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

321–330 of 356 posts

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

#321

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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...

At this point? None. At that point? Well...

Saddam was playing a very subtle game. He was, on the one hand, telling the US inspectors (truthfully) that he didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. And, on the other hand, he was telling his neighbors (and even units of his own military) that he did.

In retrospect, you can say that all the intel was there to say that he didn't have them. At the time, though, when he was trying to tell his neighbors that he did? That was less cut and dried. And, after 9/11, the bias was toward "over our dead bodies are we letting someone like him have WMDs". So the ambiguity (with whatever probability mix) got resolved to "yes he does".

I mean, after 9/11, would you have accepted a 20% probability that he had WMDs? Even if you would, would the country? Would you expect the president to accept that?

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

#322

Post by cmrdporcupine »

calsy wrote: post #286
noelsusman wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is absolutely not true at all. Dropping bombs on things does not make them better. Large cities that were home to millions of people were bombed, vital utilities like power and water were 'taken out' for strategic purposes. Airports were destroyed, hospitals and schools accidentally bombed. The country fell into civil war. There are still many places that lack basic utilities like running water that existed prio…

Yep and arguably it all set off a powder keg in Syria, too. And gave the regime in Iran more hegemony in the region.

I don't see any wins. None.

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

#323

Post by reallyagain »

danielschonfeld wrote: post #320
Clubber wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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).

In case it wasn't evident enough from this and my historical comments, I obviously whole heartedly agree. But that doesn't change the fact, this is who he and his regime was marketed as to Americans in the 2.5 years post 9/11 as the basis for war. For Americans, and especially the military, this guy helped cause 9/11, therefore he should be hunted and die. All the others... collateral damage.

So, you make repeated insinuations in your comment history about the "authenticity" of 9/11.

Perhaps you could share with the class what you believe is inauthentic about 9/11?

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

#324

Post by [deleted] »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #301
shapefrog wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and they almost always are I would suggest that While the investigator, judge, and jury of these potential crimes are the people perpetrating them themselves we have absolutely no idea of what proportion are or are not investigated let alone punished. Certainly, the evidence of cases that have received public attention (see the collateral murder video and 'investigation' as just one such example) shows a pattern of…

>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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Violence_against_civil...

[deleted]

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

#325

Post by shapefrog »

refurb wrote: post #291
shapefrog wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.””

How naive of me not to see that it was all just a big ol coincidence.

'Accidentally' killing kids is A-OK, so long as the kid is standing next to a 'legitimate' target when you drop a bomb on them.

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

#326

Post by shapefrog »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #301
shapefrog wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and they almost always are I would suggest that While the investigator, judge, and jury of these potential crimes are the people perpetrating them themselves we have absolutely no idea of what proportion are or are not investigated let alone punished. Certainly, the evidence of cases that have received public attention (see the collateral murder video and 'investigation' as just one such example) shows a pattern of…

>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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Violence_against_civil...

Honestly if you are benchmarking america against the bahviour of the Taliban you have really lost your way.

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

#327

Post by queuebert »

calsy wrote: post #275
queuebert wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interest in regional stability is probably rooted in oil. The U.S. hasn't taken any captured oil fields and sold the oil for themselves, as far as I know, so I think they just want the region to be a stable, predicable marketplace for dead dinosaurs.

And blowing up major cities, destroying basic utilities like power and water and creating a situation thats lead to civil war involving factions from neighbouring countries is 'creating stability'. This is some bizarro world logic.

They already had a civil war. Saddam quelled a big uprising among Shi'a and Kurds. Unity among the Muslim factions is stronger than national unity, so your proposed consequence already existed for 1000 years.

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

#328

Post by boomboomsubban »

reallyagain wrote: post #323
danielschonfeld wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In case it wasn't evident enough from this and my historical comments, I obviously whole heartedly agree. But that doesn't change the fact, this is who he and his regime was marketed as to Americans in the 2.5 years post 9/11 as the basis for war. For Americans, and especially the military, this guy helped cause 9/11, therefore he should be hunted and die. All the others... collateral damage.

So, you make repeated insinuations in your comment history about the "authenticity" of 9/11. Perhaps you could share with the class what you believe is inauthentic about 9/11?

The claim that Hussein had any relation to 9/11 is inauthentic, even Bush himself eventually admitted such. He still used Hussein's nonexistent connection to put Iraq in the "Axis of Evil" though.

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

#329

Post by calsy »

queuebert wrote: post #327
calsy wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And blowing up major cities, destroying basic utilities like power and water and creating a situation thats lead to civil war involving factions from neighbouring countries is 'creating stability'. This is some bizarro world logic.

They already had a civil war. Saddam quelled a big uprising among Shi'a and Kurds. Unity among the Muslim factions is stronger than national unity, so your proposed consequence already existed for 1000 years.

Yeah difference being those conflicts didn’t involve raining 1000s of bombs down over major cities. The situation for civil war already existed, so the best option is to light the fuse by bombing the place and leaving a power vacuum? Not a great plan to eliminate terrorism or promote stability. It’s not hard to think of better ways to spend tax dollars and avoid the emotional toll of losing many good people.

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

#330

Post by gtyras2mrs »

tgv wrote: post #85
hyperman1 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That's what due process is for. If you can't reasonably prove someone is a criminal, they don't belong in jail. Compare: Throw the whole population of your country in prison. Clearly, you've also imprisoned every terrorist of your country. Should you be rewarded for that? The Guantanamo situation is comparable: The US picked random people from the street based on gossip at best, or because they looked funny at a…

> Compare: Throw the whole population of your country in prison. That's not a comparison to the situation in Guantanamo. 780 people were detained there, out of a potential 400 million (depending on where you draw the borders). > Nobody should be rewarded for that. One strike, you're out? Is that the rule you judge by?

>> Nobody should be rewarded for that.

> One strike, you're out? Is that the rule you judge by?

That's how law works isn't it? Just because you've done a lot of good things doesn't mean that you shouldn't be tried for stabbing a person.

Post reply on HN