The American Empire

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

If the U.S. were to take on the rest of the world, they wouldn't be stupid enough to just declare war on every country in the world.

President Bush, he stands for stupidity.

They would first use subtle diplomacy to gain a foothold in resource-rich weaker countries, like those in south america and canada. Who knows? A North-American Alliance, sorta like the Warsaw Pact?

How exactly do you think they would do this. You really think they would openly give resources to you?

Africa, South America, and the rest of North America would offer next to no resistance. We can invade them first (OH NO COLUMBIA IS GROWING DRUGS. WE CANT HAVE THAT. LETS INVADE THEM)

I don't think that really warrants an invasion no one would stand for that.

Next, if we were to stage an "incident", we could justify cutting off foreign aid to Russia. Let's see how long it takes for them to starve into surrendering.

America relys greatly on imports and exporting so it wouldn't be wise to start tampering with that.

Furthermore, if Asia sees that America is preoccupied with other parts of the world, Pakistan would declare war on India, and Taiwan, China, North/South Korea, would fight amongst themselves. If the U.S. is busy elsewhere, many countries will take the chance to gain more land for themselves

Yeah, right... the U.N wouldn't turn their backs. America doesn't have the military or man power to control the world. Streched supply lines and almost everything you can think of would hinder them taking over the world. Look at Iraq you're losing control over 1 third world country; how do you think you could take the world?

Also, the U.S. would have allies in the rest of the world too. (Great Britain, Japan, etc.)

Even they wouldn't stand for this and would aid the other countries.

With Russia starving, the rest of North America, South America, and Africa useless, and Asia fighting amongst themselves, and part of the rest of the world allied or neutral to the U.S., it'll basically be this:

They don't only get supplies from the U.S and that would hurt you too.

U.S. vs. half of Europe + Russia + maybe some Asian or Middle Eastern countries.

They would beat the U.S.

 

[newbiebotter]

1. We would/could have a different president by then.

2. How do you think Hitler regained territory past the Rhine without using any military force?

3. I was using that as an example, but if there is another civil war in Liberia, maybe, we could send enough soldiers as "peacekeepers". The citizens could be sick of more war, and with some "help" by U.S. soldiers, could vote to have Liberia become a U.S. protectorate.

4. If the U.S. cuts off foreign aid to RUSSIA, AFRICA, etc., who do you think will suffer more? The countries who receive billions of dollars in aid are the same ones who buy the least of our products.

5. Yes, and who mainly funds the U.N.? Where is the U.N. headquartered? Probably France and Russia would throw a fit, but what are they going to do? And I'm not talking about taking the world all at once. I'm talking about if the U.S. is engaged elsewhere, there would be fighting between the Asian countries. The only thing holding China from attacking Taiwan is the U.S.

6. If it appears to be in their interests, I believe that many countries will join America. Look at how the Hungarians and Romanians joined Germany even though the Nazis were committing genocide against the Jews.

7. Yes, it would hurt the U.S., but then again, it would hurt our enemies more. It all comes down to political willpower. If America is determined and rallied behind a strong and cunning leader, I'd say our military and economy gives us a good chance, but otherwise....

8. No they wouldn't. Russia's conventional forces are no match for America's. They have to take foreign aid to feed their citizens; their soldiers are poorly paid; corruption is high; they'll collapse if the U.S. stops trade and foreign aid to them. Europe - France?? Germany?? They don't even have nukes yet.

 

[N[U]TS]

i *believe* the seals (air land sea)to be the most versitile special forces. i looked it up on navyseals.com that they go throught the world's toughest training. I have also watched their training on the history channel. Im sure yall have atleast heard what is called the elephant run.


yes each branch of our armed forces have special forces like detla force, wrangers, and seals.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

2. How do you think Hitler regained territory past the Rhine without using any military force?

He lost.

1. We would/could have a different president by then.

When eactly is this supposed to be?

If America is determined and rallied behind a strong and cunning leader, I'd say our military and economy gives us a good chance, but otherwise....

You're basing a lot of this on IFs.

8. No they wouldn't. Russia's conventional forces are no match for America's. They have to take foreign aid to feed their citizens; their soldiers are poorly paid; corruption is high; they'll collapse if the U.S. stops trade and foreign aid to them. Europe - France?? Germany?? They don't even have nukes yet.

What do nukes have to do with this? If you send a nuke they'll be hundreds flying back at you. If you delcare war on another country then they will recieve lots of help. You haven't got the manpower or military power to keep control of the world. Germany france and Russia would be a match for you and the rest of the countrys that would help them. Face it the world doesn't revolve around America. Russia gets it's resources from many other countries you know. Hitler lost the war, remember that. You probally couldn't take Russia and some of the surrounding countries let alone the rest of the world.

 

[newbiebotter]

1. He lost because he took on too much at once. I'm just using him as an example as to how you use diplomacy to your advantage.

2. Hmm, either in a few months or in four years...

3. The whole thread is based on "if"s...

4. Just another example. It just shows that after WWII, Germany and France and most of Europe are not much of a threat to America. And please don't give me any bullshit about Russia being capable of taking on the U.S.

If Russia > U.S., then why is it U.S. gives billions in foreign aid to Russia? Why is it that U.S. capital is being invested in Russia and not the other way around?

Face it. Russia is poor even with foreign aid. Without it... haha, I would like to see Russia have another revolution.

Hitler lost the war, but much can be learned from his tactics, and he didn't lose by much either.

Sure Russia gets its resources elsewhere, but who's navy and air force are stronger? How do you think Russia will transport those resources?

Russia and it's surrounding countries can take on the U.S.? What surrounding countries? Mongolia? Lithuania? Oh yes, don't forget Afghanistan!! Please explain how Russia would defend against the U.S. when they can hardly afford to feed their soldiers? Russian military equipment are being sold on the black market. Maybe we feed the poor Russians to keep weapons from terrorists cause that's where they're being sold for food?

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/6593-8.cfm

And Germany? Russia would be wiser to ally with Mexico. At least the Mexicans can reach the U.S. border without being shot into the ocean!

And to whoever made fun of America for not being able to hold down guerilla forces in Iraq:

Look how the SOVIET UNION, a superpower with more than twice the power of Russia, fared in Afghanistan...

 

[amrtin77]

ok, im just going to continue with my rambling and tell you all i found another site about special forces with someones help.

http://www.specwarnet.net/sf.htm

the more i read about different countries special forces they are all really the same.. they are all trained extremely well and equipped with the best the country can offer... which is pretty much all the same in first world allied countries.

i soon will be moving on to the regular infantry of different countries when i get motivated again. this should be better to look at than special forces, as all special forces are pretty small in numbers and extremely well trained and equipped.. infantry may provide a little bit more differences to look at.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Ok. This is very simple. The U.S is not that strong, they may spend more than any other country but it is wasted. The eurofighter is faster, more manuverable and 3 times cheaper than the f-22 which isn't in proper production yet, one small example of U.S's poor effiency.

And Germany? Russia would be wiser to ally with Mexico. At least the Mexicans can reach the U.S. border without being shot into the ocean!

Wow an idiotic reply.

Look how the SOVIET UNION, a superpower with more than twice the power of Russia, fared in Afghanistan...

Against guerrillas in the mountains that were aided by the U.S. They took it over in a couple of months but they decided to leave after 10 years of dealing with the guerrillas in the mountains. Russia literally built afghanistan. Look how you are dealing with Iraq, you can't even handle them with allies, let alone the world. America is good in conventional warfare but you cannot handle a guerilla war, you proved that in vietnam. Let me repeat. U.S military is not that strong. There are countries with more soilders, there are countries with better training, there are countries with better tanks, technology, planes. You do not have the power to take over the world. You can not handle all the 3rd world countries. You can not handle guerrilla warfare. You can not handle the world.

 

[newbiebotter]

Ah yes, the Eurofighter is better than the f-22 (i have yet to see proof of this), but how is Germany going to fly them to the U.S.?? Germany doesn't have carriers!! So my statement about Mexico at least being able to reach the American border is mostly true.

I highly doubt Germany has the manpower or resources to stage an amphibious invasion of the U.S., and they don't have enough of a navy or air force to cross the Atlantic and attack the U.S.

Yes, and the U.S. is fighting guerrillas in the desert that are aided by terrorists and Islamic militiants from all over the world. And the U.S. technically conquered Iraq in 2 months.

Alright, here's a more direct comparison between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. U.S. = conquered Afghanistan in a few months, and is holding it without much trouble. The Soviets didn't even take over the entire country, and despite their brutality, continued to lose so much resources and manpower that they decided to leave.

Look how well they're doing in Chechnya?? They practically kill suspected persons on sight and still can't accomplish what the U.S. did in Iraq with minimal civilian casualties.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1F066691-DD09-4393-BF6E-AB192D5983CD.htm

If America's military is outmatched in manpower, training, and technology, then please tell me how the U.S. is still the ONLY superpower on Earth? If we are as weak as you portray us, then why are we the dominant country on this planet? The reason we can't handle guerilla warfare well is because we, unlike many other countries, adhere strictly to the Geneva Convention and rarely use extreme brutality and try to keep civilian casualities to a minimum.

I suggest you go read a military article or magazine comparing the U.S. to any other country in the world. Besides maybe a few reports of a prototype tank, plane, or gun that is slightly better than what the U.S. has or has in development (we don't tell everyone our military secrets), most are about how that particular country is trying to catch up to the U.S. in terms of military power.

There is NO country close being as powerful as the United States, and if we take over first world countries, we would be in no rush to conquer third world countries. We could persuade or starve them into joining us or subdue small areas of a time, since none would be a threat to us in the forseeable future.

Oh yes, if you discount Russia's military, Russia is often times considered a third world country.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

Ah yes, the Eurofighter is better than the f-22 (i have yet to see proof of this), but how is Germany going to fly them to the U.S.?? Germany doesn't have carriers!! So my statement about Mexico at least being able to reach the American border is mostly true.

1) Germany is not the only country with typhoons 2) I have given evidence. 3) They should be able to reach America anyway.

Alright, here's a more direct comparison between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. U.S. = conquered Afghanistan in a few months, and is holding it without much trouble. The Soviets didn't even take over the entire country, and despite their brutality, continued to lose so much resources and manpower that they decided to leave.

1) You didn't conquer afghanistan to went for al queda. People wanted them out anyway. 2) Afghanistan was considerablely WEAKER after Russia had finished with it. 3) You didn't have to deal with another country directly supplying them.

Look how well they're doing in Chechnya?? They practically kill suspected persons on sight and still can't accomplish what the U.S. did in Iraq with minimal civilian casualties.

Russia is not the world, they are ruthless yes. Minimal civilians causalities my ass.

If America's military is outmatched in manpower, training, and technology, then please tell me how the U.S. is still the ONLY superpower on Earth? If we are as weak as you portray us, then why are we the dominant country on this planet? The reason we can't handle guerilla warfare well is because we, unlike many other countries, adhere strictly to the Geneva Convention and rarely use extreme brutality and try to keep civilian casualities to a minimum.

1) Yes, unranium shells was abiding by geneva, and so was bombing and polluting water suplies. 2) Does China have more man power than you? Does Russia have better vector thrust than you? You failed to see I wasn't talking about 1 country.

I suggest you go read a military article or magazine comparing the U.S. to any other country in the world. Besides maybe a few reports of a prototype tank, plane, or gun that is slightly better than what the U.S. has or has in development (we don't tell everyone our military secrets), most are about how that particular country is trying to catch up to the U.S. in terms of military power.

I suggest that you read up. A few reports? There are many countries with better technology and experties in certain areas.

There is NO country close being as powerful as the United States, and if we take over first world countries, we would be in no rush to conquer third world countries. We could persuade or starve them into joining us or subdue small areas of a time, since none would be a threat to us in the forseeable future.

You dolt. NO COUNTRY CAN TAKE THE WORLD. IT WOULD TAKE THE U.S YEARS OPON YEARS TO TAKE ONE COUNTRY! THE WORLD DOES NOT SPIN AROUND AMERICA! AMERICA IS A STRETCH OF LAND AND SITTING IN THAT STRETCH OF LAND IS THE U.S. THEY HAVE A MILITARY LIKE EVERYONE ELSE WITH 10000's OF TROOPS. NO COUNTRY IN THE WORLD HAS ENOUGH TROOPS TO CONTROL THE WORLD. I DO NOT KNOW WHY YOU ARE STILL ARGUING THIS.

 

[amrtin77]

ok both of you are right... roxxor is saying no country could take on the wolrd if the world was allied and sharing tech and troops.

blotter is saying no country could defeat the us 1on1 and that the us is the most powerful nation on earth. this is also correct.

you are both arguing different things as your main point..

at least thats what i got out of your argument =o

blotter was saying under certain circunmstances the us would have a good chance at taking the world over time. but we already have a huge say in what goes on because of our lpace in the global economy..

 

[newbiebotter]

1. arent typhoons russian nuclear submarines? ah, great, russia is now selling their nuclear AND diesel submarines. 2. what proof? 3. yup, so the eurofighter can fly all the way to the u.s. and bypass america's air force? yeah, a squadron of eurofighters will definately take over the u.s.

About afghanistan: we didnt come just to get al-quaeda. we also went there to oust the taliban, which was supporting terrorist groups. And didn't you say that Russia "practically built Afghanistan"? So after being built up by Russia, having 10 years of relative peace, and being supplied with U.S. training and equipment, how was 2002 Afghanistan weaker than when the Soviets were there???

How is using depleted uranium shells for more effective projectile weapons going against the geneva convention. and last I heard, great britain has also been using them.

Ever hear about accidents or screw-ups? Bombing the water supply was also necessary to keep the Iraqi soldiers from receiving water as well. And how can you compare U.S. with the Soviet Union/Russia in terms of civilian casulties? America has freedom of speech and freedom of the press, so any slight brutality will be reported and extorted out of proportion. Russia, on the other hand, can torture thousands of civilians, stage mass executions, and get away with it.

You say Russia isn't the entire world, but you also said that Russia and a few surrounding countries (Lithuania? Latvia? Finland?) can take on the U.S. and win.

Of course there will be countries with certain areas better than the U.S., but overall, America's military is far better than any other countrys. I'm quite amused by your statement "Does Russia have better vector thrust than you?". So the best example as to how Russia is superior to America's military is that one of their planes, which is only part of their air force, which is only part of their whole military, has better vector thrust?

Ha! And Germany sat on 3/4 of Europe (and gained that land in under 2 years) and only lost after Hitler took on 2 superpowers at once (3 if you include Great Britain). If he had been tactful enough to crush the Soviet Union without risking having a western front, he and Japan could have teamed up on or threatened the U.S. into submission, because no one else in the REST OF THE WORLD could have challenged him... the rest of the world was either too weak, was allied with Germany, or was neutral.

And Germany wasn't even clearly the dominant country in the world before WWII started. Think about what the U.S. can do if it has a strong leader. If America were to gain control of most of Europe either through alliances, attrition, or military force, then the rest of the world shouldn't be that hard to subdue. In fact, if Europe were gone, most of the countries in the rest of the world would probably join the U.S.

 

[newbiebotter]

Originally posted by amrtin77
ok both of you are right... roxxor is saying no country could take on the wolrd if the world was allied and sharing tech and troops.

blotter is saying no country could defeat the us 1on1 and that the us is the most powerful nation on earth. this is also correct.

you are both arguing different things as your main point..

at least thats what i got out of your argument =o

blotter was saying under certain circunmstances the us would have a good chance at taking the world over time. but we already have a huge say in what goes on because of our lpace in the global economy..

What I'm trying to say is that the U.S. DOESNT HAVE TO take on the entire world at once.

If America takes the time to make as many allies as we can with weak, but mineral-rich countries or those who are not could not threaten us within the near future, we could then persuade many other countries to stay neutral.

We can then be like "Oh, we're pulling all of our troops from Taiwan and South Korea. Bosnia, take care of yourself. Liberia, Haiti, bye bye! United Nations, we're leaving and taking our allies with us. And oh yes, UN, we're booting you out of New York." Then what do you think will happen? China will invade Taiwan, North Korea will invade South Korea, and much of the world will be fighting amongst themselves. (I doubt Japan will stand by to see China become more imperialistic).

Then, with the world weakened (except for our allies and the neutral countries, and us gathering resources while the rest of the world is fighting, we can quickly crush our main opposition (France, Germany, Russia, etc.). If Europe is subdued, then most of the world will join the U.S. They're opportunists, but are too weak to challenge America in any way.

After this, we can just slowly assimilate our allies and the neutral countries of the world and destroy any leftover opponents. By this time, no one would be able to give much resistance against America.

I know this is based on many "if"s, but look at what Germany and Japan did in WWII.

 

[Kuzmich]

Originally posted by Razael
^ Nationalism at it's worst.


America has more resources than Russia. We choose to buy out other countries resources so when it's all said and done, we will be the sole provider for the world, thus boosting our economy greatly. You sir, are pwned.

Well, we got more natural resources then anyone, natural gas especially, wood i dont even know how you think you can compete with as we got enough wood to make north America one huge forest with one tree per square meter. Gold we on top, oil we have the second largest amount in the world. You cant buy out other countries if you are dependent on them, no one will be crazy enough to sell you all their resources and leave none for themselves. Right now your and Europe's need for natural gas and oil only boosts our economy, you are owned you peace of bullshit.

Originally posted by newbiebotter
What I'm trying to say is that the U.S. DOESNT HAVE TO take on the entire world at once.

If America takes the time to make as many allies as we can with weak, but mineral-rich countries or those who are not could not threaten us within the near future, we could then persuade many other countries to stay neutral.

We can then be like "Oh, we're pulling all of our troops from Taiwan and South Korea. Bosnia, take care of yourself. Liberia, Haiti, bye bye! United Nations, we're leaving and taking our allies with us. And oh yes, UN, we're booting you out of New York." Then what do you think will happen? China will invade Taiwan, North Korea will invade South Korea, and much of the world will be fighting amongst themselves. (I doubt Japan will stand by to see China become more imperialistic).

Then, with the world weakened (except for our allies and the neutral countries, and us gathering resources while the rest of the world is fighting, we can quickly crush our main opposition (France, Germany, Russia, etc.). If Europe is subdued, then most of the world will join the U.S. They're opportunists, but are too weak to challenge America in any way.

After this, we can just slowly assimilate our allies and the neutral countries of the world and destroy any leftover opponents. By this time, no one would be able to give much resistance against America.

I know this is based on many "if"s, but look at what Germany and Japan did in WWII.

You people are funny and have such reduculus ideas. First you cant quickly take Russia, France and Germany, Russia alone has 1.5 million troops and thats just the army, they all have guns, our artillery is just as good as yours and plains and tanks are roughly on the same level, at least i know that T-95 is superior to any of your tanks, and Bertuck is it least just as good as F-22. Then if somehow you do win a war, which you probably wont, you will get your asses nuked, because if we go everyone goes as simple as that, you can say any bullshit you want but if by the stroke of luck you will destroy our army we will destroy you because if our motherland is taken we have nothing to live for exept revenge. But you see you cant take your opponents one by one, because you see, today once you attack one opponent everyone will know that in a matter of minutes. And once again it is impossible to take any superpower quickly, you will have to wash yourself with blood several times, and there is a little chance of succeding, those who defend always have the advantage. And seeing how bad of a job you do in Iraq i wouldnt be bragging about how quickly you will take the superpowers.

 

[newbiebotter]

Originally posted by Otmorosok
Well, we got more natural resources then anyone, natural gas especially, wood i dont even know how you think you can compete with as we got enough wood to make north America one huge forest with one tree per square meter. Gold we on top, oil we have the second largest amount in the world. You cant buy out other countries if you are dependent on them, no one will be crazy enough to sell you all their resources and leave none for themselves. Right now your and Europe's need for natural gas and oil only boosts our economy, you are owned you peace of bullshit.



You people are funny and have such reduculus ideas. First you cant quickly take Russia, France and Germany, Russia alone has 1.5 million troops and thats just the army, they all have guns, our artillery is just as good as yours and plains and tanks are roughly on the same level, at least i know that T-95 is superior to any of your tanks, and Bertuck is it least just as good as F-22. Then if somehow you do win a war, which you probably wont, you will get your asses nuked, because if we go everyone goes as simple as that, you can say any bullshit you want but if by the stroke of luck you will destroy our army we will destroy you because if our motherland is taken we have nothing to live for exept revenge. But you see you cant take your opponents one by one, because you see, today once you attack one opponent everyone will know that in a matter of minutes. And once again it is impossible to take any superpower quickly, you will have to wash yourself with blood several times, and there is a little chance of succeding, those who defend always have the advantage. And seeing how bad of a job you do in Iraq i wouldnt be bragging about how quickly you will take the superpowers.

Seeing as how bad YOU guys did in Afghanistan and Chechnya, you shouldn't be bragging either.

How long do you think Russia will last if blockaded and foreign aid is not given to it? Russia is basically a third world country except for its military.

How do all of your soldiers have guns? They're being sold on the black market for food! (look at my link in one of my posts above). Russia can't even maintain their submarines and artillery because of a lack of money.

And if the U.S. gains allies and support from other countries, what's Russia gonna do? Attack the U.S.? Not likely, at least not until the U.S. attacks Russia, and by that time, it'll be too late.

If America maintains its figure as a peace-loving nation until most of the modern countries in the world are either our allies or are neutral, then when we attack, the few countries left would be isolated with the world.

How much weight do you think the U.N. would hold if the U.S. and its allies left?

You talk as if Russians are some sort of super-human race. They are still humans. If they are starving for long enough, they will surrender just like everyone else. This way, we don't even have to go to Russia to defeat it.

South America can't do shit. Africa can't do shit. The rest of North America can't do shit. The Middle East can't do shit. Asia would be fighting amongst themselves.

A few countries in Europe and maybe Asia would be all that's left opposing the U.S.

And if I'm not mistaken, Iraq had the fourth largest army in the world before the war, and was supplied with Russian technology.

 

[Kuzmich]

We will not surrender, example St. Petersburg was under German blockade for 4 years during WW2 but it refused to surrender. Many other cities did the same. Novgorod prefered being destroyed to surrendering to huns we will not surrender it is in our culture to fight until the last drop of blood. Now we still got nukes and i agree if US will attack with support of its allies we will fall, but dont think that we wont sell our lives for nothing, it will be like during the times of Napoleon, people will rise up to crush the oppressors, it was done before and if needed it will be done again. Hundreds of men, women andchildren, not soldiers but fishermen, hunters, and other people came out of their villages to meet the french army they died by thousands but took lives of their enemies. We are the same people we just need motivation to rise up. But still we got nukes and you wont attack us cause you dont wanna die.

 

[Plumpamania]

How about this for a statement:

U.S. vs Russia- U.S wins

U.S. vs England- U.S. wins

U.S. vs Germany- U.S. wins

U.S. vs France- HAHAHAHA!

U.S. vs Anyone Else place here- U.S. wins

Otto as stated before you can't feed your own citizens w/o aide. And if you decide to nuke, shows how pitiful your country is.

 

[Kuzmich]

Doesnt really you nuked Japan then you couldnt beat it fairly. US will not beat Russia 1 on1 if we defending that is a fact.

 

[munchyman]

Oh no....we nuked japan....well someone please spank us.....seriously. If we hadnt, we would have had to spend more than 100k us lives doind a land invasion...Nukes were the practical solution....and this was before all the laws regarding them existed. Laws that WE created...by the way. And dont even...the us could pwn russia so bad.

 

[newbiebotter]

Um, St. Petersburg was NOT under siege by the Germans for 4 years. Do you mean 4 months?

And it's not like the time of Napoleon, where peasants can kill soldiers with rocks and flint rifles. Even if millions of Russians rise up, it'll be massacre and you know it. Machine guns can take out whole crowds before the peasants could do any damage to our soldiers.

Your country is poor. therefore, your military is underfunded. Therefore, it's no match for america's military. Russia may have some new technology, but for the most part, 1960's weapons are being used by the majority of Russia's soldiers.

And please tell me how your people is going to rise up if the U.S. waits a few years before attacking? Why don't we cut foreign aid and blockade your country for a few years? We'll see a new revolution happen!!

And who knows? Maybe something will come of the billions we're spending on our missile defense program.....

 

[Plumpamania]

Russia Sucks