Best army in the world?

[Clayd]

Which country do you people think has the best army?

I think (I also have a lot of backup) that the US army is by far superior to any other army.
My reasoning is, the counter-intelligence that the USA Armed Forces possesses is without a doubt, second to none. With spies and 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world, the USA Armed Forces has the ultimate capability to plan and attack an air or ground combat war, or dispatch for rescue and humanitarian relief. US Army active personnel: 1, 055,000; Total US Armed Forces personnel: 1, 426,000; Total Military Bases Around the World: 700 in 130 countries; American Nuclear Stockpile: 5000+; Special Forces: Navy Seals, Delta Force, Green Berets, Top Gun; US Defense expenditure (Y 2008): $623 billion USD (47% of world's total military expenditure.) Lets compare that to let say Britain; British Army active personnel: 101,000; Total British Armed Forces personnel; 195,500 Total Military Bases Around the World: 86; British Nuclear Stockpile: 200+; Special Forces: Special Air Services; British Defense Expenditure (Y 2008): $69 billion USD. Now, other countries like (China) may have more man power, but their army expenses are far less than Americas. Secondly their technology standard is far down the line compared to USA.

There are many other people who support my thought.

Only the registered members can see the link.


Oh, and did I forget to mention our Navy and Airforce? Our Navy has 12 Carrier battle Groups, the next highest is the UK with 2. All of the worlds CBA put together can carry about 1250 aircraft, USA accounts for over 1000 of them.

[Sethy]

Why should we give a shit about the best participant in violence?

[Clayd]

Well, if there wasn't an army for your country I doubt you would be able to type that. Yyou could be a prisoner in a cage right now, in some country that you didn't even know existed. We should all care about our safety, as there are always going to be people who endanger it.

[Sethy]

Unless people weren't complete morons. I'm sure countries we go to war with would like alliances (Involving sharing of resources) more than fighting. Now, what do you think would cost more?

[Clayd]

Well, we can't help that there are morons. People are the way they are for their reasons. The fact is, our world is the way it is and our armies are one of the most important things for our countries. We can't change what has come, it's too late. Now we must prepare for the future, which will involve a lot of violence.

[Ramsin]

U.S has the best Army, everybody should know this.

[Yaoi]

^^ this is what i didnt want,although i live in the u.s and i hate war,technacly we do have the best weopens,army etc.Your just saying that because your live in another country.That is also considered racism against americans.

[Clayd]

Well I didn't want anyone coming in and saying "yo we b amrican n we fukz u up don b fuckn wit us ight nigga?" I just want people to say which army, and back it up.

[Brayden]

US is the best army but having nukes or w.e doesn't make you a winner since you only need 1. This question is rather large based so lets consider a few others and ignore the fact that nukes exists.

If you were to have a war between Israel and the US, the US would still win but would be greatly defeated on the ground. Israel has much better forces, US has a better Navy and Airforce though so that would be why they would win. If it was just a ground war for the most part you could count on it being a tough fight and Israel should not be underestimated.

The only other countries with any force would be Germany Russia China Britain Canada and North Korea.

Germany- has a very well rounded military, which is very good as its not common, they have fairly high technology a good air force and navy and troops are very disciplined and trained to the top. Very well rounded. However not large enough to be able to single handed take down the US.

Russia- well they were a strong force by numbers before but they were separated, now they are more connected and that has organized them much better than before, they have high numbers still at 1 million. They are much more technologically advanced and just as rugged. They have tremendous vehicles and thier men are brave and stubborn. Their force is decetly rounded and their airforce has improved.

China- would be a huge contender in a war and could possibly win. They have a army of over 2million. They do not have any limits for resources and their soldiers have passion. The soldiers are not trained as well however and the army is not equipped as well. having time to prepare for the war and they would win. Hell for all we know they may be prepared more than we know. If they are not though the US could use its technology to win the fight I think. They have trained troops that are quite good and lots of resources all ready to use.

Britain- Their troops are greatly motivated and quite well trained, low numbers and resources put it way behind though. They do not have heavy vehicles like tanks, great skills but not enough numbers and resources.

Canada- would lose. Canada has some of the best forces and high tech equipment state of the art. We do not have the numbers though and although we have some of the worlds best trained men and special forces, we are not rounded. Unlike in previous war times we now have very little to no airforce. Canada military is not expanded but for its size not regarding the airforce it is a strong measurable force.

North Korea- numbers in the 1.5 million area, rounded but not a great military. It can be summed up as most of its force is in its numbers. Nothing special to point out about them, keep in mind they do have expendable resources and are balanced.


I got a lot of this information from a friend and I trust that its correct.-


I'm going to have to correct myself on what I have researched and I think China would win a war with the US.

[Clayd]

I'm going to have to correct myself on what I have researched and I think China would win a war with the US.

I would have to simply disagree with the last statement. I know China has 5x the manpower, but they have a moderate air force and navy. If we were to war, we would win by aerial. I think we could outsmart them, use our technology to it's fullest and end up winning. Then again, we would never actually know unless it happened.

But I like your post, you actually put some thought into it. Thanks.

[Brayden]

I would have to simply disagree with the last statement. I know China has 5x the manpower, but they have a moderate air force and navy. If we were to war, we would win by aerial. I think we could outsmart them, use our technology to it's fullest and end up winning. Then again, we would never actually know unless it happened.

But I like your post, you actually put some thought into it. Thanks.
First undoubtedly US would lose if they attacked. China is too large(landmass) for their airforce to do enough damage before being shot down. US and China's navy are back and forth not separated. US forces are better and more consistently trained but the numbers and governing would win. I do think US could theoretically win on defense, but they would forfeit before they ever came to it under the right terms. China would never give up because they don't need to. I know you think the US would never give but even if they won (which is possible in my mind) causalities would be too high and you would be out of resources. The US would never go that far and would rather settle on fair terms.
The numbers are too great to overcome, no matter how well your soldiers are trained. Technology wise, do you think China is behind? Certainly not.

[Robin On Fire]

Ok. For the time being i admit the USA has the best army. But how about you tell me this that are they using all their army power for the right purposes. All they do is supress muslims , by using their own self made conspiracies as an excuse to attack and take over them. And use it to threaten people ?

Second , US would definately loose to China if they started a war approx. in 2015-2020. Litrally US Army would forfiet within a month of battle , and you know why iam saying this? its because With the fast progress in china's technology , you can never expect what they will be upto in 5-10yrs :) !

[Ikiliki]

China, because they walk as a team.

[Smudge]

I think that the USA has gone mad on the amount of Nuclear Warheads they are holding. 5000+, that's like genocide overkill. What do they plan to use 5000+ Nuclear Warheads on. USA may have a far larger army than any other country. But numbers are nothing compared to the Skill and training for soldiers around the world. Many countries such as Russia train their soldiers to a level of total insanity. SAS in the United Kingdom are trained to be one of the deadliest forces on the planet. In my opinion the U.S government is corrupt. Do you have any idea how many governments / democracies they've tried to overthrow in the past years.

But I do admit. If it comes to fire-power. US destroys everyone but when it comes to military training. It may not be the best in that area.

[Brayden]

I think that the USA has gone mad on the amount of Nuclear Warheads they are holding. 5000+, that's like genocide overkill. What do they plan to use 5000+ Nuclear Warheads on. USA may have a far larger army than any other country. But numbers are nothing compared to the Skill and training for soldiers around the world. Many countries such as Russia train their soldiers to a level of total insanity. SAS in the United Kingdom are trained to be one of the deadliest forces on the planet. In my opinion the U.S government is corrupt. Do you have any idea how many governments / democracies they've tried to overthrow in the past years.

But I do admit. If it comes to fire-power. US destroys everyone but when it comes to military training. It may not be the best in that area.

The US's military is very well trained. They may not have THE BEST special forces but they are highly trained and special forces is only 1 aspect, the navy seals are actually quite good so i don't see how your saying that they aren't trained well. Russia doesn't train their soldiers to insanity but they are extremely disciplined and as I mentioned before they are hard fighters, stubborn. The soldiers are great and have a lot of pride, no soldier trained wrongly could have pride.

[Charlie`]

Us Military, They Are We'll Informed And Trained.

[Smudge]

The US's military is very well trained. They may not have THE BEST special forces but they are highly trained and special forces is only 1 aspect, the navy seals are actually quite good so i don't see how your saying that they aren't trained well. Russia doesn't train their soldiers to insanity but they are extremely disciplined and as I mentioned before they are hard fighters, stubborn. The soldiers are great and have a lot of pride, no soldier trained wrongly could have pride.

You misunderstood sorry. I didn't mean to implement they are not trained good. All military forces are trained well; however US soldiers are not trained as the best. Neither are British Soldiers. It's pretty hard to compare.

[Aff]

We dont want to start a world war 3 on runelocus do we?

Fuck you, yes I do. L ol OL ol ol

I say Germany, considering they would pummel your American asses into the ground. Or China. China has the population, and with the money, they could easily beat each and every single one of your asses to a pulp.

[Matty]

Germany lol'd.


Britain has a superior army for its size, our Navy could possibly be classed as the best in the world obviously because we are an island and need that sort of protection. I don't believe it is the greatest in the world but most definitely a contender.

Just wondering, why start a debate on this? Its a fucking moronic topic and most Americans are too patriotic to say any other country is better than them.

[Smudge]

Also just to state. China could bankrupt America in seconds if they asked for their money. America is in debt by a damn lot to China.

[Sunni]

I would have to say the U.S army, but as far a special forces go the GSG9.

[Justin H]

I say USA. A part of it being because I live here, and based on statistics and how we fight. China would be a great competitor to fight against - but in the end, I believe we'd win. I think, we are more equipped with them. Better weapons, more vehicles, etc. Just because China is advanced in technology, doesn't mean they have the weapons, resources, and vehicles to win.

And the way the US Citizens are, you'd have people pouring in to fight during a war. Specially China. And guys, don't forget, we have some pretty nice jets in the Air Force. And one more last reminder: We didn't go in debt without a reason (meaning: I believe we spent too much money on the Military, which was Bushes fault. (A wild guess of why we went in debt :P)).

[Lized]

Im pretty sure it's Russia

[Matty]

No-one has the best army at the moment.

The Americans nor the British are, we are fucking losing to the taliban at the end of the day, how can you call yourself the greatest?

[Yaoi]

Germany knows not to fuck with the u.s or russia,tbh i think russia would win a war with the u.s to an extent,as whoeverthefucksaid russia trains their soldiers to a point of insanity,but we do have those 5000+ nukes o.o

[Matty]

Dropping a nuke is not the answer, if somebody does the whole world will basically be fucked up, due to a good few countries with them.

Also, there are so many innocent people in Afghanistan and North Pakistan that nuking it would be stupid.


Stop spamming the thread.

[M a t t]

I agreee... US has the best overall country, but Russia is right next to us.

[Justin H]

Also, there are so many innocent people in Afghanistan and North Pakistan that nuking it would be stupid.

I agree with your post, just not this part. ;)

[Justin H]

Lol, the only reason I hate being American is because I have to look at fat asses every day.

Total Population: 303,824,640 [2008]
Population Available: 144,354,117 [2008]
Fit for Military Service: 118,600,541 [2008]

[Matty]

Because I just will trust me lol
Other countries have fucked up rules even Brazil and Ireland have fucked up rules
US only country with good laws
Stop de-railing the fucking topic.

I'm being serious though now, how can you call USA the greatest army in the world when they are currently losing to Taliban who have less technology.

[XxBryantD]

U.S has the best Army

[Bizerk]

U.S has the best Army
Haha, you're fucking stupid. Is this why we have spent billions on a pointless war in Iraq?

[Matty]

Haha, you're fucking stupid. Is this why we have spent billions on a pointless war in Iraq?

+1 for intelligence, I actually love you. Everyone has ignored the fact that America and NATO forces are currently losing the war.

[Kingdomkey01]

I have to say that it would probably be the U.S. Military due to their number and firepower. China may be the largest army but sometimes quality over quantity comes into play. The U.S. has nuclear warheads, satellite feed to nearly anywhere in the world for intel, state of the art technology, high powered guns, and support from land, sea, and air.

The groups like KGB and such aren't an army, I believe they're a secret service?

[Bizerk]

You realize if you are a George Bush hater that only 10% of the war has brought in oil funds right?
Does it matter? It's pretty obvious to see what the intentions of the war was in the first place. Let me ask you these two basic questions. Why wasn't there virtually no international support to topple Sadamm? If Iraq's WMD program truly possessed the threat level that our 'truthful' president repeatedly purported, why was there no international coalition to militarily disarm Saddam? When we invaded, we found no weapons. Why didn't we leave? There's a obvious reason for that. Just go, I know you're ignorant of facts as I saw the quotes that people on Moparisthebest have on you.


And note, Americans do not stereotype against other nations, not in television, no where.
Hypocrite, go be a fan boy somewhere else.


I have to say that it would probably be the U.S. Military due to their number and firepower. China may be the largest army but sometimes quality over quantity comes into play. The U.S. has nuclear warheads, satellite feed to nearly anywhere in the world for intel, state of the art technology, high powered guns, and support from land, sea, and air.

The groups like KGB and such aren't an army, I believe they're a secret service?
China could dominate easily. In a swift fashion, no, but it's easy to see what would happen. Do you realize how much we owe and import from them?

[Matty]

No because there are British people that are very "posh" and who cares if you are "posh"??

I don't want to be described as posh, thanks. I don't want to be made out to have bad teeth, drink Tea constantly and eat crumpets.


By the way can we get back on topic because seriously you are purely de-railing this topic.

@Bizerk, I know who you are now and also I agree with everything you have said. People just seem to be ignoring my posts though, so I will say it again. America cannot be the strongest nation when you are currently wasting all of your money on a war that you are losing.

[Vector]

Well at the moment, our army, the British army employs around 150,000 soldiers, with another 121,820 in reserve. We're the largest army in the EU, although we're behind the US army by like 900,000 soldiers, and the Turkish army with 400,000. So I'd put my money on the US.

[Bizerk]

Well at the moment, our army, the British army employs around 150,000 soldiers, with another 121,820 in reserve. We're the largest army in the EU, although we're behind the US army by like 900,000 soldiers, and the Turkish army with 400,000. So I'd put my money on the US.

China, with the largest population in the world, is a fearsome military force. They have 1,600,000 foot soldiers, the most in the world by far. The Chinese navy consists of 255,000 ships, again a massive force. The Chinese air force also consists of 250,000 jets. The difference between these jets and the american ones? Chinese jets are much more devastating, and their drones shatter american ones. Total Military Units: 2,105,000.
That isn't mentioning the billions that the USA owes in debt/imports.

[Lusfr_]

Stop the off topic shit NOW. Don't post if you don't have anything IN INTELLIGENT to say I mean this is the INTELLIGENT debate section, not the post because i feel like it section...

[Potastic]

Stop the off topic shit NOW. Don't post if you don't have anything IN INTELLIGENT to say I mean this is the INTELLIGENT debate section, not the post because i feel like it section...

Listen to Lusfr_.

Otherwise..
Only the registered members can see the link.

[Slik]

Which country do you people think has the best army?

I think (I also have a lot of backup) that the US army is by far superior to any other army.
My reasoning is, the counter-intelligence that the USA Armed Forces possesses is without a doubt, second to none. With spies and 700 military bases in 130 countries around the world, the USA Armed Forces has the ultimate capability to plan and attack an air or ground combat war, or dispatch for rescue and humanitarian relief. US Army active personnel: 1, 055,000,000; Total US Armed Forces personnel: 1, 426,000,000; Total Military Bases Around the World: 700 in 130 countries; American Nuclear Stockpile: 5000+; Special Forces: Navy Seals, Delta Force, Green Berets, Top Gun; US Defense expenditure (Y 2008): $623 billion USD (47% of world's total military expenditure.) Lets compare that to let say Britain; British Army active personnel: 101,000; Total British Armed Forces personnel; 195,500 Total Military Bases Around the World: 86; British Nuclear Stockpile: 200+; Special Forces: Special Air Services; British Defense Expenditure (Y 2008): $69 billion USD. Now, other countries like (China) may have more man power, but their army expenses are far less than Americas. Secondly their technology standard is far down the line compared to USA.

There are many other people who support my thought.

Only the registered members can see the link.


Oh, and did I forget to mention our Navy and Airforce? Our Navy has 12 Carrier battle Groups, the next highest is the UK with 2. All of the worlds CBA put together can carry about 1250 aircraft, USA accounts for over 1000 of them.

Where did you get this information from? 1 billion plus active personnel? Check your figure again. On paper, the USA but when it comes down to it, I doubt they would be as effective as they make out they would be on paper. For example, Vietnam. Clearly more power, more money and more everything, but did they control/dominate? I don't think so. Another example would be their attempts are more modern wars, such as afganistan etc.

The results? A 300% increase in poppy fields (used to produce opium/heroine). Afganistan already controlled a market share of 70% of the worlds production of opium/heroine. How much did the US benifit from this? They actually PAID afganistan for "...destruction of fields." I wonder exactly what kind of fields they are talking about.

[Vector]

I think he's confused 1 billion with 1 million. Last time I checked the US had 1 million active soldiers.

[Slik]

To be honest, technology comes at a price. Its price isn't what would normally be assosiated with, but instead a different kind of price. I don't mean price as in currency. But more in the sense, the limitations of its uses. For example, to use something devestating that would affect/kill millions (not a nuke) it would result in a lot of things going spiral for the US. An example, the American public wouldn't like the idea of being part of a country who is slaughtering women, little boys and little girls and even babies. If a country loses support from their public, they are fighting a war with themselves.

If a country invades, with sheer numbers and over powers a more advance but limited army, they would win. The truth is, most likely the countries would be swamped by the sheer numbers and be overwhelmed and would only defend themselves with extreme force, but then they would have to make sure they don't hurt themselves which limits the war again.

Face to face, US would prob lose to China due to them having much more people. Lets put it into perspective, in a ground war the figures would be 5 Chinese soldiers per 1 American soldier. On the ground, 1 american can kill 2-3, but will he kill all 5? I doubt it.

But then again, look at the spartans, 300 fighting off the Persians. I could very well be wrong.

[Zykev2]

Depends what you mean by "Best Army" if you mean who would come out on top if all army's were against each other? Then my choice would definitely be China, Strength in numbers. Also skimming over this thread I see people are mistaking Army for Military. If you are talking who has the most advanced and well trained Soldiers then definitely the United States or Russia.

[Clayd]

First undoubtedly US would lose if they attacked. China is too large(landmass) for their airforce to do enough damage before being shot down. US and China's navy are back and forth not separated. US forces are better and more consistently trained but the numbers and governing would win. I do think US could theoretically win on defense, but they would forfeit before they ever came to it under the right terms. China would never give up because they don't need to. I know you think the US would never give but even if they won (which is possible in my mind) causalities would be too high and you would be out of resources. The US would never go that far and would rather settle on fair terms.
The numbers are too great to overcome, no matter how well your soldiers are trained. Technology wise, do you think China is behind? Certainly not.

US has the best technology, that's a given, and proven. Also US and China's land mass is almost the same size, so no one would really have an advantage there. It would also depend on which land the battle was on. But I agree, US wouldn't try to over run them, they would settle, more or less compromise on the issue. But I do think they have a fairly good chance in winning.

[Clayd]

Where did you get this information from? 1 billion plus active personnel? Check your figure again. On paper, the USA but when it comes down to it, I doubt they would be as effective as they make out they would be on paper. For example, Vietnam. Clearly more power, more money and more everything, but did they control/dominate? I don't think so. Another example would be their attempts are more modern wars, such as afganistan etc.

The results? A 300% increase in poppy fields (used to produce opium/heroine). Afganistan already controlled a market share of 70% of the worlds production of opium/heroine. How much did the US benifit from this? They actually PAID afganistan for "...destruction of fields." I wonder exactly what kind of fields they are talking about.

I obviously made a number mistake, my bad. Also, about the more money, power, and "everything" well if you had all that to an advantage in a war, there is a pretty high chance of you winning it, no matter the circumstances. So why does it matter how they did it, just that they did it.

[Clayd]

I don't want to be described as posh, thanks. I don't want to be made out to have bad teeth, drink Tea constantly and eat crumpets.


By the way can we get back on topic because seriously you are purely de-railing this topic.

@Bizerk, I know who you are now and also I agree with everything you have said. People just seem to be ignoring my posts though, so I will say it again. America cannot be the strongest nation when you are currently wasting all of your money on a war that you are losing.


Well, depending on how you define winning the war. The war in Iraq is over, it is now currently Afghanistan. In which, in mine and many other peoples minds we are winning. We are establishing some sort of reliable government there, and getting rid of terrorist that are flooding their streets. We aren't using all our our money either, we are finding ways to pay for it by taxes and such, so it's not as big as it may seem. IF you're also looking at numbers, than look at how many US soldiers have died, compared to the Afghani people, their number is much greater.

[Clayd]

Well, depending on how you define winning the war. The war in Iraq is over, it is now currently Afghanistan. In which, in mine and many other peoples minds we are winning. We are establishing some sort of reliable government there, and getting rid of terrorist that are flooding their streets. We aren't using all our our money either, we are finding ways to pay for it by taxes and such, so it's not as big as it may seem. IF you're also looking at numbers, than look at how many US soldiers have died, compared to the Afghani people, their number is much greater.
Also don't forget, US is dealing with people that don't give a flying fuck if they die, meaning they will just go into the middle of a crowd and blow themselves the fuck up, when you're dealing with someone who doesn't care if they die, it's a lot harder to get to them.

[Brayden]

US has the best technology, that's a given, and proven. Also US and China's land mass is almost the same size, so no one would really have an advantage there. It would also depend on which land the battle was on. But I agree, US wouldn't try to over run them, they would settle, more or less compromise on the issue. But I do think they have a fairly good chance in winning.

How is it proven you dont know what china has. I wasnt comparing land masses just stated that china isn't small enough to be taken with a huge surprise attack. US has no chance against a defening china ut I can tell by your posts your ugly biased against other countries so i'll leave it at that and you can argue what ever.



@zykev Israel not russia.

[erc]

It's pretty amazing how ill-informed and ignorant most of you people are on regarding both the situation in the Middle East, and this particular subject in general.

Do any of you even know why some of the UN and NATO forces are currently deployed over in the Middle East? We're not losing over there, but the war is far from over. Do some research.

Many countries have strengths and weaknesses. The Australian Army has the best infantry on the planet, followed closely by the British infantry, however the United States are much more powerful in regard to it's numbers and resources.

You cannot define who would win a war out of the countries discussed in this thread because the reason for the conflict, which country acts first, the allies of each country, and the numerous other variables have have not been specified.

[Journal]

Where did you get this information from? 1 billion plus active personnel? Check your figure again. On paper, the USA but when it comes down to it, I doubt they would be as effective as they make out they would be on paper. For example, Vietnam. Clearly more power, more money and more everything, but did they control/dominate? I don't think so. Another example would be their attempts are more modern wars, such as afganistan etc.

The results? A 300% increase in poppy fields (used to produce opium/heroine). Afganistan already controlled a market share of 70% of the worlds production of opium/heroine. How much did the US benifit from this? They actually PAID afganistan for "...destruction of fields." I wonder exactly what kind of fields they are talking about.

Vietnam is NOT more powerful.
All they do is put traps all over so that Americans(I'm referring to Vietnam war btw) die from falling, being chopped up, stabbed, etc.

Oh and we still won.

[Slik]

Vietnam is NOT more powerful.
All they do is put traps all over so that Americans(I'm referring to Vietnam war btw) die from falling, being chopped up, stabbed, etc.

Oh and we still won.

I said on paper America is more powerful etc, but they didn't dominate as well as they should have. In fact I don't even feel like they dominated at all. And that is exactly WHY America didn't dominate, they had a much greater knowledge of the land and were able to use it to their advantage. Simple as. You won? Really?..

[erc]

Journal don't get involved in a subject you have absolutely no knowledge in.

[Twisted]

Ha.
In the end, it will be war that will most likely kill us all.
And you debating which army will be the most affective at doing so, and if it doesn't end the world, which army has killed the most people over stupid, stupid things.

O and hi erc, long time no speak.

[.!1!.]

:\ not sure

usa: technology and some ppl
russia: less tech but more ppl
china: even less tech but much more ppl
korea/iraq: crazy enough to nuke


about the world vs iraq : a war is only lost wen one of the sides quit , al qaeda will never do it they are just too crazy and using religion/or any other shit as an excuse to kill somehow every day gets more ppl for theyr stupid cause if world leaves iraq most likely nothing will change

pardon if i just wrote a shitload of crap

[erc]

Hi, Twisted. It's been a while mate, hope you're doing well.

The military is actually a very good thing, I plan on serving in the Royal Australian Infantry sometime soon. I think everyone should contribute to their country in some way and this is just one of the things one can do. If that never happens I'll voluntarily join the Country Fire Service.

[Twisted]

Hi, Twisted. It's been a while mate, hope you're doing well.

The military is actually a very good thing, I plan on serving in the Royal Australian Infantry sometime soon. I think everyone should contribute to their country in some way and this is just one of the things one can do. If that never happens I'll voluntarily join the Country Fire Service.

Depends what you are doing.
Having a military is fine, sending them over to another country to kill people isn't :), killing is stupid no matter how it is.

[Mitchell]

Back on topic.

The best Army in the world. .

The world itself is an Army if you think about it.

[yourgirlwantsme]

U.S has the best Army, everybody should know this.
nope Iran is the best army,
ps: iam not Iranian

[Mitchell]

Not so sure about that one.

U.S. has the most nukes in the world, more branches in the Military, a lot more specifications, satellites, more equipment the Iran.

It actually all comes down to who fires the first nuke, once that happens, we are all headed to nuclear warfare.

[erc]

Depends what you are doing.
Having a military is fine, sending them over to another country to kill people isn't :), killing is stupid no matter how it is.

Think about what you're saying.
Do you know why we're deployed over at the Middle East?

[Twisted]

Think about what you're saying.
Do you know why we're deployed over at the Middle East?

To help the US wasn't it?
What ever the reason was, it was killing. So it wasn't a good thing.

[erc]

There are many reasons, but you should know that the people over there don't have a stable government, and the taliban have caused a lot of trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq (with religious beliefs and the desire for power and control) - in fact, the taliban come from all over the continent, migrating from as far as Russia and aren't just made up of the local people. We're over there to help these people and provide support by training their defence forces and performing peacekeeping operations.

[Daedalus]

Not so sure about that one.

U.S. has the most nukes in the world, more branches in the Military, a lot more specifications, satellites, more equipment the Iran.

It actually all comes down to who fires the first nuke, once that happens, we are all headed to nuclear warfare.



tbh; not to be going off-topic, but I think they (Meaning everyone; not just the US) should dispose the Nuclear warheads... Don't get me wrong, i'm not afraid of death, but where will the nukes get us? exactly no where.

Any way

On-Topic

Germany lol'd.


Britain has a superior army for its size, our Navy could possibly be classed as the best in the world obviously because we are an island and need that sort of protection. I don't believe it is the greatest in the world but most definitely a contender.

Just wondering, why start a debate on this? Its a fucking moronic topic and most Americans are too patriotic to say any other country is better than them.

^ My quote exactly.

[tonyftw]

USA is the best.

[sparten84]

Well I didn't want anyone coming in and saying "yo we b amrican n we fukz u up don b fuckn wit us ight nigga?" I just want people to say which army, and back it up.

Rofl..


The U.S. obviously has the best Military. We've proved it time and time again..

[erc]

That's not what I heard after Operation Talisman Sabre. ;)

[Matty]

Rofl..


The U.S. obviously has the best Military. We've proved it time and time again..

Yes by arriving late in 2 world wars, fucking great you.

Might a recall another place were you proved fuck all. VIETNAM

[Toxic ™]

i lost a leg back in 'nam so shut up

OT: i think America has the most organized but that's just my thinking correct me if i'm wrong

[Matty]

Thanks for the flame, much appreciated especially in an debate which stretches far above your intelligence.

You have no proof it has the best military in the world, you may say numbers but at the end of the day Quality > Quantity.
An example I read in the paper today;
a Gurkha soldier in WWII went into Japan with his team, his team were shot by 200 jap soldiers, this one Gurkha survived but had to fight the 200 japs with half an arm and 1 eye. He killed 31 of them and the other 169 fled.
Shows something as well considering the Gurkha soldier is part of the British army ;)

[Smudge]

I have to agree with Matty, Quantity means nothing these day's. It's the Quality of training and upbringing of a soldier that would give him an advantage over the enemy. However you can't really compare Military Strength by looking at statistics. The only way you could compare is with a War which would be stupid to do so. I mean in Iraq right now we are losing soldiers every day, US and UK; it's a loss for everyone. And that's from the Taliban; this is still with the UK and US having LOADS more at their disposal than the Taliban and also Advanced training. It sort of show's that you can't compare.

However at the moment; I respect UK soldiers and US soldiers for the dedication in Iraq.

[Matty]

You are a fucking moronic wanker, The0ne.

This story is true my friend, it was posted in the daily mail today as a Gurkha soldier is under prosecution for decapitating a taliban warlord.

Yes I will look at history and point out to you that you did 'help' us in the 2 world wars but only because you were finally affected, if pear harbour wasn't attacked you'd of never helped us. Now look the the tables turned when the Iraq war begun, your Government came to the British to ask for help and for the love of god do not say you didn't because we wouldn't of taken part in the Iraq war if it wasn't for you calling us into it.

Also I guess you wouldn't like to say anything further on Vietnam would you? Considering it was supposed to be a walk in the park which turned into a blood bath and you retreating from Vietnam.

[Matty]

It was still a war you lost my friend.


Smudge, I do agree with you as well, we are losing troops (Too many if you ask me) and we shouldn't be. We (being the US, UK, NATO forces) are far more advanced than the Taliban yet we still cannot completely beat them. I must say we are beginning to show progress but still we have a long way left in this War.

[The0ne]

Yes you are right but still think of what could of happened if we used full fource on vietnam we could of completely destroyed the country instead of helping it.

[Matty]

You can say that with current war going on. We are not using full force as there are civilians to protect.

[The0ne]

Sure we are using force in might and strength but tactical and technology are in a lvl we are not using in potential strikes

[erc]

Yes by arriving late in 2 world wars, fucking great you.

Might a recall another place were you proved fuck all. VIETNAM

If the US weren't involved in World War Two, the French border never would never have been invaded in the time it was and the war would have lasted A LOT longer.

And your story where the British soldier fought against those odds is probably very inaccurate if not a total myth. Assuming it is true he was probably able to eliminate most of his enemy before his serious wounds were actually inflicted. He's incredibly lucky they decided to pull out before he was killed. I will add however that the British have an incredible military, specifically their infantry forces and a heroic story like that can't be completely disregarded, similar things like that have happened before. I've never heard that one before though.

[Slik]

This story is true my friend, it was posted in the daily mail today as a Gurkha soldier is under prosecution for decapitating a taliban warlord.


I live in england, and I too did read that. It isn't from a unreliable source, well it is still a newspaper but you can check that story with the information the british army has to release, about such accounts. The solider is actually being prosecuted because Islamic beliefs state that the entire body is buried, the head was removed causing an up-roar. As to the details, who knows if it is actually exactly the same, but most likely it is not far off.


If the US weren't involved in World War Two, the French border never would never have been invaded in the time it was and the war would have lasted A LOT longer.

And your story where the British soldier fought against those odds is probably very inaccurate if not a total myth. Assuming it is true he was probably able to eliminate most of his enemy before his serious wounds were actually inflicted. He's incredibly lucky they decided to pull out before he was killed. I will add however that the British have an incredible military, specifically their infantry forces and a heroic story like that can't be completely disregarded, similar things like that have happened before. I've never heard that one before though.

I vouch for what he stated, it was published in English media. The solider is actually being prosecuted. From what was released, he was under cover and retaliating fire and then they got scared and retreted when he released the 'big guns'. Most likely he threw a couple grendades from cover and they didn't think it was worth it to continue. I doubt it is 100% accurate, and I find the figures exaggorated, but from what was released, there was a group of soliders who were underfire and returned fire, they then used a RPG and one of the soliders beheaded the taliban warlord and got undercover, and so the story goes.

[erc]

You are a fucking moronic wanker, The0ne.

This story is true my friend, it was posted in the daily mail today as a Gurkha soldier is under prosecution for decapitating a taliban warlord.

Yes I will look at history and point out to you that you did 'help' us in the 2 world wars but only because you were finally affected, if pear harbour wasn't attacked you'd of never helped us. Now look the the tables turned when the Iraq war begun, your Government came to the British to ask for help and for the love of god do not say you didn't because we wouldn't of taken part in the Iraq war if it wasn't for you calling us into it.

Also I guess you wouldn't like to say anything further on Vietnam would you? Considering it was supposed to be a walk in the park which turned into a blood bath and you retreating from Vietnam.

I'm sure the UK would be quick to ask the US and all of their supporting countries for aid if they were in the same situation.
You should also note that it was very common back then for a country to underestimate their enemy, the US weren't the only ones to do so. Everyone knows the yanks are a bunch of arrogant, patriotic dick heads, but you shouldn't dismiss their power or their contribution to conflicts and wars throughout the past century.

[.!1!.]

meh usa lost the easy war and only beated japs using a new militar weapon wich can bring the world to destruction gj

[James]

This is going to turn into a war.

[Matty]

If the US weren't involved in World War Two, the French border never would never have been invaded in the time it was and the war would have lasted A LOT longer.

And your story where the British soldier fought against those odds is probably very inaccurate if not a total myth. Assuming it is true he was probably able to eliminate most of his enemy before his serious wounds were actually inflicted. He's incredibly lucky they decided to pull out before he was killed. I will add however that the British have an incredible military, specifically their infantry forces and a heroic story like that can't be completely disregarded, similar things like that have happened before. I've never heard that one before though.

The story is true. British forces found the soldier laying in a ditch with 31 Jap corpses around him. It was not from an unreliable source as well, it was posted in an English Newspaper that I read daily.

[erc]

The fact that they're laying around him doesn't necissarily indicate he killed them alone, with his severe wounds.

[Matty]

The fact his whole unit were killed before they were attacked, would presumably mean he killed the 31 Japs. Sorry about the wounds he picked them up whilst fighting them but he didn't have them from the beginning.

[Flashy Loser]

Id say U.s army. I think if we actually went to war with china IN china it would end up like vietnam. a Stalemate

[Wise Old Man]

Why should we give a shit about the best participant in violence?

................. A mod flaming.. wtf..

I 100% think the american army is the greatest. :)

[Journal]

................. A mod flaming.. wtf..

I 100% think the american army is the greatest. :)

He's not flaming.
Also, the United States army, not the 'American' army. America is a continent, not a country.

[Marc]

How is what he said in any way shape or form flame?

Also, America is a general assumption name for the United States of America, the continents themselves are chopped into north and south.

Armies themselves are quickly becoming obsolete, in a few decades there will be no armed forces, (if were not all dead), it will be all mechanized warfare.

[Brayden]

That doesn't make any sense if a country used only 'robots' then the greatest weakness would be people. Also US would be screwed for money it's cheaper for human soldiers.



Armies themselves are quickly becoming obsolete, in a few decades there will be no armed forces, (if were not all dead), it will be all mechanized warfare.


Wise old man reminds me of shishir g, completely oblivious to facts. Seriously how can you 100% think they would win.

[Journal]

How is what he said in any way shape or form flame?

Also, America is a general assumption name for the United States of America, the continents themselves are chopped into north and south.

Armies themselves are quickly becoming obsolete, in a few decades there will be no armed forces, (if were not all dead), it will be all mechanized warfare.

Meh, it's still like
"Canadian Army
Gooback(Mexican) Army
American Army"

Meh, I just think it should be United States army instead of America Army, since it's not America's army, it's the United State's army.

[0r4nge ownz]

lol. read this topic.
the American's seem to think there's the best.
this is no way correct, you might have been doing great in other wars, but think who was by your side? Britain...
Yes Britain dont have the number's, but its been said a lot of time's, Britain does has one of the top army's, dont you remember when Britain owned 3/4 of the world? We still have that skill today, and actually we Britain's have a LOT of country's working with us which we used to own.

Btw for you Brits, any you saw green street 1? where the guy talk's about the American army *Funny* ..

[Rog3r]

Canadas army is the best. We the best! Our couple ships can own countries man.

[Journal]

lol. read this topic.
the American's seem to think there's the best.
this is no way correct, you might have been doing great in other wars, but think who was by your side? Britain...
Yes Britain dont have the number's, but its been said a lot of time's, Britain does has one of the top army's, dont you remember when Britain owned 3/4 of the world? We still have that skill today, and actually we Britain's have a LOT of country's working with us which we used to own.

Btw for you Brits, any you saw green street 1? where the guy talk's about the American army *Funny* ..

Then how come you guys are always talked down by other countries and you don't even own a fourth of the world today?

[0r4nge ownz]

Then how come you guys are always talked down by other countries and you don't even own a fourth of the world today?

lol, because a while back we gave them there country's back... even you should know this.

[Journal]

lol, because a while back we gave them there country's back... even you should know this.

But if you're so high and mighty how come you guys can't take it back, or don't even stand up for yourself?
Cause y'can't.
And you guys barely did anything during shits like WWII.

[0r4nge ownz]

rofl, well before you start giving it your mouth why dont you pretend to stop knowing it all and actually learn something.
Also, yes britain are proberly not the best army, but thats not the fact,
We dont fight alone, but niether do U.S, infact
"The best army in the world be a combination of the US, British, Australian and Canadian forces. The UK/Australian SAS and SBS special forces are simply the best. When it comes to the best regular troops, I would have to say it is the Gurkha regiments from Nepal who are part of the British army. I have heard that during the Falklands War that the Gurkhas fought the heavily armed Argentinian invaders with their knives and beat them hands down." from wiki.

Also, it is without a dubt we are best on land at fighting, put it this way. British army train for longer then any other army, and Gurkha from nepal who are actually "the best" by far, did you know they dont fight with weapon's they fight with knife's, there life is about fighting, if they dont pass in the army or they chicken off in a war, they will have to kill them selves, although they only use knife's etc, they still destro ayone in combat on ground.

[Repcal]

Canadas army is the best. We the best! Our couple ships can own countries man.I love the way we train tho, Soft air, Paintball and Lazer Tag Ftw?

[Notorious]

The Afgan army... What? They hold off America and Britain

[Repcal]

The Afgan army... What? They hold off America and BritainDon't you mean the taliban?

[Davidspkscape]

wow i knew this thread wouldnt last, of course people are going to pick there homeland...

[Journal]

wow i knew this thread wouldnt last, of course people are going to pick there homeland...

I personally, hate a lot of things about US and I wish I lived in Canada.
But I have to give the US props with their miltary.
Best snipers, best strategy, best everything. The United States Rangers will kill anyone. In military games, France, Britian, Canada, SWAT, are usually beaten in them. And in sniper games, every single time. I have never seen US lose.

[Brayden]

US has some mighty snipers yep. Lol at orange. Britain vs another country like US or China = dead.

[Requiem]

I think between US and Canada, Canada has a better army. This is because, if the US was to attack us.. sure we would get raped in days (90% of canada's population lives 300km above the border) but than half of the world would come to our rescue like the past wars. Everyone loves Canadians.. we are just so cute.

Anyway.. America is more of a.. "graghghghg-derrrr... mess with us and we'll send bush on 'yer' ass." -thank god for Obama.

P.S: The statistic is an estimation.. I'm too lazy to look up exact but i know it is somewhat in that range..

[Journal]

I think between US and Canada, Canada has a better army. This is because, if the US was to attack us.. sure we would get raped in days (90% of canada's population lives 300km above the border) but than half of the world would come to our rescue like the past wars. Everyone loves Canadians.. we are just so cute.

Anyway.. America is more of a.. "graghghghg-derrrr... mess with us and we'll send bush on 'yer' ass." -thank god for Obama.

P.S: The statistic is an estimation.. I'm too lazy to look up exact but i know it is somewhat in that range..

Now that was just stereotypical as fuck.

[Requiem]

Now that was just stereotypical as fuck.

Well it's true... is it not?

EDIT: I'm not saying that about everyone in America acting that way.. just the government.

[Clayd]

I think between US and Canada, Canada has a better army. This is because, if the US was to attack us.. sure we would get raped in days (90% of canada's population lives 300km above the border) but than half of the world would come to our rescue like the past wars. Everyone loves Canadians.. we are just so cute.

Anyway.. America is more of a.. "graghghghg-derrrr... mess with us and we'll send bush on 'yer' ass." -thank god for Obama

Are you dumber than the other kid? Wow, you guys really just don't know anything, do you? US acts like the big brother towards others countries, hence helping them with natural disasters, or re-establishing their government. That, in now way comply's with your theory of how America acts. Also, do you realize that America has more alias than Canada right? And most of Americas alias are the same ones Canada has? Hmmm...

[bigcasey123]

ok look america is not a bad country at all look at Afghan they kill there own people and stuff america is just hated for being the most free because in Cuba you don't get to choose if you want to go to work or not and you don't even get good pay.

[Requiem]

Are you dumber than the other kid? Wow, you guys really just don't know anything, do you? US acts like the big brother towards others countries, hence helping them with natural disasters, or re-establishing their government. That, in now way comply's with your theory of how America acts. Also, do you realize that America has more alias than Canada right? And most of Americas alias are the same ones Canada has? Hmmm...

Yeah because they are doing such a good job in being a so called "Big Brother". You know just as much as I do that when all of America's natural resources such as Oil run out, they will turn to us.. seeing at how much America consumes Canada will probably want to say Ah... Fuck you, but no they won't because it would just be taken from them anyway. Either way America can't get enough of what they already have so they will just keep taking and taking.. until canada sais no. America will go right to the north and start drilling into the ice and take over the oil sands. Thus concludes my theory. :P

[Sethy]

Would you guys chill out? Thanks.

[Journal]

Yeah because they are doing such a good job in being a so called "Big Brother". You know just as much as I do that when all of America's natural resources such as Oil run out, they will turn to us.. seeing at how much America consumes Canada will probably want to say Ah... Fuck you, but no they won't because it would just be taken from them anyway. Either way America can't get enough of what they already have so they will just keep taking and taking.. until canada sais no. America will go right to the north and start drilling into the ice and take over the oil sands. Thus concludes my theory. :P
Why won't they say no?
Oh right, that's because United States will kick Canada's ass. :M

[nickyboy304]

mm, for special forces they should have JTF2. XD

[Justin H]

Why won't they say no?
Oh right, that's because United States will kick Canada's ass. :M

(This OT = off topic <(^.^)>)
OT: Lol, they would kick Canada's ass, but America wouldn't attack another country over oil. We are, like Clayd stated, a big brother to other countries. (not a brother that punches his other brother :D) :)

[Twisted]

I fucking laughed. You are a dumbass. Just because we consume a great amount of oil, doesn't mean we are greedy. We pay for the oil, so what? America, like Clayd said, is a country that helps other countries in need of help. So get the hell out, this a debate for intelligent people ONLY.

OT: Like I said, I believe America would win. Great equipment, well trained, and we have my favorite plane of all time: AC130. It's very good at executing missions. No one knows it's coming. >:)

Just a shame that Australia has the best airforce to fly those AC130's ;)

[Justin H]

Just a shame that Australia has the best airforce to fly those AC130's ;)

Hehe, I'm not sure if your Airforce is better than ours. :P

Do you guys even have an AC130? o.O

[Twisted]

Hehe, I'm not sure if your Airforce is better than ours. :P

Do you guys even have an AC130? o.O

Ya we do.
And our airforce I would say is the best. I have seen our pilots flying and its amazing.

[Justin H]

Ya we do.
And our airforce I would say is the best. I have seen our pilots flying and its amazing.

Just because you see your pilots flying, doesn't mean they are better. o.O

Go on YouTube and check out Americas pilots. :D

[Zykev2]

@ Twisted: Check out the blue angels.

[Journal]

@ Twisted: Check out the blue angels.

Blue Angels are sick.
I know all of them personally.

[Justin H]

@ Twisted: Check out the blue angels.

I was about the say that. :D

Edit: Who created the AC130s? It was America right?

[Requiem]

I was about the say that. :D

Edit: Who created the AC130s? It was America right?

Probably some russian that was hired by america.. I'll check in to it though..

Guess I was wrong in a way. American company made it.
Only the registered members can see the link.

[Matty]

Check out the red arrows ;)

[Adam]

United States, there's no question about it. We've won WWI, WWII, Desert Storm, Korean, Vietnam, and many other small wars.

[Brayden]

(This OT = off topic <(^.^)>)
OT: Lol, they would kick Canada's ass, but America wouldn't attack another country over oil. We are, like Clayd stated, a big brother to other countries. (not a brother that punches his other brother :D) :)

where were you the last few years?

@Adam the US was a very small factor in both World Wars. Also Britain has won more wars but look at them now eh? How can you say there is no question? China out numbers you over 10 to 1.

[Zykev2]

where were you the last few years?

@Adam the US was a very small factor in both World Wars. Also Britain has won more wars but look at them now eh? How can you say there is no question? China out numbers you over 10 to 1.

They were a huge factor in Both World Wars, just because we came in late both times we altered the tide of the war and allowed the allies to defeat Germany, Japan, Italy. Without the U.S involvement Germany. Especially Britain who relied heavily on the U.S for weapons pre-entry to World war 2.

[2kbarrows]

Not all countrys have been to war so you cant really say...Like Brazil hasent been in a war...And places like Paraguay were strong til USA gets lots of other countrys and attacks paraguay...that was a lont time ago but still it ruined the country.

[Brayden]

They were a huge factor in Both World Wars, just because we came in late both times we altered the tide of the war and allowed the allies to defeat Germany, Japan, Italy. Without the U.S involvement Germany. Especially Britain who relied heavily on the U.S for weapons pre-entry to World war 2.

I considered all that, still a very small factor lol?

[Zykev2]

...Rofl? How the hell does that make it a small factor? That's a pretty damn big factor if you ask me.

[Justin H]

United States, there's no question about it. We've won WWI, WWII, Desert Storm, Korean, Vietnam, and many other small wars.

United States lost the Vietnam war.


where were you the last few years? .

We haven't attacked them for oil. If we were going to invade a country just for oil, it would most likely be Iraq (even though they are our Ally). We started a war to help the government and people from the group that have overran the government.

[Brayden]

...Rofl? How the hell does that make it a small factor? That's a pretty damn big factor if you ask me.

#1 all those supplies that the allies used from US were only processed in US factories and the actual funds and resources came from others. #2 compare the troop lose to every other country and there is your answer. The US was a fairly small factor in those wars.

Justin H you ever heard of George W Bush?

This sounds like something bush would say:

We started a war to help the government and people from the group that have overran the government.

[Zykev2]

The reason your argument is wrong is because without the U.S the ending of WW2 would have been a lot different, and possibly Atomic because Germany would have obtained the Atmoic bomb before the Allies would.

[Justin H]

#1 all those supplies that the allies used from US were only processed in US factories and the actual funds and resources came from others. #2 compare the troop lose to every other country and there is your answer. The US was a fairly small factor in those wars.

Justin H you ever heard of George W Bush?

This sounds like something bush would say:

We DID NOT start a war over oil. We have enough people who sell oil to us, why would we need to start a damn war over it? We are just trying to help the Afghanistan governement get back in power, and get rid of the groups.

[Brayden]

The reason your argument is wrong is because without the U.S the ending of WW2 would have been a lot different, and possibly Atomic because Germany would have obtained the Atmoic bomb before the Allies would.

... how do you think that its all because of the US that the atomic bomb was made?

[Matty]

United States, there's no question about it. We've won WWI, WWII, Desert Storm, Korean, Vietnam, and many other small wars.

I believe you should research some history before posting in this thread. You may of had a good effect on the two world wars but you had little contribution. Vietnam you basically lost, there is no denying it. For the current war at hand, I'd say it is turning into another Vietnam for the US (A long with a major loss for the NATO force's.), Bush used the same attitude as your president at that time did in vietnam (I don't know the name of the president then, was it kennedy?). Bush thought it would be a quick war and you'd be able to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda but that turned into shambles.


@ZykeV2, you do realise the Brits were the first to 'invent' the atomic bomb but the Americans used it.


@Justin H, you are far to ignorant. You believe everything the media say. It was quite clear that Bush went for the oil. Saddam wasn't a threat to the US at all, he was building a super weapon as he called it but it wasn't capable of reaching U.S soil. Bush didn't have to get involved with the current state of the Iraq country, it had nothing to do with him and basically the majority of the country is an oil field.

[Zykev2]

No, but the U.S got the Atomic bomb before the Germans did then Japan surrendered then Germany.]


@matty: You're partially right and more wrong. If you are familiar with the Manhattan project which was a team of scientists from the U.S, Britain, Europe, Ect.

[Slik]

... how do you think that its all because of the US that the atomic bomb was made?

Because they produced the 'heavy water' before germany did. It is a key part in the process for making the atomic bomb. It was a combined effort, zykev. Without anyones help it is possible they won't have it obtained it first.

It is funny how Americans are quick to point out what aspects they exceeded in wars, but never aknowledge others as apart of them. Maybe it is because most Americans are nationalists.

[Zykev2]

What are you talking about look at my post above you before making stereotypical remarks slik. It's no different than when people from Britain say that they didn't need Americans help its all a matter of Pride.

[Matty]

No, but the U.S got the Atomic bomb before the Germans did then Japan surrendered then Germany.]


@matty: You're partially right and more wrong. If you are familiar with the Manhattan project which was a team of scientists from the U.S, Britain, Europe, Ect.

Not really knowledgeable in it but I have heard of it. Didn't realise it included most of Europe. I just thought the U.S and U.K 'created' it.

[Slik]

What are you talking about look at my post above you before making stereotypical remarks slik. It's no different than when people from Britain say that they didn't need Americans help its all a matter of Pride.

No it isn't stereotypical anymore, it was published by American researchers today in an English newspaper that most Americans are nationalists while less than 1 in 4 British people felt the same. I do agree it is part due to pride, Americans are obviously proud to be Americans. However I disagree with the fact that England didn't need the help of the US. Of course they did, just as much as America would have vice versa.

[Justin H]

@ZykeV2, you do realise the Brits were the first to 'invent' the atomic bomb but the Americans used it.


@Justin H, you are far to ignorant. You believe everything the media say. It was quite clear that Bush went for the oil. Saddam wasn't a threat to the US at all, he was building a super weapon as he called it but it wasn't capable of reaching U.S soil. Bush didn't have to get involved with the current state of the Iraq country, it had nothing to do with him and basically the majority of the country is an oil field.

Your calling me ignorant just because I believe something else? You think, we, United States of America would attack a smaller country (with a corrupt government) just to get oil? No. Here are a list of people who sell oil to America:



1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil


I think we are set on oil. We went to war to help the government to get back in power.

Also, your telling other people to do research? Maybe you should do your own. The presidents were Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

And about you saying that U.K were the only people to create the bomb? You don't think the U.S had more to do with it then what you think?


The atomic bomb was invented by two refugee German scientists in Britain, Professor Rudolph Peierls and Otto Frisch, of Birmingham University. They designed a "blue-print" for making an atom bomb in 1940
It actually began when the Italian-born physicist Enrico Fermi, working in the United States, invented an apparatus which produced the first atomic chain reactions. In 1940 both the Americans and British were researching the atom bomb and when the United States entered WW2, the British joined the American "Manhattan Project" and production of the bomb went on ahead in the US.


From that, it seems United States were the only ones WITH the Atomic Bomb at the time. U.K did NOT have any. They did contribute to the project a lot, though. But United States, like the paragraph from the article above stated, "It actually began when the Italian-born physicist Enrico Fermi, working in the United States, invented an apparatus which produced the first atomic chain reactions. " - United States were the first to create Atomic Chain Reactions, and without that, the U.K couldn't have invented the Atomic Bomb.

[Brayden]

lets not forget who supplied all the uranium. Canada.

Also you were a part of making the atomic bomb- that still doesn't qualify you as a large part of the war. Bottom line about this whole thing is many other countries had a larger influence and the US's overall is not able to compare for WWI and WWII.

[Matty]

americans heads are to far up the own arses to car for the rest of the world, they get bobmbed so they drop an atomic bomb? They start a war over oil????

Americans heads are to far up their own arse's to care for the rest of the world, the got bombed so they drop an atomic bomb? They started a war over oil as well?*

Just so others can understand it ;)

[Justin H]

lets not forget who supplied all the uranium. Canada.

Ah, sorry I didn't include that. I never really knew who supplied it. :P

[riches321]

Sorry, im on my ipad and its hard XD so!
Americans, head's are so far up there own arse for there own good! If they get bombed they drop an atom bomb, they also start war's over oil.

[Brayden]

Ah, sorry I didn't include that. I never really knew who supplied it. :P

Justin a huge factor about the 'war' if you wanna call it that I myself don't know what to call it is that Oil was a huge factor. Also back when this started you didn't buy much from Canada I know as the price wasn'r worth it to get it out of the tar sands. The rest of the world has seen all the facts about George and his affiliations and such- now im sure not all are true and I know media gives everyone a hard time but there are some facts that remain 100% true that more than tell us that Oil was part of the 'war' Its like somone stealing 1 000 000$ from work and buying a new Lamborghini- somethings up.

[Matty]

Your calling me ignorant just because I believe something else? You think, we, United States of America would attack a smaller country (with a corrupt government) just to get oil? No. Here are a list of people who sell oil to America:



1. Canada
2. Mexico
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Venezuela
5. Nigeria
6. Angola
7. Iraq
8. Algeria
9. United Kingdom
10. Brazil


I think we are set on oil. We went to war to help the government to get back in power.

Also, your telling other people to do research? Maybe you should do your own. The presidents were Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

And about you saying that U.K were the only people to create the bomb? You don't think the U.S had more to do with it then what you think?


The atomic bomb was invented by two refugee German scientists in Britain, Professor Rudolph Peierls and Otto Frisch, of Birmingham University. They designed a "blue-print" for making an atom bomb in 1940
It actually began when the Italian-born physicist Enrico Fermi, working in the United States, invented an apparatus which produced the first atomic chain reactions. In 1940 both the Americans and British were researching the atom bomb and when the United States entered WW2, the British joined the American "Manhattan Project" and production of the bomb went on ahead in the US.


From that, it seems United States were the only ones WITH the Atomic Bomb at the time. U.K did NOT have any. They did contribute to the project a lot, though. But United States, like the paragraph from the article above stated, "It actually began when the Italian-born physicist Enrico Fermi, working in the United States, invented an apparatus which produced the first atomic chain reactions. " - United States were the first to create Atomic Chain Reactions, and without that, the U.K couldn't have invented the Atomic Bomb.


I said in brackets, that I do not remember the name of the president at the time and asked if it was kennedy, please re-read in future.

About the atomic bomb, Zyke cleared that up for me no need to tell me twice.

Now, the main topic, the war on oil. At this current time you are really being far too patriotic, do you really believe Bush went to Iraq to correct the government? The fact is you didn't need to go to war, Iraq were not a threat to America at all. Saddam Hussain couldn't of done anything to America and had no intentions to do so.

Iraq is filled with oil and as soon as 9/11 happened that was an excuse to go into Iraq which shouldn't of been the case, considering the Taliban reside in Afghanistan and the mountain range at the edge of the Pakistani border.

Oil has played a huge factor for this war.

[Slik]

Americans heads are to far up their own arse's to care for the rest of the world, the got bombed so they drop an atomic bomb? They started a war over oil as well?*

Just so others can understand it ;)

You understand chavspeak? Me too. I joke. Justin H, Click here for actual facts regarding reasons why America, under bush's demands, invaded Iraq FOR OIL. (Only the registered members can see the link.)

[Clayd]

No it isn't stereotypical anymore, it was published by American researchers today in an English newspaper that most Americans are nationalists while less than 1 in 4 British people felt the same. I do agree it is part due to pride, Americans are obviously proud to be Americans. However I disagree with the fact that England didn't need the help of the US. Of course they did, just as much as America would have vice versa.

That's why we're allies. I agree that we needed the help, everyone needed as much help as they could get back then. Technology wasn't nearly as advanced, and resources were limited. Now, it's different. US has the manpower, the technology, and the resources. They have help because it's good to have. If they wen't into Afghanistan, and Pakistan themselves, it's a lot harder than if the rest of the NATO forces came to help. I also find it very hard for a researcher to assume that "most" Americans are nationalists, I have no idea how they could create a study for that. But is that necessarily a bad thing? They're proud of their country, just like you're proud of yours. If you went to war, you'd definitely want the US to help you out. This topic was created for a simple response, or argument that actually makes sense. If one country was to war with someone and never loose, which country has the best chance? I'm not trying to make it seem like I'm just going for America, but I honestly think, that if America fought against any other country, they'd win. They have manpower, resources, technology, skills/tactics. They would be the favored in most cases.

[Justin H]

Sorry, im on my ipad and its hard XD so!
Americans, head's are so far up there own arse for there own good! If they get bombed they drop an atom bomb, they also start war's over oil.

We didn't start "wars" over oil, nor a single war. And your saying crap about us from our past? What would you have done? Japan came over here and destroyed almost an entire fleet of ships, and killing our soldiers. We didn't know what they would do next, so we were basically pressured into dropping the bomb. But later, America stated they would help Japan in anyway. So we DO regret dropping the bomb.

[Justin H]

Oh, and if you think it's JUST America fighting in Afghanistan, think again: Only the registered members can see the link.

[Brayden]

Guys back on main topic- BEST ARMY IN THE WORLD WEVE GONE TOO FAR OFF.

[riches321]

justin, are you calling me a chav? I'm not counicil, house, acholic and vilent! We'll i get drunk with my friends but im 17... Your like 14?

[Justin H]

Guys back on main topic- BEST ARMY IN THE WORLD WEVE GONE TOO FAR OFF.

Yes. I'm just defending my country. :D

[Matty]

I have just realised we all have gone majorly off-topic, really should start bringing this to the 'Talibans vs America' thread.

[Slik]

... and as soon as 9/11 happened that was an excuse to go into Iraq which shouldn't of been the case...



It is very much possible that Bush planned the attacks on 11/9, even immortal technique made a song about it.

[Justin H]

justin, are you calling me a chav? I'm not counicil, house, acholic and vilent! We'll i get drunk with my friends but im 17... Your like 14?

All countries have people who tend to drink a lot. And you call all Americans violent? Have you even been to America? Have you lived here for 16 years? Your head is just filled with lies from other people thinking America is just full of assholes. It's not. The people here are just as same as the people in Britain, Canada, etc.

[Clayd]

You understand chavspeak? Me too. I joke. Justin H, Click here for actual facts regarding reasons why America, under bush's demands, invaded Iraq FOR OIL. (Only the registered members can see the link.)

Notice how every source is from the UK? Meaning the same person probably wrote that whole page? You think America would spent over 900 BILLION dollars just for oil they MIGHT NOT GET? Look over the facts yourself.

[Justin H]

Matty is right.

Please put your replies in the Talibans vs. America thread before we all get infractions. :D

This topic doesn't really suite the subject.

[Zykev2]

It is very much possible that Bush planned the attacks on 11/9, even immortal technique made a song about it.

Yup everyone remember the Terrorist attacks on November 11. Bush did them.

[Rog3r]

Yup everyone remember the Terrorist attacks on November 11. Bush did them.

It's also very much possible the terrorists did it too. Even so, they claimed they've done it - so why think otherwise?

[Zykev2]

Where i'm getting at is there was no Terrorist attacks on November 11.

[Slik]

Notice how every source is from the UK? Meaning the same person probably wrote that whole page? You think America would spent over 900 BILLION dollars just for oil they MIGHT NOT GET? Look over the facts yourself.

Read it all, while a lot is from the UK there is material posted and collected by Americans themselves.

"USA Today
Title: "U.S. supplied the kinds of germs Iraq later used for biological weapons"
Date: 30 September 2002."

""Washington Post" newspaper article (USA)
Title: "U.S. had key role in Iraq build up"
Author: Michael Dobbs
Date: 30 Dec 2002
Page: front page"

Read it all.

[Matty]

Where i'm getting at is there was no Terrorist attacks on November 11.

He is English. I just used the date format America uses, to us it is 11/9/01.

[Slik]

Where i'm getting at is there was no Terrorist attacks on November 11.

There was actually, I didn't state a year. Or where the attacks where carried out. But you chose to ignore that to persue the fact that I chose to use the English way of dating and not the American way, which you are customed to, right? 11/9 is the date the attacks where carried out as far as England is concerned, but our media uses 9/11 because it is the American emergancy number. For you, in America you would obviously date it as 9/11.

Pakistan broke their peace agreement with India, or so is claimed by India. They were bombed by 'terriorists' on India's holy day, Diwali.

[Zykev2]

I was making a joke. Sorry I will use the English way, I was making a funny.

[Justin H]

Take this to the America vs. Talibans thread -.-