[yesenadam]

>You don't see the US taking territory..at gunpoint from Mexico

>by and large the US has invaded countries and brought them democracy and freed their people from dictators

Hahaha. I mean really. It's amazing that educated people can be brainwashed to believe this absolute nonsense.

The first of those statements show, I don't know, breathtaking historical ignorance, or something, it's hard to explain otherwise. You don't see it because it already happened, long ago.

The second is the official line heard in the US mainstream media and White House press statements etc. I was brought up believing it too. But it's very far from reality. It's been more usual since the 1890s for democracy, self-determination, refusal to submit obediently to US bullying, standing up to the US, to be the very reasons for invasion. It's thoroughly depressing to learn the history. It's the opposite of what you're told. The US has installed dictators, often military types given a load of US weapons. The US prefers dictators—whatever makes for docile 'stability' and exploitation by US business, and democracy is unpredictable, uncontrollable. Then, disgustingly, the US media is filled with stories of how it was all to bring democracy to a land threatened by communists, terrorists, instability etc. And more bilge about doing God's sacred work on earth etc.

> the same level of integrity in the world as the USA

hehehe. Ah I don't know if it's much use my saying this stuff to people on here. The reality is soooo different from what people in the US are taught to believe. So different that you'll feel physically sick when it starts to dawn on you.

[eloff]

I'm not from the USA, nor am I ignorant of history. I used the present tense, because I'm talking of modern times. You cannot judge countries in the past by today's standards. Things were just different then.

You also should not say that the US prefers dictators, I don't think that's ever been true. But sometimes they see it as the lesser evil when the populace would go against US interests - which is certainly hypocritical.

[yesenadam]

OK, sorry if some of my assumptions were incorrect.

>sometimes they see it as the lesser evil when the populace would go against US interests

So here democracy is 'the greater evil'. Countries have their own interests, the US has just often tried to stomp out any chance of other countries achieving theirs. If anyone tries to do the to the US it's met with moral outrage. Same with 'free markets'. Endless preaching them, actually it's the last thing corporations want.

[eloff]

Yes. To be fair, sometimes those interventions have worked out for the better - look at the difference between North Korea and South Korea today. Of course the reasons for that intervention had little to do with the best interests of the Korean people and a lot more to do with preventing the USSR from spreading their influence - but even that seems to be a clear win in hindsight - those places where the USSR spread it's influence suffered in poverty, their populations denied basic human freedoms. Many of them still do.

So yeah, the US looked out for their own interests, and I don't suppose that should be a surprise to anyone, because that's what every nation state does. But by and large they made the world a better place for it - with a few glaring exceptions. I don't think the world would do as well under Chinese leadership - but I also do not think we will see that world in this century. China is not poised to overtake the USA as many seem to believe is inevitable - their near future is written in stone in the demographics of their country, and will more closely mirror the story of Japan. This seems likely to be a second US-led century.

[slededit]

To play devils advocate - its not at all clear that the south would be better off were there not massive embargos imposed upon the north. For decades after the split the North was the more prosperous country.