Hacker News Reader

Comment by flyinglizard | Hacker News Reader

There is nothing special about 2019 though. For Americans, the US war machine was always something vague and remote that sucks in money and spits out veterans who need to be taken of.

However for many of those who live outside of USA, overseas where the US military operates, we understand that power vacuums are very potent and if not for US, some other country will fill the void, with soft or hard power. It’s not just China and Russia; its also Turkey and Iran, for example.

We don’t have much for a frame of reference, but I’ll tell you that the this era of Pax Americana, spanning WWII until today, has been, more or less, heavenly. Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere, and under the US military umbrella and peace keeping, many nations were able to divert resources into developing their societies, not worried that they’ll be plundered by some aspiring empire.

View on HN

Heavenly is a large simplification. It has been heavenly for America and American companies and somewhat less terrible than other alternatives for its allies. Yes, the NATO has been very convenient for Europe. At the same time, it has meant being economically and politically subjected to the US will. For other less developed countries it has meant, sometimes, existence as de facto American puppet states. For countries which happened to be of strategic importance to the US or in disagreement with its model, it has meant downright destruction, war and catastrophes. Any time you call the US imperialism "heavenly", remember how it has begun, with two atomic bombs being thrown on two cities. Remember all the needless and actually lost wars the US have involved themselves and the world in. Remember the political meddling with local political affairs that the US has practised (the disaster that South America has been; plans like GLADIO and similia in Europe).

I much prefer democracy to autocracy. I also see the convenience of NATO. But sorry, I refuse to call American imperialism heavenly. It has been bloody, violent and with very little care for actual democracy and self-determination of nations.

Sorry, but the use of atomic bombs here is a red herring; there have been just as many casualties in the fire bombing of Tokyo, and many more casualties in conventional bombing of cities in Europe. Such is the nature of an all-out war, and the atomic bombs prevented an all-out incursion into Japan which would have turned them into rubble.

Calling the last 70 years "bloody and violent" is the definition of the lack of historical reference I've been talking about in my previous post. In any historical comparison, it's been a period of unprecedented peace, quiet and prosperity; that aside, most of the conflicts of the post WWII 20th century have been supported encouraged by USSR on the other side. It's not just USA unilaterally attacking sovereign nations.

> "this era of Pax Americana, spanning WWII until today, has been, more or less, heavenly. Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere"

No, not for those of us in Latin America where US-propped brutal dictatorships -- trained in the School of the Americas -- have left scars which have not yet healed. It was a Cold War playground for the US, and little to do with democracy (though free trade, which does not require democracy at all, was of course involved).

Not for those in Vietnam who got to "enjoy" the lasting effects of Agent Orange.

And not in many other parts of the world, either.

You conveniently forgot to mention that the "Cold War playground" was between USA and USSR, it wasn't USA's alone.

No, I didn't forget. What else would the "Cold War" be about? In any case, the US wasn't interested in democracy, and in some cases even suppressed it (they certainly worked to suppress elections whenever they thought they would go against improved relations with the US, regardless of what the nationals of the country they messed with wanted). The US was only interested in fighting the Reds, protecting their interests and that "free" trade flowed with the US.

In any case, you're moving the goalposts. "But the USSR...!" isn't a good refutation of "the US wasn't about bringing heavenly freedom and democracy to the world".

Students detained, tortured and disappeared by dictatorships trained and abetted by the US. Pregnant mothers raped, electrocuted, and their babies illegally relocated to strangers. Democratically elected governments taken down by force. In some case, even US citizens caught in the crossfire and murdered. "But the USSR...!". Right, I guess nobody told them it was for their own good!

We only need to look at North Korea, Eastern Germany and Cuba to understand what the USA was fighting against when it intervened in South Korea, South American nations or in Vietnam.

I'm sure you understand this would have been highly theoretical to the students and pregnant mothers tortured, murdered and disappeared by US-sponsored dictatorships. For their own good.

"Fighting against Communism" is not a good reason to torture and murder civilians, or to topple elected governments.

... US supported dictatorships that displaced or prevented other, potentially more harmful dictatorships. Tough choices, but better have corrupt and murderous regimes that are friendly towards USA and allies than those that are hostile. See Egypt as a recent example.

> Tough choices, but better have corrupt and murderous regimes that are friendly towards USA

No. When you or your loved ones are tortured and murdered, it's not better if done in the name of the interests of the US.

There's nothing magical about the US that torture in the name of their interests is somehow "better", and I'm sorry -- and horrified -- that you think there is.

The US also attempted to prevent the collapse and ruin of Venezuela. It was correct to oppose Hugo Chavez. This is now entirely ignored historical fact. The Chavez system destroyed Venezuela and turned it into a failed state. It's an outcome the US attempted to prevent.

Meanwhile, the US backed Colombia is doing fine, is democratic, has seen considerable improvements in most regards, and has doubled the size of its economy in ~15 years (inflation adjusted). Colombia looks like it has a very bright future.

The US also maintains near-guaranteed border security for Latin American nations. It's why there are no giant wars between Latin American nations, with rampant annexations, et al. They all know the US would intervene and whichever side the US was on, that side would likely win, so nobody wants to risk it. The US has also guaranteed the lack of foreign power conquering via the Monroe Doctrine, for more than a century, which is a rather sensitive concern given the history of Latin America.

The US has been a superpower for ~75 years now and has not attempted to use that extreme power imbalance to annex swaths of Latin America. It easily could do so. What other superpowers throughout history have ever behaved that way?

> It was correct to oppose Hugo Chavez

Only for Venezuelans. It was none of the US business.

> Meanwhile, the US backed Colombia is doing fine

For debatable values of "doing fine".

> The US also maintains near-guaranteed border security for Latin American nations

Not really.

> The US has been a superpower for ~75 years now and has not attempted to use that extreme power imbalance to annex swaths of Latin America.

It hasn't used overt military power (except in limited cases, like their own CIA-backed agents going rogue on them). It has meddled in Latin America democracies to often terrible results. In many cases, it has abetted bloodshed.

"It was none of the US business." When China and Russia are propping up a hostile regime, it's a threat to US interests in the region. The US has made it its business to fight refugees and drugs, what happens in Venezuela impacts its Business.

"For debatable values of "doing fine"." It's doing better politically, and economically than most countries in Latin America. Almost any value that you evaluate it by, its doing fine compared to most countries in the Americas.

> Free trade and democracy have been sprouting everywhere,

Well, sort of. Depends on whether or not you elect a government that the CIA approves of.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3...

The broader issue is that, while most would consider the alternative power vacuum bad, American imperialism and projection is obviously not the optimal way to organize global society.

The UN is wholly inept and incapable with a security council that overrules decisions and is composed of both democracies and dictatorships, but in theory you would want to have organizations akin to it that could maintain nation state power balance and avoid the propagation of further empire or subjugation between states. Having this one nation beholden largely not even to its people but to its richest dictate global morals and ethics between societies is an oppression of its own, even if the alternative is recognizably worse in the current state of affairs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com