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
DarthAmerica    RE:Paul, the worse possible alliance is with ccKOOKe   10/10/2005 6:15:27 PM
>>>So you won according to your definition. Put into your context by your rules eh…<<< ---Not my definition. I dont get to revise history. And I dont attempt it like you. >>>Fair enough, however Kissinger Nixon etc thought different….<<< ---So what? They put their pants on just like I do. >>>I think we should leave the last words with people who were there eh….<<< ---Why? So they could make up for your inability to support your arguement with facts? No. I have the benefit of something they dont. Life and 20/20 hindsight. Its even monday! >>>“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.<<< ---Which is why South Vietnam should have foreseen the eventuality of war. Article 4 of the Paris Peace Accords CLEARLY explained how future Vietnamese conflicts would be dealt with. >>>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.<<< ---And it worked. >>>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.<<< ---Irrelevant. These events were post war and Congress in its wisdom decided that it was no longer in Americas interest to get involved in Vietnam. >>>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<<< ---Yeah, and so were all the signatories of the treaty. And in the event that it didnt. South Vietnam was specifically made responsible for that eventuality. >>>The Vietnam War was lost in 1975, and the US allowed it to happen.<<< ---Yes I agree. South Vietnam lost to the North in 1975. >>>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.<<< ---Idiots. >>>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.<<< ---Thats why South Vietnam should have done more. In the end its their fate. >>>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….<<< ---You can post whatever you like. Just stick to the facts so that I dont have to tear your post to pieces.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege    vietnam   10/10/2005 6:43:58 PM
I have to agree with Darth.Vietnam is a partial defeat or victory depending point of view like Korean war or Algeria war for the French. US withdrawn from Vietnam undefeated and got an agreement to preserve honour. Indeed master coup of Kissinguer to side Chinese made a defeat of North Vietnam a non issue: -If North Vietnam restart war and win, a Russian ally in South of China will bring China even more in US camp fueling hostility between China and Russia -If North Vietnam restart war and loose, US initial objectives were fullfilled. So not a issue anymore for US. So a partial victory or defeat depending point of view.In a better way a stalemate which become a US strategic victory after Nixon got good relationship with Chinese.An a partial defeat on the field , because US were unable to crush vietcong (but because the goal was to avoid to provoke Chinese by invading the North). If withdrawal is volontary and because of a changing strategic environment and national policy requirement it is not a defeat.
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:Paul, the worse possible alliance is with ccKOOKe   10/11/2005 4:57:18 AM
Darth.... nobody else seems to support you.. if you think they do then list them. if you want to carry on talking about Vietnam then please do it on a new thread.
 
Quote    Reply

ccooke    RE:Paul, the worse possible alliance is with ccKOOKe   10/11/2005 6:04:38 AM
Gixxx Gixxxx more lies? God will be most upset with you…. ---Not my definition. I dont get to revise history. And I dont attempt it like you.=== Not your definition? Tsk Tsk. I will accept the definition of the people who were there and their statements before I accept yours… ---So what? They put their pants on just like I do==== Kissinger and Nixon formulated the withdrawal policy, implemented and negotiated the treaty and yet you cast aside their reasons for doing it. Because you allegedly wear pants you think this gives you the right to say you know why they did it better than they do?… ---Why? So they could make up for your inability to support your arguement with facts? No. I have the benefit of something they dont. Life and 20/20 hindsight. Its even monday!==== Let me get this straight. I post an Article from the very people who implemented the withdrawal from Vietnam and their stated reasons for doing it and you say I am doing this because I can’t back up my argument with facts??? ====Which is why South Vietnam should have foreseen the eventuality of war. Article 4 of the Paris Peace Accords CLEARLY explained how future Vietnamese conflicts would be dealt with.==== A peace accord that had one reason for its existence. To get American troops out of Vietnam whatever the cost. I am afraid I will have to take the word of the people who negotiated it and there stated reasons for doing so, rather than your opinion…. ====Irrelevant. These events were post war and Congress in its wisdom decided that it was no longer in Americas interest to get involved in Vietnam==== Post war? Your definition again. Not the definition of the people who were there. Promising to stand by a friend and then running away after it gets bloody is still losing the fight. Even if you came to an agreement with the enemy before you ran away. After all, your alleged friend still got beaten up. Which is what you were supposed to have been there in the first place to stop… ===Yeah, and so were all the signatories of the treaty. And in the event that it didnt. South Vietnam was specifically made responsible for that eventuality.==== They made damn sure South Vietnam was on its own…. ===Thats why South Vietnam should have done more. In the end its their fate.==== In the end the US should have carried out its promises. In the end they left South Vietnam to its fate. ====You can post whatever you like. Just stick to the facts so that I dont have to tear your post to pieces.==== I look forward to your attempt at tearing me to pieces. Could you let me know when you are going to try it. I have posted quotes from the people who were there and their stated reasons. I have offered to post many more. However you don’t appear to regard these as facts. Yet you appear to consider your own childish arguments as such… Your comment about “Life and 20/20 hindsight” says it all. To understand historical events you must view them in the context they occurred. Not with facts that were not available at the time and changing the context to suit yourself. I note you have not commented on my other post Liar Gixxx. Are you going to run away again? ccooke….
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    RE:Paul, the worse possible alliance is with ccKOOKe   10/11/2005 11:30:50 AM
>>>I note you have not commented on my other post Liar Gixxx. Are you going to run away again?<<< ---First of all calm yourself down. You sound like a bitter old fool. You also havent stated any facts that support your assertions. When that happens, we can discuss it at length, and you will be proven wrong as history doesnt change.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Paul is in denial...lol   10/11/2005 11:40:33 AM
>>>Darth.... nobody else seems to support you.. if you think they do then list them.<<< ---Even one of my greatest antagonist in the post before yours understands the facts as I have presented them. Can you read? Paul you really should just say you were wrong and concede the point to preserve what little credibility you may have left. Dont get caught up in ccooke debate style which substitutes personal insults and misrepresentation for facts. BUt if you wish to suit yourself. Your only proving my point in more ways than you know.
 
Quote    Reply

Pseudonym    RE:Paul is in denial...lol   10/11/2005 5:30:37 PM
Communist Compendium of American History is not a valid source Paul.
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:Paul is in denial...lol   10/12/2005 7:04:22 AM
why is it that you view the Paris accords diferently than any other ceasefire agreements? you say that was the end of the war? the North Vietnamese themselves said it wasn't.... who do you think was right? you are not thick... yoyu must realise that the North were going to break the treaty. do you think Nixon and Kissenger thought the Nroth wouldn't break the treay????? you talk about real politik in other threads so why don't you apply them to the Paris accords? why do you not acknowledge that all sides carried on fighting after they were signed... you are displaying huge double standards in the way you look at Paris and then the way you look at anything else. Saddam broke a ceasfire which allowed the US to invade... the North broke a ceasfire that allowed the US to.... not bother in this case... simple FACT is that the North had no intention of keeping to the agreement and everybody knew it... thus the ceasefire did nothing but postpone the fighting and allow the US to withdraw troops.
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:Paul is in denial...lol   10/12/2005 7:07:13 AM
please post a link to it. never heard of it... just going off what actually happened and the multitude of books wrote on the subject and articles available on the web. actually..... I have asked Darth several times now to post links to books by reputable historians supporting his view that the US won the war but he has yet to respond. perhaps you can find some?
 
Quote    Reply

paul1970    RE:vietnam to FS...   10/12/2005 7:19:53 AM
Darth is claiming that your post supports his views now even though you conclude that it was a "partial defeat or victory..." so I could easily say that the defeat side of you conclusion opposes his views. so do you agree with him the the Paris peace accords ended the Vietnam War or do you disgree with that conclusion and say that the breaking of the ceasfire means a continuation of the same war?
 
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