| Esmoreit said: Some points: 1 - this "attack" on MW2 seems kinda unfounded when I just got back from a trip blowing up faces of mutants and mercenaries in the capitol in the year 2273... 2: Alexandre couldn't come to the party, he was too busy taking a trip all the way from fucking Macedon to India on horseback, then still winning. 3: US Supremacy debate: You two (Samual and detractors) - are both right. No other country has been this influencial from the far east to the west and back. Listen to Rammstein's "We're all living in Amerika" and you see the point. It's also rare that a country has been such a power both in diplomacy and militairy. BUT! All previous empires mentioned fought for control abroad in many nations against hostile people. The Romans had a quite firm control over Europe and Northern Afrika for centuries. The British held a lot of shores across Afrika and Asia, etc. Both struggled with revolts and guerilla-style warfare by the way. The US isn't holding anything outside of their own country, can't even contain two countries who are at the very least 30 years behind in warfare WITH the help of the international community. That doesn't scream dominance in a militairy sense. |
I don't like being the main detractor, I was merely returning at some previous detractors 
However, I shall continue: I would personally argue (and I'm not the only one) that the USA itself is the result of imperial expansion from the east to west of the American continent. You also have Puerto Rico - a US colony. West Germany and Japan were also directly under the USA's control after WWII (let's not forget failed expansionist policies in the Philippines, Cuba, etc).
In short, what I'm trying to say is that the USA has many countries/colonies under its control - its just that they're so deeply integrated they're referred to as states.
---
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, you have to consider that the USA isn't putting anywhere near the resources into these "wars" as they could or should. The issue with the USA is that it's a democracy, and its electorate is very much against foreign deployment - probably trickling down from the isolationist post-WWI days of American policy. Any attack on home soil would not have this issue, and full deployment of military resources would be a much more achievable goal.
Also, due to the USA's navy dominance, no other nation would even be able to touch down on USA soil. I read something like the USA has 12 Super Aircraft carriers, whilst the rest of the world combined has 11. The USA currently has 2 different types of stealth aircraft in deployment, with many more under development: the rest of the world has 0.
Russia could probably mount an invasion on Alaska, due to the closeness - but that wouldn't be in their interest.
In fact, war with America wouldn't be in anyone's interest, so this whole debate is moot*
*I still like it, though, as discussing the potential scenarios interests me.
