(False) Historical stereotypes

So it was a war.

But the US wasn't a part of it.

They weren't huh?
So what was all that money for?

Policing Action.

you are right, they just vent on vacation and brought their guns with them.

In a war. On one side of the war. As their allies.

And 300 Spartans went on a jog with their king.

To be at war you have to declare war. The United States did no such thing.

Like **** you do!
That is like saying all the ancient wars for which there are no records of war declarations weren't wars!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States

The Formal Declarations of War are the wars that the US has been in.

God I hated that movie.

I'm not arguing with GOC anymore. This is so fucking stupid. Of course it was a war. I've never heard anyone besides him try and say it wasn't a war. Saying the Korean War wasn't a war is even worse! Maybe you should ask some of the veterans if they were in a war.

I am well aware of the declaration of war process in the United States, but that does not make a war not a war.
It is a war, whether or not you want it. Once it reaches a certain point, its a war.

The idea that Vietnam was not a war is just a poor excuse so you can claim that the US has never lost a war.
Its quite pathetic.

Woah, ask the United States government if it was a war or not. Ask people who lived through it. My dad told me that the United States government never called it a war even during it.

Again, the United States has only declared 5 times. My dad is a veteran of Vietnam.

The US never officially declared war.

It isn't an excuse, the US hasn't lost a war. I mean evern if the United States was involved in the Vietnam War, we still didn't lose. The troops were withdrawn and armistice was declared 2 years before North Vietnam took South Vietnam.

Ok, I'm done.
You win.

I guess US police actions are as ****ed up as their real wars.

That we can both agree on.

Going back to the SPQR period, or early republic, about the roman equipment and armor...The chain mail ( Lorica Hamata : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_hamata ) was an innovation brought from the gallic tribes of northern Italy as well as the "Montefortino" helmet as it is known: http://www.imperiumancientarmory.com/Helmets_Montefortino.html
The chain mail armor never went out of fashion either, and the famous Lorica Segmentata ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorica_segmentata ) as most hollywood movies and shows like to use, was actually pretty expensive and the Hamata was favored.
Romans weren't military innovators that much, they adapted their fighting style and equipment from their most common enemies. An example is the eventual introduction of Cataphracts in the Eastern Empire during their wars against the Sassanid persians.
And to show you how the gauls were so 'barbaric' (just joking here, I know in roman times it was just a word for...GRINGO), the gauls were, according to Pliny, the inventors of the soap. http://books.google.com.br/books?id...d=0CE8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=gallic soap&f=false

^ The Romans were alot sketchier on technology than people give them credit for.

^^ I knew the Romans got their armor from the Gallic tribes.

The Sherman was not a good tank. It could not stand up to the other top tanks of its period. (T-34, Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger, Pershing)

One Panther on average would take out 5 Shermans before it was taken out. Its been estimated the T-34 could do about the same, although the two never actually fought in battle.

Shermans were easy to destroy and great targets with their high profiles.

About the only good thing they had going for them was they were so easy to produce and as far as I can tell they were reliable. They simply couldn't match up though.

Pershings never really fought in the war, the Panzer IV was actually as bad as a Sherman, the good tanks were the Panthers, Tigers (because of the infamous 88mm and pin-point accuracy), T-34s and IS-2s.