Mark me now, it's not ISIS that we should be worried about in this from a humanitarian perspective. ISIS are probably the nastiest bunch, but Nouri al-Maliki has been noted and marked as nothing more than thug from day one. The entire time US forces were in Iraq they spent most of their time protecting Sunni's(ISIS is a Sunni group) from al-Maliki's forces taking revenge.

I have almost no doubts that al-Maliki can easily suppress and crush ISIS, and more over is just itching for ISIS to make themselves out bad enough that he can 'justify' brutally and totally crushing them and by proxy all Sunni Iraqis.

End game is a relatively quick and brutal move by al-Maliki to 'stabilize' the region with some truly ugly war crimes. Hopefully at least the end will also leave a new border drawn recognizing Kurdistan as separate region and at least there some semblance of law and order and decency might survive,

I don't think you actually read up on the Al Anfal campaign if you wave it away as just Saddam gassing his own people. That was the least of the horrors he inflicted on the Kurds. If you don't care I can't make you, but I'll not idly ignore your ignorant claims it was less than what it was. ISIS hasn't even come close to it yet, and they'd need an incredible increase in their abilities and support to even try.

If you want to champion Saddam as the lesser evil, at least bother to study what he did more closely first. I'd also ask your opinion on Abu Ghraib and Fallujah.

As for American policy, I repeat my complete lack of concern for it when forming my opinion of what is good or better. I don't care whether America is some white knight or not, I care that Saddam gone is better than Saddam in power. My assessment of that doesn't depend on why America claims to have done it, nor on America's post actions or dealings with Saddam. Saddam gone leaves Shia and Kurdish Iraqis no longer leaving under fear of genocide(better than 60% of all Iraqis there). It leaves Saddams neighbouring countries no longer fearing another war of expansion and aggression from him.

And your on the right track with Hitler and Pol Pot when classing Saddam. Read about all he's done and you'll find they'd be right at home with him.

Saddam started the Iran Iraq war, which saw over a million dead, including the most prolific deployment of chemical weapons since WW1.

Saddam followed that up with the Al-Anfal campaign. Read up on it, it's one of the most brutal attempts at genocide in recent history, including chemical weapons, concentration camps, over a hundred thousand deaths and an effort to breed the Kurds out of existence through systematic rape of Kurdish women.

Saddam followed that up with the complete annexation of Kuwait. Effectively removing a UN member state and claiming at as part of his Iraq.

Saddam followed up his forced removal from Kuwait with a retaliatory genocide of Shia Iraqis again topping a hundred thousand dead again.

But yeah, he fortunately lacked the military might to succeed in such ventures for a time. He was bluffing having stocks of chemical and nuclear weapons to keep his neighbours in check. Pity he was removed from power then and we didn't wait till he could make good on his bluff.

Yes, Saddam era Iraq was better for the rest of the world than the current situation, by far. Far from perfect, but far better. More mass killings, rapes, and threats against us and our interests (and Iraqis, Iranians, and Kuwaitis)today than under him from what I see.
We didn't go to Iraq to support Iran or (in the latest instance) to support Kuwait. We put and kept Saddam in power BECUASE he was an enemy of Iran. I supported ousting Saddam out of Kuwait, and even limiting his abilities then, but not a second protracted 'war' for chameleon reasons with no plan for after he's gone. Removing him left a power vacuum that was an easily foreseeable problem we did little to solve and is now biting us in the ass.
You are misunderstanding because you are apparently equating what's 'best' for their 'neighbors' with what's best for the world. Saddam had little to 0 ability to strike beyond his border nations, so he did not pose a threat to us (except to those still believing the BS apocalyptic hype for the 'war' which have all proven to be lies). A power vacuum in the middle east is NOT what's best for all, or obviously even what's best for the neighbors, and IS a threat to us.

It may have been a disaster for many Iraqis (and it still is), but not so for most of the rest of the world. That can no longer be said, which means it's far worse now thanks to our expensive and deadly involvement.

Oh defiantly... which is why we needed to spend trillions of dollars, thousands of american soldiers and untold tens of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives, to accomplish... what exactly?

And here I thought the claims around his four laptops were put to rest in July of last year or, at the very latest, after his meeting with Ray MacGovern, Jesselyn Radack and Thomas Drake in October.

There was nothing of substance on those laptops and to suggest otherwise with any credibility demands extraordinary proof.

Why?

Because of two primary reasons, as far as I am concerned:

- Any of Snowden's claims has yet to proven false. The entire apparatus is trying and they failed miserably so far. Probably because Snowden actually knows what he's talking about, unlike such cranks as Rep. Peter King.

- Snowden spent years working within the intelligence industry (CIA, NSA, private contractors) and he has proven to be careful and meticulous. Unlike the public (or the British MoD), he'd know better than to transport any sensitive information on a device like a laptop or a smartphone. Or an external harddrive. Or a disk. He'd use flash memory, possibly a thumb drive, probably an SD card -- the less embedded controllers a device has, the better. Heavily encrypted, of course, and if anyone doesn't believe that crypto works... tough luck, I'm done trying to convince people otherwise.

So, the only people who received data from him are Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras. American journalists reporting on American issues, just like he said.

As for the the revelation of "tons of national secrets and techniques": he has revealed nothing. Let me say that again: Snowden has revealed nothing.

He has empowered members of the press, the fourth estate, to do their bloody jobs and fullfil their role as watchdog over the government, something they failed at miserably in this particular regard. All revelations happen at the discretion of those journalists who are now the sole proprietors of the Snowden-documents.

If, however, you don't subscribe to the notion of a free press as a line of defence against government abuse, then I can't change your mind.

By the way, "putting American lives at risk" should have received a trademark by now, the way it has been waved around to kill uncomfortable conversations. I vividly remember how desperate they were to find proof that the Afghan/Iraqi War Logs and the Gitmo Files were endangering lives. As far as I know, they never found any. And as far as I know, all releases based on Snowden-documents were carefully chosen and redacted where neccessary to protect the identity of human assets. All claims to the contrary need to provide evidence.

But I'm glad to see that the "American industry" has found its way into the argument. At least we don't have to pretend that this is solely about terrorism anymore. Industrial espionage, diplomatic advantages and... keeping your own population in check.

Yay! It's just like the old days.

Oh wait, I forgot. My country has been under full scale surveillance by the US, the British and the French since the late '40s, so it's actually business as usual.

@Yogi

Releasing everything in one big pile didn't get us anywhere in case of the Afghan War Logs, the Iraqi War Logs or the Gitmo Files. Piece by piece keeps it front and center, at least over here in Europe. Not to mention the fact that it also nullifies all criticisms of careless dumping of sensitive info, which reduces his risk of lead poisoning.

@shinyblurry

He wouldn't be stuck in Russia if a) the US hadn't canceled his passport and b) the entirety of Europe wasn't such whipped dogs. If, for instance, Germany had offered him asylum, he'd probably be in Berlin right now, just like Laura Poitras, Sarah Harrison and Jacob Appelbaum.

And no, I don't think the Russians, the Chinese, or anyone for that matter, have gained access to his hardware before he handed everything over to Greenwald amongst others. Snowden knows what he's doing.

If, however, you don't think that crypto works, then I can't convince you otherwise.

@zor

The copyright owner, a German public broadcaster, made sure it's geofucked on YouTube. By the time I submitted this, DailyMotion was the only source available without a German proxy. That said, Adblock Edge + Ghostery + NoScript and you don't have to endure any ads on DailyMotion.

@bcglorf @Fairbs

I used to hold the same view on military intervention. If only it were applied impartially by a nation or alliance, then any would be genocidal leader would be deterred by threat of imprisonment or death.

However we all know that in reality this is stymied by the lack of altruistic intentions, the political dimensions of risking soldiers' lives in foreign wars and the unintended consequences of even fully altruistic intervention.

I can't really argue against there being a case for intervention in Rwanda or after Saddam gassed the Kurds.

A sufficiently large force by the US/NATO would have probably deterred the Hutu militias in Rwanda from waging their genocide. Had the international community demanded Kurdish sovereignty from Iraq following the gas attacks, Saddam would have probably accepted it coming off the Iran-Iraq war for fear of being attacked by Iran while he waged a civil war.

In either case I can also play devil's advocate. Would the inevitable Tutsi government set up by intervening forces in Rwanda have been seen as legitimate by its people? Would reconciliation really have been effective if it was effectively imposed by outside powers? Would civil war have reignited? Even with how things turned out in the absence, we know that Kagame's government is increasingly authoritarian and has supported militias like M23 in Congo against the remnants of Hutu militias which has itself been a source of much death and violence. In the case of the Kurds, what if calls for cession resonated in the Kurdish population in Syria and Iran and the opposition turned violent in those countries?

In most cases, while hypothetical intervention may appear the clear moral ground I just can't be certain the outcome would have been better. In the case of Rwanda, probably, a large portion of the 500,000 lives lost would have been spared. In the case of the Iraqi Kurds, no intervention would have pre-empted the initial gas attack, however inciting the situation could have resulted in more people dying in violent struggle and resistance.

I hate to get on Bill Nye, and I agree with the need for more foreign aid even. I must protest non the less about war being a minor factor in poverty and related deaths. Blaming the millions that die of starvation and malnutrition in Africa on that alone is little different than saying that the millions who starved under Stalin and Mao could have been saved by foreign aid.

Even when there isn't active warfare in the most poverty ridden places of the world, there are warlords and criminals ruling the region through starvation and actively redirecting what little foreign aid there is to themselves and away from those that do not support them. Simply sending more food and money to places like Somalia or North Korea does nothing to help the people there, and if the aid is naively sent blind to whomever holds power it actually makes things WORSE by strengthening the very monsters responsible for the suffering. I'd like to believe our apathy here is the biggest problem as much as the next guy, but the reality is that there are also people local to the problem involved first hand in perpetuating and profiting from human suffering. If we refuse to admit that there are instances were 'aid' necessarily takes the form of shooting the bad guys then we are doomed to watching as the next genocide plays out, as we did for the Rwandan Tutsis, Iraqi Kurds and Shias and countless others.

However much I agree with the sentiment, the thing that annoys me about this kind of thing is how much it values American lives over Iraqis. Yes, there was a great cost to America for going to war, but there's no comparison to the cost paid by the home country.

I'd never wish invasion upon any nation, but can you imagine what life would be like if your home town was occupied by military force hostile to your government? I mean it. Think it through.

A war at home is very different to a war abroad.

Being unable to vote is not the same thing as being denied the right to vote. Saying a three year old is a suffragist is kind of...well, silly. But it's true based on the idea that she is "denied the right to vote."

Because the definition is so broad, it really means NOTHING at all (As John Stewart said, "When you amplify everything, you hear nothing." The definition as you use it is the same vein.)

Are corporations, declared real people by the supreme court, suffragists. Publix maybe, but not Walmart! (That was facetious, not intended to be sarcastic.)

For example Jigga, we are both poor suffragists because we can't vote--in the Iraqi elections. Poor us, being held back. I don't apply suffragist to reasonable expectations. You should have to be a citizen of the country you vote in. A certain age (Which doesn't imply you should or should not be allowed to pre-register...) A certain mental capacity (Ie., not in a coma. Ie., have the ability to spell capacity and not "compacity," like I apparently cannot do )

I do think tests on intellect make for suffragists. I do think gender and gender identification make for suffragists. I do think religious bias makes for suffragists. I do think being arrested and paying for your time yet being released and unable to vote makes for suffragists.

I don't think this girl in any way shape or form is a suffragist.

I try my best to avoid any personal attacks in my responses. I am pretty vicious in attacking certain ideas though. I know that comes across as combative, but if you can bear reading what I said again, the only point I tried to hold viciously to was that being MORE angry at America for supporting Saddam than at Saddam himself is flat out wrong. Holding a higher bar of expectations for America is great and helps America out, but the place for that is in judging what one expects America to be. Holding America to a different bar than Saddam or Assad though is a tremendous disservice to Syrian and Iraqi people.

What I'm trying to get across in the examples I listed and my defense of that position is that hordes of people point at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and call for war crimes trials against Bush and Cheney. I agree with them, America should expect better of it's leaders. The trouble I have is when those same people then step forward and point at those same abuses and declare America no better than Saddam. That kind of ignorance is horrific, and when it's wrapped in the false flag of caring about Iraqi civilians I get mad.

The same applies to Raytheon, Assad and Syria. I share people's anger that people may be about to profit from death. I even share the belief that America is only considering involvement because it selfishly stands to gain. I even share the belief that American corporations like Raytheon are pushing only for what makes them money. I share the outrage at that. My trouble and what I am fighting to point out is why there is so much less outrage and indignation when Assad profits so much more, so much more directly, and by killing far more people? When within the very same conflict the voices damning America for considering a military attack are whispers when talking about Assad's own crimes it angers me. I don't feel it beneficial to point out that hypocrisy subtly.

If we want an example of what non-intervention is like, look no further than Africa. The DRC, Liberia, Somalia, Rwanda and on and on. I simply want to argue that people look at the entire picture instead of naively expecting America to act benevolently. That naivety wears on me even faster when it comes from those that knowingly submit evidence that America is no more benevolent than any other nation.

And to at long last answer your question, I believe targeted strikes against Assad will discourage his behavior in the only way that matters to him, by weakening him more than his attack strengthened him. It's why I point out Assad as no different than any other leader at his level. Their actions can predicted to be entirely based upon selfish gain and nothing else. If killing a million people with chemical weapons would end the war and give Assad back control,of his country he'd do it without a second thought. I am confident the only things that stay his hand is doubts that it would accomplish what he wants. On one side it would mean returning to running his country as his father had, and he may still hold out hope of avoiding that. More likely, he fears he doesn't have the support internally he needs to make such a push without someone else within his circle using the opportunity to usurp him. Circumventing those concerns is within Assad's power though, and all he needs is time. The other part staying his hand is the important one, that America or more likely Israel, is willing to launch counter attacks against his forces if he commits massacres on a great enough scale. I argue in favor of targeted strikes because they will weaken Assad and because that is the ONLY warning that will matter to him. Words become empty if this attack was ignored. Assad will escalate if he sees the chance, and then ignoring even larger attacks or delivering even harsher counter attacks become the choices.

Yes, insisting that diplomacy is likely to stop Assad's continued campaign of murdering his own people is a problem for me. Sure, maybe I should just accept it as naive and not malicious, but people are being killed while the world stands around yet again refusing to do anything, and that makes me angry.

I'm not trying to whitewash America's role in Iraq either. If anything I'd say my picture is a lot blacker than the people I disagree with the most. The only point I think I differ on is that I DO hold Saddam even more responsible for what he did than America or Saudi Arabia or any of his other backers. I see no reason to apologize for that. Read up on Saddam's Al Anfal campaign against the Kurds, his gassing of Kurdish villages was the least of the atrocities he committed against the Kurds. Saddam had been destroying everything in Iraq the entire time he was in power, from the absolute repression that was everyday life, to the endless feeding of Iraqi bodies to into the Iran-Iraq war, to the genocide of the Kurds, to the genocide of the Shia, Saddam had killed millions of Iraqis and systematically orchestrated and encouraged sectarian hatred and divisions. All that time America continued to callously back him because America was happy to see Iraq and Iran bleed themselves out against each other. If I find some solace in finally, at long last seeing America change it's tune and finally opposing Saddam it's not for because I think America is some humanitarian entity. You list all the devastation in Iraq since the American invasion, but just what realistic alternative version of Iraq do you see could exist today if non-intervention had been held to? Iraq today would STILL be under Saddam's control today, and I would insist anyone wanting that alternative doesn't know what Saddam really was like. I also insist it must be known that the Iraqi people were NOT going to manage to liberate themselves without foreign intervention. The Kurds contemplated it once, and it ended in a campaign of genocide and systematic rape to breed the Kurds out of existence. The Shia tried it once, and it ended in genocide for them too. The Iraqi people knew exactly how opposition to Saddam ended and it was NOT going to happen without someone coming in from outside.

Maybe I just see the world as that much more awful and horrific a place. Just because things are bad and horrific doesn't mean they couldn't be a far sight worse, and in fact haven't been a far sight worse in the recent past.

I don't object to demands for caution and concern that getting involved in a conflict can lead it escalate. I object to defending dictators with impossible barriers and burdens of proof. The fact the UN teams have trouble getting evidence shouldn't be touted as reason to question Assad's involvement when he steadily interferes and endeavors to hinder the UN investigations. If we require concrete evidence before declaring Assad guilty, and Assad refuses the UN access until they have concrete evidence a problem has arisen, no?

@bcglorf

coming from the sifter who states,and i quote:
"Oh, and he thinks the Iraq "problem" was created by America in the last decade. America's role started with support for Saddam, and from there 99% of the "problem" with Iraq needs be laid at Saddams feet for the decades of brutal repression destruction of Iraqi society that he committed. All that damage had everything to do with how horrific and ugly Iraq is today."

i think maybe you should do a bit of research before you throw broad generalizations out there.
i.e: how the sift embraces something.what are we? borg?

so you choose this thread to continue your berating of people who happen to disagree with you.

so let me be clear.
all those examples in your incomplete list are proven facts.
F.A.C.T.S
there is NO concrete evidence assad's regime is responsible.
there is suspicion.
some information implicates.
but to use the 2003 bush administration jargon,there is no smoking gun that led to a mushroom cloud.

and here we are 10 years later.
6 million displaced.
over a half million dead.
a culture practically destroyed.
a population in tatters and government ineffectual.
all based on a LIE.

so those of us suggesting non-intervention or diplomacy are assholes?

look at what YOU are suggesting!
bomb bomb bomb

so let me ask YOU.
what do you think bombing syria will do?

*edit-and who the fuck is giving assad the "benefit of the doubt"? so because people are being cautious in a complicated issue all of sudden they are fans of a brutal dictator?
fucking seriously?