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

Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 356 posts

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#211

Post by AlwaysRock »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #194

I'm amazed at how many people still see the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions as correct moves. Just last week I was having a friendly mostly non-political conversation with two of my coworkers and then the topic verged to the military and then to the Iraq wars. (For context, I'm Canadian and they're both US ex-pats in Canada.) Both had the opinion, still, that the Iraq war was the correct move at the time. But coul…

A lot of people think it was the right move because its the move the country and the president decided to make. Never underestimate how many Americans think that by and large Americans are always the good guys and right.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#212

Post by lou1306 »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #181
the-dude wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you are bringing up NATO, I will just spell out the Hague Invasion Act ELI5 : US Congress signed into law the a priori consent of invading the capitol of one of its NATO allies ( NL ). Disclaimer : I am Dutch.

>> US Congress signed into law the a priori consent of invading the capitol of one of its NATO allies ( NL ). I don't know what that means. Can you explain?

The so-called "Hague invasion act" allows the US President to use "any means necessary" to release any US citizen from custody by the International Criminal Court [0].

This, technically, gives the President the power to invade the Netherlands without getting (further) approval from Congress.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#213

Post by mschuster91 »

rayiner wrote: post #182
mschuster91 wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMO, "nation building" is always an impossible mission. The objective should have been to attack, destroy the enemy, and leave - immediately. Punishing the sponsors of the 9/11 attacks, not entrenching an ideological split. That's bollocks. I'm German, had the Allied Powers followed the Morgenthau plan Germany would be essentially an Afghanistan today - an agro state and nothing more. But you all followed through w…

You’re completely overlooking how unprepared Afghans are for secular democracy. Germany and Japan had well developed states before World War II. Afghanistan had never been more than a pastoral tribal society. They’re hundreds of years of development away from the democracy we tried to impose on them. See: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/the-afghanistan-occupation...

> You’re completely overlooking how unprepared Afghans are for secular democracy.

Provide people with tangible benefits they gain from democracy and then it will come as naturally as they flock to the Taliban simply because they promise to get rid of the Western countries.

The West didn't do anything to actually promote democracy and provide a perspective for the people, and then we all wondered why the Taliban were able to take over the entire fucking country in a matter of two weeks.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#214

Post by queuebert »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #194

I'm amazed at how many people still see the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions as correct moves. Just last week I was having a friendly mostly non-political conversation with two of my coworkers and then the topic verged to the military and then to the Iraq wars. (For context, I'm Canadian and they're both US ex-pats in Canada.) Both had the opinion, still, that the Iraq war was the correct move at the time. But coul…

The initial Iraq invasion was to enforce Kuwaiti sovereignty and stop Saddam's unilateral aggression which was destabilizing the region. We tried bribing him with aid, but he still invaded, so the U.S. kept true to their promise to enforce agreements. The U.S. helped a small country and protected its image.

The second Iraq war may or may not have been WMD based, but Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of mostly Shi'a and Kurdish civilians. Saddam's badness to ease of defeat ratio was probably the highest in the world, making him an easy target. You never know what will replace a bad dictator, but I can see how it would be hard to stand by knowing the guy has killed so many and do nothing.

(Not a conservative, per se, but I try to understand all sides.)

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#215

Post by sumedh »

AlwaysRock wrote: post #211
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #194

I'm amazed at how many people still see the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions as correct moves. Just last week I was having a friendly mostly non-political conversation with two of my coworkers and then the topic verged to the military and then to the Iraq wars. (For context, I'm Canadian and they're both US ex-pats in Canada.) Both had the opinion, still, that the Iraq war was the correct move at the time. But coul…

A lot of people think it was the right move because its the move the country and the president decided to make. Never underestimate how many Americans think that by and large Americans are always the good guys and right.

Because Bush was saying God is on US's side and we are the good guys.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#216

Post by enumjorge »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #151
blunte wrote: post #2

Key figures in US military and US leadership need to be held accountable. Same as with CEOs, if you only punish the organization and not specifically the leaders, there is no disincentive to doing it again. Clearly the US is exempt from the war crimes laws, and that needs to change. But it would require leaders of other major powers/countries to push for this. But… this will never happen because almost no leader want…

I'd really like a huge investigation of the entire conflict. What progress were we seeing to justify being there for 20 years? What were we told? What did we know? It's not totally lost if we learn from this and get better. Gitmo also needs to be emptied, at least of everyone detained from this conflict.

What you’re suggesting is that we need data to improve. But we’ve had data. We knew long ago that many of the decisions around the war on terror were bad ones and/or justified with bad information. Even many veterans who served will tell you we had no business deploying people to some of those areas.

Actionable data isn’t worth very much if you don’t act on it. What we need is accountability. I don’t know how you hold the decision makers behind the war accountable though.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#217

Post by forz877 »

La1n wrote: post #17
mrtksn wrote: post #11

This implies the US population being held responsible because the US is a democratic nation. The idea is, every 4 years the highest position of governance is put on a trial and the population votes if they approve or disprove the way things are done and reconsider alternatives. Besides the 4 year period for the evaluation of the highest ranking officers, there is an ample opportunity for direct intervention through o…

>Whatever happens is up to the US internal politics and the culture of the US nation. If only the US would live by that when looking at other countries. Sanctions, embargos, trade-restrictions, threats are used against other countries by the US, why should they be treated any different themselves?

Because US is hegemon and can essentially do as it pleases without immediate consequence. This is why Russia and China have been focusing on destabilizing the US and minor geopolitical moves to chip away as opposed to directly challenging US authority.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#218

Post by oaiey »

queuebert wrote: post #214
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #194

I'm amazed at how many people still see the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions as correct moves. Just last week I was having a friendly mostly non-political conversation with two of my coworkers and then the topic verged to the military and then to the Iraq wars. (For context, I'm Canadian and they're both US ex-pats in Canada.) Both had the opinion, still, that the Iraq war was the correct move at the time. But coul…

The initial Iraq invasion was to enforce Kuwaiti sovereignty and stop Saddam's unilateral aggression which was destabilizing the region. We tried bribing him with aid, but he still invaded, so the U.S. kept true to their promise to enforce agreements. The U.S. helped a small country and protected its image. The second Iraq war may or may not have been WMD based, but Saddam slaughtered hundreds of thousands of mostly…

Please do not forget to mix oil in the ratio.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#219

Post by dragonwriter »

lou1306 wrote: post #212
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> US Congress signed into law the a priori consent of invading the capitol of one of its NATO allies ( NL ). I don't know what that means. Can you explain?

The so-called "Hague invasion act" allows the US President to use "any means necessary" to release any US citizen from custody by the International Criminal Court [0]. This, technically, gives the President the power to invade the Netherlands without getting (further) approval from Congress. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...

> This, technically, gives the President the power to invade the Netherlands without getting (further) approval from Congress.

Insofar as it does that, it gives the President the authority to wage open ended war anywhere on the planet as long as a US citizen is held by the ICC, since the President has sole discretion to determine what means are necessary.

OTOH, that provision is also arguably an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power with no effect whatsoever, since if it delegates anything less than the ability to do anything Congress could allow it isn't specified.

On the gripping hand, the War Powers Act already allows the President to wage war to get a US citizen released from the ICC (and for almost any other reason) anywhere on the planet as long as they ask Congress before too long after starting the war.

Re: Guantánamo survivor on the war on terror’s failure

#220

Post by enumjorge »

rayiner wrote: post #174
blunte wrote: post #2

Key figures in US military and US leadership need to be held accountable. Same as with CEOs, if you only punish the organization and not specifically the leaders, there is no disincentive to doing it again. Clearly the US is exempt from the war crimes laws, and that needs to change. But it would require leaders of other major powers/countries to push for this. But… this will never happen because almost no leader want…

There is already an accountability mechanism: impeachment, voting out of office, etc. What you’re demanding is that non-Americans be able to depose American elected officials, which is absurd. It’s world government accountable to no one.

Asking for better accountability doesn’t imply non-Americans getting involved.
Post reply on HN