all i have to say is europe has france... thats a major advantage for the US... but in rebuttle, europe has bad dental hygene, which would scare me away, never mind our armies...
im just kiddin yall... some of these forums are rediculous... who cares... 10 bucks says who ever invades who buys the first round of drinks... Ill invade the guiness factory in ireland... anyone down for an overthrow?
moronic posting... youre all morons
I thought you're name said Armed Packie lmao.
Canada Wins
6 pages....omg...remember, debate and serious talk ?
don't we just love to discuss hypothetical questions...
well then, here is my take on this.
None of the existing superpowers/coalitions/unions has the military power to invade one another and win a conventional military conflict. Look at the current situation in Iraq. The US has won the military part of the conflict, the rest is a guerilla war fiasco.
do you honestly think they would to better if the whole EU was against them ?
Same thing the other way round. any assault fleet would be greatly diminished by air strikes, and no side can muster enough troops to be sucessful in an amphibious assault.
A nuclear conflict would be the end for the world as we know it, and no one wants that.
Let's face it, the times when wars were fought for territory (sp?) are long gone. There is just no way the US could actually "conquer" Europe, and vice versa. too much land mass, too few soldiers. Modern conflicts are conflicts about ideas and about resources. And those are usually fought along the borders of the respective cultures, for example the middle east.
Europe and the US share the same democratic traditions. It is very unlikely that this foundation is going to be shattered, especially having already fought two world wars. We have learned our lesson.
don't we just love to discuss hypothetical questions...
well then, here is my take on this.
None of the existing superpowers/coalitions/unions has the military power to invade one another and win a conventional military conflict. Look at the current situation in Iraq. The US has won the military part of the conflict, the rest is a guerilla war fiasco.
do you honestly think they would to better if the whole EU was against them ?
Same thing the other way round. any assault fleet would be greatly diminished by air strikes, and no side can muster enough troops to be sucessful in an amphibious assault.
A nuclear conflict would be the end for the world as we know it, and no one wants that.
Let's face it, the times when wars were fought for territory (sp?) are long gone. There is just no way the US could actually "conquer" Europe, and vice versa. too much land mass, too few soldiers. Modern conflicts are conflicts about ideas and about resources. And those are usually fought along the borders of the respective cultures, for example the middle east.
Europe and the US share the same democratic traditions. It is very unlikely that this foundation is going to be shattered, especially having already fought two world wars. We have learned our lesson.
The US and Europe wouldn't fight eachother. We are togheter forever. Remember that.
All I have to say is: My Dad can beat up yer dad.
"Last time I was in a sword fight.....I put someones eye out."
"Last time I was in a sword fight.....I put someones eye out."
Best idea in the last 6 pages!Pubic wrote:
Howbout we organise a 32 v 32 US vs Euro game of BF2 instead? That way we can avoid giving the planet cancer...not that you guys cared when you tested in the pacific or anything...
I was once playing on US vs EU server, but forgot to add it to the favourites and nevre played on it since... if anyone plans to make such thing please don't forget to invite me!!!!!
Regarding the topic...
pointless discussion - just as if one asked who is stronger batman or spiderman... or something like that
Uh, batman only has gadgets... hellllooooooo??? =P
The gun has little to do with it. It's the user. Just like when the US sold old fighter jets to 3rd world countries they wrecked several when training pilots. (can't remember the country but was funny)sheggalism wrote:
But American Firearms really really suck compared to European. Heckler und Koch, FN Herstal, Sig, Steyr, they make the best overall guns in the world.
You would need to get close enough to use them.....sheggalism wrote:
But American Firearms really really suck compared to European. Heckler und Koch, FN Herstal, Sig, Steyr, they make the best overall guns in the world.
Amateurs talk about tactics. Experts talk about logistics.
Here is the best post on the subject so far:
The US has the most power projection ability of any military in the world right now...probably more than the next five largest combined, if not the next ten largest combined. In real terms, this still only means the ability to move few Brigades in a 24 hour period. Against a western industrial army, that just isn't enough. They would be slaughtered.
China+Russia+EU does not have the logistical ablility to invade the US. The US doesn't have the logistical ability to invade Europe. The logistics of the problem are just too large to solve.
Here is the best post on the subject so far:
He is absolutely correct, and I'll expand on it. The kind of conflict we are (hypothetically) talking about here is pure power projection. Power projection is INCREDIBLY difficult and expensive. In order to win on foreign ground, you have to move large numbers of men and materiel quickly. If you can only move it slowly, the enemy will just overwhelm and kill your troops as they show up. You have to move enough troops to hold and keep a position in one landing: Like D-Day. Frankly, no country in the world has that kind of capability today. Even if an army could form a D-Day sized armada, that wouldn't be enough today due to the advances in Naval and Air power. You could try to move your troops where the enemy isn't, but most large powers have satallites available, so they would move to counter before you were able to build up significant numbers.B.Schuss wrote:
well then, here is my take on this.
None of the existing superpowers/coalitions/unions has the military power to invade one another and win a conventional military conflict. Look at the current situation in Iraq. The US has won the military part of the conflict, the rest is a guerilla war fiasco.
do you honestly think they would to better if the whole EU was against them ?
Same thing the other way round. any assault fleet would be greatly diminished by air strikes, and no side can muster enough troops to be sucessful in an amphibious assault.
A nuclear conflict would be the end for the world as we know it, and no one wants that.
Let's face it, the times when wars were fought for territory (sp?) are long gone. There is just no way the US could actually "conquer" Europe, and vice versa. too much land mass, too few soldiers. Modern conflicts are conflicts about ideas and about resources. And those are usually fought along the borders of the respective cultures, for example the middle east.
The US has the most power projection ability of any military in the world right now...probably more than the next five largest combined, if not the next ten largest combined. In real terms, this still only means the ability to move few Brigades in a 24 hour period. Against a western industrial army, that just isn't enough. They would be slaughtered.
China+Russia+EU does not have the logistical ablility to invade the US. The US doesn't have the logistical ability to invade Europe. The logistics of the problem are just too large to solve.
Don't forget Finnish Sako sniper riflessheggalism wrote:
But American Firearms really really suck compared to European. Heckler und Koch, FN Herstal, Sig, Steyr, they make the best overall guns in the world.
But we wudnt go into a stand up battle with the US forces. we'd be clever, and like everyo other recent enemy of the US hide, strike out, killa few Amercians and dissapear again. Your a superpower, your super weapons are useless in guerilla warfareRoyWereForUniMare wrote:
let me rephrase myself.ProDicTeD wrote:
Russia would just nuke America's best army. This discussion is pointless. It will become a stalemate, cause one country would accidently bomb yellowstone park and create the biggest eruption ever. Which will become an ice age... so on and on
what if the UK's army would fight against that of the USA, the UK might be the better fighter, but I still think they'd lose because of the USA by sheir number of people.
But this is ofcourse (just like everything has been on this thread) just speculation.
Too truewhittsend wrote:
Amateurs talk about tactics. Experts talk about logistics.
Think D-day. The combined EU airforces would obtain air superiority and then it would be no problem launching an amphibious assault. And i dislike france too, but their soldiers would kick some US ass, they are the hardest in the EU
and real men wipe there asshole with there hand!
Which is basically composed of 95% of USA, and 90% of the people who posted in this thread.Adam5286 wrote:
RoyWereForUniMare said
Bush got re-elected because of a couple million Hicks with a shitty education and basically no common sense.
If a country was to invade an other country, they obviously wouldn't declare it out loud.
By nuking the strategic points in USA, what kind of intelligence is left?
And the dumbass that said that if USA invaded China and USA would own them using Armor and whatnot, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. The armor would obviously be transported by SEA, an easy bomb or missle would take care of that.
And if ever USA attacked/ invaded any country that is part of the UN for no reason but for it's resources (example: Iraq (even though not part of UN)), good luck USA because the rest of the countries part of the UN will join forces wipe you out.
What's ironic is USA is trying to maintain world peace, but they can't even maintain peace on their own land.
They all kill each other like retards, so what are those numbers again? Like at least 40,000 murders a year?
Not surprised that Canadian Prime Minister called Bush a moron.
And why would you ever bring such topic up. Being all cocky thinking your country can pwn the world.
Last edited by chinesemaster006 (2006-01-30 13:25:18)
the eu army ? the un army ? lol these things dont exist ..guess who provides the majority of the un "peacekeeping" force materials?
i can tell mr cheese here is from quebec right ? please dont nuke us canada..
lets have a more productive discussion ? how about we get a list of the major contributors in this potential EU army ?
as far as i know france is the biggest manufacturer of planes tanks etc inside europe and easily the strongest army
now german engineering is certainly great and h&k makes nice firearms but after ww2 Germany is not allowed to do any buildup of large weapons ie. tanks planes..
so who is the number two contributor?
i can tell mr cheese here is from quebec right ? please dont nuke us canada..
air superiority is the US's game ..we take out your air then bomb the shit out of you ^^The combined EU airforces would obtain air superiority
lets have a more productive discussion ? how about we get a list of the major contributors in this potential EU army ?
as far as i know france is the biggest manufacturer of planes tanks etc inside europe and easily the strongest army
now german engineering is certainly great and h&k makes nice firearms but after ww2 Germany is not allowed to do any buildup of large weapons ie. tanks planes..
so who is the number two contributor?
Last edited by chitlin (2006-01-30 14:09:03)
Yeah, i read it twice now i get it im owned.
Well, I don't think the numbers of the combined European combat aircraft exceed those of the US (even if they do, it isn't by much...Europeans simply don't spend that much on defense). Even if, for the sake of argument we say they do, its the same problem in a different form. Logistics again. The combined EU airforces do not have the refueling support necessary to support an operation on the other side of the Atlantic. The small numbers that could be sent over would be knocked out of the sky in short order by the US forces which have their own logistic support right there. Logistics will get you every time. Can't get past it.Sh1fty2k5 wrote:
Think D-day. The combined EU airforces would obtain air superiority and then it would be no problem launching an amphibious assault. And i dislike france too, but their soldiers would kick some US ass, they are the hardest in the EU
Heh. Not too worried about that. I have worked with UN troops (Somalia). For the most part they are worse than useless. Most UN troops won't face a disorganised rabble; when the rounds start flying they can't run away fast enough. I can't imagine what they would do fighting a real professional army. Probably wouldn't show up in the first place.chinesemaster006 wrote:
And if ever USA attacked/ invaded any country that is part of the UN for no reason but for it's resources (example: Iraq (even though not part of UN)), good luck USA because the rest of the countries part of the UN will join forces wipe you out.
I'm guessing that most of the folks saying that X country's forces are useless have never been in the military or been on the receiving end of a round fired in anger. Give it a try and THEN come back an talk shit.
Last edited by whittsend (2006-01-30 14:13:43)
Canada's murder rate is twice the USA's. Look it up. (So's their rape rate--I guess screwing polar bears and wolverines in the yukon gets old so they have to get their jollies otherwise)chinesemaster006 wrote:
RoyWereForUniMare said
What's ironic is USA is trying to maintain world peace, but they can't even maintain peace on their own land.
They all kill each other like retards, so what are those numbers again? Like at least 40,000 murders a year?
Not surprised that Canadian Prime Minister called Bush a moron.
And why would you ever bring such topic up. Being all cocky thinking your country can pwn the world.
Adam5286 wrote:
Bush got re-elected because of a couple million Hicks with a shitty education and basically no common sense. They love their Conservative values because the bible clearly says……….Hate blacks and gays………….hate Muslims…………….. Watch NASCAR…….. Vote Republican ………….Stem cell research is bad because u cant kill………….Death penalty is good u can kill if the death penalty………. …..Fight Wars * I remember reading the part where Jesus said sum then like if you enemy slaps you turn……and grab your military and send them into Iraq*………..and OH yeah vote for Bush because he is “Gods candidate”
I just get sooo pissed how these “really religious people can be soo far from Jesus’ teachings HE PREACHED NON VIOLENCE AT ALL COST so if ur going to justify any type of violence DO NOT USE CHRISTIANITY in any WAY!!!!!!!! (I don’t think many religions accept violence)
All I say is Listen to the" Party of Tolerance " lol
A frothing Rabid liberal Hard at it again.
If you don't share his opinion's verbatim Your are ( all manner of bad words )
He talks about Racism and intolerance but uses words like Hick.
He appears to be afraid of cars.
Calls people stupid but spells poorly himself, has difficulty constructing a coherent thought.
and has strayed way off the thread. A.D.D. ?
He neglected to Tell you that.
It was the Liberal Democrats in Florida who couldn't vote because they Couldn't understand how to use the Ballot. ( they reprinted the Ballot in our local News paper and my Niece and Nephew ages 4 and 7 Could do it. )
clinton only got in because Ross Perote took 19% of the Ultra Conservative Vote From Bush
Gore and Kerry only took the Welfare Vote.
If your state didn't have a large Welfare Class Gore Kerry didn't win it!
Gore didn't even win his own state.
I think if he got a lollypop He might stop sobbing. That's what they do at hospitals with little kids, cheers them right up too. He definitely needs Ritalin.
I also suspect he's a Bunny hopper.
Bush got re-elected because of a couple million Hicks with a shitty education and basically no common sense. They love their Conservative values because the bible clearly says……….Hate blacks and gays………….hate Muslims…………….. Watch NASCAR…….. Vote Republican ………….Stem cell research is bad because u cant kill………….Death penalty is good u can kill if the death penalty………. …..Fight Wars * I remember reading the part where Jesus said sum then like if you enemy slaps you turn……and grab your military and send them into Iraq*………..and OH yeah vote for Bush because he is “Gods candidate”
I just get sooo pissed how these “really religious people can be soo far from Jesus’ teachings HE PREACHED NON VIOLENCE AT ALL COST so if ur going to justify any type of violence DO NOT USE CHRISTIANITY in any WAY!!!!!!!! (I don’t think many religions accept violence)
All I say is Listen to the" Party of Tolerance " lol
A frothing Rabid liberal Hard at it again.
If you don't share his opinion's verbatim Your are ( all manner of bad words )
He talks about Racism and intolerance but uses words like Hick.
He appears to be afraid of cars.
Calls people stupid but spells poorly himself, has difficulty constructing a coherent thought.
and has strayed way off the thread. A.D.D. ?
He neglected to Tell you that.
It was the Liberal Democrats in Florida who couldn't vote because they Couldn't understand how to use the Ballot. ( they reprinted the Ballot in our local News paper and my Niece and Nephew ages 4 and 7 Could do it. )
clinton only got in because Ross Perote took 19% of the Ultra Conservative Vote From Bush
Gore and Kerry only took the Welfare Vote.
If your state didn't have a large Welfare Class Gore Kerry didn't win it!
Gore didn't even win his own state.
I think if he got a lollypop He might stop sobbing. That's what they do at hospitals with little kids, cheers them right up too. He definitely needs Ritalin.
I also suspect he's a Bunny hopper.