This quote from the CEO of Palantir (Alex Karp) haunts me.
---
> “I actually am a progressive,” he said. “I want less war. You only stop war by having the best technology and by scaring the bejabers — I’m trying to be nice here — out of our adversaries. If they are not scared, they don’t wake up scared, they don’t go to bed scared, they don’t fear that the wrath of America will come down on them, they will attack us. They will attack us everywhere.”
At any point in time there are probably many competing ideologies, even ones that are based on strength. For example, "speak softly but carry a big stick" is based on strength, but is pretty different than "they must wake up scared".
The issue with the "scared" approach is that all it takes is one country with that ideology for escalations to occur and everyone else to adopt that mindset.
The worst version of Si vis pacem, para bellum. There is an element of truth, but the reality is when one has overwhelming military over other, they also tend to use it and cause wars. See USA / Irak.
> There is an element of truth, but the reality is when one has overwhelming military over other, they also tend to use it and cause wars. See USA / Irak.
I actually don't have an issue with the idea of the Iraq war per se. Deposing dictators is always a good thing, dictators have no right to exist.
The problem I have with the Iraq war was the completely botched execution, from start to finish. The start was based on the infamous WMD lies, the plans didn't include any concept on how the country should be run after the war, how to prevent warlords fighting over scraps, how to make sure democracy comes in and stays afterwards, and while the departure wasn't as bad as Afghanistan it wasn't clean either.
Clearly shows that he does not understand the concept of cooperation, not outside of how a mob cooperates. He probably considers the Marshall Plan a failure.
Yes, strength isn't unimportant. But if that's your only approach you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. May he reap what he saws, preferably with as little collateral as possible.
The problem with using strength as your main tool of "cooperation" is that it can only gets worse. If one keep beating their partners, they will become enemies as soon as the bully gets weak enough.
Yep. This is the type of a psycho, that start all the wars.
If history teaches us anything, as soon as some country gets a superior war tech, it immediately leads to them using it to destroy whoever they see as their enemies. And what really stops wars is when their main adversaries have the same power to destroy if being attacked.
Mutual deterrence is what was keeping us from WW3 for several decades. But the recent and growing idea of USA that they can break from this stalemate and crush anyone with overwhelming strength is what makes WW3 closer and closer by the day.
2) violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion
a regime that rules by terror
especially: violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
I mean he is absolutely not progressive and that was purely just some bullshit he said to the media. This is a far right private enterprise backed by Peter Thiel that is building a civilian surveillance and control apparatus with your tax dollars. Thats the actual truth of the matter.
No. They’re all terrorists. All states, all nexuses of control, can be defined as terrorists, if we broaden our definition of terrorist to include states and all their apparatuses. In particular, with reference to the state’s effective monopoly on legal violence.
But, amongst those options, you should have the intelligence to choose the least bad.
“The United States is the world's biggest terrorist”, is IMHO almost a meaningless claim. It is true, arguably, but in that case it is irrelevant.
Based on this interpretation, the US is far from the worst powers in our world. In fact it is above the median.
It's suicidally naive not to pursue military supremacy. Your enemies will.
What are you going to do when they appear on your shores to begin the slaughter, enslavement, rape, and pillaging? Write an angry letter? Start an online petition?
Can't really understand if this is the boutade of a 13 years old COD player, but: lots of countries don't have military supremacy nor enslavement and pillaging on their shores. There are LOTS of shades in between which you obviously don't get.
The ones doing what you are describing here especially lately are the western powers with millions and millions of dead each decade in wars over resources not ideology or safety. It’s about money and power resulting in thousands of dead children, women and civilians - lately in palestine via israel. It’s creating terrorism not safety - so your argument is backwards - it’s the military industrial complex keeping the war going. And to use the ‘it’s for safety’ is extremely sinister and has been debunked continuously by everyone with even the slightest interest in geopolitics.
I think it's not about the truth in that message, but rather how the message is delivered, and how the kernel of truth is planted into what context.
For example, the same message could be told by referring to respect instead of fear.
"I want less war. You only stop war by having the best technology so much that earns the respect of your adversaries. If they don't respect you, if they don’t respect the might that your army can summon, you. Instead of going along with you, they will attack you at the next opportunity"
Out of curiosity, which country in the world is going to "begin the slaughter, enslavement, rape and pillaging" of:
- The country already having the largest army in the world, whose internal military branches are larger than most armies in the world ?
- The country that has a ocean to ocean control of its land, with east and west being fundamentally impossible to attack ?
- The country that is surrounded north and south by either allies, or third world countries struggling to even maintain peace within their own borders ?
- The country that is already going down some of the fastest descent into fascism history has seen ?
And how exactly that relates to Palantir, whose goal is not to provide vision algorithms for bombing brown people in the middle east, but to straight up build a file about their own citizens that would have made the Gestapo drool ?
The vast majority of countries that can afford a solid military already do, and neither is at threat of whatever bullshit you're making up here. Even local tensions like Pakistan and India, Thailand and Cambodia are being handled with incredibly small portions of their militaries, despite some pretty deep hatred. The countries that cannot, either have agreements with other powers in the region, or indeed get attacked by a military so overwhelmingly strong for them that even putting 100% of their GDP into it would not suffice.
I'll tell you what "pursuing military supremacy" does though: as it stands, the vast majority of the world sees the United States as a threat, with ever renewed imperialistic needs and aspirations. The United States is always just a single dip towards madness away from being the greatest danger that currently exists in the world. And now, they are suppressing internal protesters. But hey, if you're looking to rediscover how 9/11 was like and why it happened, pop off I guess.
might as well use it then right? I mean think about it if there was only 1 country on the whole world. Then we would be safe. I mean we would still need to use the military equipment on the people. Anything else but absolute control over everyone would be suicidally naive.
There are stickers everywhere in my city against NATO. They say "food not weapons". As though the Ukrainians could defeat the Russians with pickles and ham. Left-wing idealism is grounded in denial of reality.
> “I want less war. But I really really really like having lots of money, like Scrooge McDuck swiming pools of money. If some children half way around the world have to get blown up for me to bathe in fresh $100 bills every day, so be it."
Russia only dared invade Ukraine because the US under Obama didn't do shit when Assad violated the "red lines" of using chemical weapons and barrel bombs against civilians or when the "little green men" took over Crimea and Donbas. And it's not Obama alone for what it's worth, Trump was just as bad in cozying up to Putin, and us Europeans didn't care either.
The secret to the relative period of peace after WW2 was that everyone was mightily afraid of getting smacked hard by the US. The first cracks obviously started back with Vietnam, but the actual erosion of the US hard and soft power was the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It sounds silly, but the cold war was a nice period of peace. Both sides were prepared and knew what’s coming. So peace was inevitable. When opponent gets weak war happens. Sounds even sillier, but strong and ready armies are warrant of peace.
Or just don't invade, kill, rape their womens? Trust me if you don't terrorise othe nations they won't attack you.
And if you are speaking about what you guys did and doing in Palestine or any other Muslim nation trust my they aren't afraid of you, they just raise people who despise you and you will cry in future when they attack you at your homes.
>You only stop war by having the best technology and by scaring the bejabers — I’m trying to be nice here — out of our adversaries.
That's haunting indeed to the naive minds who imagine the world must run on political correctness, rainbows and unicorns, but that's not how the real world works or has ever worked, and nobody can say that he's wrong though just because he's not sugar coating it. You only have peace if everyone is scared of you. Why do only small guys get bullied and not the tall muscular jocks? Why does Russia bully the EU and not the US?
Being pacifist doesn't assure you any peace if you're weak, as eventually, inevitably, someone hungry and greedy will build their strength to come for your lunch and you'll have to defend it if you want to keep it, as per human history in the last infinity years. Ask Belgium or NL how their pacifism worked out in WW2 in face of the Nazi army.
He should have just said: "Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war" if he wanted something that sounds nicer.
> You only have peace if everyone is scared of you.
How does your theory explain the 30 European nations that have been at peace with each other for decades? Is Poland simply too afraid of Lithuania due to Lithuanias military supremacy? Does France not invade the Netherlands because the Dutch army can field so many tanks?
The laundering of data on US citizens into the private sector, and overseas, through this company is truly horrifying. Especially how fast it happened, and how little say we had.
It makes sense to have information on your future adversaries. I mean ICE already act as Trump's brownshirts, it makes sense that they would expand their power base to other services.
While I do believe its important to replace legacy and bloated tech in the military to make it more efficient (esp less costly), I doubt the ROI will be able to make up for it/ will be hard to measure effectively considering how hard it is to conduct fully transparent audits. Even if they say that the new agreement would consolidate existing software contracts and lead to “significant cost efficiencies across mission-critical programs.” Also what happened to reducing the gov. deficit?? Very confusing
This is the GOP playbook! Cripple government institutions, privatize operations to their richest friends, gain positions with related organizations when the political careers dip.
Readit News
The issue with the "scared" approach is that all it takes is one country with that ideology for escalations to occur and everyone else to adopt that mindset.
What is the purpose of using Latin in this context?
I actually don't have an issue with the idea of the Iraq war per se. Deposing dictators is always a good thing, dictators have no right to exist.
The problem I have with the Iraq war was the completely botched execution, from start to finish. The start was based on the infamous WMD lies, the plans didn't include any concept on how the country should be run after the war, how to prevent warlords fighting over scraps, how to make sure democracy comes in and stays afterwards, and while the departure wasn't as bad as Afghanistan it wasn't clean either.
Yes, strength isn't unimportant. But if that's your only approach you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. May he reap what he saws, preferably with as little collateral as possible.
If history teaches us anything, as soon as some country gets a superior war tech, it immediately leads to them using it to destroy whoever they see as their enemies. And what really stops wars is when their main adversaries have the same power to destroy if being attacked.
Mutual deterrence is what was keeping us from WW3 for several decades. But the recent and growing idea of USA that they can break from this stalemate and crush anyone with overwhelming strength is what makes WW3 closer and closer by the day.
noun
1) a state of intense or overwhelming fear
2) violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion
a regime that rules by terror
especially: violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terror
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44433483
But, amongst those options, you should have the intelligence to choose the least bad.
“The United States is the world's biggest terrorist”, is IMHO almost a meaningless claim. It is true, arguably, but in that case it is irrelevant.
Based on this interpretation, the US is far from the worst powers in our world. In fact it is above the median.
Wont affect me and USA military power is not to play with.
Yes I support Israel. Gulf War 1 was justified so was Vietnam. Gulf War 2, maybe not but Saddam gone was good. Iran IS our enemy too btw.
What are you going to do when they appear on your shores to begin the slaughter, enslavement, rape, and pillaging? Write an angry letter? Start an online petition?
It's another to build an Orwellian surveillance state.
For example, the same message could be told by referring to respect instead of fear.
"I want less war. You only stop war by having the best technology so much that earns the respect of your adversaries. If they don't respect you, if they don’t respect the might that your army can summon, you. Instead of going along with you, they will attack you at the next opportunity"
- The country already having the largest army in the world, whose internal military branches are larger than most armies in the world ?
- The country that has a ocean to ocean control of its land, with east and west being fundamentally impossible to attack ?
- The country that is surrounded north and south by either allies, or third world countries struggling to even maintain peace within their own borders ?
- The country that is already going down some of the fastest descent into fascism history has seen ?
And how exactly that relates to Palantir, whose goal is not to provide vision algorithms for bombing brown people in the middle east, but to straight up build a file about their own citizens that would have made the Gestapo drool ?
The vast majority of countries that can afford a solid military already do, and neither is at threat of whatever bullshit you're making up here. Even local tensions like Pakistan and India, Thailand and Cambodia are being handled with incredibly small portions of their militaries, despite some pretty deep hatred. The countries that cannot, either have agreements with other powers in the region, or indeed get attacked by a military so overwhelmingly strong for them that even putting 100% of their GDP into it would not suffice.
I'll tell you what "pursuing military supremacy" does though: as it stands, the vast majority of the world sees the United States as a threat, with ever renewed imperialistic needs and aspirations. The United States is always just a single dip towards madness away from being the greatest danger that currently exists in the world. And now, they are suppressing internal protesters. But hey, if you're looking to rediscover how 9/11 was like and why it happened, pop off I guess.
Right?
Russia only dared invade Ukraine because the US under Obama didn't do shit when Assad violated the "red lines" of using chemical weapons and barrel bombs against civilians or when the "little green men" took over Crimea and Donbas. And it's not Obama alone for what it's worth, Trump was just as bad in cozying up to Putin, and us Europeans didn't care either.
The secret to the relative period of peace after WW2 was that everyone was mightily afraid of getting smacked hard by the US. The first cracks obviously started back with Vietnam, but the actual erosion of the US hard and soft power was the clusterfucks in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And if you are speaking about what you guys did and doing in Palestine or any other Muslim nation trust my they aren't afraid of you, they just raise people who despise you and you will cry in future when they attack you at your homes.
That's haunting indeed to the naive minds who imagine the world must run on political correctness, rainbows and unicorns, but that's not how the real world works or has ever worked, and nobody can say that he's wrong though just because he's not sugar coating it. You only have peace if everyone is scared of you. Why do only small guys get bullied and not the tall muscular jocks? Why does Russia bully the EU and not the US?
Being pacifist doesn't assure you any peace if you're weak, as eventually, inevitably, someone hungry and greedy will build their strength to come for your lunch and you'll have to defend it if you want to keep it, as per human history in the last infinity years. Ask Belgium or NL how their pacifism worked out in WW2 in face of the Nazi army.
He should have just said: "Better to be a warrior in a garden than a gardener in a war" if he wanted something that sounds nicer.
The Chinese are just preventing terrorism in Xinjiang, right? And the Russians are just scared of NATO expansionism.
This fake fear is the veiled language of conquest.
How does your theory explain the 30 European nations that have been at peace with each other for decades? Is Poland simply too afraid of Lithuania due to Lithuanias military supremacy? Does France not invade the Netherlands because the Dutch army can field so many tanks?
How can we increase trust? Both internationally, but also nationally?
The glass citizen, completely see through to the regime, is being built.