4 ms·

Wait a moment - did US soldiers really murder hundreds of thousands? You can't just throw around statements like that. Iraq is an unstable conglomeration of re

Wait a moment - did US soldiers really murder hundreds of thousands? You can't just throw around statements like that. Iraq is an unstable conglomeration of religious and ethnic groups. The blame for this goes back to 1916: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-curse-of-sykes-picot-still-haunts-the-middle-east https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/how-the-curse-of-sy... The US invasion jostled that mix, and the resulting friction directly caused those deaths. So, to be more accurate (but possibly oversimplified), the US was a witless catalyst, and the fragmentation of Islam was the fuel.

lopmotr 9y ago
That's what I meant by "because of". If the police and army in America suddenly vanished, you can bet a lot of deaths would ensue too. People depend on the structure of government services to protect them from each other. Taking that away is like taking away food or water.
- cm2187 9y ago
  Let's be clear what we mean by "the police and army vanishing". This is not common thugs committing crimes. Saddam Hussein was keeping a lead through tyranny (and massacres in the past) on the shia-sunni-kurd ethnic tensions which blew out when Saddam felt. Add to that mix a rise of islamism and you get a murderous civil war. None of these ingredients are really the making of the US. The US certainly ignited the war by removing the tyranny but do we really want to go the route "these guys deserve a good dictator to keep them from killing each others"?
  - b1daly 9y ago
    I think we do want to go that route. As opposed to supporting and arming dictatorships that suite our supposed interests at a given time. Then turning against them, or arming their enemies when they don’t. If the US consistently practiced being a good global citizen, maybe one could make a case for “humanitarianism military intervention” in limited cases. What we have now is apparently open ended military activity, around the globe, for an indefinite timeframe. Most of the conflicts we are party to are civil wars, and by definition these are not “winnable.” As far as I can see, the US continues to wreak havoc on innocent civilians around the world to this day, with total impunity. This serves only the interests of the corporate military political complex. The fiasco of the US response to 9/11 beggars disbelief. It’s sickening how the propaganda apartatus in the US has shutdown virtually all reporting on what our armed forces are actually doing. Perhaps the worst of the US conduct is the continual supply of arms to States and factions in conflicts around the world, thereby radically increasing the lethality of the conflict. Of course, the US is not alone in this arms dealing, but this is something where we could unilaterally make a dramatic action towards world peace. Withdraw from current wars, end arms dealing, and work towards negotiated outcomes, where possible.

lopmotr 9y ago

That's what I meant by "because of". If the police and army in America suddenly vanished, you can bet a lot of deaths would ensue too. People depend on the structure of government services to protect them from each other. Taking that away is like taking away food or water.

cm2187 9y ago
Let's be clear what we mean by "the police and army vanishing". This is not common thugs committing crimes. Saddam Hussein was keeping a lead through tyranny (and massacres in the past) on the shia-sunni-kurd ethnic tensions which blew out when Saddam felt. Add to that mix a rise of islamism and you get a murderous civil war. None of these ingredients are really the making of the US. The US certainly ignited the war by removing the tyranny but do we really want to go the route "these guys deserve a good dictator to keep them from killing each others"?
- b1daly 9y ago
  I think we do want to go that route. As opposed to supporting and arming dictatorships that suite our supposed interests at a given time. Then turning against them, or arming their enemies when they don’t. If the US consistently practiced being a good global citizen, maybe one could make a case for “humanitarianism military intervention” in limited cases. What we have now is apparently open ended military activity, around the globe, for an indefinite timeframe. Most of the conflicts we are party to are civil wars, and by definition these are not “winnable.” As far as I can see, the US continues to wreak havoc on innocent civilians around the world to this day, with total impunity. This serves only the interests of the corporate military political complex. The fiasco of the US response to 9/11 beggars disbelief. It’s sickening how the propaganda apartatus in the US has shutdown virtually all reporting on what our armed forces are actually doing. Perhaps the worst of the US conduct is the continual supply of arms to States and factions in conflicts around the world, thereby radically increasing the lethality of the conflict. Of course, the US is not alone in this arms dealing, but this is something where we could unilaterally make a dramatic action towards world peace. Withdraw from current wars, end arms dealing, and work towards negotiated outcomes, where possible.