Originally Posted by AbstractHorizon

You are straying too far from your originial point.

Most of the U.S. oil consumption doesn't even come from Iraq. Also, oil that does come to the U.S. is controlled, and wholesale priced by O.P.E.C. It is a common misconception that we are in Iraq for oil by any means. Sure, several internal oil companies are doing business in Iraq, but we have far less beneficial assests than we do liabilities associated with Iraq.

Nice try though.

Please, for the sake of history, don't compare the United States to olden empires of the early ages.

Originally Posted by BlackZodiac

It all depends on the invader (which mostly would be the United States) did you know that all American Tanks, weapons, etc do not work nothing more then -15, Russia is very cold, you could expect -45 easy... Their major bases are in the Artic tundra's and in Siberia... Russia would have a very good chance of winning (Hence they just rebuilt their army) spending almost what the United States dose (Russian equipment is cheaper and more reliable) so I know for a fact the United States could not take on Russia, there is a difference when you're facing old T-55 tanks, try a fully modded T-90 with ERA systems. You think IED's are bad? Try a RPG-7V,RPG-27,RPG-26 will have no problems taking out any American vehicles... A T-90 will blow the American Abram off it's tracks with it's 125mm smooth bore cannon or the modded 250mm smooth bore cannon, all autoloaded. Small that packs a punch. And if their army was defeated, imagine the Russian mafia's? Blackmarkets? They would be Russia's insurgents. You should really check out Russian military equipment and compare it.

Originally Posted by AbstractHorizon

All that is good and well, but who ever said we had to invade Russia to defeat it? Why don't you look up the United States' current submarine arsenal, especially the relatively new Virginia class (HEY! GO VA!)....Yeah, we could several cruise missles, and even a nuclear strike without ever being detected.