Can the U.S handle it all???

[akiboy]

This is the question I want to ask every American. Can your government handle multiterror attacks around the world , fight a war on terror on almost every godamn major Islamic country in the world and at the same time control N.Korea ??? Isn't the U.S Military , U.S.A.F and the other intell orgs overburdened. This is even more serious than the Cold War when you had only Russia to handle. Just have a look at the list below:-

Iraq Insurgency:- More and more bodybags of dead American soldiers. Insurgents are making their presence felt almost everywhere in iraq. Bomb blasts near U.S tanks and vehicles. Casualties more than 2500+. Iraq has become more than a bloody nose.

Afghanistan:- NATO wants more U.S troops. I see it this way :- More U.S troops abroad less troops to defend the U.S mainland. Taliban has risen once again. Casualties are also increasing. Taliban fighters are shooting down U.S Black hawks and other surveillance craft through their surface to air rockets.
The end result- U.S has still not vanquished Taliban.

Iran:- Going nuclear. Aproximately another 1.5 years before it produces a nuke I am serious. Risk of terrorist procuring weapons from Iran-Afghan border. Iran has a sophisticated army , subs , frigates and a modern air force. Hell , it even has radar evading missiles. Iran is a big, big threat to U.S in Middle East and South Asia.

N.Korea:- The worst of all. N.Korea and nukes is one hell of a danger to States. 5th Largest standing army in the world. Suspected Chemical/Bio weapons in stock. taepodong Missiles that can hit Western Seaboard of U.S
Plus , the danger to 1000 or so U.S troops in Okinawa , Japan.

And we all know the unofficial Cold War between China and U.S It may seem nice and peaceful to the world with booming trade between both the nations. But the end result:- They are Nuclear and COMMUNIST , We are nuclear and DEMOCRATIC.

CAN THE U.S WARD OFF THESE THREATS OR WILL IT BE FIGHTING FOR A 100 YEARS.

AKshay

 

[manu1959]

No the US can not handle all these issues nor should it.....

The US should close all foreign bases and cut off all foreign aid....

The US should invest in its own people and defend its own soil and outsource to middle america.....

 

[CSM]

This is the question I want to ask every American. Can your government handle multiterror attacks around the world , fight a war on terror on almost every godamn major Islamic country in the world and at the same time control N.Korea ??? Isn't the U.S Military , U.S.A.F and the other intell orgs overburdened. This is even more serious than the Cold War when you had only Russia to handle. Just have a look at the list below:-

Iraq Insurgency:- More and more bodybags of dead American soldiers. Insurgents are making their presence felt almost everywhere in iraq. Bomb blasts near U.S tanks and vehicles. Casualties more than 2500+. Iraq has become more than a bloody nose.

Afghanistan:- NATO wants more U.S troops. I see it this way :- More U.S troops abroad less troops to defend the U.S mainland. Taliban has risen once again. Casualties are also increasing. Taliban fighters are shooting down U.S Black hawks and other surveillance craft through their surface to air rockets.
The end result- U.S has still not vanquished Taliban.

Iran:- Going nuclear. Aproximately another 1.5 years before it produces a nuke I am serious. Risk of terrorist procuring weapons from Iran-Afghan border. Iran has a sophisticated army , subs , frigates and a modern air force. Hell , it even has radar evading missiles. Iran is a big, big threat to U.S in Middle East and South Asia.

N.Korea:- The worst of all. N.Korea and nukes is one hell of a danger to States. 5th Largest standing army in the world. Suspected Chemical/Bio weapons in stock. taepodong Missiles that can hit Western Seaboard of U.S
Plus , the danger to 1000 or so U.S troops in Okinawa , Japan.

And we all know the unofficial Cold War between China and U.S It may seem nice and peaceful to the world with booming trade between both the nations. But the end result:- They are Nuclear and COMMUNIST , We are nuclear and DEMOCRATIC.

CAN THE U.S WARD OFF THESE THREATS OR WILL IT BE FIGHTING FOR A 100 YEARS.

AKshay

It can not only ward off these threats, but handle anything else that comes along too...one of the advantages to being a superpower.

 

[onedomino]

You grealy underestimate the capacity of the US Right now, for example, American defense spending is about 5 percent of GDP. In WW2, defense spending was near 50 percent of GDP. If America ever takes its other hand out from behind its back, and to paraphrase a remark from the WW2 era, the only place that Arabic and Farsi will be spoken will be in hell. Compared with WW2, the war will take a long time, particularly since we are now so obsessed with causing as little colatteral damage as possible. Cowardly Islamic fascists like this worm will be among the first to go:

-

 

[theHawk]

This country is not even at war yet. Most people go about there business and care more about sports than are concerned with international matters.

When we are really hit hard and forced to fight back, we'll be able to show alot more muscle.

 

[ekrem]

This is the question I want to ask every American. Can your government handle multiterror attacks around the world , fight a war on terror on almost every godamn major Islamic country in the world and at the same time control N.Korea ??? Isn't the U.S Military , U.S.A.F and the other intell orgs overburdened. This is even more serious than the Cold War when you had only Russia to handle. Just have a look at the list below:-

Iraq Insurgency:- More and more bodybags of dead American soldiers. Insurgents are making their presence felt almost everywhere in iraq. Bomb blasts near U.S tanks and vehicles. Casualties more than 2500+. Iraq has become more than a bloody nose.

Afghanistan:- NATO wants more U.S troops. I see it this way :- More U.S troops abroad less troops to defend the U.S mainland. Taliban has risen once again. Casualties are also increasing. Taliban fighters are shooting down U.S Black hawks and other surveillance craft through their surface to air rockets.
The end result- U.S has still not vanquished Taliban.

Iran:- Going nuclear. Aproximately another 1.5 years before it produces a nuke I am serious. Risk of terrorist procuring weapons from Iran-Afghan border. Iran has a sophisticated army , subs , frigates and a modern air force. Hell , it even has radar evading missiles. Iran is a big, big threat to U.S in Middle East and South Asia.

N.Korea:- The worst of all. N.Korea and nukes is one hell of a danger to States. 5th Largest standing army in the world. Suspected Chemical/Bio weapons in stock. taepodong Missiles that can hit Western Seaboard of U.S
Plus , the danger to 1000 or so U.S troops in Okinawa , Japan.

And we all know the unofficial Cold War between China and U.S It may seem nice and peaceful to the world with booming trade between both the nations. But the end result:- They are Nuclear and COMMUNIST , We are nuclear and DEMOCRATIC.

CAN THE U.S WARD OFF THESE THREATS OR WILL IT BE FIGHTING FOR A 100 YEARS.

AKshay

The US has only the reccources to fight one big war in next time. And US Superpower status will be defined by this outcomeing of this war.
What has USA to gain from a war with North Korea?
There is nothing to gain from there.
US would only splash its money and its reccource.
There are more factors like China and a simultaneus attack on Taiwan and other things. North Korea lies in China's influence zone. But i think that what determines the question if to go to war with North Korea is the question of the costs and what to gain in the end of the war.

Otherwise it is with Iran. If USA would make war on Iran, there would be much business for US oil and natural gas lobby in Iran.
Also US would finally controll energy suplly for this world. And after China signed with Iran an 100 billion liquified natural lgas deal, US would also have the finger on China's energy suply.
And also it would control finally the whole traffic from the Persian Gulf.

So it is a question of what to gain in a war. And in the region of China with North Korea USA only can loose, if not militarily then economically.

 

[ekrem]

This country (...) muscle.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/02/technology/business2_fatamerica0605/index.htm

The only option is to reorganize your bases thrughout the world. Even dissolving bases and concentrate the soldiers. Nowadays USA has everywhere soldiers in small numbers.
And if you want to be Superpower this has to be so.


But if you want to make war, what Iraq was definately not, you have to subtract soldiers from your bases in the world. And other Regional Powers will be happy to replace you.

So to the Thread question whether USA can handle it all: No !
If you want to handle it all, your influence (by the definition of the presence of your soldiers and bases in some parts of the world )will sink.
For example when you want to go to war with Iran in next time.
IRAQ+IRAN = less US Soldiers in other parts of the world.

 

[Annie]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/02/technology/business2_fatamerica0605/index.htm

The only option is to reorganize your bases thrughout the world. Even dissolving bases and concentrate the soldiers. Nowadays USA has everywhere soldiers in small numbers.
And if you want to be Superpower this has to be so.


But if you want to make war, what Iraq was definately not, you have to subtract soldiers from your bases in the world. And other Regional Powers will be happy to replace you.

So to the Thread question whether USA can handle it all: No !
If you want to handle it all, your influence (by the definition of the presence of your soldiers and bases in some parts of the world )will sink.

The US has problems that the rest of the world cannot understand and they are from within. Interestingly enough though, it's always been so. We've always had those that think that diplomacy and at the 'other end of the spectrum' that there are better systems, (i.e. communism) that would make the wars go away. Then the 'world' wakes up those that wish to slumber. Truth to tell, it shouldn't take that, but it does. My guess, it's a matter of time before 'the world' will perpetrate something that cannot be ignored, it should have been the USS Cole, certainly 9/11, but the leftist MSM retained control, but anyone who's been paying attention knows now that things on that front have changed greatly in the 5+ years. I don't want another attack, but I'm quite sure we are going to be hit again, my guess, the release of the Atta and the other 9/11 perpetrators suicide/martyr tapes were a call to action.

 

[Nuc]

No the US can not handle all these issues nor should it.....

The US should close all foreign bases and cut off all foreign aid....

The US should invest in its own people and defend its own soil and outsource to middle america.....

It would be interesting to see what would happen if we stopped being the cops of the world.

 

[Annie]

It would be interesting to see what would happen if we stopped being the cops of the world.

We'd be back to 1898, which didn't bode well in 1911, even less when we tried it again in 1918.

 

[USMCDevilDog]

I personally think we just need some help from other countries when it comes to fighting these wars. We seem to be the only country to actually give out some harsh punishment when needed and yet we can't even fully do that because people think it's "wrong" nowadays. What the hell? If we got people killing innocents to stay hidden while killing Americans, wtf is the problem? Let's dish it out to em and get this shit over with, the more we sit back and tend to the UN, EU, and liberal needs the more we'll wane from a world power status.

The one thing I think we definetely need to do is stop outsourcing our companies to india, china and so on. America barely makes anything we use here nowadays, we use other countries so much that if they decided to stop letting us use them we'd be totally fucked. I say we step back a little, not to isolation but to a self-economic country (with the usual trade and such) and start organizing our efforts to take out the bad guys. We need to rearrange our troops, station them places that will be out of reach of nukes while in reach of an attack against an enemy country and at the same time get some allies to fuckin help our ass out. We can't do this alone for too much longer it's just too much for one country to take. Not saying America can kick ass but if it turns out we gotta use a nuke, no one in the damn world would support that and I know for sure, even if I'm totally pro-American, that we can't take on the world by ourselves. We need help, and that's that.

 

[Gunny]

The US has only the reccources to fight one big war in next time. And US Superpower status will be defined by this outcomeing of this war.
What has USA to gain from a war with North Korea?
There is nothing to gain from there.
US would only splash its money and its reccource.
There are more factors like China and a simultaneus attack on Taiwan and other things. North Korea lies in China's influence zone. But i think that what determines the question if to go to war with North Korea is the question of the costs and what to gain in the end of the war.

Otherwise it is with Iran. If USA would make war on Iran, there would be much business for US oil and natural gas lobby in Iran.
Also US would finally controll energy suplly for this world. And after China signed with Iran an 100 billion liquified natural lgas deal, US would also have the finger on China's energy suply.
And also it would control finally the whole traffic from the Persian Gulf.

So it is a question of what to gain in a war. And in the region of China with North Korea USA only can loose, if not militarily then economically.

You believe too much media propaganda, and essentially, onedomino has it right .... we aren't even fighting yet. The US military model is based on fighting a two-front war, with military still in reserve.

When you compare mobilizing the entire United States for a total war effort to any of your rooty-poot Middle Eastern countries, and throw N Korea in for the Hell of it, you will STILL get your asses waxed.

And we don't need to be protected here on US soil ... just turned loose.

 

[manu1959]

We'd be back to 1898, which didn't bode well in 1911, even less when we tried it again in 1918.

i say we didn't do it with as much passion as i know we can now muster

 

[akiboy]

I personally think we just need some help from other countries when it comes to fighting these wars. We seem to be the only country to actually give out some harsh punishment when needed and yet we can't even fully do that because people think it's "wrong" nowadays. What the hell? If we got people killing innocents to stay hidden while killing Americans, wtf is the problem? Let's dish it out to em and get this shit over with, the more we sit back and tend to the UN, EU, and liberal needs the more we'll wane from a world power status.

The one thing I think we definetely need to do is stop outsourcing our companies to india, china and so on. America barely makes anything we use here nowadays, we use other countries so much that if they decided to stop letting us use them we'd be totally fucked. I say we step back a little, not to isolation but to a self-economic country (with the usual trade and such) and start organizing our efforts to take out the bad guys. We need to rearrange our troops, station them places that will be out of reach of nukes while in reach of an attack against an enemy country and at the same time get some allies to fuckin help our ass out. We can't do this alone for too much longer it's just too much for one country to take. Not saying America can kick ass but if it turns out we gotta use a nuke, no one in the damn world would support that and I know for sure, even if I'm totally pro-American, that we can't take on the world by ourselves. We need help, and that's that.

How is outsourcing your companies to India be harmful for U.S economy??? Infact it benefits both Indo-US trade. India has one of the best bio/chem industries in the world. Our technicians if not the best are as god as American pros. And India will never say no to Western Nations atleast not U.S. I see it this way India needs U.S trade in its country and so does the U.S.
The U.S gets its raw materials from India which directly benefit industrie in the U.S mainland. So you aint gonna get totally fucked. Not with india atleast.

As for positioning your troops you said you can position them somewhere out of reach of enemy nukes. Sorry to say but "enemy" nations also have UCBM'S having ranges to 12000+ km (Chines DF-21).And N.korea and Iran will hav 1 too in the next few years.


akSHAY

 

[CSM]

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/02/technology/business2_fatamerica0605/index.htm

The only option is to reorganize your bases thrughout the world. Even dissolving bases and concentrate the soldiers. Nowadays USA has everywhere soldiers in small numbers.
And if you want to be Superpower this has to be so.


But if you want to make war, what Iraq was definately not, you have to subtract soldiers from your bases in the world. And other Regional Powers will be happy to replace you.

So to the Thread question whether USA can handle it all: No !
If you want to handle it all, your influence (by the definition of the presence of your soldiers and bases in some parts of the world )will sink.
For example when you want to go to war with Iran in next time.
IRAQ+IRAN = less US Soldiers in other parts of the world.

I tried to follow the link provided and it lead me to an article about fat Americans.

Interesting that your premise is based soley on a military perspective. There are so many other factors involved that to limit the assessment purely on a military basis is very misleading. Even so, if we use that premise, one has to understand modern military strategy and tactics. If the situation became militarily drastic enough, the number of troops (while still a factor) is less important than the capability of projecting power on a global scale...not necessarily nukes, but things like cruise missiles and other long range conventional weapon systems. There is no doubt that the US has the military might to pretty much bomb almost any nation on the planet back into the stone age. Where the US creates problems for itself is when we choose not to do that. Iraq is a good example. We could easily have devastated the country and then simply left. We chose instead to try to not only rebuild the place but also to try to make it better. Militarily the US has far more resources than most folks can even dream of.

I will also point out that other nations have grossly underestimated the US in the past. To think that the US has only enough resources for one more war is naive. Believe me, if that were truly the case, those that hate the US would already have joined forces and tried to defeat the US militarily.

In any case, there is so much more to the United States of America than just military might that to view it's ability to "ward off these threats" in such a narrow perspective is surely going to lead our enemies to defeat.

 

[ekrem]

I tried to follow the link provided and it lead me to an article about fat Americans.

Interesting that your premise is based soley on a military perspective. There are so many other factors involved that to limit the assessment purely on a military basis is very misleading. Even so, if we use that premise, one has to understand modern military strategy and tactics. If the situation became militarily drastic enough, the number of troops (while still a factor) is less important than the capability of projecting power on a global scale...not necessarily nukes, but things like cruise missiles and other long range conventional weapon systems. There is no doubt that the US has the military might to pretty much bomb almost any nation on the planet back into the stone age. Where the US creates problems for itself is when we choose not to do that. Iraq is a good example. We could easily have devastated the country and then simply left. We chose instead to try to not only rebuild the place but also to try to make it better. Militarily the US has far more resources than most folks can even dream of.

I will also point out that other nations have grossly underestimated the US in the past. To think that the US has only enough resources for one more war is naive. Believe me, if that were truly the case, those that hate the US would already have joined forces and tried to defeat the US militarily.

In any case, there is so much more to the United States of America than just military might that to view it's ability to "ward off these threats" in such a narrow perspective is surely going to lead our enemies to defeat.

Exactly. This has not to be a militarily view only.
There are many other factors. The most important one is ECONOMY.
So you have to precise with whom USA wants to make war. The USA has only the reccources to make one war in next time. And future status of USA will decide from the outcome of that war.
What do you have to do in North Korea? What is there to gain? I mean what do you get for the costs of makeing war?
A big zero and as i said before USA will splash your reccources.

That USA can bomb most countries into stone age is out of question, but those cruise missiles, submarines, air force costs much.
And you have to add these costs to the ongoing costs in Iraq.
When USA makes now a war in the shadow of Iraq, USA will be a long time after that war motion-less.

Every nation must recover from the costs a war comes with. Especially when you make paralell wars, what Iraq is not by fighting by but cost.
I do not know the strength of North Korea, but it will surely cost much money in materia and lifel.
And when you touch China's influence zone remeber that you borrow China much money:
http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive/2006/Feb/17-883919.html
And they therefore they can somehow direct your actions.

As for Iran, all above matches, too. But they sit on trillions of natural gas reserves and billions of oil reserves. And they are a 500 billion economy with 70 million people thirsty for Coca-Cola and other American products.
And as China finances your debts and in some form has influence in you, with controlling Iranian reccources USA would controll also reccources sent from there to China.
So it would be a impasse, as long as USA has that debt. After the debt payed back USA would be in advantage as it would controll major Oil suplly to China from the Persian Gulf.

China will soon send its top economic planner to Iran in hopes of finalizing energy contracts worth more than 100 billion dollars.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-02/17/content_521433.htm

So, what you described in your post above with mobilization ithin USA for military is only a situation which would be called WW3 and economy, relations, civil life and all other things have no meaning anymore. But this is not the situation, and will not be !

 

[Gunny]

Exactly. This has not to be a militarily view only.
There are many other factors. The most important one is ECONOMY.
So you have to precise with whom USA wants to make war. The USA has only the reccources to make one war in next time. And future status of USA will decide from the outcome of that war.
What do you have to do in North Korea? What is there to gain? I mean what do you get for the costs of makeing war?
A big zero and as i said before USA will splash your reccources.

That USA can bomb most countries into stone age is out of question, but those cruise missiles, submarines, air force costs much.
And you have to add these costs to the ongoing costs in Iraq.
When USA makes now a war in the shadow of Iraq, USA will be a long time after that war motion-less.

Every nation must recover from the costs a war comes with. Especially when you make paralell wars, what Iraq is not by fighting by but cost.
I do not know the strength of North Korea, but it will surely cost much money in materia and lifel.
And when you touch China's influence zone remeber that you borrow China much money:
http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive/2006/Feb/17-883919.html
And they therefore they can somehow direct your actions.

As for Iran, all above matches, too. But they sit on trillions of natural gas reserves and billions of oil reserves. And they are a 500 billion economy with 70 million people thirsty for Coca-Cola and other American products.
And as China finances your debts and in some form has influence in you, with controlling Iranian reccources USA would controll also reccources sent from there to China.
So it would be a impasse, as long as USA has that debt. After the debt payed back USA would be in advantage as it would controll major Oil suplly to China from the Persian Gulf.


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-02/17/content_521433.htm

So, what you described in your post above with mobilization ithin USA for military is only a situation which would be called WW3 and economy, relations, civil life and all other things have no meaning anymore. But this is not the situation, and will not be !

Again, you vastly underestimate the US. We have plenty of resources. Hell, if we enlist illegal immigrants the world will be screwed in manpower alone.

Something for you to ponder: IF the US goes the all-out, unlimited war route, the first thing that stops is exports. All resources go to the war effort. We export much of our resources. If we keep them at home for our own use, we have more than enough to fight a two-front projected war AND defend the US.

The last all-out war we had we supplied ourselves as well as most of our allies.

 

[CSM]

Exactly. This has not to be a militarily view only.
There are many other factors. The most important one is ECONOMY.
So you have to precise with whom USA wants to make war. The USA has only the reccources to make one war in next time. And future status of USA will decide from the outcome of that war.
What do you have to do in North Korea? What is there to gain? I mean what do you get for the costs of makeing war?
A big zero and as i said before USA will splash your reccources.

That USA can bomb most countries into stone age is out of question, but those cruise missiles, submarines, air force costs much.
And you have to add these costs to the ongoing costs in Iraq.
When USA makes now a war in the shadow of Iraq, USA will be a long time after that war motion-less.

Every nation must recover from the costs a war comes with. Especially when you make paralell wars, what Iraq is not by fighting by but cost.
I do not know the strength of North Korea, but it will surely cost much money in materia and lifel.
And when you touch China's influence zone remeber that you borrow China much money:
http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive/2006/Feb/17-883919.html
And they therefore they can somehow direct your actions.

As for Iran, all above matches, too. But they sit on trillions of natural gas reserves and billions of oil reserves. And they are a 500 billion economy with 70 million people thirsty for Coca-Cola and other American products.
And as China finances your debts and in some form has influence in you, with controlling Iranian reccources USA would controll also reccources sent from there to China.
So it would be a impasse, as long as USA has that debt. After the debt payed back USA would be in advantage as it would controll major Oil suplly to China from the Persian Gulf.


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2006-02/17/content_521433.htm

So, what you described in your post above with mobilization ithin USA for military is only a situation which would be called WW3 and economy, relations, civil life and all other things have no meaning anymore. But this is not the situation, and will not be !

Do not judge the US by the economic/military status of other nations. I totally disagree that the US is limited by resources to one war and one war only. As for all that debt and dependence on other nations...what the heck makes you think we would worry about paying ANY debt to foreign powers if we are at war for our existence? The idea that we are or could be under the control of China somehow is ridiculous. As for oil and gas reserves, the US has as much or more; we just have hobbled ourselves intentionally from accessing them. Make no mistake, if the survival of this nation requires us to pump every last drop of oil from beneath the Alaskan tundra to survive, we will do it and the tree huggers be damned!

Your argument is akin to the European philosphy and you would have the readers of this board believe that the US is nearing or actually at the end of it's existence. You judge us based on the European perspective that because they (the European nations) have less military/economic power and greater dependence on imported naturtal resources the US should be in the same quandry. It just is not so.

The one thing that our enemies have always done is underestimate the American people; yes, we have a vocal few who would have the world believe that we are weak, that we have no stomach to fight and win, that we should apologize for all the ills in the world and even some that would surrender this country to the first petty dictator that looked at this nation crosseyed...HOWEVER....I can assure you that there are many, many more citizens of this country who are ready willing and able to successfully defend this country, that will do whatever it takes (including drill for oil, ignore debt, and bear the burden no matter what the cost) to ensure the security of this nation. That does not mean the whiney, weak spined, politcally correct crowd will go away....they will still be here...but they sure as hell will be overshadowed by the hard working, self disciplined, self responsible individual that are the steeley substance of this nation.

In summation, to those who think the US is a paper tiger, that we are at the end of our rope, that we will roll over and take whatever they dish out...bring it on! Ask the British, the Spanish, the Japanese, the Germans, the Taliban, Al-Quaeda, and quite a few others how that worked out for them!

 

[Stephanie]

But they better remember....
We have a Hugh militia within, to back up our military......

I'll be the 50 something granny in the front lines to fight for OUR COUNTRY..
And I'm a heck of a dead on shot with a rifle..... And not to dang bad with a pistol........

 

[CSM]

But they better remember....
We have a Hugh militia within, to back up our military......

I'll be the 50 something granny in the front lines to fight for OUR COUNTRY..
And I'm a heck of a dead on shot with a rifle..... And not to dang bad with a pistol........

This old buck will be right there with ya....