MobBoss stated Iraq was not a 'third world' country before Desert Storm. And also stated their military was 'comparable' to some 'first world' countries at that time.
That in no way labels Iraq a 'first world' country.
Europe vs. US
- Thread starter Swedishguy
- Start date
MobBoss stated Iraq was not a 'third world' country before Desert Storm. And also stated their military was 'comparable' to some 'first world' countries at that time.
That in no way labels Iraq a 'first world' country.
Mise
isle of lucy
If it's not third world, and it's not second world, it's..........?
Nylan
Characters Welcome
This one always cracks me up, I've seen it used several times now on this forum. It goes like this:
Like I said, it cracks me up when I see it...
- 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
What, like this post?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Well, lets clarify. No one really hears of a 'second world' do they? We hear of 'first world' and 'third world'. So, if we are given two choices, first or third, I would say Pre-war Iraq was more in line with first world, than third world.
Nations I consider third world have mass starvation often, and terrible economies always on the edge of collapse. Envision most of the Poor african states as third world. I think Pre-war Iraq ahead of such states as Syria, Iran, and Egypt, and I wouldnt put any of those countries in a third world status.
Iraq was in the process of building its own nuclear reactor when Israel destroyed it. That puts them ahead of many of the EU countries. They also had a very high literacy rate, good economy, and a proud people. Hopefully, they will again.
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.
Again, I never stated that 'only' the USA sent troops, but I have always prefaced it by saying we sent the "majority' of troops, which is true. Stop misquoting me. If you have a direct quote of me saying 'only' the USA sent troops link it up....but if you recall I was the one who linked the facts.
Again, the EU has more than a few aircraft from the 50s and 60s which is what I said....not just the 50s.
Apparently you only debate tactic is to purposelly misquote your opponent since you lack any factual data. It aint working.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Warpus....by all means please show me where I am 'obviously' wrong?
By all means, see my explanation above. Iraq was developing a nuclear reactor and building it. How many EU countries that are considered 'first world' have never done even that?
Pasi Nurminen
Deity
They weren't. Though the models of tanks they were using were respectable, the ammunition inside those tanks for their main guns was obsolete being Chinese or Soviet steel penetrators which had been retired from both respective nations' arsenals and was obsolete even in the 70s when they dropped out of use. A T-72 equipped with modern ammunition at the time could have competed with M1 American tanks, but with obsolete shells they stood no chance of penetrating American armour.
Things like that.
Pasi Nurminen
Deity
False beyond words. Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar are all third world yet none have mass starvation or economies teetering on the edge of collapse. Quite the contrary, third world economies often have the fastest growth rates of the entire world.
You have obviously never seen a third world country.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I was giving my opinion. I consider countries like Bangladesh a prime example of a third world country.
Anyway, looking at the list of countries that are not first world, but not third world, pre-war Iraq is indeed comparable to them. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain are not considered third world states, so why not Iraq?
Winner
Diverse in Unity
Let's get back to a real world, shall we? The only way how can we guesstimate the US chances to successful invasion of united Europe is to compare the current situation with past instances of similar events.
So, let's take WW2 and allied invasion of Europe:
- Allies had large, unsinkable carrier (britain) right next to the target of invasion.
--> allied airforce operated from Britain
--> allied ground troops rallied there
--> allied forces were ressuplied and reinforced from there
- Allies had complete air superiority over the area and their strategic bombing caused massive damage to German war-related industry. Their precision bombing also destroyed the infrastructure necessary to send reinforcements.
- The allied invasion force only had to cross few kilometers of English Channel to land in continental Europe.
- Allies had big red ally in the East, who ensured that the best and most battle-hardened German troops will stay on the Eastern Front and won't drive Allied troops to the sea.
- Allies+Soviet Union outnumbered Germans in everything from sheer manpower to industrial potential.
- Even so, if Germans did few right decisions, they could have successfuly repelled the invasion and ruined the D-day.
Now, in our precious little unrealistic scenario:
- US would have any unsinkable carrier, its airforce would rely purely on carrier aviation (which means no F-22's, F-117's), which would be badly outnumbered by European airforce
- No large scale strategic bombing of the EU infrastructure and industry would happen. As Hotpoint said, there is too much targets here. Even if cruise missiles couldn't be intercepted, US simply wouldn't be able to launch enough of them to cause serious harm to critical European industry. Strategic bombers would be all intercepted and destroyed, sooner or later. Moreover, the strategic industry could be moved to Central pr Eastern Europe, far from the coasts.
- US invasion force would have to cross the whole Atlantic ocean before landing in Europe. This would be a logictical nightmare. Even if the US succeeded, this invasion force would be quickly destroyd by European ground troops, which were designed to repel much stronger and more massive Soviet/Warsaw pact invasion. There is no chance at all that a force about 10 times smaller would successfuly take ground in Europe.
- US would be alone, with no Russia diverting European forces elsewhere. Also, it would have no superiority in numbers or production.
Conclusion: the chance of the US successfuly invading Europe under these circumstances is very low, less than 10%
So, let's take WW2 and allied invasion of Europe:
- Allies had large, unsinkable carrier (britain) right next to the target of invasion.
--> allied airforce operated from Britain
--> allied ground troops rallied there
--> allied forces were ressuplied and reinforced from there
- Allies had complete air superiority over the area and their strategic bombing caused massive damage to German war-related industry. Their precision bombing also destroyed the infrastructure necessary to send reinforcements.
- The allied invasion force only had to cross few kilometers of English Channel to land in continental Europe.
- Allies had big red ally in the East, who ensured that the best and most battle-hardened German troops will stay on the Eastern Front and won't drive Allied troops to the sea.
- Allies+Soviet Union outnumbered Germans in everything from sheer manpower to industrial potential.
- Even so, if Germans did few right decisions, they could have successfuly repelled the invasion and ruined the D-day.
Now, in our precious little unrealistic scenario:
- US would have any unsinkable carrier, its airforce would rely purely on carrier aviation (which means no F-22's, F-117's), which would be badly outnumbered by European airforce
- No large scale strategic bombing of the EU infrastructure and industry would happen. As Hotpoint said, there is too much targets here. Even if cruise missiles couldn't be intercepted, US simply wouldn't be able to launch enough of them to cause serious harm to critical European industry. Strategic bombers would be all intercepted and destroyed, sooner or later. Moreover, the strategic industry could be moved to Central pr Eastern Europe, far from the coasts.
- US invasion force would have to cross the whole Atlantic ocean before landing in Europe. This would be a logictical nightmare. Even if the US succeeded, this invasion force would be quickly destroyd by European ground troops, which were designed to repel much stronger and more massive Soviet/Warsaw pact invasion. There is no chance at all that a force about 10 times smaller would successfuly take ground in Europe.
- US would be alone, with no Russia diverting European forces elsewhere. Also, it would have no superiority in numbers or production.
Conclusion: the chance of the US successfuly invading Europe under these circumstances is very low, less than 10%
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Incorrect for the following reasons. In-air refueling. Those aircraft can be refueled in flight and thus can still strike from far beyond their usual operational range. We could 'procure' an unsinkable carrier in several ways, like taking the Azores, Iceland, or even one of the North African areas. We would not have to only rely on carrier aviation, and chances are excellent we could take and hold areas which would give our air power strike range on EU soil without in-air refueling.
Wrong again for the following reasons. B-2 Spirit bombers and tomahawk missiles would get the job done. No 'large scale' needed due to modern techonolgy, and precision guided munitions. You are also incorrect about interrupting industry. We dont have to interrupt all of it, just key portions of it, just like how ballbearings and railroads were hit in WW II. We would find your weak link and exploit it.
Moving it is not a solution either. Pretty much every bridge in Europe would be gone in the first week, and any major highway hit as well. For an EU already behind in military production, attempting to move such industry during wartime is a losing deal.
The Americans are masters of logistics. And again, no...a landing force would not even be attempted till we had air superiority. As I have shown earlier we have a comfortable 2+:1 advantage in air superiority aircraft, we would be able to project enough air power and force engagements not favorable to the EU. Also, any projected landing area would be isolated in that all major supply routes, bridges, and highways would be destroyed in order to ensure reinforcements would have a hard time even getting to our forces. Considering these facts our force would not be '10 times smaller' at all.
You EU people are funny. You seem to think you will (a) all work together as a cohesive force....chances are you wont. (b) you seem to think all the EU countries will response at once to an landing in spain for example like it was a Sunday afternoon drive to get there. It wont.
Most likely if such a war were to actually break out, I am willing to bet a rough third of the nations forming the EU would immediately back out of the union and let the others fend for themselves. Ergo, why would a front line country like spain risk their country being destroyed (and it would) for the sake of Germany or Italy? Chances are they wouldnt.
Russia isnt part of the EU. Why wouldnt they still be a threat? And I remind you, even alone, the USA has a lot more going for it than the entire EU.
Well, as a military professional, I directly disagree with you. You utterly disregard how fragile the EU is currently. You utterly disgard our troops veteran/battle trained status. You utterly disregard our superiority in the air. You utterly disregard our ability to hit targets with precision munitions deep into EU territory thus interrupting your road, commerce and industry.
Fifty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The people banking on a US victory are forgetting that Europe has one thing that the US can never hope to defeat: The Enemy Ace™!!!!!!
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
To get back to one of Mobboss' (or was it someone else?) claims that all European Airforces mainly fly with obsolete aircraft:
Royal Netherlands Air Force
Belgian Airforce
Czechia
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Norway
In fear of making my post too long, I'm still missing Portugal, Spain, and the UK.
A lot of F-16 and other excellent aircraft.
(All airforces can be found on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_Of_Air_forces)
Royal Netherlands Air Force
Belgian Airforce
Czechia
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Norway
In fear of making my post too long, I'm still missing Portugal, Spain, and the UK.
A lot of F-16 and other excellent aircraft.
(All airforces can be found on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_Of_Air_forces)
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Sorry, thats not what I said at all. I never said 'mainly' in any way, shape or form. But I did say that the EU powers still use a good number of older generation aircraft.
But you kind of prove my point for me. For example. France still uses the Mirage F1 in decent numbers - that plane is over 40 years old. Another example: Greece using F4 Phantoms and A7 Corsair? Those are from the Vietnam era and Norways F-5 Freedom Fighters were introduced in 1962!!!! I also see Germany still uses Phantom F4 IIs as well. Another ancient jet.
Wolfhart
The Last in Line
So basically you're saying: "I'm rubber, you're glue".
Mise
isle of lucy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_world
Guess which colours are which. And prove the common statistics wrong by identifying Iraq on the map
woody60707
Deity
This is still here?
Would it matter at all if I said I like the EU (well, most of the Nations in the EU at any rate
) and wouldn't want to fight them?
Would it matter at all if I said I like the EU (well, most of the Nations in the EU at any rate
) and wouldn't want to fight them?
ArneHD
Just a little bit mad
Isn't that the cold war definition? In this case I don't think it's applicable since the meaning has changed.
bathsheba666
Fast 'n Bulbous
How about this guys?
The war kicks off, and us Europeans instantly come on these threads and make lots of wild assertions.
On current evidence, the best military minds in the US will then spend their whole time on here posting contrived rebuttals.
Then, back in the real world, we can sneeak past 'em.
What say?
The war kicks off, and us Europeans instantly come on these threads and make lots of wild assertions.
On current evidence, the best military minds in the US will then spend their whole time on here posting contrived rebuttals.
Then, back in the real world, we can sneeak past 'em.
What say?
