NEw president!!

[Brookfield]

Well i dont realy have a problem with the statement but i just wondered what relevance it had to the topic at hand . IE i thought you where going off topic a lil bit but never mind

Then why bring it up in the first place??, a bit "in your face" I think you'll agree friend, anyway no harm done I think.

 

[muz]

Then why bring it up in the first place??, a bit "in your face" I think you'll agree friend, anyway no harm done I think.

Lets just leave it be i think dosent matter i would rather not get into a dialoge about it cos it would ruin the so far imaculate thread , if you wanna disuss it furthur you know how to hit me up a PM

 

[Brookfield]

Lets just leave it be i think dosent matter i would rather not get into a dialoge about it cos it would ruin the so far imaculate thread , if you wanna disuss it furthur you know how to hit me up a PM

Nah, I won't do that, you're right, we mustn't spoil it, although some members are getting a little hot under the collar now, & I don't really want to lock it, truly.

 

[muz]

Nah, I won't do that, you're right, we mustn't spoil it, although some members are getting a little hot under the collar now, & I don't really want to lock it, truly.

well i havent seen anyone getting liek that yet , personally if it does happen how immature , we cant even hold a discussion about a serious matter without someone ruining it , simple if you dont agree with anothers opinion by all means state why and what your opinion is but no need to flame people for their beliefs its not on
If it does happen rahter than lock it down would it be possible if it is only a select few that you just delete their posts rather than ruin it for the rest off us who know how to have a serious discussion

 

[AllThingsSacred]

There seems to be a pattern here. Factor Brookfield into the equation and the thread seems to magically manifest itself in a fashion other than that of being on the rails. By the way, Setishock's profile says he was born in 1952 so I think him being a WW2 Veteran was highly unlikely. Perhaps Vietnam, though.

Setishock, please do not call me a limey as I am not a sailor and even if I was I would never admit to it. There is a very big stereotype in the UK regarding the navy.

Another thing. You mention risking conflict with China in Vietnam if you had kept pushing, could this be to do with the fact that the USA would have lost to them as well? Some undefeatable military indeed, bear in mind that the modern Chinese military, modern British military and indeed the Israeli military could easily take on the US, what you have in numbers everywhere else has in training and overall morale. Compare a British soldier to an American one, our squaddies have a sense of humour and a love of the job and a real desire to do it, whereas your film studios would have us all believe your military are a bunch of superhuman ten-hut sir-yes-sir braindead rambos who will shoot at anything that moves, friendly or otherwise. My cousin in Indiana, a former Airborne, confirms this is the case in elite forces. How many soldiers have you lost in Iraq now? 3000+. The United Kingdom has lost 168 as of today http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/04/wiraq204.xml
and easily about twenty of those were friendly fire from the awesome infallible US military.

Besides that, the rest of your rant was totally irrelevant to what I had previously written. I have every respect for the military and those who give their lives in conflict and I have a young relative who wants to join up. I am extremely proud of him even though he is not my own.

 

[Half Evil]

Well the "Great" UK wouldn't win a war against Vietnam and China, so why should the USA be expected to win against Vietnam and China at the same time?

This is a pretty <<<DELETED>>> up thread.

To say the least, no one is undefeatable. There is so much nuclear power in the world, the MAD policy would have everyone killed an not much longer then an instant. So I don't see what the bitching and moaning is about.

Someone attacks "The undefeatable USA" then we blow them away as well as us gettin our asses blown off" Its the same with any other nation. The two fighting nations are gone, and the other super powers are left to rule.

Only the other superpowers don't know who is shooting at who, so odds are good they defend themselves blowing out the two conflicting countries. Everyone would get involved. Complete disaster.

Thats just my take.

EDIT; offensive word deleted, sorry about that mate, I hope you'd do the same if I slipped up, lol.

 

[mammikoura]

Someone attacks "The undefeatable USA" then we blow them away as well as us gettin our asses blown off" Its the same with any other nation. The two fighting nations are gone, and the other super powers are left to rule.

actually I'm guessing there is no one left to rule. Even if you don't bomb them a nuclear war between 2 countries with a lot of nuclear weapons will cause a global disaster.
First all the stuff (sand, etc) that get's blown up to the atmosphere will block a lot of the sun light. And we all know how important sun light is for our survival. The nuclear fall out will probably effect the whole world. (some of the small particles go very high, travel with the winds for weeks, maybe months before landing somewhere, so the fallout will effect everyone. Though you need a lot of nukes to get a lot of fallout on areas which are far from the target. But in any case, there would be a lot of nukes.

Just for reference
Little Boy (the bomb used in Hiroshima) 13-16kt
Trident Nuclear Missile (strategic nukes lauched from submarines) = 8 warheards, 100kt each.

So if one of those ships were to launch a single nuclear missile, the power of the explosion would be 50 times stronger than Little Boy was.
And I think the max one sub can carry is 8 or those missiles.
So I bet that most of you can't even imagine the amount of damage 1 submarine can do. And if there was a nuclear war one submarine would be just a small part of it.

 

[Brookfield]

well i havent seen anyone getting liek that yet , personally if it does happen how immature , we cant even hold a discussion about a serious matter without someone ruining it , simple if you dont agree with anothers opinion by all means state why and what your opinion is but no need to flame people for their beliefs its not on
If it does happen rahter than lock it down would it be possible if it is only a select few that you just delete their posts rather than ruin it for the rest off us who know how to have a serious discussion

This sort of thing has been been happening for over a year now, & I flinch everytime some member starts a thread about war, any war in fact, knowing that it is likely to develop into arguments that could get out of hand, but I must say that on the whole this one's going fine, with just a few blips!

 

[root]

How many soldiers have you lost in Iraq now? 3000+. The United Kingdom has lost 168 as of today

firstly.
http://icasualties.org/oif/default.aspx
US body count = 3774
UK body count = 169

this site details a little more, (though it's 1 number out on the US side, - I guess another guy died since it was written) http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

this has deaths since time, http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ (3635 people died since Bush announced Mission accomplished!)

(though I ate using Wikipedia as reference)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Iraq_War_Coalition_troop_deployment

US has 250,000 soldiers deployed since war start
UK has 45,000 since war start,

the UK has less troups in Iraq,

since the war start 1.5% of US soldiers have died (with november 2004 being the statistical worst month for the US -137 dead)
since the war start 0.3% of UK soldiers have died (with March 2003 being the worst month for the UK - 27 dead)

statistically speaking the UK are five times better at staying alive, (that's not five times better - though most brits would like to think it meant that).

Also! remember deployment position plays much larger part in the death toll as well,
(aside from the whole damn place being dangerous) the US has more dangerous areas (like the whole north of the country) whilst the UK has the statistically most dangerous (Basra + Hellmann province), though (as I was told by a friend serving out there) the British soldiers are more concerned with training the Iraqi army now than gaining ground.



sadly, no-one is able to say (for sure) who is the better army,
I've pointed out, back up with facts and figures that Americans serving in Iraq are 5 times more likely to die (statistically) than their brit counterparts... now you have to examin possible reasons.

over stretching? -US cover more land so even with >5 times more soldiers they could be undermanned
incompetence?
under-trained?
under-equipped?
poor leadership? (military rather than political)

to get a straight who is better you have to look at more than who died or how many died.
you have to look at who they were fighting, who the combatants were trained by, how many died, how many are there, the terrain they fight on, their weapons. command and command experience...

Britain does have the most advanced war ship at present, (HMS Daring)

 

[Spartan109]

Now, to throw a twist on this argument, who thinks a draft is close by? I myself can't be drafted (medical issues) but I'd like to see what everyone's opinion is on that.

no one can be drafted,a piece of legislation after WW2 guarenteed that