4 ms·

It's inherently and explicitly hostile to democracy. As such, it is hostile to the democratic world, which includes the US.

myrmidon 4y ago
That view seems extremely inconsistent to me, and not defensible at all. On one hand, you have an authoritarian one-party government (only one less party than the US :P), where you put trade sanctions on basically consumer goods, while you actually supply weapon systems to an ABSOLUTE MONARCHY in Saudi Arabia?! It seems rather clear to me that "defense of democratic values" is absolutely not the primary motivation, but basically jealousy, and China IS a potential geopolitical (future?) rival, while the corrupt, murderous kleptocracts in Arabia are a convenient fuel provider and vassal. I'm not saying US foreign policy is WRONG-- just don't lie to yourself and others about its motivations...
- himinlomax 4y ago
  Textbook example of whataboutism. The fact that the US is not dunking on Saudi Arabia does not change the fact that the CCP is a murderous, genocidal, antidemocratic force that needs to be contained.
  - mardifoufs 4y ago
    Precedent isn't whataboutism. You cannot claim that the intentions of the US are to oppose dictatorships or whatever while also supporting saudi arabia. I mean, you can, but no amount of "whataboutism" accusations will make the claim credible. It's fine to just say that the US is doing it to counter a geopolitical rival, it requires a lot less mental gymnastics.
  - tivert 4y ago
    > The fact that the US is not dunking on Saudi Arabia does not change the fact that the CCP is a murderous, genocidal, antidemocratic force that needs to be contained. IIRC, the US did in fact "dunk" on Saudi Arabia after the Khashoggi murder, which kind of screwed them when they wanted cooperation to lower oil prices that wasn't given.
  - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
    It's fine to criticize the Chinese government for not being democratic or for restricting freedom of speech, but it's not genocidal, and over the last several decades, it's been far less murderous and aggressive than the US government. China hasn't even fought a war in over 40 years. No amount of invocations of "whataboutism" will erase the fact that the US killed hundreds of thousands of people in an illegal war in Iraq, while China has basically kept to itself for decades.
    - himinlomax 4y ago
      It's committing genocide on the Uyghur people. Of course we don't have a lot of evidenc, you'll say. Same thing useful people likely you said in the 1930s about the Holodomor. And there wasn't much evidence back then either for the same reason: communist dictatorship doing a hard lock down on journalism, and people like you to turn a blind eye to the horror.
      - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
        It's the first "genocide" in history in which nobody was killed. The people claiming it's a "genocide" don't even claim that anyone is being killed. If you actually press them, they try to redefine the word "genocide" to mean something completely different. Words have meaning, and a word as important as "genocide" should not be thrown around in bad faith as a polemical tool.
        himinlomax 4y ago
        > It's the first "genocide" in history in which nobody was killed Forcible displacement of populations and remvoing children from their parents and culture is considered genocide. For an example of the latter, see Putin's recent indictment by the ICC.
        DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
        Nobody in the public would consider what China is doing genocide. The word "genocide" means mass murder of an entire ethnic group. You're using the word because you know that that's how people interpret it, and you want the shock value. Exactly as I said, when pressed, you try to redefine the word to mean something completely different. By the way, even the far lesser claims you're making are incorrect. The Uyghur population in Xinjiang continues to grow, life expectancy is increasing, the language not only continues to be spoken but even continues to be the primary language used to teach Uyghur children in school. There is political repression, targeted particularly at what China regards as separatism and religious extremism, but the "genocide" accusation is pure bad faith.
  - myrmidon 4y ago
    > Textbook example of whataboutism. No. Whataboutism would if we were arguing about "China bad" and I pointed out "Saudis worse". But we're not. My point is that "protecting democratic values" is quite obviously NOT the prime motivation for US foreign policy-- this can be seen VERY clearly where US interests conflict with "protection of democratic values". The Saudis are just a very obvious recent example, but there are countless others-- like the coup against the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953, or the whole Snowden affair (spying on fully democratic allies, but also showing that even internal democratic concerns--constitutional rights + governmental agency accountability-- are secondary to national interests). The whole Snowden thing would have been an excellent opportunity to build credibility in this regard, to reassure citizens and allies alike, by simply admitting: "We did questionable, undemocratic things, but we're gonna fix it!", start by throwing James Clapper into prison for a few years, dissolve the Guantanamo bay concentration camp, and reinforce your citizens constitutional rights to not get spied on by your own government. But alas... /rant
    - himinlomax 4y ago
      You said, literally. "Whatabout Saudi Arabia." That's called whataboutism. Also SA is not worse than China. Saudi Arabia may have some modern day slavery going on, but China is depriving over a billion of basic freedoms and currently commiting genocide. They support North Korea, thr most oppressive regime on earth. They promote in their propaganda the worst mass murderer in History by far, Mao Zedong. But as always, there's people like you to say "but whatabout so-and-so."
      - myrmidon 4y ago
        I repeat: I'm NOT discussing the relative merits of the Chinese/Saudi regimes- I'm using the Saudis as a very recent example of how US foreign policy is clearly NOT primarily motivated by "spreading democratic values". You have so far neither addressed any of my actual points nor have you tried to make arguments in favor of your view. What are your precedents that give you such confidence that US foreign policy is primarily aimed at spreading democratic values instead of furthering US interests first and foremost?
- adamsb6 4y ago
  One of the first things Zelensky did after Russia invaded was to outlaw all other political parties. The U.S. government is fully supportive of this one party state. It's all realpolitik. Our leaders would never let a country's system of government override its usefulness to us. The Cold War is awash with examples of us supporting terrible dictators who aligned with us against the USSR.
  - throwaway_dn39d 4y ago
    > One of the first things Zelensky did after Russia invaded was to outlaw all other political parties. That assertion appears to be an exaggeration from what I can tell. Can you back up your statement that all other parties were banned, as opposed to some? > Ukraine suspends 11 political parties with links to Russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/ukraine-suspends-11-political-parties-with-links-to-russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/ukraine-suspen... > Late last year, Zelenskyy announced Poroshenko was being investigated for treason, and this past March, 11 political parties were suspended and any of their elected members dismissed from office for being pro-Russian. Most were fringe, but one party had nearly 10% of seats in Ukraine's Parliament. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-cons... Certainly banning some is starting down a path, but there is a big difference between All and Some. Particularly in the context of a country being invaded. The consolidation and control of television outlets in Ukraine by Zelensky is also worth noting, of course.
    - adamsb6 4y ago
      You're right, it's not all. I must have mis-remembered. Though I'll note that a lot of the states we consider to be "One Party" actually do allow controlled opposition parties, they just never let them gain actual power. With Ukraine banning its second largest party, Zelensky's party goes from about 40% to about 60%, and wouldn't need to form a coalition government.
      - throwaway_dn39d 4y ago

myrmidon 4y ago

That view seems extremely inconsistent to me, and not defensible at all. On one hand, you have an authoritarian one-party government (only one less party than the US :P), where you put trade sanctions on basically consumer goods, while you actually supply weapon systems to an ABSOLUTE MONARCHY in Saudi Arabia?! It seems rather clear to me that "defense of democratic values" is absolutely not the primary motivation, but basically jealousy, and China IS a potential geopolitical (future?) rival, while the corrupt, murderous kleptocracts in Arabia are a convenient fuel provider and vassal. I'm not saying US foreign policy is WRONG-- just don't lie to yourself and others about its motivations...

himinlomax 4y ago
Textbook example of whataboutism. The fact that the US is not dunking on Saudi Arabia does not change the fact that the CCP is a murderous, genocidal, antidemocratic force that needs to be contained.
- mardifoufs 4y ago
  Precedent isn't whataboutism. You cannot claim that the intentions of the US are to oppose dictatorships or whatever while also supporting saudi arabia. I mean, you can, but no amount of "whataboutism" accusations will make the claim credible. It's fine to just say that the US is doing it to counter a geopolitical rival, it requires a lot less mental gymnastics.
- tivert 4y ago
  > The fact that the US is not dunking on Saudi Arabia does not change the fact that the CCP is a murderous, genocidal, antidemocratic force that needs to be contained. IIRC, the US did in fact "dunk" on Saudi Arabia after the Khashoggi murder, which kind of screwed them when they wanted cooperation to lower oil prices that wasn't given.
- DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
  It's fine to criticize the Chinese government for not being democratic or for restricting freedom of speech, but it's not genocidal, and over the last several decades, it's been far less murderous and aggressive than the US government. China hasn't even fought a war in over 40 years. No amount of invocations of "whataboutism" will erase the fact that the US killed hundreds of thousands of people in an illegal war in Iraq, while China has basically kept to itself for decades.
  - himinlomax 4y ago
    It's committing genocide on the Uyghur people. Of course we don't have a lot of evidenc, you'll say. Same thing useful people likely you said in the 1930s about the Holodomor. And there wasn't much evidence back then either for the same reason: communist dictatorship doing a hard lock down on journalism, and people like you to turn a blind eye to the horror.
    - DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
      It's the first "genocide" in history in which nobody was killed. The people claiming it's a "genocide" don't even claim that anyone is being killed. If you actually press them, they try to redefine the word "genocide" to mean something completely different. Words have meaning, and a word as important as "genocide" should not be thrown around in bad faith as a polemical tool.
      - himinlomax 4y ago
        > It's the first "genocide" in history in which nobody was killed Forcible displacement of populations and remvoing children from their parents and culture is considered genocide. For an example of the latter, see Putin's recent indictment by the ICC.
        DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
        Nobody in the public would consider what China is doing genocide. The word "genocide" means mass murder of an entire ethnic group. You're using the word because you know that that's how people interpret it, and you want the shock value. Exactly as I said, when pressed, you try to redefine the word to mean something completely different. By the way, even the far lesser claims you're making are incorrect. The Uyghur population in Xinjiang continues to grow, life expectancy is increasing, the language not only continues to be spoken but even continues to be the primary language used to teach Uyghur children in school. There is political repression, targeted particularly at what China regards as separatism and religious extremism, but the "genocide" accusation is pure bad faith.
- myrmidon 4y ago
  > Textbook example of whataboutism. No. Whataboutism would if we were arguing about "China bad" and I pointed out "Saudis worse". But we're not. My point is that "protecting democratic values" is quite obviously NOT the prime motivation for US foreign policy-- this can be seen VERY clearly where US interests conflict with "protection of democratic values". The Saudis are just a very obvious recent example, but there are countless others-- like the coup against the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953, or the whole Snowden affair (spying on fully democratic allies, but also showing that even internal democratic concerns--constitutional rights + governmental agency accountability-- are secondary to national interests). The whole Snowden thing would have been an excellent opportunity to build credibility in this regard, to reassure citizens and allies alike, by simply admitting: "We did questionable, undemocratic things, but we're gonna fix it!", start by throwing James Clapper into prison for a few years, dissolve the Guantanamo bay concentration camp, and reinforce your citizens constitutional rights to not get spied on by your own government. But alas... /rant
  - himinlomax 4y ago
    You said, literally. "Whatabout Saudi Arabia." That's called whataboutism. Also SA is not worse than China. Saudi Arabia may have some modern day slavery going on, but China is depriving over a billion of basic freedoms and currently commiting genocide. They support North Korea, thr most oppressive regime on earth. They promote in their propaganda the worst mass murderer in History by far, Mao Zedong. But as always, there's people like you to say "but whatabout so-and-so."
    - myrmidon 4y ago
      I repeat: I'm NOT discussing the relative merits of the Chinese/Saudi regimes- I'm using the Saudis as a very recent example of how US foreign policy is clearly NOT primarily motivated by "spreading democratic values". You have so far neither addressed any of my actual points nor have you tried to make arguments in favor of your view. What are your precedents that give you such confidence that US foreign policy is primarily aimed at spreading democratic values instead of furthering US interests first and foremost?
adamsb6 4y ago
One of the first things Zelensky did after Russia invaded was to outlaw all other political parties. The U.S. government is fully supportive of this one party state. It's all realpolitik. Our leaders would never let a country's system of government override its usefulness to us. The Cold War is awash with examples of us supporting terrible dictators who aligned with us against the USSR.
- throwaway_dn39d 4y ago
  > One of the first things Zelensky did after Russia invaded was to outlaw all other political parties. That assertion appears to be an exaggeration from what I can tell. Can you back up your statement that all other parties were banned, as opposed to some? > Ukraine suspends 11 political parties with links to Russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/ukraine-suspends-11-political-parties-with-links-to-russia https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/20/ukraine-suspen... > Late last year, Zelenskyy announced Poroshenko was being investigated for treason, and this past March, 11 political parties were suspended and any of their elected members dismissed from office for being pro-Russian. Most were fringe, but one party had nearly 10% of seats in Ukraine's Parliament. https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-consolidated-ukraines-tv-outlets-and-dissolved-rival-political-par https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1110577439/zelenskyy-has-cons... Certainly banning some is starting down a path, but there is a big difference between All and Some. Particularly in the context of a country being invaded. The consolidation and control of television outlets in Ukraine by Zelensky is also worth noting, of course.
  - adamsb6 4y ago
    You're right, it's not all. I must have mis-remembered. Though I'll note that a lot of the states we consider to be "One Party" actually do allow controlled opposition parties, they just never let them gain actual power. With Ukraine banning its second largest party, Zelensky's party goes from about 40% to about 60%, and wouldn't need to form a coalition government.
    - throwaway_dn39d 4y ago