By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Could America have taken over the World after World War 2? Should they have?

Sorry but from America's history, they would have fucked up every nation. America is the land of white privlage, home or corporate affairs. America's growth and history is on the backs of the poor and powerless be it black slave labor, Chinese railroad labor, and Irish industrial revolution, construction labor. China and India are growing from zero to something by actually making their own people work hard to strengthen their nations. America... more corporate rights over individual ones. Bailing out corps overy citizens show's us how much we actually care about our own people.

 

History lessons about white people and their culture of using brute force to get their ways.

Britain used the Chinese invention of firecrackers to make guns. So China used it for good and art while white people turned it into a weapon to kill.

India was prosperous and manageable before the British came destroyed society and forced my people into slaves and famine of over 50 million dead... God knows how many more...

Colonization of peaceful people who were learning how to use nature to survive (native americans... killed enmasse, and now a case of hemp being destroyed on reservation land which is being grown to  by a tribe to move themselves forward) 

 

Marijuana was banned solely due to reefer madness and racism. Blacks were using bud peacefully and creating culture via jazz and dance and art... made illegal and is currently being used to put most black people in jail disproportionally.

marijuana has been part of Indian culture for thousands of years till America forced India to make it illegal in the 80's. 

 

Oh how about the crusades and recent destruction in Muslim lands. 

 

white people and your countries are the reason for minority struggles and pains. We will Never forget.

 

Go China and India!!! Also my hate is towards the older generation of white people who currently run our govt. AtleasAt least most people on the Internet aren't and most people from 90's on who embraced the Internet know better. 



Around the Network

It goes against the fundamental principles that our republic was founded on, to take over other nations. It would mean we would no longer be "America". Founding Fathers wanted friendship and trade with other nations. Lead the world by setting a great example, not rule over the planet like a dictatorship.



The Screamapillar is easily identified by its constant screaming—it even screams in its sleep. The Screamapillar is the favorite food of everything, is sexually attracted to fire, and needs constant reassurance or it will die.

cfin2987@gmail.com said:
veritaz said:
 


You honestly believe they are trying to conquer those countries? The death toll in the middle east is super 1 sided. I see a lot of people underestimating the U.S military right now. We have by far the best military currently and could take out any country still with the amount of firepower and advanced technology we have. It's not like all that money that we spend on the military doesn't do anything. We still spend the most out of any other country by far.

Definition of conquer:

con·quer
ˈkäNGkər/
verb
verb: conquer; 3rd person present: conquers; past tense: conquered; past participle: conquered; gerund or present participle: conquering
overcome and take control of (a place or people) by use of military force.
"the Magyars conquered Hungary in the Middle Ages"
synonyms: defeat, beat, vanquish, trounce, triumph over, be victorious over, get the better of, worst; More
informallick, best, hammer, clobber, thrash, paste, demolish, annihilate, wipe the floor with, walk all over, make mincemeat of, massacre, slaughter, cream, shellac, skunk
"the Franks conquered the Visigoths"
"Peru was conquered by Spain"
  • successfully overcome (a problem or weakness).
    "a fear she never managed to conquer"
    synonyms: overcome, get the better of, control, master, get a grip on, deal with, cope with, surmount, rise above, get over; More
    quell, quash, beat, triumph over;
    informallick
    "the way to conquer fear"
  • climb (a mountain) successfully.
    "the second American to conquer Everest"
    synonyms: climb, ascend, mount, scale, top, crest
    "the first men to conquer Mount Everest"

So yes, what else would they be doing there but conquering.


I was under the impression you were talking about the middle east. They aren't trying to conquer it just supress terrorist activity which is evident by the death toil on them and not the U.S soldiers. They aren't doing anything to the government so it's not the kind of conquering you would do to a country.



Simple answer:
Could they? No. The world was pretty big, Murica pretty much in bad shape after the war. That 'we got the bomb', there where like three nukes, Trinity, Fat Man and Little Boy. It cost the U.S. billions back then to only get those three. And then it took some years until they had a real nuclear industry up and running.
There's no way, the US could have fought the Commonwealth, USSR and pretty much evereyone else.

Should they have? Only with the intention to destroy themselves as well as the world economy.

Did the US make mistakes (much) later? Yes. One of them is far to much wars.



Mystro-Sama said:
Kerotan said:
I agree that empires cost a lot long term. The UK has suffered as a result of their colonial history.

Really? How?

look how high their population has risen because of imigration from former colonies. Welath is spread out amongst more people instead of places of other countries with smaller populations. they are not poor but you have places like N. Ire and scotland demanding a lot more than they can really afford to give. 



Around the Network

I never understand why people always think America can take over the world. They're awful at war, and all the wars they go into by themselves they lose (Korea/Vietnam/Afghanistan etc.)

I mean FFS they couldn't even execute D.Day properly, and had to nuke Japan to submit.

At the end of the day America weren't even the 2nd strongest country in the world at the climax of the war, their economy was as shit as Britain's, their troops were in poor tactical locations (a lot in Europe, where antagonism towards other countries could quickly turn ugly for those troops). America had very few nukes, and both USSR and Germany had almost finished theirs, whilst Britain helped develop Americas. They didn't have particularly impressive numbers, nor did they excel in any one area. And the worse thing is, is that they would have lost almost all their troops stationed in Europe, and would quickly have multiple fronts opening up, with Naval bombardment from Britain, a front against Canada, and a front against Russia via Alaska and the west coast.



Nope. After World War 3 on the other hand... o wait... mankind ain't that far yet.



Hunting Season is done...