Chilcot Enquiry
-
@boomzilla Utter nonsense.
-
@lucas1 Since we can't really run an A/B test, we have absolutely no way of knowing whether the world is better off or not. Saddam was not what you would call a stable, reliable leader.
But of course the real factor is that Trump believes we should have left Saddam in power, therefore I naturally take the opposite position. Fuck Trump.
-
@asdf
So, I assume since the "primary goal of government ... and law is to protect human life" that you're virulently against the party of Planned Parenthood, which takes hundreds of millions of government (read: yours and mine) dollars every year to snuff out human lives. Predominantly black human lives, which allegedly matter.
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
@boomzilla Utter nonsense.
I agree. These people refuse to be reasoned with.
-
@blakeyrat Saddam was a very stable leader, he was infamous but he had an iron fist that kept the various factions in his country in check.
I am in no way saying his rule was good, but what is going on now is at best just as bad.
-
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
I don't even know how one would target a whole nation with stuff like drone strikes.
Try to imagine growing up in a region where drone strikes happen on a daily basis. Unmanned planes you don't even see shoot missiles at (as far as you know) random intervals into random places and you have no idea why. All you see is that seemingly random people, including children, are killed all the time, and there's nothing you can do about it.
-
@boomzilla It seems they are not the only ones.
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
I am in no way saying his rule was good, but what is going on now is at best just as bad.
Yeah, Obama dropped the ball big time on Iraq. It was just getting to be relatively stable and then we bailed. Oops.
Remember when his VP said it was one of the administration's biggest accomplishments?
http://ijr.com/2014/06/146912-obama-2011-leaving-behind-stable-self-reliant-iraq/
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
I don't even know how one would target a whole nation with stuff like drone strikes.
Try to imagine growing up in a region where drone strikes happen on a daily basis. Unmanned planes you don't even see shoot missiles at (as far as you know) random intervals into random places and you have no idea why. All you see is that seemingly random people, including children, are killed all the time, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Yes, that's a tragedy.
-
@lucas1 History is all one piece. It doesn't split up into chunks neatly. OTOH, there are events that are quite clearly points where things change, and the concerns before and after them are rather different. WW1 was such an example, as it marked the point where the ideas that had driven european imperial expansion really started to go off the rails, and so was the French Revolution. 9/11 might be another one as it seems to have marked the peak of unilateral US power; we'll probably be able to say for sure within a few decades or so on that item.
The key point is that the perspective of after the event is often rather different from that of before. It's also not easy to see how things change at the time.
-
@boomzilla So you can see why there's no noticeable difference between what you're doing and targeting whole regions?
-
Yeah, Obama dropped the ball big time on Iraq. It was just getting to be relatively stable and then we bailed. Oops.
No, please learn some recent history.
The American Government didn't pay the Iraqi army $15 each (which is basically a years pay in Iraq) after promising them that if they stood down. 2 days later insurgency activity started.
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Saddam was a very stable leader, he was infamous but he had an iron fist that kept the various factions in his country in check.
I don't use the term "stable" to describe mass murderers.
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
I am in no way saying his rule was good, but what is going on now is at best just as bad.
Nobody back in 2003 had precognition.
Like I said, the question "are we better off after the Iraq invasion?" is entirely unanswerable. We have no evidence one way or the other.
If you want to criticize Bush and Blair on acting on obviously flawed intel, well, ok that's a valid complaint, by all means do so. But you can't criticize them based on, "well we would have been better off" because you don't know that. If you do know that then you got some Doctor Manhattan shit going on and you should have used your super-powers back in 2003 to influence all this in the first place.
-
History is all one piece.
I appreciate this, however you can't say that battle of Thermopylae is relevant in this discussion,.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
@boomzilla So you can see why there's no noticeable difference between what you're doing and targeting whole regions?
No. I may just be channeling blakey here with the language thing. Going to war is a terrible thing. Every time. That doesn't change the fact that sometimes it's a necessary evil.
I've already said that I think we should be conducting the war differently. That's not nearly the same as saying something is a war crime. But we are where we are for a variety of reasons.
-
@blakeyrat said in Chilcot Enquiry:
But of course the real factor is that Trump believes we should have left Saddam in power, therefore I naturally take the opposite position
It's ironic that the minorities in Iraq (Assyrians, Yazidis, Kurds) who we supposedly had to protect from Saddam, would have been better off if we had not done that. Now most of them who are still alive have fled, and have to face racist idiots who put them into the same bucket as terrorists.
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
I appreciate this, however you can't say that battle of Thermopylae is relevant in this discussion,.
It's relevance is probably rather limited, yes, or possibly so all encompassing that we can't see it. After all, if it had gone differently then perhaps the world would be quite different to now. There's a whole genre of books that ponder this sort of thing, most of which are pretty terrible TBQH. :)
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
I appreciate this, however you can't say that battle of Thermopylae is relevant in this discussion,.
This is a ridiculous analogy. But it wouldn't be if Thermopylae was actually brought up a lot by someone to justify their anger.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
It's ironic that the minorities in Iraq (Assyrians, Yazidis, Kurds) who we supposedly had to protect from Saddam, would have been better off if we had not done that.
I'm not sure that that's true for the Kurds.
-
@boomzilla And the crusades wasn't a ridiculous analogy ... please.
-
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
I've already said that I think we should be conducting the war differently. That's not nearly the same as saying something is a war crime.
I'm under the impression that we're disagreeing on far more than whether the term "war crime" is appropriate.
But we are where we are for a variety of reasons.
Well okay, I think we can at least agree on that statement, which doesn't say anything meaningful. :D
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
It's ironic that the minorities in Iraq (Assyrians, Yazidis, Kurds) who we supposedly had to protect from Saddam, would have been better off if we had not done that. Now most of them who are still alive have fled, and have to face racist idiots who put them into the same bucket as terrorists.
Can you prove that?
Look, A/B test:
A is the world we're in. You can dig around in newspapers to find out how that went.
B is this strange mental fantasy world where the US didn't invade Iraq in 2003. This world is all in your imagination. Nothing about it is concrete.In your version, B is better than A. Fine. Ok. But in my imagination, in B Saddam develops a mega-disease that kills everybody on Earth who hasn't been portrayed in a Hot Shots movie, so bam. B is definitely worse.
Based on my scenario, I'm now going to go into a political thread and act like a legit critic. Even though I just made it the fuck up.
How could you possibly not support the invasion, it saved us from a world having a population of only a couple dozen people, constantly having to listen to Lloyd Bridges' shtick over and over again!
Anyway I hope you get the point here. You have no facts to say that the world is better off because of the invasion. You also have no facts to say the opposite. It is a statement that cannot be backed by facts. And it's completely unfair to criticize a person based on something that exists only in your imagination.
-
@blakeyrat said in Chilcot Enquiry:
You have no facts to say that the world is better off because of the invasion. You also have no facts to say the opposite. It is a statement that cannot be backed by facts. And it's completely unfair to criticize a person based on something that exists only in your imagination.
I agree. "What if?" is not and has never been a question that any historian can answer. I should have stated that this was only my personal opinion.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Assyrians
Side note: It's sad that the existence of this ethnic group is not even recognized by western media and governments. Nobody gives a fuck about them, both in the Middle East and here.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
I agree. "What if?" is not and has never been a question that any historian can answer. I should have stated that this was only my personal opinion.
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
That guy is not only in denial; at this point you must be downright delusional to claim the war in Iraq was a good idea. Can someone please tell him that he needs professional help?
So people who don't agree with your opinion are "downright delusional"? What changed in the last 3 hours?
-
@blakeyrat There's a difference between saying a decision was stupid given the information available at the time and claiming that you know what exactly the alternative would have looked like.
Take a look at the OP. There is an extensive report that concludes that Tony Blair fucked up, and he's still unable to accept that.
-
@blakeyrat life isn't software engineering. What you are saying is quite retarded.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
There's a difference between saying a decision was stupid given the information available at the time and claiming that you know what exactly the alternative would have looked like.
Right; well you seem to be mixing and matching here, so it's confused the bejesus out of me.
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Take a look at the OP. There is an extensive report that concludes that Tony Blair fucked up, and he's still unable to accept that.
What would he gain by "accepting" that? Assuming he's currently lying about his own beliefs. Which is a strange assumption.
-
@blakeyrat said in Chilcot Enquiry:
What would he gain by "accepting" that?
My respect. And that of a few of his fellow Brits.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
My respect. And that of a few of his fellow Brits.
Who gives a shit.
Respect and an empty sack is worth the sack.
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Yeah, Obama dropped the ball big time on Iraq. It was just getting to be relatively stable and then we bailed. Oops.
No, please learn some recent history.
The American Government didn't pay the Iraqi army $15 each (which is basically a years pay in Iraq) after promising them that if they stood down. 2 days later insurgency activity started.
I'm not familiar with that. It seems like the Iraqi army has the opposite problem of paying too many soldiers:
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
@boomzilla And the crusades wasn't a ridiculous analogy ... please.
It wasn't an analogy at all. I'll agree with you that it's ridiculous for them to get upset about them. But I don't know why you'd try to take that out on me. I'm not upset about them. I mean, it was pretty shitty that Europe needed to fight those defensive wars, but I don't hold a grudge against people today for that stuff.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
I'm under the impression that we're disagreeing on far more than whether the term "war crime" is appropriate.
No doubt. But that's where we started. I think disagreeing on how to wage a war is legitimate. Calling "war crimes!" with respect to this particular war is not.
-
@boomzilla Not the same group of people. This was the Iraqi Army under Saddam Hussein, there was a promise that if they surrendered they would be looked after ... then a decision was made by US representative to not pay them and 2 days afterwards the first insurgency actions started.
-
@boomzilla What are you on about. You are talking nonsense.
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
@boomzilla Not the same group of people. This was the Iraqi Army under Saddam Hussein, there was a promise that if they surrendered they would be looked after ... then a decision was made by US representative to not pay them and 2 days afterwards the first insurgency actions started.
Oh, yeah, lots of mistakes were made, especially early. No one disputes that.
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
What are you on about. You are talking nonsense.
Where?
-
Few people in Afghanistan and Pakistan care about the USA, except that they've lost relatives in bombing attacks perpetrated by them. This "bomb them first" attitude is deeply irrational. Ignorant cruelty in the name of wishful safety.
-
@gleemonk said in Chilcot Enquiry:
This "bomb them first" attitude is deeply irrational.
I agree. They did that and look what we've done in response.
-
@DogsB said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Like most institutions I think they exist to perpetuate themselves.
Yes, but they have to at least pretend to care about protecting people's lives, otherwise nasty things like rebellion could happen.
-
@Jaloopa said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Neuroplasticity means at some point what you keep telling yourself becomes your reality
My hot girlfriend is real!
Filed under: I knew it all along!
-
@antiquarian History has shown time and again that the only life you need to care about is your own.
-
@blakeyrat said in Chilcot Enquiry:
in B Saddam develops a mega-disease that kills everybody on Earth who hasn't been portrayed in a Hot Shots movie, so bam. B is definitely worse[citation needed].
-
@error I mean, Hot Shots was good enough for what it was, but come on!
-
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
@gleemonk said in Chilcot Enquiry:
This "bomb them first" attitude is deeply irrational.
I agree. They did that and look what we've done in response.
Who did what?
-
-
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
You just seem to be ranting about stuff that you disagree with (which is cool) and wanting it to violate some imaginary law (which is delusional).
The problem--well, this problem_--with the Anwar Awlaki case is he's a bad example. I have a hard time feeling sorry for him; I kinda wish they could've hit him with something more painful and less sudden.
Nonetheless he was an American citizen and deserved Constitutional protections. That's not something former soi-disant Constitutional lecturer and scholar Barry Soetoro cares much about, though.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
To most people in the world, the primary goal of any form of government and law is to protect human life.
Well. A given government's responsibility is mostly towards it's own people, not all people, if you wanna nitpick.
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
FrostCat and xaade also thought it was okay to kill whole families without trial or proof of individual guilt.
Not really. I'm simply not willing to put it off the table as soon as someone brings it up. It deserves at least a modicum of discussion before most likely being rejected. Right or wrong, "I'll kill every member of your family unto the 5th degree relation" was used in the past because it was thought to have deterrent effect, not to mention the fact that if you kill a guy's family, they aren't going to be coming back for revenge.
-
@FrostCat said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Nonetheless he was an American citizen and deserved Constitutional protections.
The problem with this is that I don't think that's necessarily true if he's legitimately a wartime combatant. I think the legitimacy of killing him is at least as firm legally as, say, Obamacare.
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
A drone strike on flimsy at best evidence is certainly not a valid reason to kill someone
Al-Awlaki's date with vengeance certainly wasn't based on flimsy evidence, but serious people were complaining not about that, but the fact that it probably violated the law.
Kings arrogate to themselves the right to decide guilt. That's not in the President's job description.
-