Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#65 - ronrod (11/03/2013) [-]
Alright I see this so many times; and let me see if I have this right. Canadians (some) are bragging about burning a building of country that wasn't even half of what it is today, In a war that was between the U.S. and GB. Two things here:

1. If GB (or Canada since they want to take "glory') won then why did they take the U.S. back under their control? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding something)
2. Do any of you Canadians or Brits honestly think you could stand a chance against the full might of the U.S. Military today?

Burning a building doesn't destroy a country. So stop pretending to be so hardcore for fighting (and still losing to in the end) what was essentially the east coast of a developing country just because you set a some things on fire..but hey if that's all you have to hang your hats on...then maybe we as Americans should let you guys brag about it...

This whole thing kind of reminds me of the Cubs (MLB team for those who may not be familiar)...their fans always brag about how great a team they are, but they haven't won a championship since 1908. Not saying Brititan hasn't won a war since, but we all know when it comes to America you can't win if you could there wouldn't be an America to begin with (see Revolutionary War). I don't care about specifics at this point, I'm sure I'm missing spots here and there, but we all know the U.S. has the best military around. Sorry if you can't deal with that.

Red thumb me all you want if it makes you feel better
User avatar #271 to #65 - ponchosdm ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
I think GB has not won a war since WWII(with everyone else(even if US takes the credit)), because, they are peacefull, they defend do not attack, US only makes war with undeveloped countries, it is almoust like a bully, and today I am pretty sure, nobody could win against US army, too many forces and money on it.
#290 to #271 - ronrod (11/04/2013) [-]
I'm sure GB has won more often than it's lost in a majority of it conflicts even the ones with out the US. Also, it's not like we start things with these "undeveloped countries" there's always someone doing something that causes the U.N. to call on the U.N. leaders. Besides there aren't to many things we get into that some part of, if not all of, the EU is involved in.
User avatar #272 to #271 - destructodan **User deleted account** (11/03/2013) [-]
we won the Falklands war
User avatar #273 to #272 - ponchosdm ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
haha sorry forgot about the argenti(ns/nians?)
User avatar #275 to #273 - destructodan **User deleted account** (11/03/2013) [-]
Argentinians. I think
User avatar #163 to #65 - hudis (11/03/2013) [-]
Jesus, are you listening to yourself? "The full might of the U.S. military"? Stop pretending military might is anything even remotely worth merit, admiration or even respect anymore. It's ******* primitive.
#177 to #163 - ronrod (11/03/2013) [-]
SO you're saying that militaries don't mean anything?
User avatar #183 to #177 - hudis (11/03/2013) [-]
I'm saying that it's a backward thing to be proud of or to speak of in such a context, i.e. "Do any of you Canadians or Brits honestly think you could stand a chance against the full might of the U.S. military today?"

Military power means something in that it gives control over one's population, weaker allies and enemy nations. Thing is, that may have been considered prestigious in the 16th century, but these days it's more a frustrating factor that many feel is in the way of the world actually getting anywhere that isn't clogged up with rivalry, power-play and ego-tripping. Consider that some countries haven't been at war for about 200 years. That's pretty much the longest stretch of peace for any people in human history; war and military might is something that should be of the past, or at least the value some people put in it.
#189 to #183 - ronrod (11/03/2013) [-]
I posed it in such away given the topic at hand. As long as people have different oppinions wether it be religious, political, etc...there will always be conflict. I agree that we should all find a way to be at peace, but I don't believe that it can be done.
User avatar #107 to #65 - OsamaBinLadenz (11/03/2013) [-]
Okay, as an American I have to say to your "full might of the American military" ******** :
The UN.
That is all. The UN
**** your dreams.
****** .
User avatar #281 to #107 - damping (11/04/2013) [-]
Our spending is more than all other countries combined on the Military, plus England, Canada, France, Japan, and South Korea would probably all ally with us since they are our bitches.
#178 to #107 - ronrod (11/03/2013) [-]
Not sure where you're going with that the U.S. was the driving force behind the U.N.
Elaborate?
User avatar #253 to #178 - OsamaBinLadenz (11/03/2013) [-]
Not like a pretty big part of the world make up the U.N. or anything.
I'll let you in on a secret: even if we were able to use nukes, which I hope we would never resort to, it's been proven that we couldn't even wipe all of China off the map.

With miitary forces combined such as China, Britain, France, Russia, Mexico, Germany, and... you know... a **** ton of other military forces out there, not only are we outnumbered, their combined wealth would **** us over as well.
#185 to #178 - Womens Study Major (11/03/2013) [-]
america is no driving forces, your government was shutdown, your country is in a fat amount of debt, the fact that your still a functioning country is ******* amazing, let alone your retarded government officials who waste tax dollars by the dozens and claim to know how to regulate other country's, maybe you people should fix yourselves first instead of going to war with a different nation every two years.

#192 to #185 - ronrod (11/03/2013) [-]
Are you being serious?

If so, then allow me to break down a few things for you.

1. The U.S. created the UN and sits at the head of it.
2. Countries around the world are in more debt than the U.S. even countries that would have you believe otherwise (i.e. China)
3. Our govt. WAS shutdown. Was meaning it's not anymore. There are countries in Europe on the verge of collapse/bankruptcy last I checked. So all things considered a 2 week shutdown=not that bad. (not saying it's good, but not as bad as it could be)
4. Other countries are constantly asking for U.S. involment in their conflicts or asking for solutions to their problems. Don't pretend otherwise.
5. I'll give you the whole "retarded government officials" thing. This whole pissing contest between Rep. and Dem. has gotten old. Hopefully that changes next election or sooner. Either way though we still manage to sort our things out. Even with our problems.
6. We aren't going to war every two years. This wraps right into 4. with other countries asking for help in their conflicts wether it be asking for troops, Air support, Naval support, or for weapons. We are dragged into a lot of these conflicts simply because of our spot in the U.N. and G.B., France, and the U.K. are usually right there with us.
User avatar #257 to #192 - OsamaBinLadenz (11/03/2013) [-]
And even with my points that I made, none of this even matters because if this is what the world turned to, there wouldn't be a world left for us to fight on if we did win. We'd crumble at the result of our own actions, and we'd be to blame for it all.
User avatar #256 to #192 - OsamaBinLadenz (11/03/2013) [-]
1. Yes, because the U.S. can kick everybody out and disband it, correct?
2. Of course they are, but are you forgetting about the countries that aren't? Those countries that are in debt likely wouldn't care if it meant they had to defend themselves if our country went to those extremes (You're a fool for even putting that in a hypothetical situation.)
3. Our govt. shutdown, when compared using more relatable numbers, did a smaller job of clearing the debt than you realize.
4. Will we still have their support if we were to abandon them in their time of need to become just like NK, or Cuba, or any of the plenty of other countries that hate America? Do you think they have the strength to take other countries on if they need our help?
5. It won't change until our citizens stop being just as retarded as the officials.
6. I won't argue with that, but in this situation we don't have the U.N. backing us up.
7. Out of the entire world, we make up 316,999,690 of it. Americans make up just under 4.5% of the world population. We could be a memory in a matter of hours if the rest of the world was that pissed off at us.
8. We have 1,429,995 active personnel and 850,880 reserve personnel. This adds up to 2,280,875 people, or .72% of our population. If you expect .72% (I'm not dumb, I know it would grow if we needed more troops, but so would every other nations, if they needed more troops.) to take on the rest of the world's militaries, then you're dead wrong.
9. The U.N. is about fighting for world peace, which means that even some Americans would be fighting us.
10. How much support would we have for our own country? Do you think our citizens would support a corrupt nation's corrupt war? How much support was there for Vietnam, we were helping in Vietnam, were we not? Trying to get rid of communism was a good thing, right? But we were out-matched by soldiers with inferior weaponry. One of their most effective weapons were bamboo sticks with **** on them.

[Char Limit.]
#146 to #107 - stigman **User deleted account** (11/03/2013) [-]
Finally someone who makes sense.
#87 to #65 - Womens Study Major (11/03/2013) [-]
" I don't care about specifics at this point, I'm sure I'm missing spots here and there, but we all know the U.S. has the best military around. Sorry if you can't deal with that.

Red thumb me all you want if it makes you feel better"

I agree with some of your points but I hate arrogant doucebags like yourself who think everyone who thumbs you down "can't deal with it" or some ******** like that. Does it make you feel better to pretend everyone who disagrees with you is just butthurt and wrong?
#179 to #87 - ronrod (11/03/2013) [-]
Not being an arrogant douchebag. I was simply reffering to the people who just want to look at that certain aspect (buring the capital building) and nothing else. I don't care if people disagree with me or even debate me. As long as they can do so intellegently. If someone does then I'll gladly jump into specifics and what not.
User avatar #85 to #65 - Crusader (11/03/2013) [-]
We don't have to withstand the full might of the USA
1 - The USA can't use chemicals weapons or nukes on any major population centers, considering 90% of our population is within 100 miles of the border, making it so the USA would be shooting themselves in the foot
2 - It would quickly go from USA vs Canada/Britain to USA vs The World
3 - A large portion of the US military is Canadian
User avatar #141 to #85 - reginleif (11/03/2013) [-]
The British wouldn't toss their lives away for Canada. C'mon be realistic.

Inb4 treaties, treaties are only as good as the nations signing them, and let's face it, Britain really is the ********* ally to ever ally in the history of alliances.

It isn't a day in the UN if the English isn't trying to backstab you for personal gain.

You really want to trust the safety of your country on ENGLAND? And no, it wouldn't become a US vs the world scenario because the US runs the Seas with it's glorious Navy made of freedom and **** . There is no plausible way for the English (or anybody excepting the Russians to land near the Americas. Also the close proximity of Canada in concentrations would just make it easier for us to keep you guys in check, given that it means there's less ground to cover.
User avatar #191 to #141 - destructodan **User deleted account** (11/03/2013) [-]
why is Britain a **** ally?
#101 to #85 - callmenotime (11/03/2013) [-]
The topic is sort of dumb.

The US and Canada would never every consider fighting each other. Our relations are fantastic.

Assuming there was a war SOLELY between the US and Canada, it's honestly pretty clear that the US Military has a massive advantage.

Though, in a real world situation, this would never happen.
User avatar #74 to #65 - apatheticalcare **User deleted account** (11/03/2013) [-]
I guess burning down a relatively significant government building isn't pretending to be hardcore but more of a huge middle finger or mooning somebody.
#72 to #65 - goldsignet (11/03/2013) [-]
why bring modern day warfare into the equation? i like how old wars could be won through grit and determination, whereas nowadays its whoever spent the most trillions of taxpayer money that wins. if war was then what it is now, this wouldnt even be a conversation, considering that at that time britain was even more powerful in comparison to to other countries than the states is now, meaning the revolution would have just been another quelled rebellion. just be glad that at some point down the line, it was the americans who scoffed at how fat, greedy, and corrupt other countries were instead of vice versa.
User avatar #77 to #72 - satrenkotheone ONLINE (11/03/2013) [-]
We should revert back to trench warfare.
#79 to #77 - goldsignet (11/03/2013) [-]
nah, im just saying leave the past past and the present present. the states could probably defeat any one (possibly two) army in symmetrical warfare, but for the difficulty of fighting a transcontinental war in the 1800s? give people their props.
 Friends (0)