Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jdbolick t1_j2kwjdu wrote

Reply to comment by fitzroy95 in An analysis of data from 30 survey projects spanning 137 countries found that 75% of people in liberal democracies hold a negative view of China, and 87% hold a negative view of Russia. However, for the rest of the world, 70% feel positively towards China, and 66% feel positively towards Russia. by glawgii

Your comment is proof regarding the effectiveness of Russian propaganda since most of what you're saying is nonsense.

The United States military has never invaded a democracy. Even in nations it did invade, such as Iraq, natural resources were not seized. The majority of post-war Iraqi contracts went to Chinese companies. India ranked second, then U.S. companies were a distant third.

The U.S. also supplies more humanitarian aid annually than the next four nations combined.

−29

jonsterz123 t1_j2l5hv3 wrote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_United_States

Idk man, the US had interfered with 81 foreign elections between 1946-2000.

Denying realpolitik is a telltale sign of nationalistic propaganda - is it hard to believe that the US fights for its interests in an amoral/immoral way? Or would you rather believe American hegemony is the only exceptional one in all of history?

26

jdbolick t1_j2l5yd3 wrote

I never claimed that the United States behaved in an entirely benevolent manner, as the CIA has been involved in long list of nefarious behavior. But it is a fact that the U.S. military has never invaded a democracy, unlike Russia. It is a fact that the U.S. did not seize Iraq's resources when it very easily could have, unlike Russia and China. It is also a fact that the U.S. provides the most humanitarian aid to other nations by an enormous amount annually.

−13

jonsterz123 t1_j2l8hjt wrote

Your points don't provide evidence for why you think that the existence of wide-reaching US propaganda that promotes US interventionist foreign policy is just Russian propaganda.

In fact, you chiming in to justify US military intervention when you're replying to a comment about how US propaganda is used to rationalise US military intervention is telling that you are being propagandised into legitimising US military interventions.

Also, is Iraqi oil not a resource? https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2012/1/7/western-oil-firms-remain-as-us-exits-iraq

The fact is the US has no moral high ground in its actions so must find ways to justify protecting and advancing its interests to its population and allies. They do this by media influence today, but states were using religious establishments in the past.

13

jdbolick t1_j2lanvq wrote

> Your points don't provide evidence for why you think that the existence of wide-reaching US propaganda that promotes US interventionist foreign policy is just Russian propaganda.

They wouldn't because I never said that. I pointed out that Russian propaganda on social media has influenced lesser minds into believing that the U.S. is "just as bad" as Russia when the facts conclusively show otherwise.

> you are being propagandised into legitimising US military interventions.

Pointing out the fact that the United States has never once militarily invaded a democracy is not propaganda, it is important context regarding the nature of its military interventions. Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and the Taliban are a heinously repressive regime. Taking military action against them is in no way equivalent to Russia invading Ukraine or China invading Tibet.

> Also, is Iraqi oil not a resource?

Yes, and the majority of post-war Iraqi oil contracts went to China. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/03/world/middleeast/china-reaps-biggest-benefits-of-iraq-oil-boom.html

−1

jonsterz123 t1_j2leauu wrote

> Your comment is proof regarding the effectiveness of Russian propaganda since most of what you're saying is nonsense.

What do you mean by this then? The guy was saying that US propaganda is widespread and promotes US interventionist foreign policy for the benefit of US corporations, is that part nonsense or do you mean something else is nonsense?

At the end of the day we can agree to disagree.

You think US interventionist policy is justified because other countries are fucked up and need fixing. (Or at least more justifiable than other countries foreign interventions).

I think that the above justification is US propaganda fed to lesser minds to distract them from the idea that US interventions are ultimately for the benefit for the US and disregard the welfare of those being interfered with.

I think the US gov never really moved away from Kissinger style realpolitik and just learnt a lesson from the outcome of Vietnam War in managing the internal optics of military intervention. You can't let your own population think you're the bad guy.

7

jdbolick t1_j2lgwfy wrote

> The guy was saying that US propaganda is widespread and promotes US interventionist foreign policy for the benefit of US corporations, is that part nonsense or do you mean something else is nonsense?

I already explained this, so either you have spectacularly poor reading comprehension or you are pretending not to understand because you don't want to acknowledge my point.

He said: "Russian and Chinese propaganda is mainly aimed at keeping their own populations compliant, US propaganda is aimed at convincing the western world (and their own populations) that US imperialism is acceptable, and all of those dead foreigners is just the price the world needs to pay to allow US corporations to rule the globe."

The claim that Russian propaganda is mainly inward is clearly false, as Russia has engaged in sweeping measures throughout social media to promote foreign candidates (e.g. Trump) and causes (e.g. Brexit) that benefit Russian interests. Meanwhile, the U.S. is not even imperialist, much less using propaganda to justify imperialism. U.S. media coverage of military involvements has been mostly negative, spurring significant public resistance against them.

> You think US interventionist policy is justified because other countries are fucked up and need fixing.

I'm saying that Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are extremely different from Zelensky and the Dalai Lama.

> US interventions are ultimately for the benefit for the US

Again, the majority of Iraqi oil post-war has gone to China, not the United States. The U.S. could have easily just taken those resources and did not. Giving the Iraqi government that autonomy doesn't undo the civilians who died as a result of the invasion, but it does prove you wrong regarding the motives behind the invasion.

> You can't let your own population think you're the bad guy.

Yet the U.S. media is relentlessly negative toward U.S. actions abroad, and no one complains more about America than a certain section of Americans.

−2

Bloody__Penguin t1_j2lfz31 wrote

Yea, us patriotic Americans love our war crimes committed by guerilla groups and terrorists.

We would never subvert a democracy with boots on the ground like those savage Russians. We only sponsor terrorist groups , give them intel and sit idly by while they slaughter civilians or help the military establish a dictatorship because we love democracy so much!

Also it's totally cool to invade dictatorships because we are the world police and need to intervene and massacre civilians ourself.

Please read "manufacturing consent" by Noam Chomsky if you would actually like to educate yourself on how western media propaganda works vs totalitarian propaganda.

6

Resident_Courage1354 t1_j2lqr9g wrote

You're right on Chinese propaganda, but you're really missing the point and looking at things too black and white with the defense of America.
America is as evil as it gets.

4