Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Releases Cache of 400,000 Iraq War Documents
Caelesto writes "Today around 21:00 GMT, WikiLeaks declared an end to their media embargo of over 400,000 Iraq War documents after Al Jazeera released their story 30 minutes ahead of schedule. These documents, which have been kept under wraps by WikiLeaks for months, may reveal tortures and murders ignored by coalition forces during the fighting and occupation in Iraq. The Pentagon maintained that releasing these documents represented a danger to US troops, but already dozens of news outlets are scrambling to report on what could be a devastating blow to the US Armed Forces' already tattered image." Reader Entropy98 points to the BBC's coverage, as well. If you care to download the collection of files, it's available as a torrent.
...of people like this complaining about "collateral damage" is so thick you could drive a truck across it.
But I just donated 50 EUR to WikiLeaks.
As long as they're releasing factual information I find claims that I should discount that information dubious at best.
Posting these may be wrong but it does bring to like some abuses by all the groups involved which have either never been discussed or their existence never known before. Personally bringing abuses to light which were previously hidden makes this partially right.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
Is that you can just categorize based on Slashdot's summary, and just vaguely use it to go on a soapbox about what you want to make a bunch of noise about.
Even the summary uses phrase "Iraq war documents". Good reason - the Wikileaks release dealt with documents that often referred to what the Iraqi police/forces were doing, and what the US forces knew about. Not that the US forces were doing those actions themselves (though you could argue that allowing such actions were as bad as doing the actions themselves...) Nevertheless, we can't on one hand say we should withdraw and then say that we should keep the Iraqis from doing things we think are bad - good or bad, Iraqis hurting Iraqis is a possible outcome of self-government.
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
"scrambling to report on what could be a devastating blow to the US Armed Forces' already tattered image."
Am I the only who didn't think the first release left the US Armed Forces with a tattered image? These are huge volumes of reports from the US Armed forces about the actions of the US Armed Forces (good, bad, etc) the fact that all actions of the armed forces are so carefully logged leads me to believe that despite issues and anecdotes the US Armed Forces are actually pretty damn professional... Top level officials not wanting these documents publicly released is unfortunate but the fact that these documents even exist is a testament to professionalism on the part of the Armed Forces.
I understand what you're saying, but factual is as factual does. It's a fact that I spent the morning having one of my best orgasms in a while. It's also a fact that I was jerking off. It's a fact I was looking at naughty pictures. It's also a fact I was speeding the other day. Every one of those is a fact and can be combined and contorted to create specific versions of what is and was real. The problem with facts is that they're easily picked and attached to dubious endevours - Wiki has been unabashed about holding a specific philosophical view - which is admirable really especially given that they're so honest about it - and that viewpoint has an effect on what they chose to present as the truth. There is a concern therefore that they're filtering to support their own conclusions - just the same way flat-eathers filter, or indeed supporters of string theory.
As some one said "all are guilty, but all are responsible". I am ashamed and feel complicit in that which enables our fellow human beens do great evil to each other and yet find some solace that they are those who are willing to risk their lives to expose lies fed to us all by the US government. Kudos to WikiLeaks for doing what they do.
Americans are complicit in all their government does since they do not stop it.
I do what I can: I vote for candidates who are not from the demonstrably corrupt main parties, or who have a proven track record of doing good (despite their party allegiance). As such, I reject your accusation that I am complicit in my government's actions.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
> The Pentagon maintained that releasing these documents represented a danger to US troops
Yeh, but the last time they said that, they lied:
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/10/17/170227
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
It's too bad Wikileaks has such an obvious agenda. I like the idea of them, but that the same time, knowing they have such a clear agenda, makes me wonder what they decide not to release because it doesn't flow with what they want the world to think.
Why is it too bad? What the fuck are you talking about? Would you rather have them have a hidden agenda? Like the government bullshit they expose?
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Actually it's the Iraqis that are the butchers. Clearly you didn't read the article.
Now that opens up the question of what exactly the US Army is supposed to do if the local Army is up to no good. Are we supposed to "reconquer" them again and start over from scratch and prolong the occupation of Iraq even longer than it would be otherwise?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Wikileaks released 400,000 more dox that will shake the very foundations upon which the Middle East War rests upon and the news organizations will just sit around masturbating over "Was this ethical? Are people really endangered? What does this mean in regards to bloggers vs. journalists" but never looking at a single document or citing it for the sake of delivering news instead of the storyline which has been perpetuated for the last ten years.
Thank you. It is simple as that. So many people after 9/11 beat the war drum, and now almost a decade later are horrified that bad things happen in war. I am not condoning or supporting the way the war has gone, but it is truly frustrating the way some folks just imagine bubble and sunshine and invasion before really considering the repercussions of their voting decisions (plebeians and bureaucrats alike).
War is nasty. Lets think this shit through next time. If diplomacy is not an option, and all other options have failed, and there will be an provable danger to us or our allies by not acting, then bomb the motherfuckers. Otherwise can we please just stay out of the rest of the world's business? Do it quickly, cleanly, with a solid plan, with an exit strategy, accomplish the goal, and move on. War cost money, and between the MID profiteering it, the globalist loving it, the extremist encouraging it, the only people that lose are the taxpayers and the unnecessary casualties.
Why is that so hard?
If our civilization overcomes the thread of annihilating itself, I hope dearly that it becomes peaceful and moves away from dogmatic BS and more towards science and reason. I don't care if it is after I am dead. I just would sleep better knowing that the human race will make it over the next 1000 years. It really doesn't look so good. I don't think the idiots can handle the fruits of the scientist labor in a responsible manner.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Just a thought, but could it be that Wikileaks never received any classified informations about it? I'm sure they would be happy to release them if you have anything that can be verified to an extent. Those "why don't they have something about ..." commententors seem to be oblivious of the fact that leaks don't appear out of thin air.
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
cappp (1822388) writes on Friday October 22, @09:38PM: "It's a fact that I spent the morning having one of my best orgasms in a while. It's also a fact that I was jerking off."
The internet never forgets. You are screwed if you ever want to run for office. And you will be doing the screwing *ducks*
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
So... what are the mitigating facts which support torture and murder, again? The US military is welcome to add their own facts to the picture...
Probably because they don't have any documents pertaining to Russian actions in Chechnya. This is a group that leaked a list of their own contributors so it's not as though they're opposed to releasing the information for some reason. I imagine if they had something that they felt was reliable they'd release it.
I just tried to post the link to the torrent on my facebook, and got this:
This message contains blocked content that has previously been flagged as abusive or spammy. Let us know if you think this is an error.
Hmmmm... the link hasn't even been up that long, has it? Me thinks Zuckerberg and company are staying on Uncle Sam's friendly side...
Three things occur to me:
You should never Slashdot after a few pints
Jerking off probably isnt the best example of a fact
My presidential slogan "Capp, He Jacks Off So You Don't Get Fucked" probably needs some revision
Unlikely. It's a rhetorical question as the obvious answers are... obvious.
A. It is intended to make you think that maybe WikiLeaks has something against the Western world.. or at least against the U.S.
B. It is intended to make you remember that other countries do atrocious things, too.. thus on some level, to some people, mitigating the fact that `we're` doing so now.
C. It is intended as a troll to invite such east vs west, Russia vs U.S., U.S. vs the world, etc. debates that serve only to muddy the waters.
D. any combination of the above.
Move along, nothing to see here but flamebait.
If Obama wasn't such a coward, the last president would be behind bars (along with most of his cronies), we'd have single-payer-for-all health care, and Wall Street would actually be held responsible for treating the economy the way Michael Vic treats dogs....
FTFY
The problem with facts is that they're easily picked and attached to dubious endevours - Wiki has been unabashed about holding a specific philosophical view - which is admirable really especially given that they're so honest about it - and that viewpoint has an effect on what they chose to present as the truth.
If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you have the law on your side, pound the law.
If you have neither on your side, pound the table.
Claiming bias makes it rather transparent that you're pounding the table.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
many of us think this is a key point in history where freedom is clashing with government invasion of privacy. we see escalating levels of snooping on the part of 'the officials' and the people are forced to endure this treatment under the guise of 'making us safer'. we know its not for that purpose but we are told we have to give up our privacy to the government.
well, wikileaks is giving them a taste of their own medicine. not for that reason primarily, I don't think, but its in there to some extent.
its a statement of: if you are going to dish it out, you BETTER be ready to take it.
the governments (all over the world) are trying to limit free speech (the internet) and seem to have fallen in love with keeping detailed data on all its citizens. they want a one-sided arrangement.
its not fair but there was nothing the little guy can do, no matter which country you are in. (name one that is really 'free' these days. please.)
wiki is sort of a dose of 'fuck you right back'. again, even if not fully intended, it kind of comes off that way.
sort of like a big bully getting a dose of medicine.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
It's too bad Wikileaks has such an obvious agenda.
Really? You mean to publish leaks? Or do you think it is something else?
Because if you think it's to paint somebody as good and somebody else as bad, I don't see it.
If you think it's to specifically paint the US government as bad, well there is at least one leaked document that does the reverse:
One of the most infamous episodes of killings by American soldiers, the shootings of at least 15 Iraqi civilians, including women and children in the western city of Haditha, is misrepresented in the archives. The report stated that the civilians were killed by militants in a bomb attack, the same false version of the episode that was given to the news media.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
"Actually" apparently means different things to different people.
I've grepped the documents themselves, and they tell a different picture. The colour designations indicate that there are far more "blue white" than "green white" incidents, which is scary considering that there are far more green than blue people.
(And there more "blue blue" and "blue green" casualties than "red blue" (a.k.a. "friendly fire") incidents, which is even more frightening. Most of which are marked secret with the justification of potentially inciting public/media unrest, which is downright chilling)
For those who don't know the colour designations:
Blue = US and allied forces
Green = Native "friendly" forces: military, police and mercenary
Red = Enemies
White = Civilians
"blue white" or "blue on white" means an incident where US and/or allied forces engaged a civilian target. One is one too many.
If Obama wasn't such a coward, Guantanamo Bay would be closed, habeas corpus would be restored, our former president his vice president, and a few other select members of his cabinet would be behind bars, and the people responsible for the economic meltdown would either be up on fraud charges, no longer running their companies, or the heads of bankrupt companies.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
or, providing you don't document all the terrible things you do.. or providing that the people doing the terrible things don't hate what they're doing.
all this shows, is that the USA, like other nations, does terrible things sometimes. the difference: somebody took a stand and disagreed with what they were being told to cover up.
If the released reports are biased, the government will give us the whole story, right?
Right?
Wikileaks may have a bias, but they also know their message is destroyed if they are shown to censor data for their effort. The 'Collatoral Murder' fisasco showed that. Even there, they provided the full video but put the focus on where *the issue* was for a short attention span viewing crowd.
We have bias on two sides: Wikileaks, and the US forces who wrote the reports.
The facts in them, though, should be fairly accurate.
If the reports aren't factual, I think it is far more likely that they were falsified by those who wrote them in the first place than by Wikileaks.
You can make a different interpretation of them if you think the reports are too biased (by either side).
In the old days kings used to lead their soldiers into battle. In modern times this is impractical and counterproductive.
But you can still have leaders lead the frontline in spirit.
Basically, if leaders are going to send troops on an _offensive_ war/battle (not defensive war) there must be a referendum on the war.
If there are not enough votes for the war, those leaders get put on death-row.
At a convenient time later, a referendum is held to redeem each leader. Leaders that do not get enough votes get executed. For example if too many people stay at home and don't bother voting - the leaders get executed.
If it turns out later that the war was justified, a fancy ceremony is held, and the executed leaders are awarded a purple heart or equivalent, and you have people say nice things about them, cry and that sort of thing.
If it turns out later that the leaders tricked the voters, a referendum can be held (need to get enough signatures to start such a referendum, just to prevent nutters from wasting everyone elses time).
This proposal has many advantages:
1) Even leaders who don't really care about those "young soldiers on the battlefield" will not consider starting a war lightly.
2) The soldiers will know that the leaders want a war enough to risk their own lives for it.
3) The soldiers will know that X% of the population want the war.
4) Those being attacked will know that X% of the attackers believe in the war - so they want a war, they get a war - for sufficiently high X, collateral damage becomes insignificant. They might even be justified in using WMD and other otherwise dubious tactics. If > 90% of the country attacking you want to kill you and your families, what is so wrong about you using WMD as long as it does not affect neighbouring countries?
I'm pretty sure that would be Masters and Johnson.
You know, you're right about that. Johnson and Johnson is the manufacturer of hand lotion.
No idea how I got those two confused.
Thanks.
At least the money would be very welcomed, since it seems no corporation wants fund such organization.
And, of course, it would be fun to see they winning the same prize Obama won a few years ago.
Well, to be fair, we were pretty sure they were all guilty. After months of torture they finally broke and told us exactly what we wanted to hear.
The file in the torrent is a 355mb csv file with 4437707 rows. And neither Open Office or Gnumeric can open it. They just chug away forever and ever taking more and more memory (up to 3.7gb atm). I wonder if anyone using any other spreadsheet application has more luck... It shouldn't be that damn hard loading a 355mb csv file.
Football Odds
after the 2009 SOFA, i was told that i was to "advise" IP and IF that torture was counter productive and then promptly leave the area so as not to be involved with anything the did. it's their rules, once we give them self government. sure makes the bad guys pine for the days when the "evil" americans were in charge.
These documents, which have been kept under wraps by WikiLeaks for months, may reveal tortures and murders ignored by coalition forces during the fighting and occupation in Iraq.
While there's been some speculation that Wikileaks has an anti-US bias, I don't see that. You're not going to get leaks from non-democracies. Nor are you going to get incriminating leaks from democracies that aren't engaging in significant combat (especially with an insurgency that blends in with the general population). So it'd be natural for them to get such documents from the US.
Having said that, the Slashdotter who submitted the story had a blatant anti-US bias. Hyping the release as "may reveal" bad things (even worse, "ignoring" bad things which somehow got documented anyway) is irresponsible, not that we had any expectation of responsibility from this guy. It's almost like the Slashdot editors picked the juiciest bit of flamebait they could find to dangle before the slavering hordes.
Here is an example of one of the writeups: A FORCE FROM //%%% RAIDED AND SEARCHED '%%% AREA - -%%% PROVINCE. 6X SUSPECTED WERE ARRESTED. THE RAID ENDED AT %%%. NO INJURIES
It's very typical, the "%%%" are WikiLeaks censoring information; dates, places, times, names, even things you would think wouldn't matter to release. They really censor a lot of info, and the majority of reports are pretty mundane, probably giving a fairly good idea of the documents they received.
// MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
And that's how we got a second term for GWB instead of Al Gore - all you folks who voted for Ralph Nader and so on handed the White House to the Republicans.
And vice-versa. All you folks who voted for Gore instead of Nader handed the White House to the Republicans.
There's a reason why The Daily Show often tops the polls as the most trustworthy news source on television.
It's because they're upfront with the fact that Jon is liberal, and also they're upfront about their agenda: to tell dick jokes and poke fun at the absurdity of the system - often by using dick joke.
I'm curious why we've not seen any releases of Russian actions in Chechnya, by these folks.
Is the implication here that records of (frankly, very well-known) Russian atrocities in Chechnya would somehow make it okay for us to do similar things? Everything will be alright if we're not as bad as the Russians?
Well, we aren't as bad as the Russians. And I'll bet that comes as a huge relief to the victims of our war crimes.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Yes, the 40 million or so people who voted for Dubya had nothing whatsoever to do with his win.
But could you explain to me again how it is Ralph Nader's fault that the Democrats have the White House, the House of Representatives and a super-majority in the Senate and still can't get much of anything worthwhile done?
Wikileaks may have a bias, but they also know their message is destroyed if they are shown to censor data for their effort. The 'Collatoral Murder' fisasco showed that. Even there, they provided the full video but put the focus on where *the issue* was for a short attention span viewing crowd.
The "Collatoral Murder" video is a really great example. That wasn't simply pairing down the information to cater to short attention spans. It was a nicely done propaganda piece. For me, that propaganda effort over-shadowed the opportunity to hold the US Military accountable to mistakes made. But then, it also played very well with the anti-war movement. I'd hazard to guess Wikileaks gained more supporters than they lost for their efforts.
Except all the "other side" of the 'truth' has already been published. It's actually the ONLY fact presented so far.
If nobody ever had said anything anywhere about the US military, and wikileaks published this, then it might have been a half truth, or at least something to be taken with a grain of salt. But what actually happens is that everyone, always and everywhere is fucking talking about the "heroes" that are "fighting for freedom" over there at the "axis of evil". Everything we've heard so far is their side. So, accusing wikileaks of being one sided is fucking stupid. The other side is the whole fucking media. All the fucking media against a single fucking website. Don't be such a fucking hypocrite.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Weird. The country with the world-record in political assassination is the US. Explain to me why I should be more scared of the shitty remains of the USSR than of your chacals?
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
America: Better in some ways than Russia
You should start an advertising company.
Drink Dioxin! It's less poisonous the strychnine.
400,000 documents? We couldn't get people to read the 1000 page health care bill. Who's going to read these?
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
The leak highlights the high numbers of civilian, military, and Iraqi casualties. If the war in Iraq had been worth it, then maybe none of this would be so bad. But I have yet to see one political leader, including the former President Bush, explain why the war in Iraq was necessary or worth it. My advice to future Presidents is if you're Generals and pollsters are advising you to go to war, ask yourselves this question. "Are we all willing to send our own children out on the first wave?" If the answer is no, then the war is probably not worth it and we should stick to diplomatic means. I am an American and a veteran who served in Iraq. I was personally all for invading Iraq. The American people wanted to invade Iraq, and President Bush did what at the time was a very popular thing. Now every one wants to criticize the last President for doing that they themselves advocated. Some day America needs to come to terms with this. Or will America just ignore the lesson and blame it all on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. and bumble on to the next mistake? Americans are not famous for self reflection, so I expect America to just blame the Bushies and move on.
I saw one document on here which really disgusted me. The American troops had someone detained, some soldier walks in, pulls out a browning and fires 7 rounds into the detainee for no apparent reason. That soldier then gets detained for a while then he's let of. WTF, this is bullshit.
I liked this one:
I think the whole world already knows how we operate. This only proves the point.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The documents reportedly also tell about incidents of torture by coalition forces, and of civilians being killed at checkpoints (for speeding to get their wife to the hospital). There is an incident described where a single terrorist on the roof of a building caused the military to obliterate the entire building and everyone in it (civilians).
Time to queue up the politicians whining about how evil it is releasing secrets about the torture and murder or civilians and at no time admitting the real evil was in the acts themselves.
If they lie about how our heroes die, how are we to trust them on how our enemies died or were treated.
What are the new international rights for Americans?
Now let's suppose a group of Canadian terrorists bombs a building a China. You couldn't complain if the Chinese consequently invaded the USA because you are harboring Canadians. The Chinese could march up to Washington, catch Bush, Obama and friends from pits in the ground, and execute them after a fake trial. While hunting the terrorists, they could kill innocent civilians with a ratio 5:1. These events, they could hide them actively from the media and from being ever discovered, because it is the patriotic thing to do and to protect the Chinese freedom fighters. If your family was killed at a checkpoint, you could witness people on Chinese internet forums discussing that it is irresponsible to have information about this incident released, that this would be anti-Chinese and evidence of a strong bias and sensationalism of the person of organisation releasing that secret info. There will be much torture, and those who expose it will be branded traitors, while the torturers walk. Many Americans and Canadians will be shipped to a remote prison. The new Chinese ruler who will keep everything the same will get the Nobel Peace Price.
None of what you said changes the fact that sanctions under Clinton killed more Iraqis than war under Bush. Pointing out that Saddam was culpable is the same as me pointing out that the insurgents are culpable in civilian deaths by a) not wearing uniforms b) deliberately mixing with civilians, c) killing hell out of of a lot Iraqi civilians themselves. Are you aware that by far most of the civilian deaths in Iraq have come from the insurgents, not from the US?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
The military is trying to paint war as an exact, precise business. People have to be reminded that it's messy and bloody.
Problem is, it was supposed to be a liberation, not a war.
When the WMDs didn't pan out, Bush went on and on about the glorious democracy they were going to bring by deposing of the evil tyrant. Well, just look at it. Isn't the guy who was driving his wife to the hospital glad you set things right?
I'll grant you that ignoring a checkpoint in wartime isn't the smartest decision one can make, but chances are under Saddam he would still be alive. And I thought that the whole point of this was making things better.
So, we're now the radical left if we think that a whole building full of people don't deserve to die because there is a sniper there? Great. Hope you weren't anywhere in DC when there was a sniper there...
Invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and no WMD is not a valid military tactic. To compare the invasion of Iraq with liberation of Europe is laughable. Would you suck it up with "War is hell" if they did this in your country? And "muslims killing muslims" - well, what if I invaded and put the KKK in charge of the US - would that be OK as "Christians killing Christians"? When you remove power and authority and hand it to psychopaths you are NOT absolved of whatever they do.
So FUCK YOU armchair warrior. Your "War" was illegitimate, the hell you brought with you is horrendous, and if it makes me a radical left winger to say so, we DO need to see what the results of our "War on Terror" are and become outraged that thousands of civilians have been killed FOR NOTHING. I don't want to be desensitized. I don't want to get used to it. I want it to stop happening, unless it's the absolutely fucking last resort, which it was not in this case.
Bringing your wife to hospital? Did you grow up in a movie? In reality, there is no emergency. Labour lasts hours even with mothers who had babies before.
Okay, this may run completely contrary to your worldview so it may be best to sit down and steady yourself : giving birth is not the sum total of a woman's existence. If someone is rushing their wife to hospital then there is a very good chance that it has nothing to do with making babies. And yes, in reality, it may be an emergency. People use hospitals in emergencies. Even women who aren't giving birth. Does that make any sense to you at all?
A coalition of groups in the U.S. wanted the Iraq war:
The U.S. government has killed an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world war, by invading or bombing or causing political problems in 24 countries.
You say that pointing out the bad things that happen in war is wrong because in war they are inevitable, well they are not. The real issue is that the war was illegal, injustified (unless lies are currently a justification for anything), and in direct violation of international law. Even enemy soldiers getting killed is a tragedy and worth speaking up about, let alone pregnant women on their way to hospital, and for the record labour is quite often an emergency, especially where poverty and bad hygiene are involved. Ask a doctor if you doubt this.
I have a joke for you: A man breaks into a house and starts raping a woman living there. Her husband interferes. In the ensuing struggle the husband and wife are both killed. In court the rapists lawyer says: "Rape is a messy business, that's the reality. People get killed sometimes." So the judge lets him off the murder charges.
Also, the idea that you should silence the critics of war in order to have a rational debate about atrocities committed is absurd, I hope you realise this.
Now that the silliness is out of the way, can we talk about REALity?
Well said. The framing of this stuff is insane. Another thing that disturbs me is the quote of 100,000 killed. That's just the recorded incidents of "killed by munitions". The number of deaths due to the destruction of the clean water supply, hospitals, food supply, electricity, roads etc is vastly huger. By nearly any standard the Iraq War is a war crime.
>>>The real problem is that the right.....
I wish you (and other posters) would stop saying "the right" as if we all think with one hive mind. I'm on the right (tenth amendment constitutionalist) but I'm anti-"war on terror", and always have been since the towers collapsed. Stereotyping is a bad thing to do.
If you want to denigrate, then be more specific with your targets. "The real problem is that the Bush/neoconservative Republicans from 2001 to 2008 were pro-war and..." i.e. Don't include me in your 2-minute hate, because I was NEVER sided with them. And there's lots more like me (Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano, Harry Browne, et cetera) who also were against the war.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
BTW there are also a lot of people on "the left" who were pro-war.
Go back and look at the Congressional Authorization for War in 2001.
The Democrat representatives voted near-unanimously to go to war.
Even now the Democrats continue forward with war, even though they've held Congress since 2006 and could have ended the war anytime they felt like it. IMHO they should have ended it then, or immediately after Obama became inaugurated.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
That's a bullshit notion about Iraq situation I see again and again. It is NOT a war, that is a lie. It is an ongoing atrocity against mankind for the purpose of lining the pockets of elite and increasing their power. Just as our arming and support of Saddam was. We have the blood of Saddam's actions on our hands as well as the blood being spilt now.
We lied that we would liberate the people from Saddam, instead nine years later our military and contractors are slaughtering, raping, and murdering innocents for amusement.
We lied that Al Qaeda was in Iraq or aligned with Al Qaeda, and then through deliberate poor strategy turned the place into magnet for Al Qaeda and recruiting ground.
We lied that Saddam was making new WMD.
We lied that this is war, by Constitution it is not. By purpose it is not.
We lied that we would bring freedom and democracy to the middle east, instead we force our puppets at gunpoint and have rigged elections.
Afghanistan is the same thing, those who attacked us aren't there and the elections are fake and not the people's choice. Those who don't go along with our farce are labeled "Taliban" and murdered.
It's not being divisive to diagnose the problem correctly. AC is spot on.
The problem with the radical left wing is that it is measured in distance from the right. Which keeps moving to the right. In the 1960's you had to be a hippie in a minivan or a communist or a black panther to be called radical left wing. These days all it takes is for you to say "gee blowing up children might not be a good thing."
If you want a serious dialog on this, I'll tell you what. We of the left will happily become more centrist. Just as soon as you put down the Fox news driven fear and paranoia, and really think about what is best. A good start would be to just simply head to youtube and watch a few recordings of the Dalai Lama speaking.
I've done my part. I'm a registered Democrat and I'm pro second amendment. And guess what? My head didn't explode. So that's my first step. What will yours be?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.