as the history of US “Manifest Destiny” and colonialism were 100% about taking power. We also have the Monroe doctrine and Rosevelt corollary as examples of the US attempting to take power over an entire hemisphere.
1800s everyone was taking power, even well into 1910s or 1930s. But modern 1990s+ era politics is pretty different. Monroe Doctrine barely applies today (we’ve kept our hands off of Venezuelans even as they collapsed, and I’d prefer if we stabilized South America more actually…)
The history of US power ambitions have essentially lead us to the modern day funding of bases across the world as we spend more on our military than the next ~10 nations combined. I’d argue that with two large oceans on either side and friendly nations north and south, that money is not for “defense” purposes.
Its largely for the defense of trade routes. Look at the Houthis, they’re not exactly a minor entity. They have cruise missiles and other such weaponry. To effectively combat Houthis, it makes sense to attack them with overwhelming might. Even then we aren’t going to really deal with them or stop them from disrupting trade in the Red Sea.
Why the USA? Well, look at Saudi Arabia or Egypt. They haven’t been able to keep the area peaceful by themselves and we now have to step in with Operation Prosperity Guardian. Or what? Are we supposed to just let $Billion cargo ships get boarded by the Houthis?
Sanctions are “I’ve decided not to trade with you”, which hardly constitutes “imperialistic ambitions”. Mercenaries do not constitute proper US policy either.
And yes, I recognize we’ve done some shitty things in the 1950s (“banana republic”), but its difficult to even call those things “Imperialism” proper, especially given their overall effects between our countries. Shitty foreign policy does not necessarily mean that we’re going around trying to conquer people.
1800s everyone was taking power, even well into 1910s or 1930s. But modern 1990s+ era politics is pretty different. Monroe Doctrine barely applies today (we’ve kept our hands off of Venezuelans even as they collapsed, and I’d prefer if we stabilized South America more actually…)
Its largely for the defense of trade routes. Look at the Houthis, they’re not exactly a minor entity. They have cruise missiles and other such weaponry. To effectively combat Houthis, it makes sense to attack them with overwhelming might. Even then we aren’t going to really deal with them or stop them from disrupting trade in the Red Sea.
Why the USA? Well, look at Saudi Arabia or Egypt. They haven’t been able to keep the area peaceful by themselves and we now have to step in with Operation Prosperity Guardian. Or what? Are we supposed to just let $Billion cargo ships get boarded by the Houthis?
Removed by mod
Sanctions are “I’ve decided not to trade with you”, which hardly constitutes “imperialistic ambitions”. Mercenaries do not constitute proper US policy either.
And yes, I recognize we’ve done some shitty things in the 1950s (“banana republic”), but its difficult to even call those things “Imperialism” proper, especially given their overall effects between our countries. Shitty foreign policy does not necessarily mean that we’re going around trying to conquer people.
Removed by mod