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

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


While I agree with you in principal, this thread didn't lay any ground rules. If we had nuked the crap out of vietnam and north korea, we could have won. We couldn't have lived with ourselves, but that's another story.




posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Why are we talking about militarily only?

U.S. already owns the vast majority of the world in one way or another. Well maybe not the US but allied with the UN/IMF you have nearly the entire world in debt to the IMF in one way or another. The US just sends in its diplomats and economists to persuade the leaders to take out a giant loan they know they won't be able to repay, and viola, when they default the US takes the countries resources as collateral. Don't like it? We'll put an embargo on you and throw you in with the terrorists and let your whole country suffer.

If you haven't go get the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman"

Or watch an interview he did on the radio on youtube (but the book is so much better







posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Yeah I agree on what you are saying. But if "they" do have an agenda plan, whos to say they could not?? If conscription happened there would be alot of people in the army. With the technology of the U.S army, why couldn't they take over and not maintain the countries?? Any reasons why they could not? Social upheaval??



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
No the USA would not be able to take over the world as all that would happen is global destruction, for a start Russia has already started stockpiling weapons once again as for the germans they may well be in a recession but they are once again building up a new army making naval units available just outside of the falklands and if america even attempted to destroy part of the world in its attempt of world domination the entire world would probably join hands and attack jesus its only us brits who dont hate the USA we just have this sort of unexplainable link because we are both english speaking countries but what with America failing as a world super power it would be a stupid decision so the answer to that question is no the USA could not take over the world because it would be destroyed before they could complete the task.


+5 more 
posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Remixtup
 


Oh please. Post's like this and the OP are quite clearly just ego-massaging falsehoods. Does it make you feel better at night going to bed thinking rubbish like this?

The US isn't and never will be in a position to "take over the world". No matter what fanciful weapons you think you might have, you can guarantee that someone else has got something just as funky.

In the near furture, the US's power will be considerably diminished further, not increased and you will have a multi-polar world again. If you ever wanted to take over the world, you have missed the boat by a long shot, if it was ever even docked in the first place.

The US has a hard time beating and holding ground in third world nations, let alone taking on developed nations such as Russia, China or the EU or even India. The only way the US could ever take on the world would be if you practiced total genocide, which would be immediately reciprocated upon your own people, making the whole exercise pointless.


[edit on 16/9/09 by stumason]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Kind of defeats the purpose of those wars though if you "nuked the crap out of them", seeing as the point was to halt the spread of communism. Killing everyone in the country would have only pushed people away from your point of view, increasing the spread rather than working against it.

It would have also certainly spelled immediate retaliatory nuclear attacks against your own countr, making the whole exercise doubly pointless.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by rogerstigers
 


Kind of defeats the purpose of those wars though if you "nuked the crap out of them", seeing as the point was to halt the spread of communism. Killing everyone in the country would have only pushed people away from your point of view, increasing the spread rather than working against it.

It would have also certainly spelled immediate retaliatory nuclear attacks against your own countr, making the whole exercise doubly pointless.


*smirk* well, it was purely theoretical. This is evening entertainment here. I didn't expect that this thread would be taken seriously by any stretch.. just some mental gymnastics.

Still on that note, yeah, nukes, chemicals, and bio-agents would definately trigger a response that would erode ones hold on the ground... but that's what I've said all along.. we could never hold it. *shrug*



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Remixtup
 


Oh please. Post's like this and the OP are quite clearly just ego-massaging falsehoods. Does it make you feel better at night going to bed thinking rubbish like this?

The US isn't and never will be in a position to "take over the world". No matter what fanciful weapons you think you might have, you can guarantee that someone else has got something just as funky.

In the near furture, the US's power will be considerably diminished further, not increased and you will have a multi-polar world again. If you ever wanted to take over the world, you have missed the boat by a long shot, if it was ever even docked in the first place.

The US has a hard time beating and holding ground in third world nations, let alone taking on developed nations such as Russia, China or the EU or even India. The only way the US could ever take on the world would be if you practiced total genocide, which would be immediately reciprocated upon your own people, making the whole exercise pointless.


[edit on 16/9/09 by stumason]


I from Canada buddy not the states so before you get all touchy and emotional, do a backround check



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
In a word......no.

Despite our military budget, our weaponry, yada yada.....it could never happen.

We would be far outnumbered and likely outgunned on the ground, in the air, and in the sea. And we're just talking conventional warfare.

If it came down to nukes, everybody loses.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Not a chance! The point of taking a country would be to benefit your own. You would need its population intacked and it’s army and government crippled. You could not use weapons of mass destruction as you would lose your work force, its land and its economics the whole point of it in the first place. Realistically you'd have to take it the old fashioned way by war.

Look how long Iraq has taken and there still fighting (costing America alone 600 billion dollars and around 4,300 soldiers not mentioning the cost to other coalition countries) and this is a piss pot nation who had a very small Air force and Navy and whose Army almost surrended without a fight. Compare this to Russia, China, The European Union and India.

America would not have a cat in hells chance, they could destroy the planet, any nation with a nuke could just takes one fired in anger, but they’d never be able to take it over.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


Couldn't really give a monkey's, mate. I was primarily replying to the post that is reference in my reply. I actually gave very little consideration to your opening post, so don't flatter yourself.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Reply to post by Maddogkull
 


Because the central fact is conquerers are almost always eventually pushed out. Especially hated ones.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


haha im just playin around man.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:09 PM
link   
It could occupy large areas, but that's not the same thing. Speaking in terms of Finnish Defense Forces training and ideology we won't be fighting another front line war like we did with the ruskies. The main objective would be to make occupying Finland so dangerous that it wouldn't be worth it. Guerrilla tactics and underground resistance style. They could only nuke us to stop that and that wouldn't work either for other reasons. I'm sure other smaller countries have same kind of plans.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   
You have to remember that the United States takes up roughly 47% of the world's military spending. Do you see how insane this is? Yes I fully believe the United States military is capable of crushing every defense on the planet. This has nothing to do with the American ego or the size of my wiener, it scares me to the bone just thinking what they are capable of with all the money they put into "defense", and it doesn't put me at ease that I live there.

And 'President of the World'? How about 'Galactic Emperor Obama'?



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Yeah they got money and weapons. Those require a human to operate though.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
so we can barely manage keeping our sad little mess in iraq under control but people have the strange idea that america can...take over the...WORLD?

what is the drop out rate in america, these days??? not that graduating means you know anything about the way the world works, anymore.

i'm a little speechless...do you live in america OP? do you understand the state of things here, right now?? we can't keep illegal immigration under control...drug wars are absolutely failing (and costing millions, at least) our school system is just pathetic...and our military can barely handle the middle east...i shudder to think what would happen if a more powerful country got upset with america...

the way i see it, we are barely keeping our heads above the proverbial water.

but yeah...you keep on thinking america is still in any way or in any position to be touting the term "world power" the MSM has just done a really good job keeping the truth (That america is in some deep S*** and while we may not become a third world country we will not soon recover to the status we once had. especially with the road we are now on.)


anyways...with the way things are now, you'd think if America could take over the world they damn well would.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   
The posters in this thread attributing the "military spending" to America's military "power" and finding some kind of correlation between the two are completely unequivocably WRONG.

The REASON the U.S. spends so much on their military is because most of their stuff simply COSTS FAR MORE than the equivalent things in other countries due to cheaper labor. I.E. in Russia a sophisticated fighter jet will cost something like 5-15 million USD. In America the same level of fighter jets cost 100 million or more EACH. The reason being that the scientists, laborers, and engineers in Russia for example that are making these products are making 1/4 of the wages that their American counterparts are making. Thus in short, countries like China and Russia are able to arm themselves with weaponry just as sophisticated as that of their American counterparts but for 1/10th of the price.
Now don't get me wrong even if it weren't for this discrepancy in labor costs the U.S. would still probably be spending more on defense budgets $ than any other country but just NOT as ridiculously more like they are doing now.
So in short, no the U.S. absolutely would not be able to take over even ONE country such as Russia, China, or North Korea let alone the entire world that is laughable and absurd to even suggest.
The U.S. got its butt whooped in Vietnam, has done very poorly in Afghanistan and Iraq and is unable to even maintain control of cities there as someone else mentioned. There is no way the U.S. would make ANY ground in an actual invasion or ground war against ANY major military power such as North Korea, China, Russia, etc. And if you disclude "conventional warfare" then U.S. loses even worse in that case because other countries have far more unconventional warfare weapons than the U.S.
For example, Russia has not only the biggest stockpile of biological weapons in the world (far more even than the U.S. and almost every other major country COMBINED) but Russia also has far more nukes than the u.s.
Just take a look at this article and list and see for yourself
www.guardian.co.uk...

if an all out nuclear/biological war broke out guess what country would be left standing last? That's right Russia not us, because Russia has 1. far more landmass and thus there will still be inhabitable parts unlike the U.S. which would be a total wasteland and 2. Russia has far more nukes.
So, in conclusion your answer is no, the U.S. could not conquer the world even if it used every single weapon in its arsenal.



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
The term president of the world made me laugh. Thanks


But no, I don't think the US could take over the ENTIRE world. No way. The US and some of its allies combined could though probably.


[edit on 16-9-2009 by jeasahtheseer]



posted on Sep, 16 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

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



[edit on 17-9-2009 by SLAYER69]





new topics
 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join