5 ms·

The world is complicated, but I honestly believe that last 70 years or so of geopolitics makes more sense if I start with the assumption that the USA are "the b

The world is complicated, but I honestly believe that last 70 years or so of geopolitics makes more sense if I start with the assumption that the USA are "the bad guys." Vietnam, Iraq, Iran in the 50s, Chile in the 70s, Israel/Palestine since the beginning, the list goes on. Hell, even in WWII where the USA was ostensibly on the "right side" of the war, the USA ended it in such an profoundly evil way by dropping two nuclear bombs, killing thousands and thousands of people. There's a good list of US-invovled regime change on Wikipedia, for anyone looking for a starting place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... Besides armed conflict, the way the USA exploits the third world in the name of mining resources and cheap manufacturing is abhorrent. Conditions that are illegal within the USA's borders are common elsewhere, and then the USA turns a blind to that suffering while enjoying cheap food, clothes, and gadgets

ed_mercer 3y ago
Not dropping nukes would have resulted in way more casualties. It was a calculated decision to minimize loss of life, not be an evil enemy.
- api 3y ago
  I agree in principle but have always wondered if a purely military target could have been chosen, at least for the first demonstration. Something like a military port or base. After that it could have been made clear that arms manufacturing centers may be targeted next, followed by political centers. (They did not know we had only two bombs and would need time to make more.) As far as I know the reasoning was that the Japanese public would have to see it, but I wonder if a suitable military target on the mainland could have been found that would have minimized civilian casualties while being impossible for the regime to hide.
rich_sasha 3y ago
So here I disagree. You list a number of wars that turned out to be disasters, and in hindsight were possibly a bad idea to get involved in. But I see you missed off Korea - a very bloody war, which however cemented a free(ish) South Korea. I'd imagine present day South Koreans are quite glad to not be under Kim Jong Sun's thumb. Had the Vietnam war succeeded, would we see it similarly? As for Iraq wars, terrible as they turned out to be, I see a kernel of wanting to contain, then remove, a really awful tyrant. That Hussein was terrible seems to be beyond any question. Alas, the medicine was perhaps more bitter than the disease. I think it's just hard to be the world's policeman, and maybe you get even most things wrong. That in itself doesn't mean you're a bad guy. I'm not defending the outcomes, just to be clear. As for America as "the bad guys"... It seems you don't live in a country neighboured by a proper baddie. At worst, I would say that the worst, most terrible, isolated atrocities of the American wars of last 30 years perhaps match the daily reality of what Russia does in Ukraine.
- hippoSquid 3y ago
  176k people in Afghanistan died during the war[1]. Up to 1 million died due to the Iraq war[2]. We left almost all of Korea and Vietnam completely destroyed after those wars. The US has actually has been at war for nearly every year of its existence[3]. I find it really hard not to consider America "the bad guys". I don't think there are "proper baddies" though. The US acts just as much of a baddie as any other country. Every country will do what it wants to advance its interests (especially a superpower) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...
  - rich_sasha 3y ago
    So, for one, I'm not arguing the outcomes of these wars was good. Rather, that (a) the intentions may well have been good, and also (b) we would really need to compare to the counterfactual of these wars not happening in the first place. Then there are also mitigating circumstances. Vietnam wasn't started or even fanned up by the US, but rather by the French. The US "inherited" an awful situation. And lest we forget, North Vietnamese did awful purges to the South Vietnamese after the war. Afghanistan to me is the least ambiguous of them, at least in the early years. US was attacked by a terrorist unit, given official shelter in Afghanistan, whose government also refused to give them up. Not just that, but the propped up regime did things we care about as good. Since NATO withdrawal the Taliban brought thei own variety of peace and associated poverty, and it's not particularly good either. Sure, not a deadly war, but not exactly a niceout come either. Time and time again the West, lead by the US, faces the nasty choice between seeing evil be done and standing by, or intervening, by means of war, to protect some notion of goodness. And yes, mostly this failed - and maybe the lesson is, don't get involved. But I don't think it's a straightforward a priori obvious thing. Oh, and if you say there are no "baddie" countries, that just means you aren't familiar with being invaded by one. It's not immutable in time, tables turn etc. But just read up for 2 mins about say Russian atrocities in Ukraine and you may well think warmly of the other wars.
ipaddr 3y ago
If you start with US are bad guys and it would have been better for Hitler to be in power or Russia or imperialist Japan then I'd love to learn about your ideal worldview. Most of those wars were a counterweight to Russia taking over countries. Free trade gave you cheap clothes, food and gadgets. The US isn't exploiting poorer countries those countries want to sell their goods and services. They are cheaper only because wages/costs are higher here (plus transport). Going back to tariffs is a productivity drop globally and a way to keep poorer countries down.
bawolff 3y ago
> The world is complicated, but I honestly believe that last 70 years or so of geopolitics makes more sense if I start with the assumption that the USA are "the bad guys." The world makes more sense if you assume there are no good and bad guys, but just self-interested actors. USA does good things when it benefits them but also bad things when it benefits them. Same with everyone else, usa just is slightly more incentivized to take a soft power approach.
nextaccountic 3y ago
if you want to talk about US evils in ww2 i think it makes more sense to emphasize the firebombing of tokyo rather than the atomic bombs. they were way worse, and curtis lemay famously said he expected to be tried for war crimes if the us lost the war (the dresden bombing was also quite bad but i'm not sure how they compare)
rank0 3y ago
You’re just jumping on the anti American bandwagon. It’s a cold dark forest. Conflict and self interest are immutable characteristics of humankind. You act as if we’re the only nation who’s ever committed acts of violence. There’s no objective “good guys” or “bad guys.”

ed_mercer 3y ago

Not dropping nukes would have resulted in way more casualties. It was a calculated decision to minimize loss of life, not be an evil enemy.

api 3y ago
I agree in principle but have always wondered if a purely military target could have been chosen, at least for the first demonstration. Something like a military port or base. After that it could have been made clear that arms manufacturing centers may be targeted next, followed by political centers. (They did not know we had only two bombs and would need time to make more.) As far as I know the reasoning was that the Japanese public would have to see it, but I wonder if a suitable military target on the mainland could have been found that would have minimized civilian casualties while being impossible for the regime to hide.

rich_sasha 3y ago

So here I disagree. You list a number of wars that turned out to be disasters, and in hindsight were possibly a bad idea to get involved in. But I see you missed off Korea - a very bloody war, which however cemented a free(ish) South Korea. I'd imagine present day South Koreans are quite glad to not be under Kim Jong Sun's thumb. Had the Vietnam war succeeded, would we see it similarly? As for Iraq wars, terrible as they turned out to be, I see a kernel of wanting to contain, then remove, a really awful tyrant. That Hussein was terrible seems to be beyond any question. Alas, the medicine was perhaps more bitter than the disease. I think it's just hard to be the world's policeman, and maybe you get even most things wrong. That in itself doesn't mean you're a bad guy. I'm not defending the outcomes, just to be clear. As for America as "the bad guys"... It seems you don't live in a country neighboured by a proper baddie. At worst, I would say that the worst, most terrible, isolated atrocities of the American wars of last 30 years perhaps match the daily reality of what Russia does in Ukraine.

hippoSquid 3y ago
176k people in Afghanistan died during the war[1]. Up to 1 million died due to the Iraq war[2]. We left almost all of Korea and Vietnam completely destroyed after those wars. The US has actually has been at war for nearly every year of its existence[3]. I find it really hard not to consider America "the bad guys". I don't think there are "proper baddies" though. The US acts just as much of a baddie as any other country. Every country will do what it wants to advance its interests (especially a superpower) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%932021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_war... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  So, for one, I'm not arguing the outcomes of these wars was good. Rather, that (a) the intentions may well have been good, and also (b) we would really need to compare to the counterfactual of these wars not happening in the first place. Then there are also mitigating circumstances. Vietnam wasn't started or even fanned up by the US, but rather by the French. The US "inherited" an awful situation. And lest we forget, North Vietnamese did awful purges to the South Vietnamese after the war. Afghanistan to me is the least ambiguous of them, at least in the early years. US was attacked by a terrorist unit, given official shelter in Afghanistan, whose government also refused to give them up. Not just that, but the propped up regime did things we care about as good. Since NATO withdrawal the Taliban brought thei own variety of peace and associated poverty, and it's not particularly good either. Sure, not a deadly war, but not exactly a niceout come either. Time and time again the West, lead by the US, faces the nasty choice between seeing evil be done and standing by, or intervening, by means of war, to protect some notion of goodness. And yes, mostly this failed - and maybe the lesson is, don't get involved. But I don't think it's a straightforward a priori obvious thing. Oh, and if you say there are no "baddie" countries, that just means you aren't familiar with being invaded by one. It's not immutable in time, tables turn etc. But just read up for 2 mins about say Russian atrocities in Ukraine and you may well think warmly of the other wars.

ipaddr 3y ago

If you start with US are bad guys and it would have been better for Hitler to be in power or Russia or imperialist Japan then I'd love to learn about your ideal worldview. Most of those wars were a counterweight to Russia taking over countries. Free trade gave you cheap clothes, food and gadgets. The US isn't exploiting poorer countries those countries want to sell their goods and services. They are cheaper only because wages/costs are higher here (plus transport). Going back to tariffs is a productivity drop globally and a way to keep poorer countries down.

bawolff 3y ago

> The world is complicated, but I honestly believe that last 70 years or so of geopolitics makes more sense if I start with the assumption that the USA are "the bad guys." The world makes more sense if you assume there are no good and bad guys, but just self-interested actors. USA does good things when it benefits them but also bad things when it benefits them. Same with everyone else, usa just is slightly more incentivized to take a soft power approach.

nextaccountic 3y ago

if you want to talk about US evils in ww2 i think it makes more sense to emphasize the firebombing of tokyo rather than the atomic bombs. they were way worse, and curtis lemay famously said he expected to be tried for war crimes if the us lost the war (the dresden bombing was also quite bad but i'm not sure how they compare)

rank0 3y ago

You’re just jumping on the anti American bandwagon. It’s a cold dark forest. Conflict and self interest are immutable characteristics of humankind. You act as if we’re the only nation who’s ever committed acts of violence. There’s no objective “good guys” or “bad guys.”