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

US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

theconversation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 243 posts

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#151

Post by Vraxx »

flyinglizard wrote: post #87
adrianN wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also argue that globalization is the root cause for the current stability.

Globalization is simply an extension of the US global policy. Democracy and free trade are rewarded. It’s not a coincidence that globalization speaks English and builds on American infrastructure (such as the very internet).

The US supports plenty of undemocratic regimes and has toppled democratic ones. US global policy rewards subservience to the US economy more than anything (which I'd hardly call "free" trade).

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#152

Post by [deleted] »

bsaul wrote: post #140
zanny wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer to an aggressive and militant China would be the same answer to any upstart nuclear power threatening the world - we have already seen how effective sanctioning Russia has been in the wake of their aggressive imperialism stints in the past decade. So successful as to inspire them to try undermining US elections to get an apologetic administration in place to remove said sanctions. Sanctioning China economi…

You can only impose economical sanctions if you also have the mean to at least contain any military aggression the sanctioned country could take as a reaction.

[deleted]

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#153

Post by the_af »

flyinglizard wrote: post #139
the_af wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I didn't forget. What else would the "Cold War" be about? In any case, the US wasn't interested in democracy, and in some cases even suppressed it (they certainly worked to suppress elections whenever they thought they would go against improved relations with the US, regardless of what the nationals of the country they messed with wanted). The US was only interested in fighting the Reds, protecting their interest…

We only need to look at North Korea, Eastern Germany and Cuba to understand what the USA was fighting against when it intervened in South Korea, South American nations or in Vietnam.

I'm sure you understand this would have been highly theoretical to the students and pregnant mothers tortured, murdered and disappeared by US-sponsored dictatorships. For their own good.

"Fighting against Communism" is not a good reason to torture and murder civilians, or to topple elected governments.

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#154

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

delingpole wrote: post #16

I always liked this Clickhole piece on military/environmental issues: 5 Ways ISIS Can Reduce Its Carbon Footprint "As ISIS continues to expand its operations in the Middle East, it is more urgent than ever for this group to enact sustainable policies that will have the least impact on our environment. Here are some expert tips to help the Islamic State go green! Requiring cars to stop at a military checkpoint leads t…

Holy shit, that is hilarious

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#155

Post by [deleted] »

freeone3000 wrote: post #149
alexandercrohde wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... there's this place right next to America, called Canada. And instead of attacking Vietnam, trying to overthrow South American Governments, going deep into debt over nonexistent WMDs, they just don't do military budget. And magically... they don't get attacked. Funny how that works...

Canada is in NATO, and attacking Canada would automatically put you at war with the USA. You cannot consider Canada's defense policy independent of the USA.

[deleted]

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#156

Post by griffinkelly »

saiya-jin wrote: post #95
griffinkelly wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China is showing force against Taiwan: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/3004049/tai... China is building islands all around the South China Sea: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/21... China now has a presence in Africa too: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/africa/pentagon-accuses-chinese...

First 2 items are about their borders - not that I agree with the actions, but these are completely understandable. The Africa still isn't a proper comparison - building few bases where you invest tons of money and extract crutial resources isn't the point here, bloody invasions that destroy whole region for generations and kill millions innocent are. And this is something specific to US, even Russia didn't do anythi…

Ask anyone in Taiwan, they’d have a strong difference of opinion on Taiwan being apart of any piece of China, or within the borders.

As for countries being militarily aggressive, and causing direct conflict since WW2, sure the US, but there have been numerous wars since. A few at the top of mind —-First Afghanistan War ( Russia), Battle of Falkland Islands (Argentina), Iran vs Iraq War

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#157

Post by the_af »

adventured wrote: post #147
the_af wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I didn't forget. What else would the "Cold War" be about? In any case, the US wasn't interested in democracy, and in some cases even suppressed it (they certainly worked to suppress elections whenever they thought they would go against improved relations with the US, regardless of what the nationals of the country they messed with wanted). The US was only interested in fighting the Reds, protecting their interest…

The US also attempted to prevent the collapse and ruin of Venezuela. It was correct to oppose Hugo Chavez. This is now entirely ignored historical fact. The Chavez system destroyed Venezuela and turned it into a failed state. It's an outcome the US attempted to prevent. Meanwhile, the US backed Colombia is doing fine, is democratic, has seen considerable improvements in most regards, and has doubled the size of its e…

> It was correct to oppose Hugo Chavez

Only for Venezuelans. It was none of the US business.

> Meanwhile, the US backed Colombia is doing fine

For debatable values of "doing fine".

> The US also maintains near-guaranteed border security for Latin American nations

Not really.

> The US has been a superpower for ~75 years now and has not attempted to use that extreme power imbalance to annex swaths of Latin America.

It hasn't used overt military power (except in limited cases, like their own CIA-backed agents going rogue on them). It has meddled in Latin America democracies to often terrible results. In many cases, it has abetted bloodshed.

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#158

Post by lostmymind66 »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #142
xwdv wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to get enraged by people who simply want to gut the military, but after a while I find it’s hard to blame them. We have lived under the protection of the US Military for so long that most have forgotten what a world would be like without it. Eventually you begin to believe that if the military was simply gone things might still be the same, or perhaps even more peaceful. But they’d be wrong. They simply have n…

So... there's this place right next to America, called Canada. And instead of attacking Vietnam, trying to overthrow South American Governments, going deep into debt over nonexistent WMDs, they just don't do military budget. And magically... they don't get attacked. Funny how that works...

Canada, like many other countries around the world, enjoys the luxury of being protected by the US and doesn't have to spend as much money on defense.

During WWII, do you think appeasement would have worked?

The reason many evil countries aren't bombing the US and Canada is because they know they would be obliterated by the US military due to past campaigns.

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#159

Post by xwdv »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #142
xwdv wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to get enraged by people who simply want to gut the military, but after a while I find it’s hard to blame them. We have lived under the protection of the US Military for so long that most have forgotten what a world would be like without it. Eventually you begin to believe that if the military was simply gone things might still be the same, or perhaps even more peaceful. But they’d be wrong. They simply have n…

So... there's this place right next to America, called Canada. And instead of attacking Vietnam, trying to overthrow South American Governments, going deep into debt over nonexistent WMDs, they just don't do military budget. And magically... they don't get attacked. Funny how that works...

Yes, funny how you don’t get attacked when you’re a cub with a lion standing behind you.

Re: US military is a bigger polluter than as many as 140 countries

#160

Post by [deleted] »

jwillie wrote: post #120
chrisseaton wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean, that must be from data gathered from the government? I'm going to take the wild stretch of imagination that the people who are professionally interested in pollution and study it full-time have also considered this and are doing something a little more sophisticated to measure it.

Therefor you are making an assumption that compounds/reinforces your confirmation bias as opposed to actually seeking further further information to determine whether the article is correct? Is that a close-minded approach or a knowledge seeking approach? To what other "professionally interested" group do you also automatically give the benefit of doubt?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN