Of note to this audience, apparently they are using Django to power the site.
Wikileaks dumps 400,000 more files
91–100 of 131 posts
Re: Wikileaks dumps 400,000 more files
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the Japanese disagree on how well that nuking worked.
Yeah but we got the Sony walkmen, Manga, Honda Fireblade, Nintendo WII and some nice cameras. As well as a staunch ally that's been no trouble to anyone (except whales) Just saying it's worth trying - just a couple of cities.
Your attempted humor is, at best, misguided.
Anonymous throw-away logins are not supposed to be used for this.
Re: Wikileaks dumps 400,000 more files
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lets flip this around. We can all agree that if we knew in 2003 - 2009 that the gory details of the occupation would come out, many of the abuses would not have happened? So now that we know that sites like WikiLeaks will leak such information, maybe (just maybe) current and future abuses will be reduced? Isn't that a positive thing from these leaks?
I think this is a good point. However, its not clear to me that this would have deterred anyone. Consider Darfur.
Not now, perhaps. But with more sites like Wikileaks and more leakers, if we can be sure no war crime (and Wikileaks is not about just war crimes) can remain hidden forever, we may hope people will think twice before taking the easy route.
Re: Wikileaks dumps 400,000 more files
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is no where near the middle. The nazis intentionally and explicitly murdered some 12 to 14 MILLION people in various death camps. The US has done no such thing and has only ever proposed to leave the Iraqis alone and under a democratic government that they can themselves control. The US has only stayed so long as to ensure that said government is free of corruption and coercion and able to protect its citizens fro…
Flip it around then. I submit that just as the American invaders cannot reasonably be compared to the Nazis, neither can the insurgents. It's hard to say either side in this conflict has the moral high ground, so it's equally hard to say that a move to the detriment of one side or the other is amoral (unless it's clear that a move is to the detriment of both sides.)
Absolutely true. There are particularly murderous Al Qaeda people who were operating in Iraq (and Afghanistan), and they are in an entirely different class (actually evil) vs. the majority of nationalist insurgents or common criminals.
Despite facing them as enemies, I wouldn't even consider most of the Taliban, Sunni former regime elements, or Shia militias to be evil for trying to kill the coalition military; the only really evil things they do are attacks on civilian population, and that isn't even done by the vast majority.
In Iraq, we actually successfully reached out to a lot of the less-irreconciable elements ("Sons of Iraq") and gave them a role in the new Iraqi state. There were cases where one day they were engaging US forces, and they next day were recognized by US forces as a useful security force and given equipment (well, reflective PT belts from the PX, so we knew they were the "good" guys now) and support.
Re: Wikileaks dumps 400,000 more files
#95Just as a counterpoint, risking godwining this topic: What would you think if we were in mid-1944 and these documents detailed the operations of Nazi Germany and listed several people who helped German occupation forces? The morality of this war is at the core of this discussion. If you feel this war is immoral, then those who helped occupation forces to commit war crimes deserve no sympathy. If, however, you feel th…
> The truth, probably, lies somewhere in the middle.
Ooh I hate it when people say that :)
In particular, it is a hackneyed journalistic technique to list the positions of the Left and the Right, deride them both as extreme, and then settle on a reasonable compromise in the middle.
A much better approach is to consider each idea on its merits.
In fact the threat to informers was manufactured -- the last drop was unedited and so far there are no reports of reprisals. And this drop was redacted to reduce the threat further.
On the other hand by hastening the end of the war and preventing future wars (by informing the public of the horrors), the upside is solid.
That's what I think. Instead of two strawmen, I would like to hear what you really think.
Re: Wikileaks dumps 400,000 more files
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the same sort of reasoning used by those who claim that America is responsible for September 11, 2001 because they spent the last 60 years dicking around in the Middle East. The second claim is true, and America bears responsibility for said dicking around. The first part is not - the blame falls on those who hijacked the planes and crashed them into things. People are not dying because Wikileaks releases stu…
> People are not dying because Wikileaks releases stuff. People are dying because other people are shooting them or blowing them up. Responsibility for an action rests with those who carry out that action. So essentially, you believe that if I were to compromise a covert operative who is then killed, I have done nothing wrong? What the heck did we convict Aldrich Ames for?
What the heck did we convict Aldrich Ames for?
I assume that you convicted him for breaking the law. Moral liability and legal liability are two orthogonal things.
Re: Wikileaks dumps 400,000 more files
#97Just as a counterpoint, risking godwining this topic: What would you think if we were in mid-1944 and these documents detailed the operations of Nazi Germany and listed several people who helped German occupation forces? The morality of this war is at the core of this discussion. If you feel this war is immoral, then those who helped occupation forces to commit war crimes deserve no sympathy. If, however, you feel th…
> The truth, probably, lies somewhere in the middle. Ooh I hate it when people say that :) In particular, it is a hackneyed journalistic technique to list the positions of the Left and the Right, deride them both as extreme, and then settle on a reasonable compromise in the middle. A much better approach is to consider each idea on its merits. In fact the threat to informers was manufactured -- the last drop was uned…
I like the first half of your comment. The second half, though -
> On the other hand by hastening the end of the war and preventing future wars (by informing the public of the horrors), the upside is solid.
Letting Iraq break into regional sectarian rule would be a disaster. Foreign forces need to be there until locally trained police and military forces are able to keep rule of law in Iraq. Letting the place become a failed state would be very bad for all parties involved from almost all perspectives - it would probably cost more American money and lives in the long run [1], and certainly would result in oppression, violence, and misery for Iraqis.
[1] If a country gets a reputation for withdrawing under pressure if wars aren't won fast, that encourages enemies during a conflict to fight a slow war of attrition, which is the bloodiest, nastiest, most expensive kind of war. Now, the response to this might be "well, America shouldn't fight wars any more then!" - but, realistically looking at America's history and demographics, I would bet on continuing to have an armed conflict every 10-20 years or so. Those will become nastier and more drawn out if the United States gets a reputation for withdrawing if an insurgency causes problems long enough.
Re: Wikileaks dumps 400,000 more files
#98Just as a counterpoint, risking godwining this topic: What would you think if we were in mid-1944 and these documents detailed the operations of Nazi Germany and listed several people who helped German occupation forces? The morality of this war is at the core of this discussion. If you feel this war is immoral, then those who helped occupation forces to commit war crimes deserve no sympathy. If, however, you feel th…
> The truth, probably, lies somewhere in the middle. Ooh I hate it when people say that :) In particular, it is a hackneyed journalistic technique to list the positions of the Left and the Right, deride them both as extreme, and then settle on a reasonable compromise in the middle. A much better approach is to consider each idea on its merits. In fact the threat to informers was manufactured -- the last drop was uned…
> I would like to hear what you really think.
I think this war is unjust and unnecessary. US troops are nowhere near as evil as Nazis were, however, as the Iraqis themselves that commit crimes under US supervision are no match to the German counterparts in my extreme A.
Extreme B is evidently false. Trading a dictatorship for an invasion followed by chaos and civil war is not exactly a choice Iraqis would have made. Right now, I would oppose the withdraw of troops. Not before schools and hospitals are built, not before universal secular education and healthcare, from cradle to grave, are instituted and then about 20 years so that nobody will be willing to give up what they have grown up with. In the meantime, building a fair and competent set of laws and an enforcement system to match them. Then you may retreat and be sure that place will not collapse into an insane theocracy.
Re: Wikileaks dumps 400,000 more files
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
"WTF is wrong with you?" Try refraining from personal attacks on HN. And to respond to your statement, you seem to be missing the bigger picture: How many soldiers have been put in harms way and died BECAUSE the truth was hidden from the public? How many more soldiers will die because of that? There is absolutely no justification for the armed forces to engage in unethical behavior.
I know quite a few people in the special forces on the ground all over the middle east and you'd surprised how many adamently believe that if Americans did indeed know "the truth", we would already be at war with half of the middle east and possibly Russia. I think assuming that the American public has an aversion to war is a dangerous one. Remember that full transparency is a double edged sword. One the one hand peo…
> if Americans did indeed know "the truth", we would already be at war with half of the middle east and possibly Russia
That's a pretty big claim. Elaborate? What's this big truth? Not that America could possibly win such a war..
> assuming that the American public has an aversion to war is a dangerous one
I'd wager that the American public would have quite a healthy aversion to total war against a serious opponent, should they ever experience it. Adventures to these pathetic third world countries don't count. The day America invades a country with ICBMs is the day an awful lot of US citizens become a lot less hawkish.
Re: Wikileaks dumps 400,000 more files
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea that there were WMDs in development / ready to use at the drop of a hat was part of the motivation to go to war at the decision-maker level, but not the core reason, I think. It was more a "look out, he has a gun - rush him" kind of snow-job to get in there, with the idea that something could be found to justify that approach. The bigger idea was a domino concept; that a remade Iraq would be a beacon of demo…
No, it was a bullshit war fabricated and developed. You can look up the PNAC's detailed history where they were just aching for excuses to go to war with Iraq and other Middle Eastern states. The disputability of the intentions of the war is something only American citizens question. Everyone else knew from the start that there was nothing good in it. Just for a start, Google the matter for a few minutes and you'll s…
I don't really see how you're contradicting what I wrote. The "look out, he's got a gun" excuse was largely a BS attempt to sell the war to the public, but the philosophical idea - the long-run reason for wanting to go to war in the middle east for a long time - has much of its roots in this domino theory.
I think they really did expect to find a few fragments of evidence that would back up the "he's got a gun" excuse. I think they were genuinely surprised Saddam hadn't kept something going in private. But I don't think it was the strategic reason for wanting to go to war; an unrealistic and naive (but profitable) ideology was.