SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
On the sixth anniversary of the first infamous "Cablegate" by WikiLeaks, when it releases its first batch of sensitive US files, on November 28 2010, it has expanded its Public Library of US Diplomacy (PLUSD) with 531,525 new diplomatic cables from 1979.
In a statement to coincide with the release of the cables, known as "Carter Cables III", Mr Assange explained how events which unfolded in 1979, had begun a series of events that led to the rise of ISIS.
He said: "If any year could be said to be the "year zero" of our modern era, 1979 is it."
Mr Assange said a decision by the CIA, together with Saudi Arabia, to plough billions of dollars into arming the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan to tackle the Soviet Union, had led to the creation of terror group al-Qaeda.
This, in turn, he said led to the 9/11 terror strikes, the invasion of Afghanhistan and Iraq by the US, and the creation of ISIS.
Source: Express.co.uk
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 29 2016, @05:22PM
The "peace" in Iraq? Never happened. The war didn't end when we said it ended - but I think everyone knows that. We either stayed to damned long, or not nearly long enough. The point in time at which we declared the war to be over was meaningless, in any context aside from a US political context.
I've said, and I'll repeat here, that Iraq was pretty much an unjustified war. But, if we were going to go in after Saddam, we shouldn't even have declared war. A punitive campaign would have been the correct tool for the job. Go in, destroy the army, get Saddam, and get the hell out. 3 to 6 months tops. And, ditto in Afghanistan. In both cases, our "peace" has been more costly than the war.
And, in both cases, the countries would have been left in better shape to deal with future crisis, such as Isis. We DID dismantle the army in Iraq, thus feeding manpower to what would become ISIS.
I think we see the same facts, mostly, but my slant is a little different than yours.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Tuesday November 29 2016, @05:57PM
> A punitive campaign would have been the correct tool for the job. Go in, destroy the army, get Saddam, and get the hell out.
> (...)
> And, in both cases, the countries would have been left in better shape (...). We DID dismantle the army in Iraq, thus feeding manpower to what would become ISIS.
Even I don't contradict myself so quickly. Yes I do. No I don't! Yes I do, though not often! No I don't, all the time!
> And, ditto in Afghanistan. In both cases, our "peace" has been more costly than the war.
So tell me exactly what your plans would entail. I'm highly confused by your statements.
Destroy the Iraqi army and kill the dictator, then walk away? Who's controlling the place and its oil then? The religious guys, or the Iran-friendly majority?
More fundamentally, "punitive" FOR WHAT?
Destroy the Afghanistan "Army", kill the dictator, then walk away? Who's in control next, Iran, Pakistan, the dead Massoud, or some random drug lord?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:23PM
The government and the army would have been left in place. We defeat the army, snatch the leader, walk away. That is a "punitive expedition". A defeated army still remains an army, unlike what we did to it.
The concept isn't that hard to understand. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_expedition [wikipedia.org]
https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/wwi/108653.htm [state.gov]
What we did in Iraq, was to destroy a government, an army, a culture, much of the infrastructure - we tore the country to pieces in many way.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday November 29 2016, @06:31PM
I quoted your use of the word "destroy". Defeat is not the same as destroy.
You did not address what would happen to an oil-rich country with influential neighbors with a weakened military and without Saddam, neither did you address why you feel that any US government had any reason to "punish" Iraq in the first place.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday November 29 2016, @07:24PM
Wrong choice of words, but the effect would have been the same. We defeated and destroyed Saddam's army in what - 3 days? Our tanks and armored vehicles raced to Baghdad, and by the time we got there, there was pretty little left of Saddam's mechainized army, and the infantry was ready to surrender. Only the threats from Saddam of executions of traitors prevented them from surrendering en masse.
One single drive halfway across the country did destroy Saddam's army's will to fight - and that is pretty much "destroyed".
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 29 2016, @08:37PM
Its revealing that the only point you decided to address was the one of syntax.
All the rest of bob's points, you know the ones with real meat on them, like water off a duck's back.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday November 30 2016, @12:00AM
Equally revealing: YOu missed the entire disapproval of invading Iraq. I stated that IF Iraq MUST BE punished, then the proper measure would have been a punitive expedition. But, that isn't approval.
In 2001/2002, were you even aware enough of what Iraq was all about to form an opinion? I was - and I argued long and loud against invading. So - what exactly is it that you're asking me to justify, or not to justify?