Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Is it inevitable that Britain or the US will get attacked in the near future? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    Do you not believe the USA is capable of defeating the Libyan military?
    well that is obviously possible.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamzazulfiqar)
    well that is obviously possible.
    So where is the argument? I'm not proposing the US do such a stupid thing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    So where is the argument? I'm not proposing the US do such a stupid thing.
    the arguement is that the us cant fork out another invasion.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    The USA could defeat the Libyan military in one week. How is this even an argument :facepalm:

    Gadaffi may go into hiding, that's not the point - his regime would be finished.
    Funny how it hasn't happened then. If they could do it they would, but they can't. Also you said they would remove Gadaffi in a week first, not take out the Libyan military, two different things. So why change your statement? It's either one or the other, either way, the USA military can't do it within a week otherwise they would as it would save money.

    I love how everyone over estimates the power the USA have.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x)
    Funny how it hasn't happened then. If they could do it they would, but they can't. Also you said they would remove Gadaffi in a week first, not take out the Libyan military, two different things. So why change your statement? It's either one or the other, either way, the USA military can't do it within a week otherwise they would as it would save money.

    I love how everyone over estimates the power the USA have.
    I couldnt agree more.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x)
    Funny how it hasn't happened then. If they could do it they would, but they can't. Also you said they would remove Gadaffi in a week first, not take out the Libyan military, two different things. So why change your statement? It's either one or the other, either way, the USA military can't do it within a week otherwise they would as it would save money.

    I love how everyone over estimates the power the USA have.
    1.) The USA could easily defeat the Libyan military via a ground invasion within a very short period of time. This is a fact.

    2.) The USA is not permitted to use ground troops as it would be illegal as decided by the UN - in addition, Obama was very reluctant to get involved in this conflict and the US public are not behind the conflict and there is a possibility that Obama could be impeached because he did not seek the approval of Congress to enforce this no-fly zone (which is required by the US constitution to start a war - BO argues this is not a war)

    There is a difference between the USA having the capibility to remove Gaddafi (which it does) and actually deciding to remove Gaddafi via ground troops or carpet bombing (of which it has no intention).

    (Original post by hamzazulfiqar)
    the arguement is that the us cant fork out another invasion.
    It could borrow or cut spending in another area. If it was so stupid as to get involved in another nation building game.

    Never going to happen - the US public won't allow another invasion that doesn't aid national security after Iraq & Afgh.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackVT)
    Troll or Retarded

    Most likely Troll, how do they get their kicks out of this? If you want to be funny be inventive in jokes, not just retarded
    i hate nerds like you who shut troll on every posts
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    1.) The USA could easily defeat the Libyan military via a ground invasion within a very short period of time. This is a fact.

    2.) The USA is not permitted to use ground troops as it would be illegal as decided by the UN - in addition, Obama was very reluctant to get involved in this conflict and the US public are not behind the conflict and there is a possibility that Obama could be impeached because he did not seek the approval of Congress to enforce this no-fly zone (which is required by the US constitution to start a war - BO argues this is not a war)

    There is a difference between the USA having the capibility to remove Gaddafi (which it does) and actually deciding to remove Gaddafi via ground troops or carpet bombing (of which it has no intention).
    Again, a short period of time does not equal a week.

    Also, to assume the US Army could take control of a resistant country like Libya within a week is crazy, they may do it quickly but it would take longer than a week. Its also very likely ground troops will end up being sent in. NATO is only in it's first phase of operation, there is still a lot to be done
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x)
    Again, a short period of time does not equal a week.

    Also, to assume the US Army could take control of a resistant country like Libya with an week is crazy, they may do it quickly but it would take longer than a week. Its also very likely ground troops will end up being sent in. NATO is only in it's first phase of operation, there is still a lot to be done
    I can't see ground troops. Obama is not a hawk and the US public would go crazy.

    It could defeat the Libyan military within a week. They decimated the Iraqi military without blinking. The issue is nation building - which is long, expensive and unpopular; like we saw in Iraq. Nobody in the USA wants to nation build Libya - a gound invasion will not pass congress and OB would have to put it though congress or he will be impeached.

    If you want a snapshot of how powerful the American military is; take a look at this; (note the UK no-longer has that number)



    America has about twice as many aircraft carriers as the rest of humanity combined, and America's aircraft carriers are substantially larger than almost all the other's aircraft carriers.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x)
    Funny how it hasn't happened then. If they could do it they would, but they can't. Also you said they would remove Gadaffi in a week first, not take out the Libyan military, two different things. So why change your statement? It's either one or the other, either way, the USA military can't do it within a week otherwise they would as it would save money.

    I love how everyone over estimates the power the USA have.
    Well they technically could. They could technically do it in hours - just bomb all the cities where they have a presence.

    The issue is, the quicker you do it, the more civilians are killed in the process. My ridiculous example above would possibly kill millions. A more realistic ground invasion (though not necessarily in a week) would kill thousands. The current action, though slow, is unlikely to kill anywhere near that number.

    The amount of power the US has is indisputable - you can only argue on the logistics of using that power against military targets, as opposed to just firing on anything.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    I can't see ground troops. Obama is not a hawk and the US public would go crazy.

    It could defeat the Libyan military within a week. They decimated the Iraqi military without blinking. The issue is nation building - which is long, expensive and unpopular; like we saw in Iraq. Nobody in the USA wants to nation build Libya - a gound invasion will not pass congress and OB would have to put it though congress or he will be impeached.

    If you want a snapshot of how powerful the American military is; take a look at this; (note the UK no-longer has that number)

    [img]x[/IMG]
    When are you going to realise governments rarely act with the public in mind? They do what pleases them. The majority in the UK didn't want to go into Iraq or Afghanistan but it still happened because our government along with the US government had their own motives for invasion.

    The US Army did not take out Iraqs military in a week and neither will they with Libya's, it's a ridiculous comment. Yes they are stronger and yes they will eventually get it done but to say within a week is laughable. Also, Congress will do what's in it's own interests and if that means sending ground troops in, they will.

    As for your picture, it's irrelevant.

    1) it's outdated
    2) do you honestly think countries are not going to have secret artillery? why would Russia let other countries know the strength they have? the last thing you do in warfare is show your hand. No one really knows what each country has in total power to be perfectly honest and anyone who thinks they do are kidding themselves.
    3) it's from a US source and is likely to be biased for a number of reasons

    You've just shown to me your naïveté in relation to international relations and how governments manipulate things to fool the public into thinking everything is good and they're safe. It's all inside propaganda that has been around for centuries. Surely from WW2 history lessons you should know this.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x)
    When are you going to realise governments rarely act with the public in mind? They do what pleases them. The majority in the UK didn't want to go into Iraq or Afghanistan but it still happened because our government along with the US government had their own motives for invasion.

    The US Army did not take out Iraqs military in a week and neither will they with Libya's, it's a ridiculous comment. Yes they are stronger and yes they will eventually get it done but to say within a week is laughable. Also, Congress will do what's in it's own interests and if that means sending ground troops in, they will.

    As for your picture, it's irrelevant.

    1) it's outdated
    2) do you honestly think countries are not going to have secret artillery? why would Russia let other countries know the strength they have? the last thing you do in warfare is show your hand. No one really knows what each country has in total power to be perfectly honest and anyone who thinks they do are kidding themselves.
    3) it's from a US source and is likely to be biased for a number of reasons

    You've just shown to me your naïveté in relation to international relations and how governments manipulate things to fool the public into thinking everything is good and they're safe. It's all inside propaganda that has been around for centuries. Surely from WW2 history lessons you should know this.

    Its very difficult to hide a military build up of any kind. Both the US and Russia have spy satalities that constantly fly over each others terrortory.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    Well they technically could. They could technically do it in hours - just bomb all the cities where they have a presence.

    The issue is, the quicker you do it, the more civilians are killed in the process. My ridiculous example above would possibly kill millions. A more realistic ground invasion (though not necessarily in a week) would kill thousands. The current action, though slow, is unlikely to kill anywhere near that number.

    The amount of power the US has is indisputable - you can only argue on the logistics of using that power against military targets, as opposed to just firing on anything.
    No they can't. If, as you say, they just bombed cities and killed loads of civilians they would come under attack from Russia and China, as they have been warned.

    That's exactly why they haven't because the last thing they want is involvement from them.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x)
    When are you going to realise governments rarely act with the public in mind? They do what pleases them. The majority in the UK didn't want to go into Iraq or Afghanistan but it still happened because our government along with the US government had their own motives for invasion.
    The majority of Americans supported Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Regardless of what you imagine, the US congress will not support a ground intervention - and the USA is a democracy and it will be electoral suicide for Obama to launch another costly ground intervention into Libya.

    The US Army did not take out Iraqs military in a week and neither will they with Libya's, it's a ridiculous comment.
    The USA defeated Iraq in standard conflict in three weeks. Three weeks into the invasion Baghdad was captured and Saddam was running. And Iraq's military was far, far better than Libya.

    Yes they are stronger and yes they will eventually get it done but to say within a week is laughable. Also, Congress will do what's in it's own interests and if that means sending ground troops in, they will.
    It isn't particularly in the interests of the USA, the president had no interest in the no-fly zone and there is very strong opposition to the no-fly zone and an invasion itself will be strongly resisted at every level of government and from the people themselves - unlike Iraq and Afghanistan - where there was majority support from every level of government and the general public. Obama was too scared to even put the no-fly zone in front of congress because he knew it probably wouldn't have passed. He would have to place a ground invasion in front of congress or it is a very serious violation of the executive power granted to the president by the constitution and would be one of the most clear and obvious impeachments of a president in the history of the United States.

    1) it's outdated
    2006. The only changes I am aware of are that China has bought a training carrier and the UK has lost all of them but one. Other than that everything remains the same.

    2) do you honestly think countries are not going to have secret artillery? why would Russia let other countries know the strength they have? the last thing you do in warfare is show your hand. No one really knows what each country has in total power to be perfectly honest and anyone who thinks they do are kidding themselves.
    Are you joking? You cannot have secret aircraft carriers!

    3) it's from a US source and is likely to be biased for a number of reasons
    That is the number of aircraft carrier - stop being obtuse.

    You've just shown to me your naïveté in relation to international relations and how governments manipulate things to fool the public into thinking everything is good and they're safe. It's all inside propaganda that has been around for centuries. Surely from WW2 history lessons you should know this.
    I am fully aware of this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Its very difficult to hide a military build up of any kind. Both the US and Russia have spy satalities that constantly fly over each others terrortory.
    it's difficult, not impossible.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x)
    No they can't. If, as you say, they just bombed cities and killed loads of civilians they would come under attack from Russia and China, as they have been warned.

    That's exactly why they haven't because the last thing they want is involvement from them.
    No, they wouldn't because Russia and China don't really care about Libya. If they really were that bothered then they would not have even agreed to the initial UN resolution for military action.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Eurasia = Russia / China / Germany

    All asia to China

    West europe to Germany

    central block to Russia.

    3 great pure nations against the pariahs of the world.

    LOL
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Inevitable maybe. Near future who knows. Live your life and don't go too mad. Simple.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    actually it should all of us vs these coward faced bankerwnnnakers
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AreYouDizzeeBlud_x)
    http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/24/t...stpolitik.html

    someone clearly hasn't kept up with modern international relations.
    I know all about that, but the thought that they'd side with Russia over the rest of Europe is friggin retarded.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.