What a moment for America. How many countries would push $10 million worth of aircraft (1970s money) to save civilians?
The worst-case scenario would be not pushing the aircraft off, the Cessna attempts a landing anyway, collides, and sets the entire carrier deck ablaze. Hundreds dead and the carrier potentially lost.
From the bridge Chambers quickly consulted task force commander Adm. William Harris, who was at his battle station below deck.
“The admiral ordered me to tell the Bird Dog to ditch,” Chambers later recalled. [...]
Assuming he would be court martialed, Chambers ordered those helicopters thrown overboard as well. He later told interviewers that since he expected to be deposed by prosecutors, he turned away from the action to avoid seeing exactly how many were pushed into the sea. [...]
Chambers kept his job as the aircraft carrier’s captain and was later promoted to rear admiral; he retired in 1984. Nobody was prosecuted for the estimated $10 million loss of the helicopters that Chambers ordered overboard.
When the US disengaged in 1973, it left most of the military equipment and gave it to South Vietnam.
So most of the helicopters and such that fled to the US fleet were South Vietnamese aircraft, not US aircraft.
So I assume the US has pretty much written them off before that.
Saving civilians is incumbent on you in war whenever possible. Not like North Vietnam is going to start doing some strafing runs on your fleet either for an excuse.
The U-boats would presumably have continued to rescue enemy military and civilian survivors throughout the war, if it hadn't been for the war crimes of the USAF which bombed the rescuers.
I know anti-American sentiment is very trendy on HN, but I found this interesting:
Sirius Satellite Radio runs 1970's episodes of American Top 40 with Casey Casem on Sundays. A few weeks ago I was surprised to hear a spoken-word piece called "Americans" by a Canadian named Byron MacGregor was a top-40 hit. Here's a sample of the lyrics:
When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age
It was the Americans who rebuilt them
When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke
Nobody loaned them an old caboose
Both are still broke
I can name you five thousand times
When the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble
Can you name me even one time
When someone else raced to the Americans in trouble?
I don't think there was outside help
Even during the San Francisco earthquake
I'd like to just see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States Dollar build its own airplanes
Come on, let's hear it
Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing jumbo jet
The Lockheed Tri-star or the Douglas-10?
If so, why don't they fly them?”
I found this so-called song hosted on the “Vietnam War Song Project” YT account. Yeah, why were people against the Vietnam War? When America had planes? Ridiculous priorities.
Guess somebody hasn't heard of Airbus. Or, these days, Embraer. If other countries didn't have competitive aircraft the US wouldn't feel the need for tariffs.
This was written and published before Airbus' first plane was in the air, and decades before Embraer had a large passenger jet.
It also specifically states "jumbo jet." Does Embraer even have a jumbo today? The largest one listed on Wikipedia is 124 passengers, and that only came out in 2004.
So that was 1973, in between the first test flight and entry into service of the A300. I might argue that one reason Americans get a lot of stick from the rest of the world is exactly this kind of "America number one" stuff.
This was not about the Vietnam war. Nor was it written by an American.
Do you understand the concept of associations?
> Nor was it written by an American.
And who said it was?
The author, himself, said it was not about the Vietnam War. You can wish as hard as you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
I hate to break it to you, but America and the rest of the world had been through a lot more than just the Vietnam War. You just insist on making that association, even though the lyrics explicitly talk about other crises.
But authorial intent can definitely be pinned on juxtaposing whatever “war mongering” with apparently making great planes. I don’t know what kind of harebrained idea that was.
> I hate to break it to you, but America and the rest of the world had been through a lot more than just the Vietnam War.
You hate to break it to me? That’s a bizarre statement. I’m not jilted by anyone over that war.
And the Vietnam War, again, was happening when the commentary was released and when the spoken-word song was released. Obvious associations.
Did Springsteen mean rah-rah America with his Born in the USA? No but it was still used for that purpose by some people.
- "The World" has jumped in to help Americans often. It's just that USA, due to their advantageous geographical position, never being bombed to bits, and having economic and military absolute supremacy, hasn't often been in a position of need where other countries can help out significantly.
- An example of where the world has helped significantly: Post 9/11 wars
- A recent example of when the world has helped: Californian wild fires
- And separately from that, of those "five thousand times" where the USA has helped other people in trouble, I guarantee a lot of those actually had considerable benefits for USA, meaning it wasn't a charity thing but the USA got something they wanted out of it, as well. Which is fine but let's not kid ourselves about those motives.
Just opening Wikipedia on the San Francisco earthquake, under the heading "Relief" it gives some indication of the international support given:
> During the first few days after news of the disaster reached the rest of the world, relief efforts reached over $5,000,000, equivalent to $169,560,000 in 2023. London raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. Individual citizens and businesses donated large sums of money for the relief effort: Standard Oil and Andrew Carnegie each gave $100,000; the Dominion of Canada made a special appropriation of $100,000; and even the Bank of Canada in Ottawa gave $25,000.
And if we're allowed to go back as far as the San Francisco earthquake to "judge" the world, maybe we can extend that just a little further towards independence, where France provided significant support to the fledgling nation.
"The Americans", is frankly, ridiculous, and anyone subscribing to the sentiments within betrays the same (and wrong) isolationist understanding of the world as they ironically indeed blame others to have.
The only time Article 5 was called, was by America... And most of the Europe obliged.
Danes too. Who are now being threatened by the new administration.
30 years after this was written, so not relevant.
Who are now being threatened by the new administration.
50 years after this was written, so not relevant.
“I’m not going to commit to that,” Trump said, when asked if he would rule out the use of the military. “It might be that you’ll have to do something. The Panama Canal is vital to our country.” He added, “We need Greenland for national security purposes.”
This is just Trump being Trump, blustery and vague. It barely qualifies as saber-rattling. The guy loves to posture, but the level of hysteria around it is absurd. I’m not a fan of this kind of rhetoric, but Europeans acting like this is a genuine military threat instead of just laughing at him is ridiculous.
Anyways, what were we talking about? Something inspirational I recall.
It used to be posturing and blustering around acquiring territories was absurd.
People are hysterical because they aren’t sure if Trump is being serious or if he just is sh*t talking. Greenlanders who feel like they might be invaded by the US aren’t just being sensitive snowflakes.
Danish PM Frederiksen: "I cannot imagine the United States would use military intervention in Greenland, and it is up to the people of Greenland to decide what they want."
Oh, interesting. I think that’s called self-determination, a key underpinning of democracy.
> Greenlanders who feel like they might be invaded by the US aren’t just being sensitive snowflakes.
Greenland is a critical strategic asset, and Denmark is incapable of defending it or its people. If Greenlanders are worried about being "invaded" by the U.S., they should be a hell of a lot more worried about Russia or China making moves in the Arctic. The world would objectively be safer if the U.S. took custodianship of Greenland, full stop.
I’m no policy buff, but I’d bet that if someone were willing to make a rational deal, like perhaps allowing the U.S. to offer security in exchange for a slice of Greenland’s massive untapped resources, this entire situation would be resolved, and everyone would be better off.
Again, I stress that the rhetoric around what is clearly a negotiation is not my style of doing business, but no serious person can argue that something has to be done about securing Greenland, nor do they think Trump is actually going to use military force.
Edit: I must insist that I'm not trying to be inflammatory at all. I'm sincerely concerned about this geopolitical implications of this potential attack vector and it feels like pride is getting in the way of our security in the West.
Still not taking him seriously? He's followed through on many boundry-destroying actions in just a week, not to mention the prior 8 years. Remember the raid on the Capitol to stop ratification of the election, and he just pardoned the attackers.
I think people are afraid to take him seriously.
The US was at the time in military alliances with much of Western Europe (NATO, 1949), South Pacific (SEATO, 1955), and an intelligence alliance (Five Eyes, 1941), amongst numerous other alliances and strategic partnerships.
The US was born in battle with the assistance of France. Lafayette and the Statue of Liberty attest to this.
At the time Americans was written (1974), the US was the world's leading superpower. It's not terribly surprising that in general aid flowed from the US to other states. But the flow and alliances were far from one-way even then.
Your song, as with your broader point and follow-ups, is an extraordinary misreading and misrepresentation of history.
Canada was part of the International Control Commision (along with Poland & India). Canada sold the US a couple $ Billion in weapons and allowed the US to test defoliating agents on a base in New Brunswick, and Canadians joined the US Military to fight in Vietnam.
In fact, no country depends on and utilizes its allies more than the US.
In the subsequent 51 years, there've been additional instances, including much mutual aid during natural disasters in which the US has received (or occasionally turned down) assistance from other states, near and far.