[oldmanjay]

Not colonies, markets. The connotations of your word choice seem solely intended to make emotional connections that the reality does not support.

[nickpsecurity]

No, colonies and indentured servants are a better description at the level of control, power, and military that supports it:

http://www.projectcensored.org/the-global-1-exposing-the-tra...

It's been going on a long time. General Butler, who got Medal of Honor twice & led many wars, straight up said in his confession (War is a Racket) they hit countries to enforce American capitalism while pretending it was about liberty, etc. I can also direct you to some resources covering how much people in Iraq and Afghanistan appreciate how America doesn't do imperialism any more. Oh, wait, I don't know any...

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html

[kuschku]

Well, ISDS – which, obviously, is a way to give up parts of sovereignty (not necessarily bad) – has some specific exceptions that make it unlikely it can be used against the US, instead mostly against the other partners.

This gradient of power reminds of the colony-empire relationship of one entity having might over another. (though not nearly comparable, I used it as hyperbole)

In a good treaty both the US and any partners – like Japan, Singapore, or New Zealand – would get the exact same rights.

[lazaroclapp]

Honest curiosity: which exceptions make it hard to use the ISDS against the US government?

[kuschku]

The exception of the US telecommunications market, the US pharmaceutical market from the free trade regulations, for example?

These markets are not part of the free trade deal and not subject to ISDS.