• Forum
  • Lounge
  • Another Debate : Who would win? USA or G

 
Another Debate : Who would win? USA or Great Britain?

Pages: 123
Well I was looking through off topic Minecraft forums and I found this: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1439812-who-do-you-think-would-win-a-war-usa-or-the-uk/

Not to be a patriot or anything but Britain would be destroyed. I mean they have the SAS and all, but we have more units that are better trained (in the SF), so in reality this isn't COD where 2-3 SAS soliders take out 100 unit companies of men.

Special Forces DO NOT fight on the front line and have NO outcome on the overall war, unless they do something like assassinate one country's leader.

I want to here what you think.

Not to come out as ignorant or anything, but it's the truth. If I was British I'd be saying the same thing.

For example I know if the US goes to war with China it would most likely be a stalemate.

The mindset to most pro-british are "England is still in it's prime of it's Empire we can't lose a war". Or we fought wars for a thousand years. When the truth is those outdated war tactics have nothing to do with modern war. The only thing that would be similar is charging when out of ammo and flanking.
closed account (3qX21hU5)
Have you developed a hate for the UK or something? This is the second kinda pointless thread you posted about the UK in the last couple hours...
Who would win? USA or Great Britain?
Stupidity would win.
Stupidity is already winning in this thread.


Fredbill wrote:
Special Forces DO NOT fight on the front line and have NO outcome on the overall war, unless they do something like assassinate one country's leader.


Fredbill the pre-teen diplomat ?

Just to educate you a bit :

1 There is no "front line" in modern warfare. Anyone who occupies a "line" would just be bombed / shelled out of existence.
2 How do you know how effective Special Forces are? My guess is your viewing of Hollywood movies. If you had actually met / worked with any SF, then you would realise that they are the most effective force.

Fredbill wrote:
The mindset to most pro-british are "England is still in it's prime of it's Empire we can't lose a war". Or we fought wars for a thousand years. When the truth is those outdated war tactics have nothing to do with modern war. The only thing that would be similar is charging when out of ammo and flanking.


Well that is utter ignorance.

Plato wrote:
Only the dead have seen the end of war
Dude whats up with these debates....tell us whats your goal...to get alot of posts or what..
First off I would just like to say that I believe that you are talking utter bullshit when you say this:
For example I know if the US goes to war with China it would most likely be a stalemate.


I believe China would whip the USA's butt from here to the next century.
Secondly:
Not to come out as ignorant or anything,

You claim not to be ignorant, right? Then may I ask where you get your info from?

Also, is America not in a war currently? (rhetorical) So if you guys were to enter another one you would have to divide your forces, and that would mean that you would have half of your forces on on country and the other half on the other. Personally that would speel disaster for you guys in my opinion.
This guy is saying bullshit...he just wants posts....why would he ask these questions,,,everyone has their own opinion...you know what i mean
its not about the invasion but the occupation.

americans were warned about Afghanistan, no one was interested in listening to them, they suggested talks 10 years ago but now they realize they are necissary.

and remember we saved our asses in world war two then you helped us invade, we called it the battle for britain and it was one by beating the luftwaffe and bombing more cities than the germans could.

america hasn't won a war for a long time.

War these days is waged by economic policies, monsanto will take over the world
Last edited on
closed account (o1vk4iN6)
It'd be a stare down showing off who has the bigger nuclear weapons like it was with the russians. Either nothing would happen or parts of the planet would be nuclear waste lands.
we have a lot of americas nukes, would be quite easy to make your own nukes leak badly enough for americans to "rescue" us afterwards im probly giving someone at the NSA ideas as I type (or shortly after)
devonrevenge wrote:
americans were warned about Afghanistan, no one was interested in listening to them, they suggested talks 10 years ago but now they realize they are necissary.

Americans were warned? Where you been? We created the problem that led to 9/11. That is why they are scared to leave without cleaning up the problem now.

History lesson. Bin Laden was running a group, that would later become al-Qaeda, as an insurrection group against the Soviet presence in Afghanistan. We supplied them weapons and helped them, but once the war was over (called the "Soviet Union's Vietnam War") we left Bin Laden and all the Afghanistan people to clean up the mess. This enraged Bin Laden which made him declare Jihad on the US. We raised him to God like status, which came back to bite us. Now they are scared to pull out the troops in fear of another Bin Laden forming from the rubble of this war.

We created Bin Laden and supplied him, but he had been saying for decades that he was going to attack the US on our own soil. No one could have believed he would go through with it or do it on such a scale as 9/11.
Last edited on by closed account z6A9GNh0
noo i mean no one has ever successfully occupied afghanistan without being worn down by insurgents, If americans wanted to make a difference they should have used the american equivelent to the tactics to the taliban use.

what do people mean when they say that there is no such thing as al-quieda?its something along the lines that "any jihad group technically can be called al-quieda"

Ironicaly the british government is arming them again because they want them to beat assad(putin) so we have learned nothing.
Last edited on
Not to be a patriot or anything but Britain would be destroyed. I mean they have the SAS and all, but we have more units that are better trained (in the SF), so in reality this isn't COD where 2-3 SAS soliders take out 100 unit companies of men.


The SAS/SBS have better training in a wider range of skill's and tactic's than the U.S. counterpart's.

The regular troop's of the UK had to take over in Basra, Because the American's we're taking a beating.

When the UK goes to war, They dont stop until the job is done (Vietnam).
we use tactics and make long term plans too.

seriously though america should have won a lot more wars than it has done
Last edited on
seriously though america should have won a lot more wars than it has done

Big Stick diplomacy doesn't always work, especially when you can't clearly see who you want to beat with it.
What people mean by "there is no al-Qaeda" is that there is really no central figure to attack. With the US we have the Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, etc so people know where to attack as each one has a central base where as al-Qaeda has no central place to attack from (they are all over). Also, Jihad means "Holy War", not heard anyone call them a Jihad group, they are Jihadists, terrorist group, and have sleeper cells, but Jihad group makes them sound like some boy band or heavy metal band.

The British military aren't the US. I think it was just the US that helped Bin Laden back in 1980 when he started the resistance to drive the Soviet occupation out. You have to quit clumping the US history and our mistakes with the British and their actions.
Australia would win.
=P I don't have a hate for Great Britain. Just wondering what you guys think. I know SAS has better training. (I guess I forgot to write it).


Also I'm not doing this for posts. That's silly.
Pages: 123