>After WW2, America tries to spread freedom and democracy for the next 60 years
>fails
>tries again
>fails
>tries again
>fails
>tries again
>fails
>tries again
>fails
>tries again
>fails
>keeps doing the same thing now in Syria
>fail in progress
I really don't get this /his/. Why doesn't America learn from its past mistakes???
How are they failing? They've effectively established Pax Americana without the need of forcing their ideology of others. That's soft power projection at its finest. On top of their apex military, what's left to secure their seat at the top? They're doing everything advantageously.
>>791435
It never tried to spread freedom and democracy, just its own hegemony
>>791435
>America tries to spread freedom and democracy
You don't actually believe that do you?
USA has supported absolutist monarchies and quite a few repressive dictators
It did well in South Korea and Eastern Europe.
>>791450
>They're doing everything advantageously
How so? The countries they tried to enforce democracy onto are now failed terrorist states
>>791458
>Eastern Europe.
kek
>>791463
That's the plan bro
>>791435
That would imply the goal is to spread democracy. The sphere of America touches every continent, and it's diplomatic clout is unavoidable. It has every power that could possibly oppose it penned in. It was totally successful.
>>791458
>South Korea
You mean the country that only got democracy in the early 2000s and was controlled by dictators before then? ?
>>792437
The Sixth (current) Republic of Korea was established in 1987.
>>791435
>A politician says something
>People actually believe it
This is why evil excists still.
>>792459
And Roh Tae-woo lasted till 1993. South Korea didn't become a consolidated democracy until the election of Kim Young-sam.
>>791435
You have a bit of a false assumption there OP. The purpose of American foreign policy over the last 70 years was never to spread democracy, that's just what's told to public to make what we're really doing palatable. What America is really doing around the world is creating a system of client states whose power structures are favorable to US policy. This is why very often these countries were de jure democracies, but de facto dictatorships where the countries constitution was suspended. We did this because it's much easier to rely on and control a single man, rather than trying to wrangle all the public opinion and votes that are required by a democracy, democracies are inherently difficult to control from the outside. After if a country is important to America's strategic military and economic aim in a region of the world, you don't want the people of that country suddenly deciding that they would rather support the USSR and voting out the party you put in place to secure your aims.
>>791451
I didn't know that Noam Chomsky visited /his/
>>791435
Marshal plan was pretty succesful
you've completely omitted Japan you stupid fucks
>>791463
That's exactly what they want. Containing conflicts, not winning them.
>>792437
South Korea had stable and progress-seeking dictatorships.
The early Democracy of the 1950's was a huge failure, and the parties were run by landed old-timer nobles, which caused infighting and political stalemates. Nobody agreed to policies, no no decisions were being made at all. In addition, the dominant party in the 1950's democracy favored an agrarian nation and it actively discouraged industrialization in order to "maintain its traditional Confucian values."
The coup d'etat of general Jung Hee Park was the best thing to ever happen to South Korea; he is still a very popular figure in South Korea. His dictatorship is the reason why South Korea rose from being one of the dirt poorest nation in the world (even lower GDP than sub-Saharan nations) and became the 13-14th largest economy within a matter of a few decades.
South Korea NEEDED central planning, and a dictatorship is exactly that.
They're lucky they didn't get a war-hungry Hitler or a retard-tier "every house is a factory now lmao" Pol-Pot or Mao. South Korea is blessed to have decent dictators; they are rare these days.
>>792470
I'd argue the reforms the Tae-woo introduced created and solidified the democracy, just the election of Young-sam proved it was functional. Also, 1993 is not the 'early 2000's'
>>791435
I guess you're only thinking about wars? That is far too narrow of an outlook on US foreign policy. Look at things like the Marshall Plan and Alliance for Progress.
>>791435
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik
No gov't actually fights for freedom and democracy, you goober.
>>792623
>progress-seeking dictatorships.
I see you, like every other capitalist, sees murdering trade unionists as "progressive."
>>793309
Dictators will be dictators, but much like Kings of old many often seek the betterment of their country above all else. Without going full purge mode even, like what happened in South Korea.
It wasn't perfect, but it worked. South Korea went from a backwards shithole to one of the most modern countries on the planet within a lifetime. Africa is full of failed dictators just trying to line their pockets, and their countries are as poor today as they were then.
South Korea benefited greatly from being controlled by a single man. It's a sad fact of life but sometimes other people just know better. How rarely do they get in a position to make such an effective and beneficial change is a shame.
>>793309
Benevolent dictators are the best form of government, no lie.
The problem of course is that they last exactly one benevolent dictator. After that the son, general or politician next to enter office will abuse his power a little bit. And then the next one will abuse his power a bit more. And then the next one will abuse his power more. Look at Greek Democracy. It worked amazingly well so long as the original democratic patriots were alive. As soon as they died Athens went to hell in a hand basket and the people started voting based on what they thought and not what they knew.
Jung brought a massive amount of progression to South Korea, but it was best that he was assassinated and a Republic was allowed to be ushered in. Men, when given power, rarely relinquish it.
>>793426
>Benevolent dictators are the best form of government, no lie.
This.
Feel free to insert that edgy Churchill quote about the average voter.
>The problem of course is that they last exactly one benevolent dictator.
Not sure if I'd agree.
>>791435
>After WW2, America tries to spread freedom and democracy for the next 60 years
ahahahahahahahahahahaha
>>793505
You need a monarchy, with the heirs indoctrinated into serving the nation above all else. Best form of government desu
>>793528
Eh, idk. I'm Muslim, so I'm partial to a system that's non-monarchical dictatorial, with each successive leader being decided by a council, or appointed by the previous leader.
>>791435
>>After WW2, America tries to spread freedom and democracy for the next 60 years
Name one occasion when the US tried this.
>>793582
Fair enough. I'm going off the old Byzantine notion of a human Emperor to be God's material counterpart on Earth. As long as you can manage to keep the monarchs aligned to the nation's interests at large, monarchical systems are not that bad.
>>791435
America dosen't give a fuck about democracy. As long as a foreign goverment sucking their cocks it's all good. They only care for natural resources and geopolitic domination, for more natural resources of course. They don't really fail, they don't give a fuck. Americans gets bullshitted by their values, and fall for bringing "democracy" and "freedom" to others meme. And even if they did; if you bring democracy and freedom to some shitty country filled with uneducated subhumans do you think it will work, it will be worth it, it will be good enough? Answers are no. Americans dosen't really know meaning of freedom, it's some kind of bastardization of freedom notion. It's childish and laughable (Being able to protecting yourself with your own gun dosen't mean you've freedom you dumbshit. But there is more to that). How can you bring something to someone without having it?
>>792520
>doubt that America foreign policy is really about spreading democracy, apple pie, boy scouts and freedom, just for the sake of it
>hurrr must be a commie!!!!
>>791457
It is interesting how Americans sperg out at the British having a royal family yet have absolutely no issues with backing middle eastern royalty.
>>793587
vietnam
>>791435
>tries to spread freedom and democracy
As a non-American I'm still generally pro-American, but you're incredibly naive if you believe this.
>>791435
>tries to spread freedom and democracy for the next 60 years
Yeah - because that was what it was all about.
>>793963
>Vietnam was about spreading democracy
>by propping up a military coup
>>791435
See pic related.
>>793653
>America has some bastardized notion of freedom
Yo nigger, have you ever walked the streets or experienced day to day life in America? It's pretty fucking free.
t. burger
