New Europe Steps Up - Page 6

Traianvs · September 7, 2003, 17:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
We're pretty much out of troops to do anything else anyway.

Unless a real emergency arises.

I heard the US was so full of pride because of the fact that they had enough troops to wage 2 wars at the same time. Naturally, the expenses would be quite high.. enough to cripple your economy probably

Ted Striker · September 7, 2003, 17:21

Well I guess you could say technically we are waging 2 right now. (War on Terror, Occupation of Iraq)

There is room for a third but it would have to be in response to something (like Pearl Harbor or a 9/11 style attack)

Voltaire · September 7, 2003, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Well I guess you could say technically we are waging 2 right now. (War on Terror, Occupation of Iraq)

There is room for a third but it would have to be in response to something (like Pearl Harbor or a 9/11 style attack)

I'm sorry, did I hear that correctly? Room for a third war? Check your logistics, no military force on the planet (even the U.S. army) can fight two major conflicts across the globe at once. The U.S. has tied itself down in Iraq for the next little while, if they were to want to attack another nation they would have to pull out of Iraq.

Voltaire · September 7, 2003, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Trajanus
I heard the US was so full of pride because of the fact that they had enough troops to wage 2 wars at the same time. Naturally, the expenses would be quite high.. enough to cripple your economy probably

It's not a matter of enough troops, China has a hell of a lot more troops than the U.S. and they could not fight two wars at once. Its a logistical matter of supporting all those troops across the globe. Theoretically you may be right, it is possible for the U.S. to wage two wars at once, but to win two wars at once that is a different story altogether.

Ted Striker · September 7, 2003, 17:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Voltaire

I'm sorry, did I hear that correctly? Room for a third war? Check your logistics, no military force on the planet (even the U.S. army) can fight two major conflicts across the globe at once. The U.S. has tied itself down in Iraq for the next little while, if they were to want to attack another nation they would have to pull out of Iraq.

It's still possible. Capacity of the Army is still stetched thin but there's enough room left to deploy a force the same size as the one currently in Iraq. Alot of the initial forces that went into Iraq have been rotated stateside.

Also consider alot of the heavy stuff from the Airforce, Navy, and Marines isn't really involved in Iraq.

Nubclear · September 7, 2003, 18:27

Quote:

Feel free to consider me to evade whatever you wish.

It's a really simple question, however apparently you do not wish to answer it. The reasoning for this I have no idea, but...Your choice.

Quote:

Those countries opposed to the US going in can sit on the side lines and tut-tut, or they/we can get involved to help ensure that Iraq comes out of this better.

Quote:

In the case of Saddam, action was possible and it is not undesirable that he be out of power.

Not undesirable in the moral sense, no, however now that hes out of power the country, well...You already know what I'm going to say.

Quote:

Unfortunately, that is very, very unlikely since some spot in Japan would likely take on a distinct glow and large parts of Seoul would be leveled within hours.

WHich is why we should have done it when they DIDNT have the weapons. However, Bush was too busy beating the war drum on Iraq, which allowed North Korea to posess these weapons and put us in the situation we are in today.

Quote:

(War on Terror, Occupation of Iraq)

The same thing. At least in Bushies eyes.

Dr Strangelove · September 7, 2003, 18:49

I think we could handle something in West Africa, like Liberia or Sierra Leone. If North Korea's Kim had a fit of insanity and decided to roll on into the South or if the Chinese decided that this would be a perfect time to settle the Taiwan problem we would probably be very badly stretched.

TCO · September 10, 2003, 21:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Trajanus

I heard the US was so full of pride because of the fact that they had enough troops to wage 2 wars at the same time. Naturally, the expenses would be quite high.. enough to cripple your economy probably

We've been full of pride regardless of that. Read deToqueville. We're very proud. (With some reason...)

TCO · September 10, 2003, 21:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Saras

Lame troll

It's lame because it's true. I can't help it. Agile Lion 97 was the name of the exercise.

Ted Striker · September 10, 2003, 23:36

USA!

HershOstropoler · September 11, 2003, 02:40

"Agile Lion 97"

Did they take that name from the Kamasutra?

lord of the mark · September 11, 2003, 09:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I think we could handle something in West Africa, like Liberia or Sierra Leone. If North Korea's Kim had a fit of insanity and decided to roll on into the South or if the Chinese decided that this would be a perfect time to settle the Taiwan problem we would probably be very badly stretched.

Taiwan would be an air and naval war not a land war. China doesnt have the amphibious ability to land large numbers of troops on Taiwan - dont think they will try the "million man swim". Rather they would use missiles, subs, etc to blockade Taiwan.