[EvilEndures]

> I would argue it's not colonialism, these countries can always say no, it just depends on political will and strength. That's not really China's fault or concern.

That is the US's rational for doing the same thing, yes.

It doesn't end well. It results in stuff like the Iranian revolution. Installing and/or supporting "friendly leaders" who then push deals that are against the local national interest results in a great deal of hostility in the long run.

The reason the US is hated isn't that the US is evil. It is the fact the US meddled in the affairs of others more than they should have and then leveraged concessions beyond what the native population wanted. China is repeating that mistake.

> Again, the US has done similar things in the past, hence the numerous US air force bases scattered around the world. It's simply practical to gain soft power, and then convert that soft power into harder power.

Practical? Yes. If you are expecting to go to war.

If no war materializes, you've destroyed any chance of popular support in that country indefinitely. China is burning bridges with the native populations in these countries that won't go away in 5 years.

[macspoofing]

>It doesn't end well.

Why not?

>It results in stuff like the Iranian revolution.

Also resulted in the greatest era in human history in terms of peace and prosperity.

>It is the fact the US meddled in the affairs of others more than they should have and then leveraged concessions beyond what the native population wanted.

I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing.

[phs318u]

> Also resulted in the greatest era in human history in terms of peace and prosperity.

For some.

[macspoofing]

For everyone. What are you talking about.

[dang]

Please don't post unsubstantive comments here and especially please be civil.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[macspoofing]

It's not an unfair criticism, but OP's comment wasn't exactly substantive. But I take your point.

[dang]

That's true as well.

[EvilEndures]

> Also resulted in the greatest era in human history in terms of peace and prosperity.

You are confusing Capitalism with foreign policy.

> Why not?

Where do you think all this anti-US violence comes from?

Empires have never fared well once they fell from power with the exception of the British who were geographically isolated and had very powerful allies.

Simply because the bloodshed caused by US foreign policy mostly occurs on foreign soil doesn't mean it will stop just because the US is no longer an empire.

> I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing.

The US actively instigated violent revolutions, torture, and abuses in other countries. Pretending that is "part of maintaining global order" is absurd.

The pillars of what the US is credited for is something half the population actively rebels against (globalism, free trade) and were achieved in spite of the popular will domestically.

Simply because I believe a certain technique should be verboten doesn't mean I ignored credit for the US's successes.

[j1vms]

> I think it's hard being at the top and maintaining global order. You get blamed for everything and you get credit for nothing.

Being at the top (say, a superpower in today's world) means you enjoy at least an order of magnitude advantage over any other country in the majority of interactions you might have with them.

If you think of maintaining global order as helping to maintain that lead, then not getting credit for anything really doesn't factor into any of the decision-making calculus.

[macspoofing]

>If you think of maintaining global order as helping to maintain that lead

Except I wouldn't think of it that way. I don't think that's the correct interpretation. I think maintaining global order means you live in the world you want to live in. Americans wanted to spread American ideals of Democracy, free speech and free enterprise. Soviet Union wanted to spread Soviet ideals. I think that's as simple as that.

[macspoofing]

>You are confusing Capitalism with foreign policy.

Do you think it's a coincidence the world adopted the economic and political system of the world's superpower? When there two superpowers, the world was neatly divided by the economic and political system of those respective of superpowers. Another coincidence?

Before WW2 and America's official accession to a superpower status, even Europe didn't really embrace democracy (outside of Britain and France), with fascism and communism taking hold of much of the continent.

>Empires have never fared well once they fell from power

I'm not even sure how to contextualize that statement. Empires have always fared well but you're right they don't last, and when they fall, it leads to anarchy, misery and war... until the next Empire. So I wouldn't be so quick to celebrate America's decline as the maintainer of present global order.

>The US actively instigated violent revolutions, torture, and abuses in other countries.

Forest for the trees. I'm sure you can pick out many individual cases where you think America didn't live up to your ideals ... but it's a big world, and lots of things happen and this sort of selective focus on negatives is easily done and gives a warped perspective.

Look at the big picture. We live in the most peaceful and prosperous time in the human history. Things like that don't happen by happenstance.