6 ms·

Factor in the lost opportunity cost due to our reputational damage. We lied about WMDs to cajole and entice other countries to join us in invading Iraq. We to

Factor in the lost opportunity cost due to our reputational damage. We lied about WMDs to cajole and entice other countries to join us in invading Iraq. We tortured prisoners. We killed reporters (accidentally) and lied about it (intentionally). We drone-killed a minor US citizen in a foreign country without a trial. I watched 9/11 happen with my own eyes and it was incalculably tragic but we've done some very shitty things in return.

thejazzman 3y ago
The use of "we" feels so unfair when a very large majority of the people were against it the entire time. "We" couldn't do anything about it, as usual.
- TeeMassive 3y ago
  It's a government "for the people and by the people" and clearly the people either approve or doesn't care enough. So yes, "we" the people applies here.
  - FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
    This "for the people and by the people" thing does not appear to be empirically true. Here's a study out of Harvard: > Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
- donatj 3y ago
  When you roll with a gang, you're responsible for that gangs actions, like it or not.
- tracer4201 3y ago
  [dead]
- MattGaiser 3y ago
  > The use of "we" feels so unfair when a very large majority of the people were against it the entire time. No they were not. https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-america... Iraq was a popular war.
  - mattnewton 3y ago
    This is important to remember. One reason it might feel unfair now though is some combination of a) to many people, it is clear the war was a mistake and they remember always being against it now and b) some 35% of the current adult US population, including myself, wasn’t old enough to be polled then, but was legitimately against the war always.
  - AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
    Speaking as someone who was against it. Iraq was popular because we were lied to. Saddam was behind 9/11 so we have to go in there in retribution. Iraq has WMDs and is going to use them on us so we have to go in there to stop them. Saddam is attacking and killing his own people so we have to go in there on humanitarian grounds.
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      I'm not sure anything would have changed if we knew we were lied to. 2001-2002 was a strange time. A lot of people just wanted war--with anyone. It didn't really matter who we invaded. The Cold War ending meant the USA was out of overt enemies, and this was a real bummer to people who loved war and belligerence, so the sooner we could make enemies and start fighting, the better.
- jtbayly 3y ago
  That’s simply not true. A very large majority were in favor. Some were opposed, yes. Using “we” is a proper generalization. Everybody is offended by generalizations today. (See what I did there?) but you can’t talk coherently without them.
  - RC_ITR 3y ago
    Sure, but also as much as it may make you feel old, those polls were of people over 18 in 2003, and about half of the current US population does not fit that bill. The effect is even more dramatic when you presume polls always skew older.
    - sokoloff 3y ago
      Do you presume that most of the unpolled 17 year olds in 2003 were against it? Most of the unpolled 16 year olds? Even if they weren't polled, it's not reasonable to assume that 0% of them would have supported the various responses.
      - RC_ITR 3y ago
        I know many of the unpolled 1 year olds who are now 24 probably never thought the war was a good idea. My point is that America in 2003 feels the same to people who were alive then, but blaming Americans alive today for Iraq is like blaming Americans alive in 2003 for being pro-Grenada.
  - mistermann 3y ago
    If "we" is misinformative, it seems like the opposite of coherent. It is possible to use some sort of set theory terminology to avoid misleading people, but then that wouldn't really be "proper" (culturally acceptable). It's a real conundrum.
  - AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
    Even the ones who were opposed at the time, myself included, should have done more.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- giraffe_lady 3y ago
  I have always opposed these wars, and I use "we" to position myself in them. History has shown that we were right to oppose them, and in fact were justified in using much more radical resistance than we did. My "we" is contrition and repentance for not doing so.
  - AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
    I use we, and I also opposed them from day 1. Could have done more to stop them. Should have done more to stop them.
- Cyph0n 3y ago
  I didn’t live in the US during that time, and I even know this isn’t true. Heck, just talk to any Muslim American who was working or growing up during that time period.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ccooffee 3y ago
  > very large majority of the people were against it the entire time I don't think this claim holds up to the evidence. Looking at opinion polls between 9/11 and 2003's invasion of Iraq makes it unclear that a "very large majority" was against the invasion. Here's a quickly-found Gallup poll[0] from October 2002 wherein 53% of polled Americans supported a ground invasion of Iraq. The American people were misled by government claims about WMDs and handwavy connections between Iraq and 9/11. But that doesn't permit us to retroactively declare that "well, if only the people knew in 2002 what we know now then they would have been against it." [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20171201030755/http://news.gallup.com/poll/6964/top-ten-findings-about-public-opinion-iraq.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20171201030755/http://news.gallu...
  - matthewrobertso 3y ago
    >The American people were misled by government claims about WMDs and handwavy connections between Iraq and 9/11. But that doesn't permit us to retroactively declare that "well, if only the people knew in 2002 what we know now then they would have been against it." Can you explain more? If the American people knew they were being lied to in order to create support for a war, why would they support the war? The argument at the time, repeated all over the media, was that the war was necessary because of WMDs. 53% is a narrow majority supporting invasion, you don't think knowing they were being tricked would have caused at least a 5% swing?
    - Kranar 3y ago
      People tolerate being lied to by politicians because they see it as politicians having to convince others to go along with a plan they believe and agree with. They don't see it as politicians lying to them, it's politicians who they approve of and agree with lying to others to convince them to go along with an agenda they approve of. In other words, it's okay for politicians to lie because the supporters of those politicians believe they are in on the lie.
    - ccooffee 3y ago
      Sorry, I was trying to make an almost pedantic point. I agree with you that deceiving the public is important to understanding what/why. However, the claim that "very large majority of the people were against it the entire time" is false, and trivially testable. 53% in favor of war means at most 47% against. 47% is not "very large majority". Would people have been against it _conditioned on having knowledge from today that was unavailable then_? Possibly, but this hypothetical doesn't move discussion in a useful direction.
- matsemann 3y ago
  While it feels unfair to say "we", what have you done to stop this? Have you protested? Written to your representatives? Contributed to a NGO fighting these things? Etc. Or did you let your tax money fund this destruction with little opposition? I'm being harsh, and probably a hypocrite. But it's easy to be against something in words, but do little to change it sitting comfortably and safe at a distance.
  - queuebert 3y ago
    We can't even vote for one party over another, since both are pro-war.
    - AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
      Stop voting for parties, vote for people instead. Doesn't always work out but I think the odds are better.
  - gardnr 3y ago
    I left the country. Now, I sleep soundly knowing my taxes get wasted on road works instead of death works.
  - AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
    > Have you protested? I did. I even almost got arrested on multiple occasions for it. > Written to your representatives? Hell, I went to Washington DC and their local offices on multiple occasions and told them to their faces what I thought of them for doing what they were doing. Didn't do a damn thing, could have done more. Should have done more.
- AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
  I was against it, even the afghan invasion, on day-1. Caught a lot of shit in post-9/11 NYC for that. Protested in the streets in NYC, almost got arrested a few times. Didn't do a damn bit of difference. We all could have and should have done more to stop it.
fullshark 3y ago
That post WW2 rep was never gonna last as generations aged and was gonna get cashed in somehow. Probably the most senseless use of it though.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  What was gained? Weapons manufacturers stock price went up? What else? Not security, we somehow left all of our weapons and vehicles behind for the Taliban to use. We literally threw away decades of goodwill for... nothing. All that happened is our "enemies" are stronger and we are weaker and poorer.
  - reaperman 3y ago
    Hundreds of thousands of lives and unimaginably vast fortunes were both thrown away. In exchange, a few thousand people captured a small amount of that spending and got somewhat wealthier. But even then, most of that was captured by only a few families.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      And the people responsible not only didn't go to prison, they remain in power to this day even though many are of advanced age.
      - colpabar 3y ago
        Well they said they were sorry, what else do you want from them? The TV says dubya is a good guy now because he dislikes trump, you'd have to be some kind of fascist to disagree with that logic.
        willcipriano 3y ago
        Hey I'm a good guy I vote the same way Dick Cheney and John Bolton do.
      - 3y ago
esotericimpl 3y ago
Not even one mention of the 1 million Iraqis My favorite memory was being on a college campus against the war and reading all the right wing shitheads talk about how great it was gonna be. Meanwhile all the ghouls from the bush administration are walking free. As an athiest i often think about if i'm wrong about there being a hell. It's nice to think Bush and everyone involved will be there for eternity.
paxys 3y ago
This stuff isn't even ancient history. During the withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 the military blew up a random vehicle from a drone in the middle of Kabul, killing 10 civilians (including 7 children), and then immediately branded them terrorists.
- jjoonathan 3y ago
  Yeah, the "if we killed them they must have been terrorists" policy was gross.
  - zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
    *is gross
- MiscCompFacts 3y ago
  Here’s a pretty thorough investigation I watched about it a while ago: https://youtu.be/ZtecNyXxb9A?si=o6Lyb6KhtogsXeLh https://youtu.be/ZtecNyXxb9A?si=o6Lyb6KhtogsXeLh
  - ccooffee 3y ago
    I worked for a defense contractor when the mistargeted drone strike on Ahmadi occurred killing him and 9 family members (including 7 children). Based on internal information available at the time, there's a very good chance that the drone strike was mistargeted due to software bugs. In particular, a "track this car" feature that worked against satellite and aerial surveillance was available in software used by those in the military's operations teams. I've poked around in that software to determine that it was definitely buggy, but this did not prevent the feature from being offered to users. I've been assured that users were essentially told "don't click this button that automates watching vehicles and instead do it yourself", but laziness and crisis crunch time of the American exit from Afghanistan makes it very realistic that users were overwhelmed and trying anything to stay on top of things. I lay those deaths at least partially on software and the cavalier way that life-or-death circumstances are systematically ignored by the defense contractor software industry.
sschueller 3y ago
Guantanamo Bay prison is still holding detainies indefinitely and Julian Assange is still facing a lifetime in prison for exposing war crimes.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago
  I read about some of the torturing that has been done to those prisoners... I don't think there are words that can capture the sheer insanity of it all. I .. can't imagine how anyone could do something like that to a living being.
  - colpabar 3y ago
    I don't mean to be rude, but you should get over it because this is the world we live in and pearl clutching isn't going to stop them. Don't be sad, get mad!
    - mburns 3y ago
      To be fair, being mad hasn’t stopped them, either.
    - rexpop 3y ago
      > get over it > get mad I can't help but feel this is contradictory advice.
    - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
      I don't see how I am "pearl-clutching". > Pearl-clutching is a deliberate bad-faith reaction to a comment and a form of civil POV-pushing. It is done in order to exaggerate the effects and impacts said comment had. I merely spoke about the atrocities I read about, and expressed my disbelief in how a person could even commit something like that.
  - oldpersonintx 3y ago
    [flagged]
tracer4201 3y ago
You used the word accident and called out an example of the US citizen killed. In fact, we had military and private contractors commit war crimes, and even the ethical folks did things that contributed to millions getting displaced. We redefined how we classify male civilians. If you’re a male and end up being in the wrong place, you’re just another casualty and classified as a militant. Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush clan did some truly horrific things. Kidnapping people with any kind of trial. Dropping bombs in Western Pakistan on weddings because there’s some suspected leader of an organization we don’t like, even if they simply aren’t terrorists but don’t want America in the region.
- AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
  I know my list is sadly hardly complete. Its just the things I think most about and the things I happen to be saddest about.
donatj 3y ago
> We drone-killed a minor US citizen in a foreign country without a trial. Four that we admit to. I'd be surprised if the real number were not higher. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-22634614 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-22634614
- 2Gkashmiri 3y ago
  Why is it only discossed when an american dies? American citizen is used as if they are a special specie
  - kkielhofner 3y ago
    I completely understand your sentiment but sadly for many Americans the lives of other people just don’t matter. We frequently don’t even care about our own citizens here (too many examples to list). It’s a point raised and emphasized because it’s the only chance we have to try to get people to care about the atrocious things we’re doing. Even something as simple and clear as this line has been very ineffective in bringing about any change.
  - donatj 3y ago
    I mean the reason is because the federal government is explicitly disallowed in it's own founding papers from killing Americans without a trial. There is no such restriction on non-Americans.
pan69 3y ago
And Assange is currently awaiting extradition to US in a British prison for exposing many of these things over a decade ago through Wikileaks.
runjake 3y ago
> We drone-killed a minor US citizen in a foreign country without a trial. And his US citizen father[1]! There's a good article somewhere about Obama toiling with these decisions (he reportedly gave the go ahead for both dronings). 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Death
jjtheblunt 3y ago
what's a minor US citizen?
- Kranar 3y ago
  A US citizen under the age of 18. A minor in the sense of age, not importance.
  - jjtheblunt 3y ago
    Makes sense. Thanks.
jaybrendansmith 3y ago
Just think about the opportunity cost of that much money. I am fairly certain that $8T would do any one several of the following things: 1. Covert our Economy to post carbon. Completely. All Nuclear, Hydro, Solar, and Wind. 2. Pull enough CO2 out of the Atmosphere to get it back to carbon neutral. 3. Put a colony on the Moon, and on Mars, along with a new Space Station. (just for kicks) 4. Give every man, woman, and child in the United States a $26,000 check. So it goes.
- AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
  If you threw it into nuclear, yes, we could have at least removed 90% of fossil fuels from our energy grid while making our energy grid far more resilient in the process and making the electric car revolution easier (energy too cheap to meter and all that jazz). I don't think investing in more Hydro is a good option personally. Too much environmental consequence from flooding the massive areas required. 8T 20 years ago would not have accelerated the pace of solar/wind much and it's dubious if it would even be useful today, there are better solutions (nuclear). Similar with moon/mars colony. We don't lack the money for a mars shot, we could do it pretty cheaply, we just lack the will to do it. At this point Musk will assuredly get there first and cheaper.

thejazzman 3y ago

The use of "we" feels so unfair when a very large majority of the people were against it the entire time. "We" couldn't do anything about it, as usual.

TeeMassive 3y ago
It's a government "for the people and by the people" and clearly the people either approve or doesn't care enough. So yes, "we" the people applies here.
- FooBarBizBazz 3y ago
  This "for the people and by the people" thing does not appear to be empirically true. Here's a study out of Harvard: > Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...
donatj 3y ago
When you roll with a gang, you're responsible for that gangs actions, like it or not.
tracer4201 3y ago
[dead]
MattGaiser 3y ago
> The use of "we" feels so unfair when a very large majority of the people were against it the entire time. No they were not. https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-america... Iraq was a popular war.
- mattnewton 3y ago
  This is important to remember. One reason it might feel unfair now though is some combination of a) to many people, it is clear the war was a mistake and they remember always being against it now and b) some 35% of the current adult US population, including myself, wasn’t old enough to be polled then, but was legitimately against the war always.
- AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
  Speaking as someone who was against it. Iraq was popular because we were lied to. Saddam was behind 9/11 so we have to go in there in retribution. Iraq has WMDs and is going to use them on us so we have to go in there to stop them. Saddam is attacking and killing his own people so we have to go in there on humanitarian grounds.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    I'm not sure anything would have changed if we knew we were lied to. 2001-2002 was a strange time. A lot of people just wanted war--with anyone. It didn't really matter who we invaded. The Cold War ending meant the USA was out of overt enemies, and this was a real bummer to people who loved war and belligerence, so the sooner we could make enemies and start fighting, the better.
jtbayly 3y ago
That’s simply not true. A very large majority were in favor. Some were opposed, yes. Using “we” is a proper generalization. Everybody is offended by generalizations today. (See what I did there?) but you can’t talk coherently without them.
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  Sure, but also as much as it may make you feel old, those polls were of people over 18 in 2003, and about half of the current US population does not fit that bill. The effect is even more dramatic when you presume polls always skew older.
  - sokoloff 3y ago
    Do you presume that most of the unpolled 17 year olds in 2003 were against it? Most of the unpolled 16 year olds? Even if they weren't polled, it's not reasonable to assume that 0% of them would have supported the various responses.
    - RC_ITR 3y ago
      I know many of the unpolled 1 year olds who are now 24 probably never thought the war was a good idea. My point is that America in 2003 feels the same to people who were alive then, but blaming Americans alive today for Iraq is like blaming Americans alive in 2003 for being pro-Grenada.
- mistermann 3y ago
  If "we" is misinformative, it seems like the opposite of coherent. It is possible to use some sort of set theory terminology to avoid misleading people, but then that wouldn't really be "proper" (culturally acceptable). It's a real conundrum.
- AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
  Even the ones who were opposed at the time, myself included, should have done more.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
giraffe_lady 3y ago
I have always opposed these wars, and I use "we" to position myself in them. History has shown that we were right to oppose them, and in fact were justified in using much more radical resistance than we did. My "we" is contrition and repentance for not doing so.
- AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
  I use we, and I also opposed them from day 1. Could have done more to stop them. Should have done more to stop them.
Cyph0n 3y ago
I didn’t live in the US during that time, and I even know this isn’t true. Heck, just talk to any Muslim American who was working or growing up during that time period.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ccooffee 3y ago
> very large majority of the people were against it the entire time I don't think this claim holds up to the evidence. Looking at opinion polls between 9/11 and 2003's invasion of Iraq makes it unclear that a "very large majority" was against the invasion. Here's a quickly-found Gallup poll[0] from October 2002 wherein 53% of polled Americans supported a ground invasion of Iraq. The American people were misled by government claims about WMDs and handwavy connections between Iraq and 9/11. But that doesn't permit us to retroactively declare that "well, if only the people knew in 2002 what we know now then they would have been against it." [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20171201030755/http://news.gallup.com/poll/6964/top-ten-findings-about-public-opinion-iraq.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20171201030755/http://news.gallu...
- matthewrobertso 3y ago
  >The American people were misled by government claims about WMDs and handwavy connections between Iraq and 9/11. But that doesn't permit us to retroactively declare that "well, if only the people knew in 2002 what we know now then they would have been against it." Can you explain more? If the American people knew they were being lied to in order to create support for a war, why would they support the war? The argument at the time, repeated all over the media, was that the war was necessary because of WMDs. 53% is a narrow majority supporting invasion, you don't think knowing they were being tricked would have caused at least a 5% swing?
  - Kranar 3y ago
    People tolerate being lied to by politicians because they see it as politicians having to convince others to go along with a plan they believe and agree with. They don't see it as politicians lying to them, it's politicians who they approve of and agree with lying to others to convince them to go along with an agenda they approve of. In other words, it's okay for politicians to lie because the supporters of those politicians believe they are in on the lie.
  - ccooffee 3y ago
    Sorry, I was trying to make an almost pedantic point. I agree with you that deceiving the public is important to understanding what/why. However, the claim that "very large majority of the people were against it the entire time" is false, and trivially testable. 53% in favor of war means at most 47% against. 47% is not "very large majority". Would people have been against it _conditioned on having knowledge from today that was unavailable then_? Possibly, but this hypothetical doesn't move discussion in a useful direction.
matsemann 3y ago
While it feels unfair to say "we", what have you done to stop this? Have you protested? Written to your representatives? Contributed to a NGO fighting these things? Etc. Or did you let your tax money fund this destruction with little opposition? I'm being harsh, and probably a hypocrite. But it's easy to be against something in words, but do little to change it sitting comfortably and safe at a distance.
- queuebert 3y ago
  We can't even vote for one party over another, since both are pro-war.
  - AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
    Stop voting for parties, vote for people instead. Doesn't always work out but I think the odds are better.
- gardnr 3y ago
  I left the country. Now, I sleep soundly knowing my taxes get wasted on road works instead of death works.
- AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
  > Have you protested? I did. I even almost got arrested on multiple occasions for it. > Written to your representatives? Hell, I went to Washington DC and their local offices on multiple occasions and told them to their faces what I thought of them for doing what they were doing. Didn't do a damn thing, could have done more. Should have done more.
AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
I was against it, even the afghan invasion, on day-1. Caught a lot of shit in post-9/11 NYC for that. Protested in the streets in NYC, almost got arrested a few times. Didn't do a damn bit of difference. We all could have and should have done more to stop it.

fullshark 3y ago

That post WW2 rep was never gonna last as generations aged and was gonna get cashed in somehow. Probably the most senseless use of it though.

willcipriano 3y ago
What was gained? Weapons manufacturers stock price went up? What else? Not security, we somehow left all of our weapons and vehicles behind for the Taliban to use. We literally threw away decades of goodwill for... nothing. All that happened is our "enemies" are stronger and we are weaker and poorer.
- reaperman 3y ago
  Hundreds of thousands of lives and unimaginably vast fortunes were both thrown away. In exchange, a few thousand people captured a small amount of that spending and got somewhat wealthier. But even then, most of that was captured by only a few families.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    And the people responsible not only didn't go to prison, they remain in power to this day even though many are of advanced age.
    - colpabar 3y ago
      Well they said they were sorry, what else do you want from them? The TV says dubya is a good guy now because he dislikes trump, you'd have to be some kind of fascist to disagree with that logic.
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        Hey I'm a good guy I vote the same way Dick Cheney and John Bolton do.
    - 3y ago

esotericimpl 3y ago

Not even one mention of the 1 million Iraqis My favorite memory was being on a college campus against the war and reading all the right wing shitheads talk about how great it was gonna be. Meanwhile all the ghouls from the bush administration are walking free. As an athiest i often think about if i'm wrong about there being a hell. It's nice to think Bush and everyone involved will be there for eternity.

paxys 3y ago

This stuff isn't even ancient history. During the withdrawal from Afghanistan in August 2021 the military blew up a random vehicle from a drone in the middle of Kabul, killing 10 civilians (including 7 children), and then immediately branded them terrorists.

jjoonathan 3y ago
Yeah, the "if we killed them they must have been terrorists" policy was gross.
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
  *is gross
MiscCompFacts 3y ago
Here’s a pretty thorough investigation I watched about it a while ago: https://youtu.be/ZtecNyXxb9A?si=o6Lyb6KhtogsXeLh https://youtu.be/ZtecNyXxb9A?si=o6Lyb6KhtogsXeLh
- ccooffee 3y ago
  I worked for a defense contractor when the mistargeted drone strike on Ahmadi occurred killing him and 9 family members (including 7 children). Based on internal information available at the time, there's a very good chance that the drone strike was mistargeted due to software bugs. In particular, a "track this car" feature that worked against satellite and aerial surveillance was available in software used by those in the military's operations teams. I've poked around in that software to determine that it was definitely buggy, but this did not prevent the feature from being offered to users. I've been assured that users were essentially told "don't click this button that automates watching vehicles and instead do it yourself", but laziness and crisis crunch time of the American exit from Afghanistan makes it very realistic that users were overwhelmed and trying anything to stay on top of things. I lay those deaths at least partially on software and the cavalier way that life-or-death circumstances are systematically ignored by the defense contractor software industry.

sschueller 3y ago

Guantanamo Bay prison is still holding detainies indefinitely and Julian Assange is still facing a lifetime in prison for exposing war crimes.

PartiallyTyped 3y ago
I read about some of the torturing that has been done to those prisoners... I don't think there are words that can capture the sheer insanity of it all. I .. can't imagine how anyone could do something like that to a living being.
- colpabar 3y ago
  I don't mean to be rude, but you should get over it because this is the world we live in and pearl clutching isn't going to stop them. Don't be sad, get mad!
  - mburns 3y ago
    To be fair, being mad hasn’t stopped them, either.
  - rexpop 3y ago
    > get over it > get mad I can't help but feel this is contradictory advice.
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    I don't see how I am "pearl-clutching". > Pearl-clutching is a deliberate bad-faith reaction to a comment and a form of civil POV-pushing. It is done in order to exaggerate the effects and impacts said comment had. I merely spoke about the atrocities I read about, and expressed my disbelief in how a person could even commit something like that.
- oldpersonintx 3y ago
  [flagged]

tracer4201 3y ago

You used the word accident and called out an example of the US citizen killed. In fact, we had military and private contractors commit war crimes, and even the ethical folks did things that contributed to millions getting displaced. We redefined how we classify male civilians. If you’re a male and end up being in the wrong place, you’re just another casualty and classified as a militant. Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush clan did some truly horrific things. Kidnapping people with any kind of trial. Dropping bombs in Western Pakistan on weddings because there’s some suspected leader of an organization we don’t like, even if they simply aren’t terrorists but don’t want America in the region.

AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
I know my list is sadly hardly complete. Its just the things I think most about and the things I happen to be saddest about.

donatj 3y ago

> We drone-killed a minor US citizen in a foreign country without a trial. Four that we admit to. I'd be surprised if the real number were not higher. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-22634614 https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-22634614

2Gkashmiri 3y ago
Why is it only discossed when an american dies? American citizen is used as if they are a special specie
- kkielhofner 3y ago
  I completely understand your sentiment but sadly for many Americans the lives of other people just don’t matter. We frequently don’t even care about our own citizens here (too many examples to list). It’s a point raised and emphasized because it’s the only chance we have to try to get people to care about the atrocious things we’re doing. Even something as simple and clear as this line has been very ineffective in bringing about any change.
- donatj 3y ago
  I mean the reason is because the federal government is explicitly disallowed in it's own founding papers from killing Americans without a trial. There is no such restriction on non-Americans.

pan69 3y ago

And Assange is currently awaiting extradition to US in a British prison for exposing many of these things over a decade ago through Wikileaks.

runjake 3y ago

> We drone-killed a minor US citizen in a foreign country without a trial. And his US citizen father[1]! There's a good article somewhere about Obama toiling with these decisions (he reportedly gave the go ahead for both dronings). 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Death

jjtheblunt 3y ago

what's a minor US citizen?

Kranar 3y ago
A US citizen under the age of 18. A minor in the sense of age, not importance.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  Makes sense. Thanks.

jaybrendansmith 3y ago

Just think about the opportunity cost of that much money. I am fairly certain that $8T would do any one several of the following things: 1. Covert our Economy to post carbon. Completely. All Nuclear, Hydro, Solar, and Wind. 2. Pull enough CO2 out of the Atmosphere to get it back to carbon neutral. 3. Put a colony on the Moon, and on Mars, along with a new Space Station. (just for kicks) 4. Give every man, woman, and child in the United States a $26,000 check. So it goes.

AdamJacobMuller 3y ago
If you threw it into nuclear, yes, we could have at least removed 90% of fossil fuels from our energy grid while making our energy grid far more resilient in the process and making the electric car revolution easier (energy too cheap to meter and all that jazz). I don't think investing in more Hydro is a good option personally. Too much environmental consequence from flooding the massive areas required. 8T 20 years ago would not have accelerated the pace of solar/wind much and it's dubious if it would even be useful today, there are better solutions (nuclear). Similar with moon/mars colony. We don't lack the money for a mars shot, we could do it pretty cheaply, we just lack the will to do it. At this point Musk will assuredly get there first and cheaper.