Wikileaks

[LeazesMag 0]

Not neccesarily in this case, but Happy, do you think the parties striving for complete transparency are not considering the benefits of future clandestine operations and the damage that such transparency could mete upon them?

 

I'm all for accountability, but I also think that there's a little too much grandstanding where the reveal is worth more to the parties than the impact of their story.

 

I guess it just feels that rather than looking for transparency, the parties are primarily looking to damage/attack the establishment.

 

Good question.

 

Do you have an example of a clandestine operation that was beneficial to society in the past, which a leak like this would make a leader more hesitant to authorise?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_operation

 

"A clandestine operation is an intelligence or military operation carried out in such a way that the operation goes unnoticed".

 

 

I understand. Many clandestine operations are now out in the open though, whether due to leaks or being so far in the past they're no longer a matter of "national security" and goverment disclosure wasn't an issue.

 

So the question stands.

 

How do you know ?

 

And how many ?

 

I'll give you one example (from this weeks Wikileaks revelations) of a bad one we now know about, that future leaders might think twice about (if they felt any shame)

 

Frago 242

 

This was a secret order given to not investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict, such as the abuse of detainees, unless it directly involves members of the coalition. This meant soldiers were under orders to turn a blind eye to beatings, burning, electrocution and rape by the authorities installed by the coalition.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/2...-torture-saddam

 

The question is whether you know of any other clandestine operation, now in the open has real justification other than to protect the people authorising it, and whether leaks like this compromise a similar operation being authorised in future.

 

I don't , but it's a good question and i'd be interested to hear of examples.

 

good.

 

That shows the system still works and will hopefully stay that way.

 

 

last post edited further.

 

So tell us how many clandestine operations you have uncovered and are in the public domain, and how many are not ?

 

 

That's a far less interesting question than the one from the fish. The answers are none and I have no idea.

 

Do you understand what fish is asking though? He's defending your point of view and it's one I'm open to accepting....if there's any examples.

 

maybe it is more "interesting", but I'm not bothered about that. I'm just telling you how it is. I realise he is agreeing with me. I think this is fairly straightforward to be honest. I realise that people think they have a "right to know" [because they are paying their taxes etc etc] or maybe they are just nosey buggers, or maybe they are anti-establishment. There are people who come under all these categories. But the simple fact, is that you don't have a right to know. You can debate it till the cows come home, but you do not have this "right".

[Happy Face 29]

Not neccesarily in this case, but Happy, do you think the parties striving for complete transparency are not considering the benefits of future clandestine operations and the damage that such transparency could mete upon them?

 

I'm all for accountability, but I also think that there's a little too much grandstanding where the reveal is worth more to the parties than the impact of their story.

 

I guess it just feels that rather than looking for transparency, the parties are primarily looking to damage/attack the establishment.

 

Good question.

 

Do you have an example of a clandestine operation that was beneficial to society in the past, which a leak like this would make a leader more hesitant to authorise?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_operation

 

"A clandestine operation is an intelligence or military operation carried out in such a way that the operation goes unnoticed".

 

 

I understand. Many clandestine operations are now out in the open though, whether due to leaks or being so far in the past they're no longer a matter of "national security" and goverment disclosure wasn't an issue.

 

So the question stands.

 

How do you know ?

 

And how many ?

 

I'll give you one example (from this weeks Wikileaks revelations) of a bad one we now know about, that future leaders might think twice about (if they felt any shame)

 

Frago 242

 

This was a secret order given to not investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict, such as the abuse of detainees, unless it directly involves members of the coalition. This meant soldiers were under orders to turn a blind eye to beatings, burning, electrocution and rape by the authorities installed by the coalition.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/2...-torture-saddam

 

The question is whether you know of any other clandestine operation, now in the open has real justification other than to protect the people authorising it, and whether leaks like this compromise a similar operation being authorised in future.

 

I don't , but it's a good question and i'd be interested to hear of examples.

 

good.

 

That shows the system still works and will hopefully stay that way.

 

 

last post edited further.

 

So tell us how many clandestine operations you have uncovered and are in the public domain, and how many are not ?

 

 

That's a far less interesting question than the one from the fish. The answers are none and I have no idea.

 

Do you understand what fish is asking though? He's defending your point of view and it's one I'm open to accepting....if there's any examples.

 

maybe it is more "interesting", but I'm not bothered about that. I'm just telling you how it is. I realise he is agreeing with me. I think this is fairly straightforward to be honest. I realise that people think they have a "right to know" [because they are paying their taxes etc etc] or maybe they are just nosey buggers, or maybe they are anti-establishment. There are people who come under all these categories. But the simple fact, is that you don't have a right to know. You can debate it till the cows come home, but you do not have this "right".

 

Of course that's how it is, but it's a good thing Wikileaks are challenging the situation, unlike the current set of corporate journalists in the palm of government who would have uncovered this kind of horror in the past.

 

Killing 15,000 civilians (five times as many than died on 9/11) and keeping it hidden. Hurray! Well done for keeping us safe!

Edited October 27, 2010 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

Not neccesarily in this case, but Happy, do you think the parties striving for complete transparency are not considering the benefits of future clandestine operations and the damage that such transparency could mete upon them?

 

I'm all for accountability, but I also think that there's a little too much grandstanding where the reveal is worth more to the parties than the impact of their story.

 

I guess it just feels that rather than looking for transparency, the parties are primarily looking to damage/attack the establishment.

 

Good question.

 

Do you have an example of a clandestine operation that was beneficial to society in the past, which a leak like this would make a leader more hesitant to authorise?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_operation

 

"A clandestine operation is an intelligence or military operation carried out in such a way that the operation goes unnoticed".

 

 

I understand. Many clandestine operations are now out in the open though, whether due to leaks or being so far in the past they're no longer a matter of "national security" and goverment disclosure wasn't an issue.

 

So the question stands.

 

How do you know ?

 

And how many ?

 

I'll give you one example (from this weeks Wikileaks revelations) of a bad one we now know about, that future leaders might think twice about (if they felt any shame)

 

Frago 242

 

This was a secret order given to not investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict, such as the abuse of detainees, unless it directly involves members of the coalition. This meant soldiers were under orders to turn a blind eye to beatings, burning, electrocution and rape by the authorities installed by the coalition.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/2...-torture-saddam

 

The question is whether you know of any other clandestine operation, now in the open has real justification other than to protect the people authorising it, and whether leaks like this compromise a similar operation being authorised in future.

 

I don't , but it's a good question and i'd be interested to hear of examples.

 

good.

 

That shows the system still works and will hopefully stay that way.

 

 

last post edited further.

 

So tell us how many clandestine operations you have uncovered and are in the public domain, and how many are not ?

 

 

That's a far less interesting question than the one from the fish. The answers are none and I have no idea.

 

Do you understand what fish is asking though? He's defending your point of view and it's one I'm open to accepting....if there's any examples.

 

maybe it is more "interesting", but I'm not bothered about that. I'm just telling you how it is. I realise he is agreeing with me. I think this is fairly straightforward to be honest. I realise that people think they have a "right to know" [because they are paying their taxes etc etc] or maybe they are just nosey buggers, or maybe they are anti-establishment. There are people who come under all these categories. But the simple fact, is that you don't have a right to know. You can debate it till the cows come home, but you do not have this "right".

 

Of course that's how it is, but it's a good thing Wikileaks are challenging the situation, unlike the corporate journalists in the palm of government who would have uncovered this kind of horror in the past.

 

Killing 15,000 civilians (five times as many than died on 9/11) and keeping it hidden. Hurray! Well done for keeping us safe!

 

we'll see how he feels when someone catches up on him, whose life he may have put in danger. Hurray. Well done for blowing the head off a complete and utter fuckwit.

[Happy Face 29]

Not neccesarily in this case, but Happy, do you think the parties striving for complete transparency are not considering the benefits of future clandestine operations and the damage that such transparency could mete upon them?

 

I'm all for accountability, but I also think that there's a little too much grandstanding where the reveal is worth more to the parties than the impact of their story.

 

I guess it just feels that rather than looking for transparency, the parties are primarily looking to damage/attack the establishment.

 

Good question.

 

Do you have an example of a clandestine operation that was beneficial to society in the past, which a leak like this would make a leader more hesitant to authorise?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clandestine_operation

 

"A clandestine operation is an intelligence or military operation carried out in such a way that the operation goes unnoticed".

 

 

I understand. Many clandestine operations are now out in the open though, whether due to leaks or being so far in the past they're no longer a matter of "national security" and goverment disclosure wasn't an issue.

 

So the question stands.

 

How do you know ?

 

And how many ?

 

I'll give you one example (from this weeks Wikileaks revelations) of a bad one we now know about, that future leaders might think twice about (if they felt any shame)

 

Frago 242

 

This was a secret order given to not investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict, such as the abuse of detainees, unless it directly involves members of the coalition. This meant soldiers were under orders to turn a blind eye to beatings, burning, electrocution and rape by the authorities installed by the coalition.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/2...-torture-saddam

 

The question is whether you know of any other clandestine operation, now in the open has real justification other than to protect the people authorising it, and whether leaks like this compromise a similar operation being authorised in future.

 

I don't , but it's a good question and i'd be interested to hear of examples.

 

good.

 

That shows the system still works and will hopefully stay that way.

 

 

last post edited further.

 

So tell us how many clandestine operations you have uncovered and are in the public domain, and how many are not ?

 

 

That's a far less interesting question than the one from the fish. The answers are none and I have no idea.

 

Do you understand what fish is asking though? He's defending your point of view and it's one I'm open to accepting....if there's any examples.

 

maybe it is more "interesting", but I'm not bothered about that. I'm just telling you how it is. I realise he is agreeing with me. I think this is fairly straightforward to be honest. I realise that people think they have a "right to know" [because they are paying their taxes etc etc] or maybe they are just nosey buggers, or maybe they are anti-establishment. There are people who come under all these categories. But the simple fact, is that you don't have a right to know. You can debate it till the cows come home, but you do not have this "right".

 

Of course that's how it is, but it's a good thing Wikileaks are challenging the situation, unlike the corporate journalists in the palm of government who would have uncovered this kind of horror in the past.

 

Killing 15,000 civilians (five times as many than died on 9/11) and keeping it hidden. Hurray! Well done for keeping us safe!

 

we'll see how he feels when someone catches up on him, whose life he may have put in danger. Hurray. Well done for blowing the head off a complete and utter fuckwit.

 

The Department of Defense concluded the leak did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods,

 

NATO have confirmed there's not been anyone endangered by the initial leak. If anything, this one is tighter.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Happy Face

[The Fish 10857]

Sorry Happy, I don't know of any clandestine operations that have directly benefitted from a previous lack of transparency, but I suppose that would be the point... They wouldn't announce the successful assasination of Y, let alone say "...and that's because we didn't tell you about X". You don't show your hand. I think I'm just presuming there have been stories squashed so that future ops are not jeopardised.

 

I look at it in a similar way (and forgive the simplisitic example) as the way Films portray Jurisdiciton disputes between locals and Feds. In that the Feds have a man undercover and a quick bust of a street dealer hinders the agent collecting sufficient evidence on the larger target.

 

It's not a great example and obviously it falls down, however, if the atrocities committed by the Iraqi police/military allowed the coalition forces to identify dangerous insurgents and honest to goodness terrorists (rather than half-arsed rebellious cliques) and lead to the removal of these destabilising influences, does that ... justify (I know, I know) the loss?

 

Another problem I see is that, while one "side" must face scrutiny and are held to a higher standard, the other act with impunity.

 

Also while the West are told to leave native problems to the native peoples, they are also berated when they don't step in.

 

don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware of the staggering lack of forethought by the West, I'm fully aware of their hypocrisy. At best, the people committing or (by inaction) permitting these atrocities will just get better at hiding it.

 

 

I guess I just don't see what good this leak has done.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

It confirms the as yet unconfirmed.....

 

The logs contain numerous reports of previously unknown or unconfirmed events that took place during the war.

 

*According to the Iraq Body Count project, a sample of the deaths found in about 800 logs, extrapolated to the full set of records, shows around 15,000 civilian deaths that had not been previously admitted by the US government. 66,000 civilians were reported dead in the logs, out of 109,000 deaths in total.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak

 

Cut that down to keep the quote from getting too big.

 

What you posted just goes to prove my point that these were not major revelations.

 

In every war since before Sun Tzu, the military will release figures regarding casualties/enemy deaths which are false. There has been lots of talk about the figures of civilian casualties being higher than those released since the start of the war. Everyone knew, now the documentation has been released proving it. The same goes for the documents about Iran funding/arming combatants in Iraq. Everyone halfway informed knew this to be the case. The vast majority of the events listed in the documents fall into the 'unconfirmed' category as opposed to the 'unknown' one. As wikileaks shows it is very hard to suppress information these days, and so we can get wind of these events even before official documentation is leaked.

 

"Killing 15,000 civilians (five times as many than died on 9/11)"

 

of course more civilians have died than in 9/11 you utter plank. This has been a war which has seen the overthrow of a fascist dictatorship and then a prolonged counter-insurgency battle (which results in higher amounts of civilian casualties/deaths) totalling 7 years +. How many times can you fit the twin towers into Iraq?

[Park Life 71]

It confirms the as yet unconfirmed.....

 

The logs contain numerous reports of previously unknown or unconfirmed events that took place during the war.

 

*According to the Iraq Body Count project, a sample of the deaths found in about 800 logs, extrapolated to the full set of records, shows around 15,000 civilian deaths that had not been previously admitted by the US government. 66,000 civilians were reported dead in the logs, out of 109,000 deaths in total.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak

 

Cut that down to keep the quote from getting too big.

 

What you posted just goes to prove my point that these were not major revelations.

 

In every war since before Sun Tzu, the military will release figures regarding casualties/enemy deaths which are false. There has been lots of talk about the figures of civilian casualties being higher than those released since the start of the war. Everyone knew, now the documentation has been released proving it. The same goes for the documents about Iran funding/arming combatants in Iraq. Everyone halfway informed knew this to be the case. The vast majority of the events listed in the documents fall into the 'unconfirmed' category as opposed to the 'unknown' one. As wikileaks shows it is very hard to suppress information these days, and so we can get wind of these events even before official documentation is leaked.

 

"Killing 15,000 civilians (five times as many than died on 9/11)"

 

of course more civilians have died than in 9/11 you utter plank. This has been a war which has seen the overthrow of a fascist dictatorship and then a prolonged counter-insurgency battle (which results in higher amounts of civilian casualties/deaths) totalling 7 years +. How many times can you fit the twin towers into Iraq?

 

Half the arab world is burning money keeping the U.S. tied down in Iraq. What do you expect them to do ? Glad we're out of it. Killing fields.

[Happy Face 29]

It confirms the as yet unconfirmed.....

 

The logs contain numerous reports of previously unknown or unconfirmed events that took place during the war.

 

*According to the Iraq Body Count project, a sample of the deaths found in about 800 logs, extrapolated to the full set of records, shows around 15,000 civilian deaths that had not been previously admitted by the US government. 66,000 civilians were reported dead in the logs, out of 109,000 deaths in total.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_documents_leak

 

Cut that down to keep the quote from getting too big.

 

What you posted just goes to prove my point that these were not major revelations.

 

In every war since before Sun Tzu, the military will release figures regarding casualties/enemy deaths which are false. There has been lots of talk about the figures of civilian casualties being higher than those released since the start of the war. Everyone knew, now the documentation has been released proving it. The same goes for the documents about Iran funding/arming combatants in Iraq. Everyone halfway informed knew this to be the case. The vast majority of the events listed in the documents fall into the 'unconfirmed' category as opposed to the 'unknown' one. As wikileaks shows it is very hard to suppress information these days, and so we can get wind of these events even before official documentation is leaked.

 

"Killing 15,000 civilians (five times as many than died on 9/11)"

 

of course more civilians have died than in 9/11 you utter plank. This has been a war which has seen the overthrow of a fascist dictatorship and then a prolonged counter-insurgency battle (which results in higher amounts of civilian casualties/deaths) totalling 7 years +. How many times can you fit the twin towers into Iraq?

 

My reference to the number of civilians killed in 9/11 was in specific response to Leazes saying he wasn't bothered about the US hiding the number of civilians they knowingly kill. It's not something I bring up regularly, but it's amazing to me someone can say they aren't bothered, or don't want to know.

 

There has been massive debate about the number of people killed in Iraq, the Lancet report going as high as a million. The number confirmed in these reports is a lot lower than other estimates, because it's restricted to combat deaths.....it is a lot lot higher than the US had previously admitted to on that score though and worth reporting for that alone.

 

I find it bizarre that people are defending the right of an invading force to hide the number of civilians they've killed. Horrifying to watch the people in this programme

 

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/

 

...and think people would prefer to brush it under the carpet.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Happy Face

[Happy Face 29]

Sorry Happy, I don't know of any clandestine operations that have directly benefitted from a previous lack of transparency, but I suppose that would be the point... They wouldn't announce the successful assasination of Y, let alone say "...and that's because we didn't tell you about X". You don't show your hand. I think I'm just presuming there have been stories squashed so that future ops are not jeopardised.

 

I look at it in a similar way (and forgive the simplisitic example) as the way Films portray Jurisdiciton disputes between locals and Feds. In that the Feds have a man undercover and a quick bust of a street dealer hinders the agent collecting sufficient evidence on the larger target.

 

It's not a great example and obviously it falls down, however, if the atrocities committed by the Iraqi police/military allowed the coalition forces to identify dangerous insurgents and honest to goodness terrorists (rather than half-arsed rebellious cliques) and lead to the removal of these destabilising influences, does that ... justify (I know, I know) the loss?

 

Another problem I see is that, while one "side" must face scrutiny and are held to a higher standard, the other act with impunity.

 

Also while the West are told to leave native problems to the native peoples, they are also berated when they don't step in.

 

don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware of the staggering lack of forethought by the West, I'm fully aware of their hypocrisy. At best, the people committing or (by inaction) permitting these atrocities will just get better at hiding it.

 

 

I guess I just don't see what good this leak has done.

 

I don't think any "good" will come of it. As much as I'd like to see it, no-one will be held accountable, because the people doing it remain in control and the people voted in to put an end to it just exacerbate it and continue to cover up the war crimes of their predecessors as best they can.

 

I think it's important to be aware of the lies you're being told though. Following your analogy, I'd offer one of a man being cuckolded. Some would prefer not to have it confirmed their wife is whoring about and live in blissful ignorance, but most would look into it if they got wind of it, despite the hurt.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

My reference to the number of civilians killed in 9/11 was in specific response to Leazes saying he wasn't bothered about the US hiding the number of civilians they knowingly kill. It's not something I bring up regularly, but it's amazing to me someone can say they aren't bothered, or don't want to know.

 

There has been massive debate about the number of people killed in Iraq, the Lancet report going as high as a million. The number confirmed in these reports is a lot lower than other estimates, because it's restricted to combat deaths.....it is a lot lot higher than the US had previously admitted to on that score though and worth reporting for that alone.

 

I find it bizarre that people are defending the right of an invading force to hide the number of civilians they've killed. Horrifying to watch the people in this programme

 

Are you shocked that someone can say they're not bothered? Shocking. Tbf, I think there are lots of people who aren't bothered, and at least the people who admit it are honest. From my perspective, I can understand the military's reasoning for not releasing such figures; as far as they're concerned they're fighting a just war that has been authorized by their government, and they have to do everything in their power to achieve success in that conflict. That results in propaganda, happens in every war, a common tactic from the military to keep morale good and so on.. The real culprits behind the mess are obviously the people who sent the military into the conflict. Allied forces never revealed the true amounts of civilians they knowingly killed in WW2, I'm not drowning myself in tears because of this, but the fact that information is far harder to suppress these days is a step forward and will result in more steps towards legal recourse for victims. It's still not good enough, but it's improving, and that's something.

[Park Life 71]

My reference to the number of civilians killed in 9/11 was in specific response to Leazes saying he wasn't bothered about the US hiding the number of civilians they knowingly kill. It's not something I bring up regularly, but it's amazing to me someone can say they aren't bothered, or don't want to know.

 

There has been massive debate about the number of people killed in Iraq, the Lancet report going as high as a million. The number confirmed in these reports is a lot lower than other estimates, because it's restricted to combat deaths.....it is a lot lot higher than the US had previously admitted to on that score though and worth reporting for that alone.

 

I find it bizarre that people are defending the right of an invading force to hide the number of civilians they've killed. Horrifying to watch the people in this programme

 

Are you shocked that someone can say they're not bothered? Shocking. Tbf, I think there are lots of people who aren't bothered, and at least the people who admit it are honest. From my perspective, I can understand the military's reasoning for not releasing such figures; as far as they're concerned they're fighting a just war that has been authorized by their government, and they have to do everything in their power to achieve success in that conflict. That results in propaganda, happens in every war, a common tactic from the military to keep morale good and so on.. The real culprits behind the mess are obviously the people who sent the military into the conflict. Allied forces never revealed the true amounts of civilians they knowingly killed in WW2, I'm not drowning myself in tears because of this, but the fact that information is far harder to suppress these days is a step forward and will result in more steps towards legal recourse for victims. It's still not good enough, but it's improving, and that's something.

 

It was better when two armies just met in a field.

[ChezGiven 0]

Notwithstanding the security fears, if wikileaks provides evidence of human rights abuses then the 'shocking' thread on here is the height of irony. Wikileaks role is to highlight the hypocrisy of 21st century warfare.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

"Wikileaks role is to highlight the hypocrisy of 21st century warfare."

 

As opposed to what? It's not like warfare was delightful in any of the preceding centuries.

 

Wikileaks should just provide a platform to get round the official secrets acts and general suppression of information. Their self-professed role is to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, essentially angling for a Jihadist victory.

[ChezGiven 0]

"Wikileaks role is to highlight the hypocrisy of 21st century warfare."

 

As opposed to what? It's not like warfare was delightful in any of the preceding centuries.

Wikileaks should just provide a platform to get round the official secrets acts and general suppression of information. Their self-professed role is to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, essentially angling for a Jihadist victory.

 

Have wars always been characterised by one side claiming to act in the name of morality yet at the same time, failing themselves to live up to that? Doesn't really sound like the battle of Trafalgar.

 

Previous wars have been about land, religion and stupidity, not complex moral superiority arguments.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

"Have wars always been characterised by one side claiming to act in the name of morality yet at the same time, failing themselves to live up to that?"

 

Yes, that has often been the case quite frankly. Every side in combat claims to act in the name of morality, and the nature of combat means immoral acts are inevitable.

 

Do you think the U.S. administration's mandate for war was constructed purely on a moral argument? I missed that one.

[The Fish 10857]

"Wikileaks role is to highlight the hypocrisy of 21st century warfare."

 

As opposed to what? It's not like warfare was delightful in any of the preceding centuries.

Wikileaks should just provide a platform to get round the official secrets acts and general suppression of information. Their self-professed role is to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, essentially angling for a Jihadist victory.

 

Have wars always been characterised by one side claiming to act in the name of morality yet at the same time, failing themselves to live up to that? Doesn't really sound like the battle of Trafalgar.

 

Previous wars have been about land, religion and stupidity, not complex moral superiority arguments.

 

Would this war have been any more palatable if the motives were clearly stated? I really don't think it's about moral superiority, and I'm sure you don't either, but genuine question; Would this war have been more accepted if the aggressors had said "We're doing this because we want a ), don't want them to control b ) and want to protect future interest in c ) ?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Chez in talking absolute gibberish shocker

[The Fish 10857]

Chez in talking absolute gibberish shocker

... which part didn't you understand?

[LeazesMag 0]

Chez in talking absolute gibberish shocker

... which part didn't you understand?

 

but as he says, "hypocrisy" in wars has always occurred. Civilian and military casualties are unavoidable and always have been. Having the technology to "expose" it is just that, nothing else. More to the point is that it exposes those who are bound by the offical secrets act and puts their lives and those of their families in danger, these people need protection and expect it.

 

Don't you think this is a moral duty to provide that too ?

[ChezGiven 0]

"Have wars always been characterised by one side claiming to act in the name of morality yet at the same time, failing themselves to live up to that?"

 

Yes, that has often been the case quite frankly. Every side in combat claims to act in the name of morality, and the nature of combat means immoral acts are inevitable.

 

Do you think the U.S. administration's mandate for war was constructed purely on a moral argument? I missed that one.

 

Imbecile. How the mandate for war was constructed is irrelevant, since the inception of war, the US and allied forces have played the moral card repeatedly in an attempt to provide justification for their actions. Wikileaks highlights the hypocrisy of this given the human rights abuses.

 

Vietnam was about communism and ideology, the first gulf war was about land, the balkans was about land and religion. If this war was the same, it would be positioned as the hunt for Bin Laden and the destruction of al qaeda. Its not because 9/11 killed 2,300 people so you cant morally justify killing up to a million in response and make the war just about 9/11. It has to be about something more than that, the PR girls who work in the military know this, so wikileaks fucks up their 'comms' strategy.

 

Thats the up and down of this situation and if you cant see it then thats your problem, not mine.

[ChezGiven 0]

Chez in talking absolute gibberish shocker

You're right, that would be a shock.

[Happy Face 29]

Chez in talking absolute gibberish shocker

... which part didn't you understand?

 

but as he says, "hypocrisy" in wars has always occurred. Civilian and military casualties are unavoidable and always have been. Having the technology to "expose" it is just that, nothing else. More to the point is that it exposes those who are bound by the offical secrets act and puts their lives and those of their families in danger, these people need protection and expect it.

 

Don't you think this is a moral duty to provide that too ?

 

Yes indeed. As I said earlier though....

 

The Department of Defense concluded the leak did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods,

 

NATO have confirmed there's not been anyone endangered by the initial leak. If anything, this one is tighter.

 

So it's not something that can be levelled at Wikileaks with any supporting evidence whatsoever.

 

It is however a moral duty the US leadership have failed to live up to repeatedly.

 

The current incumbents due to their refusal to cooperate with Wikileaks in redacting any sensitive information they think the documents contain (a standard procedure with the establisment media).

 

The previous administration when they disgracefully leaked the identity of their own CIA agent - Valerie Plame.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Happy Face

[NJS 4384]

This will probably prompt more abuse from KSA but I always thought one of the factors in deciding to invade Iraq was that the September the 11th revenge bloodlust hadn't been satisfied by the up to that point "easy" invasion of Afghanistan.

[Happy Face 29]

This will probably prompt more abuse from KSA but I always thought one of the factors in deciding to invade Iraq was that the September the 11th revenge bloodlust hadn't been satisfied by the up to that point "easy" invasion of Afghanistan.

 

Bob Woodward's book on Bush said Rumsfeld was shaping up the Iraq war plan a couple of days into taking office.

 

Long before 9/11.

 

Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable.

 

EDIT: Correction....that was just hours after the attack, before anyone had any idea who was responsible. It was Cheyney who had the military brief the president on Iraq and the options as soon as they got into office.....he fell asleep during that briefing

Edited October 29, 2010 by Happy Face

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Do you think the U.S. administration's mandate for war was constructed purely on a moral argument? I missed that one.

 

Imbecile. How the mandate for war was constructed is irrelevant, since the inception of war, the US and allied forces have played the moral card repeatedly in an attempt to provide justification for their actions. Wikileaks highlights the hypocrisy of this given the human rights abuses.

 

Vietnam was about communism and ideology, the first gulf war was about land, the balkans was about land and religion. If this war was the same, it would be positioned as the hunt for Bin Laden and the destruction of al qaeda. Its not because 9/11 killed 2,300 people so you cant morally justify killing up to a million in response and make the war just about 9/11. It has to be about something more than that, the PR girls who work in the military know this, so wikileaks fucks up their 'comms' strategy.

 

Thats the up and down of this situation and if you cant see it then thats your problem, not mine.

 

You're the only one with a problem: a defunct brain. I've noticed you repeatedly resort to these lame catchphrases like a wrestler or something: 'That's the up and down because Chez says so... Hey you've got a problem, not me... yeahhhhhh'

 

That sort of thing doesn't sufficiently cover up the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about, you should probably cut it out considering you're a grown man. No wonder you've gone bald with all that testosterone running round your veins. Grrrrrr that's the up and down because I say so ggrrrrrr.

 

"Have wars always been characterised by one side claiming to act in the name of morality yet at the same time, failing themselves to live up to that?"

 

What fucking planet have you been on? That is a devastatingly stupid question, and has a long way to go before it's even naive. Every side in every conflict claims to be acting in the name of morality. Can you name me a party in a war that has claimed to be acting on an immoral basis?

The paragraph - if we can call it that - you wrote that begins by citing Vietnam, the 1st Gulf War and the Balkans confirms what I have now suspected for some time: that you're a monumental idiot. You've admitted that you have no time to do anything other than read about macro-economics, and this shows in your ignorance regarding everything else. Did the U.S. never play the 'moral card' to justify their actions in Vietnam? And were there not horrific human rights abuses there? Any religious war inherently involves morality as a theme, and the pious believe they are morally infallible by decree of the divine. Religious conflict has also resulted in some of the most horrific mass murders in recorded history.

I think you've had one croissant too many as your sentences again disintegrate into the incoherent nonsense we have come to know you for, but more worryingly you show your inherent and disgusting hatred of the U.S., citing '2300' deaths in 9/11 (9/11 doesn't have anything to do with Iraq, though citing it was a handy way for the Bush administration to drum up public support for war; the neo-cons had wanted Saddam gone for a good while and they weren't shy about it, well documented), and talking about the Iraq war as though it is some kind of benchmark of moral evil. I think you should read Robert Conquest's material on Allied war crimes in WW2 as you clearly don't understand the nature of conflict. Same for HF, he will be shocked if he ever reads up on material of this nature. It will perhaps make you a more balanced person and give you a realistic perspective, rather than the blind nonsensical rantings that you currently thrash out. You should be glad that I've even graced you with a response because the post didn't deserve one, and that's the up and down of it tbh, end of.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt