Maybe TWO things can be bad at once! Or even three or four!

You're viewing a single thread.

90 comments

See thats one take but is "US Imperialism" not just codeword for NATO?
- Not unless what you wrote is code for "I'm an ignoramus and like to spout the brand of dogma I've based my identity on".
  But it's not, is it?
  
  I've just always heard "US Imperialism" in context of things like NATO, Ukraine, Vietnam, formerly Afghanistan, and Israel but TBH Israel is more the UK's baby, Vietnam had more French soldiers on the ground, and people like to conveniently leave out US cooperation with Saudi Arabia.
  It just feels like a term with intentionally blurred context and no real meaning outside of a derogatory term for NATO. What do you think it means?
  
  Imperialism isn't just about military actions. The US also has great economic impact. Just look at all the BS coming out of Trump's trade wars... Imperialism is about being bullish in interaction and expanding influence and control. It looks messy ... because it is messy.
  Note: As the original post points out, just because the US is bad does not magically make enemies of the US good regardless of the color of cloak they hide their own BS behind.
  
  All the Bullshit coming out of Trump's trade wars impacts the USA first and foremost. It's not forcing any other nation to sell for less or cut off relationships to other nations.
  If making mutually beneficial deals was "imperialism" then it sounds like you just want the USA to suffer in general.
  IMO calling out Iraq would be a great argument against US Imperialism. Exxon Mobil was the bigger winner from that invasion.
  
  All the Bullshit coming out of Trump’s trade wars impacts the USA first and foremost.
  Failed imperialism is still imperialism. Trump's trade wars are, quite nakedly by his own statements, meant to force other countries into a position of subservience to the US (and Trump himself). That they've failed because Trump doesn't understand jack about shit doesn't mean it wasn't an attempt to use economic coercion as a means of imperialism - it just means Trump et co are incompetent imperialists.
  
  but TBH Israel is more the UK’s baby,
  UK's baby, but adopted by the US and spoiled rotten since the 1980s.
  Vietnam had more French soldiers on the ground,
  When people say 'Vietnam War' they don't mean 'the entire colonial history of Vietnam', they mean 'the US involvement in Vietnam's civil war', wherein there certainly were not more French than US soldiers on the ground - one of the key issues of that conflict is that the French asked us to help and then scurried off with us holding the bag and too immersed in 'anti-communist' rhetoric to leave without losing face.
  and people like to conveniently leave out US cooperation with Saudi Arabia.
  How's that in opposition to US imperialism? The US helping one of the worst countries in the region impose their will on surrounding countries in exchange for their support seems rather in-line with imperialist aims.
- If NATO was about countries being subservient to the US, then the MAGA fashy types would be 100% in support of NATO.
  NATO is an alliance and fashy types have a hard time grasping the idea of countries having partnerships that aren't a hierarchical master/servant style relationships. Since it's not a "do whatever the US tells you to do" imperialist style relationship, guys like Trump assume that it must mean the US is somehow subservient to NATO and therefore hate it. They can't understand there being any power structure that isn't hierarchical and therefore is a bad thing.
  It's similar with Putin too. Except he assumes it's a hierarchical power structure where the US is the master and the other members are subservient. Tankies follow the same line of thinking.
  Authoritarian type people simply cannot grasp non-hierarchical relationships so alliances between sovereign nations just don't make sense to them.
- No

90 comments