A bit more history while we’re at it…
(should be cued to 6:55)
The centre of American slavery was not the USA.
The core problem is not the USA; the problem is imperialism. The USA is just the current top dog.
Western imperialism, white supremacy and slavery are all wound up together. They’re interdependent.
It’s simple, but @Loren_Pechtel forgot the qualifier that makes it so.
Terrorists target people you like, freedom fighters target people you don’t.
I think tax cuts for the super-rich while shafting everybody else qualifies.
You don’t really present an argument, just lay on the links and fact heavily and let the viewer interpret. In this case it’s both one sided, and the commentary you linked seemed to take a position of highlighting the US as unique in some way (my bad if I misinterpreted him.)
I guess the modern definition of the word is any use of diplomacy or military power to expand a country’s influence. When yes, the US is guilty of, as is most of the world was/is at some time.
But the old use and what people often associate with the word imperialism, is Empire building. Taking actual land and resources from other places and making them you’re own. The US was certainly guilty of that during Manifest Destiny, and claiming various island mainly as supply points, but nothing like the actual Empire building through out history.
Anyway, I agree with your assessment that the US has a very broad and global influence, which eclipses anyone else. I had a much longer response but I shit canned it as it got very rambly and it really is impossible to tackle such a huge topic and I don’t have the time to do anything but half ass it, so I wont.
I will just concede the point that foreign intervention often leads to bad things, but also insist on pointing out bad things happen with no foreign intervention, and some times intervention does help. It is easy to look at the world and point out damages from US (and others) actions. But one should also concede damages from inaction possibly would have been greater in some cases. Reading down, i am agreeing that some issues that the US or others helped with were caused or partly caused by issues they introduced.
I also wish to point out that every nation that can is going to use what it can to increase it’s presence in the world - even Australia. They really NEED to at SOME level to compete. Not necessarily direct military power, but other forces to exert influence where it can. Remember China was the #1 super power in the world and the most advanced culture in every measure (science, art, philosophy, etc) at one point until it closed itself off an stagnated. Think of a different world where you China had emerged as the #1 super power in the 20th century, and the bastion of science and technology. (Quick aside, China may have emerged as the leader of the industrial revolution if its coal was harder to mine. The British need to pump water out of their coal mines was one of the forces leading to the development of engines to do work.)
Then I have to say his “mind boggling” comment is a bit of hyperbole. There isn’t really anything that exceptional about the history of violence in the US compared to the rest of the world. Well, I guess in a sense it could ALL be mind boggling, but that isn’t really how it comes off as. It reads that some how the US’s actions are so out of wack to be mind boggling. I conceded the depth of violence in history of mind boggling. I remember in high school learning about the Battle of Cannae and it still is rather unfathomable.
See, I am conceding the conquest of the Americas by the Europeans was brutal and tragic. The US extermination of the Indians was, I think, our single worse policy in our country’s history. Worse than slavery, if only marginally.
More tragic, and their REAL down fall, was their lack of any plagues. Had the New World had their own Small Pox or something similar 1) it may have helped their ability to adjust to the Old World diseases, 2) the deaths wouldn’t have been one sided. Shit, if 80-90% of Columbus’ men died of disease, they may not have come back for awhile. If 80-90% of the New World natives hadn’t died form disease they never would have been supplanted. Perhaps still conquered and ruled to a degree, but never supplanted. It would have been more like India, they never would have been made a minority.
But in addition to my point, the America’s where not some Utopia with “noble savages” running around in peace and harmony. There was all sorts of warfare, slavery, even cannibalism. This varied greatly, as there is no “Native American” culture. They were a hugely diverse group with a huge diversity of beliefs and cultures. But certainly using diplomacy and military might for influence and resources was just as common then as now.
I disagree about Iran, but - Yes, yes, there are still terrible, terrible things in the world. We still have a long way to go. But it should be conceded we have made very positive strides world wide. In short, this is the best time to be alive - period.
This link has a ton of “our world in data” graphs. I concede some of them are too first worldy, but the global comparisons still stand. Most notably the reduction in extreme poverty world wide, and the reduction in war deaths.
TL;DR - Conceding that the US has caused a lot of shit. Remaking the point that that is the way of the world. Tearing up shit and exerting power is how the world worked for the vast majority of its history. It is only very recently we can recline in a comfy chair and tsk tsk our ancestors. But we should be encouraging everyone to do better. Remaking the point that for all the bad in the world, it is over all getting better.
If the US really was imperialist, we’d have gotten some of that free oil from Iraq that Trump used to go on about.
The US didn’t need Iraqi oil, it needed the price of oil to rise high enough to justify fracking on our home turf.
Maybe, but it took eleven years for that to happen.
If you are suggesting the Iraq war was to promote fracking, that is quite a conspiracy.
More to @lolipop_jones point, just taking the oil would have made fracking unneeded, reduced the consumer price of oil, made those in the right places rich, and the Imperialist label (using the older definition) would then be a good fit.
I definitely wouldn’t say that. The Iraq war and the attendant chaos that followed is far too complex as to be boiled down to one single reason. I do feel comfortable claiming it was a welcome consequence, unintended or otherwise.
Except that simply going in and “taking” the oil was never an option without wholesale infrastructure reconstruction (Which is still incomplete.)
A primary objective of the war was oil independence- Dick Cheney outlined that in a PNAC paper in 2001. Prior to the war, Saddam Hussein’s repeated moves to manipulate oil prices and induce volatility across the market made thr oil business far too unpredictable. Executives used to basing decisions on 30+ year studies crave stability. In order to achieve this goal, Saddam had to go, obviously, but additionally the US would need to become a net producer again- that would only be possible through fracking.
As for imperialism, that’s a much bigger process than simply conquering and plundering. Manipulation is as much or more a component, so saying that ‘we didn’t take the oil so the imperialist label doesn’t fit’ doesn’t really address the myriad ways that Iraq War very much fit the label of imperialism.
Why does the only metric of imperialism have to be land occupation and resource extraction, though. There is also a cultural, general economic, and political element of imperialism to consider - the forcing of the Iraqi economy into the global economy, and ensuring a political system that we find acceptable.
It’s pretty clear that we wanted to take out Saddam Hussein because he’d ceased to be an actor working in our interests. From the time of the first gulf war, he’d become antithetical to what we decided we wanted or needed the mid east to look like. It’s likely that the Saudis felt similarly, hence their letting us build bases in their territory.
Lastly, we always think that what we want as a global hegemon is security and the ability to extract goods at will in a free market… but what if the chaos that’s been unleashed is also a goal, in terms of getting non-compliant people to come around to our vision of a global order. The markets come first, the argument goes, then democracy (which only fits if you completely ignore the last, I dunno, 40 years of Chinese history). But to get there, we have to crack a few eggs and take out a few inconvenient dictators. It’s the Kirkpatrick doctrine lumbering to life again.
Old academic habits; show, don’t tell.
Cypher specialises in American small wars, and that video was about the history of American warmaking. The focus on US actions was unsurprising.
He does cover a wide diversity of subjects on his channel. Worth a look.
The definition I am using is not new:
Otherwise known as the Athenian Empire.
As I’ve argued here before:
Go through the list. Look at the history of US wars over the last century.
How many were genuinely motivated by altruistic interests? How many actually improved the lives of those most affected? How does this compare to the damage from the unethical and destructive wars?
Did you see War Machine? It’s filmed in a deliberately over-the-top style that turned off a lot of the critics, but the underlying plot does a good job of critiquing US foreign policy.
Yup.
Take a look at Australia’s military history:
A few things to note:
They fail to mention the genocide of Indigenous Australia.
Fourteen wars in one hundred and eighteen years.
Of those wars, only one (Operation Astute) was joined primarily in Australia’s own interests. All of the rest were done in the service of the UK or America.
The primary role of the Australian military is not to fight in defence of Australia. They’re a nationalised company of mercenaries, deployed to curry favour with our imperial/hegemonic overlords.
Australia is fully complicit in the crimes of the American military. Most of the drone strikes are targeted from Pine Gap; much of the spying passes through there as well.
Speaking of which, one more bit from Cypher. This is fifteen minutes, but very good and includes links to a lot of other videos that cover sub-topics in detail.
The beginnings of 20th century imperialism:
Not necessarily a bad thing, but I think one gets an impression on what you were going for with the content of the “fact storm”. That can also lead to connecting dots not intended. Though I will say I enjoy the presentation of information, I just need more time to visit some of it. I did really like that time line.
No, and maybe I just need to get over my hang up and what that word means to me, which is Empire building. When one talks about Imperialist Japan it is generally their efforts to control a bunch of Asia and the Pacific to add to their empire.
I agree the US is guilty of using power and influence for its advantage, and thus the word is a proper fit/use.
I think in many cases there was a dual reason for getting involved - it will help the US, and hopefully help that country. Or it will at least hurt the enemy. Many people, including myself, thought Iraq would be the start of a Democratic swell, but our ignorance and arrogance lead to completely screwing up that opportunity. At the same time though. Saddam was a horrible, horrible person who ran a dictatorship with secret police, gassed his own people, and its upper uppers were free to kill and rape at will. They actively worked to oppress the Sunni majority. Like I said earlier, often times the most stable countries were the ones run by dictators. But unfortunately we traded organized, systemic violence for unorganized, chaotic violence. Though I will say that yes, it appears the Kurds are doing much better over all. While they do have to worry about ISIS, they may be positioning themselves for eventual complete self rule and break from Iraq. They are already a special area of self governing. They might see this all as “worth it”. But yes, in hind sight, it was a bad idea and I had to reverse my position on the matter.
Like I said earlier, if the US does nothing, they also get criticism for that. Take Syria, should we help with that or not? Who should we help? Doing nothing I think will only end in the Russian backed Assad forces regaining control. Who is the good guys and who is the bad guys here? It is great we can set as arm chair critics that US involvement is this or that, but the reality is with or with out the US’s direct involvement people are dying. Should we attempt to help, or no because it might make it worse. If more people die with the help of the US but Assad is overthrown and the FSA wins, does that make it worth it? Or hell, they may end up being worse than Assad in the end, but who knows.
These the hard questions reality presents us with and I don’t think there is a clear or easy answer.
While I don’t think we should take a complete isolationist stance, I am agreeing with your insinuation that we should remove ourselves from a lot of the conflicts directly as well as scale back our military power some. We don’t need the “total war on two fronts” readiness that seemed inevitable in the 1950s. I have repeatedly said that the security some of our allies enjoy because of our presence needs to shift to THEM bolstering that security.
Comparing your wiki link to that really well presented and researched timeline isn’t fair. That time line included nearly every time someone farted in anger, vs listing the major conflicts. While I appreciate you mentioning the Indigenous wars, and you mentioned Australia was in service with the UK and America. But because of that service with the UK (especially) and the US, I am fairly confident in the statement that if we included every skirmish with Australian troops around the world like that time line, it still probably wouldn’t be as long, but it would make for much longer reading.
Australia is in a unique position where the whole Continent is basically a giant island and they have no direct neighbors. Invasion and supplying that invasion would be super hard. That and unless they are looking to take over to raid your supply of venomous creatures or slouch hats with on side of the brim upturned, there isn’t a whole lot of reason to invade. 
But that doesn’t mean Australia isn’t self serving in their support of the US and the UK. Increasing the world sphere of influence of their allies, means that they too are increasing their influence. Their relationship is used as leverage. Right now Australia is working to increase ties with China, and you can bet that their relationship with the US is being used as bargaining chip. China wants as few western troops in and around Asia as possible. Favorable trade relations in exchange for limiting the number of US troops on Australian soil is most likely being negotiated.
And in the end, if that boosts the Australian economy and increases the average citizens wealth and prosperity, and gives the government more money for positive programs. Would you say then this use of imperialism is a good thing or still no?
While I am not saying that statement doesn’t have a ring of truth, I would encourage you to not say that within ear shot of an Aussie veteran.
I don’t know if you would find it too simple and basic (i.e. you already knew this stuff), but John Green’ Crash Course in History might be up your alley. I learned a few things, including about reason for WWI.
by concensus, which we submit to, civilly. ONE does not define anything for a nation, or others.
I missed this earlier.
I concede my issue is my personal association with the meaning. I am not alone in this, as many people associate it with actual empire building. When one talks about Imperial Japan, one talks about them literally invading and taking over parts of Asia and the Pacific.
But I need to just let that go, as yes, the definition is broader than that and I agree that it matches what the US and others are doing.
I dunno if I can go with that. Though I’d agree some actions resulted in this, I am not sure if that is an intentional goal, vs just incompetence.
I found a new razor that I will probably start to over use until it is dull: Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Talking about metric and imperialism, a clear proof of the uniqueness of United States’ commitment to imperialism is the fact that we are almost the only nation1 in the world to keep the Imperial System2 as our official system of measurement units instead of the Metric System. Coincidence? I think not. 
1. I know, Liberia and Burma too
2. I know, it is officially known as the US customary measurement system
There are very few political/diplomatic disasters of the last ninety years which can’t be traced to WWI.
Frankly, it may not have been a plus that the Schlieffen plan did not succeed. Kaiser Bill was an arrogant, bigoted twit, but compared to Adolf or Uncle Joe I’d take him any day of the week.
