It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

America is the most powerful nation EVER!!!

page: 23
8
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


Sticking together?What like you and all your anti-american friends on here(wont name any names like you did) too uh?

Hell,we have to-it takes alot of people I guess to get the FACTS through to your thick skulls.




Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by 12m8keall2c]




posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 



Thats because you're seen by many as the world's only super power.(as China is quite insular.at the moment.)

Being in charge means you get the blame for everything!
Us Brits did when we had a global empire.As did the Spanish,the Romans,the Ottomons,the Persians etc.

No one thinks of the good that you do when your in charge,more so when your in charge and involved in (illegal) wars.

If you want to play the game of thrones you can't whine about the names you get called or how things are difficult for you.

And pointing fingers and saying "well you do it too" or "you did it 1st" doesn't help anyone.

If you wanna be the boss and you wanna police the world,suck it up!!



The United States is not the only nation involved in the "Policing of the world" though.







I didn't say you were mate.
I said you're the only super power.

And super power's are those at the top,the one that everyone else notices.
Which means everyone else gets forgotten.
Is that fare?
Of course not.
Its just how the world works.
True statements,but kinda hypocritical considering these statements uh?


I very much agree with what you have said here.
And,as i stated earlier,the US does rely way too much on weapons.They forget that manpower and leadership are just as important.


The Us has the 2nd largest cache of nuclear weapons so of course they could destroy countries if they wanted to.
And as Russia has the largest cache of nuclear weapons on the planet,i guess that means they could destroy America.................
You make the assumption that American is everyones friend and supports them when that is not true. And just as a tip stop believing all the bull crap about Iran, Israel has nukes and has threatened to use them and not just against Iran but against others including the US. Why are you fighting their wars for them, are American lives worth less than Israeli ones.





Again i agree.
The opposition to this War on Terror is proof of that!
And why is it that Israel,a country thats been in a state of conflict since its modern day creation,can not only have nuclear weapons but can also threaten time and again to use them on Muslim countries??
Any other country that just tests nukes gets jumped upon from a great height!





There is every chance that whilst America impales itself on three wars thats when it will be struck and struck hard. Its a basic strategy, wait till your opponent is bogged down and then stomp all over them.





Any one with half a brain would see that!
Just as any fool would know that as soon as Saddam was taken out the country would fall into guerrilla warfare.





jkrog08.



We have strategically surrounded Iran so to say,I think that alot of the reason behind are problem in Iraq is that we really don't care,we just want a position against Iran-which we have.





Have you looked at a map recently?
Iran is bordered by 8 countries,we are only in 2 and,as any good military leader knows,you don't start a battle when there is another going on behind you.Which is exactly what will happen if Iran is invaded before Iraq is brought under control.
The same will happen if we decide to attack from Afghanistan as well.
Also,we leave ourselves open to Iran's new ally,China.
China shares a border with Afghanistan.Its tiny,but its still a way in. ......
The USSR had an economy that was roughly 300-350 billion dollars, its economy was far smaller than americas back then, but it did spend most of its GDP on its military. The US could easily outspend the soviets, and did, which caused the initial collapse of the USSR. At current, the US spends roughly 5-6 percent of GDP on its military, which is about the average for every major industrialized nation. So I do not see how the two compare.






You believe that the figures your government put out are correct??

At a time like this those in charge will lie even more because they don't want anymore people opposing the wars currently being fought.
Its only recently that your government hasn't started telling the truth of how many soldiers have died and thats only because people were pointing out that their figures didn't tally with everyone else's.






Tell me, why doesnt russia have any smart missiles, or smart bombs?




Because since the fall of Communism Russia stopped being paranoid about the US and tried to get itself back on its feet.And i should point out that every time Russia tried to open up trade with Europe,America vetoed it.So its no surprise that they have turned to Asia for allies and trade.
Americas show of force is what has put Russia back on the defencive and,like China,if they arm all the available people for war,the US forces will be dwarfed.






I suppose the entire Saddam regime, along with Talibani ruled government in Afghanistan don't count?




Remenants of the Saddam regime still exist,as does the Taliban.
One of the reasons the wars still rage.
And Osama and his boys are still at large.Maybe their hiding with all those nukes America said Iraq has






magicmushroom.



Where was all your power and weaponry on 9/11




Indeed.
2 fighter jets to protect over 2000 miles of coastline: (the official report said) makes you think.


Its also a valid point that doesn't appear to have been answered yet.
If the hijacking of 2 planes can bring the country to a standstill,how will you fare against (possibly) 1000's of terrorists??
Will you destroy/nuke your own country??
Will you still say that your superior weaponry will save the day,even though most of these weapons would become obsolete??





jkrog08



You also claim that we are not the only country in Iraq or Afghanistan-true,but we are the MAJORITY there,if all these other countries really wanted to help than they would send some REAL help and stop letting us do all the damn fighting-what UK sends 10,000 troops and we send 160,000?????Are you kidding me?






Er,you do have a huge population compared with the UK.
And its not always numbers that count,but quality










[edit on 4/28/2008 by jkrog08]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Just a little info for the disbelievers

"On November 2, Iran tested three new types of land-to-sea and sea-to-sea missiles in the context of its "Great Prophet II" military exercises carried out on land in the desert, in the Persian Gulf waters, the Sea of Oman and 14 of Iran's provinces.

Western and Israeli military analysts were taken by surprise. According to Debka, the Israeli intelligence publication (5 November), several features of Iran's military capabilities were unknown to the Pentagon:

"The spectacular swarm of sophisticated missiles fired in Iran’s surprise military exercise stuns military planners in the US, Israel and Europe"

Iran's tests of surface missiles on November 2 were marked by precise planning in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior American missile expert (quoted by Debka), "the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which the West had not known them to possess."

"They also displayed unfamiliar warheads. But their most startling feat was the successful first test-fire of the long-range Shehab-3 with its cluster of tens of small bomblets, ...

The entire range bore the imprint of new purchases from China. This Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range brings Israel, the Middle East and Europe within reach - may be more than a match for any anti-missile missile system in American, Israeli or European arsenals – depending critically on the point of its fragmentation. Some of its features are still an enigma in the West. If the Shehab-3’s cluster separates close to target, the Israel-US Arrow has a chance to intercept it, but the Americans and Israelis have no defense against the multiple warhead if it separates at a distance." (Debka, November 5, 2006)

Iranian state television showed dozens of missiles being launched both from warships in the Persian Gulf as well as from land based locations in the desert."



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Jkrog, I dont think you need to call people thick, just because I and others dont agree with you or have different views does not mean we are wrong, not educated or anything else. But perhaps you might want to discuss what is happening to the USA and its people, as an American should that not be your primary concern rather than waging wars on those who pose not threat to you or your country.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
West Coast, Jkrog, Cpt, its good to see you all sticking together, just what I would expect from persons such as you, that would be arrogant, ignorant, racist and delluded.

You cannot get away from the fact the the USA is responsible for the deaths of over 6 million people who did not need to die in your sensless wars. First you were scared of Reds under the bed now its the Islamofascists that your scared of.

The US is a schoolyard bully and like all bullies it will get its come uppence and very soon at that. The fact that you have numerous Americans stating that you country is in dire straits, the Goverment corrupt, and the constitution in tatters the best you three can come up with is how big your weapon is.

Thats a sign of insecurity, you are either in denial of what is taking place in your country or you are just ignorant I dont know which it is.
And just like all bullies the best you can come up with is invading 3rd World countries and then you start preening yourself on how good you are. The US is engaged in a war that is costing the country trillions and you three think that its great when all logic dictates otherwise.

And talking of power and capability how long have you been in Iraq and still no end in sight. All you have is excuces, oh if we were to do that or if we could do this. The simple fact of the matter is that you cannot win because the people of that region dont want you there or any other occupying force. Nobody there has asked you for an American way of like yet your Goverment seems to think they can ram it down peoples throats which raises another interesting point.

Buffoon Bush proclaims that he wants the people of the ME to have democracy which is rather interesting because he seems to be going all out to deny the American people of same. Whilst your forces are getting the crap knocked out of them for corporate greed your Goverment is introducing more and more draconian legislation at home to deny you the very aims that it is allegedly seeking in the ME. We all know its crap dont we, idiot bush even said there was no WMD's, we all know its about pursuing PNAC and securing the ME for the safety of the Isreali's and robbing Iraq of its natural resources.

But whats the point in discussing any of this with the likes of you three because your so mind controlled by the system that you can no longer think for yourselves and like babies have to be spoon fed your daily diet of lies and deception.



Woah you're calling me a racist? When did I make reference to race. I suggest you stop slandering me, that's not very well mannered.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 



the US was doing the Lions share but to say we took no part is incorrect.

Just like we were in Europe(on the Western front)

I find it disgusting that you Brits,WHO OWE YOUR LIFES AND VERY LIVELYHOOD TO AMERICA still bash us and say we didn't do as much as we did in ww2,but that's okay,cause Im an American and we forgive and still help when it's the right thing to do,even if it's not acknowledged or appreciated.


Yea the Soviets played a massive part in defeating Germany,the Americans played the OTHER massive part...........since this WAS a two front war in Europe.One could not have won without the other.To clarify-Russia could not have defeated Germany without America on the other end.........and Russia helped America push forward by fighting Germany on the other side.But I do think,as do most scholars and historians that America STILL could have won WITHOUT the Russians fighting on the other side-although it would have been more protracted and bloodier.


I do not take anything away from the British-their courage and never swaying stance in the Battle of Britain was honorable and should never be forgoten,they severly halted German advances and war effort.For that I commend you all,don't think I am taking anything away from you in the BoB or your help in the rest of the European theater.


Now as far as the Pacific goes-Yea we pretty much were by ourselves-as Britain was bogged down in Europe,aswell all the other allied nations-the soviets DID NOT help us fight the Japanese..........infact they had a pact with them for non-aggression.Sure we had SOME(VERY LITTLE)assistance,like supplies,coast watchers,maybe a few troops............but we did over 98%of the fighting there.

In otherwords we coulda' done WITH OR WITHOUT your help(since it was so small)and the outcome would have been no different,sure any help was appreciated-but it was not the war determining help that we provided to you and the rest of Europe.I know you were busy there,and again Im not taking anything away from you-but DO NOT CLAIM to have played any major part in the Pacific,or to deny the US's MAJOR effort in Europe.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I just thought of something....why are we talking about World War II really? Yes it has historical value pertaining to how we got to where we are now, but as far as I can see, the topic of World War II is just being developed into a "Who was here and how much did they help" sort of argument, which is really counter productive towards the topic.

I think discussing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan remains more pertinent seeing as to how it is a modern conflict.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
Cpt quite right, and I'm suprised no one has commented on my Iranian missile post. Perhaps you may wish offer some response to that article.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Cpt. Monty
 


Great point,I was about to say the same thing.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Just a little info for the disbelievers

"On November 2, Iran tested three new types of land-to-sea and sea-to-sea missiles in the context of its "Great Prophet II" military exercises carried out on land in the desert, in the Persian Gulf waters, the Sea of Oman and 14 of Iran's provinces.

Western and Israeli military analysts were taken by surprise. According to Debka, the Israeli intelligence publication (5 November), several features of Iran's military capabilities were unknown to the Pentagon:

"The spectacular swarm of sophisticated missiles fired in Iran’s surprise military exercise stuns military planners in the US, Israel and Europe"

Iran's tests of surface missiles on November 2 were marked by precise planning in a carefully staged operation. According to a senior American missile expert (quoted by Debka), "the Iranians demonstrated up-to-date missile-launching technology which the West had not known them to possess."

"They also displayed unfamiliar warheads. But their most startling feat was the successful first test-fire of the long-range Shehab-3 with its cluster of tens of small bomblets, ...

The entire range bore the imprint of new purchases from China. This Shehab-3, whose 2,000-km range brings Israel, the Middle East and Europe within reach - may be more than a match for any anti-missile missile system in American, Israeli or European arsenals – depending critically on the point of its fragmentation. Some of its features are still an enigma in the West. If the Shehab-3’s cluster separates close to target, the Israel-US Arrow has a chance to intercept it, but the Americans and Israelis have no defense against the multiple warhead if it separates at a distance." (Debka, November 5, 2006)

Iranian state television showed dozens of missiles being launched both from warships in the Persian Gulf as well as from land based locations in the desert."





Well to be honest with you I don't see a problem with this. The United States possesses weapons of greater magnitude than these I'm sure, so letting Iran test their own weapons, especially with clearly planned testing dates, places and times, then the U.S. government should not become overly upset over it. But with regards to the semi-extreme views of the Iran's leader, the U.S. government does have reason to fear a potential attack against its protectorate state Israel. Since Iran has possession of these weapons it does rely upon them ultimately what they use them for, and if they attack the United States and or an ally of the United States, they should be prepared to face the consequences, but otherwise, weapons testing is done by every nation with a standing military, every single day, so I don't see a big problem with this.

Also mushroom, you should not say I am completely pro America. I do disagree with the current U.S. government on many issues, and I in no way, shape, or form have ever supported Bush or the majority of his decisions. So saying that I have been persuaded by the lies and deceit issues by the U.S. under the Bush administration is just assuming too much. I only agree with our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan because, in fact, a lot of other governments agreed with the U.S. that taking down Saddam Hussein's regime would be a benefit to the world, although not immediately, especially in the ME. The way we have handled Iraq was a bit stupid I agree, and that can be blamed on Bush's poor appointment of Donald Rumsfeld as his Secretary of Defense when he took office. Rumsfeld, as I'm sure most of you know, was a complete fool when planning the invasion of Iraq, and did not place the United States armed forces in a very good position after the initial invasion, such as his request to use limited troop numbers...one reason why peace keeping has become so difficult in Iraq.

[edit on 28-4-2008 by Cpt. Monty]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


Well good for Iran,Im glad they are making progress on defense(by way of Chinese help..........I wish countries would make things by themselves like we do)

But those missile batteries would be taken out by air strike prior to any ground or close quarter invasion.


On another note(pertaining to my exotic weaponry)I have a couple classes with a demolition expert currently in the USAF.I don't remember how the subject got brought up,but today in a 'round about' he stated that(and he recently has gone out to Arizona and Nevada to test new weapon systems)the USAF has many working DEW's(Directed Energy Weapons)which would include patricle beam,laser,etc.He was not talking about the Air Borne laser either.The way he stated this was in a way were he did't straight up tell me,but by comments and sarcasim,body language made it clear that we have MANY working large and small scale DEW's.

I brought that up because obviously that would be another answer for those new Iranian missiles-this would help if we didn't take out every thing in an air strike(which we wouldn't)It would be utilized on the ground for the ground and sea forces.Of course this would neutralize any type of ordinance in the missile(including the multiple warhead)Also the US has had this type of missile system for a long time.

On a further note I asked him how we might go about a Iran conflict-he stated that it would be "different"than Iraq as in air strikes and special forces-that is it,no large scale invasion.More of a "precision strike"



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Kr0n0s
 



I wonder,could you be anymore insulting to those men who lost their lives fighting along side you!

Numbers of soldiers do not count.America is a huge country its going to be able to deploy more troops than England,Holland,Australia etc.What matters is that they were there!


Campaigns in the Pacific theater of war.

The Burma Campaign.1941-1945.UK,US,India & Australia.
The New Guinea campaign.1942-1945.US,Australia,New Zealand & Holland.
The Solomon Islands campaign.1942-1945.UK,US,New Zealand,Australia,New Guinea,Fiji,Solomon Islands and Tonga.
Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign.1943-1945.USA.(the first offensive operations of the United States Navy and Marine Corps in the Central Pacific.)
The Mariana and Palau Islands campaign.June-December 1944.USA.
The Philippines campaign.October 1944-September 1945.US,Australia & Mexico.
The Volcano and Ryūkyū Islands campaign.Janruary-June 1945.US,UK,Australia,Canada & New Zealand.
The Borneo Campaign.May-June 1945.Australia,Holland & USA.


2 out of 8 major campaigns involved America only.

As for Singapore,our whole Pacific army wasn't there now was it.How stupid to say that just because we surrendered there we stopped fighting in the Pacific!
Yes,it was a great defeat for us,but our soldiers based throughout the rest of the Pacific kept right on fighting.


You also need to understand that less troops would be deployed there from European countries because there was a war on in Europe

Hmm,lets see.
Do we keep the bulk of troops at/nearer to home or do we send them to the other side of the world



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Cpt. Monty
 


Yea Donald "Dumbsfield" was the WORST Sec.of Defense EVER-he should be fined 1 million dollars or more for his incompitance.Bush also is a blabbering IDIOT.So Mushroom you see-we are not total pro american"lie believing"idiots.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Speaking of Iran, the claim that they are still providing arms to shiit militias in Iraq continue..

Source


Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, blamed the Iranian government and Quds force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard for its “increasingly lethal and malign influence” in Iraq. He said conflict with Iran would be “extremely stressing” for America’s overstretched forces, but added: “It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability.”



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 





True statements,but kinda hypocritical considering these statements uh?



No.Just because i believe the US does get blamed for a lot of s**t does not mean that i agree with their foreign policy.

I am anti the US government,not its people.
I am anti my own government UK,not its people.


Oh,and you still haven't answered my questions and comments about Iran etc


[edit on 28-4-2008 by jakyll]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jakyll
 


Jakyll-You are missing the point and twisting facts-YES,there were other countries involved-BUT in extremely small numbers,the reasons WHY do not matter.I agree that Britain and other European troops should have been stationed and fighting close to home,protecting their own country and fighting on the other front close to them..The fact remains that the US defeated the Japs PRETTY MUCH by themselves though.

[edit on 4/28/2008 by jkrog08]



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Cpt. Monty
 





I think discussing the war in Iraq and Afghanistan remains more pertinent seeing as to how it is a modern conflict.



Err,yeah,good point.

So,moving on



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Cpt, please accept my apology if I offended you in any way as it was not my intention to do so.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by magicmushroom
 


Apology accepted, and I am sorry as well if anything I posted yesterday came off as a bit too aggressive towards your views.



posted on Apr, 28 2008 @ 04:17 PM
link   
I've been off line for a few days, assembling my new computer. I'll respond in 2 parts.



The proper term is "conflicts" as the war fighting was finished in the first few weeks.


You are playing semantics. Some of the 7 major groups in Iraq are using uniforms, grade distinctions, military structure and carry weapons openly, which makes them beligerents and affords them POW status according to the Geneva conventions.



Just as F22s are being produced? The US is infact in the process of replacing all its front line fighters with better, 5th generation fighters.

The F15 is getting long in the tooth, but it is seeing much needed upgrades and is still an adequate fighter for what the US needs.


The F-22 and F-35 are over budget, over weight, under spec, and delayed. Even then, the US will replace 700 F-15's with less than 200 F-22's, and 2600 F-16's with 2300 F-35's.

As for the F-15, it's not about age, but about structural integrity, Stresses on the aircraft etc. If can be the most capable fighter ever produced, but if it pulls too many G's over time, it will disintegrate in mid air.



I suppose "cyclical recession" is not in your vocabulary.



It is, but simply refering to the boom/bust cycle and thus dismissing the effect that the US government has had, is silly. Depending on the actions of the the US government, the recession can be mild or severe, and right now it looks like a severe recession.



The US military is in the process of doing just that, with a $200B+ transformation of the US armed forces. Its called Future combat system

Rail guns, Lasers, AI, the Global Information Grid, nanotechnology, biotechnology, autonomous drones, advanced naval assets, space weapons, weather modification and more, such as providing its soldiers with super strong exo skeletons that will employ smart nanotech body armor.


AKA 'Future Cancelled System'. Look at the original proposed specs, and compare with the revised specs of today. Most of the system has lost funding and what is left is far from what it was supposed to be.

It's all just pipe dreams. Let's see what the US can develop and afford. The US is already spending about 15 percent of it's budget paying interest, and to support it's wars abroad, it borrows roughly 20 percent of it's budget.



"Pay for it all" by that do you mean the military budget that accounts for 5-6% of US GDP?


There are many ways to skin a cat.
www.warresisters.org...



I don't listen to George W. Kindred, only logic and facts. Fact is, Iran has an extremeist President that wants to wipe out Isreal, said so himself.


Actually he didn't say that, but to the neocons, facts are of no use. Only perception matters. If they can control the narative and public discourse, they can make the public believe anything, and it'll be so much easier to start another war.

[Quote]
Logic will tell you that you cannot deal with Religious Extremeists and they are bent on a life-long mission to fullfill their supposed destiny bestowed upon them by their holyiness.


Are you talking about Ahmadinejad or GWB?



How about when we helped Afghanistan DEFEAT the "mighty"soviets(with nothing more than money)


You seem proud that the US created Al-qaeda?



How about when we liberated Cuba from Spain...........did we "institute our dictatorship "then?NO,we let them be and look what happened


Yes, the US supported Cuban independence on the condition that the US would have a final say in everything from matters of sovereignty, trade, economy etc. Cuba was in fact a subject of the US, Batista even said so openly.


Cuba became Communist and Afghanistan became the base of operations fo Al-Queda.


Both after heavy US involvement. Why is it that US involvement always breeds such anti US resentment among the people it's supposed to help?




top topics



 
8
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join