3 ms·
Indeed i forgot about those, you are correct. A _tiny_ difference between those and United States of America is that USA crosses entire oceans to steal resourc
by tomcooks 9y ago
Indeed i forgot about those, you are correct.
A _tiny_ difference between those and United States of America is that USA crosses entire oceans to steal resources, where other invasions you mentioned are bordering countries; exception to that is obviously the Malvinas Island occupation by the British Empire - talking of which:
> Argentinian invasion of the Falklands
Do you also consider Angola to be rightful Portuguese soil?
- gaius 9y agothe Malvinas Island occupation by the British Empire There was a British colony on the Falklands before Argentina even existed as a country. It was unnamed and unoccupied by anyone.
- tomcooks 9y agoThen why not say they belong to the french, they were there even before the brits? As far as I can read Las Malvinas were occupied by spanish and british forces, then the brits volountarily abandoned the place[0] [0](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGibran199826%E2%80%9327-33 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#cite_note-FOO...)
- jcranmer 9y agoFunny you should say that, because the last time the US crossed an ocean to steal resources was, uh... never. The only US wars that are strongly arguably stealing resources would be the various banana wars (but the Gulf of Mexico isn't exactly an ocean), the Spanish-American War (ditto; note that the US never set out on the war to conquer the Philippines, the US Navy just happened to be in the area at the time), and the Indian Wars.
- tomcooks 9y agoI suggest reading about how Gaddafi's came to power, who financed the Italian _anni di piombo_ or checking where the biggest US military bases have been built. I guess they just happened to be there because of the nice weather.