Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacktribe | Hacker News Reader

When the day comes when US tanks cross over into Canada to annex it under a false pretext, running over passenger vehicles; when the US tells its soldiers they are going on a military exercise only to have them shoot at their neighbor; when the US tells the world "if you get involved we'll nuke you"; when the US jails its anti-war protestors for as much as carrying a sign... then perhaps your comparison will be valid. Until then you're just deflecting.

View on HN

When you already mentioned false pretexes - how's going on with finding WMD in Iraq? Any seccess yet?

Is shooting at neighbor worse than shooting at people half over the world (or they don't count because of wrong skin color)?

WMDs or not, Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not in any way resemble Canada or Ukraine.

The problem with this kind of whatabboutism is that the US invades places run by morally reprehensible people. To keep the comparison with Ukraine going, you've either got to convince us that Saddam Hussein was a nice guy, or Zelenskyy is a butcher. Everyone knows that's bullshit.

Just because a place doesn't resemble Canada or Ukraine or people who look and act like your version of civilized society doesn't give the US a right to wage war resulting in large numbers of civilians being displaced or killed.

What's happening in Ukraine is reprehensible - but the result of US policy blunders in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, numerous South American countries and the like has been more damaging for the world we live in IMO.

While this isn't an apples to apples comparison, maybe you've got to convince us that the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc. are better off after US involvement. From my perspective, the answer is an obvious 'no'. Even under Saddam Hussein (who was a dictator and evil person - I'm in agreement there) the people of Iraq, who lived under some repression in their daily lives, were better off than before the US invasion.

Afghanistan (by supporting Bin Laden and his organization) attacked the US first. Kick sleeping dogs, get bit.

In Iraq, about a third of the population (the Kurds) are unequivocally better off. About a third (he Shias) are arguable. The Sunnis, no, but they were the ones beating up the others. The final history hasn't been written yet (and it could get worse, no question). Still, the story is incompetence rather than malevolence. Marching in and killing Hussein is easily defensible on moral grounds. The chaos after is not.

Blunders in Latin America have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Mostly they involved supporting one side or another in an existing civil war. The worst excesses predate WW2.

Nobody claims that the US has an angelic past, but comparison to Putin's Russia is not apt.

I wrote a long response to this but I don't think it's worth debating these points further as we probably see and experience the world differently.

> The problem with this kind of whatabboutism is that the US invades places run by morally reprehensible people.

So a Mexican invasion when Trump was President would have been okay? Only if rest of the World knew...

That happened only in your wild imagination. Despite Trump, the US and Mexico enjoy exceptionally good relations, second only to our neighbor to the north.

I see.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the only thing that matters at all is power. Sadly, the USA is responsible for establishing this paradigm, although pointing this out is taboo whataboutism. Now, we're returning to a world as it's always been: apes compelling other apes with their sticks.

Could you clarify ‘paradigm’ in context?

sure, I mean the paradigm of using military force, and more generally disregarding international law to achieve geopolitical goals

The morality of any military action, can and has been endlessly debated (as it should) because it's non-binary, it's a spectrum. That does not change the fact that these two superpowers could not be further apart in how they go about spreading their influence around the world.

Through oversimplification you can argue that anything is the same as its opposite.

There is a reason that when given a choice, nearly all European countries chose NATO over Russia.

We don't have to build a wall to keep our people in. Or our allies for that matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com