Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

We nearly did with Iraq, but that seems to have been more not understanding or underestimating the sectarian conflict over there.

The whole problem with Iraq is that we did try to install a democracy without having the faintest idea how the country operated, or didn't operate. Since we were unwilling to redraw borders, we could have saved everyone a whole bunch of bloodshed and money by putting in a monarch or a better strongman.

A better strongman wouldn't neccesarily be the right one, besides, wasn't Maliki (I think that was his name) elected? Not like we went, 'here, this guy is your new leader, deal with it.'

Also, remember the last time the US (though Britian was also involved) replaced a countrys leader with a monarchy? Besides, unlike Iran, I don't think Iraqs royalty is around anymore, so who would we even crown as king anyway.

[SalmonGod]

Regime change?  Yea... that is the 'final' solution to everyone we don't like outside of the 'west' ain't it?

We've gotten better since the Cold War at not replacing democracies with dictatorships...I can't think of a single example since 1990, actually.

(Course, I would argue that just because you should never replace a functional democracy with a dictatorship, that doesn't mean you should always replace an autocracy with a democracy. But I don't think we're going to go back to the dozens and dozens of anti-democratic coups we orchestrated in Latin America and elsewhere.)

Still a reputation that will take some time to shake, given the people that grew up in the immediate aftermath of these events are middle-aged now.

[Sheb]

Maliki was elected by the Irakian parliament, but only after some arm-wrestling by the US embassy. The US basically played the role of the party whip.

[Zrk2]

Man, I didn't realize the Republican senators were that fucking nuts. This is unbelievable, and I'm pretty sure treason. I really would like it if Obama had them brought up on charges of treason.

[Angle]

Well, apparently it's not technically treason, merely a violation of some act or another. It's still pretty dumb, though.

[Frumple]

The Logan Act, yes. Which... in the ~236 years it's been on the books, there has been one indictment (that happened over two centuries ago.) and zero convictions.

I mean, it's there, and a felony crime, but...

E: It does make them look like people that are attempting to undermine the government's functioning, but, uh. That's more or less been an explicit GOP platform for a while now. Not exactly unusual.

[Bauglir]

Y'know what, I think the GOP's conduct of late has gotten so obnoxious that this is a fine precedent. They've been consistently abusing procedures and rules for about 6 years now, and in ways that in no fashion resemble the intent of those rules. If they want to exploit whatever loopholes they can to achieve transient political ends, let them hang on their own scheme.

Fuck, I never thought I'd be endorsing an attack on a political movement through police powers, but here we fucking are.

[Baffler]

I wouldn't really call their open letter "negotiation" with a foreign government. As amusing as it would be, I don't see anything coming of this. Even if they are charged under the Logan Act it seems unlikely they will be convicted, and just mentioning it will lead to a shitstorm of incredible proportions. Imagine how the militia movement and the Tea Party, for example, would respond to "BREAKING: PRESIDENT INDICTS REPUBLICAN LEADERS FOR TREASON" for a small idea of what would happen.

[Reelya]

I was reading that Rumsfeld brought this guy out of retirement to train anti-insurgency troops during the occupation of Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Steele_%28US_Colonel%29

He's basically a guy with a history of training death squads to suppress dissent in some of the worst human rights abusing regimes (pro American ones) of latin America. Rumsfeld felt he was just a guy to help the Iraqis get a handle on their own insurgents. The result were predictable - Iraqi commando units indicted for massive human rights abuses against rival ethnic factions.

He was involved with both the El Salvador death squads, and creating the Contras, who actually were the toppled fascist government's forces rebranded as freedom fighters (and basically ran around massacring nuns with machetes, raping, murdering and blowing stuff up). In Iraq, his commandos were actually a "rebranding" of Saddam's Republican Guard. With predictable results. This makes me wonder how much we actually learned. Or at least how much the Republicans learned.
 

General Muntadher al-Samari, Iraqi interior minister from 2003–05, revealed the US role in torture carried out by the Special Commandos' interrogation units, claiming that Steele and his colleague Col. James H. Coffman, Jr. knew exactly what was being done. Al-Samari described "the ugliest sorts of torture" he had ever seen, which included the severe beating and hanging of detainees, as well the pulling off of their fingernails. The Guardian report also claimed that the US backing of sectarian paramilitary units helped create conditions that led to sectarian civil war.

Yeah, so can't whitewash this as a local issue. Rumsfeld deliberately brought in a guy who was already notorious for this kind of stuff 30 years ago. These are basically the exact same claims of US advisor involvement in torture you read about that Salvadoran soldiers used to make.

[SalmonGod]

I was reading that Rumsfeld brought this guy out of retirement to train anti-insurgency troops during the occupation of Iraq:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Steele_%28US_Colonel%29

He's basically a guy with a history of training death squads to suppress dissent in some of the worst human rights abusing regimes (pro American ones) of latin America. Rumsfeld felt he was just a guy to help the Iraqis get a handle on their own insurgents. The result were predictable - Iraqi commando units indicted for massive human rights abuses against rival ethnic factions.

He was involved with both the El Salvador death squads, and creating the Contras, who actually were the toppled fascist government's forces rebranded as freedom fighters (and basically ran around massacring nuns with machetes, raping, murdering and blowing stuff up). In Iraq, his commandos were actually a "rebranding" of Saddam's Republican Guard. With predictable results. This makes me wonder how much we actually learned. Or at least how much the Republicans learned.
 

General Muntadher al-Samari, Iraqi interior minister from 2003–05, revealed the US role in torture carried out by the Special Commandos' interrogation units, claiming that Steele and his colleague Col. James H. Coffman, Jr. knew exactly what was being done. Al-Samari described "the ugliest sorts of torture" he had ever seen, which included the severe beating and hanging of detainees, as well the pulling off of their fingernails. The Guardian report also claimed that the US backing of sectarian paramilitary units helped create conditions that led to sectarian civil war.

Yeah, so can't whitewash this as a local issue. Rumsfeld deliberately brought in a guy who was already notorious for this kind of stuff 30 years ago. These are basically the exact same claims of US advisor involvement in torture you read about that Salvadoran soldiers used to make.

Yeah, it's not exactly obscure knowledge that one of the biggest hiring pools for "contractors" (mercenaries) in Iraq was former Latin American death squaders.  The book by Jeremy Scahill that played a large part in making Blackwater infamous delved deep into this subject.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

This is the problem with American politics these days. You don't see (at least to my knowledge anyways) this letter-writing shit from Britain or France. Frankly, the American congress is lazy as all hell and harbors a blatant disrespect for the rules that the USA was built on. It's embarrassing in my eyes. Sadly, the truth of the satirical Iranian response is biting, not to mention their other formal responses. In this day and age I find it repulsive that congressmen/women find it necessary (take that as you will; from the congressional side or as constituent pressure) to even have to rely on religion at all to hold on to significant portions their base and that once they have secured it, that they follow their disgustingly antiquated dogma through to the fine print, especially when they ignore so much more important matters entirely. Of course, this is directed largely at republicans, but the democrats are no better. Does anyone remember that vote a few years a go where half the democratic congressmen (I believe, could have been just one of the houses) just decided to hide in their respective states for whatever reasons? Not to mention Obama's etiquette in dealing with affairs both foreign and domestic. Disgusting really, how these politics are played out. Two hundred years ago, one hundred years ago, fifty, this country had political style enough to influence the rise and fall of great nations around the world, now we are reduced to the ramblings of fucking children and senile laggards who have the gall to call themselves leaders of men.

[Frumple]

... so, uh, wow. Apparently Oklahoma's house this past tuesday passed a bill (.pdf here, with the particularly relevant bit starting in section 7, near the bottom of page 8.) that intends to completely remove civil marriages from their state. It'll make it so the only people capable of officiating a marriage are clergy of the christian, jewish, or baha'i faiths -- state personnel will be there only to record marriages, and everyone that doesn't want to go down that route either has to take up a common law marriage (which is very much not the same thing) or presumably go out of state.

It's still got to get through their senate, but considering both are republican majority...

Tally another point on the list of "Stay the hell away from Oklahoma", I guess.

[Urist Imiknorris]

So the people who joked that banning gay marriage would lead to banning straight marriage were right?

[Frumple]

Only if they're muslim or buddhist or non-religious or somethin'. You'd still be in the "good" if you're willing to see a priest or rabbi to get hitched.

I mean, conceptually they're going to be allowing same-sex marriages outright, since some denominations are okay with it and presumably are either already in-state or will cheerfully show up soon after,* and the constitutional ban on it has either been ruled unconstitutional or will be soon enough.

*If it passes all the way it would probably be a really good time for someone in-state to get ordained by one of the permissive sects and open up a nice church in their living room or somethin'. Pretty easy money, really.

[RedKing]

If I read it correctly, out-of-state preachers can get their credentials on file and then sign marriage licenses as long as they do it for free.
UCC and UU preachers will be flocking to that (if not to Oklahoma itself).

Kind of weird that they specifically include Baha'i.