Julian Assange, Swedish Law and the unholy alliance of the left and right!

Quick note: the posts that branch off into a discussion of the financial crisis have been moved into the following thread which, amusingly enough, Pidzilla also started.

The U.S. government takeover of Fannie and Freddy

I cut them off right at the post where I first quoted Pidzilla about it, since removing his post would remove a lot of content pertinent to this topic. Carry on and all that.

With all due respect to all Americans here, but I don't think you get it.

The American troops are endangering the lives of Iraqi and Afghan civilians every day. The effects that war have on civilian lives in these areas are almost completely ignored by mainstream media. What Wikileaks has done is trying lift up the atrocities that civilians are experiencing to the surface. They could have used better methods doing this, it's really not okay that lives of single individuals are threatened, but basically - I think it's good. What you view as "endangering the lives of American troops" I view as a chance to civilian living conditions improving.

I read somewhere that during WWI 10 % of all casualties were civilians - in the Iraq war it's between 80 - 90 %. This is war. If people could really comprehend what war means - what it really means - for the people living in the places where war is fought, do you think they would allow it? In the Collateral Murder video (leaked, if my memory serves me right, by Wikileaks) one of the soldiers say something like "That's what you get for bringing your children to a war scene". These children live there!

There is a Danish documentary called Armadillo (2010) by Janus Metz Pedersen. The team closely follows a group of Danish soldiers stationed in Helmand, southern Afghanistan. They even follow the group when they engage in battle with the Talibans. The film is shocking in many ways, but what made me the most depressed is how the civilians are always pushed aside. The military doesn't seem to understand that people who end up being killed in the middle of it all - not to mention having their crop being destroyed, their homes blown up and their cattle killed - will not cooperate. Especially not since they know that the minute the western soldiers are gone, the Talibans will enter the scene and threaten to kill them.

It's hell. Anyone trying to expose this will get my admiration at some point.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

Yeah, war is terrible and civilians who live there get killed. So what do you want us to do in Afghanistan, let the Taliban come back to power, a lunatic regime who beats women on the streets if they are not completely covered and allow Al Quaeda to operate freely?

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

OK, I don't really want to get into this, but do you really think that's why you're there? For the civillians? I think the word I'm looking for is "pur-leese". Type "civilians" into google images.

I'll link this, rather than post the video.

http://www.puppetgov.com/2010/04/05/...94-full-video/

We're there for the second reason, but they are also horrible people that you can't reason with or make deals. They would still be beating up their women if they didn't allow Ben Laden free reign there. But now that we're there the idea we would leave and allow them to return to power is untenable.

Yeah, we've had this exact discussion about a dozen times over the years: someone points out some of the humanitarian benefits of the invasion, and someone sarcastically asks "you think we're not there for oil/this/that"? The problems with this are: 1) intention doesn't change result, so this doesn't counter the initial observation and 2) like anything in geopolitics, it's kind of absurd to pretend there's one single reason. It may be naive to think that we're only there for humanitarian reasons, but it's hopelessly cynical to think that didn't play any role at all, either.

I wasn't being sarcastic. I was genuinely asking if he really thought that's why they were there.

Also, with your second point, that's really just a debaters argument. A technicallity. If I see someone I don't like on the ground in pain and give them a good kicking, then I can list "helping them get closer to the hospital" as a reason of my actions. You may as well claim that the deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq are a way of helping with the world's population problem. That's also true... Technically.

"Pur-leese" wasn't sarcastic?

I already addressed this in my second point. It's only a "technicality" if you assume total indifference or callousness towards the humanitarian aspects, as you've done in that analogy. I don't. I don't think we'd go to war over humanitarian reasons alone (not usually), but I also find it similarly absurd to dismiss them as having played no part.

Also, the analogy would break down in scale, anyway, seeing as how you can't kick someone any appreciably helpful distance to a hospital, but invading a country and overthrowing some tyrant (or tyrannical organization) does bring with it the very real possibility of something better taking its place.

It breaks down again when you consider that the humanitarian reasons were often raised up-front as one of the action's justifications, and not retro-fitted after the fact, as a startling number of people seem to believe.

The helpful thing about your analogy, to me, is that it applies pretty well to the actual topic of this thread: Wikileaks.

One more thing worth noting: it still wouldn't be a meaningless technicality if the discussion were, in fact, about the actual merits and effects of the invasion. Arguing for results over intentions is arguing real-world consequences, as opposed to pure politics. It's arguing from intention rather than effect that feels far more like a "debater's argument," if you ask me.

"Pur-leese" wasn't really meant sarcastically so much as with incredulity. However, even if that were, the question would (and was) still genuine.

The analogy of kicking someone an "appreciably helpful distance to a hospital" was kind of the point. That's exactly how influencial helping the population of Afghanistan and, moreso IMO, Iraq was in the decision to invade the countries.

The United States tries to minimize casualties as much as they can. They really do. Part of it is PR, but nonetheless the effort is made, which the other side does not do. But it is war and civilians are there and they get killed. The United Staes doesn't war on nice regimes (they are never democracies) so getting the bad guys out and making sure they don't come back always brings with it a humanitarian component.

[quote=Piddzilla;710335]The American troops are endangering the lives of Iraqi and Afghan civilians every day.{/quote]
With due respect, American troops wouldn't even be there if the Iraqis and Afghans had been able to control the terrorist gangs, war lords, and despots that had taken control of those countries and turned them into terrorist bases and training centers for terrorists to attack other countries.

Since there are Iraqis and Afghans opposed to the previous leaders who are cooperating with and even assisting US troops in those countries, why is it solely the fault of US troops?

How much of the fault lies with the Iraqi and Afghan terrorists and jahadists who hide out among their own people, thus exposing them to the danger of return fire when they fire upon US troops? It's just like in Vietnam when the Vietcong exposed their own people to danger and executed those who didn't support them, including those who just wanted to be left alone. What's the breakdown between the Iraqis and Afghans killed by US troops vs. those who were killed by their own people? Do you have any statistics that show which side is the biggest danger to the local population or do you automatically blame Americans?

What's the source of your statistics, and does it break it down into those killed by Iraqis and those killed by Americans? That percentage sounds unrealistic to me.

Remember too that World War I was one of the biggest wars ever fought with tens of millions killed in all, plus more who died of disease. So 10% would be a great number more civilians dying in that war than in Iraq and Afghan put together.

The "Collateral Murder" tag offends me as much as the soldier's comment offends you. However, the average age of combat soldiers is low, as is their education level. Many are given to tough talk if only to cover their own fear. And there is often a bunker mentality of us and them. Did that film also show US medics treating sick and wounded Iraqis and Afghans and young soldiers building schools and hospitals for the people? Or was it looking only for bad examples? Are you interested in only one side's story?

I doubt many US soldiers would stay in Iraq or Afghanistan if they had a chance to go home. None of them wanted to go to those countries anyway. But unlike the Taliban, the US troops will go home some day because we're not interested in bulding an empire. In every foreign war this country has ever fought, it has turned the nation over to the rightful rulers and pulled out. It will then be up the Iraqis and Afghans whether those countries rise or fall. And any casualties from that point will be self-inflicted, just like all the local people who were being killed by the likes of Saddam before the Allies stepped in to stop it.

Right, and my response is that the analogy isn't very helpful because in it there's not even any incidental benefit to the person on the ground, whatever you think about the person doing the "kicking." If you've decided to only care about this aspect of things, then sure, it adds up; but it's that decision that I'm taking issue with.

Anyway, I find this to be an awfully cynical view, and ultimately no better than the naivete of thinking we did it only for such reasons. Both are extreme, reductionist positions that always seem to reflect whatever the person thought of the people in charge to begin with.

If you're inclined to think the absolute worst about the people who invaded these countries -- even if that basically turns them into two-dimensional Disney villains -- then you've sealed yourself off pretty nicely from any disagreements. Can't argue much with someone speculating about unknowables.

I wasn't saying we were there because the Taliban beats women. I was pointing out the alternative to leaving is an unacceptable group would return to power and among the many bad things they would do is beat up women on the streets again.

unacceptable to who Will?

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

In a Disney movie only one side would be the villain. Disney wouldn't cast the Taliban as heroes.

The women they beat up on?

And of couse to the United States because Al Qaeda would be able to operate freely again and regroup. They currently are still causing mischief, but not at the same level as before.

apply the same standard to the citizens of Afghanistan though Chris.

Clearly their history as a people informs us they do not care to be occupied by a foreign force.

Will, would a foreign power been justified in invading America in the 60's based on the treatment of Black folks?

Would that have been okey dokey with you?

whats the difference?

No doubt. I don't think we even need to look a nation's history; I take it as a given that almost every nation does not care to be occupied by a foreign force.

Segregation, awful and stupid as it is, is not in the same ballpark as a brutal, sometimes murderous theocracy that supports terrorism. That's not meant to play down Jim Crow laws; wrong is wrong, but we're talking about two wildly different things here for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that racism is not a direct physical threat to other countries in the way terrorism is.

There's also a difference between injustice in a free and open society, and a nation which is simply dominated by its oppressors. A free society has the mechanisms with which to correct these injustices itself, and the 60s, we were already starting to do this. If we'd been ruled by a dictator who was stalling that progress and/or imposing the prejudice of a narrow few over the will of the people, the two situations might warrant a comparison.

I already said we didn't invade Afghanistan because of their treatment of women, but now we are there we shouldn't allow the Taliban to return for a lot of reasons other than Al Qaeda.