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.

 

USA vs. the World

page: 12
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Okay - I really had to think very hard about this.

War of Independance - know about that one.

But a second time, Yank? Please explain.

Oh, by the by, Old Boy. Calling you Yanks, 'Yanks', is a sign of affection. After all, you nicknamed us 'Limeys' and 'Brits', didn't you?




posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:19 PM
link   
War of 1812 the Brits though they could march in to the U.S. 30 years later and win well history tells us otherwise. Also the French helped us out with money because they did not want the British t in. And you know what the best part about the French helping us is? They went bankrupt, and we went on to beat he British and ultimately become a superpower.
Oh... that kills me every time.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
War of 1812 the Brits though they could march in to the U.S. 30 years later and win well history tells us otherwise. Also the French helped us out with money because they did not want the British t in. And you know what the best part about the French helping us is? They went bankrupt, and we went on to beat he British and ultimately become a superpower.
Oh... that kills me every time.

History also tells us it was a stalemate...
A 2 year war come one I've had longer arguements than that....

Hey westy you really need to research a bit deeper, the french did sign originally for money but ended up giveing men and supplies to the americans...

Also your the super power because of your size..so what?
Ohh look I'm a super power ohh I can bully countries 1/8th my size!



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Did you know that a very large chunk of the British army was waiting to sail over and re-take the US?

I'm talking a very large amount of men, troops and technology... but the king simply decided it was not worth it.

The US could have been re-taken fairly easily if the man on the throne had not abused his position.



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
You cant say we pick on people 1/8 our size

Well not really cant say that we bully everyone thats smaller then US, Maybe Smaller as far as land size then yes but NK technicall per capita has the 3rd largest military in the world, I would say not to long before US really starts to put the Pressure on them.

I would like somone to answer my question, If NK sends Nuke to US and Hits Cali, US would send One right back at them not only would that Kill of NK but it would greatly affect China and Russia , so are those two Countries so Ignorrant to realise this that they cant step in and tell NK no nuke, i dont understand this our government is the only government to use atomic weapons, are people stupid enough to think that we wouldnt use them again, no one trust NK so why should everyone let him do what he wants, NK president spends more money on his military then feeding his own people, NK pres said no my facilities are for peaceful purposes only, uhhhh gee look what he has now, did people really believe that he wasnt going to build a Nuclear weapon, its time for Russia and China to start doing there part in the world Cuz when crap hits the fan its going to affect them as well, so if they want stability they should start contributing to a safer world

[edit on 30-3-2005 by zakattack]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Did you know that a very large chunk of the British army was waiting to sail over and re-take the US?


I don't think so the British and the U.S. were deliberation and negotiating to end the war. Just as that was going on the British sent some men to Louisiana so the could take over and have something to bargain with in the negotiations. That however did not succeed, thanks to Andrew Jackson.


History also tells us it was a stalemate...
A 2 year war come one I've had longer arguements than that....


Devil that is still a win for the U.S. at the time our country was in its infancy and the Superpower at the time the Brits could not defeat us.

And Devil you country bullied people for hundreds of years, and was the biggest empire this world had/has ever seen. Or did you somehow forget that?



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
Did you know that a very large chunk of the British army was waiting to sail over and re-take the US?

I'm talking a very large amount of men, troops and technology... but the king simply decided it was not worth it.

The US could have been re-taken fairly easily if the man on the throne had not abused his position.


Uhhh... it was called "he was at war with FRANCE at the same time." The US and France agreed to stick together, because they both knew that together, they had a chance against the mighty Brittania.

Despite the irony of all the US/Franco hostile relations of the last few years, neither country would exsist without the other.......

[edit on 31-3-2005 by Facefirst]



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
You have to understand economics first to understand how thin the ice is getting. Like you, I have much faith in the fighting spirit and tenacity of our men and women in uniform; likewise with our equipment and technology. Having said that, it takes MONEY to make those things happen. And it takes OIL to move our military. Lots of it.


Originally posted by zakattack
Never happen first of all, 12 active carriers with battle groups to each carrier and subs, more then likely 6 battle groups on each side of US "some would have to be repostiond from other missions around the globe"


If the economy crashed due to the switch from petro dollar to petro euro, we would not have the financial capacity to make and sustain such huge military maneuvers. No money. No gas. No big ops. It's pretty simple. A lot of our troops overseas would be left hanging in the wind, too.


And it would take alot of time to prepare this, the US would catch on and put a stop to


You might wanna look into the alliances forming between China, Russia, India and Venezuela. Things are happening that most people are completely unaware of. Alliances we cannot ignore.

These alliances I speak of are the result of inept foreign policy. Skilled and fair diplomacy is what we need right now, as much as anything.


Troops are stationed through the world Cuz it is best not to have all your strength in one spot so therefore US can respond quicker to any immediate threat.


No, that is not correct. Study the various commands and their missions to understand that.

It's true, America is indeed a force to be reckoned with. Japan, Germany and Iraq have found that out the hard way. However, the USA is not immune to downfall and destruction. It would be sheer folly not to understand that.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 03:21 PM
link   
What is with your talking about our economy collapsing? If it happens then come and post, until then keep wising buddy. And “alliances”? More like trade partnerships there are no "alliances". And no one is saying that the U.S. is immune form falling but it could happen in 500 years or maybe more. You speak as if we will fall tomorrow and then china can invade Taiwan.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   
If our economy is going to callapse then why is it still growing at 4%, and the economoy is so tied in with the USA that if the US economy falls so does the rest of the world, then no one will have the money for big military manuevers, and like you said right now oil is petrol dollar, and and EU is using Euro they are not fallin apart so if things did make a change to petrol Euro i dont see us just falling apart,

No one wants the US to fall apart, people may hate the US But there are some countries who wouldnt be here today if it wasnt for the US,

Personnaly i would love it if someone would start mass producing Ethenol powered cars or hydrogen in the US so we could break our Dependence on Foriegn oil and ethenol or Hydro powered or solar powere cars would be cheaper to run..... Well maybe the problem is with that is that the only people with enough money to produce Fuel cells, ethenol are the ones who own the Big oil companies, and if they some how got cars to Run on water These big oil companies would start making it and it would be Cheap at first but then they would be like well there is a shortage of water so we are going to charge you 2.50 a gallon, which i believe cuz Bush would never do anything to us middle wage or lower wage people make a decent living the only thing he cares about is his oil Buddies making enough money,

and plus Bush doesnt have to Fill Airforce One with Fuel or his Limo so why should he care what gas prices are, he is set for life he doesnt care about us who are trying to make a living raising a family while gas has gone up 80 cents in one year and so Lando lakes milk company raises the prices on milk to compensate for the extra costs to ship milk so we low or middle income wage people or the Guy who delivers for Lando lakes milk gets screwed twice he has to pay more for the milk and more for gas to drive his Vehicle to the store and i will bet that the extra costs lando lakes went up to compensate didnt get the delivey driver a Raise.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   
zakattack - thats the usual response...just blame it all on Bush.


I do agree with you on Hydrogen, I know it will be the power sourse for future cars, but they need to put more money into it. I know there spending billions on the ever emerging hydrogen business, but they should still spend more. I think there will be hydrogen fuel cell cars with in 3-5 years in the US.


D

posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23


And Devil you country bullied people for hundreds of years, and was the biggest empire this world had/has ever seen. Or did you somehow forget that?


One may dispute that these days and call the US the biggest bully the world has seen recently.



George W. Bush: You're Either with us or against us


I reckon that's a bit of bullying there, and there's many other cases.

If you take a look at history, most the places that the British colonised and "bullied" they were able to do so because of the state of their military and technology and also the fact that the country they were in had no way to resist militarily or technologically. Take a look at the US, there's many cases where you could apply that too as well.

And as for the biggest empire, some might also say that America has the biggest empire through neo-colonialism. Though nowhere near as bad as going into a country and destroying the local population it does have its downsides.

I don't want to sound like I'm having a go at the US, I just want to point out the ways in which a Superpower/Empire rises really does not change that much when you scratch the surface of these ways and have a look at them.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Devil that is still a win for the U.S. at the time our country was in its infancy and the Superpower at the time the Brits could not defeat us.

Umm no its called a stalemate....if you plan on being in the services learn the diffrences between the two will ya?
Also it wasnt the "could not" more of a "could not be bothered to defeat the US.
Mind you we were fighting another superpower....that might have been higher up on the agenda than some backwards prairie land.


And Devil you country bullied people for hundreds of years, and was the biggest empire this world had/has ever seen. Or did you somehow forget that?

We bullied countries with no chance in hell of fighting back yours was the exception..mind you the US now the biggest and baddest in the world had the very same kind of war against the vietnamese or did you forget THAT somehow?



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
zakattack - thats the usual response...just blame it all on Bush.


I do agree with you on Hydrogen, I know it will be the power sourse for future cars, but they need to put more money into it. I know there spending billions on the ever emerging hydrogen business, but they should still spend more. I think there will be hydrogen fuel cell cars with in 3-5 years in the US.


yeah in know alot of people blame this on Bush, I just think its rediculous that just after Bush was elected gas actually dropped to 1.59 here in NC, i think that was just to make everyone feel like they picked the right president but now 4 months after election gas is higher then it ever has been, I Dont think Gas would be this high if we didnt go into Iraq, And it seems that some Reps from the oil companies are saying that Inurgent attacks and terr threats are keepin the gas prices high, We never ever got enough oil from Iraq to make a difference, we get all our oil from Kuwait and Venezuala,

And when 3 or 4 hurricanes hit the US in 04 they used that as an excuse for gas to jump 28 cents, cuz they said the hurricanes ruined some of the refineries,
*Cough*bullSH!T*COUGH*

And i heard bush say one time how fantastic it is that the Oil companies have had banner year and that they have made more money then they aver have, Someone tell me why this is good for us middle income people.

anyways as many of you can tell im anti Bush, i didnt use to be but i am now, he did a great Job uniting everyone on 9-11 and bringing everyone together to support this country, he even brought our allies closer to us, But he royally screwed it all up with the Iraq war, not only are we split in ideas here in the US but we now have very tough strains with our allies, i just dont think anyone could have done a better job screwing this country up then he does, i think Bill Clinton was a better president then Bush will ever be, atleast when Clinton lied about getting Blow Job from his secretary no one Died, But leave it to bush to lie about WMD in Iraq and costs us our trust in our president, It costs us over 1000 dead US service men and women, it costs us our relationship with the rest of the world, and we now have a debt almost as big or bigger then then it ever has been

I dont think Bush is setting the Gas prices but i think he is letting the oil companies rape us any way they want to without the courtesy of a reach around.

If bush really cared he would do something about it.



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

One may dispute that these days and call the US the biggest bully the world has seen


I said biggest Empire not biggest Bully there is a difference.


Umm no its called a stalemate....if you plan on being in the services learn the diffrences between the two will ya?


Come-on Devil you know just as well as I do that If I cant beat you and you cant beat me than of course its a stale mate. But like I said the U.S. at the time was at its infancy and the best the worlds superpower could do to us was end the war with a stalemate. Sound like a win for the weaker country to me.


Also it wasnt the "could not" more of a "could not be bothered to defeat the US.


Really is that why you tried to defeat us twice because you could not be bothered with us?


had the very same kind of war against the vietnamese or did you forget THAT somehow?


How is the Vietnamese war compared to the Revolutionary war?
We went in to help the Vietnamese from being taken over by the Soviet backed north. We did not go in because they were revolting against us.
And the Presidents at the time were to much of a sissy to allow or military to use all of its capabilities to win the war. They made military decisions based on public opinion rather than listening to their generals.

DevilWasp... listen I don't want this to turn into a U.S. Vs. Britain thread again because its useless and pointless we are allies and everything that happened between the countries is history.





West Point, Out.

[edit on 3-4-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I said biggest Empire not biggest Bully there is a difference.

We were the biggest bully...


Come-on Devil you know just as well as I do that If I cant beat you and you cant beat me than of course its a stale mate. But like I said the U.S. at the time was at its infancy and the best the worlds superpower could do to us was end the war with a stalemate. Sound like a win for the weaker country to me.

Thats because your from the weaker country..
Actually we could have done more but with the threat the french at the time was too great...



Really is that why you tried to defeat us twice because you could not be bothered with us?

Well you atleast have to try, besides you were a thorn in our side.



How is the Vietnamese war compared to the Revolutionary war?
We went in to help the Vietnamese from being taken over by the Soviet backed north. We did not go in because they were revolting against us.
And the Presidents at the time were to much of a sissy to allow or military to use all of its capabilities to win the war. They made military decisions based on public opinion rather than listening to their generals.

DevilWasp... listen I don't want this to turn into a U.S. Vs. Britain thread again because its useless and pointless we are allies and everything that happened between the countries is history.

Matters not about how it was done all that matters is the outcome...
Then dont hold us in such low regard.....



posted on Apr, 3 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Ok then deal everything that happened with us is past history, we are allies now and all that matters is what happens in the future.

[edit on 3-4-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
We bullied countries with no chance in hell of fighting back yours was the exception..mind you the US now the biggest and baddest in the world had the very same kind of war against the vietnamese or did you forget THAT somehow?


devilwasp, (on WESTPOINT) you're addressing someone who is obviously in dire need of history lessons. Maybe also in dire need of some real experience in the field. That usually tends to temper the idiocy within.


[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
What is with your talking about our economy collapsing? And “alliances”? More like trade partnerships there are no "alliances.
You speak as if we will fall tomorrow and then china can invade Taiwan.


This brief, incisive essay should answer your questions.



Wake Up!
By Chalmers Johnson
In These Times

Thursday 31 March 2005

Washington's alarming foreign policy.
The Rubicon is a small stream in northern Italy just south of the city of Ravenna. During the prime of the Roman Republic, roughly the last two centuries B.C., it served as a northern boundary protecting the heartland of Italy and the city of Rome from its own imperial armies. An ancient Roman law made it treason for any general to cross the Rubicon and enter Italy proper with a standing army. In 49 B.C., Julius Caesar, Rome's most brilliant and successful general, stopped with his army at the Rubicon, contemplated what he was about to do, and then plunged south. The Republic exploded in civil war, Caesar became dictator and then in 44 B.C. was assassinated in the Roman Senate by politicians who saw themselves as ridding the Republic of a tyrant. However, Caesar's death generated even more civil war, which ended only in 27 B.C. when his grand nephew, Octavian, took the title Augustus Caesar, abolished the Republic and established a military dictatorship with himself as "emperor" for life. Thus ended the great Roman experiment with democracy. Ever since, the phrase "to cross the Rubicon" has been a metaphor for starting on a course of action from which there is no turning back. It refers to the taking of an irrevocable step.

I believe that on November 2, 2004, the United States crossed its own Rubicon. Until last year's presidential election, ordinary citizens could claim that our foreign policy, including the invasion of Iraq, was George Bush's doing and that we had not voted for him. In 2000, Bush lost the popular vote and was appointed president by the Supreme Court. In 2004, he garnered 3.5 million more votes than John Kerry. The result is that Bush's war changed into America's war and his conduct of international relations became our own.

This is important because it raises the question of whether restoring sanity and prudence to American foreign policy is still possible. During the Watergate scandal of the early '70s, the president's chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman, once reproved White House counsel John Dean for speaking too frankly to Congress about the felonies President Nixon had ordered. "John," he said, "once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it's very hard to get it back in." This homely warning by a former advertising executive who was to spend 18 months in prison for his own role in Watergate fairly accurately describes the situation of the United States after the reelection of George W. Bush.
www.truthout.org...



posted on Apr, 5 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Jeez whats with the anti- westy stuff here...??
Did someone have an ATS meeting without telling me?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join