[hirako2000]

In fact, unless the comment is from someone living in China: understands the politics, it would only be fair to critique the authoritarian aspects of the government they actually know.

The issue is propagandists are typically brainwashed already.

[amunozo]

Plenty of people around the world know about the authoritarian aspects of the US way better than the Americans, as they suffer their consequences.

[broken-kebab]

Which ones do you like to mention?

[jerojero]

Hyper presidentialist state that allows one administration (and realistically one person) to start a war against another nation without having authorization from congress.

This happened a few weeks ago, actually.

[broken-kebab]

Actually, I'm in favor parliamentary republic with proportional representation, but words have meanings, and "authoritarian" is impossible to apply to a country with electorally changeable power by definition. Or a one with working separation of powers. And plenty of other attributes present in the US.

[amunozo]

Iran, Gaza, Cuba, Irak, Afghanistan, Yemen, Lebanon... These people do not only suffer their tyrannical governments, but they must suffer also the war actions of the US and its allies.

[andriy_koval]

Its two step system: tyrannical government committed war actions against US and allies, US and allies responded, people suffer.

[Petersipoi]

The fact that you just rattled off a list of terror states like it was nothing is so damn funny to me

[amunozo]

You know that there are regular people living in these terror states that have to suffer not only their terror states but the US? It's not that I feel pity of the terror states, but of the regular people. It's a very easy distinction that for some reason (racism?) people is troubled to make.

[broken-kebab]

It's obviously not the answer for the question asked.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Do you believe only Americans should be allowed to critique the American government?

I'm an American and I don't believe that.

[Matl]

The issue is that the way you're expected to criticize America from what I observed is along the lines of 'they mean well but...'

With China, you can say 'yeah, this is good, but they eat babies for fun' and it would mostly pass with people nodding along.

[juleiie]

Criticising America is nothing new or subversive. Hunter s Thompson was doing it all these years ago and much more interestingly and on point than anyone on here could.

Day every day the same unoriginal whining because it is hard to call it something as sophisticated as critique, can be heard all over the reddit.

While at the same time no one bothers to critique CCP to the same extent because we simply are not paid for doing this. No one is interested in non profit repeating the same facts about china every single day.

We are just content knowing that china is not some sort of “saviour” or alternative. It is an enemy of the free world. I try to not use things produced by my adversary to not fund my own doom.

[alfiedotwtf]

Ask people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Cuba, and Greenland if they think America is their saviour and in general do-gooder of the free world.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Which people, exactly, are you asking?

"That same ice cream shop owner thanked me repeatedly for my help in invading and ultimately overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003. I told him that Canada didn’t take part in the invasion, but he didn’t care. Kurdish people were brutally persecuted by Saddam for over 30 years, and look back on the Saddam years with pure terror. The shop owner refused to take payment for the ice cream and offered that I stay with his family in their apartment upstairs."

https://goodperson.substack.com/p/notes-on-my-travels-in-ira...

In Afghanistan, you saw their desperate attempts to flee the country as the US withdrew. Nonetheless, it was necessary to reduce our warmongering and military footprint. Afghani women being forced into burqas is ultimately not our business.

In Venezuela, apparently, the main complaint is that Trump didn't go even further: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas...

In Cuba, on the subreddit, there is a discussion of Trump saying that "Cuba is next" (after Iran). A mod of the subreddit writes (translated): "I am in Cuba, and I would say that 95% of the people here—those I know or have spoken with—are reacting to this with hope. That is something that many people on the outside do not see." See link below:

https://www.reddit.com/r/cuba/comments/1s5s1ip/trump_cuba_is...

And I'm sure you could find a few Greenlandic Inuit who are tired of Danish colonialism as well.

My point is that simply "asking people" is not a particularly reliable or effective method. It's much better to stay complicit, reduce military spending, and avoid being a warmonger.

[Matl]

> is not some sort of “saviour” or alternative. It is an enemy of the free world. I try to not use things produced by my adversary to not fund my own doom.

Are you aware that this is how America is increasingly perceived around the world?

It's not a 'free world' when America dictates and the others are supposed to just take orders.

May be you're fine with that, feeling on top of the food chain, but everyone needs friends at some point.

What does the 'free' in 'free world' even mean any more? You're not allowed to express your opinion on college campuses anymore, (lack of domestic freedom), and if you're a country, you're increasingly facing trade barriers from the US, (lack of freedom in commerce).

I'm not saying that as a sovereign country you don't have a right to impose these restrictions. I simply wish the US would treat other countries as sovereign.

[juleiie]

America is still a democracy. Its leaders may be vile today but they are bound to change. Unlike China.

I cannot condemn whole nation on the basis of two elections.

That’s the beauty of it all. In a democracy there are no irredeemable nations. There are just phases better or worse. China was always evil and cracked down on anyone who questioned power of highest leader.

If you think you are going to convince people that somehow an authoritarian state is preferable to a western liberal democracy in any way then you are foolish. Or paid by the state.

I love democracy and I love freedom. I will tirelessly work to oppose people like you until my last breath. That I swear.

All the disinformation, all the propaganda will be dispersed at the iron flank of NATO. You will never have this land. Europe is my home and it is free and free will remain till I breathe.

So I dare you commies, come here to Poland and try anything. We will crush you and you will see what red really looks like.

[Matl]

> America is still a democracy. Its leaders may be vile today but they are bound to change.

I disagree that it is a democracy. It's a corporatocracy and it's been for decades. But the elections are a nice PR.

The Trump thing of not having a PR filter over policies that were there long before him is just making people question whether system a.) is indeed better than system b.);

a.) Pseudo democracy where the will of corporations, but not people is implemented and that the people up for elections are so compromised by special interests by the time we get a choice that it doesn't matter anymore i.e. the US and most of the West.

b.) A system that does away with the spectacle of national elections, with the social contract being that the leadership better be competent and peruse national interests and development, but is not directly elected i.e. China. That competency is supposed to be ensured by only allowing people who have proven competence at lower levels, (some of which they are directly elected to).

There's a question about how sustainable either is. I would prefer a third option c.) where you can elect relatively competent leaders, but that doesn't seem to be an option these days.

What Trump is unquestionably doing however, is making a lot of fans of the idealized system of democracy c.) think that perhaps option b.) > a.) even if less than ideal.

Just because you call yourself a democracy doesn't mean you're one. Just ask citizens of the DRC.

[jicko]

I don't think people pointing out American hypocrisy are under a delusion that China is a saint. They're just pointing out the hypocrisy.

It's also a delusion to think that the world is free under US hegemony. It's mostly better for those who cooperate, and the incentives are good. But it's not "free". The only entity free to do whatever it wants under US hegemony, is the US.

The unoriginal whining is mostly about China or any country that isn't the US, really. Asia is unimaginative and can only copy. Europe is lazy, blah blah blah. Because Americans who can't take being told that their country isn't #1 in the morality olympics seem to also not know much about other countries at all.

Like look at all the whining about China being communist. It's fcking hilarious. They've been an authoritarian, state-run capitalist country for decades by now. Just google their social spending vs other countries, will you.

[andersonpico]

> Criticising America is nothing new or subversive. Hunter s Thompson was doing it all these years ago and much more interestingly and on point than anyone on here could.

The existence better critique out there is irrelevant if you don't take the argumentt in front of you on its strenghts.

> Day every day the same unoriginal whining because it is hard to call it something as sophisticated as critique, can be heard all over the reddit.

Criticism of a country with military bases across the whole world doesn't have to be hip to be correct. No one cares what you think about reddit or how hipster you like your political takes to be and this doesn't exempt you from having to argue about the concrete facts in a discussion forum.

> While at the same time no one bothers to critique CCP to the same extent because we simply are not paid for doing this. No one is interested in non profit repeating the same facts about china every single day.

You are so wrong about no one criticizing the CCP that's it's difficult to believe that this statement is sincere. Maybe I could attribute it to selection bias as you're on an american forum? There's also a cottage industry around anti-Chinese propaganda besides the western funded government propaganda machine that is in place for the last decades.

> We are just content knowing that china is not some sort of “saviour” or alternative.

Oh but they are! China is a concrete alternative for an economic partner for most parts of the world, but only if the US doesn't sponsor a military coup or invade your country in response. If they you can get away from Americans threats, China is also a more reliable partner with much more stable policies and much less likely to sabotage your elections, secretly pay your politics and judges and manipulate your markets.

> It is an enemy of the free world. I try to not use things produced by my adversary to not fund my own doom.

This has no basis in reality. The US is the actual enemy of the free world and has been since ww2: occupying countries, sabotaging their domestic politic disputes, staging military coups, bombings, etc. Whatever justifications for those actions after the fact do not make any other country more free.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>military bases across the whole world

Another reason I'm eager to leave NATO is leaving will help cut down on our military base count.

I expect some Europeans will protest, the same way Kurds protested when Trump pulled us out of Syria:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hz-WKu881Yc

We'll have to stay strong and ignore their protests. It's the only way to reduce our military footprint and warmongering tendencies.

[jicko]

Yeah because obviously the US-Europe relationship is one way, isn't it?

NATO exists because the US won't allow any other global hegemon to exist. US backing of Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are for that same reason. I meant that as a neutral statement; large regional powers also do not like each other when situated too close, that's why India and Russia are friendly, and why Russia and China have a complicated relationship despite both being opposed to the US.

Has quite a lot of good also come out of that? To the Europeans, yes. But it's not like the US is doing it from the bottom of their hearts.

And it's not like the US ever intervened in the Middle East for anything other than oil, historically. You go there and piss off the hardcore islamists / dictators, and make use of the Kurds as local fighting forces, and then you abandon them to the revenge of said islamists? Ofc they're pissed.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>The issue is that the way you're expected to criticize America from what I observed is along the lines of 'they mean well but...'

Hard to think of any critique of the US I've seen on HN recently which acknowledges the possibility that we might mean well.

Even during the Biden administration, right after we allocated billions of dollars to Ukraine, huge numbers of Europeans expressed an unfavorable view of the US: https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u...

They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war. Now they say they want to be buddies with China which has been actively helping Russia with arms. I don't think there is any point in the US trying to please Europe.

And then you've got the Australians who express their burning hatred of the US for not giving more aid to Ukraine, while Australia's aid as a fraction of GDP is still sitting around 10-15% of that provided by the US.

[roenxi]

> And then you've got the Australians who express their burning hatred of the US for not giving more aid to Ukraine, while Australia's aid as a fraction of GDP is still sitting around 10-15% of that provided by the US.

Which Australians are we talking about here? Australia, if pushed to the absolute limit might formally send a strongly worded letter to the US expressing concerns. They aren't particularly fussed about Ukraine, we've all spent decades politely accepting the US invading random countries for no obvious reason and in defiance of everyone's strategic interests. Australians clearly do not care if distant countries get invaded.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

It's a sentiment I've seen multiple times from Australians online, that Trump is bad for not giving more to Ukraine. See the Australian who chimed in on this discussion for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45035076

Similarly, I saw a person from Italy who declared the US an "enemy of Europe" for not giving more to Ukraine, when the US has given far more than Italy. There's a professor with the last name O'Brien who constantly castigates the US for not giving more, when we gave far more than Ireland.

We just have to stop the warmongering. It never achieves anything.

[roenxi]

Are we talking about rswail's comment? He seems to be framing the situation as a short-term aberration and trying to encourage the US to adopt policies he sees as sensible for them. That is hardly an expression of burning hatred. If only I had enemies so devoted to my success.

Technically he didn't even say anything related to US activity in Ukraine either. He was pointing out that US policy related to international trade and oil was bad. Which is basically a non-controversial opinion as far as I know.

[8note]

Ive seen more than 2 nazi-sympathizers from the states, but i dont think that means americans are all nazis.

youve seen 4ish people and you are extending that to tens or hundreds of millions?

seems a bit silly to me

[OtomotO]

> They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war.

There is a huge difference between attacking foreign nations because of oil... Oh, pardon me, because of... Geopolitical interests... Oh, pardon me... In the name of democracy and self-defense when you're being attacked (such as Ukraine).

We came to help you after 9/11, when for some reason you invaded Iraq although Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda had taken responsibility...

But sure, think that you're white guardians of the flame of freedom and democracy all you want!

You're in exactly the same ballpark as China and Russia, they're just without the Hollywood propaganda.

[Matl]

> They call us warmongers and then wonder why we don't want to help them fight their war.

Europeans helped when you called after 9/11. Are you seriously arguing about being called warmongers considering what your government started in Iran? (and btw screwed the global energy market)

This lack of self awareness is what turns people away.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>Europeans helped when you called after 9/11.

So how would you feel if you got labeled as warmongers for that help?

You're welcome to call us warmongers. Just don't expect us to help you fight wars if you do.

Libya was Europe's idea -- we helped when you called -- yet the US still gets blamed for it. If the US had surged more weapons to Ukraine (as some Europeans were requesting), thus provoking Russia to launch a nuke, we surely would've been blamed for that too.

The pattern I've noticed is that anywhere the US has foreign policy involvement (including Europe), there are locals in that region who are both for and against said involvement. People who aren't knowledgeable about the region will generally not know many details, and simply say "oh, the US is involved in a war again". If that's how we're going to be judged, then yes, I want to be involved in fewer wars. And withdrawing from NATO will help with that objective. So I favor NATO withdrawal.

[Matl]

> Libya was Europe's idea.

Hardly 'Europe's', it was the idea of some 'humanitarian interventionists' in the Obama admin and the then current president of France who wanted to cover up his corrupt dealings.

For what it's worth, I am not a fan of NATO either, so we can agree on that. All US troops should imo immediately leave Europe and loose all access to military facilities on the continent.

As for the whole warmongers thing, answer me two simple questions:

1. Was the 2003 Iraq war started based on false claims about WMDs? Yes/No?

2. Did you just attack Iran for no good reason? (Yes/No?)

[alfiedotwtf]

> Just don't expect us to help you fight wars if you do.

Back at you. I'm glad Europe, Asia, and Australia all said no to helping liberate oil from Iran.

Also, it's so weird seeing Americans wanting to leave NATO because NATO didn't help invade Iran, whilst forgetting that NATO is a defensive pact. Han shot first :headdesk:

[wat10000]

There's a big difference between helping an ally that's been attacked or intervening in a civil war, and attacking countries for no good reason at all. Afghanistan and Libya don't merit the "warmonger" label, but Iraq and Iran do. I don't think there's any equivalent on the European side in recent times.

[8note]

the US dodnt want help after 9/11

NATO insisted on helping

[pelorat]

USA invoked article 5.

[wat10000]

"They call us warmongers for carrying out an unprovoked invasion, and then wonder why we don't want to help them resist an unprovoked invasion."

Think about this for just three seconds, I'm begging you.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

The phrase "warmonger" doesn't specify anything about the nature of the war, or the reason it was started. It's a very simpleminded "war=bad". If that's how we will be judged, fine.

As soon as you use the phrase "unprovoked" then you start getting into messy details. Are we so sure that the war in Ukraine was not provoked by NATO expansion? Are we so sure that the war in Iran was not provoked by Iran's actions against Israel or against its own people?

The ideologue doesn't like details. They prefer to see the world in black and white.

[wat10000]

warmonger - noun: one who urges or attempts to stir up war

And to preempt the inevitable "the dictionary isn't always how people use it" response, this is in fact how everyone uses the word.

So yes, it's very much tied to the nature of the war and the reason it was started. Attacking Iran for no particular reason is warmongering. Defending Ukraine from invasion is not.

"Unprovoked" can be difficult but I don't think it actually is here. Yes, you can list reasons. But even if you believe the wars' proponents, the justification isn't there. It's like if I tap someone on the nose and they blow my head off. Was there some provocation? Technically, yes. Does the killing count as "provoked"? Not really. That word carries an implication of sufficient, justified provocation, not just "something happened."

Did NATO expansion provoke the invasion of Ukraine? Maybe. Is that sufficient to say the invasion was "provoked"? No, not even close. Similar for the justifications given for Iraq and Iran.

[FooBarWidget]

I find western obsession with "being able to critique X" very weird because it stops at just that. There's very little attention paid to whether the critique produces useful outcomes. While cost of living, energy scarcity, employment, education, wars, etc are all getting worse, people focus on being able to insult the president as the ultimate freedom, even when that achieves nothing.

Meanwhile in China, you can't change the ruling party but you can change policies. They restrict media and speech freedom, but they also work tirelessly to improve the livelihoods of the people.

If the west chooses the value empty talk over outcomes, fine, you have the right to choose that. But no need to force that value on other societies. China and Chinese society at large has the right value unity and livelihood over speech. They have the right to prefer what westerners call an "authoritarian" government that delivers on those values, without getting demonized. They're not forcing their way on you, no need for you to force your way on them.

[kelnos]

> they also work tirelessly to improve the livelihoods of the people.

They work to improve the livelihood of people with the same background and ideology, you mean.

[FooBarWidget]

Go travel to lower tier cities and rural places in China. The development those places have gotten in the past decade are huge. Go talk to regular people ask them to compare 10 years ago with now.

[MiiMe19]

Just like how they harvest the organs of people with a different religion. So progressive!!

[FooBarWidget]

You can travel to Xinjiang and witness for yourself whether religious people and minorities live in daily fear of concentration camps and organ harvesting. There are no special travel restrictions beyond standard country-wide visa requirements. If you're in a western country then odds are you can enter visa-free.

[MiiMe19]

In china they imprison priests for existing. And sure, they have the right to prefer that, but I can demonize them all I want. If you are the type of person to say the government, made up of people like you, should be able to tell you what to do without voting on if they should be in government at all you are foolish. There is one ethical form of government and it is democracy. Also, they regularly attempt to force their inferior ways onto others. Look at North Korea's obsession with South Korea. China's obsession with Taiwan. Russia's obsession with Ukraine (not really too much of a democracy there though o algo). There is no such thing as a country of that type having freedom to vote and freedom to speak because as soon as you give people those freedoms they choose a different system. It is no different than slavery.

[FooBarWidget]

You ought to travel to China and tell these things (just the parts about China and Taiwan, Russia/Korea etc irrelevant) to locals. In private, in a place with no cameras and no other onlookers, just to sooth your paranoia. People will laugh in your face. Maybe they'll even tell you where to find a church/mosque so you can attend a sermon or bid in the direction of Mecca or whatever.

While you're at it, go look for elderlies in their 80s or older, who were born before the People's Republic's founding. Maybe they even witnessed the democratic era of the early Republic (not People's Republic). Go tell them your maximalist thoughts about democracy and see how they respond.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Agreed.

[hirako2000]

No I don't mean one needs to be American. The reciprocal isn't valid. I talked about China. Given the misinformation the "western emisphere" has been subject to, I would find it dubious to get the echoes of what mainstream media portrays it as, even though there are elements of truth in what most people believe.

The U.S politics are easier to understand from the outside. For one it's a democracy, a more transparent process despite a lot is happening behind curtains. I have no idea what North Koreans are able to make of the U.S scene, I know for sure people in U.S and Europe are hardly able to comment on N.K.

tldr: I'm with you non Americans (and Americans) are perfectly able to critique the U.S with some valuable accuracy.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Why do you assume that the information non-Americans believe about the US is accurate?

It seems to me that there is a fair amount of misinformation which gets spread about the US. For example, many non-Americans seem to believe that school shootings are a significant cause of death here.

Furthermore, your proposed scheme creates an incentive to be non-transparent and thus not vulnerable to critique. By closing off information about your country, you can say to any critic: "Your critique is incorrect, because you lack information." Thus creating a reputational advantage for countries which successfully clamp down on the flow of information.

Is that your desired outcome? You want a world where criticizing the US can no longer be done as soon as Trump kicks out all of the foreign journalists and stops the information flow?

[hirako2000]

I'm not advocating for less transparency.

My argument is that with less transparent public affairs, it is much harder from the outside to understand what may be going on.

One can note the effects of certain measures without cherishing the schemes.

For that matter I'm personally convinced more transparency is overall a net benefit. It helps the public at large appreciate situations. But my preference, and the detrimental vs beneficial aspects of a system are irrelevant to the argument I made.

[wat10000]

The information believed by Americans isn't any better, anyway. We're closer to the source of information, but we're also closer to the source of misinformation. It's very difficult to discuss anything remotely political with people (I want to say "these days" but I'm not confident this is a new thing) because there's little agreement about basic facts.