Look. If you want to build an Empire, you gotta be competent in how you structure your imperium.
The Americans have always half-assed their empire, because Americans don't really like empires. Instead, it's always some specific cabal of this or that senator, this or that intelligence official, this or that company, that basically takes control of the foreign government and exerts ultimate authority to make a couple of extra bucks for themselves. Firestone runs Liberia. Great...
Our vassals & colonies have been Cuba, Guatemala, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Panama, Guam, American Samoa, Hawaii, Alaska, Liberia, South Vietnam, South Korea, Iraq, Japan, and West Germany. The only ones that succeeded were because we vassalized already successful people (South Korea, Japan, Germany, Philippines(?)). A few places turned out okay because we colonized them fully (Puerto Rico, Panama, American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, Alaska), and the rest went to absolute hell (Iraq, Guatemala, Liberia, Cuba, South Vietnam).
We are not the British. We are not good at proper Empire building. There is no American equivalent of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, or Rhodesia. Even Hawaii and Alaska don't come close to the sophistication of Rhodesia.
I remember reading a USMC Iraq War debrief report, and something that stuck with me was a passage from a man who was head of a portion of the insurgency, but then was brought over under the Sunni Awakening Movement.
He said, and I'm paraphrasing, "What do you have to show for your conquest? When the British ruled us, they built train depots, factories, harbors, and infrastructure. When Saddam ruled us, he built statues and monuments to himself, and then built mansions for his friends. But you built nothing. You destroyed the country and left nothing in it's place. Where are your factories? Where are your bridges? Where are your monuments? Where are your oil fields? Why did you even come here? What was your legacy here besides violence and destruction?"
And yes, he was our ally when we left, and this was the response he gave in the interview.
We... aren't good... at this. We acted more like Attila The Hun more than George the First. The Iraqis looked at us like we were Mongolians.
It shouldn't surprise us. We're Americans, our logic is that once the government is out of your way you can do whatever you want! And if you don't have our level of entrepreneurship and innovation... then that means nothing.
But that's the good way to look at this. The other way is to recognize that the globalists who are fucking destroying our country, caused mass de-industrialization, presided over rampant crime, and are actively engaging in demographic displacement in this country, are trying to tell us that they want to engage in regime change and nation building in Iraq Iran. Well, we know they fucking suck at it because they can't fucking nation build here, now can they? If you think they're supposed to care about the ethnic breakdown of Iran, why would they care about Iran's ethnic breakdown, when they can't tell you the ethnic breakdown of Maryland, or even just the city of Detroit, and do they understand how ethnic groups even work? Of course they don't. They think they physically own all Latinos. They're going to look at Iran, see that there are Kurds, and say "Hmm. Those are mine. They will obey me."
If Iran is not gonna be a state in the union, and I'm not going to be able to move there without not have to learn Farsi to get a cushy IT job, then regime change really just shouldn't be on the table for us.
The Americans have always half-assed their empire, because Americans don't really like empires.
Because most of us never wanted to be an empire. Going out and fighting these wars and "humanitarian projects" in every fucking nation of the world is never on the ballot, and its usually not even part of the campaign for the guys on the ballot.
90% of it is done by organizations without any oversight like the CIA and unelected losers like John Bolton that hold enough dirt to never be kicked out of their positions.
So its always been these guys pushing these massively destructive moves against the wishes of nearly every fucking American across both sides, and then being forced to half ass it when magically its not popular and every politician has to run on pulling out of it.
We didn't try to make most of those places our empire.
A lot of those were us trying to clean up some other empires mess either to get their former empire away from us(Cuba,Philippines,Puerto Rico,Guam, South Korea) or as a favor(Vietnam to France)
We frickin bought Alaska.
The American equivalent of Canada, New Zealand, is almost everything west of Texas and between the Mississippi and the Appalachians. We built it up just fine.
Ted Cruz deserves it.
Look. If you want to build an Empire, you gotta be competent in how you structure your imperium.
The Americans have always half-assed their empire, because Americans don't really like empires. Instead, it's always some specific cabal of this or that senator, this or that intelligence official, this or that company, that basically takes control of the foreign government and exerts ultimate authority to make a couple of extra bucks for themselves. Firestone runs Liberia. Great...
Our vassals & colonies have been Cuba, Guatemala, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Panama, Guam, American Samoa, Hawaii, Alaska, Liberia, South Vietnam, South Korea, Iraq, Japan, and West Germany. The only ones that succeeded were because we vassalized already successful people (South Korea, Japan, Germany, Philippines(?)). A few places turned out okay because we colonized them fully (Puerto Rico, Panama, American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii, Alaska), and the rest went to absolute hell (Iraq, Guatemala, Liberia, Cuba, South Vietnam).
We are not the British. We are not good at proper Empire building. There is no American equivalent of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, or Rhodesia. Even Hawaii and Alaska don't come close to the sophistication of Rhodesia.
I remember reading a USMC Iraq War debrief report, and something that stuck with me was a passage from a man who was head of a portion of the insurgency, but then was brought over under the Sunni Awakening Movement.
He said, and I'm paraphrasing, "What do you have to show for your conquest? When the British ruled us, they built train depots, factories, harbors, and infrastructure. When Saddam ruled us, he built statues and monuments to himself, and then built mansions for his friends. But you built nothing. You destroyed the country and left nothing in it's place. Where are your factories? Where are your bridges? Where are your monuments? Where are your oil fields? Why did you even come here? What was your legacy here besides violence and destruction?"
And yes, he was our ally when we left, and this was the response he gave in the interview.
We... aren't good... at this. We acted more like Attila The Hun more than George the First. The Iraqis looked at us like we were Mongolians.
It shouldn't surprise us. We're Americans, our logic is that once the government is out of your way you can do whatever you want! And if you don't have our level of entrepreneurship and innovation... then that means nothing.
But that's the good way to look at this. The other way is to recognize that the globalists who are fucking destroying our country, caused mass de-industrialization, presided over rampant crime, and are actively engaging in demographic displacement in this country, are trying to tell us that they want to engage in regime change and nation building in
IraqIran. Well, we know they fucking suck at it because they can't fucking nation build here, now can they? If you think they're supposed to care about the ethnic breakdown of Iran, why would they care about Iran's ethnic breakdown, when they can't tell you the ethnic breakdown of Maryland, or even just the city of Detroit, and do they understand how ethnic groups even work? Of course they don't. They think they physically own all Latinos. They're going to look at Iran, see that there are Kurds, and say "Hmm. Those are mine. They will obey me."If Iran is not gonna be a state in the union, and I'm not going to be able to move there without not have to learn Farsi to get a cushy IT job, then regime change really just shouldn't be on the table for us.
Because most of us never wanted to be an empire. Going out and fighting these wars and "humanitarian projects" in every fucking nation of the world is never on the ballot, and its usually not even part of the campaign for the guys on the ballot.
90% of it is done by organizations without any oversight like the CIA and unelected losers like John Bolton that hold enough dirt to never be kicked out of their positions.
So its always been these guys pushing these massively destructive moves against the wishes of nearly every fucking American across both sides, and then being forced to half ass it when magically its not popular and every politician has to run on pulling out of it.
No disagreement here.
We didn't try to make most of those places our empire.
A lot of those were us trying to clean up some other empires mess either to get their former empire away from us(Cuba,Philippines,Puerto Rico,Guam, South Korea) or as a favor(Vietnam to France)
We frickin bought Alaska.
The American equivalent of Canada, New Zealand, is almost everything west of Texas and between the Mississippi and the Appalachians. We built it up just fine.
Power vacuums and purchases are still imperial projects.
West of Texas is what we personally colonized. That's why it succeeded.
Correct. We shouldn't be playing in the sandbox.
We also shouldn't be responsible for everyone else in the world, like Ukraine.