Mister Sandman wrote:Apadamek wrote:
A: Russia is not europe, Russia doesn't like the EU.
B: we can find the UK submarines, we can't find those pesky french.
A: Russia is Eastern Europe. Get a globe.
B: Who cares?
Russia is eastern europe but has never really felt european throughout it's history, not to mention Russia would prefer oil and resource rich countries of eastern europe to the United States.
Mister Sandman wrote:Honestly, I think you would find that Russia would probably join sides with the US over the EU, considering the EU would be the bigger threat after the war. Considering that the EU is in their backyard. It would be wiser for Russia to take out the EU then the US because of that.
Russia would probably with EU. Then after may be more likely make a third front.
Why would they risk millions of soldiers when they could just invade eastern europe, more then likely WITH US support
10 years? Not really, it hasn't even been 8 yet. It's more like 6 years. 5k military casualties is a lot? We had a small battalion go up against 2,000,000 militants, you're telling me that 5k casualties is a lot?
I guess we know now who'll be the first to surrender. French not withstanding, as they'll surrender before the party even starts.
Mister Sandman wrote:In all honesty you cannot defeat Afghanistan, or the 'terrorists'. It is all fictional. Also, you claim you went against around 2 000 000 militants, that your so very very wrong. More likely you went against 2 thousand.
The solider gets paid to fight, the rebel doesn't. That means the rebels can win.
The engligh didn't win in Afghanistan, the Russians didn't win in chechnya, the japanese didn't win in manchuria, occupations are a **Filtered** it's a fact.
So basically you need outdated Russian weapons to take us.
Mister Sandman wrote:The Kalashnikov is the best weapon for mass use in the world.
Doesn't make it outdated.
Deaths_Rider wrote:Jack wrote:Mister Sandman wrote:Still no match for Europe... Russia, has an amazing military, Germany, is still strong, Australia, is the best military in the world. (This assuming that Australia gets called in under the commonwealth act. )
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You need Australia to win? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA pathetic! You need to assemble half the world, just to be able to have a fair fight with us, one country? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You best surrender now, kid!
EU wouldnt need Australia to win. Also, remember, USA is not just 'one country' it is one of the biggest countries in the world.
Added to this you forget the social implication which USA would do horribly at. As USA is a second world country in many respects, and its migration, gun control problems already there. USA may fall under its feet. Meaning, social tension, due to war, and due to an economic crisis a war with USA vs Europe. USA will fall fast!
If you havent noticed, USA is
dependant on trade.
No trade = No economy.
Since in war times, Europe is closer to everything that means. Europe would have NO problem what so ever trading with Asia and other countries.
Restriction on USA would be easily placed.
And USA buddies, dont go looking for help in the south, because Latin America hate you too (mainly because most of the south American countries are converting to socialism, and communism. )
Have Fun
[/quote]
You think europe has the supplies to be self-sustaining compared to the United States? that's ludicrous. Not to mention Asia would tell you to go to hell and trade with the US, seeing as there are US troops in South Korea assuring mutual protection against the north, there are troops in Japan, there are troops in Taiwan, we have better relations with China then europe. Also Europe has a far worse immigration problem then the united states.
If we were at war with europe you don't think we wouldn't tell the South Americans to either give us supplies and troops or we would literally bomb every square inch of their country?
Semper wrote:Actually, man for man the UK army is the best in the world, SAS anyone? Alas it is very small though. Australia, Mr Sandman? pleeeeeeeeasssseeeee.. lol.
Just thought I would pitch that in there.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displa ... d=13022029 Small and inept.
http://www.economist.com/world/britain/ ... d=13022177Kit-Fox wrote:Jack you know damn well the US couldnt shoot down a couple of hundred nukes any more than the rest of the world could and thats without russia
So uk & france alone couldnt kill you hundreds of times over with em but hell we only need to do it once and that we certainly could do alone & you know it.
No we can shoot your nukes
inside your silo's.
