[forgot_account]

>>>It has nothing to do with terrorism, it is purely for military domination and imperialism

Nitpick: military domination is not an end-goal in and of itself. Arguably, it is (rightly or wrongly) the US government's primary methodology for enforcing continuance of the Petrodollar system and US global economic domination. Most of the military actions revolve around ensuring the security of Saudi Arabia, the key player in OPEC.

I've tried to find scholarly articles on what the US economy might look like without the Petrodollar. Maybe my Google Scholar-fu is weak, but there's not a lot of useful, detailed projections beyond "not good".

[sudosysgen]

I agree, the middle-goal is military domination and the end goal is imperialism.

[jariel]

The notion of US 'Imperialism' in any classical sense is so obviously false, it's hard to consider it needs a response.

The US occupied vast swaths of the world after WW2, and instead of permanent occupation and extraction of wealth and resources, the US set up, where it could some of the most successful civilizations in history.

Contrast that with almost every other Imperial power in history, and even current regimes such as USSR/Russia, China etc..

In fact, the only successful Asian states i.e. Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, S. Korea, and Hong Kong - were established and reformed by Anglo-American powers.

More obviously, the US keeps House of Saud in power, liberated Kuwait and Iraq - and could have easily used this opportunity for massive wealth extraction.

If the US were an 'Imperial Power' the entire surpluses of the Oil wealth of the entire Middle East would be in the pockets of the US - long ago.

The US didn't make a dime in Iraq, as most Oil contracts went to other nations (i.e. Total) and most of the Oil goes elsewhere, including to China.

But far from that, US foreign policy is mostly dedicated to stability (which benefits the US economy), hopefully through Western Liberal institutions and possibly even democracy but that of course is more of an aspiration than otherwise.

And of course, we're not even getting into issues such as 'freedom of navigation' of international waters, the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal (and soon S. China sea) by all participants, including Russia, China, Iran - which is guaranteed by the US Navy - and were US power to not exist, there would be no such thing as 'open seas'.

And not counting the 'Big Peace' in the ME between Egypt and Israel which is kept intact by major geopolitical contributions including by far the largest cash outflows of direct foreign aid by any nation to any other nation in the world, which is of course by the US to Egypt and Israel respectively.

And though it's hard to tell for sure, more likely than not: Taiwan.

And on and on.

That the US makes poor choices is obvious, but it's equally obvious they are not an Imperial power.

[rudiv]

> In fact, the only successful Asian states i.e. Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, S. Korea, and Hong Kong - were established and reformed by Anglo-American powers.

I think that says enough about your worldview to preclude engaging with you. I suppose I should be wistful that my country didn't have the opportunity to be nuked and/or occupied by Anglo-Americans. (A specious enough category as it is)

It takes a certain level of historical ignorance and narcissism over and above your garden variety American-exceptionalism to say something like:

> The US occupied vast swaths of the world after WW2, and instead of permanent occupation and extraction of wealth and resources, the US set up, where it could some of the most successful civilizations in history.