The Thread from the Seventh Circle of Hades

[UltraQuiet]

<< The reason i believe America would take over the world if it had the chance is the same reason why most of the previous nations DID attempt to take over the world >>


What other nations, why did they attempt to take over the world and what's stopping us from doing the same. Be specific so that we can make an intelligent comparison.

 

[jobberd]

<< What other nations, why did they attempt to take over the world and what's stopping us from doing the same. Be specific so that we can make an intelligent comparison. >>

Off the top of my head: Germany, Britain, France, Russia, Roman Empire. They tried to conquer the world because they all wanted power; they all wanted their country/nation to be revered, glorious, influential; to be the best. The main reason this sort of thing doesn't go on now is because it would be much more trouble then it's worth. There's no such thing as isolation anymore, and of course the threat of nuclear war is ever present. The military style attempt to take over the world would result in half of it being blown to bits.
I look forward to any constructive criticism

 

[JellyBaby]

jobberd, the reason there is no drive for global domination today is because territories are all claimed, we finally realized peace is worth keeping, and because of military parity among the largest nations. Also, due to the framework laid during and after WW2, if one nation does go on a tank rush the rest of the world unites against them.

 

[exp]

Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. Only when the US is gone will the rest of the world realize how lucky they were to have a relatively docile superpower (seriously). Never has a country had so much power and done so little with it. The US may have done some horrible things in 200 years but all things considered it could have been far worse. What would communist China have done with a decade of economic and military dominance like the one America had during the 90's? How about Nazi Germany? Not a pleasant thought.

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< I'm part of the conspiracy MUHAHAHAHA >>


Then, I'm your spy in Canada. I used to spy in North Korea upon Clinton's request. >>




Man that guy was serious about his chicks!

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< I'm basing this opinion on the fact that the majority of people desire power. Why has there been so many empires that have attempted to gain control of the world through history? >>


Two incoherent sentences do not make for an answer. Tex- tell me where to send the money. >>



LOL Lets send it to him, he sounds like he needs it more

 

[Texmaster]

<<

<< What other nations, why did they attempt to take over the world and what's stopping us from doing the same. Be specific so that we can make an intelligent comparison. >>

Off the top of my head: Germany, Britain, France, Russia, Roman Empire. They tried to conquer the world because they all wanted power; they all wanted their country/nation to be revered, glorious, influential; to be the best. The main reason this sort of thing doesn't go on now is because it would be much more trouble then it's worth. There's no such thing as isolation anymore, and of course the threat of nuclear war is ever present. The military style attempt to take over the world would result in half of it being blown to bits.
I look forward to any constructive criticism >>



America has fought in many wars, some more outspoken than others. But lets look at the results and see if your "they are trying to conquer the world" theory holds up:

The US Mexico War: By 1847, the United States had captured and occupied Mexico City. A peace treaty finally was accepted by all sides on May 30, 1848. The last U.S. troops left Mexico City on June 12, 1848. And this was back when all European countries were still on a quest to expand their empires.

World War I and II, America gave the land back to the countries it had invaded and conquered.

The only countries to be Annexed by the US were Texas and California and both asked to be annexed.

Your theory doesn't hold up.

 

[wQuay]

The wealth of the world has been laid at the feet of the United States. Why bother with physical, permanent conquest?



<< The US Mexico War: By 1847, the United States had captured and occupied Mexico City. >>



And now we can achieve the same results through bombing.

 

[jobberd]

<< America has fought in many wars, some more outspoken than others. But lets look at the results and see if your "they are trying to conquer the world" theory holds up:

The US Mexico War: By 1847, the United States had captured and occupied Mexico City. A peace treaty finally was accepted by all sides on May 30, 1848. The last U.S. troops left Mexico City on June 12, 1848. And this was back when all European countries were still on a quest to expand their empires.

World War I and II, America gave the land back to the countries it had invaded and conquered.

The only countries to be Annexed by the US were Texas and California and both asked to be annexed.

Your theory doesn't hold up. >>

1: Never said "they are trying to conquer the world". 2: What about the invasion of Canada in 1812? 3: As said earlier by Jellybaby and I, attempting to physically conquer the world is foolish. If America kept Mexico City, it would have gained very little and lost lots of respect from numerous nations. 4: in WWI and WWII, America was not the sole nation to fight. Besides, America knew that the key to a strong nation was a strong economy. So the European nations were helped up on their feet again in hopes that strong trading partnerships could be established. And if there was no threat of communism after the war, I doubt America would have put so much money into Europe in the first place.

<< LOL Lets send it to him, he sounds like he needs it more >>

Hoo hoo, funny! Really, proclaiming that I require $5 because you don't agree with my opinion is absolute GOLD

 

[yllus]

<< The reason i believe America would take over the world if it had the chance is the same reason why most of the previous nations DID attempt to take over the world. I'm sorry if you can't understand this. I was willing to have a nice discussion about this, but apparently that's too much for you hot-heads >>

Meh. Most people out there figured out a long time ago that it was infinitely safer and more profitable to 'take over' the world through cultural and moral influences, rather than a bang bang, blow-up-stuff affair.

Now although once in a while a Yank will come into this forum advocating the nuking of somewhere from a gut reaction to some 30-second clip on Fox News, their leaders (and all of ours) are paid quite handsomely to think these things through before possibly triggering WW3. Granted that enough Yanks together can be a worrisome force on their leaders, but not to the point of instant, open warfare...

I think. And anyway, it's not like discussing these things here would matter much to change THAT.

 

[Texmaster]

<< America has fought in many wars, some more outspoken than others. But lets look at the results and see if your "they are trying to conquer the world" theory holds up:

The US Mexico War: By 1847, the United States had captured and occupied Mexico City. A peace treaty finally was accepted by all sides on May 30, 1848. The last U.S. troops left Mexico City on June 12, 1848. And this was back when all European countries were still on a quest to expand their empires.

World War I and II, America gave the land back to the countries it had invaded and conquered.

The only countries to be Annexed by the US were Texas and California and both asked to be annexed.

Your theory doesn't hold up. >>



<< 1: Never said "they are trying to conquer the world". >>



LOL Spitting hairs won't work. You said "if they had the chance. I gave you 3 places they did and didn't do what you predicted.

You were wrong. Just admit it and move on.



<< 2: What about the invasion of Canada in 1812? >>



Where are you? Canada or England? The reasons for that war were: the Royal Navy were boarding US ships and taking back escaped sailors. Another reason was as one Englishman, William Cobbet said "There seemed to be wanting just such a war as this to complete the separation of England from America; and make the latter feel that she had no safety against the former but in the arms of her free citizens."

BTW, England was invading Baltimore and New Orleans At any rate, thats only one war vs the 3 I found. You are still coming up short.



<< 3: As said earlier by Jellybaby and I, attempting to physically conquer the world is foolish. If America kept Mexico City, it would have gained very little and lost lots of respect from numerous nations. >>



Ah but once again you said American would conquer the world if they could.



<< 4: in WWI and WWII, America was not the sole nation to fight. Besides, America knew that the key to a strong nation was a strong economy. So the European nations were helped up on their feet again in hopes that strong trading partnerships could be established. And if there was no threat of communism after the war, I doubt America would have put so much money into Europe in the first place. >>



You missed the point little buddy. American had the chance to hold on to the lands it took just like you said they would IF they had the chance. Well they had the chance and they didn't do it.

BOOM. Theory busted



<< Hoo hoo, funny! Really, proclaiming that I require $5 because you don't agree with my opinion is absolute GOLD >>



It was funny. And with your logic you really do need it

 

[jobberd]

<< LOL Spitting hairs won't work. You said "if they had the chance. I gave you 3 places they did and didn't do what you predicted.

You were wrong. Just admit it and move on. >>

Uh no, that's the whole point. I'm not saying that America is trying to conquer the world, i said that if they had the chance to effectively and efficiently take control of the world, they would. There is a subtle but great difference.

<< Ah but once again you said American would conquer the world if they could.
>>

Again, no I didn't.

<< You missed the point little buddy. American had the chance to hold on to the lands it took just like you said they would IF they had the chance. Well they had the chance and they didn't do it.

BOOM. Theory busted >>

It appears as if you are looking at an entirely different theory. I never once said that they would take the land if they had the chance. effectively conquering the world and taking over a few countries is at least a LITTLE different, don't you think? You need to fully read my comments instead of browsing them and PRESUMING everything.

 

[BigNeko]

Meh. Most people out there figured out a long time ago that it was infinitely safer and more profitable to 'take over' the world through cultural and moral influences, rather than a bang bang, blow-up-stuff affair.

Our two main weapons. McDonalds and Coca-Cola.

 

[SuperTool]

The rest of the world is extremely nothy!