Defense.gov Now Redirects to War.gov

What checks to his power?

The US is already in a state of emergency, one magically extended into infinity by the legislative branch redefining what a "day" is. The Alien Enemies act has already been used to justify Trump's mass deportation program as a war against the "invasion" of the US by immigrants, and that continues despite pushback from the courts, because Trump has declared openly that he doesn't consider himself bound by the courts.

And given what he's already gotten away with, his thesis seems to be correct. He isn't going to seek the pretense because he knows he doesn't need to.

Calling the U.S. ‘peaceful and benevolent’ overlooks the sheer volume, aims and consequences of its military actions. It may not colonize in the traditional sense but its interventions often reshape nations in the US' favour, often violently, without accountability and leaving the populace of those countries much worse off than before.

I think it's not wise to judge present day against history as we should be aiming for improvement over time but if we look at recent history the US has a history of destabilising governments, often democracies, in favour of a more US aligned government. Often these efforts fail and the country descends into chaos. In others it leads to a government that uses death squads to help US businesses (see the banana republics).

Russia's aims in Ukraine were mostly likely to install a Russian aligned leader. This is similar to the USA's history of installing or supporting anti-democratic leaders. So whilst the US might not be absorbing countries but that shouldn't be the only metric for control.

Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan was under UN mandates and I agree that peace keeping forces are often good but that is not comparable to US military interventions. The US often acts unilaterally, or with limited partners and lack of widespread support.

With 251 military interventions since 1991 [1] we can cherry pick the best and worse uses of force, and I agree that sometimes force is needed, but I see the long term trend that the intention is indeed to help but it is mostly to help US interests. Consider as well that colonial Britain (and other colonial powers) also thought they were being helpful and bettering their colonies by bring "civilisation". Just because you think or state your aims are good doesn't make them so.

I'd argue that whilst the US could definitely not take over the world militarily (see how often it fails to take over a country) it already has in large part due to trade and culture and this is why it fears China so much, as China is now a rival for that power.

[1] https://towardfreedom.org/story/archives/americas/u-s-launch...

My dude, we struggle to take over poor middle-eastern countries. I'm not sure how you think us trying to take over the world would go.

I suspect that you are being facetious, but for the benefit of anyone else reading, this is not true. It's a "factoid" (an invented fact mistaken as true)[1] spawned from a joke on the TV program Seinfeld[2].

This has been your daily wet blanket.

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqS1Ty79mOE

No, its not; not that the implicit equation of “how it used to be” with “how it ought to be” is valid to start with.

> We had a War Department. Rebranding to Defense was a PR move to hide what was really happening.

No. We had a War Department that was the agency responsible for the Army, including what was then the Army Air Forces, and a Navy Department that was the agency responsible for the Navy including the Marine Corps. Splitting and rebranding the former to the two Departments of the Army and Air Force was done to simultaneously more accurately reflect its responsibilities and to address the growing significance of air power.

This split was simultaneous with the old and now split up War Department and the old but keeping its name Navy Department being subordinated to the new consolidated military establishment named the Department of Defense, but the Defense Department wasn’t a new name for the War Dpartment, it was the name for a completely new thing placed above the older, separate military departments.

It’s not Gen Z or the Alphas (“future generations”) are thirsting for war. It’s still going to the same organization no matter what we call it.

It’s just a fig leaf argument to justify a colossal waste of money and time.

The DoD has many problems but the name isn’t one of them.