[CP5670]

LOL so do I.

[Zeronet]

I resent that comment, Kellan does not represent us . Most British people relate a lot more to Americans than to the mainlanders, most of us arent pacifist!

[CODEDOG ND]

He's on my list of people to kill...like Jane Fonda.  People find it easy to remember a name, but are willing to forget what that person does.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Zeronet
I resent that comment, Kellan does not represent us . Most British people relate a lot more to Americans than to the mainlanders, most of us arent pacifist!

A quiet rebellion?

[LtNarol]

Originally posted by CP5670
Opposing a global superpower in a time of its crisis takes courage, and people with such courage can be dangerous.

Or shear stupidity

[CP5670]

I resent that comment, Kellan does not represent us . Most British people relate a lot more to Americans than to the mainlanders, most of us arent pacifist!

Yeah, sorry I was taking Kellan's viewpoint as the normal one (it is the usual one in the continental Europe); if the majority of you are like that, that is all the better.

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by LtNarol
and you also lost every other major land battle in Europe, radar and RAF were the only saving grace for the Brits during WWII...

As for how to invade Iraq...break out those million-dollar-apiece cruiser missiles and start leveling his military bases...hell, tac nukes could be used on a number of them.  After which, hit him from the air with B2 bombers and F14s (which the navy loves so very much).  Finally, roll in the M1A1s.

British forces didnt lose every major land battle in Europe, we withdrew to Dunkirk due to a large German force which we werent in the position to defeat and dont forget the African Campaign and Burma, we did have the largest empire in the world to defend, the fact we fought as Allies to defeat Nazi germany means a lot, this wasnt the US versus the Axis, it was the ALLIES versus the Axis, American hasnt won any wars without outside assistance. Also about the M1A1s, it'll take ages to get them there, unlike Challengers, you cant airlift a M1A1.

[CODEDOG ND]

Originally posted by Zeronet


American hasnt won any wars without outside assistance

Correction..

War of 1812
Mexican War
Texas Revolution(Yes they are Texicans but they were actually from the US)
American Civil War
Spanish American War
Philipino War

[vyper]

I think Zeronet just made the most important point of this argument - AMERICA did not win WW2. The Allied forces did.
It so happens Britain fought Hitler at the start because we weren't willing to sit idly by while he took over Europe. Unlike some people...

Personally I'm not anti-America- I'm just pro-British.
I'd expect Americans of all people to understand patriotism.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Zeronet


 you cant airlift a M1A1.

I thought you could Just it was one tank per transport, which kinda sucks

[daveb]

At the moment, the US is currently employing "Operation : Talk about Invading Iraq Until Saddam's Head Explodes".  Hopefully this will turn into "Operation : Drop Hints about Invading Iraq Until Saddam Starts Executing Staff Members Out of Paranoia".

All this "leaked" stuff about these major attacks - pure disinformation. Yes, I'm sure there's a big plan in the books. But we haven't heard what it is. Make no mistake, our military planners are _smart_. They know what mind games will do to him. Schwartzkopf did so marvelously well in Desert Storm because he had Saddam absolutely pegged, mentally. One of Saddam's biggest faults, besides military incompetency is his paranoia. He's a total master when it comes to diplomacy and skirting around sticky political situations. But you can be sure he lives in fear of traitors around him 24/7.

When we do go in, which seems inevitable, you can bet his command structure will be in a shambles.

[CODEDOG ND]

Originally posted by vyper
I think Zeronet just made the most important point of this argument - AMERICA did not win WW2. The Allied forces did.
It so happens Britain fought Hitler at the start because we weren't willing to sit idly by while he took over Europe. Unlike some people...

Personally I'm not anti-America- I'm just pro-British.
I'd expect Americans of all people to understand patriotism.

i understand it but he is knocking at our ego so somebody has to defend it!  i like britain but i hate europe

[vyper]

I think America's ego is big enough to fight for itself
(j/k)

[daveb]

When one has an ego this big that's lasted this long, there's usually a valid reason behind it.  

[CODEDOG ND]

Originally posted by daveb
When one has an ego this big that's lasted this long, there's usually a valid reason behind it.  

I think this is where u use the  smiley.

[Silver_Scythe]

Originally posted by aldo_14
If he was still firing and a threat, then it was of course, justified.  But lethal force must always be the last resort.

Tell that to Officer Rich Herzog of the Bellvue, Washington PD.
Wait you cant cuz hes dead.

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by CP5670
Also, one thing that is interesting that Iraq is the only nation in the world that officially supported the 9/11 event (not even Afghanistan)

Please get me some evidence of that claim, a quotation from Iraqui Authority (an anouncement by Blair, Bush or ashcrofy won't cut it).

[Top Gun]

Originally posted by daveb
The US does not use chemical WMD on its own civilians, or any other civilians for that matter.

"at least not intentionally" is what I think should have been said. Whilst the war in Afghanistan may have been wholly justified (the Taliban were a murderous and insane regieme) the number of  Afghan civilans killed in this supposed "War on Terror" is now double the number of americans Killed on September 11th. (Although how many killed if action hadn't been taken is anyone's guess). But Vietnam......... Haw many civilians do you think got Bombed/Napalmed/Shot/Poisoned (by de-leafing solution) there? No chemical weapons against civilains, Pah

[LtNarol]

Originally posted by Top Gun


"at least not intentionally" is what I think should have been said. Whilst the war in Afghanistan may have been wholly justified (the Taliban were a murderous and insane regieme) the number of  Afghan civilans killed in this supposed "War on Terror" is now double the number of americans Killed on September 11th. (Although how many killed if action hadn't been taken is anyone's guess). But Vietnam......... Haw many civilians do you think got Bombed/Napalmed/Shot/Poisoned (by de-leafing solution) there? No chemical weapons against civilains, Pah

there are -always- colateral casualties, the difference between the U.S. and Iraq is that the U.S. doesn't intentionally fire scuds or chem bombs or other weapons of mass destruction at civilian populations (with the exception of Nagasaki and Heroshima during WWII)

[daveb]

Lt, its not worth it. He's taking the standard obtuse stance where he refuses to see the very clear difference between accidental civilian casualties and those inflicted intentionally. The US spends a gajillion dollars on precision weapons to specifically destroy military targets. Are there mistakes? Yes. The terrorists on the other hand, spend their money trying to kill civilians intentionally. Anyone trying to intentionally _not_ see this critical distinction is kidding themselves and/or ducking the real meat of the argument.

Its like Ted Turner's whole "both sides are committing terrorism" statement. Yeah, the Israeli's are being real terrorists when they go in and shell a bomb-making factory. Or maybe the Palestinians were just reacting to all those school children who were terrorizing them by riding their bus to school. Bah. Moral relativism is the weakest of arguments.