I just mean, if it's actually limited to just changing the leadership, without devolving into revolution or other shit. Which, again, I worry about. Just like Iran, Venezuela isn't 'over and done with' or anything. It's a constant threat of escalation and dragging us further into the mess we never should have been in in the first place.

I actually think that it's a real possibility. But I also don't think it will accomplish much. So unprecedented, crazy action was taken for not accomplishing anything positive that they want, and scaring every Latin American leader there is - which can be good or bad, but I think will be almost exclusively bad.

Yeah, we're talking about American foreign policy here. :(

The people supporting this seem to not be considering that at all. Like they've been asleep for decades...

Not many of the European powers, though, since they have massive Russia Derangement Syndrome.

They have Vassal Syndrome. It's honestly embarrassing to pay taxes to such shoe shine boys. I think it would take an actual military assault on Greenland to cure them.

Because, even if I wanted to be expansionist, I don't think America has what it takes at the moment...and definitely not enough to do so consistently.

I'm not sure actual military control is possible at the moment. If we look at how Hamas and Ukraine are resisting strong military powers, and how the Taliban were able to expel the US. Basically, the only way to control another country is by following Machiavelli's advice and installing a friendly oligarchy. And even that oligarchy will need to have a base of support, or it will be easily toppled.

The neocon dream of "other countries doing whatever the hell we want because they're afraid" is not realistic. Two nuclear powers have so far been unable to coerce Iran, a country with a despised theocracy, regionally isolated, very poor due to corruption and sanctions, despite having the support of the entire collective west, and Iran having basically no support.

Now imagine trying to coerce not just one country, but dozens simultaneously. The more countries you try to isolate, the exponentially harder it gets. I can't imagine it working, although the recent past has taught me that me not being able to imagine something might be a me problem.

I'm writing essays because I'm trying to think things through as I'm discussing it.

Ironically, maybe if we had a king or something. But "democracy," combined with waning world power, isn't really a good setup to try to reinstitute imperialism.

The irony is that republican governments have been some of the most expansionist in world history. Rome, the US, Britain (a republic in the Polsci definition) and the Third Republic.

And the modern west may not be democratic, but it is republican in the same way Rome was (corrupt, oligarchic).