BF2S Forums Why is the USA in EVERY map?

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Yeah.  We only beat up on nations that have absolutely NO chance of fighting back.  That way our military can look that much more invincible to the American public.

Yeah, like in the Korean war.  We just knew that was going to be a pushover.  Especiall after we lost the first battle there.  The first Gulf war was another good example.  Nobody was at all concerned that we were attacking the 5th largest army in the world, which had had a month to entrench itself.  Everyone KNEW it would be a pushover long before it happened.  Remember that?  Probably not. 

There SHOULD be China vs. MEC Map. because that is much more likely than US vs. China.  China has a problem with Islamic separatists in Xinjiang province.

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Lib-Sl@yer wrote:

havent you heard of all the terorist bombings in china? a little while ago  a terrorist suicide bombed a bus in souther tibet

er.... some Islamic terrorists bombing something in China and an military action by a group of sovereign Muslim nations like the MEC are two entirely different things.

Please...don't be naive.  Many terrorist organizations are sponsored by sovereign Muslim nations.  Most of the time these days it's Iran doing the sponsoring, but Syria still dips it's hand in occasionally.  Fortunatly Libya seems to have retired from the game.  Anyway, it wouldn't be much of a stretch, especially in fictional game, for China to go to war with the suspected sponsors of terrorism, dragging the whole MEC into conflict.

I also wouldn't mind playing on US based maps.  That is probably the least likely of all the scenarios that have been talked about, but it could be quite fun.

Here's why MEC attacked China....

You see, after the Chinese invasion of Wake Island in 2007 the entire People's Army was crushed by the United States Marines (I think the score was 116-0).  The recently formed Middle Eastern Coalition saw this event as a weakness and a signal of the decline of China as a superpower.  So, they turned their greedy eyes toward the east.  China quickly found that it was fighting a war on two fronts with the US Marines pushing into Dalian and Daqing while the MEC scrambled to grab land around the....ummm...Pakistani mountains.  Thus a bloody war ensued pitting T-90 against T-90 until the MEC began work on their secret weapon.....the purple bunnie bomb!!!!!!

sergeriver wrote:

I dont defend those countries, but to be honest US killed more irakies in 1 campaign than these 2 in 15 years.

Thats just because France and Russia didn't kill anyone directly. They sold weapons to Iraq, and that is why it had one of the largest armies in the world during the Gulf War. You can blame China and Germany too. Funny all four of those countries were against the Iraq war because either Saddam owed them money, or they traded goods or had economic ties. And look at Iraq today, people are more free and can vote.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm


Wow essentially you could call the battle in Iraq is similar to Korea or Vietnam back in the Russian days.

So its wrong for the US to kill people but fine when Saddam does it, even to his own people. I really don't understand the anti-war crowd. The US tried to be diplomatic with Iraq for well over 10 years, the UN issued sanction after sanction, because the Security Council of the UN was corrupted is the reason Iraq didn't get UN approval(don't need it either) and the reason they got so many sanctions, 10 years is plenty of time to be diplomatic with a dictator. Saddam is now whining in court about the trial being a sham, like he whined about UN inspectors going where-ever they liked and having to know when and where the UN inspectors wanted to be somewhere.

Last edited by freebirdpat (2005-12-21 17:52:02)

freebirdpat wrote:

So its wrong for the US to kill people but fine when Saddam does it, even to his own people. I really don't understand the anti-war crowd. The US tried to be diplomatic with Iraq for well over 10 years, the UN issued sanction after sanction, because the Security Council of the UN was corrupted is the reason Iraq didn't get UN approval(don't need it either) and the reason they got so many sanctions, 10 years is plenty of time to be diplomatic with a dictator. Saddam is now whining in court about the trial being a sham, like he whined about UN inspectors going where-ever they liked and having to know when and where the UN inspectors wanted to be somewhere.

Not exactly.  People are pissed because the sales pitch that was given to us was that there were WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US.  They were not.  Now we are being given this shuck and jive story about how Saddam was a tyrant and a bad guy, blah blah blah.  That is not what were supposed to go there and do. 

While it might not have been Bush's intention, this is a bait and switch.  Example - You are part of an online dating service and some chick sends you a message that she wants to meet you.  You look at the picture and WOW...she is HOOOOT.  You can't agree fast enough and set up a meeting.  When you get there, she is about 70 lbs overweight and looks like that purple fat bitch from the Little Mermaid.  You ask her how can that be and she tells you that the picture online was from when she was in high school 30 years and 5 kids ago.  I think you would be a little pissed.

This was the same thing but the stakes were a whole lot larger.  Like people dying.

- Beatdown

Even the WMDs aside, and even if by some horrendous power of the universe Bush made an innocent mistake on that, why does the US not engage the threats that actually confirm having these facilities and outright SAY THEY WILL USE THEM.

North Korea anyone? North Korea isn't about to mess around with the Americans. They have implied nuclear capabilities on a global media level and have made it clear that in the case of any American attack, they would be met with their force in turn.

But you see, America isn't in the business of warring for justice, honor, or to right wrongs. This one is being analyzed on a business level of risk vs reward, and on no merits short of that.

North Korea:

Risks:
- Nuclear retaliation on homefront and battlefront, America is not prepared to field a defensive battle especially in the face of nuclear warfare
- Possible alliances with China and Russia, though chance of those nations lending aid against an onslaught is minimal
- Despite being oppressive, United Nations would definitely not let this one slide
- Civil dissent would be extremely likely, especially if attacks started occuring on home turf

Rewards:
- Few and far between, generally natural resources of the country. Nothing outstanding, it's a smaller nation.

Iraq:

Risks:

- Some infantry retaliation, these can be labelled terrorists. Civilians can be easily labelled as such as well when the situation calls for it
- Some light vehicular resistance, extremely obsolete and minimal risk. No known air assets or warhead deploying capabilities
- Possible alliances with other middle eastern neighbors, very low considering the history of hostilities and internal strife of that area
- Some possibility of American citizens not supporting this campaign
- Possibility of no support from United Nations

Rewards:

- Rich natural resources including petroleum
- If propaganda campaigns go correctly, operation can be disguised as "bringing democracy to an oppressed nation" and boost American support for the war machine

Seems like the choice on that one is clear. Why mess with something that actually stands to put some hurt on you when you can go after the clueless dictator.

This problem is an internal one in America, and I don't see it ever improving. I mean, look at the bloody DOLTS they put in the presidency elections. Hey guys, choose one idiot or another, they're both going to dance to the tune of what we tell them to do, not what you tell them to do. We'll give them the illusion, of course, of having difference campaigns, but it's all the same in the end. Back in the past, the only way this kind of internal corruption was ever stopped was civil war or uprisings, and there's absolutely no way that a civil force could take on the government in place.

Ever notice how, whenever you guys get a president that actually seems to be trying to fulfill the will of the people or make good on his promises, there's always an assassin trying to take shots at him? Yet when you get some insane capitalist war criminal in office, he can walk around in public without a care in the world?

Should also see some of the weapons they're making for the situational urban battles. RPGs that are meant to be fired at buildings, which cause the foundation of the building to collapse and crush all within. Yeah, a lot of thought about collateral damage or civilian fatalities sure went into the making of THAT one, eh guys?

Last edited by Sud (2005-12-23 01:47:59)

stupid question(sorry, if i offend yuo)
if game is amerikan, then USA was in EVERY map
(sorry for my english, i stupid monkey )

why? cause its DICE C A NA DA... if they dont put the US in, we invade CANADA!!!

I think he's trying to say that the question I started this topic with is a stupid question.

On an unrelated note, I saw 5ud or Sud make some statements about America and Iraq and presidents and stuff. While I agree with his stuff, wasn't he the guy flaming all the anti-americans in the 'america-haters unite!'-thread?
Did he just switch sides or something?

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Now, in terms of the first Gulf War...I remember that very well.  As a matter of fact, I was in the VA National Guard supporting logistics for the Gulf War while my father was actually over there as a Lt. Col.  Let me give you a little perspective.  First of all, Iraq's military might was blown so far out of proportion by the American Media, it is laughable.  Contrary to popular belief, while Iraq had the 5th largest army, the term was really a misnomer because that number reflected troop numbers...not military strength. Worse, the majority of Iraqi troops were conscripted, badly trained (if even trained at all), had grossly outdated equipment compared to the US Armed Forces, and were very tired from almost a decade of war with Iran.  The reason why everyone made such a biiiiig deal about the Republican Guard was because that was actually the only unit in Iraq that had a CHANCE of doing anything.  The only thing that Iraq had as a weapon system that out ranged us was their artillery but that was blasted into scrap by the air campaign.  Their air force was old.  Their tanks were old.  They had no aircraft carriers, smart-bombs, AWACs, JSTARs, stealth fighters, tank killers, cruise missiles, laser guided ANYTHING, night scopes, infra-red, and plenty more.  They could have entrenched themselves as much as they wanted.  They were in the desert.  There was nowhere to hide.

The casualty numbers don't lie.  Around 200 US/OK battle related deaths while Iraq suffered over 25,000 dead in a little over a month of combat.

I never said that anyone didn't think we'd win.  Everyone knew we would.  Nevertheless, you cannot discount the fact that an army that size has the potential to inflict a lot of casualties, regardless of their training.  The largest single factor in the Kill ratio you noted is that the Iraqi army more or less rolled over.  Finding an Iraqi unit that would stand and fight was the exception, not the rule.  If they hadn't given up before they started (or if their commanders had a brain between them and made it an Urban fight) those numbers would have been different.  Anyone who wasn't concerned, wasn't thinking...or was a damn 'rah rah' armchair soldier looking forward to seeing shit blow up.  To say that this is an example of the US taking on a conflict it couldn't lose is the comment of one who has seen combat only on TV.

Beatdown Patrol wrote:

Separatist movements does not necessarily equate to a sovereign nation or a standing army.  Rebels?  Perhaps.  However, unless these Islamic separatist has somehow gotten their hands on Migs, Tanks, and other advanced weapons systems....we are talking about small arms actions.  Your scenario might fit in the BF2: Special Forces type missions...but for the straight BF2?  I don't think so.

>>  Please...don't be naive.  Many terrorist organizations are sponsored by sovereign Muslim nations.  Most of the time these days it's Iran doing the sponsoring, but Syria still dips it's hand in occasionally.  Fortunatly Libya seems to have retired from the game.  Anyway, it wouldn't be much of a stretch, especially in fictional game, for China to go to war with the suspected sponsors of terrorism, dragging the whole MEC into conflict. <<

I suggest that YOU not be naive.  For the past 50 years, the United States and the Soviet Union has spent massive sums of money sponsoring seperatist groups and organizations using the dictum that "an enemy of my enemy is my friend".  Even with the proof and acknowledgement that the US was sponsoring these groups, there were no wars started with either the United States or the USSR.  Curious.  Remember the Contras?  Terrorists.  Look it up.  They hit civilians with impunity and we didn't give a rat's ass.  We gave plenty of loot and equipment to Castro, Saddam, Bin Laden, and puhleeeenty more.  Plus, let's just be frank.  The only country thus far that has decided to invade countries on the premise that it was "harboring" terrorists groups (and ::cough:: WMDs cough: is the US of A.

My point stands.  Bombing a bus and rolling into a country with planes, tanks, and ground troops are two entirely different things.

- Beatdown

1)  When I said you were being naive I was referring to the fact that you implied that terrorism in China does not involve a sovreign sponsor.  It may very well not, but to categorically deny it is possible is absolutely naive.

2)  Re: US/USSR support of guerillas vs. Islamic States supporting terrorism:  The difference is that a country who is/was being attacked by guerillas sponsored by the US or USSR is/was EXTREMELY unlikely to attack the sponsor.  This is the difference between attacking Syria/Libya/Iran vs. attacking the US...which would YOU rather fight?  Can you picture El Salvador attacking the US, even indirectly, in response to our open support of the Contras?  Not too likely.  We would have used it as an excuse to flatten them.  Reagan WANTED an excuse back then, only an idiot would have given it to him.

Now, let's look a the Hypothetical I implied above as a basis for a game map: China determines that a soverign Islamic state in South Asia is sponsoring terrorism in Xinjaing (I'd say this is probably not actually the case, but it is FAR from impossible).   You think there isn't any way that China would attack them?  I'd say there's a 70%-30% chance they would.  I doubt the thought of a humiliating defeat (a la US vs. El Salvador) would restrain them.   

China has the largest army in the world, and has pretensions of being THE Asian power.  If it were determined that terrorism in their borders were sponsored by another country, they would lose a great deal of face if they didn't strike back.  They are throwing a lot of money at that region lately, so they wouldn't take too kindly to some other nation deliberately screwing it up.  If they determined that terrorism in their own country were being sponsored by a bordering (or near bordering) country, I believe they would use the currently vogue 'anti-terrorism' mantra to teach that country a severe lesson (and in game terms, such a conflict could easily drag in the entire MEC).

This is MUCH a more likely scenario than the US/China conflict we already see in the game; for the very economic reasons YOU pointed out in an earlier post.  The world's largest market and the world's largest _potential_ market need each other far too much to fight with each other.

Last edited by whittsend (2005-12-23 07:48:02)

Because it is and deal with it, it could be a fictional place who cares.

Maybe they should add a 'Cyberdyne Systems' side and an 'Evil Alien' side.

Come to think of it, isn't there an battlefield-style game set in the terminator universe?
War of the machines I thought it was called.

Last edited by LaidBackNinja (2005-12-23 08:28:03)

Here's an idea.

Scumbag, bribe taking, politician cought in expanding bribery scandal with with corporate elite.  Montana militia orders the use of arty attacks, and any other means necessary, to blow the living shit out of the yachts where said scumbags are hiding in international waters.

whittsend wrote:

I never said that anyone didn't think we'd win.  Everyone knew we would.  Nevertheless, you cannot discount the fact that an army that size has the potential to inflict a lot of casualties, regardless of their training.  The largest single factor in the Kill ratio you noted is that the Iraqi army more or less rolled over.  Finding an Iraqi unit that would stand and fight was the exception, not the rule.  If they hadn't given up before they started (or if their commanders had a brain between them and made it an Urban fight) those numbers would have been different.  Anyone who wasn't concerned, wasn't thinking...or was a damn 'rah rah' armchair soldier looking forward to seeing shit blow up.  To say that this is an example of the US taking on a conflict it couldn't lose is the comment of one who has seen combat only on TV.

I don't discount that an army that size can cause casualties, however even before the war started, the analysist knew that there was just no way Iraq had a chance short of divine intervention by Allah himself.  Why did the White House list rather high expected casualty numbers?  It is a technique used buy just about every salesman out there.  You give a very high number for something thereby setting an expectation in the buyers mind for the implied value of the object.   Once you do that, you can lower the number to something that might be more reasonable to them psychologically, but yet still be overpriced.  By releasing the high numbers, it was able to "prepare" the American public for deaths, but then have them say, well...it was only 200 deaths vs. 30,000 so we did good.

Iraq didn't "roll over"...they were relentlessly saturation and precision bombed for three weeks.  Their supply lines were devestated.  Their Command, Communications, and Control (CCC) was almost completely destroyed.  Their tanks were getting "plinked" every night from long range by Apaches and A-10s.  The term "softening up" comes to mind, but how can you soften up what was already a marshmallow?  You can't.  The only thing that is left is goo.

Making it an urban fight wouldn't have made a bit of a difference.  Perhaps the casualties might have been a little higher, but we would have still gained air superiority, precision bombed their armor no matter where it was, and then rolled in using combined armor and ground troops.  Iraqi cities are not "urban" like New York.  It is more open areas and small buildings.  The only medium sized buildings are places like hotels and government centers.  If Iraqi troops were detected by the Forward Observation Officers to be holed up in one of those buildings, they would flatten the shack with a precision guided bomb.

Also, please put yourself into the shoes of the Iraqi soldiers.  You make it sound like it is an easy tactical decision to turn a conflict into an urban fight.  It is not.  NO SOLDIER IN THE WORLD wants to fight where their family, friends, and houses are at.  They will make their stand AWAY cities and only fight at their home as a last resort.  In addition, it isn't like they had a vast intelligence network, spy sats, and legions of analysts trying to figure out the coalition's military strength and troop movements.  Iraq had access to as much knowledge of our military capabilities as the average American citizen had from watching CNN.  Which ironically, is where Iraq WAS getting its intelligence from.  Finally, based on THEIR experience, they fought the Gulf War exactly how they had fought Iran and believed that they would at least be able to stall the advance and create enough casualties to get the American public to get cold feet.  A good comparison would be the French thinking that the Maginot line would protect them from the German advance in World War II.  It would have been a great tactic if the weapons were still from WW I, but the weapons of war had advanced.

whittsend wrote:

1)  When I said you were being naive I was referring to the fact that you implied that terrorism in China does not involve a sovreign sponsor.  It may very well not, but to categorically deny it is possible is absolutely naive.

If that is what you interpreted, that was not my intent.  I was simply saying a terrorist action and a military strike/campaign are very different and that just because somebody sponsors an action, that doesn't mean that MILITARY action will take place.  Is is possible?  Sure.  Likely?  I have my doubts.  Again, I can only think of two nations have a history of pre-emptive and retaliatory strikes against sovereign nations for claimed terrorist support.  Those two nations are Israel and the US.  I am not making any judgements against either nation by that statement, just stating the facts.  If anybody else has any other examples, they would be welcome.

whittsend wrote:

2)  Re: US/USSR support of guerillas vs. Islamic States supporting terrorism:  The difference is that a country who is/was being attacked by guerillas sponsored by the US or USSR is/was EXTREMELY unlikely to attack the sponsor.  This is the difference between attacking Syria/Libya/Iran vs. attacking the US...which would YOU rather fight?  Can you picture El Salvador attacking the US, even indirectly, in response to our open support of the Contras?  Not too likely.  We would have used it as an excuse to flatten them.  Reagan WANTED an excuse back then, only an idiot would have given it to him.

Correct.  However, wouldn't that be the same as China directly attacking the MEC or an MEC member because of supposed terrorist sponsorship? 

whittsend wrote:

Now, let's look a the Hypothetical I implied above as a basis for a game map: China determines that a soverign Islamic state in South Asia is sponsoring terrorism in Xinjaing (I'd say this is probably not actually the case, but it is FAR from impossible).   You think there isn't any way that China would attack them?  I'd say there's a 70%-30% chance they would.  I doubt the thought of a humiliating defeat (a la US vs. El Salvador) would restrain them.

I think it is best to view the fictional MEC as a Middle Eastern version of NATO or the old Warsaw Pact, not just one Muslim nation.  So while it is easy to think of China launching an attack against Iran or Pakistan, such an attack would risk garnering the military response of the entire MEC.  This would of course include oil sanctions against China.  Possible?  Yeah, but so is the possibility of Canada attacking the US.  Likely?  No.

Historically, while China has talked a lot of big talk, they have never shown themselves to be a militaristic nation.  They have not engaged in a large scale military action in over 50 years.  Ironically, the US has been in 4.  Whereas I am not comfortable putting a percentage to it, I think it is statistically more likely that China would follow a diplomatic path rather than launching a retaliatory strike.  Yes, there are probably boarder skirmishes between China and some of its neighbors...but all out war?  Unlikely in MY opinion.

whittsend wrote:

China has the largest army in the world, and has pretensions of being THE Asian power.  If it were determined that terrorism in their borders were sponsored by another country, they would lose a great deal of face if they didn't strike back.  They are throwing a lot of money at that region lately, so they wouldn't take too kindly to some other nation deliberately screwing it up.  If they determined that terrorism in their own country were being sponsored by a bordering (or near bordering) country, I believe they would use the currently vogue 'anti-terrorism' mantra to teach that country a severe lesson (and in game terms, such a conflict could easily drag in the entire MEC).

(see response to your point about guerillas and terrorist.)

I think that they would instead look at how the situation has progressed in the Mid-East with the US and think twice.  I DO see them making precision strikes using covert teams, assassinations, and the like.  Large scale military engagements using tanks, planes, and a few divisions of troops?  Naaaah.  Something like that would be too loud and far more difficult to hide from the rest of the world.  Better to hit them nice and quiet like.

whittsend wrote:

This is MUCH a more likely scenario than the US/China conflict we already see in the game; for the very economic reasons YOU pointed out in an earlier post.  The world's largest market and the world's largest _potential_ market need each other far too much to fight with each other.

Agreed.  BUT...in a world of diminishing energy resources there is the possibility of such an engagement happening over the acquisition (by force or otherwise) of those resources.  Interestingly enough, note that 3 of the 4 Chinese maps have oil and nuclear power facilities on them.  Without energy, a modern nation looses the ability to grow or even sustain their economy.  Will I put a percentage on those chances?  No.  But generally, when there are two big dogs on the block, a fight is inevitable.

Great debate, btw.

- Beatdown

Last edited by Beatdown Patrol (2005-12-23 12:58:35)