PDA

View Full Version : Europe vs United States



EPA
13 Mar 05,, 03:58
If the EU did unite into The United States of Europe and a War broke out between The USA and USE who would win. This most likely would not happen beacuse Europe only looks for peace now. Vote away then voice your opinion.

1. America

2. Europe

Confed999
13 Mar 05,, 04:11
This most likely would not happen beacuse Europe only looks for peace now.
But aren't European nations fighting in Africa now? Anyway, they would pay us whatever we wanted not to do it, America wins. Never happen though, unless a brutal dictator took over one or the other. If it were the US under a tyrant I wouldn't hold my breath for any kind of liberation assistance from Europe.

Veni Vidi Vici
13 Mar 05,, 04:21
This is a pointless thread. People on this board have argued this to death. I will repeat my opinions again, I beleive that the USA would win because of
our stronger sence of national unity and a more sofisticated and powerful military.

dalem
13 Mar 05,, 06:20
Clearly American would win because we are brutes and Europeans only want peace. So we would just keep kicking the peaceful Euros in the jimmysack until they paid us to stop.

-dale

EPA
13 Mar 05,, 16:39
IF the EU were to unite and build up a military, Then a war breaks out between the EU and America who would win? Vote away

Jonathan Locke
13 Mar 05,, 17:02
Yeah, but what if the EU, fought back instead?


I personally think EU would win (but then again im probably wrong), they have Germany as a great manufacturing country, England as a great harbor, they have more resources than US, since they have a bigger territory, and i think (im not sure) that there is more European troops than US troops. Its all good, except France. :biggrin:

Praxus
13 Mar 05,, 17:13
Yeah, but what if the EU, fought back instead?


I personally think EU would win (but then again im probably wrong), they have Germany as a great manufacturing country, England as a great harbor, they have more resources than US, since they have a bigger territory, and i think (im not sure) that there is more European troops than US troops. Its all good, except France. :biggrin:


What if the EU had big space guns that could blast everyone to hell?

They don't. There's no point is arguing about something that has no relavence to reality.

Jonathan Locke
13 Mar 05,, 17:16
What if the EU had big space guns that could blast everyone to hell?

They don't. There's no point is arguing about something that has no relavence to reality.


I was saying that EPA meant that what if war actually did break out (without the Europenas backing out). But nobody got his message and they all started posting that the Europeans wouldn't go to war.

evo_spook
13 Mar 05,, 17:22
who would win in a war between EU and US?

I'd say, China, Russia, Australia and the rest of the globe.

A full war between a united EU and US would destroy both countrys and no winners.

At the moment US has a technological advantage, but that is only because of funding and vast militery budget, if the EU plowed that into developing weapons, that gap would disappear.

As it stands, both sides have enough weapons and troops to destroy each other

ZFBoxcar
13 Mar 05,, 17:38
I personally think EU would win (but then again im probably wrong), they have Germany as a great manufacturing country, England as a great harbor, they have more resources than US, since they have a bigger territory, and i think (im not sure) that there is more European troops than US troops. Its all good, except France.

Not that territory size is actually an indicator of who would win, but you are incorrect about size. The US is FAR bigger than the EU. The EU's total area is 3,976,372 sq km. The US is 9,631,418 sq km. As for troop size, I am not sure who has more over all manpower, but the European powers do not have anything even close to US capabilities in actually moving troops around the world. They would not be able to land anything close to a sufficient number of troops in America to change the outcome of a war. Germany cannot manufacture more than the US, and the USN is more powerful than the Royal Navy.

Jonathan Locke
13 Mar 05,, 17:41
can you please tell me whta countries and nations do myou consider to be in the EU?

Europeanarmy
13 Mar 05,, 17:47
IF the EU were to unite and build up a military, Then a war breaks out between the EU and America who would win? Vote away

The USA will be the winner. The European Union does not have sufficient means yet.

From a naval point of view, the USA have 12 aircraft carrier while the European countries have only 6 of them and only the French one could be considered powerful enough to be qualified as a real aircraft carrier. The 3 British, 1 Italian and 1 Spanish carriers are too small (VSTOL aircrafts only). As the EU could not invade the USA, the war is already won by the USA. But they would have some difficulties to invade Europe as the European armies and air forces are strong enough to resist an invasion.

ZFBoxcar
13 Mar 05,, 17:54
um...the ones that ARE in the EU. These are: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and the UK.

Even if you were to include the candidate countries; Bulgaria, Croatia, Romania, and Turkey, the US would still be much bigger.

Jonathan Locke
13 Mar 05,, 17:58
Well, then i guess i was wrong, veen thought war would never happen.

ZFBoxcar
13 Mar 05,, 18:02
I merged this thread with EPA's other thread of exactly the same topic. Please don't double post a thread EPA.

Confed999
13 Mar 05,, 18:22
I was saying that EPA meant that what if war actually did break out (without the Europenas backing out). But nobody got his message and they all started posting that the Europeans wouldn't go to war.
Just following his lead:

Europe only looks for peace now.

EPA
13 Mar 05,, 19:23
I was saying that EPA meant that what if war actually did break out (without the Europenas backing out). But nobody got his message and they all started posting that the Europeans wouldn't go to war.


Thats what i am saying, i am saying behind all the other stuff. War broke out between the EU and America. I personally think Europe whould win size dozen't matter. Think about when The Germans were fighting the Russians in WW2 the Germans almost beat the Russians and Russia is 4 or 5 times bigger. Wasington DC is right near the coast they could bomb their capital right away. European armies would be more large if the EU united and had a couple years to build a strong army. The Europeans would win they would have Naval Supioriority, Air Supioriority i am not shure about ground Supioriority though. Think all of Europe working together to build planes, Ships, weapons look what germany did buy itself come on i say EU. Most of the European contries have a grudge against America. Trust me Europeans can be Brutes. They were all Barbarians in the Ancient times.

EPA
13 Mar 05,, 19:24
I merged this thread with EPA's other thread of exactly the same topic. Please don't double post a thread EPA.

Sorry, this is my first one and i could'nt find my other one i thought i did'nt do it write.

EPA
13 Mar 05,, 19:44
Lets not forget they mess with Europe they mess with me and i bite, lol. I'm sorry i just had to say that. Now it would also cost the US alot of money beacuse The Eu is America's Number 1 trading partner.

dalem
13 Mar 05,, 20:16
Lets not forget they mess with Europe they mess with me and i bite, lol. I'm sorry i just had to say that. Now it would also cost the US alot of money beacuse The Eu is America's Number 1 trading partner.

So are you an American citizen or not?

-dale

Praxus
13 Mar 05,, 21:29
Actually Canada is Americas largest trading partner.

Julie
13 Mar 05,, 21:46
Actually Canada is Americas largest trading partner.That is correct. :)

Veni Vidi Vici
13 Mar 05,, 23:02
Thats what i am saying, i am saying behind all the other stuff. War broke out between the EU and America. I personally think Europe whould win size dozen't matter. Think about when The Germans were fighting the Russians in WW2 the Germans almost beat the Russians and Russia is 4 or 5 times bigger. Wasington DC is right near the coast they could bomb their capital right away. European armies would be more large if the EU united and had a couple years to build a strong army. The Europeans would win they would have Naval Supioriority, Air Supioriority i am not shure about ground Supioriority though. Think all of Europe working together to build planes, Ships, weapons look what germany did buy itself come on i say EU. Most of the European contries have a grudge against America. Trust me Europeans can be Brutes. They were all Barbarians in the Ancient times.

You have no concept of what you are talking about. Bomb Washington DC. Thats pretty funny. I mean its not like we have any air force guarding our capitol or anything. :rolleyes:

EPA
13 Mar 05,, 23:15
So are you an American citizen or not?

-dale

Can you belive this, i was kiding after i finish collage i am moving to Europe when i am about 25

EPA
13 Mar 05,, 23:19
You have no concept of what you are talking about. Bomb Washington DC. Thats pretty funny. I mean its not like we have any air force guarding our capitol or anything. :rolleyes:

I said once they have air Supioriority. Did'nt you think about Fighter escorts.

EPA
13 Mar 05,, 23:21
That is correct. :)

Yes, but not in North America. Not anyone in NAFTA ( North America Free Trade Agrement)

dalem
13 Mar 05,, 23:38
Can you belive this, i was kiding after i finish collage i am moving to Europe when i am about 25

That's not an answer.

-dale

ZFBoxcar
13 Mar 05,, 23:46
Where did you get this deluded notion that the EU nations would have naval superiority over the USN? And the USN has more airpower than most airforces, let alone navies.

Europeanarmy
14 Mar 05,, 00:00
Where did you get this deluded notion that the EU nations would have naval superiority over the USN? And the USN has more airpower than most airforces, let alone navies.

You're right...the European naval forces could not win against the US Navy. But the USN would have some troubles to have the air superiority against European air forces.

Parihaka
14 Mar 05,, 00:00
You have no concept of what you are talking about. Bomb Washington DC. Thats pretty funny. I mean its not like we have any air force guarding our capitol or anything. :rolleyes:
Not meaning any disrespect but not on Sept 11 2001 you didn't. The only thing stopping a 'bomb' hitting the Whitehouse was the heroism of individual citizens.

ZFBoxcar
14 Mar 05,, 00:08
You're right...the European naval forces could not win against the US Navy. But the USN would have some troubles to have the air superiority against European air forces.

Thats true. I don't think it would be easy, and it would probably require every carrier group, and if possible bases in Greenland (in a war between the US and the EU this could be easily seized by the US).


Not meaning any disrespect but not on Sept 11 2001 you didn't. The only thing stopping a 'bomb' hitting the Whitehouse was the heroism of individual citizens.

Not a valid argument. Sept. 11 involved a civillian airliner and not enough forwarning. Do you think if it had been an openly declared enemy aircraft it would have gotten anywhere? An enemy fighter or enemy bomber would have to cross the entire atlantic which would be flooded with US warships as well as NORAD, all of which would be LOOKING for enemies. Those are the differences. 9/11= friendly aircraft already in the US. EU bombing= Enemy aircraft flying from another continent.

Parihaka
14 Mar 05,, 00:12
Not a valid argument. Sept. 11 involved a civillian airliner and not enough forwarning. Do you think if it had been an openly declared enemy aircraft it would have gotten anywhere? An enemy fighter or enemy bomber would have to cross the entire atlantic which would be flooded with US warships as well as NORAD, all of which would be LOOKING for enemies. Those are the differences. 9/11= friendly aircraft already in the US. EU bombing= Enemy aircraft flying from another continent.
I was basing it on the idea of a surprise attack a la Pearl Harbour with the aircraft concealed within normal flight clutter, and the actual aircraft that were available to respond to the 9/11 attacks.

EPA
14 Mar 05,, 00:33
That's not an answer.

-dale

Yes, i am a US citizen at this time.

EPA
14 Mar 05,, 00:36
Not meaning any disrespect but not on Sept 11 2001 you didn't. The only thing stopping a 'bomb' hitting the Whitehouse was the heroism of individual citizens.

Yah, but that was a sneak attack they would'nt have know thats a treat. If you see a horde of enemy bombers coming they might consider that a threat.

EPA
14 Mar 05,, 00:45
You're right...the European naval forces could not win against the US Navy. But the USN would have some troubles to have the air superiority against European air forces.

I think it is the tactics they use, and stratigies. Say there is 1 compony of Americans and 1 squad of highly trained Europeans and the Americans are running at a EU line in the open. While the europeans pick them of one by one. The ones who get in, get beat up The idea is who ever is the better man or Commanding officer wins. Think of the Battle of Hastings, How the US airborn held out at Bastonge in 1944, Barbarians like during Cesars Gallic war, They all relied on their Large numbers beacuse they could'nt strategies worth a darn.

ZFBoxcar
14 Mar 05,, 01:31
All of NATO has similar doctrine, although man-for-man the US would have an overall advantage since many European countries use conscription, although the professional soldiers are probably about equal.

Bluesman
14 Mar 05,, 02:22
All of NATO has similar doctrine, although man-for-man the US would have an overall advantage since many European countries use conscription, although the professional soldiers are probably about equal.

Disagree. There is simply NO ONE in Europe that has any experience above Division-level command, and if you think you can pick it up OJT, you're wrong.

At the level we're talking about - general war, with the stakes set at national sovreignty - no contest.

It takes YEARS to make a decent battalion commander; same for a sergeant major. It's done with both constant practice and professional application of corporate 'lessons learned'. There is simply no parallel to what American forces have been doing since 1981. There is no equivalent anywhere in the world to the ACMI range at Nellis; no counterpart to NTC at Fort Irwin; nothing on the same scale as ULCHI FOCUS LENS, COPE THUNDER or RED FLAG or our actual COMBAT EXPERIENCE that has been amassed over the last 20+ years. When we move units, we're not talking about a 'multi-national battalion (-)' from a polyglot of countries to do a 'mission' that the New Hampshire National Guard contingent would consider not really worth deploying for. We move MASSES, and don't think you can learn as you go in THAT endeavor, either.

And finally...it is a warrior ethos that will win an otherwise even fight. That was touched on above, with the mention of conscripts versus professional volunteers. There can be no comparison between the half-hearted draftee that has been imbued his entire life with the idea that all war - ANY war, for ANY reason - is evil and that military service is to be avoided, as opposed to a hardened and professional corps of enthusiastic volunteer warriors that seek victory through tighly-controlled but almost unimaginable violence - speed of maneuver and decisive command and overwhelming firepower against a doctrinally-staid and slow-paced operational vision and a broken-down attempt at coalition warfare with 'command-by-committee' and light, old forces that were grudgingly paid for by populations that never really LIKED their militaries or afforded them much esteem.

If the US were to ever fight the entire EU - God forbid it - we would be well advised to bring less ammo, and more concertina wire - to hold all the POWs until the collapse of armed resistance allowed all the paroled draftees to go back to their homes throughout a wholly US-owned Europe.

Veni Vidi Vici
14 Mar 05,, 03:30
Not meaning any disrespect but not on Sept 11 2001 you didn't. The only thing stopping a 'bomb' hitting the Whitehouse was the heroism of individual citizens.


A) That was different. A civilian ariline .
B) It probobly would have been shot down before it reached the WH.
C) Now we are much more prepared for a concealed attack and it is a buttload harder to execute one now.

dalem
14 Mar 05,, 07:04
Yes, i am a US citizen at this time.

Then act like one.

-dale

Bill
14 Mar 05,, 08:19
I wanna know who the four morons that voted for Europe are.

LOL...delusional.

Jonathan Locke
14 Mar 05,, 20:29
*raises hand* (me and my Spanish pride :redface: )

Veni Vidi Vici
14 Mar 05,, 20:38
*raises hand* (me and my Spanish pride :redface: )

How do you figure?

Jonathan Locke
14 Mar 05,, 20:43
How do you figure?


What do you mean?

Veni Vidi Vici
14 Mar 05,, 23:43
How do you figure that the EU has the power to win in a war with the US.

Jonathan Locke
14 Mar 05,, 23:57
I don't, like is said " its all me and my Spanish pride" :biggrin:

RogerBenno
17 Mar 05,, 16:03
I think this sort of question would only be taken seriously by Americans.

Most Europeans know what modern warfare means, and discount this sort of question.

A lot of Americans (not of all of them, of course) have a different attitude entirely. There is evil in the world, and it must be destroyed etc etc. So they are on a never ending crusade to rid the world of evil, (because it can never really be wiped out as they will admit) and are always looking for the next bunch of foreigners to have a pop at.

Julie
17 Mar 05,, 16:36
I think this sort of question would only be taken seriously by Americans.......and are always looking for the next bunch of foreigners to have a pop at.Why do we need to go look....they always seem to come and find us for a "pop." :biggrin:

RogerBenno
17 Mar 05,, 18:11
Why do we need to go look....they always seem to come and find us for a "pop." :biggrin:

Funny you should say that, there are probably a lot of people in the world who would say exactly the same thing about the US.

For example, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Cuba in the first row...

in the second row : Venezuela, Libya, China, Nicaragua, Chile, Guatemala, etc.

Sorry to get on my soap box.
Just saying that a big part of the rest of the planet has a different view of the US from outside of it's borders.
It's funny, your the richest country in the world or thereabouts, with no secure borders and no real enemies for thousands of miles, and yet you still feel put upon.
Yes, 9/11 happened of course, but compared to the security situation in other counrtries (take Russia, for one - or even Iraq!) and you are living it easy.

And at the end of the day, you are far more likely to be killed by a fellow American than a muslim extremist.

Europeanarmy
17 Mar 05,, 18:24
Hahaha, good one man!

dalem
17 Mar 05,, 18:56
I think this sort of question would only be taken seriously by Americans.

Most Europeans know what modern warfare means, and discount this sort of question.

A lot of Americans (not of all of them, of course) have a different attitude entirely. There is evil in the world, and it must be destroyed etc etc. So they are on a never ending crusade to rid the world of evil, (because it can never really be wiped out as they will admit) and are always looking for the next bunch of foreigners to have a pop at.

So you don't think it's a good idea to fight evil people when you can?

And this "...Europeans know what modern warfare means" schtick slays me. Getting your cities bombed out from under you 60 years ago only goes so far. I'd say that Americans know what modern warfare means" as well, and doing it right means going to fight the Bad Guys where they live, as opposed to waiting until you vote them into power and having to fight them later.

-dale

Julie
17 Mar 05,, 19:28
Hahaha, good one man!You again...and brought some ammo with you this time. :biggrin:

Bill
17 Mar 05,, 23:05
"Most Europeans know what modern warfare means, and discount this sort of question."

Are you using that for an excuse to explain the Europeans tendency to appease and surrender?

"A lot of Americans (not of all of them, of course) have a different attitude entirely. There is evil in the world, and it must be destroyed etc etc. So they are on a never ending crusade to rid the world of evil, (because it can never really be wiped out as they will admit) and are always looking for the next bunch of foreigners to have a pop at."

As opposed to the philosophy: "There's evil in the world, so we better placate and appease them".

RogerBenno
17 Mar 05,, 23:17
So you don't think it's a good idea to fight evil people when you can?
-dale

I would say fighting evil people would be a good idea when you can give a watertight definition of what an 'evil person' looks like.

For example, do they wear black capes and have pointy teeth?
Do they jump out and frighten young children?

What I mean is, the word 'evil' is meaningless. Fighting 'evil' is like fighting your own shadow - there is nothing to land a punch on.

Basing national security on 'fighting evildoers' is pretty meaningless - what do you tell your military? 'Go shoot the guy with the inverted cross around his neck'? The whole idea is at the level of the kindergarten level. It's how a child thinks.



I'd say that Americans know what modern warfare means" as well, and doing it right means going to fight the Bad Guys where they live, as opposed to waiting until you vote them into power and having to fight them later.
-dale

Eh? What is 'voting them into power' mean?
Who are you talking about?
And when was the last time America had, say, a bomb dropped on it by foreign military? When was the last time America was invaded?

Bill
17 Mar 05,, 23:44
"I would say fighting evil people would be a good idea when you can give a watertight definition of what an 'evil person' looks like."

Ahhhh, well no doubt Argentina fits the bill, eh chap?

"For example, do they wear black capes and have pointy teeth?
Do they jump out and frighten young children?"

They run over their own citizens with tanks, shoot innocent people in soccer stadiums, and gas their own people.

Help ya out any sport?

"What I mean is, the word 'evil' is meaningless. Fighting 'evil' is like fighting your own shadow - there is nothing to land a punch on."

Tell that to Hitler. LOL, for that matter, tell that to Saddam. :)

"And when was the last time America had, say, a bomb dropped on it by foreign military?"

9-11-2001

"When was the last time America was invaded?"

See above.

Jonathan Locke
18 Mar 05,, 00:08
"And when was the last time America had, say, a bomb dropped on it by foreign military?"

9-11-2001

"When was the last time America was invaded?"

See above.


I dont think 9/11 counts as being a "bomb" in its literal term, and i really doubt it was an invasion.

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 00:16
Let's see.

Non US citizens embarked on an attack after illegally gaining entry to the US.

I'd call that an invasion, and it definitely qualifies as an attack.

A 767 is nothing but a very large bomb.

Veni Vidi Vici
18 Mar 05,, 01:29
Hahaha, good one man!


yes... it is quite humorus isint it. :rolleyes:

Jonathan Locke
18 Mar 05,, 01:44
Let's see.

Non US citizens embarked on an attack after illegally gaining entry to the US.

I'd call that an invasion, and it definitely qualifies as an attack.


Illegal immigrants form Mexico do that all the time, i havent heard of it as being called an invasion.


Invasion

1. military attempt to conquer: a hostile entry of a large armed force into a country’s territory, with the intention of conquering it


2. arrival in large numbers: the arrival of large numbers of people or things at one time
an invasion of tourists


3. spoiling: a spoiling of something by interfering with it or taking some of it away


4. spread of something harmful: the arrival or spread of something that causes damage or harm


5. medicine spread of disease: the spread of disease-causing organisms or malignant cells in the body


6. botany aggressive spread of plant: the aggressive spread of a plant species in an area, stifling the growth of preexisting species


[15th century. Directly or via French from the late Latin stem invasion- , from Latin invas- , past participle stem of invadere (see invade).]


does 9/11 fit into any of these? (and dont say number 2, because it wasnt a large group)







A 767 is nothing but a very large bomb.




Gee, silly me, i thouhg it was a plane :rolleyes:

Cjwinnit
18 Mar 05,, 02:46
I'd call it a cruise missile rather than a bomb but the principle is the same.

EPA
18 Mar 05,, 03:48
Then act like one.

-dale
No thank you i dont want to be fat and obnoxious.

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 06:17
20 armed terrorists is a large number by my count.

Facing 20 armed individuals, my old sniper team would've been outnumbered 10:1.

dalem
18 Mar 05,, 07:43
I would say fighting evil people would be a good idea when you can give a watertight definition of what an 'evil person' looks like.

For example, do they wear black capes and have pointy teeth?
Do they jump out and frighten young children?

What I mean is, the word 'evil' is meaningless. Fighting 'evil' is like fighting your own shadow - there is nothing to land a punch on.

Oh dry up, I'm not talking about some mystical energy field, I'm talking about people that blow up schoolbuses, fly planes into buildings, and saw the heads off of living people.

If you don't think those are evil acts and that the people willing to plan and execute such things are worthy of a bullet in the brainpan, then our moral codes are clearly too different to allow much discussion.



Basing national security on 'fighting evildoers' is pretty meaningless - what do you tell your military? 'Go shoot the guy with the inverted cross around his neck'? The whole idea is at the level of the kindergarten level. It's how a child thinks.

Actually I bet the average child has a better moral compass than you do, Sport.



Eh? What is 'voting them into power' mean?
Who are you talking about?

Hitler, Milosevic, Mussolini, etc. You know, the power-hungry despots that you should have smelled coming from a mile away.



And when was the last time America had, say, a bomb dropped on it by foreign military? When was the last time America was invaded?

1812 I think. Got our pretty little butts kicked too, as I recall. And our capitol burned.

So what?

-dale

dalem
18 Mar 05,, 07:44
No thank you i dont want to be fat and obnoxious.

Then leave.

-dale

Ray
18 Mar 05,, 10:08
Dalem,

Who are you taking a pop at.

I just had to use the word. It reminded me of my schooldays.

Ever so British.

Where is that pukka English Chap gone? Miss that bloke actually. I feel more comfortable with his syntax after the deluge of Americanism on all fora I visit.

Sancho Panza was fat but he was a jolly old soul.

And guess what? With this post I hit 6000 and still survive! :tongue: :eek:

RogerBenno
18 Mar 05,, 11:54
Ahhhh, well no doubt Argentina fits the bill, eh chap?

Not at all. I have Argentinian relatives and they are not evil. They just have stupid governments.


They run over their own citizens with tanks, shoot innocent people in soccer stadiums, and gas their own people.

So have Germany, France, Spain, Russia and many other states over the course of the 20th century.
What is your point?
Are they all evil too?
Also, in the 20th century the US has been involved in atrocities in East Asia. Ask Philipinos, Vietnamese and Koreans.
You might want to look at American Indians history, and how they were herded together and shot by units of the US Army.
Hang on, but isn't that the definition of an 'evil act'?
Why don't you invade yourself?



Tell that to Hitler. LOL, for that matter, tell that to Saddam. :)

A Hitler again - with you people it always comes back to Adolf. :biggrin:
If I am not mistaken, Hitler came from one of the cradles of western culture (Austria/Germany) - doesn't that make all of us evil too?
If Saddam was so evil, why did George Bush's daddy become so friendly with him in the '80's? Hang on I thought Iranians were evil? What about them?
Is there a league table of evildoers? Who decides who is more evil than the other evildoer?



"And when was the last time America had, say, a bomb dropped on it by foreign military?"
9-11-2001

Once? Well you should feel very sorry for yourselves, get self righteous and go to the Middle East and invade a country that had nothing to do with it, and kill 100,00 of its citizens. Then feel satisfied that they were 'evil' and it was therefore justified. That sounds a great way of geting that 'feel good' factor back.

Next time I have a bad day at the office, I am going to go out, get in my car and visit that neighbour who I don't like and burn his house down. That will solve everything.

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 12:04
100,000 eh?

LOL, that about says it all wrt you dude.

You may be interested to know(though i doubt it), that all top NGOs list that number at 30,000 or less. Further, most top NGOs state that approx. 30,000 Iraqis a year were dying because of Saddam hoarding the oil for food money.

Therefore, we are already 30,000 ahead of the game vs where we'd have been if we'd pretended to be Europeans and sat back doing nothing.

How bout that, eh?

Of course silly wabbits like 'you people' can't be bothered with the facts. :)

"So have Germany, France, Spain, Russia and many other states over the course of the 20th century."

In the 20th century eh? Interesting, but France doesn't belong on the list, and the other three definitely qualify as evil. The French are just pussies.

"What is your point?"

I believe my point is that you're a moron. :)

"Next time I have a bad day at the office, I am going to go out, get in my car and visit that neighbour who I don't like and burn his house down. That will solve everything."

Please do. That way the rest of 'us people' won't have to listen to your silliness anymore.

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 12:06
"Not at all. I have Argentinian relatives and they are not evil."

I wonder if they admit relation to you as readily as you admit it wrt them. Somehow, i seriously doubt it.

"They just have stupid governments."

But of course, you have it all figured out. Thank God for the rest of us...the idiot has a plan. :)

"A Hitler again - with you people it always comes back to Adolf."

Oh, well, god forbid i should support my argument with historical precedent.

"If I am not mistaken, Hitler came from one of the cradles of western culture (Austria/Germany) - doesn't that make all of us evil too?"

Germany(and it's populace as a whole) definitely fit the bill of evil in that timeframe.

"If Saddam was so evil, why did George Bush's daddy become so friendly with him in the '80's?"

Ah, big fan of Micheal the miserable failure Moore eh?

"Hang on I thought Iranians were evil?"

Works for me.

"What about them?"

One despot at a time. They shall have to wait their turn to feel the righteous wrath of the US military. Anyone else you'd like us to add to our list?

"Is there a league table of evildoers? Who decides who is more evil than the other evildoer?"

The people with the most guns.

That would be us. :)

Veni Vidi Vici
18 Mar 05,, 12:27
"Is there a league table of evildoers? Who decides who is more evil than the other evildoer?"

The people with the most guns.

That would be us. :)

Thats always the way it works.

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 12:29
"Thats always the way it works."

Since the dawn of time.

Praxus
18 Mar 05,, 18:26
20 armed terrorists is a large number by my count.

Facing 20 armed individuals, my old sniper team would've been outnumbered 10:1.


If it was 20:1 I'd still bet on you and your "old" sniper team;)

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 20:21
You are too kind bro. :)

Jonathan Locke
18 Mar 05,, 21:04
20 armed terrorists is a large number by my count.

Facing 20 armed individuals, my old sniper team would've been outnumbered 10:1.


The meaning of "a large group" as used in the definiton of invasion, i spretty much the size of a brigade or a regiment, not a dozen or twenty

Bill
18 Mar 05,, 21:33
How bout if it's 20 guys with suitcase nukes?

That an invasion then?

You ask me, 20 foriegners with an intent to kill Americans entering the US illegally definitely qualify as foriegn invaders.

Confed999
19 Mar 05,, 21:26
So have Germany, France, Spain, Russia and many other states over the course of the 20th century.
You seem to be confusing today with yesterday.

You ask me, 20 foriegners with an intent to kill Americans entering the US illegally definitely qualify as foriegn invaders.
No doubt about it...

Jonathan Locke
20 Mar 05,, 21:15
You ask me, 20 foriegners with an intent to kill Americans entering the US illegally definitely qualify as foriegn invaders.


No, they don't qualify as foreign invaders. They qualify as foreign terrorist, which are meant and ordered to do just that, terrorize, not invade, they often do so to "persuade" a driving force to "switch lanes" in political issues, such as the troops staying in Iraq or the war itself. I doubt that the Iraquis are so dumb that they thought that they could invade us with only 20 men carrying explosives/firearms/weapons.

Bill
21 Mar 05,, 04:35
Well i'm not going to argue with you about semantics.

To me, they're invaders.

Say, how many criminals do you have to find in your house for them to qualify as home invaders?

I believe the answer is 1.

lwarmonger
21 Mar 05,, 05:11
To me, they're invaders.


Invaders no, but the difference is degree not kind. And if somebody hits us, or threatens to hit us, we will hit them back. And we are much stronger and better coordinated then anyone else.

Jonathan Locke
21 Mar 05,, 21:16
Say, how many criminals do you have to find in your house for them to qualify as home invaders?

I believe the answer is 1.


Well if i did happen to find a criminal in my house, with the idea that he is going to take oevr my house, and not just steal anything or commit any other felany that does not involve adquiring my house, then yes, i woudl consider him a house invader, but like i have said before, the Afghanistan terrorist were not meant to, and did not, invade our country.

Bill
21 Mar 05,, 21:59
What afghanistan terrorists?

Jonathan Locke
21 Mar 05,, 22:06
What afghanistan terrorists?

The ones on the plane

Bill
21 Mar 05,, 22:22
There were no Afghans on any of the hijacked planes.

Jonathan Locke
22 Mar 05,, 00:31
There were no Afghans on any of the hijacked planes.

Ok then, Iraquis or other Middle-Eastern country

Jonathan Locke
22 Mar 05,, 00:32
The nationality doesn't have much to do with it, except that they hated us and wanted to get rid of us.

Bill
22 Mar 05,, 07:25
"The nationality doesn't have much to do with it, except that they hated us and wanted to get rid of us."

Agreed.

lwarmonger
22 Mar 05,, 07:30
And whether they are an invader or not should not deter us from giving them, and all who support them, a good swift knee in the ballocks!

Jonathan Locke
22 Mar 05,, 21:09
And whether they are an invader or not should not deter us from giving them, and all who support them, a good swift knee in the ballocks!

i second that statement

Veni Vidi Vici
22 Mar 05,, 21:53
The nationality doesn't have much to do with it, except that they hated us and wanted to get rid of us.
Yep, and thell get what they deserve.

Confed999
23 Mar 05,, 00:50
Well if i did happen to find a criminal in my house, with the idea that he is going to take oevr my house, and not just steal anything or commit any other felany that does not involve adquiring my house, then yes, i woudl consider him a house invader, but like i have said before, the Afghanistan terrorist were not meant to, and did not, invade our country.
Main Entry: in·vade
Pronunciation: in-'vAd
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): in·vad·ed; in·vad·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin invadere, from in- + vadere to go -- more at WADE
1 : to enter for conquest or plunder
2 : to encroach upon : INFRINGE
3 a : to spread over or into as if invading : PERMEATE <doubts invade his mind> b : to affect injuriously and progressively <gangrene invades healthy tissue>
synonym see TRESPASS
- in·vad·er noun

Jonathan Locke
23 Mar 05,, 21:06
Well Confed your definition of "invade" collides with mine in some places

Veni Vidi Vici
23 Mar 05,, 21:41
Well Confed your definition of "invade" collides with mine in some places

I think that was a dictionary definition..... what dictionary do you use?

Jonathan Locke
24 Mar 05,, 00:26
I think that was a dictionary definition..... what dictionary do you use?


MSN Encarta Dictionary was the one i used for this definition, but i usually use the regular Webster's Scholary Dictionary at classes

Confed999
24 Mar 05,, 00:29
I think that was a dictionary definition.....
Yes Ma'am. :)

Langers
31 Mar 05,, 13:32
Having only read the first page of this utterly pointless thread - I felt compelled to post my thoughts.....

Firstly, Americans think they are invincible (the first page suggests this from your posts) which they are not; remember 11th September 2001???

Secondly, Why would Europe want to invade the North American continent (well, Canada's ok) anyway? We did it once and haven't done so for approx 380 years, because we don't want to!

Thirdly, there are a lot of US Forces personnel within Europe. Don't forget that they are on our doorstep and it would take the rest of you at least 6-7 hours to get here and help them.......

Fourthly (is there such a word?), the British haven't lost a war for a long, long time. Did you win Vietnam or did the black pyjama boys kick your self-obsessed butts?!!?!?!?!?!?

:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

TopHatter
31 Mar 05,, 16:39
Having only read the first page of this utterly pointless thread - I felt compelled to post my thoughts.....

Firstly, Americans think they are invincible (the first page suggests this from your posts) which they are not; remember 11th September 2001???

Secondly, Why would Europe want to invade the North American continent (well, Canada's ok) anyway? We did it once and haven't done so for approx 380 years, because we don't want to!

Thirdly, there are a lot of US Forces personnel within Europe. Don't forget that they are on our doorstep and it would take the rest of you at least 6-7 hours to get here and help them.......

Fourthly (is there such a word?), the British haven't lost a war for a long, long time. Did you win Vietnam or did the black pyjama boys kick your self-obsessed butts?!!?!?!?!?!?

Yeah, 9-11 was definitely a big wakeup call for Americans. It's too bad that most of us have already forgotten the lesson :frown:
Why would Europe want to invade North America? Probably not for our shower fixtures. (and the last time was just under 200 years ago :biggrin: )
As for the British, I'll say that they did show the Junta a thing or two...although their naval losses were kinda appalling.

Confed999
31 Mar 05,, 16:55
Having only read the first page of this utterly pointless thread - I felt compelled to post my thoughts.....
If you felt the need to post, it must have made a point with you.

Americans think they are invincible
I'm an American, and I don't think that.

Why would Europe want to invade the North American continent (well, Canada's ok) anyway?
It's a hypothetical thread. Make up any reason you wish.

We did it once and haven't done so for approx 380 years, because we don't want to!
Check your history a little better.

it would take the rest of you at least 6-7 hours to get here and help them.......
How long does it take for an ICBM to hit Europe? The subs' missles would hit alot sooner.

Did you win Vietnam
Did Europe win that one?

dave angel
31 Mar 05,, 17:18
confed, i'm lead to understand that your missiles will take the same amount of time to arrive over our cities as ours will to arrive over yours. with respect, if you are wary of attacking north korea because of their nuclear 'arsenal', i feel it would be unlikely that you'd attack us.

and we wouldn't harm your soldiers, we'd cut the power and fuel to their bases, surround them with artillery and give them all first class tickets home and an ex gratia payment for any upheaval and unpleasentness. we'd then have a play with our shiny new toys.

wrt vietnam, you may have noticed that europeans managed to stear well clear of veitnam, despite many kind offers - except the french obviously, but if you follow them into a war you've only yourselves to blame for what happens next...

Praxus
31 Mar 05,, 17:23
Firstly, Americans think they are invincible (the first page suggests this from your posts) which they are not; remember 11th September 2001???

No one believes we are invincible. It's a complete non-issue.


Secondly, Why would Europe want to invade the North American continent (well, Canada's ok) anyway? We did it once and haven't done so for approx 380 years, because we don't want to!

By the mid-19th Century, Europe was incapable of invading, let alone conquering North America.

Actually Europeans invaded North America several dozen times(if not more) reaching back to Cortez.


Thirdly, there are a lot of US Forces personnel within Europe. Don't forget that they are on our doorstep and it would take the rest of you at least 6-7 hours to get here and help them.......

As soon as a state of war is declared, we would fight our way into friendly Poland and regroup.


Fourthly (is there such a word?), the British haven't lost a war for a long, long time.

The British havn't fought in a major war since World War II.


Did you win Vietnam or did the black pyjama boys kick your self-obsessed butts?!!?!?!?!?!?

Your a sick human being. Do you like the idea of Americans dying?

Praxus
31 Mar 05,, 17:26
confed, i'm lead to understand that your missiles will take the same amount of time to arrive over our cities as ours will to arrive over yours. with respect, if you are wary of attacking north korea because of their nuclear 'arsenal', i feel it would be unlikely that you'd attack us.

We can deliver 10,000 Warheads to the European Continent in 45 minutes. France and Great Brittian are only capable of delivering a few hundred. If it ever gets to a Nuclear War. Europe will be uninhabitable and the US/World Economy will collapse. But the US would survive it.


and we wouldn't harm your soldiers, we'd cut the power and fuel to their bases, surround them with artillery and give them all first class tickets home and an ex gratia payment for any upheaval and unpleasentness. we'd then have a play with our shiny new toys.

I find it far more likely we would have pulled out of Europe if it ever reached a stage remotely close to military confrantation.


wrt vietnam, you may have noticed that europeans managed to stear well clear of veitnam, despite many kind offers - except the french obviously, but if you follow them into a war you've only yourselves to blame for what happens next...

All we had to do was sack Hanoi and burn it to the ground and the war would have been over.

Confed999
31 Mar 05,, 17:43
confed, i'm lead to understand that your missiles will take the same amount of time to arrive over our cities as ours will to arrive over yours
In his example the Euro missles would hit first, as they were the ones attacking.

if you are wary of attacking north korea because of their nuclear 'arsenal', i feel it would be unlikely that you'd attack us.
Nobody attacked Noth Korea when thay had no nukes either...

and we wouldn't harm your soldiers, we'd cut the power and fuel to their bases, surround them with artillery and give them all first class tickets home and an ex gratia payment for any upheaval and unpleasentness. we'd then have a play with our shiny new toys.
That sounds like an attack harming our soldiers too me. The reality is that Europe would cry and beg for us to leave, and then give us as long as we needed to get our affairs in order. Even then it would come at the loss of billions and billions in revinue, not to mention jobs and devistated local economies, just to have the bases move 2 countries over.

you may have noticed that europeans managed to stear well clear of veitnam
Last I checked France was part of Europe. So, did you win?

All we had to do was sack Hanoi and burn it to the ground and the war would have been over.
Politics messed it up. The military won it more than once...

dave angel
31 Mar 05,, 20:38
could you describe how giving someone a plane ticket and a lump sum brings them harm? as for surrounding them with artillery, its our country, we'll put our artillery where we bloody well like. i assume that the united states feels that it doesn't need to consult as where it puts its military units in its own juristiction - therefore why should we?

and i have to ask, wrt veitnam, can you read more than one sentence in a paragraph?

it is certainly true that the united states has the ability to utterly destroy europe, but do you feel that having 300 of your largest cities turned into glass craters is a price worth paying for that 'achievement'?

Bill
31 Mar 05,, 22:07
You're erroneously assuming every European weapon will A) Work, B) hit the intended target, and C) get through that shiny new missile defense shield of ours.

But you tell me, is messing with the US worth the utter anhillation of your entire continent and every warm blooded mammal that dwells on it?

So go ahead...put that artillery where-ever you like.

Confed999
31 Mar 05,, 23:00
could you describe how giving someone a plane ticket and a lump sum brings them harm? as for surrounding them with artillery, its our country, we'll put our artillery where we bloody well like. i assume that the united states feels that it doesn't need to consult as where it puts its military units in its own juristiction - therefore why should we?
The American military bases in other countries are considered American territory. If you cut them off and threaten them, you are harming them. Your threats would be no different than if you were threatening Washington DC. Would you not feel harmed if Europe was surrounded and cut off from supplies? Also, you should re-read the post I was refering to originally, the scenario wasn't mine, or yours.

can you read more than one sentence in a paragraph?
Yep. You?

it is certainly true that the united states has the ability to utterly destroy europe, but do you feel that having 300 of your largest cities turned into glass craters is a price worth paying for that 'achievement'?
If Europe attacks first, as was proposed, I would rather take that chance than have to kill Euro socialist troops in my streets.


You do realize this is a hypothetical situation right?

Langers
01 Apr 05,, 07:05
You're erroneously assuming every European weapon will A) Work, B) hit the intended target, and C) get through that shiny new missile defense shield of ours.

But you tell me, is messing with the US worth the utter anhillation of your entire continent and every warm blooded mammal that dwells on it?

So go ahead...put that artillery where-ever you like.

Sniper, you are assuming every American weapon will work and hit the intended target also - be fair if our weapons aren't that reliable, neither are yours. It's called the law of averages.

You are also claiming that "the shiny new missile defense shield of ours" actually works.........that's funny!!!! It doesn't even work as a deterrent.

dave angel
01 Apr 05,, 08:45
this is barking mad.

Langers
01 Apr 05,, 09:24
this is barking mad.

Dave, I agree with you.

The world wouldn't be a very nice to live if this scenario happened.

Bill
01 Apr 05,, 12:26
"Sniper, you are assuming every American weapon will work and hit the intended target also - be fair if our weapons aren't that reliable, neither are yours. It's called the law of averages."

I figure about 85% of the US missiles will function as intended. You in the mood to suffer a couple thousand nuclear impacts in Europe?

"You are also claiming that "the shiny new missile defense shield of ours" actually works.........that's funny!!!! It doesn't even work as a deterrent."

It's not even in service yet(though it will be in 2 weeks), so it's a bit premature to say what does and what doesnt work. If you plan on nuking us i reccomend you hurry though. This time next year the US will have a theoretical capability to down 25% of the Continental European SLBM force.

Confed999
02 Apr 05,, 16:48
You are also claiming that "the shiny new missile defense shield of ours" actually works.........that's funny!!!!
The ship mounted system has worked 4 times in tests...

The world wouldn't be a very nice to live if this scenario happened.
It's just a hypothetical situation.

lwarmonger
04 Apr 05,, 07:27
Sniper, you are assuming every American weapon will work and hit the intended target also - be fair if our weapons aren't that reliable, neither are yours. It's called the law of averages.

You are also claiming that "the shiny new missile defense shield of ours" actually works.........that's funny!!!! It doesn't even work as a deterrent.

In addition to reminding you about how many more nukes the US has, I would also remind you that 1) if the US gets in a first strike, you have lost your entire land based deterrent, as you do not have enough silos that can reach the US for a second strike... 2) the American navy is vastly superior to that of all of Europe, and so even your SSBN's aren't safe. Suffice it to say, in a nuclear exchange with the US launching a first strike, we could get off quite lightly (not to mention that much of Europe's arsenal lacks the range to hit the US anyways).

Langers
04 Apr 05,, 10:58
The ship mounted system has worked 4 times in tests...

It's just a hypothetical situation.

In tests yes. Putting it into practice is the hard bit......

Anyway, aren't all your ships based in the pacific somewhere? Performing tests and protecting you from the NK threat?

Langers
04 Apr 05,, 11:08
"I figure about 85% of the US missiles will function as intended."

Confident, eh?? :eek:


"You in the mood to suffer a couple thousand nuclear impacts in Europe?"

I'd probably be long gone - so I wouldn't care. You in the mood to suffer without any financial or political infrastructure? Any guesses where our missiles would be targeting.....? :biggrin:


"It's not even in service yet(though it will be in 2 weeks), so it's a bit premature to say what does and what doesnt work."

Et tu Brute!! (That's latin, by the way). :cool:


"If you plan on nuking us i reccomend you hurry though. This time next year the US will have a theoretical capability to down 25% of the Continental European SLBM force."

Why do you need this theoretical capability (against the European SLBM force) unless you feel a little uncomfortable......? :confused:

[/QUOTE]

;)

Julie
04 Apr 05,, 14:13
Confident, eh?? :eek: Shock & awe sweetie. :tongue:





Why do you need this theoretical capability (against the European SLBM force) unless you feel a little uncomfortable......? :confused:You never know for what purpose. Europe is building a 25-member EU and wanting to build it's military strength....for what purpose?

Bill
04 Apr 05,, 16:01
"You in the mood to suffer without any financial or political infrastructure?"

Wouldn't bother me much, i live by a large mountain chain, i have a gun, and i know how to hunt and live off the land.

Be like a nice little vacation. ;)

Langers
04 Apr 05,, 16:21
"You in the mood to suffer without any financial or political infrastructure?"

Wouldn't bother me much, i live by a large mountain chain, i have a gun, and i know how to hunt and live off the land.

Be like a nice little vacation. ;)

Do you like eating radiation-poisoned meat? The missiles probably don't onlu contain nuclear warheads but maybe chemical and biological warheads also.......

Julie
04 Apr 05,, 20:50
Do you like eating radiation-poisoned meat? The missiles probably don't onlu contain nuclear warheads but maybe chemical and biological warheads also.......If you release that nuke off of your Charles de Gaulle carrier, we wouldn't have much to worry about...since you would probably be killing two birds with one stone. ;)

Chuckle, chuckle, snort, snort...... :biggrin:

Bill
04 Apr 05,, 20:56
"Do you like eating radiation-poisoned meat? The missiles probably don't onlu contain nuclear warheads but maybe chemical and biological warheads also......."

Nope, no one uses BC weapons on ICBMs, it's wasteful and innefficient compared to the discriminate killing power of thermonuclear devices.

And there are no targets within about 150 miles of the spot i have in mind. Both me and the meat would be fine thank you very much. :)

Langers
05 Apr 05,, 07:45
Nope, no one uses BC weapons on ICBMs, it's wasteful and innefficient compared to the discriminate killing power of thermonuclear devices.

Indeed it is in comparison. Although Bio and Chem w/heads ARE used on BMs! :tongue:


And there are no targets within about 150 miles of the spot i have in mind. Both me and the meat would be fine thank you very much. :)

What about wind direction.........or high atmospheric discharge.......
Don't get too cocky. :cool:

Bill
05 Apr 05,, 13:30
"Indeed it is in comparison. Although Bio and Chem w/heads ARE used on BMs!"

Not ICBMs and SLBMs, and certainly not on any NATO weapon.

"What about wind direction.........or high atmospheric discharge.......
Don't get too cocky. "

The prevailing winds do not blow East to West here. I'll be OK, i assure you.(The US is too big to get the results you're looking for with a couple hundred devices). I also have a nice stash of Iodine tablets. :)

Langers
06 Apr 05,, 08:09
Not ICBMs and SLBMs, and certainly not on any NATO weapon.


Don't you think we'd possibly acquire some other nations weapons? Some nations hate America more than they hate Europe......


The prevailing winds do not blow East to West here. I'll be OK, i assure you.(The US is too big to get the results you're looking for with a couple hundred devices). I also have a nice stash of Iodine tablets. :)

You're self confidence is blindingly funny. Have a nice time on your own. Loser! :biggrin:

Julie
06 Apr 05,, 14:26
You're self confidence is blindingly funny. Have a nice time on your own. Loser! :biggrin:Not self-confidence, but "faith," sweetie. :biggrin:

Veni Vidi Vici
06 Apr 05,, 14:55
Not self-confidence, but "faith," sweetie. :biggrin:


Or just common sense. :biggrin:

Julie
06 Apr 05,, 15:45
Or just common sense. :biggrin:Yeah....and I have no doubt that Sniper would have a nice time right on his own, as Jeremy puts it. :biggrin:

Bill
06 Apr 05,, 15:49
"Don't you think we'd possibly acquire some other nations weapons? Some nations hate America more than they hate Europe......"

I doubt it. You'd have to actually slash domestic spending to pay for military hardware, personnel, and training. Might cost you a few of those entitlements you Euros are all so fond of. :)

"You're self confidence is blindingly funny."

Top notch training will do that for a fella.

"Have a nice time on your own. Loser!"

Well that was constructive.

Jonathan Locke
06 Apr 05,, 17:54
confed, i'm lead to understand that your missiles will take the same amount of time to arrive over our cities as ours will to arrive over yours.



I doubt it, most modern American Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles run on somekind of sub-atomic fuel derived from the rear storage bin, that normally carries the same stuff as the bomb inside the missile, i dont know how fast the splitting of atoms inside the engine will allow the rocket to go, but i am sure that its faster than the European missiles, which regularly run on large tanks of normal fuel mixed with what is called "hydrogen slush".

Sombra
06 Apr 05,, 18:03
:confused: Well, without doubt the US would win. Will the brainless 300 pound gorilla win a fight with the beautiful slender 95 pound girl?

Only chance chance Europe would have is that the well educated american war machine confuses Europe with China and destroys Japan on its way there.

Julie
06 Apr 05,, 18:06
:confused: Well, without doubt the US would win. Will the brainless 300 pound gorilla win a fight with the beautiful slender 95 pound girl?

Only chance chance Europe would have is that the well educated american war machine confuses Europe with China and destroys Japan on its way there.LOL....what a scenario. :biggrin:

Bill
06 Apr 05,, 18:41
I doubt even that would save Europe. ;)

Langers
07 Apr 05,, 09:30
Will the brainless 300 pound gorilla win a fight with the beautiful slender 95 pound girl?

Which is which?


Only chance chance Europe would have is that the well educated american war machine confuses Europe with China and destroys Japan on its way there.

So well-educated that they put the word "chance" twice when once is sufficient. They also don't recognise the fact that "american" should correctly be written as "American". Also, if you can confuse Europe with China, then I don't fancy your chances much. It's a bad mistake to make.

Dono't forget that China's population outnumbers yours 4:1. Within Europe (specifically UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy) our population outnumbers yours also. (according to www.prb.org).

Sombra
07 Apr 05,, 12:24
Which is which?



So well-educated that they put the word "chance" twice when once is sufficient. They also don't recognise the fact that "american" should correctly be written as "American". Also, if you can confuse Europe with China, then I don't fancy your chances much. It's a bad mistake to make.

Dono't forget that China's population outnumbers yours 4:1. Within Europe (specifically UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy) our population outnumbers yours also. (according to www.prb.org).

Vielleicht sollten wir auf Deutsch weiterschreiben. Die Interpretation wer- wer ist überlasse ich gerne Dir. Trotzdem die Frage, wer wohl einen Krieg gewinnen würde, ist nicht so schwer zu beantworten. Die interessanteste Frage ist wohl: Ist militärische Stärke wirklich "alles " oder auch nur erstrebenswert?

dalem
07 Apr 05,, 15:17
I love it when hissy Euros fight and insult each other at the slightest provocation. One minute they are correcting each others' grammar in non-native tongues, the next they are firebombing churches and hanging each other from light poles. What frighteningly bad jokes they are.

You go, Europe!

-dale

Langers
07 Apr 05,, 16:10
Vielleicht sollten wir auf Deutsch weiterschreiben. Die Interpretation wer- wer ist überlasse ich gerne Dir. Trotzdem die Frage, wer wohl einen Krieg gewinnen würde, ist nicht so schwer zu beantworten. Die interessanteste Frage ist wohl: Ist militärische Stärke wirklich "alles " oder auch nur erstrebenswert?

Any chance of a translation, old boy? My German is a little out of practice......

Bill
07 Apr 05,, 16:44
You can thank America for that Langers.

Julie
07 Apr 05,, 17:46
Dono't forget that China's population outnumbers yours 4:1. Within Europe (specifically UK, Germany, France, Spain and Italy) our population outnumbers yours also. (according to www.prb.org).Meaning one of "you" should be able to kick US's ass with all that population. So what's the problem?

Veni Vidi Vici
07 Apr 05,, 18:33
You can thank America for that Langers.
Nice one

Parihaka
07 Apr 05,, 20:36
Vielleicht sollten wir auf Deutsch weiterschreiben. Die Interpretation wer- wer ist überlasse ich gerne Dir. Trotzdem die Frage, wer wohl einen Krieg gewinnen würde, ist nicht so schwer zu beantworten. Die interessanteste Frage ist wohl: Ist militärische Stärke wirklich "alles " oder auch nur erstrebenswert?
In this context yes military strength really IS everything.

Jonathan Locke
07 Apr 05,, 21:26
In this context yes military strength really IS everything.






Althought in a war it is not

Langers
08 Apr 05,, 07:27
You can thank America for that Langers.

For what exactly?

BasilKumar
08 Apr 05,, 14:59
The growing split between the U.S. and Europe has been much in the news, mostly on foreign policy. But less well understood is the gap in economic growth and standards of living. The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why it cannot measure up to the U.S. The world needs a prosperous, growing Europe, and its relative economic decline is one reason for growing EU-American tension. A poorer Europe lacks the wealth to invest in defense, a fact that in turn affects the willingness of Europeans to join America in confronting global security threats. But at least all of this is a warning to U.S. politicians who want this country to go down the same welfare-state road to decline.

-Basil

Bill
08 Apr 05,, 19:00
Langers: "(Thank America) For what exactly?"

For you speaking rusty German.

Jonathan Locke
08 Apr 05,, 20:27
Langers: "(Thank America) For what exactly?"

For you speaking rusty German.


Yeah in most high schools and middle schools (that i know of anyway) only allow you to choose between French, Latin, and Spanish as a foreign language class, and even when they do teach those classes, they do so poorly.

The Chap
09 Apr 05,, 04:30
Fashionably late.

Please do not include the UK in Europe. Despite the tireless efforts of many commitees, there is still an English Channel.

The continent (with the exception of a very few regiments- oh, and as I write Turkey is not part of "Europe") has no stomach for a fight.

Anyone that thinks the US would lose in a conventional or nuclear conflagration is quite, quite, mad.

I believe the letters NBC designate something other than broadcast media. (I'm assuming Snipe is too decent to rip the crap out of those confused)

Missile defence will work rather well. I not taking that on faith.

Mr. Locke: what on earth have you been reading. I hope you jest. If not you should at once resign any ambitions vis-a-vis MIT. Or rocket science part one. Or rocket science for gifted toddlers. With regret I am unable to recomend a "special needs" programme. I am confident that you shall find something on fireworks via Google that may be a useful first step. Gods speed. :rolleyes:

On a final note: at least the American Gorrilla would shave her armpits. :tongue:

Veni Vidi Vici
09 Apr 05,, 18:30
On a final note: at least the American Gorrilla would shave her armpits. :tongue:

This is why I love the british. :biggrin:

Jonathan Locke
09 Apr 05,, 19:42
Mr. Locke: what on earth have you been reading. I hope you jest. If not you should at once resign any ambitions vis-a-vis MIT. Or rocket science part one. Or rocket science for gifted toddlers. With regret I am unable to recomend a "special needs" programme. I am confident that you shall find something on fireworks via Google that may be a useful first step. Gods speed. :rolleyes:

:


How was i wrong in explaining the difference between fueling particles in American ICBM's and most European ICBM's?

Confed999
09 Apr 05,, 19:57
Yeah in most high schools and middle schools (that i know of anyway) only allow you to choose between French, Latin, and Spanish as a foreign language class, and even when they do teach those classes, they do so poorly.
The actual point was, it would be a required language. At least for those that survived the death camps and slave labor camps...

Jonathan Locke
09 Apr 05,, 20:02
The actual point was, it would be a required language. At least for those that survived the death camps and slave labor camps...

I got the "actual point", i was just adding to it.

dave angel
09 Apr 05,, 20:16
are US ICBM'S powered in a different way to UK trident D5 SLBM's? i'm a bit confused now 'coz i thought they were in effect the same missile - i was also under the impression that the missiles (as opposed to the warheads) were from a single 'pool' and the UK had access to 'X' number of missiles at any one time. that a missile could, during its lifetime, be operated by both the US and Royal Navy's.

this thread is shite, you're vastly more powerful than us, we can't conventionaly harm you in any great way, but our nuclear capability means that the game isn't worth the candle - isn't that why we have nuclear weapons, to save us from having to have a proper defence budget?

Jonathan Locke
09 Apr 05,, 20:27
are US ICBM'S powered in a different way to UK trident D5 SLBM's? i'm a bit confused now 'coz i thought they were in effect the same missile - i was also under the impression that the missiles (as opposed to the warheads) were from a single 'pool' and the UK had access to 'X' number of missiles at any one time. that a missile could, during its lifetime, be operated by both the US and Royal Navy's.


Well i'm not a rocket scientist, but SLBM's, are Ship Launched Ballistisc Missiles, so to try to launch an ICBM from a ship would either destroy the ship and any other surrounding it while the missile is taking off, or just plain impossible to launch. Therefore i guess the UK decided to modify the fuel used by ICBM's to create a lesser fire/explosion during take-off, creating what are now modern SLBM's. So yeah in a way ICBM'S are very alike the UK's SLBM's, except the fueling.





I have no idea if an UK missile can be controlled by the US, or viceversa.

Confed999
09 Apr 05,, 20:50
I got the "actual point", i was just adding to it.
Any proof of your statement, or just gueses? German is taught in this area. As to quality, if you're saying they can't speak it as well as a German, you're right. Who can speak a language well, that they have never actually needed to use? Just like Euros can't speak American as well.

Confed999
09 Apr 05,, 20:53
Well i'm not a rocket scientist, but SLBM's, are Ship Launched Ballistisc Missiles, so to try to launch an ICBM from a ship would either destroy the ship and any other surrounding it while the missile is taking off, or just plain impossible to launch. Therefore i guess the UK decided to modify the fuel used by ICBM's to create a lesser fire/explosion during take-off, creating what are now modern SLBM's. So yeah in a way ICBM'S are very alike the UK's SLBM's, except the fueling.
To the best of my knowledge, the only major difference between the two are size. SLBMs do not have to travel as far. Both may be fueled with various liquid and solid fuels.

Bill
09 Apr 05,, 20:55
"are US ICBM'S powered in a different way to UK trident D5 SLBM's?"

No, they're the EXACT SAME MISSILE, and are ALL made in the US.

"i'm a bit confused now 'coz i thought they were in effect the same missile - i was also under the impression that the missiles (as opposed to the warheads) were from a single 'pool' and the UK had access to 'X' number of missiles at any one time. that a missile could, during its lifetime, be operated by both the US and Royal Navy's."

The missiles and the warheads are ALL US designs.

An SLBM is launched via compressed air, btw.

Jonathan Locke
09 Apr 05,, 20:57
Any proof of your statement, or just gueses? German is taught in this area.

It's not taught in my area, which is y i added to my statement "as far as i know", meaning i only counted the schools i know of. I never went to school in Florida, or any part of the Southern US for that matter.





As to quality, if you're saying they can't speak it as well as a German, you're right. Who can speak a language well, that they have never actually needed to use? Just like Euros can't speak American as well.

Well, i am sure that the US soldiers that are still stationed in Germany wish that their teachers would have taught them better quality and vocabulary in German class.

Bill
09 Apr 05,, 20:57
"To the best of my knowledge, the only major difference between the two are size. SLBMs do not have to travel as far. Both may be fueled with various liquid and solid fuels."

The only real difference is that an SLBM can be more readily re-targetted from a varying launch point.

The missiles themselves are very similar, but an SLBM tends to be very squat shaped(short and fat) to fit in the launch tubes, whereas an ICBM is much thinner and longer to gain increased aerodynamic performance in the boost phase, which lends an ICBM it's greater range.

Jonathan Locke
09 Apr 05,, 21:00
"are US ICBM'S powered in a different way to UK trident D5 SLBM's?"

No, they're the EXACT SAME MISSILE, and are ALL made in the US.

.


I know u r an expert in this Snipe so im not gonna get into an argument w/ you. I would just like to know how the ships that launch the SLBM's don't sink or explode/implode when the missile is taking-off? Certainly the pressure of the air when the rocket launches causes the ship to sink or be unbalanced

Confed999
09 Apr 05,, 21:04
Well, i am sure that the US soldiers that are still stationed in Germany wish that their teachers would have taught them better quality and vocabulary in German class.
As do any Germans here...

Bill
09 Apr 05,, 21:05
Well i'm not really an expert on nuclear weapons, but i do know a few, and pick their brains as neccesary.

As a missile is ejected via compressed air it's ballast tanks are counter-flooded to keep it at the same depth. The SLBMs rocket motor does not ignite until the missile has breached the surface. The tubes themselves are made of 1" or so thick steel, and can therefore withstand the pressure of the compressed air launch.

RickUSN knows a LOT more about this stuff than me, you should post a thread in the Naval section if you want more details. He served aboard a US SSBN nuclear submarine.(George Washington Class).

Jonathan Locke
09 Apr 05,, 21:06
As do any Germans here...




Soldiers or civilians?

Confed999
09 Apr 05,, 21:07
Soldiers or civilians?
Who cares?

Jonathan Locke
09 Apr 05,, 21:08
. The SLBMs rocket motor does not ignite until the missile has breached the surface. .




But since its launched from a ship (some times), wouldn't the missile breach the surface instantly, thereofre rapidly igniting the motors right on top of the ship?

Jonathan Locke
09 Apr 05,, 21:10
Who cares?


Well soldiers are only stationed there for some time (i.e. months), and they pretty much live on German bases, therefore have no need to learn the American language. While regular German civilians come here for business or pleasure, and since they must live on regular American neighborhoods, they must learn the American language.

Bill
09 Apr 05,, 21:12
Well a surface ship does not have missiles with rocket motors as powerful as an SLBM, but they do have rocket boosters to get them underway. The VLS cells and decks on missile ships are made out of thick steel to contain the blast, and protect the ship from unintentional damage.

http://www.princeton.navy.mil/photogallery/images/small/bas010.jpg

USS Princeton CG, USN Ticonderoga class Aegis guided missile cruiser launching an SM-2 Surface to Air Missile(SAM).

Confed999
09 Apr 05,, 21:22
Well soldiers are only stationed there for some time (i.e. months), and they pretty much live on German bases, therefore have no need to learn the American language. While regular German civilians come here for business or pleasure, and since they must live on regular American neighborhoods, they must learn the American language.
So, how does that make a difference? One day or forever, soldier or civilian, you'll still be lacking in the beginning when it's just some language you learned in high school.

Jonathan Locke
10 Apr 05,, 00:46
So, how does that make a difference? One day or forever, soldier or civilian, you'll still be lacking in the beginning when it's just some language you learned in high school.


Right, but in most parts of Europe, the English language is taught to kids since First Grade up to the year before college. Most people in Europe know that English is the language of anything that is international, World Science, Business, Economics, etc... Therefore they are bound to learn the language, because they know that they do need it to make almost any kind of living.

Jonathan Locke
10 Apr 05,, 00:58
Well a surface ship does not have missiles with rocket motors as powerful as an SLBM

I think that they r normally launched by submarines,l that would back up what you said about the engines not starting until they reach the air. Althought i still think that the pressure of the initial launch from the sub's tubes containing the SLBM's have to push the vessel down, at least by some degree. Even if the sub is covered with the customary metal coatings and the safety armoring in the launch tubes, the pressure of the missiles is stil very, very strong compared to a regular SAM, Tomahawk, AMRAAM (even thought they are launched from the air), etc...

Jonathan Locke
10 Apr 05,, 01:03
I am very sorry, i messed up on the definition of SLBM, it is not Ship Launched Ballistic Missile, it is Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile. Sorry if i made any controversy out there

Jonathan Locke
10 Apr 05,, 01:08
Good thing is, i finnaly found the difference between the fueling of the ICBM's and the SLBM's. The SLBM's use a three-stage solid-fuel system, as do the ICBM'S, but the ICBM's also use a small liquid-fueled stage called a post-boost vehicle, to enhance speed.

Here is my source for ICBM info:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761567490/ICBM.html



And now compare the part of the fueling from the former article with the part of the fueling in this article about SLBM's:
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761595612/SLBM.html

Bill
10 Apr 05,, 01:35
"Althought i still think that the pressure of the initial launch from the sub's tubes containing the SLBM's have to push the vessel down, at least by some degree. Even if the sub is covered with the customary metal coatings and the safety armoring in the launch tubes, the pressure of the missiles is stil very, very strong compared to a regular SAM, Tomahawk, AMRAAM (even thought they are launched from the air), etc...

SSBNs are extremely large and massive vessels, but it may push the boat down a few feet.

RickUSN would certainly know. He only posts in the Naval forum here at WAB.

highsea
10 Apr 05,, 01:40
The post-boost vehicle is used to manouver the missile as the RV's are deployed- it's not really about increasing the velocity, but adjusting it and the attitude to place the RV's on their correct ballistic path as they separate. No US strategic missiles are liquid fueled any more, with the PBV exception on the MX. There are no ship-launched strategic missiles (and never were, AFAIK), only sub and silo launched. The MX is steam-ejected from it's silo before the first stage ignites (in the same manner as the Trident).

I worked on the MX program for Boeing- lol, not much of a contribution though, I built the copper terminals for the backup electrical system that opened the silo lids. (they were hurky.. ;) ) Hopefully I'll never find out if they work...

Confed999
10 Apr 05,, 01:52
Right, but in most parts of Europe, the English language is taught to kids since First Grade up to the year before college.
And yet I still watch them struggle through the language. If American isn't your primary language then you're going to have problems, and be pretty obvious. (I don't say "English" on purpose. :) )

Most people in Europe know that English is the language of anything that is international, World Science, Business, Economics, etc... Therefore they are bound to learn the language, because they know that they do need it to make almost any kind of living.
LOL, I already said the same thing. "Who can speak a language well, that they have never actually needed to use?" Americans need to know German to be tourists, or in case they enlist and are stationed there, but many Germans have been taught English. So why spend alot of time speaking German? :)

Jonathan Locke
10 Apr 05,, 02:05
And yet I still watch them struggle through the language. If American isn't your primary language then you're going to have problems, and be pretty obvious. (I don't say "English" on purpose. :) )





Spanish is my first language, and i don't think i am having any problems with English (or American however you want to call it).

Veni Vidi Vici
10 Apr 05,, 03:04
Spanish is my first language, and i don't think i am having any problems with English (or American however you want to call it).

Thats because you use it everyday.

Jonathan Locke
10 Apr 05,, 03:30
Thats because you use it everyday.


Right, but the people in Europe that must learn it form First Grade to college, also do. Sure they don't do it on weekends, but 5 out of 7 is still a lot.

Confed999
10 Apr 05,, 04:09
Spanish is my first language, and i don't think i am having any problems with English (or American however you want to call it).
:) Yeah, I figured American wasn't your first language. Your limited use of slang, and misunderstandings of wording tipped me off. (I call it American, because I can hardly understand an Englishman.)

Right, but the people in Europe that must learn it form First Grade to college, also do.
But we don't need to speak German.

Jonathan Locke
10 Apr 05,, 16:30
:) Yeah, I figured American wasn't your first language. Your limited use of slang, and misunderstandings of wording tipped me off

Was that an insult????? :confused:

Confed999
10 Apr 05,, 16:59
Was that an insult????? :confused:
Nope. Well, unless you're insulted by someone noticing American isn't your primary language...

The Chap
19 Apr 05,, 01:19
As I am certain Confed. will confirm; were you to be insulted over any sort of - shall we say - linguistic shortcomming, you would, doubtless be unable to apprehend the nature of any "pre-supposed" slight. To boot it would most assuredly not be your fault. Shame on those who would do such a thing to a perfectly decent, and no doubt, well meaning individual. :)

cooldw57
23 Apr 05,, 08:58
I suppose you guys did not include Russia in Europe, in that case, US vs Europe is not a fair scenario. How about US vs Europe + Russia ?

Avenger
27 Apr 05,, 23:39
I suppose you guys did not include Russia in Europe, in that case, US vs Europe is not a fair scenario. How about US vs Europe + Russia ?

Yeah, I'll bite. We (the USA) would still win, but it'd be a helluva fight.

That said, I consider both Western and Eastern Europeans to be our friends. We'd much rather make love than war.

:)

USSR
13 Jun 05,, 14:46
...I consider both Western and Eastern Europeans to be our friends.

The East far more than the West.

Don

crooks
23 Jun 07,, 18:51
The East far more than the West.

Don

Agreed, with a few exceptions (Eire, Britain and the Netherlands all relate with the US as much if not more than with Europe).

gunnut
23 Jun 07,, 19:11
USA.

Our football players are armored.

Yours are not. :tongue:

crooks
23 Jun 07,, 19:15
USA.

Our football players are armored.

Yours are not. :tongue:

And that's a good thing?

Namby-pamby if ya ask me :cool:.

Parihaka
23 Jun 07,, 20:34
USA.

Our football players are armored.

Yours are not. :tongue:
In that case NZ would win: ours don't need to be armoured.

HistoricalDavid
23 Jun 07,, 21:29
Ah, one of the old-school time-worn pissing contest threads. :)

gunnut
23 Jun 07,, 21:43
And that's a good thing?

Namby-pamby if ya ask me :cool:.

Wasn't that what the Polish cavalry said about German Panzers? :biggrin:

gunnut
23 Jun 07,, 21:46
In that case NZ would win: ours don't need to be armoured.

Hey man, this is a pissing contest between the old world and the new world. You should make one with northern vs. southern hemisphere.

Here, I'll start.

We have more illegal immigrant than you do. :tongue:

glyn
23 Jun 07,, 21:53
In that case NZ would win: ours don't need to be armoured.

Quite so - but are we talking about the same thing? Does the thickness/density of the cranial structure have to be taken into account, or just the cranial capacity?:biggrin:

glyn
23 Jun 07,, 21:56
Hey man, this is a pissing contest between the old world and the new world. You should make one with northern vs. southern hemisphere.

Here, I'll start.

We have more illegal immigrant than you do. :tongue:

I know that in America, size matters, so in a spirit of generosity I'll let you have as many of our illegals as you think you might need.:)

TopHatter
24 Jun 07,, 00:41
Look, I'll make this really easy for all of you!

Here's the real winner in "USA vs Europe"

dave lukins
24 Jun 07,, 00:47
Is that the name of the photographer at the "bottom":) left or a statement:biggrin:

FiRepower
24 Jun 07,, 01:15
USA can't invade Europe imho , and Europe has nooooo chance to come close to the USA , but its stupid anyway we are both ally's so why should we even ever go to war ..

TopHatter
24 Jun 07,, 01:18
USA can't invade Europe imho , and Europe has nooooo chance to come close to the USA , but its stupid anyway we are both ally's so why should we even ever go to war ..
It's called a "Who's male equipment is larger?" contest.

Which is why we've taken to locking threads like this lately. As you said "it's stupid anyway".

The only reason this one is still breathing is because it's revival is more of a joke than a "serious" discussion. :biggrin:

gunnut
24 Jun 07,, 01:28
Hey I was being totally serious.

bonehead
24 Jun 07,, 06:52
Look, I'll make this really easy for all of you!

Here's the real winner in "USA vs Europe"


I would invade Europe for the chick on the left.

BudW
24 Jun 07,, 06:58
The USA wins any side with the French would have a disadvantage.

Parihaka
24 Jun 07,, 09:10
I would invade Europe for the chick on the left.

Forget Europe, I'd just invade the chick on the left.

ExNavyAmerican
24 Jun 07,, 16:08
Is this a joke?

Is there really any doubt?

glyn
24 Jun 07,, 16:23
Is this a joke?

Is there really any doubt?

Well, you can have the one on the right as I can't see a queue forming over there. The rest of you lot on the left behave yourselves:biggrin:

( It's probably the only time in your bleak unfulfilled lives that you are pleased to swerve so vigorously to the left )

chankya
24 Jun 07,, 23:06
We have more illegal immigrant than you do. :tongue:

You have more illegal immigrants than NZ has kiwis .. the fruit, bird and citizenry put together. :cool:

supergreek
30 Jun 07,, 20:46
gdp
The EU is the largest economy in the world with a combined nominal gross domestic product (GDP) of €11.6 (US$15.7) trillion in 2007.
usa has $13.13 trillion.

poppulation
eu-456.4 million
us-301 million

millitary spending
usa- $518.1 billion
eu-$295 billion

so, the usa will win as i dont think that the eu would be able to organise a war of such a scale with so many leaders, while america has one leader one army all under controll.

Ironduke
03 Jul 07,, 04:17
I've closed this thread... this type of discussion is pointless.