I think the argument is that the USA is a democracy (at least more so than the others), and therefore it's fair to criticise the USA as a whole (i.e. the citizens of the USA) for the failures of the US Government.

A friend of mine made the same comment recently in regards to condemning human rights abuses in Israel. You can condemn until your face is blue the human rights violations in Iran, but there's not a lot the Iranian population can do about it. Israel is a democracy, and therefore (at least in theory) the government represents the people.

Another point to note is that HN is US-centric. Most people here will have first-hand experience of the USA, but not necessarily of China, Russia, or Saudi Arabia.

I find it hard to argue that the USA is more of a democracy than Iran, though admittedly, that's because Iran has a very "American" system where anyone can run in elections, provided the ruling elite approves them as within-bounds for the system as a whole. Both could perhaps be characterized as "managed democracies" with highly authoritarian law-enforcement systems more than either is a full-blown dictatorship.

Israel has a different problem: its political spectrum is defined as doves on the Left, hawks on the Right, and real dovishness became a causalty of the Second Intifada. Coupled to extensive corruption, the Israeli system has become considerably less democratic than it used to be, but it still has the problem that nobody is willing to run against the current government on a winning platform more than that legions of candidates or parties aren't allowed to stand for election.

You make some weird, intellectual oh-so-clever-with-italics comment, and no one can follow it.

Israel is a democracy. On level with USA, England, etc. It also has many of the same problems.

Multi parties are encouraged. Courts are independent and respect and very powerful. Freedom of speech is respected. Property rights are strong. Business is free. Work force is protected.

If you want a change - please fight for it. But don't start by making horrible comments about your country.

It is a long, long, long way from Indian corruption, east European dictatorship, or Arab social breakdown.

Oh shut up, Mr. Misrad haChutz. If you actually read what I said, you'd notice that I actually labeled Israel the sanest and most democratic of the bunch I'm criticizing: it has a multi-party framework, albeit one in which major media are explicitly allied to the ruling party and the PM smears journalists. But, as I said, Israel's chief problem is that the center and the left don't seem to know how to stop condescending to Mizrahim and the Periferiyah and actually stand for election on a platform that addresses the facts of Israeli life today.

> A friend of mine made the same comment recently in regards to condemning human rights abuses in Israel. You can condemn until your face is blue the human rights violations in Iran, but there's not a lot the Iranian population can do about it. Israel is a democracy, and therefore (at least in theory) the government represents the people.

The problem with that line of thinking is that it twists perceptions, which can and does lead people to believe falsehoods. Harm can come when those falsehoods are acted upon (for voting, policy, activism, etc.).

To use a little hyperbole: if you focus on condemning democracies for human rights abuses and ignore (to various degrees) the worse abuses of non-democracies, you may end up just delegitimizing democracy in the eyes of many, because you've created the impression that democracies are the bad guys and are the main human rights violators.

> Israel is a democracy, and therefore (at least in theory) the government represents the people.

Netanyahu says the West Bank is Israel, and within Israel de facto and de jure it is. Yet Palestinians in the West Bank can not vote, and there is talk in the Knesset of disenfranchising Palestinians outside of the West Bank. Yet a Jew from Brooklyn can move to the West Bank, seize a Palestinian's land, and vote in elections.

Yet this is termed a democracy in comparison to Iran.

Not necessarily for the Palestinians, but the Israelis definitely have a say in what their government allows. If they wanted to, they could stop that practice, and restore the Palestinians. As such, all Israelis are partially to blame for what's happened.

> Netanyahu says the West Bank is Israel, and within Israel de facto and de jure it is

It's funny, because I never saw huge red signs warning me "if you're israeli, don't come here, you're gonna get killed" around Petakh Tikva.

> Yet Palestinians in the West Bank can not vote

They can vote in PA elections - if they finally to end their political clusterfuck and do something, of course.

> They can vote in PA elections

I can vote in my local Elks Club elections as well.

People in the West Bank live in Israel but can not vote in Israeli elections.

Actually - Palestinians living in Israel in the West Bank can't vote. A haredi Jew from Brooklyn who arrived in the West Bank yesterday and stole land from a Palestinian family who has been there for centuries, he has a right to vote in the elections of the country he is living in.

Iranians can revolt, most huge social changes requires revolt. Government is a result of the people, if the majority were not ok with it I think it would not last long.

To me this implies on some level that the people of the country like their government.

Except not that long ago the Iranians DID revolt, following a sham election where the reformists/progressives should have won. They got into the streets. And then they got shot.

You seem to be living in a phantasy world where subjects of a dictature are just "asking for it", and a 50%-or-more majority should magically change everything. That's not how power works. Money and bullets, you see, matter more than ballots.

The US did the same, revolted against a well armed adversary.

The people are the power, paper money is no match.

The revolting side was well armed as well. It's not the case in Saudi Arabia.

Can you cite something for this? Everything I read is to the contrary, that they are well armed.

I find it surprising, but indeed, firearms per capita amount is pretty high for Saudi Arabia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c... .

How well is that working out for Syria and Libya at the moment?

The whole concept of a dictatorship is that the ruling party has more power and can keep the people subjugated. The civilian populace don't have tanks and helicopters.

Guerrilla warfare is an extremely effective form of revolt. A bunch of people taking on a tank head on, a death sentence. But that's where sabotage should come into play.

> So true. The USA is viewed worse than China, Russia or Saudi Arabia.

I think this is a reaction to the perceived hypocrisy of the US. Like any country, the US has a complex history as well as a variety of cultural and political issues that need addressing. However the US also consistently and loudly bills itself as "The Greatest Country on Earth". I think this contradiction fuels a lot of hyperbole about how bad the US is when it fails to live up to its own marketing.

All of this is exacerbated because US cultural exports (Movies and Television) have such huge global reach. When you're a kid - whether in the US or not - and you see the pro-American messaging in many popular films you definitely believe it. The disillusionment can hit hard.

But the greater irony is that Silicon Valley is just as hypocritical in its self-promotion.

But "The Greatest Country on Earth" does not mean "no flaws" or even "no hypocrisy". It may even mean "the flaws are more openly acknowledged" - that can be part of greatness, in fact.

Now, if you want to argue that somewhere else is in fact better, that could be valid, but it's a different argument.

The whole idea that one country is the best is already ridiculous. There are plenty of countries that are well run and all have positives and negatives. I don't think to makes sense to pick a "best" country between the US, Canada and most European countries. They all can be good places to live.

Living in the US I definitely don't like that a lot of people here think that the US is the greatest nation on Earth. It's a mindset that blocks the country from learning from others and I think is doing a lot of damage (see health care and conditions for the poor). Interestingly people who have that mindset often never have been in another country for an extended time. The only thing they know is the US.

I'll go ahead and say the United States is the greatest country the world has ever seen. It's not perfect, but once you live in other countries for a bit, even if you enjoy the experience, you appreciate the U.S. a lot more.

This claim sticks in the throat of a lot of Europeans, because of the visible level of inequality in the US. We see many of your citizens suffering in ways that simply wouldn't happen in our countries; we struggle to find a charitable way of reconciling that with the claim that America is the best country.

If you're the richest and most powerful nation in history, why do you have the highest incarceration rate in the world? Why do so many sick and injured Americans end up bankrupt or die prematurely? Why do parts of Michigan look post-apocalyptic? Why are many of your schools still de-facto segregated? Why is there a Wikipedia article titled "List of tent cities in the United States"?

We could understand a claim like "America is really weird - we're ridiculously wealthy, but our government is profoundly dysfunctional in ways that are hard to fix, which causes a great deal of avoidable suffering". That makes sense to us. A claim like "America is the greatest country the world has ever seen" sounds obscenely callous without some very strong caveats attached.

If there was a European nation of comparable size and diversity (class, race, history, etc) as America then these Europeans would have a point. I just roll my eyes when I read points like infant mortality, gun violence, literacy, etc are better in some European countries than the US (and thus, by proxy, said European country is better than the US) because we're comparing apples and oranges.

I'll echo GP's statement. America isn't perfect, but from the many countries I've visited (and with the many challenges that the US has to face), it's "The Greatest Country In the World".

Aggregate statistics for the EU is pretty much the same as for any single member state. You don't get any more complicated history than that, also half bigger than US. I don't see how you're so exceptional an orange. But then I don't roll my eyes as a proxy for thinking.

Let's take infant mortality. The EU average (4 per 1000) is lower than the US average (5.8 per 1000). The EU has a population of 508 million, versus 325 million Americans.

Four of the 28 EU member states have a higher rate of infant mortality than the US average - Croatia (9.3), Romania (9.4), Bulgaria (8.4) and Cyprus (7.9). The first three are ex-communist countries and have only been democracies since the early 1990s.

25% of the Croatian economy was destroyed in the Croatian War of Independence of 1991 to 1995; it still has a number of active minefields. Romania was utterly brutalised by the Ceaușescu regime until 1989; you may dimly remember the horror of Ceaușescu's orphanages. If you don't, I suggest you steel yourself and have a stiff drink before Googling it. Bulgaria has a GDP per capita of just over $8,000 - a quarter of the GDP per capita of the poorest US state.

Cyprus suffered a coup d'etat by Greece and an invasion by Turkey in 1974, creating a lasting political division. There was a wall separating the Greek and Turkish sides of the island until 2007 and UN peacekeepers still maintain a demilitarized buffer zone.

That's what we're dealing with in the EU. Those are our excuses. What are yours?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/...

Even when Europeans critique the United States, they're critiquing the US from the US liberal perspective.

> Why do so many sick and injured Americans end up bankrupt or die prematurely?

Because we don't have a national healthcare system. Why? Because people vote against it. The party in charge of the entire country would cut the government by half if it had the power to do so, and they keep getting elected because a large portion of the country agrees with them. Even within the Democratic party, large portions don't want a national healthcare system (though polling on this has changed in recent years). Why? Because if you have a job you probably have a healthcare plan, and a good portion of the country doesn't want their taxes raised to pay for healthcare ran by the government. Even liberals in the US have trouble understanding this.

> Why do parts of Michigan look post-apocalyptic?

Michigan is a gorgeous state (you'd know this if you were at all familiar with it) with one of the best universities in the world, and a GDP higher than most EU countries. If Michigan is post-apocalyptic, then most EU countries are favelas in Rio after a nuclear holocaust.

> Why are many of your schools still de-facto segregated? Why is there a Wikipedia article titled "List of tent cities in the United States"?

We have income inequality. We don't have a consensus on what to do about it.

> We could understand a claim like "America is really weird - we're ridiculously wealthy, but our government is profoundly dysfunctional in ways that are hard to fix, which causes a great deal of avoidable suffering". That makes sense to us. A claim like "America is the greatest country the world has ever seen" sounds obscenely callous without some very strong caveats attached.

Sure, but many Americans don't understand why you guys are so reliant and on your government and refuse to take ownership of your own lives. Many would argue that your constant need for government to provide for you is why the EU, for being almost twice the size of the US, lacks the cultural and political influence, and innovation that the US has.

The US, for better or worse, is a "get mine and don't worry about anyone else" country. Even the "left" in the US gets upset when something of "theirs" is threatened to be taken for the better good - just look at the housing situation in liberal San Francisco.

> Because we don't have a national healthcare system. Why? Because people vote against it.

Most Americans have supported some form of public healthcare for most (but not all) years for about two decades (scroll to end of article for stat): http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-suppo...

So in fact you want the same thing as Europeans, you just don't live up to your own standards.

As for your comment on "favelas after a nuke" in Europe, I'll just remind you you're not on Reddit, you're supposed to come up with real arguments.

> Even when Europeans critique the United States, they're critiquing the US from the US liberal perspective.

You probably know this, but "US liberal perspective" is center-right to the rest of the world (not only Europe). I'd argue they're critiquing from the political center.

My system one thinking has the impression the USA is better than Russia or Saudi Arabia but kinda swings and roundabouts with China.

My system two thinking, given what people say about things rather than personal experience, puts a lot of caveats on top of the China comparison.

However, basing my judgement purely on direct personal experience: regarding “greatest the world has ever seen”… I’d rather have been born a random citizen of France, Netherlands, (west) Germany, Switzerland, or the UK, than a random citizen of the USA — and again, that’s just out of the places I’ve actually visited or lived in.

Going back to second hand impressions: Canada, Ireland, and most of Scandinavia seems better than the impression I have of the USA from three visits of one month each.

Meh. I've spent enough time in the Netherlands and Israel to know that the quality of life in both countries is, in many ways, way better than here. Socialized medicine and cheap education go a really long way toward making people happy (even if they have less disposable income).

Where do you live now? Why?

I currently live split between NY and Miami but am starting to look at jobs outside the US.

>> [T]he greatest country the world has ever seen

Something tells me you have not seen (let alone lived in) that many countries.

If you had, you'd know different societies have different ups and downs. Some countries have more taxes, they also have more perks (e.g. schools and healthcare are not a lottery); some have less money, but also less problems (lower crime rate, low pollution). "Greatest" is meaningless.

It might be the greatest if you have a decent amount of money. My experiences with poorer rural communities really changed my perspective on the US (and I assume inner cities communities would also have the same effect).

>I'll go ahead and say the United States is the greatest country the world has ever seen.

How the bloody heck can you quantify this, and provided you can, why not just throw out the blindly nationalistic rhetoric and use the measurements?

People who say stuff like this are usually people who have never set foot outside the US.

I lived in Germany for ten years. I like the US even less now.

What makes you believe that what you say is true?

>I'll go ahead and say the United States is the greatest country the world has ever seen. It's not perfect, but once you live in other countries for a bit, even if you enjoy the experience, you appreciate the U.S. a lot more.

Depends on whether you have lived in an advanced Western European country.

It also depends of your tolerance of rednecks, prudes, puritans, and ignorant people (which exist everywhere in the world, but have particularly large concentrations there).

Or on your tolerance of a messed up party system, a messed up legal system, a messed up prison system (and the biggest incarceration rates in the world), cops that have an open license to shoot people, and the worse and more widespread racism this side of South Africa. Or on your tolerance on very bad statistics on violence (especially gun violence).

Or on your tolerance for businesses having near feudal reign on their workers.

That said, if you have the money, and the connections, the US is a pretty good deal to spend them. Not to mention very nice landscapes, and generally good hearted and optimistic people (besides the aforementioned negatives).

Plus, for some industries (basically IT and movies), they're tops.

> It also depends of your tolerance of rednecks, prudes, puritans, and ignorant people (which exist everywhere in the world, but have particularly large concentrations there).

FYI, using "redneck" as a pejorative, as in this context, can be interpreted as pretty offensive, and maybe this is unintentional. I for one consider it offensive.

The term derives from someone who works in the sun. It's unambiguously elitist. I don't think you need to hedge here, it's quite clear.

I also enjoy the pejorative aimed at a sectarian group immediately followed by decrying "ignorant people".

>According to Chapman and Kipfer in their "Dictionary of American Slang", By 1975 the term had expanded in meaning beyond the poor Southerner to refer to "a bigoted and conventional person, a loutish ultra-conservative."[20]

If the OP was using it in this way, I don't see the issue. If he/she was using it to just describe laboring, rural whites, I agree; it's offensive and inappropriate. Given the context of the statement, I assumed the former.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redneck

On the topic, Randy Newman's song "Rednecks" is a scathing critique of Northerners and their "hidden" racism and hypocrisy on the subject.

>Yes he's free to be put in a cage In Harlem in New York City And he's free to be put in a cage On the South Side of Chicago And the West Side And he's free to be put in a cage In Hough in Cleveland And he's free to be put in a cage In East St. Louis And he's free to be put in a cage In Fillmore in San Francisco And he's free to be put in a cage In Roxbury in Boston They're gatherin' 'em up from miles around . . . (apologies for the formatting)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTLHxpUQ_B8 (NWS)

When Jeff Foxworthy does his (incredibly unfunny) "You might be a redneck, if..." bits, the crowd is not laughing and nodding and saying "That's so true, I too am a bigoted and loutish ultra-conservative!"

To many people, redneck simply describes a particular rural lifestyle. If the OP wanted to call out bigotry, they should have called out bigots.

(This, admittedly, might have been a difficult sell given that it was immediately followed up an attack on a religious group)

As an Asian, I have been to 10+ cities each in the US and Western Europe, and have spent considerable amount of time on both continents. While being a data point of one, here are my observations:

- Residents of European cities were less welcoming to foreigners like me. (Maybe due to language issues? I speak accented German, a bit of Spanish and English, which can explain why Parisians were rude).

- Immigration to USA, along with path to its citizenship, was a hard but straightforward process (6-7 years once you get H1B). In Europe, I found that UK and Switzerland has a simpler process, but other countries (eg. France) make it very hard to be their citizen.

- Stereotypes abound on both sides of Atlantic (eg. "socialist countries stuck with horrible economies", "rednecks, puritans, prudes, ignorant" as your comment says), which seem highly exaggerated.

- both US and Western Europe offered a far better quality of life compared to my home country. And such debates (USA vs Western Europe) seem farcical from that perspective, or "first world problems" as they say.

>Depends on whether you have lived in an advanced Western European country.

All of which enjoy the shadow of nuclear security provided by the United States.

That was true briefly for a few years. The EU is itself a fairly well-armed nuclear power.

psst They're also quietly better at cybersecurity than the US government.

This isn't true at all. The EU is just now starting to think about self defense because of Trump. Trump's insurgence is putting into question the US-led world order and NATO alliances. Without the US, NATO is functionally useless.

The EU is under the security blanket of the US, whether it likes to believe it or not. Hell, most of those countries pay less than 2 percent of their budgets towards their own defense, and they get pissy when the past three US Presidents call them out on it.

It is true that the EU has worked with NATO. However, it's not clear that America needs all the military force it has since a lot of it is quite cleary force projecting on economic adversaries.

Suggesting the EU "needed" this is a bit misleading. And I say this as an American exasperated at our refusal to reduce force projection on foreign nations.

The EU definitely "needed" it. Aside from France and the UK, EU countries are pathetic militarily.

NATO was originally formed to be a defense alliance of democratic countries against communism and Russia. Russia, while a threat to the United States, poses more of a threat to Europe (for geographic reasons) than to the United States.

The US of late has caused more shit than anything. The Syrian war is a direct consequence of going into Iraq for no reason.

Let’s go back a bit. The US intervened in Afghanistan against the Soviets decades ago, training what would become Al Qaeda, which would later attack the US. In response the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq (again) destabilizing the region and leading to the birth of ISIS, the “Arab Spring” and the Syrian civil war.

It’s just waves of blowback from bad decisions without any concept that the groundwork for more blowback is being laid.

You do know that France is a nuclear power, right?

You sound like someone who experiences America through news stories.

>Depends on whether you have lived in an advanced Western European country. Some people prefer not to sign over 3/4 of their pay to the government.

Yet, those same people are OK with handing 5/4s of their pay to billionaires.

The debt levels Americans sustain purely to avoid the “taxman” is astounding!

The "greatest country the world has ever seen" would not let people die simply because they could not afford medical care.

Of late i have noticed is u praise us or condemn other countries you get down voted.

That's been common for a long time.

I still don't get why someone has to say A is better than everything else. The second someone says A is better, there's an army of people frothing at the mouth who will (usually justifiably) say the opposite. There doesn't seem like any happy mediums anymore. One person is wrong, one person is right, but I'm pretty sure they're usually both right and both wrong.

tl;dr People are silly.

I think the reason a lot of US citizens focus on what the US has done wrong is not so sinister. It's because citizens of this country have the power to affect this country's public policy.

It's weird how a lot of people simultaneously hold a view of the US as an uncorruptible beacon of freedom but can also name heinous things the US is doing or has done that they hate. Not paying sufficient deference to the former ideal (often, dispensing with it as perfunctory performance in the vein of a daily pledge of allegiance to a flag) often makes people think that the US is regarded as especially evil.

A good test is your view on the 2nd Iraq War.

For background, as facts matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

"After 9/11, the Bush Administration national security team actively debated an invasion of Iraq. On the day of the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld asked his aides for: "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit Saddam Hussein at same time. Not only Osama bin Laden."[72] President Bush spoke with Rumsfeld on 21 November and instructed him to conduct a confidential review of OPLAN 1003, the war plan for invading Iraq.[73] Rumsfeld met with General Tommy Franks, the commander of U.S. Central Command, on 27 November to go over the plans. A record of the meeting includes the question "How start?", listing multiple possible justifications for a U.S.–Iraq War.[71][74] The rationale for invading Iraq as a response to 9/11 has been widely questioned, as there was no cooperation between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[75]"

Is this good, neutral, evil?

I'm not really sure how the 2nd Iraq War is a testament to American evil. It sounds to me like you're saying the invasion was unjustified?

But, is there really anyone who thought Saddam was a good guy? He was very obviously a brutal dictator. So, at the very least there's one fewer of those around.

Sure, WMD turned out to be a total fabrication and the Iraq War ended up being a misguided attempt at democracy building.

But saying that it shows America's inherent evil nature is very odd from my point of view. Even if the only outcome (as it seems to be) is getting rid of a dictator, that seems like a good thing. Though, you could argue the cost doesn't seem to have been worth it looking back now.

I guess I'm failing to imagine how it could possibly be in the evil bucket and not just neutral or good.

> Even if the only outcome (as it seems to be) is getting rid of a dictator,

Innocent people died, friend.

It's not as straight forward as this. Many innocent people died (and would have continued to die) at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime. So, was removing a ruthless dictator a good thing to do? On the surface, probably yes, but Saddam's removal left a huge power vacuum in the region, allowing even more extreme and violent factions to set up shop. So, in the end, would it have been better to leave a known genocide practitioner in place to maintain regional stability?

This is a very good answer.

It puts us in the situation of weighing the suffering and death of the war against the continued Saddam rule. That's an interesting debate where it is possible that the invasion was less good.

Do you understand how bonkers it sounds to play calculus with millions of lives in the service of geopolitics?

Did you feel the invasion of Germany in 1944 was in the services of geopolitics?

It's not geopolitics to try and determine if fewer people would die with or without Saddam in power. Saddam's chemical attacks against civilians are well documented and not widely disputed. His internal security apparatus was open with their brutality in order to induce fear on the population.

I think that the 2nd Iraq War was a mistake, particularly how the government misled the people, but I find it absolutely baffling when people will not even honestly address the situation in good faith. You cannot simply argue that "many people civilians died as a result of the Iraq War therefore it's bad" without addressing the situation beforehand. Lots of people died during the Allied invasion of Germany, but I think most people would agree that it was the correct thing to do.

> I think that the 2nd Iraq War was a mistake, particularly how the government mislead the people, but I find it absolutely baffling when people will not even honestly address the situation in good faith.

The justification for the war was obviously fabricated, so I don't know what sort of good faith you are asking for. Perhaps to debate some post hoc justification for a thoughtless decision that was paid for with the lives of people who didn't have a choice in the matter? People who touch such questions are only going to injure their humanity.

By the way, when you think about the question of WW2 in terms of "when to intervene" instead of "whether to intervene at all", it becomes as murky and vicious a question as can be, and it ought to make anyone queasy to examine in close detail the decisions made throughout the period. That said, the neoconservative methodology of deciding who to bomb has no justification and people who want to debate that have more urgent issues to address.

I suspect those inside the Warsaw Ghetto may have had different views on intervention than you do.

I absolutely agree that talking about intervention is murky, which was precisely my point.

Hundreds of thousands of people. Some estimates put the number at a million.

> Even if the only outcome (as it seems to be) is getting rid of a dictator, that seems like a good thing.

It also empowered radicals and created perfect conditions for them to thrive. By radicals I mean terrorists, proponents of Islamic state and such. Guns and ammunition ended in their hands that would not ended there.

Regardless of results, calling it merely misguided honest mistake in search of democracy building is naive or a lie. The war was not motivated by altruism and so called mistakes were simply lies. There us such thing as too much of benefit of doubt.

That does not mean other countries leaders are less cynical or more altrustic through, merely they have less power.

_Active_ WMD program turned to be a total fabrication. WMDs were a-plenty in Iraq: "American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs" from https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/14/world/middlee...

> But, is there really anyone who thought Saddam was a good guy?

Yes. The US, just 20 years prior during the Iran-Iraq war [1]. That's kind of the point. Since WWII the US engages in or supports wars (which kill lots of people) out of naked self-interest while trying to paint themselves as morally good.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iraq_2

I think it’s very idealistic to think that the war was for helping the oppressed people of Iraq. Iraq War costed $2.4 trillion[1], figure out who pocketed it and then you will have a picture closer to reality. That picture tells me that the intentions were more corrupt than pure.

[1] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War

I did not state my personal opinion, just asked a question.

I believe public forums are great to post facts and questions, but horrible to debate opinions.

I just was shocked to hear that anyone considered it was even possibly an evil thing and not just misguided.

So, I am actually happy to see another poster's short comment about civilian casualties, destruction, and other impacts of war.

That was kinda a perfect answer I think. You could see it as evil from a utilitarian standpoint because the suffering under Saddam was less than the suffering it took to displace him.

I have no idea how to weigh those two, but that's an area where I could see someone coming down on the side of letting the dictatorship continue is "less bad". Though I don't really agree with that position.

I don't think evil is the right term. Arrogant is a better one. I think they really believed that the people in Iraq were waiting for the the US to liberate them and would become loyal allies immediately.

I hear a lot of that, but when comparing the US to the rest of the West. To say that they are considered worse than those 3 countries might be pushing it..

It's a "with great power comes great responsibility" kind of thing, and it's not necessarily their fault. The US does a lot of things in general, so a lot of them are inevitably going to be bad.

> mandatory workplace political education

Also popular in these parts.

This is #1 why I prefer remote. #2 is I don't want the flu from compulsives who insist on hanging around the low-budget "open concept" office while sick af.

edit: Every one of these is hysterical. Can we write a pilot?

There are multiple ways to criticize something.

I think a lot of people view it worse than the propaganda image it presents (we export democracy, we put human right first etc). Russia, China and SA don't go out of their way to publicize their human right record or freedom or exporting any such values to other parts of the world. At least not in any believable way.

Another way to criticize something is to compare a place based on its history. Things are better or worse than before during the era of <X>. We were so much better then and now things are worse. Or vice versa.

And then there is comparative criticism, that is criticize like you mentioned, US vs Russia, China or SA. I have lived in Soviet Union and US, never lived in SA or China. But I would at least say US is much better place for me than the old Soviet Union was. But even then it is not black and white. For example at least hope of getting some subsidized housing, free medical care, university degrees etc was there.

Well, USSR fucked up half of Europe, but China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia didn't do much to anybody (except perhaps their immediate neighbours) in the 20th and 21st century.

The same can't be said for the US.

They might be whatever they are internally, but that's a problem for their citizens.

While the spread of Wahabism has been most acute in Saudi Arabia's neighbors, the growth in terrorism has definitely affected the whole world.

Granted though, not on the same scale that US wars do.

By Americans or non-Americans? I am an American, in SF about half time, and I don’t hear this. But, my friends are mostly American.

The people that tend to think America is awful in my experience overwhelmingly tend to be American. Most non-Americans seem to have good things to say.

It's a leftist/European critique of America. If you don't have free healthcare and free college, your nation is filled with neanderthals.

China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are three countries that have never invaded the United States, all of which were invaded by the United States.

Links?

You can just go to Wikipedia and look

Russia: American Expeditionary Force, North Russia - American Expeditionary Force, Siberia

China: Second Opium War - Eight-Nation Alliance ...I could point to dozens more for China, the latest article would probably be... Hainan Island Incident

Saudi Arabia: United States withdrawal from Saudi Arabia

All of the above invaded many other countries themselves, and their citizens do not enjoy nearly the same quality of life and liberty as those living in United States.

First: Many people read a comment. One writes it. It's kind of nice to take the time to put the links in, rather than making all your readers go to Wikipedia and search for themselves.

Second: The US withdrew from Saudi Arabia. That doesn't mean they got there by invading. They didn't.

> The US withdrew from Saudi Arabia. That doesn't mean they got there by invading. They didn't.

The US says Russia invaded Afghanistan. How did the US occupation of Saudi Arabia differ from what the US always termed as an invasion of Afghanistan?

I mean just the usage of the term "Saudi" Arabia, as if one puppet family had the divine right to rule a peninsula is itself some US/Aramco propaganda.

Also the US withdrew from Arabia because Saudi patriots fought the US military occupation - on Saudi soil and on US soil.