Comment by toomanyrichies | Hacker News Reader

Comment by toomanyrichies | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

You’re conflating two different things: defending allies against invasion (Ukraine, Taiwan) and unilateral regime change (Venezuela, Iraq, Libya).

I agree that deterrence requires credible force. Defending Ukraine from Russian invasion is enforcement of a principle (sovereignty) against an aggressor. That’s fundamentally different from the US deciding a government is bad and removing it.

The problem isn’t “using force ever.” It’s “using force to overthrow governments we don’t like, without allies, without a plan for what comes next, based on a track record of catastrophic failures.”

Norway’s security depends on NATO credibility, which depends on the US being seen as a rule-enforcing power rather than a rule-breaking one. Every time the US acts unilaterally, it makes it harder to maintain the coalitions that actually protect your way of life. Russia points to Iraq and Libya to justify its own actions. You’re not strengthening the enforcement regime; you’re eroding the legitimacy that makes enforcement possible.

“Fucked around and found out” is a framework for bar fights, not foreign policy.

You talk about "rules" again. Let's look at what NATO does when it thinks the rules are in the way of doing what it thinks is right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

Yes Russia points to Iraq and Libya, and they may be right. We can point to Georgia and Ukraine, and maybe we are right. At the end of the day, and I'm repeating myself because people forget this constantly, rules and laws don't mean _anything_ unless you're willing to back them up with consequences -- and in this context, military might.

It's just like raising a child. When a child starts kicking you in the shins, you can say "please stop dear" as much as you want, they'll keep doing it until there's consequences. Might not need more than a strategic targeted pinch in the ear that hurts just enough to back up what you should've said: "That hurts, stop it right now."

This way of removing Maduro wasn't excessive force. It was a strategic pinch in the ear.

Yugoslavia had NATO consensus, active ethnic cleansing in progress, and regional support. It’s a stronger case than Venezuela, and even it is still debated.

Countries aren’t children. This framing smuggles in an assumption that the US has legitimate authority over other countries’ governance, which is exactly the point in dispute.

The “strategic pinch” assumes this is the end. Removing Saddam was also supposed to be surgical. The mess comes after. Ask me in five years if this was a pinch or another amputation.

This is a lot of rationalization to justify conservative worldview, America playing world police, and other such shortsighted political talking point fallacies.

I’m a Norwegian, I don’t ascribe to any one political leaning. But I observe the failings of the EU and European countries from within and know where this path leads, I see it every day. Call me any <label> you prefer I don’t care and don’t identify as any. I judge events and actions individually based on my own life experience and foundational morality, which also means I am not shackled by having to like everything a leader does when I like some things.

This was a good thing. It gets Venezuela out of Russia and China’s grasp, removes a cruel dictator, and puts the country’s resources to better use for both its people and the West. And as many problems as I have with many facets of the west it sure as hell beats whatever shitholes Russia and China are cooking — they are incompatible with the things I value, and yes I have been to the latter and will never return.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com