NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay lets assume its sometime in the future: The E.U. is an organized soveriegn nation, led by some guy names adanac. Britain, US, and canada formed a new nation called the United States of Britain (or something along those lines), lets also assume E.U. and U.S.B. are at war for some reason.

Who would win? Why?




(please take this lightly as it was posted lightly)

First of all, why isn't Canada mentioned in the name? Why do people always want us on their team, but never include us in their plans :mad:

Anywho, if the EU was their own nation, they would get slaughtered, because they would be trying to negotiate the whole time we at war, and we would keep blowing them up.

okay what should it be named then? The United States of Britain in assocation with Canada?

lets call it the Canadian States of Britain, and it would win.

Since when did everyone want Canada on their team? Canada's the kid wth the glasses that have been mended with sellotape. Not as bad as the fat kid, or the fat kid with glasses, or the fat geeky kid, but still, nobody wants you on their team.

Britain, because the other side would have France.

Britain, because the other side would have France.

But they speak French in bits of Canada. Spies!! Spies I tell ya!!

I don't think a Quebecer (the french people from Canada) could understand the people from France. Plus we just kinda ignore them and shun them to the side while they threaten to separate again. They can't be spies, they can't be spies because they wouldn't know anything important :D

I don't think a Quebecer (the french people from Canada) could understand the people from France. Plus we just kinda ignore them and shun them to the side while they threaten to separate again. They can't be spies, they can't be spies because they wouldn't know anything important :D

Just because they don't know the important things doesn't mean thry can't be spies. Ever hear of those MI6 fellows who decide Saddam had WsMD?

Oh come on. British nationalists would NEVER ally with the US. I know a very nationalistic Briton. :)

We could do with Canada though. Canada is good, we like Canada. We make racist remarks about the Aussies, but they might be valuable in the United Kingdom of Britain. Not the US of Britain. Hey, what about the Uknighted Kingdom?

what about Australia, Britain, Canada and Australia are still all technically the same country, the British Commonwealth states, so why should canadas name be mentioned? its still part of Britain

The United Allied States would defeat that European Union!

Why?

France and technology. That's why.

Britain would. Europe shattered under the power of the German war machine. Guess which countries didnt....thats right. Britain, America and Canada! And Russia....but at the expense of 250,000 men and a lucky winter. If I remember rightly we saved Europe and broke Germany.

what about Australia, Britain, Canada and Australia are still all technically the same country, the British Commonwealth states, so why should canadas name be mentioned? its still part of Britain

Wrong. They are not the same country. Is it falming to call you a simpleton?

Oh come on. British nationalists would NEVER ally with the US. I know a very nationalistic Briton

No, we're just going to take our errant child back under our wing and give them a concessionary national name change.

Britain would. Europe shattered under the power of the German war machine. Guess which countries didnt....thats right. Britain, America and Canada! And Russia....but at the expense of 250,000 men and a lucky winter. If I remember rightly we saved Europe and broke Germany.

We had an impact but it was the Russians that really broke the German will. If Normandy wasn't successful, we would've had a much tougher time and Russia would've beaten Germany alone.

BTW: Russia lost far more troops than the rest of the allies did while fighting the Germans.

Oh come on. British nationalists would NEVER ally with the US. I know a very nationalistic Briton. :)


Nor would we go to war with the EU lol, its hypothetical

No, we're just going to take our errant child back under our wing and give them a concessionary national name change.

We shall never bow before the queen again. We will fight the monarchy if you tried that. Anyway, the US is stronger than Britain anyway so we should be taking you under our wings like an offspring does for their older parents :D

We had an impact but it was the Russians that really broke the German will. If Normandy wasn't successful, we would've had a much tougher time and Russia would've beaten Germany alone.

BTW: Russia lost far more troops than the rest of the allies did while fighting the Germans.

Perhaps, but if America went into total war it would have massacred Germany, and would do more than Russia did. Plus Germany is no longer as strong. Also it would have been pretty damn hard for Germany to invade. Battle of Britain crushed their air assault, you think they could get here with their navy? Britain and the sea is like cheese and biscuits ;)

Perhaps, but if America went into total war it would have massacred Germany, and would do more than Russia did. Plus Germany is no longer as strong. Also it would be pretty damn hard for Germany to invade. Battle of Britain crushed their air assault, you think they could get here with their navy? Britain and the sea is like cheese and biscuits ;)

You have a few problems here.

1. US did do total war on Germany. As did Britain.
2. US was doing total war on Japan too but that's a seperate theater
3. Russia lost more men and equipment than the US, Canada, and Britain combined.

You are right about the Battle of Britain but also, the RAF got very lucky when Hitler let up on assaulting it. If he hadn't, the RAF would've been totally destroyed. As for the Navy, life is full of surprises. It doesn't take a powerful navy to defeat another one. A smaller, more manueverable navy can defeat a larger more powerful navy. An expample of this is the Spanish Armada that was destroyed by a smaller, nimbler English fleet.

Okay lets assume its sometime in the future: The E.U. is an organized soveriegn nation, led by some guy names adanac. Britain, US, and canada formed a new nation called the United States of Britain (or something along those lines), lets also assume E.U. and U.S.B. are at war for some reason.

Who would win? Why?




(please take this lightly as it was posted lightly)

Based on performance in the Balkans, the EU would be in serious trouble without Tommy Atkins or Joe Yank on their side. Militarily, Canada's a non-starter and would sit out the war, criticizing the Yanks and the Brits for being too brutal, while selling them ammo and LAV-parts.

The British being deeply affiliated with the U.S. in direct conflict with mainland Europe would be a disaster for the EU from a military standpoint. Britain actually Trains its soldiers, and they aren't trained to hand their weapons and bodyarmour to Serb Bandits at an improvised checkpoint/ambush/armed robbery. Unless the rest of Europe could get the Finns to take a side (their side), and start reproducing like crazy, the combination of a british "Edge" and the attrition-weight of the American "Spear Shaft" means big problems for Continental European armies more focused on being politically and socially "acceptable" rather than "Combat Efficient."

The Germans and French both lack effective force-projection capability, and the former-Soviets' tech is lagging in key areas, making it vulnerable , and both Primary Armies lack in key areas of aggression and combat-discipline.

Europe is also critically weak from the sea-side, and lacks efficient naval coverage...and there's the whole Language problem. While most Europeans are multilingual, in combat, a common language is a strong bonus in communications and coordination, and it's doubtful with over a hundered languages that an EU force is going to know all of them. England and the U.S. use different slang, and have different accents, but the differences are slight-a Yorkshireman will generally be able to understand a South Texan over dodgy radios better than a Pole will understand a Portugese.

The second thing, is that the Americans are real Bastards in a fight, as are the British. Neither fight "Queensbury" rules when it comes to warfare, and they're better at being assholes. Maybe it's all that repressed anger...

An expample of this is the Spanish Armada that was destroyed by a smaller, nimbler English fleet.

With a good dose of stroms softening the spaniards up

We shall never bow before the queen again. We will fight the monarchy if you tried that. Anyway, the US is stronger than Britain anyway so we should be taking you under our wings like an offspring does for their older parents :D

We'll gove you old, you young whipper snappers!! Come back here and we'll show you what for.

And besides, if GWB can rig an election I'm sure we can find someone who can rig all the elections so your entire Congress is monarchist.

You have a few problems here.

1. US did do total war on Germany. As did Britain.
2. US was doing total war on Japan too but that's a seperate theater
3. Russia lost more men and equipment than the US, Canada, and Britain combined.

You are right about the Battle of Britain but also, the RAF got very lucky when Hitler let up on assaulting it. If he hadn't, the RAF would've been totally destroyed. As for the Navy, life is full of surprises. It doesn't take a powerful navy to defeat another one. A smaller, more manueverable navy can defeat a larger more powerful navy. An expample of this is the Spanish Armada that was destroyed by a smaller, nimbler English fleet.

The English fleet in that situation was handled by better sailors than the Spanish Armada, and the Brit ships were designed with fighting-as-primary, where the Spanish ships were Galleons, basically armed freighters with manueverability to match.
A modern-context version would be trying to take B-24's into a dogfight with P-51's or Spitfires... minus escorts.

You have a few problems here.

1. US did do total war on Germany. As did Britain.
I know Britain did but I dont think the US did. Total War is the use of conscripted soldiers and not just the army.

2. US was doing total war on Japan too but that's a seperate theater
3. Russia lost more men and equipment than the US, Canada, and Britain combined.

Thats because Russia got destroyed before they had a lucky break. When they were winning they lost barely anything and gained loads. They lost men and equipment because they were crap and because Stalin burned everything as they retreated.

You are right about the Battle of Britain but also, the RAF got very lucky when Hitler let up on assaulting it. If he hadn't, the RAF would've been totally destroyed. As for the Navy, life is full of surprises. It doesn't take a powerful navy to defeat another one. A smaller, more manueverable navy can defeat a larger more powerful navy. An expample of this is the Spanish Armada that was destroyed by a smaller, nimbler English fleet.
Yeah, but as I say, us English have always been good at naval battle. The Germans didnt have as good a navy in any terms

We'll gove you old, you young whipper snappers!! Come back here and we'll show you what for.

Why? We're finally independent of you mother. We no longer live under your roof so we won't play by your rules :D

And besides, if GWB can rig an election I'm sure we can find someone who can rig all the elections so your entire Congress is monarchist.

:rolleyes: I'm not even going to tackle this line.

With the UK on its side, America gets a nice unsinkable aircraft carrier from which to rain death down upon the Frogs and Huns, and we get a repeat of the Normandy invasion all over again; Yanks get Omaha and Utah back, Brits get their Sword and Gold and the Canucks can have Juno (or did I mess up the British/Canadia beachs?)

The English fleet in that situation was handled by better sailors than the Spanish Armada, and the Brit ships were designed with fighting-as-primary, where the Spanish ships were Galleons, basically armed freighters with manueverability to match.
A modern-context version would be trying to take B-24's into a dogfight with P-51's or Spitfires... minus escorts.

Good point.

With the UK on its side, America gets a nice unsinkable aircraft carrier from which to rain death down upon the Frogs and Huns, and we get a repeat of the Normandy invasion all over again; Yanks get Omaha and Utah back, Brits get their Sword and Gold and the Canucks can have Juno (or did I mess up the British/Canadia beachs?)

I don't know, could you find the facts in all the racism?

I don't know, could you find the facts in all the racism?

What was racist about it?

The French were called frogs and Germans were called huns back then :rolleyes:

What was racist about it?

The French were called frogs and Germans were called huns back then :rolleyes:

We aren't back then, though, are we?

We aren't back then, though, are we?

HEHE! Someone here doesn't understand the word slang unfortunately.

I don't know, could you find the facts in all the racism?
How could it be racism if the hate was applied to everyone equally? :D (although I admit, I didn't call the British Limeys, I'll be sure to correct that mistake in the future ;) )

How could it be racism if the hate was applied to everyone equally? :D (although I admit, I didn't call the British Limeys, I'll be sure to correct that mistake in the future ;) )

You're still racist. Bad racist. :)

How could it be racism if the hate was applied to everyone equally? :D (although I admit, I didn't call the British Limeys, I'll be sure to correct that mistake in the future ;) )

France=Frogs
Germans=Huns
Americans=Yanks
British=Limeys
Japanese=Japs
Chinese=Chink

Amazing what you can learn when people actually study history. Gotta love slang words. :D

Dont forget the rooskies/reds/commies/drunks...sorry lol

Dont forget the rooskies/reds/commies/drunks...sorry lol

Or to call it by their originial name: Moscovites.

Ooh, never heard that one before. I like it. I also like Russians, they are so cool. Wasted on vodka half the time, they are all rock hard and they invented the craziest form of government next to anarchy. Am I submitting to stereotype? Nah...im sure they are all like that :D

Ooh, never heard that one before. I like it. I also like Russians, they are so cool. Wasted on vodka half the time, they are all rock hard and they invented the craziest form of government next to anarchy. Am I submitting to stereotype? Nah...im sure they are all like that :D

I never heard of it either till I watch a documentary of Imperial Russia upto its collapse during the 1st Revolution in Feburary 1917 and then the complete collapse of the government and the reds took over during the Communist Uprising in October 1917! :D

God I love history!

I never heard of it either till I watch a documentary of Imperial Russia upto its collapse during the 1st Revolution in Feburary 1917 and then the complete collapse of the government and the reds took over during the Communist Uprising in October 1917! :D

God I love history!

Yeah commie history is really cool. Im going to uni to study history in september, a good bit of communism will be worthwhile

Yeah commie history is really cool. Im going to uni to study history in september, a good bit of communism will be worthwhile

I myself am majoring in Both Political Science and History. If you need help in something, look me up. You can reach me at the ims under my name :)

First of all, why isn't Canada mentioned in the name? Why do people always want us on their team, but never include us in their plans :mad:

Anywho, if the EU was their own nation, they would get slaughtered, because they would be trying to negotiate the whole time we at war, and we would keep blowing them up.


dude, no one likes canada. Its just a fact.

I myself am majoring in Both Political Science and History. If you need help in something, look me up. You can reach me at the ims under my name :)

So I can, several of them. Whats political science exactly?

*Sorry to all those probably getting distinctly annoyed by the subject change*

So I can, several of them. Whats political science exactly?

*Sorry to all those probably getting distinctly annoyed by the subject change*

Study of Politics or Government if you prefer.

dude, no one likes canada. Its just a fact.

What? How can you hate canada? they are like the coolest nation in north america, They have the american culture but their lay back about it! they are up there just being cool and helping us out.... And canada, if it ever wants too, could have a very strong military... like us....


Anyway...

Study of Politics or Government if you prefer.

Ah I see, I think we just call that politics here. I might do some politics in uni as I think I have to do some units of another course. They havent been very clear on that though.

What? How can you hate canada? they are like the coolest nation in north america, They have the american culture but their lay back about it! they are up there just being cool and helping us out.... And canada, if it ever wants too, could have a very strong military... like us....


Anyway...


sorry that was my inner Cartman from SOuth Park speaking. I do think canadians have it going on, except its too cold up there, and some of them speak french.

Ah I see, I think we just call that politics here. I might do some politics in uni as I think I have to do some units of another course. They havent been very clear on that though.

You still can contact me anytime :)

Anyway, Canada sucks because they don't have a military and no one else likes hockey the way they do.

So does anyone think it is viable that Britain, the US, and Canada(perhapes australia) can form a super nation?

So does anyone think it is viable that Britain, the US, and Canada(perhapes australia) can form a super nation?

I think its viable TheEvilMass.

sorry that was my inner Cartman from SOuth Park speaking. I do think canadians have it going on, except its too cold up there, and some of them speak french.

Terrible, what do they want to go and do that for lol
Sorry to anyone who that offends, but I am English which means I have a national duty to dislike the French and their language.

You still can contact me anytime :)

Anyway, Canada sucks because they don't have a military and no one else likes hockey the way they do.

A. they do have a military, they are part of NATO
B. Hockey is cool, way better than soccer(I know sacreledge)
c. their just like us but colder

Okay what If the arab countries, and russia join the E.U. would it make it anymore balanced?

So does anyone think it is viable that Britain, the US, and Canada(perhapes australia) can form a super nation?

Well circumstances might have to change. I dont want Britain to be anything but Britain. I do reckon Brits would have a problem with any such thing, we dont want Europe taking us over v much, i doubt it would be different for anyone else

A. they do have a military, they are part of NATO

I know they are part of NATO. However, look at the state of repair their military is in. Its going to take more than 15 billion to spruce it up.

B. Hockey is cool, way better than soccer(I know sacreledge)

You'll get no arguement with this line. Though I'll take the NFL over Hockey any day.

c. their just like us but colder

You know how weird that sounds? LOL! To bad they don't engage in the proper exercise ;)

So does anyone think it is viable that Britain, the US, and Canada(perhapes australia) can form a super nation?

thats a laugh. I believe maybe US and britian, but come on, Aussies? No one like those damn kangaroos. They can go hang with the canadians, and be cold. And maybe learn some french while their at it.

Okay what If the arab countries, and russia join the E.U. would it make it anymore balanced?

No. It'll just make our victory that much more sweeter :D

thats a laugh. I believe maybe US and britian, but come on, Aussies? No one like those damn kangaroos. They can go hang with the canadians, and be cold. And maybe learn some french while their at it.

See thats what I don't get from what I understand:

Austrilia is more Like the US
Canada is a mix between US and Britain
and Britain well their british they can't be helped....

so why do brits hate aussies?

No. It'll just make our victory that much more sweeter :D


that was cold.


but hilharious.

See thats what I don't get from what I understand:

Austrilia is more Like the US
Canada is a mix between US and Britain
and Britain well their british they can't be helped....

so why do brits hate aussies?

We dont hate aussies, I think they are cool. They have the right idea, lie back with a cool drink except when forced to vote lol.
And dont forget we owned you so stop dissing the Brits! We made you...and we can destroy you!!!!:upyours:
Oh crap, no we cant...oh well

See thats what I don't get from what I understand:

Austrilia is more Like the US
Canada is a mix between US and Britain
and Britain well their british they can't be helped....

so why do brits hate aussies?

.See thats what I don't get from what I understand from your statement:

1.Austrilia is more Like the US

NO they arent. US is a giant superpower and Australia is the smallest continent which has like 5 million people total. Not to say they dont have hot models and such, but so do we.


Canada is a mix between the US and britian.
2.No canadians are french.



3.and Britain well their british they can't be helped....
so why do brits hate aussies?


Im an american. Americans can hate Aussie's too.

And dont forget we owned you so stop dissing the Brits! We made you...and we can destroy you!!!!:upyours:
Oh crap, no we cant...oh well
Owned Past Tense sorry, if anything we can colonize you if we wanted but why brits are cool, and i didn't mean to insult brits I just meant you guys are in your own categorie like the US...... We Must join forces before France and Germany mess up the world more than they have already...

Owned Past Tense sorry, if anything we can colonize you if we wanted but why brits are cool, and i didn't mean to insult brits I just meant you guys are in your own categorie like the US...... We Must join forces before France and Germany mess up the world more than they have already...


France. Singular.

Germans have cool music and there language rocks. And who else would keep beer companies in business(besides americans)

France. Singular.

Germans have cool music and there language rocks.


SACRELEDGE!!!!!!!! :headbang:

Owned Past Tense sorry, if anything we can colonize you if we wanted but why brits are cool, and i didn't mean to insult brits I just meant you guys are in your own categorie like the US...... We Must join forces before France and Germany mess up the world more than they have already...

I dont mind Germany, but France? Yeah bomb them. Take a letter and post it to Bush please...your post is cheaper.

Dear Mr President
Despite the fact Britain doesnt like you, we would like you to blow up France. Push the red button please.

Yours Sincerely
Er...Tony Blair

He will have to believe that!

You guys are fags.


hey buddy, you might wanna change your sn before you call someone a fag.

I dont mind Germany, but France? Yeah bomb them. Take a letter and post it to Bush please...your post is cheaper.

Dear Mr President
Despite the fact Britain doesnt like you, we would like you to blow up France. Push the red button please.

Yours Sincerely
Er...Tony Blair

He will have to believe that!





Amen.

You guys are fags.

Dear god ive lost my will to live from that insult. Nice debate point though, Im glad you did it for the good of the thread

SACRELEDGE!!!!!!!! :headbang:

Nothing wrong with German music lol
Beatsteaks are cool...but they sing in English...good for them

well i listen to rap and germans can't rap, from my expeirence

well i listen to rap and germans can't rap, from my expeirence

Haha, I have doubts as to whether they can. However they do have the benefit of the fact you can say anything in German and sound angry

Never can Canada join with the United States for one reason alone:

They suck at baseball!

The Expos had to have been the worst team and no one came to their home games. Once Washington got their hands on them the Nationals rocked.

That and it's cold.

well i listen to rap and germans can't rap, from my expeirence

I don't like rap. It isn't even music to me.

Germany has a cool National Anthem though :D

so does alaska and think of it, an unlimited supply of maple syrup!

Haha, I have doubts as to whether they can. However they do have the benefit of the fact you can say anything in German and sound angry


I agree 100%!

I think my Latin teacher (who also spoke/taught German) said something that the Germans had really good rap, but I can't recall. Either way, a German either sounds like he's trying too hard to be you're friend or that he thinks you killed his mother.

I agree 100%!

I think my Latin teacher (who also spoke/taught German) said something that the Germans had really good rap, but I can't recall. Either way, a German either sounds like he's trying too hard to be you're friend or that he thinks you killed his mother.

Quite...I found a lovely example....

:mad: Ich bin eine glückliche Katze! :mad:

Doesnt it sound delightfully evil?

I agree 100%!

I think my Latin teacher (who also spoke/taught German) said something that the Germans had really good rap, but I can't recall. Either way, a German either sounds like he's trying too hard to be you're friend or that he thinks you killed his mother.

hello my name is Sven and YOU KILLED MY FRERE! I WILL DESTROY YOU WITH MY BLITZKREIG! But i still want to be great friends after!

yes....

hello my name is Sven and YOU KILLED MY FRERE! I WILL DESTROY YOU WITH MY BLITZKREIG! But i still want to be great friends after!

Thats...not German... :confused:

Thats...not German... :confused:
okay here it is

Hallo ist mein Name Sven und SIE HABEN GETÖTET MEIN FRERE! Ich WERDE SIE MIT MEINEM BLITZKREIG ZERSTÖREN! Aber ich will noch große Freunde nach sein!

yeah thats bad..

Hallo ist mein Name Sven und Sie haben getötet meine Mutter. Ich werde Sie schrecklich zerstören aber ich hoffe, dass wir noch Freunde sein können.

what my grammar was bad huh?

yeah i know im actually fluent in German. I simply make fun of it.

Yeah, I'd be terrified of a german who told me he wanted to be my friend by the looks of it lol. So the clear message here is never befriend a German...isnt it?

Yeah, I'd be terrified of a german who told me he wanted to be my friend by the looks of it lol. So the clear message here is never befriend a German...isnt it?
no its just that they are an angry people...

Deshalb HA! Um die Wörter von Monty Riesenschlange zu nehmen, "Ihre Mutter war ein hampster und Ihr Vater war ein Cheeseburger!"

nah Germans arent mad, their just drunk and crazy. My great great great grandfather was german, And i bet he was drunk and crazy as well.

no its just that they are an angry people...

Yeah, Nazism didnt come out of the blue thats for sure

Therefore HA! In order to take the words of Monty giant snake, "your mother was a hampster and your father was a Cheeseburger!"


That makes tons of sense..., oh you meant monty python..

Perhaps, but if America went into total war it would have massacred Germany, and would do more than Russia did. Plus Germany is no longer as strong. Also it would have been pretty damn hard for Germany to invade. Battle of Britain crushed their air assault, you think they could get here with their navy? Britain and the sea is like cheese and biscuits ;)

I maybe misunderstanding you, but the USA had nothing to do with the "Battle of Britain" It was Canada & Brits that fought Germany off..it happened in 1940. America didn't join WWII until 1941.

Therefore HA! In order to take the words of Monty giant snake, "your mother was a hampster and your father was a Cheeseburger!"


That makes tons of sense...

Hmm...i think you will find it means to take the words of monty python, "your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries" but there are distinct problems in writing, not just translation lol

no its just that they are an angry people...

Losing 2 world wars will do that! :D

now portuguese thats a wonderful language

O deus eu amo carne de porco, e eu quero matar a seua família e come seu deus

Man I love it..

I maybe misunderstanding you, but the USA had nothing to do with the "Battle of Britain" It was Canada & Brits that fought Germany off..it happened in 1940. America didn't join WWII until 1941.

Yes you are misunderstanding lol, i meant that the USA would crush Germany and the Battle of Britain showed Britain to be hard to invade, two seperate points

Land-Lease Act:: without it you guys wouldn't have won the battle of brittain....just a thought.

elderbarries, my bad. I can never remember that. All i have to say to you is Ni.

Land-Lease Act:: without it you guys wouldn't have won the battle of brittain....just a thought.

Canadian war factories were safe from bombing. Canada became an arsenal, and was Britain's chief overseas supplier of war materiel.

Canada did not accept American Lend-Lease aid. Actually Canada ran its own lend-lease program for its allies called "Mutual Aid.

I take it you didnt mean The god I love pig meat, and I want to kill seua family and I eat its god. Damn translator. I got deus lol. Didnt help

Canadian war factories were safe from bombing. Canada became an arsenal, and was Britain's chief overseas supplier of war materiel.

Canada did not accept American Lend-Lease aid. Actually Canada ran its own lend-lease program for its allies called "Mutual Aid.
yes but they didn't have the shipping ability at the time..... ahh who cares we won that war anyway...

elderbarries, my bad. I can never remember that. All i have to say to you is Ni.
It!
And eckyeckyeckyzapang....

yes but they didn't have the shipping ability at the time..... ahh who cares we won that war anyway...

Haha yeah, fair enough.

I take it you didnt mean The god I love pig meat, and I want to kill seua family and I eat its god. Damn translator. I got deus lol. Didnt help

Well ITs "god i love pork, and I want to kill your family and eat your god"

Well ITs "god i love pork, and I want to kill your family and eat your god"

Honestly, what is the world coming to when translators cant work out basic sentences....

And when we form our super nation we will form a new military wing called the nights who say knee and they will be the most elite group out of all...



adanac!

Honestly, what is the world coming to when translators cant work out basic sentences....
I would translate myself but I don't know enough portuguese, I can only really understand it..

Now you see if we had demanded a shrubbery from Iraq issues would have been solved! We could demand france cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring too...

Now you see if we had demanded a shrubbery from Iraq issues would have been solved! We could demand france cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring too...
well all we really needed to do is call Sadaam up and say Knee! he would fall in line!

well all we really needed to do is call Sadaam up and say Knee! he would fall in line!

We shall say ni again, if you do not appease us!

Anyway, its far too late in my part of the world, so im going to bed. Good to see we have put our differences aside :D This time last night I was laughing at what you said for different reasons lol

or we could simply lob Thy Holy Hand Grenade at him at the count of 5....er no, 3!

We shall say ni again, if you do not appease us!

Anyway, its far too late in my part of the world, so im going to bed. Good to see we have put our differences aside :D This time last night I was laughing at what you said for different reasons lol
Same here you did say some incredible stupid things, but i guess its in the eye of the beholder...

or we could simply lob Thy Holy Hand Grenade at him at the count of 5....er no, 3!
okay enough python refrences....

okay enough python refrences....

There is no such thing. In the words of whoever narrates Little Britain...goodbyebye!

Wrong. They are not the same country. Is it falming to call you a simpleton?


Only if I can return the Favor, Canada and Australia both still hold the Queen of England to be their Chief of State, They might not be directly linked but Australia and Canada are both still Commonwealths under the British crown and therefore in a technical sense, still under the sovereign conrol of Britain, just in recent times Britain has held the reigns very loosely

Only if I can return the Favor, Canada and Australia both still hold the Queen of England to be their Chief of State, They might not be directly linked but Australia and Canada are both still Commonwealths under the British crown and therefore in a technical sense, still under the sovereign conrol of Britain, just in recent times Britain has held the reigns very loosely

Sorry Sir, But I'm an american and I know more on how their political system works.. The queen of England is also the Queen of Canada, Queen of Australia, Queen of New Zealand, and so on. It doesn't mean that england controls canada though. Canada got its independence from england 1982 it is a sovergn state, you don't know what commonwealth is. They are part of the common wealth but so is india and pakistan and its more like the un than anything else, albeit their system is odd, having a head of state who is also head of state of other nations but what are you going to do? Just because you have the same leader(like if bush got elected prime minister in england LOL) doesn't mean your the same nations.

Okay what If the arab countries, and russia join the E.U. would it make it anymore balanced?russia alone can hold its ground against the CanadianAussieUnitedKingdomStates...even france alone could.

China?...It would be less of a challenge....

but Australia and England would veto any attack on china. (cos they are inside most chinese nukes range)

russia alone can hold its ground against the CanadianAussieUnitedKingdomStates...even france alone could.

China?...It would be less of a challenge....

but Australia and England would veto any attack on china. (cos they are inside most chinese nukes range)

FRANCE could hold off an attack from CAUKS(CanadianAussieUnitedKingdomStates)???? OK then, you keep thinking that. France would try to negotiate until Paris was taken, cause their army is no match against USA alone, never mind Britian.

Russia isn't part of the EU, but if they were, ya, it would be hard to attack them. They're too big and too cold.:D

okay before some moron makes another reference to the spanish armada i should tell you some interesting things about it.

1. the brits had WAY better cannons.
2. The brits TRAINED their saliors to fire the guns, the spanish didnt traint their saliors to do that.
3. The brit's guns all used the same size caliber, so precious minutes wernt wasted trying to find the right sized connon ball.
4. With the new cannons and training, the brits could fire their guns every two minutes(as opposed to the spanish's ten minutes)
5. The brits ships were faster and kick ass.
6. The brits used tactics, they went out to sea with and got behind the spainsh, their new cannons had longer range so they could fire without being fired apon.
7. The brits took old vessels and set them aflame and pointed them in the general direction of the spanish armada. hence catching a few on fire.
8. A storm badgered the spanish gallions ON THE WAY BACK, so that was why so few ships returned.


#8 im not positive on, so if someone corrects me i wont be suprised.

ANYHOO....

Now i will clear up some things about WW2 that some of you obviosly dont know....

IF britan was forced/starved out of the war that would have meant that hitler could send practially all his military units back into russia(hence...kicking russian ass) Some of you may know that he was fighting a two front war, this means that his forces were divided. Hitler kept pulling units from the east and sending them westward. Hence weaking the eastern front. The russians were 19 MILES from being defeated. I say that they would have been defeated because Stalin would have not let Moscow fall to the Jerries. Stalin would have ordered every man to stay and fight. If the germans had takin moscow, that would have meant that russia was out of the war(say bye bye to Britan!!) Another reason that Germany lost the war was Japan. Russia had been saving some of his army to fight them. Stalin had a spy in Tokyo. He was saving 40 divisions to fight them. Once he found out that Japan was going to expand away from russia, he put them into action(hence kicking German as..).


Another thing...Unlike what some of you believe, the US did not do Total War On both fronts in WW2. The US had the idea to help win the Europe front first, the Japanese second. 90 or so percent of US supplies were sent to fight in the European theater. The plan for dealing with Japan was to be on the defensive(takes alot less supplies to defend then to attack). Then after the Jerries fell, the Tojos would feal the full blunt of the giant they awoke.

*sigh*

please review your history correctly next time before you make references to it.

I'd also like to add the typical steriotypes, say....the average american is fat and stupid, may not be true. The enemy may be smarter than you think(but mabey not thinner.... :rolleyes: i hate fast food..). As always, there is a exception to this rule: the french. They're good for nothing and are a bunch of cigarette smoking panzies. and triators. and they like to bomb greenpeace.


I am not a racist.When I refer to Jerries and Tojos, I am refering to the German and Japanese troops ONLY during WW2. Thank you, peace out.

FRANCE could hold off an attack from CAUKS(CanadianAussieUnitedKingdomStates)???? OK then, you keep thinking that. France would try to negotiate until Paris was taken, cause their army is no match against USA alone, never mind Britian.Im not only thinking it...

any realistical scenario would go like this:

the minute the CanadianAussieUnitedKingdomStates military is overpowering the not-so-Big french Army...they will be called off...they will never attempt to occupy of France...and they will be very careful to avoid of making it look as if there is no hope for the French side...they will be careful of not win the war...just slap the french in international air and waters ...and thats it.

anything else would risk a long nuclear winter...

Bow before the CAUKS army!!! lol

CAUKS - roffle

okay before some moron makes another reference to the spanish armada i should tell you some interesting things about it.

I was that so called moron Hyridian. I found that to be insulting. Moron.

1. the brits had WAY better cannons.
2. The brits TRAINED their saliors to fire the guns, the spanish didnt traint their saliors to do that.
3. The brit's guns all used the same size caliber, so precious minutes wernt wasted trying to find the right sized connon ball.
4. With the new cannons and training, the brits could fire their guns every two minutes(as opposed to the spanish's ten minutes)
5. The brits ships were faster and kick ass.
6. The brits used tactics, they went out to sea with and got behind the spainsh, their new cannons had longer range so they could fire without being fired apon.
7. The brits took old vessels and set them aflame and pointed them in the general direction of the spanish armada. hence catching a few on fire.
8. A storm badgered the spanish gallions ON THE WAY BACK, so that was why so few ships returned.

Better trained, better ships. Yep, I think this was already mentioned :rolleyes:

#8 im not positive on, so if someone corrects me i wont be suprised.

Yea you are right about the storm. They got hit twice actually. They got hit on the way back too! :D

ANYHOO....

Another thing...Unlike what some of you believe, the US did not do Total War On both fronts in WW2. The US had the idea to help win the Europe front first, the Japanese second. 90 or so percent of US supplies were sent to fight in the European theater. The plan for dealing with Japan was to be on the defensive(takes alot less supplies to defend then to attack). Then after the Jerries fell, the Tojos would feal the full blunt of the giant they awoke.

Now this is utter crap! Here's a problem. We did it on both fronts. Notice that our Pacific offensive started in mid 1942! Tarawa followed by Guadalcanal. Then the island hopping campaign started. Hitler fell in 1945. A few months later, Japan fell. So much for being on the defensive till Germany fell. :rolleyes: Now think about this. We were bombing the hell out of Japan when we took Saipan. With what you might ask? B-29s. We fire bombed them to death. Then to add insult to injury, Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up in a ball of fire (literally). Don't tell me we didn't wage total war dude. We sure as hell did fight total war. You guys didn't have it half as bad as the Pacific theater. At least the Germans surrendered. Try fighting an enemy that didn't believe in surrender! You want total war? Read up on the firebombings of Japan. It made what we did to Germany pale in comparison! It was probably worse because their houses were at all that well built.

*sigh*

:mad:

please review your history correctly next time before you make references to it.

Goes for you too since you don't know that we DID WAGE TOTAL war on Japan as well as assisted in TOTAL WAR on Germany. :mad: You don't know what the hell you are talk about when you said that we didn't wage total war on either front. Go back to studying history because you obviously didn't learn a thing.

France=Frogs - Crapauds Crapaud [I]Fr. n.[I] - A Toad. The use of this word as a degradory term for a Frenchman dates back to the Napoleonic Wars.
Germans=Huns - Krauts. Perhaps this is more of a British slang. Comes from the german sauerkraut...
Americans=Yanks - Colonials. Usually only said by those people still living in the year 1900.
British=Limeys - Meh.
Japanese=Japs - Nips. With you being a Yank, I'm surprised you didn't get this one.
Chinese=Chinks
Itailians/Spanish=Dagoes/Useless Bastards - You mustn't forget them. They might argue at you, and we all know how good they are at that.

D00d.

D00d.

Now I was trying to be somewhat polite! :D

Thanks though :)

Ok heres my definition of Total War: Send every soldier in and not taking prisoner(like japan and to some extent germany during WWII) Russia went to total war in WWII, The US did not, we didn't because we restrained ourselves and we weren't desperate enough. Only time I could think of when we did? Perhapes the Civil war or the Rev war? Thats about it...

EU, they have Germany and no country stands a chance all by themselves against Germany. If America and Germany went into a 1 vs 1 war, then Germany would win. Plus they also have Russia, which is almost as good as Germany, but bigger.

Ok heres my definition of Total War: Send every soldier in and not taking prisoner(like japan and to some extent germany during WWII) Russia went to total war in WWII, The US did not, we didn't because we restrained ourselves and we weren't desperate enough. Only time I could think of when we did? Perhapes the Civil war or the Rev war? Thats about it...

Think about the bombings for a sec. If we follow that line of logic, then Britain didn't wage total war either. However, the allies did wage total war on Germany and on Japan. Total war changes with the advent of technology. Remember that in the Civil War, we didn't have planes and the cannons were pissants compared to today.

The US sure as hell waged total war on Japan. Don't start in with me on this issue. I've studied this in detail. World War Two was full scale total war. All sides commenced in it.

EU, they have Germany and no country stands a chance all by themselves against Germany. If America and Germany went into a 1 vs 1 war, then Germany would win. Plus they also have Russia, which is almost as good as Germany, but bigger.

Germany would roll over and die if it went toe to toe with the US. There is no way Germany can beat the US in a 1 on 1 fight.

Think about the bombings for a sec. If we follow that line of logic, then Britain didn't wage total war either. However, the allies did wage total war on Germany and on Japan. Total war changes with the advent of technology. Remember that in the Civil War, we didn't have planes and the cannons were pissants compared to today.

The US sure as hell waged total war on Japan. Don't start in with me on this issue. I've studied this in detail. World War Two was full scale total war. All sides commenced in it.

Why are you getting angry, I brought up my definition and it didn't match, you definition does, give me your definition on WWII and convince me there is no need to get angry....

Germany would roll over and die if it went toe to toe with the US. There is no way Germany can beat the US in a 1 on 1 fight.
too true

Germany would roll over and die if it went toe to toe with the US. There is no way Germany can beat the US in a 1 on 1 fight.

Sure...

Germany: Superior tanks, tatics, commanders, airforce, subermarines
US: Nothing on Germany, except Nuclear warheads, but no one wants a war with Germany, and Russia against them.

EU, they have Germany and no country stands a chance all by themselves against Germany. If America and Germany went into a 1 vs 1 war, then Germany would win. Plus they also have Russia, which is almost as good as Germany, but bigger.
that was true in WWII

today...germany does not have nukes...

that was true in WWII

today...germany does not have nukes...

Sure have America A bomb Germany. Oops that goes against there own laws, and international "laws" of war. Russia would retaliate if the fallout hits them (which it probably would), mean while France might actually fight America. Germany is probably building a bomb right now that would make the Hydrogen bomb obsolete. Besides with todays tech, Germany could build a nuke in several days.

that was true in WWII

today...germany does not have nukes...

Yes some people seem to think its 1940... okay in 1940 germany did have us in some areas but we also had a larger manufacturing force/support then they did(like russia but more organized and more effiecient)... we won WWII by the way and now germany's army isn't all that strong, they could probably beat france again and probably keep a nice long defensive war but thats about it...

Why are you getting angry, I brought up my definition and it didn't match, you definition does, give me your definition on WWII and convince me there is no need to get angry....

Wide spread devestation. Yes the Civil War was basic total war. I won't dispute that. That is an accurate statement.

World War II was total war too. Whole towns were leveled by cannons and bombs. Nobody was untouched (save Canada but then there's nothing to hit in Canada). Whole towns were bombed to the stoneage during the war. Some of them two or three times over. London had a total air assault done on it. Berlin got slammed from the air then by the Soviets on the ground. The German Troops were getting over runned by allied forces. Soldiers were tossed into the fight my friend. Ask a WWII vet if what they did was total war or not.

As for the Pacific, that was about as total as you can get. The Japanese didn't surrender. We literally fought for every inch of territory we took from those people. Whole towns on Japan itself were firebombed. Tokyo, Yokohama, and other cities were not spared. Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up in nuclear fire.

I'm sorry that I'm getting mad over this but the record needed to be set straight from those that really are ignorant about history.

Sure...

Germany: Superior tanks, tatics, commanders, airforce, subermarines

US: stealth Aircraft, much better tanks, and the world's number 1 airforce

US: Nothing on Germany, except Nuclear warheads, but no one wants a war with Germany, and Russia against them.

:rolleyes: Obviously your German?

Sure...

Germany: Superior tanks, tatics, commanders, airforce, subermarines
US: Nothing on Germany, except Nuclear warheads, but no one wants a war with Germany, and Russia against them.

Total Bullshit. The LeoII and M1A2 are practically the same except for some minor differences, but the Americans have more of them and a much better c&c and logistical know-how. The US Army and Air Force are larger then their German counterparts, and the USN makes the German navy look like a a bunch of children's toy boats. The US armed forces also have a hell of a lot more experience then Germany does at actually fighting someone and any way between the two would be a total disaster for Deutschland.

Sure have America A bomb Germany. Oops that goes against there own laws, and international "laws" of war. Russia would retaliate if the fallout hits them (which it probably would), mean while France might actually fight America. Germany is probably building a bomb right now that would make the Hydrogen bomb obsolete. Besides with todays tech, Germany could build a nuke in several days.

Someone here probably doesn't know that the US is spying?

Jibea, the US has the worlds best army and navy and Airforce. It won't take long to establish air superiority and it won't take long to establish a beach head. We don't need to cut across France to take them out. The US will take Germany in less time than it did to take Paris and less than it took the US to take Baghdad.

The industrial force of Europe far overpowers that of the United States and Britain. They also have an entire multi-continental landmass to invade with a land-based army, logistically, The United States of (it should be English peoples) is fucked.

Sure have America A bomb Germany. Oops that goes against there own laws, and international "laws" of war. Russia would retaliate if the fallout hits them (which it probably would), mean while France might actually fight America. Germany is probably building a bomb right now that would make the Hydrogen bomb obsolete. Besides with todays tech, Germany could build a nuke in several days.

OKay its not the cold war either... East germany had a bomb program but droped it due to Soviet pressure, A-bombs aren't hard to make... Hydrogen bombs arer already obsolete... and if we ever went to war with germany, even if they pull out a hidden supply of nukes, how are they doing to deliver it? ICBM's are very very hard to make... also even if they did, we got them already... All we need to do is take 2 minutes reprogram them and them push the big red button, and what is russia going to do lauch their one working ICBM at us? their missle force is in such disrepair even if they wanted to attack us, we would take them out first. Also why would russia nuke us over germany... and france fighting the US yeah that will last no longer than about a week....

The industrial force of Europe far overpowers that of the United States and Britain. They also have an entire multi-continental landmass to invade with a land-based army, logistically, The United States of (it should be English peoples) is fucked.

Its one thing to have an industrial base (and the US has a great one) but its another to actually have a military! The US can take down any one of those EU nations in nothing flat. Couple that with British Forces, and the EU is screwed.

Also, between them, their military might equals that of the next three powerful EU nations combined.

i have to go with Jibea. Europe would win against USA at this point with Bush sending more and more of the military to Iraq and the 500 bill defecit increasing. take in the fact that China is industrializing rapidly and will probably aid the EU against USA.

US: stealth Aircraft, much better tanks, and the world's number 1 airforce



:rolleyes: Obviously your German?

Its you're. How does everyone figure those out. Damn my biases.

Stealth tech is useless in the day.
Stealth was invented in Germany during WW2
America doesnt have too good of a protection against a foreign invasion
I dont feel like thinking any more, but one last thing
America tends to neglect the usefulness of snipers after all the wars starting after WW1.

If Germany made the first automatic weapon, and had the blue prints for a nuke (before it was sabotaged all those times) before America, and better scientists, then what should they have now, or what are they capable of making now?

BTW: Russia lost far more troops than the rest of the allies did while fighting the Germans.

Russia lost more troops because of there poor training. There bad equipment (pre-T34(Which uses American invented tracks)). There shoddy tactics. Russia would have been slaughtered if it wasnt for the US and the UK. The Japs didnt invade because of the US keeping them occupied. If the Japs were not occupied in the Pacific Stalin could not have moved up fresh troops from Siberia. Moscow and the rest of Russia would have been mowed over.

The United States of English Peoples would be screwed in that they don't have access to nearly the same amounts of raw natural resources, and with the EU shutting down shipping of their superior quality steel along with most of the world's oil and gas resources (invading the middle east is the first thing that would happen) The United States of English Peoples could only win by going nuclear, and the mutually assured destruction would mean that everybody lost. The English would lose, flat out.

Its you're. How does everyone figure those out. Damn my biases.

Stealth tech is useless in the day.
Stealth was invented in Germany during WW2
America doesnt have too good of a protection against a foreign invasion
I dont feel like thinking any more, but one last thing
America tends to neglect the usefulness of snipers after all the wars starting after WW1.

If Germany made the first automatic weapon, and had the blue prints for a nuke (before it was sabotaged all those times) before America, and better scientists, then what should they have now, or what are they capable of making now?

AGAIN its not 1940 get it!

Its you're. How does everyone figure those out. Damn my biases.

I never would've guessed you were biased. As to how we figured it out, anyone with a comp can check it out.

Stealth tech is useless in the day.

BS

Stealth was invented in Germany during WW2

HAHA! This is rich. They developed the Jet and the ICBM (in reality that is what it was) but Stealth? IF you want to get technical, it was the British but that is a different issue.

America doesnt have too good of a protection against a foreign invasion

Wanna test that theory?

I dont feel like thinking any more, but one last thing
America tends to neglect the usefulness of snipers after all the wars starting after WW1.

Again wanna test that theory?

If Germany made the first automatic weapon, and had the blue prints for a nuke (before it was sabotaged all those times) before America, and better scientists, then what should they have now, or what are they capable of making now?

Well if they weren't persecuting the Jews, maybe they would've had the nuke first. But since the scientists that knew how to do this fled Germany... our gain. :D

[QUOTE=Jibea]
America doesnt have too good of a protection against a foreign invasion
QUOTE]


Wrong, America has the strongest Navy on Earth as its defense. Second, the strongest Airforce. If an invasion force were to make it to American forces after that. The strongest land force would wipe them out. Lastly the people and all our assualt rifles and balls would take care of them.

Russia lost more troops because of there poor training. There bad equipment (pre-T34(Which uses American invented tracks)). There shoddy tactics. Russia would have been slaughtered if it wasnt for the US and the UK. The Japs didnt invade because of the US keeping them occupied. If the Japs were not occupied in the Pacific Stalin could not have moved up fresh troops from Siberia. Moscow and the rest of Russia would have been mowed over.

You are absolutely correct Marrakech II. Sometimes I just get caught up that some of the simplist details escape me. Thanks though :)

Terrible, what do they want to go and do that for lol
Sorry to anyone who that offends, but I am English which means I have a national duty to dislike the French and their language.

Believe me, we understand!

The United States of English Peoples would be screwed in that they don't have access to nearly the same amounts of raw natural resources, and with the EU shutting down shipping of their superior quality steel along with most of the world's oil and gas resources (invading the middle east is the first thing that would happen) The United States of English Peoples could only win by going nuclear, and the mutually assured destruction would mean that everybody lost. The English would lose, flat out.
A.

A. Canada alone has more raw materials than all of europe(go)
B. How would you shut down shipping, US and British navies combined would be a force to end all forces, if anything we would shutt you down
c. Also EU doesn't have that many nukes so it wouldn't be MAD all you would do is take out a couple cities, if your lucky...
D. our land forces would take yours out easily, better trained and higher numbers...

AGAIN its not 1940 get it!

So...

Now everyone spies (mister/misses/miss US is spying).
If Germany actually went to war, it could easily build a good army quickly, build all the weapons to their hearts content, use the secret red button inside the donut shop, and the war would be over. The US is already to preoccupied with other affairs, they have a deficit. Germany has the second largest economy.

[QUOTE=Jibea]
America doesnt have too good of a protection against a foreign invasion
/QUOTE]


Wrong, America has the strongest Navy on Earth as its defense. Second, the strongest Airforce. If an invasion force were to make it to American forces after that. The strongest land force would wipe them out. Lastly the people and all our assualt rifles and balls would take care of them.

doubt it. as i said before

i have to go with Jibea. Europe would win against USA at this point with Bush sending more and more of the military to Iraq and the 500 bill defecit increasing. take in the fact that China is industrializing rapidly and will probably aid the EU against USA.

[QUOTE=Jibea]
America doesnt have too good of a protection against a foreign invasion
QUOTE]


Wrong, America has the strongest Navy on Earth as its defense. Second, the strongest Airforce. If an invasion force were to make it to American forces after that. The strongest land force would wipe them out. Lastly the people and all our assualt rifles and balls would take care of them.

I love it how people exclude our population. Oh don't bother hitting the South, they'll just shoot you first then take you into custody. You can have the Northeast though and California. They're your cup of tea anyway. :D

Russia lost more troops because of there poor training. There bad equipment (pre-T34(Which uses American invented tracks)). There shoddy tactics. Russia would have been slaughtered if it wasnt for the US and the UK. The Japs didnt invade because of the US keeping them occupied. If the Japs were not occupied in the Pacific Stalin could not have moved up fresh troops from Siberia. Moscow and the rest of Russia would have been mowed over.

The Japs didn't want to invade because they were scared shitless of the Russian Army and what it had done to them after a few "border disputes". Hitler had hoped the Japs would declare war on Russia when he did so against the US, but we all know how that turned out ;)

Its one thing to have an industrial base (and the US has a great one) but its another to actually have a military! The US can take down any one of those EU nations in nothing flat. Couple that with British Forces, and the EU is screwed.

Also, between them, their military might equals that of the next three powerful EU nations combined.


Mobilization is the key here, and with the industrial force of Europe, full mobilization could be accomplished within six months, so if you think the US military could invade and contain the ENTIRE continent of Europe in only six months, with many more millions of citizens, then by all means, make that argument Corneliu.

And you forget that oil is a major constraint on the US. With the EU effectively controlling the Middle East (which would happen within the first few months of the war) the American war machine would effectively collapse, because, frankly, we don't have the resources necessary to keep our military machine working, as well as our home industrial front and our citizens. Resources are the biggest constraint in this war, and the EU has them while we don't.

So...

Now everyone spies (mister/misses/miss US is spying).
If Germany actually went to war, it could easily build a good army quickly, build all the weapons to their hearts content, use the secret red button inside the donut shop, and the war would be over. The US is already to preoccupied with other affairs, they have a deficit. Germany has the second largest economy.

And if you press that red button, we have things called satellites that'll detect those launches. Care to find out what happens to Berlin, Nuremburg, Hamburg and other German Cities?

So...

Now everyone spies (mister/misses/miss US is spying).
If Germany actually went to war, it could easily build a good army quickly, build all the weapons to their hearts content, use the secret red button inside the donut shop, and the war would be over. The US is already to preoccupied with other affairs, they have a deficit. Germany has the second largest economy.

and why your making that button our button is already done and guess what our president doesn't think things out so guess what will happen?

Mobilization is the key here, and with the industrial force of Europe, full mobilization could be accomplished within six months, so if you think the US military could invade and contain the ENTIRE continent of Europe in only six months, with many more millions of citizens, then by all means, make that argument Corneliu.

And you forget that oil is a major constraint on the US. With the EU effectively controlling the Middle East (which would happen within the first few months of the war) the American war machine would effectively collapse, because, frankly, we don't have the resources necessary to keep our military machine working, as well as our home industrial front and our citizens. Resources are the biggest constraint in this war, and the EU has them while we don't.

fully agreed.



And if you press that red button, we have things called satellites that'll detect those launches. Care to find out what happens to Berlin, Nuremburg, Hamburg and other German Cities?

LOL. those "great satellites" did not detect 9/11 because those hijackers were concealed in a plane. just hijack a plane, load the nukes and your virtually undetectable. also every heard of "submarines"??

HAHA! This is rich. They developed the Jet and the ICBM (in reality that is what it was) but Stealth? IF you want to get technical, it was the British but that is a different issue.


The stealth bomber was orginally invented in the latter years of WW2. It flew for several minutes until its odd single winged deseigned caused it to kindof crash. They had two models. The US just put in comps that would make the thing kindof not get set off balance.

There was another desiegn that was more complicated and desiegned by an Austrian. Adolf didnt like the Austrian so they didnt even test it.

Well anyway it was a really big aircraft that went really fast, and was well above radar, but it required several V2 rocket boosters to start to fly.

Mobilization is the key here, and with the industrial force of Europe, full mobilization could be accomplished within six months, so if you think the US military could invade and contain the ENTIRE continent of Europe in only six months, with many more millions of citizens, then by all means, make that argument Corneliu.

Technology my friend. We are already on a war footing and we have the best airlifting capacity this world has ever seen. Our navy is better than whatever Europe has to offer, save perhaps Britain. Our technology is also better than Europes. Not to mention we know the weaknesses of most of the equipment you use because we gave it to you. :rolleyes:

And you forget that oil is a major constraint on the US. With the EU effectively controlling the Middle East (which would happen within the first few months of the war) the American war machine would effectively collapse, because, frankly, we don't have the resources necessary to keep our military machine working, as well as our home industrial front and our citizens. Resources are the biggest constraint in this war, and the EU has them while we don't.

AHH but you forgot that we already have troops in the Middle East so how do you propose to get passed our soldiers there? You see, your not taking in all of the strategics here. We have the ships, the arms and the will to fight. Europe on the other hands doesn't have the ships nor the arms nor the will to fight. France will surrender fast. Holland will be easy as will Belgium. We won't bother with Denmark but attack Germany directly. I'm sure we have an invasion plan for Europe somewhere. How long did it take us to get from France into Germany in the first place? Not long at all.

Mobilization is the key here, and with the industrial force of Europe, full mobilization could be accomplished within six months, so if you think the US military could invade and contain the ENTIRE continent of Europe in only six months, with many more millions of citizens, then by all means, make that argument Corneliu.

And you forget that oil is a major constraint on the US. With the EU effectively controlling the Middle East (which would happen within the first few months of the war) the American war machine would effectively collapse, because, frankly, we don't have the resources necessary to keep our military machine working, as well as our home industrial front and our citizens. Resources are the biggest constraint in this war, and the EU has them while we don't.


You see we had a little thing called the cold war a couple years back you may have heard of it? It was known that the russians had plans to seize the oil supplies in the Mid-East so we got this thing called a stratigic reserve(30+ years I think) so Even if you could somehow get the Mid-east we would still invade you, it would fuck up our consumer market, yes but military? NO. Also you are forgetting our navies I say our, remember britain, US, canada, whatever.... we would secure the mid-east before you(not to mention we already got saudi arabia and Iraq)... also in 6 months we could take over most of your infrastructure then just starve you off...

LOL. those "great satellites" did not detect 9/11 because those hijackers were concealed in a plane. just hijack a plane, load the nukes and your virtually undetectable. also every heard of "submarines"??

Big difference between using an aircraft as a weapon and launching a missile :rolleyes: I thought you would be able to tell the difference.

and why your making that button our button is already done and guess what our president doesn't think things out so guess what will happen?

I dont think that he would make that mistake, as it would probably destroy the UN, seeing how a (one of the top 5 people) broke a major rule.

The Japs didn't want to invade because they were scared shitless of the Russian Army and what it had done to them after a few "border disputes". Hitler had hoped the Japs would declare war on Russia when he did so against the US, but we all know how that turned out ;)

Actually not true. The japanese were scared of no one. From my studies in history. I have studied WWII a great deal and can tell you that the Japanese did plan on invading Russia. It was the defeat at Midway that made the Japanese realise that they awoke a military giant in the US. The Russia plans were scrapped.

Mobilization is the key here, and with the industrial force of Europe, full mobilization could be accomplished within six months, so if you think the US military could invade and contain the ENTIRE continent of Europe in only six months, with many more millions of citizens, then by all means, make that argument Corneliu.
Do you have any evidence to back up this "mobilize in six months" bullshit? Hell, by that time the USAF would already have transfered a majority of its units to the UK and be bombing the crap out of your industry. Last time I checked neither France's nor Germany's economies were in top-notch shape.

And you forget that oil is a major constraint on the US. With the EU effectively controlling the Middle East (which would happen within the first few months of the war) the American war machine would effectively collapse, because, frankly, we don't have the resources necessary to keep our military machine working, as well as our home industrial front and our citizens. Resources are the biggest constraint in this war, and the EU has them while we don't.
US already has troops in the ME thanks to Iraq and Israel would support the Americans thanks to all the times they helped out the Jews (and thanks to the majority of Europe's anti-Semetic stance, they wouldn't mind taking on the Euros :D ). How exactly are you going to control the oil? The USN would clamp down on any shipping in the area, and I doubt the Old Man of Europe would want to get involved in a pissing match between the EU and US/UK/Canada, which means you'd have to go the long way around in order to get to the Middle-East.

You see we had a little thing called the cold war a couple years back you may have heard of it? It was known that the russians had plans to seize the oil supplies in the Mid-East so we got this thing called a stratigic reserve(30+ years I think) so Even if you could somehow get the Mid-east we would still invade you, it would fuck up our consumer market, yes but military? NO. Also you are forgetting our navies I say our, remember britain, US, canada, whatever.... we would secure the mid-east before you(not to mention we already got saudi arabia and Iraq)... also in 6 months we could take over most of your infrastructure then just starve you off...

Take it over hell, it'll be nearly destroyed by the time the bombers and missiles got done with it! :D

Actually not true. The japanese were scared of no one. From my studies in history. I have studied WWII a great deal and can tell you that the Japanese did plan on invading Russia. It was the defeat at Midway that made the Japanese realise that they awoke a military giant in the US. The Russia plans were scrapped.

Not to mention Coral Sea and the Doolittle Raid which forced Coral Sea and Midway! :D

A.

A. Canada alone has more raw materials than all of europe(go)
B. How would you shut down shipping, US and British navies combined would be a force to end all forces, if anything we would shutt you down
c. Also EU doesn't have that many nukes so it wouldn't be MAD all you would do is take out a couple cities, if your lucky...
D. our land forces would take yours out easily, better trained and higher numbers...


A. But has not constructed the infrastructure to extract those within a 20 year period
B. Eurasia is one giant landmass controlled by rail. The EU has access to all their resources while the US has to rely on shipping to extract these. Not to mention, rail can relocate troops in mass quantities within a very short time, and in order for the US to invade Europe, they would be forced to transport their forces over with their navy, which the Europeans could easily sink with a few nukes.
C. The EU has access to the nuclear weapons of Russia, particularly if Russia is invaded, and the weapons they do have are enough to effectively neuteralize the entire US, as well as nuke the whole place to kingdom come.
D. Again, transportation is a key problem when the EU can simply nuke our navy, and the US cannot invade without water-based transportation.

Logistically, the EU is still gonna win.

Technology my friend. We are already on a war footing and we have the best airlifting capacity this world has ever seen. Our navy is better than whatever Europe has to offer, save perhaps Britain. Our technology is also better than Europes. Not to mention we know the weaknesses of most of the equipment you use because we gave it to you. :rolleyes:


Trust me. the technology is Europe is wayyy more advanced. I visit Europe several times in my life and I was highly surprised at how advanced their technology actually is compared to USA. So just stop lying.


AHH but you forgot that we already have troops in the Middle East so how do you propose to get passed our soldiers there? You see, your not taking in all of the strategics here. We have the ships, the arms and the will to fight. Europe on the other hands doesn't have the ships nor the arms nor the will to fight. France will surrender fast. Holland will be easy as will Belgium. We won't bother with Denmark but attack Germany directly. I'm sure we have an invasion plan for Europe somewhere. How long did it take us to get from France into Germany in the first place? Not long at all.

If the USA were to tap into the middle easts oil freely, there would be a huge rebellion among the arabs and they would rather burn their oil fields than giving it to their enemy. also take into the fact that the troops won't be stationed there forever.

I maybe misunderstanding you, but the USA had nothing to do with the "Battle of Britain" It was Canada & Brits that fought Germany off..it happened in 1940. America didn't join WWII until 1941.

Well! It wasnt our faut. Damn liberals wouldn't let us have an army! :D

Take it over hell, it'll be nearly destroyed by the time the bombers and missiles got done with it! :D
its not in one place... you honestly think we are that dumb? we had tactions spend decades on plans for defence and long drawn out wars? what about you? How long will the E.U. last after we take away the oil?

Ok think of this realistically, either Germany or Russia would head the army. The war would allow several revolutionary groups in Iraq to respond while the US is preoccupied with the enemy forces attacking the mid east. Several other organizations would attack the US main land, while the Pacific Naval forces prove almost useless.

I dont think that he would make that mistake, as it would probably destroy the UN, seeing how a (one of the top 5 people) broke a major rule.

The UN? Please! They can't do anything. They haven't done a thing in regards to preventing anything since its inception!

A. But has not constructed the infrastructure to extract those within a 20 year period
B. Eurasia is one giant landmass controlled by rail. The EU has access to all their resources while the US has to rely on shipping to extract these. Not to mention, rail can relocate troops in mass quantities within a very short time, and in order for the US to invade Europe, they would be forced to transport their forces over with their navy, which the Europeans could easily sink with a few nukes.
C. The EU has access to the nuclear weapons of Russia, particularly if Russia is invaded, and the weapons they do have are enough to effectively neuteralize the entire US, as well as nuke the whole place to kingdom come.
D. Again, transportation is a key problem when the EU can simply nuke our navy, and the US cannot invade without water-based transportation.

Logistically, the EU is still gonna win.


Okay you solution is rail? hmm let me think of that? ever here of WWII? see they had rail too, rail is bad seeing how you can't defend it... one missle gues s what your supply line gone, and canada has a lot of infrastructure so I don't know what your talking about.. Also many of russia's ICBMs are in disrepair you would have to spend at least a year repairing them...

Trust me. the technology is Europe is wayyy more advanced. I visit Europe several times in my life and I was highly surprised at how advanced their technology actually is compared to USA. So just stop lying.
Ah yes, the Europeans are so advanced, they're like Star Trek and the US are ignorant primates :rolleyes: Care to actually provide proof for this overwhelming technological superiority, and how it would apply to the military situation?

If the USA were to tap into the middle easts oil freely, there would be a huge rebellion among the arabs and they would rather burn their oil fields than giving it to their enemy. also take into the fact that the troops won't be stationed there forever.
When US Navy ships are blockading the Arab ports and all that oil is starting to sit around the warehouses making zero money, the Middle East powers would be quick to start selling it to the Anglo-American alliance.

The UN? Please! They can't do anything. They haven't done a thing in regards to preventing anything since its inception!

According to your attitude Corneliu, you'd think the USA would win against the whole world. Everyone knows that one country can never take over the world (maybe China, 1.5 billion seems threatning :eek: )


When US Navy ships are blockading the Arab ports and all that oil is starting to sit around the warehouses making zero money, the Middle East powers would be quick to start selling it to the Anglo-American alliance.


Again, LOL. All the arabs would rather not aid their enemy's, otherwise "They would disrespect Allah".

Trust me. the technology is Europe is wayyy more advanced. I visit Europe several times in my life and I was highly surprised at how advanced their technology actually is compared to USA. So just stop lying.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! This is so rich. Please. You may have visited Europe but that doesn't make you a MILITARY EXPERT! The US has the most advanced military on this planet. That is a known fact. The US has the best Navy, Air Force, and Army in the world too. Don't ever mess with the US.

If the USA were to tap into the middle easts oil freely, there would be a huge rebellion among the arabs and they would rather burn their oil fields than giving it to their enemy. also take into the fact that the troops won't be stationed there forever.

And you still have to move troops to the area and we will deny you that oil too.

its not in one place... you honestly think we are that dumb? we had tactions spend decades on plans for defence and long drawn out wars? what about you? How long will the E.U. last after we take away the oil?

Not very long! :D

Ok think of this realistically, either Germany or Russia would head the army. The war would allow several revolutionary groups in Iraq to respond while the US is preoccupied with the enemy forces attacking the mid east. Several other organizations would attack the US main land, while the Pacific Naval forces prove almost useless.

You have to reach the US mainland first :rolleyes: Then you have to tangle with the USAF. They'll spot you even before you even cross the border/shoreline.

You see we had a little thing called the cold war a couple years back you may have heard of it? It was known that the russians had plans to seize the oil supplies in the Mid-East so we got this thing called a stratigic reserve(30+ years I think) so Even if you could somehow get the Mid-east we would still invade you, it would fuck up our consumer market, yes but military? NO. Also you are forgetting our navies I say our, remember britain, US, canada, whatever.... we would secure the mid-east before you(not to mention we already got saudi arabia and Iraq)... also in 6 months we could take over most of your infrastructure then just starve you off...


There is no "Us" and "Them" in this, I'm an American too. The US navy would get NUKED!!!! Into oblivion mind you! And Britain does not have a strong enough navy to be a threat, while Europe doesn't even need it. Conscripted European troops could easily amount to millions of mobilized soldiers. The US troops in Iraq would not be able to fight off 10-1 numbers, there is no way in hell.

Even if our military isn't a problem, the domestic front would require the war to end, just out of a lack of resources! America is still a republic, and I don't see them going through $10 gallons of gasoline very easily. Essentially, this is a war of the US against Europe (or the rest of the world), and the US couldn't win, no matter how you equate it. We would lose!

The UN? Please! They can't do anything. They haven't done a thing in regards to preventing anything since its inception!

Well for starters, it wont help the peace, tensions would lash out, more wars would start, everyone would nuke everyone, and it would be like the flash movie called the end of the world, save Australia.

For all we know, secret German forces could be building a "Death Star". Besides, the whole EU would know the US, GB, CA plans since the American media announces it.

According to your attitude Corneliu, you'd think the USA would win against the whole world. Everyone knows that one country can never take over the world (maybe China, 1.5 billion seems threatning :eek: )

Well Patton did say that the US and British are destined to rule the world :D

doesn't anyone notice that corneliu is being outnumbered and she is just repeating the same things over and over?? :D


Well Patton did say that the US and British are destined to rule the world


everyone has this phase when they think they are invincible and they are of course, always not (Take 9/11 for example)

Ok think of this realistically, either Germany or Russia would head the army. The war would allow several revolutionary groups in Iraq to respond while the US is preoccupied with the enemy forces attacking the mid east. Several other organizations would attack the US main land, while the Pacific Naval forces prove almost useless.

The US can field an Army of 10 million in a matter of 6 months. All fitted with equipment. I think you would be suprised what kind of crap the US could pull out of that hat if needed. As far at the tech goes. US is more advanced than mainland Europe. I have travelled and lived in Europe. Can tell you from my own experience that i know this to be true.

A first strike on Europe would take out all of its power grid and water. Secondly the rail system that someone said earlier was superior. Just check with Yugoslavia how long rail lasts during an air raid. Europe would be in the dark while i sat on my American sofa eating popcorn and watching movies.

You have to reach the US mainland first :rolleyes: Then you have to tangle with the USAF. They'll spot you even before you even cross the border/shoreline.

German sabatores in WW2 were never caught. They blew up several ships that way.

If we really want to mess with this war a lot, then the Euros, would invest in CERNS or other A-matter plants nearby, and create an A-matter bomb. The US Air force already started in 2001(?) but scraped the plan.

Well for starters, it wont help the peace, tensions would lash out, more wars would start, everyone would nuke everyone, and it would be like the flash movie called the end of the world, save Australia.

There aren't that many nations with nukes. There are about 15-20 nations that have them.

For all we know, secret German forces could be building a "Death Star". Besides, the whole EU would know the US, GB, CA plans since the American media announces it.

HAHAHAHAHA!!! Now this is even funnier. Apparently someone doesn't know that the US military can pull operations off without the press knowing about it. They don't announce everything dude.

The US can field an Army of 10 million in a matter of 6 months. All fitted with equipment. I think you would be suprised what kind of crap the US could pull out of that hat if needed. As far at the tech goes. US is more advanced than mainland Europe. I have travelled and lived in Europe. Can tell you from my own experience that i know this to be true.

A first strike on Europe would take out all of its power grid and water. Secondly the rail system that someone said earlier was superior. Just check with Yugoslavia how long rail lasts during an air raid. Europe would be in the dark while i sat on my American sofa eating popcorn and watching movies.

with America's couch potatoes, they would be the one's eating popcorn and watching movies while their country is secretly in mass danger. :D


HAHAHAHAHA!!! Now this is even funnier. Apparently someone doesn't know that the US military can pull operations off without the press knowing about it. They don't announce everything dude.


again, more repeating stuff.

doesn't anyone notice that corneliu is being outnumbered and she is just repeating the same things over and over?? :D

I'm a he and a historian. Not to mention a political scientist. And I am by no means outnumbered! :D

everyone has this phase when they think they are invincible and they are of course, always not (Take 9/11 for example)

I knew we were not invincible. Hell I even stated in 1998 that the US was vulnerable to an attack. :p

You have to reach the US mainland first :rolleyes: Then you have to tangle with the USAF. They'll spot you even before you even cross the border/shoreline.

Damn I forgot this last time, oh well.

Germany in WW2 landed on LI (Gasp) and were about to build a CC (an abbreviation). They were caught then but now they could probably build a base there without anyone knowing.

German sabatores in WW2 were never caught. They blew up several ships that way.

Proof please. And yes, German Sabatores were caught.

If we really want to mess with this war a lot, then the Euros, would invest in CERNS or other A-matter plants nearby, and create an A-matter bomb. The US Air force already started in 2001(?) but scraped the plan.

We already have atomic Bombs so it'll be rather pointless to create it since we know where every nuclear reactor in europe is located.

There aren't that many nations with nukes. There are about 15-20 nations that have them.



HAHAHAHAHA!!! Now this is even funnier. Apparently someone doesn't know that the US military can pull operations off without the press knowing about it. They don't announce everything dude.

Theres only 10- I cant remember all of them but USA, Britain, France, China, India, North Korea, Pakistan, and maybe Australia. Iran is also developing a "peaceful" nuclear type program or w/e. Correct me if those are wrong.

But yeah not all U.S. military operations are revealed by the press.

Damn I forgot this last time, oh well.

Germany in WW2 landed on LI (Gasp) and were about to build a CC (an abbreviation). They were caught then but now they could probably build a base there without anyone knowing.

Proof please?

We already have atomic Bombs so it'll be rather pointless to create it since we know where every nuclear reactor in europe is located.

LOL. corneliu doesn't even know what a A-matter bomb is. :D

There aren't that many nations with nukes. There are about 15-20 nations that have them.



HAHAHAHAHA!!! Now this is even funnier. Apparently someone doesn't know that the US military can pull operations off without the press knowing about it. They don't announce everything dude.

HA HA HA HA HA. The death star was kindof a horrible joke. I got one laugh this time Ha I win. The media could follow the troops and say whatever they want, except for the chance of being shot, being in a foreign country and all.

Theres only 10- I cant remember all of them but USA, Britain, France, China, India, North Korea, Pakistan, and maybe Australia. Iran is also developing a "peaceful" nuclear type program or w/e. Correct me if those are wrong.

You also forgot to add Israel to that list. Iran is developing them as is North Korea (still unsure if they truly have one or not)

But yeah not all U.S. military operations are revealed by the press.

Thank you.

Okay you solution is rail? hmm let me think of that? ever here of WWII? see they had rail too, rail is bad seeing how you can't defend it... one missle gues s what your supply line gone, and canada has a lot of infrastructure so I don't know what your talking about.. Also many of russia's ICBMs are in disrepair you would have to spend at least a year repairing them...


Yes, actually, the solution is rail. It is faster, cheaper, and more reliable, not to mention that so many different routes exist that a few missiles are not going to disable the supply line. It is rebuilt quickly, and very easily. The US couldn't take Europe over, their naval blockade couldn't do a damn thing against a well defended rail network, that can ship oil more effectively than ships can. Even Russian ICBM's become a moot point. Nuclear submarines can deliver SRBM's from only 30 miles outside our massive troop navy, suddenly, wow! America just lost 100,000 troops to a casually placed nuke! How spiffy! See how well that would go over back home.

Canada still doesn't have enough oil to keep the domestic front in good shape, and the US doesn't have huge oil tanks storing up 30 years worth of oil. Come on.

None of you Pro-US people can win. You are fighting logic and logistical facts with 0uR M1L174RY W11L K11L J00!!!!11!1!. You can't win.

Yes, actually, the solution is rail. It is faster, cheaper, and more reliable, not to mention that so many different routes exist that a few missiles are not going to disable the supply line. It is rebuilt quickly, and very easily. The US couldn't take Europe over, their naval blockade couldn't do a damn thing against a well defended rail network, that can ship oil more effectively than ships can. Even Russian ICBM's become a moot point. Nuclear submarines can deliver SRBM's from only 30 miles outside our massive troop navy, suddenly, wow! America just lost 100,000 troops to a casually placed nuke! How spiffy! See how well that would go over back home.

Canada still doesn't have enough oil to keep the domestic front in good shape, and the US doesn't have huge oil tanks storing up 30 years worth of oil. Come on.

None of you Pro-US people can win. You are fighting logic and logistical facts with 0uR M1L174RY W11L K11L J00!!!!11!1!. You can't win.


yes. usually pro-american people like corneilus are mainly comprised of 1. hillbilly's 2. more hillbilly's and 3. even more hillbillies :D

There is no "Us" and "Them" in this, I'm an American too. The US navy would get NUKED!!!! Into oblivion mind you!
First the Euros would have to find our ships, reprogram their missiles to target those coordinates, hope the Anglo-American Alliance hasn't already destroyed those missiles in a first strike, then wait a few minutes after firing those missiles before a thousand ICBMs come raining down on their heads.

Suffice to say, no one will be going nuclear ;)

And Britain does not have a strong enough navy to be a threat, while Europe doesn't even need it.
The British Navy is numbers-wise larger then the French navy, with more experience and better training. No other Euro nation has a navy that could stand up to it.

Conscripted European troops could easily amount to millions of mobilized soldiers. The US troops in Iraq would not be able to fight off 10-1 numbers, there is no way in hell.
The Arab/Israeli wars proved that masses of poorly-trained conscripts <<<< quality-trained troops

Even if our military isn't a problem, the domestic front would require the war to end, just out of a lack of resources! America is still a republic, and I don't see them going through $10 gallons of gasoline very easily. Essentially, this is a war of the US against Europe (or the rest of the world), and the US couldn't win, no matter how you equate it. We would lose!
The EU would be just as hurt economically as the US by this war (they are both major trading partners with each other) and it would all depend on how the war was started that determins homeland support.

Ah yes, good ol' Israel. I probably wouldn't have forgotten them if they werent a country 2 feet wide lol... Of course none of the european countries are big at all. One of our beautiful nukes could easily take out several countries.. cough cough France cough cough. But in real life- the U.S. wouldn't go to war with Europe unless it had to cause were busy exterminating terrorists. As for Russia... they did great in WWII but thats only because they were "defending the motherland"

Yes, actually, the solution is rail. It is faster, cheaper, and more reliable, not to mention that so many different routes exist that a few missiles are not going to disable the supply line. It is rebuilt quickly, and very easily.

:rolleyes: Apparently you are underestimating our ability to frag a rail system.

The US couldn't take Europe over, their naval blockade couldn't do a damn thing against a well defended rail network, that can ship oil more effectively than ships can.

Not if its taken out.

Even Russian ICBM's become a moot point. Nuclear submarines can deliver SRBM's from only 30 miles outside our massive troop navy, suddenly, wow! America just lost 100,000 troops to a casually placed nuke! How spiffy! See how well that would go over back home.

You still have to get by our nuclear submarines. :rolleyes: I can't believe are this ignorant of how to fight a war. I guess people never learn lessons regarding warfare.

Canada still doesn't have enough oil to keep the domestic front in good shape, and the US doesn't have huge oil tanks storing up 30 years worth of oil. Come on.

We do have a strategic Oil reserve that we can use. We've said that before.

None of you Pro-US people can win. You are fighting logic and logistical facts with 0uR M1L174RY W11L K11L J00!!!!11!1!. You can't win.

We have the logistics and the tactics.

yes. usually pro-american people like corneilus are mainly comprised of 1. hillbilly's 2. more hillbilly's and 3. even more hillbillies :D

We might be hillbillys but that makes it even worse cause we can whoop any country out there ... "mommy, mommy, save me from the hillbillies with the strong and elite armed forces and thousands of bombs mommy it hurts :eek: "

yes. usually pro-american people like corneilus are mainly comprised of 1. hillbilly's 2. more hillbilly's and 3. even more hillbillies :D

I'm not even a hillbilly. I'm not even from the hilbilly region! :rolleyes:

To sum up this whole topic...

U.S.A. would rule
Britain would help
Canada would play hockey
France would cry to there mommy
Germany would become part of Russia
Russia would become somewhat like Canada, only with the motherland.

Technology my friend. We are already on a war footing and we have the best airlifting capacity this world has ever seen. Our navy is better than whatever Europe has to offer, save perhaps Britain. Our technology is also better than Europes. Not to mention we know the weaknesses of most of the equipment you use because we gave it to you. :rolleyes:



AHH but you forgot that we already have troops in the Middle East so how do you propose to get passed our soldiers there? You see, your not taking in all of the strategics here. We have the ships, the arms and the will to fight. Europe on the other hands doesn't have the ships nor the arms nor the will to fight. France will surrender fast. Holland will be easy as will Belgium. We won't bother with Denmark but attack Germany directly. I'm sure we have an invasion plan for Europe somewhere. How long did it take us to get from France into Germany in the first place? Not long at all.


Once again, the Navy means absolutely nothing in this war. I expect the US Navy to be nuked to oblivion within 10 days of the war's outset. The tiny number of troops currently in Iraq is only enough to maintain order. Europe could conscript and train millions of it's citizens within a few months, and deliver them all by rail to the middle east, where they will proceed to slaughter the American soldiers there. Even if our technology is better, in war, to kill, all you have to do is point a gun in the direction at your enemy, and even a hunting rifle can accomplish that.

Technology is not enough of an advantage. Stop using it as a point. And our airlifting capacity is still not enough to get millions of US troops into Europe. Nothing the US military has could counteract the superior logistical advantages of Europe's location in the world.

To sum up this whole topic...

U.S.A. would rule
Britain would help
Canada would play hockey
France would cry to there mommy
Germany would become part of Russia
Russia would become somewhat like Canada, only with the motherland.

don't believe that at all.

and i did not say that all hillbillies are pro-american. i meant "mainly comprised". there is always an exception to any rule even 1+1=2, (1=2?, experimental theory)

Yes, actually, the solution is rail. It is faster, cheaper, and more reliable, not to mention that so many different routes exist that a few missiles are not going to disable the supply line. It is rebuilt quickly, and very easily.
Oh yes, and you have such extensive knowledge about rebuilding railroads, esp. those targeted by munitions specifically designed to take them out?

Railroads are easy targets, as they arn't moving anywhere, just one cut anywhere along the line will screw up logistics, and if it's crossing over a river then you're really f*cked once the bridge goes boom.

The US couldn't take Europe over, their naval blockade couldn't do a damn thing against a well defended rail network, that can ship oil more effectively than ships can.
And you're going to do this all by railroads? And how's that? Turkey sure as hell won't let you pass through, not if they like keeping their land bomb free. Russia? Even if you do enlist their help, your rail systems are different and it would take even longer just to transfer the cargo between cars, much less go around the Black Sea and down into the ME, passing through more countries who would rather stay out of a shooting war, and are even more vulnerable to dedicated strikes.

Even Russian ICBM's become a moot point. Nuclear submarines can deliver SRBM's from only 30 miles outside our massive troop navy, suddenly, wow! America just lost 100,000 troops to a casually placed nuke! How spiffy! See how well that would go over back home.
The Anglo-American Alliance has more nukes and more ballistic subs. The first order of their attack subs will be to take out the Euro's, which shouldn't be a problem considering the small number and the superiority of Anglo-American subs.

Once again, the Navy means absolutely nothing in this war. I expect the US Navy to be nuked to oblivion within 10 days of the war's outset.

The SECOND those nukes launched, Europe would be turned to radioactive glass. That is something that you apparently haven't gotten yet. No one will risk nuclear destruction. Therefore, the nukes would actually be a non-player in all of this. :rolleyes:

The tiny number of troops currently in Iraq is only enough to maintain order. Europe could conscript and train millions of it's citizens within a few months, and deliver them all by rail to the middle east, where they will proceed to slaughter the American soldiers there. Even if our technology is better, in war, to kill, all you have to do is point a gun in the direction at your enemy, and even a hunting rifle can accomplish that.

Not if your rail network is destroyed. We can do that you know. Its not that hard. We probably have the targets all picked out too. Won't be long before you won't be able to use them do to the fact that its been bombed and it'll take time to repair. Do you know anything about military tactics at all?

Technology is not enough of an advantage.

Yes it is.

Stop using it as a point.

No.

And our airlifting capacity is still not enough to get millions of US troops into Europe. Nothing the US military has could counteract the superior logistical advantages of Europe's location in the world.

There is so much ignorance here that it makes me sad.

Wide spread devestation. Yes the Civil War was basic total war. I won't dispute that. That is an accurate statement.

World War II was total war too. Whole towns were leveled by cannons and bombs. Nobody was untouched (save Canada but then there's nothing to hit in Canada). Whole towns were bombed to the stoneage during the war. Some of them two or three times over. London had a total air assault done on it. Berlin got slammed from the air then by the Soviets on the ground. The German Troops were getting over runned by allied forces. Soldiers were tossed into the fight my friend. Ask a WWII vet if what they did was total war or not.

As for the Pacific, that was about as total as you can get. The Japanese didn't surrender. We literally fought for every inch of territory we took from those people. Whole towns on Japan itself were firebombed. Tokyo, Yokohama, and other cities were not spared. Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up in nuclear fire.

I'm sorry that I'm getting mad over this but the record needed to be set straight from those that really are ignorant about history.

Pardon my inerruption, however, the definition of total was as taught to me by my superiors (while in the military)was When civilian population centers became legitimate targets you are in a condition of total war, because you are at that point fighting for the complete elimination of an enemy as opposed to eliminating his ability to wage war. I may be wrong now, but in the mid 80's and early 90's I would be correct.

Now for the LI proof, too hard to find on the internet, but mostly everyone I know from the region knows the story.

Once again, the Navy means absolutely nothing in this war. I expect the US Navy to be nuked to oblivion within 10 days of the war's outset. The tiny number of troops currently in Iraq is only enough to maintain order. Europe could conscript and train millions of it's citizens within a few months, and deliver them all by rail to the middle east, where they will proceed to slaughter the American soldiers there. Even if our technology is better, in war, to kill, all you have to do is point a gun in the direction at your enemy, and even a hunting rifle can accomplish that.

Technology is not enough of an advantage. Stop using it as a point. And our airlifting capacity is still not enough to get millions of US troops into Europe. Nothing the US military has could counteract the superior logistical advantages of Europe's location in the world.

Fact: We have more nukes
Fact: France sucks
Fact: The only country with any chance is on our side (Britain)
Fact: You need some more patriotism for your country
Fact: An entire fleet could sail across the Atlantic in a matter of hours. I dont think you could nuke something that fast.
Fact: By the time you launched your nukes we would be destroying the shorelines of anything we opposed.
Fact: We would win! (actually more of an opinion until its proven)

Liverbreath']Pardon my inerruption, however, the definition of total was as taught to me by my superiors (while in the military)was When civilian population centers became legitimate targets you are in a condition of total war, because you are at that point fighting for the complete elimination of an enemy as opposed to eliminating his ability to wage war. I may be wrong now, but in the mid 80's and early 90's I would be correct.

I was talking world war ii. WWII was a total war. No matter how you try to spin it, you can't deny the fact that WWII was a total war. Today, weapons have become so precise that total war probably won't happen again unless World War III erupts.

Now for the LI proof, too hard to find on the internet, but mostly everyone I know from the region knows the story.

In otherwords you can't type in a simple inquiry into a search engine. Find it.

don't believe that at all.

and i did not say that all hillbillies are pro-american. i meant "mainly comprised". there is always an exception to any rule even 1+1=2, (1=2?, experimental theory)

I taught you the exception.

this is it

x=1 Given
x^2=x Multiplication by x (mult postulate)
X^2-1=x-1 Subtraction of -1 (sub postulate)
x+1=1 Division by x-1 (division postulate
1+1=1 Sub postulate
2=1 Simplification

Fact: We have more nukes
Fact: France sucks
Fact: The only country with any chance is on our side (Britain)
Fact: You need some more patriotism for your country
Fact: An entire fleet could sail across the Atlantic in a matter of hours. I dont think you could nuke something that fast.
Fact: By the time you launched your nukes we would be destroying the shorelines of anything we opposed.
Fact: We would win! (actually more of an opinion until its proven)

Only Tony Blair likes GB. Most parlimentary members and citizens do not like USA.
Plus after a certain point, more nukes becomes pointless. and Russia, Europe, and China would be victorius against USA.

Today, weapons have become so precise that total war probably won't happen again unless World War III erupts.

Scopes are a snipers best friend. :D

My definition of total war sort of resembles his though...
Total War = When citizens are considered fair game and as many buildings as possible are razed to the ground in an effort to stop war and/or take over another country/ territory.

:rolleyes: Apparently you are underestimating our ability to frag a rail system.


Hah! With the anti-air defences of the entire continent of Europe, not to mention hundreds of thousands of miles worth of the best rail line in the world (besides Japan)? Have you even been to Europe? Every city has a rail line running to it, and most have three or four all running to other cities!




You still have to get by our nuclear submarines. :rolleyes: I can't believe are this ignorant of how to fight a war. I guess people never learn lessons regarding warfare.

Submarines are a strictly offensive weapon. They can sit on the bottom of the ocean floor for two months, pop up in 5 minutes, shoot off six nukes, all of which can travel more than 500 miles, and then drop down again. Meanwhile, does our Navy have a defensive missile shield to protect it? Hell no! You are arguing without using facts, you are making statements without backing them up with any facts. If you want to have a legitimate argument, you need to use details!



Even if we do, we still have a domestic front that would require oil that would no longer be available. Military shipping across America would become impossible, not to mention our economy would stall and fail without the oil.


We have the logistics and the tactics.


No, you don't. You don't take into account any of the geographical limitations or problems associated with a war this large. You don't argue effectively.

I was talking world war ii. WWII was a total war. No matter how you try to spin it, you can't deny the fact that WWII was a total war. Today, weapons have become so precise that total war probably won't happen again unless World War III erupts.

I was agreeing with you. When the germans bombed london and the US bombed Tokyo a few weeks after Perl Harbor that constituted Total war on both fronts.

Only Tony Blair likes GB. Most parlimentary members and citizens do not like USA.
Plus after a certain point, more nukes becomes pointless. and Russia, Europe, and China would be victorius against USA.

Population density of China = 1 nuke kills approx. 100 million people at the least when placed right.

George Bush + Queen = Friends. Britain = DO NOT DIOSOBEY THE QUEEN!

No, you don't. You don't take into account any of the geographical limitations or problems associated with a war this large. You don't argue effectively.[/QUOTE]

Actually he or she does. In fact, sweeping the floor with you.

Poll results show that United States of Britain would win anyway.

And if the EU used money like the Euro or something to trade with middle eatern countries + countries not involved in the war it surely would become USELESS. British pound = worth lotta money, American dollar = worth almost as much money as the pound

Australia = probably helps both sides
Middle East = Afghanistan Iraq + Israel helps USA
Israel = Could whoop France and Russia by itself.
Why? Israel has the strongest ground forces IN THE WORLD :mp5:

I was that so called moron Hyridian. I found that to be insulting. Moron.

I'm glad you caught that.



Better trained, better ships. Yep, I think this was already mentioned :rolleyes:

Then it was a good thing you also mention the part about the cannons and the tactics involved. Nice attempt ;)



Yea you are right about the storm. They got hit twice actually. They got hit on the way back too! :D

Hey what do you know!! Its amazing what reading a history book can provide. :D


We did it on both fronts. Notice that our Pacific offensive started in mid 1942! Tarawa followed by Guadalcanal. Then the island hopping campaign started.

You see, you just proved my point. We only had limited supplies, so...we didnt go and clear off every little island in the pacific that the japs were on. The japenese established 'hard points' on all of their captured islands. Thus their forces were spread extremely thin. Their spread thin forces were still a good match for the Marines I might add(since we also had limited supplies directed toward the pacific). I'm sure you know how hard it is to take the pacific and then to protect your gains.



Goes for you too since you don't know that we DID WAGE TOTAL war on Japan as well as assisted in TOTAL WAR on Germany. :mad: You don't know what the hell you are talk about when you said that we didn't wage total war on either front. Go back to studying history because you obviously didn't learn a thing.

history and science happen to be my favorite subjects actualy....
Well since you seem to not know a hell of alot about our nations history I should restate a few things I already said: NO WE DIDNT!!!!! A nation such as Russia or Britan waged total war. As the war progressed and progress was made in africa, we could start sending more and more supplies to the Pacific front, also due to the fact that our economy was now a war economy. We even started training more troops, building more planes, tanks, ships. With these handy dandy new resources, we could start to direct more of our resources to fight Japan.



Hitler fell in 1945. A few months later, Japan fell. So much for being on the defensive till Germany fell. :rolleyes: Now think about this. We were bombing the hell out of Japan when we took Saipan.

please see above :)


Now think about this. We were bombing the hell out of Japan when we took Saipan. With what you might ask? B-29s.

damn your smart...


Then to add insult to injury, Hiroshima and Nagasaki went up in a ball of fire (literally). Don't tell me we didn't wage total war dude.

Four things:

1. We issued a message to the Japenese to surrender before we dropped thos amzing bombs. They just laughed at it.
2. Those nifty devices we all dropped only a few days before the war with Japan ended.
3. We actually missed Nagasaki, by about 3 or so miles.
4. I am not your dude.

We sure as hell did fight total war. You guys didn't have it half as bad as the Pacific theater.

Your assuming I am not a American. BRILLIANT!!! I am one of 'you'.

You want total war?

*starts war dance*

Read up on the firebombings of Japan. It made what we did to Germany pale in comparison! It was probably worse because their houses were at all that well built.

*sigh* you poor poor boy....

Ever heard of a little incedent call Dresden?(sp?)
I assuming because you say what we did to germany pales in comparision to what we did to japan that you dont know what your talking about(once again...).
We bombed the sh*t out Germany.


My friend...try reading a book or two on history (two prefferibly...possibly more). Next time before you try calling my post 'utter crap', read a couple books on the subject you try to discuss.

Once again, the Navy means absolutely nothing in this war. I expect the US Navy to be nuked to oblivion within 10 days of the war's outset. The tiny number of troops currently in Iraq is only enough to maintain order. Europe could conscript and train millions of it's citizens within a few months, and deliver them all by rail to the middle east, where they will proceed to slaughter the American soldiers there. Even if our technology is better, in war, to kill, all you have to do is point a gun in the direction at your enemy, and even a hunting rifle can accomplish that.

Technology is not enough of an advantage. Stop using it as a point. And our airlifting capacity is still not enough to get millions of US troops into Europe. Nothing the US military has could counteract the superior logistical advantages of Europe's location in the world.

You sir, know nothing of modern warfar.... Just point guns and shot?... our massive untrained conscripted army will beat you battle harded ventrens?.... do you even read history?... oh yeah RAIL has been proven to be ineffective in modern warfar! READ

In otherwords you can't type in a simple inquiry into a search engine. Find it.

Mainly it talks about a communist island, some range, ignores that completly, memorials.

This might be it, but I didnt get it from an internet source, or book. This may have nothing to do with it since I have to go now and didnt look it thoroughly.

http://www.capitalcentury.com/1942.html

I taught you the exception.

this is it

x=1 Given
x^2=x Multiplication by x (mult postulate)
X^2-1=x-1 Subtraction of -1 (sub postulate)
x+1=1 Division by x-1 (division postulate
1+1=1 Sub postulate
2=1 Simplification

Order of operations. P's first, so x^2 - 1/ x - 1 when x is known to be one is 0/0, or one.

EDIT:

Corneliu in case you didnt notice a hell of alot of people are contricdicting you....
should tell you something about your infinte knowlege on warfare
just dont call them morons too okay? ;)

Order of operations. P's first, so x^2 - 1/ x - 1 when x is known to be one is 0/0, or one.

Math hurts my brain! MAKE IT STOP!

Fact: We have more nukes
Fact: France sucks
Fact: The only country with any chance is on our side (Britain)
Fact: You need some more patriotism for your country
Fact: An entire fleet could sail across the Atlantic in a matter of hours. I dont think you could nuke something that fast.
Fact: By the time you launched your nukes we would be destroying the shorelines of anything we opposed.
Fact: We would win! (actually more of an opinion until its proven)


Fact: Matter of opinion. France has one of the most effective demolition based militaries in the world
Fact: Europe still has more residents than America, plus Russia has to be taken into the equation. Total war is total war, and Europe can conscript WAAY more people than America could
Fact: Patriotism means nothing. 25% of Americans (including myself) would love to see it fall. And European patriotism is more intense than American patriotism. It's just educated. "Everrone 'cept Americer is bad! Evil! We's the bester! We Americerns have freedum! No Europearns have freedum!" This is American patriotism
Fact: The fastest speed a ship can sail is around 30 knots. The Atlantic ocean is 5,000 miles across. At the fastest maintainable speed, it would take around two weeks to cross the atlantic.
Fact: Mutually assured destruction would mean that the US would not be so willing to destroy Europe. Even if the Europeans destroyed our entire Navy, I still don't think we would nuke them (because we then would all die!)
Fact: The Eurasian continental mass would win! Not a matter of opinion

Hah! With the anti-air defences of the entire continent of Europe, not to mention hundreds of thousands of miles worth of the best rail line in the world (besides Japan)? Have you even been to Europe? Every city has a rail line running to it, and most have three or four all running to other cities!

I personally haven't been to Europe but I know many people who have. All of whom are in the military. As for the rail lines running through every city, that makes it easier to take out. You really don't have a damn clue about how the military operates. You also don't have a clue that your anti-air defenses mean nothing when your using the state of the art Aircraft. I like to see how those air defenses will stand up to say a B-2, a F-22, and the F-117. They are stealth aircraft incase you didn't know. They can fly over your territory and knock it flat. We have enough of them to do the job too.

Submarines are a strictly offensive weapon. They can sit on the bottom of the ocean floor for two months, pop up in 5 minutes, shoot off six nukes, all of which can travel more than 500 miles, and then drop down again.

Once again you mention nukes. No one will use nukes dude. No one wants to get deep fried that way. Also, not every sub carries nukes. We have SSBN (Nuclear Balistic Submarines) and Fast Nuclear Attack Subs. Subs are also good for defense too. :rolleyes: You still have to get by the submarines if you want to do that.

Meanwhile, does our Navy have a defensive missile shield to protect it? Hell no!

Hell yes it does. You really don't know anything about the US military do you? No I don't think so judging by how your talking. You also have no sense of tactics either.

You are arguing without using facts, you are making statements without backing them up with any facts. If you want to have a legitimate argument, you need to use details!

Your the one arguing without facts. Not to mention arguing out of ignorance too. Niether is suiting this arguement for your side. I, however, do have some sense of knowledge regarding the Military as well as military tactics. I've studied it enough. Studied the campaigns the US did in the wars both before and after World War II. I also studied how technology was used too. You really need to study history more.

Even if we do, we still have a domestic front that would require oil that would no longer be available. Military shipping across America would become impossible, not to mention our economy would stall and fail without the oil.

I believe my grandmother remembered oil rationing. We can go back to that good old fasion way. It worked in World War 2 and it'll work this time as well. Yes it'll be an inconvenience but then again, it was an inconvience back then too.

No, you don't. You don't take into account any of the geographical limitations or problems associated with a war this large. You don't argue effectively.

Your arguing out of ignorance. Why are you even arguing at all. You don't have a sense of strategy. You have no clue as to what the US and British military are capable of. You don't understand that nukes won't be used. I also know how Geography will play in this war too. The European Union is still screwed.

Corneliu in case you didnt notice a hell of alot of people are contricdicting you....

just dont call them morons too okay? ;)

Sometimes when a lot of people contradict you, it doesn't mean you're wrong. For instance... if you were in Paris, France and you said that France sucks, all the French would call you a liar and other names... but France DOES suck so you would be right even though everybody is contridicting you.

*snip*

Go back to school. Apparently you need more of it.

Liverbreath']I was agreeing with you. When the germans bombed london and the US bombed Tokyo a few weeks after Perl Harbor that constituted Total war on both fronts.

It sure did. World War II was about as total war as a modern war got. Even Korea was technically a total war when you get right down to it.

Fact: The fastest speed a ship can sail is around 30 knots. The Atlantic ocean is 5,000 miles across. At the fastest maintainable speed, it would take around two weeks to cross the atlantic.
Fact: Mutually assured destruction would mean that the US would not be so willing to destroy Europe. Even if the Europeans destroyed our entire Navy, I still don't think we would nuke them (because we then would all die!)
Fact: The Eurasian continental mass would win! Not a matter of opinion

Okay lets say you're right and it would take two weeks to cross the Atlantic. Lets say we have no nukes ready to launch. Lets say it doesnt take two weeks to launch a missile cause it doesn't. Europe does have more people than the U.S. in a smaller area which means population density which means more people would be killed with each bomb. So by the time our navy got there all it would have to do is kill a few leftovers and then it could come home.

You sir, know nothing of modern warfar.... Just point guns and shot?... our massive untrained conscripted army will beat you battle harded ventrens?.... do you even read history?... oh yeah RAIL has been proven to be ineffective in modern warfar! READ


I still know significantly more than you. What was it that liberated Iraq? Was it the smart bombs? The F-15's? The nuclear weapons and spy satellites? No, it was the Humvee, the tank, and the M-16. When it comes down to it, all you have to do is point and shoot. No one soldier could kill more than five others without being killed himself. The Russians had a massive conscripted military, and the Germans, even with their superior, battle hardened veterans couldn't beat them.

Rail is the fastest means of transportation available, and if it doesn't work, then highways work just as well. Even trucks and roads would be able to respond faster than your "superior military". Nothing means anything in modern warfare. Only logistics. Only geography. Only resources. Only transportation.

Sometimes when a lot of people contradict you, it doesn't mean you're wrong. For instance... if you were in Paris, France and you said that France sucks, all the French would call you a liar and other names... but France DOES suck so you would be right even though everybody is contridicting you.


true true. I respect you disrespect for france.

Go back to school. Apparently you need more of it.

Hush child.

Fact: Matter of opinion. France has one of the most effective demolition based militaries in the world
Fact: Europe still has more residents than America, plus Russia has to be taken into the equation. Total war is total war, and Europe can conscript WAAY more people than America could
Fact: Patriotism means nothing. 25% of Americans (including myself) would love to see it fall. And European patriotism is more intense than American patriotism. It's just educated. "Everrone 'cept Americer is bad! Evil! We's the bester! We Americerns have freedum! No Europearns have freedum!" This is American patriotism
Fact: The fastest speed a ship can sail is around 30 knots. The Atlantic ocean is 5,000 miles across. At the fastest maintainable speed, it would take around two weeks to cross the atlantic.
Fact: Mutually assured destruction would mean that the US would not be so willing to destroy Europe. Even if the Europeans destroyed our entire Navy, I still don't think we would nuke them (because we then would all die!)
Fact: The Eurasian continental mass would win! Not a matter of opinion


agreed. i'm skipping cornielus posts because they are not worth my time

Okay your argument is flawed:

You say

1. you got rails, so many that we can't bomb them all, and that your air defence can't stop it

2. you can conscipt more people than us because your population is larger and thus out-number us

3. Nuke the Anglo-american navy in first volly thus negating navy

4. The europeans(with their conscipted armies) would thus take rail to the mid-east and capture oil supplies.

heres your flaws

1. We can bomb all your rails, its not hard, you can attack a rail at any point and destroying it and we can bomb them faster it can rebuild. Also we have AEGIS(the most advanced air defence network you don't) you wouldn't be able to develope it because we would dominate you with our air forces right away(yes the best airforce in the world, we do have, especially with britain).

2. Okay untrained conscripted soldiers would stand no chance against a battle harded force such as ours, even if they are out numbered... Look at the 6-days war or yom kupper war..

3. A. you don't have the nukes B. once you use nukes(your few), we will launch our thousands and every inch of your landmass gone. not to mention its extremly hard to nuke a navhy and retool a warhead(retool means to retarget)... by the time you retool it too late its good.. they are moving targets.

4.A. your rails are gone. B. no neutral middle-eastern country will let you in C. your untrained soldiers will stand no chance against our veterns, plus if worse gets to worse israel would have our back not yours(you forget they are very closly allied with us)

anyway you make no good argument..

I still know significantly more than you. What was it that liberated Iraq? Was it the smart bombs? The F-15's? The nuclear weapons and spy satellites? No, it was the Humvee, the tank, and the M-16. When it comes down to it, all you have to do is point and shoot. No one soldier could kill more than five others without being killed himself. The Russians had a massive conscripted military, and the Germans, even with their superior, battle hardened veterans couldn't beat them.

Rail is the fastest means of transportation available, and if it doesn't work, then highways work just as well. Even trucks and roads would be able to respond faster than your "superior military". Nothing means anything in modern warfare. Only logistics. Only geography. Only resources. Only transportation.

You play too many video games.

Okay lets say you're right and it would take two weeks to cross the Atlantic. Lets say we have no nukes ready to launch. Lets say it doesnt take two weeks to launch a missile cause it doesn't. Europe does have more people than the U.S. in a smaller area which means population density which means more people would be killed with each bomb. So by the time our navy got there all it would have to do is kill a few leftovers and then it could come home.


Mutually Assured Destruction. That is all I have to say to that.

Honestly, I don't think the Americans would use nuclear weapons. Even if the Europeans did. The Europeans could blame the loss of the entire navy on a rogue submarine commander, and really, who would be the wiser? Maybe they would pay reparations, but the fact remains that the US would not nuke Europe, or 293 million people would soon be dead, on both sides.

clearly the pro-Americans here are greatly underestimating Europe just like USA did with Japan. Japanese wiped the floor of US navy with surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor.

You play too many video games.


I lived with the US military for an entire year. My dad was in the Army. I haven't played any video games in a year and a half (since I threw out my television). I am just significantly more educated than you are. But hey, that's what a college education can do for you!

I lived with the US military for an entire year. My dad was in the Army. I haven't played any video games in a year and a half (since I threw out my television). I am just significantly more educated than you are. But hey, that's what a college education can do for you!

You go Stop Banning Me Mods! :cool:

I lived with the US military for an entire year. My dad was in the Army. I haven't played any video games in a year and a half (since I threw out my television). I am just significantly more educated than you are. But hey, that's what a college education can do for you!

And you're argueing with a 13 year old kid... amazing

Yes that's right.

I'm glad you caught that.

It was to obvious an attempt. I should've ignored it but I don't like getting called a moron.

Hey what do you know!! Its amazing what reading a history book can provide. :D

I've studied military history. Not to mention, Ive had one or two world History classes in my time.

You see, you just proved my point. We only had limited supplies, so...we didnt go and clear off every little island in the pacific that the japs were on. The japenese established 'hard points' on all of their captured islands. Thus their forces were spread extremely thin. Their spread thin forces were still a good match for the Marines I might add(since we also had limited supplies directed toward the pacific). I'm sure you know how hard it is to take the pacific and then to protect your gains.

The Japs found that out the hard way. Besides that, we didn't need to take every single island back from them. The Pacific Commanders recognized as such and thus developed the island hopping campaign. Quite ingenious actually. And it worked brilliantly too.



history and science happen to be my favorite subjects actualy....

History and politcs are my favorite subjects. Not to mention I'm majoring in both of them.

Well since you seem to not know a hell of alot about our nations history I should restate a few things I already said: NO WE DIDNT!!!!! A nation such as Russia or Britan waged total war.

Not another ignorant person. :rolleyes: US SURE DID WAGE TOTALLY WAR. :rolleyes:

Four things:

Oh this should be good.

1. We issued a message to the Japenese to surrender before we dropped thos amzing bombs. They just laughed at it.

Correct. Your not telling me something new.

2. Those nifty devices we all dropped only a few days before the war with Japan ended.

And was why they surrendered. Three days apart actually. Hiroshima on the 6th of August and Nagasaki on the 9th. Five days later, Emperor Hirohito himself issued the surrender order. Then a military coup was tried and it failed. On September 2, 1945, the formal surrender ceremony took place on the deck of the USS Missouri

3. We actually missed Nagasaki, by about 3 or so miles.

Nukes don't need to be dead on. Not even back then.

4. I am not your dude.

It was sarcasm dude.


*sigh* you poor poor boy....

Was this supposed to be another insult?

Ever heard of a little incedent call Dresden?(sp?)

Yes I have heard of it

I assuming because you say what we did to germany pales in comparision to what we did to japan that you dont know what your talking about(once again...).

We also bombed the crap out of every major Japanese City. That was worse because of the materials used in consrtuction of those buildings. Not to mention having 2 bombs dropped on your head does make Dresden look like a firecracker.

My friend...try reading a book or two on history (two prefferibly...possibly more). Next time before you try calling my post 'utter crap', read a couple books on the subject you try to discuss.

Your post is utter crap. I have several books on World War Two, not to mention an entire encyclopedia set as well as a 5 disc DVD documentary. World War TWO was total War and the US waged it as well. I suggest you go back to studying history because apparently, you didn't get it.

I still know significantly more than you. What was it that liberated Iraq? Was it the smart bombs? The F-15's? The nuclear weapons and spy satellites? No, it was the Humvee, the tank, and the M-16. When it comes down to it, all you have to do is point and shoot. No one soldier could kill more than five others without being killed himself. The Russians had a massive conscripted military, and the Germans, even with their superior, battle hardened veterans couldn't beat them.

Rail is the fastest means of transportation available, and if it doesn't work, then highways work just as well. Even trucks and roads would be able to respond faster than your "superior military". Nothing means anything in modern warfare. Only logistics. Only geography. Only resources. Only transportation.

okay you don't understand logistics either: without even rail or shipping, have you tried to feed an entire army across a continent with just using roads? IT DOESN't work, we can bomb your roads too, and by the way if you had 100000000 conscipts with m16s and I had one Air craft carrier who would win? ME because I got a logitstal advantage, and reach... navies just don't attack navies a carrier group has reach, you can be off the Ibreian coast and bomb Paris and berlin with little or no intervention. also you don't reconize mechized warfair... It takes a lot fo training to properly use an A1M1 tank and small arms fire can't do anything too it(that includes RPGs my friend). and we used those "techonologies" in Iraq too and without it the war would'ev been longer... take a history course please... then read up on military theory...

clearly the pro-Americans here are greatly underestimating Europe just like USA did with Japan. Japanese wiped the floor of US navy with surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor.

Then we dropped two atomic bombs and they gave up. By the way Pearl Harbor wasnt the only U.S. Navy. Pearl Harbor isn't even the United States mainland

It sure did. World War II was about as total war as a modern war got. Even Korea was technically a total war when you get right down to it.

Hmmm, that's something to check into for me. I am really weak on Korea.

Hush child.

:rolleyes:

Hah! With the anti-air defences of the entire continent of Europe, not to mention hundreds of thousands of miles worth of the best rail line in the world (besides Japan)? Have you even been to Europe? Every city has a rail line running to it, and most have three or four all running to other cities!
That "impressive" railway system won't be worth squat once the bombing starts. Heck from this map (http://www.bonjourlafrance.net/france-map/images/map-france-sncf-189k-962x1007.gif) alone the Anglo-Americans would know exactly which lines to cut to bring the whole system down just in France, and the whole EU doesn't have nearly enough AA systems to cover the thousands of the miles of railway in their own countries, much less the entire continent.

Submarines are a strictly offensive weapon. They can sit on the bottom of the ocean floor for two months, pop up in 5 minutes, shoot off six nukes, all of which can travel more than 500 miles, and then drop down again.
That is assuming, of course, that they aren't found by the hundreds of attack subs, ASW aircraft and ships availible to the Anglo-Americans, or destroyed while they are still at port. And if just one nuke is aimed at any of their forces, the Brits and Yanks outnumber Europe by many thousands in the number of nukes compared to theirs; the UK/US might lose a few cities, the Euros lose a continent.

Meanwhile, does our Navy have a defensive missile shield to protect it? Hell no!
What the hell do you think the Aegis system is for? To look pretty on USN ships? The Euros do not have the number of missiles it would take to disable either RN or USN, much less get past their defenses.

You are arguing without using facts, you are making statements without backing them up with any facts. If you want to have a legitimate argument, you need to use details!
So far all your side has done is said "Europe will win! Why? Um, the railsystem! Oh, and mobilize the entire industry and population in six months, tops! Never mind the millions we spend in supporting our welfare states" :rolleyes:

Even if we do, we still have a domestic front that would require oil that would no longer be available. Military shipping across America would become impossible, not to mention our economy would stall and fail without the oil.
What the hell are you smoking? The Anglo-Americans would dominate at seas; hell the entire Euro navy would be singing the same tune at Davey Jones' Locker within the first few weeks of the conflict, and they would suffer just as much as the US/UK/ect economically.

No, you don't. You don't take into account any of the geographical limitations or problems associated with a war this large. You don't argue effectively.
The Americans are one of the few, if not only, nations left with the capability of shipping entire armies overseas, and with the unsinkable carrier just off of the continent's coast the Anglo-American alliance would be in striking range to attack any country of the EU. The only difficult part of this campaign would be actually invading and holding captured territory, but since you guys seem to be in the "conscripts overcome all!!111" camp it shouldn't be a problem.

clearly the pro-Americans here are greatly underestimating Europe just like USA did with Japan. Japanese wiped the floor of US navy with surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor.

and what happened to japan *cough big fucking bomb *cough*

okay you don't understand logistics either: without even rail or shipping, have you tried to feed an entire army across a continent with just using roads? IT DOESN't work, we can bomb your roads too, and by the way if you had 100000000 conscipts with m16s and I had one Air craft carrier who would win? ME because I got a logitstal advantage, and reach... navies just don't attack navies a carrier group has reach, you can be off the Ibreian coast and bomb Paris and berlin with little or no intervention. also you don't reconize mechized warfair... It takes a lot fo training to properly use an A1M1 tank and small arms fire can't do anything too it(that includes RPGs my friend). and we used those "techonologies" in Iraq too and without it the war would'ev been longer... take a history course please... then read up on military theory...

this is why some countries have a mandatory military serving policy.


and what happened to japan *cough big fucking bomb *cough*


yeah, that was during the period the american's got desperate after pearl harbor and made 2 nukes. if japan held out after 2nd nuke, they would have still the will to fight against the american invaders.

You play too many video games.

It is so obvious.