I was wondering why the world does not unite and simply attack us and destroy our government? If all that was said about the US on this board is true, from intentionally poisoning the water in iraq and starving them to death, to voter fraud and carpet bombing sleeping civilians, I think the world, led by the UN, would be well within thieir rights to attack and overthrow the government so we could no longer do any more damage to the peaceful nations of the world who are simply trying to live in freedom, such as Iraq and afghanistan.

If somehow the UN did get a set of nuts and actually did something like give an ultimatum for Bush to leave office or be removed by a coalition of forces from Russia, China, France, germany, and others, would there be popular support for it in the US? how many of you would take up arms either to help the UN oust the Bush regime or to fight the UN invaders? Do you think such an invasion could succeed? what would you do?

I would fight to save our country and most others would do the same regardless of right or left.

so you would take up arms to protect George Bush?

Originally posted by Travh20
I was wondering why the world does not unite and simply attack us and destroy our government?

I believe that one day, they will feel their only chance at survival will be to try just that.

Originally posted by Travh20
If all that was said about the US on this board is true, from intentionally poisoning the water in iraq and starving them to death, to voter fraud and carpet bombing sleeping civilians, I think the world, led by the UN, would be well within thieir rights to attack and overthrow the government so we could no longer do any more damage to the peaceful nations of the world ...

Evidently, you have succeeded at totally blinding yourself to the truth of those U.S. actions you mention above.

Originally posted by Travh20
If somehow the UN did get a set of nuts and actually did something like give an ultimatum for Bush to leave office or be removed by a coalition of forces.....

An odd hypothesis, given that the US is such a powerful force in influencing the direction the U.N. takes.

I am reminded of a very cogent remark concerning the United Nations that I read on the web a while back....

""The uniquely American fondness for criticizing (and inciting fear of) the UN is quite extraordinary. It is the height of hypocrisy, for no country has had its interests served better by the UN than the United States. The arrogance of it is astounding. Remember America sneering over the rights of Angola, Cameroon, and Guinea to use their rotations on the Security Council to pass judgment about Iraq? (No such sneering when senators from the microscopic states of Rhode Island or Delaware threaten to block a piece of legislation on Capitol Hill, however) As Dag Hammarskjold famously said,-- "The UN was not created to take humanity to heaven but to save it from hell.""

I'd pick up arms to stop the invaders. President Bush is my elected president, and the likes of commie bred chi-coms, russkies, and frogs wouldn't take him down without mushroom clouds eating their respective populations by the tens of millions. Iow - EVERYONE DIES.

Originally posted by Freethinker
I believe that one day, they will feel their only chance at survival will be to try just that.



Evidently, you have succeeded at totally blinding yourself to the truth of those U.S. actions you mention above.



An odd hypothesis, given that the US is such a powerful force in influencing the direction the U.N. takes.

I am reminded of a very cogent remark concerning the United Nations that I read on the web a while back....

""The uniquely American fondness for criticizing (and inciting fear of) the UN is quite extraordinary. It is the height of hypocrisy, for no country has had its interests served better by the UN than the United States. The arrogance of it is astounding. Remember America sneering over the rights of Angola, Cameroon, and Guinea to use their rotations on the Security Council to pass judgment about Iraq? (No such sneering when senators from the microscopic states of Rhode Island or Delaware threaten to block a piece of legislation on Capitol Hill, however) As Dag Hammarskjold famously said,-- "The UN was not created to take humanity to heaven but to save it from hell.""

evidently you have decided to ignore the questions and give us yet more quotes that didnt come from you

Yes I would take up arms to protect my family, my country and my president -- even though ...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000866232

Originally posted by Travh20
evidently you have decided to ignore the questions

Correct.

Perhaps I was thrown off by the "whut if the UN got a set of nuts" section of the poll.

I would readily take up arms and join in a unit to evict any and all invaders to this great nation, by whatever means necessary, protecting whoever the sitting President of the United States is at the time.

perhaps you should go back to your university where you can recieve evrything in the proper form, damn prima donna

I would fight to protect this country but I wouldn't raise a finger to protect or help heir bush remain in office. If it meant moving to another country than I would do just that. I love America but I hate what it is becoming under bush's fascist regime. Remove him and his neocon outlook from our government and we may have a chance of turning this country around. It his ilk stays in power, gawd help us all. Including our allies, enemies and nuetral governments on this planet.

The governments you mentioned (with the exception of China) are all democracy's or growing twords democracy. Politics swings like pendalums. We are moving twords fascism while the rest of the world is moving twords democracy. Where would you want to live if the democratic countries of the world gave heir bush an ultimatum? Under the bush like regime for the rest of your life or in an already established or growing democracy?

If you sheople are as ignorant and unable to think for yourselfs as you come across then this entire planet is destined to ruin.

I am not sure but i think echo just said she would move, I couldn't tell with all of her played "heir Bush" references and fake intellectualism. So far we have Dop, praetorian and ES staying and fighting, freethinker going to analyze himself for a while longer, and echo moving to a real free country like china. Anyone else?

Originally posted by Travh20
I am not sure but i think echo just said she would move, I couldn't tell with all of her played "heir Bush" references and fake intellectualism. So far we have Dop, praetorian and ES staying and fighting, freethinker going to analyze himself for a while longer, and echo moving to a real free country like china. Anyone else?

Apparantly you can't read or just enjoy lieing. I said nothing about moving to China. I didn't even insinuate it. Try again. Your lies are getting more and more transparant as time goes on.

how many of you would take up arms either to help the UN oust the Bush regime or to fight the UN invaders?

You've overdosed on too many John Wayne flicks! :@@:

I have never actually seen a John wayne movie. or if you would like a echo response "your a fucking liar, I have never seen a john wayne film, damn sky fairy fascist quit destroying my first ammendment rights"

Would the UN attack the whole country or just try to kill Bushie-Tushie, though? I mean, sure, let the people suffer so Bushie can learn a lesson. But, it seems easier to just kill the bum...but that's hard...

Hmm if the UN invaded I would think it was lucky that I moved to Costa Rica just in the nick of time. Anyways, I don't think it's likely, but the U.S. is declining I think. All empires must fall right?

i would stay and fight

The UN invade the US? That is so retarded it doesn't dignify an intelligent response, sooo. Blararghalablamoooreafarchleandoooo

Originally posted by Blibblob
Blararghalablamoooreafarchleandoooo
Jeb Bush, you give Blib his account back this instant!

Why would they bother trying to take us over. Just leave it to our gov't to drive us into a state of demise. If we run into the world with a macho attitude and armed with bazookas what else can you expect? One day it must end, and the truths of all this "war" on terrorism will be released, and the war mungers will be left with nothing but their balls to hold.

heh
I was wondering why the world does not unite and simply attack us and destroy our government? Because most of the world "leaders" are just as corrupt and despotic as here. We just have longer range and are more efficient.

UN attack?
Me and my friends would probably stake out 20 acres in the remote NW and shot anyone in a uniform that came near the place.

I think its a silly question.

Originally posted by DrewM
I think its a silly question.
Bingo.

There are better uses for testosterone..........when coupled with maturity (obviously lacking here).

I have another question :
If boy-scouts had secretly built a deadly force of nuclear bombers and suddenly attacked your neighborhood, what would you try save first :
- your cat ?
- your computer ?
- your car ?

Oh, and another :
If swimming pool cleaners turned out to be communist agents, would you report them to your local sheriff or try to eliminate them on your own ?

If 10 000 kittens tried to get to your fridge and take your beer cans, would you set up a citizens militia ?

England would be buggered in that our relations with our fellow european countries isnt amazing and with America as an official enemy we would be like sideless.

Being that we are a second home for any illegal immigrant we might be able to rally some troops from the middleeast on promise of a new home and a corner shop if we win.

Im no expert clearly, however id say the most likely thing would be a civil war between the Left wing, right wing thing and perhaps a divide of state maybe. Like the RUSA and LUSA lol.

if you think its stupid then just dont say anything, we dont need your 2 cents telling us its stupid. Who is more stupid, the post or the one who has to pipe in and say its stupid?

If you think his saying that it is stupid is stupid, then just dont say anything. We dont need you piping in to tell us that the person who says it was stupid is himself stupid. Who is more stupid, the person who said it was stupid, or the person who said to the person who said it was stupid --"Hey, don't say it's stupid"......??

See how stupid that was, stupid??

Originally posted by astrapol2
I have another question :
If boy-scouts had secretly built a deadly force of nuclear bombers and suddenly attacked your neighborhood, what would you try save first :
- your cat ?
- your computer ?
- your car ?

Oh, and another :
If swimming pool cleaners turned out to be communist agents, would you report them to your local sheriff or try to eliminate them on your own ?

If 10 000 kittens tried to get to your fridge and take your beer cans, would you set up a citizens militia ?


LMAO! :D

Originally posted by astrapol2
If 10 000 kittens tried to get to your fridge and take your beer cans, would you set up a citizens militia ?

I would set up a militia and defend my beer. Nobody fucks with my Budwieser! Kill the kitties, they have weapons of mass destruction....and they don't believe in the christian god. Damn fuzz heads, I have intellegence reports that they are training other kitties to steal more beer and are sending money to the ASPCA to recruit even more kitties into their evil plot. We must attack now, before there is a mushroom cloud over my refridgerator and all my beer is gone. Death to all kitties.

fine, excuse me all to hell for trying to get some new topics in here. I guess we are reduced to gay marriage and Bush bashing for the rest of eternity.

Originally posted by Echo2
I would set up a militia and defend my beer. Nobody fucks with my Budwieser! Kill the kitties, they have weapons of mass destruction....and they don't believe in the christian god. Damn fuzz heads, I have intellegence reports that they are training other kitties to steal more beer and are sending money to the ASPCA to recruit even more kitties into their evil plot. We must attack now, before there is a mushroom cloud over my refridgerator and all my beer is gone. Death to all kitties.

ROTFL.

Sounds like you have the Bushco cavacade of convenient LIES well memorized......Bravo!

""Kill them durty wrong-gawd evil doers before they, out of jealousy!!, kill all of uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuus!!!!!""

Don't take the bait trav ... stay on topic with your post ... it's a good one and entertaining too. I'd like to see more 'what if' posts.

If people don't want to participate ... they don't have to.

I have to admit, when I read the question I was a little surprised and thought it was a silly scenario, but as Dop pointed out - it's a 'what if' thread, so who really gives a shit?

Btw, Dop - you handled your last response beautifully. You could have, given the circumstances, ripped Trav a new one, but instead you opted to be level headed. You just upped the respect ante by a lot, and that's really big of you.

thanks guys, I appreciate your support, good to see some people still have a little imagination left on this board

I have to admit, when I read the question I was a little surprised and thought it was a silly scenario, but as Dop pointed out - it's a 'what if' thread, so who really gives a shit?
"What if"s are generally grounded in reality and thoroughly possible depending on a route taken. "What if" statements are often logically thought out and make sense to the average person. Anything other is often considered childish, pointless and often elicits groans from any person above an IQ of 80. Now, we know that trav is usually neither grounded in reality nor capable of producing logical thought, therefore much couldn't be expected. However, after seeing the subject created, all possible bounds of a human's imagination were crossed, which created what could possibly be one of the dumbest threads we've seen since Shaman used to post like child wetting his pants.

I apologize for not meeting your strict "what if" guidlines your highness :rolleyes: I do understand how a post actually suggesting the UN do anything could pretty hard to comprehend though. In reality it would be "what if the UN had a summit and passed a resolution agianst the US"

The biggest mistake one can make in warfare is assuming something can't or won't happen; IOW, underestimating your opponent.

Ask Poland and Czechoslovakia how all that stuff works.

So given history, it's not entirely out of the questiont that a UN type force would attack the US.

Astra -

1. The computer. The cats should be smart enough to escape from an open door.

2. I have a pool? Why the fuck didnt anyone tell me?

3. I would set up a series of landmines to take care of those bastards...

dont worry about it dop, its clear we all know that assuming the UN would ever take any action without the US lighting a fire under its ass is a complete fantasy. I appreciate your effort though, it is appreciated.

Assuming the UN stays the UN yer probably right but let's say the UN becomes marginalized in place of a coalition of EU countries, Russia, China and throw in couple of others ... maybe Brazil.

Suddenly all bets are off ...

dop, its hard enough to get these people to try and imagine the UN doing it, throwing in a complely made up coalition would be way out of their league.

Astropol's posts sum it up - those posts would be exactly the same type of question.

Couple of things come to mind trav ...

They don't know history
They're afraid of what they don't understand

if dop and I can form an alliance in this thread, I say anything is possible

if dop and I can form an alliance in this thread, I say anything is possible
Good point.

However, a full onslaught by any group of countries against the US for the same reasons any attack against the USSR wont work. We have nukes, and I'm sure that if US soil was under assault we would be dumb enough to use them. No sane group of countries would take that chance. Especially not the UN. Not only would the US know of it before hand, it's quite possible we'd veto it. The UN can't "grow balls" without breaking quite a few of it's ideals(national soverginity, etc.).

Originally posted by Blibblob
We have nukes, and I'm sure that if US soil was under assault we would be dumb enough to use them.

Am i correct in thinking that your nukes would have to be launched, and if the entire European nations along with China etc launched war on you, those nukes would be blown out of the air before they left US airspace? Thus spreading all the crap that was in them across your country.

Not being funny but if they "really" were going to go to war with you wouldnt they just internally nuke specific targets within the us beforehand and then the US would have to implement some kind of Damage limitation by surrendering,

You would have a good portion of Canada against you with the whole French thing, and giving the option of "Join us or die with them" im assuming Canada would side with the UN.

Look at the Twin Towers episode, if your going to attack the usa and hurt them, you would A) not announce it and b) do some major internal damage without revealing Country identites.

You can flame me for not having advanced military knowledge or whatever, thats your choice, but im just giving my idea of what would happen.

we would not use nukes. not on our own soil. we would use nukes on the large flotillas of enemy navy steaming towards our shores. In reality, an invasion force could never make it here. our navy would sink them. It would have to be an inside job.

It would have to be an inside job. which as proven isnt the most complicated of things to pull off.

Trav do you reckon america would surrender if it all went pete tong in the interests of damage limitation or do you think they would just say "sod it" and attack first, deal with the consequences afterwards?

I am not quite sure what pete ong is, but I am guessing you mean the attackers would try to limit damage. I think, or at least hope, that if there was a massive invasion fleets off both coasts the president would decide to do something about it. Of course if a democrat was in office we would have to pass the global test first, and since the "globe" would be steaming towards our shores to eliminate us, I dont think we would pass. But to answer your question, america would not surrender becasue no one could come in here and improve what we already have.

The UN launching an attack over the US???:D

I don't see how, they don't have an army. Anytime there is an international intervention force..the UN call the US army.

The European army is nothing compared to the US army (they don't spend a penny) and the only army big enough to conquer the US would be the Chinese one...but they would still have to come all the way from the other side of the Pacific..so no possibility whatsoever..
The only chance to attack or conquer the US would be launching nukes...but the US has nukes too and any country/ies doing so would be attacked by US nukes so I don't see it possible at least right now.

Several countries have a larger army than the US

Yeah, like India...

Would I support the States or the UN? If the states kept invading other countries and stealing resources and the Un said no more, then yea, i'd fight for the UN. No one likes a theif/bully. But if the UN became brutal and had attacked for no good reason, i'd fight in the coalition that would rise to fight against the UN. I wouldn't defend the government, but I would ensure that i would fight to protect the citizens of America. Even if some of them are sore at us Canadians.

the idea of the UN invading the US is nuts.

The UN to do anything has to make a resolution. The US would veto any resolution to invade the US.

The question could be just as easily - what you do if the UN decided to invade Mars.

True Drew, the idea is absurd, but its funny to discuss these "what if" topics. Thanks Trav for creating this topic, its really good.

BTW: I like your avatar Trav.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Several countries have a larger army than the US

Nowadays, it doesn't matter how big is your army but how advance (in technology terms) or superior to other army.
You can have millions of soldiers but they won't do anything against missiles and high-tec military equipment. In terms of technology, the US is the most advance army in the world, because the government spends money and resources.

And we shouldn't forget that the UN doesn't even have an army. They rely on their member's army specially the US army so...

Originally posted by Teddy

The only chance to attack or conquer the US would be launching nukes...

You actually said "the only chance to attack the US would be to launch a nuke?"

I guess the whole twin towers thing went right over your head then.

Also

In terms of technology, the US is the most advance army in the world, because the government spends money and resources. Im pretty sure the UK spends money on its army and the training. and by Advanced you mean the weapons and gadgets you have, because you sure as hell dont mean the actual training. SAS anyone? Para's? Yeh though so.. hush.

Originally posted by Teddy
the US is the most advance army in the world, because the government spends money and resources
Its Quantity over Quality every time.

Freindly fire?

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Im pretty sure the UK spends money on its army and the training. and by Advanced you mean the weapons and gadgets you have, because you sure as hell dont mean the actual training. SAS anyone? Para's? Yeh though so.. hush.
Yeah, but England would never wage war against us, nor would we them. We're kind of like your redheaded stepchildren that grew up really quickly, got too big for our britches, and pissed a lot of people off in the name of business. Kind of like you.

As I see it, we’re one in the same, with vast cultural differences. :)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lokideviluk
[B]Am i correct in thinking that your nukes would have to be launched, and if the entire European nations along with China etc launched war on you, those nukes would be blown out of the air before they left US airspace? Thus spreading all the crap that was in them across your country.

Loki,

First of all, it is very difficult to shoot down ICBM's.

Secondly, most of the US's counter attack missles are on boomers, not on US soil (it's harder still to shoot down something when you don't know it's launch point ).

And finally, the UN couldn't stick it's finger in its ass with two hands and a funnel :D

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Yeah, but England would never wage war against us, nor would we them. We're kind of like your redheaded stepchildren that grew up really quickly, got too big for our britches, and pissed a lot of people off in the name of business. Kind of like you.

As I see it, we’re one in the same, with vast cultural differences. :)

Nah your totally right, and if america went to war we would probably be the first ones to side with them the way our goverment thinks.

lol, Ill go with that comment :)

Originally posted by OldPhart
Loki,

First of all, it is very difficult to shoot down ICBM's.

Secondly, most of the US's counter attack missles are on boomers, not on US soil (it's harder still to shoot down something when you don't know it's launch point ).

Like i said, i wasnt sure so its cool to learn that nugget of information. Would Electro magnetic pulses knock out their ability to target though?

And when you say its difficult to shoot them down, does that stand to mean that if someone launced say 10 of these things, your pretty much f*cked.

whats the standard procedure for avoiding, or destroying them.

Yeah, Loki - screw this UN stuff, we should form an even stronger alliance and take over the world. Wait....we already have. LOL.

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Like i said, i wasnt sure so its cool to learn that nugget of information. Would Electro magnetic pulses knock out their ability to target though?

I don't know for sure, but I'd have to think they'd already thought that through, otherwise the first missile to hit would screw up the targeting for the rest of them.

Teddy -

I had this information but its taken me some time to find it (thousands of sites on my favourates which i will sort out eventually)

In relation to you pretty much saying Americas army up and shitted on every other army on the planet....

http://students.engr.scu.edu/~jabraham/specwar/specops/uk/sas/page1.html

The 22nd Special Air Service Regiment, or the SAS, is probably the most respected and well-known SpecOps unit in existence . It is the oldest "modern-day" special operations unit and almost every other unit in the world has been based, directly or indirectly, on the principles and techniques of the SAS.

all SAS squadrons are cycled through CounterTerrorist duty for a period of six to nine months. This includes a transition period lasting four to six weeks during which the commitment is handed over to the next squadron. This setup ensures that all SAS personnel are CounterTerrorist qualified and that these skills are refreshed constantly.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
I don't know for sure, but I'd have to think they'd already thought that through, otherwise the first missile to hit would screw up the targeting for the rest of them.
Boy, it would sure suck if a 200-mega ton nuke hit Ethiopia by mistake. :)

Originally posted by Teddy
Nowadays, it doesn't matter how big is your army but how advance (in technology terms) or superior to other army.
You can have millions of soldiers but they won't do anything against missiles and high-tec military equipment. In terms of technology, the US is the most advance army in the world, because the government spends money and resources.


The US is the only country in the world that still has an offensive army ... all other countries have defensive armies just waiting for the US to bring it on ... most of the foreign armies would kick our asses in a hearbeat once we attack them. We're no longer the bad ass we think we are.

BTW: I don't like it either but that's reality.

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
http://students.engr.scu.edu/~jabraham/specwar/specops/uk/sas/page1.html

From the article/page - whatever.

An SAS trooper abseiling through a window during CRW training. He is using an HK MP5 with a fixed stock. Also visible in the thigh holster is a 9mm SIG Sauer P226 with a 20-round magazine which the Regiment favors for CT/HRT work.
All I have to say is bad ass. God, I wish I could get an MP5...

Prae its this that amazes me...

The build-up phase begins with the candidate passing the standard infantry/airborne Battle Fitness Test (BFT). This test involves a 2.5-km group run in 13 minutes followed by a same distance solo run in 11.5 minutes. Once this is completed the candidates are required to undergo a series of forced marches in the mountains. As the build-up phase goes on the marches get longer, the terrain gets tougher and the weights carried become heavier. All this serves to test both the physical and mental stamina and fitness of the candidate. The motivation of the candidate is severely tested and the most common question asked in a candidate's mind is "Why am I doing this?"

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The US is the only country in the world that still has an offensive army ... all other countries have defensive armies just waiting for the US to bring it on ... most of the foreign armies would kick our asses in a hearbeat once we attack them. We're no longer the bad ass we think we are.

BTW: I don't like it either but that's reality.

dop, I am dissapointed. defensive armys do not win wars. name me a war in history that was won by a defensive army? maybe napolean in russia, but that wasnt so much the russian army as the russian winter. "the best defense is a good offense". "fortifications are monuments to mans stupidity." there are a thousand quotes from brilliant generals who knew you dont win a war by siting back and waiting for an attack to beat back.

Originally posted by The Praetorian

All I have to say is bad ass. God, I wish I could get an MP5...

Did you put it on your list to Santa? I hear he carrys one now.

Trav i think you need a mix of both, Totally offensive armys will get destroyed when the army their fighting goes and wipes out their supplys since no one is protecting them, whilst a totally defensive army is going to suffer the fact that the offensive army has all the time in the world to formulate a plan, plus the offensive has the element of surprise.

I think ya need a mix of both.

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Prae its this that amazes me...

The build-up phase begins with the candidate passing the standard infantry/airborne Battle Fitness Test (BFT). This test involves a 2.5-km group run in 13 minutes followed by a same distance solo run in 11.5 minutes. Once this is completed the candidates are required to undergo a series of forced marches in the mountains. As the build-up phase goes on the marches get longer, the terrain gets tougher and the weights carried become heavier. All this serves to test both the physical and mental stamina and fitness of the candidate. The motivation of the candidate is severely tested and the most common question asked in a candidate's mind is "Why am I doing this?"

Loki, I know you think the SAS is the greatest special ops unit in the world, and that's fine, and you could argue effectively for that too, but, they do not blow away the delta force or the navy SEALS. in the US we have different special ops for different things. the regular Green Berets are more set up to go into a country and train an insurgency or a counter insurgency or collect Intel and things like that. The Delta Force is a more specialized anti-terrorism unit, the SEALS are pretty much anti-terrorism too with some more conventional special ops missions thrown in. so if one SAS unit does all of these I guess they could be better, but in my experience you can not master to many things. you can only master a few, you can be proficient in many things, but not a true master. I guess I am trying to say I think separate special ops that specialize in certain things are better then one special ops that tries to do it all

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Trav i think you need a mix of both, Totally offensive armys will get destroyed when the army their fighting goes and wipes out their supplys since no one is protecting them, whilst a totally defensive army is going to suffer the fact that the offensive army has all the time in the world to formulate a plan, plus the offensive has the element of surprise.

I think ya need a mix of both.

of course, I wasnt saying to only have offense and no defense whatsoever. usually it works like this. WE would attack and take some ground. We dig in and prepare to repell the counter attack, that would be the defending part. Once that counter attack was repelled we would attack again and set up a defense to defend our new gains and so on and so forth. We only defend what we take long enough to refit and attack again.

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Teddy -

I had this information but its taken me some time to find it (thousands of sites on my favourates which i will sort out eventually)

In relation to you pretty much saying Americas army up and shitted on every other army on the planet....

http://students.engr.scu.edu/~jabraham/specwar/specops/uk/sas/page1.html



Thanks for that link Loki - I enjoyed reading thru that site, especially the ops history part. I was 11 years old when the SAS bust into the iranian embassy - I remember watching it on TV and then being in London on holiday a month or so later & going to see the embassy.

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
Teddy -

I had this information but its taken me some time to find it (thousands of sites on my favourates which i will sort out eventually)

In relation to you pretty much saying Americas army up and shitted on every other army on the planet....

http://students.engr.scu.edu/~jabraham/specwar/specops/uk/sas/page1.html



Every army has a special operations unit. The US army has the Delta Force and I guess they are as good as the SAS as their training methods are similar (they even train together other countries' special units). One unit, anyhow, doesn't guarantee the superiority of the rest of the army. I know, UK is the only European country that has currently a serious or real army...but come on! don't tell that the French, Spanish, German, Italian, or the small countries in Europe could ever beat the US army.

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
You actually said "the only chance to attack the US would be to launch a nuke?"

I guess the whole twin towers thing went right over your head then.


The twin towers attack from a military point of view was not a sucess. They only got three targets and in a matter of hours the air space was closed and the air force was ready. They were able to do it because it was a surprised attack but they couldn't do it twice in that way (in a war scenario). A nuclear weapon is different, the are of destruction is greater and if you nuke strategic targets (main cities or main army facilities) you can delay the response time and force of your enemy.

Trav

I understand your history lesson but today it's different ... most civilized countries have no plans to go to war ... they only plan on the scenario that another country brings a war to them ... that's why they think defensive.

Believe it or not, the act of war is considered barbarian these days and the United States is considered to be the only aggressor nation in the civilized world. We hold the trophy -- the trophy no other country wants.

Sad indictment for what is supposed to be the most powerful country in the world and one that preaches democracy, morality and compassion.

"democracy, morality and compassion"

Wow, now those are three things that that U.S. no longer stands for. Sad, I remember a time when the world looked to the U.S. for guidance. Now they smile and make nice to us out of fear we will turn our aggression on them. Cringing from the bully.