I'm not sure it isn't. It is naturally unpopular among USians to contemplate that they might not be perfect rulers of the world. But it is pretty obvious that one party rule is not a good idea. The US is bad enough with checks on its absolute power. Heaven forbid they should be unchecked.
That's not anti-American. The sentiment applies equally to everyone. Russia should not have complete control of the world. Nor should Holland or Iceland. The USA has way too much power and influence as it stands. Thank goodness there is some opposition to provide some balance.
USians watch a movie like "The Courier" or "Hunt for Red October" and applaud the courage and foresight of a man who was willing to be a traitor to the USSR in order to save the world. But they villify anybody who would be so treacherous as betray the USA. NATO missiles in Poland: good. Warsaw Pact missiles in Poland: bad.
Unproven vulnerabilities in Huawei equipment: unacceptable. Replace it all with American products proven repeatedly to be espionage vectors of the USA government: good.
I wonder if a post like this one will attract more interest from Chinese intelligence or from USA intelligence.
Your Polish example is laughable. Poland offered $2 billion to have permanent U.S. bases in Poland but, obviously, did not welcome Russian invasion. "Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!"
So the Soviets defended their helpless neighbors for free; the U.S. occupied Poland then demanded that Poland pay money to wealthy war-profiteering capitalists for the privilege?
It is funny that denizens on Madison Avenue think they have a corner on spin. "Caveat emptor!"
You're relativising and disregarding how power balances occur in practice.
First, there is a massive difference between empires. Sure, the US has done and is doing a bunch of shitty things in the world, but between two evils, would you prefer the American jackboot or the Chinese jackboot?
Second, nobody volunteers to surrender power for the sake of some power balance. Power balance occurs because there's a stalemate.
In the case of countries like Poland, these countries have an interest in playing empires against each other. Let them "bid" for influence and may they check each other's power.
> Sure, the US has done and is doing a bunch of shitty things in the world, but between two evils, would you prefer the American jackboot or the Chinese jackboot?
When this kind of question comes up on Internet, I'm always a bit troubled, because there is some sort of hidden faith that the respondent won't be from a place that suffered from the US. Even though the person asking the question knows about the events, they never think about it when asking. On the other hand, positive events are remembered vividly (e.g. discussions about Europe almost invariably involve some WW2 references).
In reality, the answer will probably vary depending on whether the respondent is European or Iraqi, Vietamese or Cuban, etc.
I would say that it's some kind of heavy confirmation bias that makes people genuinely ask these questions, when an objective analysis makes the answer not evident.
It would be perfectly possible to be a chinese shill in an american site like hackernews, spreading chinese propaganda e misinformation all day long, while living in the US.
Try to do the same, but spreading american propaganda, in a chinese forum, while living in China.
Ah, the misleading comparison. We are talking about freedom of expression and then you conveniently conflate it with the freedom to have work or business relationships with an enemy or sanctioned foreign entity.
The original point still apply, you have freedom in the USA to defend and express your favorable opinion even when this goes counter the government interests. You could even protest against the us military during a war.
You can do this in China unlike you really want to be imprisoned and tortured.
China is a dictatorship. América is a democracy. Sure, there are plenty of abuse from the police, the federal government, but those abuses once exposed and questioned in the court of law, have severe consequences for their perpetrators. China engages routinely in torture, censorship and genocide, a truly criminal state.
It was not for the oil it was to make sure that the oil would continue to be traded in US dollars if you ask me.
Trade happening in dollars is something the US can control. Maybe 10~15 years ago I would say the Euro was a possible alternative to the dollar but in 2021 and the spinelessness of brussels its pretty much the dollar with a different stamp on it.
The US didn't invade countries and kill millions of people, and the US gained absolutely nothing in terms of natural resources including Oil. Iraqi Oil contracts went to European players like Total. There is no Oil or anything else of material value in Afghanistan.
Lol. It's conspiracy theories that US Imperialism is driven by defence contractors who can 'make a few billion'. They obviously err on one side of the equation, and can have some influence but they are not the drivers of anything. The Defence Establishment is well aware of the cost of war, they're more likely than the White House to be be realistic about engagements.
plus, it's hard to compartmentalize science. Once you get the bomb, it's not that hard for other people to figure out. So do you ban all German scientists and get the bomb 20 years later (and maybe let the Russians poach them, because...well it is a market with demand...), or get the Germans, and lose a few to espionage/traitors.
I feel these national borders on comms equipment will eventually be a paper tiger of sorts, because, well, tech is tech, and it's hard to stop the flow. And things work best with open standards anyway.
Given that the same Germans (Klaus Fuchs) then leaked the bomb to the soviets, I’m not sure this is the best example.