Will the europeans ever be powerful?

page: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Man for man, the British have to be better. They are expected to do more, on a tighter budget. In the Army for example, tank crew are expected to be able to fix their tanks, in contrast, REME (Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers) are expected to be good soldiers as well as engineers. Everyone is expected to good at more than just their immediate task, as our Army is limited in size and funding.


The Engineers have a large number of VC's. When you consider they are the guys who clear minefields and make bridges safe before the main forces come in, it's not surprising.




posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Britain's navy lost its greatness when they lost their empire. In WWI, the German navy far surpassed the British navy in terms of efficiency and tactics; it was one of the reasons the British lost so many ships. The Germans could load the guns on their battleships far more efficiently (and more safely) than the British were. Also the way the German ships were commanded was superior. The British military today is pretty good, but they have not regained their naval greatness in the same way they used to have.

No, the reason that we lost ships in WW2 were because all the german navy done was practice gunnery so therefore where so good at it.


devilwasp, one naval exercise does not prove that the American navy doesn't lead in tactics, it just shows the American Navy isn't invincible, which no navy is, nor should think it is (that was one thing that brought down the Japanese Imperial Navy); but in terms of having the best navy in the world right now, and the most powerful, that goes to America right now. And that happened the same way it happened to the British.

How about a destroyer running ahead of 5 brittish minesweepers because it "couldnt" be lead by the brittish.

Britain desired to have THE most powerful navy on Earth because naval power is key. So did the U.S. realize this, and it had the ability, so it created one of the most powerful navies on the Earth (the Japanese Imperial Navy and German Navy was also very good). After the Japanese Empire, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union were gone, America's Navy became THE most powerful in the world.

Yes, no one is debateing that we are debateing that your navy can still be knocked onto its arse by a smaller force.


Well right now I am sure Britain has a very good navy for what it can do, but America has the best one right now.

It can do practically anytask right now i am sure, if really needed.


By saying America has the best navy, I am not trying to say everyone else sucks.

What do you call "best"?




You then compare the British Royal Marines to the American Marines; on average, a Royal Marine probably is better trained than an ordinary American Marine because the Royal Marine Corps is a smaller force than the American Marine Corps. When you compare U.S. Army Rangers, Marine Force Recon, Navy SEALS, British Royal Marines, etc.....you get about the same quality though.
[/qutoe]
Not really, US rangers are a land only force.










And as for the U.S. having a lot of responsibility around the world, it is not exactly "self-appointed." The U.S., in order to remain the superpower it is, and thus keep countries like China and Russia in their place, has to go and secure where its interests are. The U.S. doesn't exactly go around securing places around the world for the sake of imperialism; it goes into areas that contain materials it needs to remain a global power, which these days it must. True, other countries say that is unfair, that everyone should share, but that is just how it is.

No it goes around "freeing" them, where it just kicks the crap outa them and keeps them in pocket.
It is illegal , how would you feel if we went in and just took over i dunno alaska becaus it has oil? (I really dont know how the fk we would do it like! Invade via the northpole???)


People act like the U.S. should just isolate itself and go about its business; it can't; that is impossible these days, because you need to keep yourself secure; the only way to do that is through having the resources to power your nation and military.

Yeah and kicking the crap outa every other nation on earth is NOT the way to "secure" yourself.


And yes the U.S. DID help rebuild a lot of Europe, it is one of the reasons our national debt is up there.

I think that would be because you saw an advantage to do so, otherwise you would have bugged out ASAP.


Yes, and I never said America's navy was invincible. Just as you said, a larger navy can be knocked on its arse by a smaller force, just as the British Navy was by the Germans in WWI.

As for the Korean War, there are folks who say Stalin was a hero of the people who never killed anyone, that the World Trade Center bombings were faked, yada yada, the historical fact is that the Russian and Korean pilots were not as well trained as the U.S. military pilots. If that was a true lie, it wouldn't be a secret anymore. And Russia isn't exactly known for telling the truth.

As for the British military to the American military, you basically restated the example that I had originally given; as for mentioning Army Rangers, I meant in terms of the overall hardness and professionalism of the troops. A standard U.S. infantryman to a Royal Marine isn't really a comparison, but a Royal Marine to a member of Marine Force Recon or Army Rangers, etc....in terms of physical standards and standards for excellence, they are about equal. In terms of what they DO, all special ops forces are different. The U.S. wouldn't call on Navy SEALS to go do Ranger stuff, and Rangers aren't called on to swim underwater and attach bombs to a ship like SEALS. Recon Marines don't go do anti-terrorism stuff in the same way the Delta Force would (if that is what they do), etc....

And no, going into other countries for resources is not illegal, because if you DO NOT do that, then your own nation can become threatened. I have already made this point. A country cannot just "isolate" itself and leave everyone else alone these days, if it wants to remain a power to protect itself. I don't know why people have such a hard tiem understanding this.

As for "freeing" a nation like Iraq, the soldiers over there I am sure really do believe in freeing them, and I do to, but the politicians are more over there for oil I am sure, which I also agree with. Without oil, one cannot maintain their state of power. Yes, it causes infringing on other people's lives, but you can either not infringe on their lives, upon which later on, some other country will for the oil, and you will be short of oil and thus not powerful to defend them or yourself, or you can infringe on their lives, which can suck for them, but you try to make it not, which in the long term benefits both.

Do you really think that China or Russia or even Britain or France wouldn't eventually go back into the middle East over oil if the U.S. wasn't in there (in a certain number of years)?

And no I wouldn't like it if Britain came over to take Alaska, but I'd understand their doing it if they needed to defend themselves from other possible threats (like if they were the power of the world and had to match the Soviet Union when it was at the height of its power).

And uhh, no, we wouldn't have just "bugged out" ASAP. The U.S. sends more in foreign aid to countries around the world than everyone else combined. We helped rebuild Europe because they were starving and wor-torn. We established ourself as a nation of principle, so after a big war, if an entire continent is starving, you don't just leave it in the dust, especially if you and it fought beside each other in said war (or parts of it foguth beside you at least).



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Vagabond

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 30,000+ troops).
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.


I think I've made my view of all this known. It's a lot of bureacratic nonsense. I have no problem deploying our troops to Iraq for longer than a years time. The situation in Iraq is one that has been created more out of luxury then any real limitations.

America's military was far larger during the Cold War. We need to get back to that before. We ourselves couldn't put together the force we had during the Gulf War again today, and that's sad.


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.


I personally would like to carry out wars without ANY European help on the ground. Our wars should be purely American. It takes out some of the politics now involved with Iraq.


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 him.
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 standard.


I'm not saying Europe's military isn't far more capable than Iraq's was, but that they couldn't deploy enough troops to the region to do the fighting, or at least as many as America pumped in.


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.


I think America's biggest advantage would be the simple ability to pick the time and place of combat. It would take European militaries a lot longer to get themselves together than America. This would make an invasion possible.

The problem with those conscript armies of Europe is that they can not fight long wars. They lose a lot of their civillian sector. Their economies would suffer. They aren't suited to fight offensively. It would probably take them a good while to adjust, and its time they might not get with America.


I observed while in the USMC that the military sets exceedingly low physical and intellectual standards and fails to train troops to a thorough understanding of basic tasks. The assumption is that you will learn over time in excercises with your unit, and as a result troops who have been in the service for less than 2 years are "lost" as Marine slang puts it. Also, our troops are not generally ultra-patriotic volunteers. Many are cornered into service by financial problems, little better than conscripts. Not that I don't respect our troops, just that I won't stand by for misrepresentations of them or foreign troops because misunderstanding fills bodybags.


The differences between conscript and professional armies aren't just in the area or morale and ability. Deployment is a big issue, as is the affect to the nation's economy. It can cause a big shock. It's useful for defensive purposes, but awful for an offensive war.

I've heard of the problems you talk about before. It's probably the reason we only have 150,000 in Iraq, and why we pay so much to keep experienced troops in theatre.

It has a lot to do with what happened throughout the 90's. The Bush administration has a lot of ambitious plans for our military. I do believe that in the next few decades, the gap between military power in the world will widen in favor of America a great deal. Our infantry could be, and should be far better. That will see the most improvement in that time frame.

There will not be any real threat to America's military dominance within the next 30 years.

NoobCommando

I guarantee to, Disturbed Deliverer, if America ever threatened the EU, without proper cause, Britain alone would put up an EXCELLENT fight. You think WW2 was bad, you pick on the big guys of Europe today, and you'll unleash a can of worms you've never seen in history.


I'm sure the British would put up a hell of a fight. I think the problem would be that you'd be doing it mostly alone. Hate to tell you this, but British troops can not compete with America's army which is far greater in number.

It's interesting that you'd bring up WW2. I think war with America would go very similiar for the British. Their allies on the mainland would fall quickly while they were incapable of taking much action. This leaves them isolated. And while the British can fight hard, I don't think we'd be making the same mistake the Germans made during the Battle of Britian. That really was a German loss more than a British victory.


Also, think about how spread out your troops would be in Iraq if Britain hadn't taken control of the South. You just don't want to admit that the Worlds superpower needs help. Get over yourselves, otherwise you're going to have even more problems when other superpower rise in the next few decades.


We could have more troops in Iraq.


US GDP: $10.99 trillion
EU GDP: $11.05 trillion (just 25 members, not including new nations and I believe the dollar has fallen since, so could be higher)

You'll also find that we have greater available man power in work force and military, and the EU doesn't run a "massive" trade deficit.

I think if the EU wanted to compete with the US, it could easily do so both militarily and economically, and maybe even surpass it. And just to think, the EU hasn't really even got started yet


I think it'd be more useful to take a look at GDP per capita, total debt compared to GDP (Europe's is bigger if you didn't know), and GDP growth. Europe on average is pathetic in all three areas.

The EU could compete with America as equals militarily and economically. What holds Europe back is their extensive social programs which are huge drains on the economy.

Unless you embrace capitalism, you can not compete with America in the long run.

And I believe that whenever someone does come close to America (I'm looking mostly at China at this point), America will absorb Canada and Mexico. It will give a huge boost to resources, and manpower.

The Mexicans sure wouldn't be against this idea. They already want a system like the EU in place in Europe. I don't think it'd be very hard to get the Canadians to go along, either.

TheMatrix

Before dissing France, I suggest you check out the Foreign Legion. Last I saw, they count about 150k soldiers and in contrary of what you say, they are constantly deployed at a moments notice for all the highest risk missions.


I wasn't "dissing" France. I believe I was giving them more of a compliment. They have a respectable military. I don't think they have anywhere near the deployment capabilities you suggest.

They have a small number of troops deployed on peacekeeping missions. They probably couldn't have offered more than a few thousand had they helped with Iraq.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
The harsh reality of any large scale war between powers is that the draft would be necessary and government planning of the war economy and the shifting of workers.

thanks,
drfunk



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   


Yes, and I never said America's navy was invincible. Just as you said, a larger navy can be knocked on its arse by a smaller force, just as the British Navy was by the Germans in WWI.


Did you choose to ignore what I said, or did you just not read it? The RN was not "knocked on its arse by a smaller force", there was one major battle in WW1, which the RN won. The Germans retreated to port once it became clear that they where hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned.

Battle of Jutland, have a read, you might learn something!



And no, going into other countries for resources is not illegal, because if you DO NOT do that, then your own nation can become threatened. I have already made this point. A country cannot just "isolate" itself and leave everyone else alone these days, if it wants to remain a power to protect itself. I don't know why people have such a hard tiem understanding this.


Er, yes it is. Check out the UN charter for one thing.

UN Charter



As for "freeing" a nation like Iraq, the soldiers over there I am sure really do believe in freeing them, and I do to, but the politicians are more over there for oil I am sure, which I also agree with. Without oil, one cannot maintain their state of power. Yes, it causes infringing on other people's lives, but you can either not infringe on their lives, upon which later on, some other country will for the oil, and you will be short of oil and thus not powerful to defend them or yourself, or you can infringe on their lives, which can suck for them, but you try to make it not, which in the long term benefits both.


So, by your logic, it is perfectly acceptable to invade another Sovereign country, based upon the need for natural resources to mainatin your power base?

What a load of stinky cow poo.

Would you support an invasion of Britain, if you felt that you needed our Oil, Gas or Coal?

Or how about Russia, they have large Oil and Gas reserves, can't let them have it, nasty little Ruskies, as the US needs to maintain the satus quo...

Or, if the ball was on the other foot, you would support the invasion of the US, as they have plenty of natural resources to exploit.

Have you not heard of just trading for what you need?

The invasion of a Sovereign country for the sole purpose of boosting your own is not acceptable. That is exactly what Nazi Germany and Japan did in WW2, and you reasoning is no different.



Do you really think that China or Russia or even Britain or France wouldn't eventually go back into the middle East over oil if the U.S. wasn't in there (in a certain number of years)?


No, I don't think that will happen, as it would mean WW3. If the US continues to invade countries based upon its own "National Security" tripe, then there will be WW3 also. You are not the only ones on the planet, and don't you forget it! It will come home to bite you on the bum pretty soon enough.



And no I wouldn't like it if Britain came over to take Alaska, but I'd understand their doing it if they needed to defend themselves from other possible threats (like if they were the power of the world and had to match the Soviet Union when it was at the height of its power).


You do talk some rubbish don't you! You would not object to the British (or anyone else for that matter) invading and wouldn't fight back?

Like F**K! You would either

a)Loudly complain to anyone who will listen
b)Take up arms
c)Do both and nuke Great Britain.




The U.S. sends more in foreign aid to countries around the world than everyone else combined.


No you don't. Stop making things up.

World Aid, in terms of Total $ value, and % of GDP.

As you can see, Japan is the biggest donor, followed by the US, in real monetary terms. But as a % of GDP, the US is way down the list.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Oh BTW, I forgot, but I would not say that a British troop is better than an American troop because they have to do more (someone mentioned this). They said the British troops have to know how to actually repair their tanks and vehicles, etc.....well so do the U.S. troops! Over in Iraq, some reporters even commented about how many of the troops were getting very good at "backyard mechanics" because the sand caused quite a few vehicles to break down.

And the U.S. military these days is very tight on a budget too. The Marine Corps has always been tight, the Air Force has 3 times the responsibility it had in the 90s, the Navy has more respnsibility, yet is being downsized, etc...

My opinion was the British ones were probably better due to that they probalby have a higher sense of patriotism than a lot of U.S. soldiers since we get a lot of poor people in our military; also, we get a lot of immigrants-turned citizens, which I don't think Britain has.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:51 PM
link   
'You have voted stumason for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.'

you gotta love when the two most nationalistic western nations on the planet squabble over who's better at what





And the U.S. military these days is very tight on a budget too. The Marine Corps has always been tight, the Air Force has 3 times the responsibility it had in the 90s, the Navy has more respnsibility, yet is being downsized, etc...


I think the US DoD budget is better than what it is in the 90s since Bush upped it for no reason except to give his defence contract buddies a helping hand. DoD budget cuts don't start till 2007. here's what we're looking at :

"An aircraft carrier would be retired, the F/A-22 stealth fighter program would be cut by one-third, fewer destroyers and submarines would be built, V-22 tilt-rotors and C-130J cargo plane programs would be curtailed"

it's not enough IMO but it's a start.

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 1-2-2005 by drfunk]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason



Yes, and I never said America's navy was invincible. Just as you said, a larger navy can be knocked on its arse by a smaller force, just as the British Navy was by the Germans in WWI.


Did you choose to ignore what I said, or did you just not read it? The RN was not "knocked on its arse by a smaller force", there was one major battle in WW1, which the RN won. The Germans retreated to port once it became clear that they where hopelessly outnumbered and outgunned.

Battle of Jutland, have a read, you might learn something!



And no, going into other countries for resources is not illegal, because if you DO NOT do that, then your own nation can become threatened. I have already made this point. A country cannot just "isolate" itself and leave everyone else alone these days, if it wants to remain a power to protect itself. I don't know why people have such a hard tiem understanding this.


Er, yes it is. Check out the UN charter for one thing.

UN Charter



As for "freeing" a nation like Iraq, the soldiers over there I am sure really do believe in freeing them, and I do to, but the politicians are more over there for oil I am sure, which I also agree with. Without oil, one cannot maintain their state of power. Yes, it causes infringing on other people's lives, but you can either not infringe on their lives, upon which later on, some other country will for the oil, and you will be short of oil and thus not powerful to defend them or yourself, or you can infringe on their lives, which can suck for them, but you try to make it not, which in the long term benefits both.


So, by your logic, it is perfectly acceptable to invade another Sovereign country, based upon the need for natural resources to mainatin your power base?

What a load of stinky cow poo.

Would you support an invasion of Britain, if you felt that you needed our Oil, Gas or Coal?

Or how about Russia, they have large Oil and Gas reserves, can't let them have it, nasty little Ruskies, as the US needs to maintain the satus quo...

Or, if the ball was on the other foot, you would support the invasion of the US, as they have plenty of natural resources to exploit.

Have you not heard of just trading for what you need?

The invasion of a Sovereign country for the sole purpose of boosting your own is not acceptable. That is exactly what Nazi Germany and Japan did in WW2, and you reasoning is no different.



Do you really think that China or Russia or even Britain or France wouldn't eventually go back into the middle East over oil if the U.S. wasn't in there (in a certain number of years)?


No, I don't think that will happen, as it would mean WW3. If the US continues to invade countries based upon its own "National Security" tripe, then there will be WW3 also. You are not the only ones on the planet, and don't you forget it! It will come home to bite you on the bum pretty soon enough.



And no I wouldn't like it if Britain came over to take Alaska, but I'd understand their doing it if they needed to defend themselves from other possible threats (like if they were the power of the world and had to match the Soviet Union when it was at the height of its power).


You do talk some rubbish don't you! You would not object to the British (or anyone else for that matter) invading and wouldn't fight back?

Like F**K! You would either

a)Loudly complain to anyone who will listen
b)Take up arms
c)Do both and nuke Great Britain.




The U.S. sends more in foreign aid to countries around the world than everyone else combined.


No you don't. Stop making things up.

World Aid, in terms of Total $ value, and % of GDP.

As you can see, Japan is the biggest donor, followed by the US, in real monetary terms. But as a % of GDP, the US is way down the list.


I am talking about private aid man, not just from the gov't. And who ever said I wouldn't object toe the British going after Alaska and not fight for it. I said I would UNDERSTAND their reasons; understanding someone for doing what they do does not mean not resisting it as well! If I am a lone horseman travelling across a countryside and some starving group of robers comes out to rob and kill me, I can perfectly understand WHY they are doing what they're doing, but that doesn't mean I won't draw my sword and try to kill them too.

And yes Britain was knocked on its arse in one of those battles, I think your history is a little screwy. They didn't send the entire Royal Navy after Germany for nothing.

And no I would not suport invading Britain as you guys our our ally. We didn't necessarily "invade" Iraq either, we removed their horrid dictator and are establishing a new gov't there. We didn't just walk in and conquer and bomb the hell out of Iraq. Hell, we lost Vietnam because we felt sorry about bombing the Vietnamese folk too.

But sometimes you may have to bend the rules; the UN can say what it wants, but nothign will ever be shared equally. If you want to be the dominant power, and a defenseless people guard one of thek keys to remaining so, you go in and take over before a rival opponent does. That is just how stuff works.

On the other hand, Europe never cared one way or the other what they destroyed when they wanted to conquer something.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
'You have voted stumason for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.'

you gotta love when the two most nationalistic western nations on the planet squabble over who's better at what





And the U.S. military these days is very tight on a budget too. The Marine Corps has always been tight, the Air Force has 3 times the responsibility it had in the 90s, the Navy has more respnsibility, yet is being downsized, etc...


I think the US DoD budget is better than what it is in the 90s since Bush upped it for no reason except to give his defence contract buddies a helping hand. DoD budget cuts don't start till 2007. here's what we're looking at :

"An aircraft carrier would be retired, the F/A-22 stealth fighter program would be cut by one-third, fewer destroyers and submarines would be built, V-22 tilt-rotors and C-130J cargo plane programs would be curtailed"

it's not enough IMO but it's a start.

thanks,
drfunk

[edit on 1-2-2005 by drfunk]


Naaa, it is too much if you ask me, and no, the defense budget is far less from what is was in the 90s. In the early 90s, the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force were each about twice the size they are now, and had more funding.

The Navy isn't integrating some of the Marine Corps' air wings into itself for nothing. Cost is an issue.

And you didn't give the link to the full story. They aren't literally just "cutting" the programs like that; they intend to bring the back later, and the cuts shouldn't really affect the programs.

www.defensenews.com...

[edit on 1-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   

The harsh reality of any large scale war between powers is that the draft would be necessary and government planning of the war economy and the shifting of workers.


Not true. Drafts are not needed in America, and shouldn't be in Europe. America right now could take out Europe without a draft.

A military much larger then what America had during the Cold War is impractical. It's simply too hard to organize, equip, train, and deploy a military of that size for any nation the world has yet to see.

Most great war machines didn't have drafts at all, and fought wars constantly.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason




The U.S. sends more in foreign aid to countries around the world than everyone else combined.


No you don't. Stop making things up.

World Aid, in terms of Total $ value, and % of GDP.

As you can see, Japan is the biggest donor, followed by the US, in real monetary terms. But as a % of GDP, the US is way down the list.


Is that just formal aid from the government or does it include individual donations as well? That could make a very big difference, and the article did not specify (it was also over 4 years old).



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Hmmm, Disturbed Believer, I agree with you on most things, but if another superpower did ever come close to rivaling America sometime in the future, I would be against the U.S. "absorbing Mexico and Canada." I mean, sure, we'd work together as North America to keep our side of the world safe, but I would not want Canadians or Mexicans considered as "part" of the United States. Unless Mexico and Canada's gov'ts were completely dismantled, which I doubt would ever happen. Thus you'd end up with two countries infringing on U.S. sovereingty, acting as if we should share stuff with them that we have worked hard to accomplish, simply because we are the "North American Union" or whatever they'd call it. We taxpayers pay enough already.

Even if Mexico and Canada officially became part of the U.S., I'd be against that, because of the land size and the culture. Canada and Mexico contain different peoples then the United States itself, so they still wouldn't be exactly "Americans," and also, the land size would be too large. We'd have to have too large a military to defend the borders.

BTW, Stumason, the Battle of Jutland was NOT the battle I was referring to. But the article pretty much says what I had originally been saying.

[edit on 1-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
We'd need a lot less to defend our borders. The northern border is gone. The Souther border would shrink greatly. The oceans are on the other two sides.

As for culture, America itself had far different cultures at the beginning. These things go away at time. And honestly, there are already huge amounts of Spanish in this country, and that number is growing. Americans and Canadians get along fine. They move across the border pretty freely now. I've lived in both the far north and far South. I don't think any culture clash would take place. At least it wouldn't be much we already haven't suffered.

And for the government issue, it could go either way. I could easily see America "absorbing" both nations by force. I could aslo see an economic partnership like the EU expanding, and the different governments will eventually dissolve on their own. That is where the EU is going. It will be a united Europe in probably about fifty years.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Well maybe, but you'd still need to defend the east and west coasts which would require a lot.

I'd still be against any EU-like relationship though, as that gives us sovereignty of the nation to allow Mexico or Canada to tell us what to do with our own laws.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   


And yes Britain was knocked on its arse in one of those battles, I think your history is a little screwy. They didn't send the entire Royal Navy after Germany for nothing.


No, my history is not screwy, they didn't send the entire Navy, they sent the Home Fleet after the German High Seas Fleet. Care to elaborate on how the Germans "knocked Britain on its arse"?

After a day of skirmishing, the two fleets joined battle. Neither side inflicted decisive casualties.

The RN lost a few battlecruisers (and several destroyers) to enemy fire, as it was common practice to leave magazine hatches open to facilitate faster reloading. This enabled just a few good shots from the Germans to ignite the magazines and take out the warships. Had the hatches been shut, as was standard operating procedure, then those ships would have remained afloat.

In contrast, the Germans also lost some ships, but that was from the sheer barraging we gave them from lines of the biggest, most powerful warships afloat.

The battle was indecisive, and the German fleet never again challenged the RN in open battle, as it knew it could not match it ship for ship, therefore giving victory and Naval dominance to the UK.



. We didn't necessarily "invade" Iraq either


Yes you did (and we, as in Britain did also). It was hardly popping round for afternoon tea was it?



We didn't just walk in and conquer and bomb the hell out of Iraq.


yes you did. You called it "Shock and Awe". Looked a hell of alot like you bombed the hell out the Iraqi's to me!



But sometimes you may have to bend the rules; the UN can say what it wants, but nothign will ever be shared equally. If you want to be the dominant power, and a defenseless people guard one of thek keys to remaining so, you go in and take over before a rival opponent does. That is just how stuff works


What? You are advocating exactly what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan did in WW2. The UN was created to stop this exact thing happening.

It is not ok to bend the rules, and I am damn sure that if China decided to invade somewhere (Taiwan anyone?) then the US would be the first to demand it cease and decist!

Why is it one rule for you, and everyone else must abide by International Law.

The fact is, the US (and the UK et al) have set a very bad precedent for the future.



On the other hand, Europe never cared one way or the other what they destroyed when they wanted to conquer something.


Yes. That was called Imperialism. We stopped that a long time ago. Its so last season




Not true. Drafts are not needed in America, and shouldn't be in Europe. America right now could take out Europe without a draft.


Not likely. Considering the EU's 25 members have nearly 2 million men under arms, and the US only 1.6 million, plus the shear logistal difficulties in getting your army across the atlantic and passed the combined fleets of the EU, the US would find itself in a very sticky situation.




Is that just formal aid from the government or does it include individual donations as well? That could make a very big difference, and the article did not specify (it was also over 4 years old).


Well, no one specified what they meant by Aid did they, so I took the base Government contributions. That report was written in 2002, I concede that, but it is actually quite hard to find accurate figures for anything closer in time (I looked for ages, when I am supposed to be working too
)



BTW, Stumason, the Battle of Jutland was NOT the battle I was referring to. But the article pretty much says what I had originally been saying


How so? And what Battle where you referring to then? Heligoland? Dogger Bank?

All battles ended with the RN coming out on top, culminating in the Battle of Jutland (the one I linked too), where after a day of tit for tat attacks, the Germans retreated to port, never again setting sail to challenge the RN. So how does that prove your point?

Unless "knocking us on our arse's" actually means not coming out to fight?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Why is there so much infighting between the parts of the UK and between the UK and the USA? Come on, let's focus on the real enemy: France!



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   


Why is there so much infighting between the parts of the UK and between the UK and the USA? Come on, let's focus on the real enemy: France!


The French aren't that bad...quite harmless really. They tried for centuries, poor bastards, and they still couldn't cross 20 miles of water to invade the UK.

Although, on the other hand, they are quite the resourceful little fellows, the Foreign Legion is a good idea....get all the riff raff from other countries, and send them to fight instead of your own citizens! Damn good idea....



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Even if Mexico and Canada officially became part of the U.S., I'd be against that, because of the land size and the culture. Canada and Mexico contain different peoples then the United States itself, so they still wouldn't be exactly "Americans," and also, the land size would be too large. We'd have to have too large a military to defend the borders.
[edit on 1-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]


We'd be alright with the Canadians and Mexicans. There are some economic issues to hammer out and a language barrier to bridge, but we'd be OK. Americans aren't all one culture either you know. Believe me, you hang out with guys from a lot of different places in America and sometimes nobody will have a dang thing in common.
Really in some ways it'd be good for us. NAFTA and illegal immigration and the like are bleeding us to death, and if you don't believe me you come work in the construction industry in Southern California. Getting Mexico on the same page with us would be a good idea.

As for defense concerns:
1. Control of Mexico lets us keep rivals from going south to avoid our defense against naval threats, and the land route into Mexico is significantly easier to defend that America's broad southern border.
2. Canada is an open door into America for forces which can opperate in that climate. If Russia wanted in here that would be their best bet at an unopposed crossing of the rockies. Being able to station forces in Central Canada would allow us to do more with less.
3. Canadian cooperation (which has not been forthcoming) would be helpful to our missile defense initiatives.

I'm not saying I'm 100% for it. Truth be told I have a lot of bones to pick with Mexico. I'm just saying that we theoretically could work it out and it would yield some benefits.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason



And yes Britain was knocked on its arse in one of those battles, I think your history is a little screwy. They didn't send the entire Royal Navy after Germany for nothing.


No, my history is not screwy, they didn't send the entire Navy, they sent the Home Fleet after the German High Seas Fleet. Care to elaborate on how the Germans "knocked Britain on its arse"?

After a day of skirmishing, the two fleets joined battle. Neither side inflicted decisive casualties.

The RN lost a few battlecruisers (and several destroyers) to enemy fire, as it was common practice to leave magazine hatches open to facilitate faster reloading. This enabled just a few good shots from the Germans to ignite the magazines and take out the warships. Had the hatches been shut, as was standard operating procedure, then those ships would have remained afloat.

In contrast, the Germans also lost some ships, but that was from the sheer barraging we gave them from lines of the biggest, most powerful warships afloat.

The battle was indecisive, and the German fleet never again challenged the RN in open battle, as it knew it could not match it ship for ship, therefore giving victory and Naval dominance to the UK.



. We didn't necessarily "invade" Iraq either


Yes you did (and we, as in Britain did also). It was hardly popping round for afternoon tea was it?



We didn't just walk in and conquer and bomb the hell out of Iraq.


yes you did. You called it "Shock and Awe". Looked a hell of alot like you bombed the hell out the Iraqi's to me!



But sometimes you may have to bend the rules; the UN can say what it wants, but nothign will ever be shared equally. If you want to be the dominant power, and a defenseless people guard one of thek keys to remaining so, you go in and take over before a rival opponent does. That is just how stuff works


What? You are advocating exactly what Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan did in WW2. The UN was created to stop this exact thing happening.

It is not ok to bend the rules, and I am damn sure that if China decided to invade somewhere (Taiwan anyone?) then the US would be the first to demand it cease and decist!

Why is it one rule for you, and everyone else must abide by International Law.

The fact is, the US (and the UK et al) have set a very bad precedent for the future.



On the other hand, Europe never cared one way or the other what they destroyed when they wanted to conquer something.


Yes. That was called Imperialism. We stopped that a long time ago. Its so last season




Not true. Drafts are not needed in America, and shouldn't be in Europe. America right now could take out Europe without a draft.


Not likely. Considering the EU's 25 members have nearly 2 million men under arms, and the US only 1.6 million, plus the shear logistal difficulties in getting your army across the atlantic and passed the combined fleets of the EU, the US would find itself in a very sticky situation.




Is that just formal aid from the government or does it include individual donations as well? That could make a very big difference, and the article did not specify (it was also over 4 years old).


Well, no one specified what they meant by Aid did they, so I took the base Government contributions. That report was written in 2002, I concede that, but it is actually quite hard to find accurate figures for anything closer in time (I looked for ages, when I am supposed to be working too
)



BTW, Stumason, the Battle of Jutland was NOT the battle I was referring to. But the article pretty much says what I had originally been saying


How so? And what Battle where you referring to then? Heligoland? Dogger Bank?

All battles ended with the RN coming out on top, culminating in the Battle of Jutland (the one I linked too), where after a day of tit for tat attacks, the Germans retreated to port, never again setting sail to challenge the RN. So how does that prove your point?

Unless "knocking us on our arse's" actually means not coming out to fight?



The "knocking it on its arse" terminology meant just as you (or maybe it was someone else; I forget) applied to the American navy in reference to "killing" some of its ships in the exercises mentioned; the German navy did the same to the British navy in that battle. True, the Germans retreated afterwards pretty much, but the point is it showed no navy is with fallacy or is invincible.

And no, we did not "invade" Iraq by the way "invading" usually refers to; usually, when countries invaded other countries, they conquered and took over everything. The U.S. did not do that with Iraq. And no, we did not bomb the hell out of Iraq, we bombed the hell out of Saddam's gov't buildings; otherwise, most civilian areas were left untouched and if they were hit, it was by accident.

Bombing the hell out of someone is what Germany did in WWII with their Blitzkrieg (spelling?) or the United States with the Japanese cities, which was one purpose then to kill Japan's industrial output.

And no, it is not the same thing Nazi Germany did. Nazi Germany had no enemies that they might have to contend with. The entire world wanted nothing to with war, except for maybe Japan, which was not any real threat to Europe. The Nazis wanted an empire, so they decided to start conquering everywhere via bombing them and invading them.

The United States DOES have potential threats that can threaten its sovereignty, such as Russia and China. And we do no go everywhere conquering or invading peoples; by "bending the rules," I simply meant you may have to go into some area, as I've mentioned multiple times above, that is undefended if that area contains a valuable resource you need.

You have 3 options:
1) leave the area alone until a real threat goes in, kills everyone, takes the resources, and you are left defenseless, or

2) go in, knock out the gov't there if it is evil, give the people their own gov't, but establish an influence there, so you have more access to said resource (i.e. oil in this case)

3) go in and knock out the gov't, take over but treat the people nice, so you have total control over the resource,

4) go in, kill everyone, and take over the resource.

The United States opted to do #2, which can be "bending the rules" in the sense that you aren't supposed to just "go into a nation" like that in a certain sense, but the U.S. and Britain DID knock out a human rights violator there, and FURTHERMORE, the U.S. and Britain did what the United Nations would not do, which was stop said dictator. The United Nations had given Saddam an ultimatum, which they did not follow through on.

The U.S. and Britain didn't go in and enslave everyone, knock out the gov't, and take over the place.

So in a sense, it wasn't really bending the rules there; now, if Saddam had been the nicest fellow on Earth and treated his people good, I could see the United States maybe wanting a military influence like a base around that area or something, but going in and taking over would've been totally wrong and THEN it would've been totally against U.N. charters.

Now if say the Soviet Union WAS out again to conquer the world and Saddam had decided to support the Soviets and cut off all oil to the U.S. and Europe, then even if the Soviet Union had yet to do anything militarily, I say to hell with whatever U.N. "charters" say, go invade the country and take control of the oil, so that your own country (and thus a good bit of the world) would be secure in the end, because otherwise if the Soviets got the oil control, you could be in a world of trouble.

Remember, in a military situation, waiting for the "first strike" doesn't necessairly mean LITERALLY waiting for it; sometimes it means certain actions that mean if you don't do something about it, you are doomed.

But if Iraq was just a big 'ole desert with tribal peoples minding their own business, I'd definitely say, go in and get the oil before someone else does, just try not to ruin the lives of the people living there.

And Europe over imperialism??? Man, don't make me laugh. Europe would be the same as they were hundreds of years ago if they had the military power. But then WWI kind of changed everyone and then WWII came and they got devastated again, and then 2 other superpowers came about, the United States and the Soviet Union. To keep out the Soviets, Europe sort of united. Once the Soviet Union fell, you have this big United States, that is an empire, but not in the traditional imperialism sense. And what's this with people saying "if America decides to invade here or there, etc...."???? America and Britain did what the UN was supposed to do with Iraq, no one "invaded" anyone. And we didn't bomb the civilians to death, as I mentioned above.

But people call America "imperialistic," which I don't get, as we are probably the least imperialistic of all empires to exist. What makes America an empire is that no nation has ever had so much global influence politically, economically, militarily, and culturally, as the United States. American politics, economics, military relations, and even cultural icons (like McDonald's) have global influence.

Because of this, European nations don't like America having so much dominance in everything, so they want to lessen the gap. But you aren't seriously telling me if Britain was still the empire it really was, that it wouldn't be at it with France again, taking stuff over.

The thing with America is it somehow became an empire without having to go around literally taking everyone over.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   


The "knocking it on its arse" terminology meant just as you (or maybe it was someone else; I forget) applied to the American navy in reference to "killing" some of its ships in the exercises mentioned; the German navy did the same to the British navy in that battle. True, the Germans retreated afterwards pretty much, but the point is it showed no navy is with fallacy or is invincible.


Think that was Devilwasp who said that. I did however, mention about the HMS Iron Duke "killing" a Destroyer of yours and a sub.

The RN, however, was not knocked on its arse. had the Germans stood and fought, they would have been massacred. They used hit and run tactics, and when it became apparent they where being outmaneuvered by the larger RN fleet, they retreated to Williamshelm. Battle over, RN had total control. Victory to UK.



And no, we did not "invade" Iraq by the way "invading" usually refers to; usually, when countries invaded other countries, they conquered and took over everything.


Invade: The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory



The U.S. did not do that with Iraq. And no, we did not bomb the hell out of Iraq, we bombed the hell out of Saddam's gov't buildings;


Yes it did. Unprecedented amounts of ordnance where used to destroy all Government buildings, civil infrastructure (power,water,telecoms), military targets (the Iraqi army was massacred wholesale, 10,000+ casualties) and there where/are still many examples of "collateral damage".



Bombing the hell out of someone is what Germany did in WWII with their Blitzkrieg (spelling?) or the United States with the Japanese cities, which was one purpose then to kill Japan's industrial output.


Blitzkrieg is a battlefield tactic. Smashing the enemy with combined arms, and using speed to punch through the line and surround the enemy.

Do not confuse the "Blitz" that we called the German bombing of the UK with Blitzkrieg, they are totally different.



And no, it is not the same thing Nazi Germany did. Nazi Germany had no enemies that they might have to contend with


Yes they did. The Communists for starters. And also, the dominat powers in Europe at the time, which Hitler felt had wronged Germany in 1918.



The entire world wanted nothing to with war


Not entirely true. There was another arms race prior to WW2, in which many industrialised nations readied themselves for it. The Soviets where hell bent on spreading "people power" as well. In fact, they actually worked with the Germans in dividing Poland between them.



The United States DOES have potential threats that can threaten its sovereignty, such as Russia and China.


Get real. China won't go too war with you as you are economically entwined. And Russia needs to have a functioning Army first.....



And we do no go everywhere conquering or invading peoples; by "bending the rules," I simply meant you may have to go into some area, as I've mentioned multiple times above, that is undefended if that area contains a valuable resource you need.


that was the exact reasoning behind the european land grab which led to imperialism. Beating someone to it.......



The United States opted to do #2, which can be "bending the rules" in the sense that you aren't supposed to just "go into a nation" like that in a certain sense, but the U.S. and Britain DID knock out a human rights violator there,


So, we knocked out a human rights violator? Then why the hypocrisy (sp?) in dealing with Mugabe (good Food producer)?
Or Sudan (they have Oil)?
Or Saudi Arabia (they have oil too!)
Or North korea (they have WMD)?
Or Indonesia (oil)?
Or Bangladesh(not alot really)?
Or Burma (Jungle....can never have too much?)?
Or all the others?



The United Nations had given Saddam an ultimatum, which they did not follow through on.


Er, excuse me? They gave him an ultimatum to give up his WMD, which he didn't have! How can you use the lack of UN action as justification, seeing as the lack of action was justified itself??



The U.S. and Britain didn't go in and enslave everyone, knock out the gov't, and take over the place.


No, I admit we didn't enslave anyone...but the rest is true.



So in a sense, it wasn't really bending the rules there; now, if Saddam had been the nicest fellow on Earth and treated his people good, I could see the United States maybe wanting a military influence like a base around that area or something, but going in and taking over would've been totally wrong and THEN it would've been totally against U.N. charters.


Your contradictions astound me. Regardless of wether Saddam was "evil" or not, you cannot use that as an excuse, as highlighted above. Nor can you use the pretext of preemption, as there was no WMD. Regardless, it was still against the UN charter. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone, and was invaded by superior military forces for no good reason whatsoever.



Now if say the Soviet Union WAS out again to conquer the world and Saddam had decided to support the Soviets and cut off all oil to the U.S. and Europe, then even if the Soviet Union had yet to do anything militarily, I say to hell with whatever U.N. "charters" say, go invade the country and take control of the oil, so that your own country (and thus a good bit of the world) would be secure in the end, because otherwise if the Soviets got the oil control, you could be in a world of trouble.


During the cold war (you are probably too young to know), Saddam was the US best friend in the ME, so you argument is mute, at best.

Regardless, it is up to the country to decide who it sells it oil too, not you, again, a right guaranteed under the UN charter that all countries will be soveriegn and have the right to self determination.



Remember, in a military situation, waiting for the "first strike" doesn't necessairly mean LITERALLY waiting for it; sometimes it means certain actions that mean if you don't do something about it, you are doomed.


What fictitious first strike are you talking about?



But if Iraq was just a big 'ole desert with tribal peoples minding their own business, I'd definitely say, go in and get the oil before someone else does, just try not to ruin the lives of the people living there.


Thats called Imperialism. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (look at Africa)



And Europe over imperialism??? Man, don't make me laugh. Europe would be the same as they were hundreds of years ago if they had the military power. But then WWI kind of changed everyone and then WWII came and they got devastated again, and then 2 other superpowers came about, the United States and the Soviet Union.


No they wouldn't. The British Empire was already under going change, and had actually granted independance to several colonies long before WW1. Canada and Australia come to mind. After WW2, Europe had grown weary of fighting, and we grew up, and look how far we have come since.



America and Britain did what the UN was supposed to do with Iraq, no one "invaded" anyone


No they didn't, they acted illegally. And no it turns out, even those reasons where all false. The UN warned Saddam to give up WMD, which he had done in 1991. The UN inspectors (freely) checked out Iraq, and when it came about that the inspectors would find nothing, Bush/Blair quickly launched their invasion and the UN had to pull those inspectors out.

It was an invasion, it is even described as one on all news channels, including your beloved Fox.



But people call America "imperialistic," which I don't get, as we are probably the least imperialistic of all empires to exist.


You contradict yourself again. First you state it is ok to invade a country to secure natural resources (imperialism) but then deny that you are doing it!

Imperialism: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

Seems like you are imperialistic to me sunshine.



Because of this, European nations don't like America having so much dominance in everything, so they want to lessen the gap. But you aren't seriously telling me if Britain was still the empire it really was, that it wouldn't be at it with France again, taking stuff over


We gave our Empire up, as we weren't in that game anymore. Besides, we wouldn't have been "at it" with France, due to the Entente Cordial.

Needless to say, but if we still had the Empire, then there wouldn't actually be anything left to take over.



The thing with America is it somehow became an empire without having to go around literally taking everyone over.


Since the end of WW2, the US has played power games (mostly subversely) to extend its influence over other, lesser nations. This has included supporting coup attempts, aiding rebellions, and sometimes actually invading and overthrowing one Government to replace it woth one that was just as bad.

Whilst it may not have overtly invaded countries in all cases, it most certainly played dirty and made many lives a misery by supporting regimes that where friendly to the US, but not very nice to their populations, just because it served US interest.

Look at Central America, Africa, SE Asia...





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join