Is it inevitable that Britain or the US will get attacked in the near future?
It just seems to me that the politicians who are supposed to be running this country are far more concerned with meddling in foreign affairs.
If you look at the countries that have the biggest oil reserves then you'll see that Afghanistan/Iraq are right up there. However, if you look at the other countries up there you'll see that they are far stronger and have much stronger allies so therefore in my opinion, the British Government at the time took the easy option like bullies by invading Afghanistan/Iraq for oil. Okay, we captured Saddam Hussein but that was obviously just a cover up so they could try him for his crimes and then have an excuse to invade, which then meant their real motives were disguised.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, Canada, Libya and Nigeria are all in the top ten of having the largest oil reserves. Invading any of these countries for oil would have been a far harder thing to do than to attack two countries already unstable and two countries that provided both the UK and the US with the perfect excuses for invasion, Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Even Venezuela is massive in the drugs trade and im pretty sure the cartels over there would have fought back a lot harder than the taliban when they realised that their country was getting invaded. Plus they would have gained support from the other countries in South America such as Brazil and Cuba due to the illegal corruption that goes on between them.
Now again. We have got ourselves involved with what is happening in Libya. A certain number of countries have abstained from the movement, some of whom are extremely strong countries, not only in terms of man power, but in terms of economy too.
We also did it with Zimbabwe and Mugabe. Again, our government decided to stick their noses in other countries business. Why on earth are we getting involved with the business of African nations? Thats entirely up to them how they do their business.
I think its extremely hypocritical that the politicians think its fine to just go and basically dictate to other countries what to do or threaten them with forced action when they can't even get the own country they're supposed to be running in order.
I find it shocking that our very own government can claim that dictators in other countries are wrong when they're basically the same, but instead of just dictating how we live our lives in this country, they also want to stick their noses into the business of other countries.
Sooner or later, in my opinion, this will lead to either the United Kingdom or America being attacked and I think its fairly obvious that it'll be us first due to the fact that we're an easy target compared to America and blitzing us in this day and age would send a message to other countries. Russia's government is extremely fed up with both of us, as stated by a few of their politicians on Russia Today and im pretty sure other countries are fed up of our bullying tactics as well. Russia have strong links with China so therefore they'd more than likely be allies with each other if anything did break out.
Russia and China's total number of troops = 23 440 000 (including active & reserves)
Britain's and Americas total number of troops = 2 830 807 (including active & reserves)
Then you have to factor in the fact that Germany, due to strong economic links, would also take Russia's side which would mean not only more troops but technological advantages too. Ukraine who also have a large armed forces would join Russia and fight on their behalf.
Seriously, who would side with us when we're outnumbered so badly and the history we have? Australia more than likely due to the history and Queen Elizabeth II being their monarch but other than that no one else would. We are hated by a lot of countries just as America is so it would be the ideal time for them to join forces and put an end to us once and for all.
Now at the moment, Russia have a neutral attitude towards us and have openly played down incidents including spies and nuclear threats even though politicians have said things against actions both Britain and the US have taken. However, the more we continue to stick our noses into other countries business the stronger the possibility that they'll say enough is enough and launch a completely unprovoked attack and catch either us or the US by surprise. More than likely it would be us. Now do you think the US would act instantly if Russia decided to attack us? No, they wouldn't in anyway whatsoever because of the Nuclear threat Russia possess and the manpower China possess. I know in terms of technology America is very advanced but a lot of that is based on satellites and Russia has the technology to disable them and render them useless.
I think that the politicians in this country need to wake up to the fact that we're no longer the superpower in terms of military we once were and wake up to realisation that we could get attacked and obliterated rather easily. We are a small island for heavens sake which is easily targetable and due to the population density the human death toll would be catastrophic.
If you look at the countries that have the biggest oil reserves then you'll see that Afghanistan/Iraq are right up there. However, if you look at the other countries up there you'll see that they are far stronger and have much stronger allies so therefore in my opinion, the British Government at the time took the easy option like bullies by invading Afghanistan/Iraq for oil. Okay, we captured Saddam Hussein but that was obviously just a cover up so they could try him for his crimes and then have an excuse to invade, which then meant their real motives were disguised.
Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, Canada, Libya and Nigeria are all in the top ten of having the largest oil reserves. Invading any of these countries for oil would have been a far harder thing to do than to attack two countries already unstable and two countries that provided both the UK and the US with the perfect excuses for invasion, Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Even Venezuela is massive in the drugs trade and im pretty sure the cartels over there would have fought back a lot harder than the taliban when they realised that their country was getting invaded. Plus they would have gained support from the other countries in South America such as Brazil and Cuba due to the illegal corruption that goes on between them.
Now again. We have got ourselves involved with what is happening in Libya. A certain number of countries have abstained from the movement, some of whom are extremely strong countries, not only in terms of man power, but in terms of economy too.
We also did it with Zimbabwe and Mugabe. Again, our government decided to stick their noses in other countries business. Why on earth are we getting involved with the business of African nations? Thats entirely up to them how they do their business.
I think its extremely hypocritical that the politicians think its fine to just go and basically dictate to other countries what to do or threaten them with forced action when they can't even get the own country they're supposed to be running in order.
I find it shocking that our very own government can claim that dictators in other countries are wrong when they're basically the same, but instead of just dictating how we live our lives in this country, they also want to stick their noses into the business of other countries.
Sooner or later, in my opinion, this will lead to either the United Kingdom or America being attacked and I think its fairly obvious that it'll be us first due to the fact that we're an easy target compared to America and blitzing us in this day and age would send a message to other countries. Russia's government is extremely fed up with both of us, as stated by a few of their politicians on Russia Today and im pretty sure other countries are fed up of our bullying tactics as well. Russia have strong links with China so therefore they'd more than likely be allies with each other if anything did break out.
Russia and China's total number of troops = 23 440 000 (including active & reserves)
Britain's and Americas total number of troops = 2 830 807 (including active & reserves)
Then you have to factor in the fact that Germany, due to strong economic links, would also take Russia's side which would mean not only more troops but technological advantages too. Ukraine who also have a large armed forces would join Russia and fight on their behalf.
Seriously, who would side with us when we're outnumbered so badly and the history we have? Australia more than likely due to the history and Queen Elizabeth II being their monarch but other than that no one else would. We are hated by a lot of countries just as America is so it would be the ideal time for them to join forces and put an end to us once and for all.
Now at the moment, Russia have a neutral attitude towards us and have openly played down incidents including spies and nuclear threats even though politicians have said things against actions both Britain and the US have taken. However, the more we continue to stick our noses into other countries business the stronger the possibility that they'll say enough is enough and launch a completely unprovoked attack and catch either us or the US by surprise. More than likely it would be us. Now do you think the US would act instantly if Russia decided to attack us? No, they wouldn't in anyway whatsoever because of the Nuclear threat Russia possess and the manpower China possess. I know in terms of technology America is very advanced but a lot of that is based on satellites and Russia has the technology to disable them and render them useless.
I think that the politicians in this country need to wake up to the fact that we're no longer the superpower in terms of military we once were and wake up to realisation that we could get attacked and obliterated rather easily. We are a small island for heavens sake which is easily targetable and due to the population density the human death toll would be catastrophic.
(edited 13 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
tbh...UK/US vs. the world....
we would probably win given that the US probably will have all sorts of crazy ass **** that they don't tell anyone about, but are itching to use....
and I reckon those countries that use US planes/tech systems etc. will find them "accidentally" not working as chances are, they will all have remote kill switches for a "just in case" eventuality
we would probably win given that the US probably will have all sorts of crazy ass **** that they don't tell anyone about, but are itching to use....
and I reckon those countries that use US planes/tech systems etc. will find them "accidentally" not working as chances are, they will all have remote kill switches for a "just in case" eventuality
Bull. Although one could argue that the Libya intervention is, as you say 'meddling in another country's business', it is completed justified. Do you not believe that as a prosperous and free nation we have a moral responsibility to intervene when movements of popular consensus are being ruthlessly crushed? That argument completely justifies the Libya action.
Furthermore, using your flawed logic, you could argue that Britain's intervention in World War II was 'meddling', but most sane people would argue that it was necessary. That also applies to Libya, albeit at a different magnitude.
Furthermore, using your flawed logic, you could argue that Britain's intervention in World War II was 'meddling', but most sane people would argue that it was necessary. That also applies to Libya, albeit at a different magnitude.
America spends more money annually on their military than every other country combined
So while Russia and China might have ten fold our military force, they will be fighting with empty bottles of vodka and pirated DVDs (respectively) against 'mericas Apaches and tanks covered in barbed wire.
There's a reason every attack against America has been comparatively minor and standalone (i.e. 9/11). It's because America has spent three hundred years posturing and flexing to everyone else, and the rest of the world knows just how unhinged the parade of American leaders really were and are.
So while Russia and China might have ten fold our military force, they will be fighting with empty bottles of vodka and pirated DVDs (respectively) against 'mericas Apaches and tanks covered in barbed wire.
There's a reason every attack against America has been comparatively minor and standalone (i.e. 9/11). It's because America has spent three hundred years posturing and flexing to everyone else, and the rest of the world knows just how unhinged the parade of American leaders really were and are.
We are apart of Nato, no country or group of countries could defeat Nato.
Original post by infernalcradle
tbh...UK/US vs. the world....
we would probably win given that the US probably will have all sorts of crazy ass **** that they don't tell anyone about, but are itching to use....
and I reckon those countries that use US planes/tech systems etc. will find them "accidentally" not working as chances are, they will all have remote kill switches for a "just in case" eventuality
we would probably win given that the US probably will have all sorts of crazy ass **** that they don't tell anyone about, but are itching to use....
and I reckon those countries that use US planes/tech systems etc. will find them "accidentally" not working as chances are, they will all have remote kill switches for a "just in case" eventuality
How would we win?
Seriously, if we were attacked America wouldn't intervene. Our politicians are complete ass lickers and basically do whatever the US senate says in order to stay on their good side. They say jump and the british government says how high.
The likelihood of nuclear warfare is minimal due to the fact that both have unbelievably strong capabilities but Britain being attacked is a strong possibility. Why is it not? America wouldn't give two hoots about us. Anyone who thinks that America does care about Britain in anyway is extremely naive.
NATO is still around.
For one:
Yes, China has more man power in its army than AMerica, but america has like what, 10x the spending?
And anywya, China wouldn't want to get involved. AFter all, you can't declare war on those who owe you $$$$ right? It's bad for business =P
Yes, China has more man power in its army than AMerica, but america has like what, 10x the spending?
And anywya, China wouldn't want to get involved. AFter all, you can't declare war on those who owe you $$$$ right? It's bad for business =P
Original post by infernalcradle
tbh...UK/US vs. the world....
we would probably win given that the US probably will have all sorts of crazy ass **** that they don't tell anyone about, but are itching to use....
and I reckon those countries that use US planes/tech systems etc. will find them "accidentally" not working as chances are, they will all have remote kill switches for a "just in case" eventuality
we would probably win given that the US probably will have all sorts of crazy ass **** that they don't tell anyone about, but are itching to use....
and I reckon those countries that use US planes/tech systems etc. will find them "accidentally" not working as chances are, they will all have remote kill switches for a "just in case" eventuality
Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x
How would we win?
Seriously, if we were attacked America wouldn't intervene. Our politicians are complete ass lickers and basically do whatever the US senate says in order to stay on their good side. They say jump and the british government says how high.
The likelihood of nuclear warfare is minimal due to the fact that both have unbelievably strong capabilities but Britain being attacked is a strong possibility. Why is it not? America wouldn't give two hoots about us. Anyone who thinks that America does care about Britain in anyway is extremely naive.
Seriously, if we were attacked America wouldn't intervene. Our politicians are complete ass lickers and basically do whatever the US senate says in order to stay on their good side. They say jump and the british government says how high.
The likelihood of nuclear warfare is minimal due to the fact that both have unbelievably strong capabilities but Britain being attacked is a strong possibility. Why is it not? America wouldn't give two hoots about us. Anyone who thinks that America does care about Britain in anyway is extremely naive.
is the hypothetical situation not that it is the UK/US vs. the world?
in which case we would win....
that said, I'm under no illusions that if the UK got raped that the US would do **** all
Original post by EdwardSAS
Bull. Although one could argue that the Libya intervention is, as you say 'meddling in another country's business', it is completed justified. Do you not believe that as a prosperous and free nation we have a moral responsibility to intervene when movements of popular consensus are being ruthlessly crushed? That argument completely justifies the Libya action.
Furthermore, using your flawed logic, you could argue that Britain's intervention in World War II was 'meddling', but most sane people would argue that it was necessary. That also applies to Libya, albeit at a different magnitude.
Furthermore, using your flawed logic, you could argue that Britain's intervention in World War II was 'meddling', but most sane people would argue that it was necessary. That also applies to Libya, albeit at a different magnitude.
The reason we invaded during World War II was to stop Hitler who wanted to take over the whole of Europe. Both scenarios are completely different. Hitler was trying to grow a force big enough to eventually take over Europe and the possibility that Britain would be attacked was high enough for us to get involved. When did Libya ever state they were going to attack Britain? If we were provoked then fair enough but if anything its an in house issue and nothing more than that.
Nukes>troops
Original post by EdwardSAS
Bull. Although one could argue that the Libya intervention is, as you say 'meddling in another country's business', it is completed justified. Do you not believe that as a prosperous and free nation we have a moral responsibility to intervene when movements of popular consensus are being ruthlessly crushed? That argument completely justifies the Libya action.
Furthermore, using your flawed logic, you could argue that Britain's intervention in World War II was 'meddling', but most sane people would argue that it was necessary. That also applies to Libya, albeit at a different magnitude.
Furthermore, using your flawed logic, you could argue that Britain's intervention in World War II was 'meddling', but most sane people would argue that it was necessary. That also applies to Libya, albeit at a different magnitude.
Yes the potential massacre of the Libyan people by Gaddafi does justify military action against him. Unfortunately that's not the reason for Western interference- it's more because they know they won't be able to justifiably siphon oil off Gaddafi in the future and maintain their integrity. Therefore they'll get rid of him and get their oil from the new government which no doubt they'll "help" to form.
Do you really think the West would have stopped a massacre if Libya didn't have oil? Do you genuinely think they'd intervene if the same **** kicks off yet again in the DRC or Rwanda or Mozambique? No.
Original post by Sovietpride
For one:
Yes, China has more man power in its army than AMerica, but america has like what, 10x the spending?
And anywya, China wouldn't want to get involved. AFter all, you can't declare war on those who owe you $$$$ right? It's bad for business =P
Yes, China has more man power in its army than AMerica, but america has like what, 10x the spending?
And anywya, China wouldn't want to get involved. AFter all, you can't declare war on those who owe you $$$$ right? It's bad for business =P
Why wouldn't China want to get involved? They could basically along with Russia say goodbye to us and therefore weaken America as well as one of their allies has been hit. Now, America may respond by attacking another of Russia's or China's smaller allies but the likelihood America would retaliate by attacking either of those two is extremely small due to the power they possess.
America has spent more but most of it is on technology instead of actually artillery and man power. Whereas Russia are building enough arms to provide their own army and have enough for their reserves as well as sell arms to other countries in $1bn+ deals, America is investing a lot of its money into technology.
Seriously, if we got attacked America would probably laugh.
Original post by Cuddlemonster
America spends more money annually on their military than every other country combined
So while Russia and China might have ten fold our military force, they will be fighting with empty bottles of vodka and pirated DVDs (respectively) against 'mericas Apaches and tanks covered in barbed wire.
There's a reason every attack against America has been comparatively minor and standalone (i.e. 9/11). It's because America has spent three hundred years posturing and flexing to everyone else, and the rest of the world knows just how unhinged the parade of American leaders really were and are.
So while Russia and China might have ten fold our military force, they will be fighting with empty bottles of vodka and pirated DVDs (respectively) against 'mericas Apaches and tanks covered in barbed wire.
There's a reason every attack against America has been comparatively minor and standalone (i.e. 9/11). It's because America has spent three hundred years posturing and flexing to everyone else, and the rest of the world knows just how unhinged the parade of American leaders really were and are.
What America makes Russia takes makes it stronger and builds it cheaper.
Original post by Inzamam99
Yes the potential massacre of the Libyan people by Gaddafi does justify military action against him. Unfortunately that's not the reason for Western interference- it's more because they know they won't be able to justifiably siphon oil off Gaddafi in the future and maintain their integrity. Therefore they'll get rid of him and get their oil from the new government which no doubt they'll "help" to form.
Do you really think the West would have stopped a massacre if Libya didn't have oil? Do you genuinely think they'd intervene if the same **** kicks off yet again in the DRC or Rwanda or Mozambique? No.
Do you really think the West would have stopped a massacre if Libya didn't have oil? Do you genuinely think they'd intervene if the same **** kicks off yet again in the DRC or Rwanda or Mozambique? No.
Kosovo doesn't produce much oil...
Libyan oil reserves are fairly small, they don't even export to the USA ffs.
None of the countries you mentioned are in Europe's backyard, or frankly have as larger global reach as these Arab protests.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is Israel winning
- I need ideas to reword my EPQ title.
- I can't get over him
- Galleries worth the visit in London for students
- My boyfriend shoved me while drunk, what should I do
- High paying job
- can i still do well in a levels?
- Getting into Medicine
- Is the UK's future in peril?
- Antifa activist murdered in NYC
- Is the BMW series 1 a good first car?
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- Our tips for attending a Higher Education Fair.
- ChatGpt
- Cambridge Architecture Personal Statement and Portfolio
- My date showed up on a bicycle in central London
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Ban on single-use plastic cutlery comes into force in England
- AI Life Advice
- What should I specialise in after Biomedical Sciences? Highest paying?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
