Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #1157 - copenwood (06/07/2012) [-]
Coming from a military family, I can't say i agree with this, but hey, we win the wars we fight (all but one that is) and we fight fair. Regardless of what our enemies say, America still wins.
#1297 to #1157 - santyclause (08/18/2012) [-]
congrats you have officialy made a....
User avatar #1271 to #1157 - steil (06/09/2012) [-]
If we fought wars fair we would never have one a single war.
Wars are won by fighting as dirty as possible.
User avatar #1278 to #1271 - jrondeau **User deleted account** (06/12/2012) [-]
The only fair fight is the one you lose
#1201 to #1157 - fogglebeast (06/07/2012) [-]
I'm sorry, but it's hard to find an army that fights fair, never mind the Americans. They bombed Vietnam and Japan mercilessly - civillians, wildlife, anything they felt like bombing. That's not fair, that's downright dishonourable. People join the millitary knowing that they may die - innocent civillians however, shouldn't be treated as a mere obstacle or tool for winning wars. As I said, there are few millitary forces who fight fair, but to say that America fights fair is just ignorant.
#1216 to #1201 - anonymous (06/07/2012) [-]
there are no rules in war
#1166 to #1157 - ienjoyrofling (06/07/2012) [-]
Actually, I've got to call you out on the 'fighting fair" aspect you claimed. Look back at the Revolutionary war. The British fought the "gentleman" style of combat, stand in rows, fire, first row ducks and reloads, back group fires, and repeats until melee/sword combat breaks out. The current-America's primary leader, George Washington was different. All the leaders before him fought "gentleman" style. Whereas, G.W said **** all to that, and fought "Guerrilla" style. Which lead to ambushes, hiding in trees, I've even heard they would lay down shrapnel (glass, nails) in bushes, so when the soldiers tread through it, they could get their feet cut up, and possibly a nail through the shoe. Hell, we even attacked them on Christmas. That's far from fair. Sorry if I seem upset, I'm not, just laying down some 7th grade education.
#1173 to #1166 - anonymous (06/07/2012) [-]
yeah or the firebombings on german citys in ww2.
******* fair to burn womens and childrens alive.
User avatar #1298 to #1173 - copenwood (08/27/2012) [-]
womens and childrens? That is a double plural...
User avatar #1206 to #1173 - tehrox (06/07/2012) [-]
yeah well the Germans killed hundreds of thousands of people just by bombing London alone, so I think that is fair
#1237 to #1206 - anonymous (06/07/2012) [-]
Two wrongs don't make a right.
#1213 to #1206 - anonymous (06/07/2012) [-]
thats complete ******** sir.

the germans killed maybe 20.000 in the bombings of london.

the british and americans killed several MILLIONS in the bombings.
#1212 to #1206 - anonymous (06/07/2012) [-]
Righttt, because 'fair' is "well they did this atrocity to someone, so we can do it to them!"

I didn't realise wars were fought kindergarten playground style....
User avatar #1175 to #1173 - copenwood (06/07/2012) [-]
You act like the Germans fought fair. Chemical warfare in WW1. Nobody fights completely fair but America is for sure the cleanest fighting country.
#1186 to #1175 - anonymous (06/07/2012) [-]
Because nukes, drones, and depleted uranium is fair.
User avatar #1172 to #1166 - copenwood (06/07/2012) [-]
I was talking about post-revolutionary war era America. You are 100% right, but war was different then. War would have evolved into what it was now whether we had been the ones to figure out standing in a row waiting to be shot was stupid.
User avatar #1163 to #1157 - hillaryisacunt (06/07/2012) [-]
Yes , because using UAVs to bomb civilian areas is the definition of fair .
#1176 to #1163 - copenwood has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #1167 to #1163 - copenwood (06/07/2012) [-]
There were tons of enemies in those civilian areas. If they weren't bombed, the terrorists would have been ruling over them, raping their women and strapping bombs on the children, there would have been just as much destruction of we would have gone in on foot after them.
#1190 to #1167 - anonymous (06/07/2012) [-]
Theres about 1 confirmed kill that the US was intending for every 50 citizens in a drone attack. Not to mention they use depleted uranium, which has been proven to be more fatal, and deforming than the nuclear bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
#1179 to #1167 - anonymous (06/07/2012) [-]
if we'd leave them alone they wouldn't do any of that anyway...plus you actually believe in terrorists lol
if we'd leave them alone they wouldn't do any of that anyway...plus you actually believe in terrorists lol
#1183 to #1179 - anonymous (06/07/2012) [-]
wait... What? believe?! the ******* you talking about?
User avatar #1181 to #1179 - copenwood (06/07/2012) [-]
They were bombing their country before we went there. Yeah I believe in terrorism?
#1159 to #1157 - anonymous (06/07/2012) [-]
win like in vietnam, afghanistan and iraq?

tumb me down..but you guys can only win against ******** countrys...

the last big war was ww2 and without the russians and 60 other countrys the germans would still dominate the world...
User avatar #1162 to #1159 - copenwood (06/07/2012) [-]
I said all but one, meaning vietnam. Mission accomplished in Afghanistan and Iraq. How did we lose in Iraq or Afghanistan? lmao we were about to withdraw troops since our job was done. Yeah, we had help in WW2 but we came in late, and unprepared to help the WORLD. Even if we had Allies (not 60 either jackass) Germany had the other Axis countries if you forgot about them. What country are you from?
#1221 to #1162 - anonymous (06/07/2012) [-]
lolz, so you admit that you came in late, nice and fresh, when everyone else was battle weary and had done the hard work... and then took credit for everything.

#1193 to #1162 - anonymous (06/07/2012) [-]
Actually, we weren't about to pull our troops out. More and more troops are getting sent every day, and that was the case even when they promised they were bringing troops home, when they said they would stop sending people. Yeah, maybe they did bring some home. But that happens on a regular basis. Some troops come home, but more take their place. This hadn't slowed down, and there was no plans to. In case you didn't even hear anything about this, Obama said he wasn't ever really going to either.
#1169 to #1162 - anonymous (06/07/2012) [-]
mission accomplished?

suicide attacks on a daily basis in iraq...and the taliban still control large parts of afghanistan..dude...our mission isnt even half accomplished...the withdraw of troops isnt more than a ******* retreat...
User avatar #1187 to #1169 - CapnInterwebz (06/07/2012) [-]
How much do you really think our troops are helping? There's been violence and terrorism in the Middle East for about 1400 years. And now because a few of them want to pick a fight with us, does that make it our battle? No. We cleaned up Iraq (not going to touch on any of the controversy) for the most part, and installed a government. The week after we withdraw, the presidential candidates start car bombing opponents.

Sure, it's technically a retreat. But war isn't about seeing which country has the biggest penis based on the amount of missiles or accumulated kills they have. I think we're done over there, because there is no way we can occupy Afghanistan or Iraq or even stay in that region for another 30 years until every last member of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda has been blown to hell.
User avatar #1205 to #1187 - kanguskahn (06/07/2012) [-]
Ok, so I am seeing alot of butthurt from this conversation. America doesn't always fight fare, we fight on terms with our enemy. Also, if someone were to throw a punch at you, wouldn't at least want to throw one back so they don't do it again? Every country has the right to defense, so why not defend ourselves? We have the strongest military force up-to-date and we honestly don't jump into a war that doesn't concern us or our allies. We fought to protect ourselves and others. Also, the civilian thing, really, we make very few civilian kills, and even then they are accidents. And during the Revolutionary War, we found a way to beat the enemy, instead of getting in a line just to get shot one by one. We decided to get around their defenses and find their weak point, that's what every other country tries to do, they want the upper hand, not the lower one. During WW1 and 2, the Germans used chemical warfare(which was illegal at the time) against their enemies. Plus, if you are trying to compare us to the Nazis during WW2 with civility, here's an interesting fact you might have forgot, THEY KILLED OVER 6BILLION INNOCENT PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T LIKE THEM. They tried to take down an entire "race" just because they thought it was wrong, so you think it's wrong for us to take out the biggest threat in American history with a few bombs and planes? Your argument is invalid sir.
User avatar #1174 to #1169 - copenwood (06/07/2012) [-]
Are you retarded!? Our mission wasn't "Eliminate all taliban forever". That is impossible. Mission accomplished was declared years ago when Bush was still president and nobody denies that our mission was accomplished. The mission we were sent there to do was done. That doesnt change just because some dumbasses think we were supposed to end all terrorism.
#1192 to #1174 - anonymous (06/07/2012) [-]
The only thing america accomplished, was to **** up a country for decades..who had nothing to do with the whole "Taliban story"..
saddam was one of the biggest enemys of the al qaida...and he didnt even had ABC-weapons...this whole war was based on lies...
and instead of making sure iraq is save from these ******* we just left them alone. ******* fair!
 Friends (0)