how much of the world could USA conquer ???

im thinking: the americas, maybe africa

Falklands

pretty much all of it if you compare militaries and assume a pretty indiscriminate attitude towards civilian deaths!

How bloodthirsty are we making this? the americas campaign would peter out around the yucatan imo. USA doesn't do jungles well. canada no problem, africa for sure

somalis may disagree

What's the point of conquering places if you have to kill all the local labor?

pretty much all of it if you compare militaries and assume a pretty indiscriminate attitude towards civilian deaths!

― ryan, Thursday, October 21, 2010 6:34 PM (8 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

eh not unless u consider nuclear winter conquering, im talking take and hold, long term stewardship

bypass other countries/continents.

i want arby's and pizza huts on mars and jupiter.

yeah definition of "conquer" urgent and key here.

x posts. i see.

very little, if the last two wars are any guide

zing

the main problem w/the last two wars is we got all mushy headed, who knows what theyre even for, feel like the country could really get behind a good empire

i actually dont know much about how, practically speaking, something like the Roman Empire or Alexander really defined when they've "conquered" a place?

usa could take all of the carib nations tomorrow if it wanted to and I don't think anyone would fuss too much

i mean, wouldnt they just win a few battles and then install a leader and pretty much leave never to return?

the main problem w/the last two wars is we got all mushy headed, who knows what theyre even for, feel like the country could really get behind a good empire

― ice cr?m, Thursday, October 21, 2010 6:38 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

we already enjoy all the benefits of empire without having to do all that crap

yeah im saying w/most countries we could prob just land some helicopters in their capitals and move into their government offices nbd

princess tamtam i really feel like once we got a real empire you would come to appreciate it

sorry but im gonna need specifics here - where are our allies? are we conquering them too? is this a theoretical sitch where the entire population of USA is on board and buys war bonds and joins the army and shit? how about a little effort here pal.

this is the kind of conversation we'd have for hours during football practice when i was in high school. good times.

to the last question yes, feel like the whole nation could really get behind this endeavor, figure britain would be on our side, they do whatever we want xp

there's a taco bell just opened in lakeside so yeah we've lost before it's begun

and we could then let israel wipe out the rest of the middle east -- they already have a game plan...

excellent point

someone always has to lower the tone

without a draft the US can't conquer anything

we still have the draft iirc

okay so hypothetical is we're all ginned up to take over the world by force, we've instituted a draft... I dunno I'd say we could take most of the Americas but we'd probably get bogged down somewhere in S. America

conquering other continents would require keeping open some fairly long supply lines, don't really know how that would work in this day and age

survive on arepas imo

i actually dont know much about how, practically speaking, something like the Roman Empire or Alexander really defined when they've "conquered" a place?

Roman rule meant some pretty specific things usually happened - a governor was appointed, taxes were levied and collected, Roman law was instituted and enforced by centurions, and (best case scenario) public works projects were undertaken (levies, roads, etc.)

if we dont act now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OTSQozWP-rM

say obama fails to get reelected, do we continue to pound afghan/pakistan/iraq* or look for a new target?

*change we can believe in :(

how would the usa treat ppl in conquered lands who aren't white

feel like their are lots of good scaling and synergy opportunities here

if we dont act now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OTSQozWP-rM

― ice cr?m, Thursday, October 21, 2010 7:11 PM (46 seconds ago) Bookmark

lmao *villainous chuckle*

corollary question is how far the US could go through e.g. the Americas before the rest of the world decided to do something about it? probably a long old time. could see UK going along for the ride, French and Germans getting pissed off eventually and maybe going toe to toe with Britain. good diversion while the US chews through Surinam

feel like after taking over mexico and canada we can just sign a non agression treaty w/rich countries and theyll be cool

The USA is able to bring military power to bear against the great majority of countries without fear of a straightforward military defeat on the battlefield. Conquest is a different animal. It requires large armies of occupation and the creation of an effective and permanent administrative bureaucracy. We can smash and grab, but we would be pretty weak in terms of holding nations that were hostile to us.

very little, if the last two wars are any guide

― goole, Thursday, October 21, 2010 5:37 PM (3 hours ago)

^^^

just canada

minus quebec maybe

1. natural resources
2. people speak english and are basically americans, won't have to change our sports conferences much etc.
3. maps don't have to look weird w/ alaska hanging out in a box

#3 most important to me

really wish there was a haters gonna hate gif of alaska, strutting finely up and off the west coast

I mean, the answer's got to be zero. Look at the last 100 years...

Iraq: Losing
Afghanistan: Losing
Gulf War: 'Won', but look what happened next
Vietnam: Lost
Korea: Unsatisfactory draw
WW2 & WW1: Won, but only after letting everybody else do all the hard work for several years

def zero if it became obvious what was going on, all international institutions, banks &c. wld snuff that shit out.

cld take over the occasional state-in-crisis tho.

suspect russia would do much better on that front.

I'm disappointed no one has courted challop controversy by looking at the picture offered above of roman-conquered territory and the ways in&extent to which most of the developing/peripheral/3rd world states are forced to reform/copy their economies/regimes/laws to US/Euro standards w/out usually more than the most theoretical threat of conflict w/ a core state

^too late for long sentences, more about cheesecake at this stage of the evening

I just read a comment on an article about WikiLeaks releasing documents revealing that civilian and prisoner abuse allegations in Iraq were not pursued by the US, saying, (in paraphrase) "War is war. Get on our side or get out of the way," and another comment that read, "The US doesn't need to babysit Iraqi civilians." If there is one thing I particularly hate about the US it's the prevalence on the right of the political spectrum of this line of thinking: the idea that no matter what you do or do not do, if you are not part of the in-group you are wrong, but above all else, do not react. The sociopathic element of politics on the right in this country is so depressing...

roman right wing was more enterprising iirc

The roman right wing terminated the gracchi with all the panache of Sicilian mobsters.

What would you want to do with a conquered Canada though? Absorb it into American democracy or administer it as an unrepresented colony? Either option seems tricky.

Stephen Clarkson: "...of course Canada will survive if only because the United States would not want to annex it. Adding nine provinces to the union, not to mention Quebec and the territories, would upset the delicate balance of power the Democrats and Republicans have achieved in the US Congress. Canadians lean heavily towards the Democrats even in Alberta, the country's most conservative and American province. Accommodating 24 million people - Quebecers presumably would opt for independence rather than annexation - accustomed to state-supplied medical care would present the American polity with an immediate crisis."

http://aaronlewis.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/risk-game-of-global-domination1.jpg

Stephen Clarkson: "...of course Canada will survive if only because the United States would not want to annex it. Adding nine provinces to the union, not to mention Quebec and the territories, would upset the delicate balance of power the Democrats and Republicans have achieved in the US Congress. Canadians lean heavily towards the Democrats even in Alberta, the country's most conservative and American province. Accommodating 24 million people - Quebecers presumably would opt for independence rather than annexation - accustomed to state-supplied medical care would present the American polity with an immediate crisis."

o_O

the key is to start by conquering mexico/canada, then conscript mexicans and canadians for the invasion of china (basically be modeled after the soviet gameplan from Red Dawn, since 2010s China = 1980s USA)

we just need to avoid whatever the chinese equivalent of michigan is

The sociopathic element of politics on the right in this country is so depressing...

From the outside, they look like people constantly gibbering in hysterical fear about threats that don't exist while masturbating frantically over a constitution they have never read.

^^^^ new permanent FB status

I think most people actually have read the constitution

but I also don't think they would have if it were like...10 pages longer

I've never read it! I get the gist.

i haven't read it, but i always assumed that unrestricted public urination is in the bill of rights. i mean, the document starts off with "Wee, the people!" right?

as a patriotic citizen i have always obeyed that command.

I'm proud to admit I've never read anything in my life except for wikipedia.

I'm proud to admit I've never read anything in my life except for wikiconservapedia.

― i love you but i have chosen snarkness (Steve Shasta), Saturday, October 23, 2010 4:12 AM (8 hours ago) Bookmark