Whataboutism would if we were arguing about "China bad" and I pointed out "Saudis worse".
But we're not. My point is that "protecting democratic values" is quite obviously NOT the prime motivation for US foreign policy-- this can be seen VERY clearly where US interests conflict with "protection of democratic values".
The Saudis are just a very obvious recent example, but there are countless others-- like the coup against the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953, or the whole Snowden affair (spying on fully democratic allies, but also showing that even internal democratic concerns--constitutional rights + governmental agency accountability-- are secondary to national interests).
The whole Snowden thing would have been an excellent opportunity to build credibility in this regard, to reassure citizens and allies alike, by simply admitting: "We did questionable, undemocratic things, but we're gonna fix it!", start by throwing James Clapper into prison for a few years, dissolve the Guantanamo bay concentration camp, and reinforce your citizens constitutional rights to not get spied on by your own government. But alas...
You said, literally. "Whatabout Saudi Arabia." That's called whataboutism.
Also SA is not worse than China. Saudi Arabia may have some modern day slavery going on, but China is depriving over a billion of basic freedoms and currently commiting genocide. They support North Korea, thr most oppressive regime on earth. They promote in their propaganda the worst mass murderer in History by far, Mao Zedong.
But as always, there's people like you to say "but whatabout so-and-so."
I repeat: I'm NOT discussing the relative merits of the Chinese/Saudi regimes- I'm using the Saudis as a very recent example of how US foreign policy is clearly NOT primarily motivated by "spreading democratic values".
You have so far neither addressed any of my actual points nor have you tried to make arguments in favor of your view.
What are your precedents that give you such confidence that US foreign policy is primarily aimed at spreading democratic values instead of furthering US interests first and foremost?
No.
Whataboutism would if we were arguing about "China bad" and I pointed out "Saudis worse".
But we're not. My point is that "protecting democratic values" is quite obviously NOT the prime motivation for US foreign policy-- this can be seen VERY clearly where US interests conflict with "protection of democratic values".
The Saudis are just a very obvious recent example, but there are countless others-- like the coup against the democratically elected Iranian government in 1953, or the whole Snowden affair (spying on fully democratic allies, but also showing that even internal democratic concerns--constitutional rights + governmental agency accountability-- are secondary to national interests).
The whole Snowden thing would have been an excellent opportunity to build credibility in this regard, to reassure citizens and allies alike, by simply admitting: "We did questionable, undemocratic things, but we're gonna fix it!", start by throwing James Clapper into prison for a few years, dissolve the Guantanamo bay concentration camp, and reinforce your citizens constitutional rights to not get spied on by your own government. But alas...
/rant