Commonwealth vrs U.S

[Gogf]

America. No question.

 

[Lotus49]

Hey, by the way, the Irish let us operate out of Shannon. So, we're right on your doorstep, in reality.

It's controversial, sure. But, no one seems to be able to turn down GWB's deals, even though they 'hate him' so much.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

If Britain and its Empire could not defeat America when it was still in its infancy, what in the world would make anyone think they could do it now? No slight against the British, mind you.

 

[Nylan]

If Britain and its Empire could not defeat America when it was still in its infancy, what in the world would make anyone think they could do it now? No slight against the British, mind you.

Dang

(tenchars)

 

[Lotus49]

If Britain and its Empire could not defeat America when it was still in its infancy, what in the world would make anyone think they could do it now? No slight against the British, mind you.

Well, frankly (since I'am fair and unbiased) the British SHOULD have been able to crush us in the American Revolutionary War.

But, like the Battle of Midway... somebody up there is lookin' out for us.

 

[sysyphus]

But, like the Battle of Midway... somebody up there is lookin' out for us.

Yep, and usually it's the Brits.

 

[Nylan]

Yep, and usually it's the Brits.

*Hops in time machine and keeps the US out of both WWI and WWII*

 

[azzaman333]

So what, do you think these other countries are going to just sit around and let you bomb THEIR lands? Let's say you (GBR) wanted to bomb some USAF bases in Germany (which is their country, yet, they lease the bases to us). Also, Italy - we have quite a few large bases in Italy. The Italians HATE us, but - they don't want us to leave. Our bases in certain parts of the country are vital to their local economy, and they know it. So even though like I say the Italians hate us, and hate us for being there, they actually let us EXPAND our bases (ongoing current projects), because they know it's in their best interest.

If the USA started invading Great Britain, I doubt that Italy or Germany would be too pleased with that.

Nevermind the others, which you would have a hard time reaching. Let's say for example you wanted to bomb Camp Zama (U.S. Army), in Japan. That place is located literally in the city of Tokyo. Good luck avoiding collateral damage, and hoping the Japanese just look the other way, as some AUS/NZL task force sits off shore, lauching airstrikes.

And China and Japan are just going to love you for your invasion? I doubt it.

So, right there, we've added Germany, Italy, and Japan to OUR "Commonwealth". NOW, let's see what happens...

Or, adding China, Japan, and a whole slew of European nations against you because they feel threatened by your expansions into the nearby lands.

See, it's not that we just 'have overseas bases', it's that we're fully, long-term integrated into the host nations' economies, and infrastructure. It's a win-win scenario for all concerned. Therefore, you're not going to just 'take out'/attack these places, without considerable diplomatic consequences, in a real-world scenario.

Who is to say that the host countries wont attack your bases before you try and wipe out the Commonwealth?

Earlier though, I did say it would be bloody, and there WOULD be losses. -I then also mentioned who would be able to replenish those losses much more quickly...

And there is no way that other major world powers would sit idly by and just ignore the American landgrab taking place worldwide.

 

[Nylan]

azzaman, have you considered the flip side? Maybe the COMMONWEALTH *gasp* is being agressive and expansionist. That turns every single one of your arguments against you.

 

[sysyphus]

*Hops in time machine and keeps the US out of both WWI and WWII*

The US was in WWI for all of 10 minutes and only joined WWII to get Commonwealth support against Japan.

azzaman, have you considered the flip side? Maybe the COMMONWEALTH *gasp* is being agressive and expansionist. That turns every single one of your arguments against you.

The Commonwealth is already so large it covers a quarter of the earth's land mass and the sun never sets on it. Expansion would be pointless.

 

[Nylan]

The US was in WWI for all of 10 minutes and only joined WWII to get Commonwealth support against Japan.



The Commonwealth is already so large it covers a quarter of the earth's land mass and the sun never sets on it. Expansion would be pointless.

The US turned the tables in WWI, otherwise you'd be speaking German (possibly)


My boy, have you not forgotten the volunteer fighter pilots that went to Britain to aid the RAF in WWII? I would think you'd be more grateful that we didn't leave you to be bombed into oblivion.

Power breeds hunger for power, so yes, expansion is feasable. Even if not, this is a hypothetical scenario where each nation could possibly be corrupt, or both of them just tire of each other and want a good blood bath.

 

[Lotus49]

The US was in WWI for all of 10 minutes and only joined WWII to get Commonwealth support against Japan.

C'mon, man - the whole reason for the 'last hurrah' German offensive was a last-ditch effort to break the stalemate, before the Americans arrived on station in large enough numbers (fresh troops) that German victory would have been impossible.

Basically, the U.S. was the catalyst. With out any U.S. involvement, WWI might still be going on, right now. There was no real end in sight, and no side was going to budge. Only reason Germany cried 'Uncle' was because they knew once their final offensive had failed, it was only gonna go downhill from there. So, might as well quit while you still have some strength to bargain with. Of course, then the Versailles Treaty was shoved down their throats in 1919, making it all a moot point.

Point being, we tipped the scales. Just go ask the Germans.

Also, go visit the USMC museum at Parris Island, SC - specifically the WWI section. There was this one German fort that the French had been trying (and failing) to capture for several years. The Marines took it in a couple of days.

"Bah. They made no difference."

"Plus, we burned down the White House."

"Bah."

 

[JohnRM]

The US would win by a landslide. Within a month the US would have complete control of the seas, and then its simply of how much bombing they can take before surrender.

I have news for you. We have complete control of the seas, now. The rest of the world is just playing with plastic boats in a bath tub, compared to the United States Navy.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

And uncle sam would nuke first those who try to nuke it!!!!

 

[azzaman333]

azzaman, have you considered the flip side? Maybe the COMMONWEALTH *gasp* is being agressive and expansionist. That turns every single one of your arguments against you.

Realistically, the Commonwealth doesnt have the strength in its alliances to conduct a joint offensive against the US. The US just needs to convince 1 nation that going on an offensive is fun/beneficial.

 

[sysyphus]

The US turned the tables in WWI, otherwise you'd be speaking German (possibly)

And if it wasn't for Britain, Americans would all be speaking Navajo.

America's involvement in the end did help bring it to a quicker end, but don't act like you won it. French, Russian and Commonwealth troops stuck it out the whole war. Americans weren't all battle weary when they came in like ours were, what the hell did you expect?

My boy, have you not forgotten the volunteer fighter pilots that went to Britain to aid the RAF in WWII? I would think you'd be more grateful that we didn't leave you to be bombed into oblivion.

There were 10 US pilots flying in the Battle of Britain, flying Spits no less. That's a bit of a spit in the ocean when countires like Canada, New Zealand and Poland contributed more than 100 pilots each (not to mention of course the over 500 British pilots).

Power breeds hunger for power, so yes, expansion is feasable. Even if not, this is a hypothetical scenario where each nation could possibly be corrupt, or both of them just tire of each other and want a good blood bath.

The difference is though that the Commonwelath is not a nations, it is an alliance of nations. It would take over 30 corrupt leaders to get the entire Commonwealth started on somethign dodgy.

 

[JohnRM]

And if it wasn't for Britain, Americans would all be speaking Navajo.

America's involvement in the end did help bring it to a quicker end, but don't act like you won it. French, Russian and Commonwealth troops stuck it out the whole war. Americans weren't all battle weary when they came in like ours were, what the hell did you expect?

Yeah, I am about as much of a hard-arse supporter of America as one can get, but even I know that the U.S. merely hastened the outcome of the first World War.

There were 10 US pilots flying in the Battle of Britain, flying Spits no less. That's a bit of a spit in the ocean when countires like Canada, New Zealand and Poland contributed more than 100 pilots each (not to mention of course the over 500 British pilots).

Yeah, this guy is starting to make us look very bad. We made a huge mistake by not getting involved back in 1939. My respect for the British and the Commonwealth is neverending for what they went through. Real friends wouldn't let their pals get pummeled like that.

 

[Mise]

If you include every territory that Great Britain has ever controlled, then it might be even.

 

[Brighteye]

If you include every territory that Great Britain ever controlled that would be perhaps half the world, including a fair proportion of the US itself.

That really does seem a bit of a stretch of the imagination.

 

[candle86]

yes it does, the sun set on the brittish empire