Why does America feel the need to control the world? Do what they say? Instead of taking care of their own problems at home? When did the US become police officer of the world and enforcer?

Comments

• callouscomic@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Eisenhower warned us.

  source
• theywilleatthestars@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  City on a hill bay bay /s

  source
• spacecadet@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I don’t think “Americans” is a good term considering a little over half of Americans prefer non-interventionist policies. Ironically, interventionist policies are bipartisan, with a large portion of both democrats and republicans taking neo-isolationist approaches to American foreign policy. Intervention can be one of four major fields referred to in politics as DIME (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic). Examples would include UN for diplomatic (we intervene via power held in the UN), 5 eyes for informational (we allow NSA to spy on allies, as long as those allies provide us with material about our own citizens), military (republicans prefer big bombs and boots on ground, Obama loved his drone strikes), and economic like NAFTA.

  I feel you may be viewing this solely from a military perspective which is why I wanted to highlight these other means. Liberal IR theory actually encourages DIME, via rule of law and consensus via other democratic nation states, I.e. if Canada, and the EU want us to intervene in the Middle East, should we mind our own business? Liberal IR theory would suggest not, and that we are not being a world player. The main hypothesis in Liberal IR theory is actually the same as its more aggressive big brother called Realism or more commonly known form as “Realpolitik”. Both posit that the international order exists in a form of anarchy and it is the responsibility (whether hegemonic or multipolar) to control this anarchy via law ( for liberalism) or via power (for realism).

  Generally, more of the academics you will read on this topic whether liberal or realists will claim that Americans were pulled in via a vacuum and didn’t force its way in. There are also deeper theories in this about Bipolar and regional hegemony that better explain the post WWII world. Pre-Soviet collapse, the first world appreciated the aggressive American approach as it lent a balance against the aggressive USSR. If it weren’t for the USSR, America would have returned to the western hemisphere and not intervened unless asked to by Western Europe

  source
• Meltdown@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Wars in foreign countries are incredibly profitable for the elite. America is effectively just a tool for transferring money and power from hoi polloi to hoi oligoi; it’s not interested in improving conditions for those who can’t generate wealth

  source
• SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Remember ol’ Khrushchev when he was ridin’ high with that sputnik satellite
  He told us yankee boys, he’s gunna fill the skies with them shiny new satellites
  He said “hey Mr. Eisenhower, watcha think of my sputnik satellite?”
  Ike reeled his head back
  Looked him in the eye, that’s a mighty fine satellite.

  But I’mma gonna get me one better, you can’t get the best of me
  I’mma gonna get me one better, the baddest one around
  I’mma gpnna get me one better, ‘cause’ I got the biggest balls in town.

  source