> Oh wait, that was too reductionist... maybe the US does a lot of good by sending food aide around the world but also causes problems... maybe the rest of the world is the same, being good sometimes and bad others, and no one nation is some beacon of light and purity that all others are constantly sucking[1] the productivity out of.
I never claimed America was a beacon of light. I merely claimed that many non-American countries benefit from American global hegemony. That is an observation (which perhaps you think is wrong, but I don't see any generalized counter claim), not a value judgement.
> [1] The analogies used above were pretty weird and awkward,
Perhaps, but that doesn't take away anything from the main argument.....
And many non-American countries have suffered from American hegemony. The US used concentration camps in the Phillipines and overthrew the Honduran government so we could have cheap fruit. Are you absolutely sure that the US provides a net benefit to other countries via its military?
> Are you absolutely sure that the US provides a net benefit to other countries via its military?
Yes, the issue at hand isn't whether the US provides a net benefit to every country, because 'every country' is rarely used as a metric against which to measure the US. Instead, America is typically measured against western European countries and 'developed' countries (so, ex-colonies, essentially). The article in question in this HN thread compares the US to Europe.
Pretty much every 'developed' country benefits from US hegemony. That is one reason why they are considered 'developed'.
How many times do I have to say that I am in no way justifying American military action or even saying it's a good and ethical thing. I am just making a very obvious observation that American tax payers pay for the current Pax Americana (evil or not) that many countries often contrasted with the US benefit greatly from.
I never claimed America was a beacon of light. I merely claimed that many non-American countries benefit from American global hegemony. That is an observation (which perhaps you think is wrong, but I don't see any generalized counter claim), not a value judgement.
> [1] The analogies used above were pretty weird and awkward,
Perhaps, but that doesn't take away anything from the main argument.....