4 ms·

> The fact that we as a society depend on the Bradley > Mannings of this world to keep us on the straight and > narrow is what is really frightening. We do

> The fact that we as a society depend on the Bradley > Mannings of this world to keep us on the straight and > narrow is what is really frightening. We don't. The world would be the same without him. Just less talk about some guys sexual adventures in the Northern Europe.

simonh 14y ago
That's Julian Assange, not Bradley Manning.
jacquesm 14y ago
You should probably read up a bit on how the cable-gate bits and pieces fit into the Arab spring. The world would definitely not 'be the same without him', maybe your part of the world, but definitely not all of it.
- mpyne 14y ago
  So how many civilian casualties do we lay at Manning's feet, if he's responsible for the Arab Spring?
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    You meant to ask: "Hoe many casualties do we lay at the feet of the soldiers that were 'just following orders' firing on civilians?". My guess is all of them.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      Finally, something we fully agree on! :) However you may be surprised to hear that most (on the ground at least) are not actually going around playing Let's Clean our Bayonets With Civilian Guts everyday... I would be interested in an answer to my original question then. We do still blame Bush for "bringing democracy to Iraq" after all, seems like fair's fair.
      - jacquesm 14y ago
        Bringing democracy to Iraq was never a stated goal of any US administration. If Iraq had a true democracy they'd nationalize the oil fields and they'd renegotiate their terms with the Western oil companies from a position of strength rather than at gunpoint. But we already know how that would end, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat And all the good that came of that.
        mpyne 14y ago
        > Bringing democracy to Iraq was never a stated goal of any US administration. From Bush's speech: "A campaign on harsh terrain in a vast country could be longer and more difficult than some have predicted. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment. Yet, whatever is required of us, we will carry out all the duties we have accepted." (emphasis mine, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...) But either way, let's take it as true, the Bush White House was not exactly consistent with regarding to the reasoning for invading Iraq at any point. However, bringing democracy to the countries affected by the Arab Spring wasn't always the stated goal either, no? At least for Libya, Syria, and Egypt the issue was the corruption of the then-current government. Although in all of those cases the end result appears to be on track for some kind of democratic state, it's not looking very promising in Egypt IMHO. And who knows where the ruins of Syria will end up? > If Iraq had a true democracy they'd nationalize the oil fields Well Big Oil was doing just fine before the U.S. invaded Iraq, and in general seem to do better when Islamists aren't blowing up their pipelines. So while I "rah rah bad corporations" too I'm not quite to the point where I'm willing to pin all geopolitical maneuvers on what's best for Exxon-Mobil. You're exactly right that Iraq is potentially in a better position to force re-negotiation of oil contracts than Saddam's Iraq was; they could simply buy off the puppet. So maaaybe we should be careful about all the accusations "Blood for Oil" for Iraq in 2003, as the war made no sense at all from the perspective of Western oil companies. Even now I have no clue as to why Bush actually invaded Iraq but I don't think it was oil. Even if it was somehow much easier for American companies to get access to Iraq's oil after a protracted occupation, it wouldn't be worth the capital (let alone human) cost overall even for all the oil in Iraq. Even if Bush didn't know that, all his oil friends that he was buddy-buddy with could easily tell him.

simonh 14y ago

That's Julian Assange, not Bradley Manning.

jacquesm 14y ago

You should probably read up a bit on how the cable-gate bits and pieces fit into the Arab spring. The world would definitely not 'be the same without him', maybe your part of the world, but definitely not all of it.

mpyne 14y ago
So how many civilian casualties do we lay at Manning's feet, if he's responsible for the Arab Spring?
- jacquesm 14y ago
  You meant to ask: "Hoe many casualties do we lay at the feet of the soldiers that were 'just following orders' firing on civilians?". My guess is all of them.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    Finally, something we fully agree on! :) However you may be surprised to hear that most (on the ground at least) are not actually going around playing Let's Clean our Bayonets With Civilian Guts everyday... I would be interested in an answer to my original question then. We do still blame Bush for "bringing democracy to Iraq" after all, seems like fair's fair.
    - jacquesm 14y ago
      Bringing democracy to Iraq was never a stated goal of any US administration. If Iraq had a true democracy they'd nationalize the oil fields and they'd renegotiate their terms with the Western oil companies from a position of strength rather than at gunpoint. But we already know how that would end, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat And all the good that came of that.
      - mpyne 14y ago
        > Bringing democracy to Iraq was never a stated goal of any US administration. From Bush's speech: "A campaign on harsh terrain in a vast country could be longer and more difficult than some have predicted. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable, and free country will require our sustained commitment. Yet, whatever is required of us, we will carry out all the duties we have accepted." (emphasis mine, http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/200...) But either way, let's take it as true, the Bush White House was not exactly consistent with regarding to the reasoning for invading Iraq at any point. However, bringing democracy to the countries affected by the Arab Spring wasn't always the stated goal either, no? At least for Libya, Syria, and Egypt the issue was the corruption of the then-current government. Although in all of those cases the end result appears to be on track for some kind of democratic state, it's not looking very promising in Egypt IMHO. And who knows where the ruins of Syria will end up? > If Iraq had a true democracy they'd nationalize the oil fields Well Big Oil was doing just fine before the U.S. invaded Iraq, and in general seem to do better when Islamists aren't blowing up their pipelines. So while I "rah rah bad corporations" too I'm not quite to the point where I'm willing to pin all geopolitical maneuvers on what's best for Exxon-Mobil. You're exactly right that Iraq is potentially in a better position to force re-negotiation of oil contracts than Saddam's Iraq was; they could simply buy off the puppet. So maaaybe we should be careful about all the accusations "Blood for Oil" for Iraq in 2003, as the war made no sense at all from the perspective of Western oil companies. Even now I have no clue as to why Bush actually invaded Iraq but I don't think it was oil. Even if it was somehow much easier for American companies to get access to Iraq's oil after a protracted occupation, it wouldn't be worth the capital (let alone human) cost overall even for all the oil in Iraq. Even if Bush didn't know that, all his oil friends that he was buddy-buddy with could easily tell him.