Upload
Login or register
Anonymous comments allowed.
asd
#211 - scoobi
Reply +2
(08/23/2013) [-]
I am Canadian but come on, this wasn't the only thing burned down.

We burned down the white house but Americans set fire to buildings in York (former Toronto).

We are even
#214 to #211 - ionblight
0
has deleted their comment [-]
#204 - undercow
Reply +2
(08/23/2013) [-]
#161 - shishkobob
Reply +2
(08/23/2013) [-]
how does this have thumbs?
#167 to #161 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Because FJ is full of overly jingoistic teenaged Canadians (and also Europeans but mainly Canadians at this point) that suffer from a major inferiority complex and constantly have to ridicule the US in anyway possible to make themselves feel superior in anyway. Because only those who are poorly educated (which is the majority of FJ) would thumb this up.

Because FJ just has to, absolutely has to kiss Canada's ass and bash on America because, again, inferiority complex
#184 to #167 - thefaythless
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
He says as an anonymous. lol
#192 to #184 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
So what? What does me having an account have to do with an opinion? This whole thing about people being anons is ******* retarded and you know it. So what all the troll accounts now have standing because someone took the time to make a fake user name and email address? Or, just say what it really is, and that's a cop out from the real issue.

Yes, the Canadians are overly jingoistic and the whole petty situation with people having to troll Americans because Canadians can't get over the fact that they will forever live in America's shadow is pretty pathetic
#213 to #192 - thefaythless
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
or we troll americans cuz over half of u take the bait ;p

lol
#181 to #167 - thegloryofinternet [OP]
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
No one wants to kiss America -.-
#112 - bretta
Reply +2
(08/23/2013) [-]
"Hey guys remember when we burned one of your most important government buildings down* and kicked your ass in war**? I bet we could do it again by the way you guys should be nicer to us."

*not entirely true
**also not entirely true

Logic
#104 - awildniglet
Reply +2
(08/23/2013) [-]
Hey Canada, remember when you were actually Britain?
Because that was when the White House burned down
#191 to #104 - thegloryofinternet [OP]
Reply -4
(08/23/2013) [-]
I think many guys in your country can't see your freedom because of the big grey walls blocking their view...
#250 to #191 - awildniglet
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
#52 - heartlessrobot
Reply -1
(08/22/2013) [-]
This image has expired
Right, because you're just gonna go ahead and **** with the one country that would devastate the rest of the world in open conflict. I'm not all 'murica and "muh freedoms" but seriously? Any more advancement with drones and we might not even have to use troops anymore. I'm bracing myself for red thumbs, but you all know it's true. And it's pretty ******* scary. And we haven't resolved the middle east because it's not open conflict and the enemy and civilian are indistinguishable. Rant over, give me your red thumbs now.
#55 to #52 - duskmane
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
If anything, it would be retaliatory, should you ever set your gaze northwards deciding "They haven't given us enough oil yet."    
The result wouldn't really be just from the Canadian front, either. We're allied with most other nations in the world, (or at least, more-so than America, given your "we'll beat the **** out of anyone" mentality versus our "Ok <insert conflicted country's name here> we're here to help, how can we do this with minimal bloodshed, so that everyone's happy?" approach).   
Not to mention that our oil also goes to China and Russia as well, and they wouldn't take too kindly to one of their petrochemical providers suddenly cutting them off, so suddenly China and Russia are knocking on your door (and we all know that the Chinese have more than enough foot soldiers to overwhelm the Americans, and that the Russians are accustomed to very similar climates and therefore, would have absolutely zero issue digging in on the Canadian home-front.   
We also have the favor of the European union (through both our role as peacekeepers for the UN, as well as the role we played in WW2).   
   
America is the big bastard bully on the playground pissing on the troublemakers and calling it "keeping the playground safe" whilst simultaneously beating their chest and proclaiming themselves god of all they see, and no one else minds because A) it does keep things somewhat peaceful, and we're happy to let you send your children, wives, husbands, fathers, mothers, etc into ****** situations because we like ours just where they are, and B) if a retard runs around screaming he's the lord of the potato cats, you don't beat him for being retarded, you let him think he's special and keep buying him his favorite brand of paste to eat.   
 The reality of the bastard bully is that were he to ever set his sites on someone who hasn't really done anything wrong in the eyes of the collective, the resulting collaborative pee-pee slap would turn America into a woman.   
   
mfw Americants read this.
If anything, it would be retaliatory, should you ever set your gaze northwards deciding "They haven't given us enough oil yet."
The result wouldn't really be just from the Canadian front, either. We're allied with most other nations in the world, (or at least, more-so than America, given your "we'll beat the **** out of anyone" mentality versus our "Ok <insert conflicted country's name here> we're here to help, how can we do this with minimal bloodshed, so that everyone's happy?" approach).
Not to mention that our oil also goes to China and Russia as well, and they wouldn't take too kindly to one of their petrochemical providers suddenly cutting them off, so suddenly China and Russia are knocking on your door (and we all know that the Chinese have more than enough foot soldiers to overwhelm the Americans, and that the Russians are accustomed to very similar climates and therefore, would have absolutely zero issue digging in on the Canadian home-front.
We also have the favor of the European union (through both our role as peacekeepers for the UN, as well as the role we played in WW2).

America is the big bastard bully on the playground pissing on the troublemakers and calling it "keeping the playground safe" whilst simultaneously beating their chest and proclaiming themselves god of all they see, and no one else minds because A) it does keep things somewhat peaceful, and we're happy to let you send your children, wives, husbands, fathers, mothers, etc into ****** situations because we like ours just where they are, and B) if a retard runs around screaming he's the lord of the potato cats, you don't beat him for being retarded, you let him think he's special and keep buying him his favorite brand of paste to eat.
The reality of the bastard bully is that were he to ever set his sites on someone who hasn't really done anything wrong in the eyes of the collective, the resulting collaborative pee-pee slap would turn America into a woman.

mfw Americants read this.
#115 to #55 - heartlessrobot
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Ok, with the bit about China, they're YEARS behind us, militarily. Yeah, they got more soldiers, but those soldiers don't do **** if they have worse weapons, worse armor, and are getting taken out before they even SEE our troops.
#78 to #55 - iseethings ONLINE
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
As an american, i agree with you but... bashing a entire country for the ******** of the government is just mean.
#241 to #78 - duskmane
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
You mistake me, sir.   
I don't hold my grudge against the government.   
I hold my grudge against the bulk of your population, who choose to rather accept blindly the &quot;America is best country&quot; attitude that is taught in your schools rather than thinking for themselves.   
A meanie poo-poo head this might make me, but I would rather be a meanie poo-poo head than a member of an uneducated mass, perpetuating a self righteous and misguided belief in righteousness, simply because someone told me so when I was a little kid.   
   
Fact is   
Americans need to grow up, learn to think for themselves, and forward themselves as a nation before they go trying to police the world, because honestly, you guys can't even police your ******* selves.
You mistake me, sir.
I don't hold my grudge against the government.
I hold my grudge against the bulk of your population, who choose to rather accept blindly the "America is best country" attitude that is taught in your schools rather than thinking for themselves.
A meanie poo-poo head this might make me, but I would rather be a meanie poo-poo head than a member of an uneducated mass, perpetuating a self righteous and misguided belief in righteousness, simply because someone told me so when I was a little kid.

Fact is
Americans need to grow up, learn to think for themselves, and forward themselves as a nation before they go trying to police the world, because honestly, you guys can't even police your ******* selves.
#61 to #55 - buckwild
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure that other countries would back the country with the most trades. Think about it. If we stop buying and selling with other countries I would kill their economy. OMG YOU HAVE OIL and um well snow I guess.
#68 to #61 - duskmane
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
So... ultimately, Everyone will side with China and Mexico, is what you're saying.
Tell me, how are those brass mills in Connecticut running for you?
The ones that were outsourced overseas because it's cheaper, and the mills converted into projects?
#70 to #68 - buckwild
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Wait why the **** does everyone think America is even hating on canada. Last I checked we all got along. Some one is making a mountain out of a mole hill Eh.
#74 to #70 - duskmane
Reply +2
(08/23/2013) [-]
Welcome to the internet.
Welcome to the internet.
#60 to #55 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
It doesn't matter how many soldiers you have, what matters is how well you use them. And if I say so myself America uses their soldiers pretty efficiently. The most anyone would do to America is force us back to our borders. They will not be able to get any farther than that. America has the most money into the military so I say bring it if you guys want. America will win.
#64 to #60 - duskmane
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
And there's the first americant beating his chest, right on time.
Clearly wasn't paying attention to the bit about how it would be Canada retaliating, should it ever come to blows between Canada and Canada's Shorts.
#122 to #64 - castial
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
The U.S. has a stronger and more advanced military, Canada actually buys much of it's equipment such as planes from U.S. makers, our Air force alone would destroy you economy by taking out all factories then you have nothing U.S. makers won't sell their goods to an opposing nation in a time of war nor could Canada attempt a counter invasion because of gun ownership in America, all in all You'd fall like a maple leaf in a wind storm. but our nations are among the Strongest allies known because of the location of both and that is a great thing, if it ever happened and Canada was attacked the U.S. would immediately assist in the defense of our neighbor to the north
#235 to #122 - duskmane
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
By U.S. makers you mean the Chinese, of course... as in.. the people who pre-fabricate everything and then a couple of retards in the U.s put "assembled in the U.S." stickers on it and call it "American made" so that the rest of your retarded flock don't feel bad about buying Chinese made products? Like your garden hoses. And your compression turbines. And your mag-lev systems (where you're actually well off enough to have them). Let's face it, Your "american equipment" is, at it's best, japanese engineered, Chinese produced, mexican assembled, and U.S. Q.C.'d. Americans haven't produced jack **** of value in the last 20 years.

The fact of the matter, son, it that you're out dated, out manned, out gunned, and out classed, by every other nation in the world..
Sorry, but facts are facts. You sold out to other nations to produce for the lowest value (capitalism) and sold to the highest bidder (foreign stakeholders) in the name of free-market economy. You are owned, operated, and licenced by those wonderful browns and yellows that you hate so very much, and there's nothing you can do about it, because you love Uncle Sam, you love Sam's Club, and you love Chinese made, rock-bottom priced garbage.
At least in Canada we have the decency to make **** ourselves.
#249 to #235 - castial
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sub-support-contract-creating-canadian-controversy-04563/

Here try and learn something about your subs instead of talking ****.
#248 to #235 - castial
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
"Canada paid $750 million for four used Victoria-class Royal Navy submarines in 1998. They had been decommissioned in 1993 when the U.K. decided to focus solely on nuclear subs" oh yes very scary subs that are out dated junk compared to ours, wow man you do not look into **** you read headline and make up your own. In their 13 years of Canadian service, the subs have spent less than three years at sea and have been plagued by dents, rust, fires and You need to login to view this link 2004, HMCS Chicoutimi caught fire during its maiden voyage as a Canadian sub. Nine members of the crew suffered smoke inhalation. Lt. Chris Saunders, 32, died. HMCS Corner Brook ran aground in 2011 and is not expected back in service for at least two years. HMCS Windsor started a two-year refit in 2007 and is still not ready for service. It remains dry-docked in Halifax. When the Windsor does return to service, it may actually be less capable than before. CBC News obtained documents via access to information legislation that show the navy discovered rust in the sub. would render it unable to dive as deep as it did before the multimillion-dollar refit. HMCS Victoria has been at sea for 115 days and is undergoing "work-ups" for an expected return to full operational service this year. None of the subs is capable of firing a Canadian torpedo.cts don't you. I mean **** y'alls purchase killed one of you're own.
#246 to #235 - castial
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Out dated and out gunned really?, We have the strongest weapons military wise out of any North American nation our Anti- ICBM are more feared then out ICBM'S, and why don't look at the bottom where i say that i wouldn't want our nations at war with each other i have no problem with Canada, **** it's the only place to get universal health care right. And don't call me son or young pup when you don't know how old I am, and Our Nuclear subs have shopping centers too, and I don't give a **** if you have Nuclear subs you still don't have the nuclear power to compete with us on that level, **** the Russians feared our Anti-ICBM's so much they forged a treaty so we would have less and so would they, So next time you think your some hot **** because you have a nuclear sub remember we've had that **** for years, and out manned is ********, your population is 34.5 million people ours is 313.9 million people, look into something before you talk ****
#251 to #246 - duskmane
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
I could honestly care less about our possession of nuclear submarines, the statements were made to point out the fact that we do not, as you claimed previously "buy all our **** from you", so good job staying on point with that you *sarcasm*
Our populations don't really factor into it either, considering the previously made point that china and russia would come to our aid.
Congratulations on your population of 313.9 million people, china's rocking 1.34 BILLION.



Son.
#252 to #251 - castial
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
You really put alot about your subs and how they have malls in them though, tried to make it sound intimidating by pushing size, and how do you know those nations would aid you, if they could. A war is almost never going to break out among our nations. But how do you know they'd save you, I mean neither of them could send help fast enough if we decided to cripple you, and the popluation of a nation shows its size in military, you have roughly 80,000 soldiers as of 2011, we have over 1 million as of 2011 there goes your out manned statement,
#253 to #252 - duskmane
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Yes. Our subs with malls in them.
I think you need to take a moment and re-read that post properly, and then you can come back and tell me how much of a retard you feel like for that statement (I let the first one slip, thinking you were just rushed to type your reply, but now I'm genuinely concerned that you're just reading whichever words you want to read, in whichever order you feel like.

Which is cute and all, but we call that "imagination" not "comprehension".

Wars don't happen overnight, and they don't only last 24 hours. There would be plenty of time for our allies to mobilize and come to our aid.
#254 to #253 - castial
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
your forgetting our Anti-ICBM's which contain multiple warheads per missile we launch them and your done, and it wouldn't take nearly as long as it would for your hypothetical allies. " Like our nuclear powered submarines that we purchased from the U.K.
Or did your beloved FOX news not report that to you?
Yeah, our malls have nuclear submarines.
That's correct. Shopping Establishments. Fully Functional Nuclear submarines.
Why? Why the **** not" See here is where you try to push how you bought quality and large subs from the UK I provided quotes and source to counter that showing y'all bought **** and seemed proud. Notice you say fully functional, now none of them are currently being used, one is dry docked, another has a torpedo tube welded shut to keep it from flooding, I was trying to show you that you need to actually look into something before trying to use it to sound intimidating. And Remember They are our allies as well and it would be awhile before they decided which nation to assist, they wouldn't cut ties with their strongest ally at the drop of a hat
#255 to #254 - duskmane
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Ah, you got it right this time. Subs in malls, not malls in subs.
And one of the really pleasant things about canada.... alllll this space. Only 34.5 million people. Sure, you could strike the major population centers, but really, you'd have to pretty well carpet bomb the entire country, and I'm fairly certain you would'nt have that done by the time the rest of the world said "bad America!" and whacked you over the head with a rolled up newspaper.
#256 to #255 - castial
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Can we just ******* agree to disagree here, I'm getting sick of this ****
#239 to #235 - duskmane
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
And lets not forget to mention that the majority of nations that prvice you with oil/gas: we provided the peace-keeping force fr your "OPERATION:FREEDOM"s. And let's just remember that without that oil and gas the "beautiful American war machine" comes to a grinding ******* halt.
We buy our equipment from you?
We could buy from any god damn nation on the planet. Like our nuclear powered submarines that we purchased from the U.K.
Or did your beloved FOX news not report that to you?
Yeah, our malls have nuclear submarines.
That's correct. Shopping Establishments. Fully Functional Nuclear submarines.
Why? Why the **** not.
You may have the most money into the military, but how much is actually yours to spend?
Ask yourself those questions before you go mouthing off again, young pup.
#240 to #239 - duskmane
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
provide*
#263 - moondanny
Reply +1
(08/26/2013) [-]
We're ******* sorry eh
#265 to #263 - thegloryofinternet [OP]
Reply 0
(08/27/2013) [-]
I do love that comment!
#219 - chism
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
hey Canada, remember when that was England and not you
#163 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply -4
(08/23/2013) [-]
Aw ****, why is my hat talking again? God damn it, it's going to be the war of 1812 again, oh wait... WHY AM I WORRIED? HAHAHAHAHA! Oh, Canada, you so silly, now go back to your beer, hockey, moose hunting, and medicare, I have to recount my 9500 nuclear armaments, and check up on that couple 1000 tons of nerotoxins I have stored from WW2 and the Cold war, not to mention making sure that 3% of my national GDP goes towards my military.
#180 to #163 - thegloryofinternet [OP]
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Dude, if you think that nuking Canada might be a good idea. Then play a bit Fallout, so you can train your lazy ass to see what it looks like what happens when...
#183 to #180 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
>Implying I said that it would be a good idea for the USA to nuke Canada
>Implying that I was implying that Canada would have to be ******* insane to try to even attack America
>Implying I wasn't mocking OP for saying that Canada could take America in a fair fight
>Implying implications implied in impromptu implying implications by implement
#186 to #183 - thegloryofinternet [OP]
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
I was just saying that these 9500 Nukes are worthless in a fight against Canada.

And I have to apologise about that lazy ass, I got a bit temperamental.

By the way I am German. I just wanted to share a fact which is pretty good hidden in US History.
#194 to #186 - useroftheLOLZ
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
In a sense, they would be, but they make the ultimate deterrent considering the Soviet Union, and America were one wrong word away from nuking each other all to hell, even if it meant that even if America would strike preemptively, there would still be a massive nuclear fallout coming towards America, and especially since America would have no choice but to resort to the most brutal of retaliations towards Canada, to ensure hegemony, and all that political ********.

And even without the nuclear armaments, not even NATO could hope to bring down America, without resorting to ignoring the Geneva Convention, and even then, that throws out the rules America would have been following too, which would be the equivalent to opening the gates of hell, wide open.

So even with ignoring conventional warfare, NATO couldn't hope to bring down America, so long as America is on the defensive, and it believes that it is innocent, which it will because it had done nothing to provoke the attack. Since this is true, (seriously, ask anyone in the military, and they will tell you what I told you), what hope would Canada have? They might have a slight advantage being that they are on the border, and don't have to send their troops over seas, but even then, I can assure you, America will turn back to how it was during WW2, then make it even better. Enlistments would skyrocket, factories would be overclocked, resources would be striped faster than they have ever been. It wouldn't even be a war, it would be America waltzing into Canada, and annexing it.
#195 to #194 - thegloryofinternet [OP]
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Let's agree on the fact that neither on of us wants that **** to happen
#182 to #163 - thefaythless
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Yes...Nuke canada.... Well If you can find us on a map feel free. what with your 85% of the general public unable to do so im not so worried. Mexico watch out the US is at it again.
#134 - sircool
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
remember when people actually cared about canada other than on the internet? I don't.
#129 - howunexpected
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
But
Canada was just North American Britain then. They weren't their own country, they lacked a separate government. They were what the 13 Colonies in the current US were, pre-revolution.
#125 - toosexyforyou
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
"they can again."

Lets all be honest here for a second. We all know that if it came down to a 1v1 involving the US and any other country in the world (meaning no other country were to get involved), the US would win against all of them. (credit to anon from a couple of posts ago)
#130 to #125 - thebestpieever
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
China.
#203 to #130 - ilovehitler
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Would not win.
#131 to #125 - thelastprothean
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
I dunno. China has sheer numbers; and we only have so much ammo.
#166 to #131 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
China lacks the technology. They are not that tough.
#144 to #131 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Don't forget that China relies heavily on US oil
#133 to #131 - toosexyforyou
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Numbers? Whether or not you include civilians in those numbers, the US would still win by a landslide.

If there was a war that only involved naval ships (meaning that all countries could only use submarines and ships, no air support) the US's naval power is enough to win against every other country put together. The US definitely can't take on the world if ground or air were involved but if the US's naval strength is that great, it's very likely that it could take on a single country (even if it has a larger population).

As for the ammo, ammo is so relatively cheap in the US that people are stockpiling it which is one of the big reasons for the new gun laws and such.
#154 to #133 - thelastprothean
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
You are kidding right? China's main battle strategy hasn't changed in hundreds of years. It's take you thousands of troops, and rush the enemy. China's military has over a million more active troops. I'm not saying China would win, but they could do some serious damage. I've read reports on the military strength of both countries, and China is still 20 years behind the US in tech and training, but if the U.S. continues to rely so heavily on electronics and robotics, it would take a few well planned events to destroy much of our infrastructure, and send our armed forces reeling. We would get back up and beat the **** out of the Chinese, but it would do some serious damage. As I said earlier
#158 to #154 - toosexyforyou
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Oh, great idea, take thousands of troops and rush them into US troops. And you're asking me if I'm kidding? Great ******* strategy for China dude. that's the strategy they'll use if they don't want to do any serious damage at all.

You're agreeing with me that the US would beat China so there's not much I can else I can say about anything else you said. I said the US would win against any other country in the world, there will obviously be some casualties against countries like China or Russia.
#171 to #158 - masdercheef
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
You know who else was a technologically superior army that "could totally take on the enemy because we have such better technology"? The Nazis. Look at what the Soviets did to them.
#202 to #171 - ilovehitler
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
To be fair, they had already been fighting a war, and only the Russians can ever take Russia when the winter hits.
China doesn't get as cold as Russia.
#172 to #171 - toosexyforyou
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
They didn't do it alone. The whole "no other country being involved" thing was a pretty big part of what I said, I'm not sure how you missed it.
#177 to #172 - masdercheef
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
I'm not talking about the war as a whole, just the Eastern Front (if there were other participants on the eastern front, please forgive my lack of knowledge. It is 1:30 in the morning, so my brain is not quite functioning at full power at the moment, and that fact doesn't play well with my spotty-at-best education of the second World War as a whole). However, you make a good point there. If the Germans hadn't been fighting a war on two fronts, quite literally, they probably could have absolutely steamrolled the Soviets.

Just going to say this, though, a scenario such as you presented seems to be highly unlikely. In a war where the US was pitted against any sort of country that might pose any serious threat, like China, I doubt that the other countries around the world would just sit back and watch the fireworks. There's too much at stake for everyone, in a war between two huge countries like that.
#185 to #177 - toosexyforyou
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Yeah, every country is allied with some other country so a war between two countries would involve others as well which is why I had to put a lot of emphasis on no other countries getting involved. A war between the US and China would definitely not happen. It would be economic suicide for China especially when their economic growth is great at the moment and the world needs the US to be the super power that it is and if the US were to abuse that position then other countries would join together to make another country the new super power.
#143 to #133 - bme
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
you're an idiot, anything could happen in any situation what does america have? unless you saying you would just bombed said country, in which case you're still an idiot because in certain cases i.e canada you would take hits on american soil.
#151 to #143 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Or the fact that China lacks experience, supplies and technology to go to war with the US, and even to this day relies on old Cold War era weapons.

In the Korean Conflict the Chinese more casualties in one day than the UN did in the entire war. I highly doubt China's capabilities at this point
#150 to #143 - toosexyforyou
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Oh, well if you want to factor in luck into the equation then sure, Kenya could possibly win against the US if every US soldier suddenly died. I thought that it was obvious enough that neither country would use nuclear weapons but I guess not. And the last part of your comment doesn't even make sense, the hit the US would take wouldn't be nearly as bad as the hit Canada would take, therefore the US still would be the winner of that war. If you're going to respond back, put some thought into it or it won't even be worth replying back to you.
#157 to #150 - bme
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
i guess that was pretty vague, what i meant was america wouldn't actually take that shot because of the risk of killing even one of their citizens assuming they aren't just on a war path. And i didn't mean someone like kenya lol, what i meant was, say someone like britain, or canada, or even somewhere with just a decently trained army was to take on america. from what history shows america would bring the war to them, it's not like anyone has bases in america. so the challenge would just be to bring the war to america. basically just do to them what they do to other countries. go in **** with all their government buildings, old folks homes, everything and everything, fox news would have half the country going for bomb shelters and half the country going for riffles, before you know it the citizens are fighting their own government for not doing anything about the invaders. the fact is america has been a super power for too long it never lasts look at rome or great britain, they had their time, but no system works forever. U.S.A is a ticking time bomb waiting for one wrong move.   
   
&gt;im not looking for a fight, just my opinion, you're mot going to change it.
i guess that was pretty vague, what i meant was america wouldn't actually take that shot because of the risk of killing even one of their citizens assuming they aren't just on a war path. And i didn't mean someone like kenya lol, what i meant was, say someone like britain, or canada, or even somewhere with just a decently trained army was to take on america. from what history shows america would bring the war to them, it's not like anyone has bases in america. so the challenge would just be to bring the war to america. basically just do to them what they do to other countries. go in **** with all their government buildings, old folks homes, everything and everything, fox news would have half the country going for bomb shelters and half the country going for riffles, before you know it the citizens are fighting their own government for not doing anything about the invaders. the fact is america has been a super power for too long it never lasts look at rome or great britain, they had their time, but no system works forever. U.S.A is a ticking time bomb waiting for one wrong move.

>im not looking for a fight, just my opinion, you're mot going to change it.
#165 to #157 - toosexyforyou
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
Alrighty, now that's a comment I'd be happy to reply The thing is that the US is stronger than it has ever been. You're theory with bringing the war to America and such would work but only if more than 1 country were involved. 1 country (even if it were Canada, China, Russia, or the UK) would only win if they got lucky.

You could be right in the US being a ticking time bomb and repeating the history of every country/empire/city that became the world super power but we don't know yet. I'm sure you've heard the phrase that goes something like 'those who don't learn of history are doomed to repeat it.' Well the thing is that we're learning so much about history that there is a chance the US won't repeat it and the world is becoming more peaceful.

I'm not sure if you know this already but when Britain was the world super power, the US (not the US at the time but we'll just call it that) troops led by George Washington were losing and went to attack the British during Christmas time. The British were relaxing while George Washington's troops marched in there and quickly won the battle and snowballed the rest of the war. The commander in charge of those British troops was actually given a letter warning him that the US troops were coming but he died with it unopened in his pocket.
#261 to #165 - bme
Reply 0
(08/24/2013) [-]
yeah it could be a turning point in history, this is a hypothetical situation as well it's not like any country is really going to randomly attack the united states and have no one else join in, lol. realistically the only way i see america losing it's "superiority" is having it slowly shift to an allie i dont really see anyone particular at the moment but im sure it will happen eventually and someone will build an army, and not necessarily fighting U.S.A for power but kind of "getting on their level".
#114 - mreggsalad
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
I love Canada very much, but if they tried to attack the US again, I don't think they would succeed at doing very much.
#147 to #114 - bme
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
i dont know why americans think they are untouchable? hell a couple ******* towel heads with nowhere near military precision took out two building and you still talk about it.
#153 to #147 - mreggsalad
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
But they were sneaky towel heads. There's a difference. Because they were sneaky
#159 to #153 - bme
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
all im saying is if a few sneaky towel heads could do that much damage with a few planes imagine what any properly trained military with actual jets and weapons could do. america isn't invincible
#118 to #114 - roflstorm
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
>Canada
>Attack the USA

BAHAHAHAHAHA
#120 to #118 - mreggsalad
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
You know... Now that I think about it, it does seem pretty... Y'know.
#156 to #120 - roflstorm
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Theres a reason for why no one hates us.

Because we havent ****** with anything or started anything.
#110 - bowties
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
&quot;they already kicked your ass (with the help of the British thought) ;) and I bet they can again&quot;
"they already kicked your ass (with the help of the British thought) ;) and I bet they can again"
#106 - anon
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
hey Canada, remember when the majority of your success is from being next to the U.S.?
#113 to #106 - mehmachine
Reply -1
(08/23/2013) [-]
No I can't say I do.
#108 to #106 - oyathatguy
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
no, no i dont
#76 - kieranbaker
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Remember when we W.W. II
#86 to #76 - riddles
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
Something about making and crewing all the cruzers and training all the pilots. then there's dieppe, normandy, and asia
#75 - Aro
Reply +1
(08/23/2013) [-]
&quot;Just want to tell the Americans to be a bit nicer&quot;
"Just want to tell the Americans to be a bit nicer"
#38 - commit
Reply +1
(08/22/2013) [-]
Is that a threat Canada? we'll pull out our freedomilitary!
#67 to #38 - buckwild
Reply 0
(08/23/2013) [-]
easy they have polar bears