Upload
Login or register
Refresh Comments
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#14 - Mandible
Reply -19 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
Nope.  I call ********
Nope. I call ********
User avatar #88 to #14 - pebar
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
the Iraq War and the war on terror are completely different things...
#87 to #14 - zallaz
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
Why is he being thumbed down, his picture makes a very good point?
User avatar #175 to #87 - dsrtpnk
Reply -1 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
Because that scenario WOULD be really funny.
And the person who made it, forgot completely about Afghanistan and only sees Iraq.
User avatar #104 to #87 - ruebezahl
Reply +4 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
Except the war in Iraq was not about 9/11. Yes, 9/11 was employed as an emotional anchor to get people to support the war, and the sentiment surrounding 9/11 made the Iraq War more feasible for the Bush administration, but the main reasoning was the supposed existence of weapons of mass destruction. Remember Colin Powell holding up that vial of Anthrax?

The war in Afghanistan was a different story. It was an absolute certainty that Osama Bin Laden was operating out of Afghanistan with the support of the Afghan government. So that picture doesn't apply to Afghanistan.

And for the record: I am a pacifist, and I don't condone any war. I am just making a statement about the "reasoning" behind the wars and the fact that this picture does not really apply to either.
User avatar #51 to #14 - neoexdeath
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
Look, you need to understand that Saddam was already in deep **** because of the whole Kuwait thing. Supporting terrorism and the Taliban was essentially the last straw for the USA. At the end of the Gulf War, we made a treaty with the fellow to end the war, and when it was violated, war started right back up again. It had less to do with 9/11, and more to do with Saddam being a total cocksucking asshole.
User avatar #198 to #51 - Mandible
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/23/2013) [-]
******* idiot. You need to understand that you don't have a ******* clue. I watched it all unfold. Don't act like an expert on **** you have clue about.
User avatar #21 to #14 - nymikemet
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
Nice Gif
User avatar #19 to #14 - duudegladiator
Reply +25 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
Except Canada can easily fight back an invasion..
#180 to #19 - alexthebest
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
#158 to #19 - imnotkickthecat
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
If you are talking about 1812, say that to our face without mama Britannia watching over you. well wrek u son, lift like 27 freedoms a day.
If you are talking about 1812, say that to our face without mama Britannia watching over you. well wrek u son, lift like 27 freedoms a day.
#163 to #158 - imnotkickthecat
0 123456789123345869
has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #162 to #158 - duudegladiator
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
I don't think you understand, I'm American, born and raised Marylander, who has seen the Canadian military in the works. They can do some epic ****.

1812 was just the colonies attempt at taking the St. Lawrence river and all the lands around it to force the British to both back off, and to get more holdings.
#77 to #19 - anon id: ee4e1ebe
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
Because that's the point of his message. retard.
#30 to #19 - goldsignet
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
and is also part of nato. really, the only army on the planet that could occupy canada is the us, every other army would find themselves trying to invade over oceans and air space dominated by the worlds most powerful country, while taking it up the ass by the vast majority of the eu. i always say the first world is the first world because were watching each others backs when it counts, while the second and third world countries squabble amongst themselves needlessly
#47 to #30 - vincetacular
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
Mostly true but don't underestimate Russia, China and India, they could really ruin your day even with outdated material.   
   
And us first world countries also squabble needlessly but like you said we would most likely team up when it's necessary, a bit like these guys.
Mostly true but don't underestimate Russia, China and India, they could really ruin your day even with outdated material.

And us first world countries also squabble needlessly but like you said we would most likely team up when it's necessary, a bit like these guys.
User avatar #48 to #47 - toosexyforyou
Reply -2 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
Sir, I don't think you understand. I'm not sure how great the US ground or air troops rank against others but the US navy could literally take on the rest of the world single handedly at sea.
User avatar #49 to #48 - vincetacular
Reply +2 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
Literally the rest of the world? I doubt that, they're the biggest by far but taking on the rest of the world is far fetched. I did not say the US wouldn't/couldn't win, I just said they would have a bad day if they underestimate some other countries. History also told us that a good strategy is worth far more than having the highest tonnage in combat vessels (see Pearl harbour and the entire pacific campaign of WW2, yes they won but I hardly think you could call pearl harbour a good day). Again I do realise the US navy is by far the biggest and will very likely be the victor against any other navy but at probably high costs if the enemy is smart and that was what I meant with ruining your day.

From wikipedia (pure numbers don't mean anything I know):
US
283 ships
3,700+ aircraft
India
179 ships
190 aircraft
Russia
209 ships
? aircraft
China
515+ ships
432 aircraft

In aircraft the US is vastly superior but in ships they might have a hard time, even a ship with massive weapon capacities can get in trouble when it's swarmed by relatively weak ships.
User avatar #199 to #49 - toosexyforyou
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/23/2013) [-]
Pretty sure the world super power won't go in charging with their heads first, dude.
#200 to #199 - anon id: a85c5de4
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/29/2013) [-]
I think he was talking about sneak attacks and ambushes and **** hence the reference to pearl harbour. Imagine multiple small strike forces of Chinese subs stalking our carriers from a safe distance and going all out kamikaze on them at the same time. They'll get killed for sure but if they hit the carriers first... Lets hope they don't try some **** like that but either way I'm pretty sure they wont be able to stalk all of our carriers.
User avatar #168 to #49 - sanguinesolitude
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
yeah but we have aircraft carriers
#23 to #19 - anon id: b1fb87bb
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
Easily fight back an invasion? Canada? Have you even seen their army?
User avatar #143 to #23 - RomanR
Reply +1 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
Canada's has some of the best soldiers in the world, this is coming from a Russian.
User avatar #36 to #23 - Sethorein
Reply +3 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
have you?

We're polite, not pussies.
#24 to #23 - anon id: 531f71a3
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
Canada has a decent military with combat experience more than capable of handling UAE
#22 to #19 - anon id: 7661438e
Reply 0 123456789123345869
(11/22/2013) [-]
The point of the picture was to take the scenario that happened and apply it to a different case, to see it from a different perspective. I don't know man