"Do you think the US supplied the most military forces in WWII? Seriously? (That's the only part of this that saves it from Flame. How could someone be so wrong?)"
There was probably more Russian soldiers killed than compared the total amount of America troops used against Germany.
But if you think of miltary power has guns, tanks, bombs, planes, ships, and the miltary troops. The US dominated WWII. Germany would be next, then Japan, then Russia. Without the US assistance to Russia, Russia would have fell to the Germans.
Of course what Mark seemed to be talking about was deploying troops and miltary power into theatre far beyond the countries borders- such as in the Gulf war. Of course, Russia wouldn't have sent troops to Korea to aid the UN (they were too busying opposing and aiding the other side- it wouldn't been a UN matter if the Russian had stayed at the UN [instead storming out] because they could have veto it:).
But if you just want to count soldiers- Iraq had the overwhelming army in Gulf war II. And currently Iraq have almost as much total security forces as the US in the Coalition.
Current Events » in reply to Everything but on the issue. Absolutely irrelevant, non-responsive, and silly.
re: Everything but on the issue. Absolutely irrelevant, non-responsive, and silly.
The whole thread (41 posts)
- Signs that the "war on terrorism" can be lost
- A failed strategy
- must say ..
- Yes, the dems strategy of insulting our allies, insulting the Nat. Guard, and revelling in our casualties is failing. (n/t)
- Once again, you insult our allies
- Well, here. 'How can you say we're going it alone - - "
- Signs that democrats are years behind the curve
- It's a war.
- Sure, if we don't fight back,
- A failed strategy