Page 4 of 5
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 11:15 am
by Nixon
Buster wrote:It scares me to imagine the day when we get attacked on our own shores again.
Would it be worth fighting for then?
Quite frankly, no, I wouldn't want to fight the for the country, theres only one reason I'd fight, and thats for my friends and family, which would ultimately mean I have to fight but only because I have too.
So would you naysayers simply give up and roll over to be fucked up by Jonny Foreigner? Or would you pick up a weapon and fight back? Regardless you`d be next to useless in a battle as you`d have no training.
I'd still rather not be forced into doing national service, I'd rather see the fucktards of this country put to good use and go onto a scheme like this than have them pissing their lives away.
I would be more than happy to welcome any war effort, be it through being a fireman or policeman
I know for a fact that if I was forced to do National Service at 18, I would never have gone to uni, and I'd have turned out a completely different person - while that maybe good for the country as a whole, I don't think it would have been right for me.
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 11:22 am
by Calix
Nix your argument is so shit i'm not even going to bother.
Buster, we weren't exactly going to the aid of americans 'in their hour of need' with Iraq.
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 11:25 am
by Nixon
Calix wrote:Nix your argument is so shit i'm not even going to bother.
Buster, we weren't exactly going to the aid of americans 'in their hour of need' with Iraq.
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 11:40 am
by Buster
Calix wrote:Nix your argument is so shit i'm not even going to bother.
Buster, we weren't exactly going to the aid of americans 'in their hour of need' with Iraq.
I never said we were Calix. But if we don`t help the little guy the big boys won`t help us.
And i do agree with you about nix`s post calix, full of shit.
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 12:44 pm
by Zim Zum
Buster wrote:It scares me to imagine the day when we get attacked on our own shores again.
Would it be worth fighting for then?
Do you think our military would be able to repel a serious and concentrated attack?
I know for a fact that our military is one of if not the best trained and motivated in the world, but i also know we`d get our arse`s handed to us quite solidly if we came under attack simply because it has become so small in recent years. Where we excel now is specialist tasks. we have the best airborn recce equipment in the world, we have the best counter terrorist units and various others. But we don`t have the size to endure anything longer than a small skirmish.
So would you naysayers simply give up and roll over to be fucked up by Jonny Foreigner? Or would you pick up a weapon and fight back? Regardless you`d be next to useless in a battle as you`d have no training.
Now faced with occupation would you accept help from the US? Fucking right you would, and they`d be coming in droves. Thats the reason we go to the aid of others in their hours of need. Simply because they are our allies and they need us, and when we need them we KNOW they`ll come to our aid.
Very true but America doesn't exactly have a great history of rushing to our rescue. In the first world war they entered very reluctantly after the worst fighting was already over and barely had to fire a shot. In the second world war they only became involved when the Japanese blew up their pacific fleet.
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 12:48 pm
by Buster
Zim Zum wrote:Very true but America doesn't exactly have a great history of rushing to our rescue. In the first world war they entered very reluctantly after the worst fighting was already over and barely had to fire a shot. In the second world war they only became involved when the Japanese blew up their pacific fleet.
Very true, but in WW2 for sure we`d have lost without them.
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 12:55 pm
by Padaxus
i prefer to think we could have won but thats that optimist speaking.
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 12:56 pm
by Calix
I won vietnam solo
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 12:57 pm
by Zim Zum
Calix wrote:I won vietnam solo
yeah but you abused poison strike necor NOOB
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 12:58 pm
by Villa
It's debatable about how much the Americans contributed towards the fall of Germany.
Sure they had an effect, but many people feel it was the Russians "wot won it for us".
I am of the opinion that the Germans would have lost eventualy due to attrition in the east from their silly decision to invade Russia.
I think the Americans merely hastened the end of the European chapter of WW2.
We owe more to the Russians than the Americans, in my opinion for WW2.
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 1:01 pm
by Nixon
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 1:02 pm
by Zim Zum
Villa wrote:It's debatable about how much the Americans contributed towards the fall of Germany.
Sure they had an effect, but many people feel it was the Russians "wot won it for us".
I am of the opinion that the Germans would have lost eventualy due to attrition in the east from their silly decision to invade Russia.
I think the Americans merely hastened the end of the European chapter of WW2.
We owe more to the Russians than the Americans, in my opinion for WW2.
I agree with that about the Russians, the German attempted invasion of Russia cost them heavily, and the war of attrition that WW2 was, meant that Germany were set to lose regardless. However noone really knows what would have happened if Japan hadn't attacked the Americans, would they have sent troops to Europe? Who knows, all we can do is speculate.
But what is certain that Germany's failed invasions of Britain and Russia and Britain's naval supremacy and eventual ability to intercept and decode German raido transmisions, and detect U-Boats would have led, to the very least, a stalemate. Although all the French would not have been happy to stay on German occupation!
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 1:05 pm
by Nixon
America entered the war in late 1941, and had troops on British soil early 1942.
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 1:06 pm
by Zim Zum
Nixon wrote:America entered the war in late 1941, and had troops on British soil early 1942.
Sorry I was talking about Japanese sending troops to Europe. I think we all know when America sent troops...
Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 1:12 pm
by Nixon
Zim Zum wrote:Nixon wrote:America entered the war in late 1941, and had troops on British soil early 1942.
Sorry I was talking about Japanese sending troops to Europe. I think we all know when America sent troops...
It was more directed at Villa who said they didn't enter till the end which wasn't quite true, but correct about the Pacfic fleet, which was why Britain and America teamed up
The weather had a big bearing on Russia's 'sucesses' against Germany thankfully
