What a fucking tard , with the same amount of soliders , we would kick you're asses , Tech , wtf , we have better tanks , subs , fuck it was the brits who invented the tank and ship . BOAST , WTF IS THAT ALL ABOUT , im not boasting at all , its a fact , war sucks anyway , there is never a winner , i was just putting my point across . so for now, fuck you and have a nice dayPuckMercury wrote:
THAT'S your rebuke? "We'd be more powerful if we had more people!" Well no shit, Sherlock. That being said, I'd still put American war tech against British war tech 1:1 and expect an American victory, but that really isn't the point.
You just entirely defeated your own arguement. You came out with an unequivocated and unsupported boast which was completely out of context and went on to say that we are a superpower only because we're larger. Then you degenerate into pollution BS and make a pathetic effort at evoking a meaningless response with dredging up Vietnam and Somalia?
Furthermore, you tell us to "act like a superpower" while complaining about all the ways we assert our global authority and general power.
I've never said we do any of those things right, but the fact is we are able to assert such authority. That does not make it right or just or correct. However, that DOES mean, ipso facto, that we are a super power.
Try again.
So where were the wmds , i thought so , its all about oil , as for the innocent civillians , what about us/uk forces getting killed each day . yes i remember the first gulf war , britain was also involved , seems to me you forget about that , so it was not the us vs the 4th biggest army was it , no , so tally ho , and stay gung ho{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:
Puck has a point Widow, you say for us to act like a super power...well, what do you think we are doing when we act as security buffers between Bosnia and Kosovo, or while we make the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power and attempt to secure Iraq for the innocent civilians, or when we decided to step into Vietnam and help the problems there. Do I need to continue with conflicts where the U.S. attempted to act as a super power and help or should I stop there?
In the case of Vietnam and Somalia, yeah, we lost a black hawk and a few men in Somalia, but look at the actual record of lives lost of both sides, or "K/D ratio" if you will. I believe we lost somewhere around...15 men, and fought off an entire city while killing 1000+ hostile enemies. I say hostile enemies because most were militia groups and some citizens, not an actual army, who attempted to fight against us....and before you say some retarded stuff about how we killed civilians, take a look at the U.S. rules of engagement.
As for Vietnam, dude...we were fighting an enemy we couldnt even see, in a new environment. This was our first war against an enemy that concealed itself within the citizen population *cough* Iraq insurgency *cough*.
Furthermore, I would like to see any countries actual military fight the U.S. Remember the first Gulf War? Iraq had the 4th largest army at the time, and look where it got them. And remember, just because you read on the internet that the U.S. prints money just because it can, doesnt mean its true. Im not saying our government does, because I dont know, but the internet is the "all truth knowing master of the universe".
The US gets involved in situations around the world mainly because they're used to doing it. During the Cold War smaller "wars by proxy" using puppet nations against the USSR was necessitated. These periphery wars became a core part of US military policy and prevented overtly aggressive soviet expansion. The policies adopted by America during the Cold War have worked well (although most of the 'freedom fighter' movements that were backed by the US, through the CIA, have become America's deadliest enemies, Bin Laden, Saddam etc. - in fact almost all high profile anti-American terrorists were either backed or put in power by the US), although Nixon's backing of China, whilst useful at the time could well have long term reprecussions for the US, whose economy WILL be overtaken by the Chinese economy in the long run (in fact the communist political model combined with the capitalist economic model that has been embraced by China seems a damned effective way to run a country).
Of course the US is a superpower. The US economy is very strong, although being overtaken by more populated eastern states. The US military is also ludicrously powerful (although not especially well trained, as leading armies go), although I can't help but think the US get ripped off on a lot of their military investments.
China probably is a superpower by now, but has not been tested as an economic war machine in the same way as America was in the arms race with the USSR. With China's manufacturing capacity however, I believe the Chinese could, in a time of war, produce military equipment at greater rate than the US, which is what superpower status is really all about.
It is a good thing that China don't get directly involved in military action, unless it's taking place in their own back yard, very often. If China indulged in the same kind of Imperialist economic tactics as the US does it would be condemned unilaterally by the international community, the Americans get away with all this because everyone is used to the US being involved in wars all over the globe. There is no need in this day and age to be waging wars in these remote theatres. The by-products of these small wars scattered around the globe are trade agreements with the US, which have boosted America's economy significantly. It is these trade agreements left in the wake of their many victories that have earned the US it's reputation as an economic Imperialist state.
American military action is a very bad thing, unless it is as a direct arm of the UN. America relies to heavily on it's military might to bully other nations or on the flip side to gain influence with their allies security policies. This is why the Pentagon were so against the idea of a united European defence force, the US needs NATO far more than the EU do, now that there is no soviet threat that is.
Of course the US is a superpower. The US economy is very strong, although being overtaken by more populated eastern states. The US military is also ludicrously powerful (although not especially well trained, as leading armies go), although I can't help but think the US get ripped off on a lot of their military investments.
China probably is a superpower by now, but has not been tested as an economic war machine in the same way as America was in the arms race with the USSR. With China's manufacturing capacity however, I believe the Chinese could, in a time of war, produce military equipment at greater rate than the US, which is what superpower status is really all about.
It is a good thing that China don't get directly involved in military action, unless it's taking place in their own back yard, very often. If China indulged in the same kind of Imperialist economic tactics as the US does it would be condemned unilaterally by the international community, the Americans get away with all this because everyone is used to the US being involved in wars all over the globe. There is no need in this day and age to be waging wars in these remote theatres. The by-products of these small wars scattered around the globe are trade agreements with the US, which have boosted America's economy significantly. It is these trade agreements left in the wake of their many victories that have earned the US it's reputation as an economic Imperialist state.
American military action is a very bad thing, unless it is as a direct arm of the UN. America relies to heavily on it's military might to bully other nations or on the flip side to gain influence with their allies security policies. This is why the Pentagon were so against the idea of a united European defence force, the US needs NATO far more than the EU do, now that there is no soviet threat that is.
Oh, you got me, there was a coalition of forces that were led by the U.S. Im not saying Britain didnt do any work, they did quite a bit. But before you go talking about the soldiers being killed, remember something....they volunteered to put their life on the line so you can sit at your desk there and bitch about how the U.S. is wrong and tell us how to run our country. And your pretty new to the site, so learn to use the damn search option...... http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=31031
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Theres your WMDs
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Theres your WMDs
Last edited by {BMF}*Frank_The_Tank (2006-08-05 12:49:23)
Widow_Warrior
Britian was a world superpower and they got there arses handed to them twice here by the states with a fraction of the population.
We went to Somolia for humanitarian reasons. We left for humanitarian reasons. Where would be the humanity in killing tens of thousands of people who were not being oppressed by an outside nation? We went there to help the population eat. When they attacked us and killed 18 of our soldiers it cost the Somalies 1100 killed in a one day running gun battle ( Blackhawk Down ). We simply said " fuck them, they don't want help."
We didn't lose any war, we choose not to engage in one. As for Vietnam, saying we lost means defining loss as the Communist failing to keep their end of a negotiated treaty. I guess you could say we lost because we didn't bomb the fuck out of Pol Pot, but that would requires a childs understanding of the world.
Sounds to me like you mostly have resentment because America is so much more successful since we parted ways with England. You have ancesteral jealousy because your forebearers didn't have the sense to get on the Mayflower. You had your chance, now stay there on your soggy island and learn to like the rain.
Britian was a world superpower and they got there arses handed to them twice here by the states with a fraction of the population.
We went to Somolia for humanitarian reasons. We left for humanitarian reasons. Where would be the humanity in killing tens of thousands of people who were not being oppressed by an outside nation? We went there to help the population eat. When they attacked us and killed 18 of our soldiers it cost the Somalies 1100 killed in a one day running gun battle ( Blackhawk Down ). We simply said " fuck them, they don't want help."
We didn't lose any war, we choose not to engage in one. As for Vietnam, saying we lost means defining loss as the Communist failing to keep their end of a negotiated treaty. I guess you could say we lost because we didn't bomb the fuck out of Pol Pot, but that would requires a childs understanding of the world.
Sounds to me like you mostly have resentment because America is so much more successful since we parted ways with England. You have ancesteral jealousy because your forebearers didn't have the sense to get on the Mayflower. You had your chance, now stay there on your soggy island and learn to like the rain.
damn it ATG, im out of + to give out, so IOU +1 lol
Even the 'potato-munching alcoholic leprechaun fenian bastard paddies' of Ireland handed them their asses. The empire is dead - live with it.ATG wrote:
Widow_Warrior
Britian was a world superpower and they got there arses handed to them twice here by the states with a fraction of the population.
We went to Somolia for humanitarian reasons. We left for humanitarian reasons. Where would be the humanity in killing tens of thousands of people who were not being oppressed by an outside nation? We went there to help the population eat. When they attacked us and killed 18 of our soldiers it cost the Somalies 1100 killed in a one day running gun battle ( Blackhawk Down ). We simply said " fuck them, they don't want help."
We didn't lose any war, we choose not to engage in one. As for Vietnam, saying we lost means defining loss as the Communist failing to keep their end of a negotiated treaty. I guess you could say we lost because we didn't bomb the fuck out of Pol Pot, but that would requires a childs understanding of the world.
Sounds to me like you mostly have resentment because America is so much more successful since we parted ways with England. You have ancesteral jealousy because your forebearers didn't have the sense to get on the Mayflower. You had your chance, now stay there on your soggy island and learn to like the rain.
"Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions."{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:
Oh, you got me, there was a coalition of forces that were led by the U.S. Im not saying Britain didnt do any work, they did quite a bit. But before you go talking about the soldiers being killed, remember something....they volunteered to put their life on the line so you can sit at your desk there and bitch about how the U.S. is wrong and tell us how to run our country. And your pretty new to the site, so learn to use the damn search option...... http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=31031
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Theres your WMDs
as for the search im replying to this thread , not some old shit ok , is that allright with you . WMDS bullshit they found nothing , its been on the bbc news recently , with both yours and our goverment apoligising . LOL im not telling anyone how to run there country , im just stating facts{BMF}*Frank_The_Tank wrote:
Oh, you got me, there was a coalition of forces that were led by the U.S. Im not saying Britain didnt do any work, they did quite a bit. But before you go talking about the soldiers being killed, remember something....they volunteered to put their life on the line so you can sit at your desk there and bitch about how the U.S. is wrong and tell us how to run our country. And your pretty new to the site, so learn to use the damn search option...... http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=31031
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html
Theres your WMDs
We do have better tanks and better trained troops, but our Navy would get fucked. I suppose if you were to level the numbers with the same proportions of equipment, we would have an airforce composed almost entirely of Eurofighters - so we'd have air dominance, certainly a better land army - the Challenger II is the most successful tank in war ever, holding the records for practically everything - with better trained infantry (even if half of them don't have shoes or helmets). Our Navy however, does leave a little to be desired and whatever the numbers the US Navy is far stronger, which would mean we would stand very little chance of invading the US, they wouldn't stand a chance of invading the UK though. A war with equal numbers between the UK and US would be of apocalyptic proportions.Widow_Warrior wrote:
What a fucking tard , with the same amount of soliders , we would kick you're asses , Tech , wtf , we have better tanks , subs , fuck it was the brits who invented the tank and ship . BOAST , WTF IS THAT ALL ABOUT , im not boasting at all , its a fact , war sucks anyway , there is never a winner , i was just putting my point across . so for now, fuck you and have a nice dayPuckMercury wrote:
THAT'S your rebuke? "We'd be more powerful if we had more people!" Well no shit, Sherlock. That being said, I'd still put American war tech against British war tech 1:1 and expect an American victory, but that really isn't the point.
You just entirely defeated your own arguement. You came out with an unequivocated and unsupported boast which was completely out of context and went on to say that we are a superpower only because we're larger. Then you degenerate into pollution BS and make a pathetic effort at evoking a meaningless response with dredging up Vietnam and Somalia?
Furthermore, you tell us to "act like a superpower" while complaining about all the ways we assert our global authority and general power.
I've never said we do any of those things right, but the fact is we are able to assert such authority. That does not make it right or just or correct. However, that DOES mean, ipso facto, that we are a super power.
Try again.
Lucky it'll never happen.
ah, rofl waffles.CameronPoe wrote:
Even the 'potato-munching alcoholic leprechaun fenian bastard paddies' of Ireland handed them their asses. The empire is dead - live with it.
Good stuff. I love it when idiots try and post and are subsequently summarily squashed.
squashed wtf are you on about , im just getting startedPuckMercury wrote:
ah, rofl waffles.CameronPoe wrote:
Even the 'potato-munching alcoholic leprechaun fenian bastard paddies' of Ireland handed them their asses. The empire is dead - live with it.
Good stuff. I love it when idiots try and post and are subsequently summarily squashed.
as for the idiot part , it takes a fucking idiot to know one
Last edited by Widow_Warrior (2006-08-05 13:03:21)
Which states were these? I must have missed that.ATG wrote:
Britian was a world superpower and they got there arses handed to them twice here by the states with a fraction of the population.
I thought Britain lost all their money doing the bulk of the fighting throughout two world wars, which America stayed mostly out of. Until, of course, they got bombed themselves and realised that the outcome of the war in the rest of the world would effect them, since the Axis powers were by that point too powerful for the US to take on alone - which is why the alliance with Stalin was suggested by Eisenhower.
keep going, please. This is good stuff.Widow_Warrior wrote:
squashed wtf are you on about , im just getting startedPuckMercury wrote:
ah, rofl waffles.CameronPoe wrote:
Even the 'potato-munching alcoholic leprechaun fenian bastard paddies' of Ireland handed them their asses. The empire is dead - live with it.
Good stuff. I love it when idiots try and post and are subsequently summarily squashed.
as for the idiot part , it takes a fucking idiot to know one
"It takes one to know one" I've gotta start writing this shit down.
As for the Eurofighter's dominance, I'm not convinced it could best the F-22.Bertster7 wrote:
EDIT: ATG was speaking of the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 I believe
Last edited by PuckMercury (2006-08-05 13:09:58)
I agree, I think we believe its our duty or something? Call it right or wrong, sometimes we Americans, see global situations, and wonder why are we getting into this one? I for one have no idea.Cobra4545 wrote:
I think it is because we think we can bring peace to the world. All these little conflicts have been going on for years now, and the U.S. believes we can stop them.
man , its not my fault you're irishCameronPoe wrote:
Even the 'potato-munching alcoholic leprechaun fenian bastard paddies' of Ireland handed them their asses. The empire is dead - live with it.ATG wrote:
Widow_Warrior
Britian was a world superpower and they got there arses handed to them twice here by the states with a fraction of the population.
We went to Somolia for humanitarian reasons. We left for humanitarian reasons. Where would be the humanity in killing tens of thousands of people who were not being oppressed by an outside nation? We went there to help the population eat. When they attacked us and killed 18 of our soldiers it cost the Somalies 1100 killed in a one day running gun battle ( Blackhawk Down ). We simply said " fuck them, they don't want help."
We didn't lose any war, we choose not to engage in one. As for Vietnam, saying we lost means defining loss as the Communist failing to keep their end of a negotiated treaty. I guess you could say we lost because we didn't bomb the fuck out of Pol Pot, but that would requires a childs understanding of the world.
Sounds to me like you mostly have resentment because America is so much more successful since we parted ways with England. You have ancesteral jealousy because your forebearers didn't have the sense to get on the Mayflower. You had your chance, now stay there on your soggy island and learn to like the rain.
Proud to be free and Irish. It must suck to have large swathes of people all across the world hate you.Widow_Warrior wrote:
man , its not my fault you're irishCameronPoe wrote:
Even the 'potato-munching alcoholic leprechaun fenian bastard paddies' of Ireland handed them their asses. The empire is dead - live with it.ATG wrote:
Widow_Warrior
Britian was a world superpower and they got there arses handed to them twice here by the states with a fraction of the population.
We went to Somolia for humanitarian reasons. We left for humanitarian reasons. Where would be the humanity in killing tens of thousands of people who were not being oppressed by an outside nation? We went there to help the population eat. When they attacked us and killed 18 of our soldiers it cost the Somalies 1100 killed in a one day running gun battle ( Blackhawk Down ). We simply said " fuck them, they don't want help."
We didn't lose any war, we choose not to engage in one. As for Vietnam, saying we lost means defining loss as the Communist failing to keep their end of a negotiated treaty. I guess you could say we lost because we didn't bomb the fuck out of Pol Pot, but that would requires a childs understanding of the world.
Sounds to me like you mostly have resentment because America is so much more successful since we parted ways with England. You have ancesteral jealousy because your forebearers didn't have the sense to get on the Mayflower. You had your chance, now stay there on your soggy island and learn to like the rain.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-05 13:13:46)
this coming from a country that would not let african americans , share the same pavement , beach , water fountain , must i go on , and all this was only a few decades ago .BallisticallyYours wrote:
I agree, I think we believe its our duty or something? Call it right or wrong, sometimes we Americans, see global situations, and wonder why are we getting into this one? I for one have no idea.Cobra4545 wrote:
I think it is because we think we can bring peace to the world. All these little conflicts have been going on for years now, and the U.S. believes we can stop them.
not really , i couldnt give a fuckCameronPoe wrote:
Proud to be free and Irish. It must suck to have large swathes of people all across the world hate you.Widow_Warrior wrote:
man , its not my fault you're irishCameronPoe wrote:
Even the 'potato-munching alcoholic leprechaun fenian bastard paddies' of Ireland handed them their asses. The empire is dead - live with it.
by all means, keep dancing. You're putting on a lovely little jig.Widow_Warrior wrote:
not really , i couldnt give a fuck
You can change I assume, I don't hold the same values my anscestors held friend, I never viewed another person as property, kind of a low blow don't you think?Widow_Warrior wrote:
this coming from a country that would not let african americans , share the same pavement , beach , water fountain , must i go on , and all this was only a few decades ago .BallisticallyYours wrote:
I agree, I think we believe its our duty or something? Call it right or wrong, sometimes we Americans, see global situations, and wonder why are we getting into this one? I for one have no idea.Cobra4545 wrote:
I think it is because we think we can bring peace to the world. All these little conflicts have been going on for years now, and the U.S. believes we can stop them.
its the irish that do the jig shitPuckMercury wrote:
by all means, keep dancing. You're putting on a lovely little jig.Widow_Warrior wrote:
not really , i couldnt give a fuck
shh, shh ... don't confuse him with logic or reason. He'll only hurt himself with them.BallisticallyYours wrote:
You can change I assume, I don't hold the same values my anscestors held friend, I never viewed another person as property, kind of a low blow don't you think?Widow_Warrior wrote:
this coming from a country that would not let african americans , share the same pavement , beach , water fountain , must i go on , and all this was only a few decades ago .BallisticallyYours wrote:
I agree, I think we believe its our duty or something? Call it right or wrong, sometimes we Americans, see global situations, and wonder why are we getting into this one? I for one have no idea.
if you think its low i apoligise , but im just stating the obviousBallisticallyYours wrote:
You can change I assume, I don't hold the same values my anscestors held friend, I never viewed another person as property, kind of a low blow don't you think?Widow_Warrior wrote:
this coming from a country that would not let african americans , share the same pavement , beach , water fountain , must i go on , and all this was only a few decades ago .BallisticallyYours wrote:
I agree, I think we believe its our duty or something? Call it right or wrong, sometimes we Americans, see global situations, and wonder why are we getting into this one? I for one have no idea.
you confuse connotation and denotation.Widow_Warrior wrote:
its the irish that do the jig shitPuckMercury wrote:
by all means, keep dancing. You're putting on a lovely little jig.Widow_Warrior wrote:
not really , i couldnt give a fuck