Hacker News Reader

Comment by RodericDay | Hacker News Reader

Inordinate?

The United States went to war in Iraq in 2003 under false pretenses. The cost of that mistake was gigantic, and continues to pile up.

This saber-rattling against Russia could have serious consequences, and seems to be inspired mainly by a need to find some kind of scapegoat on which to blame the DNC's absurd loss against Trump.

I'm glad they're doing this.

View on HN

It's odd that they think that the hack lost them the election. The hack (as with any email hack) is only useful if it uncovers wrongdoing.in this case it uncovered wrongdoing by the DNC, so whether the hack was state sponsored or not is really irrelevant, had the DNC not tried to fix the result of the nomination process it would not have mattered one iota that they were hacked.

Thank you... that's been my thoughts all along. I mean, does it really matter if this was the Russians, or some guy in North Carolina? The facts remain, and I'd be willing to bet there's been effort to hack Trump's mail by similar foreign actors.

In the end, there was some shady stuff in the emails, and if there wasn't it likely never would have seen the light of day.

Does it matter that a foreign, non-friendly country hacked an email system and deliberately staged releases of info in attempt to cause maximum damage to a political party and sway the outcome of an election?

I'm going to have to say "yes".

DNC, RNC, Green, Independent, etc. it shouldn't matter who got hacked. I'd hope that all Americans would be concerned about this.

I am concerned... but I'm more concerned about the media collaborating with the DNC.

It doesn't matter, because DNC was hacked by insider.

Perhaps if those Americans were also concerned with the numerous times the US had acted in a similar fashion in other countries elections they may have a point to make. But generally they were complicit in those situations because they never complained or protested then, but now the shoe is on the other foot.

> The United States went to war in Afghanistan in 2003 under false pretenses.

I hardly call 2,000 dead Americans, and an attack on American soil "false pretenses".

If you want to claim that it was misguided to perform a full scale invasion vs. targeted special ops missions, that is a more interesting argument.

Now, the war in Iraq on the other hand, that was false pretenses...

You are absolutely right, that was a particularly unfortunate mix-up. I was thinking about how animosity towards Afghanistan was skillfully employed to justify invading Iraq, and in the process mixed myself up.

Well it was false pretenses in that not one of the attackers was from Afghanistan not were there any proven links between the attackers and Afghanistan other than Osama being assumed to be the mastermind and residing in Afghanistan at the time.

At this point I am not sure if the justness of the argument makes much difference. When you make world changing decisions you have to accept that you will be judged by history, and not on the terms that you decide.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com