comment: >
  
  Are you arguing that the US isn't "built" yet? Decades of being a superpower say otherwise.
context: It seems you are trying to claim that the success of japan and germany are the merit of US but the failures are someone else's fault.
  I see it exactly as the other way around, the failures are the  orm and the successes the exception due to the character of the peolle pushing back on imperialism. >
  
  Aren't we a year out from an insurrection attempt from inside it's own government? Surely you'd have to build your own nation before even trying to make a claim to be good at building anyone else's?
  Is a country younger than some pubs in the UK really what we'd use to determine nation building? Almost every other nation is older and far more established than it. >
  
  Are you arguing that the US isn't "built" yet? Decades of being a superpower say otherwise. >
  
  More so the America, regardless of it being super power, from the outside perspective looks like a shit hole to live in filled with gun nuts, religious fanatics, and non stop extreme political arguments leading to violence. Not exactly the best example to lead by >
  
  Although looking at most nations they built and they did seem to create them in their own image. >
  
  
  The actual history suggests we're pretty fucking fantastic at nation building, when the nation in question welcomes it.
  
  Every country welcomes real nation building, but the US has mostly been involved in neo-colonialism except in the examples you mentioned. For example, the US and UK overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran that wanted to use the money from their oil to help their people in favor of a puppet monarch who gave away the oil to the company now known as BP for dirt cheap. This resulted in a bunch of religious nutjobs rising up, overthrowing the US led government, and forming a horrible religious autocracy. This happened in Iraq, Afghanistan, much of South America, etc.
  But even the country's you mentioned with "real nation building" doesn't exist in a vacuum. They happened in the context of a larger conflict, namely the Cold War. The US didn't nation build South Korea out of the goodness of its. It fought the USSR/China/North Korea during the Korean War. It needed to prop up South Korea to contain communism. It did the same with Japan (which was on the Eastern side of the USSR) and West Germany (which was on the Western side of the USSR). But the US didn't build these nations. It propped up their militaries and economies for selfish (rational) reasons. The people in those countries built their own nations.
  We see the same thing happening today. The US is propping up Ukraine with weapons in opposition to Russia. But Zelensky and the Ukrainians are building their nation themselves. No one from the US is going there and telling them how to form their government or culture. All the US is doing is giving them weapons.
  This sounds like I'm criticizing the US, but I'm not. France provided the US with a ton of weapons and military support during the American Revolutionary War. But for them, it was a small action in the context of a larger conflict between France and Britain. France helped the US a ton, but it would be strange to say that France built the nation we now call the United States. They were big on democracy, republicanism, overthrowing monarchies, etc. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc. got many ideas from the French. But Americans formed America with France's military support. 
  Ultimately, France wasn't great at building America, and America wasn't great at building Germany, Japan, South Korea, or anywhere else. The individuals in those nations built themselves. This especially applies to the countries the US attacked/invaded for resources (mostly oil, but also land and water) rather than those it propped up in the context of Great Powers positioning. >
  
  
  The people in those countries built their own nations.
  
  N. Koreans are the same people, but they followed a different blueprint than what the US provided. Didn't work out for them did it. It's not only about providing weapons or gaining geopolitical edge. Japan, for example, had no history of the type of government they have now. We introduced it and basically wrote their constitution. I consider that nation building. 
  The success of Japan, Germany and Ukraine are obviously in huge part because of the people, but Germans were industrious and Koreans hard working before we got involved, and they didn't have the same result as they do now, AFTER our intervention. >
  
  So your most recent example is 70 years old and you've cherry picked good examples and seeming given all the credit to the US. Maybe you could claim that we used to be great at it but you have zero examples that we do it well today >
  
  Of the examples you listed only South Korea was not already an industrialized and fairly developed nation. That said, I would say it's a fairly mixed record.
  Other places where American nation-building took place:
  
  South Vietnam
  Afghanistan
  Iraq
  The Dominican Republic
  Cuba
  Haiti
  Nicaragua
  Panama
  
  I wouldn't really consider any of those a resounding success given the state of most of these countries today. I'm not sure we have that good of a track record to speak of. >
  
  In a relative sense? Yeah, I’d say the US is as good as it gets. When we’re successful, we create self-sufficient partner nations, that are on cooperative by choice. Contrast this with other modern or near-modern nation builders; Russia invades or otherwise subsumes most countries (I’m including USSR in this, and a notable exception is Afghanistan), China loansharks developing nations to take effective ownership, and when GB was in the business, they truly colonized and made puppets. US allies (former project countries) may have it in their best interest to keep good relations, but there would be no war or revolution if Israel, Taiwan, Japan, SK, etc. wanted to stop.
  But in an absolute sense, we’re about coin-flip odds on success vs. abject wasteful failures. We attempted to nation-build Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. We spent billions/trillion of dollars and thousands of lives, and in 3 of 4 cases, gave up and had to try to pull a “Gimme 3 steps mister…” out the door before the nation collapsed back into anarchy. Contrast that with Japan, Germany, and SK (and maybe you could add others), and we have a mediocre record. We were only successful when either (a) the recipients actively welcomed our help, or (b) we bombed them until they were incapable of resistance. For many reasons, we were unwilling to do that with those 3 big failures, and at certain points the Korean War was on a similar path to Vietnam.
  You mention bombing the likes of Germany/Japan to ruins as a “look how good we are example,” but I’d argue that we’re only good when the nation is effectively incapable of any resistance. With that in mind, the US may be the best at it, but that’s not the same as reliably being good at it, especially in recent years. We haven’t had those major successes since WW2 and the early Cold War. >
  
  It seems you are trying to claim that the success of japan and germany are the merit of US but the failures are someone else's fault.
  I see it exactly as the other way around, the failures are the  orm and the successes the exception due to the character of the peolle pushing back on imperialism. >
  
  Aren't we a year out from an insurrection attempt from inside it's own government? Surely you'd have to build your own nation before even trying to make a claim to be good at building anyone else's?
  Is a country younger than some pubs in the UK really what we'd use to determine nation building? Almost every other nation is older and far more established than it.