2 ms·

Yes, they were. Not immediately, but in many ways that may feel foreign to non US citizens, it happens at the polls, in the electorate, the way the government h

Yes, they were. Not immediately, but in many ways that may feel foreign to non US citizens, it happens at the polls, in the electorate, the way the government handles itself going forward, new policies and ideas etc. Obama was elected in no small part due to outsized opposition to policies of the previous administration. Practicing democracy isn't always fast nor is it perfect, but it does work. The question of what to do once we realized we needed to reverse course is up for debate, but yes, things changed, people lost their positions, power, and there are reforms and accountability - the CIA is subject to more congressional oversight, for example. They're banned from using blacksites and the CIA is no longer allowed to hold foreign nationals for extended periods without representation. There's this weird thing about how the US waged two wars too, in regards to the rules of engagement. There were 100% bad actors, and many (unfortunately not all) were held by military and civilian court for war crimes, re: blackwater contractors, the case of Pvt 1st Class Andrew Holmes etc. The US military has official rules of engagement for treating people humanely - which are in fact expected to be followed - and people were held accountable for not doing so. Not perfect mind you - but yeah, there were huge changes as these revelations came to light. International relations can be bizarre, and again, I'm no apologist, we shouldn't have even invaded in the first place, but do you think the Russian soliders in the Ukraine will be held internally accountable for war crimes? Do you think the Chinese would? Do you think they are held accountable in any way for other types of crimes, like foreign bribery, corruption, supporting human rights abuses? Can you even freely appeal to the Chinese population?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
DiogenesKynikos 4y ago
> Yes, they were. No one went to prison. Bush served out two terms (the first one unelected, but that's an entirely different question). The US occupied Iraq for 9 years. If this is the "accountability" you're touting, it's frankly pathetic. > Practicing democracy isn't always fast nor is it perfect, but it does work. That's a major understatement, in the case of the US. The US killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, in an illegal war of aggression, justified to the public on the basis of outright lies, with the complicity of much of the established media. > the CIA is subject to more congressional oversight, for example The CIA, on orders from the Bush administration, carried out a global torture program, in which it kidnapped people off the street, including in Europe, and smuggled them off to black sites for torture. The Obama administration decided not to prosecute anyone. In Obama's words, "We tortured some folks," but we have to leave the past behind us. When there was eventually a Senate investigation, the CIA spied on the Senators involved. When that came to light, the CIA apologized, but no one in a position of responsibility faced any serious consequences. The same goes for when the CIA destroyed evidence of torture - no consequences. > They're banned from using blacksites and the CIA is no longer allowed to hold foreign nationals for extended periods without representation That's very reassuring. I'm sure the CIA has mended its ways and is now staffed and led by boyscouts. They wouldn't do anything like, say, plan to assassinate or kidnap Julian Assange out of an embassy in London.
- no_wizard 4y ago
  I'm not sure you're really presenting a good faith discussion of issues and the complex nuances that underpin them. What, exactly, makes China a better partner than the US then? What makes them a global thought leader in any respect? Is it stealing technological secrets from supposed allies? The fact you can't hold the Chinese government accountable in any way what so ever (please demonstrate a single instance where a foreign entity could do so) And this just by passes the lack of understanding you may have for our democratic process and reforms in practice, judging from how you may think noone was held accountable for what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan (this just isn't true, heads rolled. No, not everyone served a tribunal or trial, but that isn't the only form of justice, and yes, people did go to prison) I'll also throw you this: I'd love to see Bush serve jail time for those two wars. I'd also love to se Jinping serves time for the genocide of the Uyghurs. I'd also love to know if you can go to the middle of Beijing and shout from the rooftops that he should be tried for the genocide of the Uyghurs and see how it goes
  - hangonhn 4y ago
    > What, exactly, makes China a better partner than the US then? What makes them a global thought leader in any respect? How about thinking of the global south, especially Africa, as something more than a basket case and a billion mouths to feed and actually investing in them. > Is it stealing technological secrets from supposed allies? Yeah that's pretty crappy but so is spying on our supposed allies and pretty much the rest of the world, even our own companies. In fact, it is built into our laws -- FISA Section 702 can compel US companies to help us do that and I believe this doesn't even require a warrant. > The fact you can't hold the Chinese government accountable in any way what so ever (please demonstrate a single instance where a foreign entity could do so) In what way has that happen to the US? > I'll also throw you this: I'd love to see Bush serve jail time for those two wars. I'd also love to se Jinping serves time for the genocide of the Uyghurs. Neither of those things have happened yet you seem to hold the US as being a better global partner. Rather than engage in this debate over who's the better leader for the world, let me present a model that avoids that: a multi-polar world where there is no one dominant power. Since neither China nor the US seems to be someone the world can fully trust, why not have a multi-polar world? With EU, US, China, India, African Union, etc. as centers of great power. Why should the world be dominated by one power? A multi-polar world is one that's much more likely to hold people or even countries accountable. A world dominated by one power means that one power will have to answer to no one but itself.
nebula8804 4y ago
There was and continues to be no justice for the 500k+ Iraqis killed.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

DiogenesKynikos 4y ago

> Yes, they were. No one went to prison. Bush served out two terms (the first one unelected, but that's an entirely different question). The US occupied Iraq for 9 years. If this is the "accountability" you're touting, it's frankly pathetic. > Practicing democracy isn't always fast nor is it perfect, but it does work. That's a major understatement, in the case of the US. The US killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq, in an illegal war of aggression, justified to the public on the basis of outright lies, with the complicity of much of the established media. > the CIA is subject to more congressional oversight, for example The CIA, on orders from the Bush administration, carried out a global torture program, in which it kidnapped people off the street, including in Europe, and smuggled them off to black sites for torture. The Obama administration decided not to prosecute anyone. In Obama's words, "We tortured some folks," but we have to leave the past behind us. When there was eventually a Senate investigation, the CIA spied on the Senators involved. When that came to light, the CIA apologized, but no one in a position of responsibility faced any serious consequences. The same goes for when the CIA destroyed evidence of torture - no consequences. > They're banned from using blacksites and the CIA is no longer allowed to hold foreign nationals for extended periods without representation That's very reassuring. I'm sure the CIA has mended its ways and is now staffed and led by boyscouts. They wouldn't do anything like, say, plan to assassinate or kidnap Julian Assange out of an embassy in London.

no_wizard 4y ago
I'm not sure you're really presenting a good faith discussion of issues and the complex nuances that underpin them. What, exactly, makes China a better partner than the US then? What makes them a global thought leader in any respect? Is it stealing technological secrets from supposed allies? The fact you can't hold the Chinese government accountable in any way what so ever (please demonstrate a single instance where a foreign entity could do so) And this just by passes the lack of understanding you may have for our democratic process and reforms in practice, judging from how you may think noone was held accountable for what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan (this just isn't true, heads rolled. No, not everyone served a tribunal or trial, but that isn't the only form of justice, and yes, people did go to prison) I'll also throw you this: I'd love to see Bush serve jail time for those two wars. I'd also love to se Jinping serves time for the genocide of the Uyghurs. I'd also love to know if you can go to the middle of Beijing and shout from the rooftops that he should be tried for the genocide of the Uyghurs and see how it goes
- hangonhn 4y ago
  > What, exactly, makes China a better partner than the US then? What makes them a global thought leader in any respect? How about thinking of the global south, especially Africa, as something more than a basket case and a billion mouths to feed and actually investing in them. > Is it stealing technological secrets from supposed allies? Yeah that's pretty crappy but so is spying on our supposed allies and pretty much the rest of the world, even our own companies. In fact, it is built into our laws -- FISA Section 702 can compel US companies to help us do that and I believe this doesn't even require a warrant. > The fact you can't hold the Chinese government accountable in any way what so ever (please demonstrate a single instance where a foreign entity could do so) In what way has that happen to the US? > I'll also throw you this: I'd love to see Bush serve jail time for those two wars. I'd also love to se Jinping serves time for the genocide of the Uyghurs. Neither of those things have happened yet you seem to hold the US as being a better global partner. Rather than engage in this debate over who's the better leader for the world, let me present a model that avoids that: a multi-polar world where there is no one dominant power. Since neither China nor the US seems to be someone the world can fully trust, why not have a multi-polar world? With EU, US, China, India, African Union, etc. as centers of great power. Why should the world be dominated by one power? A multi-polar world is one that's much more likely to hold people or even countries accountable. A world dominated by one power means that one power will have to answer to no one but itself.

nebula8804 4y ago

There was and continues to be no justice for the 500k+ Iraqis killed.