The Senates torture report
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-12-2014, 10:23 PM
RE: The Senates torture report
(21-12-2014 07:56 PM)BnW Wrote:  I'm still not following this. What does Iraq have to do with the CIA torturing people?

Both are products of the nation's systemic dysfunction and hypocrisy.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2014, 11:09 PM (This post was last modified: 22-12-2014 01:08 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: The Senates torture report
(21-12-2014 07:52 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  It seems like the opinions of one group have been left out of the discussion, that is the group whose opinions matter most; the Iraqis. Why don't we like them decide if the Iraq War was justified, they would be the ones best qualified to determine that. You might not like what they have to say.

That survey is dated 2006, so it's only 8 years out of date. Drinking Beverage

Still, would Iraqi 'popular opinion' have been grounds enough for the unilateral intervention by the United States? Most certainly not. Nobody would have been able to justify the expenditure in time, effort, money, manpower, and lives for such an endeavor.

Which is precisely why they lied instead, and in doing so they forfeited any claim to legitimacy.


(21-12-2014 07:52 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  And as for leading to ISIL, Saddamists are some of ISIL's biggest allies. The other thing that the article fails to mention is that while Ba'ath was at first a secular fascist movement, it under Saddam it became as much Islamist as nationalist.

Yes, the idea that those who have former military experience and once sat at the seat of power might forge new alliances (after having been spurned by the United States, we disbanded the standing Iraqi Army instead of co-opting it) and bargain their aforementioned military experience for new positions of power, seems somehow to be an entirely foreign idea to you. Those attracted to power for power's sake don't give a flying fuck about the window dressing of the ideology, so why is this at all surprising to you?


(21-12-2014 07:52 PM)Res Publica Wrote:  And the Kurdish patriots fighting back would not have the means to do so were it not for the Americans freeing them from the tyranny of Saddam. Now the Kurds are armed and well organized into the Peshmerga, allowing them to oppose ISIL far more effectively. With all your talk of equality and opposing oppression and such I am surprised that you are so indifferent towards the Kurds, who are an oppressed people (both historically and currently in Iran, Turkey and Syria) and largely leftist.

Yes, the Kurds are now marginally better off. But at what costs? In the wider scope of the cost of the conflict, is the potential Kurdish liberation worth more than a decade of fighting, the trillions of dollars expended, the destabilization of the region, the power vacuum that allowed ISIS to rise to prominence, and the international precedent we set that Russia used to not-so-subtly invade the Ukraine?

So what if the Kurds can fight ISIS? They wouldn't even be a player if not for the power vacuum our intervention created. We cannot give ourselves a pat on the back for helping them fight an enemy we largely enabled.

And when it's all said and done heaven forbid anybody wants to actually escape that shit-hole, because while you 'care' enough to go over their and bomb them for their 'benefit', but you'd tell them to fuck off at the border if they tried seeking asylum in your country.

No. We were lied to, and too many of us were more than happy to be lied to. The last thing anybody needs now is a ignorant teenager from another country playing apologist for some of the most disastrous foreign policy decisions of the last two decades.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2014, 12:01 AM
RE: The Senates torture report
(21-12-2014 05:31 PM)BnW Wrote:  I don't know where you got the notion that in WWII a lot of soldiers were conscripts. There was conscription and some people certainly were drafted but, at least in the US, an overwhelming number of men volunteered and signed up right after Pearl Harbor. Most of the Marines in the Pacific signed up, all on their own, to be Marines. All the men in the airborne were volunteers. I believer submarine duty was all volunteer too.

It was a very different time and that was a very different war. One of the very few times in history where there was a war with a clear right and wrong.The Nazis and the Japanese were evil. The things they did were horrific and genocidal. Both entities had to be stopped and people volunteered by the thousdands to stop them.

Hum, you're right. I just kinda assumed that for that level of mass participation in a game of Russian roulette people wouldn't sign up on their own. But reading wikipedia articles seems like a lot of soldiers were conscripts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscripti...ted_States

Quote:On December 5, 1942, a presidential executive order changed the age range for the draft from 21–45 to 18–38, and ended voluntary enlistment. Paul V. McNutt, head of the War Manpower Commission, estimated that the changes would increase the ratio of men drafted from one out of nine to one out of five. The commission's goal was to have nine million men in the armed forces by the end of 1943.[24] This facilitated the massive requirement of up to 200,000 men per month and would remain the standard for the length of the war. The World War II draft operated from 1940 until 1947 when its legislative authorization expired without further extension by Congress. During this time, more than 10 million men had been inducted into military service.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscripti...ed_Kingdom

Quote:By 1942, all male British subjects between 18 and 51 years old, as well as all females 20 to 30 years old resident in Britain, were liable to be called.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-12-2014, 12:43 PM
RE: The Senates torture report
There were certainly conscripts, but they had no problem with people showing up. After Pearl Harbor there was massive enlistment. Even people drafted were happy to go. I once read that part of the reason they went to a draft only system was to better manage the flow of men coming in.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: