US vs the world - hypothetical war

[Swift]

I mean, sheesh - and you wonder why we seem to have short fuses?

Dieggo, honestly, I hoped you paid attention to what Duke said right here. I believe it will answer your questions about the aggressiveness of Americans.

 

[Zardoz]

It seems like some of you need a refresher on what this thread is about.

I refer you to the title of the thread. I also refer you to some of the posts from a6m5, Zardoz and niky. They seem to have a pretty good grasp on how to stay on topic.

If you have a burning desire to go another 15 rounds about Iraq and 9/11 conspiracy theories, I suggest you try the "SEARCH" feature. It's very handy.

Thanks for your cooperation.


M

Frankly, this right here is why Americans get aggressive... I mean, sheesh - and you wonder why we seem to have short fuses?

Dieggo, honestly, I hoped you paid attention to what Duke said right here. I believe it will answer your questions about the aggressiveness of Americans.

Hello?

 

[Swift]

Hello?

Hi, how's it going?

I know what you're trying to say. But Duke's post was on topic with what is going on with the thread and I just felt the need to bring it to Dieggo's attention.

I think Mspec is right, but since this thread is a direct result of Dieggo's earlier thread about aggressive North American's, I believe Duke's post is justified.

 

[Duke]

Agreed, and that's of course why I posted it.

 

[Diego440]

Please demonstrate how America is "in charge" of administering Iraqi oil.

Please demonstrate how we are getting it "for free". Considering the cost of this war effort, it would have been much cheaper - I mean, several orders of magnitude cheaper - for us to pull a France and just buy the oil outright under the table.

Please demonstrate how the US military shot down the airliner that was scuttled in western Pennsylvania. And, incidentally, Americans did initially get the story that it was intercepted and shot down, in the early hours and day or two after the attack. It's just that we actually paid attention when the truth was determined and published.

I'm sorry, isn't this the opinions Forum? My opinion is that the US went to the Iraq war not to take down a despot and give freedom and democracy to the country... if that were true, there are at least 20 other countries that should be first in line (Cuba, Venezuela, Rwanda for starters). I'm just working on the conspiracy theory and on the fact that it's all about money. Oil money in this case.

In the 1940s the war was a great way to boost the conomy and bring the country out of a decade-long recession. I believe that is one of the reasons why the US hasn't pulled out of this war; because they're still waiting for that boost to occur.

Most of the news here in Spain and in South America stuck to the news of the plane being shot down by "defensive" measures taken by the US government. Keep in mind that although Bush and his administration are not very liked here in Spain, movies like Fahrennheit 9/11 and anything that has to do with the demise of Bush are celebrated.

It seems like some of you need a refresher on what this thread is about.

I refer you to the title of the thread. I also refer you to some of the posts from a6m5, Zardoz and niky. They seem to have a pretty good grasp on how to stay on topic.

If you have a burning desire to go another 15 rounds about Iraq and 9/11 conspiracy theories, I suggest you try the "SEARCH" feature. It's very handy.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Sure thing 👍 ... sticking to the topic now.

Would the US win the war against the world? It also depends on how fighting is. If it's US against the whole world at the same time, or against one country at a time and where thet rest of the countries just sit there waiting. I think the US would lose either way, but let's go to the numbers: US has around 1,366,000 people in their armed forces, but Russia has 1,520,000 and China has about 2,810,000... China wins by sheer numbers. You can argue that the US has better training and better technology, and the US does in fact have better air forces... and a better budget, nearly quadrupling the budget of China.

But when it comes to being China + India + Russia + Japan + France + 180 other countries, the US has no chance, realistically. If the whole world were to united against the US, they would wipe the floor with the americans.

Plus, the US has no biological warfare program, while China, according to the US Department of Defense, may retain elements of an offensive BW program. Russia is believed to stockpile a lot of BW agents (from the USSR days), and Taiwan has reportedly made efforts to acquire a BW capability. That's just an example, the list goes on.

On Chemical Warfare, although China claims that it no longer possesses any CW stockpiles, the U.S. government believes that China has not revealed the full scope of its program. Although the country that apparently is leader in this branch is Syria, which is not exactly friendly with the US. And after many years of denying the existence of a chemical weapon program, India disclosed in June 1997 that it did indeed possess chemical weapons.

On top of all this, Iran has the largest missile inventory in the Middle East, including Scuds, ICBMs and SLVs. China has produced and deployed a wide range of ballistic missiles, ranging from short-range missiles to intercontinental ballistic missiles.

It's all in numbers... you can check out the CIA World Factbook and Nation Master

So, US vs. the World (one by one), US could win... US vs. the World (united), US loses. In my opinion.

 

[Danoff]

I'm sorry, isn't this the opinions Forum? My opinion is that the US went to the Iraq war not to take down a despot and give freedom and democracy to the country...

Your opinion should be backed up carefully with facts. You should be capable of arguing it or you shouldn't have the opinion in the first place.

This is the opinions forum, where we come to debate opinions - not simply write them down and expect people to accept them. Don't bother stating your opinion here unless you're willing to either a) watch it get picked apart or b) defend it.

 

[Duke]

I'm sorry, isn't this the opinions Forum?

I'm moving my reply to the Official America Discussion thread.

 

[Diego440]

alright, apparently I'm too opinionated for the discussion, so I'll just sit on the sidelines and read the rest of the answers.

 

[Danoff]

alright, apparently I'm too opinionated for the discussion, so I'll just sit on the sidelines and read the rest of the answers.

Not too opinionated, just not willing to actually back up and support your opinions. It's as though you wish to simply present your mind and not be challenged. That's what we do here Diego, we challenge.

 

[Duke]

alright, apparently I'm too opinionated for the discussion, so I'll just sit on the sidelines and read the rest of the answers.

It's not that you're too opinionated.

But you need to make a fundamental choice about whether you're willing to back those opinions up. If you elect to leave them swinging in the wind, you can't get angry when people cut them down.

 

[Diego440]

Not too opinionated, just not willing to actually back up and support your opinions. It's as though you wish to simply present your mind and not be challenged. That's what we do here Diego, we challenge.

It's not that you're too opinionated.

But you need to make a fundamental choice about whether you're willing to back those opinions up. If you elect to leave them swinging in the wind, you can't get angry when people cut them down.

True. I'm just stating this on my personal opinions. Of course, an opinion doesn't have to be based on proof or certainty, but just the right or wrong belief of something.

There is no fact that the 9-11 actions were taken, except for my opinion and the opinion of newscasters here in Spain. They were talking about that a short time ago. Anyway, back to the war topic... did you read the numbers part?

 

[Danoff]

True. I'm just stating this on my personal opinions. Of course, an opinion doesn't have to be based on proof or certainty, but just the right or wrong belief of something.

If you're going to have an opinion or belief, it should be based on proof at the minimum and certainty if possible.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Your opinion should be backed up carefully with facts. You should be capable of arguing it or you shouldn't have the opinion in the first place.

This is the opinions forum, where we come to debate opinions - not simply write them down and expect people to accept them. Don't bother stating your opinion here unless you're willing to either a) watch it get picked apart or b) defend it.

In order for the US to dominate the world, you'd think it would destroy all dictatorships... but no...

Why do we ignore some dictators but take it upon ourselves to depose others?

For example, Sani Abacha (dictator of Nigeria) is left alone...
We never complained about Batista in Cuba...
P.W. Botha in South Africa never needed a "regime change"...
Ngo Dihn Diem was never deposed [by the US] (his own people killed him -- that's how bad he was)...
Samuel Doe of Liberia... Papa Doc and Baby Doc...King Fahd...Franco...Hitler... and my favorite of them all: Pinochet.

None of these dictators needed a regime change... why?

 

[Danoff]

In order for the US to dominate the world, you'd think it would destroy all dictatorships... but no...

Why do we ignore some dictators but take it upon ourselves to depose others?

For example, Sani Abacha (dictator of Nigeria) is left alone...
We never complained about Batista in Cuba...
P.W. Botha in South Africa never needed a "regime change"...
Ngo Dihn Diem was never deposed (his own people killed him -- that's how bad he was)...
Samuel Doe of Liberia... Papa Doc and Baby Doc...King Fahd...Franco...Hitler... and my favorite of them all: Pinochet.

None of these dictators needed a regime change... why?

Moved to the America thread.

 

[Swift]

If you're going to have an opinion or belief, it should be based on proof at the minimum and certainty if possible.

I will amend that slightly...

If you're going to EXPRESS your opinion or belief...it should be based on proof at the minimum and certainty if possible.

If you want to keep your opinion to yourself base it on whatever. But if you want to express your opinion to others, it needs to have some evidence(not truth) backing it up.

Also, every opinion is based on input(evidence) from some source. In this case, the media is the largest source of input. But it could be parents, friends, or any other source.

 

[Danoff]

I will amend that slightly...

If you're going to EXPRESS your opinion or belief...it should be based on proof at the minimum and certainty if possible.

If you want to keep your opinion to yourself base it on whatever. But if you want to express your opinion to others, it needs to have some evidence(not truth) backing it up.

Also, every opinion is based on input(evidence) from some source. In this case, the media is the largest source of input. But it could be parents, friends, or any other source.

Swift can ammend that all he wants. But I'm sticking by my orginial statement. Regardless of expression I think you should have reasons to believe something. Swift figures he needs to be able to believe things he can't back up because he's religious.

Just poking at you Swift.

 

[Swift]

Swift can ammend that all he wants. But I'm sticking by my orginial statement. Regardless of expression I think you should have reasons to believe something. Swift figures he needs to be able to believe things he can't back up because he's religious.

Just poking at you Swift.

I know man, it's cool. And I'm spritual, not religious.

 

[Duke]

My reply is also taken to the ***** At America thread.

 

[niky]

Thanks for clearing that up, guys. 👍

Hoookay... now that the chemical gas has dispersed, where are we?

Zardoz postulates that a Carrier battle group could fall to a combined assault from European fighter bomber wings. I guess this beggars the question: Where in the Atlantic will the Euro-American war take place? If the Carrier Task force can stage behind a fighter curtain within refueling range of the mainland, it could probably weather out the attacks.

I agree that American ships are still too vulnerable to anti-ship missiles for us to discount a concerted strike from European attack wings.

And this beggars the question, will Britain support the US, as it always has, or will the British beachhead have to be taken by force? Britain is an ideal staging ground for an invasion of Europe, possessing good industrial facilities and airfields. As we've seen in the Gulf, a Carrier fleet can hold its ground against an outnumbered and outequipped airforce, but against a number of modern airfleets, that's something different. With British facilities, the US could field its F16s and F117s more effectively. With the Carrier fleet, we're pretty much limited to F18s and the ageing F14s. Both good aircraft, but not the numbers we need.

This is why I had the US pick its wars in Asia first, to establish bases on the Asian continent for both ground troops and bombers. A two pronged attack into Europe would be more effective than a single thrust along the Atlantic... hmm... maybe Egypt, then?

 

[Zardoz]

Zardoz postulates...

...will Britain support the US, as it always has, or will the British beachhead have to be taken by force?

Read my scenario again. We're talking America versus absolutely everybody, including the UK. Nobody sides with us. President Robertson, Secretary of State Ann Coulter, and Secretary of Defense Murdoch whip the bird flu-ravaged American populace into a frenzy of paranoia and embark on a campaign to reduce every other nation's militaries to nothing more than World War I-style ground troops.

In my scenario, no beachheads are taken, because we couldn't hold any of them. That's why I think we'd be doomed to failure. No beachheads means no air bases for the USAF's fighters, so all they could do is stay home and play Homeland Defense (which they would do extremely well).

Without the Air Force's vast array of killer aircraft, we couldn't take out the air forces and navies of the world. Our naval air assets, formidable as they are, would be so decimated in the initial thrust against the EU and Russia we'd have nothing left for the rest of the world.

 

[niky]

Oh... then we really would have to invade China first. That's what we need the CIA for... in the first few years of the US-Global war, we'd have to manufacture as many excuses as we can for invading other countries. Staging 9-11 style attacks against our overseas bases and allies (NOT SUGGESTING 9-11 WAS STAGED, MIND YOU... THAT'S RIDICULOUS) would give us enough excuse to invade any foe... or to position a "security force" in that country. We might start with North Korea... most everyone would be happy to see Kim go. That would give us a beachhead on the assault on China. And small countries historically allied to the US, like Taiwan and the Philippines, actually have bases where we could stage from. Neither country would actually object to US forces staging from them, or could do anything about it if they were invaded by the US. Taiwan has a pathetic land army, and the Philippines has no air force to speak of, and barely any Navy vessels.

But Europe is still the key, and the most difficult of regions to assault. I suppose the US could fight a defensive action on the Eastern Seaboard while going through Korea, China and Russia from the other side. China would be difficult, as Communist guerillas are very effective at fighting a war of attrition on occupied ground. Russia would pose a problem merely because of the amount of ground US forces would have to cover.

I still think that if Russia, France or India felt SERIOUSLY threatened, that they would actually use one or two nuclear devices. I see at least two or three attempts to nuke Washington before the end of the war.

 

[K_Speed]

OK ermm

how can america take over the world if they even cant take over Iraq.....

arrgh, that was mean

 

[ledhed]

I thought about this scenario for a while and its a non starter for me . How do convince the people of the US its in their best interest to go to war with the world ? We are a democracy and our army is made up of the voting public . Having a disagreable army invade maybe granada is one thing but ordering our army to invade Mexico ? You have got to be kidding me . Invade Canada ? ....hehehehe sure right..that general wont be shot . The president would be tracked down and hung , the war would take place in the streets of our cities while we eradicated the genius and his followers who came up with the plan . You cant have a war of global domination using a democracy . Especially this one .

@ K speed ....no one wants to take over Iraq , thats why they are voting for their own government and constitution..you should pay attention once in a while .

 

[Famine]

How do convince the people of the US its in their best interest to go to war with the world ? We are a democracy and our army is made up of the voting public .

Easy. They all watch *insert American news network here*. That's all military propaganda anyway.

[/irony]

 

[niky]

It would be pretty easy to convince the World that it is in the interest of all for us to take on Korea. China would be tougher. Iran would be easy. After that, it's an uphill fight against superior forces.

 

[Div is back]

I was reading a bit, and I saw people talking about the man power.

Do yall remember Napoleon? Alexander the Great?

Yes they all got owned in the end BUT manpower was not even an issue and they both conquered all of Europe.

I'm currently at the library and I read Napoleon's biography and it talks about the human formation of his armies.

Some of his armies were majorly consistent of non-french soldiers.

If USA conquers Canada, we will be forced to join their armies.

Same thing for south America and so on!

Some of you say we cannot strike Europe.

To those I say WAKE UP! We have what we call planes that can go from St Andrew to Iraq and come back.

 

[Div is back]

OK ermm

how can america take over the world if they even cant take over Iraq.....

arrgh, that was mean

You are pathetic.

 

[Zardoz]

Easy. They all watch *insert American news network here*. That's all military propaganda anyway.

[/irony]

Precisely. You noticed that in my scenario, Rupert Murdoch is Secretary of Defense, huh?

 

[Diego440]

The president would be tracked down and hung , the war would take place in the streets of our cities while we eradicated the genius and his followers who came up with the plan . You cant have a war of global domination using a democracy . Especially this one .

Exactly 👍

I'm currently at the library and I read Napoleon's biography and it talks about the human formation of his armies.

Some of his armies were majorly consistent of non-french soldiers.

If USA conquers Canada, we will be forced to join their armies.

Those were different times. Napoleon invaded their countries, conquered them and offered them a better life in exchange of fighting with him; or they had nothing to lose, rather. The US invading Canada just for the hell of it and then taking over their army to fight against another country, causing a snowball effect of every country they overtake. I don't think so. Besides, Canada isn't in such a bad state that they need the US to change it.

 

[FoolKiller]

Easy. They all watch *insert American news network here*. That's all military propaganda anyway.

[/irony]

FAMINE, I know you don't think this but where do people get this idea? Does anyone actually watch American news? I hear more about what is wrong with America and how this war is a quagmire than I do about how great our army is.


Back on topic, Ledhed, assume that the world decided to team up on the US for some reason. I like the idea of an alternative energy source to oil is discovered by private investors in the US and thus not controlled by any government entity. These investors are forced to share their technology with other US companies but the US government cannot actually take control of it by force.

Local politics aside (this is already going to be long) the world economy becomes based around this new energy source and is thus controlled by what the majority of the world hates more than anything, private industry. The rest of the world with their more socialist views feel the American companies should share more freely, but the companies refuse and the American government backs them because these companies are doing what is natural in a capitalist economy.

Eventually the anti-American sentiment grows even larger because these new companies make the McWorld idea look small. The majority of the world decides that they want to have this technology be freely given (even though jealousy and greed of control for themselves is the true motivator) and the UN, and the EU (except England) vote for resolutions demanding that the technology be made freely available in the interest of global growth. The US essentially tells them to shove it because no one was giving out free oil so why should we give our stuff free.

This creates an even uglier political climate and increase the hatred towards the US. More and more resolutions pass and eventually the US leaves the UN (forced or willingly is inconsequential). Finally a resolution is passed threatening forceful action will be taken if denied again. The US responds by decreasing aid and withdrawing troops from international bases. This cycle continues until finally a resolution for war against the US is passed.

The UN and EU has been quietly building up their oil supplies expecting the US to eventually stop exporting the new energy source. Then the first shot is cast as an explosion rocks and disables a major American port, crippling their supply lines and ckilling hundreds. There is controversy for a couple of months until the origin of the attack is traced back to the responsible country. The UN cries scandal and calls for investigations and demands that America stands down until they can finish make their own determination, but the American people are angered at the unprovoked attack.

No longer hindered by its UN membership the US launches a counter attack. The UN and its member countries scream about an illegal and unprovoked attack as they have discovered that it was not who the US is accusing. The US demands evidence and to know who it is. The UN offers weak evidence as they had full knowledge of who it was. This does not satisfy the US and open war is declared.

At this point the UN countries and other allies of the attacking country come to their aid to defend against the US. By thsi point the anti-American sentiment around eth world is toop strong for anyone to join the US and they all declare war or dedicate resources against the US.



How does that scenario work for you? The assumption that the US would be the aggresor is truly the anti-American sentiment seeping through.