Why didn't America take over the world in the 1990s?

[superpunch]

Our power was unparalleled. We were the only superpower. China hadn't risen yet. Russia was in shambles. We could have done this:

Why didn't we?

Would most other countries in our situation have done that?

 

[Rod1]

Our power was unparalleled. We were the only superpower. China hadn't risen yet. Russia was in shambles. We could have done this:

Why didn't we?

Would most other countries in our situation have done that?

You couldnt even take over Iraq.

 

[lecter]

I don't think we need more democracy and centralized power than we already have

 

[dontsnitch]

I think you should consider that one can "take over the world" on paper if they have political control without having to officially annex a host of countries. The latter would certainly be a bad look that would be counterproductive.

Damn, you dragged me in after all.

 

[Tamriel Terror]

You couldnt even take over Iraq.

 

[Kitafuji]

why would we want all of Africa and most of the middle east on US of A's welfare?

 

[superpunch]

You couldnt even take over Iraq.

Yeah, we're way too nice to be an effective occupation force.

 

[superpunch]

why would we want all of Africa and most of the middle east on US of A's welfare?

Having occupied countries on your welfare is only something modern first world countries consider -- and it's why modern, first world countries can't win wars. We can't even beat Vietnam or Iraq despite having the most powerful military in history lmao.

Put a third world dude in charge of our military strategy and all the resistance in both countries would have been wiped out in days.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

So you'd be ok with a one world global nation without borders if it was all labeled USA?

I would be on the "fuck that" side. Keep your square-area tight and awesome, use the rest of the plebeian countries for whatever gains you can squeeze out of them but keep the USA brand exclusive to its own boarders

 

[Literally Bricked]

why would we want all of Africa and most of the middle east on US of A's welfare?

Indentured servitude.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

1) it's virtually impossible to hold entire foreign territories, not to the degree that you can effectively control the entire area of operation (LOL at 'lost Iraq war' tho). It's the main reason we beat the British in the Revolutionary War

2) Imperialism was all but extinguished after WWII, or at least the process was started. We can't simultaneously back the UN (and formerly the LoN), touting national self determination and sovereignty of nations while also commandeering whole sections of the world.

3) one can make the case w/ our military bases over the world, and the spread of US entertainment culture.....that we in fact did take the world over.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

Our power was unparalleled. We were the only superpower. China hadn't risen yet. Russia was in shambles. We could have done this:

Why didn't we?

Would most other countries in our situation have done that?

lol

why would we want to colonize the world? spend billions and lives putting down rebellions all over the place? become evil?

well, we already imperialize most of the rest of the world through puppet dictators etc.

 

[TheTimeIsNotNow]

You couldnt even take over Iraq.

 

[WorldofWarcraft]

 

[superpunch]

Utilizing real torture as a commonplace everyday tactic, mass execution without trials, hiding among civilians, killing without prejudice if even suspected of being an American agent, etc...

There's no reason that we can't use the same tactics. Imagine if we just executed every Vietnamese person that even looked like a possible enemy guerrilla fighter and just carpet bombed the entire country. The enemy force would have been wiped out in days.

It turns out that brutal tactics are even more effective than technology. Hence why we ultimately lost in Vietnam and Iraq. However, technology + brutal tactics.. that's not something the world's seen since WW II.

 

[DoomPatrol]

By a few hundred, you mean a few hundred thousand with the backing of China and the Soviet Union. Thousands of Soviet personnel were involved in the fighting against America. Literally 10x more Soviets fought in the conflict than this meme suggests about actual Vietnamese fighters.

 

[snakedafunky]

The US did take over the as much as possible.
Why do you think the US is so rich?
Sure they have a lot of people and a lot of industrial capabilities. But its mostly because the US military can force US interest.
The thought that the US gets bad trade deals is incredibly retarded.

The US has the biggest military and especially Navy to make sure US interest always come first.
And that's not criticism that is just what reasonable people do.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

It's impossible to take over the whole world, humans are too diverse with differing interests. The globalist will learn this the hard way after they succeed.

 

[oldshadow]

We could have if you just count the physical ability.

However it is not in us to do what would be needed to do it and I'm glad.

However we should realize this and stop with the stupid "police actions" in the world.

 

[Rod1]

Yeah, we're way too nice to be an effective occupation force.

Sure buddy, Abu Ghraib was "too nice".

You were too stupid, thats the actual word you are looking for.