Stylan wrote:Major-Tom wrote:
Systematically means with deliberation and with a firm intent. Our actions in Indonesia, however unjustified they were in propping up Suharto, were not systematic. I can see where you're coming from, perhaps our rationale behind nation-building doesn't matter when the end results often seem to go awry (which, more often than not, they have).
That said, that doesn't offer you a solid reasoning to claim that China is somehow better than us in terms of foreign policy. Looking solely at the governments they support both diplomatically and financially, as well as their checkered past, they certainly don't need much lauding, nor is it accurate to say that "they don't kill people they don't support." Nonsense.
Non-interventionism is noble, and while it's good that you're aware of how disastrous our foreign policy has been in the past, there is more nuance to be found outside the realm of a steady stream of Chapo Trap House and parroted talking points.
Yes, they were systematic dude, the point of the US dictatorship in Indonesia was to crush communist dissent and prevent a socialist revolution from occurring.
China doesn't constantly coup governments they don't like. Find me a single example in fact of a government China has couped.
Your Chapo line made me laugh tho
I'll concede that the hosts of the show are pretty funny dudes, I just also think there are many times where they're just talking absolute nonsense.
As for the semantics of systematic and non-systematic, put it this way, I'm being plain-spoken in saying that we fucked up badly with Suharto and should not nation-build in that capacity because it opens the path to repressive dictators. We aided his path to power, but we weren't the ones to tell him "go kill the communists." That's not a defense of that particular foreign policy moment, however, so I'll move on.
China aided North Vietnam, North Korea (still do), the Soviets as they made a push into Afghanistan, among other historical examples. I think the difference is ultimately this;
US foreign policy, particularly in the Cold War era, was disastrous. I'm not arguing with that bottom line, I'm arguing with the comparison that suggests China is somehow more noble. Their domestic affairs alone are disqualifying, but if we're speaking solely on foreign affairs, while they may not have shown the teeth we did in the Cold War era, they sure as hell are now. Their current heavy financial backing of authoritarian regimes throughout SE Asia and Africa is enough to make one fret.
Iraq was a seismic blunder on our end, but the US's current foreign policy, while still far too interventionist for my liking, is not the same cynical, brutal realpolitik practiced by folks like Kissinger or Dulles.
