And please remind me why you were able to fight on ? Correct because the carriers were not in the harbour .
Why did the japs attack pearl harbour ? Correct to sink the carriers leaving no other U.S. carriers in the Pacific making it easy pickings . They got their times wrong and fucked up and paid for it . Had they been successful it could of been very different
China wouldnt attack you until they were confident of crushing you . Their not idiots . They don’t have the navy to attack you
But do remember I’m not questioning the US’s capablitiy to strike back I’m questioning your governments balls to fight back
like the Iraq tank force out numbered the coalition tank force ? 
As i said it depends on who got in office. The amount of money to be made off a war with China would be tempting to any politician no matter how much of a pussy they are.
Chinese propaganda i’m sure.
Please we have plenty in that area for a jet to reach, Japan Tie-wan, South Korea.
Well i don’t think we necessarily need carriers for bombing operations in China. We have allies pretty much surrounding them.
Wasn’t our only carrier fleet. It simply would have prolonged the war. Plus you fail to realize we have 11 carriers not just one.
They simply wanted to destroy our Pacific fleet. Yes the carriers were their prime target, but Pearl Harbor did enormous damage to us. We also lost a few carriers during our island hopping campaign and we didn’t turn around and bitch out.
No one attacks another country unless their confident they can win. They could simply be over confident and under estimate us.
A lot of their military leaders sure are. Inexperienced, and stupid, they got the job because they’re good loyal communists.
Ive told you several times how fucking stupid their head of defense is.
Again depends on who’s in office. Obama wouldn’t do it, but hes almost out of office luckily. I just hope he’s not replaced by another weak, lib tard asshat.
Shittest tanks known to man though . And the US still lost 70 odd while us Brits lost none 
bitch please get to our level
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:4828, topic:21032”]
As i said it depends on who got in office. The amount of money to be made off a war with China would be tempting to any politician no matter how much of a pussy they are.
TheDivineInfidel:
[/quote] yes indeed but losing to China is still a risk and in losing you will lose everything .
It’s a matter of you having everything to lose and China having everything to gain .
So again Its down to who is in office yes .
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:4828, topic:21032”]
Chinese propaganda i’m sure.
[/quote]no was issued in british press and us press .
Then one year later did the same thing
70? What the fuck are you talking about? 11 Abrams have been destroyed and most of those are due to friendly fire. Only around 2-3 were destroyed by towel heads.
Lies and propaganda. Give me an outside source. Why would the U.S admit something like that? (see how irritating it is)
Edit. I just learned that we’ve never actually lost an Abrams to friendly fire.
Hell we had hard time destroying our own tanks when we wanted too.
again comes down to the man in the office . But had you lost them in pearl harbour and the facilities there you wouldn’t of been able to strike fully back for some time . Allowing them to dig in and take alot of your land and mostly a lot of ours also
Haha no. They could not have taken any of our land. Hawaii maybe but that still a bit of a stretch as we have a much shorter distance to travel to land troops and supplies.
But invade the U.S mainland? no
Only challenger we have EVER EVER lost was taken out by another challenger .
The closest they got was a challenger stuck in a ditch surrounded and battered for hours by RPG’s and Milan AT missiles . Eventually we rescuered it . Repaired and back on the front line in 6 hours flat . The only real damage was one of the Milan missiles damaged the gun sights come at us bro
Was never a goal for them . They only wanted you to leave them alone while they took the Pacific islands . Hence they believed taking out peso harbour and your carriers would of done that for a year or two to which point they would be in a position of advantage to your counter attack .
Clearly didn’t go their way
Not an immediate goal no but they did want Hawaii because they could bomb the shit out of the west coast using Hawaii as an air base. How ever that was only after they had tied up all other loose ends and had navel superiority in the Pacific.
That maybe was a later war objective . But their original plan was only to expel you from the Pacific .
Hawaii likely was a target but not any U.S. mainland
First off a forum is not a good source for future reference 
Second off those tanks were damaged (key word) not destroyed. There has never been an Abrams destroyed by enemy fire, only to friendly fire.
Link is above the post . It’s copied and pasted from a news article .
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-03-29-abrams-tank-a_x.htm
So bad they had to be sent back to the U.S. never happened to our chally’s apart from the one taken out in a blue on blue
Article is wrong . I repeat there has never been an Abrams destroyed by enemy fire. As reported by the military. There have been 11 or something like that destroyed by friendly fire.
You didn’t have as many tanks over there, or as long as we did.
Edit your own sources even says they were killed by friendly fire. I have no clue where you were getting we lost 70 tanks.
Also the Abrams is meant as a tank fighter, there fore is not very well equpied to deal with infantry. That’s why so many were damaged.
Slightly wrong . No Abrams has ever been destroyed in a tank on tank fight .
[quote=“SirWarriant, post:4841, topic:21032”]
As reported by the military
[/quote] also incorrect the us miltary has always refused to comment
You also forget the Iraqi use of the Abrams after saddam . Of which 5 took complete armour penetrating shots from ATGM’s . The same missiles that bounced off the chally 
Maybe you should of read your own article that repeats what my article said if you go down to the Iraq section
Or just click on any of the tabs really they all prove your wrong XD Persian golf war 23 m1a1’s taken out of service (love the classic American wording ) due to combat .
If a tank has to be taken out of service in my books I count that as a kill .
Your image of a burning wreck meaning a tank kill is slightly silly .
If a tank is put out of action to a point where it has to be ditched then it’s a kill . Doesn’t have to be a burning chunk of metal.
So you have got never been taken out by another tank mixed up with never been taken out by anything
Now for the king
One took 70 direct RPG hits . We have never had to ditch one all have been able to drive away from all IED attacks with the worst resulting in the driver losing part of his foot none ever killed inside the chally due to enemy contact just the two killed in the blue on blue
