undefined | Better HN

0 pointssimianparrot2mo ago0 comments

You're not going to stop Russia with rules unless you enforce them. Look at Ukraine. Same with China. They're not going to leave Taiwan in peace unless you are willing to back up your "concern" with _force_.

Maduro trafficked humans, colluded with terrible gangs, was working with Iran, and had so many opportunities to stop. He was given an olive branch by the current US government and ignored it. He fucked around, now he found out.

If you want Putin to stop harassing Ukraine, you either are willing to go to the FO stage, or your words are wind. Because Russia is. And now, luckily, so is the US, and my way of life as a Norwegian is _so much more_ aligned with the US way of life than China or Russia or a socialist dictatorship like Venezuela was under for decades. I _want_ my allies to be able to enforce my world view _if and when_ our opponents don't respect us.

Edit: The EU is a perfect example of an (unelected) ruling body that plays nice with everyone, diplomacy first, always concerned, never willing to back up anything by force. Your perfect utopia judging by your own words. They _never_ get _anything_ done, and nobody respects them. Especially not its enemies like Russia or China. Spineless bureaucrats that are so far removed from everyday human reality they don't even understand how laws _work_.

0 comments

toomanyrichies2mo ago

You’re conflating two different things: defending allies against invasion (Ukraine, Taiwan) and unilateral regime change (Venezuela, Iraq, Libya).

I agree that deterrence requires credible force. Defending Ukraine from Russian invasion is enforcement of a principle (sovereignty) against an aggressor. That’s fundamentally different from the US deciding a government is bad and removing it.

The problem isn’t “using force ever.” It’s “using force to overthrow governments we don’t like, without allies, without a plan for what comes next, based on a track record of catastrophic failures.”

Norway’s security depends on NATO credibility, which depends on the US being seen as a rule-enforcing power rather than a rule-breaking one. Every time the US acts unilaterally, it makes it harder to maintain the coalitions that actually protect your way of life. Russia points to Iraq and Libya to justify its own actions. You’re not strengthening the enforcement regime; you’re eroding the legitimacy that makes enforcement possible.

“Fucked around and found out” is a framework for bar fights, not foreign policy.

simianparrotOP2mo ago

You talk about "rules" again. Let's look at what NATO does when it thinks the rules are in the way of doing what it thinks is right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

Yes Russia points to Iraq and Libya, and they may be right. We can point to Georgia and Ukraine, and maybe we are right. At the end of the day, and I'm repeating myself because people forget this constantly, rules and laws don't mean _anything_ unless you're willing to back them up with consequences -- and in this context, military might.

It's just like raising a child. When a child starts kicking you in the shins, you can say "please stop dear" as much as you want, they'll keep doing it until there's consequences. Might not need more than a strategic targeted pinch in the ear that hurts just enough to back up what you should've said: "That hurts, stop it right now."

This way of removing Maduro wasn't excessive force. It was a strategic pinch in the ear.

toomanyrichies2mo ago

Yugoslavia had NATO consensus, active ethnic cleansing in progress, and regional support. It’s a stronger case than Venezuela, and even it is still debated.

Countries aren’t children. This framing smuggles in an assumption that the US has legitimate authority over other countries’ governance, which is exactly the point in dispute.

The “strategic pinch” assumes this is the end. Removing Saddam was also supposed to be surgical. The mess comes after. Ask me in five years if this was a pinch or another amputation.

calf2mo ago

This is a lot of rationalization to justify conservative worldview, America playing world police, and other such shortsighted political talking point fallacies.

1 more reply

seanmcdirmid2mo ago

China has a good economy and export business that it wants to protect, which “protects” Taiwan since much of their export business goes poof if they decide to invade the island. The “detachment” of the US and Chinese economies makes an invasion of Taiwan more likely, not less. Economic entanglement has led to more peace than military force projection.

simianparrotOP2mo ago

You can and need to have both. Look at Ukraine.

seanmcdirmid2mo ago

Ya, but Russia was an economic basket case with a resource curse before they invaded Ukraine. They didn’t lose much economically because they didn’t have much to lose, and perhaps Putin used Ukraine as a huge distraction for Russia’s huge domestic problems. China is different, they are going to grow into the #1 super power this or next decade. Hopefully that makes it much less likely for them to turn their back on the western world (at least until that happens).

toomanyrichies2mo ago

The EU isn’t my utopia, and I’m not sure where you got that. My point is narrower: unilateral regime change has a bad track record, and defending allies against invasion is a different category of action. You seem to be arguing against a position I don’t hold.

We’ve gone from “Venezuelans are celebrating” to “the EU is spineless bureaucrats.” I think we’re past the original topic of discussion at this point.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointssimianparrot2mo ago0 comments

0 comments

toomanyrichies2mo ago

You’re conflating two different things: defending allies against invasion (Ukraine, Taiwan) and unilateral regime change (Venezuela, Iraq, Libya).

“Fucked around and found out” is a framework for bar fights, not foreign policy.

simianparrotOP2mo ago

You talk about "rules" again. Let's look at what NATO does when it thinks the rules are in the way of doing what it thinks is right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia

This way of removing Maduro wasn't excessive force. It was a strategic pinch in the ear.

toomanyrichies2mo ago

Yugoslavia had NATO consensus, active ethnic cleansing in progress, and regional support. It’s a stronger case than Venezuela, and even it is still debated.

Countries aren’t children. This framing smuggles in an assumption that the US has legitimate authority over other countries’ governance, which is exactly the point in dispute.

The “strategic pinch” assumes this is the end. Removing Saddam was also supposed to be surgical. The mess comes after. Ask me in five years if this was a pinch or another amputation.

calf2mo ago

This is a lot of rationalization to justify conservative worldview, America playing world police, and other such shortsighted political talking point fallacies.

1 more reply

seanmcdirmid2mo ago

simianparrotOP2mo ago

You can and need to have both. Look at Ukraine.

seanmcdirmid2mo ago

toomanyrichies2mo ago

We’ve gone from “Venezuelans are celebrating” to “the EU is spineless bureaucrats.” I think we’re past the original topic of discussion at this point.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse