3 ms·

>China is already sending money and people in various countries of the world as foreign aid. Granted, but their interest is ROI in the form of exclusive access

>China is already sending money and people in various countries of the world as foreign aid. Granted, but their interest is ROI in the form of exclusive access to raw materials as well as exporting some of the devastating pollution that has all but wrecked their own country IMO. I am not saying the US government is some altruistic force for good. I am saying that the US citizenry has a consistent reputation for dispatching the most and most effective aid to developing countries and disaster regions around the globe. >So, yeah, if the US were to disappear, I'm 100% positive other countries would fill the place, and China would be one of them. Do you believe that if China replaced the US as the hegemon that they would not also export their totalitarian approach to Order as well? Ditto for Russia. The only country, IMO, that could replace the US as well as maintain the semblance of "a force for good" is India. I believe this because they too are a democracy. I am not a blind believer in democracy, but i do believe it is better then totalitarian governments. >How inconsiderate. The war on terror made between 80 000 and 1.5 million casualties [2], and you say that's not warmongering ? It is an interesting point, but the fact remains that the US has lost fewer troops in a 10+ year police action than are lost in single battles. I am not being indifferent to the casualties sustained by my countrypersons; i am trying to be objective about the risk/benefit thereof.

rakoo 11y ago
> I am saying that the US citizenry has a consistent reputation for dispatching the most and most effective aid to developing countries and disaster regions around the globe. You should take a real look at what's happening in Africa. Here's the situation: - African countries have been loaned money through IMF on the conditions that they reform their systems (both economical and political reforms) to better suit western ideals. There's a reason why we speak about neo-colonialism - China comes in, says "Here's the money you need, and some more. You can do whatever you want with your economy and your politics. You just have to pay back and vote for us at the UN". It's a massive improvements for these countries. At last, they get to do what they want. At last, they are considered as adults, not as children that can't have a country because big brother west does not like the rules. So, I'd say african countries much prefer China foreign aid than Western aid. > I am saying that the US citizenry has a consistent reputation for dispatching the most and most effective aid to developing countries and disaster regions around the globe. Absolutely not. Only the western countries want to export their democracy and individual liberties ideal to all countries. China on the other hand has demonstrated that they are not interested in changing other countries. Just look at chinese history. Also have a look at their current foreign policy: their number one rule is "no ingerence". This is the reason why they are so liked by atrocious regimes and disliked by our western countries: they don't do anything to stop human atrocities and we hate them for that. I have no reason to believe that this situation would change were the US to somehow disappear. > Ditto for Russia I don't have many elements to say it would be the same for Russia, but I'm inclined to believe the same thing: Russia also likes the "no-ingerence" mantra (provided it's not in their own country) > The only country, IMO, that could replace the US as well as maintain the semblance of "a force for good" is India. You seem to forget about all western countries that are not the US. Europe would be a far better "force for good" than any other country. > I believe this because they too are a democracy. I am not a blind believer in democracy, but i do believe it is better then totalitarian governments. If you still believe China is a totalitarian country, you should do well to read up on what's actually happening there. There is a huge difference between Stalin-level or Mao-level totalitarism and current China totalitarism. Sure, chinese people don't have the same individual liberties we have here in the west, but it's still not as horrible as you may imagine. In short, there's only one thing you can't do: ask whether the communist party is the best thing you can have for a goverment. If you don't, you're "free" to speak. > the US has lost fewer troops in a 10+ year police action than are lost in single battles I'm absolutely not questioning that: the US is so much at an advantage in any conventional warfare that its casualties are always low. What I was saying is that the US actually is a warmongering country because it goes to war on subjectively fallacious reasons, killing hundreds of thousands of people. The fact that they were efficient in doing so (ie low casualties) does not make them lesser warmongering.

rakoo 11y ago

> I am saying that the US citizenry has a consistent reputation for dispatching the most and most effective aid to developing countries and disaster regions around the globe. You should take a real look at what's happening in Africa. Here's the situation: - African countries have been loaned money through IMF on the conditions that they reform their systems (both economical and political reforms) to better suit western ideals. There's a reason why we speak about neo-colonialism - China comes in, says "Here's the money you need, and some more. You can do whatever you want with your economy and your politics. You just have to pay back and vote for us at the UN". It's a massive improvements for these countries. At last, they get to do what they want. At last, they are considered as adults, not as children that can't have a country because big brother west does not like the rules. So, I'd say african countries much prefer China foreign aid than Western aid. > I am saying that the US citizenry has a consistent reputation for dispatching the most and most effective aid to developing countries and disaster regions around the globe. Absolutely not. Only the western countries want to export their democracy and individual liberties ideal to all countries. China on the other hand has demonstrated that they are not interested in changing other countries. Just look at chinese history. Also have a look at their current foreign policy: their number one rule is "no ingerence". This is the reason why they are so liked by atrocious regimes and disliked by our western countries: they don't do anything to stop human atrocities and we hate them for that. I have no reason to believe that this situation would change were the US to somehow disappear. > Ditto for Russia I don't have many elements to say it would be the same for Russia, but I'm inclined to believe the same thing: Russia also likes the "no-ingerence" mantra (provided it's not in their own country) > The only country, IMO, that could replace the US as well as maintain the semblance of "a force for good" is India. You seem to forget about all western countries that are not the US. Europe would be a far better "force for good" than any other country. > I believe this because they too are a democracy. I am not a blind believer in democracy, but i do believe it is better then totalitarian governments. If you still believe China is a totalitarian country, you should do well to read up on what's actually happening there. There is a huge difference between Stalin-level or Mao-level totalitarism and current China totalitarism. Sure, chinese people don't have the same individual liberties we have here in the west, but it's still not as horrible as you may imagine. In short, there's only one thing you can't do: ask whether the communist party is the best thing you can have for a goverment. If you don't, you're "free" to speak. > the US has lost fewer troops in a 10+ year police action than are lost in single battles I'm absolutely not questioning that: the US is so much at an advantage in any conventional warfare that its casualties are always low. What I was saying is that the US actually is a warmongering country because it goes to war on subjectively fallacious reasons, killing hundreds of thousands of people. The fact that they were efficient in doing so (ie low casualties) does not make them lesser warmongering.