Iraq set to lower the age of consent to just nine years old
Iraq set to lower the age of consent to just nine years old
Girls as young as nine could be forced into marriage in Iraq, as conservative groups in parliament push to lower the age of consent.
You're viewing a single thread.
I understand that Saddam Hussein was a terrible man. But it sucks that support from his opposition is what helped push this. They're not bad because they are Shia; they are simply the worst of the people that opposed Hussein. This is what happens when you prop up puppet governments. The rights of the people aren't important to the puppeteer.
Tl:dr: Even with Saddam Hussein's death, Iraq never got its freedom.
At the time when we launched the aggressive and illegal invasion of a sovereign county, we were doing it for Democracy™ and Human Rights™
At the time, you would have been called a traitor, shill, or insane to suggest otherwise.
After some years, it becomes absolutely clear none of it was true. It was all for imperialist motives. It seems that the propaganda is strong, but it has a short half life. Today you'll have trouble finding someone defending the US invasion of Iraq.
I think we are seeing the same thing with Ukraine war. In 10, 15 years people will see the war for what it is- a progressive destabilization of Eastern Europe and intentional proxy war.
But right now- it's Sovereignty™, International Law™, and Democracy™
We destroyed Iraq. We doomed millions of people for generations. And we are participating right now in the destruction of another country.
It's just that we do. We destroy.
Ok. That is until the Ukraine bit. Russia chose to invade. It was made very clear in the press that the US knew what was happening on the border and gave Putin every chance to stop it Ukraine is a sovereign country and did not want more Russian influence and was courting EU membership.
Ukraine is getting destroyed because they happen to be a small country in between two great powers having a proxy war. Russia is the invader, the aggressor, the one who broke international law.
But US is not naive here. This was expected and planned for a long time before 2022 and a long time before 2014. Proxy war takes two sides to tango. We're not supporting Ukraine because of democracy and sovereignty and human rights, we're doing it for geopolitical motives. A sort of modern Spanish Civil War. Testing out new battlefield technology before the next Great War.
Unfortunately for the people of Ukraine the geopolitical motives and interests of the US don't necessarily align with their interests. Like Chomsky says "we will fight them to the last Ukrainian"
We’re not supporting Ukraine because of democracy and sovereignty and human rights, we’re doing it for geopolitical motives.
You should be supporting Ukraine because of democracy, sovereignty, and the security guarantees you gave them by signing the Budapest memorandum, remember, when Ukraine gave up its nukes. You are supporting them not because you care about any of that including your promises, agreed, you're too fickle for that, but because you don't want to lose Europe as an ally, a geopolitical motive, because boy can I tell you Europe cares about all four points, more than everything Europe cares about Ukrainians caring, about supporting a rightful struggle by a people dreaming of a better future, and Russia re-igniting imperialist BS. And you'll continue to support Ukraine even if you don't care about Europe because you care about Ukraine not nuking up.
All this, ultimately, just amounts to a French win. They wanted strategic autonomy for Europe for a long while, they considered NATO braindead for a long while, getting the US out of the equation, having everyone see how fickle, unreliable, and of course self-absorbed and self-righteous or self-hating (depending on how that exceptionalism swings) you are, is just what's needed to for the rest of Europe to fully buy into French doctrine. The US is driving nail after nail into the coffin of Atlanticism and the French are loving it.
...and that's another reason why you won't be dropping Ukraine: Because then your military-industrial complex would lose a very affluent customer. Currently European states get shouted at by the French when they buy US instead of European, that voice would fall completely silent because noone would be buying US, any more. Who'd have thunk in the face of Trump greed might just save your geopolitical standing.
You should be supporting Ukraine because of democracy, sovereignty, and the security guarantees you gave them by signing the Budapest memorandum, remember, when Ukraine gave up its nukes.
Stop spreading misinformation. Read the Budapest Memorandum again, please. There were no security guarantees given by the US.
I believe in democracy and sovereignty - the US state does not.
and that’s another reason why you won’t be dropping Ukraine
What happens to Ukraine does not ultimately matter to US power. Right now it's a convenient place to test new weapons, get battlefield intel, inject some nice cash into defense contractors.
But the real focus is on the East.
All this, ultimately, just amounts to a French win
See, I view the total opposite. It's interesting how people can see the same thing and get different conclusions
After WW2, Europe was essentially made subservient to the US. The threat of the Soviets was very real and the US was the only one that could keep the Soviets at bay. Therefore, NATO was formed. Cue the infamous quote from the first General Secretary - the reason for NATO was "to keep the Americans in, the Germans down, and the Russians out"
After 1991 there was a real hope that Russia could integrate with Europe. No more USSR, no more threat, right? No more reason for NATO, no more reason for hostility. Imagine a Europe where Russia was integrated into the security blanket. Europe would become a superpower by its own right - no need to bow down to the Americans. There was decades of slow attempts at integration (for example with energy like natural gas pipelines)
But that vision never materialized and after a gradual decline in relations, Russia invading Ukraine was the best gift Russia has ever given to the Americans.
It basically started the process of a permanent decoupling of Russia from Europe and it forced the Europeans into the arms of the Americans. Now, Europe has no choice but to align with the Americans.
This is the reason you start seeing populists like Trump start using harsh rhetoric about NATO. "Freeloading Europeans now need to pay their fair share", etc.
The reason why Americans can get away with it now, where they couldn't before, is because Europe has no choice.
The fact that this wasn't a three day operation is in large part sure to the US. But your portrayal of the facts makes no sense. Nobody is forcing Ukraine to ask the US for help (except Russia). The US obliges because it does align with their interest. But in the end, all international help at scale is motivated by national interest.
Testing out new battlefield technology before the next Great War.
Should a nation only fight with pre-agreed equipment that is at least of a certain age?
Unfortunately for the people of Ukraine the geopolitical motives and interests of the US don't necessarily align with their interests.
Well, they for sure don't align with Russia's.
Like Chomsky says "we will fight them to the last Ukrainian"
Or was it North Korean?
Nobody is forcing Ukraine to ask the US for help (except Russia).
But who is "Ukraine"?
Who gets to make the decisions? The people of Ukraine? The unconstitutionally appointed government? The one who happens to cooperate directly with the CIA? The government that stems from the series of far-right protests that led to a coup? In a country where US has been pumping money for decades?
It sounds like the logic of Guatemala.
United Fruit Company (whose CEO was brothers with director of CIA) owned large swathes of land to grow bananas. They also owned railroads, telephone lines, and other general infrastructure.
A new democratic movement sparked up in order to take some of that land and distribute it to the people of Guatemala - why should a foreign company own all the farmland? (Similar thing happened in Cuba, except they were successful)
So what happens in Guatemala? A CIA supported coup puts in a new right-wing government. Now that new government cooperated with the USA and made sure United Fruit Company (Chiquita these days) kept the spice flowing.
Now, if you were to tell me "But kava, the Guatemalan government asked the US for help. It's their independent and sovereign decision"
But was it really? Who gets to call the shots?
That's the fundamental question here. I am not discounting sovereignty of Ukrainian people because Euromaidan is NOT the Guatemalan coup. It's a whole different event with a different set of factors and influences. I wouldn't even go so far to say it was a CIA-led coup. Just a CIA-supported one.
But the question is a nuanced one and not so simple as "Ukraine asked for help". It's more like Ukraine had no choice but to ask for help. The power-dynamic is not an equal one - like a teacher having sex with a student. Is it possible for that relationship to be consensual?
Like Chomsky says “we will fight them to the last Ukrainian”
Or was it North Korean?
Ukraine is in the process of being destroyed. It's the only country involved in this war that is suffering that fate.
I think we are seeing the same thing with Ukraine war. In 10, 15 years people will see the war for what it is- a progressive destabilization of Eastern Europe and intentional proxy war.
I was wondering what you meant by this but now I think I get it. We created a puppet state in Iraq to get a "buffer" against Iran. The same way Putin wants Ukraine to be its buffer against the rest of Europe. Did I get that right?
I agree with the rest of what you said.
we've been pumping money into regime change in Ukraine since the early 90s. NED (National Endowment for Democracy) used to show the dollar figures and specific organizations on their website but deleted that information a while back. You can still find it with Wayback Machine
Essentially we've been funding and supporting organizations in Ukraine under the guise of "pro-Democracy™" "pro-Liberty™" with the goal of supporting any potential chances for regime change. Some of those organizations just happen to be associated with the far-right groups that were part of the initial government that was unconstitutionally appointed In 2014 after Euromaidan- a series of violent protests that forced the pro-Russian president to flee the country.
tldr: we've been destabilizing Ukraine for a long time. the idea was to peel off Ukraine from Russia's orbit and throw it into the US orbit. And it worked. Which is why Russia invaded in 2014
Note before I get the inevitable Russian shill comments - I'm not justifying any aggressive invasion by Russia. I'm saying this is a proxy war - a game of tug of war between two larger powers. Neither care in the slightest about what actually happens to the Ukrainians.
They will not recover from this war for a hundred years. But Lockheed Martin stock will perform nicely
edit: and remember this comment in 15 years. people will be talking as if what I'm saying is obvious. but right now the propaganda is strong- just like in 2003 with invasion of Iraq
Note before I get the inevitable Russian shill comments - I’m not justifying any aggressive invasion by Russia.
No, you're just parroting their BS propaganda.
Some of those organizations just happen to be associated with the far-right groups that were part of the initial government that was unconstitutionally appointed In 2014 after Euromaidan- a series of violent protests that forced the pro-Russian president to flee the country.
The constitutionality of the confusing as fuck situation is quite irrelevant (the Rada had the power to do what it did, it did have the votes, but procedure was not necessarily followed properly when disposing of the AWOL president) because there were new elections right after, healing any hiccup. Elections which tanked the results of those far-right parties which weren't exactly impressive in the first place.
Elections which solved a popular uprising caused by the president to renege on the country's path to EU accession. That was the sparking point for the protests, which at that point could've been solved without an erm special electoral operation, but the Russian puppet ordered Berkut to fire on protestors, which those didn't appreciate and consequently failed to calm down and disperse.
After said puppet went AWOL and got disposed and the interim government did nothing much really but organise elections, Poroshenko got elected (yay, another oligarch, as is tradition), trying to solve Russia's invasion (the green men one) militarily. Zelensky pushed him out of office in the next elections, on a peace ticket, as a Russian native speaker... and then Russia invaded even more. They fucking hit Kiev. The Ukrainian army had re-grouped extensively after the little green men operation, the SBU had identified and neutralised gazillions of Russian operatives, either the FSB didn't notice or they didn't want to tell Putin what he didn't want to hear. The rest is taxi memes.
If that -- those totally irrelevant right sector fucks -- is the US's influence in Ukraine then it truly is pitiful. Compare the influence of glorious Europe: Ukraine actually wants to join up!
Lot of text to say "yes it was unconstitutional"
It's impossible to sugar coat what Euromaidan was. Just like Azov, it slowly gets whitewashed because of propaganda. But at its core, it was a series of protests sparked by the Ukrainian far-right that led to an escalating ladder of violence that resulted in a coup. The day after the new government was appointed, it immediately bent the knee to the CIA. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html
https://jacobin.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
If that – those totally irrelevant right sector fucks – is the US’s influence in Ukraine then it truly is pitiful. Compare the influence of glorious Europe: Ukraine actually wants to join up!
This war, for all intents and purposes, is a proxy war between US and Russia. US decides Ukrainian policy. US is the largest funder of this war. US gets to appoint Ukrainian politicians https://www.reuters.com/article/world/leaked-audio-reveals-embarrassing-us-exchange-on-ukraine-eu-idUSBREA1601K/
US has a long history of meddling in Ukraine https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/11/covert-operation-ukrainian-independence-haunts-cia-00029968
No, you’re just parroting their BS propaganda.
just because I refuse to drink one side's kool aid does not mean I drink the other side's. i'm an individual with imperfect knowledge doing my best to reach the closest thing to truth i can with the information i have available. you can attack me all you want, but i don't really see how you addressed anything in your comment except : "the unconstitutional coup was justified because of popular support and so it doesn't matter that it was illegal & you denounce the idea that the US has influence in Ukraine"
US gets to appoint Ukrainian politicians [...]
LMFAO so if, say, Scholz says to Macron "I don't think Trump should be US president, he's not suitable, Harris is a much better option" then it necessarily follows that the EU is controlling US politics.
i’m an individual with imperfect knowledge doing my best to reach the closest thing to truth i can with the information i have available
No you aren't, or you wouldn't just take those "US appoints Ukrainian politicians" talking points at face value. You'd use your own head and assess for yourself what that tape means.
You’d use your own head and assess for yourself what that tape means.
it's a coincidence the guy they decided on just happened to be the guy who ended up being Prime Minister for two terms, right?
like i said in my original comment. it's an interesting phenomenon. if you were to look in the past, it's very easy to convince people the US acted covertly in many ways that were clearly imperialist. for example in Guatemala or Cuba or Iraq. It's hard to find someone trying to defend US actions in these cases. But as it's happening that goes out the window because propaganda has a powerful hold on emotion
Let's take a step back and let me ask you a question. Please answer instead of diverting or otherwise trying to deflect
Question is: Do you believe money holds influence in US elections and do you think people with money actively try and influence elections?
it’s a coincidence the guy they decided on just happened to be the guy who ended up being Prime Minister for two terms, right?
One of those being the interim guy and the other not being complete, getting fired because lacking a majority. All in all he served two years of a usual five-year term. You're embellishing some things, and discounting others, to reinforce your conclusion.
And, no, of course it's not a coincidence: Nuland is a politician. The parliamentarians in the Rada are politicians. The Rada ended up electing Yatsenyuk as a suitable interim prime minister because they judged him to be. And so did Nuland.
And I agree with that assessment: While Klitschko is absolutely popular and without doubt honourable, he's not as politically savvy. Yatsenyuk was the better pick. Klitschko is also a Hamburger, as such if I were partisan here he'd have been my first pick.
You shouldn't be terribly surprised if politicians from different places come to similar or identical conclusions. That's not coincidence or conspiracy, but confluence. Like minds think alike.
Do you believe money holds influence in US elections and do you think people with money actively try and influence elections?
Of fucking course they do. Different question: Do you really think that a couple of millions from the National Endowment for Democracy have influence that can overpower Ukraine's own oligarchs or people? If you think so, please have a look at the net worth of Poroshenko, the guy who became president next. Traditionally, in Ukraine the filthy rich become politicians because that comes with immunity from prosecution. It was a proper oligarchy, not the smoke-and-mirror highly financialised US one or Russia, which isn't an oligarchy: There, a central figures allows loyal viceroys to amass wealth, all the power emanates from the Tsar, not the money.
Yet another angle: The Russians weren't able to successfully influence Ukrainian politics to their liking. Why, then, should the US have been able to? The US invested way less and also cares less.
Then, last thing: Why, with all those holes, is this thrown around as smoking gun evidence? Who benefits?
Ok, I think now we're getting somewhere - you're engaging in good faith and I appreciate that. Let's go over the money pumped into Ukraine
From independence in 1991 to 2014, the total value was not a couple million. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/mar/19/facebook-posts/united-states-spent-5-billion-ukraine-anti-governm/
We're talking in the range of billions. Roughly $200M a year. That's a lot of money for a country as poor as Ukraine.
Second, there's likely a lot of money that was sent covertly. The reason NED was founded was just to simplify the process of funding US interests in foreign countries. Before, you would have to have the CIA create a series of intermediary steps to try and obfuscate the source of funds. For example, to bring it back to Guatemala - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d'%C3%A9tat#Operation_PBSuccess
With NED, you don't need to spend the manpower and money to set up these complex systems of obfuscation. All of the sources are deemed "legitimate" and therefore you can send openly without incriminating yourself. This is cheaper and simpler.
This goes back to the quote by the founder of NED- Allen Weinstein "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA."
But that's the thing- CIA still exists and still covertly funds individuals and organizations. However, these days (post-NED) they only fund those that would be unacceptable for the US government to be attached to. For example, "Operation Cyclone" in Afghanistan or "Timber Sycamore Program" in Syria. In both these cases, as CIA was working their magic, NED was also funding US interests in those countries in parallel.
Open "legitimate" funding - NED
Covert items US doesn't wanna be openly associated with - CIA
They work as a team, both with the mutual goal of advancing US interests
Once again, US has a history of trying to destabilize Ukraine that goes back all the way to the start of Cold War. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/11/covert-operation-ukrainian-independence-haunts-cia-00029968
So to conclude:
I'll make some claims and please tell me if we agree on them (I believe we will, because you agree $$$ influences democracy)
-
NED is a tool to advance US interests through funds injection
-
NED (along with some other US organizations seeking similar goals) openly pumped quite a lot of money into Ukraine.
-
CIA has a history of covertly funding US interests, and also in parallel with NED funding
-
CIA has a history of involvement in Ukraine
So, those 4 statements, I believe are facts. I made no conclusions, simply stated facts. From those facts, I believe it's enough smoke to assume there is fire. You can say there are many holes, and that is fine. Two people can look at the same series of facts and come to different conclusions.
But I think when looking at the following fact in connection with the previous
- US officials speaking on the phone in a highly classified call in such a casual and matter-of-fact way about which politician they want in Ukraine - and that politician served two terms as Prime Minister
Starts to fill in a pattern. Remember Occam's Razor. What's simplest is probably what is true.
To conclude my comment- can we at least agree mutually that US attempted to influence Ukrainian democracy? Maybe they were impotent and the radical coup in 2014 was a totally independent movement totally separate from any US influence. It was just a coincidence that the coup led to a pro-US government.
But can we at least agree on the above- US uses $$$ as a tool to advance their interests and they tried this in Ukraine?
We’re talking in the range of billions. Roughly $200M a year. That’s a lot of money for a country as poor as Ukraine.
That's less than Germany gives Palestine each year and Palestine is vastly smaller. 200M are about five bucks per Ukrainian, per year. That's five litres of milk. A not entirely shabby bottle of wine. Five bucks a year are about 40ct a month, or about 1/1250th of the average Ukrainian wage. You can get a metro ticket for that. And how much of that was even spent in Ukraine itself, as opposed to paying people in America to decide what to do with the money.
Ukraine is Europe-poor, not Africa-poor. It's a fully developed and industrialised country. 200M is ballpark Poroshenko's yearly increase in wealth while in power. Not, mind you, all of it ill-begotten (by capitalist standards) he does produce some fine chocolate.
I’ll make some claims and please tell me if we agree on them (I believe we will, because you agree $$$ influences democracy)
Not what I said. I said that politics can be bought, not that all money buys politics, or that all politics is bought. On top of that it's not always a bad thing, say funnelling some money to an NGO or newspaper keen on exposing corruption.
Starts to fill in a pattern. Remember Occam’s Razor. What’s simplest is probably what is true.
She's a witch, she did it!
Occam's razor cannot account for leaving out context, for data not considered, for tunnel vision. If you're only reductionist enough you can use it to justify absolutely any conclusion.
It was just a coincidence that the coup led to a pro-US government.
WTH is "pro-US" supposed to mean. I'm not aware of Poroshenko selling state-owned enterprises to US corporate interest or such for way below value, that would the the usual thing to look out for.
-
How was Ukraine "destabilized" compared to other comparable ex-USSR states until 2014?
And it worked. Which is why Russia invaded in 2014
If a country being in US orbit is a reason for Russia to attack it, why didn't they attack Finland? Or the US directly in Alaska? What's the significance with Ukraine?
There's none other that Russia thought it was an easy target, breaking the Budapest Memorandum (and later other agreements). The same memorandum btw granted Ukraine non-military aid from the US and France, so the argument that this was somehow a dirty play makes no sense.
How was Ukraine “destabilized” compared to other comparable ex-USSR states until 2014?
see below. Ukraine was in a special position. most similar to Belarus, although much more important. US pumped money in a lot of ex-soviet states, that's true.
If a country being in US orbit is a reason for Russia to attack it, why didn’t they attack Finland? Or the US directly in Alaska? What’s the significance with Ukraine?
Ukraine was under the Russian orbit since the 1700s. It was a fifth of the economic output of the USSR. In the Russian nation-state mythology Kiev is the mother city of all Russians. They share one of the largest borders in the world of mostly plains.
There's a lot of reasons. Russia views Ukraine as theirs. Neither Finland or Alaska hold a fraction of the ideological, historic, and strategic importance to the Russians
The same memorandum btw granted Ukraine non-military aid from the US and France
go and re-read the 1994 agreement. it does not promise any help at all beyond promising to "seek immediate [UN] Security Council action".
i don't really think it's relevant to the discussion though. international law (aka treaties) are used as justifications when convenient and ignored when not convenient.
Ukraine was under the Russian orbit since the 1700s. It was a fifth of the economic output of the USSR. In the Russian nation-state mythology Kiev is the mother city of all Russians. They share one of the largest borders in the world of mostly plains.
There’s a lot of reasons. Russia views Ukraine as theirs. Neither Finland or Alaska hold a fraction of the ideological, historic, and strategic importance to the Russians
Right, what I was getting at was that all the other claims are bullshit, this is a war because winning it would grant Russia strategic advantages, and they thought they'd win the conflict, probably not even expecting a full war; just a three day special operation.
go and re-read the 1994 agreement. it does not promise any help at all beyond promising to “seek immediate [UN] Security Council action”.
That's why I wrote "granted", I know this is more of a political intentions paper, my point was that nobody can act surprised when a signatory actually follows through later.
One could ask the question why states are choosing to align with countries other than Russia. The answer is that most of Russia's allies get screwed. Look at Armenia's situation with the CSTO.
Russia is a terrible ally and an even worse overlord I'm not arguing against that. It has a brutal history and a brutal people whose cultural DNA goes all the way back to the Mongol hordes pillaging and raping for tribute
Right, what I was getting at was that all the other claims are bullshit, this is a war because winning it would grant Russia strategic advantages, and they thought they’d win the conflict, probably not even expecting a full war; just a three day special operation.
yes, they expected Ukraine to fold. So did US intelligence, at least ostensibly.
although at this point, anybody paying attention sees the writing on the wall. Russia has been slowly inching forward all year. They will win unless there is some sort of dramatic change in battlefield dynamics
and US has no intention of allowing Ukraine to win. this is why I see US involvement as cynical. It was never meant to actually help Ukraine. Ukraine has been under Russian orbit for centuries. Throughout the entirety of the Cold War, it was under Russian control.
It does not meaningfully alter the power balance between US and Russia. US is just taking advantage to extract as much as they can out of this war and then when the juice is squeezed out of the lemon, Ukraine will fall under Russian control.
So if Ukraine losing was the point the entire time - what "help" was our help? It wasn't to help the people, prolonging a destructive war only kills more people, destroys more homes, hamstrings economic output for a longer period of time. it will cost over $500B to reconstruct Ukraine (and I guarantee there won't be any lively debates in congress on approving that aid) and Ukrainian demographics are ruined for a century
This is sort of my entire point - the US interests in this war don't line up with the Ukrainian citizen. We want
a) Russia to bleed as much as possible for every inch
b) as much public $$$ as possible to be transferred to private hands
c) battlefield intelligence, both on new technologies and capabilities and on new Russian doctrines (for example drones & EW have been game changers) in preparation for the real war on the horizon
those goals mean the best way to play it is to hurt Ukraine as much as possible. Keep the war going on as long as possible. But never invest enough for Ukraine to win - that would likewise end the war.
It's a very cynical and misanthropic position
That's pretty sad. I don't understand why we play with so many millions of lives as if it's all one just big game. Thank you for the through reply.
agree. the regular people are always the ones that will end up suffering. lockheed martin shareholders got to enjoy a 30% spike in their holdings after feb 2022. hundreds of thousands of ukrainians lost family members, had to flee their homes, lost limbs, many died/will die, etc
i view geopolitics almost like i do tectonic plates. every once in a while when there are shifts, earthquakes happen. I think the Ukraine war is the small earthquake that always happens right before the big one.
to make more WW2 analogies
spanish civil war & italian invasion of ethiopia = ukraine proxy war & israel/gaza/lebanon/iran situation
rise of fascists across europe = rise of the new pseudo-fascists in US & Europe & really all over the world (look at Argentina, India, etc)