6 ms·

You know how we're still hunting down and jailing formers nazis and concentration camp guards? Why aren't we doing the same to these CIA agents and decision mak

by Tharkun 10y ago

You know how we're still hunting down and jailing formers nazis and concentration camp guards? Why aren't we doing the same to these CIA agents and decision makers?

sbarre 10y ago
Because the United States of America didn't lose any wars, and winners make policy.
- galuggus 10y ago
  How about Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan?
  - rangibaby 10y ago
    They lost in that they didn't achieve what they set out to do, but there was no instrument of surrender signed in SF bay, Nuremberg-style kangaroo court, USA partitioned into friendly states, etc.
  - hasenj 10y ago
    How did they "lose" Iraq? They successfully invaded the country, changed the regime, changed the military, the police, the government .. everything. Then they left. Iraq is in utter chaos, the US is doing just fine. How exactly did the US "lose" in Iraq?
    - awinder 10y ago
      Because the stated goal of that war was for the instilled government to survive and for democracy to transform the region. Not for the country to become destabilized with former military operatives to go into Syria and form the next great political catastrophe. That definitely wasn't a "win" long term.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - hasenj 10y ago
        That's completely different from winning or losing a war. The events you describe don't affect the US's dominance at all. The region's current turmoil is all internal. The US can just wait it out and then when it's all over, the winner will be weak and the US can just come in again any time and reset the whole thing. So this doesn't affect the US's ability to "write" history.
        Udik 10y ago
        > So this doesn't affect the US's ability to "write" history. It does, this thread (and thousands others like it) is the proof. The US are internationally much weaker than they were before the wars in the Middle East, and their international politics are now considered by growing amounts of people as illegitimate and harmful.
        hasenj 10y ago
        > their international politics are now considered by growing amounts of people as illegitimate and harmful. That has always been the case.
      - dannypgh 10y ago
        It irks me whenever anyone makes a claim about the "stated goal of that war" and completely omits talk of WMD, despite their alleged presence being key to the claimed legal basis for the war, presentation to the UN, etc. GWB: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
- cstross 10y ago
  That explains why the Republic of South Vietnam is doing so well these days, and why Iraq and Afghanistan are beacons of hope and democracy in the middle east. (The USA does lose wars; it's just career suicide for a politician -- and deeply unpopular for a media channel -- to admit it. And nobody has actually threatened to invade the CONUS since 1941, so the cost of losing a war is much lower than for most other nations.)
  - blfr 10y ago
    It's pretty clear what he meant: the US never had to surrender like Germany or Japan, or even defend on their own soil, so they can shield their operatives indefinitely.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - patrickaljord 10y ago
      And they didn't really lost in Vietnam, what happened in the end was that they had to pick between two alternatives: carpet bomb the place to hell and "win" or go home. That "win" would have been political suicide for the administration at the time as the majority of the US wanted to go home. In the end it was a victory of the will of the people so I'm glad they went home and I'm not even American so it's not like I care if they "lost" or not.
      - o0-0o 10y ago
        This. If anyone thinks that the US lost Vietnam, they are kiding themselves. The US chose to go home. Was at the Vietnam Verterans' Memorial yesterday, and they list of dead is astounding. Quite sad, really. Regardless of the reason, we paid a dear price for our beliefs.
      - willholloway 10y ago
        The US carpet bombed Vietnam and Cambodia and still didn't win. See Operation Rolling Thunder [1] The US sought to destroy all North Vietnamese infrastructure, rail, bridges, and communications. The North Vietnamese responded by decentralizing. They sent half the population of Hanoi to the country side. When a bridge was bombed, they rebuilt it with dirt or set up a ferry. When rail was bombed, they split it into smaller segments and only operated at night. They fully militarized their entire population, civilians carried messages, and relayed goods. They dug tunnels, set up in caves and got modern anti-aircraft guns and MIGs from Russia and China. Even though their planes were not as good, they were good enough to engage in hit and runs, all the MIGs had to do was show up and the American planes had to dump their payload of bombs to be maneuverable enough to be able to defend themselves. Cambodia was bombed even more harshly in Operation Menu and then Operation Freedom Deal, which was kept secret from the American public. "The United States dropped upwards of 2.7 million tons of bombs on Cambodia, exceeding the amount it had dropped on Japan during WWII (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki) by almost a million tons." It didn't work. We could not subjugate Vietnam or Cambodia. One of the things it did accomplish was creating a civil war in Cambodia and a generation of crazies led by a Western educated leader, Pol Pot, that responded to their inability to feed their population with the killing fields. This stuff just doesn't work and we keep doing it over and over again, creating mass human misery and trauma, and destroying the economic surplus of our nation. The US projected all the "power" it had at Vietnam and Cambodia. It carpet bombed, it defoliated the jungle with agent orange. It used ground troops. It attacked the neighboring countries to deny sanctuary to the Viet Cong across borders. It killed three million Vietnamese. It still couldn't win. The only other weapon the US could have used was nuclear. The US could have annihilated Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with atomic weapons. Only those weapons are powerful enough to destroy as much as we think "carpet-bombing" with conventional explosives can accomplish. The land mass is too large, the number of planes that could get past Vietnamese air defenses too small, the power of conventional weapons also too small, and the ability of the Vietnamese to adapt and repair too great to achieve the effect of total destruction. The US tried. We really, really tried. The idea that we "kept the gloves on" is a myth. This idea of American omnipotence has to go. There are limits to air power, and limits to American power. It is the failure to learn this lesson that has created four failed states in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. Afghanistan is another tragic example. After 15 years of war, counter insurgency, and surge the Taliban now controls more territory than it did in 2004-5. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal
- velodrome 10y ago
  "Winners" is the wrong word here. The US has a massive amount of clout and can project power globally (unlike most countries).
- einrealist 10y ago
  The US did: Vietnam. So what about Gulf of Tonkin?
  - JackFr 10y ago
    John Winger (Bill Murray)in Stripes: "But we're American soldiers! We've been kicking ass for 200 years! We're 10-1 !"
kmfrk 10y ago
The US actually brought on a lot of nazis after WW2 to work with against the Soviets. American history is fun like that.
- rangibaby 10y ago
  including Werhner Von Braun, the designer of the Saturn V and the inspiration for Dr. Strangelove
  - aries1980 10y ago
    Indeed, but just for the record, Dr. Strangelove among Von Braun is the amalgamation of John Von Neumann, Edward Teller and Herman Kahn too, who were far from being nazis.
- arethuza 10y ago
  That wasn't unique to the US though - the Soviets also took ex-Nazi scientists to work for them as did the UK.
zerr 10y ago
What about KGB agents and "former" commies?
_delirium 10y ago
There was a militant group in Greece that did that vigilante-style (since the Greek government refused / was unable to carry out any kind of prosecutions), "17 November", named after the date of an uprising [1] against the CIA-supported military government. They successfully assassinated the Athens CIA station chief (the only time a CIA station chief has been killed on duty), and promptly got labeled a terrorist organization. Arguably they did actually become one later, when they broadened their assassination campaign to a broad range of prominent Greek figures rather than the early focus on only targeting intelligence agents (both American ones and their Greek contacts). But early on they were very popular, because people like Richard Welch [2] were seen by many Greeks as legitimate military targets. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Polytechnic_uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Polytechnic_uprising [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Welch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Welch

by Tharkun 10y ago

You know how we're still hunting down and jailing formers nazis and concentration camp guards? Why aren't we doing the same to these CIA agents and decision makers?

sbarre 10y ago

Because the United States of America didn't lose any wars, and winners make policy.

galuggus 10y ago
How about Vietnam, Iraq, Afganistan?
- rangibaby 10y ago
  They lost in that they didn't achieve what they set out to do, but there was no instrument of surrender signed in SF bay, Nuremberg-style kangaroo court, USA partitioned into friendly states, etc.
- hasenj 10y ago
  How did they "lose" Iraq? They successfully invaded the country, changed the regime, changed the military, the police, the government .. everything. Then they left. Iraq is in utter chaos, the US is doing just fine. How exactly did the US "lose" in Iraq?
  - awinder 10y ago
    Because the stated goal of that war was for the instilled government to survive and for democracy to transform the region. Not for the country to become destabilized with former military operatives to go into Syria and form the next great political catastrophe. That definitely wasn't a "win" long term.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - hasenj 10y ago
      That's completely different from winning or losing a war. The events you describe don't affect the US's dominance at all. The region's current turmoil is all internal. The US can just wait it out and then when it's all over, the winner will be weak and the US can just come in again any time and reset the whole thing. So this doesn't affect the US's ability to "write" history.
      - Udik 10y ago
        > So this doesn't affect the US's ability to "write" history. It does, this thread (and thousands others like it) is the proof. The US are internationally much weaker than they were before the wars in the Middle East, and their international politics are now considered by growing amounts of people as illegitimate and harmful.
        hasenj 10y ago
        > their international politics are now considered by growing amounts of people as illegitimate and harmful. That has always been the case.
    - dannypgh 10y ago
      It irks me whenever anyone makes a claim about the "stated goal of that war" and completely omits talk of WMD, despite their alleged presence being key to the claimed legal basis for the war, presentation to the UN, etc. GWB: "Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly, yet our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."
cstross 10y ago
That explains why the Republic of South Vietnam is doing so well these days, and why Iraq and Afghanistan are beacons of hope and democracy in the middle east. (The USA does lose wars; it's just career suicide for a politician -- and deeply unpopular for a media channel -- to admit it. And nobody has actually threatened to invade the CONUS since 1941, so the cost of losing a war is much lower than for most other nations.)
- blfr 10y ago
  It's pretty clear what he meant: the US never had to surrender like Germany or Japan, or even defend on their own soil, so they can shield their operatives indefinitely.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - patrickaljord 10y ago
    And they didn't really lost in Vietnam, what happened in the end was that they had to pick between two alternatives: carpet bomb the place to hell and "win" or go home. That "win" would have been political suicide for the administration at the time as the majority of the US wanted to go home. In the end it was a victory of the will of the people so I'm glad they went home and I'm not even American so it's not like I care if they "lost" or not.
    - o0-0o 10y ago
      This. If anyone thinks that the US lost Vietnam, they are kiding themselves. The US chose to go home. Was at the Vietnam Verterans' Memorial yesterday, and they list of dead is astounding. Quite sad, really. Regardless of the reason, we paid a dear price for our beliefs.
    - willholloway 10y ago
      The US carpet bombed Vietnam and Cambodia and still didn't win. See Operation Rolling Thunder [1] The US sought to destroy all North Vietnamese infrastructure, rail, bridges, and communications. The North Vietnamese responded by decentralizing. They sent half the population of Hanoi to the country side. When a bridge was bombed, they rebuilt it with dirt or set up a ferry. When rail was bombed, they split it into smaller segments and only operated at night. They fully militarized their entire population, civilians carried messages, and relayed goods. They dug tunnels, set up in caves and got modern anti-aircraft guns and MIGs from Russia and China. Even though their planes were not as good, they were good enough to engage in hit and runs, all the MIGs had to do was show up and the American planes had to dump their payload of bombs to be maneuverable enough to be able to defend themselves. Cambodia was bombed even more harshly in Operation Menu and then Operation Freedom Deal, which was kept secret from the American public. "The United States dropped upwards of 2.7 million tons of bombs on Cambodia, exceeding the amount it had dropped on Japan during WWII (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki) by almost a million tons." It didn't work. We could not subjugate Vietnam or Cambodia. One of the things it did accomplish was creating a civil war in Cambodia and a generation of crazies led by a Western educated leader, Pol Pot, that responded to their inability to feed their population with the killing fields. This stuff just doesn't work and we keep doing it over and over again, creating mass human misery and trauma, and destroying the economic surplus of our nation. The US projected all the "power" it had at Vietnam and Cambodia. It carpet bombed, it defoliated the jungle with agent orange. It used ground troops. It attacked the neighboring countries to deny sanctuary to the Viet Cong across borders. It killed three million Vietnamese. It still couldn't win. The only other weapon the US could have used was nuclear. The US could have annihilated Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia with atomic weapons. Only those weapons are powerful enough to destroy as much as we think "carpet-bombing" with conventional explosives can accomplish. The land mass is too large, the number of planes that could get past Vietnamese air defenses too small, the power of conventional weapons also too small, and the ability of the Vietnamese to adapt and repair too great to achieve the effect of total destruction. The US tried. We really, really tried. The idea that we "kept the gloves on" is a myth. This idea of American omnipotence has to go. There are limits to air power, and limits to American power. It is the failure to learn this lesson that has created four failed states in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. Afghanistan is another tragic example. After 15 years of war, counter insurgency, and surge the Taliban now controls more territory than it did in 2004-5. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Rolling_Thunder [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom_Deal
velodrome 10y ago
"Winners" is the wrong word here. The US has a massive amount of clout and can project power globally (unlike most countries).
einrealist 10y ago
The US did: Vietnam. So what about Gulf of Tonkin?
- JackFr 10y ago
  John Winger (Bill Murray)in Stripes: "But we're American soldiers! We've been kicking ass for 200 years! We're 10-1 !"

kmfrk 10y ago

The US actually brought on a lot of nazis after WW2 to work with against the Soviets. American history is fun like that.

rangibaby 10y ago
including Werhner Von Braun, the designer of the Saturn V and the inspiration for Dr. Strangelove
- aries1980 10y ago
  Indeed, but just for the record, Dr. Strangelove among Von Braun is the amalgamation of John Von Neumann, Edward Teller and Herman Kahn too, who were far from being nazis.
arethuza 10y ago
That wasn't unique to the US though - the Soviets also took ex-Nazi scientists to work for them as did the UK.

zerr 10y ago

What about KGB agents and "former" commies?

_delirium 10y ago

There was a militant group in Greece that did that vigilante-style (since the Greek government refused / was unable to carry out any kind of prosecutions), "17 November", named after the date of an uprising [1] against the CIA-supported military government. They successfully assassinated the Athens CIA station chief (the only time a CIA station chief has been killed on duty), and promptly got labeled a terrorist organization. Arguably they did actually become one later, when they broadened their assassination campaign to a broad range of prominent Greek figures rather than the early focus on only targeting intelligence agents (both American ones and their Greek contacts). But early on they were very popular, because people like Richard Welch [2] were seen by many Greeks as legitimate military targets. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Polytechnic_uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athens_Polytechnic_uprising [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Welch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Welch