The United States...

[BillyBlaze]

[quote="Martin Blank";p="355973"]No, it's quite real. [/quote]
I know it was real MB. I was kind of being sarcastic, but thanks for the quick explanation because I wasn't even sure what exactly was in that link.

[Martin Blank]

[quote="bort";p="356009"][quote="Martin Blank";p="355714"]Someone forgetting the War of 1812, when the White House and Capitol were burned? I seem to remember there being an awful lot of British soldiers on the mainland at that time. [/quote]

that was not a loss, as much as a draw. neither country gained anything from the war, and both countries decided it wasn't worth continuing.[/quote]
I never claimed it was a loss. It was an invasion of significant foreign forces on continental US soil.

china might have numbers, but in conventional warfare, the us is supreme. the technological gap between the us and china's technology(a lot of which is ex-soviet stuff), is huge. if there was a war, china would get raped. id say the next strongest military after the us would be israel's.

You didn't really read what I wrote.

No, China would not do well in a war with the US. I'm not sure China would do all that well against Taiwan unless it could use its numerical advantage in planes to maintain air superiority. Its navy would be destroyed within a couple of days, though it would probably get a couple of significant hits in from the subs.

Israel's armed forces are formidable, but the next strongest military is more likely to be that of either Britain or France, both of whom have significant air and naval assets, use similar technology to the US, and have training in the flexible tactics that NATO developed with the US.

[BillyBlaze]

You think there'd be something in the bill off rights to cover "testing biological and nuclear weapons on unsuspecting civilians".

[Makh]

[quote="peter-griffin";p="355986"]About all this fucking arguement of the better army; what makes an army? Its ability to fight. The Roman army did NOT have the capability to fight that the US has today; if you can't realize that, you need to do some study on the history of human warfare. Just because the Roman army was great 2,000 years ago doesn't make it comparable to a modernized army now, simply because of it's novelty of being what it was.[/quote]

I did the study and you are again, as all the other, comparing a modern army with an ancient army. Mongols beat every armies, our armies, Indian, Persian, Turkish, Arabs, Polish, Tatars, German, Chinese, Korean and even the Hungarians. Subotai had an army of 150 000 riders, which is really BIG for a medieval army. They built their empire in less than 40 years (What for USA ? 200 years ?) Every one was scared to death.

Mongols could invade everyone they wanted. They did not invade Western Europe because Temudchin died before he could. After that, Mongol's empire crumble because of fratricide conflict, not military defeat. Mongols controlled the biggest empire ever seen. I am sure you can find a map on web.

USA army today is very strong, but they can not invade great power without ruining their economy (just take a look how expansive for the war in Iraq, and Iraq is a small and poor country with a bad army). Imagine all the effort deployed only for Iraq.

Yes all Amerikan troops are equipped with GPS, but Mongols conquered Bagdad without GPS and all those high tech (and cool) gadgets. Could the USA invade Russia, China, Germany, Turkey, India and many others power at the same time ? NO. I hope you take notes that during that time, in 1200-1250, Turkey, India, Persia, China and Arabs were super power (very good conomy, science, weapon technology and of course, very very good army).

[BillyBlaze]

How long was the roman emipre around and how long was the mongol empire around?

[*BBB* ZERO]

Well, personally I think that the Civil war was a loss for the United States.

Okay, okay, okay, we lost to ourselves if you want to look at it that way.

The way I see it is like this, if and when China decided that they don't like us any more, they could (concievably, thought not likely) arm a quarter of the population (IIRC China's population, that would match up with our total population) with some form of gun, build a thousand transports, then start at Alaska and work their way down.

The U.S. wouldn't let it get that far. I think our Stealth bombers and fighters would do a lot against any threat ever known. The U.S. would also use nukes before we let China have any chance of taking us over.

Good call MB. I had forgotten about that as well.

good call.

So the men who hijacked the airplanes which took down the World Trade Center were great soldiers?

See Doofus' post. What terrible terrible logic.

Besides, what if the Roman soldiers which Martin referred to had similar weaponry and knew how to use it?

What if...What if Jessica Simpson slept in my bed every night?

It is impossible to compare armies of different eras in such a way.

I just did...

Suuure they do! OK, the US military ELITE (Navy Seals, the best Marines, etc) may well fit that description - they're damned good, but account for only a small portion of the troops. I'm sorry, but for all it's equipment, the US army as a whole isn't well trained at all. The same may or may not be said for the other branches, though I expect they all have higher entry requirements for anybody being placed in combat situations (especially the Air Force and Marines).

What wild and crazy claims. How come, in every war the U.S. has been in, the U.S. has lost a significant amount less than any of their opponents? Obviously, who ever trains the military does a fine job of it.

Frankly, most other 1st world countries have better trained armies (on whole) than the US.

HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA HAHAHAHHAHA....................HAHAHAHHAHA AHAHA AHHAHAHAH AHHAHAHAHA AHHAHAHA AHHAHAHA HAHAHA

In conclusion: Best overall? Yes.

THIS WAS MY POINT THE ENTIRE TIME!!!!!!!! THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

BBQ, an inability to think in hypotheticals is a sign of a weak intellect; an unwillingness to argue in hypotheticals is a sign of a weak position. Seriously. Answer the question or admit that your position is flawed.

1. How is it a sign of weak intellect? LMFAO
2. HAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA
3. HAHHAHAHAH AHHAHAHA HAHAHAHHA...........
What you're telling me is that I need to argue points that haven't happened? What you're telling me is that I need to argue 'What ifs?' What you're telling me is that I need to argue a point with absolutely no facts, where only opinion counts? What if Jessica Simpson slept in my bed every night? Argue with that for a while...

That honor would most likely go to the Israelis

The United States could EASILY crush the Israelis. An Israeli with a Navy Seal in hand to hand combat...who would win? An Israeli general against a Unites States general...war tactics, who would win? Firing a military issued rifle most accurately...Israeli or American soldier? You have no case!

Israeli...................LMFAO

[SothThe69th]

[quote="*BBB* ZERO";p="356170"]

The way I see it is like this, if and when China decided that they don't like us any more, they could (concievably, thought not likely) arm a quarter of the population (IIRC China's population, that would match up with our total population) with some form of gun, build a thousand transports, then start at Alaska and work their way down.

The U.S. wouldn't let it get that far. I think our Stealth bombers and fighters would do a lot against any threat ever known. The U.S. would also use nukes before we let China have any chance of taking us over.[/quote]

Yes, and China has no nukes at all. I keep forgetting.

[*BBB* ZERO]

Yes, and China has no nukes at all. I keep forgetting.

Then it would be a nuke war, and we would be no more. Not at any time did I say China did not have nukes! Jesus Christ!!!

[Azurain]

*blinks* I give up, BBQ. Your obviously right. Of course relevant hypothetical situations used to analyze and critique your position are completely useless. Of course. America just must be the strongest nation of all time. And since the strongest nation of all time has always been by default the greatest nation of all time, why, then America must be that too! I can see the light.

In case you missed the sarcasm there, I'll lay it out for you plan and simple.

Yes, you do need to argue hypotheticals. When you're trying to imply that because the US is the most militarily strong nation in the world, it's therefore the greatest, then you need to defend that assertion. Because what you're saying is that military might means greatness. If you apply that standard to the US, then you have to be prepared to apply the same standard to other nations, otherwise you're a hypocrite, right? Do you understand the word "hypocrite"? Howabout this, not hypothetical at all.

Since China is probably the second or third strongest nation in the world right now, is it then the second or third greatest nation in the world? It's not a 'what if' and it's very relevant to your position and its credibility. Is China the second greatest nation in the world, given that it's the second most powerful?

-- Chris

[*BBB* ZERO]

Let's take a trip down memory lane.......and look at my original question. And I

Since the United States is the most powerful nation, does that make the U.S. the greatest nation of all time?

As soon as I posted this, most of the forumners disagreed with me over the United States being the most powerful. This is what we have been arguing the whole time. I was asking the question which you are now telling me to defend. I was merely asking.

[Azurain]

Ok. In that case, the answer to your question is... No.

Simple, yes?

[peter-griffin]

I did the study and you are again, as all the other, comparing a modern army with an ancient army. Mongols beat every armies, our armies, Indian, Persian, Turkish, Arabs, Polish, Tatars, German, Chinese, Korean and even the Hungarians. Subotai had an army of 150 000 riders, which is really BIG for a medieval army. They built their empire in less than 40 years (What for USA ? 200 years ?) Every one was scared to death.

*head explodes*

I KNOW I'M COMPARING MODERN ARMIES TO ANCIENT ONES, THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT! The US Army is, without a doubt, the strongest army that ever existed because:

1) Its technology is superior to anything else ever used in human history
2) Its projection of power is the farthest-reaching in terms of speed ever seen in human history
3) The quality of weaponry and equipment used by the average soldier is WITHOUT parralell


Comparing a reflex bow to an M4A1 and saying, "The reflex bow is better because 2,000 years ago, nothing could beat it!" is certainly incorrect. The Mongols were a rather good force of light cavalry who took advantage of the fact that their steppe horses were very fast and agile when compared to central European mounts. The Mongols, however, did fear the princes of Novogrod, since they fought the same way the Mongols did but also incorporated light armor (however, they were also outnumbered 15 to 1...). The Mongols hardly created an empire, though; they created a vast expanse of controlled land, parts of which never even had an occupation force. There weren't enough Mongols to tend to the empire; hence, when Gengis and then, his son, died, the fracture basically caused the empire to cave in on itself.


The fact that the Mongols swept across and controlled the largest tract of land in the history of man, however, does not make them more of an effective fighting force than the present-day US military, since the US military superseeds them in technology and projection of power by such a large gap that the Mongols wouldn't stand a fighting chance.

[Onimitsagi Sshoumurao]

As far as I see it, you really can't say "If US went to war with China, we'd win. That's all. Complete victory." Too many wildcards.

I KNOW I'M COMPARING MODERN ARMIES TO ANCIENT ONES, THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT! The US Army is, without a doubt, the strongest army that ever existed because:

1) Its technology is superior to anything else ever used in human history
2) Its projection of power is the farthest-reaching in terms of speed ever seen in human history
3) The quality of weaponry and equipment used by the average soldier is WITHOUT parralell


Comparing a reflex bow to an M4A1 and saying, "The reflex bow is better because 2,000 years ago, nothing could beat it!" is certainly incorrect. The Mongols were a rather good force of light cavalry who took advantage of the fact that their steppe horses were very fast and agile when compared to central European mounts. The Mongols, however, did fear the princes of Novogrod, since they fought the same way the Mongols did but also incorporated light armor (however, they were also outnumbered 15 to 1...). The Mongols hardly created an empire, though; they created a vast expanse of controlled land, parts of which never even had an occupation force. There weren't enough Mongols to tend to the empire; hence, when Gengis and then, his son, died, the fracture basically caused the empire to cave in on itself.


The fact that the Mongols swept across and controlled the largest tract of land in the history of man, however, does not make them more of an effective fighting force than the present-day US military, since the US military superseeds them in technology and projection of power by such a large gap that the Mongols wouldn't stand a fighting chance.

Okay...
...Right.

You are comparing MODERN-DAY WEAPONRY to Mongolian weaponry from hundreds of years ago!

Why don't you just friggin compare tanks to Aztec warriors, because that's about as effective as your stupid excuse for an arguement is!

Modern weaponry will ALWAYS be the best ever used because (now sit down, this may be a shocker) it's modern! Modern, get it? No, a longbow won't beat an sniper rifle. No, the Mongols wouldn't beat the US. A) Because they're dead. B) Because they've have obsolete weapons.

Stop comparing the USA to ancient empires! Your point is moot!

[Deacon]

[quote="Towerboy";p="355744"]Well, personally I think that the Civil war was a loss for the United States.[/quote]
Do you mean in some grand, metaphorical sense? Or do you mean literally? Because

a) We were fighting ourselves. We won and lost in one stroke, really.
b) Technically, the United States *won*, as the Confederacy surrendered.

[Imperator Severn]

And since the strongest nation of all time has always been by default the greatest nation of all time, why, then America must be that too! I can see the light.

Exactamundo.

If you apply that standard to the US, then you have to be prepared to apply the same standard to other nations, otherwise you're a hypocrite, right? Do you understand the word "hypocrite"? Howabout this, not hypothetical at all.

Since China is probably the second or third strongest nation in the world right now, is it then the second or third greatest nation in the world? It's not a 'what if' and it's very relevant to your position and its credibility. Is China the second greatest nation in the world, given that it's the second most powerful?

Or, to go along with the discussion, would that make the Mongol Empire or the Golden Horde the greatest? Was the Zulu Empire the best thing to happen to South Africa? What of Nazi Germany before the war? Or Atilla's Empire? Did the might of the Aztecs make them wonderful people? Were the conquistadors any better?

Your argument is that might equals right. If someone is strong, they are justified to oppress the weak, because they are better people than those they conquer.

Idiot.

Stop comparing the USA to ancient empires! Your point is moot!

1) Its technology is superior to anything else ever used in human history
2) Its projection of power is the farthest-reaching in terms of speed ever seen in human history
3) The quality of weaponry and equipment used by the average soldier is WITHOUT parralell

Which is more impressive, King Harold's forced march across England to fight the Normans after crushing Harald Hadrada, or driving across the empty desert of Iraq? One was the result of an inspiring leader and the toil of patriots; the other was the result of good lines of communication and modern machines. The English lost at Hastings, but it was at no fault of their soldiery. They were facing other great warriors who had the advantage of cavalry. What's-her-face gets captured by the Iraqis because she's a dumb bitch who can't follow directions, and she's a hero? Give me a break.

Posted Sat Jun 19, 2004 1:09 pm:

You think there'd be something in the bill off rights to cover "testing biological and nuclear weapons on unsuspecting civilians".

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.