Realistically, the next country on the US hitlist is probably Iran, not your latam home country. But first the American public needs to get back it's war appetite, and the shooting in Ukraine needs to simmer down (probably within a year, along new borders that are pretty close to what the current battle lines are), and China needs to not distract us by starting with Taiwan.
Latin America: https://www.statista.com/statistics/961585/latin-america-cru...
US: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
Every government has to think about energy independence, of which oil production is part of that story. Our oil economics are also intertwined with US policy, which renewables are helping undo in the US. That's to say, US society is trying to put a cap on how energy independence involves in conflict either directly or indirectly.
Latin Americas story is different: https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/ross/papers/work...
> Abstract: In Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, oil-producing countries have civil wars at a significantly higher rate than countries without oil. Is there also a link between oil and armed rebellion in Latin America?
> I argue the answer is “yes,” but with an important qualification. In the rest of the world, oil heightens the danger of both “governmental” conflicts (over control of the existing state) and secessionist conflicts (to form new states); but in Latin America, oil is only linked to governmental conflicts. This is not because Latin American petroleum has unusual properties, but because the region is uniquely “secession-proof”: there have been no separatist conflicts in Latin America for over a century. I explore two possible explanations for this anomaly: the region’s long history of sovereign statehood, which may have caused national borders to become more widely-accepted; and obstacles to the mobilization of indigenous groups along ethnic lines.
Tldr; instead of getting involved in foreign wars to save your oil supply, it's cheaper to centralize the oppression back home.
Something like Star Trek no involvement rule.
I'm really really sorry that our Navy is used to protect trade. Terrible of the U.S.
I'm sorry that the U.S. likes to have allies with democracies and a thriving, consuming, middle-class.
Are things better than they were under American hegemony? Sure. Could they be even better if we weren't stuck in this local maximum, Absolutely.
Anxiously lashing out at people because they express a desire for improvements in their society, and improvements in American society isn't productive.
"Are things better than they were under American hegemony? Sure. Could they be even better if we weren't stuck in this local maximum, Absolutely."
Yeah! Criticize America so it can be better but taking a stance that world would magically be better off without America, or even that the world doesn't want America while obsessively consuming American products seems rather childish in my opinion.
You think the grandparent comment is what you describe here?
Ironically, GGP's comment was a well thought out comment supporting American 'hegemony'.
I think you have your "lash out" backwards in this case.
If your nation is run by a dictatorship, it's a failed state.
If your nation is a theocracy, it's a failed state.
You'll notice the distinct lack of the US invading well-functioning, democratic nations (we share a remarkably unguarded, massive border with Canada).
You generally can't challenge US hegemony, it's far too large, and still expanding. China is the only entity since the 1950s Soviet Union that could even attempt it. For example while the EU's strongest economies have been largely going sideways for ~15 years economically (since the great recession), the US has added nearly $10 trillion to its economy (a further ~65-70% expansion in 15 years). Who is going to keep up with that, at that size (other than China)?