The Iraq war was a disgrace, but sometimes we forget just how much

[Calax]

Would you stop and actually re-read what you'ev written. You've all got sucked into a fantasy Hollywood land. Oversight, reprimand, control of the various security services happens every single day. Certainly we the people don't see everything. But there are committees and bodies who see massive amounts.

 

For pity's sake, this isn't a ****ing computer game.

Problem is that I think since people have come out and admitted that the bush administration outright lied about certain things in order to convince people that the iraq war was a necessity, people have started to think EVERYONE is lying to make themselves look good.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Saying Bush lied is a lie in itself. You have no evidence of that, and no one came out and admitted that.

[Calax]

Saying Bush lied is a lie in itself. You have no evidence of that, and no one came out and admitted that.

 

Ok, WMD's vs the 9/11.

 

Plus the fact that they found 0 evidence of any factories of said weapons... even though they told people in the lead up to the war that Satellite images definitely showed the several locations of WMD factories.

[Hurlshort]

Again, Saddam Hussein could have cleared all this up pretty easily. Whether it was bad intelligence or lies, Hussein did very little to try and correct it.

[Walsingham]

Would you stop and actually re-read what you'ev written. You've all got sucked into a fantasy Hollywood land. Oversight, reprimand, control of the various security services happens every single day. Certainly we the people don't see everything. But there are committees and bodies who see massive amounts.

 

For pity's sake, this isn't a ****ing computer game.

Certainly they happen and so far since it hasn't affected us we haven't cared. But if atrocities are being committed overseas and covered up then we as a people have a right to know, which we wouldn't if the government was the one that released the report. More over these committees have proven themselves useless when it comes to finding and prosecuting these people. I'm pretty sure that every body that oversees anything is up to scrutiny, specially since they have failed so much in the past.

 

The fact that there are atrocities abroad hasn't reached you via wikileaks though, has it? It's dedicated groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International who got you that information, and (I'll say this again for the people at the back) work constructively to fix it. They do it by gathering first hand reports, investigating them, and deploying the evidence in a concerted fashion. Not by thieving secret data and blurting it out, taking a bow, and sitting back with an insufferable smug look.

 

I'm not saying wikileaks couldn't be good if we were living in some sort of totalitarian craphole. But we aren't. And what's more the tragic irony is that by undermining the effectiveness of our various Forces wiki is actively keeping people living in totalitarian crappiness.

[mkreku]

The problem is that the organizations you name (and that I respect) are working through official means. They are using official sources, official reports, the legal documents provided by the people they are supposed to watch, and, in rarer cases, by field reports from their own. They do great work, but they don't get the big picture either.

 

I must say, the only ones sounding like they think these wars is a video game are the soldiers you can hear in the videos provided by Wikileaks. It disgusts me to no end to hear them cheer and woo while they're firing away with their cannons on civilians.

 

You have to remember, the ones leaking these documents are not getting rich from it. They're facing jailtime. But some people think these atrocities are worth risking the rest of their lives to uncover. The military has been using the blanket of "state security" to cover way too much crap.

[Walsingham]

I feel surprisingly calm as I write this, just in case it isn't obvious.

 

1) HRW and Amnesty do NOT rely only on official data. They have their own investigations which also use official data, at considerable risk. The reason they use official data as well is that it is actually quite good in many cases.

2) If you think it is distasteful that you can find videos of soldiers articulating in movie terms

- Perhaps you might try talking to returned soldiers about their nightmares

- Perhaps you might watch a few videos of terrorist action and after action

3) Whether the whistleblowers get cash is not the point. It matters not at all if they are doing it for cash or (as appears to be the case here) out of an idiotic egocentric obsession with their personal notion of what constitutes right and wrong.

 

Are we blind? Each year we see hundreds if not thousands of terror incidents, and there is every indication that there are thousands more brewing. I'm old enough to remember the era when the IRA, numbering only a few hundred individuals, committed attacks almost every day. But by comparison with the fascistic and suicidal fervour of our current opposition the IRA seem positively civilised.

 

I submit that this is far from an academic debate, and that as citizens (subject in my case) of free nations it is directly our responsibility to decide clearly how we want -compeletly essential - oversight to work.

 

Is oversight going to be conducted within a framework of responsible parties appointed by us, and accountable to us. Or do we believe it should be conducted by vigilantes?

[mkreku]

Thinking Wikileaks is doing the right thing is not the same as saying "I support terrorism". Having individuals like the ones behind Wikileaks is another way of making sure we're not getting the same type of people as the terrorists we fight operating under a government flag. That there even are vigilantes is proof enough that we need vigilantes.

[Thorton_AP]

That there even are vigilantes is proof enough that we need vigilantes.

 

LOL

[Calax]

I think the biggest problem people seem to be missing is that it doesn't matter what DOES happen, only what the population think is happening

[Humodour]

I think the biggest problem people seem to be missing is that it doesn't matter what DOES happen, only what the population think is happening

 

And this is exactly the situation which the existence of WikiLeaks threatens.

 

If a government's various branches and the democratic mechanisms aren't holding a government to account correctly, why is it wrong for a civil liberties organisation to do so? If we don't hold government to account, we become like China.

 

Wals, can we please have a conversation on the nature of the material WikiLeaks has produced, not the fact that it produced it (or at least alongside the WikiLeaks discussion)?

 

That material - what do you think of it? Does it not enrage you? Do you not want Western governments (especially Britain and America) to be held account for crimes committed during war?

[Walsingham]

Fair question, Krez. However, I think it is both fair and pertinent to ask you to clarify how much torture you think would be going on in Iraq if the invasion had not occurred. And what you think the relative prospects for diminishing torture in the two time lines.

 

I have already said on numerous occasions that I find all torture both inhumane and stupid. From this perspective I cannot possibly excuse it, let alone condone it.

[Orogun01]

Fair question, Krez. However, I think it is both fair and pertinent to ask you to clarify how much torture you think would be going on in Iraq if the invasion had not occurred. And what you think the relative prospects for diminishing torture in the two time lines.

 

I have already said on numerous occasions that I find all torture both inhumane and stupid. From this perspective I cannot possibly excuse it, let alone condone it.

I guess this brings forth the question: do you think that going into Iraq was a mistake? and that our efforts for democracy are wrong?

[Walsingham]

It depends. Do I think that the people of Iraq are better off now than under Saddam? I certainly do.

 

I say they are in the same way a surgeon would describe someone as better off after surgery even if they were now in intensive care battling a secondary infection, rather than hobbling about. Yet the secondary infection and the incompetence leading to it should have been avoided. To pursue the analogy the infection is a result of a failure to deliver on promised regeneration and basic amenities as was our legal obligation and a contracted commitment from the greasy corporations who signed to do it. Unliek the analogy it wasn't a virus that infected the populace, but deliberate destablising violence coming from both Al Qaeda and Iran.

 

I note that throughout this discussion virtually nothing has been said about Iran. Yet the wikileaks material discloses very clearly how much fuel Iran had been pouring onto the fire. Yet I seem to recal strident voices claiming Iran was a scapegoat and a gratuitous target in the war on terror. I'd be much happier about wikileaks if any of the media sources harping on about the torture apologised by the same token. Not because there's anything wrong with condemning torture but because they are so blatantly manipulating the source for their own ends. We cannot have it both ways.

 

Again this comes back to my central developing thesis: that talking about **** doesn't change anything. Surely the defining lesson we ought to have learned from my generation. Yet one we seem to refuse to acknowledge, probably because it would mean that blarting half formed notions out is not going to save the world. Only hard, dangerous work and sacrifice. A hard sell.

[TheHarlequin]

"The western world? This was all the US' planning and doing, they wouldn't listen to advice from the UN or other western countries."

 

False. This was far from US only for good or ill. Plenty of other countries played in a role in iraq even if they were relatively small but that's pretty much true for any conflict.

 

No doubt, there was a lot of awful stuff that occured, but Iraq is better off without Hussein. Period. I do agree that the war - espicially post war - could have been handled much, much better.

 

So your saying then any dictator in the world we should go invade then? Because by your logic their people, in theory just like iraq, would be better off without them.

[TheHarlequin]

Fair question, Krez. However, I think it is both fair and pertinent to ask you to clarify how much torture you think would be going on in Iraq if the invasion had not occurred. And what you think the relative prospects for diminishing torture in the two time lines.

 

I have already said on numerous occasions that I find all torture both inhumane and stupid. From this perspective I cannot possibly excuse it, let alone condone it.

I guess this brings forth the question: do you think that going into Iraq was a mistake? and that our efforts for democracy are wrong?

 

Yes and Yes.

 

Was sadam a bad man? Yes. But wasn't our problem or justification to remove him just on that. He was little real threat. Unless we are going to invade and remove EVERY dictator simply because they are 'bad' people. Then we better get the war machine cranked up because we will have to invade about 50% of Africa never mind asia dictators that also treat there people poorly.

[Walsingham]

I calls balls on your argument, sir. Just because we don't have the resources to treat every person with a disease doesn't mean we can't treat any of them on the grounds of 'fairness'. Not to put too fine a point on it, but **** your fairness. **** it in the ear.

 

Seriously though. When have I ever said I was cool with, say, the Myanmarese junta?

[Volourn]

"Was sadam a bad man? Yes. But wasn't our problem or justification to remove him just on that. He was little real threat. Unless we are going to invade and remove EVERY dictator simply because they are 'bad' people. Then we better get the war machine cranked up because we will have to invade about 50% of Africa never mind asia dictators that also treat there people poorly."

 

This argument is is one of the weakest when it comes to being anti take down Saddam.

 

The argument that you cna't stop one bad guy because you can't stop all bad guys is silly.

 

I guess that argument could be sued to not stop any corrupt poliitican or cop simply ebcause you can't stop them all.

 

Hey, might as well let people rape and murder each otherbecause hey you can't stop all rapists and murderers. Lame.

 

Good riddance to bad rubbish. Hussein mass murdered people and basically destroyed an entire country. It is a good thing his rule was ended. period.

 

Just because a certain NK dictator iss till in power doesn't mean Hussein should ahve been lefty alone. That's silly talk.

[TheHarlequin]

I calls balls on your argument, sir. Just because we don't have the resources to treat every person with a disease doesn't mean we can't treat any of them on the grounds of 'fairness'. Not to put too fine a point on it, but **** your fairness. **** it in the ear.

 

Seriously though. When have I ever said I was cool with, say, the Myanmarese junta?

 

I suppose you forgot the little fact he was mainly a 'bad man' because he was going to blow up the world with all his WMD.. where are they? Thats right we forced the intel to show what we wanted so we could justify a invasion. And who made out like a bandit..? all the big corps who got undisputed fat contracts that just happened to be donors and associates of those in the white house.

 

Please.. there were ZERO altruism to these motivations and the cover of his atrocities was simply smoke and mirrors. If you believe it wasn't you are beyond naive. If powell went to the UN and used the argument 'hes a bad guy thats why we want to invade' he would have been laughed out of the building. We went there for WMD's and thats what the main argument was built on. Him being simply a nasty dictator became the reason after no WMD we verified to exist as they wanted to cover their arse as their main argument turned out to be bunk. Which they seemed to know from the start anyways.

Edited November 6, 2010 by TheHarlequin

[Orogun01]

I suppose you forgot the little fact he was mainly a 'bad man' because he was going to blow up the world with all his WMD.. where are they? Thats right we forced the intel to show what we wanted so we could justify a invasion. And who made out like a bandit..? all the big corps who got undisputed fat contracts that just happened to be donors and associates of those in the white house.

 

Please.. there were ZERO altruism to these motivations and the cover of his atrocities was simply smoke and mirrors. If you believe it wasn't you are beyond naive. If powell went to the UN and used the argument 'hes a bad guy thats why we want to invade' he would have been laughed out of the building. We went there for WMD's and thats what the main argument was built on. Him being simply a nasty dictator became the reason after no WMD we verified to exist as they wanted to cover their arse as their main argument turned out to be bunk. Which they seemed to know from the start anyways.

Even if we are there to turn them into a neo-colony, they still stand to benefit. Stability draws investor who see the area as untapped new market, they built, jobs for the population, eventually bringing them to the 21st century.

Sure, it may be about oil but we can't have every third world dictator controlling oil or else our lifestyle would change drastically. You like living in the first world and posting on the Internet? that uses up oil.

 

The way that the whole situation was handled may have been built up to save face for the invasion but the point remains; we can't sustain the US for 3 days without a constant influx of oil.

[Gorth]

...waiting for the tanks to roll into the Vatican and dispose of the Pope and his Swiss Guard

[Walsingham]

I calls balls on your argument, sir. Just because we don't have the resources to treat every person with a disease doesn't mean we can't treat any of them on the grounds of 'fairness'. Not to put too fine a point on it, but **** your fairness. **** it in the ear.

 

Seriously though. When have I ever said I was cool with, say, the Myanmarese junta?

 

I suppose you forgot the little fact he was mainly a 'bad man' because he was going to blow up the world with all his WMD.. where are they? Thats right we forced the intel to show what we wanted so we could justify a invasion. And who made out like a bandit..? all the big corps who got undisputed fat contracts that just happened to be donors and associates of those in the white house.

 

Please.. there were ZERO altruism to these motivations and the cover of his atrocities was simply smoke and mirrors. If you believe it wasn't you are beyond naive. If powell went to the UN and used the argument 'hes a bad guy thats why we want to invade' he would have been laughed out of the building. We went there for WMD's and thats what the main argument was built on. Him being simply a nasty dictator became the reason after no WMD we verified to exist as they wanted to cover their arse as their main argument turned out to be bunk. Which they seemed to know from the start anyways.

 

Zero altruism is a pretty big statement, but one I should have expected. Really? You believe that an organisation as massively complex as the US government and its allies, based upon the even more complex basis of elected power ...had zero altruism? Well, I can disprove that instantly. I spoke to my MP about it, I voted for it, I spoke to others about it. My motivation is in their and my motivation was altruistic. Non-zero, even if I'm the only ****hole who felt that way.

 

The reality is that there were multiple reasons which is why it went ahead. Any one reason would simply not have worked.

 

To suggest that I supported it, and that my friends supported it, because we are nothing but oil grubbing colonialists is patently insulting.

 

But this is beside the point. By your own argument you would have us do nothing. Pretend such states - founded on never ending fear and suffering - do not exist and to wall them off from our consciousness and policies. If that is definition of altruism then I suggest it is fundamentally unsound.

[Volourn]

If I am walking down the street and hear a mugging/rape/assault taking place I'm gonna ignore it ebcause, afterall, I cna't stop ALL muggings/rapes/assaults from happening so I shan't bother stopping one I might be able to stop. I am very logical that way.

[Fighter]

Life in Iraq now is far worse than it was under Sadam. But now they can vote, and that makes it ok.

[Orogun01]

Life in Iraq now is far worse than it was under Sadam. But now they can vote, and that makes it ok.

It will take time before things get better, change is usually abrupt and chaotic. Once order is restored to the region we will see the consequences of our intervention.