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.

 

U.S.A could take over the world if they wanted to. Could they???

page: 10
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Echtelion
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


The US never needed to conquer the world openly, since they already did implicitely, snd still attempt to make it for the rest of the wotld with the War on Terror. Moreover these days there's really good reason to believe they simply can't afford any major, large scale offensive, and any US military commander with a few brain cells would know that it'd be a major suicide.

You've gotta go to your nearest university library and read CFR and Rand corporation documents from the '50s and onward, on the issue of US foreign policy, beginning with the Dulles policy... this is all very revealing. The US, mostly through NATO is a true INVISIBLE EMPIRE, that doesn't just limits itself to its more or less officiius colonies (Puerto Rico, Liberia, Alaska, Hawaii and probably Afghanistan... who knows?), but exerts political-economical-ideological control abroad by using a multitude of proxy regimes (who mostly tend to be deep-down fascistic), extensive CIA covert ops, continuously-spreading military bases everywhere around the globe and massive corporate invasion (which began with Monsanto, Coca-Coca, McDonald's and since the '90s MTV) abroad to impose its ideology. I give emphasis to the +-70 military bases they've planted all around the world... that's at least 7-8 times bigger number than its closest competitor, France.

It' amazing how the global polarization in the Cold War actually greatly BENEFITED the US empire and it's global spread... actually it would gave never become so vast and powerful without this Soviet giant as an arch-ennemy!
edit on 30/10/10 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)


that's amazing for sure.




posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogerstigers

So yeah, we could probably take over everyone (except China, perhaps), but we could never *maintain* control.


You'd be able to bomb everybody, but not 'take over'. And that would piss everybody off and they would try to invade you, and it would more likely escalate into a nuclear conflict of the Armegeddon kind.

Holding Just 2 small 3rd world countries stretches American forces, secret weapons or not.

The only thing that would deter a joint expeditionary invasion force would be the gun crazy 2nd Amendment loving yanks

But then that would mean that they would prefer MAD through all out nuclear war.



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
With all the "So called underground bases" the weapondry, the military spending. Why does any other nation bother in fighting america? how could they win. Imagine the weapons the US will release when a major war happens. no nation even spends 1/6th the amount America does. The wepons they have must be unimagineable. If Dulce, or other bases exist and the stuff thats happening down there is really real it would even be more terrifying. Could Russia even compete with the U.S.A??? Could all of Europe even compete with them?


[edit on 16-9-2009 by Maddogkull]


Seriously? You honestly think the USA could take over Europe or Russia or China???

The USA claims to be the last remaining Super Power on Earth, but they've never been tested have they? I dont mean by Iraq or whatever but by a true force. I doubt the US of A would be stupid enough to attempt a war with Europe, Russia or China.

The European Union forces alone out match the USA's, and do you think that its only the USA who are lesting new weapons????

USA: 1.47 million active troops, 1.46 million reserve troops
Land Force: ~8000 (main battle) tanks, ~9000 armored personnel carriers,~5000 towed artillery,1300 multiple rocket launchers
Navy: 53 destroyers, 92 frigates, 75 subs, 11 aircraft carriers,48 corvettes, 28 mine warfare craft
Air force: 2505 compat aircraft , 4500 helicopters

EU: 2.033 million active troops, 4.1 million reserve force
Land Force: ~11 000 (main battle) tanks, 10 000+ armored personnel carriers, 17 000 towed artillery, 880 multiple rocket launchers.
Navy: 36 destroyers, 110+ frigates, 80+ subs,7 aircraft carriers, 65 corvettes, 140 mine warfare craft
Air force: 3523 compat aircraft, 4500 helicopters

Nuclear arsenal: USA: 1550, EU: ~500.
Purchasing power: USA: 13.7 trillion, EU: 14.2 trillion

Its tight but Europe is stronger, and yes i know they are not unified yet but it will happen soon enough!



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


Europe has SEVEN a/c carriers?!

You aren't counting all those itsy-bitsy Harrier/Matador jumpjet carriers are you? If you are then you must count the the USMC LHDs..

The United States is quite the Navy one must admit. certainly able to touch and project presence in all major seas/oceans.



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


Europe has SEVEN a/c carriers?!

You aren't counting all those itsy-bitsy Harrier/Matador jumpjet carriers are you? If you are then you must count the the USMC LHDs..

The United States is quite the Navy one must admit. certainly able to touch and project presence in all major seas/oceans.


I do agree, the US is a very powerful nation but to attempt a "world domination" with the limited resources available so far from home and your armed forces stretched thin, the US wouldnt stand a chance.

The EU has the best subs in the world which would be able to destroy a lot of the US carriers before they could be used effectively.

The point is that the US wouldnt take over the world because they couldnt...

They kinda already have taken over the world anyways with things like Hollywood, the Dollar etc etc so i guess they already have!!



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Well why would you do that? What would you want to?

Besides, some American people believe the US is losing is status as the world superpower,

Consider these facts:

The financial position of the United States has declined dramatically. The United States is heavily indebted, both government and consumers.

The U.S. trade deficit both in absolute size and as a percentage of GDP is unprecedented, reaching more than $800 billion in 2005 and accumulating to $4.5 trillion since 1990.

With U.S. job growth falling behind population growth and with no growth in consumer real incomes, the United States economy is driven by expanding consumer debt. Saving rates are low or negative.

The federal budget is deep in the red, adding to America's dependency on debt. The United States cannot even go to war unless foreigners are willing to finance it.

Our biggest bankers are China and Japan, both of whom could cause the United States serious financial problems, if they wished. A country whose financial affairs are in the hands of foreigners is not a superpower.

The United States is heavily dependent on imports for manufactured goods, including advanced technology products. In 2005, U.S. dependency (in dollar amounts) on imported manufactured goods was twice as large as U.S. dependency on imported oil.

In the 21st century, the United States has experienced a rapid increase in dependency on imports of advanced technology products. A country dependent on foreigners for manufactures and advanced technology products is not a superpower.

Because of jobs offshoring (jobs going overseas) and illegal immigration, U.S. consumers create jobs for foreigners, not for Americans. Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs reports document the loss of manufacturing jobs and the inability of the U.S. economy to create jobs in categories other than domestic "hands on" services.

According to a March 2006 report from the Center for Immigration Studies, most of these jobs are going to immigrants: "Between March 2000 and March 2005, only 9 percent of the net increase in jobs for adults (18 to 64) went to natives. This is striking because natives accounted for 61 percent of the net increase in the overall size of the 18- to 64-year-old population."


A country that cannot create jobs for its native-born population is not a superpower.

In an interview in the April 17 Manufacturing & Technology News, former TCI and Global Crossing CEO Leo Hindery said that the incentives of globalization have disconnected U.S. corporations from U.S. interests.

"No economy," Hindery said, "can survive the offshoring of both manufacturing and services concurrently. In fact, no society can even take excessive offshoring of manufacturing alone."

According to Hindery, offshoring serves the short-term interests of shareholders and executive pay at the long-term expense of U.S. economic strength.

Hindery notes that in 1981, the Business Roundtable defined its constituency as employees, shareholders, community, customers and the nation." Today, the constituency is quarterly earnings.

A country whose business class has no sense of the nation is not a superpower.

By launching a war of aggression on the basis of lies and fabricated "intelligence," the Bush regime violated the Nuremburg standard established by U.S. and international law.

Extensive civilian casualties and infrastructure destruction in Iraq, along with the torture of detainees in concentration camps and an ever-changing excuse for the war, have destroyed the soft power and moral leadership that provided the diplomatic foundation for America's superpower status.

A country that is no longer respected or trusted and which promises yet more war isolates itself from cooperation from the rest of the world.

An isolated country is not a superpower.

A country that fears small, distant countries to such an extent that it utilizes military in place of diplomatic means is not a superpower.

The entire world knows that the United States is not a superpower when its entire available military force is tied down by a small, lightly armed insurgency drawn from a population of a mere 5 million people.

Neoconservatives think the United States is a superpower because of its military weapons and nuclear missiles. However, as the Iraqi resistance has demonstrated, America's superior military firepower is not enough to prevail in fourth generation warfare. The Bush regime has reached this conclusion itself, which is why it increasingly speaks of attacking Iran with nuclear weapons.

The United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against an opponent. If six decades after nuking Japan the United States again resorts to the use of nuclear weapons, it will establish itself as a pariah, a war criminal state under the control of insane people.

Any sympathy that might still exist for the United States would immediately disappear, and the world would unite against America.

A country against which the world is united is not a superpower



posted on Nov, 2 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
With all the "So called underground bases" the weapondry, the military spending. Why does any other nation bother in fighting america? how could they win. Imagine the weapons the US will release when a major war happens. no nation even spends 1/6th the amount America does. The wepons they have must be unimagineable. If Dulce, or other bases exist and the stuff thats happening down there is really real it would even be more terrifying. Could Russia even compete with the U.S.A??? Could all of Europe even compete with them?



The answer is YES we could destroy the entire world if we wanted to.

What you should be more worried about is that we are at war with ourselves at the moment.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annav
They can wipeout the world, yes.

Never takeover it!

WIpe out the world? Unbelivable.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by windyday2010

Originally posted by thematrix

Originally posted by infolurker
Yeah, unless you kill EVERYONE... and let's be honest... The USA is about the only damned country that actually TRIES to limit civilian casualties so... NO. Our mission (in my opinion) is to keep all the rest of the loons from killing themselves (and us in the process). So three cheers for having to be the planets freeking peacekeeper... a thankless job and a very expensive one.


I think over 1 million Iraqi civilians disagree with that statement ...

That's might be true.


This is not true. U.S. forces have killed about 43,000 Iraqi Civilians over the course of the war. That's not cool either, but try to sound sane when discussing the issue.

Take a good look at any other war that involved the capture of a nations capitol and/or prolonged engagement and you will find that it is, in fact, true that the U.S. military has gone to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties (as would any western nation) and for good reason.
edit on 3-11-2010 by Fiberx because: changed some wording to more accurately reflect my point.



posted on Nov, 4 2010 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 

No:,
Not because of the "we have bigger badder toys argument" anyway. Economically is another matter.

Because having megatons worth of a shiny glowing stockpile is not the same as having the political will to use it.(infact that is a prime argument for nuclear disarmament the situation to actually use some of it would popup so infrequently.
For example:.
Guerilla war is especially effective. Could we have pulled our ground troops out of fallujah; lined the ramps with b52's nose to tail with full conventional bomb loads and removed the entire city from the face of the earth. Yes! of course; and words to that extent were popular at the time. In reality even war time has limits to how far a people will go. So we put our guys ( and girls) into a door to door meat grinder ferreting out insurgents one alley at a time.

"Yin and Yang" every strength has a weakness.You,may recall the movie"we were soldiers" about the battle in the "Ya-drang" valley in Viet-nam ( I know thats not even close to being spelled correctly).The nva runner gets back to the nva command post and tells the general the u.s. are using accurate artillery as a shield its"devastating", The general says to" get in close grab them by the belt buckle and the massive accurate artillery becomes useless.



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by 46ACE
 


That was a good movie. Hope you know that we did not use the artillery as a shield in the actual battle. The LMGs (light machine guns) were doing alot of the job. The broken arrow strike did occur when a group of 500 vietnam soldiers charged the U.S. troops. Our charge was in all reality a attempt to get breathing room for the LZ but it was so succesful we won



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jrmcleod
 


if your counting the Navy and the USMC those numbers are accurate. However all in total we have about 5 million troops able to fight because everyone who has done twenty years and retired signs a contract for the next ten years if needed they can be raised to fight a major war.

Also Europe needs control of air and sea which they could not gain because of the fact we would launch a few hundred tomahawks/ patriot missles/ cluster bombs and theyre armies are gone. They could retaliate with their missiles and about 10-30% would get through because of the fact we have missile shields and nike missiles which are by far the fastest missiles on earth i believe.

EU couldnt unite against us because it would take every single countries navy and air force to match ours. Halve them would be taken out before they could see us do to our ability to press the fire button and a missile auto. locks on to them. We would be massacred as well but would most likely leave nearly every single support groups (air sea) in ashes and the war would be fought with long range ballistic missiles which we exceed in terms of fire power as i said before our explosive arsenal non-nuclear mind you is equal to 80million tons of TNT of which have of that is long range missiles.

However if every country worked as one force and attacked us all at once we would lose by tons and probably blow up our entire arsenal rather than surrender but then who would safeguard Britain when the Germans want to start # again? When the Muslims attack Israel no one will be there to help them? few Ex.


The world hates us because of the wrongs we`ve done pursuing good but thats our government dont hate us hate the way the gov. hides everything. Now for a fun new fact i learned did you know that our active nuclear arsenal could litteratly blow a hole clean through earth? Scary huh?


Question:

If world war 3 was conventional would you stand up for your country

Answer: the U.S. would and having a min. of 15million soldiers knocking on everyones door.

Now the U.S. will fall but not because of Russia or China its because of the fact that 50 years from now the U.S. will basically be the U.N. and be declared a international army for good and everyone will love us.

Catch up with ya guys later
Not coming back to this thread to stressful and by the way guess what im France "we surrender"


Germans: We lost world war 1 and 2 but we did kick Frances ass
World: who the hell hasnt

America: were the last superpower we have the best equipment and the ability to wipe out the world!
World: your proud of that?
me: i hope the world unites as one government and explores space and runs into the race of Predators and a all out nuclear war comes and we all die



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


you don't seem to be able to take over Afghanistan and al qaeda so how can you take over the world??



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiberx

Originally posted by windyday2010

Originally posted by thematrix

Originally posted by infolurker
Yeah, unless you kill EVERYONE... and let's be honest... The USA is about the only damned country that actually TRIES to limit civilian casualties so... NO. Our mission (in my opinion) is to keep all the rest of the loons from killing themselves (and us in the process). So three cheers for having to be the planets freeking peacekeeper... a thankless job and a very expensive one.


I think over 1 million Iraqi civilians disagree with that statement ...

That's might be true.


This is not true. U.S. forces have killed about 43,000 Iraqi Civilians over the course of the war. That's not cool either, but try to sound sane when discussing the issue.

Take a good look at any other war that involved the capture of a nations capitol and/or prolonged engagement and you will find that it is, in fact, true that the U.S. military has gone to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties (as would any western nation) and for good reason.
edit on 3-11-2010 by Fiberx because: changed some wording to more accurately reflect my point.


What a load. First off, in 2006 there was an independent estimate of up to 1.6 million dead Iraqis, along with 6 million displaced. If US cares so much about those civilians, then why do they use depleted uranium? It was a fact that after the Gulf War, thousands of Iraqi children were born with strange deformities and dying from radiation-related cancer. Now that number is exponentially higher.

Gulf War- Ever hear of the "highway of death"? 100,000 people died there. The Americans were under the impression that fleeing Iraqi Revolutionary Guard units were using civilian vehicles, so they had orders to bomb anything that moved on that highway.

Iran-Iraq war- The US funded both sides in order to weaken them up for a future Gulf War. One million died in Iran alone. Remember those chemical weapons Rumsfeld gave to Saddam? Well, he used them just as intended.

Vietnam- The US dropped more explosives in this war than the total of all the explosives used in WWII. They also deployed napalm, biological weapons, and chemical weapons- most notably Agent Orange, used as a herbicide to kill Vietnamese forests and crops (and afflicting 320,000 Vietnamese alone). And don't forget CIA operations which involved widespread torture and death, including $15,000 bounties for killing what they considered VC.

WWII- People always talk about the nukes, but rarely about the hundred cities that the US conducted incendiary raids on which obviously was done in order to destroy everything.
edit on 7-11-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-11-2010 by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


And ever heard of war?

Ever heard of the soviet way?

the casualties would be triple if it was any other country so.

This does not apply in a warfare thread



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Has op no knowledge of the amount of bases anglo american empire has worldwide in all these countries?

I would call that an empire.



posted on Nov, 8 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
What a load. First off, in 2006 there was an independent estimate of up to 1.6 million dead Iraqis, along with 6 million displaced. If US cares so much about those civilians, then why do they use depleted uranium? It was a fact that after the Gulf War, thousands of Iraqi children were born with strange deformities and dying from radiation-related cancer. Now that number is exponentially higher.



Did you actually read his post. He said the US is responsible for 43K civilian deaths (which I question that number, but that's neither here nor there). The 1.6 million dead civilians is a total number dead (which is also a BS number).

Anyway, DU is the hardest thing out there, used in anti-tank rounds. You make it sound like the US uses it only as some sort of poisonous weapon.



Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Gulf War- Ever hear of the "highway of death"? 100,000 people died there. The Americans were under the impression that fleeing Iraqi Revolutionary Guard units were using civilian vehicles, so they had orders to bomb anything that moved on that highway.


Uh, buddy, the Iraqi Army WAS using civilians to flee Kuwait.Ever heard of "Legit military target". Sorry 'bout that.


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Iran-Iraq war- The US funded both sides in order to weaken them up for a future Gulf War. One million died in Iran alone. Remember those chemical weapons Rumsfeld gave to Saddam? Well, he used them just as intended.


So? I guess by your line of thinking, the car dealership is responsible for the drunk driver killing someone? Geez, so according to you, everyone killed in the Iran/Iraq War was the fault of the US? Guess the Soviets are blameless, yet they supplied both sides with freakin' AKs and RPGs.
Oh, and Dude, the Soviets were GIVING AWAY AKs at one time.


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Vietnam- The US dropped more explosives in this war than the total of all the explosives used in WWII. They also deployed napalm, biological weapons, and chemical weapons- most notably Agent Orange, used as a herbicide to kill Vietnamese forests and crops (and afflicting 320,000 Vietnamese alone). And don't forget CIA operations which involved widespread torture and death, including $15,000 bounties for killing what they considered VC.


Bio weapons? Got a source for that?

And I guess you overlooked the Battle of Hue, where the VC went into the city, captured politicians, teachers, police, etc, took them out and executed them. That happened quite a bit, and not just in Hue or during Tet....


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
WWII- People always talk about the nukes, but rarely about the hundred cities that the US conducted incendiary raids on which obviously was done in order to destroy everything


And? I guess the RAF wasn't responsible for a single thing, huh? Like the Hamburg fireraid? Or how about the Warsaw, which was destroyed by the Germans? How about Berlin, which was destroyed by the US, British and the Soviets? Or the Rape of Nanking, where the Imperial Japanese Army raped and murdered thousands of Chinese civilians?

Get a grip, Slick; WW2 was a WORLD war. It's not just the US that was killing civilians.



posted on Nov, 10 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Boy, you got all the answers, don't you?



Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
And what happens if a war with Russia breaks out? Russia will start capturing this outstretched bases and stealing their equipment and analyzing intel, just like they did when they invaded Georgia and returned with a bunch of American supplies that were given to the Georgians to kill Russians.


Yeah, like the personnel on the bases are going to surrender without a fight.
Try again, Gus. And a little info for you: If a base is going to be overrun, don't you think they have procedures to destroy intel, equip, etc? Trust me, they do.


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
And B2s will bomb all Russian nuclear systems? What a joke. First off, the B2 isn't invincible and Russia most definitely has the capability to track and destroy them from either the ground or air (they aren't bloody stupid). Second is that Russia might not have the largest nuclear arsenal anymore, but they do have a significantly larger and more effective nuclear strike force than the US. Their missile technology is decades ahead of the Americans; ever hear of the Russia Strategic Missle Forces? They have divisions of mobile Topol-Ms driving around Siberia where they cannot be tracked, and are ready to launch at any given moment.


Decades ahead? You're kidding, right? And you think that a majority of those precious Topol-Ms aren't already being tracked right now?


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
This is an important staging area for American forces and the Chinese domination of this area will put the US out of business in most of the Atlantic.


I think you meant Pacific, not Atlantic. China is in the Pacific region. Check a map.


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Actually they upgraded to the AK-74 in the 70s and now use modern AK variants such as the AK-101. Tactically, the AK-47 alone is superior to the M16 (and M4) due to reliability and kill force because it uses a heavier ammunition. You can drive over/soak in mud/shoot underwater/clog with cement an AK-47 and it will still work while American troops have to regularily clean their crappy rifles and even resort to placing condoms on the barrels to keep out trace amounts of dirt that has rendered them useless in every major American conflict (Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq).


Crappy rifles? Haven't fired an M4, have you? I can drive 5000 rounds thru one before I really have to give it a good cleaning.


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
HAHAHA. I would love to see barely-trained American weekend warriors try to fight African militias armed with machetes and hatred; the Africans wouldn't lose.


"Barely trained"? Geez, you're really buying into the whole, "US military sucks" lie, aren't you? Psst, another little bit of info: Most US Army Guard units are combat-experienced. How about you? Seen much combat? Wait, I already know the answer to that question.


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
The base in charge of this policy is deep inside Mt. Yamantau in the Caucauses, and it can withstand several nuclear strikes so it is all but guarenteed to happen in such an event, hence why the modern US empire does not threaten Russia because Russian does not mess around.


Once again, you think you're the only one that knows this? Don't you think that this wonderful base is probably going to be buried under hundreds of nukes if a war happens? "Doesn't threaten Russia because Russia doesn't mess around." Please, how about tucking your little chubby away.



Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
First of all, China can't be conquered. And neither can Russia for that matter, both proven through hundreds or thousands of years of history. The US however is relatively new and in 1812, my own Canadian people sent 17 drunk and pissed off troops in a canoe and we burned down the original Whitehouse. While this obviously won't happen again in the same manner, it highlights the difference between cultural superpower supremacy (such as China and Russia) vs economic superpower security like the US.


Dude, read your history. Sure, the Russians got a big army and they fight hard, but the reason they haven't been conquered is because of the weather. And you burned the White House in 1812. Big freakin' deal. I read that all the time here on ATS; do you Canadians really think this is something of an accomplishment?


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
And Russia would survive because they fight for pride and honour while Americans fight for resources.


Pride, honor and a warm water port.
Kinda like after WW2, when the Soviets were sending home every factory (and factory worker) they could lay their hands on.


Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
If you're the future of American battle tactics then I really feel pity for the world.


If you're the future of Russian/Canadian battle information, well......


What a stupid thread. Could the US take over the world? Nope, and why would we want to?

Could we destroy it? Yep, and why would we want to?

People here need to get a freakin' grip.
edit on 10-11-2010 by signal2noise because: More info.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dermo

Originally posted by infolurker

let's be honest... The USA is about the only damned country that actually TRIES to limit civilian casualties so... NO. Our mission (in my opinion) is to keep all the rest of the loons from killing themselves (and us in the process). So three cheers for having to be the planets freeking peacekeeper... a thankless job and a very expensive one.


WTF?

The US is renowned for having the only western army that has a "Shoot first, ask questions later" policy and looks at "Collateral damage" as being perfectly acceptable. To everyone else, that sort of military policy ended after WW2.


Look, there still aren't terms of engagement issued by the US military in IRAQ, the rest of the allies are required to provide proof of how to handle situations. This is unacceptaple as this puts allies and civilian lives at stake.

If they can't even get that right then how can the US take over the rest of the world.

I have tried for many years to look at both sides of everyones opinions and to form my own, but in the light of recent military actions how can I, the greed is undeniable, why not enter Zimbabwe, if there is a moral country code???

And what about being the only country ever in the history of warfare to be a country to make a profit from a war, the UK only just finished paying off the USA for 'HELP' in WWII in 2007 which left the whole of the UK in rationing in the 50's but left the USA to look down on the UK and be generally deragatory.You may be living a profitable life but why rub everyone elses noses in it......

All I can say is this, I love going to the USA and have many friends there, but there is a fundemental point that the USA news companies don't point out, ie, There is a big world outside the USA, you have 300 million population which is huge.... but then bear in mind that the rest of the world is 6.3 billion. which equates to for every 1 US citizen there are 21 foreigners. We have quite happily looked after ourselves for hundreds of years without the need for macdonalds etc, so what makes you think your values are right and should be adhered to.....your country is still a baby..... grow up.


edit on 11/11/10 by Farnet because: wrong again



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


ANSWER IS NO, because the US has secret technologies they keep a serious mouth closed about just incase another super power wanted to take it there. It would give the US a chance to reveal the new technology as well as take over any nation that tried. So the Us would play a game of all the arsenal is known to trick another ? nation into wanting to take a stab when the ? nation feels the US is at its weakest point then the US would bring out the stuff thay got stached away under the oceans and in the mountains aswell as deserts. It seems the US got the more advanced intelligence during the stripping of old Germany

edit on 11/11/10 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join