Who would win, American vs Great Britan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

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. :)

---

;)

Aw, fluff, I'm tired.

I lost the thread like three times at least, in my post above.

Should edit, but can't be arsed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Aw, fluff, I'm tired.

I lost the thread like three times at least, in my post above.

Should edit, but can't be arsed.

I need my hole

---

Fixed.

nuts!

You might want to reconsider that link, given the context.

I saw it as a cunning way of dissuading you from continuing on the path you'd taken.


But then, I hadn't thought it through.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon L. Obscene

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.

---

Quote:

---

There is a difference between totally annihilating a country and trying to fight specific folk within it.

---

:slap:

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...

---

Jonno used it correctly.:ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

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.

---

True dat, if we weren't to do these 1st year med student surgical strikes.

Iraq and Vietnam are not good examples. If, instead of operating on the arm we cut it off, we'd win quite easily....even without nukes.

However, that's just not roight.:snooty: We can't take the Azrael against Ebola approach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

I saw it as a cunning way of dissuading you from continuing on the path you'd taken.


But then, I hadn't thought it through.

---

Good decision.