It's important to note that, at some size any nation becomes an "empire" by that definition-- it really isn't possible to not do that, and survive. Beyond a certain amount influence, there will be constant threats to security and prosperity and people trying to harm you, and rightly or not the solution any government would look to for these problems is violence. Because government is fundamentally based on force, inside and out (government is enforced at the point of a gun). So to say that the US's government is uniquely terrible is not really true.
Also for the most part the actions of the US are in service to what they say they are in service to. On this I disagree with you slightly: the values US talks about are usually not a facade. And the times that they are, those become highly contentious actions, even in the US, whereas in other countries I don't know that they would be-- so to act as if the US's people are uniquely terrible is again very disingenuous.
In the example that you quote, those actions were clearly in the interest of toppling an even greater evil. I don't think this rationale is morally right, but you could say we went with the "lesser evil".
So I agree with you, that the US does act like an empire, and that other countries would too if they had to or could.
However I see a lot of specific condemnations of the US as if it were unique. That's more what I was responding to. I don't think either of us think that's right.
I never said that. What is unique with the US is just that you are the biggest power today. That's why so much of the negativity is focused on your empire.
If china would be dominating, it would be them. (and I know their human right standards are much lower)
But with this I disagree very much:
"It's important to note that, at some size any nation becomes an "empire" by that definition-- it really isn't possible to not do that, and survive"
If you are powerful, because your people work hard and efficient, why do you have to invade other countries?
"Beyond a certain amount influence, there will be constant threats to security and prosperity"
Because they are a threat to your prosperity, because they don't sell you their ressources at a price you want?
Note that many people think, that terrorism is the answer because their land was exploited.
Understood. (: I was mostly going on a tangent there, where I was responding to the kind of comments my OG comment in this thread responded to.
> If you are powerful, because your people work hard and efficient, why do you have to invade other countries?
Perhaps because a country is funding terrorist attacks against you and/or preparing nuclear weapons or ICBMs to attack you with?
> Because they are a threat to your prosperity, because they don't sell you their ressources at a price you want?
I'm very against force retaliation for things that are not force initiation. That's not what I meant so perhaps I should elaborate, although it's a red herring away from my main point: what is included in acting like an empire is anything that expands a nation's influence and domination. That doesn't specify the use of force. So something like having trade wars with countries that refuse to stop ignoring copyright and subsidizing their own products in a dubious way, would be included in acting like an empire. And since those countries are leveraging state power to control the market, why shouldn't the US be allowed to retaliate in kind, since that's apparently OK?
(Side note: I don't think we should have started the trade wars, personally. I think it's an unfortunate circumstance for the economy. But I think doing that kind of thing, once again, is an inevitable necessity for a state because it has to prove it can't be taken advantage of).
> Note that many people think, that terrorism is the answer because their land was exploited.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean here.