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: 9
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kailassa

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 

So if I understand what you said, it's that America is hated because of the wars we get involved in.

I wish we could have known that about 1917.

Could have saved a lot of American boys lives by staying home.

Then we wouldn't have had to go BACK again just a generation later, and could have REALLY saved some American lives - and TONS of money.

Could have avoided all that lend/lease, and then the cleanup and reconstruction with the Marshall Plan.

Don't know if the winner would have been Russia or Germany, but it would definitely been one or the other.

Wow. All of Europe either Nazi, or Communist.

Then we wouldn't be HAVING this discussion.


Funny man.

Without the support Americans gave Hitler and the Nazi party, there may have been no world war II.

Guess which past American Presidents still possess wealth made by working Jewish prisoners to death to produce steel for the German war machine?

Guess who was making money by selling Zyclon B to the prison camps?



You deserve an answer to your questions:

1. "Guess which past American Presidents still possess wealth made by working Jewish prisoners to death to produce steel for the German war machine?"

And the answer is, George Herbert Walker Bush and his son GW.

2. "Guess who was making money by selling Zyclon B to the prison camps?"

The answer to this one is Rockefeller via their agents at Brown Brothers Harriman of which Prescott Bush worked with Hitler, Fritz Thyssen and the UBC. Prescott Bush had a portion of his assets seized due his complicity with Thyssens and the UBC. Meanwhile Roland and Averell assisted Stalin's fight against the Germans.

After the war, a total of 18 additional Brown Brothers Harriman and UBC-related client assets were seized under The Trading with the Enemy Act, including several that showed the continuation of a relationship with the Thyssen family after the initial 1942 seizures.

SOURCE

After the war ended Prescott Bush was deeply involved in "Operation Paperclip" and in 1952 was elected Senator from the State of Connecticut.

Pretty good deal for Mr. Prescott Bush for assisting the Germans in killing 5.7 to 9 million Jews, 26 million Russian military and civilians, and not to forget, the 300,000 US soldiers killed the the European theater. This does not include German soldiers, Poles, Austrians, gysies, gays, and anyone else that got in Germany's way.

These answers good enough?

Rockefeller and his agents also provided the ethyl lead additive for gasoline to the German War Machine.

Just love those bankers. They make tons of money while soldiers die. Remember, the Bush's were bankers long before they ventured into oil business. Maybe with their move into oil, they were trying to cover their tracks left from the second world war.

Two last points. Prescott Bush is responsible for the political careers of his golfing buddy "Ike" Eisenhower and the great Richard Milhaus Nixon who answered his ad in the Los Angeles Times.

The second one is my belief that the Bay of Pigs operation was originally a Bush/Nixon operation "blown" by JFK's lack of air support, which led to that fateful day in Dallas.

I'd say through the assistance of the Rockefeller group and their associates, Prescott Bush had quite a career and was justly rewarded for working America's backside and the deaths of many Americans during WWII, the "Big One".

[edit on 1-1-2010 by Oldnslo]

[edit on 1-1-2010 by Oldnslo]




posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   

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 ...



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by thematrix
I think over 1 million Iraqi civilians disagree with that statement ...


Really, Ace? Care to come up with a source that the US military killed 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians?

This is the big question: If your statement is true (and I know it's not), just where in the f**k do you think someone could hide that many dead freakin' bodies??????



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
People, Lets look at the facts, USA could never take over the world by them selves, Yes they may be putting in palce a bloody good missile defence system, But, That only accounts for so much if the rest of the world decides to unite to take odwn some power tripping country, happened before and would happen again if need be.

As for all this Marvelous weapons the USA has.. et over your selves, They have some unmanned vehicles, couple thousand nukes, and s**t load of tanks, APC's/IFV's, 2,000+ fighters, 3,000+ other aircraft, and total combined force of 3+ million troops (army, marines, reserves, national gaurd)

That wouldnt even be enought to take on Russia.. let alone Europe of China... As for those american kenetic non nuclear bombs that can destroy citys.. Your confused.. russia has the worlds most powerful non nuclear weapon.

www.foxnews.com...

Wicked bomb compared to the yank MOAB, MOAB has over 8 tons of explosives, the Russian bomb has only 7 tons but is still 4 times more powerful... Watch out America, Russia is on the way back....

American military might is not getting much better while Russian military might is taking massive leaps, Might take a decade, But there Mig-35 gonna kick ass against the F-35

Add to that there future tank could have upto a 152mm main gun, russian tanks are cheap, reliable, easy to produce..

All in all, The US only excells naval wise.. But thats couse most over super powers dont require that much naval strenght.. Far to many Super powers rely way to much on Nuclear submarines.. Dont they relise Electric/Diesel Subs are only 40% the cost or less.. and much more quiet.....

Big bucks dont automatically make you the best... Russia manages justfine with low bucks..They just choose to make there stuff simple, and effective.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by von_noobie
American military might is not getting much better while Russian military might is taking massive leaps, Might take a decade, But there Mig-35 gonna kick ass against the F-35


Think that the US might be having a few upgrades to the F-35 by then. And US pilot training is nothing to sneeze at; why do you think so many countries send their pilots to the US for training???


Originally posted by von_noobie
Add to that there future tank could have upto a 152mm main gun, russian tanks are cheap, reliable, easy to produce..


Reliable tanks? Not when Ivan is drinking the brakes. Also, the T-72 had this little problem; seems that the turrets liked to fly off from the kinetic energy from a hit. I hope that got that problem solved on their newer tanks.


And in a tank on tank battle right now with the Russians, guess which side as tank crews with combat experience?

This whole thread is stupid to begin with. Could the US take over the world? Nope. Could we destroy it? Yep.

Big freakin' deal.



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
All we need to do is look at how nature works.Since the very beginning competition is the rule.Advanced primates are no exception.
There is truth in "The meek shall inherit the earth"
You would be surprised how meek you become with a gun in your face.

The crusade has begun or hour of glory is at hand.Let all who stand against us be washed in our divine light.

www.liveleak.com...

[edit on 3-1-2010 by flyingfish]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

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.


True, however, the US military R&D is over $70 billion. Comparatively speaking, this is more than the entire UK military defense budget. This does not even begin to account for the "black budget" which we know exists.

And then there is always that brain drain, assuring the US will always be several steps ahead of the closest competition.


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.


Diminished? Only to a degree. But that will be due to nations like China bettering themselves, rather than the US actually losing power.

In the future, no nation, or bloc will come close to the sheer size and weight of the US and Chinese economy's and political/military might. This isnt really a bad thing, as both nations will surely help advance and develop the world through various means, such as research and development.


The US has a hard time beating and holding ground in third world nations


Now this is really why I wanted to respond to you. How long did the Iraqi military last against the US forces?

If we wanted to go in guns blazing, we could, and surely would turn the place into a giant glass crater. We could do it the soviet way, and be careless. Collateral damage? Who cares! I assure you, we are holding ground just fine in those third world nations. Or did you forget that the number 1 killer of US service men is a device called an IED. That is the only tactful advantage the enemy has used with some success. Other than that, we are blowing the hell out of these fools!

Dont be fooled! The US is simply trying to avoid as much collateral damage as possible. We are a nation that values innocent lives. And we do it the best out of any nation on this world. That doesnt mean we are perfect, just more efficient then the rest of the world.

And the only nation to succeed against Gorilla warfare up to this point has been the US. No other nation has been able to hold the ground like we have against such a tactic with any great measurable success.


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.


We could conventionally destroy pretty much any nation you throw at us. Trying to play "police force" turns it into a whole different story.

And I personally would not like to see this happen ever.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by von_noobie
As for all this Marvelous weapons the USA has.. et over your selves, They have some unmanned vehicles, couple thousand nukes, and s**t load of tanks, APC's/IFV's, 2,000+ fighters, 3,000+ other aircraft, and total combined force of 3+ million troops (army, marines, reserves, national gaurd)


By 2015, 1/3 of the US military will be unmanned robotic.


That wouldnt even be enought to take on Russia.. let alone Europe of China... As for those american kenetic non nuclear bombs that can destroy citys.. Your confused.. russia has the worlds most powerful non nuclear weapon.


America prides itself on precision guided weapons. The Russians always valued a wider kill radius with their weapons because they lacked the technical skill on precision guided weapons.

Hell, the Russians cant even make a CPU, and still cant today! Smart weapons are the wave of the future, not massive bombs. And this is where the US leaves everyone else behind. Smart weapons are the domain of the US in the 21st century.


Wicked bomb compared to the yank MOAB, MOAB has over 8 tons of explosives, the Russian bomb has only 7 tons but is still 4 times more powerful... Watch out America, Russia is on the way back....


You are thinking in rather primitive terms. "If its bigger, it must be better."

This sort of logic worked before precision guided weapons. Now this line of thinking is obsolete.


American military might is not getting much better while Russian military might is taking massive leaps,


If only that were true...


Google Video Link


I have yet to see what the Russians have that compares to what the United States Military Industrial Complex already has, or is in the process of developing. Russia cannot counter any of the above tech the US is and will be implementing on its forces in the coming decade. Many think that the US forces of 2020 will make russia, along with the rest of the worlds militaries, obsolete.

With advancements in ABM defenses, along with spaces forces such as FALCON and SUSTAIN, along with a plethora of other advancements (nano and bio tech) yes the US military is on the road to damn near invincibility. There will be no force that is as integrated, and/or as technologically advanced as the US forces is, or will be in the coming decade. I could go on and on about this, but I'll stop there...


Might take a decade, But there Mig-35 gonna kick ass against the F-35


The mig-35 is just another modification to a mig-29, and is not a true 5th gen fighter. 4.5 gen tech < 5th gen tech...


Add to that there future tank could have upto a 152mm main gun, russian tanks are cheap, reliable, easy to produce..


So is robotic weaponry...



All in all, The US only excells naval wise..


This is rather short cited answered dont you think? As well as a bit biased. I understand you are probably perturbed at the OP's seeming arrogance. It is human nature to hate what others have, especially if it is better. We call this jealousy, and you sir, with your unintelligent screed, are showing clear deranged symptoms of this phenomenon known as jealousy and envy.


Big bucks dont automatically make you the best... Russia manages justfine with low bucks..They just choose to make there stuff simple, and effective.


Which explains why they have faired so well against American forces in the past...(sarcasm)

[edit on 043131p://5201am by semperfoo]

[edit on 043131p://5501am by semperfoo]



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
The U.S. in Afghanistan right now is using 1/20th of our military might.we could take the world by storm is needed. All that would need to be done is a order to B2 bombs to destroy Russian nuclear capability thus crippling their "largest supply of nuclear warheads" the fact of a matter is Russia doesn't have the guidance system to correctly launch them. China would be crippled because of the fact they can`t launch a nuclear warhead without receiving 100s more back. As for Europe they would side with us and probably ally with us because they are just as arrogant as we are. Russia's army is using the ak47 a weapon so inaccurate i doubt you could hit a buffalo with it. The U.S. military could storm china just by using air support as cover we would have heavy casualties but the Chinese would suffer 100x that. Africa would be to easy we would just send in the national guard. Then Russia would unleash their military might and be crushed. However Russia would side with us for economic reasons and plus the fact imagine a America-Russia alliance it would be unstoppable. The U.s. right now has the capability to blow up the world 3x over. while Russia has more nuclear warheads then us. We have way more explosives then them our entire arsenal is equal to 80million metric tons of TNT, 20 million metric tons of Semtex, and 40million metric tons of c4. To give you an idea on our arsenal. Supposing the war went Nuclear we have preprogrammed locations where we could easily press a button and kaboom. While were conquering china our bombers are efficiently eliminating Russian bombing capability as for their father of all bombs we have 2000 mother of all bombs on stand by to be used and did you know the mother is often bigger in nature? While bloodied and severely hurt we would still be top dog.

Thank god this goes against all of our principles.
The U.s. could do it but we wont so for all you people that say we cant stand up to Russia they have triple our landmass and one third of our population,

Sources
My knowledge of our worlds military and the fact i am studying to be a battle tactician



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 05:52 PM
link   
The obvious answer is no.

There is no military power on Earth that could control the world. Not even America at it's peak of dominance could have controlled the world population. Kill 'em all? Probably.. but control them? No Way.

Economically? Well, I would submit that an economic take over of the world has been attempted and has brought economic ruin to the aggressor.

What worries me as an American is the thought that the guys driving the worlds most powerful economy (still is at this point) might actually know what they are doing and be guiding a plan that holds a major surprise for the rest of the world.

I have been trying to see a way that all this chaos could actually end up with an even more dominant U.S.

I can't find any way for that to happen so far, but in this world of shadows and mind bending realities I am thinking that there is a way.

Read read read, calculate...



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
One on One.. we could win with anybody if it was just country vs country.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
the stated mission of the usa and nato is "full spectrum dominance".
the usa has 12 nimitz class aircraft carrier strike forces.
russia 1 china 0 ..not very good odds as far as projecting dominance.
so its not so much taking it over -it's controlling remaining resources.
they've ringed the world with missiles,
they've taken the high ground in space,
who knows what black tech they have..
meanwhile what i hear about from DARPA is scary enough.
what they have in the way of drone tech there would be no way to defend against it.
small cloaked swarms of bio-weapons that report to a hive dropped on a city..
programmed to kill anything that has a heat signature of a combatant.
patrolling a no-fly area due to superior air power.
tracking everything that moves
because its all been sprayed with "smart dust" (really,look it up)
the overlords dont care about the civilians -the more killed off the better.
they want to hammer down any resistance to a new world order.
that is here and now , so-stick around and see iran toppled..
it takes 3 strike forces to run 24/7 ops.-theres possibly 4 there now.
386 bunker busters are parked on deigo garcia.
we will confront russia .
struggle with the chinese forever.
islam as well.
all these other wanabees like chavez ,nk.etc will be squeezed out.
watch and see.it's unfolding as we speak.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by p51mustang
 


nobody here has got a clue as to what you are talking about i dont even know if you support ths U.S. or The world.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


I am surprised to see a topic like this. I do not think the US could take over the world at all.
The biggest does not always mean the best.

The US have lost some major conflicts and in all honesty are losing one right now. I would imagine that countries would join for the purpose of stopping the US if they tried to take over the world.

Any country that has nukes has the capability of destroying any other.

The US gov has too many separate factions to run cohesively, and probably too many people within these factions that consider different agendas a priority.

I would not like to see if they could though as we do know they would inflict a lot of damage.



posted on Oct, 26 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Say the U.S could take over the world........

How would you consider that to be a good thing for the rest of the world?.

Or You?.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by trentyh
The U.S. in Afghanistan right now is using 1/20th of our military might.we could take the world by storm is needed. All that would need to be done is a order to B2 bombs to destroy Russian nuclear capability thus crippling their "largest supply of nuclear warheads" the fact of a matter is Russia doesn't have the guidance system to correctly launch them.


Yeah, I've been just itching to jump on a PC to rip this post apart since it was first put on here


First off the US is using, in my own opinion, about 30% of its military might in the Middle East. This includes combat troops, support personnel (who probably outnumber combat troops by at least 5:1), armour, logistics, etc. Oh, and don't forget the cost. Remember that 3.5 trillion that the Pentagon said they lost on Sept 10, 2001? It funds this war.

And then there's the fact that the US has like 700 military bases worldwide. That might sound like domination, until you realize the cost of maintaining such a global forces. 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.

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.


China would be crippled because of the fact they can`t launch a nuclear warhead without receiving 100s more back.


Wow, that's a pretty broad statement. You attack China with conventional or nuclear forces and they'll instantly engage all American forces in Southeast Asia. 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.


As for Europe they would side with us and probably ally with us because they are just as arrogant as we are.


Europe is mostly socialized and interested in world peace and UN assertiveness, why would they support American warmongering? In a total war effort the US will find a serious lack of allies, especially in Europe and Canada.


Russia's army is using the ak47 a weapon so inaccurate i doubt you could hit a buffalo with it.


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).


Africa would be to easy we would just send in the national guard.


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.


Then Russia would unleash their military might and be crushed. However Russia would side with us for economic reasons and plus the fact imagine a America-Russia alliance it would be unstoppable.


Are you for real? The US is 200 trillion in debt; it is completely bankrupt because of its obsession with defense spending. Russia has no debt, and in fact has a much superior economy that isn't based entirely on its military-industrial complex.


The U.s. right now has the capability to blow up the world 3x over. while Russia has more nuclear warheads then us. We have way more explosives then them our entire arsenal is equal to 80million metric tons of TNT, 20 million metric tons of Semtex, and 40million metric tons of c4. To give you an idea on our arsenal. Supposing the war went Nuclear we have preprogrammed locations where we could easily press a button and kaboom.


Gee, so do the Russians, and the Chinese, and any other country with nuclear weapons. All able-to-launch nuclear weapons have pre-programmed targets. And ever hear of DEADHAND? That's the Russian policy that if the Russian government is ever wiped out by nukes, then all Russian launchables will be automatically launched. 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.

And you do know that Russia has less nuclear weapons than the US, right? But they more than make up for it by having much larger stockpiles of biological, chemical, and other unconventional weapons, some of which are already in the US and ready to deploy by commandos at a moments notice.


While were conquering china our bombers are efficiently eliminating Russian bombing capability as for their father of all bombs we have 2000 mother of all bombs on stand by to be used and did you know the mother is often bigger in nature? While bloodied and severely hurt we would still be top dog.


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.


Thank god this goes against all of our principles.
The U.s. could do it but we wont so for all you people that say we cant stand up to Russia they have triple our landmass and one third of our population,


HAHA funny. Actually American military, political and economic doctrine clearly highlights their "right" to global dominance through force, so actually it is exactly your country's principles. And Russia would survive because they fight for pride and honour while Americans fight for resources.


Sources
My knowledge of our worlds military and the fact i am studying to be a battle tactician


If you're the future of American battle tactics then I really feel pity for the world.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 09:08 PM
link   
It seems like America bit off more than they could chew when they tried to take on a nation of goat herders.



posted on Oct, 30 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
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)



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


hahahaa
Africa take on the National Guard ??????
i think Canadians do more weed then we do.
The national guard may be weekend warriors but when we send in the elites of them such as the Stryker force which can easily mount an assault in a week of being told when. May not sound fast but look up Stryker armored vehicle you will find that they are nearly impossible to destroy with conventional tactics it takes a large amt. of missiles to overwelm its tracker



Honestly B2 bombs are the closest to invisible that you will find.
B2 bombers would take out their Russian nuclear sites rendering their system of retaliation useless....

My friend the ak47 is still the Russians main weapon and source of income. The U.S. is spending on the m4 because of the fact it is upgradeable and very light and easy to use not to mention the fact that the U.S. is currently spending on modifications to it so every soldier can have a gun comfortable to them.

Europe if you don`t remember encouraged us to go into the Middle East and they offered us assistance if needed. Then they suddenly don`t support it well guess what we cant get out now.

If i`m the future of military tactics Canada will be out of luck because you guys are only here as long as you are nice and friendly.

a few more facts i learned over my three days of not posting because i went to a beach house. The U.S. Marines which are a strike force not a occupier is in Afghanistan and having issues because NATO wont let us bring the Army into the middle east.
The M4 has a 85% accuracy rate with a very high full auto rate.
The AK101 has a 45% accuracy rate with a low fire rate?
The U.S. would still win if we were destroyed because we would detonate all of our explosive arsenal and cause super-cell hurricanes, mega-quakes, and tsunamis a mile high.
Plus the fact it said take over the world didnt say we cant kill most of the world then take the world over sure our workforce would have to change rapidly but could we do it yes.

If you didn't notice the Chinese cant mobilize they're damn army,
History doesn't matter when it comes to wars china and Russia have never been conquered before but only the Japanese have ever tried to invade america so your little ideology about them not being conquerable.


i am also choosing to revise tactics in wars simple the US is unbeatable in 1V1 so take a little of the world at a time


On a personal note though.
Brother you insulting me made you look stupid and you insulting what makes up 90% of the internet community AKA the U.S.n
i don`t really care about your view on it just don`t go insulting people please man
i have always found Canadians very relaxed people but really you trying to piss me off isn't gonna work.
Funny how you avoided the arsenal of explosives


edit on 1-11-2010 by trentyh because: re read his post



posted on Nov, 1 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   

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.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join