US vs UK, Which is better?

The proxy wars yes, overall no. That was more of an armed standoff.

So then we have about 35 years of no wars.

what Spain?

comrade dave wrote:

Back on topic....The UK is better.

Alright well, can't find anything on a good timeline, but eh. Not calling the British warmongers, just wanted to point that out. 176 is a lot of countries, while I'm pretty sure the US hasn't even touched South America (though, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong). All I'm saying is, it's easy to call the US belligerent for its proportion in existence and time of warfare, but it's always had a strict anti-imperialism policy, while you've had your fair share of getting your hands dirty, though, did a real good job at it, owning a third of the world at one time and all. In terms of track record, you guys have us beat

aDudeWhoDoesThings wrote:

Alright well, can't find anything on a good timeline, but eh. Not calling the British warmongers, just wanted to point that out. 176 is a lot of countries, while I'm pretty sure the US hasn't even touched South America (though, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong). All I'm saying is, it's easy to call the US belligerent for its proportion in existence and time of warfare, but it's always had a strict anti-imperialism policy, while you've had your fair share of getting your hands dirty, though, did a real good job at it, owning a third of the world at one time and all. In terms of track record, you guys have us beat

George Washington. wrote:

aDudeWhoDoesThings wrote:

Alright well, can't find anything on a good timeline, but eh. Not calling the British warmongers, just wanted to point that out. 176 is a lot of countries, while I'm pretty sure the US hasn't even touched South America (though, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong). All I'm saying is, it's easy to call the US belligerent for its proportion in existence and time of warfare, but it's always had a strict anti-imperialism policy, while you've had your fair share of getting your hands dirty, though, did a real good job at it, owning a third of the world at one time and all. In terms of track record, you guys have us beat

America has been the nation that has stood up for freedom,democracy and equality.

except, that's kinda been done for awhile before us

Constitutional monarchies have existed long before us, the Netherlands fought for its independence long before us, and it worked very much like our government, but, it didn't have the Atlantic sea protecting it from the rest of Europe

George Washington. wrote:

No,the US military is better than the British .

comrade dave wrote:

George Washington. wrote:

No,the US military is better than the British .

If that's all you've got then the UK is better than the US.

Moon landing vs British thinking.

between the uk and the states ive gotta say the UK, they train their troops better....though they have a smaller armed forces they kick some mighty ass when they need to. plus they don't start s**t that they cant always finish.....*cough* usa *cough*

comrade dave wrote:

Back on topic....The UK is better.

Agreed, Dave, UK all the way.

*Plays Rule Britannia on cassette player*

Britons never never never shall be slaves (chorus)

*insert Garrosh Hellscream*

*Inserts Beatles cassettes and plays them over rule britannia*

Nowdays, the US is definitely the better nation. But before WW2, Britain was better.

For everyone who can't understand the British could have destroyed the us in the revolutionary war and the war of 1812 (where the US couldnt even defeat Canada) think of Iraq today. The US can send tens of thousands of troops there and basically enslave everyone there, but they don't. It was similar in the war of 1812 and the revolutionary war.

Nowadays, it appears the US and UK both have much of the same downsides, but the US is the more powerful nation (not just militarily) therefore making it better.

Lol, his hand wasn't shaked.