Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Life at the End of American Empire

lithub.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: Life at the End of American Empire

#81

Post by taylodl »

_bxg1 wrote: post #47
taylodl wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's keeping you from considering those other societies now? Why wait until you're starting a family?

It's good enough right now as a healthy, single, affluent working adult. Or at least, it's not bad enough to consider leaving behind family and friends. But if I had to think about a child's future, as well as my own increasing healthcare needs later in life, combined with the fact that the societal problems are only getting worse the longer time goes on, the equation may well work out differently.

Moving to a new country is hard. Moving a family to a new country is exponentially harder. If you were seriously contemplating starting a new life in a new country then the best time to do it is before you get married and start having kids. You should even be thinking of marrying someone local so you have extended family to help with the kids.

Re: Life at the End of American Empire

#82

Post by danans »

toohotatopic wrote: post #74
danans wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Soviets were kicked out by the Taliban The Taliban got their weapons and training from the US, all funded by the Saudis, orchestrated by a congressman [1] and oil heiress from Texas. The history is well known at this point. > How could a democracy be started with them? Democracy was probably never a goal in the effort, certainly not for the Saudis, and not for the Taliban or the US either. Weakening the USSR th…

So Afghanistan was a victory and not a loss.

The Afghan war waged by the mujahideen (whose Pashto faction became the Taliban) against the USSR, funded by the Saudis, with arms supplied by the US was definitely a victory: The USSR retreated and Afghanistan became a theocratic state.

If you mean a victory for democracy or human rights, then definitely no, but that was never the goal.

Re: Life at the End of American Empire

#83

Post by sbierwagen »

Animats wrote: post #7

"Any single defeat can be attributed to particular and ad hoc circumstances, but America is unique among the world’s dominant powers of the past 500 years in its repeated failure to achieve military objectives over decades. Those failures are even more extraordinary because they occurred in the absence of a rising military rival and as America’s ability and willingness to produce and pay for the weapons needed for mi…

The Marshall Plan cost $202 billion, inflation adjusted, going to 16 different countries.

The US spent $133 billion on nation building, just in Afghanistan alone. $3,800 for every man, woman and child.

Whatever went wrong in Afghanistan, it wasn't from lack of money.

Re: Life at the End of American Empire

#84

Post by remarkEon »

pintxo wrote: post #78
remarkEon wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This analysis is only partially correct, but it echoes what is the (mostly) prevailing wisdom of the last couple years about "what went wrong". To start, we actually did have a success: Gulf War I. It was an overwhelming victory, with extensive enemy casualties and minimal allied losses. It's strategic significance was not what it did to the US position in the Middle East however, but rather what it did to the Genera…

No clear understanding and no willingness to accept the outcome created by ones actions. And thus invest the time, resources and political will to stay in those countries for multiple generations to ensure they have a chance at building up a modern democratic society.

It’s not immediately clear to me that a) that expenditure is worth it for the outcome and b) that a “modern democratic society” is indeed ideal for that part of the world.

Re: Life at the End of American Empire

#85

Post by elfexec »

CalRobert wrote: post #76
elfexec wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US has had plenty of moral lapses in its military adventures, but one suspects that the powers of the past 500 years would have been far more willing to obliterate entire nations without concern for civilians. Simply not true. There was a reason why european wars were fought in the fields and not in cities/population centers in the past. Also, past powers tended to conquer nations/cities in order to subjugate t…

I appreciate your comment (and didn't downvote you). What I wrote does not enjoy the benefit of citations, which I don't have handy. My point wasn't that these things don't happen, just that we maybe, just _maybe_ have slightly more compunction about killing tens of millions of people at the push of a button (which we can now do) than someone from 1665 would. Would Oliver Cromwell have just nuked Ireland? I imagine h…

> What I wrote does not enjoy the benefit of citations, which I don't have handy.

It's something that's uncitable so I don't think anyone holds that against you. It's really a discussion on human nature. I can't cite anything to defend my position either.

> Would Oliver Cromwell have just nuked Ireland?

Though he was a religious zealot who did bad things in ireland, I doubt he'd nuke the entire irish peoples - certainly not the protestants. Also, technically, ireland was part of his domain/kingdom back then. Cromwell would probably have nuked the kings and leaders, but not the people. Just like jefferson davis would have nuked lincoln and the union leaders, but not the american/northern people.

> But, of course, I could be wrong. I don't think humans are inherently better now than 500 years ago.

I agree, but I think societal norms and beliefs guide how we behave and think - not just in civilian life but in military and political life. I think human beings are just as evil and selfish as in the 1800s, but most of us wouldn't support racial slavery. I don't think we are innately better than we were 150 years ago as human beings. Deep down we are the same, but the societal mores has changed. Particularly the scientific white supremacy which allowed for total genocide ( men, women and children ) in much of the 19th and 20th centuries.

I don't think cromwell would have seen a school with 1000 kindegarten irish kids and nuked it. But the US and Britain certainly would have if it were 1000 native kids and nazi germany would nuked 1000 jewish kids.

I suspect in the future, once a real war begins, nobody will think twice about civilian casualties as the precedent has been set and the stakes would be so high. Most importantly, nobody responsible for nuking hiroshima or nagasaki was prosecuted. Nobody responsible for dresden or tokyo was prosecuted. The lesson is that no matter what, you have to be on the winning side. But only time will tell.

Re: Life at the End of American Empire

#86

Post by MarcScott »

jariel wrote: post #57
MarcScott wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not presenting rebuttals for any of the arguments. You're just disagreeing. Could you offer explanations of how the war in Vietnam was not a clear defeat, or how a healthcare system could be measured in a better way than citizen life expectancy?

Why would it behove me to validate a position when the author clearly could not bother himself? He offered no evidence for many of his claims, certainly nothing to support his line of reasoning that 'life expectancy is short ergo health care is bad'. Every verse a canard. These kinds of articles pop up every year or so in the New Yorker, NYT, The Atlantic, Foreign Policy - I have (we have) been reading them since I w…

Thank you for taking the time to reply in such amazing detail. It is seriously appreciated. I'll have a thorough read and do some link chasing this evening.

Cheers

Re: Life at the End of American Empire

#87

Post by thecolorblue »

danzig13 wrote: post #72
wostusername wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This honestly reads as "working as intended" to me. No side can become the tyrant and get everything it wants and screw the other ~50%.

I don’t think the intention was to never solve anything though.

This is really just my opinion, but I think the intention is to solve problems when there is consensus.

Re: Life at the End of American Empire

#88

Post by selimthegrim »

jariel wrote: post #57
MarcScott wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not presenting rebuttals for any of the arguments. You're just disagreeing. Could you offer explanations of how the war in Vietnam was not a clear defeat, or how a healthcare system could be measured in a better way than citizen life expectancy?

Why would it behove me to validate a position when the author clearly could not bother himself? He offered no evidence for many of his claims, certainly nothing to support his line of reasoning that 'life expectancy is short ergo health care is bad'. Every verse a canard. These kinds of articles pop up every year or so in the New Yorker, NYT, The Atlantic, Foreign Policy - I have (we have) been reading them since I w…

The income gap may be one thing but the future wealth trends between black and white families are sorely depressing.
Post reply on HN