posted on Jul, 1 2004 @ 03:58 PM
This is a nice little theory, but I like to look at the real world (read non devine) validity. My problem with this theory is that it would take MUCH
MUCH more then the US simply invading a few more middle eastern countries for Europe/Asia to attack the US.
Think about it - The US doesn't need an army to defend it's self from invasion. The US has two forms of insurance against this. Policy one comes in
the form of nuclear deterent in the form of Minute Men and Peacekeeper missles. Any group of countries that would attack the US would be met swiftly
with nuclear retaliation, that is a fact.
Policy two is the 2nd amendment. The US is the most armed nation in the world. Not only that, but a great deal of Americans are brought up using
firearms. You think the US (with the best millitary in the world) occupation in Iraq is going tough? Imagine trying to take the eastern sea board
alone. You would have urban combat in major cities such as NYC, Boston, Philly, DC, Atlanta ect ect ect. Now throw in the great midwest - wheree
everyone and their mom hunts (think snipers) and owns a few .308 scoped rifles. That doesn't even count all of Texas or Cali. I say, good luck to
Then there is the all important power/greed strugle. The US does not pose a threat to European countries - the US would no more attack a European
country to add to it's "empire" then it would nuke it's self. So why would filthy rich and powerfull leaders in Europe choose to attack the
US? There are a million things that could go wrong for them, much less their country. Who would they rule over after 100 minute men rained down on
their people? It just doesn't make sense to me......
In a hundred+ years, if the US actually became an Empire, and attacked Europe, then I could see this, but not unless ALL of Europe is DIRECTLY