The Brits had an empire where the sun never set, the French had canada/midwestern america/Africa...

The Brits had an empire where the sun never set, the French had canada/midwestern america/Africa, the Portuguese had Brazil
Why can't America have an empire like they did?
>but muh pacific islands

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

because empires are doomed to fall
why do you want US to fall?

This
Even my country has an empire but it didn't last long

...

Usually these thread get bumped by a lot of britbongs, you were unlucky but here's a (you)

That's because unlike them, we DON'T need one

Didn't Italy once have a chunk of Africa?

All you had was Libya,

You would had more if you joined the central powers

Everything is destined for failure. You will die. Your country will die and be replaced by something unrecognizable. This is the order of things, and is not sufficient reason not to attempt it.

The longest lived organizations in the world have been empires.

It's the 21st century. You don't need to physically takeover and occupy a country to influence and exploit it anymore.

(((The British Empire))) might have seemed like a good thing, but back home it really wasn't unless you were part of the upper classes which 90% weren't. All of the plunder coming in from overseas went straight into Jewish coffers and that is why many back home were living in poverty for years on end. At the start of the Boer War, the Army needed soldiers. Men turned up in droves because they were out of work but so many were turned away because they were malnourished and unhealthy.

>implying we don't.

What're they teaching kids in school these days? When I took American history in high school there was a whole section that dealt with the US acquisition of Puerto Rico , Cuba and the Philippines. It caused an uproar in American society, specifically with Mark Twain and the anti-imperialist society. The very idea of American empire is absurd when our founding fathers specifically spoke out against having standing armies and getting involved in foreign entanglements.

But it doesn't matter anyways ...America practicallyinvented neo-colonialism by economic means and not occupying the lands with a flag .

Burgerland has a number of vassal states, they are called NATO.

When will sweden join NATO?
At least you can say that you are part of the strongest alliance in za world

>that cope

your country is shit and not built for ruling the world

Spanish Empire was better

Yeah those Spanish Colonies are doing great aren't they, Miguel?

It's sad seeing that they were this relevent while tomorrow they will lose even more land with Catalonia

> Implying Canada isn't a socialist shithole
> Implying shitty poo in the loo's and oonga oongas aren't the majority in your capital city

this ;(

>caring about Canada
>caring about London

> "british empire" made up pirate navies which could only hit an run unescorted ships and unprotected colonies
> didn't become an actual empire until Spain and later France were dismantled from the top due to problems with monarchy and internal political instability
> still lost to african dutchmen and a poo in the loo with no weapons

Lmao

>said the Spaniard using a Meme flag whilst speaking my tongue

> whilst speaking my tongue
Because my mental capacity allows me to learn more languages, since yours doesn't, I compromise and speak yours.

BTW you do know Hispachan exists right?

As much as I love giving a britbongs shit on this board, your grasp on history is embarrassing even by burger standards. Please hang yourself but before you do tell your shitskin friends if they try to cross the border,we've had a change of administration and we will shoot to kill.

Go to sleep, Taco. Every Spanish colony around today is a mess.

Looks like someone doesn't know their history.
>America had many chances to colonize countries
>America got their independence from the colonials
It would be super ironic and hypocritical if they colonized other countries

>controlling all this without the internet

How in the hell was it possible?

America has a cultural empire, I should know, I'm living in it.

America should have an empire but take on the Mormon approach. Educating foreign land about americanism. Propose they make changes to fit into americanism. They all them to vote to become a part of the US.

We support puppet states and conduct military operations in countries that are not ours whenever we want; if we already do all that we might as well go all the way

But the American cultural empire is just an extension of the Anglo cultural empire so I'm okay with it.

Fuck this thread. I'm gonna go jerk off to big tittied bitches

...

>The Brits had an empire where the sun never set
Actually that phrase was from Philip II of Spain, brits copied it later.

ours was still bigger than yours

^This.
American has some +700 military bases outside of America. That's their empire.

Not sure about that. But even then, ours was the first empire where the sun never set.

>not sure about that
>spanish edjukasion

We own space. Who gives a duck about rocks and dirt on a few islands?

>Those areas
Desu, even fucking Poland could have conquered huge non-inhabitted areas and call it an empire.

But that's exactly the point Pedro, we had the manpower and ability to actually defend and develop our realms, which is the exact reason Brazil is a shithole today while the Anglo nations reign supreme.

Well only if you don't take into account portugal, that became independent in 1668, the spanish empire was smaller than yours. But even if we only take into account the castilian empire, it was an actual empire with actual provinces, laws, universities, cities, we subjugated actual empires, not some colonial bulshit that doesn't really count as proper empire.

>fucking india
>non inhabited area
what did juan mean by this?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires
I'm really sorry Sebastian.

>Anglo nations reign supreme.
Dude. Your colonies (some, not most), became good after they independized from you. Ours were good and they became shit after they independized from us.

You're "empire" was shit.

Brazil's shithole is the Moortuguese' fault, not Spanish. You pretty much had the better technology overall and those African territories weren't yours until some Belgian king decided to do some An-Cap tier shit in Congo.

It's a real pity you lads believe this anti-Anglo European dogma.

...

>Get a huge fucking shithole which was in war with Persia all the time and with civil wars
>Oy m80s, you are know brits, okay?
>Okay

The whole world belongs to America.
>everyone on the planet knows what mickey mouse and coca cola are

I respect every empire, actually. In Africa you had Rhodesia and Apartheid South Africa. I just don't like when Brits call our empire shit.

At no point did I call your empire shit, Diego.

Well, most Brits in this board do, James. It's why you find this anti-anglo (which isn't even serious anyway) memes coming from Spaniards.

>Luxembourg
>Franche-Comte

it's called the EU and NATO

EU was created in order to shore up american puppet states after World War II, with NATO as the binding military alliance.

was meant for --

We expanded westward from the Atlantic to the pacific. Russia did the same thing. We integrated our new lands and because of that we continue to thrive as a large country

You can't even have statues of historical figures in your country, there is not a fucking chance in hell the U.S. could make imperialism its foreign policy when liberal egalitarianism is worshipped like a pagan cult. That stigma didn't exist during the age of imperialism.

Because the British and Spanish were historical enemies like the French. Stop winging about it. Nobody actually 'dislikes' the Spanish Empire besides probably South and central Americans and native americans, but they're subhumans and hate the British and French empires too.

1. The United States viewed itself as a "free" nation and thus imperialistic expansion and enslavement of foreign people's would run contrary to the very idea of America (the ideological reason)
2. The United States was intelligent enough to realize military conquest and occupation, staples of actual physical imperialism, cost money, lives and resources; and instead pursued a policy of economic imperialism, only intervening militarily when their economic interests were jeopardized - neatly combining the best of imperialism while getting rid of the worst parts of it (the practical reason)

Massive land grab empires are old hat, modern imperialism is economic and cultural.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanization

"spanish empire, you claim, i see the majority of it, - the portuguese empire.

You're saying that but the chances of military imperialism never making a return are next to none or that the borders today will remain unchanged in centuries or thousands of years. Because we've achieved one small patch of peace in the western world since World War 2 and some conventions in place that make imperialism technically illegal, that has currently lasted less time than the Roman peace 2000 years ago, it doesn't mean military imperialism is gone forever. It very likely won't be the U.S. that brings it back, both because of its citizens and its nature but the next or upcoming powers, especially China and Russia, don't have the same stigma. Modern imperialism has also been militarily engaged in many cases

Puerto rico? If there is anything left

Military imperialism is economically unfeasible in the modern world. America's imperialist adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan proved that quite vividly - they went in, they "won", they accomplished fuck all and for their efforts they got a bunch of terrorist, two trillion dollars of debt and the 2008 economic meltdown; and that's without even going into the human cost.

Economic/cultural imperialism is the future (and the present t b h)

That's a good point. Puerto Rico might be a good example of modern imperialism in some form, although it's pretty shitty they're considered citizens.

...

I don't think that's necessarily true at all. 'Modern imperialism' has not taken place in its traditional form, examples are mainly limited to land grabs by mostly the developing world and third world, like India-Pakistan. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars were also not examples of modern imperialism or attempts at imperialism. The cost of human life is always an issue with imperialism but the possession of land, natural resources, people to tax and trade expansion in that area has always been one of the prime causes of imperialism and there's no reason to believe it would be less profitable today. In fact it's rather illogical to think it wouldn't be.

It's both cheaper and less media risky (better optics) to do it covertly rather than overtly.
>possession of land
Just let corporations buy land for cheap and develop it instead of conquering
>natural resources
Cheaper to corrupt politicians in developing shitholes than invading and dealing with constant insurgency
>people to tax
Not that much of an issue, especially for America and China, the only two nations on Earth who could make any realistic claim of being empires today (though some experts think of the EU as some kind of weird empire-like thing)
>trade expansion
Again, cheaper to corrupt politicians into accepting free trade treaties than invading and dealing with terrorism, insurgency etc.

>Why can't America have an empire like they did?

We do it's one contigous empire called "The UnitedStatesofAmerica.

*plus Hawaii, Alaska, Poor-to Reek-o, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa. Guam (more or less).
Probably a few more.

Techniclly, we could also take Canada, Mexico, the entire Central America, and Cuba, along with every single Caribbean island as well.

Please stop claiming our clay.

because we weren't already powerful & european during the age of enlightenment and exploration.

our time has not yet come, friend.

do not worry best ally, we'll beat 'em together

Again, I find issue in describing those things as 'modern imperialism', while maybe a sound quasi-form of economic warfare in the modern age, like naval blockades or cutting off food supplies in the past, but not exactly imperialism. Things like Americanization and Anglization are independent but can also accompany imperialism, obviously Americanization is a much better example of such in a modern sense since Anglization usually came through imperialism, but real military imperialism has the potential to be as profitable as it ever was.

Italy's Army was complete shite in ww1 buddy. Central powers could not win with them.Maybe if the germans did not invade france through Belgium though... that at least could build the german empire time to deal with russia and serbia faster...

haha oh wow do you actually think Germany could have avoided war with Britain in WW1?

You are aware that Germany and Britain were the top rivals of the time, that Germany was assblasted at the Brits and jelly of their empire, while at the same time the Brits were itching to put Hans in his place because they were building ships too fast and threatened British naval superiority?
WW1 and all it's belligerents were pretty much set in stone due to the network of alliances being what it was, the only two variables were the Ottomans (successfully brought to Central Powers side by German covert actions) and Italy (successfully brought to Entente side by British covert actions)

Try taking over foreign lands in modern society. Go ahead.