Live in land down under

they risk their lives to shitpost on psionic mindflayer boards, but they have a terrible connection

So you come from a land down under?

>exile criminal deviants who continue to plague the remains of an empire
>enslave and destroy local land-down-underdark

oh shit he's right

does this mean anglosphere = elves?

>The deep gnomes where here first!
>generations of drowstralians have publicly and repeatedly apologised
>deep gnomes receive public houseing, hand-outs form the great houses and continue to eat their children and rape feral underlife

I knew there was a reason we were so damn perfect.

>arrogant
>affinity for bows
>used to rule the world

shit

>leverage magical superiority
>withdrawn but sometimes intervene claiming to know better than lesser races
>shrinking population, crumbling empire
>nostalgia for good old days that will never come again

pmuch yeah

it all makes sense now.

>implying drow would ever be able to live up to the glory that is a shitposting 'Strayan in his natural habitat
Face it, if a drow met a 'Strayan, it would just get shitposted to death.

>America won freedom from old oppressive elven hierarchy
>like to pretend they're not elves too

Can anyone please share this short from the Black Library advent? I'd love to read some more edgy Night Lord stuff.

We have bacteria that can do that now. They make Masterwork Moon cloaks.

>Best navy
>World police
>Politically divided to an extreme
>Saved Europe for own advantage
>Elected a moron who's going to start a war for stupid reasons
>Eagles, eagles everywhere

Wrong thread m8.

>Elected a moron who's going to start a war for stupid reasons

But Hillary lost.

anglos still rule the world in the form of the USA

And Trump won, so what's your point? I don't want to /pol/ on Veeky Forums, but stop pretending that one ever was better than the other.

Hillary wanted WW3, Trump doesn't. Seems like a clear choice.

So he's a domestic conflict moron instead of an international conflict moron

woop woop

Not him, but it's clear which one is better and it's not the international conflict one.

From Australians to Trump in what, 20 posts?

Well done Veeky Forums well done.

Trump wants WW3 with China. I'd rather have WW3 with Russia.

It's an extremely divisive topic, which means it's easy for trolls to lay out the lowest quality bait and still get results.

It's not low quality. It's YUGE.

In this case? Yes it was actually much higher quality that usual, it was just lightly sprinkled into an otherwise fitting post for the thread.

>low-quality bait
You mean "vague topic-starter". "Bait" merely means "topic-starter", while "low-quality" refers to the fact that people are ready to discuss the topic at hand even without outer interference. All they need is a casus.

Why? China poses no threat to the US militarily.

US easily beats China in terms of air and naval power, as well as having more nuclear weapons and better missile defenses. A US-China war would be a repeat of the Opium wars.

Russia on the other hand has a military on more equal terms with the US, as well as easy access to US allies and thousands of nuclear warheads.

Well, Hillary was pushing Neo-McCarthyism. Which was hilariously anachronistic for 2016. Nobody wants that anymore.

Nah. Americans are Half-Elves.

What would Aborigines be?

Fauna.

>Implying they aren't

This is low quality bait.
There's literally no military on par with the US. We spend way too much money on it. Saw an article on BBC talking about how if the US and the rest of the world went to war, based solely on military power, the US would be mildly perturbed before steamrolling everything. And if the brits are saying something nice it must be true. Face it, foreigners, we are your God Emporers.

I said on more equal terms, not equal terms dumbass.

The Russian army is chronically underfunded and even if it were in top condition it would be a rough match for France.
Fucking FRANCE.

As an Englishman, I can either chuckle or sigh.

But I can't do both because then I'd be speaking Welsh.

>France
You mean the only other country with worldwide force projection and a jet fighter that surclasses everything including anything US-made ?

>Fucking FRANCE
Marche ou crève.

And yet peasants in Vietnam and zealots in the Middle East prove to be enough of a problem, one of those enough that the country had to resort to conscription

No one doubts the US is extremely powerful, but going to war is obviously a more complex topic than who has the biggest guns. And even based purely on the biggest guns an scenario like that would probably end in nuclear war, which inevitably ends with everyone dead since that's the whole fucking point and there are no reliable defenses against it yet

France has one of the largest and best funded militaries in the world though I mean shit they use them everywhere

Who went into West Africa the other year and sorted it out inside a couple of months.

How long were we occupying Iraq?

I'd trust the French to fight an insurgency today over the Americans, or even my own British army.

The point is not that Russia can beat the US but that Russia is more of a threat militarily than China is.

Russia could easily crush most of Eastern Europe and have enough naval and air power to at least attempt to contend with the US. And if all else fails they have enough nuclear warheads to pose a real threat.

China has none of this. Beyond Korea they had no land access to US allies and their air force and navy are no threat at all to the US. In a nuclear exchange China would be obliterated while America would be relatively unscathed.

I'm not saying Russia can beat NATO or the US, I'm saying that a US-Russia war would be bloodier and more protracted than any US-China war.

Also,
>fucking France
France has the strongest military in Europe. WW2 memes aside France is a real power.

exactly
pitch a 100 US soldiers against a 100 soldiers from whatever subsaharian shithole country in the middle of nowhere, the US soldiers will get shreked because they're so dependent on their equipment and billion dollar military that they're unable to do anything else than bombing the place and rushing it afterwards

>Russia is more of a threat militarily than China is.
Russia is not a threat with its army. Russia knows that.
Russia is a threat because the moment you declare war on it, the war will go nuclear, and then everybody dies.

Are you incapable of reading beyond the first sentence or something?

US army
>intervene to stop islamists
>losing the war for 15 years
Russian army
>intervene to stop islamists
>getting shit wrecked in Palmyra
French army
>intervene to stop islamists
>solve the problem in one month and a half

Really activates your neurons

A WWII general was in command of US Vietnamese forces. You know, a general used to fighting massive pitched battles against an entrenched enemy, not a guerrilla force of little asians coming out of shitholes and stabbing you. And if you'll look at the death tally in Iraq it stands at something like 4000 Americans dead to like 200,000 terrorists. Tell me how that's the US getting fucked up.

Eh,what a vague statement.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not claiming American soldiers are the best in the world, but your statement is so broad that it cannot possibly be called true.

American soldiers are as brave and skilled as more or less any first world soldier today; guerilla troops operating on home terrain with no rules of engagement have an advantage in the same way that the Americans had the advantage in open combined arms battle against Saddam Hussein in "Operation Iraqi Freedom" - they're fighting the kind of war they were trained to fight.

I'm mildly worried that Putin will take over Europe - or at least start a big European war - if Trump gets too friendly with Putin.

>Operation Iraqi Freedom
>Not Operation Iraqi Liberty

Better than Hillary starting global nuclear war with him over a worthless patch of sand.

I would honestly support Putin just for the excuse to "Eat The Rich" in the inevitable civil unrest.

China has the largest manufacturing center in the world, like 20x the population of Russia, and more money and economic power than Russia could ever hope to have. Imagine a full-scale deployment. Russia is not even on the scale with China or the US. Don't be ridiculous.

You forgot the part where several hundreds of billions went into Iraq, and the war's motives still remain cloudy after all that time

A full scale deployment to where? China doesn't have the ability to strike at the US mainland or any US allies apart from Korea.

As much as it pains a Brit to admit, France are one of the best military powers in the world and always have been despite the cliched memes. France is a grade A shitkicker.

>implying china has any force projection capabilities

Don't be pained.

A man is also judged by the quality of his enemies.

I'm proud we've traded blows with them and come out alive.

Just in general. You're right, as of now they don't have the force projection, but you forget that neither did the US before WWII. We were like the 14th world power or some shit until we turned car factories into tank and plane factories and went on the "we gotta fuck up Japan" spree. And we were able to deploy across the world and fight two wars. I mean, I'm just saying, imagine China's ability to create that power.

You're talking about a war with a huge number of factors, along with issues of doctrine.

The American military doctrine is that you don't fight even battles if at all possible. You call in an Airstrike because there's no fucking point in getting into a pitched battle with the fucks.

But the war in Afghanistan and Iraq very quickly turned into guerilla wars, and in that respect, the American military did just fine, all things considered.

Hell, when the military left Iraq, it was in pretty good condition, their own government fucked it up afterwards. Afghanistan is way worse, but that has to do with tribal mentalities and the simple fact that we can't teach the ANA to actually fucking fight, because they have zero interest in doing so.

A full-scale Chinese deployment would require a war of a kind that just doesn't take place anymore. War is now fought in the air, on the sea, on the Internet, between officials and with intercontinental missiles, and there just isn't room for a war with a fullscale infantry deployment without infantry to pit it against or proper backup.
China would never mount a full-scale infantry deployment, because it knows how vulnerable the country is when it comes to intelligence, economy and a general fleshed-out army with a proper air force.
As soon as it became an actual threat, the army would be picked at by sabotage, air raids, drone attacks, ambushes and other things that plague big infantry armies in the modern day. The US wouldn't even need to kill most of it in mass bombings, since the opportunity would always there anyway and the US needs the PR.

>ameritrash talking shit about France after the Iraq disaster

I'm not saying that they are not trained or brave
I'm just saying that they are a lot more reliant on the use of excessive force and expensive material
If by any chance they can't use either, an ennemy that is used to doing without those things will have an advantage on them
Ergo, soldiers from less developed countries are more "useful" on their own
Of course there's a lot of factors, but isn't this the make-believe board ?

China's vast army and manufacturing base mean fuck all when they're being pounded 24/7 by the US airforce and navy.

Like I said earlier any China-US war would be a modern repeat of the Opium wars but with Americans not Brits wrecking China's shit.

China's still got the issue of an incredibly rigid chain of command, which makes disrupting them both easier and more effective than against most other first world armies.

Not to defend the guy who's talking random shit, but if you look at it objectively, when the army left Iraq, it was in pretty decent shape. A lot of the shit came afterwards from their own government corruption fucking things up.

>German cunts talking shit about France after that maginot disaster
>British cunts talking shit after Waterloo
We can do this all day.

>comparing the three failed Anglo stats to America and trying to say we're all perfect just because America is perfect
Fuck off Britty, you had your chance

There's plenty of places in Afghanistan especially where you can't depend on airstrikes or CAS. For bonus points, it's in the mountains, where vehicles often don't function as well.

US soldiers still consistently won their firefights, to the point that the locals refused to engage in pitched battles. The local tactics diverted into an emphasis on IEDs, either setting ambushes reliant on them or simply refusing to engage openly straight up.

>I am frankly sick and tired of the way Spiders are thought of in polite company.

But what I'm saying is that you can say that about anyone against the US. Full scale major engagement Vs US is just a death sentence at this point, especially economically and with the US entrenched allies. Look, you're right as far as China would never declare war on us because their economy is basically tied up in our debt and our corporations, but if it came to blows I'd much MUCH rather fight Russia.

The only problem I see with China is their entire reliance on Taiwanese and korean microelectronic fabs. They have the assembly lines but not the tech products.

>but if it came to blows I'd much MUCH rather fight Russia.

But why? China poses no threat to the US, like at all. Russia has a military capable of global force projection and enough nukes to threaten MAD.

not to nitpick, but when you talk about afghan locals, was it just armed civvies and militias, or professional soldiers?

Orcs

See, that's where you're wrong. Russia doesn't have the force projection to attack the US in any capacity. It would literally be a strafing run on their two carriers, and then a tactical deploymenet into Russia to fuck up their paltry 143,000,000 population. The difference is what we have to fight when we get there, and I'd rather fight 143,000,000 than 1.357 Billion.

And as for nukes, I'm pretty sure the US has the most advance missile defense system on the planet, so unless they hit us first and by surprise, I'm not too worried

I worked with the professional soldiers.

I'll be honest with you: the armed locals were the better fighters.

They had to be, really. We killed all the dumb ones.

Australian drow worship scorpions, for whatever reason.

And I'm pretty sure Israel has the best missile defense system, and according to them, perfect missile defense is not possible.

lol who gave Israel their tech, my friend?

>I'm mildly worried that Putin will take over Europe
And nothing of value was lost.

youtu.be/OExykL5QnXY

The Russians have more nukes than China. That alone makes any talk of Chinese numerical superiority irrelevant. The reliability of missile defense has been suspect ever since Reagan's SDI was outed as a sham. There is no such thing as a perfect defense. A conventional war with China and its paltry nuclear arsenal is vastly preferable to a nuclear exchange with the Russians, especially given Chinese propaganda forcing its "no first use" moral high ground angle.

Except we don't have to fight when we get there. Any war between Russia and the US or China and the US would be defensive in nature. We don't have to invade, all we have to do is destroy their infrastructure and military. Things the overwhelming superiority of the US navy and air force can do at will.

China has no ability to stop or even contend with our navy or air force. Russia does. Sure we'd win eventually, hell we'd probably win all but instantaneously. But it would be an actual battle.

To blockade and bomb China all we have to do is show up. To blockade and bomb Russia we have to show and defeat their navy and air force.

I'm not saying Russia poses a threat I'm saying any Russian-US war would be more costly in lives than any US-China war.

As for nuclear weapons there is no such thing as perfect missile defense. And as Russia has thousands of warheads, plus their targets would be the more important East Coast, rather than China attacking the West Coast, a nuclear exchange between American and Russia would also be more damaging to the US.

Themselves.

Israel pretty much shits on everything when it comes to military tech, with the big western powers (US, France) just behind.

Nice meme

The Israelites.
Israel is the subject of so much shitflinging because it's a technologically developed and well-educated country smack in the middle of a region that really isn't.
The country was literally founded and developed by the Russian and German Jewish scientists who'd fled their country for America. They were the ones developing the tech the US had before, and they did it just as well on their own.
There are a lot of spergy theories out there on the US' funding of Israel, but the Israelites don't need the funding. They're most of the inventors behind the US' technology, united in a small and effective country with a lot of people who share loyalties with them.
They don't even have the US' fractious bureaucracy, rampant lobbyism or cheap populism.

Disagreed.

While Israel does have a great military, R&D and military-industrial complex: the maintenance of all three are heavily reliant upon the massive amount of money the US funnels to Israel every year.

If the US stopped backing Israel it would not be able to maintain it's current level of power.

To give you an idea about how wrong you are, your CPU has most likely be developed and manufactured in Israel.

Point taken
Thanks

>Israel is the subject of so much shitflinging because
Because despite being the only developed and well-educated country in the region, they're the most warmongering country in the region.
>There are a lot of spergy theories out there on the US' funding of Israel, but the Israelites don't need the funding.
Not spregy theories, it's public information that we're behind they're military budget. I bet you think the CIA isn't involved in drug trafficking, too.