Fellow burgers, I just had an idea that could save our country...

we fucked up and let them get too far, we should have taken them out decades ago and handed the land over to China.

>someone saved the shitty comic fix I made
feels good man. Original for context

Attached: middle-east-wars-comic.png (625x605, 47K)

>take out the communists and let the communists in to setup right next to our South Korea

Hmmmm

>we should have taken them out decades ago and handed the land over to China
Way to go retard.

China were the ones who said "hey, America, see that fucking line? Don't cross it. Kill as many Koreans as you want, just don't cross that fucking line or we'll send a million motherfuckers to fuck you up, we don't care if any of them even make it back". And when we called their bluff we found out it was not a bluff at all.

The global economy depends on the American Empire enforcing its concept of "order" at gunpoint. If we withdraw, or WHEN we are forced to withdraw due to the decline in our financial power, the world will enter a period of extreme instability as the power vacuum is filled by a scramble of other nations attempting to grab what they can hold.

how does that stop mexico from colonizing us

here's the real question, why didn't the United states go on a global conquest to spread "capitalism and freedom" the day it started mass producing the bomb? Starting with Russia & China in the east, and UK, France, and Germany in the West?

It’s a good edit. Pretty useful for debunking the myth of a historically isolationist United States.

Because at the end of WW2 everyone was pretty fucking tired of war

instead we pussyfooted around and let the reds build their own bomb, and that's the day we lost the opportunity to be great.

>Russia bullies its sphere of the world with military might
>China uses economic domination and slowly expands its borders, beginning by incorporating autonomous zones, then integrating them into China proper
>India starts to mimic its more successful northern neighbor and attempt to flex militarily and economically
it's already happening.
Because we're actually the good guys. Or the better ones anyway. Eradicating population centers until nations are forced to surrender is kinda super-villain tier retarded evil.

But we could have gotten away with it before 29 August 1949.

Yeah, we could have. Thankfully however the United States isn't run by people quite as retarded as you are.

Cold War is more profitable

if we had just gone into super overdrive, making as many nukes as possible between fall of 1945 and summer of 1949, we could have eliminated Russia as a variable, then China, and most of western Europe.

Because contrary to what Bolton's stache tells you, the US is not "dealing with other nation's shit". It's deliberately placing assets and fighting wars for its own foreign policy interests and to maintain global American dominance.

Attached: download.jpg (225x225, 13K)

>if we just drowned the world in blood committing the greatest atrocity ever imagined, we could have been free of people who disagree with us!
Real life isn't videogames you know?

Plus everyone else. The only people who gain are (((them))). Squandering a considerable portion of the country's economic output to the endless proposition of destroying shit overseas and shackling it to unending debt only helps a limited set of connected interests at the expense of everyone else. It makes us poorer, and it it's the single biggest risk to our national security.

>You either fuck with others or you get fucked with.
Which is why after fifty years of overseas military intervention, no Middle Eastern terrorist has EVER dared to attempt an attack on United States soil. The United States has no enemies, no organizations dedicated to harming it, thanks to the never-ending "keep fucking with the world" policy.

>Even if a Chinese, European, or Russian hegemony can't invade America directly, they can still hurt us
And I'm sure they would have every reason to harm their most profitable trading partner in the event said partner wasn't constantly setting its economy on fire to make sure that brown people can't use gold to buy oil.

I'm stunned at how many of them are actually smart enough to realize that it's utterly baseless horseshit.

>Because the United States has ever been able to do that.
Sure, lets just bomb an entire country, have zero international backlash, and somehow retain enough law and order for it to even mean anything when we make brazen declarations about who controls it now.
It takes more than weapons to control a country. They're a start, but shit has to get done, and you can't just shoot your way into a functioning social order.

>>if we just drowned the world in blood committing the greatest atrocity ever imagined, we could have been free of people who disagree with us!

yes, exactly.

Because we drastically reduced our standing army after 1945, and scrapped vast amounts of weapons and equipment.
The Soviets didnt. They kept their military close to wartime levels, they kept all their equipment and kept making more.
The first Soviet bomb was in 1949.
At that time the United States arsenal was still small, bombs were underpowered, large clumsy things that had to be dropped from a strategic bomber.
There were those in the USA who pushed for an aggressive war against the Soviets while we were the sole nuclear power, but the math just didnt work out. The number of Soviet divisions in Europe vs NATO was very unbalanced, in favor of the Soviets. The rate of production of bombs was too slow, the probability of a successful drop using a single bomb not that great, and the number of bombs available too low.
The West was absolutely stunned by how fast the Soviets got the bomb, which was mostly due to communist infiltration of the FDR administration and the manhattan project. (((ROSENBERGS)))
The Korean war kicked off the year after the Soviet bomb. As the UN got its shit kicked in during the initial invasion, the USA was forced to move units from Europe to the Asian theater. There were serious concerns that the time was ripe for a Soviet invasion of Europe due to the pathetic amount of forces remaining.
The threat of Soviet move on Europe loomed over the entire conflict and is why Truman Fired Macarthur when he sperged out after his disasterous misjudgement of the Chinese will to fight, and called for a strategic nuclear bombing campaign on all of China.
Had the Americans done that, It most likely would have triggered an expansion of the war into full ww3, 1950s style, which would have basically been WW2.5.

In summary, there was no strategic window in which the USA had the power to dominate the entire world as the sole nuclear power.

In summary, there was no strategic window in which the USA had the power to dominate the entire world as the sole nuclear power.

Fall '45 - Summer '49, we could have, but we didn't

Yes, that is correct. We are an empire in decline, and the next few decades will see us retreat in poor order from our global military posture.

>The only people who gain are (((them)))
Wrong. Between the huge amount of technological development that's funded by our massive defense industry, and the amount of money added into the US economy due to its ability to conduct risk-free trade with nearly every country on Earth, Americans have gained a lot from being the global superpower. Shit like microprocessors, GPS, the internet, and a whole host of other technologies simply wouldn't exist without the United States' investments into defense.

We didnt have the nuclear weapons available in quantity or power required for such a campaign. There would have been a massive conventional war in retaliation, which we were not in a position to win.
We WERE producing bombs as fast as possible after 1945. It wasnt fast enough.

>but if you fuck with us, you "turned into parking lot"
Because there's a whole lot of steps between the escalation of conflicts to nuclear genocide? You can't shape world affairs with strategic nuclear weapons, only defend territory.

Real wealth for Americans outside of the financial and political elite has been stagnant since the mid 1970s.
We did benefit from our empire for a few decades, till the leaders sold us out too in favor of the globalist project.

I like it let's do it

Because nuclear genocide isn't a defense policy you lazy fucking child.

>Which is why after fifty years of overseas military intervention, no Middle Eastern terrorist has EVER dared to attempt an attack on United States soil
If we hadn't been intervening overseas for 50 years then we wouldn't be dealing with terrorist attacks, we'd be dealing with Chinese/Russian/European attacks.

Attached: rule 2.gif (400x300, 22K)

You're a few decades late to figuring out a way to preserve US hegemony.

China practically owns large swaths of my the US industry at this point. You are nearly wholly reliant on Chinese imports for the vast majority of your raw and low-level materials. Almost everything from your cellphones, vehicle components, and electrical grid substation component to your cutlery, children's toys, and garden hoses is mostly derived from Chinese labor and materials. A trade embargo from an angered China would set you into civil war.

The Europeans are quite ahead of you in terms of information technology, cybersecurity, financial systems, quality assurance, aerospace (most branches), automotive industry, railways, public transportation, urban design, infrastructure development and maintenance, urban development, et cetera. The failings of US/NATO military absolutism as well as the laughable uselessness of the UN has led the vast majority of Central, South, and East European nations away from supporting you and further into a potential Pan-European, Eurasian-allied geopolitical conglomerate.

The Russians are overtaking you in terms of aerospace, nuclear deployment platforms (ICBMs, SSBMs), rapid attack craft, specialized anti-ship and anti-air ordnance (SSM, SAM), land based combat systems, personal infantry equipment (body armors, small arms, specialized ammo) and are already gaining political traction in the Middle East. Abandoning Syria was one of the US's biggest blunders, as it allowed Russians to secure Syria as an ally and FOB, therefore giving them what the Afghan Soviet war couldn't: a solid satellite state which can geographically eclipse and threaten Israel.

I rest my case.

ok chaim

>technological development that's funded by our massive defense industry
If it's worth the investment, it'll happen privately, without the bureaucratic inefficiency and government overhead.

>the amount of money added into the US economy due to its ability to conduct risk-free trade
Protecting trade routes is not the same as annexing opium fields and bombing anyone who talks about buying oil in anything other than dollars. You can defend without invading, and it's a hell of a lot more efficient. Hell, look at private contractors off the coast of Somalia bringing piracy to an end. Don't need a carrier for that shit.

>Americans have gained a lot from being the global superpower.
Even assuming that's true, you have no way of establishing that what they've gained is worth the lives, the money, the enmity, and the lost opportunities that they have cost.

>Shit like microprocessors, GPS, the internet, and a whole host of other technologies simply wouldn't exist without the United States' investments into defense.
The fallacy here is thinking that because it happened a particular way, it couldn't have happened any other way.

I'm supposed to take your word for it? How in the hell does spreading US military power across the globe and spending resources killing illiterate goat fuckers make it any harder for Russia or China to invade the United States? Why would they bother? Hell, no major power in Europe even WANTS to invade the US, and why would they? It's much more profitable to trade with them.
This isn't a video game. You don't get points for blowing up the other team, and "kill the other guys" isn't a sustainable strategy for getting the things you want.

Like 90% of what you said was blatantly untrue, my dude. Not sure if you’re acting in bad faith or just plain dumb.