Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/26/08 06:42 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 1/26/08 05:51 PM, tawc wrote: The US owes us for the Harrier. lol

The harrier is the worst plane ever, haha.

I wouldn't say it's the worst plane ever. It had a 22-0 kill ratio in the Falklands war in real combat. (allthough it did have various advantages) As well as a 7-1 Kill ratio against the F-15s and a 3-1 Kill ratio against the F-5E Aggressor in mock combat.

I was only joking really, to get a reaction from Cellardoor. Of course your videos of harrier crashes doesn't in anyway prove it as a bad plane.

At 1/26/08 04:11 PM, Al6200 wrote: @Grammar & CellarDoor:

Maybe you guys should have a formal BBS debate, rather than just insulting each other and taking pot-shots in main threads. Idk, just a thought.

Are you mad? This is better than TV.

At 1/26/08 07:13 PM, tawc wrote: I was only joking really, to get a reaction from Cellardoor. Of course your videos of harrier crashes doesn't in anyway prove it as a bad plane.

No, but the fact that it has one of the highest crash ratios certainly does. 52 planes had major accidents resulting in crashes between 2000-2006.

I understand why you offered it as bait to cellar. I guess I just saved him a few minutes of looking up links.

At 1/26/08 07:23 PM, Bolo wrote:

No, but the fact that it has one of the highest crash ratios certainly does. 52 planes had major accidents resulting in crashes between 2000-2006.

I understand why you offered it as bait to cellar. I guess I just saved him a few minutes of looking up links.

It has it's Flaws, It's not surpising for the first ever plane with the vertical take of and landing capability. Not to mention It is an incredibly old plane.

At 1/26/08 07:23 PM, Bolo wrote:

At 1/26/08 07:13 PM, tawc wrote: I was only joking really, to get a reaction . Of course your videos of harrier crashes doesn't in anyway prove it as a bad plane.

No, but the fact that it has one of the highest crash ratios certainly does. 52 planes had major accidents resulting in crashes between 2000-2006.

;
Here's a real lemon as well.
The V-22 Osprey Aircraft. Although they are slowly working the bugs out.
But c'mon the damn things crash more than the Canadians Sea King Helicopters & those babies are 40 + years old.

Obviously America wins in this catagory. It's so bloody simple. Also, even if America hasn't it's still got the best toys in the buisiness so it's irrelevent either way.

Now can we please end this thread?

At 1/26/08 08:12 PM, Brick-top wrote: Obviously America wins in this catagory. It's so bloody simple. Also, even if America hasn't it's still got the best toys in the buisiness so it's irrelevent either way.

There is no denying it, America has the greatest military the world has ever seen. 10 times (more probably) better than the next military down. America could defeat any country in convetional warfare anywere in the world.
Allthough I expect some militarys will catch up in the future.

morefngdbs,

check out the "Strength" then "Casualties and losses"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_M ogadishu_%281993%29

Obviously, most of you are gonna say the country your from is the best, I donno how but you guys just are.

Grammer knows he loses the argument, so he posts the same 2 links over and over again that has nothing to do with the topic.

Lol what a joke.

At 1/26/08 07:09 PM, morefngdbs wrote: As I posted on the last page.
Somali Warlords & their militias kicked U.S. butt so badly they have never returned... that should count for something.

Do you actually believe that?

The US never used full combat strength in Somalia. It was a peacekeeping mission and then a rescue mission, the US never tried to pacify Mogadishu.

You're looking at an incredibly low-level conflict, and extrapolating the results to apply to the US military as a whole. That's incredibly stupid.

It's an entirely different dynamic.

At 1/26/08 03:04 PM, IamWeird33 wrote: USA for sure.
England couldn't beat us in the revolution, and we had to go save France's ass in WW2.

England could beat you in 1812 though, And France did save your asses in the revolution.
Anyway, I fail to see how those two paticular points in history, prove how powerfull the modern US military is.

Much more recently, You couldn't beat a bunch peasant Vietnamese. Your military must be shit. lol

These previous wars don't prove anything, Stupid fucking comment.

At 1/26/08 05:50 PM, Grammer wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologic al_projection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologic al_projection
http://www.healthcentral.com/schizophren ia/c/100/9663/paranoia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologic al_projection
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologic al_projection

You do know, hypothetically, you could be the one whose mind is fooling itself into thinking it is right all the time?

You could be fooling yourself into thinking that someone else is the crazy person to make yourself feel better.

At 1/27/08 07:43 AM, tawc wrote: Much more recently, You couldn't beat a bunch peasant Vietnamese. Your military must be shit. lol

These previous wars don't prove anything, Stupid fucking comment.

Yeah, you've got a point there.

Also, on a quick note. Britain didn't get involved in te vietnaese war because we wanted our war films to remain cheerful. War is Hell but only when you're fucking losing, hahaha This is a joke. Do not reply to it.

At 1/27/08 07:43 AM, tawc wrote: Much more recently, You couldn't beat a bunch peasant Vietnamese. Your military must be shit. lol

No, more like, our politicians couldn't beat a bunch of hippies.

At 1/27/08 12:25 PM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 1/27/08 07:43 AM, tawc wrote: Much more recently, You couldn't beat a bunch peasant Vietnamese. Your military must be shit. lol

No, more like, our politicians couldn't beat a bunch of hippies.

Thats a stupid way of looking at it. Technically it was the politicians who pulled out of the American war of independence. Britain wasn't really loosing.

Anyway, America pratically failed in every Operation into North Vietnam.

At 1/24/08 07:49 PM, PubicTears wrote:

At 1/24/08 07:37 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: Erm, the US.
EDN THREAD, lol

Why? Personaly I think English troops have better training. Mabey they don't have the numbers, but they are very well trained.

That's a falsehood, for a simple reason: we're sending members of the Territorial Army out to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The TA are, in essence, the British equivilent of the Army Reserve, and are basically the last line of defence in case the British mainland itself is invaded and there aren't any troops able to fight for whatever reason (such as, say, being stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq at Bush's say so). It's for people who fail to qualify for the full army for whatever reason, but want to play soldiers once a month, basically. That we're sending them over to the Middle East to beef up the numbers indicates a shortage of top-quality troops, or the troops over there aren't good enough and need to be supplimented.

Also, whilst we're happy to throw jibes about the American military being made up of rednecks and high school dropouts, the British army is made up of - you guessed it - country bumpkins who don't have farms to run, GCSE drop-outs/failures, or dole scum that would rather be shot at than have a real job.

Also, the officer class is often home to Tim Nice-But-Dim types - who often crack under the mildest pressure, can't use intuition and stick to Plan A no matter how badly it's failing, and seem detached from the reality of the situation they're in, and certainly they distance themselves from their men (there's a clear gap between the Officer and the Men, right down to officers wearing brown shoes, whilst the foot sloggers wear black ones. In a time of war, there's a reason the current generals are cleared out to make way for a war cabinet: because peacetime generals are only good at quaffing sherry.

Personally, I'd go for Russia or China. Russia because they're tough and fight until the last man (see: Siege of Stalingrad), China because they can mobilise such large numbers of troops in a short amount of time they can win on the numbers game alone.

At 1/27/08 02:43 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

Personally, I'd go for Russia or China. Russia because they're tough and fight until the last man (see: Siege of Stalingrad), China because they can mobilise such large numbers of troops in a short amount of time they can win on the numbers game alone.

You can't base modern militarys on historic battles and wars. Have you ever hered of the Western Front in WW1, Similar circumstances to Stalingrad. If you don't advance you get shot. That doesn't make a good military.

In the Present day. The US if it really needed to could probably defeat both the Russians and the Chinese combined in conventianl warfare.

The US has the best military, there is no denying it.

At 1/27/08 03:17 PM, tawc wrote:
The US has the best military, there is no denying it.

As Vietnam showed (and certain aspects of Iraq and WWII), the US military is only good when nobody returns fire. When they do, their assumed superiority suddenly goes bye-bye.

Also, you tend to get shot when you advance - the majority of troops deaths in the First World War were when they attempted to storm the opposing trench, to be met by a hail of machine gun fire. If they stayed in their trench, they wouldn't have been mown down.

Also in WWI, during the Battle of Jutland, Admiral Jellicoe attempted a similar manoeuvre as used at Trafalgar - and lost three battlecruisers, 3 armoured cruisers and eight destroyers doing so to a numerically inferior German navy.

Advancing stops you getting shot? Are you kidding? It's more likely to put you in range and in the sights of somebody who can shoot back - especially if an enemy are using guerilla tactics, when you're target practice and don't know it.

At 1/27/08 03:28 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 1/27/08 03:17 PM, tawc wrote:
The US has the best military, there is no denying it.

As Vietnam showed (and certain aspects of Iraq and WWII), the US military is only good when nobody returns fire. When they do, their assumed superiority suddenly goes bye-bye.

What the fuck are you on about. Gurrellia warfare throughout the ages has shown to get the better out of Conventinal militarys.
It's the reason the Romans couldn't conquer Scotland, America won their Independence and the result of the Vietnam war against the Americans.

I don't often stick up for America, But your talkin shite. Britain has had just as hard time in Iraq as America, And in Afganistan, America and it's allies are doing incredibly better than the Soviets did.

At 1/27/08 03:28 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

The question was over who has the best military, and if you say the US does not, then who does?

We've got the most well-trained soldiers, the most money to supply them, and insane amounts of technology. I don't know of any recent wars that we lost, actually.

At 1/27/08 05:08 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 1/27/08 03:28 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

The question was over who has the best military, and if you say the US does not, then who does?

We've got the most well-trained soldiers, the most money to supply them, and insane amounts of technology. I don't know of any recent wars that we lost, actually.

I wouldn't go as far as most well-trained, But definitly most money.

It is kind of hard compare who has the strongest army, considering there hasn't been any conflicts between any major powers in along time.

At 1/26/08 08:55 PM, K-RadPie wrote: morefngdbs,
check out the "Strength" then "Casualties and losses"

;
Please its just More.
Yeah I actually seen numbers like yours from another source.
One of the reasons for the high statistics was supposedly the amount of collateral damage to civilians & the difficulty in telling civilians from combantants on the Somali's part.

But , they did kick the asses of a superior equiped & trained military force. They didn't back off & kept fighting. Impressive for a bunch of uneducated, poorly equiped (after all they didn't have ANY air craft) barely trained individuals.

They are still there still in power & the U.S. has never opened that can of worms again.( it sucks to be forced to eat a can of Whoop Ass , it tastes like shit) the U.S military doesn't want any more.

Obviously China because no country has got enough bloody bullets.

hahaha

Sorry, it sounds funny.

You both know you've lost the arguement when you take a simple thread way to seriously.

Get a grip, get a life...get a dog.

Don't worry, be happy.

I'd say that the US has the best technology; money in military technology corresponds to technology research output.

We don't have the largest army, and probably not the best trained. I think Israel might have a better trained troops. But i think the US is the best in terms of an 'overall' judge

At 1/27/08 08:07 PM, Grammer wrote: You're such a joke, no one takes you seriously

I take him seriously. He puts a lot more effort into posts than anyone else, but he could do better. He'd be more popular if he didn't pepper his arguments with insults.

Both of you aren't getting any better. Both of your behaviors are disappointing to all of the BBS. The best way to resolve this conflict would be for one of you to take the high ground and ignore the other until both of you have calmed down.

How about you don't reply to him and he will eventually stop replying to you? In a few months, you could start anew. Do you have the willpower to ignore him that long?

At 1/27/08 03:28 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 1/27/08 03:17 PM, tawc wrote:
The US has the best military, there is no denying it.

As Vietnam showed (and certain aspects of Iraq and WWII), the US military is only good when nobody returns fire. When they do, their assumed superiority suddenly goes bye-bye.

Actually, you're saying what is the exact opposite of the truth.

The US is best when an actual military actually fights the US. The US can win any conventional engagement, and Vietnam was no different. When a military actually opposes the US, they will lose, the US will win.

Vietnam was not a military defeat at all. The US didn't lose a single engagement during the entire war and the North Vietnamese only achieved their goals 2 years after the US had already withdrawn from South Vietnam based on politics, NOT on any military failure.

While the US was in Vietnam, it achieved its objectives of protecting South Vietnam, and the US overwhelmingly outperformed that of the North Vietnamese. Something like a 20 to 1 kill ratio.

The dynamics of Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq are so dissimilar from a conventional war that only a completely uneducated ignoramus would suggest they represent weaknesses in the US military with regards to fighting other militaries in an actual conventional war. In those 3 wars, the US was (and in Iraq, is) forced to use enormous amounts of restraint in order to juggle political objectives with military objectives. In all 3 of these wars, the enemy hid among civilian populations. In Vietnam, the US was never allowed to use its full strength against North Vietnam, only to protect South Vietnam. In Somalia, the US never even had any tactical goals whatsoever, it was simply to act as a peacekeeping force, and the Black Hawk Down operation was a rescue mission, COMPLETELY inapplicable in any comparison of modern militaries given the fact that the US forces were not trying to destroy the enemy at all, and were never allowed to use full combat strength. In Iraq, the US cannot be militarily defeated, at all. The enemy is fighting among civilians, using tactically ineffective, sporadic engagements for propaganda more so than for any real use. The US is not fighting a war, the US is policing a country. If the US didn't have to use decency, and actually wanted to pacify Iraq, it would have been done a long time ago, but it would have caused casualties that would be unacceptable, and this would have destroyed the political objectives.

At 1/27/08 08:07 PM, Grammer wrote:

At 1/27/08 12:16 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Grammer knows he loses the argument, so he posts the same 2 links over and over again that has nothing to do with the topic.

Lol what a joke.

You know you lost the argument

You're obviously hallucinating there, freak show. Your bipolar/asperger's is kicking in again or something.

You lost the argument, you lose every argument you get in with me. You know it, I know it. You're not very intelligent at all, we all know that. But since you're such a psychotic freak, you need to find some way of coping with your loses, so you do what you do... stalk me endlessly from thread to thread, stalk my youtube with numerous accounts, send numerous PMs from your various alts... all while completely ignoring the very arguments you keep disingenuously suggesting that you didn't lose.

You're like a gag reel of all possible negative human behavioral traits.

so you just keep insulting me over and over

Haha, I provided relevant information, you posted numerous links about schizophrenia as your effort to divert attention away from your hilariously flawed, self-contradicting argument.

You're such a joke, no one takes you seriously

Nobody takes you seriously, in fact the very mods that you choose to use as your confidants hate you as much as I do. The mod you complained to in order to get me to remove the links to your paltalk episode, actually admitted to having enjoyed listening to you squeal in them. And then you have the audacity to say that mods dislike me. Yeah, mods dislike me... but they pity you, because you're a basketcase.

At 1/27/08 07:24 PM, morefngdbs wrote:

But , they did kick the asses of a superior equiped & trained military force.

No they didn't, at all.

They managed to inflict casualties on lighly-armed special forces who were doing small-scale operations, and never had the goal of confronting the militants directly.

It was a small operation that went bad. If the US actually was allowed to defeat and pacify the militants in mogadishu, it would have happened.

They didn't back off & kept fighting. Impressive for a bunch of uneducated, poorly equiped (after all they didn't have ANY air craft) barely trained individuals.

They were numerically superior and had an entire city to surround and fight a lightly-armed, small group of troops. All while those troops never had the go-ahead to destroy the Somalis, only to salvage what was left of the operation and conduct a rescue mission.

They are still there still in power & the U.S. has never opened that can of worms again.( it sucks to be forced to eat a can of Whoop Ass , it tastes like shit) the U.S military doesn't want any more.

That's wishful thinking on your part.

The US was in Somalia as a peacekeeping force, and later conducted low-level operations. US forces never had the goal to defeat the Somali militants in an actual direct confrontation, they didn't have the permission to do that.

The US left because of political issues, not as a military retreat. The US military was never even fully deployed for combat, it never put in place the forces to defeat pacify Mogadishu.

It's a completely different dynamic. You might as well say Canada's police forces suck because a cop doing a house call for a domestic dispute got shot and killed when he entered the house expecting a routine situation. You're taking a small occurrence and extrapolating it in a conversation about much larger issues, while COMPLETELY taking it out of context for your own purposes.