War Is a Racket (1933) • Hacker News Board

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#171

Post by yesenadam » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 6:11 AM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #131

enriquepablo wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a result, it's worth cautioning people that just because a fact of foreign policy efforts was true 100 years ago does not mean that it is true today. Perhaps we might say something contrarian to this: if it was something true 100 years ago, the burden of proof is on the side of proving it is no longer so. And I think you will have a hard time at it.

The US no longer has a foreign policy explicitly built on the protection of American commercial interests abroad. If you haven't noticed, we no longer invade countries (e.g., Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela) when they threaten to nationalize industries that the US has a large stake in. If you believe that the foreign policy is built on that premise, but that the government is lying about it, then the burden of proof is on yo…

>The US no longer has a foreign policy explicitly built on the protection of American commercial interests abroad.

Ok, literally true I guess? Not "explicitly" maybe. But you continue

>If you believe that the foreign policy is built on that premise, but that the government is lying about it,

>If you haven't noticed, we no longer invade countries (e.g., Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela) when they threaten to nationalize industries that the US has a large stake in.

What the US does nowadays isn't less appalling. I suggest the recent book The Wikileaks Files: The World According to US Empire, which goes around the world looking at the way US leaders/diplomats/agencies think and talk and act in relation to various countries and regions. Not how their press releases describe it, but quoting from their actual communications and instructions and advice and reports, in great detail. Mostly it's about the 2000s and 2010s, with some historical context. Warning: it will be very disheartening.

In the 1990s I read most of Chomsky's earlier political books, with each book focusing on a particular country/region, and following up his sources - books, papers, media, the UN voting record etc. That was incredibly depressing and sickening. The US crushing any show of real democracy and independence in country after country. Often training torturers and arming death squads in the service of dictators they installed and armed etc. (When they weren't actually invading and/or bombing) And covering it up with self-righteous propaganda about being pro-democracy.. It's hard to believe at first, so different from the glossy CNN/NBC/CBS/ABC picture of the world.

>the burden of proof is on you to show that lying is in effect.

Just read The Wikileaks Files and you should be amply satisfied on that score. (But sounds like your whole world-view will be shattered, sorry for that.) Yes, "built on the protection of American commercial interests abroad", yes, "the government is lying about it", it's plain as day.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#172

Post by SergeAx » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 8:04 AM UTC

the_af wrote: post #165

SergeAx wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

History doesn't tolerate what-ifs, but just in case. Soviet Union wouldn't stand war with Germany without Allies. Hitler would get access to all the Soviet's resources: cheap slaves' workforce, food, oil, coal, steel, Arctic and Far East seaports. Then attack on the US together with Japan, both East and West coast. The US would not have a chance. Game over.

As far as I know, current consensus is that the Soviet Union would have defeated Nazi Germany regardless of Western intervention, it just would have taken more time (and a lot more casualties) to get to Berlin. It really is a case where the Nazis picked a fight they just couldn't win.

Current consensus where? I live in Russia, we currently have a state-induced wave of unhealthy "patriotic" hype here, mostly based on WW2 events. But even in these circumstances I rather got an opinions like "without West we wouldn't make it against Hitler" in my circles.

The keyword is "lend-lease" [0]. About 5% of weapons for 1942 Soviet offensive operations, decisive for the final outcome, were US-made. And 80% of cars and trucks. And lots of raw material.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#173

Post by generalpass » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 12:06 PM UTC

elfexec wrote: post #151

aazaa wrote: post #17

> Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on wh…

> Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die... They were just told it was to be a "glorious adventure. Told by whom? Oh that's right, the news media. People really need to go look into why the NYTimes, WashingtonPost, Pulitzer's properties, Hearst's properties, etc were created and how their yellow journalism played into wars even to this day. Also keep in mind, the biggest ( proportionally…

> Reverence of ww2 will be determined by who is in power. History, as all other propaganda, is written by those in power.

I think this occurs within some time frame of the event, and even then only among the better known, funded and "court approved" historians. There will be outcast historians that plug away at recording various facts surrounding the event (e.g., continued investigation into whether FDR was intentionally bellicose, was it truly necessary to nuke Japan, was fire bombing the German civilians tactically useful, etc.).

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#174

Post by generalpass » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 12:16 PM UTC

4gotunameagain wrote: post #21

I firmly believe that it is our responsibility (the ones with at least half a mind) to communicate and convince our fellow citizens that oversea wars should not be supported, and protested against. So many lives have been lost for profit of others. It's truly a shame of humanity.

I think this is most effectively done offline. Attempt anything online and suddenly the haters come out of the woodwork and shout you down.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#175

Post by smithmayowa » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 12:18 PM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #76

nabla9 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do and they do have success and make allies. In fact CIA and SOF had pinned Taliban and Al-Qaeda combatants into Kunduz in November 2001. Then came the order to stand down let them fly into Pakistan unharmed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunduz_airlift#Revelation

This is a move very easy to explain: they thought they would be useful for them in the future. They feel no difference who kills whom, for as long they do so for their benefit. Western overtures with Saddam Husain would be a great example. Second to US granting asylim to all batshit insane military mutineers in hopes of using them any time the new freedom fighters don't dance their tune: Haftar Khalifa, Husain Altaf…

Like Iran for example

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#176

Post by kazen44 » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

romwell wrote: post #161

aazaa wrote: post #17

> Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on wh…

>Very strange how WWI makes almost no sense from today's perspective. Every country was damaged either directly by the conflict, or indirectly through its protracted (and still ongoing) resolution. US won big in that war. WWI nearly bankrupted the British Empire, guess who it was loaning money from? (Hint: it's the US[1]). The only finally paid it off in 2015. WWI turned the US into a world power, and marked the end…

Also, world war 1 was revolutionary in terms of politics.

The many countries (sometimes newly established after the fall of an empire like austrian-hungary or russia) suddenly found themselves with a completely new political system.

The november revolution in germany resulted in the abolishment of the monarchy and firmly entreched social-democrats inside the political spectrum. It also shows us why having a young democracy without a strong sense of institutional-ism and tradition is incredible fragile.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#177

Post by kazen44 » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 4:05 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #60

aazaa wrote: post #17

> Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on wh…

WW1 and 2 were the same conflict. The apparent stupidity of WW1 is really a function of how accustomed we are to modern industry, communications, and some of the things hard-won by that conflict. End of the day, it was all about resources, and is no different than today’s conflicts, which boil down to oil on the supply and the control of money on the demand side.

some historians argue the prussian-franco war, ww1 and ww2 are essentially the same conflict.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#178

Post by kazen44 » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 4:07 PM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #170

tim333 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stupid thing about WWII is the whole thing was could have been avoided by people being reasonable with the Treaty of Versailles. The deal they signed effectively putting Germany into debt bondage made something going pear shaped pretty much inevitable, as predicted quite clearly by Keynes in The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Of course by the time Hitler had tanks rolling it was too late to sort things peace…

The other thing that happened was the Weimar Republic under Heinrich Bruning responded to the onset of the great depression with austerity measures. Just like the US did with similar results; deflation, industrial collapse, massive unemployment, and civil unrest. The difference was the US got FDR instead of Hitler. Modern Economists hate talking about this and have managed to drop it down the memory hole.

Also, the weimar republic was a very young democracy in a country with very little democratic traditions.

Many germans simply didn't believe democracy was the form of goverment required to battle the great depression and return germany to it's former glory. Both on the left side aswell as the right side of the political spectrum. The nearly endless turmoil during the 20's was a result of that.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#179

Post by specialist » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 5:23 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #131

enriquepablo wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As a result, it's worth cautioning people that just because a fact of foreign policy efforts was true 100 years ago does not mean that it is true today. Perhaps we might say something contrarian to this: if it was something true 100 years ago, the burden of proof is on the side of proving it is no longer so. And I think you will have a hard time at it.

The US no longer has a foreign policy explicitly built on the protection of American commercial interests abroad. If you haven't noticed, we no longer invade countries (e.g., Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela) when they threaten to nationalize industries that the US has a large stake in. If you believe that the foreign policy is built on that premise, but that the government is lying about it, then the burden of proof is on yo…

What measure of proof do you require?

One would have to be fantastically incredulous to imagine the USA invaded Iraq for anything other than the loot.

As @yesenadam notes, there's mountains of evidence, readily visible to anyone choosing to notice.

On your point of commercial interests, as though there's a distinction from trade policy, Saddam and Gadaffi had the poor sense to seriously propose abandoning petrodollars, sealing their fates.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#180

Post by vanniv » Sat, Jan 11, 2020, 8:12 PM UTC

aazaa wrote: post #17

> Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the "war to end all wars." This was the "war to make the world safe for democracy." No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on wh…

Well, as the entirety of my people were saved from extinction, I for one am glad that some "fools" decided to risk their lives to end what was otherwise a very effective genocide.

As it stands, a third of us were murdered by the "Third Reich", and our numbers have still not recovered.