I haven't read any of the other answers, so I don't know if somebody's said this, but,

I'm an American and I want to take over the world because it looks so delicious. The mountains, the buildings, the people, NOMNOMNOMNOM!!!

Russia nd china has nukes , maybe nake it to the US ARMY BASES!
take that usa for being isanely strong!

"by the way your clan logo is a bit confusing in case of what you said about europe and the nazis."

What exactly is so confusing about my clan's logo? Do you think it implies support for Nazism, or am I misunderstanding you?

Happy Bunny was in T4R when he made the comment

Thanks Magnus.
Ostensibly Crustacean Dolphin; the most confusing thing next to your comment is the fact that everybody is able to change their names and clans during a forum converstion. Obviously it's hard to quote under those cirqumstances.

This is why compared to the real statistics , the USA in warlight cant fight off everyone becouse people get booted and nations like russia and china (possibly more ) will get powerful

The armies per terrotry in the game is musch the same so thats why...

at least warlight blocks the USA reaching virual reality

this thread is for stupid noobs

The USA has no intention of taking over the world, merely molding it to its needs. We could have ended all the African crisis years ago, however we profit from it, by selling arms, and getting cheap goods from Africa. We could stop the drug trade, but it does make America profit to some degree. We can do anything, but we are content to merely pull the strings in the background. We may not have most nukes anymore, but we have to most powerful and the most long range capable, we can put a nuclear missile right in Putin's window if we want, but we just wait. One day, one day soon this world of ours is going to fall to crap, and a new World War will begin, war is the only thing that brings stability, in the past after major wars, patriotism in all nations rose, and so did economies, thus creating the post WW1 and 2 booms, then Korea and Vietnam kept patriotism high until desert storm, 9-11 rose it again, now the US is ending Afghanistan, and it will rise ever so slightly and the returning soldiers will add to the economy. The word will forever be pulling, West Vs East, America Vs Russia first, now America vs China.

hellbenderov - stupid noob

America wishes to dominate foreign affairs because it cannot admit that its post WWII glory days of being a superpower are long over. Their economy is running on money that doesn't exist and yet a collapse capsizes most of the world. Their military, although one of the largest, is relatively small per capita. So why do they intervene? It has become what is expected of them over a few decades of placing itself in a leader's position. America would cease intervening if other countries (*coughEuropeanNationscough*) stopped viewing it as the end all. America itself is not nearly as powerful as people believe, but that does not stop them from believeing.

So, is there a good reason America should intervene? no. But the expectations of other first world countries along with their own (oversized) egos allow them to continue stupidly interventing in a struggle for influence and power.

naomi - stupid noob - extra stupid warlighter noob

Lol, America dominates foreign affairs because it is the top country in the world right now. Our navy controls the majority of sea lanes, we have a hand in almost every market, and interests to protect in multiple parts of the globe due to NATO and many other allies. It's not because of haughtiness or some vision of grandeur lol. It's because when you're the top nation, with the top economy, the top military, with allies across the globe, you dominate foreign affairs. Your opinion weighs the most. Just like when Britain pretty much conquered the world, everyone was dominated by British foreign affairs. When Rome conquered the world, everyone was dominated by Roman foreign affairs.

I don't know why I replied though because like Richard Sharpe said: If we intervene, we're thought of negatively. If we don't intervene, people ask why we didn't intervene and we're thought of negatively. Nothing in this thread said by the people that are clearly anti-American disproves this.

About the whole China vs America argument, I would say China survives by manufacturing things for us and investing in us. We're their main market. In a conflict, not only do we shut down our market to them, but we have a large enough Navy that they won't be able to trade overseas without defeating it. Their government is not as stable as most people in here suggest. If it took a major economic hit I don't think the Government could still hold as much sway.

As pointed out a land incursion could be suicide, the war would probably be mostly a naval blockade and constant bombing of ports to completely shut them off. Russia could get as involved as they want, but it probably wouldn't make a difference Navy-wise. Russia has small Navy and lacks great Naval training, whilst the American Navy has been patrolling waters for years fighting off pirates. It may not sound like much but it's better than nothing.

China has a carrier-busting missile, but it only busts carriers if it can land on one. In a standard arrangement of ships, it seems unlikely that the missile wouldn't be caught before it could deal damage. It could work if a carrier was patrolling a Chinese sea lane and China jumped it, but won't work in a blockade.

Economically while America may take a hit, it would not be as drastic as what would happen to the Chinese. I'm not sugarcoating it, I'm comparing the two. The hit would be large for both, but America sustains better footing as our hands are in many more markets than the Chinese and we would never be blockaded so overseas trade keeps flowing.

tl;dr: read it you bitch, I spent time writing it, you spend time reading it.

:O

Well said Lolowut.

well, after that many expertises due to international military capacities and forces Im pretty sure warlight is a collection point for unrecognized military experts. =)
However, the official reason for interventions is most of the time: fighting terrorism and bringing democracy and human rights all over the world.
But I do really not understand how moral values​​, that assume reasonable intellects, credibly wants to be established in the world, when politics devotes itselfs to one of the simplest instinctive laws, namely the law of the first and the law of the strongest to impose such values, that ​​require a complex understanding of the matter. If the output of this clumsy hypocrisy would not be so threatening, the American foreign policy would be a huge joke.

@ Lolowut: What makes America the top country in the world right now, if you dont include economy and military forces in your enumeration?

Edited 6/9/2014 23:07:19

What's america? Never heard of it

USA IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!! and so is UK, France, Germany, and Japan :D

When you say the World vs America you're saying all NATO, Japan, S.Korea, and Israel VS the world. All NATO is US greatest allies.

But if America or America and NATO go against the World, then there will be no winner.

It'll be an end to the world with nothing but wasteland. So NO, America cant and will not try to take over the world.

Thank goodness for mutually assured destruction...

Why does this thread have 68 replies?

Gnulli, das hat weniger mit dem Thema als viel mehr mit dem was die Leute hier schreiben zu tun. Nationale militärische Stärke scheint für einige gleichbedeutend mit persönlichen Statussymbolen zu sein. =)

@Ranek: The capacity to hold such a large military and great economy in itself is a sign that the government is doing well. If you want to rank countries of the world by feelings, then I'm sure America doesn't fit your moral scrutiny as well as others. Our country has effectively solved poverty internally because our economy is so immense that the standard of living is far beyond the normal poverty line seen in many other developed countries. We don't use major socialist policies that tax our rich to insane percentages like the French, so those people constantly generate jobs for our populace. Of course, we've been having a reverse of our status quo policies and now we're in a recession. Go figure.

Yeah, our foreign policy sometimes does more harm than good, but that's how most foreign policies go. Do you think China's foreign policy in Africa benefits the Africans more, or the Chinese more? Do you think Russia's foreign policy in Ukraine benefits the Ukrainians more, or the Russians more? At least what America did in Iraq benefited them much more than it did us (Look at their economic output now, unemployment isn't an issue, government is fairly stable and doesn't go nuts and gas the kurds every once and awhile) At least what America is trying to do in Afghanistan benefits pretty equally. (Northern Alliance gets more sway over the Taliban, the Taliban are reduced significantly so we don't have to worry about them funding other terrorist organizations as much)

It's not all good or equal, blunders are made, but I think you should begin looking at every country's foreign policy before you declare America's is the worst.