Thousands of deadly U.S. military airstrikes have gone unreported(militarytimes.com)
militarytimes.com
Thousands of deadly U.S. military airstrikes have gone unreported
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/airstrikes-unreported-syria-iraq-afghanistan-islamic-state-al-qaeda-taliban
321 comments
> If you still think of the world as divided into good and evil, then I have to break it to you that you have been played.
People don't know the half of it, and in my experience, they don't want to know. It's comforting to feel like the good guys. The media is complicit, in that it intentionally leaves out relevant facts that might make us look bad.
For example, take Iran. In 1953, we overthrew their democratically-elected government in favor of the opposition, because their citizens didn't want BP to have control of their oil. We bribed politicians, street thugs, and demonstrators; incited deadly riots; bombed houses; etc. BP actually contributed funds to help out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
Or you've probably never heard of Iran Flight 655, where in 1988 a reckless US cruiser drifted into Iranian waters and shot down an Iranian commercial airplane in Iranian airspace. 290 fatalities, including women and children. 8th deadliest disaster in aviation history, nary a peep in the US media: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655. But they are the reckless terrorists to watch out for.
And it gets worse, much much worse. Look into our activities in South America, especially Guatemala. Our terrorist activities in Cuba. Our "defense" of Vietnam. Our thinly-justified and roundly-condemned embargoes. (Quite common to see UN votes that are 190-1, everyone vs the US. Or the US and Israel.) We've killed hundreds of thousands, millions of people in many cases. Often explicitly for US business interests.
Honestly, I somewhat doubt a thread like this could make it to the top of HN at a time when most Americans aren't sleeping. Americans don't want to read this stuff.
People don't know the half of it, and in my experience, they don't want to know. It's comforting to feel like the good guys. The media is complicit, in that it intentionally leaves out relevant facts that might make us look bad.
For example, take Iran. In 1953, we overthrew their democratically-elected government in favor of the opposition, because their citizens didn't want BP to have control of their oil. We bribed politicians, street thugs, and demonstrators; incited deadly riots; bombed houses; etc. BP actually contributed funds to help out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
Or you've probably never heard of Iran Flight 655, where in 1988 a reckless US cruiser drifted into Iranian waters and shot down an Iranian commercial airplane in Iranian airspace. 290 fatalities, including women and children. 8th deadliest disaster in aviation history, nary a peep in the US media: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655. But they are the reckless terrorists to watch out for.
And it gets worse, much much worse. Look into our activities in South America, especially Guatemala. Our terrorist activities in Cuba. Our "defense" of Vietnam. Our thinly-justified and roundly-condemned embargoes. (Quite common to see UN votes that are 190-1, everyone vs the US. Or the US and Israel.) We've killed hundreds of thousands, millions of people in many cases. Often explicitly for US business interests.
Honestly, I somewhat doubt a thread like this could make it to the top of HN at a time when most Americans aren't sleeping. Americans don't want to read this stuff.
I was living in South East Asia when the USS Vincennes incident took place, and it was widely reported there. But I do remember when I returned to Australia, hardly anybody knew about what had happened. That was my first introduction to 'curated news' by various countries.
Of course, a few years later when the family of the Captain of the Vincennes was targeted in a failed car bomb attack, we heard a bit about this 'terrorist' activity. I thought it interesting that when Western forces eradicate an entire family of a suspected 'terrorist' via anonymous drone strikes, it is considered merely collateral damage, a byproduct of a dutiful and patriotic thing to do, but when Iranian operatives attempt to retaliate against someone who murdered 290 of its citizens in their own airspace, it is an underhanded terrorist activity.
Of course, a few years later when the family of the Captain of the Vincennes was targeted in a failed car bomb attack, we heard a bit about this 'terrorist' activity. I thought it interesting that when Western forces eradicate an entire family of a suspected 'terrorist' via anonymous drone strikes, it is considered merely collateral damage, a byproduct of a dutiful and patriotic thing to do, but when Iranian operatives attempt to retaliate against someone who murdered 290 of its citizens in their own airspace, it is an underhanded terrorist activity.
> the USS Vincennes incident took place
Summary for those who like me didn't know about the incident. Our guy shot down a passenger flight, murdering 290 human beings, we gave him a medal but we then paid USD$213,000 in blood money per passenger to Iran without ever admitting fault.
" Iran Air Flight 655 was an Iran Air passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating on this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes under the command of William C. Rogers III. The incident took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight's usual flight path. The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from Vincennes. All 290 people on board died
...
As part of the settlement, the United States did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran but agreed to pay on an ex gratia basis US$61.8 million, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.
...
Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of USS Sides, the warship stationed nearest to Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers's aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago".
...
In 1990, Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
Summary for those who like me didn't know about the incident. Our guy shot down a passenger flight, murdering 290 human beings, we gave him a medal but we then paid USD$213,000 in blood money per passenger to Iran without ever admitting fault.
" Iran Air Flight 655 was an Iran Air passenger flight from Tehran to Dubai. On 3 July 1988, the aircraft operating on this route was shot down by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes under the command of William C. Rogers III. The incident took place in Iranian airspace, over Iran's territorial waters in the Persian Gulf, and on the flight's usual flight path. The aircraft, an Airbus A300 B2-203, was destroyed by SM-2MR surface-to-air missiles fired from Vincennes. All 290 people on board died
...
As part of the settlement, the United States did not admit legal liability or formally apologize to Iran but agreed to pay on an ex gratia basis US$61.8 million, amounting to $213,103.45 per passenger, in compensation to the families of the Iranian victims.
...
Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of USS Sides, the warship stationed nearest to Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported to have said that the destruction of the aircraft "marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers's aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago".
...
In 1990, Rogers was awarded the Legion of Merit "for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding service as commanding officer ... from April 1987 to May 1989.
"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
Compare it to KAL 007 5 years prior. Wiki has the front pages of News Week "Murder in the skies" vs "Why it happened". Would be interesting to see what to Soviet newspapers were writing - Soviets didn't acknowledge they shot down the plane until 5 days later!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007#In...
In conclusion when an imperialistic superpower makes a mistake don't expect apologies.
In conclusion when an imperialistic superpower makes a mistake don't expect apologies.
Didn't know they gave that guy a medal. That's straight up sadistic.
He got a medal for completing his tour. He didn't get a medal for shooting down the plane. It's normal to get a medal whenever you move in the military. Not saying he deserved one, but the military wasn't going out if it's way to reward the shoot down if a civilian airliner.
The military also didn't go out of its way to punish recklessly shooting down a civilian aircraft.
The guy should have been court martialed, but at the very least not given a medal
The guy should have been court martialed, but at the very least not given a medal
> The military also didn't go out of its way to punish recklessly shooting down a civilian aircraft.
It wasn't reckless: it was the right call based on the data Vincennes had, which showed that an Iranian fighter was able to kill it.
It wasn't reckless: it was the right call based on the data Vincennes had, which showed that an Iranian fighter was able to kill it.
> it was the right call based on the data Vincennes had,
It was, at the most generous, the right call based on the misinterpretation of that data by the crew.
It was, at the most generous, the right call based on the misinterpretation of that data by the crew.
[deleted]
Only because no one went out with binoculars to take a look.
The aircraft was 11 nautical miles away, which is over the horizon.
It's only over the horizon if the plane was flying below 200m or so (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon#Distance_to_the_horizo...)
I can't find conclusive evidence, but I think that's unlikely, given that the planned cruising height was 4300m (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Shootdown_...), and it was shot down about halfway through its flight.
I'm not sure whether using binoculars at 20km distance makes sense, though. There's quite a size difference, but even if it would be easy to spot the difference from that far away having half a minute or so to find the plane using your binoculars would be challenging (it's about a minute of flight for a passenger plane, but if it were military, you would want to hit it before it had a chance to fire a missile, and according to Wikipedia, the Maverick that they feared an Iranian F14 might carry has a range of over 12 nautical miles)
I can't find conclusive evidence, but I think that's unlikely, given that the planned cruising height was 4300m (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Shootdown_...), and it was shot down about halfway through its flight.
I'm not sure whether using binoculars at 20km distance makes sense, though. There's quite a size difference, but even if it would be easy to spot the difference from that far away having half a minute or so to find the plane using your binoculars would be challenging (it's about a minute of flight for a passenger plane, but if it were military, you would want to hit it before it had a chance to fire a missile, and according to Wikipedia, the Maverick that they feared an Iranian F14 might carry has a range of over 12 nautical miles)
> Our guy shot down a passenger flight, murdering 290 human beings, we gave him a medal but we then paid USD$213,000 in blood money per passenger to Iran without ever admitting fault.
Vincennes believed it was shooting down an attacking Iranian fighter, not a passenger jet. It wasn't murder; it was an accident (due to faulty electronic data). We didn't give the skipper a medal for shooting down the plane; we gave him an end-of-tour award. And I don't know what the big deal with paying weregild is: that's what you do.
Has Russia paid anything to the families of the Malaysian airliner shoot-down?
Vincennes believed it was shooting down an attacking Iranian fighter, not a passenger jet. It wasn't murder; it was an accident (due to faulty electronic data). We didn't give the skipper a medal for shooting down the plane; we gave him an end-of-tour award. And I don't know what the big deal with paying weregild is: that's what you do.
Has Russia paid anything to the families of the Malaysian airliner shoot-down?
> Vincennes believed it was shooting down an attacking Iranian fighter
This was due to gross incompetence/negligence. This was a Ticonderoga class frigate equipped with the (then state of the art) Aegis weapons system [1] - capable of knocking down an Exocet missile out of the sky with a hose of lead.
From the linked article:
"The Aegis system was involved in a disaster in which USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988 resulting in 290 civilian deaths.
It was determined by a formal military investigation[17] that the Aegis system was completely operational and did not have any maintenance problems. The investigation ruled that if the commanding officer had relied on the complete tactical data displayed by the Aegis system the engagement might never have occurred. Additionally, psychological effects of the crew subconsciously manipulating the data to accord with a predefined scenario greatly contributed to the false identification."
Aside from the fact that the captain of the Vincennes was in Iranian waters (without authorisation - and which the US Navy lied about on formal reports), plus the reports of his rising aggression from colleagues working with him, should push this into a military disciplinary matter, along with demotion or discharge.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System
This was due to gross incompetence/negligence. This was a Ticonderoga class frigate equipped with the (then state of the art) Aegis weapons system [1] - capable of knocking down an Exocet missile out of the sky with a hose of lead.
From the linked article:
"The Aegis system was involved in a disaster in which USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988 resulting in 290 civilian deaths.
It was determined by a formal military investigation[17] that the Aegis system was completely operational and did not have any maintenance problems. The investigation ruled that if the commanding officer had relied on the complete tactical data displayed by the Aegis system the engagement might never have occurred. Additionally, psychological effects of the crew subconsciously manipulating the data to accord with a predefined scenario greatly contributed to the false identification."
Aside from the fact that the captain of the Vincennes was in Iranian waters (without authorisation - and which the US Navy lied about on formal reports), plus the reports of his rising aggression from colleagues working with him, should push this into a military disciplinary matter, along with demotion or discharge.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Combat_System
No, but horrible things down by other people doesn't really have anything to do with stuff we do. We can't control other countries (well without forcing things) but we can and should control what we do.
You are correct on Vincennes. And it was reported. It was talked about. We (Americans) were horrified and apologetic- and angry with our military (at least on the college campus).
Your comment would be far stronger without that Russia bit at the end. You raise excellent points, but the descent into whataboutism overshadows them.
The aircraft was surely within visual range. If someone had gone out to look with a telescope perhaps the disaster could have been avoided.
> Has Russia paid anything to the families of the Malaysian airliner shoot-down?
If you want to compare situations, the Malaysian airliner flew over an active warzone, along the same path as Ukrainian military planes that were targeting the rebels.
Surely you can see the situations aren't quite the same.
If you want to compare situations, the Malaysian airliner flew over an active warzone, along the same path as Ukrainian military planes that were targeting the rebels.
Surely you can see the situations aren't quite the same.
Makes the downing of that Malaysian aircraft over Ukraine with a Russian surface to air missile seem almost normal? A medal to mr Rogers even...
>Or you've probably never heard of Iran Flight 655, where in 1988 a reckless US cruiser drifted into Iranian waters and shot down an Iranian commercial airplane in Iranian airspace. 290 fatalities, including women and children. 8th deadliest disaster in aviation history, nary a peep in the US media: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655. But they are the reckless terrorists to watch out for.
'Nary a peep in the US media'? Front page in the New York Times and Washington Post?
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/04/world/downing-flight-655-u...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/flight80...
I'm not sure what a would constitute 'a peep' for you.
'Nary a peep in the US media'? Front page in the New York Times and Washington Post?
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/04/world/downing-flight-655-u...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/flight80...
I'm not sure what a would constitute 'a peep' for you.
Compare it to the Soviets shooting down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in 1983. Chomsky writes, "For the month of September 1983 alone, the New York Times index—the very densely printed index of articles that have appeared in the Times—has seven full pages devoted to this story. That's the index, for one month alone. The liberal Boston Globe on the first day of coverage had its first ten full pages devoted to that story and nothing else."
That's what a peep looks like.
What do you think would happen if Iran were to shoot down an American commercial flight in US waters/airspace with hundreds of families on board?
That's what a peep looks like.
What do you think would happen if Iran were to shoot down an American commercial flight in US waters/airspace with hundreds of families on board?
The phrase "nary a peep" means "never one single small sound". The context of this discussion is about entirely unreported drone strikes, not the number of pages devoted to a front page incident.
Your points are fair, but there's no need to start an argument over misreading what the parent comment what trying to say.
Your points are fair, but there's no need to start an argument over misreading what the parent comment what trying to say.
This seems a bit disingenuous to me, without your parent's comment I for one would have had a misleading perception of the reality (assuming that comment is true, is it not?).
I was a teenager at the time and I remember watching it on the news on broadcast TV.
http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/04/world/downing-flight-655-u...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/flight80...
The "Page A01" on the WaPo article is the front page.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuWOCLEuXu4
Which is not to say that such events are prominent in the memory of Americans, but it's just not true that they don't get put on the news. 2 of the biggest papers in the country (and I'm sure many others) and major TV news operations covered the event.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/flight80...
The "Page A01" on the WaPo article is the front page.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CuWOCLEuXu4
Which is not to say that such events are prominent in the memory of Americans, but it's just not true that they don't get put on the news. 2 of the biggest papers in the country (and I'm sure many others) and major TV news operations covered the event.
> Honestly, I somewhat doubt a thread like this could make it to the top of HN at a time when most Americans aren't sleeping. Americans don't want to read this stuff.
I completely agree with you, and I'm an American. To claim that Americans are the only ones that need to wake up is a bit disingenuous though. Perhaps we need a wakeup call from the outside. The nations that have allied with the US, or benefit from friendly relations with the US are also complicit in what the US is doing. Where's the sanctions on the US? There aren't as many because sadly others benefit from the actions of the US by simply turning a blind eye.
I completely agree with you, and I'm an American. To claim that Americans are the only ones that need to wake up is a bit disingenuous though. Perhaps we need a wakeup call from the outside. The nations that have allied with the US, or benefit from friendly relations with the US are also complicit in what the US is doing. Where's the sanctions on the US? There aren't as many because sadly others benefit from the actions of the US by simply turning a blind eye.
I'm American too (and I posted this) and I fear that you two are correct. I live on the other side of the world though, hence the posting hours. I was totally surprised to see this at #1 for a bit, though I am just happy that it's getting discussed. No candidate for president will ever get my vote unless they talk seriously about scaling back the American military-industrial complex.
Do you think the HN crowd is the type to bury their heads in the sand? I don't get that impression. I'm on here all hours of the day and I see things like this hit the front page pretty regularly. They don't stay up long, I think, because they're a bit outside the targeted topics for this site.
Burying one's head in the sand might be a bit rich, but I believe a lot of young liberal types here who've known little more than the Obama presidency and subsequent love-in with his departure have "a bit" of a skewed vision of the way things really are, now and in the past.
You can't downvote things off the front page, but people can and do abuse the flag button for this.
There's also an algorithmic penalty for "too controversial" topics with too many comments, I believe.
There's also an algorithmic penalty for "too controversial" topics with too many comments, I believe.
people can and do abuse the flag button for this
The flag link and the upvote button are both legitimate means for HN members to express whether they feel a submission is appropriate for HN.
The flag link and the upvote button are both legitimate means for HN members to express whether they feel a submission is appropriate for HN.
It is a bit dishonest to blame other nations for your failings. First because you make sure to harm them when they speak up (remember freedom fries ?), but also because you ignore their protests anyhow (e.g. your present message, when most of Europe is speaking up against your current pres).
Accidents do not make terrorists.
In the Iranian Air Flight incident, a gung-ho boat captain could not get a positive identification after being fired upon. There was no terroristic intent. Bad judgment, but not to the point where the captain intentionally fired upon a commercial aircraft. As for your comment about media notes, the Wikipedia article has a lot of notes.
The 1940's through 1960's actions of the military were in a period of United States of America's mercantilism that was fighting against a sea of red dominoes that were showing up daily. Does this make it right, one cannot say based on the information available at the time.
The fog of war is not easy and that is why the United States of America from the 80's on is so great, we have actively tried to be a better nation. I want to read about this stuff and see that after the cruiser incident happened, there was an investigation and a new approach put in place.
In the Iranian Air Flight incident, a gung-ho boat captain could not get a positive identification after being fired upon. There was no terroristic intent. Bad judgment, but not to the point where the captain intentionally fired upon a commercial aircraft. As for your comment about media notes, the Wikipedia article has a lot of notes.
The 1940's through 1960's actions of the military were in a period of United States of America's mercantilism that was fighting against a sea of red dominoes that were showing up daily. Does this make it right, one cannot say based on the information available at the time.
The fog of war is not easy and that is why the United States of America from the 80's on is so great, we have actively tried to be a better nation. I want to read about this stuff and see that after the cruiser incident happened, there was an investigation and a new approach put in place.
I think much of this 'freedom' has come from The USA's overly elevated global position coming out of WW2.
The USA prospered economically, scientifically and socially all while Western Europe was on its knees. The EU has been, in my eyes at least an attempt at rebalancing of Western Power.
The USA prospered economically, scientifically and socially all while Western Europe was on its knees. The EU has been, in my eyes at least an attempt at rebalancing of Western Power.
How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworl...
Embargoes and sanctions aren't often realized to be the tools of death that they are. People don't realize, but economic stress increases the mortality rate of a nation. Less money for hospitals, unexpected expenses, more stress overall (bad for health). I think it's something like 40,000 deaths per year for every percentage point of unemployment.
Economic warfare is murder all the same as gun and tank warfare. You cripple a nations ability to contribute to global society.
Economic warfare is murder all the same as gun and tank warfare. You cripple a nations ability to contribute to global society.
You're making the same mistake as the people you're chastizing. You're filtering this historical events through your own filter to create a good guy and bad guy. It's more complicated then that.
I encourage you to dive into the details of Mossadegh's overthrow. Did the US and British encourage the coup? Sure. Was there significant opposition to his rule among Iranians? Definitely. I argue he would have been disposed regardless of US or British involvement.
I encourage you to dive into the details of Mossadegh's overthrow. Did the US and British encourage the coup? Sure. Was there significant opposition to his rule among Iranians? Definitely. I argue he would have been disposed regardless of US or British involvement.
I have, actually. Mossadegh was extremely popular, and actually had to be reinstated due to public outcry after his temporary removal. Did he eventually do some crazy things? Yes. But would that have happened without major foreign powers spending tons of money funding agitators and rebellion? Doubtful.
Regardless, my initial point wasn't that the Iranian government under Mossadegh were the "good guys". It's that average American's aren't aware of the kinds of operations our country runs and why we carry them out.
Regardless, my initial point wasn't that the Iranian government under Mossadegh were the "good guys". It's that average American's aren't aware of the kinds of operations our country runs and why we carry them out.
I don't think we're going to solve this here. A few thoughts: first off it wasn't a coup since the Shah had the power to dismiss Prime Ministers. Second, Iran had gone through more than a dozen Prime Ministers in that time period. Mossadegh was one of many who were booted out of office.
Claiming that if it weren't for the CIA that Mossadegh would have stayed in office and led a gov't with the confidence is the people is stretching it.
Claiming that if it weren't for the CIA that Mossadegh would have stayed in office and led a gov't with the confidence is the people is stretching it.
I was going to say the same thing as your first point. Parent poster 'csallen' is embracing the exact behavior he/she objects to. There's apparently a clear line of good and evil, and csallen can tell us exactly where that like is. We wouldn't know because we're brainwashed zombies who get our information from the nightly news.
Since the internet, hopefully the average person is getting more information, and appreciates the depth of issues and history not to be so black and white on these matters.
With all this protesting about Trump, I was very surprised to hear him admit that America is no better than the "killers" like Putin. Has a president ever admitted to such a thing? He just comes out and says it. I'm surprised that didn't get talked about more.. perhaps it was.
"You think our country is so innocent?... A lot of Killers around believe me".
https://youtu.be/74DAI2hr9Kk?t=2m35s
Since the internet, hopefully the average person is getting more information, and appreciates the depth of issues and history not to be so black and white on these matters.
With all this protesting about Trump, I was very surprised to hear him admit that America is no better than the "killers" like Putin. Has a president ever admitted to such a thing? He just comes out and says it. I'm surprised that didn't get talked about more.. perhaps it was.
"You think our country is so innocent?... A lot of Killers around believe me".
https://youtu.be/74DAI2hr9Kk?t=2m35s
> In 1953, we overthrew their democratically-elected government in favor of the opposition
No, we didn't: the rightful government (the Shah's) overthrew an attempted dictator. Mossadegh lived out the rest of his life in peace, and died in bed.
> Or you've probably never heard of Iran Flight 655, where in 1988 a reckless US cruiser drifted into Iranian waters and shot down an Iranian commercial airplane in Iranian airspace.
No, it wasn't reckless: the electronic data gave Vincennes good reason to believe that it was being attacked by an Iranian fighter.
> Our "defense" of Vietnam.
The 2 million South Vietnamese who fled their country after North Vietnam conquered sure seemed to have appreciated our defence: while we were there, they didn't take to the sea in boats, fleeing for their lives.
No, we didn't: the rightful government (the Shah's) overthrew an attempted dictator. Mossadegh lived out the rest of his life in peace, and died in bed.
> Or you've probably never heard of Iran Flight 655, where in 1988 a reckless US cruiser drifted into Iranian waters and shot down an Iranian commercial airplane in Iranian airspace.
No, it wasn't reckless: the electronic data gave Vincennes good reason to believe that it was being attacked by an Iranian fighter.
> Our "defense" of Vietnam.
The 2 million South Vietnamese who fled their country after North Vietnam conquered sure seemed to have appreciated our defence: while we were there, they didn't take to the sea in boats, fleeing for their lives.
> No, we didn't: the rightful government (the Shah's) overthrew an attempted dictator. Mossadegh lived out the rest of his life in peace, and died in bed.
Only if you define "rightful" as the government that the UK and US decided was favorable to them, and not the one supported consistently by the Iranian people via elections. I don't see how you can argue this point — both the US and UK have outright admitted to their actions (fomenting and supporting the coup) and to their reasons for doing so (oil). And Mossadegh was sentenced to execution, but his life was personally spared by the Shah.
> No, it wasn't reckless: the electronic data gave Vincennes good reason to believe that it was being attacked by an Iranian fighter.
"Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American television show Nightline that Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles." Is this not reckless?
"Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of USS Sides, the warship stationed nearest to Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported to have said that the destruction of the aircraft 'marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers's aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago'." Reckless according to his own colleague.
"Throughout its final flight, IR655 was in radio contact with various air traffic control services using standard civil aviation frequencies, and had spoken in English to Bandar Abbas Approach Control seconds before Vincennes launched its missiles. According to the U.S. Navy investigation Vincennes at that time had no equipment suitable for monitoring civil aviation frequencies, other than the International Air Distress frequency."
Obviously the Vincennes didn't commit a brazen attack for no reason at all. They had some reason to believe they might be attacked. But sailing into another country's waters and airspace with no ability to differentiate between fighter and commercial jet is reckless, and furthermore it was done by a captain with a history of reckless behavior.
> The 2 million South Vietnamese who fled their country after North Vietnam conquered sure seemed to have appreciated our defense: while we were there, they didn't take to the sea in boats, fleeing for their lives.
They were forced to fight a war they didn't support for decades, under a brutal and unpopular autocratic leader, Diem. He forced his pro-Christian and anti-Communist sentiments on his people and oppressed those who disagreed until he was eventually assassinated. Meanwhile the US devastated the country and drove the North into a fight-or-flight state of desperation. Of course the people of the South didn't want to stick around to face their vengeance.
Only if you define "rightful" as the government that the UK and US decided was favorable to them, and not the one supported consistently by the Iranian people via elections. I don't see how you can argue this point — both the US and UK have outright admitted to their actions (fomenting and supporting the coup) and to their reasons for doing so (oil). And Mossadegh was sentenced to execution, but his life was personally spared by the Shah.
> No, it wasn't reckless: the electronic data gave Vincennes good reason to believe that it was being attacked by an Iranian fighter.
"Three years after the incident, Admiral William J. Crowe admitted on American television show Nightline that Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles." Is this not reckless?
"Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of USS Sides, the warship stationed nearest to Vincennes at the time of the incident, is reported to have said that the destruction of the aircraft 'marked the horrifying climax to Captain Rogers's aggressiveness, first seen four weeks ago'." Reckless according to his own colleague.
"Throughout its final flight, IR655 was in radio contact with various air traffic control services using standard civil aviation frequencies, and had spoken in English to Bandar Abbas Approach Control seconds before Vincennes launched its missiles. According to the U.S. Navy investigation Vincennes at that time had no equipment suitable for monitoring civil aviation frequencies, other than the International Air Distress frequency."
Obviously the Vincennes didn't commit a brazen attack for no reason at all. They had some reason to believe they might be attacked. But sailing into another country's waters and airspace with no ability to differentiate between fighter and commercial jet is reckless, and furthermore it was done by a captain with a history of reckless behavior.
> The 2 million South Vietnamese who fled their country after North Vietnam conquered sure seemed to have appreciated our defense: while we were there, they didn't take to the sea in boats, fleeing for their lives.
They were forced to fight a war they didn't support for decades, under a brutal and unpopular autocratic leader, Diem. He forced his pro-Christian and anti-Communist sentiments on his people and oppressed those who disagreed until he was eventually assassinated. Meanwhile the US devastated the country and drove the North into a fight-or-flight state of desperation. Of course the people of the South didn't want to stick around to face their vengeance.
[deleted]
One should be capable of criticizing U.S. atrocities while maintaining perfect moral clarity regarding, for example, anyone whose religion compels them to murder cartoonists.
The world isn't black and white, indeed.
The world isn't black and white, indeed.
And then there is the shitshow of the Lockerbie bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_conspiracy_t...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan_Am_Flight_103_conspiracy_t...
And I bet Iranian commercial pilots always remembered to monitor civilian frequencies from that day forward. Lesson learned.
Prevention is better than the cure. Same with Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 shot down over eastern Ukraine in 2014. Very bad, Russia probably to blame, 298 fatalities. If only some common sense were applied prior to planning a flight route over a known conflict zone, the lives would have been spared.
Civil aviation is not exempt from negligence in these matters. In the case of the Malaysian Airlines flight, 16 military aircraft had been shot down in eastern Ukraine in the weeks prior to the commercial flight. In the report, Ukraine was also criticized for not closing its airspace to commercial traffic. Another hard lesson learned.
Prevention is better than the cure. Same with Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 shot down over eastern Ukraine in 2014. Very bad, Russia probably to blame, 298 fatalities. If only some common sense were applied prior to planning a flight route over a known conflict zone, the lives would have been spared.
Civil aviation is not exempt from negligence in these matters. In the case of the Malaysian Airlines flight, 16 military aircraft had been shot down in eastern Ukraine in the weeks prior to the commercial flight. In the report, Ukraine was also criticized for not closing its airspace to commercial traffic. Another hard lesson learned.
> Our "defense" of Vietnam.
And most people only think of Vietnam itself regarding that conflict, yet Cambodia and Laos were absolutely decimated too. The US dropped more tons of bombs on Laos and Cambodia individually than the combined amount dropped by the allied forces in WWII. There are still 80 million unexploded bombs in the Laos countryside. Landmines sold by the US and China to the Lon Nol government and the Khmer Rouge respectively were up until recently killing 1000+ Cambodians a year. If you've seen these places and met the people there, it's hard to imagine.
And most people only think of Vietnam itself regarding that conflict, yet Cambodia and Laos were absolutely decimated too. The US dropped more tons of bombs on Laos and Cambodia individually than the combined amount dropped by the allied forces in WWII. There are still 80 million unexploded bombs in the Laos countryside. Landmines sold by the US and China to the Lon Nol government and the Khmer Rouge respectively were up until recently killing 1000+ Cambodians a year. If you've seen these places and met the people there, it's hard to imagine.
Yep, I have a friend who worked for a couple of years as a teacher in Laos. He said that there are still many children killed or maimed by unexploded ordinance there each year. Two full generations away from the actual war, and they still pay for it with their blood.
What's even sadder is with a few billion much of that uxo could be cleaned up but they struggle for basic funding to clear some each year.
In my mind that displays there is little remorse for past actions.
In my mind that displays there is little remorse for past actions.
Here' an example of landmine clearance in Cambodia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWfNZoXr6rQ
(From CmdrFred's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12187512#12190918)
(From CmdrFred's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12187512#12190918)
Holy hell. Filming that takes guts. Doing the disarming is the next level of courage.
I just wonder how much deaths did it cost them to get the knowledge and proficiency in clearing those mines.
I just wonder how much deaths did it cost them to get the knowledge and proficiency in clearing those mines.
I suspect by hand land-mine disarming has a very strong survivor bias...
I.e. you don't make it to week 2 of your job if you are clumsy
I.e. you don't make it to week 2 of your job if you are clumsy
There are some situations when the mine could be in either of 2 locations, though.
WOW.... that's some brass courage right there.
And to think there are so many of them buried around. It's just heart-breaking.
And to think there are so many of them buried around. It's just heart-breaking.
Hence the songs Holiday in Cambodia by the Dead Kennedys and Cambodia by Kim Wilde.
I don't think you understand the lyrics to 'Holiday in Cambodia'
'The song is an attack on a stereotypical, moralizing, privileged American college student. '
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiday_in_Cambodia
'The song is an attack on a stereotypical, moralizing, privileged American college student. '
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiday_in_Cambodia
Maybe it was a bit of a stretch.
See also: "Washington Bullets", "Charlie don't Surf" by "The Clash".
Any suggestions on where might be the best place to read more about this online?
That's awful. I thought I knew of a lot of the "unreported war crimes" we've done, but I did not know of this.
I knew it had happened but didn't know the scale. Apparently Laos was 'the biggest bombing in history', but they kept it secret at the time. 580,344 bombing missions. Guess that's what you get for being a non violent Buddhist country. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37286520
I had never seen that before, and I read news for a few hours every day.
> Honestly, I somewhat doubt a thread like this could make it to the top of HN at a time when most Americans aren't sleeping. Americans don't want to read this stuff.
Americans are finally waking up and realizing we need to do something to protect justice, or we'll be next.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out...
We're well past the time to speak out. The time to speak out is now. It's not against Trump. It's not against Clinton. Nor Obama. It's against all of them. It's against a broken system.
Americans are finally waking up and realizing we need to do something to protect justice, or we'll be next.
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out...
We're well past the time to speak out. The time to speak out is now. It's not against Trump. It's not against Clinton. Nor Obama. It's against all of them. It's against a broken system.
I am not sure what your point is in bringing Iran, maybe its to blame the US for the current situation there.
Keep in mind that 1953 was over 60 years ago. To keep on blaming US for acts committed that long ago and apply to today...well, it's ridiculous.
Keep in mind that 1953 was over 60 years ago. To keep on blaming US for acts committed that long ago and apply to today...well, it's ridiculous.
My point isn't that the US is to blame for all the bad that happens in the world. There are plenty of places that are worse than we are. However, we act as if that absolves us of all wrongdoing, which is plainly absurd. I would like to counter that notion.
In addition, we simply don't acknowledge what we've done. Our media won't report on it. I would like to see an end to this mass propaganda and willful ignorance.
Finally, keep in mind that we only know what comes out during congressional hearings, via FOIA requests, and via heavily-redacted releases of classified documents. In other words, we only know the tip of the iceberg. This is not an accident. The US government makes heavy use of classification, often more to keep the public in the dark than to protect sensitive info from foreign enemies. Given these tactics, you can't fault citizens for relying on what information they have access to. And of course, there's no reason to assume that everything has magically changed and we are now angels.
In addition, we simply don't acknowledge what we've done. Our media won't report on it. I would like to see an end to this mass propaganda and willful ignorance.
Finally, keep in mind that we only know what comes out during congressional hearings, via FOIA requests, and via heavily-redacted releases of classified documents. In other words, we only know the tip of the iceberg. This is not an accident. The US government makes heavy use of classification, often more to keep the public in the dark than to protect sensitive info from foreign enemies. Given these tactics, you can't fault citizens for relying on what information they have access to. And of course, there's no reason to assume that everything has magically changed and we are now angels.
> In addition, we simply don't acknowledge what we've done.
This is spot on, and the biggest difference between America and other countries which commit atrocities. America is allowed to forget. And it's not a trivial or minor difference at all.
Americans barely even really reckon with slavery. Compare to Germans with Nazism. Where's the slavery Auschwitz? There are minor museums here and there but it's completely incomparable.
This is spot on, and the biggest difference between America and other countries which commit atrocities. America is allowed to forget. And it's not a trivial or minor difference at all.
Americans barely even really reckon with slavery. Compare to Germans with Nazism. Where's the slavery Auschwitz? There are minor museums here and there but it's completely incomparable.
> Americans barely even really reckon with slavery. Compare to Germans with Nazism. Where's the slavery Auschwitz? There are minor museums here and there but it's completely incomparable.
This is a completely subjective statement. The US has slavery museums in its Washington DC, and it's a topic that is never far from public conscientiousness.
Compare that to Brazil, who's slave trade dwarfed that of North American, no formal recognition or ongoing efforts.
Or Russia slowly and methodologically erasing the crimes of the Soviet union (and Stalin particularly) from public view.
Or China reintroducing Mao as a folk hero, a mass murderer on par with Stalin.
These are real omissions and cover ups. The US could be better, absolutely. But compared to others, it at least tries to reconcile their past with modern society.
This is a completely subjective statement. The US has slavery museums in its Washington DC, and it's a topic that is never far from public conscientiousness.
Compare that to Brazil, who's slave trade dwarfed that of North American, no formal recognition or ongoing efforts.
Or Russia slowly and methodologically erasing the crimes of the Soviet union (and Stalin particularly) from public view.
Or China reintroducing Mao as a folk hero, a mass murderer on par with Stalin.
These are real omissions and cover ups. The US could be better, absolutely. But compared to others, it at least tries to reconcile their past with modern society.
The US has "slavery museums". You don't even name them. It's utterly incomparable to Auschwitz.
Then you go on to compare the USA to China, Russia, and Brazil. High standards.
Lastly, there's a lot to be said for 1984-style repression like in those three, and Brave New World-style repression like in America.
Even comedians have nice bits about how a lot of Americans can't even really place slavery well in a timeline, it's something that happened aeons ago and descendants should "stop complaining". The majority of americans treat the idea of slavery reparations like a joke.
America doesn't really try. It makes a good show of trying, though.
Then you go on to compare the USA to China, Russia, and Brazil. High standards.
Lastly, there's a lot to be said for 1984-style repression like in those three, and Brave New World-style repression like in America.
Even comedians have nice bits about how a lot of Americans can't even really place slavery well in a timeline, it's something that happened aeons ago and descendants should "stop complaining". The majority of americans treat the idea of slavery reparations like a joke.
America doesn't really try. It makes a good show of trying, though.
> Then you go on to compare the USA to China, Russia, and Brazil. High standards.
I am comparing one country to another, one that does better than the rest. You know, how any comparison is made in any discipline. You can't just hold up an imaginary standard that no country fulfills to make your point that X country could be better.
Some people live in the real world.
I am comparing one country to another, one that does better than the rest. You know, how any comparison is made in any discipline. You can't just hold up an imaginary standard that no country fulfills to make your point that X country could be better.
Some people live in the real world.
> You can't just hold up an imaginary standard that no country fulfills
I can't tell if you're joking. My post was literally about Germany, Nazism, and Auschwitz.
> Some people live in the real world.
The classic riposte of someone who prefers rationalizing to themselves why they are at an optimum than trying to do better. Nice try, Dr. Pangloss.
I can't tell if you're joking. My post was literally about Germany, Nazism, and Auschwitz.
> Some people live in the real world.
The classic riposte of someone who prefers rationalizing to themselves why they are at an optimum than trying to do better. Nice try, Dr. Pangloss.
Normal history classes in the USA are nearly 100% about atrocities, from the large and obvious down to the trivial and questionable. Hardly anything positive is ever said about the USA. One might even get the impression, as you seem to have, that the USA is an especially evil country.
The reality is that every nation, every ethnicity, and every culture has been build upon a hill of skulls. As these things go, the USA has been less vicious than most.
The reality is that every nation, every ethnicity, and every culture has been build upon a hill of skulls. As these things go, the USA has been less vicious than most.
What's a "normal" history class? Is that sufficient to impart the attitude on the population at large?
The USA is, on the whole, an extremely, extremely unrepentant country. Your average american will admit to a good number of crimes, but immediately contextualize so as to not really feel guilt about it. "Why should I pay for the crimes of my ancestors" type stuff, a disconnect from te past.
This is why talk of e.g: reparations is incredibly, incredibly controversial.
The USA is, on the whole, an extremely, extremely unrepentant country. Your average american will admit to a good number of crimes, but immediately contextualize so as to not really feel guilt about it. "Why should I pay for the crimes of my ancestors" type stuff, a disconnect from te past.
This is why talk of e.g: reparations is incredibly, incredibly controversial.
Being unrepentant is different from forgetting. You said "America is allowed to forget", but that just isn't true. We are constantly reminded. It gets shoved down our throats all the time by self-loathing types, and most of us reject the guilt trip. Mostly, the rest of the world is far more awful, and we are thus justified in our national pride.
The whole thing is like an original-sin (inherited, as from Adam and Eve) version of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism#Communism
Groups that fail to build a large enough hill of skulls end up being part of a hill of skulls. There is no shame in being on the winning team, but there is plenty of shame if you undermine the success of your team and thus snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The whole thing is like an original-sin (inherited, as from Adam and Eve) version of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism#Communism
Groups that fail to build a large enough hill of skulls end up being part of a hill of skulls. There is no shame in being on the winning team, but there is plenty of shame if you undermine the success of your team and thus snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I strongly disagree: it's not ridiculous at all when it comes to war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Also, Iran was one example, the list of U.S. aggressions against sovereign nations without U.N. mandate goes on up to very recent times (Syria).
Also, Iran was one example, the list of U.S. aggressions against sovereign nations without U.N. mandate goes on up to very recent times (Syria).
The system of getting UN mandates has become useless because Russia is both on the security council and an offender of the rules it was supposed to defend.
By all rights, there should be a UN mandate to fight IS in Syria. There should have been a UN mandate to fight the Assad regime, for that matter. Not intervening did not lead to less destabilization, just to more war crimes by the original regime.
By all rights, there should be a UN mandate to fight IS in Syria. There should have been a UN mandate to fight the Assad regime, for that matter. Not intervening did not lead to less destabilization, just to more war crimes by the original regime.
The point of the UN has always been - since its establishment - to keep the nuclear powers from going all-out on each other (and the rest of the world).
You may not like the UN, you may not think it fulfills the mandate that the General Audience gives it (it doesn't). But it keeps the Security Council from nuking each other.
And in this case - that's the design criteria. No nuclear wars, not ever. Nothing more, nothing less.
This is in no way a moral judgement on either Russia or the US's activities in the Syrian-Iraq-Saudi-Iran quadrangle. Or any of the other players involved.
You may not like the UN, you may not think it fulfills the mandate that the General Audience gives it (it doesn't). But it keeps the Security Council from nuking each other.
And in this case - that's the design criteria. No nuclear wars, not ever. Nothing more, nothing less.
This is in no way a moral judgement on either Russia or the US's activities in the Syrian-Iraq-Saudi-Iran quadrangle. Or any of the other players involved.
Make that Russia and the US. Still, it's better that they divide at least some spoils at the table in the UN. The alternative could be on the battlefield :-/
The US isn't getting any "spoils" from the wars it fought. At best they are keeping trade lines open. In no sense did they profit from their actions.
Russia, maybe. The invasion of Crimea may have been profitable, if it weren't for the sanctions. Which is one of the best arguments in favor of these sanctions.
Russia, maybe. The invasion of Crimea may have been profitable, if it weren't for the sanctions. Which is one of the best arguments in favor of these sanctions.
I did not mean literally spoils in the form of land. I meant in the form of influence, economy or whatever is at stake. And that if you have two opponents, it's at least better that they communicate over a conference table than over the battlefield, proxy wars for instance. The UN voting process and security council may seem unpalatable, but it's better to have it than not having it. At least it is more transparent and on record what the various powers that be want. (I agree with what you said above. These sanctions are good. Crimea is the only conquered territory.)
But the "system" that encouraged those acts is still in place and unrepentant. By "system" I mean both the institutions and the set of beliefs that are held by the public and politicians that justify this kind of action.
It shouldn't be forgotten until there's some kind of admittance of wrongdoing and resolve to prevent it. Such as by supporting strong impartial international rule of law. Which would actually help the US when dealing with Russian destabilisation efforts - at the moment they can just argue "you say it's legitimate when you do it".
It shouldn't be forgotten until there's some kind of admittance of wrongdoing and resolve to prevent it. Such as by supporting strong impartial international rule of law. Which would actually help the US when dealing with Russian destabilisation efforts - at the moment they can just argue "you say it's legitimate when you do it".
60 years was a long time ago?!
Everyone old enough to vote for the politicians in power at the time must be at least 78 years old now. How many people older than 78 are running our country right now?
Yes it was a long time ago when nearly every adult alive at the time is dead now.
Yes it was a long time ago when nearly every adult alive at the time is dead now.
You just elected president that's 70. I bet at least a few 78s are running the country right now.
Here's a thought experiment you can use to clarify the difference between good & evil: What would each side in a conflict do if they had overwhelming power?
We have plenty of evidence to see what the US would do. When they defeated Germany & Japan at the end of WWII did they enslave their people? Use their nuclear advantage to conquer new lands and colonize them? No, they rebuilt their economies and tried to ensure that they had stable governments & trading partners.
What do you think ISIS would do with exclusive use of nuclear weapons? How about Iraq under Saddam etc? Do you think Hamas would be equally deterred by Israelis using their children as human shields as Israelis are by Hamas using theirs for that purpose?
Of course good & evil isn't black and white, the western world does a lot of bad stuff. But it's just as brainwashed to think that just because all sides cause some civilian casualties to think that everyone's morally equal, as it is to think that the US is some altruistic knight in shining armor that can do no wrong.
We have plenty of evidence to see what the US would do. When they defeated Germany & Japan at the end of WWII did they enslave their people? Use their nuclear advantage to conquer new lands and colonize them? No, they rebuilt their economies and tried to ensure that they had stable governments & trading partners.
What do you think ISIS would do with exclusive use of nuclear weapons? How about Iraq under Saddam etc? Do you think Hamas would be equally deterred by Israelis using their children as human shields as Israelis are by Hamas using theirs for that purpose?
Of course good & evil isn't black and white, the western world does a lot of bad stuff. But it's just as brainwashed to think that just because all sides cause some civilian casualties to think that everyone's morally equal, as it is to think that the US is some altruistic knight in shining armor that can do no wrong.
Yes, I would prefer a US hegemony over an ISIS hegemony. The comparison itself is ridiculous.
But saying that the US has not used its military strength for its own benefit and at the expense of the people of other countries is ridiculous.
The US staged a coup in Guatemala at the behest of the United Fruit Company, when the democratically elected Prime Minister of Guatemala wanted to end UFCs exploitative labor practices. This ultimately led to the US backed genocide of the Mayas in Guatemala.
The US supported the Contras in Nicaragua and blatantly violated the sovereignty of the nation for its own interests, and was found to be violating international law. The ICJ demanded reparations for the human rights violations Nicaragua, which the US refused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9t...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S...
But saying that the US has not used its military strength for its own benefit and at the expense of the people of other countries is ridiculous.
The US staged a coup in Guatemala at the behest of the United Fruit Company, when the democratically elected Prime Minister of Guatemala wanted to end UFCs exploitative labor practices. This ultimately led to the US backed genocide of the Mayas in Guatemala.
The US supported the Contras in Nicaragua and blatantly violated the sovereignty of the nation for its own interests, and was found to be violating international law. The ICJ demanded reparations for the human rights violations Nicaragua, which the US refused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemalan_genocide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9t...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States#U.S...
> Yes, I would prefer a US hegemony over an ISIS hegemony. The comparison itself is ridiculous.
Of course the comparison is ridiculous. That's my whole point.
But this is the comparison the grandparent I'm replying to is making. I.e. that the U.S. bombs some countries while being concerned about civilian casualties, and terrorists respond with something like the 9/11 attacks where they're explicitly trying to inflict civilian casualties, and somehow this should make it less clear who the good & evil actors are, as opposed to more clear.
> But saying that the US has not used its military strength for its own benefit and at the expense of the people of other countries is ridiculous.
I'm struggling to see how you can read my comment and conclude that I'm trying to make that point, but needless to say, you're fighting a strawman.
Of course the comparison is ridiculous. That's my whole point.
But this is the comparison the grandparent I'm replying to is making. I.e. that the U.S. bombs some countries while being concerned about civilian casualties, and terrorists respond with something like the 9/11 attacks where they're explicitly trying to inflict civilian casualties, and somehow this should make it less clear who the good & evil actors are, as opposed to more clear.
> But saying that the US has not used its military strength for its own benefit and at the expense of the people of other countries is ridiculous.
I'm struggling to see how you can read my comment and conclude that I'm trying to make that point, but needless to say, you're fighting a strawman.
The US isn't concerned with civilian casualties. Of course, it wouldn't go out of its way to inflict them, but it simply pays no regard to them, no matter what their scale. Look at US actions in Laos, Cambodia, and Libya for direct instances of this, where hundreds of thousands of people were killed because of US actions.
One could argue that the US has put a great deal of time, effort and R&D into saving civilian lives, through the drone program itself. The alternative to the drone program is a traditional military occupation, which would presumably have a much greater death toll, I don't have access to the research.
Or, of course, simply not fighting the war at all. But it doesn't seem like that option is available.
Or, of course, simply not fighting the war at all. But it doesn't seem like that option is available.
Civilian lives? A more persuasive argument is that primarily it's a tool to be used when popular opinion at home would simply not allow another full-scale military adventure like Iraq or Afghanistan. Secondary consideration is saving US military lives. Foreign civilian lives is by far not the primary concern.
Uh, what?
Drone strike target to civilian ratio is over 90%. The reason, and the only reason that the US went to drones is to reduce the cost of operations, with the additional benefit of reducing danger to US personnel. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone...
Drone strike target to civilian ratio is over 90%. The reason, and the only reason that the US went to drones is to reduce the cost of operations, with the additional benefit of reducing danger to US personnel. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone...
Yes, that explains why we carpet bombed cities in Iraq and Afghanistan to pacify them instead of sending soldiers to door to door.
Iraq has assets important to the functioning of the US and world economy. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan was also the first time there were major anti-war protests before US entry since WW1
If you want to talk about carpet bombing, look at what was done in the "Secret War" against approximately 5000 communist guerillas in Laos
http://i.imgur.com/wxYiyO0.gifv
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laotian_Civil_War
> US. aircraft dropped more ordnance on Laos than on all countries during World War II, leaving Laos with about 78 million pieces of UXO by the end of the war.[96]
> UXO remains dangerous to persons coming in contact, purposefully or accidentally, with bombs. Casualties in Laos from UXO are estimated at 12,000 since 1973. Thirty-three years after the last bomb was dropped and after decades of UXO clearance programs, 59 people were known to have been killed or injured by UXO in 2006.[97] So abundant are the remnants of bombs on the Plain of Jars that the collection and sale of scrap metal from bombs has been a major industry since the Civil War.[98] About 300 Laotians are killed or injured per year by UXO
If you want to talk about carpet bombing, look at what was done in the "Secret War" against approximately 5000 communist guerillas in Laos
http://i.imgur.com/wxYiyO0.gifv
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laotian_Civil_War
> US. aircraft dropped more ordnance on Laos than on all countries during World War II, leaving Laos with about 78 million pieces of UXO by the end of the war.[96]
> UXO remains dangerous to persons coming in contact, purposefully or accidentally, with bombs. Casualties in Laos from UXO are estimated at 12,000 since 1973. Thirty-three years after the last bomb was dropped and after decades of UXO clearance programs, 59 people were known to have been killed or injured by UXO in 2006.[97] So abundant are the remnants of bombs on the Plain of Jars that the collection and sale of scrap metal from bombs has been a major industry since the Civil War.[98] About 300 Laotians are killed or injured per year by UXO
needless to say, you are wrong in your statements. US has no regard for life apart from US citizens (and this is a topic on its own), practice demonstrated again and again in various aspects of life, war, international affairs etc.
lesser evil ain't no good in any book out there. we can and should strive for better
lesser evil ain't no good in any book out there. we can and should strive for better
What about all the other western nations currently using the US military as their military in exchange for the land our bases are built on? You think we wouldn't sacrifice 10,000 soldiers lives to stop an invasion of Iceland?
Saying we have no regard for anyone but US citizens is just plain disengenous. Saying we have less regard for the people of the world not allied with us then we do for ourselves and our allies is true. Who doesn't?
Saying we have no regard for anyone but US citizens is just plain disengenous. Saying we have less regard for the people of the world not allied with us then we do for ourselves and our allies is true. Who doesn't?
I see it as different periods, really. The decisions are made by people, and there were different people in power in 1940s United States than in 1980s United States.
The decisions are made by people, following policies that have been in place for decades.
The US actions after WWII in the peace negotiations weren't as altruistic as you are trying to make out. In fact it was a reaction to the disastrous result of the peace negotiations after WWI, which greatly contributed to WWII, and with the USSR being what it was and everyone building nukes they probably thought WWIII was not in their interest. Building up western Europe was a strong force against the USSR and a convenient buffer zone.
Are you saying that if altruism (helping others) is a rational thing to do, then it's not really altruism? I find that argument a little strange.
Altruism isn't "helping others", it's "helping others for others' sake". Other motivations muddy the selflessness.
I believe most people don't assume that US (or other country, for that matter) is "truly altruistic" in your definition. However, the US is the first world power to make positive-sum policies the basis of its foreign relations (starting from the Marshall Plan onwards). You are right that this is not "selflessness", but positive-sum is even better as it is a sustainable approach.
But isn't that the case here? US didn't expect anything in return other than side effects of Europe being stronger (which was an advantage for them as well).
to enforce future battlefield so war could potentially be fought only far, far away and enemy would weaken itself, and US would benefit in similar fashion as from WWII... I am sure there were many aspects considered for Marshall plan, some could probably be called altruistic, but many could be called selfish.
>some could probably be called altruistic, but many could be called selfish
This is a zero-sum mentality in a sense. There are deals that benefit both sides, so there is no sense in selfish/altruistic dichotomy. One can be both "selfish" and "good" by pursuing positive-sum deals.
This is a zero-sum mentality in a sense. There are deals that benefit both sides, so there is no sense in selfish/altruistic dichotomy. One can be both "selfish" and "good" by pursuing positive-sum deals.
On one hand, I think that's a great thought experiment. You're right, there are nuances here, and oversimplifying into good vs evil doesn't serve anyone well.
On the other hand, it's sort of a disingenuous thought experiment, because everyone is already in 100% agreement that Nazi Germany, ISIS, Saddam, etc are morally awful. However we've been brainwashed into thinking that we're saints. So which perception is it that needs correcting?
On the other hand, it's sort of a disingenuous thought experiment, because everyone is already in 100% agreement that Nazi Germany, ISIS, Saddam, etc are morally awful. However we've been brainwashed into thinking that we're saints. So which perception is it that needs correcting?
Some people are brainwashed into thinking that we are saints. As you can see in this thread, however, there are a fair amount of people that are quite aware of the United States' issues.
(I also think it's not that great to cartoonishly portray Nazi Germany / ISIS / Saddam as one dimensional stock evil cartoon characters; this is also a sort of "brainwashing" from my perspective. Yes, these cultures also have done some awful, awful things, however I feel it is important not to erase the human impulse and circumstances that caused these to develop.)
From a general audience perspective, I'm personally pretty cynical on addressing this though. In theory, it would be nice to see an end to "mass propaganda and willful ignorance". In practice, I honestly can't think of a country in which no propaganda occurs, and there is no such thing as state secrets. The United States may have done some awful things over the last 70 years, but so have other less powerful countries. Were the situation different, and another country dominant instead of the US... well, I personally would expect very similar results. I can't think of any nation / community / tribe that doesn't do some sort of bending and filtering of worldview.
So from my perspective this really isn't a nation problem, this is a core human issue: tribalism. Resolving the issues that come up with tribalism would be great. However, given that it's such a core behavior of humanity, I think this is going to be terribly difficult, perhaps impossible, to do.
It would be nice if I was wrong...
(I also think it's not that great to cartoonishly portray Nazi Germany / ISIS / Saddam as one dimensional stock evil cartoon characters; this is also a sort of "brainwashing" from my perspective. Yes, these cultures also have done some awful, awful things, however I feel it is important not to erase the human impulse and circumstances that caused these to develop.)
From a general audience perspective, I'm personally pretty cynical on addressing this though. In theory, it would be nice to see an end to "mass propaganda and willful ignorance". In practice, I honestly can't think of a country in which no propaganda occurs, and there is no such thing as state secrets. The United States may have done some awful things over the last 70 years, but so have other less powerful countries. Were the situation different, and another country dominant instead of the US... well, I personally would expect very similar results. I can't think of any nation / community / tribe that doesn't do some sort of bending and filtering of worldview.
So from my perspective this really isn't a nation problem, this is a core human issue: tribalism. Resolving the issues that come up with tribalism would be great. However, given that it's such a core behavior of humanity, I think this is going to be terribly difficult, perhaps impossible, to do.
It would be nice if I was wrong...
It's unlikely that an HN thread about unreported drone strikes which hit #1 at 3AM EST will contain a fair representation of American opinions, but I digress.
Tribalism and propaganda are closely related, in that the former contributes to the latter. However, the same is likely true of slavery and racism, the oppression of women, discrimination against gays, etc. You can limit all of these things without ending tribalism. At least I hope so, because tribalism is baked into human nature itself.
So for example with propaganda, we can start by improving our history books and classes. And we've seen some of that over time. The way they taught kids about slavery in the 1920s, for example, was borderline criminal.
Tribalism and propaganda are closely related, in that the former contributes to the latter. However, the same is likely true of slavery and racism, the oppression of women, discrimination against gays, etc. You can limit all of these things without ending tribalism. At least I hope so, because tribalism is baked into human nature itself.
So for example with propaganda, we can start by improving our history books and classes. And we've seen some of that over time. The way they taught kids about slavery in the 1920s, for example, was borderline criminal.
Japan is a particularly bad example: Truman and congress wanted to destroy Japan, make an example out of it. Destroy all of their industry and infrastructure. Except general MacArthur, the de facto ruler of the area openly disobeyed (quite unprecedented). He decided to rebuild Japan, because it was painfully obvious that they could use an ally. If it was up to the US government, they would be all but rubble.
That's interesting. How come one general overruled the president and congress?
Right.
The record of history is pretty clear that world powers can and have acted within a broad latitude of barbarity towards weaker nations, mostly on the 'barbaric' end of the spectrum.
The record of history is also pretty clear that the US is the most docile and harmless of world powers that has ever existed. There's a reason we call it the Pax Americana--the 'overwhelming power' of the US has contributed to the peace, freedom and wealth of billions of people around the globe who aren't American. Let's compare that record with a random 'world superpower' selection:
- Ancient Rome (constant war on the frontiers, relentless expansionism and imperialism)
- Umayyad Caliphate (forced conversion by the sword, constant aggression towards neighbors)
- Genghis Khan (mass murdering, raping, genocidal maniac)
- the British Empire (slave trade, colonial domination)
- The Soviet Union (worldwide support and funding of mass murderer by proxy)
There has to be some perspective when talking about the US's role as the world police. There will always be a world superpower, and that superpower has the power to exercise restraint and civility when dealing with other nations. On that front 20th to 21st century America has taken an active role in:
- Stabilizing world order through active involvement in mediating inter-national conflicts (League of Nations, then the United Nations)
- Promoting globalization, free trade and free flow of capital and people amongst the nations of the world, including rival powers like Russia and China
- Protecting NATO allies from the specter of the Soviet Union (for decades a very real threat to international peace, prosperity & stability)
- Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons which have apocalyptic potential to end life as we know it
Now, it's hard to see how our (many admittedly unjustified) interventions in various regimes and countries throughout history outweighs the remarkable achievements of the Pax Americana. It would be hard to find another world superpower in history that comes anywhere close to the US in terms of stable, safe, prosperous and peaceful world governance.
The record of history is pretty clear that world powers can and have acted within a broad latitude of barbarity towards weaker nations, mostly on the 'barbaric' end of the spectrum.
The record of history is also pretty clear that the US is the most docile and harmless of world powers that has ever existed. There's a reason we call it the Pax Americana--the 'overwhelming power' of the US has contributed to the peace, freedom and wealth of billions of people around the globe who aren't American. Let's compare that record with a random 'world superpower' selection:
- Ancient Rome (constant war on the frontiers, relentless expansionism and imperialism)
- Umayyad Caliphate (forced conversion by the sword, constant aggression towards neighbors)
- Genghis Khan (mass murdering, raping, genocidal maniac)
- the British Empire (slave trade, colonial domination)
- The Soviet Union (worldwide support and funding of mass murderer by proxy)
There has to be some perspective when talking about the US's role as the world police. There will always be a world superpower, and that superpower has the power to exercise restraint and civility when dealing with other nations. On that front 20th to 21st century America has taken an active role in:
- Stabilizing world order through active involvement in mediating inter-national conflicts (League of Nations, then the United Nations)
- Promoting globalization, free trade and free flow of capital and people amongst the nations of the world, including rival powers like Russia and China
- Protecting NATO allies from the specter of the Soviet Union (for decades a very real threat to international peace, prosperity & stability)
- Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons which have apocalyptic potential to end life as we know it
Now, it's hard to see how our (many admittedly unjustified) interventions in various regimes and countries throughout history outweighs the remarkable achievements of the Pax Americana. It would be hard to find another world superpower in history that comes anywhere close to the US in terms of stable, safe, prosperous and peaceful world governance.
With regards to domestic policy, the US was miles better than the USSR. With regards to foreign policy, the distinction isnt anywhere near that clear. The US has supported mass murders in Guatemala, Iran, Nicaragua, Pakistan/Bangladesh, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq since WW2 and I'm sure I'm missing a few.
The nuclear arms race was also hardly one sided, and Kennedy in particular has a terrible record when it came to the imminent nuclear destruction of the world. The Cuban missile crisis was sparked of by NATO and US troop movements in Turkey and Eastern Europe.
The United Nations in particular was deliberately crippled by the US. There are quotes from officials under Nixon and Ford who said they were deliberately instructed to sabotage UN proceedings relating to the Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh. There are also numerous such instances where the US has dramatically opposed international consensus and blocked the functioning of international agencies relating to Israel/Palestine, Rwanda, Cuba, Indonesia/East Timor and Nicaragua.
The nuclear arms race was also hardly one sided, and Kennedy in particular has a terrible record when it came to the imminent nuclear destruction of the world. The Cuban missile crisis was sparked of by NATO and US troop movements in Turkey and Eastern Europe.
The United Nations in particular was deliberately crippled by the US. There are quotes from officials under Nixon and Ford who said they were deliberately instructed to sabotage UN proceedings relating to the Pakistani genocide in Bangladesh. There are also numerous such instances where the US has dramatically opposed international consensus and blocked the functioning of international agencies relating to Israel/Palestine, Rwanda, Cuba, Indonesia/East Timor and Nicaragua.
"Kennedy in particular has a terrible record when it came to the imminent nuclear destruction of the world"
To be fair to Kennedy - I think he pretty much prevented a war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. A weaker president might have gone with the recommendations to invade Cuba and that would probably have turned out rather badly for all concerned (particularly the Cubans and Soviets).
To be fair to Kennedy - I think he pretty much prevented a war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. A weaker president might have gone with the recommendations to invade Cuba and that would probably have turned out rather badly for all concerned (particularly the Cubans and Soviets).
He and Khrushchev did that together. As I recall, it was Khrushchev who suggested trading US missiles in Turkey and Italy for Soviet missiles in Cuba. And it was arguably a far greater political risk for Khrushchev.
I don't see neither FDR nor Reagan in Trump, mostly bitter regression.
So if the "Pax Americana" is failing, what comes next? How can we do better as a species this time?
So if the "Pax Americana" is failing, what comes next? How can we do better as a species this time?
I really hope you're trolling with this.
This is not a good thought experiment. A better one would be what would each side in a conflict do AND it was the most powerful nation in the world economically, militarily, culturally, and diplomatically and was the arbiter of a global system that prioritizes economic growth and benefits more from trade with a sovereign than resource extraction via explicit, systematic repression from a puppet government. The United States simply has nothing to gain and everything to lose for applying those levels of violence that you consider evil. It is actively against their interest. Enslaving Germany and Japan after WWII would be counter to their objective as enslaved populations are not as efficient or productive. A democratic Japan is the world's 3rd largest economy and is an important strategic and trade partner. A brutally oppressed, unproductive Japan would harbor resentment and require an expensive, remote military garrison to contain.
I believe that it is inappropriate to apply a moral dimension to the behavior of nation-states. In conflicts, the logic of violence is weighed between costs and benefits. When your adversary is an enemy of God, a spawn of Satan or some other type of evil, there is no moral good, no benefit in showing them mercy, it is in fact weakness and a moral failing not to expunge such evil. When you think of yourself as the "good guys", the other side is necessarily evil. Evil must be vanquished.
That's my main argument against having a "good vs evil" worldview. It becomes easier to justify horrific actions directed at evil-doers. It's a binary, and, frankly, very naive and ignorant way of thinking about the world. Even in the canonical conflict of good vs evil in the 20th century, WWII, there were heroes on both sides, "good" and honorable men such as Erwin Rommel.
One should always be wary of any group that explicitly refers to itself as the good guys. That should not need to be stated. Usually when someone says that, they're doing some heinous shit and are saying it to convince themselves that their actions are a means to an end for the "greater good"
Let's be honest, this is tribalism, a matter of where in time and space you happened to be born. You are a westerner. Your side, where you are born, is the side that is the force for good. Try this thought experiment: imagine you were born in the ungoverned area of Pakistan, and, while attending a wedding, a faceless drone drops a bomb on the reception. Are you going to blame uncle Nazir, who came out of hiding to attend? Maybe he bears responsibility, but most bystanders will blame the perpetrator of the bombing. If one happened to be around a CIA station director when a suicide bomber detonated, I doubt many people are going to blame him or the United States for that.
I believe that it is inappropriate to apply a moral dimension to the behavior of nation-states. In conflicts, the logic of violence is weighed between costs and benefits. When your adversary is an enemy of God, a spawn of Satan or some other type of evil, there is no moral good, no benefit in showing them mercy, it is in fact weakness and a moral failing not to expunge such evil. When you think of yourself as the "good guys", the other side is necessarily evil. Evil must be vanquished.
That's my main argument against having a "good vs evil" worldview. It becomes easier to justify horrific actions directed at evil-doers. It's a binary, and, frankly, very naive and ignorant way of thinking about the world. Even in the canonical conflict of good vs evil in the 20th century, WWII, there were heroes on both sides, "good" and honorable men such as Erwin Rommel.
One should always be wary of any group that explicitly refers to itself as the good guys. That should not need to be stated. Usually when someone says that, they're doing some heinous shit and are saying it to convince themselves that their actions are a means to an end for the "greater good"
Let's be honest, this is tribalism, a matter of where in time and space you happened to be born. You are a westerner. Your side, where you are born, is the side that is the force for good. Try this thought experiment: imagine you were born in the ungoverned area of Pakistan, and, while attending a wedding, a faceless drone drops a bomb on the reception. Are you going to blame uncle Nazir, who came out of hiding to attend? Maybe he bears responsibility, but most bystanders will blame the perpetrator of the bombing. If one happened to be around a CIA station director when a suicide bomber detonated, I doubt many people are going to blame him or the United States for that.
Do you think the US is not using it's "overwhelming power" because of moral high ground or because it would spur a united retaliation as well as internal resistance?
> No, they [the US] rebuilt their economies and tried to ensure that they had stable governments & trading partners.
Except we completely stiffed Russia, who without which we wouldn't have won WWII, at least not so easily.
And then since things were peaceful we decided to make the USSR the enemy for then next 40 years, via the threat of "communism" spreading. And that led to Vietnam, Korea, etc., and all the military action in virtually every country of Central/South America.
No one is claiming we're all morally equal.
Except we completely stiffed Russia, who without which we wouldn't have won WWII, at least not so easily.
And then since things were peaceful we decided to make the USSR the enemy for then next 40 years, via the threat of "communism" spreading. And that led to Vietnam, Korea, etc., and all the military action in virtually every country of Central/South America.
No one is claiming we're all morally equal.
>...Except we completely stiffed Russia,
“stiffed” would imply we didn’t pay a debt we had previously agreed upon. Obviously that is not the case. As to why the Soviet Union or eastern Europe was not part of the Marshall Plan:
>...Although offered participation, the Soviet Union refused Plan benefits, and also blocked benefits to Eastern Bloc countries, such as East Germany and Poland. The United States provided similar aid programs in Asia, but they were not called "Marshall Plan".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
“stiffed” would imply we didn’t pay a debt we had previously agreed upon. Obviously that is not the case. As to why the Soviet Union or eastern Europe was not part of the Marshall Plan:
>...Although offered participation, the Soviet Union refused Plan benefits, and also blocked benefits to Eastern Bloc countries, such as East Germany and Poland. The United States provided similar aid programs in Asia, but they were not called "Marshall Plan".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
Wow. I would disagree enitrely about how the west treated Russia.
You're forgetting Stalin colluded with Hitler to split up Eastern Europe. That included murdering thousands of Polish officers who were a threat to Soviet rule. The only reason why Russia was fighting the Hitler was because he was double crossed.
Russia's threat to European democracy was clearly evident even before WW2 started.
You're forgetting Stalin colluded with Hitler to split up Eastern Europe. That included murdering thousands of Polish officers who were a threat to Soviet rule. The only reason why Russia was fighting the Hitler was because he was double crossed.
Russia's threat to European democracy was clearly evident even before WW2 started.
> You're forgetting Stalin colluded with Hitler to split up Eastern Europe. That included murdering thousands of Polish officers who were a threat to Soviet rule. The only reason why Russia was fighting the Hitler was because he was double crossed.
Yes, but Khrushchev was in power for the majority of time right after the war and was like a total 180 from Stalin, who seemed to honestly want to improve relations.
But I suppose this is all hindsight.
Yes, but Khrushchev was in power for the majority of time right after the war and was like a total 180 from Stalin, who seemed to honestly want to improve relations.
But I suppose this is all hindsight.
The older I get the more interesting and sensible Chomsky gets. Until a few years ago I was perceiving him as boring and monotone and now I am seeing a fierce warrior of truth* holding language as his weapon.
This 9 min. excerpt on propaganda terms in the Media is especially appropriate.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vmoXze-Higc
*I don't mean some objective truth out there but a viewpoint which is rooted in his very well informed worldview and his obvious commitment to integrity.
This 9 min. excerpt on propaganda terms in the Media is especially appropriate.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vmoXze-Higc
*I don't mean some objective truth out there but a viewpoint which is rooted in his very well informed worldview and his obvious commitment to integrity.
Same here. His speeches and books are indeed pretty monotonous, but his interviews are much better. "Understanding Power" is probably the best Chomsky book, and it wasn't written by Chomsky. It's just a collection of transcribed town-hall style meetings with Chomsky, and is truly eye opening.
Regarding media, I think this one is by far the best compilation of Chomsky excerpts, and I highly recommend watching it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPp69gKVe9o
The inevitable day of his death will be a huge loss to the world.
Regarding media, I think this one is by far the best compilation of Chomsky excerpts, and I highly recommend watching it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPp69gKVe9o
The inevitable day of his death will be a huge loss to the world.
I think that Chomsky has to have a very bland delivery, because the same message delivered with a more impassioned style would make him seem unhinged by the casual observer.
I wonder what aspect of Chomsky makes him uninteresting. Maybe it's that his message - trying to point out the human flaws of his governmemt - goes so much against the grain of hollywood aided propaganda that people presume it's either minute details or just wrong?
In my experience, the only country in which Chomsky is seen as uninteresting or nitpicking is in the U.S.
That's not to say there are no complexities to whether or not a Pax Americana is better than the alternative (based on previous U.S. govts.), or that all governments records are equivalent when it comes to propaganda or human rights (for their own citizens). But no other country sees the U.S. unequivocally as "the good guys". A few see it as "the less-bad guys", but plenty of countries in Latin America saw the U.S.S.R. as "the less-bad guys" by comparison too.
That's not to say there are no complexities to whether or not a Pax Americana is better than the alternative (based on previous U.S. govts.), or that all governments records are equivalent when it comes to propaganda or human rights (for their own citizens). But no other country sees the U.S. unequivocally as "the good guys". A few see it as "the less-bad guys", but plenty of countries in Latin America saw the U.S.S.R. as "the less-bad guys" by comparison too.
[deleted]
> But no other country sees the U.S. unequivocally as "the good guys".
well you would have to be a complete ignorant to last 60 years of history and present to consider US the good guys. Economically strong police state with more innocent blood on their hands for last 20 years than any other state in this world. Axis of evil my ass
well you would have to be a complete ignorant to last 60 years of history and present to consider US the good guys. Economically strong police state with more innocent blood on their hands for last 20 years than any other state in this world. Axis of evil my ass
putting aside the simplistic rhetoric, who are the "good guys" then ?
Some people can be very moral, very amoral or very immoral. All countries and all governments are made of a mix of all three. To judge nations by the standards of individuals you would need to declare them all schizophrenic. "Good guys" live in comic books, not history books.
Again, not saying that making attempts to legally commit and then follow through with principles on the part of nations is a bad thing. I am a constructivist, I think nations can "improve morally". But is more a matter of which nation has the best institutions to curb their own (or each other's) abuses in practice, rather than anyone being "the good guys".
Again, not saying that making attempts to legally commit and then follow through with principles on the part of nations is a bad thing. I am a constructivist, I think nations can "improve morally". But is more a matter of which nation has the best institutions to curb their own (or each other's) abuses in practice, rather than anyone being "the good guys".
What made it difficult for me to sustain focus while listening to him was his near-monotone delivery.
But now I almost appreciate it.
But now I almost appreciate it.
i'm not there yet
[deleted]
I have gone the opposite direction on him. I think the turning point was the debate with Dershowitz on Israeli/Arab problems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ux4JU_sbB0
He seems to speak in broad generalities, rather than getting down into the details. I've reached a point where I need to hear the down and gritty rather than airy statements.
He seems to speak in broad generalities, rather than getting down into the details. I've reached a point where I need to hear the down and gritty rather than airy statements.
You simply need to listen to more Chomsky. That debate may not have had enough details - such is the nature of the format of the debate - but if one investigates Chomsky further, it is clear that the man lived his life in the details. His position, I believe, is formulated precisely on understanding the details and facts of the situation - it has been his life work to uncover the truth.
Can you suggest a debate where he does get into details of things?
Are you looking specifically for debates? Otherwise, I'd recommend reading "Understanding Power", which has ~450 pages of footnotes alone, to the point where they are not included in the book and published as a separate downloadable PDF: http://www.understandingpower.com/
Other than that, this ones seems to go into details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68wFDvTBHys
Other than that, this ones seems to go into details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68wFDvTBHys
For what it's worth, I think Chomsky blew Dershowitz out of the water.
As did Norman Finkelstein in his own showdown with Dershowitz.
As did Norman Finkelstein in his own showdown with Dershowitz.
I felt exactly the opposite. Dershowitz would delve down into the details (for example, resolution 224) and how it was created and all that. While Chomsky would make general statements not backed up by anything.
Try to tell people why Eisenhower said "there was no reason to use that awful thing" (the atomic bomb) and that the greatest threat to America was the Military Industrial Complex. You could stay close to the facts, but still they'd think of you like some kind of conspiracy theorist because you don't agree with what they've been taught to believe.
It is entirely within the realm of likely possibilities that our national elections are a complete farce: https://i.imgjar.co/jar/jz_ITKGNR0StdBBIoT8dyw.gif
Part of becoming an adult is realizing how terribly awful people can be. But part of that is also realizing that there are many good people out there. I hope the good people take back control, somehow.
It is entirely within the realm of likely possibilities that our national elections are a complete farce: https://i.imgjar.co/jar/jz_ITKGNR0StdBBIoT8dyw.gif
Part of becoming an adult is realizing how terribly awful people can be. But part of that is also realizing that there are many good people out there. I hope the good people take back control, somehow.
> It is entirely within the realm of likely possibilities that our national elections are a complete farce
Most ballots are not cast by direct electronic voting: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/08/on-election-...
US presidential elections are "fundamentally local," meaning that an overwhelming number of officials would have to be corrupted to rig them: https://www.wired.com/2016/10/wireds-totally-legit-guide-rig...
Electronic voting has its problems, but it is not plausible to suggest that the national elections are a complete farce.
Most ballots are not cast by direct electronic voting: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/08/on-election-...
US presidential elections are "fundamentally local," meaning that an overwhelming number of officials would have to be corrupted to rig them: https://www.wired.com/2016/10/wireds-totally-legit-guide-rig...
Electronic voting has its problems, but it is not plausible to suggest that the national elections are a complete farce.
Very well put. Some people are really, truly evil, and will never change, but you still have to go out and look for the good people anyway or you'll go insane. This is why sanity is so challenging.
I saw a clip on the news recently of a reporter badgering Trump about his intent to create closer ties to Putin. "He's a murderer, he's killing innocent civillians", the reporter states as though this is particularly important. The President responded with something along the lines of "And we're so much better?".
I'll freely acknowledge his flaws but by Gods it felt good to see someone acknowledge the tricks of perspective we use to justify our actions whilst condemning others.
I'll freely acknowledge his flaws but by Gods it felt good to see someone acknowledge the tricks of perspective we use to justify our actions whilst condemning others.
He's not making a humble, leftish point about our moral failures in foreign policy!
He was shrugging off the use of murder as a political tool.
America may be in a bad place right now, and we've done a lot of awful things in other people's countries. But unlike Russia, we are not at a point where our leaders simply "disappear" domestic political opponents and journalists. Things can get a lot worse.
Trump was expressing admiration for Putin. The reporter incredulously reminded him that Putin has personally had his opponents killed (Litvenenko, etc).
Trump basically said "whatever, nbd, we do bad stuff too".
I predict ugly surprises.
He was shrugging off the use of murder as a political tool.
America may be in a bad place right now, and we've done a lot of awful things in other people's countries. But unlike Russia, we are not at a point where our leaders simply "disappear" domestic political opponents and journalists. Things can get a lot worse.
Trump was expressing admiration for Putin. The reporter incredulously reminded him that Putin has personally had his opponents killed (Litvenenko, etc).
Trump basically said "whatever, nbd, we do bad stuff too".
I predict ugly surprises.
> He's not making a humble, leftish point about our moral failures in foreign policy!
How is that point leftish in any way? The left are not defined by the idea that there is a moral good and a moral bad, and they want the moral good. Left good Right bad is one of the most infuriating assertions to see casually chucked into a sentence.
You're right, of course, that he wasn't trying to suggest that America should pay for it's sins or change it's attitude/foreign policy. I happily acknowledge that you think it's worse to murder high profile people in your own country compared to, say, exploding nobodies in a foreign one. I'll at least argue that the president being honest about them both being murder is pretty refreshing
How is that point leftish in any way? The left are not defined by the idea that there is a moral good and a moral bad, and they want the moral good. Left good Right bad is one of the most infuriating assertions to see casually chucked into a sentence.
You're right, of course, that he wasn't trying to suggest that America should pay for it's sins or change it's attitude/foreign policy. I happily acknowledge that you think it's worse to murder high profile people in your own country compared to, say, exploding nobodies in a foreign one. I'll at least argue that the president being honest about them both being murder is pretty refreshing
> Left good Right bad is one of the most infuriating assertions to see casually chucked into a sentence.
i didnt say that.
it just happens that in American politics, admitting that our foreign policy has been amoral is something done almost exclusively by the left.
writers like noam chomsky, glenn greenwald, jeremy scahill. politicians like tulsi gabbard. etc.
that's why i called it a "leftish point"
politicians on the right, even when they favor less foreign intervention, tend to justify it in terms of cost savings, constitutional limits, and smaller government. rand paul, for example.
i didnt say that.
it just happens that in American politics, admitting that our foreign policy has been amoral is something done almost exclusively by the left.
writers like noam chomsky, glenn greenwald, jeremy scahill. politicians like tulsi gabbard. etc.
that's why i called it a "leftish point"
politicians on the right, even when they favor less foreign intervention, tend to justify it in terms of cost savings, constitutional limits, and smaller government. rand paul, for example.
> we are not at a point where our leaders simply "disappear" domestic political opponents and journalists
Nice how you snuck "domestic" in there, as if that makes it so much better.
Nice how you snuck "domestic" in there, as if that makes it so much better.
Surely things can get worse, but if the dead could speak, Gary Webb and Michael Hastings would want to have a word with you.
> He's not making a humble, leftish point about our moral failures in foreign policy!
Morality doesn't exist along the left-right spectrum. Also, this is simply your perception.
> But unlike Russia, we are not at a point where our leaders simply "disappear" domestic political opponents and journalists.
No, they magically commit suicide, get killed in a car crash, or get murdered in a botched robbery.
Morality doesn't exist along the left-right spectrum. Also, this is simply your perception.
> But unlike Russia, we are not at a point where our leaders simply "disappear" domestic political opponents and journalists.
No, they magically commit suicide, get killed in a car crash, or get murdered in a botched robbery.
> No, they magically commit suicide, get killed in a car crash, or get murdered in a botched robbery.
In the west, name one.
In the west, name one.
Google is your friend. Many US politicians (a surprising number really) have been killed. Of course, most have 'explanations' that are officially accidents. The government isn't going to admit to political assassinations, so for you to ask for 'proof' is an impossible task. Then again, there's 'explanations' for most deaths in Russia too. The real question is whether you believe that the US government only tells the truth and only the Russian one lies.
Of course, we know the US government lies about a lot, that's how we know about CIA actions to overthrow governments, the Iran-Contra affair, etc... We know the US government engages in assassinations abroad, whether it's a covert action or via drone.
To think that none of the politicians who are killed in plane crashes, gym accidents, car accidents or have heart attacks were expedited along is naïve.
Of course, we know the US government lies about a lot, that's how we know about CIA actions to overthrow governments, the Iran-Contra affair, etc... We know the US government engages in assassinations abroad, whether it's a covert action or via drone.
To think that none of the politicians who are killed in plane crashes, gym accidents, car accidents or have heart attacks were expedited along is naïve.
> so for you to ask for 'proof' is an impossible task
lol you are a excellent troll. "My unverifiable claims are just as true as yours are." No, there is a Russian opposition leader in a coma right now and you can't point to a single western journalist or politician suffering the same fate.
> We know the US government engages in assassinations abroad, whether it's a covert action or via drone.
Whataboutism, changing the subject, etc. I hope you are entertaining yourself b/c there is no other value to this thread.
lol you are a excellent troll. "My unverifiable claims are just as true as yours are." No, there is a Russian opposition leader in a coma right now and you can't point to a single western journalist or politician suffering the same fate.
> We know the US government engages in assassinations abroad, whether it's a covert action or via drone.
Whataboutism, changing the subject, etc. I hope you are entertaining yourself b/c there is no other value to this thread.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_American_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Congress...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/10/prominent-politicians-k...
> No, there is a Russian opposition leader in a coma right now
Which one? I mean, they call Navalny an opposition 'leader' even though he's never led a political party or held office, so odds are it's some random protester or blogger.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Congress...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/08/10/prominent-politicians-k...
> No, there is a Russian opposition leader in a coma right now
Which one? I mean, they call Navalny an opposition 'leader' even though he's never led a political party or held office, so odds are it's some random protester or blogger.
No,Trump is just an apologist, probably because he's a sociopath himself.
The problem is that the democratic deficiencies and atrocities committed by the US are not really comparable to the democratic deficiencies of countries like Russia or China. They are based on entirely different history, motives and mindsets, and there is a fairly huge qualitative difference between them. The people who relativize them tend to play right into the hands of various propaganda machines and usually also commit a tu quoque fallacy.
To give an example, while many bad things about Trump can be said, it seems unlikely (at least, I hope so) that he's planning to poison political dissidents, while it's almost certain that Putin ordered exactly that. Interpol and Scotland Yard would still like to have a word with someone who is now sitting in the Duma.
Unless you think that Trump plans to poison someone or hire thugs from the underworld to assassinate reporters, there is no trick of perspective involved.
The problem is that pointing out other people's or countries' wrongdoings relativizes both and detracts from your own wrongdoings in public perception, while both remain as wrong as before from a moral point of view. It's never legitimate to reply to critique by pointing to someone else's flaws.
The problem is that the democratic deficiencies and atrocities committed by the US are not really comparable to the democratic deficiencies of countries like Russia or China. They are based on entirely different history, motives and mindsets, and there is a fairly huge qualitative difference between them. The people who relativize them tend to play right into the hands of various propaganda machines and usually also commit a tu quoque fallacy.
To give an example, while many bad things about Trump can be said, it seems unlikely (at least, I hope so) that he's planning to poison political dissidents, while it's almost certain that Putin ordered exactly that. Interpol and Scotland Yard would still like to have a word with someone who is now sitting in the Duma.
Unless you think that Trump plans to poison someone or hire thugs from the underworld to assassinate reporters, there is no trick of perspective involved.
The problem is that pointing out other people's or countries' wrongdoings relativizes both and detracts from your own wrongdoings in public perception, while both remain as wrong as before from a moral point of view. It's never legitimate to reply to critique by pointing to someone else's flaws.
> I saw a clip on the news recently of a reporter badgering Trump about his intent to create closer ties to Putin. "He's a murderer, he's killing innocent civillians", the reporter states as though this is particularly important. The President responded with something along the lines of "And we're so much better?".
Yes "we" are. The west doesn't murder people for their politics or their opposition to people in power. This false equivalency only empowers aspirating dictators to act worse.
Yes "we" are. The west doesn't murder people for their politics or their opposition to people in power. This false equivalency only empowers aspirating dictators to act worse.
Just for some perspective, that "reporter" was Bill O'Reilley, and Russia wanted Fox News to apologize for the statement.
Yes, he doesn't give a shit and that is nice sometimes. The US had a Trump coming for some time, I think. The system was so corrupt, the only candidates to crystallise were unpopular ones. Let's just hope out of this mess comes something better.
Takes a thief to catch one and all that. Problem is, what happens when the thief caught the other thieves? :-/
Takes a thief to catch one and all that. Problem is, what happens when the thief caught the other thieves? :-/
> The U.S routinely bombs other sovereign countries and this is show cased as a "hero" activity
There's a lot of nuance here, because there isn't really a (current) clear-cut case of the US bombing a sovereign nation where the government has not given the US permission. Of the current active campaigns:
- Afghanistan
- Iraq
- Pakistan
Each of these countries has a functioning government, even mostly democratically elected, and all US military involvement is with the permission of the host -- if Pakistan told the US to stop using their airbases, it would happen.
- Syria
There's less explicit permission here, but the US is bombing a current enemy of the Syrian federal government, so there's no real complaining.
- Somalia
- Yemen
- Libya
It's completely ambiguous which government you consider to be the sovereign one (arguably, there really isn't one). Either way, at least the publicly backed government is OK with US airstrikes.
There's a lot of nuance here, because there isn't really a (current) clear-cut case of the US bombing a sovereign nation where the government has not given the US permission. Of the current active campaigns:
- Afghanistan
- Iraq
- Pakistan
Each of these countries has a functioning government, even mostly democratically elected, and all US military involvement is with the permission of the host -- if Pakistan told the US to stop using their airbases, it would happen.
- Syria
There's less explicit permission here, but the US is bombing a current enemy of the Syrian federal government, so there's no real complaining.
- Somalia
- Yemen
- Libya
It's completely ambiguous which government you consider to be the sovereign one (arguably, there really isn't one). Either way, at least the publicly backed government is OK with US airstrikes.
Do Afghanistan and Iraq really count given they were invaded and their governments replaced with puppet regimes? How could the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan ever afford to say 'no' to the US?
The current governments of Iraq and Afghanistan are reasonably democratically elected.
The government of Iraq did, in fact, say "no" to the presence of US troops, which is why they all left: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from...
The much smaller recent bolstering of US troops in Iraq was also by invitation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_I...
Whether or not it would be a great idea for Afghanistan to tell all UN troops to book it is a different question. But at the end of the day, they have not asked that.
The government of Iraq did, in fact, say "no" to the presence of US troops, which is why they all left: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_of_U.S._troops_from...
The much smaller recent bolstering of US troops in Iraq was also by invitation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_I...
Whether or not it would be a great idea for Afghanistan to tell all UN troops to book it is a different question. But at the end of the day, they have not asked that.
I know they are, but come on... the US civil administrator ("Vice King") Paul Bremer sacked the Iraqi army and banned all Baath party members from jobs. Most publicly employed people of rank were members, that was just a necessity to keep the job.
So, you destroy the security apparatus, leave almost a million weapons trained without an income for their families and sack most competent civil administrators.
This was basically telling the Shia majority to get even with the Sunnis. 15 years later, the resentment is cemented and Isil is using it to their advantage.
Yes, technically a democracy but large parts of the populace cannot vote because they're under Sharia rule.
Thanks, Paul.
So, you destroy the security apparatus, leave almost a million weapons trained without an income for their families and sack most competent civil administrators.
This was basically telling the Shia majority to get even with the Sunnis. 15 years later, the resentment is cemented and Isil is using it to their advantage.
Yes, technically a democracy but large parts of the populace cannot vote because they're under Sharia rule.
Thanks, Paul.
By the way, that's a war crime. An occupier has the obligation to keep order. When the military was sacked, looting became widespread. The US forces had no orders to keep the peace, but just looked on. It's a miracle Iraq works at all today.
> The current governments of Iraq and Afghanistan are reasonably democratically elected.
Not by any means. The US vetoed all candidates they didn't like. That's as un-democratic as it gets.
Not by any means. The US vetoed all candidates they didn't like. That's as un-democratic as it gets.
> There's a lot of nuance here, because there isn't really a (current) clear-cut case of the US bombing a sovereign nation where the government has not given the US permission.
That may be true, but having the permission of these governments to launch bombardments shouldn't be a moral argument.
That may be true, but having the permission of these governments to launch bombardments shouldn't be a moral argument.
Also, now the US should stop doing operations in Yemen. We'll see how that will go.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/world/middleeast/yemen-sp...
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/world/middleeast/yemen-sp...
'current', for small values of current.
I can only think of one contrary example within the last decade -- Libya, where Gaddafi was still in power when we started bombing. It was complicated, and I think in the end it was a poor decision, but I don't think it's fair to consider it wrong or evil.
Looking farther back you find Iraq and Afghanistan on the list with similar disclaimers. In any case, neither was a "lob a few missiles from the stratosphere and peace out" strikes the parent comment implies.
Let me know if I'm forgetting something.
Looking farther back you find Iraq and Afghanistan on the list with similar disclaimers. In any case, neither was a "lob a few missiles from the stratosphere and peace out" strikes the parent comment implies.
Let me know if I'm forgetting something.
Philippines, possibly - depending on who you talk to.
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/deadly-drone-strike-on-mu...
https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/deadly-drone-strike-on-mu...
The US has tons of bases on the Philippines and there's a lot of training/cooperation. I can't imagine that the US didn't have permission and cooperation there, if it happened.
FWIW the Philippine military denies that it happened -- http://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/07/09/12/philippine-military-.... Which is at odds with objecting to it.
FWIW the Philippine military denies that it happened -- http://news.abs-cbn.com/nation/07/09/12/philippine-military-.... Which is at odds with objecting to it.
> if Pakistan told the US to stop using their airbases, it would happen.
Or the government would be replaced by more sympathetic one.
Or the government would be replaced by more sympathetic one.
- Afghanistan
- Iraq
- Pakistan
How is this different from when the USSR bombed Afghanistan with the permission of Afghani government which the Soviets installed?
- Iraq
- Pakistan
How is this different from when the USSR bombed Afghanistan with the permission of Afghani government which the Soviets installed?
Syria: Assad complained about that in recent interview with Belgian press. It's also hard to say he's against ISIS. But anyway, he's a dictator and a paranoic who sees terrorists everywhere and can't even fathom that opposition against him may be legitimate, so his permission means nothing really.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/president-al-assad-to-belgian-m...
[I'm not endorsing this website in any way. It just was the first in the google that had a transcript of the interview.]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/president-al-assad-to-belgian-m...
[I'm not endorsing this website in any way. It just was the first in the google that had a transcript of the interview.]
Assad is the President , he's extremely popular , he won the internationally observed election , hands down . If you say that Assad isn't the legitimate leader your the one spreading
crap . I lived there 19 of the last 32 years .
We had elections in communist Czechslovakia too, where the party got 99% of votes, just like with Assads. Was it democratic? No. It is frankly ridiculous to say that any elections with these kinds of results are in any way meaningful expressions of popular support.
We also had forced demonstration of support for the government. Had to go into parades, etc.
The question is if you would be willing to go there now and publicly propose that Assad should not be a president, without fear of being thrown into prison?
Also what do you think of experiences of people who were tortured and killed by his subordinates for expressing dissent on facebook, or twitter, or in demonstrations?
We also had forced demonstration of support for the government. Had to go into parades, etc.
The question is if you would be willing to go there now and publicly propose that Assad should not be a president, without fear of being thrown into prison?
Also what do you think of experiences of people who were tortured and killed by his subordinates for expressing dissent on facebook, or twitter, or in demonstrations?
>internationally observed election
Key words
>The question is if you would be willing to go there now and publicly propose that Assad should not be a president, without fear of being thrown into prison?
Not right now, they are in a state of civil war, I'd wait until it's over and things settle down.
Key words
>The question is if you would be willing to go there now and publicly propose that Assad should not be a president, without fear of being thrown into prison?
Not right now, they are in a state of civil war, I'd wait until it's over and things settle down.
just going to prison in Syria is very lenient punishment [0]
[0] www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/middleeast/syria-executions-amnesty-international-report/
[0] www.cnn.com/2017/02/07/middleeast/syria-executions-amnesty-international-report/
[deleted]
"he's extremely popular"
Oh right. So what's with all those people who want him to stop being in charge so much that there's been a civil war raging for years? How popular can he be if so many people are willing to risk their lives to move him out of power? To have a civil war, he's surely got to be massively unpopular with a large segment of society.
Oh right. So what's with all those people who want him to stop being in charge so much that there's been a civil war raging for years? How popular can he be if so many people are willing to risk their lives to move him out of power? To have a civil war, he's surely got to be massively unpopular with a large segment of society.
It's not a "civil war" just because you have units of opposing factions operating in the same country. The problem with the "rebels" is that they are not considered better, I assume because of their secondary motives (fundamentalism, Sharia law, ...) [1]
Also, some of the factions seem to be heavily influenced / supported by foreign powers [2]
Taken together, every war is somewhere on a scale between "civil war" and "ordinary war" and just calling it a "civil war" doesn't mean it's necessarily one.
Of course, since war is unpopular, all interventionist democracies would like you to believe that it's a civil war and they're not meddling at all.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012%E2%80%9...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria#War.2C...
Also, some of the factions seem to be heavily influenced / supported by foreign powers [2]
Taken together, every war is somewhere on a scale between "civil war" and "ordinary war" and just calling it a "civil war" doesn't mean it's necessarily one.
Of course, since war is unpopular, all interventionist democracies would like you to believe that it's a civil war and they're not meddling at all.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012%E2%80%9...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Syria#War.2C...
large segment of society you describe can still be 10% of it (random number). ie if 10% of Switzerland decided to overthrow their democratically elected government, you would have 700,000 'terrorists' immediately, most with their mandatory military weapons stored at home.
but, we speak about Switzerland. don't forget many in middle east conflicts are mercenaries or volunteers from all over the world
but, we speak about Switzerland. don't forget many in middle east conflicts are mercenaries or volunteers from all over the world
Assad needs to be prosecuted for war crimes against his own people.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/07/saydna...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/feb/07/saydna...
Sure once a legitimate investigation provides proof.
YES! But this bears question, why is that so?
Why is the US empire (and the US oligarchy) so thirsty for war that it is willing (one could even argue: eager) to sacrifice lives, physical and psychical health of its people (soldiers)? Why is it not putting trillions into infrastructure, health, education instead of spending them to wage wars with nations which have not even thought to attack the US, let alone have done it? (And most of which don't have the resources to do it!)
Well, yes, it is about oil:
Syria: Another Pipeline War http://www.ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-188218053...
But the issue is much deeper. So deep indeed, that I'll (again!) quote a man who knew what he talked about, George F. Kennan: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy." (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan)
So, it is not only the oil (or any other resource to be taken from others). And is is not only about money to be made from bombs (and private contractors who fight, spy, prepare meals for soldiers, wash their uniforms, repair their trucks, build military installations etc.).
It is the US economy at stake.
And that's why you need the POTUS, the Senate, the Congress, intelligence agencies, millitary-intelligence-indutrial complex, the media - to all pull on the same string. And to "invent" enemies: Russia, China, Vietnam, Serbia, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Syria... or "the Muslims".
But the truth is hidden by the fourth estate from the US citizen with slogans such as "we bring democracy, human rights and freedom to the world", or with self-aggrandizing "American exceptionalism" (cringe!).
Why is the US empire (and the US oligarchy) so thirsty for war that it is willing (one could even argue: eager) to sacrifice lives, physical and psychical health of its people (soldiers)? Why is it not putting trillions into infrastructure, health, education instead of spending them to wage wars with nations which have not even thought to attack the US, let alone have done it? (And most of which don't have the resources to do it!)
Well, yes, it is about oil:
Syria: Another Pipeline War http://www.ecowatch.com/syria-another-pipeline-war-188218053...
But the issue is much deeper. So deep indeed, that I'll (again!) quote a man who knew what he talked about, George F. Kennan: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial establishment would have to go on, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy." (https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_F._Kennan)
So, it is not only the oil (or any other resource to be taken from others). And is is not only about money to be made from bombs (and private contractors who fight, spy, prepare meals for soldiers, wash their uniforms, repair their trucks, build military installations etc.).
It is the US economy at stake.
And that's why you need the POTUS, the Senate, the Congress, intelligence agencies, millitary-intelligence-indutrial complex, the media - to all pull on the same string. And to "invent" enemies: Russia, China, Vietnam, Serbia, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Syria... or "the Muslims".
But the truth is hidden by the fourth estate from the US citizen with slogans such as "we bring democracy, human rights and freedom to the world", or with self-aggrandizing "American exceptionalism" (cringe!).
"War is a racket"
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Because the US is doing it under the altruistic guise of individual freedom (probably an easier sell than collectivism) and also making small numbers of people large amounts of money.
Oil is getting to the point where it's not even economically viable to pull from the ground, your old and tired conspiracy theories belong in the Bush years.
> Syria: Another Pipeline War
This article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. deserves some criticism. Kennedy claims that there are 'abundant facts' to support the claim that 'the present crisis [is] just another proxy war over pipelines and geopolitics.' On any view, the conflict involves 'geopolitics,' but Kennedy claims that the Obama administration lied about its humanitarian justification for intervention in Syria,[1] and really intended to advance US economic interests in the construction of the Qatar-Turkey pipeline.[2]
The 'pipeline war' thesis is not credible.[3] Syria, a Russian ally, may have blocked the Qatar-Turkey pipeline to advance Russia's interests as a supplier of natural gas (but see [3] for a critical view), and the US and its allies in Syria (France, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Australia, Jordan) are undoubtedly concerned with matters other than the humanitarian considerations cited in Obama's appeal to Congress, but Kennedy fails to engage with any alternative explanation for the conflict and distorts the facts to support his argument.
For example, he claims that the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria in 2009, 'soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline,' but the source he cites[4] states that US funding of opposition groups began in 2005. Kennedy uncritically repeats claims that the 2011 civil uprising[5] was 'at least in part, orchestrated by the CIA,' but the source he cites is derived from a report from Al-Manar, an anti-Semitic media group affiliated with Hezbollah, which has been designated as a terrorist entity by the US and banned by several other Western democracies.[6]
What Kennedy doesn't mention is the Obama administration's explicit justification[1] for intervention in Syria: the regime's long record of human rights violations ('arbitrary arrests, systematic torture, prolonged detention of suspects, and grossly unfair trials')[7], culminating in the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack, a response to the civil uprising which killed over 1,000 civilians.[8]
There is plenty of room for intelligent debate about whether the US should have intervened in Syria.[9] The debate continues, including in the mainstream media[10] – but Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., an anti-vaxxer with a history of misinformation,[11] isn't a constructive contributor. Dismissing the conflict in Syria as an oil war is dangerous and reductive thinking.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/31/barack-obama-s...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline
[3] http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2016/09/23/war-assad-regi...
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-secretly-backed-syri...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Sy...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Manar
[7] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2005/country-chapters/syria
[8] http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/08/syria-s-w...
[9] https://www.lawfareblog.com/syria-obamas-fault
[10] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/opinion/dont-intervene-in...
[11] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kenn...
This article by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. deserves some criticism. Kennedy claims that there are 'abundant facts' to support the claim that 'the present crisis [is] just another proxy war over pipelines and geopolitics.' On any view, the conflict involves 'geopolitics,' but Kennedy claims that the Obama administration lied about its humanitarian justification for intervention in Syria,[1] and really intended to advance US economic interests in the construction of the Qatar-Turkey pipeline.[2]
The 'pipeline war' thesis is not credible.[3] Syria, a Russian ally, may have blocked the Qatar-Turkey pipeline to advance Russia's interests as a supplier of natural gas (but see [3] for a critical view), and the US and its allies in Syria (France, UK, Belgium, Netherlands, Australia, Jordan) are undoubtedly concerned with matters other than the humanitarian considerations cited in Obama's appeal to Congress, but Kennedy fails to engage with any alternative explanation for the conflict and distorts the facts to support his argument.
For example, he claims that the CIA began funding opposition groups in Syria in 2009, 'soon after Bashar Assad rejected the Qatar pipeline,' but the source he cites[4] states that US funding of opposition groups began in 2005. Kennedy uncritically repeats claims that the 2011 civil uprising[5] was 'at least in part, orchestrated by the CIA,' but the source he cites is derived from a report from Al-Manar, an anti-Semitic media group affiliated with Hezbollah, which has been designated as a terrorist entity by the US and banned by several other Western democracies.[6]
What Kennedy doesn't mention is the Obama administration's explicit justification[1] for intervention in Syria: the regime's long record of human rights violations ('arbitrary arrests, systematic torture, prolonged detention of suspects, and grossly unfair trials')[7], culminating in the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack, a response to the civil uprising which killed over 1,000 civilians.[8]
There is plenty of room for intelligent debate about whether the US should have intervened in Syria.[9] The debate continues, including in the mainstream media[10] – but Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., an anti-vaxxer with a history of misinformation,[11] isn't a constructive contributor. Dismissing the conflict in Syria as an oil war is dangerous and reductive thinking.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/31/barack-obama-s...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar-Turkey_pipeline
[3] http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2016/09/23/war-assad-regi...
[4] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-secretly-backed-syri...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Sy...
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Manar
[7] https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2005/country-chapters/syria
[8] http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/08/syria-s-w...
[9] https://www.lawfareblog.com/syria-obamas-fault
[10] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/opinion/dont-intervene-in...
[11] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-robert-f-kenn...
People complain about US govt surveillance all the time. It doesn't always lead to change but there's a healthy degree of dissent.
TBH, it is really only in HN threads I hear about any dissent. Snowden hasn't been pardoned and most of US appears against what he did. But China is universally seen as a repressive regime (which it probably is).
> healthy degree of dissent
Hardly, to be honest. Most folks dont care about surveillance at all, and ask for more state powers.
Hardly, to be honest. Most folks dont care about surveillance at all, and ask for more state powers.
With the media (and gov't, and everyone else) bombarding non-tech Americans about how dangerous cyberterrorism could be, with the ISIS social media accounts ready to snatch up your children... I'm entirely unsurprised there are many people who would be willing to give up their privacy for "safety."
If only there were a way we could inform Americans that they aren't actually doomed.
If only there were a way we could inform Americans that they aren't actually doomed.
Every single State of the Union address has the US President saying the US is the moral authority of the world and an example of what is good
Good and evil is always relative to ones position. No one thinks they are the bad guy, ever.
>One man's terrorist is another man's hero.
That "another man" is brainwashed too. Everyone's brainwashed by their local media and not just that, but we all are deeply biased because, at a personal level, we all look at our own interests first. Countries do the same. And since the planet is only this big, those interests quickly come in conflict with other side's plans and then countries do nasty things justifying them with "national interests". That's just how the world works...
That "another man" is brainwashed too. Everyone's brainwashed by their local media and not just that, but we all are deeply biased because, at a personal level, we all look at our own interests first. Countries do the same. And since the planet is only this big, those interests quickly come in conflict with other side's plans and then countries do nasty things justifying them with "national interests". That's just how the world works...
>That's just how the world works...
Maybe the world needs to change then :)
Maybe the world needs to change then :)
By all means, but problem is to what? If everyone's biased, who's right and who's wrong? So far people were "changing the World" usually just to make it closer to their own point of view, imposing those views on everyone else.
Let's hear as many point of views as possible then and accordingly pick and sync eventually. I have to think of Conway's Law – extrapolating from there to the whole internet, maybe we're all currently in the process of doing this already..
Except bombs are dropped by the military and the victims of the terror attacks are civilians.
Let's not pretend that being an official military of an official, globally recognized government makes indiscriminate killing of civilians somehow better than doing the same as official military of an unofficial government...
However, there is objective evil. ISIS is objective evil, for example. Russia or the USA are in the gray zone, where some of they actions are evil, some others are simply stupid, and some other have sense. So, I understand your point, everything is complex, but we should avoid losing our moral compass. Some evil is really evil.
Edited: typos.
Edited: typos.
Define objective evil
I guess that all most religions and philosophies would agree in that causing unnecessary pain is bad, that to kill for pleasure is bad, etc. It is difficult to explain in words where the common denominator is, but this doesn't mean there isn't one.
specifically targeting and killing innocents to accomplish your political goals. ISIS, Russia, Assad, AQ or any other terrorist group, etc.
i'm disappointed that hardly any members of the media or Democratic party establishment talk about Obama's expansion of the drone program.
we have a long list of names. the executive branch of our government curates the list unilaterally and in secret. then, we cross names off the list by killing them. sometimes, they're American citizens. often, they're in countries we're at peace or even allied with.
there are children in Yemen right now who are afraid of blue skies. drones fly high enough to be invisible to the naked eye; most strikes are carried out in clear weather.
i'm near certain that history will judge us harshly.
in any case, it's Trump's drone program now. i hope the technologists who created this infrastructure think about that when they try to sleep.
we have a long list of names. the executive branch of our government curates the list unilaterally and in secret. then, we cross names off the list by killing them. sometimes, they're American citizens. often, they're in countries we're at peace or even allied with.
there are children in Yemen right now who are afraid of blue skies. drones fly high enough to be invisible to the naked eye; most strikes are carried out in clear weather.
i'm near certain that history will judge us harshly.
in any case, it's Trump's drone program now. i hope the technologists who created this infrastructure think about that when they try to sleep.
> there are children in Yemen right now who are afraid of blue skies.
On that point, I would encourage everyone to read this article and watch the accompanying video:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/10/drones-dream-y...
The Yemeni boy featured, whose father and older brother were killed already in US drone strikes, is quoted as saying that children in his village have nightmares of the drones. The boy himself was killed in a drone strike just two weeks after the interview.
On that point, I would encourage everyone to read this article and watch the accompanying video:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/10/drones-dream-y...
The Yemeni boy featured, whose father and older brother were killed already in US drone strikes, is quoted as saying that children in his village have nightmares of the drones. The boy himself was killed in a drone strike just two weeks after the interview.
Killer robots trawling the skies and bringing nightmares to children. If that's not the purest depiction of terrorism, I don't know what is.
> i'm disappointed that i haven't seen a single member of the media or Democratic party establishments talk about Obama's expansion of the drone program.
I have been hearing and reading about the expansion of Obama's drone program for years in "the media". Some quick Googling shows several examples.
- http://www.npr.org/2013/04/28/179597464/leading-senate-democ...
- http://www.npr.org/2012/06/20/155389081/are-drones-obamas-le...
- http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/23/politics/obama-drone-warren-we...
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-drone-war-is-...
- http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/12/reflecting-o...
One can argue that consumers of media have chosen to ignore or accept these stories, but I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest the issues aren't being raised at all.
I have been hearing and reading about the expansion of Obama's drone program for years in "the media". Some quick Googling shows several examples.
- http://www.npr.org/2013/04/28/179597464/leading-senate-democ...
- http://www.npr.org/2012/06/20/155389081/are-drones-obamas-le...
- http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/23/politics/obama-drone-warren-we...
- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-drone-war-is-...
- http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/12/reflecting-o...
One can argue that consumers of media have chosen to ignore or accept these stories, but I think it's a little disingenuous to suggest the issues aren't being raised at all.
Sure, they throw the issue a bone every once in a while, but was it even within an order of magnitude as the amount of airtime given when Bush was doing the bombing? (you can even look at the amount of stories coming out now, in the two weeks that Trump has been doing what Obama did non-stop for nearly a decade.)
It's a little disingenuous to link to five stories from five different sources over a five year period and claim that the magnitude of the ongoing stories has been fairly captured over the last eight years.
It's a little disingenuous to link to five stories from five different sources over a five year period and claim that the magnitude of the ongoing stories has been fairly captured over the last eight years.
> It's a little disingenuous to link to five stories from five different sources over a five year period and claim that the magnitude of the ongoing stories has been fairly captured over the last eight years.
I tried to explain that was a quick Google of resources that most people consider to be "the media". The OP had suggested not "a single member" to which the counter point is, fairly I believe, minimal evidence to the contrary.
To make a claim about relative magnitude would require us to establish "how much is enough" and I do not believe that was the point in question -- as I am unsure how we could ever make such a determination.
I tried to explain that was a quick Google of resources that most people consider to be "the media". The OP had suggested not "a single member" to which the counter point is, fairly I believe, minimal evidence to the contrary.
To make a claim about relative magnitude would require us to establish "how much is enough" and I do not believe that was the point in question -- as I am unsure how we could ever make such a determination.
> To make a claim about relative magnitude would require us to establish "how much is enough" and I do not believe that was the point in question -- as I am unsure how we could ever make such a determination.
Fair, but when I compare the left echo chamber over the last two weeks when Trump launched attacks in Yemen to the left chamber a couple months ago while Obama was bombing Yemen and US armed groups were fighting each other in Northern Syria, there was a significant perceived difference in the amount of coverage and tone. It's not really quantifiable, as you said, but that doesn't mean it's not true.
Fair, but when I compare the left echo chamber over the last two weeks when Trump launched attacks in Yemen to the left chamber a couple months ago while Obama was bombing Yemen and US armed groups were fighting each other in Northern Syria, there was a significant perceived difference in the amount of coverage and tone. It's not really quantifiable, as you said, but that doesn't mean it's not true.
That's fair. It's not that it's gone completely unreported--but often the coverage is uncritical.
The NYTimes in particular, which also played a tremendous role in justifying the Iraq War to the public, has been downright jingoistic in its occasional coverage of drones. Look at this ridiculous results page: https://www.google.com/search?q=nytimes+op+ed+drone+program
But you're ultimately right: some outlets did run some critical coverage.
The Democratic party establishment, otoh... crickets. Even now, two weeks into the Trump presidency.
They seem more worried that he's appointing some incompetent rube to run the EPA than the fact that he just inherited their secret kill list.
The NYTimes in particular, which also played a tremendous role in justifying the Iraq War to the public, has been downright jingoistic in its occasional coverage of drones. Look at this ridiculous results page: https://www.google.com/search?q=nytimes+op+ed+drone+program
But you're ultimately right: some outlets did run some critical coverage.
The Democratic party establishment, otoh... crickets. Even now, two weeks into the Trump presidency.
They seem more worried that he's appointing some incompetent rube to run the EPA than the fact that he just inherited their secret kill list.
Just because you posted a few example articles, does not negate the fact that the media fails to provide front-page coverage of such an important issue.
I dont understand this notion of media responsibility to report on matters of grave importance and substance. As long as media is profit driven (which the vast majority it is) I expect nothing from them other than to please their shareholders. If reporting on drones drove more clicks and generated more page views we'd see media rushing to report on such coverage. The fact that they don't to me says it's a demand problem. People just are not interested in facing up to news that their government is bombing other countries in their name.
Public news organisations, on the other hand, should definitely be held to the expectation of reporting on issues in priority of importance, with not a shred of concern placed on how popular the reporting will become.
This is not surprising at all that npr has been covering this extensively, and also nobody bothered to listen.
Public news organisations, on the other hand, should definitely be held to the expectation of reporting on issues in priority of importance, with not a shred of concern placed on how popular the reporting will become.
This is not surprising at all that npr has been covering this extensively, and also nobody bothered to listen.
> As long as media is profit driven (which the vast majority it is) I expect nothing from them other than to please their shareholders. If reporting on drones drove more clicks and generated more page views we'd see media rushing to report on such coverage.
You're oversimplifying this issue greatly. The media can (and do) manipulate the public, their opinions and interests. Don't think that just because we're the "good" guys that propaganda isn't practiced in the US. "Trust Me: I'm Lying" is a good book about this subject.
You're oversimplifying this issue greatly. The media can (and do) manipulate the public, their opinions and interests. Don't think that just because we're the "good" guys that propaganda isn't practiced in the US. "Trust Me: I'm Lying" is a good book about this subject.
During the end of Preisdent Obama's first term and into the start of the second term there was a series of uproars about illegal drone strikes in Pakistan[1]. This was covered on the front page of the papers I see (WSJ, NYT) and discussed extensively in podcast-land. See also, related discussions from HN [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=drone%20strike&sort=byPopulari...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_strikes_in_Pakistan
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?query=drone%20strike&sort=byPopulari...
Your personal ignorance to stories presented by the media doesn't prove that they are failing to cover important issues.
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Drone%20str...
Interesting how that became so popular lately.
Interesting how that became so popular lately.
There's a new documentary coming this year. It was mentioned in one of the lectures on 33C3. What it is about may be a part of it.
https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2016/Fahrplan/events...
https://fahrplan.events.ccc.de/congress/2016/Fahrplan/events...
Sure, but as a counter point, simply look at drone strikes overall:
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Drone%20str...
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Drone%20str...
There was a relevant recent event for that spike ...
It's just that we haven't seen people protesting in the streets for some reason. Hmmm, I wonder why that is. Dropping 100k bombs, killing 2200 people with drones, and toppling several governments sure seems like a bigger deal to me than a 3 month visa ban.
> i'm disappointed that i haven't seen a single member of the media or Democratic party establishment talk about Obama's expansion of the drone program.
You must not read a lot of media then. Pretty much every source of media I read on a regular basis has commented about the drone assassination program, Obama's expansion of it, the questionable legality of it (particularly as it applies to US citizens), and generally pointed out problematic aspects of it.
Even Democrats have complained about aspects of it:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/04/24/democrats-repu...
You must not read a lot of media then. Pretty much every source of media I read on a regular basis has commented about the drone assassination program, Obama's expansion of it, the questionable legality of it (particularly as it applies to US citizens), and generally pointed out problematic aspects of it.
Even Democrats have complained about aspects of it:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/04/24/democrats-repu...
Thought experiment - what is worse - a) expanding a drone program and killing thousands (including by the US's own admission 100+ innocent civilians, but probably many more given that the US classes all military aged men in a strike zone as 'combatants' regardless of whether they are actual combatants or not), or b) issuing a temporary visa ban to a large number of those countries actively being bombed by the above-mentioned drone program?
Does your answer match with which one has seen the most outrage from the press and the general populace? Why or why not?
Does your answer match with which one has seen the most outrage from the press and the general populace? Why or why not?
Seems like we now have the worst of both worlds now. A ruthless drone program, botched operations, and unnecessarily misguided bans.
Sure, but the question remains why bombing and killing thousands is not protest worthy, but preventing people from a few countries from temporarily entering the US is protest worthy.
Call me cynical, but I bet if Obama issued Trumps EO, and Trump expanded the drone program, we would be having the exact same protests against Trump.
Call me cynical, but I bet if Obama issued Trumps EO, and Trump expanded the drone program, we would be having the exact same protests against Trump.
I think part of it is the fact that Trump is an all around jerk that inherently garners more attention. Bush did plenty of egregious things that didn't get nearly the amount of attention they deserved either. That being said when the WH issued orders (even the Visa waiver issue) that were deemed unconstitutional, ACLU took it to court.
[deleted]
> there are children in Yemen right now who are afraid of blue skies. drones fly high enough to be invisible to the naked eye; most strikes are carried out in clear weather.
Some adults get PTSD just from being in a car accident. Growing up in this environment must thoroughly destroy a child's sanity. I wonder what the the US drone campaign is teaching an entire generation now approaching adulthood.
Some adults get PTSD just from being in a car accident. Growing up in this environment must thoroughly destroy a child's sanity. I wonder what the the US drone campaign is teaching an entire generation now approaching adulthood.
To hate the US, thus sustaining the never-ending cycle of 'terrorists' > war > profit that keeps the US military industrial complex ticking along.
"I just like solving interesting problems, I don't care about politics. And besides, if I don't do it someone else will anyway"
See, that quote felt like it applied to me... until we started talking about choosing whether someone lives or dies.
The thought becomes really scary when taken to its logical conclusion. After mulling it over a bit, I don't think I could work as a defense contractor.
The thought becomes really scary when taken to its logical conclusion. After mulling it over a bit, I don't think I could work as a defense contractor.
"I would prefer to have invented a machine that people could use and that would help farmers with their work - for example a lawnmower." - Mikhail Kalashnikov
"If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." - Albert Einstein
"If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker." - Albert Einstein
[deleted]
>i hope the technologists who created this infrastructure think about that when they try to sleep.
Yes, because people flying planes instead of drones is so much better, right? (/s) The problem isn't in the technology people, it's in who's using it. Obama and Trump's expansions of these programs is what the problem is.
Yes, because people flying planes instead of drones is so much better, right? (/s) The problem isn't in the technology people, it's in who's using it. Obama and Trump's expansions of these programs is what the problem is.
Actually it is. There are no expensive planes to operate, no crashing or pilots dying, which means there is no political risk to carrying these missions out. Just lots of brown people getting blown up, and we've seen how much people care about them.
The problem is both. Obviously prime responsibility lies with the decision makers--but that doesn't absolve the many people who are making a lot of money building these systems.
Systems which they know will be used to kill people extrajudicially, invisibly, far from any war zone; people whose deaths will never even be acknowledged.
Systems which they know will be used to kill people extrajudicially, invisibly, far from any war zone; people whose deaths will never even be acknowledged.
In general I would agree, but isn't autonomous warfare a more humane type of war?
We say that robots should take our dangerous jobs. What jobs are more dangerous than a soldier?
We say that robots should take our dangerous jobs. What jobs are more dangerous than a soldier?
Other thing that is massively underreported on much bigger scale than actual air strikes are civilian casualties. Presumably so that Americans, or Russians or whoever of the other N countries that bomb people regularly can justify killing thousands of civilians in middle east a year by mistake. It is not a mistake though, it's a calculated acceptable collateral murder where the government determines some acceptable ratio of civcas vs combatant deaths and goes with that. Of course, now if civcas are underreported by the order of magnitude, ...
https://airwars.org/
Other thing to ponder is that US claims it killed around 50 000 terrorists in the last two years. Think about that. Those are supposed to be people who are said to be threat to US citizens or allies and therefore are OK to be killed by USG even at the cost of killing bystanders. Americans should start asking themselves who are these people they are supporting the murder of. Don't stop at the terrorist label.
Humanizing "them" might not be fun though, because you'll inevitably run into your propagandized fellow citizens, and start feeling decidedly not good about their capacity for empathy or nuance in understanding the world.
https://airwars.org/
Other thing to ponder is that US claims it killed around 50 000 terrorists in the last two years. Think about that. Those are supposed to be people who are said to be threat to US citizens or allies and therefore are OK to be killed by USG even at the cost of killing bystanders. Americans should start asking themselves who are these people they are supporting the murder of. Don't stop at the terrorist label.
Humanizing "them" might not be fun though, because you'll inevitably run into your propagandized fellow citizens, and start feeling decidedly not good about their capacity for empathy or nuance in understanding the world.
The war on terrorism is so bloody pointless -- the military has achieved exactly nothing since 9/11. All I could think about the day after 9/11 was the hundreds of thousands (now millions!) of innocent people which had nothing to do with that attack that were going to be killed for no reason ...
It's ironic that the largest part of the us government which has also produced the worst results, gets a free pass from the anti-big-government crowd...
I would love for a politician to talk about the war on terror as a failure as big as the war in Vietnam and to start finally talking about ending it ...
It's ironic that the largest part of the us government which has also produced the worst results, gets a free pass from the anti-big-government crowd...
I would love for a politician to talk about the war on terror as a failure as big as the war in Vietnam and to start finally talking about ending it ...
Don't forget that as far as body counts go, the USG defines "terrorists" as any male appearing to be of military age. There is no such thing as a dead civilian male in a strike zone.
Kill box
Over the last couple of weeks we suddenly care about casualties again
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Drone%20str...
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Drone%20str...
There are many maps of terrorist attacks, shared on Facebook and so on. I just wish they started including terror attacks from US. Just to see the ratio.
First example on Google: http://storymaps.esri.com/stories/2016/terrorist-attacks/
PS: I actually wish the International Haye Court would start an investigation on a US president on drone strikes. Not sure he's guilty, but the suspicion might finally raise ears in normal citizen.
First example on Google: http://storymaps.esri.com/stories/2016/terrorist-attacks/
PS: I actually wish the International Haye Court would start an investigation on a US president on drone strikes. Not sure he's guilty, but the suspicion might finally raise ears in normal citizen.
This is a definitional thing, right? Laymen think of "airstrike" in terms of anything coming from the air, but the military use of the term has always reflected the very different nature of long-range bombing mission and (say) helicopter support of infantry units.
> "Apaches for example, conduct close combat attacks as a maneuver element supporting a ground force in contact with the enemy. I would not consider this in the category of 'airstrike.'"
This is reflected in the fact that the helicopters are parts of the Army, not Navy or Air Force.
So you can certainly criticize the use of this term since it may prey on predictable/reasonable civilian misunderstanding of military language, but it's hard to agree with the author that
> The media and others have depended on these figures for years with the understanding they are a comprehensive rollup of all American and coalition activity...no one from the military ever has come forward to clarify that it is wholly incomplete.
unless the Army was also failing to include it in something like "groundstrikes".
My grandmother might think that the terms "wireless carrier" and "wireless data" should clearly cover WiFi, based on the plain meaning of the words, but it just turns out that this isn't included in the technical definitions. Yes, if someone technical was profiting off this predictable confusion it would be bad and possibly malicious, but it's not accurate to describe someone using these technical names as "inaccurate" or "quietly excluded".
> "Apaches for example, conduct close combat attacks as a maneuver element supporting a ground force in contact with the enemy. I would not consider this in the category of 'airstrike.'"
This is reflected in the fact that the helicopters are parts of the Army, not Navy or Air Force.
So you can certainly criticize the use of this term since it may prey on predictable/reasonable civilian misunderstanding of military language, but it's hard to agree with the author that
> The media and others have depended on these figures for years with the understanding they are a comprehensive rollup of all American and coalition activity...no one from the military ever has come forward to clarify that it is wholly incomplete.
unless the Army was also failing to include it in something like "groundstrikes".
My grandmother might think that the terms "wireless carrier" and "wireless data" should clearly cover WiFi, based on the plain meaning of the words, but it just turns out that this isn't included in the technical definitions. Yes, if someone technical was profiting off this predictable confusion it would be bad and possibly malicious, but it's not accurate to describe someone using these technical names as "inaccurate" or "quietly excluded".
>unless the Army was also failing to include it in something like "groundstrikes".
The article includes multiple statements from army sources which indicate no such figures are published. If someone could turn them up, that would be something.
The article includes multiple statements from army sources which indicate no such figures are published. If someone could turn them up, that would be something.
The point is that if there was also a category released to the general public called "groundstrikes" (or better yet "everything but airstrikes") and the Army was not including attack helicopter mission in that either, then there would be a clear intent to decieve. Likewise if these missions were not contributing to public tallies like "total casualties". But so long as it's public knowledge that the Army has large categories of missions that are not included in these public reports, this is plausibly just a definitional confusion, and so it's not very damning.
They already stated 'unequivocally' there is no intent to deceive --its just a complete accident then that it takes a lone journalists inquiries to clarify that for over a decade the officially quoted figures of military strikes have been misunderstood. Its not really about damning the military, they do what they are ordered to do - its about realistic accounting of what they have been ordered to do.
*and of course, not being able to trust what we are told about what they are doing
*and of course, not being able to trust what we are told about what they are doing
President Trump wasn't wrong when he said terror attacks are under reported but sadly the underreported ones are committed by the United States and her allies.
What exactly is the "big picture" I'm missing here that is achieved by levelling Yemen one mud brick building at a time?
What exactly is the "big picture" I'm missing here that is achieved by levelling Yemen one mud brick building at a time?
And he wasn't wrong when he said in that recent super bowl interview "we aren't so innocent". Everyone is still jumping on him like he was saying the US is just the same as Russia, unable to accept the nuance that America has a lot of crimes to answer for.
As much as I hate to say it, Trump was right on this one. For every Russian journalist killed by the Kremlin, you could match them with an American anti-Vietnam activist, black activist, and yes, even journalists (Reuters).
Still doesn't make it Ok.
Still doesn't make it Ok.
When O'Reilly mentioned Putin, the person, being a killer, Trump answered that the U.S. (not a person) isn't so innocent either, which yes true, also clearly deflecting and avoiding saying or acknowledging anything bad about Putin. What immediately came to my mind was O'Reilly could have followed up with "is the President of the U.S. a killer?". I thought missed opportunity, but of course, that could have never aired.
Missed opportunity for what? Click-bait word games?
This is exactly the problem we have with popular news media, they want these "hard-hitting" soundbites for their promos and clickbait.
The point was clear enough for everyone to understand. Leaders of countries take military action, and people die as a result on both sides. Russia has killed, America has killed. Whats funny is that O'Reilly said "I don't know of any leaders who are killers".
O'Reilly represents the sleeping American who believes USA is good, everyone else evil. Trump woke him up!
This is exactly the problem we have with popular news media, they want these "hard-hitting" soundbites for their promos and clickbait.
The point was clear enough for everyone to understand. Leaders of countries take military action, and people die as a result on both sides. Russia has killed, America has killed. Whats funny is that O'Reilly said "I don't know of any leaders who are killers".
O'Reilly represents the sleeping American who believes USA is good, everyone else evil. Trump woke him up!
Wow... 1,700 air strikes just last year alone. That's more than 1 air strike every 6 hour for entire year! I'm wondering how much damage is being inflicted on civilians here. Not just people getting killed, but people becoming homeless or their livelihood getting destroyed. If these are not ultra-precise air strikes then we would be giving birth to future heavily disgruntled middle east population.
The most recent episode of PBS Frontline offers an interesting view on this.
Note that anyone 15 years old or younger living in Iraq today has never even seen a version of their country that isn't an active warzone, and it's only getting worse. The US are seemingly creating new terrorists faster than they are killing existing ones.
Note that anyone 15 years old or younger living in Iraq today has never even seen a version of their country that isn't an active warzone, and it's only getting worse. The US are seemingly creating new terrorists faster than they are killing existing ones.
[deleted]
Some countries use cluster munition for some of their strikes. The usa last did this in 2009. The opposite of precise...
Especially when they used to also drop food aid in packages that were the same colour as the cluster bomblets.
(mostly text, but with graphic image of child with amputated limbs) http://www.rawa.org/cluster2.htm
http://www.landmineclearance.org/page2.html
(mostly text, but with graphic image of child with amputated limbs) http://www.rawa.org/cluster2.htm
http://www.landmineclearance.org/page2.html
Cluster munitions are bad, but you have to consider that people often try to hide in houses, in cellars during air raids in the city. Cluster munition will not do much to those people, other than being insanely noisy and terrifying. What will kill those people is a bomb that will drop the house on them.
Indiscriminate killing is a function of decision making process, not the munition itself.
Indiscriminate killing is a function of decision making process, not the munition itself.
Cluster munitions such as BL755 ( extensively used in Yemen at present ) were designed in the 1970s to attack massed Warpac tank formations pouring across the German plains.
As a consequence they usually contain a high proportion of shaped-charge bomblets which can quite easily penetrate several inches of concrete. Brick and roof tiles don't stand a chance. Even the shrapnel from the fragmenting jacket can penetrate steel plate.
As a consequence they usually contain a high proportion of shaped-charge bomblets which can quite easily penetrate several inches of concrete. Brick and roof tiles don't stand a chance. Even the shrapnel from the fragmenting jacket can penetrate steel plate.
> Cluster munition will not do much to those people,
Not all of the bomblets explode, so when those people come out of their houses they've got to not disturb any of the bomblets.
Not all of the bomblets explode, so when those people come out of their houses they've got to not disturb any of the bomblets.
I understand that. People try to collect the bomblets afterwards though, especially in the city. So the harm is somewhat limited.
The munition can't be removed from the chain, it's not a benign entity. From concept through design and production through to sale and use, the munition itself is a necessary element in the machinery of killing.
Downplaying the importance of the munition itself enables industrialised slaughter. The arms trade deals in munitions, and is a multi-billion dollar industry.
We can prevaricate all day about words like "defense", about how "guns don't kill people, people kill people", and about suggestions that "insanely terrifying" experiences "will not do much" to people. But language is important here, and you should consider carefully what you think and communicate about the weapons industry.
Downplaying the importance of the munition itself enables industrialised slaughter. The arms trade deals in munitions, and is a multi-billion dollar industry.
We can prevaricate all day about words like "defense", about how "guns don't kill people, people kill people", and about suggestions that "insanely terrifying" experiences "will not do much" to people. But language is important here, and you should consider carefully what you think and communicate about the weapons industry.
Ever heard of ISIS?
The problem is that all these bombings would actually help expand ISIS as civilians lose their dear ones/homes/livelihood due to allied bombing. Between 2014 to 2017, estimated drop in numbers of ISIS fighters was 6000 - that's about 20% drop [1]. Assuming all of them were killed, that's about 2000/year i.e. almost exactly number of airstrikes. So either it is taking one air strike to kill one terrorist or ISIS gets refueled pretty fast from disgruntled civilian population.
[1] https://www.rt.com/usa/331355-islamic-state-fighters-numbers...
[1] https://www.rt.com/usa/331355-islamic-state-fighters-numbers...
> “I can tell you, unequivocally, we are not trying to hide the number of strikes," the official said. "That is just the way it has been tracked in the past. That’s what it’s always been.”
That may be true, but I do not have a high level of confidence that there's not someone further up the chain saying "hey, let's use the Army for this one, eh?" with a wink.
That may be true, but I do not have a high level of confidence that there's not someone further up the chain saying "hey, let's use the Army for this one, eh?" with a wink.
I feel the best popular representation of US military policy is the comic "Addicted to War" by Joel Andreas.
http://www.addictedtowar.com/book.html
Everyone should be offered that as a reference before Chomsky, and then prodded onwards to Chomsky if they want to read more on this topic.
Everyone should be offered that as a reference before Chomsky, and then prodded onwards to Chomsky if they want to read more on this topic.
I understand that for operational secrecy reason, not all action would be published, but I would have thought there should be at least post mission briefings and outcomes being discussed by news sources and political leaders after the fact?
For instance, here in Australia I know there has been a squadron of F/A-18s conducting bombing and strike campaigns in Afghanistan, but we don't hear anything at all about the sorts of missions they have been running, nor their effectiveness. Indeed, many Australians I have spoken to actually have no idea that we had a sizeable amount of our Air Force over there conducting operations.
For instance, here in Australia I know there has been a squadron of F/A-18s conducting bombing and strike campaigns in Afghanistan, but we don't hear anything at all about the sorts of missions they have been running, nor their effectiveness. Indeed, many Australians I have spoken to actually have no idea that we had a sizeable amount of our Air Force over there conducting operations.
I had no idea, what (if any) details are reported and where? Do you suggest any sources I can follow to stay more informed of Australian involvement?
There is really no public channel that I am aware of. Googling around I see news articles from ABC etc., but those seem to be more of a PR spin on our involvement over there.
The reason that I personally know is that my sister in law and her husband are both in the RAAF and have been deployed in the Middle East a few times (though not Afghanistan).
The reason that I personally know is that my sister in law and her husband are both in the RAAF and have been deployed in the Middle East a few times (though not Afghanistan).
Australia is one of the least transparent countries with regards to airstrikes. It would be nice if there was public pressure for them to be more transparent.
https://twitter.com/airwars/status/822008554316066816
https://twitter.com/airwars/status/822008554316066816
Diplomacy alone doesn't afford us the lifestyle we so enjoy. I believe we are lucky to even have the option to ignore the where and how our privileged position in global society is sustained. No one is really hiding this from us, it is that we choose not to look.
Is there any realistic expectation that there be a news story for every airstrike?
I'm not saying we're always the "good guys", but every airstrike looks bad without any context. We never get all of the intelligence that goes into ordering an airstrike, so how are we supposed to make the same judgements about collateral damage, effect, etc.? How many other airstrikes happen flawlessly?
Aside from hindsight being 20/20, it is naive to assume that the public is capable of reviewing complex, difficult decisions about military action based on anecdotal information in a 1-page news article.
I'm not saying we're always the "good guys", but every airstrike looks bad without any context. We never get all of the intelligence that goes into ordering an airstrike, so how are we supposed to make the same judgements about collateral damage, effect, etc.? How many other airstrikes happen flawlessly?
Aside from hindsight being 20/20, it is naive to assume that the public is capable of reviewing complex, difficult decisions about military action based on anecdotal information in a 1-page news article.
Spare me, there's nothing difficult about deciding whether or not to blow up hospitals and children. This mission is not about freeing people from terror and was never about that. Rather, quite the opposite, we are there to terrorize them into being profitable to the hegemony. The propaganda about minimizing casualties is to keep civilians protected from the atrocities that they are sponsoring.
Are you sure there is nothing difficult about that? When you're reasoning against your own hospitals, and your own children? When a nightmare of a human being keeps his own children near him as human shields?
If I'm to understand correctly, "We" are there to blow up hospitals and terrorize children, but also create propaganda to protect civilians from feeling bad?
Can you describe to me this large, tens of thousands at least, group of people that murders children on purpose but also cares about the feelings of all civilians? Specifically, without reinforcing the point that you'd be responding based on a tiny fraction of the intelligence that goes into these decisions.
If I'm to understand correctly, "We" are there to blow up hospitals and terrorize children, but also create propaganda to protect civilians from feeling bad?
Can you describe to me this large, tens of thousands at least, group of people that murders children on purpose but also cares about the feelings of all civilians? Specifically, without reinforcing the point that you'd be responding based on a tiny fraction of the intelligence that goes into these decisions.
You're fantasizing.
The bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital wasn't some ethical decision between good and bad, rather it was military members getting orders to bomb a target, not being able to find the target but deciding to bomb a near by building because...that's just it, they didn't have a reason. Now, being the good guys the US punished these war criminals right? Not really, wrist slaps and nothing more.
The bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital wasn't some ethical decision between good and bad, rather it was military members getting orders to bomb a target, not being able to find the target but deciding to bomb a near by building because...that's just it, they didn't have a reason. Now, being the good guys the US punished these war criminals right? Not really, wrist slaps and nothing more.
I think they mean unreported as in "not in the database," not "there was a news story."
So the military faces the same regulatory reporting challenges banks do: ambiguous orders on what to report come down from regulatory committees with no context attached, which you are in turn forced to interpret. When your interpretation is judged (usually unfairly) to be incorrect by some smartass in the press whose understanding of the ground realities is incomplete at best, resulting in a dustup which usually ends up with you being hauled in front of a regulatory committee to grovel, admit fault and promise not to repeat the mistake again.
Bitter? Why would you think I'm bitter?
Bitter? Why would you think I'm bitter?
'When war is declared, truth is the first casualty' - Arthur Ponsonby
Our issue should focus on the war itself, and less on the many untruths that have propagated because of it. For me, a primary question is one of constitutional power of the president to wage war, and if legislative actions such as the Authorization of Use of Military Force are sufficient enough to meet those constitutional requirements for checks and balances. I've listened to as many debates and talks on the subject as possible, and I think there is a lot of nuance ignored by the more radical right and left than there should be. In the end though, my primary issue (as a combat vet) is the complete misdirection of the American people for the true reasons of the war(s).
If truth is the first casualty, that may be to be expected, but at least tell us the truth about the reasons for the war(s) in the first place, otherwise even the founders recognized the dangers of the power of the executive to unilaterally wage war and declare emergencies and in doing so violate individual liberties.
I will say this though; I'm tired of hearing Kissinger style realpolitik subscribers abusing Hanlons razor in dismissing the idea of malice in such actions, for at some point not only is incompetence indetinguishable from malice, but incompetence is ripe for manipulation and abuse from malice.
The question is then, who is the malicous group, and what are their intentions?
Our issue should focus on the war itself, and less on the many untruths that have propagated because of it. For me, a primary question is one of constitutional power of the president to wage war, and if legislative actions such as the Authorization of Use of Military Force are sufficient enough to meet those constitutional requirements for checks and balances. I've listened to as many debates and talks on the subject as possible, and I think there is a lot of nuance ignored by the more radical right and left than there should be. In the end though, my primary issue (as a combat vet) is the complete misdirection of the American people for the true reasons of the war(s).
If truth is the first casualty, that may be to be expected, but at least tell us the truth about the reasons for the war(s) in the first place, otherwise even the founders recognized the dangers of the power of the executive to unilaterally wage war and declare emergencies and in doing so violate individual liberties.
I will say this though; I'm tired of hearing Kissinger style realpolitik subscribers abusing Hanlons razor in dismissing the idea of malice in such actions, for at some point not only is incompetence indetinguishable from malice, but incompetence is ripe for manipulation and abuse from malice.
The question is then, who is the malicous group, and what are their intentions?
There's only one way to find out the truth: FOIA the mission logs
hah. you, sir, are either an optimist or a satirist.
FOIA responses are routinely denied or heavily redacted even for much more mundane requests than asking for details of unacknowledged drone kills.
FOIA responses are routinely denied or heavily redacted even for much more mundane requests than asking for details of unacknowledged drone kills.
I'm not saying it's gonna happen just that's where the real truth is. No officer wants to get UCMJ for having falsified his logs. I have no idea how weapons releases are counted but I doubt they're from the logs.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the Trump administration was actually better at processing FOIA requests?
To be honest it will be difficult for them not to be, can't imagine he will be getting any less than Obama.
To be honest it will be difficult for them not to be, can't imagine he will be getting any less than Obama.
This is part of how I explain to me the outrage over the travel ban: people have been denial over being at war with certain countries. Travel ban makes it public - people get angry because their self-perception is challenged. (And of course there are the inconveniences of not being allowed to travel - but imo it is not completely nonsensical to limit travel from countries one is at war with).
There's a documentary on Netflix[0] that might explain why all the 'extra' sorties are needed. Provocation? Seeding? Who knows, but its an interesting connection.
[0] http://dirtywars.org/shop/product/details/538/watch-on-netfl...
[0] http://dirtywars.org/shop/product/details/538/watch-on-netfl...
How difficult would it be to create a map of worldwide military strikes, not just by the US, but all countries? Where is data like that available? What other countries are so transparent as the US in publishing that data? Do Russia and China? Could be an interesting project that serves the public interest globally. Sort of like crime maps, but at world scale.
What exactly do we (America) gain from doing a drone strike against your average 'terrorist' (I'll be generous and use their terminology). At this point the idea that we're there to control the oil is past its time. Many of these countries have pretty much nothing we can't get elsewhere. Is it just about projecting power? Paying military contractors? Some sick game.
I truly don't believe that our government is stocked with wannabe murderers but clearly we commit murder at a distance with this drone program. I just can't figure out why we do it.
I truly don't believe that our government is stocked with wannabe murderers but clearly we commit murder at a distance with this drone program. I just can't figure out why we do it.
I was reading this[0] yesterday which fleetingly mentioned "RAND’s data is incomplete, as it doesn’t include statistics on drone strikes and from Army attack helicopters"
[0]https://warisboring.com/the-explosive-rise-in-a-10-warthog-s...
[0]https://warisboring.com/the-explosive-rise-in-a-10-warthog-s...
I like methodology they used to estimate number of airstrikes.
This is why the US should get out of foreign affairs and tell hostile nations they are not allowed to communicate with the US unless they want an actual war.
Deadly airstrikes? no shit
War! What is it good for?
Profit and population control, mainly.
Personally, I fail to see how that would be (except for stock holders of arms companies etc). Surely the American state would save a ton of money by having their army shrunk by 1/3.
Population control? Is the US worried about there being too dense population of arabs in the world? I don't think that's true - and not for when they waged war in Korea or Vietnam either.
Seems to me war is only good for absolutely nothing.
Population control? Is the US worried about there being too dense population of arabs in the world? I don't think that's true - and not for when they waged war in Korea or Vietnam either.
Seems to me war is only good for absolutely nothing.
this is not hacker news. if I wanted this dribble, I would have stayed on Slashdot.
If you feel a submission is inappropriate for HN, flag and move on. If you're new to HN, adding comments like this is just adding noise. Similar to the guidelines regarding comparing HN to Reddit, please refrain from making comments on HN submission quality until you've been around for a while.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
One man's terrorist is another man's hero. The U.S routinely bombs other sovereign countries and this is show cased as a "hero" activity. If the bombed people retaliate, they are terrorists. The truth is not black/white. Same way U.S data surveillance is OK but same thing done by China is seen as backward regime.