sick and tired of americans

[Linux23]

Originally posted by: uncouth

the UN would step in and then the US would be going down

yea, I'm sure that is the way it would go down. Bigshot, I hope you mistyped your second UN as US...

And in response to your arguement of Canada being too big to take over... Sure it is if we intend to burn and salt every damn field and forest in the whole place or fight off every gun-toting nutcase in the boonies, but I'm pretty sure we'd be able to sack your capital and get a Unconditional Surrender with moderate ease. And as for your unarmed population attempting to create a milita, well let's just say the prices of things would be American Dollars in no time. And don't count on us keeping the taxes low for you.

In the interm you should check out games like "Fallout" and movies like "Canadian Bacon". Not saying that we're going to send in only small bands of lower-middle class nobodies to take you over, or that we intend to execute you in the streets for newsmen, but just be happy that we "yanks" aren't sick and tired of you because Canada exists on our generosity...

LOL!

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

Originally posted by: bigshot
And in response to your arguement of Canada being too big to take over... Sure it is if we intend to burn and salt every damn field and forest in the whole place or fight off every gun-toting nutcase in the boonies, but I'm pretty sure we'd be able to sack your capital and get a Unconditional Surrender with moderate ease. And as for your unarmed population attempting to create a milita, well let's just say the prices of things would be American Dollars in no time. And don't count on us keeping the taxes low for you.

we cut your electricty, your resources, its not that easy of a fight. US depends on Canada on many resouces and especially electricty. canada sells so much electricty to us its not even funny..if you think you just mush over canada like nothing you are clearly wrong. with the help of UN, and an notice of an upcoming war, i will guantee you canada will muster an army 15x the size of what it has now. when you have 10+ countires on war with 1 country...the odds are on the 10+ countries winning. and the reason we dont have a large army because we DONT need one. why should we have a huge army at this present time and waste money maintaining it if it is never used.


but i know this will never happen, in my lifetime anyway

You Canadians can claim your smarter, cleaner, nicer, and more humane than us Americans (and you probably ARE) so why would you need to hold on to this delusion that Canada would have ANY chance against the US (even with the help of the UN) in an all out war?

 

[ElFenix]

come on, detroit is so bad its residents try to burn it down once a year!

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: FrancesBeansRevenge

Originally posted by: Evadman

Americans: You can doubt our intelligence, you can doubt our abilities, you can doubt our ethics, you can even doubt or sanity but you CANNOT doubt our ability to generate massive amounts of cash AND our ability to 'blow sh!t up' and kill anyone we percieve as an enemy.

Whohoo!! Sig Material!!

Sir, I will have to sue you for copyright infringement if you don't change the credit to the quote in your sig

I caught it on my first test post. I have since changed it

 

[uncouth]

Are you trying to say the US could beat the entire world!?! You're joking I hope? How is an army of less than 2 million going to defeat 200 countries? If it was a war between the US and the World, it would be the United States on the defensive.

No I'm didn't say that the US could take on the entire world. What I am saying is that the US-based UN would be going down if the US ever got to a point of going Third Reich on the world. But since you do bring it up about the US vs. the World, I'm pretty sure that the US would have "First Strike" and thus, in this day and age where the best weapons can wipe out the biggest cities, I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't be in such a bad stead.

It would probably be as simple as wiping any country with nuclear capablities off the map and then holding the rest of the world hostage with the knowledge that we're willing to toast anyone who interferes. I don't know if you New Zealanders have Star Wars, but, for the rest of us, imagine a Death Star that didn't have the critical flaw that Vader's did. I'm pretty sure we, or any other leader, with such a similar arsenal and lack of morals, could pull an equal stunt.

"The speed of our tanks is all that delays us." --- Erwin Rommel 'The Desert Fox'

 

[JellyBaby]

Tourists from any country represent the worst of the lot. Focus more on the ladies.

 

[aznmist]

Whoever brought up the fact that the US can and will take over Canada should be dragged out into the streets and shot. I remember many many threads have been formed and locked regarding this topic. I'm sure the US can demolish the major cities of Canada (Toronto, Ottawa, Vancouver) with bombs and whatnot and that would cripple Canada in a war but there is no way that US can fully take over Canada nor is there a reason to do so.

Taking over and holding a location is much harder than wrecking havoc on a place. Canada is not totally useless in the military aspects. Oh and remember: Canada has many more friends around that globe than the US does. Just ask the guys over on the Asia continent.

 

[bigshot]

No I'm didn't say that the US could take on the entire world. What I am saying is that the US-based UN would be going down if the US ever got to a point of going Third Reich on the world. But since you do bring it up about the US vs. the World, I'm pretty sure that the US would have "First Strike" and thus, in this day and age where the best weapons can wipe out the biggest cities, I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't be in such a bad stead.

that would be one of the most ridiclous comments i have ever heard.
i would love to see US vs the World and the US would be down very fast and quickly...when you have russia, china, iran, iraq, india, canada, britian, and the rest of europe, japan, austarila shooting nukes till no end, millions and MILLIONS and then MORE MILLIONS and more millions of soldiers ready to fight then millions of aircrafts, naval etc ready for battle, all countries buying endless amount of war equipement the US would go down HARD and quick. An all out war between US vs the world. US would be down in less than a year. if you think the US has THAT powerful of an army your crazy. hell i think if US had a war with china it would not be over for years nevermind the world.

 

[CanOWorms]

I think the problem with the US vs World thing is that not many nations can assemble a force to go by sea thousands of miles over to the US.

And odds are if the US is against 10+ countries, it can win.. Let's see... Nepal, Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Vatican City, Tuvalu, Maldives, Seychelles, Nauru, and Monaco would lose to the US Of course they would lose to almost anyone

 

[Mustangrrl]

Originally posted by: mflacy
Like maple syrup, Canada's evil oozes over the United States.

Think of your children pledging allegiance to the maple leaf. Mayonnaise on everything. Winter 11 months of the year. Anne Murray - all day, every day.

They are always dreaming up a lotta ways to ruin our lives. The metric system, for the love of God! Celsius! Neil freakin Young!

And I'll tell ya another thing: Their beer SUCKS!

OMG, that's hysterically funny
~robyn

 

[uncouth]

nor is there a reason to do so.

Okay so you admit that this is a hypothetical or intellectual disscussion, right? So don't tell me I should be

dragged out into the streets and shot

because, with hopes not to ruin your virgin ears, Canada is fvcked when it comes down to any type of war between it and it's neighbor. I don't claim to be a military strategist or anything but I'm willing to purpose a fairly foolproof plan for taking over Canada. I'll even cut to the chase and ignore other fairly standard measures of war like propaganda and falsifed border disputes and all that...

Long story short, the US could do exactly what was done in August of 1945 and entirely destroy Vancouver or any other Candian city and then insist Unconditional Surrender before the rest of the cities of Canada would become holes in the ground. Either the Canadain politicains would bend over or we'd have to find a way to find a way to get the surviving beavers to sign a surrender.

Sure this plan has some interesting economic reprecussions but it would be a rather simple way of insuring a victory over just about anyone... Winning a war isn't always about holding a gun to the head of each and every man, woman, and child, but sometimes it's just about making a country an offer it can't refuse...

And I'm not saying that we "will" do this, but we certainly could, and just because we won't doesn't make it any less of a fact...

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: bigshot
im so sick and tired of americans its not even funny.
I live in Canada and worked close to the border for a couple years doing retail and because of the tourism alot of americans come over.

everyday i dread going to work because of these yankees.

ex. Hey let me pull out some "funny money" to pay for this shirt. Or let me pay with some "real money" for this shirt. Like canadian money isnt real buddy? whats up these americans asses? everytime i hear this i shake my head in disgust

or what about "are these prices in AMERICAN dollars" NO man they arent...there in canadian cause YOU ARE IN CANADA. or what about "wow your taxes are high here were only have to pay a couple percent back in south" big deal, if you wanna be stubborn about taxes go back to your own gun wailing, no health care country.

and everytime i go down to american which is rarely i am disgusted on how cities look. I go down to buffalo to watch a hockey game and the whole city is like wood. everything is bordered up, closed down, ghetto style. rarely do you see this in canada. hell ottawa and montreal have a huge population and are one of the cleanest cities in canada.
well thats the end of my rant of americans...please if your gonna come over be polite and us canadians will be polite as well, but dont bring your egos over here how you think your king sh!t to us when really your not.

i dunno i'm an american, but i do notice that americans in other countries tend to respect the other country less than foreigners do when they come over the world. its the america owns the world mentality, and sadly its a fact of life.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: bigshot
No I'm didn't say that the US could take on the entire world. What I am saying is that the US-based UN would be going down if the US ever got to a point of going Third Reich on the world. But since you do bring it up about the US vs. the World, I'm pretty sure that the US would have "First Strike" and thus, in this day and age where the best weapons can wipe out the biggest cities, I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't be in such a bad stead.

that would be one of the most ridiclous comments i have ever heard.
i would love to see US vs the World and the US would be down very fast and quickly...when you have russia, china, iran, iraq, india, canada, britian, and the rest of europe, japan, austarila shooting nukes till no end, millions and MILLIONS and then MORE MILLIONS and more millions of soldiers ready to fight then millions of aircrafts, naval etc ready for battle, all countries buying endless amount of war equipement the US would go down HARD and quick. An all out war between US vs the world. US would be down in less than a year. if you think the US has THAT powerful of an army your crazy. hell i think if US had a war with china it would not be over for years nevermind the world.

Well this entire argument is pretty pointless, but it depends on a lot of factors. One of them that many people seem to forget is naval power. The Atlantic and the Pacific are pretty big ponds to cross, and you have to protect your transports, carriers, etc. from submarines, other planes, cruise missiles, etc.

I'm not arguing that the US could take on the world, but I don't think there would be anything 'quick' about it (unless nukes got involved, and then everyone would be screwed). Much of the world isn't geared up for war to the degree that the United States is. It would take some time to get things going for them. As far as China goes, they have the numbers but I don't think they have the skill or the tech... yet.

But like I said, the argument is pointless. Whether you could get the cooperation of the world to gang up on the US is questionable, and anyway the US has no interest in taking on the rest of the world or Canada.

It's kind of fun to think and talk about, but it's fantasy (and let's hope it will always remain that way).

 

[StinkyPinky]

No I'm didn't say that the US could take on the entire world. What I am saying is that the US-based UN would be going down if the US ever got to a point of going Third Reich on the world. But since you do bring it up about the US vs. the World, I'm pretty sure that the US would have "First Strike" and thus, in this day and age where the best weapons can wipe out the biggest cities, I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't be in such a bad stead.

It would probably be as simple as wiping any country with nuclear capablities off the map and then holding the rest of the world hostage with the knowledge that we're willing to toast anyone who interferes. I don't know if you New Zealanders have Star Wars, but, for the rest of us, imagine a Death Star that didn't have the critical flaw that Vader's did. I'm pretty sure we, or any other leader, with such a similar arsenal and lack of morals, could pull an equal stunt.

Well, I wasn't talking about nuclear war because no one wins that. If you think the US can nuke all other nuclear powers into oblivion and not take massive damage themselves, you are mistaken. I'm sure they have an early warning system. And how exactly would the US nuke Russia anyway? They probably have silos in the middle of Siberia no one even knows about.

It's one thing to crap on some third world country from the safely on bombers, but it's another thing to bomb wealthy western nations who have very advanced airforces of their own. Except for NZ of course which relies on crop dusters and flares for air defence

 

[brtspears2]

i'm sick and tired of canadians (just wanted to say the inverse of the topic)

Thats aboot all I have to say, aye?

 

[uncouth]

Okay this is my final response because I have mail I have to deliever come morning...

Anyways my point was that the only way the US could take on the world would be to blanket nuclear blasts over every country with nuclear capabilities. Assuming the element of surprise, this would probably be a fairly effective way of becoming the sole nuclear power in the world and thus being able to dominate everyone by holding that fact over the world's heads. It's really not such a far-fetched thing... I'm just happy that the nukes haven't become as popular as this plan requires, because I love you guys. Really.

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: uncouth
Okay this is my final response because I have mail I have to deliever come morning...

Anyways my point was that the only way the US could take on the world would be to blanket nuclear blasts over every country with nuclear capabilities. Assuming the element of surprise, this would probably be a fairly effective way of becoming the sole nuclear power in the world and thus being able to dominate everyone by holding that fact over the world's heads. It's really not such a far-fetched thing... I'm just happy that the nukes haven't become as popular as this plan requires, because I love you guys. Really.

The US has over 10,000 warheads, more than enough to lay waste to most of the world. The problem is that a nuclear strike will not kill most silos in other countries. They could just toss theirs back our way even after they get hit. They would launch them way before that, as any launch will most likely be detected within minutes. With a flight time of over an hour, the rest of the world has enough time to wipe us out.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I think the problem with the US vs World thing is that not many nations can assemble a force to go by sea thousands of miles over to the US.

And odds are if the US is against 10+ countries, it can win.. Let's see... Nepal, Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Vatican City, Tuvalu, Maldives, Seychelles, Nauru, and Monaco would lose to the US Of course they would lose to almost anyone

Why would the world attack the US via the sea over thousands of miles? They would simply use the Carribean, Cuba, Mexico and Canada as bases and do a massive ground assault. That way the US would be fighting over multiple fronts with divided forces.

At least that's the way I would do it if I was Overlord of the World Much easier said then done, of course.

 

[poopaskoopa]

are these prices in AMERICAN dollars" NO man they arent...there in canadian cause YOU ARE IN CANADA

Hahaha. That's classic.

 

[aznmist]

Originally posted by: brtspears2
i'm sick and tired of canadians (just wanted to say the inverse of the topic)

Thats aboot all I have to say, aye?

This is the stuff that makes Canadians mad. Who the hell speaks like that!? Oh and the americans invented the mullet. Be proud.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I think the problem with the US vs World thing is that not many nations can assemble a force to go by sea thousands of miles over to the US.

And odds are if the US is against 10+ countries, it can win.. Let's see... Nepal, Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Vatican City, Tuvalu, Maldives, Seychelles, Nauru, and Monaco would lose to the US Of course they would lose to almost anyone

Why would the world attack the US via the sea over thousands of miles? They would simply use the Carribean, Cuba, Mexico and Canada as bases and do a massive ground assault. That way the US would be fighting over multiple fronts with divided forces.

At least that's the way I would do it if I was Overlord of the World Much easier said then done, of course.

Well they have to go by sea thousands of miles to go to those bases

 

[uncouth]

Okay I lied about being done with this thread, I'm sorry. Two things before I claim to be gone for the second time.

My reasoning is exactly why Europe and the rest of the world complained so much when the US wanted to create a protective shield around ourselves that could protect the US from any retalitory strikes that might come our way. Clearly if no one could attack the US where would the balance of power be? What would stop the US from doing what I have suggested?

Secondly, I think everyone not living in the US, and especially Canada, should read this important article in full. It may seem a bit dated on world politics but I think the situations described seem inevitable. Please bare warning to that guide because I want you guys to be around after the irradiated dust settles...

 

[StinkyPinky]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
I think the problem with the US vs World thing is that not many nations can assemble a force to go by sea thousands of miles over to the US.

And odds are if the US is against 10+ countries, it can win.. Let's see... Nepal, Andorra, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Vatican City, Tuvalu, Maldives, Seychelles, Nauru, and Monaco would lose to the US Of course they would lose to almost anyone

Why would the world attack the US via the sea over thousands of miles? They would simply use the Carribean, Cuba, Mexico and Canada as bases and do a massive ground assault. That way the US would be fighting over multiple fronts with divided forces.

At least that's the way I would do it if I was Overlord of the World Much easier said then done, of course.

Well they have to go by sea thousands of miles to go to those bases

True, but I'm sure the world would have enough naval strength to defend the troop transports.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Originally posted by: uncouth
Okay I lied about being done with this thread, I'm sorry. Two things before I claim to be gone for the second time.

My reasoning is exactly why Europe and the rest of the world complained so much when the US wanted to create a protective shield around ourselves that could protect the US from any retalitory strikes that might come our way. Clearly if no one could attack the US where would the balance of power be? What would stop the US from doing what I have suggested?

Secondly, I think everyone not living in the US, and especially Canada, should read this important article in full. It may seem a bit dated on world politics but I think the situations described seem inevitable. Please bare warning to that guide because I want you guys to be around after the irradiated dust settles...

For one thing the shield isn't up yet and it may never be up, and for another thing I'll be amazed if the shield is so effective it can stop thousands of incoming nukes. I think it's designed to stop one or two at a time. Maybe I'm mistaken??

I agree that if the shield can stop all incoming nukes, then the US would have a huge advantage over anyone else. Because in one swoop they would have basically become the only country with effective weapons of mass destruction. That would be a huge hammer to wield.

 

[Rainsford]

So...what...has bashing America become a substitute for having a brain? Cause it sure looks that way.