NationStates Jolt Archive

Thanks. I thought you meant the usual "CNN is teh liberalz!!1!" thing, which has been debunked a billion times.

As for US media, it's still the most reliable bigger TV station. I also quite like PBS and Jim Lehrer's Newshour.

Nonetheless, there seems to be a lot of self-censorship still in the US Media, and it's only slowly getting better for some after the whole flag-waving business after 9/11.

Some of that is reincorporating of our news outlets. Corporations control many avenues and tend to avoid news stories that will get them sued.

If you think about it, when was the last time you heard a politician get hammered with hard questions?

I like Lehrer as well. :)

Thats why you don't see the rape, pillage, and uncensored tourture.
Well, we'd have to see these things on Al-Jazeera then, or Hamas' or Hezbollah's TV Stations.

But we don't. The only place we see that is questionable fiction movies with antisemitic undertones (and I use the word "undertones" broadly here, considering that the Jew is stealing organs from children...)

Yes, the US Military is a disgrace. Yes, politics in the US is a disgrace. No, it does not automatically follow that they are therefore worse than the Mongols.

Well, we'd have to see these things on Al-Jazeera then, or Hamas' or Hezbollah's TV Stations.

But we don't. The only place we see that is questionable fiction movies with antisemitic undertones (and I use the word "undertones" broadly here, considering that the Jew is stealing organs from children...)

Yes, the US Military is a disgrace. Yes, politics in the US is a disgrace. No, it does not automatically follow that they are therefore worse than the Mongols.

But they ARE! You have not seen the rape! Everything is censored. The TV stations won't show it because they're afraid of of the coward americans bombing them. They're show enough american rape to get good ratings, but they will not show the truth. No one will.

And American troops need their jollies, and they get their jollies from little girls and boys.

Originally Posted by Caribel IV
...And American troops need their jollies, and they get their jollies from little girls and boys.
YEAH!

I wouldn't compare the US to nazi germany although there are some small similarities, which is pretty superficial really. I would say that the US is much more like the Roman Empire, economic powerhouse, large army, several foreign interests, followed by over consumption amongst the population, and growing debt. We can see that the wasteful consumerist nature of contemporary America will be it's downfall. Especially under the so-called "war on terrorism" which deplete's public coffers on military spending and increases the profit margin of energy/Arms companies which doesn't really benefit anyone but the shareholders. Just a Thought...


"Fool me once, shame on......shame on you...You fool me and I can't get fooled again! - George Dubya Bush

But they ARE! You have not seen the rape! Everything is censored. The TV stations won't show it because they're afraid of of the coward americans bombing them. They're show enough american rape to get good ratings, but they will not show the truth. No one will.
In other words, it really happens, and everybody knows it and no one talks about it? Not even the Iraqis actually on the ground, protected by the anonimity of the internet?
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

And you of all people dare to speak out?

I wouldn't compare the US to nazi germany although there are some small similarities, which is pretty superficial really. I would say that the US is much more like the Roman Empire, economic powerhouse, large army, several foreign interests, followed by over consumption amongst the population, and growing debt. We can see that the wasteful consumerist nature of contemporary America will be it's downfall. Especially under the so-called "war on terrorism" which deplete's public coffers on military spending and increases the profit margin of energy/Arms companies which doesn't really benefit anyone but the shareholders. Just a Thought...


"Fool me once, shame on......shame on you...You fool me and I can't get fooled again! - George Dubya Bush

NO COMMENT!

I wouldn't compare the US to nazi germany although there are some small similarities, which is pretty superficial really. I would say that the US is much more like the Roman Empire, economic powerhouse, large army, several foreign interests, followed by over consumption amongst the population, and growing debt. We can see that the wasteful consumerist nature of contemporary America will be it's downfall. Especially under the so-called "war on terrorism" which deplete's public coffers on military spending and increases the profit margin of energy/Arms companies which doesn't really benefit anyone but the shareholders. Just a Thought...


"Fool me once, shame on......shame on you...You fool me and I can't get fooled again! - George Dubya Bush

The US is worse than Nazi Germany. They have killed 10x as many innocent people, and have overthrown 2 democratic, peaceful governments.

Soon those American Concentration camps will start opening up, and all the "Undesirables" will be "Relocated".

The US is worse than Nazi Germany. They have killed 10x as many innocent people, and have overthrown 2 democratic, peaceful governments.

Soon those American Concentration camps will start opening up, and all the "Undesirables" will be "Relocated".

And during WWII USA had Concetracion camps for Japs, Germans and others who were "undesirable"

In other words, it really happens, and everybody knows it and no one talks about it? Not even the Iraqis actually on the ground, protected by the anonimity of the internet?
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

And you of all people dare to speak out?

I bet that's censored as well. After all, America does own the internet.

And during WWII USA had Concetracion camps for Japs, Germans and others who were "undesirable"

NoNo, the germans were not put in camps. They were white. They were ok. They couldn't rub elbows with those dirty asians...

NoNo, the germans were not put in camps. They were white. They were ok. They couldn't rub elbows with those dirty asians...

Camps - plural. There were a LOT of them. And in each they had different nationalities - Black, Jews, Japs, Germans, Soviets...

It is time for me to go. I hope you all learned just a small part of the truth today. I shall be back tomarrow. Perhaps as another Caribel, but I shall be back.

Camps - plural. There were a LOT of them. And in each they had different nationalities - Black, Jews, Japs, Germans, Soviets...

What are you ranting on about? There were camps for the Japanese-Americans, yes. But there were no camps for Soviets, Jews, Germans...evidence of camps for anyone but Japanese and possibly a few German saboteurs?

It is time for me to go. I hope you all learned just a small part of the truth today. I shall be back tomarrow. Perhaps as another Caribel, but I shall be back.

What truth? That you didn't prove that the US created the Holocuast or the Stalinistic Purges, or that you just like using neonazi revisionist sources?

The United States is not a fascist state right now. It doesn't have one EXTREMELY key part of fascism. Popular support. For a state to be truely fascist the great majority of the nation must be in agreement with the leader's message, ideals, and system. The Bush regime fails this test, as shown by the approval rating of Americans being around 30%. It would need to be at least 70% for anyone to even think that the USA is fascist.
Now authoritarian is a different story. That has no "popular support" clause. I would say we are drifting into a more and more authoritarian state and may soon become known world wide as "The ex-beacon of democracy"

What are you ranting on about? There were camps for the Japanese-Americans, yes. But there were no camps for Soviets, Jews, Germans...evidence of camps for anyone but Japanese and possibly a few German saboteurs?

Yes, there were, and there were camps for Brits too, and French.. Anyone who didn't think as USA gov wanted.
You want evidence - they are gone, cuz USA win the war. If Germany won, instead of Jew death camps, we would have german death camps. EVERY nation of WWII has it's little dirty secrets... problem is - sometimes they are not so little...

Yes, there were, and there were camps for Brits too, and French.. Anyone who didn't think as USA gov wanted.
You want evidence - they are gone, cuz USA win the war. If Germany won, instead of Jew death camps, we would have grman death camps. EVERY nation of WWII has it's little dirty secrets...

...

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner for most insane conspiracy theorist! Congratulations sir, how do you feel? Elvis will be right down to give you the money and coupon for a complimentary straight-jacket!

...

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner for most insane conspiracy theorist! Congratulations sir, how do you feel? Elvis will be right down to give you the money and coupon for a complimentary straight-jacket!

I feel like a Skinny87 retarded asshole... Elvis will give you kiss, and Kenedy will sing you song for good night.

How do you figure? Economically, it is quite a ways to the right of fascism. Socially, it is a long way to the left. According to Webster: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." Which of these criteria do you feel the US meets, let alone all of them?

Based on these criteria found on page 2.

The US does exalt nation above the individual.
It is becoming more federal and I would argue that it does stand for a somewhat centralized autocratic government headed by a somewhat dictatorial leader (elected perhaps, but he still has a lot of the same powers a dictator has). I don't see the rest applying and considering that it's only the first that applies in full, I would say 2-3/6 (so out of ten, 3,3-5 10)

so I voted 3-4.

I feel like a Skinny87 retarded asshole... Elvis will give you kiss, and Kenedy will sing you song for good night.

Quite. But your allegations are so much tripe. There were camps for the Japanese and possibly a few Germans, but no-one else. There would have been a massive outcry against them, and evidence to this day. And why would Roosevelt, a man who, although he had prejudices was a firm supporter of democracy and freedom, imprison members of the very countries he was fighting to help save and were his closest allies?

A definition of facism is a state run by a charismatic leader. Frankly, Bush isn't very charismatic. Also, saying we have limits on freedoms is baseless. If there were any signifigant assults on the freedoms we hold dear, the public outcry would be enormous and we wouldn't keep that person in office for very long. We have all these hippies thinking the US is a facist state of the likes the world hasn't seen since Nazi Germany, and thats just plain stupidity. At the point Im writing this 22 people have voted that we are a 9-10 on facism. If that were true this topic wouldn't exist. If that were true we wouldn't have any news programs not controlled by the government, we wouldn't have any non state newspapers, and if that were true the internet would be heavily censored. Hell, this site wouldn't even exist. Just because we dont like bush, doesnt mean hes turned the US to a facist state.

A definition of facism is a state run by a charismatic leader. Frankly, Bush isn't very charismatic. Also, saying we have limits on freedoms is baseless. If there were any signifigant assults on the freedoms we hold dear, the public outcry would be enormous and we wouldn't keep that person in office for very long. We have all these hippies thinking the US is a facist state of the likes the world hasn't seen since Nazi Germany, and thats just plain stupidity. At the point Im writing this 22 people have voted that we are a 9-10 on facism. If that were true this topic wouldn't exist. If that were true we wouldn't have any news programs not controlled by the government, we wouldn't have any non state newspapers, and if that were true the internet would be heavily censored. Hell, this site wouldn't even exist. Just because we dont like bush, doesnt mean hes turned the US to a facist state.

It may not be complerely fascist, but your country does have the Patriot Act and things like illegal wiretaps and camps in foreign countries to imprison POWs and caputred terrorists. Though not quite on the level of 10, these di indicate more than a resemblance to a fascist state.

Quite. But your allegations are so much tripe. There were camps for the Japanese and possibly a few Germans, but no-one else. There would have been a massive outcry against them, and evidence to this day. And why would Roosevelt, a man who, although he had prejudices was a firm supporter of democracy and freedom, imprison members of the very countries he was fighting to help save and were his closest allies?

If you think that USA entered war only to help (save) Europe, you're sadly mistaken.

In politics there are no friends, no allegances, no honour, somebody said once:

War is just an extension of Politics"

Not quite a 10? Indicates a facist state? I hope your playing the devils advocate because if you bothered listening to the news, the wiretaps are illegal. While the patriot doesnt give habeus corpus to accused terrorists, how many people has that been used on? 3, 4 mabye? Its not being abused, I know that for a fact.

If you think that USA entered war only to help (save) Europe, you're sadly mistaken.

In politics there are no friends, no allegances, no honour, somebody said once:

Carl Von Clausewitz, I believe. And no, I am not so naive to believe that. The US went to war to help itself and help its allies, as well as defend itself. However I ask you again; why would Roosevelt imprison citizens of the countries with whom he was allies with?

I'm sorry if you cant take dissenting opinions.

When you start presenting opinions and stop trying to make inflammatory statements that you try to present as fact, then we'll talk. Until then.....

And you never did tell me your definition of a dictator.......:rolleyes:

They already have concentration camps...

Concentration camps have nothing to do wtih fascism. You people disgust me. Nobody seems to know the true definition of fascism

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Wow I was reading through the last page, and I thought Skinny was pretty dimwitted, but then I saw the person with the "German Death Camp theory". What kind of insane theory is that? IF the germans won the war? They didn't. Even if they did it wouldn't have been German death camps, because there were none. There were Japanese Relocation centers, and bad treatment of the Japs in California to be sure, but we fed them at least, and didnt do insane medical experiments on them. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence of atrocities of our enemies in WWII, but we committed none even close to that scale.

On topic though
We aren't facist. We don't like our government enough to be facist, and even if we did, we dont have enough limitations on freedoms to. Like EntParadise said, this website probably wouldn't even exist if this were a fasict state. (With or without popular support)

Edit: And Otarias is right, none of that concentration camp stuff and these atrocities have anything to do with facism. Spain was a Facist state until about 30 years ago, and you don't hear about any atrocities committed by the Spanish against anyone. The only instance many of you could even think of would be Gurnica, but the Germans did that. Also, Italy was Facist, and you didn't see them slaughtering innocent people.

Wow I was reading through the last page, and I thought Skinny was pretty dimwitted, but then I saw the person with the "German Death Camp theory". What kind of insane theory is that? IF the germans won the war? They didn't. Even if they did it wouldn't have been German death camps, because there were none. There were Japanese Relocation centers, and bad treatment of the Japs in California to be sure, but we fed them at least, and didnt do insane medical experiments on them. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence of atrocities of our enemies in WWII, but we committed none even close to that scale.

On topic though
We aren't facist. We don't like our government enough to be facist, and even if we did, we dont have enough limitations on freedoms to. Like EntParadise said, this website probably wouldn't even exist if this were a fasict state. (With or without popular support)


Dimwitted? Pardon? How, exactly? For stating that the US is in some ways a fascist state? Perhaps a tad overstated, but it can be seen to have some fascist overtones. Please, how am I dimwitted?

Carl Von Clausewitz, I believe. And no, I am not so naive to believe that. The US went to war to help itself and help its allies, as well as defend itself. However I ask you again; why would Roosevelt imprison citizens of the countries with whom he was allies with?*

From Spion de Balkane:
I tell you Rumenka, spies, they are all spies...

*That's why!

Before WWII: France and Britain were only countries who ruled the world, then Germany appeared. USA and USSR nobody considered as power in any way. USA had troubles with economy, witch she defeated (Great Deppresion) succesifuly (thanks to Roosevelt), and she strived to stabilize herself, to start producing again. USSR had civil war, inner economic problems that were just partialy solved (prva petoljetka) greate officers purge and stuff...

After WWII: French an British empire collapsed, Germany also. So these two countries USA and USSR start riding on world's back. USA and USSR, bouth seen in war salvation, cuz they give job to the people (weapon's factories and stuff), and they could grab some territorial possesions as well - It's not about love and friendship. It's about money.

I apologize, dimwitted was a terrible word to be used there. You just have a different opinion, and I was wrong to personally attack you.

And Blackred, we didn't get any territorial gains during WWII, only USSR did. Unless you count some of Normandy, but I dont see the French exacally in straights about that. Germany didn't collapse, they were just occupied, and neither did Britain, they gave self determination to most of their colonies. (Or Japan took them over)

UK, FRANCE, GERMANY, RUSSIA, CHINA, NORTH KOREA, VIETNAM, BRAZIL, ARGENTINA, AUSTRALIA, CANADA, SPAIN, POLAND, BULGARIA, SERBIA...

Maybe to didn't know but IN ANY WAR that America won it had ALLIES besides her, alone USA couldn beat MEXICO. Face it!

And how are you gonna fight against any enemy? You gonna throw money in their face?

ROFLMFAO!

Most of these nations America can just say "psh" at. And all of these nations would lose, see American nuclear arsenal that could destroy the world a few times over. But let's pretend that everyone's nukes suddenly don't work and they have to fight a conventional war. USA still beats all of these individually, and could take on a few of them at the same time. USA has the best military in the world currently, and we spend an extravagent amount of money every year to keep it that way (something like 48% of the entire world's budget I think). And the fact that America had allies when it won is a non-issue, most countries in the modern world have at least some allies, and because they are allies they fight together.

Yeah, like Vietnam...

Perhaps you should study the Vietnam War a tid bit before throwing around things like that. Had the USA used it's full power, it would have won that war. But we had political concerns about the USSR and China and that prevented us from rolling them up with our far superior air force and bombing them back to the Dark Ages. We dropped quite a few bombs (something like more than all the bombs in WW2) but not nearly the amount we could have minus political concerns. We were worried if we went too hard on North Vietnam it would cause war with the Chinese and Russians, something we didn't want to do (being responsible for the war that destroys mankind isn't the greatest legacy ;) ). So we put our troops on the line in places where that had no business being (the damned jungle). We didn't want a bigger war, so we eased up and tried to win without going too hard.

I apologize, dimwitted was a terrible word to be used there. You just have a different opinion, and I was wrong to personally attack you.

If the only opinion we differ in is the whole fascist thing, I can agree with that - sometimes I'm a tad too vocal against the US government. We don't disagree on other things, right? You don't think Roosevelt created concentration camps, or the US created the Holocaust, right?

ROFLMFAO!

Most of these nations America can just say "psh" at. And all of these nations would lose, see American nuclear arsenal that could destroy the world a few times over. But let's pretend that everyone's nukes suddenly don't work and they have to fight a conventional war. USA still beats all of these individually, and could take on a few of them at the same time. USA has the best military in the world currently, and we spend an extravagent amount of money every year to keep it that way (something like 48% of the entire world's budget I think). And the fact that America had allies when it won is a non-issue, most countries in the modern world have at least some allies, and because they are allies they fight together.



Perhaps you should study the Vietnam War a tid bit before throwing around things like that. Had the USA used it's full power, it would have won that war. But we had political concerns about the USSR and China and that prevented us from rolling them up with our far superior air force and bombing them back to the Dark Ages. We dropped quite a few bombs (something like more than all the bombs in WW2) but not nearly the amount we could have minus political concerns. We were worried if we went too hard on North Vietnam it would cause war with the Chinese and Russians, something we didn't want to do (being responsible for the war that destroys mankind isn't the greatest legacy ;) ). So we put our troops on the line in places where that had no business being (the damned jungle). We didn't want a bigger war, so we eased up and tried to win without going too hard.

Indeed, Vietnam was ironically crippled by the fact that limited military power was used. Johnson himself stated that no-one could drop a bomb without his personal orders, and the resistance of the Vietcong was something the US military couldn't really deal with. The media didn't help, neither did a repressive South Vietnamese regime. But at least they didn't follow the example of Wallace and LeMay: 'Shoot the dissenters, nuke North Vietnam, win the war', and thank god for that.

Right. Also, I cant exacally say I get the full picture. If the US was actully a fasicst state, they might not want me to know it. I know that we created relocation camps for the japs, but its not like we worked them to death and didn't feed them. Sure, we sold their possesions for much less then what they were worth, but some of these claims (Looking at you blackred) Are just ridiculous.

*That's why!

Before WWII: France and Britain were only countries who ruled the world, then Germany appeared. USA and USSR nobody considered as power in any way. USA had troubles with economy, witch she defeated (Great Deppresion) succesifuly (thanks to Roosevelt), and she strived to stabilize herself, to start producing again. USSR had civil war, inner economic problems that were just partialy solved (prva petoljetka) greate officers purge and stuff...

After WWII: French an British empire collapsed, Germany also. So these two countries USA and USSR start riding on world's back. USA and USSR, bouth seen in war salvation, cuz they give job to the people (weapon's factories and stuff), and they could grab some territorial possesions as well - It's not about love and friendship. It's about money.

Before WWII, Britain and France did not rule the world. Imperial Germany and the US after 1880 might be pissed to hear you say that, give what they did. Where do you learn your history?

EDIT: And whats that quote about spies got to do with anything?

ROFLMFAO!

Most of these nations America can just say "psh" at. And all of these nations would lose, see American nuclear arsenal that could destroy the world a few times over. But let's pretend that everyone's nukes suddenly don't work and they have to fight a conventional war. USA still beats all of these individually, and could take on a few of them at the same time. USA has the best military in the world currently, and we spend an extravagent amount of money every year to keep it that way (something like 48% of the entire world's budget I think). And the fact that America had allies when it won is a non-issue, most countries in the modern world have at least some allies, and because they are allies they fight together.



Perhaps you should study the Vietnam War a tid bit before throwing around things like that. Had the USA used it's full power, it would have won that war. But we had political concerns about the USSR and China and that prevented us from rolling them up with our far superior air force and bombing them back to the Dark Ages. We dropped quite a few bombs (something like more than all the bombs in WW2) but not nearly the amount we could have minus political concerns. We were worried if we went too hard on North Vietnam it would cause war with the Chinese and Russians, something we didn't want to do (being responsible for the war that destroys mankind isn't the greatest legacy ;) ). So we put our troops on the line in places where that had no business being (the damned jungle). We didn't want a bigger war, so we eased up and tried to win without going too hard.

Like you said MOST of them, i beleave that after long, hard and bitter fights they could, eventually, to conquer Bulgaria or Serbia...

Are you aware that USAF has dropped more BOMBS on VIETNAM than it has in entire Pacific Theatre? And take a look at Pacific, and then on Vietnam - size does matter in the end...

Please look up the definition of fascist and rephrase the question. The Italians were the Fascists. Hitler was just a right wing nutjob.

'Nazism' is a variant form of Fascism, Nazism adds the racism, and the violent anti-semitism, I had an excellent defition by a firend of mine for Fascism, a Conservative Industrialism (with which it naturally carries the amount of Nationalism to be very bellicose), noting that Fascism are typically totalitarian gov'ts and they are conservative, and nationalist, and none of those attributes fit America, I would say that we aren't Fascist, although I wish we were!

Lets look at some figures here: In the First Gulf war, a cooaltition comprised mainly of the US defeated Iraq, a country with an enormous military in a matter of weeks. We ran them over. We could have required unconditional surrender, but Bush Sr. forsaw the consequences of an occupation and cut a deal with Suddam. Also, in the second Gulf war, we did the same thing (Though against a smaller army). The only thing stalling us now in Iraq is Guerrilla fighting, something we can't easily deal with, and so far, no country has been able to.

Originally Posted by Skinny87
Before WWII, Britain and France did not rule the world. Imperial Germany and the US after 1880 might be pissed to hear you say that, give what they did. Where do you learn your history?

Who told you that? And i meant period between WWI and WWII. And who cares what civil war US or Kaiserreich Deutchland will say about that?

Originally Posted by Skinny87
EDIT: And whats that quote about spies got to do with anything?

This:
If they are not like us, they could be like our enemies, and then they could be spies, and then they could send info about us to our enemies...

Lets look at some figures here: In the First Gulf war, a cooaltition comprised mainly of the US defeated Iraq, a country with an enormous military in a matter of weeks. We ran them over. We could have required unconditional surrender, but Bush Sr. forsaw the consequences of an occupation and cut a deal with Suddam. Also, in the second Gulf war, we did the same thing (Though against a smaller army). The only thing stalling us now in Iraq is Guerrilla fighting, something we can't easily deal with, and so far, no country has been able to.

To be fair to the Iraqi army, we were fighting a conscript army eith outdated weapons. I mean, one Challenger did destroy an entire Tank Platoon/Company, and the Iraqis didn't put up that much resistance. Hardly an army of modern brilliance.

Just saying. You've not really fought a conflict agains an opponent with the same equipment as you since...well, WWII/Korea, I suppose.

And if I remember correctly, we won both.

Bush is in bed with the corporations, similar to Hitler... Uses a lot of propoganda an nationalist rhetoric to get his way. Tries to control the media (which is already big corporate)... arrests of people based on race, jails people without trial.. But no concentration camps (I think). While he allows opposition, it is simply in the lessrepublican democratic party. Oh and he doesn't seem to believe in a superior race--but doesn't do much to help minorities. I give him a 7.

QUOTE=Skinny87]Before WWII, Britain and France did not rule the world. Imperial Germany and the US after 1880 might be pissed to hear you say that, give what they did. Where do you learn your history?

EDIT: And whats that quote about spies got to do with anything?

Who told you that? And i meant period between WWI and WWII. And who cares what civil war US or Kaiserreich Deutchland will say about that?

This:
If they are not like us, they could be like our enemies, and then they could be spies, and then they could send info about us to our enemies...[/QUOTE]

You're still not making any sense. In between WWi and WWII, the US was the most powerfu nation, even after the Depression, until 1933-39, then Germany was for a short while, until overhauled by US productivity. Britain and France's power waned since the mid-late 19th Century; Britain after the Boer War, and France since, well, the Crimea and the Dreyfuss Affair really.

Your ranting about spies als makes no sense. If foreigners were like the US's enemies (Germany, Italy, Japan etc) then why were Italians and Germans not locked up wholesale, as in Nazi Germany? They weren't. Only the Japanese were, and they were not concentration camps. Your points make no sense!

And if I remember correctly, we won both.

Indeed, sixty years ago almost. There hasn't been a war like them since, so it's hardly a fair comparison. I'm not really doubting the power of the US army, merely stating that such comparisons aren't that fair.

And if I remember correctly, we won both.

And nobody is mentioning Somalia and Cuba?

And nobody is mentioning Somalia and Cuba?

Somalia: Several hundred US soldiers versus lightly-armed Somalis. Result: 23 dead US soldiers, twice that wounded, several thousand dead Somalis. US soldiers armed with modern equipment and aerial support, Somalis with AK47 variants and RPGs, knocking down modern Blackhawks and killing heavily-armed US soldiers.

Cuba: 1898-1902. Cuban population (No armed forces) initially supported the US against Spanish troops. Violent uprisings quelled over five years by ruthless executions and burning of villages, Cuba kept as a US territory by harsh treaties.

Neither are fair comparisons, since both were against loghtly armed insurgents/guerilla forces, much like Vietnam.

Bush is in bed with the corporations, similar to Hitler... Uses a lot of propoganda an nationalist rhetoric to get his way. Tries to control the media (which is already big corporate)... arrests of people based on race, jails people without trial.. But no concentration camps (I think). While he allows opposition, it is simply in the lessrepublican democratic party. Oh and he doesn't seem to believe in a superior race--but doesn't do much to help minorities. I give him a 7.

Excuse me, what people is he arresting?
If I remember correctly, suspected terrorists with possible terrorist ties?
Or at the least suspicious activity that needs to be checked out.
And who, again to refresh our memory, attacked us on 9/11? Not to mention all of the other attacks around the world since then?

Do you realy think that USA was the most powerfull country between wars? When war starded USA allmost didn't have an army. Do you know that by the end of WWII (only in the 1945) USA produced slighty over 16000 planes? In the 1939 USA had operative about 1000 planes. So wadda ya say?

Do you realy think that USA was the most powerfull country between wars? When war starded USA allmost didn't have an army. Do you know that by the end of WWII (only in the 1945) USA produced slighty over 16000 planes? In the 1939 USA had operative about 1000 planes. So wadda ya say?

I think we were somewhere behind Romania or something like that!

Somalia: Several hundred US soldiers versus lightly-armed Somalis. Result: 23 dead US soldiers, twice that wounded, several thousand dead Somalis. US soldiers armed with modern equipment and aerial support, Somalis with AK47 variants and RPGs, knocking down modern Blackhawks and killing heavily-armed US soldiers.

Cuba: 1898-1902. Cuban population (No armed forces) initially supported the US against Spanish troops. Violent uprisings quelled over five years by ruthless executions and burning of villages, Cuba kept as a US territory by harsh treaties.

Neither are fair comparisons, since both were against loghtly armed insurgents/guerilla forces, much like Vietnam.

When i said Cuba i meant Bay of the Pigs. You didn't even remember that!

Do you realy think that USA was the most powerfull country between wars? When war starded USA allmost didn't have an army. Do you know that by the end of WWII (only in the 1945) USA produced slighty over 16000 planes? In the 1939 USA had operative about 1000 planes. So wadda ya say?

How are we defining 'Power'? Indeed, the US was militarily weaker than Germany and Britain in 1939, but by 1941-42 had outstripped them in industrial capacity and military armament production, allowing allied forces to expend vast amounts of equipment against Axis forces when Axis forces could ill afford to do the same. Nazi Germany was economically miniscule compared to the US.

Like you said MOST of them, i beleave that after long, hard and bitter fights they could conquer Bulgaria or Serbia...

Could either of those countries conquer the USA? Could any country by itself? Ask yourself that before immediately saying "USA IS TEH NOOB!!!11". Furthermore, winning a war doesn't require conquering the opposing nation. Why conquer Bulgaria or Serbia when we can just bomb them into submission? Beating those countries probably wouldn't require a single US soldier touching enemy soil. I wonder how willing they are to fight when their cities are all in ruins, their farms destroyed, millions dead or dying, and no way to attack us or even harm us. I think that would effectively end their threat to us and require their leaders to either surrender or be obliterated. Serbia and Bulgaria are easily in the "psh" group. Here, from your list these are nations that are easily in the "psh" group: North Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Spain, Poland, Bulgaria, Serbia.
Nothing against the people or the nations themselves, but they have an extremely tiny chance to unilaterally defeat the United States in a war presently.

Are you aware that USAF has dropped more BOMBS on VIETNAM than it has in entire Pacific Theatre? And take a look at Pacific, and then on Vietnam - size does matter in the end...
I know, I mentioned that. And that wasn't even close to the power we could've brought. You were discussing full USA power, and Vietnam is a terrible example to use because we did not come even close to what our full power was.

When i said Cuba i meant Bay of the Pigs. You didn't even remember that!

I remembered, but didn't think you would want to compare it. Lightly armed Cuban insurgents, wiped out due to heavily armed pro-Castro forces and incompetant US support, that that there was after Kennedy shut down all support for it. Again, hardly a superior, modern and well-trained military force on either side, is it?

Excuse me, what people is he arresting?
If I remember correctly, suspected terrorists with possible terrorist ties?
Or at the least suspicious activity that needs to be checked out.
And who, again to refresh our memory, attacked us on 9/11? Not to mention all of the other attacks around the world since then?

http://www.maherarar.ca/, guantanamo bay... CIA prisons. I hate Al Queda as much as anyone, but do you even know why they attack the west? I don't think assuming guilt on everyone of arab-descent (who is not a millionaire) is going to solve anything, especially in the long term.

How are we defining 'Power'? Indeed, the US was militarily weaker than Germany and Britain in 1939, but by 1941-42 had outstripped them in industrial capacity and military armament production, allowing allied forces to expend vast amounts of equipment against Axis forces when Axis forces could ill afford to do the same. Nazi Germany was economically miniscule compared to the US.

Dont forget we were bombing them well into the Stone age by then. Its kinda hard to have an economy when its all dust and rubble!

Dont forget we were bombing them well into the Stone age by then. Its kinda hard to have an economy when its all dust and rubble!

Indeed, although don't overestimate the power of the USAF and RAF. The bombing did damage, but the Germans were often highly resiliant and resourceful in bringing factories back into production.

http://www.maherarar.ca/, guantanamo bay... CIA prisons. I hate Al Queda as much as anyone, but do you even know why they attack the west? I don't think assuming guilt on everyone of arab-descent (who is not a millionaire) is going to solve anything, especially in the long term.

No system is foolproof. There will always be mistakes. But hey, its quite easy to get anyone arrested these days for just about anything.

Indeed, although don't overestimate the power of the USAF and RAF. The bombing did damage, but the Germans were often highly resiliant and resourceful in bringing factories back into production.

True, in fact the Soviets were surprised to see street cars and phones working in Berlin when they moved in!
But its hard to have an economy when the is any infrastructure to hold it up!

Could either of those countries conquer the USA? Could any country by itself? Ask yourself that before immediately saying "USA IS TEH NOOB!!!11". Furthermore, winning a war doesn't require conquering the opposing nation. Why conquer Bulgaria or Serbia when we can just bomb them into submission? Beating those countries probably wouldn't require a single US soldier touching enemy soil. I wonder how willing they are to fight when their cities are all in ruins, their farms destroyed, millions dead or dying, and no way to attack us or even harm us. I think that would effectively end their threat to us and require their leaders to either surrender or be obliterated. Serbia and Bulgaria are easily in the "psh" group. Here, from your list these are nations that are easily in the "psh" group: North Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Spain, Poland, Bulgaria, Serbia.
Nothing against the people or the nations themselves, but they have an extremely tiny chance to unilaterally defeat the United States in a war presently.


I know, I mentioned that. And that wasn't even close to the power we could've brought. You were discussing full USA power, and Vietnam is a terrible example to use because we did not come even close to what our full power was.

Full power... USSR had more nukes than entire world together - and look at them now... North Korea have nukes too... If you want that your plane reach some enemy city it have to fly across enemy territory, and it have to take off from somewher... and that is weakness of USArmy, if your planes stop working you are - armyless. USArmy concentrates on Carriers and USAF! But without infantry you can't control the ground, and then some crazy asshole hijak plane and hits WTC.

True, in fact the Soviets were surprised to see street cars and phones working in Berlin when they moved in!
But its hard to have an economy when the is any infrastructure to hold it up!

That is true. I keep meaning to pick up that new book on the Allied Bombing Campaigns and their effectiveness I se in the bookshops, but keep getting easier reads like Charles Spencers Blenheim or a book on the Russo-Finnish War.

I remembered, but didn't think you would want to compare it. Lightly armed Cuban insurgents, wiped out due to heavily armed pro-Castro forces and incompetant US support, that that there was after Kennedy shut down all support for it. Again, hardly a superior, modern and well-trained military force on either side, is it?

Yeah, but if USA started war, why she wouldnt want to show all her teeth? And it was one of the shortest wars ever!

That is true. I keep meaning to pick up that new book on the Allied Bombing Campaigns and their effectiveness I se in the bookshops, but keep getting easier reads like Charles Spencers Blenheim or a book on the Russo-Finnish War.

What surprised me the most was the fact that German aircraft production actually increased during those years of heavy bombings! Thats kinda reverse of what you'd expect! That has always mystified me the most!

Yeah, but if USA started war, why she wouldnt want to show all her teeth? And it was one of the shortest wars ever!

I can't understand you. Technically the US didn't start the war, merely supported the exiled Cubans. I'm not sure what you mean by your second point. The third point might be true, although I'm fairly sure the British hold the record for the shortest war in existence.

You've still yet to answer me about the supposed camps in the US under Roosevelt. Where were they? Who maintained them? When, exactly? How do you know about them if all evidence is supposedly gone? And why, again, would Roosevelt round up citiens of Allied countries?

What surprised me the most was the fact that German aircraft production actually increased during those years of heavy bombings! Thats kinda reverse of what you'd expect! That has always mystified me the most!

Not my best area of expertise, but I believe its down to literally the Germans being very resourceful at maintaining bombed factories, and large numbers of replaceable workers - The Todt Organisation, for example

I can't understand you. Technically the US didn't start the war, merely supported the exiled Cubans. I'm not sure what you mean by your second point. The third point might be true, although I'm fairly sure the British hold the record for the shortest war in existence.

You've still yet to answer me about the supposed camps in the US under Roosevelt. Where were they? Who maintained them? When, exactly? How do you know about them if all evidence is supposedly gone? And why, again, would Roosevelt round up citiens of Allied countries?

It was war between Britain and Zanzibar, and it lasted about 40 min.

Visit this: http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Concentration_Camps/index.html

It was war between Britain and Zanzibar, and it lasted about 40 min.

Visit this: http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Concentration_Camps/index.html

Indeed it was. But please, answer my main question about your unfounded allegations.

EDITED: So, your evidence comes from a conspiracy website that spouts nonsense about US troops in NATO readied for use? Utter rubbish. And what if the US has guidelines for setting up camps? They used them against the Japanese, so of course they had them. They were not Concentration Camps.

SECOND EDIT: What the hell, this is laughable. A lot of these 'Labour Camps' are old POW camps that German and Axis troops were shipped to. Risible.

THIRD EDIT: The rest of the examples are supposed camps to be used in the future. Not evidence for camps used in WWII against foreign nationals. Try again.

Full power... USSR had more nukes than entire world together - and look at them now...

So what? Being able to destroy the world 5* times rather than 4* means nothing. We only have so much land to obliterate, no need to be wasteful, wait nevermind, that's what the USSR always did, waste resources for no reason.

*Arbitary numbers, I don't know exact figures, I'm just making a point.

North Korea have nukes too...

Wow! The DPRK has a few nukes! OMFG we are gonna get ownzor3d! :rolleyes: Perhaps I should remind of a concept called "M.A.D." And I don't think the DPRK can exercise their half of the deal right now.

If you want that your plane reach some enemy city it have to fly across enemy territory, and it have to take off from somewher... and that is weakness of USArmy, if your planes stop working you are - armyless. USArmy concentrates on Carriers and USAF! But without infantry you can't control the ground, and then some crazy asshole hijak plane and hits WTC.

That's because carriers and the USAF work. And they will probably continue to work against enemies like Serbia. Because nations like Serbia don't have any where near the air force nor the air defenses to stop it. So why risk a ground attack that can result in hundreds or thousands of deaths when a save alternative of an air campaign works faster and better? And what are you thinking connecting the US Army to the 9/11 attacks? They could do anything about it even if they were the largest and best force the world had ever seen. And as I stated before, no need to control the ground when you can destroy the ground. And should the US Army have some burning desire to control Serbia or Bulgaria, it could be done with ease. Again, psh.

So what? Being able to destroy the world 5* times rather than 4* means nothing. We only have so much land to obliterate, no need to be wasteful, wait nevermind, that's what the USSR always did, waste resources for no reason.

*Arbitary numbers, I don't know exact figures, I'm just making a point.



Wow! The DPRK has a few nukes! OMFG we are gonna get ownzor3d! :rolleyes: Perhaps I should remind of a concept called "M.A.D." And I don't think the DPRK can exercise their half of the deal right now.



That's because carriers and the USAF work. And they will probably continue to work against enemies like Serbia. Because nations like Serbia don't have any where near the air force nor the air defenses to stop it. So why risk a ground attack that can result in hundreds or thousands of deaths when a save alternative of an air campaign works faster and better? And what are you thinking connecting the US Army to the 9/11 attacks? They could do anything about it even if they were the largest and best force the world had ever seen. And as I stated before, no need to control the ground when you can destroy the ground. And should the US Army have some burning desire to control Serbia or Bulgaria, it could be done with ease. Again, psh.

How long? Throw EMP in middle of Squadron of fighters and psh. (EMP bombs are real, US Army, Russia nad few other have them)

And you're comparing yourself with Serbia who have less citizens than New York.. Strong Army indeed... it can conquer Serbia...

North Korea have a few nukes... enough to take one large city down, don't you think?

Most estimates that I have seen place the number of prisoners of war in the U.S. in the range of 50,000 to 70,000, but one reputable and detailed Website says it was 425,000.

They were only allowed to bring into the camps what they could carry in their arms in one trip

World War II imprisonment of West Coast Japanese Americans in relocation centers

Under the authority of the Department of Justice, the INS directed about twenty such facilities. Texas had three of them, located at Seagoville, Kenedy, and Crystal City. Prisoners included Japanese Americans arrested by the FBI, members of Axis nationalities residing in Latin-American countries, and Axis sailors arrested in American ports after the attack on Pearl Harbor. About 3,000 Japanese, Germans, and Italians from Latin America were deported to the United States, and most of them were placed in the Texas internment camps.

As we shall see, there is some debate about the numbers of these victims of American-supervised international kidnapping. Was it 3,000, total? Or were there more? I think there were far more, for reasons that you will soon see. In any case, what you have read so far is a whitewashed version of the story. It gets worse – much, much worse.

were brought to this country by the United States were incarcerated in several camps, most were in either of the following camps: Crystal City, Texas; Seagoville, Texas; Camp Kenedy, Texas; Fort Lincoln, Bismarck, North Dakota; and Ellis Island, New York Harbor, New York.

Prior to the exchange, lists of internees in the U.S., including the names of German-Jews, were provided to the authorities of the Third Reich.

Franklin Roosevelt's Administration did many horrible things. This is just one more example. Most of these things were covered up then, and professional historians still do their best to cover them up today, 56 years after FDR's death.


And many more, go to the site and read...

I would love to see a breakdown of all those who voted higher than about 5, as to country of origin. I live here and I have never even had the ghost of a suspicion that America was remotely "fascist." I'd really love to see those who voted above 5 have to live in a fascist state for about ten or twenty years. THEN come back and talk to me.

And many more, go to the site and read...

So, to summarise that garbage:

Axis Personnel (The enemy) were interned
Japanese citizens (Foolishly believed to be the enemy, and eventually released, although many died) were interned
The Roosevelt Administration (Administration, which could have been any number of Nazi sympathisers, or just normal administrators) gave lists of internees to the Third Reich (More than likely either government business as they were citizens, albeit citizens about to be liquidated if they returned)

I fail to see anything shocking here. These were not concentration camps, but internment camps. Many died, due to government bungling and racial attitudes, but there was no systematic killing, no gas chambers, no piles of buried bodies. Most were released after the war and eventually compensated. No allied or even neutral personnel were put into these camps, or killed. Your claims are risible and false. A fraction of the number the Nazis killed died, due to government interference and misplaced racial views, not due to any decision to actually kill them. Much like the British internment camps in the Boer War, labelled falsely as 'Concentration Camps' by revisionist historians.

How long? Throw EMP in middle of Squadron of fighters and psh. (EMP bombs are real, US Army, Russia nad few other have them)
I didn't suggest using only air power verses other powerful nations, just against ones that are pushovers and can easily be overwhelmed by sheer air power.

And you're comparing yourself with Serbia who have less citizens than New York.. Strong Army indeed... it can conquer Serbia...

Wow. Just.....wow. Talk about a changing agruement. A few minutes ago it was "If the USA fought Serbia they would barely win cause the USA sux!!!" and now it is "Well duh the USA can easily beat Serbia."
I think I should quote it before you think it is wise edit or delete it:
i beleave that after long, hard and bitter fights they could conquer Bulgaria or Serbia
All of the nations in my category labeled "Psh" would be beat up and down by the US military and you know it.

North Korea have a few nukes... enough to take one large city down, don't you think?

Indeed, it probably could get one city, assuming they have the missile tech to get it there (which they might, I can't be sure either way). But that is just one or two cities. That is not complete destruction. We can promise N. Korea complete and total destruction, like as in turning the entire nation into a lifeless, radiation-filled wasteland.

It may not be complerely fascist, but your country does have the Patriot Act and things like illegal wiretaps and camps in foreign countries to imprison POWs and caputred terrorists. Though not quite on the level of 10, these di indicate more than a resemblance to a fascist state.
You really need to read more, especially about every example of fascist states you can find. And I don't mean the whitewashed pablum fed to you in either public schools or in most universities. Read firsthand accounts. Then come back and tell me that America is a fascist state.

So, to summarise that garbage:

Axis Personnel (The enemy) were interned
Japanese citizens (Foolishly believed to be the enemy, and eventually released, although many died) were interned
The Roosevelt Administration (Administration, which could have been any number of Nazi sympathisers, or just normal administrators) gave lists of internees to the Third Reich (More than likely either government business as they were citizens, albeit citizens about to be liquidated if they returned)

I fail to see anything shocking here. These were not concentration camps, but internment camps. Many died, due to government bungling and racial attitudes, but there was no systematic killing, no gas chambers, no piles of buried bodies. Most were released after the war and eventually compensated. No allied or even neutral personnel were put into these camps, or killed. Your claims are risible and false. A fraction of the number the Nazis killed died, due to government interference and misplaced racial views, not due to any decision to actually kill them. Much like the British internment camps in the Boer War, labelled falsely as 'Concentration Camps' by revisionist historians.

It is garbage, and it is revisionist... British had concetration camps as well. All did.

You really need to read more, especially about every example of fascist states you can find. And I don't mean the whitewashed pablum fed to you in either public schools or in most universities. Read firsthand accounts. Then come back and tell me that America is a fascist state.

It has fascist or totalitarian aspects to it. Just as Great Britain does at the moment. I agree that it is not a completey fascist state, or even near it, but it does have similarities. However, I wouldn't expect you to admit that, given your views of the US and the US army. No offence, old boy, but you don't have the most open viewpoint of the US at times.

However, I'm nothing compared to the poster I'm debating with, who links to sites claiming the US has sites ready to intern civilians and turn them into slaves and control te country...

It is garbage, and it is revisionist... British had concetration camps as well. All did.

Yes, your stuff is garbage and revisionist, I agree. The US did not have concentration camps, despite your 'evidence'. We had one set of camps in the Boer War, which unfortunately killed more than few due to government bungling and red tape and rife disease; these were not, however concentration camps. Please provide evidence otherwise, especially for other countries.

The US is not fascist as long as I am allowed to debate whether or not it is fascist freely and without fear of legal retribution or punishment by law.

Wow. Just.....wow. Talk about a changing agruement. A few minutes ago it was "If the USA fought Serbia they would barely win cause the USA sux!!!" and now it is "Well duh the USA can easily beat Serbia."
I think I should quote it before you think it is wise edit or delete it:

I didn't say it could beat them easily, eventualy USA would prevail, but with great cost of life. "after long, hard and close victory..." read my previous posts. AND I SAY AGAIN: ALONE USA COULDN'T DEFEAT MOST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD. THAT INCLUDES ALL COUNTRIES I HAVE MENTIONED BEFORE.

Yes, your stuff is garbage and revisionist, I agree. The US did not have concentration camps, despite your 'evidence'. We had one set of camps in the Boer War, which unfortunately killed more than few due to government bungling and red tape and rife disease; these were not, however concentration camps. Please provide evidence otherwise, especially for other countries.

I provided you with evidence! What else do you want? Tourist sightseeing?

I provided you with evidence! What else do you want? Tourist sightseeing?

I debunked that claptrap; it isn't evidence. It stated that old POW camps were Concentration Camps without stating how, why or who was held there. It stated that Axis POWs and citizens were held - being the enemy, hardly a surprise. The Japanese have been covered, and they were not concentration camps. They had plenty of food, beds at least and were eventually released or allowed to fight in Nisei units under US control.

The rest of your 'evidence' claims that camps are being fitted for a New World Order. Which is enough to show how much relevence and reliability it should have as evidence; about as much as David Irving's later works.

I didn't say it could beat them easily, eventualy USA would prevail, but with great cost of life. "after long, hard and close victory..." read my previous posts. AND I SAY AGAIN: ALONE USA COULDN'T DEFEAT MOST COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD. THAT INCLUDES ALL COUNTRIES I HAVE MENTIONED BEFORE.
Spare me from this, please. You think that if the USA took on Serbia, one on one, that it would be a battle? Only if you thought when Germany conquered Denmark in WWII it was a battle. :rolleyes: The US Army would march through Serbia and take it down with any trouble what-so-ever. Serbia doesn't have the weapons, the soldiers, or the technology to even put up a fight. Pushovers in every sense of the word.

Spare me from this, please. You think that if the USA took on Serbia, one on one, that it would be a battle? Only if you thought when Germany conquered Denmark in WWII it was a battle. :rolleyes: The US Army would march through Serbia and take it down with any trouble what-so-ever. Serbia doesn't have the weapons, the soldiers, or the technology to even put up a fight. Pushovers in every sense of the word.
unless they use guerrlla warfare!

I debunked that claptrap; it isn't evidence. It stated that old POW camps were Concentration Camps without stating how, why or who was held there. It stated that Axis POWs and citizens were held - being the enemy, hardly a surprise. The Japanese have been covered, and they were not concentration camps. They had plenty of food, beds at least and were eventually released or allowed to fight in Nisei units under US control.

The erst of your 'evidence' claims that camps are being fitted for a New World Order. Which is enough to show how much relevence and reliability it should have as evidence; about as much as David Irving's later works.

You really don't understand? Do you? If you don't wanna beleave - fine!

You really don't understand? Do you? If you don't wanna beleave - fine!

Listen up. Japanese citizens were interned. This was disgraceful and based upon absurd notions of spy rings and deep-rooted racial issues. Many died due to indifference and government stupidity, but they were not concentration/death camps; the deaths were not designed nor implemented ala Dachau. They were eventually released and compensated, albeit decades later. The majority survived, unlike Nazi Germany

Axis personnel were captured in US ports and allied/neutral nations and placed in prison camps until the war ended, as were POWs. Several escaped, yet no reports of death camps were heard of, or the whole world would have known about it as the Axis parotted it out. They too were relased/naturalised after the war ended. No death camps.

You have given me no evidence that allied or neutral foreign nationals were imprisoned or killed. None at all, and I highly doubt that would have occured; if even the slightest hint of it had crept out, it would have been political suicide.

The British created what have falsely been termed the first 'Concentration Camps' in the Boer War. This is a false allegation; they were internment camps for Boer personnel and families, all randomly rounded up. Many died from poorly managed disease control/sanitation and government redtape. None of it was the instituitionalised killing of Nazi Germany.

There, that about covers it all.

unless they use guerrlla warfare!

Well it's my belief that if we use serious tactics ("total" war) that we can easily get around that. We'll see how long that works when we start ripping apart cities and destroying crop fields. And then we cut any international supply lines. No food, no industry, nothing. We'll see how long they decide to hold out then.

Spare me from this, please. You think that if the USA took on Serbia, one on one, that it would be a battle? Only if you thought when Germany conquered Denmark in WWII it was a battle. :rolleyes: The US Army would march through Serbia and take it down with any trouble what-so-ever. Serbia doesn't have the weapons, the soldiers, or the technology to even put up a fight. Pushovers in every sense of the word.

Please! In the name of God! This is not about Serbia, and i didn't wanted to start this issue, but you forced me:

Did you know that during Kosovo War only three (3) Serb tanks were destroyed? Did you know that joined Albanian and US forces attacked (on ground) Serb positions on Albania - Kosovo border? Did you know that all that attacks were easily rebuffed by Serbs? Is this how you imagine US march thry Serbia?

AW as i said - Alone USA is weak.

Well it's my belief that if we use serious tactics ("total" war) that we can easily get around that. We'll see how long that works when we start ripping apart cities and destroying crop fields. And then we cut any international supply lines. No food, no industry, nothing. We'll see how long they decide to hold out then.

You did that in Vietnam - and it didn't work!

Listen up. Japanese citizens were interned. This was disgraceful and based upon absurd notions of spy rings and deep-rooted racial issues. Many died due to indifference and government stupidity, but they were not concentration/death camps; the deaths were not designed nor implemented ala Dachau. They were eventually released and compensated, albeit decades later. The majority survived, unlike Nazi Germany

Axis personnel were captured in US ports and allied/neutral nations and placed in prison camps until the war ended, as were POWs. Several escaped, yet no reports of death camps were heard of, or the whole world would have known about it as the Axis parotted it out. They too were relased/naturalised after the war ended. No death camps.

You have given me no evidence that allied or neutral foreign nationals were imprisoned or killed. None at all, and I highly doubt that would have occured; if even the slightest hint of it had crept out, it would have been political suicide.

The British created what have falsely been termed the first 'Concentration Camps' in the Boer War. This is a false allegation; they were internment camps for Boer personnel and families, all randomly rounded up. Many died from poorly managed disease control/sanitation and government redtape. None of it was the instituitionalised killing of Nazi Germany.

There, that about covers it all.

"Truth is out there" said Smoker and dissapeared in to the night...

"Truth is out there" said Smoker and dissapeared in to the night...

Yup, thought so. I debunked everything, you bugger off. Oh well, farewell...

Yup, thought so. I debunked everything, you bugger off. Oh well, farewell...

What everything?

"Truth is out there" said Smoker and dissapeared in to the night...

This particular Smoker went in search of his butt, which he couldn't find with both hands.

What everything?

Your false allegations of allied personnel being rounded up and killed, and concentration camps in the US. There were Internment Camps, and some died due to poor sanitation and indifference, but there were no camps on the scale or even view of Dachau/Auschwitz.

This particular Smoker went in search of his butt, which he couldn't find with both hands.

Guy have SIX HANDS BUHAHAHAHAHA!

This particular Smoker went in search of his butt, which he couldn't find with both hands.

Thank god, CT. Look, I debunked most of his crap, but he's still around. I'm about to go to sleep; could you take over for me? My previous posts cover mst of his rubbish.

Your false allegations of allied personnel being rounded up and killed, and concentration camps in the US. There were Internment Camps, and some died due to poor sanitation and indifference, but there were no camps on the scale or even view of Dachau/Auschwitz.

Did i ever mentioned Dachau/Auschwitz? I never said that they were larger than Nazis - dont get me wrong, i am not saying that Holocaust never happened i just say that every country of WWII has it's little dirty secret...

And when we're talking, why are you defending USA?

Did i ever mentioned Dachau/Auschwitz? I never said that they were larger than Nazis - dont get me wrong, i am not saying that Holocaust never happened i just say that every country of WWII has it's little dirty secret...

And the USA doesn't have one. Internment Camps are well nown about, and have been apologised for, even memorials erected. They were not concentration camps meant for mass killing. They imprisoned Axis personnel and POWs; no killings there, either.

Thank god, CT. Look, I debunked most of his crap, but he's still around. I'm about to go to sleep; could you take over for me? My previous posts cover mst of his rubbish.

What can i say - i'm stubborn!

What can i say - i'm stubborn!

I'm sorry, but you're also wrong. If your evidence had even one shred of truth to it, I'd pounce on it. But it doesn't. There were no concentration camps, no mass killing places in the US.

And the USA doesn't have one. Internment Camps are well nown about, and have been apologised for, even memorials erected. They were not concentration camps meant for mass killing. They imprisoned Axis personnel and POWs; no killings there, either.

Oh, please. You just don't wanna understand.

Please! In the name of God! This is not about Serbia, and i didn't wanted to start this issue, but you forced me:

Did you know that during Kosovo War only three (3) Serb tanks were destroyed? Did you know that joined Albanian and US forces attacked (on ground) Serb positions on Albania - Kosovo border? Did you know that all that attacks were easily rebuffed by Serbs? Is this how you imagine US march thry Serbia?

AW as i said - Alone USA is weak.

Did you know that NATO as a whole put all of one (1) division on the ground during that war? And all it was used for was securing refueling sites and pointing out targets? The 82nd Airborne and nothing else. The rest was pure air campaign. And we got a surrender without too much trouble.
Had we put our entire army into the conflict, heck even half our army into the conflict, it would have been marching through the streets of the capital in a few weeks.

You claim that all of the nations you listed would be able to defeat the USA and it seems pretty obvious that isn't even close to true. One down, got another one in mind?

You did that in Vietnam - and it didn't work!
Vietnam has been discussed. We didn't do the bombing we could have because of political concerns. Had we, it would have. Simple as that.

I'm sorry, but you're also wrong. If your evidence had even one shred of truth to it, I'd pounce on it. But it doesn't. There were no concentration camps, no mass killing places in the US.

Who said anything about mass killings? I said that PoWs, arrested immigrants from Axis countries, and political opponents were treated badly, they were tortured, they lived in wooden barracs, and their possesions were stolen from them.

Did you know that NATO as a whole put all of one (1) division on the ground during that war? And all it was used for was securing refueling sites and pointing out targets? The 82nd Airborne and nothing else. The rest was pure air campaign. And we got a surrender without too much trouble.
Had we put our entire army into the conflict, heck even half our army into the conflict, it would have been marching through the streets of the capital in a few weeks.

You claim that all of the nations you listed would be able to defeat the USA and it seems pretty obvious that isn't even close to true. One down, got another one in mind?

Maybe, just maybe you didn't know that 82nd Airborne were in Normandy?
Maybe, just maybe you didnt know that Serbian 63. Airborne troops attacked american Helipad in Northern Albania, and destroyed it utterly?

You didn't go to war against any other. If we don't count wars from XVII, XVIII and XIX cen?

How about Korea?

Vietnam has been discussed. We didn't do the bombing we could have because of political concerns. Had we, it would have. Simple as that.

Do you really think so?

Maybe, just maybe you didn't know that 82nd Airborne were in Normandy?
Maybe, just maybe you didnt know that Serbian 63. Airborne troops attacked american Helipad in Northern Albania, and destroyed it utterly?

So what if the 82nd Airborne was also at Normandy? It makes little difference what the old conflicts that division was a part of. And I'm not sure what difference it makes that they weren't able to protect every single NATO airbase in the region, it was only one division, not a mass deployment.


How about Korea?

Ok, let's see, plans for beating the DPRK... got one:

Cut off their supply lines to China and the rest of the world. Destroy any missile launch sites they may have. Bomb and destroy the farms. Wait for mass starvation to set in and cripple the country. Meanwhile, destroy the cities and industry of the Koreans. Destroy any economic targets, especially food production, energy providers, and transportation services. Continue bombing campaigns on targets of opportunity. Conflict ends when Korea surrenders to stop the bombing and starvation or the Korean population and army becoming so crippled by starvation and lack of supplies that we are able to roll over them with superior ground forces to be inserted via South Korea.
If they go nuclear, show them what "going nuclear" is all about and start crossing the name "North Korea" off your maps, you can rename it "World's Largest Parking Lot"

Do you really think so?

Yes, and I think most people who have studied that war will agree.

So what if the 82nd Airborne was also at Normandy? It makes little difference what the old conflicts that division was a part of. And I'm not sure what difference it makes that they weren't able to protect every single NATO airbase in the region, it was only one division, not a mass deployment.



Ok, let's see, plans for beating the DPRK... got one:

Cut off their supply lines to China and the rest of the world. Destroy any missile launch sites they may have. Bomb and destroy the farms. Wait for mass starvation to set in and cripple the country. Meanwhile, destroy the cities and industry of the Koreans. Destroy any economic targets, especially food production, energy providers, and transportation services. Continue bombing campaigns on targets of opportunity. Conflict ends when Korea surrenders to stop the bombing and starvation or the Korean population and army becoming so crippled by starvation and lack of supplies that we are able to roll over them with superior ground forces to be inserted via South Korea.
If they go nuclear, show them what "going nuclear" is all about and start crossing the name "North Korea" off your maps, you can rename it "World's Largest Parking Lot"



Yes, and I think most people who have studied that war will agree.

It is obvious that you have never been in army. You are highly overestimating the power of bombing - if it was just so easy...

Please! In the name of God! This is not about Serbia, and i didn't wanted to start this issue, but you forced me:

Did you know that during Kosovo War only three (3) Serb tanks were destroyed? Did you know that joined Albanian and US forces attacked (on ground) Serb positions on Albania - Kosovo border? Did you know that all that attacks were easily rebuffed by Serbs? Is this how you imagine US march thry Serbia?

AW as i said - Alone USA is weak.

Using Farmers "Total War" concept, you'd more than likely find that after the US seals off the Serbian borders using their full complement of armor and infantry units, Special Forces units would be sent in to identify all possible portions of the Serb infrastructure for destruction.

At that point the Navy and the Air Force would commence a bombing campaign that makes Vietnam look like a water balloon fight. Said bombings would continue until all remotely viable targets are flattened. The US has developed bunkerbuster bombs designed to penetrate underground facilities, even cave complexes and reinforced bunkers would be targeted. Smart weapons would be used to eliminate vital targets such as water works, power generation, defense networks, airfields, etc.

When the bombing raids have destroyed all their targets, then the ground units would begin their portion of the operation. Remember, we are talking TOTAL here. Suicide assaults on troops would be negated by the fact that ALL Serbians, military and civilian would be targets. If it twitches, shoot it. Thermal, acoustic and infrared would be used to seek out and kill all Serbians. All men, women, children, farm animals would be killed. Crops would be uprooted and destroyed, the fields salted and mined. Any structures still even remotely standing would be demolished. This includes bridges, statues, chicken coops, outhouses and so on.

Nothing would be left.

Now, do you honestly believe that the Serbians could withstand that?

I do doubt you could find all that many American soldiers who would willingly or unwillingly go along with such a scenario. Nor would most Americans be able to stomach such a war. But the U.S. military is more than capable of such I believe.

It is obvious that you have never been in army. You are highly overestimating the power of bombing - if it was just so easy...

Worked pretty well in the past. See World War Two, Desert Storm, Kosovo, Iraq War (When we were actually fighting the nation itself)

Edit: Thank you Duntscruwithus for putting that in words better than I could.

Using Farmers "Total War" concept, you'd more than likely find that after the US seals off the Serbian borders using their full complement of armor and infantry units, Special Forces units would be sent in to identify all possible portions of the Serb infrastructure for destruction.

At that point the Navy and the Air Force would commence a bombing campaign that makes Vietnam look like a water balloon fight. Said bombings would continue until all remotely viable targets are flattened. The US has developed bunkerbuster bombs designed to penetrate underground facilities, even cave complexes and reinforced bunkers would be targeted. Smart weapons would be used to eliminate vital targets such as water works, power generation, defense networks, airfields, etc.

When the bombing raids have destroyed all their targets, then the ground units would begin their portion of the operation. Remember, we are talking TOTAL here. Suicide assaults on troops would be negated by the fact that ALL Serbians, military and civilian would be targets. If it twitches, shoot it. Thermal, acoustic and infrared would be used to seek out and kill all Serbians. All men, women, children, farm animals would be killed. Crops would be uprooted and destroyed, the fields salted and mined. Any structures still even remotely standing would be demolished. This includes bridges, statues, chicken coops, outhouses and so on.

Nothing would be left.

Now, do you honestly believe that the Serbians could withstand that?

I do doubt you could find all that many American soldiers who would willingly or unwillingly go along with such a scenario. Nor would most Americans be able to stomach such a war. But the U.S. military is more than capable of such I believe.

Yeah, and they could throw a nuke as well. As i said - if it would be so easy. But Serbia is shit of country, what about China nad Russia?

Worked pretty well in the past. See World War Two, Desert Storm, Kosovo, Iraq War (When we were actually fighting the nation itself)

Who we? USA wasn't the only country in that war, Serbia was bombed by 17 or 19 (dunno) countries.

Yeah, and they could throw a nuke as well. As i said - if it would be so easy. But Serbia is shit of country, what about China nad Russia?

Russia or China would be a whole different animal. That would require a lot more ground operation. It would be the same basic concept if we really wanted to just destroy them, but in a different way than you would with a place like Serbia.

Discounting nukes (which would bring an end to the world) I don't think China or Russia could beat the USA, mainly because they couldn't get to the states with ground troops. So the USA could slowly get them into a situation where they have to end the war ("total" war concepts could hurt both pretty badly over time, as they are already a bit short on the food supplies, especially China)

Who we? USA wasn't the only country in that war, Serbia was bombed by 17 or 19 (dunno) countries.
That was just examples of air power being a HUGE contributor to the victory of a nation over another, not necessarily unilateral USA wars.

Russia or China would be a whole different animal. That would require a lot more ground operation. It would be the same basic concept if we really wanted to just destroy them, but in a different way than you would with a place like Serbia.

Discounting nukes (which would bring an end to the world) I don't think China or Russia could beat the USA, mainly because they couldn't get to the states with ground troops. So the USA could slowly get them into a situation where they have to end the war ("total" war concepts could hurt both pretty badly over time, as they are already a bit short on the food supplies, especially China)

Why do you think that they couldn't get to the states? Unlike Serbia wich allmost doesn't have an airforce, China and especialy Russia have huge, modern and well organized airforce. Why do you think that they would allow you to bomb their cities without Air-to-Air fight?

What educated person does not oppose america? How can you support a nation that kills and invades other peaceful, democratic nations for fun?
Seems like you have a deep hatred for America...hmm wonder how much of your hate it due to your own country or cultural indoctrination.

Worked pretty well in the past. See World War Two, Desert Storm, Kosovo, Iraq War (When we were actually fighting the nation itself)

Edit: Thank you Duntscruwithus for putting that in words better than I could.

:p My pleasure.

And you underestimate just how much firepower the U.S. military could throw at a target were it so inclined, Blackredwithyellowsuna. As far as I am aware, no country has EVER brought the full force of their military to bear, so while I MAY be overestimating their capabilities as you believe, I suspect that I am closer to what they could do than you are.

Originally Posted by Blackredwithyellowsuna
Please! In the name of God! This is not about Serbia, and i didn't wanted to start this issue, but you forced me:

Did you know that during Kosovo War only three (3) Serb tanks were destroyed? Did you know that joined Albanian and US forces attacked (on ground) Serb positions on Albania - Kosovo border? Did you know that all that attacks were easily rebuffed by Serbs? Is this how you imagine US march thry Serbia?

AW as i said - Alone USA is weak.

So actually, you were talking about the U.S. not being able to take on Serbia. Your words friend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War#The_NATO_bombing_campaign

In one respect you are right, the U.S. didn't act alone in the bombing sorties, but they WERE the primary forces in the assault. And they STILL didn't bring every bomb-capable aircraft to the table for that.

What is the state of the Russian military? It has been a few years since I read anything about them, but when I was keeping up on the subject, they weren't doing so good. Troop desertions from lack of pay were pretty damned common a few years back. They were scaling back their fleets due to a lack of funds for operational upkeep. No idea if anythign has changed since then though.

China- I know that their booming economy has them upgrading their military like crazy, but that pretty much sums up my knowledge of the Chinese militaries capabilities.

Anyone here more up to date on them?

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/natolosses-review01.htm

And that is official!

OK i admit: US could conquer Serbia, after hard and bloody war.

What is the state of the Russian military? It has been a few years since I read anything about them, but when I was keeping up on the subject, they weren't doing so good. Troop desertions from lack of pay were pretty damned common a few years back. They were scaling back their fleets due to a lack of funds for operational upkeep. No idea if anythign has changed since then though.

Unfortunately they are doing good now.

China- I know that their booming economy has them upgrading their military like crazy, but that pretty much sums up my knowledge of the Chinese militaries capabilities.

Anyone here more up to date on them?


Try this:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/index.html
http://www.china-military.org/

Why do you think that they couldn't get to the states? Unlike Serbia wich allmost doesn't have an airforce, China and especialy Russia have huge, modern and well organized airforce. Why do you think that they would allow you to bomb their cities without Air-to-Air fight?
Russia has a well organized....anything? :p
The Russian Fed. has been scaling back their military for years and have become a regional power at best, not a major threat to the states. And they are trying to sell their old weapons in order to be able to pay for keeping any weapons they feel necessary. Also, much of the funding of the Russian military comes from the USA, so if we end that they'd be in a bit of trouble, at least for a little while. Plus, the very size of Russia makes it basically impossible to defend, so we could probably hit more than one part at the same time and maybe be thrown back at point A, but easily succeed at point B. In any case, they would have trouble hitting us in any way (besides nukes) so we would never have to be on the defensive. Russia places most of its trust in its nuclear deterrence, so in a strictly conventional war, I think the USA could come out on top.

China has a similar problem when fighting us, we can get to them but they'd have trouble getting to us. But fighting them on land would be very difficult, I agree, because of their massive army. So, probably some combination of an air bombardment plus small raids on cities and farmlands to destroy infrastructure and food sources.

"When a complex web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over several generations, the truth will seem utterly poposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic"- Dreden James.

America=Facism is possible, in fact trends seem that it will be probable.

The real question is, will the American people have the willingness to stand up and stop it form happening before its to late. First step is accpetance. This can happen. anywhere anytime. And you and everyone you know needs to prepare to fight it. Becuase its a struggle of oppression vs. freedom that will go on until the apocalypse.

Unfortunetly, many times we dont learn from our past. and another "Hitler" will emerge. But hopefully, maybe someone will shoothim dead in the beggining, or in the massive war that follows the world is able to put aside its petty bullshit and work together for once and a fucking while.

Russia has a well organized....anything? :p
The Russian Fed. has been scaling back their military for years and have become a regional power at best, not a major threat to the states. And they are trying to sell their old weapons in order to be able to pay for keeping any weapons they feel necessary. Also, much of the funding of the Russian military comes from the USA, so if we end that they'd be in a bit of trouble, at least for a little while. Plus, the very size of Russia makes it basically impossible to defend, so we could probably hit more than one part at the same time and maybe be thrown back at point A, but easily succeed at point B. In any case, they would have trouble hitting us in any way (besides nukes) so we would never have to be on the defensive. Russia places most of its trust in its nuclear deterrence, so in a strictly conventional war, I think the USA could come out on top.

China has a similar problem when fighting us, we can get to them but they'd have trouble getting to us. But fighting them on land would be very difficult, I agree, because of their massive army. So, probably some combination of an air bombardment plus small raids on cities and farmlands to destroy infrastructure and food sources.



yeah, Hitler had the same thought in mind when he invaded Russia, so did Napoleon, so did Sweeden, so did the Mongols, so the the British. YOU DUMBASS WHEN ARE PEOPLE GONNA LEARN, RUSSIA CANNOT BE TAKEN BY ANY OTHER NATION.

go ahead try. You'll end up froze to death, starving, shot all to bloody hell on the Russian step. and then you'll just be a statistic.

"When a complex web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over several generations, the truth will seem utterly poposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic"- Dreden James.

America=Facism is possible, in fact trends seem that it will be probable.

Anything is possible.


The real question is, will the American people have the willingness to stand up and stop it form happening before its to late. First step is accpetance. This can happen. anywhere anytime. And you and everyone you know needs to prepare to fight it. Becuase its a struggle of oppression vs. freedom that will go on until the apocalypse.

It's a little more then simple acceptance. People have to be suffering then you need a guy that sounds like he has answers. Luckily the dimplehead doesn't have anything that peole want to hear.


Unfortunetly, many times we dont learn from our past. and another "Hitler" will emerge. But hopefully, maybe someone will shoothim dead in the beggining, or in the massive war that follows the world is able to put aside its petty bullshit and work together for once and a fucking while.
Hitlers emergence was the fact that Germany was fucked. I still remember seeing a guy with a wheelbarrel full of marks on his way to buy some bread. Hitler comes along, has a plan, and spoke well.

You will have to see Constitutional amendments repealing things before such a thing would happen.....

Russia has a well organized....anything? :p
The Russian Fed. has been scaling back their military for years and have become a regional power at best, not a major threat to the states. And they are trying to sell their old weapons in order to be able to pay for keeping any weapons they feel necessary. Also, much of the funding of the Russian military comes from the USA, so if we end that they'd be in a bit of trouble, at least for a little while. Plus, the very size of Russia makes it basically impossible to defend, so we could probably hit more than one part at the same time and maybe be thrown back at point A, but easily succeed at point B. In any case, they would have trouble hitting us in any way (besides nukes) so we would never have to be on the defensive. Russia places most of its trust in its nuclear deterrence, so in a strictly conventional war, I think the USA could come out on top.

China has a similar problem when fighting us, we can get to them but they'd have trouble getting to us. But fighting them on land would be very difficult, I agree, because of their massive army. So, probably some combination of an air bombardment plus small raids on cities and farmlands to destroy infrastructure and food sources.

If Russia is hard to defend coz it's big, why do you think that it would be easy to assoult her? Don't be too confident in US arms - A lot people did that mistake (Romans, French, Brits, Germans, Japs...).

I don't think that US could win there in case of US attack on Russia (same for China) - there would be a lot of problems fa: logistic, What if Russians/Chinese sunk US carriers... and tell me how are you gonna plan to destroy crop fields in southcentral Russia, and Northwest China?

yeah, Hitler had the same thought in mind when he invaded Russia, so did Napoleon, so did Sweeden, so did the Mongols, so the the British. YOU DUMBASS WHEN ARE PEOPLE GONNA LEARN, RUSSIA CANNOT BE TAKEN BY ANY OTHER NATION.

go ahead try. You'll end up froze to death, starving, shot all to bloody hell on the Russian step. and then you'll just be a statistic.

*coughsVIKINGScoughs*

Which means that the US is completely facist? The High numbers or the Low numbers?

Which means that the US is completely facist? The High numbers or the Low numbers?

0-1 lowest

9-10 completly fascist

If Russia is hard to defend coz it's big, why do you think that it would be easy to assoult her? Don't be too confident in US arms - A lot people did that mistake (Romans, French, Brits, Germans, Japs...).

I don't think that US could win there in case of US attack on Russia (same for China) - there would be a lot of problems fa: logistic, What if Russians/Chinese sunk US carriers... and tell me how are you gonna plan to destroy crop fields in southcentral Russia, and Northwest China?

What would they sink our carriers with? Wishful thinking?

And to respond to you question of how we destroy crop field: poisons, defoliants, and supernapalm.

If Russia is hard to defend coz it's big, why do you think that it would be easy to assoult her? Don't be too confident in US arms - A lot people did that mistake (Romans, French, Brits, Germans, Japs...).

I don't think that US could win there in case of US attack on Russia (same for China) - there would be a lot of problems fa: logistic, What if Russians/Chinese sunk US carriers... and tell me how are you gonna plan to destroy crop fields in southcentral Russia, and Northwest China?
Destroying central-asian crop fields is no problem. The ethics of using fuel-air bombs, herbicides, biogenetic plagues (engineered only to kill certain types of plants, and possibly for only a limited amount of time) will always come into question. Delivery is easy, cruise missiles, long range bombers and converted Trident D-5 missiles.

The US has fascist tendencies, but it's not a fascist country.

The US has fascist tendencies, but it's not a fascist country.
Of course, every country has fascist tendencies. In fact, the basic concept of a bunch of people banding together into a country is the root of the concept of fascism.

I like how the poll mirrors itself

_______
____
_____
___
__
__
___
_____
____
_______

Or something like that.

What would they sink our carriers with? Wishful thinking?

And to respond to you question of how we destroy crop field: poisons, defoliants, and supernapalm.

You make me laugh! What a silly question! You know, do you, that all countries in the world have an Navy and Airforce? Russia/China especialy! When you hit an Carrier with Sub torpedo in 76% carrier ends up at the bottom of ocean.

If you gonna destroy crop field with poisons, defoliants, and supernapalm youd' have to come close to them. So please explane to me how many bombers could take off from carrier anchored in tellow sea bomb Russian/Chinese positions there, and then to return?

You make me laugh! What a silly question! You know, do you, that all countries in the world have an Navy and Airforce? Russia/China especialy! When you hit an Carrier with Sub torpedo in 76% carrier ends up at the bottom of ocean.

If you gonna destroy crop field with poisons, defoliants, and supernapalm youd' have to come close to them. So please explane to me how many bombers could take off from carrier anchored in tellow sea bomb Russian/Chinese positions there, and then to return?

Well for one thing you have to be able to get in range of the carrier. How you going to do that?

Crops? Overall that is a silly discussion. Not worth the effort.

You make me laugh! What a silly question! You know, do you, that all countries in the world have an Navy and Airforce? Russia/China especialy! When you hit an Carrier with Sub torpedo in 76% carrier ends up at the bottom of ocean.

If you gonna destroy crop field with poisons, defoliants, and supernapalm youd' have to come close to them. So please explane to me how many bombers could take off from carrier anchored in tellow sea bomb Russian/Chinese positions there, and then to return?
The first step in hitting a carrier with torp's is getting the submarine within range, and that's not an easy proposition when you're talking about an American carrier battle group. A sub would have to get past several Los Angeles class subs, Anti-submarine escort surface ships, anti-submarine aircraft (both fixed wing and helicopters) and satellites orbiting that are capable of detecting subs in shallow waters. And helicopters are very capable of killing a submarine.

Beyond that, you wouldn't launch anti-crop missions off of carriers, instead I'd advise using B-1, B-2 and B-52 long range bombers based off of, oh, say, Japan or Diego Garcia

You make me laugh! What a silly question! You know, do you, that all countries in the world have an Navy and Airforce? Russia/China especialy! When you hit an Carrier with Sub torpedo in 76% carrier ends up at the bottom of ocean.

The Russian Navy is a rusting hulk in Arkangelsk. The Chinese don't have a blue water navy to speak of. Even if they had the capabilities to get a sub that's remotely capable of destroying an American carrier, they'd have to get through the screening American submarines, the submarine-hunting helos launched from destroyers and the carrier, as well as the destroyers themselves. Even if such a submarine were to survive getting through that defensive wall, the torpedo would still have to hit the carrier without hitting any of the escorts who are conveniently nearby to take a hit for the carrier.

If you gonna destroy crop field with poisons, defoliants, and supernapalm youd' have to come close to them. So please explane to me how many bombers could take off from carrier anchored in tellow sea bomb Russian/Chinese positions there, and then to return?

Same way we bombed Afghanistan. With bombers launched from AFBs in the US, Turkey, Tajikistan, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Alaska, &c.

The first step in hitting a carrier with torp's is getting the submarine within range, and that's not an easy proposition when you're talking about an American carrier battle group. A sub would have to get past several Los Angeles class subs, Anti-submarine escort surface ships, anti-submarine aircraft (both fixed wing and helicopters) and satellites orbiting that are capable of detecting subs in shallow waters. And helicopters are very capable of killing a submarine.

Beyond that, you wouldn't launch anti-crop missions off of carriers, instead I'd advise using B-1, B-2 and B-52 long range bombers based off of, oh, say, Japan or Diego Garcia

Yeah, and your enemy would only look in to the sky, while your's planes are flyin' over their heads... Bullshit - If Bombers wanna cause havoc in central Asia, they would have to get passed half world ,over constant fighter/SAM danger - same as for carriers - so you are making pressumptions that you gonna sail quetly to the best location possible, start bombing best cities and strategic logations possible, and while you're doing that your enemy will sit and cry? And you think that states will allways be protected and safe?

Bush aint Fascist, but Clinton is. I hate that annoying asshole!

Maybe you should look up the word in the dictionary before you use it.... (damn what a 'tard):rolleyes:

The Russian Navy is a rusting hulk in Arkangelsk. The Chinese don't have a blue water navy to speak of. Even if they had the capabilities to get a sub that's remotely capable of destroying an American carrier, they'd have to get through the screening American submarines, the submarine-hunting helos launched from destroyers and the carrier, as well as the destroyers themselves. Even if such a submarine were to survive getting through that defensive wall, the torpedo would still have to hit the carrier without hitting any of the escorts who are conveniently nearby to take a hit for the carrier.



Same way we bombed Afghanistan. With bombers launched from AFBs in the US, Turkey, Tajikistan, Saudi Arabia, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Alaska, &c.

You're overestimating yourself, and in the same time you're underestimating you'r enemies - that is no good, for you...

Yeah, and your enemy would only look in to the sky, while your's planes are flyin' over their heads... Bullshit - If Bombers wanna cause havoc in central Asia, they would have to get passed half world ,over constant fighter/SAM danger - same as for carriers - so you are making pressumptions that you gonna sail quetly to the best location possible, start bombing best cities and strategic logations possible, and while you're doing that your enemy will sit and cry? And you think that states will allways be protected and safe?

SAMs aren't a concern for B-2s (which can sail straight through their RADARs without being detected), B-52s (which will weave a path through SAM sites killed by Wild Weasels and SOCOM), and B-1s (which fly too low for most SAMs and too fast for most AA).

Maybe you should look up the word in the dictionary before you use it.... (damn what a 'tard):rolleyes:

You are an REtard!

You're overestimating yourself, and in the same time you're underestimating you'r enemys - that is no good, for you...

No, I'm perfectly estimating my enemy. China has no blue water navy. None. They have anti-shipping missiles, but no planes to get them close to carriers. They may have the world's largest army, but their air force is about the same size as Taiwan's. Russia is too poor to be able to do anything about it.

Neither would be a push-over by any stretch of the imagination to conquer and occupy. But both would be easily defeated militarily.

SAMs aren't a concern for B-2s (which can sail straight through their RADARs without being detected), B-52s (which will weave a path through SAM sites killed by Wild Weasels and SOCOM), and B-1s (which fly too low for most SAMs and too fast for most AA).

You can't be defeated, and your enemies are like paper tiger... I didn't beleave that Americans are such arrogant fucks!

No, I'm perfectly estimating my enemy. China has no blue water navy. None. They have anti-shipping missiles, but no planes to get them close to carriers. They may have the world's largest army, but their air force is about the same size as Taiwan's. Russia is too poor to be able to do anything about it.

Neither would be a push-over by any stretch of the imagination to conquer and occupy. But both would be easily defeated militarily.

Yeah, right, you are invincible... Crap!

The U.S. is not fascist, just nationalistic. Nationalism is an aspect of fascism, but they aren't one and the same. For one, fascism would entail a dictator, which we lack, and if I'm correct, fascism does not support a free market, which we possess.

You can't be defeated, and your enemies are like paper tiger... I didn't beleave that Americans are such arrogant fucks!

Take five minutes to get your breath back, and then take a look at the equipment (or how much money goes into our military, compared to the next twenty nations... combined).

The Russian T-72 is no match of an M1A1 Abrams, let alone an M1A2. The T-80, a tank that the Russians have stopped producing in favor of the T-72 doesn't fare much better. The Chinese Type-98, though a step in the right direction, would find its equal in the old M68 Patton. Neither nation possesses particularly adept mechanized forces.

China has no blue water navy. None. Russia's is rusting away. How do they expect to counter the world's premier blue water navy with that? They can only stick there fingers in their ears and say, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" (That being said, Russian Backfire bombers carrying anti-maritime missiles could be bad news.)

The best fighters in service with China and Russia is the Su-27. An excellent fighter, to be certain, but a fighter that requires a well-trained pilot to be a match for, say, an F-15 or F/A-18. The Russians don't have any (budget constraints means no time can be spent training, at least outside of a simulator), and the Chinese have such a small air force that even if they did have the best pilots on earth, we could bludgeon them to death with sheer numbers.

Now, up against, say, Germany or the UK, we might have some significant speed bumps. But against Russia or China? Nuh-huh. The Russian military was built backwards by bureaocrats and can't even stablize Chechnya (a nation smaller than New Jersey) after a decade. Even if they wanted to build a proper military, they lack the funding to do so. The Chinese, on the other hand, while building a more modern army, are still in the early stages of doing so (and they probably would be closer if they had waited for the second design team and adopted the Merkava-like competitor for the Type-98 contract).

Take five minutes to get your breath back, and then take a look at the equipment (or how much money goes into our military, compared to the next twenty nations... combined).

The Russian T-72 is no match of an M1A1 Abrams, let alone an M1A2. The T-80, a tank that the Russians have stopped producing in favor of the T-72 doesn't fare much better. The Chinese Type-98, though a step in the right direction, would find its equal in the old M68 Patton. Neither nation possesses particularly adept mechanized forces.

China has no blue water navy. None. Russia's is rusting away. How do they expect to counter the world's premier blue water navy with that? They can only stick there fingers in their ears and say, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" (That being said, Russian Backfire bombers carrying anti-maritime missiles could be bad news.)

The best fighters in service with China and Russia is the Su-27. An excellent fighter, to be certain, but a fighter that requires a well-trained pilot to be a match for, say, an F-15 or F/A-18. The Russians don't have any (budget constraints means no time can be spent training, at least outside of a simulator), and the Chinese have such a small air force that even if they did have the best pilots on earth, we could bludgeon them to death with sheer numbers.

Now, up against, say, Germany or the UK, we might have some significant speed bumps. But against Russia or China? Nuh-huh. The Russian military was built backwards by bureaocrats and can't even stablize Chechnya (a nation smaller than New Jersey) after a decade. Even if they wanted to build a proper military, they lack the funding to do so. The Chinese, on the other hand, while building a more modern army, are still in the early stages of doing so (and they probably would be closer if they had waited for the second design team and adopted the Merkava-like competitor for the Type-98 contract).

You're forgeting about T90 and M84.

Germany would be hard thing to conquer, but Brits could kick your ass back to New Jersey... Cechnya is stabile, have you heard recent news about any russian problem with Checnya? Like i said you're overestimating yourselfe, while on the other hand you're underestimating your enemies.

You're forgeting about T90 and M84.

Germany would be hard thing to conquer, but Brits could kick your ass back to New Jersey... Cechnya is stabile, have you heard recent news about any russian problem with Checnya? Like i said you're overestimating yourselfe, while on the other hand you're underestimating your enemies.

The T-90 was scrapped after the wall fell.

The T-80 was scrapped because it performed only marginally better than the T-72 did in Chechnya despite costing three times more.

The M-84 is a Yugoslavian MBT, not a Russian one. And we all saw how successful they were used against KFOR, didn't we?

Chechnya may be stable now, but it wasn't for over a decade. And the Russian government still uses threats of Chechnyan 'terrorists' to keep a lot of its powers.

As for the Brits kicking our asses... that I'd like to see. I'd bring popcorn. Watch American F-22s slug it out with two-decade old Tornados. See the Scottish Royal Dragoons reduced from the cream of the British Armoured Corps to a bunch of angry Scotsmen. Any nation we cannot defeat with quality, we can defeat with quantity.

The U.S. is not fascist, just nationalistic. Nationalism is an aspect of fascism, but they aren't one and the same. For one, fascism would entail a dictator, which we lack, and if I'm correct, fascism does not support a free market, which we possess.Well, to be honest, the most likely scenario of a fascist America would involve an oligarchical shadow government that runs things in the background whilst a puppet President wins rigged elections.

The T-90 was scrapped after the wall fell.

The T-80 was scrapped because it performed only marginally better than the T-72 did in Chechnya despite costing three times more.

The M-84 is a Yugoslavian MBT, not a Russian one. And we all saw how successful they were used against KFOR, didn't we?

Chechnya may be stable now, but it wasn't for over a decade. And the Russian government still uses threats of Chechnyan 'terrorists' to keep a lot of its powers.

As for the Brits kicking our asses... that I'd like to see. I'd bring popcorn. Watch American F-22s slug it out with two-decade old Tornados. See the Scottish Royal Dragoons reduced from the cream of the British Armoured Corps to a bunch of angry Scotsmen. Any nation we cannot defeat with quality, we can defeat with quantity.

In Kosovo only three M84 were destroyed, really magnificant score of the KFOR...

Oh yeah right... You have the best army, tanks, inf. weapons, ships, planes...
You should have an comedy act...

And US government uses word "threat from Al-Qaeda"...

F22 is flying junk-yard, anyone who understands anything about military planes know that.

Any nation we cannot defeat with quality, we can defeat with quantity

And China too?

In Kosovo only three M84 were destroyed, really magnificant score of the KFOR...

For how many Challenger IIs? How many Leopard IIA5/6s? How many M1A1HAs? That's what I thought.

Oh yeah right... You have the best army, tanks, inf. weapons, ships, planes...
You should have an comedy act...

Yeah. Because they use facts. It's the people like Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Savage, and yourself one should worry about. People who don't have any facts. I'd really like to see some of those facts. You know. Like. Now. I'm sick of throwing facts at you only to have you turn around and call me arrogant. If I'm arrogant about the capabilities about my nation, at least my nation's earned it.

And US govement uses word "threat from Al-Quaeda"...

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq are all significantly larger than Chechnya. Individually. Combine them together, throw in the fact that we are not in control of half of them (nor could we) and the fact that we've been in one for five years (as a side show) and the other for three (as the main event) and we aren't anywhere near where Russia is.

F22 is flying junk-yard, anyone who understands anything about military planes know that.

o rly?

Got anything to back that up, or are you just going to throw that out?

I mean, you are aware of the fact that an Air Force pilot 'shot down' five F-15s single-handedly with the F-15s never being able to figure out where he was (let alone shoot back), right? The only way a Tornado could win against an F-22 is if the F-22 pilot was blind. Unfortunately for the Tornado, the Air Force may let a lot of people in, but they won't ever let blind people fly the best fighter ever devised by mortal man.

And China too?

China lacks quality, ergo, yes. Even China.

For how many Challenger IIs? How many Leopard IIA5/6s? How many M1A1HAs? That's what I thought.

And how many M84s were destroyed by KFOR tanks?

Yeah. Because they use facts. It's the people like Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Savage, and yourself one should worry about. People who don't have any facts. I'd really like to see some of those facts. You know. Like. Now. I'm sick of throwing facts at you only to have you turn around and call me arrogant. If I'm arrogant about the capabilities about my nation, at least my nation's earned it.


Earned? How?

Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq are all significantly larger than Chechnya. Individually. Combine them together, throw in the fact that we are not in control of half of them (nor could we) and the fact that we've been in one for five years (as a side show) and the other for three (as the main event) and we aren't anywhere near where Russia is.


On the other hand you are saying that you could conquer China or Russia

Got anything to back that up, or are you just going to throw that out?

Were F22 has been used, how it was succesiful, and if you didn't know F22 is advanced tactical figter type of the plane. He doesn't stand an chanse against some pure dogfighter.

I mean, you are aware of the fact that an Air Force pilot 'shot down' five F-15s single-handedly with the F-15s never being able to figure out where he was (let alone shoot back), right? The only way a Tornado could win against an F-22 is if the F-22 pilot was blind. Unfortunately for the Tornado, the Air Force may let a lot of people in, but they won't ever let blind people fly the best fighter ever devised by mortal man.


F-15 is USAF plane, it's old (1972), so how can you compare it with F-22? Why you don't compare it with some newer fighter, like F-117 (flying junk-yard too)? maybe you should compare it with some Russia, French, British... planes?

Neoconservatism is basically a form of Fascism. Which means that the US's current government is pretty Fascist.

I voted 6-7.

And how many M84s were destroyed by KFOR tanks?

You said three.

Earned? How?

Spending more money on our military than everyone else and still being an economically viable nation (at least before Bush and Iraq).

On the other hand you are saying that you could conquer China or Russia

No. I said we could pwn their militaries. I said that occupying those nations would be difficult. There's a large difference.

Were F22 has been used, how it was succesiful, and if you didn't know F22 is advanced tactical figter type of the plane. He doesn't stand an chanse against some pure dogfighter.

Except the F-22 is the most manueverable fighter ever produced. The only other aircraft that come close are not in service.

F-15 is USAF plane, it's old (1972), so how can you compare it with F-22? Why you don't compare it with some newer fighter, like F-117 (flying junk-yard too)? maybe you should compare it with some Russia, French, British... planes?

F-117? Newer than the F-15? Your credibility just got shot to shit. Which is beside the fact that the F-117 is not a fighter. It's a bomber. It was given the 'F-' designation because the general in charge of the project wanted the best pilots in the Air Force to fly the thing and believed that none of them would want to fly the thing if it has a 'B-' or 'A-' designation.

So. Let's try a hypothetical.

F-22 vs. UK/German Tornado - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.
F-22 vs. UK Harrier - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.
F-22 vs. Mirage 2000 - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.
F-22 vs. MiG-29 - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.
F-22 vs. Su-27 - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.
F-22 vs. IAF/Norwegian/JASDF&c. F-16 - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.
F-22 vs. IAF F-15 - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.

That covers every aircraft currently in production. Let's see how it hypothetically fares against other aircraft that haven't entered into production:

F-22 vs. EU Eurofighter 2000 Typhoon - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability (by a hair).
F-22 vs. Su-35 - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.
F-22 vs. Su-37 - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability (by a hair).
F-22 vs. Su-47 'Raptorkiller' - F-22 wins. Stealth.
F-22 vs. MiG-1.44 'Raptorkiller' - F-22 wins. Stealth.
F-22 vs. F-35/JSF - F-22 wins. Speed, manueverability.
F-22 vs. IAF F-22 - ...not much of a choice here, is there?

You said three.

They were destroyed by planes, not tanks.

Spending more money on our military than everyone else and still being an economically viable nation (at least before Bush and Iraq).


And where all that money went? And as you said you're not most viable nation...

No. I said we could pwn their militaries. I said that occupying those nations would be difficult. There's a large difference.


No there is not. And war is - unpredictable to say at least, so maybe USA could won, but on the other hand, USA could lose.
Except the F-22 is the most manueverable fighter ever produced. The only other aircraft that come close are not in service.


Yeah, the most manuverable... maybe it can dance ballet in the sky...

F-117? Newer than the F-15? Your credibility just got shot to shit. Which is beside the fact that the F-117 is not a fighter. It's a bomber. It was given the 'F-' designation because the general in charge of the project wanted the best pilots in the Air Force to fly the thing and believed that none of them would want to fly the thing if it has a 'B-' or 'A-' designation.

Your credibility went to shit just right now, cuz F 117 is from 1982. F 117 is Advanced Tactitical fighter.

So. Let's try a hypothetical.

F-22 vs. UK/German Tornado - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.
F-22 vs. UK Harrier - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.
F-22 vs. Mirage 2000 - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.
F-22 vs. MiG-29 - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.
F-22 vs. Su-27 - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.
F-22 vs. IAF/Norwegian/JASDF&c. F-16 - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.
F-22 vs. IAF F-15 - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.

That covers every aircraft currently in production. Let's see how it hypothetically fares against other aircraft that haven't entered into production:

F-22 vs. EU Eurofighter 2000 Typhoon - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability (by a hair).
F-22 vs. Su-35 - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability.
F-22 vs. Su-37 - F-22 wins. Stealth and manueverability (by a hair).
F-22 vs. Su-47 'Raptorkiller' - F-22 wins. Stealth.
F-22 vs. MiG-1.44 'Raptorkiller' - F-22 wins. Stealth.
F-22 vs. F-35/JSF - F-22 wins. Speed, manueverability.
F-22 vs. IAF F-22 - ...not much of a choice here, is there?


Let's try a hypothetical. F-22 was shoot down cuz it's eletronic equipement went to hell... I'm sure that F-22 could be shoot down easily by any of those fighters.

Your info is lil' bit outdate cuz Eurofighters are in full production, and they are live and sound in Airforces of Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria..

They were destroyed by planes, not tanks.

Well, I guess that tells you about that. The Challengers and Leopards weren't needed.

And where all that money went? And as you said you're not most viable nation...

We don't need to be the most viable nation. We just need to be viable. That being said, we're more viable than everyone else, right now, too.

No there is not. And war is - unpredictable to say at least, so maybe USA could won, but on the other hand, USA could lose.

We could. But I doubt it.

Your credibility went to shit just right now, cuz F 117 is from 1982. F 117 is Advanced Tactitical fighter.

Which came first, the F-104 Starfighter or the F-4 Phantom? The F-117 entered service officially in 1982. It was in development long before the F-4, for instance, and likely was actually introduced well before 1982 (classified projects are lovely that way).

And the F-117 has no air-to-air RADAR. No capability for carrying air-to-air missiles. It's ordnance consists of two 2,000 lbs. bombs. That's it.

Let's try a hypothetical. F-22 was shoot down cuz it's eletronic equipement went to hell... I'm sure that F-22 could be shoot down easily by any of those fighters.

The odds of the electronics on the F-22 getting shot thus facilitating a kill by another aircraft (which still can't detect the F-22) are about the same as the electronics on the EF2k going out. In which case, the EF2k pilot is still dead, still detected, and his Second-Most Manueverable Fighter on earth is doing him jack-shit good.

Your info is lil' bit outdate cuz Eurofighters are in full production, and they are live and sound in Airforces of Britain, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria..

Which does nothing to change the fact that it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of destroying one F-22.

I'm still waiting for some facts, here.

Which does nothing to change the fact that it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of destroying one F-22.


And you said - By hair...

The odds of the electronics on the F-22 getting shot thus facilitating a kill by another aircraft (which still can't detect the F-22) are about the same as the electronics on the EF2k going out. In which case, the EF2k pilot is still dead, still detected, and his Second-Most Manueverable Fighter on earth is doing him jack-shit good.

That was good one...

Well, I guess that tells you about that. The Challengers and Leopards weren't needed.

Yeah, and after so many bombs, high-teach electronic weapons and stuff only THREE were destroyed...

The US is somewhat Fascist. The most salient features are aestheticization of politics (with symbols like the flag and the Eagle), belief in the dynamism of youth and war. Did I mention the oversized military? :rolleyes:

The odds of the electronics on the F-22 getting shot thus facilitating a kill by another aircraft (which still can't detect the F-22) are about the same as the electronics on the EF2k going out. In which case, the EF2k pilot is still dead, still detected, and his Second-Most Manueverable Fighter on earth is doing him jack-shit good.The Eurofighter has stealth technology incorporated in its design. Linky (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm)

Your picture of the US forces is too rosy. They'd most likely win, but not hands down.

The US is fascist. It is an ultra-right fascist democracy. Nationalism, huge poverty gap, Immense national wealth, efficient, capital punishment, imperialistic and ruthless foreign policies, incontinental military spending, propaganda, religious fundamentalism, government encroachments on civil liberties, ect...
That's pretty much to the point. Especially now under Bush, the US is becoming more fascist all the time.

I mean, you are aware of the fact that an Air Force pilot 'shot down' five F-15s single-handedly with the F-15s never being able to figure out where he was (let alone shoot back), right?

According to some older articles, the simulated tests in that scenario placed the F-22 behind all F-15s and gave it 'never miss' missiles. A test like that has about as much real world validity as a 2 pound weight to test a 1 ton suspension. Apparently, it was done so as to save the F-22 project from being scrapped because of the amount of money that went into it.

Now, someone said something about beuracrats? You mean like that $200,000 jeep that only costs about 10% of that on the open market and has nothing really extra in comparison?

Or how about that war game they had back then in 2001 where US forces lost the majority of it's naval forces including troop carriers? They called it an astounding success. But only after they performed necromancy and raised the 'dead' soldiers and told the enemy commander "Your troops are not allowed to listen to you. They listen to us."

One thing that the American arms sector, and by extension the related governmental departments have down pat is the art of marketing. I'd take any claims they make with a big grain of salt.

While currently a bit jingoistic, America hardly qualifies as being "fascist" by any stretch of the imagination.

The 7 conditions (Warning signs)
that foster & fuel fascism are: (http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure3.htm)

1. Instability of capitalist relationships or markets [ America places great emphasis on stability as a desired characteristic ]

2. The existence of considerable declassed social elements [ While an argument can be made for an "underclass" in America, this has been an intractable problem for generations, with both political parties spending vast amounts of money in an attempt to resolve it. ]

3. The stripping of rights and wealth focused upon a specific segment of the population, specifically the middle class and intellectuals within urban areas as this is the group with the means, intelligence and ability to stop fascism if given the opportunity. [ If anything, the middle class and "intellectuals" form the single largest voting bloc in America, and are in no way been stripped of either rights or wealth. ]

4. Discontent among the rural lower middle class (clerks, secretaries, white collar labor). Consistent discontent among the general middle and lower middle classes against the oppressing upper-classes (haves vs have-nots). [ I am unaware of any sort of "dissent" or "discontent" among any of the groups listed above. ]

5. Hate: Pronounced, perpetuated and accepted public disdain of a specific group defined by race, origin, theology or association. [ While some small percentage of Americans ( usually called "rednecks" or "white supremecists" ) may "hate" certain ethnic groups, prejudice has been steadily decreasing among the general population to the point that hardly anyone even blinks at so-called "interacial marriages," which use to be a major source of ire for many people. ]

6. Greed: The motivator of fascism, which is generally associated with land, space or scarce resources in the possession of those being oppressed. [ Home ownership among Americans has been steadily increasing ever since the Nation was founded. An argument might be made concerning oil, but since considerable investment of capital is required for even a single oil-drilling rig, this doesn't hold much water either. ]

7. Organized Propaganda:

a) The creation of social mythology that venerates (creates saints of) one element of society while concurrently vilifying (dehumanizing) another element of the population through misinformation, misdirection and the obscuring of factual matter through removal, destruction or social humiliation, (name-calling, false accusations, belittling and threats). [ The press puts a rather abrupt end to things of this sort, and anyone with an ax to grind has access to both "alternative" and "mainsteam" media. ]

b) The squelching of public debate not agreeing with the popular agenda via slander, libel, threats, theft, destruction, historical revisionism and social humiliation. Journalists in particular are terrorized if they attempt to publish stories contrary to the agenda. [ Journalists in America terrorized? Riiiight! ]

I think it is fascist. A lot of people forget that fascism =/= national socialism, and that formal limits on freedom of speech and political affiliation are not a necessary component of fascism. It is quite possible to have fascism in a democracy, by consent.
I think Mussolini's government of Italy 1922 - 1944 can be taken as the benchmark of fascism:


warmongering check
use of violence against domestic opponents
making laws openly influenced by religion when politically convenient check
nationalising public infrastructure
subsidising big business check
nationalist rhetoric check
strong censorship
banning opposition parties


I think that the US is about 5 on a fascism scale.