Chilcot Enquiry
-
Tony Blair says world is better as a result of Iraq War
Tony Blair says the world would be "in a worse position" had he not taken the decision to invade Iraq after he faced criticism from the Chilcot report.
I am sure these guys agree:
-
@lucas1 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?
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Can someone please tell him that he needs professional help?
Do the employees of the Prison Service count as professionals?
-
@dkf Well, to be fair, both George W. Bush and Barack Obama are responsible for worse war crimes in the Middle East. But seeing Tony Blair in prison would still be satisfying.
-
This is the amount of evidence against his decision put into pictures. My grandfather had encyclopaedias that weren't as large as the amount of evidence against him.
I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he isn't deluded and is trying to save his reputation (what is left of it).
-
https://twitter.com/frankieboyle/status/478474629603139585?lang=en-gb
Bush and Blair should be tried for what they have done.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Well, to be fair, both George W. Bush and Barack Obama are responsible for worse war crimes in the Middle East.
There have been some interesting highlights from the report (notably, the US DoD and the Secretary of Defence come out looking both very bad and incompetent, much worse than Blair does) but I'm guessing that it'll take quite a while to digest.
Iraq was a fuck-up. It was fucked up before, but we really didn't need to jump in.
-
@asdf Obama should be tried for his involvement of killing an American national Anwar al-Awlaki, where he was basically assassinated via drone strike. The guy wasn't a pleasant (I won't pretend he was) but they also killed his son which had nothing to do with the acts of his father. It is absolutely disgusting.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
@dkf Well, to be fair, both George W. Bush and Barack Obama are responsible for worse war crimes in the Middle East. But seeing Tony Blair in prison would still be satisfying.
Speaking of delusional...
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
That guy is not only in denial; at this point you must be downright delusional
Cognitive dissonance is a wonderful thing.
He's spent the last 10 years telling himself that his actions were justified. Neuroplasticity means at some point what you keep telling yourself becomes your reality
-
@boomzilla I believe if I remember correctly the drone strikes (some of them have very flimsy evidence of the individual being targeted) have increased under the presidency of Obama, the drone strikes need the consent of the President.
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
@boomzilla I think the drone strikes (some of them have very flimsy evidence of the individual being targeted) have increased under the presidency of Obama, the drone strikes need the consent of the President.
And?
-
Don't you think that is wrong?
-
@dkf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
“unknown unknowns”
funnily enough I always find myself defending that phrase. It's a fairly neat way of expressing a fairly complex thought. Of course I never understood why they never completed the truth table and talked about unknown knowns. They're the best kind of knowns.
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Don't you think that is wrong?
Yes. We should be making more of an effort to capture these guys and get intelligence from them instead of just killing them. I believe a fair amount of space at Guantanamo has opened up over the last decade or so.
-
@boomzilla So killing a son for his father's crime is okay? Also some of the drone strikes are based on movements of an individual that is similar to other known terrorist (not actually knowing they are one), without verifying their identity or who they are affiliated with.
If I were sanctioning a drone strike I would want to make damn well sure we were killing the right people.
-
@lucas1 I have no idea what you're talking about now. If I were Obama I'd ask:
So how come it's OK to libelously accuse someone of war crimes?
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).
-
https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/20424/chilcot-enquiry/8
Obama assassinated a US national and his son.
-
@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).
To most people in the world, the primary goal of any form of government and law is to protect human life. You seem to disagree with fundamental principles here. I cannot say I'm surprised, though, I remember us having that discussion a while ago. IIRC, FrostCat and xaade also thought it was okay to kill whole families without trial or proof of individual guilt.
-
@asdf That is fucked up if they said that. Fuck that.
-
@lucas1 Now, the killing of an American citizen without due process is legally a grey area. I can see merit to both sides of that debate. That other people were killed in a military operation doesn't automatically make it a crime.
-
@lucas1 I CBA to search for the thread, but xaade explicitly said it was the family's fault if they got killed because a family member is a terrorist.
-
@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. You seem to disagree with fundamental principles here.
I guess I could understand why you would think so, but that is not true at all.
-
@asdf WTF. Theresa May recently did something similar where she wouldn't grant asylum for a family that was trying to get away from a known terrorist because they had links to said terrorist.
EDIT: This is what she did http://www.refugee-action.org.uk/about/media_centre/our_news/1151_judicial_review_finds_home_secretary_acted_unlawfully_in_treatment_of_asylum_seekers
-
@boomzilla What does that mean other than that "So far everything I have said ever supports this notion, but that isn't true at all.
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
@boomzilla What does that mean other than that "So far everything I have said ever supports this notion, but that isn't true at all.
It means that @asdf and apparently you equate valuing human life with extreme pacifism and could never agree to any sort of military or police use of force ever. You can disagree with the level of force used in a situation or whether it should be used, but if someone disagrees with you about that a reasonable response isn't that the person doesn't think that governments should protect human life.
I mean, that's well and good for flamewar stuff but not a serious statement.
-
@boomzilla Okay. In that case, I'm out of this thread before I lose the remainder of my faith in humanity. I knew this thread would devolve into a flamewar, but I didn't expect you to claim that protecting human life is not the primary goal of a society/government.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
I knew this thread would devolve into a flamewar, but I didn't expect you to claim that protecting human life is not the primary goal of a society/government.
Um...I didn't? Hmm...I guess I could have been clearer. When I said "that is not true at all," I was referring to "You seem to disagree with fundamental principles here." Sorry for not being clearer.
-
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
It means that @asdf and apparently you equate valuing human life with extreme pacifism and could never agree to any sort of military or police use of force ever.
That's a straw man and you know it. I am not and have never been a pacifist.
If drone strikes were really targeted assassinations of known, proven terrorists, then I might still question the means (operating on foreign territory, not involving the foreign state, not trying to get them to trial), but wouldn't fundamentally disagree with them. The whole problem is that this is not the case, there are way too many civil casualties and false positives to justify the operations.
-
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
It means that @asdf and apparently you equate valuing human life with extreme pacifism and could never agree to any sort of military or police use of force ever.
Not true. While it is true that I don't think it is right to kill another person. There are some circumstances where it is necessary e.g. someone will kill another, someone will kill you, you are at war and the enemy is trying to kill you. I can't think of many other circumstances where it is necessary to kill.
A drone strike on flimsy at best evidence is certainly not a valid reason to kill someone
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
That's a straw man and you know it.
Yes, that's exactly the point.
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
The whole problem is that this is not the case, there are way too many civil casualties and false positives to justify the operations.
Maybe. That's your opinion, obviously, and I think reasonable people can disagree on that point.
-
-
Maybe. That's your opinion, obviously, and I think reasonable people can disagree on that point.
No that is unreasonable.
-
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
That's your opinion, obviously, and I think reasonable people can disagree on that point.
A reasonable person might also conclude that you defending drone strikes despite the many civil casualties in Pakistan is exactly the same as you disagreeing with the fundamental principle that the primary goal of government (which controls the military!) and law is to protect human life.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
A reasonable person might also conclude that you defending drone strikes despite the many civil casualties in Pakistan is exactly the same as you disagreeing with the fundamental principle that the primary goal of government (which controls the military!) and law is to protect human life.
He might, if he's making the pacifism fallacy I referenced earlier. Or maybe it's like an old Asimov robot story, showing the consequences of never harming anyone as opposed to weighing the pros and cons of an action vs inaction.
I think it's totally reasonable that we value life more the closer to us it is. The family, community, nation, world sort of formulation. That should be part of military calculations.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
That's your opinion, obviously, and I think reasonable people can disagree on that point.
A reasonable person might also conclude that you defending drone strikes despite the many civil casualties in Pakistan is exactly the same as you disagreeing with the fundamental principle that the primary goal of government (which controls the military!) and law is to protect human life.
At best you could say that the goal of government is to protect the lives of it's citizens. I'm very dubious about even that. Like most institutions I think they exist to perpetuate themselves. If foreign hostile actors interfere with that they don't react well. Laws very rarely offer any protection to foreign hostile actors and the meat shields they decide to use.
-
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
I think it's totally reasonable that we value life more the closer to us it is. The family, community, nation, world sort of formulation. That should be part of military calculations.
Except there was no immediate threat.
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Except there was no immediate threat.
I was going to write the same thing. Killing people to protect others is reasonable in case of an immediate threat. Then you have to make an actual tradeoff. If there's no concrete threat, there's no justification for a murder without prior trial.
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
I think it's totally reasonable that we value life more the closer to us it is. The family, community, nation, world sort of formulation. That should be part of military calculations.
Except there was no immediate threat.
Immediate threats certainly get priority in a war, but they aren't the only legitimate targets.
-
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
I think it's totally reasonable that we value life more the closer to us it is. The family, community, nation, world sort of formulation.
Reasonable, yes. Whether it's justifiable is another matter. I honestly don't know.
That should be part of military calculations.
What should definitely be part of military calculations is long-term tactics: What will be the result of your actions? In case of the drone strikes, it's a whole generation growing up in fear and hate of the west and especially the US. Congratulations, you're making the existing problems worse and fuelling terrorism.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
In case of the drone strikes, it's a whole generation growing up in fear and hate of the west and especially the US.
Whatever. They've hated us for longer than that. If their governments can't or won't control the crazies then someone has to do it, and better to do it over there than over here.
-
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Whatever
Yeah, this. Exactly this attitude is the fucking problem.
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
They've hated us for longer than that.
Generalizing to justify targeting whole nations. Bravo, a very good and reasonable argument.
If their governments can't or won't control the crazies then someone has to do it, and better to do it over there than over here.
No further questions, your honor.
-
@boomzilla Being English my countrymen kinda carved up that are of our own interests, then bomb the fuck outta them and then are surprised by the locals being piss off at us. The best thing we can do is just buggar off and leave them too it.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Yeah, this. Exactly this attitude is the fucking problem.
Sure, it's all our fault they want us to convert to Islam and are willing to shoot and blow people up for that goal.
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Generalizing to justify targeting whole nations. Bravo, a very good and reasonable argument.
Huh? When did I justify targeting a whole nation?
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
No further questions, your honor.
Wait, wait...so you'd rather fight them at home? I'd edited out something in an earlier post (don't recall now if it was a reply to you or @lucas1 now) about a "suicidal attitude" because it was perhaps a bit hyperbolic. But I think it fits here.
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
The best thing we can do is just buggar off and leave them too it.
If they'd stick to fucking up their own part of the world, sure. They're not content with that so it seems really dumb to ignore the problem.
-
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
If they'd stick to fucking up their own part of the world, sure. They're not content with that so it seems really dumb to ignore the problem.
They did you cunt. We (the British Empire) went over there and then when we were fucking poor after the end of WWII we had to give away a lot of our interests to the USA.
The last Iraq war just intensified the situation.
-
@lucas1 Now tell me about how they're still angry about the Crusades and how they blame the west for them.
-
@boomzilla said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Sure, it's all our fault they want us to convert to Islam and are willing to shoot and blow people up for that goal.
Your argument is a circular one, and also a self-fulfilling prophecy: They all hate us anyway, so we can do what we want in their countries without worrying about the consequences.
This is in no way reasonable or a valid justification. One might conclude you don't even care whether your initial assumptions are even true.
Huh? When did I justify targeting a whole nation?
Can you not see that you're using generalizations to justify your opinion, and that you've effectively targeted a whole nation (Iraq) and whole regions (drone strikes)?
Wait, wait...so you'd rather fight them at home?
I'm not saying that. I was commenting on the underlying attitude and completely ignoring your non-argument in there. As soon as you make an actual argument instead of uttering opinions, generalizations and expressing your "whatever" attitude, I'll comment on it.
-
@boomzilla The crusades were ages ago.
The lead up of events to WWI and WWII history is still relevant to the geo-political environment of today.
-
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Your argument is a circular one, and also a self-fulfilling prophecy: They all hate us anyway, so we can do what we want in their countries without worrying about the consequences.
I'm definitely not saying we shouldn't be worried about the consequences. It would be better if they could be dealt with locally.
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
Can you not see that you're using generalizations to justify your opinion, and that you've effectively targeted a whole nation (Iraq) and whole regions (drone strikes)?
I don't even know how one would target a whole nation with stuff like drone strikes. And I've specifically said the opposite of what you're saying I've said, so no, I don't see it.
@asdf said in Chilcot Enquiry:
I'm not saying that. I was commenting on the underlying attitude and completely ignoring your non-argument in there.
As soon as you make an actual argument instead of uttering opinions, generalizations and expressing your "whatever" attitude, I'll comment on it.Whatever.I just find it incredulous that someone would say they'd rather not fight a war far away instead of on his front door. Sure, that's an opinion. I'm going to stand by it.
-
@lucas1 said in Chilcot Enquiry:
The crusades were ages ago.
The lead up of events to WWI and WWII history is still relevant to the geo-political environment of today.I'm not sure that the people looking to blow themselves up agree with you on all that. I mean, sure, they'd be happy to be angry about more recent stuff, but the motivation isn't really in what we did.
