Wikileaks

[Balloon guy 158]

Yikes.

Yea, I've thought about this and I might be willing to change my mind.On reflection, I think each and everything ever done by every soldier needs to be reported on by a person who may or may not have been there, with verbal testimony from any eye witness, including the terrorist ( because their perspective will help us understand their motives for shooting at our soldiers ).And without everything being reported 24/7, we can't really trust that our soldiers aren't raping and pillaging because let's face it...that's what they really want to do.Yea, you are right. From now on I want my 24 hour news programming to be filled with after action reports of every single time a bullet left a gun and the circumstances were not 100% acceptable to Code Pink and or that crazy mom nutcase who got free hair-dos for camping outside Crawford Texas while she pretended she mourns her son.I do not want the military to be in charge of taking care of their own, they will try to confuse the subject with all kinds of things like ROEs and AOs etc when let's face it, a housewife in New Jersey has a much better angle to judge the validity of a return fire situation based on current conditions of hostilities...You sure are getting the most value out of the higher education thing you got going on...

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm seriously curious as to what you meant by this.

I don't speak for Jeep, although I do speak for his dad...and what he meant was that the motive..not pro US.He just used short hand

[Jeepster80125 0]

I'm seriously curious as to what you meant by this.

If you read the posts quoted, I was taking offense at his implication that the guys pulling the trigger were somehow responsible for their actions, as if they are allowed to refuse orders. That's how I read his posts, anyways. I am all for questioning these types of incidents, but I think it's pretty wrong to question the grunts on the ground for doing what they're told. They're not the ones making the decisions on where or who to fire on. In this case, it's pretty obvious the press guy didn't have any identifying credentials, it's also obvious there were weapons near them. When these helicopter pilots felt their guys on the ground were in danger, they lit them up. We can sit and question the aftermath or the decision or whatever, but I think that's what I was going for when I said anti-US.maybe.

[vbnautilus 48]

If you read the posts quoted, I was taking offense at his implication that the guys pulling the trigger were somehow responsible for their actions, as if they are allowed to refuse orders. That's how I read his posts, anyways. I am all for questioning these types of incidents, but I think it's pretty wrong to question the grunts on the ground for doing what they're told. They're not the ones making the decisions on where or who to fire on. In this case, it's pretty obvious the press guy didn't have any identifying credentials, it's also obvious there were weapons near them. When these helicopter pilots felt their guys on the ground were in danger, they lit them up. We can sit and question the aftermath or the decision or whatever, but I think that's what I was going for when I said anti-US.maybe.

I guess I don't see what any of that has to do with being 'anti US'.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I guess I don't see what any of that has to do with being 'anti US'.

OK. Did you read the posts that I quoted? I guess I thought I was pretty clear about what I was criticizing, but I'll be the first to admit that's not always the case, and I could have stated it better.

[vbnautilus 48]

OK. Did you read the posts that I quoted? I guess I thought I was pretty clear about what I was criticizing, but I'll be the first to admit that's not always the case, and I could have stated it better.

It's not that I don't know what you were criticizing. I'm just trying to explore this concept of anti-US, since I don't really know what it is supposed to mean when one is accused of that.

[speedz99 145]

Yea, I've thought about this and I might be willing to change my mind.On reflection, I think each and everything ever done by every soldier needs to be reported on by a person who may or may not have been there, with verbal testimony from any eye witness, including the terrorist ( because their perspective will help us understand their motives for shooting at our soldiers ).And without everything being reported 24/7, we can't really trust that our soldiers aren't raping and pillaging because let's face it...that's what they really want to do.Yea, you are right. From now on I want my 24 hour news programming to be filled with after action reports of every single time a bullet left a gun and the circumstances were not 100% acceptable to Code Pink and or that crazy mom nutcase who got free hair-dos for camping outside Crawford Texas while she pretended she mourns her son.I do not want the military to be in charge of taking care of their own, they will try to confuse the subject with all kinds of things like ROEs and AOs etc when let's face it, a housewife in New Jersey has a much better angle to judge the validity of a return fire situation based on current conditions of hostilities...

I'm not an anti-war activist and I'm not even questioning their action...shit like this is bound to happen, it's a fact of life (and war). We're not talking about accounting for every bullet or appeasing anyone and everyone in the country. We're talking about not hiding major mistakes. Does the army need to announce stuff like this on CNN every time there's collateral damage? No. But they should not be doing anything to hide it. Supporting their doing so is monumentally stupid in every way possible.

You sure are getting the most value out of the higher education thing you got going on...

There are many people that didn't graduate high school that would recognize the idiocy involved in supporting the military covering up mistakes such as these. Really, what the hell's wrong with you? Of course the military needs to be up front about anything not involving national security.

If you read the posts quoted, I was taking offense at his implication that the guys pulling the trigger were somehow responsible for their actions, as if they are allowed to refuse orders. That's how I read his posts, anyways. I am all for questioning these types of incidents, but I think it's pretty wrong to question the grunts on the ground for doing what they're told.

All true. Now what does saying "these guys made a bad mistake" have to do with being anti-US?

[Balloon guy 158]

I'm not an anti-war activist and I'm not even questioning their action...shit like this is bound to happen, it's a fact of life (and war). We're not talking about accounting for every bullet or appeasing anyone and everyone in the country. We're talking about not hiding major mistakes. Does the army need to announce stuff like this on CNN every time there's collateral damage? No. But they should not be doing anything to hide it. Supporting their doing so is monumentally stupid in every way possible.

The problem with this instance is that the Military did everything they were supposed to do, including reported it to their superiors. They investigated and found the issue closed. There is nothing to be gained by asking civilians with no understanding of whats what. That is why I said I was very cool with the civilian authorities having access to the info. When it comes to Entertainment Tonight or DMZ, I think the military is justified in not telling them anything.

There are many people that didn't graduate high school that would recognize the idiocy involved in supporting the military covering up mistakes such as these. Really, what the hell's wrong with you? Of course the military needs to be up front about anything not involving national security.

Name one.

All true. Now what does saying "these guys made a bad mistake" have to do with being anti-US?

You wouldn't understand comrad

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I was taking offense at his implication that the guys pulling the trigger were somehow responsible for their actions, as if they are allowed to refuse orders.

You're offended by the idea that people who shoot at other people can be responsible for shooting at other people? Didn't we do away with this "just following orders" stuff at Nuremberg?

It's not that I don't know what you were criticizing. I'm just trying to explore this concept of anti-US, since I don't really know what it is supposed to mean when one is accused of that.

In general, it means you did one of the following:1) Questioned the military 2) Questioned US Foreign Policy 3) Defended someone with somewhat dark skin 4) Questioned religion or God in general5) Supported Homosexuality in some wayHere, I'd say you did some combination of 1-3.

[mk 11]

Which is also why we have been there for 8 years.

No. We've been there for 8 years because there was never a viable exit strategy. Never. 2 words: power vacuum.Cheney, then defense secretary, in April 1991, after the first Gulf War:"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein,you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"It's important to note that literally nothing changed from 1991 to 2003, aside from Hussein being made weaker by sanctions.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100607/ts_...mFseXN0d2hvYWw-

[Balloon guy 158]

No. We've been there for 8 years because there was never a viable exit strategy. Never. 2 words: power vacuum.Cheney, then defense secretary, in April 1991, after the first Gulf War:"If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein,you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists? How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?"It's important to note that literally nothing changed from 1991 to 2003, aside from Hussein being made weaker by sanctions.

cough9-11cough

[strategy 4]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100607/ts_...mFseXN0d2hvYWw-

I really hate Adrian Lamo. What he did was awesome/impressive, but his interviews in Kevin Spacey's documentary really make him look like a self-aggrandizing douche.

[Jeepster80125 0]

cough9-11cough

Are you arguing that saddam had something to do with 9-11? Because I could name major world events during that period as well. What's your point?

[Balloon guy 158]

Are you arguing that saddam had something to do with 9-11? Because I could name major world events during that period as well. What's your point?

Nope, I'm arguing that 9-11 changed a lot of things with regards to our ability to ignore situations that can very likely escalate to the point of becoming an unacceptable risk.

[brvheart 1,752]

PENTAGON HUNTS WIKILEAKS FOUNDER, FEARS MASSIVE LEAK OF CLASSIFIED DOCS...

[CaneBrain 95]

Nope, I'm arguing that 9-11 changed a lot of things with regards to our ability to ignore situations that can very likely escalate to the point of becoming an unacceptable risk.

Thats fine but it still does not explain:"greeted as liberators" or the general tone set on day one by the Bush admin that the Iraq war would be easy breezy. Cheney KNEW this would be a cluster****. It was one thing to say 9-11 justified doing it anyway. That's a reasonable position (even if I disagree with it strongly). But Cheney ACTED like this would all be no big deal when he sold the war. That is indefensible given his comments in 1991.

[CaneBrain 95]

http://www.cio.com/article/579513/U.S._Mil...ge_on_WikileaksWell, then.

[brvheart 1,752]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/war-logs.html

[strategy 4]

what they did here was phenomenally great. rather than just do a massive data dump which would likely allow some of the bigger stories to go unnoticed, they shipped it to three different media outlets and said, "pick through this and find the big stories before we make it public."I fucking love wikileaks.here's an interview with assange regarding this releasehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010...terview-warlogs

[LongLiveYorke 38]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/war-logs.html

This is why we'll never win over there. Even when they're on our side, they're against us. They'll always see us as westerners and outsiders, and we'll never fully win over the trust of the Afghan people or government (if you can call what they have a "government"). There is just no basis of economic success or social structure to build on. The Afghan project isn't rebuilding (which is easy, see postwar Germany, Japan, and, hell, now even Baghdad looks easy by comparison). Rather, it's starting from scratch, which is a nearly impossible task. If we leave now, in 10 years Afghanistan will be where it was 10 years ago. If we leave in 2 more years, in 10 years Afghanistan will be where it was 10 years ago. If we leave in 20 years, in 30 years, Afghanistan will be where it was 10 years ago.Okay, maybe it's not that bad. But it probably is. IMO, the best thing we could have done in Afghanistan would have been to spend $200 Billion dollars to build highways, power lines and power grids, phone lines and internet, and a LOT of schools and public libraries. It's about the same price as launching missiles at them for 10 years, and would last more than the effects of launching missiles at them (except for, of course, those that are hit by the missiles. Those effects last forever). And even that's not a GOOD idea, but it would have been better use of the money. Of course, even better use of the money would have been to not spend it in the first place, or to spend it building green and nuclear power at home, or whatever.But seriously, let's get out of Afghanistan soon and pretend this whole nightmare never happened.

[timwakefield 68]

From the Telegraph article:

The coalition is increasingly using deadly Reaper drones to hunt and kill Taliban targets by remote control from a base in Nevada.

Holy shit. AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

[Jeepster80125 0]

From the Telegraph article: Holy shit. AMERICA, FUCK YEAH!

I think the idea of wilileaks is awesome, but that site sucks. Are you familiar with this issue?Do you read cryptome?

[strategy 4]

I think the idea of wilileaks is awesome, but that site sucks. Are you familiar with this issue?Do you read cryptome?

I'm going to pretend this was addressed to meassange is a weasel. he definitely manipulates everything he gets his hands on to the fullest. I think he does it in the hopes of drawing lots of attention to the work they do. feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the timeliness and magnitude of the leaks these people have produced is unprecedented. to me, that precludes wikileaks from 'sucking'.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I'm going to pretend this was addressed to meassange is a weasel. he definitely manipulates everything he gets his hands on to the fullest. I think he does it in the hopes of drawing lots of attention to the work they do. feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the timeliness and magnitude of the leaks these people have produced is unprecedented. to me, that precludes wikileaks from 'sucking'.

Let me clarify. I meant that the site and others like it, like cryptome, are awesome. I don't care what "SUMMARY: The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is soliciting comments regarding the historical value of, or other public interest in, the CIA files designated under the CIA Information Act of 1984." means but I think it's neat reading about how Pakistan is likely playing us for fools, taking money while helping afghan taliban. I despise adrian lamo and julian assange, the best evidence has been the Manning issue and ongoing non-events at wiki. I can't wait to see the juicy bits in these thousands of cables.