War Is a Racket (1933) • Hacker News Board

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#111

Post by azemetre » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 5:51 AM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #91

steelstraw wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Something I don't get: Why is the Ukrainian president less concerned about invasion than the US president? Anyone have a good answer to this?

The Ukrainian President is concerned about invasion, not sure where you’re getting the idea he’s not. His criticism is specifically about the handling so as to not cause panic: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/01/28/ukraine-russ... .

A more pragmatic look would just see this as political posturing to save face with the Russians to give off some look of independence and not wholly being lockstep with NATO geopolitical goals for the region.

I'm not going to claim to be some geopolitical expert, but if you want to negotiate your way out of this mess it would seem to absolutely necessary to divert yourself away from the West (even partially) in order to come across as more autonomous. It would give talks much more credence rather than Russians seeing Ukraine as US puppets and not speaking for themselves.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#112

Post by anm89 » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 5:51 AM UTC

buzzard1 wrote: post #102

hilbert42 wrote: post #98

The tragedy is that poor unfortunate grunts only get to know it's a racket after it's too late - when half of them are already dead. Unfortunately, it seems to be a chararistic of the human condition that learning about war is a slow prossess and that the horrors of experiencing it cannot passed down from one generation to the next. Experience gathered over millennia has demonstrated that it's essentially impossible…

Do you believe that a just war has ever been waged?

Do you believe there is some objective thing called "just"?

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#113

Post by kspacewalk2 » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 5:52 AM UTC

CyanBird wrote: post #35

mrobot wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've completely glossed over the root of it here. The lie that Russia is going to invade Ukraine is the "Saddam has WMDs" Every time the US media talks about an imminent "Russian Invasion", or suggests that they are not the ones instigating the war, they are indirectly instigating war with Russia by lying.

> by lying And well... By giving far right proxy forces in the Ukraine arms and training, so the proxy forces can then be used for clandestine operations and hopefully (so nato/us/UK think) instigate a Russian military response to which they can scream casius Beli and create more unrest in the entire area

> far right proxy forces

armed forces of a country with a democratically elected civilian government

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#114

Post by mrobot » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 5:52 AM UTC

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #107

mrobot wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a video from RT about this "invasion". It contains Zelensky's reaction to the western media's fearmongering: https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1487395105023528960

>Here is a video from RT Here's a line that instantly disqualifies one from rational adult conversations about anything to do with Eastern Europe.

Why? So you are refusing to look at an information source with real quotes by the leaders involved if it isn't from one of your CIA-staffed western big-name news sources?

Hm, maybe i am not the one who is disqualified here.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#115

Post by anm89 » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 5:53 AM UTC

steelstraw wrote: post #89

the-dude wrote: post #28

We can clearly hear the drums beating from across the Atlantic. A new adventure was already expected with the change of administration.

Something I don't get: Why is the Ukrainian president less concerned about invasion than the US president? Anyone have a good answer to this?

Ukraine can't defend itself against Russia regardless of if they'd like to or not.

The buck stops at the US and Nato simply due to the size matches between the forces.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#116

Post by missedthecue » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 5:59 AM UTC

mikewarot wrote: post #90

onepointsixC wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WW1 was thought to have been impossible to happen ahead of time because of the losses in business and trade would have been too great. Claiming that it was pushed by business interests is an extraordinary claim which to my knowledge has never been substantiated with any extraordinary evidence.

>WW1 was thought to have been impossible to happen ahead of time because of the losses in business and trade would have been too great. For conventional business and trade, that is true. We're talking about war profiteers, a different type of businessman who profits from the churn .

Do conventional businesses, of which there are far more than defense contractors, lack lobbying ability of their own?

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#117

Post by kspacewalk2 » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 6:02 AM UTC

mrobot wrote: post #114

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Here is a video from RT Here's a line that instantly disqualifies one from rational adult conversations about anything to do with Eastern Europe.

Why? So you are refusing to look at an information source with real quotes by the leaders involved if it isn't from one of your CIA-staffed western big-name news sources? Hm, maybe i am not the one who is disqualified here.

I'll take non-CIA-staffed eastern small-name source too, as long as it's not literally the official propaganda agency of the regime that's in the middle of planning the fucking invasion being discussed. I don't think that's a very high bar, personally.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#118

Post by missedthecue » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 6:02 AM UTC

drran wrote: post #85

slibhb wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to sort it out. I've read stories in American media that describe a Russian troop build-up and make an invasion seem inevitable ("they wouldn't expend these resources to mobilize this many soldiers without plans to invade"). I've also read stories that claim the Russians only have ~10,000 troops at the border, not nearly enough for an invasion, and that the amount hasn't actually changed. The Ukranians seem…

> The Ukranians seem to be downplaying the risk of invasion. Whether or not the US media wants a war, it may be the case that they've overestimated the likelihood of an invasion. The goal of V. Poopking is to make billions for him and his friends in RF and Germany. For that, he needs Nord Stream 2 to work, so he needs to exchange something for Nord Stream 2. RF has weak economy, so it has nothing to propose in exchan…

Germany wants/needs the pipeline, sabre rattling or not.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#119

Post by mrobot » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 6:06 AM UTC

mrobot wrote: post #114

kspacewalk2 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Here is a video from RT Here's a line that instantly disqualifies one from rational adult conversations about anything to do with Eastern Europe.

Why? So you are refusing to look at an information source with real quotes by the leaders involved if it isn't from one of your CIA-staffed western big-name news sources? Hm, maybe i am not the one who is disqualified here.

> I'll take non-CIA-staffed eastern small-name source too, as long as it's not literally the official propaganda agency of the regime that's in the middle of planning the fucking invasion being discussed. I don't think that's a very high bar, personally.

Ya, so... you have a choice between the official propaganda agency of the US (the so-called "free press" all marching in lockstep), or the propaganda of the person responding to a completely made-up "imminent" invasion. The second propaganda source is in agreement with the person who is literally the president of the nation whose "imminent invasion" is in question.

There is no imminent invasion, only a deliberately provoked one.

Re: War Is a Racket (1933)

#120

Post by roenxi » Sun, Jan 30, 2022, 6:09 AM UTC

spaetzleesser wrote: post #51

I started paying attention to this when I lived close to DC around 2002. Bush was cutting the top tax brackets while ramping up for the Iraq invasion, the defense contractors made record profits (I remember one CEO making around 30 million) and the DC metro was plastered with ads touting the patriotism of the defense contractors. I thought "these guys are making record money, are getting their taxes reduced, try to l…

> Since then I honestly think there should be no profit in making weapons while a war is going.

It is an interesting thought but ... if the government tells the industrial chain "you aren't getting paid for this" then there is a pretty high chance the war will be lost. Being optimistic, maybe it could work for one war. Then the next war people ask "where are our weapons?" and the answer is "there are none".

There is really only one solution to DC's warmongering - someone needs to be held accountable for constantly lying and sleepwalking the US into wars. And not the weapons manufacturers, the actual politicians who are pretending that they didn't realise there were billions-to-trillions being sunk into blowing up taxpayer dollars to kill random goat herders.

The public seems pretty peaceful, anti-war rhetoric has been doing well for a while. They just keep getting distracted by political issues (which are obvious distractions if you look at them in context of the US's defence & fiscal policies).