Please excuse the brevity and incompleteness of my response, I'm pressed for time
But then again all EU members are more or less US allies, so a EU study on the division of power in the world has a quite clear agenda. And sadly enough most strategic theorists have an agenda too. Schools are "institutions responsible for the indoctrination of the young". This is not a conspiracy theory. This is exactly how it was put by the Trilateral Commission http://en.wikipedia....eral_Commission. And you especially see this in the humanities, because that is where thinking freely is most dangerous to power. Intellectuals are selected on their ability to support state power. So yes, I agree that your opinion is probably more in line with what most strategic theorists proclaim. That doesn't mean that it is in any way objective and free of any agenda though.
Everyone has an agenda. Impartiality is effectively mythological when it comes to discussion of political and strategic reality. I find your points interesting, though I personally question their accuracy as there's been a long history, particularly in recent times, of the weight of expert opinion on matters of strategic theory being completely ignored by the political sphere. This has been particularly prevalent when it comes to lower-mid level analysis rather than the grand strategic aims of conflicts. The most obvious example of this being in Iraq, of course, where the weight of academic opinion sat entirely in contradiction to the way the US in particular chose to fight.
I totally agree with the first alinea. And it's good that you've started to imagine a sort of list in your head of times when other countries have used illegal force. Let's consider the period from the 80's up until today. Now I ask you to compare the illegal instances of force of all other countries in the world combined to not only the times when the United States have used illegitemate force themselves, which has countless examples in the Middle East in the chosen time period, but also the largely unreported instances where they supported terror. A good example for their long lasting terror throughout South America is their support of the Contra's in Nicaragua which resulted in the United States being condemned for international terrorism by the International Court of Justice. After that U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kikpatrick dismissed the Court as a "semi-legal, semi-juridical, semi-political body, which nations sometimes accept and sometimes don't".The fact that the United States along with Israel are the only two nations that openly dismiss the International Court of Justice further illustrates my point of them being the 1# world power. Another important instance of US terror was their support for Suharto who was responsible for 200.000 deaths in East Timor.
If we take the example of the 1980s, then you see the Soviet Union and her various satellites equally as active as the US in terms of directly influencing internal conflicts. I personally think it is somewhat disingenuous to utilise a example time period in which strategic reality has altered so significantly because it doesn't really say an awful lot. Between 1980 and 1990 most of the aligned world was involved provoking, promoting and otherwise participating in proxy conflict so the US was atypical in this aside from perhaps a greater level of participation due largely to providing expertise pretty much anywhere allies were involved in such actions. From 1990 onwards I would argue you've seen the US not greatly more mobilised in military activity than most other powers, especially given the proxy involvement in pretty much any conflict involving a NATO member state or there interests thereof.
I also like to point out that considering the fact that I live in a country that is an allie to the United States, US crimes are more relevant than others to me. I think it's far more relevant to be critical of our own crimes compared to those committed by others.
Which is fair and totally reasonable- lead by example.
It's an instance of 1+1=2. You stated you were not opposed to unilateral action, and you stated that an invasion of Syria would be beneficial. These two statements combined makes you a supporter of a unilateral US invasion of Syria, even if it wasn't put that way explicitly.
I'm not opposed to unilateral action on principle, because I don't think that international agreement is necessarily a prerequisite for nations to act in their own interests. Then again I'm not a "supporter" or "opposed" to any aspect of strategic activity because I see the international community as inherently without morality save from what is derived from self-interest. I also never stated that an invasion of Syria would be beneficial. I said that a military response wasn't necessarily harmful to US interests, but that neither implies benefit nor an invasion.