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

AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

thedailybeast.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 125 posts

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#71

Post by moistly »

somenameforme wrote: post #63
defrost wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The same intelligence agencies that convinced the world Iraq had WMD To be more accurate about something that matters, no intelligence agency in the US, the UK, AU, or other major intell nation claimed that Iraq had WMD's. That was completely and utterly a senior US political position that demanded non existeant evidence to support a bizarro "known unknowns" claim .. backed by then UK politicians and tacitly agreed…

This is a declassified section from the National Intelligence Estimate 2002, which was used as one of the primary justifications for the invasion: -------------------------- Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as miss…

As OP said, no one with a clue believed it. Hence the demonstrations. Big demonstrations.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_Wa...

> According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.

> In the United States, even though pro-war demonstrators have been quoted as referring to anti-war protests as a "vocal minority", Gallup Polls updated September 14, 2007 state, "Since the summer of 2005, opponents of the war have tended to outnumber supporters. A majority of Americans believe the war was a mistake."

Edit:

My bad, I should have clipped from the good-sized section down the page that list numerous pre-invasion protests. Lots of your fellow citizens knew the war was bogus, the excuses invented.

Outside the US I daresay most knew it was bullshit. Hans Blix’s opinion was widely published, “because his daddy didn’t win” was the memed reason, and the coalition that supported Bush’s prosecution of Osama was not all on board with expanding TWOT to Iraq.

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#72

Post by [deleted] »

foundajob wrote: post #68
moistly wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The root problem is that there is a troubled subset of our population who delight in smearing shit on the walls. We’ve all seen it in real life public toilets, in that literal fashion, but it also comes in the form of ratfucking, like Stone, and in QAnon-style promotion of crazy conspiracy theories, and in many variations in-between. They engage in acts of destruction against the public good; they are destroyers of p…

It sounds like you're saying that anybody who diverges from your status quo opinions is some sort of mental terrorist. Excuse me, "stochastic terrorist."

[deleted]

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#73

Post by piva00 »

kodyo wrote: post #66
piva00 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How, exactly?

Jesus Christ. Every US president since the end of the cold war has authorized eastward expansion of NATO, an alliance whose enemy no longer exists. The current president was brokering arms deals with Ukraine. The previous president was delivering on those deals. After the 2014 coup, a major Ukraine energy company, which was cozy with Putin, hired the Vice President’s son in order to cozy up with the new America-frien…

> Every US president since the end of the cold war has authorized eastward expansion of NATO, an alliance whose enemy no longer exists.

If those countries wish to join NATO why do they need to ask permission to Russia? This argument really doesn't make sense unless you take away sovereignty of states from the equation, some countries decided they wanted to join NATO, should they be blocked to join a defensive military alliance for what reasons?

> After the 2014 coup, a major Ukraine energy company, which was cozy with Putin, hired the Vice President’s son in order to cozy up with the new America-friendly regime.

> The previous president was impeached for asking Ukraine to investigate corruption by the former Vice President.

What? Trump was clearly asking for a quid pro quo from Ukraine and keeping aid hostage unless he got some dirt on a political opponent. I'm not American so I really can't grasp why you'd bend reality this way to fit your narrative...

> Putin warned that arming or granting membership to Ukraine’s belligerent new government was a red line Russia could not tolerate. NATO did it anyway.

Ukraine wanted to join NATO, again a defence alliance, with a democratically elected government that came after ousting their previous Russian-puppet president which was openly propped up by Russia/Putin. Putin tolerating it or not it's not his decision to make over the wants of a foreign government. If you support this kind of meddling then you should not have any qualms against other nation-states directly meddling into other countries policies and politics, right? Like you don't have anything against the USA constant meddling into others' affairs, am I correct?

Please, source where exactly was the new government of Ukraine belligerent, that's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence.

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#74

Post by piva00 »

throwawaymedia wrote: post #47
HDThoreaun wrote: post #42

Quoted post unavailable.

I'm not a Russian shill. I pay my taxes in the US, and, apparently, my actions sponsor the war.

So you are Ukrainian, working and living in the US and supporting Russia?

Very weird background story, basically unbelievable to be very honest...

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#75

Post by kodyo »

syrrim wrote: post #70
kodyo wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus Christ. Every US president since the end of the cold war has authorized eastward expansion of NATO, an alliance whose enemy no longer exists. The current president was brokering arms deals with Ukraine. The previous president was delivering on those deals. After the 2014 coup, a major Ukraine energy company, which was cozy with Putin, hired the Vice President’s son in order to cozy up with the new America-frien…

The previous president was impeached for taking aid from ukraine lest they investigate invented allegations of corruption. That putin warned of something is meaningless. Are we expected to roll over whenever a foreign country makes a threat? Most of these threats are empty; even when they aren't, some things they have no right to threaten us about. A country arming itself to protect from a (demonstrably) belligerent…

Yes. Biden also threatened to withhold arms from Ukraine to PREVENT them from investigating corruption.

And I suppose if the political establishment wants to fund a proxy war against a nuclear power, they would happily cross the red line.

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#76

Post by somenameforme »

kube-system wrote: post #45
kodyo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shitty reporting that supports your intelligence agency's agenda is pretty straight-forward fake news.

Have you read anything that the DoD says about this conflict? They very clearly do not want to get involved in this war first-hand. Nor would it make any sense for them to do so, the most selfish action here is to simply send weapons and let Ukraine do all the dirty work.

That is literally their only choice. Ukrainians and Russians are dying by the tens of thousands. American soldiers would be better trained and better equipped than both sides, but they would also be dying in large numbers. We lost nearly 5000 thousand soldiers in Iraq, with complete and unchallenged air superiority, to disorganized religious radicals running around with 1950s era rifles and low-grade improvised explosives. We're all just vulnerable sacks of flesh and bone in the end.

And Americans would tolerate this for approximately 0 seconds. Consider how we feel about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis that died or were killed during our invasion of Iraq (high end figures putting it in the millions), contrasted against the 5000 Americans who died. It's an entirely different sort of care when speaking of people you have no connection to as opposed to your neighbor or even your own son dying. When its other people, the real cost isn't truly felt.

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#77

Post by somenameforme »

moistly wrote: post #71
somenameforme wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a declassified section from the National Intelligence Estimate 2002, which was used as one of the primary justifications for the invasion: -------------------------- Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as miss…

As OP said, no one with a clue believed it. Hence the demonstrations. Big demonstrations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_Wa... > According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war. > In the United States, even though pro-war demonstrators have been quoted as refer…

Whether intentionally or not, you're giving results of polls years after the invasion. Wars look very different after the fact. In the midst of the war you're surrounded by endless lies, misrepresentations, and propaganda. And most people simply follow along. After all, who wants to be called a Saddam shill?

Wiki has a series of poll results on public opinion of Iraq during after the war. [1] In May 2003, 79% of Americans thought the war was justified, regardless of whether or not WMD existed. And by the time the war had kicked off 90% of Americans believed it "at least somewhat likely" that WMD would be found.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_in_the_United_S...

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#78

Post by kodyo »

piva00 wrote: post #73
kodyo wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jesus Christ. Every US president since the end of the cold war has authorized eastward expansion of NATO, an alliance whose enemy no longer exists. The current president was brokering arms deals with Ukraine. The previous president was delivering on those deals. After the 2014 coup, a major Ukraine energy company, which was cozy with Putin, hired the Vice President’s son in order to cozy up with the new America-frien…

> Every US president since the end of the cold war has authorized eastward expansion of NATO, an alliance whose enemy no longer exists. If those countries wish to join NATO why do they need to ask permission to Russia? This argument really doesn't make sense unless you take away sovereignty of states from the equation, some countries decided they wanted to join NATO, should they be blocked to join a defensive militar…

I have far more contempt for the USA running proxy wars and meddling in border and ethnic disputes halfway across the world than I do for the principals involved in those border disputes.

When ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine decided they didn’t want to be a part of Ukraine anymore, Ukraine shelled them. There aren’t any good guys over there. But there didnt need to be a war, and NATO didnt need to instigate it.

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#79

Post by kodyo »

kube-system wrote: post #58
kodyo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That both are abhorrent but we wouldn’t be where we are today if NATO hadn’t been extending its membership eastwards since the end of the cold war and running arms deals with countries on Russia’s border.

As if the mere thought of Ukraine joining an alliance, which they didn’t even join, is justification to start firing missiles?

What other country were the weapons provided by the Biden and Trump arms deals meant to be aimed at?

Re: AP fires reporter behind retracted ‘Russian missiles’ story

#80

Post by kube-system »

kodyo wrote: post #79
kube-system wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As if the mere thought of Ukraine joining an alliance, which they didn’t even join, is justification to start firing missiles?

What other country were the weapons provided by the Biden and Trump arms deals meant to be aimed at?

Purchasing weapons from competing nations makes them fair game for an invasion?

That rationale seems it could be used justify nearly any aggressive war.

Post reply on HN