Originally posted by LDHZenkaiWell, the way I see it, the United States wouldnt even have to deploy any ground troops. All that would need to be done is sit back and let battleships and a few A-10 Warthogs get the job done. Big battleship cannons go boom boom, Roman soldiers go bye bye. A-10's mop up the rest.
dunno, but it would have to be a severe handicap on the U.S. side for the Roman empire to even stand a chance. Even if it was just like the civilians from the bay area CA, they'd probably still beat rome. The lack of firearms is a severe handicap for Rome.
Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, all this nonsense about America; all spawned from anti-American foolery. Fact is, in an all out war, America's military defeats any single country in the world right now, and multiple countries in many a scenario. Comes down to who has the bigger Military budget and better weapons.Vietnam did not defeat America, America defeated America in that war. Mass protest in the U.S., idiots like Jane Fonda taking pictures with the Vietcon, etc. etc. etc.
Iraq, America smashed Saddam's army with ease, the colossal error was taking out Saddam and expecting the country would come together. Bush Sr. did not make this mistake in the first Iraq campaign.
Afghanistan isn't a war, it's little more than an ongoing enemy mine sweep; I'm pretty sure more Aghan combatants are dieing than U.S. soldiers.
I'm starting to wish Ron Paul had won and had been able to put his radical ideas into play.
I'd put the Mujaheddin in a category as a modern "army", and it is certainly one that has given the most dominant powers of the world a run for their money.
I understand that the full, unrestricted might of the American military could turn the entire middle east into "glass", but as far as their engagements with them thus far, the asymmetrical tactics of the "terrorists" have been highly effective.
I agree with you on Vietnam, and there is some similarity there with Laos and Pakistan in hindering the ability of the Americans to fight a successful war.
Originally posted by inimalist
I'd put the Mujaheddin in a category as a modern "army", and it is certainly one that has given the most dominant powers of the world a run for their money.I understand that the full, unrestricted might of the American military could turn the entire middle east into "glass", but as far as their engagements with them thus far, the asymmetrical tactics of the "terrorists" have been highly effective.
I agree with you on Vietnam, and there is some similarity there with Laos and Pakistan in hindering the ability of the Americans to fight a successful war.
I wasn't factoring in nukes, as no one wins in a nuclear war.
America is fighting with rules that allow it not to win, the 'Mujas' have no rules, hiding among civilians for safety, using their youth as living bombs etc. etc. etc. They're fighting the more intelligent, yet brutal war; it's very effective, you're correct.
Granted, the U.S. can't win in the sense of a conventional war (WW1, WW2) here, itnever could. America needs to write new rules(or toss them out in kind) for this kind of warfare, until then, it will be the ongoing nonsense we see now.
The U.S. should have invested heavily into (re)building Afghanistan in the 80's, after the Soviets were driven out, made that country a solid ally with modern schools, hospitals and an economy.
Originally posted by inimalist
so, ummmm, I'm just going to throw this out there, but my feeling is that the modern Mujaheddin would annhiliate pretty much anything Rome sent at them as well.Rpgs, Mortars, suicide bombs, psychological warfare, Aks, snipers... ya... We are talking about 2000 years of technological difference.
Of course they would. AK47s defeat spears.
The one advantage Rome would have here over the U.S. fighting the Mujas, the Roman citizenship fully supported the Roman military machine and wouldn't scoff at the Legions crucifying everyone and anyone. ie civilian support can make or break a war.
Originally posted by Robtard
I wasn't factoring in nukes, as no one wins in a nuclear war.America is fighting with rules that allow it not to win, the 'Mujas' have no rules, hiding among civilians for safety, using their youth as living bombs etc. etc. etc. They're fighting the more intelligent, yet brutal war; it's very effective, you're correct.
Granted, the U.S. can't win in the sense of a conventional war (WW1, WW2) here, itnever could. America needs to write new rules(or toss them out in kind) for this kind of warfare, until then, it will be the ongoing nonsense we see now.
I totally agree, the US needs to redefine what victory means against insurgent groups. Dictators are easy, because it is just removing the political leadership. According to the Rand Institute, the only really effective way to "beat" an insurgency is to incorporate them into the political establishment. Unfortunately, any even appearance of negotiating with "terrorists" is political suicide for an American politician. Obviously talks are going on in secret.
My only caution would be that, in throwing away the rules, we may be defeating ourselves. The West is great because it has such restrictions. I'm not saying we can't morally fight terrorism or Islamic radicalism, just that, if it means we have to disregard individual liberty, I'm not sure it is worth it.
Originally posted by Robtard
The U.S. should have invested heavily into (re)building Afghanistan in the 80's, after the Soviets were driven out, made that country a solid ally with modern schools, hospitals and an economy.
Totally, or at the very least, prevented Pakistan from essentially making the Afghan government a puppet of the ISI.
however, building schools and the like is the rhetoric used by Canadian politicians to support our military campaign there now. My answer to that is that there are places in Canada where girls don't have full access to schools. I'm really not sure how I feel about the concept of a government building any nation but its own.
Originally posted by Robtard
Of course they would. AK47s defeat spears.
It seemed like it was being insinuated that because America could or could not defeat the Muj, that would be reflective of their ability to defeat Rome.
Originally posted by Robtard
The one advantage Rome would have here over the U.S. fighting the Mujas, the Roman citizenship fully supported the Roman military machine and wouldn't scoff at the Legions crucifying everyone and anyone. ie civilian support can make or break a war.
True, it would be very difficult for Muslim extremists to travel through the population of Rome undetected, and even in Iraq there are numerous instances of local groups kicking out foreign fighters, simply because the people on the ground really know what is up.
I think that only matters in modern war, because the technological asymmetry is in favor of the American army. The Muj wouldn't have to use their traditional hit and run or car bomb tactics, as their basic personal weaponry has better accuracy and range than the typical Roman siege weapons. If anything, the fact that Islamic fighters are typically against such a powerful opponent might mean they are less capable of fighting the conventional style battle that would win against the Romans.
Originally posted by inimalist
I totally agree, the US needs to redefine what victory means against insurgent groups. Dictators are easy, because it is just removing the political leadership. According to the Rand Institute, the only really effective way to "beat" an insurgency is to incorporate them into the political establishment. Unfortunately, any even appearance of negotiating with "terrorists" is political suicide for an American politician. Obviously talks are going on in secret.My only caution would be that, in throwing away the rules, we may be defeating ourselves. The West is great because it has such restrictions. I'm not saying we can't morally fight terrorism or Islamic radicalism, just that, if it means we have to disregard individual liberty, I'm not sure it is worth it.
Totally, or at the very least, prevented Pakistan from essentially making the Afghan government a puppet of the ISI.
however, building schools and the like is the rhetoric used by Canadian politicians to support our military campaign there now. My answer to that is that there are places in Canada where girls don't have full access to schools. I'm really not sure how I feel about the concept of a government building any nation but its own.
It seemed like it was being insinuated that because America could or could not defeat the Muj, that would be reflective of their ability to defeat Rome.
True, it would be very difficult for Muslim extremists to travel through the population of Rome undetected, and even in Iraq there are numerous instances of local groups kicking out foreign fighters, simply because the people on the ground really know what is up.
I think that only matters in modern war, because the technological asymmetry is in favor of the American army. The Muj wouldn't have to use their traditional hit and run or car bomb tactics, as their basic personal weaponry has better accuracy and range than the typical Roman siege weapons. If anything, the fact that Islamic fighters are typically against such a powerful opponent might mean they are less capable of fighting the conventional style battle that would win against the Romans.
This reminds me - I don't know if you heard, but Mujahedeen's in Bosnia are known as the ''White Al-Quaida'' because they're in many cases blonde and ''European looking''. Due to this, they may be easier for them to mingle in Americas and/or Europe.
I just read that Osama Bin Laden has a Bosnian passport. (?!?!)
Wahabbi mosques are springing around left right and center - not just in Europe, but everywhere.
Scary. Very freakin scary.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If they're just using a machine gun then by definition they cannot have an RPG. It's that simple.
No, because I said they do have an RPG, so they do.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
How are they producing these things when THEY ONLY HAVE A MACHINE GUN?
They don't. They also have an RPG. It's in a little RPG plastic carrying case in their Humvee. 313
Okay, they have just their standard issue Automatic Assault rifles. They still just step out of the way and fire some shots in the direction of the Catapult. Still, game over. 😐
Originally posted by Robtard
I'm starting to wish Ron Paul had won and had been able to put his radical ideas into play.
THANK YOU!
Originally posted by Robtard
I wasn't factoring in nukes, as no one wins in a nuclear war.
Yes, if the US only launched them against the Eastern part of the world, and didn't get in exess with them, and fired them before the other guys, we wouldn't see the radioactivity travel our direction, and the cloudiness shouldn't happen either.
Also, we may be able to just launch all of them and still black out of the sun for two years, and still survive, but, if I'm not mistaken, we would get some radioactive fall out if we clouded the sky up.
It's simple...take them out before they know what's coming.
Since we have the largest functional stock of ICBM's, by far, no one stands a chance. MWAHAHAHAHAHAA!
America is fighting with rules that allow it not to win, the 'Mujas' have no
Originally posted by dadudemon
No, because I said they do have an RPG, so they do.
Then they have a weapon other than a machine gun and it's a different discussion.
Originally posted by dadudemon
They don't. They also have an RPG. It's in a little RPG plastic carrying case in their Humvee. 313
Then they have a weapon other than a machine gun and it's a different discussion.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Okay, they have just their standard issue Automatic Assault rifles. They still just step out of the way and fire some shots in the direction of the Catapult. Still, game over. 😐
Then they have a weapon other than a machine gun and it's a different discussion.
This reminds me of the joke that goes:
How does Batman beat Superman without Kryptonite?
Spoiler:
By using Kryptonite.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Since we have the largest functional stock of ICBM's, by far, no one stands a chance. MWAHAHAHAHAHAA!
iirc, doesn't Russia have more nukes, if we compare bomb for bomb, but America has the most technologically advanced and powerful?
Originally posted by dadudemon
America is fighting with rules that allow it not to win, the 'Mujas' have no
But it is because they have those rules that we can even hope they succeed.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Then they have a weapon other than a machine gun and it's a different discussion.Then they have a weapon other than a machine gun and it's a different discussion.
Then they have a weapon other than a machine gun and it's a different discussion.
This reminds me of the joke that goes:
How does Batman beat Superman without Kryptonite?Spoiler:
By using Kryptonite.
So...why would they NOT have standard issue weapons? As we say in the versus forums, you can't gimp the combatants so one can one because you like them more.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So...why would they NOT have standard issue weapons? As we say in the versus forums, you can't gimp the combatants so one can one because you like them more.
They wouldn't have the weapons because by definition if it's machine guns vs catapult all they can have is machine guns on the one side and catapults on the other. There's no other option.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
They wouldn't have the weapons because by definition if it's machine guns vs catapult all they can have is machine guns on the one side and catapults on the other. There's no other option.
Yes there is. 😄
This is Roman vs. American scenario. A machine gun nest being fired upon by a catapult, will have infantry that have, you guessed it, standard issue weapons. They'd have grenades, probably some RPGs and rounds, pistols, body armor in ideal situations, and, you guessed it, almost everyone will have an Assualt Rifle: the M4 Carbine. 😐
Badda boom.
And if they are Marines, the FN SCAR (really awesome name.)...and we might even see a few FN40GL. AHA! 😆 😆
Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes there is. 😄This is Roman vs. American scenario. A machine gun nest being fired upon by a catapult, will have infantry that have, you guessed it, standard issue weapons. They'd have grenades, probably some RPGs and rounds, pistols, body armor in ideal situations, and, you guessed it, almost everyone will have an Assualt Rifle: the M4 Carbine. 😐
That wasn't the point I was originally responding to. I already told you to go back and look at what started the machine-guns vs catapults discussion.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That wasn't the point I was originally responding to. I already told you to go back and look at what started the machine-guns vs catapults discussion.
And I already told you that I'm fully aware of the contents of the thread.
Which is why I said the following:
Originally posted by dadudemon
So...why would they NOT have standard issue weapons? As we say in the versus forums, you can't gimp the combatants so one can [win] because you like them more.
I simply interjected with something a bit more real world (as real as it could get in such a retarded vs. thread) and not something that wouldn't happen.
You find me a modern machine gun next by the US military that doesn't have the units equipped with their M4 Carbines.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Well, the way I see it, the United States wouldnt even have to deploy any ground troops. All that would need to be done is sit back and let battleships and a few A-10 Warthogs get the job done. Big battleship cannons go boom boom, Roman soldiers go bye bye. A-10's mop up the rest.
They don't use battleships anymore.
OK, just to make it more fair: Rome gets all of Greece, Macedonia, Mongols, Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Egyptians, and WW2 Ethiopia on it's side 🙂
And USA doesn't get nukes or air support 🙂
Originally posted by HewhoknowsallFine, then the United States military uses aircraft carriers. Alot more powerful than battleships.
They don't use battleships anymore.OK, just to make it more fair: Rome gets all of Greece, Macedonia, Mongols, Aztecs, Mayans, Incas, Egyptians, and WW2 Ethiopia on it's side 🙂
And USA doesn't get nukes or air support 🙂
And technology still wins.
4 people (NOT me) who voted for Rome: come out!!!
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Fine, then the United States military uses aircraft carriers. Alot more powerful than battleships.And technology still wins.
But I never said what "Egyptians" and "Greece" meant. It could very well be not the ancient ones, but Egypt and Greece 2000 years in the future.
You'd think the whole premise of an ancient army again a small band of modern weaponry was a pretty good idea for a film.
You'd be wrong.