Who would win, American vs Great Britan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tempestv

Congrats- you had a powerful army 230 years ago. not what I would call very current.
and as for navy, congradulations, you have the second most powerfull navy in the world. To bad it's only as powerful as one of our six carrier groups. America controls 53% of the world's navy.

---

Yes this is true, you've certainly shown your might over the last few years and completely decimated the enemy and are simply hanging around for.........the food? or the entertainment?

@Manker... The point I was making is that if the US were/are still prepared to use Nukes they would have in Nam and the Gulf. Personally I thought that was a pretty simple point but maybe yet again text is typed differently to how it is read. As Nik has found out I make much more sense much quicker is speach than text, probably due to my Norfolk upbringing of carrots.

Jonno :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Numpty

I make much more sense much quicker is speach than text

---

Agreed.

:ermm:

===

Btw and for future reference; when you mean 'if the US were/are still prepared to use Nukes they would have in Nam and the Gulf' then just type 'if the US were/are still prepared to use Nukes they would have in Nam and the Gulf'.

You know it makes sence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

I confuse him all the time. It's one of my joys in life. :01:

---

Don't you get bored? :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NikkiD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

So it's your fault! I knew he couldn't have confused himself that much.

Yeah, what you wrote there seems sensible but stop trying to make him write clever things down - it'll only end in tears :nono:

---

Guilty as charged. :D

I confuse him all the time. It's one of my joys in life. :01:

---

You sick freak

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon L. Obscene

...completely decimated the enemy...

---

Alas, another unnecessary bastardization of language.

How many different words are there which describe ruinous destruction, damage, or death?

"Decimate" used to mean to reduce by a factor of one-tenth.

Not picking on you, Jonno, but...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon L. Obscene

...completely decimated the enemy...

---

Alas, another unnecessary bastardization of language.

How many different words are there which describe ruinous destruction, damage, or death?

"Decimate" used to mean to reduce by a factor of one-tenth.

Not picking on you, Jonno, but...

---

Actually you are using an archaic form of the word there. The more modern meaning, as in 19th century and beyond, is more along the lines of Jonno's useage i.e. to destroy a large proportion.

Not picking on you, j2, but you are being a bit too etymological.

yeah, cawk

:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limesqueezer

I mean if they can't stop somebody taking a plane or placing a bomb anywhere, this shield is just a fairytale of hope propaganda. You can detonate a bomb outside the america or like 1 km away from the submarine. If you detonate 100 megatons you destroy millions and polute the land for thousands of years and to which direction the wind blows, there you die slow death. In Chernobyl disaster they traced radioactive material in sweden first and it didn't even exploded and we were not allowed to eat anything from the forest or your own vegetables for months, and i don't live anywhere near.

---

Goddammit. Not another one.

Quote:

---

Pfft, please think about it

we friggin america

we could take on the world and still be alive

---

Hahahahahahahahahaah.

No.



If the chinese and indians managed to stage an invasion they'd zerg your pants off.

And besides, you couldn't nuke all the rest of the world, the fallout and/or nuclear winter would fuck you up.

And then there's internal politics. Starting too many wars for no reason, hell, starting one war with the UK, would be a sure way to self-destruct politically, for any administration that tried it. And, you know, any companies doing business abroad in whatever region you went after would want the president's arse as well.



Hell, you've not even managed to beat the Iraqis properly, and you damned sure didn't beat Vietnam.

Let's face it, you couldn't use much in the way of nukes, 'cos it'd be crap in the long run for for you.

So if you tried to start a war with anywhere that isn't top-heavy with fanatics and other jobs making the ("western") world at least slightly sympathetic to your cause, you'd pwn yourself.



You might be able to beat a small part of the world. In theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Alas, another unnecessary bastardization of language.

How many different words are there which describe ruinous destruction, damage, or death?

"Decimate" used to mean to reduce by a factor of one-tenth.

Not picking on you, Jonno, but...

---

Actually you are using an archaic form of the word there. The more modern meaning, as in 19th century and beyond, is more along the lines of Jonno's useage i.e. to destroy a large proportion.

Not picking on you, j2, but you are being a bit too etymological.

---

Yes you are, and yes I am.

It is my way, and you damn well know it. :)

I still object.

It's the first four letters of the word, you see...