Capitalist Imperial
18th January 2003, 13:36
This is a submission from AK-47 from another thread. I selected this out as a perfect example of how often-times on this board an anti-american agenda can fog a commie's frontal cortex (and I am being gracious in assuming that they even have one) to the point of pure lunacy. I must also add that these comments would all be perfect gems for SN's "Ignorant Statements Littering this Board" thread:
"All i have to say to that is the british ruled the sea covering more than 2/3rds of the globe, and also had direct control over 1/3 of all land on earth. And if the USA is so militaryily brilliant then why did you lose vietnam."
It is par for the course for commies and other leftists to pathetically swarm aroud the withdrawl from WW-Nam (my affectionate pet name) to discredit american military might, while ignoring every other military success the US has enjoyed (take out vietnam and we are at 100%). However, any historian or military enthusiast will tell you that the Vietnam debauchle had nothing to do with the effectivenes of our military, and everyhthing to do with the politics and management of war. Even with the proverbial one hand tied behind our backs, American forces in vietnam were highly effective. Most battles were victories. It is just that post-victory management and occupied territory management were horrible, we were never allowed to conduct operations in the north until it was too late, and Congress kept sticking their fucking noses where they didn't belong. Overall USA to North-Vietnmese kill ratio (including NVA and VC, not civilians): 20:1
"Not only did you out gun the Cong but you also out numbered the cong by about 7/1. Cosidering that the British have only lost 1 war in about 1000 years and the USA has lost about 4, what dose that say about military power."
OK, we've addressed Vietnam, what other 3 losses are you referring too? Don't bother pulling your pants up, AK-47 because you need stick that little "statistic" back up your ass, because we all know that it is your ass from which you pulled it. I can tell you that the Brits have lost at least 3 wars. They got routed in Afghanistan in the 1800's, they lost the American revolution, and they lost the war of 1812. Oh, wait, they also were handed a nasty defeat by the Zulu's, so that is at least 4.
Again, AK-47, what other American losses are you refering too?
"After the War of indipendance another Brit Yank war was fought. The USA eventually signed a treaty with GB paying GB over £1000000000 (equivilent to modern day currancy)
You paid us not to destroy you!"
LOL, LOL, is there no end to your ignorance? Any historian will tell you that the United States won the War of 1812. That $$$ was benevolent reparations, on-par with what we did with Japan and Germany post WWII. Sorry, my friend, but go back and read your history. The United States won the War of 1812 (or as I like to call it, "the sequal"), even your friend Moskitto will tell you that if he is forthright with the facts.
"Also The USA loses more men every year to friendly fire than enemy bullets."
Not every year, imbecile, but your statistic was unfortunately true in both Desert Storm and Afghanistan. However, they are actually testaments to overall US military capability, as they are indicative that we take more losses from our own internal human errors than the enemy can infict onto us. They are also merely a function of how much military action we undertake. If the British, Russian, or other militaries sustained the same amount of combat operations as we did, then I am confident that those nation's friendly fire statistics would be similar or even higher (case in point: the recent debauchle with Chechen rebels at the russian theatre in which many innocent russian citizens were gassed to death during the storming of the complex).
"The USA special forces (the delta Fource) are trained only to the same standard of standard British para's. So if are para's are that good imagin are special forces. "
LOL, US Special Forces are 2nd to none, bottom line. The Delta Force isn't even our best, I think Navy SEAL's are. If you think that the SAS is on par with US Navy SEAL's then you have another thing coming. Besides, Delta force is on a significantly higher echelon than british Paratroopers. They are much more highly trained and specialized. I don't want to take anything away from the SAS or other British special forces. but Navy SEALs and Delta Force are the world's best, bar-none.
"If a war was to occur between Europe and USA today the USA would never launch nukes because we would send the back and so would all of Europe. "
We would not need nukes because the USA could defeat the whole of Europe conventionally. Anyway, after our Missile Defese Shied is operational, any opposing nuclear power's deterrrent factor will be significantly diminished.
"So without Nukes or a decent army the US airforce would need to be used. Out dated and under trained."
I'm sorry, did I miss something? Is today "opposite day"? Because at this point, you seem to be saying the utter, diametric opposite of the truth.
Our army is neither outdated nor under-trained. To the contrary, we are the most sophisticated, well funded, well trained, and well equipped military on earth. Did you sleep through Operation Desert Storm? Becuse you must have slept right through it to be able to make the statements you made. Let me give you the short version. In just 100 days, after weeks of intense and relentless air strikes, US ground forces with M1A Abrams battle tanks, Multiple Launch Rocket trucks, 105mm Howitzers, AH-64 Aaches, and a host of other weapons drove the Iraqi military (the world's 4th largest standing army, an army 4 times the size of our own forces in the region, and an army battle-hardened by 10 years of war with Iran) out of kuwait, and proceeded to utterly eradicate the Iraqi military machine. They still have not fully recovered. Even most leftist gadfly's will admit this, however much it makes them cringe. And guess what, we've only gotten better and more lethal in the 10 years sinnce that war, a war that many historians deem the most decisive, successful, and lopsided victory in the history of warfare.
Honestly, AK-47, you are not lending any credibility at all to the knowledge-base of commies or the left.
"My god you still use U2's!!!! "
We hardly use U2's for strategic and tactical reconaissance and intelligence anymore, we use satellites and UAV's (Unmanned Air Vehicles). However, the U2's were highly effective during their cold-war service window, and neither the Soviets oer anyone else were ever able to come up with a counterpart or anything even remotely comparable to the U-2 or SR-71, thus they (the USSR) would very seldom dare to fly deep into our airspace as we did to them every day with U-2's and SR-71's. As a matter of fact even if we did still use U-2's and SR-71's regularly, there still wouldn't be an effective counter to them, they would still be the best spy planes in the world!
"You may have a large number of plains but their all CRAP. The F15, F22 are both shit and their the USA's larges complemnt of fighters."
Honestly, this is just getting ludicrous. You may want to see a psychiatrist, because I think that you are a pathological liar.
The F-14 Interceptor, F-15 (both air superiority and strike variants), F-16 multirole, and F-18 multirole are the world's most proven combat aircraft both statistically and in actual combat performance. The F-14 has only seen action on 2 occasions, both 2-on-2 situations, both against the Syrian airforce flying Migs. The result? Four F-14's flew home, 4 syrian Migs did not. F-16's and F-15's have seen action against soviet jets (Migs and Sukhois) with, among others, the isreli airfoce, the egyptian airforce, and the US airforce in desert storm. Both have scored 100's of Kills to very few (single digit) losses. In desert storm, the F-15 by itself enjoyed a 26:0 kill ratio. That means, AK-47. that not 1 plane was lost to enemy forces!!! The F-18 was also heralded as a wonderful and effective workhorse of the navy's airwings, especially after its strike capabilty was demonstrated in desert storm, Kosovo, and afghanistan.
As for the F-22 Raptor, it has not fully entered service with the US Air Force yet, but rest assured, when it does, it will be the single most sophisticaed and deadly combat aircraft ever to fly the skies of the planet earth.
Also, remember that America's most sophisticated military technology is usually a secret for 10-20 years before it is revealed to the public. The F-117A Stealth Fighter and B-2 Stealth Bomber wer around for over a decade before they were revealed. so who knows what kind of technology we have under wraps right now?
"All they are is 30 year old tornado's. What does Europe have well only the Euro fighter, Harrier and the shitty tornados as well but they are still better than the USA's plains. "
LOL, LOL, LOL,LOL, LOL, LOL. At this point, all I can do is laugh at these statements. Next you are probably going to tell me that the Saab Gripen can beat an F-16!!! The harrier is sooooooo slow! Hovering in place and VSTOL is good for close air support, but it can't legitimately engage 1 american air-to air combat aircraft and hope to be victorious. The tornado? It is OK for an attack plane, but again it is not an a dogfighter or an interceptor. The A-10 Warthog is a much, much better attack plane. Anyway, it really comes down to the pilot, and US pilots are 2nd to none! No one even comes close to their level of training, the amount of hours they fly or how often they fly.
"So Navy well you win their no one can mach your technological or numerical superiority in that field."
Finally, a moment of lucidity.
"But when Washington, New york, chicago, LA and Philidelphia are being bombed to hell because your shitty airforce cant protect the SKY what do you do."
AK, your claims have more holes in them than an Afghani wedding party.
Actually, our airforce probably would not even need to scramble because to get into our airspace you would have to get past the US Navy carrier battlegroups, and their ship-based SAM's, F-14's, and F-18's would stop any airforce from getting within 500 miles of the US coastline. However, if the US Airforce did want a piece of the action, I'm sure th Navy could voluntarily let a few helpless souls through just for fun. The only problem the would be to decide if we want to use our land-based SAM's or let the fly-boys enjoy the turkey-shoot.
"Sorry but the U.S.A are not the greatest military power in the world. China is, they have an army with about 2 million more people than any other country in the world. A large Air force as well."
You really need to go back to school, especially political science class.
2 million people doesn't mean much if you can't feed them or sustain combat operations. 1/2 of war fighting is economics, and while the Chinese have a larger standing army, their weapons and equipment are outdated compared to the USA, and they don't have the $$$ to sustain prolonged combat operations against a force like the USA. And that is just ground foces. Our airforce is both larger, and more sophisticated, as well as better trained and maintained. The chinese airforce is, for the most part, outdated. They doin't have the $$$ to maintain their planes like the US or keep their pilots up in the air training as often or for as many hours as the US. Besides, the best example of chinese fighter-pilot skill we've seen was when that chinese pilot in a small, fast, nimble chinese fighter-jet managed to run into a large, slow, lumbering, prop driven American P-3 orion reconaissanse plane while trying to do a fly-by buzz!!!. You have to be a pretty bad pilot to do that!!! He ended up crashing and dying in the ocean, and our plane landed safely! Their ground forces are large, but outdated. What do they use for their main battle tank? Soviet T-70 ot T-90? THe M1A1 and M1A2 abrams would have a field day with those old Soviet rust-buckets just like they did in desert storm!!! Their navy? It is a joke. They do not even have one nuclear powered aircraft carrier. I don't think they have an aircraft carrier at all! LOL. In the korean war, China sent some of its troops to support the DPRK against us. US forces enjoyed a 15:1 kill ratio against chinese forces.
"They also are a larger country, so they are the greatest empire on earth at the moment not The U.S.A."
Actually, they have 4 times the population of the United States, but their economy equals out to about 5% of the US economy. So, they are, per capita, very weak economically. So, the USA is much richer and much more powerful, with more world influence. We are easily and ostensibly a much. much larger empire in the true sense of the word.
I think Moskitto said in another forum that he goes to school with you or something, and you got an "A" in history. Reading these quotes from you, I honestly don't unserstand how. So, I have 3 possible explanations:
1) Moskitto was totally joking (most likely)
2) Your quotes are purposely facetious (you may not have the aptitude to do this, though)
3) Your history teacher was on a combination of crack cocaine, heroin, LSD, PCP, ecstacy, alcohol, marijuana, methanphetamine, formaldihide, 4 narcotic-based pharmecueticals of your choice, and cheeze-wiz.
"All i have to say to that is the british ruled the sea covering more than 2/3rds of the globe, and also had direct control over 1/3 of all land on earth. And if the USA is so militaryily brilliant then why did you lose vietnam."
It is par for the course for commies and other leftists to pathetically swarm aroud the withdrawl from WW-Nam (my affectionate pet name) to discredit american military might, while ignoring every other military success the US has enjoyed (take out vietnam and we are at 100%). However, any historian or military enthusiast will tell you that the Vietnam debauchle had nothing to do with the effectivenes of our military, and everyhthing to do with the politics and management of war. Even with the proverbial one hand tied behind our backs, American forces in vietnam were highly effective. Most battles were victories. It is just that post-victory management and occupied territory management were horrible, we were never allowed to conduct operations in the north until it was too late, and Congress kept sticking their fucking noses where they didn't belong. Overall USA to North-Vietnmese kill ratio (including NVA and VC, not civilians): 20:1
"Not only did you out gun the Cong but you also out numbered the cong by about 7/1. Cosidering that the British have only lost 1 war in about 1000 years and the USA has lost about 4, what dose that say about military power."
OK, we've addressed Vietnam, what other 3 losses are you referring too? Don't bother pulling your pants up, AK-47 because you need stick that little "statistic" back up your ass, because we all know that it is your ass from which you pulled it. I can tell you that the Brits have lost at least 3 wars. They got routed in Afghanistan in the 1800's, they lost the American revolution, and they lost the war of 1812. Oh, wait, they also were handed a nasty defeat by the Zulu's, so that is at least 4.
Again, AK-47, what other American losses are you refering too?
"After the War of indipendance another Brit Yank war was fought. The USA eventually signed a treaty with GB paying GB over £1000000000 (equivilent to modern day currancy)
You paid us not to destroy you!"
LOL, LOL, is there no end to your ignorance? Any historian will tell you that the United States won the War of 1812. That $$$ was benevolent reparations, on-par with what we did with Japan and Germany post WWII. Sorry, my friend, but go back and read your history. The United States won the War of 1812 (or as I like to call it, "the sequal"), even your friend Moskitto will tell you that if he is forthright with the facts.
"Also The USA loses more men every year to friendly fire than enemy bullets."
Not every year, imbecile, but your statistic was unfortunately true in both Desert Storm and Afghanistan. However, they are actually testaments to overall US military capability, as they are indicative that we take more losses from our own internal human errors than the enemy can infict onto us. They are also merely a function of how much military action we undertake. If the British, Russian, or other militaries sustained the same amount of combat operations as we did, then I am confident that those nation's friendly fire statistics would be similar or even higher (case in point: the recent debauchle with Chechen rebels at the russian theatre in which many innocent russian citizens were gassed to death during the storming of the complex).
"The USA special forces (the delta Fource) are trained only to the same standard of standard British para's. So if are para's are that good imagin are special forces. "
LOL, US Special Forces are 2nd to none, bottom line. The Delta Force isn't even our best, I think Navy SEAL's are. If you think that the SAS is on par with US Navy SEAL's then you have another thing coming. Besides, Delta force is on a significantly higher echelon than british Paratroopers. They are much more highly trained and specialized. I don't want to take anything away from the SAS or other British special forces. but Navy SEALs and Delta Force are the world's best, bar-none.
"If a war was to occur between Europe and USA today the USA would never launch nukes because we would send the back and so would all of Europe. "
We would not need nukes because the USA could defeat the whole of Europe conventionally. Anyway, after our Missile Defese Shied is operational, any opposing nuclear power's deterrrent factor will be significantly diminished.
"So without Nukes or a decent army the US airforce would need to be used. Out dated and under trained."
I'm sorry, did I miss something? Is today "opposite day"? Because at this point, you seem to be saying the utter, diametric opposite of the truth.
Our army is neither outdated nor under-trained. To the contrary, we are the most sophisticated, well funded, well trained, and well equipped military on earth. Did you sleep through Operation Desert Storm? Becuse you must have slept right through it to be able to make the statements you made. Let me give you the short version. In just 100 days, after weeks of intense and relentless air strikes, US ground forces with M1A Abrams battle tanks, Multiple Launch Rocket trucks, 105mm Howitzers, AH-64 Aaches, and a host of other weapons drove the Iraqi military (the world's 4th largest standing army, an army 4 times the size of our own forces in the region, and an army battle-hardened by 10 years of war with Iran) out of kuwait, and proceeded to utterly eradicate the Iraqi military machine. They still have not fully recovered. Even most leftist gadfly's will admit this, however much it makes them cringe. And guess what, we've only gotten better and more lethal in the 10 years sinnce that war, a war that many historians deem the most decisive, successful, and lopsided victory in the history of warfare.
Honestly, AK-47, you are not lending any credibility at all to the knowledge-base of commies or the left.
"My god you still use U2's!!!! "
We hardly use U2's for strategic and tactical reconaissance and intelligence anymore, we use satellites and UAV's (Unmanned Air Vehicles). However, the U2's were highly effective during their cold-war service window, and neither the Soviets oer anyone else were ever able to come up with a counterpart or anything even remotely comparable to the U-2 or SR-71, thus they (the USSR) would very seldom dare to fly deep into our airspace as we did to them every day with U-2's and SR-71's. As a matter of fact even if we did still use U-2's and SR-71's regularly, there still wouldn't be an effective counter to them, they would still be the best spy planes in the world!
"You may have a large number of plains but their all CRAP. The F15, F22 are both shit and their the USA's larges complemnt of fighters."
Honestly, this is just getting ludicrous. You may want to see a psychiatrist, because I think that you are a pathological liar.
The F-14 Interceptor, F-15 (both air superiority and strike variants), F-16 multirole, and F-18 multirole are the world's most proven combat aircraft both statistically and in actual combat performance. The F-14 has only seen action on 2 occasions, both 2-on-2 situations, both against the Syrian airforce flying Migs. The result? Four F-14's flew home, 4 syrian Migs did not. F-16's and F-15's have seen action against soviet jets (Migs and Sukhois) with, among others, the isreli airfoce, the egyptian airforce, and the US airforce in desert storm. Both have scored 100's of Kills to very few (single digit) losses. In desert storm, the F-15 by itself enjoyed a 26:0 kill ratio. That means, AK-47. that not 1 plane was lost to enemy forces!!! The F-18 was also heralded as a wonderful and effective workhorse of the navy's airwings, especially after its strike capabilty was demonstrated in desert storm, Kosovo, and afghanistan.
As for the F-22 Raptor, it has not fully entered service with the US Air Force yet, but rest assured, when it does, it will be the single most sophisticaed and deadly combat aircraft ever to fly the skies of the planet earth.
Also, remember that America's most sophisticated military technology is usually a secret for 10-20 years before it is revealed to the public. The F-117A Stealth Fighter and B-2 Stealth Bomber wer around for over a decade before they were revealed. so who knows what kind of technology we have under wraps right now?
"All they are is 30 year old tornado's. What does Europe have well only the Euro fighter, Harrier and the shitty tornados as well but they are still better than the USA's plains. "
LOL, LOL, LOL,LOL, LOL, LOL. At this point, all I can do is laugh at these statements. Next you are probably going to tell me that the Saab Gripen can beat an F-16!!! The harrier is sooooooo slow! Hovering in place and VSTOL is good for close air support, but it can't legitimately engage 1 american air-to air combat aircraft and hope to be victorious. The tornado? It is OK for an attack plane, but again it is not an a dogfighter or an interceptor. The A-10 Warthog is a much, much better attack plane. Anyway, it really comes down to the pilot, and US pilots are 2nd to none! No one even comes close to their level of training, the amount of hours they fly or how often they fly.
"So Navy well you win their no one can mach your technological or numerical superiority in that field."
Finally, a moment of lucidity.
"But when Washington, New york, chicago, LA and Philidelphia are being bombed to hell because your shitty airforce cant protect the SKY what do you do."
AK, your claims have more holes in them than an Afghani wedding party.
Actually, our airforce probably would not even need to scramble because to get into our airspace you would have to get past the US Navy carrier battlegroups, and their ship-based SAM's, F-14's, and F-18's would stop any airforce from getting within 500 miles of the US coastline. However, if the US Airforce did want a piece of the action, I'm sure th Navy could voluntarily let a few helpless souls through just for fun. The only problem the would be to decide if we want to use our land-based SAM's or let the fly-boys enjoy the turkey-shoot.
"Sorry but the U.S.A are not the greatest military power in the world. China is, they have an army with about 2 million more people than any other country in the world. A large Air force as well."
You really need to go back to school, especially political science class.
2 million people doesn't mean much if you can't feed them or sustain combat operations. 1/2 of war fighting is economics, and while the Chinese have a larger standing army, their weapons and equipment are outdated compared to the USA, and they don't have the $$$ to sustain prolonged combat operations against a force like the USA. And that is just ground foces. Our airforce is both larger, and more sophisticated, as well as better trained and maintained. The chinese airforce is, for the most part, outdated. They doin't have the $$$ to maintain their planes like the US or keep their pilots up in the air training as often or for as many hours as the US. Besides, the best example of chinese fighter-pilot skill we've seen was when that chinese pilot in a small, fast, nimble chinese fighter-jet managed to run into a large, slow, lumbering, prop driven American P-3 orion reconaissanse plane while trying to do a fly-by buzz!!!. You have to be a pretty bad pilot to do that!!! He ended up crashing and dying in the ocean, and our plane landed safely! Their ground forces are large, but outdated. What do they use for their main battle tank? Soviet T-70 ot T-90? THe M1A1 and M1A2 abrams would have a field day with those old Soviet rust-buckets just like they did in desert storm!!! Their navy? It is a joke. They do not even have one nuclear powered aircraft carrier. I don't think they have an aircraft carrier at all! LOL. In the korean war, China sent some of its troops to support the DPRK against us. US forces enjoyed a 15:1 kill ratio against chinese forces.
"They also are a larger country, so they are the greatest empire on earth at the moment not The U.S.A."
Actually, they have 4 times the population of the United States, but their economy equals out to about 5% of the US economy. So, they are, per capita, very weak economically. So, the USA is much richer and much more powerful, with more world influence. We are easily and ostensibly a much. much larger empire in the true sense of the word.
I think Moskitto said in another forum that he goes to school with you or something, and you got an "A" in history. Reading these quotes from you, I honestly don't unserstand how. So, I have 3 possible explanations:
1) Moskitto was totally joking (most likely)
2) Your quotes are purposely facetious (you may not have the aptitude to do this, though)
3) Your history teacher was on a combination of crack cocaine, heroin, LSD, PCP, ecstacy, alcohol, marijuana, methanphetamine, formaldihide, 4 narcotic-based pharmecueticals of your choice, and cheeze-wiz.