MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Who said invade? Who said colonize? No one. We are just talking straight military capability here.
Set piece war. And in that, I dont see the EU beating the USA at all.
Europe vs. US
- Thread starter Swedishguy
- Start date
Who said invade? Who said colonize? No one. We are just talking straight military capability here.
Set piece war. And in that, I dont see the EU beating the USA at all.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Not really a smart move. How are you going to keep those aircraft from being destroyed on the ground by say tomahawk hits? You would lose your several squadrons right off the bat...not a good beginning to the war.
Yes, and industry can be destroyed. We CAN destroy yours...and you cant even come close to hitting ours.
Playing military catch-up is a losing game. If we have far more toys, the game will be over before you would be allowed to catch up.
Your kidding yourself.
The US doesn't have the numbers to invade. Look at the problems they're having in Iraq.
Finally, I think that we can rely on the American armed forces to be massively overconfident and make lots of mistakes, judging from recent (and not-so-recent) performances. Since they need to be quick, I think that this will cost them a lot, they'll be bogged down, and the EU will gradually outmanufacture the US in a protracted war.
Finally, I think that we can rely on the American armed forces to be massively overconfident and make lots of mistakes, judging from recent (and not-so-recent) performances. Since they need to be quick, I think that this will cost them a lot, they'll be bogged down, and the EU will gradually outmanufacture the US in a protracted war.
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
This conversation is of course useless unless parameters, objectives, & reasons for this war are outlined.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Not a good example. Lets just say we left right after we blew the place up. You cant equate whats going on in Iraq right now with all out war. If our goal was to defeat Europe...not colonize it, we could do that.
How are they going to outmanufacture us with their major highways bombed out and factories destroyed in a protracted war?
Thorgalaeg
Deity
It seems that invading third world defenseless countries (and not being able to control them btw) tends to inflate already inflated egos even more. 
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
It seems that invading third world defenseless countries (and not being able to control them btw) tends to inflate already inflated egos even more.
Prior to the first gulf war, Iraq had one of the largest and most modern military in the world. They had bought some of the best Soviet equipment available with significant SAM/AAM defense belts implemented.
Even after the first gulf war, they still retained military might comparable to their neighbors if not still more so. The republican guards and their equipment were largely untouched in the first gulf war, due to the sparse 100 hours of that war on the ground.
If you think they were defenseless, you have no part even commenting in this convesation.
If Europe attacks the US, then they'll just sail some commercial ships loaded with nukes into American harbours. On day one all major coastal cities in the US could be destroyed. Europe would also commit other "terrorist" acts in cities in the mainland of the US. That would basically knock the US out totally.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
You dont give me your permission for commenting?
He, he... speaking seriously... first Gulf war not USA-Iraq War but all the world vs Iraq. Second, it was hardly one of the most modern military in the world but an isolated and third world army with old downgraded soviet weapons.
After the first gulf war and UN sanctions, Iraqi army was a joke, not air forces, not navy, no supplies, nothing. It is amusing to use Iraq "war" to say things as "look at Iraq USA army now is not like in Vietnam times but much better" when in fact USA army is much smaller now the difference is that in Vietnam you were fighting against forces supported by a developed power, USSR, not against an isolated and destroyed third world country.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
You dont give me your permission for commenting?
No..just commenting on the ignorance of your statement.
All the world vs Iraq? Please tell me the ratio of forces provided. The USA gave the main effort in that by far. We sent 575,000 troops. Other states that sent troops never even set foot in Iraq. So at least be honest.
Also, you seem to think that in 1990-91 that a Mig-29 or a soviet T-72 tank are 'old downgraded soviet weapons'? You have no idea what you are talking about. The Iraqis had over 5,800 tanks, 5100 armored vehicles, 3850 pieces of artillery, and over 750 fighters/bombers and roughly 1.2 million ground troops.
By all means tell me how that is an 'isolated and third world army'.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Tell me how? Better tell me how it was not totally isolated. And how it was not a third world army? Is Iraq the first world now?
You are really delusional here.
Ah, thanks, my general.
The war was in Kuwait IIRC. And many other states did, specially air forces. Who is not honest here? OTOH The other states forces did beat the crap out of Iraqi units too.
Thanks for using Wikipedia. But the T-72 were not the last tanks model then precisely, especially the Iraqi ones, the worst exporting version, as the barely three dozens of Mig-29 (AKA mig-30). In fact most Iraqi tanks were T-55 and the IMMENSE majority of the airforce was made of mig-21 and mig-23 and Mirages F-1, the few Mig-29 totally outnumbered by coalitions planes flew to iran in the first days. Terrible opponent isnt it?
You are really delusional here.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Iraq was in no way part of the 'third world' pre-1990. That is just a silly statement.
Ah, thanks, my general.
Lets leave the name calling out k?
I direct your attention to the execution of the battle plan for the first gulf war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Operation_Desert_Storm.jpg It involved a lot more real estate than just Kuwait. Air missions hit targets very far inside Iraq proper. Please note the military units that went into Iraq. By far only the US, UK and French forces really went inside Iraq. To my knowledge, NONE of the arabic/middle east contingent did what-so-ever. So, in your terms I guess three countries = many? I suppose so.
Thanks for using Wikipedia. But the T-72 were not the last tanks model then precisely, especially the Iraqi ones, the worst exporting version, as the barely three dozens of Mig-29 (AKA mig-30). In fact most Iraqi tanks were T-55 and the IMMENSE majority of the airforce was made of mig-21 and mig-23 and Mirages F-1, the few Mig-29 totally outnumbered by coalitions planes flew to iran in the first days. Terrible opponent isnt it?
No, not delusional. Actually, the Iraqi air force reminds me a lot of the EU Air force today. They have a lot of aircraft from the 50s and 60s for numbers, but very few of the more expensive 4th and 5th generation air superiority fighters.
The bottm line, that is not delusional in any way, was that Iraq had an extremely large and formidable military. It wasnt some small, isolated third world nation like the Congo or Senegal, but rather a very prominent modern power in the Middle East with a huge military. Thats just the truth and no delusion at all.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
Surrealist, so, was it the first world?
Oh, as you wish.
So you were wrong and several countries sent land troops inside Iraq as well, beyond that, what exactly are you arguing here?
Sure? AFAIK Almost all European and USA fighters are in fact of the same 4th generation. And Eurofighter , Rafale or Grippen are more advanced than any US fighter excepting F-22. And BTW, are you comparing European armies with Iraq? Wow, that is REALLY delusional.
Bottom line is that this sort of categorical paragraphs are of not help for you. You must work harder. As has already been said it was huge in the number of men as many third world armies but totally third-worldish, in any case not formed mainly by Mig-29s and last generation soviet tanks precisely as you pretended.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
It was a modern state. Are you asking was it on the level of the USA? No. But its comparable to many other modern states one would consider 'first world' so why not?
No, I wasnt wrong at all. I said the USA supplied the main effort, which is 100% true, but I recognize that we were not the only ones to cross into Iraq. Where there 'many' nations as you alleged? No. In that fact, you were wrong...not I.
Yes, I am sure. And no, you are incorrect in saying that those planes (with the exception of eurofighter) are more advanced than say, the FA-18 Superhornet, or the Block 50/52 of the F-16. Did I say armies? No. I said airforce. Please try to pay attention. It helps the debate.
Thorgalaeg
Deity
So, breaking news, ladies and gentlemen. Iraq WAS the first world. And to which modern first world countries was Iraq comparable to exactly?
MANY nations participied in the coallition and fought in the war, correct? It was you who talked about only USA sending troops into Iraq and such and then your own argument backfired. Accept you were wrong, it is good for mental health sometimes.
Dont worry i am paying attention to this funny debate, but hey, in any case this proves you were wrong again since most European fighters are not from the 50s as the Iraqi ones, doesnt it?
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
The amusing aspect of debating something with MobBoss is that he never backs down, not even when he is obviously wrong. It really puts into question any subsequent claim he makes... and it is humorous as well.
What I'm of course referring to is Iraq being labelled as a '1st world' country. That is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while.
What I'm of course referring to is Iraq being labelled as a '1st world' country. That is the most ridiculous thing I have read in a while.
Nylan
Characters Welcome
Try half of Europe. Just because they're arab and live in a desert doesn't mean they can't have advanced military technology.
MANY nations participied in the coallition and fought in the war, correct? It was you who talked about only USA sending troops into Iraq and such and then your own argument backfired. Accept you were wrong, it is good for mental health sometimes.
If many=three or four then sure. By your same logic one man from each nation in the world plus 100,000 US troops equals a powerfully multinational force and the US only deserves a small slice of the victory cake.
He was quite obviously insinuating that the US was the vast majority of the effort, not necessarily the only one. Quit trying to twist his phrasing and insult him. It's only making you look like the less intelligent one.
Sources? Facts? You've yet to link anything of worth. A basic part of debating and heck, even essay writing is to make a statement and then back it up with concrete, proven facts.
Wolfhart
The Last in Line
This one always cracks me up, I've seen it used several times now on this forum. It goes like this:
- first you make a couple of dodgy, unsubstantiated claims
- then you say the other guy doesn't base his claims on facts and references
- finally you demand of him to do this with anything he has to say against your opinion from now on
If your goal was to defeat Europe, when exactly would you declare victory? Would it be when you currently had military superiority, but Europe still had the capacity to outproduce and then defeat you? Because you may as well do that now.
The way to stop Europe destroying you is to conquer and hold the landmass, which is something that America is simply not equipped to do. Iraq is, therefore, a good representation of the problems that you'd face.
Or maybe you think that Europe has no airforce or ballistic missiles either? Europe has no friends in the world, because everyone really loves the US? Iceland is clearly American, because it's actually a Danish colony? One airbase doesn't make Iceland American.
Where will you find all the airpower to send bombers to bomb all the highways in Europe, remembering, of course, that European countries are densely packed with roads, such that it's impossible simply to bomb a few roads to stop traffic?
There is no way that America could hope to come off better from any aggression. Of course, Europe currently has even less of a hope of being aggressive. However, initially it would likely be a tie, and then it would come down to allies and production, both of which Europe would probably win.
Finally, you never explained how you'd destroy the factories and roads you seem so confident of effortless targetting. You'd probably hit all the Chinese embassies instead.
