It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

USA can take on the rest of the world???

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salvationcanbeyours
reply to post by Dr Slim
 


Did you know that our troops in war zones have routinely have time to get on Internet, play video games and be very very bored? Are the Marines really just that good that Army infantry dont work weekends?


well i've heard that the marines are the best in the bussiness, some even describe them as superhuman or hero's, and put them on a very high pedestal, so i guess they must be good?




posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   
If there ever is a ww3, it wont be guns and nukes that will determine the winner and it wont be who has the biggest army either, it will be something so small you need a microscope to see it and I would wager all the big countries have their own version of it.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Dr Slim
 


two words:

Aircraft Carriers...

ground troop #'s are nothing compared to air forces, especially when they're outfitted with antiquated weapons.

training as well plays alot on the outcome. the mere knowledge of acquiring and/or necessitating cover (ground forces) can affect entire conflicts

not to mention having subs that can dig in like a tick for half a century and deliver enough weaponry to wipe out entire continents.

USA



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by paratus
 


america has 11 aircraft carriers, the rest of the world have... 11

i'm not sure how many for the rest of the world are not being used, i think the UK has one spare, bringing the total to at least 12..
and they are also planning 2 more by 2015 and 1018, not sure about everybody else.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Dr Slim]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by paratus
two words:

Aircraft Carriers...

ground troop #'s are nothing compared to air forces, especially when they're outfitted with antiquated weapons.


You can't hold any land captured from the enemy with just the Air Force. You need troops to do that.


Originally posted by paratus
not to mention having subs that can dig in like a tick for half a century and deliver enough weaponry to wipe out entire continents.


But can the Sailors survive for 50 years onboard a sub? Without losing their marbles?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnze
And i never mentiond Baghdad, but really if you want to get into an arguement about semantics what the U.S actualy did to Baghdad could pretty much be considerd carpet bombing.


No, you didn't mention Baghdad, and no, the bombing there wasn't carpet bombing.


Originally posted by Johnze
On a side note though you should probably use your google and look for the former Yugoslavia and see what America did to that. One of the greatest war crimes in modern history, you would probably be proud.


Oh, you mean NATO operations in the former Yugoslavia?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by MAC269
reply to post by Reign02
 


Dear Reign02

You are quite right I am more afraid of the terrorist. However that depends on how and who you see as a terrorist.

The only terrorist I have seen this century is the US government who literally created the apposing force of Islam fighters.

At the time of 9/11 there was one terrorist Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden and over this event the US government has used it as an excuse to start 2 wars and the death of millions.

The terrorist as you see them are not going to annihilate the world were as it is very possible the US government will.

I relies that you are never going to agree with this point of view because you have been indoctrinated with this frame of mind however bare in mind that a lot of people outside the US are of this frame of mind.

Your government is not wining the propaganda war. They are losing it very badly.


Well seeing how I have been in the fight and have seen terrorists in action and have witnessed US soldiers being blown to pieces I would say that you are the one that has been brainwashed by the media and the internet. This is NOT a propaganda war, the insurgents are using propaganda..... Like for instance........

Taking weapons aways from insurgents we killed from an airstrike or a UAV strike before we get there, then people take photos of "unarmed civilians" that were killed by us.

And we are the terrorists?? Ummm how bout NO..... We are NOT bombing schools and killing hundreds of civilians with suicide bombers. ANd at the time of 9/11 there were a LOT more terrorists and terrorist organizations than just Osama.......

And off my response real quick, You, yes you, they would do the exact same to you and your family, kill you, slit your throat, cut your head off and post it on the internet, bomb your city etc etc etc. The only reason they hate us so much is because we will not let them rule their countries by using fear tactics and repressing their own people. You really need to do some REAL research on terrorists and their organizations.

I am done responding to people that know of nothing but what the media and the internet puts out there. You do not see all the good we are doing out there. We rebuild roads that the terrorists blow up trying to kill us, we rebuild schools, we give food and hospital care for citizens of Iraq and Afghan.

When I was at JBB or Joint Base Balad during my last tour, we apprehended an insurgent that was launching mortars at our base and he had a mortar detonate at the bottom of the make shift launching tube that he was using and he almost blew his whole leg off. Guess what your so called "Terrorists" the United States Military did. We took him to our hospital on BASE in Balad and treated his wounds and released him without any charge what so ever. Now that does sound really stupid that we are letting insurgents go but if we are so bad then why let someone go who blew himself up trying to attack our base?? You never see the good that we are doing in these countries because all the media and the NEWS reports are the attrocities and horror stories of war. Never shedding light to the good that we are doing so it makes ignorant little runts like most people on this site hate us when they have no clue WTF they are talking about.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Reign02
 


Can i ask you a question!

How many of the Iraqi citizens that you Americans killed from 2003 and until this day, had anything to do with 911?

Why are you Americans killing Iraqi citizens today. Do you you have a legitimate reason to do what you are doing in Iraq?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

I dunno the total of killed civilians.... Because they will strip the dead insurgents of all weapons and anything linking them to insurgent groups or terrorists organizations so it makes it look like we killed innocent people. NOw granted, stuff does happen and innocent people get killed......IT IS WAR, SHT HAPPENS. This war has had the FEWEST confirmed civilian deaths of any war the US has EVER fought, and people still talk this non sense.

This war could be over simply by bombing entire cities in the middle east. Hell the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and killed around 90,000–166,000 and the one at Nagasaki killed around 60,000–80,000. And probably 60% of these deaths were innocent civilians. And you want to complain about us killed maybe a few hundred innocent civilians............ come on now........ We want this war on terrorism to be over but we are NOT going to just bomb the hell out of the middle east or nuke them.

The problem is they hide amongst the population like cowards and use guerilla tactics like ambushing and running away like cowards. If they all would stand together as one and we could just fight it out with no tanks just man on man this all would be over in a couple weeks...



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reign02

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Reign02
 


Can i ask you a question!

How many of the Iraqi citizens that you Americans killed from 2003 and until this day, had anything to do with 911?

Why are you Americans killing Iraqi citizens today. Do you you have a legitimate reason to do what you are doing in Iraq?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

I dunno the total of killed civilians.... Because they will strip the dead insurgents of all weapons and anything linking them to insurgent groups or terrorists organizations so it makes it look like we killed innocent people. NOw granted, stuff does happen and innocent people get killed......IT IS WAR, SHT HAPPENS. This war has had the FEWEST confirmed civilian deaths of any war the US has EVER fought, and people still talk this non sense.

This war could be over simply by bombing entire cities in the middle east. Hell the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and killed around 90,000–166,000 and the one at Nagasaki killed around 60,000–80,000. And probably 60% of these deaths were innocent civilians. And you want to complain about us killed maybe a few hundred innocent civilians............ come on now........ We want this war on terrorism to be over but we are NOT going to just bomb the hell out of the middle east or nuke them.

The problem is they hide amongst the population like cowards and use guerilla tactics like ambushing and running away like cowards. If they all would stand together as one and we could just fight it out with no tanks just man on man this all would be over in a couple weeks...


You didn't answer my question.

-What legal justification did the US have for invading Iraq in 2003?

-What justification do you have today for killing Iraqi citizens?

-Why do you call some of these people for insurgents if you dont have a legal right to be in Iraq in the first place?


-Ain't it more legal and justified for them to look upon you as the insurgents who should be shoot and disposed of? You are the illegal invaders of their land.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
-What justification do you have today for killing Iraqi citizens?


What legal justifications do the insurgents have for killing Iraqi citizens?

I've asked this question several times on ATS, and have seen it asked by others. So far, no one has an answer, except BS.

How does it benefit the Iraqi people to have insurgents set off a car bomb in a crowded marketplace, killing innocent women and children?



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by signal2noise
 


none, i think thats the apparent reason for being there.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by signal2noise

Originally posted by spy66
-What justification do you have today for killing Iraqi citizens?


What legal justifications do the insurgents have for killing Iraqi citizens?

I've asked this question several times on ATS, and have seen it asked by others. So far, no one has an answer, except BS.

How does it benefit the Iraqi people to have insurgents set off a car bomb in a crowded marketplace, killing innocent women and children?


Let me ask you this. Why did the US have a civil war. And why are American citizens still killing each other every day? They are. Its just that they are not using bombs. But does it matter what weapons they use. It is still killing.

There is no justification in Iraqis killing their own citizens, but even so it does not legalize a US invasion.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Dr Slim
 
Seeing as the US Navy is larger than the rest of the world's fleets COMBINED, and we have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the globe 1,000 times over:

I'd say, technically this is a very accurate statement.



Yes but the problem here is that you seem to think that weapons win a war...well i'm afraid they dont...people win a war and the USA doesnt have the best soldiers based on dying for the cause. You'd only get the chance to drop 1 nuke then there would be hundreds pointed straight back at you and thats just from Russia.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
I just don't understand people, we all bleed the same. we are only together for a short time on earth-let's get along everybody. i know it will never happen, and its sad. we had so much potential



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Reign02

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Reign02
 


Can i ask you a question!

How many of the Iraqi citizens that you Americans killed from 2003 and until this day, had anything to do with 911?

Why are you Americans killing Iraqi citizens today. Do you you have a legitimate reason to do what you are doing in Iraq?

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

I dunno the total of killed civilians.... Because they will strip the dead insurgents of all weapons and anything linking them to insurgent groups or terrorists organizations so it makes it look like we killed innocent people. NOw granted, stuff does happen and innocent people get killed......IT IS WAR, SHT HAPPENS. This war has had the FEWEST confirmed civilian deaths of any war the US has EVER fought, and people still talk this non sense.

This war could be over simply by bombing entire cities in the middle east. Hell the bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and killed around 90,000–166,000 and the one at Nagasaki killed around 60,000–80,000. And probably 60% of these deaths were innocent civilians. And you want to complain about us killed maybe a few hundred innocent civilians............ come on now........ We want this war on terrorism to be over but we are NOT going to just bomb the hell out of the middle east or nuke them.

The problem is they hide amongst the population like cowards and use guerilla tactics like ambushing and running away like cowards. If they all would stand together as one and we could just fight it out with no tanks just man on man this all would be over in a couple weeks...


You didn't answer my question.

-What legal justification did the US have for invading Iraq in 2003?

-What justification do you have today for killing Iraqi citizens?

-Why do you call some of these people for insurgents if you dont have a legal right to be in Iraq in the first place?


-Ain't it more legal and justified for them to look upon you as the insurgents who should be shoot and disposed of? You are the illegal invaders of their land.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]


Yea but we are not going to shopping malls and blowing them up, we are not going to markets and blowing them up........

And the reason we went to IRaq is because Sadaam didn't learn his lesson the first time we kicked his ass for trying to invade Kuwait and using chemical weapons on the Kurds. Or maybe because he was payin terrorists and supplying them, even though he would not let any of them operate in his country untill we booted his butt out and he called on all brothers to come and kill the infidels.

WTF are you talking about with all this legal crap... Sadaam has WMDs....... no nukes but he had a crap load of chemical weapons which ARE WMDs..... And we feared that once we got in Afghanistan that he might use that opportunity to strike back at us.

In all, there are a lot of reasons for us going back to Iraq one includes oil as well.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
In direct answer to the OP,

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Ahahahhahahahahaha! No.



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Slim


and in reality, how easy is it to actually do that?


It would not be easy.

In defending the US from a worldwide alliance intent on invading and conquering the US, the first objectives would be to secure our air space, the borders, and the coasts.

If the scenario starts with US troops overseas in the Middle East, Europe, Japan, and South Korea, those troops would have to be evacuated. This would mean air corridors would have to be established in order to begin massive air lift operations. US Marines and the US Navy would have to launch massive sea lift operations.

So on day one we are looking at large scale fighting taking place in Europe, especially in Germany, as US troops would have to fight their way to the coasts. Out of all the world's militaries, the German army would be a very formiddable opponent. Casualties would be high on both sides.

We would have to get Carrier Strike Groups in the Med and the Baltic. Opposing them would be the British, French, and Russian fleets. Fighting would be fierce in the Atlantic as US fleets pushed into the Med and the Baltic.

In the Pacific, US troops would be facing Chinese, Korean, Japanese, and Russian forces. The Naval conflict would not be near as fierce, but would not be easy. The Japanese and Russian fleets would put up a good fight. Casualties would be high.

In the Middle East, US troops would have to fight their way to the coasts. This would not be difficult in Iraq or the Horn of Africa, but Afghanistan would be an absolute nightmare. US fleets in the Indian Ocean would quickly wipe out the Indian navy. The naval conflict here would not be bad at all.

I honestly don't know if we could get our troops out of Afghanistan. We would leave a massive trail of destruction in the attempt to do so, but faced with hordes of Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, and possibly Iranian troops, I don't know. It could be the biggest loss of the war, with over 100,000 US troops killed or captured.

That event would be our Alamo, it would galvanize the US and the draft that would occur.

US troops inside the US would mobilize and head north, quickly capturing Canadian cities and the seizing Canadian oil reserves. The US Air Force would quickly establish air supremacy over Canada and intercept Russian bombers over it, before they ever reached the US.

Massive bombing campaigns would target infrastructure in Latin America and the Carribean. US Marines would take Bermuda.

The war would be a total war, like World War I and II. Meaning scorched earth, hearts and minds thrown into a meat grinder, absolute control over media/information, and using everything we have from prototype technologies to developing new weapons.

In the first 24 hours, the Internet as we know it, would be gone. The US would wipe out most of the foreign orbital satellites. Undersea cables would be destroyed. Our GPS constellation would probably be wiped out as well and quickly replaced by orbital drones and stratellites.

It would not be easy at all, but the world would fail to lay siege to the US. US Naval and Air power would have total sea and air supremacy over the North Atlantic and the North Pacific.

One of the last and one of the largest land battles of the conflict, would be the defense of the Panama Canal against South American armies. We would have to do everything short of nuclear weapons to keep them from crossing into Central America. They would probably be the biggest threat of the war. Robots, microwave weapons, railguns, lasers, thermoptic camo, and powered armor would all be there. Every toy DARPA has in its goody bag would be let loose at Panama.

Casulties would be over 100,000 easily. Colombia would look like the moon after it was over with. Millions of South American troops would be dead.

It would be the most difficult theater of the war, but once it was over with, the US would begin to lay seige to Europe and Asia. This seige would be in effect until a ceasefire and treaty followed.

If we developed technology that made their ICBMs and SLBMs obsolete, we would turn to nuclear weapons. Just like we did Japan in World War II, we would annihilate one city at a time, until there was a ceasefire.

From the time of the outbreak of war to the time of the Battle of Panama, would probably be less than six months. The period afterwards would involve attrition and could last years, until we perfected an anti missile system. I'm betting three to four years.

The aftermath would be horrifying, as most of the world was cutoff from American aid, charity, and food. Probably billions dead from famine and disease in Asia and Africa. Entire areas would have been depopulated.

Even though the US would end its siege, it would never forget what happened and would maintain numerous island bases, naval fleets, and even orbital facilties to prevent the world from ever rising up again. Until the US eventually imploded internally, the rest of the world would live in third world squalor and face oppression from US forces.

In the US, democracy would not survive the war. Foreign sympathizers would have been rounded up into concentration camps. Most of the population, US citizens, would probably be given "Personal Identification Module" implants. Fortress America would be a "prison state".

Of course this is all hypothetical and would never happen in real life as I described it. In real life we would have allies, the world would not be united against us.

So the real question should be: "Can NATO and its allies take on the rest of the world, in defensive and/or offensive campaigns? "



posted on Jun, 3 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   
We are the "Corporate States of America" now and have been for quite a while. Our country and it's foreign policy is dictated by business. Our citizens are slaves to marketing. Our military kids serve global economic interests only.

Here at home we are besieged relentlessly by disinformation from ultra conservative controlled media ala Orwel and there are sufficient uneducated folk in our land to parrot, to effect, what ever they are told.

At the base of it all is greed for power and influence. Money? Money is always there but after a certain point it loses it's appeal and gives way to greater the evils of desire.

It's almost too late as the corruption is worldwide now. There are only a hand full of human beings left on the planet who are capable of restoring the world to a balanced condition and they are persecuted when ever they are detected.

The only viable course is for each of us who knows to refuse to get swept along with the destructive flow downhill. Each must maintain his/her equilibrium and remember who he is.

Religion is of little use now a days because of the widespread contamination of believers by their "handlers".

God bless us all....

[edit on 3-6-2010 by trailertrash]



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Reign02
 


Dear Reign02

Thank you for your reply, I am sorry that you have been one of the unfortunate people who have been involved in these wrongful wars in this century. I am sorry for you and sorry for your comrades and sorry for those of the apposing force.

Please name me one tourist action by Islamic elements in side the boarders of the USA before 9/11???

Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin after leaving college in 1979 joined Abdullah Azzam to fight the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and lived for a time in Peshawar. While doing this he was promoting US interests. In doing so he was supported by the US alphabet soup of intelligent's agencies

While Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti was fighting the Iran from 1980-1988 he was being supplied weapons by the CIA. This is most likely the reason and only reason that they thought he had weapons of mass destruction at the time of 2003. Naturally there were none found simply because they could not put serial numbers on the ten o’clock news that would point right back to the USA.

I in no way put the blame of the solders that fought in these wars. Solders even generals follow orders. However it is time that the perpetrators of these wars be brought to justice.

Those who you call theorists are fighting for the freedom to live in their country in the way they fell fit and it is not up to America to dictate to them how that should be.



posted on Jun, 4 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by thoughtsfull
 


that is a college text book fact, the us navy has the same tonage as the next 17 navies combined. sorry the man has a good point and we take advantage of the fact that quality not quantity matters more. your leaving out the tech capabilities of these diffrent militaries as well. our tanks would only be threatened by the challengers and the t90s (if they work), but the numbers outwiegh them, the other tanks would be target practice. logistics are important as well, the us airforce is the logistical wing of the army and no other country does it like us in that regards. say what you want about wmds but our inteligence is crackin and we can identify targets with greater ease then ever before. now lets through in how many drones we have vs the world, even if they catch up on maned aircraft we might outdate all of those in the next 10 years as well.

we can fight a war with the world, but the catch to taht is we would have the same issue as israel, we have the might to conqouer but not the man power to hold the ground we take, look at bagdad that is a prime example



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join