Golden quote from McFuckface Wikileak rapist who is hiding from the law:

But there is a responsible tradition of redacting potentially harmful private information. In 2010, just before publishing the first Afghan war logs provided to WikiLeaks by Chelsea Manning, Mr. Assange and a group of journalists from The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel were engaged in a tussle over redacting the names of Afghan informants. The three publications all decided to do so, but Mr. Assange disagreed. As he told Nick Davies of The Guardian, “If an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/08/opinion/can-we-trust-julian-assange-and-wikileaks.html?emc=edit_ty_20160808&nl=opinion&nlid=40977923

>> ^moodonia:

Theres no way you can say Bush inherited Iraq from Clinton.
Iraq was "contained" (crippled militarily, economically and in terms of civilian infrastructure through sanctions), it was being bombed every other day by "coalition" forces and they gave Saddam the means to tighten his grip on the country after the rebellion (which they helped fail by allowing Saddam use his attack helicopters to crush it) through schemes like the oil for food program which gave Saddam plenty of things to dole out to supporters to keep them on side.
As we have seen the reason for the Iraq war was bullshit. They wanted Saddam gone and a friendly client in place so they could get that sweet, sweet oil revenue.
Same shit happening today "Iran is a threat" blah blah blah. When Iran was a democracy it had to be eliminated, cant let the natives get their hands on all that oil. So they put a bloody savage in power and were surprised when the people overthrew him.
Afghanistan is run by a hopelessly corrupt former oil executive. Coincidence? Anyone fancy a pipeline?
Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.
</rant>

>> ^bcglorf:
>>
So Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush, as Bush inherited them from Clinton, as Clinton inherited them from Bush, and so on.
Iraq was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Afghanistan was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Can we agree on that much?
I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?



Bush Jr. inherited Iraq from Clinton the same way Clinton inherited Iraq from Bush Sr.

While Clinton was in office, Iraq was still a major problem. You are very right about Clinton inheriting a mess from Bush Sr., and you hit the biggest point in how Bush Sr. failed to push into Baghdad the first time and instead allowed Saddam's gunships to gun down the Shia rebellion. Let's remember though it was the likes of Chomsky that were demanding that Bush Sr. stop short of Baghdad. In fact, if Chomsky's crowd had their way, Bush Sr. would've left Saddam in control of Kuwait as well. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was still actively refusing to allow inspectors to ensure his compliance with not pursuing WMD programs. Under Clinton's administration, Saddam was routinely violating the no-fly zone over northern Iraq, and actively firing on the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone. Clinton ignored the problem of Saddam, and largely hoped that sanctions would just make the problem go away. The same sanctions you rightly condemn. But what alternative do you propose? I prefer removing Saddam to maintaining sanctions that are crushing Iraqi's and if anythings, strengthening Saddam's local control. Chomsky seems to think just removing the sanctions and trying to be friends with Saddam was a better idea, I disagree. Clinton tried that with Kim Jong-Il, and tried to dissuade his nuclear ambitions by gifting him a pair of nuclear reactors if he'd just be nicer and not continue pursuing a nuclear program. That went just peachy.

Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.

It's not just powerful countries, it is all countries, and history teaches that this never has happened so you need to consider that it likely never will happen. With that reality, I'm content to settle for encouraging the special times when nation's selfish interests actually happen to coincide with the better interests of the local people as well. I think it very hard to argue that the absence of Saddam and the Taliban has not been such a gain. I think it even harder to argue that Libyan's haven't seen a similar gain. At the very least, I find those actions plainly and blatantly better than Clinton's era of doing nothing being in his national interest, while watching 800,000 Rwandans butchered while America had the resources to easily cut that death toll to almost nothing. Of course, if he had acted and only 200,000 Rwandans had died, Chomsky would be here today telling us why the blood of 200,000 Rwandans was on Clinton's hands...

Theres no way you can say Bush inherited Iraq from Clinton.

Iraq was "contained" (crippled militarily, economically and in terms of civilian infrastructure through sanctions), it was being bombed every other day by "coalition" forces and they gave Saddam the means to tighten his grip on the country after the rebellion (which they helped fail by allowing Saddam use his attack helicopters to crush it) through schemes like the oil for food program which gave Saddam plenty of things to dole out to supporters to keep them on side.

As we have seen the reason for the Iraq war was bullshit. They wanted Saddam gone and a friendly client in place so they could get that sweet, sweet oil revenue.

Same shit happening today "Iran is a threat" blah blah blah. When Iran was a democracy it had to be eliminated, cant let the natives get their hands on all that oil. So they put a bloody savage in power and were surprised when the people overthrew him.

Afghanistan is run by a hopelessly corrupt former oil executive. Coincidence? Anyone fancy a pipeline?

Nothing will every change until powerful countries stop looking at other countries resources' in terms of what they can loot.

</rant>


>> ^bcglorf:

>>
So Obama inherited Iraq and Afghanistan from Bush, as Bush inherited them from Clinton, as Clinton inherited them from Bush, and so on.
Iraq was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Afghanistan was a bad situation, every time it was passed down it was still a bad situation.
Can we agree on that much?
I presume so, and would then ask, what step do you believe in each generation should have been taken to make the bad situation better instead of making it worse?
Would having the Taliban in power in Afghanistan today, with Al Qaeada as their guests be better or worse?
Would having Saddam in power in Iraq today be better or worse?

everybody is to scared to even post a comment here?

he's only doing what real journalists should do, but since they are all embedded with the coalition forces only silence or propaganda is coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't really have any negative feelings about you either way, I met alot of troops like you in Kuwait already, they were all pissed they weren't fighting a conventional military force under a very vague mission statement of bringing Freedom and Democracy. Its hard to do anything when you have no definitive objective or exit strategy. Surprisingly to me a lot of them fell in love with the place and went native, but that happened in Vietnam and other conflicts as well.

The drug problem in Afghanistan is economical, when the Taliban took over they banned the drug trade with their usual heavy hand tactics, when chaos began the drug trade began all again. Culturally alot of people cultivated it for medicinal use, which explains my own rather liberal views towards drugs. But now mostly its a cash crop, for most its a means of survival though there are farms that are solely created to feed back funds into the Taliban movement and other warring factions. The old "its okay to grow this because it only destroys the infidel" ignoring the large drug abuse levels in the local population, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and many other nations through which it makes its way.

In terms of imposing culture I think alot of US military and political planners, coming from the top down Bush belief that "democracy will simply flourish given the chance" implemented alot of very silly political and economical ideas. I remember reading about the imposition of democratic elections in Iraq in rural tribal areas, the US civies where then shocked to find that everyone voted by tribal alliances and background. It's again a failure to read the human terrain of the battlefield in the same way we had occur in Vietnam.

This aspect is covered very well in several chapters of Dexter Filkins The Forever War - http://www.amazon.com/Forever-War-Dexter-Filkins/dp/0307266397
Showing the disparity of understanding between coalition forces and the local population, I recommend it as unlike many books it stays politically neutral with no preaching on either side but rather an account of a journalist who went through Afghanistan and Iraq during the opening stages of the war.

In reply to this comment by smooman:
As per our last "discussion" you probably dont like me much but I think i just found some common ground =)

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:

Given the last 8 years, I believe the Western world needs to engage the Arab world in dialog but it must respect the cultural background of the region and not just think that it can westernize ideas through brute force and seemingly endless criticism of it's religion.

I, for one, absolutely HATE the idea of westernizing Arab and Persian nations (namely Iraq and Trashgan....I mean Afghanistan). One of the platoons in my unit, while we were in Afghanistan, went out on a mission with the objective of demolishing a cannabis field. I was livid when I found out. These are a people who have been a nation far, far longer than we (the USA) and here we are telling them, forcing them even, to be like us while completely disregarding centuries of culture and history. Fuck that!

I upvoted a surprising and newsworthy occurrence, and to indicate my appreciation at seeing unedited footage of the event (and not attached to some 8 minute Olbermann clip).

Hundreds of thousands have died, millions have fled, those left have for years been fearful of the militias and 'mafioso' types that control the streets, and the random searches by coalition forces and blackwaters... anyhow, this is one man publicly expressing his displeasure with what was done to his country by my country, so I upvoted.

If Powell held a press conference stating that Tenet, Cheney, Rummy and Bush were pressuring him to lie to the UN, therefore he is resigning his post, there's a distinct possibility "we" (coalition forces, not just the US) wouldn't have gone into Iraq.

It would've killed him politically, but then again, maybe not. He would've had to switch parties that's for certain, but he could have been regarded as a hero by many.

>> ^charliem:
They dont look like coalition forces.


Combined US/Iraqi forces patrol.

They dont look like coalition forces.

>> ^Farhad2000:
Camp Virginia is to the North of Kuwait City in an area called Jahra, I guess it was the staging ground and crossing point for the maneuver warfare plan of General Mattis and coalition forces because it's the closest point to entry into Basra, Nassariya and the oil wells.
Camp Arifijan is to the South of Kuwait City, near the Ali Al Salem airbase and serves as a logistics base, motor pool, helicopter support base and repair base for any elements in the Southwest Asian Theater.
Camp Victory is located near the Baghdad International Airport, this is where most of USO come through, also features a Subway and Pizza Hut.
I wonder where they do deployments now. Makes sense to just shuttle people into Baghdad but I don't think that is possible logistically.



Hmm.. maybe it wasn't camp Victory. I was in Kuwait both before and after.

[edit] I'm pretty sure it was. I see Victory closed in 2006. I was there in 2005.

Camp Virginia is to the North of Kuwait City in an area called Jahra, I guess it was the staging ground and crossing point for the maneuver warfare plan of General Mattis and coalition forces because it's the closest point to entry into Basra, Nassariya and the oil wells.

Camp Arifijan is to the South of Kuwait City, near the Ali Al Salem airbase and serves as a logistics base, motor pool, helicopter support base and repair base for any elements in the Southwest Asian Theater.

Camp Victory is located near the Baghdad International Airport, this is where most of USO come through, also features a Subway and Pizza Hut.

I wonder where they do deployments now. Makes sense to just shuttle people into Baghdad but I don't think that is possible logistically.

I liked the video. The percentages cited are extremely misleading however, taken out of context. Let's assume the numbers are correct.

WWI was largely fought along static lines: trench warefare. Civilians fled the battle areas, and were largely "safe" once they departed. Both sides largely respected the non-combatant lives.

WWII was more dynamic, with armies on the move coming into contact with civilians more frequently. Aerial bombing campaigns were conducted on a massive scale, with accuracy often measured in miles. Naturally more civilans could become casualties.

Viet Nam involved ever more ill-defined battle lines: communist insurgency tactics and deliberate siting of resources among civilians. This was done as a deliberate strategy to attempt to place these assets beyond our reach. Even with vast increases in arial weapon accuracy, there was inevitable and tragic collateral damage.

The current war in Iraq has involved similar tactics, but employed more ruthlessly by an enemy not burdened by our Western sense of morality. Suicide bombing, deliberate targeting of civilians, use of human shields. The Islamic insurgency bears the burden of the casualty ratio. US and coalition forces have unfailingly striven to minimize loss of innocent lives, where possible.

^HOLD IT! why would a conservative group attack Ron Paul :-) lol. sheesh, who won't they attack?

I think you overstate your case. I look into the validity of the claims being leveled before I see who it's coming from. Does who it comes from make a difference? yea, sometimes it does, but the truthfulness and validity of the claims should come first.

With statements like this from Rumsfeld I can see how you would be fooled into believing the WMD lies.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: …We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat....I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting. (why hasn't this been sifted?)

Bush Administration Caught Contradicting Itself on WMD's
http://www.videosift.com/video/Bush-Administration-Caught-Contradicting-Itself-on-WMDs

Closed Room Plans Reveal Attempt to Dupe Public
http://www.videosift.com/video/Olbermann-Closed-Room-Plans-Reveal-Attempt-to-Dupe-Public

Interesting how each of the Intelligence Committee members voted, considering what Sen. Durbin claims they knew:(thanks FLETCH)

http://intelligence.senate.gov/members107thcongress.html
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

I personally could see why you would take Rumsfeld at his word about Iraq's WMD's with this knowledge of history (too bad the wmd ingredients we supplied them had such a short shelf life, or perhaps we would have found them in iraq)

Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan’s Envoy- provided Iraq with chemical & biological weapons December 20, 1983.

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops.

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of “dual-use” export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application.

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq’s use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq’s use of these weapons.

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax.

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq.

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua.

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq.

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the “Anfal” campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages.

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas.

August, 1988. 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas.

September, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade anthrax and botulinum to Iraq.

September, 1988. Richard Murphy, Assistant Secretary of State: “The US-Iraqi relationship is… important to our long-term political and economic objectives.”

December, 1988. Dow chemical sells $1.5 million in pesticides to Iraq despite knowledge that these would be used in chemical weapons.

I'll presume he's innocent, but I also won't rule out the fact that the evidence against him is legitimate. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_Hussein

"According to the U.S. military, Hussein was arrested in April 2006, when bomb parts and insurgent propaganda were found in his house in Ramadi after the U.S. military asked to use it as an observation post during an operation. The military said that Hussein was found with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida forces in Iraq. According to a May 7, 2006 e-mail from U.S. Army Major General Jack Gardner, "He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces." Gardner continued, "The information available establishes that he has relationships with insurgents and is afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities.""

Of course, the propaganda could be leaflets picked up from the street or other materials he would have a legitimate interest studying as a journalist. The bomb making materials could be lots of cell phones (he was a cell phone salesman before the war).

I hope he gets a fair trial.

Doing more searching I have found the DOD press release about this incident, the short version is One Iraqi soldier was killed and two others wounded along with 2 civilians. No US forces where involved in this attack.

Here is the press release from the DOD:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
RELEASE No. 20070903-12
September 3, 2007

Iraqi Army stops car bomber from attacking bridge north
of Baghdad
Multi-National Division – Baghdad PAO

CAMP TAJI, Iraq – One Iraqi Army soldier was killed and two other Iraqi Army
troops and two civilians were wounded by an exploding vehicle-borne improvised
explosive device near a checkpoint in Taji, Iraq Sept. 2.

The suicide bomber detonated the VBIED at the checkpoint, after two
unsuccessful attempts to gain access to the bridge guarded by the troops.

The checkpoint was manned both by Iraqi Army troops from the 2nd
Brigade, 9th Iraqi Army Division (Mechanized) in conjunction with members of
the new Critical Infrastructure Security (CIS) unit. The CIS is made up of local
volunteers that were contracted by Coalition Forces and have been vetted by the
local Sheiks in the area.

The vehicle was carrying chicken waste to hide the munitions in the truck.
On the first approach to the checkpoint, the driver was stopped by the Iraqi
soldiers who did not allow his entry because he was not following proper
procedures.

In his effort to breach security of the checkpoint that allows access to a key
bridge, the driver claimed to be the cousin of a local area sheik—a reconciliation
leader that the Iraqi Army coordinates with for vetting legitimate associates – but
the Iraqi Army troops made the man take a U-turn and leave the area.

On a subsequent attempt, the Iraqi troops once again forced the man to turn
his vehicle around and leave the area.

On the third and final attempt, the truck attempted to pull over and
intermingle with an Iraqi Army convoy. Iraqi Army troops suspected a car bomb
and engaged the vehicle with small arms fire by the checkpoint after noticing the
driver was acting very erratically. The truck detonated.

Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 82nd Field
Artillery Regiment and the 1st Squadron, 7th Cavalry Regiment both of the 1st
Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, rushed to the scene and assisted
with securing the site and treating the wounded.

According to Lt. Col. Peter Andrysiak, deputy commanding officer, 1st BCT,
1st Cav. Div., the attack is the work of Al Qaeda operatives.

“This attack is just another example of Al Qaeda’s total disregard for innocent
lives whether it’s women and children or Iraqi Security Forces who have chosen
to selflessly defend their nation.” said Andrysiak.
“Due to the local populace’s recent successes in regard to reconciliation efforts that are uniting the people
here against insurgents and extremists, the attack proves that Al Qaeda is
becoming desperate. They have lost support and are seeking any avenue they
can to disrupt the efforts here that are fostering peace and will eventually mean
the end for organizations like Al Qaeda.”

Andrysiak added that the incident shows the increasing effectiveness of
the Iraqi Army and the benefits of working with local volunteers.

“Together they devised a system of checks and balances to prevent AQI
access to key areas and it worked,” he said. “These brave Iraqis saved critical
infrastructure and lives.”