Should Europe Go To War With America?

[MrFun]

Re: Should Europe Go To War With America?

Originally posted by DaShi
It is quite obvious that America has become the biggest threat to world peace since WWII. This is clearly the result of an ineffective government. While we can all blame President Bush for this, we must not ignore the very government that put him into power in the first place.

Why should Europe specifically go to war? Europe is clearly the nation most threatened by American hegemony. The anti-Europe (and especially anti-France) attitude of America has been made clear in nearly all of its recent actions in foreign affairs. Europe is constantly in a position where it is getting bullied and pressured by the US to comply with its demands. Also, we must ask ourselves, is Europe truly safe from American aggression? There have been hints from Washington that such an action is not only feasable but possibly proper in the American mindset.

But this war, won't simply be to remove a potential threat to world stability, but also to assist the people of America, who are clearly suffering under this regime. The current leadership of America has driven the country into massive debt so that the prviledged class can maintain its status quo, while the lower classes suffer from massive unemployment and abuses to their freedom. With the removal of the President Bush and the abolition of the current Constitution that allowed such a tyrant to rise to power, the American people, under the guiding hand of Europe, can rebuild and live in a country that is governed properly and fairly for everyone.

While this war would be both an act of humanitarian aid as well as self-preservation, Europe can only rightfully be expected to take certain advantages from it. America is bloated with all sort of natural and manufactured resources. To leave them in the hands of the crippled American people would be as wasteful as if they were still being consumed by the soon to be former American government. As liberators, Europe's duty will be to see that such resources are put to good use. Europe will governs the overseas sales of them; and while at a lower price than they formerly would have been for Europe and her allies, the profits will go toward rebuilding America.

Who knows, fifity or sixty years in the future, America may once again be able play a role in international affairs? While the road may be harsh, in time, both America and Europe will benefit from this and be grateful toward eachother for it.

Why is it that everytime I think I have seen all the weird stuff in this forum, someone ups it some more?

[Shi Huangdi]

How about the USA and EU team up to destroy Bristol and whatever town yavoon is from?

[el freako]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
How about the USA and EU team up to destroy Bristol and whatever town yavoon is from?

That's the most sensible suggestion so far

[PLATO]

Originally posted by el freako


That's the most sensible suggestion so far

[Urban Ranger]

Chill out, yavoon, or you'll get some time to do so.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
You're a fascist, a pagan, an idiot, an anti-semite, a dork, a n00b, a cheater, a liar, AND you hate black people.

...And still you wan't to destroy capitalism! You should be thrown out of a helicopter!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by el freako


No, the system is not in place but it would work.

It requires using mobile phone transmitters to be used as lots of small radar emitters - this, coupled with a lot of computing power (but that was what made stealth possible in the first place) and good communications can make it possible to pinpoint stealth aircraft as well as we can pinpoint the non-stealth sort now.

So you effectively have a single, national radar system. You have to have a supercomputer (or more likely quite a few of them, networked, and/or a few zillion networked normal computers ) sifting through all of the returns to get rid of spurious ones. It seems to me that such a system would be incredibly vulnerable - disrupt the computer network and the whole thing is useless, and I don't see how it would cope with ECM.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Patroklos
But like you said we have world wide power, not to mention incontravertable naval superiority. What do you plan on building your weapons with, or for that matter feeding your people?

It takes an average of 7-12 years to design a military aircraft. 3 years to build an aircraft carrier (not sure what you would put on it though) and 1.2 to train the average Western grunt. You'd be building up for a very long time.

Meanwhile the war would be over in less than a year. It is not feasable for a war of that scale using modern weapons to last more than that.

Of course we don't actually have to invade, just outflank France so they feel hopeless and surrender (as someone else said).

Building up the manpower to launch an invasion would take years for either continent. US do not have the manpower to invade a hostile Europe with your current army. This is not some backward third-world country surrounded by US allies. US could perhaps get the upper hand by securing naval dominance in a quick strike, but it would be costly. You would have to fight your way through carriers, modern subs and stealth ships.

[Chemical Ollie]

Why does this thread give me a feeling of "My dad's d!ck is bigger than your dad's"?

[joncha]

Because it is.

Oh, and you can just go ahead and say "dick" now.

dick dick dick dick dick

jon.

[Chemical Ollie]

Dick Cheney is a ***

[MrFun]

You can apologize anytime you want to for using that slur, Chemical.

[Patroklos]

We would lose some Naval assets in the brown water, but there is nothing you have to counter 7 carrier battle groups in the Blue water, and you need to shut down the convoy lines. European naval aviation is a joke compared to the US, and your subs are on par for number but not quality. Your mainly diesel force is useless away from the coast. Eurpopean surface compatents are, well, Oliver Hazard Perry-class and worse (a few exceptions, so few to not make a difference).

And then there is a problem with any European defence, control and interoperablilty. If you take out the US NATO compontents which are basicaly the key stone that makes it all work, you are left with a mess.

And why do you think invading is necessary? Think of it this way. We as the US know everything about any target we will ever need to hit in Europe right now. You know the same about us, but you have nothing to atack the contenetal US with, let alone in any quantity that it would make a diference.

This wouldn't be a war of continent invades continent, but rather who can make whose life so miserable they give up. US can still get resources with impunity from the Pacific, you might be able to disruct Atlantic lines of communcation but doubtful and not for long. It comes down to the fact that we can strike Europe, Europe can't strike us.

Did someone say that European fighter (in large scale production) force is on par with American? Give me an F-16, F-15, F-14, F-18 over a Griffin, Tornado, or Mirage any day of the week.

Now if this were to take place 100 years from now with the EU having the continet perhaps using a common and integrated armed forces then things might be different.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Chill out, yavoon, or you'll get some time to do so.

Howabouts you just close the damn thread instead.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

Howabouts you just close the damn thread instead.

Why?