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

291–300 of 356 posts

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

#291

Post by refurb »

shapefrog wrote: post #268
refurb wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please provide specific examples where the US military issued orders to use a drone strike to specifically kill children.

https://theintercept.com/2017/01/30/obama-killed-a-16-year-o... Looks like they were pretty keen to wipe out that guys entire family; 16 year old son two weeks later and eventually nailed the 8 year old daughter. You dont often see bipartisan action like that.

“The U.S. eventually claimed that the boy was not their target but merely “collateral damage.””

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

#292

Post by teclordphrack2 »

calsy wrote: post #277
jollybean wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people behind Iraq invasion were all part of 'Project for a New American Century' which promoted 'Pax Americana' in the Middle East, i.e. a stabilizing occupying force, probably the overthrow of Iraq and Syria. They envisioned Iraq being a little more like Gulf States i.e. more stable, allies, and a buffer between Israel/Iran/Saudi Arabia. And some nice construction contracts for Bechtel. And a geostrategic signa…

Sick of hearing these nonsense hidden reasons that are completely without merit. The reasons we went to war were very clear, 'Saddam was stockpiling WMDs and was a threat to world.'. They were wrong, they simply made a colossal mistake.

What are you talking about? All the information that has come to light in the years since points to those in charge understanding that what they were telling us was not true. These were not things they saw data on and we were sure about but instead were things they saw as inconsequential but they could make the mountain out of the mole hill.

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

#293

Post by foolinaround »

bishoprook2 wrote: post #206
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…

> Someone on the conservative side of the spectrum, please enlighten me what the reasonable argument for justifying the past military action there is at this point... I'd say that it's possible (quite possible) to be conservative and to be against foreign adventures. It's probably better to view a country as being occupied by multiple cohorts of political thought, one of which is a ruling class that likes to play Ris…

> the conservative side

please look up the 'neocons' and how they got started. Around the time of 911, neocons got a lot of (emotional) support from regular conservatives, but in general, this is not a conservative ideology.

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

#294

Post by jollybean »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #287
jollybean wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people behind Iraq invasion were all part of 'Project for a New American Century' which promoted 'Pax Americana' in the Middle East, i.e. a stabilizing occupying force, probably the overthrow of Iraq and Syria. They envisioned Iraq being a little more like Gulf States i.e. more stable, allies, and a buffer between Israel/Iran/Saudi Arabia. And some nice construction contracts for Bechtel. And a geostrategic signa…

> promoted 'Pax Americana' in the Middle East Is this another "Manifest Destiny" in disguise?

Yes, definitely partly, manifestation of that I believe.

But it's complicated though ... the US is a huge part in keeping up that set of dominos that is the international order. But it doesn't mix well with hyper nationalism either, and definitely not military adventurism either.

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

#295

Post by ASalazarMX »

sudosysgen wrote: post #242
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…

This is an unfair answer. The Second Iraq War was not based on any altruistic motive. If it was, the US would say so, instead of manufacturing evidence for WMDs. We can safely conclude that the actual reasons for the invasions are something that the US government wanted to hide. Beyond that, the war in Iraq killed more people than Saddam Hussein's genocide, so that justification simply doesn't fly. It's complete bogu…

It was oil control. USA now imports almost as much oil from Iraq (6% of total imports) as Mexico (7%). Iraq's oil production has doubled since the invasion. One of the first buildings secured in the last invasion was the Oil Ministry, which had more priority than museums and government offices. Whoever controls Iraq's oil, controls its wealth.

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

#296

Post by linuxftw »

rrss wrote: post #282
linuxftw wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany is still occupied by Americans. We're still defending you from the same foreign adversary, Russia. If the US pulled out of Germany in 1965, what would have become of the place? IMO, it's clear. The communists would have been conscripted into war, West Germany would have surrendered rather than fight their countrymen. This is exactly what happened in Vietnam and it's what is happening in Afghanistan now.

regardless of whether the US had a continuous military presence in west Germany, it is implausible to me that east Germany / the USSR could have taken over west germany without starting WWIII. West Germany was a NATO member state by 1955.

There is no NATO without the US occupation of Europe. If the US pulls out of NATO, it will fold like the Afghan security force.

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

#297

Post by ryneandal »

bayesian_horse wrote: post #252
ryneandal wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, historically, the tribal settlements in the country never had a ton of interaction with each other due to the terrain. I think it's a great example of modern borders not making much sense given the interactions of the population.

There have often been buddhist, muslim and other kingdoms or larger military organizations in power in Afghanistan. It's not that the borders don't make sense, it's that the area as a whole is hard to rule and it's hard to pay for that ruling. Currently one could argue that the medieval kind of "political technology" used by the Taliban is superior to the democratic political technology, for this very reason.

Re-watched the video I was misremembering, and they're iterating exactly what you mentioned. I learned more about Afghanistan from this than anything in the news for the past two decades -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab9zK8yT4_Y

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

#298

Post by Clubber »

danielschonfeld wrote: post #256

There seems to be a general case of amnesia about the way the Iraq war was sold and I'm not quite sure why. While the fairy tale of WMDs was a multiyear effort the US has undertaken, first and foremost as a response to 9/11, Saddam was painted as the leader harboring terrorists and aiding public enemy number one, Osama Bin Laden and his then suddenly sprung into public attention group called Al Qaeda. It's only later…

>Saddam was painted as the leader harboring terrorists and aiding public enemy number one, Osama Bin Laden and his then suddenly sprung into public attention group called Al Qaeda.

I believe this was debunked before the war started, as was WMD's (remember Hanz Blix).

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

#299

Post by calsy »

koheripbal wrote: post #249
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why exactly? I don't understand. I never understood what was the real reason for the war. Multiple theories have been put forward that I am aware of but they all seem (to me) to be "just so" stories trying to find a post-hoc explanation for what seemed to be an invasion completely without reason. Oil interests, heroin trade, geopolitical advantage, democracy and human rights (actually that was one of the explanations…

> revenge for 9/11, none of all that makes any sense Attacking al-quaeda after 9/11 didn't make sense?

What does an occupation of a foreign country that has millions of civilians with no connection to these events have to do with attacking al-quaeda? Are they simply guilty by association for harboring terrorists.

Americans still haven't worked out that taking over nation by force isn't the correct answer and makes things worse. God forbid anyone attempt to occupy the US, you would all go ape shit mad.

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

#300

Post by lukifer »

matttproud wrote: post #193
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 was zero — functionally zero — accountability for anyone: 1. Bush Administration (and subsequent cowards) 2. Project for the New American Century and related organizations 3. cheerleaders and thoughtleaders in the media 4. executors of the orders and plans 5. and finally the American people for being so hungry for bloodlust (remember those "Liberate Iraq - Support our Troops" yard signs and bumper stickers?) ……

I would add to the list Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, who took "off the table" impeachment in 2006, and prosecution in 2009, respectively. A lesser crime, to be clear, but they are morally culpable nonetheless.

On the one hand, I can understand the hesitancy to set a precedent of prosecuting the political opposition; while I think the evidence is clear that Iraq was a war crime, and not a well-intentioned "mistake", it's not hard to imagine counter-factuals in which genuine policy mistakes are spun the other direction.

Nonetheless, it should give us pause that our Constitutional mechanisms for holding power accountable for flagrant abuse don't seem to have any teeth in practice; not from a lack of legal mechanisms, but from the factionalism of the two-party system, and that leaders are incentivized not to spend scarce "political will" that would distract from their own agendas, if not come to bite them as well when power changes hands.

Post reply on HN