NEw president!!

[Rudster8161]

time to pick what you said apart.

right, so #i say that HMS daring is the most advanced war ship, in fact that statement is true...

ok when the USS George W. Bush sets sail that will be the most advanced war ship.

yes it is, it is curently the most technologically advanced warship, and it's due in service in 2008. Britain has the most advanced war ship, not america britain

if it isnt in service than it isnt really a warship, her crew still has to be trained and stuff.

well perhaps if you had some brits training you y'all might be five times better at staying alive! (referre to my earlier post regarding that) ten there would be enough peopel to opperate them!

who said the reason we have a higher rate of deaths means were less trained? i know more about that stuff than you will probably ever know, ive seen people on TV leave out important details about stuff like this but they claim to be "experts" on the subject, and i know neither of us are better trained. our training programs are virtually the same, especially your marines training, which is almost the same as ours, expect you only have a brigade of them and we have several divisions. besides we have more men deployed in hotter(more likely to see combat) regions. and were the ones paying for most of the stuff that is brought to iraq. and we made the elections possible in many, many more towns, you guys have hardly helped compared to what we have done, and dont tell me you havent, in most conflicts we both particapated in we were the deciding factor, WW1, you and the french were no match for the germans when the russians plead for peace, WW2, no way in hell could have you survived without or weapons, aircraft, tanks, guns, ships, etc. we made over 60% of everything that was produced during the war, that includes the Axis forces. Gulf War, you guys were much less of a factor there than in both WW's, seems like now you guys dont want to support NATO as much as we do, your too afraid of having too many deaths

you still have to get at the ship first.
radwhat I've sad above, now we've estabilished that it might only be a destroyer, and not a 'us-built-super-carrier' but you still have to get at it...

you can't fly to it, it'll see you ad intercept you before you're even close.
you can't fire a missile at it, not even a smart missile.

you can'teven take it down with mulitple smart missiles.

you can sail to it, because aside from the fact that it'll move as part of a larger defensive fleet, it'll see you coming and deploy weapons.

ok than we will fly 2 F-117 and put 2 JDams right on the deck of the ship, how are you goign to defend agaisnt that. you cant, and the only reason your getting stealth fighters(F-35) is because its OUR technolgy.

without a full on war (which there will never be) between the UK and US it's impossible to know who has the best army.

theres been 2. our revolution where we beat you guys agaisnt every possible odds, even with the help of the french the odds were still VERY slim. and than there was the war of 1812 which you guys just left in the middle of the fight, wasnt really a winner in that one, if there was one it would have to be us since you guys left the fight but thats not really losing.

there will never be an accurate comparison, which is why (if you look at my post), I decided to stick to fact.
(obviously I'm english, I want the UK to be the best, but there is no substantial evidence to say who is the best).

but you know the US is better. face it, we have
More men
more better trained men, we have many more marines, which the training is alsmot the same
more tanks
better tanks
better AH's
a WAY better navy
combat ready stealth aircraft
better non stealth aircraft

and most of your tech comes from us so without us your pretty mucy screwed

 

[Brookfield]

OK guys, some of you are right on the borderline between discussion & argument, which, as we all know could lead to flaming, so cool it now please, Me? I'm enjoying the discussion, so I'd be loathe to lock it, but I may well do if there are many more "near the mark" posts.

Thanks.

 

[Steff]

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

Americans wonder why half the world doesnt like them... you think your the BEST... your untouchable... you created everything.... so forth and so forth, now dont get me wrong me personaly like the americans but when you guys start saying you are better than our country (UK and the rest of the world) I get kinda annoyed, when you think about it, the UK is the size of one state or what ever in the US and the US has how ever many states..... we are ONE of the leading countrys on this earth along with the US and our army is good considering the size of our land... the fact of the matter is the US is not better and you need us as much as we need you

 

[root]

ok when the USS George W. Bush sets sail that will be the most advanced war ship.

FFS Learn to read! I said, britain currently has the most advanced war ship, I never said anything about crew, weapons, or anything, I said britain currently has the most advanced war ship.

ok, WHEN the george W bush sets sail the US will have the currently most technologically advanced warship, (I'll just believe you, although TBH I await it's reports as the most technologically advanced war ship in recognized engineering press -which I haven't yet seen)...

so right now, Britain does have the most technologically advanced ship. it won't be that way forever, but it does now.

and UNTIL the next latest greatest ship is launched it does, the subtext of your post agrees with what I'm saying, but you'll never just write it, I've learned that most posters on forums are far too arrogant to just come out and say, yes, in this one particular instance I was in fact wrong.

if it isnt in service than it isnt really a warship, her crew still has to be trained and stuff.

it has a trained crew, it was launched last year, it's a ship for war- a war ship, it was built as a war ship, it's primary function is war, it's a war ship!

who said the reason we have a higher rate of deaths means were less trained?

I did, hardly authoritative, but statistically yanks are five times more likely to die in iraq than limeys are. I've already posted proof of that (so far 1.5% of all americans who've gone to iraq have come home in boxes compared to 0.3% of britains, I'll not bother to calculate the percentage of the britains who are dead that were killed by americans, but it's likely to be around 5-10%) or percentage of Americans killed by British...

i know more about that stuff than you will probably ever know,

proof?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/rudster_knows_more_than_anone_else_cause_hes_so_leet
/sarcasm

really I'm awaiting your proof.

You've barely reached secondary school, yet you know more about the advanced engineering than I do, after I've studied engineering to a professional level and am a member of the worlds leading engineering professional body? truthfully, unless you go on to study engineering to university level, I can say in this instance (and with what I was talking about) I know more than you'll ever know - and if you want proof I can always scan my degree certificate.

basically what I'm saying is STFU... I posted you proof about the facts of what I said, I'm still awaiting any kind of reasonable response...
that does't mean just saying you know more than you nah nah nah...

currently I've only proved that I know more... by posting facts, figures citing references... not just saying something and then following it by saying, yes true honest I know more than you and you'll just have to believe me!

we have more men deployed in hotter (more likely to see combat) regions.

well done, you paraphrased my post, I already said that earlier... care to repeat anything else I said? -though also as I said before, statistically speaking Basra, -Iraq's second city currently under Britain's control is more dangerous than Bagdad.

and were the ones paying for most of the stuff that is brought to iraq.

that's technically not true, you're military spending in Iraq is higher because you have more people there, it's not like you're providing much more infrastructure or giving some kind of handouts to Iraqis or anything like that!

and we made the elections possible in many, many more towns, you guys have hardly helped compared to what we have done, and dont tell me you havent,

by sheer numbers alone, if there were a quarter of a million UK soldiers there I'm sure that they would hod equal territory, however there is not, frankly Britain does not have the money to 'throw' at another country -especially a country that doesn't want us there... and if you look properly at the figures you'll see that America doesn't really have the money either!

in most conflicts we both particapated in we were the deciding factor, WW1, you and the french were no match for the germans when the russians plead for peace, WW2, no way in hell could have you survived without or weapons, aircraft, tanks, guns, ships, etc. we made over 60% of everything that was produced during the war, that includes the Axis forces. Gulf War, you guys were much less of a factor there than in both WW's, seems like now you guys dont want to support NATO as much as we do, your too afraid of having too many deaths

firstly, Britain and France fought for three years before America finally decided to get off it's arse and contribute anything to the effort of the second world war, don't pretend like you're some kind of gallant saviour, you;re simply not. you sat around counting pennies deciding what side you wanted to be on.

second.
Nato is North Atlantic treaty organisation. it's primary statement is:

The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

surely with your vastly superior knowledge you should know that Iraq didn't attack any countries inside the treaty organization. NATO has nothing to do with this...

in fact the only world body regarding war and peace that has anything to do with it is the UN, and it was America who decided to opt-out of that decision making process when it went to war in Iraq.

ok than we will fly 2 F-117 and put 2 JDams right on the deck of the ship, how are you goign to defend against that. you cant, and the only reason your getting stealth fighters(F-35) is because its OUR technology.

FFS noob, read what I said, the ship is not invincible, but then neither are F117's planes can and will be shot down, ships can and will be sunk.

you can say as much as you like that the plane can avoid missiles, but I can say that the ship can avoid attack, also, I've already said that the ship will never be alone, it moves as a part of a fleet offering protection to the rest of the fleet and the fleet offers protection to it.

fair enough, -the ship has no defense against certain things. but you can say that about anything.

I can easily say that an American super-carrier, won't survive a nuclear bomb being dropped on the deck.
that statement is infallible -just like your's, but it doesn't even touch on the logistics of how to get the plane above a ship.

our revolution where we beat you guys agaisnt every possible odds,

hmmm...
OK, let me explain, the revolution was a civil war, until that war finished there was no actual Americans, America wasn't formed as a nation... you didn't beat the british, because there was no you. there were government and revolutionaries.

even with the help of the french the odds were still VERY slim.

and even then you didn't win on your own

and than there was the war of 1812 which you guys just left in the middle of the fight, wasnt really a winner in that one, if there was one it would have to be us since you guys left the fight but thats not really losing.

but you know the US is better.

no we don't that's the point I'm making there is no quantative measure that you can apply to both sides

More men

you also have more land to defend, you'd expect a bigger army, you're a bigger nation.

more better trained men,

we've already discussed training, most people point out that american training is nothing special, in fact it was pointed out earlier in the thread that most third world contries seem to military train their street sweepers better than the US trains the average GI

more tanks
better tanks
better AH's
a WAY better navy
combat ready stealth aircraft
better non stealth aircraft

and most of your tech comes from us so without us your pretty mucy screwed

you already said that you had loads more equipment but no-one to operate them!
as I said if you pulled your patriotic head out of your arse and looked around then you'd see that American isn't just the best at everything.
Britain isn't best at anything. and the whole point of being allies is that you share technology.

I'll tell you another 'fact' now the standard workhorse trail bike of the army (all Nato countries), (harley davidson MT350) is an modernization of a British bike -MT500, it is designed in Italy. and is only built by harley davidson because the US had decided that it couldn't trust it's NATO partners to be suppliers...



(why the f**k am I arguing on the internet)

 

[compguy91]

I think this has almost turned into an argument. I'll share my thoughts. I think the UK has been our strongest ally, yes we did have a war with them but that was a very very long time ago. We've had very good relations with them for a long time though. I really don't think any of the two are "better" as it's a matter of opinion. I think that the UK does and has things the US doesn't, and vice versa. I actually give credit to the UK for supporting us through all the things they have, even this war in Iraq which a lot of people have strong opinions about and has had questionable success. Britain could have just as easily said no and cut and run but they didn't, which is why they're such a good ally; because they stand behind us and we stand behind them.

 

[Celegorm]

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!

Americans wonder why half the world doesnt like them... you think your the BEST... your untouchable... you created everything.... so forth and so forth, now dont get me wrong me personaly like the americans but when you guys start saying you are better than our country (UK and the rest of the world) I get kinda annoyed, when you think about it, the UK is the size of one state or what ever in the US and the US has how ever many states..... we are ONE of the leading countrys on this earth along with the US and our army is good considering the size of our land... the fact of the matter is the US is not better and you need us as much as we need you

Very good point. +1 for that. You are right, we are not inviceible. If we were, not a single soldier would be dead. Just look at Vietnam though, we lost there didn't we? We can't beat everyone.

the fact of the matter is the US is not better and you need us as much as we need you

Agree with that soo much that it was worth re-quoting and bolding. Neither of our country could go far in combat with out the other. We are such good allies for a reason.

Also like Brookfield, I am getting a little concerned here. If it does start to turn into more of a heated argument, it will get closed. Also like Him, I'd hate to do it, but considering the topic, if it needs to be done, it will.

 

[Steff]

Thank you, I just think that neither of us are better and we do need each other, like we went into the war with Iraq with the US because were allies and as the US helped us in other wars, kinda like a team effort sort of thing, some of us seem to forget

 

[Dark Night]

Umm, other nations win alot more than the US. Almost all the war games that Canada and US participates in, Canada comes out on top.

WTF, Canada never comes out on top. They retreated from Iraq. And, the only country really helping us is England. Our allies should get there a**es in there.

 

[mammikoura]

funny....they said WW1 was the war to end all wars

yeah, but I guess they said it because so many people died.
But come on, as long as there are weapons of mass destruction that are capable of wiping a whole country from the face of this planet in a matter of days no one is going to go to a war against a country that has such weapons.


ohh and rudster, just stop it.
If you can't argue with facts then don't.
I already proved that a brazilian car mechanic has more military training than your "professional" soldiers. So there goes the "as good training as britains"
Then you say "better tanks". So, why is the Abrams better than the Challenger 2? Ohh right.. it isn't. They are pretty equal, though I'd say the Challenger is more advanced and a little better.

Better AH's (attack helicopters?)
Both use the apache.... yeah.... sure your apache is better since it's american?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-64_Apache
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westland_WAH-64_Apache
(yeah wiki is a crappy source but you can easily confirm that both use the apache if you don't trust wiki)

And you can go ahead and fly those f-117's straight into destruction. That aircraft doesn't stand a chance to get even close to a modern ship with anti-air capabilities. FYI, the stealth technology is VERY outdated and can be detected with pretty much any modern radar.

ohh and one more thing. "Only reason you have the F-35 is because we designed it" is just... well...idiotic to say. UK and many other countries have been funding the research and helped to design the thing.

Can you just not understand that your country isn't the best in everything?

ohh and brookfield (and other mods too)
please, don't lock this thread. It's one of the most hilarious threads in ages. Seeing rudster getting owned over and over again is so funny I can't stop laughing. (and rudster, I don't mean to offed you in any way)
Seriously, this is a very entertaining thread.

 

[Celegorm]

ohh and brookfield (and other mods too)
please, don't lock this thread. It's one of the most hilarious threads in ages. Seeing rudster getting owned over and over again is so funny I can't stop laughing. (and rudster, I don't mean to offed you in any way)
Seriously, this is a very entertaining thread.

Haha, I don't want to. I too find it entertaining. Wouldn't be as funny if Rudster started showing us where he is getting these things from. I can tell you it ain't the history channel.

However, if the need comes, I will have to do it