4 ms·

It’s not a matter of power but a matter of morals I think. The U.S has every ability annihilate any enemy but the collateral damage to do so restricts it heavil

It’s not a matter of power but a matter of morals I think. The U.S has every ability annihilate any enemy but the collateral damage to do so restricts it heavily. If the goal of the US was straight up imperialism/colonialism it would be a very different story.

trasz 5y ago
It’s not about morals - nobody in US seems to care about the million people they killed in Middle East - it’s about dead American soldiers looking bad in the TV.
- torstenvl 5y ago
  False statements don't help public discussion. It is not true that the U.S. killed a million people in the Middle East. And this is not some sophistic semantic argument either, as it remains not true when you include Afghanistan. The number of civilian casualties is not even close. It is also not true that the U.S. doesn't care about civilian casualties. The U.S., U.K., and Australia are the only countries I know that put lawyers in air strike operations cells to ensure the law of armed conflict is followed. The French red card holders receive training but don't tend to be lawyers, believe similar is true for Germans and Italians. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who takes this obligation more seriously than the U.S. and closest allies.
  - trasz 5y ago
    Some estimates indicate million killed in Iraq alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualt.... Apart from Afghanistan, you'd also need to add civilian victims of US sanctions. The fact that US uses lawyers "to ensure the law of armed conflict is followed" does not mean they care about civilians; it means they care about being sued in case they killed someone whose family can afford lawyers.
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      A country cannot be sued for causing a civilian death in war. Your speculation about motivations has no basis in reality. Additionally, the link you posted about deaths in Iraq does not say what you think it says.
      - trasz 5y ago
        Individual soldiers can, and US is very protective about its war criminals (see Iran Air 655). Almost every country cares about civilians more the US: by not waging wars.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - mempko 5y ago
    The U.S. also takes it seriously when whistle blowers and journalists leak a story that tells the opposite. Torturing Chelsea Manning and going after Julian Assange for example. The million excess deaths from the wars is very realistic and plausible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
    - torstenvl 5y ago
      Chelsea Manning wasn't tortured. The USG even paid for her gender reassignment surgery, and she was released early from her sentence. No reasonable person can call that torture. The claim isn't "there were a million excess deaths in a multiparty conflict," the claim is that the U.S. killed a million people. The vast majority of civilian killings were by ISIS and Shia militias.
      - trasz 5y ago
        Those “excess deaths” wouldn’t happen if the US hadn’t invaded Middle East. Thus, it’s US fault. Generally speaking, calling US victims “excess deaths” tells something about American state of mind, though.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
        torstenvl 5y ago
        That isn't how fault works. None of the misfortune I've suffered in my life would have happened if my father had never impregnated my mother, therefore it's all his fault and I'm his victim? No. "But for" causation has zero moral import whatsoever. Stop spewing your ax-grindy propaganda.
        trasz 5y ago
        So essentially your claim is that invading a country is not the cause for subsequent million victims of said invasion. You still don't see it, do you? You have been brainwashed into believing that war mongering is somehow not pure evil as long as it's done by US.
sudosysgen 5y ago
Lol. The US is far from that powerful. You don't win wars by annihilation, you win wars by achieving political goals. The US wasn't able to reach these goals in no small part because of too much collateral damage. If you want to know what a more sucessful campaign in Afghanistan looked like, the USSR invaded Afghanistan and their allied regime lasted over a year until Yeltsin caused the to fall and gave Afghanistan to the Taliban by imposing sanctions. You'll note that it's not increased brutality that was successful. It was having actually effective allies on the ground that made and broke the Soviet campaign. What's more, the campaign of shock in the initial stages of invasion was brutal, and did a lot of collateral damage, and didn't work and actually was counterproductive. It was only when the Soviets and their allies managed to actually get a competent and motivated Afghan military towards the later stages of the war that the war started turning in their favour. The US was never able to achieve their political goals and the US-backed government was never competent and motivated even after twenty years. It was a failure of the US military to achieve its goals. No amount of additional collateral damage would have done anything, it was simply a failure. In fact, less morals would have made things worse. Also, see Iraq which was even more brutal and still completely unsuccessful with Iraq veering under Iranian control.
KaiserPro 5y ago
> It’s not a matter of power but a matter of morals I think. Its a matter of will. What is in it for the USA to start/finish a hot war with russia? Russia has has different rules of engagement which means that they are prepared to be a bit more ruthless when it comes to doing a war. This means that for the US to win, it will need to commit a fucktonne of resources, of which a politically damaging number will be destroyed. The US isn't going to commit that much because there is no real strategic win for this. Russia is basically being textbook russia. Its been doing this shit in this region off and on for the last 150+ years. Its far easier to let ukraine blunt russia's fighting force, than it is to loose american troops. Its not a moral judgement, its raw hard domestic politics.

trasz 5y ago

It’s not about morals - nobody in US seems to care about the million people they killed in Middle East - it’s about dead American soldiers looking bad in the TV.

torstenvl 5y ago
False statements don't help public discussion. It is not true that the U.S. killed a million people in the Middle East. And this is not some sophistic semantic argument either, as it remains not true when you include Afghanistan. The number of civilian casualties is not even close. It is also not true that the U.S. doesn't care about civilian casualties. The U.S., U.K., and Australia are the only countries I know that put lawyers in air strike operations cells to ensure the law of armed conflict is followed. The French red card holders receive training but don't tend to be lawyers, believe similar is true for Germans and Italians. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who takes this obligation more seriously than the U.S. and closest allies.
- trasz 5y ago
  Some estimates indicate million killed in Iraq alone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualt.... Apart from Afghanistan, you'd also need to add civilian victims of US sanctions. The fact that US uses lawyers "to ensure the law of armed conflict is followed" does not mean they care about civilians; it means they care about being sued in case they killed someone whose family can afford lawyers.
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    A country cannot be sued for causing a civilian death in war. Your speculation about motivations has no basis in reality. Additionally, the link you posted about deaths in Iraq does not say what you think it says.
    - trasz 5y ago
      Individual soldiers can, and US is very protective about its war criminals (see Iran Air 655). Almost every country cares about civilians more the US: by not waging wars.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- mempko 5y ago
  The U.S. also takes it seriously when whistle blowers and journalists leak a story that tells the opposite. Torturing Chelsea Manning and going after Julian Assange for example. The million excess deaths from the wars is very realistic and plausible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
  - torstenvl 5y ago
    Chelsea Manning wasn't tortured. The USG even paid for her gender reassignment surgery, and she was released early from her sentence. No reasonable person can call that torture. The claim isn't "there were a million excess deaths in a multiparty conflict," the claim is that the U.S. killed a million people. The vast majority of civilian killings were by ISIS and Shia militias.
    - trasz 5y ago
      Those “excess deaths” wouldn’t happen if the US hadn’t invaded Middle East. Thus, it’s US fault. Generally speaking, calling US victims “excess deaths” tells something about American state of mind, though.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - torstenvl 5y ago
        That isn't how fault works. None of the misfortune I've suffered in my life would have happened if my father had never impregnated my mother, therefore it's all his fault and I'm his victim? No. "But for" causation has zero moral import whatsoever. Stop spewing your ax-grindy propaganda.
        trasz 5y ago
        So essentially your claim is that invading a country is not the cause for subsequent million victims of said invasion. You still don't see it, do you? You have been brainwashed into believing that war mongering is somehow not pure evil as long as it's done by US.

sudosysgen 5y ago

Lol. The US is far from that powerful. You don't win wars by annihilation, you win wars by achieving political goals. The US wasn't able to reach these goals in no small part because of too much collateral damage. If you want to know what a more sucessful campaign in Afghanistan looked like, the USSR invaded Afghanistan and their allied regime lasted over a year until Yeltsin caused the to fall and gave Afghanistan to the Taliban by imposing sanctions. You'll note that it's not increased brutality that was successful. It was having actually effective allies on the ground that made and broke the Soviet campaign. What's more, the campaign of shock in the initial stages of invasion was brutal, and did a lot of collateral damage, and didn't work and actually was counterproductive. It was only when the Soviets and their allies managed to actually get a competent and motivated Afghan military towards the later stages of the war that the war started turning in their favour. The US was never able to achieve their political goals and the US-backed government was never competent and motivated even after twenty years. It was a failure of the US military to achieve its goals. No amount of additional collateral damage would have done anything, it was simply a failure. In fact, less morals would have made things worse. Also, see Iraq which was even more brutal and still completely unsuccessful with Iraq veering under Iranian control.

KaiserPro 5y ago

> It’s not a matter of power but a matter of morals I think. Its a matter of will. What is in it for the USA to start/finish a hot war with russia? Russia has has different rules of engagement which means that they are prepared to be a bit more ruthless when it comes to doing a war. This means that for the US to win, it will need to commit a fucktonne of resources, of which a politically damaging number will be destroyed. The US isn't going to commit that much because there is no real strategic win for this. Russia is basically being textbook russia. Its been doing this shit in this region off and on for the last 150+ years. Its far easier to let ukraine blunt russia's fighting force, than it is to loose american troops. Its not a moral judgement, its raw hard domestic politics.