BF2S Forums One missing army...

chitlin wrote:

this guys going a little insane now he is arguing with himself rofl

yeah you or whoever posted that garbage deleted it im guessing it was you =p

ill give a facinating recap

apprarently america lost the cambodian war

tanks landed by themselves at a beach 30 miles from omaha becuase america is too stupid to coordinate tanks and troops landing at the same place

and the united states isnt the major contributor of troops in iraq / afghanistan it was the united nations and the fighting forces of ireland scotland wales cyprus france and italy

oh and the united states allways asks the sas to fix all thier military problems since they are inept

way to try to save face by deleting retarded babble

hmm def a little mental

aardfrith wrote:

thinner44 wrote:

"Live with it" . What a really odd thing to say after your statement above. I think if I was an American I would be slightly offended by your remark that "they funded the IRA (and other Irish terrorist groups)" . A very very small minority did indeed support the IRA.... but not every American. Please substantiate your claims if you're going to post inflammatory remarks. As for 'blue on blue', that's been happening since conflicts began, from all sides.

Okay, what I said was a little mixed up.  I am not anti-American.  I know not every American supported the IRA but without the funding from NORAID, [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm ] their attacks would have been fewer and less people would have died.  Having been close to two IRA bombs, having seen the carnage in Warrington and Enniskillen, I am somewhat anti anyone who supported them.   I was looking forward to George Bush invading Ireland and taking out the terrorist organisations on both sides of the border (and religious divide) in his War on Terrorism.

This is my last post on this toipic, I HOPE IT's YOURS!

Any further post should be in SERIOUS DEBATE forum NOT the game forums!!!!!

Last edited by [GDC]SinnFein (2005-12-08 12:55:13)

Well this is all about personal opinion and patriotism. Technically, the American army does relie on technology over skill compared to other countries and yes the IDF is an awesome military power, but one can't compare anything to the Australia Special Air Services. They really are about the best military force in the world, They help TRAIN special forces from other countries, Americans are just blinded from the fact most of the patriots fill their heads with lies. The Marines have and always will be shock troops, the IDF have and always will be an awesome force, but the ASAS are and always will be the best force in the world.

Wow, that took over an hour to read the whole post, though I think I spent about 30 minutes of that reading a post by some mafia guy. Here is a good site for him: http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/

I kept a talley of the votes, and it turns out that the British SAS rocks to first place with 16 votes.
US special forces did well, at 47 votes, but many were rather whiney and defensive and there are 38 version of their special forces, so they netted out at only 2.65 votes.

Tied for second were the ASAS, the Netherlands special forces (which I'm still not sure what to call) and the JTF2 (who I'm voting for).

What was the point of this thread?

i think you mean ghost town

i agree the more armies the better but make them viable not the dutch ^^

chitlin wrote:

im simply saying that not technically naming them chechnyans take absolutely nothing away from its potential for cotroversy..

You're kidding me? It's not any less controversial? So it wouldn't make any difference at all, if they were not called Rebels but Chechnyans in the game? Are you insane?

.... chechnya has 2 offical languages chanyan and russian and it is not only ex soviets who speak russian ...

Yes I know that. Nice strawman argument.  I never said no Chechnyans speak Russian. I said Chechnya has its own language, it's own culture and ethnicity if you will. Any reason why any Chechnyans speak Russian is because it was part of the Soviet Union and there a lot of ethnic Russians who still live there, ALL OF IT BECAUSE OF THE SOVIET HISTORY. If you were going to make a game with Chechnyans fighting Russians, why wouldn't you have the Chechnyans speak Chechnyan?

considering there is tension between the united states and china and has the potential to be a much larger conflict than anything else in bf2 id say it might be the most controversial... and you dont know what youre talkiing about in refrence to chinas nues ..thier space program still in its infacy only has the ability to leave orbit and return, they still dont have icbm's

WRONG! China most certainly does have ICBMs

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/20 … 3044.shtml

....China’s growing long-range missile capability, notably its DF-5, DF-31 and DF-4 ICBM brigades under the PLA’s 2nd Artillery (Missile Corps). These longer-range missiles by themselves are formidable – and foreboding, as the Taiwanese authors claimed that these missiles are targeting American territory.

Not to mention China has plenty of short range nukes that can wipe out Japan and South Korea, how the hell would we even be able to get any sizeable military near China without them getting nuked? And do you think risking Japan and South Korea is worth it?

and at this time could not lauch a large scale nuclear attack from that far away..plus you cant know how the war would be fought ..seeing as how there has been only 2 nukes used in wars and none in 60 years

China has enough ICBMS according to US intelligence to wipe out 30 American cities. That's assuming China doesn't have more that we don't know about. Second, I think it's safe to say what a nuke would do. There's enough evidence and science to accurately predict it would mean a pretty bad day for the world.

there are no insurgents in syria huh ? i duno where you get your news from but from what ive read and seen thats the number one source of insurgents.. although there are no operations inside syria to my knowledge..

BINGO! You got it Sherlock! There are no insurgent operations in Syria, so the British SAS fighting Insurgents equipped with flashbangs and teargas sure does fit close to reality doesn't it? 

you can call a duck a dog but its not going to convince anyone or keep anyone from being offended

Now you are just completely ignoring me and using strawman arguments. I never said there would be zero controversy, that's now the third time I'm saying this. I'm saying less! And Israel, whether anyone agrees or not, is a highly controversial country in every way, it's history, it's policy, and it's existence. Controversial doesn't mean Israel's existence, policy, or history is wrong or evil, just that it is a source of A LOT of controversy. You will never see the IDF in any videogame, as long as the motive is to sell videogames.

Last edited by jarm8180 (2005-12-08 14:42:55)

i'd go w/the Ghurkan SF or Maori SF, they've stopped the authoritative, lisping Brits in the past.  The SAS should train up your cricket & rugby squads, mate.  Getting beat by a bunch of sheep-shagging islanders doesn't speak well for the empire. 

jarm8180 wrote:

chitlin wrote:

im simply saying that not technically naming them chechnyans take absolutely nothing away from its potential for cotroversy..

You're kidding me? It's not any less controversial? So it wouldn't make any difference at all, if they were not called Rebels but Chechnyans in the game? Are you insane?

.... chechnya has 2 offical languages chanyan and russian and it is not only ex soviets who speak russian ...

Yes I know that. Nice strawman argument.  I never said no Chechnyans speak Russian. I said Chechnya has its own language, it's own culture and ethnicity if you will. Any reason why any Chechnyans speak Russian is because it was part of the Soviet Union and there a lot of ethnic Russians who still live there, ALL OF IT BECAUSE OF THE SOVIET HISTORY. If you were going to make a game with Chechnyans fighting Russians, why wouldn't you have the Chechnyans speak Chechnyan?

considering there is tension between the united states and china and has the potential to be a much larger conflict than anything else in bf2 id say it might be the most controversial... and you dont know what youre talkiing about in refrence to chinas nues ..thier space program still in its infacy only has the ability to leave orbit and return, they still dont have icbm's

WRONG! China most certainly does have ICBMs

http://newsmax.com/archives/articles/20 … 3044.shtml

....China’s growing long-range missile capability, notably its DF-5, DF-31 and DF-4 ICBM brigades under the PLA’s 2nd Artillery (Missile Corps). These longer-range missiles by themselves are formidable – and foreboding, as the Taiwanese authors claimed that these missiles are targeting American territory.

Not to mention China has plenty of short range nukes that can wipe out Japan and South Korea, how the hell would we even be able to get any sizeable military near China without them getting nuked? And do you think risking Japan and South Korea is worth it?

and at this time could not lauch a large scale nuclear attack from that far away..plus you cant know how the war would be fought ..seeing as how there has been only 2 nukes used in wars and none in 60 years

China has enough ICBMS according to US intelligence to wipe out 30 American cities. That's assuming China doesn't have more that we don't know about. Second, I think it's safe to say what a nuke would do. There's enough evidence and science to accurately predict it would mean a pretty bad day for the world.

there are no insurgents in syria huh ? i duno where you get your news from but from what ive read and seen thats the number one source of insurgents.. although there are no operations inside syria to my knowledge..

BINGO! You got it Sherlock! There are no insurgent operations in Syria, so the British SAS fighting Insurgents equipped with flashbangs and teargas sure does fit close to reality doesn't it? 

you can call a duck a dog but its not going to convince anyone or keep anyone from being offended

Now you are just completely ignoring me and using strawman arguments. I never said there would be zero controversy, that's now the third time I'm saying this. I'm saying less! And Israel, whether anyone agrees or not, is a highly controversial country in every way, it's history, it's policy, and it's existence. Controversial doesn't mean Israel's existence, policy, or history is wrong or evil, just that it is a source of A LOT of controversy. You will never see the IDF in any videogame, as long as the motive is to sell videogames.

dam thats a long message!!

We probably dont know if china has SF guys because ther'ye so secretive, even  suspisious

Last edited by A.Drew(G.Drew (2005-12-09 09:50:56)

aardfrith wrote:

thinner44 wrote:

"Live with it" . What a really odd thing to say after your statement above. I think if I was an American I would be slightly offended by your remark that "they funded the IRA (and other Irish terrorist groups)" . A very very small minority did indeed support the IRA.... but not every American. Please substantiate your claims if you're going to post inflammatory remarks. As for 'blue on blue', that's been happening since conflicts began, from all sides.

Okay, what I said was a little mixed up.  I am not anti-American.  I know not every American supported the IRA but without the funding from NORAID, [ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm ] their attacks would have been fewer and less people would have died.  Having been close to two IRA bombs, having seen the carnage in Warrington and Enniskillen, I am somewhat anti anyone who supported them.   I was looking forward to George Bush invading Ireland and taking out the terrorist organisations on both sides of the border (and religious divide) in his War on Terrorism.

As for "blue on blue", accidents do happen.  Look at my stats on BF2 and you'll see I'm not perfect and I don't expect any army to have a blemish-free record.  However, the US military's record in Iraq speaks for itself.

However, back to the topic that was posted.  I don't think any real armies should have been included.  The omissions and the inclusions are bound to cause arguments - how many nations have been on the receiving end of the Spetsnaz' bullets?  Who is to say whether the IDF would have been any more or less controversial?  Even the SAS have had moments they'd rather have avoided - anyone remember the killings in Gibraltar?

Yeh would be great he would kill 2 million Irish people to get rid of 500 terrorists. Great man that bush.....

Last edited by Chowley (2006-03-04 19:45:36)

chitlin wrote:

yeah umm the war in cambodia ... good one ..... cambodia was just a facet of vietnam ...you gona have to stop at that cuz when we withdrew from vietnam south vietnam was still secure and we attempted to vietnimise the war till 76 ..and there is no other example...

give a source where it says the united states requested assistance dfrom the sas .... becuase it never happened

UN isnt in iraq you retard, guess you missed that whole point when the us tried to get un approval and were denied ..and when i said 99% it wasnt literal ..the height in of american  troops in iraq was 334,000 now its 160,000 compared to that of 8,500 british so im sorry its not 99% its 95% .. horrible mistake

ireland scotland ..wales ? thats just the united kingdom... cyprus ?? rofl ?? ther are no troops from france.. italy has 3 thousand ..please name more countries that contributed nothing or more obscure refrences .. hey dude kazakhstan gave 20 troops why not mention them .. you so obviously have no clue what youre talking about

and on d-day at omaha beach they landed at normandy and the tanks that were supposed to be amphibious sunk due to rough seas .. you are clueless about history why do you bother responding

Ireland isnt part of the UK.