Should the U.S.A. have conqured the world?

[TwatDetective]

Keeping in line with my controversial threads that solve nothing, I ask, retrospectively, if U.S.A should have conquered the World after the World War 2, when it was the only one with the bomb.

Conquered places such as Russia after war. And kept Islamic countires in check. I commonly hear "turn sand into crater of glass solids". Also, U.S.A could have expanded into Mexico. Or something.

I'm going to obviously say no, because I think it woud be immoral, but the world would honestly better place?

This is all retrospective though.

Weird topic I know. Just basicly, woud the world be a better place with a U.S.A. control?

 

[BlueBalls]

No.

 

[ChefChiTown]

I would say "no", just because all of the other countries would('ve) eventually come after us and taken back their power.

 

[Facetious]

Why would any single nation wish to adopt the collective world's problems ? . . . unless, of course, said single nation has ambitions of exterminating the problem(s) ie people.

It's been attempted.

To answer the query . . No.

 

[Mauser98k]

no.

 

[TwatDetective]

By conquer I don't really mean occupy. I mean destroy.

Although a world government is certainly scary. Gives me chills.

I agree though.

 

[Member2019]

Stupid ...

No offense, and I'm going to piss people off, but that's thinking like a 19th and 20th Century European!.

After World War I, Wilson created the [i}League of Nations[/i]. Unfortunately, the US sided with its isolationalist policies (sans trade, which is a bit hypocritical at times) and didn't join.

After World War II, Truman created the United Nations. The US did join and, especially after the Suez Incident of 1956, became the defacto superpower for the west (with Britain and France reducing their military).

The US has rarely thought in such terms. There were some times of "Manifest Destiny" mid-19th and Teddy's "Expansion" turn of the 20th, but overwhelmingly, the US is not interested in expansion. The US has always been far more interested in immigration, making our existing nation stronger from and of the allegedly "sick/weak" of the world.

If you want an example of post-WWII imperialism, the French are a great example. They refused to join NATO until the US would recognize their right to colonies, and several of their colonies are gross atrocities at the hands of the French military (and not just the rebel side).

The US never thinks that way. Never has. Never will. That's why we go broke defeating and rebuilding our enemies. Sad, but true. That's also why most Europeans do not understand American wars. They think we're out to steal like they did, when all we do is secure, at "fair market price." That included the US troops on the ground in Iraq, American troops paying the same price as Americans back at the pump (and not the same as Iraqi citizens).

 

[TwatDetective]

It was a hypothetical. I'm not saying it even remotely came close to happening AT ALL.

A what if. Like would you cut off your thumb to have sex with Bianca Beauchamp. Alternate universe.

 

[Funkwerkz]

USA's economic siege policy worked well till George W. Bush applied weak dollar policy. Why do you want to occupy, destroy, ...etc? Just keep under pressure for more fun.

Monetary power is the ultimate power that USA ever has. If you are imperialist/capitalist, your biggest weapon is your money (economic power). Russia has plenty of military power (perhaps more than USA) but they don't have enough monetary power to finance that military. Money buys religion too. Look at pansy muslim countries. Money buys culture also. China is leaving its 5000 year old culture and adapting itself to Western culture.

Monetary power is everything. This latest financial crisis won't change the situation against USA.

 

[Member2019]

USA's economic siege policy worked well till George W. Bush applied weak dollar policy.

The US dollar has had problems since the 1970s. If you think it started with W., think again. The "consumer economy" flourished under Clinton as jobs went overseas, but the problems started before him as well.

 

[Imagine]

Well there's something I thought I'd never see...

 

[Spleen]

They could have tried, but judging by events that have happened since, they probably would have failed.

 

[darkwarrior3007]

No, Alexander the Great should have conquered the world.

 

[Funkwerkz]

The US dollar has had problems since the 1970s. If you think it started with W., think again. The "consumer economy" flourished under Clinton as jobs went overseas, but the problems started before him as well.

Actually, it's not directly about US dollar. Weak dollar policy made acquiring US dollar less costly. So, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia's dollar reserves grew fast. Dollar reserves of these countries are dangerous for USA. By liquidation of these reserves or converting them into euro reserves can vaporise US dollar. Pansy OPEC collected hell a lot dollars when oil was $140 during Bush period. Russia and Iran did that too.

Watch out China. They are in their bull year. China will be more and more agressive because the economic growth of China will decline sharply and their growth based economy sunk a real recession. Obama and his men are making aggresive comments about China.

 

[D-rock]

Besides it being wrong to do why would we want to inherent everybody else's problems. We've always had enough of our own.

 

[marquis2]

Re: Stupid ...

No offense, and I'm going to piss people off, but that's thinking like a 19th and 20th Century European!.

After World War I, Wilson created the [i}League of Nations[/i]. Unfortunately, the US sided with its isolationalist policies (sans trade, which is a bit hypocritical at times) and didn't join.

After World War II, Truman created the United Nations. The US did join and, especially after the Suez Incident of 1956, became the defacto superpower for the west (with Britain and France reducing their military).

The US has rarely thought in such terms. There were some times of "Manifest Destiny" mid-19th and Teddy's "Expansion" turn of the 20th, but overwhelmingly, the US is not interested in expansion. The US has always been far more interested in immigration, making our existing nation stronger from and of the allegedly "sick/weak" of the world.

If you want an example of post-WWII imperialism, the French are a great example. They refused to join NATO until the US would recognize their right to colonies, and several of their colonies are gross atrocities at the hands of the French military (and not just the rebel side).

The US never thinks that way. Never has. Never will. That's why we go broke defeating and rebuilding our enemies. Sad, but true. That's also why most Europeans do not understand American wars. They think we're out to steal like they did, when all we do is secure, at "fair market price." That included the US troops on the ground in Iraq, American troops paying the same price as Americans back at the pump (and not the same as Iraqi citizens).

Not entirely true.The USA began as a smallish group of 13 states and slowly absorbed much of the rest of the continent-a sort of Empire accomplished by supplanting the original inhabitants.Look at how Texas became part of the Union.

 

[thapie]

i am sure there were some leaders in the usa who did actually have thoughts of world domination with the bomb , but thankfully the system worked and kept that from happening , even though corrupt people continue to get elected to offices they do not deserve there does seem to be methods fro keeping the power hungry in check...generally.

 

[anomaly]

No. The biggest problem would be religious differences. Because no one is going to tell me what well written book of lies or invisible avenger in which to believe.

 

[Gordar]

Keeping in line with my controversial threads that solve nothing, I ask, retrospectively, if U.S.A should have conquered the World after the World War 2, when it was the only one with the bomb.

Conquered places such as Russia after war. And kept Islamic countires in check. I commonly hear "turn sand into crater of glass solids". Also, U.S.A could have expanded into Mexico. Or something.

I'm going to obviously say no, because I think it woud be immoral, but the world would honestly better place?

This is all retrospective though.

Weird topic I know. Just basicly, woud the world be a better place with a U.S.A. control?

First of all, an Utopian country wouldn't need to conquer the rest of the world, as everyone else would see that everything is better/perfect in that country and join willingly (not even the biggest nay sayers would be able to find anything negative, unless they simply lied, which could easily be proven). Since the only perfect country would be an Utopian country and since the US would have to resort to violence to achieve the goal the original poster proposed & thus isn't a perfect country (there are no perfect countries. Not in Europe, not in Asia, not in the Middle-East, not in Africa, not on or in Oceania and not on the American continent either), I'd have to say no. Why replace an imperfect society with another imperfect society? :dunno:

Besides, a power struggle between larger realms/empires/countries serves us all. Take the microwave oven for instance,

Cooking food with microwaves was discovered accidentally in the 1940s. Percy Spencer, a self-taught engineer, was building magnetrons for radar sets with the company Raytheon.

Early in World War II, physicists in England invented the magnetron, a specialized microwave-generating electron tube that markedly improved the capability of radar to detect enemy planes. American companies were then sought by the U.S. government to perfect and mass-produce the magnetron for ground-based, airborne, and shipborne radar systems, and, with support from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Radiation Laboratory (recently formed to investigate microwave radar), Raytheon received a contract to build the devices.

or the computer (which was also invented during WWII)...

Another example is the space race (competition between two world powers).

To tell you the truth, it saddens me that the powers in the world are currently unable or unwilling to oppose the US a bit more, even if it's just because such opposition between powers leads to technological advances.

 

[calpoon]

Didn't they?

We have military bases in 150 countries. Or is that McDonald's? I always get that confused.