See how they reacted to wikileaks?
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It may cost a few lives on the ground, but its for a good cause.
Even one life lost, or one life compromised, as the result of those WikiLeak articles is one life too many.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
I'm all for exposing the fraud, corruption, and criminality in all aspects of the government, that includes the military.
Do so, but NOT while you are active in a war. Wait until the war concludes, then you can hold as many enquires as you like. Doing otherwise risks the competency, perhaps through paralysis, of our fighting forces.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
OUR security
In war MUST never be compromised by a whistle-blowing do-gooder
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Even one life lost, or one life compromised, as the result of those WikiLeak articles is one life too many.
Why don't you support that viewpoint when it comes to the war itself, or how about the lives lost due to corruption and criminality within the military?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Wait until the war concludes
Yeah right. How long has it been now?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Even one life lost, or one life compromised, as the result of those WikiLeak articles is one life too many.
Why don't you support that viewpoint when it comes to the war itself, or how about the lives lost due to corruption and criminality within the military?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Wait until the war concludes
Yeah right. How long has it been now?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
A war exists. Whilst your armed forces are engaged in war activities, they deserve your full support. Any corruption or criminality will eventually be exposed, then you prosecute according to military law, or civil law if they are discharged. How long? When the conclusion comes, that will be how long.
-
A war exists. Whilst your armed forces are engaged in war activities, they deserve your full support. Any corruption or criminality will eventually be exposed, then you prosecute according to military law, or civil law if they are discharged. How long? When the conclusion comes, that will be how long.
You might as well be a hardcore warmonger. The troops deserve better than this.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
You might as well be a hardcore warmonger. The troops deserve better than this.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
The troops deserve better, the civilians over there deserve better, but thanks to operation fustercluck they don't have better. Now we have a war, which no one deserves, particularly those who profit from them. Well, actually we have two, neither of which have managed to achieve their stated goal, both of which would appear to have started off false premises. And hell, both were fought against us with at least a few weapons we gave them two decades ago. Even if we took the best course of action possible, assuming we knew what that was, due to the actions taken in the last 50 years we're going to be paying for generations to come. And we aren't the only ones. It's not going to take warmongers, or even evil people, the problems are there, it's just a matter of time before someone hits them.
-
You might as well be a hardcore warmonger. The troops deserve better than this.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
The armed forces always deserve better than what they have. But, alas, they can't always have whatever they want whenever they want them. The logistics, the procurement, the money, the politics and so on are obstacles, and our respective armed forces know that all too well, but they often make do and mend. Like I said, they deserve better. A warmonger and a realist are not the same thing at all. And my post you replied to shows the realist point of view.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
It shows the true power of the Internet.
Nope. I believe that they are demonstrating their abuse of free speech at the potential expense of our servicemen's lives. You can read what I have had to say about this next door (S.B.1)[^]. Pity that Harold isn't a member of that private forum, but you Ian are.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Nope. I believe that they are demonstrating their abuse of free speech
I'll have to disagree with you on this. This is what free speech is all about. How can citizens make informed choices about the war when the gov't tries to hide everything behind a veil of secrecy? From what I've read, the documents don't really reveal anything new. The importance lies in the fact that there is now gov't documentation about this conflict. We can now, as citizens, make more informed choices about the costs we are willing to bear for this war. As long as gov'ts abuse secrecy Wikileaks will be important and necessary.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
potential expense of our servicemen's lives.
That is always used to shut down debate about the war. I am not impressed.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Nope. I believe that they are demonstrating their abuse of free speech
I'll have to disagree with you on this. This is what free speech is all about. How can citizens make informed choices about the war when the gov't tries to hide everything behind a veil of secrecy? From what I've read, the documents don't really reveal anything new. The importance lies in the fact that there is now gov't documentation about this conflict. We can now, as citizens, make more informed choices about the costs we are willing to bear for this war. As long as gov'ts abuse secrecy Wikileaks will be important and necessary.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
potential expense of our servicemen's lives.
That is always used to shut down debate about the war. I am not impressed.
During WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Falklands Conflict and the various Middle East Wars, reporters reported what they saw and witnessed. But even then, there were restrictions on what could in fact be said, printed or transmitted. The reason is simple - you do not report that which could compromise the activities and the safety of your fighting forces. But after the wars were finished, those restrictions were generally lifted. But even then, there were some restrictions because of the continuing sensitivities where exposure places secrets at risk. Free speech during times of war is restricted for damned good reasons. You don't let the enemy know what you are doing.
Carbon12 wrote:
As long as gov'ts abuse secrecy Wikileaks will be important and necessary.
Well, let us hope that your safety is not compromised should you be in a combat situation when a wikileak occurs.
Carbon12 wrote:
I am not impressed
You would be less impressed if you or a close family member suffered as the result of some wikileak. Even innocent looking documents could be a source of your suffering.
Carbon12 wrote:
We can now, as citizens
Choose to ensure your armed forces safety or discard it as some piece of worthless material. Your choice, but make that choice wisely.
-
During WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Falklands Conflict and the various Middle East Wars, reporters reported what they saw and witnessed. But even then, there were restrictions on what could in fact be said, printed or transmitted. The reason is simple - you do not report that which could compromise the activities and the safety of your fighting forces. But after the wars were finished, those restrictions were generally lifted. But even then, there were some restrictions because of the continuing sensitivities where exposure places secrets at risk. Free speech during times of war is restricted for damned good reasons. You don't let the enemy know what you are doing.
Carbon12 wrote:
As long as gov'ts abuse secrecy Wikileaks will be important and necessary.
Well, let us hope that your safety is not compromised should you be in a combat situation when a wikileak occurs.
Carbon12 wrote:
I am not impressed
You would be less impressed if you or a close family member suffered as the result of some wikileak. Even innocent looking documents could be a source of your suffering.
Carbon12 wrote:
We can now, as citizens
Choose to ensure your armed forces safety or discard it as some piece of worthless material. Your choice, but make that choice wisely.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You don't let the enemy know what you are doing.
Do you have any evidence that the leak compromised anything?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
let us hope that your safety is not compromised
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
if you or a close family member suffered as the result of some wikileak
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Choose to ensure your armed forces safety or discard it
You respond to everything I say with "the troops, the troops" as if that is all we need to know. If the safety of our troops was really the only consideration then we never would have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq. But we did, so clearly there are other priorities that trump troop safety. And if you do have specific information that wikileaks put troops in danger, I would like to hear about it. This isn't just about the troops. Our government has been prosecuting this war for 9 years and there is still no end in sight. According to the government the war is going badly. So the real question is Why are we still there? Why are we putting our troops at risk? Why are we bankrupting this nation on endles wars?
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You don't let the enemy know what you are doing.
Do you have any evidence that the leak compromised anything?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
let us hope that your safety is not compromised
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
if you or a close family member suffered as the result of some wikileak
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Choose to ensure your armed forces safety or discard it
You respond to everything I say with "the troops, the troops" as if that is all we need to know. If the safety of our troops was really the only consideration then we never would have gone into Afghanistan or Iraq. But we did, so clearly there are other priorities that trump troop safety. And if you do have specific information that wikileaks put troops in danger, I would like to hear about it. This isn't just about the troops. Our government has been prosecuting this war for 9 years and there is still no end in sight. According to the government the war is going badly. So the real question is Why are we still there? Why are we putting our troops at risk? Why are we bankrupting this nation on endles wars?
-
I said above [quote] Your choice, but make that choice wisely.[/quote]. Apparently, you have chosen. This conversation, for me, is finished. Have fun.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This conversation, for me, is finished.
For you it never began. As I observed in my first post "That is always used to shut down debate about the war." Too bad, it appeared that you had something to say. I'm sorry I was mistaken.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
BUT never while you are active at war.
Well I guess that's the difference then, AFAIK we're not at war, just giving support.
-
Are your soldiers being shot at? If so, kindy explain the difference to them about support and war? :laugh:
Once you agree to clans, tribes, governments...you've opted for socialism. The rest is just details.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
The difference is political
Probably not to those being shot at!! ;-)
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
harold aptroot wrote:
The difference is political
Probably not to those being shot at!! ;-)
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
This conversation, for me, is finished.
For you it never began. As I observed in my first post "That is always used to shut down debate about the war." Too bad, it appeared that you had something to say. I'm sorry I was mistaken.
-
Pity you didn't read the other postings I and other CP members made here, and at the SB1.0 private forum here at CP which you are not a member of. If you want to read those postings, and participate, apply to join that private forum.
I did read the other posts in this thread. That's why I believed you might have something to say. I tried to engage you, but you refused. For a variety of reasons, I'm not really interested in sb1. Besides you were here and it was here I attempted to engage you.
-
I did read the other posts in this thread. That's why I believed you might have something to say. I tried to engage you, but you refused. For a variety of reasons, I'm not really interested in sb1. Besides you were here and it was here I attempted to engage you.
Apologies if you thought I was rude or evasive. I had said a number of things here and, mainly, next door. I didn't want to go around repeating myself for fear of sounding like a broken record. But I can send you via CP's e-mail facility a thread view of the discussions next door, just ask and it will be done.
-
Apologies if you thought I was rude or evasive. I had said a number of things here and, mainly, next door. I didn't want to go around repeating myself for fear of sounding like a broken record. But I can send you via CP's e-mail facility a thread view of the discussions next door, just ask and it will be done.
-
I didn't think you were rude or evasive. Just not open to a discussion with me. It could be I misread your desire not to repeat yourself. I would be interested in reading this thread you are referring to.
-
Hi Richard, how are you doing? Can I have your personal email? I might be visiting your lovely country in Sept for a month. Use the email link in my post.
Cheers, विक्रम (Got my troika of CCCs!) Need sig - urgentz!!!