This is a thread meant to discuss people/nations/animals pitted against each other.
First topic, who do you think would win in a war between US and UK vs Russia and China?
Rules for this battle
1. No nukes
2. no other countries can help militarily in anyway
3. They start with current resources, military, economy etc
4. war is won whenever the other side surrenders
Please log in to post a reply.
I have, but like ages ago. Could you explain what you were trying to explain by mentioning Braveheart?GreatbigHippo wrote:
Exactly. Pablo, have you seen Braveheart? A perfect example of what could happen.
The British were cruel, authoritarian leaders over Scotland. Instead of stopping any opposition with fear, it backfired and the scots defeated the British.
Well, maybe they weren't cruel enough.GreatbigHippo wrote:
The British were cruel, authoritarian leaders over Scotland. Instead of stopping any opposition with fear, it backfired and the scots defeated the British.
WTH is wrong with you Pablo....
Nothing. As I said before:Quasi-duck wrote:
WTH is wrong with you Pablo....
but if it worked for the VC, it might have worked for the US.Pablo22510 wrote:
I am NOT in favour of using these tactics.
Do you think that US forces maiming Vietnamese communists would've helped? It wouldn't have....Pablo22510 wrote:
but if it worked for the VC, it might have worked for the US.
Well, it did work the other way, soooo...Quasi-duck wrote:
Do you think that US forces maiming Vietnamese communists would've helped? It wouldn't have....Pablo22510 wrote:
but if it worked for the VC, it might have worked for the US.
They weren't a foreign power. Tell me, if your best friend punches you, will you forgive him? How about the guy that broke into your house and has a gun that jams easily?Pablo22510 wrote:
Well, it did work the other way, soooo...
I will forgive him. Not the robber.Quasi-duck wrote:
They weren't a foreign power. Tell me, if your best friend punches you, will you forgive him? How about the guy that broke into your house and has a gun that jams easily?Pablo22510 wrote:
Well, it did work the other way, soooo...
Exactly. The NVA is your friend while the USA is the robber.Pablo22510 wrote:
I will forgive him. Not the robber.
Ok. I see what you mean.Quasi-duck wrote:
Exactly. The NVA is your friend while the USA is the robber.Pablo22510 wrote:
I will forgive him. Not the robber.
Good. FYI I'd be pretty sure the NVA isn't your friendPablo22510 wrote:
Ok. I see what you mean.
Lol, ok.Quasi-duck wrote:
Good. FYI I'd be pretty sure the NVA isn't your friendPablo22510 wrote:
Ok. I see what you mean.
NATO would decide the war.
I think what pablo was trying to say, is America didnt operate at full capacity, take these 2 reasons
They didnt commit on a full scale
They had restraints on what they could do, fire support wise.. (Although a lot less restraints than other wars)
NATO isn't allowed interfere in this scenario.NYCSBoy13 wrote:
NATO would decide the war.
Please log in to post a reply.
