4 ms·

I mean, there isn't any indication that they've changed course since 1993, so what's the issue?

bayesian_horse 5y ago
Can you point to any CIA coup or assassination since then? Please don't say Libya. That wasn't the CIA and there was a UN resolution. Please don't bring up the Iraq WMD story... the CIA didn't actually lie, it was the White House that massively overstated the evidence for the beliefs it actually had. And much later they actually found WMDs in Iraq.
- cholantesh 5y ago
  Coups and assassinations don't form the totality of what the OP regards as an atrocity, but anyway, as far as coups go, Saddam in '96 and arming and training opposition in Syria and Iraq strike me as only semantically distinct. The CIA also still conducts assassinations through its drone program, though they use weasel words ('''targeted killings''') to dodge the accusation.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    "Coups and assassinations" would be the majority of kinetic options the CIA has at its disposal. How is the CIA involved with Saddam Hussein in 1996? Training "opposition" forces in Syria is hardly an "atrocity" and at worst it is ethically questionably, not an outright mistake or crime. Assad isn't exactly a benign, democratically elected and popular leader. How does the drone program connect to OP's claim of assassinating democratically elected popular leaders for American business interests? It may be questionable on grounds of international law, or on strategy, or on ethical grounds (with the collateral damage), but they did target terrorist/insurgent leaders who are committing and planning violence against US forces, Afghan forces and civilians all the time. The CIA is acting more like a conventional military force in that instance. The reason it is the CIA doing this, and not the Airforce, is not so much the "covert" or "secret" part of its capabilities, but the "intelligence" part, i.e. knowing who to hit. An alternative would be to tell Afghan (and on occasion Pakistani) forces to conduct heavily armed raids in these areas with many more casualties. Another, even worse alternative is what the US tried in Vietnam and neighboring countries, just burning and bombing everything and everyone. Not mentioning all that context strikes me as a bit one-sided.

Can you point to any CIA coup or assassination since then? Please don't say Libya. That wasn't the CIA and there was a UN resolution. Please don't bring up the Iraq WMD story... the CIA didn't actually lie, it was the White House that massively overstated the evidence for the beliefs it actually had. And much later they actually found WMDs in Iraq.

cholantesh 5y ago
Coups and assassinations don't form the totality of what the OP regards as an atrocity, but anyway, as far as coups go, Saddam in '96 and arming and training opposition in Syria and Iraq strike me as only semantically distinct. The CIA also still conducts assassinations through its drone program, though they use weasel words ('''targeted killings''') to dodge the accusation.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  "Coups and assassinations" would be the majority of kinetic options the CIA has at its disposal. How is the CIA involved with Saddam Hussein in 1996? Training "opposition" forces in Syria is hardly an "atrocity" and at worst it is ethically questionably, not an outright mistake or crime. Assad isn't exactly a benign, democratically elected and popular leader. How does the drone program connect to OP's claim of assassinating democratically elected popular leaders for American business interests? It may be questionable on grounds of international law, or on strategy, or on ethical grounds (with the collateral damage), but they did target terrorist/insurgent leaders who are committing and planning violence against US forces, Afghan forces and civilians all the time. The CIA is acting more like a conventional military force in that instance. The reason it is the CIA doing this, and not the Airforce, is not so much the "covert" or "secret" part of its capabilities, but the "intelligence" part, i.e. knowing who to hit. An alternative would be to tell Afghan (and on occasion Pakistani) forces to conduct heavily armed raids in these areas with many more casualties. Another, even worse alternative is what the US tried in Vietnam and neighboring countries, just burning and bombing everything and everyone. Not mentioning all that context strikes me as a bit one-sided.