Commentary on "Tomgram: William Astore, The Death of Peace"(by Tom Engelhardt). The Crucial Difference in State Violence between the US and China

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176540/tomgram%3A_william_astore%2C_the_death_of_peace/

One major difference between the US and China is this:

Chinese state violence has a relative free hand within China but is almost non-existent outside China.
Chinese government will brutally crack down on dissidents and use whatever means necessary to maintain control over Tibetans and Uighurs in Xinjiang. But around the world, Chinese state policy is, "You do your thing, we no intervene in your political affairs. All we want is do business." Chinese will use economic muscle but will not play 'policeman' or 'serial killer' of the world.

In contrast...

American state violence is severely proscribed within the US. The biggest abuse of state violence in recent history was in Charlottesville where the Unite the Right attendees were denied freedom of assembly and free speech. The state-and-media complex colluded to spin a false narrative, use lawfare, and virtual kangaroo courts to deny justice to Unite the Right people and railroad certain members with trumped up charges that led to long sentences.
Still, that was mild compared to the kind of tactics used by the state in China. If Tibetans had tried to pull a Unite the Tibetans rally, many more heads would have been cracked and its leaders would be sitting in jail or working in labor camps.
In the US, blacks can run wild and burn down cities, but the police mostly stand on the sidelines. Illegals jump across borders, but the US must treat them 'humanely'. Tea Party or Pussy March can fill up the mall in DC, but the state allows massive protests. Though Occupy Wall Street was finally shut down by state power, the means were restrained compared to the kind of violence used by the Chinese state.
While America has a huge jail population, blacks commit lots of crime and some get caught. It can't be helped. It's not political violence though.

But when it comes to foreign policy, US is the #1 terror-spreading nation. With drones, it blows up entire villages. It has invaded and bombed nation after nation. It has set up military bases around the world as 'traps'. (If Russia gets into a conflict with neighboring nation with a military base, the US media and Pentagon can spin it as "Russia attacks US soldiers.") The US deep state funds and backs terrorist proxies as 'freedom fighters' to attack any nation hated by Jews(the ruling elites of the US) and Israel. It has used sanctions to starve entire populations. It has engineered coups to topple democratically elected governments in Ukraine and Egypt. The death toll from US foreign intervention since the end of the Cold War is well over a million. Some might say it's in the millions if we count those indirectly affected by the wars and violence.

Chinese government is like a strict father who uses domestic violence to keep order in the house but is courteous to others in the neighborhood.

US government is like a cuck dad who is helpless to stop his wife and daughter from behaving like mudsharks and indulges his worthless whigga son, BUT outside the home he gets to play Jack the Ripper and makes a big bloody mess of things in the neighborhood.

Commentary on "Tomgram: William Astore, Turning Victory Into Defeat"(by Tom Engelhardt) or the Myth of US Defeat

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/176520/tomgram%3A_william_astore%2C_turning_victory_into_defeat/

How, then, was it possible, month after month, year after year, to turn the promise of eternal victory so repetitiously into the reality of defeat (and spreading terror movements)?

The notion of the US losing wars or being defeated must end. For example, it's oft-been said the US lost in Vietnam, but, in fact, the US was untouched by the war and lost only 58,000 men. In contrast, Vietnam was turned into a total clusterfuc* and possibly up to 2 million(soldiers and civilians) were killed in the war. The US abandoned the war in Vietnam, but most of the tragic losses was suffered by Vietnamese, not by Americans.

Same goes for the Middle East. Despite all this talk of 'defeat', the US has remained untouched by the war. In contrast, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Yemen have been turned into smoldering ruins by the intervention of the US and its puppet-allies, not least because Zionists control US foreign policy and shaped it to spread terror and mayhem across MENA(Middle East and North Africa) to derail the advancement of modern Arab nations and spread of Iranian influence.

When commentators(even as anti-war advocates) say that the US 'lost' or was 'defeated' in these recent wars, it's predicated on a rather perverse logic. After all, the US itself lost nothing(and its military-industrial complex has gained quite a lot). It can choose to keep its agents and troops in the Middle East or bring them home. Either way, the US remains untouched by war. In contrast, the Arab and Muslim world has been utterly wrecked and turned upside down. So, who suffered all these losses? Who suffered tragic defeats?

Now, some may argue that 'victory' and 'defeat' are relative to a nation's ambitions. One can argue that the US 'lost' the recent wars in the sense of having failed to achieve its objectives. But were its goals really about spreading democracy and human rights in the Middle East? If indeed the US cares so much about human rights, why does it continue to support Zionist Occupation of West Bank? Why is it so chummy with Saudi Arabia, a nation hardly known for its adherence to what goes by 'human rights' these days? The real objective of US intervention was to wage Wars for Israel, and to the extent that much of the Middle East has been scorched to the ground, Zionist-controlled US succeeded beyond its wildest dreams.

Consider. If a big strong guy beats up a small weak guy, breaks his bones, permanently damages his organs, bites off his ears, and knocks out all his teeth BUT fails to make the little guy call him 'uncle'(the stated goal of the big guy), who 'lost' and was 'defeated'? The big strong guy for having failed to make the little guy say 'uncle' or the little guy for having been utterly wrecked in body and health?

Let's stop speaking of US defeats. It's too perverse upon pondering the scale of destruction OVER THERE. Even though it's meant as criticism, even condemnation, of US foreign policy and warmongering, the effect is to turn the US into an object of pity and sympathy. Poor poor US, it suffered all these 'defeats'.
But, after 17 yrs of war, compare the US with the Middle East. Top US cities like NY, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco are richer than ever, full of glitter and shine. Now, consider the cities in Syria, Libya, and other parts of MENA. Americans are fat and well-fed and living in peace and prosperity. In contrast, countless people are facing starvation and/or exposed to harsh elements in the Middle East. So, who really lost? Who suffered all these defeats? The fat happy peoples of the US(and Israel) or all the people driving to destitution and desperation in the Middle East and North Africa?