PDA

View Full Version : Poll for americans only



vodkazvictim
2012-04-23, 05:53
:wtf: Is VV REALLY doing this?
A long time ago the Argentines made attempts to take Las Malvinas (the Falkland islands) from the British.
The British and Argentines went to war (the U.S.A. stayed out of it) and the Brits were victorious.

In recent times there has been increasing tension between the Brits and Argentines over these islands.
So Americans, I'm interested to know, will you vote to stay out of the war? Will you support the Brits who have supported you? Or will you support the Argentines and thereby improve relations with one of your Southern neighbours? Vote. Feel free to tell us why you voted the way you did.
Remember: vote naked.

Blueballs, can you post one of your MOTW/POTW voting images, please?

BigSwede
2012-04-23, 07:02
Mind your own business.

Bloodshot Scott
2012-04-23, 07:06
This dude actually thinks he's a comic. What he doesn't know is is that we're not laughing with him, we're laughing AT him.

I'm on his "ignore," so I don't think it's going to kill him when I say, crawl back under your rock, you silly son of a bitch. :dropdead:

I violate my rule of not handing out negative rep to anyone under any circumstances, even when they give it to me. For this psycho I violate that rule.

antanotherthing
2012-04-23, 07:12
Enforce the Monroe Doctrine and go to war with the UK. ;)

Rattrap
2012-04-23, 11:32
As an American Brit, I think the US needs to stay out. And if Argentina has a legitimate claim, I think the UK needs to let go.

National imperialism is over. The UK needs to get over itself and realize the new corporate imperialism is the new trend and it's pretty far behind.

Rey C.
2012-04-23, 11:58
I think we should just send Mark Sanford to Argentina and get him to charm (the skirt off of) Presidentress Fernandez de Kirchner, and all will be well. You know, just "take her for a walk" on the Appalachian Trail and work things out. Jenny won't mind. ;)

Either that, or President Romney and his neocon masters might just have to nuke her socialist, commie, pinko (quite attractive) ass.

Smallville22
2012-04-23, 12:41
Stay out of the war.

Mayhem
2012-04-23, 14:45
To the U.S., "assisting an ally" means fighting the war for them. The Brits can handle this on their own.

Besides according to VV, America doesn't have any worthwhile equipment to fight a war with, so we'd just be getting in the way of the Limeys and their L-85 rifles. :1orglaugh

GibbsGrad2002
2012-04-23, 18:16
Stay out of the war.

Trident1
2012-04-23, 18:27
Neither the Brits or Argies have the equipment to do anything about the Falklands......................2012 ain't 1982.

Johan
2012-04-23, 18:33
Join the war, blast them all, take the Falklands for yourself and make them the 51st state.

knowone
2012-04-24, 02:02
The US would probably directly stay out of it, but give support to the GB like they did in '81. Also the Brits don't need our help to kick their ass again.

vodkazvictim
2012-04-24, 19:53
As an American Brit, I think the US needs to stay out. And if Argentina has a legitimate claim, I think the UK needs to let go.

National imperialism is over. The UK needs to get over itself and realize the new corporate imperialism is the new trend and it's pretty far behind.
A) Last time the Argies desired (why?) to remain under British control. This may still be the case.
B) The Brits have been practicing corporate imperialism for a long time.

To the U.S., "assisting an ally" means fighting the war for them. The Brits can handle this on their own.

Besides according to VV, America doesn't have any worthwhile equipment to fight a war with, so we'd just be getting in the way of the Limeys and their L-85 rifles. :1orglaugh
A) The Brits can't handle this on their own: We had to rejuvenate a Vulcan back in the '80s and there's even less chance of making a raid work now.
As for the Navy (the Army can't reach the area alone), budget cuts in conjunction with running military aquisition for the benefit of business mean that, to paraphrase an officer of the Royal Navy "The Dutch have a better navy than us!"
B) We've been over this; america does have some worthwhile equipment, but certain things are over-hyped, inneficient and under-capable.
C) The Current model is the L85A2. The original was poorly rated and the designation may also refer to an SSW. If memory serves.

Neither the Brits or Argies have the equipment to do anything about the Falklands......................2012 ain't 1982.
Haven't been tracking Argie forces, but we Brits are fucked, so I'd say this is likely a fair assessment.

Join the war, blast them all, take the Falklands for yourself and make them the 51st state.
I thought you were French and that your opinion was therefore academic?
Now why don't you explain what makes the Falklands a good aquisition?

The US would probably directly stay out of it, but give support to the GB like they did in '81. Also the Brits don't need our help to kick their ass again.
Support? What support? Like selling them more strike jets to target British shipping with?

Trident1
2012-04-24, 19:56
Haven't been tracking Argie forces, but we Brits are fucked, so I'd say this is likely a fair assessment.





The Brits naval force is anemic having undergone cost cutting down to 18 ships total. The Argies have barely anything. The good ol' days of the Cold War arsenals are long gone. I'm certain both wished they had their 1982 assets right now.

vodkazvictim
2012-04-24, 20:32
The Brits naval force is anemic having undergone cost cutting down to 18 ships total. The Argies have barely anything. The good ol' days of the Cold War arsenals are long gone. I'm certain both wished they had their 1982 assets right now.
While I'm sure both wish they had their former assets (I know I've long been displeased by the lack of strategic bomber in the British arsenal) I'm hardly nostalgic for the cold war.
Albeit I can barely remember it.

Mayhem
2012-04-24, 21:03
A) The Brits can't handle this on their own: We had to rejuvenate a Vulcan back in the '80s and there's even less chance of making a raid work now.
As for the Navy (the Army can't reach the area alone), budget cuts in conjunction with running military aquisition for the benefit of business mean that, to paraphrase an officer of the Royal Navy "The Dutch have a better navy than us!"
B) We've been over this; america does have some worthwhile equipment, but certain things are over-hyped, inneficient and under-capable.
C) The Current model is the L85A2. The original was poorly rated and the designation may also refer to an SSW. If memory serves.


Since you replied with a cogent, coherent reply; I will do the same. Of course we have certain equipment that isn't as good as it should be. It's the US military, of course there is going to be waste. The problem is that much of the things you have previously claimed were, "over-hyped, inneficient and under-capable", is fine equipment, you are the only voice anywhere that claims it isn't, and you have no actual experience to back up any of the accusations you have made. Those are the facts.

You have also refused to factor in the fact that many weapons systems, etc, were built in a different time for different purposes. Did you know that for all the combat missions the B-52 has ever flown, it has never flown the mission that it was designed and built for? In other words, we did what we had to at the time and then modified and adapted where/when we had too. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Apparently the L85 is working properly now. It only took H&K to make it work. And in either case, it took too damn long for the Brits to take the problem seriously. You don't fuck around with a main battle rifle. That's me, in a nice way, saying you fix your problems, we'll fix ours.

And if you can't take the Falkland Fucking Islands, you got way more problems than we do.

Rattrap
2012-04-24, 22:52
A) Last time the Argies desired (why?) to remain under British control. This may still be the case.

Why would there be fighting then? Or is this an academic 'what if'? I must confess I didn't pay any attention to past conflicts while I was living in the UK.



B) The Brits have been practicing corporate imperialism for a long time.

Sure, but a quick look down most British high streets will show you mostly foreign-owned (mostly American) businesses. I even found an ASDA that didn't even pretend it wasn't Wal-Mart (that is to say, the Wal-Mart logo was prominent and larger than the ASDA sign, as opposed to the typical 'part of the Wal-Mart family' fine print I saw on most ASDA signs).

Though perhaps its finance the UK's corporate imperialism shines; I must confess again I know very little there, other than that it seems to be an unfortunately large portion of the country's GDP.

Trident1
2012-04-24, 22:57
(I know I've long been displeased by the lack of strategic bomber in the British arsenal)





Well you're "strategic bombers" became obsolete when you introduced SLBMs and cruise missiles into the inventory.





Albeit I can barely remember it.

It shows.

swallowmewhole
2012-04-24, 23:40
i understand theres a legitimate debate going on here but this is why i think we (america) should stay out of it..

http://www.freeones.com/html/index_prof_p_10.shtml

:2 cents:

Mayhem
2012-04-25, 00:01
i understand theres a legitimate debate going on here but this is why i think we (america) should stay out of it..

http://www.freeones.com/html/index_prof_p_10.shtml

:2 cents:

OK, so you talked me out of conquering the Falklands. But now you have me thinkin' about invading Argentina. :rubbel:

swallowmewhole
2012-04-25, 02:29
lol!! :rofl2:


OK, so you talked me out of conquering the Falklands. But now you have me thinkin' about invading Argentina. :rubbel:

vodkazvictim
2012-05-02, 08:56
Since you replied with a cogent, coherent reply; I will do the same. Of course we have certain equipment that isn't as good as it should be. It's the US military, of course there is going to be waste. The problem is that much of the things you have previously claimed were, "over-hyped, inneficient and under-capable", is fine equipment, you are the only voice anywhere that claims it isn't, and you have no actual experience to back up any of the accusations you have made. Those are the facts.

You have also refused to factor in the fact that many weapons systems, etc, were built in a different time for different purposes. Did you know that for all the combat missions the B-52 has ever flown, it has never flown the mission that it was designed and built for? In other words, we did what we had to at the time and then modified and adapted where/when we had too. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Apparently the L85 is working properly now. It only took H&K to make it work. And in either case, it took too damn long for the Brits to take the problem seriously. You don't fuck around with a main battle rifle. That's me, in a nice way, saying you fix your problems, we'll fix ours.

And if you can't take the Falkland Fucking Islands, you got way more problems than we do.
You say "Of course there's going to be waste." as though that makes it ecusable, but I believe that it's not; lets not forget that the waste essentially results in soldiers dying for a profit margin.

I'm not the only one. Many people, including U.S. service personnell have criticised many of the major systems. I normally target the M1 due to it's weight and high IR sig, but let's instead look at infantry for a moment: The M16 series has a poor reliability reputation, you and others would agree that they're underpowered and the inventor of interceptor body armour himself now says that their are superior alternatives available. Given the stellar budget, one would expect better of the U.S. military.

I don't remember "refusing" to factor that in.
As concerns the Buff, what I love is it's immense flexibility and long service life; I regard flexibility as a strength.
Yes, the L85 series has a chequered history. I don't deny it. Frankly I think we'd have done better purchasing Steyr Aug's/Manufacturing rights for them.
Assuming that the M.O.D. is telling the truth for once, the L85 is now a formiddable weapons system (that can't fire from the other shoulder), but it's also the worlds most expensive standard assault rifle, last time I checked. Being the worlds most expensive, you'd expect it to be the best, but that appears not to be the case.

I'll pay attention to the problems that you're military has if I want to. You're more than welcome to pay attention to those of the British military. You seem to think I only target the american military, but I can assure you that you're wrong.

Why would there be fighting then? Or is this an academic 'what if'? I must confess I didn't pay any attention to past conflicts while I was living in the UK.


Sure, but a quick look down most British high streets will show you mostly foreign-owned (mostly American) businesses. I even found an ASDA that didn't even pretend it wasn't Wal-Mart (that is to say, the Wal-Mart logo was prominent and larger than the ASDA sign, as opposed to the typical 'part of the Wal-Mart family' fine print I saw on most ASDA signs).

Though perhaps its finance the UK's corporate imperialism shines; I must confess again I know very little there, other than that it seems to be an unfortunately large portion of the country's GDP.
We'd be fighting because the Argies have recently showed increased interest in Las Malvinas, the Brits recently sent a destroyer and a squadroon of Typhoons (LOL!) out there and what with call me dave's drooping popularity he may well regard a war with the Argies in that region as the saviour of his premiership in the same way it was widely considered to be a boon to Thatcher.
BTW, do any other Brits feel like we're back in the '80s?

Well you're "strategic bombers" became obsolete when you introduced SLBMs and cruise missiles into the inventory.




It shows.
I could convince you that strategic bombers are still valuable by pointing out their flexibility, but I believe the most potent way to make you regret that comment is to write this:
"Hark, did somebody hear Kruschev speak?"

Mayhem
2012-05-02, 14:17
You say "Of course there's going to be waste." as though that makes it ecusable, but I believe that it's not; lets not forget that the waste essentially results in soldiers dying for a profit margin.

I'm not the only one. Many people, including U.S. service personnell have criticised many of the major systems. I normally target the M1 due to it's weight and high IR sig, but let's instead look at infantry for a moment: The M16 series has a poor reliability reputation, you and others would agree that they're underpowered and the inventor of interceptor body armour himself now says that their are superior alternatives available. Given the stellar budget, one would expect better of the U.S. military.

I don't remember "refusing" to factor that in.
As concerns the Buff, what I love is it's immense flexibility and long service life; I regard flexibility as a strength.
Yes, the L85 series has a chequered history. I don't deny it. Frankly I think we'd have done better purchasing Steyr Aug's/Manufacturing rights for them.
Assuming that the M.O.D. is telling the truth for once, the L85 is now a formiddable weapons system (that can't fire from the other shoulder), but it's also the worlds most expensive standard assault rifle, last time I checked. Being the worlds most expensive, you'd expect it to be the best, but that appears not to be the case.

I'll pay attention to the problems that you're military has if I want to. You're more than welcome to pay attention to those of the British military. You seem to think I only target the american military, but I can assure you that you're wrong.



This is where we are back to you being an armchair commando who has no clue. The M16 has a terrific reliability reputation. Period. To say otherwise is further proof of your confusion and dementia. And it is also proof that you have no experience with the topics you like to pontificate about.

There are better alternatives to the 5.56 NATO rd. Now there are alternatives, and I think the military should examine them. But these alternatives weren't in play 20 - 30 years ago. So we deal with it now, not bitch that we didn't do it 20 - 30 years ago.



Yes, the L85 series has a chequered history. I don't deny it.

Well, you did deny it in a past thread. I remember.
If the L85 is the most expensive assault rifle, then good job beating the SIG 550. Of course, if anyone is going to over price their battle rifle past the Swiss, it's going to be the Brits.

If you have a better design than the M1, quit keeping it to yourself and get it to the manufacturers. It's weight comes from its armor, it's armor is what keeps the crew alive (I have first hand experience in this). Bitching about a tanks weight is like bitching about ships that float.

Trident1
2012-05-02, 17:53
I could convince you that strategic bombers are still valuable by pointing out their flexibility, but I believe the most potent way to make you regret that comment is to write this:
"Hark, did somebody hear Kruschev speak?"



Hey blame Labour...................they love cutting anything military.

Red Spyder
2012-05-02, 18:20
Argentina should let the Falklands decide. The population there is mostly British, not even Hispanics if any, so let them decide if they want to leave the UK and join with Argentina or stay with the UK. Self determination, people!!!

vodkazvictim
2012-05-02, 18:52
This is where we are back to you being an armchair commando who has no clue. The M16 has a terrific reliability reputation. Period. To say otherwise is further proof of your confusion and dementia. And it is also proof that you have no experience with the topics you like to pontificate about.

There are better alternatives to the 5.56 NATO rd. Now there are alternatives, and I think the military should examine them. But these alternatives weren't in play 20 - 30 years ago. So we deal with it now, not bitch that we didn't do it 20 - 30 years ago.




Well, you did deny it in a past thread. I remember.
If the L85 is the most expensive assault rifle, then good job beating the SIG 550. Of course, if anyone is going to over price their battle rifle past the Swiss, it's going to be the Brits.

If you have a better design than the M1, quit keeping it to yourself and get it to the manufacturers. It's weight comes from its armor, it's armor is what keeps the crew alive (I have first hand experience in this). Bitching about a tanks weight is like bitching about ships that float.
WHICH M16? Because the M16A1 famously jammed after firing 3 rounds.
The M4 carbine is known to collapse partially into it's butt, requiring parts replacement.
So again, which M16? The M16 has a famoulsy poor reputation for reliability, from what I've heard.
This video cites some poor reliability reputation of the M16:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6iNYhttGlM
[youteube]v=V6iNYhttGlM[/youtube]

As concerns the 5.56 round, it didn't exist then (technically), so why not just develop a better round then? And frankly I've no problem with adopting a better round.
As for stop bitching about it, I'll bitch if I choose. Lets not forget that we had the round forced upon us, such an activity is prone to produce bitching, n'est pas?
If I defended the L85, it was probably me defending the L85a2 or saying that in comparison to a poorer rifle it was the superior rifle.

Why would the manufacturers care? Soviet tanks have been firing air-bursting HE for years. The M1 doesn't.
Soviet tanks have been barrel-launching ATGMS since the '70s. Despite 3 programs all costing a pretty penny, the M1 doesn't. So why tell the manufacturers? They clearly don't care.

I'm sure I don't have to educate you when it comes to armour and weight. The M1 could do better. Ever seen an M1 with E.R.A.?

Hey blame Labour...................they love cutting anything military.
Yeah, because the way to make something work is to throw money at it, right?
Don't talk to me about Britain, you know nothing about it.

If I remember correctly then it was a Labour government who decided to invest in the F35 project. So stealthy that it's involvement in Libya is completely undocumented.

If I remember correctly then it was Labour that invested in BOWMAN military radios. They work so well that the troops say that BOWMAN stands for Better Off With Map and Nokia.

If I remember correctly Labour upgraded the L85a1 to the A2.

If I remember correctly it was labour who invested in the (superior) British Apache program.

So don't tell me that labour isn't equally as guilty of throwing money at defense manufacturers as the conservatwunts.

Argentina should let the Falklands decide. The population there is mostly British, not even Hispanics if any, so let them decide if they want to leave the UK and join with Argentina or stay with the UK. Self determination, people!!!
The Falklands SHOULD be allowed to decide.
I've heard that they wanted to be English. But of course, living in England I would hear that.

Trident1
2012-05-02, 18:56
Your Labour people scrapped the TSR2 then they ditched the F-111K Merlin.

Mayhem
2012-05-02, 19:47
When the M16 was initially tested with the 5.56 rd., the test ammo used a type of gunpowder called "stick" gunpowder. When everything was settled on and the rifle/ammo was deployed to Vietnam. Except the ammo manufacturers switched from "stick" powder to "ball" powder. The performance was the same but the ball powder gummed up the mechanism, in the humid wet environment. This was unforseen at the time. There was no negligence, no evildoing. It was a mistake. Coincidentally, some idiot decided that the M16 was a "self-cleaning" rifle. This was criminal negligence and I hope someone paid for it. In either case, once stick powder was reintroduced and once cleaning kits were made available, any and all reliability problems attributed to the M16 (and NOT the magazines, ammo, performed maintenance) disappeared once and for all.

This is not revisionist history. This is me knowing exactly what I'm talking about and you, not.

vodkazvictim
2012-05-02, 21:33
Your Labour people scrapped the TSR2 then they ditched the F-111K Merlin.
Assuming that I believe you without checking the facts, so what?
Military spending needs to be not too little and not too much. I'm sure both Labour and Tories have cut in the wrong places while throwing money in questionable directions.
I think you assume I'm in some sort of hurry to defend Labour. If so I'm afraid you're mistaken.

When the M16 was initially tested with the 5.56 rd., the test ammo used a type of gunpowder called "stick" gunpowder. When everything was settled on and the rifle/ammo was deployed to Vietnam. Except the ammo manufacturers switched from "stick" powder to "ball" powder. The performance was the same but the ball powder gummed up the mechanism, in the humid wet environment. This was unforseen at the time. There was no negligence, no evildoing. It was a mistake. Coincidentally, some idiot decided that the M16 was a "self-cleaning" rifle. This was criminal negligence and I hope someone paid for it. In either case, once stick powder was reintroduced and once cleaning kits were made available, any and all reliability problems attributed to the M16 (and NOT the magazines, ammo, performed maintenance) disappeared once and for all.

This is not revisionist history. This is me knowing exactly what I'm talking about and you, not.
I'd heard about the self-cleaning thing and may have heard about the powder issues, but the fact is that the M16 has a poor reliability reputation.
Whether that reputation is from the two issues you just pointed out or stems from further reliability problems with the M16 as well, I'm not sure, let's say that issues with M16 reliability are now fixed, it still has a poor reputation for reliability today.

I never accused you of revisionist history, and I know something. I don't profess infallibility, don't act like I do.

Trident1
2012-05-02, 22:17
Assuming that I believe you without checking the facts, so what?
Military spending needs to be not too little and not too much. I'm sure both Labour and Tories have cut in the wrong places while throwing money in questionable directions.
I think you assume I'm in some sort of hurry to defend Labour. If so I'm afraid you're mistaken.





You need to read about the TSR2. An aircraft ahead of it's time, a marvel of aviation destroyed by the gov't. They even axed the incredible F-111K. When it came to supplying the F-4K the gov't had the Air Force put RR engines instead of PrattWhitneys cutting the performance. All in an effort to Buy British even if it was a detriment to their own military.

Mayhem
2012-05-03, 00:28
I'd heard about the self-cleaning thing and may have heard about the powder issues, but the fact is that the M16 has a poor reliability reputation.
Whether that reputation is from the two issues you just pointed out or stems from further reliability problems with the M16 as well, I'm not sure, let's say that issues with M16 reliability are now fixed, it still has a poor reputation for reliability today.



What part of "No it doesn't" are you not grasping? I served in the '80s to mid '90s and there were no reliability issues nor was anyone complaining. I'm sorry that reality doesn't fit with the magazine article you've been reading. Your stance on this is completely false and I served for 8 years just to make sure.

And you "may have heard"??? If you do not know the circumstances behind this, then you are not any kind of authority on this subject and you should just quit while you're behind. So much for "checking the facts".

vodkazvictim
2012-05-03, 19:11
You need to read about the TSR2. An aircraft ahead of it's time, a marvel of aviation destroyed by the gov't. They even axed the incredible F-111K. When it came to supplying the F-4K the gov't had the Air Force put RR engines instead of PrattWhitneys cutting the performance. All in an effort to Buy British even if it was a detriment to their own military.
I've read about the TSR2. There are certain similarities to the Avro Arrow in the story of it. So what? Governments make poor choices when it comes to military spending regardless of their idealogy.
As for the F111K, I never heard of it, but I've never been a great fan of the F111 series.

The yanks developed the M60 starship.
The Soviets developed the IT1 Drakon.
The Brits developed a tank transporter too narrow for country roads (this was develoed to replace the former tank transporter, which was deemed in need of replacement because it was... Too narrow for country roads!)
Russia developed the Azkhaban.
The Russian empire developed the Tsar Tank.
The Germans developed the Maus.
Need I really go on?

What part of "No it doesn't" are you not grasping? I served in the '80s to mid '90s and there were no reliability issues nor was anyone complaining. I'm sorry that reality doesn't fit with the magazine article you've been reading. Your stance on this is completely false and I served for 8 years just to make sure.

And you "may have heard"??? If you do not know the circumstances behind this, then you are not any kind of authority on this subject and you should just quit while you're behind. So much for "checking the facts".
OK, so maybe it no longer has a bad reputation in the U.S., but I assure you that it's reputation remains poor in the rest of the world. Just as the AKM has a good rep and the L85a2 inherited the bad reputation of the L85a1.

As for "I may have heard" it's hard to remember what I've read and not, so when I read something and it seems familiar it may be De Ja Vu or i may remember it.
I don't have all the time in the world to research everything.

ballzano
2012-05-05, 21:45
Im pretty sure we would be helping them, alot if the need arose. We have alot of weapon systems in common that are constantly being upgraded and the real world combat testing/using is invaluable. I don't think U.S. troops would be used. It would be more of a intelligence operation

Will E Worm
2012-05-06, 01:02
Be diplomatic. America takes control and they have visiting rights.


http://s17.postimage.org/fz9p26fq3/Stanley_Falkland_Islands_001.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/fz9p26fq3/)

vodkazvictim
2012-05-11, 21:03
Im pretty sure we would be helping them, alot if the need arose. We have alot of weapon systems in common that are constantly being upgraded and the real world combat testing/using is invaluable. I don't think U.S. troops would be used. It would be more of a intelligence operation
:yawn:
Like last time?
Like what? F35?
Like last time?

Be diplomatic. America takes control and they have visiting rights.

http://s17.postimage.org/fz9p26fq3/Stanley_Falkland_Islands_001.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/fz9p26fq3/)
Dream on wurm, america has more problems than solutions. When Australia imported the M1 they had trouble finding a port capable of offloading their shiny new toys.
Australia is a 1st world country, so imagine the problems deploying M1s to a combat zone.
Face it; america is now as it always was; a paper tiger. Kiss my hairy arse, wurm.

Will E Worm
2012-05-11, 22:01
Dream on wurm, america has more problems than solutions. When Australia imported the M1 they had trouble finding a port capable of offloading their shiny new toys.
Australia is a 1st world country, so imagine the problems deploying M1s to a combat zone.
Face it; america is now as it always was; a paper tiger. Kiss my hairy arse, wurm.

Excuse me!? :nono: :booty::moon:

I did not bring up the Fascist country of Australia.

Trident1
2012-05-12, 18:21
Vodka I have to admit of all the posters here; your tangents concerning military minutiae are bizarre. Do you drink when you post?

CptHa
2012-05-13, 04:14
America a paper tiger? Funny, I remember the same thing being said by every dictatorship under the sun in the 20th century.

vodkazvictim
2012-05-13, 21:15
Excuse me!? :nono: :booty::moon:

I did not bring up the Fascist country of Australia.
Are you trying to tell me the M1s used by the Aussies are somehow different to the M1s used by america? Should you really know something before you express an opinion?

Vodka I have to admit of all the posters here; your tangents concerning military minutiae are bizarre. Do you drink when you post?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but never do I trust in Reagan and economics as you mistakenly do. Me>you still. Suck it (and yes, I have been drinking tonight, but fuck you.)

America a paper tiger? Funny, I remember the same thing being said by every dictatorship under the sun in the 20th century.
Which makes them wrong because? C'mon, it took you two attempts to take Iraq and that was after years of war with Iran to wear them down (not to mention Saddam's "leadership".)

Trident1
2012-05-13, 23:23
Sometimes yes, sometimes no, but never do I trust in Reagan and economics as you mistakenly do. Me>you still. Suck it (and yes, I have been drinking tonight, but fuck you.)




Your Greek wife must roll her eyes when you drink.

CptHa
2012-05-14, 00:52
Which makes them wrong because? C'mon, it took you two attempts to take Iraq and that was after years of war with Iran to wear them down (not to mention Saddam's "leadership".)

Saddam had the fourth largest army in the world prior to Desert Shield/Storm, three years after their war with Iran. We all know how that played out and the Iraqis were never able to recover due to sanctions.

vodkazvictim
2012-05-14, 13:44
Your Greek wife must roll her eyes when you drink.
:yawn: Give the fuck up, economist.

Saddam had the fourth largest army in the world prior to Desert Shield/Storm, three years after their war with Iran. We all know how that played out and the Iraqis were never able to recover due to sanctions.
Forgive me, I don't see your point, explain?

Will E Worm
2012-05-14, 16:11
Vodka I have to admit of all the posters here; your tangents concerning military minutiae are bizarre. Do you drink when you post?

Most of his comments and thread point to yes he is drunk often.


America a paper tiger? Funny, I remember the same thing being said by every dictatorship under the sun in the 20th century.

America is far from a paper tiger.


Are you trying to tell me the M1s used by the Aussies are somehow different to the M1s used by america? Should you really know something before you express an opinion?

:facepalm:

vodkazvictim
2012-05-15, 19:08
Most of his comments and thread point to yes he is drunk often.



America is far from a paper tiger.



:facepalm:
A: You don't know how often I'm drunk. I'm mostly sober when I post on FO. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. STFU.

B: Really? So the F22 IS the superfighter that america claims? Obviously it's so stealthy that it's exploits over Libya and the Middle East went completely unnoticed...
Perhaps you'd like to tell me how america is far from a paper tiger.

C: You're using the facepalm smiley because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. As it happens Aussie M1s are indeed different from american M1s; They lack D.U. You could've said that and made me look ignorant if you knew anything, but you didn't, so you just used the facepalm smiley because when you haven't got a leg to stand on you fall back on somebody elses insult. Pathetic. :facepalm:

Trident1
2012-05-15, 23:52
Just drink dude. Don't talk just drink.

Will E Worm
2012-05-16, 03:19
Just drink dude. Don't talk just drink.

Vodka, do what this comment say to do.

I do know what I'm talking about. :hatsoff:

Mayhem
2012-05-18, 15:13
A: You don't know how often I'm drunk. I'm mostly sober when I post on FO. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. STFU.

B: Really? So the F22 IS the superfighter that america claims? Obviously it's so stealthy that it's exploits over Libya and the Middle East went completely unnoticed...
Perhaps you'd like to tell me how america is far from a paper tiger.

C: You're using the facepalm smiley because you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. As it happens Aussie M1s are indeed different from american M1s; They lack D.U. You could've said that and made me look ignorant if you knew anything, but you didn't, so you just used the facepalm smiley because when you haven't got a leg to stand on you fall back on somebody elses insult. Pathetic. :facepalm:

It's not that the F22 is a bad fighter. It's that it is too fucking expensive and we don't need it. It's like being a Tennessee hillbilly and driving a Ferrari around the farm.

As far as "stealth" goes, you always bring it up but I can never figure out what exact point you're trying to make. I'm not being insulting. I've spent a couple years trying to figure out what you're so pissed about....and you're not helping.

As far as Aussie M1s go.....who the fuck cares about the Aussies regardless of what tank they drive? Militarily, Australia is as irrelevant to the rest of the world as Canada and/or Romania. Whatever was spent, whatever mis-steps occured.....tuff shit. These tanks are never going to fire a shot in anger so again, who fuckin' cares?

Will E Worm
2012-05-18, 16:37
It's not that the F22 is a bad fighter. It's that it is too fucking expensive and we don't need it. It's like being a Tennessee hillbilly and driving a Ferrari around the farm.

Maybe they are driving it around town. :tongue:

Let's not use racist words.

vodkazvictim
2012-05-19, 07:54
Just drink dude. Don't talk just drink.
Not talking, typing. I'll do as I desire. Remember that. :thefinger:

Vodka, do what this comment say to do.

I do know what I'm talking about. :hatsoff:
Horseshit.

It's not that the F22 is a bad fighter. It's that it is too fucking expensive and we don't need it. It's like being a Tennessee hillbilly and driving a Ferrari around the farm.

As far as "stealth" goes, you always bring it up but I can never figure out what exact point you're trying to make. I'm not being insulting. I've spent a couple years trying to figure out what you're so pissed about....and you're not helping.

As far as Aussie M1s go.....who the fuck cares about the Aussies regardless of what tank they drive? Militarily, Australia is as irrelevant to the rest of the world as Canada and/or Romania. Whatever was spent, whatever mis-steps occured.....tuff shit. These tanks are never going to fire a shot in anger so again, who fuckin' cares?
I'm going with the F22 is a bad fighter for various reasons.
As for "We don't need it", you're absolutely right, you've still got F15s & 16s & they're still more than good enough. F22 should never have been built.
Stealth is useless because it doesn't work; stealth aircraft can be detected, tracked and destroyed. Stealth is just a massive waste of money, as the Soviets learnt back in the '70s(?) when analysing the potential of Yfimtsev's work.
I care about money wasted on the military for various reasons. I don't like the idea that some squaddy got shit kit and died just to protect a profit margin.

Mayhem
2012-05-19, 15:45
Stealth is far from useless. You just have a pissy attitude about it. And saying something doesn't work because the Soviets couldn't figure it out is pretty silly.

Will E Worm
2012-05-19, 15:57
Vodka :baconsalt:





:tongue:

vodkazvictim
2012-05-19, 20:01
Stealth is far from useless. You just have a pissy attitude about it. And saying something doesn't work because the Soviets couldn't figure it out is pretty silly.
Alright, so it can delay detection. But frankly I don't consider the advantages of stealth worth the cost.
I'm not pissed at stealth because the Russkis didn't opt to pursue it (they could figure it out, but considered it a poor use of funds), but because I consider it a poor investment.

Vodka :baconsalt:





:tongue:
Oh well, when you put it like that, I see that I was in error and you are in fact correct.

Will E Worm
2012-05-20, 15:01
It's about time. :tongue:

vodkazvictim
2012-05-20, 20:52
It's about time. :tongue:
:thefinger:

luis1972
2012-05-31, 17:22
Malvinas belong to Argentina
Falklands belong to UK

vodkazvictim
2012-06-07, 16:33
Malvinas belong to Argentina
Falklands belong to UK
Maybe it's time for people to forget about nations and just be people
I've wanted to say this for a long time, so I will;

Why can't we all just get along?

Also, Kill whitey!

tartanterrier
2012-06-09, 07:37
I think the Argentines are pissed because there is some black gold in the Falklands,and they can't get their
hands on it.They are also having a shit time economically so that would have helped them out a bit.

But unfortunately for them it ain't going to happen.

vodkazvictim
2012-06-12, 19:21
I think the Argentines are pissed because there is some black gold in the Falklands,and they can't get their
hands on it.They are also having a shit time economically so that would have helped them out a bit.

But unfortunately for them it ain't going to happen.
I believe you.

Mr. Hyde
2012-06-12, 19:23
I'd advocate for the US to stay out, but mostly because the UK can handle a country like Argentina, they don't need our help.

If the UK really needed the US, I would advocate helping them. I consider them to be our greatest ally in the world.

cyprus1
2012-06-12, 20:36
definitely stay outta war... bad for the economy

sherri blake
2012-06-13, 00:53
What we should have done to begin with with this war STAY THE FUCK OUT

Rey C.
2012-06-13, 15:12
What we should have done to begin with with this war STAY THE FUCK OUT

I absolutely agree with you! This is exactly what we need to do with most global military actions: STAY THE FUCK OUT.

The Chinese are doing to us pretty much what we did to the Soviets in the 80's: encouraging us to bankrupt ourselves through unnecessary global military spending. And we're so dumb that we are falling for it! I figure one more unfunded war, coupled with another round of tax cuts, should put us in line to be the next Greece in about 10 years. But hey, what did the neocons tell us 10 years ago? "We're better off fightin' 'em over thar than over hyar!" Idiots! :facepalm:

vodkazvictim
2012-06-13, 16:57
I absolutely agree with you! This is exactly what we need to do with most global military actions: STAY THE FUCK OUT.

The Chinese are doing to us pretty much what we did to the Soviets in the 80's: encouraging us to bankrupt ourselves through unnecessary global military spending. And we're so dumb that we are falling for it! I figure one more unfunded war, coupled with another round of tax cuts, should put us in line to be the next Greece in about 10 years. But hey, what did the neocons tell us 10 years ago? "We're better off fightin' 'em over thar than over hyar!" Idiots! :facepalm:
It's your military industrial complex that is bankrupting you; it's perfectly possible to have a functional military for a fraction of what the yanks spend to achieve their current dysfunctional one.

Mayhem
2012-06-13, 17:49
It's your military industrial complex that is bankrupting you; it's perfectly possible to have a functional military for a fraction of what the yanks spend to achieve their current dysfunctional one.

On this point, we agree completely. :thumbsup:

vodkazvictim
2012-06-13, 20:40
On this point, we agree completely. :thumbsup:
Well, in that case let me elaborate; the U.K. also has a military industrial complex and as a result produces piss poor military systems.
And guess what? Almost all nations around the world produce shit military systems. I suggest that we should avoid military conflict. Actually no, check that, I propose that we all wear turtlenecks.They're the ultimate in style. And style>life.