Who would want to invade USA?

[Perryman93]

Also i would love England to invade the USA and take back what is rightly ours you traitorus republican bastards, we burnt down the first white house (yes bet they dont teach you that in your history lessons) and we can burn down this one and shred that stupid constitution

 

[The Austin]

Would Iran just send over a few troops and claim the US as their own?

-They probably wouldn't, the Iraqi military is like preschool for 30 year-olds.

Where did you get Iraq from? The question was about Iran. They're different countries entirely....

This is IraQ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq]
This is IraN [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran]

Another reason I don't like Americans, they don't know what exists outside their country...Seriously, we got an exchange student who thought that Australia was as big as Texas.

-Kaster

I just misread the post. Thats no reason to go all "THAT'S WHY I HATE AMERICANS!"

 

[Ghost1800]

(yes bet they dont teach you that in your history lessons)

War of 1812.

Yes they do.

Your being just as arrogant and ignorant as many accuse my countryman of being.

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

To answer your final question, I'm guessing the reason some people don't like America is our perceived arrogance. To them, we often act like everyone else is beneath us just because we're a major world power. We throw our weight around in the world, and when we knock something over, we often refuse to take the blame.
Can any non-Americans confirm this?

Pretty much this.

Also, alot of your idiot population seems to be the loudest part of your population.

You got Barack Obama and Stone Cold Steve Austin though, so it's cool.

 

[Matt-the-twat]

Leave the poor Americans alone.

 

[A.I. Sigma]

To answer your final question, I'm guessing the reason some people don't like America is our perceived arrogance. To them, we often act like everyone else is beneath us just because we're a major world power. We throw our weight around in the world, and when we knock something over, we often refuse to take the blame.
Can any non-Americans confirm this?

Edit: I'm not answering your actual question because clearly you haven't played Freedom Fighters.

I'll admit you appear arrogant, and I used to hate Americans because of it (I was brought up in an anti-American family, unfortunately). Over the years, though, I've made friends with Americans, and I love them to pieces. Really, you're justified to come across as arrogant, because you have enough nukes to shove up the ass of any country you care to name until they come out of said country's nose. You'd flatten Britain in a second, and really, I'm glad you're our ally. XD

 

[Amnestic]

I also dislike the "fat" american stereotype, not all americans are fat, and health in the midwest is generally okay.

Not all, but the majority are. [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/overwt.htm] That's factual data by the way, not an opinion. Maybe if you don't want the fat stereotype you should - as a nation - reduce your overweight statistics to less than 50% of your adult populace?

 

[kotorfan04]

Examples include but are not limited to:
Revolutionary War (Oh yeah Redcoats were the shit yet they got pwned by a bunch of farmers)

The French supported, and trained many of our forces, and we were a considerable distance away. This is NOT in any way like modern warfare where you can fly anywhere on the planet in 23 hours. Also note that the British lost interest after France declared war against them

Vietnamese conflict. (We sent a shitload of people there, yet still had to retreat.)

See my previous post.

Afghanistan vs Russia.

We were constantly supplying the Mujahedin with weapons. Ironically the Taliban was formed due to us supporting these groups.

Iraqi War. (Okay I am kind of cheating on this one, but still the people rallied and made holding on to Iraq a right ass, and the problems continue to this day.)

Again, see my previous posts, they barely do anything to our forces. Not to mention if a nation that spat on the Geneva convention invaded it would be even worse.

So the lesson here is if you have guns, the ability to make bombs and other fun traps and somebody invades your nation you have a good chance of taking them down because people can act really funny if someone triest to destroy your way of life, and most people will do anything to protect their property, their family, and their way of life.

And fail

Please do not make this discussion hostile, allow me to reiterate my point. In all of the instances I outlined an underdog took one of if not the best armies in the world in order to defend their way of life, and in all but one instance the underdog proved to be victorious, the one instance not included is of course the Iraqi war as that conflict is still continuing. So while I am aware that the Americans had been trained by the French, and that the U.S. aided Afghanistan it was still the under dog doing the fighting. They aids weren't actively controlling the war effort merely giving the underdogs some advice and or assistance.
Also for Vietnam we did have our people there, and we still lost.
Also what the hell in the War of 1812 when we were still a fledgling state the Brits invaded again, and we won that one too.

So if some outside force decides to invade the U.S. and for some reason our military is too busy having a wank to do a damned thing everyone would buy a rifle and start sniping the shit out of the invaders while lining the roads with bombs. Not because Americans are awesome but because we like the way things are. The point I have been trying to make is that people will go to incredible lengths to defend their homeland and that dismissing a group of civillians who own guns as a bunch of hick farmers is both incredibly short sighted and ignoring the human instinct to defend the group. If someone invades America they might win, but it will be a bloody ass conflict and no piece of land will be surrendered without a fight.

 

[Connosaurus Rex]

The only genuine threat to the US at the moment is fundamentalist Islamic groups, and they're on a pretty tight leash right now all over the world. The US has finally stopped secretly funding a lot of them, thankfully (it's well known that the Taliban, including Bin Laden, were initially trained by the CIA to fight the Russians - boy, the US sure backed the wrong side in that war). Everyone else is fairly happy to leave the US alone as long as the US returns the favour.

At the time the Taliban were much better than the soviets since they were weak and didn't have NUKES!
ON topic No one would want to take the USA mainland, the only good part is the Mid west, the breadbasket of the USA. The civilians would take control and then make 50+ small countries

 

[la-le-lu-li-lo]

it's an intellectual exercise and the first stipulation was the folding of the American military for whatever reason thus military size and WMDs are not a factor for debate

Sooo, in this intellectual exercise shouldn't everyone's military and WMDs etc be folded? Otherwise it's a pretty stupid exercise. That's like saying 'if every citizen of America was an eight year old autistic child, who would try to take them?' Just dumb. /: Unless I'm missing something here...

Well. If the United States Military has been dissolved, then they would quite easily stand a chance. A unit of Soldiers with body armor and such will stand better stead against a heap of fat, overweight smelly American's with rifles

[See above response.]

What's the point of such an exercise if it's got this ridiculous double standard?

Also, way to generalize. All Americans aren't fat or smelly... I'm not, for example. Besides, what does being fat or smelly have anything to do with the ability to shoot a rifle accurately? Or any gun for that matter?

Then again this is apparently a completely unrealistic scenario.

 

[manaman]

Snip

My word. I don't know what was worse in that post the ignorance, the racism, or the stupidity.

I mean I can forgive a certain level of ignorance in life, but when you are online it is a quick 10 sec to do a bit of fact checking. Still even then you didn't know.

The racism, well thats pretty much inexcusable in any setting.

I guess the worse problem I have is that when given facts you ignore them in favor of making idiotic boasts and racist statements. I am not exactly calling you dumb, but your posts are making kinda hard not to think that maybe the issue here.

 

[A Weary Exile]

I'm watching you, Iceland. Don't get any funny ideas!

 

[Woodsey]

I'd love to see Australia give it a go for some reason.

oh yeah, we've got the battle Koalas in training as we speak

That is exactly why.

 

[Kaynus]

Please do not make this discussion hostile,

Hostile? I haven't been hostile at all.

They aids weren't actively controlling the war effort merely giving the underdogs some advice and or assistance.

You are very wrong. All of the equipment given to the NVA during Vietnam was given to them by Russia and China. The Mujahedin had nothing until we armed them.

Also for Vietnam we did have our people there, and we still lost.

Due to some serious failures in tactics, logistics, and troop rotations. You also ignore the fact that the NVA was a serious military, and in many cases had better infantry than we did. This is how the NVA recruited, veteran militents would be drafted into the regional force, which would help the professional soldiers. Veterans of the Regional force would join the professional soldiers. The Professional soldier were the major combatants. The Vietcong(the militants) would *never* engage US forces head on, they would lay traps and ambush. Most of the fighting was done by the NVA.

Also what the hell in the War of 1812 when we were still a fledgling state the Brits invaded again, and we won that one too.

Stop using examples from warfare that is in now way like modern war.

So if some outside force decides to invade the U.S. and for some reason our military is too busy having a wank to do a damned thing everyone would buy a rifle and start sniping the shit out of the invaders while lining the roads with bombs.

Military counter snipers > civilians with hunting rifles, don't forget that not everyone is up to fighting a conventional army. Also, how many people do you think know how to make a bomb, and where would we get the supplies? Do you think that an army will let people get giant bags of fertilizer?

Not because Americans are awesome but because we like the way things are. The point I have been trying to make is that people will go to incredible lengths to defend their homeland and that dismissing a group of civillians who own guns as a bunch of hick farmers is both incredibly short sighted and ignoring the human instinct to defend the group. If someone invades America they might win, but it will be a bloody ass conflict and no piece of land will be surrendered without a fight.

I'm dismissing the militia because they cant fight nation's high tech military of the 21st century like they could centuries ago. You are making points that I have already shown wrong.

 

[kotorfan04]

Okay I am going to give this one last shot. First of all I am trying to bring something new to each point and to make you consider them. I am not simply bringing up the same points. The U.S. army did relatively well in Vietnam, we had a general plan, but it could not compare to the Vietnamese guerilla warfare tactics which at the time we had no real experience combatting and we failed to adapt.

Now then for the U.S. in the revolutionary war and the Mujahedin while they both received enormous benefits from their allies, the allies never stepped in and directed the attacks and plans of the rebels. That is what I meant by actively controlled.

Finally for your bombs point, I would like to point out that the greatest risk to our troops in Iraq are the IEDs and car bombs. I believe that problem would crop up in AMerica if it was invaded. Finally if America was invaded the few people who know how to make bombs, would share that knowledge pretty damn quickly. FFS People build fusion reactors in their garage. I think they could build some pretty nice bombs.

Your arguments have never seemed to hit my primary contention which is that a people that are being invaded and having their way of life threatened will go to an extreme length to protect it. The group being invaded has a lot more to lose than the invaders do, and so they will really give it all they have also. People familliar with terrain and thus capable of planning ambushes > invaders. THe point I have been trying to make is that if any country is invaded the civillians will mount a hell of a defense to protect their lives and their land. So I pose a question to you Kaylae if your nation was invaded what would you do to defend it?

 

[Kaynus]

The U.S. army did relatively well in Vietnam, we had a general plan, but it could not compare to the Vietnamese guerilla warfare tactics which at the time we had no real experience combatting and we failed to adapt.

This dosen't help your point. This only proves that you would need significant out side assistance to fight an invading army.

Now then for the U.S. in the revolutionary war and the Mujahedin while they both received enormous benefits from their allies, the allies never stepped in and directed the attacks and plans of the rebels. That is what I meant by actively controlled.

This is true, but the best plans will go to shit if you don't have logistics. Something that the militia won't have. Also know that a large percentage of our food is imported, which the invading army will use to their advantage.

Finally for your bombs point, I would like to point out that the greatest risk to our troops in Iraq are the IEDs and car bombs.

The black market often supplies these materials, the US does not have an advanced network of smugglers, meaning that it would be very hard to find the materials when occupied.

Finally if America was invaded the few people who know how to make bombs, would share that knowledge pretty damn quickly. FFS People build fusion reactors in their garage. I think they could build some pretty nice bombs.

Making a primitive generator does not equal explosive skills, and again, where would they get the materials?

Your arguments have never seemed to hit my primary contention which is that a people that are being invaded and having their way of life threatened will go to an extreme length to protect it.

This point is shallow, all because people want it doesn't mean that it'll magically happen. They still need to make the means to carry out their goals, and that won't happen by wanting it. You can't destroy a combat ready tank with a fork not matter how willing you may be.

The group being invaded has a lot more to lose than the invaders do, and so they will really give it all they have also. People familliar with terrain and thus capable of planning ambushes > invaders.

This isn't the 1800s, we have accurate maps now. You're constantly ignoring the military advancements in the last 30 years. Ambushes against advanced forces will fail, they won't roll through with all of their expensive assets so some guys can throw rocks at them. Recon elements like satellites and unmanned drones will have no problems finding hiding civilians, then are the paratroopers, mechanized infantry, and helicopters. Combat has changed considerably, and massively out class what a militia can do. Even if the civilians manage to get in range of the enemy's assets, they won't be able to do much. Modern body armor will stop almost all rounds, and vehicle armour is ridiculous. There couldn't possible be a way for militants to penetrate the armour of the modern battle tank, inches of depleted uranium armour covered with explosive reactive plates will stop nearly anything. Look at both of the Iraq wars. Iraq was considered one of the greatest military superpowers of the middle east, and we invaded twice, and both times we shattered their assets in little to no time. That was a conventional force with a budget of millions, what makes you think that even less will be better?

THe point I have been trying to make is that if any country is invaded the civillians will mount a hell of a defense to protect their lives and their land. So I pose a question to you Kaylae if your nation was invaded what would you do to defend it?

My point is that modern forces won't be hindered by the now out dated defenses civilians could muster. Peasants from the 10th century wouldn't be able to stop the French army from the 17th century, they simply are out classed in every way, it wouldn't matter how much they wanted to stop them.

And I, "Kaylae" would like to point out that I live in the United States, and have full citizenship. If a conventional force invades, the only thing I'm going to do is escape to another country, or stay far away from where the resistance is, as they are only going to cause more problems for their neighbors.

 

[kotorfan04]

Alright Kaylae I think we are at a draw, the only two people even commenting anymore on the thread are the two of us, we both keep making the same points and I don't think any of us will be swayed by the other's PoV so to prevent this from getting stale protracted and drawn out I recommend we let this thread die and talk about something we can both agree on on another thread.

 

[Carlston]

Saddly military application IS what normally makes tech advances and cures for illnesses.

Space Coloies... not likely, No country in it's right mind will pump cash into that and have it destroyed by someone who just goes postal in the name of Ala or whatever.

Texas would probley break off. The Japanese would take Seattle and Cali and we'd have the shadowrun world probley.

But since the wolrd just views whoever is not them as arrogant mouth flapper these topics really just don't do anything.

What a stupid question.

Well this is exactly my point.

The USA spends trillions on it's military budget, what would happen to all that money if they decided not to fight anymore?

Cure for cancer? Space colonies?

But seriously though, from these answers Canada and Mexico will take the border cities without much resistance, the strip in the middle will become a Wild West over again, eventually they will join up to civilisation when they run out of food.

As for the remaining military hardware, I'm sure it could be sold for billions again to Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South East Asia etc.

 

[Carlston]

You go to war to kill the bombers and the people who support them. As if you didn't notice, most of Iran's bomb squads went to Iraq not to kill US troops but to slaughter Shieits.

Because Saddam was responsible for terrorist attacks against the US...?

Yawn, why everyone always tries to defend Saddam on this reasoning is beyond me. Other than the man had thousands of crimes against humanity, a liking to throw chemical weapons at his own people, and attack US planes in the no fly zone over 3000 times in 10 years....

Saddam got what he deserved for being yes, a prick. But you have to be a prick to run a Middle eastern nation. You have to threaten everyone, say you have a bigger army or chemical weapons to deter the attacks and rule your people with a iron fist or the bombers move in.

And when he shot off his mouth after 9/11 about weapons of mass destruction (which people haven't learned if we find them we don't tell the news to post the exact address of them for every terrorist nut job to come attack the storage facility) he wanted baddly to keep the angry voice against the US when even the Iatola was smart enough to keep his mouths shut.

And honestly, if you think his nasty little end for being such a bastard is unjust then maybe good old US of A should apologize to Hitler for helping get him killed to. I mean he didn't invade the US and kill American Jews... not that he was a bastard with a crimes list so long, he might not have done one thing but what about the other 5,99999999 things? Well he didn't do that one...well must be innocent.

So once again...Saddam being part of terror attacks is one in a list of hundreds of reason we got sick of him. Well he didn't do that one...that's nice, the other thousand reason still don't make me feel a injustice was done.

 

[Brett Alex]

Yawn, why everyone always tries to defend Saddam on this reasoning is beyond me. Other than the man had thousands of crimes against humanity, a liking to throw chemical weapons at his own people, and attack US planes in the no fly zone over 3000 times in 10 years....

And when he shot off his mouth after 9/11 about weapons of mass destruction (which people haven't learned if we find them we don't tell the news to post the exact address of them for every terrorist nut job to come attack the storage facility) he wanted baddly to keep the angry voice against the US when even the Iatola was smart enough to keep his mouths shut.

And honestly, if you think his nasty little end for being such a bastard is unjust then maybe good old US of A should apologize to Hitler for helping get him killed to. I mean he didn't invade the US and kill American Jews... not that he was a bastard with a crimes list so long, he might not have done one thing but what about the other 5,99999999 things? Well he didn't do that one...well must be innocent.

So once again...Saddam being part of terror attacks is one in a list of hundreds of reason we got sick of him. Well he didn't do that one...that's nice, the other thousand reason still don't make me feel a injustice was done.

If he was such a horrible person why was he sponsored by the US during the Iran-Iraq war?

If the reason for invading a country is to remove a horrible dictator, why is Robert Mugabe still in power? Why hasn't the junta in Burma been taken down?

Why were the Khemer Rouge, whose regime killed far more innocents than Saddam ever did, never forcibly removed from power, and instead, in fact, ignored and allowed to get on with their crimes against humanity?

Please don't Godwin this argument, I think we can both sensibly agree that Hitler and WWII have nothing to do with this situation, and bringing it up is not only pointless but it confuses the real discussion.

Are you also trying to suggest that Weapons of Mass Destruction were in fact found, but no one ever stated it? Honestly? I don't usually ask for sources but I would like to see a few pieces of evidence before I consider that possibility.

Iraq, and removing Saddam were unnecessary, if the purpose was to root out terrorism in the middle east. Saudi Arabia finances terrorist, Syria is actively aggravating and sponsoring insurgent activity in the area, Pakistan had (and to some extent still has) a highly corrupt and fragile government as well as being a training ground for the taliban militias; yet it is decided to invade the one nation in the region that, while violent, has the least to do with terrorism?

If the argument for removing Saddam was not terrorism, but instead just because he was a bad guy, then, as I've already pointed out, there are far worse and far more still ruling elsewhere in the world who have not be removed by a US-led coalition. When do they get their turn?