Comments by "LancesArmorStriking" (@LancesArmorStriking) on "400 US Interventions Scientifically Studied: The Military Intervention Project | Dr. Sidita Kushi" video.

  1. ​ @surfboy344  Sure. The US' current economic power (not just reserve currency status but trade relationships in general) relies on the imposition of force onto countries that don't comply. Whenever a Latin American country tries to sever itself from the US' influence, it gets coup'ed. If they cannot do that, they sanction it. See: Cuba, N. Korea, Afghanistan. Moreover, many of its current 'allied' countries were brought into its fold by force (propping up dictators in South Korea, Iran, Chile, Egypt, rigging elections in Italy and Greece, etc). This goes all the way back to the US popping a nerve at the mere thought of Edo Period Japan simply... refusing to trade with them. For some reason this infuriated the Americans to the extent that they sent Matthew Perry to force its markets open by gunboat. Those countries (minus Iran, and to a lesser extent Russia post-Yeltsin) are now all strong trading partners even though US presence was met at some point with fierce domestic opposition in all those cases. More specifically, the defense industry has tens of thousands of jobs in every state and the arms industry brings in billions to the US economy each year. And finally, more broadly speaking an iron grip on the world with a massive military gives passive economic benefits. Which country is really going to oppose or do economic warfare with the US? Only China so far. Everyone else falls in line, because they know running afoul of the US will make them destabilize or destroy your country, legally or illegally. Only the aforementioned countries (Cuba, N. Korea, Afghanistan, now Russia) have had both the balls to do it and avoided being coup'ed. Every other government was overthrown or coerced into a trading "partnership".
    1