| > Criticising America is nothing new or subversive. Hunter s Thompson was doing it all these years ago and much more interestingly and on point than anyone on here could. The existence better critique out there is irrelevant if you don't take the argumentt in front of you on its strenghts. > Day every day the same unoriginal whining because it is hard to call it something as sophisticated as critique, can be heard all over the reddit. Criticism of a country with military bases across the whole world doesn't have to be hip to be correct. No one cares what you think about reddit or how hipster you like your political takes to be and this doesn't exempt you from having to argue about the concrete facts in a discussion forum. > While at the same time no one bothers to critique CCP to the same extent because we simply are not paid for doing this. No one is interested in non profit repeating the same facts about china every single day. You are so wrong about no one criticizing the CCP that's it's difficult to believe that this statement is sincere. Maybe I could attribute it to selection bias as you're on an american forum? There's also a cottage industry around anti-Chinese propaganda besides the western funded government propaganda machine that is in place for the last decades. > We are just content knowing that china is not some sort of “saviour” or alternative. Oh but they are! China is a concrete alternative for an economic partner for most parts of the world, but only if the US doesn't sponsor a military coup or invade your country in response. If they you can get away from Americans threats, China is also a more reliable partner with much more stable policies and much less likely to sabotage your elections, secretly pay your politics and judges and manipulate your markets. > It is an enemy of the free world. I try to not use things produced by my adversary to not fund my own doom. This has no basis in reality. The US is the actual enemy of the free world and has been since ww2: occupying countries, sabotaging their domestic politic disputes, staging military coups, bombings, etc. Whatever justifications for those actions after the fact do not make any other country more free. |
| |
| ▲ | jicko 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Yeah because obviously the US-Europe relationship is one way, isn't it? NATO exists because the US won't allow any other global hegemon to exist. US backing of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are for that same reason. I meant that as a neutral statement; large regional powers also do not like each other when situated too close, that's why India and Russia are friendly, and why Russia and China have a complicated relationship despite both being opposed to the US. Has quite a lot of good also come out of that? To the Europeans, yes. But it's not like the US is doing it from the bottom of their hearts. And it's not like the US ever intervened in the Middle East for anything other than oil, historically. You go there and piss off the hardcore islamists / dictators, and make use of the Kurds as local fighting forces, and then you abandon them to the revenge of said islamists? Ofc they're pissed. | | |
| ▲ | 8note 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > NATO exists because the US won't allow any other global hegemon to exist. this sounds like you are american. NATO is Europe driven, with a goal of keeping the americans involved. the alternative is going back to european powers fighting against each other. the US the whole time has been basically absent. trump didnt start the "will they wont they" rom com setup. its always been there. NATO didnt go to Afghanistan because the US wanted it. europe demanded that the US invoke article 5, ans insisted on sending help | |
| ▲ | 0xDEAFBEAD 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >NATO exists because the US won't allow any other global hegemon to exist. The obvious non-US potential hegemon was China, yet we normalized trade with them, which greatly helped their economy grow. The new one is India. We've been buddying up to them a fair amount as well. The US also played a role in the creation of the EU, arguably a more potent rival hegemon than any individual European state: https://archive.is/VC2zV >Has quite a lot of good also come out of that? To the Europeans, yes. But it's not like the US is doing it from the bottom of their hearts. I don't believe that is true. As I stated elsewhere in this thread, even during the Biden administration, right after Biden sent billions to Ukraine, the US was barely net-positive in approval rating for many European countries: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u... If a lot of good came out of the relationship from Europe's perspective, you would expect them to approve of the US. And yet they don't. So we can conclude that US presence is a negative for Europe, and it would be best for Europe if US troops and security guarantees were withdrawn. Unsurprisingly, many Europeans have requested this course of action. >And it's not like the US ever intervened in the Middle East for anything other than oil, historically. The Gulf War was rather similar to the Ukraine invasion in the sense of a powerful country (Iraq) invading a weaker neighbor (Kuwait). But you probably think we only aided Ukraine for minerals-related reasons anyways, eh? That's why Europe is aiding Ukraine right now, correct? >make use of the Kurds as local fighting forces So the Kurds and Islamic State are fighting. The US steps in to help the Kurds. At that point we become "warmongers" who are "making use of" the Kurds. It would've been better to stay complicit. After all, the only reason anyone would ever oppose IS is due to oil, right? So that must've been our motivation. Time to stop the warmongering. | | |
| ▲ | Matl 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > The obvious non-US potential hegemon was China, yet we normalized trade with them, which greatly helped their economy grow. Of course you present it as a one way street. Nah, you normalized with China to counter balance the Soviets and after that fell your companies benefited, since it is much cheaper to produce in China. China just wasn't standing by and it also got something out of that relationship (know how) - the US only wanted it as a cheap sweatshop factory, so as soon as they became a real competitor to the US, the US started with sanctions, tariffs etc. Having failed in China, the US now wants Latin America to stay behind in development terms, just useful enough to outsource to, but not enough to compete. | | |
| ▲ | 0xDEAFBEAD a day ago | parent [-] | | >Of course you present it as a one way street. Nah, you normalized with China to counter balance the Soviets and after that fell your companies benefited, since it is much cheaper to produce in China. China's population was about 6x that of Russia in 1970. So 6x the hegemon potential, in the long run. I'd say that the US alliance with China has been highly vindicated btw. China has proven to be a considerably less oppressive great power than the USSR. I'd say both China and the US are quite herbivorous by the standards of historical great powers like, say, Imperial Japan. >Having failed in China, the US now wants Latin America to stay behind in development terms, just useful enough to outsource to, but not enough to compete. Aside from Mexico, the US does not trade a notable amount with Latin America: "In February 2026, United States exported mostly to Mexico ($28.9B), Canada ($28.4B), United Kingdom ($10.7B), Switzerland ($10.7B), and Netherlands ($8.48B), and imported mostly from Mexico ($44.3B), Canada ($29.2B), Chinese Taipei ($21.1B), China ($19B), and Vietnam ($15.7B)." https://oec.world/en/profile/country/usa The US wants to see Latin America develop in order to reduce illegal immigrant flows. During the Biden presidency, Harris was sent to address the "root causes" of illegal immigration: https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/kamala-harris-border-... You're just making up random conspiracy theories to see what sticks. Note that you don't provide evidence for your claims. The fact that they fit your conspiratorial intuitions appears to be evidence enough for you. |
| |
| ▲ | Matl 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > So the Kurds and Islamic State are fighting. The US steps in to help the Kurds. At that point we become "warmongers" who are "making use of" the Kurds. You left the part where the US sponsored extremist groups in Syria, but of course you did. You know, your anger makes sense if you selectively leave out large part of the involvement of your own government in various conflicts. | | |
| ▲ | 0xDEAFBEAD a day ago | parent [-] | | Sure, and the US also sponsored extremist neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine to fight Russia, e.g. Azov Battalion. |
|
|
|
|
