The government classified away crucial information from the American public under the guise of "national security", which has somehow become a passcode to violate the Constitution at will. Things like the fact that the Afghan regime American taxpayers are propping up have huge corrupt narcotics dealers holding sway over a "weak" president, and the fact that the DEA has grown to such massive lengths that politicians feel comfortable asking the agency to eavesdrop on their political opponents, are things the American people in no way, shape, or form, should know about.
Thanks, rhad. A couple hundred thousand dead civilians have a way of making such noble ideals seem like dollar-store tinsel. And so, throughout our decade-long foreign policy debacle in the Greater Middle East, we in the U.S. have generally agreed that no one shall commit the gaucherie of dwelling on (and “dwelling on” = fleetingly mentioned) civilian casualties. Yeah it i so rude to point out their deaths. Even ruder to point out that a strong majoirty of Iraqis hate us for what we did to their country. BTW feminism has not been advanced either in Iraq.
Has glynch ever "fleetingly mentioned" anything? More Iraqis died under Saddam post '91 than since the intervention, and at least there is now hope of a better future. Ask the Kurds how much they hate the intervention (unless you exclude them for some reason in your undocumented assertion of "strong majority"). Interesting as well that the article fails to mention that 80% (undoubtedly undercounts, in fact) are attributed to insurgents, not the UN/NATO or US. Nor is there an alternative discussed other than glynch who at least admits he would have left the Taliban in place and not reacted at all post 9/11 to Al Qaeda's safe haven (raise your hand if that sounds like a great idea). That a military making war kills people doesn't negate the danger of one individual deciding to release en mass classified information. It's a non sequitur. Simply put you could protest one or the other, both, or neither. Manning's type of disclosure risks igniting conflict at the macro level, or at a minimum reducing cooperation between nation states which risks a MUCH larger impact.
If we had Wikileaks back then, it would have been nice to have shown how aligned America was with Saddam way back when, even when his murderous tendancies were fairly obvious. Sadly, those documents are still classified. in summary, obscured aspects of American foreign policy that leaders try to hide by classification are by and large, a massive clusterf**k that taxpayers should know about.
A good read from Peter Van Buren on Obama's stupefying war on whistleblowers. Excerpt: Most transparent admin ever...
Um, yeah actually it is true. You can have those killed since the second intervention. Weigh them vs those killed by Saddam since the first intervention and by sanctions. You come up short by a wide margin. Your worldview just collapses on itself, glynch. You claim to support self determination but then cry like chicken little at some of the results. Didn't say the Kurds were a majority. I said they were wholly in support of the intervention. Add their 20% to the shia support and you don't get your asserted "vast majority" against claim. Try and pay attention. Doesn't change the fact that your assertion that "we" are killing all these people is incorrect. Not sure what impact this has on my point. You're still way behind in the comparison of total deaths pre vs post intervention. AND the pre intervention deaths would have continued into the foreseeable future as compared to the potential for the violence to die down now that Saddam is gone. Your arg is just a straight loser. Sanction deaths post the first war until the second intervention go in my column, chief. In your world we'd still have sanctions instead of the interventions, and we'd still be seeing that death count rise. We aren't as a direct result of the intervention. Gobble, gobble, little turkey. Anecdotal at best. Not hard to find Iraqis thankful for the intervention. To put it bluntly, your conversations (even if they could be verified) are fairly worthless in evaluating policy). Nope. They are better off without Saddam, the world is better off with a state sponsor of terrorism, without a leader that liked to play brinksmanship (poorly), without a leader that tortured and killed his own people at a tremendous rate, without a leader that necessitated UN sanctions that were killing millions of his own people, without a leader that used biochemical weapons and wanted to acquire nuclear weapons, and who invaded his neighbors. Weigh that against the deaths from the intervention and deaths attributable to US military action - It's pretty simple to continue to get it right.
Yadayadayada War is always simple for a neo-con type. The sanctions weren't necessary. Neither was the war. WMD's!!! OMG Where have you been. Still think they existed. haha, but sad it a way, too
Not unreported, but under-reported. If the media would hammer people with important news like they do when a pretty white girl dies then the country would be in better shape. The Soviet Union wished they had a propaganda machine as powerful as our current media.
I note the mainstream press is less than interested in reporting on Bradley's trial (over 1000 days after his incarceration). In case you have not heard, he pled guilty to 10 of the 20+ charges. He did not plead guilty to "aiding the enemy". You can find his statement (or what was allowed released of it) online.
