user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
They really don't own every theatre. The only theatre that anyone can own is dester warefare. As anyone knows one of the reason the US didnt contribute to the balkans peacekeeping force by sending ground troops is because they saw the death toll of the UN and didnt enter until they leveled everything with bombs.
I guess they just want to enjoy their fun in the sun. But makes you think they have so much trouble with such little countries imagine a larger country such as China or Russia They may spend the most money for fancy toys and percision missles but when it comes down to it you eventually have to send real people in and who ever has the better tatics will win.
Frankly, it's incredible how incompetent the US forces are. In 2003, they killed more British soldiers than the Iraqis did. Bad sports or incompetent?
Yes they do underestimate the rest. I am currently training up a secret invasion force of top-hat wearing monkeys from my secret base in Gondwanaland ready to take the eastern seaboard at a moments notice. Let us see how they deal with that one.....
by no1 on Fri Aug 06, 04 9:33pm
[+]
Because we are the best and strongest in the world!!!
Hooah!!
The problem with recent conflicts has been the nature of these wars. The USA can spank any nation and probably any alliance of nations in classical WWII style warfare but these new limited wars are something new.
"The USA can spank any nation and probably any alliance of nations in classical WWII style warfare"
it is all very well saying this, but the USA has not fought a war against a proper opponent in 60 years. "we could spank them" is what we said before WWs I and II, but so wrong we were...
ps. i dont want an arguement about this. i do not doubt the USA's military strength, i just dont buy the omnipotence crap.
Clinton almost destroyed our military.My dad was in Marines.about 1/3 rd of marines were forced to get out during Clinton erra.No we are not overconfident.That is why over 90% of military perssonel support Bush.It's very important for us to have the strongest military force.And they know it.There was very pesimistic atomosphere during Clinton time.Finally we see the light.
Only a real war will reveal the truth and though I'm not to fond of continentals right now, I couldn't see myself supporting a war against them.
what about my army of top-hat wearing monkeys...someone give some fucking credit where its due.They are gonna take you all and make al qaeda look like al jolson.
by no1 on Mon Aug 09, 04 2:25pm
[+]
"Only a real war will reveal the truth and though I'm not to fond of continentals right now, I couldn't see myself supporting a war against them."
much like i wouldnt be too happy in a war vs the USA. what would be gained by it, except the ruin of both our great nations? waste of time.
I could see a war with the continentals maybe but not with Britain.
the next anglo-american arse-whipping session is going to be against china, when they annex Taiwan. Bush promised the Taiwanese help, and i hope the British will be right behind him. china have fucked us around for long enough. your thoughts?
I really don't think the Chinese are willing to provoke a war by attacking Taiwan. Democracy will eventually come to China and Taiwan will be reunited peacefully. If China does try to annex Taiwan then I think there will at least be an Anglo alliance against China. The French will probably stay home but Germany may help. The way it looks right now, Iran will be next.
Iran? why not North Korea next?
The South Koreans wouldn't support it.
fair enough. i suppose they would be in the line of fire a little. hehe.
Yeah, and after all they are all Koreans and still feel a sense of kinship with each other.
i dissagree. i have two Korean friends, from the south, and they are really suspicious and hating of the north. i asked why, and they said, 'becuase they're North Koreans,' implying that they are hated by default. have you heard any different
The only ethnic Koreans I know were adopted by White American parents so they don't care too much about either of the Koreas (one is even a commie). From my readings, I get the impression that the South is distrustful of the North's government but they still feel attached to its people.
fair enough. sounds about right.
yeah, and i'm one of them. i dont, however, pretend to be in an undefeatable state, a superpower that shakes the world. my opinions of British military capabilites are based on previous and current conflict, and so i ca conclude that though we are relatively small, we can punch well above our weight. this said, ourr military is overstretched and underfunded, shat on by politicians
The biggest mistake the US made in attacking Iraq was in using the US military rather than the threat of the US military.
It is a well-known axom of chess that The Threat is Stronger Than the Execution. But in activating the dreaded US military ... and showing its flaws and lack of omnipotence to the world, the US has lost of one of its chief advantages.
Too many NeoCons started believing their own press about the US military might.
what cathexis said
The U.S. military is grossly underfunded in my opinion.
"It is a well-known axom of chess that The Threat is Stronger Than the Execution. But in activating the dreaded US military ... and showing its flaws and lack of omnipotence to the world, the US has lost of one of its chief advantages."
the fact that Hussein refused to bow to a threat of force from the world's supposed "last remaining superpower" is why i believe there is no such thing as a superpower any more.
"Too many NeoCons started believing their own press about the US military might."
well said, bud.
Arrogance is one of our greatest assets, also our weakest point.
i fail to see how arrogance could be considered an asset. arrogance and complacency on the part of the British led to two world wars.
i think the USA would be well and truely stumped trying to invade any country with a respectable military.
Why thankyou. check out some of my other ballots, dude.
Maybe we should learn how to capitulate like France. Or maybe we could learn some tactics from the British like Dunkirk. Or possibly how they handled themselves when we kicked them out of our country. Or how the British were thrown into the Sea in 1916 by about fifty drunk Irish guys.
Since you think it is such a bad idea, and your fellow limeys (cretin and steelhamster) advocate doing nothing then why should your opinion be considered.
Historically, America has done great in military batlle. You mentioned three Demoncrap wars by the way. All of which were ended by Republicans. But of course those are fact that contravene your preconcieved lies.
Sorry about the stridency British Bloke. I wrote my comment before I read your further comments.
"Or how the British were thrown into the Sea in 1916 by about fifty drunk Irish guys."
i think you need to read up, dude. the British army put down the 1916 revolt with ruthless efficiency, and the leaders were all hanged. irish indepenence was in the post anyhow, as we were already talking about granting ireland dominion status well before that.
"You mentioned three Demoncrap wars by the way. All of which were ended by Republicans. But of course those are fact that contravene your preconcieved lies."
does it matter who ended them? i support the republican party of the USA. i am glad bush beat Kerry. but i fail to see how the political party of the time excuses the incompetance of the US military.
"Sorry about the stridency British Bloke. I wrote my comment before I read your further comments."
no appolgies necessary, dude. everyone gets the wrong impression of me at first, as i tend to exploore touchy subjects in my ballots. peace.
yeah if we fought like the old ways like the Nazi's and the Old British wats by boming cities not careing who we hit and being rutheless we would win so much easier wouldn't we?
yes, you would kick arse, because you'd break out the nukes. but then we'd fire back, and it would be Mutually Assured Destruction. lots of people would die.
Oh my fucking God dream on. What a fucking fantasy world you dingleberrys live in. I always think how sad it is soo many young American soldiers died and are buried in places like Britain and France where soo many of the people had and have nothing but contempt for them.
(apologies to sane & reasonable Yanks, but I do get fed up of reading this self-serving jingoistic nonsense from the intellectual dregs of your society)
lets not forget that 60 years ago america wasnt on its own, it has never won a major war on its own.
confidentconservativ.
when you got independence, britain was saving europe from france, if napoleon defeated the british, the world l;anguage would be frnech now. do you think that america could have won independence if france, holland and spain hadnt delared war on britain.
in 1779 britain fought in the mediterranean,africa, west indies, india, all whilst under threat of invasion from france, and still fighting french and americans in america, the modern american military couldnt even do that now.
look at how many troops we sent to america and how many you sent to iraq, then also look at the sizes of land to cover. it was unwinable but we still nearly did the job.
thats why the country is called GREAT britain.
also you might want to look at dunkirk, it was a successful evacuation, not a war.
1 word. VIETNAM
another ...
Korea
|
|
