10 ms·

I got some flack giving a presentation that mentioned civilian participation in my organisations business by Chinese companies. The US Admiral that I was talkin

I got some flack giving a presentation that mentioned civilian participation in my organisations business by Chinese companies. The US Admiral that I was talking to (the topic was innovation - so no secrets) railed about us collaborating with entities that were alien to our core values. I could not reply - without unemployment - but all the time I thought about US support for Saudi - where the Admiral undoubtedly had served, and what kind of core values does that demonstrate?

elmo2you 5y ago
I do sympathize with how it must have felt during that presentation, but I do wonder why anyone would take the words of any high ranking US military official serious at all, at anything they say. After all, they are just representatives of an ideologically warped criminal enterprise, perpetually serving the interests of a questionable industry that rose to prominence during WW1 and WW2. War is a racket and so is the industry that feeds on the perceived threat of one. The humongous US military budget ends up (at least a substantial of it) in private pockets somehow. The US is of course not the only country playing that racket, but it certainly is the undisputed biggest player. Speaking truth to principles and morals is simply out of the question for anyone involved, with that amount of capital changing hands.
mi3law 5y ago
To answer your specific comparison, I would say the values associated with capitalism.
saiya-jin 5y ago
Yeah, there are very few countries so far/further from core western values than Saudi Arabia. Which isn't outlandish considering how diverse world is, but the very strong and friendly relationships and military support from US is frikkin' crazy and amoral. The country is run by psychopath cutting journalists to pieces at foreign embassies. I mean we're talking about the same level of primitive evil as some African dictators that ended with pretty harsh sentences at International Court of Justice. And Trump basically pardoned the guy in the media from what I recall. I am curious if Biden's administration will change the US approach to him/SA or they keep quiet for enjoying their military bases there.
- babesh 5y ago
  You already have your answer. The outrage is deafening.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    Media outrage means next to nothing for these people, tomorrow the world will be outraged about the next topic. Imagine people like Putin living in their own world, outside situation has very little effect on their luxurious lives. Concrete steps that would financially hurt those holding power, ie sanctions for their foreign accounts/investments means at least something.
pantalaimon 5y ago
Oli has a high value, one could say it's the core of western civilization.
- candiodari 5y ago
  Nope, the whole point of oil is that is has a VERY low value. Even "very expensive" oil at 140$ per barrel (that was the peak I think) makes $0.875 dollar per liter of crude oil, about 30 MJ worth of energy. Additionally you can make plastic, and ... out of it. But it's far cheaper than the cheapest brand of bottled water, which apparently comes in at about $1.4 per liter, a little under double the price of the most expensive oil we've ever had. The normal price say $60-80 per barrel these days, is 0.4$, or about 1/4th to 1/3rd of the price of bottled water.
  - erikpukinskis 5y ago
    Oil’s value is not just economic, but military. If you don’t control a pretty large source of oil, you won’t win the war.
    - eggy 5y ago
      Unless soldiers carry solar panels as suggested by VP Kamala Harris into the field. I guess night combat will be called on account of no sun ;) Gas still has a high energy density, so it will be important for the foreseeable future, military applications or otherwise.
      - jeremysalwen 5y ago
        That's actually a pretty interesting idea! The commercially available panels with the highest specific power are about 700 W/kg (with an estimated upper bound of 1.2 W/kg) [1], in comparison to gasoline which is 12.5kWh/kg. Solar exposure can be about 5-6 hours of full sun equivalent per day. So the breakeven point would be about two to three days of charging! [1] https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1485564 https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1485564)
rbanffy 5y ago
And that is to say nothing about all the dictatorships the US sponsored in South America. The US was more than happy to train torturers in modern torture techniques.
- vinay427 5y ago
  Certainly. I think this is, to me, the clearest case for why the US has a moral imperative to contribute to mitigating the ensuing problems in that region (just as western Europe has one for much of the MENA region, ...), including hosting refugees and asylum seekers seeking protection in the US, providing aid when it is done accountably and constructively, etc.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    Considering past history, I’d strongly recommend the US to not attempt to help, with the possible exception of the removal and prosecution of their puppets.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Western Europe has some things to make up for, but the US isn't involved in MENA? Remember Iran? I would blame Libya on Europe, but not the other wars.
    - vinay427 5y ago
      I didn't say, and wouldn't say, that the US wasn't involved in MENA. I can understand how my previous comment may have implied that, for which I apologize, so it's worth clarifying. There's simply a difference in scale of involvement, as far as I can tell. Since you mentioned Iran, it looks even worse for the British than it does for the US by my reading. The coup in 1953, for instance, was spearheaded by the British who solicited US assistance, and was only the end of a long line of British exploitation of Iranian leadership (and oil) and the start of a slightly-shorter line of American exploitation of Iranian leaders. Most of North Africa would probably be shared by the British and the French, Afghanistan seems to be shared by most of the "Global North" at this point, and so on. I definitely wouldn't say that the US doesn't have any responsibility here.
mjburgess 5y ago
You might find that same Admiral would say the same to any president or congress pushing for cooperation with saudi arabia.
refurb 5y ago
Core values being US/G7/NATO geopolitical strategy in the Middle East. It's Realpolitik. If we refused to work with anyone who didn't mirror Western values, do you think that would be possible? I mean, do we just refuse to even engage most of Africa, the Middle East and Asia? That doesn't seem realistic.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  I really respect this comment. It is the reason I visit HN daily instead of Twitter, Reddit, or Facebook. Realism is the mark of adulthood.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Unassumed realism is not the mark of adulthood. If you sincerely agree then the stance you should hold is "I support atrocities if they benefit me and I don't care if other countries violate human rights". From then on we can have a good discussion. But the above is using realism as an excuse instead of fully assuming it and taking it to its conclusion.
    - koheripbal 5y ago
      Adulthood (ie experience), demonstrates that you cannot fight on every front, against every adversary, and for every cause, simultaneously. Adulthood means that you need to prioritize your goals, choose your battles, and set the stage for the progress you want to make. Simply refusing to deal with anyone that doesn't adhere to your ethical values is what my teenage daughter does, quite literally.
      - sudosysgen 5y ago
        If you care about ethics, then you would try to improve the situation in Saudi Arabia, which is much more fragile and more subject to US influence, instead of trying to do so in China which is a superpower you will only ever antagonize. The comment above wasn't about prioritizing the best targets to pursue your ethical goals. It's about ignoring them but pretending they still matter. They don't matter. If we care about ethics at all we wouldn't orchestrate coups instead of forgoing a bit of oil revenue.
DigiDigiorno 5y ago
So because others do wrong, it's okay for you to do wrong? Also, because you didn't ask him the question, you don't know that he would agree with the SA "wrong".
- raincom 5y ago
  Those (in this case, the general) who implicitly consent to doing wrong, should not preach others. If this said general had resigned to protest the USA's support for Saudi, yes, one can listen to his 'sayings'.
  - DigiDigiorno 5y ago
    My question has nothing to do with the general, or anyone in the world but the OP. My comment that the general wasn't even asked this question, was a bit of a different point, it unfortunately distracts from my main point.
908B64B197 5y ago
The difference is that one of these regimes exists only because of US support. And the other has proven it's willing to infringe on intellectual property rights and steal technology when it's convenient to do so.

elmo2you 5y ago

I do sympathize with how it must have felt during that presentation, but I do wonder why anyone would take the words of any high ranking US military official serious at all, at anything they say. After all, they are just representatives of an ideologically warped criminal enterprise, perpetually serving the interests of a questionable industry that rose to prominence during WW1 and WW2. War is a racket and so is the industry that feeds on the perceived threat of one. The humongous US military budget ends up (at least a substantial of it) in private pockets somehow. The US is of course not the only country playing that racket, but it certainly is the undisputed biggest player. Speaking truth to principles and morals is simply out of the question for anyone involved, with that amount of capital changing hands.

mi3law 5y ago

To answer your specific comparison, I would say the values associated with capitalism.

saiya-jin 5y ago

Yeah, there are very few countries so far/further from core western values than Saudi Arabia. Which isn't outlandish considering how diverse world is, but the very strong and friendly relationships and military support from US is frikkin' crazy and amoral. The country is run by psychopath cutting journalists to pieces at foreign embassies. I mean we're talking about the same level of primitive evil as some African dictators that ended with pretty harsh sentences at International Court of Justice. And Trump basically pardoned the guy in the media from what I recall. I am curious if Biden's administration will change the US approach to him/SA or they keep quiet for enjoying their military bases there.

babesh 5y ago
You already have your answer. The outrage is deafening.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  Media outrage means next to nothing for these people, tomorrow the world will be outraged about the next topic. Imagine people like Putin living in their own world, outside situation has very little effect on their luxurious lives. Concrete steps that would financially hurt those holding power, ie sanctions for their foreign accounts/investments means at least something.

pantalaimon 5y ago

Oli has a high value, one could say it's the core of western civilization.

candiodari 5y ago
Nope, the whole point of oil is that is has a VERY low value. Even "very expensive" oil at 140$ per barrel (that was the peak I think) makes $0.875 dollar per liter of crude oil, about 30 MJ worth of energy. Additionally you can make plastic, and ... out of it. But it's far cheaper than the cheapest brand of bottled water, which apparently comes in at about $1.4 per liter, a little under double the price of the most expensive oil we've ever had. The normal price say $60-80 per barrel these days, is 0.4$, or about 1/4th to 1/3rd of the price of bottled water.
- erikpukinskis 5y ago
  Oil’s value is not just economic, but military. If you don’t control a pretty large source of oil, you won’t win the war.
  - eggy 5y ago
    Unless soldiers carry solar panels as suggested by VP Kamala Harris into the field. I guess night combat will be called on account of no sun ;) Gas still has a high energy density, so it will be important for the foreseeable future, military applications or otherwise.
    - jeremysalwen 5y ago
      That's actually a pretty interesting idea! The commercially available panels with the highest specific power are about 700 W/kg (with an estimated upper bound of 1.2 W/kg) [1], in comparison to gasoline which is 12.5kWh/kg. Solar exposure can be about 5-6 hours of full sun equivalent per day. So the breakeven point would be about two to three days of charging! [1] https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1485564 https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1485564)

rbanffy 5y ago

And that is to say nothing about all the dictatorships the US sponsored in South America. The US was more than happy to train torturers in modern torture techniques.

vinay427 5y ago
Certainly. I think this is, to me, the clearest case for why the US has a moral imperative to contribute to mitigating the ensuing problems in that region (just as western Europe has one for much of the MENA region, ...), including hosting refugees and asylum seekers seeking protection in the US, providing aid when it is done accountably and constructively, etc.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Considering past history, I’d strongly recommend the US to not attempt to help, with the possible exception of the removal and prosecution of their puppets.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  Western Europe has some things to make up for, but the US isn't involved in MENA? Remember Iran? I would blame Libya on Europe, but not the other wars.
  - vinay427 5y ago
    I didn't say, and wouldn't say, that the US wasn't involved in MENA. I can understand how my previous comment may have implied that, for which I apologize, so it's worth clarifying. There's simply a difference in scale of involvement, as far as I can tell. Since you mentioned Iran, it looks even worse for the British than it does for the US by my reading. The coup in 1953, for instance, was spearheaded by the British who solicited US assistance, and was only the end of a long line of British exploitation of Iranian leadership (and oil) and the start of a slightly-shorter line of American exploitation of Iranian leaders. Most of North Africa would probably be shared by the British and the French, Afghanistan seems to be shared by most of the "Global North" at this point, and so on. I definitely wouldn't say that the US doesn't have any responsibility here.

mjburgess 5y ago

You might find that same Admiral would say the same to any president or congress pushing for cooperation with saudi arabia.

refurb 5y ago

Core values being US/G7/NATO geopolitical strategy in the Middle East. It's Realpolitik. If we refused to work with anyone who didn't mirror Western values, do you think that would be possible? I mean, do we just refuse to even engage most of Africa, the Middle East and Asia? That doesn't seem realistic.

koheripbal 5y ago
I really respect this comment. It is the reason I visit HN daily instead of Twitter, Reddit, or Facebook. Realism is the mark of adulthood.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Unassumed realism is not the mark of adulthood. If you sincerely agree then the stance you should hold is "I support atrocities if they benefit me and I don't care if other countries violate human rights". From then on we can have a good discussion. But the above is using realism as an excuse instead of fully assuming it and taking it to its conclusion.
  - koheripbal 5y ago
    Adulthood (ie experience), demonstrates that you cannot fight on every front, against every adversary, and for every cause, simultaneously. Adulthood means that you need to prioritize your goals, choose your battles, and set the stage for the progress you want to make. Simply refusing to deal with anyone that doesn't adhere to your ethical values is what my teenage daughter does, quite literally.
    - sudosysgen 5y ago
      If you care about ethics, then you would try to improve the situation in Saudi Arabia, which is much more fragile and more subject to US influence, instead of trying to do so in China which is a superpower you will only ever antagonize. The comment above wasn't about prioritizing the best targets to pursue your ethical goals. It's about ignoring them but pretending they still matter. They don't matter. If we care about ethics at all we wouldn't orchestrate coups instead of forgoing a bit of oil revenue.

DigiDigiorno 5y ago

So because others do wrong, it's okay for you to do wrong? Also, because you didn't ask him the question, you don't know that he would agree with the SA "wrong".

raincom 5y ago
Those (in this case, the general) who implicitly consent to doing wrong, should not preach others. If this said general had resigned to protest the USA's support for Saudi, yes, one can listen to his 'sayings'.
- DigiDigiorno 5y ago
  My question has nothing to do with the general, or anyone in the world but the OP. My comment that the general wasn't even asked this question, was a bit of a different point, it unfortunately distracts from my main point.

908B64B197 5y ago

The difference is that one of these regimes exists only because of US support. And the other has proven it's willing to infringe on intellectual property rights and steal technology when it's convenient to do so.