Back when it used military power to commit war crimes the world over, and gained or maintained financial capital supremacy from it?
As compared to now, when it can only use military power to commit war crimes on a smaller scale, and is throwing away American hegemony in the process?
> Back when it used military power to commit war crimes the world over, and gained or maintained financial capital supremacy from it? As compared to now, when it can only use military power to commit war crimes on a smaller scale, and is throwing away American hegemony in the process?
Such comments either are propaganda or they play into the hands of propagandists.
There is a huge difference in the degree of corruption and malfeasance of this administration. Implying that the current regime is so similar to prior ones downplays the critical importance of restoring competence.
Or, it might be the case that the prior regime had tactfully hidden all of those things being accused by the GP's comment, and this regime is simply doing it in the open with no regard.
Even if this were true (which of course it's not), doing bad stuff in the open actually is far and more deleterious to the fabric of society than doing bad stuff in secret.
for which society? the American society, maybe? they get to feel good about themselves
for the societies all over the globe that have been the targets of such policies for more than a century, I think it's better to call a spade a spade. the non-American politicians and aristocrats that benefit from US imperialism get to hide much better if the Americans are "the good guys"
No even for other societies, it would be far worse if American politicians felt no imperative (moral, political, economic, or otherwise) to not behave like raving lunatics.
This is of course what we're seeing today, where Trump is just discovering his taste for utilizing American military power to achieve his whims.
Hopefully we get bogged down in Iran enough not to continue, but obviously as soon as we started the Iran conflict, the GOP was already talking about "Cuba's next" etc, which is obviously the start of an infinitely long list of places to "liberate."
This situation is far worse for everyone than the one where the US is mostly benign (despite mistakes) relative to its incredible power.
It is absolutely true. The USA has a history of making shit up, kill some million(s) of people, steal their oil.
The only difference is that Donald Trump doesn’t care about plausible deniability at all, unlike previous presidents,which is why the American public remembers (the demons) George Bush neutral or slightly positive. They should both have died in prison.
This is an extremely popular view that recently has been disseminated and while based on fact, is emotional propaganda. It basically exists as a justification for Trump’ and this administrations actions, along the lines of “they’ve always done it, at least we don’t hide it” and gives them a combination of legitimacy and a strange sense of “doing the right thing”.
I understand that it’s true that the USA has been problematic in the past but in this case, the story being sold to people about the US “always” having been bad exists to convince people that there is no other way, and you either have to accept it or tear it all down. Interestingly both benefit the current administration
No, this is not “propaganda “ to justify anything Trump is up to.
The USA has not been “problematic”, it has enforced a particular ideology on the world with the rest of us unwilling participants.
The USA has repeatedly overthrown diplomatically elected leaders(Iran ironically being the best example, a democratic government toppled because it was stopping American business interests and democratising its oil resources) so the USAs ownership class can make their fortunes.
Sometimes , it has stopped elections, exterminated millions, set their villages on fire, because the people were picking the wrong ideology.
Yes those are all bad and you are naive if you think a USA that relishes brutality could not or would not be 1000x worse.
Militarily, the US can trivially eradicate entire countries. It is “only” our leadership and their sense of morals (imperfect and spotty as they are) that prevents this.
A USA run amok for a mere 4 days can literally end human civilization as we know it. One sentence uttered from the mouth of a contemporary POTUS can make the atrocities of WW2, Vietnam, OEF, OIF all look like charity projects.
Whether the US is capable of hiding their maleficence or not should not be an indicator of whether it is safe to deal with them. If your indicator for the US being a good partner in _anything_ is that "well we did corrupt things in the past, but people didn't use to care about it", then the US is still not a good partner.
It's not like the US has never e.g. openly threatened NATO allies with war: There is quite literally a standing law that allows the US president to invade the netherlands if any US military personnel is ever detained by the International Criminal Court.
This law has been on the books for over 20 years and has the publically announced intention to prevent the US from being prosecuted for all the other atrocities committed in e.g. Iraq. This bill was supported by both democrats and republicans.
The reality is that the US' stance towards the rest of the world has not changed with the recent administrations (nor would I expect it to: Trump does not happen in a vacuum). What did change was willingness of the rest of the world to act on the US' actions.
The US government always committed war crimes and all sorts of human rights abuses abroad.
The previous presidents were just more competent stewards of these activities.
In some ways, not being from the US, I don't dislike Trump. He may be a senile buffon and apparent pedophile, but at least he laid bare what the US truly stands for. He was elected twice after all, and still has substantial support.
At least other countries can stop pretending the US is in any way friendly.
May I recommend Chris Hedges' American Fascists The Christian Right and the War on America, published in 2007. The current situation didn't develop in a vacuum, it is the mushroom that shows how far the mycelium has spread and how old it is.
fwiw i agree with you that the current situation is much worse than in the past, given all the horror's being done in the open without any nod toward reason, multilateralism, or public consent
I don't have rose-tinted glasses with regard to US actions in the past, especially in OEF/OIF. So many instances of horror in Vietnam, WW2, and so on.
But all of those things are the awful things that happen during war even with a military, political, and legal apparatus that tries to mitigate it.
We are now dealing with a regime that claims and will make no such efforts. The only reason the Iran war hasn't so far yielded the same horrors is because so far we haven't attempted to occupy Iran.
If we do, I absolutely promise you that a military populated by people who know they can be court martialed, jailed, or even executed for crimes against the local population will be significantly better behaved (even if imperfectly, per your article) than one that is told – from the very top – that they will be accountable for nothing except maximal brutality and lethality.
The past was bad. But the current is far worse. Tell it to the people disappeared in the ICE concentration camps. Or to any trans people in any bad state.
> compared to now, when it can only use military power to commit war crimes on a smaller scale
The fact that the US is not as powerful as it used to be may actually make it dangerous. "On a smaller scale" doesn't mean it cannot destroy the world's economy, as we are seeing now.
I want America to go back to being as it was in precisely 1998.
When there'd be UN resolutions before the armed intervention, a casus belli with (non-fake) evidence of genocide, a peacekeeping force with troops from 39 countries, and captured leaders tried. And the peacekeeping force was able to deliver peace reasonably effectively, instead of bleeding troops and money for decades on end.
And although to some it seemed like an American president trying to distract domestic political attention from his sexual misdeeds, it was just a consensual blowjob from an adult woman.
Peace had just come to Northern Ireland, western relations were improving with Russia (newly democratic) and China (sure to soon adopt democracy as they open up to the world). The first parts of the International Space Station had just been launched. School shootings weren't a thing, the one a year later would be shocking and the cause of major soul-searching. Also Half-Life was game of the year.
“Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization, because as soon as [AI] started thinking for you it really became [AI’s] civilization, which is of course what this is all about.”
— Agent Smith, looking out the window at a circa-1998 American city skyline
s/AI/capital/g. In general, but it works really well for that quote.
The problem, as always, isn't the technology. Rather it's how people with power use the technology. Today that technology is"AI". But several decades ago it was the replacement of human judgement with financial modeling and line-goes-up über alles.
(note that even though I'm critiquing "capital" I'm not what you would call an anti-capitalist)
People only notice now because the “right” kind of people are suddenly affected.
Just like the invasion of Ukraine became the most important topic globally for years, and made everyone virtue signal about how important sovereignty supposedly is, whereas sovereignty somehow didn’t matter in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali, South Sudan, Iran, Lebanon, and I don’t know where else.
Ya, like the intervention in the Balkan war (Europeans just looked the genocide). Or like the Iraq wars to keep the world oil and gas consumption running. Or the nuclear shield in germany to prevent Russia to invade Europe since the cold war.
There are always two sides to every coin.
That was a very narrow window of time, mostly the time between the fall of the USSR ending the Cold War up to 9/11, so about a 10 years period since the end of WW2.
Before that the USA was aiding and fostering violent dictatorships, helping them to perform coups all around if they were amenable to the US's interests (aka: they were anti-commies) like in Latin America, Iran itself, etc.; bombing countries where their right-wing coups failed like in Vietnam during its independence period after French rule, for example.
There were fuckups too but the declared goals were usually not bad. Now declared goals seem bad. The language is the language of hate. It's a big change. and this is not north korea. it's one of the most powerful country and definitely most influential in the world
Naw, sorry, reading through this thread you're burying your head in the sand; sorry, just calling balls and strikes.
I say that as a person who is out in the streets in the US doing what we can against the current government. But to be honest, we were out in the streets before. The difference is that you were at brunch and didn't notice.
> But to be honest, we were out in the streets before.
Who is "we"? Do you remember your past lives? If you are fighting against every government when you will realize you should maybe just move to another country?
I'm not american or from US but this reads like mental illness
Reading hackernews comments in the morning from Europeans always wakes me up. It’s like a Markov chain of Reddit comments about how Europe doesn’t need the US
We'll be alright, unlike you we only really need to defend ourselves and don't invade random countries all over the world to please Israel and bring about Jesus' second coming, so we probably don't need such a huge military budget like you guys.
Meanwhile your empire is collapsing because you voted for a retarded paedophile. It's so sad and humiliating to have your country led by a retarded paedohpile. Way more cringe than simply having a low military budget. Thoughts and prayers as you say.
> reposting a flagged and deleted comment to this comment (why?)
The big difference before was that america commit war crimes, but it did so in a socially acceptable way and was able to keep a polite face in important company.
It's like how being a manager at tech companies is 95% speaking affluently and sounding like you know what you're doing (and also like 80% being white). We used to sound like we knew what we were doing. Now we don't.
Personal liberties are overrated, and a functioning society is underrated. OnlyFans, sports betting, and junk food appeal to some people with low impulse control and high time preference in the short term, but have massive negative consequences on everyone in the long run.
Personal liberties being overrated is a wild take. I feel like this is one of those things that is easy to say when it isn't something you are interested in being infringed upon. I would be curious if you would feel the same way if people were trying to ban something you want to do.
The idea that prioritizing the good of society, rather than one's personal desires, is considered a "wild take" is just a reflection of the culture of narcissism you live in.
We probably could both be more nuanced with our statements.
What I hear when you say “the good of society” is that this means we would allow the majority to choose what is “for the good of society” and then enforce that on others.
You might not mean that. You are probably thinking of obvious “good” like not dying and not going bankrupt. But that is just what you are thinking of.
There are a lot of people who think other things are what is meant by “the good of society”. Lots of people think keeping trans people from having gender affirming surgery is “for the good of society”. Lots of people think requiring teaching the 10 commandments in school is “for the good of society”.
There are views like this on all sides. Some people think owning guns are for the good of society while some people thinking banning them is for the good of society. Some people think allowing people to eat meat harms society. Some people think gay marriage harms society.
So, do we allow all personal freedoms to be voted on by the populace? Or do we make the burden higher to infringe on individual freedoms?
Now, I do think we can place some limits when the damage far outweighs the cost of denying the freedom, but it has to really be worth it, because yes, individual freedom is very, very important.
Again, it is kind of crazy to take polar opposite views on this.
We mostly all grow up starting off with very few personal liberties and gaining them as we get older. We routinely take them away from people of they show they cannot be trusted with those liberties.
At present that process is fairly blunt, but it could be more nuanced. And that doesn't have to mean micro judging every interaction like China's social credit system. It could mean to allow freedoms wherever possible, but curtail those freedoms, where it has a negative impact on the rest of us.
And I think the best way of doing this is to put responsibility on the person or group causing the negative impact. So the gambler who embezzles money due to the addiction is just as responsible as the company who enables their addiction. Why cant we send both to jail? Or if there is not enough cause to deprive them of liberty, divert them from jail under probation. For a company that could mean enforcing open books and monitored communications, to make sure they are on the straight and narrow..
What we need to do though is to value both society and personal liberty.
It's not polar opposite views, I'm just saying that personal liberties are overrated not that they're inherently bad.
There are entire political schools of thought that put maximizing personal liberty above everything, and the trend in America has been to allow more vices at the cost a functioning society. Sports betting just being a recent example.
> And I think the best way of doing this is to put responsibility on the person or group causing the negative impact.
Agreed. There are people profiteering at the cost of society and they should be punished for it.
> What we need to do though is to value both society and personal liberty.
Also agreed. We are not really that far off in conclusions I believe.
The market producing what people desire is a functioning society. All the concern about so called addiction is simply a displaced puritanism disguised as humanism.
So, adults who gamble a lot never steal from their parents, siblings and friends in order to keep on gambling?
A father who gambles a lot would never threaten his parents or his wife's parents to stop allowing those parents to visit their grandchildren unless those parents give the father money for gambling? (I.e., the father is making the threat not because he judges the grandparents to be a bad influence on the child, but rather to extract money from the grandparents that the grandparents would not otherwise choose to give because they know it will just go to gambling.)
In your opinion, it is displaced puritanism to want to do something about the fact that in our society such things happen frequently?
This ignores the fact that as a society there are certain desires that are agreed upon as harmful, such as CSAM. Everything must have its limits.
You use the words "so called addiction" as if addiction is not an extremely well-documented pyschological (and in some cases physical) phenomenon. Gambling preys on the fact that the variable reward rate method of reinforcement is the one that produces the most dopamine in our brains. Unless someone is acutely aware of how they are being manipulated it is very easy to become addicted to something that is financially dependent on your addiction.
Seems like they're having trouble recruiting people to serve as America launches headlong into GWOT 2.0 with no plan. It makes sense that people aren't signing up: it's a very unpopular war that was started by assassinating leaders during peace talks and bombing an elementary school, and it's not one they're winning.
And it's also a war with no clear benefit to Americans, which Marco Rubio admitted they were dragged into by Israel.
> You can no more win a war, than you can win an earthquake
This is quite clear for younger people who grew in an interconnected world. But some old folks (73 y.o., 79 y.o.) seem to live in the old world where winning, or an illusion of it, is still a thing.
That word "Interconnected" is very important. As it's not an age thing, since many young folks may still think this way. It's an education thing. Uneducated/unconnected people are unable to appropriately interpret the world and the events that happen within it as they have not learned about or experienced similar situations and their outcomes/consequences.
I think smart people do NOT want to enlist while Trump is Commander in Chief and Hegseth is in charge of the Military. The way the crew of the USS Ford have been treated is despicable.
I get why you are saying that but historically those that enlisted ended up with better roles and less likely to serve in the infantry unless of course one wish to do that. This of course assumes the draft is actually utilized.
The word “unpopular” doesn’t exist in Trump’s vocabulary. The logic is that you don’t vote the Fraudster in Chief out of office during a war. And he desperately wants to stay in office. Ideally without being seen actively sabotaging elections.
Was abandoning all regional bases and most advanced radar in the area as soon as the war started part of the plan? Sending the USS Gerald Ford in even though it was already on extended deployment? Not having any minesweepers anywhere near the area? How about loading F35s with barbell weights to balance the aircraft, because they don't have radar systems? Pulling THAAD systems from South Korea within a week of starting the war?
That, and many more examples, point to an ill-thought-out decapitation strike, on someone else's timeline, with no contingency plan in the case that didn't severely cripple the Iranian government and state.
I’m quite curious about recruiting. I have only a N=1 observation, the kid who takes the orders at my favorite burrito place. He had been hyped about the Marines for two years, pre-enlisted at 16, just waiting to graduate from HS this spring. I didn’t see him for a few months, but in November it had all changed. “They are hostile to people like me.” (He’s of Mexican descent.)
A lot has happened since June of last year. Let’s not forget National Guard deployments to cities and threats of active duty / insurrection act. Threats of sending the army to fight cartels. I think the current situation is just an extension of craziness that would give anyone except the hardest of core supporters pause???
While reductionist, I think yours is a legitimate "in a nutshell" take. It would be interesting to see the relevant statistics over time, ideally broken down by geographical regions, their median incomes and the respective employment / military recruitment success rates.
I admit that I am partial to your view of the world. A mate in university, about a quarter of a century ago, made a rather striking observation: "In the US, military is a national jobs program for a nation that is psychologically hostile to jobs programs."
Well, I'm old enough to remember many "peace talks" go to eternity wit absolutely zero results. In many countries around the world. Just to create the argument.
This would be a more compelling argument if the conversations weren't so extremely dull and derivative, with most of the articles written in LLMspeak. I see a lot of discussion and not a lot of substance; articles and discussions about AI have a much smaller chance of being compelling compared to any other technical subject posted on HN.
The signal-to-noise ratio seems worse than many other hypes but it's the general way hypes go.
It's really hard to separate the wheat from the chaff at this point but I've been positively surprised by the relatively few articles sharing their more advanced workflow, lessons learnt which helps me to avoid the traps, patterns emerging that taught me something new (or at least validated approaches I tried on my own which worked). Gets tiresome to keep pace so I try to not fall for FOMO, and avoid experimenting too much to not get lost until I see a pattern emerging from different sources.
Trump isn't doing anything out of the ordinary for an American president, so I would say it is indeed quite normal. If by "not normal" you mean "not acceptable" then I agree, but that doesn't change that "Department of War" is more correct than "Department of Defense"
> Trump isn't doing anything out of the ordinary for an American president
I'm sorry, but I think both parties would actually agree on the fact that Trump is doing a lot of "out of the ordinary" for an American president.
No other president after WWII has reduced federal workforce by >8% (DOGE), and then rehired a bunch. No other US president ordered the capturing a head of state (Venezuela) and framed it as a law enforcement action. No president has ignored congress or the constitution like Trump has (tariffs, ICE, Greenland).
He uses executive orders a lot more than previous presidents: ~209 per year in his 2nd term. The next highest are Truman (113/year), Carter (80/year) and Kennedy (75/year).
Yes, the equivocal wording means nothing. It's clear that Anthropic has no moral qualms about participating in war crimes, since that's been America's MO since forever. America has provided free weapons to Israel to continue their slaughter in Gaza and has now joint forces with the same to assassinate leaders under the auspices of peace talks, and kill schoolchildren and other civilians as part of a terror campaign.
EU countries are just vassal states of the USA in practice, anyway. If Uncle Sam wants that data, he's getting it, either by asking politely or by taking it. And the EU countries can't and won't retaliate.
Shouldn't it have some kind of proof-of-AI captcha? Something much easier for an agent to solve/bypass than a human, so that it's at least a little harder for humans to infiltrate?
The idea of a reverse Turing Test ("prove to me you are a machine") has been rattling around for a while but AFAIK nobody's really come up with a good one
Seems fundamentally impossible. From the other end of the connection, a machine acting on its own is indistinguishable from a machine acting on behalf of a person who can take over after it passes the challenge.
We don't have the infrastructure for it, but models could digitally sign all generated messages with a key assigned to the model that generated that message.
That would prove the message came directly from the LLM output.
That at least would be more difficult to game than a captcha which could be MITM'd.
That seems like a very hard problem. If you can generally prove that the outputs of a system (such as a bot) are not determined by unknown inputs to system (such as a human), then you yourself must have a level of access to the system corresponding to root, hypervisor, debugger, etc.
So either moltbook requires that AI agents upload themselves to it to be executed in a sandbox, or else we have a test that can be repurposed to answer whether God exists.
The captcha would have to be something really boring and repetitive like every click you have to translate a word from one of ten languages to english then make a bullet list of what it means.
America has admitted that they (tried to and maybe were successful in) sending arms to the fifth column attempted uprising.
Try to get your information from somewhere that isn't American/Israeli propaganda.
reply