 |
reply posted on 4-5-2006 @ 10:37 PM by shortmanx5
|
 Originally posted by st3ve_o
Originally posted by shortmanx5
no its one that can send there navy anywhere america, britain would have to send most of there ships out to beable to support a war. thats why the
falklands would end diff now, that is if we didnt send one of our carriers down to save your island 
(what a suprise)  an 'americans' history lesson is wrong again!!
actaully, you 'offered' one of your carriers but we declined (we fight our problems and wars by ourself)!!
we've all seen how the US pan out fighting a war 'ON ITS OWN' in vietnam....lucky the british was there to help you in iraq and afghanistan eh?
no its one that can send there navy anywhere, america britain would have to send most of there ships out to beable to support a war. thats why the
falklands would end diff now, that is if we didnt send one of our carriers down to save your island
nice try read what a wrote again , if you noticed i said now, so before you make fun or an american for not knowing history , I think you should work
on your basic reading skills...smart ass, i hope you feel really stupid now.
[edit on 4-5-2006 by st3ve_o]
[edit on 4-5-2006 by shortmanx5]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
 |
reply posted on 4-5-2006 @ 10:40 PM by st3ve_o
|
well i can't read your typing, it looks like a baby is writting it!!
learn to spell.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2006 @ 10:40 PM by shortmanx5
|
You have about 8,000 troops there, so stop acting like you are taking alot of burden off of the usa. its great your there but dont start trying to
throw it in our faces. Once you have around 100,000 troops there then you can tell me how much you are helping.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2006 @ 10:42 PM by shortmanx5
|
Originally posted by st3ve_o
well i can't read your typing, it looks like a baby is writting it!!
learn to spell.
i didnt know now was hard to spell, baby writting , wouldnt it be baby typing if they could type, nice try you still look like an ass. You tried
making fun of me because you didnt read carefully enough.
[edit on 4-5-2006 by shortmanx5]
[edit on 4-5-2006 by shortmanx5]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2006 @ 11:04 PM by st3ve_o
|
Originally posted by shortmanx5
You have about 8,000 troops there, so stop acting like you are taking alot of burden off of the usa. its great your there but dont start trying to
throw it in our faces. Once you have around 100,000 troops there then you can tell me how much you are helping.
yeah but we all seen how professional our 8,000 troops are (combat and peacekeeping).
your 100,000 struggled to keep stability in baghdad, when the british was out there mixing with the locals in basra!!
the american government was going to put in a request to send british troops in baghdad because of our experience in peacekeeping (things got that bad
for you).
don't worry i'll not mention friendly fire - how many americans died by british friendly fire btw? oh thats right (NONE)!!
how many times did you hear about the british missing their targets?
i remember reading an article in the newspaper, the US bombed a wedding in iraq because they thought it was a terrorist gathering wiped out the
bride/groom most of the family (including children), that is just one occasion!!
your troops are useless mate, american mentality fire 100 missles in the air and HOPEFULLY 1 will hit.
EDIT:- this is the last post i'm making in this thread because i'm wasting my time.
[edit on 4-5-2006 by st3ve_o]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2006 @ 11:07 PM by Seekerof
|
Originally posted by st3ve_o
your troops are useless mate, american mentality fire 100 missles in the air and HOPEFULLY 1 will hit.
Edit: Not going to waste my time answering this rhetoric.
seekerof
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2006 @ 11:10 PM by shortmanx5
|
Originally posted by st3ve_o
Originally posted by shortmanx5
You have about 8,000 troops there, so stop acting like you are taking alot of burden off of the usa. its great your there but dont start trying to
throw it in our faces. Once you have around 100,000 troops there then you can tell me how much you are helping.
yeah but we all seen how professional our 8,000 troops are (combat and peacekeeping).
your 100,000 struggled to keep stability in baghdad, when the british was out there mixing with the locals in basra!!
the american government was going to put in a request to send british troops in baghdad because of our experience in peacekeeping (things got that bad
for you).
don't worry i'll not mention friendly fire - how many americans died by british friendly fire btw? oh thats right (NONE)!!
how many times did you hear about the british missing their targets?
i remember reading an article in the newspaper, the US bombed a wedding in iraq because they thought it was a terrorist gathering wiped out the
bride/groom most of the family (including children), that is just one occasion!!
your troops are useless mate, american mentality fire 100 missles in the air and
HOPEFULLY 1 will hit.
Huh you cant compare bagdad to basra, much smaller of a town. and when weere you guys out there talking to them. is this before or after they wanted
you to leave. Great friends huh. Maybe because we have 100000 and you have 8000 so we are bound to make more mistakes than you. Thats horrible that
they hit a wedding but thats what happens in war. Bad but a fact of life. Haha its because we have the missiles to fire might as well. Also how many
planes and helios do you have there, that could also be why you never miss, you can miss if you dont fire.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2006 @ 11:13 PM by shortmanx5
|
if they didnt put in the request to do that, how do you know it happened. With 8,000 troops you wouldnt be doing all the much, babysittin basra. hows
that sound.
[edit on 4-5-2006 by shortmanx5]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2006 @ 11:18 PM by Seekerof
|
Originally posted by shortmanx5
With 8,000 troops you wouldnt be doing all the much, babysittin basra. hows that sound.
Edit: Not going to waste my time answering this rhetoric.
P.S. The British are and have been for quite some time a valuable ally. Those 8,000 British servicemen are to be respected for what they are
doing in Iraq, just as those American, Polish, Japanese, etc. servicemen.
The rhetoric needs to stop because it serves no purpose, at all, other than to simply be what it is: rhetoric.
seekerof
[edit on 4-5-2006 by Seekerof]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2006 @ 11:25 PM by uuhelpus
|
Random scenario
2009-2010 A new "black plague" appears out of left field and travels world in a matter of hours. In this modern day of jet transportation, those
infected travel the world with ease, infecting others as they go. Death toll world wide is 500million-1 billion, with %70 in the poorest parts of the
world. Over the next few years, the disease is squashed and new alliances form, as well as new tension and fear. Communism and fascism sweep the
eastern world, as world leaders find it easy to control there populations with fear. Russia is swept with communism, as the governments of east Europe
crumble. The more fragile economies of the world collapse, and poverty, hunger, and famine make a return to some parts of the world. Unemployment is
up %30 in the western world.
2011, 2012 massive oil shortage as moderate Muslims turn more "radical"
Russia, China, North Korea, and +?
Vs
USA, England, Canada, Australia, Japan, Germany
Several countries are divided (France) and locked in civil war
Oil and the Middle East are objectives
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2006 @ 11:32 PM by k4rupt
|
Originally posted by shortmanx5
China and russia would not do much
Lol... You kiddin me right? "China and Russia would not do much?" 
China wouldnt be able to fund their army if a war started between the usa and china, china gets most of their income from selling us there
stuff.
Please tell me your joking.
China is also overrated a lot, wow 2 million man army with old weapons, not a very good idea just ask saddam. 2 million chinese guys would not
put a real fight to lets sday the marines of the army. 2 million peasants or an army the is all volunter. Numbers mean something if you are fighting
an army of your class, but china just gets old classed in pretty much all military tech.
Wow, you really are ignorant of China's military aren't you? Do you honestly think that China's army is a bunch of peasant militiamen? You've got
to be kiddin me right?
shortmanx5... you've got a lot of catching up to do. You sound beyond ignorant of China's military power and you shold definately get your facts
straight before uttering statements like that.
I don't even know where to begin correcting your... hillarious... statements. I strongly suggest you read up about China's military. Just to let you
know, their armed forces are not consisted of peasants strolling around in carts.
China has a very well-trained army, a capable navy and airforce, and brilliant generals. ... If you honestly believe that the Chinese generals are
just going to send waves of suiciiding peasants with aks... I'm at a loss of words for your ignorance.
Shortman... I STRONGLY STRONGLY suggest you google up China's military and read up a bit more.
[edit on 4-5-2006 by k4rupt]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 4-5-2006 @ 11:53 PM by shortmanx5
|
i didnt say the 2.5 million was gonna be a human wave, i was talking about the 200,00000 man army someone else posted, that what i was talking about.
What else are you gonna do with that big an army.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-5-2006 @ 12:01 AM by jazz_psyker
|
Most of the enemys or heated rivals of the US, are not in any sort of alliance. And given a chance would fight eachother. I doubt they could cordinate
anything.
I don't think islamic religous fanatics, would get all cozy and comfortable with comunisum where most religons are banned or discoraged other then
idolarity of communist figures.... which again going with being a religous fanatic they would get pretty awol about that.
Though a world war might happen, I can't think of a true leginimate reason for it.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-5-2006 @ 12:02 AM by shortmanx5
|
Originally posted by k4rupt
Originally posted by shortmanx5
China and russia would not do much
Lol... You kiddin me right? "China and Russia would not do much?"
China wouldnt be able to fund their army if a war started between the usa and china, china gets most of their income from selling us there
stuff.
Please tell me your joking.
China is also overrated a lot, wow 2 million man army with old weapons, not a very good idea just ask saddam. 2 million chinese guys would not
put a real fight to lets sday the marines of the army. 2 million peasants or an army the is all volunter. Numbers mean something if you are fighting
an army of your class, but china just gets old classed in pretty much all military tech.
Wow, you really are ignorant of China's military aren't you? Do you honestly think that China's army is a bunch of peasant militiamen? You've got
to be kiddin me right?
shortmanx5... you've got a lot of catching up to do. You sound beyond ignorant of China's military power and you shold definately get your facts
straight before uttering statements like that.
I don't even know where to begin correcting your... hillarious... statements. I strongly suggest you read up about China's military. Just to let you
know, their armed forces are not consisted of peasants strolling around in carts.
China has a very well-trained army, a capable navy and airforce, and brilliant generals. ... If you honestly believe that the Chinese generals are
just going to send waves of suiciiding peasants with aks... I'm at a loss of words for your ignorance.
Shortman... I STRONGLY STRONGLY suggest you google up China's military and read up a bit more.
i dont remember saying anything about carts idoit. Dont tell me to go read up on it, lol brilliant generals , yea those wars they've fought must have
taught them. I think brilliant is over doing it, for a country that has been involved in a major war since before ww2 and during. and by involved i
mean got slaughtered. Yes china has a capaple brown water navy, nothing to threat the usa. And yes compared to other nations its a good airforce, but
not when you compare it to the usaf. You need to stop over estimating them, everyone acts like this is a new russia. it cnat fight a war away from
them homeland, and it has about the same amount of nukes and france. so its not like they are a huge power... once again there a regional power.
Ok so then where does china sell all of there goods, which run there econ. they dont import alls they do is export thats not a good postion to be in.
Because we can do without the crap from china. But without us there econ goes down the toilet. Thats why there wont be a war for awhile over
tawain.
And besides using nukes , russia doesnt have that many tricks up its sleve.
[edit on 4-5-2006 by k4rupt]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-5-2006 @ 12:44 AM by ADVISOR
|
Please, stay on topic.
Not sure about other Nations at this time, but since the WORLD and the USA accourding to Bush, is AT WAR with TERRORISM. Personally I say this
qualifies as WW..mmm 3 maybe.
So, based on that hypothetical knowledge currently, the US is fareing better than most, worse than few and still an uber insaneopower. Not only our we
currently the puppet master of several, and might I add large "regimes" or governments, that were in need of "change". But, the good ole US of A
is getting bigger with yet more soon to be "occupied" strategic points.
Sure economy sucks, gas prices are nuts along with global relations going down hill, but that is to be expected considering the ever developing
situational enviornment.
The US "would" do well compared to others, in the "next world war". The one after this err.. that I agree with Einstein, and am not so sure about.
If we as a people can not pull together, no matter who and where we are, the odds of doing well are that much less.
Deny Selective Ignorance
[edit on 5-5-2006 by ADVISOR]
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-5-2006 @ 12:48 AM by ludaChris
|
Originally posted by truttseeker
US and NATO allies would come out on top, I think that we would sustain massive massive losses. The US has a lot of fighters that could take it on,
especially with the F-22's and typhoons coming out. The only thing the Chinese have on the allies is astonishingly massive numbers. Like stuff that
the allies wouldnt think of, and they will ALL fight to the death.
I agree the US and NATO allies would come out on top as you know. But the fact is, and this is addressing later posts as well, not just this one, the
West would utterly dominate The Chinese have around 300 give or take a few of the J-11(Chinese production Su-27) The US has over 500 operational
F-15's, over 2000 operational F-16's, I dont know the number of F-18's. not to mention the 30 some odd operational F-22's. The US would
DEFINATELY own the sky in any conflict with China hands down, no contest. The US has the quantity and quality of fighters to own the skies in
any conflict they could possibly be engaged in. I dont think it would be a very bloody air conflict no matter which way you slice it. The US would
own the skies in East Asia hands down. No argument.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-5-2006 @ 12:48 AM by QuietSoul
|
Originally posted by shortmanx5
i dont remember saying anything about carts idoit.
Quoting this to make sure you get a warn. Theres absolutly no reason for name calling. This is a intelligent discussion board that has better things
to do.
KAA POW!
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-5-2006 @ 01:10 AM by Tony_Poremba
|
I think that the USA can fail. Look at the past... how many rebelious groups and Small armies have defeated whole armies many times their size and
with no training or weapons that are even close to their enemies? I mean come on.. that is why the USA is here... us weaklings defeated and repelled
the British. who were C the considered #1 in their day. The battle of BAdr ... 250- 300 men vs a welled equipped 10,000 strong army and whooped
their ass. Things happen and th USA isn't invincible. We need $$$, morale and oil just like every other army and just like any other army actions can
be taken to deprive us of it all/
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-5-2006 @ 01:25 AM by chinawhite
|
Guys,
Lets give this a rest?. The general rule when someone starts a X vs Y thing is to compare systems with each other. Instead your comparing Armed forces
based on?
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
reply posted on 5-5-2006 @ 02:03 AM by Burginthorn
|
The thing that gets me thinking in these types of threads is the "unknown factor"
Not sure of exact dates, but didn't the U.S have the Stealth Bomber/Fighter fully fuctional by the late 1970s ?
And the Stealth didn't see service until the first gulf war.
I always leaves me thinking what the U.S has hidden in some base or bases around the country or even the world.
The Stealth was like nothing anyone had ever seen, and I'd bet the U.S has plenty more where that came from too.
And that could be right across all divions of the armed forces - Navy, Marines and AirForce.
New and unknown weapons that none of us here have even factored in, if a major conflict was to erupt.
No other country on the planet invests in weapons like the U.S
No one even comes close to the amount of money poured into its military budget.
Add to that probably the best facilities in the world bar none, and I'd take the bet that the U.S has itself a nice bag of surprises waiting for
anyone wishing to take them on.
|
reply to this post:
copyright & usage
|
|
