Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#91

Post by mgarfias »

dragontamer wrote: post #87
mgarfias wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his point wasn’t to have a political class with military experience, but rather a political class that are personally at risk from their policies and decisions.

That's called a warlord. Or if you want to be romantic about it: a knight, or samurai. There are many periods of history where warlords ruled by shear might and took to the battlefields personally. If you rule by military strength, then it is customary to also take to the battlefield. That's why the samurai class, knights, etc. etc. were on the battlefield. They were expected to personally enter battle as part of the…

No, its not what I mean. I want to see the politicians directly affected by their decisions. Like, their kids are sent off to fight along with the poors.

Maybe they'll think twice about sending snuffy off to die if they or theirs will get dead.

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#92

Post by rtsil »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #82
rtsil wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rebels claimed to have wounded him during the fights so this is more of an admission than a cover-up.

I haven't seen that claim, but even their attack that effortlessly took a border town than was completely repulsed while miraculously killing the president sounds pretty bogus.

It was an interview(1) of the rebel's leader on RFI radio (in French) earlier today.

They apparently realized Deby was there because the combat was extremely violent. They attacked him, he was wounded and evacuated on a helicopter.

(1) https://soundcloud.com/radiofranceinternationale/mahamat-mah...

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#93

Post by dragontamer »

mgarfias wrote: post #91
dragontamer wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's called a warlord. Or if you want to be romantic about it: a knight, or samurai. There are many periods of history where warlords ruled by shear might and took to the battlefields personally. If you rule by military strength, then it is customary to also take to the battlefield. That's why the samurai class, knights, etc. etc. were on the battlefield. They were expected to personally enter battle as part of the…

No, its not what I mean. I want to see the politicians directly affected by their decisions. Like, their kids are sent off to fight along with the poors. Maybe they'll think twice about sending snuffy off to die if they or theirs will get dead.

I know what you're trying to say. But I'm saying that history doesn't support your viewpoint. I can't think of any political power (be it Caesar, the Knights, Samurai, or whatever) across cultures where the politicians being part of the military had any such benefit you describe.

We know what a warlord looks like when they're in power. The people who come to power by the sword are not peaceful folk. Military politicians (such as Samurai or Knights) seem to be more violent than democracies. They are more than willing to risk their lives, or send off their children to die to grab political power.

EDIT: In the Samurai / Warring States era of Japan, it was common to marry off your daughters to rival warlords in the hopes of keeping the peace. But when war broke out, the Samurai were ruthless: they were willing to risk their daughters lives to advanced politically (ex: grab some land and/or glory).

Back then, it was normal to fight a war for simple glory. Children be damned, or even your own life. That's the way of a warlord based political system.

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#94

Post by boomboomsubban »

rtsil wrote: post #92
boomboomsubban wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen that claim, but even their attack that effortlessly took a border town than was completely repulsed while miraculously killing the president sounds pretty bogus.

It was an interview(1) of the rebel's leader on RFI radio (in French) earlier today. They apparently realized Deby was there because the combat was extremely violent. They attacked him, he was wounded and evacuated on a helicopter. (1) https://soundcloud.com/radiofranceinternationale/mahamat-mah...

That's a bit of credibility, but the rebel leader is on good enough terms with France to get an interview talking about how they assassinated a country's leader? France has military bases in Chad, that seems like an odd connection.

I realize these are now conspiracies based on assumptions. I'm not calling for the new government of Chad to be overthrown based on them, it just sounds too much like something the CIA is ultimately behind to me.

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#95

Post by rtsil »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #94
rtsil wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was an interview(1) of the rebel's leader on RFI radio (in French) earlier today. They apparently realized Deby was there because the combat was extremely violent. They attacked him, he was wounded and evacuated on a helicopter. (1) https://soundcloud.com/radiofranceinternationale/mahamat-mah...

That's a bit of credibility, but the rebel leader is on good enough terms with France to get an interview talking about how they assassinated a country's leader? France has military bases in Chad, that seems like an odd connection. I realize these are now conspiracies based on assumptions. I'm not calling for the new government of Chad to be overthrown based on them, it just sounds too much like something the CIA is…

He's not. France froze his assets for being a member of a terrorist organization, and France is the Western power that has always supported Deby and is currently supporting his son. If anything, France has helped the regulary army against the rebels.

RFI might be a public radio broadcaster, but that doesn't mean they are only talking to "friends" of France or exclusively conveying the "voice" of France. Quite the contrary, their international coverage is quite good, and much better than the other (private, commercial) French radio stations.

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#96

Post by kodah »

hourislate wrote: post #21

It should be mandatory for all Presidents to be on the battle field. It should also be mandatory for all members of congress and the senate to rotate in and out of the battle field.

Politicians do come by the battlefield and then they go home and brag about how they were exposed to war. This is common across the political spectrum.

Mostly their visits had nothing to do with actual policy and had more to do with scoring a picture with people in standard fatigues on big bases. Rarely if ever did those politicians get to see what it's like when a few American Marines are instructed to go on patrol with a platoon of Afghan National Army soldiers (I'm reminded of this story [0]. They'd parade the big armored vehicles by them, they'd show them videos of us blowing up things up from a distance, but rarely if ever did those stories cover when a 19 year old is kicking in the door to a house in Fallujah with a Russian supplied and made AK-47 pointed at his dome. Rarely would they see troops in their natural state. They made us shave, clean our clothes, and would hand out replacement gear if a VIP was coming by.

This is a limited subset of behavior I personally witnessed. Civilians do it too though, most people's understanding of Iraq and Afghanistan is based on fiction and rumors, where the real pros, cons, and incentives of each are buried under a mountain of narrative and conspiracy. In watching all the dog and pony show nature of things I wondered if politicians and regular civilians would actually benefit from military service.

In some way, I think yes. Maybe the left would stop crafting policy that is harmful to veterans and service members, like the ROE change that occurred around 2009. Maybe it would make the right do more than lip service and charade to the military and veterans. Maybe people would be more understanding and observant of the warrior class. But I'm always left with the thought that any of those experiences only mean something if someone cares to try to understand them in the first place.

[0] https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/veterans/2014/04/23/mar...

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#97

Post by boomboomsubban »

rtsil wrote: post #95
boomboomsubban wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bit of credibility, but the rebel leader is on good enough terms with France to get an interview talking about how they assassinated a country's leader? France has military bases in Chad, that seems like an odd connection. I realize these are now conspiracies based on assumptions. I'm not calling for the new government of Chad to be overthrown based on them, it just sounds too much like something the CIA is…

He's not. France froze his assets for being a member of a terrorist organization, and France is the Western power that has always supported Deby and is currently supporting his son. If anything, France has helped the regulary army against the rebels. RFI might be a public radio broadcaster, but that doesn't mean they are only talking to "friends" of France or exclusively conveying the "voice" of France. Quite the con…

Does RFI have a habit of letting terrorist's voice their point of view on the air? Even if they put out a less biased view than the commercial stations, they still basically exist as a propaganda station. They're only going to broadcast something like this if they want the world to hear it for some reason.

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#98

Post by rtsil »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #97
rtsil wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not. France froze his assets for being a member of a terrorist organization, and France is the Western power that has always supported Deby and is currently supporting his son. If anything, France has helped the regulary army against the rebels. RFI might be a public radio broadcaster, but that doesn't mean they are only talking to "friends" of France or exclusively conveying the "voice" of France. Quite the con…

Does RFI have a habit of letting terrorist's voice their point of view on the air? Even if they put out a less biased view than the commercial stations, they still basically exist as a propaganda station. They're only going to broadcast something like this if they want the world to hear it for some reason.

Well, "terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

But sure, they regularly interview rebels of all stripes, except Islamist insurgents I think (at least I can't think of one such interview).

> they still basically exist as a propaganda station. They're only going to broadcast something like this if they want the world to hear it for some reason.

That's a point of view. I've seen them accused of being at the same time pro-regime and pro-opposition/rebels, inside the same countries, all across Africa, regardless of which group France is supporting. So who knows?

I've even heard once the officials from an opposition party in an African country during a period of unrest, protesting against the then-current RFI correspondant covering the country and asking for his replacement by another RFI reporter, supposedly more neutral. So, again, it's in the eye of the beholder.

Also, being a public radio doesn't necessarily mean they're subservient. We have a national station here which is quite leftist, France Inter. Whenever the government is right-wing (or center-right), it will criticize the government's politics quite severely. Maybe being a civil servant with a lifetime job guarantee helps being less subservient? Or maybe I'm just hopelessly naive.

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#99

Post by boomboomsubban »

rtsil wrote: post #98
boomboomsubban wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does RFI have a habit of letting terrorist's voice their point of view on the air? Even if they put out a less biased view than the commercial stations, they still basically exist as a propaganda station. They're only going to broadcast something like this if they want the world to hear it for some reason.

Well, "terrorism" is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? But sure, they regularly interview rebels of all stripes, except Islamist insurgents I think (at least I can't think of one such interview). > they still basically exist as a propaganda station. They're only going to broadcast something like this if they want the world to hear it for some reason. That's a point of view. I've seen them accused of being at the…

Come up with one reason that France would fund RFI that isn't essentially propaganda. It's the kind of bias that exists outside the internal political debate, which makes it far better than the alternative commercial stations, but the stated goal is to spread the French POV worldwide.

Again, I realize I'm terribly cynical on these issues. We can both have the same information about the network and my distrust will just lead me to this conclusion.

Re: President of Chad Killed on the Battlefield

#100

Post by bingbong70 »

snikeris wrote: post #51
DyslexicAtheist wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

skin in the game. there is something incredibly honorable about it. Can anyone picture BoJo, Trump or Biden jumping off a chopper in Overtheristan killing locals? In the West we use the term "who live by the sword shall die by the sword" (Matthew) but only as a warning. I think it illustrates the disconnect between these worlds. What is warning in one place/religion is a _promise_ in the other. My wife (Japanese) wou…

I think the doctrine of an eye for an eye is alive and well in the West. It seems to be a part of the human condition. However, rejecting it isn't cowardice. It's spiritual growth.

Taleb's point was systems become fragile when participants (especially if powerful) have little to no skin in the game. It is a form of cowardice to immune oneself from accountability but also worse, it introduces large (and usually growing) systemic risks that cannot be avoided.
Post reply on HN