EPTbtw the obvious reason for not giving out this information has a lot more to do with stirring up hatred for our occupying forces and a lot less to do with worrying about public opinion declining because civilians are dying. People don't care about the civilians of a country they are at war with as much as they care about their soldier's lives. That's true for any country, not just the USA (believe it or not)
Wikileaks - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BlackJack
United States10439 Posts
btw the obvious reason for not giving out this information has a lot more to do with stirring up hatred for our occupying forces and a lot less to do with worrying about public opinion declining because civilians are dying. People don't care about the civilians of a country they are at war with as much as they care about their soldier's lives. That's true for any country, not just the USA (believe it or not) | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
In the now-immortal words of Julian Assange "I enjoy crushing bastards." | ||
|
angelicfolly
United States292 Posts
On July 27 2010 15:18 QibingZero wrote: This is not only preeminently important information, but also great news if it has it's intended effect (more support lost for an immoral and unnecessary war which eventually leads to it's end). There's a strange dichotomy here: sadness going through so many logs of (especially civilian) deaths; yet joy in that this information puts a lot of pressure on the warmongers, and might actually change something for the better. In the now-immortal words of Julian Assange "I enjoy crushing bastards." Did you even read where those documents are coming from? Afghanistan is NOT an immoral war, and was not an unnecessary war. Iraq was an mistake but Afghan was not. | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On July 27 2010 05:37 travis wrote: What are you trying to say, exactly? I couldn't figure out your stance on the releasing/reporting of this information based on your post. My opinion is that war should have bad PR as it's FUCKING TERRIBLE. We exist in a world where some people think that the death/suffering of children and other innocents is simply bad PR. Mind = blown. | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On July 27 2010 15:30 angelicfolly wrote: Did you even read where those documents are coming from? Afghanistan is NOT an immoral war, and was not an unnecessary war. Iraq was an mistake but Afghan was not. That's your opinion, not fact. I'm more than well aware of where this information comes from, and I happen to think that this war (not unlike Iraq as well, of course) was both immoral and unnecessary. Neither offensive or "preemptive" war, in my mind, is ever justified. Even so, the rationale leading up to the war wasn't even close to satisfactory anyway. If you actually want bin Laden (and I think all reasonable people supported him being captured and put to trial), taking over a country is not the way to do it. Most of the world at the time of action understood this, and - though they sympathized with America - did not want to support the war. Of course the war would never end on these type of principles, as America is a warlike nation. It's only when a war starts going badly or actually affects themselves that the citizenry start caring about ending it. | ||
|
angelicfolly
United States292 Posts
On July 27 2010 15:52 QibingZero wrote: That's your opinion, not fact. I'm more than well aware of where this information comes from, and I happen to think that this war (not unlike Iraq as well, of course) was both immoral and unnecessary. Neither offensive or "preemptive" war, in my mind, is ever justified. Even so, the rationale leading up to the war wasn't even close to satisfactory anyway. If you actually want bin Laden (and I think all reasonable people supported him being captured and put to trial), taking over a country is not the way to do it. Most of the world at the time of action understood this, and - though they sympathized with America - did not want to support the war. Of course the war would never end on these type of principles, as America is a warlike nation. It's only when a war starts going badly or actually affects themselves that the citizenry start caring about ending it. Yeah my opinion, but due note if you really want to play that, you remain on the same field as me. How so? I"m curious to why, but I do think I know what you're hinting at (in it being "immoral" and "unjust"). Sorry but Afghan was not "preemptive" and was a result of an attack on OUR SOIL. Sorry again, but we didn't go over there to take over a country, if you would note that Taliban and al-Qaeda where not exactly enemies to one another. With that said, Just taking Bin-Laden out would not resolve the problem. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On July 27 2010 15:52 QibingZero wrote: That's your opinion, not fact. I'm more than well aware of where this information comes from, and I happen to think that this war (not unlike Iraq as well, of course) was both immoral and unnecessary. Neither offensive or "preemptive" war, in my mind, is ever justified. Even so, the rationale leading up to the war wasn't even close to satisfactory anyway. If you actually want bin Laden (and I think all reasonable people supported him being captured and put to trial), taking over a country is not the way to do it. Most of the world at the time of action understood this, and - though they sympathized with America - did not want to support the war. Of course the war would never end on these type of principles, as America is a warlike nation. It's only when a war starts going badly or actually affects themselves that the citizenry start caring about ending it. How exactly was the war in afghanistan offensive OR preemptive? Additionally, most of the world had quite a different opinion than you did, according to the UN resolutions passed. The Taliban wasn't just hiding Bin Laden at the time when the attacks occured; they were ruling over a famine state dependent on foreign aid which was mass producing opium and heroin for sale abroad. The Taliban had been flouting international pressure for close to a decade, and when their poster child, the target of prior resolutions, attempted to fly planes into the economic, military and political nerve centers of the states, something had to be done. | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
Compared to the Soviet invasion this is, of course, almost a humanitarian holiday. One may want to take a look at how a real army does things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#Damage_to_Afghanistan Perspective on the conduct of war is always good. | ||
|
FieryBalrog
United States1381 Posts
On July 26 2010 23:04 mmp wrote: We were bombing Afghanistan days after 9/11. On top of that, there was never any hard evidence presented to the UN or to the Afghan government that Bin Laden financed or played a role in planning 9/11. It was something we all just sort of assumed, and the international community didn't feel it was worth challenging in the wake of 9/11. Yes and no. You first assume that your enemy cannot be negotiated with and must be annihilated. Once you've dehumanized the opposition, any atrocity is permitted. The Taliban have done a good job dehumanizing themselves. On July 26 2010 23:04 mmp wrote: The situation on the ground in Afghanistan is effectively two brutal and unpopular groups vying for power over a nation that cannot decide which side is the lesser evil - perhaps whichever side slaughters them less vehemently is the side they'll back. This is a ridiculously facile analysis of the situation. There is no "side" that "they" will "back". Each of those words is nonsense. In fact this whole paragraph is nonsense. The situation in Afghanistan is complex. Its a complicated region that is essentially an artificial state that was created by the British with an arbitrary line that divided the Pashtuns in half and created a massive tension between the tribal force of attraction and the repulsive force of nation state boundaries. In fact the Taliban are a Pakistani creation and the whole situation begins on that foundation. There are half a dozen other tribes and the nation has never been really stable- and has collapsed completely since the 1979 Soviet invasion, which is the root cause of the present situation. So there is no "they", and it isn't a choice between "sides". On July 26 2010 23:04 mmp wrote: Personally, I don't give a damn about American strategic interests if it means slaughtering an innocent people who deserve far better given their troubled history. Reducing the conflict to "slaughtering an innocent people" is another facile escape from the complex reality on the ground. Its a retreat to a nice black and white morality of evil imperialists vs innocent civilians. | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On July 27 2010 16:08 angelicfolly wrote: Yeah my opinion, but due note if you really want to play that, you remain on the same field as me. How so? I"m curious to why, but I do think I know what you're hinting at (in it being "immoral" and "unjust"). Sorry but Afghan was not "preemptive" and was a result of an attack on OUR SOIL. Sorry again, but we didn't go over there to take over a country, if you would note that Taliban and al-Qaeda where not exactly enemies to one another. With that said, Just taking Bin-Laden out would not resolve the problem. Yeah, not much is going to come of this if you're seriously claiming Afghanistan attacked the US. I'll expand on this below. On July 27 2010 16:14 L wrote: How exactly was the war in afghanistan offensive OR preemptive? Additionally, most of the world had quite a different opinion than you did, according to the UN resolutions passed. The Taliban wasn't just hiding Bin Laden at the time when the attacks occured; they were ruling over a famine state dependent on foreign aid which was mass producing opium and heroin for sale abroad. The Taliban had been flouting international pressure for close to a decade, and when their poster child, the target of prior resolutions, attempted to fly planes into the economic, military and political nerve centers of the states, something had to be done. How wasn't the war in Afghanistan offensive or preemptive? Offensive - We assault a country. We were not defending ourselves as Afghanistan had not attacked us. A man, in Afghanistan as a "guest" (he has no citizenship after losing his Saudi), organizes a terrorist attack on the US, in which none of the hijackers are actually Afghan. How does this give us rationale to 'defend ourselves' against Afghanistan? Preemptive - If any part of the rationale mentions the possibility of another attack if we do not attack Afghanistan, it falls under preemptive. Why was there such urgency to attack? I don't see any other explanation offered. Now, as for popular opinion, there were polls done at the time which showed only three countries (US, Israel, India) of 37 surveyed supported war over diplomatic options {see here}. By the way, there was no UN resolution passed supporting the war. Obviously the resolutions condemned the attacks of 9/11, and supported bringing those involved in it's planning and execution to justice. They also offered support of a popular effort within Afghanistan for regime change. However, none supported war or the initial US invasion, and the UN only became involved after the Taliban was displaced. And the idea that the Taliban was so bad that it had to be disposed of is a troublesome argument. Now you're talking about war for supposedly humane reasons, which gets convoluted very quickly. Where do you draw the line? We should technically be intervening on humanitarian reasons in dozens of other countries if we accept the premise. There are so many other questions, too. Is the loss of innocent lives worth the potential gain in livelihood later? Will the population even support the open state and 'civilization' we're forcing upon them? (this is a fucked up white man's burden...) Is it possible to succeed in such an endeavor, even if we were to somehow agree on the morality? | ||
|
angelicfolly
United States292 Posts
On July 27 2010 17:11 QibingZero wrote: Yeah, not much is going to come of this if you're seriously claiming Afghanistan attacked the US. I'll expand on this below. How wasn't the war in Afghanistan offensive or preemptive? Offensive - We assault a country. We were not defending ourselves as Afghanistan had not attacked us. A man, in Afghanistan as a "guest" (he has no citizenship after losing his Saudi), organizes a terrorist attack on the US, in which none of the hijackers are actually Afghan. How does this give us rationale to 'defend ourselves' against Afghanistan? Preemptive - If any part of the rationale mentions the possibility of another attack if we do not attack Afghanistan, it falls under preemptive. Why was there such urgency to attack? I don't see any other explanation offered. Now, as for popular opinion, there were polls done at the time which showed only three countries (US, Israel, India) of 37 surveyed supported war over diplomatic options {see here}. By the way, there was no UN resolution passed supporting the war. Obviously the resolutions condemned the attacks of 9/11, and supported bringing those involved in it's planning and execution to justice. They also offered support of a popular effort within Afghanistan for regime change. However, none supported war or the initial US invasion, and the UN only became involved after the Taliban was displaced. And the idea that the Taliban was so bad that it had to be disposed of is a troublesome argument. Now you're talking about war for supposedly humane reasons, which gets convoluted very quickly. Where do you draw the line? We should technically be intervening on humanitarian reasons in dozens of other countries if we accept the premise. There are so many other questions, too. Is the loss of innocent lives worth the potential gain in livelihood later? Will the population even support the open state and 'civilization' we're forcing upon them? (this is a fucked up white man's burden...) Is it possible to succeed in such an endeavor, even if we were to somehow agree on the morality? Playing semantics? Taliban ruled the country. They supported Al Qeada. This is such a key thing you are not seeing. I wonder where did I say Afghan attacked us? I do quite remember only saying this. Sorry but Afghan was not "preemptive" and was a result of an attack on OUR SOIL. We went after the people we where supposed to. What you don't get is that Taliban and Al Qaeda ruled Afghan, thus semantics. Again, we did go after the people who hit the twin towers. You would be kidding yourself if you think just taking out Bin Laden is just going to fix everything. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was BASED IN AFGHAN, which was SUPPORTED by the Taliban. To put it bluntly it's irrelevant what their nationalities are when their base of operations is primarily based and supported by the "local government". The rationale was it was war and we did NOT want another tragedy like 9/11, Which leads to another point. You really seem to forget that Al Qaeda did not want to stop killing Americans, and actually still to this day tries to. Hence if you really want this route preemptive. the explanation was given and it was a true one. You really think ,"asking nicely", that the Taliban would give Bin Laden over? You really think it's ok to kill 3000 civilians just like that, and then ask nicely for the guy? You really think we had no right to go after the ORGANIZATION that planned that? Honestly I have few words for this, and really at this point do not care for such polling. Frankly I do not find the killing of 3000 US Civilians (and mind you internationals) something that should be passed over like it was a everyday crime. It was an act of War and that's it. Actually it's not our job but the UN JOB to stop such things, but do they do it no. With that said, we do so provide humanitarian aid whenever possible. Hey it's not like the Taliban where not killing/enslaving the people... Will the population even support the open state and 'civilization' we're forcing upon them? (this is a fucked up white man's burden...) What do you mean here? | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On July 27 2010 17:11 QibingZero wrote: Yeah, not much is going to come of this if you're seriously claiming Afghanistan attacked the US. I'll expand on this below. How wasn't the war in Afghanistan offensive or preemptive? Offensive - We assault a country. We were not defending ourselves as Afghanistan had not attacked us. A man, in Afghanistan as a "guest" (he has no citizenship after losing his Saudi), organizes a terrorist attack on the US, in which none of the hijackers are actually Afghan. How does this give us rationale to 'defend ourselves' against Afghanistan? Preemptive - If any part of the rationale mentions the possibility of another attack if we do not attack Afghanistan, it falls under preemptive. Why was there such urgency to attack? I don't see any other explanation offered. Now, as for popular opinion, there were polls done at the time which showed only three countries (US, Israel, India) of 37 surveyed supported war over diplomatic options {see here}. By the way, there was no UN resolution passed supporting the war. Obviously the resolutions condemned the attacks of 9/11, and supported bringing those involved in it's planning and execution to justice. They also offered support of a popular effort within Afghanistan for regime change. However, none supported war or the initial US invasion, and the UN only became involved after the Taliban was displaced. And the idea that the Taliban was so bad that it had to be disposed of is a troublesome argument. Now you're talking about war for supposedly humane reasons, which gets convoluted very quickly. Where do you draw the line? We should technically be intervening on humanitarian reasons in dozens of other countries if we accept the premise. There are so many other questions, too. Is the loss of innocent lives worth the potential gain in livelihood later? Will the population even support the open state and 'civilization' we're forcing upon them? (this is a fucked up white man's burden...) Is it possible to succeed in such an endeavor, even if we were to somehow agree on the morality? The 9/11 attacks were not committed by a man. They were committed by an organization headed by said man. AQ's links to the Taliban were solid and well known; there had been UN resolutions passed 3 years prior to the invasion demanding that the Taliban cease aiding Bin Laden and stop funding AQ (with, might I add, drug money). These weren't random guests, and the Taliban knew what was going on. The 9/11 attacks weren't the only attacks committed by Al Qaeda, nor were they the only attacks committed while they were stationed in Afghanistan. The 1998 US embassy bombings, for instance, happened prior with much less fanfare. Over the course of 3 years, the Taliban systematically refused to revoke AQ's safe haven and offer Bin Laden and other top officers in AQ up for trial. The best part, however, is that the plan to execute the 9/11 attack commenced as a response to international diplomatic sanctions against Afghanistan. Diplomatic measures weren't just ineffective; they were incendiary. The nearly month long refusal from the Taliban to hand over Bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks were similarly not the result of any diplomatic failure; intelligence evidence suggests that the Taliban were actively using the time to shuttle Bin Laden to the Pakistan border. So no, this wasn't offensive. There was a first strike against the US which the US responded to. Diplomatically, the Taliban had been at the bargaining table for almost half a decade, then their proxy decided it was a good idea to attempt to symbolically neuter the world's lone superpower. Nor was it pre-emptive; The attack had been committed already. Not every war which takes place on the soil of another country is both offensive and pre-emptive. I frankly can't accept that for obvious reasons. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On July 27 2010 16:28 FieryBalrog wrote: The Taliban have done a good job dehumanizing themselves. This is a ridiculously facile analysis of the situation. There is no "side" that "they" will "back". Each of those words is nonsense. In fact this whole paragraph is nonsense. The situation in Afghanistan is complex. Its a complicated region that is essentially an artificial state that was created by the British with an arbitrary line that divided the Pashtuns in half and created a massive tension between the tribal force of attraction and the repulsive force of nation state boundaries. In fact the Taliban are a Pakistani creation and the whole situation begins on that foundation. There are half a dozen other tribes and the nation has never been really stable- and has collapsed completely since the 1979 Soviet invasion, which is the root cause of the present situation. So there is no "they", and it isn't a choice between "sides". Reducing the conflict to "slaughtering an innocent people" is another facile escape from the complex reality on the ground. Its a retreat to a nice black and white morality of evil imperialists vs innocent civilians. Which one of us is departing from reality by dismissing the human cost of warfare? I think the more you study the issue and its complexity, the more you'll realize that a campaign that legitimizes such "collateral damage" is not just morally bankrupt from the start, but it cannot be a means to an end benefiting Afghans. No on liked Taliban rule, but you need to appraise a sovereign government by the country's historic and geographic context. What Afghanistan needed and still needs is nation-building and public works - something that can be funded by working with the government of the day. Now there is zero leadership, and attempts at improving quality of life are opportunities for a fragmented resistance to strike and reject authority. We have our military hubris to thank for this mess. | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10439 Posts
| ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On July 27 2010 20:19 EtherealDeath wrote: wtf is going on in this thread... isn't the most relevant news from this leak the fact that US intelligence knows that Pakistan is playing both sides, and actively aiding the Taliban against the US? But still they send money and aid to to Pakistan. | ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
On July 27 2010 16:08 angelicfolly wrote: Yeah my opinion, but due note if you really want to play that, you remain on the same field as me. How so? I"m curious to why, but I do think I know what you're hinting at (in it being "immoral" and "unjust"). Sorry but Afghan was not "preemptive" and was a result of an attack on OUR SOIL. Sorry again, but we didn't go over there to take over a country, if you would note that Taliban and al-Qaeda where not exactly enemies to one another. With that said, Just taking Bin-Laden out would not resolve the problem. "Bush rejects Taliban offer to surrender bin Laden" After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush. Source Now i call that unjust.. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
I think Ellsberg did a heroic thing at the time, but for all the fuss we make about it today, most of the public really didn't give a damn when the NYT first started printing them. The only reason it remained a story was because of Nixon's rage and ensuing Watergate scandal. Had the Whitehouse simply controlled the story, it would've died. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On July 27 2010 17:56 angelicfolly wrote: Taliban ruled the country. They supported Al Qeada. This is such a key thing you are not seeing. I wonder where did I say Afghan attacked us? I do quite remember only saying this. Sorry but Afghan was not "preemptive" and was a result of an attack on OUR SOIL. We went after the people we where supposed to. What you don't get is that Taliban and Al Qaeda ruled Afghan, thus semantics. Again, we did go after the people who hit the twin towers. You would be kidding yourself if you think just taking out Bin Laden is just going to fix everything. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda was BASED IN AFGHAN, which was SUPPORTED by the Taliban. To put it bluntly it's irrelevant what their nationalities are when their base of operations is primarily based and supported by the "local government". The rationale was it was war and we did NOT want another tragedy like 9/11, Which leads to another point. You really seem to forget that Al Qaeda did not want to stop killing Americans, and actually still to this day tries to. Hence if you really want this route preemptive. the explanation was given and it was a true one. You really think ,"asking nicely", that the Taliban would give Bin Laden over? You really think it's ok to kill 3000 civilians just like that, and then ask nicely for the guy? You really think we had no right to go after the ORGANIZATION that planned that? Honestly I have few words for this, and really at this point do not care for such polling. Frankly I do not find the killing of 3000 US Civilians (and mind you internationals) something that should be passed over like it was a everyday crime. It was an act of War and that's it. Actually it's not our job but the UN JOB to stop such things, but do they do it no. With that said, we do so provide humanitarian aid whenever possible. Hey it's not like the Taliban where not killing/enslaving the people... What do you mean here? You appear to be stumbling over your own emphasis, so I'll try to correct you. 1. The Taliban did not attack us. Afghanistan did not attack us. A Saudi-based and Saudi-funded organization was likely responsible, but there is in fact no evidence in the public record to confirm that Bin Laden is anything more than a figurehead for militant revolutionaries in the Islamic world. Bin Laden himself bounced around numerous countries to base his thuggish activities, many of which countries turned him away or were politically pressured into exiling him. The fact that he found a home in Afghanistan Taliban speaks more to general weakness and nodding of the Taliban government to warlords and thugs so long as their authority is not challenged. Bin Laden likely provided money or services for their hospitality, but to say that the Afghan government was run by international terrorists is very wrong. 2. You need to put your outrage when damage is done to Americans into context alongside the outrage of the entire Islamic world when America treats with dictators, bombs civilians, refuses to take the moral high ground on Israel-Palestine, and has historically viewed Central Asia as little more than a Cold War strategic theater. 3. No human life is worth any less than an American life. If you're even cognizant of the amount of blood on our hands, to call "collateral damage" necessary if it means protecting American lives is nothing short of racist. You need to put your national ego aside and turn the other cheek - bombing poor people isn't going to solve anything. 4. While the government would like us foaming at the mouth for revenge against Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda in fact is a fictitious entity - a name invented by US intelligence to summarize the amalgamation of radical-Islamic groups that exist throughout Africa, the Middle East, and all the way to Southeast Asia. These groups are vile in their own back yards, but at home we have more to fear from our own governments that would use the scourge of terrorism to distract the public from far more important domestic issues, all while feeding into a bloated military industry. You can also see this in Russia, Pakistan, and other traditionally oppressive regimes that have become our allies in the War on Terror - labeling longtime political dissidents and opposition groups as terrorists and receiving millions to billions in aid from America to oppress their own people. 5. Not to diminish the deaths of 3000 Americans, but you're far more likely to die in America from lack of proper medical care, or on account of pollution impacting your health than from terrorism. Roughly 50% of your tax dollars go to war (which wars are responsible for upwards of a million unreported civilian deaths), and in a time of fiscal crisis and politicians talking about cutting benefits and giving more to big corporations and tax breaks for the wealthy: you should be far more concerned about the direction your country is being mislead than the macho thrill of revenge on some red herrings and paper tigers. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
On July 27 2010 20:39 Jibba wrote: A thought occurred to me today, and it's a slightly depressing one. To those of you who think this leak is going to change the way wars are fought or will be a large burden on the US government, let me remind (or probably inform) you what happened when the Pentagon Papers were leaked: no one cared. I think Ellsberg did a heroic thing at the time, but for all the fuss we make about it today, most of the public really didn't give a damn when the NYT first started printing them. The only reason it remained a story was because of Nixon's rage and ensuing Watergate scandal. Had the Whitehouse simply controlled the story, it would've died. Ellsberg is on record saying that his only regret about releasing the Pentagon papers was that he released them too late, that they should have been out years prior when they might have made a difference. And yet he still made Nixon's list... | ||
| ||
