Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

WOW!!! that show sucked.

Solder 1: Why stick me in a dress and call me Sally, what do we got here?

Solder 2: Its such a magnificent machine, i feel like its calling my name, come here Tim, come here t- touch my barrel.

Solder 1: Oh god its an enamy trap, and its working.

Solder2: (giggles like a girl)

lol Tankmen is awesome

lol this is funny. i got one from some crew asking if i wanted to join, wtf is up with that?

i vote zero, and every one should they suck vote zero. its just spam.
but isn't there some way to stop them?

The rest of my post. I can't believe it wouldn't let me finish this, holly hell WTF out of Characters my ass.

Your right, if it was America against one nation, but against the world? No you don't, with fewer troops tanks and a smaller air force your put at a major disadvantage.

Um except for the fact that enemy troops would be able to do just about jackshit when their entire command and control system, and all of their assets are being pounded into oblivion by superior American air and naval forces. An enemy wouldn't be able to even communicate with its troops and tanks and air units because their entire command structure would already be gone after getting bombed to shit by American stealth aircraft.

Assuming that US forces could even get into range to attack the enemy.
My argument has been the world defending itself from the US not the world invading the US, so we are arguing about to different things here.

Look I have a cold so this might just be the drugs talking, but neither of us is ever going to convince each other the other is right, so why don't we just call a truce?

At 4/3/08 09:10 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 4/3/08 04:38 PM, Vectore wrote:

At 4/3/08 02:41 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 4/3/08 02:30 PM, thedo12 wrote: lol, you think your country is invinceable or something?

From all but 3 countries, yes.

The US could stop 3 countries depending on what countries they were, but the world? No never.

your naval and af power cannot be everywhere at the same time, to stop the combineds nations from destroyng you

Did you see the link, or any of those pics, or the fact that our planes are 10 years more advanced than anything Europe ever came out with?

The only truly superior force in your military is your navy.

And our airforce, and our ground troops/equipment, and our special forces, and our information/electronic warfare, and our Marine Corps which is an expeditionary branch combining all.

The only impressive thing on your jets are the electronics, prove your ground troops are any better then German, British, French, Canadian, Russian. And if by equipment you mean Tanks, APC, battle rifles, jets then your up to par with the rest of the world, the only thing the US has which is more advanced then what the rest of the world has is you electronic systems and your navy.
Information? Lmfao yea sure what ever you say, but yes your electronics are more advanced. And the Marines are a great fighting forces but there is no proof there any better then other forces.

Our Marine Corps alone is superior to entire other countries' militaries

No proof.

And your air force was out classed by the Russians for a long time and didn't even know it, great job US military intelligence.

In 1996 the west first saw the Su-30MKI Flanker the most manoeuvrable fighter jet in the world

Ahem, maneuverable doesn't mean anything when the Russians have horrible radar/communications/intelligence sharing.

The Russians make up for it with excellent piloting and air craft.

Before an Su-30 could even confront US aircraft, it would have already been tracked by an AWACS, having its position beamed to a fleet of F-15s, who would then shot BVR (beyond visual range) missiles, knocking the SU-30 out of the sky before it even knew F-15s were in the area.

Yes, assuming the AWACS hasn't already been shot down by a Novotor KS-172 AAM carried by a MIG-31, SU-37 or the SU-30 itself.

That's just assuming there were no US F22s in the region, which if they were there, would have ridiculously easy job of knocking the Su-30s out of the sky from long range while the Su-30 pilots didn't even know wtf was going on.

Air Force F-15s and 1960s-era Japanese F-4s shot one down in a simulated dogfight. SU-30/37's and MIG's should be able to do it to.

and in 2004 F-15C/D Eagle fighters were pitted against Su-30MKI Flanker, as well as Mikoyan-Gurevich Mi-27 Flogger, MiG-29 Fulcrum and even ancient MiG-21 Bison warplanes.

All of them were up to the mark, trouncing Eagles and French Mirage-2000 fighters, too. This came as a complete surprise for US pilots.

See, you don't know wtf you're talking about.

In wargames with the Indians, US aircraft didn't make use of long range radars and only engaged in dog fighting. The Russian jets were superior at dogfighting when the US intentionally handicapped itself.

And the Russians didn't sell the Indians there top missile systems, and you can bet Putin has a lot of top secret military systems in development that even your country doesn't know about.

But that kind of dog fighting is long since obsolete because the US aircraft are capable of tracking and shooting down enemy aircraft long before they enemy aircraft can detect them, let alone engage them in a dogfight.

The US is the only country with a current fleet of both stealth fighters and stealth bombers.

Your bombers can't protect them selves and your fighters can still be picked up on radar and seen.

On sept. 6, the Royal Norwegian Air Force spotted Russian bombers on radar and scrambled to the sky. sense 1994 Russian nuclear bombers have been increasing there cruise missile training in international air space.

You mean the the Russian TU-95 Bear bombers that still use propellers and are about 50 years old? You mean the ones that stick out like a flashing beacon on a radar screen?

Hey I never said that they were advanced or even good.

And just after a Russian mini-sub planted a flag at the North Pole

Lol, and claimed it against the Canadian claim of the North Pole.

Under current international law, the countries ringing the Arctic - -Russia, Canada, the US, Norway, and Denmark are limited to a 200-mile economic zone around their coasts.When Russian scientists returned from the six-week mission to claim the 1,220-mile long underwater Lomonosov Ridge is geologically linked to the Siberian continental platform - and similar in structure. The region is currently administered by the International Seabed Authority but this is now being challenged by Moscow.
The US and Denmark also have a claim of the North Pole so we all got invaded. But it was already Russian so it dosent really matter. I brought that up to prove that the US couldn't see the old bomber coming.

Meanwhile, the US already sent attack submarines to the North Pole that surfaced through the ice.

We have always known the US use's our waters to get to other countries. Besides the US is suspicious of Canada having its own fleet of nuclear-subs, nervous are we?

You only just recently outclassed them with your F-22 Raptor

In dogfighting.

Lol, you got beat, face it.

But we've always had an edge in air superiority, in stealth aircraft, in bombers, in spy/surveillance aircraft etc....

True, but you jets have been outclassed for awhile and the US didn't even know it.

Russian planes have actually routinely been shown to be complete shit throughout the years. This is evidenced by the only major engagements between the latest Soviet and American planes, which was in Israel's wars against the surrounding countries. Israelis equipped with American planes routinely beat the fucking shit out of the Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi airforces who were in turn equipped with the latest Soviet aircraft and equipment at the time.

Israel was using American F-4's which were already combat tested in Vietnam against Russian MIG-17/21's and were beaten until they started using missiles. F-4's pitted against Hawker Hunters, MiG 21's, MIG-17's and SU-7's, of course the Israelis won the air war.

which are to damn expensive to mass-produce so you don't have enough of them to fight the world.

They aren't mass-produced fighters like the shitty Russian jets.

Also, given the fact that F-22s have an unblemished kill ratio in war games (108-0), that means that possibly hundreds of enemy aircraft will be shot down for just one F22 shot down. Given the fact that we currently have 90 of them and will have at least 180 of them at the end of the production run, given the fact that 180 itself will be bigger than almost every other country's entire fleet of combat aircraft... I'd say that F22s mixed in with existing bombers and fighter aircraft is a mix well capable of dominating the airspace anywhere and everywhere.

The kill ratio is incorrect. The F-22 has never fought the best Russia has to offer or even has in development. Until the F-22 fights top Russian aircraft no one will ever know who has the best air craft.

That's not even factoring in the enormous superiority the US has in other aspects, like long range precision cruise missiles, which would be used against enemy air installations, or including ground-based anti-aircraft systems the US has which would also destroy many enemy aircraft.

Who doesn't have any of that? Russia and NATO all have those capabilities.

The US has an overwhelming advantage.

Your right, if it was America against one nation, but against the world? No you don't, wi

At 4/3/08 02:41 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 4/3/08 02:30 PM, thedo12 wrote: lol, you think your country is invinceable or something?

From all but 3 countries, yes.

The US could stop 3 countries depending on what countries they were, but the world? No never.

your naval and af power cannot be everywhere at the same time, to stop the combineds nations from destroyng you

Did you see the link, or any of those pics, or the fact that our planes are 10 years more advanced than anything Europe ever came out with?

The only truly superior force in your military is your navy.
And your air force was out classed by the Russians for a long time and didn't even know it, great job US military intelligence.
In 1996 the west first saw the Su-30MKI Flanker the most manoeuvrable fighter jet in the world and in 2004 F-15C/D Eagle fighters were pitted against Su-30MKI Flanker, as well as Mikoyan-Gurevich Mi-27 Flogger, MiG-29 Fulcrum and even ancient MiG-21 Bison warplanes.
All of them were up to the mark, trouncing Eagles and French Mirage-2000 fighters, too. This came as a complete surprise for US pilots.
On sept. 6, the Royal Norwegian Air Force spotted Russian bombers on radar and scrambled to the sky. sense 1994 Russian nuclear bombers have been increasing there cruise missile training in international air space. And just after a Russian mini-sub planted a flag at the North Pole, 30 Russian bombers converged in the Arctic and fired cruise missiles in simulated attacks.
You only just recently outclassed them with your F-22 Raptor, which are to damn expensive to mass-produce so you don't have enough of them to fight the world.

which ones?

All of them

No article ever said the US could fight the world and win.

however the world could generate military at a far faster pace then the u.s. could alone.

I say we could generate more projected force at a far faster rate than everyone else. Projected force is more important than number of soldiers, tanks, etc.

Your right, if it was America against one nation, but against the world? No you don't, with fewer troops tanks and a smaller air force your put at a major disadvantage.

At 4/2/08 05:27 PM, thedo12 wrote:

Dude, WTF did you say? dude use microsoft word to type up your post use spellcheck and copy past what you wrote, like the big boys do.

i dont use spell check :(

Oh snap!!! sorry dude, my comment was directed to highschooldude, you just got caught in the lol "crossfire". MEDIC!!!

Ok you asked me to respond, here it is.

:At 3/31/08 08:52 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 3/29/08 08:27 PM, Vectore wrote:

I guess your not trying to cover your tracks, your just to stupid to finish your thoughts.

I showed my thought, you've been rambling around like an idiot. America could destroy Canada in scenario 1 and America could conquer the world in scenario 2. Cellar proved that beyond belief from pages 1-10. Don't play dumb.

You did not prove America could conquer the world at any point, cellar never proved that the US could conquer the world, military wise Canada would fall to the US but not easily, and there would be too much resistance from the Canadian people and the world to ever stay in Canada.

lol, why ask the question then? and none of those countries were fighting in a foreign theatre of war well trying to defend them selves.

Ummm, I didn't ask that question? I did make a very sarcastic reply to make the questioner seem silly for asking such a thing.

lol, what ever you say.

No country is hurt by trade

Wrong

All that proved was the currant administration tactically approves of a weaker dollar.

and war is never good for any economy.

Wrong

Ok you got me there.
In some instances war is good for the economy, but war with the world would hurt the economy, the war in Iraq is hurting the US economy, so a war with the world would surely put the US in to a depression, and the economic repercussions in the future would be devastating.

lol, your even funnier then cellardoor. You said Canada fell, but it was never powerful. You said it first in this thread, There for you brought it up.

Thedo brought up the topic of Canada, I posted a sarcastic reply on page 1, while you were saying that NATO would defend Canada over America.

The topic was always about Canada and America, and you are the one that said Canada fell, I was not talking about who brought Canada up first but who said Canada fell first.

You still have not proven that.

No but Cellar did. However you nor anyone else proved him wrong, or even bothered to directly address his claims with relevant facts or links.

No cellar never did he was talking about war with Canada or NATO not the world.

Do me a favour, go to this site http://www.globalfirepower.com/

And add up all the numbers, first look at the US then add up every other countries military resources together and you will see that the numbers are against the US.
In a war with the world the US would be destroyed.

LMFAO!!!!! poop.

At 4/2/08 04:36 PM, highschooldude wrote:

At 4/2/08 03:02 AM, TheMason wrote:

Not true at all. Assault rifles are designed to be psychologically scary...when the reality is they are less lethal than anything other than a .22.

a .22 caluber rifle has a bulet the size of a mouse turd and is desinged to kill varmeits the AK-47 Assault rifle can fire 600 rounds per minet and has a 7.62mm bubullet that cloud easuly kill a elk let alone as person so how is an Assault rifle less lethal than anything but a .22

Dude, WTF did you say? dude use microsoft word to type up your post use spellcheck and copy past what you wrote, like the big boys do.

how did this get a two year bump?

At 4/2/08 03:49 PM, Suaron wrote:

At 4/2/08 03:13 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/2/08 12:48 PM, Proteas wrote:

QUIT TROLLING CELLARDOOR6 OR SO HELP ME GOD YOU'RE ALL GOING ON VACATION.

What the hell are you talking about?

I think he's maybe referring to stuff like that chart that Musician posted but he deleted. All this cellardoor bashing is basically a diversion from discussing whatever the hell this topic is supposed to be about.

Wait a minute, you mean cellardoor and n64 try to derail the topic with stupid ass pictures and where the one getting shit canned?

At 3/29/08 04:40 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 3/28/08 07:03 PM, Vectore wrote:

You said conquer the world first then when you realized that was bull, so you change to dominate, not dominate the world but simply dominate, that does not mean dominate the world that could mean dominate one county.
You're trying to cover your tracks now. Other wise try to complete your thoughts, if you can.

Cover my tracks? Wtf are you talking about, if I say America will dominate, without adding a subject, I couldn't just mean one spot. My intention has always been the US could conquer the world, and I'm not covering up my tracks because I'm still stating that fact. Adding domination would mean that no one could put up any opposition due to the superiority of the US military.

I guess your not trying to cover your tracks, your just to stupid to finish your thoughts.

Lmfao Proof? Really, what you never took history?

Never knew Rome was keeping economic records before movable printing.

lol, why ask the question then? and none of those countries were fighting in a foreign theatre of war well trying to defend them selves.

Why would the US cut itself off from trade and how is increased military spending good for the economy. It's draining your currant economy.

Why does no one know anything about economics? The US is HURT by trade, and GDP would rise without it, read over the thread again. Military=government spending=low unemployment. War is GOOD for the conomy. Now don't speak anymore about economics without learning the first thing about it.

No country is hurt by trade and war is never good for any economy.

If it fell and wasn't powerful, why bring it up? Hmmm how petty and childish.

I think the OP brought it up, besides you were contributing to the argument before I was. So don't be a hypocrite saying this is petty and childish when considering
a) you do it too
and
b) you did it first

lol, your even funnier then cellardoor. You said Canada fell, but it was never powerful. You said it first in this thread, There for you brought it up.

Now to restate my claim to continue this cycle of moronic debate, the US would dominate in a war of world vs US, which also means the US could conquer the world at this point in time.

You still have not proven that.

At 3/29/08 04:44 PM, n64kid wrote:
You're one to talk since the US scored higher on an international psych experiment in geography.
In fact, some of the lowest scorers of developed countries were from Australia and Canada. Heh, now who's down undah.

Can you prove what you just said? lets see that experiment.

At 3/28/08 08:09 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Try to prove that the US could conquer the world, go ahead do it.

Simple.

Once again you have proved nothing.

Once again? Interesting, I remember very vividily having proved you wrong earlier in this thread.

I didn't say you never proved me wrong, I remember that and openly said that I was wrong. You have been wrong a lot in this thread.

And what is with all the lame pictures?

It adds just a wee bit of humor to a protracted argument that has become gruelingly repetitive.

you think you have the only military that does any thing?

No, I know that my country has the only military in the world capable of independence force projection on a massive scale. The US military is the only in the world capable of transporting itself, maintaining itself, and engaging in a large scale war without.

The US has capabilities that no other country has, such as super carriers, significant heavy air-lift, stealth aircraft, independent satellite navigation/targeting. And the US is the only country with enough of these things to project force in wars far away for a protracted period of time.

The US has force projection, other countries don't. The UK is the closest, but they can barely even keep a few thousand troops in a foreign country without it breaking down their military.

Your right the US has all the technology for independent force projection on a massive scale, and im not denying that.
I'm saying you act like the US is the only country that ever goes to war, that America did every thing and every other country is meaningless.
You tend to call any one who express's pride in their country brainwashed when it's clearly just national pride.

US troops are no braver the any other soldiers.

I disagree.

Especially with regards to the current wars. US soldiers are trained to fight, and are given regular combat operations. The militaries of NATO allies, with a few exceptions, have it in their mind that they have to do as little as possible tactically, but just provide a token force to give the appearance they are actually fighting.

First off all soldiers are trained to fight.
Second the politicians of those countries don't want the people screaming bloody murder at them because of civilian casualties and troops dieing over Americas war. If high command where to send the soldiers into battle they would be able to achieve there objectives.

All soldiers die the same and they all fight bravely for there countries, and if you think you are better then any solider, than you are the biggest narcissist in the fucking world.

Insult politicians all you want but leave soldiers out of your pathetic name calling.

Canada's military is a joke. Canada has good soldiers, but Canada's military power is meaningless unless Canada is simply merged into a larger force, such as the NATO force in Afghanistan which in turn is just a merger into the US command structure.

All though I hate to say it, I agree that Canada's military power is meaningless unless it is merged with NATO.

At 3/28/08 06:31 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 3/28/08 05:24 PM, Vectore wrote:
You lost that argument so you are trying to change what you said.
In your words: the US could easily conquer the world at this point in time.
Not dominate.

How did I lose, and in my vocabulary, if a military dominates the rest of the world, it conquers as well.
Sorry if something synonymous confuses you, but if that's the best you can come up with, me replacing conquer with dominate to avoid reusing words, don't even bother.

You said conquer the world first then when you realized that was bull, so you change to dominate, not dominate the world but simply dominate, that does not mean dominate the world that could mean dominate one county.
You're trying to cover your tracks now. Other wise try to complete your thoughts, if you can.

None of those countries had control of the entire world at any point and none of those countries were trying to maintain peace in a foreign theater while having economic problems at home.

Proof?

Lmfao Proof? Really, what you never took history?

The US could not go to war with the world especially now, A war with the world would cause the US to hemorrhage money and go into a major recession.

A recession wouldn't mean anything if the US cut itself off from trade, had government subsidizing neccessary industry, and increased spending for war is a GOOD thing for the economy.

Why would the US cut itself off from trade and how is increased military spending good for the economy. It's draining your currant economy.

You proved that powerful countries can maintain control of other countries for long periods of time. But like I said, every thing has an end, even America; it's only a mater of time.

Not in our lifetime, pal.

We will see.

History states that all powerful nations fall eventually.

Canada fell, but it was never powerful.

If it fell and wasn't powerful, why bring it up? Hmmm how petty and childish.

At 3/28/08 04:33 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 3/28/08 12:56 PM, Vectore wrote:

1945 the Allies defeat Nazi Germany and the Russians take Berlin, 410 AD Rome burns, Sparta defeated Athens in 403 BCE and 30 BCE Greece falls under Roman control, 331 BC The Great Persian army is defeated at the Battle of Gaugamela. All of Persia falls into Macedonian hands.

But at one point they all dominated. I proved that it is possible to take over anything worth taking over in the world.

You lost that argument so you are trying to change what you said.
In your words: the US could easily conquer the world at this point in time.
Not dominate.

None of those countries had control of the entire world at any point and none of those countries were trying to maintain peace in a foreign theater while having economic problems at home.
The US could not go to war with the world especially now, A war with the world would cause the US to hemorrhage money and go into a major recession.

You proved that powerful countries can maintain control of other countries for long periods of time. But like I said, every thing has an end, even America; it's only a mater of time.

History states that all powerful nations fall eventually.

At 3/27/08 11:01 PM, n64kid wrote:
Germany 1942 dominated the bloody continent. Rome 117 AD. Greece 500 BCE. Persia 550 BCE.

Military spending
That along with our AF fleet is superior to anything else.
Navy with top physicists that would stop any missile that dared to enter our airspace.
And man for man, no one beats a marine.

1945 the Allies defeat Nazi Germany and the Russians take Berlin, 410 AD Rome burns, Sparta defeated Athens in 403 BCE and 30 BCE Greece falls under Roman control, 331 BC The Great Persian army is defeated at the Battle of Gaugamela. All of Persia falls into Macedonian hands.

So who are you in all this? The Germans? The Romans? The Greeks? The Persians? Every thing has an end, even America; it's only a mater of time.

At 3/27/08 10:44 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 3/27/08 10:35 PM, Vectore wrote:

At 3/27/08 08:04 PM, n64kid wrote: Canadians are too rash and assume some of the dumbest things. An /01 alt? So someone isn't delusional and knows that the US could easily conquer the world at this point in time must be an alt of Cellar?

Try to prove that the US could conquer the world, go ahead do it.

Simple.

Once again you have proved nothing.
And what is with all the lame pictures? come-on have some respect, what, you think you have the only military that does any thing? That your country is the only one with soldiers that will go to war and die for there country?
US troops are no braver the any other soldiers. All soldiers die the same and they all fight bravely for there countries, and if you think you are better then any solider, than you are the biggest narcissist in the fucking world.

Insult politicians all you want but leave soldiers out of your pathetic name calling.

At 3/28/08 03:01 AM, poxpower wrote:

At 3/28/08 01:03 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Canadian armored cavalry.

+2 defense in Maple Forest

lol thanx dude

At 3/27/08 08:04 PM, n64kid wrote: Canadians are too rash and assume some of the dumbest things. An /01 alt? So someone isn't delusional and knows that the US could easily conquer the world at this point in time must be an alt of Cellar?

Try to prove that the US could conquer the world, go ahead do it. Try to find some sort of proof to back that shit up, show some real world situation to back up that ridiculous claim.

At 3/27/08 12:41 PM, adanac wrote: Fresh Prince 1812 Rendition (for my 'special' friend)

Careful dude- you dont want to make cellar and his alt n64 mad.

At 3/25/08 03:41 AM, n64kid wrote:
Well first off you don't respond to any claims that Cellar brought up. You cannot directly refute anything he says, nor come up with viable links to support how the US would be destroyed if it invaded Canada. The US is the strongest military by far, NATO is a piece of shit and would fall without US support, and no one would bother getting involved if a pointless country was invaded.

This is a hypothetical situation which would never happen, so there is no information on this subject and no official military or government documents exist to support the claims that the US could invade Canada. Or that NATO would not become involved. Or that Canadian resistance would be easily defeated.

FTW The few times I've been to Canada (been to BC, Ontario and Quebec), I've seen nothing but poverty. Countless grifting, people rolling around in wheelchairs asking for money and then getting up and running for a loose dollar in the wind, and beggars. Canada doesn't even have a measuremeant on poverty. How could poor people with hunting riffles and hockey sticks ever fend off any military?

Well the few times I was in the US (California, New York, Illinois) I've seen more poverty then I've seen in BC, Ontario or Quebec. How ever I know that those three states are the most densely populated in the US just like BC, Ontario and Quebec are the most densely populated provinces in Canada.

As for the last bit of your post, it sure is fun trying to preserve the stereotype that Americans are ignorant, uniformed, morons. Isn't it.

Maybe you should pull your tongue out of cellardoors ass long enough too see the shit coming out of his mouth.

At 3/22/08 08:41 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Basically, I can't have a coherent argument with you, because you're assuming a false reality to draw a conclusion for an impossible situation.

Basically, we can't have a coherent argument with you, because you're assuming a false reality to draw a conclusion for an impossible situation.

Canada's utter dependence on the US IS real, and is significant no matter how hard you try to avoid it by focusing on what you consider to be an illogical hypothetical situation.

Deal with it.

The United States of America's utter dependence on NATO IS real, and is significant no matter how hard you try to avoid it by focusing on what you consider to be an illogical hypothetical situation.

Deal with it.

At 3/21/08 09:05 PM, thedo12 wrote:

you see this is the thing, we could argue about this for years but untill it really happens then we have no clue how other countrys would react.

the only thing that i know for sure wuld happen would be extreme hatred for the u.s. around the world, attacking a peacefull country dosent gain you any respect. I would think most citizens of the u.s. would hate their goverment for doing it , the moral for the country of the u.s. attacking canada would be extremly low .

:r

One thing that I think every one can agree on is that cellardoor's comment that Canada only exists at the mercy of the US, is total and utter propaganda. No wonder Boeing hired him.

At 3/21/08 12:12 PM, AfroShine wrote:

At 3/21/08 03:11 AM, thedo12 wrote:

we don't need you candians in the army anyways, you're all pansies.

Coming from a dick

actualy canadian soldiers are some of the best soldiers in the world (cellardoor will proably tell you differnt) but thats if we actualy put importance on military.

vimy ridge just one example, basicly the british sent us off to die so they could stave off the germans for a bit longer, however we actualy took vimy ridge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_V imy_Ridge

That was world war 1. I want to see a source that says that canadian forces are the best in the world, not were the best in the world.

He's not saying were the best, he is pointing out that we are a formidable enemyand one of the best, and stay the hell away from our Poutine, i dont care for it but still.

At 3/21/08 12:14 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 3/20/08 11:22 PM, Vectore wrote:

At 3/20/08 10:26 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
1) Canada doesn't have depth of force to cause an opposition that would require a long, wide-scale war that would cause damage to infrastructure. Canada's military would have little ability to protect Canadian soil. It would make quick, easy invasion of Iraq in 03 look like Stalingrad.

This coming from someone in a country that can't get Iraq under control.

Invading a convenitonal military is a whole hell of a lot easier than policing a country of 30 million in the Middle East that is surrounded and infiltrated by unfriendly countries and terrorist roganizations.

Once you invade any country you need to police it. If you invade us then you have to police us, and if you can't do it in Iraq you'll never do it in Canada.

The fact that you try to pretend that keeping Iraq under control is an easy task is hilarious. No other country in the world could even maintain a force in Iraq as long as the US has. The British, probably the 2nd most powerful military in the world in terms of power projection, can't even control a single city in the most peaceful areas of Iraq. The British had a hard time keeping 5000 troops equipped in Iraq, while the US has maintained a force of 100,000 - 170,000 for 5 years, with actually minimal loses in a historical context.

No other country has tried to maintain a force in Iraq, and the British did have a small problem supplying troops. They don't believe in the mission and didn't patrol so the cites where taken back. And the US has suffered the largest casualties in the war for little or no reason.

You're under estimating us just like your military annalists would, Canada would gain NATO support and defend its self fine.

Nope, considering the US is the backbone of NATO as it is, and Canada's military is highly dependent on the Us as it is, Canada couldn't protect itself at all. Canada's defense forces number at only 70,000, only a fraction of which are in combat duties. Canada completely lacks the ability to sway off an invasion.

The US was the backbone of NATO in Kosovo but since then the problems have been addressed. NATO forces are now able to stand up and deploy anywhere in the world within five days and then sustain itself for 30 days, like the US Marines.

And didn't the Russians push the Germans out of Stalingrad, surround them and brutally crush them?

Um, hence the analogy you moron.

Invading Canada would be so easy that it would make the spectacular, swift invasion of Iraq in 2003 look like Stalingrad by contrast.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a conventional operation, the US military had goals of destroying opposition and claiming ground, which it did overwhelmingly successfully. The invasion was arguably the quickest and most resoundingly successful operation of its kind in history. The invasion of Iraq would have similar goals of an invasion of Canada.

It was so successful because you where fighting a poorly trained under equipped army supplied with old Russian weapons. Kalashnikov's and T-72's are no match for M-16, and M1A2 Abrams. C7's and Leopard C1 and C2 tanks are a hell of a lot more deadly.

However the current counter-insurgency in Iraq is a completely different dynamic, that despite what ignorant people like yourself think, has been more successful than any other country could have possibly achieved. Any other military wouldn't even have had the ability to occupy Iraq, they would have had been forcibly removed by now. Counter-insurgencies are the most difficult operations because you usually have to juggle politics. The one in Iraq especially so because it is surrounded by unfriendly countries, a region that has about as much guns, bombs, and ammo as it has grains of sand. In Iraq the US can't use its full combat strength, because the goal isn't to take Iraq over, it's to provide a blanket of security so that the Iraq government doesn't fall, and can sustain itself. That's an entirety different dynamic than fighting an opposing military.

Any other military wouldn't have gone to Iraq if you country didn't plea for support to NATO. And with any invasion you have to face counter insurgences, you would face the same thing if you invade Canada.

When people use what they perceive to be failures in Iraq, and suggest it means the US couldn't handle a conventional war, it just shows how ignorant they are of reality.

2) No other countries have the means or the wherewithal to provide military opposition to an invasion of Canada by the US. Not only are there no countries with the ability to actually project sufficient force as far away from their countries as North America, but they don't have the ability to do this considering this would trigger a war with the US, adn the US already has strategic positions all over the world.

You mean NATO would not help an ally of there's from a country there not to fond of?

NATO

That they don't have a large enough military force?

Without the US, NATO is largely irrelevant. Time and time again, from the Korean War, to Kosovo, to the first Gulf War, and to the current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. NATO, or specific NATO countries rely almost entirely on the US to lead the operation. NATO forces cannot operate without the US, it's a simple fact.

The operations are your operations that's why the US leads them.

The Kosovo operation in 1999 is a good example of that. NATO forces couldn't hold their own at all, they relied on the US to transport them there, to supply them, to provide intelligence, and to do the vast majority of combat operations. It showed weaknesses in non-US NATO countries, they were way behind the US in technology, capability, and training. The US had to give them a piggy back the entire time, every time other NATO countries were given responsibilities, they failed. They still are like this, and you only need to look at what's going on in Afghanistan to see that as well.

That they can not project a significant force to the US?

Nope, NATO cannot operate, especially in far away regions, without the US.

Yes they can, they have the war ships and the air power.

NATO would jump at the chance to destroy the US and take all military, economic and what few natural resources you have left.

LOL that's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. NATO countries all rely on the US, they know they do. Without the US they would be nothing, and any attempt to turn on the US would be hilariously self-defeating because almost all of the NATO capabilities right now are purely wielded by the US.

And the US is not in any positions of true strategic significance.

AHAHAHA

Except for the fact that the US is the ONLY country in the world with the ability to project land, air, and naval power everywhere in the world, and in multiple places at once.

No its not.

Countries couldn't fight the US in North America when the US already has superior forces stationed all over their own region.

lol, yes they could and no you don't.

You really don't know wtf you're talking about. You're just saying what you want to be true as you go along.

Well you would know now wouldn't you.

Every country is looking for some reason to stop the US

Um, the dumb civilians in a lot of countries are intimidated by the US. yet the governments, especially those of NATO, know full well they rely on the Us and without the US they would be royally screwed.

and when NATO gets involved every other country will, whether or not they are NATO allies. It would be World War III%u2122, the world against America.

And American would win, considering no other countries even come close to the power the US has, and the 2nd most powerful

All of NATO has more power then the US.

At 3/20/08 10:26 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:
1) Canada doesn't have depth of force to cause an opposition that would require a long, wide-scale war that would cause damage to infrastructure. Canada's military would have little ability to protect Canadian soil. It would make quick, easy invasion of Iraq in 03 look like Stalingrad.

This coming from someone in a country that can't get Iraq under control. You're under estimating us just like your military annalists would, Canada would gain NATO support and defend its self fine. And didn't the Russians push the Germans out of Stalingrad, surround them and brutally crush them?

2) No other countries have the means or the wherewithal to provide military opposition to an invasion of Canada by the US. Not only are there no countries with the ability to actually project sufficient force as far away from their countries as North America, but they don't have the ability to do this considering this would trigger a war with the US, adn the US already has strategic positions all over the world.

You mean NATO would not help an ally of there's from a country there not to fond of? That they don't have a large enough military force? That they can not project a significant force to the US? NATO would jump at the chance to destroy the US and take all military, economic and what few natural resources you have left. And the US is not in any positions of true strategic significance.

Countries couldn't fight the US in North America when the US already has superior forces stationed all over their own region.

lol, yes they could and no you don't.

3) Many countries wouldn't even have the incentive to "oppose" the US in any form, considering the relative insignificance of Canada on the world stage. No countries have the desire to stick their neck out and put their economy or their security at risk to provide moral support for a country of 30 million, and oppose a superpower in the process.

Every country is looking for some reason to stop the US, and when NATO gets involved every other country will, whether or not they are NATO allies. It would be World War III%u2122, the world against America.

At 3/20/08 12:06 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:
- The US produces 157 million barrels of oil a domestically per month.

- The US imports 73 million barrels of oil a month from Canada.

- The US imports 398 million as a whole.

So oil imported from Canada represents about 18% of US oil imports. But it represents only 13% of US oil procurement. While the US produces more than twice as much oil as it imports from Canada.

Canada is only the largest single of oil imports to the US as a country, but oil organizations such as OPEC represent a larger portion, . But it only makes up a fraction of US oil.

well butter my ass and call me a biscuit, you got me. Cootose to you. but your still wrong about a war with Canada.