Wikileaks releases 400,000 documents

dlofnep

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-nato-pentagon

The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, condemned the release of almost 400,000 secret US army field reports by whistleblowing website WikiLeaks claiming the disclosure could put lives at risk.

Speaking to reporters in Washington before the documents had been posted on the website, Clinton said she condemned "in the most clear terms the disclosure of any information by individuals and or organisations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk".

The US and NATO is not very happy with the release. They are concerned that the release will endanger the lives of those operating in Iraq. Wikileaks is a genuine threat to Government secrecy.

pablo_escobar

The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces).

The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60%) of these are civilian deaths.That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six year period.

For comparison, the 'Afghan War Diaries', previously released by WikiLeaks, covering the same period, detail the deaths of some 20,000 people. Iraq during the same period, was five times as lethal with equivallent population size.

I wonder how many news agencies will ignore this information...

Chavez and Castro look like angels.

Mahatma coat

OK So let me just get this one straight in my head

Sending Poorly Equipped and demoralised Young Men into an Illegal War of agression to Act as Occupying Forces and Activley assist in the theft of a Nations Wealth,

Is Not as Dangerous as

Posting their reports on the Internet

RIIIIIIIIGHT




And I'd say most of the News agencies will ignore the content of the reports and instead focus on Demonising Electron

A Dub in Glasgo

This is why millions took to the streets to oppose the illegal war. The US and Britain is responsible for one of the biggest slaughter of civilians in recent time.

karma_

The BBC is running a story so maybe it will get out to a wider audience. I hope so.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11611319

A US Department of Defense spokesman dismissed the documents published by the whistleblowing website as raw observations by tactical units, which were only snapshots of tragic, mundane events.

Mundane events indeed, unless of course you were on teh receiving end.

mrboswell

Fair play to the whistle blowers

gandalf

karma_ wrote: »

Mundane events indeed, unless of course you were on teh receiving end.

Yes when I read the story on the BBC website that is the word that struck me as very insensitive. These mundane events ended in quite a large amount of cases in the death of innocent civilians.

Given the fact that the US & UK fabricated evidence to illegally attack Iraq should the leaders in charge at the time not face war crimes trials in the Hague especially with evidence like this. I also see that the same helicopter gunship that killed two journalists in the infamous leaked video also took part in another dubious operation where 2 insurgents who were clearing indicating that they wanted to surrender were gunned down.

Memnoch

It's been amply demonstrated, ONCE AGAIN, that the so called moral authority of the west is a weak and self-serving delusion.

Jonny7

The people releasing these leaks and the website staff are going to have difficult lives, hats off to them.

In the future when they release important leaks about Chinese troops in Tibet, or the actions of the Zimbabwe military, then they will be applauded.

Bah, at least Bush inadvertently gave us a reason to examine our own "moral principles", we're not the jolly hurrah chaps fighting Hitler, we're more like the old empires colonising Africa.

BluePlanet

Jonny7 wrote: »

In the future when they release important leaks about Chinese troops in Tibet, or the actions of the Zimbabwe military, then they will be applauded.

Difference is that China nor Zimbabwe don't go around lecturing others about "human rights".

dlofnep

With the likes of TOR - You can be sure that leaks from China will be released at some point. It's interesting that the US hasn't commented on the severity of the actions in the documents, but rather - quickly condemned wikileaks for releasing the documents.

The US will ultimately need to comment on a number of these incidents. I would estimate that they will focus on brushing them under the carpet, and a heavy guilt-lead propaganda campaign attacking wikileaks, rather than addressing matters relating to torture and such..

paulaa

dlofnep wrote: »

With the likes of TOR - You can be sure that leaks from China will be released at some point. It's interesting that the US hasn't commented on the severity of the actions in the documents, but rather - quickly condemned wikileaks for releasing the documents.

The US will ultimately need to comment on a number of these incidents. I would estimate that they will focus on brushing them under the carpet, and a heavy guilt-lead propaganda campaign attacking wikileaks, rather than addressing matters relating to torture and such..

It just shows that Hilary Clinton is more concerned about the the fact that these atrocities are now in the public domain than the fact that thousands of innocents have been killed and tortured by her badly trained troops. These lives don't matter as long as they are swept under the carpet.

I have a feeling that the US, UK and the west in general will suffer for these actions in years to come. More terrorist attacks from people who have been radicalised by the brutality of the "democratic" armies and they have only themselves to blame .

Fo Real

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The US and Britain is responsible for one of the biggest slaughter of civilians in recent time.

Do you have figures to back this up or am I correct in assuming that you're lying in order to push your own personal agenda?

BluePlanet

Fo Real wrote: »

Do you have figures to back this up or am I correct in assuming that you're lying in order to push your own personal agenda?

So, you're posting in a thread about the release of classified US documents which among other things, highlights 66,000 civilian deaths, and you're accusing another poster of pushing a personal agenda over civilian casualties?

I doubt Saddam Hussien managed such a high kill rate (of civilians).
He was in power a long time, the USA have only been at it less than 10 years now?

dlofnep

Fo Real wrote: »

Do you have figures to back this up or am I correct in assuming that you're lying in order to push your own personal agenda?

There was certainly a high civilian death count during the invasion of Iraq. Many of which were directly attributed to US & British actions. The conservative number is 100,000 civilians, but that only includes reported deaths.

The real problem is that many people have become decensitised to the loss of civilian life in the middle-east. When you put out figures like 100,000 civilian deaths - it doesn't register with many people as it should.

The loss of even one life is tragic and heartbreaking. The loss of 100,000+ lives is inexcusable.

Wolfe Tone

TBH, is anyone really surprised at this? Looking at Britains and USAs respective military histories I am not.

Fo Real

BluePlanet wrote: »

So, you're posting in a thread about the release of classified US documents which among other things, highlights 66,000 civilian deaths, and you're accusing another poster of pushing a personal agenda over civilian casualties?

I doubt Saddam Hussien managed such a high kill rate (of civilians).
He was in power a long time, the USA have only been at it less than 10 years now?

Saddam Hussein's kill tally approaches two million, including

• between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi
• between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War.
• An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
• No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000.
• Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared".
• No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000).
• Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

source

Please leave your political agenda at the door. You hate America, we get it, but you can't deny that Saddam killed massive amounts of innocents during his reign. I still have yet to hear conclusive evidence that Iraq and its neighbours, and indeed the world, would be better off with him still in power.

karma_

Fo Real wrote: »

Saddam Hussein's kill tally approaches two million, including

• between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi
• between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War.
• An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
• No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000.
• Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared".
• No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000).
• Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

source

Please leave your political agenda at the door. You hate America, we get it, but you can't deny that Saddam killed massive amounts of innocents during his reign. I still have yet to hear conclusive evidence that Iraq and its neighbours, and indeed the world, would be better off with him still in power.

Funny that you find teh combat deaths during the Iran-Iraq war objectionable, a war where Saddam was supported by both the US & the UK. I guess it just suits your argument at the time, a tactic most apologists use in fairness.

A Dub in Glasgo

Fo Real wrote: »

Saddam Hussein's kill tally approaches two million, including

• between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi
• between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War.
• An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
• No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000.
• Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared".
• No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000).
• Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

source

Please leave your political agenda at the door. You hate America, we get it, but you can't deny that Saddam killed massive amounts of innocents during his reign. I still have yet to hear conclusive evidence that Iraq and its neighbours, and indeed the world, would be better off with him still in power.

Are you For Real?

[*]Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

Those trade sanctions were the responsibility of the UNSC which Britain and the US are permanent members of and they pushed for it.

Edit: The Iran - Iraq war deaths were supported by the US & Britain as Saddam was the ally in that one

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

dlofnep

Without veering completely off-topic - I think we can all agree Saddam was scum, and the world is better off without him. However, the context of this discussion is the recently released documents, and the role that the US & Britain played in Iraq in the most recent conflict.

pablo_escobar

Fo Real wrote:

Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

When US secretary of state Madeleine Albright was asked on 60 minutes.
"is the price worth it"? knowing that 500,000 children were dead, she said: "..the price is worth it"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4PgpbQfxgo

Manic Moran

dlofnep wrote: »

Without veering completely off-topic - I think we can all agree Saddam was scum, and the world is better off without him. However, the context of this discussion is the recently released documents, and the role that the US & Britain played in Iraq in the most recent conflict.

Why are you focusing solely on those two? Why not every country involved, from Denmark to Iran?

It seems they didn't learn from last time. Despite assurances that they would take care not to release information which might harm Iraqis.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/22/wikileaks.iraq/index.html?hpt=T1

The U.S. military is notifying Iraqis named in the documents, Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell told CNN.

"There are 300 names of Iraqis in here that we think would be particularly endangered by their exposure," he said. "We have passed that information on to U.S. Forces Iraq. They are in the process right now of contacting those Iraqis to try to safeguard them."

I guess if you're trying to red 400,000 random documents, a few things will slip through the cracks.

NTM

karma_

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why are you focusing solely on those two? Why not every country involved, from Denmark to Iran?

It seems they didn't learn from last time. Despite assurances that they would take care not to release information which might harm Iraqis.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/22/wikileaks.iraq/index.html?hpt=T1



I guess if you're trying to red 400,000 random documents, a few things will slip through the cracks.

NTM

Indeed, it is unfortunate that some names may have slipped through. The US were complicit it seems in the torture of many more Iraqis, and many more of their deaths at checkpoints also, what of a little justice for them maybe? You are a soldier Moran, did you know these things were going on? Did you agree with them?

FlutterinBantam

Fo Real wrote: »

Saddam Hussein's kill tally approaches two million, including

• between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi
• between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War.
• An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
• No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000.
• Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared".
• No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000).
• Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

source

Please leave your political agenda at the door. You hate America, we get it, but you can't deny that Saddam killed massive amounts of innocents during his reign. I still have yet to hear conclusive evidence that Iraq and its neighbours, and indeed the world, would be better off with him still in power.

Excellent post.
However, don't expect any change from the anti-American lobby in here.

Like the Duracell battery, they just keep going on.

Facts like that they just ignore.

FlutterinBantam

dlofnep wrote: »

Without veering completely off-topic - I think we can all agree Saddam was scum, and the world is better off without him. However, the context of this discussion is the recently released documents, and the role that the US & Britain played in Iraq in the most recent conflict.

Which was ridding Iraq of that scum and freeing it's people.

Nodin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Which was ridding Iraq of that scum and freeing it's people.

....but, seeing as theres still systematic torture, killings and abuse of prisoners, its fairly plain they didn't do that, and in fact had no interest in the Iraqi people whatsoever.

karma_

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Which was ridding Iraq of that scum and freeing it's people.

Freeing them to be tortured by the next administration and killed at checkpoints by the occupying force.

dlofnep

Manic Moran wrote: »

Why are you focusing solely on those two? Why not every country involved, from Denmark to Iran?

It seems they didn't learn from last time. Despite assurances that they would take care not to release information which might harm Iraqis.

Perhaps because these made up the majority of the occupational forces?

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

Which was ridding Iraq of that scum and freeing it's people.

And that alone would have been a noble gesture. But we know it's not quite that simple. High losses of civilians, state-torture, suppression of information in a war started on false pretenses.

The US and Britain did not enter Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. Anyone who thinks that was their sole motive is either naive, or willfully ignorant.

FlutterinBantam

Nodin wrote: »

....but, seeing as theres still systematic torture, killings and abuse of prisoners, its fairly plain they didn't do that, and in fact had no interest in the Iraqi people whatsoever.

That is a statement which is foolish in the extreme.

They commit huge resources.equipment and military power to the country and they have no interest in the Iraqi people?

that is not the statement of a rational person.

dlofnep

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

that is not the statement of a rational person.

There you go yet again with ad hominem attacks. Challenge his statement instead of his character?

Nodin

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

That is a statement which is foolish in the extreme.

They commit huge resources.equipment and military power to the country and they have no interest in the Iraqi people?

that is not the statement of a rational person.

Dear o dear......sometimes I have to wonder if you're just trying to wind people up.

For starters, if they were that worried about the Iraqis, why are they turning a blind eye to the torture and killing of them by Iraqi forces since the fall of Saddam?

As regards alternative motives - They commit their resources to secure a strategic foothold in a client state on the Gulf, which provides not only access to the waterway, but land routes to the main oil fields of the region. On top of that, it provides a perfect base to both threaten and attempt to undermine Iran. Both of these strands are long term policy goals of certain elements of US politics, well documented before the war.

Byron85

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

That is a statement which is foolish in the extreme.

They commit huge resources.equipment and military power to the country and they have no interest in the Iraqi people?

that is not the statement of a rational person.

They have an interest in the Iraqi people in the sense that they want a puppet regime; nothing more and nothing less. If Saddam hadn't stepped out of line he'd likely still enjoy the support of the U.S, a government which props up dictatorships and/or military coups when it feels it is in its own interests; Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, Venezuela etc etc. Calling out hypocrisy for what it is, is not "anti-American". It's simply calling it out and nothing more.

pablo_escobar

It's a bogus argument to say anyone who criticises US foreign policy is "anti-american"

When Dick Cheney was told in an interview that 2/3 of american people opposed the "war" in Iraq, his response was, "so"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-vEb8nSzQE

A small number of evil corrupt men do not represent the overall majority of american people.

Many good americans oppose their government actions overseas and I would consider those americans patriots.

paulaa

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

That is a statement which is foolish in the extreme.

They commit huge resources.equipment and military power to the country and they have no interest in the Iraqi people?

that is not the statement of a rational person.

Sorry but that's very naive. They care about control of oil and the safety of Iraq's neighbour whom Saddam had been threatening for years.

The Iraqi people don't even come into it.
And seemingly from the leaked documents, they have trained the Iraqi police and army well in the art of torture and intimidation .

Mr.Micro

So much for the much US lauded installation of democracy in Iraq where a torture is allowed. Well done USA......democracy Iraq style. As each month has gone by since the invasion of Iraq we see the real motives of the US .....not democracy or liberation but control of the country for its oil and as a base for the US against its foes in the region. Well done Wikileaks and the person who whistleblew.

20Cent

Julian Assange for the Nobel Peace prize.
If people knew half of what was done in their name they would never let politicians start wars like this.

Does this wikileaks model mark the end of Gov secrecy when fighting wars?

Clawdeeus

karma_ wrote: »

Funny that you find teh combat deaths during the Iran-Iraq war objectionable, a war where Saddam was supported by both the US & the UK. I guess it just suits your argument at the time, a tactic most apologists use in fairness.

This has been dealt with numerous times, the US was 7th on the list of weapons providers in that war. France and Germany were the main suppliers.

Regardless, the argument was its incredibly stupid to argue "the invasion was bad because Saddam Hussein was not as bad"; much more valid and reasonable to condem the war on its own disastorous consequences; no need to try and play down Saddam Husseins own actions.

Clawdeeus

paulaa wrote: »

Sorry but that's very naive. They care about control of oil and the safety of Iraq's neighbour whom Saddam had been threatening for years.

The Iraqi people don't even come into it.
And seemingly from the leaked documents, they have trained the Iraqi police and army well in the art of torture and intimidation .

They trained them to do it? Or is this just something you threw in for the hell of it? Try and stick to the facts, you can make a good enough argument against the Iraq war (And its conduct) without resorting to "White lies". Hyperbole serves no one.

Clawdeeus

Byron85 wrote: »

They have an interest in the Iraqi people in the sense that they want a puppet regime; nothing more and nothing less. If Saddam hadn't stepped out of line he'd likely still enjoy the support of the U.S, a government which props up dictatorships and/or military coups when it feels it is in its own interests; Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, Venezuela etc etc. Calling out hypocrisy for what it is, is not "anti-American". It's simply calling it out and nothing more.

Whilst I agree with some of what your saying, its not entirely true that its a puppet regime, with the only objective to secure oil/ the region against Iran.

In theory Saddam Hussein was about as anti-Iranian dictator you could find, one who (we all know) had nothing to do with al Qaeda, and offered the West on numerous occasions oil at rock bottom prices in exchange for weapons systems.

One of the most compelling reasons given for the Bush administrations push for the war was the idea of a "democracy domino effect" throughout the region following the war. Stupidly naive and I have no doubt if the "democracy" had voted for the wrong person they may have been overthrown but to say the war was about oil, or even purely geo political reasons ignores completly the situation before it. Also obviously not the only reason either; if the region had not been oil rich it almost certainly would not have happened, but its no where near as simple as wanting to merely install a (friendly) puppet regime.

Clawdeeus

dlofnep wrote: »

And that alone would have been a noble gesture. But we know it's not quite that simple. High losses of civilians, state-torture, suppression of information in a war started on false pretenses.

The US and Britain did not enter Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people. Anyone who thinks that was their sole motive is either naive, or willfully ignorant.

I agree, but just to clarify the documents were to be kept secret for 10 years, not completly suppressed.

KyussBishop

Manic Moran wrote: »

It seems they didn't learn from last time. Despite assurances that they would take care not to release information which might harm Iraqis.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/22/wikileaks.iraq/index.html?hpt=T1



I guess if you're trying to red 400,000 random documents, a few things will slip through the cracks.

NTM

Wiklieaks claim that information is untrue:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks

Wikileaks-Twitter wrote:

Absolute lies here by News Corp/Pentagon ; there are no names in the Iraq War Logs

Manic Moran

KyussBishop wrote: »

Wiklieaks claim that information is untrue:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks

I've not looked at them yet, but if, for example, the SigAct says "The mayor of Village X", then, yes, Wikileaks is correct that there isn't a name. It's also true that the person is easily identifiable.

I agree, but just to clarify the documents were to be kept secret for 10 years, not completly suppressed

In fairness, they were only up for review after ten years. The US works on a ten-year cycle, every ten years the sensitivity of a document is reviewed and either declassified or renewed for another ten.

NTM

KyussBishop

Manic Moran wrote: »

I've not looked at them yet, but if, for example, the SigAct says "The mayor of Village X", then, yes, Wikileaks is correct that there isn't a name. It's also true that the person is easily identifiable.

Sure yes; there's no indication of either at the moment mind.

dlofnep

Finally, someone who is actually taking the leaks seriously.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gUxpnqSWVje_3GndmvcvkQbwcvAg?docId=N0061761287890452086A

"We can bemoan how these leaks occurred, but I think the nature of the allegations made are extraordinarily serious. They are distressing to read about and they are very serious," he told BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show.

-Nick Clegg

Unlike the American administration - Clegg seems focused on the data within the leaks, rather than attacking the source of the leaks.

Jonny7

Fo Real wrote: »

Saddam Hussein's kill tally approaches two million, including

• between 150,000 and 340,000 Iraqi
• between 450,000 and 730,000 Iranian combatants killed during the Iran-Iraq War.
• An estimated 1,000 Kuwaiti nationals killed following the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
• No conclusive figures for the number of Iraqis killed during the Gulf War, with estimates varying from as few as 1,500 to as many as 200,000.
• Over 100,000 Kurds killed or "disappeared".
• No reliable figures for the number of Iraqi dissidents and Shia Muslims killed during Saddam's reign, though estimates put the figure between 60,000 and 150,000. (Mass graves discovered following the US occupation of Iraq in 2003 suggest that the total combined figure for Kurds, Shias and dissidents killed could be as high as 300,000).
• Approximately 500,000 Iraqi children dead because of international trade sanctions introduced following the Gulf War.

source

Please leave your political agenda at the door. You hate America, we get it, but you can't deny that Saddam killed massive amounts of innocents during his reign. I still have yet to hear conclusive evidence that Iraq and its neighbours, and indeed the world, would be better off with him still in power.

Wow I remember these arguments back in the day, being called "anti-American" when I disagreed with Bush's policies, which has been completely turned on its head since Obama came to power. Its the same bunch of people who will never be swayed.

Iraq was a disgusting mess from start to finish, a rushed botch job, with no proper insight, no exit plan. In the meanwhile Afghanistan was ignored, something that was so frustrating at the time to witness because they actually managed to have the moral upper hand while pushing the Taliban out of the country, then was practically abandoned.. war on terror? how was that a war on terror when the coalition turned attention and attacked a country that had nothing remotely to do with any terror attacks.. it was just a dictatorship like many around the world? albeit a particularily nasty one

North Korea? this country went nuclear in the meanwhile
Burma? Zimbabwe? its just depressing. A few neo-cons in suits went power mad and a lot of good guys followed them into the abyss which is now Iraq and subsequently Afghanistan got worse. We've had to witness this gigantic blunder with all these rightwing hawks bangin on and on about anyone who objects being anti-American. You are anti-Korean if you object to Kim Il Yong.. its a stupid lame outdated phrase used to justify any state actions.

Basically you would only have a point if they actually tried to finish the job in Afghanistan and then subsequently addressed the Iraq issue properly, not rushing in all guns blazing, firing out lies to the public, etc etc

Am amazed there are still the pro-Iraq war dinosaurs lurking here with the same broken record

Anti-American line
You must support Saddam line

and thats their logic on a plate right there, its like arguing with creationists.

All other dictatorships in the world are now completely safe, and when the coalition/US has to finally leave Iraq and Afghanistan, the jihadists can start properly turning their attention to bombing the **** out civilians here instead of coalition soldiers over there. How hard is all this to understand.

Clawdeeus

Jonny7 wrote: »

Wow I remember these arguments back in the day, being called "anti-American" when I disagreed with Bush's policies, which has been completely turned on its head since Obama came to power. Its the same bunch of people who will never be swayed.

Iraq was a disgusting mess from start to finish, a rushed botch job, with no proper insight, no exit plan. In the meanwhile Afghanistan was ignored, something that was so frustrating at the time to witness because they actually managed to have the moral upper hand while pushing the Taliban out of the country, then was practically abandoned.. war on terror? how was that a war on terror when the coalition turned attention and attacked a country that had nothing remotely to do with any terror attacks.. it was just a dictatorship like many around the world? albeit a particularily nasty one

North Korea? this country went nuclear in the meanwhile
Burma? Zimbabwe? its just depressing. A few neo-cons in suits went power mad and a lot of good guys followed them into the abyss which is now Iraq and subsequently Afghanistan got worse. We've had to witness this gigantic blunder with all these rightwing hawks bangin on and on about anyone who objects being anti-American. You are anti-Korean if you object to Kim Il Yong.. its a stupid lame outdated phrase used to justify any state actions.

Basically you would only have a point if they actually tried to finish the job in Afghanistan and then subsequently addressed the Iraq issue properly, not rushing in all guns blazing, firing out lies to the public, etc etc

Am amazed there are still the pro-Iraq war dinosaurs lurking here with the same broken record

Anti-American line
You must support Saddam line

and thats their logic on a plate right there, its like arguing with creationists.

All other dictatorships in the world are now completely safe, and when the coalition/US has to finally leave Iraq and Afghanistan, the jihadists can start properly turning their attention to bombing the **** out civilians here instead of coalition soldiers over there. How hard is all this to understand.

Completly agree, Iraq was probably the most damaging foreign policy blunder of the States I can think of. Little or no advantage gained, huge effect on rescources, international credibility and, of course, lives.

What, exactly, do these documents reveal that makes people any more or less for/against the war than they may have been to begin with? To my eye there seems to be little new in the documents, just details which bring the deaths everyone know happen in war into a more personal light.

Oracle

Hillary Clinton condemns leaks, she seems to see no irony, or hypocrisy in saying:

.... we should condemn, in clear terms, the disclosure of any classified information which puts the lives of .... United States and partner, service members and civilians, at risk ....

The actions of the government she represents, has put the lives of hundreds of thousands of service personnel, and civilians at risk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

paulaa

Clawdeeus wrote: »

They trained them to do it? Or is this just something you threw in for the hell of it? Try and stick to the facts, you can make a good enough argument against the Iraq war (And its conduct) without resorting to "White lies". Hyperbole serves no one.

There are no white lies. A programme called "Dispatches" on Channel 4 about a year and a half ago showed the new Iraqi army and police forces being trained by British and American military. If they trained them in warfare and policing it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they trained them in interrogation and torture methods.

AS these documents were secret US Military documents, the US already knew about it and hushed it up so they are as culpable as the Iraqis who carried it out.

Simple logic isn't it !!!

Clawdeeus

paulaa wrote: »

There are no white lies. A programme called "Dispatches" on Channel 4 about a year and a half ago showed the new Iraqi army and police forces being trained by British and American military. If they trained them in warfare and policing it's not beyond the realms of possibility that they trained them in interrogation and torture methods.

AS these documents were secret US Military documents, the US already knew about it and hushed it up so they are as culpable as the Iraqis who carried it out.

Simple logic isn't it !!!

It is not logic to make basless assumptions. If you have evidence, knock yourself out. Extraoridnary claims require a little more evidence than "they trained them, therefore everything the Iraq army did must have been tought to them by Us/Uk" you honestly think thats sound logic? Its not, its a very basic non sequitur fallacy. People do not need training to throw acid on someone, or cut of their fingers. Its sad but true.

Do you have any evidence that even the US army themselves have such training?

I have no doubt the US military knew that there were abuses in Iraq prisons, but then thats a very different accusation to "they trained them to do it" yes? If you want to make an accusation stick to the ones that have evidence, the CT forums are that way for other ideas.

Do people think the US military should have independantly investigated these (no doubt true) claims, or the US department of justice or state, or was it the responibility of the Iraq government, who it was policy to inform of said torture?

Personally I think it should be some have been some US body, however I can certainly guess the reaction of the Iraq government (and many of the people calling for an end to American imperialism in the region), even 3 years ago, to such an investigation. We all have a low enough opinion of the Iraqi government to not think they are capable of soverignity in this matter, the Iraq government themselves no doubt have a different opinion.

paulaa

Clawdeeus wrote: »

It is not logic to make basless assumptions. If you have evidence, knock yourself out. Extraoridnary claims require a little more evidence than "they trained them, therefore everything the Iraq army did must have been tought to them by Us/Uk" you honestly think thats sound logic? Its not, its a very basic non sequitur fallacy. People do not need training to throw acid on someone, or cut of their fingers. Its sad but true.

Do you have any evidence that even the US army themselves have such training?

I have no doubt the US military knew that there were abuses in Iraq prisons, but then thats a very different accusation to "they trained them to do it" yes? If you want to make an accusation stick to the ones that have evidence, the CT forums are that way for other ideas.

Do people think the US military should have independantly investigated these (no doubt true) claims, or the US department of justice or state, or was it the responibility of the Iraq government, who it was policy to inform of said torture?

Personally I think it should be some have been some US body, however I can certainly guess the reaction of the Iraq government (and many of the people calling for an end to American imperialism in the region), even 3 years ago, to such an investigation. We all have a low enough opinion of the Iraqi government to not think they are capable of soverignity in this matter, the Iraq government themselves no doubt have a different opinion.

Do you think you could debate without calling people liars and making personal remarks ?

I'm sure someone trained the US and UK military in the fine art of waterboarding etc as extensively used in Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and several secret locations. I'm also sure that the new Iraqi army recruits and policemen were well capable of inventing their own tortures having lived with it under Saddam.

However that does not excuse the fact that the allies went into Iraq to bring "democracy", or so they said, yet they hide and cover up this treatment and the deaths of countless people.

One would think they would also have trained these recruits in the democratic and judicial processes and condemn the tortures. Oh I forgot, that would make them hypocrites !!!