Originally Posted by Lord Khajmer
You're right, they were real wars. We won both of them, easily, when we toppled their governments. Wars are only ever fought with governments. We're occupying Afghanistan, which isn't something you can actually lose at. The media only continued to refer to them as wars because that's far more sensational a term to use.
Oh, and Afghanistan hasn't been about Osama for years, since we know he's not in Afghanistan but Pakistan, lead by a non-oppressive democratic government that we happen to like, and therefore will not be destroying. Afghanistan is about maintaining the peace until the government stabilizes well enough to leave without fear of Al Qaeda or the Taliban or some other psychotic extremists taking over.
Aerial missile strikes, napalm, agent orange, or waiting until a few particularly dry weeks and tossing a match. Vietnam is defeated. We could have easily beaten them. It was our morals, not any kind of superior military skill, that defeated us.
Russia wouldn't side with China. For one thing they're no longer communist, for another they would recognize that an invasion of the United States, considering our surface to air defense systems and powerful military force, would be stupidity (for that matter, so would China), and for another, if China is invading the United States then that means they're most likely the instigators, and would therefore be completely curbstomped by the rest of the world for trying to start World War 3.
And please, pay attention to the full thread. Numbers are only important in the grand scheme of things if you're better than your opponent and are in a strategic position to use them. As we've pointed out several times, the United States military is of the highest calibre of military, and as Lus has pointed out an invasion of the United States would most certainly not lend itself to a situation where superior numbers can be used effectively.
"Curbstomped" by the rest of the world? Other than the UK (not a large army but a well-trained one) and the Muslim League, no one would have the forces to withstand against an army that size.
I am not arguing anymore about this. It is stupid to think that a force of 4 could take down a force of 500, or a force of 1 to take down 10. Numbers DO matter, and anyone who says that obviously does not know anything about war. While I do admire the U.S military, you fail to realize the main argument I am getting at. The fact that the U.S military is not unbeatable.
Originally Posted by Blood Red Lucario
So that's four cities now listed. How many hundreds of cities did British allies bomb willy nilly? And the Americans took part in the bombing of Dresden they weren't the only bombers there the British were doing their standard carpet bombing in the raid as well. In comparison to our allies we were pretty sparing in terms of bombing cities. Dresden took place toward the end of the war where we needed to pressure a surrender. So while we bombed peaceful cities full of citizens we did them for a reason.
"Heheheee, they have nerves, they can live and hold the line."
There was no need to put any more pressure than there already was. The Russians were in Berlin.
I'd love to see how you would react if you saw what seemed to be a sea of soldiers coming at you. I don't know about you, I wouldn't care if we had a superior technical weapon or better trained guys. 10 soldiers against 1 is an impossible battle. Since the Akm is the most standard weapon now days (Ak47 is actually a prototype and the commonly used weapon is the AKM), that is 35 rounds in one magazine. Dodge that 350 lead volley and see if you can take it.