japan invasion in nanking and japan create a puppet state of china (i forgot, just check in google), hmm??" How the heck is that even relevant to the conversation?
1
@adinnaikhwani6255 "And speaking "highly unimpressive", look at america war in middle east, or afghanistan, "highly unimpressive" despite being NO.1 powerful country with high-tech advance system." Considering that Indonesia cannot even launch an attack against Afghanistan let alone won against Taliban (at the peak of Taliban's power in 2001 ) even if they can get boot on the ground, what America did was impressive. Again, you are letting patriotism blindly colouring your bias.
1
@opiniawam9205 "Let me ask you, does China have unlimited money and resources for both supporting its troops thousand miles away from home and its population at home? " China may not have unlimited money and industrial capability, but they sure have a lot more than Indonesia, thus allowing them to sustain greater loss than Indonesia.As for China limited ability to conduct expeditionary war, their current orbat (even after counting logistics) is still enough to reach and defeat Indonesia in one-on -one war. "Even USA needs support from Saudi money and other NATO country to wage its war in Iraq." Um no. US did'n have support from Saudi (who didn't sponsor the Afghanistan invasion despite internet conspiracy theories) money nor do they "need" the NATO allies (though they prefer to have them so to not appear unilateral) in the Invasion of Afghanistan. " then I suggest you to switch off your online game and stop being armchair general and start calculate all of them and comeback later and talk to me.' Calm your temper. Did you not notice that the conversation was all about armchair warfare in a hypothetical one -on -one war (nobody who started the thread even mentioned other countries like Japan so there is no reason to involve other beside Indonesia and China) before diving in? I suggest you calm your temper, put your patriotism into a box and then come to back to talk to me about this hypocritical scenario instead of trowing childish temper tantrum. Again, if we wan to go realistic approach , then a war with Indonesia on a "one-one one "affair is next to impossible( as I said before) on as not only do China have little to no reason to go to war with Indonesia (unlike say Vietnam or The Philippines) they are so many factors (international economy, international relations etc) that will put a halt to such thing. Even if a war would happen it would take a long time for condition to deteriorate to point war would be inevitable(again, extremely unlikely) .
1
@opiniawam9205 " So according to you, it doesn`t matter how much money China has, as long as it has more than Indonesia it will totally win against Indonesia in arms wrestling??" Can't you quite the part where I ever said that? I dare you. Strawman never won argument, it just make you seem more pathetic in any conversation. " There is no such thing as one on one war with China, cause any war will serve an interest of one or many countries." Did you not even bother reading my post before madly typing away? Kindly read them before making a fool out of yourself.. '"Kid, didn`t I tell you to switch off your online games?" I do find it hilarious of you calling me a kid (you probably too young to remember living under Soeharto) when I changed diaper of babies who are now older than you.
1
@opiniawam9205 " you said China does not have unlimited money, yet by referring to logistic you know already how much money Chinese government would put into the bill for invading Indonesia, China doesnt need money, weapons, manpower and logistic to secure their homeland, all what they have in their possession will be put to invade Indonesia." Did any neuron in your had even fired before you type such nonsense ? Somehow it doesn't' occur to you that if China was forced to fight an inevitable war with Indonesia, it will do everything in its power to secure a victory (or at least favourable outcome)? Of course China will pour all the resource it have and needed to archive such victory. No country have unlimited resource but China definitely have far more resource than Indonesia do to throw into a war. LOL, I am right about you too young to even remember anything about Soeharto( if you even born when he was around?), and you have the galls to call me kid. I guess Indonesian these day don't know how to respect their elders.Hilarious.
1
@adinnaikhwani6255 Did you even read your own source? China defeated the Vietnamese in war and successfully calls the bluff from the Soviet (prior to the war the Soviets threaten to intervene if China attacks Vietnam) and strengthen it political potion. It wasn't complete success because of its failed to dissuade Vietnam intervention (hence why Vietnam also claimed victory despite losing the military engagement) but the end result was still acceptable to China. Today the gap of power between China and Indonesia and Vietnam (combined) is greater than it was in 1979. The likely hod of China forcing a favourable outcome for herself is greater now with their current capability.
1
@adinnaikhwani6255 "and "GAP" itself is no different, why is some american veteran still want to train together with vietnam and indonesia even though "the gap is wide" if you compare it with china?" The US also train with other SEA nations like Malaysia, Thailand, The Philippines Singapore and even Brunei. The US (like every county on Earth) would want to train with everybody ( if it is possible )to further strengthen the capability of their military. If China , Russia, India or any other country offered to train with any other country (including ASEAN and the US) do you really think they will refuse? Furthermore joint military training foster cooperation between countries and sends a political message (it obvious to whom this is intended). "If i am BIAS, i would say that, "WHAT FOR USA TRAIN WITH WEAK NATION LIKE VIETNAM? THEY GOT THE BEST WEAPONRY IN THE WORLD, HIGH-TECH AND HUGE PILE OF BIG TOY, IN FACT, AMERICA DON'T NEED INDONESIA OR VIETNAM, THEY CAN USE HAWAII OR PANAMA FOR THEIR JUNGLE TRAINING, THEY ARE FRIEND OF BRAZIL, WHAT FOR TO GO AS FAR AS VIETNAM, INDONESIA, THAILAND?" This is BIAS....." That isn't bias ..That is just asinine, insane , incoherent and irrelevant ramblings.
1
@adinnaikhwani6255 ""they will do whatever to achieves their victory in war"?? Like what?? Nothing, dude" I wouldn't call completely crushing the Indonesian military in combat as "nothing". Again, I suggest you read further into the history of the Sino-Vietnam war. The bluff was to the Soviets( who threatened to intervene should China launches any attack on Vietnam). Tell me again, at which part of the war the Soviets entered the war? BTW, what with troll kids like you posting multiple worthless post instead of you know, typing them all ins one long post?
1
@opiniawam9205 " So now China is forced to fight inevitable one on one war scenario thousand miles away from home, " Yes, the OP opened with that scenario so we going with that. "yet ignore the adversaries next door " You are the only one here who think they are ignoring the so so called"adversaries next door".. Considering the OP never mentioned any other parties in the war scenario. It is safe to assume that the war is only between China and Indonesia with both countries not having to deal with any of the other parties. " that he is actually an elder with kid`s brain? Ok kid, go back to your backyard! Play hide and seek or something" And you resorting to Ad hominem , the sure way to know surest way to know the debate is won is when your opponent chose to throw pointless insult instead of rebutting any points. Nice of you to concede defeat, kid. Lest be honest with yourself and leave the blind patriotism for second and answer this question : In a war between China and Indonesia (and only those two are involved) which of the them would come on top? I think you already knows the answer to such question.
1
@adinnaikhwani6255 ""type all of them in one long post", i bet you won't read it ALL " You already lost lost that bet .Unless you are blind, you would notice that I have been corresponding to post by another Indonesian in this thread who posted longer message than you. What I likely won't read is multi post because YouTube shitty comment notification do not notify you to multiple replies .
1
@opiniawam9205 Why not refute my point instead on showing your lack of character by throwing insults ?You are re making Indonesian youth like you look bad.
1
@adinnaikhwani6255 Funny that YouTube notification only notifies me of this comment *NOW*.. I guess that why you multi post instead of putting them all in on concise post. You wanted to abuse the notification flaw and hopes the comment got buried and instead of it getting dismantled by me. That is pathetic and cowardly way to claim "winning" an internet argument. . But I guess I should have expected that considering how you have been behaving until now. "US IS ALSO TRAINING WITH MALAYSIA, BRUNEI"?? THAT'S FROM "ASEAN-US" JOIN TRAINING," Wrong again. The US have held individual joint training with ASEAN countries like Singapore , Malaysia and the Philippines. Again you are factually wrong in saying that only those three countries you mentioned hold individual joint training with the US. " As far as i know, only with 2-3 countries, THAILAND, VIETNAM, INDONESIA, this is also a FACT." Apparently you just proved how ignorant (or how little you know) you are again as none of what you said are facts. BTW, did your keyboard got stuck because typing in ALLCAPS doesn't make you any less right than you are.
1
@gg-ih1dh Adinna Ikhwani wasn't really basing his opinion on any realistic parameters(including the ones he proposed himself ) while Opini Awam seem to be pissed that we are engaging in such pedantic war speculation based on such flimsy parameters while ignoring those parameter were suggested by him and his comrade in the fist place. This are just the interpretation of their coherent response (excluding the rambling and insults), of course. Of course if we wanted to go for a more realistic approach we have to factor in the the circumstance that lead to war ,what are the objective of the military operation and the parameters (including limitation ) of said operation (which was never really sated in this comment section thus have been ignoring so far) . For example Operation Praying Mantis was never meant for the land invasion of Iran and The Konfrontasi was never meant to be a full fledged war against Malaysia. A hypothetical scenario in war for control over the Spratlys for example should have the Chinese objective as destroying enough (if not all) of Indonesia' ability to strike them and force them to a deal, in which they don't really need to land any troops on the ground at all and can achieve such an objective with naval and air war. However based on the OP comments (and the subsequent replies ) to me I can infer that the parameter are: 1) Involving only China and Indonesia ,as unlikely as it is real life, the OP never mentions any other party's involvement beyond those two nations. 2) Requires China to put boots on the ground hence they mentioning thing like guerrilla war and China can't force Indonesia by air and sea power alone. 3)No mentions whatsoever of any objective for the war for either party (China and Indonesia) beyond they ability of either one to stand a prolonged asymmetric war. As you can see my arguments are based on those parameter.
1
I made a mistake in in OP: it was from Dawn of War Soulstorm not Dawn Of War 2.
1
Where was the first clip from?
1
There are no mistakes, only happy accidents. Wai.. What was the video about again ?
1
@Echowhiskeyone At least that ship didn't sank.
1
What are those barbed wire for?
1