INVASION!!!!!! What country do you trust to help?

[Seriphina]

The UK isn't a country... There are 4 countries there. U are cheating. America however can come to our side any day being that u are many!

America is two continents.So you're cheating.

OT:I would say Germany.Seeing as most former shots at warfare have gone pretty well for them.

Yeah but the question wasn't which continent would u have fight with you, it was which country. America is one country! Altho i still can't get my head around how the UK is a country... and it has 4 countries in it... WAT! hehe

 

[LANCE420]

I guess waterloo and the 100 years war was a sucker punch too right

they citizens of France were also so patriotic and couragous that half the country became the state of vichy France and openly fought with the Nazis against the allies and exported french jews...

Many people consider France to have won the 100 year war since they officially kicked the English out of mainland Europe, although personally I think it was more of a stalemate. And you gotta remember what happened *before* Waterloo. You know, the whole 'nearly conquering all of Europe' thing. Had Napoleon been well during the battle of Warterloo as well, it's possible he could have won. It was the tactical blundering of his subordinates that cost him the battle more than anything else after all, the disastrous French cavalry attack for example.

And it's not like the English didn't have their fair share of sympathizers during WW2 as well!

... Sorry, I just loves me my history.

Don't forget, USA had plenty of NAZI Sympathizers' too.

 

[TheTim]

I would definately rely on Great Britain as i am from the U.S. and they are our most powerful and most well-connected allies

 

[real life potato]

Am I one of the only person who see's the irony in that most of the nations wanting the U.S. as their ally are also some of the most notrious for anti-american comments?

Personally I don't feel any single nation would be of much military aid to the U.S. in a conventional war, and a nuclear war means everyone loses. The only one's who have tended to benefit from past alliances are our allies, not ourselves. If anything these alliances are one-way in benefit and I can't name a single major conflict within the last 100 years in which our allies came to the aid of the U.S., only U.S. aid to allies in pre-existing conflicts. I'd approve of us instead having no allies but ourselves and letting the rest of the world fight their own battles.

you mean like the way without russia the whole world would be speaking german and japanese

and those brilliant victories when the US went in basically by themselves, such as korea and vietnam?

Arrogance quickly brings defeat, the best things have come when people put mindless patriotic clap trap aside and wrok together, whether in war or peace

Your lack of reading skills are showing. I stated that the U.S. has never required the aid (or received aid) from her allies in conflicts actually involving the american nation. The U.S. joined into a conflict that was pre-existing and helped those allies in the conflict, it was not a 2-way street, the U.S. received virtually no aid from her allies in any war to date within the last 100 years. The Russians were already fighting the Axis powers long before the U.S. joined the Allies. Or are you claiming that Russian soldiers were helping hold the Phillipines against Japanese imperial troops?

It's high time we stop trying to be friends with people who would just as soon stab us in the back if they would benefit from it.

The Russians were allied with the Axis powers in the beginning. Before Hitler realized it was time to poke the Russian Bear and incur the wrath of the cold winter.

 

[Mucinex-D]

I am an American of the United States, and I would choose The Republic of France to aid us.

Fuck y'all with your stereotype of the French having a piss-poor military. They've got a damn effective one, and the only reason this stereotype happened is because of a certain headline.... oh.... what was it......
[HEADING=3]FRANCE DEFEATED BY GERMANY IN WWII[/HEADING]
Which was basically..... Oh, what was it...... That's right! A SUCKER PUNCH! And even THEN the citizens of France were so patriotic and courageous that they formed a resistance and fought back!

People with THAT much fight in them are exactly the people I want covering my back should my country be invaded.

How was it a sucker punch? For nearly a year after the war started France had time to build up a military and defenses before Germany attacked... and they lasted what, a few months? not even that much? Sure the french resistance was cool but in the end they fell far too quickly.

edit:
And lets not forget Vichy France... very courageous. I remember French soldiers in northern Africa attacking allied troops after the Vichy government was set up.

 

[maninahat]

Germany or France. They are situated only a short distance away and have some of the most advanced armed forces in the World. America would be up there too, but lower in the list (simply because it would take a little longer to deploy heavy material in the UK beyond what is already stored there).

 

[Crimsonsniper]

Am I one of the only person who see's the irony in that most of the nations wanting the U.S. as their ally are also some of the most notrious for anti-american comments?

Personally I don't feel any single nation would be of much military aid to the U.S. in a conventional war, and a nuclear war means everyone loses. The only one's who have tended to benefit from past alliances are our allies, not ourselves. If anything these alliances are one-way in benefit and I can't name a single major conflict within the last 100 years in which our allies came to the aid of the U.S., only U.S. aid to allies in pre-existing conflicts. I'd approve of us instead having no allies but ourselves and letting the rest of the world fight their own battles.

you mean like the way without russia the whole world would be speaking german and japanese

and those brilliant victories when the US went in basically by themselves, such as korea and vietnam?

Arrogance quickly brings defeat, the best things have come when people put mindless patriotic clap trap aside and wrok together, whether in war or peace

Your lack of reading skills are showing. I stated that the U.S. has never required the aid (or received aid) from her allies in conflicts actually involving the american nation. The U.S. joined into a conflict that was pre-existing and helped those allies in the conflict, it was not a 2-way street, the U.S. received virtually no aid from her allies in any war to date within the last 100 years. The Russians were already fighting the Axis powers long before the U.S. joined the Allies. Or are you claiming that Russian soldiers were helping hold the Phillipines against Japanese imperial troops?

It's high time we stop trying to be friends with people who would just as soon stab us in the back if they would benefit from it.

The Russians were allied with the Axis powers in the beginning. Before Hitler realized it was time to poke the Russian Bear and incur the wrath of the cold winter.

You are right, kinda. Russia was allied with Germany but only for the short term, both leaders suspected that their nations would have to go to war because of different beliefs. Russia was invaded and switched to the Allies in 1939 if I remember correctly. The U.S. didn't enter that war till 1941.

 

[DeepComet5581]

If I REAALLY had to decide, the USA. Purely on numbers and armaments.

However, if the UK were invaded, I wouldn't want another country helping. I'd want that underground resistance-type stuff like in Half-Life 2.

 

[Littlee300]

Am I one of the only person who see's the irony in that most of the nations wanting the U.S. as their ally are also some of the most notrious for anti-american comments?

Personally I don't feel any single nation would be of much military aid to the U.S. in a conventional war, and a nuclear war means everyone loses. The only one's who have tended to benefit from past alliances are our allies, not ourselves. If anything these alliances are one-way in benefit and I can't name a single major conflict within the last 100 years in which our allies came to the aid of the U.S., only U.S. aid to allies in pre-existing conflicts. I'd approve of us instead having no allies but ourselves and letting the rest of the world fight their own battles.

you mean like the way without russia the whole world would be speaking german and japanese

and those brilliant victories when the US went in basically by themselves, such as korea and vietnam?

Arrogance quickly brings defeat, the best things have come when people put mindless patriotic clap trap aside and wrok together, whether in war or peace

Just...just please stop talking....
______________________________________________-
If Germany conquered all of Europe it would be in no position to invade America for a long time and we had more than 2 atom bombs prepare for Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

 

[lostzombies.com]

I guess waterloo and the 100 years war was a sucker punch too right

they citizens of France were also so patriotic and couragous that half the country became the state of vichy France and openly fought with the Nazis against the allies and exported french jews...

Many people consider France to have won the 100 year war since they officially kicked the English out of mainland Europe, although personally I think it was more of a stalemate. And you gotta remember what happened *before* Waterloo. You know, the whole 'nearly conquering all of Europe' thing. Had Napoleon been well during the battle of Warterloo as well, it's possible he could have won. It was the tactical blundering of his subordinates that cost him the battle more than anything else after all, the disastrous French cavalry attack for example.

And it's not like the English didn't have their fair share of sympathizers during WW2 as well!

... Sorry, I just loves me my history.

I see the 100 years war really as a drawn out sequences of 'lets go give the french another kicking' it was never really an out and out invasion, more of a vacation abroad for lots of looting. In terms of losses of men and nobility, not to mention national pride, france came out on their knees

I dont hold water to the 'boney was ill' debate, these hemorroids which everyone say impeeded his ability to travel the battlefield like he normally did, didnt stop him from galloping around on his horse to organise the advance of all three french columns.

Maybe french hemorroids effect the brain more than other types

 

[lacktheknack]

Fiji, maybe the enemy would be so stunned that we'd destroy them handily.

 

[real life potato]

Am I one of the only person who see's the irony in that most of the nations wanting the U.S. as their ally are also some of the most notrious for anti-american comments?

Personally I don't feel any single nation would be of much military aid to the U.S. in a conventional war, and a nuclear war means everyone loses. The only one's who have tended to benefit from past alliances are our allies, not ourselves. If anything these alliances are one-way in benefit and I can't name a single major conflict within the last 100 years in which our allies came to the aid of the U.S., only U.S. aid to allies in pre-existing conflicts. I'd approve of us instead having no allies but ourselves and letting the rest of the world fight their own battles.

you mean like the way without russia the whole world would be speaking german and japanese

and those brilliant victories when the US went in basically by themselves, such as korea and vietnam?

Arrogance quickly brings defeat, the best things have come when people put mindless patriotic clap trap aside and wrok together, whether in war or peace

Just...just please stop talking....
______________________________________________-
If Germany conquered all of Europe it would be in no position to invade America for a long time and we had more than 2 atom bombs prepare for Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

No, we had TWO atomic bombs prepared for Japan. We had three initially. One was used in the Trinity test, and the other two used in the bombings. Any other atomic weapons we said we had was a boast used to scare off more fighting.

 

[LANCE420]

Am I one of the only person who see's the irony in that most of the nations wanting the U.S. as their ally are also some of the most notrious for anti-american comments?

Personally I don't feel any single nation would be of much military aid to the U.S. in a conventional war, and a nuclear war means everyone loses. The only one's who have tended to benefit from past alliances are our allies, not ourselves. If anything these alliances are one-way in benefit and I can't name a single major conflict within the last 100 years in which our allies came to the aid of the U.S., only U.S. aid to allies in pre-existing conflicts. I'd approve of us instead having no allies but ourselves and letting the rest of the world fight their own battles.

you mean like the way without russia the whole world would be speaking german and japanese

and those brilliant victories when the US went in basically by themselves, such as korea and vietnam?

Arrogance quickly brings defeat, the best things have come when people put mindless patriotic clap trap aside and wrok together, whether in war or peace

Russia would have definitely fallen if not for the USA. It took 4 million Russian lives and 400,000 German lives for Russia to push into Berlin. Imagine how it would have went if the Russians had met the entirety of the German military, who MOST of which were defending from the Americans, Canadians, and the liberated French who were suffering minimal losses. Russia's involvement has helpful, yet not the deal clincher. Also, not to mention the poor polish army who were exploited to help Russia push through the Germans and the 45 years of occupation afterwards. sure they didn't have to speak German, they had to speak RUSSIAN!

EDIT: the pacific war was won almost entirely by USA, Canada, and UK. The allies saved Russia from Japanese forces

 

[The_Eskimo]

Im from Canada and i would choose the U.S.A. we always help each other and they dont have as stupid accents.

 

[cheese_wizington]

I'm guessing the UK and Canada.

 

[lostzombies.com]

Am I one of the only person who see's the irony in that most of the nations wanting the U.S. as their ally are also some of the most notrious for anti-american comments?

Personally I don't feel any single nation would be of much military aid to the U.S. in a conventional war, and a nuclear war means everyone loses. The only one's who have tended to benefit from past alliances are our allies, not ourselves. If anything these alliances are one-way in benefit and I can't name a single major conflict within the last 100 years in which our allies came to the aid of the U.S., only U.S. aid to allies in pre-existing conflicts. I'd approve of us instead having no allies but ourselves and letting the rest of the world fight their own battles.

you mean like the way without russia the whole world would be speaking german and japanese

and those brilliant victories when the US went in basically by themselves, such as korea and vietnam?

Arrogance quickly brings defeat, the best things have come when people put mindless patriotic clap trap aside and wrok together, whether in war or peace

Your lack of reading skills are showing. I stated that the U.S. has never required the aid (or received aid) from her allies in conflicts actually involving the american nation within the last 100 years. The U.S. joined into a conflict that was pre-existing and helped those allies in the conflict, it was not a 2-way street, the U.S. received virtually no aid from her allies in any war to date within this time period. The Russians were already fighting the Axis powers long before the U.S. joined the Allies. Or are you claiming that Russian soldiers were helping hold the Phillipines against Japanese imperial troops?

It's high time we stop trying to be friends with people who would just as soon stab us in the back if they would benefit from it.

"I stated that the U.S. has never required the aid (or received aid) from her allies in conflicts actually involving the american nation within the last 100 years." -

yes so you are saying that the US didn't need Russia's involvement (aid in winning the war)

but that's politics, you can't simply say its high time to stop being friends with people who would just as soon stab us in the back if they would benefit from it...sadam anyone?

There isn't any high and mighty morals in politics, every country in the world will screw over their longest and best allies if they think the deal is right

 

[real life potato]

Am I one of the only person who see's the irony in that most of the nations wanting the U.S. as their ally are also some of the most notrious for anti-american comments?

Personally I don't feel any single nation would be of much military aid to the U.S. in a conventional war, and a nuclear war means everyone loses. The only one's who have tended to benefit from past alliances are our allies, not ourselves. If anything these alliances are one-way in benefit and I can't name a single major conflict within the last 100 years in which our allies came to the aid of the U.S., only U.S. aid to allies in pre-existing conflicts. I'd approve of us instead having no allies but ourselves and letting the rest of the world fight their own battles.

you mean like the way without russia the whole world would be speaking german and japanese

and those brilliant victories when the US went in basically by themselves, such as korea and vietnam?

Arrogance quickly brings defeat, the best things have come when people put mindless patriotic clap trap aside and wrok together, whether in war or peace

Your lack of reading skills are showing. I stated that the U.S. has never required the aid (or received aid) from her allies in conflicts actually involving the american nation within the last 100 years. The U.S. joined into a conflict that was pre-existing and helped those allies in the conflict, it was not a 2-way street, the U.S. received virtually no aid from her allies in any war to date within this time period. The Russians were already fighting the Axis powers long before the U.S. joined the Allies. Or are you claiming that Russian soldiers were helping hold the Phillipines against Japanese imperial troops?

It's high time we stop trying to be friends with people who would just as soon stab us in the back if they would benefit from it.

"I stated that the U.S. has never required the aid (or received aid) from her allies in conflicts actually involving the american nation within the last 100 years." -

yes so you are saying that the US didn't need Russia's involvement (aid in winning the war)

but that's politics, you can't simply say its high time to stop being friends with people who would just as soon stab us in the back if they would benefit from it...sadam anyone?

There isn't any high and mighty morals in politics, every country in the world will screw over their longest and best allies if they think the deal is right

You're very right with the morals thing. Countries had treaties constantly, despite the fact that they continually broke them because they saw an opportunity to have the biggest stick in the world.

 

[maninahat]

I am an American of the United States, and I would choose The Republic of France to aid us.

Fuck y'all with your stereotype of the French having a piss-poor military. They've got a damn effective one, and the only reason this stereotype happened is because of a certain headline.... oh.... what was it......
[HEADING=3]FRANCE DEFEATED BY GERMANY IN WWII[/HEADING]
Which was basically..... Oh, what was it...... That's right! A SUCKER PUNCH! And even THEN the citizens of France were so patriotic and courageous that they formed a resistance and fought back!

People with THAT much fight in them are exactly the people I want covering my back should my country be invaded.

How was it a sucker punch? For nearly a year after the war started France had time to build up a military and defenses before Germany attacked... and they lasted what, a few months? not even that much? Sure the french resistance was cool but in the end they fell far too quickly.

"Far too quickly"? The Nazi's had one of the largest and most professional armies in the World. France got the full, concentrated force of it. France had actually built up the "Maginot line", a mass of defensive fortifications (which had been there since WWI) facing Germany. The Nazi forces managed to maneuver around it (delivering one heck of a sucker punch) and the French took massive amounts of casualties within only the first couple of weeks. France and Britain got thoroughly battered by the Nazis and Italians, hence France's surrender after several months.

 

[DesiPrinceX09]

I live in USA but I am from Zambia, which is the place I call home. If we got attacked then I would definitely choose South Africa to help us since they have a good military. The only people who give a shit about the African countries are other African countries (as long as they are in the same region that is).