Hacker News Reader

Comment by linotype | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Goodness me where oh where could that anti US bias come from? Couldn't be the illegal bombing of Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War, couldn't be arming the Guatamalans who carried out the silent Holocaust, couldn't be arming the Turks while they were slaughtering Kurds, couldn't be the illegal invasion of Iraq, killing up to a million people, and torturing others without due process, ultimately leading to violent blowback from Islamic extremists in Europe in the form of terrorist attacks. Couldn't be providing billions of dollars in weapons for Israel to carry out its genocide, likely leading to even more blowback across the globe. No, surely it's because they're _ungrateful_.

All of that was for freedoms though /s

At least there's a figleaf. The 20th Century could have been the German Century, or the Soviet Century. For all America's sins, most people did well living in the American Century.

Not the Kurds though. Or the Mayans. Or the Chileans. Or Cuba. Iran got screwed pretty hard. And Iraq too for that matter. Afghanistan. East Timor, and Indonesia too. Oof and the Palestinians really got the short end of the stick. Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos. But yeah I concede your point, the small minority of people living in the Imperial core did pretty ok.

Yes, they'd be much better off under Nazism. /s

The actual people who live in those countries don't blame Americans for their troubles to the extent that Americans blame Americans.

I'm sure the folks who were tortured in Abu Ghraib were very happy that their toruturers bore no swastika. And I'm sure the Iraqi children who lost their entire families felt very blessed that the people who killed them were in fact the good guys. And the 130000 Mayans killed in the silent Holocaust? Well, imagine the added humiliation of knowing your killers were armed by Nazis. Phew, dodged that (metaphorical) bullet!

This debate could continue forever since there's no single measure by which one can quantify how evil a nation is.

I will leave our audience to consider the 20th Century and decide for themselves how America compared to Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Apartheid South Africa, the USSR, Maoist China, Spain under Franco, Imperial Japan... etc.

"In their moral justification, the argument of the lesser evil has played a prominent role. If you are confronted with two evils, the argument runs, it is your duty to opt for the lesser one, whereas it is irresponsible to refuse to choose altogether. Its weakness has always been that those who choose the lesser evil forget quickly that they chose evil."

Crazy how well this Hannah Arendt quote applies to both you and mid 20th century Germans.

'Anti US bias' (that's a direct quote, not a jingoistic insult I throw around) is different than a refusal to choose between evils.

Ok, from what you say, I get the sense that the applicability of the quote is non-obvious. I'll paraphrase the quote: "people who choose the lesser of two evils, forget that they chose evil".

In our conversation, we are essentially choosing between two parties: - The nazis, or the communists, or whatever. Let's call them the baddies. - America. The good guys!

I personally believe (and you do not have to agree with this, I realize that this is subjective) that murdering children and committing genocide is evil. The nazis committed a genocide, and so they are evil. Let's say the holodomor was a genocide, so the communists are evil too. Conclusion: the baddies are evil. It is also a fact that in the past 75 years or so, America has gone around the globe murdering children, and committing genocides. This is not up for debate. This is a fact. I have listed the examples countless times in this thread, I will not do so again. Conclusion: the good guys are also evil (if you believe murdering children is bad, which again, totally up to you).

In saying "but the nazis were worse!" in response to American murdering a million Koreans, you are effectively choosing the lesser evil (the nazis killed 6 million jews, 30 million Russians, in a fairly short timespan, whereas the US has killed about 12 million over the decades, the nazis are worse). And in saying that we did pretty well in the American century, you are dismissing the genocides, the murders, the torture that the US is responsible for. You're forgetting that the US is also evil. When you say we did alright under American hegemony, you are completely dismissing the suffering, overexploitation, destabilization, and violence that the US has meted out on the global South.

Our thread doesn't exist in a vacuum, it exists in the Chomsky-fied world of the 21st Century. This is a world in which quite a few people really do defend the regimes I mentioned, as though there were no difference between totalitarianism and a liberal democracy.

Note that I made a point of defending America in the 20th Century, not the 21st.

Because, at the moment, America has an authoritarian leader.

And I wonder if people who obsess on America's bad side, even know the difference!

Considering the last HN thread I commented on was full of comments in support of the anti-American yet horrifying Iranian regime, I don't have much hope.

I'm talking about the 20th century as well. The silent holocaust was in the 80s, east Timor extended from the 70s to the 90s, the highway of death and the gulf war was in the 90s, the invasion of Vietnam and the illegal bombing of Cambodia and Laos was in the 60s, the mass killings in Indonesia were in the 60s, arming the Mujahideen (ultimately leading to 9/11) was in the 80s, bombing Korea, killing 20% of its population was in the 50s, the overthrow of the democratically elecred Allende leading to the reign of Pinochet, the terror they've inflicted on Cuba by Poisoning crops and the sanctions, the coup in Iran, the assassination of Lumumba, and so on, and so forth. On the whole, America has absolutely terrorized the world. And yes, that has been quite nice for the beneficiaries of this reign of terror, but to say the world did well in the American century is just wrong.

And regarding the support for Iran, it's possible to be supportive of a party you're otherwise critical of. Sure, the Iranian regime executes gay people, but do you think Israel's bombs and famine somehow make an exception for gay people? One side is worse, and it's the one that's been committing an ethnic cleansing for 77 years.

I'm tempted to take apart that list of American evils, one by one, because in the cases with which I am familiar, it is Chomsky-level reductive, but that would take a few pages of writing. Again, there is a problem with this sort of discussion:

  This debate could continue forever since there's no single measure by which one can quantify how evil a nation is.

I wrestled over what I'm about to say, because it's condescending, but: it's one thing to read about the past, and it's another to live through it.

So many things feel real to me that might not if I were younger.

I grew up... surrounded by adults who lived through WWII, ...hoping for tens of millions suffering under Apartheid to be free, ...hoping for the Wall to come down and free hundreds of millions from Soviet oppression (not for ideological reasons, but because it was at North Korean levels), ...rooting for the Chinese protest movement to win. And so much more.

Thankfully, for the first half of my life, the world kept inching toward progress (and what I would give for young people to live through the 1990s!).

Then we had 9/11, and America embraced its worst side. That America is the only America young people know. That's a shame, because many of them now, politically, are sprinting straight towards the propeller-blades.

Yeah I forgot that Europe wasn’t involved in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Oh get off it. We all know who pushed for the invasions. We all know who operated the black sites.

And the European countries that did get their noses into Iraq (Poland, UK) were mostly doing so to curry favour with the Americans. And the ones who didn't were famously lambasted and attacked (huge anti-French sentiment, "freedom fries", all that garbage.)

People don’t like the French because they’re jerks to tourists, not because of “freedom fries” nonsense.

France forced the US into Vietnam , the real world is messy.

1. No they didn't, and that's not controversial. Even the most cursory Google search can dispell you of this notion.

2. "The world is messy" does not excuse countless war crimes. Imagine a lawyer in the Nuremberg trials saying "well sure the defendant sent children to the gas chamber, but your honor, have you considered that the world is a messy place?"

Please point me to the period of time that the US sent children to the gas chamber.

No I won't because I never said they did. But there's plenty of war crimes to point to though. Surely you've seen the picture of the girl on fire because of napalm. You've seen the torture of innocent civilians in the Iraq war. You know about the use of cluster bombs in Iraq. You know they cut off the water to Fallujah. You know of the highway of death. You know they've made close to a million people homeless in Cambodia and Laos, countries that weren't even involved in the war. You know about the illegal invasion of Iraq. You know about the excess mortality of 500,000 children after the gulf war. You know about the mass killing of nearly a million people in Indonesia in the sixties perpetrated by troops trained in, armed by, and supplied with kill lists by America. You know of the troops that killed 160,000 Guatamalans, armed by America, and described by Reagan as great humanitarians. You've seen Gaza.

These are all war crimes, and they are war crimes because they knowingly and actively target civilians. And honestly, at the end of the day it doesn't matter much to me whether you kill a kid by shoving them into a gas chamber or by shooting them, or by dropping bombs or napalm on preschools, because either way you've murdered a child.

Attacking countries because of non existent WMDs, torturing people in black sites, sanctioning investigators of the ICC, spying on all internet traffic, enforcing their sanctions on third parties.

I think their are reasons for that anti-US bias.

And if the US ensured freedom it was because it benefited them. If war would habe been the better option they would habe ensured that.

the current regime has shown hostility to keeping europe peaceful, what do you want?

How so? By asking Europe to pay for the defense of Europe?

Also by floating proposals that the Danish and British cede their stewardship of Greenland and Canada to the USA.

Canada is an independent country and not under the stewardship of the British.

Charles III is the king of Canada, which is part of the Commonwealth.

The fact that they share a head of state is irrelevant? If it was relevant, you could equally make the claim that Britain is under the "stewardship" of the Canadians. I think the British would be surprised to hear that!

Fine:

"Also by floating proposals that the Danish *state* and British *monarch* cede their stewardship of Greenland and Canada to the USA."

Yes, one still can be tedius and argue that the Throne's veto over Canadian legislation doesn't qualify as 'stewardship' (since it is supposed to be symbolic)

The point of my comment (which I maintain) is that Britain has strong ties with Canada, and so Trump butting in, pushing for Canada to abandon the Commonwealth to become a state, comes across as hostile.

Canadians may find the threat more alarming than Britons, but it's welcomed by neither people.

Canada the country, being a democracy, is owned by the Canadian people, not the king (just like the United States is owned by the American people, not the president). If Trump encroaches on the sovereignty of Canada it is an affront to the Canadian people. What the British think is of distinctly secondary importance.

I'm not sure you see the irony of your stance. You're complaining about the American president butting into Canadian affairs because it infringes on some supposed colonialist rights of an absentee king.

   If Trump encroaches on the sovereignty of Canada it is an affront to the Canadian people. What the British think is of distinctly secondary importance.

Yes, and that is consistent with my comment.

  You're complaining about the American president butting into Canadian affairs because it infringes on some supposed colonialist rights of an absentee king.

Well, if Canada has such weak ties to the UK, it might as well be part of America. Heck, just preserve public healthcare, and French language laws... why not?

Of course, that is not the case. There are still strong historical, legal, traditional, cultural, and familial ties.

This is why PM Carney invited Canada's king to Parliament last month. It was a reminder to Trump that his overtures were not simply an affront to Canada, but also to Britain.

Regardless, it seems to be helpful to others to point out what one finds worthy of discussion; that is actually the point of the comments, after all.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_mass_killings

Ensuring peace by violently crushing social democratic organizing and unions is like ensuring a fun time by beating anyone who complains.

It’s not an anti-US bias to hold the US accountable for their actions. Funding a for-profit spyware company that’ll sell to anyone, including italian fascists, is bad. The US should be held accountable for that.

Your comment is extremely disingenuous. Much of the world, including Europe, has become dramatically more unsettled and dangerous as a direct consequence of US foreign policies and military adventures over the last quarter-century. Do you expect to be thanked?

I don’t expect anything from you or anyone else. I’m just glad I don’t have to worry about what other people think anymore. If anything, I wish the US would pull out of NATO altogether and focus on fixing our problems at home, since our contributions clearly aren’t wanted.

> US contributions to ensuring peace in Europe

Name the contributions after 1945.

Do they not teach about the Marshall Plan in schools anymore?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

It was a main driver of the initial Cold War and conditioned on policy, basically neutering european sovereignty and pushing Soviet in a similar direction to try and counter this effort.

Political and economic dependency is a fallout that is still a problematic issue today, almost forty years after the fall of the USSR. The ongoing war in eastern Europe was pushed for by the US, more or less as a prolongation of the same strategy of US dominance in Europe.

If you can't recognize the 60+ years of relative peace that efforts like the Marshall Plan brought us, I don't know how you can recognize any time period in recorded history as being "peaceful".

If "relative peace" in the sense that a world war is actually going on is the most peaceful you can imagine, then I don't see much potential in having a conversation with you.

That bias is earned, especially over actions the US has committed covertly in Europe over the last 50 years.

Such as?

Buying off the mafia with a resurrection of the global heroin trade in exchange for them crushing certain popular parties and unions.

Joining forces with fascists in Operation Gladio.

https://github.com/dessalines/essays/blob/main/us_atrocities...

Here's some good reading if you're truly interested.

People want the US to ensure peace. The problem is that the US has in recent months turned away from that and is instead promoting unrest, both home and abroad.

What has the US done in recent months to promote unrest abroad?

Reduced support for Ukraine and sympathised with Russia, empowering Putin and increased risk of conflict in Europe.

The US has interfered with elections in Europe, supporting far-right movements that are more prone to violence.

There are more things but those are most relevant for my area.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com