7 ms·

The issue is that the way you're expected to criticize America from what I observed is along the lines of 'they mean well but...' With China, you can say 'yeah

by Matl 6mo ago

The issue is that the way you're expected to criticize America from what I observed is along the lines of 'they mean well but...' With China, you can say 'yeah, this is good, but they eat babies for fun' and it would mostly pass with people nodding along.

0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
>The issue is that the way you're expected to criticize America from what I observed is along the lines of 'they mean well but...' Hard to think of any critique of the US I've seen on HN recently which acknowledges the possibility that we might mean well. Even during the Biden administration, right after we allocated billions of dollars to Ukraine, huge numbers of Europeans expressed an unfavorable view of the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u... They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war. Now they say they want to be buddies with China which has been actively helping Russia with arms. I don't think there is any point in the US trying to please Europe. And then you've got the Australians who express their burning hatred of the US for not giving more aid to Ukraine, while Australia's aid as a fraction of GDP is still sitting around 10-15% of that provided by the US.
- Matl 6mo ago
  > They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war. Europeans helped when you called after 9/11. Are you seriously arguing about being called warmongers considering what your government started in Iran? (and btw screwed the global energy market) This lack of self awareness is what turns people away.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
    >Europeans helped when you called after 9/11. So how would you feel if you got labeled as warmongers for that help? You're welcome to call us warmongers. Just don't expect us to help you fight wars if you do. Libya was Europe's idea -- we helped when you called -- yet the US still gets blamed for it. If the US had surged more weapons to Ukraine (as some Europeans were requesting), thus provoking Russia to launch a nuke, we surely would've been blamed for that too. The pattern I've noticed is that anywhere the US has foreign policy involvement (including Europe), there are locals in that region who are both for and against said involvement. People who aren't knowledgeable about the region will generally not know many details, and simply say "oh, the US is involved in a war again". If that's how we're going to be judged, then yes, I want to be involved in fewer wars. And withdrawing from NATO will help with that objective. So I favor NATO withdrawal.
    - Matl 6mo ago
      > Libya was Europe's idea. Hardly 'Europe's', it was the idea of some 'humanitarian interventionists' in the Obama admin and the then current president of France who wanted to cover up his corrupt dealings. For what it's worth, I am not a fan of NATO either, so we can agree on that. All US troops should imo immediately leave Europe and loose all access to military facilities on the continent. As for the whole warmongers thing, answer me two simple questions: 1. Was the 2003 Iraq war started based on false claims about WMDs? Yes/No? 2. Did you just attack Iran for no good reason? (Yes/No?)
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
        >Hardly 'Europe's', it was the idea of some 'humanitarian interventionists' in the Obama admin and the then current president of France who wanted to cover up his corrupt dealings. You can see French and UK leadership were making moves before the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... Obama's approach was referred to as "leading from behind". >For what it's worth, I am not a fan of NATO either, so we can agree on that. All US troops should imo immediately leave Europe and loose all access to military facilities on the continent. I'm glad we can agree on something. I find that a lot of Europeans are not willing to accept the logical implication of their stated beliefs. >As for the whole warmongers thing, answer me two simple questions: [...] I'm not sure why you're pushing this "warmongers" point. As I said, I'm an isolationist. I've left many comments here on HN about how I want the US to be more like Switzerland. The Swiss never do anything and thus they never get blamed for anything. The families of the thousands of Iranians slaughtered by the regime doubtless think that we are attacking Iran for a good reason. Same way the thousands of Ukrainians slaughtered by Russia probably thought our weapons deliveries were being given for a good reason. In any case we may be called "complicit" if we do not act -- the same arguments were used in the case of Libya. But we can't keep playing world police. We aren't very good at it, and it is not clear whether it is helpful. Not to mention the dubious ethics of getting involved in the affairs of other countries. You're either "complicit" in "propping up" bad regimes, or a "warmongering" "imperialist" who "destabilizes" them. There's no way to win. Given the choice, I prefer to be complicit.
  - 8note 6mo ago
    the US dodnt want help after 9/11 NATO insisted on helping
    - pelorat 5mo ago
      USA invoked article 5.
- OtomotO 6mo ago
  > They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war. There is a huge difference between attacking foreign nations because of oil... Oh, pardon me, because of... Geopolitical interests... Oh, pardon me... In the name of democracy and self-defense when you're being attacked (such as Ukraine). We came to help you after 9/11, when for some reason you invaded Iraq although Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda had taken responsibility... But sure, think that you're white guardians of the flame of freedom and democracy all you want! You're in exactly the same ballpark as China and Russia, they're just without the Hollywood propaganda.
- wat10000 6mo ago
  "They call us warmongers for carrying out an unprovoked invasion, and then wonder why we don't want to help them resist an unprovoked invasion." Think about this for just three seconds, I'm begging you.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
    The phrase "warmonger" doesn't specify anything about the nature of the war, or the reason it was started. It's a very simpleminded "war=bad". If that's how we will be judged, fine. As soon as you use the phrase "unprovoked" then you start getting into messy details. Are we so sure that the war in Ukraine was not provoked by NATO expansion? Are we so sure that the war in Iran was not provoked by Iran's actions against Israel or against its own people? The ideologue doesn't like details. They prefer to see the world in black and white.
    - wat10000 6mo ago
      warmonger - noun: one who urges or attempts to stir up war And to preempt the inevitable "the dictionary isn't always how people use it" response, this is in fact how everyone uses the word. So yes, it's very much tied to the nature of the war and the reason it was started. Attacking Iran for no particular reason is warmongering. Defending Ukraine from invasion is not. "Unprovoked" can be difficult but I don't think it actually is here. Yes, you can list reasons. But even if you believe the wars' proponents, the justification isn't there. It's like if I tap someone on the nose and they blow my head off. Was there some provocation? Technically, yes. Does the killing count as "provoked"? Not really. That word carries an implication of sufficient, justified provocation, not just "something happened." Did NATO expansion provoke the invasion of Ukraine? Maybe. Is that sufficient to say the invasion was "provoked"? No, not even close. Similar for the justifications given for Iraq and Iran.
      - 0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
        We'll be called warmongers regardless. E.g. many in this thread suggest all US Middle East activity has been warmongering, even though the Gulf War, for example, was fairly similar to Ukraine in the sense of a powerful state invading its weaker neighbor.
- roenxi 6mo ago
  > And then you've got the Australians who express their burning hatred of the US for not giving more aid to Ukraine, while Australia's aid as a fraction of GDP is still sitting around 10-15% of that provided by the US. Which Australians are we talking about here? Australia, if pushed to the absolute limit might formally send a strongly worded letter to the US expressing concerns. They aren't particularly fussed about Ukraine, we've all spent decades politely accepting the US invading random countries for no obvious reason and in defiance of everyone's strategic interests. Australians clearly do not care if distant countries get invaded.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
    It's a sentiment I've seen multiple times from Australians online, that Trump is bad for not giving more to Ukraine. See the Australian who chimed in on this discussion for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45035076 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45035076 Similarly, I saw a person from Italy who declared the US an "enemy of Europe" for not giving more to Ukraine, when the US has given far more than Italy. There's a professor with the last name O'Brien who constantly castigates the US for not giving more, when we gave far more than Ireland. We just have to stop the warmongering. It never achieves anything.
    - roenxi 6mo ago
      Are we talking about rswail's comment? He seems to be framing the situation as a short-term aberration and trying to encourage the US to adopt policies he sees as sensible for them. That is hardly an expression of burning hatred. If only I had enemies so devoted to my success. Technically he didn't even say anything related to US activity in Ukraine either. He was pointing out that US policy related to international trade and oil was bad. Which is basically a non-controversial opinion as far as I know.
    - 8note 6mo ago
      Ive seen more than 2 nazi-sympathizers from the states, but i dont think that means americans are all nazis. youve seen 4ish people and you are extending that to tens or hundreds of millions? seems a bit silly to me
juleiie 6mo ago
Criticising America is nothing new or subversive. Hunter s Thompson was doing it all these years ago and much more interestingly and on point than anyone on here could. Day every day the same unoriginal whining because it is hard to call it something as sophisticated as critique, can be heard all over the reddit. While at the same time no one bothers to critique CCP to the same extent because we simply are not paid for doing this. No one is interested in non profit repeating the same facts about china every single day. We are just content knowing that china is not some sort of “saviour” or alternative. It is an enemy of the free world. I try to not use things produced by my adversary to not fund my own doom.
- andersonpico 6mo ago
  > Criticising America is nothing new or subversive. Hunter s Thompson was doing it all these years ago and much more interestingly and on point than anyone on here could. The existence better critique out there is irrelevant if you don't take the argumentt in front of you on its strenghts. > Day every day the same unoriginal whining because it is hard to call it something as sophisticated as critique, can be heard all over the reddit. Criticism of a country with military bases across the whole world doesn't have to be hip to be correct. No one cares what you think about reddit or how hipster you like your political takes to be and this doesn't exempt you from having to argue about the concrete facts in a discussion forum. > While at the same time no one bothers to critique CCP to the same extent because we simply are not paid for doing this. No one is interested in non profit repeating the same facts about china every single day. You are so wrong about no one criticizing the CCP that's it's difficult to believe that this statement is sincere. Maybe I could attribute it to selection bias as you're on an american forum? There's also a cottage industry around anti-Chinese propaganda besides the western funded government propaganda machine that is in place for the last decades. > We are just content knowing that china is not some sort of “saviour” or alternative. Oh but they are! China is a concrete alternative for an economic partner for most parts of the world, but only if the US doesn't sponsor a military coup or invade your country in response. If they you can get away from Americans threats, China is also a more reliable partner with much more stable policies and much less likely to sabotage your elections, secretly pay your politics and judges and manipulate your markets. > It is an enemy of the free world. I try to not use things produced by my adversary to not fund my own doom. This has no basis in reality. The US is the actual enemy of the free world and has been since ww2: occupying countries, sabotaging their domestic politic disputes, staging military coups, bombings, etc. Whatever justifications for those actions after the fact do not make any other country more free.

by Matl 6mo ago

0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago

>The issue is that the way you're expected to criticize America from what I observed is along the lines of 'they mean well but...' Hard to think of any critique of the US I've seen on HN recently which acknowledges the possibility that we might mean well. Even during the Biden administration, right after we allocated billions of dollars to Ukraine, huge numbers of Europeans expressed an unfavorable view of the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u... They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war. Now they say they want to be buddies with China which has been actively helping Russia with arms. I don't think there is any point in the US trying to please Europe. And then you've got the Australians who express their burning hatred of the US for not giving more aid to Ukraine, while Australia's aid as a fraction of GDP is still sitting around 10-15% of that provided by the US.

Matl 6mo ago
> They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war. Europeans helped when you called after 9/11. Are you seriously arguing about being called warmongers considering what your government started in Iran? (and btw screwed the global energy market) This lack of self awareness is what turns people away.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
  >Europeans helped when you called after 9/11. So how would you feel if you got labeled as warmongers for that help? You're welcome to call us warmongers. Just don't expect us to help you fight wars if you do. Libya was Europe's idea -- we helped when you called -- yet the US still gets blamed for it. If the US had surged more weapons to Ukraine (as some Europeans were requesting), thus provoking Russia to launch a nuke, we surely would've been blamed for that too. The pattern I've noticed is that anywhere the US has foreign policy involvement (including Europe), there are locals in that region who are both for and against said involvement. People who aren't knowledgeable about the region will generally not know many details, and simply say "oh, the US is involved in a war again". If that's how we're going to be judged, then yes, I want to be involved in fewer wars. And withdrawing from NATO will help with that objective. So I favor NATO withdrawal.
  - Matl 6mo ago
    > Libya was Europe's idea. Hardly 'Europe's', it was the idea of some 'humanitarian interventionists' in the Obama admin and the then current president of France who wanted to cover up his corrupt dealings. For what it's worth, I am not a fan of NATO either, so we can agree on that. All US troops should imo immediately leave Europe and loose all access to military facilities on the continent. As for the whole warmongers thing, answer me two simple questions: 1. Was the 2003 Iraq war started based on false claims about WMDs? Yes/No? 2. Did you just attack Iran for no good reason? (Yes/No?)
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
      >Hardly 'Europe's', it was the idea of some 'humanitarian interventionists' in the Obama admin and the then current president of France who wanted to cover up his corrupt dealings. You can see French and UK leadership were making moves before the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Timeline https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... Obama's approach was referred to as "leading from behind". >For what it's worth, I am not a fan of NATO either, so we can agree on that. All US troops should imo immediately leave Europe and loose all access to military facilities on the continent. I'm glad we can agree on something. I find that a lot of Europeans are not willing to accept the logical implication of their stated beliefs. >As for the whole warmongers thing, answer me two simple questions: [...] I'm not sure why you're pushing this "warmongers" point. As I said, I'm an isolationist. I've left many comments here on HN about how I want the US to be more like Switzerland. The Swiss never do anything and thus they never get blamed for anything. The families of the thousands of Iranians slaughtered by the regime doubtless think that we are attacking Iran for a good reason. Same way the thousands of Ukrainians slaughtered by Russia probably thought our weapons deliveries were being given for a good reason. In any case we may be called "complicit" if we do not act -- the same arguments were used in the case of Libya. But we can't keep playing world police. We aren't very good at it, and it is not clear whether it is helpful. Not to mention the dubious ethics of getting involved in the affairs of other countries. You're either "complicit" in "propping up" bad regimes, or a "warmongering" "imperialist" who "destabilizes" them. There's no way to win. Given the choice, I prefer to be complicit.
- 8note 6mo ago
  the US dodnt want help after 9/11 NATO insisted on helping
  - pelorat 5mo ago
    USA invoked article 5.
OtomotO 6mo ago
> They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war. There is a huge difference between attacking foreign nations because of oil... Oh, pardon me, because of... Geopolitical interests... Oh, pardon me... In the name of democracy and self-defense when you're being attacked (such as Ukraine). We came to help you after 9/11, when for some reason you invaded Iraq although Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda had taken responsibility... But sure, think that you're white guardians of the flame of freedom and democracy all you want! You're in exactly the same ballpark as China and Russia, they're just without the Hollywood propaganda.
wat10000 6mo ago
"They call us warmongers for carrying out an unprovoked invasion, and then wonder why we don't want to help them resist an unprovoked invasion." Think about this for just three seconds, I'm begging you.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
  The phrase "warmonger" doesn't specify anything about the nature of the war, or the reason it was started. It's a very simpleminded "war=bad". If that's how we will be judged, fine. As soon as you use the phrase "unprovoked" then you start getting into messy details. Are we so sure that the war in Ukraine was not provoked by NATO expansion? Are we so sure that the war in Iran was not provoked by Iran's actions against Israel or against its own people? The ideologue doesn't like details. They prefer to see the world in black and white.
  - wat10000 6mo ago
    warmonger - noun: one who urges or attempts to stir up war And to preempt the inevitable "the dictionary isn't always how people use it" response, this is in fact how everyone uses the word. So yes, it's very much tied to the nature of the war and the reason it was started. Attacking Iran for no particular reason is warmongering. Defending Ukraine from invasion is not. "Unprovoked" can be difficult but I don't think it actually is here. Yes, you can list reasons. But even if you believe the wars' proponents, the justification isn't there. It's like if I tap someone on the nose and they blow my head off. Was there some provocation? Technically, yes. Does the killing count as "provoked"? Not really. That word carries an implication of sufficient, justified provocation, not just "something happened." Did NATO expansion provoke the invasion of Ukraine? Maybe. Is that sufficient to say the invasion was "provoked"? No, not even close. Similar for the justifications given for Iraq and Iran.
    - 0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
      We'll be called warmongers regardless. E.g. many in this thread suggest all US Middle East activity has been warmongering, even though the Gulf War, for example, was fairly similar to Ukraine in the sense of a powerful state invading its weaker neighbor.
roenxi 6mo ago
> And then you've got the Australians who express their burning hatred of the US for not giving more aid to Ukraine, while Australia's aid as a fraction of GDP is still sitting around 10-15% of that provided by the US. Which Australians are we talking about here? Australia, if pushed to the absolute limit might formally send a strongly worded letter to the US expressing concerns. They aren't particularly fussed about Ukraine, we've all spent decades politely accepting the US invading random countries for no obvious reason and in defiance of everyone's strategic interests. Australians clearly do not care if distant countries get invaded.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 6mo ago
  It's a sentiment I've seen multiple times from Australians online, that Trump is bad for not giving more to Ukraine. See the Australian who chimed in on this discussion for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45035076 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45035076 Similarly, I saw a person from Italy who declared the US an "enemy of Europe" for not giving more to Ukraine, when the US has given far more than Italy. There's a professor with the last name O'Brien who constantly castigates the US for not giving more, when we gave far more than Ireland. We just have to stop the warmongering. It never achieves anything.
  - roenxi 6mo ago
    Are we talking about rswail's comment? He seems to be framing the situation as a short-term aberration and trying to encourage the US to adopt policies he sees as sensible for them. That is hardly an expression of burning hatred. If only I had enemies so devoted to my success. Technically he didn't even say anything related to US activity in Ukraine either. He was pointing out that US policy related to international trade and oil was bad. Which is basically a non-controversial opinion as far as I know.
  - 8note 6mo ago
    Ive seen more than 2 nazi-sympathizers from the states, but i dont think that means americans are all nazis. youve seen 4ish people and you are extending that to tens or hundreds of millions? seems a bit silly to me

juleiie 6mo ago

Criticising America is nothing new or subversive. Hunter s Thompson was doing it all these years ago and much more interestingly and on point than anyone on here could. Day every day the same unoriginal whining because it is hard to call it something as sophisticated as critique, can be heard all over the reddit. While at the same time no one bothers to critique CCP to the same extent because we simply are not paid for doing this. No one is interested in non profit repeating the same facts about china every single day. We are just content knowing that china is not some sort of “saviour” or alternative. It is an enemy of the free world. I try to not use things produced by my adversary to not fund my own doom.

andersonpico 6mo ago
> Criticising America is nothing new or subversive. Hunter s Thompson was doing it all these years ago and much more interestingly and on point than anyone on here could. The existence better critique out there is irrelevant if you don't take the argumentt in front of you on its strenghts. > Day every day the same unoriginal whining because it is hard to call it something as sophisticated as critique, can be heard all over the reddit. Criticism of a country with military bases across the whole world doesn't have to be hip to be correct. No one cares what you think about reddit or how hipster you like your political takes to be and this doesn't exempt you from having to argue about the concrete facts in a discussion forum. > While at the same time no one bothers to critique CCP to the same extent because we simply are not paid for doing this. No one is interested in non profit repeating the same facts about china every single day. You are so wrong about no one criticizing the CCP that's it's difficult to believe that this statement is sincere. Maybe I could attribute it to selection bias as you're on an american forum? There's also a cottage industry around anti-Chinese propaganda besides the western funded government propaganda machine that is in place for the last decades. > We are just content knowing that china is not some sort of “saviour” or alternative. Oh but they are! China is a concrete alternative for an economic partner for most parts of the world, but only if the US doesn't sponsor a military coup or invade your country in response. If they you can get away from Americans threats, China is also a more reliable partner with much more stable policies and much less likely to sabotage your elections, secretly pay your politics and judges and manipulate your markets. > It is an enemy of the free world. I try to not use things produced by my adversary to not fund my own doom. This has no basis in reality. The US is the actual enemy of the free world and has been since ww2: occupying countries, sabotaging their domestic politic disputes, staging military coups, bombings, etc. Whatever justifications for those actions after the fact do not make any other country more free.