[simonh]

You can look at it that way sure. The USA benefits from global stability and trade, but don't pretend the USA's trading and defence partners don't benefit as well. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.

In contrast, how many countries have that sort of relationship with Russia or China? You could argue Syria has benefited from Russian patronage, but in reality Russia doesn't care at all about Syria, only it's base in Tartus. China has no regional allies whatsoever.

The key difference is that the USA has a reputation to protect. It has so many allies, both military and economic, that if it sells out one of them for purely transactional gain, it weakens it's relationships with all it's other partners.

[koonsolo]

> The key difference is that the USA has a reputation to protect. It has so many allies, both military and economic, that if it sells out one of them for purely transactional gain, it weakens it's relationships with all it's other partners.

You do know about the industrial espionage by Echelon, right? On that front that pretty much puts US in the same bucket as China.

Only 1 example of many:

"In 1999, Enercon, a German company and leading manufacturer of wind energy equipment, developed a breakthrough generator for wind turbines. After applying for a US patent, it had learned that Kenetech, an American rival, had submitted an almost identical patent application shortly before. By the statement of a former NSA employee, it was later discovered that the NSA had secretly intercepted and monitored Enercon's data communications and conference calls and passed information regarding the new generator to Kenetech.[71] As German intelligence services are forbidden from engaging in industrial or economic espionage, German companies are frequently complaining that this leaves them defenceless against industrial espionage from the United States."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Examples_of_industrial...

[simonh]

Yes I know about it. Allies have always engaged in snooping and peripheral intelligence operations against each other. As long as it doesn’t go after vital national interests, or involve really nasty stuff like killings and such, it’s just part of the rough and tumble of international affairs. You have to look at the full picture, not get hung up over single incidents.

Note German intelligence wasn’t so much complaining that the Americans did it, as much as that they weren’t allowed to do it back.

[koonsolo]

> Allies have always engaged in snooping and peripheral intelligence operations against each other.

EU doesn't use their secret intelligence against allies for economical gain, US clearly does.

[boomboomsubban]

>but don't pretend the USA's trading and defence partners don't benefit as well. It's a mutually beneficial relationship.

How has Iraq benefited? What benefit do the people of Saudi Arabia see from our relationship? How many of the US led South American regime changes have benefitted the populace?

>It has so many allies, both military and economic, that if it sells out one of them for purely transactional gain, it weakens it's relationships with all it's other partners.

We sell them out constantly. None of those "partners" have other options. Working against the US means most of the world refusing to interact with you, or a regime change on the horizon.

[simonh]

Iraq are our allies against ISIS, they did most of the actual on the ground fighting. Saudi Arabia was terrified Saddam would attack them next, and we now know that was his intended next move after a Kuwait. Also the US is the prime obstacle to Iranian operations against the Saudis. SA spends big on defence, but they’re hopelessly inexperienced, while Iran has plenty of military experience from the wars with a Iraq and operations in Syria. They may look under equipped on paper, but they’d eat SA for breakfast in an actual conflict.

America’s efforts at regime change in the America’s are an appalling catalogue of screwups and bloody disasters. No argument there.

But then NATO has been a useful and very effective alliance, effectively keeping Russia in check. Ask the Baltic States or the Eastern European states how they feel about it. We’ve had setbacks like Ukraine, but boy it could have been a _lot_ worse. Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines and Japan have benefited hugely. Even Vietnam is now becoming a regional ally.

[boomboomsubban]

>Iraq are our allies against ISIS, they did most of the actual on the ground fighting.

ISIS exists because of US action, they are not benefitting from this.

>Saudi Arabia was terrified Saddam would attack them next, and we now know that was his intended next move after a Kuwait.

Not only is this just untrue, Saddam Hussein discussed the invasion of Kuwait with the US before the invasion, our deployment of troops in Saudi Arabia stemming from that event has caused numerous problems for the people of the country.

>Also the US is the prime obstacle to Iranian operations against the Saudis

Though I'm not sure how the citizens of Saudi Arabia are benefitting from this in your version of events, the Saudi troops should be well trained from their ongoing war in Yemen.

>But then NATO has been a useful and very effective alliance, effectively keeping Russia in check. Ask the Baltic States or the Eastern European states how they feel about it

On the other hand, NATO encroachment could be blamed for much of Russia's aggression. Crimea lasted twenty years under Ukrainian control after all, but would NATO continue letting Russia access it's Black Sea port?