Hacker News Reader

I haven't kept the situational awareness bubble on the whys of today's wars, but generally it is or is supposed to be a case of 1. We need to beat up A to protect B or 2. we are eventually going to fight so lets do it in their yard and not mess up ours.

These are generally morally good reasons to spend blood and treasure

View on HN

But the counterpoint is that it's too easy to fall into a 'We MUST intervene to protect democracy/progress/freedom/whatever' if the only political cost is money (which is fairly easy to find for the military), as opposed to blood. Would the Vietnam withdrawal have happened if young Americans weren't dying? It's far too easy to grandstand politically at home while causing immense suffering to foreign populations if there's no blood on the line.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com