[WellOiledMachine]

jullian jullian:

dan74 u make an interesting point about the US defending itself only. to alter the original question if the entire world attacked the US and the US only had to repel the armed forces of the world, I think the US could actually win. The atlantic and the pacific are pretty good shields.

So basically what you are saying is that the U.S doesn't have the resources to attack everyone outright, except nukes, but that the U.S can actually defend itself from the WHOLE world....not very logical in my opinion. Basically means they are infallible. Tell me why they are so outright in building a missle defence shield? Destroy their fleets, bomb coastal cities, normal warfare in my opinion.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

I think history has shown that no country/empire has been able to take over the whole world. While the US could do some serious damage to the world, and could kill everyone including themselves(thus why no one is probably going to attack them anytime soon, unless it's a terrorist strike). On a country Vs country basis, and not an alliance, US vs 7 nation bull, I think the US could take on most anyone if you take out the nukes, because the countries who do have the same capabilities as the US lack the population, and the countries with the huge populations lack the capabilities overall of the US. One country with only 75 million people suitable for military service taking on a multiple billion person world is just ridiculous and I don't see why anyone would think that any country would be able to do so.

[figfarmer]

They couldn't beat anybody, but they keep trying.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

figfarmer figfarmer:

They couldn't beat anybody, but they keep trying.

Haha, sure, keep telling yourself that....

....I think I know why you got the hilarious medal....

[jadeofthenorth]

Is this the U.S. government? Or are we assuming every man, woman, and child are backing this fight?

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

JadeoftheNorth JadeoftheNorth:

Is this the U.S. government? Or are we assuming every man, woman, and child are backing this fight?

I'm just going off of a on paper kind of thing, not actual facts. Who knows what would happen if the US actually tried to take over the world(almost a 1% possibility ). I think figfarmer just tries to push peoples buttons. While I think the US could take on any country in a country Vs country basis(call me biased for being an American if you will, but I'm just going off of money spent by the US and so on, and not exactly if the US would just give up after they destroy alot of shit)I don't think the US would be able to take on the whole world. That's biting off way more than they can chew. As far as country vs country goes, it all depends why the Americans are fighting. If another country attacks the US, then I could see them staying in a war for the long-haul, but if it's the US government making up stories about another country and the motives for the war are questionable, then I don't think they could keep a war going. Overall, I think the US has the strength military wise to take on any country, but the heart has to be there, and that usually only happens in the people feel in danger and it's a prolonged danger, such as Japan in WW2.

[Stellar]

Like Johnny said, it depends on the cause of why the U.S is invading the world. Don't forget that its not about all the countries around the U.S and over seas that pose a threat, it will also be the American people themselves who may be opposed to the war and form a rebellion. The U.S would have to deal with them as well which would be a big problem for the White house, if that theory is true I may go as far as saying that the U.S would be defeated right their (of course it depends how much people oppose the war).

For the main question I have to say that I don't think there is a chance AT ALL the U.S can overcome the world.

$1:

While I think the US could take on any country in a country Vs country basis

I disagree, the U.S has lost wars too, like the Vietnam War and if they fought China I would say it would be a very narrow win for whoever came on top. If the U.S used New Clear weapons then that would be a different story.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

Stellar Stellar:

Like Johnny said, it depends on the cause of why the U.S is invading the world. Don't forget that its not about all the countries around the U.S and over seas that pose a threat, it will also be the American people themselves who may be opposed to the war and form a rebellion. The U.S would have to deal with them as well which would be a big problem for the White house, if that theory is true I may go as far as saying that the U.S would be defeated right their (of course it depends how much people oppose the war).

For the main question I have to say that I don't think there is a chance AT ALL the U.S can overcome the world.

$1:

While I think the US could take on any country in a country Vs country basis

I disagree, the U.S has lost wars too, like the Vietnam War and if they fought China I would say it would be a very narrow win for whoever came on top. If the U.S used New Clear weapons then that would be a different story.

It's true they lost, but like I said, it depends on how the American people feel. The US didn't lose the Vietnam war because they were forced out, but because it was unpopular at home. The US basically won all the battles, and not the war, and that's without support at home. Imagine if they had had support at home like they did with Japan. I say take on, but I don't exactly mean win. The US could, probably take on China and it would either be a long battle, or a really short one, if you get my drift.

[Stellar]

$1:

It's true they lost, but like I said, it depends on how the American people feel. The US didn't lose the Vietnam war because they were forced out, but because it was unpopular at home. The US basically won all the battles, and not the war, and that's without support at home. Imagine if they had had support at home like they did with Japan. I say take on, but I don't exactly mean win. The US could, probably take on China and it would either be a long battle, or a really short one, if you get my drift.

I agree with most of what you said but take note that the popularity of your people is still part of the war. I also don't bieleve they won all the battles like Lily stated.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

lily lily:

They won all the battles but still lost the war? That's kind of like saying that we outscored them every inning but they won the game.

Methinks you get audited a lot.

It was like this. They would fight for a hill, win the hill, go take another hill, go back and take another hill, kill a bunch of people. win this battle, but the enemy just kept showing up. Sooner or later they just left. War isn't like baseball. A battle is one instance. I don't remember the US losing much battles because they would just call in some planes to napalm the area alot of times, or bomb other areas, I just remember them losing support at home and everyone wanting them to leave. It wasn't like a world war 2 battle where the US cleared a country of enemy troops. They would go into the jungle, hunt down the enemy, take a hill, and then more would show up somewhere else in which they would have to go fight. If they people at home and supported the war, they could have been there much longer. It wasn't like the US soldiers were slaughtered everywhere and the US had to run because they were being dominated on the battle field and just couldn't compete. People wanted them out, didn't believe in the war, didn't trust the government, and there was no support for it. If you look at the numbers of dead, the US killed tons, and people are still suffering from the chemicals used to clear out parts of the jungle.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

Stellar Stellar:

$1:

It's true they lost, but like I said, it depends on how the American people feel. The US didn't lose the Vietnam war because they were forced out, but because it was unpopular at home. The US basically won all the battles, and not the war, and that's without support at home. Imagine if they had had support at home like they did with Japan. I say take on, but I don't exactly mean win. The US could, probably take on China and it would either be a long battle, or a really short one, if you get my drift.

I agree with most of what you said but take note that the popularity of your people is still part of the war. I also don't bieleve they won all the battles like Lily stated.

That's what I'm saying. The US would lose a war if it's unpopular with the people. I agree that the people are a part of the war. If the US can't get support at home, such as they don't feel a threat from the enemy and see their own people dying for something they don't believe in, then they can't win a war(technically, it would be said that the government couldn't win the war. The US won most of the major battles. They didn't retreat because they were facing a superior force, but because the war was unpopular. If they had stayed we'd probably be talking about a million more Vietnamese people dead.

[Scape]

I think this is the right question with the wrong answers. Time and time again the US has stepped up to the plate when it comes to combat but is that the most redeeming feature? What about Japan, Germany or the Philippines? The US is a nation builder, if the US takes on the world in that aspect and doesn't come off as our way or the highway I think they can not only take on the world they can become it. However the US has a major reputation problem with people who already have reason to hate the US. Add to that the inconstancy with the what is considered sacrosanct like torture, the Constitution and human rights and you have a real problem. people WANT to believe in the US and WE WANT TO CHEER but making it hard is stuff like Wal mart hiring illegal immigrants to sweep floors or Abu Gharib or massive spending on weapons and not going on eradication of hunger, leprosy, and polo. Stuff that could EASILY be defeated but is just swept aside. I really want to support someone who says freedom and democracy is on the march, especially when such good things are happening in Libya, Egypt, Russia, Japan and the world at large but why does such developments have to be smeared by destroying the UN or the EU? Why can't the US work with instead of rule over such bodies? China will not respect ruler ship by fear but they will react strongly to populist ideals that attract the people and not the leadership. War should be of last resort, never the 1st.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

Scape Scape:

I think this is the right question with the wrong answers. Time and time again the US has stepped up to the plate when it comes to combat but is that the most redeeming feature? What about Japan, Germany or the Philippines? The US is a nation builder, if the US takes on the world in that aspect and doesn't come off as our way or the highway I think they can not only take on the world they can become it. However the US has a major reputation problem with people who already have reason to hate the US. Add to that the inconstancy with the what is considered sacrosanct like torture, the Constitution and human rights and you have a real problem. people WANT to believe in the US and WE WANT TO CHEER but making it hard is stuff like Wal mart hiring illegal immigrants to sweep floors or Abu Gharib or massive spending on weapons and not going on eradication of hunger, leprosy, and polo. Stuff that could EASILY be defeated but is just swept aside. I really want to support someone who says freedom and democracy is on the march, especially when such good things are happening in Libya, Egypt, Russia, Japan and the world at large but why does such developments have to be smeared by destroying the UN or the EU? Why can't the US work with instead of rule over such bodies? China will not respect ruler ship by fear but they will react strongly to populist ideals that attract the people and not the leadership. War should be of last resort, never the 1st.

I dunno, didn't China already prove how they think of democracy in Tiananmen square? I know you are talking about the people, but the people in China tried, and unlike the Ukraine, China sent in the military to take down people. China's too big I think to ever allow a thing like what has happened in the Ukraine. I can agree though that the US seriously needs to change their agenda/approach towards things.

[dennis_is_canadian]

God forbid it ever happen, but if the U.S was in a war against the world, I think that the U.S would put up a hell of a fight but would eventually surcome to the world war machine. If war did break out, other countries would poor all their available money into building weapons and machines. With everything put into building more weapons, the rest of the world would certainly end up with equipment as good as the U.S and have more man power. I know if war broke out against Canada, I would take my shot gun and rifles and make like "Red Dawn". Hide in the bush with a band of friends and kill any opposers, lol.

I can't see any country making a deal with the states to fight on their side. Because once the war for the world was over, what is there to stop the U.S from turning on their allies and claiming their land?

If Nukes were involved, the entire globe would suffer, and there would be no winners. Pherhaps that will be the worlds downfall, maybe Nuclear war will be the end of the world. The Dinosaurs had their appocolypse, maybe we will destroy ourselves, who knows. But I doubt that will happen any time soon.

It seems there will never be peace on earth. I think the only thing that could bring the entire world together is an attack from aliens. Only then would the world join together, unite and fight, lol. As long as the aliens aren't to powerfull, lol. We focus on which country is stronger to often, we should focus on making our entire globe better.

Dennis
22/Manitoba

[Freefall]

Don't kid yourselves, the US war machine is not what it used to be, and even with what is going on in todays world they are making cutbacks. The US or any other nation could not take on North Korea let alone China in a convential war. Here is a more interesting thought...Could the rest of the world stop North Korea and China allied together. We couldn't the first time and they had nowhere near the stuff they do now, both military and industrial......and our militaries were larger and more prepared then. Food for thought