[HN Gopher] War Is a Racket (1935) ___________________________________________________________________ War Is a Racket (1935) Author : pasquinelli Score : 301 points Date : 2023-05-25 19:16 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (archive.org) (TXT) w3m dump (archive.org) | omginternets wrote: | I've only skimmed this essay, and plan to read it more carefully | later, so please be charitable if I've overlooked an important | passage. | | Butler's argument appears to be conflating two questions: | | 1. Does anyone unfairly profit from war? | | 2. Is the unfair profit the result of a racket? | | I think few people would argue that the answer to #1 is "yes", | but I don't think he's made a convincing argument that the unfair | spoils of war are either necessarily or overwhelmingly the result | of a racket. | | Here I would like to note that the Butler's definition of | "racket" is rather loose. The strongest interpretation of his | definition, I think, is that a racket is something that is | orchestrated covertly by few, for their own benefit, and at the | expense of the many. | | There is another word for this: a conspiracy. The American | Heritage Dictionary has what I consider to be a fair definition | for conspiracy: "an agreement to perform together an illegal, | wrongful, or subversive act." | | So to show that war is indeed a racket, Butler would have to | demonstrate that one of two things is true: | | 1. War can only emerge from conspiracy | | 2. The overwhelming majority of wars have historically emerged | from conspiracy | | Demonstrating a conspiracy in turn is a two-part enterprise: (1) | showing the act was illegal, wrongful or subversive, and (2) | showing that a group of people agreed to perform it together. As | far as I can tell, we are only shown instances of profiteering, | and perhaps individual corruption in the form of draft-dodging | and whatnot. This is outrageous, to be sure, but falls short of | demonstrating that a "racket" is at play. And while I can think | of recent examples of wars that _do_ qualify as a racket (at | least, IMO), Butler 's more general claim that "War is | (effectively always) a racket" seems like hyperbole. | angry_albatross wrote: | You probably meant to say that few people would argue that the | answer to #1 is "no" | Barrin92 wrote: | _> A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is | not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small | "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the | benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of | war a few people make huge fortunes._ | | Just because people make fortunes from war doesn't mean that this | is the essential characteristic of war. People make fortunes out | of everything regardless of its cause. | | War is a historic universal, and in fact it was most intense in | pre-modern societies. Aboriginal cultures went to war not just | for material reasons, but also for cultural reasons, ritualistic, | and religious reasons. Long before we had organized commercial | activity or opportunity for rackets we had warrior cultures. | | The conspiratorial idea that war is largely driven by shadowy | elites doesn't really hold up to anthropology. Far from it elites | often even have to reign the flames of war in as populations whip | themselves into a frenzy. The fact that war generally benefits | few people, or sometimes even nobody at all doesn't imply that | the majority of people weren't genuinely enthusiastic about it, | although they'll typically deny it later. | mrguyorama wrote: | >The conspiratorial idea that war is largely driven by shadowy | elites doesn't really hold up to anthropology. | | Of course not, Bush jr and his administration made up a war | right in public. That we had no business in the middle east is | not conspiracy. That Bush wanted to go to war in the middle | east is also not conspiracy. Those WMDs never existed, and they | knew that, yet off to war we went. How is that not elites | driving war? | graublau wrote: | Blackrock approves this comment | chrisco255 wrote: | > Aboriginal cultures went to war not just for material | reasons, but also for cultural reasons, ritualistic, and | religious reasons. | | Those are always just emotional excuses for gaining more power | over resources. If you ignore incentives and take everyone's | word at face value, then we're all saints and nary a sin has | ever been committed in the name of some righteous cause. Mutual | misunderstandings, is all, I suppose. | | > People make fortunes out of everything regardless of its | cause. | | Author took care to mark the fortunes of companies at peacetime | vs war time and noted that fortunes increased by an order of | magnitude in some cases, as a result of war. If your net worth | or social standing is due to jump one or two orders of | magnitude as a result of a war or two, your subconscious mind | will find more reasons than are rational to justify and support | a war. You'll say it's to _save_ your people. You 'll say it's | self-defense. You'll say it's necessary and just. You'll ignore | any path to peace that might avert such a disaster, in | particular if you never have to enter the fox holes yourself. | That's the author's point. | | Rackets aren't always some men conspiring to gain power or | money or fame in smoke-filled parlor rooms. Often, they are | emergent properties of incentivized systems. | | > The conspiratorial idea that war is largely driven by shadowy | elites doesn't really hold up to anthropology. | | The only part that is wrong about that statement is the idea of | the elites being 'shadowy'. No, they conduct their racket right | out in the public eye. This isn't a particularly insightful | phenomenon, by the way. Power always follows a power law of | distribution. Of course the elites are primarily responsible | for war. If the elites are ever against war, it just means that | the incentives of the moment are temporarily more favorable for | peace. | | As a blatant example, let's take the American Civil War for | example. Well over 90% of white southerners didn't own slaves. | So why would they go to war and lay down their life, by the | hundreds of thousands, if they stood to gain almost nothing? | Most of these kids were raised on subsistence farms and didn't | even know how to read. Of course, to those boys it was a | cultural cause, defense of their homeland, states rights, yadi | yadi. That's what they were sold. But the ones really pulling | the strings in that war, were the rich Southern elites, who did | in fact own many slaves and stood to lose a great deal over | Lincoln's election. | | Again, this is true of the vast majority of wars and battles in | human history. Pick your time and place in history. | mrguyorama wrote: | >cultural cause, defense of their homeland, states rights, | yadi yadi. | | It was explicitly to enforce the white mans superior position | over the black man. That's what many confederate soldiers | wrote about, that's what pastors gave sermons about, that's | what the confederate government discussed in their | legislative chambers. It wasn't even "states rights to own | slaves", but explicitly that most of the southern population | believed it was by god's will that the white man guide the | black savage. They believed the north was morally wrong to | elevate the black man as an equal. They were fighting to | maintain their societal hierarchy. | chrisco255 wrote: | Let's take a couple more recent examples then circle back | to the Civil War. If I take your interpretation, which is a | single side of a complex multi-dimensional conflict that | involved millions of participants, and apply it to more | recent conflicts: the American soldiers who fought in the | War on Terror in Afghanistan and Iraq were totally just | trying to dominate the middle eastern man. In fact, they | owned cars and stood to gain from having access to cheap | oil. Many people texted about it, saying we should keep the | oil and bomb the whole lot. Sermons about the risks of | Islam, etc were spoken, in Christian churches. | | And if you choose to discard all the other sides of the | die, that's all there is to the story. Those words were | spoken at various times. People earnestly meant them on | some level. But it's not the whole picture. It's a flat, 2D | perspective. It's jingoistic in the opposite extreme. | | But what we do know from the so-called "War on Terror" | (itself a propagandistic title), is that elites went so far | as to even make up stories about fake nuclear weapons in | order to drum up support for that war. We actually caught | them in this blatant lie, for once. None of those people, | of course, have gone to jail for it, but I digress. If you | think that every war in history isn't similarly manipulated | to drum up popular support, you don't know the first thing | about war or propaganda. | | But we also know, from a certain perspective, that in the | wake of 9/11, there was some popular sentiment to do | _something_ in retaliation for the innocent lives lost. | Nevermind that Iraq had nothing to do with 9 /11. It was | pitched as an extension of the War on Terror. And having | been swept up in that, I can tell you, I didn't disagree | with it at first either. The war was supported on both | sides of the political aisle. | | As for the Civil War, can you find damning documents if you | look for them? Of course. But that doesn't tell you the | whole story. My own brother was drafted into the War on | Terror, not because he wanted to, but because he was a | member of the National Guard. Similarly, in the South and | the North and most wars in history: young men don't get a | _choice_ , they get drafted. If they don't go to war, and | are fully capable, they get arrested or executed. Desertion | is also punishable by death. But there's also softer | influences. Your own brother is going to war, your cousins, | your neighbors and best friends. Why wouldn't you go with | them, to have their back? They would have yours, wouldn't | they? Reciprocation is another extremely important | influence in human psychology. | | We actually have recordings of Civil War veterans taken | from the early 20th century, when they were still alive: | https://youtu.be/swifvJEOF6s?t=160 | | "I didn't feel much interest in it, because I felt kindly | towards the darkers, and they were kindly towards me, and | towards my family." | | "Now, attending school, in Spring of '61, when news came | war was declared...there was a rally among 75-100 boys at | school. Well right then, about half of our pupils, boys | around 18, quit school...I wanted to go too! But my father | said I was too young, but if the war lasted long enough, | you may have an opportunity." | | "Well, so I rested. War began. And I heard about it. And I | heard about at Williamsburg, some of my classmates fell in | the battle there, and I grieved about it because the boys I | had been brought up with. They were a little older than I, | and I felt sorry they were killed." | | "Then in 1862, General Lee began to need more men, | naturally. Although the biggest battles had not come | yet...I a boy, of 16 1/2 years old, joined a cavalry | company." | | "It was a great curse on this country that we had slavery, | and I thank God that I did not bring up my boys and girls | under a system of slavery which I was brought up under." | | You can see in Howell's own retrospective about it. He was | convinced it was about state's rights. He saw Virginia as | his homeland moreso than even the U.S.A. In the 1860s, most | men around the world would have done the same for wherever | they resided, whatever tribe they belonged to, whatever | monarch was in power and whatever cause was presented. | | But that instinct that men have to fight for their tribe, | well that has been tapped successfully by elites for | millenia. | nickpinkston wrote: | Note that he was possibly also asked to lead a coup against FDR | [1] which was never substantiated, but rhymes with other stuff | going on at that time such as that covered by "Invisible Hands: A | narrative history of the influential businessmen who fought to | roll back the New Deal." [2] | | These conservative groups were also heavily involved with | extremist anti-communist and oft times pro-fascist efforts, even | involving the CIA such as that covered by "The Devil's | Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's | Secret Government" [3] that shows how Dulles & Co. supported | these same rightist American elites' business interests. One of | these was Fred Koch - ie father of the infamous Koch Brothers, | who expanded his campaign massively to this day. | | Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex" final speech [4] | actually was made because he was heavily pressured by these same | groups to both profit from fighting the Cold War and as well as | encourage its anti-communism to remove the threat to their | wealth. | | Anti-communism in the West can largely be viewed as wealthy | businessmen being scared of getting their assets seized and | making a long-term scare campaign to get the public onboard. I'm | not saying I like communism at all, but their reaction was often | very bad for the American people and the world in general, and it | continues in forms to this day. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot | | [2] https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2751831 | | [3] https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/24723229 | | [4] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_addres... | ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: | Also a reminder that after the 1932 German presidential | election [1], won by Paul von Hindenburg, 84 years old, with | 53%, he appointed as chancellor one Adolf Hitler in 1933 | following the advice of Franz von Papen, the conservative | chancellor who served in 1932 and who would have rather see the | Nazi Party in power than the Communist Party (KPD) led by Ernst | Thalmann. In 1934 Hitler dissolves the presidency and calls | himself Fuhrer und Reichskanzler. Ernst Thalmann will be | executed under Hitler's orders in 1944, after 11 years of | solitary confinement. That's how the Nazis torture (Hans Litten | [2], the lawyer who stood against Hitler in the 1931 Eden Dance | Palace trial, was also tortured for 5 years, 1932-38). | | [1] | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_elect... | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Litten | pastacacioepepe wrote: | Of course capitalists prefer fascists, they will preserve the | private property AND provide a subservient workforce. | Communists on the other hand will seize their means of | production. | | Fascism and capitalism are complementary, communism excludes | both. | ly3xqhl8g9 wrote: | Right, but who's communism? Certainly not Stalin's. Perhaps | Eugene V. Debs' [1]? Speaking of persons who were | imprisoned and indirectly, but not really, killed for their | anti-war stance. ( _Back in the USSA_ [2] tells an | alternate history of USA as communistic after 1917, perhaps | too reliant on the actual history and general | intertextuality). | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs | | [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_in_the_USSA | mrguyorama wrote: | For the entirety of the 20th century, ALL communism was | conflated with Stalin's "Communism" for political | purposes. Plenty of people advocating for socialism would | have been executed in the USSR because to Stalin, | "Communism" meant a Stalin based monarchy with a good | propaganda arm. | sorokod wrote: | Smedley Butler, previously on HN | | https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... | TheFreim wrote: | It's interesting to observe people repeat the "war is racket" | line while also supporting wars because "their" side is allegedly | the virtuous one (and anyone pointing this out is peddling | "propaganda" of "the enemy" in the totally virtuous war). | l33t233372 wrote: | Wars of defense are entirely different in my opinion. | cubefox wrote: | Those are not up for debate, as the US has never been | properly attacked, as far as I know. (The Japanese attack on | Pearl Harbor might be an exception, but that wasn't the US | mainland, though the US attack on Japan did involve the | Japanese mainland, so this probably doesn't count as a purely | defensive war.) | paulddraper wrote: | The U.S. was "properly attacked" in the War of 1812, Pearl | Harbor, and 9/11. | | --- | | There are conspiracy theories (which I don't believe) that | the latter two were known, but deliberately permitted to | happen. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance- | knowledge... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories | cubefox wrote: | I'm not an expert im American history, but the War of | 1812 was first declared by the US against the UK. It | doesn't sound like a purely defensive matter. 9/11 was a | terrorist attack which is not something one could fight a | defensive war against. | juve1996 wrote: | Are you really going to suggest an attack that killed 2,403 | Americans, sunk five U.S. battleships & damaged 4 others | ships, and destroyed 188 aircraft, is not a proper attack? | because it wasn't on the "mainland?" | cubefox wrote: | The point is that the US war against Japan wasn't a | purely defensive war. | dragonwriter wrote: | But it absolutely was, and the idea that an attack isn't | an attack and responding to it isn't defense if it isn't | on the "mainland" is ludicrous. (Also, Japan attacked the | US mainland during WWII, and did so before any US attacks | on Japan proper, so you'll need to move the goalposts | farther.) | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Ellwood | mrguyorama wrote: | An attack made with the explicit purpose to prevent the | US from putting up a fight as Japan took internationally | recognized US territory. | m463 wrote: | Also, Eisenhower's farewell address... | | _" In the councils of government, we must guard against the | acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, | by the military-industrial complex."_ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_addres... | beebmam wrote: | The dominance of the US military, for all its faults (and there | are plenty), is the reason there's a mostly peaceful world. | Deterrence has been an absurdly powerful force towards that | goal, and we have the military-industrial companies in the US | to thank for that. Yes, they're also profiting from it. That's | a win-win, in my opinion. | | In my 20+ years in software engineering, I've yet to meet a | Chinese or Russian colleague who thinks it would be better if | China or Russia had more military/political power. I've even | argued in favor of that position in the past (that the world | would be better off if there was more multipolarity), and they | fervently opposed my position. They are keenly aware of the | kind of crimes their ex-governments engage in. | | US military dominance is hegemonic, yes, but it would be far | worse to have it any other way currently. | boredpeter wrote: | What an embarrassingly privileged comment. The US funds | terror around the world for their own benefit. Millions die | because of the actions of the US or are effectively enslaved | for the benefit of US capitalists to sell overpriced products | to wealthy consumers such as yourself. The CIA regularly | destabilizes 3rd world countries for the benefit of US | corporations (see United fruit company and Guatemala). To | suggest the world is a "peaceful" place simply because you | live in a country that has never seen war in its homeland | during your lifetime is ludicrous especially given the wars | the US has started and participated in. Frankly this comment | reeks of propaganda, I wouldn't be surprised if you worked | for the fed or a company profiting from the military | industrial complex. | goatlover wrote: | Please provide sources for the millions of deaths. Your | post sounds like an anti-capitalist screed more than an | argument against US military hegemony. Consider that | alternative of world war and Russian or Chinese | imperialism. | makeitdouble wrote: | It's weird to set Chinese imperialism as the worst | alternative, when the US is China's most prominent | provider of technology, and first consumer of | manufacturing and services. In exchange China is of | course also the biggest holder of US dollar. | Animatronio wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Romana | inconceivable wrote: | > I've yet to meet a Chinese or Russian colleague who thinks | it would be better if China or Russia | | lmao the ones who live in america? yeah, of course. they | don't want to get deported. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Initiative | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wen_Ho_Lee <-- taiwanese lolol | morby wrote: | That doesn't excuse the crimes committed, nor does it negate | the need to control the MIC. The Vietnam and Iraq wars should | never have happened, among many other things. We shouldn't | have PMCs running about committing crimes, either. | | Edit: nor does any of what you've said negate the sentiment | Eisenhower was advocating, which relates directly back to the | Vietnam and Iraq wars. Having power and wielding it | responsibly are not the same. | goatlover wrote: | What makes the justification for the Korean War different | from Vietnam? | 7sidedmarble wrote: | well that's convenient | myshpa wrote: | All those wars and military conflicts are a way to make | profit. Pretty stupid way. It's a racket. | | No wars are good. Killing people with drones based on | metadata, in foreign countries, without fair trial, is | extremely immoral. Every killed father will make several more | enemies. | | "In 2016, America dropped at least 26,171 bombs authorized by | President Barack Obama. This means that every day in 2016, | the US military blasted combatants or civilians overseas with | 72 bombs; that's three bombs every hour, 24 hours a day" http | s://old.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/x332z... | | I'll let talk someone much smarter than me - Carl Sagan | | https://www.youtube.com/embed/BYdxFKTYJIQ | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWPFmdAWRZ0 | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KcoPODwvW4 | | And Charlie Chaplin | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8HdOHrc3OQ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili. | .. (Read it all, I dare you) | | Imagine foreign power's drones over your country, over your | city. Imagine hearing explosions of homes in your town, maybe | few homes over. Imagine unmarked millitary man going through | your home with their rifles scaring your children. You | cannot, can you? Would you feel save and glad? Children there | play outside only when it's cloudy, they're afraid of blue | skies. | | Imagine foreign powers overturning your democraticaly elected | leaders and instead putting in their figurines, all for | profit, of course. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_CIA_controversies | | I know a man who worked for your government, at a black site, | in a third country. He's a shadow of a man. Torturing people, | in third countries ... that's deterrence? | | With 5+millions of millitary contractors, many of them here, | maybe this quote will fit. | | "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When | His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It" | kornhole wrote: | One thing to consider about your anecdotal encounters with | people of those countries is that they were probably in your | country. They were probably emigres. If you spoke to people | within those countries who are happy with their country, the | sentiment would probably be quite different. | dirtyid wrote: | >mostly peaceful world | | Except it hasn't been. Pinker's "long peace" theory with | respect to global conflict is bad statistics - 20th-21st | century under US military hegemony had a comparable if not | higher number of conflicts, see Max Roser's work documenting | global conflicts over the past 600 years. What has changed is | that war now is generally shorter and less deadly especially | towards combatants, but that's more reflective of the pace of | modern war enabled by modern weapons. High intensity wars | don't last for 20+ years anymore because you can pretty much | destroy nations in 1-5, and belligerents are quicker to | exhaust and forced to settle. In aggregate war fatalities is | down, but not # of conflicts. US hegemony didn't stop USSR | and RU from warring in their periphery, nor PRC border | skirmishes pre 90s when US had vast more naval power | asymmetry. When countries want to fight for their interests, | especially regional, they still do. His conjectures on QoL | indicators around the world are improving, and we can credit | some of that to US/western innovation, but it's also a | byproduct of technology disseminating as societies develop. | | As for the opinion of your colleagues, consider some sort of | self-selection bias happening - I've not met many from PRC | that don't think China needs better military and regional | hegemony to forward her interests the same way US does hers, | especially post Belgrade embassy bombing in 99 by US/NATO. | And frankly even among PRC diasporas, most people I know | except very liberal types are increasingly unabashedly pro | PRC military power - they're just too polite to say so. See | how PRC students in the west generally become more pro China | the more they're exposed to western society. Many are smart | enough to not voice "objectionable" opinions.I can't speak | for RUs. | | Ultimately, US military dominance is good for US+LIO | interests, but hard to extrapolate anything more. IMO | multipolarity will increase the chance of "smaller" conflicts | as poles assert their own interests for sure, but it's going | to be greater than the baseline of conflicts that's | consistently been simmering throughout history. The fear is | increasing large-scale conflict between poles/blocks - ending | the cyclic gap between major wars among major powers - but | that's what happens when declining hegemon pushes their | interests to the exclusion of others too intensely for too | long. | VoodooJuJu wrote: | Absolutely this. This comment [1] hit me hard when I read it: | | >I never understood the good effects of American hegemony | until they started breaking down. | | The Russian invasion of Ukraine is a harbinger of what a | world without American hegemony looks like. In that world, | you're going to have a very bad time. | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27565836 | makeitdouble wrote: | Russia's power also came from American hegemony and its | military was built in direct reaction to it. Or how the | middle east is a mess in huge part because of the US. Or | Latin America after all the meddling. | | I really don't see an argument for US influence being | better than the status quo, except for the US. It didn't | stop wars or ethnic cleansings either when it was at its | peak. | myshpa wrote: | Did you heard about americans in humvees running around | ukraine-russian border and provoking russians, few years | before the conflict ? | | How would your government react to russians trying to | establish military bases in mexico, on your border? Oh, we | know ... we can look what you did to Cubans. Are they still | in blockade? | | I don't endorse what Russians are doing. But somebody was | helping them to decide to attack. If it was successfull or | not, we'll never know. | anonuser123456 wrote: | To make your argument symmetric, we need to imagine | Mexico inviting Russia after we 1) poison their President | with polonium, 2) seize the Baja peninsula and 3) arm and | support border incursions from Texas separatists and 4) | have those separatists shoot down a civilian airliner. | | So kinda not the same. | myshpa wrote: | Your country does immoral things, Russians do immoral | things, Chinese too, every big "power" does. That's not | the point. Point is, how would you react to the foreign | powers on your border ? | | Would you go south or not? | NAG3LT wrote: | Please, stop repeating russian propaganda. They wanted to | control and reconquer their former imperial colonies. | Their claimed Casus Belli were just lame excuses, not | actual reasons. | myshpa wrote: | I don't have it from russians, I'm not pro-russia, far | from it. But those concerns that US (maybe) wants war on | european continent was pretty often repeated in all media | in EU then. | cpursley wrote: | God forbid we use a little empathy, nuance and historical | perspective in our opinions. | | And I know I'm a bit out there, but perhaps the people in | the disputed territories should get a vote? | cpursley wrote: | Do you think hegemonic mono-culture mono-ideal is preferable | to a multi-polar world of competing ideas and systems? If so, | how do you prevent the hegemon from transmutating to the very | thing we feared in the first place? | jnsie wrote: | I must confess...I detest the phrase military-industrial | complex while acknowledging that it was likely defined and | definitely used by people much smarter than I. It's too | abstract and sounds like a phrase your tinfoil-hat wearing | conspiracy-theorist uncle would rant about. Would much rather | we spoke in terms of real-world organizations (start with the | big players and go from there) that benefit from forever | wars... | karaterobot wrote: | The specific players change, though. You wouldn't call it | (for example) the "Reagan-Raytheon Complex", since that's | just a specific, temporary instance produced by a more | systemic pattern of behavior. Even though the more specific | framing seems more actionable, getting rid of those | particular players would not solve the problem if the next | set just did the same thing. So, it's actually more useful to | think of this as a warning about systems rather than | entities. | nonethewiser wrote: | Its a massive oversimplification driven by pessimism. | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | I've been thinking that we ought to stop using county names | to refer to wars. Vietnam is a place, people live there, but | when I hear its name I just think about how messed up my | grandpa is because of his experiences in that war. | | So I think that instead of "Afghanistan" we should call it | "Lockheed's War" or something like that. | all2 wrote: | And Iraq would the be the Bush/Cheney/Haliburton War. I'm a | fan of this naming convention. | goodpoint wrote: | War? Product placement campaign. | rufus_foreman wrote: | >> It's too abstract and sounds like a phrase your tinfoil- | hat wearing conspiracy-theorist uncle would rant about | | That's why it was so important that it come from someone like | a 5 star general and Supreme Commander of the Allied | Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War II. No one was | going to mistake Eisenhower for a tinfoil-hat wearer, a | pacifist, or an appeaser. | Fervicus wrote: | It's a bit sad to see the comment section here fighting about | left/right, Democrat/Republican, and whose fault this mess is | instead of focusing on the military-industrial complex. | rgrieselhuber wrote: | One of the most disappointing things in American politics in | the last ten to fifteen years has been watching the left | abandon their antiwar fervor. | [deleted] | goodpoint wrote: | More like the left abandoned American politics. At least | compared to the rest of the world the US have 2 right-wing | parties. | mrguyorama wrote: | American politics abandoned the left, not the other way | around. We decided to make McCarthyism a national sport. | Being against Vietnam was unpatriotic and wrong. Being | against Afghanistan was unpatriotic and wrong. Being | against unregulated capitalism was unamerican and wrong. | [deleted] | tptacek wrote: | Predictably, this comment started a partisan political | argument that took over the thread like kudzu. | CalChris wrote: | One of the most disappointing things in American politics in | the last ten to fifteen years has been watching the right | cozy up to Putin. | nonethewiser wrote: | Im familiar with the argument in favor of this within the | past couple years. But what case is there that they started | 15 years ago? | CalChris wrote: | "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very | straightforward and trustworthy," Bush said. "I was able | to get a sense of his soul." | labster wrote: | We on the left realized that John Brown got it right. | Sometimes you have to march to the sea to get basic human | rights. | hayst4ck wrote: | > watching the left abandon their antiwar fervor. | | As left people gain political maturity, they understand that | those in power will not give up their power willingly, so | force is required. | | As a liberal person I am suspicious of any liberal who does | not believe in gun rights, and I am even more suspicious of a | liberal person who does not believe in unions, which is the | 2nd amendment of labor rights. Neither the 2nd amendment nor | unions can be used for their purpose within the bounds of the | law. | | Believing in human rights means believing in defending human | rights with force, otherwise what is to stop someone from | violating human rights? | | If a powerful person uses their power against you, your | choices are submit or fight. Leftists are slowly | understanding: 1. There are powerful people | 2. They will arbitrarily use your power against you 3. | Those people use their power to influence law so the law will | not protect you 4. You can't solve this problem within | the bounds of the law | | It's not hard to look at Ukraine and see that justice cannot | be achieved without war and that you don't get to decide when | you are at war. | sushisource wrote: | The problem with this whole thought process is it's | hilariously abstract. The people in power have F-35s. What | is your collection of (admittedly, unnecessarily powerful) | guns going to do against that? | | It also assumes that such disagreements _require_ force to | be resolved, and that 's just demonstrably not always true. | Even if it sometimes is. | sparselogic wrote: | > The people in power have F-35s. What is your collection | of (admittedly, unnecessarily powerful) guns going to do | against that? | | Military inventory, while powerful, isn't the end-all. | Just ask Afghans about their experiences with two | superpowers' machinery. | fnovd wrote: | F-35s aren't particularly useful for collecting taxes, | for maintaining a state. You can't use them to intimidate | an individual, it's a huge waste of resources for the | owner of the F-35. What's more dangerous than an F-35 is | a group of guys with guns driving around in a pickup | truck. Guns and trucks are just so much cheaper than | fighter jets, so much more deployable... not to mention | the entire logistical and manpower apparatus that goes | into getting an F-35 in the air. If you want to win a war | of attrition you use cheap, effective tools, not the | flashy stuff. Flashy weapons are great for blowing up | some other country's infrastructure, it's not very useful | if the enemy is your own people. If you blow up all your | own people and infrastructure, what do you have power | over? | | If you and everyone in a 10-mile radius of where you're | sitting right now decided to ignore some federal law, | like maybe the one against cannabis, what the heck is an | F-35 going to do about it? Blow up a building, is that | supposed to help? No, you get some guys with guns and | trucks and then you can start going door to door, | threatening people, looking around, collecting stuff, | whatever. You can set up checkpoints and block off | bridges, the whole shebang, because you're trying to | establish control, not just blow things up. | | Blowing things up has its uses but if you want to | intimidate someone to the point where you have power over | them, you need to be a little more intimate. You can't | just be a fleck in the sky and you can't just show up do | to the big stuff. You need to be in their face as a | persistent, immediate threat. That's what influences | human behavior and that's how power is established. | That's exactly why small guns are such a sticking point | in the USA, they're a very effective counter to this | intimate threat. | hayst4ck wrote: | I wonder what the Vietnamese would think of your argument | or the Ukrainians. I wonder if the people in Tiananmen | wish they had had guns. I wonder if people in Hong Kong | wish they had had guns. I wonder about the people in | Myanmar or the educated class in Cambodia, or Afghani, or | Iranians wish they had more guns. | | "Who are the 2nd amendment protected guns theoretically | meant to be used against? When are they supposed to be | used? Can the 2nd amendment ever be used to protect a | free state within the bounds of the law?" are pretty | major critical thinking questions that it are probably | worth meditating on, especially for liberal people. | | What would have happened if Trump won is a question every | liberal person needs to contemplate. | | When the rule of law (the idea that powerful people | cannot arbitrarily exercise their power) fails, it | becomes might makes right. Would you rather be in a might | makes right society where you have a gun or where you | don't? I think that answer is obvious. | | > Even if it sometimes is. | | If you want peace prepare for war. | jasmer wrote: | Where is the 'war fervor' of the Left? | | What does helping Ukraine defend themselves have to do with | 'war fervor'? | | Putin invaded Ukraine in 2014 and Obama/Trump reaction was to | ignore it - which directly resulted in a much bigger war. | | The US Military Industrial Complex is why there are no wars | against rich allied states. If Ukraine were part of the | system and had a well managed, functional military - Putin | could not have invaded, in fact he never would have tried. | mistermann wrote: | > What does helping Ukraine defend themselves have to do | with 'war fervor'? | | For me: the manner in which it is done (the rhetoric in | media, etc). | all2 wrote: | This is incomplete. Ukraine was supposed to be a buffer | between NATO and Russia. As soon as Western folks started | talking about getting cozy with Ukraine, Putin saw the | eventuality where US/joint bases would be on his border and | he didn't want that. He would rather start a war with | Ukraine than go toe-to-toe with the US and NATO. | mrguyorama wrote: | Any ideology that doesn't allow Ukraine to make their own | destiny is unacceptable. Ukraine told Russia it wouldn't | join NATO, tried to set itself up to join the EU instead, | and got invaded anyway, back in 2014. | epgui wrote: | Other people making friends is not really a good reason | to start killing them, either way. | | I know it's not what you're saying exactly, but it's what | Putin's actions boil down to. | [deleted] | watwut wrote: | Russia has borders with NATO and had them for years. The | buffer theory makes zero sense, considering Ukraine was | not even trying to get to NATO and there is pretty long | border between Russia and NATO anyway. | | NATO basis were next to Russia for decades. | | Plus, one does not need to commit genocide to achieve | safety. Anand Putin just happen to be committing | genocide. | jnwatson wrote: | NATO was already on his border. | wouldbecouldbe wrote: | The Korean War began and was fought under a Democrat. It was | ended by a Republican. | | The Vietnam War began under one Democrat, escalated and | spread beyond Vietnam under his Democratic successor, and | then under a Republican. It was ended by another Republican. | | The Persian Gulf War was entirely a Republican affair. | | The Bosnian war and the bombing of Serbia were overseen by a | Democrat. | | The "war on terror" was started by a Republican who invaded | Afghanistan and Iraq and continued for nearly 8 more years | under a Democrat. | dekhn wrote: | you're confusion "the left" with "democrats". | | democrats are centrist relative to the left. | graublau wrote: | The left in america votes blue no matter because idpol | and maybe climate, the only nationally palitable Left | ideas since Marxism any class are anathema to USA, | particularly since fall of USSR. | bdamm wrote: | Nah; the 2016 election saw many "leftists" that were | dedicated to Sanders go on to vote for Trump. | nonethewiser wrote: | Sanders is Marxist? | graublau wrote: | "Drain the swamp" leftists are separate category to DSA | members and almost nonexistent post-COVID (RFK JR. | maybe). Is this beyond explanation why someone would do | that? | wk_end wrote: | I know establishment Dems liked to whine about that, but | is there any evidence that this actually happened in | meaningful numbers? | WhatWorkingOn wrote: | I and many other people I know did. I saw Sanders get | snubbed and schemed against by the DNC, to the point | where Hillary got the questions ahead of time. So many | gaffes in this campaign between two "equal" Democratic | candidates that we just don't talk about anymore. | | No, I refuse to play that game and I'd rather burn the | place to the ground and suffer together than walk | willingly to my own execution. | smolder wrote: | Thanks. I've never met a single person who flopped from | Sanders to Trump. I can't for the life of me figure out | how you'd make that leap. I thought that the stories | about people doing that were mostly BS, but I guess there | are a few of you out there, assuming you didn't make this | account to LARP as a Bernie turned Trump voter. | singleshot_ wrote: | "I think I should have more of my richer neighbors' money | and if I don't get it I'll vote for trump ahaha" isn't | the own that you probably think it is, but this is very | illustrative nevertheless. | dekhn wrote: | [flagged] | mrguyorama wrote: | [flagged] | kodah wrote: | I think there's a good amount of debate in leftist | circles whether Sanders is actually a global leftist or | if he's just an American progressive. The two are | categorically unalike, which would agree with other | comments that any form of Democrat and Republican are | just symbiotes attached to the same thing. | HPsquared wrote: | That's the "insider/outsider" thing. Trump is a rightist | outsider, Bernie a leftist outsider. Both are favoured by | "anti-establishment" types. | asdff wrote: | Trump merely coopted the fig leaf of outsider to sway | voters, since he did get full support of the GOP | establishment unlike Sanders. | pessimizer wrote: | This isn't true under the current terminology, where | Democrats have assigned themselves the title of "the | left" with the enthusiastic agreement of Republicans. And | while that's a new situation, we're also currently | experiencing a vast majority of people who identify as | "left" falling under two categories: _Obama socialists_ , | who were enthusiastic supporters of candidate Obama and | were disappointed in the absolutely traditional run of | his presidency, esp. its second term; and _Clinton | socialists_ , who went along with the catastrophe of the | 2016 Democratic primary because they let themselves be | convinced that while they mostly agreed with Sanders, H. | Clinton was the only one who could defeat Trump (and they | resent the party for this.) | | These aren't intellectual positions at all, they're just | soap opera stuff. If they've picked up anything about | political economy, it was because they were in _left-wing | spaces_ during the rise of the Sanders campaign. As far | as I can tell, all they took away from it is the slur | "tankie," which they think has something to do with | Tienanmen Square and should be screamed at anyone anyone | to the left of Bill Kristol. | Aloha wrote: | Tankies are the people who I'd loosely call | neostalinists, they're seemingly for a Soviet style | violent revolution of the proletariat - they're also the | people who are often reflexively anti-american, and pro- | russia, because america is the force of imperialism. | There are many socialists who are fine with achieving | socialism via electoral means those people are not | tankies - tankies are generally not okay with waiting for | that. | carlosjobim wrote: | Will this "true" left you're talking about criticize | democratic party leaders for their wars with the same | fervor that they criticize republican party leaders? | | When Trump was campaigning for his first presidency | everybody was saying he would start a bunch of wars and | nuke the whole world. When none of that happened he had | to be a traitor since he didn't start any beautiful | patriotic wars. Reality is of no consideration to the | uneducated and educated masses. War is peace, peace is | war. | | I will not be mutilated by mortar in a ditch or send my | children to die in a trench, no matter who is president. | War is a racket, I feel truly sorry for those who suffer | and will suffer for following their "leaders". | mrguyorama wrote: | >When none of that happened he had to be a traitor since | he didn't start any beautiful patriotic wars | | Find me a quote of someone on the left saying Trump was | bad for not starting a war | TeMPOraL wrote: | I bet you if Trump somehow served an extra 1.5 years, | you'd have plenty of such people - the ones that today | love to use the term "acquiesce" to criticize careful | handling of a conflict that could easily spiral into end | of the world with one press of a button. | carlosjobim wrote: | You are misunderstanding. When Trump turned out to not be | a crazed war monger, the narrative changed to that he was | a traitor taking orders from Russia. If you can't find | quotes for that, you are offline. | | I am fully aware that most leftist (which means most of | HN) think that Trump is an insane war monger, even though | he served four years as president without starting any | wars. Like I wrote, reality does not matter at all | anymore to anyone. | FrustratedMonky wrote: | Well, there was an exchange of Missiles with Iran. That | almost went full war, until Iran shot back and they were | like 'Wuuuut, they can do that?'. | | And missiles shot at Syrian air base, where | Russian/Syrian planes were luckily moved just in time, | very conveniently, almost like it was a good PR stunt. | carlosjobim wrote: | Yes, the United States will always be at war. Trump waged | much less war than what is convenient for a US president | and way less than everybody said he would. Compared to | other US presidents he was a man of peace. I know the | power of denial is much stronger than that fact. | FrustratedMonky wrote: | He had press conferences where he openly 'colluded' with | Russia, I can't believe that isn't brought up more. It | was live, recorded video. I saw it on the news, in a live | press conference. Its just that nobody believes what he | is saying, so he gets away with saying anything he wants. | HPsquared wrote: | Diplomacy is collusion now? That's a pretty hawkish | stance. | mrguyorama wrote: | "If any Russians are listening please hack my political | opponent" | | How is that diplomacy? | wk_end wrote: | ...which is particularly egregious in the context of wars | like Vietnam - or even the war in Iraq - which the left | was famously outspoken against compared to most | Democrats. | jasmer wrote: | The missing artifact from the comment is that Republicans | and Democrat Left/Rightism as we understand it is a | modern thing established (edit: I should say | 'consolidated' - because the shift started earlier) under | Reagan. | | The 'Democrats' were very popular in the South in the | 1950's among people who would now refer to themselves as | 'conservative'. (Edit: look at the electoral maps for mid | century US - Democrats/Republicans were not Left/Right) | | Not that Left/Dem are different things today, they are | effectively the same, it's just that policy is | constrained by the other side, which has a dampening | effect on legislation. | hackernoteng wrote: | JFK would be considered a right-wing extremist by todays | democrat party (the political powerful left wing, not the | average voter) | reducesuffering wrote: | Well he did try to invade Cuba | dekhn wrote: | He also put nuclear missles in turkey which were then | used as part of the negotiation to get USSR to dismantle | their Cuban bases so we wouldn't invade. | asdff wrote: | Other way around. He put missiles in Turkey and Italy, | USSR responded by putting missiles in Cuba, then both | parties agreed to deescalate and withdraw. Then of course | a few years later none of this matters because ICBMs | become a thing and the soviets and americans can just | launch over the north pole. | nonethewiser wrote: | And he was critical of the CIA and FBI. | wouldbecouldbe wrote: | I think everyone is confused of what is the left / right. | | Traditionally the left has been associated with social | policies (stemming from socialism/communism vs | capitalism) | | And there always was a part of the left which was anti- | war, and always was a more "totalitarian" version of the | left that felt it was morally justified. | | But in every society the meaning of left and right has | been fluid. | bboygravity wrote: | You're missing the point that | left/right/democrat/republican religions are a divide and | conquer strategy to distract from the realization that | there is no democracy. | dekhn wrote: | Uh, no? Left and right are generalized terms used to | describe political philosophies. Democrat and republican | are terms used to describe political parties- those | parties don't fully overlap with left and right, and in | fact the parties have completely changed their overlap | over time. | | We (Americans) live in a representative democracy (for | choosing public officials) and that democracy gives a | great deal of influence and power to | capitalists/industrialists (the "racket"), which has been | absolutely successful in establishing and maintaining the | existence and wealth of the country. | | If you want to argue there is no democracy, find another | person to argue with; my premise begins with the US being | a representative democracy. | 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: | It _is_ a representative Democracy. I vote directly for | all of my representatives. Anyone arguing it 's not is | moving goalposts or arguing No True Scotsman. | mistermann wrote: | For semantic clarity: are you saying that it ticks the | boxes for being a "representative democracy", but not | extending the meaning of the word representative to | encompass _representative of the will of the | constituents_? | | > Anyone arguing it's not is moving goalposts or arguing | No True Scotsman. | | With this be considered rhetoric? | TeMPOraL wrote: | Looking from outside as a non-American, I feel that | Democrats and Republicans are really first and foremost | sports clubs. Any actual political leanings are mostly | based on what is most likely to keep support of their | existing fans, and secondarily a matter of inertia. | | And nowhere in these splits - neither in | Democrat/Republican, nor in left/right - is there any | notion of actually looking at the problem and trying to | find an actual, effective, efficient solution, that | maximizes the desired impact and minimizes undesired | second-order effects. | kodah wrote: | That is exactly how it works, just none of the | constituents think that's how it works on their team, so | we're in this sort of stasis. The unsolved and repeatedly | retrodden problems are called wedge issues and they're | key to these teams staying in power collectively. | shigawire wrote: | When you ignore domestic politics entirely I can see how | it would look that way. | | But there is a very real difference in policy between | rural Alabama and Chicago. In no small part because of | different parties exercising control in those localities. | all2 wrote: | [flagged] | tinco wrote: | Trump's election proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that | the elections are as fair as they could ever be. Not in a | million years would anyone in any establishment left or | right have wished for Trump to be president in 2016. Yet | it happened anyway. | njarboe wrote: | Maybe you could say that for the 2016 election. Trump | lost in 2020. | bee_rider wrote: | Which just goes to show that the system was robust even | against tampering from the administration (in that case | at least). | bee_rider wrote: | To be specific, it proved that the elections are "fair" | in the sense that they follow the rules as written. They | don't, for example, fairly represent the populace. | HFguy wrote: | Hasn't 2000 Mules been debunked multiple times? It is | basically "election was stolen" nonsense. Why do you | think it is true? | | https://www.texastribune.org/2022/10/07/texas-ken- | paxton-200... | | https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/11/2000-m | ule... | all2 wrote: | I don't know about the debunking. I do know what I saw | with my own eyes; the video shows people stuffing ballots | in boxes all across the country. There's also the weird | phenomena where ballot counting was shut down in four | states simultaneously and then restarted. Suddenly there | was a statistical anomaly of hundreds of thousands of | votes for Biden. And there's other weird stuff that I | honestly should have been keeping track of. | | I don't think the election was fair, I think it was | rigged. And I think it smells so badly that I suspect our | elections have been rigged for a long, long time. | mrguyorama wrote: | "Saw for my own eyes" ... "Video" | | Were those videos in context? Were those videos | accurately described? Why do all the judges across the | country think those claims were a farce? Are they part of | the deep state too? | | There were no "statistical anomalies" during that | election, yet there are a surprising number of people who | have never taken a stats class in their life absolutely | sure there were. | u801e wrote: | > I do know what I saw with my own eyes | | What did you see with your own eyes. Were you a first | hand witness of a ballot box stuffing incident? When and | where did it happen? Did you take a video of it with | sound? | | > video shows people stuffing ballots in boxes all across | the country | | How do you know when those videos were made? Who recorded | those videos? Where was each video taken (which voting | district and when)? | | > where ballot counting was shut down in four states | simultaneously and then restarted | | Which four states? What what was the date and time the | ballot counting stopped? What was the date and time the | ballot counting resumed? | | > And there's other weird stuff that I honestly should | have been keeping track of. | | Like what? Any concrete examples? | | > I don't think the election was fair, I think it was | rigged. | | Yet you're very non-specific about your reasoning and | evidence. Typically, people cite sources that support | their argument, but you did not. | dekhn wrote: | Please, share some reliable evidence that this is the | case. So far, nobody has managed to anything but cast | doubt on a process that seems to be fair and mostly | working. | RajT88 wrote: | Indeed "Leftists" mostly vote Democratic for lack of a | more viable alternative, but many do not consider | themselves Democrats. | | Even really smart and educated people I know are | surprised to discover most voters in the US do not have a | party affiliation. | pessimizer wrote: | There aren't really political parties in the US. In other | countries, people pay membership dues to their political | parties and get membership cards. Here, we just declare | our allegiance to these private organizations on twitter. | RajT88 wrote: | That's not true. | | We poll the hell out of our populace and ask, "What do | you identify as?" That's how we know how people identify. | | > In other countries, people pay membership dues to their | political parties and get membership cards. Here, we just | declare our allegiance to these private organizations on | twitter. | | Some states in the US have state-level party | organizations which you join and receive a card. Not all. | the_only_law wrote: | How does these polls work? What's the selection process? | I've never been asked what I politically identify as, and | I imagine anyone who asks would be disappointed that I | would refuse place myself as something fitting whatever | binary/trinary categories they have in mind. | shigawire wrote: | Generally polling organizations poll a random sample of | Americans via phone calls or online polls. There is a lot | of process to try to guarantee a representative sample. | | I don't think a pollster would be disappointed that you | don't have a party affiliation. In fact some of biggest | emphasis in election season is on independents or | undecided voters. | mrguyorama wrote: | Many states allow you to pick a party affiliation when | you register to vote, and some require a declared | affiliation before you can take part in primaries. | reso wrote: | Hard agree. Democrats pay lip service to anti-war voices | when they are out of power, then often rule as hawks. | | It's not necessarily meaningful to call one party more or | less hawkish than the other. It often comes down to the | leader, era, and coalition behind them. Bush/Cheney were | definitely more aggressive than Gore would have been, but | HRC was positioning herself to be much more hawkish than | Trump ended up ruling as. That's why in the post-2016 era | many infamous hawks like Bill Kristol and David Frum have | been Democrat-aligned. | greedo wrote: | US involvement in the Vietnam war started with Eisenhower, | who last I checked was a Republican... | FrustratedMonky wrote: | Sometimes Democrats get backed into a corner. Like with | Korea, Vietnam. No matter what they do, Republicans call | the Democrats communists/evil/Satan. So when there is a | communist country in the mix, then they better damn well go | to war, or it proves they are stooges of those same | communist countries. Because Democrats can't appear weak on | communists, they might fight them harder than a Republican | would, (see recent history where Republicans are backing | Russia, which is like bizzaro world). | nonethewiser wrote: | What real-world circumstance does this theory explain? | FrustratedMonky wrote: | Korea, Vietnam. If Communist China wasn't involved, we | probably wouldn't be either. It was a policy of | containment. And yes, Democrats went along with it. What | could they do, say "no we're siding with China"? They | would be voted out. | colpabar wrote: | So they don't actually have any principles? | FrustratedMonky wrote: | Why the down votes? Republicans love war, sometimes | Democrats go along with it. It's called compromise. You | mean, why do Democrats sometimes bend their principles in | the face of gun toting Republican's calling for a coup? I | don't know, to thread the needle to keep the peace. When | half the country is ready to re-enact the Civil War, what | is to be done? It isn't like Lincoln didn't compromise | when needed. | sillywalk wrote: | I gotta nitpick :) | | Ignoring the whole background of Korea, it's occupation by | Japan, and split at the end of WW2, the Korean War began | when the North invaded the South. | | For Vietnam, the war ended when the North Vietnam 'won' and | the South collapsed. | nonethewiser wrote: | > The "war on terror" was started by a Republican who | invaded Afghanistan and Iraq and continued for nearly 8 | more years under a Democrat. | | And ended by a Republican | FrustratedMonky wrote: | Is Biden a Republican? What president ended the war for | you? | cpursley wrote: | Trump started the legal process of ending that war, like | him or not. | mcculley wrote: | The Republicans keep saying that Biden improperly | withdrew from Afghanistan. | mc32 wrote: | One committed the country to the withdrawal the other | executed the withdrawal. | nonethewiser wrote: | And Democrats keep pinning it on Trump. | | Regardless, who is there when they withdrew is not the | same as who made the plan and started the withdrawal. The | Doha Agreement was drafted and signed under Trump. Biden | didnt renege on the agreement and executed it. | | We have no idea if he would have drafted such an | agreement but his track record in that regard isnt good. | Obama and Biden increased troops as another commenter | noted. | mrguyorama wrote: | The reality is that there was no path to a good exit from | Afganistan, and we should condemn Bush for starting it, | condemn Obama for doubling down, condemn Trump for not | pulling out earlier, and same for Biden. | mullingitover wrote: | Afghanistan is a wash, nobody gets to take credit for | ending that. Trump entered into the surrender agreement, | but delayed the execution of the agreement past the end | of his term, so if he doesn't take the blame for the | fallout he doesn't get credit for ending it either. | Meanwhile Obama surged troops while he was in office, | sure, but then tried to steeply draw down and was blocked | by republicans[1]. They also blocked his effort to close | the human rights embarrassment at Guantanamo[2]. This is | basically an 'everyone sucks here' situation, at best. | | [1] https://thehill.com/homenews/286787-gop-questions- | obamas-afg... | | [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-defense- | guantanamo/ho... | nonethewiser wrote: | Trump drafted and signed the agreement and Biden executed | it. That's about as fair as you can put it. | | As you noted, Obama and Biden increased troop count | before Trump signed the Doha agreement to end the war. | mjevans wrote: | Trump, denying they lost the election, refused to support | any transfer of power or awareness to the incoming | administration as traditionally happens. This combined | with the agreement taking effect very shortly after the | new term enhanced the scale of the damage, particularly | with the new administration's cabinet bootstrapping | during the same period. | sesuximo wrote: | I think it's fair to say American politics are violent, and | it's not really a partisan thing | all2 wrote: | [flagged] | rad88 wrote: | Blowing up buildings, murdering jews, plotting | assassinations etc. is substantially damaging. It is | "extremist". | all2 wrote: | I'm unfamiliar with these. Sources? | mrguyorama wrote: | Bombing abortion clinics used to be a fun pastime. Go | read a newspaper from the 70s or 80s. | | The FBI has considered right wing extremism a serious | threat to the US since before Ruby Ridge and Waco. The | turner diaries was written before either. | | And the KKK was exactly a militant right wing political | group, with members being politicians, sometimes openly. | watwut wrote: | Majority of violence is done by right wing. It is beyond | cynical to lie so much and try to pin it on the left. The | right is the ones who are the biggest and actual threat | to both freedom and democracy - and actual perpetrators | of murders and terrorist attacks. | | And no, j6 were no tourist not peaceful. They were | literal violent attempt to prevent votes count. | hotpotamus wrote: | It sounds like the left is much more powerful than the | right then given that they can overpower them with no | repercussion. I think it would probably be best to give | into their demands so the right are not further | victimized if this is the case. | mrguyorama wrote: | Ain't it amazing how powerful the left is and yet we | can't even raise the debt ceiling? | jscipione wrote: | [flagged] | sangnoir wrote: | > One of the most disappointing things in American politics | in the last ten to fifteen years has been watching the left | abandon their antiwar fervor | | You might be mixing up anti-imperialism with antiwar | sentiment. In the past, the 2 were typically hand-in-hand due | to the geopolitics of the day, but it is not a given - | depending on the circumstances[0]. | | It's interesting how the American right is also taking up an | anti-war stance, while maintaining pro-imperialist | attitudes[1] | | 0. Cf. The left's attitude towards the Vietnam war vs. the | Apartheid government in South Africa. | | 1. With Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the "peace with | North Korea at all costs" under Trump | nonethewiser wrote: | Its about not wanting to fight other people's wars. | | Republicans are a lot more interested in the militarization | of the pacific and southern border. | KerrAvon wrote: | Like a lot of things, it went off like a light switch when | Obama was elected. It was crushing. I thought it was genuine | anti-Iraq-war sentiment, not merely well-deserved hate for | Bush. But a lot of it turned out to be a cudgel to beat the | other guys. | | COVID is similar; Trump fucked it up because everything he | touches turns to shit, not a surprise. Biden continues to | fuck it up to this day and... crickets from Democrats. | | Thankfully, Biden is doing the right thing, very skillfully, | with Ukraine. I wish he could get it together on domestic | policy. Making his bumblefuck COVID czar his chief of staff | was a incredibly bad decision, though. | lizardking wrote: | The outcome of the conflict will be the only metric that | matters for assessing Biden's performance. If we end up | spending hundreds of billions of dollars and have nothing | to show for it except Russia controlling the territory they | originally intended to seize, it will be difficult to | consider anything we are doing as 'skillful'. Dumping money | and weapons into the proxy war du jour is the default | policy of D.C. | nonethewiser wrote: | Biden shouldnt be judged on the outcome of Ukraine. And | im no fan of Biden. But its just not in his power nor all | of NATO, unless we got in a direct conflict with Russia. | | And sadly, this is more normal than peace when it comes | to Russian border states. | lizardking wrote: | American leadership deserves to be judged if they commit | hundreds of billions of dollars to cause with no benefit | to the American public. A Russian victory that we are | spending huge sums to prevent doesn't bring any benefit | to the American public. | digging wrote: | > Biden continues to fuck it up to this day | | In what way? Don't get me wrong, I think Biden sucks. But | when wearing a mask became an issue of deepest political | ideology before Biden was elected, it's a tough task to | change public opinion when you're a politician. | mrguyorama wrote: | There's something to be said that we literally lost the | war on covid and just kinda pretended that it ended, but | I'm not sure what other option there was. If democrats | pushed to keep fighting covid with gusto, it would not | have been popular and would easily lead to Republicans | running everything in the next decade. | | History books will hopefully acknowledge just how | terribly the entire world handled it. | digging wrote: | Yeah I agree but, like I say, we were defeated by COVID | before Biden was elected, just like we were defeated in | Afghanistan before he was elected. He could have pulled | off something excellent in either case, but that would | have been very difficult and I don't know how he would | have done it. | asdff wrote: | How was this country defeated by covid? What could he | have done otherwise? Hospitals aren't overwhelmed today, | that was the entire concern of the pandemic. | nonethewiser wrote: | Covid is over. It might still be around but we are done | melting down over it. | asdff wrote: | We won the war on covid though, it was always about | hospital capacity. | chasd00 wrote: | > Biden continues to fuck it up to this day | | what is there left to do on COVID? The healthcare system is | not collapsing and lockdowns have ended. Remember, the | lockdowns where there only to prevent the healthcare system | from collapsing. We even have vaccines and a host of other | treatments widely available. If you're expecting total | eradication of an airborne respiratory virus I don't think | you're being realistic. | pstuart wrote: | Obama doubled down on Afghanistan from the get-go -- I | consider that fiasco as much his as his predecessors. | | As an "anti-war leftist", I find myself cheering on the | assistance to Ukraine, as that is the first war in my | memory that seemed worth fighting. | | Still no love for the Military Industrial Complex though... | CalChris wrote: | I'm a _huge_ Obama fan but Afghanistan was his biggest | mistake. In fairness, he got sold a bill of goods by the | Pentagon and with the economy in a shambles, he was | somewhat distracted. The Republicans greeted anything he | did with stubborn resistance with McConnell pledging to | make him a one term President. McCain prevented him from | closing Guantanamo. | | But he was still Commander in Chief. | pstuart wrote: | Yes, he was sold a bill of goods, but in his 8 years | never re-evaluated the situation. | | I'm going to guess that he was wary of the political | attacks over doing so -- if all it took was french | mustard or a tan suit, imagine the outrage of "cutting | and running" | graublau wrote: | [flagged] | digging wrote: | I'm a different anti-war leftist, but IMO it's a lose- | lose. This is more about mitigation than doing what's | good. The MIC wins whether or not we support Ukraine - if | Russia conquered Kyiv, you think the MIC wouldn't be | ramping everything up in preparation for further | invasions of NATO allies? | | It's not like Ukraine is some socialist utopia I want | preserved at all costs. But it's a free nation that's | less fascist than Russia, and it deserves to exist, and | more importantly the Ukrainian people deserve to exist. | If Russia wins, we'll be looking at genocide on a huge | scale (because we're actually currently dealing with | genocide on a "small" scale). So, I'm more anti-genocide | than I am anti-MIC, and I think it's a good thing we're | helping Ukraine fight back against Russia. | glogla wrote: | I would say, they are both complicated. | | Afghanistan shows that trying "nation building" on a | place where they don't actually want any nation doesn't | really work. But it did work for Japan and Germany after | WW2, so maybe it was worth trying. I'm sure the women who | are now forbidden to learn to read liked the Americans | more than they like Taliban, but does that mean extending | the war was worth it? | | As for Iraq, the WMDs were a complete lie and Bush and | Cheney just wanted more war - some say Cheney was the | mind behind and Bush was just idiot, some say Bush wanted | to finish what his father started - but average Iraqi is | now better off than with Saddam. That doesn't help those | who died in the war, of the people who could have has | better lives for the money the war had cost though. | | It was actually Ukraine that changed my opinion on Iraq, | because the arguments "Iraq under Saddam's brutal | dictatorship wasn't that bad, there was no reason to war" | started resonate with "don't help Ukraine, their lives | aren't going that bad under Putin's brutal dictatorship, | tell the to surrender" little too much. Was Iraq | different from Ukraine only because in one the dictator | was status quo and in the other it wasn't? | | Yeah, complicated. | pstuart wrote: | But they emphatically said they weren't nation-building, | and armies are only good for fighting and destroying | things, not building things (with an exception to the | Corp of Engineers). | | There was never a plan, more so, never a formal | declaration of what the hell victory was _supposed to | look like_. | BrotherBisquick wrote: | [flagged] | mrguyorama wrote: | Hell, plenty on the right want Trump as king, with his son | as next in line. I don't think that is broadly popular | Republican policy though, despite their official policy | being "Do whatever Trump wants" | 3192029941 wrote: | > ...or rallying to the defense of the Duchess of Sussex, a | literal princess married to a family of billionaires | | FWIW, nobody I know (either left-leaning or right-learning) | cares about her at all. I'm curious where you're hearing | this from. | | > while kicking poor white workers in the teeth | | How? | | > the latter are suspicious that a man belongs in a woman's | locker room. | | Well, I'm glad that we can all agree that trans men are | okay, then! | mrguyorama wrote: | I'm actually not sure anymore which side of the aisle, if | any, anyone in this conversation joins, but in the US, | both the Democrats and Republicans have spent the last 70 | years selling the average worker down river, whether by | trade agreements that made it profitable to do all | manufacturing in China or decades of successful anti- | union and anti-"socialism" propaganda or banking | deregulation, or letting coal mines poison you while also | letting them write the textbooks that tell you you should | be thankful for being poisoned, to embroiling us in | middle east nonsense, to the war on drugs, to stabbing | important unionized transportation workers in the back | directly (Both parties have an explicit case of this!!!) | | The republicans switched to ideological and religious | stuff mid century, and the democrats seemingly responded | by just.... walking away from the common man? It's weird. | If you want to vote for workers empowerment in the US, | you don't have an option. | vlovich123 wrote: | How do you mean? Seems like the left is still pretty antiwar. | Also, not all war is equal. Otherwise you're in the paradox | of tolerance. It should be a last resort but it necessarily | must remain an option. Unprovoked wars of aggression (US | Iraq) are different from provoked wars (e.g. Germany in | WWII). The other problem is when there's provoked aggression | but the response is disproportionate (9/11 Afghanistan | considering Afghanistan offered to remand Bin Laden into US | custody). There's a lot more nuance in the real world too | (e.g. how should Israel respond to inbound rocket attacks | which are provoked but failure to respond with outsized force | tends to cause attackers to get more emboldened). | nonethewiser wrote: | No one is antiwar. Its a non-sensical position. There are | just people who want de-escalation in a subset of cases. | | Antiwar doesn't really make any sense because you can't end | wars without fighting in wars. Or surrendering but that | proves the "doesnt really make sense" point. It also just | encourages more wars in the future. There can be diplomatic | solutions but you still have to embrace the war until then. | mindslight wrote: | "Anti-war" is a sensible coherent position relative to a | country making war. It only seems ambiguous these days | because Russia is trying to tap into existing anti-war | sentiment against the US (caused by elective wars the US | created), to undermine western support for Ukraine in a | war that Russia created. The actual anti-war position on | Ukraine is "Russia, stop making war in Ukraine" - which | can be expressed by citizens of Russia and anyone else. | Russia however is not stopping (just as the US didn't | stop in Iraq), and so war continues. | psychphysic wrote: | The paradox of tolerance can not be used here. | | It requires fiat control of the situation. | | That control of sovereign entities can only be attained by | threat or actualised violence. | | Putting it another way. | | That you even consider yourself entitled to tolerate a | sovereign nation requires that you believe you are entitled | a degree of control it. | | Anti-war thinking requires not just that you consider war a | last resort. But you consider that you have no option at | all. War is not another just lever. | | If it is then you do not have anti-war beliefs you just are | more adverse to it than some hawks. | vlovich123 wrote: | > That control of sovereign entities can only be attained | by threat or actualised violence. | | Treaties are signed regularly having nothing to do with | any kind of threat of violence. Breaking of treaties | often even has legal redress mechanisms within | international courts of law, all without military | threats. Instead economic sanctions are often the | recourse. | | Re "paradox of tolerance" it's a pretty close analogy so | I'm really not sure what you're going on about. An | absolute anti-war position puts you in the position of | tolerating wars. Thus any group that wants can engage in | violence to acquire more resources. At the limit it can | even overpower you although that's not so important | because your tolerance of the war has a net result in | having caused more war and violence. In military circles | it would be called appeasement* but it's the same basic | philosophy. | | * Interesting side note is that there are some historians | that suggest that Chamberlain's appeasement strategy | wasn't because he thought it would work to pacify Hitler | but because he was desperately trying hard to avoid | Britain getting sucked into a conflict until they were | properly staffed up (Stalin did the same btw). | Additionally the appeasement strategy arguably was | helpful in also pulling America into the European theater | because domestic supporters of Germany couldn't claim | that Hitler's expansion was somehow legitimate given that | every grievance raised by Germany had a legitimate | attempt to redress. | psychphysic wrote: | What are you blathering on about? Intolerance, treaties, | Hitler? | | Your comment is the best example of Godwin's law I've | seen in a while. | | I'll take your sprinting away from the point at hand to | mean you're not interested in the original discussion? | | To tolerate suggests you could not tolerate it. That | requires control. | paulddraper wrote: | Left politicians have never been antiwar. | | Truman, Johnson, Clinton, Obama, etc. | | The only difference between now and the 70s is that the | politicians have more control over the left. | hayst4ck wrote: | The progressives (bernie, AOC, etc.) had very very | disappointing responses to Ukraine that showed they are not | ready to rule. I was particularly devastated by AOC's | response. | rufus_foreman wrote: | >> Truman, Johnson, Clinton, Obama, etc. | | The Carter presidency is in the running for the most | peaceful modern presidency. He did start arming the rebels | in Afghanistan, and ordered what I guess amounts to a brief | invasion of Iran, but overall, pretty peaceful. It's either | him or Trump. | mnky9800n wrote: | What about when the entire left voted for going to Iraq | twenty years ago? (Except Bernie Sanders I believe) | runarberg wrote: | > The dramatic, much-debated vote on Joint Resolution 114 | was taken on Oct. 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote | of 77 to 23, and the House of Representatives by a vote of | 296 to 133. In the end, 156 members of Congress from 36 | states had enough information and personal insight and | wisdom to make the correct decision for our nation and the | world community. | | > Six House Republicans and one Independent joined 126 | Democratic members of the House of Representatives in | voting NAY. In the Senate, 21 Democrats, one Republic, and | one Independent courageously voted their consciences in | 2002 against the War in Iraq. | | https://www.thoughtco.com/2002-iraq-war-vote-3325446 | | Worth mentioning among the NAY votes is Barbara Lee | representative of California's 12th congressional district | (9th during the vote) who has announced she'll be running | to take Dianne Feinstein's (who voted YAY) seat in the 2024 | senate race, and is a favorite among many progressives | (i.e. left wing Democrats). | nonethewiser wrote: | I still don't understand why people think it was the wrong | decision. | runarberg wrote: | I'm sorry for the snark, but Major General Smedley Butler | offers a generic explanation for wars in general in his | 1935 essay _War is a Racket_. | | But for the Iraq war specifically (a part from the | racketeering) why many people think it was the wrong | decision is in large part based on the lies and | deceptions that were used to justify the invasion. | | At the time many people believed those lies and thought | they were justifiable reasons for the invasion. When it | later turned out there were no weapons of mass | destruction, that ties of the Ba'ath party to terrorist | organizations were none, that the USA imposed government | was corrupt and offered little benefits to regular people | over Saddam's dictatorship, etc. etc. When this all | became common knowledge, on top of all the war crimes, | the torture scandals, the massacres, after Chelsea | Manning and Julian Assange went to prison for revealing | some of those war crimes, many of these people who | previously believed the war was justified, changed their | opinion of it. | DirectorKrennic wrote: | "I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow | for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only | that which they defend." _Faramir_ , "The Lord of the Rings: The | Two Towers" | | "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket | fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who | hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. | This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending | the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the | hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is | this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two | electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. | It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of | concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half | million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new | homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is not | a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of | threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron." | _Eisenhower_ | chasd00 wrote: | Schools, homes, power plants etc are pretty meaningless if | they're stolen or destroyed by a foreign power. I understand | there's a balance to be made but spending on national defense | is necessary. The money spent on the deadbolt on my front door | could have bought me lunch but I still bought the deadbolt. | paulddraper wrote: | No one will disagree with that. (Well, I guess there is | Defund the Police...) | | There are, however, plenty of people who say with a straight | face wAr Is GoOd FoR tHe EcOnOmY | globalise83 wrote: | Totally fair, and yet, the incidental fruits of WW2 such as | radar, powerful long-range aircraft, all kinds of advances in | electronics, radio communications, atomic energy etc. led to 60 | years of incredible subsequent technological progress and | economic development that without any question raised enormous | numbers of people out of starvation, abject poverty and misery. | asdff wrote: | A lot of that is from world governments adopting centrally | planned economic and scientific goals. We could do this | whenever. We don't need a war for it. Its just our leaders | favor things like rugged individualism and privatizing what | should be public works instead today, probably because that | leads to outsized benefits to certain connected individuals. | toast0 wrote: | Sure, we could adopt centrally planned goals and the will | to carry them out (the goals are much easier than the | carrying them out), but war, cold or hot seems to be just | about the only means to generate that will. | mrguyorama wrote: | In some sense that's okay. We shouldn't bypass democratic | means easily. It's similar to how democratic societies | have "state of emergency" powers and just as dangerous, | and also why armed pacifism should be a good default for | democratic society. You should not cause war, but if | someone brings war to your door, you have a duty to your | people to protect them and prevent occupation. | | Important in this ideology is that flying a boeing into a | building and killing 3000 people is not bringing war to | your doorstep. | asdff wrote: | The thing that is bad about democracy as we experience it | today, is that while in theory you get an equal choice at | the ballot between different options, the sources of | information you have to rely on to form an opinion to | vote a certain way are not providing information on | options at equivocal levels, or in an unbiased manner. It | begs the question, is this really your vote, or did | someone successfully convince you to vote in their | interests thinking they are your own? Considering the | massive incentives behind the ability to control voting | in a democratic country, it should be expected various | interests are working tirelessly to influence your voting | behavior. It makes you wonder if the end product would be | very different whether we bothered with the performance | of elections or not. Certainly at least people believe | they chose this government having cast the vote, so maybe | that's the benefit of maintaining the system for elites: | not to have the public shape government, but to have the | public believe they have shaped government, and don't | need to try and shape it through other means that might | disrupt the order of things. | DubiousPusher wrote: | I recommend checking out the fantastic, "The Rise and Fall of | American Growth". The book provides very strong evidence that | the era of American growth which produced our modern standard | of living starts in 1870 and actually ends in 1940, though | there was also an era of less important but still strong | growth from 1940-1970. | | Furthermore, this is a bit of a counterfactual as we don't | actually know the trajectory of technology without the war. | Some thing we know for certain though, mass electrification | and public health were well underway before the war and | continued through it. These being probably the two most | important developments that improved productivity and the | quality of life for most people. | asdff wrote: | Its crazy how little this country has really changed since | 1970, when you remove the superficial fluff like iphones or | flat screen tv. Take a neighborhood in socal. It might be | full of dingbat apartments. 50 years ago in 1973 it | probably looked exactly the same since thats when those | apartments where built. Go back another 50 years though, | and you have a former spanish ranchero with cattle, oil | derricks, or fruit orchards depending on what block of | southern californian suburbia you are considering. The | world was growing and changing rapidly then basically | stalled out. much more restrictive zoning separating | degrees of use (e.g. apartment versus a home) versus type | of use (residential vs industrial) came in to replace | redlining in effort to limit movement of the working poor | into certain neighborhoods so as not to affect real estate | valuations, and now we have our world today, full of 50+ | year old apartments and 70+ year old single story "starter" | californian homes going for over $1000 a square foot thanks | to our inability to add more housing to an in demand area. | DubiousPusher wrote: | Yeah. I think that a lot of these changes after 1940 are | much more to do with socio/political factors than growth. | By 1940 you have the GDP to support a middle class. It's | the collective experience of the Great Depression, WWII | and the rheotric of the New Deal that produce a populace | that just wouldn't put up with significant imbalance in | the riches of society. | | People who fought in and justified WWII contrasted it | with WWI. The claim being that WWI was a war fought on | behalf of the old world system. And WWII was a true war | for Democracy. I think it would've been very hard after | that kind of mobilization, sacrifice and rhetoric to re- | instute the Gilded Age ethos of a system which the rules | of the game were sacred about the outcomes. | | In this way American Democracy is born of the FDR era. I | don't mean this in the narrow sense of the size of the | electorate though that is important. At every level, | America's systems Democratized. From the way the Supreme | Court interpreted the law, to the choices of industry in | what to produce, to how the rewards of production were | distributed. There was a broad transition from the notion | that institutions existed to maintain rules towards a | notion that these institutions in their largest sense | needed to serve the people. | | I think a lot of what has happened since 1970 is a | transition back to a way of looking at the world through | the pre-democratic lense. The biggest difference being | that now there is a plurality which is the upper half of | the middle class who have some similar interests to the | wealthy in protecting their wealth. | asdff wrote: | >I think a lot of what has happened since 1970 is a | transition back to a way of looking at the world through | the pre-democratic lense. The biggest difference being | that now there is a plurality which is the upper half of | the middle class who have some similar interests to the | wealthy in protecting their wealth. | | I agree although I believe that the upper middle class | and the capital class still don't actually have similar | interests if you think about things that are actually in | the upper middle class's best interest. In the context of | a propaganda model (1), most people just aren't exposed | to opinions that even align with their true economic | interests. They are often exposed to opinions that | actually kowtow the economic status quo that benefits the | existing elite establishment more than anything. Mass | media has been able to stratify labor: it has divided the | working poor among right and left on cultural | considerations versus unifying it through economic | arguments, and made the white collar class which still | has to sell their labor for wages believe they are no | longer of the working class, and have little need to | organize themselves. Labor as a unified movement has been | divided and effectively conquered. A sad state of | affairs. | | 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model | mrguyorama wrote: | The people who got into power in the 70s basically still | haven't left. Plenty of our politicians were born before | the civil rights act. | asdff wrote: | I think its even more insidious than that. The political | party machine on both the GOP and Dem side control what | candidates are even put in front of us. Populist | antiestablishmentism doesn't get you far because both the | media and the political party itself are working against | you. So you will still see younger politicians who hold | these opinions in positions of power, because these are | the opinions of the elite more than anything | generational, and these are the candidates who receive | the most support and most air time in front of voters. | scrlk wrote: | To add to the Eisenhower quote - I highly recommend watching | his 1961 Farewell Address, where the term "military-industrial | complex" was first used: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU | Animats wrote: | Butler's experience was from the period when the United Fruit | Company more or less ruled Central America.[1] At times U.S | Marines were used to enforce US authority, and Butler was a | leader in some of those operations. That's why he says war is a | racket. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company | beambot wrote: | > [War's] bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed | gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and | homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant | miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and | generations. | | Still as relevant to today's veterans as in 1935. | Animats wrote: | Not really. Wars are mostly money-losers today. They're more | likely to be a power trip for some leader. | joe_the_user wrote: | I'm not understanding your comment. | | Wars have generally been money losers for the nations | involved and money-makers for businesses and individuals | connected to power (Krupps to United Fruit to Wagner Group | to etc). Wars have generally involved the egos of leaders | but these leaders nearly always consider their friends | who'll get rich through it. | throwuwu wrote: | Good thing corporations are no longer deeply involved in and | profiting from war, right? Right? | joe_the_user wrote: | That's certainly not the only reason he says war is a racket. | He provides many examples (WWI notably). | keroro wrote: | What do you think has been happening for the past couple | centuries in the Congo (and various other countries of the | global south)? US imperialism is alive and well and The Jakarta | Method [1] by Vincent Bevins is a damning account of it from | the cold war to present day. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jakarta_Method | asdff wrote: | One need only look at the map of military bases. Its a really | modern way to rule and avoids the issues of old imperialism | while reaping the benefits. You have people thinking they are | self governing themselves, but they are actually on a pretty | tight leash, and should a regime change occur guess what side | the US and all her allies will back with money and arms: the | side that favors letting the US keep their military bases and | preferential trading relationship. Its basically imperialism | through the transitive property. A country like the | Phillipines is still basically a US colony, Japan is still | basically occupied by the US, the northern border of south | Korea is still defended by the US military. There's only been | a few times the US was ever rooted out from a country, like | during the fall of Saigon, or recently when the US abandoned | Bagram airbase. | agumonkey wrote: | And societies never learn. | w10-1 wrote: | He came from generations of influential Quaker's (pacifists) but | defied his father in signing up for the Spanish-American war | before he left school. He lied about his age to be commissioned | as an officer. | | It's no surprise the military didn't meet his idealistic | expectations. | | His awards were probably not legitimate. At the time, his father | was the chair of the House Naval Affairs Committee, overseeing | the budget of the Marines. E.g., one award was for a spy mission | that consisted of taking a train incognito into Mexico. | | His claims in "War is a racket" were designed to elevate his | reputation as a truth-teller and good guy, an unwitting | accomplice. | mrguyorama wrote: | I don't think the world gives the US enough flak for the | Spanish-American war. It was an invented war to steal | territory. No wonder he became cynical. | jasmer wrote: | The people driving the wars generally don't profit from the wars, | and it's generally not true that the war profiteers have that | much influence over spending during war time, rather, they are a | bit like doctors during a plague and have huge pricing leverage | once a war starts. | | There are almost zero wars which are profitable even for the | antagonist. | | 'Making needed weapons during war is exceedingly profitable' - | yes it is, and often nations are in ruin after the fact, which | will lead to profiteering like 'a racket'. And the proceeds will | indeed go to very few. | leobg wrote: | There's also The War Racket by Harry Browne (2004). | wyldberry wrote: | In Marine Corps bootcamp, this man is lionized for his | accomplishments during service. After my service ended I read war | is a racket and it profoundly changed a lot of my viewpoints. | einpoklum wrote: | > I read war is a racket ... After my service ended | | If only we could get US marines to read this before their | service started. :-( | wyldberry wrote: | That would likely require a return to mandatory service. | carpet_wheel wrote: | I'd love to see it. Probably the quickest way to end | imperialism would be to force Americans to do the dirty | work themselves. | all2 wrote: | This has been in my head for awhile. It would give a | "common ground" or "common understanding" that Americans | seem to lack at this point. I would hope something like | this would provide a framework to communicate for wildly | differing political ideas. | einpoklum wrote: | Return to mandatory service is a possible action of the US | (federal) government, I was talking about an oppositionary | initiative. | wyldberry wrote: | I understand where you are coming from, it's just naive | to think that a nation state won't form a counter action | to preserve it's ability to wage war. | milkytron wrote: | Switzerland has a mandatory service requirement for men, | and the people there experience fewer gun deaths per capita | despite having a relatively high gun ownership rate. | jacquesm wrote: | This thread is not about gun control or lack thereof. | RajT88 wrote: | Even ignoring that part - it's weird bringing up War and | Switzerland. | | All those wars Switzerland has fought... | mrguyorama wrote: | That's actually an important point though. The kind of | isolationist neutrality that Switzerland has is only | possible if you can make it seem like conquering you is | impossible to justify. Switzerland will protect its | neutrality by force if necessary. They also have a | military industrial complex, so is that one a racket? | lmm wrote: | Isn't that exactly the point, that it's possible to be | neutral and isolationist? | tmtvl wrote: | Hey, when I was young Swiss mercenaries were considered | truly elite troops. Remember the battle of Nancy. | jollyllama wrote: | It's not going to happen. You couldn't get enough able- | bodied people to show up or communities to enforce it. The | ideals that made this possible for Vietnam will die with | the boomers. | mrguyorama wrote: | After 20 years of blowing things up in a far away desert, | the US military is struggling to find enough volunteers | to meet it's requirements. Nobody wants to go die in the | desert. Maybe if we had spent the past 20 years not doing | that, the US would have a bit more gusto from the | youngins. | | If we go to war with China, and it's not just some minor | skirmish, I expect there to be a draft. | giantrobot wrote: | You mean the Boomers' _parents_. Because those were the | ones that were fine with the draft. The Boomers were the | ones being drafted. | Jotra7 wrote: | [dead] | mikece wrote: | [flagged] | kibwen wrote: | This is likely being downvoted because the US isn't donating | weapons to Ukraine, it's leasing them to Ukraine in the same | manner that the US leased weapons to the UK during WWII. The UK | only finished repaying that debt in 2006. | glogla wrote: | It is being downvoted (hopefully) because it is known Russian | propaganda point. | keonix wrote: | > US isn't donating weapons to Ukraine, it's leasing them | | Could you kindly support your statement with the source? | AFAIK most aid provided to Ukraine is not under lend-lease | but donated to them | mrguyorama wrote: | Most aid takes the form of cash for humanitarian support, | ~disposing of~ donating old hardware to Ukraine, or a loan | for the express intent of buying a modern system. | | The vast majority of the "billions" given to Ukraine is | made up of stuff that we actively are trying to throw away. | bpodgursky wrote: | What you're citing is really all Russian propaganda. | | There's also a lot of financial support to pay for basic | services, which doesn't directly translate into machine guns, | but is vital for Ukraine's war effort. | | But the fact is, there are no missing howitzers or HIMARS. | That's just Russian propaganda meant to dissuade western | support. | mrguyorama wrote: | So not only has Russia destroyed more HIMARS systems than | were sent to Ukraine, but those destroyed systems never made | it to Ukraine in the first place because """corruption""". | | Just a firehose of bullshit. It's insane how easily people | want to buy it. | yakshaving_jgt wrote: | Is it your intention to discourage the free world from arming | Ukraine? Because that's usually the intention of those who push | this narrative. | | I wonder, too, if you would be doing the same thing if you saw | a russian missile flying towards you. | jbm wrote: | If the parent is to be believed, there are intermediaries who | may be robbing Ukraine of 3 bullets for every one they get. | | On the contrary, what benefit would accrue to you for | stopping an investigation of these blood suckers? | mrguyorama wrote: | Seeing as there is no evidence of these "blood suckers", | what are we supposed to investigate? | jbm wrote: | First, I make no claim that the 4x or 20x numbers are | true. Sans an investigation, any such claim should be | viewed with suspicion. However, the claim that financial | irregularities are almost certainly there can't possibly | be controversial. | | If I was forced at gunpoint to point out the obvious, | Ukraine was one of the most corrupt countries in Europe | prior to the war. Unless you are saying that - magically | - the people who were syphoning money and treasure from | the Ukrainian people were all killed or "vanished", the | same appetites for corruption still exist while large | amounts of resources are being poured in. This is | literally the opportunity of a lifetime for | aforementioned bullet-stealing bloodsuckers. | | The US has never been good at tracking money or getting | value for money. Even during the Civil War, Union | capitalists initially looted the Union with broken | weapons and badly made uniforms. Haliburton is a more | recent example of this poopstain on the American economy. | | While the amount of corruption is in question, given the | above two, there is every reason to believe financial | corruption is happening. Those who disingeously pretend | everything is normal are frankly suspicious. | | Honestly, I can't believe I need to make this clear in a | discussion about "War Is A Racket". Then again, a weaker, | poorer America that isn't able to murder brown people for | fun and profit is in my personal benefit, so maybe your | ignorance is beneficial. Yes, please don't investigate; | any such suggestion was clearly made by Russian bots. | mrguyorama wrote: | Can you provide sources for these claims? I haven't seen any | reports that stuff was going "missing" instead of making it to | the front lines. There's a lot of stuff that's been "promised" | that hasn't been delivered yet, but that's not corruption, | that's just certain groups dragging their heels. | mikece wrote: | Written by one of the very few (only?) people to have received | two Medals of Honor. Dude knew a thing or two about war. | Ancapistani wrote: | He claimed also to have been approached to be installed as | dictator of the US. He immediately exposed the plot. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot | Eumenes wrote: | FDR was a borderline dictator, so this is ironic. | pphysch wrote: | Even if he was, he clearly represented the national/public | interest. These guys wanted an entirely different flavor of | dictator. | Eumenes wrote: | yeah no doubt, he was popular, mostly because of great | depression social programs and war ... but he also | expanded executive power and ultimately led us on a path | to the welfare state status we're at today. | mrguyorama wrote: | Calling the modern USA a welfare state is laughable. | pphysch wrote: | It is remarkable that the totally ahistorical narrative | of "FDR ruined the US (economy), Reagan saved it" is | still popular outside of the elite whom it benefits. | Propaganda works. | mrguyorama wrote: | "Welfare queen" stereotypes are still alive and well on | the Right, despite there NEVER BEING A WELFARE QUEEN. It | was a complete fabrication. Maybe they haven't had a | great grip on reality for quite some time, or at least a | willingness to ignore it. | timschmidt wrote: | > led us on a path to the welfare state | | You may be interested in this pamphlet written by | founding father Thomas Paine: | | https://www.ssa.gov/history/tpaine3.html | Eumenes wrote: | I wasn't aware of this paper, thank you for sharing. | Paine is an interesting character and mused on alot of | subjects. Way more utopian in his ideas compared to his | peers at the time. Obsessed with Revolution. Wouldn't say | economics was his strength. | timschmidt wrote: | On the contrary, it seems to me that his reasoning about | taxation - that it is unjust to coerce via force from the | living and thus infinitely preferable to collect from the | dead since they no longer need it, whereas the elderly | and young do - to be unmatched in halls of power to this | day. | Eumenes wrote: | And its not unjust for the state to seize inheritance in | the name of equity? I think there are limits ... I'd like | to give my children my wealth when I pass, but I am a | modest person, not Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. We pay tax | on our income, things we buy, our property, our | investments, etc - now we must fork over what is left to | the state to divvy out? There's a reason only 6 people | attended Paine's funeral - he was advocating for a | Peoples Monarchy. | timschmidt wrote: | Mr. Paine answers all your concerns in his wonderfully | well thought-out pamphlet. If more people read it, the | world would be a better place. Here's the full text: | http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Paine1795.pdf | FrustratedMonky wrote: | You mean, Corporate Welfare. The right often bemoan the | welfare state for people, but love welfare for | corporations. | mullingitover wrote: | > ultimately led us on a path to the welfare state status | we're at today | | That's one way of looking at it. Another way would be: he | made enough basic concessions to the working class to | prevent an outright socialist revolution. We weren't very | far from it at that point in history. | | The welfare state is a safeguard. Every modern state has | social supports, just like every modern road system has | traffic control devices and other safety measures. The | alternative, as we've seen repeatedly, is to allow | unchecked profit motive to grind the masses down to the | point that they start erecting guillotines. | timschmidt wrote: | This is a very important point. | [deleted] | wyldberry wrote: | The real question is: if it's true, what do you think those | who tried learned from it? Did they find a way to achieve | their goal without any outright observable changes from the | public's perspective? | pphysch wrote: | It sure puts the 60s in a new light. | z3c0 wrote: | Yes, mostly through the ideas of Edward Bernays and Ivy | Lee. | mrguyorama wrote: | Nobody went to jail, the united states is primarily run by | business interests since the 80s, and facism is alive and | well in the states. It sounds to me like they got exactly | what they wanted, just had to be patient. | knute wrote: | > the united states is primarily run by business | interests since the 80s | | The 1880s. | mrguyorama wrote: | Arguably the revolution was heavily motivated by business | interests. Arguably. | dragonwriter wrote: | The 1780s. | | And earlier, but then it was _Britain_ being run by | business interests, and the main reason for the US | becoming independent was conflict between local and | remote business interests. (Particularly, North American | interests and regulation serving the East India Company.) | maksimur wrote: | Dictator of the US. That's one of the weirdest things I have | ever heard. But I know once upon a time that word had no | negative connotation. Just like fascism after all. | [deleted] | tonetheman wrote: | Not really Trump was planning the same thing a few years | ago. | | Hopefully the Republicans choose an adult this time who | will not try that again but that is doubtful given the | choices so far. | mrguyorama wrote: | The two front runners are Trump again or wannabe | Theocratic Dictator. There's no hope. | VagueMag wrote: | The movie AMSTERDAM which came out recently touches on the | Business Plot, and themes of sub rosa fascists and Nazis in | the American ruling class more generally. Fairly worth a | watch if you're interested in history viewed through this | sort of parapolitical lens. | swayvil wrote: | But when the bad guys are doing all kinds of bad stuff. When your | good friends in the media are telling you all about all this bad | stuff that the bad guys are doing. When all your friends are hot | to go out and fight these bad guys. What can a right-thinking | person do but join the fight? | joe_the_user wrote: | Style note: I can't tell if you're echoing propaganda or | parodying it. | swayvil wrote: | Stripped of context, it certainly does look suspicious. | phone8675309 wrote: | Tie always goes to the echo side when dealing with propaganda | operatingthetan wrote: | That's why satire tends to be exaggerated to an extreme | degree. | [deleted] | paulddraper wrote: | Parody | EA-3167 wrote: | What do you figure he had to say after 1945? | TremendousJudge wrote: | What would you expect? | swayvil wrote: | I appreciate the brevity but what exactly are you saying? That | WW2 wasn't a racket? Is that your thesis here? | dekhn wrote: | I'd interpret the question as: "given the copious evidence | that the US did not enter WWII intentionally to make money | for industrialists, is Smedley's thesis that _all_ war is a | racket reasonable? To what extent are humanitarian or | democratic concerns as important as war profits in the | decision to go to war? " | | (with the unstated assumption that the US was just in its | choice to fight the Axis) | | I actually don't think Smedley would have changed his message | at all; I think he started from a false premise that he was | 100% convinced of, and would have pointed at the enormous | profits made by war industrialists in the US during WWII. He | might not also notice that post-war US was the most | economically productive country of all time, that it opened | up huge options of African Americans, or even really | recognize quite what motivated Hitler and the Nazis. | lagolinguini wrote: | > given the copious evidence that the US did not enter WWII | intentionally to make money for industrialists | | The USA started selling weapons to the allies long before | it entered the war. | mrguyorama wrote: | The USA sold weapons to the allies largely because the | president genuinely believe hitler would invade | everything if not stopped. Congress wouldn't let him | enter the war, because the US has a strong Isolationist | vibe, but the President believed if we didn't go stop | hitler in europe, hitler would eventually find his way to | coming after the US and by that point we wouldn't have | any allies left. | | This is AFTER the allies attempted appeasement. If a | foreign country wants to war, you can't not war. The only | alternative is to roll over and accept new ownership, but | usually new ownership disagrees with the people on how | things should be done, so that "solution" largely isn't. | | There was a period were Germany seemed unstoppable | remember. | dekhn wrote: | I'm referring to our entry into the war. That the US is | an arms merchant is well understood- and didn't have the | costs (to Americans) that Smedley describes. | lubesGordi wrote: | Just because it's a racket, doesn't mean its unjustified? | mythrwy wrote: | Maybe the US didn't enter WWII with the idea of making a | profit. I don't know. | | But what is undeniable is the US exited WWII in a very good | position and lots of profits were made. | mrguyorama wrote: | What does that matter though? Should we have bombed | ourselves because germany and japan couldn't do it? | swayvil wrote: | So, yes. You are saying "nuh uh smedly, ww2 was a proper | justified fight" | [deleted] | dekhn wrote: | Actually, the only thing I said above was that I think he | started from false premises. | pfdietz wrote: | WW2 was a fight against evils of an absolute and appalling | nature. | krapp wrote: | A lesser evil against a greater evil. And then the lesser | evil became the greater evil. | pfdietz wrote: | The US has death camps? The US was prepared to have 70 | million citizens commit glorious smashed-jewel suicide | rather than surrender? | | Your facile equivalence is rejected with prejudice. | krapp wrote: | >Your facile equivalence is rejected with prejudice. | | It's your facile equivalence, that because these specific | things don't apply to the US, American imperialism was | morally justified. | | You could just read the Wikipedia article on American war | crimes, or learn about how much of the Nazi's ideology | was based on American eugenics and racial segregation, or | take even a glance at the last several decades of | American militarism throughout the Middle East, but I | guess you won't. | mrguyorama wrote: | The US absolutely had a purposeful genocide of native | americans, and directly implemented prison camps and some | property confiscation of japanese immigrants and | citizens. | | This is explicitly not a support of the parent's comment. | The US was not great, and even had explicit segregation, | but was not trying to spread it's own abysmal ideals to | all of europe. Hitler was clearly trying to spread facism | through all of europe, and eventually the world. His | desire to do so was broadly popular in Nazi Germany, so | the country's people were never going to stop him. Going | to war to grind Nazi Germany into the dust was the only | option. It is justified. We also didn't preempt anything. | We sacrificed two sovereign countries hoping to avoid | that war, which should be clearly not acceptable. | micromacrofoot wrote: | "told you so" -- WWII was one of the best things to happen to | the US from an economic standpoint. Before joining the war | effort the US was selling weapons to the allies and making | piles of money doing so. Post WWII the US had the largest | economic boom in history. | pmoriarty wrote: | It was also one of the worst things to happen to Europe, the | Soviet Union, and Japan. | | All of them were completely devastated, while the US was | largely unscathed. | | I really wonder what the world would look like today if | they'd managed to avoid this senseless war and/or the first | World War. | lizardking wrote: | This is one of the main reasons for our economic prosperity | post WW II. You have room for a lot of excess in your | economy when your global competition are all living in | smoldering piles of rubble. | paulddraper wrote: | > WWII was one of the best things to happen to the US from an | economic standpoint | | Sadly, that is true. | | > the US was selling weapons to the allies and making piles | of money doing so | | Indeed. | | War Is a Racket. | bell-cot wrote: | General Rule: If a war is existential, then countries which | want to keep existing usually find ways to turn down the | "racket" aspects. | mythrwy wrote: | I suspect he may have had a preemptive opinion on that even | though he wasn't around any more when it started. | | "WAR is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the | oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It | is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in | which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in | lives." - SB | | We are told a version of things, and maybe that version is even | mostly true, but I'm less sure about this now then I was when I | was a kid in grade school. | lagolinguini wrote: | We are often told that the conflict in WW2 was a conflict | between a clearly good side and a clearly evil side. While | it's true one of the sides was certainly the a much greater | evil, it would be disingenuous to hide the short comings of | the "good" side. The USA was a country that at the time still | practiced segregation, and was the only country to use | nuclear weapons. The British, French and Belgian empires and | their conduct in India and their African colonies was not far | off from what the Germans were accused of. It's not good to | whitewash these facts. | pfdietz wrote: | So, resisting attack isn't allowed unless you're pure as | the driven snow? This is nonsense. | lagolinguini wrote: | The points I am trying to make is that it isn't black and | white as "resisting attack", and that the history that is | taught shouldn't be whitewashed. The Indians fought in | the 2 world wars for the freedoms of others while their | own freedoms were not guaranteed under British | colonialism. 1/6th of all the "British" forces in ww2 | were Indian, while India was suffering British induced | famines due to redirection of supplies and scorched earth | policy of the British in the south east Asian theatre. Do | you think it's fair to them to not acknowledge this fact | and teach it in history? | pfdietz wrote: | We were talking about WW2. It absolutely was black and | white. Trying to deny that is itself a despicable act, in | the same spirit as Holocaust denial. Pointing to other | acts of evil alters that not one whit. | DubiousPusher wrote: | I think it's complicated. I don't think Butler believed that | every single war was unjustified. When reading 'War is a | Racket', you have to look at the context of war in which we | lived. He was too young to fight in the American Civil War. So | his consistent experiences of war were those fought in | America's most blatantly Imperial phase. Even compared to | Vietnam, Iraq, etc, the wars of the turn of the century were | cravenly driven by capital and imperial ambitions. | | And to that matter, some of what brought the U.S. into the | orbit of WWII was a lower key version of the kind of foreign | policies of that earlier era. Disrupting Japanese interests in | Asia was very much about economic benefit and power balance in | the mode of realpolitik. | | And in the end, the Roosevelt administration remains unique in | American history for how hard it pushed against colonialism. | Truman was much more aligned with British interests in this way | than FDR. So while the war is justified in the name of stopping | two monstrous regimes, its precursors and its aftermath do | carry a fair amount of the same taint that Butler thoroughly | observed in his time. | meteor333 wrote: | There are always at least two parties involved in a war, an | aggressor and a defendant. 'War is a Racket' is always true | or war unjustified in case of the aggressor. Defendant | usually doesn't have much choice in it. | | Even the example you've taken for WWII, UK and US weren't the | aggressor. The war already at their door for British, so they | had a little choice in it. Similarly for US they knew, if | they don't do something early enough, they could end up being | a victim or suffer from it eventually. So they had to support | Britain in the war. | Bran_son wrote: | Maybe "We may have been fighting the wrong enemy all along." - | https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/36062/did-gen-p... | thsksbd wrote: | [dead] | DDSDev wrote: | For anyone curious, Smedley Butler died in 1940[1] | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler | jhbadger wrote: | Which was probably good for his reputation. Some people die | at the right time. Had he lived a bit longer he might have | come out against entry into WWII, which would not have aged | well. | buildsjets wrote: | He was an Anti-Fascist, but wanted to prevent a war with | the Fascists. In fact, he was so Anti-Fascist, that the US | Government apologized to Benito Mussolini on his behalf, | and court-martialed him over his Anti-Fascist comments | about Mussolini. | | Source: New York Times. | | https://www.nytimes.com/1931/01/30/archives/united-states- | ap... | allemagne wrote: | Sounds like he won a moral victory over the US Government | and the Fascists, and then the US Government (ever full | of contradictions) later helped depose the actual | Fascists through the war he wanted to avoid. | buildsjets wrote: | Also, record of the apology from the Department of State. | | https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1931v02 | /d6... | deeg wrote: | To anyone just passing through the comments, the Wiki article | on Butler is a worthy read. He was an interesting person. | DicIfTEx wrote: | The YouTube series _Knowing Better_ had a very good episode | about Butler and this essay too: | https://www.yewtu.be/watch?v=74wrX8rKtzw | celtoid wrote: | "I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am | sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I | never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental | faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the | orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the | military service." - Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, 1933 | speech | mkadlec wrote: | Smedly Butler! | major505 wrote: | Smedley Butler, the writer of this book, latter in life claimed | he was sought in a facist conspiracy to lead and overthown | Franklin Roosevelt and assume power. | | He claimed to had stayed in the conspiracy long enough to find | out the identity of the conspirators (owners of big america | monopolies), and denounced their plans to the president. | rektide wrote: | Shout out to @floydnoel for citing this yesterday in the _F-35 | Malpractice_ submission. | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36056584 | | Very apt then, & what a crazy topic! How the government has payed | a ton of money to develop & purchase jets it basically | doesnt/can't own operate or repair. Right to repair/upgrade at | the highest level. A racket! | jmartrican wrote: | I have mixed feelings about this. The problem is that if you are | being attacked, you will gladly allow people to make big profit | if they save lives. You can try to fight the war without profit | but you might not like the results. Ultimately, wars are started | by governments. They cajole the resources of the nation to fight | the enemy. Each country has the things they are good at it and | they will use those things to their advantage. In the US we are a | free market society and happily give out big rewards (aka | profits) to those that can make a difference and build things | that the nation wants. | | So the reason I say I have mixed feelings is because I can | imagine a world where the entities that make profit off of war | can use their influence to prod the nation into war. And this | should be prevented. I suspect this has happened in the past. | VWWHFSfQ wrote: | I'm often very conflicted about USA's history of military use | in the last 100+ years. Imperialistic? I don't know. But what I | do know is that I would rather be a South Korean than a North | Korean. And post-defeat Japan has been one of the preeminent | countries in the entire world. | waffleiron wrote: | South Korea was a brutal dictatorship for quite some time, | just because they aren't now doesn't mean the US's military | intervention is to thank for that. | l3mure wrote: | Multiple brutal dictatorships, which were a direct | continuation of Japanese colonial control, and which | massacred their own people with US support and approval. | | > In the fall of 1946, the US military authorized elections | to an interim legislature for southern Korea, but the | results were clearly fraudulent. Even General Hodge | privately wrote that right-wing "strong-arm" methods had | been used to control the vote. The winners were almost all | rightists, including [Syngman] Rhee supporters, even though | a survey by the American military government that summer | had found that 70 percent of 8,453 southern Koreans polled | said they supported socialism, 7 percent communism, and | only 14 percent capitalism. [...] | | > Chung Koo-Hun, the observant young student of the late | 1940s, said of the villagers' attitude: "The Americans | simply re-employed the pro-Japanese Koreans whom the people | hated." [...] | | > Seventy of the 115 top Korean officials in the Seoul | administration in 1947 had held office during the Japanese | occupation. | | > In the southern city of Taegu, people verged on | starvation. When 10,000 demonstrators rallied on October 1, | 1946, police opened fire, killing many. Vengeful crowds | then seized and killed policeman, and the US military | declared martial law. The violence spread across the | provinces, peasants murdering government officials, | landlords, and especially police, detested as holdovers | from Japanese days. American troops joined the police in | suppressing the uprisings. Together they killed uncounted | hundreds of Koreans. | | > American anthropologist Cornelius Osgood, spending much | of 1947 in a village west of Seoul, watched as police | carried young men off to jail by the truckload. A "mantle | of fear" had fallen over once peaceful valleys, he wrote. | The word "communist," he said, "seemed to mean 'just any | young man of a village.'" On August 7, 1947, the US | military government outlawed the southern communists, the | Korean Worker's Party. Denied a peaceful political route, | more and more leftist militants chose an armed struggle for | power. | | quotes from _The Bridge at No Gun Ri_ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising | VWWHFSfQ wrote: | > just because they aren't now doesn't mean the US's | military intervention is to thank for that. | | The alternative was that the entire peninsula would be | "North Korea". And then there would never be any chance of | formulating a functional democratic society. | waffleiron wrote: | You don't know what the alternative would be. US | intervention and the massive amounts of civilian deaths | caused in Korea are a major reason why North Korea is so | anti-West. | mrguyorama wrote: | There is no good north korea timeline. The entire | revolution that created it was for the express purpose of | putting an idiot dictator in charge, one who immediately | went to work on forcing the population to consider him a | god king and putting his equally selfish, stupid, | paranoid, and vile progeny in charge. | | Unless you believe a unified korea without US | intervention but still with USSR support would suddenly | overthrow that repressive regime, that was never going to | produce a free society. | boeingUH60 wrote: | [flagged] | [deleted] | throwuwu wrote: | Why would they be less authoritarian if they weren't anti | West? This sounds a lot like the argument that the only | reason communist countries terrorize, murder and starve | their own people is because of the evil capitalist in | other countries who aren't doing that to their people. If | only we could execute all of the kulaks together there'd | be no need for the NKVD, comrade! | anticodon wrote: | Without USA there would be no division of Korea. Also, before | US sanctions, North Korea was more successful than South | Korea. | | How people seriously can blame North Korea for poverty if it | is deliberately being suffocated by USA for decades? | threeseed wrote: | North Korea could simply abandon their nuclear weapons | program, stop antagonising their neighbours and then the | sanctions would be lifted. | | Also having actually been to the country the issue isn't | sanctions. It's the lack of foreign investment and | restrictions on business. Many China businesses for example | would love to have broader access to the North Korean | market not just for exports but as a source of cheap | labour. But this is not happening because North Korea is | fearful of their population being 'indoctrinated'. | pastacacioepepe wrote: | > North Korea could simply abandon their nuclear weapons | program, stop antagonising their neighbours and then the | sanctions would be lifted. | | Stop resisting and I'll stop choking you. | zdragnar wrote: | Yes, that is how subduing a belligerent person works. | pastacacioepepe wrote: | A person that wouldn't be belligerent in the first place | if you didn't make it so? | asdff wrote: | Kim Jong Un isn't belligerent. The north koreans have a | different playbook for foreign policy than you might be | used to but its a playbook nonetheless. For their people | the program is akin to something like the Apollo program | in terms of national pride. Its also a dead man's switch | effectively. The ruling family obviously wants to | maintain their life of idyllic luxury and nuclear weapons | and belligerent public addresses are a good way to make | people second guess just steamrolling you over. In effect | they are just playing a hand thats already dealt to | continue their positioning. | threeseed wrote: | More like stop trying to attack your neighbours and I'll | stop choking you. | | And nobody in this world including the US wants North | Korea to continue to be a relic from the 1970s. | Prosperity lifts us all. | pastacacioepepe wrote: | Then lift the sanctions. How are sanctions going to | protect anyone from nuclear attacks anyway, if NK already | has an arsenal? | VWWHFSfQ wrote: | Flood them with Yankee dollars. Fidel Castro would have | been ousted immediately. Kim Jong Il would have been | murdered. | mrguyorama wrote: | North Korea actually already makes millions (at least) of | passable US currency. North Korea isn't impoverished | because of lack of resources, but rather because the Kim | regime would rather spend those resources on themselves. | metadat wrote: | They did it for a 3 year period from 2002-2005. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea%E2%80%93Unite | d_S.... | pfdietz wrote: | Without reservation, I can. | [deleted] | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_imperialism | ThorsBane wrote: | [dead] | threeseed wrote: | Also look at what is happening in Europe and the Ukraine war. | | After the weak and inept leadership shown by France and | Germany in their response to Russia's aggression the hopes | for a EU defense capability is all but finished. Eastern | European countries would rather have the US to defend them | [1]. | | And I think more appreciation needs to be given to the US for | supporting Ukraine in those early days because if Russia | over-ran Kyiv it's quite possible that Belarus, Moldova, | Estonia etc could have been next. US military leadership can | credibly be argued to have saved Europe. | | [1] | https://twitter.com/ulrichspeck/status/1661710156944535554 | jmartrican wrote: | > US military leadership can credibly be argued to have | saved Europe. | | more than once | pphysch wrote: | [flagged] | threeseed wrote: | Because Lukashenko is dying. | | And countries like Poland are seeing a unique opportunity | to fill the power vacuum in order to change the | government to one that isn't interested in being part of | Russia's sphere of influence. | | If Putin was successful in Ukraine it's not inconceivable | he would have rather have invaded rather than risk it | becoming pro-EU, joining NATO etc. | timschmidt wrote: | https://news.yahoo.com/russia-belarus-strategy- | document-2300... | | A leaked internal strategy document from Vladimir Putin's | executive office and obtained by Yahoo News lays out a | detailed plan on how Russia plans to take full control | over neighboring Belarus in the next decade under the | pretext of a merger between the two countries. The | document outlines in granular detail a creeping | annexation by political, economic and military means of | an independent but illiberal European nation by Russia, | which is an active state of war in its bid to conquer | Ukraine through overwhelming force. | | "Russia's goals with regards to Belarus are the same as | with Ukraine," Michael Carpenter, the U.S. ambassador to | the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, | told Yahoo News. "Only in Belarus, it relies on coercion | rather than war. Its end goal is still wholesale | incorporation." | | According to the document, issued in fall 2021, the end | goal is the formation of a so-called Union State of | Russia and Belarus by no later than 2030. Everything | involved in the merger of the two countries has been | considered, including the "harmonization" of Belarusian | laws with those of the Russian Federation; a "coordinated | foreign and defense policy" and "trade and economic | cooperation ... on the basis of the priority" of Russian | interests; and "ensuring the predominant influence of the | Russian Federation in the socio-political, trade- | economic, scientific-educational and cultural-information | spheres." | carlosjobim wrote: | > And post-defeat Japan has been one of the preeminent | countries in the entire world. | | Imagine if they weren't defeated. Because they where one of | the most preeminent countries in the world before defeat as | well. | all2 wrote: | And brutal. As empires go, the Japanese had no regard for | the lives of humans who weren't ethnically Japanese. This | old-world way of doing war saw some 250,000 [0] Chinese | killed for aiding American pilots after their bombings of | targets in Japan. [1] | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhejiang-Jiangxi_campaign | | [1] https://www.historynet.com/jimmy-doolittle-and-the- | tokyo-rai... | micromacrofoot wrote: | It's called the military industrial complex and it happens all | the time. | 0xbadcafebee wrote: | Wars are fought by governments, but often started by | individuals with massive leverage over the war-fighting | apparatus of governments. Industry veterans hired to patronage | positions in high office, who then push the government into a | war that will benefit the industry or company. Or media | companies, headed by executives seeking to push their own | political will on nations, that harangue the public with fear | and anger to instill a desire for war. | | Governments have basically no agency or will of their own. | They're like a mecha suit from an anime. Lots of | infrastructure, but where they go and what they do is up to | whomever's at the controls at the time. | jasmer wrote: | "who then push the government into a war that will benefit | the industry or company." | | Where is the evidence for this ? | | Wars are generally not started by the arms makers, rather, | the profiteer off of the situation. | | Obviously there might be influence but I don't think that | industrial complex is in charge of anything really. | mrburkins wrote: | "Industry veterans hired to patronage positions in high | office, who then push the government into a war that will | benefit the industry or company." | | Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney seem to fit this mold | squarely | isk517 wrote: | Probably more appropriate to compare it to the type of mecha | Power Rangers use, except unlikely to be piloted by a group | of people that both A) want to work together and B) want to | work towards the common good. | hammock wrote: | >The problem is that if you are being attacked, you will gladly | allow people to make big profit if they save lives. | | Reminds me of the covid pandemic. Pfizer made $100 billion last | year | threeseed wrote: | Pfizer was making on average $50b revenue [1] before COVID. | | And the profits they generated by COVID could well save | countless more lives given that their MRNA technology is | successfully being applied to other use cases. | | [1] | https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/PFE/pfizer/revenue | nonethewiser wrote: | Thats a massive difference in absolute and relative terms. | $50B and 100% | pfdietz wrote: | COVID vaccines are estimated to have saved 20 M lives world | wide. In the US, the statistical value of a human life is | $9 M, so (extending that to the global population, which is | perhaps problematic) the value is $180 T. Making a measly | $50 B is chump change in comparison. | bratwurst3000 wrote: | Where did that 9 million come from? Pls | all2 wrote: | The value is something the US Transportation Admin. has | calculated [0]. It's rather cold-blooded, but it makes | sense. | | [0] https://www.transportation.gov/office- | policy/transportation-... | H8crilA wrote: | It seems a bit excessive, but if you assume someone | working from 25 to 65, that is 40 years, at $50k per year | then they're "worth" >= $2M to the economy. Really more | than that because they will do some things for free to | other people, such as family members. So it is probably | at the right order of magnitude. | goodpoint wrote: | By your logic there would be nothing wrong in charging | $100 or more for an insulin injection. | | Instead https://worldpopulationreview.com/country- | rankings/cost-of-i... | pfdietz wrote: | The problem with insulin, at least in the US, has been | elaborations (still under patent protection) on it that | are slightly better than the old versions. But doctors | have to prescribe the best treatment. There's no | quality/cost tradeoff. | VagueMag wrote: | Are the people who were saved by COVID vaccines never | going to die from any other cause? I believe the $9M | figure is actually just a reference to what the FAA | considers a reasonable threshold for imposing a new | expense on aircraft manufacturers and airlines in order | to make flying safer? | pfdietz wrote: | So, saving a life has no value unless the person was | already otherwise immortal? | | Ridiculous. | VagueMag wrote: | No that isn't what I said, and yes it would be just as | ridiculous as attributing the same value to preventing a | 90 year old nursing home patient from dying of an endemic | respiratory virus as we do to preventing deaths in plane | crashes. | pfdietz wrote: | That's going to alter the number by less than an order of | magnitude. The benefit still is massively larger than the | cost. | hammock wrote: | Typically the way it is done is by calculating how many | years of healthy life you saved | bee_rider wrote: | Which would, of course, bring the "money saved by | vaccines" number down a bit. | | On the other hand, if we were able to factor in the | benefit of milder cases and less long COVID/other side | effects, I guess the number would go up a bit. | | I suspect it is just too complicated for us to work out | here. | mrguyorama wrote: | The agreement was $20 a vaccine, which IMO is perfectly fine. | Making a profit from doing a necessary thing is very | capitalism. Remember that shareholders were very upset they | didn't make MORE profit. | ipaddr wrote: | Canada paid $175 per dose. | | https://www.oxfam.ca/news/vaccine-monopolies-make-cost-of- | va... | mrguyorama wrote: | That's likely the price executives and shareholders would | have wanted for the US. I wonder what leverage Trump held | over Pfizer to get the $20 price. It's a genuine | negotiating win from someone who considers just not | paying your contractors to be good business and | negotiating. | hammock wrote: | Pfizer also got billions of dollars in free and taxpayer- | funded advertising | glogla wrote: | They also saved millions of lives. | ipaddr wrote: | [flagged] | pastacacioepepe wrote: | And caused many unnecessary deaths by witholding the | vaccine from less rich countries that couldn't outcompete | richer ones, since the supply was very limited in the | moments of most need. | | If they really wanted to save lives they should have | liberalized the vaccine's production, but all they cared | for was profit, the life saving just a coincidence. | glogla wrote: | Eh, it's not like you people would share SinoVac, even if | it worked properly. | einpoklum wrote: | [flagged] | 3192029941 wrote: | I'm genuinely asking--what's the alternative to appeasement | in this situation, aside from fighting? | einpoklum wrote: | I can't believe I have to explain that joke, but ok. There | is no "appease or defend" choice - neither of these | alternatives are real. The US is not being attacked at all, | or attacked in the way the empire in Star Wars is attacked: | While it attacks/oppresses everywhere and all the time, | occasionally it meets violent resistance. | 3192029941 wrote: | Sorry if I'm being thick here, but I'm still confused. | Why is neither alternative real? I get that the US isn't | being attacked. However, appeasement in the 1930s wasn't | a policy enacted by countries that were being actively | attacked yet. It was a policy enacted by other countries. | | I guess, in my head (and I'd love to hear your take on | this), the US doing nothing _is_ appeasement. | steviedotboston wrote: | [flagged] | [deleted] | Lammy wrote: | I agree with Butler's point but think he's missing the forest for | the trees by focusing on territory acquisition and profits from | production of war materials. The real point of war is that it's a | way to farm us (the masses) for rapid development of promising | _new_ technologies, e.g. -- | | -- US Civil war: Rifles, telegraph, railroads | | -- World War 1: Optics, radio communication, aviation, tracked | vehicles | | -- World War 2: Computers, cryptography, atomic energy, radar and | microwave communication, global logistics (fuels, | containerization, etc) | | -- Cold War: SPAAAAACE | nipponese wrote: | This has to be the most re-posted piece on HN | | https://hn.algolia.com/?q=War+Is+a+Racket ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-05-25 23:00 UTC)