The greatest nation on earth

[ClubFoot]

Facts are facts. The US didnt enter the War until Pearl Harbor more than 2 years after the War had been raging in Europe and Asia.

The reason Germany lost the War was because of the quagmire they caught themselves in invading Russia.

The D-Day/Normandy landings were over a year late. Stalin has been requesting the invasion since 1942 and Roosevelt had been promising it since 1943, and by 1944 when it actually happened the bulk of the fighting had already been done, and Stalin was so angry that it hadnt happened yet that he was threatening to leave the Axis powers..

You really think the US just swooped in in 1944 and whupped some Nazi arse in one battle and saved the world? No my friend that is just propaganda.

You will never convince them of the above facts. I gave up trying a long time ago

 

[whougonnacall]

hmmmm greatest nation on earth?
dunno google gives different results as to who has the largest female to male ratio ..surely thats the real decider :icon_chee

 

[Zer]

hmmmm greatest nation on earth?
dunno google gives different results as to who has the largest female to male ratio ..surely thats the real decider :icon_chee

How about this?

 

[sh1tehawke]

How about this?

are these measurements on the slack or standing to attention?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

How about this?

Seems accurate to me

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

please tell me this last part was a joke or something
even in some sort of 'no nukes allowed war' the u.s loses and loses horribly in that scenario. Largest military on earth yes but fuck me vs the entire world ? come on now

Actually the US doesn't have the largest military on Earth -even if you include reserves. We do have the largest Navy and Airforce respectively, and more bases located on damn near every corner of the world than anyone else with which to attack just about anyone from anywhwere at any time.

I never said such a thing would be successful, nor that it would ever happen. But if it did, we would have more than a chance of pulling it off. The conditions I would throw out there for it to be able to happen to any degree of success on our end would be:

A. Conventional warfare -meaning whoever we are facing is fighting a straight up stand up war, no terrorist bullshit. We're talking military Vs military here.

B. Non occupancy based fighting. In other words, we beat your ass we move on. No trying to help you re-structure or set up shop and keep you in line. Just straight ass whuppin and we're out.

even in some sort of 'no nukes allowed war' the u.s loses

1st off, everyone loses if Nukes get involved. That said..


Now its my turn to ask, are you shitting me? You do realize until the recent disarmamant that the US alone had enough Nukes to blow up the Earth more than several times over, we had more of a stockpile than even the Soviets. And we are more advanced, and in posession of much better means than anyone else to deliver the goods wherever we would like to. Not only that, but our air missle defense system is light years away from almost anyone else and there would be a great chance that we could nuke the fuck out of people without fear of devistating retaliation. We supposedly reduced the number of our Nukes -but thats if you really trust what they say, and I do not.

No, you would have to take Nukes out of this to even give the rest of the world a chance. Not the other way around.

Probably not a good idea for you to try debating on my language skills, while at the same time it's obvious that your arguments s*cks.
One doesn't have to be an expert to read and understand your nonsense.

Merry Christmas, mate!

Yes, you do in fact have to know what the fuck I am talking about, to properly comment on what the fuck I am talking about.

Shouldn't you be busy plotting your next move against Moose and Sqvuirrel?

 

[Katsumi Yamada]

Realistically, USA wouldnt dare to attack the UK for fear of the consequences...and vice versa

so they are evenly powerful. agreed?

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Realistically, USA wouldnt dare to attack the UK for fear of the consequences...and vice versa

so they are evenly powerful. agreed?

We would beat the shit out of you.

 

[Katsumi Yamada]

We would beat the shit out of you.

you wouldn't dare though, so its irrelevant.

*because we are a nuclear power

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

you wouldn't dare though, so its irrelevant.

No, the UK is irrelevant, so we wouldn't bother.

 

[Possum Jenkins]

You will never convince them of the above facts. I gave up trying a long time ago

Furthermore, the idea that the US came in like a hero to save the world is off.

A hero gets involved early. The US entered the war after Japan attacked its colony and after Germany declared war on it.

Through the late 30s, lots of government officials were expressing admiration towards both Mussolini and Hitler.

Instead of a principled hero rushing in to action, it seems like the US was a neutral player who stood on the sidelines and ever so slightly sided with the Allies until they got attacked and forced into the fight.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Furthermore, the idea that the US came in like a hero to save the world is off.

A hero gets involved early. The US entered the war after Japan attacked its colony and after Germany declared war on it.

Through the late 30s, lots of government officials were expressing admiration towards both Mussolini and Hitler.

Instead of a principled hero rushing in to action, it seems like the US was a neutral player who stood on the sidelines and ever so slightly sided with the Allies until they got attacked and forced into the fight.

This is all misinformed bullshit. Roosevelt was looking to get into the war long before we actually did. Public support however was very un-approval of this, as were some government officials. Instead, the US supplied the UK almost from the start, which caused alot of shit between us and Germany as well as Japan.

 

[Yompton]

Because America saved the world in WWII.

Without us we'd all be speaking German and at least half the planet would just be blue-eyed, blonde-haired assholes.

As payment, the rest of the world has to kiss our asses for at least another century.

Correct! You can be as mad as you want my fellow foreign sherdoggers, but this is the root of it all and it's true. Talk Russian casualties, but much of that was due to the fact that in spite of how Russia views Stalin the guy was a dipshit. No different then Saddam and Iraq in the sense that his forces took casualties because he personally had to dabble in battle tactics he had no business devising. The Russians would have done what for most of Europe once they were safe? Please save the horseshit. I don't agree that politicians say that, I think the assholes in the limelight are a joke who make a mockery of what historic Americans have fought to accomplish. As far as why you have to hear that, this man gave a pretty good answer...even if you don't like the way he states it. Get some thicker skin, we're gonna bust your balls about it.

 

[whougonnacall]

Actually the US doesn't have the largest military on Earth -even if you include reserves. We do have the largest Navy and Airforce respectively, and more bases located on damn near every corner of the world than anyone else with which to attack just about anyone from anywhwere at any time.

I never said such a thing would be successful, nor that it would ever happen. But if it did, we would have more than a chance of pulling it off. The conditions I would throw out there for it to be able to happen to any degree of success on our end would be:

A. Conventional warfare -meaning whoever we are facing is fighting a straight up stand up war, no terrorist bullshit. We're talking military Vs military here.

B. Non occupancy based fighting. In other words, we beat your ass we move on. No trying to help you re-structure or set up shop and keep you in line. Just straight ass whuppin and we're out.




1st off, everyone loses if Nukes get involved. That said..


Now its my turn to ask, are you shitting me? You do realize until the recent disarmamant that the US alone had enough Nukes to blow up the Earth more than several times over, we had more of a stockpile than even the Soviets. And we are more advanced, and in posession of much better means than anyone else to deliver the goods wherever we would like to. Not only that, but our air missle defense system is light years away from almost anyone else and there would be a great chance that we could nuke the fuck out of people without fear of devistating retaliation. We supposedly reduced the number of our Nukes -but thats if you really trust what they say, and I do not.

No, you would have to take Nukes out of this to even give the rest of the world a chance. Not the other way around.

never said you had the largest amount of soliders just the largest military machine
and no you wouldnt have a chance of pulling it off ....even the most die hard patriot american would admit that america vs the entire world is a stupid unwinnable fantasy scenario

a) doesnt help you in the world vs u.s scenario you described
b) neither does that

as for the nukes thing I agree that everyone loses if nukes are used thats why i said it would HAVE to be no nules ... but to correct the other stuff you said
-actualy the soviets/russians had and If I recall corrctly still have the largest arsenal there
- your delivery means are no more advanced to any degree that would matter than any other nation that has them
- By great chance you mean 0 chance...they dont work
Plenty of nations have advanced anti missle systems too
In fact israels iron dome has actualy racked up by far and away the clearest sucess rate (although this is in question and even if true is against largely home made rockets) . Modern intercept rates of these systems in all countires are simply way too low to even consider them as a factor.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

This is all misinformed bullshit. Roosevelt was looking to get into the war long before we actually did. Public support however was very un-approval of this, as were some government officials. Instead, the US supplied the UK almost from the start, which caused alot of shit between us and Germany as well as Japan.

Then why did Roosevelt pass the Neutrality Acts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Acts_of_1930s

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

never said you had the largest amount of soliders just the largest military machine
and no you wouldnt have a chance of pulling it off ....even the most die hard patriot american would admit that america vs the entire world is a stupid unwinnable fantasy scenario

a) doesnt help you in the world vs u.s scenario you described
b) neither does that

as for the nukes thing I agree that everyone loses if nukes are used thats why i said it would HAVE to be no nules ... but to correct the other stuff you said
-actualy the soviets/russians had and still have the largest arsenal there
- your delivery means are no more advanced to any degree that would matter than any other nation that has them
- By great chance you mean 0 chance...they dont work
Plenty of nations have advanced anti missle systems too
In fact israels iron dome has actualy racked up by far and away the clearest sucess rate (although this is in question and even if true is against largely home made rockets) . Modern intercept rates of these systems in all countires are simply way too low to even consider them as a factor.

A. I never said the entire world; I said the entire civilized world. And yes, conventional war matters a shit ton here.

B. This also counts because we won't get tied up trying to subdue and occupy - wasting valuable manpower and resource.

-It is only speculated what Russia has as much as they do, and many beleive their numbers are exagerrated. Add the fact that many beleive the US lies and downplays exactly how much it actually has.. and you see where I am going with this.

-- your delivery means are no more advanced to any degree that would matter than any other nation that has them

This is a completely ridiculous statement. The fact alone that we have bases all over the world that could toss them over near by borders is enough. Not to mention Submarines capapble of lauching off coasts and our gi-fucking-gantic air force that has the capability of delivering a payload anywhere we'd like to drop it off.

- By great chance you mean 0 chance...they dont work
Plenty of nations have advanced anti missle systems too

Sure, there are other countries that have advanced systems, but it is a fact that the US is easily leading the world in damn near every war related technological arena, including this one.

Not to mention, almost every nation I am speaking of would have to somehow get across the Atlantic or Pacific to deliver, while we would'nt have to work as hard to acomplish such a feat.


Let all that sink in.

 

[Yompton]

America vs the world with everybody trying to invade us would be about as fair as one country vs everybody ever. We have a tactile advantage, ocean to ocean laying cover to desert and open lands, mountain ranges, forests, ect. Our people are armed, our military is budgeted big time, and we have years upon years of battle tactics for every situation, most of which is many steps ahead of everything else in use by everyone else. Top of the line militaries not called the US...are using our old shit. There's a reason! Good luck trying to mess with Mexico to get at us. Canada, as much as they hate to admit it, would not screw us over, and we'd reinforce them so you couldn't set up shop on the continent. It would be a throw down! You essentially would be taking on North America.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Then why did Roosevelt pass the Neutrality Acts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Acts_of_1930s

I thought I underlined the word 'public'


Also, why did he pass that act but then turn around and supply the Brits? Use your head.

 

[Zankou]

Then why did Roosevelt pass the Neutrality Acts?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrality_Acts_of_1930s

Did you even read that link?

"Powerful forces in United States Congress pushing for non-interventionism and strong Neutrality Acts were the Republican Senators William Edgar Borah, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Gerald P. Nye and Robert M. La Follette, Jr.,[1] but support of non-interventionism was not limited to the Republican party. The Ludlow Amendment, requiring a public referendum before any declaration of war except in cases of defense against direct attack, was introduced several times without success between 1935 and 1940 by Democratic Representative Louis Ludlow.

Democratic President Roosevelt and especially his Secretary of State Cordell Hull were critical of the Neutrality Acts, fearing that they would restrict the administration's options to support the country's allies."

FDR was a massive warmonger from the start. Fortunately he had so much opposition within the American public that our entry into the war was delayed until the optimum time. Good timing, yep.

 

[AGGAMEMNON66]

Did you even read that link?

"Powerful forces in United States Congress pushing for non-interventionism and strong Neutrality Acts were the Republican Senators William Edgar Borah, Arthur H. Vandenberg, Gerald P. Nye and Robert M. La Follette, Jr.,[1] but support of non-interventionism was not limited to the Republican party. The Ludlow Amendment, requiring a public referendum before any declaration of war except in cases of defense against direct attack, was introduced several times without success between 1935 and 1940 by Democratic Representative Louis Ludlow.

Democratic President Roosevelt and especially his Secretary of State Cordell Hull were critical of the Neutrality Acts, fearing that they would restrict the administration's options to support the country's allies."

FDR was a massive warmonger from the start. Fortunately he had so much opposition within the American public that our entry into the war was delayed until the optimum time. Good timing, yep.

^Thank you