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: 20
2
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   
If it came right down to it, the rest of the world would not have to fire a shot at us.
All they would have to do is cut off all the loans they've been making, and call in the ones that are due. No more money to wage war or buy ammo or make war machines.

Don't think so????

Life in the Bush economy: Fat, drunk and broke

BTW, it was written by a Reaganite.




posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 03:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowEyes

If it came right down to it, the rest of the world would not have to fire a shot at us.
All they would have to do is cut off all the loans they've been making, and call in the ones that are due. No more money to wage war or buy ammo or make war machines.

BTW, it was written by a Reaganite.

It is true that America has a larger debt than anyone else in the world. But America also has the largest GDP in the world.

If you want to find out what is America's debt burden compared to that of the other countries in the world, go to www.optimist123.com...



posted on Jul, 11 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
In my opinion, its called the "Global Market". It works and we run it. If money makes the world go round, then America is the one turning this planet. Lets not forget, the strongest Air Force, and the strongest Navy, in the world, is controlled by none other then the United States of America...



posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowEyes


All they would have to do is cut off all the loans they've been making, and call in the ones that are due. No more money to wage war or buy ammo or make war machines.

BTW, it was written by a Reaganite.



Ri-----ght. Um I'll tell you what "I owe you 1 billion dollars but I have an army and you have a sling shot." Think about it. Who's going to get the resources they need. Sure its primal and undiplomatic but thats life.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Ambient Sound
 


Your "well armed population" is defeating itself. The mighty European war machine wont have to cross the sea. America starts its own problems and ultimatly it will destroy itself from inside. You claim to have won WW11 yet your banks cant control a simple mortgage scheme, Europe wont need to invade with troops, all they need do is lend you money and praise your unfaultering American ignorance and blind foolishness!



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

Originally posted by ShadowEyes

If it came right down to it, the rest of the world would not have to fire a shot at us.
All they would have to do is cut off all the loans they've been making, and call in the ones that are due. No more money to wage war or buy ammo or make war machines.

BTW, it was written by a Reaganite.

It is true that America has a larger debt than anyone else in the world. But America also has the largest GDP in the world.

If you want to find out what is America's debt burden compared to that of the other countries in the world, go to www.optimist123.com...


The article you linked to is inaccurate as it claims EU area debt to be higher than US debt as a proportion of GDP.

This is not possible as the EU has a larger economy than the US, unless of course the EU has the worlds largest debt



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
This is not possible as the EU has a larger economy than the US, unless of course the EU has the worlds largest debt


The Europe area in not just the EU would be my guess. You do have some countries with some pretty nasty debts/outstanding obligations. We will se how the newly expanded EU handles it's first major recession. Thats when I think the major cracks will start appearing.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 08:48 PM
link   
uote]Originally posted by Quicksilver
we could bear the brunt of another land war in Europe if we had to. The oly wildcard would be england if they are with us or against us and that would be the deciding factor in the war. And there is no way i can see that happeneing unless they have the absurd idea of invading us. Cause if we were to get the tensions that high against them and go to war we would pull out b4 they had teh ability to invade us. THe ocean is our biggest friend people.

Quicksilver, I can only speak for myself as an English person living on both sides of the pond. From where I'm sitting I really don't think old England has any plans to attack the US. In fact living in some parts of England is just like living in the US..for years, both countries have shared their culture, their religion and a common ideal.

I’ve grown up in this culture and I'd like to think it's made me a better person. I grew up with relatives who came to the US through further education and the moved on to Canada. I grew up with the good - and the bad, stories about the US and for years I was captivated. On the whole American people had a different outlook to the people in my area..a much different outlook and it was infectious. I wanted to see this country of vast resource and extremes of wealth for myself, which gave me the drive not to stay in the hell-hole I was living in at the time, in England. This was a time before the popularity of the internet and social networking sites.

The real problem as I see it (and one that's affecting both countries in equal measure), is globalisation. It's corporate greed buying out morality. It's the rampant manner in which money and the media are attempting to reside over morality. It's the selfish, narrow-minded and unsustainable 'culture' that's being propagated, one that cares only for one and not the other.

We are both effectively 'islands' and have historically defended our shores because we were fighting for the greater good. Today's it's not just a military affront we must defend against..it's an economic one. It seems to be that the America I knew, is being driven into the ground economically as well as culturally - and at any cost. When I see for instance, the devastation caused by the US' open border policy it makes me wonder just what the hell troops are fighting for in Iraq, for literally anyone can walk across the Mexican border and enter your country. This has in turn destroyed land..at an absolutely astonishing rate; it has depleted resources and when those resources have run dry, more channels have been created to ship in ever-more resources.

It is not sustainable, not at this rate. Rampant population growth that is estimated to hit 400,000,000 in but decades at the current rate, creates even more consumers who want the American dream and ultimately, the dream is turning into a nightmare as more and more people associate this culture as being representative of a selfish mind-set. I am not saying all people by the way, just the one's who are brought up on propaganda. An economic directive brings those people here.

The same directive has caused a lot of social division in England, recently through Tony Blair's insistence on getting people in from Eastern Europe. These people come from broken, corrupt and lawless environments. You speak out and you're branded using buzzwords..Propaganda. I’ve seen people shouted down by supposed moral pillars of the community for simply having the temerity to look at what we're facing and how we can best address it. You have to break through a wall of propaganda before you can even begin to reach anyone.

As for the EU, it seems to have a rather too close relationship with the North American Union..which plans to implement a toll road system from Mexico, under which Americans will be forced to pay twice for using their own road system. The media that chose to speak out against this..the media outlets operating along the border..what happened?

America, England and Europe, are not perfect. Nobody said they were. But where - where - is the logic, the morality - of a society on both sides of the pond that is told how and where to grow up, what to think..by nothing more than a corporate policy? It's not only immoral, it's very, very dangerous in my opinion. It creates rather that resolves, division.

These are just my views. I really don't see England as being your problem..in fact I honestly believe that England has enough of it's own problems at the moment, which it's people are unable to deal with. The way the media operates these days, to be in any way nationalistic or somewhat isolationist in putting forward solutions is off-limits.

Who says it's off-limits? The people trying to dumb down a society where it lacks even the most basic self-worth. Where people are unable to think on their own two feet, instead acting like mindless, faceless, gutless pieces of plastic. When poeple lack a sense of self-worth they are prime fodder for conditioning. The only solution I can foresee is a change from within.

Odd times. There are some great things to be proud of in the west, and there are things to abhor. I don't know where we'll be in 5 years' time, I don't know what kind of system we'll be living under but the way things are going, I'm not exactly relashing the thought. Maybe it comes from getting older or the side-effect of living in an information society, however I have tried to base my views to a large extent on experience rather than hysteria. If there's a coming war I think it will be on the grounds of economics..and fought at the press of a button. Who cares how it turns out as long as the (fake) grass is green, gas is cheap and there's a propaganda box in the corner of the living room in front of which one can simply tune in and drop out? Who cares when the loudest voice is always the right voice? Who cares as long as the credit card can pay for it?

Who cares about anything as long as it doesn't affect me personally?

That's the kind of mind-set Iv'e had dealings with on a daily basis. Perhaps this conditioned mind-set has in fact resolved to understand the hardship faced by those who do stop and care, those that do stop and think, and simply want no part of it. That seems a very easy thing to do in the present environment, where morals are cheap.

I hope I have not insulted anyone who doesn't reside in Europe or the US. It was not my intention.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by Ross Cross]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
This is exactly how such a war would play out, assuming literally every other country was against the US.

Step 1: Other countries realize they can't invade us and start using nukes.

Step 2: US launches their entire nuclear arsenal, which would be enough to destroy every strategic and civilian target in the world.

Step 3: Everyone dies except those holed up for years in shelters.

Step 4: Stone Age part 2



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Oops sorry please delete double post

[edit on 28-8-2007 by lightworker12]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
A much easier and efficient option, would be to destroy from within.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by Ross Cross]



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ross Cross
A much easier and efficient option, would be to destroy from within.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by Ross Cross]


isnt that whats already happening?
US econemy being slowly eroded



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Within the context of my original post..yes, I think it is.

[edit on 28-8-2007 by Ross Cross]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
This thread is based on a ridiculous notion, I'm only chiming in to say that France does not have the best military in Europe. They're good but they don't stack up to the U.K.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Let's get real here. The US is the worlds' premiere military superpower by any measure, magnitudes greater than anything the EU could assemble. AS much as a united EU would love to ponder their ability to fight and defeat such a force, in a fight for survival, the US forces would crush the EU forces. Remember, a great deal of the EU defense COMES from the US. If the EU and the US were to go to war, all US funding, equipment, and support would no longer exist. The EU would collapse under the weight of financial demands for military defense, which would be unacceptable to the Marxist/Socialist massses across Europe. Factor in the Islamists, and you have a recipe for defeat like no other.

But I give you all an "A" for patriotism.



posted on Aug, 30 2007 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by teeceenj
 


As an American myself, there is no need to bash the EU for it's military hardware, training and development. It's stuff is top knotch. Look at a Challenger II. It easily could go toe to toe with an M1A2 and come out on top. The first real composite armor was developed in the UK. Other countries of the EU have fine examples of hardware as well. Everyone knows the differences between the EU and it's military structure and the US. They are designed basicially for different missions



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   
Interesting how the US-people beliefs that they inherit the capability to out-produce whole of EU – and even china, India and Japan! Come on have you gone through the list of economics and production procedures?

Do you really belief that USA alone, even if it’s the worlds strongest nation, can manufacture, develop and maintain it through a war with a high-tech nation?

Do you also believe that 350 millions peoples can outperform almost 600 millions peoples in dominions like: Intellect, technology, strategic might, military might – when you have a poorly rated education in relationship between a person in USA and in EU, when you have a system which been turning its back to its soldiers and its poor, a military belief that bigger is better and that also seems to believe in “shock and awe” before “Relationship and common goals”. Also a military scheme of procedures which damage a lot of an occupied nations infrastructure which you yourself use – a military who lets others rebuild and repair what you’ve done.

I can keep on for a very long time and I have intelligence regarding this which isn’t far away from my very own home which have been fighting along your side for six years with a Swedish battalion in Serbia, Kosovo and other nations.

Besides even in an unlikely scenario like USA vs EU, YOU also have to cross the ocean and EU which knows the significantly in defending a beach, an ocean and the deeps just as much as you. A country like Sweden have actually a higher technology implemented in their fleet then you Americans, hearken of the visby-class and gotland-class(?), got and they KNOWS the impotency in a secure coastline since the age of the Vikings. They raided most of the world through rivers and oceans.

In a join-operation not long ago they had to their disposal ONE gotland-class submarine with their latest technology and you hade 3-6 submarine-destroyers and an array of helicopters to search and destroy it. You failed. Miserably actually. I read that you lost it on the first day and my body of intelligence could actually confirm this that it was the truth. You had lost it and the sub was in YOUR waters with YOUR radar-defences and navy.

Have you read anything about the Scandinavian army? Higher quality then the American AND they provides you with like 20-30% of military-parts for weapons AND they provide your army with weapons. They also export technology for enriching uranium for WMS. The English did under WW2 develope YOUR radar-system AND it was actually an German scientist which did calculate the necessary mathematics for a atomic-bomb – his name was Albert Einstein, NOT an American by origin. Most of your military might come from abroad, like from Russia and from Germany.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

So lets see now…

Your #ed after lets say a year or two. Because an enemy isn’t that stupid that he delivers weapons to your doorstep under a war. Your correct that you own the worlds 3rd largest oil-fields but the problem will be for you to get it out and then refined and more you have to transport it to your troops which will be hell IF your enemy is smart and knows that supply-lines under attack can defeat a nation in relationship to how defended it is AND how long it’s stretched.

You still have to transport it over an ocean, you still have to go undetected by submarines like those the Swedish got, you don’t have the same quality and advanced ones so don’t try to tell me you do. Also EU have exactly advanced aircraft as you, the only thing that differ is the quality of the pilots.

[edit on 26-12-2007 by Vargas]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Third YOU WILL NEVER EVER USE NUCKES!! IF you do… man your not after winning then your after death. You will die too… from your own radiation. Lets see now… in England, in Sweden, Norway, Finland with more after the accident In Chernobyl. The years between 86-88 almost all unborn children got affected by the fallout, in the stages between the seventh and eight month – which are the most important for the brain development – the fallout did disrupt the development of the brain which did cause a decrease by 5% of the total intellect in relationship to education and continuation up to university. The human genom is also affected by the fallout to an certain extent, not to say the increase in cancer and many health complications. So nukes isn’t in the equation.

Economically you can’t sustain a war against EU alone, and Canada will not let you walk into their nation without any fuzz. Economically the increase by 3.5% isn’t necessary a thing that’s a high efficiency for the economy as 1% increase for lets say the Finnish economy. So saying that 3.5% in USA is better then 1% in Finland are moronic since numbers in economic doesn’t work that simple as you seems to belief.

It’s like saying 45% of the Swedish population is more peoples then 20% of the American people. The number imbedded in relationship to the percentage given in a situation that’s unique isn’t necessary equal to the number imbedded in relationship to the percentage for another situation. Blargh I shouldn’t be telling you this…

So what? Almost 100 millions soldiers the USA can mobilize isn’t a win even against a nation with only 15 millions. Ever heard of Battle of Thermopylae? I know that they didn’t have hellfire missiles but in equation to that times military technology the Persians with all of their military might and sophistication that equation should equal their oblivion, but they didn’t lose because the Greeks knew how to fight and use their brains, even the lone private did that.
They had a very high education for each soldier and their commanders were just superb.

Come on now I don’t even understand how you can believe that USA went into WW2 because to save the Europeans? You did that because you where attacked and the highest echelons of your society calculated coldly that this wasn’t all of a sudden so good for your economy if the Nazis would get their hands on the oil and most of the working force in EU.
Even if German would have won they would sooner or later turn into you or they would lose because of guerilla-warfare on too many fronts. So you did it on self-interests and because your “ally” the Englishmen requested help from you. Since most wars you’ve been in after WW1 and WW2 has been to solidify your might you don’t have, just as most others, the right to call your interventions justified and motivated unselfish by character and truth. They are all to strengthen your might or boost your economy – just as most other bigger nations but on later time most of these big imperialistic nations have gone to a more global goal for others not only for themselves.

USA depends on the rest of the world because you import A LOT of the goods you consume. You’re also very dependent on other nations doing many highly specialized work like in the weapon industry which you import a lot of parts from other nations. Which they all develop and research from scratch which you in turn buy. A war against USA wouldn’t hit EU economically hard as it would do to the USA. We can import what we need from the other nations and we have our own, and even better, military education and manufacturing then you in the long run under such a mad-ass war.



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 05:42 AM
link   
The thing is that if you are so mad to use nuckes then you might actually win. The worst thing would be for the EU is if you would use weapons from space – which logically gives you the strength of attacking us without needing to put soldiers in danger, pre-emptive strikes and all. Actually if I’m not misinformed your actually at the initiative of developing weapon platforms for usage in space – which is insane globally because it can endeavor the fragile peace in many areas of the world AND it can enable some dicks in your nation to exploit nations with the flicks of their wrists.



posted on Feb, 26 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Ugh common sense would say if Europe went against the USA we would kick their asses.
If Russia, China, and North Korea went against the USA we would STILL WIN.
Come on now people just look at the stats, China and North Korea may have tons of people but they do not have he modernized weapons and just don't have the amount they need, if they recruit 200 million people in China they will just be fighting with sticks and stones.
If the EU, Russia, China, North Korea, and the Middle East ganged up on us THIS IS HOW IT WOULD GO DOWN:
EU-Surrenders or has a cease fire with US that they propose aka US winning, most likely a surrender.
Russian-would be a bit more of a challenge but with defensive systems to take down any nukes that could come our way that we have tested and is effective we would wipe their asses in I would say at least 1 to 2 years or possibly less with fusion bombs and such.
China-china would exhaust itself, it's economy still depends on the US ALOT, the US is their main trader, they would be smashed economically and they would run out of weaponry VERY FAST they don't have enough to supply them all, they could supply 8 to 20 million max but they don't have the right weapons to cause a major effect but it would still be a pretty long war there also probably 1 to 3 years.
North Korea-the US would kick their asses simple as that they do not have the strength, they have the people but not the weapons it would be like animals running to a slaughter. Duration probably 4 months to 1 year.
Middle East-Obliterated simple as that, the US would be so pissed off that the world went against them they would drop bombs on them to deal with them then and there.
Do not mean to be harsh on other countries but you have to be for real, Iraq is such a huge problem for the US because they are trying to change a religious peoples way...which is unbelivably hard for anyone.
Total time span of the war probably would be 5 to 8 years max I am thinking.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join