Is it inevitable that Britain or the US will get attacked in the near future?

Oo is that game good? Looks sick on the cover!

Thats true, but only a small fraction of British troops expereinced combat and its only for few months.

Thats not my scenario im just comparing armies.

Also, the are alot of soldiers who stay on in army too...


This is the manpower...

Russia: Active: 1,027,000, Reserves:20,000,000, Paramilitary:449,000, Total:21,476,000

United Kingdom 175,690 199,280 0 374,970

United States 1,580,255 864,547 11,035 2,455,837

I didint include Australia and NZ as both have like 100k troops.

Also, Im not saying Russia can take on US, coz atm I dont think they can, hopefully the war will never happen between the countries mentioned, we need to focus our interest to greater threats, i.e Middle East.

Please sort out your grammar.

Also, it's 'definitely' not whatever variation you have tried.

Recently the UK has announced the withdrawal of development aid to India, Russia and China, amongst other nations. This is not going to help relations between the two nations (UK and India).

I think the OP has been playing too much Homefront.

Yes the potential massacre of the Libyan people by Gaddafi does justify military action against him. Unfortunately that's not the reason for Western interference- it's more because they know they won't be able to justifiably siphon oil off Gaddafi in the future and maintain their integrity. Therefore they'll get rid of him and get their oil from the new government which no doubt they'll "help" to form.

Do you really think the West would have stopped a massacre if Libya didn't have oil? Do you genuinely think they'd intervene if the same **** kicks off yet again in the DRC or Rwanda or Mozambique? No.

Where was the oil in Serbia then?

anyway, what's wrong with securing oil flows? our economy runs on the stuff.

So, in the future if Britain becomes a weak country but suddenly discovers huge reserves of oil, you wouldn't mind lets say the Russians launching a massive illegal invasion and killing hundreds of thousands of people under the pretext that they need oil to run their economy.

Wasn't aware we had invaded Libya.

Where was the oil in Serbia and Kosovo anyway?

We did not invade Serbia

we bombed it worse than Libya.

Yes but if you were going to attack a country for resources you need to do more than bomb it.

Wasn't aware we had invaded Libya.

Where was the oil in Serbia and Kosovo anyway?

There wasn't. Any the relevance of this to Iraq and Libya is...

So, in the future if Britain becomes a weak country but suddenly discovers huge reserves of oil, you wouldn't mind lets say the Russians launching a massive illegal invasion and killing hundreds of thousands of people under the pretext that they need oil to run their economy.

Can I just put my point across please, I think US doesnt give one crap about killing innocent people for oil, if they could they would invade the whole of middle east for it, they dont because they are scared of other supoerpowers such as China and Russia, as those two countries are strictly against killing innocent people in foreign countries. If China or Russia wasnt there I reckon middle east would have allready been invaded. My opinion.

Can I just put my point across please, I think US doesnt give one crap about killing innocent people for oil, if they could they would invade the whole of middle east for it, they dont because they are scared of other supoerpowers such as China and Russia, as those two countries are strictly against killing innocent people in foreign countries. If China or Russia wasnt there I reckon middle east would have allready been invaded. My opinion.

Russia especially? Is this some sort of joke?

They didint back UN sanction on Libya as they feared civilians will be killed, they also dissagreed on Syria too no?

*cough*Georgia*cough*

We can only speculate as to why they didn't want action in Libya and Syria - one thing's for certain though: the reason they gave the public was not the actual reason.