• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Which US Ally is the Most Untrustworthy?[W:184:189]

Which US Ally is the Most Untrustworthy?

  • Total voters
    75
Constantine said:
They have numbers and discipline. Their equipment is all post soviet from the cold war. However like the Japanese in WW2 they are brainwashed to the point where they will fight to the death...all because they we're told to. Numbers matter. For example the US military is the strongest in the world ranging in at 313,847,465 personnel (2012) but China who has outdated equipment and recently embarrassed themselves with a copy of the F-35 Lightning that couldn't even fly....has 1,344,130,00 (2012) members of the military. You read that right...1 billion. Stalin's grand plan to defeat Hitler was to throw his forces at Hitler's, no retreat, no quarter, no taking of prisoners, and Stalin won the Eastern Front. The battle of Stalingrad is a classic example where soviet forces just kept sending more and more men until the Germans starved and then we're weak...and then they pulled off a pintzer movement and defeating them. So there's definitely strength in numbers.
Click to expand...

For a more thorough annihilation of your post:
1) Even North Korea which is the heavily militarized country in the world has a military of 1 million out of a population of about 35 million. 1/35 of the total population, and it's an unsustainable model. However, your claim of 1 billion soldiers out of a Chinese population of 14 billion is simply laughable. Even a quick review of Wikipedia shows only about 2 million. I wonder what reality you live in.
2) The much-believed historical myth of Stalingrad. The battle of Stalingrad was no struggle for the Soviets. They fed the least number of men needed to hold the city while slowly draining German manpower. They used most of their resources and men for a massive encirclement, not for a pitched street-to-street battle. For more info, see Operation Uranus. So now you're not only wrong about the present, but about the past also.
3) As for a war between North and South Korea, your claim that the South will easily be beaten. It is of course, absurd. Although NK outnumbers SK about 2:1 in men, we have far more superior weaponry with larger reserves and a far better economy to sustain a war. As for the NK military, not much needs to be said about its condition when it uses WWII and cold war-era weaponry, is so ill-supplied and underfed that a soldier who defected weighed only 26kg and there are regular reports of stationed troops pillaging the villages which they are supposed to guard out of hunger. Numbers matter not, whether they are well-equipped, well-trained, and well-supplied matters. You show a poor grasp considering you're in the military.

P.S: I recommend Zhuge Liang instead of Sun Tzu. Although Westerners have heard of Sun Tzu and often quotes him, Zhuge Liang is far better known in the East and regarded as better.
 
 
Last edited:
Bodhisattva said:
:lol: Yeah, whatever. I was gonna respond until I saw this little gem. So almost every person, children, elderly, crippled, etc are in the military in China? :lol:

with a population of over 1.35 billion.

China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...and the entire world saw what our 200,000 US and UK forces did to Saddam's 375,000 Iraqi Army, 50,000 Republican Guard, 44,000 paramilitary, 650,000 reserves.

2003 invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Research military numbers. That little Gem came from research. You may want to try it some time. It's an invaluable skill.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html
http://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.asp?country_id=China

Suddam's forces we're demoralized and didn't want to fight us. An entire division gave up at once during the war. It's hardly comparable or even relevant to a topic that addresses a psychological hold over a people. Suddam was a leader, to the North Koreans....the little Kim is a god king.
 
Last edited:
Proud South Korean said:
For a more thorough annihilation of your post:
1) Even North Korea which is the heavily militarized country in the world has a military of 1 million out of a population of about 35 million. 1/35 of the total population, and it's an unsustainable model. However, your claim of 1 billion soldiers out of a Chinese population of 14 billion is simply laughable. Even a quick review of Wikipedia shows only about 2 million. I wonder what reality you live in.
2) The much-believed historical myth of Stalingrad. The battle of Stalingrad was no struggle for the Soviets. They fed the least number of men needed to hold the city while slowly draining German manpower. They used most of their resources and men for a massive encirclement, not for a pitched street-to-street battle. For more info, see Operation Uranus. So now you're not only wrong about the present, but about the past also.
3) As for a war between North and South Korea, your claim that the South will easily be beaten. It is of course, absurd. Although NK outnumbers SK about 2:1 in men, we have far more superior weaponry with larger reserves and a far better economy to sustain a war. As for the NK military, not much needs to be said about its condition when it uses WWII and cold war-era weaponry, is so ill-supplied and underfed that a soldier who defected weighed only 26kg and there are regular reports of stationed troops pillaging the villages which they are supposed to guard out of hunger. Numbers matter not, whether they are well-equipped, well-trained, and well-supplied matters. You show a poor grasp considering you're in the military.

P.S: I recommend Zhuge Liang instead of Sun Tzu. Although Westerners have heard of Sun Tzu and often quotes him, Zhuge Liang is far better known in the East and regarded as better.
Click to expand...

Annihilation? Your post better be good then because the two that tried didn't even pose a challenge. If annihilation can be compared to tickling someone with a feather...then yeah I suppose you could use that term. However in it's actual sense...annihilation....I ROFL'ed.

1. Wiklipedia is not a viable source. Middle schoolers are taught this. Yet you are going to counter with wikipedia. Stunning. Hurry up and go quick review another source before that one bites you in the butt lol.

2. I've studied history in college because at one time I was going to be a history teacher. Nothing I said about Stalingrad was wrong...at all. Again research would do you wonders. In fact I have quite a few books on the matter because that was one of my favorite battles of the Eastern front. Ironically your attempt to claim I don't know anything about the past just fell flat on it's face.

3. You seem to fail and understanding military power. North Korea has a psychological hold over their people. They'll pose a threat for the same reason the Japanese did in WW2 and the same reason Iran poses a threat now. Numbers do matter and always have mattered. Viet Nam....you think those guerrillas we're better than the US forces? Nope....but they knew their land, they had their numbers, and they knew guerrilla tactics better. That's why the US lost Viet Nam. The US was better equipped, better trained, better moral....they lost. So no offense to your nation but I believe if the US left you....the North would BULLDOZE you...not invade...complete bull doze through your nation.

God. If this was annihilation....then count me tickled. You guys are ******s. :lamo

When there is a suitable reason for me to take you 3 seriously...let me know...because those "annihilation" we're as sad as they we're pathetic. Study, research, try harder, come back to me with a real challenge.
 
Last edited:
I could be missing something here, but I don't consider anyone on the list in the poll to actually be an ally of the US. In all cases, these countries are only "friendly" and/or supportive of America's interests in their region when those interests gel with their own self interest. That's not being an ally, that's being pragmatic.

True allies of the US are countries like Canada and Britain - countries who have repeatedly and almost unfailingly stepped in to help America when asked and when needed and often when there is no apparent self-interest involved.

Friends (allies) help friends even when they think the friend is being foolish or rash or on the wrong course because the friendship means more to them than the actually outcome.

It is foolish, in my view, to look at any country but a very select few as 100% allied with you - most alliances are circumstantial and short term - NATO is the closest that America has to allies, other than Canada and Britain, as I mentioned above.
 
International allies are a bit like Risk players. No matter who you think is a friend, in the end they are in the game for themselves.
 
Constantine said:
Research military numbers. That little Gem came from research. You may want to try it some time. It's an invaluable skill.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html
Military Strength of China
Click to expand...

lol no. You read it wrong. You're giving population numbers and thinking that it's the size of the military, but I can't understand how you'd make that mistake. That's like reading that Toyota makes 600 million dollars a year and thinking that that's the price of a Camry. You thought the idea that the US had 330ish million people in the military passed the smell test? How many people do you think are alive right now, 87 quadrillion?
 
Constantine said:
These are all readily available on the internet and public knowledge....

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html
Military Strength of China

I said the F-35 but I meant the F-22. However the Chinese J-31 is supposed to be a copy of the F-22.

The Aviationist » China unveils its brand new stealth fighter: the J-31 “Falcon Eagle”. But it’s a copy of the F-22 Raptor
China Says J-31 Fighter Will Compete With F-35 for Sales | Flashpoints | The Diplomat
J-31 stealth fighter designed for export, says PLA admiral
Click to expand...

You are categorically and comprehensively incorrect. This may be the most brazen example of being wrong I've ever seen on this forum. You equated population figures with military personal. Just drop the mike and walk away for another day pal.
 
Constantine said:
Annihilation? Your post better be good then because the two that tried didn't even pose a challenge. If annihilation can be compared to tickling someone with a feather...then yeah I suppose you could use that term. However in it's actual sense...annihilation....I ROFL'ed.

1. Wiklipedia is not a viable source. Middle schoolers are taught this. Yet you are going to counter with wikipedia. Stunning. Hurry up and go quick review another source before that one bites you in the butt lol.

2. I've studied history in college because at one time I was going to be a history teacher. Nothing I said about Stalingrad was wrong...at all. Again research would do you wonders. In fact I have quite a few books on the matter because that was one of my favorite battles of the Eastern front. Ironically your attempt to claim I don't know anything about the past just fell flat on it's face.

3. You seem to fail and understanding military power. North Korea has a psychological hold over their people. They'll pose a threat for the same reason the Japanese did in WW2 and the same reason Iran poses a threat now. Numbers do matter and always have mattered. Viet Nam....you think those guerrillas we're better than the US forces? Nope....but they knew their land, they had their numbers, and they knew guerrilla tactics better. That's why the US lost Viet Nam. The US was better equipped, better trained, better moral....they lost. So no offense to your nation but I believe if the US left you....the North would BULLDOZE you...not invade...complete bull doze through your nation.

God. If this was annihilation....then count me tickled. You guys are ******s. :lamo

When there is a suitable reason for me to take you 3 seriously...let me know...because those "annihilation" we're as sad as they we're pathetic. Study, research, try harder, come back to me with a real challenge.
Click to expand...

That is entirely incorrect. Breathtakingly so.
 
Higgins86 said:
The way the US is going right now you might not have many allies left...
Click to expand...

Really? Who do you plan to join, China? Get ready to speak Chinese, and work in sweat shops.
 
It was tough not to pick a muslim country in the above poll...so I went with South Korea...because they're the only east asian country to massively cut the foreskin of non consenting baby boys...that can't be trusted.
 
Constantine said:
Research military numbers. That little Gem came from research. You may want to try it some time. It's an invaluable skill.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ch.html
Military Strength of China.
Click to expand...

I just showed evidence of research and you tell me to research? :roll:

I just showed evidence of military numbers and you tell me to research military numbers? :roll:

Originally Posted by Constantine View Post

They have numbers and discipline. Their equipment is all post soviet from the cold war. However like the Japanese in WW2 they are brainwashed to the point where they will fight to the death...all because they we're told to. Numbers matter. For example the US military is the strongest in the world ranging in at 313,847,465 personnel (2012) but China who has outdated equipment and recently embarrassed themselves with a copy of the F-35 Lightning that couldn't even fly....

has 1,344,130,00 (2012) members of the military. You read that right...1 billion.

Stalin's grand plan to defeat Hitler was to throw his forces at Hitler's, no retreat, no quarter, no taking of prisoners, and Stalin won the Eastern Front. The battle of Stalingrad is a classic example where soviet forces just kept sending more and more men until the Germans starved and then we're weak...and then they pulled off a pintzer movement and defeating them. So there's definitely strength in numbers.
Click to expand...

From YOUR OWN LINK:

Total POULATION - 1,344,130,00
Active Frontline Personal - 2,285,000

I won't even bother with the rest because... dude, you are a joke. Go back to the 1st grade and learn basic math skills.

Suddam's forces we're demoralized and didn't want to fight us. An entire division gave up at once during the war. It's hardly comparable or even relevant to a topic that addresses a psychological hold over a people. Suddam was a leader, to the North Koreans....the little Kim is a god king
Click to expand...

And some thought the same thing about Iraq:

Iraqi army is tougher than US believes: The US claims a war against Saddam would be quick. Wrong, says analyst Toby Dodge, the conflict could be long and bloody

Iraqi army is tougher than US believes | World news | The Guardian

1. Wiklipedia is not a viable source. Middle schoolers are taught this. Yet you are going to counter with wikipedia. Stunning. Hurry up and go quick review another source before that one bites you in the butt lol.
Click to expand...

That is not what students are taught and if that is the message that you heard you heard it wrong, or your teacher (more likely) was a moron. They are taught that one should not rely solely on Wikipedia but that Wikipedia can be a good starting point as long as you check their sources. Many times their sources lead to the CIA Factbook that you referenced, or the FBI site, Or a scholarly article. If that can be verified then Wikipedia, if used correctly, can slam ****ing dunk a person using supposed primary source documents.

Viet Nam....you think those guerrillas we're better than the US forces? Nope....but they knew their land, they had their numbers, and they knew guerrilla tactics better. That's why the US lost Viet Nam.
Click to expand...

Wrong. We lost because of POLITICS. Our Navy SEALS were their worst nightmare. We OWNED them with guerrilla tactics in that regard. We never lost a battle but we lost the war... due to POLITCS. Any half educated person knows this.

I've studied history in college because at one time I was going to be a history teacher
Click to expand...

That's great, but perhaps you should have attended a history class as well...

And just a bit of advice, when you are getting completely and utterly ****ing owned as you clearly are... drop the arrogant attitude because it only makes you sound like an imbecile.
 
Sherman123 said:
You are categorically and comprehensively incorrect. This may be the most brazen example of being wrong I've ever seen on this forum. You equated population figures with military personal. Just drop the mike and walk away for another day pal.
Click to expand...

I clearly pointed this out and he chastised me over it! :lol:

That is entirely incorrect. Breathtakingly so.
Click to expand...

Absolutely...
 
Belgium...
 
NoC_T said:
Isra-Hell, hands down.

An utter disgrace to the 'civilised' world and America's great shame.
Click to expand...

Good thing Isra-Hell isn't the name of an actual country, or this something other than juvenile tittering!
 
Pakistan is hands down the most untrustworthy.
 
MadLib said:
Good thing Isra-Hell isn't the name of an actual country, or this something other than juvenile tittering!
Click to expand...
Why, my dear Zionist, I'm every bit as entitled to my perspective as you are to your own.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Belgium was a great place for all the European powers to stop off for a beer on the way to the latest war.
Click to expand...
Still is. Only now, they use treaties rather than bullets and bombs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom