5 ms·

Russia takes care of Russia, China takes care of China, and well, US takes care of US, but acts as if they take care of the world. US foreign policy is meant t

Russia takes care of Russia, China takes care of China, and well, US takes care of US, but acts as if they take care of the world. US foreign policy is meant to improve US. If you don't agree, please give me an example where they wanted to "spread democracy" without any personal gain. And I'm perfectly fine here in EU thank you very much.

obiye 6y ago
> implying the EU is a world power Ok thanks for your opinion lol
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
You can thank us later for fixing that Milosevic problem that the EU should have dealt with itself.
- sudhebern 6y ago
  Shh, HN is super pro EU. You're not allowed to point out that nobody cares about them outside of trade.
obiye27 6y ago
You didn’t answer the question, which is itself an answer. And as you know, the EU is an empty husk, not a world power. It can’t even agree which countries are members. If you truly believe the US is only self interested, why get angry about things like the Iraq war? Surely this is normal for a self interested nation to conquer others?
simonh 6y ago
You can look at it that way sure. The USA benefits from global stability and trade, but don't pretend the USA's trading and defence partners don't benefit as well. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. In contrast, how many countries have that sort of relationship with Russia or China? You could argue Syria has benefited from Russian patronage, but in reality Russia doesn't care at all about Syria, only it's base in Tartus. China has no regional allies whatsoever. The key difference is that the USA has a reputation to protect. It has so many allies, both military and economic, that if it sells out one of them for purely transactional gain, it weakens it's relationships with all it's other partners.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >but don't pretend the USA's trading and defence partners don't benefit as well. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. How has Iraq benefited? What benefit do the people of Saudi Arabia see from our relationship? How many of the US led South American regime changes have benefitted the populace? >It has so many allies, both military and economic, that if it sells out one of them for purely transactional gain, it weakens it's relationships with all it's other partners. We sell them out constantly. None of those "partners" have other options. Working against the US means most of the world refusing to interact with you, or a regime change on the horizon.
  - simonh 6y ago
    Iraq are our allies against ISIS, they did most of the actual on the ground fighting. Saudi Arabia was terrified Saddam would attack them next, and we now know that was his intended next move after a Kuwait. Also the US is the prime obstacle to Iranian operations against the Saudis. SA spends big on defence, but they’re hopelessly inexperienced, while Iran has plenty of military experience from the wars with a Iraq and operations in Syria. They may look under equipped on paper, but they’d eat SA for breakfast in an actual conflict. America’s efforts at regime change in the America’s are an appalling catalogue of screwups and bloody disasters. No argument there. But then NATO has been a useful and very effective alliance, effectively keeping Russia in check. Ask the Baltic States or the Eastern European states how they feel about it. We’ve had setbacks like Ukraine, but boy it could have been a _lot_ worse. Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines and Japan have benefited hugely. Even Vietnam is now becoming a regional ally.
    - boomboomsubban 6y ago
      >Iraq are our allies against ISIS, they did most of the actual on the ground fighting. ISIS exists because of US action, they are not benefitting from this. >Saudi Arabia was terrified Saddam would attack them next, and we now know that was his intended next move after a Kuwait. Not only is this just untrue, Saddam Hussein discussed the invasion of Kuwait with the US before the invasion, our deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia stemming from that event has caused numerous problems for the people of the country. >Also the US is the prime obstacle to Iranian operations against the Saudis Though I'm not sure how the citizens of Saudi Arabia are benefitting from this in your version of events, the Saudi troops should be well trained from their ongoing war in Yemen. >But then NATO has been a useful and very effective alliance, effectively keeping Russia in check. Ask the Baltic States or the Eastern European states how they feel about it On the other hand, NATO encroachment could be blamed for much of Russia's aggression. Crimea lasted twenty years under Ukrainian control after all, but would NATO continue letting Russia access it's Black Sea port?

obiye 6y ago

> implying the EU is a world power Ok thanks for your opinion lol

kevin_thibedeau 6y ago

You can thank us later for fixing that Milosevic problem that the EU should have dealt with itself.

sudhebern 6y ago
Shh, HN is super pro EU. You're not allowed to point out that nobody cares about them outside of trade.

obiye27 6y ago

You didn’t answer the question, which is itself an answer. And as you know, the EU is an empty husk, not a world power. It can’t even agree which countries are members. If you truly believe the US is only self interested, why get angry about things like the Iraq war? Surely this is normal for a self interested nation to conquer others?

simonh 6y ago

You can look at it that way sure. The USA benefits from global stability and trade, but don't pretend the USA's trading and defence partners don't benefit as well. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. In contrast, how many countries have that sort of relationship with Russia or China? You could argue Syria has benefited from Russian patronage, but in reality Russia doesn't care at all about Syria, only it's base in Tartus. China has no regional allies whatsoever. The key difference is that the USA has a reputation to protect. It has so many allies, both military and economic, that if it sells out one of them for purely transactional gain, it weakens it's relationships with all it's other partners.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>but don't pretend the USA's trading and defence partners don't benefit as well. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. How has Iraq benefited? What benefit do the people of Saudi Arabia see from our relationship? How many of the US led South American regime changes have benefitted the populace? >It has so many allies, both military and economic, that if it sells out one of them for purely transactional gain, it weakens it's relationships with all it's other partners. We sell them out constantly. None of those "partners" have other options. Working against the US means most of the world refusing to interact with you, or a regime change on the horizon.
- simonh 6y ago
  Iraq are our allies against ISIS, they did most of the actual on the ground fighting. Saudi Arabia was terrified Saddam would attack them next, and we now know that was his intended next move after a Kuwait. Also the US is the prime obstacle to Iranian operations against the Saudis. SA spends big on defence, but they’re hopelessly inexperienced, while Iran has plenty of military experience from the wars with a Iraq and operations in Syria. They may look under equipped on paper, but they’d eat SA for breakfast in an actual conflict. America’s efforts at regime change in the America’s are an appalling catalogue of screwups and bloody disasters. No argument there. But then NATO has been a useful and very effective alliance, effectively keeping Russia in check. Ask the Baltic States or the Eastern European states how they feel about it. We’ve had setbacks like Ukraine, but boy it could have been a _lot_ worse. Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines and Japan have benefited hugely. Even Vietnam is now becoming a regional ally.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >Iraq are our allies against ISIS, they did most of the actual on the ground fighting. ISIS exists because of US action, they are not benefitting from this. >Saudi Arabia was terrified Saddam would attack them next, and we now know that was his intended next move after a Kuwait. Not only is this just untrue, Saddam Hussein discussed the invasion of Kuwait with the US before the invasion, our deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia stemming from that event has caused numerous problems for the people of the country. >Also the US is the prime obstacle to Iranian operations against the Saudis Though I'm not sure how the citizens of Saudi Arabia are benefitting from this in your version of events, the Saudi troops should be well trained from their ongoing war in Yemen. >But then NATO has been a useful and very effective alliance, effectively keeping Russia in check. Ask the Baltic States or the Eastern European states how they feel about it On the other hand, NATO encroachment could be blamed for much of Russia's aggression. Crimea lasted twenty years under Ukrainian control after all, but would NATO continue letting Russia access it's Black Sea port?