Captain Seafort wrote:From this you produce the statement that that the latter power lacks "any aggressive colonial history". Kindly go and f**k yourself with a cattle prod you retarded piece of filth.
Well, it wasn't a "colonial" history, more like a "settlement" history. USA weren't interested (didn't needed to) in conquering developped territory, they had to go in wild territory and create everything from scratch. They didn't started ruling over the native americans, they just "resettled" them (which had led them to their extinction, but it was probably more accidental than intentional).
As opposed to going to, let's say, India and conquering the local governments, pillaging their vaults and forcing their people to grow opium so you can have tea.
Which is still less bad than what the US has done to their black population, obviously. But then again, few countries actually cared what happened to them. (Writing these words, I realise just how much the world's opinion has cut quite a lot of slack to the US)
Let's say, you got an indonesian or a middle-eastern country that has a conflict. Which of the world's power would you rather have over to help you solve the conflict? Great Britain or France, both of which have, historically, took control and had colonial provinces inside or neighbouring your country, or the US, which never had any actual involvement in the region beforehand?
And Seafort, starting to throw feces in a discussion would be more worthier of monkey than you. Keep your arguments to the point, as they are sometime hard to understand on their own without going through whatever you lump with them.