BF2S Forums The first online war ever!!!!!

its based on a magazine called "kijk" its a dutch magazine about all kinds of things whit many --->FACTS<---
its true believe it or not Americans take the AK 47 from there victims because the m16 sucks to hard

Last edited by Major Payne (2006-07-11 06:19:07)

fucking moron look what stands above you i already explained it

Major Payne wrote:

fucking moron look what stands above you i already explained it

Just leave it man everyone reading this post is blowing it out of preportion [Imagine the first war because of an online post LMAO ] Just ignore the ignorance xD

Major Payne wrote:

its based on a magazine called "kijk" its a dutch magazine about all kinds of things whit many --->FACTS<---
its true believe it or not Americans take the AK 47 from there victims because the m16 sucks to hard

It's common knowledge there ace that the 16 lacks power. On the other hand the AK isn't always that accurate either.
One has it pros and cons just as the other one does.

It's my party and i can cry if i want to, cry if i want to. All the hostility come on people where is the love

(EUS)Gen.BadSnipaDay wrote:

I didnt read any of this...
...If you all are going to get into US is better than UK and UK us better than US. Just remember when Germany owned all of Europe and the US had to come save your ass's. I think all of europe forgets this when they start to make hate comments about the US. (If they choose to do so)

First off cheesedick, "asses" is the word you're searching for.

Secondly, none, I repeat, none of us on this forum have the tiniest right to buff out our chests and talk all proud and victorious about the WWs.  Why?  Because we weren't in them.  Sure, let's be proud of our ancestors for it, but don't try and take credit.

Thirdly, before posting that 9 year old's comment of "we saved your asses", go and check your facts.  We were an alliance, hence the word 'allies'.  This means that we won the war together.  Depending on your sources you'll find that the contribution made to the European front by the US was barely influential.  Also, the US sat on its hands for most of the war, undecided about whether to join in or not; the luxury of isolation being so damn comfy.  When the US finally did join in, don't fucking kid yourselves it was for the side of justice and right, it was because the UK paid for backup, and they are still, yes, still paying it back.

Let's all just remember we stand for roughly the same values and we are, to this day, Allies.

Now let's all stick to the damn topic. 

If it's on a Saturday evening, I'd be happy to play for the Europe side, I am the man you want for AT. 

(EUS)Gen.BadSnipaDay wrote:

I didnt read any of this, but it wouldnt be fair between the US and UK for a competition on the internet, one would have good pings, the other awsome pings.

If you all are going to get into US is better than UK and UK us better than US. Just remember when Germany owned all of Europe and the US had to come save your ass's. I think all of europe forgets this when they start to make hate comments about the US. (If they choose to do so)

Que?
What has this discussion over who would win the Online game between US and UK to do with hate comments?

Do you mean that I hate UK when I wrote that I think that USA would win against UK?

T0xicboy wrote:

Yee-ha! Show them that “the old queen Annas Gallon” is superior to the puny “Imperial Gallon”!

old queen Annas Gallon = the type of gallon that is used in USA
Imperial Gallon = the type of gallon that is in use in UK and common wealth


I believe that everyone have the right to speak his/her mind about who might be the winner in this upcoming game without have to worry about allegations about hating the other team. Just because they might like the other team more or maybe they just think that the other team packs more power and there fore believe that that team will be the last one standing.


/Toxic

T0xicboy wrote:

(EUS)Gen.BadSnipaDay wrote:

I didnt read any of this, but it wouldnt be fair between the US and UK for a competition on the internet, one would have good pings, the other awsome pings.

If you all are going to get into US is better than UK and UK us better than US. Just remember when Germany owned all of Europe and the US had to come save your ass's. I think all of europe forgets this when they start to make hate comments about the US. (If they choose to do so)

Que?
What has this discussion over who would win the Online game between US and UK to do with hate comments?

Do you mean that I hate UK when I wrote that I think that USA would win against UK?

T0xicboy wrote:

Yee-ha! Show them that “the old queen Annas Gallon” is superior to the puny “Imperial Gallon”!

old queen Annas Gallon = the type of gallon that is used in USA
Imperial Gallon = the type of gallon that is in use in UK and common wealth


I believe that everyone have the right to speak his/her mind about who might be the winner in this upcoming game without have to worry about allegations about hating the other team. Just because they might like the other team more or maybe they just think that the other team packs more power and there fore believe that that team will be the last one standing.


/Toxic

You make no sense. 0_o

diglow~Flow wrote:

Go England, American just has to much time on there hands...

I thought the people in the top ten were from Europe

(EUS)Gen.BadSnipaDay wrote:

Cheese dick, nice. Hmm, i just thought i would point out the fact that America pretty much saved europe from germany,

See, repeating yourself doesn't make it any less ambiguous.

(EUS)Gen.BadSnipaDay wrote:

This 9 year old comment was collected from all the info that the History Channel can provide me with.

Easy there Indiana Jones, you keep that long list of historical sources to a minimum, I wouldn't want you to confuse us all with the efforts you exerted in researching your opinion.

(EUS)Gen.BadSnipaDay wrote:

I also love how you cut my other part off that was "on topic", thanks.

Ahem, *sheepish*, yeah, sorry about that.  I must admit I'm not one to quote bits I'm not replying to, but credit where credit's due. 

Major Payne wrote:

its based on a magazine called "kijk" its a dutch magazine about all kinds of things whit many --->FACTS<---
its true believe it or not Americans take the AK 47 from there victims because the m16 sucks to hard

Guys, I believe this is from the same person who just the other night was complaining that only noobs use unlocks on a TV2 server. A few of us soon set him right

American troops take (as in present day) up the AK-47? Where exactly, and when? Considering it uses a different ammo to theirs it would be next to useless except as long as looted ammo lasted... and how did they get it in the first place? Hmm, they didn't happen to kill the guy wielding it with their M16A2s by any chance? And given the AK-47 "has a distinctive sound" when fired you'd be likely to draw attention, maybe even fire, from your own comrades if you were using one in a close-quarters situation.

The M16 series, flawed though it may be, is a better weapon in some respects to the AK-47/AKM; it is more accurate over longer ranges... much more accurate... and this can have a significant effect on survivability in certain types of engagement (the troops using the M16s are better trained too, which sure don't hurt). It, and its ammo, is also lighter, which can help offset fatigue. The AKs are more powerful, so their penetration of cover and wounding potential are significantly higher, but you still have to hit what you're aiming at in the first place and there have been plenty of ambush situations covered in a recent documentary series entitled Firefight where Afghan or Iraqui insurgents, maybe 20 or 30 at a time, didn't hit a single person they were aiming at even when there was no cover available!

Now on the language front, duuudes, lay off Major Payne on the English. Apart from the fact that many Brits, Americans and Aussies here can barely write their mother tongue properly, unless you can bitch to him in Dutch you really need to cut him some slack!

Todd_Angelo wrote:

Poet wrote:

Thirdly, before posting that 9 year old's comment of "we saved your asses", go and check your facts.  We were an alliance, hence the word 'allies'.  This means that we won the war together.  Depending on your sources you'll find that the contribution made to the European front by the US was barely influential.

Your preceding points were all fair IMO but in all seriousness, you'd have to be completely ignorant to honestly believe that the outcome of WWII would have been the same without any American involvement.

This viewpoint could easily be levied at the Great War, but it's utter nonsense with regard to the one that followed; don't overlook Lend-Lease, the endless supply convoys crossing the Atlantic prior to the US declaring war on the Axis, the entire Pacific theatre, men and materiel for D-Day (including the Shermans, Panzer fodder though they may have been), long-range daylight bombing raids of Germany with fighter support the whole way etc. etc. etc. Without that, except for those posting from North America, the rest of us would probably be speaking Russian and Japanese at home!

Pwnt.

Todd_Angelo wrote:

Poet wrote:

...Depending on your sources you'll find that the contribution made to the European front by the US was barely influential.

Your preceding points were all fair IMO but in all seriousness, you'd have to be completely ignorant to honestly believe that the outcome of WWII would have been the same without any American involvement.
This viewpoint could easily be levied at the Great War, but it's utter nonsense with regard to the one that followed; don't overlook...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to play down the US's role, simply moderate it in regards of some of the kids' views on this forum.  The point I was making there is that no historical source is unbiased.  NONE.
Cheesdick was quoting a single source based on a media designed to entertain people. 

Todd_Angelo wrote:

Without that, except for those posting from North America, the rest of us would probably be speaking Russian and Japanese at home!

Tying this into your previous statement, it's a good analysis of cause and effect.  The evidence and summaries I've been exposed to simply infer vastly different outcomes depending on the source.