Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/1/08 07:54 PM, bcdemon wrote:

At 1/30/08 04:17 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: I always think it's hilarious when you talk about military issues.

I find it hilarious how you run around like a chicken with your head cut off trying to justify shit like 250,000 rounds spent per insurgent killed.

I find it hilarious how you constantly parade your ignorance of everything you ever talk about, and never, EVER put anything into context.

250,000 rounds, does that include ammunition used in training? Does it include ammunition purchased for the Iraqis? Does it include ammunition used by helicopters, and this anti-mortar/anti-rocket gun that isn't even used for anti-personnel fire?

Context moron, context. Anyone can create propaganda by taking something out of context like that; dividing the bullets purchased for the entire war, by how many insurgents have died from bullet wounds, while completely ignoring the whole issue, without even having any point of reference in the first place.

At 2/1/08 10:18 PM, Christopherr wrote:

We were supposed to assist with air support according to the Accords, but we didn't because the war seemed as if it would never end, seeing as how it went for over 10 years.

It was an American Defeat. There really is no point denying it. Be it a political Defeat if you like, rather than a military defeat. Allthough you could call a number of wars 'political defeat' Even your Revolutionary war wasn't a defeat for the British soldiers, but rather for the Politicians back in Britain who didn't think the war could of been won, because of the sheer amount of US population who wanted independence, and the strain parliment was getting from merchant navies because of the French and Spanish fleets in the Americas.

I wouldn't be surpised if the Vietnamese tell the tale of how their rice farmers with pitchforks (or whatever tools you use to harvest rice) defeated the greatest Military power the world has ever seen.
In similar fashion to how Americans percive the Revelotionary war.

At 1/30/08 01:41 PM, TimTheGreat wrote:

At 1/30/08 10:32 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

World War II losses:
United Kingdom: 47,760,000
Germany: 69,623,000
Japan: 71,380,000
United States: 131,028,000
Soviet Union: 168,500,000

United Kingdom: 450,400
Germany: 5,533,000
Japan: 2,100,000
United States : 418,500
Soviet Union: 10,700,000

They are the real fatalities by country. The US and Britain had a far higher Kill ratio than the Axis.
What you were showing was the Population of each country at the time.

I saw as soon as I posted.

But the fact remains the Allies lost more men than the Axis, so the logic that more kills means you lose a war means that Hitler won WWII, which is patently false. Another way to put it:
Total Allies losses: 50,000,000
Total Axis losses: 12,000,000

As with Vietnam, it isn't how many men you lose, it's how many you can afford to lose - the Viuet Cong may have lost five times the men than the Americans did, but the Viet Cong didn't need to ship men from the other side of the world to get them there. The same can be said for the War of Independence: the losses were practically equal, but the US had a body of men to call up, while the British had to ship them across the Atlantic, which was costly and time consuming.

That's a coherent, honest argument by the way, Cellar. Take a polaroid - it's less tiresome than your lame potshots.

Take a look at the American Civil War:
Union: 110,000 KIA / 360,000 total dead
Confederates: 93,000 KIA / 258,000 total dead

Does that mean the Confederates narrowly won? Or is it that, as the Union had double the numbers, they could afford to lose a few thousand extra compared to the Confederacy?

D2KVirus,

You're ignoring his point. He's saying that the US:

1. Won the Vietnam war because it achieved its strategic objective
2. Did not necessarily have an inferior military because of its casualties

The US did achieve its strategic objective while it remained in the war - the defense of South Vietnam. And the United States suffered less casualties than the Viet Cong, showing that we had a somewhat superior fighting force, since most uneducated liberals tend to cite Vietnam as an example of American military incompetence.

At 1/30/08 10:06 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

I already gave an answer - Russia and China. I also gave reasons.

Your reasons are awful. Neither matches the United States in any area except for China in the area of manpower. And even that difference is trivial in any sort of war except for a US invasion and long-term occupation of China. How do you ignore the dramatic disparity in sea power? The superior size and quality of the US carrier fleet, the ability to project power effectively?

Excuse me? Did you forget about the Vietnam War while you were typing that one?

America lost Vietnam for political - not military reasons. While the military was in Vietnam, it achieved its strategic objective of defending the south.

:Money and technology have little meaning in war

Lol. I can't believe you're actually serious. I guess you've just outsmarted the entire US military which has been under the false impression that technology is important. We should just go to fighting with wooden sticks and our military would dramatically improve.

:the Viet Cong had neither, but beat the US

Say what? The Viet Cong had funding and resources from the Soviet Union, and to say that they had no technology is an outright lie.

:and the Nazis had better weapons, technology and more money going into Russia

Source? Besides, the Germans had to devote their forces to fight a technically and numerically superior British/American force to the south and west, whilst the Russians only had one front to defend.

:but got forced out and all the way back to the front door of Hitler's bunker when that one didn't pay :off.

They were fighting a three front war against The United States, The Soviet Union, and Britain. They lost the Western front with Britain because of their inferior air force and radar technology.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stori es/63/a3714563.shtml

USA FOR SURE!!
With Soooooooo Much FUNDS coming from selling IRAQ's Oil & stealing Middle East's Natural reasources
They Must Have Spent ALOT on their army

OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
i forgot to mention the foolish tax payers

At 2/2/08 12:30 PM, tawc wrote:

Take a look at the name of the thread. We're talking about military, not political. Vietnam was not a military defeat, so it cannot be used against the American Military.

At 2/2/08 04:06 PM, Fadious wrote: USA FOR SURE!!
With Soooooooo Much FUNDS coming from selling IRAQ's Oil & stealing Middle East's Natural reasources
They Must Have Spent ALOT on their army

Stealing, lol

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications /the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.h tml

That explains why oil exporting nations like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have some of the highest per capita GDPs in the world. Really describes nations that are being brutally exploited for their natural resources, doesn't it?

At 2/2/08 04:51 PM, Al6200 wrote: Stealing, lol

I always figured that if we were stealing oil from Iraq or any other country, we wouldn't be paying three bucks a gallon at the pump.

At 2/2/08 04:51 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 2/2/08 04:06 PM, Fadious wrote: USA FOR SURE!!
With Soooooooo Much FUNDS coming from selling IRAQ's Oil & stealing Middle East's Natural reasources
They Must Have Spent ALOT on their army

Stealing, lol

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications /the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.h tml

That explains why oil exporting nations like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates have some of the highest per capita GDPs in the world. Really describes nations that are being brutally exploited for their natural resources, doesn't it?

Hehe
how many people live in Qatar????
They have too much oil & not many people
They should have THE highest GDP, not SOME of the highest
u know why??
cuz ur country buys oil from Qatar at quarter the global price, (if they buy it at all) why??
cuz if they refuse, they'll be accused of being a country that supports terrorism.
& like what happened to Iraq, it was accused of having weapons of Mass Destruction, & they made their war... But we still didn't see these weapons :P
Americans! ur just a funny race of people!

At 2/2/08 05:01 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 2/2/08 04:51 PM, Al6200 wrote: Stealing, lol

I always figured that if we were stealing oil from Iraq or any other country, we wouldn't be paying three bucks a gallon at the pump.

REALLY!!!! WOW!!!!!
i pay 5$

At 2/2/08 05:15 PM, Fadious wrote: Hehe
how many people live in Qatar????

Est. 840,000

They have too much oil & not many people
They should have THE highest GDP, not SOME of the highest
u know why??

Do tell.

cuz ur country buys oil from Qatar at quarter the global price, (if they buy it at all) why??

Um give me a source for this.

cuz if they refuse, they'll be accused of being a country that supports terrorism.

I doubt it.

& like what happened to Iraq, it was accused of having weapons of Mass Destruction, & they made their war... But we still didn't see these weapons :P

They got rid of them all beforehand. No one is denying that they had them.

Americans! ur just a funny race of people!

Americans aren't a race.

;

At 2/2/08 05:27 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

At 2/2/08 05:15 PM, Fadious wrote: Hehe
how many people live in Qatar????

Est. 840,000

As i said "not many people"

They have too much oil & not many people
They should have THE highest GDP, not SOME of the highest
u know why??

Do tell.

cuz ur country buys oil from Qatar at quarter the global price, (if they buy it at all) why??

Um give me a source for this.

We know what our governments do, Unlike you

cuz if they refuse, they'll be accused of being a country that supports terrorism.

I doubt it.

We know it!

& like what happened to Iraq, it was accused of having weapons of Mass Destruction, & they made their war... But we still didn't see these weapons :P

They got rid of them all beforehand. No one is denying that they had them.

they got rid of them huh?!
so they didn't find big rockets, but found Saddam in a hole??

Americans! ur just a funny race of people!

Americans aren't a race.

U got me on that one :(
:P

;

At 2/2/08 05:37 PM, Fadious wrote:

At 2/2/08 05:27 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

At 2/2/08 05:15 PM, Fadious wrote: Hehe
how many people live in Qatar????

Est. 840,000

As i said "not many people"

Almost double the population density of the United States. So, not many people but in not much space.

They have too much oil & not many people
They should have THE highest GDP, not SOME of the highest
u know why??

Do tell.

cuz ur country buys oil from Qatar at quarter the global price, (if they buy it at all) why??

Um give me a source for this.

We know what our governments do, Unlike you

Yeah, sure. If you can't provide a link, just admit that you were spouting bullshit.

cuz if they refuse, they'll be accused of being a country that supports terrorism.

I doubt it.

We know it!

Sure ya do.

& like what happened to Iraq, it was accused of having weapons of Mass Destruction, & they made their war... But we still didn't see these weapons :P

They got rid of them all beforehand. No one is denying that they had them.

they got rid of them huh?!
so they didn't find big rockets, but found Saddam in a hole??

"Got rid of them" as in destroyed them.

;

At 2/2/08 05:44 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

At 2/2/08 05:37 PM, Fadious wrote:

At 2/2/08 05:27 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

At 2/2/08 05:15 PM, Fadious wrote: Hehe
how many people live in Qatar????

Est. 840,000

As i said "not many people"

Almost double the population density of the United States. So, not many people but in not much space.

303,358,387 people live in USA
GDP per capita is calculated by dividing either nominal or real GDP for a given year by the population in that year

They have too much oil & not many people
They should have THE highest GDP, not SOME of the highest
u know why??

Do tell.

cuz ur country buys oil from Qatar at quarter the global price, (if they buy it at all) why??

Um give me a source for this.

We know what our governments do, Unlike you

Yeah, sure. If you can't provide a link, just admit that you were spouting bullshit.

Oh, i'll give u a link of the USA government saying " We threaten Qatar for oil.."

cuz if they refuse, they'll be accused of being a country that supports terrorism.

I doubt it.

We know it!

Sure ya do.

& like what happened to Iraq, it was accused of having weapons of Mass Destruction, & they made their war... But we still didn't see these weapons :P

They got rid of them all beforehand. No one is denying that they had them.

they got rid of them huh?!
so they didn't find big rockets, but found Saddam in a hole??

"Got rid of them" as in destroyed them.

;

Sure! cuz destroying BioChemical & nuclear weapons can't leave any evidence

At 2/2/08 05:57 PM, Fadious wrote:

At 2/2/08 05:44 PM, reviewer-general wrote: cuz ur country buys oil from Qatar at quarter the global price, (if they buy it at all) why??

Um give me a source for this.

We know what our governments do, Unlike you

Yeah, sure. If you can't provide a link, just admit that you were spouting bullshit.

Oh, i'll give u a link of the USA government saying " We threaten Qatar for oil.."

No, you could provide a link saying "the US is paying this amount when the value is this..."

"Got rid of them" as in destroyed them.

Sure! cuz destroying BioChemical & nuclear weapons can't leave any evidence

It does.

No one ever said we found absolutely NOTHING. WE found evidence that they had (past tense) WMDs but HAD gotten rid of them.

;

No, you could provide a link saying "the US is paying this amount when the value is this..."

r u serious?
& What about iraq??

"Got rid of them" as in destroyed them.

Sure! cuz destroying BioChemical & nuclear weapons can't leave any evidence

It does.

No one ever said we found absolutely NOTHING. WE found evidence that they had (past tense) WMDs but HAD gotten rid of them.

;

so they couldn't prove it
& if they could, y Iraq??
Israel has many nuclear warheads, they can blow the whole plant!

At 2/2/08 02:05 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: As with Vietnam, it isn't how many men you lose, it's how many you can afford to lose - the Viuet Cong may have lost five times the men than the Americans did

- The North Vietnamese Army/Viet Cong admittedly lost 1,100,000 men.

- The US lost 58,193

That's way more than 5 times, that's almost about a 19 to 1 kill ratio.

That's a coherent, honest argument by the way, Cellar. Take a polaroid - it's less tiresome than your lame potshots.

Dude, you still aren't taking an honest argument.

Did the Vietnamese outperform the US military? No, they did not.

The US military successfully defended South Vietnam from North Vietnam as long as they were there. Even though rules of engagement handicapped our military, and they virtually had their hands tied behind their backs, they still managed to kill an enormous amount of enemy.

And even then, the US military did not lose the Vietnam war. The US government did. It was a military victory originally, but a political defeat.

Let's put things into context:

- The goal the US military had was to protect South Vietnam, which it did successfully while being allowed to do so.

- The war originally ended in a peace treaty that clearly attained this goal. The US agreed to withdraw forces under the condition that North Vietnam would not show any further aggression to South Vietnam and that they would eventually reunite peacefully. That was the basis of the treaty, thus effectively winning the war for the US.

- 2 whole years after the treaty, when the US had already left victorious, the North Vietnamese broke that UN-sponsored treaty. They defied the international community, and invaded South Vietnam while the US military had been gone for 2 years.

This was a political defeat for the US, not a military defeat, considering the fighting that took place that ended up with the south being defeated happened 2 years after the US had already achieved a military victory and had left.

The North Vietnamese didn't hold up their end of the bargain and only achieved a violent annexation of the South when the US was no longer there. They didn't and couldn't have done this while the US was there.

Thus Vietnam is not a military defeat for the US, in fact in a strictly military sense, the US performed remarkably well given the symmetrical nature of the war.

At 2/2/08 07:06 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: the US performed remarkably well given the symmetrical nature of the war.

Ahem *asymmetrical*.

I don't think there's any doubt the USA is the most prominent military force in the world.

But Britannia rules the waves. And Russia can still cause you massive havoc. Russia may well be the biggest military, but they don't display it much. When Russia and the USA finally square off, we'll find out.

At 2/2/08 05:20 PM, Fadious wrote: REALLY!!!! WOW!!!!!
i pay 5$

The US enjoys cheaper prices than the rest of the world.

However, the prices on gas have had a generally upwards trend

If we were acquiring oil for free, or for extremely low prices, from other countries, it is natural that our gas prices would be falling.

At 2/2/08 07:18 PM, Christopherr wrote:

Here's a chart to go along with what I said:

At 2/2/08 06:28 PM, Fadious wrote:

No, you could provide a link saying "the US is paying this amount when the value is this..."

r u serious?
& What about iraq??

Again, give me a link demonstrating whatever it is your point here is.

so they couldn't prove it

What the hell are you talking about?

& if they could, y Iraq??
Israel has many nuclear warheads, they can blow the whole plant!

They are an ALLY of ours, you fucking idiot.

;

At 2/2/08 07:18 PM, Christopherr wrote: The US enjoys cheaper prices than the rest of the world.

However, the prices on gas have had a generally upwards trend

If we were acquiring oil for free, or for extremely low prices, from other countries, it is natural that our gas prices would be falling.

Sure!
Thnx 4 admitting

Have u ever woundered why prices on gas have had a generally upwards trend?

At 2/2/08 07:25 PM, Fadious wrote:

At 2/2/08 07:18 PM, Christopherr wrote: The US enjoys cheaper prices than the rest of the world.

However, the prices on gas have had a generally upwards trend

If we were acquiring oil for free, or for extremely low prices, from other countries, it is natural that our gas prices would be falling.

Sure!
Thnx 4 admitting

You are on drugs, aren't you? He said that if we were "stealing"our oil, the opposite would be happening than what is.

Have u ever woundered why prices on gas have had a generally upwards trend?

What?

;

& if they could, y Iraq??
Israel has many nuclear warheads, they can blow the whole plant!

They are an ALLY of ours, you fucking idiot.

;

& so u provide Israel with smart bombs & F-16 to kill children!?

& watch ur language

At 2/2/08 07:25 PM, Fadious wrote: Have u ever woundered why prices on gas have had a generally upwards trend?

We're paying more for oil, so we're going to pay more for gas.

If we were getting part of our oil imports by stealing them (free), then our prices on things made from oil would drop or remain constant. They are going up, so we definitely are not stealing oil from other countries.

At 2/2/08 07:38 PM, Christopherr wrote:

At 2/2/08 07:25 PM, Fadious wrote: Have u ever woundered why prices on gas have had a generally upwards trend?

We're paying more for oil, so we're going to pay more for gas.

If we were getting part of our oil imports by stealing them (free), then our prices on things made from oil would drop or remain constant. They are going up, so we definitely are not stealing oil from other countries.

Cuz u don't use oil to fuel ur wargear
& ur government uses ALL the profits from the selling oil to benefit the people & don't take ANYHING for themselves

At 2/2/08 07:13 PM, Earfetish wrote: I don't think there's any doubt the USA is the most prominent military force in the world.

But Britannia rules the waves.

Um what?

"Britannia" stopped ruling the waves over 60 years ago.

The US has a way, WAY bigger and more advanced navy than the UK does.

And Russia can still cause you massive havoc.

Yeah, because they have nukes.

Russia may well be the biggest military, but they don't display it much. When Russia and the USA finally square off, we'll find out.

Russia's military is poorly degraded and pretty feckless today. They have SOME high-end technology in the works, but they don't have the money and resources to deploy anywhere near as advanced a military as the US.