Why are american soldiers the best?

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[GenericNameAxis]

IOM FORCE PROCESS THE BATTLE PLEASE!!!

Not related to the topic though

[stumpster]

Has the entire community abandoned me? Have I been left to babysit these two guys?

No, I find this an impossibly interesting look into how/why the world doesn't like America.  And so far, I've only had a single conclusion - people like you.  America might be one of the greatest, but it's by no means a country without problems.  You describe everything as super-pro-American, and when someone disagrees with anything you say it must be because they either 'miss your point' or they're 'European, and wouldn't understand.'

Well buddy, I'm American.  And I think you're giving the rest of us a bad name.

(Oh, and that thing with China, Russia, US?  The entire world would end up too radioactive for anything to matter anymore.)

I'm talking about the assumption that there would be a conventional, non-nuke battle. You know, before nukes were invented?

Erm, sure.  If you were planning on literally, starving a country to death, they'd be plenty mad enough to nuke us.  So yeah, let's go ahead and not have that happen.

That, and assuming a blockade would even work, we'd have the small issue of having about 90% of everything used in the US made in China.

And I'm American. And you, Stump, even though you pwned me yesterday in EiR, give America a bad name.

Why, because I have a more global outlook on everything?  Because I don't think that America is perfect?  Because I don't throw random statements that make me look ignorant to the world?  Because I don't misquote the entire history books?

[wraith547EIR]

Well buddy, I'm American.  And I think you're giving the rest of us a bad name.

While I agree, some of the Europeans in this thread are just reinforcing stereotypes themselves.

I really need to stop reading this thread, it just makes me dislike people in general.

[Forefall]

Convincing someone that they are dumb is like trying to get someone to hurt themselves - they naturally resist it.  Rather they have to see it themselves, which becomes a bit of a paradox because they're too stupid to realize it.  Maybe that's why retards are so happy all the time.  

Dont' argue with an idiot, because he'll drag you down to his level and beat you by experience.

A fool thinks himself wise; a wiseman knows himself to be a fool.

[Lesserevil]

Lesser: Now you want to beat me up. How funny. Let me introduce you to the gun I have at my house. There is reason to starve China to death in the event of a war. Like I said, I posed a hypothetical situation if one of those two nations attacked anyone. They have nukes. Will they use them knowing they'll be nuked right back? Their navy is nowhere up to spec with ours.

@ ciwawa i don't get it....if they join nato...they get land and take ove rrussia....what? que? Huh

Let me introduce you to "surprise", its called me showing up as a UPS delivery guy and then smacking the stupidity out of you while yelling facts and figures at the top of my lungs to make sure you remember them all.

Again in no way shape or form will anyone ever let you starve out several BILLION people. And if those 2 nations attacked anyone the US navy will be able to do squat. Because China has 2 million people in their army, that means guess what, they can march across the land and attack anything on that continent. On top of that Russian can and will smash through Europe, oh the casualties will be high, and there will be alot of dead people but if i was to choose sides i'd go with Russia.

Also in case you have forgotten while the exact specs are not up to the standards of the US it is still possible to simply out number the US ships and run them into the ground. Is that likely to happen? No but it could.

Also if there ever was a war like that, guess who would be sent on the front lines? Yep thats right, you.

Bah i guess you are right Forefall. After this ill post no more. Still its hard to resist the urge to correct stupidity.

[DerangedFerret]

Great. Now we're discussing something like a Tom Clancy novel. This has really veered off into space...

[lompocus]

Lesser: Now you want to beat me up. How funny. Let me introduce you to the gun I have at my house. There is reason to starve China to death in the event of a war. Like I said, I posed a hypothetical situation if one of those two nations attacked anyone. They have nukes. Will they use them knowing they'll be nuked right back? Their navy is nowhere up to spec with ours.

@ ciwawa i don't get it....if they join nato...they get land and take ove rrussia....what? que? Huh

Let me introduce you to "surprise", its called me showing up as a UPS delivery guy and then smacking the stupidity out of you while yelling facts and figures at the top of my lungs to make sure you remember them all.

Again in no way shape or form will anyone ever let you starve out several BILLION people. And if those 2 nations attacked anyone the US navy will be able to do squat. Because China has 2 million people in their army, that means guess what, they can march across the land and attack anything on that continent. On top of that Russian can and will smash through Europe, oh the casualties will be high, and there will be alot of dead people but if i was to choose sides i'd go with Russia.

I stopped reading there. You complete idiot, do you really know how high the casualties would be? They will be storming the battlefields with masses of troops, and it makes no sense to go through a land battle. We would crush them in any land battle. Hell, we only need to bomb them to bejesus.

They would be starved. IT would be BILLIONS starving, because a few idiots at the top don't want to accept defeat. If you'd like to go with russia, move to russia. Then, realize you made a mistake once you're drafted into the military and your life is worth nothing, and as you are thrown as one of many wave after wave against an impenetrable United States barrier.
You seem to think their numbers alone would win. After a point they're essentially throwing rocks at a big fuckin steel ship. The steel ship has the most advanced tech in the world. The advanced steel ship can bombard them from the other side of the frickin planet and be dead on with its aim. The armored frickins steel ship it the epitamy of hundreds of years of naval development whilst russian/chinese equipment barely surpasses cold-war era tech.

It's like running over wave after wave of Vet 0 riflemen with two KT tanks in EiR.

Besides, everything made in china can be outsourced to every other nation.

Deranged: It sounds like that, eh? The only thing Clancy had wrong is that Russia/China wouldn't stand a frozen rats chance in hell.

Forefall: You're just stupid and have yet to contribute to thsi thread, yet you mock every poster here.

[DerangedFerret]

Em. Iompocus. They lose. In all novelizations.

In Red Storm Rising, Russia loses. In The Bear and the Dragon, China gets slaughtered. In Executive Order, Iran gets pwned.

US Wins in all three...

[lompocus]

Em. Iompocus. They lose. In all novelizations.

In Red Storm Rising, Russia loses. In The Bear and the Dragon, China gets slaughtered. In Executive Order, Iran gets pwned.

US Wins in all three...

I never really got into the tom clancy novels. I dunno why. They just seem, ya know, boring. Any sci-fi story is better.

Now are you insinuating that because a book says something (a book i havn't heard of, in fact, lol) fact must be entirely contrary to the story? Granted it aint going to happen exactly like the author says but the end result (US winning) is likely the same.



*edit* oh ya and america>the world.

[Jedi1]

I don't think it would be possible to predict the out come of a war between the US an China, they both have Nukes so that would effectivy cut them out,
the US has supirior technoligy but China has a huge population not to mention there already huge army. And has said your not likly to get away with attacking China without serios reprecushions dur to massive amount of stuff produced in China that gos al around the world. You could out sorce it to another cntry but that would take time and would not nesaserily be practical.

[ReapersWarrior]

NEVER CONSIDER NUCLEAR WARFARE.

because 2 reasons. it will never happen.

and if it does happen were all fucked anyway and nothing in the world matters anymore.

[lompocus]

I don't think it would be possible to predict the out come of a war between the US an China, they both have Nukes so that would effectivy cut them out,
the US has supirior technoligy but China has a huge population not to mention there already huge army. And has said your not likly to get away with attacking China without serios reprecushions dur to massive amount of stuff produced in China that gos al around the world. You could out sorce it to another cntry but that would take time and would not nesaserily be practical.

...you're really mentally injured, aren't you?

It took no time at all to re distribute the work done in the Twin Towers. It was unfourtunate for those that lost their lives .

I don't think you understand how long it would take. China makes a lot of stuff, which is entirely produced by US and Europe based companies. Those companies simply close up shop and move somewhere else. It would take no longer than 3 months. The same would happen if, say, New York is nuked. We simply redistribute our market across a larger area. It's entirely practical.

Their military is huge. So is North Korea's. NK actually has a larger military @ 2 million. We have a smaller military. China needs a way to move its troops. It needs to project its force. It needs some experience in its military. It needs training for the outdated equipment it will be getting from Russia. It needs an updated Navy that can keep up with our Navy (actually, I'll just say it needs a navy. Do they even have a noticeable navy?). They need an Air Force that doesn't just rely on swarm tactics. I don't think you realize just how incredibly easy it is to annihilate someone in the modern world whom uses swarm tactics.

Alerting US-based companies would be a precursor to an attack on China for them to get the hell outta there. If that is impossible, it makes sense to target US factories first and reimburse the companies asap so as to get them to resume production asap in a safer environment (preferrably the US, or India seeing as India is expanding and lacks the backwards mentality present in China. Perhaps Eastern Europe and S. America/Africa?). We cut off all exports to them, seeing as that would essentially be funding our enemy. We bomb their airfields and any important supply lines/lines of communication. We could cut their internet just for the hell of it (China is connected with the vast majority of the world, save for Russia, through the Pacific, so that would be of no problem to chop their lines). Bomb major governmental buildings. Depending on the reasoning behind the attack, destroy their military with further bombings. Blockade the area around china, and threaten them with a naval incursion (or just bombarding their coastal cities with our ships which would likely be armed with extremely advanced weapons by then) if they attack Taiwan, Tibet, or any other nearby nation as a response to their sudden assault. Demand unconditional surrender, 'else supplies do not return. If Russia reacts, destroy their navy and air forces right away. The good thing about this is the fact that those two nations are essentially land-locked, especially China. We can assume Europe would have some response to a land invasion from Russia. You move the troops into China afterwards and instill a democratic government there and fix everything. Think of the US-occupation of Japan after WW2.

After that, you blanket China with the missile shield program and we've cornered our last threat, being Russia. This allows one to further refocus on the rest of the world, or just head towards space and ignore everyone else.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

1) Why would they do such a utterly stupid thing. That is, shoot themselves in the foot.
2) What are their set-in-stone plans? If they knew there werent any WMD's as a certainty, why would they want to invade Iraq in the first place?

It simply makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If they knew there were no WMD's why would they fabricate a lie to get into a war that would make them themselves look like incompetent assholes, no politician makes himself look stupid on purpose. You only require a IQ above room temperature to figure that one out. The idea is absurd.

They didn't think the war would make them look like incompetent assholes. They thought it would be flowers and sparkle ponies. Home by christmas, pay for itself, all that. We know this because they said so. It's a matter of public record.  They were idiots, but that's kind of been my contention the whole time.  Some of them were obviously smart enough to know better, but as Mark Twain said, it's hard to convince someone of something when their paycheck depends on them believing otherwise.

Of course, if it HAD been flowers and sparkle ponies, arguments like this show that they would have been right that noone would have given a shit that they were lying through their teeth.

It wasn't just Bush who belived there were WMD's in Iraq, pretty much every freaking intellegence agency in the UN came to the same conclusion.

No they didn't.

Did you know that the Bush Administration ordered the UN inspectors to leave Iraq before their inspections were complete? 

As far as I know the claim that Saddam moved uranium and/or WMD's to Syria is still very much a possibility. We after all had satelite pictures of Iraq's WMD facilities.

This is exactly what I mean by the WMD conspiracy theory. Absence of evidence (no WMDs) is evidence that he must have sold them to some other country. 

We have satellite pictures of WEATHER BALLOON TRUCKS. We know this because we got several hundred thousand people killed so we could go there and take a look.

That tens of thousands of man hours have found no WMDs just means they were that good at hiding them.  Yeah right.

no worries about the edits, I am a hardcore editer myself 

needs an updated Navy that can keep up with our Navy (actually, I'll just say it needs a navy. Do they even have a noticeable navy?).

China focuses on ways to neutralize the US navy, not ways to beat it.  IE: Anti ship missiles.  It would take thirty years to build a navy that could beat the USN, you'd have to be nuts to spend that much $$$ just to do that.

[roflmao]

That tens of thousands of man hours have found no WMDs just means they were that good at hiding them. Yeah right.

They were able to get two pilots trained in the USA, get them on planes, hijack them, and then drive them right into the world trade center avoiding defense systems. In the previous WTC attack they were able to smuggle a truck FULL of explosives somehow into the US going almost completely undetected, and then blow it up right there in the parking lot,  Yeah right?

Of course, if it HAD been flowers and sparkle ponies, arguments like this show that they would have been right that noone would have given a shit that they were lying through their teeth.

You are joking right?
 

No they didn't.
Did you know that the Bush Administration ordered the UN inspectors to leave Iraq before their inspections were complete?

COINCIDENCE? Just in the world of crazy conspiracy theorists any coincidence automatically becomes a uber-secret evil plan from the gov.

This is exactly what I mean by the WMD conspiracy theory. Absence of evidence (no WMDs) is evidence that he must have sold them to some other country.

Suure, since claiming Bush deliberately lied to the american people to get in a stupid war for no real reason is somehow a much more "logical" followup then blaming the intellegence agencies. How is that not a conspiracy theory? They are all THEORIES, "Bush lied to the american public on purpose" is a theory as well, otherwise he would have been impeached, a long long time ago. I personally belive that saying he transported WMD's to Syria is a much less outlandish theory than accusing him of deliberately lying and making himself look stupid.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

(http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_George_Bush_lie_about_the_WMDs_in_Iraq)
Are you telling me they were part of this "secret plan" as well, all the democrats in the previous administration?

If it is apparently so "obvious" Bush lied about WMD's, why hasn't he been impeached?

[DeadlyShoe]

Such contortions.

Enough. I'm done.

[roflmao]

Hmm, that makes me feel bad. . Either way I'm fed up with it as well, we clearly aren't getting anywhere.

[They Call Me SpitFire]

I'm locking this thread tonight for good i've seen to many fights of EIR members mad at each other, so get your lat views out. Thank You

[Jedi1]

I see no reason to lock this thread. It's just a debate, thats a good thing.

[lompocus]

o gawd is there any military dude around here that can at least comment on my post on how to secure china and make it better for those 2 billion? I KNOW it would be impossible because the businessmen would never, ever let us deny them what is almost slave labor, but if we shot the execs of those businesses what could happen?

Aint some1 here from the british military?

*edit* *lompocus locks thread*

[Jedi1]

Heres another thing with China. There conamy i9s growing were has the USes is well, not growing. A number of Chinias bisnass men could easily crash the US econamy by dumping heaps of maney into the system all at once. Pluse I thing you underestamate the Chineas navy, air force and army. If the US navy did manege to blockade China from the sea Chinas army would push out into asia and europe. Not saying the US couldn't win. Just saying they wouldn't have a garentead win and even if they did, it would be a costly war.