I can't read. is my computer on?. If you think that your musket will protect you from the crown and all of the weapons it has at its dis teal YOU ARE INSANE.. Not counting reload time, a musket would rip you to shreds. It fires a non-jacketed lead ball that expands on impact; it's worse than a hollow point. just sayin
Click to expand


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#2 - pebar ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
Not counting reload time, a musket would rip you to shreds. It fires a non-jacketed lead ball that expands on impact; it's worse than a hollow point.

just sayin'
#12 to #2 - anon (02/04/2013) [-]
cool story bro.

Still gets beat by a cannon...
User avatar #13 to #12 - flybager (02/04/2013) [-]
well, a cannon's just one big ****** lead ball.
ofcourse it surpasses a smaller lead ball, if it's 10x its size...
User avatar #29 to #12 - heartlessrobot (02/05/2013) [-]
No, no it really doesn't. Cannons were slow(er) to reload, even slower to aim and maneuver and you can't beat the **** out of someone with a canon while you reload.
User avatar #103 to #29 - italianrambo (02/05/2013) [-]
Well i mean if you knock a guy out, drag him under the very front of the cannon, and let it fall on him....thats kinda like a melee attack....
#126 to #103 - heartlessrobot (02/05/2013) [-]
This image has expired
If he's knocked out you can just kick him in the teeth, you don't have to hit him with the canon.
#31 - freespeech has deleted their comment [-]
#26 - chesterouno (02/04/2013) [-]
We have an ace up our sleeve.
User avatar #104 to #26 - italianrambo (02/05/2013) [-]
The italians?
User avatar #133 to #104 - chesterouno (02/05/2013) [-]
...that's Connor, not Ezio. Connor is Native American/British.
User avatar #136 to #133 - italianrambo (02/05/2013) [-]
Right right
#74 - soule has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #66 - superunclesam (02/05/2013) [-]
Better to be given a chance to fight back than to sit down and take it like a submissive bitch.
User avatar #30 - heartlessrobot (02/05/2013) [-]
To all the people saying "What's your assault rifle going to do against tanks and guided missiles?" A whole hell of a lot, considering those are nearly impossible to guide and maneuver through streets and cities. Think about what would happen if you fired a tank in a large city, when you're only fighting about half the city and the rest are civilians. Not to mention most soldiers would refuse to fire upon people who are or might be their friends, family, and neighbors.
User avatar #51 to #30 - rhetoricalfunny ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
Do you honestly think any government or military cares about civilian casualties?
User avatar #58 to #51 - theonlytinman (02/05/2013) [-]
Yes. Yes it does. The military is here to protect the people. I would know. I'm in it.
User avatar #62 to #58 - rhetoricalfunny ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
Your government doesn't care about you or the people.
And if it turns on the people and they have to fight back they won't give two ***** about massacring their own
User avatar #65 to #62 - theonlytinman (02/05/2013) [-]
Says who? History? When was the last time that people with an ounce of morality (which the men and women that I fight with have to spare) decided to follow an unlawful order such as shooting a civilian, ESPECIALLY an american citizen?

Now, you're right. I think that the government doesn't give two ***** about me. But as soon as you look at the military and its level of well set morals, you see that myself and people like me are the majority, by many ******* strides. We would not fire on civilians. Ever.
User avatar #68 to #65 - rhetoricalfunny ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
Then I respect your opinion and shall not comment further
User avatar #61 to #51 - wolverinebamf (02/05/2013) [-]
No country has spent more on reducing collateral damage then the US.
User avatar #63 to #61 - rhetoricalfunny ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
Cause no country has caused as much collateral damage as the US
#33 to #30 - anon (02/05/2013) [-]
It wouldnt be our soldiers that we would have to worry about. It would be mercenaries or another countries soldiers that our government decided to bargain with if they wanted to go to war.
#35 to #33 - anon (02/05/2013) [-]
No. Mercenaries are banned under the Geneva Convention, with the exception of some PMCs and Foreign Legions.
User avatar #36 to #35 - Keleth (02/05/2013) [-]
"private military" like blackwater?
User avatar #57 to #35 - thelastamerican (02/05/2013) [-]
Freedom incorporated doesn't care that mercenaries are outlawed.
User avatar #52 to #30 - kingnarnode (02/05/2013) [-]
I'm no military expert, but I'm pretty sure an assault on a city would go as follows. Tanks positioned outside city, all major roads and exits to the city get blockaded, satellite and air coverage supply surveillance. Blockade commences, military sends warning for civilians to exit the city. Once military is satisfied they flatten city. Justify any collateral damage by issuing a fair warning, and dismiss anyone accusing them of war crimes.

this method seems to have worked for them in the past pretty successfully
#78 to #52 - captnpl (02/05/2013) [-]
But then the people they were trying to kill would either sneak out with the civilians or take hostages.
User avatar #128 to #78 - kingnarnode (02/05/2013) [-]
sneak out with the civilians into military hands? then it's a win for them, they'll be stuck in a refugee camp. As for the hostage thing, really doubt you americans wold take your own as hostage, but even so, it's not like the threat of civilian casualties has stopped the american military before.
User avatar #3 - newmainman (02/04/2013) [-]
Well, i'd rather die fighting for what i believe in, than to just give up..
User avatar #11 to #3 - schnizel (02/04/2013) [-]
#10 to #3 - kearn ONLINE (02/04/2013) [-]
Well we can assume this gentleman is not from France.
#27 - SILENCEnight (02/04/2013) [-]
**SILENCEnight rolled a random image posted in comment #270446 at Friendly ** im sorry, couldn't hear you over our independency.
#34 to #27 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (02/05/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, did you say something? i was too busy enjoying my national healthcare service with my infinity better accents and tea.
#37 to #34 - SILENCEnight (02/05/2013) [-]
**SILENCEnight rolled a random image posted in comment #31 at You have to be clear when you say things ** **** , your accents are quite good...
#38 to #37 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (02/05/2013) [-]
That's what i thought.   
the best accent i have ever heard was a girl who was born in england and moved to america when she was 4 her accent was a mixture of posh british and southern drawl, she didn't flit between the two, it was a combo. 			****		 was cash
That's what i thought.

the best accent i have ever heard was a girl who was born in england and moved to america when she was 4 her accent was a mixture of posh british and southern drawl, she didn't flit between the two, it was a combo. **** was cash
#42 to #38 - anon (02/05/2013) [-]
Wouldn't that be british/american procreation? If thats the case if Britain and America work together what other **** would be cash?
#132 to #42 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (02/05/2013) [-]
English tea with american donuts
#41 to #38 - SILENCEnight (02/05/2013) [-]
**SILENCEnight rolled a random image posted in comment #46340 at Slice of Life thread 3 ** i honestly can't even begin to imagine her accent
User avatar #47 to #34 - roninneko (02/05/2013) [-]
I'm from Canada. We get BOTH.
#131 to #47 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (02/05/2013) [-]
You lack the class of the british.
#134 to #131 - roninneko (02/05/2013) [-]
Say that to my face.
#135 to #134 - mattkingg **User deleted account** (02/05/2013) [-]
That isn't class
User avatar #54 - TARDIS (02/05/2013) [-]
Two words: Navy Seals.
#76 to #54 - captnpl (02/05/2013) [-]
Actually that's 4 words

Navy SEa Air Land
User avatar #71 - sheepysquirrel (02/05/2013) [-]
So do people think the government controls a secret military that is prepared to take over at a moments notice without any second thought and that taking away our guns is their first step in the plan?

I may be wrong here and my military friends may be lying, but isn't our military full of..hmm..idk..CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY?! Do you people SERIOUSLY think they are going to just be like " **** MY OLD CITY!!" and start a war against the citizens?
User avatar #107 to #71 - Zarke (02/05/2013) [-]
So if the government calls upon the military to enforce a gun requisition program, you should have nothing to worry about then. Would those friends of yours turn on their superiors or the American people? I'd like to think the former.
#109 to #107 - anon (02/05/2013) [-]
its called mutiny, and it has happened in the past. Just because people wear uniforms and take orders does not mean they cannot tell right from wrong
User avatar #14 - cowinspace (02/04/2013) [-]
Is OP aware that the american militias were considered a joke by everyone, even their own side. Also, don't forget that, alongside the continental army, you had french troops supporting you and french, spanish and dutch naval blockades cutting off british supplies. It still took you nearly eight years to win even with those advantages.

Then you tried to pick a fight on your own in 1812 and we marched down to D.C and burned the whitehouse to the ground. That ended in stalemate because we were trying to deal with important **** in the civilised world.

As to your gun control angle, remember what I said about militias being considered a joke, then consider facing down a tank with your tiny little gun. Not saying that I'm either pro or anit (it's your decision) but do try to cut down on the obvious propaganda.

To any reasonable americans (I know you are out there), this is probably an overreaction, but i'm drunk and have nothing better to do.
#50 to #14 - thethc (02/05/2013) [-]
"I'm drunk and have nothing better to do" earned you an upvote. Congratulations.
User avatar #53 to #14 - kingnarnode (02/05/2013) [-]
actually we didnt march to dc, the british landed an army via navy near dc
#24 to #14 - anon (02/04/2013) [-]
Hey fag, if we didn't have the militias we would've lost. 'Nuff said.

User avatar #40 to #24 - cowinspace (02/05/2013) [-]
No, you won because of the professionally trained continental army (the guys in blue coats). Along side the few french troops (again, professionals) and the naval forces of the french, dutch and spanish(the US wouldn't place any importance on naval might until after the war of 1812, it's actually quite an interesting subject if you like military history).
#25 to #14 - anon (02/04/2013) [-]
When arguing against propaganda, don't be a dick and state overrating points about how horrible America is and how elite master race important Britain is.

As for gun control, consider this quote from syndrome: If everyone is super, no one is. The main issue isn't govt, but instead the ******** of criminals. AUs violent crime rate rose over 40% after getting rid of theirs. Now imagine that with the American black market that increased drug sale ten fold after them being banned.
#44 to #14 - skybluetroll (02/05/2013) [-]
The last battle of the War of 1812, The battle of new orleans in january 1815, the british lost hundred of men while the American forces barely had any losses.

Also, there's no need to be butthurt. I don't understand why there is always a USA vs Britain debate. They're allies, and any rational person realizes that we have pride in our own country only because we were born within certain boundries as other people who contributed toawrds success for a dignified area. Grow the **** up.
User avatar #15 to #14 - slimfadey (02/04/2013) [-]
Are you British?
User avatar #16 to #15 - cowinspace (02/04/2013) [-]
How did you guess? :)
User avatar #17 to #16 - slimfadey (02/04/2013) [-]
Just saw all of the anti American things. Your welcome for WW1 and WW2 btw.
User avatar #18 to #17 - cowinspace (02/04/2013) [-]
You mean the wars where you turned up late and most of the fighting was done by the russians?

I'm kidding (and I am aware of how much both the british and russian forces relied on american materiel even before pearl harbour), as I said I have nothing against reasonable americans. But there are always the propaganda waving fanatics, and it is fun to put them down.
User avatar #19 to #18 - TheGodzilla (02/04/2013) [-]
You're welcome.
User avatar #22 to #19 - suprconfederateman (02/04/2013) [-]
what you did to japan was not cool bro
User avatar #21 to #19 - slimfadey (02/04/2013) [-]
Nice name. Love it!
User avatar #20 to #18 - slimfadey (02/04/2013) [-]
Hahaha it's cool dude! I'm tolerant of all sorts of nationalities it's just I'm proud of being American! And yeah in all honesty revolutionary war British didn't even bother, 1812 we say we won even though British burned down the white house and making the president run away which makes no sense but we did help a tremendous amount in WW1 and 2 even though both we came in fairly late. But no hard feelings!
User avatar #23 to #20 - cowinspace (02/04/2013) [-]
None taken. :)
#28 to #14 - morstactica (02/05/2013) [-]
Look man, I get it. You used to rule half the world and now you just have bad teeth. No need to get so booty-bothered.
#32 to #28 - rediculous ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
lol......booty bothered
User avatar #39 to #28 - cowinspace (02/05/2013) [-]
Actually it was only around a third, and that's long since past. I'm actually a pro-independance scot, so I don't have any strong feelings or ties to the empire that was (or even the UK that exists now).

I do enjoy winding up jingoistic, mindless, "patriots". And that seems to have worked.
User avatar #60 - wolverinebamf (02/05/2013) [-]
I hope this isn't an analogy for our weapons protecting us from our military. We have highly accurate rifles, handguns, some people with helicopters planes and such, our military has 11 aircraft carriers, a **** ton of battleships, all kinds of **** , plus state of the art bombs, fighter jets, stealth bombers, better training and all that **** , there is no way the civilians of the US could win a revolution, even if every single civilian was on the same side.
#88 to #60 - kmichel (02/05/2013) [-]
Even if they can't, they would still have to try.
User avatar #108 to #60 - Zarke (02/05/2013) [-]
Soldiers are people too. They've got friends, children, families, and memories back home.
User avatar #81 to #60 - krasnogvardiech (02/05/2013) [-]
Just one small note: That ******** of battleships is near useless now in the days of jet fighters and cruise missiles.

Just wait for the standardization of railguns, my british friend.
User avatar #70 to #60 - leettaco (02/05/2013) [-]
Believe it or not, the government does have a limit on just how much force it is willing to use on its population. and all the ships in the world cannot enforce laws. and of course, not all of the military is willing to kill their own people.
#93 to #60 - opisfaggot (02/05/2013) [-]
You are wrong. Simply put.

I'm not saying it would be easy, but it is possible.

Besides half of the military would probably disobey orders.

#43 - anon (02/05/2013) [-]
I can't believe how gullible and stupid people are. If you honestly think that America's own military is going to turn around and attack it's own people openly, then you are not right in the head enough to live in common society. You are an idiot, a complete idiot, if you've ever talked to a soldier, any soldier, you'd know that every ******* one of them will tell you that they will not fire on an American citizen.
#95 to #43 - opisfaggot (02/05/2013) [-]

Its funny because drone strikes are actually allowed on American civilians now
User avatar #45 to #43 - LtMcG ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
The Civil War . . .
People will be split on the issue at whatever is at hand. It's not always going to be a evil dictator or something just rips up the constitution.
User avatar #49 to #43 - ShadeElement (02/05/2013) [-]
Go read an American history book.
American soldiers have fired on their own citizens. Often.

Then go read a World history book.
You'll run out of ink highlighting all the times its happened.

Then go pick up a Newspaper.
Its happening all over the world right now.

America was founded when armed citizens were fired upon by their own government...and fired back.

Who's the idiot now?
User avatar #56 to #49 - theonlytinman (02/05/2013) [-]
How about, I'm a United States Marine. I would never, EVER, obey an order that told me to fire upon a citizen. It is not lawful order and thus cannot be followed.

(I was not logged in the first time I said, and anon is a fag)
User avatar #59 to #56 - multimedia (02/05/2013) [-]
You'd be surprised what people will do when told.

Not suggesting you personally would, but there are some people who use the military for sick, sadistic reasons. Never forget that.
User avatar #64 to #59 - theonlytinman (02/05/2013) [-]
Yes. Yes, I would. I would be astoundingly surprised by the number of people you apparently think would fire on innocent civilians. I dont like every soldier, airmen, sailor, and Marine I've ever met. **** , I dislike damn near all of them. But I trust every ****** one of them with my life. There's a certain level of brotherhood you gain when you join the military and claim the title of Marine/Soldier/etc. that can't be compared to the previous civil wars. So yes. I would be surprised.
User avatar #82 to #56 - ShadeElement (02/05/2013) [-]
What if you were told that those citizens posed a danger to "National Security" and were declared "insurgents" or "domestic terrorists" or "rioters".

Go watch what the National Guard did to peaceful civil rights protestors in the 60s. All in the name of "peace keeping".
I also served my country. I saw combat. I can tell you, in the heat of the moment when everyone is locked, loaded, stressed, on edge, and ready to rock, if you are given the order to fire, you don't take a moment to consider which law, treaty, or code you might be breaking. You shoot first and ask questions later.

I know you think you would do the right thing, but I can tell you, its much more likely you will be a good soldier, remember your training, and follow orders. Even if after the fact, those orders turned out to be firing on your own citizens.
User avatar #84 to #82 - theonlytinman (02/05/2013) [-]
1. I'm not a soldier. I'm a Marine. Huge difference.
2. I've seen my share of combat, and have saved at least one life by informing the Sergeant how ****** up of an order he just gave.
3. The ability to keep cool under pressure, even in combat, (though admittedly hard as **** ) is what separates a mindless puppet from a tactful warfighter.
4. We are not talking about onesies and twosies that actually are insurgents. If they call in the US military to do that job instead of a SWAT team or, ya know, the police, then we have a way bigger problem, and the people we are going to shoot are going to be killed if and ONLY if they shoot at us first. Its called Law of Land Warfare. Its why we don't shoot every afghan we see.
User avatar #86 to #84 - ShadeElement (02/05/2013) [-]
You're right. Then I guess collateral damage doesn't happen. And all those dead women in children in Iraq and Afghanistan posed a serious threat.

If you have saved an innocent life by questioning orders, I salute you.
But you are the exception. Not the rule. Not everyone has your cool thinking, level head, and unwavering moral compass.

The Germans aren't an evil people. 99.9% of them were simply following orders and doing what the government told them was right. A government they trusted. They were simply pawns of a corrupt regime.

Ask the Jews if that mattered.
User avatar #89 to #86 - theonlytinman (02/05/2013) [-]
Yeah, but the huge difference here is that we have history to learn from. Its a different age. We aren't some people ruled by a dictatorship, nor are we a military sovereign nation who wants to wipe out people. We are a people who are more educated than the world wants to make us look.

As for the collateral damage you speak of in Iraq and Afghanistan, those are all unfortunate and are not taken lightly. Altogether though, thats a completely different situation than here. We can communicate with Americans because we all speak english. I'm a linguist and you'd e surprised how well women and children listen when you tell them to get the **** away in their own language. But, that **** happens. Even in america when police and god knows who gets into a firefight, people get hurt and killed.
User avatar #90 to #89 - ShadeElement (02/05/2013) [-]
We do in fact learn from history.

One of the first things we learn is it always repeats itself.
User avatar #92 to #90 - theonlytinman (02/05/2013) [-]
No, that is an incomplete phrase. It should be:

"History repeats itself if you do not learn from it."
User avatar #96 to #92 - ShadeElement (02/05/2013) [-]
Learning from history helps you predict and deal with the future. It doesn't allow you to prevent it from repeating, but it does give you the opportunity to equip yourself to prevent similar outcomes.

For example-
We know from studying history that although most governments are mostly trustworthy, they aren't always. And although armed enforcers of the government, such as military, police, etc, are mostly trustworthy, they aren't always.

Our forefathers had already learned this lesson back in the 1700s. They knew that although they did their best to right corruption out of the US government, there is no perfect system, and eventually, the government WILL do something that isn't in the best interest of its citizens. Its best if those citizens be armed.
User avatar #87 to #86 - ShadeElement (02/05/2013) [-]
PS. The difference between a Soldier and a Marine, isn't as big as the Marines like to think.
User avatar #91 to #87 - theonlytinman (02/05/2013) [-]
Its significantly more different than the army would explain to you. See, I actually do my homework on the services.
User avatar #94 to #91 - ShadeElement (02/05/2013) [-]
As an Army Combat Engineer I actually spent more time deployed along side Marine units than any other service branch.

The Jar Head comments and jokes about charging up a hill blindly into on coming fire are pretty misplaced. The Marines were just as capable, and tactically sound as any other combat unit I saw.

The Marines just had a lot more pride in what they did. Thats about it.
User avatar #98 to #94 - theonlytinman (02/05/2013) [-]
Historically Marines are always (and I quote) "gung-ho, ass-kicking, star-spangled-baddasses that are the tip of the spear that is driven through the head of the ****** dumb enough to end up on the wrong end of it."

As things are currently, the Marine Corps and the Army serve the same purpose and do (essentially) the same job, at least in country. But we are a specialized group in readiness. As first responders we always see our most badass moments when we need to invade another place and need to defend what we take until the army comes in with more supplies and soldiers.

But out of country (at least until we need to invade another country) is where we see the biggest differences between soldiers and Marines. I can't speak for everywhere, but of the 10+ places I've been to, the soldiers had maybe a 50/50 ratio of very motivated and proud people, willing to stick their neck out for any other soldier he sees, and make sure to take that extra mile every time. That ratio for the Marine corps is about 90/10 from what I've seen.
User avatar #100 to #98 - ShadeElement (02/05/2013) [-]
I think your ratio has more to do with yourself.

If you are highly motivated, you surround yourself with highly motivated people. Especially in the military.

I've met bad ass Airmen, and I've met worthless Marines. It all depends on the crowd you run with.
User avatar #102 to #100 - theonlytinman (02/05/2013) [-]
And there, kind sir, you have an outstanding point.
#77 to #56 - captnpl (02/05/2013) [-]
Then you would be imprisoned for dereliction of duty.
User avatar #80 to #77 - theonlytinman (02/05/2013) [-]
No. I am required to follow all LAWFUL orders. Now, please think of what would make it lawful to shoot an innocent civilian?

And lets say I did get imprisoned for not shooting him. I'd do my time with a smile, just as every other serviceman and woman that I know that would act exactly as I would.
#55 to #49 - anon (02/05/2013) [-]
How about, I'm a United States Marine. I would never, EVER, obey an order that told me to fire upon a citizen. It is not lawful order and thus cannot be followed.
User avatar #67 to #55 - jacklane (02/05/2013) [-]
How about, I'm a United States Marine. I would never, EVER, obey an order that told me to fire upon a citizen. It is not lawful order and thus cannot be followed.
User avatar #99 to #49 - italianrambo (02/05/2013) [-]
You're my new favorite human
#79 - intrepidy (02/05/2013) [-]
For Queen and country.
User avatar #105 to #79 - reginleif ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
Yes, the english are so damn charming and fun to be around.

"Those colonial skirmishes were all in good fun, it's not like America, Ireland, and India hated our guts". xD

Let's be real for a second here......how ******* terrible were the british if we were willing to turn to the FRENCH for assistance....... you know those annoying fags who say "le" all day?. ^^

********* .jpg
#110 to #105 - intrepidy (02/05/2013) [-]
Wait....when did we ask for assistance from the French? The revolutionary war? The US was teamed with France then (and spain and the netherlands)

We have a long history of stealing French colonies.

Yes yes of course, the other countries were the peak of human development at the time, what with the Spanish inquisition and the absolute monarchy of the French which led to an Italian taking the throne. Hey how is manifest destiny going by the way?

User avatar #114 to #110 - reginleif ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
So what's the point of all that text? That other countries were bad as well? Honestly dgaf. Neither the Frenchies or the Spaniards were making laws here, forcing people to house soldiers, or even forcing us to trade exclusively through their ports to raise every last penny in revenue.

The fact that Americans were willing to turn to the antagonist of the previous war, shows just how ****** the brits were.

And manifest destiny? It's going along much nicer than that has-been empire without a sunset. . ^^

#118 to #114 - intrepidy (02/05/2013) [-]
Well yes. A colonial power that didn't exploit its lands would have been crushed by the others, the trade block paid for the navy which meant you didn't become French America or Spanish America and i can say you would have had a much worse time.

Although just to point out, yes they both did...to their own colonies. Mercantilism was the in thing before the development of English Free Trade.

That's honestly just enemy of my enemy, everyone does that.

And clearly, i mean you had to steal half of mexico and kill most of the natives but meh, you guys are never bad guys. Except the civil war, then you were bad guys.
#85 to #79 - anon (02/05/2013) [-]
I'm sorry, how big is your country? Oh yea, that's right. It's a ******* miniature Australia.

#111 to #85 - intrepidy (02/05/2013) [-]
You may want to reconsider what you consider mockery. A country smaller than most US states managed to control 1/4th of all the world's land, 1/5th of the world's population and was the greatest empire the world has ever known.

By the way, nice language you're using there.
User avatar #116 to #111 - DCat (02/05/2013) [-]
" A country smaller than most US states managed to control 1/4th of all the world's land"

How long ago was that? Quite a while ago, now wasn't it? The US has Naval, and Air Force bases stationed in, or around the UK. You guys have non over here.

"1/5th of the world's population and was the greatest empire the world has ever known. "

Oh yeah, one more thing. It was the Romans that had the worlds greatest , and most vast empire, including the highest population. Step down from your throne (not mocking the Queen or anything. Just a figure of speech), you're not as great as you think you are, buddy.

I don't see how I got a notification from this. I posted that as an anon :S

No, I'm not saying which country is better. In-fact, I don't care, It's just annoying how you seem to think you're so high and mighty because you're British
#119 to #116 - intrepidy (02/05/2013) [-]
How long ago? Around 1946 it started to drop off. And yes of course you do, we actually have countries that might threaten the world in this hemisphere.

You need to login to view this link

Mate i think you've had a brain fart. The Roman Empire was small, and vastly depopulated. It was pre-middle ages..how many people do you think were alive then? Also have you ever heard of the Mongolian empire? Or the Spanish Empire?
User avatar #122 to #119 - reginleif ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
Get off your high horse man, you guys were lucky to have survived this far into the game, considering Germany nearly crushed the British at Dunkirk, forcing a surrender.

We got bases in both of those bitch ass countries. ^^

Hell we practically own Canada.
#123 to #122 - intrepidy (02/05/2013) [-]
That previous comment wasn't even in the stable. He was just incorrect.

Yeah, nearly. Just like the Germans nearly took Stalingrad and nearly took Moscow and nearly tried to invade the UK. WW2 is filled with nearlys. One of the main reasons we escaped was Hitler wanted us to ally with him. Hell we only ended up in that situation because of the useless French army. Honestly you have 110+ divisions sat on the border with Germany facing around 25 divisions while they fight Poland and you do nothing? We were a naval power! We aren't designed to deal with eurofag wars. At least we can agree the French suck i assume. (They brought WW2 onto themself with what they did to Germany in WW1)

Well China owns you....at least Canada has a good economy going.
User avatar #125 to #123 - reginleif ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
Hitler did have hopes of GB joining with them, however he did intend to crush GB in Dunkirk, he just wanted the Luftwaffe to do it over some political bs he had with a ground general.

The Brits survived more because Hitler was such a bad leader, than any cunning or Strategy they had.

Like you mentioned with the French...... that would have been the end of him, that was a terrible strategy....and he kept making those rookie mistakes but kept getting lucky.

I'll agree with you on the French part, recent events has shown that the UK makes for a better more steady ally.

LOL@ China......they don't own us....yet. A modest portion of the US debt is foreign, and while we would lose a trade war, or even crash our economy boycotting them it wouldn't mean the end of us. Our military tech is still top notch, our nukes aren't going anywhere, and unlike a certain country with a funny accent......we can eventually ratchet our economy to self sustain, albeit at a large ecological cost.

User avatar #117 to #116 - DCat (02/05/2013) [-]
Sorry, none, not "non"

Didn't proof-read :\
User avatar #120 to #111 - reginleif ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
Don't see how one can be proud of that considering how the English lead some pretty brutal ethnic cleansing campaigns in most of their former colonies, instigated conflicts in others, and pretty much ****** entire economies to satisfy their greed.

Not to mention you guys were the most arrogant pricks ever to grace this world, with the SHEER AMOUNT OF slogans.....

But after all this, Britain (and by extension the rest of Europe) is simply content to sit back and criticize the US for problems that they created.

Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to make a ******* McDonald's in Africa when you can't even make Ubunte and Kenbe stay in the same room, because of colonial tensions stoked years ago?

Or perhaps you would like to explain what the **** you Eurofags were thinking promoting the idea of a jewish state because none of you wanted to handle a boatload of Jews?
#121 to #120 - intrepidy (02/05/2013) [-]
Yeah, we've done some bad things we aren't proud of. So has every nation, some more than others, i can say we've also done a lot for the world too, but at least we tried to better ourselves. Slavery for example, we realised how barbaric it was and actively fought people who did it.

Arrogant pricks? Really? When you are the world's foremost power, you are afforded the ability to be confident in your country, so are you right now. But if you want arrogance, look closer to home..America crowned itself the world police, it thinks it needs to get involved and fix every issue and every time it makes it worse, you nearly ended the world several times during the cold war with how cock-sure you were. We can thank the Russians for seeing sense and not overreacting to your actions. (You started the cuban missile crisis by planting nukes in turkey, then fired on a russian sub) You could kill everyone, if you don't collapse the world economy first.

Yes, that is entirely our fault. Its not like when Europeans arrived the people of Africa weren't in a continual state of war.. The British army (excluding the 2 wars) has never really been more than 100k men, their has always been fighting in Africa and Europeans just exploited it. Same with India and China. Don't worry im sure a Mcdonalds will fix the cripping poverty. (I will admit, we could have drawn those borders better in Sudan, maybe without the US interering it would have gone better)

Now don't get started with Israel, that couldn't have been less our fault, we tried more than any country to get peace out of that region. Many times land partitions were drawn up and both sides rejected them, but we couldn't just leave it as it was...after world war 2 thousands of Jews moved to Palestine even with very strict immigration controls. The UN forced the creation if israel too early with a plan to put lands under UN control. We abstained, you voted yes. A civil war started and you've been bumming them every since.
User avatar #124 to #121 - reginleif ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
Yes, let's totally remind those American's how we abolished slavery! Except for the fact that slavery for all English territories was abolished just a few years before the US civil war.

Yes, you guys were arrogant even for an empire. Even going back to the end of the revolutionary war, when your general wouldn't even meet up with ours for a ******* surrender. ^^ How is manifest destiny, and american excellence any different from "Cape to Cairo" and "The white man's burden".

And we're SORRY for using our newfound position of power to ensure ******* peace after you and your eurofag pals ravaged the entire Western world and it's colonies in an all out fight, which could have possibly ended up with half of Europe under the clutches of a dictator who sacrifices millions of his own people like they were dollars. Next time, we'll just make sure your country is dead by sending a bomb your way instead of lending millitary equipment and writing loans to our enemies.

If the US government doesn't actually forcibly put down soldiers and forces people to do their bidding is it still any less of a bully? You guys took advantage of ethnic conflicts, and even created some when they weren't there to make it easier to exploit resources and labor. You guys did the same **** we did, say the same stuff we said. and created a lot of the problems the US had to deal with later.... and then have the balls to sit back and have a go at us with the rest of the world.

All of Europe is to blame for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict... millions of displaced Jews don't come out of nowhere, and they most certainly don't disappear. You guys decided it would be much easier to give land that didn't belong to you, instead of leaning how to live with them, and to go through all the hassle of reclaiming properties and assets. And then after your silly wars cause this whole mess, you guys are on our case about nuclear weapons use, and supporting Israel.
User avatar #112 - satrenkotheone ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
Does anyone actually like English people?
#127 to #112 - whatley (02/05/2013) [-]
User avatar #130 to #127 - satrenkotheone ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
I can't actually think of any people that like the English... except the English.
User avatar #137 to #130 - thebenders (02/09/2013) [-]
i like the English when they aren't being douche bags to Americans
User avatar #106 - whitsoxrule (02/05/2013) [-]
User avatar #83 - usernamesaredumb (02/05/2013) [-]
Too much RTS. The first thing that came to mind was thinking of tactics for taking out a navy, and a heavy infantry regiment.
#75 - datblkkid (02/05/2013) [-]
prepare yourself for a big o' debate below
#72 - adammorgan (02/05/2013) [-]
what.......what is this? I feel like I know what this is saying....but I don't. Like my brain is hiding the truth from me. **** you brain, tell me. ******* tell me, asshole........am....am I insulting myself? What the **** am i doing? Hey can anyone explain to me the purpose of the picture, before I go mad. Thanks in advance.
User avatar #73 to #72 - littlehozz (02/05/2013) [-]
its in rfrence to when the americans fought the revoulution. it was a bunch of untrained farmers and suck with ***** muskets and were the clear underdogs and they went on to win the war
User avatar #97 to #73 - tylersaurusrex (02/05/2013) [-]
You do realise Britain had enough forces garrisoned in Jamaica alone to crush the revolutionaries but it was deemed a waste of time and resources, right?
#101 to #97 - anon (02/05/2013) [-]
Losing a war due to arrogance is still losing.
User avatar #129 to #101 - tylersaurusrex (02/05/2013) [-]
Not so much due to arrogance, its more due to the fact that our Empire stretched a third of the globe and fighting a continued war in America wasn't worth the time or resources that were needed in other parts of the Empire...
User avatar #69 - ReikoTheGreat ONLINE (02/05/2013) [-]
Are we really comparing a 18th century war with modern military warfare? Really?
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)