USMC, its not contest really
it prooves you rmore fat, fatty bum bumPoseidon wrote:
that pretty much proves right there you can't readSamTheMan:D wrote:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … 0chart.pngPoseidon wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1101139.stm
that's you guys
and you call us fat
it's only the deep south that's overweight anyway...it's EVERYWHERE in the UK that's fat lawl
quiet fatty
pffkptk92 wrote:
no it isnt dont lie you've all come over and fed the Brit kids with your fatty foodsPoseidon wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1101139.stmkptk92 wrote:
SAS are talented at everything. US Marines are talented at friendly fire and eating burgers.
that's you guys
and you call us fat
it's only the deep south that's overweight anyway...it's EVERYWHERE in the UK that's fat lawl
blame ray kroc
and find me one US marine (not including pvt pyle ) who's fat
Poseidon wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1101139.stmkptk92 wrote:
SAS are talented at everything. US Marines are talented at friendly fire and eating burgers.
that's you guys
and you call us fat
it's only the deep south that's overweight anyway...it's EVERYWHERE in the UK that's fat lawl
BBC website wrote:
Friday, 5 January, 2001, 01:19 GMT
herePoseidon wrote:
pffkptk92 wrote:
no it isnt dont lie you've all come over and fed the Brit kids with your fatty foodsPoseidon wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1101139.stm
that's you guys
and you call us fat
it's only the deep south that's overweight anyway...it's EVERYWHERE in the UK that's fat lawl
blame ray kroc
and find me one US marine (not including pvt pyle ) who's fat
Pvt PylePoseidon wrote:
pffkptk92 wrote:
no it isnt dont lie you've all come over and fed the Brit kids with your fatty foodsPoseidon wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1101139.stm
that's you guys
and you call us fat
it's only the deep south that's overweight anyway...it's EVERYWHERE in the UK that's fat lawl
blame ray kroc
and find me one US marine (not including pvt pyle ) who's fat
that actually helps my argument, as it said the numbers will get worse in the future=Karma-Kills= wrote:
Poseidon wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1101139.stmkptk92 wrote:
SAS are talented at everything. US Marines are talented at friendly fire and eating burgers.
that's you guys
and you call us fat
it's only the deep south that's overweight anyway...it's EVERYWHERE in the UK that's fat lawlBBC website wrote:
Friday, 5 January, 2001, 01:19 GMT
damn fat brits
gg, another thread derailed by Sam. go figure.
Last edited by Poseidon (2008-03-20 15:36:57)
My hypothesis is that usmarine may of died of obesity.SamTheMan:D wrote:
herePoseidon wrote:
pffkptk92 wrote:
no it isnt dont lie you've all come over and fed the Brit kids with your fatty foods
blame ray kroc
and find me one US marine (not including pvt pyle ) who's fat
Silly Americans
Thanks to SamTheMan:D, who is awesome at finding fat people
Last edited by kptk92 (2008-03-20 15:37:23)
All I have to say is: The British army vs. American army have only been tested against each other twice. (Revolutionary War and War of 1812)
Guess who won the first with a military of ragtag soldiers? The second ended in a stalemate.
Guess who would have fallen to Hitler if it wasn't for the US? Yeah, exactly.
Guess who won the first with a military of ragtag soldiers? The second ended in a stalemate.
Guess who would have fallen to Hitler if it wasn't for the US? Yeah, exactly.
The second also had a RAPE RAPE RAPE battle after a peace treaty was signed (in favor of the US of course)Poseidon wrote:
All I have to say is: The British army vs. American army have only been tested against each other twice. (Revolutionary War and War of 1812)
Guess who won the first with a military of ragtag soldiers? The second ended in a stalemate.
Guess who would have fallen to Hitler if it wasn't for the US? Yeah, exactly.
Yes but none of them were fat then were they? Now they arePoseidon wrote:
All I have to say is: The British army vs. American army have only been tested against each other twice. (Revolutionary War and War of 1812)
Guess who won the first with a military of ragtag soldiers? The second ended in a stalemate.
Guess who would have fallen to Hitler if it wasn't for the US? Yeah, exactly.
kokoda.jord wrote:
In Guerilla Jungle warfare, numbers count for nothing.daffytag wrote:
I would like to say SAS, but it seems unlikely.
As I said - find me a Marine in Iraq that's fat.kptk92 wrote:
Yes but none of them were fat then were they? Now they arePoseidon wrote:
All I have to say is: The British army vs. American army have only been tested against each other twice. (Revolutionary War and War of 1812)
Guess who won the first with a military of ragtag soldiers? The second ended in a stalemate.
Guess who would have fallen to Hitler if it wasn't for the US? Yeah, exactly.
You know, I could use generalizations too...like all Brits are soccer/football/rugby/cricket-rioting, bad teeth having, war losing queers...but I don't.
That's all you and Sam's argument is off of. Generalizations that aren't even true.
Poseidon wrote:
All I have to say is: The British army vs. American army have only been tested against each other twice. (Revolutionary War and War of 1812)
Guess who won the first with a military of ragtag soldiers? The second ended in a stalemate.
Guess who would have fallen to Hitler if it wasn't for the US? Yeah, exactly.
They had 600,000 more deaths than the US did. Technically, we won...we just withdrew because it was obvious that communism was not leaving the area.SamTheMan:D wrote:
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/collect … am_017.jpgPoseidon wrote:
All I have to say is: The British army vs. American army have only been tested against each other twice. (Revolutionary War and War of 1812)
Guess who won the first with a military of ragtag soldiers? The second ended in a stalemate.
Guess who would have fallen to Hitler if it wasn't for the US? Yeah, exactly.
We pummeled the shit out of them.
Look mom! It's a US vs Europe thread!
Sorry, but that doesn' say a thing. Brits and Americans weren' set up against eachother in that war, but side by side. It tells you that the Brits wouldn't have beaten Jerry on their own, but it doesn't says the Americans would!Poseidon wrote:
Guess who would have fallen to Hitler if it wasn't for the US? Yeah, exactly.
Secondly, the UK wouldn't have fallen to Hitler: Brittish air superiority and the Canal made for an impasse.
What would be interesting to debate is:
Poseidon wrote:
Guess who would all have fallen to Hitler if it wasn't for the US mother Russia? Yeah, exactly.
Marines would obviously win. Anyone who thinks each of the SAS there could kill 1860 marines is just stupid. Do you have any idea how long that would take? This whole scenario is absurd.
132,000 Marines vs 100 SAS.. SAS are good but not made for that sort of fight, and for the record I have never met an active marine that is "fat"
yer i have alot of respect of SAS (british and aussie ) but theres no way they could win imo... the number are just to overwhelming... i mean i have heard stories of the aussie SAS in vietnam killing 500 soldiers for a loss of only 1 of their own but 1800 (i think someone said that number) is completely unrealistic.
EDIT: just check australias SAS had an official kill ratio of 500:1
EDIT: just check australias SAS had an official kill ratio of 500:1
Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2008-03-21 03:45:59)
TBH if a so called superpower with one of the greatest military forces in the world think they could win any wars without complete stupidity and brute force then you should crawl back from where you were born and wait for your brain to fully develop. I say this because, if you didnt realise you elected an absolute retard as a president, a leader to your country, to make life changing decisions for you as a people, you put in charge a person who wouldnt be able to tell the difference between his troops and the enemy, who do you think is more retarded, him or you for electing him. SAS would win by pure intelligence.
The Aussie SAS used modified FAL battle rifles on full auto,..Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
yer i have alot of respect of SAS (british and aussie ) but theres no way they could win imo... the number are just to overwhelming... i mean i have heard stories of the aussie SAS in vietnam killing 500 soldiers for a loss of only 1 of their own but 1800 (i think someone said that number) is completely unrealistic.
EDIT: just check australias SAS had an official kill ratio of 500:1
is that a civilian, or a combatant. I bet you cant tell.SamTheMan:D wrote:
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/collect … am_017.jpg
more than 600,000. in the range of 1,000,000 plus. but talking about body counts is retarded.Poseidon wrote:
They had 600,000 more deaths than the US did. Technically, we won...we just withdrew because it was obvious that communism was not leaving the area.SamTheMan:D wrote:
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/collect … am_017.jpgPoseidon wrote:
All I have to say is: The British army vs. American army have only been tested against each other twice. (Revolutionary War and War of 1812)
Guess who won the first with a military of ragtag soldiers? The second ended in a stalemate.
Guess who would have fallen to Hitler if it wasn't for the US? Yeah, exactly.
We pummeled the shit out of them.
dont even bring up ww2......you only helped cause you got the crap kicked out of you ...then u went an gave radiation poisonin to fuckin japan...plaYEDPoseidon wrote:
All I have to say is: The British army vs. American army have only been tested against each other twice. (Revolutionary War and War of 1812)
Guess who won the first with a military of ragtag soldiers? The second ended in a stalemate.
Guess who would have fallen to Hitler if it wasn't for the US? Yeah, exactly.