What country should the United States take over yet?

What country should the United States take over yet?

Brazil and Congo are on my thought list.

Both have untold natural resource reserves that could prove to be very good for our economies.

On the other hand, North Korea, if unified under the rule of Seoul, would provide a good base of operations against China in the future.

Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=YrVa62Z4ufU
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Mexico all the way up to Mexico City. Ship the population out in train cars lime cattle.

Brazil is the second most powerful country in Americas, BRICS would support us, murifags would be soon fighting Russia, China and Brazil, WW3 in seconds.

none of the above have enough natural resources to cover what their giant shitskin populations will consume
you're better off annexing Canada, now there's a huge treasure chest of untapped shit

But you are Boko-Haraming in Nigeria already so prepare the problem to be resolved there.

South Sudan

Do you honestly think that you retarded jungle monkey? BRICS is a bank, not a military alliance like NATO. Specially after your economic crisis, I doubt that any country would even support you materially. Go back to the favela to play soccer.

Fix leaf problem now?

>American soldiers who can't spend a day in the jungle without getting PTSD invading Brazil

lmaoing @ ur infantry

North Africa please.
Full benefit for both of us.

>Brazilian aircraft carriers
>1
>American aircraft carriers
>11

Lol Russia and China wouldn't go to war with America over Brazil.

Call me when aircrafts and ships can occupy territory you faggot.

You need boots on the ground, no amount of BRRRRRRRRRT can secure resources.

Eleven aircraft carriers can position enough aircraft to level the entire military infrastructure of your third world country. If I recall it correctly, Brazil does not even have a long range air defense system like most continental countries and instead relies on MANPADs and Flakpanzers for air defense, which is at best the equivalent of having no air defense at all. In addition to that, most of your national income comes from trade so you'll find it difficult to fuel your war economy while we are at it. In 2003, the United States proved its well capable of performing in overtly dense areas, against a well trained enemy by destroying the 5th largest military on Earth in over just a month. Today we have stealth technology, drone technology and advanced infantry equipment. Never before the USMC had so much budget and meanwhile your country is so unstable it can't hold its political structure for more than 10 years in a row. But of course, all you can do is to resort to fantasies based on fallacies and try to banter me when reduced to the fact that your country would be destroyed in a war against the United States. Most Pentagon estimates point out you'd not be able to even invade and occupy Colombia or Venezuela if necessary.

Mexico.

Step 1. Invade Country, overthrow corrupt system.
Step 2. Execute corrupt politicians. Push English as primary language. Show Mexican citizens benefits of American rights and why they should fight to gain said rights.
Step 3. Turn their states into US states, have them elect governors. Enforce non-corrupt Democrat/Republican candidates. Any found corruption is met with execution.
Step 4. Search and destroy all cartels to a man. Full military operation.
Step 5. Now apart of the US, they are benefit to US infrastructure, which now is being built and maintained. Constitutional Rights now granted to every former Mexican citizen, including once illegal aliens in United States proper. Including gun rights.
Step 6. Now that they can protect themselves and have received absolutely nothing but benefits for becoming new states in the USA, they can now protect themselves and keep themselves safe from former cartels with privately owned guns and self defense laws.
Step 7. Mexico is now safer, less corrupt, and all its citizens have more individual rights and liberties. Everyone wins.
Step 8. Profit!

Germany.

Kill every last one.

>military is the only important thing during an invasion
>he unironically believes that the UScould just "take over a country"
You're as delusional as i would expect an american to be

No one wants to deal with North Korea.
Their people will be a hazard to democracy and South Korea for two generations until they reintegrate.

>Invading a country that's technically your ally since WWII.

Doesn't make sense.

...

You can keep fantasizing about playing wargames with your memerine core all you want, bottom line is, your government had to pull an unbelievable trick just to be able to invade a muslim shithole in the middle east.
You are a kid, you obviously have no idea how hard your country had to work to pull that shit in Iraq and Afhganistan, both politically and economically.

Keep dreaming faggot, your military is only capable of fighting proxy wars and funding shitty rebels across the globe, specially after Iraq.
You are a bitch, your government acts like a bitch and the US will never be able to pull shit like this after the disaster the military operations in the middle east.

Better pay up those moderate rebels or you won't be able to get our resources :^)

...

wew

Brazil will invade Brazil???

>You can keep fantasizing about playing wargames with your memerine core all you want
Fallacy. The USMC is, if anything, the world's best amphibious unit. It's simply unmatched by any other country's marine core, both in quality and quantity. Besides, the USMC saw action and acted effectively along the course of history several times. Some examples include the Pacific Campaing of WW2, Panama, Iraq, Korea and so on. Today, they still get the most training of any marine military in the world and are currently deployed to all continents. These are facts, not opinions.

>your government had to pull an unbelievable trick just to be able to invade a muslim shithole in the middle east.
No, it did not. In fact, the United States warned Iraq it would invade it several times over, giving Saddam the time to prepare himself. And again, they had the 5th largest military in the world at the time in terms of active personel, and were ranked the 8th strongest among all. And yet, all of that was completely destroyed in about a month. The Brazilian military has less active personel and must protect an area far larger than that of Iraq at the time, which clearly means we'd destroy you.
>both politically and economically.
The US economy is the largest in the world, half of the wolrd's military spending comes from our pockets and believe ir or not, when the US goes to war with another country, it's usually their best trading partners that end up feeling the weight of the economic factors, not the US itself. In the end, any country in the world would prefer to trade with the United States over any other country of the planet. Maybe China and the EU as a whole would be exceptions *in very few cases* but that of course means we'd be at war with the EU or China to start with, which is pathetic.
>referring to US operations in Middle East as a disaster
No, they're not. I can give you another example that you're wrong, for example 1991.

>tfw we've destroyed more countries than the British Empire and have over 50 bases in 20 countries worldwide.
I think we did bretty good.

Canada.

Its very logical really.

You do realize that if the US took over your country the immediate side effects would be a more stable and less corrupt government and more civil liberties, right?

You'd get owned. Though not by our army, it'd be by our drug lords.

Besides, why would you ever want to do that? Brazil is easier to influence when it is eating itself from the inside as it always does.

>using aircraft carriers on the jungle

Been happening for the past 500 years, it's a gruesome war, dad.

>No, it did not

Yes it did, your congress was split up and you had to do an award winning gymnastics play to find a reason to invade those places, either by claiming their goverment has nukes, or because of terrorism.
Now take Brazil, a country that is a founding member of the U.N, has healthy economic and political relations with other countries, and has no nuclear weapons.
We are a shithole, but not an autocratic muslim socialst country with a miltaristic government.
The bullshit your government would have to pull to be able to even have the excuse to do any military actions here would be nigh impossible.
A single U.N meeting and that would be the end of any fabricated claim.
I don't know how old are you and how you were fed information about the american military but it's not that simple like you see in the movies.
Even with massive E.U support you still had to do months and months of meetings and political reunions to invade Iraq.

Again, if we were in a state of total war, yeah, you could fuck us up, but that's not the case.

Not saying it wouldn't be better, just trying to point out to all those americans kids who grew up with CoD, that geopolitics is not that simple.

mexico really does need to get dealt with sooner or later. they are not out friends and there's a significant amount that think parts of the usa rightfully belongs to them. then there's canada who is getting fresh with the chinese

Kill or expel all non-white Mexicans and you have a deal.

>Brazil and Congo
But how will that profit Israel?

That's excessive. What you want to do is incentivize the Mexican people to protect their new found liberties as American citizens, which means you'd show them how much more freedom and security they would have by being apart of the United States as proper states like any other. Any sort of ethnic cleansing or mass displacement would be a horrific and horrendous undertaking. Not worth it.

By showing them they're better off by being part of the USA they'd be less likely to rebel or revolt and actively participate in maintaining their citizenship. That would mean the Aztlan movement would lose traction and hopefully putter out completely since they'd be willing participants in the American experiment. Since they'd become citizens there wouldn't be any kind of illegal immigration, and what illegal immigration there would be from countries further south could more easily be dealt with since the border from Mexico to its southern neighbor's is incredibly shorter than from the USA to Mexico. It's honestly a scenario where everyone would win in the long run, especially if we push American ideals (and english) on the newly acquired states.

>Congo

lel you aint taking it from China

>Step 1. Invade Country, overthrow corrupt system.

Because that worked so well for Iraq didn't it

For what purpose? Why is this population addicted to consuming? Disgusting.

This is to annex, not to prop up a puppet state. These are also Mexicans, not kebabs. They're at least Christian and that makes them at least partial to reason.

You taking the piss

Royal Marines are by far the best 'marine core' in the world

This isn't even up for debate.


>US 'marines'

youtube.com/watch?v=YrVa62Z4ufU

Your gonna need tons of gravel if you want to take Congo.
You're also going to need the fortitude to listen patiently while Lao Yang explains in excruciating detail why you and your entire race are worthless trash.