Live data from Hacker News

War Without End

nytimes.com

71–80 of 134 posts

Re: War Without End

#71
post #67

Typical NYTimes to underline all the poor dead & wounded American soldiers and not a single word about innocent Iraqi and Afghani citizens, let alone the insane wave of refugees across the globe that America's aggression has helped cause.

Americans are simply not interested in the victims of their wars. It runs counter to every iota of American culture, to acknowledge the failures of their warrior-classes, alas. But, you should know, the article did mention the casualties, at least glibly. "Many more Afghani's have died than were lost in the 9/11 attacks", is the only context the author can find, to appeal to his readers. Its a sad state of affairs wh…

> Its a sad state of affairs when the worlds greatest nation is populated with its worst cowards.

To be honest I don't see any evidence of Americans being bigger cowards than anybody else. Also eg European media does exactly the same sort of thing. I suspect it's pretty much a global phenomenon.

I had just hoped that, of all outlets, NYT could at some point grow past it's navel gazing self, given how relatively balanced their reporting is in many other fields.

Re: War Without End

#73
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Americans are simply not interested in the victims of their wars. It runs counter to every iota of American culture, to acknowledge the failures of their warrior-classes, alas. But, you should know, the article did mention the casualties, at least glibly. "Many more Afghani's have died than were lost in the 9/11 attacks", is the only context the author can find, to appeal to his readers. Its a sad state of affairs wh…

> Its a sad state of affairs when the worlds greatest nation is populated with its worst cowards. To be honest I don't see any evidence of Americans being bigger cowards than anybody else. Also eg European media does exactly the same sort of thing. I suspect it's pretty much a global phenomenon. I had just hoped that, of all outlets, NYT could at some point grow past it's navel gazing self, given how relatively balan…

Nobody wants to be confronted with their nations' real crimes, its true. But Americans have gone far beyond the point where they are able to confront the results of their out-of-control military-industrial-complex.

Still, I suppose you're right - its not as bad as the Australians, for example.

Re: War Without End

#75
post #35

I have a very simple proposal to insure success in any military campaign: just make all tours of duty accompanied tours, i.e. send families along with the servicemembers, from the highest ranks to the lowest, and also make deployment to a combat zone on the order of a decade or two, not a few months or a year. I guarantee that any general staff whose wives & children are in the affected area and who will be there for…

That argument is very poor because it assumes that (1) pacification has so far failed for lack of proper motivation of service members, and (2) bringing their families in possible harm's way will properly motivate them.

You haven't demonstrated (1) and it disregards movitations such as a desire for advancement (higher ranks), or not getting shot at (lower ranks), and (2) can have many outcomes (there are faster ways to get home for an individual than winning a war), the least probable of which is the outcome you "guaranteed".

You're merely appealing to emotion while simultaneously disregarding all other (and much more relevant) factors leading to a drawn-out war.

Re: War Without End

#76
post #67

Typical NYTimes to underline all the poor dead & wounded American soldiers and not a single word about innocent Iraqi and Afghani citizens, let alone the insane wave of refugees across the globe that America's aggression has helped cause.

Americans are simply not interested in the victims of their wars. It runs counter to every iota of American culture, to acknowledge the failures of their warrior-classes, alas. But, you should know, the article did mention the casualties, at least glibly. "Many more Afghani's have died than were lost in the 9/11 attacks", is the only context the author can find, to appeal to his readers. Its a sad state of affairs wh…

Why did USA get so up in arms with Korea, Vietnam War, etc but not USA's ongoing Afghanistan/(Iraq?) war?

Re: War Without End

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The less authoritarian states, such as Allende's Chile, did not end up surviving for long. Can't help but wonder if there is a survivorship bias, wherein only the most vicious and brutal communist states could survive external interference.

As evidenced by the fact that the most successful modern socialist states are in Europe, I believe this is the case. Those who could make their social welfare programs coexist with aggressive Western attitudes have thrived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states

As far as I can see, there are two countries in Europe on that list: Portugal and Greece.

Re: War Without End

#78
post #3

On one matter there can be no argument: The policies that sent these men and women abroad, with their emphasis on military action and their visions of reordering nations and cultures, have not succeeded. It is beyond honest dispute that the wars did not achieve what their organizers promised, no matter the party in power or the generals in command. Astonishingly expensive, strategically incoherent, sold by a shifting…

Domino Theory is interesting because it implies a strategic success condition. USA achieve their strategic aim if (a) the Vietnam domino doesn't fall. OR (b) the Vietnam domino falls gently and doesn't knock the next one over. During the course of the Vietnam war, the communism revolution in China lost it mojo, and the impetus to spreading revolution throughout Asia declined. Viewed as a delaying-action/fighting-retr…

That is the most horrible thing I have read in a long time, and what's so horrible is that it might be some truth to that. Or at least that it could be seen as truthful and right by the people making the decisions at the time.

Re: War Without End

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The less authoritarian states, such as Allende's Chile, did not end up surviving for long. Can't help but wonder if there is a survivorship bias, wherein only the most vicious and brutal communist states could survive external interference.

As evidenced by the fact that the most successful modern socialist states are in Europe, I believe this is the case. Those who could make their social welfare programs coexist with aggressive Western attitudes have thrived.

Which states in Europe do you think are socialist?

Re: War Without End

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ISIS didn't exist in 2003 when the USA invaded Iraq. ISIS was formed due to the power vacuum left after the USA withdrew from Iraq, largely by the former officer corps of Saddam's Iraqi Army, who had been left disenfranchised after the policy of de-Ba'athification [1] of the Iraqi government, replacing a vaguely competent government with a completely incompetent government. ISIS was a problem of the USA's own creatio…

Shouldn't the URSS be responsible for the creation of the Taliban? Al-Qaeda was financed by Saudi Arabia and the current Iranina regime is the result of a revolution against the American-supported previous regime. Still the US made all those problems worse, but can't hold the full blame for their creation.

You're right, it's not solely the fault of the USA. It's a very complicated situation.

I was just alluding to the fact that the USA is fighting the Taliban in the 2010s, when in the 1980s they were funding them.

Obviously if the USSR didn't invade Afghanistan, we might not be in this situation either.

Post reply on HN