571–580 of 624 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> promoted freedom as a cultural aspiration rather than rule by a monarch https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in... Iran '53 and Guatemala '54 are some of my favourites, as is Timor.
And Iraq invasion of 2001, that replaced a stable (albeit dictatorial) regime by a civil war, and enabled ISIS to become a state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Vietnamese won because they managed to inflict sufficiently large number of American casualties that the US lost the will to war. Some folks say wars are won by logistics and not tactics. But it seems that Vietcong guerrilla tactics were far superior to American ones at the time. It's also worth mentioning that the US had no reasonable way to "win". The threat of Chinese involvement prevented them from invading…
Not to mention that the US had a huge antiwar movement, a widely despised draft, and a media which actually did real reporting on the war. Without these it's quite possible that the US might have used overwhelming force (like nukes) to "win" the Vietnam War.[1] [1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/nixon-want...
The threat of Chinese reaction to American over-reach was very real. It happened in Korea and the Americans didn't want to repeat that mistake.
The U.S. did try to use overwhelming force in Vietnam. It literally dropped more bomb tonnage on Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia than it did during the whole of WWII. It drafted all the men the country would stand. It destroyed one, if not two, Presidents. Still not enough.
I guess the point of my comment is to push back against the suggestion that the US "could have won" except for pesky morals and domestic critics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We could probably do that in a week or less Eh - I'm not sure. Getting aircraft overhead would be difficult east of the euphrates when they have lots of anti-aircraft guns and they are also supported heavily by Russia. The only Western power currently conducting airstrikes east of the euphrates is Israel and they have had planes shot down by Syria & Russia. The US has a preponderance of military power, but I do thi…
If the goal is total to level the country to the ground, we've had that capability for decades now: supersonic and stealth bombers, as well as SLBMs, SLCMs, and ICBMs. And there's always nukes of course. The whole collateral damage aspect is pretty high. But if we were willing to deal with the humanitarian and diplomatic fallout, we could do it pretty easily.
The anti-aircraft guns obstacle is, as you've said, more than surmountable. The likelihood of Russian reprisal, imo, is not.
The US is repeatedly on the wrong side of history. And they cannot even face that. Red scare. Supporting neo-liberal-to-fascist govts. Yelling democracy but then killing democratically chosen representatives when they do not "suit de US likings". Bitching about some "meddling" in their election when the history is full of US meddling in democratic process of other nations. Giving "foreign aid" to apartheid regimes. U…
You have to admit though, the US does have a history of producing good music.
The photo https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-StC-dVAdOns/YK081DEgPdI/AAAAAAAAd... is probably a captured M16 since, AFAIK, Vietnam used AK-47. What impressed me the most: "Using home-brewed chemicals, they developed their pictures in the open air or in underground tunnels" if by chemicals to develop photos in open air means no need for a dark room, that is really not something easy to do with then available technology. It is…
The US avoided international courts because, technically, the chemical weapons were to clear forest covers and not intended for use on civilians and military personnel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Sorry, I could not understand that phrase. Who is getting killed, and what I equate to what? People were out protesting the murders of black men by police, and you refer to them as looters and rioters in your prior comments - along with some defenses of Gab/Parler - both of which I was banned from for posting things that weren't right wing enough. Great freedom of speech there. I was cancelled by the right! > Freed…
> People were out protesting the murders of black men by police, and you refer to them as looters and rioters in your prior comments No, I referred to people who were looting and rioting. Also, it was not murder. George Floyd case was manslaughter at best. I think it is not even manslaughter, but I'm not a lawyer. Again, as I said before, it's hard to talk to people who redefine words for their advantage. > along wit…
I am of the opinion that you should not be on the side of nazis, ever. Siding with people who want to take away the rights of everyone who doesn’t look like them is kind of a little hypocritical on your part, oh great defender of free speech who also somehow supports people who want to take away the speech (and lives) of people who disagree.
Also, the civil rights movement is not the distant past. Ruby Bridges is still alive. The FBI did what they could to fuck that up. Occupy too, and now BLM. These are not ancient history, these are events within (some of) our lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The German public were responsible for what they knew of and had control of, just like the Soviet public. These were authoritarian regimes. Nobody is responsible for what they don't know about and are unable to learn about. In what world should they be?
Well, there are cases where you are legally responsible, like sex with minors and money laundering, because otherwise noone would ever face punishment Whether this applies here depends on what you mean by 'responsible' in thos context, is it morally responsible?
I am not morally responsible for actions I don't commit, or actions that others commit that I had no way of stopping.
This belief appears to go against a current cultural zeitgeist of regressing to tribalism and collective/ancestral guilt. The labelling is different, but the implications are the same.
Is the trend of "publish with sensational title, switch to benign version to continue growth" creeping into HN or is it the fate
It's a victim of its own success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bro you live in the Netherlands. I have numerous Dutch friends who are not as young and foolish, and your perspective is not the mainstream one in that country. Your nation was under occupation by the Nazis until the United States came in with the UK and made it otherwise. Obviously that doesn't mean the United States isn't imperfect and of course it has tremendous flaws and has yet to live up to its true ideals in i…
So confused. "Universal truth is not measured in mass appeal." -- Immortal Technique
After WW2, Stalin immediately began claiming as much of western Europe as possible. Historical documents reveal he wanted the Warsaw Pact to extend over all of Europe.
The only thing that prevented this was the US/UK forces immediately after WW2. The Berlin Airlift wasn't supported by the French government, because they viewed Berlin as a lost cause.
The Netherlands would have ended up like East Germany if not for the evil capitalist empire you clearly despise, despite the fact that it's technology is how you make a living. As a United States taxpayer, I strongly dislike the size of the US military, and wish we would scale it back dramatically, and let Europe handle (and pay for) their own defense. If I was you, I would want this as well.
In the meantime, realize that you benefit tremendously from the evil empire you openly resent, not unlike a spoiled teenager who complains about her rich father from her bedroom in the mansion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The cost of victory was very high, but it was a pretty unambiguous success for the Vietnamese. N. Vietnam won, but that doesn't make war a success.
It was for the northern regime. They took control of the south, by force. That's pretty straightforward war-winning.
> N. Vietnam won, but that doesn't make war a success
Wars are disasters. 500,000 - 1 million (?) people died, the country was physically destroyed. That's not a good outcome.