At 3/22/11 07:34 PM, HeavenDuff wrote:do.

THERE CANNOT BE ANY KIND OF WAR LIKE THIS ANYMORE !!!

Oh yeah, then why is it on Call of Duty we fight Russians on numerous occasion!? Yeah it is possible, there's your proof mother fucker.

At 3/22/11 07:36 PM, CharltonChinchilla wrote: Oh yeah, then why is it on Call of Duty we fight Russians on numerous occasion!? Yeah it is possible, there's your proof mother fucker.

I really like how the guys from InfinityWard and Treyarch do not give two cents of a fuck about the realism of the situations in their video games...

The USA is only bombing Libya because the United Nations agreed on it and pretty much asked them to, America didn't just decide "Oh let's go bomb the shit out of Libya".

At 3/22/11 07:28 PM, MiroDK wrote: That's what I said, that the German were way better equipped and trained, but the Soviets were all conscripted in mass numbers and were thrown into the field, so their numbers won the war, but not their equipment or their training.

Yeah, the cold winter also had a huge effect, I forgot to mention that.

I forgot to mention that, what I mean was, that the Nazis were conscripts as well, but they did have much better equipment and training than the Soviets.

At 3/22/11 07:36 PM, CharltonChinchilla wrote: Oh yeah, then why is it on Call of Duty we fight Russians on numerous occasion!? Yeah it is possible, there's your proof mother fucker.

PWNED DUUD!@!@!

If it was a no-holds-barred match and the opposing country had no nukes or allies with nukes we would win, simply because we'd bomb them into the stone age.

At 3/22/11 07:40 PM, RacistBassist wrote: What's unreasonable about Russia being able to get an invasion force to our Eastern coast completely undetected?

Exactly it's not like the US spends millions and millions of dollars on the state of the art satellite and radar technology.

At 3/22/11 07:40 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 3/22/11 07:39 PM, HeavenDuff wrote: I really like how the guys from InfinityWard and Treyarch do not give two cents of a fuck about the realism of the situations in their video games...

What's unreasonable about Russia being able to get an invasion force to our Eastern coast completely undetected?

They can do it, but the consequences would be horrible for the economy of both countries, plus the other countries who would AUTOMATICALY get involved in this war after the invasion.

I'm sorry to tell you that wars are not fought for convictions or ideologies, they are fought for the interests of the rich companies who finances the army and the government. If it's not something you know already, money leads the world. This is how capitalism works. The strong and powerful are not the governments and the countries, they are the companies and businesses.

Two countries like these would not fight in a war that would bring down the economy of both countries, therefore, the situation is highly unlikely to happen, except of course, if the economical situation of one of these countries was to go very very very bad and that this would be the only way out to get problems solved. But fighting a war with such a powerful country would cost more than it would gain...

At 3/22/11 07:21 PM, Jedi-Master wrote:

At 3/22/11 07:18 PM, All-American-Badass wrote: As much as i hate to admit it, just Russia and China going against America will result in us losing, China just have massive amount of numbers and Russia's military is about as advanced as America's. However we can easily wipe out Iran, Syria, and other countries that hate us.

I doubt that Russia is as advances as the U.S. with regard to the military. We spend about 10 times as much on our military as the Russians do.

Russia still has state of the art wepons though, the thing is that we have vast operations while Russia's forces have mainly stayed in Russia after the Cold War.

At 3/22/11 07:03 PM, Danavers wrote: Man this is like the 6th anti-America thread this month.

I'm not against Americans, or America's army. I just hate how people think that our army is invincible.

At 3/22/11 09:32 PM, Scarface wrote:

At 3/22/11 07:03 PM, Danavers wrote: Man this is like the 6th anti-America thread this month.

I'm not against Americans, or America's army. I just hate how people think that our army is invincible.

It's irrelevant who's the strongest, because we have enough weapons to destroy the Earth 8 times...

At 3/19/11 07:08 PM, kazumazkan wrote:

At 3/19/11 07:06 PM, Cootie wrote: How did we lose in Iraq? Saddam and Co. are all dead.

How did we lose in Afghan? The Taliban government is shattered and all their camps are dead.

aims = met

Vietnam thats who

I know that answer to that. The reason we withdrew from Vietnam was because we didn't give a shit anymore.

At 3/22/11 06:59 PM, IncendiaryProduction wrote:

At 3/22/11 06:58 PM, roderickii wrote: were too proud to give away our homegrown american food to those dirty people in africa, japan or any other non "true" Americans.

I hope you realize that we are providing aid in all those areas.

I know i'm just mocking the white supremacist mindset.

Americas military is poorly paid compared to rest of the world & have shit training you many be a large military but you want to see some real military force look at china or korea those guy's train fucking hard all the time.
I don't know about american basic training but we train for 14weeks here then there's your role training & then your posted and making 30-60k + bonus like around 90K if your posted to afghan or a warzone.
I hear americans make fuck all in the military & that most other militarys arn't allowed to tell them how much they get paid but don't take my word this just of family & friends in military im no soldier.

At 3/24/11 04:42 PM, Banglagirl00 wrote: China would kick there ass,they have the strongest army in the world with over 200million in it!!!

Take two zeroes off that estimate, buddy.

If my the USA invaded china it would be a bloodbath and we would lose terribly.
Even if russia didn't help china we would lose.
reasons why would be
1. biggest reason. they have a huge army with a sense of honor. That means that they would be looking to die for their country. they would have many more casualties than us but we would run out of resources faster.
2. terrain once we got past the cities, if that was even possible the rural areas of china would be like another vietnam.
3. china has nuclear capabilities and their own military technology which isn't as good as ours but damn near close
4. you ever seen the size of china? its fuckin huge

But realistically we would then have russia involved in the fight as well as a bunch of other countries pissed off at us. Also i believe very very very few of our allies would lift a finger to help us because it would simply be a waste to even think china can be invaded and taken.

the only way to take china would be to have russia's ,india's, australia's and all of europe's support, manpower and cooperation in the war. And even then it would be the deadliest war all of mankind has ever seen

At 3/24/11 05:00 PM, SymbolCymbal wrote: If my the USA invaded china it would be a bloodbath and we would lose terribly.

Yeah, first off theres no reason to invade China when we owe them shitloads of money and they make alot of goods for us, especially in the civilized world.

That being said, I agree it would be a blood bath, but the numbers say that China couldn't win. China's only real advantage military wise is their enormous standing army of 1,700,000 soldiers, with a reserve army of 800,000.

Their Navy and Airforce are formidable, yet the combined presure of America's navy and airforce would crush China's before the ground force would ever be engaged (save for threats to Navy and AF). Don't listen to me, let the numbers speak for themselves.

China's Navy: 250,000 personnel
26 destroyers
56 frigates
223 missile boats
170 torpedo boats
58 submarines
84 amphibious warfare ships
~387 coastal warfare vessels
~31 mine warfare vessels
~370-480 landing craft
~150 auxiliary/support vessels
260 gunboats
95 submarine chasers
4 patrol boats
(notice, no aircraft carriers)
US Navy:430,400 personnel[2]
289 ships[2]
3,700+ aircraft
11 Aircraft carriers
10 Amphibious assault ships
9 Amphibious transport docks
12 Dock landing ships
22 Cruisers
55 Destroyers
30 Frigates
75 Submarines
China AF:400,000 personnel
2,500 aircraft
1,900/2500 Combat aircraft[1][2][3]
(1300 fighters)
US AF:329,638 active personnel
68,872 reserve personnel
94,597 air guard personnel
5,573 aircraft, of which 2,132 are fighters
450 ICBMs
32 satellites.

So the AF has 2132 combat planes, and the Navy has about 3000, China has 1900 total. US Navy has about 30% more submarines than China. Over 100% more Destroyers. China has no aircraft carriers. the US AF has 450 Inter Continental Balistic Missiles, which from the sound of it, is a missile that can hit a target a continent away, China has none.

KEEP IN MIND These are just the NUMBERS, this doesn't even take into account the skill and technology advantages the US has, which are arguably their best advantage. However since everyone thinks that it's number that would help China prevail, that's true, but even the numbers speak in the US's favor.

America has Technology but Europe has soldiers who fight with hearth for their country.

At 3/19/11 07:11 PM, hypeserver wrote: America should sit back and stop being involved. We're not the world police.

I used to think this, but now I'm more in between. True we are not the world police, but as a world power it is partly our responsibility to protect the people of the world. That is to say, if we want to be a large influence on the world, then when the world needs our help we need to be willing. For example we are helping Japan now, and our troops are helping out many countries across the globe.

At 3/19/11 07:44 PM, GiantDouche wrote: We have the largest military budget by FAR and the largest number of troops per capita. Yeah it's fair to say we're a pretty strong military power.

We do not have the largest number of troops per capita... we don't even have mandatory service and the majority of eligible people do not join the army.

lol, labia.

Anyone who doesn't think the United States has the capability to turn any state in the world into a pile of rubble is either under voting age, or just an idiot.

At 3/19/11 07:04 PM, Scarface wrote: ...America has the biggest army in the world, and could invade any country they want.

I'm an American myself, don't get me wrong, but we didn't win in Afghanistan, we didn't win in Iraq, and we won't win in Libya, and my dipshit friend is telling me in English the other day that if we invaded China we would win. He was fucking serious. He thinks that we could beat any country right now if we wanted to, despite the fact that we're in two wars, and we've had thousands dead and injured. Yeah, we're in the perfect spot to start another war.

your friend is an idiot, i agree, china is a country that is powerful and strong, well prepared for almost anything, if we go to war with china, it would be a mistake.

we did win in iraq, and i must admit, were fucking up pretty good in afghanistan.
we won in iraq because Saddam hussain is no longer president and 6 feet under.

afgahnistan will get better, since General Petraus is in command now.
dont forget, war costs life. nothing can be done about that outcome.

Now, if America was being invaded, that's one thing. As Isoroku Yamamoto said during World War II, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

very true, trust me american citizens are well armed and own heavier fire power than the police or military in some states.

America has more gun stores than military caches, and any attempt at invading the US would fail. Not to mention the fact that Canada, the United Kingdom, and maybe Italy, Germany, and France, would come to our Aid.

yes, true. all of the above country's are US allies.

So what do you think, Newgrounds. If America went to war right now (which we pretty much are with Libya), would we win against ANY country we wanted?

no we wont be able to win against any country we want. and btw, we are at war with about 15 to 25 country's around the world, not just iraq and afghanistan...
iraq and afghanistan are the popular one's, and even thou, you still dont hear the news mentioning them as much.

I dont think America would mess around with China, we as countries trade too damn much, that would be a dumb move for the president and congress. the whole middle eastern thing was pretty much about oil fields, taliban hunting, and native people protection, were like the crooked world police in a sense, with keeping all the third world countries from from doing the inhuman while doing our own share of dirt because the have the resources and manpower to back up the majority of we do as a country.

The US did not 'win' in Afghanistan or Iraq much the same way it did not 'win' in Vietnam. It was not a conventional war with clearly defined objectives or enemies. An insurgency is not comparable to the ability of the United States to communicate, annihilate, and turn the straw shacks that the enemy lives in into a smear of ash.

Please, if everything in China's borders was made a target, the war would not last more than a half hour.

This thread is several pages of fucktarded, nationalistic foreign kids arguing. You can't argue against fact. There is only one threat to the US and it stopped being a threat in the 90's.

I'm pretty sure that America couldn't invade just any country and win. If it was against China, I would have serious doubts that the army would succeed.

Besides, who cares? The lower the amount of wars that happen, the better. Even if America had the best army in the world, it still would cause lots of pain and misery to invade/have another war.