Right, if you're a U.S citizen maybe not, otherwise they'll do that and worse, read on "enhanced integrations", kidnappings etc.
So the U.S is better domestically, (still employs prisoners as effectively slave labor, treats minorities harshly, lets people die due to lack of healthcare...), but it is worse in terms of foreign policy, so in the end it seems to be a bit of a wash, doesn't it?
Also all the nations in Africa with newly built debt trap infrastructure.
The US has done some truly shit things abroad, but we’ve also been the dominant superpower during a period of unprecedented stability, prosperity, and peace when you look at the numbers.
Sure Iraq was a shit show, and I’m of the opinion that war crimes were committed during enhanced interrogations.
But the entire history of the world before WWII is just one long history of war basically everywhere. Open market slavery.
The US isn’t perfect, but the alternative filled with constant regional conflicts everywhere certainly seems like a worse alternative to me.
Edit: not sure why I waded into this conversation.
Curious though, I’m seeing the 4x prison population for USA per capita number bandied about.
On one level, I see that number slowly improving as we stop arresting people for smoking marijuana.
And on the other, I’m really curious, and have no idea, are China’s Uighur population which are in “reeducation camps” counted in China’s numbers?
Aren’t they harvesting people’s organs in those places?
Rough. America’s always had a lot of outright and systemic racism but my feeling is that it slowly but surely keeps getting better.
I have a feeling Generation Z is going to be pretty open about things whether it’s sexuality, skin color, gender, or whatever.
Ultra PC and call out/cancel culture is another thing with it’s own warts, but yay for a society where an entire generation can push forward this new ideology of being whatever the hell you want to be.
The boomers are dying out, the evangelicals and religious are losing people every day.
I have faith we’ll be fighting for human rights and climate change accords soon.
I really hope at least.
So to conclude, my opinion, we’re no paragon of morals and values, but our history shows a slow but steady stride towards an ideal, one of freedom, and individuality, and opportunity, for all.
We take steps back, we make awful mistakes, but over the long term, we always move forward.
That’s the America I believe in. I hope I’m not wrong.
Sure, there were historically always some tensions at the border regions of these empires, but there are pressures of such nature felt in Europe now too, (the U.S. has the advantage of being physically very, very far from the regions in unleashes its worst policies on, so of course it's less felt there).
Also, all empires saw themselves as in some way policing, keeping peace and bringing their enlightened values to what they saw as the lesser. If we see that kind of thinking now as wrong, then I really don't see how the U.S. is so much different from the empire model of old.
As for China, I agree its regional foreign policy is not great, the problem is the U.S. doesn't just keep it regional. It treats the whole world as its backyard.
If you're a non-U.S. citizen, the unipolar world is not so great. I don't want China to say replace the U.S. as the dominant superpower, I want it to offer a counter-balance. I want the EU to be its own great power, offering counter balance to both, bringing both democratic values & a more humane treatment of its own citizens than the U.S. has, especially the less fortunate.
Try handing out flyers about civil rights in Washington DC and then try it in Beijing.
Of course it's easy to criticize the electoral college but look at the results of direct democracy recently, Brexit, the initial rejection of the FARC peace agreement in Columbia. There's a reason representative democracy is prefered to direct, it's just difficult to get a balance. Odds are that the Electoral College will be gone in my lifetime.
Is the authoritarian Chinese system better? Of course not.
The obvious counter-example to this argument is Switzerland, which has been a direct democracy (or as close as you can get) for more than 120 years.
Brexit wasn't caused by the system by which the vote was conducted. It was a genuine public sentiment that had been cultivated through decades of media propaganda and scapegoating by politicians. Yes, the fact it was a single-issue vote made the issue more prominent, but it's entirely possible that the same result may have occurred through a general election if the right parties had been galvanized in the same manner.
> There's a reason representative democracy is prefered to direct, it's just difficult to get a balance.
I wonder which group of people overwhelmingly prefers such a system. Political apathy is rampant throughout the world of representative democracies, with a prevailing sentiment that people's views aren't being represented. Two-party politics results in elites being able to control the scope of options available to the electorate.
> Odds are that the Electoral College will be gone in my lifetime.
We can only hope, but that won't solve the two-party problem (or any of the other problems in American democracy such as the rank corruption).
> Is the authoritarian Chinese system better? Of course not.
Is anyone arguing that? The whole point being made is that America is in no position to take the moral high-ground. The US financially (and usually militarily) backs 70% of the world's dictators.
... yeah, about that... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_f...
I'd pick a different spot to call us morally superior. Like, any other thread.
I never said anyone was completely superior. But in this specific case.. we are, because American citizens (and their families) don’t disappear for criticizing their government or for refusing to spy on other countries.
We have LOTS more prisoners, btw, 4x as many per capita, with a nasty racial bias. And that's before you get into all the dead Arabs and Latinos who dared to have a government that wasn't freedomy enough for us.
What's your exchange rate between those? Do you value the tiny number of people speaking out against the state's legitimacy that much, when were talking millions of other innocent lives?
Becoming suddenly sure that we MUST kneecap our rival for totally sound moral reasons is soooo American. I feel like I'm living in groundhog day and nobody else can tell.
I can’t change what my government has done, and I can’t really change what it’s doing besides voting, but I can have my own opinion.
A mob opinion that our chief rival must be kneecapped in the name of freedom and justice is super suspect, is what I'm saying.
Americans want American hegemony, and that's fine, but please don't preach about values while you're doing it.
I think we can talk without hyperbole, no?
>Americans want American hegemony,
Sorry if that's what you think.
As far as hegemony.. I'm sorry you don't believe that :) Why is specifically China the Big Bad Guy if it's not about hegemony? Why aren't we focused on cleaning our own house first if it's about justice and freedom?
Like, if this isn't about power, we could at least stop actively supporting the horrible regimes that are useful to us? That seems like a pretty easy thing to do. Why hasn't it happened?
There are significant online mobs dedicated to anything. That's not really a convincing argument. People who are advocating independence don't understand the situation, nor do they even understand what the protestors actually want (it's not independence).
> Why aren't we focused on cleaning our own house first if it's about justice and freedom?
It's almost as if America isn't comprised solely of 1 person! Not to mention, why can't people focus on both? This argument is basically "america has issues, so it can't point fingers". Not only is this an unconvincing argument, it doesn't make sense because what is "america"? Is it me, a singular US citizen? Is it Gitlab, a company headquartered in America with ~50% American employees? Is it just the US govt?
> Why hasn't it happened? Because people aren't informed and don't vote based on that. That is another complex discussion in and of itself, but most people that I know are against it, so I don't really get what your argument is.
It's also complex over there, where Americans don't speak the language or understand anything about the culture or history. Our lack of understanding does not make them 1-dimensional movie villains in reality.
1. I do not need to comprehensively understand a country's culture to know about security risks and totalitarian governments. In fact, both of my grandparents and parents lived in and fled from a communist country, so I know a thing or two about that. 2. I do not need to comprehensively understand a country's culture to understand when human rights abuses are happening.
This argument is a form of -gatekeeping-. "Only X people can really discuss this issue", except you can move the goalposts whenever necessary.
People often don't understand American culture or history (and sometimes don't English either) but that doesn't seem to phase them when discussing America, etc.
Don't be so sure of that. If you hold valuable information on a foreign state, you will be accused and quickly convicted under various national security laws if you don't co-operate.
You severely under-estimate the power of a state, especially one as powerful as the US. If they want something from you, they will get it. Have you broken a minor law? Maybe you've been stellar, but some member of your family hasn't. The likelihood of being in an entire family with spotless records is very very low.
Corruption and unfair things exist in every single country, but we do have the right to freedom of press, speech, assembly, and due process.
I do agree that the barrier for that may be lower in more authoritarian states, as they're not restricted by the system of laws in the US. Maybe that's the best we can get.
Or the infamous “signature strikes” that target individuals based on metadata? [1]
1. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/how-...
I find it intellectually dishonest to compare the USA’s foreign policy with a dictatorship government that forces compliance through threats on local relatives, etc.