The United States vs Vatican City - Who would win?

[Draconikus]

Jesus ain't got shit on a B-52.

Divine child of an omnipotent being vs man made machine.......
I bet on the divine child, please.

[Fartsniffage]

Divine child of an omnipotent being vs man made machine.......
I bet on the divine child, please.

Bitch didn't do too well against 3 nails, a couple of JDAMs would really ruin his day.

[Farnhamia]

Vatican City.. They've got Jebus on their side.

Oh please, every side in every war in history has had 'God' on their side, or 'the Gods', with the possible exception of the Russians and the Chinese. Seriously, this 'God' must be a major schizophrenic to support all these different sides.

As has been said, even Judas Iscariot had God on his side.

[United Gackle]

Ya which is the number one reason Italy and US would never war.

The Vatican defence treaty would probably take precedence, what with the majority of Italians being Catholic. It may not be the smartest move, militarily, but then neither was the American Revolution.

The American Revolution was a great move because they were 3000 miles away from Great Britian and the British forces were spread throughout the world.

[Panzerjaeger]

The answer is obviously Luxembourg.

[Draconikus]

Bitch didn't do too well against 3 nails, a couple of JDAMs would really ruin his day.

Yes, because it's not like he let them kill him.
Not to mention, as I recall his death was not only temporary, but also extinguished all light. Try flying a plane when you can't even see where it is. And heaven help you if something critical is run by a fibre optic cable.

[Panzerjaeger]

Oh please, every side in every war in history has had 'God' on their side, or 'the Gods', with the possible exception of the Russians and the Chinese. Seriously, this 'God' must be a major schizophrenic to support all these different sides.

As has been said, even Judas Iscariot had God on his side.

YOU LIE!

Actually God was behind him.

Judas: So why am I standing on this chair and putting this rope around my neck God?
God: You'll see.
*woosh a quick drop and a sudden stop*

[Fartsniffage]

Yes, because it's not like he let them kill him.

Still dead though.

Not to mention, as I recall his death was not only temporary, but also extinguished all light. Try flying a plane when you can't even see where it is. And heaven help you if something critical is run by a fibre optic cable.

So you mean like at night? Yep we never fly planes at night, no siree-bob.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

Now, if the College of Cardinals would just elect someone under the age of 70, we could have the Pope and the President fight it out in single combat. In fact, we put a floor in the Colosseum ...

Pope Benedict IX is clearly your man.

While no one's entirely sure how old he was when elected Pope for the first time (out of three), he seems to have been no older than 18, and Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy claims he was as young as 11.

He's also the only office-holder to have ever sold the Papacy (at the end of his second term, to Gregory VI), so can be relied on to throw the fight (even the Catholic Encyclopaedia describes Benedict IX as 'a disgrace to the Chair of St. Peter').

Unfortunately, he was Pope in the first half of the 11th century, so he may not be much use to you in a fight against Barack Obama.

[Johz]

In the tradition of the US vs X threads:

Who would win a war between the the US and the worlds smallest sovereign state? On the one hand you have an incomparably powerful conventional military force, on the other you have the Swiss Guard and a billion pissed off Catholics - including many Americans. In my opinion the VC would win since the worldwide economic sanctions that would fall on the US would cause its economy to collapse and it would have to sue for peace.

The USA would never dare invade the V/C. Were it to, the current President would not be able to expect a re-election. Countries across the world would be forced to react due to their Catholic populace. The implications for the War On Terror would be interesting - it would probably be decried as hypocrisy, and one could theoretically see a large influx of terrorists. Of course this is without taking into account the Vatican's weapon - to be written about in the next Dan Brown pseudonovel - and God.

[Farnhamia]

As has been said, even Judas Iscariot had God on his side.

YOU LIE!

Actually God was behind him.

Judas: So why am I standing on this chair and putting this rope around my neck God?
God: You'll see.
*woosh a quick drop and a sudden stop*

BABY KILLER!
I always did feel bad for Judas, I mean, it was a put-up job from the start. I can see him in the afterlife, "Right, so WTF was I supposed to do, say, 'No, I'd rather not?' Come on, Pete, you were there, you even denied Him three times!"

[Johz]

Yes, because it's not like he let them kill him.

Still dead though.

Not to mention, as I recall his death was not only temporary, but also extinguished all light. Try flying a plane when you can't even see where it is. And heaven help you if something critical is run by a fibre optic cable.

So you mean like at night? Yep we never fly planes at night, no siree-bob.

Which is a real shame, really, seeing as we know have radar which would really help in the night-time flying department...

[Panzerjaeger]

YOU LIE!

Actually God was behind him.

Judas: So why am I standing on this chair and putting this rope around my neck God?
God: You'll see.
*woosh a quick drop and a sudden stop*

BABY KILLER!
I always did feel bad for Judas, I mean, it was a put-up job from the start. I can see him in the afterlife, "Right, so WTF was I supposed to do, say, 'No, I'd rather not?' Come on, Pete, you were there, you even denied Him three times!"

YOU LIE!
I agree it was a rather odd position to be put in. As a Christian myself I hold no malice as I have no clue what Judas intentions were. Maybe he was told to do it or maybe he just figured Jesus would find a way out of it as he had in the past.

[Farnhamia]

BABY KILLER!
I always did feel bad for Judas, I mean, it was a put-up job from the start. I can see him in the afterlife, "Right, so WTF was I supposed to do, say, 'No, I'd rather not?' Come on, Pete, you were there, you even denied Him three times!"

YOU LIE!
I agree it was a rather odd position to be put in. As a Christian myself I hold no malice as I have no clue what Judas intentions were. Maybe he was told to do it or maybe he just figured Jesus would find a way out of it as he had in the past.

BABY KILLER!
Yeah, all through the Passion, Judas is going, "Why doesn't he just ... pull a miracle or something? I mean, he saved that centurion's kid and we don't even like the the Romans. Man, this is not going to end well."

[Johz]

BABY KILLER!
I always did feel bad for Judas, I mean, it was a put-up job from the start. I can see him in the afterlife, "Right, so WTF was I supposed to do, say, 'No, I'd rather not?' Come on, Pete, you were there, you even denied Him three times!"

YOU LIE!
I agree it was a rather odd position to be put in. As a Christian myself I hold no malice as I have no clue what Judas intentions were. Maybe he was told to do it or maybe he just figured Jesus would find a way out of it as he had in the past.

I feel kinda sorry for the guy. But then someone had to - wasn't it a prophecy or something?

[Draconikus]

The Vatican defence treaty would probably take precedence, what with the majority of Italians being Catholic. It may not be the smartest move, militarily, but then neither was the American Revolution.

The American Revolution was a great move because they were 3000 miles away from Great Britian and the British forces were spread throughout the world.

You are right, the Americans had the advantages of native ground, internal supply lines, and they actually gave a crap about America (to quote the then PM's diary, on the day of the Declaration of Independance, I beleive, :" Nothing much happened today").

If this move was as tactically sound as you say, why did it take eight years to force the British to concede America?
Also, how was it tactically sound? They were fighting dissenters in their own ranks, a superior (numerically) force on multiple fronts, had fewer resources to call upon, etc.... By all accounts, America should have lost that war. And, if logic tells you you are unlikely to win a war, then clearly it is not the smartest military decision. I'll admit, they may have started the revolution at a time when odds were greater that they could win 9I don't know about that, though), but even so, the numbers were stacked against them.

[Draconikus]

Yes, because it's not like he let them kill him.

Still dead though.

Not to mention, as I recall his death was not only temporary, but also extinguished all light. Try flying a plane when you can't even see where it is. And heaven help you if something critical is run by a fibre optic cable.

So you mean like at night? Yep we never fly planes at night, no siree-bob.

Note 'temporary'. One man can wipe out a nation if he keeps getting back up after you kill him.
Also 'Extinguish all light. You know, like landing lights. Not to mention the optics that a computer uses to transmit information to other computers... via beams of light. Unless the plane had a completely mechanical operating system, it would practically fall out of the sky.

[Farnhamia]

The American Revolution was a great move because they were 3000 miles away from Great Britian and the British forces were spread throughout the world.

You are right, the Americans had the advantages of native ground, internal supply lines, and they actually gave a crap about America (to quote the then PM's diary, on the day of the Declaration of Independance, I beleive, :" Nothing much happened today").

If this move was as tactically sound as you say, why did it take eight years to force the British to concede America?
Also, how was it tactically sound? They were fighting dissenters in their own ranks, a superior (numerically) force on multiple fronts, had fewer resources to call upon, etc.... By all accounts, America should have lost that war. And, if logic tells you you are unlikely to win a war, then clearly it is not the smartest military decision. I'll admit, they may have started the revolution at a time when odds were greater that they could win 9I don't know about that, though), but even so, the numbers were stacked against them.

On their own, yes, the Americans should have and probably would have lost. You forget to mention French munitions, French ships, French troops and French recognition. I know it's fashionable to belittle the French military but they did swing the war to our side.

[South Norwega]

The American Revolution was a great move because they were 3000 miles away from Great Britian and the British forces were spread throughout the world.

You are right, the Americans had the advantages of native ground, internal supply lines, and they actually gave a crap about America (to quote the then PM's diary, on the day of the Declaration of Independance, I beleive, :" Nothing much happened today").

If this move was as tactically sound as you say, why did it take eight years to force the British to concede America?
Also, how was it tactically sound? They were fighting dissenters in their own ranks, a superior (numerically) force on multiple fronts, had fewer resources to call upon, etc.... By all accounts, America should have lost that war. And, if logic tells you you are unlikely to win a war, then clearly it is not the smartest military decision. I'll admit, they may have started the revolution at a time when odds were greater that they could win 9I don't know about that, though), but even so, the numbers were stacked against them.

The Americans largely won because the French and Spanish took advantage of the situation.

It's always amusing that the largest land battle of the war, was in Europe.

[Maurepas]

Vatican City, I hear their cult has already infiltrated grand swathes of US territory,

[Draconikus]

On their own, yes, the Americans should have and probably would have lost. You forget to mention French munitions, French ships, French troops and French recognition. I know it's fashionable to belittle the French military but they did swing the war to our side.

Whilst that is indeed the case, in theory the British could have sent Indian, African, and Asian troops to America. That they didn't does not detract from the fact that, before the war began, the odds of Britain losing seem remote. I know that various things happened to change the odds into the Americans favour, but my point is that, when the fighting started, an outright war against the British Empire looked like a decidedly bleak future for the 'Patriots' (in comma's because they were technically rebelling against their nation, and so were behaving in a very un-patriotic manner. And don't say anything about being patriotic to the US, because the US didn't exist at that point).

And as for belittling the French military, that probably comes from their complete and utter rout near the start of WWII, and the fact that they surrendered to stop the Germans 'damaging their beautiful city'.
I beleive most people can admit that the French under Napolean were a force to be reckoned with. And most people don't know enough about French history before then to make an educated statement.

[Farnhamia]

Whilst that is indeed the case, in theory the British could have sent Indian, African, and Asian troops to America. That they didn't does not detract from the fact that, before the war began, the odds of Britain losing seem remote. I know that various things happened to change the odds into the Americans favour, but my point is that, when the fighting started, an outright war against the British Empire looked like a decidedly bleak future for the 'Patriots' (in comma's because they were technically rebelling against their nation, and so were behaving in a very un-patriotic manner. And don't say anything about being patriotic to the US, because the US didn't exist at that point).

I thought that was implicit in my post. You are quite right, at the start of the conflict the odds of the colonists winning were not ones I would have taken.

The leaders of the revolution did not, I think, start down that road with their eyes closed. They knew that, should they lose, they would be hanged as rebels. Remember, however, that their original aim was to claim what they considered their rights as British subjects, most importantly to have a say in their government. I think that if the King's Government had offered the colonies some sort of political compromise, seats in Parliament, for instance, tensions might have eased enough to allow further discussions.

[Panzerjaeger]

YOU LIE!
I agree it was a rather odd position to be put in. As a Christian myself I hold no malice as I have no clue what Judas intentions were. Maybe he was told to do it or maybe he just figured Jesus would find a way out of it as he had in the past.

I feel kinda sorry for the guy. But then someone had to - wasn't it a prophecy or something?

It was. In fact Jesus says, "One of you will betray me." at the Last Supper. I find it hard to believe there was any actual malice behind Judas' actions he had been a disciple for a long time it seems rather silly to suddenly change your view on it for a handful of silver.

[Draconikus]

I thought that was implicit in my post. You are quite right, at the start of the conflict the odds of the colonists winning were not ones I would have taken.

The leaders of the revolution did not, I think, start down that road with their eyes closed. They knew that, should they lose, they would be hanged as rebels. Remember, however, that their original aim was to claim what they considered their rights as British subjects, most importantly to have a say in their government. I think that if the King's Government had offered the colonies some sort of political compromise, seats in Parliament, for instance, tensions might have eased enough to allow further discussions.

Yes, quite. I myself have never understood why some sort of compromise wasn't reached when prominent citizens started writing complaints to their local magistrate, etc. (as they undoubtedly would have. One does not go from 'Contented citizen' to 'Revolutionary' without passing a few steps in between).
Still, if you grant a single person THAT much power (a quarter of the planet isn't to be laughed at), a few acts of douchebaggery are to be expected. It is also to be expected that some of those acts then bite them in their ass. That was one of those times.

[Draconikus]

I feel kinda sorry for the guy. But then someone had to - wasn't it a prophecy or something?

It was. In fact Jesus says, "One of you will betray me." at the Last Supper. I find it hard to believe there was any actual malice behind Judas' actions he had been a disciple for a long time it seems rather silly to suddenly change your view on it for a handful of silver.

Know, I don't claim to have memorised my Scripture or anything, but wasn't Judas the guy who used to be a tax collector? So he would have been living it up for quite a while on his ill-gotten gains. And didn't Jesus rescue him from being lynched by an angry mob? So it makes little sense that he would betray this man for a single handful of silver, which indicates there were other motives for the betrayal. Hell, if we go down the 'foretold prophecy'/ 'divine plan' route, it wasn't so much a betrayal as a faithful servant acting out the part granted him by his Lord.