United States Military History

[Fidel Cashflow 130]

As a rightful resident of the United States of America, I hereby claim:

 

Bite Me

 

 

That is all.

[Guest yoyo]

I thought the funniest part was Majesty Queen Elizabeth II running the U.S. That was pretty laughable.

 

But whatever. I know America is making more money than England ever will be. Sorry America pisses you off so much for being better.

 

Oh ya, America kicked your *sses in the Revolutionary War too.

 

Ok then. Let the nasty replies begin.

Edited May 12, 2006 by yoyo

[Fidel Cashflow 130]

I thought the funniest part was Majesty Queen Elizabeth II running the U.S. That was pretty laughable.

 

But whatever. I know America is making more money than England ever will be. Sorry America pisses you off so much for being better.

 

Oh ya, America kicked your *sses in the Revolutionary War too.

 

Ok then. Let the nasty replies begin.

1812 too

[Paul 584]

1812 too

 

 

I guess Americans dont even know their own history. :lol

 

The 1812-1815 war ended in a stalemate, thats pretty crap that you couldnt beat us given the manpower you had:

 

United States

 

Regular army: 99,000

Volunteers: 10,000*

Rangers: 3,000

Militia: 458,000**

Naval and marine: 20,000

 

 

United Kingdom

Regular army: 10,000+

Naval and marine: ?

Canadian militia: 86,000+**

 

 

As for the War of Independance...........sure, shame it took the French to do half the fighting for you. Historical FACT is that without the French forcing a british surrender at Yorktown the war wouldnt have been over.

 

Be proud of your country, but be accurate.

[Guest Kanenite]

Sorry just realised about the Alumimum but what the hell is that?

 

I wish you were president Anime.

 

Also one question i've been dying to know, do Americans get taught they won the World War (Don't know if its 1 or 2) I just thought they were on the side and didn't count as a major threat.

[Paul 584]

Actually they did next to nothing in WW1. In WW2 they saved the UK by the Lend Lease programe, without that we would have lost for sure. OK they US do seem to think that they won the war by just joining in, but by the time they started to fight we had defended against the Nazi invasion and were preparing a counter attack as Hitler had made a HUGE mistake in attacking Russia. Americans listen to me, you made the war end earlier by jooining in, but you DID NOT win it for us. :roll

However you did pull us out of the fire with the lend lease....shame the US public was against it.........

[Fidel Cashflow 130]

Actually they did next to nothing in WW1. In WW2 they saved the UK by the Lend Lease programe, without that we would have lost for sure. OK they US do seem to think that they won the war by just joining in, but by the time they started to fight we had defended against the Nazi invasion and were preparing a counter attack as Hitler had made a HUGE mistake in attacking Russia. Americans listen to me, you made the war end earlier by jooining in, but you DID NOT win it for us. :roll

However you did pull us out of the fire with the lend lease....shame the US public was against it.........

The Allies didn't win WW2, Hitler lost it. From wasting man power AND potential soldiers with the Holocaust to invading Russia he made a steady string of bad decisions.

 

The prescence of America was a catalyst for the end of the war. Hitler himself knew this and was pissed that Japan had attacked the US.

 

But, as far as UK/US wars, the fact that America could even break even with Britain, who at that time had past France as major European power, is a victory in its self.

 

Plus, from 1870 on America has been the far superior army.

[Guest The Beltster]

Did I miss something? Whats up with the US vs UK hater thread?

[Fidel Cashflow 130]

Did I miss something? Whats up with the US vs UK hater thread?

Someone, I think Darkstar, took one of my post from another thread and made a new thread of it.

[Paul 584]

I just get fascinated by US revisionist history. Its funny as hell. :)

 

The Allies didn't win WW2, Hitler lost it. From wasting man power AND potential soldiers with the Holocaust to invading Russia he made a steady string of bad decisions.

 

However you may remember that the Allies still won. It wasnt as though it was a Dusty finish. :lol

 

The prescence of America was a catalyst for the end of the war. Hitler himself knew this and was pissed that Japan had attacked the US.

 

Definatley, 100% right and I couldnt agree more.

 

But, as far as UK/US wars, the fact that America could even break even with Britain, who at that time had past France as major European power, is a victory in its self.

 

OK I will grant you that. But when you outnumber someone around 5-1, many of those soldiers French and Spanish trained it was still a poor result. By all accounts you should have won, heck as far as 1812-1815 goes remember the most significant part of the war was the British burning of Washington DC.

 

Plus, from 1870 on America has been the far superior army.

 

Debateable. Vietnam showed how inflexable the training of the US soldiers was, you have by far the biggest army (bar the Chinese) but the training was never to the standard of the UK. As good as your special forces are (for example) even your forces have requested SAS and SBS to go over to do additional training on your guys.

OK, maybe the combination of decent training (better than most countries sure) and pure size makes you the overall greatest.............

 

And Belty its far from hate of the US. Like I said its fine to be proud but be accurate in it. Claiming to have 'kicked our asses' in a war that ended in a stalemate is stupid.

 

 

Moral ambiguity........was the use of 2 atomic bombs on civilian centers justified?

[Guest Mr Dragon]

a Edited December 17, 2006 by Mr Dragon

[Paul 584]

And what was your point there Mr dragon?

[Guest MrFill]

I'd like to remind Americans that before the Declaration of Independance, there were no white Americans - the only REAL Americans were the Native ones.

 

So, during the "War of Independance", the soldiers were British fighting British. :D

[Guest Mr Dragon]

a Edited December 17, 2006 by Mr Dragon

[Guest Miss T]

I dotn understand who this thread was started?!

[Guest Ravenmark]

We all know that the big issue here is that Americans can't drink for sh!t.

 

Big Army? Pah.

 

Big Drinkers? That's what I'm talking about.

[Fidel Cashflow 130]

Debateable. Vietnam showed how inflexable the training of the US soldiers was

 

No country could have won in Vietnam, especially with the lax mindset America brought into it. Just like the colonist did in the Revolution, the Vietnamese used their knowledge of the harsh jungle lands to ravage the teenage army with cunning Guerrila tactics.

 

The kids that were fighting weren't the rough depression era kids of WW2. And unlike in the Revolution, soldiers with experience were inexsisent. I think America got a good shot in the balls in Vietnam, and realised that they couldn't just rely on size anymore. Also, one of the biggest obstacles they faced were aerial dog fights with the Russian MIG's.

 

However, the fact that Vietnam were able defeat/break even with America is a victory, just like how it was when the colonist defeated the Brits.

[Guest Ravenmark]

Whenever I've been to America and asked for a beer at a bar they've given me a HALF PINT GLASS.

 

Disgusting.

 

You have to ASK for a large beer?

 

Pffft.

[Guest Slim Jim]

American's don't even have real beer, let alone normal sized ones.

[Guest MrFill]

I dotn understand who this thread was started?!

From a joke (in the Humour forum) and it spun into a political debate.

[Paul 584]

No country could have won in Vietnam' date=' especially with the lax mindset America brought into it. Just like the colonist did in the Revolution, the Vietnamese used their knowledge of the harsh jungle lands to ravage the teenage army with cunning Guerrila tactics. [/quote']

 

I agree to a point. The American military machine was geared towards fighting a style of war where the enemy was there, if they had gone in and used a similer tactic to the natives then they would have had a chance.

And in the Revolution it was the French allies that you had that won the day for you, at almost every turn the British Generals outmanovered you (but they were professional soldiers and you guys didnt have any real training so its no surprise).

 

The kids that were fighting weren't the rough depression era kids of WW2. And unlike in the Revolution, soldiers with experience were inexsisent. I think America got a good shot in the balls in Vietnam, and realised that they couldn't just rely on size anymore. Also, one of the biggest obstacles they faced were aerial dog fights with the Russian MIG's.

 

Yeah I get what you mean, and the worst part is that as a military machine you dont seem to have improved much. Look at the Gulf, the most soldiers, the best weapons, the highest percentage of friendly fire incidents per soldier of any of teh forces there.

 

However, the fact that Vietnam were able defeat/break even with America is a victory, just like how it was when the colonist defeated the Brits.

 

Yeah, true that. God I wont take away form what the US has achieved, I just get annoyed by revisionist history.

[Fidel Cashflow 130]

Yeah I get what you mean, and the worst part is that as a military machine you dont seem to have improved much. Look at the Gulf, the most soldiers, the best weapons, the highest percentage of friendly fire incidents per soldier of any of teh forces there.

Very true. The problem here is that once again an Army was just pieced together. A friend of mine went to Iraq, and after enlisting in the army he was in Iraq within a matter of months.

 

Combine that with the fact that most people going over are from poverty inflicted homes, and we have the shabby soldiers we have now.

[Paul 584]

Yeah, but the problem is the size of the army makes effective training on all but an elite force incredible hard. Conversly thats the strength of the UK.

 

Its like the intelligence services, the USA has the best gadgets and the UK has the best tained.............we need to work together better. :lol

[Fidel Cashflow 130]

Yeah, but the problem is the size of the army makes effective training on all but an elite force incredible hard. Conversly thats the strength of the UK.

 

Its like the intelligence services, the USA has the best gadgets and the UK has the best tained.............we need to work together better. :lol

hmmm.. America and Britain eh?

 

I call it.....NATO.

 

 

Pah, that'll never work.

[Paul 584]

Like I said: Better. :P