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

221–230 of 356 posts

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

#221

Post by dragonwriter »

croes wrote: post #153
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…

The US even sanctions investigators of the International Criminal Court if they try to investigate US war crimes. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/12/14/us-sanctions-internation... *Correction ICC not ICJ

The International Criminal Court; the ICJ is a different court with jurisdiction over nations, not individuals.

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

#222

Post by em500 »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #203
em500 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The initial invasion in 2001 had 100% support Congress and IIRC 80%+ popular support. So yes, not invading was unthinkable.

That's a very heavy accusation to lob at the US people I think. Who says this and where does the 80% number come from? And why would the US people want their country to invade a country on the other side of the world, that was no threat to them and was clearly not capable of defending itself against the might of the US army? Why would the US people want their country to invade anyone? And 80% of them? This I find ver…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_public_opinion_o...

https://web.archive.org/web/20140203074515/http://www.aei.or... (p.58: "Do you approve or disapprove of the current U.S. military action in Afghanistan?")

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

#223

Post by enumjorge »

endisneigh wrote: post #184
bayesian_horse wrote: post #76

You also shouldn't forget to hold the other powers to account that made it impossible to have peace in Afghanistan. Russia put out bounties on US soldiers, Iran armed the Taliban, Pakistan sheltered them and I'm sure China had their fingers in there just as well. The Taliban have never been the legitimate, much less the benevolent government of the Afghan people. If you've seen "The Handmaid's Tale" you have a genera…

Why are you sure China had their fingers in there just as well? Why not Japan? Germany? Italy?

Saying China is as impartial as Japan, German, and Italy when it comes to foreign affairs involving the US is either incredibly naive or disingenuous. It doesn’t itself prove Chinese involvement, but there’s a clear history of tension between the American and Chinese governments.

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

#225

Post by noelsusman »

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 original justification famously turned out to be complete nonsense, but Iraqi citizens are better off today than they were in 2002. That came with a huge cost, mostly born by Iraqi citizens, but it is true.

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

#226

Post by sumedh »

fogihujy wrote: post #82

Holding the U.S. accountable for the war on terror isn't going to happen. The rest of us need to hold our own politicians accountable for collaborating with the U.S. though.

The problem is that US is like a 800 pound gorilla, you cannot afford to piss of the US.

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

#227

Post by Guthur »

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…

Just because, I'll try.

Saddam Hussein was a pariah and was no longer a convenient leader to have around in such a volatile region. It would have been political untenable to support him and potentially dangerous to leave him around. If he started to get desperate or his weakened status allowed another actor to gain significant sway with in the region then there could be wider regional issues.

Now with hindsight we know the region became massively more volatile and is even more a collection of fractured and nearly failed states.

Could a strategy have been developed to remove Saddam and encourage a less dangerous Iraq, seems doubtful as it really sounds like it would always be a gamble. And could it have been done while being lead by government that's in a 4 year election cycle, very doubtful, need quick action to get that sweet re-election after all.

For the record I was not a supporter of the war. Nor am I from the USA :)

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

#228

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

oaiey wrote: post #218
queuebert wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Please cite a source for that claim.

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

#229

Post by Manuel_D »

chmod775 wrote: post #166
Manuel_D wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looks like it's not ratified by plenty of industrialized countries: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ICC_member_states.svg

Let's count them: Monaco, Israel, Singapore, United States of America, also Hong Kong, Macau, Vatican City if you want to count those. Everyone else in red or orange on that map is not considered an industrialized/developed country. 4-7 is plenty now? Especially considering the size and situation of the others?

And Russia, China, Turkey, Vietnam, Thailand, India, Pakistan, and more. Maybe your characterization was correct in 1950, but I have serious doubts if your criteria for "industrialized" fails to include the largest industrial producers by a large margin (China).

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

#230

Post by La1n »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #148
jussij wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'Law of War' clearly defines how attacks on civilians can constitute a ware crime: Article 51(5)(b) forbids any attack ‘which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated’. Such attacks will be classified as a war crime. https://leg…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Condemned_practices According to the United Nations, the Taliban and its allies were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011.

Yes, the Taliban also commits war crimes...
Post reply on HN