north american union??

[sweet-n-saltynut]

ive heard on the news that there are discussions bout doing away with north american borders, free travel and free trade and a common currencry..... this agreement can be enacted without the approval of congress

has anyone heard of this besides me??

i dont know about anyone else , but im an american i want to spend dollars and watch basebll and all the other things wich make us americans

[Karzand]

At 12/20/06 12:59 PM, sweet-n-saltynut wrote:

i dont know about anyone else , but im an american i want to spend dollars and watch basebll and all the other things wich make us americans

I've never heard of this before but i'll think we'll use the Dollar. It'll be the N.A. dollar with pictures of N.A. leaders on it. Oh and other countries play baseball too.

[tawc]

At 12/20/06 12:59 PM, sweet-n-saltynut wrote: ive heard on the news that there are discussions bout doing away with north american borders, free travel and free trade and a common currencry..... this agreement can be enacted without the approval of congress

has anyone heard of this besides me??

i dont know about anyone else , but im an american i want to spend dollars and watch basebll and all the other things wich make us americans

I don't think it would be america losing it's culture,
Ii've heard about it recently, But I cannot see the point for either Canada or America.
Canada won't boost americas economy paticulaly, It will just make america a slightly bigger more powerful country, but not by much.
And Canada will lose it's Culture and it's recognition.
It's not like the EU were the countrys are similar size and no one countrys going to come out top dog.
A north american Union, the US is by far larger than Canada and canada will just be part of america.

Also theres only two countrys in north america. theres no point. Unless Mexico's going to be part of it in which case mexico will do well out of it by being a drain on the US and Canada.

[sweet-n-saltynut]

you make valid points but i dont want to be a ppart of any union.. amercia! first formost and forever

[Karzand]

At 12/20/06 01:41 PM, sweet-n-saltynut wrote: you make valid points but i dont want to be a ppart of any union.. amercia! first formost and forever

You're already in a Union it's called the United States

[sweet-n-saltynut]

At 12/20/06 01:49 PM, Karzand wrote:

You're already in a Union it's called the United States

yeah yeah no need to get technical i dont want my country the untied states to become a union with anyone else

[Karzand]

At 12/20/06 01:50 PM, sweet-n-saltynut wrote:

At 12/20/06 01:49 PM, Karzand wrote:

yeah yeah no need to get technical i dont want my country the untied states to become a union with anyone else

I'm with you buddy we should take over those other nations who's gonna stop us Canada's army, The army of Mexico, The UN HAHAHAHA

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA

[Ghost-Slyther]

Hurrah! I'm in North America! We should take over Russia and other nations! Nobody's gonna stop us! Not even Iraq's army!

USA!!!!

[zzzzd]

An attack on Canada would result in a war with the Commonwealth followed by the EU and I expect South america and Russia would happily join in.

America would be destroyed.

[random8982]

There's no point in taking either Mexico or Canada....they'd just be a drain on our economy. Mexico has nothing going for them and Canada is barely self sustaining.

But on the other hand, Mexico might be a dark horse in terms of benefit. One of the reasons Mexico is so poor is because everyone leaves Mexico to come to America for jobs, leaving a gaping hole in the Mexican employment agencies. If Mexico became part of the United States, then there would be no point for them to immigrate across the Texan border because they dhave all the benfits in of American in Mexico. On top of that, our technology would spread down to Mexico to push them father ahead. The only thing that would be an issue is the Massive amount of crime down there. But on the flip side of that, it means that criminals in the United States now have to run through Mexico before they can be 'free.'

[dySWN]

I would have to say no thanks to a North American Union. I like my national sovereignty, thank you very much, and I don't plan on giving it up any time soon to raise the stature of the frozen hinterlands and the land of burritos.

[Karzand]

At 12/20/06 02:09 PM, zzzzd wrote: An attack on Canada would result in a war with the Commonwealth followed by the EU and I expect South america and Russia would happily join in.

America would be destroyed.

Yeah i'm afraid of the British,they lost to us in 1776 they'll lose to us in 2006 . The combined military power commonwealth and South America really isn't that intimidating. Now EU/Russian involvement seems a bit unlikely(If we did invade Canada and Mexico are military would probaly be many times larger than it is now)

[Fucks-Funny]

At 12/20/06 09:58 PM, Karzand wrote:

At 12/20/06 02:09 PM, zzzzd wrote: An attack on Canada would result in a war with the Commonwealth followed by the EU and I expect South america and Russia would happily join in.

America would be destroyed.

Yeah i'm afraid of the British,they lost to us in 1776 they'll lose to us in 2006 . The combined military power commonwealth and South America really isn't that intimidating. Now EU/Russian involvement seems a bit unlikely(If we did invade Canada and Mexico are military would probaly be many times larger than it is now)

Canada's and Mexico's army combined is only at around 250,000. Russia's army alone is only a couple hundred thousand behind the American Army (not including reserves). If Russia were to combine forces with France, Germany, England, Italy, and Ukraine the force would be quite massive. Plus Russia still has more nuclear warheads than the rest of the world combined. Although I don't think Russia would get involved. EU maybe, but alone they won't win.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/20/06 02:09 PM, zzzzd wrote: An attack on Canada would result in a war with the Commonwealth followed by the EU and I expect South america and Russia would happily join in.

WRONG. You're just showing how naive you are.

First of all, the US doesn't even need to 'attack Canada' considering the US already controls Canada's military infrastructure and air defense command.

Not to mention the fact that Canada's military itself relies entirely on the US to transport them and assist them with satellite information, communications relay, and so forth. The only thing the US needs to do to take over Canada would be to land a few thousand troops in Ottawa.

America would be destroyed.

Thats a fucking laugh, you love to fantasize about such a thing don't you? But its just that, your own pathetic, vivid little fantasy that WOULD never, and COULD never happen.

- First of all, the Commonwealth is entirely dependent on the US for assistance as well. The US has bases in Australia, New Zealand, UK, and South Africa. The US military has a better strategic positioning in those countries than their own native military does! The US has more military bases in and around commonwealth nations than the commonwealth nations do themselves!

- The EU is almost entirely dependent on the US as well for military cooperation and the EU military cooperation is still weaker than the NATO alliance which the US leads and commands. Also, just like the Commonwealth, the US has more personnel, equipment, and bases in EU countries than the EU host nations have themselves.

- As for Russia, you actually think the Russians would risk a nuclear war to protect Canada, a nation they have almost no interest or stake in? Get a fucking clue. Russia wouldn't risk a war at all with the US, even if the US invaded nations right near it. Not to mention the fact that the US bases already surround Russia and the Russian navy, and airforce wouldn't even be able to come to the rescue to Canada before the US completely destroyed them.

- As for South America. Most South America nations are allied with the US. Only a few left-wing ones would even have the guts to speak out against the US. But they CERTAINLY wouldn't have the ability to do a damn thing militarily to defend Canada and attack the US. They don't even have the ability to project power outside of their borders.

If the US attacked Canada, the world would do nothing and could do nothing. Canada is just the retarded cousin of the US as far as the world is concerned, yeah Canada is nice sometimes and it tries hard to impress people, but its just one of those nations that would be better if they just never existed, like that disfigured retarded kid you know.

I find it funny how ignorant you are of what the real facts are in the world. Just keep your misguided fantasy about the the US being 'destroyed' because the ONLY chance that will ever happen is if the world itself is destroyed by nuclear war. Until then... live with the fact that no possible alliance of nations could ever actually threaten the US, because that is a fact. And live with the fact that Canada only exists because of the mercy of the US, if the US was as imperialistic as people like to claim, then the entire EU, Canada, and even Russia wouldn't even exist right now.

Live in reality, and go cry yourself to sleep.

[theDeity]

At 12/21/06 12:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Canada is just the retarded cousin of the US as far as the world is concerned

I find it funny how ignorant you are of what the real facts are in the world.

Live in reality

Your post amuses me. Please, take your own advice.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/21/06 12:13 AM, theDeity wrote:

At 12/21/06 12:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Canada is just the retarded cousin of the US as far as the world is concerned

I find it funny how ignorant you are of what the real facts are in the world.

Live in reality

Your post amuses me. Please, take your own advice.

Thanks for validating what I said. Its usually a sign that someone is wrong when all they can do is reply to a an entire thought-out post with something like "take your own advice".

In the meantime, you can't actually argue my points, so amuse me a little and actually try, instead of dodging the facts and resorting to the pathetic one-line reply you just made. Or, next time, if you're too uninformed to say anything, don't say anything at all and leave the big words to the big boys.

[theDeity]

At 12/21/06 12:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

:: - First of all, the Commonwealth is entirely dependent on the US for assistance as well. The US has bases in Australia, New Zealand, UK, and South Africa. The US military has a better strategic positioning in those countries than their own native military does! The US has more military bases in and around commonwealth nations than the commonwealth nations do themselves!

Proof please? Or are you just spewing "facts" out of your ass?

- The EU is almost entirely dependent on the US as well for military cooperation and the EU military cooperation is still weaker than the NATO alliance which the US leads and commands. Also, just like the Commonwealth, the US has more personnel, equipment, and bases in EU countries than the EU host nations have themselves.

Again, numbers please. Where are you getting your facts from?

- As for Russia, you actually think the Russians would risk a nuclear war to protect Canada, a nation they have almost no interest or stake in? Get a fucking clue. Russia wouldn't risk a war at all with the US, even if the US invaded nations right near it. Not to mention the fact that the US bases already surround Russia and the Russian navy, and airforce wouldn't even be able to come to the rescue to Canada before the US completely destroyed them.

True.

- As for South America. Most South America nations are allied with the US. Only a few left-wing ones would even have the guts to speak out against the US. But they CERTAINLY wouldn't have the ability to do a damn thing militarily to defend Canada and attack the US. They don't even have the ability to project power outside of their borders.

Wrong on the last count.

If the US attacked Canada, the world would do nothing and could do nothing. Canada is just the retarded cousin of the US as far as the world is concerned, yeah Canada is nice sometimes and it tries hard to impress people, but its just one of those nations that would be better if they just never existed, like that disfigured retarded kid you know.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fus eaction/viewItem/itemID/13758
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Do-People-Hate-Amer ica/dp/0971394253

I find it funny how ignorant you are of what the real facts are in the world. Just keep your misguided fantasy about the the US being 'destroyed' because the ONLY chance that will ever happen is if the world itself is destroyed by nuclear war. Until then... live with the fact that no possible alliance of nations could ever actually threaten the US, because that is a fact. And live with the fact that Canada only exists because of the mercy of the US, if the US was as imperialistic as people like to claim, then the entire EU, Canada, and even Russia wouldn't even exist right now.

You speak of facts but reveal none. Your logic astounds me.

Please. If you are considered one of the "big boys," then my respect for NG truly has taken a dip.

[theDeity]

At 12/21/06 12:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Thanks for validating what I said. Its usually a sign that someone is wrong when all they can do is reply to a an entire thought-out post with something like "take your own advice".

In the meantime, you can't actually argue my points, so amuse me a little and actually try, instead of dodging the facts and resorting to the pathetic one-line reply you just made. Or, next time, if you're too uninformed to say anything, don't say anything at all and leave the big words to the big boys.

Your post drips of hypocrisy. You accuse me of dodging the facts while strangely providing none yourself. You then try to reverse the burden of proof onto me, even though you are the one making the original claims. Then, to top it off, you reply with a series of ad hominem attacks against me, something you railed against just briefly before in the same paragraph.

Keep the laughs coming.

[Fucks-Funny]

At 12/21/06 12:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: - As for Russia, you actually think the Russians would risk a nuclear war to protect Canada, a nation they have almost no interest or stake in? Get a fucking clue. Russia wouldn't risk a war at all with the US, even if the US invaded nations right near it. Not to mention the fact that the US bases already surround Russia and the Russian navy, and airforce wouldn't even be able to come to the rescue to Canada before the US completely destroyed them.

US bases surround Russian bases? HAHAHAHA. Link? Russia has the best chances of surviving a nuclear war. For one, it has more missles than America and the rest of the World combined! Topol-M and Bulava are immune to any ABM system in existence or even in development, and American missile defense is a total joke. Not to mention your ICBM projects which still haven't picked up after their stall in the early 1990's.

[theDeity]

At 12/21/06 01:50 AM, Fucks-Funny wrote: US bases surround Russian bases? HAHAHAHA. Link? Russia has the best chances of surviving a nuclear war. For one, it has more missles than America and the rest of the World combined! Topol-M and Bulava are immune to any ABM system in existence or even in development, and American missile defense is a total joke. Not to mention your ICBM projects which still haven't picked up after their stall in the early 1990's.

He's not even worth replying to. Ronald Reagan was better at remembering facts than he is now.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/21/06 01:05 AM, theDeity wrote:

At 12/21/06 12:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

- First of all, the Commonwealth is entirely dependent on the US for assistance as well. The US has bases in Australia, New Zealand, UK, and South Africa. The US military has a better strategic positioning in those countries than their own native military does! The US has more military bases in and around commonwealth nations than the commonwealth nations do themselves!

Proof please? Or are you just spewing "facts" out of your ass?

- The EU is almost entirely dependent on the US as well for military cooperation and the EU military cooperation is still weaker than the NATO alliance which the US leads and commands. Also, just like the Commonwealth, the US has more personnel, equipment, and bases in EU countries than the EU host nations have themselves.

Again, numbers please. Where are you getting your facts from?

First of all I study Military Science. Also its a well know fucking fact that the NATO, EU, and Mutual fefense signatories all rely on the US for military aide and the US more bases in these alliance blocks than the native countries themselves. Its also a well know fact that the US is years and years ahead of Europe in military technology.

The US leads the world in power projection exponentionally. The US is THE ONLY country in the world that can commit troops to foreign regions independent of other nations, and can fight multiple simultaneous, large-scale region wars.

European countries can't even operate independently from the US because their entire GPS infrastructure is supplied by US satellites.

Do some fucking research you uneducated fool.

Then read a few things:

http://www.kelebekler.com/occ/bas_gb.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.h tm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/gali leo/doc/gal_european_dependence_on_gps_rev22. pdf

You speak of facts but reveal none. Your logic astounds me.

Everything I said was a fact. You're just too delusional and insecure to admit it.

And did you provide any proof to contradict what I said? No.

Get a grip on reality dipshit.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/21/06 01:50 AM, Fucks-Funny wrote:

At 12/21/06 12:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: - As for Russia, you actually think the Russians would risk a nuclear war to protect Canada, a nation they have almost no interest or stake in? Get a fucking clue. Russia wouldn't risk a war at all with the US, even if the US invaded nations right near it. Not to mention the fact that the US bases already surround Russia and the Russian navy, and airforce wouldn't even be able to come to the rescue to Canada before the US completely destroyed them.

US bases surround Russian bases? HAHAHAHA. Link?

http://www.kelebekler.com/occ/bas_gb.htm

The US has bases in Eastern Europe, Afghanstian, and Asia. Meanwhile Russia only has a few foreign bases that aren't even near the US you fucking moron. Hell almost ALL of the former Soviet satellite are now US ALLIES with American personnel in their country.

Russia has the best chances of surviving a nuclear war.

WRONG. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about you pathetic, uneducated loser.

Russians entire military, let alone its nuclear arsenal, is degrading into ruins.

For one, it has more missles than America and the rest of the World combined!

Link?

But I already know you're wrong you fucking retard. Russia has more WARHEADS, but it DOESN'T have more missiles because they don't have the MONEY to maintain them because their shitty economy can't support it.

Besides, Russians sell their old warheads to the US for nuclear fuel for reactors.

Topol-M and Bulava are immune to any ABM system in existence or even in development

Thats only what the Russians claim you retard. Those systems haven't even been brought into service to any significant degree because the Russians can't fucking afford it.

and American missile defense is a total joke. Not to mention your ICBM projects which still haven't picked up after their stall in the early 1990's.

Link? But its funny you say that considering almost ALL of Russians nuclear weapons haven't been upgraded since the fall of the Soviet union.

Dude you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're obviously either just pulling nonsense out of your ass.

In a nuclear war between Russia and the US, both Russia and the US would be destroyed. Russian wouldn't fucking survive. But the US is LIGHTYEARS ahead of the Russia in EVERYTHING militarily. Russia doesn't even have a functioning aircraft carrier in servce. Russia has no stealth aircraft, Russia has NO missile defense whatsoever. Russia's aircraft industry is a fucking joke, their ground forces are a rusting ruiness laughing stock, and all their current research projects are designed for FOREIGN SALES, because their own country can't afford to by their own weapons, they have to sell it to other nations. And even then, their recent weapon developement is years, and years behind the US.

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

[cellardoor6]

Oh and heres a link regarding US bases surrounding Russia.

http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight /articles/pp121105.shtml

[cellardoor6]

Oh and heres another one

http://www.cdi.org/russia/200-12.cfm

and another one regarding Russians shitty nuclear deterrent.

http://www.cdi.org/dm/2000/issue8/nmdrussia.h tml

[theDeity]

At 12/21/06 12:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

First of all I study Military Science. Also its a well know fucking fact that the NATO, EU, and Mutual fefense signatories all rely on the US for military aide and the US more bases in these alliance blocks than the native countries themselves. Its also a well know fact that the US is years and years ahead of Europe in military technology.

The US leads the world in power projection exponentionally. The US is THE ONLY country in the world that can commit troops to foreign regions independent of other nations, and can fight multiple simultaneous, large-scale region wars.

European countries can't even operate independently from the US because their entire GPS infrastructure is supplied by US satellites.

:http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/gal ileo/doc/gal_european_dependence_on_gps_rev22 .pdf

By the article's own account, GPS can be disabled and, "GPS jamming does not require complex equipment." It also goes on to explain that the national transportation infrastructure would be crippled if it lost GPS. If one side can't have it, neither can the other, I guess.

Not to mention the European's have something called GALILEO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

Here's a little nugget of wisdom for next time: Don't link Wikipedia. It's not reliable or accurate.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facili ty/eucom.htm

Read that. Most of the information is irrelevant, but I'm sure you'll figure out what the important bit is.

By the way, total number of regular Armed Forces personnel in the British Army is 180, 690. Of course, many are serving abroad, but keep in mind this is only the British Army, we're forgetting the rest of the EU.

Obviously your comment about the US having more equipment in the EU is false as well.

Indeed, the US military does have a number of bases in various foreign countries. But if a war were to break out, these bases would be easily overrun by their host countries. They would play a laughably small factor if a war were to occur.

"US military has a better strategic positioning in those countries than their own native military does!"

Proof please.

[Fucks-Funny]

At 12/21/06 02:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: http://www.kelebekler.com/occ/bas_gb.htm

The US has bases in Eastern Europe, Afghanstian, and Asia. Meanwhile Russia only has a few foreign bases that aren't even near the US you fucking moron. Hell almost ALL of the former Soviet satellite are now US ALLIES with American personnel in their country.

America has bases in 9 out of 15 former Soviet republics, Russia has China's full support. The former Soviet republics are forcing NATO to leave. Retard, read what happened in Ukraine.

WRONG. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about you pathetic, uneducated loser.

Russians entire military, let alone its nuclear arsenal, is degrading into ruins.

Topol-M

Topol-M

But I already know you're wrong you fucking retard. Russia has more WARHEADS, but it DOESN'T have more missiles because they don't have the MONEY to maintain them because their shitty economy can't support it.

Russian economy is shit? Yea it was in an economic depression, but now Russia is the second largest distributor of oil and the first distributor of natural gas.

Obviously you know nothing about Russia's economy.

Russian economy

Topol-M and Bulava are immune to any ABM system in existence or even in development

Thats only what the Russians claim you retard. Those systems haven't even been brought into service to any significant degree because the Russians can't fucking afford it.

That's because they were the only ones who have tested the missile retard.

and American missile defense is a total joke. Not to mention your ICBM projects which still haven't picked up after their stall in the early 1990's.

Link? But its funny you say that considering almost ALL of Russians nuclear weapons haven't been upgraded since the fall of the Soviet union.

Topol-M entered service AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Dude you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. You're obviously either just pulling nonsense out of your ass.

In a nuclear war between Russia and the US, both Russia and the US would be destroyed. Russian wouldn't fucking survive. But the US is LIGHTYEARS ahead of the Russia in EVERYTHING militarily. Russia doesn't even have a functioning aircraft carrier in servce. Russia has no stealth aircraft, Russia has NO missile defense whatsoever. Russia's aircraft industry is a fucking joke, their ground forces are a rusting ruiness laughing stock, and all their current research projects are designed for FOREIGN SALES, because their own country can't afford to by their own weapons, they have to sell it to other nations. And even then, their recent weapon developement is years, and years behind the US.

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

You should read up on Russian economy before you argue about it.

Su-37 has stealth capabilities, it is also the most maneuverable aircraft in the world.

No missile defence? S-400 has twice the range of your patriot system.

S-400

Russia's economy has just picked up, and it is developing it's 5th generation tank and 5th generation fighter.

You keep saying that Russia is shit and Russia is gone, why the fuck is US trying to position bases around Russia then? You're a fucking moron.

America falling

[cellardoor6]

At 12/21/06 03:02 AM, theDeity wrote:

At 12/21/06 12:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

First of all I study Military Science. Also its a well know fucking fact that the NATO, EU, and Mutual fefense signatories all rely on the US for military aide and the US more bases in these alliance blocks than the native countries themselves. Its also a well know fact that the US is years and years ahead of Europe in military technology.

The US leads the world in power projection exponentionally. The US is THE ONLY country in the world that can commit troops to foreign regions independent of other nations, and can fight multiple simultaneous, large-scale region wars.

European countries can't even operate independently from the US because their entire GPS infrastructure is supplied by US satellites.

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/gal ileo/doc/gal_european_dependence_on_gps_rev22 .pdf

By the article's own account, GPS can be disabled and, "GPS jamming does not require complex equipment." It also goes on to explain that the national transportation infrastructure would be crippled if it lost GPS. If one side can't have it, neither can the other, I guess.

You don't understand what you're talking about. The US has civilian GPS that it allows Europe to use for civilian purposes. Then the US has military GPS that is protected against EMP, and is what the US uses when it leads joint NATO military operations. The US doesn't share this technology with other nations, and is the sole controller of it.

Not to mention the European's have something called GALILEO.

Um no they don't. Its not even planned to be in service until 2010. Its just a program with a few functioning aspects. Learn how to read.

Its also rife with all sorts of FUNDING PROBLEMS. Hell GALILEO even got hacked by American college students.

I wonder how well the Europeans would coordinate a war A) when their GPS that America controls gets shut off to them B) their pathetic excuse for GPS doesn't even work yet or C) if it does function, it can't even survive because American college students even cracked its codes.

Nice try buddy.

Here's a little nugget of wisdom for next time: Don't link Wikipedia. It's not reliable or accurate.

Thats why you read the links it provides. Besides, it wasn't making factual claims, it was providing theories about force projeciton and military superpower status after CITING claimed sources.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facili ty/eucom.htm

Read that. Most of the information is irrelevant, but I'm sure you'll figure out what the important bit is.

ERROR 404

I had to fix the 'facili ty' portion of the URL to make it work there buddy.

Besides, all that mentions is the fact that the US is spreading its forces out by redeploying some US forces out of Europe. This is actually a sign that the US military is getting more power, therefore it requires less numbers of forces in certain countries to fulfill a force projection capability.

The goals in Eucom (The US European Command center) haven't changed. Its just that some of the forces their are unnecessary to provide the oroginal intended force power. This is just because the US military is getting more powerful through recent use of more technologically advanced systems (I.E. Force Multipliers)

By the way, total number of regular Armed Forces personnel in the British Army is 180, 690. Of course, many are serving abroad, but keep in mind this is only the British Army, we're forgetting the rest of the EU.

Yes, but the British Military and the French Military are the ONLY European militaries that have force projection capability. And evne then, combined it is only a small fraction of what the US has.

Together, France and Britain only have 4 functioning Aircraft carriers. The US has 12 (which are much bigger) and has over 30 Amphibious assault ships that are actually larger than the British and French aircraft carriers and hold more airplanes, while the Uk only has 6 amphibious assault ships. (don't ask for links do a quick fucking google search).

The US military is many, many times more powerful than the combined European powers in force projection. Europe wouldn't even be able to strike at the mainland US, they don't have the cability because their naval forces are small, they lack strategic bombs, and the little navies they have are vastly inferior to the US navy.

If you don't understand that by now, then you are in serious need of an education.

Obviously your comment about the US having more equipment in the EU is false as well.

No its not.

Indeed, the US military does have a number of bases in various foreign countries. But if a war were to break out, these bases would be easily overrun by their host countries. They would play a laughably small factor if a war were to occur.

Dude you don't know what you're talking about. The US controls Europes GPS systems, and its military communications (read your own link you provided).

They would NOT be able to overrun the US bases because the US military is ridiculously more powerful, and is still situationed to repell the Soviet Union! And you think the pathetic European militaries would be able to 'overrun' them?

Give me a break.

"US military has a better strategic positioning in those countries than their own native military does!"

Proof please

Thats an educated decision and a commonly held view. You can't provide a source to an intangible concept. But when you actually have educated contextual information, its quite obvious. I don't need to provide a source that says "The US is more powerful than El Salvador" but it is a known fact is it not?

If you look at the numbers, if you look the fact that the US is already IN EUROPE, the US controls their GPS, and that the European countries lack the means to project force to mainland US, its quite fucking obvious. Not to mention the fact that the US has vastly superior technology, training, more and better equipment, and is the sole military power in the world to have stealth aircraft, missile defense, supercarriers, and so forth.

You need to admit it already because you're just embarassing yourself from here on. Read the fucking links and do some of your own research before you reply because your lack of information is just disappointing me now.

It is a simple, commonly held fact that the US military is vastly more powerful than the combined EU forces. The US has closer military relationships with most of these nations individually than they even do to the EU.

Get a grip on reality buddy.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/21/06 03:17 AM, Fucks-Funny wrote:

At 12/21/06 02:18 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: http://www.kelebekler.com/occ/bas_gb.htm

The US has bases in Eastern Europe, Afghanstian, and Asia. Meanwhile Russia only has a few foreign bases that aren't even near the US you fucking moron. Hell almost ALL of the former Soviet satellite are now US ALLIES with American personnel in their country.

America has bases in 9 out of 15 former Soviet republics, Russia has China's full support.

Link or its bullshit.

The former Soviet republics are forcing NATO to leave. Retard, read what happened in Ukraine.

Link or its bullshit

WRONG. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about you pathetic, uneducated loser.

Russians entire military, let alone its nuclear arsenal, is degrading into ruins.

Topol-M

Topol-M

Haha you can't even reply to the actual fact you just provide links that are irrelevant.

Nice job imbecile. You make me laugh.

But I already know you're wrong you fucking retard. Russia has more WARHEADS, but it DOESN'T have more missiles because they don't have the MONEY to maintain them because their shitty economy can't support it.

Russian economy is shit? Yea it was in an economic depression, but now Russia is the second largest distributor of oil and the first distributor of natural gas.

Yet its people live in Ruins, the Russian GDP per capita is lower than fucking Mexico. In case you don't know what that means, it means that the money that Russians make per person, per year is less than in Mexico. And the Russian GDP per capita is $37,000 less than in the US.

Obviously you know nothing about Russia's economy.

Obviously its you who knows nothing about Russias economy

Like I said before, Russians economy is shit. Haha there are only a little over 1 million Russians with the internet.

Haha.

Topol-M and Bulava are immune to any ABM system in existence or even in development

Thats only what the Russians claim you retard. Those systems haven't even been brought into service to any significant degree because the Russians can't fucking afford it.

That's because they were the only ones who have tested the missile retard.

The missile hasn't even functioned yet retard. Its just another example of how the Russians make up lies about their defense systems to attract buyers. Just like the famed "back eagle" tank that never even produced a finished product.

and American missile defense is a total joke. Not to mention your ICBM projects which still haven't picked up after their stall in the early 1990's.

Link? But its funny you say that considering almost ALL of Russians nuclear weapons haven't been upgraded since the fall of the Soviet union.

Topol-M entered service AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Um the russians only deployed 42 of them you fucking moron.

Like that makes a differnce with the the fact that the US has 6000 ICMBS targeting your country with multiple warheads.

You're so fucking stupid you think that just a few brand-new ICMBs makes any difference in a full-scale war.

Get a clue dipshit.

You should read up on Russian economy before you argue about it.

Su-37 has stealth capabilities, it is also the most maneuverable aircraft in the world.

First of all, only 2 Su-37s have been built you fucking retard. Secondly, Maneuvarability means NOTHING in modern air warfare you fucking retard. Dog fighting doesn't happen anymore. The vastly superior American warplanes don't even need to see enemy fighters to shoot them down, its all down the the VASTLY superior American technology in radar and radar-relay from AWACS airplanes that can be over 500 miles away.

No missile defence? S-400 has twice the range of your patriot system.

S-400

Russia's economy has just picked up, and it is developing it's 5th generation tank and 5th generation fighter.

Haha you're so naive its cute actually. Russias economy and military are in fucking ruins, and you have the audacity to use their futile programs that haven't even produced usable equipment as some sort of denial of that?

You keep saying that Russia is shit and Russia is gone, why the fuck is US trying to position bases around Russia then? You're a fucking moron.

Just because Russia is shit doesn't mean that we should go easy on Russia. The US shouldn't just decide not to use anything to its advantage in a future possible war with Russia just becase their military and economy are shit.

Besides, one of the reasons that the US military bases around Russia is because Russia isn't stable. It is very possible that the Russian regime could fall soon, and the US needs to be in the region in force to make sure a transfer of power goes smoothly. Just when the US moderated the dismantling of the Soviet Union.

America falling

Yeah, in your dreams buddy.

[zzzzd]

At 12/21/06 01:58 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/21/06 01:05 AM, theDeity wrote:

At 12/21/06 12:08 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

- First of all, the Commonwealth is entirely dependent on the US for assistance as well. The US has bases in Australia, New Zealand, UK, and South Africa. The US military has a better strategic positioning in those countries than their own native military does! The US has more military bases in and around commonwealth nations than the commonwealth nations do themselves!

Those countrys ALLOW america to have bases there otherwise america would be to far away from the rest of the world. If Britain needed bases in america they could have them but theres no point, theres no real threats in the americas and anyway Britain and other european nations have plenty of islands around the americas with large naval bases.

- The EU is almost entirely dependent on the US as well for military cooperation and the EU military cooperation is still weaker than the NATO alliance which the US leads and commands. Also, just like the Commonwealth, the US has more personnel, equipment, and bases in EU countries than the EU host nations have themselves.

Those paticular bases would be quickly captured seeing as there shared with european forces. And america doesnt have nearly as many military bases in europe as euripean forces you misguided dick.

First of all I study Military Science. Also its a well know fucking fact that the NATO, EU, and Mutual fefense signatories all rely on the US for military aide and the US more bases in these alliance blocks than the native countries themselves. Its also a well know fact that the US is years and years ahead of Europe in military technology.

They don't though, Some EU countrys are helped and train with the US forces, But don't rely on them.

The US leads the world in power projection exponentionally. The US is THE ONLY country in the world that can commit troops to foreign regions independent of other nations, and can fight multiple simultaneous, large-scale region wars.

The EU could fight multiple large wars at the same time as well, Britain could fight one, france another, both countrys have Good power projection

Then read a few things:

http://www.kelebekler.com/occ/bas_gb.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0115-08.h tm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/gali leo/doc/gal_european_dependence_on_gps_rev22. pdf

lol And note that in Super Power the EU is the nearest thing to a second super power.
And in Power Projection, The Only real example of true power projection in the last 30 years is the British army in the Falklands war.

The A war between the US an the EU would be a huge long war. And Europe has pratically better relations with almost every country. Also Only Britain and France spend the same percentage on Military as the US. In the EU as a whole they only spend 1% on Military were as america spends 3% If the EU wanted they could easily build a military far superior to the americans, But thers no point as it's already big enough to scare away any threats and the EU has good relations with the word anyway.

Also Economically the US relys on the EU more than the EU relys on the US,

[Makaio]

At 12/20/06 01:39 PM, tawb wrote:
Canada won't boost americas economy paticulaly, It will just make america a slightly bigger more powerful country, but not by much.
And Canada will lose it's Culture and it's recognition.
A north american Union, the US is by far larger than Canada and canada will just be part of america.

by far larger than Canada eh?
Canada is in-fact 300,000 square km larger than the US, it being the second largest country in the world so it would more than double the landmass, and what do you mean would be part of America? it's a north American union not a us takeover.

yet another example of American arrogant ignorance.