5 ms·

Democrats and Republicans alike pushed for it based on the intelligence available at the time [0]. To call him partially responsible for 100,000s of deaths is v

Democrats and Republicans alike pushed for it based on the intelligence available at the time [0]. To call him partially responsible for 100,000s of deaths is very unfair and not very classy considering he's dying soon. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War

dnomad 8y ago
He was absolutely responsible. He worked diligently to push America into a wholly unnecessary and absolutely evil war that destroyed a million human beings. He was a proud member of the conservative operation to deceive the whole world to justify the war. He repeatedly lied, over and over, before, during and after the war to enable the greatest crime of the 21st century. But -- oh, I forgot, he's American. He's a white guy. He's part of the elite. He gets to wash away his mistakes. We all know that the only people in America who are accountable for their mistakes are the poor minorities. So now we have to be kind to a man who engendered enormous suffering. Anything else is "rude." All is forgiven. Everybody makes mistakes.
- mychael 8y ago
  It sounds like you have an axe to grind against Americans, and in particular, white men. We try to have reasoned discussion in this forum so perhaps Hacker News is not the best fit for you. Have you tried r/politics on Reddit?
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - iron0013 8y ago
    It's disappointing to read this kind of curt dismissal here, and I feel that it goes very much against the spirit of the Hacker News forum. Instead of directing people to other venues, please take responsibility for your own actions and do your level best to elevate the conversation.
  - cloakandswagger 8y ago
    "But -- oh, I forgot, he's American. He's a white guy. He's part of the elite. He gets to wash away his mistakes. We all know that the only people in America who are accountable for their mistakes are the poor minorities." This is the type of comment that goes against the spirit of HN, not what mychael posted. If the above quote doesn't sound needlessly inflammatory and discriminatory to you, you need to get some perspective.
- ta6903693 8y ago
  The sanctimonious, false-on-face nonsense you're spewing here provides more compelling evidence for your own lack of moral character and basic decency than anything you're attempting to thrust at the feet of Charles Krauthammer. Doubtlessly, this narrative to which you subscribe and this posture you've adopted allow you to maintain some sort of psychological charade of superiority, though.
- leereeves 8y ago
  Unless you're alleging that he knew the statements about WMDs in Iraq were false, and you have evidence to support that claim, you're lying when you claim: > He repeatedly lied, over and over, before, during and after the war to enable the greatest crime of the 21st century.
- drak0n1c 8y ago
  Krauthammer is the son of Jewish immigrants, wherever that fits into the hierarchy you're describing. What does "white guys" mean anyways?
GalacticDomin8r 8y ago
All Americans are partially responsible for the costs of the Iraq war. That is irregardless of their support of it. This is how a democracy works, or to a bit lesser degree a psuedo-democracy republic as is the case here. A citizen's level of responsibility increases for those who advocate for such actions, and the level increases with a wide and strong advocacy. To attempt to wipe the slate clean of such responsibility is grossly unfair for everyone involved and must involve some deeper issues of which I will not speculate. The fact there was an appeal to eminent death as a reason to not call this out is absurd. A terminal condition doesn't retroactively absolve responsibility. This is coming from someone who thinks the Iraq war was needed however it was done so in the height of incompetency.
- jessaustin 8y ago
  You still think "the Iraq war was needed"? That really destroys your credibility in making this "spread the responsibility" argument. I'll accept some responsibility for the fact that I was duped and completely wrong about Iraq, but there were people against the whole venture at the time. It ain't their "responsibility".
  - GalacticDomin8r 8y ago
    Yes, I still think genocidal mass murders shouldn't be in power.
aero142 8y ago
I hear this argument a lot, and I just can't agree with it. The biggest miss was about chemical weapons, which even if true, would have been an entirely inadequate justification for the war that followed. The nuclear argument was never well supported and clearly looks fabricated in hindsight. To talk about bad intelligence is to accept that invading a country to preemptively to remove a dictator is a moral action, which is repeatedly demonstrated to be the exact opposite when viewed as a whole. The results of the Iraq war were foreseeable by those that pushed for it. I can't accept that we should just politely not mention it because someone is dying of cancer. This is a war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. It's a big deal.
- leereeves 8y ago
  > invading a country to preemptively to remove a dictator is a moral action That is widely believed. For example, that's exactly what Obama and Hillary did in Libya.
  - aero142 8y ago
    And the current disastrous result is just as predictable and evil as Iraq. Maybe more-so because we have such a recent example of why it is such a bad idea.
    - leereeves 8y ago
      Quite true. And yet there was immense pressure to do it, often from people who were vocal opponents of the Iraq war (notably the French government).
  - wahern 8y ago
    Europe spearheaded the Libyan intervention. The U.S. came along for the ride, not because of some strongly held policy objective. The roles are usually reversed, but by 2011 Obama was already deeply skeptical of intervention. European powers have always had a keen interest in Libya, particularly Italy and France, and the U.K. was still pissed about Lockerbie. The U.S. wouldn't have gotten involved otherwise, no matter how much Hillary pressed. That doesn't excuse the U.S., but we shouldn't equivocate culpability.
bhouston 8y ago
> To call him partially responsible for 100,000s of deaths is very unfair and not very classy considering he's dying soon. He definitely pushed that war and thus has some responsibility for the consequences. I do not wish him ill will and it is unfortunate that he is dying of cancer, it is a loss for his friends and family. That said, just because he is dying does not make him a saint nor do I have to pretend he is one, he clearly wasn't.
- falcon620 8y ago
  Very well put. It's important that we recognize the history that led us to where we are, even if it's not a super beautiful history. I remember this particular period relatively clearly. There was intense debate everywhere, it was the most polarizing issue for a very, very long time. I was on the dove-side of the debate. I remember having some extremely heated debates with "hawks" (all online - these hawks somehow just disappeared after the invasion when it it got more and more obvious that there actually were no WMDs...).
- mychael 8y ago
  When it comes to the War in Iraq, there are not many saints in Washington. Less we forget, the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama executed the War in Iraq for many years and issued countless drone strikes. Does that means we should all be saying "Obama is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people!" ?
  - falcon620 8y ago
    That Nobel Peace Prize for Obama was just so wrong. It was a Norwegian (Not Swedish) small celebrity/exposure hungry group of elderly people who abused the power of the brand for their personal gain. (Liberal-minded americans downvoting this: please think twice. Not everything that seems to go against your instincts is downvote-worthy if you don't know the details. In this case the details matter.)
    - falcon620 8y ago
      It would be super neat if anyone of the people who downvoted that could comment on... you know, why? Please don't be so 1-dimensional.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Democrats and Republicans alike pushed for it based on the intelligence available at the time No, they didn't; there was a bipartisan (but more Republican than Democratic) group that supported a hard line with war as the ultimate resort based on the unclear intelligence being put forward by the Administration, but the Administration (and, even before it existed as such, the element of the neoconservative movement from which it's foreign policy and defense leadership was largely drawn) was actively pushing for war for much longer, and deliberately engineered the intelligence (which was not merely spun, but actually falsified) presented to others, including in Congress, to build support for the war. > To call him partially responsible for 100,000s of deaths is very unfair It's entirely accurate, just as it is for the bipartisan group that supported the war in Congress, even though the administration did lie to them to build that support, since the information about the pre-existing intent of the Administration was readily and publicly available, and the debunkings of enough of the intelligence to make clear the administration’s absence of good faith was likewise available.

dnomad 8y ago

He was absolutely responsible. He worked diligently to push America into a wholly unnecessary and absolutely evil war that destroyed a million human beings. He was a proud member of the conservative operation to deceive the whole world to justify the war. He repeatedly lied, over and over, before, during and after the war to enable the greatest crime of the 21st century. But -- oh, I forgot, he's American. He's a white guy. He's part of the elite. He gets to wash away his mistakes. We all know that the only people in America who are accountable for their mistakes are the poor minorities. So now we have to be kind to a man who engendered enormous suffering. Anything else is "rude." All is forgiven. Everybody makes mistakes.

mychael 8y ago
It sounds like you have an axe to grind against Americans, and in particular, white men. We try to have reasoned discussion in this forum so perhaps Hacker News is not the best fit for you. Have you tried r/politics on Reddit?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- iron0013 8y ago
  It's disappointing to read this kind of curt dismissal here, and I feel that it goes very much against the spirit of the Hacker News forum. Instead of directing people to other venues, please take responsibility for your own actions and do your level best to elevate the conversation.
- cloakandswagger 8y ago
  "But -- oh, I forgot, he's American. He's a white guy. He's part of the elite. He gets to wash away his mistakes. We all know that the only people in America who are accountable for their mistakes are the poor minorities." This is the type of comment that goes against the spirit of HN, not what mychael posted. If the above quote doesn't sound needlessly inflammatory and discriminatory to you, you need to get some perspective.
ta6903693 8y ago
The sanctimonious, false-on-face nonsense you're spewing here provides more compelling evidence for your own lack of moral character and basic decency than anything you're attempting to thrust at the feet of Charles Krauthammer. Doubtlessly, this narrative to which you subscribe and this posture you've adopted allow you to maintain some sort of psychological charade of superiority, though.
leereeves 8y ago
Unless you're alleging that he knew the statements about WMDs in Iraq were false, and you have evidence to support that claim, you're lying when you claim: > He repeatedly lied, over and over, before, during and after the war to enable the greatest crime of the 21st century.
drak0n1c 8y ago
Krauthammer is the son of Jewish immigrants, wherever that fits into the hierarchy you're describing. What does "white guys" mean anyways?

GalacticDomin8r 8y ago

All Americans are partially responsible for the costs of the Iraq war. That is irregardless of their support of it. This is how a democracy works, or to a bit lesser degree a psuedo-democracy republic as is the case here. A citizen's level of responsibility increases for those who advocate for such actions, and the level increases with a wide and strong advocacy. To attempt to wipe the slate clean of such responsibility is grossly unfair for everyone involved and must involve some deeper issues of which I will not speculate. The fact there was an appeal to eminent death as a reason to not call this out is absurd. A terminal condition doesn't retroactively absolve responsibility. This is coming from someone who thinks the Iraq war was needed however it was done so in the height of incompetency.

jessaustin 8y ago
You still think "the Iraq war was needed"? That really destroys your credibility in making this "spread the responsibility" argument. I'll accept some responsibility for the fact that I was duped and completely wrong about Iraq, but there were people against the whole venture at the time. It ain't their "responsibility".
- GalacticDomin8r 8y ago
  Yes, I still think genocidal mass murders shouldn't be in power.

aero142 8y ago

I hear this argument a lot, and I just can't agree with it. The biggest miss was about chemical weapons, which even if true, would have been an entirely inadequate justification for the war that followed. The nuclear argument was never well supported and clearly looks fabricated in hindsight. To talk about bad intelligence is to accept that invading a country to preemptively to remove a dictator is a moral action, which is repeatedly demonstrated to be the exact opposite when viewed as a whole. The results of the Iraq war were foreseeable by those that pushed for it. I can't accept that we should just politely not mention it because someone is dying of cancer. This is a war and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. It's a big deal.

leereeves 8y ago
> invading a country to preemptively to remove a dictator is a moral action That is widely believed. For example, that's exactly what Obama and Hillary did in Libya.
- aero142 8y ago
  And the current disastrous result is just as predictable and evil as Iraq. Maybe more-so because we have such a recent example of why it is such a bad idea.
  - leereeves 8y ago
    Quite true. And yet there was immense pressure to do it, often from people who were vocal opponents of the Iraq war (notably the French government).
- wahern 8y ago
  Europe spearheaded the Libyan intervention. The U.S. came along for the ride, not because of some strongly held policy objective. The roles are usually reversed, but by 2011 Obama was already deeply skeptical of intervention. European powers have always had a keen interest in Libya, particularly Italy and France, and the U.K. was still pissed about Lockerbie. The U.S. wouldn't have gotten involved otherwise, no matter how much Hillary pressed. That doesn't excuse the U.S., but we shouldn't equivocate culpability.

bhouston 8y ago

> To call him partially responsible for 100,000s of deaths is very unfair and not very classy considering he's dying soon. He definitely pushed that war and thus has some responsibility for the consequences. I do not wish him ill will and it is unfortunate that he is dying of cancer, it is a loss for his friends and family. That said, just because he is dying does not make him a saint nor do I have to pretend he is one, he clearly wasn't.

falcon620 8y ago
Very well put. It's important that we recognize the history that led us to where we are, even if it's not a super beautiful history. I remember this particular period relatively clearly. There was intense debate everywhere, it was the most polarizing issue for a very, very long time. I was on the dove-side of the debate. I remember having some extremely heated debates with "hawks" (all online - these hawks somehow just disappeared after the invasion when it it got more and more obvious that there actually were no WMDs...).
mychael 8y ago
When it comes to the War in Iraq, there are not many saints in Washington. Less we forget, the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama executed the War in Iraq for many years and issued countless drone strikes. Does that means we should all be saying "Obama is responsible for the deaths of thousands of people!" ?
- falcon620 8y ago
  That Nobel Peace Prize for Obama was just so wrong. It was a Norwegian (Not Swedish) small celebrity/exposure hungry group of elderly people who abused the power of the brand for their personal gain. (Liberal-minded americans downvoting this: please think twice. Not everything that seems to go against your instincts is downvote-worthy if you don't know the details. In this case the details matter.)
  - falcon620 8y ago
    It would be super neat if anyone of the people who downvoted that could comment on... you know, why? Please don't be so 1-dimensional.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Democrats and Republicans alike pushed for it based on the intelligence available at the time No, they didn't; there was a bipartisan (but more Republican than Democratic) group that supported a hard line with war as the ultimate resort based on the unclear intelligence being put forward by the Administration, but the Administration (and, even before it existed as such, the element of the neoconservative movement from which it's foreign policy and defense leadership was largely drawn) was actively pushing for war for much longer, and deliberately engineered the intelligence (which was not merely spun, but actually falsified) presented to others, including in Congress, to build support for the war. > To call him partially responsible for 100,000s of deaths is very unfair It's entirely accurate, just as it is for the bipartisan group that supported the war in Congress, even though the administration did lie to them to build that support, since the information about the pre-existing intent of the Administration was readily and publicly available, and the debunkings of enough of the intelligence to make clear the administration’s absence of good faith was likewise available.