But no-one (for other than ideological purposes) ever mistook the US for a fundamentally peaceable nation (internally or externally).
War is an extension of politics.
What?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili...
Except the local militias that would inevitably form, and would cause considerable losses on the US side, leading to poor public appetite for war
See: Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan
Indian here. Colonization is just a placeholder term to describe resource grab. There is no real chance England could have annexed India.
Why do all this annexation business, and offer the other country free citizenships? All you have to do is militarily control the country while you can take their resources and ship to your homeland.
>>This whole land grabbing kind of war ended to be a thing with WW 2.
Territorial control often has further ulterior motives. Like grabbing useful land, or creating buffer zones etc.
Mexico came a long time ago, we aren't doing stuff like that anymore. Except when we invade small countries like panama, that we still do.
The US still does it via corporate resource extraction and puppet regimes.
I wonder what kinds of things history will be saying about the United States in 200 years, a nation who probably didn't take the brutish British approach to invasion, but has tripwire forces-I mean "installations" dotted all over everyone else's back yards instead.
Without the US, the world would be a sh*tshow. The tripwire bases prevent the likes of Russia putting its paws on Eastern Europe or China snatching more islands they claim as there own.
Back when the Serbs were genociding their Muslim citizens, Europe was inept while the US saved the day, as usual.
The US enjoys the status quo - most military interventions are to maintain it.
All the actors are needed for a multi-polar world.
What everyone needs is for all of them to stop waging proxy wars, grabbing international waters and deploying nukes around each other.
US saved the day
We'll ignore Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq (twice) for the sake of this comment?
Also lets ignore all those south american Coup d'états because it helps the narrative.
This is false. Have you heard of the korean war or the vietnam war? Or the afghanistan/iraqi war? There are ( and have been ) powers that opposed the US ( sometimes successfully ). Look at current day syria.
> Since they are not doing so, its hard to call them belligerent.
What? We have been in a state of perpetual aggressive war ever since ww2 ( frankly since the american revolution war if we are being honest ).
> The British Empire was way worse than the USA all things considered.
It may or may not have been worse. But being belligerent isn't a relative matter of comparison. It's a matter of state. It's like being pregnant. You are pregnant or you are not.