Lucius

Indeed, the M1A2 is not the best tank in the world. That title often goes to the Russian T-90. As for the Type 98, I read that it contains a lot of Leopard 2A5 parts, which is also an equal to the M1A2 if not better. Including the new laser defence technology. (if it works, can't confirm it)

Sweden was making nukes? Damn, that shows not to trust those dirty swedes evar!!!1 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Another reason for mass genocide there. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Need help?

I meant compared to western nations, China has entire regiments of SOF, but their equipment and training is not capable of competing with many western SOF. That's what I've read anyhow, China is still a communist one party state, they probably have loads of information about their military that we can't access.

And that too goes both ways, the PLA has realized the importance of highly trained Special Operations Forces, even though they can't quite match the standards of the western nations, again we have quantity over quality. (I take it you mean the Marine Recon here, right? Or am I mistaken?)

Well it's not like you would be able to take them on the bed, suddenly having US fighters in the air over Beijing saying "Gotcha suckas!" without them having noticed anything seems a bit unlikely. I'm fairly confident that they could mobilize their air defences and air forces, before facing utter destruction.

While I do think that the Peoples Liberation Army is somewhat outclassed by the US, it still has more than 2 million men under arms, a tank fleet of some 8-9000 plus armoured vehicles, a fleet of destroyers (I can imagine with surface-to-air missiles) and a huge airforce of their own, however outdated it might be, would still be able to give the US a fight to remember. It's not like some arab nation with next to no air forces or surface-to-air missiles, with an enemy capable of using strategic bombers protected by a huge amount of fighters, I'd say that maintaining air superiority gets a bit tricky, and the sheer amount of casualties on the US side would make such a war unbearable for the population back home. (Same goes for China of course, but lets face it, they're not exactly a democracy) ^_^ On a side note, I read that the PLA is researching energy directed weapons, such as mircowave and lasers. Most recently incorporated on their newest MBT, whose turret mounted laser will blind enemy anti-tank gunners locking on to it, effectively ruining the enemy gunners eyesight. And nukes are, of course, out of the question. Or are they? :ph34r: Edited a little spelling.

because that was the stupidest statement in this whole thread. otherwise, there is some good debate to be read... ok, now wait... it's NOT ok for me to comment on an ideological rant, but it's ok for commissar to make it? particularly one that has nothing to do with the thread in the first place. folks like you just need to air your gripe that such a dumb republican got elected again. you're right, there's a whole big world out there and idiotic statements dwelling on irrelevant issues need to be dropped for substantive discussion. get over yourself... taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Substantive" as in calling everything about the UN communist?

Karl Urban was in Lord of the Rings... he played Eomer, he was also in The Bourne Supremacy as some Russian dude and I believe he made an appearance in The Chronicles of Riddick... DL <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Correct.

Yeah well, although it's good that you do, it's way too late for anyone to see em. Not that I have that much to contribute with anyway. I did PM the green fly thingie, but that was four days ago and no answer. But as for his post, just showing up and calling everything about the UN and its members commies or whatever, and disappearing again without a trace seems strangely... odd to me.

He never said that, I see the week off haven't changed how you talk to people.

Actually, no. I've never once heard that. And I have family in England, who refer to it as such. My father in law was born in England. My favorite English author calls the country England. I've heard bands call it England. I've heard the BBC call it England. In fact, the Queen of England isn't called the Queen of the UK, but rather the Queen of England. Blair is referred to as the Prime Minister of England. So surely, the English must hate their country being called England. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Belligerent much? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> - Only a little

Fanboys at IMDB says this is only a teaser, not a trailer, and to be patient. :D

It's unusual to have a state with two areas of territory that aren't connected, but not unprecedented. Pakistan was originally two seperate parts, before the east split off to become Bangladesh. And Kaliningrad is a small part of Russia split from the main by Poland and Lithuania. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, I know all about Kaliningrad. Been there. That's where the little lady's from. Used to be Konigsberg. But it's an illustration of some inherent problems with non-contiguous territory. If residents don't choose (or can't afford) to fly to the main part of Russia, they're obliged to get travel visas through Lithuania for the train. And the Lithuanian government can be finicky about that kind of thing if it chooses. I imagine the Israeli government will be even moreso. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> On that note, Prussia ought to be recreated imo. ^_^

These 30 countries you keep mentioning, I think it was Commissar who asked for a list so I took this one from Wiggy: Current Members USA 130,000 United Kingdom 8,761 South Korea 3,600 Italy 3,085 -- began phased withdrawal of troops in March 2005 [3] Poland 1,700 -- began to withdraw troops in October 2004 Ukraine 1,450 -- announced to withdraw troops by October 2005 [4] Georgia 889 Romania 860 Australia 850 Japan 550 -- limited to non-combat zones only Denmark 496 Bulgaria 450 -- began phased withdrawal of troops in March 2005 [5] El Salvador 380 Mongolia 180 Azerbaijan 151 Latvia 122 Lithuania 118 Slovakia 105 Czech Republic 80 Albania 71 Estonia 55 Macedonia 33 Kazakhstan 25 Members With No Military Involvement Several countries chose not to send military or combat troops to support the invasion, but instead pledged their solidarity with the Coalition Angola 0 Colombia 0 Eritrea 0 Ethiopia 0 Iceland 0 Kuwait 0 Micronesia 0 Rwanda 0 Solomon Islands 0 Uganda 0 Uzbekistan 0 Members Who Have Left Nicaragua 0 -- withdrew 115 troops in February 2004 Dominican Republic 0 -- withdrew 302 troops in May 2004 Honduras 0 -- withdrew 370 troops in June 2004 Spain 0 -- withdrew 1400 troops in June 2004 Philippines 0 -- withdrew 51 troops in July 2004 Thailand 0 -- withdrew 443 troops in August 2004 Hungary 0 -- withdrew 300 troops in December 2004 Tonga 0 -- withdrew 40 troops in December 2004 Moldova 0 -- withdrew 12 troops in February 2005 Portugal 0 -- withdrew 128 policemen in February 2005 Netherlands 800 -- withdrew 1350 troops in March 2005 Singapore 0 -- withdrew its single amphibious transport dock deployed in the Persian Gulf in March 2005 Canada does not support the invasion of Iraq and is not a Coalition member but has 31 troops in the theatre as part of an exchange program with the United States military. My own country is in the list, not that I'm at all pleased with that, but my PM seems to be french kissing Bush as often as he can.

oh there's a good one... one that has so many similar incidences for comparison, i't almost silly that you even mention it. no, wait, it is silly. about as silly as calling bush dumber than kerry... taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You read this whole thread and that is the thing you choose to comment on? Theres a whole big world out there, you know outside of George Bush's pants <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't think he does. BTW. What mod was it that said Taks had a lot good stuff to contribute with? LOL As for myself, can't do much, mods are exceptionally slow to give me my 'powers' back.

And we also realize how close we came to exchanging bombs a few times in the cold war because of what a war of idealogy can make people do. Add zealotry to the mix, and I certainly understand people's fear and concerns. Name one good reason any nation should be pursuing new nuclear weapon programs today? I thought the world all agreed that we should disarm our nukes as much as we can, not build new ones. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> First, numbersman you got a point, all I'm saying is that a nation like the US shouldn't go around telling who can get these weapons when they have plenty of their own. If they started disarming their own nuclear arsenal first (isn't that what you're suggesting Ender?), then perhaps, just perhaps other nation would bother to even listen to them. And Eldar, don't be silly, just because I mention Iran and USA in the same sentence due to this nuclear arms folly doesn't mean you have to go on a right wing defensive spree.

Considering their one of the few people heading up negotiations, I see it as very significant. It also prolly reflects apon their new close ties with France. Especially when Schroeder, speaking on behalf of the spearhead by Germany, Britain and France said: "But take the military options off of the table," Schroeder said. "We have seen that they're not suitable." So, maybe Sri Lanka is willing to attack, but their not a major player in this. Nor does it make it a creditable bargining chip. please actaully know what I am referencing before you reply. It saves time. No, I didn't say you did, but enjoy clearifying yourself anyways. You mean they will get weapons due to softball diplomacy and half-assed security measures (got to love those "seals") and threaten world security? Neat! There are many ways to deploy force, especially if the goal is just to set back their nuclear programs. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who is to say that Iran will treathen world security more than, say, the United States with its countless amounts of WMD's?

Nope, Germany has said war is off the table for them. When you don't have force as a last measure, you don't seem to have a convicing arguement in this case. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Which is good, that means we only need to keep the UK and US under control, however warhungry their leaders are. And who are we to say what Iran can and can't develop? It's the most hypocritical situation EVER for a nation like the US to say "Hey, you can't do that!" when you in fact have more of these weapons than anyone else on the planet!

WTC bombings could be seen as a show of force as well as the two atomic bombings, no? Which were the most cruel acts, I wonder... Regarding what to call suicide bombers, well I call them terrorists, others would probably call them martyrs or freedom fighters, it all depends on which side of the fence you're on. But simply ruling out that others might think of them as freedom fighters is silly, our rules and our way of looking and defining things (the dictionary for instance) are not universal, despite how we in the West might think.

That's the dictionary's definition. And if the dictionary (which I linked) is no longer allowed to define words in our language, then civilized debate ends completely. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry, but I think you're being rather short sighted here.

That doesn't justify terrorism. You make really weak excuses. I asked you what the correct decision would have been after WW2. You provide none. Sources? Are you defending the 9/11 terrorists? It sure sounds like you are. The WTC is a commercial building staffed by civilians. They murdered civilians and you equate that to policy of the US? Sure, we go out of the way to bomb targets that have zero military relevance and murder thousands of civilians. Find one instance of it. You've flat out made false statements. I can't call you a liar, but we both know the reality of the situation. That doesn't make it true, but you seem quick to discount murder and rush to it's defense. I wonder why that would be? What's your motivation here? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ender, with that military bit you left yourself totally wide open. Hiroshima, Nagasaki. Keep in mind I am pretty much on your side here, this situation is messed. Edit: Also, Lone Wolf's point is teh win. WTC wasn't not about the civvies. It was about instilling fear and crippling economy. I would consider Terrarism a method of war if only because 'civilized' war isn't feasible on the kind of shoe string budget Terrarist organizations operate on. It's still wrong to kill civvies, but when you're fighting a war from a third world country, against troops from a 500lb Gorilla or a nation like the US, there's not many other feasible methods of waging war other than terrarism. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good point.

Err.... I meant I'm from Japan. Yes, Japan. :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm coming for you. :ph34r: <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Strangely erotic. Or is it just me?

I have no idea, we don't have any terrain similarities either, Zealand is flat whereas New Zealand... well you've seen LoTR. :D

Northern Zealand, Denmark. Depressing winters, wonderful summers. It's usually a little windy, so no need to buy annoying fans. I don't envy you either Eldar, it's hot enough here at night as it is.

NOOOOOO! England's worst spanking since their defeat to Wales in 1980 - the shame! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Not to rub it in or anything, I know it was 'only' a friendly, but it really pleases me to see Beckham doing the headless chicken act, running around not knowing how to cope. Add the precious near teary eyed puppy face. Perfect. ^_^