StarGateWars Forums

I hope you're not seriously saying that you want to see American soldiers die in Iraq, are you?



Regards,

numerically speaking America has military superiority in all aspects. However, the USA is a very large country with numerous large and densely populated cities. NK is no where near as big and has less cities and thus less targets for terrorist assualts.

NK has the home advantage as i'm sure the US would if NK launched a land assualt on the USA.

IMO it all hinges on who strikes first. That said, if both sides decide to declare war AT THE SAME TIME, i believe that America has a much better inferstructure to launch a fast and devestating nuclear, chemical and biological assualt.

_____________________________________________

Now, we've dealt with some of the statistics in Real Life of the two countries. As this is a Stargate based game, in order to give people who arn't as well informed or don't really care as much as we do.

If America possessed Stargates, Zats, X302's etc. How long would NK or any American target last? I'd give them an hour max.

Emma Desala wrote:I hope you're not seriously saying that you want to see American soldiers die in Iraq, are you?

Regards,

of course not.. lol you misunderstood what i said..

all ppl that go to war for there country i have alot of respect for..

but what im saying is, if they do go to iran it will turn into another iraq, and we all know the bloody mess weve cause over there..

im english/aussie btw, the only reason i have a slight resentment for US army is well theres a few reasons..

How many troops do the us army need to kill in friendly fire each year its ridiculous, cowboys threw and threw..

in any war thats fought US try and tak the glory and say they won the war, i could give of numerous examples but i dont wanna diplomatic arguement on sgw forums..

but i have respect for all soldiers so dont think by my comments i hate the soldiers in america, as thats not true... simply think they need a little more training.. lol

you mention GBW has only a couple of years left in power. Assuming the war started now. Wouldn't he declare martial law and remain in power until the war was over, be it a victory for the US or a defeat.

i know hammy started a topic on martial law and that got him into trouble. So if anyone knows exactly what GBW could do under martial law please post. Don't want to cause panic like last time lol.

also yes the USA don't fight against guerilla units effectively. However, there is a lot to be said for "smoking em out". If guerillas were hiding in a forest, its plausable that the US would burn the entire forest down regardless of any consequences.

sgt.johnkeel wrote:you mention GBW has only a couple of years left in power. Assuming the war started now. Wouldn't he declare martial law and remain in power until the war was over, be it a victory for the US or a defeat.

i know hammy started a topic on martial law and that got him into trouble. So if anyone knows exactly what GBW could do under martial law please post. Don't want to cause panic like last time lol.

also yes the USA don't fight against guerilla units effectively. However, there is a lot to be said for "smoking em out". If guerillas were hiding in a forest, its plausable that the US would burn the entire forest down regardless of any consequences.

very good point but martial law is still voted for a belive alsthough he would have casting vote, if all his back benches disagreed he could be overruled but very good point, all thse mugabi's and such do it so why not GWB

http://chud.com/forums/showthread.php?t=93467

This site has an interesting, yet light discussion about Martial Law.
I do in no way subscribe the comments made there.



Regards,

well, it's pretty easy actually:

NK says if US attacks in any way, spae or form they will retaliate with WMD's i.e. nukes and US would retaliate with nukes...end of story for all of us I suppose.

The US obviously doesn't want Iran to play the "total war" card but as soon as Iran goes nuclear, they would be in the same bargaining position as NK and that can't happen so I expcet something to happen in Iran first.

Apophis The Great wrote:

Lysander wrote:

Apophis The Great wrote:

Lysander wrote:imagine how easier it would have been to just drop a nuke on iraq.

That would mean:
_bush is new hitler
_new sep 11 attacks
_chaos?

some ppl agree to that, though if i recall wasnt it the americans that nuked japan?

the sep 11 attacks wouldnt be so bad, theyd be limited to 1 a year and theyd know what date to increase security.

theres that already isnt there?

_But that wouldnt be some, but most agreeing it in that situation
_who said they would be limited to 1/year?
_Obviously you don't see what kind of chaos I mean...like Matrix's real world for picturing it!!

well, theres only one 9/11 per year. shouldnt be too hard to secure america on that day, with all there unbeatable air defence

Okay, I will reply in full to your post El TC, but that is quite a large paper to refute and I'm getting hammered for my promotion exam plus a Cryptography seminar I'm giving tomorrow so bear with me

Let me preface by saying I wholeheartedly agree with the summery provided by Crimson Frost regarding potential scenarios.
It's always a pleasure to see posts longer than a paragraph, with clear and reasonable conclusions.
(still working towards such myself )


Now,

El TC wrote:So, switched on CNN and saw there's talk of the States taking down Iran now as well.
What say you?

I'm curious, is this the first time in five year's you've watching CNN?
They get their kicks from postulating about the kind of messes the US will enter into. Every time Iran proclaims that they are one step closer to nuclear engery, the news erupts with speculation.
Again, I don't see this as anything new... why we were discussion the potential for an invasion of Iran and NK on this forum not but a few months ago.

Apophis The Great wrote:lol Iran will pwn them if they go in (when you do war on multiple fronts you loose, see germany in WW2)...

:cough: You really, really, need to re-read your history.
If anything, World War two proved the United States' capacity for fighting on two fronts and winning...

Apophis The Great wrote:...or another sep 11 would happen if they do such stupid error. That will reveal one thing anyway if they go in: Bush is racist.

Were we in Iraq when the towers went down? No.
Where we overtly invading a nation, when the towers went down? No.
Logically, therefore, what makes you infer that an invasion would lead to another 9/11?

As for Bush being racist... just inane. Ad homonym absurdity.
Stupid, Clumsy? Perhaps. But then, such titles were constantly bestowed upon Lincoln as he invaded the south.

Apophis The Great wrote:GET ALL YOUR TROOPS BACK FROM IRAQ BUSH WHILE IT IS TIME YOU DO NOT WANT ANOTHER VIETNAM DON'T YOU??

According to CNN and the democrats, it is already another Vietnam...

----------------------------------

sgt.johnkeel wrote:you mention GBW has only a couple of years left in power. Assuming the war started now. Wouldn't he declare martial law and remain in power until the war was over, be it a victory for the US or a defeat.

I assume GBW stands for GWB?
If it does, then please, this is America.
Pelosi would hit him with a cellphone and knock him out cold before his pen even reached parchment...

----------------------------------

sgt.johnkeel wrote:also yes the USA don't fight against guerilla units effectively. However, there is a lot to be said for "smoking em out". If guerillas were hiding in a forest, its plausable that the US would burn the entire forest down regardless of any consequences.

Yes, that is us in a nutshell. No matter the number of our civilians killed, no matter the affronts on national sovereignty, we lack the right of every nation since the dawn of time to exercise our military muscle... to do other wise would lead to forest burning, and national supremacy.
Oh dear....

~BARBARIAN~ wrote:of course not.. lol you misunderstood what i said..

I don't think Emma did.

~BARBARIAN~ wrote:in any war thats fought US try and tak the glory and say they won the war, i could give of numerous examples but i dont wanna diplomatic arguement on sgw forums..

You've already called our military 'cowboys through and through' with a negative connotation; mocked friendly fire incidents, and suggested that we have 'caused a bloody mess'... and yet you are concerned about a diplomatic discussion?

I think you lack facts, not gumption my friend.

--------------------

~BARBARIAN~ wrote:1 thing the yanks cant play at is guerilla war fare.. they suck at it..
1 thing middle eastern countries good at guerilla war fare.

Talk to the british.
And yes, the islamic fanatics are good at guerilla warfare, so are the French, Norwegians, jews, Vietnamese, Chinese, Japanese, and native Americans.... albeit, yes, none of those particular sects utilized suicide bombers to the extent of our current enemies.

==================

Now, what I find fascinating; is the level of national hate directed at the United States, of any era. In the early 1900, we were imperialists beating up on the Spanish. In World War two, we getting rich off the world's sacrifice by selling arms... in Korea, we were suppressing natural rights to choose a political system... in the 1950's we were no better than the Inquisition of old with McCarthy squashing civil liberties... in the 60's we entered Vietnam and took on every criticism under the sun, from warmongering to animal-rights abuse... in Somalia and Kosovo we were killing innocents, in the first Gulf war we were protecting big oil...

Frankly, I've given up trying to appease the national community.
Get on board, or get out of our way. I'm tired of spending my money to help the international community, only to have it spit back and blast us.

Apparently the United States has just as much right to impose it's agenda as Iran, the only difference is; the UN and fellows are willing to allow Iran to work unimpeded, but lord have mercy if the US tries to prevent an E-mail tax.

Indeed, rather than question if Iran with nukes/nuclear energy is a good thing, yall seem far more interested in speculating about the horrible cost the US will take in lives and economics when (not if) they invade... First we should decide if Iran with such potential weapons is a good or bad thing; at that point, if it is a negative, what matter the cost?

------------

Honestly, the amount of hate directed at the United States makes Omega look like a well beloved parent in the context of SGW. Though I must admit, ETL might have a slight edge on Bush when it comes to conspiracy theories.




<selfEdit>
I also find it funny that I didn't see the term 'Yankees' as referring to the US when I first read the title. There's the south, then there the yanks, together we're the United Sates...

The Xeno wrote:
Now, what I find fascinating; is the level of national hate directed at the United States...

The Xeno wrote:
...Get on board, or get out of our way. I'm tired of spending my money to help the international community...

thanks for your contribution

The Xeno wrote:

Apophis The Great wrote:lol Iran will pwn them if they go in (when you do war on multiple fronts you loose, see germany in WW2)...

:cough: You really, really, need to re-read your history.
If anything, World War two proved the United States' capacity for fighting on two fronts and winning...

I believe he was referring to the fact that Germany fought both the Russians and the British & French over two fronts and lost!

The Xeno wrote:

sgt.johnkeel wrote:you mention GBW has only a couple of years left in power. Assuming the war started now. Wouldn't he declare martial law and remain in power until the war was over, be it a victory for the US or a defeat.

I assume GBW stands for GWB?
If it does, then please, this is America.
Pelosi would hit him with a cellphone and knock him out cold before his pen even reached parchment...

yes it does sorry
----------------------------------

The Xeno wrote:

sgt.johnkeel wrote:also yes the USA don't fight against guerilla units effectively. However, there is a lot to be said for "smoking em out". If guerillas were hiding in a forest, its plausable that the US would burn the entire forest down regardless of any consequences.

Yes, that is us in a nutshell. No matter the number of our civilians killed, no matter the affronts on national sovereignty, we lack the right of every nation since the dawn of time to exercise our military muscle... to do other wise would lead to forest burning, and national supremacy.
Oh dear....

why doesn't that surprise me in the slightest? i'm sure you wouldn't consider the environmental ramifications for the whole world!

The Xeno wrote:==================

Now, what I find fascinating; is the level of national hate directed at the United States, of any era. In the early 1900, we were imperialists beating up on the Spanish. In World War two, we getting rich off the world's sacrifice by selling arms... in Korea, we were suppressing natural rights to choose a political system... in the 1950's we were no better than the Inquisition of old with McCarthy squashing civil liberties... in the 60's we entered Vietnam and took on every criticism under the sun, from warmongering to animal-rights abuse... in Somalia and Kosovo we were killing innocents, in the first Gulf war we were protecting big oil...

Frankly, I've given up trying to appease the national community.
Get on board, or get out of our way. I'm tired of spending my money to help the international community, only to have it spit back and blast us.

Apparently the United States has just as much right to impose it's agenda as Iran, the only difference is; the UN and fellows are willing to allow Iran to work unimpeded, but lord have mercy if the US tries to prevent an E-mail tax.

Indeed, rather than question if Iran with nukes/nuclear energy is a good thing, yall seem far more interested in speculating about the horrible cost the US will take in lives and economics when (not if) they invade... First we should decide if Iran with such potential weapons is a good or bad thing; at that point, if it is a negative, what matter the cost?

------------

Honestly, the amount of hate directed at the United States makes Omega look like a well beloved parent in the context of SGW. Though I must admit, ETL might have a slight edge on Bush when it comes to conspiracy theories.

i am not. Omega are hated because they are powerful, America is hated for the same reason. Both use there power to expand there own interests and this goes against the interests of others. I can garuntee that all other world powers were hated when they were at there peaks e.g. The British Empire in the mid to late 19th century

1. This was not meant to be a thread to bash or insult any particular country and I am sorry if you read into this a bit too much Xeeno.

2. Why don't u start us off with your opinion on this:

The Xeno wrote:... First we should decide if Iran with such potential weapons is a good or bad thing

I'm gonna do what everyone else does: Make a few random statements and then let everyone try and pick them apart

1> American forces in Iraq do not have a good reason for being there the war was sold (atleast in england) as an attack against a nation that wanted to use and develop WMDs. Many statistics were fabricated to provide evidence for this (Example, in england it was said that Iraq could fire long range missiles in 45mins, it was completely wrong). Also, Saddam did not have anywhere near the links to alquaida (sp?) that they claimed and this war has done nothing to stop terrorism, merely fueled hatred in both directions. The only viable reason for invading would be saddam is a malicious dictator- He'd been there for over 10 years even after using bio weapons, conducting genocide of his own people and other atrocities, why wait till now? Having found that these inconsistencies were underpinning the war, nothing was done, 50 years ago virtually all the top figures would have been forced to resign, not anymore. It seems to show complete lack of accountability. Based on this I think America would be forced to think very hard about starting another war.

2> America has great responsibilty in the world currently due to their use of fossil fuels, short-sightedness and dependancy on oil is causing great damage to our environment, and America- one of the largest polluters, by not facing up to this is directly causing deaths. The question to ask is: Would Katrina have happened if America (and the rest of the world) had not polluted so much. The reason America is being blamed is because it is one of the most important states, yet has done very little to lower emmissions in favour of profit making.

3> Iran has the same people, same style of government as Iraq had. What on earth would cause America to cause such a catastrophe such as Iraq again, even when they haven't even left Iraq.

not sure if you know, but that area of the middle east has something like 1/3 of the worlds oil reserves, an excellent reason for oil guzzling America to move in.

And yes Katrina would almost certainly have happened regardless of the state of the ozone layer etc and all the pollution being emited