Obama - Address to the Nation

[Acepilotf14]

I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq is over. Operation Iraqi Freedom has ended.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upsho...pshot/watch-president-obamas-iraq-speech-live

About god damn time

 

[kineaesth]

Awkwardly written speech. And god he looks old, suddenly. Poor guy.

 

[Qonfused]

I only watch because I almost feel guilty if I don't.

 

[Warped]

didn't watch it because i needed a nap, but its good someone decided its "over" for the Iraqi people even though that country is worse off than it ever was.

 

[Krynn72]

It was officially over a several days ago. That one reporter was there when the last combat troops left, officially ending Operation Iraqi Freedom. Doesn't mean the US's interaction is over though, there's several military personnel still over there to do training and provide other aid.

Didn't watch the speech, but I figure he just said what I just did.

 

[<RJMC>]

*in before stern says is bullshit and says the new goverment is a puppet or whatever thing he saw in a webpage to make the usa looks like doing something bad*

 

[unozero]

What a ****ing waste of blood,sweat and money....
Oh well...it had to end eventually.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

several military personnel still over there to do training and provide other aid.

Several as in tens of thousands (~50,000)

Iraq war and objectives went relatively well and basically can be considered a success, compared to Afghanistan.

For now-
---

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/31/2191591/kc-families-vets-beleaguered-by.html


Their voices matter in any debate about the war in Iraq.

The soldiers and Marines and others who left a part of themselves there, enduring horrific battle wounds and witnessing scenes that they pray to forget.

For those who didn’t come home, it’s their families who will speak, and remember.

All will forever be connected with Iraq, even if the United States’ combat mission there has ended.

• • •

Like every other veteran he knows, Scott Stephenson wants victory in Iraq. He follows the politics of it, trying to understand. Some things make him angry. He loses patience with civilians.

Including President Barack Obama.

“I am not going to watch the president’s speech,” Stephenson, of Atchison, Kan., said Tuesday afternoon before Obama addressed the nation to declare the end of combat operations in Iraq. “I don’t feel like he’s a friend to the soldier, nor does he have any military credibility. He only knows what (Gen. David) Petraeus tells him.”

Stephenson was 23 when he lost his left leg and his former life to Iraq. Now, at 26, he wakes up to some good days, but still some bad ones, too.

He had severe face and body burns, a damaged arm, a blown-off leg. Doctors gave him a 5 percent chance of surviving and he spent a year in the hospital. It’s been a grueling recovery.

But simple pleasures are coming back. He now has a prosthetic leg.

“I walked downstairs to the basement and the door was open and then I realized that I was above the doorknob instead of it being at eye level,” he said, breaking into a tense laugh. “I thought, ‘This is a victory. Yeah!’?”

He still talks with Army buddies who kept in constant contact with him as he worked to recover in the hospital. Most of them went on to Afghanistan, but are back in the U.S. now.

“Some of my guys told me that the Baghdad area now looks like downtown Miami, with all the businesses open, and people trying to go to work and carry on with their lives.”

But there’s a darker side to the country that stole so much from him.

“I think it’s good we’re finally pulling out. But without combat troops, the insurgents are just waiting to push back. And they will get in, and we’ll probably have to go back.”

• • •

A retired Marine and now a substitute teacher, Paul Petersen strikes fear in students who test their boundaries.

But, he said, the other teachers love him.

A veteran of three wars, he led foot patrols in Mosul. He was a master sergeant with a 10-Marine team working with 500 Iraqi soldiers.

He also is a father to two Marines who both served in Iraq. Just last week, his former Iraqi translator called him at home in Raytown. Iraq felt safe, the translator told him.

As far as combat troops pulling out, Petersen, 60, said it was time.

“Realistically, we had to pull out sooner or later. They don’t want combat troops over there. But there’ll be plenty of troops there.

“We’re really not leaving,” he said. “You just won’t call them combat units. We’ll have people there for another 20 years at least.”

He knows there’ll be hundreds of air support and air evacuation units, mess hall staff and radio techs, intelligence officers and communication specialists.

“I was with the Iraqi Special Forces, and they were good. Almost as good as Marines,” he said. “American troops would be on patrols with Iraqis, where neither could speak to each other. But instinctively, the teams were so well trained no one needed to speak.”

Those patrols will continue for a long time, he said.

Petersen didn’t listen to Obama Tuesday night. He said he’d rather clean gutters.

He and his wife planned to help a widow from their church with some odd jobs at her house. A more pleasant chore than listening to a politician.

“Besides, whenever I hear Obama speak, I feel sick to my stomach.”

And Petersen laughed, grateful that he has the freedom to say that.

• • •

For Lenexa mom Maureen Walsh, whose son gave his life while helping a young baby with a medical condition, Iraq represents a place where the light of human kindness flared.

Her son Chris Walsh was a 30-year-old Navy medic whose unit stumbled upon an Iraq family whose baby had a deformity that would kill her just as effectively as any bomb.

Walsh, a 1994 Bishop Miege High School grad and an Eagle Scout, had a history of doing the right thing, whether it was in the slums of St. Louis where he’d worked as a paramedic, or when he stopped to help wounded civilians in Iraq. When Walsh saw the baby, his mission changed. He put his weapon down and picked her up.

He made regular medical visits to the family, always after dark, always changing his route, making an impassioned plea to his platoon about saving the sweet baby girl named Mariam with the big brown eyes and thick brown hair.

A baby who seemed to embody all that was good and pure and untouched by the ugliness of a war.

Walsh was killed on one of those visits in Fallujah, in 2006. But his unit kept Walsh’s hope, and the baby was allowed to come to the United States for surgery. At least until last year, she was thriving, Maureen Walsh said.

But she hasn’t heard anything this year.

The 63-year-old mom has nurtured the dream to meet this child whose life is now especially precious to her because of her son’s love.

But her optimism about Iraq and its people’s future fades with each news report, and especially hearing that all combat troops left the country. She plans to try to reach some of Walsh’s friends to check on the little girl named Mariam.

“I’m not so sure now it’ll ever happen.?…I realize it’s costing a lot of money to keep troops there, but why is our president pushing this? I don’t think the people of Iraq are culturally ready to police their own. I think Iraq will go back to their same ways. They’re not equipped to handle it.”

She planned to watch Obama’s speech Tuesday evening. Alone.

“I want to hear what he says, but I’ll probably make a few bad comments to the TV.”



Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/08/31/2191591/kc-families-vets-beleaguered-by.html#ixzz0yFlwwXZz

 

[Warped]

I refuse to call the Iraq war a success. They were much better off with Saddam in power. he may have killed thousands of people but because of our actions even more people were killed and will continue to die. I also hate the notion that we freed people from misery when many are still without electricity, running water, etc.

 

[Sparta]

I refuse to call the Iraq war a success. They were much better off with Saddam in power. he may have killed thousands of people but because of our actions even more people were killed and will continue to die. I also hate the notion that we freed people from misery when many are still without electricity, running water, etc.

He killed about 200,000 people in his time as dictator, so he certainly wasn't a nice guy. But like you said, the actions of the coalition have led to the deaths of anywhere between 150,000 - 1,350,000 Iraqis.

It really was a sorry, piece of shit war no matter which way you look at it.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I'm not in favor of the spending for the war, but I certainly do recognize that due to the withdrawal of combat brigades we risk losing the progress the nation has made in the past 7 years.

 

[JUL3]

Change.

 

[Mr Stabby]

America spent a trillion dollars to seize Iraqs oil fields, wonder how many barrels of oil you need to make it worth while. Although China seems to be getting more of Iraqs oil than America.

 

[The Monkey]

due to the withdrawal of combat brigades we risk losing the progress the nation has made in the past 7 years.

Quite possible, but I'm afraid it's a risk that must be taken. The Americans were extremely unwanted there.

 

[Krynn72]

I'm not in favor of the spending for the war, but I certainly do recognize that due to the withdrawal of combat brigades we risk losing the progress the nation has made in the past 7 years.

Yeah, if terrorists take control of the area how are we ever going to fly troops back over there to stop it?

Oh, the way I just said. We're not at risk of losing shit. The Iraqi's need the cord cut so they can learn how to protect themselves, and if shit goes bad we can have combat troops on the ground there again in less than 24 hours. Saying Op IF is over doesn't mean we can't bring combat troops back afterwards.

 

[Raziaar]

Oh god they're going to follow us home!

 

[StarBob]

Are people really up in arms about 50,000 soldiers still in Iraq? There are more than that still in Germany. Another 30-40k in South Korea and Japan each. There are over a million soldiers stationed around the world.

 

[Raziaar]

Are people really up in arms about 50,000 soldiers still in Iraq? There are more than that still in Germany. Another 30-40k in South Korea and Japan each. There are over a million soldiers stationed around the world.

It's ridiculous that we still have soldiers stationed in those parts of the world, so long after the conflicts.

 

[No Limit]

Are people really up in arms about 50,000 soldiers still in Iraq? There are more than that still in Germany. Another 30-40k in South Korea and Japan each. There are over a million soldiers stationed around the world.

You're not actually being serious when you compare what troops in Germany, Japan, or South Korea face to what troops in Iraq face. Are you?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

I think bringing combat troops BACK would be far more damaging PR and politics wise than if they'd remained. It'd be effective and work, but global policies and such would erupt in anger

It's ridiculous that we still have soldiers stationed in those parts of the world, so long after the conflicts.

There's always uber nationalists in those countries who will be opposed to it, but from most people I've spoken to who actually live around the bases they would hate to see them go. Giant military bases = huge economic benefit. Soldiers have money to spend and nowhere else to spend it but the base stores or the host nation's economy.

 

[StarBob]

You're not actually being serious when you compare what troops in Germany, Japan, or South Korea face to what troops in Iraq face. Are you?

What they face? They're not doing any offensive operations anymore. They're sitting in bases as a deterrant. The last thing they want is something to go down and there be no one around to take immediate action. They're not going to be facing daily combat. I was trying to find the statistics chart that I saw on CNN the other day, but casualties have dropped to only a handful a month in the past couple of years in Iraq and I assume now that soldiers won't be taking daily patrols into territory that could have things like roadside bombs, that number will decrease more.

The point isn't so much to compare what soldiers are doing in these locations, but to make people aware that it's not like we're leaving more soldiers there than in any other location we've had soldiers in a very long time. I'm sure over time with continued peace it will decrease more. Now to get everyone out of Afghanistan...

 

[AJ Rimmer]

There's always uber nationalists in those countries who will be opposed to it

Soooo, you'd be cool with, say, Russia stationing a couple thousand soldiers outside, say, Phoenix?

 

[Raziaar]

I think bringing combat troops BACK would be far more damaging PR and politics wise than if they'd remained. It'd be effective and work, but global policies and such would erupt in anger



There's always uber nationalists in those countries who will be opposed to it, but from most people I've spoken to who actually live around the bases they would hate to see them go. Giant military bases = huge economic benefit. Soldiers have money to spend and nowhere else to spend it but the base stores or the host nation's economy.

Yeah, our military isn't intended to boost the economy of other countries in such a fashion though.

How many people have you spoken to who live around military bases abroad? I mean... that's quite a ridiculous claim to have made, unless you were like, some sort of pollster operating within many foreign nations and your job was to figure out what the locals thought of the US military bases. I mean, of course I'm not saying you're lying or wrong(since I have no idea and I don't really care), but the actual slice of individuals you would have talked to would be completely insignificant.

 

[No Limit]

What they face? They're not doing any offensive operations anymore. They're sitting in bases as a deterrant. The last thing they want is something to go down and there be no one around to take immediate action. They're not going to be facing daily combat. I was trying to find the statistics chart that I saw on CNN the other day, but casualties have dropped to only a handful a month in the past couple of years in Iraq and I assume now that soldiers won't be taking daily patrols into territory that could have things like roadside bombs, that number will decrease more.

The point isn't so much to compare what soldiers are doing in these locations, but to make people aware that it's not like we're leaving more soldiers there than in any other location we've had soldiers in a very long time. I'm sure over time with continued peace it will decrease more. Now to get everyone out of Afghanistan...

No, they aren't just sitting in bases. And why don't you take a trip to Baghdad and give us a report on how safe things are over there. The entire country is still a war zone, unlike Germany, unlike Japan, unlike South Korea. That is the point.

I strongly disagree with you that over time there will be "continued peace" or the suggestion that currently there is peace. Just because american troops aren't dying as much as they were a couple years ago Iraqi civilians are still paying the price, with over 400 dead in the month of July alone (an increase from this time last year).

 

[StarBob]

No, they aren't just sitting in bases. And why don't you take a trip to Baghdad and give us a report on how safe things are over there. The entire country is still a war zone, unlike Germany, unlike Japan, unlike South Korea. That is the point.

I strongly disagree with you that over time there will be "continued peace" or the suggestion that currently there is peace. Just because american troops aren't dying as much as they were a couple years ago Iraqi civilians are still paying the price, with over 400 dead in the month of July alone (an increase from this time last year).

How many would have been dead if we weren't there? How many lives were saved from future deaths? I have never, as I've said before, agreed with the Iraqi war, but what's the alternative right now? Leaving everyone there? Taking everyone out? The reason Germany, Japan, and South Korea weren't war zones was because those wars ended (or in Germany's case, never really started). This was a battle against insurgents and militants incorporated into civilians. I mean... how could you argue to stay and lose more American lives? How could you agrue to leave and sacrifice more civilians and possible instability? What is happening is the best possible solution to a terrible situation. American soldiers are in less danger and Iraq can work to stabilize itself.

 

[No Limit]

All that stuff is debatable, something I dont wanna do now since im on my phone. But you're original suggestion that we shouldnt be upset about 50000 troops in Iraq because of the troops in Germany is absurd. Not really the same thing.

 

[Absinthe]

Even so, what's the big problem with having 50,000 troops remaining stationed in Iraq.

 

[No Limit]

The problem is that those 50,000 troops are clear evidance the war is not over, far from it. I hate the fact that this administration and our media is spinning this as if it means the war is over. It clearly isn't.

The actual point of your question is a valid one, should we leave those 50,000 there or withdraw everyone? I don't know the answer to that. I just know it's not as rosy of a situation as many try to make it out to be.

And there is a lot of potential for shit to still hit the fan. Does that mean I think it will? I think it's very probable. From everything I've seen the different factions in Iraq still haven't quite settled their differences. And the country still lacks a strong central government. Civil war in the next decade is still likely especially if we aren't there to control the situation.

 

[Krynn72]

I haven't seen too much "the war is over" stuff. I've seen a lot of "Operation Iraqi Freedom is over" stuff. Which is true. I mean, I haven't been following it that closely, but it doesn't seem to me like people are making it out to be a bigger deal than it is. The aggressive combat forces are out, ending the aggressive combat operation that was Operation Iraqi Freedom. I havent seen many people saying that the job is done, far from it in fact. I've seen many people straight up say that its far from over.

 

[Yuri]

The US has troops stationed all over the world. Since there are about 30k troops in Japan and 50k troops in Germany, is WWII also not over?

Here's a wikipedia map.

 

[Krynn72]

FFS whats wrong with you guys. YOU CANNOT COMPARE THEM. The situation in Iraq is a very different one than in those locations.

 

[Warped]

The US has troops stationed all over the world. Since there are about 30k troops in Japan and 50k troops in Germany, is WWII also not over?

Here's a wikipedia map.

reminds me of the game RISK. I wonder if we get any cards to trade in for bonuses.

but yeah i bet it costs billions to keep men and women overseas and also remember those people have children and will probably follow the same trait

 

[unozero]

wall of text incoming.


US forces still in fight at end of combat mission

By LARA JAKES and MAYA ALLERUZZO (AP) – 6 hours ago

HAWIJA, Iraq — Even as President Barack Obama was announcing the end of combat in Iraq, American soldiers were sealing off a northern village early Wednesday as their Iraqi partners raided houses and arrested dozens of suspected insurgents.

While the Obama administration has dramatically reduced the number of troops and rebranded the mission, the operation in Hawija was a reminder that U.S. forces are still engaged in hunting down and killing al-Qaida militants — and could still have to defend themselves against attacks.

That reality was front and center at a change-of-command ceremony in one of Saddam Hussein's former palaces outside Baghdad that the American military now uses as its headquarters. Officials warned of a tough road ahead as the U.S. moves into the final phase of the 7 1/2-year war.

Of paramount concern is Iraqi leaders' continued bickering, six months after parliamentary elections, over forming a new government — a political impasse that could further endanger stability and fuel a diminished but still dangerous insurgency.

"Iraq still faces a hostile enemy who is determined to hinder progress," Gen. Lloyd Austin, the newly installed commander of the just under 50,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq, told the swelling crowd that was clad in military fatigues and political suits. "Make no mistake, our military forces here and those of the Iraqi nation remain committed to ensuring that our friends in Iraq succeed."

Vice President Joe Biden presided over the gathering at al-Faw palace, Saddam's gaudy former hunting lodge replete with fake marble walls and a huge chandelier made of recycled plastic.

The remaining U.S. forces in Iraq would be "as combat ready, if need be, as any in our military," Biden said, flanked by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen for the 75-minute ceremony, which also changed the U.S. mission's name from "Operation Iraqi Freedom" to "Operation New Dawn."

Three years ago, about 170,000 U.S. troops were in Iraq. Of those who remain, fewer than 10 percent — or 4,500 — are special forces who will regularly go on raids and capture terrorists, albeit alongside Iraqi troops.

Obama ordered the end of combat missions by Aug. 31 in a step toward a full withdrawal of American forces by the end of next year that was mandated in a U.S.-Iraqi security agreement.

Violence also has declined dramatically since early 2007, when the Pentagon poured tens of thousands more troops into Iraq over a matter of months to quell a Sunni insurgency that had lured the country to the brink of civil war. Additionally, a Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and a Shiite militia cease-fire have helped tamp down attacks, although bombings and shootings across Iraq continue on a near-daily basis.

But Iraqi forces are heavily dependent on U.S. firepower, along with helicopters, spy data and other key tools for combating terrorists that they won't be able to supply on their own for years to come.

"Every soldier I have knows that fighting is not over because there are groups here that still want to hurt us," Maj. Gen. Tony Cucolo, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq's volatile north, told The Associated Press recently. "But clearly combat operations is not in our mission statement."

In Hawija, once a hub for Sunni militants and Saddam's disaffected allies located 150 miles north of Baghdad, roughly 80 U.S. soldiers teamed up with more than 1,000 Iraqis to arrest about 60 terror suspects in the early morning raid Wednesday.

From checkpoints and command centers to helicopters hovering overhead, the Americans were on hand at the request of Iraqi police. But it was the Iraqis who went into houses and arrested suspected insurgents — including two considered high-value targets — while the U.S. watched the operation from afar.

Hours before the raids, Lt. Col. Andy Ulrich gave his soldiers a pep talk to counter concerns they weren't on a worthwhile mission.

"You all are combat troops not doing a combat mission, although it looks smells and feels and hurts a lot like combat," Ulrich said.

"Don't worry about what the politicians are saying because we have a mission," he added. "The bad part is, we can't go kicking the doors ourselves and get these guys. We've got to kind of convince Iraqis to do it, but the good part is, they're kind of willing to do it."

Iraqi forces across Baghdad appeared to be on heightened alert, aiming to reassure the populace and ward off insurgent attacks to coincide with the change in command.

Intelligence officials had warned al-Qaida in Iraq might use the U.S. military's shifting mission to launch suicide bombings around the capital in the days leading up to Wednesday's ceremony. However, the day was relatively quiet, except for a roadside bomb in eastern Baghdad that police said killed one person.

At the Baghdad ceremony, Gen. Ray Odierno, the outgoing commander, formally ended his nearly five-year tour in Iraq on a reflective note.

"This period in Iraq's history will probably be remembered for sacrifice, resilience and change," Odierno said. "However, I remember it as a time in which the Iraqi people stood up against tyranny, terrorism and extremism, and decided to determine their own destiny as a people and as a democratic state."

Then, wistfully using his military call sign one last time, Odierno ended his remarks: "Lion 6 — out."

Obama ordered the refocusing of the U.S. mission last year to fulfill a campaign promise of ending what he once termed "a dumb war" and one that Gates acknowledged Wednesday was launched without justification. In an address Tuesday night Obama announced the end of American combat, but made clear that this was no victory celebration.

"Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission," the president said.

Defining the front lines in a war where soldiers who are attacked while delivering supplies could just as easily return fire as Marines while on a raid to round up suspected insurgents has never been easy. Some of the key ongoing threats to the safety of American forces are the same as they've always been: rockets, mortars and roadside bombs.

U.S. military officials have said Iranian-backed militias are stepping up their attacks against targets in Baghdad, trying to make it look like they're driving out the Americans. Since arriving in Iraq, the battalion taking part in the Hawija raids has been hit by rocket and grenade attacks on their patrols and on their base almost every other day.

In the western Iraqi city of Ramadi before the ceremony, Gates told reporters the U.S. would consider keeping some military forces in place past next year, if the Iraqi government requests it.

Asked whether the U.S. was still at war in Iraq, Gates answered succinctly, "I would say we are not."

He was less definitive about whether the 7 1/2-year war was worthwhile. More than 4,400 American troops and an estimated 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since the 2003 invasion, and billions of dollars have been poured into the war effort.

Claiming that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, then-President George W. Bush ordered the invasion with approval of a Congress still reeling from the 9/11 attacks. Bush's claims were based on faulty intelligence, and the weapons were never found.

"The problem with this war, I think, for many Americans, is that the premise on which we justified going to war turned out not to be valid," Gates said. "Even if the outcome is a good one from the standpoint of the United States, it'll always be clouded by how it began."

Jakes reported from Baghdad and Alleruzzo from Hawija. AP National Security Correspondent Anne Gearan in Ramadi and AP writers Barbara Surk and Rebecca Santana in Baghdad contributed to this report.

 

[Warped]

Another forgotten war, another massacre of innocent lives, another round of disabled vets, and another season of hatred and dissent. this country can only take so much before we get attacked by a shitload of nations all at once.

 

[StarBob]

The US has troops stationed all over the world. Since there are about 30k troops in Japan and 50k troops in Germany, is WWII also not over?

Here's a wikipedia map.

Japanese bases were part of the peace treaty after WW2. German bases are a relic of the cold war. I'm guessing South Korean bases are there because of whole Korean War split thing, but I'm not sure why Vietnam isn't in a similar situation. It's true it's not a comparable situation, but people are ****ing flipping out about that people are still there. Everyone knew no matter what the case, there would be personnel stationed in Iraq long after this was all over as there will be in Afghanistan after that is over. It's just how things work in war. If you win and immediately walk away, there's nothing stopping them from making things just as they were. Yeah it sucks, but the whole point is they're not there in an offensive capacity.

 

[Yuri]

FFS whats wrong with you guys. YOU CANNOT COMPARE THEM. The situation in Iraq is a very different one than in those locations.

Krynn reporting: everybody still not as smart as him! Now for the weather.

It's not the biggest gap in logic to say armies generally keep many troops in a location after a long and devoted war, after the main combat has ended. Obviously Japan, Germany, Korea, and Iraq are all totally different countries with different circumstances, good for you, totally didn't realize that! But whoops, we've had two modern recent wars there, it is rather obvious that many troops will stay in the established bases for quite a while.

BUT WHAT'S WRONG WITH ME, I'M SO UTTERLY STUPID, OH GOD

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Soooo, you'd be cool with, say, Russia stationing a couple thousand soldiers outside, say, Phoenix?

If we were in a situation like South Korea and Russia was our closest ally, then probably not. We certainly didn't have a problem with the French doing it when the nation was birthed.

If we started the largest war in the Earth's history and were essentially conquered by them years back, I'd pretty much have no say either. I would attempt to reap maximum benefits from it though, just like Germans and Japanese who live near the bases do.


If they were there by invite and were paying massive payments/tribute (IE some sort of cross training by military invite and such- completely friendly) I might not be so against it either. In that case I'd only support it if the facilities were open for US military entry and use as well (for audits/security)

 

[unozero]

Another forgotten war, another massacre of innocent lives, another round of disabled vets, and another season of hatred and dissent. this country can only take so much before we get attacked by a shitload of nations all at once.

You live in a Fantasy world.

 

[Sparta]

Yeah, The U.S. would have to do something monstrously bad for a shitload of nations to attack it at once. Not to mention, who would attack it and why?

Let's say, they nuke Iran. That'd be absolutely awful, since if Iran goes, you can bet your ass Israel will take casualties if it's not wiped off the map joining in on the fight. The rest of the Middle East would turn against the U.S. and Israel, but even then, they would never be able to take on the U.S. on the other side of the globe.

What about a war against China? This is possible, but what would the U.S. have to do to cause such an event? I honestly can't think of anything short of a full on attack against China/Taiwan that would warrant such a thing. It would be WW3 with all of the traditional U.S. allies backing them (U.K, Canada, Most of Europe, Australia and New Zealand fighting as well) against China, possibly North Korea. Russia could go anyway in this conflict but I reckon they would most likely remain neutral and even help manufacture vehicles/munitions for China, maybe even the U.S. too if they wanted too since it would a great time for Russia to profit from the rest of Europe and Asia at war with themselves.

The alternative would U.S. v Russia, but that would probably play out the same as the U.S. v China scenario, China now playing the part Russia did.

The U.S.A. will never be attack by a shitload of nations all at once. They'd be able to easily trounce most of what the world could throw at them.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

The U.S.A. will never be attack by a shitload of nations all at once. They'd be able to easily trounce most of what the world could throw at them.

Well, no.

I mean... America's military is great, and all that, but the combined armed forces of Europe? More. China? More. Russia? Less, but only by a third. And since most of your military is geared towards fighting third world countries, there's really no telling how either side would fair against a high-tech opponent. Which is why the nukes would start flying fairly soon, so hopefully (and very likely) it's not gonna come to that.