See how they reacted to wikileaks?
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The Generals are always subject to civilian control be it your POTUS or UK Prime Minister and so on.
I wasn't aware that they were civilians. Even if they were, who trusts them? They are god-level officials, authorities, officers. I'm all for exposing the fraud, corruption, and criminality in all aspects of the government, that includes the military. It does not compromise OUR security, it compromises the security of the elitists and crooks. It may cost a few lives on the ground, but its for a good cause. A better cause than opium and the interests of the elite ruling class and the whims of politicians.
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[^]
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
-
Seems like there are quite some gray area's and possibly even mutually interfering laws at work there! Still, it kinda proves my point - the US is angry, the Netherlands are not. Among the 90k documents are some that describe "incidents" involving Dutch soldiers, incidents that were not properly reported (or at all). Reason enough for some RAAAGE here but the level of rage is very low. One political party has demanded an independent investigation, the military just tries to explain and/or deny everything, blaming ambiguous wording. Nowhere have I seen WikiLeaks being blamed for something bad.
-
Seems like there are quite some gray area's and possibly even mutually interfering laws at work there! Still, it kinda proves my point - the US is angry, the Netherlands are not. Among the 90k documents are some that describe "incidents" involving Dutch soldiers, incidents that were not properly reported (or at all). Reason enough for some RAAAGE here but the level of rage is very low. One political party has demanded an independent investigation, the military just tries to explain and/or deny everything, blaming ambiguous wording. Nowhere have I seen WikiLeaks being blamed for something bad.
harold aptroot wrote:
incidents that were not properly reported
In the fog of war, such are not an overwhelming priority. The priority is the safety and fighting effectiveness of the armed forces.
harold aptroot wrote:
One political party has demanded an independent investigation
At the conclusion of this war plus an acceptable time scale thereafter, then you can hold as many public investigations as you like. BUT never while you are active at war.
-
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.
I don't know about that... I haven't looked at the new leak yet, but yes, the ones I've seen have not been important enough, in my opinion, to risk lives to leak. I would agree that in the vast majority of cases, this is correct... But if things really do get bad, meaning if some chunk of the military starts to REALLY cross the line, it might be worth risking a few lives to save others... Lesser of two evils, and all that.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
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.
Very sensible, in theory... But what happens when ol' Dubya starts the "War on Terror," which is never going to end... We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and before we pull out of those (If ever), we'll probably end up in Iran or North Korea or something... There may be no conclusion in the foreseeable future, which means any crimes that do occur would be buried almost indefinitely. Don't get me wrong... I understand where you're coming from, and in an ideal world, I think that's the right way to do things... This just isn't an ideal world, and the military has developed a reputation of being excessively secretive...
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
harold aptroot wrote:
incidents that were not properly reported
In the fog of war, such are not an overwhelming priority. The priority is the safety and fighting effectiveness of the armed forces.
harold aptroot wrote:
One political party has demanded an independent investigation
At the conclusion of this war plus an acceptable time scale thereafter, then you can hold as many public investigations as you like. BUT never while you are active at war.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The Generals are always subject to civilian control be it your POTUS or UK Prime Minister and so on.
I wasn't aware that they were civilians. Even if they were, who trusts them? They are god-level officials, authorities, officers. I'm all for exposing the fraud, corruption, and criminality in all aspects of the government, that includes the military. It does not compromise OUR security, it compromises the security of the elitists and crooks. It may cost a few lives on the ground, but its for a good cause. A better cause than opium and the interests of the elite ruling class and the whims of politicians.
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[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They are god-level officials, authorities, officers.
Paranoid.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It may cost a few lives on the ground, but its for a good cause.
How easy it is to say that when you know that it won't be your life that is compromised. And don't pretend that you are prepared to die for that cause. You, who will not go on a Tea Party protest because you are too afraid of the possible consequences. Makes one hope that H.R. 5741 is passed, and that you are immediately drafted to Afghanistan.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
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!!