USA can take on the rest of the world???

reply to post by jrmcleod


nuking the us would be harder then just pointing them at us and launching. im sure our first strike would be at their first and second strike capabilities. combining all the ports from that list would be a number under 50, 50 nukes to destroy the worlds opposing subs and navies. also a strike on thier launch pads and comand centers, all in one volley would pretty much knock russia off the grid. there is really no point in nuking the population centers really, unless that was how they retaliated if they could

I love the U.S. but our government...ehh, not so much. We have the capabilities to destroy the world, that is about it. The thing is, we aren't even supposed to think like this and one U.S. citizen that thinks like this shows we are in a large amount of danger. The U.S. is supposed to be completely isolationist, no if's and's or buts. So for one American to think this way (be it a kid or no) means that we have completely abandoned our constitution and what it stands for.

reply to post by Reign02


I read nothing but excuses in your replay. I bet you would make a fine soldier in the US Army. It doesn't take much brainwashing to get you rolling.

Is that common for every American?

reply to post by MAC269


there was the car bomb in the parking area under building 1 in 1993 if im corect?

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Dr Slim]

From the looks of it now,seems we haven't as much aliies as we thought,this reminds me of the fall of the Roman empire,we have armys strung out all over the map,so might be easy pickins while gates are wide open,plusnow soldiers would have to fight real soldiers not rebel insurgants

reply to post by Oldtimer2


i still think the US would put up a fight, it's not as if they struggle to kill these insurgants, it's just hard to locate them and defeat them as a whole.

Without nukes, I doubt the Us could invade the rest of the world but I think it could defend it's own shores indefinitely. It would be foolish for any country to approach our shores with any kind of landing force. Mexico would fall in a day and I think Canada would probably join us. The fun part would be rounding up all the insurgents in the States ie ACLU, KKK, NAACP, ACORN.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by Loken68]

reply to post by Loken68


why the hell would you round up the NAACP?

reply to post by Dr Slim


Dear Dr Slim

Thanks for that, I am sure that there must have been one or two, perhaps the first bombing of the world trade center.

However the fact that you can only think of that one, I rest my case.

9/11 even if in fact proves too have been hit by Islamic forces is a poor excuse for what followed.

Even if you follow the official line, too do what the US has done in retaliation for this is evil.

It is not the solders that are evil it is the PTB.

Young men will always be young men therefore TPTB will always be able to recruit an army to carry out their evil deeds.

It is time for the young men to see the big picture and lay down there weapons.

Let’s see if the old men of government will face there opposite number of the battle field of the future.

Now that is the war I want to see on CNN.

America couldn't knock out a w@nk.

reply to post by Dr Slim


the sad truth is we spend more money on "defense" than the rest of the world...

i guess there has to be a world police?...god forbid we spend that money on r+d of more important topics..

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Reign02

 

I read nothing but excuses in your replay. I bet you would make a fine soldier in the US Army. It doesn't take much brainwashing to get you rolling.

Is that common for every American?

I am in the Military the Air Force and we are not brainwashed YOU ARE by the media and the NEWS. You have no idea what we are doing and accomplishing over there....... So don't open your mouth when you have no clue what the hell is going on with our country and what we are doing everyday in Iraq and Afghan

[edit on 7-6-2010 by Reign02]

Originally posted by MAC269
reply to post by Reign02

 

Dear Reign02

Thank you for your reply, I am sorry that you have been one of the unfortunate people who have been involved in these wrongful wars in this century. I am sorry for you and sorry for your comrades and sorry for those of the apposing force.

Please name me one tourist action by Islamic elements in side the boarders of the USA before 9/11???

Osama bin Mohammed bin Awad bin after leaving college in 1979 joined Abdullah Azzam to fight the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan and lived for a time in Peshawar. While doing this he was promoting US interests. In doing so he was supported by the US alphabet soup of intelligent's agencies

While Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti was fighting the Iran from 1980-1988 he was being supplied weapons by the CIA. This is most likely the reason and only reason that they thought he had weapons of mass destruction at the time of 2003. Naturally there were none found simply because they could not put serial numbers on the ten o’clock news that would point right back to the USA.

I in no way put the blame of the solders that fought in these wars. Solders even generals follow orders. However it is time that the perpetrators of these wars be brought to justice.

Those who you call theorists are fighting for the freedom to live in their country in the way they fell fit and it is not up to America to dictate to them how that should be.

Before 9/11 there was
26 February 1993 – World Trade Center bombing, New York City. 6 killed.

but there were also attacks on US military and Government workers

25 June 1996 – Khobar Towers bombing, 20 killed, 372 wounded

7 August 1998 – 1998 United States embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya. 224 dead. 4000+ injured.

2 October 2000 – Attack on the USS cole in the Yemeni port of Aden.

And yea we supplied the Taliban in Afghan while they were fighting the Russians during our cold war.....

And yea we also supplied Sadaam because once again they were fighting for US interests so we helped them. However we did not supply him the chemical weapons which ARE a form of WMD when they hit the Kurds.....
And we did find WMDs in Iraq, we found chemical weapons and it wasn't just the US looking into it, it was the UN also which is a bunch of countries. Yea we thought he might have nukes hidden somewhere but he didn't but he did have chemical weapons.

And I thank you for the polite responses and I am glad that you do not blame the soldiers because we are just doing what we are told to do. But you could be thinking that we are the bad guys and the insurgents and Jihadists are in the right, but as soon as those rounds start flying over your head or the HMMV infront of you blows up. There is no right or wrong, all that political mumbo jumbo goes right out the window. We are not over there looking to kill these guys, we are just a presence in the Middle East and they attack us 90% of the time and we just return fire.

And I also am a theorist, and I fight for all of my brothers and sisters back in the states everyday. Yea maybe we shouldn't be over there but we can't pull out now, they will win and their reign of terror will grow larger and larger untill the entire world is under attack from these cowards. Maybe these guys are in the right, but why are they blowing up their own people? and destroying their own schools and killing their own people, it just doesn't make any sense. Believe what you want but we are trying to make the world a safer place. Terrorist attacks have been going on for quite a long time before 9-11 and it is not just America that has been in the crosshairs.

reply to post by signal2noise

What legal justifications do the insurgents have for killing Iraqi citizens?

I've asked this question several times on ATS, and have seen it asked by others. So far, no one has an answer, except BS.

How does it benefit the Iraqi people to have insurgents set off a car bomb in a crowded marketplace, killing innocent women and children?

Can I ask a few questions here?

How many terrorist acts, such as car bombs/suicide bombs/IEDs etc. happened in Iraq prior to the US led invasion?

More or less than now?

How many 'insurgents' were present in Iraq before the US went in?

More or less than now?

Are the insurgents in Iraq there because the US is there?

How many 'insurgent' attacks were recorded during Gulf War 1 (Desert Storm et al)?

How many people, total, regardless of affiliation (US, Iraqi, military, insurgent, civilian etc.) have been killed in Iraq since the US led invasion?

What was the total of people killed in Iraq prior to the US led invasion (in a similar time span)?

Are more or less people being killed in Iraq since the invasion?

Is the rise/fall of this number due to US presence?

And here's the big one:
Why did the US led coalition invade Iraq?

Do you 100% concur with that reason?

These are just questions. No BS. Just questions.

i'm just replying to the op here.

i'm not sure i would agree with that statistic that states how many americans are fit for military service.

i have first hand experience with many military members who after multiple tours of duty over the last 9 years are no longer fit for duty, yet they are still in active duty.

on another point:

america currently has military installations in more countries than cnn, msnbc, or even the all knowing all seeing fox news currently reports on.

i would feel comfortable saying we have plenty of bases all over the globe.

yet, how many military installations do other countries have inside america? (not counting corporations)

G.O.D. = Governments of Dollars

how can "GOD" be all things, if "GOD" can't even be all things "G.O.D."?

just some thoughts.

thanks,
E.T.

I didn't read all the responses to the thread.. Just a disclaimer. The US military is no joke. You might ask, well why not end the current wars and call it a day. Its simple, they don't want to. Only a real threat will prompt a "real" war. As long as there is a conflict the public can see they can siphon more money for the black budget. And nukes are old school, we have beam weapons that will blow a nuke up at the launch pad. I am confident in our military, but I still think war is a bad idea.

Our Founding Fathers would be appalled at current US foreign policy. The United States was envisioned as a neutral isolationist nation, which was supposed to stay out of foreign wars and intrigues. We are very well situated geographically to maintain this stance (much better than Switzerland), and for the first 130 years of our existence we largely followed this path.

The change occured in the early part of the 20th century, under the administration of Woodrow Wilson, who was strongly pushed by large Wall Street financial interests to enter into WWI, against his sworn campaign promises and the will of the American public. Its been downhill ever since.

Currently we have over 700 military bases outside the US, which suck up about 1 trillion dollars anually in related costs. We have effectively established a global empire, and become the policemen of the world, something our Founding Fathers were adamantly against. As a result, we have earned the enmity of the world, who resent US intervention, both overt and covert, in their nations, far away from US shores.

We are effectively following in the footsteps of the Roman Empire. When it became overextended in its military adventurism, and became dependent upon spoils obtained from its far flung empire (at the cost of its domestic economy) it fell into ruins. This is exactly what our Founding Fathers tried to avoid by advocating neutral isolationism.

The problem is that wars are very profitable for the big banks and financiers, which fund both sides in the build up, waging, and reconstruction that accompanies all wars. It is also very profitable for the military-industrial establishement that both Eisenhower and JFK tried to warn us about. So perpetual war = perpetual profits for those at the top of the food chain.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by Angiras]