What I Think And What You Think

[Dark0ne]

If you had, you would notice that the only reference to other countries was getting OUT of Iraq.

 

LMAO -- i.e. after you've already exerted your power. *slow clap* :closedeyes:

 

That entire list was about domestic problems, but I guess you wouldn't let mere facts get in the way here.

 

^^ Pretty much. I tend to ignore most of your crap, to be honest, focusing merely on the points that I find largely humorous with the potential for the most "omfg I R teh r0xx0r peregrineness" for kicks and giggles ;)

 

It's great that you continue to entertain.

[Peregrine]

If you had, you would notice that the only reference to other countries was getting OUT of Iraq.

 

LMAO -- i.e. after you've already exerted your power. *slow clap* :closedeyes:

 

Yes, after the moron hordes in our country let someone dumber than my dog become president and completely screw up many things, Iraq being one of them, I want to fix the problems. Do you really think I EVER supported the war in Iraq? You're looking at the wrong target here. But I guess it's easier to just pretend I support Bush and his dreams of the Empire of Jesusland than it would be to actually make valid arguments.

 

That entire list was about domestic problems, but I guess you wouldn't let mere facts get in the way here.

 

^^ Pretty much. I tend to ignore most of your crap, to be honest, focusing merely on the points that I find largely humorous with the potential for the most "omfg I R teh r0xx0r peregrineness" for kicks and giggles ;)

 

It's great that you continue to entertain.

 

In other words, it's easier to just dismiss anything you can't troll with meaningless comments than it would be to try to understand US domestic politics and debate about the subject.

[Nappa990]

Ironic really, you believe in America being the strongest

 

This is not a belief, it's simple fact. Take nukes out of the scenario, and the US could defeat the rest of the world in a war. Of course that's kind of expected when you spend more on your military than the next 15 nations combined. Argue the wisdom of being that concerned with military power all you want, but it is unarguable fact that the US is the only military power in the world now.

 

and being allowed to exert it's power on others

 

 

And once again you prove yourself to be no better than the common troll. This is just more proof that you didn't even bother reading anything beyond the first sentence of my post before making your predictable "omg peregirne sux!!!lolollollool!!!11!!" comment. If you had, you would notice that the only reference to other countries was getting OUT of Iraq. That entire list was about domestic problems, but I guess you wouldn't let mere facts get in the way here.

 

Peregrine are you an american?

 

Yes, why?

 

Peregrine...

 

...You need to come back down to Earth, man.

 

How so? Would you like to post a specific counter-argument to the points I have made in this thread? Or would you rather just spam pointless comments like that because it's popular?

 

 

If the US was in a war with the world without nukes you earlier stated we would lose. We would put up a good fight untill they invaded us.

check here if ya want evidence. This site shows most of the Countries armed forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...of_armed_forces

[Malchik]

Peregrine, I read what you post in detail. Occasionally it is ambiguous in that the tone in which it is said makes it sound like sarcasm when perhaps it isn't intended to be. I agree with you on many issues but your assertion that once you have made a decision it HAS to be correct implies too much infallibility to be credible. And yes, I know you said you did not know everything in response to a post of mine in another thread.

 

Your statement that you never make a decision without knowing all (available) facts I accept but that it means you must therefore be right I do not. Where do these facts come from? The level of immigration in the US is much higher than the official figures but nobody has any real knowledge of how much higher. The weapon and armour power of the rest of the world is based on information that is itself fallible. It may be an informed best guess but it is not a fact.

 

There are few unchallengeable 'facts' in this world. And it has been demonstrated very frequently in recent years that the US government does not pass the facts onto the US populace. (And that is true of most other goverments too).

 

If only you sometimes admitted that what you were offering were your opinions (and that is what they are) and not facts we could have a genuine debate. As it is...

[Peregrine]

If the US was in a war with the world without nukes you earlier stated we would lose. We would put up a good fight untill they invaded us.

check here if ya want evidence. This site shows most of the Countries armed forces.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...of_armed_forces

 

 

Err, huh? I stated in a war without nukes, the US would WIN, not lose. A war without nukes being the only relevant one of course, as a nuclear war ends civilization as we know it.

 

And no, we wouldn't put up a good fight until they invade us. There wouldn't BE an invasion. Nobody else in the world has the power projection to move those armies across the ocean without losing them to our far superior naval power. The US would have to settle for strategic bombing over actual invasion of the rest of the world, but the result would be very one-sided.

 

 

Peregrine, I read what you post in detail.

 

Well, the post wasn't addressed at you... at least unlike Dark0ne, you aren't making comments that prove you didn't even bother reading anything first. But I would perfer to see a counter argument, since this is in theory a debate thread.

 

Your statement that you never make a decision without knowing all (available) facts I accept but that it means you must therefore be right I do not. Where do these facts come from? The level of immigration in the US is much higher than the official figures but nobody has any real knowledge of how much higher.

 

But the actual numbers wouldn't change anything. The official numbers are way too high as it is, the real numbers would only make it more urgent that something be done about it.

The weapon and armour power of the rest of the world is based on information that is itself fallible. It may be an informed best guess but it is not a fact.

 

Again, the exact numbers won't make a difference. Just looking at the sizes and budgets involved is a pretty big clue... the US simply has a massive edge in numbers, and either the best or near the best quality in most/all areas. And then there's the un-matched capabilities like carrier groups, stealth bombers, F-22s, etc. It would be very difficult to come up with a plausible scenario where the US loses a war in its present state, assuming you ignore nukes (MAD = pointless) and economic effects (the real limit on US imperialism).

[Nappa990]

What if Europe/Africa/South America's forces were transported years ahead of the invasion to Canada and/or Mexico and trained there for years ready to fight us, we would know of this of course, but we wouldn't invade Canada and/or Mexico. The Armies of Asia would travel to Providenya (East Russia) and travel to Alaska while E/A/SA's forces distract the U.S.

[Peregrine]

What if Europe/Africa/South America's forces were transported years ahead of the invasion to Canada and/or Mexico and trained there for years ready to fight us, we would know of this of course, but we wouldn't invade Canada and/or Mexico. The Armies of Asia would travel to Providenya (East Russia) and travel to Alaska while E/A/SA's forces distract the U.S.

 

 

That's just not a reasonable scenario. Why wouldn't the US attack first? Your entire scenario depends on the US knowing they're about to be invaded (the large movements would be impossible to miss), but refusing to do anything to stop it. More likely would be preemptive strikes on the gathering armies, meanwhile declaring open hunting season on any future convoys. Carpet-bombing by B-2s would do nasty things to them I think, while the US navy completely cuts off their supply lines.

[Nappa990]

What if Europe/Africa/South America's forces were transported years ahead of the invasion to Canada and/or Mexico and trained there for years ready to fight us, we would know of this of course, but we wouldn't invade Canada and/or Mexico. The Armies of Asia would travel to Providenya (East Russia) and travel to Alaska while E/A/SA's forces distract the U.S.

 

 

That's just not a reasonable scenario. Why wouldn't the US attack first? Your entire scenario depends on the US knowing they're about to be invaded (the large movements would be impossible to miss), but refusing to do anything to stop it. More likely would be preemptive strikes on the gathering armies, meanwhile declaring open hunting season on any future convoys. Carpet-bombing by B-2s would do nasty things to them I think, while the US navy completely cuts off their supply lines.

 

 

One reason the US wouldn't attack first was because we couldn't afford to. Since everyone has banded together to destroy us no one will trade with us. Some countries Economy will crash but the UN will pay for that. We depend so much on foreign goods that we would have a civil war brewing between the states that want to surrender and the ones that want to fight. Gas prices will be so high that most gas station will close and only the rich could afford gas. And just because we put a lot more money into our military we are also in debt and that doesnt mean that money is used properly.

[Malchik]

Peregrine specifically discounted the economic argument and looked only at power base. One cannot of course do that in reality other than in the very short term. Also a question so far unaddressed is WHY the rest of the world had decided to invade the US in the first place. The chances of this occurring unless the US was commiting some crime the rest of humanity could not stomach is remote and knowing how much dissent on what constitutes such a crime there is in the world it would need to be very extreme. (Perhaps it has declared all of the middle east a US hegemony and annexed Venezuela to give itself an adequate oil supply thus setting the rest of the world in economic meltdown.)

 

In any such scenario the US would have to have become a dictatorship to repress internal dissent (it would be losing hundreds of troops every week long before there was any agreement on invasion). Internal unrest would need to be factored into its ability to carry out the theoretical actions.

 

So before you can postulate what the US could do in theory you need a good few other given constructs. A debate on the lines of how easily the US could turn into a dictatorship might be more fruitful than making prognostications based on fire power alone.

[Stampede]

Something that I find hilarious is the thought of all the countries in Africa utilising a united armed force. :P