[b112]

the US is already very aggressive militarily and happy to attack whenever and wherever it pleases

Completely untrue, because a statement such as this requires counter examples, comparators.

Compare the US to any colonial power. Such countries were hell bent on ruling the world. The Brits had the largest empire the world has ever seen, boots on ground in dozens of colonies. And everyone in Europe was invading each other, their colonies endlessly and constantly.

Compared to the scale and scope of action those colonial powers undertook, the US is the most peaceful and benevolent country ever.

Modern comparisons show much the same. For example, Canada was more than a decade in Afghanistan. Canada is not war like, but does think stamping out oppressive regimes is a good idea. Canada also has blue hats in multiple countries.

Those sort of actions may turn out poorly, but the intentions are not to harm but help. And yes, I agree that is debatable except we're talking about the statement I quoted.

And when you look at truly aggressive nations, such as Russia, again no comparison. When recently has the US invaded a country, with the goal of taking it over and absorbing it? That's right, never in living memory.

If US truly did what it had the power to do, it could have easily taken over the world.

Has it? Did it invade everyone? No.

Yes, the US does deploy its military might. Yes, maybe it should less often.

No, it isn't aggressive, it's just very powerful.

I would very much argue it restrains its use of power mightily.

[altacc]

If this was Reddit I'd ask you what you were smoking! ;)

Calling the U.S. ‘peaceful and benevolent’ overlooks the sheer volume, aims and consequences of its military actions. It may not colonize in the traditional sense but its interventions often reshape nations in the US' favour, often violently, without accountability and leaving the populace of those countries much worse off than before.

I think it's not wise to judge present day against history as we should be aiming for improvement over time but if we look at recent history the US has a history of destabilising governments, often democracies, in favour of a more US aligned government. Often these efforts fail and the country descends into chaos. In others it leads to a government that uses death squads to help US businesses (see the banana republics).

Russia's aims in Ukraine were mostly likely to install a Russian aligned leader. This is similar to the USA's history of installing or supporting anti-democratic leaders. So whilst the US might not be absorbing countries but that shouldn't be the only metric for control.

Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan was under UN mandates and I agree that peace keeping forces are often good but that is not comparable to US military interventions. The US often acts unilaterally, or with limited partners and lack of widespread support.

With 251 military interventions since 1991 [1] we can cherry pick the best and worse uses of force, and I agree that sometimes force is needed, but I see the long term trend that the intention is indeed to help but it is mostly to help US interests. Consider as well that colonial Britain (and other colonial powers) also thought they were being helpful and bettering their colonies by bring "civilisation". Just because you think or state your aims are good doesn't make them so.

I'd argue that whilst the US could definitely not take over the world militarily (see how often it fails to take over a country) it already has in large part due to trade and culture and this is why it fears China so much, as China is now a rival for that power.

[1] https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/americas/u-s-launch...

[b112]

I think you're providing a counter point, but at the same time I don't believe it's inline with my concept.

For example, imagine the immense scope and power and capability the US had over all its adversaries in ... say, the 90s. The Soviets gone, Russia in chaos, China not a world power.

Now give that power to colonial UK, which fervently believed in the right to rule the world. The result would most assuredly been "For King and Country, God save the Queen!", and taking their already immense empire to new heights.

Imagine giving that power to Germany during WWII. We'd all be speaking German now.

From where I sit, this is what I refer to as "peaceful and benevolent", compared to colonial powers.

Back to your modern response, re: Russia has already absorbed part of the Ukraine, back in 2014. It annexed Crimea with zero intention of leaving, not for any political reason.

Its current invasion of the rest of the Ukraine, should not be viewed as just pressuring for political control, Putin has already clearly demonstrated a desire for more than that, in taking Crimea. Regardless, Crimea alone proves my point.

--

When I search text on your provided link, I find no match for UN, United Nations, peace or peace keeping. The US has interceded under the UN in endless operations. How many of the 251 were just that? The link does not say.

Again, yes, the US does project its power. Yes, maybe it should not be as much as it does.

However, compared to Germany circa WWII, colonial powers, and modern aggressors such as Russia, it is indeed 'peaceful and benevolent'.

Especially considering the power it has, and most especially has had.

[1718627440]

I think what also plays a large part is, that the USA hasn't got their power completely hostile. Most countries make contracts with the USA to build alliances. A hostile USA wouldn't get this power same like all the other powers before. Divide et impera.

[mcphage]

> If US truly did what it had the power to do, it could have easily taken over the world.

My dude, we struggle to take over poor middle-eastern countries. I'm not sure how you think us trying to take over the world would go.

[b112]

The US has never tried to take over anyplace in the last 100 years.

It has however, at times, projected power for limited durations, with a goal to leave after. This has often been coupled with unclear goals, political maneuvering, and changing political situations back home.

This is very different from an empirical, king and country, nation wide focused goal.

These smaller actions have never mobilized the entire country on an expansionist, war time footing.

[mcphage]

Ah, I follow what you're saying. We've never tried to take over a country, we've only tried to project power for limited durations—up to and including 20 years—which failed because it was with coupled unclear goals, political maneuvering, and changing political situations back home.

However, if we instead did something different called "try to take over a country"—which also does involve projecting power, and also occupying foreign nations for long periods of time, perhaps even up to and including 20 years—it would not be coupled with unclear goals, political maneuvering, and changing political situations back home.

> These smaller actions have never mobilized the entire country on an expansionist, war time footing.

So we've done these things which failed, but if we did a different thing, it would definitely succeed.

[b112]

If you look into (I presume you refer to) Afghanistan, you'll see that bending over backwards to please the locals was the daily grind. This wasn't an attempt to pacify, or control, or destroy a country.

Instead, the literal goal was to give an entire generation of people time to grow up with democracy, set up institutions, have full bellies, excellent schooling, equality between the sexes, the list goes on.

The goal was never to stay, only to train, assist, help. The goal was to remove a threat, but at the same time make lives better. This is a laudable goal.

Regardless of the success or not, or even if the goal was doable, reasonable, the type of force applied, the way civilians were treated after, the negotiations with local politicians were all very different. To compare this sort of action, with whole scale war with the intention of permanent occupation isn't a fair comparison.