> Internationally, well - ask those on the receiving end of US geopolitical and military shenanigans

Japan, Korea and Europe, for instance? The Philippines? We're not great. But we're better than our colonial predecessors, or their imperial precursors.

Anywhere in the middle east, anywhere in south east asia, Grenada, A dozen or so countries in Africa, anywhere in Central America or South America. But it's ok, they don't teach you these things in US schools.

The US treated the Philippines absolutely horribly and its still a basket case today.

South Korea for most of its post WW2 life has been a totalitarian dictatorship.

Europe was already civilized and fairly democratic before US occupation.

Ask anyone on the receiving end of any geopolitical or military shenanigans how they feel about it. Most nations are far more disrespectful toward other nations they get involved with, they just have less power.

How many nations has China bombed in Africa? They’re quite involved there - building infrastructure, laying rail.

Well, clearly. That's my point: that paired with, IMO, a really decent set of values, pragmatism and a will to lead, there's also some quota for such "geopolitical and military shenanigans". Which is disappointing.

Even the word maybe is doing a lot of heavy lifting