forapurpose

It was not pointed at you or at anyone; it was a comment about my general experience as an HN user. I didn't realize that your account existed before you replied. My motives and knowledge, including about Africa (a word I personally wouldn't use for a very large and diverse area), are not what you assume; please don't attribute things to me.

FWIW, Western analysts have talked about the problems of Sub-Saharan African infrastructure extensively and for a long time, and the West has attempted to fund it. IIRC, generally it has been found that foreign-built and -funded infrastructure projects fail, due to problems like corruption, rule of law issues, lack of involvement by local communities, lack of understanding by foreign funders, and lack of capacity for maintenance. As an analogy, you can't just drop an infrastructure project on a country any more than you can just drop an ERP system on a company; the company has to be ready, have capabilities, and needs a lot of highly effective consulting if you want a chance of success. The West's prior attempts at funding led to a massive 'debt trap' for many poor countries, making debt relief a major priority (and one that was resolved to a large extent). As I understand it, the predominant view now is that developing local capabilities, including building institutions and functioning government, is a necessary precursor to things like infrastructure. Kenya's problem with the port, on its surface, would seem to be a repeat of the old development pitfalls.

Thanks. I still think you're thinking of someone else; please see my edit.

To be clear, I also think those remarks (accusing people of being shills) are a problem; I didn't think I made one, though I'll stay even further away from them.

> In the last few months this class of posts have all migrated from "You're a Russian spy" and "how much did Putin pay you to post that" to "You're a Chinese shill".

You are confusing me with someone else. I posted none of those things.

> We've warned you about this before.

I don't think so, but maybe a long time ago. Again, I think you're confusing me with another user.

You mischaracterize my comment in many ways; specifically, I didn't ask you to address astroturfing in this discussion, but instead was making a point about my user experience; I wouldn't have a reason to follow the guideline about emailing you as I understood it (though I'm not an HN lawyer and don't want to be one). But more than that, I spoke politely and tried to address problems I have as a user, and tried to avoid violating any guidelines by not accusing anyone. I don't think I deserve attacks and unfounded personal accusations about my motivations introduced into my day; I don't see how the latter is ever appropriate or necessary. Just say, 'that's not allowed here, here is why, please don't do it.' If I make a mistake, I'll apologize and try not to do it again.

Happy holidays.

P.S. I'll edit my other recent comment, which in this context might be inflammatory.

I did this search at Startpage.com:

  brazil attitudes toward china poll

> Here in Brazil people are starting to open up for the Chinese loans.

I read the opposite. What is that based on?

EDIT: In response to the reply below, a search shows plenty of research out there on this topic. (Sorry, I don't have time to read it myself right now.)

Can you back up this claim? My understanding is that, speaking very generally about a large continent, most African countries did not implement the economic fundamentals preached by the World Bank and IMF, but failed to due to corruption and institutional problems, including a lack of the rule of law. What African country adopted the rule of law, open markets, stable monetary policies, a significant reduction in corruption, and failed to prosper?

> the countries that did ignore its orthodoxy, from China in the late 1970s to then India in the early 1990s, prospered

China and India did not at all ignore the 'orthodoxy', but enacted it and that is credited with their economic expansion. China and India adopted capitalism, opened their markets, and adopted economic fundamentals such as stable monetary policy.

I think simplifying the issue distracts us from the real issues, which are complex. The U.S. uses its military for good purposes and for bad. Sometimes war is due to other country's actions, sometimes due to the U.S.'s (e.g., Iraq), and probably usually due to both.

For example, the immediate causes of many U.S. wars later turn out to be false, such as the destruction of the Maine which precipitated the Spanish-American War, the Gulf of Tonkin which began full-scale intervention in Vietnam, and the WMD in Iraq.

But even wars that are justified lead to bad outcomes, as the author states: What war hasn't had the consequences you quoted? Unfortunately, sometimes, those are the best outcomes available, but it's quite a moral decision to inflict that on others.

> No US military leader wants to fight a war; that notion is absurd.

I think your general point is good, but there are people, including people in government, who see war as a low-cost, acceptable means of achieving ends, including rallying domestic political support.

For example, at one point I noticed that over a short time hawkish Republican leaders in the U.S., including John McCain, favored increasing involvement in Afghanistan, attacking Iran (rather than negotiating), increasing involvement in Iraq, intervening in Syria, intervening in Egypt (IIRC), intervening in Sudan (in Darfur, though that might not have been contemporaneous), and intervening in Libya. If you look at a map, that's war in most countries from central Asia to near the middle of Africa's Mediterranean coast.

The GOP, starting before Trump, often vocally disdains the alternative to war, diplomacy. The Trump administration has taken it to a policy level worked to undermine the United States' relations with other countries and openly advocated, including in written op-eds from administration members, 'a return to geopolitical competition' - i.e., the state of things before WWII, which led to centuries of wars. They've abandoned treaty after treaty, and damaged the U.S.'s reputation so that they can't be trusted to adhere to future agreements (which I think is intentional, an attempt make the move away from diplomacy irreversible). The Trump administration openly works against the rule-based international order and openly opposes international law; the alternative to law and order is anarchy; the alternative to those mechanisms is war.

The Trump administration also has gutted State Department; they've attempted to gut its budget (Congress hasn't always agreed), they've cut and obstructed many programs, forced out a large proportion of talent (my vague memory is that they forced or urged out over a third of the most senior officers, who are, as I understand it, irreplaceable), and disrupted hiring.

Why would you destroy the means of diplomacy if you don't seek war?

Hasn't Austin always been the liberal bastion of Texas, an island in a red sea? It seems odd to blame newcomers.

> Given that that could be used to describe quite a lot of pulp sci-fi from that era

Now that is useful context that I didn't know. Could you provide other examples?

> Writers, then as now, knew what their audience wanted.

Wasn't their audience mostly younger guys? Wouldn't their audience want younger guys getting laid?

> that’s not the Stranger I remember

IIRC, it happened in the martian's commune.

> you’d have a different conclusion if you read Job to the end

Thanks for the tip. Someone else posted the spoiler. While it does change things, it still is a stereotypical middle-aged guy's fantasy - she is throwing herself at him, whatever her motive.