Hey Sup Forums

Hey Sup Forums

Redpill me on this man. I've read his book "On China" and watched his interviews and shit, and to me he seems like probably the most intelligent person with respect to foreign policy in the world.

What do you think?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=blDqClz4mXU
youtube.com/watch?v=pBo134nnIlc
scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=gvr
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Lettow-Vorbeck
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>Random nobody with nbobody parents gets an accountant degree before being drafted into WW2.

>after killing his countrymen for america, he returns to a state of limbo for 4 years before being brought out of stasis and suddenly goes to HARVARD (???????) and becomes a political adviser to the big wigs.

what a ride

He helped ruin the country and most of the world during the Cold War.

He poured billions of dollars into Iran only for to have all that money wasted when the revolution was successful.
He made us Israel's total bitch forever
He helped kill Rhodesia and white South Africa.

I guess he supported the genocide of communists in Indonesia so that was ok.

His only "real" success was splitting China and the USSR, which if you know anything about the Sino-Soviet split was decades in the works already.

In the end he was very good at making the US China and Israel's bitch similar to how the Brits were good at making the entire west the Saudi's bitch.

You're stupid.

He's top 10 most powerful people on earth. He's better than you.

What a poignant rebuttal.

More than what that post deserved, desu.

>Henry Kissinger is possessed of a truly superior intelligence, in addition to which he has two qualities which, unfortunately, many great men lack: he is able to listen and he has a very subtle sense of humour.
>Muhammad Reza Pahlavi, The Shah's Story (1980), p. 144

>desu to close an argument
>youre stupid to open an argument

I think we found the problem here..

Niall Ferguson wrote an interesting book on him recently, very long though.

youtube.com/watch?v=blDqClz4mXU

Sup Forums hates him for being a "war criminal" (as if Sup Forums gives a shit about some random shitskins dying. give me a break)

Dick Nixon always thought he was a pretty swell Jew, so he's alright in my book.

I take it you don't study geopolitics much

anyone who has every heard of Halford Mackinder wouldn't be terribly impressed by Kissinger.

I mean Elihu Root for one did far more to make America a "great power" back when the US was still considered Internationally irrelevant, and Brzeznski actually succeeded where Kissinger failed the most.

In fact Kissinger's greatest failure (Vietnam) is still used as an example of what "not" to do.

He made us Israel's bitch. Nobody cares that he supported the "genocides" in India and Indonesia.

up until the Energy Crisis in the 70s we still had moderate levels of independence. Hell we actually executed jewish/Israeli/USSR communist spies back then.

In fact I would say that Kissinger was such a failure in Vietnam that he "succeeded" in the end. By failing to give the US any military advantage in VIetnam were were forced to cut our loses and run.

On the other hand Brzezinski helped fund radical Saudi Jihadist Muslims in order to draw the USSR into their own "Vietnam" in Afghanistan. This worked perfectly, and hastened the collapse of the USSR. However this eventually backfired decades later for reasons that are now all too obvious.

The best geopolitical mind in US history was probably Elihu Root as stated before. He successfully got the US into a war with what was left of the Spanish Empire (mostly on false premises) which led the US towards its inevitable military expansion and later world dominance.

Brzezinski is without a doubt more decorated than Kissinger.

Brzezinski has a ph.D in Neurolinguistics for a reason, hes a damn sithlord.

However, Brzezinski is still getting BTFO'ed in Ukraine right now.

Hes so assblasted about ukraine he probably sparked up this whole "Russia" narrative in the media.

>Brzezinski, Mackinder vs KISSINGER
Can you tell me which one of those 3 won the Nobel peace prize?

Fucking idiots on Sup Forums...

>up until the Energy Crisis in the 70s we still had moderate levels of independence.

The way he handled the energy crisis was brilliant though
>I understand, of course, that plans were discussed for a post-bretton-woods commodity dominance and that the US was inching toward it since WWII, but Kissinger tied Israel and the Arab nations somewhat neatly together in mutual nonagression agreement, while agreeing to fund and arm both blocs, which in turn would counter the USSR, buy from the US, and invest in treasuries.

As for Cyrpus, South Asia, and Southeast Asia- I'm at core a pussy and would not have had the will or balls to participate in any decision that lead to more immediate deaths, but we were engaged in global proxy wars at the time, and needed to counter the USSR from within and without.

This can also be viewed for Vietnam- the military won every engagement, once the US started the campaign against Cambodia the support structure of the enemy totally collapsed, and no negotiations were had with them until their utter defeat, leading to the PPA.

I could play with hindsight goggles and polish my Libertarian anti-war sentiments shiny all day and say
>We never should have been in nam in the first place
>The VC were more interested in self-determination than being tools for the global spread of Communism
>Lel Domino Theory was an oversimplification

But considering we already were there, and the Communist blocs were spreading their fingers across the Eastern and Southern Hemispheres, no one could reasonable say the decisions weren't calculated.

Go back to whatever fuckhole site you came from, dullard.

The Predator Drone almost won the Nobel Peace Prize multiple times. Its a sham. The Science prizes actually mean something, the Peace prize is pure political theatre.

>In fact I would say that Kissinger was such a failure in Vietnam
Kissinger and Nixon's plans as were implemented in Vietnam and Cambodia led to a better result and bargaining position than Johnson was aiming for.


>that he "succeeded" in the end.
Well, not if Congress refused to at least prop up the South .

>By failing to give the US any military advantage in VIetnam
The US won almost every single military engagement and the winning was accelerated under Kissinger's plans to bomb Cambodia, continue general bombings, and intense negotiations with both sides.

>were were forced to cut our loses and run.
The US achieved the PPA, and Vietnam could have been like SK and the DPRK if congress continued to prop it up.

Now don't misunderstand me- I think the US never should have went into Vietnam in the first place, and committed war crimes, and well as led to senseless deaths of thousands on both sides, but think your analysis is lacking.

JEW

That explains his 99.999 percentile IQ.

>Israel and the Arab nations somewhat neatly together in mutual nonagression agreement

the end result has been unending proxy wars and destabilization of the middle east and chaos that has continued to fuck up the world long after the end of the Cold War. Not only that we have entrenched the Saudis as a major power in the world. I don't know how you can defend that.

You can only support Kissinger if you like the idea of US being enslaved to foreign powers.

>the campaign against Cambodia the support structure of the enemy totally collapsed

It's too bad that doesn't matter much when you are fighting asymmetric non conventional warfare.

>Libertarian anti-war sentiments shiny all day and say

Kennan founded the idea of "communist containment" and was deeply against the the Vietnam War for multiple reasons.

If Nixon had the brains most people say he did he would have realize what a fool LBJ was in the first place.

>Hes so assblasted about ukraine he probably sparked up this whole "Russia" narrative in the media.

The man always held that Russia was involved in American politics, even to a higher degree than neocons like McCain and Bolton.

>Nobel Peace Prize
>Meaning anything
>The Predator Drone almost won the Nobel Peace Prize multiple times.

Not trying to be contrarian to every opinion on this thread, but this actually makes sense, the same way the Rosenbergs could be lauded for hastening MAD and the end of symmetric conventional world wars by giving the nuclear codes to the USSR, even though they were traitorous fucks. Drones, for whatever your opinions on how and where drone wars are conducted, use less lives and lead to less collateral than conventional war-fighting methods.

youtube.com/watch?v=pBo134nnIlc

Can you prove your own IQ is above 85?

No military success matters if you fundamentally misunderstand your enemy.

The US one just about every battle in Iraq as well, but the president didn't even know what a Sunni or a Shia was on the eve of the invasion. The occupation was doomed from the beginning, just like Vietnam.

The Vietnamese weren't fighting for an ideology, they were fighting for the "homeland"

>MUH BIG IQ HERRR DURRR

and that has fuck all to do with political ideology faget

You're right about the value of drones, but the Peace prize seems to oscillate between "substance" and marketing decisions made for the public.

>Drones, for whatever your opinions on how and where drone wars are conducted, use less lives and lead to less collateral

But achieve no real results. You'd think after years of drone strikes Yemen would be in "better shape"

Instead it's in far worse shape than ever because in the end technology means very little when your political aims are ass backwards.

We are using Yemen as a consolation prize to give the Saudis over the Iran deal, a country that is largely in crisis because we overthrow another elected leader because the Saudis disapproved of him, against the will of the majority ethnic group of the country (Houthis).

So now tens of thousands of people get to die because we have a vested interest in keeping radical Wahabbi monarchists happy while doing everything we can to suppress democracy among a far less radicalized Shia ethnic group.

This is the sort of insane world that Kissinger's "mutual jewish/gulf state agreement" has created.

That sounds like a meme degree to me

>the end result has been unending proxy wars and destabilization of the middle east
Russo-US proxy wars have existed since the end of WWII and the Middle East was already a powder keg.

Now, say we did nothing and let Israel and the Mideast fall to the USSR. No extreme Shias funding Hezbollah, no extreme Sunnis funding AQ IS AN and the Taliban. No Israeli Samson Option.
We'd be living in a world where the USSR may not have collapsed due to its newfound control of the world's energy and its distribution networks, and where the PRC may not have split from them.

We would also be living in a world where the Nixon Shock would have just meant a nosedive in the US' creditworthiness, and a mass sell-off of American securities. At least the sale of oil in USD, buttressed by the military and territorial control of much of the Mideast, and the recycling of surpluses in US treasuries, while using this position to open up China to exporting manufactured goods to the US while the USSR would slowly be crippled of energy needs helped keep the US afloat.

>You can only support Kissinger if you like the idea of US being enslaved to foreign powers.
The KSA thinks they are slaves of the US. Israelis think their politicians are American puppets.
We are more interconnected, and in many ways I disagree with, but not enslaved IMO.

In fact, we could probably reverse-engineer Kissinger, by once again driving a wedge between the PRC and Russia, but this time siding with Russia, which in turn could signal to its Shia allies to work with, not against, the US' Sunni allies, spur mutual investments, and instead of trying to thwart each other's expansion and influence, do the converse (e.g. both the US and Russia could thwart the expansion of PRC influence in Africa.)

Diplomacy before Kissinger didn't seem to have as much plasticity- people were thinking either war or submission to the Communists was inevitable.

Fucking this.

Brijin-whatever-ski BTFO

>It's too bad that doesn't matter much when you are fighting asymmetric non conventional warfare.

Yeah, and it's a shame that we didn't know much about AUW back then, or how to best operate within it, but again: hindsight goggles.

Vietnam was probably the first large testing ground for AUW in the modern era, and it informed later counterinsurgency efforts
>however shit those were planned/implemented

With all that said, the US still came to a favorable position in the PPA, and all it needed was continued congressional support for the South.

>Kennan founded the idea of "communist containment" and was deeply against the the Vietnam War for multiple reasons.

AFAI aware, he just didn't think Vietnam was strategically important, not that a Communist Vietnam wouldn't lead to Communist neighbors. Even that position is arguable, since the entirety of SEA could have been in jeopardy.

scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=gvr

>Youtube
meant for >But achieve no real results. You'd think after years of drone strikes Yemen would be in "better shape"
I'll reiterate
>Drones, for whatever your opinions on HOW AND WHERE DRONE WARS ARE CONDUCTED use less lives and lead to less collateral

Obama's undeclared drone wars in Pakistan and especially Yemen are attempts to fight proxy conflicts from the air. This IMO is shit and leads to destabilized villages where opponents are embedded.

Clearing out a terror training camp or convoy, though, is where drones come in and save the day.

>Middle East was already a powder keg.

Not a powder keg that was institutionally and formally supported and promoted by the US though, at least not until Kissinger.

>let Israel and the Mideast fall to the USSR

that's a ridiculous assumption on too many levels to get into, the worst being that, assuming the energy crisis was even related to the USSR (it wasn't) you would inherently have to fund "Jihadists" of all people to oppose the USSR


The 2nd being that the USSR was in any position to invade anything by the 1970s energy crisis.

The 3rd being that tying the knot with Saudi Arabia and Israel would be in anyway nessecary in regards to funding them to fight any imaginary Soviet invasion

>No Israeli Samson Option

wow no gun pointed at the head of the earth. how awful

>the USSR may not have collapsed due to its newfound control of the world's energy and its distribution networks,

You might as well wonder what would have happened if the Nazis had an A-bomb

>Nixon Shock would have just meant a nosedive in the US' creditworthiness

which is ultimately meaningless when you hold your own sovereign currency

>while using this position to open up China to exporting manufactured goods

heaven forbid

>The KSA thinks they are slaves of the US. Israelis think their politicians are American puppets.

When the US gets to spend billions to influence the Saudi legislature (which doesn't exist in any meaningful way) you let me know.

>Shia allies to work with, not against, the US' Sunni allies

Yes, because it was the "Shia" who decided rebels needed to be funded to overthrow Assad. I forgot about that.

>people were thinking either war or submission to the Communists was inevitable.

Yes George Kennan did say that in 1951

Too bad no one listened

>We are using Yemen as a consolation prize to give the Saudis over the Iran deal, a country that is largely in crisis because we overthrow another elected leader because the Saudis disapproved of him, against the will of the majority ethnic group of the country (Houthis).

Yeah, I'm aware of this (and took some Yemeni fugees in, but that's another story for another time) but don't you think it strange how the Houthi's chimped out out of relative nowhere?

I'm not big on the "Iran is controlling every operation of every Shia faction that led to at least one death" narrative, but we know Iran is supporting the Houthis.
>Inb4 the US/KSA started it, Iran started it, chicken, egg

The Houthis didn't seem to make good faith efforts toward more peaceful solutions, such as partition.

You mention Wahabis, which are shitty I agree, but Shia radicals are no joke either, and they are outside of the US' (even nominal) control.

>t. Macnamera
They were communists to the bone. They willingly aligned themselves with the Com Bloc and invaded an ally of the United States. Viet Cong literally translates to Vietnamese Communist. Fuck off.

South Viet Nam would still exist today if the US had kept up supplying ARVN and providing air support like we promised in Paris.

Viet Nam was a failure because we didn't follow the exit plan. And by 'we' I mean the democrats in congress who willfully let South Viet Nam fall.

Iraq was a failure because there was no exit plan.

kissenger at least has better plan than 'just let them all in as refugees lol'

>"In a national security memo dated April 24, 1974 titled, “Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for the United States Security and Overseas Interest,” Henry Kissinger, the Secretary of State under Richard Nixon, indicated: “Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the Third World.”

sounds breddy realistic to me.

all our current global problems stem from overpopulation. pragmatic solution: depopulation. do you depopulate the more educated/bred first worlders who produce more gdp per person, or do you depopulate third worlder welfarees who only exist because of misguided first world charity?

>it's ok to have a low IQ

Lel

>"hey Sup Forums redpill me on this man"
>redpillers arrive
>"you're stupid he's better than you"

whew lad

>it's a shame that we didn't know much about AUW back then

Yeah....

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_von_Lettow-Vorbeck

>Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck (20 March 1870 – 9 March 1964), known as the Lion of Africa, was a general in the Imperial German Army and the commander of its forces in the German East Africa campaign. For four years, with a force that never exceeded about 14,000 (3,000 Germans and 11,000 Africans), he held in check a much larger force of 300,000 British,

>he just didn't think Vietnam was strategically important

And he was right

how exactly is that having "hindsight goggles" when he predicted the outcome correctly before/during the war?

>where drones come in and save the day

The point is drones enable bullshit proxy wars that don't actually achieve anything when back in the day the president would have to actually commit to a declaration of war, something that would require congressional approval and public debate. Obama has essentially bombed whoever he wants whenever he wants in the middle east and no one says a thing, especially not the left.

Ur dumb

Hope u have cancer

You don't know shit about geopolitics

>Not a powder keg that was institutionally and formally supported and promoted by the US though, at least not until Kissinger.

Right, and it was at risk of being institutionally and formally taken over by the USSR.

>that's a ridiculous assumption on too many levels to get into,
So who would have controlled the Mideast had the US not intervened and propped them up?


>the worst being that, assuming the energy crisis was even related to the USSR (it wasn't)
I have my own pet thoughts on the energy crisis that won't be gotten into rn

> you would inherently have to fund "Jihadists" of all people to oppose the USSR
Once again, hindsight goggles. At the time, religious zealots seemed like natural and expendable enemies to secular Communists- and they were. They forced the USSR out of Afghanistan for instance.

>The 2nd being that the USSR was in any position to invade anything by the 1970s energy crisis.
We are going with the counterfactual condition that the US DIDN'T play proxy wars in the Mideast. Who would have stopped the USSR from continuing to use India to batter Pakistan (as it did in the 1971 IndoPak war), siphoning the recolonized Pakistan of energy, then continuing on to Afghanistan (as it later tried, and almost succeeded had it not been for US backed proxy fighters)

>The 3rd being that tying the knot with Saudi Arabia and Israel would be in anyway nessecary in regards to funding them to fight any imaginary Soviet invasion

Are you saying that the USSR wasn't a superpower?
That Communism didn't effectively control a third of the Earth?
That it didn't have expansionist aims?
That it didn't have the means, motive, or opportunity to gain the precious energy resources from the Mideast?

>You might as well wonder what would have happened if the Nazis had an A-bomb
The threat of the USSR gaining MidEastern energy resources was very real

You care he supported genocides

Stfu pussy

Europe is suffering underpopulation

>which is ultimately meaningless when you hold your own sovereign currency
Nigga wat? So does Zimbabwe, but we don't have faith and credit in their currency for good reason.

France and the rest of Europe were going to trigger selloffs, downgrades, write-downs, and/or call-ins in gold of of US treasuries in previously-gold-backed USD.

Cutting off gold convertibility was a first and temporary step in preventing the bankrupting of the treasury.

The OPEC deals in which sales were conducted in USD and surpluses reinvested back into US treasuries was a second step.

The Sino-Soviet split and opening up trade to China, where their surpluses too were parked in US treasuries, was the third step.

That the Arab nations and China turned against the USSR and their proxies, especially with the help of US weapons, was a cherry on top and helped accelerate the USSR's decline.

>while using this position to open up China to exporting manufactured goods

I'm not a fan of "free" trade with a quasi-Mercantilist PRC, but see the logic behind how the system was formed.

>When the US gets to spend billions to influence the Saudi legislature (which doesn't exist in any meaningful way) you let me know.

It influences the KSA in large part by keeping its corrupt leaders generally loyal
>emphasis on generally
to the US while allowing them to be a thorn in the Russo-Shia bloc's side. I don't agree with Wahabi-sponsored terrorism or KSA repression though, and between the US being able to warm up to Russia, new domestic uranium, oil, and gas discoveries, and enough members of the world community hating KSA's guts, we can probably strangle them during the Trump administration. That said, they proved to be more useful than detrimental for 44 years to US interests.

>Yes, because it was the "Shia" who decided rebels needed to be funded to overthrow Assad. I forgot about that.

Not arguing with you there.

Exactly. Kissinger is an amazing human being all-round.

>Europe is suffering underpopulation

dont worry they picked the 'rapefugee' policy in hopes the islamic polygamy and pedophila rape cults will bump their numbers back up!

and thats not kissengers style

>the Houthi's chimped out out of relative nowhere

they didn't, and you know they didn't. This whole conflict started as a reaction to Saleh being ousted and replaced by Hadi in a US backed coup

>but we know Iran is supporting the Houthis

I'm sure the evidence is out there with Saddam's WMDs

>Houthis didn't seem to make good faith efforts toward more peaceful solutions

And the Vietcong didn't make any agreements in good faith either. People tend to not care about their enemies feelings when their countries are invaded by foreigners.

>but Shia radicals are no joke either

As far as I can tell the biggest Shia terrorists attack happened in Lebanon against the US military barracks there in the 80s a result of that "peaceful powder keg" that you praise Kissinger for creating.

And yet like the Chinese they shed communism fairly quickly

I think you'll find that East Asians don't care much for ideology compared to their desire for pragmatic success.

>Yes George Kennan did say that in 1951
Do you have a quote of his where he specifically said he thought Communism wouldn't spill over from Vietnam elsewhere, or is it just that the 'elsewhere' didn't matter to him much when it came to Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, and possibly Malaysia and Indonesia?

>No military success matters if you fundamentally misunderstand your enemy.
I agree, and (want to say that) wouldn't have promoted invasion in the first place. However, there were three fundamental differences between Iraq and Vietnam

>1.
With Vietnam, it was fought under the context of the Cold War, and agree or disagree, not letting the Communist Bloc get any edge.

With Iraq, it was fought under the context of the Global War on Terror, to stop the more nebulous 'terrorists' from getting an edge by
a. Using Iraq as a black hole for them to throw funding and operations into
b. Using Iraq as an American tool and potential jumping platform into other nations should it be needed
c. Threaten to do so to get the surrounding nations to open up their intel books and help join the US in routing out terrorists

>2.
Vietnam generally had two clear factions, and was to be modeled after the Korean War at worst, with a partition line, and any invasion of some podunk nation at best, where the enemy would simply be steamrolled. Both conditions seemed better than the state Vietnam was in when the US ramped up intervention.

Iraq was left in a power vaccum with 4 or 5 fuzzy factions: Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, secular Baathists, and AQ affiliates. Any conditions thereafter would be worse than the ones the US had when it came upon Vietnam.

>3
Vietnam, as shitty and costly of blood and treasure a war it was, had an attainable win in sight. After the PPA, if Congress kept support of the South, it would likely have been what the DPRK and SK are now.

Iraq, however, doesn't seem to have any preferable or stable 'end states'.

CHECKED
Agreed, though. I actually want the Rosenbergs to be posthumously nominated on the same bases of logic drones and Kissinger were.
>muh utilitarianism

>Also (You)s are back, making ctrl+Fing for replies much easier

>at risk of being institutionally and formally taken over by the USSR

Not in the 70s.

>So who would have controlled the Mideast had the US not intervened and propped them up?

Are you kidding? There were these things called secular arab nationalists not too long ago. Saddam was only one of the more recent ones to be pointlessly killed.

>religious zealots seemed like natural and expendable enemies to secular Communists

Not if you knew anything about the history of Islam.

>US DIDN'T play proxy wars in the Mideast

The real problem was instead of supporting secular, nationalist governments they supported religious and fanatic governments in the mid east, or oligarchies in South America.

Even the old adage "You reap what you sow" should be enough to explain why this is a bad idea.

>Are you saying that the USSR wasn't a superpower?

Sure it was a superpower. But that doesn't translate to automatic success at land invasions. You'd think Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq would have beaten that into enough skulls by now.

>That Communism didn't effectively control a third of the Earth?

The US greatly aided them in that regard

>That it didn't have expansionist aims?

They had aims certainly, but not any real means.

>it didn't have the means, motive, or opportunity to gain the precious energy resources

Not really, especially considering Russia was never exactly "resource scarce" enough to risk a war that would encompass literally millions of square miles.

You sound like the average neocon that imparted some sort of omnipotent abiliities onto every communist country, mainly because most neocons were themselves former communist true believers.

>So does Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe barely has an economy besides illegal poaching

It was fine when Rhodesians ran things.

>France and the rest of Europe were going to trigger selloffs,

Unless you have some sort of gold fetish that's meaningless

He's the reason China isn't full on North Korea-tier anymore.

Ex-fucking-actly.

He single-handedly turned the world into a more mature place for us to live in.

>The OPEC deals in which sales were conducted in USD and surpluses reinvested back into US treasuries was a second step.

Back when the US was a productive nation we had these things called trade surpluses that did the same thing

>That the Arab nations and China turned against the USSR and their proxies

The USSR's economy had been stagnating for years prior to the 70s energy crisis

>see the logic behind how the system was formed

I can see the geopolitical cold war logic in it, but not the modern economic "logic" unless you're say a modern day globalist who just wants cheap labor.

>generally loyal

That depends on your definition of "loyal"

I guess some might consider financing and exporting terrorism as "loyalty" but I don't.

>Russo-Shia bloc's side

I fail to see why post Cold War conflict with Russia is even nessecary, aside from keeping the Cold War geopolitical dinosaurs employed.

Kissenger the kikest of kikes secretly runs cryptokike programs, not to be trusted it is rumored he is a demon with no alligence fated to roam the earth forever. Not to be trusted ever, and cant wait till his tribunal.

>China's economy grows, which has a baseline percentage of trade imbalance with the US
>This means the overall trade imbalance grows as the economy grows
>MUH WE MURICA WE BTFO CHINA IN TRADE NAO!

Why not fuck up the chinese investments? they're buying houses and leaving them empty.

Burn the houses down.

I disregard the opinion of anyone who unironically thinks the US is China's bitch.