Will the world will be a better place without the US involvement in everything?

[Akshay]

I think sometimes we might underestimate a bit how impressionable people around the world were during the Cold War. If the Soviet Union had somehow leapt ahead, attained levels of human development and power that the US had, a lot of people (and leaders) in lesser countries around the world that were already democracies would've possibly voted for communist parties and generally looked to emulate the policies and institutions of the Soviet Union.

Absolutely. As it is, plenty of countries tried to copy the Soviet model anyway particularly in the developing world and suffered sorely for it.

The Soviet Union was never going to “leap ahead”, because central planning can never compete with a system that is based on individual freedom. Hypothetically speaking: if the UDSSR would have produced better outcomes for its citizens than the USA, they would have had at legitimate case for their political/economical model. The military fight against communism was with few exceptions unnecessary and an utter disaster.

They might not have leaped ahead in truth but at that time it was very difficult to know what was the reality behind the Iron Curtain. If the USSR had won the Space Race (e.g. to the Moon) or been able to project a stronger false image about their industrial strength a lot of people would have fallen for their rhetoric.

The military engagements may have been mostly failures but you'll still find plenty of Vietnamese people who are grateful for the US' involvement. Clearly American efforts mattered a lot to them, geopolitical success or no.

 

[PedroMendez]

Way too harsh.

Middle East was always a shithole. With or without US, it would have (and still is) gone down the drain. It's quite easy to blame external interference when the people of the country themselves don't have the capacity to fix their own country. Are you saying Middle East would be happy and prosperous now if not for US intervention? Or maybe South America?

Don't really get the scepticism against 'dysfunctional democracy'. Is there any country with a perfect functional one?

I completely agree with the first part

That doesn´t mean that those regions would be sunshine and roses without US interference. They clearly wouldn´t be. The US is not responsible for backwards societies, tribalism, corruption, violence and various other forms of human nastiness.

They might not have leaped ahead in truth but at that time it was very difficult to know what was the reality behind the Iron Curtain. If the USSR had won the Space Race (e.g. to the Moon) or been able to project a stronger false image about their industrial strength a lot of people would have fallen for their rhetoric.

The military engagements may have been mostly failures but you'll still find plenty of Vietnamese people who are grateful for the US' involvement. Clearly American efforts mattered a lot to them, geopolitical success or no.

Yes, and the millions of innocents who died because of the war can´t answer the question anymore. You are skating on thin ice, if you start to defend the Vietnam War….

Winning the space race had nothing to do with military intervention. Still it was obviously a great thing. Being from Germany, I can assure you that both parts of Germany knew about the situation on both sides of the fence. It was just too obvious, once the UDSSR started to crumble. The Soviet Union didn´t break down, because it was force to spend too much money on weapons. It broke down because after over 40 years of communist dictatorship, the economy became so inefficient, that it struggled to satisfy even basic needs.

Anyway. I made my point. My arguments might sound too harsh and one sided, so some readers might believe that I hold a strong anti-American sentiment. That is not true. I´d criticize most countries a lot more when it comes to their policy. The USA is the strongest and most influential country for a couple of decades now. Their feck-ups have global consequences. Additionally almost nobody (at least in this forum) would excuse aggressive behavior from Russia, China or any other country. Yet when the “the west” does bad things around the globe, we are starting to make excuses. This double standard drives me nuts. That inability to be critical towards “your own tribe” is really problematic.

 

[Nobby style]

I completely agree with the first part







Yes, and the millions of innocents who died because of the war can´t answer the question anymore. You are skating on thin ice, if you start to defend the Vietnam War….

Winning the space race had nothing to do with military intervention. Still it was obviously a great thing. Being from Germany, I can assure you that both parts of Germany knew about the situation on both sides of the fence. It was just too obvious, once the UDSSR started to crumble. The Soviet Union didn´t break down, because it was force to spend too much money on weapons. It broke down because after over 40 years of communist dictatorship, the economy became so inefficient, that it struggled to satisfy even basic needs.

Anyway. I made my point. My arguments might sound too harsh and one sided, so some readers might believe that I hold a strong anti-American sentiment. That is not true. I´d criticize most countries a lot more when it comes to their policy. The USA is the strongest and most influential country for a couple of decades now. Their feck-ups have global consequences. Additionally almost nobody (at least in this forum) would excuse aggressive behavior from Russia, China or any other country. Yet when the “the west” does bad things around the globe, we are starting to make excuses. This double standard drives me nuts. That inability to be critical towards “your own tribe” is really problematic.

Yes, using the Vietnamese to argue for pro US is crazy, and if you scratch a little more and look at the US involvement in Cambodia and the rise of Pol Pot and the ensuing genocide, it is downright frightening, as was so much involving Henry Kissinger. I think you´ve made good points. The US´s feck ups and their successes have massive consequence. So it basically boils down to, who and where you are in the circumstances of life, which makes the original question impossible to answer.

 

[Akshay]

Winning the space race had nothing to do with military intervention. Still it was obviously a great thing. Being from Germany, I can assure you that both parts of Germany knew about the situation on both sides of the fence. It was just too obvious, once the UDSSR started to crumble. The Soviet Union didn´t break down, because it was force to spend too much money on weapons. It broke down because after over 40 years of communist dictatorship, the economy became so inefficient, that it struggled to satisfy even basic needs.

It was obvious once glasnost began. It wasn't so obvious before that, especially to parts of the world that were much further from the USSR's borders than Germany. I agree with you on the reason why the USSR broke down though.

Anyway. I made my point. My arguments might sound too harsh and one sided, so some readers might believe that I hold a strong anti-American sentiment. That is not true. I´d criticize most countries a lot more when it comes to their policy. The USA is the strongest and most influential country for a couple of decades now. Their feck-ups have global consequences. Additionally almost nobody (at least in this forum) would excuse aggressive behavior from Russia, China or any other country. Yet when the “the west” does bad things around the globe, we are starting to make excuses. This double standard drives me nuts. That inability to be critical towards “your own tribe” is really problematic.

I'm not saying the US has a clean sheet, far from it. As part of the Cold War the US funded the Taliban since they opposed Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and look where that went. Not to mention countless covert operations undermining democracy throughout Central and South America.

Yes, and the millions of innocents who died because of the war can´t answer the question anymore. You are skating on thin ice, if you start to defend the Vietnam War….

I have plenty of Vietnamese friends and all of them have parents who are pro the US involvement. They are the ones who lived through it and were affected by it first-hand. Of course there is also another side, such as the landmines laid through Cambodia that did a lot of damage (and continue to do so today) and I'm certainly against that. But the fact that so many Vietnamese refugees support the intervention does matter to me also.

 

[Nobby style]

It was obvious once glasnost began. It wasn't so obvious before that, especially to parts of the world that were much further from the USSR's borders than Germany. I agree with you on the reason why the USSR broke down though.


I'm not saying the US has a clean sheet, far from it. As part of the Cold War the US funded the Taliban since they opposed Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and look where that went. Not to mention countless covert operations undermining democracy throughout Central and South America.


I have plenty of Vietnamese friends and all of them have parents who are pro the US involvement. They are the ones who lived through it and were affected by it first-hand. Of course there is also another side, such as the landmines laid through Cambodia that did a lot of damage (and continue to do so today) and I'm certainly against that. But the fact that so many Vietnamese refugees support the intervention does matter to me also.

Yeah, those are the Vietnamese in the US. What do you think would happen if you actually went to Vietnam and posed this question? This is what makes the OP impossible to answer.

 

[Akshay]

Yeah, those are the Vietnamese in the US. What do you think would happen if you actually went to Vietnam and posed this question? This is what makes the OP impossible to answer.

US and other places, but yes, all abroad. You make a fair point. It is better for some and worse for others, how can it be judged so simply overall.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

The correct answer is no. Sure, the US has done some shitty things in its own interests but as others have noted, another superpower will take their place. When it comes to being the world's police you wouldn't have want any other country, that is actually capable of it, filling that role.

 

[entropy]

No

 

[Striker10]

America are a symbol. The world would be a better place if we remove the parasites and let countries governments create money. Money created to create debt so as to seize power of a country, is the problem. America are not entirely to blame. The aim is to play god. Simple as that. The EU was designed to remove law making powers from Europe 'countries'. And the people should educate themselves about money because moneys influence over people is very strong. Folks do a lot of silly things for money or what they think is money.

Imagine yourself a politician. Put yourself in their shoes. Most people can't plan a day, let alone decades in advance. So when you ask that question - you have to know why that is the case. Some people would be shocked at the things others know and it's not because they are smart. It's just because they never let a thing called a conspiracy theorist get in their way. Some people profit from war. To some people, war is pay day. A sick world we're living in ...And the psychology of people is that some will perceive it and others won't (that's how divide and rule works). And that is why we go round and round is circles because most people don't get it. But let me add a different perspective and that's this. USA by all accounts are a failure who can't even defend their own corporation...

It's not quite that simple, but from a basic perspective that's about right. They have created a problem everywhere, because of their fumbling about. There are other ways to look at it and perhaps more honest ways to look at it, but for the most part those who run America want a different world to most people. It's that simple. It's not Americas fault but clearly if you go by what you can see - they are warmongers...

 

[Will Absolute]

Yes, and the millions of innocents who died because of the war can´t answer the question anymore. You are skating on thin ice, if you start to defend the Vietnam War….

One oddity about Western liberal commentary on Vietnam is the refusal to acknowledge the nature of the conflict itself. The North started the war, and continued to be the aggressors for the duration of the conflict. America's strategy, both military and political, was defensive; its aim was to nullify the Northern communist assaults, maintain the integrity of the existing borders, and restore peace. The war could have ended at any time had the North forsworn its violent incursions into Southern territory. Yet this reality somehow metamorphosed in the minds of the Western left into a war of American imperialist aggression.

As to whether Northern communists or Southern oligarchs best served the interests of the Vietnamese people, I'd say the Southern regime may not have been much of a prize, but it was vastly preferable to the communist totalitarians in the North. The flight of an estimated 2 million people from Vietnam between 1975 and 1996, some 800,000 of them by boat, many to drown in the South China Sea, or suffer rape and murder at the hands of Thai pirates, all to escape the fraternal embrace of their Northern countrymen, provides the best possible evidence about the nature of the communist regime.

 

[FCBarca]

Yes

Hell yes

 

[Nobby style]

One oddity about Western liberal commentary on Vietnam is the refusal to acknowledge the nature of the conflict itself. The North started the war, and continued to be the aggressors throughout the duration of the conflict. America's strategy, both military and political, was defensive; its aim was to nullify the Northern communist assaults, maintain the integrity of the existing borders, and restore peace. The war could have ended at any time had the North forsworn its violent incursions into Southern territory. Yet this reality somehow metamorphosed in the minds of the Western left into a war of American imperialist aggression.

As to whether Northern communists or Southern oligarchs best served the interests of the Vietnamese people, I'd say the Southern regime may not have been much of a prize, but it was vastly preferable to the communist totalitarians of the North. The flight of an estimated 2 million people from Vietnam between 1975 and 1996, some 800,000 of them by boat, many to drown in the South China Sea, or suffer rape and murder at the hands of Thai pirates, all to escape the fraternal embrace of the their Northern countrymen, provides the best possible evidence of the nature of the communist regime.

The North started the war? I could swear they´d been an occupied colonial country for yonks, trying to get the occupiers out. How convenient, not one mention of this. Jesus!

 

[lem8sh]

But who else will veto them damned UN resolutions?

 

[JustAFan]

But who else will veto them damned UN resolutions?

All the other few nations who have veto powers when it suits their interests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power#Most_common_users Wiki so may not be entirely accurate.


http://research.un.org/en/docs/sc/quick/veto

Interestingly the 10 of the last 11 vetos have been used by Russia and/or China.

Think the US despite a huge run of form since 1966 is still trying to catch the USSR/Russia combo.

 

[Oo0AahCantona]

It would be equally shit in a different way. Better the devil you know kind of thing.

 

[Fearless]

. They have created a problem everywhere, because of their fumbling about. There are other ways to look at it and perhaps more honest ways to look at it, but for the most part those who run America want a different world to most people. It's that simple. It's not Americas fault but clearly if you go by what you can see - they are warmongers...

Make no mistake about it - your world would be a very very dark place if it wasn't for America.
Thats why this forum isn't in German or Russian and allows envy driven posts like yours to even exist.

 

[Neutral]

America is far from perfect. But, If the Ruskies or the Chinese were the dominant superpowers, you'd be begging for American style imperialism.

 

[Wibble]

America are a symbol. The world would be a better place if we remove the parasites and let countries governments create money. Money created to create debt so as to seize power of a country, is the problem. America are not entirely to blame. The aim is to play god. Simple as that. The EU was designed to remove law making powers from Europe 'countries'. And the people should educate themselves about money because moneys influence over people is very strong. Folks do a lot of silly things for money or what they think is money.

Imagine yourself a politician. Put yourself in their shoes. Most people can't plan a day, let alone decades in advance. So when you ask that question - you have to know why that is the case. Some people would be shocked at the things others know and it's not because they are smart. It's just because they never let a thing called a conspiracy theorist get in their way. Some people profit from war. To some people, war is pay day. A sick world we're living in ...And the psychology of people is that some will perceive it and others won't (that's how divide and rule works). And that is why we go round and round is circles because most people don't get it. But let me add a different perspective and that's this. USA by all accounts are a failure who can't even defend their own corporation...

It's not quite that simple, but from a basic perspective that's about right. They have created a problem everywhere, because of their fumbling about. There are other ways to look at it and perhaps more honest ways to look at it, but for the most part those who run America want a different world to most people. It's that simple. It's not Americas fault but clearly if you go by what you can see - they are warmongers...

That is almost completely incoherent.

 

[Raoul]

America is far from perfect. But, If the Ruskies or the Chinese were the dominant superpowers, you'd be begging for American style imperialism.

Communism and Fascism would not be pleasant.

 

[2mufc0]

Way too harsh.

Middle East was always a shithole. With or without US, it would have (and still is) gone down the drain. It's quite easy to blame external interference when the people of the country themselves don't have the capacity to fix their own country. Are you saying Middle East would be happy and prosperous now if not for US intervention? Or maybe South America?

Not true bro, pre WW1 the middle eastern region has been pretty proposporous and conflict free (compared to now). Yes there have been revolts and power struggles over the years but name a region that hasn't. You can't deny post Ottoman era things have gone severely downhill.

 

[Ramshock]

The US just filled the void left by the collapse of the evil empire. Where there is a void there will be someone to fill it.

 

[Raoul]

Which sort of goes back to the original point that if there is one dominant state, i would want it to be a Democratic one.

 

[DatIrishFella]

If the OP is British then the irony is

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Not true bro, pre WW1 the middle eastern region has been pretty proposporous and conflict free (compared to now). Yes there have been revolts and power struggles over the years but name a region that hasn't. You can't deny post Ottoman era things have gone severely downhill.

Give the context (US intervention) of this thread...that;s going a bit too far back in history. US involvement in mid east has been increasing post WW2 at best (post 1950s). Iraq, Kurds, Turkey, Syria and even Egypt were not really stable even at that time. Not as bad a now, but still compared to most of the world it'd still be classed as a unstable region imo. There was lot of meddling by US post 1950s but then I don't believe that as a 'cause' for current conflict. The Iraqi-Kurd, shia-sunni conflicts ran deep there and that region would have gone down the drain irrespective.

 

[Sir Matt]

Yeah, those are the Vietnamese in the US. What do you think would happen if you actually went to Vietnam and posed this question? This is what makes the OP impossible to answer.

While they may not be supportive of the war, it doesn't seem to bother them very much now. When compared to the alternative, the Vietnamese prefer the US by far.

http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/country/239/

http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/24/country/239/

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/youth-vietnam-war-fall-saigon/391769/

 

[2mufc0]

Give the context (US intervention) of this thread...that;s going a bit too far back in history. US involvement in mid east has been increasing post WW2 at best (post 1950s). Iraq, Kurds, Turkey, Syria and even Egypt were not really stable even at that time. Not as bad a now, but still compared to most of the world it'd still be classed as a unstable region imo. There was lot of meddling by US post 1950s but then I don't believe that as a 'cause' for current conflict. The Iraqi-Kurd, shia-sunni conflicts ran deep there and that region would have gone down the drain irrespective.

It is going a bit too far back, tbf to the US it was Britain that started it all off the Americans have just carried the baton on.

But thought you meant by saying the region has 'always' been problematic that it has always been this case when its a pretty recent phenomenon.

I think you do severely downplay the impact of foreign intervention in the region, not all is down to it i agree but most is. Don't you find it strange the theological and tribal difference were kept under a lid for 1300 years then all of a sudden it blows up post Sykes-Picot? One example is how western governments moan about the dictators that are/have been in place in ME countries but forget that France, Britain and Russia played a huge hand putting these despots in power in the first place.

 

[Will Absolute]

Not true bro, pre WW1 the middle eastern region has been pretty proposporous and conflict free (compared to now). Yes there have been revolts and power struggles over the years but name a region that hasn't. You can't deny post Ottoman era things have gone severely downhill.

The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, for multiple internal and external reasons, most notably participation on the losing side in WW1, was the obvious cause of the instability of the last century. The looming presence of the West, its intrusions into the region, the challenge posed by its ever growing power and influence, clearly played a huge role in the Empire's collapse.

But in the final analysis, that's just life. To paraphrase W B Yeats on Maud Gonne: what could the West have done, being what it was? The same dilemma exists today in even more acute form: the incompatibility of the West, what it is and what it stands for, with traditional Islam.

 

[Fearless]

But thought you meant by saying the region has 'always' been problematic that it has always been this case when its a pretty recent phenomenon.
.

No it not -the Middle East was full of war prior to Ottoman rule. Even then it was blood-drenched.

Take a look:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_Near_East

 

[2mufc0]

No it not -the Middle East was full of war prior to Ottoman rule. Even then it was blood-drenched.

Take a look:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_the_Near_East

You could post the wiki of Europe and see similar amounts of conflicts. Don't get the point . What i was saying the civil unrest happening there right now was not that common as it is now.

 

[Fearless]

You could post the wiki of Europe and see similar amounts of conflicts. Don't get the point . What i was saying the civil unrest happening there right now was not that common as it is now.

Well until the Arab/Muslim world catches up in terms of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, separation of mosque and state nothing's going to change. Sadly, if the Arab Spring confirmed anything, it's that dictatorships are still the way to go, albeit with US/Russian sponsorship.

 

[Nobby style]

While they may not be supportive of the war, it doesn't seem to bother them very much now. When compared to the alternative, the Vietnamese prefer the US by far.

http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/1/country/239/

http://www.pewglobal.org/database/indicator/24/country/239/

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/youth-vietnam-war-fall-saigon/391769/

So I guess the US didn´t really need to invade, bomb the feck out of them during a genocidal 10 year war, nor bomb Cambodia and release the will of Pol Pot. Nor get 60.000 American killed, with 100s of thousands more maimed and psychologically fecked up. I wonder what would´ve happened had they been more reasonable with Ho Chi Min from the beginning. How much more and quicker would the Vietnamese come around had this American released hell never happened. The dominos never fell. It turned out to be all like the vaunted bombs of mass destruction in Iraq.

All that money and death for what? Imagine how receptive they might have been if not for these insane death and destructive policies of the genius of American leadership.

 

[barros]

The World Press Freedom index has the USA at 41st place, between Slovenia and Burkina Faso: https://rsf.org/en/ranking/2016
The Human Freedom Index study ranked the USA at 31st in terms of personal freedom: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/human-freedom-index-files/human-freedom-index-2015.pdf
The CIRI Human Rights Data project in 2011 ranked the USA at 38th in terms of human rights: http://www.humanrightsdata.com/2013/08/human-rights-in-2011-ciri-report.html
The Global Gender Gap Report that examines gender equality in 2015 ranked the USA at 28th: http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2015/rankings/

Scandinavian countries or the likes of Netherlands generally also fare better when it comes to access to healthcare and higher education, what with the crippling costs these two can incur in the US. The Global Higher Education report in 2010 found that the total cost of education (including living expenses) came out at 87% of yearly median income of US households in 2008. As all reports say that higher education in the United States only got more expensive in the last eight years, it's safe to say things did not change for the better. In comparison, the same report calculated the cost of education in Germany at around 28% of the median income: http://www.iregobservatory.org/pdf/HESA_Global_Higher_EducationRankings2010.pdf

And from my admittedly highly subjective viewpoint no country can call itself the best example of a liberal society while it still has the death penalty. Any of the Scandinavian countries, Netherlands or Germany have a better claim as things stand. You might have a case if we go back to before WWII, of course. As of 2016, not a chance.

seeing Nicaragua, Rwanda and South Africa ahead of US i would say that list is full of shit

 

[2mufc0]

Well until the Arab/Muslim world catches up in terms of democracy, human rights, the rule of law, separation of mosque and state nothing's going to change. Sadly, if the Arab Spring confirmed anything, it's that dictatorships are still the way to go, albeit with US/Russian sponsorship.

And this is the root of the issue, you can't force your ideals and beliefs on other people. You may think democracy is the best thing since sliced bread but a lot of people don't see it that way. This is where the whole issue of interference in other nations affairs comes in. Nice diversion of topic though.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

You may think democracy is the best thing since sliced bread but a lot of people don't see it that way.

Wait, are you arguing in favour of dictatorships?

 

[BringNaniBack]

Yes but it's not going to happen. The new world order driven by the US and it's lap dogs is on the way because everyone is to oblivious to see it or stop it.

 

[2cents]

Yes but it's not going to happen. The new world order driven by the US and it's lap dogs is on the way because everyone is to oblivious to see it or stop it.

Everyone except...?

 

[redwar]

Well, the OP should be more specific: the US isn't involved in everything.

America Has Been At War 93% of the Time – 222 Out of 239 Years – Since 1776


1946 – Cold War (U.S. occupies the Philippines and South Korea)

1947 – Cold War (U.S. occupies South Korea, U.S. forces land in Greece to fight Communists)

1948 – Cold War (U.S. forces aid Chinese Nationalist Party against Communists)

1949 – Cold War (U.S. forces aid Chinese Nationalist Party against Communists)

1950 – Korean War, Jayuga Uprising

1951 – Korean War

1952 – Korean War

1953 – Korean War

1954 – Covert War in Guatemala

1955 – Vietnam War

1956 – Vietnam War

1957 – Vietnam War

1958 – Vietnam War

1959 – Vietnam War, Conflict in Haiti

1960 – Vietam War

1961 – Vietnam War

1962 – Vietnam War, Cold War (Cuban Missile Crisis; U.S. marines fight Communists in Thailand)

1963 – Vietnam War

1964 – Vietnam War

1965 – Vietnam War, U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic

1966 – Vietnam War, U.S. occupation of Dominican Republic

1967 – Vietnam War

1968 – Vietnam War

1969 – Vietnam War

1970 – Vietnam War

1971 – Vietnam War

1972 – Vietnam War

1973 – Vietnam War, U.S. aids Israel in Yom Kippur War

1974 – Vietnam War

1975 – Vietnam War

1976 – No major war

1977 – No major war

1978 – No major war

1979 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)

1980 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan)

1981 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), First Gulf of Sidra Incident

1982 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon

1983 – Cold War (Invasion of Grenada, CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Lebanon

1984 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua), Conflict in Persian Gulf

1985 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)

1986 – Cold War (CIA proxy war in Afghanistan and Nicaragua)

1987 – Conflict in Persian Gulf

1988 – Conflict in Persian Gulf, U.S. occupation of Panama

1989 – Second Gulf of Sidra Incident, U.S. occupation of Panama, Conflict in Philippines

1990 – First Gulf War, U.S. occupation of Panama

1991 – First Gulf War

1992 – Conflict in Iraq

1993 – Conflict in Iraq

1994 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti

1995 – Conflict in Iraq, U.S. invades Haiti, NATO bombing of Bosnia and Herzegovina

1996 – Conflict in Iraq

1997 – No major war

1998 – Bombing of Iraq, Missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan

1999 – Kosovo War

2000 – No major war

2001 – War on Terror in Afghanistan

2002 – War on Terror in Afghanistan and Yemen

2003 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, and Iraq

2004 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2005 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2006 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2007 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen

2008 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2009 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2010 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and Yemen

2011 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen; Conflict in Libya (Libyan Civil War)

In most of these wars, the U.S. was on the offense. Danios admits that some of the wars were defensive. However, Danios also leaves out covert CIA operations and other acts which could be considered war.

Let’s update what’s happened since 2011:

2012 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen

2013 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen

2014 – War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Syria and Yemen; Civil War in Ukraine

2015 – War on Terror in Somalia, Somalia, Syria and Yemen; Civil War in Ukraine

So we can add 4 more years of war. That means that for 222 out of 239 years – or 93% of the time – America has been at war. (We can quibble with the exact numbers, but the high percentage of time that America has been at war is clear and unmistakable.)

Indeed, most of the military operations launched since World War II have been launched by the U.S.

And American military spending dwarfs the rest of the world put together.

No wonder polls show that the world believes America is the number 1 threat to peace.

P.S. : The list is post WWII wars.

 

[AshfordLad]

Apart from all the wars that have been mentioned, I also would add the creation of corupt organisations around the world.

The bullying hegemony of the UNSC to the aggressive and pompus NATO. Everything that america has done in outside world has turned out badly for the world.

 

[DenisIrwin]

Discounting their involvement in the WW2, In the last 100 years the US has had her involvement in many nation's history. Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Cuba, not to mention indirect involvement by the CIA in toppling / installing regimes across the world, indirect/direct support to a certain regimes, arms supplying, and international pressure, etc.

In your opinion, do you think the world will be better of without US involvement?

What about the British? Look at British colonies and what's become of them. Hotbeads of violence and terrorism throughout the world - unlike ex-French colonies with their tradition of peaceful co-existance. Places as democratic and empowering for the native population such as Haiti, Lebanon, French Indo-China, etc., etc.. These peaceful progressive nations can be an example to the repressed subjects of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the like.

 

[redwar]

USA governors and politically uneducated US citizens talk about totalitarianism, terrorism, human rights, democracy etc without considering that they are the No 1 nation to arm terrorists, supress human rights, commit war crimes, bomb innocent citizens etc.


Some examples:
- A continuous war crime, Agent Orange
youtube.com/watch?v=at2AcXii-YQ

- Atrocious propaganda on "human rights", giving USA the right to bomb and to sell guns
wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)