Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
So, America doesn't have 8,000 extra troops now, huh? We have half a million men in our army alone, and just 150,000 are in Iraq. The British were
not necessary. Anyone who says otherwise is probably just a biased Brit.
Nay! I'm Yankee through and through you bloody wanker!
Just kidding, I really am American. I think we have to acknowledge that our coalition
partners are taking a tremendous load off of an already strained US force. Try looking at it in these terms...
Take close to 10,000 allied troops participating in Iraq, multiply that by the number of rotations that we have been through (now we're up around
Now realize that for the mostpart it needs to be infantrymen and military police. A few thousand airmen sitting on their fat arses in Germany don't
have much to offer to the Iraq effort.
If we absolutely had to we could deploy more, but it would be an extreme hardship on an already strained military. You might remember that Rumsfeld
really only wantd to go in with 50,000 troops originally because he knew the cost of extensive deployments like this.
America wanted other nations to chip in. The British gave more support than anyone. It's appreciated. It doesn't go beyond that.
It's appreciated but it doesn't go beyond that... what does that mean exactly man? "Thanks, but we still dont respect you"? They just might be
stopping our reserve forces from literally falling apart.
And Europe's military power is not anywhere near comparable to America's. Europe, even their combined strength, does not rival America's. Just
remember, Europe, you guys couldn't even have dealt with Iraq after years upon years of sanctions.
Oh man now you're just hurting me. You and I have had some interesting conversations in the past but are you seriously claiming that Europe couldn't
have won a war with Iraq or are you just saying that their sanctions didn't work? You have to remember that most of the world didn't want the
sanctions to work. Saddam was everyone's friend from the late 70s up till 1990. Even Bush 41 initially wanted to continue America's friendship with
European technology rivals pretty much everyone's but America's, and in some areas they are ahead. They have the manufacturing and economic capacity
as a whole to militarize and fight a serious war. Just because they don't have the large stockpiles in place does not make them impotent by any
America's military strength has been drastically cut since the end of the Cold War, and we're still ahead of the combined strength of Europe.
America spends more per man then probably anyone in the world. We have the best equipment in the world in just about every aspect.
I agree. Our tanks are particularly awesome, even with the second-best armor Britain makes and the standard Rhinemetal cannon that Germany sells to
almost everyone else in NATO (except Britain who have their own made by Vickers).
America isn't like the ultra-hightech aliens who come in and whip the world's arse in 10 minutes in a movie. We have the first rate of almost
everything, but we share it with others in many cases, and many others have the ability to produce it. In my way of thinking I severely doubt that
America even has the ability to successfully invade Europe if it were to come up.
Besides the UK and France, no one in Europe has anything but a conscript army. No military in France is suited for wide deployment. How much
support could the UK even give to mainland Europe if they were attacked? I highly doubt it could be done on short notice. It would take a month or two
at least. In that time America could probably have taken most of Western Europe.
We're not even going to get into this because
1. It's never going to happen.
2. I'm not in the mood for an international dickmeasuring contest.
3. I'm sick of telling everyone they're wrong and pissing them off.
I'll say only this. It wouldn't be easy, and if we did it without just cause I'd probably join the French Foreign Legion so long as they'd let me
take pain killers for my back.