It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Europe VS US

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 12:55 AM
"who would win?"

Dumb question. We've already had this war several times over the past 230 years.

American Revolutionary War- US 1, England 0
War of 1812- Andy Jackson 1, England 0
Spanish-American War- Teddy Roosevelt 1, Spain 0
WWI- Sgt. York 1, Huns 0
WWII- Gen. Patton 1, German National Socialists 0
Cold War- Ronald Reagan 1, Evil Empire 0

Unfortunately, if the US had to fight a war against totalitarian socialism today, half of the country (including Obama and the Congressional Democrats) would fight for our enemies.

And based on recent events, the only European countries that would join the US in fighting for freedom and liberty, would be the Czechs and the Poles.

But of course, the US would still win hands down. Just look at how the "mighty" British navy rolled over and surrendered when they were confronted by the Iranians. It wouldn't be much of a fight.

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 11:28 AM
Hmms who would win, I would go for the US if Nukes were invovled. The Brits would put up a good fight. After all the UK is the unsinkable carrier

Would rather the UK be on the side of the US, than the EU. I am not European, I am scottish first, then british simple!

posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 12:32 PM
reply to post by Haydn_17

Europe VS US

All these types of threads do is raise animosity.
First off, it will bring out the disproportionate amount of teenagers who have access to computers here in the US doing their pubescent chest pounding rhetoric. Second it would be followed up by naive attacks on the US about Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan etc.

Anything said pro US would be seen as a Arrogant chest pounding statement.

Many have brought up Vietnam. Dont they mean French Indochina? That culminated in the humiliating defeat of the French at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu and it's later surrender and retreat. Let's all forget those little FACTS.

US: 0
Europe: 0

Let's move onto Iraq. We have a planned Retreat I mean Surrender oops sorry a Planned Withdrawal in 2011

Iraq and the United States have finally agreed on a security pact which would mean that US forces would withdraw from Iraq by 2011, American and Iraqi officials said yesterday.

Shall we discuss Afghanistan? How far back does those who point fingers at the US memories go back? British Empire and Afghanistan.

As far as soldiers with experience. a conscripted military force does not have the same will to fight as an all voluntary force.

A fight across the pond would come down to Navies. Firstly, the US has the advantage there hands down. Second, it would be the ability to reach around the world and touch somebody with bombers. Again in US favor. Third, Land invasion would have to go to the US again becuase of the US Navy and the capabilities of the US Marines amphibious abilities.

On the Flip side, The EU seems lacking in their ability to match the US's capabilities at the present time. This however doesn't mean it's not within their power to create such forces. Lastly although Europe has a larger population an invasion force from Europe would have to first fight it's way past our military then secondly deal with the most armed population on the planet.

The only way to win this scenario

Is not to play.

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:01 PM
reply to post by the illuminator

The reason the British soldiers were killed in this instance was not the pilots fault. The soldiers did a horrible job of describing the terrain. The brits are not accustomed to using air power like the US.

The US navy would destroy the EU's. Neither nation could invade the other successfully.

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:03 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 08:34 PM
Europe wouldnt have a chance once the Americans neighbor Canada got involved,We would start out with an embargo on the import of Maple Syrup and things would quickly escalate once we figured out they wanted to replace Canadian [Tire]Money with the Euro ,ultimately we would threaten to send Quebec over as a soverign country,that will end all hostilities.

Fights are all about who throws the first punch,this isnt the back of a comic book or hollywood.Europe would never EVER start a fight with a tough kid like America.

By the way when the big boys play nothing is conventional,thats why I say one Boomer,in a first crippling strike,limited,but first and absolutely crippling.

Not enough to cause Armageddon,just enough to shut us all up for a couple hundred years as a species.

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Haydn_17
Us brits will have candada, good foothold near america, australia, south africa, new zealand, we also have bermuda to station troops, with the falklands and gibraltor. All commonweath. Bermuda, gibraltor, falklands, UK territories.

Your Navy would last 8 hours. Air Force maybe a few weeks.

But really what's the point in this? If you have the French you will most likely loose.....

In all seriousness, like someone said...if "BLACK" projects are used, Europe is in deep &^%*. But look at it this way, the US taxpayer has funded your defense for 60+ years now, so being behind is actually your own faults.

Originally posted by riff_raff
"who would win?"

But of course, the US would still win hands down. Just look at how the "mighty" British navy rolled over and surrendered when they were confronted by the Iranians. It wouldn't be much of a fight.

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 07:44 AM
Without Maple Syrup they wouldnt last a week.

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:41 PM

Originally posted by one4all
Without Maple Syrup they wouldnt last a week.

It depends really, I can not see the Brits fighting along side the Germans and French. If it were so, they would already be on the Euro.

Militarily its a game, the Europeans have NEGLECTED their defense at the expense of the US taxpayer for how many years now?

See if you REALLY want to know, ask how many NATO countries have COMBAT duties in Afghanistan? The UK? Yes. The Poles? Yes, the GErmans?........Well you get the idea..

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 05:52 PM
I vote for U.S. no doubt. We have some of the best weaponary in the world. But we also must thank the Isrealies and the British for working with us

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:48 AM
Idont think that with the world the way it is today in terms of the number of military powers capable of dealing the US a crippling blow that our American neighbors will be the LEAD OFF BATTER IN THE NEXT BIB GAME,I see them in more of a clean up role,sinking the final nail in someones coffin for a definitive win.

If you have the ability to put air force one into orbit within hours and could possibly have a hardened base with critical systems in place on say the moon,you might sit the bigger part of the game out knowing that when you walk up to the plate the pitchers arm is tired and your odds of knocking one out of the park are at their highest.

I am not so sure we will ever see another world war on this planet,I see wars but not a world war,although the last little war sure feels like a world war with how it affected the world economy.

America is already planning off planet endevours and have been for fifty years.Anything they let China or India do is already out of date or they would simply sabatoge their progress,this is the only way you can gauge Americas progress,by what they allow other countries to do around the world and in space.

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:08 AM
The US and Europe are already at war, its just not a military one at present, its economical.

This tension is being played by the middle east and oil producing nations that are switching to trading in euros rather than the dollar. Heres a funny clip.

That said, europe did start the modern population of America, so it could, in some ways, be said the America is a european offshoot, but i doubt that would wash with patronism, so lets not say that.

Of course, the other way to look at it is that the only people who actually think along the lines of being patriotic towards their country are those that believe they truly are american or british. In reality those in charge consider themselves to be citizens of the world and treat each country and resource as their own. Its only when it filters down to this level that we think in terms of dividing up the world territpry and choosing alliegence with one 'country'

posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 04:58 AM
This is an interesting thead but how about we say that Mexico,America,and Canada become the three Musketeers and drop their borders and start trading the same currency and sign military pacts.

With Mexicos population and all their Grass and Americas military tech and Rednecks combined with Canadas Beer and Natural resources and Europe would be toast,so why pick on the Americans anyways.Let me tell you something,I live in Canada where 78% of the population favors the decriminalization of Marijuana for personal use by adults of legal voting and military service age.Just where you want the weed to be ,eh?in the hands of the people picking the government and the guys protecting the country.But believe it or not Canadians will kick your arse in a blink if you dont do the right thing ,we get violent in an honorable sort of way ,much quicker than Americans, especially the Frenchys and the Ukranians.We wont reeducate you for dissing our boys,we wont adjust your attitude for personal pleasure or prestige in fact we are generally embarrased after a fight win or lose because it is so Uncanadian to put your own personal grievances so far up on a pedestal that you forget that there are little people below you .

We will however take you for a little stroll down the street of pain if you ever cross the NO WOMEN,NO CHILDREN RULE or if you pick on someone who is less able to defend themselves than you are,in otherwords we call it cowardly when you seek an advantage in a battle by accepting challenges from lesser opponents ,I know I know its a little Klingon isnt it?we seek greater foes through defending more honerable causes than ourselves and our egos.If you bother people to much by constantly creating a scene for example you will inevitably find yourself being invited outside for a stroll,just to settle you down a little.We tend to see the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few ,from birth,so spouting off about your individual rights to stomp around creating your own little personal brand of chaos will earn you a free pop,or two,or maybe if your pretty tough three or four.But you can be sure they will be coming,just to remind you that you only get to be king in your own castle,you get to check your individual rights story and your sidearm at the door along with everyone elses.

So I say again ,why does everyone seem to always be picking on the Americans?If you pick on the Americans you pick on the Canadians and the Mexicans as well.

I dont know how it would go down but if you want to play with the big dogs you better be able to pee in the tall grass.I am sure we could wake up enough mexicans early enough to piss them off enough to fight,in fact I think we could raise quite a diverse army in a jiffy. I heard a rumor that Mexico has covertly been substantially increasing its investments in military hardware and training for its armed forces,with a little American help.We could probably sober up enough Canadians to help--at least a little like maybe some world record sniping-- and well the Americans we can always close walmart and Macdonalds that ought to free up a few million on any given day,I think we will be alright.

Amexicada ,the next great economic power!Military juggernaught!

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 12:10 AM
but how about we say that Mexico,America,and Canada become the three Musketeers and drop their borders and start trading the same currency and sign military pacts.

Are you serious?

Start trading the same currency? Trade the U.S. greenback for the worthless Mexican peso? Or the sketchy Canadian dollar?

Drop our borders? There are already 20 million Mexican nationals (12% of their country's population) living on welfare or working illegally in the US. And how would the US taxpayers absorb the cost of the flood of Canadians streaming across this "open" border to get decent health care?

Sign military pacts? Mexico has no military forces. And the socialist, America-hating appeasers in Ottawa would never join any military deployment that the U.S. might engage in, regardless of it's merits.

The Three Musketeers? You're crazy!

posted on Nov, 6 2009 @ 10:04 AM
In case you havent noticed the world is rapidly changing and you need bodies to hold guns because it is becoming more and more obvious that no one is ever going to use nukes.

Conventional warfare will kill millions before anyone will use nukes.

Those mexicans will hold guns and canada will feed them you are lucky you have a stockpile of weapons or we might not need you,there are other countries with a lot of firepower that would like friends like mexico and canada on their side.

Simply joining mexico and canada would effectively give that new country control over the us in many indirect ways.

posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 04:40 PM
I'd rather see us Brits on the American side, rather than the EU.. thanks all the same.. And I personally see we have more in common with countries like Denmark and Norway than countries like France or Germany.... There are also the divisions like that within Europe to Consider, considerations that don't exist in the US..

Anyway, As someone said, the best way to fight is not to

[edit on 8/11/09 by thoughtsfull]

posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 07:25 PM
reply to post by thoughtsfull

So, does that mean the oldest alliance is not that important after all?

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:38 AM
reply to post by ArMaP

No, that alliance is exactly what I meant... I was trying to point out, that within Europe there are some deeply held resentments and bitterness as there are some deeply held alliances and friendships..

Some of those alliances/resentments have run for many centuries, which won't change over night and create a single united Europe with the ability to wage a coordinated war against the US. So it simply wouldn't happen, hence threads like this are a nice paper exercise..

[edit on 9/11/09 by thoughtsfull]

posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 03:42 PM
reply to post by thoughtsfull

I think that today most of the more famous resentments are at least contained, people today have a different way of thinking, more global, probably because of how easy it is today to talk to people from other countries and how easy it is to travel through Europe.

But I understand what you mean.

posted on Nov, 25 2009 @ 01:11 AM
reply to post by DaMod

Are you serious? Have you seen crank 2?????????

As for the topic, its a hard one to tell. While we (EU) have alot more trained armed forces and a better air force (including the euro fighter) the US have nukes, civilians and federal organisations with guns.

SAS vs Seals would be interesting, id say SAS would take it out of pure reason most of em are scottish... generall meaning very hard and very determined.

On a less serious note ill say the US would probarly win. Your already good at killing us brits anyway without meaning too, imagine if you tried! Plus if it came down to it the US would declare a nuclear strike and europe would be about f**ked, most of us would probarly accept our fate, rather than risking the future of mankind with a retaliation.

What would happen in terms of the eastern world though? The EU have more allies that way than the US, unless your counting forced alliances.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in