On topic:

Our good friend "Russia", has been selling Syria weapons for a while now. Russia keeps blocking action by the UN, and defending Syria.

It's not like stuff like this hasn't been happening for a while now. They have been aiding North Korea, North Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iran since the 1950's. If it wasn't for Russia, DPRK or Iran wouldn't have a nuclear program.

Whether Britain sold the chemicals to Syria or not, they still would have either acquired the chemicals, or another means of mass destruction.

If I go out and buy a hatchet, and go and cut down the rainforest, is it Home Depot's fault for selling me the axe?

You can't place blame on Britain for allowing a private company to sell goods to a country which is looking to buy, before there are any trade sanctions on them.

And the talk of Britain betraying the US is so ridiculous.

wow really thats just sad

dunder wrote On topic:

Our good friend "Russia", has been selling Syria weapons for a while now. Russia keeps blocking action by the UN, and defending Syria.

It's not like stuff like this hasn't been happening for a while now. They have been aiding North Korea, North Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iran since the 1950's. If it wasn't for Russia, DPRK or Iran wouldn't have a nuclear program.

Whether Britain sold the chemicals to Syria or not, they still would have either acquired the chemicals, or another means of mass destruction.

If I go out and buy a hatchet, and go and cut down the rainforest, is it Home Depot's fault for selling me the axe?

You can't place blame on Britain for allowing a private company to sell goods to a country which is looking to buy, before there are any trade sanctions on them.

And the talk of Britain betraying the US is so ridiculous.

This is absolutely the right way of looking at the whole Britain selling Syria chemicals thing, as there was not even a civil war happening then. OT I think that the US should hold key targets and leave the countryside to the others to fight it out not a massive military wave like the other middle east conflicts.

dunder wrote

-InsanelyAwesome- wrote

Cen wrote

-InsanelyAwesome- wrote I was messing about.. But just for your information Britain has the best Air Force, and Special Forces so I do not know where you get off saying USA do.

The US has more than 10x as many fighter aircrafts as the UK does in all.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Source 2

Its quality not quantity.. Quality wise we walk all over any country. Oh and them aircraft most of them are what Britain sold to you lol.

The United States has ten aircraft carriers, the United Kingdom has one.

When you are talking about a distance of 5 500 kilometers, aircraft carriers matter, greatly.

As for the aircrafts themselves, the USAF, and United Statess Military in general, use predominantly American made aircraft.

You must be thinking of the submarines the UK sold Canada.

but either way, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Edit:

The United States uses two aircrafts that originated in the UK:

Army:

C-23 Sherpa

Marines:

AV-8B Harrier II

I think one of the best examples proving your side is the United States Civil War. The north had just about 2 times as many soldiers, railroads and general population allowing a great flow of supplies and weaponry while the south had all of the great generals from the war, as well as soldiers with great gun experience and a great understanding of how to ride horses and better tactics. The north still one.

Saying quantity over quality stands true, but only to a certain extent. In this case, yes, quantity wins.

Not as bad as everyone is making out, it was sold to them when they were in a very stable state and obviously the situation was undermined somewhere along the line