#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Can any country allience defeat the allies a.k.a the USA and the UK?
Yes thats very much achievable
Side Score: 30
|
 |
No, there way to powerful
Side Score: 32
Winning Side! |
|
Considering Russia and China both have Commie blood ties, it is possible for them to create an alliance against the West. Then there's Iran which are allied with Russia (business more than ideology). If we pull out of Iraq, Iran will take Iraq and Afghanistan if we pull out of there too. India... I don't see them as much of an enemy. But for the sake of it, let's put them into the mix as well. Basically, the East vs. the West, with Japan, South Korea and South Africa on the Western side and the Islamic Africa with Cuba and Venezuela on the Eastern side. I can see that as a bad ass battle, and part of the fictional World War going on inside my head. Side: Yes thats very much achievable
you just hit on a major topic. the Islam middle east want a all out war with the east. however those Muslims are ignorant of the fact that the west would kick their ass. i dispute you though, even though the Russians were wining in MW2, they wont in real life. plus America and UK have more then each other as allies. they have Germany, France, Israel, Canada, Brazil, Australia, and japan plus others i cant think of. Side: No, there way to powerful
many facts , there are alliances you know , UK is not such a military wise powerful force , it is weaker than pakistan , but according to facts china and russia combined are way stronger than usa , and iran and the central asian countries are definetly more stronger (when combined) than UK , so based on facts i think usa and UK can be beaten Side: Yes thats very much achievable
"i do not agree to that fact"- how can you not agree with a fact? "than do you think that iran and the central asian countries united can not defeat UK ?"- they really cant. They wouldn't even be able to get to the United Kingdom. The UK and its allies control the northern section of the Atlantic Ocean. The US navy and air force, the best ally of the United Kingdom, would easily destroy any attempt at attacking its ally. Side: No, there way to powerful
"They wouldn't stand a chance."- the most technologically advanced nations on the planet with a combined total military spending equal to almost half of the entire world would not be able to beat countries in which the only advantage is population. India and China would not be able to utilize their amount of troops. Considering that the US alone controls the seas (the US navy is larger than both the Chinese and Indian navies combined) and the skies (the US air force is six times larger than the Chinese and Indian air forces combined), the only option for them would to move them by land, which would be unlikely since both the US and the UK are separated by bodies of water. "If you want to bring politics and allies into this - then it would basically become WW3"- if there was a war involving the USA, UK, China, and India, sides would automatically be taken and it would instantly become World War 3. There couldn't be a war like this that didn't involve allies. Side: No, there way to powerful
The 1 thing that UK n USA lack that most other countries have is heart. They're not soldiers. They're not warriors. They don't have heart. Not like when they fought in WW2. these few late wars have shown me that they don't have heart like they used to. Side: Yes thats very much achievable
So you are saying that World War III will come down to which ever country has more heart? Thats an idiotic thing to say. If you mean that US soldiers lack passion for the battles they are fighting then you are definitely wrong. When the US was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor there hundreds, sometimes thousands, of citizens lined up at the recruiting offices. The combined strength of the USA and UK along with their allies would be too overwhelming for China and India to handle, even if they had allies. "Heart" would not be a factor. Side: No, there way to powerful
Basically yeah. In this case anyway. Didn't I just say that in WW2 USA had the passion for battle? lol. Did you read what I wrote? I'm saying these days they don't. It's hard to see what allie India and China would have - especially since you would never consider them to be allies. But in a world war more countries, including Russia and the muslim world, asia and some south americans would be on the Chindian side - cause everyone hates america. I don't think you know what a soldier is. Without heart you're not a soldier. Technology and spending is making up for it but against Chindia whose number alone make up for the lack of technology and spending. Heart is a HUGE factor in a war. It's a huge factor in anything. I'll show you on a small scale so you understand. If you're in a race without heart you're not likely to win. Even if you have the newest trainers and training regimes etc. - if you don't have heart when you run the rest of it becomes obsolete. You can sit there talking numbers and statistics - that's not how war is. Especially since USA is top dog right now - it always has to show off it's might. China and India don't need to so you wouldn't know their full might or capabilities. Let's face is - UK is crap India or China could take it in seconds. USA is the only threat - but combined I don't think it would stand a chance. Either way we could sit here like plumbers and electricians talking about whose trade is better. What I do know is that you won't be able to argue in this debate without bias. Side: Yes thats very much achievable
Sorry I kind of rushed through your response. I don't see how US soldiers don't have heart anymore. They enlisted themselves into the military to serve their country. They are passionate about protecting their country. Also, I think the circumstances and conditions would determine the passion of the soldiers. Before Pearl Harbor we weren't really that passionate about fighting the Japanese, but after it seemed as though every American wanted to take down the Japanese Empire. "But in a world war more countries, including Russia and the muslim world, asia and some south americans would be on the Chindian side - cause everyone hates america."- you cannot say this. What if the United States became a victim to some kind of Chinese surprise attack? Would the world really have a favorable view of China? It depends on the circumstances and since this is a hypothetical situation, we cannot determine the circumstances of the conflict. Heart is not a factor in war because, in modern times, heart determines if we will go to war in the first place. If a country is passionate enough, it will go to war and put up a good fight. If that country is not passionate, it probably would have never gone to war in the first place. It takes passion or heart to go to war in the first place. Look what happened after 9/11. As for that race example, a person that isn't passionate about running probably would have never been in the race in the first place. "You can sit there talking numbers and statistics - that's not how war is."- so the United States' 18,169 airborne military systems will have no dominance over China's 1,900? lol Why did you mention the Chinese soldier count if it doesn't matter? "China and India don't need to so you wouldn't know their full might or capabilities."- well according to you, being the worlds strongest country forces you into showing off your might, since India and China are not showing off their might, then we can come to the conclusion that they are not the strongest countries in the world, and therefore have nothing more to show than the US has. "Let's face is - UK is crap"- the United Kingdom has the fifth strongest military in the world. Also, if you attack the UK, you will most likely have every army in the EU and others in NATO opposed to you. Neither India nor China would be able to get anywhere near the UK. "What I do know is that you won't be able to argue in this debate without bias."- i am using statistics. There is no bias in statistics. According to the data, the US is stronger than China or India. Side: No, there way to powerful
If that country is not passionate, it probably would have never gone to war in the first place. Really? With the Tony Blair inquisition going on? Heart IS a factor and always will be a factor. so the United States' 18,169 airborne military systems will have no dominance over China's 1,900? lol Why did you mention the Chinese soldier count if it doesn't matter? I didn't give any numbers. Only how countries with 1/3 of the world population would have an obvious advantage when it comes to numbers. Another thing is their abilities to adapt. UK and USA are slow, developed, countries - whereas China and India ,being developing nations. are able to make things quicker. They will be able to adapt to the situation a lot quicker than the allies. worlds strongest country No. I said the world's most dominant country, which without doubt we can say is still currently America. India and China have lately come out of poverty and are only beginning to show off their strengths. Doesn't mean there's nothing there - you just haven't seen it. They're the underdogs. It means they're under rated and USA is over rated. What you're acting like is that India and China will randomly attack USA or UK without provocation who will then have the backing from the rest of the world. I'm trying to put this into play without the rest of the EU or other countries because we don't even know the reasons why they go to war - and the EU hates UK and vice versa. Let's keep this clearly between USA + UK vs. India + China. Statistics don't tell you anything. Interpretation of those statistics form opinions. Not only have you not taken several factors into account but you've also 'mis'interpreted it. TBH I think neither side would go to war. It's pretty evenly matched and they know it. They wouldn't even risk it - and if any country did win the war then it wouldn't have been worth it. Side: Yes thats very much achievable
"Really? With the Tony Blair inquisition going on?"- if you are talking about Blair's support for Bush's invasion of Iraq, then that is different a situation. Not only are the British involved as a supplementary force, but they aren't even fighting a country. Also, I do believe that the British were slightly passionate to help their allies, in terms of the war in Afghanistan. "countries with 1/3 of the world population"- is that not a number? "whereas China and India ,being developing nations. are able to make things quicker"- what are you talking about? Since when do developing countries "make things quicker"? Can you be a little more specific. "India and China have lately come out of poverty"- the gap between the rich and the poor in those countries is still extremely large. "Doesn't mean there's nothing there - you just haven't seen it."- both countries GDP's are lower than the United States' GDP. They cannot afford anything that the US cannot afford. There is nothing more to see with them. "It means they're under rated and USA is over rated."- why are you denying that the US is the strongest country in the world? What evidence, other than population, do you have to prove that the USA is weaker? "is that India and China will randomly attack USA or UK without provocation who will then have the backing from the rest of the world"- no im not acting like that at all. I am saying that if there was a war that breaks out tomorrow in which both sides were equally at fault, the US and UK would have more allies. "EU hates UK"- um i dont think so..... "Let's keep this clearly between USA + UK vs. India + China."- its impossible to do that because in a war of this magnitude, other countries would have to get involved. "Statistics don't tell you anything."- so if I compare the US military with the military of Lebanon(the 42nd strongest country in the world) using statistics, it wouldn't show that the US is unbelievably stronger? "Not only have you not taken several factors into account but you've also 'mis'interpreted it."- what have I not taken into account? How could i misinterpret statistics? "if any country did win the war then it wouldn't have been worth it."- you don't know that. The circumstances are unknown. Side: No, there way to powerful
Also, I do believe that the British were slightly passionate to help their allies, in terms of the war in Afghanistan. Nope we weren't. MAYBE a majority 'supported' the war - but there wasn't passion FOR it. The war against iraq was definately against the majority of Britains. is that not a number? .............? Can you be a little more specific. Let me try. In UK it takes forever to make any decisions. There's planning, replanning, consulting, proposing, objecting, reproposing, developing etc. etc. to the point where doing anything takes forever. In developing countries shit gets done. When somebody wants something done - it happens. There aren't appeals, reappeals, rereappeals etc. the gap between the rich and the poor in those countries is still extremely large. ..........................? There is nothing more to see with them. So you've seen everything huh? lmao. I'm not talking about GDP I don't know where the fuck you got that from. USA has to stand with its chest out - it bluffs because it has to. It makes itself seem bigger and better than it is because if it ever seems weak then other nations will take advantage - that's how it works. India and China don't have that problem yet. It doesn't even need to show its full potential - especially when it comes to war - with anyone because it isn't under threat. Whens the last time either country went to a war? India and Pakistan over 10yrs ago and that was not even big. USA has been fighting wars for ages and everybody has a better idea of what they're capable of. You have NO idea of what India and China are capable of. why are you denying that the US is the strongest country in the world? Where have I 'denied' it. I'm just telling you it's not as great as you think and that IndiaChina are greater than you think. the US and UK would have more allies. Really? Ok give me a list and we'll discuss that. um i dont think so..... I know so. it wouldn't show that the US is unbelievably stronger? It only gives you numbers. Possibly incorrect. Never the whole picture either. This is different though - the differences are huge and any outside factors will probably never decrease the gap. The differences with India and China are much smaller. you don't know that. The circumstances are unknown. Finally you've shown some wisdom. Try and apply this same wisdom to everything I've said and you'll understand me. Side: Yes thats very much achievable
"MAYBE a majority 'supported' the war - but there wasn't passion FOR it."- if a majority supported the country to go to war, then there was a desire to go to war and a certain amount of passion to help your country's allies. "is that not a number?"- does "countries with 1/3 of the world population" not represent a number? "In UK it takes forever to make any decisions. There's planning, replanning, consulting, proposing, objecting, reproposing, developing etc. etc. to the point where doing anything takes forever. In developing countries shit gets done. When somebody wants something done - it happens."- that isnt being specific at all. That is a very generalized statement. Its obvious that it takes some time to do certain things in developed countries, but that doesn't mean that those countries are slow in everything they do. War speeds up many processes. Unless you can give specific instances in which developed countries are slow in acting and underdeveloped countries are fast, there is no reason to continue this part of the debate. "..........................?"- in India, around 30% of the population is below the poverty line. In China, about ten percent is below the poverty line but the income gap has largely risen. "I'm not talking about GDP I don't know where the fuck you got that from."- if a country's military expansion depends on how much money it is making, then a country that is making less money will have a smaller military and therefore be less powerful. "USA has to stand with its chest out - it bluffs because it has to."- the US isn't bluffing. It has to stand strong because if it didn't, and let people such as Saddam Hussein rule over his country's helpless population, the USA would be blamed for not doing anything to stop him. Since the US is the strongest country in the world, Americans take the blame for things that their military could have prevented. "if it ever seems weak then other nations will take advantage - that's how it works."- in what way? How would a weaker country take advantage of a stronger country? "It doesn't even need to show its full potential"- it can't show something that it doesn't have. "USA has been fighting wars for ages and everybody has a better idea of what they're capable of."- the US is a young country, it has not been fighting wars for ages. We haven't used the entire capabilities of our military since World War II. "You have NO idea of what India and China are capable of."- so the number of naval units, aircraft, and soldiers cannot be factored in anyway to determine how strong they are. Since I have no idea of their capabilities, you are basically saying that the size of their armies has absolutely nothing to do with how strong they are. lol "Where have I 'denied' it."- it seems as though you have implied it. "Really? Ok give me a list and we'll discuss that."- NATO: basically, if any country within NATO is attacked, the other member states of NATO will attack the country doing the attacking. List: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey Non-NATO countries: Japan, Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, United Arab Emirates, Argentina, Brazil and countries in the EU that aren't part of NATO. "I know so."- you know for a fact that most of the countries in the EU hate the United Kingdom? Is there really any reason for them to hate each other? "It only gives you numbers. Possibly incorrect."- these numbers come from the CIA and Library of Congress. Even if the numbers were off, which im not suggesting that they are, the difference would be minimal. "Never the whole picture either."- obviously its not the whole picture, but its a very large portion of it. "the differences are huge and any outside factors will probably never decrease the gap. The differences with India and China are much smaller."- im not sure what you are talking about here. "Finally you've shown some wisdom."- this is like my third sentence of the first post i put on this debate :"Even though this is a hypothetical situation in which there is no possible way to know the circumstances". I have been saying this all along. Side: No, there way to powerful
Well I just checked and turns out majority was against both the war with Afghanistan and Iraq. Unless you can give specific instances in which developed countries are slow in acting How long did it take for the War in Iraq to happen? And for all the wrong reasons too. in India, around 30% of the population is below the poverty line. In China, about ten percent is below the poverty line but the income gap has largely risen. Yes but how is that relevent?? if a country's military expansion depends on how much money it is making It doesn't. Money is a factor. Not the only thing. the US isn't bluffing. It has to stand strong because if it didn't If the US isn't bluffing then any respect I had for it is down the drain. You can't expect the top dog to not bluff. All countries bluff tbh but USA should be using it to its full advantage. The reason why people dislike America and blame it for its woes is because it sticks its nose into everything. be factored in anyway to determine how strong they are See... you've changed your stance. I've always talked about how its A factor while you've always talked about how its THE factor. NATO? Negro please. Half of those that entered were for political reasons. The only 'true' NATO countries are western europeans and northern Americans. Copying and pasting a list from wikipedia (which you're so against) doesn't take into factor their actions. Israel? - 2nd largest trading partner isIndia South Korea? - China is keeping N Korea on a leash for them Canada and Australia?? Please. I could go through all the countries and give tons of reasons why they would not partake.be unwilling to partake or not join the alliance's side. I have been saying this all along. What have I been saying? - We don't know their capabilities, the scenerio, the politics involved etc. I'm telling you that these statistics you're finding off the web means very little to the overall picture. Even more is that you're continuously overrating USA and underrating China India. I could be wrong - but your unable to accurately argue me. Side: Yes thats very much achievable
"Well I just checked and turns out majority was against both the war with Afghanistan and Iraq."- it may be that way now, but it certainly wasn't that way in the beginning, at least not for the War in Afghanistan. If the majority of the public did not support the war, then the country never would have been involved. Democracies are in place so the citizens get representation. "How long did it take for the War in Iraq to happen?"- from what point? From when we declared war to when we invaded? You never gave me an example of how underdeveloped countries are fast in acting. "Yes but how is that relevent??"- did you forget what you said to me?---> "India and China have lately come out of poverty" "It doesn't. Money is a factor. Not the only thing."- money determines if a military will expand or not. It is the most important factor in determining how strong a country will be. Obviously there are other things such as how big of a military a country wants, but that depends on how much money the country has in the first place since a bigger military costs more money. "You can't expect the top dog to not bluff."- the strongest country in the world doesn't have to bluff for the mere fact that it is the strongest country in the world. It is one of the only countries in the world that doesn't have to fake being powerful. What you are saying doesn't make any sense. "The reason why people dislike America and blame it for its woes is because it sticks its nose into everything."- we have to stick our nose into everything because, like I said before, if we didn't we would be blamed. Look what happened in Rwanda, guess who was blamed for not helping? Even when we don't do anything, we are blamed for the world's misfortunes. "I've always talked about how its A factor while you've always talked about how its THE factor."- i never said that size of a military was the only factor in determining which country will win a war, that would be an idiotic thing to say. I have said that it is the most important factor in a war of this magnitude. NATO was designed for the collective defense of its members. "Half of those that entered were for political reasons."- where did you even get this from? "Copying and pasting a list from wikipedia (which you're so against) doesn't take into factor their actions."- first of all, i got the list from the NATO website, you can compare my list with the one on the website. Second of all, i dont think the wikipedia list would be so much different. Not everything about wikipedia is bad, but dont use it as a source. Last, the countries actions depend on their membership in NATO since there is an agreement of collective security among the members. "Israel? - 2nd largest trading partner isIndia"- LOL, are you kidding me? Israel is so connected to the United States that there is a common joke to call Israel the 51st state. Where have you been? Also, do you really think you could trick me? The United States is Israel's largest trading partner. lol, nice try. "South Korea? - China is keeping N Korea on a leash for them"- yeah im sure it will show China its gratitude. Do you really think that South Korea will side with North Korea's ally? Do you even remember what happened in the Korean War? "Canada and Australia?? Please."- they arent the strongest countries in the world, but the more help the US and UK have, the weaker China and India come, in relative terms. "I could go through all the countries and give tons of reasons why they would not partake.be unwilling to partake or not join the alliance's side."- considering that you completely failed in your attempt to do so for the countries that you did mention, i doubt that you would be able to do so. "We don't know their capabilities, the scenerio, the politics involved etc."- but we do know their capabilities. Thats where the statistics come in. We also know at least part of the politics in consideration to current foreign relations. "I'm telling you that these statistics you're finding off the web means very little to the overall picture."- the power of the countries mean very little? "Even more is that you're continuously overrating USA and underrating China India."- its impossible to overrate or underrate a country when you are using accurate statistics. "I could be wrong - but your unable to accurately argue me."- you are wrong. Side: No, there way to powerful
Now I've seen it. You don't know what a solider is. You don't know what war is. Every soldier knows that money is not the most important factor. Maybe playing internet games have fucked your brain into thinking that money means something in war - but ask any soldier and they'll tell you that money is one of the least important factors. The fact that you don't understand the concept of bluffing, why people point fingers at America and how political relationships work shows it is impossible to argue with you. I guess you're just going to continue to argue for the sake of it like last time. Most this shit is gonna go round in circles especially with your inability to understand war and its participants but hopefully I can show you something about alliances. Israel - I'm not refuting its connections to America. But you didn't know about it's connection with India did you. I'm not saying it'll join India, I'm saying it will opt out of the war. South Korea - Again the same thing. If it chooses to war against China then it will get squashed. It will choose to remain neutral. Canada + Australia - As you said they're not any help. Muslims countries fighting for America?? Turkey? Most idiots would've gone through their list and checked it themselves before putting it up. I'm not gonna argue about war anymore - you don't understand it. If anything we can continue about foreign relationships, but even so you probably have an extremely biased, ignorant, inexperienced and mis informed view. Side: Yes thats very much achievable
"Every soldier knows that money is not the most important factor."- when did I say that soldiers were in it only for the money? "money means something in war - but ask any soldier and they'll tell you that money is one of the least important factors."- if you have more money, then you can buy more weapons. How is that hard to understand? Obviously a lot people would fight without pay, but I never said that money is the only factor. "The fact that you don't understand the concept of bluffing, why people point fingers at America and how political relationships work shows it is impossible to argue with you."- this statement means nothing. Basically all you are saying to me is that im wrong. You have failed to show that I don't understand what bluffing is, and instead, you just decided to say that i cant be argued with because i dont understand what bluffing is. Thats pathetic. "especially with your inability to understand war and its participants"- here it is again. If you are not going to show how i dont understand the concept of war, then dont say anything at all. "But you didn't know about it's connection with India did you. I'm not saying it'll join India, I'm saying it will opt out of the war."- to tell you the truth, i didnt know that india was its second largest trading partner, but that fact is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Considering that the US, India's enemy in this situation, is Israels largest trading partner, why does it matter that India is the second largest trading partner? It doesn't matter at all because, in terms of trade, Israel is going to side with the US. You obviously failed to notice the fact that the US trades more with Israel or you wouldn't have said anything about its trade with India. It wouldn't opt out of the war because it has one of the strongest connections to the US in the world. "South Korea - Again the same thing. If it chooses to war against China then it will get squashed. It will choose to remain neutral."- considering that the US is the strongest country in the world, and China is the second, how will get it crushed by a weaker country than its ally? "Canada + Australia - As you said they're not any help."- lol i never said that. I said they obviously werent on par with the strength of the US or China, but they could definitely help. I actually think i specifically mentioned them helping. "Muslims countries fighting for America?? Turkey?"- Turkey is in the NATO and a participant in the Joint Strike Fighter program. As for trade, the United States is Turkey's second largest trading partner after the European Union, which is made up of American allies. "Most idiots would've gone through their list and checked it themselves before putting it up."- is that the best thing you can come up with to discredit my list? lol, and you call me an idiot? "I'm not gonna argue about war anymore - you don't understand it."- and you have perfectly shown that. (sarcasm) "even so you probably have an extremely biased, ignorant, inexperienced and mis informed view."- im the one that is bringing in the facts and you call me ignorant and biased? Does that make sense to you? Side: No, there way to powerful
when did I say that soldiers were in it only for the money? When did I say they're in it for the money? Read what I'm typing. Anybody who knows war knows money is the least important factor. I'm finding it impossible to explain that to you. Here's an analogy - How important is money in the game of monopoly? It's got its points but its tactics and luck that gets you through the game. Not the best analogy but put that to war - with money being an even smaller influence and many more factors being included and you might just understand. I hope you do... for your sake. If you've seen transformers 2 where that politician tries to order the army about - that's you. You can't see things as a soldier. I've already explained how USA uses bluffs etc. Read wikipedia (lol) for more information about bluffing if you don't understand it. It wouldn't opt out of the war because it has one of the strongest connections to the US in the world. Lol. So you don't understand politics either. Incase you're wondering blindly - I did know USA was its strongest connection. You're telling me Israel would tell no.2 to fuck off against no.1? Especially when there's a choice of choosing neither/both? Wow. Extremely extremely extremely smart Israel. Way to go. how will get it crushed by a weaker country than its ally? How?? HOW?? Are you being serious???!?!?!!? Do you see how close China is and USA isn't? Do you see the size difference between China and Skorea? Do you see the difference in armies? Do you see the difference in power? LMAO and you ask HOW!!!!! It's over. It's done. I'm not even going to continue. Fact of the matter is you can't admit you're wrong. Idc tbh I've tried to eleviate you from ignorance but you pursue the darkness. It's out of stubborness not just cause you're retarded. A deadly combination. Side: Yes thats very much achievable
"When did I say they're in it for the money?"- you didnt. "Anybody who knows war knows money is the least important factor."- wow, that is a very generalized statement backed by absolutely no evidence. That literally doesnt do anything for your side of the debate. "How important is money in the game of monopoly? It's got its points but its tactics and luck that gets you through the game. Not the best analogy but put that to war - with money being an even smaller influence and many more factors being included and you might just understand."- WOW, you are saying that luck is more a factor in war than the amount of weapons and vehicles a country has? You are such an idiot. This is obviously not rational thinking. "If you've seen transformers 2 where that politician tries to order the army about - that's you. You can't see things as a soldier."- sorry, i havent seen that movie What does it matter what a soldier thinks? He is not the one who is setting up the army, the politician is. They decide how strong the military is, not the individual soldier. That was a horrible example. "I've already explained how USA uses bluffs etc."- no you havent. You explained why we might use them, which was wrong anyway, but you havent explained how. You have given no specific instances in which the US bluffed. "Incase you're wondering blindly - I did know USA was its strongest connection."- i highly doubt that. There was no reason to bring up India as its 2nd largest trading partner if the US if the first largest. "You're telling me Israel would tell no.2 to fuck off against no.1? Especially when there's a choice of choosing neither/both? Wow. Extremely extremely extremely smart Israel. Way to go."- just think of what you are saying. Israel is not only one of the greatest ally's of America, but America just happens to be its largest trading partner. Do you really think that it would just sit and watch while the US fought India and China? Of course not. "How?? HOW?? Are you being serious???!?!?!!? Do you see how close China is and USA isn't? Do you see the size difference between China and Skorea? Do you see the difference in armies? Do you see the difference in power? LMAO and you ask HOW!!!!!"- compare the power of the US army with the power of the Chinese army, thats how. South Korea could hold the North Koreans off long enough for the US to get there, considering that it has around a million troops at its northern border right now. Also, if you didn't notice, Japan, a strong US ally is right by South Korea and just happens to have one of the strongest armies in the world. lol did you not notice that either? "Fact of the matter is you can't admit you're wrong."- you have not presented any facts to this debate. Everything you have said has been a matter of opinion or speculation. You want to believe that the US is not the strongest country in the world, but the truth is, it is. The United States is unbelievably stronger than any other country. Im not trying to be overconfident, but thats just the way it is. Stop trying to deny it otherwise keep acting like chance will be more important than an entire arsenal of weapons. lol, its just funny thinking that you actually said that. Btw, i have let you get away with disregarding so many things in this debate. Its pathetic. Present facts, maybe you can win one. Side: No, there way to powerful
You're right I haven't given any numbers. You have. What do those numbers mean? More technology? Advanced warfare? Higher number of better equiped military? You want to know a war when a more advanced, better equipped, more numerous army was defeated? India vs. Pakistan 1960's. There were other things to consider but technology, equipment and money doesn't mean a win. THAT is what I've been trying to tell you. If you still can't understand then there's no hope for you. WOW, you are saying that luck is more a factor in war than the amount of weapons and vehicles a country has? Lol really? THAT's what I'm saying? Are going through my posts too quick? Or are you acting stupid on purpose? Or are you actually just retarded? Watch the movie. That will tell you all you need to know. Politicians don't know shit about war - turns out I was right, you have a politicians mentality when it comes to war lol which would be very very bad for the army. BTW everyone in the army is a soldier - including general. There was no reason to bring up India as its 2nd largest trading partner if the US if the first largest. There was. You had no idea. You were completely oblivious to the connection between Israel and India. If you have an intelligence over 50 then it would make you think twice about Israel choosing sides. lol did you not notice that either? Wow. You're actually taking yourself seriously. I can't believe it. You're telling me that every single country would jump straight into war on the first day?? No. Countries slowly get drawn into war over time. If China and Nkorea decided to attack Skorea the only immediate help is USA which wouldn't have enough resources to fight off the attack. Just because it's the 'best army' doesn't mean it'll use all its resources to go to SKorea - whereas China will be able to utilise more of its army quicker. If you still see things in your twisted way then chop what little dick you have left off. Keep going though. Seeing as you know so much about war (lol computer games). You don't know nothing about war. That is one fact I can live by. Side: Yes thats very much achievable
"India vs. Pakistan 1960's"- you give me one example and you think that will justify your entire argument? Since you did say that luck is more a factor in war than the amount of money a country can spend, it would be accurate to say that you believe lucky countries win more often than countries with more money. This doesn't make sense at all. "money doesn't mean a win."- i never said it did. I did say, however, that money is the largest factor in determining whether or not a country will win a war. "Are going through my posts too quick?"- this is what you said --> "tactics and luck that gets you through the game. Not the best analogy but put that to war - with money being an even smaller influence". Am i not supposed to take this as meaning money is a lesser influence than luck? Did you not say that? "Watch the movie. That will tell you all you need to know."- lol, you want me to watch some unrealistic action movie to gain more insight on the reality of war? That is absolutely one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. "Politicians don't know shit about war"- thats interesting since some of them have been soldiers. "you have a politicians mentality when it comes to war"- what exactly is a politicians mentality of war? "which would be very very bad for the army"- i thought it was the politicians that control, fund, and expand the army, not the soldiers. "There was. You had no idea. You were completely oblivious to the connection between Israel and India."- so you're saying that the reason you told me India was Israel's second largest trading partner was because you somehow knew that i didnt know it? lol, i am really getting sick of these excuses to constant mistakes on your part. "If you have an intelligence over 50 then it would make you think twice about Israel choosing sides."- i guess you mean iq, but anyway, you probably never knew about America's connection to Israel. lol you probably looked it up after I mentioned it. "You're telling me that every single country would jump straight into war on the first day??"- no, not every one. Only the countries that could fend off an impending attack on one of its allies. "If China and Nkorea decided to attack Skorea the only immediate help is USA"- no, the immediate help is also Japan. "Just because it's the 'best army' doesn't mean it'll use all its resources to go to SKorea"- it doesnt have to use all its resources because it is the strongest military. "then chop what little dick you have left off."- wow lol, why are you talking about my dick? What does that even have to do with anything? "Seeing as you know so much about war (lol computer games)."- coming from the kid who gets his information from Transformers 2, lol. "You don't know nothing about war. That is one fact I can live by."- of course you can live by it, you are probably used to living by false "facts." Just by your disregard to over half of my comments and my response to almost every one of your sentences shows that you cant keep defending yourself this way. Just accept that there are no facts that you can present to help you win this debate. Side: No, there way to powerful
This is my last post cause it hurt my mouth when its hanging for such a long time admiring how God could've made such a huge mistake with a single human being. You confuse analogies with metaphors. You take words and sentences out of context. You twist words and sentences out of context. When presented with facts you disregard them. You're not even amusing me anymore, unlike the one about you being a wuss (therefore not a soldier) where it was fun to watch you have tantrums and get all offended. You've been given more than enough reasoning, logic and facts to, if not change your mind, come up with different arguments. Either you're physically or mentally challenged in which case this was all a waste of time or you're doing it on purpose to make some sort of a point. Either way I can't find any excuses for your spasticness. Don't give me any excuses. If you want to have the last post go ahead - then it'll just prove you're arguing for the sake of arguing and that you're stubborn and retarded and after my second post here you didn't even care if you were wrong but merely wanted to write another post. Have a nice day son. Side: Yes thats very much achievable
"You confuse analogies with metaphors. You take words and sentences out of context. You twist words and sentences out of context. When presented with facts you disregard them."- its good how you give examples of all this stuff. Anybody can say anything, it just a matter if they have the evidence to support it or not. "fun to watch you have tantrums and get all offended"- you think its fun to watch people become offended? That's weird. "You've been given more than enough reasoning, logic and facts to"- from who? "Either you're physically or mentally challenged"- why would it matter if i was physically challenged? If i was in a wheel chair, it would somehow mean this was all a waste of time? "If you want to have the last post go ahead - then it'll just prove you're arguing for the sake of arguing and that you're stubborn and retarded"- i thought the point of a debate is to respond to the person who is talking? "you didn't even care if you were wrong but merely wanted to write another post."- im not wrong, so i dont have to care. If you wanted to stop, you never would have typed this comment. Side: No, there way to powerful
1
point
Secondly, your point about "these last few wars" is also completely invalid. Do you know why we haven't shown much of our previous "control and destroy" attitude, or as you call it, "heart"? It is because the war in Iraq is not as simple as other wars have been. It isn't just us vs. them. It's us vs. them, but also us vs. the fact that we have to control the number of civilian casualties. Could we end the war quickly? Absolutely. Hell, we could do it old school and firebomb every inch of the Middle East. However, that would be against the morals, or as I call it, "HEART" of the United States of America. Side: No, there way to powerful
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO AHAHAHHAGHASDIAHWOE IFHYWAEIOFHYASOIDHYFSD - I spazzed out at your stupididty... Do you know why we haven't shown much of our previous "control and destroy" attitude, or as you call it, "heart"? firstly that's not what I call heart. But according to you firebombing and control and destroy attitude is heart. However, that would be against the morals, or as I call it, "HEART" of the United States of America. Because you have gone out and 'minimalised civilian casualties to the thousands lol? And now according to you controlling civilian casualties is heart. Make up your mind spasm boy. Side: Yes thats very much achievable
Considering that the War on Terror has been a voluntary enlistment effort, and we have the most successful rate at kill:death ratio, I would say that our soldiers are doing SOMETHING right. The Islamic Fascists have a lot of heart, they blow themselves up for something that doesn't exist for Christ's sake. We're slaughtering them by the thousands. So heart doesn't do shit for them and it won't do shit for India and China. Side: No, there way to powerful
The terrorists have CIA training from the Gulf War and the War between Russia and Afghanistan. The are fighting in THEIR territory and are supported by Iran, which receive their supplies from Russia. If anything, Al-Qaeda are much better fighters than India or China. The thing about America is that we just bomb the ever living shit out of them, along with are expertly trained military raping everything they see. There's no chance against America. Except with the hypothetical WW3 that I described. Side: No, there way to powerful
0
points
So what you're saying is that juat because China and India have more people that they would win? Also, your claim that the US and UK lack heart is total BS. Think of it this way: We Americans are pissed about a lot of things within our country today, such as the economy, our president, our government as a whole, etc. My point? Even though we're pissed at our country, we're all pissed together. That is what makes America so powerful. There is not a single force in the world that can beat something as tightly knit and united as America is. Side: No, there way to powerful
lmfao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wow are you retarded. america tightly knitt?? WOW. Side: Yes thats very much achievable
1
point
1
point
We're not talking about the reasons who why and what idiot. The question is if USA and UK are defeatable. My answer is yes. It's not realistically going to happen especially with India and China not very friendly with each other. But you're too stupid to know that. Side: Yes thats very much achievable
1
point
Well done you checked my profile. Lol how much damage would citizens do lol? It's not like the movies boy. If it came to war and Britain wanted its peoples to go to war they would make guns available. You don't seem to have the capacity to think though do you? Side: Yes thats very much achievable
1
point
1
point
|
Realistically, I doubt that there would be another alliance made that could defeat the USA and the UK. There would just have to be too many countries against them. Even though this is a hypothetical situation in which there is no possible way to know the circumstances, I have to say that NATO would be on the side of the USA and UK. If you are unaware of what NATO is, its a military alliance of 28 countries that have a combined military spending equal to 70% of the world's total military spending. That leaves the other countries with 30% of the world's total military spending, and that's if every other country not in NATO were to be opposed to the US and UK, which is unlikely. Russia and China may be a large threat in a future war, but when it comes down to the strength of the opposing forces, I have to side with the USA and UK. Side: No, there way to powerful
1
point
Have to agree with Sirus... (Though not on the China) When the question says allies. It means ALL allies. And that's a lot of countries. I think combined, any country with a high growing economy with a GDP of over 2% and the US will crush anyone. Technology, raw supplies, and buying power? I think that's something that we won't be trying to batter down for a long time. Side: No, there way to powerful
0
points
|
