5 ms·

I would argue it's not colonialism, these countries can always say no, it just depends on political will and strength. That's not really China's fault or concer

I would argue it's not colonialism, these countries can always say no, it just depends on political will and strength. That's not really China's fault or concern. Again, the US has done similar things in the past, hence the numerous US air force bases scattered around the world. It's simply practical to gain soft power, and then convert that soft power into harder power.

EvilEndures 8y ago
> I would argue it's not colonialism, these countries can always say no, it just depends on political will and strength. That's not really China's fault or concern. That is the US's rational for doing the same thing, yes. It doesn't end well. It results in stuff like the Iranian revolution. Installing and/or supporting "friendly leaders" who then push deals that are against the local national interest results in a great deal of hostility in the long run. The reason the US is hated isn't that the US is evil. It is the fact the US meddled in the affairs of others more than they should have and then leveraged concessions beyond what the native population wanted. China is repeating that mistake. > Again, the US has done similar things in the past, hence the numerous US air force bases scattered around the world. It's simply practical to gain soft power, and then convert that soft power into harder power. Practical? Yes. If you are expecting to go to war. If no war materializes, you've destroyed any chance of popular support in that country indefinitely. China is burning bridges with the native populations in these countries that won't go away in 5 years.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  >It doesn't end well. Why not? >It results in stuff like the Iranian revolution. Also resulted in the greatest era in human history in terms of peace and prosperity. >It is the fact the US meddled in the affairs of others more than they should have and then leveraged concessions beyond what the native population wanted. I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing.
  - EvilEndures 8y ago
    > Also resulted in the greatest era in human history in terms of peace and prosperity. You are confusing Capitalism with foreign policy. > Why not? Where do you think all this anti-US violence comes from? Empires have never fared well once they fell from power with the exception of the British who were geographically isolated and had very powerful allies. Simply because the bloodshed caused by US foreign policy mostly occurs on foreign soil doesn't mean it will stop just because the US is no longer an empire. > I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing. The US actively instigated violent revolutions, torture, and abuses in other countries. Pretending that is "part of maintaining global order" is absurd. The pillars of what the US is credited for is something half the population actively rebels against (globalism, free trade) and were achieved in spite of the popular will domestically. Simply because I believe a certain technique should be verboten doesn't mean I ignored credit for the US's successes.
    - j1vms 8y ago
      > I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing. Being at the top (say, a superpower in today's world) means you enjoy at least an order of magnitude advantage over any other country in the majority of interactions you might have with them. If you think of maintaining global order as helping to maintain that lead, then not getting credit for anything really doesn't factor into any of the decision-making calculus.
      - macspoofing 8y ago
        >If you think of maintaining global order as helping to maintain that lead Except I wouldn't think of it that way. I don't think that's the correct interpretation. I think maintaining global order means you live in the world you want to live in. Americans wanted to spread American ideals of Democracy, free speech and free enterprise. Soviet Union wanted to spread Soviet ideals. I think that's as simple as that.
    - macspoofing 8y ago
- andrepd 8y ago
  >The reason the US is hated isn't that the US is evil. If toppling democratically elected governments for financial gain, sanctioning genocides and arming their perpetrators, installing brutal dictatorships, all in name of making a quick buck, if that isn't evil I don't know what is.
  - EvilEndures 8y ago
    Individual actions by individual actors in the US political system were evil. That does not mean US as a whole is evil. Merely that evil people got into power for periods of time. A country cannot be judged as if it acted with one mind, one body, and one will.
    - andrepd 8y ago
      The people consented, and benefited from, that state of affairs. In a democracy, that means the people can answer for the actions of their leaders. Although I concede reality is far from being as simple as this, to some extent at least we must hold the electorate of the US responsible for the actions of the government of the US, no?
      - EvilEndures 8y ago
        As an independent, I'm given two choices every election to pick from. I like neither and hold my nose as I vote for the lesser evil. Do you feel I should be held responsible for the actions of Trump given: A) I didn't vote for him. B) I didn't really want to vote for Clinton, but I did. C) I didn't have a third option with a realistic chance of winning the presidency. D) The "lesser evil" voting strategy has been my life since I turned 18 and I can't really stand either party. If you answered "No", you just admitted there is no true majority in the US since this is how a third of the electorate votes.
        dang 8y ago
        Can you please stop using HN primarily for political battle? That's a violation of the site guidelines and the spirit of intellectual curiosity that, against the odds, we're trying to keep up here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
adventured 8y ago
The US is nearly universally accused of having a global oppressive empire precisely due to those military bases. When you point out to skeptics that the host countries can ask the US to leave at any time, you get the predictable responses. So even if you're correct and the host is making a volitional choice, that's not how it's going to be perceived as time goes on and China's military and economy continues to increase in size and reach.
- Tehdasi 8y ago
  The difference between the US and China is the US makes the bases to cement alliances (well mostly), which is why the US is wanted in those countries. China is doing it to cement their hegemony, which the populous of host countries are not too impressed with.
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    The US system is definitely more clever than the Chinese or Russian imperial systems. I mean, some people even believed the Ukrainian coup wasn't done by the US. There's this great documentary called "Germany after the war" which bears attention to people who wish to understand how the world works. West Germany ... pretty much as overt a satrapy as East Germany was. Basically, China is the jailhouse thug that enslaves you for a carton of smokes you borrowed. The US is the Hollywood producer who achieves the same ends through more subtle means.
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      > I mean, some people even believed the Ukrainian coup wasn't done by the US. Isn’t it only Russians who think that the Ukrainian coup was done by the US?
BurningFrog 8y ago
The US is not at all doing the same thing. China is spending trillions building infrastructure across the planet. The US is spending trillions bombing its enemies across the planet. Both policies are arguably wasteful and misguided, but I'm pretty sure China will be left with the longer standing positive impact and goodwill.
- FruityFarm 8y ago
  HN Logic: It's only bad if China is doing it but not when the U.S. does it.
  - andrepd 8y ago
    Why is it "HN logic" if one guy said it? Look at the thread and you will see general sentiment is precisely the opposite. Hate these kinds of comments.
- amaccuish 8y ago
  Very true. I should have made that clearer in my comment.
decebalus1 8y ago
> Again, the US has done similar things in the past, hence the numerous US air force bases scattered around the world. It's simply practical to gain soft power, and then convert that soft power into harder power. And this is why that strategy is called American Imperialism, also called "a kind of low-grade colonialism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism#Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism#Empire
awad 8y ago
Tongue in cheek response: Why be an old-school colonialist while taking on all that political, societal, and economic overhead when you can be a modern-day neocolonialist and get most of the upside with much less of the downside? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism
amaccuish 8y ago
Hmm, I've clearly written my post very poorly. It was from a UK perspective (British Empire and all the horrors that came from that etc).

EvilEndures 8y ago

> I would argue it's not colonialism, these countries can always say no, it just depends on political will and strength. That's not really China's fault or concern. That is the US's rational for doing the same thing, yes. It doesn't end well. It results in stuff like the Iranian revolution. Installing and/or supporting "friendly leaders" who then push deals that are against the local national interest results in a great deal of hostility in the long run. The reason the US is hated isn't that the US is evil. It is the fact the US meddled in the affairs of others more than they should have and then leveraged concessions beyond what the native population wanted. China is repeating that mistake. > Again, the US has done similar things in the past, hence the numerous US air force bases scattered around the world. It's simply practical to gain soft power, and then convert that soft power into harder power. Practical? Yes. If you are expecting to go to war. If no war materializes, you've destroyed any chance of popular support in that country indefinitely. China is burning bridges with the native populations in these countries that won't go away in 5 years.

macspoofing 8y ago
>It doesn't end well. Why not? >It results in stuff like the Iranian revolution. Also resulted in the greatest era in human history in terms of peace and prosperity. >It is the fact the US meddled in the affairs of others more than they should have and then leveraged concessions beyond what the native population wanted. I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing.
- EvilEndures 8y ago
  > Also resulted in the greatest era in human history in terms of peace and prosperity. You are confusing Capitalism with foreign policy. > Why not? Where do you think all this anti-US violence comes from? Empires have never fared well once they fell from power with the exception of the British who were geographically isolated and had very powerful allies. Simply because the bloodshed caused by US foreign policy mostly occurs on foreign soil doesn't mean it will stop just because the US is no longer an empire. > I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing. The US actively instigated violent revolutions, torture, and abuses in other countries. Pretending that is "part of maintaining global order" is absurd. The pillars of what the US is credited for is something half the population actively rebels against (globalism, free trade) and were achieved in spite of the popular will domestically. Simply because I believe a certain technique should be verboten doesn't mean I ignored credit for the US's successes.
  - j1vms 8y ago
    > I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing. Being at the top (say, a superpower in today's world) means you enjoy at least an order of magnitude advantage over any other country in the majority of interactions you might have with them. If you think of maintaining global order as helping to maintain that lead, then not getting credit for anything really doesn't factor into any of the decision-making calculus.
    - macspoofing 8y ago
      >If you think of maintaining global order as helping to maintain that lead Except I wouldn't think of it that way. I don't think that's the correct interpretation. I think maintaining global order means you live in the world you want to live in. Americans wanted to spread American ideals of Democracy, free speech and free enterprise. Soviet Union wanted to spread Soviet ideals. I think that's as simple as that.
  - macspoofing 8y ago
andrepd 8y ago
>The reason the US is hated isn't that the US is evil. If toppling democratically elected governments for financial gain, sanctioning genocides and arming their perpetrators, installing brutal dictatorships, all in name of making a quick buck, if that isn't evil I don't know what is.
- EvilEndures 8y ago
  Individual actions by individual actors in the US political system were evil. That does not mean US as a whole is evil. Merely that evil people got into power for periods of time. A country cannot be judged as if it acted with one mind, one body, and one will.
  - andrepd 8y ago
    The people consented, and benefited from, that state of affairs. In a democracy, that means the people can answer for the actions of their leaders. Although I concede reality is far from being as simple as this, to some extent at least we must hold the electorate of the US responsible for the actions of the government of the US, no?
    - EvilEndures 8y ago
      As an independent, I'm given two choices every election to pick from. I like neither and hold my nose as I vote for the lesser evil. Do you feel I should be held responsible for the actions of Trump given: A) I didn't vote for him. B) I didn't really want to vote for Clinton, but I did. C) I didn't have a third option with a realistic chance of winning the presidency. D) The "lesser evil" voting strategy has been my life since I turned 18 and I can't really stand either party. If you answered "No", you just admitted there is no true majority in the US since this is how a third of the electorate votes.
      - dang 8y ago
        Can you please stop using HN primarily for political battle? That's a violation of the site guidelines and the spirit of intellectual curiosity that, against the odds, we're trying to keep up here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

adventured 8y ago

The US is nearly universally accused of having a global oppressive empire precisely due to those military bases. When you point out to skeptics that the host countries can ask the US to leave at any time, you get the predictable responses. So even if you're correct and the host is making a volitional choice, that's not how it's going to be perceived as time goes on and China's military and economy continues to increase in size and reach.

Tehdasi 8y ago
The difference between the US and China is the US makes the bases to cement alliances (well mostly), which is why the US is wanted in those countries. China is doing it to cement their hegemony, which the populous of host countries are not too impressed with.
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  The US system is definitely more clever than the Chinese or Russian imperial systems. I mean, some people even believed the Ukrainian coup wasn't done by the US. There's this great documentary called "Germany after the war" which bears attention to people who wish to understand how the world works. West Germany ... pretty much as overt a satrapy as East Germany was. Basically, China is the jailhouse thug that enslaves you for a carton of smokes you borrowed. The US is the Hollywood producer who achieves the same ends through more subtle means.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    > I mean, some people even believed the Ukrainian coup wasn't done by the US. Isn’t it only Russians who think that the Ukrainian coup was done by the US?

BurningFrog 8y ago

The US is not at all doing the same thing. China is spending trillions building infrastructure across the planet. The US is spending trillions bombing its enemies across the planet. Both policies are arguably wasteful and misguided, but I'm pretty sure China will be left with the longer standing positive impact and goodwill.

FruityFarm 8y ago
HN Logic: It's only bad if China is doing it but not when the U.S. does it.
- andrepd 8y ago
  Why is it "HN logic" if one guy said it? Look at the thread and you will see general sentiment is precisely the opposite. Hate these kinds of comments.
amaccuish 8y ago
Very true. I should have made that clearer in my comment.

decebalus1 8y ago

> Again, the US has done similar things in the past, hence the numerous US air force bases scattered around the world. It's simply practical to gain soft power, and then convert that soft power into harder power. And this is why that strategy is called American Imperialism, also called "a kind of low-grade colonialism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism#Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism#Empire

awad 8y ago

Tongue in cheek response: Why be an old-school colonialist while taking on all that political, societal, and economic overhead when you can be a modern-day neocolonialist and get most of the upside with much less of the downside? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

amaccuish 8y ago

Hmm, I've clearly written my post very poorly. It was from a UK perspective (British Empire and all the horrors that came from that etc).