[reducesuffering]

The US supporting democracy (or atleast classical liberal enlightenment values that would eventually lead to a functioning democracy) in Vietnam, Iraq, Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, and more has by far been a net negative economic interest. We've paid dearly while Europe mostly enjoyed social welfare benefits.

[mxxc]

Let's not confuse payments with loans (Europe is not Israel). Let's also not ignore the fact that there have been plenty of analyses showing that post-WWII Europe showed a natural recovery independent of US aid in several countries, and let's not ignore the shackles imposed by the winning powers on several technologies, not to be developed further.

This statement is also incorrect when referred to several key places the US have picked over the years (e.g. Pinochet's Chile or Syngman Rhee / Park Chung-Hee's Korea), and of course looking at the constant heavy military occupation of several "allied" countries, a fact without precedents in history, rather than the fable of "exporting democracy" this just looks like version 2.0 of the British Empire :)

[orbifold]

What technologies aside from nuclear weapons are you referring to?

[mxxc]

If I am not mistaken there have been some restrictions on cutting edge technology of the time (electronics, for instance) but I am not sure whether that has been implemented in practice, especially in Germany and Japan, but also in Italy.

Germany and Japan, though, got heavily de-industrialised and there was a conscious plan to bring the living standards to a much lower level than they used to be. Patents also got seized, and in general Germany and Austria did not recover their pre-WW2 prestige, even, for instance, in terms of the "new Heisenbergs and Schrödingers", which never came.

[Intermernet]

Encryption was heavily controlled for many years. Sanctions on medical technology also come to mind.

[pjc50]

> classical liberal enlightenment values that would eventually lead to a functioning democracy) in Vietnam

That's a strange way to talk about carpet bombing and chemical weapons. Besides, the US lost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Saigon

"The Vietnamese government officially calls it the "Day of liberating the South for national reunification" (Vietnamese: Giải phóng miền Nam, thống nhất đất nước) or "Liberation Day" (Ngày Giải Phóng)"

.. I don't think the Vietnamese democratic government thanks you for it.

[reducesuffering]

> That's a strange way to talk about carpet bombing and chemical weapons.

It's widely accepted that the US made seriously grave mistakes.

> Besides, the US lost

I was attempting to phrase it as the US supporting values or institutions that would eventually lead to democracy, not that US support means it will win.

> I don't think the Vietnamese democratic government thanks you for it.

They don't obviously and we ended up with the worst of all outcomes. It would've been better for the Vietnamese people if there was never any civil war, even better if the US hadn't supported the South. But, best of all for the Vietnamese people would've been if the South had won. One look at the GDP difference between Vietnam and Korea would create some serious introspection on that scenario. To save you some time, it's $47,000 to $12,000 PPP.

[refurb]

How much do you know about the country post-war? The Vietnamese people paid a very heavy price for the North wining that war. Arguably the communists saw economic light, but plenty of people have been jailed as recently as last year for blogs they’ve written.

[bigbillheck]

How much do you know about South Vietnam pre-war? (for starters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_crisis)

[refurb]

Oh I know plenty. What, do tell, does the Buddhist crisis have to do with the authoritarian system in Vietnam today?

[chmod775]

Right. Europe just loves dealing with the millions of refugees that the US-led destabilization and destruction of the middle east caused.

Also I'm not sure what you mean by "social welfare".

[reducesuffering]

Social welfare as in funds for safety nets and public spending, like free healthcare, education, and improved disability, unemployment, and welfare benefits. US chose to spend trillions militarily that otherwise generally could've been allocated to those types of public spending within the US as well.

Refugees that Europe deals with is mostly Syrian and Afghani. The US supplied weapons and support to Syrian rebels and weapons to anti-communist mujahideen. Now, hindsight is 20/20, but Assad was literally using chemical weapons on Syrian citizens. The Taliban was wantonly wreaking destruction across Afghanistan causing the refugee displacement. These are complex issues when it comes to human rights abuses and geopolitics. My point is that the US paid a price in attempting to be world police, regardless of the outcome. It wasn't economically beneficial as the grandparent comment stated.

[pvaldes]

> US chose to spend trillions militarily

People in US are free to vote any party that they wanted. They supported the people that spends trillions in the army instead to vote for other options.

If you have presidents that despised healthcare, expressed publicly their preference for the uneducated ones, and loathed the poor, the disabled and the non-white, well... this is what you asked for. Deal with it.

If you have presidents that spend trillions in the army and you don't want it, choose presidents with other priorities.

I'm really sorry, but please don't blame Europe for that.

[p_l]

Vietnam and Korea weren't about ethics or democracy but about influence and control (arguably so was Iraq, Syria) and Afghanistan is mostly a kneejerk reaction to a terror strike that might be quite symbolic, but ultimately pales in numbers.

EDIT: spelling

[f6v]

> has by far been a net negative economic interest

Yeah, maybe for the population of those countries and the US budget. But think of all the military suppliers, they must be very happy!

[nzmsv]

Afghanistan? Really?

You may want to look up who installed the Taliban in the first place.

[Paradigma11]

The russians by indiscriminately killing 1.5 million ppl so that only the hard core extremists survived?

[pvaldes]

Nope. Try again.

[reducesuffering]

You mean Pakistan. US provided some weapons to mujahideen earlier in countering the soviets and Communism, aligning with my previous statement about "classical liberal enlightenment values." Once they had taken over Afghanistan, the US might have mistakenly thought they would be better than alternatives, but that ended quickly. Then:

"During their rule from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban and their allies committed massacres against Afghan civilians, denied UN food supplies to 160,000 starving civilians and conducted a policy of scorched earth, burning vast areas of fertile land and destroying tens of thousands of homes."[0]

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

[nzmsv]

It's quite a bit more than "some weapons". Click a few of the links off that Wikipedia article, particularly about Lady Taliban. Another familiar name that will pop up is Osama.