Wikileaks

[Park Life 71]

The whole wikileaks 'hapenning' has made surfing the web for off radar information exciting again.

[ChezGiven 0]

Leazes has the sort of old school respect for authority that led lads in the first world war to willingly turn themselves into cannon fodder.

 

The biggest naivety is considering the US a force for anything other than themselves, their own wealth and their own ideals. The wikileaks cables arent that shocking they just show a country relentlessly pursuing self-interest at every turn. Thats fair enough tbh but it makes them no different to a Palestinian trying to get his land back off the jews.

 

That's a bit of a strech.

 

Not really, self-interest is amoral. There is no right and wrong.

 

But he ability to depluy such self interest with regard to economic and military might modulates the behaviour.

 

Dont know how that changes the moral conclusion. There is no 'right' when self-interest governs policy. This undermines the justification used for their policies.

 

Its clear as day to me.

[manc-mag 1]

His blind respect for authority is one thing (ie it's a perfectly legitmate arguing position), but the bit where he makes up other posters opinions for them as he goes along gets a bit tedious after a while. Blindness as to what's actually being argued is a bit of a non-starter to say the least.

 

and you're making up my opinion for me ?

 

The most tedious thing of all is this obsession with the US and the thinking that we have a "right to know" classified information from within government. There's nothing "blind" about it, its the way it is, and quite right too.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you can accuse me of making up your opinions for you, but it's perfectly fair comment for me to say you attribute views to others that they haven't actually expressed, because you do, routinely.

 

Fwiw I actually share some of your general views on classified information and I think people who insist on 100% disclosure of everything (failing which they'll happily label their own government 'rotten' or 'corrupt') are naive bordering on idiotic. HF doesn't do that however (to use the most pertinent 'for instance') yet you basically accuse him of it. He has a much more limited position than that towards it all when you actually read what he says. By contrast I would say your views on media censorship verge on being anti British.

 

I would admit that my main resistance to Wikileaks is that as a community I suspect at it's heart it's main advocates are basically geeks concerned with knowing everything and having the right to know everything rather than having the higher aim of holding governments to scrutiny for the right reasons. So I'd question many people's motives basically and I imagine I'd struggle to identify with a lot of them. Motive is distinguishable from intent though and in as much as the intent leads to better scrutiny and the exposing of hypocrisy then it's fair game. KSA takes a continued line on this about Wiki never exposing anything which isn't already strongly suspected. Again there's probably force in what he says, but at the end of the day theres a world of difference between suspicion and proof and theres no getting around it's added value in that respect.

[Happy Face 29]

Incidentally HF, on the back of my broad brush statements, I should just add that I don't consider you to be a geek.

 

 

I never took it that way, I have nowt to do with the wikileaks community.

 

EDIT: I may have some Geek like tendencies if i'm honest though.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Happy Face

[manc-mag 1]

Incidentally HF, on the back of my broad brush statements, I should just add that I wasn't accusing you of being a geek.

 

Edit: oops, fucked the continuity up now.

[Park Life 71]

Leazes has the sort of old school respect for authority that led lads in the first world war to willingly turn themselves into cannon fodder.

 

The biggest naivety is considering the US a force for anything other than themselves, their own wealth and their own ideals. The wikileaks cables arent that shocking they just show a country relentlessly pursuing self-interest at every turn. Thats fair enough tbh but it makes them no different to a Palestinian trying to get his land back off the jews.

 

That's a bit of a strech.

 

Not really, self-interest is amoral. There is no right and wrong.

 

But he ability to depluy such self interest with regard to economic and military might modulates the behaviour.

 

Dont know how that changes the moral conclusion. There is no 'right' when self-interest governs policy. This undermines the justification used for their policies.

 

Its clear as day to me.

 

Self interest in the case of the US is primarily 'might is right', where I'd argue that this avenue is not open to the Palestinians, hence their intermittent and often desperate attempts to build a coalition of thought (that sometimes goes against their absolute self interest). Self interest in this sense is only a starting point for them, whereas with America and generally the Western powers, self interst is more of a departure point (it is a totality). These are two very different kinds of self-interest and one of them allows for little or no negotiating space, it is absolute and pre-defined (the U.S.). More often than not the Palestinians as a whole have to go along with things in the short term which I would argue is against their self-interest in the long term (due to lack of military and economic power). Hence I speak of modulation.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Park Life

[ChezGiven 0]

Leazes has the sort of old school respect for authority that led lads in the first world war to willingly turn themselves into cannon fodder.

 

The biggest naivety is considering the US a force for anything other than themselves, their own wealth and their own ideals. The wikileaks cables arent that shocking they just show a country relentlessly pursuing self-interest at every turn. Thats fair enough tbh but it makes them no different to a Palestinian trying to get his land back off the jews.

 

That's a bit of a strech.

 

Not really, self-interest is amoral. There is no right and wrong.

 

But he ability to depluy such self interest with regard to economic and military might modulates the behaviour.

 

Dont know how that changes the moral conclusion. There is no 'right' when self-interest governs policy. This undermines the justification used for their policies.

 

Its clear as day to me.

 

Self interest in the case of the US is primarily 'might is right', where I'd argue that this avenue is not open to the Palestinians, hence their intermittent and often desperate attempts to build a coalition of thought (that sometimes goes against their absolute self interest). Self interest in this sense is only a starting point for them, whereas with America and generally the Western powers, self interst is more of a departure point (it is a totality). These are two very different kinds of self-interest and one of them allows for little or no negotiating space, it is absolute and pre-defined (the U.S.). More often than not the Palestinians as a whole have to go along with things in the short term which I would argue is against their self-interest in the long term (due to lack of military and economic power). Hence I speak of modulation.

 

Well you're now making my point for me by characterising it as 'might is right'. This is the amorality i am talking about, a value system based on self-interest that derives its mandate for action from strength goes against every form of justice known to man. If 'might is right' then the terrorist who wants a force out of his country (there based on nothing other than this 'might is right' principle) has every right to blow American's up any which way he can, wherever he can because he is following the same moral framework. In fact, he doesnt need the excuse of them being in his country, he can choose to blow whoever he wants up, whenever he wants.

 

Principles of justice, law, equity etc, are the building blocks of civilisation.

[Park Life 71]

Leazes has the sort of old school respect for authority that led lads in the first world war to willingly turn themselves into cannon fodder.

 

The biggest naivety is considering the US a force for anything other than themselves, their own wealth and their own ideals. The wikileaks cables arent that shocking they just show a country relentlessly pursuing self-interest at every turn. Thats fair enough tbh but it makes them no different to a Palestinian trying to get his land back off the jews.

 

That's a bit of a strech.

 

Not really, self-interest is amoral. There is no right and wrong.

 

But he ability to depluy such self interest with regard to economic and military might modulates the behaviour.

 

Dont know how that changes the moral conclusion. There is no 'right' when self-interest governs policy. This undermines the justification used for their policies.

 

Its clear as day to me.

 

Self interest in the case of the US is primarily 'might is right', where I'd argue that this avenue is not open to the Palestinians, hence their intermittent and often desperate attempts to build a coalition of thought (that sometimes goes against their absolute self interest). Self interest in this sense is only a starting point for them, whereas with America and generally the Western powers, self interst is more of a departure point (it is a totality). These are two very different kinds of self-interest and one of them allows for little or no negotiating space, it is absolute and pre-defined (the U.S.). More often than not the Palestinians as a whole have to go along with things in the short term which I would argue is against their self-interest in the long term (due to lack of military and economic power). Hence I speak of modulation.

 

Well you're now making my point for me by characterising it as 'might is right'. This is the amorality i am talking about, a value system based on self-interest that derives its mandate for action from strength goes against every form of justice known to man. If 'might is right' then the terrorist who wants a force out of his country (there based on nothing other than this 'might is right' principle) has every right to blow American's up any which way he can, wherever he can because he is following the same moral framework. In fact, he doesnt need the excuse of them being in his country, he can choose to blow whoever he wants up, whenever he wants.

 

Principles of justice, law, equity etc, are the building blocks of civilisation.

 

My point is actually cloaked in simplicity. 'Self interest' is modulated by the ability to pursue it. I know exactly what your point is and I broadly agree with it, but you're missing an adjunct.

[Ken 119]

The question was, did I get my O Levels, was it Parklife?

 

No. You've got to be in the UK to acheive that, don't you?

 

My countries of education consisted the US, Australia and Japan (Japan being more work experienced based though as part of my education in Australia). I hope that clears things up.

[ChezGiven 0]

Leazes has the sort of old school respect for authority that led lads in the first world war to willingly turn themselves into cannon fodder.

 

The biggest naivety is considering the US a force for anything other than themselves, their own wealth and their own ideals. The wikileaks cables arent that shocking they just show a country relentlessly pursuing self-interest at every turn. Thats fair enough tbh but it makes them no different to a Palestinian trying to get his land back off the jews.

 

That's a bit of a strech.

 

Not really, self-interest is amoral. There is no right and wrong.

 

But he ability to depluy such self interest with regard to economic and military might modulates the behaviour.

 

Dont know how that changes the moral conclusion. There is no 'right' when self-interest governs policy. This undermines the justification used for their policies.

 

Its clear as day to me.

 

Self interest in the case of the US is primarily 'might is right', where I'd argue that this avenue is not open to the Palestinians, hence their intermittent and often desperate attempts to build a coalition of thought (that sometimes goes against their absolute self interest). Self interest in this sense is only a starting point for them, whereas with America and generally the Western powers, self interst is more of a departure point (it is a totality). These are two very different kinds of self-interest and one of them allows for little or no negotiating space, it is absolute and pre-defined (the U.S.). More often than not the Palestinians as a whole have to go along with things in the short term which I would argue is against their self-interest in the long term (due to lack of military and economic power). Hence I speak of modulation.

 

Well you're now making my point for me by characterising it as 'might is right'. This is the amorality i am talking about, a value system based on self-interest that derives its mandate for action from strength goes against every form of justice known to man. If 'might is right' then the terrorist who wants a force out of his country (there based on nothing other than this 'might is right' principle) has every right to blow American's up any which way he can, wherever he can because he is following the same moral framework. In fact, he doesnt need the excuse of them being in his country, he can choose to blow whoever he wants up, whenever he wants.

 

Principles of justice, law, equity etc, are the building blocks of civilisation.

 

My point is actually cloaked in simplicity. 'Self interest' is modulated by the ability to pursue it. I know exactly what your point is and I broadly agree with it, but you're missing an adjunct.

 

Of course self-interest is limited by power, thats why you need international law and actions based on principles of justice so that super-powers dont abuse those with less power. The question i guess is whether any of this actually reveals this amorality in US foreign policy. Some people would argue that their principles came first and then the morality of their actions abroad were compromised by circumstances. This is fair enough tbh but history tells us otherwise imo.

[Park Life 71]

The question was, did I get my O Levels, was it Parklife?

 

No. You've got to be in the UK to acheive that, don't you?

 

My countries of education consisted the US, Australia and Japan (Japan being more work experienced based though as part of my education in Australia). I hope that clears things up.

 

I deleted the post cause it was fatuous and playful. Relax bro.

[LeazesMag 0]

His blind respect for authority is one thing (ie it's a perfectly legitmate arguing position), but the bit where he makes up other posters opinions for them as he goes along gets a bit tedious after a while. Blindness as to what's actually being argued is a bit of a non-starter to say the least.

 

and you're making up my opinion for me ?

 

The most tedious thing of all is this obsession with the US and the thinking that we have a "right to know" classified information from within government. There's nothing "blind" about it, its the way it is, and quite right too.

 

Why do you keep quoting "right to know"? Who are you quoting?

 

No-one disagrees that a government is well within it's rights to try to keep information confidential. If, however, the people ordered to keep it confidential believe it's not in the public interest to do so, and they choose to leak it, then they have whistleblower protection rights that should be honoured

 

stopped reading when I got to this piece of total garbage

[LeazesMag 0]

The question was, did I get my O Levels, was it Parklife?

 

No. You've got to be in the UK to acheive that, don't you?

 

My countries of education consisted the US, Australia and Japan (Japan being more work experienced based though as part of my education in Australia). I hope that clears things up.

 

that explains why you know fuck all about the football club.

[Park Life 71]

Leazes has the sort of old school respect for authority that led lads in the first world war to willingly turn themselves into cannon fodder.

 

The biggest naivety is considering the US a force for anything other than themselves, their own wealth and their own ideals. The wikileaks cables arent that shocking they just show a country relentlessly pursuing self-interest at every turn. Thats fair enough tbh but it makes them no different to a Palestinian trying to get his land back off the jews.

 

That's a bit of a strech.

 

Not really, self-interest is amoral. There is no right and wrong.

 

But he ability to depluy such self interest with regard to economic and military might modulates the behaviour.

 

Dont know how that changes the moral conclusion. There is no 'right' when self-interest governs policy. This undermines the justification used for their policies.

 

Its clear as day to me.

 

Self interest in the case of the US is primarily 'might is right', where I'd argue that this avenue is not open to the Palestinians, hence their intermittent and often desperate attempts to build a coalition of thought (that sometimes goes against their absolute self interest). Self interest in this sense is only a starting point for them, whereas with America and generally the Western powers, self interst is more of a departure point (it is a totality). These are two very different kinds of self-interest and one of them allows for little or no negotiating space, it is absolute and pre-defined (the U.S.). More often than not the Palestinians as a whole have to go along with things in the short term which I would argue is against their self-interest in the long term (due to lack of military and economic power). Hence I speak of modulation.

 

Well you're now making my point for me by characterising it as 'might is right'. This is the amorality i am talking about, a value system based on self-interest that derives its mandate for action from strength goes against every form of justice known to man. If 'might is right' then the terrorist who wants a force out of his country (there based on nothing other than this 'might is right' principle) has every right to blow American's up any which way he can, wherever he can because he is following the same moral framework. In fact, he doesnt need the excuse of them being in his country, he can choose to blow whoever he wants up, whenever he wants.

 

Principles of justice, law, equity etc, are the building blocks of civilisation.

 

My point is actually cloaked in simplicity. 'Self interest' is modulated by the ability to pursue it. I know exactly what your point is and I broadly agree with it, but you're missing an adjunct.

 

Of course self-interest is limited by power, thats why you need international law and actions based on principles of justice so that super-powers dont abuse those with less power. The question i guess is whether any of this actually reveals this amorality in US foreign policy. Some people would argue that their principles came first and then the morality of their actions abroad were compromised by circumstances. This is fair enough tbh but history tells us otherwise imo.

 

This is precisely what makes the Wikileaks spectacle such an interesting cultural mirror. Historically this is a very important moment for Western democracy as the layers fall away and the mask momentarily slips.

[Ken 119]

The question was, did I get my O Levels, was it Parklife?

 

No. You've got to be in the UK to acheive that, don't you?

 

My countries of education consisted the US, Australia and Japan (Japan being more work experienced based though as part of my education in Australia). I hope that clears things up.

 

I deleted the post cause it was fatuous and playful. Relax bro.

 

Ah, well I feel a little fatuous tonight tbh. Been a long day of heavy drinking and I shouldn't be trying to 'keep up' so to speak on these topics. I'll bid you good night right after I do so with Spike.

[LeazesMag 0]

The question was, did I get my O Levels, was it Parklife?

 

No. You've got to be in the UK to acheive that, don't you?

 

My countries of education consisted the US, Australia and Japan (Japan being more work experienced based though as part of my education in Australia). I hope that clears things up.

 

I deleted the post cause it was fatuous and playful. Relax bro.

 

Ah, well I feel a little fatuous tonight tbh. Been a long day of heavy drinking and I shouldn't be trying to 'keep up' so to speak on these topics. I'll bid you good night right after I do so with Spike.

 

ah. But you still won't tell us who you are on another site yourself ?

 

What do you have to hide "Ken" ?

[Ken 119]

The question was, did I get my O Levels, was it Parklife?

 

No. You've got to be in the UK to acheive that, don't you?

 

My countries of education consisted the US, Australia and Japan (Japan being more work experienced based though as part of my education in Australia). I hope that clears things up.

 

that explains why you know fuck all about the football club.

 

I didn't mention there that I was born in Newcastle though. Does that change your opinion on the matter?

No of course it doesn't...

[manc-mag 1]

Did Parky just say "interesting cultural mirror"? The geet hom.

[Park Life 71]

Did Parky just say "interesting cultural mirror"? The geet hom.

 

[LeazesMag 0]

The question was, did I get my O Levels, was it Parklife?

 

No. You've got to be in the UK to acheive that, don't you?

 

My countries of education consisted the US, Australia and Japan (Japan being more work experienced based though as part of my education in Australia). I hope that clears things up.

 

that explains why you know fuck all about the football club.

 

I didn't mention there that I was born in Newcastle though. Does that change your opinion on the matter?

No of course it doesn't...

 

up to you. I'm an open minded sort of chap if you can prove me wrong in what I have said about the old board, but do it on the relevant thread in the football forum.

 

Until then, bye.

 

PS don't forget to tell us who your other username is while you're at it, there's a good lad.

[The Fish 10857]

The question was, did I get my O Levels, was it Parklife?

 

No. You've got to be in the UK to acheive that, don't you?

 

My countries of education consisted the US, Australia and Japan (Japan being more work experienced based though as part of my education in Australia). I hope that clears things up.

 

that explains why you know fuck all about the football club.

 

I didn't mention there that I was born in Newcastle though. Does that change your opinion on the matter?

No of course it doesn't...

 

up to you. I'm an open minded sort of chap if you can prove me wrong in what I have said about the old board, but do it on the relevant thread in the football forum.

 

Until then, bye.

 

PS don't forget to tell us who your other username is while you're at it, there's a good lad.

Why should he disclose anything about his life, when you won't disclose even the basic information about yours?

 

Also, why, when the argument is informed and persuasive do you dismiss it with "I stop reading after this rubbish"? When really what you mean is "I either don't understand or cannot argue against this, so I'll throw my dummy out of the pram"?

 

This must mean you're in favour of murdering Girl Guides with spades?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

KSA takes a continued line on this about Wiki never exposing anything which isn't already strongly suspected. Again there's probably force in what he says, but at the end of the day theres a world of difference between suspicion and proof and theres no getting around it's added value in that respect.

 

That's not actually my line on it exactly. Looking at the latest leak for instance, a lot of this information was widely known, and this knowledge went beyond a mere suspicion. Take the example of Pakistan's government allowing US drone strikes whilst outwardly protesting against them; this had been written about for a significant time in the press, by reporters who had privilege to sources from within the country's government; there was no revelation involved here. Whilst that's fine in and of itself, Wikileaks have been guilty of a severe over-egging of the quality of this latest content and the impact it will supposedly have.

There will be no legal ramifications regarding a lot of these e-mails and leaks and so on, and this makes me question the direction of the site and also renders the question of 'suspicion vs proof' somewhat redundant. If their ultimate goal is to expose corruption and criminal acts that have been covered up, and to affect changes in legislation and law as a result of their leaks, then why bother with this sort of content? The only thing that will be prompted by publicly embarrassing several governments is the huge pressure we're now seeing applied to Wikileaks and Aflange. Is it really worth the possible death of the site just to expose Prince Andrew's toilet habits in a leaked email?

I also have my problems with Aflange. His proposed goals toward the Iraq and Afghan wars were stupid, although the leaks on them have been very interesting and have helped to swing me in favour of the Iraq war. American troops have been guilty for a lot less civilian deaths than I had previously believed, and of particular interest are the details of the abuses and crimes of the Iraqi authorities - post-invasion. Aflange talks of ethics a lot and he has obviously absolved the Ba'athists, Al-Qaida, Iranian-backed militia and religious zealots for their part in destroying the society of Iraq. I can't take that step, and whilst the 'coalition of the good-guys' forces have not only made terrible errors, but been guilty of a flagrant lack of planning (although who could plan for the aftermath of such a thing?), I will not blame them for murders which they did not commit.

The anti-war crowd - Aflange included - attribute the blame for Al-Qaida bombs in Iraq on the invading forces, though they cannot state with authority that Iraqi society wouldn't have descended into a scrofulous murder-zone had the war not taken place. Saddam Hussein had never been one to shy away from his genocidal proclivities, and he had proven effective in morphing Iraq into a fractious calamity, teetering on the precipice of a violent implosion. So, back to Aflange: stupid ethics, a preening mouthpiece for the hippy-hackers and a relentless sex-pest. Wikileaks have been spot-on with some of their leaks, but others have left a sour taste: the taste of a shit. It is sad to see 30-something year old men who display an embarrassing piety in their hero-worship of characters like Aflange; no man is without fault, as Zimmerman once said, "don't follow leaders, and watch your parking meters.' Ghandi was a shit also.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Happy Face 29]

KSA takes a continued line on this about Wiki never exposing anything which isn't already strongly suspected. Again there's probably force in what he says, but at the end of the day theres a world of difference between suspicion and proof and theres no getting around it's added value in that respect.

 

That's not actually my line on it exactly. Looking at the latest leak for instance, a lot of this information was widely known, and this knowledge went beyond a mere suspicion. Take the example of Pakistan's government allowing US drone strikes whilst outwardly protesting against them; this had been written about for a significant time in the press, by reporters who had privilege to sources from within the country's government; there was no revelation involved here. Whilst that's fine in and of itself, Wikileaks have been guilty of a severe over-egging of the quality of this latest content and the impact it will supposedly have.

There will be no legal ramifications regarding a lot of these e-mails and leaks and so on, and this makes me question the direction of the site and also renders the question of 'suspicion vs proof' somewhat redundant. If their ultimate goal is to expose corruption and criminal acts that have been covered up, and to affect changes in legislation and law as a result of their leaks, then why bother with this sort of content? The only thing that will be prompted by publicly embarrassing several governments is the huge pressure we're now seeing applied to Wikileaks and Aflange. Is it really worth the possible death of the site just to expose Prince Andrew's toilet habits in a leaked email?

I also have my problems with Aflange. His proposed goals toward the Iraq and Afghan wars were stupid, although the leaks on them have been very interesting and have helped to swing me in favour of the Iraq war. American troops have been guilty for a lot less civilian deaths than I had previously believed, and of particular interest are the details of the abuses and crimes of the Iraqi authorities - post-invasion. Aflange talks of ethics a lot and he has obviously absolved the Ba'athists, Al-Qaida, Iranian-backed militia and religious zealots for their part in destroying the society of Iraq. I can't take that step, and whilst the 'coalition of the good-guys' forces have not only made terrible errors, but been guilty of a flagrant lack of planning (although who could plan for the aftermath of such a thing?), I will not blame them for murders which they did not commit.

The anti-war crowd - Aflange included - attribute the blame for Al-Qaida bombs in Iraq on the invading forces, though they cannot state with authority that Iraqi society wouldn't have descended into a scrofulous murder-zone had the war not taken place. Saddam Hussein had never been one to shy away from his genocidal proclivities, and he had proven effective in morphing Iraq into a fractious calamity, teetering on the precipice of a violent implosion. So, back to Aflange: stupid ethics, a preening mouthpiece for the hippy-hackers and a relentless sex-pest. Wikileaks have been spot-on with some of their leaks, but others have left a sour taste: the taste of a shit. It is sad to see 30-something year old men who display an embarrassing piety in their hero-worship of characters like Aflange; no man is without fault, as Zimmerman once said, "don't follow leaders, and watch your parking meters.' Ghandi was a shit also.

 

...and Mother T. The Evil hag.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

and Paris Hilton, of whom a certain English journalist once penned a vociferous defence.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Park Life 71]

KSA takes a continued line on this about Wiki never exposing anything which isn't already strongly suspected. Again there's probably force in what he says, but at the end of the day theres a world of difference between suspicion and proof and theres no getting around it's added value in that respect.

 

That's not actually my line on it exactly. Looking at the latest leak for instance, a lot of this information was widely known, and this knowledge went beyond a mere suspicion. Take the example of Pakistan's government allowing US drone strikes whilst outwardly protesting against them; this had been written about for a significant time in the press, by reporters who had privilege to sources from within the country's government; there was no revelation involved here. Whilst that's fine in and of itself, Wikileaks have been guilty of a severe over-egging of the quality of this latest content and the impact it will supposedly have.

There will be no legal ramifications regarding a lot of these e-mails and leaks and so on, and this makes me question the direction of the site and also renders the question of 'suspicion vs proof' somewhat redundant. If their ultimate goal is to expose corruption and criminal acts that have been covered up, and to affect changes in legislation and law as a result of their leaks, then why bother with this sort of content? The only thing that will be prompted by publicly embarrassing several governments is the huge pressure we're now seeing applied to Wikileaks and Aflange. Is it really worth the possible death of the site just to expose Prince Andrew's toilet habits in a leaked email?

I also have my problems with Aflange. His proposed goals toward the Iraq and Afghan wars were stupid, although the leaks on them have been very interesting and have helped to swing me in favour of the Iraq war. American troops have been guilty for a lot less civilian deaths than I had previously believed, and of particular interest are the details of the abuses and crimes of the Iraqi authorities - post-invasion. Aflange talks of ethics a lot and he has obviously absolved the Ba'athists, Al-Qaida, Iranian-backed militia and religious zealots for their part in destroying the society of Iraq. I can't take that step, and whilst the 'coalition of the good-guys' forces have not only made terrible errors, but been guilty of a flagrant lack of planning (although who could plan for the aftermath of such a thing?), I will not blame them for murders which they did not commit.

The anti-war crowd - Aflange included - attribute the blame for Al-Qaida bombs in Iraq on the invading forces, though they cannot state with authority that Iraqi society wouldn't have descended into a scrofulous murder-zone had the war not taken place. Saddam Hussein had never been one to shy away from his genocidal proclivities, and he had proven effective in morphing Iraq into a fractious calamity, teetering on the precipice of a violent implosion. So, back to Aflange: stupid ethics, a preening mouthpiece for the hippy-hackers and a relentless sex-pest. Wikileaks have been spot-on with some of their leaks, but others have left a sour taste: the taste of a shit. It is sad to see 30-something year old men who display an embarrassing piety in their hero-worship of characters like Aflange; no man is without fault, as Zimmerman once said, "don't follow leaders, and watch your parking meters.' Ghandi was a shit also.

 

 

Think you need to take onboard the fact that the ultimate goal is to break up Iraq as a soverign entitiy. The Kurds will get their own state and as we are beginning to see, their own oil (already with deals in place with foreign oil companies). Iraq will just be taken off the board. This has always been the goal and them main reason for the don't give a shit after conflit planning.