Login or register
Login or register
Stay logged in
Log in/Sign up using Facebook.
Log in/Sign up using Gmail/Google+.
CREATE A NEW ACCOUNT
Email is optional and is used for password recovery purposes.
Have the FunnyJunk newsletter e-mailed to you
Rank #39358 on Subscribers
Level 223 Comments: Mind Blower
Send mail to ARRRGGGG
Invite ARRRGGGG to be your friend
Last status update:
Date Signed Up:
Content Level Progress:
Level 2 Content: New Here → Level 3 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress:
Level 223 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 224 Comments: Mind Blower
Total Comments Made:
What people say about ARRRGGGG
Mercy’s Lovely Day
[Dies in laughter]
favorite 4chan dump
Army rations per...
2016 anime worth...
latest user's comments
- **** the New York times. They can **** right off with their &q…
>this is real
- You got my interest. Can you point me towards some of the more…
>this is real
Here are a few.
Fuck the New York times. They can fuck right off with their "you're running out of free articles" spam.
That being said, I think the NYT article is inconclusive. It looks bad that Trump was involved in a company accused of discrimination but there's no evidence he was involved in the creation of those racist policies especially since his dad was still a core figure in the company at the time.
The Atlantic article it's certainly a bad thing that we might have a president who's said these things and holds those views but I'm a bit reluctant to take the rape claims at face value since some of the claims have been shown to be doubtful. Also, if someone did something terrible to you why would you wait several years until right before an election and COORDINATING the claims to coincide with several other sexual assault claims? With such a huge time gap there's no way you have any chance of convicting because any evidence would be long gone. It doesn't line up to me.
The nydaily article. Interesting I'll be looking further into this...
For the fortune article: they're not very clear with their wording on the Trump foundation. Did Trump buy stuff with his money or the Foundation's money? I don't really see why Trump would need to use Foundation money to make multi-thousand purchases; he's filthy rich. The bribery accusation linked to the investigation of Trump University? Its pretty apparent that it's a bribe lol.
Thanks for the post. Gotta see both sides of the coin.
- Lol the difference tho is that they aren't saying "death …
A GOP building got firebombed
- Ayy you 3-16? I just got out of benning
Nah 1-16, but it still probably blows as much. Just waiting to get out of here, still got a bit over a year left.
- I've said it before I'll say it again the US was absolutely ke…
While I won't deny your point, I'm not talking about the US getting involved in a war through their massive economic power, my issue is purely military.
For one thing, the soldiers fighting against the Russians had fought a war very different than the one being waged on French territory. The fight there was between barely armed farmers against well trained and well armed soldiers. The French and English were dug in properly, and Germany wouldn't get through easily at all, especially as resistance was bound to grow exponentially stronger as they would near Paris. Other than that, most people were already calling out for peace at that time, to just end the war.
The US made it a victory, but taking into account that a country that is bigger than the entire European continent joined in a battle being waged by several countries that are bigger than Germany, against a single country, that victory should be obvious. Kinda an elephant squatting an ant.
World War II, same fucking deal.
I'm not saying that the US isn't a military superpower, what I am saying is that DESPITE being a superpower, and before being a superpower, most of their victories seem to be against a much smaller opponent that was already tired of the war.
On D-Day, there were 50.000 or so Germans present. Not fully armed, and while they had a superior defensive position, they didn't have the ammunition for continued fighting due to the constant bombings of the allies.
Compare that to the damn near two million soldiers that the Axis powers still had in 1945 at the Eastern front, they had it easy.
And when the war started, the Russians contended with 3.75 million Axis soldiers.
The Americans are by size, quantity and quality a superpower.
How come they have to rely on being a superpower, being so much bigger than their opponent, to win, rather than through strategic brilliance? Where are there victories of that kind? Where are the victories of a small group of colonies still growing up, defeating a much larger enemy force through sheer brilliance and tactics? Napoleon controlled most of Europe. Hitler did it. Caesar did it. Alexander the Great too, so did Genghis Khan. History is filled with military geniuses bringing the world under their heel despite being small and tiny.
America has it's victories, nobody's going to deny that. Their involvement in both world wars were essential to the victories of the Allies. That too can't be denied.
But how the everloving fuck is it that they don't have any overwhelming victories? They won the independence war mostly because Britain didn't care enough and had other worries. They didn't win Vietnam despite being infinitely bigger and stronger. They 'won' in Iraq against their army, then lost countless soldiers to terrorism and guerrilla attacks.
What I fail to understand is how that is possible (aside Iraq, that one I can understand as you can't simply blow civilians skyhigh to win a war
with the exception of Japan obviously
), that they didn't score complete and utter victories against other enemies? They won throughout history, but never in a battle that marked their name on history books. Not to the point where you mention the American Empire in the same breath as the Mongolian Empire, the Roman Empire, French Empire, Alexander the Great's Empire, etc.
Is it politics? Bad luck? Economy malfunctioning at the wrong moment?
That is what I can't wrap my head around.
The US has brought forth some good/great commanders, Patton being a genius tank commander. But when you rummage through most European history books that are taught in school, you'll get loads about ancient conquerors, but Eisenhower is but briefly mentioned, the Vietnam war is scratched up as a loss, Independence war is seen as a historically important point, but not as a military, proper victory.
And that's what bugs me.
So I want to know what I don't know. I want to learn.
has deleted their comment.
Lol "I want to know what I don't know"
Get out of here, you're so transparent it hurts. You have a CLEAR agenda and you're extremely opinionated and your questions have deceptively simple answers that I'm sure you've figured out so what you're really trying to do is suggest that American military might is actually not so impressive and stuffing it behind a facade of "but I want to learn!".
The reason the U.S. doesn't have these examples of "strategic brilliance" is because the U.S. is so capable economically and militarily that no other country ever really wanted to pick a fight with it.
Also the U.S. has been around for a few hundred years while the other examples you cherry picked existed hundreds or thousands of years ago...
Not to mention what a simpler time it was back then.
But besides all that there are clear and obvious examples of American strategic brilliance that you ignored (all the examples you cited were tactical, not strategic by the way). For example the island hopping campaign that shredded the Japanese, being the first to understand the benefit and correctly use aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, electronic warfare, nuclear submarines, and obviously massive offset technology like the nuclear and later thermonuclear bomb.
If you want tactical examples too - midway, operation overlord, obviously D-Day, battle of the bulge, desert storm, iwo jima, and so on
You can't claim to be impartial and then find a hypocritical excuse to disregard every major U.S. military action you can think of.
"I'm speaking about purely military victories"
"vietnam doesn't count because politics restrained the military and so its not a real victory"
The U.S. hasn't been a superpower during any major war except the latter half of the 2nd world war.
- 4th paragraph. Tactics are smaller unit, shorter ter…
No Fun Allowed
Hit the nail on the head, you would think a guy that runs a DnD campaign would understand the difference in terms.
- Here come all the "No David wouldn't last a seco…
We all need a David in our...
- US was the deciding factor for first. They sent arms and suppl…
- Yeah and either way it shows you care about getting validated …
- Seems like you do since you needed to prove it to him.
There's a keen difference between want and need
Yeah and either way it shows you care about getting validated from an anonymous funnyjunker
Show Comments (3)