Consider this scenario:

[CountPoopoo]

(Note: this is pure fiction)

Its 2005, and there has been a lot of heating up between the United States and Europe after a terrorist attack by an anti-european group of white terrorists. Europe has been threatening to take action if the US did not. They asked the US to give up hold of their weapons of mass distructions until it was proven they had nothing to do with the attack.
The US, non-surprisingly, refused to give up their weapons. Europe was enraged, and action was taken.
The europeans invaded the United States, claiming to the world population that George Bush was hiding the truths from the people and taking terrible decisions that would make the american people suffer forever. With ample propaganda from European presidents, they succeded in gaining the majority's support and called the invasion: "Mission: Free America." Although a few extremist gladly accepted the Europeans that tore down their government to create a true democracy, where everyone's vote was equal, most of the americans were opposed to being liberated and fought back furiously.

What would you do? Do you understand what i'm trying to get through?

[Z17]

I don't think it would come to that point. For Bush to ignore any kind of warning from Europe, as well as Europe believing that the anti-european group was representative of the American Government and would reflect their own actions on that of the American Government is completely unrealistic.

Obviously you're putting American in Iraq's possition and Europe is the US's possition regarding the Iraq war. It not just so simple that you can switch possitions of two completely different nations in how they carry out their government decisions and assume the same scenario would happen.

So yeah, it's fiction. Nothing more.

~Z~

[CountPoopoo]

I'm not trying to show you what it would be like, i'm trying to show you thats what a lot of people over there think. This is how they feel, and you have to understand that.

[bcdemon]

Well Count, as a Canadian, I guess all I would is turn on CNN (If they're still broadcasting, EuroTroopers may take out CNN in the early stages of the invasion to halt propaganda), if not I'm sure the CBC would keep me up to date. I also think that some american-friendly Canadians would cross the boarder to help out thier "american brothers" (a term used when Canada and USA agree on something). Then again, who knows, Bush may try put forth a draft in Canada (he's not to bright ya know, I think he would attemp such a thing) to which he would face extreme opposition from our liberal government. Then in a fit of rage, as the ELF (European Liberation Force) close in on Crawford Texas (where Bush spends most of his time), GW Bush calls for the immediate launch of all ICBMs within US control.

wow, that got out of hand real quick lol.

[BeFell]

That's idiotic.

Oh and by the way, we would obliterate them.

[TheShrike]

Interesting, but you're an asshole, so I'll crap up your topic with some non-sensical irrelevant garbage.

[LazyDrunk]

Despite the fictional content of this post, I'm drunk. So in conclusion, the economical stressors between euroland and us seem reletively relevant. Maybe even war! Go patriotys

[CountPoopoo]

I <3 you too guys. I <3 you too...

[BigBlueBalls]

At 1/25/05 10:25 PM, BeFell wrote: That's idiotic.

Oh and by the way, we would obliterate them.

They got nukes too... if that is what you're referring too.

[CountPoopoo]

I just think everyone here is too compationate with their enemies.

[BeFell]

At 1/25/05 10:39 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: They got nukes too... if that is what you're referring too.

We have more hippie.

[BigBlueBalls]

At 1/25/05 10:49 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 1/25/05 10:39 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: They got nukes too... if that is what you're referring too.

We have more hippie.

Yeah but if they send hundreds of nukes all over the U.S., it doesn't matter how much you retaliate with, you're both fucked.

Learn the history of the cold war and why it was called the cold war. Neither Russia or the U.S. wanted to attack first because they both knew they could obliterate each other with nukes. Even if Russia only had half the amount or vice versa, it still gave enough incentive not to start a war.

[CountPoopoo]

Befell got pwnd twice, and this thread is junk.

[Memorize]

Are we being murdered in large numbers on a daily basis by our leader[s]?

[Demosthenez]

At 1/25/05 11:04 PM, CountPoopoo wrote: Befell got pwnd twice, and this thread is junk.

Its to bad you didnt realize that before you hit the post button :0

[BeFell]

At 1/25/05 10:52 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote:

At 1/25/05 10:49 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 1/25/05 10:39 PM, BigBlueBalls wrote: They got nukes too... if that is what you're referring too.

We have more hippie.

Yeah but if they send hundreds of nukes all over the U.S., it doesn't matter how much you retaliate with, you're both fucked.

And we would send thousands of nukes all over Europe my point is they would be more fucked.

Learn the history of the cold war and why it was called the cold war. Neither Russia or the U.S. wanted to attack first because they both knew they could obliterate each other with nukes. Even if Russia only had half the amount or vice versa, it still gave enough incentive not to start a war.

Hmm... perhaps that's why they wouldn't Euorope would never attack us. The topic starter (dumbass) made it sound as if Europe posed a big threat to the US. In reality they would be destroyed even if nukes weren't a factor.

[Professor-Burgees]

At 1/25/05 10:15 PM, CountPoopoo wrote: I'm not trying to show you what it would be like, i'm trying to show you thats what a lot of people over there think. This is how they feel, and you have to understand that.

Except that, you said only a few extremists (in your hypothetical example) accept the rule of the invaders, whereas that doesn't seem to be the case in Iraq. My personal perception is that its the few extremists who are doing the resisting. I base this view on my belief that if a large enough majority of the Iraqis were resisting, the Coalition troops would be taking much more of a mauling...

At 1/26/05 03:35 PM, Tal-con wrote:

At 1/25/05 09:52 PM, CountPoopoo wrote: stuff

What would you do? Do you understand what i'm trying to get through?

Yeah, i see what you're saying. You're comparing America to Iraq and England to America. But what would i do? Hmm... I'd join the insurgency against the UK to liberate ourselves from our European invaders !!

I think the Count was referring more to a European Coalition, rather than the UK taking on the role of the USA

At 1/26/05 03:43 PM, BeFell wrote: And we would send thousands of nukes all over Europe my point is they would be more fucked.

Unless you've been counting the numbers of nukes in the arsenals of America and the European countries recently, you have no basis for that statement

Hmm... perhaps that's why they wouldn't Euorope would never attack us. The topic starter (dumbass) made it sound as if Europe posed a big threat to the US. In reality they would be destroyed even if nukes weren't a factor.

Are you suggesting that America could obliterate the combined forces of Europe (who knows, with current global opinion of America we may even get support from elsewhere) in an "old style" ground conflict? Personally, I'm not so sure...

[CountPoopoo]

At 1/25/05 11:06 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote: Are we being murdered in large numbers on a daily basis by our leader[s]?

Who knows where all these "missing" go?
I'm not trying to give you an exact comparision, i'm just saying thats what the rebels feel like.

[tre-x]

At 1/26/05 07:04 PM, CountPoopoo wrote:

At 1/25/05 11:06 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote: Are we being murdered in large numbers on a daily basis by our leader[s]?

Who knows where all these "missing" go?
I'm not trying to give you an exact comparision, i'm just saying thats what the rebels feel like.

Of course, there's so much in common with America's government and the former Iraq. We have one man on the ballot (who wins with 104%!), two egomaniacal sons who own rape rooms, professional sports teams that get beaten for failure, and how could I forget the stoning of adulterers? And of course, or dictator executes us and rapes our mothers if we tell a joke about him being a bastard child, just like Saddam. Let's not forget the freedom of speech we both have! Iraqis were not allowed to speak out against the gov', like us!

[Proteas]

At 1/25/05 10:15 PM, CountPoopoo wrote: I'm not trying to show you what it would be like, i'm trying to show you thats what a lot of people over there think. This is how they feel, and you have to understand that.

And you know this is how the majority of them feel.... because of what?

[Draconias]

Although a few extremist gladly accepted the Europeans that tore down their government to create a true democracy, where everyone's vote was equal, most of the americans were opposed to being liberated and fought back furiously.

This is complete bullshit. You obviously have not been to Iraq nor even spoken to an Iraqi if you believe this. The true situation is that many non-Iraqis who are terrorists hate everyone and want to kill us for trying to help people, and also the Suni population is scared that they will face retribution from the Shiite majority population because Saddam was a Suni. So we have terrorists and we have people who are honestly scared that karma will find them.

Oh yeah, and America would pwn Europe because they know for a fact that we have thousands of times more nuclear weapons than them, complete air superiority, strong naval superiority, and an overwhelmingly good defensive position should we need it.

[Demosthenez]

At 1/26/05 04:17 PM, Professor_Burgees wrote: Are you suggesting that America could obliterate the combined forces of Europe (who knows, with current global opinion of America we may even get support from elsewhere) in an "old style" ground conflict? Personally, I'm not so sure...

Yes we would. Why? Because you couldnt get supplies here over the sea because our navy would obliterate yours. You dont have the air capacity to transport armor over here. And we dont spend all our money on the military so we can get beaten by a comparably sized area :/

[A-Carrot-By-Dr-Riot]

The US gave up on First Strike capability a short ways into the cold war. They realized it was much less expensive and just as effective to have a undefeatable Second Strike capability. If it came to the point of nuclear war, there is not much hope for anyone to be able to destroy our ballistic submarines and our air and possibly space based weapons.

[fastbow]

If this war actually happened, US retalitory strikes would turn Europe's soil into glass before the first wave even got here. The Eurotroopers would be taken out En Route by a series of blasts from HAARP. Russia would get pissed, and send her own missiles and HAARP-blasts. China would then send soldiers into the USA, to take over whatever was left. All of the Arab countries would go bezerk, and hit Israel with all available weapons, and Israel would respond in kind, and the Middle ERast would be so much glass. Then North Korea would invade the South, and Thailand would be overrun by all the local Dictatorships. By this time, we have mainly anarchy. Korea would be the last remaining power, and the majority of the planet would be uninhabitable. And, after five years, Bio- Chem- and Nuke- warheads will have rendered the Earth lifeless.

Effectively, all this post is is a map for WW3 and complete Anihillation..

[Deepeyes]

If it came to nukes it's dosen't make a damn diference that america has over 2000 and the EU has a few hundred, both sides would be TOTALY desimated, oh wait except for the ones in power. They will be in bunkers trying to comand rubble and dead. The US does have the largest military force no dought about that. But big enought to take on the combined nations of the EU? It's big but not that big. And saying "well blow then out of the water before they get to shore" is a bit short sighted. Do you honestly think the generals would send troops and forces over before they cleared the way? And you have to keep in mind that the US depends on oil from the rest of the world as the local reserves are very low and not nearly enough to supply the whole military force. It would be a war of attrition on oil, and the vast majority of the US army will be stopped in it's tracks. There would also be deep stirkes to take out power, water, dams GPS systems so on. making thier UAV's and GPS bombs useless, as well as bringing the whole efficientcy of the military down. Keep in mind the capital of the US is right on the cost facing the EU. Where as the EU is a collectin of countries meaning no centralised point to attack. But the US will have to go on the offecive and with the stealth advantage to take out key EU assets but each country in the EU will have it's own assets meaing the US would have to take out alot of targets. Now because of the range the only viable stealth bomber that can get to the EU is the B2 (or that we know of). I don't think these can be shot down in the air, but once they land they can be hit by guilded missials same can be said about the subs, they have a great stamina but they do have to dock sometime. During all this the US economey will start to fall, as it's very hard to export and import products and build things while the utilities are being targeted and destroyed all the time as well as all your shipping. The Eu also has an allie on the other cost in the form of Australia (and NZ but admitidly they can only really provide infantry). but this would hinder shipments to the US from the east. It isn't going to be storming the beaches of the coasts. It would be long drawn out war desingend to ruin the economey of the US and in turn the will of the people. There could or could not be a landing but i don't see it happeing early into the war. If it dose happen (whihc i don't think it will) i feel that the EU would just win but would suffer alot of destruction to it's facilities and it's economy, but by having sepertate countries and economies gives them a slight advantage.

P.S. I'm not american or from the EU. I have families in both sides of this hypothetical conflict. I'm just looking from the outside and giving my opinion. There is no dought that the US could take out 1 or 2 or even possibly 3 EU countries but all the EU together is not very possible.

[vonPluggeleburg]

we in the EU will let the Germans do the fighting so that no important country will get fucked..

[RedSkunk]

At 1/25/05 10:28 PM, TheShrike wrote: Interesting, but you're an asshole, so I'll crap up your topic with some non-sensical irrelevant garbage.

You're wrong.

[metalhead676]

At 1/25/05 10:25 PM, BeFell wrote: That's idiotic.

Oh and by the way, we would obliterate them.

k, all of the peopel that think your the only superpower on earth, if oyu blew a country to peices north korea, russia and iran would take action and kill you all.

[Demosthenez]

At 1/27/05 11:23 AM, Deepeyes wrote: They will be in bunkers trying to comand rubble and dead. The US does have the largest military force no dought about that. But big enought to take on the combined nations of the EU? It's big but not that big.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_exp_dol_fig_cap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_arm_for_per
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_tan

Ya we are. We are better equipped. Better trained. Lotta tanks. And our shit actually works, unlike Russias. Dont get me wrong, Russia has good tanks, they just cant make em. And Russia has lots of people in military Im pretty sure because of conscription.

And saying "well blow then out of the water before they get to shore" is a bit short sighted. Do you honestly think the generals would send troops and forces over before they cleared the way?

How, pry tell, do you think any European navy would take out and American Carrier fleet? Complete wiht all the bells and whistles? It aint gonna happen.

And you have to keep in mind that the US depends on oil from the rest of the world as the local reserves are very low and not nearly enough to supply the whole military force. It would be a war of attrition on oil, and the vast majority of the US army will be stopped in it's tracks.

Really... You ever heard of battening donw the hatches and making people live on rations? Thats what would happen. We have more than enough local reserves to handle military needs.

There would also be deep stirkes to take out power, water, dams GPS systems so on. making thier UAV's and GPS bombs useless, as well as bringing the whole efficientcy of the military down.

And, how, again, are these planes gonna get over US air space? If I remember, we have a better air force and there is no way in hell Europe would get a carrier fleet even remotely close to our coast.

Keep in mind the capital of the US is right on the cost facing the EU. Where as the EU is a collectin of countries meaning no centralised point to attack.

And that is their biggest weakness. How often do you think they have worked together? They train regularly and have a single command staff? Can you imagine the infigthing that would happen? Get Monty, De Gaulle, and Eisenhower x100. And DC isnt gonna be where the military leaders are gonna be.

:But the US will have to go on the offecive and with the stealth advantage to take out key EU assets but each country in the EU will have it's own assets meaing the US would have to take out alot of targets.

Not really, just rallying grounds, oil depots, train stations, bridges, power plants. A few accurate bombs can really bring a countries ability to defend itself to its knees.

Now because of the range the only viable stealth bomber that can get to the EU is the B2 (or that we know of).

Any bomber can get to EU, stealth or not. Heard of mid air refueling?

I don't think these can be shot down in the air, but once they land they can be hit by guilded missials same can be said about the subs, they have a great stamina but they do have to dock sometime.

And they are just gonna be sitting out on the docks and airfields for the pickings? Lol. Good one.

A bunch of lunacy.

Psst. We would control the seas. We have the biggest goddamn navy in the world. Not to mention by far the best equipped. The EU couldnt stop any imports, exports, get a batle fleet close to our coast, nor land (lol that one made me laugh) on our beaches.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mil_nav_per

This is not a Red Alert game. Cooperation and planning wins wars. Not shit (even though we do have the BEST shit). EU doesnt plan for a conflict. They are not as militaristicly minded as we are. Not expected. They would not beat us at our own game.

[BigBlueBalls]

At 1/26/05 03:43 PM, BeFell wrote: And we would send thousands of nukes all over Europe my point is they would be more fucked.

More fucked? You mean, it would be the end of the world, there's no such thing as "more fucked", when it comes to nuclear war. There are how many major cities in the U.S.? Europe has hundreds of nukes, so drop 2-3 per city and you'll completely finish off the U.S. The only thing left would be rural areas, while all your financial hubs would be destroyed, not to mention the onset all over the world of nuclear winter, then the end of life on this planet as we know it. When all the dust settled, all that would be left is a few starving people, who are dying from radiation poisoning. I don't see how being "more fucked" would make a difference, since we're all on the same planet that would be wiped out.

Hmm... perhaps that's why they wouldn't Euorope would never attack us. The topic starter (dumbass) made it sound as if Europe posed a big threat to the US. In reality they would be destroyed even if nukes weren't a factor.

If nukes weren't a factor, the U.S. would be even more hard up. You can't even hardly occupy Iraq, with 24 million people and they hardly had any army at all. How are you going to get the troops to occupy a continent of 450 million people? I'm not saying Europe could just kick the U.S. ass either, but you'd both have each other destroyed. It's not like you'd just destroy Europe, without watching the U.S. being destroyed as well.