I think yes. That's what NATO is all about - we believe they will come to help us if we get invaded and they believe we will help them.
Plus as history shows:
French people not wanted to die for Gdańsk in 1939 and they had Swastika waving over Wersal less than 1 year later :)
PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB
Strategyking92 said:
you can blame yourselves for that in getting the US involved in the most stupid fucking completely pointless war(WW1) in existence that led only to a larger war(WW2). Which is the thing you are referring to. edit: I would like to note that I feel as though the germans and austria-hungary had a better cause for war than stupid ass france and Britain did. All parties in volved were wrong, but the allies were wrong-er for making something small blow up into one of the worst wars ever seen. And then the harsh reperations- which the US did not want to put on germany- killed even more civilians and made millions poor. Then led to the rise of hitler. A product of Great fuckin' britain. |
You can blame the flench for reparations. UK wanted to be lenient just as we were after we trounced Napoleon. The flench felt differently because of the damage farnce had been dealt. We shouldn't have supported france but don't make it sound like we were the one's bankrupting Germany.
I agree WW1 was pointless but the UK had promised to defend neutral Belgium. I agree the UK should not have joined but treaties are treaties.
Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)
Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!
well you can count on the UK,mrstickball,we'll be there and i'm sure most EU countries would arrive with us after a bit of persuading(who knows what the french will do),don't worry the cavalry is on it's way,just stay underground and alive,
i remember red dawn,good film to remake
Above & Beyond
It depends on the situation, for example if it seemed apparent that the USA was getting defeated in the conflict then why would smaller countries help when they would just be crushed?
And countries don't owe the USA nothing in this sense, all conflict America has entered in the past has been in its own security/interests. In WW2 the USA didn't do very much, it was the British and to a much larger extent the Soviets who defeated Hitler, and the USA left those countries on their own until she finally got attacked.
| Taz! said: It depends on the situation, for example if it seemed apparent that the USA was getting defeated in the conflict then why would smaller countries help when they would just be crushed? And countries don't owe the USA nothing in this sense, all conflict America has entered in the past has been in its own security/interests. In WW2 the USA didn't do very much, it was the British and to a much larger extent the Soviets who defeated Hitler, and the USA left those countries on their own until she finally got attacked. |
other then the fact they practically fought the Pacific war alone?
| Taz! said: It depends on the situation, for example if it seemed apparent that the USA was getting defeated in the conflict then why would smaller countries help when they would just be crushed? And countries don't owe the USA nothing in this sense, all conflict America has entered in the past has been in its own security/interests. In WW2 the USA didn't do very much, it was the British and to a much larger extent the Soviets who defeated Hitler, and the USA left those countries on their own until she finally got attacked. |
The US lost more soldiers than the British did throughout the entirety of World War 2. We lost more soldiers than any other allied country, other than the Soviets and the Chinese. We also committed almost three times as many troops to WW2 than the British did (5.3m to 16.3m).
Also as aruged, the US suppled much material to the allies prior to enterance into the war. I don't have those figures on hand, but we did indeed help.
Back from the dead, I'm afraid.
famousringo said:
Of course. The US already has preferential access to our energy resources, and it's currently angling for preferential access to our water resources. Don't get me wrong, the US is a tremendously valuable ally and we're getting a fair price on our resources, at least for now. But what do you suppose would happen if in 2030 Canada decided that China offered a better deal for oil, uranium, and fresh water? What would an America dangerously thirsty for water and energy do if Canada didn't want to sell it to them anymore? Everything is fine as long as the resources keep flowing to the motherland. I don't really blame the US for wanting to maintain access to key resources, but I also don't think Canada will ever really have a choice as to who it sells to, or even whether we sell or not. There's a word for small satellite states who are locked into a trading agreement with a major world power. |
Scenario seems unlikely honestly.
I'm confused as to why we're angling for water resources. I mean, we do own pretty much "half" the lakes between us... when it comes to world Water reserves, the US is third... only slightly behind Austalia and Canada. The US has more then enough water to take care of the rest of the country currently. It's just the states don't like to share with each other.
As for energy. What would America do? I'd imagine, ration and use more expensive alternative methods. It's not like alternative methods aren't out there. People just don't want to use them because they cost money economically.
Just as an example. You can currently buy something that makes your Oil cars run on Natural Gas.
Which the US is actually like 6th in the world in proven reserves. We could cut out Oil and run everything on natural gas if we needed to. We just don't because of the transition costs.
If we ran out of oil we should be fine.... and if we really shouldn't be in a situation where the country would run out of water either. If importation stopped the government would just force the water rich states to sell at reasonable rates to the water poor states rather then hoard or use for other things.
Machina said:
|
I'm sure they'd send some helicopters.
Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)
Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!
Pyro as Bill said:
I'm sure they'd send some helicopters. |
More fun would be when the UN sent help. Cause it'd just be volenteered US soldiers mostly.
Kasz216 said:
More fun would be when the UN sent help. Cause it'd just be volenteered US soldiers mostly. |
Haha you're assuming flance doesn't veto. You think flance would risk it's trade deals with China?
Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)
Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2025 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
