[manfredo]

> Following that line of reasoning, is it better that eastern europe and east asia be under our subjugation? Or is it only subjugation when they do it?

I'm not sure I follow. Is it your genuine belief that Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states would prefer Russian hegemony? Or that South Korea prefers Communist hegemony? The reality is that if the US doesn't maintain a strong presence in these regions, then other powers will exploit that power vacuum. Sure, in an ideal world, every country would turns it's swords into plowshares, it's tanks into tractors, etc. But we live in the real world, not the ideal world.

> We are less than 250 years old as a nation. How did eastern europe and east asia manage before we arrived?

Eastern Europe spent most of the last 250 years under monarchies and dictatorships. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most[1] find the 21st century is preferable to domination by the USSR, domination by the Fascists before that, and imperial monarchies before that.

East Asia spent most of the last 250 under either feudalism[2] or domination by an imperial power. Again, I'm going to go out on a limb that they prefer their situation in the 21st century to that.

1. Probably all Eastern European countries other than Russia and maybe Belorussia and Moldova. The latter two are pretty pro-Russian.

2. Some point out the Qing dynasty had an extensive central bureacracy and isn't exactly fudalism. It's some form of monarchic rule, though.

[porpoisely]

My belief is that they don't prefer any subjugation. Certainly not subjugation from someone on the other side of the world. Also, you talk of the US maintaining a strong presence in these regions as if we are there to protect or help these regions. We are an invading imperial power in these regions to benefit ourselves, not them. We are no different than russia or china. You could argue we are worse considering the russians and chinese have cultural, geographical and ethnic ties to these regions and we don't.

And everyone is going to prefer modernity to the past. North koreans would prefer their modern dictatorship to the dictatorship of the past too.

All I'm saying is subjugation is subjugation and empire is empire. Nobody likes being subjugated by an empire in the long run.

[manfredo]

The US is hardly doing what most would consider "subjugation". And for the record, many Eastern European countries are actually asking for the US to establish a presence there. Poland is trying so hard that he's willing to name such a base "Fort Trump"[1].

> We are an invading imperial power in these regions to benefit ourselves, not them. We are no different than russia or china.

When was the last time the US rounded up religious or ethnic minorities and put them in concentration camps? We did it to the Japanese, over half a century ago and it remembered as a point of national shame. After 9/11, Muslims were subject to "random" searches at airports at a higher rate and it was considered unacceptable by many people. Contrast that with China that has somewhere between 500k and a million Uyghurs in "reeducation camps" and most of the populace doesn't seem to bat an eye.

When was the last time the US forcibly annexed territory from a neighboring country? Unless you count military bases such as the ones on Okinawa (which are still part of the sovereign territory of Japan), it was the Mexican American war over 150 years ago. Russia did the same less than a decade ago. And they invaded Georgia not long before that.

To say that "we are no different than Russia or China" seems to be based more on an a priori decision that all forms of international hegemony is bad, rather than thoughtful comparison between the three countries.

1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/polan...

> All I'm saying is subjugation is subjugation and empire is empire. Nobody likes being subjugated by an empire in the long run.

I agree. Most countries agree as well. That's why so many of them have a high opinion of the US, and why many of them are asking for US military presence: to shield them from subjugation of neighboring powers.

[porpoisely]

If you think what we have done and are doing isn't subjugation, then we have read different histories and different news. Millions of people were killed for us to develop our "strong presence" in these regions. It's called empire building and empire growing.

By many eastern european countries, you really mean one - poland. And by many eastern countries, you also mean a small group of political entities within those countries.

The high opinion of the US stems from our wealth and our cultural domination. Once again, that doesn't translate to a desire for subjugation. For example, if I have high opinion of japan, germany and new zealand, it doesn't mean I want them to militarily and political dominate the US. Certainly I wouldn't want their troops stationed here.

Also, there are protests against US military presence in all these regions as well, but I guess we can ignore those.

I guess our difference ultimately boils down to our view of empire. I don't think they are ever a good thing and they certainly don't exist to serve the subjugated.

[manfredo]

> If you think what we have done and are doing isn't subjugation, then we have read different histories and different news. Millions of people were killed for us to develop our "strong presence" in these regions. It's called empire building and empire growing.

And yet, the people on the receiving end of these wars generally have positive views of the US and close economic ties after a couple decades. The US's most destructive wars were against Germany and Japan, with are now close allies. An an interesting type of "Empire" where the subjects of the said empire have a positive view of their purported overlord. Or, maybe, the US's coalition of allies isn't an "empire".

> By many eastern european countries, you really mean one - poland.

And Ukraine. And the Baltic Countries. What Eastern European countries do want US presence to diminish? The only ones I can think of other than Russia are Belorussia and Moldova.

> For example, if I have high opinion of japan, germany and new zealand, it doesn't mean I want them to militarily and political dominate the US. Certainly I wouldn't want their troops stationed here.

Well, I've got bad news for you: Foreign troops from said countries (at least Germany) are regularly based in US to train and practice cooperation.

> Also, there are protests against US military presence in all these regions as well, but I guess we can ignore those.

People also protest when military bases are closed. In fact, the current plan to withdraw troops from Syria is being criticized significantly.

> I guess our difference ultimately boils down to our view of empire. I don't think they are ever a good thing and they certainly don't exist to serve the subjugated.

Again, if the US's sphere of influence is an "Empire" it's one that that most of the subjects seem to be happy to be a part of. In fact, plenty of countries have voluntarily joined this group on their own accord. Spain, Germany, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Romania all joined NATO on their own accord. In fact, these countries had to apply to join NATO. Strange form of "Empire" where countries apply to become a part of it.