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

The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 150 posts

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#141

Post by giraffe_lady »

flyinglizard wrote: post #39
throwaway15908 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine a world ... imagine a united states in which people just respect this simple moral of not killing people by any means for any reason. Just imagine.

Imagine a world where the US navy doesn’t sail all seas, where there are no US troops around the world, no NATO or Military Industrial Complex. That’s not a world that I, as a Westerner, would want to live in.

Well yeah. Neither does a thief want to live in a world where they must return the goods and be held accountable. Traditionally we don't weigh their desires very heavily in those decisions.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#142

Post by watwut »

chrischen wrote: post #135
watwut wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is genocide going on in China committed by China right now. I mean seriously, it is possible to criticize USA without whitewashing genocides around the world. If you bothered. And that exact whitewashing of China, Russia is what weakens your point.

The article we are commenting on literally describes indiscriminate killing of people by the US military. If all you have to do to justify killing a people or imprisoning them in Guantanamo is to label them as terrorists then China is way ahead of you. They are just preempting their own terrorists. So is Russia. They are just fighting Nazis in Ukraine. It’s pointless to argue who is more corrupt/evil. It doesn’t matt…

The comment I am responding to is not so much about American guilt as about arguing that China is somehow better. Note how not a single sentence in my comment rationalized or minimized Guantanamo.

> So is Russia. They are just fighting Nazis in Ukraine.

I know this is tangential, but that is not actually all that Putin is saying tho. His rationale is way more far reaching and involves a lot about where he see Ukrainien future as such.

As in,even going by Russia propaganda, this statement is not true.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#143

Post by xyzzyz »

jimmaswell wrote: post #124
rayiner wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not “dated.” The mechanics of why you try to preserve the lives of women and children in war haven’t changed at all. I can’t imagine the thought process that says “humans have had a visceral reaction to the killing of women and children specifically in war, across millennia and across cultures, but surely such thinking is obsolete in our generation.”

> “humans have had a visceral reaction to the killing of women and children specifically in war, across millennia and across cultures, but surely such thinking is obsolete in our generation.” This sounds pretty much right at least as far as men vs women, though. If you truly want equal rights then that should come with equal privileges. Historically or evolutionarily, women were valued more in such a situation becaus…

Ukrainians are very much running out of babies, desperately so in fact. Average Ukrainian woman has just 1.2 babies on average. You cannot make up for that shortage with Nigerian babies (of which the supply is high) any more than you can make up Ukrainian war casualties with Russian settlers moving in — or, I guess, you can, if you don’t care about Ukraine as a nation in the slightest.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#144

Post by woodruffw »

rayiner wrote: post #91
woodruffw wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s a convenience phrase, meant to impart unambiguous innocence. But it’s definitely a little dated, in both directions.

It’s not “dated.” The mechanics of why you try to preserve the lives of women and children in war haven’t changed at all. I can’t imagine the thought process that says “humans have had a visceral reaction to the killing of women and children specifically in war, across millennia and across cultures, but surely such thinking is obsolete in our generation.”

That’s a remarkable misinterpretation. What I meant by “dated” was that it’s no longer the case that women don’t serve in militaries. “Women and children” in a military context is historically a term to distinguish men (who can fight, or are expected to know skills that can help in a war effort) from everyone else.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#145

Post by s5300 »

lostlogin wrote: post #29
s5300 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody tell him about the last Commander in Chief of our military…

I can’t stand guy, but can’t fault him here. His personal usage of alcohol is the same as that of the current president - zero. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/us/trump-biden-alcohol.ht...

Very close personal friends of his have claimed he’s had fairly heavy stimulant usage & we have a few decades of footage that very much appears to back that up.

Not that I have anything against stims. Very useful drugs.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#146

Post by s5300 »

InCityDreams wrote: post #70
s5300 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Druggie is an utterly disgusting term. I urge you to indulge in some form of empathy. Btw. Everybody I’ve met in above average positions of our (US) military do drugs. Often, lots of them. In my anecdotal experience, it’s typically amphetamine stimulants, excessive alcohol, & various forms of sleeping pills. Opioids in those who have seen multiple combat tours or received injuries in various ways. Talking O-4’s and a…

>Druggie is an utterly disgusting term. I urge you to indulge in some form of empathy. is druggie Druggies and Alkies. That's what they are, that's what they're called. Someone named them that, probably to avoid long winded over-complicated descriptions. Carlin got it best with Shell-Shock becoming Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. I can scare my kids with 'Druggie', less so with 'Person that has an addiction', whateve…

Not sure what you’re trying to imply other than you being some form of self righteous something in a world around you full of varying degrees of very successful people that use drugs.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#147

Post by CamperBob2 »

sgjohnson wrote: post #45
CamperBob2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, I have little trust in people who don't take psychedelics, unless I have very good evidence that they have explored the dark recesses of their minds by some other means. Cool line, but I can't quite place it. Is that from Col. Kurtz's soliloquy in Apocalypse Now ? Or Gen. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove ?

I’ve watched Dr. Strangelove no less than 3 times and I don’t recall psychedelics ever being mentioned. So it’s probably not Strangelove.

Yeah, I might've put it a bit more diplomatically, but the sibling comment captured my intention accurately.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#148

Post by alduin32 »

chrischen wrote: post #67
erklik wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That being said, these other countries are often not saints themselves (looking at you China). Depends on who you are, isn't it? Ask the Chinese. I am sure they love their government (I believe surveys have shown that there is high level of approval) Ask the Afghans. The Chinese aren't bombing weddings and schools. Ask the Yemenis. The Chinese aren't funding the Saudis which are causing a man-made famine in their n…

Approval is moot, as US presidential approval is rarely that high, but most Americans will probably support their government over a foreign one, as most people will support their own government (it's only rational). I think China is big enough that it operates in much the same way as any large organization... that is to say it will be doing so many things that there will be plenty to disapprove of. Whether they do mo…

> as most people will support their own government (it's only rational).

I think that this is an interesting discussion by itself. Is nationalism rational by itself ?

I don't have many interesting arguments to make about it, but if I would argue that it's not so evident that it is rational behavior, but rather an irrational behavior that stems from the way our society is structured.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#149

Post by alduin32 »

chrischen wrote: post #46
b3nji wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems this is a logical path that has now been set, doesn't it? I've been deeply ashamed of my own countries invasions, and wars along side the U.S. People didn't care about that though. Should we cancel ourselves, as we have done to Russia?

The problem is that the US has for a very long time pretty much unchecked global power. All our free-speech, what is it good for, if it cannot effect change? Look where Snowden is. Even the captain mentioned in the article pretty much told people what he did, and so is The New York Times now, but if people don't bat an eye what's the point? Heck the whole NSA spying thing was leaked something like 5 years before Snow…

> I think the only practical thing that can be done is to encourage competition from America's equally-sized rivals (pretty much just China at the moment)

That is a bleak outlook. It would mean that any kind of revolution, or internal change, is effectively impossible, and that the only way to limit the powers of nation-states and corporations is through adversarial confrontation with similarly sized competitors, which can come at huge cost (wars, sanctions, etc).

Internal changes are still possible, but we need to fight for it. While that may come at a huge cost, I believe that it would end up less costly than endless confrontation with similar powers.

Re: The casualties at the other end of the remote-controlled kill

#150

Post by cwkoss »

b3nji wrote: post #38
drno123 wrote: post #36

If we boycott Russian products, and do not hire Russian people, should we start doing the same with US products and american engineers?

It seems this is a logical path that has now been set, doesn't it? I've been deeply ashamed of my own countries invasions, and wars along side the U.S. People didn't care about that though. Should we cancel ourselves, as we have done to Russia?

What would 'cancel ourselves' look like? Intentionally electing incompetent people? Buying Bitcoin?
Post reply on HN