Hacker News Reader

While your analysis is true, it only describes the effects which have lead to today's situation.

Here are a few causes:

* In late 80's US empire has definitely thrown international law above the board by organizing color revolutions, destabilizing other countries and waging wars

* US empire and its vassals (other NATO members) leave a trail of blood where ever they show up

* Officially, US military - despite its huge budget, infrastructure and human power - still has not (15 years later!) defeated "the terrorists"

* US empire has definitely destroyed its financial reputation in 1971 by unilaterally canceling the "gold standard" and, since then, the masks are off and US dollar is being printed/created in the computer at the speed of light, without anything but military might to back it

* World Bank and IMF - two institutions majorly influenced by the US - wreak havoc in South America, Africa, South Asia and South Europe

* Russia is getting back on feet after 2000 and US empire has no means to counter it

* US empire and its media have done something remarkable in the 26 years since the fall of the Berlin wall: In 1990 USA was a country with a great image, in 2016 USA is arguably the most hated country in the world

The world outside of the empire sees all this. And runs away from the bully who has ("long before Trump") made himself weaker by seeking refuge in those who show at least some respect.

> America’s overall image around the world remains largely positive. Across the nations surveyed (excluding the U.S.), a median of 69% hold a favorable opinion of the U.S., while just 24% express an unfavorable view. However, there is significant variation among regions and countries.[0]

I think we can agree the US often acts like a douchebag and that it has a lot of passionate haters, but the fact is that there are not that many great countries in the world.

It's true that the US is not number #1 in a lot areas and I really believe that's a good thing. The whole world should improve, not just the US. Inequality is at the root of a lot of evil in this world.

[0] http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/

NO! I am NOT talking here (and elsewhere) about US citizens!

I am talking about US oligarchy.

US people (on a personal level) are just like other people of the world: Most of them are good, some less that. And they themselves suffer from many problems the US oligarchy (through imperial means) causes outside of the US.

Daughters and sons who go to US military, they are patriots who want to serve their country and its people. But then they are sent to wars for resources, pipeline routes, geostrategic interests. And they come back in body bags, maimed, or suffer some physical or psychical ailment. Only to find out that their father has lost his job, or that their mother's insurance won't cover the costs for her treatment, or that no one cares for her/him (the former soldier).

Where ever I go in the world, I remind people that we all are in the same boat.

Nobody implied you were talking about US citizens.

The parent comment is valid when taking about the 'US oligarchy' too.

The US is probably the nicest and most responsible super power ever.

A super power like the Roman empire would have won the Afghanistan war for sure. But in a different way.

Even the nicest mass murderer is still a mass murderer.

I don't think the US did mass murder in Afghanistan. This was part of the problem. The Romans would have just made a population reduction of XX% per year and things would have been fine. I think you should put your judgement into perspective.

Decimation in the original sense of the word?

Yes. But decimation, as far as I know, was something the Romans did to their own divisions for "unsatisfactory" services. But regarding Afghanistan, if you crucify a few thousand men, women and children every day for the smallest offence, resistance breaks fast.

"...if you crucify a few thousand men, women and children every day for the smallest offence, resistance breaks fast."

You would know this, how? Look at the butchery in Syria and tell me how people respond to genocidal despots.

Ou dear. The looses in Syria a minimal.

By the way, the losses of the US in the Vietnam war were minimal too. They lost 60.000 People. In the 10 years or what, I assume they lost more people in traffic accidents and suicides. Just to put numbers a little bit into perspective.

In late 80's US empire has definitely thrown international law above the board by organizing color revolutions,

The term "color revolution" didn't exist until the early 2000s.

US empire and its vassals (other NATO members)

NATO countries aren't in any meaningful way "vassals" of the US.

Might I suggest... reading a bit more broadly? To get like you know, a better grip on basic narrative history? Whatever sources you've been drawing from -- it seems you've got the polemics down pat, but your basic geopolitical awareness appears to be quite stunted.

I just saw your comment. While I don't know if you'll see it/respond to it, here is my response:

(1) Yes, the first color revolution was in 2000 in Serbia. And that sentence should have started with "Since" instead of "In". But the three things I've listed in it are undisputed.

(2) Since the NATO was founded, the Commander is always an US General. Who is, while being the NATO Commander, still on the Pentagon payroll. And those on Pentagon payroll are under the command of the US President. No other President/Prime Minister of a NATO member state has that power. Next, look at the NATO troop concentration on the Russian border. It is undisputed that NATO is expanding towards Russia. It is undisputed that continental European countries have interest in dialog and cooperation with Russia. But they must follow the US oligarchy.

(3) Your last paragraph brings out the suspicion that you swallow the interpretation of widely known history others have chewed for you. You seem to devalue everything that doesn't fit the official narrative. And you get personal. But, no offense taken: Been there, done that. Since 2003 I have started looking at historical facts and interpreting them while asking myself "Cui bono" (Who benefits). And then patterns started to emerge. Patterns of Anglo-american hegemony in the last 150 years. Later I've found the works of Carroll Quigley and Anthony Sutton (to name two greats) who have confirmed what I've interpreted while expanding my knowledge in other areas. Also, reading Zbigniew Brzezinski helped. By the way, it is he who speaks of US vassals. But if you really want to learn lesser known historical facts then, probably, the best place to start is Brzezinski's inspiration: Halford Mackinder and his Heartland Theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_Hist...)

To end this post, I'll quote a man who knew what he talked about, George F. Kennan: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy." (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan)

> in 2016 USA is arguably the most hated country in the world

Let's agree to disagree on this, based on the fact that there are a number of countries with active civil wars and/or genocides.

i think you are missing the point of the parent - not many people care about genocide going on somewhere in the woods as long as it's not dangerously nearby (nothing to be proud of, but a natural part of being human these days). I don't know anybody who would literally 'hate' Rwanda, Burma, South Sudan or your former/current place of pick.

now for rather unfortunate meddling into internal affairs of a given state - there isn't a single country in this world that can say US didn't try to f__k them over one way or the other. Not-a-single-one. You may not like this fact, but that's truth. Now we can say something similar, maybe to lesser exent, and maybe with more evil tone, about Russia, or in other ways about England/Dutch/French/Spanish/Belgian/German/and so on for the past, but for pure hate, US made it damn too easy to be hated.

don't take this personally - I have much higher issues with Russia in this regard, the country that invaded my home in 1968, killed quite a few, brought more repressions and stayed for 21 years. But US ain't some saint 'good' guy, far from that.

> not many people care about genocide going on somewhere in the woods as long as it's not dangerously nearby

I'm going to take the somewhat cardboard American umbrage, but I think my position is a fair one.

For all of our American geopolitical intrigue and intelligence service &#@$ups, the United States generally does care.

In the sense that compared with other countries that could act, the United States chooses to do something.

Somalia was a failed state, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Iraq was run by a dictator who killed his own people (caveat: yes, domestic and international audiences were lied to about WMD facts), but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Continental Europe was occupied by the Nazis, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best. Swathes of the Pacific were occupied by Imperial Japan, but we were there trying to do what we thought was best.

It's easy to say "That's an ocean away, doesn't concern us, and isn't our business." Even when people are being murdered or exploited. Nobody points a finger and says "Why didn't you act when it was happening?"

But if we're being honest and fair, then there's zero utility in comparing how well Switzerland is liked vs the US or Russia. It's a hell of a lot easier to make friends if you never enter a competition.

Re: Iraq Dictators killing their own people hasn't concerned the US govt before or since. They even called the thing Operation Iraqi Liberation.

With great power comes great responsibility. Currently, no other country has that much power (things I mentioned in the parent) and does so much harm. Yes, regionally, there are conflicts and hatred/dislike between groups, regions or countries. Yet, US is feared, disliked, even hated - exactly for the misuse of the power.

I didn't know that Noam Chomsky posted on HN.

Whoever downvoted you, it's their right. I upvoted you.

I actually find your comment funny.

But, please, don't compare me with Chomsky.

No, that would be quite insulting to Chomsky.

Wow, was this really necessary?

https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=nchomsky

Traditional? Not really. The UK or France could be considered traditional allies. Pakistan was more of a conveniently-located 'strategic partner'. I say this as someone of Pakistani origin.

The people of Pakistan are hugely skeptical and wary of this 'alliance' and have long felt they have been used, there is deep resentment, so it's not even slightly surprising they are looking to align themselves with those whose reputation is less sullied (in their view) than the US's.

Pakistan gets paid for its dealing with the U.S. It is not some friend doing the U.S. any favours. Its more of a business deal and clearly one the U.S. should reconsider. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2015/11/25/...

Indeed. Pakistan is important to US because of terrorism in Afghanistan, at the same time Pakistan is important to China because of threat of India.

And before Afghanistan, the Soviet Union. And as you say, the mutual interest in containing the threat posed by India. If anything, Trump courting India as much as he has been doing, at the same time talking tough against China means we have 'interesting times' ahead.

From my perspective, India always seemed like a better ally to the American people, Pakistan to the American military/intelligence branches.

India courted the soviets which didn't help.

It's a little more complicated than that. This was mostly a reaction to Pakistan courting the US. Note also that India was first a founding member of the non-aligned movement, which the US was not pleased about. US-India relations improved during the 1962 Sino-Indian war when the US countered Chinese aggression at any cost. They then deteriorated again when the Nixon administration openly supported Pakistan in the 1971 Bangladesh liberation war.

India was never the aggressor, just look at the history. It's Chinese who invaded Indian Himalayan territory and annexed some Indian land. Same with Pakistan - it's them who invaded Indian territory in Kashmir in 1999 in thousands.

It's stupid from Chinese to act like there is already hostility between them, when they could act as partners that have literally 1/3 of global population and dominate the region.

India's modern history perhaps, but Indian influence once stretched all across SE Asia. Angor Wat is the largest Hindu temple in the world[1], for example; Bali is all that remains of Hindu control of Indonesia[2]. Though it seems unlikely that the PRC government is thinking in those terms.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angkor_Wat#History 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bali#Ancient

Ankor Wat was built by a local king.

No Indian empire invaded or controlled SE Asia. The influence of Buddhism and Hinduism in Bali and Cambodia is testament to the influence of Indian philosophy and belief not might.

The Sino Indian war is more complicated than that,

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/It-wasnt-China-but-...

>Indeed. Pakistan is important to US because of opium and mineral wealth in Afghanistan...

FTFY

True. But the relationship has spanned many decades into the cold war, with Pakistan leaning towards the US and India leaning towards Russia. There was little trust or love or shared values involved, but it was still one borne of necessity, that had endured a lot of bumps (to say the least) along the way.

this was an idiotic decision by US - India has much more common with western democracies compared to Pakistan. It's also the biggest democracy in the world, since it's humble beginnings.

I presume US couldn't swallow that somebody like to be rather independent though and bow into submission during cold war, ie 'if you're not with us you are against us' mentality

It's not a realignment. China and Pakistan have been close strategic allies since the 70s [1], while Pakistan's stance with the US has gone back and forth a couple of times.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Pakistan_relatio...

"Another traditional US ally re-aligning itself between the two major spheres of influence. The balance will tip further in China's favor as the USA recedes further from global development."

China wants just an ally in the back of India. This is understandable from a Chinese perspective. But Pakistan is a moslems country and China has enough problems with its own moslems. If you have been in Xinjiang province: The level of security is astonishing. I wonder about the costs of maintaining this and long term stability.

> Another traditional US ally re-aligning itself

China has been an ally of Pakistan for a long time.

> parallel international institutions that [the Chinese] are developing that will compete with the IMF

http://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2016/09/29/AM16-NA093016...

Mao hated Khrushchev which meant that Soviet-Chinese relations were extremely hostile (actual battles were fought between soldiers of the two nations). India was aligned with the USSR, which made China and Pakistan natural allies. They have been close since then.

except Pakistan is not really an ally but a lynchpin in starting another nuclear cold war style standoff in the Indo-Pakistani region which distracts them from US core interests in other more important areas.

but I agree with the other comment below OP, IMF & WB have destroyed economies that threatened US interests, ex. Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Ireland, so on. There is a clear pattern of market manipulation and subsequent destruction and using that chaos to reign them closer to US interests.

We should all but expect the same from China but with much less subtleness.