| HN Mirror

keybored 807 days ago

I can imagine George Bush Jr. saying something similar.

duxup 807 days ago

Amusing as a big part of his platform when running for president was “no nation building”. Things change quickly.

It's not like NATO did any major nation building in Afghanistan or Iraq, at least nowhere near close to post-WW2 Germany... so in that point he did keep his promise. The entire world lost out as a result of that - there is a direct link from the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq to the Russian invasion into Ukraine.

dragonwriter 807 days ago

There's a whole lot more direct link between the appeasement of Russia at the 2008 NATO summit to the invasions of Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014), but I suppose Iraq and Afghanistan are distantly relevant.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_the_Use_of_M...

I'd argue for the following chain: the failure of NATO in Afghanistan and US+allies in Iraq to (re)build a democratic nation led to a rise of radical Islamism. That in turn led to the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war, causing not just a truckload of effort for Europe to deal with the refugees on top of those we already had from Afghanistan, but especially Assad was left free to ignore any and all "red lines", especially the 2012 warning of Obama against chemical weapons usage [1], and Russia itself was allowed to act with impunity as well.

Then came the 2014 invasion of Russia in Crimea - IMHO a direct "test bed" to see if the Western nations were willing to step up this time, and they didn't despite Russia literally shooting a passenger plane out of the sky. Syria completely exploded, and Russia slowly kept increasing the pressure on Ukraine. Had covid not happened, Russia would have invaded some time in 2020 to take over Ukraine, but the pandemic derailed their plans.

dragonwriter 807 days ago

See, that's much too complicated.

Russia, sometime in or before 2008: “by infiltration or by force, we are going to force Georgia and then Ukraine to submit. But there is talk of NATO admitting them, starting with MAPs potentially as early as the 2008 summit, so step one is get NATO not do that.”

Russia (to NATO, in advance of 2008 summit): “Don't offer Georgia and Ukraine MAPs, it would, um, destabilize the region and, uh, make it more likely that we'd feel it necessary to invade.”

NATO: “Seems a little paranoid, but, sure, we like stability. Georgia and Ukraine, we really like the idea of you guys joining some day, but no membership action plan or security commitments for now.”

Russia: (invades Georgia almost immediately).

Russia: (Gets friendly leadership in Ukraine in 2010)

Russia: (loses friendly leadership in Ukraine 2014)

Russia: (invades Ukraine immediately)

> Then came the 2014 invasion of Russia in Crimea - IMHO a direct "test bed" to see if the Western nations were willing to step up this time, and they didn't despite Russia literally shooting a passenger plane out of the sky.

I mean, they actually did, which is a big reasons why Ukrainr's forces were in a better condition when Russia launched the wider invasion in 2022 than they had been in 2014 (Ukraine made a lot of its own investment, but they also got a lot of Western aid, both material and training, throughout the war starting not long after the 2014 invasion, though not much lethal aid was sent before 2021.)

airstrike 807 days ago

This is spot on. Very well said and in just two paragraphs...

roenxi 807 days ago

The "appeasement" of Russia is just following international norms, set in the 2000s when the world adopted a policy of acceptance towards the US's rampages through the middle east. The US is hip deep in a swamp of hypocrisy on this topic.

It'd be better if we had a consistent "no invasions" policy around the globe; but that would involve leading global powers holding themselves to that standard.

bart_spoon 807 days ago

The did an enormous amount of nation-building. Billions and billions and billions of dollars over multiple decades. It was just a complete and utter failire.

The book “The Afghanistan Papers” covers the US’s misguided efforts there well.

Most of that money went to "military contractors" and walled garden boroughs for army outposts and embassies.

The average people, especially outside of Kabul and Bagdad, didn't see much of the trillions of dollars of US taxpayer money.

keybored 807 days ago

When second- and third-world countries invade and enrich their military sectors: corrupt government enriching their oligarch class. When the US does it: aww shucks, tried our best but failed to build a democracy again.

> It's not like NATO did any major nation building in Afghanistan or Iraq, at least nowhere near close to post-WW2 Germany... so in that point he did keep his promise.

What? So he carried out nation building in 2 countries rather than 1 and that means he kept his 'no nation building' promise? What kind of logic is that?

> The entire world lost out as a result of that - there is a direct link from the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq to the Russian invasion into Ukraine.

I don't think most of the world cares one bit if europe burns or not. Heck if we had a vote, most of the world would vote for europe buring given europe's monstrous treatment of 'most of the world'.

> What? So he carried out nation building in 2 countries rather than 1 and that means he kept his 'no nation building' promise?

He didn't carry out "nation building". Blasted both countries to pieces and left them mostly alone with reconstruction, didn't install any oversight mechanism against corruption or other issues (such as the "military" serially raping young local boys in Afghanistan) by the local sham governments, and instead funneled insane amounts of money into military "contractors". Zero perspective for the people to make a living, zero incentive to not just go to the Taliban or whatever other warlord.

I don't even have anything against the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq per se, freeing people from dictatorships is a worthy goal in itself, but come on, if you want something sustainable you have to invest into more than guns, ammo and fortress walled gardens for Western embassies and army outposts.

Want to see what "nation building" looks like, look at post-WW2 Germany. A decades long occupation, with serious oversight to make sure that what caused the war never appears again.

> I don't think most of the world cares one bit if europe burns or not.

Skyrocketing prices for food and fuel affect everyone.

082349872349872 807 days ago

What would the world look like now, if the US had managed to do any "nation building" during Reconstruction?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inferno_(Dante)

> The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality

This is not true. The 'neutrals' were not even granted the honor of a place in one of the circles of hell.

'These souls are forever unclassified; they are neither in Hell nor out of it, but reside on the shores of the Acheron. Naked and futile, they race around through the mist in eternal pursuit of an elusive, wavering banner (symbolic of their pursuit of ever-shifting self-interest) while relentlessly chased by swarms of wasps and hornets, who continually sting them'

And they certainly weren't anywhere near the hottest places in hell. If we are to assume the lowest circles to be the hottest then it would be the lowest part of the 8th circle which housed the falsiers and counterfeiters. The 9th circle, which housed satan, was actually a frozen lake. While we think satan is burning in hell, he's actually freezing in hell according to dante.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 807 days ago

> 'The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality"

I think with a hindsight of history, my view is different:

'The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who push people into active enmity claiming a moral crisis'

The Thirty Years War was a result of this and never needed to have happened.

More recently, and dealing with Kennedy, the Vietnam War was result of this kind of thinking. (Domino theory and that unless we opposed every single advance of communism the entire world would fall and be plunged into darkness).

The Cultural Revolution was another manifestation of this kind of thinking.

Someone, much wiser than both Dante and Kennedy once said: "Blessed are the peacemakers".

EDIT:

And even prior to Dante's time, there were the Crusades, where in the name of a "moral crisis", people were mobilized, and great atrocities were committed and much death and destruction resulted.

wredcoll 807 days ago

The sheer irony of you citing the vietnam war, which for the americans, was literally defending a nation against an unprovoked invasion, hurts my brain.

manquer 807 days ago

I did not follow ,Which nation were the Americans defending an unprovoked attack on ? are you referring the French ?

wredcoll 807 days ago

The Vietnam war, or at least the fighting that us Americans refer to by that name, was started by the sovereign state of North Vietnam invading the sovereign state of South Vietnam and ended when America (and allies) stopped defending the state of South Vietnam and North Vietnam conquered it.

You can make all sorts of arguments as to whether or not it was moral to partition the original state of Vietnam into two separate states or whether it was moral for America to be involved at any point, but I'd make the general argument that the state starting a war with a literal invasion is rarely the moral party in such situations.

Thats some deranged historical revisionism.

The vietnamese won their war of independence against france ( aka first indochina war). Then the US stepped in to protect 'european colonial interests' gave the southern half of vietnam to france with the promise that the vietnamese people will have a vote. When polls showed southern vietnamese were overwhelming for reunification with the north, we renegged on our promise and did not allow a vote. And hence the 2nd indochina war happened.

> The Vietnam war, or at least the fighting that us Americans refer to by that name, was started by the sovereign state of North Vietnam invading the sovereign state of South Vietnam

The vietnam war was the US fighting the Viet Cong. Do you know who the viet cong was? They were SOUTH vietnamese. The vietnam war wasn't the US fighting north vietnam. It was the US fighting south vietnamese freedom fighters.

reducesuffering 807 days ago

The Vietnam War was definitely involving the North Vietnamese military, PAVN, what? Just because the Viet Cong in the South was involved doesn't mean the North Vietnamese were twiddling their thumbs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tet_Offensive

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Offensive

wredcoll 807 days ago

> When polls showed southern vietnamese were overwhelming for reunification with the north, we renegged on our promise and did not allow a vote. And hence the 2nd indochina war happened.

Which is why the south fielded close to a million man army and the north had to murder several hundred thousand south Vietnamese when they won the war? They just wanted to reunify peacefully so badly?

throwaway99974 807 days ago

>It was the US fighting south vietnamese freedom fighters.

Hilarious how now we are calling revolutionaries who fought to merge their country with a totalitarian dictatorship "freedom" fighters.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.

rqtwteye 807 days ago

The US parties love this: “vote for us or the country as you know it won’t exist anymore”. Much easier than actually solving real problems.

One side can honestly claim that because they other side said they would replace the entire government with stooges who could be "informed" what the constitution means by a man who doesn't even read briefs whose stooges would refuse to accept any vote that didn't affirm his parties control.

It also doesn't hurt that he said he would send red state militias into blue states to collect millions of migrants to be herded into concentration camps.

They have been running on destroying America while calling it saving it for 8 years. Meanwhile in their I know you are but what am I press strategy they are claiming that the other side is somehow destroying America despite all evidence to the contrary despite the only existential threat presented by business as usual being the widening gulf between their deranged super fans and the normals.

They're right.

I think on one extreme you have the failures of neutrality that contributed to WW2, and on the other you have trumped up "moral crises" that characterized much of the Cold War.

Arguably, the reason the Nazis came to power was that a great many right-leaning German voters looked at their options and thought "this Hitler guy seems pretty crazy, but that'll probably cook off, so long as he helps us beat the communists", which is a special kind of neutrality that people can never seem to shake free of.

I get what Kennedy was responding to, his sin was in failing to understand (just like the German right) that "leftist" != Stalinist/Maoist, and that a communist takeover need not look like the October Revolution, and the regime need not look like Russia ca. 1935, nor China ca. 1960.

soperj 807 days ago

> I think on one extreme you have the failures of neutrality that contributed to WW2, and on the other you have trumped up "moral crises" that characterized much of the Cold War.

I don't know that I would characterize giving pieces of another country to the Germans as "neutrality".

petsfed 807 days ago

As much heat as Neville gets for his policy of appeasement (deserved or otherwise), I'm not sure Britain was in a position to stop Germany by force anyway. American neutrality is certainly open to criticism, and I think America's performative neutrality is why American companies like IBM ended up in such pivotal roles during the Holocaust.

That said, I am referring specifically to the "this Hitler guy probably isn't so bad" phenomenon that happened inside Germany and Austria. It was a dramatic failure to take a stand against Nazism, by middle class people whose neutrality on the persecution of untermenschen was motivated by a fear of losing their economic position (and the perceived economic opportunity of seizing the persecuted's assets. That is where the "socialism" in national socialism comes from, by the way), which overrode their ability to see all the violence and hatred that the Nazis wore on their sleeves. Its very similar to the neutrality of the Swiss during the same period of time.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 807 days ago

> I think on one extreme you have the failures of neutrality that contributed to WW2, and on the other you have trumped up "moral crises" that characterized much of the Cold War.

I would guess for every moral WWII, there are 10 (if not 100) other wars that use the language of WWII and result in a complete waste of lives and money and cause far more problems than they solve.

lazide 807 days ago

WW2 wasn’t a war about morals/a moral war, it was a war of hunger and greed vs self preservation. Just like most.

If it wasn’t that way, Dresden and Tokyo would never have been firebombed. No one thought those missions were moral or good. they were in the service of annihilating the enemy for survival.

xboxnolifes 807 days ago

Charitably, one could also read the quote as saying people should be actively opposing these atrocities, instead of staying neutral during them.

roenxi 807 days ago

That isn't how that sort of thinking is ever used in politics. If politicians start using language of "you've got to pick a side on this one!" it usually hints they're about to do something stupid. Occasionally evil.

The world is just too large and complicated for anything to ever boil down to just two sides. We can pretend it does for rhetorical purposes because otherwise political conversation gets hard; but it is important to leave space for the large group of neutrals who in all honesty probably have accurate interpretations of any given issue.

immibis 807 days ago

The truth is often close to one side or the other. Believing that is never the case is radical centrism, and leads to the absurdity where one can't decide between siding with the Jews or with the Nazis. I'd hope everyone sides with the Jews in that particular conflict, which isn't the same as saying they have to agree with every single thing every Jewish person ever does.

Aerbil313 807 days ago

> The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who push people into active enmity claiming a moral crisis

This statement usually implies that people who act according to a moral framework that isn’t “Live with the minimum amount of intrusion to other people’s lives” are doing wrong. I personally don’t buy that.

When they are told, “Do not spread corruption in the land,” they reply, “We are only peace-makers!”

Indeed, it is they who are the corruptors, but they fail to perceive it.

- The Holy Qur’an (2:11)

ant6n 807 days ago

How will the war in Ukraine be viewed from this perspective in the far future?

rqtwteye 807 days ago

I think there is some moral clarity in the Ukraine situation. There was simply no good reason to attack Ukraine. I understand that the Russians may be worried about the NATO expansion but that doesn’t justify to lead such a war.

tejohnso 807 days ago

There was also concern about ethnic and cultural genocide of ethnic Russians in the eastern Ukraine regions. Promises broken.

immibis 807 days ago

Russian history will view it that way and Western history will view it this way.

There is only one truth. Russia started a war of aggression to seize territory.

This is just a lie. They funded and armed separatists in this area which predictably led to armed conflict. When the conflict they started shed blood they had pretense to intervene. There was NEVER a genocide against ethnic Russians just a fight they started.

dragonwriter 807 days ago

> They funded and armed separatists in this area

And sent Russian troops in to pose as separatists.

It appears that only Russia could prevent or end the conflict. On the territory that Russia controls they have build concentration camps to torture and murder the insufficiently loyal as they set about grinding their cities to dust their people to gore and erasing a culture and a people.

It seems like ceding any territory now would lead to further conflict soon both in Ukraine and elsewhere based on both recent history and Russias statements.

Furthermore it would abandon those in these territories to privation and mass murder same as the soviets perpetrated against them in the past.

StefanBatory 807 days ago

And yet your comment is downvoted..

I feel utterly appealed at the HN users who support Russian genocidal state.

cherryteastain 807 days ago

Ironic, considering the last circle of Hell in Dante's Inferno is actually a frozen wasteland with Satan encased in ice in the middle up to his waist.

You forgot the best part. Satan has 3 faces and each face has a mouth. One mouth is continuously chewing judas, another mouth is chewing brutus and the third is chewing cassius. For eternity.

It's a great book, but it really shows how christianity ( or religion in general ) is glorified fan fiction.

mminer237 807 days ago

I don't think Dante's inferno is actually part of anyone's religious beliefs. Everyone does and always has regarded it as a work of fiction. It's not a reflection on Christianity.

bart_spoon 807 days ago

Are you under the impression that Dante’s Inferno is canon in Christianity?