11 ms·

Stop. Dude isn't interested in a real answer, he's concern trolling. He propogandizes his position over and over on this site.

rayiner 2y ago
I’m not concern trolling. I don’t want a single U.S. soldier on Ukraine soil. It’s a red line. I’m asking whether a security guarantee increases the risk of that happening.
- Kim_Bruning 2y ago
  Ah, ok, it's a red line for you. Good that you make that explicit, but you are being a thrifty with information there. This site is for curious conversation, so I'd love to see you elucidate a bit further! What's the nature of the red line? For instance, Are you worried they'd get hurt? Are you worried about political implications? Or, does the fact that there are already American volunteers to fighting in Ukraine change your calculus? [1]? What's your idea on whether this applies to Taiwan too? How about Canada or Greenland? Is this a red line that is shared by many? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlgWI0FzjKc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlgWI0FzjKc "US volunteer soldiers appear in Ukraine frontline footage"
  - rayiner 2y ago
    I don’t want the U.S. to bear the cost (in money and lives) of a war that doesn’t directly relate to protecting the american homeland. I think U.S. foreign policy has been a failure since the 1950s—we shouldn’t have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, etc. The only justifiable war in that time, in my opinion, was Afghanistan, where the Taliban harbored terrorists that had attacked the U.S. I think the premise of a “rules based international order” and democracy promotion hurts Americans. In Iraq and Syria it led us to overthrow dictators who were brutal to their own people and threatened their neighbors, but who suppressed terrorists that could attack the U.S. It also causes tremendous collateral damage (millions of dead civilians). While I acknowledge that Ukraine presents less risk of those things, to me it’s a test case. If we can’t resist involvement in Ukraine, there is little hope of turning the ship around on American imperialism generally. The next Iraq War will also be billed as a just war. As of mid 2024, 2/3 of americans opposed sending US troops to Ukraine: https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/americans-see-high-stakes-western-security-russia-ukraine-war https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/ame.... I acknowledge that a security guarantee wouldn’t start with boots on the ground. But there is a historical pattern of deepening involvement where we start out with something like a security guarantee, and that becomes the rope around our ankle that drags us into putting boots on the ground.
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      > I don’t want the U.S. to bear the cost (in money and lives) of a war that doesn’t directly relate to protecting the american homeland. I think U.S. foreign policy has been a failure since the 1950s—we shouldn’t have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, etc. Why don't you run for office on a platform that "Pax Americana was a huge mistake!"
      - rayiner 2y ago
        By the time I was growing up in the 1990s, Korea and Vietnam were widely regarded as mistakes. And then I saw the US make a $6 trillion mistake with the Iraq War. So when Trump called out America’s latest “big fat mistake,” that’s basically what he was running on: https://youtu.be/H4ThZcq1oJQ?si=9Vlf81O3FxQXVoAU https://youtu.be/H4ThZcq1oJQ?si=9Vlf81O3FxQXVoAU
        dctoedt 2y ago
        Forest ... trees .... (And you think Korea was a mistake? Seriously?)
    - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
      You know, fair enough, boy who cries wolf, and then when they go "but this time it's an actual wolf!"; no one listens. I can sort of get that. I mean it sucks, I think it's wrong this time, mostly because for me it's a bit closer to home and debatably existential; but at least I get where you're coming from. Some people are worried that this means that Americans also oppose NATO in general and article 5 in particular. Is that the case, or is that like a known pre-existing alliance and a known quantity?
    - munksbeer 2y ago
      What I find a bit incongruous about this view, is that if we accept it, then we're also accepting the narrative (which may well be true) that the US was the primary cause of the push for Ukraine to join NATO and come under the US sphere of influence. This is basically Putin's claim, and their given reason for the invasion of Ukraine. So how do you marry that up with the lack of culpability the US is now demonstrating? If you accept it, then surely it is also the primary responsibility of the US to resolve the situation peacefully, which pacifies Russia but also leaves Ukraine in a reasonable position. From everything I understand about Trumps "deal" for Ukraine it does nothing of the sort.
- dctoedt 2y ago
  When Germany reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936, British and French forces could easily have rolled to Berlin and deposed Hitler. They didn't, for domestic political reasons that were no less catastrophic for being understandable (war-weary citizenry, plus wishful thinking about Hitler). The best time to have stood up to Putin was 2014. The next best time is right [expletive] now.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Whats the base rate of dictators being Hitler, and what’s the false positive rate of that approach? That thinking seems like it would’ve gotten us into every late 20th and early 21st war that are widely regarded as mistakes.
    - immibis 2y ago
      100%ish?
      - rayiner 2y ago
        Saddam was going to take over Europe? Assad was going to take over Europe?
        immibis 2y ago
        Only one dictator ever was literally Adolf Hitler but that's a meaningless comparison. Saddam and Assad both tried to do holocausts so in my view that makes them Hitlers. I think that is a much more useful practical definition of "a Hitler" than, you know, being named Adolf and being born in the middle of Europe.
- rtp4me 2y ago
  Agreed 100%. No way should any American soldier be sent to fight in that war. It will be a never ending quagmire - both people and money. Full stop. <rant> And, good luck getting any real discussion from anyone here. Most of the Redditors are here now and have brought their "hate on America" flag to HN. Regardless of how much our President does or how much the US gives, it will never be enough. And, the ironic thing is, many of these "intellectuals" on HN routinely put down our "uneducated" voter population while at the same time pleading for their tax dollars to fund a never ending war. Oh, the hypocrisy! As if their countries are any better. At best, this war is at a stalemate unless the EU really steps up to the plate to save their neighbor. Imagine, your neighbor's house is burning down all around you, and the best you can do is give a cup of water while shouting at your distant relative across the ocean to send truck loads of water. If anything, they should be ashamed they let their countries fall so behind they have to rely on someone else to help defend their own property. Crazy! Here's a hint for our EU friends: Step up and help your neighbor! Send all your money to fight the war (that is what you are asking the US tax payers for, right?). Drain your savings accounts, send them your retirement money, send everything you have - until it hurts. Next, go to your closet, put on your fighting boots, and head out to the front lines. The time for taking real action is now. Don't rely on foreign money, governments, boots, equipment, etc. to defend your own property. Rely on _yourselves_ to solve this problem. </rant-off>
  - ponector 2y ago
    > this war is at a stalemate It is a stalemate because US government wants it to be a stalemate. They never wanted Ukraine to win. Because it can embarrass putin. That's why they send some old equipment, barely enough to slow down Russian troops. Sending weapons with restrictions to use them against Russians - Ukrainians are fighting with tied hands.
  - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
    It's worth considering that Europe's military dependence wasn't accidental - it was partly a deliberate outcome of post-WWII American policy. The U.S. has historically benefited from being the primary security provider for Europe, giving it significant influence and strategic advantages. A fully independent European military capability might create a very different geopolitical dynamic.

rayiner 2y ago

I’m not concern trolling. I don’t want a single U.S. soldier on Ukraine soil. It’s a red line. I’m asking whether a security guarantee increases the risk of that happening.

Kim_Bruning 2y ago
Ah, ok, it's a red line for you. Good that you make that explicit, but you are being a thrifty with information there. This site is for curious conversation, so I'd love to see you elucidate a bit further! What's the nature of the red line? For instance, Are you worried they'd get hurt? Are you worried about political implications? Or, does the fact that there are already American volunteers to fighting in Ukraine change your calculus? [1]? What's your idea on whether this applies to Taiwan too? How about Canada or Greenland? Is this a red line that is shared by many? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlgWI0FzjKc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlgWI0FzjKc "US volunteer soldiers appear in Ukraine frontline footage"
- rayiner 2y ago
  I don’t want the U.S. to bear the cost (in money and lives) of a war that doesn’t directly relate to protecting the american homeland. I think U.S. foreign policy has been a failure since the 1950s—we shouldn’t have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, etc. The only justifiable war in that time, in my opinion, was Afghanistan, where the Taliban harbored terrorists that had attacked the U.S. I think the premise of a “rules based international order” and democracy promotion hurts Americans. In Iraq and Syria it led us to overthrow dictators who were brutal to their own people and threatened their neighbors, but who suppressed terrorists that could attack the U.S. It also causes tremendous collateral damage (millions of dead civilians). While I acknowledge that Ukraine presents less risk of those things, to me it’s a test case. If we can’t resist involvement in Ukraine, there is little hope of turning the ship around on American imperialism generally. The next Iraq War will also be billed as a just war. As of mid 2024, 2/3 of americans opposed sending US troops to Ukraine: https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/americans-see-high-stakes-western-security-russia-ukraine-war https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/ame.... I acknowledge that a security guarantee wouldn’t start with boots on the ground. But there is a historical pattern of deepening involvement where we start out with something like a security guarantee, and that becomes the rope around our ankle that drags us into putting boots on the ground.
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    > I don’t want the U.S. to bear the cost (in money and lives) of a war that doesn’t directly relate to protecting the american homeland. I think U.S. foreign policy has been a failure since the 1950s—we shouldn’t have gone to war in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, etc. Why don't you run for office on a platform that "Pax Americana was a huge mistake!"
    - rayiner 2y ago
      By the time I was growing up in the 1990s, Korea and Vietnam were widely regarded as mistakes. And then I saw the US make a $6 trillion mistake with the Iraq War. So when Trump called out America’s latest “big fat mistake,” that’s basically what he was running on: https://youtu.be/H4ThZcq1oJQ?si=9Vlf81O3FxQXVoAU https://youtu.be/H4ThZcq1oJQ?si=9Vlf81O3FxQXVoAU
      - dctoedt 2y ago
        Forest ... trees .... (And you think Korea was a mistake? Seriously?)
  - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
    You know, fair enough, boy who cries wolf, and then when they go "but this time it's an actual wolf!"; no one listens. I can sort of get that. I mean it sucks, I think it's wrong this time, mostly because for me it's a bit closer to home and debatably existential; but at least I get where you're coming from. Some people are worried that this means that Americans also oppose NATO in general and article 5 in particular. Is that the case, or is that like a known pre-existing alliance and a known quantity?
  - munksbeer 2y ago
    What I find a bit incongruous about this view, is that if we accept it, then we're also accepting the narrative (which may well be true) that the US was the primary cause of the push for Ukraine to join NATO and come under the US sphere of influence. This is basically Putin's claim, and their given reason for the invasion of Ukraine. So how do you marry that up with the lack of culpability the US is now demonstrating? If you accept it, then surely it is also the primary responsibility of the US to resolve the situation peacefully, which pacifies Russia but also leaves Ukraine in a reasonable position. From everything I understand about Trumps "deal" for Ukraine it does nothing of the sort.
dctoedt 2y ago
When Germany reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936, British and French forces could easily have rolled to Berlin and deposed Hitler. They didn't, for domestic political reasons that were no less catastrophic for being understandable (war-weary citizenry, plus wishful thinking about Hitler). The best time to have stood up to Putin was 2014. The next best time is right [expletive] now.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Whats the base rate of dictators being Hitler, and what’s the false positive rate of that approach? That thinking seems like it would’ve gotten us into every late 20th and early 21st war that are widely regarded as mistakes.
  - immibis 2y ago
    100%ish?
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Saddam was going to take over Europe? Assad was going to take over Europe?
      - immibis 2y ago
        Only one dictator ever was literally Adolf Hitler but that's a meaningless comparison. Saddam and Assad both tried to do holocausts so in my view that makes them Hitlers. I think that is a much more useful practical definition of "a Hitler" than, you know, being named Adolf and being born in the middle of Europe.
rtp4me 2y ago
Agreed 100%. No way should any American soldier be sent to fight in that war. It will be a never ending quagmire - both people and money. Full stop. <rant> And, good luck getting any real discussion from anyone here. Most of the Redditors are here now and have brought their "hate on America" flag to HN. Regardless of how much our President does or how much the US gives, it will never be enough. And, the ironic thing is, many of these "intellectuals" on HN routinely put down our "uneducated" voter population while at the same time pleading for their tax dollars to fund a never ending war. Oh, the hypocrisy! As if their countries are any better. At best, this war is at a stalemate unless the EU really steps up to the plate to save their neighbor. Imagine, your neighbor's house is burning down all around you, and the best you can do is give a cup of water while shouting at your distant relative across the ocean to send truck loads of water. If anything, they should be ashamed they let their countries fall so behind they have to rely on someone else to help defend their own property. Crazy! Here's a hint for our EU friends: Step up and help your neighbor! Send all your money to fight the war (that is what you are asking the US tax payers for, right?). Drain your savings accounts, send them your retirement money, send everything you have - until it hurts. Next, go to your closet, put on your fighting boots, and head out to the front lines. The time for taking real action is now. Don't rely on foreign money, governments, boots, equipment, etc. to defend your own property. Rely on _yourselves_ to solve this problem. </rant-off>
- ponector 2y ago
  > this war is at a stalemate It is a stalemate because US government wants it to be a stalemate. They never wanted Ukraine to win. Because it can embarrass putin. That's why they send some old equipment, barely enough to slow down Russian troops. Sending weapons with restrictions to use them against Russians - Ukrainians are fighting with tied hands.
- Kim_Bruning 2y ago
  It's worth considering that Europe's military dependence wasn't accidental - it was partly a deliberate outcome of post-WWII American policy. The U.S. has historically benefited from being the primary security provider for Europe, giving it significant influence and strategic advantages. A fully independent European military capability might create a very different geopolitical dynamic.