Not at all. It's just the fact that he is comparing a modern army with a non-existent one; the argument actually holds some value : You can talk about the differences in each army and eventually come to a decision where nobody actually knows who would win.jord wrote:
I don't fully believe they'd win. I'm merely presenting reasons as to why they may win.Zimmer wrote:
No, you started the one with the SAS. That is enough for me to tell you that it was your question.
If you are naive enough to think that 100 British SAS could take out over 100,000 USMC then wow... I don't know what to say. You are deluded.
"Gorilla warfare"... Yeah, rubbish. The SAS wouldn't even put themselves in such a situation, never mind win.
What do you think of the other thread. 100 Marines or the entire British Army? Or is that more fair because a big headed cocky brit didn't make it?
But once you start comparing 2 modern armies, on ridiculous grounds and then CLAIM that the latter would win, then that is where it just gets stupid.
The fact that you are being unrealistic and asking a question which just goes over the "oh dear, you took that way too far" line, makes me want to post here instead of the other one.
I have an unbiased view on this. I am neither British or American and I don't hate either. You are actually trying to argue why the SAS would win, which just goes beyond me.
Go ahead, argue all you want, I don't care anymore. Some people just don't want to listen.