3 ms·

It never means a damn thing. It’s always the same story book for the US. And each time you have a fresh batch of recruits from the poorest neighborhoods of ever

It never means a damn thing. It’s always the same story book for the US. And each time you have a fresh batch of recruits from the poorest neighborhoods of every major city ready to “fight for our freedom” and be discarded after like we discarded the Afghans, the Vietnamese etc… All for the sake of lining the pockets of some billionaires, companies and politicians. Politicians who stays there for 40 years and tell us they’re fighting for us and this time will be different.

inglor_cz 5y ago
Much like the British and even the Russians did, Americans will stop stomaching further losses and will reduce their empire to a more manageable extent. I am practically sure of that. Hillary Clinton lost election partly on account of being a "warmonger" and there is little appetite left in the American electorate to go elsewhere for an armored vacation. What that is going to mean for the rest of the world, I don't know. Vacuum of power never lasted too long, and will last even shorter with 8 billion people competing for resources, water and arable land. I think we will see more conflict in the future, but with fewer American dead. Perhaps the U.S. will end up where Germany and Sweden currently are: an ostensibly peace-loving nation that just really likes to sell hi-tech weapons, ehm.
- danielschonfeld 5y ago
  One can only hope. But first we need to fix ourselves from that PTSD that 9/11 left us with, though I am not sure we can stomach that. I wonder if the Germans ever came to terms with their WWII shame? Hard to tell. From my encounters with them, it always seems like a burden carried in perpetuity, generation to generation. Who knows.
  - yostrovs 5y ago
    In my experience, the Germans believe they have done a terrible thing, but were the ones to learn the most from it. They have since studied their doings and reflected on them heavily. So much so that they are moral leaders of the world and others should learn from them of how to have a pure heart.
    - inglor_cz 5y ago
      Which, from a neighbor's perspective, is quite a bit annoying... When I visited Denmark and talked to Danish people, I was surprised how much the Danish and the Czech perspective on German politics overlaps.
      - danielschonfeld 5y ago
        Curious to hear more. Do explain please
        inglor_cz 5y ago
        If I could distill it in a few phrases... The German right: "We are a superior nation due to our precision, organization, engineering and business skills. Everyone should, naturally, emulate us, or fall behind." The German left: "Morality is the measure of all things and there are no compromises possible. Everyone should follow us to salvation, because we have been through hell and, as a consequence, we know best." Sorry for having offended anyone :) The common thread seems to be the conviction that Germany is a Vorreiter (leader) of Europe, which, frankly, it isn't anymore. Europe has weaker and stronger countries, but no clear leaders.
        danielschonfeld 5y ago
        Thanks for sharing this insight!
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        polotics 5y ago
        Germany is a leader in turning off nuclear power plants when they should be turning off coal. Also a leader in trying to sneak (russian) gas as a "transition" energy source into decarbonation plans. Anything but a moral leader.
        forgingahead 5y ago
- cm2187 5y ago
  I wouldn’t extrapolate too much. Afghanistan isn’t really of any strategic importance to the US other than not providing a safe harbour for international terrorism, which is not even clear the talibans still intend to do.
- ridiculous_leke 5y ago
  Of course. Rivals of China have considerably increased their purchase of US weapons.
- bassman9000 5y ago
  Major difference: neither Sweden nor Germany are the ocean police the US is. Global trade is basically guaranteed by the US Navy. Vacuum of power in the seas means severe commerce disruption, which means isolation and autocracy for many countries. And war. The US is big in terms of land, water, and people. Not so much many other countries, including European ones.
endymi0n 5y ago
While I agree with your points, it's not the only outcome. As a German, technically the US did the same thing to our country in '45: Throw bombs, invade and then occupy it — then gradually leave and pull out and let us handle our own stuff including military and defense. Being a bit biased, I'd still say it worked out brilliantly. I'm seriously curious about what made this work out so well, compared to Afghanistan or Vietnam. Is it because there was no big difference in religion? Because there was more mutual respect? Because there was a common enemy in the East? Or because the US _really_ made a giant effort to rebuild the German economy (The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan is still remembered fondly by especially older Germans and to this day is a core reason for friendly sentiment towards the US despite the anti-foreign sentiment into the other direction lately) Like, maybe I'm dumb, but the US went into Afghanistan and theoretically gave "them" weapons and training to defend themselves, but apparently the big majority was either not interested or too scared to defend the country against the Taliban. I'm stumped on the big difference.
- tzs 5y ago
  Germany was a reasonable country that took a turn at the top toward extreme unreasonableness. When the Allies kicked out the Nazis Germany was able to go back to reasonableness because that was normal for Germany. It just needed some support from the Allies to keep things from falling apart so that it could transition back to reasonableness. Afghanistan was pretty much always a poorly governed country rife with corruption. The US went in to stop it being taken over by something even worse. Stopping the Taliban didn't do anything about a corrupt government that does a poor job of governing. It would either eventually end up a dictatorship from someone within the government seizing permanent power, or someone would topple the government because the government is too corrupt and ineffective to organize a good defense. Really all the US could hope for as long as that government remained in control was to delay the Taliban long enough for it to be someone else who toppled the government and then hope that the new government was sufficiently more competent to handle holding off the Taliban. To really address the Afghanistan problem probably requires someone to go in, smash the Taliban and kick out the current government (as of last night--haven't seen the news today so am not if they are still current), then oversee something like a constitutional convention for all Afghanis to develop a new more democratic government with sufficient safeguards to keep the corruption down somewhat. That's hard to do while trying to stay on the right side of the line between empire building and truly helping a people develop a good stable non-corrupt independent representative government.
throwawaylinux 5y ago
It's funny, after the war-profiteers loot and pillage the US and the hapless country on the receiving end, they have the audacity to recruit their journalists and academics and self-proclaimed experts to opine about how everyone in the US shares blame for how things have turned out. Everyone must accept the consequences of the wars foisted on the world. "Your son died so we could steal your money, but you must pitch in and share the burden of the consequences of the war we started in Afghanistan." No I'm sorry, Americans are among the victims of these maniacs. It's not "Americans" who are collectively responsible for these atrocities, it is the profiteers themselves. And I don't intend to lessen the suffering of the Afghani (or Libyans, Syrians, Iraqi, etc). You just watch, in the coming months, years, these same shysters will solemnly come to you, cap in hand, telling you how you have to pony up more money, or send your children to more conflicts, or learn to live with more terrorist attacks in your country -- because you are somehow responsible for their war.
- trasz 5y ago
  So how about starting a campaign to prosecute the politicians responsible for those wars? I understand what you are saying, but it’s kind of hard to take it seriously if the American society doesn’t even try to do anything about it.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    That's victim blaming. The system they have set up to protect themselves from the people does not allow them to be prosecuted. Anybody who tries would be attacked, bullied, censored, deplatformed, branded a conspiracy theorist or Russian traitor or communist, the "experts" would all be wheeled out to "debunk" them, etc. I too would like to see stronger anti war sentiment and protests, but the system has become so much stronger and more resilient against those since Vietnam.
voisin 5y ago
And the absolute worst part is that the same money could be spent and the same people employed, to do things of productive use like repair infrastructure at home (or abroad via aid!). Instead it gets pissed away with nothing to show for it.

inglor_cz 5y ago

Much like the British and even the Russians did, Americans will stop stomaching further losses and will reduce their empire to a more manageable extent. I am practically sure of that. Hillary Clinton lost election partly on account of being a "warmonger" and there is little appetite left in the American electorate to go elsewhere for an armored vacation. What that is going to mean for the rest of the world, I don't know. Vacuum of power never lasted too long, and will last even shorter with 8 billion people competing for resources, water and arable land. I think we will see more conflict in the future, but with fewer American dead. Perhaps the U.S. will end up where Germany and Sweden currently are: an ostensibly peace-loving nation that just really likes to sell hi-tech weapons, ehm.

danielschonfeld 5y ago
One can only hope. But first we need to fix ourselves from that PTSD that 9/11 left us with, though I am not sure we can stomach that. I wonder if the Germans ever came to terms with their WWII shame? Hard to tell. From my encounters with them, it always seems like a burden carried in perpetuity, generation to generation. Who knows.
- yostrovs 5y ago
  In my experience, the Germans believe they have done a terrible thing, but were the ones to learn the most from it. They have since studied their doings and reflected on them heavily. So much so that they are moral leaders of the world and others should learn from them of how to have a pure heart.
  - inglor_cz 5y ago
    Which, from a neighbor's perspective, is quite a bit annoying... When I visited Denmark and talked to Danish people, I was surprised how much the Danish and the Czech perspective on German politics overlaps.
    - danielschonfeld 5y ago
      Curious to hear more. Do explain please
      - inglor_cz 5y ago
        If I could distill it in a few phrases... The German right: "We are a superior nation due to our precision, organization, engineering and business skills. Everyone should, naturally, emulate us, or fall behind." The German left: "Morality is the measure of all things and there are no compromises possible. Everyone should follow us to salvation, because we have been through hell and, as a consequence, we know best." Sorry for having offended anyone :) The common thread seems to be the conviction that Germany is a Vorreiter (leader) of Europe, which, frankly, it isn't anymore. Europe has weaker and stronger countries, but no clear leaders.
        danielschonfeld 5y ago
        Thanks for sharing this insight!
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        polotics 5y ago
        Germany is a leader in turning off nuclear power plants when they should be turning off coal. Also a leader in trying to sneak (russian) gas as a "transition" energy source into decarbonation plans. Anything but a moral leader.
        forgingahead 5y ago
cm2187 5y ago
I wouldn’t extrapolate too much. Afghanistan isn’t really of any strategic importance to the US other than not providing a safe harbour for international terrorism, which is not even clear the talibans still intend to do.
ridiculous_leke 5y ago
Of course. Rivals of China have considerably increased their purchase of US weapons.
bassman9000 5y ago
Major difference: neither Sweden nor Germany are the ocean police the US is. Global trade is basically guaranteed by the US Navy. Vacuum of power in the seas means severe commerce disruption, which means isolation and autocracy for many countries. And war. The US is big in terms of land, water, and people. Not so much many other countries, including European ones.

endymi0n 5y ago

While I agree with your points, it's not the only outcome. As a German, technically the US did the same thing to our country in '45: Throw bombs, invade and then occupy it — then gradually leave and pull out and let us handle our own stuff including military and defense. Being a bit biased, I'd still say it worked out brilliantly. I'm seriously curious about what made this work out so well, compared to Afghanistan or Vietnam. Is it because there was no big difference in religion? Because there was more mutual respect? Because there was a common enemy in the East? Or because the US _really_ made a giant effort to rebuild the German economy (The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan is still remembered fondly by especially older Germans and to this day is a core reason for friendly sentiment towards the US despite the anti-foreign sentiment into the other direction lately) Like, maybe I'm dumb, but the US went into Afghanistan and theoretically gave "them" weapons and training to defend themselves, but apparently the big majority was either not interested or too scared to defend the country against the Taliban. I'm stumped on the big difference.

tzs 5y ago
Germany was a reasonable country that took a turn at the top toward extreme unreasonableness. When the Allies kicked out the Nazis Germany was able to go back to reasonableness because that was normal for Germany. It just needed some support from the Allies to keep things from falling apart so that it could transition back to reasonableness. Afghanistan was pretty much always a poorly governed country rife with corruption. The US went in to stop it being taken over by something even worse. Stopping the Taliban didn't do anything about a corrupt government that does a poor job of governing. It would either eventually end up a dictatorship from someone within the government seizing permanent power, or someone would topple the government because the government is too corrupt and ineffective to organize a good defense. Really all the US could hope for as long as that government remained in control was to delay the Taliban long enough for it to be someone else who toppled the government and then hope that the new government was sufficiently more competent to handle holding off the Taliban. To really address the Afghanistan problem probably requires someone to go in, smash the Taliban and kick out the current government (as of last night--haven't seen the news today so am not if they are still current), then oversee something like a constitutional convention for all Afghanis to develop a new more democratic government with sufficient safeguards to keep the corruption down somewhat. That's hard to do while trying to stay on the right side of the line between empire building and truly helping a people develop a good stable non-corrupt independent representative government.

throwawaylinux 5y ago

It's funny, after the war-profiteers loot and pillage the US and the hapless country on the receiving end, they have the audacity to recruit their journalists and academics and self-proclaimed experts to opine about how everyone in the US shares blame for how things have turned out. Everyone must accept the consequences of the wars foisted on the world. "Your son died so we could steal your money, but you must pitch in and share the burden of the consequences of the war we started in Afghanistan." No I'm sorry, Americans are among the victims of these maniacs. It's not "Americans" who are collectively responsible for these atrocities, it is the profiteers themselves. And I don't intend to lessen the suffering of the Afghani (or Libyans, Syrians, Iraqi, etc). You just watch, in the coming months, years, these same shysters will solemnly come to you, cap in hand, telling you how you have to pony up more money, or send your children to more conflicts, or learn to live with more terrorist attacks in your country -- because you are somehow responsible for their war.

trasz 5y ago
So how about starting a campaign to prosecute the politicians responsible for those wars? I understand what you are saying, but it’s kind of hard to take it seriously if the American society doesn’t even try to do anything about it.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  That's victim blaming. The system they have set up to protect themselves from the people does not allow them to be prosecuted. Anybody who tries would be attacked, bullied, censored, deplatformed, branded a conspiracy theorist or Russian traitor or communist, the "experts" would all be wheeled out to "debunk" them, etc. I too would like to see stronger anti war sentiment and protests, but the system has become so much stronger and more resilient against those since Vietnam.

voisin 5y ago

And the absolute worst part is that the same money could be spent and the same people employed, to do things of productive use like repair infrastructure at home (or abroad via aid!). Instead it gets pissed away with nothing to show for it.