Hacker News Reader

Comment by javert | Hacker News Reader

Imagine Superman actually fighting criminals and keeping America safe.

Now imagine Superman sneaking laxative into criminals' sandwiches so they are slightly inconvenienced, but allowing them to continue to kill people in the long run.

The US government is Superman. But it is the second version, while it can and should be the first version.

---

We know who the enemies are. We know who funds and harbors terrorism. We need to take them out, not spy on them.

---

And no, I am not advocating Vietnam III (note: Iraq/Afghanistan was Vietnam II). That was a purely self-sacrificial program to bring "democracy" to people who didn't want it. I am advocating warfare in the classic sense: Destroy the enemy. I am advocating what we did to the Nazis and Japanese.

View on HN

> I am advocating what we did to the Nazis and Japanese.

That was a world war if I recall, and the US didn't even care about the Nazis, or Japan until they were forced to. "we" didn't stop the Nazis, the world stopped the Nazis, with our help.

Don't be so quick to call for World War III, because i'm not at all certain we would have more allies than enemies if we unilaterally decided to declare open war against the rest of the world, which is what it would amount to. Because the truth is, most of the world 'harbors' and 'funds' terrorism to some degree, including the US. And we've already proven to the rest of the world that we're willing to drag it into a war on false pretenses, so I doubt they would be eager to throw themselves into another one on our behalf. That political capital has already been spent.

Which is, of course, why we don't do what you suggest.

a) You are making a false equivocation with WWII that I did not make.

b) We don't need political capital to do it.

c) Lacking political capital is not why we don't do it. We don't do it because US leadership and the US people do not think it's a good idea.

> I am advocating what we did to the Nazis and Japanese.

How is this not an equivocation with WW2? I apologize if I misinterpreted what you wrote, but it seems pretty obvious.

By "political capital" I was referring to a quote by George Bush, and the Bush doctrine in general. Mainly, that any goodwill we might have had to build a robust global coalition for anything has more or less been squandered by the debacle that was the adventure in Iraq, and the premise of the "axis of evil", and "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."

Because the states that harbor terrorism are not the civilizational or military equivalents of Nazi Germany or Japan. They are much closer to fruit flies.

A country that acts morally, in its own self-defense, does not need political capital. If nobody at all sides with the US, fine. But nobody is going to side against the US that matters in a just, morally correct war to stop state sponsors of terrorism.

> b) We don't need political capital to do it.

The US's unilateral declarations of war have caused a huge amount of tension, globally. To do what you propose would be a log breaking the back of many a diplomatic camel.

Contrary to your opinion, the US is not superman, it's just another country that is currently on top of things. Take a look at what has happened to empires who over-stretched historically. Hint, it's not pretty and they're not around anymore.

The US should not have a diplomatic relations with any nation that would seek to prevent it from defending itself with Islamic jihadists.

And besides, the interests of the US align on this with literally every other civilizized country on the face of the Earth.

> the US is not superman, it's just another country that is currently on top of things.

Compared to Iran or Pakistan or Yemen, the US is Superman.

The US is not an empire. It is a republic. This would not be a war to expand US territory.

We know who funds and harbors terrorism.

Well, from the IRA to the Mujahadeen, it's largely been the folk with the most money to spend.

However most of them live in the USA, so perhaps a local criminal investigation would do to start with before breaking out the tanks on a jolly abroad.

Are you a sockpuppet trying to derail the discussion or is this serious?

Javert has always played very true to the like-named Les Mis character here on HN.

I only make political comments on threads of conversation that are inherently political. In technical discussions, I make technical comments only. I take this commitment very seriously.

how old are ya, kiddo? why I ask - you obviously troll here, nothing more :)

That doesn't even deserve a response, but against my better judgement...

I have 3448 karma and have been here for 2472 days, you have 20 karma and have been here for 64 days. You have no right to say something like that to me.

Also, since I mainly lose karma on any comment I make talking about politics, yet have a large net positive amount of karma, I am obviously not a troll.

Don't be daft, this is a discussion board. Imaginary internet points do not qualify who has a right to say what.

> Don't be daft

Don't try to substitute emotional intimidation for an actual argument.

> Imaginary internet points do not qualify who has a right to say what.

Nobody has a right to call me a troll, since my history here (which those numbers summarize nicely) shows I'm not a troll.

I don't mean it in the sense of a political right---obviously.

Sorry, I was not attempting to intimidate. Anybody has the right to say they think you are trolling them and you have a right to refute them and try and show good intention.

Besides, someone who only trolls when it comes to politics would have the same points pattern and there is a very common sense of humour that is someone adopting a far more extreme version of whatever political persuasion they may chose to hold when thinking that they are mostly in the company of overly sensitive folk of an opposing political philosophy.

Personally I think that you are being sincere, but I can also see why people might think you are acting a part.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com