1. The US doesnt have to specifically invade and annex another country to be called imperialistic. In the 21st century, imperialism in the strict definition in the word would be fairly infeasible. The US operates like an economic imperialist. We already enjoy such massive power here that the vast majority of us can stay home, while a very small percentage of businessmen and government officials travel overseas to further consolidate our power. We enter into developing countries, and using money that is often supplied by the US Treasury, and approved by the World Bank, offer them massive loans to build up their infrastructure, with the stipulation that those infrastructure contracts go to private contractors that the US supports. When these countries are eventually unable to pay back these massive debts, they often cut national programs or raid their own treasury to avoid defaulting. Once they do default, we agree to absorb their debt in exchange for a 'pound of flesh'. This may be paid in supporting specific policy measures, agreeing to fight against a specific country, privatizing their resources to US-led multinational corporations, etc etc. While our army doesnt specifically go over and enslave those of other countries, a class of businessmen representing "our" interests travels to other countries, and inevitably creates a situation in which those countries are beholden to us, by material or ideological support. So yes, we are imperialistic, we are just way, way better than previous empires at concealing this fact.
2. A country that has been in a state of national emergency for 70+ years, that has spent the majority of its history in some kind of war, that spends more on military budget than the next 50 highest military spenders combined, that jump into a war that the majority of the world are against with little to no factual support, and who are run mostly by neoconservatives who have an obsession with defense contracts and Israeli conflict....I would say the 'warmonger' status is pretty friggin accurate.
1. The US doesnt have to specifically invade and annex another country to be called imperialistic. In the 21st century, imperialism in the strict definition in the word would be fairly infeasible. The US operates like an economic imperialist. We already enjoy such massive power here that the vast majority of us can stay home, while a very small percentage of businessmen and government officials travel overseas to further consolidate our power. We enter into developing countries, and using money that is often supplied by the US Treasury, and approved by the World Bank, offer them massive loans to build up their infrastructure, with the stipulation that those infrastructure contracts go to private contractors that the US supports. When these countries are eventually unable to pay back these massive debts, they often cut national programs or raid their own treasury to avoid defaulting. Once they do default, we agree to absorb their debt in exchange for a 'pound of flesh'. This may be paid in supporting specific policy measures, agreeing to fight against a specific country, privatizing their resources to US-led multinational corporations, etc etc. While our army doesnt specifically go over and enslave those of other countries, a class of businessmen representing "our" interests travels to other countries, and inevitably creates a situation in which those countries are beholden to us, by material or ideological support. So yes, we are imperialistic, we are just way, way better than previous empires at concealing this fact.
2. A country that has been in a state of national emergency for 70+ years, that has spent the majority of its history in some kind of war, that spends more on military budget than the next 50 highest military spenders combined, that jump into a war that the majority of the world are against with little to no factual support, and who are run mostly by neoconservatives who have an obsession with defense contracts and Israeli conflict....I would say the 'warmonger' status is pretty friggin accurate.