INVASION!!!!!! What country do you trust to help?

Recommended Videos

The Youth Counselor

New member
Sep 20, 2008
1,004
0
0
The Chinese and Saudis get a lot of flack and are demonized by the American press. But if it got so bad, that only one country would support us I don't think it would be too far fetched to believe in them.

Their economy depends on the USA. Their leverage on the rest of the world is beyond powerful, so I would prefer them to be on our side.
 

Hashime

New member
Jan 13, 2010
2,538
0
0
Canada will not be attacked, if they were, the Americans would help, if they attacked the world would, as attacking America is a priority for many countries.
 

Krat

New member
Feb 10, 2010
13
0
0
Its a redundant question, the only war that will ever be viable between the worlds most developed countries will be a cold/economic war. Of course there may be *relatively* minor spats i.e The Falklands war (and I know people that fought in and lost friends in that so don't think me unsympathetic) but the idea of world war is a thing of the past. Welcome to the world of mutually assured destruction.

"Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future." - as distasteful as it may be seen to quote Hitler the man saw what was coming and we can see just how ineffective conventional army's are at fighting that.


Modern Day military forces are for the most part dick measuring for the all the use they are.
 

gbemery

New member
Jun 27, 2009
907
0
0
I would choose the UK because Britain and US kick ass. Plus it would hopefully stop my fellow americans from using the ole fall back line of "Well we saved your asses in WW2!"
 

Blue Musician

New member
Mar 23, 2010
3,344
0
0
real life potato said:
Khaiseri said:
I'm not supposed to start a flame war, but I'm from Mexico and I'd love to declare war on the USA, and ask support from EVERY other country in the world.
If you want to know why, try to learn a little more history about the relations between the USA and Mexico and you'll understand me why.
Still, I'd doubt that will happen, and I do not really want to declare war on anything, but the USA is the one which I would like more, every other country is fine to me.
I know it's all theoretical, but if Mexico declared war on America, Mexican shit would EXPLODE in the fan. Countries around the globe would be required to assist the US (what assistance we would need), and retribution upon the Mexicans would be swift and brutal.
Yeah, I know, but I can dream can I? Also I already knew that, as Mexico is basically married with the USA. It's just something I though. Anyways, Mexico only has a total of 2 tanks, both of the 1960's, so yeah. Again, it was just something I dreamed of. But I cannot imagine declaring war to any other country however.
 

Ninja Monkey

New member
Apr 22, 2010
9
0
0
Crimsonsniper said:
Ninja Monkey said:
Crimsonsniper said:
lostzombies.com said:
Crimsonsniper said:
Am I one of the only person who see's the irony in that most of the nations wanting the U.S. as their ally are also some of the most notrious for anti-american comments?

Personally I don't feel any single nation would be of much military aid to the U.S. in a conventional war, and a nuclear war means everyone loses. The only one's who have tended to benefit from past alliances are our allies, not ourselves. If anything these alliances are one-way in benefit and I can't name a single major conflict within the last 100 years in which our allies came to the aid of the U.S., only U.S. aid to allies in pre-existing conflicts. I'd approve of us instead having no allies but ourselves and letting the rest of the world fight their own battles.
you mean like the way without russia the whole world would be speaking german and japanese

and those brilliant victories when the US went in basically by themselves, such as korea and vietnam?

Arrogance quickly brings defeat, the best things have come when people put mindless patriotic clap trap aside and wrok together, whether in war or peace
Your lack of reading skills are showing. I stated that the U.S. has never required the aid (or received aid) from her allies in conflicts actually involving the american nation within the last 100 years. The U.S. joined into a conflict that was pre-existing and helped those allies in the conflict, it was not a 2-way street, the U.S. received virtually no aid from her allies in any war to date within this time period. The Russians were already fighting the Axis powers long before the U.S. joined the Allies. Or are you claiming that Russian soldiers were helping hold the Phillipines against Japanese imperial troops?

It's high time we stop trying to be friends with people who would just as soon stab us in the back if they would benefit from it.
Erm, the Aussies helped you out in Vietnam at America's request. Hell, they even conscripted us using what was called 'The death lottery' and televised on national TV. There were also 'Aussies' with suspiously British sounding accents as well (due to a tie up of treaties that the UK was bound up in.)

Further reading: http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/vietnam.asp

As an Aussie, would have to say the US. They bailed us out in the Pacific when most of our soldiers were busy in Europe (on behest of good old Winston.) Pretty much from then on we have sent troops whenever America has come knocking, so would expect them to return the favour.
Thats an interesting point, although I believe it goes more along the lines of a joint operation rather than actual alliance. Where the difference between the two is sometimes hard to recognize, it appears that at first Australia joined on behalf of South Vietnam (alongside many other nations who may or may not have been mutual allies or allied at all), they later pledged further support when America asked all countries involved to contribute more. Involvement may have had less to do with America and more to do with South Vietnam, however I don't know anything on the topic itself to render such a judgement.
The alliance treaty in question is the ANZUS treaty ratified in 1951 and is still in force (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS). As for the Australian conception at the time, it was viewed that Australia would be sending troops in support of the American cause, as seen by the recruitment slogan 'All the way with LBJ' (see: http://vietnam-war.commemoration.gov.au/all-the-way-with-lbj/) which was brought about by the said request of the US and our binding defence treaties.

I will however concede that the alliance was self serving in the Australian interests as the populace feared what was dubbed the 'domino effect' of Asian states falling to communism one by one until they were knocking at our door. Not helped by an unpleasant rise of racisism towards Asians in general (which unfortunately still raises it's ugly head even in recent times e.g. The 'white Australia policy' through to the Cronulla riots.)

But I have wandered off topic enough, don't worry Yanks we won't stab you in the back just yet.......Just don't touch our beer.........
 

Blue Musician

New member
Mar 23, 2010
3,344
0
0
Crimsonsniper said:
Khaiseri said:
I'm not supposed to start a flame war, but I'm from Mexico and I'd love to declare war on the USA, and ask support from EVERY other country in the world.
If you want to know why, try to learn a little more history about the relations between the USA and Mexico and you'll understand me why.
Still, I'd doubt that will happen, and I do not really want to declare war on anything, but the USA is the one which I would like more, every other country is fine to me.
Don't worry you won't be starting much of a flame war with this. Although you may get quite a few responses you may not like, but surely deserve.
Yeah, I did got some responses actually, but I wasn't bothered, they were quite funny. It's simple; I'm Mexican, but I hate the people of Mexico, it's government, the system, etc. I would like something to just screw everything. The only things I like would be it's history and culture. Apart from that, I see Mexico as a bad hole.
I'm very anti-patriotic I think.
Anyway, I doubt that it will happen, since Mexico is basically married with the USA. But it was the only country that I could have though to just "declare" war.
 

asinann

New member
Apr 28, 2008
1,602
0
0
Giantcain said:
Spygon said:
The USA i am from the uk so it pretty easy to see why.We take the piss out of each other often but when shit hits the fan its normally the nation that is with us side by side.
really i thought we were hated as we war'd way to much earlier in the time-line. then complained when they followed us home.
Nah, everyone wants us to be on their side because we are constantly at war. We're pretty good at it and all our toys rock.
 

Hollock

New member
Jun 26, 2009
3,282
0
0
British West Florida for their powerful armies, juicy steaks, and creamy cakes!
 

Crimsonsniper

New member
Nov 20, 2009
86
0
0
Ninja Monkey said:
Crimsonsniper said:
Ninja Monkey said:
Crimsonsniper said:
lostzombies.com said:
Crimsonsniper said:
Am I one of the only person who see's the irony in that most of the nations wanting the U.S. as their ally are also some of the most notrious for anti-american comments?

Personally I don't feel any single nation would be of much military aid to the U.S. in a conventional war, and a nuclear war means everyone loses. The only one's who have tended to benefit from past alliances are our allies, not ourselves. If anything these alliances are one-way in benefit and I can't name a single major conflict within the last 100 years in which our allies came to the aid of the U.S., only U.S. aid to allies in pre-existing conflicts. I'd approve of us instead having no allies but ourselves and letting the rest of the world fight their own battles.
you mean like the way without russia the whole world would be speaking german and japanese

and those brilliant victories when the US went in basically by themselves, such as korea and vietnam?

Arrogance quickly brings defeat, the best things have come when people put mindless patriotic clap trap aside and wrok together, whether in war or peace
Your lack of reading skills are showing. I stated that the U.S. has never required the aid (or received aid) from her allies in conflicts actually involving the american nation within the last 100 years. The U.S. joined into a conflict that was pre-existing and helped those allies in the conflict, it was not a 2-way street, the U.S. received virtually no aid from her allies in any war to date within this time period. The Russians were already fighting the Axis powers long before the U.S. joined the Allies. Or are you claiming that Russian soldiers were helping hold the Phillipines against Japanese imperial troops?

It's high time we stop trying to be friends with people who would just as soon stab us in the back if they would benefit from it.
Erm, the Aussies helped you out in Vietnam at America's request. Hell, they even conscripted us using what was called 'The death lottery' and televised on national TV. There were also 'Aussies' with suspiously British sounding accents as well (due to a tie up of treaties that the UK was bound up in.)

Further reading: http://www.awm.gov.au/atwar/vietnam.asp

As an Aussie, would have to say the US. They bailed us out in the Pacific when most of our soldiers were busy in Europe (on behest of good old Winston.) Pretty much from then on we have sent troops whenever America has come knocking, so would expect them to return the favour.
Thats an interesting point, although I believe it goes more along the lines of a joint operation rather than actual alliance. Where the difference between the two is sometimes hard to recognize, it appears that at first Australia joined on behalf of South Vietnam (alongside many other nations who may or may not have been mutual allies or allied at all), they later pledged further support when America asked all countries involved to contribute more. Involvement may have had less to do with America and more to do with South Vietnam, however I don't know anything on the topic itself to render such a judgement.
The alliance treaty in question is the ANZUS treaty ratified in 1951 and is still in force (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS). As for the Australian conception at the time, it was viewed that Australia would be sending troops in support of the American cause, as seen by the recruitment slogan 'All the way with LBJ' (see: http://vietnam-war.commemoration.gov.au/all-the-way-with-lbj/) which was brought about by the said request of the US and our binding defence treaties.

I will however concede that the alliance was self serving in the Australian interests as the populace feared what was dubbed the 'domino effect' of Asian states falling to communism one by one until they were knocking at our door. Not helped by an unpleasant rise of racisism towards Asians in general (which unfortunately still raises it's ugly head even in recent times e.g. The 'white Australia policy' through to the Cronulla riots.)

But I have wandered off topic enough, don't worry Yanks we won't stab you in the back just yet.......Just don't touch our beer.........
Lord knows you guys like your alcohol, has your nation considered a nationwide alcohol rehabilation program? :p
 

twaddle

New member
Nov 17, 2009
1,327
0
0
America and England will work well together.... at least until they piss us off. they i may hop on an airline to the west and head for Canada.
 

Vilcus

New member
Jun 29, 2009
743
0
0
I live in Canada so I'd just have everyone retreat to the frigid north and live there for a while. It would be very hard for any army besides Russia to wage war up there.

OT: I'd trust the U.S. to have our backs. Even though our history wasn't always the friendliest, I'm willing to forget that if a massive army of evil and death comes a knockin'.
 

Low Key

New member
May 7, 2009
2,503
0
0
America has only been invaded once since the beginning of the 20th century, and that was only some islands off Alaska by a small Japanese force during WWII. I can't imagine the invading force would get too far into the mainland what with our civilians armed along side the military.

But I guess if I had to pick a country, I'd say the England.
 

Tucker154

New member
Jul 20, 2009
532
0
0
Im american so u damn UKians,what a second thats not right...
but yeah,but no pie. the cake isnt a lie,the pie is!
 

CouchCommando

New member
Apr 24, 2008
696
0
0
New Zealand because anyone who played the board game risk knows that the sure road to victory is to hold Australasia, and then move across into africa and then into the south Americas for certain world domination.
Our Victory celibrations would consist of giant Risk Boards been displayed on banners with the words "Resistance is Futile" emblazoned across them.
 

Slaanax

New member
Oct 28, 2009
1,532
0
0
Being American, I would choose Germany. They have amazing equipment and are well trained.
 

Treefingers

New member
Aug 1, 2008
1,071
0
0
real life potato said:
Treefingers said:
real life potato said:
Treefingers said:
real life potato said:
Mr.PlanetEater said:
Canada, because it always helps to have a million dog sled teams. To help devour my enemies, oh and Curling bombs across no man's land will help great deals. That or England because, America and England are like brother and sister even if we did fight them over 200 years ago. (But really, who holds a grudge against a country for that long?)

Also three more reason why Canada would be an amazing ally,
1.) They're pretty good at burning down capitols
2.) They've actually got a quite skilled military force even if they're currently deconstructing their navy
3.) It's fucking Canada they're the second biggest land mass in the world besides Russia.
Russia has the biggest landmass, yet they are quite adept at losing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in wars.

EDIT: Would you really want that on your side? Sure, maybe you can crush the invader with numbers, but that only goes so far.
Russia lost many more soldiers in WWII yes, but not because they are crappy.

Russia is the unsung hero of WWII.
Russia is NOT the hero of WWII. There is a large portion of scholars that believe that the Allies could have won the war even if Hitler had managed to defeat the Russians. In fact, Hitler wasn't going up against the Russians as much as he was going up against the winter. He made the same mistake as Napoleon, and it ended up costing him. The massive amounts of fuel his tank divisions needed were barely being covered, and the snow covered landscape did not help in this disastrous escapade. If Russia had maintained a neutrality the whole time (which wouldn't have happened due to Stalin's greed), the allies still would have been able to topple the German war machine. Russia cost him the fight, yes, but it was not solely on Russia's massive shoulders to win the war.
I'm not saying that Russia is the hero of WWII, just that they are overlooked far too often.
You said yourself that it is THE unsung hero. Not AN unsung hero, THE unsung hero. I agree that the Russian forces was a huge part in the war, but I have not heard anyone tell me otherwise.
Yeah, the unsung hero. The overlooked hero. As opposed to all the other celebrated heroes. Not the only hero.

Perhaps bad wording on my part, and apologies that you mistook my meaning. But i'm not implying that which you think i am.

EDIT: Besides, my initial post was a reaction to you implying that Russia wouldn't make a worthy ally, using the huge number of casualties in war they rack up as evidence.

They had it rough, they fought well and were a huge turning point in the war. Your post seemed to downgrade that.