NationStates Jolt Archive

By now, we have all heard the US calling for international sanctions on Iran so it will stop developing 'the bomb,' but I propose sanctions be be played upon the US until a new, non-warhawk administration comes into power.

The US, under the current administration and possibly future Republican administrations, is a dangerous player on the world map. They are threatening Iran for supposedly developing nuclear arms, up to mentioning World War III. This can only be assumed to be more than just dangerous posturing based on the invasion of Iraq for yet found "weapons of mass destruction." The invasion of Iraq seriously destabilized the Middle Eastern region allowing Turkey and Iran to throw their weight around without a check at their borders. It can be assumed then that with very little pushing, it is likely that the US would attack Iran on trumped up charged of supporting terrorist efforts and creating a nuclear weapon.

In addition to region destabilizing moves by the US through posturing and invasion of sovereign nations, it supports unquestioningly the state of Israel. Israel is known to treat a subset of its own population as second class citizens and strike out against its neighbors on grounds of retaliating against terrorists or some other dubious claim.

To discourage the US from further destabilizing the region and taking actions that would directly threaten the rest of the world, sanctions must be placed upon the US.

By now, we have all heard the US calling for international sanctions on Iran so it will stop developing 'the bomb,' but I propose sanctions be be played upon the US until a new, non-warhawk administration comes into power.

The US, under the current administration and possibly future Republican administrations, is a dangerous player on the world map. They are threatening Iran for supposedly developing nuclear arms, up to mentioning World War III. This can only be assumed to be more than just dangerous posturing based on the invasion of Iraq for yet found "weapons of mass destruction." The invasion of Iraq seriously destabilized the Middle Eastern region allowing Turkey and Iran to throw their weight around without a check at their borders. It can be assumed then that with very little pushing, it is likely that the US would attack Iran on trumped up charged of supporting terrorist efforts and creating a nuclear weapon.

In addition to region destabilizing moves by the US through posturing and invasion of sovereign nations, it supports unquestioningly the state of Israel. Israel is known to treat a subset of its own population as second class citizens and strike out against its neighbors on grounds of retaliating against terrorists or some other dubious claim.

To discourage the US from further destabilizing the region and taking actions that would directly threaten the rest of the world, sanctions must be placed upon the US.

I suppose that, when it comes down to it, the only country that would affect the US when imposing sanctions would be China. Are they really likely to do that? I think not.

Secondly, does the US populace deserve the instability that would occur? The American government has no problems with that, but we should.

Without even getting into the politics of whether such an idea should happen, such sanctions would undoubtedly hurt us much more than them.

Secondly, does the US populace deserve the instability that would occur? The American government has no problems with that, but we should.

Sanctions, like blockades and siege situations, hurt the decision makers last. Now if there were some way to create a sanction specifically for the white house...

You're trying to make a point, but it's made of phail.

-Under no circumstances, short of direct initiation of conflict by Iranian regular military forces, will there be a war with Iran.

-Not all Republicans are Hawks. Ron Paul, for instance, has raised as much money as other front runner candidates, and he fully opposes the war.

-The reason the Israelis have made the moves they've taken have a lot to do with terrorism and external threats, whether you'd like to believe that to be the case or not. Furthermore, Arabs who have opted for Israeli citizenship are not treated as second class citizens. It is those Arabs who have chosen to opt for offering their allegiance to the PA for whom life is tough.

-Sanctioning the US would have far more negative repercussions for the country doing the sanctioning than on the US itself.

-Why did we invade Iraq? Because our administration is populated by people who thought that Military policy is something magical, and a cure-all for what ails ye. They misread September 11, 2001 as the start of an open war: They were wrong, and they are idiots.

You're trying to make a point, but it's made of phail.

-Under no circumstances, short of direct initiation of conflict by Iranian regular military forces, will there be a war with Iran.
I seem to recall that being the exact line being fed by the White House about Iraq right before we invaded Iraq. And now we are saying on the world stage to everyone that we will not, not cannot, but will not let Iran get the bomb? Oh yeah, that is totally convincing me we won't attack Iran.

-Not all Republicans are Hawks. Ron Paul, for instance, has raised as much money as other front runner candidates, and he fully opposes the war.
1) Ron Paul is worse than a hawk.
2) He will never win.

-Sanctioning the US would have far more negative repercussions for the country doing the sanctioning than on the US itself.
Yes and no. What good does sanctioning a dictatorship do? None. The people get hurt while the government doesn't - and the people have no influence on government. In the US, the people do have influence. Sanction the US until warhawks stop being elected to "leader of the free world" and you will see a lot less George Bush Jr's.

-Why did we invade Iraq? Because our administration is populated by people who thought that Military policy is something magical, and a cure-all for what ails ye. They misread September 11, 2001 as the start of an open war: They were wrong, and they are idiots.
And yet you are saying those same people that are still in power and are still throwing around "9/11" and "terrorism" to get the people to support their actions would never attack Iran unless Iran took their first move? What fantasy world do you live in?

I seem to recall that being the exact line being fed by the White House about Iraq right before we invaded Iraq. And now we are saying on the world stage to everyone that we will not, not cannot, but will not let Iran get the bomb? Oh yeah, that is totally convincing me we won't attack Iran.

Except the situation is entirely different. Only by painting with an extremely broad brush can you even begin to see comparisons between what happened with Hussein, and what is happening with Iran.


1) Ron Paul is worse than a hawk.
2) He will never win.

But, he's not a hawk, that's the point. Not all Republicans are hawks.


Yes and no. What good does sanctioning a dictatorship do? None. The people get hurt while the government doesn't - and the people have no influence on government. In the US, the people do have influence. Sanction the US until warhawks stop being elected to "leader of the free world" and you will see a lot less George Bush Jr's.

Which is why luxury sanctions are the trick with petty third world despots. Keep their Jaguars and iPods on hold, but keep the rice flowing.

In the US all sanctions would do is impoverish people on both sides of the deal. Right now, it looks like the next President will be a conciliatory President, and based off of the results of the 2006 Congressional election, there already is a shift underway in American sentiment without sanctions.

And yet you are saying those same people that are still in power and are still throwing around "9/11" and "terrorism" to get the people to support their actions would never attack Iran unless Iran took their first move? What fantasy world do you live in?

They are in power in the executive, with virtually no political will behind them. They are truly lame lame ducks. The Congress is now solidly in the hands of the Democrats, who control the pursestrings, and said Democrats are avowedly anti-war.

I hereby declare war on whatever ignorant nation The Pantless Hero comes from for trying to prevent me from getting a copy of Spore. >_>

IYes and no. What good does sanctioning a dictatorship do? None. The people get hurt while the government doesn't - and the people have no influence on government. In the US, the people do have influence. Sanction the US until warhawks stop being elected to "leader of the free world" and you will see a lot less George Bush Jr's.

Or the opposite occurs.

They are in power in the executive, with virtually no political will behind them. They are truly lame lame ducks. The Congress is now solidly in the hands of the Democrats, who control the pursestrings, and said Democrats are avowedly anti-war.

Not all of them are avowedly anti-war and if they were truly anti-war then why the hell do they continue to bow to the white house?

So let me get this straight. You want to impose international sanctions on one of the most powerful country in the world, and a country that is a high contributer to the UN, in fact I believe that if the US were to pull out of the UN, fundings and all, the UN would collapse. Not only that, China would never EVER put a sanction against us and neither would the UK, Israel or any other trading partner we may have. If all of this is true, then I just have one thing to say.

*points and laughs*

Or the opposite occurs.
Do you think before you type?

Except the situation is entirely different. Only by painting with an extremely broad brush can you even begin to see comparisons between what happened with Hussein, and what is happening with Iran.
Yeah, with Iraq they denied that they were going to attack and with Iran they are implying that they will attack. Two completely different things.

But, he's not a hawk, that's the point. Not all Republicans are hawks.

Point dismissible for the reasons listed. And the only reason he is a Republican is because it is nigh impossible to get on ballots as a third party and because his social policies are neocon.

In the US all sanctions would do is impoverish people on both sides of the deal.
And then the warhawks would get kicked out of office.

They are in power in the executive, with virtually no political will behind them. They are truly lame lame ducks. The Congress is now solidly in the hands of the Democrats, who control the pursestrings, and said Democrats are avowedly anti-war.
Solidly only relatively. They can still be vetoed if the president doesn't like the game they are playing.

Do you think before you type?

In a country with a strong sense of national pride and history, such as the US, said sanctions are likely to be a catalyzing event. The response would be much akin to "Let's show that damned sand-******" effect demonstrated so clearly in 2004.

Do you think before you type?

People have an annoying habit of causing well laid plans to backfire.

In a country with a strong sense of national pride and history, such as the US, said sanctions are likely to be a catalyzing event. The response would be much akin to "Let's show that damned sand-******" effect demonstrated so clearly in 2004.

I thought it was the "Let's show those damned fags" effect that was demonstrated in 2004, you know the whole Gay Marriage ban that Bush used to get the Fundie's vote.

Hmm, I wonder if the Fundies ever caught on that Bush basically played them like a damn fiddle?

Not all of them are avowedly anti-war and if they were truly anti-war then why the hell do they continue to bow to the white house?

Because they're also political pragmatists, with certain sensibilities, such as not leaving the troops in the field unfunded and hanging. They want us out, but because of the President's unwillingness to even consider soft-deadlines, they're forced to bow, and they figure the "abandon the troops" label is worse than the "impotent" label.

I thought it was the "Let's show those damned fags" effect that was demonstrated in 2004, you know the whole Gay Marriage ban that Bush used to get the Fundie's vote.

Hmm, I wonder if the Fundies ever caught on that Bush basically played them like a damn fiddle?

Even at that though, in 2004 in Ohio nearly 80% of the populace voted for the Amendment banning anything even remotely resembling gay marriage, civil unions or otherwise, and the race here was phenomenally close.

And as for the fundies, I think they've just started to realize that they were pawns in a bigger game.

Because they're also political pragmatists, with certain sensibilities, such as not leaving the troops in the field unfunded and hanging. They want us out, but because of the President's unwillingness to even consider soft-deadlines, they're forced to bow, and they figure the "abandon the troops" label is worse than the "impotent" label.

Gotta love politics :D

Gotta love politics :D

It's a beautiful way to not change anything :)

It's a beautiful way to not change anything :)

HAHA! Indeed :D

and a country that is a high contributer to the UN, in fact I believe that if the US were to pull out of the UN, fundings and all, the UN would collapse.

In funding, I believe America is decades behind in its UN dues. In military contributions, Africa outnumbers it. I think that speaks volumes of US support for the UN.

Do you think before you type?

I think the same could be said when referring to you, and this thread. Its the most ridiculous thing in the world. Want a fast way to ruin the world's economy? Practice what you just said, and then have fun explaining to the millions world wide that get f*cked over so you can make a point about how terrible the USA is.

I think the same could be said when referring to you, and this thread. Its the most ridiculous thing in the world. Want a fast way to ruin the world's economy? Practice what you just said, and then have fun explaining to the millions world wide that get f*cked over so you can make a point about how terrible the USA is.
Unless you can provide support for your statement, I will take it as American egotisticalness.

Unless you can provide support for your statement, I will take it as American egotisticalness.


Say you sanction the US. Nothing comes in, nothing goes out. Right? Now, imagine our trading partners in the "civilized"/western world. Their economies will fail, because of how closely linked everything is now. Now think of third world countries that get medicines and food from the US. They won't be able to get what they need, and more than likely won't get it from other western nations, when their economies are failing. You want to send this world into a Greater Depression, with famine, poverty and pestilence running wild.

Unless you can provide support for your statement, I will take it as American egotisticalness.

Which really goes to show you really do not know Americans.

Do you think before you type?

I was just going to ask you the same question. You may have come up with the single most unrealistic, unlikely and downright silly proposal in NSG history (which is saying a lot), and in the words of Tolkien, "only little wit can excuse you."

Sanctions on the US will never happen, for economic, military and political reasons that are too numerous to list and that are intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

Well, I already refuse to purchase products from most USian companies, so it's not really a big deal for me.

On a more international scale, Canada would lose almost any trade war with the USA. So I doubt we'll see anything other than individual and grassroot boycotts of US products.

If this thread is in response to the USian sanctions against the Iranian military, I would agree that one could, and should, sanction the US military for the same reasons.

I hereby declare war on whatever ignorant nation The Pantless Hero comes from for trying to prevent me from getting a copy of Spore. >_>

Well, your first mistake is assuming Spore will ever actually be released (rather than just recieveing a later, and later release date) :p, but... I'll hitch up in that war too... I wnat my Spore! :D

Say you sanction the US. Nothing comes in, nothing goes out. Right? Now, imagine our trading partners in the "civilized"/western world. Their economies will fail, because of how closely linked everything is now. Now think of third world countries that get medicines and food from the US. They won't be able to get what they need, and more than likely won't get it from other western nations, when their economies are failing. You want to send this world into a Greater Depression, with famine, poverty and pestilence running wild.

Exactly, we produce a wide variety of products as it is, and our economy might be close to going up witha return of investors, and companies hiring people inside America towork, and produce goods and services, if we couldn't outsource, or buy ublk products form teh lowest international bidder, their economies would suffer by losing the very lucrative business, and ours would increase, again because of heavily incresed investing inside America... yeah go ahead, do up your little sanction thing, and if it even works, or resolves anything (which UN sanctions are notable for not doing... that is: anything) then America will be on top laughing.

China, Russia and Europe should team up and invade the US to prevent the Americans from going to war. Probably would work better than sanctions. :p

China, Russia and Europe should team up and invade the US to prevent the Americans from going to war. Probably would work better than sanctions. :p

America? You mean New Zaheranica? :p

Come and...stop us?

America? You mean New Zaheranica? :p

Nah, they made a coup against me and renamed it. :D

China, Russia and Europe should team up and invade the US to prevent the Americans from going to war. Probably would work better than sanctions. :p

Wouldn't work. The US is full of armed rednecks. I would know. I'm an American and I won't use the pathetic "USian" label. It's American. Always been American since the colonial times of the 1600s and 1700s.

Here's how it would work. Countries invade. Hillbillies open fire. Soldiers return fire. Civillians die. Invasion of US loses support. Too many armed rednecks and civillian cassualties. And the rednecks are everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. We have the Second Amendment for a reason. It would be like Iraq, only with more armed citizens opening fire. And more hippies.

Wouldn't work. The US is full of armed rednecks. I would know. I'm an American and I won't use the pathetic "USian" label. It's American. Always been American since the colonial times of the 1600s and 1700s.

Here's how it would work. Countries invade. Hillbillies open fire. Soldiers return fire. Civillians die. Invasion of US loses support. Too many armed rednecks and civillian cassualties. And the rednecks are everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. We have the Second Amendment for a reason. It would be like Iraq, only with more armed citizens opening fire. And more hippies.

ahhh thats a load of rubbish that .... ive seen 'Deliverence' ... hillbillies/rednecks cant shoot straight for crap :D

ahhh thats a load of rubbish that .... ive seen 'Deliverence' ... hillbillies/rednecks cant shoot straight for crap :D

You'd be surprised. And the shots don't even have to be fatal to send a soldier back home.

Do you think before you type?

Do you? I needed a good chuckle today, thanks.

China, Russia and Europe should team up and invade the US to prevent the Americans from going to war. Probably would work better than sanctions. :p

Lol, this thread is devolving into madness now.

Russia wouldn't be so stupid. Europe couldn't handle more then a couple days of casualty reports coming out of the US. It would be staggering the death tole on a foreign force. China well they wouldn't join in because they are dependent on US trade.

Lol, this thread is devolving into madness now.

Russia wouldn't be so stupid. Europe couldn't handle more then a couple days of casualty reports coming out of the US. It would be staggering the death tole on a foreign force. China well they wouldn't join in because they are dependent on US trade.
I think you have it backwards. The US is dependent on Chinese trade, that is why we can't really sanction them, we'd get dropped off the map.

There is a massive trade deficit with China - we import some 6x as much from China as we export.

You'd be surprised. And the shots don't even have to be fatal to send a soldier back home.

im a semi bumpkin in the UK so it wasnt meant as a serious reply

Wouldn't work. The US is full of armed rednecks. I would know. I'm an American and I won't use the pathetic "USian" label. It's American. Always been American since the colonial times of the 1600s and 1700s.

Here's how it would work. Countries invade. Hillbillies open fire. Soldiers return fire. Civillians die. Invasion of US loses support. Too many armed rednecks and civillian cassualties. And the rednecks are everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. We have the Second Amendment for a reason. It would be like Iraq, only with more armed citizens opening fire. And more hippies.
A bunch of retarded gun nuts just make it easy. Gun nuts die on sight, they will be the ones waving around guns in the middle of the street shouting "..from my cold dead hands!" Rednecks don't understand urban warfare.

As has been said, sanctions would only harm people who aren't responsible for policy anyway.

And, if the world really did place some sort of embargo, it would only serve as high-octane fuel for the fascist right - who are already paranoid and xenophobic - which would grow and the "siege mentality," aka leading to a "Garrison State" would dominate the political scene.

I have a better idea than sanctions - how about the lazy-ass voters actually get up and vote next election?

I think you have it backwards. The US is dependent on Chinese trade, that is why we can't really sanction them, we'd get dropped off the map.

There is a massive trade deficit with China - we import some 6x as much from China as we export.

I don't have it backwards at all. China built their current economy on the back of the US. They need us more then we need them. Even with the massive trade deficit. They need a place to dump their cheap Chinese trinkets. You take the US out of the equation then their economy takes a huge dive. We as in the US could easily buy cheap crap from someone else. When I was a kid we were buying all our cheap crap from Japan then it moved to Korea and Taiwan now it's China. China could be easily replaced by another nation such as India, Indonesia, Brazil or some other developing economy.

If the UN were to put sanctions on the US, the result would be a massive global economic recession, with a side helping of additional food shortages in Africa as they are cut off from American grain supplies.

Of course, this assumes that everyone agrees with the sanctions. I doubt that would happen. And the UN doesn't stand a chance of preventing the US from trading with other countries if the other countries want to trade with the US. Only real way to do that would be a blockade.

If the UN were to try to blockade the US, then they would be literally committing suicide. The US could simply lay siege to the UN building.

A bunch of retarded gun nuts just make it easy. Gun nuts die on sight, they will be the ones waving around guns in the middle of the street shouting "..from my cold dead hands!" Rednecks don't understand urban warfare.

No invading army would survive long term within the US. It would be a world class bloodbath that would make Iraq look like Disneyland.

If a nation with nuclear weapons declares war upon another nation with nuclear weapons eventually some stupid idiot would use nuclear weapons, W.W.3 starts and the earth becomes a radioactive wasteland populated by mutants with a Stone Age level of technology. So no invading the U.S to stop them from invading Iran to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to make sure Iran doesn't start W.W.3 isn't likely to happen though it would certainly be ironic also if there were to be sanctions placed on the U.S by the U.N then in all likelihood some stupid idiot *cough.* George Bush *cough* would then start W.W.3.
Also does anyone have any clips from the ITV cartoon 2D TV as It's depiction of George Bush would be useful for any later post if they need to state how intelligent George Bush is and if they needed to mock the old Green Goddess (Bedford RLHZ Self Propelled Pump) Fire engines used in the 2002-2003 U.k Fire Fighter strikes. God *Wipes away tear* I really miss that Cartoon.

I think you have it backwards. The US is dependent on Chinese trade, that is why we can't really sanction them, we'd get dropped off the map.

There is a massive trade deficit with China - we import some 6x as much from China as we export.
It works both ways. We are very much in debt to China, but there only reason China is booming and even has an economy (and a appearing middle class) at all is because of American markets. As Marrakech II has already tried to point out, if we cut off trade with China (which we wouldn't but I'm just saying)..there would be hugeeeeee economic recession in the American economy, where prices for everytihng would go up and alot of things may be unavailable for a while..but then 2 things would happen. 1. Another country...India, Brazil...Mexico..whatever decides..hey, let's take over where China left off and we build an import-export relationship with them...or...much less likely, America becomes more self-sufficient and builds much of it's own products instead of exporting.

Either way, America has a huge recession but survives and moves on...while China, who's entire economy is focused on exporting it's products to America, internally collapses as the economy totally fails.
Well, I already refuse to purchase products from most USian companies, so it's not really a big deal for me.

On a more international scale, Canada would lose almost any trade war with the USA. So I doubt we'll see anything other than individual and grassroot boycotts of US products.

If this thread is in response to the USian sanctions against the Iranian military, I would agree that one could, and should, sanction the US military for the same reasons.
Lol, you can always spot the difference between an informed, critic of American policies and just a plain old anti-American fool by searching for the word' USian" which is not even an officially recognized word and serves the SOLE purpose of trying to annoy the shit out of Americans. I have no problem with critics of American policy, and indeed it makes for interesting debate. I do have problems with anti-American fools.

No invading army would survive long term within the US. It would be a world class bloodbath that would make Iraq look like Disneyland.
Also, the American navy and air force would own the oceans and destroy anything that was carrying troops over to our soil.

Well, if you're all for economic chaos, then go ahead.

Lets face it any sanctions against the USA would only work if done by all at once ... one country doing it would hurt but not stop (if that wasnt true how the heck has iran carried on making such progress etc)


as for the invading USA what ever weapons they have are also found in the the rest of the world (and definalty Russia and China) ... heck even if some how the USA was invaded and taken over its a mute point because there are people that would continually fight even if offically the war was deemed over .... the times when you killed an army and the war was over are long gone if it was ever applicable

Wouldn't work. The US is full of armed rednecks. I would know. I'm an American and I won't use the pathetic "USian" label. It's American. Always been American since the colonial times of the 1600s and 1700s.

Here's how it would work. Countries invade. Hillbillies open fire. Soldiers return fire. Civillians die. Invasion of US loses support. Too many armed rednecks and civillian cassualties. And the rednecks are everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. We have the Second Amendment for a reason. It would be like Iraq, only with more armed citizens opening fire. And more hippies.

And let us not forget that we have gangs that are better armed than the Police at times and that we know how to make explosives! :D We can make the Iraqi insurgency look like the minor leagues.

China, Russia and Europe should team up and invade the US to prevent the Americans from going to war. Probably would work better than sanctions. :p

What a meat grinder an invasion of the US would be. I'd wager that most of the approximately 80 million gun owners would participate in the insurgency, supplementing the military already stationed here. That's after invasion forces managed to get here, although they'd have to get past the US Navy first (as well as any land based Air Force aircraft), which would be a very tough task.

I think an invasion would be worse (for the invading countries) than any sanctions (which would affect the global economy).

No invading army would survive long term within the US. It would be a world class bloodbath that would make Iraq look like Disneyland.

Because of the military, not the dipshit gun nuts.

Either way, America has a huge recession but survives and moves on...while China, who's entire economy is focused on exporting it's products to America, internally collapses as the economy totally fails.
Or, much more likely, China replaces the US as its main export partner.

Lol, you can always spot the difference between an informed, critic of American policies and just a plain old anti-American fool by searching for the word' USian" which is not even an officially recognized word and serves the SOLE purpose of trying to annoy the shit out of Americans. I have no problem with critics of American policy, and indeed it makes for interesting debate. I do have problems with anti-American fools.

Way to ignore the points I made. Again. You have a habit of doing that. For some reason, you prefer to address issues that have nothing to do with the discussion.

As for the thread, no country (or alliance thereof) will invade or sanction the USA. The US economy is too large a part of the global economy for such steps to be considered. The only country that would not be directly affected by the isolation of the US economy is Cuba, ironically enough.

As for military engagements, I think the USA would eventually lose a conventional military war if enough of the rest of the world showed up. This is assuming, of course, that no one on either side touches their WMDs. But then the rest of the world would be fighting an insurgency composed of a large and well armed population of USians. These are the same folks that defeated the British Empire, if you recall.

But that's all fantasy land. There's no profit in bombing the USA.

What country COULD invade the US? Seriously. How many countries out there have the ability to land say.... 300,000 troops? What could even that many troops accomplish?

How many could land 1 million troops? Is that even enough? Do you have any idea how large the US is? How many countries have the military and financial resources to land 1 million troops on US soil? ANy? Could they do so while fighting the U.S. Navy?

Because of the military, not the dipshit gun nuts.

First off, not all the people that own firearms are a dipshit or a nut. Second off, there are a lot of firearms owners that train with their weapons as much or more than the military.

What country COULD invade the US? Seriously. How many countries out there have the ability to land say.... 300,000 troops? What could even that many troops accomplish?

How many could land 1 million troops? Is that even enough? Do you have any idea how large the US is? How many countries have the military and financial resources to land 1 million troops on US soil? ANy? Could they do so while fighting the U.S. Navy?

Russia could nuke the shit out of it and then send it's troops over to mop up the pieces (assuming the USA are somehow unable to retaliate by nuking).

Because of the military, not the dipshit gun nuts..


It would be people like myself that has been in the military with combat experience that would teach those gun nuts basic military tactics. Even with the military fighting the civilian population of the US has enough arms and enough veterans to put a hurt on in enemy in guerilla warfare. Not saying this out of some national pride or anything but out of traveling around the world and seeing different cultures. One thing the US has an abundance of is people that will not sit by when shit hits the fan. I see to many people around the world roll over but America wouldn't be one of them.



Or, much more likely, China replaces the US as its main export partner.


With who? Africa? Mexico? Be serious now....

Russia could nuke the shit out of it and then send it's troops over to mop up the pieces (assuming the USA are somehow unable to retaliate by nuking).

Russia wouldn't let their birds fly, because as soon as the US detected them in the air, a retaliatory strike would be on its way. That's how M.A.D. works.

Russia could nuke the shit out of it and then send it's troops over to mop up the pieces (assuming the USA are somehow unable to retaliate by nuking).

Mop the shit out of what? A radioactive wasteland unfit for human life for the next 10,000 years? (assuming that even if the U.S. isn't able to retaliate, that no other nuclear power would seize the opportunity to attack a rogue nuclear-depleted russia).

What country COULD invade the US? Seriously. How many countries out there have the ability to land say.... 300,000 troops? What could even that many troops accomplish?

How many could land 1 million troops? Is that even enough? Do you have any idea how large the US is? How many countries have the military and financial resources to land 1 million troops on US soil? ANy? Could they do so while fighting the U.S. Navy?

It would take more then a million troops just for a place like California let alone the rest of the US. Could you imagine trying to subdue Los Angeles with a 100k troops. How many would die in the first 30 days? I say they would lose at minimum a thousand troops a day just to the general public.

I would bet it would take over 10 million troops to just launch the invasion of the US let alone hold territory. As pointed out earlier no possible invasion without first nuking everything.

It would take more then a million troops just for a place like California let alone the rest of the US. Could you imagine trying to subdue Los Angeles with a 100k troops. How many would die in the first 30 days? I say they would lose at minimum a thousand troops a day just to the general public.

I would bet it would take over 10 million troops to just launch the invasion of the US let alone hold territory. As pointed out earlier no possible invasion without first nuking everything.

Exactly. No country has the resources to spare to launch anywhere near the level of military needed across the distance needed to invade the U.S. with conventional military. Even without resistance from the U.S. Military. The few that even come close(Russia, China) have rivals on their doorstep who would drool if they committed those military assets overseas.

I also like how everyone is assuming there would only be a ground invasion. Idiots.

I also like how everyone is assuming there would only be a ground invasion. Idiots.

What countries have air assets that can reach U.S. Soil and return? How many of those have aircraft that can do so against the U.S. Navy and Air Force? How many have enough to even do significant damage?

I also like how everyone is assuming there would only be a ground invasion. Idiots.

The US Air Force and Navy aircraft can mix it up with any foreign aircraft that are sent, and the US Navy surface ships and subs can take on any foreign ships that are sent.

But honestly, as LG said, what country (or countries) have the power projection capabilities to successfully attack and invade the US mainland, without leaving their homeland(s) open to invasion by their enemies, and without suffering insane losses?

I also like how everyone is assuming there would only be a ground invasion. Idiots.

Seeing as most Americans live on land, I don't really see the advantage invading the water or air.

As to the original proposal, I don't think sanctions would be useful against the US. While the reasons for imposing them are certainly true, America is an integral part of the world economy. Refusing to trade would certainly hurt the US, but it would hurt plenty of other places as well.

What countries have air assets that can reach U.S. Soil and return? How many of those have aircraft that can do so against the U.S. Navy and Air Force? How many have enough to even do significant damage?
But not even the US has a finalized anti-ballistic missile shield and plenty
of countries have missiles that can hit the US.

But not even the US has a finalized anti-ballistic missile shield and plenty
of countries have missiles that can hit the US.

Name five.

But not even the US has a finalized anti-ballistic missile shield and plenty
of countries have missiles that can hit the US.

And of course, there's the opposite. How many countries have a anti-ballistic missile shield against the US ballistic missiles that would be launched in retaliation (while the foreign missiles are still in the air, on their way to the US).

Sanction this! Bring it on! Make our day! Yippie kie-yay!

Name five.
Russia, France, China, North Korea, Israel

Russia, France, China, North Korea, Israel

Russia? Yes.
China? Yes. They have medium range ballistic missiles capable of striking westernmost U.S. Possibly.
France? I didn't think they had a missile with the range necessary. Can you verify that?
North Korea? No. Even their newest and failed missiles couldn't hit the U.S. mainland.
Israel? Like France, I didn't think they had a missile system with that kind of range. Why would they need one?

[QUOTE=The_pantless_hero;13165884]
In addition to region destabilizing moves by the US through posturing and invasion of sovereign nations, it supports unquestioningly the state of Israel. Israel is known to treat a subset of its own population as second class citizens and strike out against its neighbors on grounds of retaliating against terrorists or some other dubious claim.
QUOTE]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Start by relearning the alphabet or something.

Russia? Yes.
China? Yes. They have medium range ballistic missiles capable of striking westernmost U.S. Possibly.
France? I didn't think they had a missile with the range necessary. Can you verify that?
North Korea? No. Even their newest and failed missiles couldn't hit the U.S. mainland.
Israel? Like France, I didn't think they had a missile system with that kind of range. Why would they need one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icbm#Specific_missiles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icbm#Specific_missiles

I read it.

France has sub-launched ICBMS, but no land-based systems that can reach U.S. Soil. Still, considering the range and the size of the ocean to hide in, I'll give you France.

North Korea doesn't have the capability.

Israel doesn't either.

I'm currently developing an ICBP(Intercontinental Balistic Pie). :)

Russia could nuke the shit out of it and then send it's troops over to mop up the pieces (assuming the USA are somehow unable to retaliate by nuking).

If someone COULD nuke us to that extent NOBODY would NEED or WANT to invade us. We would be a useless chunk of radioactive rock.

Did my sudden shift from debate mode to clown mode break something? :p

Wouldn't work. The US is full of armed rednecks. I would know. I'm an American and I won't use the pathetic "USian" label. It's American. Always been American since the colonial times of the 1600s and 1700s.

America is bigger than the USA, isn´t it? We got Canada, Mexico and South America too if I remember right. That´s also America. So I will continue to use "the pathetic USian label".


Here's how it would work. Countries invade. Hillbillies open fire. Soldiers return fire. Civillians die. Invasion of US loses support. Too many armed rednecks and civillian cassualties. And the rednecks are everywhere and I mean EVERYWHERE. We have the Second Amendment for a reason. It would be like Iraq, only with more armed citizens opening fire. And more hippies.

The hippies won´t open fire, I hope?

What a meat grinder an invasion of the US would be. I'd wager that most of the approximately 80 million gun owners would participate in the insurgency, supplementing the military already stationed here. That's after invasion forces managed to get here, although they'd have to get past the US Navy first (as well as any land based Air Force aircraft), which would be a very tough task.

I think an invasion would be worse (for the invading countries) than any sanctions (which would affect the global economy).

We do it NS style, of course. I´ve got the official war declaration here somewhere. Ah, here it is.

i declatrez warz on yo!!!111!


And here we have the method of attack:

i havz firred 23234567678 n00ks at yo!!!1111


I love serious war planning. :D
(And yes, I´m mad.)

Alternatively, we just sit down and continue to smoke our weed.

America is bigger than the USA, isn´t it? We got Canada, Mexico and South America too if I remember right. That´s also America. So I will continue to use "the pathetic USian label".

America is the understood and widely accepted term for a citizen and resident of the US.

The hippies won´t open fire, I hope?

We'll be firing the hippies at the enemies. :p

We do it NS style, of course. I´ve got the official war declaration here somewhere. Ah, here it is.


An here we have the method of attack:


I love serious war planning. :D
(And yes, I´m mad.)

Alternatively, we just sit down and continue to smoke our weed.

And in a typical NS style response, "You can't possibly fire that many missiles at me. You're nation isn't old enough to have them, and you're godmodding/numberwanking. You're on ignore".

See, I lurk in II too. :D

America is the understood and widely accepted term for a citizen and resident of the US.

Not that I´m from the United States of America, though.



We'll be firing the hippies at the enemies. :p


The new secret weapon, eh?





And in a typical NS style response, "You can't possibly fire that many missiles at me. You're nation isn't old enough to have them, and you're godmodding/numberwanking. You're on ignore".

See, I lurk in II too. :D

Why didn´t they do that in the Cold War? Everyone IGNORE the Soviet Union. :p

Russia wouldn't let their birds fly, because as soon as the US detected them in the air, a retaliatory strike would be on its way. That's how M.A.D. works.

ya i no, hence what i put in the brackets.

Mop the shit out of what? A radioactive wasteland unfit for human life for the next 10,000 years? (assuming that even if the U.S. isn't able to retaliate, that no other nuclear power would seize the opportunity to attack a rogue nuclear-depleted russia).

I'm not sure if Russia would bother or be able to nuke the USA so hard that the whole surface area is suffering from major radioactive fall-out. America is a large place after all, although I'm not to familiar with nuclear bomb... science?

I am from the US of A and like the term USians. Some people are really thin-skinned though. You're not being PC maaaaan! The push to not use the word 'Americans' to refer to those from the USA began in the 1800's actually. In fact it was way back then when people from the USA were proposing to use terms like USian to lessen the ambiguity. It's not like it is some new phenomenon or as if it was produced as a way to put down US Americans.

Go USians!

ya i no, hence what i put in the brackets.

The only way the US wouldn't or couldn't retaliate is if enough of their early warning satellites were disabled/destroyed (currently, only the US, Russia, and China have ASAT weapons, with India claiming the ability to design weapons for ASAT purposes), or the silos were sabotaged (which, from what I've been told by former military that guarded the silos, is highly unlikely, and wouldn't stop a sub launched retaliation).

I will have to agree that the US should only help nations it has an economic or other viable interest in.

If France was suddenly attacked we should let bygones beat bygones and let France be overrun. Whatever government comes out of it would have to be better than what we have to deal with now.

Other Euro nations, Bah, who needs them. They turn tail and beg the US to help whenever their interests are at stake. We should only agree to help if it is to our benefit.

Israel? Turn them loose. No sense in supporting them anymore. Let them destroy their neighbors if they like. No sweat.

Personally I think the US should establish bases througout the Middle east and abandon Europe. Fickle people there and we have no personal interest there anymore. We can buy cheese and wine elsewhere.

The UN? Relocate it to Iraq. Preferably outside the green zone. If the UN wants sanctions, get someone else to enforce it. The UN is a useless pile of bovine leftovers.

:sniper:

I am from the US of A and like the term USians. Some people are really thin-skinned though. You're not being PC maaaaan! The push to not use the word 'Americans' to refer to those from the USA began in the 1800's actually. In fact it was way back then when people from the USA were proposing to use terms like USian to lessen the ambiguity. It's not like it is some new phenomenon or as if it was produced as a way to put down US Americans.

Go USians!
I don't find anything offensive by the term, but it's not what you call people from the United States. I wouldn't be offended if people called me Edmund, but that's not my name, and it would get annoying after a while. Much better to call me my actual name.
USian does have a certain charm to it, though. The only problem is then people who do not live in the United States will have to be called THEMians.

Other Euro nations, Bah, who needs them. They turn tail and beg the US to help whenever their interests are at stake. We should only agree to help if it is to our benefit.
Personally I think the US should establish bases througout the Middle east and abandon Europe. Fickle people there and we have no personal interest there anymore. We can buy cheese and wine elsewhere.


The USA is a falling superpower. The European Union is a rising one. You don´t realize that cheese and wine will conquer the world. It´s going to get you too. It´s only a matter of time...

The USA is a falling superpower. The European Union is a rising one. You don´t realize that cheese and wine will conquer the world. It´s going to get you too. It´s only a matter of time...

Not really. Eight years does not a failing superpower make. And the European Union, although very powerful, can hardly be considered unified in the same way the US is.

I don't find anything offensive by the term, but it's not what you call people from the United States. I wouldn't be offended if people called me Edmund, but that's not my name, and it would get annoying after a while. Much better to call me my actual name.
USian does have a certain charm to it, though. The only problem is then people who do not live in the United States will have to be called THEMians.

How about:
Englandites
Frogians
Germaniums
Russianites
Swissians
Israelians
Mexicanites
Norwayites
Finlandites
chinettes
Iraqians

I mean, makes as much sense as USians

Not really. Eight years does not a failing superpower make. And the European Union, although very powerful, can hardly be considered unified in the same way the US is.

Hehe, just wait until someone invades a European nation again. Ooops!

Damn, but you wanted us to mind our own business so we will. Good luck to you!

I don't find anything offensive by the term, but it's not what you call people from the United States. I wouldn't be offended if people called me Edmund, but that's not my name, and it would get annoying after a while. Much better to call me my actual name.
USian does have a certain charm to it, though. The only problem is then people who do not live in the United States will have to be called THEMians.

But some people have and still do call us USians. Me for one. It's hard to confuse what the term means as well. I see no problem. USian Americans ftw

Canadian Americans for the dollar supremacy. Mexican Americans for the hardworkingness. and so on.

How about:
Englandites
Frogians
Germaniums
Russianites
Swissians
Israelians
Mexicanites
Norwayites
Finlandites
chinettes
Iraqians

I mean, makes as much sense as USians

Works for me. I'd know who you were referring to, so no problem here. Well except for Frogians. Did I miss studying Frogonia in geography class?

Although maybe it should be more like Russianistas. Svedonics. Swissers...

First thing if the world santictions the US, they're screwed because the world economy will suffer more than we will. In fact We will after a while, become more self susficent and devolp more green tech to combat the loss of oil imports. With in 10 years of sanctions assuming it even lasts one year all you will have done is make us stronger while world economy crumbles.

Second, invading the US is a bad Idea because as everyone else said, to many heavily armed gun owners, 99% of which know how to use they're guns despite what you think and are decent shots. The Invasion of the US will make Stalingrad look like fisticuffs. Asumming they some how get past the navy, and air force they'll have to deal with the Marines and Army when they land. Every battle will have massive casulaties on both sides, but more so on the invading army because they are attacking a dedicated well armed insurgency. In the Highly Unlikely Event that they some how manage to take most of the US quickly, you will have many Red Dawn type events acrsos the country.

yeah it would be a bad move to go toe to toe with the US on firepower. Germ or chemical warfare would be much more effective.

Works for me. I'd know who you were referring to, so no problem here. Well except for Frogians. Did I miss studying Frogonia in geography class?

Didn't we all study about frogland?

yeah it would be a bad move to go toe to toe with the US on firepower. Germ or chemical warfare would be much more effective.

Yes we need parking space in Europe.

First thing if the world santictions the US, they're screwed because the world economy will suffer more than we will. In fact We will after a while, become more self susficent and devolp more green tech to combat the loss of oil imports. With in 10 years of sanctions assuming it even lasts one year all you will have done is make us stronger while world economy crumbles.

Second, invading the US is a bad Idea because as everyone else said, to many heavily armed gun owners, 99% of which know how to use they're guns despite what you think and are decent shots. The Invasion of the US will make Stalingrad look like fisticuffs. Asumming they some how get past the navy, and air force they'll have to deal with the Marines and Army when they land. Every battle will have massive casulaties on both sides, but more so on the invading army because they are attacking a dedicated well armed insurgency. In the Highly Unlikely Event that they some how manage to take most of the US quickly, you will have many Red Dawn type events acrsos the country.

You make sanctions against the US something I would wholly support. The world economy wouldn't necessarily crumble though. It's not as if USians are the sole force of ingenuity in the world.

First thing if the world santictions the US, they're screwed because the world economy will suffer more than we will. In fact We will after a while, become more self susficent and devolp more green tech to combat the loss of oil imports. With in 10 years of sanctions assuming it even lasts one year all you will have done is make us stronger while world economy crumbles.


This is nothing persoanal you as your probably spot on .... but you got to laugh as with all the sanctions and stuff on the middle east countires etc like Iran Everyone has screwed themselves on Oil prices etc and the countries are still doing like you predict the USA will and suffering but becoming self sufficient and growing stronger internally


and USAers sounds so much better than USAins imo lol

(quite like the idea of being an Englandite to be honest :D)

You make sanctions against the US something I would wholly support. The world economy wouldn't necessarily crumble though. It's not as if USians are the sole force of ingenuity in the world.

It would definitely crumble at least temporarily, just look at the effect the great depression had.

You make sanctions against the US something I would wholly support. The world economy wouldn't necessarily crumble though. It's not as if USians are the sole force of ingenuity in the world.

I never said we are. If there would be sanctions, china's economy would fall shortly afterwards hurting it even more because most US imports come from them meaning that they don't have a market for their goods , combined with the US removed from the world economy would either take it down completely, or atleast throw the world into a Economic Depression that hurt the world far worse than what the sactions were suppose to help.

It would definitely crumble at least temporarily, just look at the effect the great depression had.

These are different times though. The structure of the world economy is hugely different and the example of what the great depression has done has led to certain controls to be put in place to counter those effects were they to happen again. I'm not saying that it wont be shaken and people won't struggle but I just doubt that it will go bust. We're like one of the five legs in a 5 legged table so it would just get a bit wobbly. :p

Oh please sanction the USA! Then our politicians will wake up and realize that we need to stop wiping the noses of Europe!

Yes we need parking space in Europe.

Yea genocide happended here(here as in North america) before. Funny thing is europe caused it for the same reason....

If someone COULD nuke us to that extent NOBODY would NEED or WANT to invade us. We would be a useless chunk of radioactive rock.

And most likely, so would everyone else.

You make sanctions against the US something I would wholly support. The world economy wouldn't necessarily crumble though. It's not as if USians are the sole force of ingenuity in the world.

There's nothing special about Americans that would cause the economy to fall if they left it, but there is something special about the American economy's place in the world: it's huge. Sanctioning the US would be like cutting off an elephant's leg: there's nothing special about the leg tissue, but it's a big enough part the elephant is going to miss it.
I'm not sure why I used an elephant. I think they just make good analogies.

Not really. Eight years does not a failing superpower make. And the European Union, although very powerful, can hardly be considered unified in the same way the US is.

The wine and cheese farmers is coming to get you. Repent!

I say they would lose at minimum a thousand troops a day just to the general public.


Assuming they wanted a living populace...

Assuming they wanted a living populace...

And if the invaders killed everyone, they would be condemned and the US would be supported.

There's nothing special about Americans that would cause the economy to fall if they left it, but there is something special about the American economy's place in the world: it's huge. Sanctioning the US would be like cutting off an elephant's leg: there's nothing special about the leg tissue, but it's a big enough part the elephant is going to miss it.
I'm not sure why I used an elephant. I think they just make good analogies.

A collapsing element is a dramatic image.

Assuming they wanted a living populace...

Yes, because the genocide of an entire country's population is a great way to win support for an invasion. :rolleyes:

And if the invaders killed everyone, they would be condemned and the US would be supported.

Pah. All this potential invader would have to do is promise to buy up whatever the US imported at 125% of current prices and nobody would care. And maybe play sign a few treaties with former NATO countries.

You have this strange idea that people would actually care about masses of people dying on some distant land enough to send an army.

Newsflash. Nobody does. At least nobody who can actually send an army.

Nobody cared about Darfur cause there wasn't anything of economic gain to be had.

And nobody would care about masses of American's being slaughtered if their pocketbooks were safe.


Yes, because the genocide of an entire country's population is a great way to win support for an invasion.

If you're strong enough to take on one of the best nation smashing armies in the world and win, what kind of support would you need exactly?

National leaders more interested in surviving would either stay neutral, or provide support on the sly. None would actually enter the conflict.

Even fewer would do anything if they found that their economies dependent on whichever new superpower was doing the smashing.

America is bigger than the USA, isn´t it? We got Canada, Mexico and South America too if I remember right. That´s also America. So I will continue to use "the pathetic USian label".

I guess they don't teach geography where you went to school, pal. The continent of NORTH America is bigger than the United States of America. The continent of South America is a completely distinct landmass. And AMERICA refers specifically to the USA. Everyone recognizes that fact, except pretentious America-phobes.

But by all means, continue using "the pathetic USian label." It says much more about you than us, and just makes you look like an ass. :p