Hacker News Reader

Showing up late to world wars is a very American thing and this mindset would help ensure there’s a third world war to show up late to.

America can't solve all the world's problems.

I mean, obviously.

"America can't solve any of the world's problems" isn't the only possible logical conclusion from that fact, though.

But it needs to solve some of them.

Because free and open democracies are not the default way countries govern themselves.

And megalomaniacs like Putin who desire for a return to glory days do need someone of equal weight to push back.

How has that worked out so far? A legacy of ashes as the CIA book goes. US foreign intervetionist policy of the last 20 years has been nothing but one colossal disaster after another.

As top of the heap, America has the most to lose in almost any global reconfig

Yes!!! As a wealthy progressive who votes blue no matter who I too support the military industrial complex and think not being russia should be the only requirement to join NATO.

> let the world duke it out.

Such as "let Russia squash Ukraine"?

Yes. They were not an ally until after the war started. You don't get to say "nah we don't need you" and then rely on billions of dollars after the fact, and then join the pact and reap the official benefits once the going gets bad.

That is some serious retconning. The war started in 2014 because they violently rejected Russia as an ally and became a Western one.

That revolution was tainted by outside interests influencing the outcome --one of the influencers was Russia, but there also was another one -one which eventually tried to smooth things over with an "overload". Kind of like when China or USSR piss in LatAm, we kind of get irked.

Maybe you forgot the little detail where Ukraine gave up 1700 nuclear bombs on a promise from Russia and the United States that they have nothing to worry about. Russia wiped their ass with that promise, should we do the same?

Bad move on Ukraine's part, bad move on our part. Yes. Unpopular opinion on this site, but I don't care.

What are the second and third level ramifications of ignoring that promise on our part?

If the current world order is reconfigured, America has the most to lose.

I know that no world order is forever, the US has a vested interest in the stability of the current world order and keep it as long as possible.

" It's time we stop the war machine --both parties are in on it. It won't stop violence, but it'll be on their terms and if they want to destroy themselves, why should we get in their way?" What happens when you tell people this and suggest we stop sending arms and munitions to Ukraine?

> We don't need to be the world's "daddy"

The USA doesn't need to, but it is locked into treaties requiring it to defend 1/3 of the world's people.

> ... why should we get in their way?

For the same reason as always - because it's in America's interest to get in the way.

Why do we always have to bear the cost (human, psychological and monetary). I'm done. Let them figure things out for themselves.

Because America recognizes the benefit in addition to bearing the cost.

Like the federal debt, we always look at only half the balance sheet to maximize sensationalism.

[edit] with this type of geopolitical posturing especially, it's very difficult to calculate the benefits of everything that didn't happen as a result of your intervention, so it's especially easy to ignore. Just like investing in unit testing. How many incidents didn't happen because of the tests you wrote - and how much did that save the company? The set is probably uncountable, but we do generally accept that it's greater than zero.

Okay but you can make the same argument in reverse that the potential uncountable benefits aren't likely to be great enough for it to be acceptable to you. And many of us have come to that conclusion.

why and how did you come to that conclusion? What are your rationales?

I have a hard time understanding that point of view, so your insights would be helpful

Because we have the capacity and values to do so. In the end, doing nothing now will cost more in the long run.

If America wants to be great again, it will do so through leadership, not through self-centered isolationism. Should a gap be created, the likes of Russia and China will fill it. Is that the world leadership you want?

I'm not convinced that invading Iraq and Afghanistan was in America's best interest.

Certainly not every intervention was a great idea, no, but that doesn't mean the right thing to do is never intervene. I'd argue the right thing to do is learn from that and not do that again.

So what interventions after WW2 do you support? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni... The intervention in the Korean war? The intervention in the Vietnam war? Intervening in the Laotian Civil War? The Permesta Rebellion? Lebanon crisis? Bay of Pigs? Invading Panama? Invading Grenada?

It provides the US military with invaluable combat experience and allows it to test/improve its strategies, equipment, and intelligence capabilities.

(Of course, fighting wars so one can remain combat-ready is the very definition of treating other people as means to an end rather than as ends in themselves, and so very much offends against the moral sensibility. But the question here is about self-interest.)

It was in the MIC and security states' best interests, made popular by taking advantage of a tragedy and wielding propaganda. Honestly, GG to the people running the show at the time. It was a very clever play. Have to give credit where credit's due. We willingly surrendered so many rights.

We literally have all of history as an example of how bad Afghanistan invasions go for the invader. One prime example being the Soviet Union utterly failing just ~two decades prior.

We even have speeches by Cheney from just a few years prior about how much of a horrible quagmire an occupation of Iraq would be.

>Have to give credit where credit's due.

The only credit due is that which the Hague would give.

As I've aged I've transformed from a Ron Paul libertarian to more of a "Strong America" moderate liberal.

It's very seductive to believe that the world is a nice place and none of its issues will ever show up at our doorstep if we just leave the rest of the world alone. But sadly the world will always have strong powers and they will set the rules. I'd rather be on the winning team. If someone is going to be the world police/power-broker I want it to be us.

That's not to say we are perfect or don't need to improve. The US is deeply flawed and has caused a lot of trouble over the last century. But I'd rather be in the position we're in now vs having Russia or China be the power-broker with an even greater list of failures and abuses.