French Riots. Really? Really???

[Sælir]

I have to say that I don´t really care if France surrenders and I think Americans should sometimes consider surrending instead of making complete asses out of themselves :sighsm:

But if it was a competition Iceland would win
We have participated in only one war which we won and we don´t even have an army

Switzerland comes in second!

[RuleBritannia]

Finland did some serious Soviet arse kicking in 1940.

[Svartalf]

I have to say that I don´t really care if France surrenders and I think Americans should sometimes consider surrending instead of making complete asses out of themselves :sighsm:

But if it was a competition Iceland would win
We have participated in only one war which we won and we don´t even have an army

Switzerland comes in second!

Given how fierce Icelanders are, I'm not surprised. Won't you please invade so I can surrender to somebody I can relate to?

[Coito ergo sum]

Finland did some serious Soviet arse kicking in 1940.

The Soviet Union won that war.

Finland ceded 11 percent of its pre-war territory and 30 percent of its economic assets to the Soviet Union.

Total Finnish casualties in the 3 months of the war: 66,500 - Killed in action - 20,000. Missing - 3,300 - badly wounded 16,500 - balance slightly wounded. Those are conservative approximates - some estimates are higher.

The Soviet casualties were a lot higher, and Finland's performance in the war has been much praised. However, they still lost.

[Don't Panic]

The answer, of course, is for the workers of the world to unite and seize control of the means of production. Down with vampire capitalism!

The more cooks in the kitchen the better!

In some situations it's been shown to work wonderfully.

Perhaps the exception that proves the rule...

Why does everyone use that to suggest that an exception proves the rule? An exception means it isn't a rule.

[Robert_S]

The answer, of course, is for the workers of the world to unite and seize control of the means of production. Down with vampire capitalism!

The more cooks in the kitchen the better!

In some situations it's been shown to work wonderfully.

Perhaps the exception that proves the rule...

Why does everyone use that to suggest that an exception proves the rule? An exception means it isn't a rule.

If we can't break them, then why bother making them rules?

[RuleBritannia]

Finland did some serious Soviet arse kicking in 1940.

The Soviet Union won that war.

Finland ceded 11 percent of its pre-war territory and 30 percent of its economic assets to the Soviet Union.

Total Finnish casualties in the 3 months of the war: 66,500 - Killed in action - 20,000. Missing - 3,300 - badly wounded 16,500 - balance slightly wounded. Those are conservative approximates - some estimates are higher.

The Soviet casualties were a lot higher, and Finland's performance in the war has been much praised. However, they still lost.

Bar that 11% of territory, Finland avoided becoming a part of the Soviet Union for the next 51 years, that's a win in my books.

[Svartalf]

I nonetheless feel weird on behalf of the Finns, Sami and Karelians who have to use a Russian passport to go visit family in Finland

[Warren Dew]

Why does everyone use that to suggest that an exception proves the rule? An exception means it isn't a rule.

The phrase is misused but makes sense in the correct usage: the need for an exception proves there is a general rule to which there's an exception. For example, a sign saying "no parking 2am-6am mon-fri" proves that the general rules is that parking is allowed unless otherwise specified.

[Coito ergo sum]

Finland did some serious Soviet arse kicking in 1940.

The Soviet Union won that war.

Finland ceded 11 percent of its pre-war territory and 30 percent of its economic assets to the Soviet Union.

Total Finnish casualties in the 3 months of the war: 66,500 - Killed in action - 20,000. Missing - 3,300 - badly wounded 16,500 - balance slightly wounded. Those are conservative approximates - some estimates are higher.

The Soviet casualties were a lot higher, and Finland's performance in the war has been much praised. However, they still lost.

Bar that 11% of territory, Finland avoided becoming a part of the Soviet Union for the next 51 years, that's a win in my books.

Of course, the issue wasn't whether one country or another had a "win in someone's book." The allegation was that the U.S. was not a shining example of military prowess. I asked "who is better?" You answered "Finland."

The Iraq War alone is a better success than that. Cripes - Finland loses 20,000 to 25,000 dead, gives up more than 10% of its land area, and hands over 30% of its economic capacity to another country, and because they succeeded in avoiding being annexed, that's called a victory, and Finland is presented as a better example of military prowess?

[Svartalf]

The Iraq was was a success? You mean your puppet government did not get militarily dismissed as soon as you took your troops out after a drawn out war where you lost in casualties and morale to a fanatic enemy despite overall strategic superiority? 'cause that's about the only way the Iraq debacle was any better than the Vietnam (well, maybe the fact that the deployment was smaller scale, which limited the losses?)

[RuleBritannia]

Finland did some serious Soviet arse kicking in 1940.

The Soviet Union won that war.

Finland ceded 11 percent of its pre-war territory and 30 percent of its economic assets to the Soviet Union.

Total Finnish casualties in the 3 months of the war: 66,500 - Killed in action - 20,000. Missing - 3,300 - badly wounded 16,500 - balance slightly wounded. Those are conservative approximates - some estimates are higher.

The Soviet casualties were a lot higher, and Finland's performance in the war has been much praised. However, they still lost.

Bar that 11% of territory, Finland avoided becoming a part of the Soviet Union for the next 51 years, that's a win in my books.

Of course, the issue wasn't whether one country or another had a "win in someone's book." The allegation was that the U.S. was not a shining example of military prowess. I asked "who is better?" You answered "Finland."

The Iraq War alone is a better success than that. Cripes - Finland loses 20,000 to 25,000 dead, gives up more than 10% of its land area, and hands over 30% of its economic capacity to another country, and because they succeeded in avoiding being annexed, that's called a victory, and Finland is presented as a better example of military prowess?

I didn't say Finland in response to you, said it in response to Sælir eru einfaldir. I don't care about your jingo crap.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't care about your jingo crap.

I'll never apologize for supporting Benjamin Disraeli.

[Clinton Huxley]

It's easy to look good when you pick opponents with defence budgets a hundred times smaller. Its like me taking on a dead midget.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's easy to look good when you pick opponents with defence budgets a hundred times smaller. Its like me taking on a dead midget.

Does that change the reality?

Part of what it means to have a good military is to have a lot of soldiers, guns and bullets. If a country has a military of 5 second-to-none ninjas, they'd still not be the best military in the world.

Once again, the assertion was that the US is not a shining example of military prowess. If not the US, then who is that shining example?