Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: EU/USA War, based on a specific scenario
mightypeon    9/14/2005 11:25:31 AM
Well, such a thing has been debated quite often, but never with a semirealistc Scenario in mind. Lets just go with the following quite random timeline: 2005/2006: several minor annoyances and trade disagreements happen between Europe and the USA. Bsuh, who is figures that he needs a populartiy boost seeks a spacegoat and starts a Nation wide Germany and France bashing campaign. Beeing bashed by Bush promtply leds to the reelection of Chancellor Schroeder. Spring 2006: The European Iranian talks come to a break, Iran stops its Nuclear programm as well as the support of terrorist groups in Israel, in exchange it gains a host of European arms. Amongst them is a shipment of 400 Leopard 2A4 tanks (in fact, Iran gets the Europane equipment the Europeans would have exchanged or upgraded enyway) In addition, the Iranians grant European companies first rights in developing Iranian Oil fields. Summer 2006 While the irani army is getting trained with their new equipment, a heavy shiite uprising breaks out in eastern Irak. The Shiites demand to be a part of Iran, the rebellion is crushed by the US military. 11.09.06 The US are hit by Terroists. The Gouverment claims Iran to be the culprit. The forces that just crushed the Shiite Rebellion in eastern Irak move up the border. Seeing a hole in the Iranian defense, an US general asks for permission to invade and gets it. While diplomatic conuselatins are still ongoing, the US troops overwhelm the tactically suprsied and not fully trained Irani border forces with minimal losses. The US imprisons the equally suprised European staff still teaching the Iranis. 18.09.06: While US forces are making further progress into Iran, the EU demands the freedom of its instruction staff. 19.09.06: Bush says "that the Europeans can kiss his behind" in an Interview. 20.09.06: German troops surround US bases in Germany. 21.09.06 Seeing America is distracted, Shiite rebels in Irak rise up again. All European powers cancel any overflight rights to the US that have been previously in place. A violent Mob lynches several Germans in a rural american willage, the local police stands by, of course this leads to another uproar in the EU. 22.09.06 With aid from local rebels, a British officer of Pakistani origin manages to escape his prison camp. He shoots a GI while doing so. 23.09.06 The American advance is stalled by logistal problems and constant partisan warfare. 24.09.06 Rumors inclince that the runaway British officer is activly particiapting in the Irani resistance. Pakistan cancel its cooperation with the US. 25.09.06 Under the cover of bad weather, the Iranis start are quick, dedicated and determined counter offensive against the US forces. The US line is breached. The way of the attack implies the Iranis had satellite info on the American positions, as well as human intelligence sources in the American army. In addition, the attack was carefully cordinated with partisan activites in the Ameriakn rear. The American gouverment blames the EU on the defeat and threatens consequences. Schroeder is cited saying "America and which army?" in a private circle. 26.09.05 A massive American airstrike takes out a lot of Irans ammunition producing facilites. Several EU cititzens are killed during the attack. Due to a misprinted order, a imprisoned European instructor is sent to Guantanamo because he shares the name of a terrorist. 27.09.06 The interment of a European instructor interred in Guantanamo is leaked to the BBC. Diplomatic relations between the EU countries and the USA are severed. China proclaims its neutrality in an eventual conflict. Fistfights break out before American Baracks in Germany. 28.09.06 Backed up by reeinforcements, the US manage to flank the Irani force. Hoping on the fact that the US have other problems to take care off, Iran offers peace talks. 29.09.06 A first ceasefire between Iran and the USA is concluded. Iran sends some "terrorists" to the US and labels them as the bad evil instigators. 30.09.06 The US refuses to return the still held instructors. The EU ulitmativly demand the return of the instructors. German troops move into 2 logistical US bases in Germany and arrest the American troops. 01.10.06 Led by a overly rash American Colonell, a Batallion of bradleys fires at approaching German troops. Beeing led by an equally rash German Oberst, the Leopard 2A6 MBTs fire back. The USA and Europe are at war. Now that we have a Scenario, what would be your predictions?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32   NEXT
paul1970    RE:Paul's pitiful concession speech   10/10/2005 10:19:11 AM
you really do not understand the use of English... where is there a concession in the quote you posted?????? cannot be bothered to read the rest of the drivel....
 
Quote    Reply

ccooke    RE:Paul's pitiful concession speech Gixxx Darth   10/10/2005 10:31:49 AM
Tsk Tsk…. So you won according to your definition. Put into your context by your rules eh… Fair enough, however Kissinger Nixon etc thought different…. I think we should leave the last words with people who were there eh…. “The Paris Peace Accords were merely an excuse to get American troops out of the conflict. They were followed by violations on both sides almost immediately, which continued and escalated throughout 1973 and 1974. Nixon had embarked on a severe bombing campaign shortly before the negotiations were finalised in order to convince the North Vietnamese to respect South Vietnam's integrity. Kissinger may not convinced that the agreement would last without strong US support to follow, but he believes it did work as a face-saving exercise, and he appealed to Congress as the situation worsened in 1975 to aid the fragile regime. Nixon also seemed to be genuinely convinced that the peace should be made to work, and blamed the fall of Saigon in April 1975 on Congress and its failure to financially support South Vietnam as he had desired. Kissinger similarly blames the collapse of executive authority following Watergate The Vietnam War was lost in 1975, and the US allowed it to happen. A number of analysts, including Tad Szulc, have argued that the lack of real progress between 1969 and 1973 meant that the US should have withdrawn in 1969. In this view, the US did not achieve an enforceable settlement, Hanoi's intentions to disregard the agreement were obvious, and the war was fought for an extra four years for no tangible result. An earlier withdrawal would have saved many American lives. At the time of Nixon's inauguration, 31,000 Americans had died in Vietnam. By withdrawal in 1973, over 55,000 had been killed. Peace with honour was the withdrawal strategy of the Nixon administration for four years. In retrospect it failed, at some considerable cost. I can post plenty of articles with direct quotes from “Tricky Dicky” if you wish… Or indeed from quite a few others who were there at that time. However from the sound of it they are obviously talking about a different war from you eh…. They are talking about the one they lost…. ccooke…..
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:Paul's pitiful concession speech Gixxx Darth   10/10/2005 10:51:50 AM
if the Vietnam debate is going to continue could it please be raised in a new thread so we can get back on topic or lay to rest the original EU/US debates.
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:I rest my case ... Sustained.. Gixxx? Darth? W&n.... ?   10/10/2005 10:58:23 AM
However for a chap who has served two tours in Iraq (Last one about six months ago.) Who has been an instructor in several different fields? Inc tanks etc. Who also has Spec op friends and has admitted to beating / torturing prisoners. He is not doing too bad as it appears that he is now only thirty years of age*** and unlike his fellow soldiers appears to have been able to leave the military when he wished…… I have not been with it from the start and only came to "know" him in the last 6 months... he said something about wargaming for the DOD now... someone else said he was a grunt with the cavalry..... certainly gets around a lot...
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:Paul-   10/10/2005 11:05:11 AM
yeah... but I just want to know what he means.. since he is calling me a liar for reading it as starting wars... perhaps English is not his first language since he uses it so badly...
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Paul, the worse possible alliance is with ccKOOKe   10/10/2005 11:28:26 AM
>>>I have not been with it from the start and only came to "know" him in the last 6 months... he said something about wargaming for the DOD now... someone else said he was a grunt with the cavalry..... certainly gets around a lot...<<< ---The sarcasm in your post did not go unnoticed. I waould advise you to try and make a better arguement rather than adopt ccooke's "shoot the messenger" tactics. His post are simply a waste of time save one which will be dealt with later. In any event, Its good to see you admitting to being unable to counter my Vietnam arguement even if it is in that rather pathetic manner. As far as who I am...you will simple have to infer that from the mountain of facts I provide. But I will tell you that there are those who have the distinction of being 19K and 19D and have trained at NTC. Oh yeah and I would love to read a link to a post where I said "wargaming with the DoD". Your distortions are hilarious. But please continue, you gentlemen only make my arguements stronger.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    repost: Paul's pitiful concession speech   10/10/2005 11:37:09 AM
Paul's pitiful concession speech 10/10/2005 6:35:55 AM >>>it is clear that neither of us will concede the point and even I am getting fed up of trying to get Darth to admit the war was 57 to 75. so I am not going to post anymore about Vietnam on any threads that are not Vietnam related.<<< ---Paul your debate style is pathetic. This is like the time when you failed to understand the significance of oil to the Chinese and why a naval blockade would stop the cold. Just admit to being PROVEN wrong. You are either ignorant or pretending to be. Your not losing to me, you are losing to historical proof. Dont be a fool. Also stop spinning my words. I AM ONLY DISCUSSING VIETNAM IN THE CONTEXT OF THE "US VS NORTH VIETNAM WAR". A.k.A. "The Vietnam War", "Vietnam" or just "Nam". That war was one in a series of wars between the North and South. During that war, the US Military achieved its objective of keeping the South Free and Defeating North Vietnam BY FORCING THEM to sign a treaty that ENDED THAT WAR in 1973. Thats not even debatable. So I am happy to read that you will stop discussing Vietnam because you obviously dont know much about it which I find to be astonishing since you were alive then IIRC. Your doing the same kind of revisionist liberal BS spinning the MSM did back then and its painfully obvious. Instead of pushing an agenda just stick to the facts PLEASE. So please if you have some evidence to counter mine lets read it. Crap or get off of the pot so we can move this discussion along. ***Paul I posted this just for you. We can do the personal attacks anytime but I still want you to counter these facts or admit you cant.
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:repost: Paul's pitiful concession speech   10/10/2005 11:55:59 AM
I cannot counter something you have not done... in what way is "it is clear that neither of us will concede the point and even I am getting fed up of trying to get Darth to admit the war was 57 to 75. so I am not going to post anymore about Vietnam on any threads that are not Vietnam related" a concession???? I am fed up with you changing the subject on everything... you are waffling on about a treaty that no side stuck to.... the North and South and US carried on fighting after the treaty was signed... this breaks the treaty surely? whether the US chose to come back into the war or not is irrelevent to the fact that the treaty was broken meaning the war was back on. the treaty favoured the North anyway (the US had to withdraw troops but the North didn't) and the North still broke it because they had no intention of keeping to it. it was just a way to get the US out of theatre. anyway. I am not carrying on about Vietnam on this thread. if you want to carry on about Vietnam then raise it as a seperate thread, state you case and see whether others agree with you or not.
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:Paul, the worse possible alliance is with ccKOOKe   10/10/2005 12:09:41 PM
I am British..... sarcasm comes naturally to us. you have the whichever country thinks it runs Europe trying to invade you every few decades and you will understand it.. I am not allying with him. don't know who he is. don't care who he is either. I guess you and he don't get on. fine. that is another on the list for you. no idea what you are... no idea what 19k and 19d are, something to do with tanks??? pretty sure that in a reply ages ago that you said you did scenarios for the DOD? are you now saying that you don't/didn't? I replied back about you wargaming and you never corrected me at the time.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Paul, the worse possible alliance is with ccKOOKe   10/10/2005 12:56:42 PM
Paul, you know what I said. Its easy enough to verify. Post a link to the thread where I said it. What you are doing is you are trying to discredit information by attacking my background. Its a very old trick. What I write here is unchangable. Find it, post it. And prepare for the response. If I didnt correct you back then its because you keep me so busy with all your errors! Although I'm suspecting that your not doing this by accident or ignorance. Also its not necessary to bring up Vietnam in another post. You have been decisively proven wrong, you have provided NOTHING to back up your arguement. You blow off the documents that prove your words wrong simply because it doesnt fit with your agenda. Why start another liberal propaganda thread? I'd rather not.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics