The Philipines certainly didn't have a stable democratic government after we left despite our stated intent being "to prepare the Philipines for independence."
that doesn't help prove we're an empire though.
Oh I'm sorry, cases of blatent imperialism don't prove the US was imperialist.
Ok I MIGHT buy your point if this was an isolated incident. But after the Spanish American War we made Cuba our protectorate and it stayed that way until Catro took over. In 1893, white sugar plantation owners staged a coup against the Hawaiian royalty so that they could offer Hawaii to the US for annexation, which after much debate was accepted in 1898 (US marines even provided the "big stick" threat to keep any anti-coup forces intimated, technically they were supposed to protect American citizens and property, but from what nation do you think the coup leaders, those white plantation owners came from?). In addition, the expansion of the US into Native American lands was imperialism (taking land away from weaker cultures and forcing the survivors into second-class citizen status...yea call me crazy but I'd call that imperialist). So the US isn't imperialist is it?
Ah, this is of course correct.
Our acquisitions during our "sea to shining sea" expansion and later ceasure of spanish colonial territory was imperialistic.
And we did run those like an empire for awhile.
Currently though with the exception of a few small military bases we've either absorbed those territories as full represented and equal state, given up the territory, and/or given it the option to become an independent country which it has chosen by majority vote to avoid.
I'm not ignoring the genocide of native people's either.
However, if you were to ask if the US is an Empire today? Not really. We certainly have behaved like an empire in the past though.
Sorry, thats bs. The Mossadegh government was highly popular especially for nationalizing the oil fields (for some reason the poor people of third world countries prefer their government, and in the case of a good democracy themselves, get the money from oil revenue than some rich first worlder, hmmmmm I don't understand...).
This is typically a scam. Any political movement can promise beer and circuses to get quick support especially from poor people. But economically it's not sustainable. An example of this can be seen in almost any oil producing country. Most of them have nationalized their oil reserves and initially there was a great deal of wealth. But a population can't do much more then subsist off of that unless have other industries and businesses going... and for "some" reason most of them don't.
Name the last time you bought something that said "made in --name of any major oil producer--"... with the exception of oil of course.
Dubai is an example of HOW to invest your oil money into something sustainable. Currently the country is spending billions on turning their country into a world class tourist mecca. They've apparently more then doubled their coastline with absolutely huge earth works and have built up a society that seems both welcoming to foreign investment and foreign trade.
On the other hand Iran and Venezuela invest their money in weapons, armies, and instead of boosting trade seem to go out of their way to make everyone both nervous and upset with them. What is Iran's future? What happens when their oil runs out?
*crickets*
They're morons with guns.
I stand firmly by my point
Your point rests almost entirely on actions that happened about a century ago or in the throws of the cold war.
And in all cases except for a few military bases here and there we've intentionally freed or given the option of freedom to each and every territory. Empires don't do that. If they grant freedom its because they don't have a choice. In every case we've done it we've had more then enough muscle to maintain control.
Your argument needs work.
