And now all the fish have been over fished, and the Financial Industry has collapsed, and you're fucked....but so are weSydney wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars
tbh.
You're using 'credible' wrong.
Did you finish high school yet?
Did you finish high school yet?
Fuck Israel
What? You either have no idea what that expression means, or you think your insane views on the vast majority of subjects are a lot more popular than they are.dayarath wrote:
and now you're pulling shit out of your ass, jeez. go and speak for yourself twit.ghettoperson wrote:
Now you get the idea of how a lot of us view the majority of your posts.
oh, and the brits had their fair share of luck that they didn't get conquered.
I'm using credible wrong? So you think your or vilham's opinion are more credible than those of people who've actually learned to USE the strategies and tactics in real life situations?Dilbert_X wrote:
You're using 'credible' wrong.
Did you finish high school yet?
as a matter of fact I'm starting out as a cadet in 2 months.
define "the vast majority", what, Vilham - Dilbert? maybe Cam and (Braddock), Serge? I can't come up with anyone else who has disagreed with me alot. Does that make up the vast majority of this forum? Do you actually KNOW as a matter of fact that they stated my views on subjects are insane?Ghettoperson wrote:
What? You either have no idea what that expression means, or you think your insane views on the vast majority of subjects are a lot more popular than they are.
and I like how you discard opinions/arguments of someone else on a matter so easily, you're an outright cunt.
inane little opines
You listed members, not subjects. I really wonder if you've actually passed 8th grade sometimes, your posts are unintelligible. I have to read them about three times to figure out what the hell you're on about. And by popular I was talking about the people on the forum that aren't hardcore right wingers. Which believe it or not are quite a few.
ghettoperson wrote:
You listed members, not subjects. I really wonder if you've actually passed 8th grade sometimes, your posts are unintelligible. I have to read them about three times to figure out what the hell you're on about. And by popular I was talking about the people on the forum that aren't hardcore right wingers. Which believe it or not are quite a few.
I admit I put majority and a lot in the wrong place here.Ghettoperson wrote:
Now you get the idea of how a lot of us view the majority of your posts.
Still, I find that not alot of people.
I don't even know what posts you are on about, and I'm not a hardcore right winger. Since your location says England/Netherlands, I suppose you know my political affliation when I say I'm usually a VVD supporter.
What you might not get is that you are putting words in someone else's mouth. I'm almost certain that noone of the people you call 'not hardcore right wingers' have actually stated ANYWHERE that my views on subjects are insane. Let alone that they told you that. That's the whole point, learn to speak for yourself.
Last edited by dayarath (2009-01-27 05:13:15)
inane little opines
Interesting, I didn't realise you were Dutch. And not that I know a lot about the VVD, but that's probably the opposite of where I would have placed you based on your forum views.dayarath wrote:
ghettoperson wrote:
You listed members, not subjects. I really wonder if you've actually passed 8th grade sometimes, your posts are unintelligible. I have to read them about three times to figure out what the hell you're on about. And by popular I was talking about the people on the forum that aren't hardcore right wingers. Which believe it or not are quite a few.I admit I put majority and a lot in the wrong place here.Ghettoperson wrote:
Now you get the idea of how a lot of us view the majority of your posts.
Still, I find that not alot of people.
I don't even know what posts you are on about, and I'm not a hardcore right winger. Since your location says England/Netherlands, I suppose you know my political affliation when I say I'm usually a VVD supporter.
What you might not get is that you are putting words in someone else's mouth. I'm almost certain that noone of the people you call 'not hardcore right wingers' have actually stated ANYWHERE that my views on subjects are insane. Let alone that they told you that. That's the whole point, learn to speak for yourself.
And no, no one told me what they think of your views, but the fact that they debate you on it clearly means they must have some disagreement with it.
In any case, let's drop this and try to get back on topic.
Israel were not invaded in the 6 day war. The 6 day war began with a pre-emptive strike by the Israeli Air Force against the Egyptian air force, destroying most of their planes whilst still on the ground. It is considered a major contributing factor to why they were able to win the war so easily. Which, if anything, detracts from the infantry side of the argument.Parker wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Day_WarVilham wrote:
Again. When was the last time any country with nukes has been invaded? No one is daring enough.
you seem to lack basic knowledge and understanding about fighting wars.
try reading up on the importance of infantry....here, i will even give you a head start: fire superiority (thats an important one).
Israel were the agressors - hence Vilham is correct. No country with nukes has ever been invaded.
Name 4 nations that would be capable of invading the UK.dayarath wrote:
with the vast majority of the money going to the airforce and navy plus it's projects. Actually I'd like them to skip out more on their projects and use more money for the soldiers on the ground. They could re-equip the whole marine corps with the money of just one or two of the air force's investments.Bertster7 wrote:
2nd largest defence budget in the world.dayarath wrote:
Your army is anything but large.
your ARMY consists of volunteers, it's SMALL in comparison to what world powers have been / are. Hell it's for the first time ever in most countries that there is no draft.
China, Russia, USA, Germany.Bertster7 wrote:
Israel were not invaded in the 6 day war. The 6 day war began with a pre-emptive strike by the Israeli Air Force against the Egyptian air force, destroying most of their planes whilst still on the ground. It is considered a major contributing factor to why they were able to win the war so easily. Which, if anything, detracts from the infantry side of the argument.Parker wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Day_WarVilham wrote:
Again. When was the last time any country with nukes has been invaded? No one is daring enough.
you seem to lack basic knowledge and understanding about fighting wars.
try reading up on the importance of infantry....here, i will even give you a head start: fire superiority (thats an important one).
Israel were the agressors - hence Vilham is correct. No country with nukes has ever been invaded.Name 4 nations that would be capable of invading the UK.dayarath wrote:
with the vast majority of the money going to the airforce and navy plus it's projects. Actually I'd like them to skip out more on their projects and use more money for the soldiers on the ground. They could re-equip the whole marine corps with the money of just one or two of the air force's investments.Bertster7 wrote:
2nd largest defence budget in the world.
your ARMY consists of volunteers, it's SMALL in comparison to what world powers have been / are. Hell it's for the first time ever in most countries that there is no draft.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Germany?FatherTed wrote:
China, Russia, USA, Germany.Bertster7 wrote:
Israel were not invaded in the 6 day war. The 6 day war began with a pre-emptive strike by the Israeli Air Force against the Egyptian air force, destroying most of their planes whilst still on the ground. It is considered a major contributing factor to why they were able to win the war so easily. Which, if anything, detracts from the infantry side of the argument.Parker wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Day_War
you seem to lack basic knowledge and understanding about fighting wars.
try reading up on the importance of infantry....here, i will even give you a head start: fire superiority (thats an important one).
Israel were the agressors - hence Vilham is correct. No country with nukes has ever been invaded.Name 4 nations that would be capable of invading the UK.dayarath wrote:
with the vast majority of the money going to the airforce and navy plus it's projects. Actually I'd like them to skip out more on their projects and use more money for the soldiers on the ground. They could re-equip the whole marine corps with the money of just one or two of the air force's investments.
your ARMY consists of volunteers, it's SMALL in comparison to what world powers have been / are. Hell it's for the first time ever in most countries that there is no draft.
France would be a much better bet. But either would have an exceedingly hard time. Invading an island is nigh on impossible - the Nazis couldn't do it with vastly superior forces - what makes you think they could now with a (MUCH) smaller airforce and navy (100 fewer fighter jets and what is their navy, a few frigates - ha)?
I don't believe they could.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-01-27 11:31:26)
Yeah Germany would have problems lol. Their military is considered better than France (lol) but i've not really given much thought how they could even get near the British Isles in the first place.
China, USA and Russia then.
China, USA and Russia then.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
France probably could as well.FatherTed wrote:
China, Russia, USA, Germany.Bertster7 wrote:
Israel were not invaded in the 6 day war. The 6 day war began with a pre-emptive strike by the Israeli Air Force against the Egyptian air force, destroying most of their planes whilst still on the ground. It is considered a major contributing factor to why they were able to win the war so easily. Which, if anything, detracts from the infantry side of the argument.Parker wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Day_WarVilham wrote:
Again. When was the last time any country with nukes has been invaded? No one is daring enough.
you seem to lack basic knowledge and understanding about fighting wars.
try reading up on the importance of infantry....here, i will even give you a head start: fire superiority (thats an important one).
Israel were the agressors - hence Vilham is correct. No country with nukes has ever been invaded.Name 4 nations that would be capable of invading the UK.dayarath wrote:
with the vast majority of the money going to the airforce and navy plus it's projects. Actually I'd like them to skip out more on their projects and use more money for the soldiers on the ground. They could re-equip the whole marine corps with the money of just one or two of the air force's investments.
your ARMY consists of volunteers, it's SMALL in comparison to what world powers have been / are. Hell it's for the first time ever in most countries that there is no draft.
France is plausible.M.O.A.B wrote:
France probably could as well.FatherTed wrote:
China, Russia, USA, Germany.Bertster7 wrote:
Israel were not invaded in the 6 day war. The 6 day war began with a pre-emptive strike by the Israeli Air Force against the Egyptian air force, destroying most of their planes whilst still on the ground. It is considered a major contributing factor to why they were able to win the war so easily. Which, if anything, detracts from the infantry side of the argument.Parker wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Day_WarVilham wrote:
Again. When was the last time any country with nukes has been invaded? No one is daring enough.
you seem to lack basic knowledge and understanding about fighting wars.
try reading up on the importance of infantry....here, i will even give you a head start: fire superiority (thats an important one).
Israel were the agressors - hence Vilham is correct. No country with nukes has ever been invaded.
Name 4 nations that would be capable of invading the UK.
Japan is another possible now I think about it. But Germany couldn't.
Yeh France has the Charles DeGaulle iirc
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
That's pretty much been my point from the start. Logistics are one of the most complicated parts of planing any kind of conflict. Invading an island is hard, VERY hard.FatherTed wrote:
Yeah Germany would have problems lol. Their military is considered better than France (lol) but i've not really given much thought how they could even get near the British Isles in the first place.
China, USA and Russia then.
And the UK have the Illustrious, the Ark Royal and the Invincible in reserve. As far as aircraft carriers go, we're probably the most sorted after the US. Also two brand new ones being built.FatherTed wrote:
Yeh France has the Charles DeGaulle iirc
Not that aircraft carriers would play any major role in a war with France.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-01-27 11:42:32)
i dont know why you people think its so difficult.Bertster7 wrote:
Invading an island is nigh on impossible
the US accomplished it ten times over in WWII.
protip: marines
and about the six day war;
egypt massing a thousand tanks and nearly a hundred thousand troops on the border was provocation for a preemptive strike BEFORE an invasion.
the ONLY reason it wasnt an invasion is because of the incompetence of the NINE countries going against israel.
say what you want, they tried to invade and they would have, but they were crap at making war.
and enough with the infantry.
if you people had the slightest idea of military tactics and strategies you would understand that having boots on the ground is a NECESSITY in war.
im done debating this, as it is a proven fact.
Yuppie islands in the Pacific don't count.Parker wrote:
i dont know why you people think its so difficult.Bertster7 wrote:
Invading an island is nigh on impossible
the US accomplished it ten times over in WWII.
Unfortunately, and slightly embarrassingly, France has a bigger navy than us now I believe.Bertster7 wrote:
And the UK have the Illustrious, the Ark Royal and the Invincible in reserve. As far as aircraft carriers go, we're probably the most sorted after the US. Also two brand new ones being built.FatherTed wrote:
Yeh France has the Charles DeGaulle iirc
Not that aircraft carriers would play any major role in a war with France.
But Parker's right, troops are the backbone of the military.
@ Parker, it was a bit easier in WWII when the enemy couldn't just launch massive missiles non-stop at your ships carrying marines.
We, could, hence actually invading with a land force would be pretty hard.
We, could, hence actually invading with a land force would be pretty hard.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
I'd love to go to war with france, it's been too long. seems to be a good tradition.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Giving up 'eh.Parker wrote:
i dont know why you people think its so difficult.Bertster7 wrote:
Invading an island is nigh on impossible
the US accomplished it ten times over in WWII.
protip: marines
and about the six day war;
egypt massing a thousand tanks and nearly a hundred thousand troops on the border was provocation for a preemptive strike BEFORE an invasion.
the ONLY reason it wasnt an invasion is because of the incompetence of the NINE countries going against israel.
say what you want, they tried to invade and they would have, but they were crap at making war.
and enough with the infantry.
if you people had the slightest idea of military tactics and strategies you would understand that having boots on the ground is a NECESSITY in war.
im done debating this, as it is a proven fact.
Of course infantry is important, but in defending an island (particularly a small island) - it's a heck of a lot less important than a good navy and airforce.
That is ludicrously obvious.
On the Israel issue - you are plain wrong (well not that wrong, since you did admit it wasn't an invasion - which is exactly what I said). They didn't invade. They put pressure on Israel, but their is no explicit evidence an invasion was planned. They were being provocative, yes - but not invading, so the point is moot.
thats all i needed.Bertster7 wrote:
Of course infantry is important
thank you.
No, arguing that ex-grunts have a better idea about strategy than anyone else is like arguing the guy who sweeps streets should be the authority on city planning.Dayarath wrote:
I'm using credible wrong? So you think your or vilham's opinion are more credible than those of people who've actually learned to USE the strategies and tactics in real life situations?
Fuck Israel
That's a valid comparison if guy who sweeps the streets is trained in city planning and does city planning regularly.Dilbert_X wrote:
No, arguing that ex-grunts have a better idea about strategy than anyone else is like arguing the guy who sweeps streets should be the authority on city planning.Dayarath wrote:
I'm using credible wrong? So you think your or vilham's opinion are more credible than those of people who've actually learned to USE the strategies and tactics in real life situations?
If that's not the case (which it's not, btw), then it's an invalid comparison.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular