Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Those wars were massive self-sacrifices for America, just like Vietnam. For instance, Saddam was defeated very easily, in the very beginning.

Self-sacrifice? These wars were strategic failures, in spite of the US' best efforts, simply because you can't defeat guerillas the same way you defeat regular armies. You sound like you haven't been paying attention to what has been going on since, well, WWII. How many asymmetrical conflicts have been won by large modern armies since? The various decolonization wars, Vietnam, Afghanistan (you can't really accuse Russia of playing soft, there) ended up the same way. The UK were successful in Malaya, and the French had effectively destroyed the operational capabilities of the FLN by the end of the war in Algeria, but even this was not enough to ensure victory. Hell, even in Northern Ireland, it took decades to turn the IRA away from terrorism (and that after it managed to kick the UK out of the rest of Ireland).

Asymmetrical warfare is hard. Moreover, suggesting that a "proper war" should be prosecuted, presumably with heightened levels of violence, after hundreds of thousands of people died or were maimed for life is insulting.

> That's not an argument against what I said. We have no reason to attack South America.

Your argument was that in order to defend "freedom" (because, really, these money-laundering rules are just too repressive), the US should attack the issue at the root. Guess what? Most of the money being laundered is drug money. It's an absolutely astounding amount of cash. Most of the world's cocaine comes from Colombia and Bolivia, while the opiates come from Afghanistan.




> Self-sacrifice? These wars were strategic failures, in spite of the US' best efforts, simply because you can't defeat guerillas the same way you defeat regular armies.

These wars were self-sacrificial because they had no valuable objective for the American people (i.e., to secure their safety). Trying to "democratize" them is a futile act, and is not worth spending trillions of dollars on, and killing thousands of American soldiers.

> Your argument was that in order to defend "freedom" (because, really, these money-laundering rules are just too repressive), the US should attack the issue at the root. Guess what? Most of the money being laundered is drug money. It's an absolutely astounding amount of cash. Most of the world's cocaine comes from Colombia and Bolivia, while the opiates come from Afghanistan.

Right, and the "war on drugs" is also self-sacrificial, because, again, it has no value for the American people. Again, it is a war that can't be won, that simply calls for sacrificing unlimited amounts of money and some lives, and turns northern Mexico into a war zone as part of a perverse side-effect.

So I'm saying: Let these countries produce as much coke and opium as they want; we will be happy to import them freely.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: