So we are playing what-aboutism?

My turn: I am trying to find a list of warlords and oppressive regimes who have destabilized other countries, invaded and subjugated countries under false pretenses caused millions of deaths etc. etc.

I put that sentence:

"warlords and oppressive regimes who have destabilized other countries, invaded and subjugated countries under false pretenses caused millions of death"

Into google and the 3rd result was that ;)

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2006-pt8/html/CREC...

"Global war on terror "

Yet that google ranking was likely about the US's citizenry, a portion of them, using political process to curb, and reduce military usage.

In other words, the US curtailing itself.

What-aboutisms are not about comparing actions against others.

I did not say the US does not go to war. I merely said, call a thing what it is.

In terms of empires, compared to its power, the US empire is the most peaceful empire in the history of mankind.

Imagine the Roman Empire, The British, with the power the US has. Imagine any other empire in history.

The entire world would be directly, ruled by the US!

Now look at the US again.

> the US is the most peaceful empire in the history of mankind.

i want some of whatever the hell it is you're smoking.

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

In any measure of global per capita rates of violent deaths, or military spending as a fraction of global GDP, we are currently in a golden age. Certainly, across the millennia. Arguably, post industrialization.

If peace means quietly sitting in the corner while havoc is wrought around you, then no, America isn't very peaceful.

If you consider the US to be an empire, then the statement is legitimately true. In terms of modern era “empires” it could only be compared to China or Russia, and the US is certainly more peaceful than those countries. If you want to look back through history, then all 3 of those countries are more peaceful than any empire that’s come before. The Roman Empire was kicked off by defeating Carthage twice, making them pay war reparations for 50 years, and once that was done going back and erasing their entire society from existence just to make sure they were never a threat again.

“peaceful empire” is a total oxymoron. the concept of empire is predicated on the subjugation of other countries and people.

and please, citation very much needed on the assertion that China is more warlike than the US.

So is “peaceful country”. The ongoing existence of every country is predicated on its ability to wage war (or make friends with countries that wage war). Nearly all of the borders on the globe were defined by war. But that doesn’t mean countries or empires can’t have differing views towards peace and aggression.

In regards to China, I said it was less peaceful, which seems obviously true to me. China has ongoing territorial disputes with ever country close to it, which extends to raising man-made islands out of the sea to push back the sea borders of its neighbors. It believes it outright owns two neighboring countries, occupying one of them, and constantly threatening to conquer the other. A large amount of its northern region used to be Mongolia until the government one day sent millions of Chinese people to live there, and just redrew its maps. As a country it was also founded upon a revolution that included arguably the most brutal mass slaying of civilians in history.

The US fights more wars, but China is far more belligerent imo, and engages in outright territorial conquest every opportunity it gets.

> Just because the US isn't perfect, doesn't make it a war machine

I don't think the article claims it is. The U.S. has a war machine. And Silicon Valley wants to sell to it.

Wait...can you name another country who was involved or started more wars then the US in the past 80 years?

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/america-war-machine/

>>Eisenhower warned the nation against the threat of the military-industrial complex

Ah. Involved.

You know, the US does do peacekeeping, and does at times invade for actual humanitarian reasons.

But I guess those are bad things too, and war making.

> You know, the US does do peacekeeping, and does at times invade for actual humanitarian reasons.

yes, I too am very smart and unquestioningly parrot my rulers' propaganda lines.

Give this person some ketchup licking the empires boot can't be that tasty.

> does at times invade for actual humanitarian reasons.

For example?

Korean War, Grenada, first Iraq war, Somalia, Panama (depending on your view of conspiracy), Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo.

Ah yes the humanitarian Korea War who hasn't heard of that one, the peace mission in Vietnam and Myanmar not to forget, and the first Iraq was a great point for Human rights...what a human loving war-machine the US is.

But the US "forgot" to sign the "Convention on the Rights of the Child":

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

Michael Parenti, Darker myths of empire

Somehow the imperial managers always stumble into a conquest direction. Like every imperial force before it the US also denies its imperialism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOF56wYTl1w

If world hunger isn’t just a hoax, why do I have food on my plate?

It’s really quite bizarre to say the US isn’t a war machine when it has the world’s biggest arms industry and readily sells to nearly anyone. That’s before even getting into its history of invading the most bizarre countries that most can’t point out on a map, going back to the Philippines over 100 years ago, to the insane level of competition it reached with Russia in the 20th century, to Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

I don't think any solution to world "hunger" you may be dreaming of would end in any other way than 15 billion people in Africa and more world hunger.