USA vs. the World

Then why doesn't your UK stand with its EU “buddies” when it come to the war on terror or Iraq?

Also Your telling me that the UK would follow the German and French into a war, I'd like to see it happen first.




West Point, Out.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Then why doesn't your UK stand with its EU “buddies” when it come to the war on terror or Iraq?

We have someone called blair in charge..thats why

Also Your telling me that the UK would follow the German and French into a war, I'd like to see it happen first.

If it was a straight war between europe and USA...UK would remain nuetral..
But since this is a USA v world thread I see the RN leading the german and french navies...

Tony Blair will follow Bush anywhere. In the last month or two, it's said he'd to agreed to war a year before it happened. It's said that the 'plan' to go to war was on one peice of A4 paper [1 side].
But if this would happen, I don't know, UK would have to think strongly about it.

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
you can also forget your 12 carriers, as you have that many to allow a third of them to be in drydock at any one time that might give you 4 or 5 in the atlantic if your lucky


i also like the idea that 300,000,000 people can withstand 5,700,000,000 even if they do all have guns at home. yeah right

[edit on 7-4-2005 by paperplane_uk]

what makes you think that in a national emergency the US wouldnt activate the rest of the Carriers, US has the Biggest Navy "but im sure you will come back and say uh uh so and so country has 3,000,000,000 boats with guns", and we have the biggest Airforce with the Best stuff money can buy,

Ok so our navy is our first defense which by the time our navy would get wiped out the rest of the world wouldnt have much protection for there oncoming transports, so then they would have to resort to Flying big transports all the way accross the oceans, then they would have to have refueling tankers to refuel those transports and refuel then they would have to refuel the fighter escorts and then they would probably have to have refueling tankers for the refueling tankers then they have to deal with our airforce which wouldnt just let anyone land in the US,

Plus the world doesnt have enough aircraft to transfer 5,700,000,000 people to the US our 300,000,000 people are already here and ready to defend, now if we were all on one big land mass then it would be s different story

[edit on 7-4-2005 by zakattack]

Zack europe has the best that money can buy, as well!
The US navy is going to have to fight decent land and sea based forces....not an easy job..

Originally posted by Callisto
Typical american pride..

Of course the EU would win. USA would put up a good fiight, but would either surrender, or get beat.

You don't know us well, friend. If I know one thing about my fellow Americans it's this: When the chips are down and we band together in a common cause, there isn't a more ferocious, tenacious fighting force in all the world. (Add to that private weapons ownership.) I suppose there are many reasons for this. One would be our collective desire to remain free (once the writing is on the wall). The other would be our greatest strength: out of many we are one. Any nation/s planning to invade the US (even w/a crashed economy) would be picking one helluva nasty fight. Win or lose. We would never give up. No matter what.

Don't believe me? Look back at how we thrashed each other during the US Civil War. It was the most wicked fighting we've ever been involved in. Sadly, it was our North against our South. Brave and valiant men on both sides.

Or look at what we accomplished during WW2 once we all saw eye to eye on the need to dispatch Japan. Hitler and Mussolini. I'll never forget the words breathed by Japan's admiral after unleashing their attack on Pearl Harbor - "I fear we have just awakened a sleeping giant." For real. Japan would rue the day.

England would have fallen w/out our aid, as well. The whole of western Europe would've surely collapsed into Hitlers hands if we had stayed at home. We were on the side of righteousness, though. And that makes all the difference in the world.

Yes USA has a strong military, but it wont be able to carry it on forever. It will weaken in time in several places.

Unfortunately, segments of our military are currently not up to snuff. That has everything to do with our current leadership and the array of missions our military is now forced to carry. Iraq is a debacle of our own making, ill-planned, ill-equipped, undermanned and for reasons not so noble. That, however, is not the fault of those who serve. It is this administration's pitiful legacy.

This thread is realy just about showing off your country..

As the author of this thread, I must correct your assumption. This thread is not about showing off our country. Not at all. It is a warning to those out there who feel the USA, with today's precarious economic situation, can take on the alliances building against us (China, Russian, India, etc.) and continue to snub everyone else in the world. As great as the USA is, it cannot take on the world and expect to remain what it is. To think we can is either insanity or sheer ignorance. Our greatest strength as a nation has been our promotion of freedom and human rights. To look out for the little guy. To walk softly, carrying a big stick - as Reagan liked to say. To promote peace through strength - always. To promote peace. No power can trample all over the world and hope to remain standing.

As a nation, we must consider this; and get back to what made us the country so many around the world longed to be a part of.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Then why doesn't your UK stand with its EU “buddies” when it come to the war on terror or Iraq?

- What do you mean?

If you are talking about Afghanistan you'll find our French and German "buddies" right there along side the UK and US. Just as several other EU members have been either there or in Iraq (Poland, Italy and the Czechs to name a few others).

The fact that you seem unaware or unwilling to acknowledge this speaks volumes.

(You'll also find the Iraqi war deeply unpopular amongst the British people - especially as the grounds for going to war were demonstrably so weak - even if the UK gov itself thought it was the right thing to do.

I think it's pretty clear that were it up to the British people there would not be any British troops in Iraq either.

Blair will IMO win the coming election in the UK but the degree of that win has been hugely damaged by the deep disquiet in Britain over the war.)

You see Westy in any event just because we are all in the EU does not mean we do not have or will not accept a difference of opinion between the member nation states.

You can't have it both ways.

Anti-EU types can't drone on and on about this inflexible monolithic structure supposedly dictating and taking away the freedoms of the constituent nations and then later point out how we don't all see things the same and imply it is a "weakness".

We see the ability (and active desire) to accept a difference of opinion as a strength, actually; the fact that a seemingly sizeable chunk of US opinion just doesn't 'get' this is a problem only for them - even if it is a deep worry for the rest of us.

Also Your telling me that the UK would follow the German and French into a war, I'd like to see it happen first.

- I thought I made it clear that this idiot notion of a 'US v the rest of the world' war was just, IMO, a stupid infantile nonsense and not worth wasting the effort upon?

The UK is part of the EU and will remain part of the EU and in the areas where our countries conflict (ie trade) the UK will stand with the EU every time......

.....and let's be honest the current official US attitudes only serve to reinforce this.



[edit on 8-4-2005 by sminkeypinkey]

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
Daedulus, the ONLY reason France "stood up" to the U.S. was because they were losing billions of dollars by the U.S. invading Iraq.

And yes Callisto, the U.S. would swoop the EU. Virtually no EU country even has an army that matches the U.S.'s in quality, and if the UK sided with the U.S., it would be a slaughter.

The EU doesn't have a global positioning system that matches the U.S., you'd have a bunch of countries trying to fight united, with crap militaries, etc...it wouldn't work.

And yes this forum is pointless, but I feel like arguing over stupid things right now : )

[edit on 7-4-2005 by Broadsword20068]

And I suppose Germany was losing billions too?
And India?? The new spanish govt.? All losing billions?..
Actually the reasons for standing up to the coalition are somewhat misplaced..

Infact the US ITSELF lost billions of dollars when it went into Iraq...
IMaybe the French were like..
"whats wrong wit zem? Zay kick zemselves in ze feet while ze hurt us too?
Crazee americans.."

Anyone paying attention knew, in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, that the populations of Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Turkey - and even Great Britain - were DEEPLY opposed to involvement in the invasion. They saw that Iraq was no threat. It's time for Americans to follow their lead and wise up.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anyone paying attention knew, in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, that the populations of Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Turkey - and even Great Britain - were DEEPLY opposed to involvement in the invasion. They saw that Iraq was no threat. It's time for Americans to follow their lead and wise up.

France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Belarus, Greece all opposed the war....
I laugh at the list of countries in the co-altion...."Afghanistan" ha ha they have no army except OURS...

Originally posted by devilwasp
France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, Belarus, Greece all opposed the war....
I laugh at the list of countries in the co-altion

Thanks in large part to our media, who championed the administration's position straight down the line. So much for a liberal media.

That coalition has been quietly falling apart.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Thanks in large part to our media, who championed the administration's position straight down the line. So much for a liberal media.

That coalition has been quietly falling apart.

The media gets it reports from the government or other governments....they control directly what you see or hear..

Originally posted by devilwasp
The media gets it reports from the government or other governments....they control directly what you see or hear..

Believe it or not, it doesn't exactly work like that. I mean, take Jeff Gannon of GannonCannon fame.. He was a FAKE journalist planted in the White House press pool. He did exactly that. Until he and his phonyA$$ right wing backing "news" organization (Talon) was busted. His bu# was disseminated through the webOsphere by God knows how many right-wingers.

The mainstream media works in much more subtle ways. For example, a neocon-loving speech expert spreads his right-wing talking point expertise to his groupthinking media adherents - example: When covering Bush's social security plan - don't say "privatization" - say PERSONAL ACCOUNTS.. etc. etc. People are threatened by PRIVATIZATION.. Then suddenly the AP stylebook changes and every reporter in the mainstream is suddenly given those marching orders. Your average reporter isn't going to see anything particularly sinister about that tweak. They're far too busy. And on and on it goes.

There's way too much groupthink in the mainstream. And I believe that is by design from the get-go. It fosters compliance and conformity.

When that occurs, you have a press who will barely question anything the powers that be say. Let alone the statements of a very imposing, creepy Vice President who has the power to knock you right out of your career b/c he's that vindictive. And then there's the little fact that our media is owned by a rather small number of people/entities (7). Own it and you control it.

If the mainstream media in this country said to hell with it, and actually brought back investigative journalism - telling Americans how it really is - there would be hell to pay. I guarantee it. The biggest problem with America today, in my opinion, is that far too many people simply do not know the depth of corruption at the highest levels of this government. And a lot of those people truly do NOT want to know. They can't handle the truth.

WTF... the media is not controlled by the government, I see so many things in there that are anti-government, and so many stories that make G. Bush look like clown. Perhaps if you only have broadcast TV then your range of news is limited, but the news on most stations is fair its not only one sided.

But whatever for those who have nothing to do but dream of big conspiracy theories everything is controlled by the government.

Westy the fact is the Bush administration has been caught red-handed - several times now - manipulating and funding others to manipulate the news.

They (like their shills in this supposedly liberal media) just keep saying 'liberal media' over and over and gradually, sadly, it has gained currency.

The fact remains that the media in much of the USA has (on most of the important issues) been as supporting as the Bush administration wanted them to be.

You should bear in mind that endless repetition does not make a lie true.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
WTF... the media is not controlled by the government, I see so many things in there that are anti-government, and so many stories that make G. Bush look like clown. Perhaps if you only have broadcast TV then your range of news is limited, but the news on most stations is fair its not only one sided.

But whatever for those who have nothing to do but dream of big conspiracy theories everything is controlled by the government.

Tell me....where do reporters get thier information about say the military during the war in iraq?...
By ethier going and looking or asking the pentagon.....now the reporter for that went with the british army couldnt report his position or anything concrete about their actions...why? Because it would have breached thier security..they deliberately told him dont tell them what or how we are doing things.

Sminky please post some links or facts on your so called "red handed" affair.
Just because the media reports about the president or comes to the conclusion that what he or the government is doing might be worth reporting does not mean its biased. According to you the only good media is one that always disagrees with the president and with the government, and never accepts anything they say.

Also DW the restriction during war have nothing to do with hiding your big conspiracy theories its all about security, and keeping the enemy in the dark about what is going on.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Zack europe has the best that money can buy, as well!
The US navy is going to have to fight decent land and sea based forces....not an easy job..

i know EU has good stuff also, but invading the US is literally impossible they could wipe out the our navy but not with out taking heavy losses then like i said before they have to get everything over here and us just isnt going to let them setup camp in canada, Thats why Terr cells are so hard to detect cuz they dont use tanks and mobile missile launcher and big ships, where to conquer and takover the US an enemy needs lots of tanks lots of men lost of guns and lots of planes and they have to get here first.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Sminky please post some links or facts on your so called "red handed" affair.

- Are you trying to tell me that you (an American) are ignorant about the Gannon affair and the blatent manipulation of the media around it?

Or the payments the Whitehouse has been caught making to supposedly 'independant' media outlets to write in support of policy?!

Jayzuss wept, the state of American youth today.

According to you the only good media is one that always disagrees with the president and with the government, and never accepts anything they say.

- Let's see you back that claim up, hmmmm?

My criticism of the mainstream US media is that it has been far from "liberal" and actually as supine and uncritical as any of Pravda's worst!

What does "Jeff Gannon” one reporter ,not working for any major news origination have to do with the other 30 reporters in the white house who belong to the major news stations we see on TV.
Your going to discredit the entire media in the U.S. because one man again not working for any big news organization was a fraud?

Also Sminkey, I don't know what you consider a liberal media maybe you want all TV personnel to be like John Stewart. I suppose to you that would be a fair and liberal media.
And Sminkey do you even watch U.S. news stations? If you don't then don't talk about how they report.