Well i agree as well, there is not much disagreement apart from the fact that what happened was inevitable.
Well India never stood for imposing Democracy or neither did it put itself as the Savior of it. It was NATO who thought Democracy should be spread by the pen or the sword.
What about the Bangladesh Liberation War? Although I am glad that it happened, but technically that would count as 'imposing' democracy through the 'sword.'
Iraq and Saddam where allies of US during Iran-Iraq war, Saddam was very pro US till he invaded Kuwait.
This is partially correct, and I think this was shameful; however, this is lacking a depth of information. The extent to which the US supported Iraq in the 1980s is exaggerated often. If you are familiar with SIPRI, they have research to show that the US supplied less than 1% of Iraqs total arms between 1973-2003. I know this is 1% too much, but contrast that with the vast, overwhelming majority that was supplied by Saddam Husseins biggest ally, the Soviet Union; 57%. Now ask yourself the question; why is it the US receives the most flak about this, yet the Soviet Union received marginal criticism? Some of this support continued (as Russia) until coalition forces arrived on the scene in 2003. Indeed, why is it democratic regimes receive the most criticism, yet authoritarian societies receive little in contrast?
Either way saying no country is perfect would be a good justification if that country did not repeat that mistake, what we see with the US is it is still not only repeating those mistakes but also dwelling on it. Its one thing to support Saudis Arabia for oil security and it is another to support China. I could even understand its relation with Pakistan and its need in Soviet Afgan war but what the hell did China ever do to Democracies apart from Harass us and invade us.
I can't find anything to fundamentally disagree with here, but I can say that if you want to find the culprit responsible for the opening of relations between the US and China in the 70s; the answer is
realpolitik. I generally avoid this kind of thinking, unless the Americans are put in a situation where they have to choose the lesser of the two evils.
China even today funds N.K, Iran and all the other hostile nations while US goes and Invades Iraq in the name of 9/11. China should have never been allowed to grow so big.
The US went to Iraq on the basis of more than one reason, but only on the point of capturing/executing terrorists and regime change were they successful. As for the rest; I also agree here, and I often think of these reasons as justifications for the US to liberate said countries on similar grounds (regime change).
I agree with most of what you said but what we do with China from now on beats me!! Because the west literally invented a super power that is hostile and where we go from here, i have no clue.
I can make the same argument with the NAM and the siding with the USSR, but I think we've already been through this. India could have been the China of today minus the communist dictatorship, but oh well.
The flip side in all of this is that China, although it adopted the free market principles of Milton Friedman in order to become successful; it did so in a way that it kept control of the workers and peasants for slavery/serfdom. If the Chinese bubble bursts in the future, it will create a sea of millions of disillusioned people who have been living in poverty, and the possibility of revolution becomes a reality. If that doesn't happen, the US will continue to play a game of chess by encircling and containing China. I've heard many times that the Chinese don't want to go to war with the US, namely because they will be trashed;
that's why they wont be hasty on Taiwan.