> Its a net negative result for affected citizens due to underhanded tactics by US

Net negative compared to the counterfactual of perfect interventions or the counterfactual of no interventions?

Again, I think there were lots of cases in which the US screwed up. That's easier to tell in hindsight in some of those cases. On the ground at the time, was it obvious that the Korean War was a good idea and the Vietnam War a bad one? (I think it _did_ become obvious that the Vietnam War was a bad idea quite a bit before the US actually pulled out of it; again, I won't claim that the US didn't make preventable mistakes!)

What I don't have a good handle on is what the world would look like if the US post WWII had adopted the sort of foreign policy it had in 1910 or 1925 and just minded its own business and ignored the rest of the world. And if you're not suggesting it should have done _that_, then I'm not sure what you're suggesting, exactly.

> Which is why USA is no more a world leader.

Is the USA less of a world leader than in the 1920s or 1930s? I don't think so.

Is it less of one than it was in 1946? Maybe, but that was inevitable, for at least two obvious reasons:

1) Its economic influence decreased as its share of world GDP dropped (which it _had_ to; in 1946 a lot of the rest of the world's industrial capacity was in ruins, and let's not get started on the service sector in most of 1946 Europe, Japan, China, USSR). Also, the dependence of other countries on US exports or aid dropped from 1946 to now, generally speaking. This is, of course, a good thing.

2) The rest of the world caught up to the US in some areas in which it had had moral leadership, thus decreasing the moral leadership aspect. As one example, the non-communist European countries which hadn't done so yet finally got around to introducing women's suffrage (Belgium 1948, France 1944, Greece 1952, Italy 1945, Liechtenstein 1984, Portugal 1976, San Marino 1959, Spain 1976, Switzerland 1971 or 1991 depending on how you count).

Which countries would you consider to be more "world leaders" than the US at the moment? Or is your claim that the US is no longer _the_ world leader (as if it ever were)? I would say that's a very good thing.

> Spying even the heads of states of allies

Do you seriously believe that the US is the only country doing that? I would be quite shocked if this were the case.

> Then read it as if you are from ussr.

I _am_ from the USSR (back when there was one). So yes, I have some idea, both from my reading and from talking to people of my parents' and grandparents' generation of what things looked like from that side. A bit from personal experience as well, but that covers a somewhat small slice of post-WWII history of the USSR.

> What I would strongly advocate for is open governance.

Do you mean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_government or something else? If that's what you mean, then I'm all in favor.

> I wonder if law banning hipocracy is the answer.

I'm not sure whether you mean http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hipocracy or something else. "Hipocracy" is not a word I've seen before you used it just now, and I can find no other references to it. Not sure whether you mean "hypocrisy", but that wouldn't fit in with the rest of the paragraph that follows the above-quoted sentence...

> Here is a very good article that has many ideas I strongly agree with.

Thank you for the link. I'll need to take some time to read it and think before I can comment on it intelligently.