| Author |
America's plan to invade Canada |
BobaFett
Joined: Jan 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Kamino (wish it would be Lund)
PM, WWW
|
would u piss against the wind? i wont...
anyway, happened what happened, even the arabians are smart ppl, to plan and manage such an action, cannot be fixed sitting in a cave somewhere in afganistan imo 911 was in interest for way more ppl all around the world. bush and co wanted to get that oil in iraq, so they was almost waiting for sg, to get a chance and explination why they go there to "free the iraqi nation" from saddam. and now the circus is bigger then ever down there...
|
|
|
joebmc
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Kent
PM |
Quote:
|
to plan and manage such an action, cannot be fixed sitting in a cave somewhere in afganistan imo
|
|
Think your find that those nutters are living all over the world, many in the very countrys the hate  Not just in caves.
_________________
Nokia 3210-->Nokia 3310-->Nokia 8210-->Panasonic GD67-->  T68m(i)-->T610-->k700i-->P800 -->Moto Razr v3 (black)-->Nokia 6030--> S700i
my ebay items
[ This Message was edited by: joebmc on 2006-01-13 17:01 ] |
ADT0079
Joined: Oct 08, 2003
Posts: 100
PM |
@ boba he wasn't in hiding aka caves as you would say untill after he knew we were coming after him. nothing personal but i thought you were smarter than that |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
What I am puzzled about up till now is that why the AMERICANS can't CAPTURE OSAMA BIN LADEN  Despite the very HI-TECH gadgets that they have  Maybe to prolong the WAR on . . . Terrorism, so they can ACTIVELY do their military exercises - WORLDWIDE
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
JN exactly...thats because the CIA made Osama in the first place,they funded and trained him when they needed him..once they had enough of him they decided to make him into a Terrorist..i wonder who is the bigger Terrorist America or Osama...no prizes for guessing who i think is the bigger Terrorist..
Sometimes i wonder if Osama even exsists...might be something or someone the CIA cooked up to use for their own propaganda.
[addsig] |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
@axxxr - After Osama . . . who's next President of Iran or North Korea
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Yeh i reckon the murdering idiots will be after Iran next...
[addsig] |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
The FIREWORKS in Iraq is so BORING, not parallel with their arsenals! I want the US to go HEAD-ON with China . . . now that's something really to watch for much BETTER than the Fourth of July celebration 
[addsig] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
I don't think the U.S has the balls to stand up against China..they would give america a proper thrashing...America are such cowards that they like to pick on poorer and much weaker countries who can't fight back....I wish they did have a war with North Korea or china,will see plenty of fireworks on both on sides.
[addsig] |
stevemiddie
Joined: Jan 14, 2006
Posts: 105
From: How the hell did i end up in D
PM |
" I don't think the U.S has the balls to stand up against China."
Nice to see you have a handle on world politics Axxxr numbnut.
Let me see..............oh yeah! Iraq was the country that gas attacked that village right? They were all terrorists? Thats right axxxr....i remember seeing dead 4 year old girls on the streets of that village. I,m so glad that saddam got rid of those terrorists.
Iraq has many problems...we all know that.....but lets face it.....we are better off for not having Saddam around. Ask any Kurd. Or are they all terrorists too?
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-14 03:31:28, axxxr wrote:
I don't think the U.S has the balls to stand up against China..they would give america a proper thrashing...
|
|
No they wouldn't. China does have a large armed forces, but it is very much a regional power with little real capability to project military strength beyond its immediate vicinity. China is also heavily dependent upon energy imports, which the U.S. would likely find relatively easy to target and stop.
China has no practical capability to launch an attack against the U.S. mainland except for nuclear missiles, which would be returned in kind. The U.S. having a superior nuclear stockpile to China, in terms of both numbers and technology would almost certainly be able to completely obliterate China's capacity to wage war as a country and quite likely cause serious damage to China's infrastructure too. China on the other hand has a relatively small nuclear stockpile, which is comparable to that of France or Britain. Assuming that every single warhead hit its target it would cause serious damage to America, but would be unable to prevent the U.S. from launching a massive nuclear attack of its own as described above. Of course the chances are that not every warhead would hit its target and of course multiple warheads would likely have to be used against single targets to ensure adequate damage was caused, especially in the case of cities and military installations thus further reducing the capacity of China's nuclear stockpile.
This then leaves us with conventional warfare. As noted above China has no practical means of attacking the US mainland, which leaves us with the scenario of the US launching an invasion of China. The Chinese airforce operates a large number of planes, but they are not as advanced as the USAF nor do the Chinese have as varied an airforce nor do the Chinese have the capability to operate their airforce beyond their immediate neighbours. America would be likely to take control of the skies over China as well as ensuring command of the seas through carrier battlegroups. This would then put China in a situation of being seriously weakened once bombing raids had destroyed key energy production facilities and damaged vital infrastructure.
With the huge populations of China's cities unable to get adequate supplies of power basic services could start to break down. Meanwhile US ground troops, likely in conjunction with Taiwan, could make landings on Chinese soil. With American air superiority and with logistics under attack the massive Chinese army would be its own worst enemy as it would require vast amounts of resources, which China would find harder and harder to supply.
The Chinese army would probably have to retreat to the countryside as superior American technology and control of the air would make pitched battles exceedingly costly for the Chinese. The Chinese capacity to wage war would be ever diminished as the war on their own soil carried on whilst American factories could produce war materials free from the conflict.
China, as a nation, would eventually have to sue for peace as their forces either retreaed to the countryside and/or faced chronic shortages of weapons, ammunition and supplies brought on by accute shortages in the Chinese industrial community.
Quote:
|
America are such cowards that they like to pick on poorer and much weaker countries who can't fight back....
|
|
No they fight any country they percieve as a threat and since they are now a hyper power all other countries are in fact much weaker and poorer than them who can't fight back in direct terms. That is the reality of the situation and it has been practiced for millenia, from the Romans to the British Empire. America are not exclusively guilty of that.
Quote:
|
I wish they did have a war with North Korea or china,will see plenty of fireworks on both on sides.
|
|
What an incredibly awful and stupid thing to wish for. In any case, a war with either of those two countries would likely not last all that long since neither of them have the economic capacity for a prolonged conflict on a global scale as America does.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-09-26 05:57 ] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-14 03:59:55, stevemiddie wrote:
" I don't think the U.S has the balls to stand up against China."
Nice to see you have a handle on world politics Axxxr numbnut.
Let me see..............oh yeah! Iraq was the country that gas attacked that village right? They were all terrorists? Thats right axxxr....i remember seeing dead 4 year old girls on the streets of that village. I,m so glad that saddam got rid of those terrorists.
Iraq has many problems...we all know that.....but lets face it.....we are better off for not having Saddam around. Ask any Kurd. Or are they all terrorists too?
|
|
Oh here we go. 
I know just enough about politics to discuss it from time to time....but not a lot.
Yes Saddam all of those bad things i agree...but torture is going on in other countries aswell...why not inavade North Korea,Zimbabwe...human rights abuse is rife throughout many countries..i dont seem the u.s running to save them..maybe its because they have no oil?...
no one denys that we are better of without saddam but who gave america the right to be judge?
[addsig] |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
Learning what transpired in WWII . . . US can easily OUTBEST China on a head-on I think . . . what was then . . is STILL NOW, and just GOT much BETTER, I am talking about their military hardwares! I think Japan can OUTBEST China too !
[addsig] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
gotta agree more or less with scots about a US war against China. China would be no push over if invaded, but their army is run down technologically speaking, so they would be reliant on shear weight of numbers to win any war on American soil, and that would not be enough.
Anyone remember the vaunted "russian steamroller" of WW1? It was many times larger than the German army, yet crumbled in mere weeks against the might of an organised and technologically superior army.
A war between the US and China on Asian soil would not be winable by the US, but neither would China easily oust the yanks. However the US would have to introduce the draft, and spend many more times on defence that they do currently. The US is simply not in an economic position to wage such a war, so they would be mad to start one. If they start a war they cannot win, they will be destroyed economically for many decades to come.
China on the other hand is surging economically and industrially. They are the industrial power house of the world currently. They could easily defend themselves, with help from Iran (oil), Korea and possible Russia and other states. I don't know if you could even rely on India to side with America, since they have extensive trading agreements with China.
|
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-01-14 04:50:33, max_wedge wrote:
gotta agree more or less with scots about a US war against China. China would be no push over if invaded, but their army is run down technologically speaking, so they would be reliant on shear weight of numbers to win any war on American soil, and that would not be enough.
|
|
The thing is max that China has no practical means to invade America.
Quote:
|
A war between the US and China on Asian soil would not be winable by the US, but neither would China easily oust the yanks. However the US would have to introduce the draft, and spend many more times on defence that they do currently. The US is simply not in an economic position to wage such a war, so they would be mad to start one. If they start a war they cannot win, they will be destroyed economically for many decades to come.
|
|
I disagree. America can currently defeat any nation on Earth in military terms anywhere on Earth if they are willing to do so. America has the capacity to strike anywhere in the world and they have the ability to wage a prolonged and sustained war on a global scale.
Quote:
|
China on the other hand is surging economically and industrially. They are the industrial power house of the world currently.
|
|
China relies heavily upon foriegn energy imports and access to foriegn markets to sell its goods. If those energy supplies were disrupted and its trade routes blocked then its economy and industrial capacity would suffer serious damage.
Quote:
|
They could easily defend themselves, with help from Iran (oil), Korea and possible Russia and other states. I don't know if you could even rely on India to side with America, since they have extensive trading agreements with China.
|
|
India would be almost certain to side with America since China, after Pakistan, is their chief rival.
Iran has no real ability to help China other than opening up a second front in the Middle East and even then one has to ponder what it could do once it comes into conflict with American and allied troops. America has the capacity to fight several wars simultaneously and the Irananian military would not present a major challenge to an America fully geared for a major war.
Russia is economically incapable of fighting a protracted war and much of its military is either in a state of unreadiness or disrepair when compared to the Soviet era. Russia would also be unlikely to side with China as this would then open it up to attack by NATO should it attack the U.S. Russia would be unlikely to win a conflict with the EU nations in its current state let alone America on a war footing.
North Korea would also be unlikely to offer any meaningful help. Its populace are partially fed through American and Chinese donations and it has chronic energy shortages at the best of times let alone in the middle of a war.
China would almost certainly be defeated; a combined attack by American, Taiwanese and possibly even Japanese forces would overwhelm and destroy the Chinese military.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-09-26 06:03 ] |
|
|
Posted: 2006-01-13 15:46
