8 ms·

I won't understand respect for someone who was reponsible for the deaths of 100s of thousands of people because he lied.

by hawk_ 5y ago

asteroidbelt 5y ago
If you are talking about Iraq, these people were not exactly living happy lives under Saddam rule. Colin lie is inexcusable, but Iraq war was a good thing for Iraq. Net zero at least. (Feel free to downvote, downvote is used for disagreement on HN these days.)
- disneygibson 5y ago
  The estimates vary, but between half a million and a million people have died from the war and its aftermath. Not including Syrian Civil War or Libya, which were absolutely consequences of destabilizing the region. No matter how bad Saddam was, invading was a bad solution.
- arodyginc 5y ago
  go there and check with people, huh?
  - asteroidbelt 5y ago
    No you go and check. This is a silly argument.
- lone-commenter 5y ago
  > but Iraq war was a good thing for Iraq I wouldn't even know where to start. This is such an obviously illogical argument. I mean, man, c'mon.
- rdl 5y ago
  I spent 6 years there, including some time "on the economy". Iran-Iraq War and Post-Gulf War 1 sanctions were each worse for Iraq than the 2003 invasion (by far). The various problems with the occupation (which mostly fall on Bremer/CPA and GWB/Cheney) were probably within an order of magnitude of Iran-Iraq and sanctions, maybe even directly comparable. Rise of ISIS (also a separate thing) and general sectarian violence as also bad at that level. It's hard to tell how far back the causality chain you should go. A simple "kill Saddam, put any reasonable other person in, don't extensively reconstruct the government, GTFO" was what I was assuming would happen in 2003, which probably would have been net-positive for Iraqis. If you are bundling "invasion in 2003" with CPA + sectarianism + ISIS, then they're collectively highly net-negative for Iraqis, but I don't think they were necessarily linked in 2003. I still would have opposed it as a US person (because it was a distraction from Afghanistan, which ALSO should have been concluded in late 2001 vs turned into a 20 year quagmire...) Colin Powell has a decent place in my memory for his work in the 1990s and before, but he definitely spent his reputational capital in lying to UN, even if it didn't ultimately influence the course of action. I could certainly agree with him perhaps even overdrawing that account in total.
- pmarreck 5y ago
  My understanding is that the entire area is just brutal in general and Saddam was actually the least evil solution available at the time. He held it together through brutality, but he still apparently held it together, and now look at it.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
    https://www.npr.org/2021/10/11/1045092941/iraq-election-results-sadr https://www.npr.org/2021/10/11/1045092941/iraq-election-resu...
  - asteroidbelt 5y ago
    People need to live free, not to be held slaves under the least evil dictator. I’m sorry for all commenters here who value pity lives more than freedom.
    - pessimizer 5y ago
      Do they "live free" now?
      - asteroidbelt 5y ago
        Compared to life under SH, yes.
        pmarreck 5y ago
        Do you have any data on this?
        asteroidbelt 5y ago
        Under SH, there was a total information blockade, internet was not available, people simply could not know what is happening outside of Iraq except for what is provider by government sources. Now internet is more or less available in Iraq.
- callmeal 5y ago
  >Colin lie is inexcusable, but Iraq war was a good thing for Iraq. Well, citizens of Iraq tend to disagree with you. https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-life-in-iraq-was-like-under-saddam-hussein-2014-7?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-life-in-iraq-was-... Not to mention all the destruction of priceless monuments that the war brought about: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24590678 https://www.jstor.org/stable/24590678
  - asteroidbelt 5y ago
    > Well, citizens of Iraq tend to disagree with you. A story of single person is too little evidence to claim it for all citizens of Iraq or even for majority of them.
afavour 5y ago
I’m no fan of Colin Powell but IMO the responsibility for those deaths does not fall on him specifically. The US was going to war in Iraq with or without the UN’s backing, everything Powell did was window dressing. False, deceitful and criminal window dressing, but still.
- hawk_ 5y ago
  just because others were ALSO responsible doesn't absolve him of any of the responsibility of all those deaths.
- geofft 5y ago
  The nature of modern complex organizations like the United States is that no one person is responsible for everything. You can't so much as get $600 checks to every American without the support of a sizable bureaucracy, let alone single-handedly wage a land war halfway around the world and remake the government of 40 million people. But that doesn't mean we have to let our sense of morality hold nobody culpable, as if everyone is part of a firing squad and you can't prove who had the blank. Merely signing up for the firing squad shows that you intended to kill, and the responsibility for the death falls on all the people in the squad (as well as all the people who organized it and decided to put a particular prisoner in front of it, etc.), not none of them. "The US" was only going to war in Iraq because a lot of people arranged things so that it could happen. It's probably true that if any one person decided not to participate, it would still have happened. But if enough people decided not to participate, it wouldn't. And we saw clearly in the last months of the previous presidency that one high-ranking individual can certainly make things a lot more difficult for a president who wants to wage war and that more generally "resistance inside the administration" can be at least partly effective. I think if we're going to say that an illegal war happened, that people lost their lives because of it, and that it would have been good and moral to try to stop the war, we also need to say that it was bad and immoral to go along with making it happen.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  If the standard is that you have to be fully responsible for the war to carry any responsibility for the war, than nobody is responsible. No wonder no one was punished except Judith Miller, lightly.
bluedevil2k 5y ago
If he didn't deliver that speech, they would have found someone else to do it (and he would have been fired). The responsibility lies with Bush and Cheney, not with the messenger.
- jes 5y ago
  I am reminded of the “To Be or To Do” [1] story about the late Colonel John Boyd. Powell had a hard choice, yet life often puts us in such situations. He should have resigned, in my view. If he did not, he shares in the responsibility for what was done. [1] https://dnipogo.org/john-r-boyd/to-be-or-to-do/ https://dnipogo.org/john-r-boyd/to-be-or-to-do/
- elliekelly 5y ago
  Just because your boss will find someone else to do it doesn’t absolve you of responsibility for participating in their bad actions.
- smt88 5y ago
  "They would have found someone else to do it" is not and never has been a defense for evil, especially at this magnitude. Someone else could have been the messenger, and Powell could have also resigned in protest and become a whistleblower. Instead he lied, deceived the public, and unequivocally supported the wars.
- mkr-hn 5y ago
  That argument didn't fly for people at a similar level of authority at Nuremberg.
  - bluedevil2k 5y ago
    Not even remotely the same situation. Nuremberg was about officers delivering and obeying direct orders to kill civilians and commit war crimes. Powell simply delivered a speech to get international support for a war the US was going to fight no matter what. He had nothing to do with the war crimes.
m_ke 5y ago
and now he's dead along with 100s of thousands of other americans because of more liars
- timbit42 5y ago
  Who are the "more liars"?

I won't understand respect for someone who was reponsible for the deaths of 100s of thousands of people because he lied.

by hawk_ 5y ago

I won't understand respect for someone who was reponsible for the deaths of 100s of thousands of people because he lied.

asteroidbelt 5y ago

If you are talking about Iraq, these people were not exactly living happy lives under Saddam rule. Colin lie is inexcusable, but Iraq war was a good thing for Iraq. Net zero at least. (Feel free to downvote, downvote is used for disagreement on HN these days.)

disneygibson 5y ago
The estimates vary, but between half a million and a million people have died from the war and its aftermath. Not including Syrian Civil War or Libya, which were absolutely consequences of destabilizing the region. No matter how bad Saddam was, invading was a bad solution.
arodyginc 5y ago
go there and check with people, huh?
- asteroidbelt 5y ago
  No you go and check. This is a silly argument.
lone-commenter 5y ago
> but Iraq war was a good thing for Iraq I wouldn't even know where to start. This is such an obviously illogical argument. I mean, man, c'mon.
rdl 5y ago
I spent 6 years there, including some time "on the economy". Iran-Iraq War and Post-Gulf War 1 sanctions were each worse for Iraq than the 2003 invasion (by far). The various problems with the occupation (which mostly fall on Bremer/CPA and GWB/Cheney) were probably within an order of magnitude of Iran-Iraq and sanctions, maybe even directly comparable. Rise of ISIS (also a separate thing) and general sectarian violence as also bad at that level. It's hard to tell how far back the causality chain you should go. A simple "kill Saddam, put any reasonable other person in, don't extensively reconstruct the government, GTFO" was what I was assuming would happen in 2003, which probably would have been net-positive for Iraqis. If you are bundling "invasion in 2003" with CPA + sectarianism + ISIS, then they're collectively highly net-negative for Iraqis, but I don't think they were necessarily linked in 2003. I still would have opposed it as a US person (because it was a distraction from Afghanistan, which ALSO should have been concluded in late 2001 vs turned into a 20 year quagmire...) Colin Powell has a decent place in my memory for his work in the 1990s and before, but he definitely spent his reputational capital in lying to UN, even if it didn't ultimately influence the course of action. I could certainly agree with him perhaps even overdrawing that account in total.
pmarreck 5y ago
My understanding is that the entire area is just brutal in general and Saddam was actually the least evil solution available at the time. He held it together through brutality, but he still apparently held it together, and now look at it.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y ago
  https://www.npr.org/2021/10/11/1045092941/iraq-election-results-sadr https://www.npr.org/2021/10/11/1045092941/iraq-election-resu...
- asteroidbelt 5y ago
  People need to live free, not to be held slaves under the least evil dictator. I’m sorry for all commenters here who value pity lives more than freedom.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    Do they "live free" now?
    - asteroidbelt 5y ago
      Compared to life under SH, yes.
      - pmarreck 5y ago
        Do you have any data on this?
        asteroidbelt 5y ago
        Under SH, there was a total information blockade, internet was not available, people simply could not know what is happening outside of Iraq except for what is provider by government sources. Now internet is more or less available in Iraq.
callmeal 5y ago
>Colin lie is inexcusable, but Iraq war was a good thing for Iraq. Well, citizens of Iraq tend to disagree with you. https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-life-in-iraq-was-like-under-saddam-hussein-2014-7?op=1 https://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-life-in-iraq-was-... Not to mention all the destruction of priceless monuments that the war brought about: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24590678 https://www.jstor.org/stable/24590678
- asteroidbelt 5y ago
  > Well, citizens of Iraq tend to disagree with you. A story of single person is too little evidence to claim it for all citizens of Iraq or even for majority of them.

afavour 5y ago

I’m no fan of Colin Powell but IMO the responsibility for those deaths does not fall on him specifically. The US was going to war in Iraq with or without the UN’s backing, everything Powell did was window dressing. False, deceitful and criminal window dressing, but still.

hawk_ 5y ago
just because others were ALSO responsible doesn't absolve him of any of the responsibility of all those deaths.
geofft 5y ago
The nature of modern complex organizations like the United States is that no one person is responsible for everything. You can't so much as get $600 checks to every American without the support of a sizable bureaucracy, let alone single-handedly wage a land war halfway around the world and remake the government of 40 million people. But that doesn't mean we have to let our sense of morality hold nobody culpable, as if everyone is part of a firing squad and you can't prove who had the blank. Merely signing up for the firing squad shows that you intended to kill, and the responsibility for the death falls on all the people in the squad (as well as all the people who organized it and decided to put a particular prisoner in front of it, etc.), not none of them. "The US" was only going to war in Iraq because a lot of people arranged things so that it could happen. It's probably true that if any one person decided not to participate, it would still have happened. But if enough people decided not to participate, it wouldn't. And we saw clearly in the last months of the previous presidency that one high-ranking individual can certainly make things a lot more difficult for a president who wants to wage war and that more generally "resistance inside the administration" can be at least partly effective. I think if we're going to say that an illegal war happened, that people lost their lives because of it, and that it would have been good and moral to try to stop the war, we also need to say that it was bad and immoral to go along with making it happen.
pessimizer 5y ago
If the standard is that you have to be fully responsible for the war to carry any responsibility for the war, than nobody is responsible. No wonder no one was punished except Judith Miller, lightly.

bluedevil2k 5y ago

If he didn't deliver that speech, they would have found someone else to do it (and he would have been fired). The responsibility lies with Bush and Cheney, not with the messenger.

jes 5y ago
I am reminded of the “To Be or To Do” [1] story about the late Colonel John Boyd. Powell had a hard choice, yet life often puts us in such situations. He should have resigned, in my view. If he did not, he shares in the responsibility for what was done. [1] https://dnipogo.org/john-r-boyd/to-be-or-to-do/ https://dnipogo.org/john-r-boyd/to-be-or-to-do/
elliekelly 5y ago
Just because your boss will find someone else to do it doesn’t absolve you of responsibility for participating in their bad actions.
smt88 5y ago
"They would have found someone else to do it" is not and never has been a defense for evil, especially at this magnitude. Someone else could have been the messenger, and Powell could have also resigned in protest and become a whistleblower. Instead he lied, deceived the public, and unequivocally supported the wars.
mkr-hn 5y ago
That argument didn't fly for people at a similar level of authority at Nuremberg.
- bluedevil2k 5y ago
  Not even remotely the same situation. Nuremberg was about officers delivering and obeying direct orders to kill civilians and commit war crimes. Powell simply delivered a speech to get international support for a war the US was going to fight no matter what. He had nothing to do with the war crimes.

m_ke 5y ago

and now he's dead along with 100s of thousands of other americans because of more liars

timbit42 5y ago
Who are the "more liars"?