World War III is sure to involve NATO, Russia, China, Taiwan, and Japan, and through NATO, the USA and Australia. That means we'll have a minimum of four continents involved. However, it's not a true world war unless we get all six (minus Antarctica) involved. How do we get South America and Africa to join in the fun?
China seeks to divert US attention by offering Venezualans 500 million runescape gold per American they kill.
Russia informs Africans that they used to be white before France painted their ancestors black. Entire continent is up in arms.
I would KILL for 500 million runescape gold, and I'm not even Venezuelan
That's like, $100 USD.
And?
You'd kill for $100 worth of digital monopoly money? Could you like, pick me up some taco bell instead? That's gotta be worth 1/5 of a human life right? I'll give you 100m.
They actually started hunting Venezuelans at one point
>nations with no force projection
>Russia informs Africans that they used to be white before France painted their ancestors black. Entire continent is up in arms.
>Russia informs Africans that they used to be white before France painted their ancestors black. Entire continent is up in arms.
Kek
>Russia informs Africans that they used to be white before France painted their ancestors black. Entire continent is up in arms.
is there an end to frog perfidy??
I’ve been high alching my butt off lately. 500 million is a lot
LATAM always made clear what it wanted from US, Marshall plan and maybe entry to the Union, give us that and we will offer to Santa Muerte every vatnig and chink's heart you point us.
>Marshall plan
I feel like it'd have to start with sending the US military to destroy the cartels. Probably something we should do anyways.
As much as I DONT want more US military involvement in foreign affairs, if there's any justifiable involvement that will have actual tangible benefits on national security, it's eradicating cartel morons.
I don't think the problem is a military one. It's a problem that being in a cartel makes more money than working at McDonalds.
I mean there has to be some military component obviously, but I think a more realistic solution is investing in latin-american economies and helping them drive out corruption (of course that condition is going to lead to a lot of countries turning down said investment). Also I don't know why it needs to be clarified, but these wouldn't be blank checks I'm proposing, but require US accountants to ensure that money is going where it's supposed to go.
Course it'll never happen because the Right fundamentally doesn't believe in the governments responsibility to do things like 'help' people.
Your idea to fight the cartels is to dump money into a system where all the money already goes to the cartels, and you think an accountant is going to somehow stop that? The only reason anyone would take that accountant seriously is the threat of a US military invasion if they don't, and you've already signaled you aren't willing to invade by sending the accountants instead.
It's not a hard calculation.
Let us look into your treasury and follow the money along every step of the way. If we think the money is mispent we pull out. If you don't let us make sure you aren't misspending the money we don't give it to you.
It's what we did during the Marshal Plan and that was one of the most successful things the US ever did. NATO wouldn't exist if we hadn't dumped a ton of money into Europe. In fact most of europe probably would have gone communist.
I still think you have the order of operations backwards. Get rid of the corruption before you dump in money. Don't dump money into corruption and have only the threat that they wont get more of your free money.
Agreed.
Not that Anon, and in an ideal world you are correct. In an ideal world you can just remove corruption and replace it with non-corruption. But we do not live in an ideal world, political processes have to be slow and gradual if they are supposed to be effective - otherwise they tend to just end in catastrophe. I think giving a country an incentive that, in the long term, will gradually lower corruption while improving the situation for the general populace, will be more fruitful than doing nothing at all or just going in guns blazing. Unless the latter is absolutely necessary, it will just destabilize the whole place even further and turn it into an even worse shithole.
The things you need for functioning society are, ultimately, trustworthy institutions. But you cannot stomp trust out of the ground. You have to grow it gradually.
The problem with cartels is the CIA using them for funds for black book projects. The problem with Mexican cartels goes all the way back in Mexican politics to the Mexican revolution but was really solidified in the aftermath of it. If Diaz hadn't been such a paranoid gay unable to relinquish his grip on power Reyes probably could have reformed the country enough to avoid Mexico's present fate. But Diaz was a gay, and Reyes died in the street, and Mexico has been fucked ever since.
I like them 5:1 odds
It depends on Venezuela and Bolivia which are the rabid zigger axis countries of South America. I could see Bolivia invading Chile trying to retake its old sea coast.
Doesn't Bolivia hate communism and by extension Russia?
communism proper? probably not as popular, but the vague leftist 3rdworldist view of Evo Morales is still extremely popular.
>World War III is sure to involve [...] Russia
>How do we get South America and Africa to join in the fun?
Surely the involvement of Russia -- that pillar of international dignity, respect, charity, and honesty -- will be more than enough to rouse the stalwart armies of their peers in a spirited defense of the multipolar world order.
(And no, I couldn't type that with a straight face.)
>Verification not required.
The fuck is that image even trying to convey here? That America turns people white?
It's supposed to be that China has "culture" while America just whitewashes everything
Christ that'd be the dumbest bugman shit ever so it's probably correct. I mean fuck the Chinese get triggered as hell if you point out Cantonese is a completely different language from Mandarin and the only reason they're able to pretend it's not is because their writing system uses hieroglyphs which have the same meaning regardless of pronunciation.
oh and also they put muslims in concentration camps and sell their organs, really doesn't help with the whole "diversity" thing now does it
Couldn't the written language thing apply to many other languages? I mean French and English use the same alphabet and are completely different languages. Russian and Serbian use the same alphabet (I think) and they are different languages. Arabic and Farsi almost use the same alphabet, and they are completely different languages. what gives?
No anon that's not how it works. Because the word for dog in French is chien, spelled chien. The word for dog in English is dog, spelled dog. If you write English and expect a French person to understand it, it will not work, because the words are written phonetically. The spelling is based on how the word is pronounced. You use the same characters but the words that come out are not the same.
Since Chinese language uses what are basically hieroglyphs, the meaning is the same regardless of the pronunciation. The characters are simply a picture representing a concept or object, not necessarily its pronunciation. An example: 年 means year. In Mandarin this is pronounced Nián. In Cantonese this pronounced Nin. In Japanese this is pronounced Toshi. And yet they can all use the same character for it with the same meaning, because Chinese characters are not phonetic, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with how it is pronounced. For this reason a Japanese person can read (some) Chinese and understand it (mostly), despite not speaking or understanding any Chinese.
To go back to your example, it would be the same as drawing a stick figure of a dog, and both you and a French person would understand it means dog in your language. The Chinese language just uses thousands of stick figures they've all agreed upon the meaning to, meaning regardless of how they are pronounced they retain the same meaning.
Thanks based language expert anon
I would love to learn Arabic. How would you go Bout it?
>I mean French and English use the same alphabet and are completely different languages
Anon, english is made of around 37% of french words because england was founded by drunk half-frenchmen in 1066, that's why you think it's the same.
It is not.
>1066
>the Norman conquest of England that happened over a century after the Kingdom of England was founded, and took over rather than replaced said kingdom
dynastic rule =/= national history =/= linguistic evolution
the development of English has much more to do with the commoners anyway (who basically created the endless English habit of accumulating extraneous vocabulary, blending Gaelic, Latin, French, German, and anything considered useful into their communication), as the ruling class simply spoke French for much of the Norman period.
high percentage French claims tend to claim any Latin words in English as deriving from French, while ignoring the other Latin influences (namely literal Roman occupation and the Catholic church). in reality the French influence is largely nobility-focused like food names or was (like the "ou" instead of "o" - the latter of which is closer to or literally identical to (see: color) the original Latin) added later deliberately to make the language more French.
yes, Bongs, you spell it "colour" because your nobility wanted you to spell like the French. however, the word itself would've entered English well before 1066.
What a stupid fucking post. No.
>high percentage French claims tend to claim any Latin words in English as deriving from French
Because they are.
>namely literal Roman occupation
There was no Roman occupation in the time the Saxons invaded. The Romans left before the Saxons came. The Saxons did not incorporate Roman words into their language. This isn't some mystery or up for debate, the latinization of the language happened after the Norman conquest. You can read Old English texts, it is a fully Germanic language.
>German, Gaelic
If by "German" you mean the Anglo-Saxon's native language, sure whatever, but that's not so much blending as speaking their own language. If you mean continental German, no, that's dumb. And Gaelic has essentially zero impact on English.
>however, the word itself would've entered English well before 1066.
No, it didn't. The words used for colour prior to the Norman conquest were blēo and hīew the latter of which still survives as hue. Again, this isn't up for debate or a mystery.
>You can read Old English texts, it is a fully Germanic language.
Or maybe I should instead say, you can't read them, because it simply is not the same language as modern English or middle English. It is incomprehensible to modern English speakers because it has none of the French/Latin influences our language has. There's a reason we can piece together middle English and mostly make it make sense but Old English is incomprehensible. Those Roman words you imagine were used are not there. Even centuries after the Anglo-Saxons had been in Britain, the language is basically the same. Meanwhile you can take a text from the 1200s and instantly see it is full of Latin words.
The only major influence on English before the Norman conquest was Norse. Not Roman, not Gaelic, not Welsh.
>Because they are.
incorrect. Latin words have entered the English lexicon through French, Spanish, and Latin directly - French can't claim all of them, and the lack of many spellings that set French apart from Spanish and Latin clearly indicate a lack of direct link through French
for fuck's sake, some of the Latin words in English were carried across to the Isles by the Germanic settlers themselves - taken from interaction with Rome's northern reaches - before the Romans even reached the English Channel (see: wall, sack, pillow, cheese, street, cook, wine)
you're confusing the formation of Germanic/Latinate doublets in the Norman period (which happens through the Latin in French) with the entirety of Latin influence in the language, which is just completely incorrect.
>There was no Roman occupation in the time the Saxons invaded
>language only changes if there's an invasion
>please ignore the Roman invasion because i'm retarded
you're retarded.
>The words used for colour prior to the Norman conquest
upon research, you are correct - except for the Norman conquest part. the word didn't enter English use until the 13th-14th centuries - meaning it didn't happen until the fucking Tudors (i.e. not the Normans and not the French).
the only thing you've established here beyond debate or mystery is the fact you're retarded.
You're just a fucking retard.
That out of the way, I think you simply have no idea what you're talking about all around, I think you have no grasp of the timeframes or peoples involved. The Romans left Britain in 409AD. The Anglo-Saxons invaded in 449AD. By 1000AD, more than 500 years after invading Britain, the Anglo-Saxon language was still Old English. It was a Germanic language with no major Latin influences, and it is entirely incomprehensible by modern English speakers. They were not picking up pieces of other languages and adding them, despite having 500 years to do so. As early as 1200 AD, after only a bit over a century of contact with the French language from the invading Normans, Middle English was forming and was clearly a different language with large borrowings from Latin through Old French.
>please ignore the Roman invasion because i'm retarded
What Roman invasion? The Romans never invaded Anglo-Saxon England. They left before it existed. Please answer what you are referring to.
>upon research, you are correct
Yes, I am.
>except for the Norman conquest part
No, I am fully and totally correct. The word changed following, and not before the Norman conquest. As explained above, the language remained entirely Germanic in structure, grammar, and etymology for five hundred years. Five hundred years after the Norman conquest however, and the language would have 80% Latin grammar. Yes, the Normans are fully and totally responsible for this, and without the Norman invasion English would have remained a fully Germanic language.
>for fuck's sake, some of the Latin words in English were carried across to the Isles by the Germanic settlers themselves
There is a difference between borrowing a loanword from another language and completely replacing 80% of your languages words with foreign words.
>completely replacing 80% of your languages words with foreign words
didn't you say it was 37%?
this is what bongs actually believe
lmao
>incorrect. Latin words have entered the English lexicon through French, Spanish, and Latin directly - French can't claim all of them, and the lack of many spellings that set French apart from Spanish and Latin clearly indicate a lack of direct link through French
Yeah right anon.
FFS your very national motto "honi soit qui mal y pense" is just plain french even a modern french speaker can fully comprehend without scratching his head once, appart from the fact "honi" is written nowadays with 2 "n" instead of one.
I mean wtf how many layers of cope are you sitting upon to be this buttflustered?
>I mean wtf how many layers of cope are you sitting upon to be this buttflustered?
I think he's just genuinely very confused about the time-frames of events and thinks he knows more than he does. Like I'm pretty sure he thinks the Saxons were there occupying Britain before the Romans came, or at least at the same time as the Romans.
That and he's clearly never read anything in Old English or Middle English. Basically total ignorance combined with overconfidence that he knows what he's talking about, despite never having studied the subject and not knowing the first thing about it.
>Cantonese is a completely different language from Mandarin
thank you jfc I've been telling people this for ages
t. canto speaker
Meanwhile, Chinese culture:
>CCP-sponsored "patriotic" gruel even the Chinese can't stand
>CCP-sponsored rip offs of western culture
>copy of Japanese otaku culture begrudgingly tolerated because of how popular it is and how good it is at mollifying the masses
I don't think copying is a problem. As they say it's the sincerest form of flattery. Early manga was a shameless ripoff of American comicbooks. It's just that the Japanese don't have to worry about censorship and they did their own thing with it, and it managed to have a very large cultural impact the world over.
I think the problem is more about not having freedom of expression because what interests the broader public are the sort of things that piss off the Ted Cruz's of the world, but Ted Cruz doesn't get to censor people in the US, but he does in China.
It seems like to be suggesting that America forces everyone to be identical and conform while china allows diversity, which is so obviously retarded that I wonder if it's an attempt to confuse the west to death.
Except it's true.
You're confusing the US not allowing its conservatives to chain gays to their pickup truck bumpers and murder them with allowing others to actually be free. The US does not recognize that anyone has the right to do as they see fit, it's the US's position that everyone has an obligation to do as the US sees fit.
China, meanwhile, has autonomous regions within its own country and recognizes a sovereign nation's right to have nothing to do with them, if they feel that way.
my bet is they probably were going to be dipped red and be bleeding and dying as the stripes originally, but censors demanded they don't do that.
Goddamn, K1 firing on all cylinders.
>the average bedroom of a pubescent boy after learning about incognito tabs
It true, Italians and Irish were never considered white but after a few decades in the US they became white.
Irish people weren't white? Aren't they the whitest?
More like not Anglo-Saxon Protestant and rather poor borderline drunk villager shit brawlers.
No, the continent regarded them as uncultured pagan savages, then just uncultured catholic savages. They werent regarded as white at all. Nor were Italians. The Spaniards kinda were, which is why hispanic (ie., of Hispanola) are legally hwyte in the US. because the upper class of Mexico was predominantly Spanish-descended or outright Spanish immigrants, and they did a lot of business with the US. Combine that with Spanish conquistadors going full Genghis Khan on Mezoamerican nativussy, and the line got mighty blurry how euro-descended anyone was in Latin America
>the continent regarded them as uncultured pagan savages
That's completely wrong and retarded. The Irish were very early adopters of Christianity. While the vast majority of the Germans were still pagans, the Irish were already Christian.
Dumbass.
Catholics used to be considered pagan heratics by protestants
And the other way around too of course
catholics -are- pagan heretics
and protestants are goy slaves
This attitude is why God let you lose Constantinople
Blame Constantinople for being a shithole that allowed pogroms against Catholics traders then
saladin was just better
The Italian ~~*merchants*~~ in Constantinople regularly had Fentanyl Floyd style chimpouts, I don't blame the Greeks for finally snapping and butchering the motherfuckers.
Whatever, Catholics are the original Christians. The first Pope was a disciple. I forget who, one of the nice ones.
From the Protestant perspective at the time, Catholics were never Christian and were perpetual fifth columnists who answered to the Pope. Don't try to argue the point, it's not what I think.
>I forget who
Anon, it was Saint Peter.
>doesn’t know who Saint Peter is
if you’re catholic you need to turn in your card or at least return to sunday school
Still are.
Dehumanising your enemy is nothing new anon. South Europeans and the Irish weren't considered white (southern Europeans still aren't depending on who you ask) and were conveniently shifted into the white people field once it became useful to do so.
>your enemy
And the Irish weren't the enemy of continental Europeans. Do you not know what is being discussed?
>considered white
White wasn't even a concept in Continental Europe, it's an American thing. There weren't any fuckin non-white people there.
We're not talking about the views of Americans and the English. Duh.
Anon you gotta remember that Racism isn't fucking logical. It's an extension of power dynamics.
Ireland was ran as a colony by the British. Why? Well cause Ireland was real poor and there wasn't much there, and the Irish couldn't really do anything about it. Scots got off better since they had a habit of revolting and a decent track record in winning wars against the English (they only joined the union since James the 1st of Scotland became James the 3rd of England, I might have the numbers reversed though, and cause Scotland got into massive debt they needed bailing out). Now how do you justify treating your fellow man like shit? Well by saying they're racially inferior. If it works in Africa, it'll work in Ireland.
Meanwhile in the US, the Fox News folks weren't real happy about the massive waves of poor immigrants coming into the country, forming slums, joining violent gangs, and all around being Catholic. After all, if you keep letting in the Irish, they'll quickly overrun the native population and the white race will go extinct.
Anon, literally none of that has anything to do with how the Irish were viewed in continental Europe. We are not talking about how the British or Americans thought of the Irish.
>conquistadors going full Genghis Khan on Mezoamerican nativussy
Kinda hot in here....
It's why to this day if you go to the richer parts of Mexico City you'll find what are basically white people in mansions ao private neighborhoods and luxury stores, and at most some of them look north italian or half italian/spanish and you go 3 blocks over and you'll find the biggest Pedro stereotype looking dude to walk the Earth. When I was there on work I said hi to a redheaded guy not realizing the dude was full Mexican and his family had been there for centuries. It's weird but it does happen.
Only the UK regarded Irish as inferiors, the continent fully agreed they were white. And being Catholic is precisely why as far as the continent was concerned, its the Anglos that were inferior to the Irish. Italians were also NEVER regarded as non-white or inferior. At all. And they were certainly whiter than englishmen in the eyes of the continents. Anglicanism is the moron religion, even for protestants.
>Regard the Spanish as white
>But not Italians who are less dark
A clarification-
Legally the US has and always has had only five races.
-White
-Black
-Asian
-Native-American/Pacific-Islander
-Other
Socially race means whatever the person your talking to thinks it means because there isn't a scientific definition of where one race ends, and one begins. The legal distinctions exist because they warrant certain government benefits- like say Native-Americans are wrapped up in a reservation legal system and such. I knew a native guy in Colorado, who pointed out that since most native-americans are considered members of tribes that are legally speaking their own countries within the US, he's qualified to run for president, but not enlist in the Secret Service.
There are people who still think this. Irish used to be like mexicans in the US, because millions of them moved into the US due to britain genociding them
>Irish people weren't white? Aren't they the whitest?
Refer to the Franklin map.
every american MUST enter the cumpool before becoming a citizen
I'll be honest, it's not that bad if you're first in line when it's still warm
globohomo bros, we won!
China celebrates and encourages individuality, unlike pig degenerate west
Its Chinese propaganda. America has a melting pot, that turns everyone into Americans. Chinese have a Han pot, which if forcibly destroy other cultures and then assimilate them.
The implication of the cartoon is that China is made up of a large number of diverse ethnic groups who live together in harmony, while America forces newcomers to assimilate. It's essentially saying that the American "melting pot" is a bad thing.
Never mind the fact that China has some of the biggest ethnic tensions in the World, and that they are some of the most xenophobic and racist people you will ever meet.
>China has some of the biggest ethnic tensions in the World
That's quite an understatement given the Uyghur Final Solution currently in progress.
>mongolian
>mongolian
>mongolian
>mongolian
>a bunch of muslims in concentration camps
Come to America to get Bleached.
It’s really insane how much getting racemixed is on the average fob foreigner’s agenda.
Fuck if only.
I'm not telling you The Big Board.
South Africa will probably join assuming they still exist. Also, if the ECOWAS v Niger Alliance war happens the major sides of the world war would just pick sides of the regional war to support
Doesn't work as internal propaganda, as everything is HAN CHINA HAN CHINA.
For export its also clueless since everyone knows Chinks oppress their minorities and the West is multiculturalism++
What happened in South Sudan?
Lol, this image is more pro American than anti. All the different ethnicities of America have come together in unity.
>Some inane barking about WW3 involving a barrage of third world shitholes
>Chink propaganda
The 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre.
Chile decides to sink Chinese illegal fishing operations off their shores
To be fair, they were outgunned, and weren't cleared properly. But that's what you get while serving for UN. Most 1st world countries are no longer providing troops for the UN. Even if they would no one would really want to go given the reputation.
China is sending their guys to Africa for free training, They have many business interests in Africa and having guys who operated there before may come in handy. Losing some part of them because of UN brilliance seems to be acceptable for them.
most first world nations have stopped because the third and second world nations want to send more.
The compensation you get from the UN per soldier per month doesn't even cover the wage cost for western armies. But for second and third world countries it is a way to earn money for the state and the troops also get a nice bonus.
There have been mutinies because certain units where blocked from going on UN peace mission.
Peace keeper missions in the third world have become a way to buy votes in the UN
"hey durka 3 is you send say 2k guys to stop durka 1 and 2 from killing each other you get a coll 20mil a year"
loser countries serving in a UN mission:
>we are outgunned, we are restricted, we can't do anything
Germans in a UN mission:
>You have until evening to leave, but we'll be understanding as long as you don't shoot at us.
Scandinavians in a UN mission:
>You have 30 minutes to surrender. My men will massacre you if you try anything. I have a mission and no rules of engagement.
Indians in a UN mission:
>Actually we are the ones raping the aid workers.
>How do we get South America and Africa to join in the fun?
Panama Canal and Ethiopia (Nile Dam).
If I were a Chinese war planner I'd try to take out the Panama canal first thing. The world economy will be turbo fucked by ww3 anyways so why not. It would buy them a few weeks while any USN ships being sent from the Atlantic are going ro long way round
Hitting the Panama canal would literally make China the enemy of all.
>America integrates all these people from around the world as part of a singular whole
>But us glorious Chinese are not bad people, we just believe the Han are the only true Chinamen
south america wasn't involved in the first 2 ww's
Unless you count those two retarded nations going at it in their own war (Ecuador and Peru), German U-Boats sinking Brazilian ships causing them to declare war on Germany, and Argentina being an Axis ally. But otherwise yeah South America stayed pretty comfortably out of the war. Same deal in the first world war.
They're were naval actions in SA in both wars. Falkland and river platte
Counting Falklands as South American action feels like counting the Aleutians as North American battles. It may be true but it feels weird.
In South America probably some shit with Venezuela/Cuba and Nicaragua
I could be wrong but I feel like PrepHole could take Venezuela. How much of a threat can those fuckers be?
You missed a while back when it looked like America was going to intervene in Venezuela and the army was arming the locals to resist. You’d see Abuelas being handed FALs as if they would be able to use them.
>Abuelas with FALs
Oh we’d get a lot of cool loot
They were only arming those close to the military, not regular citizens.
And they just needed an excuse to do it, since Venezuela has gone full Somalia.
>nowhere close to hitting WA
bro plz
That's not the purpose, it wouod threat Panama canal travel, gulf oil, and access to the Mississippi. Though I doubt Russia could actually establish any presence there.
>Panama canal
first, Panama owns the canal, not the US
second, threatening the canal is a quick geopolitical shortcut to get literally everyone in the Americas pissed at you at the same time
>access to the Mississippi
somebody doesn't understand the true scale of the Father of Waters (Russia doesn't have enough ordnance to actually threaten every access point - fucking CHICAGO is an access point, that's how far the Mississippi's reach is) and is forgetting about the Intracoastal Waterway
>America is SO BIG!
>Did you know that we have Corn
yes, it is.
did you know said corn feeds much of the world, China included? did you know the US exports more food than any other country?
the Panamanians would be pissed because the US pays those transit fees. fucking hell turdies don't understand geopolitics OR economics, do they?
>muh disrespect of sovereignty
try not to project so hard, tankie. if the US had no respect for sovereignty Cuba wouldn't exist.
and i know for a fact that the moment it's ideologically convenient you'll deny sovereignty of anywhere - sometimes just because of a label that makes you feel good (see: the "sOcIaLiSt" paradise of Venezuela). you're nothing but a contrarian, and that's why you get along so well with the far right you claim to despise. well, that and the fact you've both been completely co-opted by the FSB and your organizations will only ever set your political causes back because the FSB only uses those levers for destabilizing, preventing you from ever making meaningful progress because your leaders have no intent to do so.
it's reassuring to get replies that are so clearly pushing something anyone in LATAM who's paying attention knows isn't true - because it means these replies aren't actually coming from LATAM. that is of course the response to contrarianism - actual research - and the political sentiments show a whole lot of "America bad" screeching and a whole lot of Latin Americans who don't give half a shit what the Russians and Chinese tell them America is doing. it's like somebody telling you your neighbor killed your dog while you are petting your still perfectly alive dog. idk about you, but if i find my dog dead later i'm suspecting the person claiming the neighbor did it before i suspect the neighbor.
>tankie
Lmao, I'm as American as they come. American Imperialism is actually based though. You dislike Russians because of their war of aggression and violation of national sovereignty, I hate them because they're Russian. Anyway, in practical terms, it is objectively true that America routinely flexes its muscle in LATAM when they get too rowdy.
>Muh Cuba
Had the backing of a nuclear power and we promised not to invade. We've kept that promise because
1) we actually honor our deals
2) they don't have anything we could possibly want
3) they aren't a threat to us
>Panama owns the canal, not the US
I would like to put this theory to the test. Have Panama tell the United States it cannot ever use its canal for any of its military and civil ships.
Watch the reaction.
Lucky trips of truth. Every nation in the Americas has sovereignty because the US allows it. The moment any nation's sovereignty inconveniences us, they become sovereign't.
They would get freedumbed and democracied so fast
>we have always been at war with Panama
Did we forget Operation Just Cause? Last time Panama found out the hard way.
>wikipedia says it was started due to a Marine officer being shot
This is why you never trust wikipedia: the start of the conflict is already recorded wrong.
>people stand in line to enter american cumpit
>no one wants to go to china
Thank God we Ukrainians won't be involved in this bullshit
ok but the pla bunnies are pretty cute tho
I love those chink depictions of Americans as eagles
Anyone have the pics of MacArthur, Taylor, and Ridgeway?
Nicaragua and Uganda give us all six.
Russia isn't going to involve themselves with any wars for the next 20 years at least. It may not even be called "Russia" by the time WW3 happens.
After Putin's chimpout in Ukraine, Russia is going to be in no condition to fight a major war for at least a generation.
UK will for sure be involved for Europe (Canada too but US already covers North America).
>China goes to war with NATO
>entire export economy collapses overnight
>can't even feed their citizens
the war would be over before they fire a single bullet
is this another example of anti-american propaganda making americans look cool
post the Ridgway one
John Cena as Mao Zedong?!
I understand the reasoning but I still WTFed.
>John Cena as Mao Zedong
You forgot that he made a public apology in mandarin to china for saying the name Taiwan as a place that gets to see the movie he was in first.
google it and see a man suck china cock with a smile on his face.
>There is no pride in being a US citizen
>Money is the only goal and only idealized thing in this world
Reminds me of that battalion in Bosnia, ignoring politics at home and giving it their all, achieving all their objectives in the process
America is weaker than you think it is, those that live in glasses houses off of fiat currency backed by an oil standard shouldn’t be throwing 150mm artillery shells at slavics
why not? literally why should we not do what we can to fuck over our enemies?
Tripfag detected
Opinion discarded
The rest of the world is weaker than you think. There are 0 countries that don’t have terrible problems and very few that aren’t complete shitholes. All rivals of the USA are much, much worse off.
All except one who has been forgotten because it has been a vassal of the USA since ww2.
When I wrote that last sentence I realised when WW3 will happen. It will be when Europe gains its independence (or at least tries to)
Africa is already in because NATO, China and Russia are all present there.
South America isn’t needed for a world war because they haven’t really been involved before.
The real issue is how to make the fighting reach North America.
The USA has had peace for more than 150 years. It’s long overdue to see some action.
Africa will quit being a special wonderful sacred place once that happens. South america might stay out though, that's where I'm moving, they have plenty of wilderness anyway.
Dubs checked.
The Africans will be too busy with their own civil wars and regional conflicts to get involved.
Dunno about South America, though.
South America and Africa could be involved if Brazil and South Africa (for whatever reason) joined the war as part of a BRICS alliance. I heavily doubt that it would happen but I also doubt that WW3 will happen anytime soon.
it's BRICSAIBRAAP+ now chud
>Implying Russia will survive to the next war
BRICS, although not a military alliance, vs NATO, would instantly get all continents involved
I don't know if that would be possible, you'd probably have very little time to do much between the declaration of ww3 and the end of it (like 1-2 hours?)
This guy will take over all of South America and establish an anarcho capitalist paradise. Only negative is that you will be required to learn Argentinas weird Spaghetti Taco language
Just cause a bunch of false flag ops to make them fight each other.
Megumin is so much like China, she could be the best on her own, yet poverty and delusion has reduced her to a one trick pony, incredibly destructive when correctly unleashed but after that she is basically an empty cartridge, and she basically needs someone else to take advantage of her powers and not be a jerk and a dumbass.
You know what country Kazuma would be right?
>through NATO, the USA and Australia
>NATO
>Australia
Google to see whose actually in NATO
google to see how to actually use "whose" properly
Nice one. Point is, Australia isn't NATO, retard.
BSed
Africa is already working on it, just wait to see west africa become a proxy war for both sides.
Reminder Mexicans are Aryan. Adolf considered Native Americans to be Aryan and Mexicans are half European Spanish (Aryan) and half Aztec Native American (Aryan) therefore full Aryan. The Mexican Mafia is allies with the Aryan Brotherhood in prison against the Black Guerrilla Family. Add Mexico to NATO