America Nazi

[hairy potter]

the US would be too busy gloating about their past 'victories' to do any actual fighting

leaving them vulnerable to sneak attack

dubious american 'victories':
war of independence - helped by the french, had an enemy fighting two wars at once
vietnam - still trying to claim they won that
iraq - a bunch of farmers with wheelbarrows
afghanistan - does anyone even know why you're bothering any more?
ww2 - let everyone else batter themselves into the ground and then strode around going 'LOL WE PWN YOU'. plus, the russians did all the real leg work.
ww1 - read these statistics and then try and pretend you had anything to do with ww1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_ ... statistics

plus you lot left it waaaay too late to do the whole imperialism thing; you realise we were doing that around 1900? just admit that you missed the boat and give it a rest.

[saxitoxin]

war of independence - helped by the french

Don't pretend this is a war the EU's North Sea Province was able to fight on its own either. Before the American-French treaty was signed, there were already more than 30,000 troops from Britain's allies from the German princely states in North America.

The U.S. had 20,000 French troops. The UK had 20,000 Hessian troops, 10,000 Brunswick troops, and several thousand troops from Waldeck, Anhalt and elsewhere.

ww2 - let everyone else batter themselves into the ground and then strode around going 'LOL WE PWN YOU'. plus, the russians did all the real leg work.ww1 - read these statistics and then try and pretend you had anything to do with ww1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_ ... statistics

Forget the faux cries of bravado and mindless flag waving.

Is a victor in a war who racked-up the most casualties or had the most of its cities destroyed? Or, is victor in a war who racked-up the fewest casualties and got to impose its will on the other belligerents post-belum?

Wars are won by knowing when to enter, exit, with whom to ally and what the minimum commitment is necessary to achieve objectives. The fact the U.S. manipulated Britain into spending its resources to help the U.S. achieve global preeminence (a move that came back to sting both Britain and France in Suez ten years later) just means the U.S. is an able tactician and Britain a willing dupe.

[hairy potter]

Is a victor in a war who racked-up the most casualties or had the most of its cities destroyed? Or, is victor in a war who racked-up the fewest casualties and got to impose its will on the other belligerents post-belum?

Wars are won by knowing when to enter, exit, with whom to ally and what the minimum commitment is necessary to achieve objectives. The fact the U.S. manipulated Britain into spending its resources to help the U.S. achieve global preeminence (a move that came back to sting both Britain and France in Suez ten years later) just means the U.S. is an able tactician and Britain a willing dupe.

a true victor is someone who actually puts some back into the fight from beginning to end, not the person who sits to one side and then sucker punches the already staggering opponent. america joined the first world war half way through 1917, by which point everyone else had already made colossal sacrifices. the reason i quoted the low amount of casualties you suffered is because it shows that you didn't really put any resource into the war. if you had, your total would be higher. don't even try and pretend that it's because your military were better fighters; everyone was as shit as everyone else back then. face it - you didn't really take part.

as for global preeminence, i don't recall america ever having an empire such as this:

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/timeline ... es1924.htm

elizabeth II is still head of state of 16 different countries. barack obama is head of one, shit, one.

[Timminz]

elizabeth II is still head of state of 16 different countries. barack obama is head of one, shit, one.

Not to mention that they let the people decide who has power. Fuck that noise! Either you're born to lead, or you're not. None of this, "oh, we'll let the uneducated plebeians decide if he's the right guy, or not".

Inbred NASCAR fans, the lot of them.

[BigBallinStalin]

I disagree. The world could have 50 billion people and, I think, the U.S. would still win a war in which you lined up the world's armies on one line and those of the U.S. on the other. The technological high-ground owned by the U.S. is breathtaking to the point of having no historical precedent.

While, virtually without exception, the world's military forces are relegated to buying off-the-shelf weapons systems, the global warfighting technology of the U.S. is fifty years beyond the most advanced platforms in the public eye.

I hate to say it but, if a situation existed where the U.S. truly felt the need to pull aside its kimono, the absolute and unchecked terror it could inflict on a battlefield of numerically superior adversaries would be unlike anything ever seen. Occupying territory would be a different matter, however.

The U.S.' most potent fear is a popular liberation action, against which its technology is useless.

As far as occupying territory is considered, I'll agree with you on that, but regarding the US's extreme technological advantage consider this:

Our high-tech military is extremely reliant on satellite communication and computer systems safety. The Chinese already have the capability of blinding satellites and temporarily shutting down the DoD's computer systems and taking extremely top secret files. And that's happened at peace time. During war, our satellites system would be completely demolished by enemy missiles, and the damage incurred upon all of our computer systems by unhindered and nonstop cyber-attacks would be substantial.

With those systems down, the US military loses its huge advantage in technological superiority, and thus would be beaten.

[saxitoxin]

Is a victor in a war who racked-up the most casualties or had the most of its cities destroyed? Or, is victor in a war who racked-up the fewest casualties and got to impose its will on the other belligerents post-belum?

Wars are won by knowing when to enter, exit, with whom to ally and what the minimum commitment is necessary to achieve objectives. The fact the U.S. manipulated Britain into spending its resources to help the U.S. achieve global preeminence (a move that came back to sting both Britain and France in Suez ten years later) just means the U.S. is an able tactician and Britain a willing dupe.

a true victor is someone who actually puts some back into the fight from beginning to end, not the person who sits to one side and then sucker punches the already staggering opponent. america joined the first world war half way through 1917, by which point everyone else had already made colossal sacrifices. the reason i quoted the low amount of casualties you suffered is because it shows that you didn't really put any resource into the war. if you had, your total would be higher. don't even try and pretend that it's because your military were better fighters; everyone was as shit as everyone else back then. face it - you didn't really take part.

as for global preeminence, i don't recall america ever having an empire such as this:

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/timeline ... es1924.htm

elizabeth II is still head of state of 16 different countries. barack obama is head of one, shit, one.

1 - a true victor is not someone who waves their flag longest as you say; it's whoever wins with least cost ... if the US is cunning enough to get you to be their fetch-man then kudos to them and demerit to the resident dupe

2 - I'm not American

3 - I don't doubt the awe of Bavarian Betty being titular ruler of Barbados and Jamaica in addition to the EU's North Sea Province

[hairy potter]

1 - a true victor is not someone who waves their flag longest as you say; it's whoever wins with least cost ... if the US is cunning enough to get you to be their fetch-man then kudos to them and demerit to the resident dupe

2 - I'm not American

3 - I don't doubt the awe of Bavarian Betty being titular ruler of Barbados and Jamaica in addition to the EU's North Sea Province

1 - as i said before, sneaking in at the end with a sucker punch is no victory. it's just picking over the carcass of someone else's work.

2 - and yet you suck up to them as if they're trying to steal your lunch money

3 - where are you from that has such an awesome military history?

[The Bison King]

Brazil and maybe Mexico would most likely be overwhelmed by the rest of South America, which could serve as a landing base for whoever wants to head their operations there for a closer assault on the US. So whatever country that has weak power projection like China could simply land their troops in South America and head north.

This makes sense but it gives the US (NAF) another advantage. If Mexico's on are side this gives us a strong central American Choke point (assuming that one of the first legs of our attacking is completing North America and conquering the Central American states.) While the other nations are tied up trying to get through Central America Brazil would flank them from the South East.

Canada would bear a lot of responsibility for defending from the North. I'm predicting a Russian winter scenario.

[Joe McCarthy]

The US and the West will eventually lose the actual war, which is demographics. In Europe the birthrates are way below replacement, in the US only a little better. There are a heck of alot more people that hate Western culture than like it, and they are multiplying while the West is dying off. They dont even need tanks to take over. All they need to do is what they are doing, having a bunch of babies and moving to western countries. In Europe it's already been happening for a while and the US will follow suit eventually. We are toast, what we see around us is the ending of a civilization.

Yeah, all those people who are migrating from "eastern" to "western" places, are totally doing it because they hate the lifestyle of the places they're moving to, and are actually just planning to change them into something exactly like the places they moved away from in the first place. It makes so much sense, I can't believe it's only total nutters who claim things like this.

You clearly haven't given this two seconds worth of thought so let me help. They are moving to the West because their civilization has produced no institutions that work apart from Islam. They cant stay where they are if they want to make a living. So they have to come West, and they bring with them the only part of their culture that has held up, their faith. If you want to believe they are coming because they want to join our civilization look at Europe right now and the state it's in. These are folks that want Sharia in the West and say so. In any poll you look at of the newcomers, the majority not only want Sharia, they think committing violence to get it is a good thing.

When you add all that plus the fact that they are reproducing well above replacement rate while Europe is well below it, its clear where the continent is headed. We will have Sharia in parts of Europe in the next few decades, its just a fact.

[saxitoxin]

1 - a true victor is not someone who waves their flag longest as you say; it's whoever wins with least cost ... if the US is cunning enough to get you to be their fetch-man then kudos to them and demerit to the resident dupe

2 - I'm not American

3 - I don't doubt the awe of Bavarian Betty being titular ruler of Barbados and Jamaica in addition to the EU's North Sea Province

1 - as i said before, sneaking in at the end with a sucker punch is no victory. it's just picking over the carcass of someone else's work.

2 - and yet you suck up to them as if they're trying to steal your lunch money

3 - where are you from that has such an awesome military history?

1 - This is a very respectable, 18th century view of what constitutes victory, I'll concede that. Victory equals success, regardless of how it is achieved. The fact that the EU's North Sea Province's own military forces are under US operational control (see: "The Myth of Britain's Independent Deterrent" - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 13320.html), the fact that the neo-fascist German state intelligence services report to a clearinghouse in DC (see: "The German Card" by the retired G2 of the GDR defense forces), etc. acts as proof point to your moronic, sentimental, teary-eyed flag waving of a pretend flag flying over a pretend nation.

2 - I think the history of my comments on this site are adequate to dismiss this notion with a light chuckle.

3 - Saxony in the former paradise of farmers and workers and world capital of peace of the German Democratic Republic, prior to the US/NATO sabotage and infiltration action that resulted in its forced unification with the fascist-sector of Germany. As far as "awesome military history", I think one's accomplishments are the province of oneself, not hundred year-old dead people with whom one claims some psychic lineage. Working graveyard at the Shop 'n Go while roaring triumphantly on a message board does not make one part of any "awesome military history."

[saxitoxin]

I hate to constantly refer to this but young Potter's furious pounding of Queen Victoria's corpse is kind of the stereotypical Brit - longing for their days of relevance - that the Japanese had in mind when they made this episode of Hetalia ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zT8kvtK ... verified=1

[saxitoxin]

I disagree. The world could have 50 billion people and, I think, the U.S. would still win a war in which you lined up the world's armies on one line and those of the U.S. on the other. The technological high-ground owned by the U.S. is breathtaking to the point of having no historical precedent.

While, virtually without exception, the world's military forces are relegated to buying off-the-shelf weapons systems, the global warfighting technology of the U.S. is fifty years beyond the most advanced platforms in the public eye.

I hate to say it but, if a situation existed where the U.S. truly felt the need to pull aside its kimono, the absolute and unchecked terror it could inflict on a battlefield of numerically superior adversaries would be unlike anything ever seen. Occupying territory would be a different matter, however.

The U.S.' most potent fear is a popular liberation action, against which its technology is useless.

As far as occupying territory is considered, I'll agree with you on that, but regarding the US's extreme technological advantage consider this:

Our high-tech military is extremely reliant on satellite communication and computer systems safety. The Chinese already have the capability of blinding satellites and temporarily shutting down the DoD's computer systems and taking extremely top secret files. And that's happened at peace time. During war, our satellites system would be completely demolished by enemy missiles, and the damage incurred upon all of our computer systems by unhindered and nonstop cyber-attacks would be substantial.

With those systems down, the US military loses its huge advantage in technological superiority, and thus would be beaten.

Like the so-called "EMP" threat to the US, I think - if one were to navigate the innermost corridors of the Pentagon - the vulnerability of the US satellite network would seem not as threatening as USAF generals breathlessly make it out to be in appropriations committee hearings.

But I concede I could well be wrong.

[maasman]

I don't think any power on earth could possibly hope to conquer the US and hope to hold the territory. The only way to achieve this that I see is

1. Destroy every bit of civilization the US has and bring the entire country to a scrap heap.

2. Somehow manage to have a strong enough military force occupying the the entire country to keep everyone in line, but I think it would revert to #1 at that point.

Also, as far as the navy/ocean comments earlier, the US has the #1 and #3 navies in the world because the coast guard isn't counted in the actual navies numbers. The amount of aircraft carriers the US has are probably enough to annihilate any country they so desire. I think that is sufficient to suppress the vast majority of the world's shipping lanes. The navy combined with a strategic use of air power could render most of the world's counter attack capabilities void. Another side I"m seeing is the political. If the US were to win some decisive battles early and appear to be very strong, I see them gaining allies around the globe, further undermining the resistance to their goals of world domination. As far as economic strength, the US has enough natural resources at its disposal to probably wage a decade long war and sustain it well, especially if the resources of Mexico and Canada are thrown in. For the satellite part, this could be a tripping point, but if the US were to destroy the opposing powers space viability in one swift attack, then I don't see this as being an issue. Space launches are expensive and to rebuild the entire complex after a bombing would take time and be difficult.

[hairy potter]

1 - This is a very respectable, 18th century view of what constitutes victory, I'll concede that. Victory equals success, regardless of how it is achieved. The fact that the EU's North Sea Province's own military forces are under US operational control (see: "The Myth of Britain's Independent Deterrent" - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 13320.html), the fact that the neo-fascist German state intelligence services report to a clearinghouse in DC (see: "The German Card" by the retired G2 of the GDR defense forces), etc. acts as proof point to your moronic, sentimental, teary-eyed flag waving of a pretend flag flying over a pretend nation.

2 - I think the history of my comments on this site are adequate to dismiss this notion with a light chuckle.

3 - Saxony in the former German Democratic Republic. As far as "awesome military history", I think one's accomplishments are the province of oneself, not hundred year-old dead people who one claims some psychic lineage. Working graveyard at the Shop 'n Go while roaring triumphantly on a message board does not make one part of any "awesome military history."

1 - all i see is some bullshit about nukes. i think you're confusing 'who has nukes' with 'what constitutes an actual victory'. let me put it to you like this: a rugby team plays for 75 minutes, and the score is 23-23. they then sub on a fresh player, who scores a try and wins the game. is the victory that player's, or the team's?

2 - well you sure were sticking that nose good and deep into that arse when you were heaping praise onto america's ww1 strategy

3 - your location on your profile says 'united states'; are you one of those americans who likes to pretend they're european? either way, the past achievements of your country and countrymen are the foundations of your culture and what make your country the place it is today. i love the uk and i'm proud of our heritage. maybe if your legacy didn't include a holocaust you'd understand.

[Phatscotty]

If the US were to declare war to the entire world, in a crazy ass WWIII with a few allies like Mexico, Canada and Brazil, who would win?

I'd like to know how far ahead in the armament race the US are.

Comment!

Japan is the 51st state so....we can re-re-educate them. South Korea will help keep China occupied.

[saxitoxin]

1 - This is a very respectable, 18th century view of what constitutes victory, I'll concede that. Victory equals success, regardless of how it is achieved. The fact that the EU's North Sea Province's own military forces are under US operational control (see: "The Myth of Britain's Independent Deterrent" - http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 13320.html), the fact that the neo-fascist German state intelligence services report to a clearinghouse in DC (see: "The German Card" by the retired G2 of the GDR defense forces), etc. acts as proof point to your moronic, sentimental, teary-eyed flag waving of a pretend flag flying over a pretend nation.

2 - I think the history of my comments on this site are adequate to dismiss this notion with a light chuckle.

3 - Saxony in the former German Democratic Republic. As far as "awesome military history", I think one's accomplishments are the province of oneself, not hundred year-old dead people who one claims some psychic lineage. Working graveyard at the Shop 'n Go while roaring triumphantly on a message board does not make one part of any "awesome military history."

1 - all i see is some bullshit about nukes. i think you're confusing 'who has nukes' with 'what constitutes an actual victory'. let me put it to you like this: a rugby team plays for 75 minutes, and the score is 23-23. they then sub on a fresh player, who scores a try and wins the game. is the victory that player's, or the team's?

2 - well you sure were sticking that nose good and deep into that arse when you were heaping praise onto america's ww1 strategy

3 - your location on your profile says 'united states'; are you one of those americans who likes to pretend they're european? either way, the past achievements of your country and countrymen are the foundations of your culture and what make your country the place it is today. i love the uk and i'm proud of our heritage. maybe if your legacy didn't include a holocaust you'd understand.

1 - A football team plays to a 3-2 game. The guys who got the 2 put a lot of heart into it and played with good sportsmanship. The guys who got the 3 still won. The UK is a mere puppet, a client state of the U.S. It's a simple and well-known fact. Bavarian Betty can't break wind at Balmoral without the US permission.

2 - You seem upset?

3 - I've lived in Santa Barbara since 1990, due to a legal misunderstanding in so-called "Germany." In terms of legacies, you should tell that to the Mau Mau, or the Sepoy, or the other millions of dead corpses upon which the very tiny, little, sinking, overcrowded, racist, polluted, North Sea Province of the EU is built as it desperately tries to hold onto its remaining far-flung rock outcroppings, the Falklands, Pitcairn Isl. et. al. while it quietly fades into the dark.

[Army of GOD]

1 - A football team plays to a 3-2 game. The guys who got the 2 put a lot of heart into it and played with good sportsmanship. The guys who got the 3 still won. The UK is a mere puppet, a client state of the U.S. It's a simple and well-known fact. Bavarian Betty can't break wind at Balmoral without the US permission.

A field goal and a safety? That's a hella good game.

[saxitoxin]

I MEANT "SOCCER" AOG YOU LITTLE MISCHIEF MAKER!

[saxitoxin]

i love the uk and i'm proud of our heritage.

Good for you. You shouldn't be but to each his own.

I've said here before that my proudest moment was when the National Front of the DDR succeeded in temporarily banning the wearing of Tracht, a paternalistic abomination. My second proudest moment was when we almost succeeded in unilaterally mandating nouns not be capitalized in the German language.

Destroying all vestiges of ethnic identity is the purest revolutionary act. In the DDR we sought to exterminate the corrupt culture of Germany, a culture based on 1,200 years of bloodletting, racism, sexism and warmongering, and instill a new, healthy and international culture in solidarity with the global struggle of farmers and workers against nationalism, hatemongering and militarism and in hope for a nuclear-free world.

Regrettably we were not radical enough in our approach.

[BigBallinStalin]

The US and the West will eventually lose the actual war, which is demographics. In Europe the birthrates are way below replacement, in the US only a little better. There are a heck of alot more people that hate Western culture than like it, and they are multiplying while the West is dying off. They dont even need tanks to take over. All they need to do is what they are doing, having a bunch of babies and moving to western countries. In Europe it's already been happening for a while and the US will follow suit eventually. We are toast, what we see around us is the ending of a civilization.

Yeah, all those people who are migrating from "eastern" to "western" places, are totally doing it because they hate the lifestyle of the places they're moving to, and are actually just planning to change them into something exactly like the places they moved away from in the first place. It makes so much sense, I can't believe it's only total nutters who claim things like this.

You clearly haven't given this two seconds worth of thought so let me help. They are moving to the West because their civilization has produced no institutions that work apart from Islam. They cant stay where they are if they want to make a living. So they have to come West, and they bring with them the only part of their culture that has held up, their faith. If you want to believe they are coming because they want to join our civilization look at Europe right now and the state it's in. These are folks that want Sharia in the West and say so. In any poll you look at of the newcomers, the majority not only want Sharia, they think committing violence to get it is a good thing.

When you add all that plus the fact that they are reproducing well above replacement rate while Europe is well below it, its clear where the continent is headed. We will have Sharia in parts of Europe in the next few decades, its just a fact.

If you seriously think that the underlined statements to be true, then that undermines your credibility in thinking from an open-minded perspective. Most of what you've written ignores other circumstances, other reasons, and is grossly overgeneralized.

You should go educate yourself a bit more--maybe read a credible book on Middle Eastern history. Would you care for a recommendation?

[BigBallinStalin]

I disagree. The world could have 50 billion people and, I think, the U.S. would still win a war in which you lined up the world's armies on one line and those of the U.S. on the other. The technological high-ground owned by the U.S. is breathtaking to the point of having no historical precedent.

While, virtually without exception, the world's military forces are relegated to buying off-the-shelf weapons systems, the global warfighting technology of the U.S. is fifty years beyond the most advanced platforms in the public eye.

I hate to say it but, if a situation existed where the U.S. truly felt the need to pull aside its kimono, the absolute and unchecked terror it could inflict on a battlefield of numerically superior adversaries would be unlike anything ever seen. Occupying territory would be a different matter, however.

The U.S.' most potent fear is a popular liberation action, against which its technology is useless.

As far as occupying territory is considered, I'll agree with you on that, but regarding the US's extreme technological advantage consider this:

Our high-tech military is extremely reliant on satellite communication and computer systems safety. The Chinese already have the capability of blinding satellites and temporarily shutting down the DoD's computer systems and taking extremely top secret files. And that's happened at peace time. During war, our satellites system would be completely demolished by enemy missiles, and the damage incurred upon all of our computer systems by unhindered and nonstop cyber-attacks would be substantial.

With those systems down, the US military loses its huge advantage in technological superiority, and thus would be beaten.

Like the so-called "EMP" threat to the US, I think - if one were to navigate the innermost corridors of the Pentagon - the vulnerability of the US satellite network would seem not as threatening as USAF generals breathlessly make it out to be in appropriations committee hearings.

But I concede I could well be wrong.

Good point, but seeing that neither of us can or has navigated the corridors of the Pentagon, we'll just leave it with your conceding that you might be wrong. But like the power-hungry savage that Hitler is, I DEMAND MORE LEBENSRAUM! The Rhineland is not enough, saxi! I need a Czechoslovakia of a concession until I claim to be satisfied... [/end BBS'ing]

[Phatscotty]

America has such technology that we would consider losing a major city before we would consider letting people know "it" exists and that "it" is even possible.

[saxitoxin]

Good point, but seeing that neither of us can or has navigated the corridors of the Pentagon, we'll just leave it with your conceding that you might be wrong. But like the power-hungry savage that Hitler is, I DEMAND MORE LEBENSRAUM! The Rhineland is not enough, saxi! I need a Czechoslovakia of a concession until I claim to be satisfied... [/end BBS'ing]

BBS - you're more one of Saxi's li'l trouble munchkins and mischief makers than AOG and InkLOsed combined! Always trying to needle ol' Sax and one-up him. Getting a little jab in here and a tickler there.

America has such technology that we would consider losing a major city before we would consider letting people know "it" exists and that "it" is even possible.

Verily I say, yes, Scott speaks truth.

But, ultimately, this is howling at the moon. The number of truly independent nations left in the world - those whose governments are not seamlessly integrated into a regional management centre of the United States at the highest level - could be counted on one hand. The U.S. is in no danger of a symmetrical attack. Due to the brutal efficiency of its police state apparatus, even an asymmetrical attack would be most difficult to engineer.

The entire nation of so-called "Germany", it's been well-documented, is virtually managed by a mid-level civil servant working in a cubicle on the 4th floor of an office building in Denver. I exaggerate for emphasis ... but just barely. The UK's nuclear missiles are US weapons that get painted "Royal Navy" on the side for photo opps and can be shut-off with an order from the White House at leisure. Working through the so-called National Endowment for Democracy and International Republican Institute,the U.S. has virtually direct control of the chancelleries of Poland, Ceska, Turkey, Bulgaria and Hungary - control that extends to every political party so that no matter who is in charge the buck stops in Foggy Bottom. The list is endless. Even fictionally neutral Switzerland has been entirely co-opted by cousins of the Gladio operation.

Only Cuba and DPRK, perhaps a few others, are truly free nations.

[jonesthecurl]

I don't think any power on earth could possibly hope to conquer the US and hope to hold the territory. The only way to achieve this that I see is

1. Destroy every bit of civilization the US has and bring the entire country to a scrap heap.

2. Somehow manage to have a strong enough military force occupying the the entire country to keep everyone in line, but I think it would revert to #1 at that point.

Also, as far as the navy/ocean comments earlier, the US has the #1 and #3 navies in the world because the coast guard isn't counted in the actual navies numbers. The amount of aircraft carriers the US has are probably enough to annihilate any country they so desire. I think that is sufficient to suppress the vast majority of the world's shipping lanes. The navy combined with a strategic use of air power could render most of the world's counter attack capabilities void. Another side I"m seeing is the political. If the US were to win some decisive battles early and appear to be very strong, I see them gaining allies around the globe, further undermining the resistance to their goals of world domination. As far as economic strength, the US has enough natural resources at its disposal to probably wage a decade long war and sustain it well, especially if the resources of Mexico and Canada are thrown in. For the satellite part, this could be a tripping point, but if the US were to destroy the opposing powers space viability in one swift attack, then I don't see this as being an issue. Space launches are expensive and to rebuild the entire complex after a bombing would take time and be difficult.

The US has civilisation?

[Joe McCarthy]

Only Cuba and DPRK, perhaps a few others, are truly free nations.

LOL WUT

That line struck me as especially funny saxitoxin, but the one about how you were proud to almost ban capitalizing nouns is a close second. Dude you are a wildman, keep up the good work.