I’m guessing that must have sounded better in your head.
I’m curious what position you are trying to defend. Your first post was in support of Derek who, I think, claims that American aggression was not “imperialistic” because it was benevolent. Now you seem to argue that the aggression was not “imperialistic” because it ended in such a shambles there was nothing left to loot in the country. One of these things is not like the other.
Learn the difference between Imperialism and Colonialism.
Place yourself under UN protection or join a multilateral mutual protection grouping like NATO that has no one dominant member (so not like the Warsaw Pact).
In Herod’s case, though, the Romans also literally installed him on the throne. The Senate declared him king despite him having absolutely no royal ancestry, and he took the kingdom by force with the assistance of Roman troops, later solidifying his rule by marrying a member of the legitimate royal family.
How exactly does a country place itself under UN protection? There’s nothing in the UN agreement that requires countries to come to the aid of another country that’s been attacked.
You may need to re-read Chapter VII, then. “Requires”, no, but then I didn’t say that.
Ah yes, UN protection. Ask the people of Srebrenica how useful that is.
Ah yes, US ‘Freedom’, ask the people of Iraq, Libya and Syria how wonderful that is.
But i agree, the UN should have more powers in this regard, I think.
More power won’t make the UN more trustworthy.
Let’s pt it this way - if a country wants the U.S. to protect it, it needs to have the U.S. on its side. If it wan’t the UN to protect it, it needs to have over *one half of the entire world *on its side, which is much more difficult - especially since the countries it needs protection *from *are also in the UN. Personally, I’d much rather rely on the U.S.
Good lord, the idea that Iraq today (and for the past many years) is somehow under the thumb of the US is absurd. If that were the case, why would the big bad US ever tolerate an Iraqi government that is such an open supporter of Iran?
It’s like saying that West Germany would have been part of the American empire if its government was led by the Red Army Faction. Uh, no. That’s just silly on its face.
You have the wrong end of the stick with regards the UN; the UN reinforces the post-war imperial hierarchy - that’s the whole point. It’s entire purpose - under the guise of a do-good persona - to look after the vested interests of those nations wot helped win a war 70 years ago.
It’s bogus and bullshit.
Spend 30 seconds pondering the phrase ‘permanent members of the Security Council’ and leaf through the history.
I’m not a fan of the SC, but it can and has been bypassed.
I’ve seen no evidence that the General Assembly is more benevolent.
Only by permanent members, who it’s designed to facilitate and protect.
If you not a permanent member you now end up at The Hague: all part of the same game.
So, the same deal Puerto Rico got from the U.S., then. Some liberation, eh? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss…
This is debatable, at best.
I feel like you’re undervaluing all the work communists did to fight fascism. The U.S. were late to that particular party.
What does ‘Place yourself under UN protection’ mean, in practical terms? How would that work? And if it’s a viable alternative to being forced to gravitate to one of the regional superpowers or, worse yet, the US, why don’t more countries do it?
As for NATO and other such organizations, you do realize most of those are dominated by those same regional powers or, gasp, nasty imperial America…right? Also, the choice to enter into, say, NATO is with NATO, ultimately. You don’t just decide unilaterally to join and they just let you in. The same goes for many other mutual protection alliances.
I do admit that NATO is a good choice (assuming you could get in…I think the Ukraine would LOVE it if they could) since they obviously don’t require member countries to actually meet the minimum spending requirements (2% of GDP, minimum), and the US carries most of the water…but that seems an odd choice for YOU to mention, considering the theme of most of your posts in this thread and in the past.
What examples are you thinking of where the UNSC has been bypassed? 
Do we need to ‘stop meddling in the affairs of other countries’? That’s unclear to me. I suppose it depends on the specific example. Iraq was a mistake. But was Libya? Afghanistan? How about more recent events such as the South China Sea or bolstering NATO’s stance in the Baltic states and Poland? There are many instances of US ‘meddling’, and categorically saying we should stop all of them is, perhaps, as bad as doing too much. The US needs to take an active role in the world…we can’t just sit on the sidelines and watch. Not only would the be detrimental to our allies but it would be detrimental to our own goals and interests since we rely rather heavily on overseas trade and resources. I don’t believe it would be in anyone’s ultimate interest (leaving aside perhaps China and Russia, perhaps) for us to ‘end American Imperialism’. A better policy, IMHO, is to seek a better balance in how we act and interact with the rest of the world.
The invasion of Iraq, duh! But I’m pretty sure that isn’t MrDibble’s point.