Member List
Calendar
F.A.Q.
Search
Log Out
Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000  
 

Go Back   Pokemon Forum - Pokemon Elite 2000 » Other Boards » Discussion

Discussion This is for discussion about current events (news), issues, politics, and any other topics of serious discussion. For more casual talk, go to the Other Chat board. Proper sentences, spelling, and grammar is especially strict in this board.


Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 03-25-2011, 09:57 PM
Kaioo's Avatar
Kaioo Offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ^.^
Posts: 3,416
Send a message via AIM to Kaioo
Default Re: War Declared

Vietnam. US ADMITTED defeat. They could NOT win against the Vietcong because anybody could of been a member, and there was territorial advantage on the side of the Vietcong.

Oh, and if the US is so high and mighty, why were they fighting in Iraq for SO many years, as well as Afghanistan? Seriously, so many soldiers yet what good are they doing. Also, if the US military is so good, why are most of British soldiers deaths from friendly fire from AMERICANS?

Now, take a look at the link below,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OI0GUCI_A
__________________
[paired with DarkAmethyst a.k.a angel-chan] URPG stats Ranger Log

Credit to Neo Pikachu for the avatar.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-25-2011, 10:13 PM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: War Declared

If you have 10 soldiers against 1, who will win Khajmer, straight up fight? Unless the one soldier can pull an Equilibrium scene, or become The One, I doubt he can dodge them bullets no matter how well he is trained.

Actually Kaioo, the United States were in Iraq so long to guarantee the setting up of a stable democracy. They are currently in Afghanistan, attempting to do the same. Can't really say that it is a good thing, or that it is justified or beneficial, but whatever.

And yes, the U.S did admit defeat to Vietnam (ohh, they get a jungle! Awrseomeazzzz!), but you are right, it was not a purposeful fight. It does not matter though, if America could have won, they would have. America has lost a war, they are not perfect.

We will never know who would win if we pit China and America against each other, but I honestly believe China would pull through if it weren't for the political repercussions.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-25-2011, 11:05 PM
Dr Robotnik's Avatar
Dr Robotnik Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: A boot
Posts: 9,070
Default Re: War Declared

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
China has 3.4 million soldiers, the US has 2.4 million. We also have twice the number of tanks and aircraft, most of them superior to their Chinese counterparts.

No one has ever "beat" the US army. Retreat from Korea, Vietnam, and all the other so-called losses were political losses, not military ones. The Vietnamese couldn't force the US military out of their country. Neither can Iraqi insurgents or the Taliban. Politics forces the US military out of countries. I guarantee you if the US was a dictatorship interested in conquest the only way we would have retreated from Vietnam is if the country stopped being able to support macroscopic lifeforms. There has yet to be an army that could force the US military out of their country by rendering them physically unable to continue the fight in the way in a significant way like the defeats of WWII. So no, it has yet to be "beat".
Not to be 'that one guy', but Britain handed our asses to us on a silver platter back in 1812. My only comment is that China would collapse if they went to war with the US for the political reasons. Please resume your argument |D
__________________
<Image made by Neo>
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-26-2011, 02:42 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: War Declared

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaioo View Post
Vietnam. US ADMITTED defeat. They could NOT win against the Vietcong because anybody could of been a member, and there was territorial advantage on the side of the Vietcong.

Oh, and if the US is so high and mighty, why were they fighting in Iraq for SO many years, as well as Afghanistan? Seriously, so many soldiers yet what good are they doing. Also, if the US military is so good, why are most of British soldiers deaths from friendly fire from AMERICANS?

Now, take a look at the link below,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4OI0GUCI_A
The US left Vietnam ultimately for political reasons. Had the political will been there, the US could easily have funneled 10 times the military force into Vietnam.

The "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't wars at all, they're nation-building police actions. Compare it any real war, and the death figures are tiny, especially when you consider how much time it's been spread out over. Your attempt at an argument misses the point by a mile.

Quote:
Not to be 'that one guy', but Britain handed our asses to us on a silver platter back in 1812.
Well, I suppose that technically counts. Then again, the "US Army" as an organization didn't really exist back then, but either way it's pretty irrelevant as you have to go back 199 years to find a real strategic military defeat.

Quote:
We will never know who would win if we pit China and America against each other, but I honestly believe China would pull through if it weren't for the political repercussions.
No, America would win, period. Nukes aside (and maybe even including those depending on how much the Pentagon's been keeping from us about their missile defense systems), China would never even get a chance to attack the US at all. Their air force would never leave the ground, their navy would never leave the harbors. True, China could probably repel a US ground invasion through sheer force of numbers, but a few years later the Chinese industrial complex would be reduced to nothing but mangled steel and tiny pieces of concrete. Would the US be able to conquer China? Probably not, but when the US gets tired of bombing China back to the Stone Age, it'll be China's economy and people who are going to have to rebuild from flint and steel, not America's.

And that's really the crux of the issue. Whenever you find a war that the US "lost", which side is the one that's been defending the entire time? Which side is the one that has been hiding in caves and tunnels without access to decent food or water? Which side is the one that, at war's end, is going to have to rebuild their cities and replant their farms and pick up their lives and start over? Since 1812, the answer has always been whoever the US has been fighting. No matter how you slice it, whoever's gone up against the US since the Cold War only "wins" in the sense that they haven't had to completely submit to American demands and do whatever the hell we tell them to. If we really look at what it means to win a war, which ought to be "to come out better than the other guy", then the US hasn't lost a war since 1812.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 03-26-2011 at 02:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-26-2011, 02:45 AM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,469
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: War Declared

Quote:
Originally Posted by TitaniumAnimations View Post
If you have 10 soldiers against 1, who will win Khajmer, straight up fight? Unless the one soldier can pull an Equilibrium scene, or become The One, I doubt he can dodge them bullets no matter how well he is trained.
Well, let's assume, in this example, that the one soldier has superior training to the ten soldiers. If the one soldier is in a position to take good cover before being shot at, then he does so, poking out at irregular intervals generally when his opponents are reloading or otherwise have ceased fire in order to fire his own shots, and using his well trained reflexes to pop back into cover. He will move from cover only to get to new cover, most likely because the new cover suddenly has the benefit of not having a live grenade there, or because the newer cover has a better tactical location.

And if he isn't in a good tactical position, then he hasn't been defeated by superior numbers, he's been defeated by the enemy's superior tactics, because they had the tactical sense to flank him before combat began, or by crap luck because there isn't any way that he could take advantage of his environment to overcome the enemy.

And this is, of course, ignoring that fighting as one against one, fighting as one against many, fighting as many against one, and fighting as many against many are all extremely different situations. However, the point is still there: superior tactics, skill, and luck are far more important than numbers. I again point to the Battle of Thermopylae. Despite being outnumbered by more than ten to one on a scale of thousands, the Greeks managed to hold off the Persians for a full week by taking a tactical position, a narrow road which happened to be the only passage from that direction to the city, and killing anything that came at them. Had the Persians thrown their entire army of 100-300 thousand men at that blockade, they would have lost. Their victory was not because of numbers, but because they were able to find a way to flank the Greeks and attack from multiple sides, a strategy which generally works so long as you don't have a large amount less than your enemy.

In short, numbers are helpful, but against a smarter, more skillful opponent in the right conditions, it's essentially a Zerg Rush. Even if you win, the victory will be Pyrrhic, because your losses are going to be 2, 3, 4 to one, depending on the discrepancy. And unlike in a Zerg Rush, you haven't just thrown away a large number of easily replaceable packets of data, you've just sent hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. Morale will inevitably plummet, and the people will riot because for every person who dies at war, there are at least 2-3 family members ready to tear some heads off, and don't expect them to blame the other side, especially if you are the instigator of the war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by metal sonic View Post
Not to be 'that one guy', but Britain handed our asses to us on a silver platter back in 1812. My only comment is that China would collapse if they went to war with the US for the political reasons. Please resume your argument |D
The War of 1812 was actually a draw. Neither side was able to gain and hold any ground on each other. If you want to look at it technically, yes, the British won, but only insofar as the Americans didn't achieve their initial military goals of ending British Impressment, which was actually a political failure, and capturing territory in Canada. However, in terms of toe-to-toe military conflict, the two sides were about equal, with the US only losing more troops because of their far more aggressive approach.

This is all moot, however, because I'm fairly certain that Lus was referring to the modern American military ranging from the early 20th century until now, in which case, in terms of military strength, he is correct. The modern US military has never lost a war to the point of being forced out of the other nation. We lost Vietnam and Korea, but not in the sense of being defeated; we lost in the sense of forfeiting. Technically speaking, with the invention of the nuclear weapon, we have become literally undefeatable to any nation which does not also have nuclear weaponry (which today means only the UK, France, Russia, China, North Korea and Israel, four of which are our allies, one of which is our loose friend, and one of which is too incompetent to make an ICBM, much less one that can get past American radars and be reduced to dust by our missile defense systems).
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-26-2011, 02:56 AM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: War Declared

Quote:
The War of 1812 was actually a draw. Neither side was able to gain and hold any ground on each other. If you want to look at it technically, yes, the British won, but only insofar as the Americans didn't achieve their initial military goals of ending British Impressment, which was actually a political failure, and capturing territory in Canada. However, in terms of toe-to-toe military conflict, the two sides were about equal, with the US only losing more troops because of their far more aggressive approach.
I disagree, when British soldiers are eating out of the Presidential plates in the White House and are setting fire to the capital, I think it's fair to say that the US lost. Britain ended the war because it wanted to focus its attention on Napoleon, not because it couldn't continue the war with the US.

Quote:
In short, numbers are helpful, but against a smarter, more skillful opponent in the right conditions, it's essentially a Zerg Rush. Even if you win, the victory will be Pyrrhic, because your losses are going to be 2, 3, 4 to one, depending on the discrepancy. And unlike in a Zerg Rush, you haven't just thrown away a large number of easily replaceable packets of data, you've just sent hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. Morale will inevitably plummet, and the people will riot because for every person who dies at war, there are at least 2-3 family members ready to tear some heads off, and don't expect them to blame the other side, especially if you are the instigator of the war.
Depends, the Soviets pretty much resorted to Zerg rushing the Germans, and it worked pretty well for them. Of course, it helped that political dissidents were either killed or sent to Siberia. Your main point though, is still correct: numbers aren't the only thing that matter.

In the case of our scenario, no army in the world can fight a major land war against the US and be able to use their numbers, superior or not. It doesn't matter how many soldiers they have, whenever they show their faces in numbers they will be bombed into oblivion since the US is guaranteed to have aerial superiority. (to continue with the game analogy, Zerg rushing doesn't work if the enemy has Battlecruisers) As long as the US isn't being too picky about collateral damage (giving the assumptions we are making that are required for the US to go to war with any major power, I think that's not too unfair an assumption), no army will actually be able to engage American forces in a head-to-head situation where superior numbers can be used to their full potential. The only way to counter an enemy's air superiority is to disperse your army, which nullifies any number advantage.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 03-26-2011 at 02:58 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-26-2011, 04:46 AM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,469
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: War Declared

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lusankya View Post
I disagree, when British soldiers are eating out of the Presidential plates in the White House and are setting fire to the capital, I think it's fair to say that the US lost. Britain ended the war because it wanted to focus its attention on Napoleon, not because it couldn't continue the war with the US.
A large portion of historical scholars would disagree with you on that. Granted, another large portion would agree. Depends on your opinion on what constitutes winning.

And Britain didn't exclusively end the war. They can't have, since we were the ones who started it. Both sides agreed to stop fighting because neither side wanted to anymore. The British invasion force that burned Washington got their asses handed to them at Baltimore, the southward marching force was knocked back into Canada after the Battle of Plattsburg, and the Duke of Wellington himself out and out stated when asked to command Canada's army that despite having a clearly superior military, they were obviously not winning, shame on you Canadian-British army.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-26-2011, 02:14 PM
Kaioo's Avatar
Kaioo Offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ^.^
Posts: 3,416
Send a message via AIM to Kaioo
Default Re: War Declared

The war in Iraq was a real war, now don't say it's not. The US dragged the UK into it because Bush didn't like Saddam. I know several soldiers who fought in Iraq and also I know several that died because of Bush dragging us into it. Only one of my friends that died in Iraq was killed by the hostiles, the rest were killed by American friendly fire.

The war in Afghanistan is also a real war, and it's a war which the US CANNOT win. How long have you guys been trying to find Osama, and he's hiding in a cave!!

Political or not, the US couldn't beat Vietnam.

Oh, and saying that China would lose is STUPID. China have a MUCH larger military force than the US. If we took into account all the countries that would support China, and all the countries that would support the US, the US would lose.

The UK would be the most likely to support the US, but against countries such as Russia,China and so on the UK wouldn't really get involved...
__________________
[paired with DarkAmethyst a.k.a angel-chan] URPG stats Ranger Log

Credit to Neo Pikachu for the avatar.

Last edited by Kaioo; 03-26-2011 at 02:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-26-2011, 02:22 PM
Lusankya's Avatar
Lusankya Offline
Deus ex Crucio
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,687
Default Re: War Declared

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaioo View Post
The war in Iraq was a real war, now don't say it's not. The US dragged the UK into it because Bush didn't like Saddam. I know several soldiers who fought in Iraq and also I know several that died because of Bush dragging us into it. Only one of my friends that died in Iraq was killed by the hostiles, the rest were killed by American friendly fire.

The war in Afghanistan is also a real war, and it's a war which the US CANNOT win. How long have you guys been trying to find Osama, and he's hiding in a cave!!

Political or not, the US couldn't beat Vietnam.

Oh, and saying that China would lose is STUPID. China have a MUCH larger military force than the US.
It was a real war for a couple weeks, after which it turned into an occupation. Also I'm sorry for your loss, but personal experience is completely and utterly meaningless when it comes to statistics. As any scientist can tell you, the plural of anecdote is not evidence. The kind of combat happening in Iraq and Afghanistan now isn't even comparable to the combat that was happening at the start of the Iraq War, in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, or heck, 1812. The insurgents don't have an army, the fighting consists almost purely of small-scale, double-digit-numbers-of-people-or-lower gunfights, roadside bombs, and suicide attacks. The average American casualty rate in Iraq (4,400 dead over 7 years averages out to 628 dead per year) is comparable to the homicide rate in Detroit in 1974 and 1991 (714 and 615, respectively). The war just isn't comparable to what have been called wars in the past.

It's also an occupation, though at points there were fairly large battles. Most combat now occurs along the Pakistan border. And the who the hell are you to say the US can't win? Finding Bin Laden hasn't been a primary objective for years, and whether he is captured or not is totally irrelevant to the war itself.

Really? So, which country, Vietnam or the US, ended up having to rebuild all their cities and replant all their farms and had to deal with the aftereffects of being bombed into smithereens and having Agent Orange give them all cancer for generations?

The US military is 2/3rds of the Chinese military, which is hardly significant once you consider that the US has vast superiority in every other military aspect that matters. Again, China would never be able to use its numerical advantage due to being forced to hide in cities and tunnels the entire time. Before you go around spouting nonsense, attempt to learn something about warfare.
__________________

Art Gallery
Dali: "I know what the picture should be ... We take a duck and put some dynamite in its derriere. When the duck explodes, I jump and you take the picture."
Halsman: "Don't forget that we are in America. We will be put in prison if we start exploding ducks."
Dali: "You're right. Let's take some cats and splash them with water."

Last edited by Lusankya; 03-26-2011 at 02:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-26-2011, 03:04 PM
Blood Red Lucario's Avatar
Blood Red Lucario Offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Aboard Starship Enterprise
Posts: 473
Send a message via AIM to Blood Red Lucario Send a message via Yahoo to Blood Red Lucario
Default Re: War Declared

Quote:
Originally Posted by TitaniumAnimations View Post
Wow! False! The United States bombed plenty of cities, including Hamburg and Dresden (yes, the United States took part in Dresden).

The person who says numbers do not matter, obviously has too few men. Numbers do count. Numbers count a lot. Not only is it a large mass of warm bodies for you to throw endlessly at your enemies, it also has a psychological affect on them as well. If you saw an endless wave of enemies coming toward you defenses, you would break and fall back.

I do not care how any victory was achieved. Lusankya acted as if the U.S military was unbeatable, said there was no one who could beat it. The point is, yes, there are people who can beat it as there have been people who could beat it in the past.

About my Rome comparison. In no way did I directly compare the two armies. I simply stated that they were both considered unbeatable until they were beaten.
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.
Quote:
The person who says numbers do not matter, obviously has too few men.
You do know that Sun Tzu is Chinese right...... and he pretty much developed the system in which most modern tacticians take into consideration.

To bring your analogy of 1vs10 if that one is in a airplane just how successful do you think that one is going to be? In the 1v10 battle if that 1 is not only better equipped but has better armor as well how well do you think he is gonna do? Khaj mentioned better tactical training which in any battle is the most important component. If that one has better tactics who do you think is going to win? The US has all of those advantages against larger armies. With air superiority 1v10 is child's play 1v50 would be more like a challenge.

Quote:
If you saw an endless wave of enemies coming toward you defenses, you would break and fall back.
That endless wave can be easily crippled and shut down by digging into the terrain and push that endless wave back until reinforcements arrived. No soldier in his right mind in a key defensive position would just fall back because the army was bigger. You can train nerve in soldiers, it's not easy but it can be done.

And if the defensive position were to fall back it would be so that they can get a better position to curb the enemy advance. They will go to higher ground or terrain where they can pick them off.

Numbers haven't been a psychological advantage since armies have teched up. Smaller armies use guerrilla tactics to force a stalemate with larger forces look at what happened in Vietnam. We pumped large numbers of fairly reluctant soldiers into that jungle and the relatively small group of guerrilla insurgents forced us into a draw and based on our objectives a "loss" on our part. It was a loss by forfeit not a loss because we simply got overpowered. Once again if we really wanted to win that war we had the tech to just burn the country to dust without even dropping a nuke. Napalm and the MOAB were what made American appeal in the warzone fall because we took after Europe and carpet bombed. If we didn't care about civilians like our enemies our wars now would be battles our wars then would be a week of burning down a jungle.


Quote:
they were both considered unbeatable until they were beaten.

One was unbeatable in its prime. It got defeated after its prime had long past. When Rome lost its army it was a shadow of its former self. The undefeated heavy weight boxing champ will eventually get too old to box and have to give away his title in a fight to a boxer of his caliber in his prime. The US hasn't lost that prime yet so comparing an aging decrepit army to one that is still in its prime is not a valid one.

Vietnam was a forced draw. The US lost because they couldn't invade which was the objective. Ultimately the Vietcong managed to do what most successful guerrilla forces managed to do: stab at the giants foot until one of two things happened A) that giant goes away or b) that giant curb stomps the whole area. Being relatively gentle giants we chose A.

If the Vietcong truly wanted to win the army battle they would have counterattack on our soil and Lus said it better than I ever could:


Quote:
In the case of our scenario, no army in the world can fight a major land war against the US and be able to use their numbers, superior or not. It doesn't matter how many soldiers they have, whenever they show their faces in numbers they will be bombed into oblivion since the US is guaranteed to have aerial superiority.
In terms of the Afghan war and the previous war with Afghanistan we face the same issues with this populace than what we had to face in Vietnam. The real enemy of the war is hiding in the populace and an army cannot pick the real bad guy out of a group of people who look relatively the same in terms of innocence. We could just flatten the whole region but we won't because the US isn't going to kill off citizens. Most likely the Afghan war is going end just like the Iraq war. We are going to gut out the major power there settle any domestic disputes set up a stable government for the people to work with and leave.

Quote:
The war in Iraq was a real war, now don't say it's not. The US dragged the UK into it because Bush didn't like Saddam. I know several soldiers who fought in Iraq and also I know several that died because of Bush dragging us into it. Only one of my friends that died in Iraq was killed by the hostiles, the rest were killed by American friendly fire.

The war in Afghanistan is also a real war, and it's a war which the US CANNOT win. How long have you guys been trying to find Osama, and he's hiding in a cave!!

Political or not, the US couldn't beat Vietnam.

The US could beat the Vietcong. They didn't want to burn away the citizens along with them. The war in Iraq was to allegedly find wmds (there weren't any) the battles that took place in Iraq was America jumping into a civil war they didn't really know about and got caught in the middle of when they hung the guy that originally was the one who held the peace (by tyrannical rule).

The US asked for assistance from the UK. Wanna know something? Vietnam for the US was to help the French out. Its how alliances work. If a soldier dies because he is helping an ally he died just as nobly. People die in wars you should have been prepared to never see your friends again when you heard they were going to a war.

The friendly fire incidents are bad but the UK was not "dragged" into this war the US asked for help and they answered. I'm not entirely familiar with the UK's government but if I remember correctly your Prime Minister got a lot of flack for answering that call.
__________________

Absol Hatches: 27 Level 100: 312

All credit goes to Knightblazer
URPG
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-26-2011, 05:25 PM
Lord Fedora's Avatar
Lord Fedora Offline
ASB Official
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Y'all stay off my property!
Posts: 8,469
Send a message via AIM to Lord Fedora
Default Re: War Declared

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaioo View Post
The war in Iraq was a real war, now don't say it's not. The US dragged the UK into it because Bush didn't like Saddam. I know several soldiers who fought in Iraq and also I know several that died because of Bush dragging us into it. Only one of my friends that died in Iraq was killed by the hostiles, the rest were killed by American friendly fire.

The war in Afghanistan is also a real war, and it's a war which the US CANNOT win. How long have you guys been trying to find Osama, and he's hiding in a cave!!
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.

Quote:
Political or not, the US couldn't beat Vietnam.
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.

Quote:
Oh, and saying that China would lose is STUPID. China have a MUCH larger military force than the US. If we took into account all the countries that would support China, and all the countries that would support the US, the US would lose.

The UK would be the most likely to support the US, but against countries such as Russia,China and so on the UK wouldn't really get involved...
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.
__________________
URPG/ASB Stats
98% of teens won't stand up for God. Repost this if you think that statistic is the most laughable thing ever.
My new AIM username is GrayFedora12. Do not respond or click on links from any IMs from LordKhajmer.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-26-2011, 07:23 PM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: War Declared

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Khajmer View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blood Red Lucario View Post
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.
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-26-2011, 07:36 PM
Kaioo's Avatar
Kaioo Offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ^.^
Posts: 3,416
Send a message via AIM to Kaioo
Default Re: War Declared

What I'm trying to say is that the US is NOT unbeatable. No matter how technologically superior you are, you can lose. Let's look at Russia. They were essentially defeated by the Taliban in the 70's. Now, I know they withdrew because of Chernobyl and because their political leader wanted to withdraw because they hadn't really gained much, but they still lost.
__________________
[paired with DarkAmethyst a.k.a angel-chan] URPG stats Ranger Log

Credit to Neo Pikachu for the avatar.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-26-2011, 07:40 PM
Lan.exe's Avatar
Lan.exe Offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 1,192
Send a message via AIM to Lan.exe
Default Re: War Declared

Also the Russian defeat of the Germans in WWII shows that sheer numbers give the upper hand, so China could win against the USA.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-26-2011, 07:53 PM
Teddiursa of the Sky's Avatar
Teddiursa of the Sky Offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Terseland.
Posts: 3,068
Send a message via Skype™ to Teddiursa of the Sky
Default Re: War Declared

One of the only reasons the Russian's push was successful was because of that ol' Russian wintah!
__________________
Latest Test/Work in Production:
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Style Design: AlienSector.com