Comment by 2legit2quit | Hacker News Reader

Comment by 2legit2quit | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Anti-communism was and still is highly important and critical.

McCarthyism was the pinnacle of the anti-communism movement. How did that turn out, again?

> It was an open objective and part of what caused World War 2

I'm pretty sure Germany invading other countries was the cause of World War 2. I don't see how you can lump "dang commies were spreading, so we had to go fight 'em" in as a justification, when there was only a non-aggression pact between Germany and the former-USSR. "Those dang commies were spreading without shooting a single bullet, so we had to stop 'em! Yeehaw!"

> Nukes aren't as deadly as other weapons we were already using.

How do you figure? If they weren't/aren't as deadly, why did the US waste the billions to research and produce them? The technology of the time had no qualitative equal. Rockets weren't even in use, yet, because the V2 only came out during WWII. So, no ICBMs. At best, there was the rail gun that Germany was developing but that was a "their" weapon and not an "our" weapon.

> The US formed NATO with the European countries.

Where are you getting this revision of history from? The Western Union was created, first, by European countries and it became NATO a few years later. The US didn't form anything, it came to an already existing table.

> I don't know why you're so caught up on nukes.

Ok, Agent Orange? People are still dying from cancer, to this day, from that.

> Usually whenever we help some country, especially a country we don't particularly like, it'll be conditioned on something.

You're so close to getting it... "it'll be conditioned on something" is the pivotal point: As long you get what you want(ed), consequences be damned. Iran-Contra comes to mind, here.

> The USD being almost ubiquitous helps to stabilize it against many kinds of major shocks that no other country can absorb.

Isn't actually the inverse? It's preventing all of it's former close allies from just dumping the bonds because Dorito wants to antagonise all of your allies? Didn't the 2008 crash demonstrate it can destabilise in a major shock, just as well?

> If you can prove anything I've said is incorrect, I'll change my mind

Everything in your statements seems to be bathed in American Exceptionalism and I'm doubting that anyone could change your mind.

> McCarthyism was the pinnacle of the anti-communism movement. How did that turn out, again?

It worked out fine?

> I'm pretty sure Germany invading other countries was the cause of World War 2. I don't see how you can lump "dang commies were spreading, so we had to go fight 'em" in as a justification, when there was only a non-aggression pact between Germany and the former-USSR. "Those dang commies were spreading without shooting a single bullet, so we had to stop 'em! Yeehaw!"

Many communists were armed and had guns, aiming to take over every country on Earth. The US, Japan and Germany were fighting back against them in China, Spain and Germany.

> How do you figure? If they weren't/aren't as deadly, why did the US waste the billions to research and produce them? The technology of the time had no qualitative equal.

I figure objectively. Far more Japanese were killed by fire bombings, which could be done extensively, at scale, with impunity. Nukes were important and consequential, but if the goal was simply to kill Japanese or destroy strategic targets then we already had that problem well solved.

Japan had thoroughly spread propaganda of racial superiority and being divinely chosen. One of the benefits of dropping a nuke compared to fire bombing, is that it immediately leaves a humbling impression.

> Where are you getting this revision of history from? The Western Union was created, first, by European countries and it became NATO a few years later. The US didn't form anything, it came to an already existing table.

The US created the League of Nations, which was the first known collective security organization like that to prevent a repeat of World War 1. Ironically, the idea came from a German. World War 2 demonstrated that Europeans weren't prepared to defend each other.

The Western Union was mostly an attempt to demonstrate to the US that European countries were now ready to defend each other, rather than failing. This is relevant right now, because there are concerns that Putin wants to test NATO to see if their resolve collapses the same way it did during World War 2 under the League of Nations. In order for NATO to be formed, the US had to be convinced that European countries could be active participants rather than passive consumers of defense guarantees, which is also again relevant since we've been pushing harder for European countries to meet their defense spending commitments.

> Isn't actually the inverse? It's preventing all of it's former close allies from just dumping the bonds because Dorito wants to antagonise all of your allies? Didn't the 2008 crash demonstrate it can destabilise in a major shock, just as well?

People actually traded in other currencies for USD rather than ditching it after 2008.

>>McCarthyism was the pinnacle of the anti-communism movement. How did that turn out, again?

>It worked out fine?

Please stop giving people ammo to take the piss out of you, it really shows how ignorant you are. Although it's very fun to find a blind exceptionalist in the wild and to make fun of it: every single one of your answers has been a demonstration of how the US likes to act with impunity and pretend you have a mission of divine importance. From saying you have a "duty" to stall communism, to willingly destroying other countries for your own benefit, you remain a perfect example of why the world is better off with the US gone.

PS: if you want to count deaths from famines as "caused by the communists", whether it was the USSR or the great leap forward, at least have the decency of admitting that these countries were suffering from famines for centuries beforehand, and that they were the last famines they ever lived through at this point. Communism stopped those famines. The US is perfectly happy to let a few dozen million die every year of famines, lack of access to medication, clean water, all things it has in large amounts and refuses to give because "it's not profitable". War profiteers, murderers and dangers to the world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com