Hacker News Reader

Comment by dbcurtis | Hacker News Reader

That argument is a lot harder to sell since the Korea and Viet Nam wars. Not that I disagree with you. China does need to be reigned in, and we should have started years ago. But the leadership of the USA was mostly of draftable age during the Viet Nam war, or, like me, did their grade school homework in front of the TV news with Walter Cronkite reading the daily body count.

View on HN

Nobody in their right mind is arguing for a land based invasion of China, so this argument is completely moving the goal posts. It's not either-or, there are many ways to pressure a nation without military intervention.

True, but this is the ancient rhetoric almost word-for-word. The words are triggering for those of certain generations.

> China does need to be rei[]ned in, and we should have started years ago.

Why? What would the benefit be? What would the benefit have been?

Perhaps avoiding Millions be put in camps and used as cheap source of organ harvesting.

This is a weak argument: Should USA be reigned in as well to avoid millions be put in prisons and used a cheap source of labor?

Wow, comparing punishing people that Commit crimes to wholesale genocide and organ harvesting.

Yes.

Sounds good to me.

Sure

Claims literally spread by the Falun Gong cult, Adrian Zenz, and NED-funded groups citing both.

Claims confirmed by western journalists as well.

But the same generation was in power when we launched our twenty-year War on Terror, and the comparisons to Vietnam that started popping up a decade and a half ago didn't manifest in any sort of wariness to move forward and keep moving forward with our attempted "regime change." If anything, it's that which has changed our willingness to step forward militarily. The conclusion is that we spent our war capital on frivolous quagmires when real threats were looming but not being taken seriously.

See also: cointel on BLM while white supremacists plan and execute with freely. Team America: World Police reflecting our actual police.

The war on terror was not about containing communism. It could not be labeled and dismissed as “anti-communist hysteria”

It was about extending capitalism (well, democracy morally and structurally enabling capitalistic integration of ME into the global market), and also an extension of Cold War jockeying, which was anti-communist (and arguably hysteria).

It was anti-Islamist hysteria. What's the difference?

The difference is which generation the rhetoric triggers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com