Member of the Month

JalmarKalmar
April, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

For you America haters

profile picture
Curb.
Posts: 370 - Karma: 91
please give the reasons why? because we've stopped 2 of the worlds most wanted terroists, shut down corrupt governments that could harm the rest of the world, we are keeping n.korea from throwing an apocalyptic shitstorm on the rest of the world , so please do tell? yeah we may have fucked up rules but they keep us safe. we may be cocky but how in the first Gen from Canada so i could go either way but no, america is a huge part of the foundation to this world, im not saying were the best im sayin that people realize all we fucking try to do is help and when little girls step in and don't know half the shit there talking about. besides where would this world be without, light, "Electricity", battery, Coca-cola,Radio,McDonalds(The biggest company in the fucking world), the razor, oh and lets not forget your car...and you apple product fiends...Americans invented that shit too, plus im sure Thers a shit ton of more useful shit We have done that nobody takes for granted. yes i know ALOT of americans are thick headed fatfucks but not all of us are like that so quit your bitching. please.........^^^HAM...oh and rap so hop off.
Nov 24 2011 8:27PM
0 0
profile picture
SwitchMisty540
Posts: 1862 - Karma: 630
haha...you are a retard.  i love ns!!
Nov 28 2011 11:03AM
0 0
profile picture
Elg
Posts: 2998 - Karma: 3,880
Yes it is!

I find it interesting that USA use twice as much oil as they produce every day. And Norway produces 11.5 times as much as they use, daily.

Another reason why a bunch of people around the world hate you guys. From an environmental viewpoint you suck.

Don't get me wrong, i have yet to meet an american i truly dislike. I've been over the pound several times, i even lived there for a year. I think it is the American people as a whole that is being hated on, because it is represented by political people, fat people, dumb people and people sueing other people for stupid reasons.
Nov 28 2011 12:27PM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
kinda true. just because its a stereotype, its not necessarily untrue and maybe describes half, three thirds or whatever of the population.

if someone tells me germans/austrians are very controlled, try to order everything and regulate everything and are not that spontaneous and complain fast when they dont get the service they want, i would agree.
Nov 28 2011 12:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Piste.Off
Posts: 11586 - Karma: 1,861
By today's standards, more weapons and more troops=better military. Simple as that. In modern wars if you have more weapons and more people to use those weapons than your opponent, you win. As for nuclear weapons, well there's a reason no country has ever invaded another country with confirmed nuclear arms...
Nov 28 2011 12:43PM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
more isn't exactly better though, due to technology advancing.

You can have 1000 infantry armed with the newest assault rifles, but if I have 1 pilot flying 1 plane, he can probably effectively destroy your force.


Though that's bringing in air power, which you did not so your statement is valid to some extent. Overall though, in air/sea/land warfare, fewer soldiers with better weapons will usually win, unless you can absolutely overwhelm them in a devastating way.
Nov 28 2011 1:00PM
0 0
profile picture
feihlination
Posts: 8356 - Karma: 1,084
its so hard to compare if 2000 tanks of type X are better than 3000 of type Y and stuff like that.

i just hope we will never find out whos better.

think about how easily you could win every battle up to like 1600 or so (all the greek, roman, medieval, etc) with 50 modern automatic rifles. maybe if you had 500 000 bare knuckled fighters, you could everwhelm them, but its really hard to estimate how many you would need. same applies for every other level of technology.

so the list is good because it takes the numbers YOU can estimate.

Nov 28 2011 1:06PM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
one of the stranger benefits of advancing military technology is that it advances to the point that we never use it. An all out world war in modern times, even without the use of nuclear weapons would be ridiculous.


It is bizarre to think that you could pretty much drop 100 modern soldiers in any pre-American time period, and they'd have a good chance of dominating. Hell, even during the american revolution, civil war and so on they'd still do quite well.
Nov 28 2011 1:11PM
0 0
profile picture
bananas
Posts: 1419 - Karma: 164
the rest of the world absolutely hates the usa. for many reasons, the united states has screwed over many countries in the passed, they are the only one to have nuclear weapons for some reason, they invade other countries because thier views are different than thiers, thier like pigs,they cant keep their noses out of other peoples shit,,
Nov 28 2011 1:45PM
0 0
profile picture
YoursAndMind
Posts: 335 - Karma: 31
not sure if troll or just ignorant
Nov 28 2011 1:55PM
0 0
profile picture
hurrdurr
Posts: 349 - Karma: 29
Turn on computer. Go to nsg. See this thread. 6 pages of comments.


I'll go get the popcorn
Nov 28 2011 1:58PM
0 0
profile picture
Trojan~Man
Posts: 1996 - Karma: 1,357
im canadian(just fyi), and im gonna say this is just very ignorant, lets ignore and move along...
Nov 28 2011 2:46PM
0 0
profile picture
.R-Lohin
Posts: 1686 - Karma: 117
So tempted to quote.
Nov 28 2011 4:47PM
0 0
profile picture
vailsux.com
Posts: 1769 - Karma: 440
Actually this is the third time assisting a rebel faction in Libya and this time around was a lot messier. Just sayin'
Dec 1 2011 9:07PM
0 0
profile picture
las.
Posts: 1959 - Karma: 1,455
Im talking about the French and British leading the NATO operation instead of America. Don't get it confused and think that more casualties = messier either. And lets remember the rebels INVITED foreign assistance, which was also sanctioned by the UN. This time round was far more controlled, and one can only assume that it's because the havoc wreaking bullies that are America weren't in control of the reigns. Like i said, take notes.
Dec 1 2011 11:40PM
0 0
profile picture
las.
Posts: 1959 - Karma: 1,455
He may have been in charge of the military aspect, but it was the British and French who pushed it through NATO politically, which led to a far less militaristic conflict.
Dec 2 2011 12:56AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-4)