Thinking about Wikileaks...

[Nadir]

Well, I figure out that most of you know about the Wikipedia-based site that in the last few weeks has been made famous (or notorious, if you think that word fits better with it) because of the mass posting of classified documents concerning the U.S. operations that were carried out during the occupation of Iraq that lasted from 2003 to basically just a couple of months ago.

Well, first of all, I am not a United States citizen. I respect that country as much as I can respect any other country in the World. I am aware of some of the elements that are part of the politics of that nation, but I also find many concepts of them difficult to grasp, as I am an observer from outside. I read about an interview that George W. Bush gave regarding his recently published memoirs, in which he mentions that, even if the U.S. had no real reason to invade Iraq (as there were no "Weapons of Mass Destruction", as the government said in the weeks prior to the deployment of troops), he thinks that Iraq is better now that Saddam is gone. I have to agree with him on that one, but only in part. It is true that Saddam was a dictator, that he tortured his opponents, killed those who displeased him and was responsible of ordering one of the worts ethnic cleansings in the Middle East on the last decades.

Anyway, what I wanted to talk about is if you guys think that information that is supposedly "classified" should be available to the public. My view in the topic is that yes, it definitely should be, at least when the conflict is finished. It will help people understand, maybe even it will bring some closure to the families of those deceased in the conflict (both from the Iraqui civilian population and the U.S. soldiers stationed there). Besides, I think that the people has all the right to know what goes on on that war. They deserve the truth, at least. If they see the truth, they can decide. And I think, from my humble point of view, that the most valuable right that the citizens of a nation have is Choice. Nothing is more important than that.

[void()]

"_Do you_ think that information that is supposedly "classified" should be available to the public?"

It is double edged sword with no clear or direct answer. There are valid rationale for classification and such exists for transparency.

War is Hell. There is no other Truth beyond that available in the context of war. Truth is the first causality, always.

To answer, I see no point either way therefore am unable to offer a valid opinion. Now, please quit attempting to stir up bitter winds. Thanks.

[Nadir]

Now, please quit attempting to stir up bitter winds. Thanks.

Why, I must ask, everybody tells me to stop talking about this? I am sure old enough to know that War is Hell, I know that. That Truth is the first casualty of war is, however, an understatement. Thats because I dont think you can actually see the truth in anything. I mean, I am not a religious man, but as a teacher of mine said once: "Only God know the real truth... and we are not even sure that He exists". I dont think that the truth about some things will ever be know, but what I know for sure is that the more things someone know, the closer he is to the actual truth (if there is something that can be called that). Anyway, Im sorry, void_dweller. I have never been in the military and I have never seen combat. Maybe I am talking about something that is really painful for someone who has been there. Maybe I am talking rather lightly about something that shatters families and souls of people who try to do their best when they are at their worst. And if in any way I am offending or insulting anyone who comes across to this thread, then I extend to them my sincerest apologies.

But I dont think this is a topic we should be quiet about. I have posted this thread in two or three other forums, and in most of them I had the same answers ("we shouldnt be talking about this", "it is a really deep topic to treat here, dont you think?"). Well, I am sorry... but this forum is a democracy and I am exerting my right to speak. I refuse to be a good little boy and keep silent. Whoever wants to write in this thread is welcome, even if its for tell me how obnoxious and rude I am. And who doesnt want to write on it... then dont write. I only wanted to see some opinions around here, I am not trying to stir up anything...

[falcondfw]

I think the law as it stands now is fine. The current law(? not sure it is a law) is that official documents of a President are not released to the public until either 25 or 40 years after his death.

This is done to protect the lives of those who may have been involved in decisions or operations and the lives of their families, as well, from anyone who might want to get revenge. I think it is a good rule.

What wikileaks did is wrong. Plain and Simple. We have no idea how many people's lives those idiots at wikileaks put at risk and we will probably never know. The point is, they don't know either. But obviously, they don't care. The owner has a grudge against the USA and the US Government and he is going to screw as many people as he can who are even remotely connected with the government, no matter how many people get hurt or killed. And he is doing all of this in the name of Freedom.

I am sorry. Where I was raised, we were taught that with freedom comes responsibility. I see plenty of freedom in what wikileaks did, but absolutely zero responsibility.

Personally, I think the site should be shut down and the leader and managers thrown in jail for attempted murder and the key thrown away. We will never know how many people were killed or maimed as a result of what wikileaks posted. Also, they though about it before they posted things, because they made big flowery announcements about it before they posted the documents. That makes it attempted murder, instead of attempted manslaughter.

When the people involved with resisting the terrorists, informing on the terrorists, and fighting the terrorists have passed into the next world and their families can no longer be hurt by what is in those documents, then and only then should the documents be made publicly available.

Oh. And the documents are not "supposedly" classified. They ARE classified. They are classified for the reasons above and others. You can learn about the classification of documents here: Wikipedia - Classified Information In The United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States)

[Nadir]

I think the law as it stands now is fine. The current law(? not sure it is a law) is that official documents of a President are not released to the public until either 25 or 40 years after his death.

This is done to protect the lives of those who may have been involved in decisions or operations and the lives of their families, as well, from anyone who might want to get revenge. I think it is a good rule.

What wikileaks did is wrong. Plain and Simple. We have no idea how many people's lives those idiots at wikileaks put at risk and we will probably never know. The point is, they don't know either. But obviously, they don't care. The owner has a grudge against the USA and the US Government and he is going to screw as many people as he can who are even remotely connected with the government, no matter how many people get hurt or killed. And he is doing all of this in the name of Freedom.

I am sorry. Where I was raised, we were taught that with freedom comes responsibility. I see plenty of freedom in what wikileaks did, but absolutely zero responsibility.

Personally, I think the site should be shut down and the leader and managers thrown in jail for attempted murder and the key thrown away. We will never know how many people were killed or maimed as a result of what wikileaks posted. Also, they though about it before they posted things, because they made big flowery announcements about it before they posted the documents. That makes it attempted murder, instead of attempted manslaughter.

When the people involved with resisting the terrorists, informing on the terrorists, and fighting the terrorists have passed into the next world and their families can no longer be hurt by what is in those documents, then and only then should the documents be made publicly available.

Oh. And the documents are not "supposedly" classified. They ARE classified. They are classified for the reasons above and others. You can learn about the classification of documents here: Wikipedia - Classified Information In The United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classified_information_in_the_United_States)

Fair enough, thats what I wanted to see. Just peope discussing and educating each other, nothing else, I didnt pretend to go on a political speech or something. I think you are right in that, falcondfw probably Wikileaks did more harm than good on that one, I do not question you... and I will make sure of taking a look to the Wikipedia article.

[tenni]

Any if not every government that has created classified information may claim that its release is endangering one thing/person or another. The question becomes if that comment is valid or merely an attempt to hide the uglies.

I also think that the British are reacting quite differently than US people with these leaks but I may be wrong.

[IanBorthwick]

Any if not every government that has created classified information may claim that its release is endangering one thing/person or another. The question becomes if that comment is valid or merely an attempt to hide the uglies.

And so, because you cannot see the ends, you'd risk those lives to prove yourself right? We have no ideas what occurs int he shadow wars and clandestine fighting that occurs in and around nations and wars.

I would not risk it, for those who give of themselves to fight these things do not need the added burden of praying their lives afterwards stay hidden so they can put it behind them.

[falcondfw]

Nadir,
That is how i took your post. As a way to educate yourself, not as a way to "stir things up". And I answered accordingly, of course, with my opinion thrown in for good measure. lol.

I was in the military. US Army. M-1 Abrams tanker. What you asked is not a painful subject for me. It enrages me that idiots like this wikileaks owner moron are allowed to walk the Earth and breathe the same air, to be completely honest.

Some of my former fellow platoon or company members could easily be some of those that wikistinks is putting at risk.

Ok. Off my soap box now.

Tenni,
Although i am sure there are some questionable decisions made in the classification process, I prefer to believe that most people are good at heart and would not try to deliberately hurt someone (yes, I am aware that people like that exist).
For what you suggest to be true would take a very large conspiracy indeed.
And I am not up on what our neighbors "across the pond" think of wikileaks. I know wikileaks is not very popular here.

[darkeyes]

The British government have much the same position as that of the US.. there is however, much more revulsion among British people about what is contained in Wikileaks and public opposition to their publication of the documents in question is not so much muted as practically non existent....

.. should they have been published? Yes.. we get told quickly enough what our "enemies" get up to and we abhor it.. I think we should know what our boys an gals get up to equally which is often as horrific as anything the opposition does... we are expected to support the state in its little foreign incursions come hell or high water an support whatever is done in our name without being told what it is? I don't think so...

[Pasadenacpl2]

Any if not every government that has created classified information may claim that its release is endangering one thing/person or another. The question becomes if that comment is valid or merely an attempt to hide the uglies.

If you knew the first thing about the military other than protesting it, you'd know the answer that question.

Pasa

[darkeyes]

Not as such a Wikileak.. but pertinent I think.. the British as I've said before arent lily white, and have their own lil secrets they wish hadn't come to light about Iraq.. and I've no doubt there are a bloody few more shameful screts to raise their ugly heads.. its also pertinent bearing in mind George Bush's comments in memoir and telly interview.. probaby a seperate thread is warranted for these issues, but here will do for now...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/09/british-military-iraq-war-crimes

[Hephaestion]

Same old, same old.

WikiLeaks is not telling the Iraqis or any other active adversary anything that they do not know already. They already see the allies as oppressors. That is why they are militant.

What WikiLeaks is telling is us (the collective objective pronoun so important in democracy) that our governments have been lying to us - about surgical strikes, about hearts and minds, liberators, WMD's,....and last in the list, winning. It is also costing a fortune we cannot afford.

Current topic of debate is whether the militant opposition in Afghanistan would be a better government than the present regime supported by the allies. The indigenous population appear to think so on the basis that they would be harsher but fairer. This contrasts with the perspective on the present supported regime who have been labelled as 'drug interested corrupt mafiosi'.

.

[falcondfw]

"Costing a fortune we can't afford" is the only thing in your statement I will agree with, Hephaestion.

Have you ever been in the military? Why are you so convinced that the opposition intelligence is so good, they already know the names of every informant on them and their relatives?

Keep thinking along the lines of the conspirist theorists and you will get the government you want and deserve.

Do governments lie? DUH! Are their lips moving? Are they always plotting against the people they represent the way you suggest? You don't want my comment. It won't be kind.

[Hephaestion]

falcondfw -

Governments "plotting against the people they represent" is too strong a concept. People are less of a problem to governments if they are kept ignorant or diverted with lures of e.g. national pride

Please do air your comments. Nothing has altered the facts given previously.

.

[falcondfw]

Ok. two things.
1. "diverted with lures of national pride"? So what you are saying is it is not a good thing to be proud of your country? If that is the way you feel, then I feel sorry for you. If a lot of British citizens feel the way you do, then maybe that explains why the British fell from a position of world power.
Personally, and I know a lot of Americans feel this way, I will always be exceedingly proud of my country. People brave starvation and baking in the desert to get into this country for a reason.

2. Facts? What facts? Your post is all opinions. Show me some proof that the Terrorists already know the names of every Iraqi citizen who stood up against them. I am sure you saw the same footage of missles precisely striking targets. You don't call that a surgical strike? Try doing that 40 years ago. Or maybe you think the video footage from the nose of the missle or from the AWACS overhead was created on a soundstage lot in Hollywood? ok. show me some proof.

Everything you have stated is your opinion. Stop using the word fact so loosely. It insults everyone's intelligence.

[darkeyes]

It is all very well having pride in country when it is deserved, but all too often we find that that pride is misplaced and anything but deserved... do you also feel shame when your country has been shown to have done something where pride is hardly appropriate?

I feel no pride in my country, Scotland, or the larger state of which it is a part, the United Kingdom.. I love both and would live no where else. I know far too much about the wrong doings of both and these are such that pride is the last thing I will ever feel. If pride I have, it is in the greatest achievements of humanity from wherever it comes, not in the achievements of nations or empires.. and I doubt you and I, Falcon would come anywhere near to agreeing what those would be.. for none would involve conflict, violence of any kind, greed, selfishness, arrogance or any other of the evils of our world..

[Hephaestion]

Fact

WikiLeaks is not telling the Iraqis or any other active adversary anything that they do not know already. They already see the allies as oppressors. That is why they are militant.

Fact

What WikiLeaks is telling is us that our governments have been lying to us - about surgical strikes, about hearts and minds, liberators, WMD's,....and last in the list, winning. It is also costing a fortune we cannot afford.

Precision of hit is not to be confused with surgical srike. Neither should the context. Fighting military opponents yes, innocent civilians no.

When the data indicates that 66% of the so called surgical strikes have killed non combatants e.g. boys herding animals, or wedding parties, civilians sheltering in air raid shelter, that is a very unpleasant truth or acceptable collateral damage depending on your point of view. But then irrespectively, it serves to antagonise the very people of which the hearts and minds are being sought. Their hearts are broken and their minds are filled with rage. Our soldiers are seen as oppressors that is why they are being attacked.

'Collaborators' from their society were hunted even before WikiLeaks started

There were no WMD's in Iraq as Bush and Blair have both admitted that.

It has been accepted that too much of Iraq's infrastructure was destroyed impeding useful recovery. Further damaging goodwill towards the allies.


Fact

Current topic of debate is whether the militant opposition in Afghanistan would be a better government than the present regime supported by the allies. The indigenous population appear to think so on the basis that they would be harsher but fairer. This contrasts with the perspective on the present supported regime who have been labelled as 'drug interested corrupt mafiosi'.

This was a radio programme in which the military was represented in the early hours of I think it was Sunday. Judging from the accent I would hazard a guess it was USA.


Not opinions - Facts

I do not need to prove anything. It's the same old self evident story. We have been lied to and WikiLeaks is showing this to have happened.

Pride in one's country is not the issue. We are all proud of the groups that we belong to. However exploiting that pride to divert attention from errors done in our names is just plain wrong.

The military have been used in ways that they were not designed to be used and it goes wrong no matter how good the technology or the purported good intentions behind the actions.

[falcondfw]

If you feel no pride in being a Scot, than you and I are very different people indeed. You see, I am 9 different nationalities in my heritage. The one I am most proud of is Scot. That is the one that calls to me and speaks to me and I have a burning in my soul to see Scotland.

Governments will do wrong and even bad things occasionally, because they are made up of people and people do the wrong thing from time to time and people are not perfect.

Are mistakes made? Oh yeah. But it is the overall picture that needs to take precedence. If you mire yourself in every wrong decision ever made by others, you will have a very sad life indeed.

Do I feel shame when the US Government makes the wrong decision? No. Do I feel sorrow and sadness? Yes. Because I understand that people are not perfect and sometimes they do the wrong thing.

If I took every decision my government makes personally, I would have committed suicide a long time ago. But the bigger picture is more important.

Who was the first country to announce aid for Haiti after the Earthquake last January? What country were the engineers from that figured out a way to save the Chilean miners? Which was the first country to send people in to help after the tsunami in the Indian Ocean several years ago? Or the earthquake and tsunami a few weeks ago?

We may screw up a lot of things, but we do far more good than harm in this world. Because of our hearts and our compassion. Am I proud of this country? Damn straight I am. Even with the great apologizer as President.

I feel sorrow and pity for people who are not able to be as proud of their country.

[Hephaestion]

I do believe that the previous answer can be summed up as:

"So what?"

[falcondfw]

Ok. This is my last post on this subject. You and I will never agree. And i don't like to beat my head against a wall for too long. Unconsciousness holds no attraction for me.


Fact

WikiLeaks is not telling the Iraqis or any other active adversary anything that they do not know already.

Really? How about the actual names of people that informed on the traitors? I would bet the terrorists did not know all of those.


They already see the allies as oppressors. That is why they are militant.

Seeing allies as oppressors is an oxymoron. It doesn't work. And who says it is the Iraqi people who see us that way? Have you been there? Have you asked the man on the street? I would bet that more IRAQIS see us as liberators, than see us as oppressors. See, I can make bold, general statements too, but it doesn't make them fact. They are opinions. Speculation.

And who says we are fighting the Iraqis? We are fighting the Al Qaidia terrorists and those linked to them, not the Iraqi people. Now THAT is a fact.


Fact

What WikiLeaks is telling is us that our governments have been lying to us - about surgical strikes, about hearts and minds, liberators, WMD's,....and last in the list, winning. It is also costing a fortune we cannot afford.

Precision of hit is not to be confused with surgical srike. Neither should the context. Fighting military opponents yes, innocent civilians no.

Really? No S Sherlock. I never would have guessed my government sometimes lies if it wasn't for wikistinks telling everyone. Thank god for wikistinks.

Do you not see how ridiculous that statement you made is?

Hmmm. Surgical strike. Seems to me the definition of a surgical strike IS precision. Taking out the objective with as little collateral damage as possible.

Civilian casualties? You seriously cannot expect me to believe you are that dense. IT IS WAR! People die. Sometimes innocent people die. It sucks, but such is life. I want to eliminate cancer and diabetes too, but I am not dumb enough to believe that people will not die while we are finding a cure.

What you stated is the typical socialist, greenpeace, woodstock drivel that drives me batty. I hate that people die in war, but war is not supposed to be pretty. On one missle strike, let's say 10 people die. Let's say that 5 of them are innocents. Try doing that missle strike 40 years ago and 1000 people would die. 995 of them innocents. That is precision and that is surgical.


When the data indicates that 66% of the so called surgical strikes have killed non combatants e.g. boys herding animals, or wedding parties, civilians sheltering in air raid shelter, that is a very unpleasant truth or acceptable collateral damage depending on your point of view. But then irrespectively, it serves to antagonise the very people of which the hearts and minds are being sought. Their hearts are broken and their minds are filled with rage. Our soldiers are seen as oppressors that is why they are being attacked.


Really? What data is that? Can you cite sources? Or is this just more conjecture on your part?

ANY innocent life that is shed in war is one life too many, but what is the alternative? Saddam Hussein? Let the Sunnis and the Shiites take each other out? Allow the terrorists to thrive?

It does not antagonize the people. It antagonizes the TERRORIST WE ARE FIGHTING! We are NOT fighting the Iraqi people! There is a big difference.

As for their hearts and minds and them being filled with rage, again, have you been there? have you asked them? Only they can speak their minds (if they are not too afraid to). Don't presume to know what they are thinking. It is insulting.


'Collaborators' from their society were hunted even before WikiLeaks started

So you have basically just accepted the hunting down of people for doing the right thing and resisting terrorism. Unacceptable. They were hunted before. Yes. But the terrorists did not have a roadmap to everyone's home before wikistinks.


It has been accepted that too much of Iraq's infrastructure was destroyed impeding useful recovery. Further damaging goodwill towards the allies.

Too much infrastructure destroyed? Again, DUH! IT IS WAR! What do you think war is? If the terrorists place an IED on the supports of a bridge, guess what happens? Gee, Imagine that. The bridge collapses. Damaged infrastructure.


There were no WMD's in Iraq as Bush and Blair have both admitted that.

Again, people make mistakes. That may have been given as the primary reason for going into Iraq, but there were plenty of others.


The military have been used in ways that they were not designed to be used and it goes wrong no matter how good the technology or the purported good intentions behind the actions.

This statement is sheer stupidity at its best. What do you think is the role of the military? I'll tell you, since I was in. Over here, it is "To protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

WE WERE ATTACKED! Remember 9/11? Or are you one of the conspiracy theorists who think George Bush planned the whole thing to get back at Saddam Hussein?

Our military is doing EXACTLY the job they are trained and required to do. They are protecting the United States (and much of the rest of the world, including England and Europe) from these animals.

Learn what you are talking about BEFORE stating something.

[tenni]

I can feel pride for my country for what it has done ethically or more likely for the riches that it has(natural). I can feel shame for my country when it does unethical things. I fear that my country has become one of the modern day western countries who have used torture. It has been hidden. There has been a cross party group in Parliament deciding which documents should be released and which documents may need to be kept secret. This committee is quiet right now. I have no idea what that is indicating? I know that the present government has done all and more that it can or should do about the secrecy. Maybe Wikileaks will get some dirty on my government to clear this up.

I have no comprehension on how being in your country's military makes you a better judge about how your government acts ethically. I can understand how it may make you behave contrary to the Geneva Conventions and other humanitarian expectations that we hold of civilized governments. It is the people of a country that once such unethical matters are revealed that need to stand up and tell their government that they will not accept this behaviour.

I do understand why the US government lied about how many civilians that it had killed. More specifically that it actually was counting the number of killed civilians when it said that it was not! What I do not understand is that US people do not demand an accounting from their government about such lies when exposed? Or any government caught in lies. Accepting a politicians' lies is not a good thing to do or expect. Set the bar higher. If they are caught lying, insist on strong consequences..duh..jail maybe?

There is pride and then there is false pride. I recall a US person posting that his people were skeptical and untrusting of their government. Why do they then blindly accept the "explanation" that the release of documents by wiki will lead to deaths. It has been reported with these releases that all names of civilians have been blacked out. Yet, US posters continue to try to make a point that Wikileaks are endangering lives. Not one shred of evidence and yet they fall obediently in line. Not trusting your government and yet trusting your government? Which is it?

What a country does as a humanitarian act during a natural disaster is very , VERY different from what it does when it invades without just cause another sovereign country. Shame is what I would feel if my country did this. I'd feel shame for decades and demand a better government.

The ideas of some US people are so far away from some of us that there is no bridging the perceptions it seems.

[darkeyes]

Yes indeed Falcon.. we would never agree either, not in a million years sad to say, for you have bought into your country's propaganda.. there are those here who have done the same but few these days quite so fully, unquestioning and accepting. This is a good thing for it shows jingoism and the historical feeling of superiority felt by the British for so long over all others is well on the wane.. it is passing just like the empire passed, and in a few decades you will find that as your country is replaced at the top of the heap, then so too will the feeling of superiority and arrogance which many, thankfully not all Americans feel toward the rest of the world.. you may believe your country does more good in the world than bad, but there are something like 200 nations in this world I doubt all, not even a majority would agree. It may be so.. the British felt like that once when at its most powerful, and yet the passage of time and the judgement of history is much less kind, and even the British people themselves know now that Britain was not the paragon of good their parents and grandparents believed it to be.. we do not buy into our nation's propaganda any more in quite the same way they did..or many American's still do... that is why we have so much angst about what our country does and what our allies do. "For king and country right or wrong" no longer applies..

America's reputation is already unravelling around the world.. its power, if not exactly waning is beginning to go into overstretch.. agreed many nations wish to be seen to be your friend and ally.. but few are uncritically and many less than wholeheartedly so.. and your nation does do much good in the world, but we must ask ourselves, why? For altruistic reasons? Sometimes.. but by no stretch of the imagination always.. and just as America buys so many of its allies, those self same allies will happily be allied and take what they can until something better comes along.. and that something better is already on the horizon and catching up fast..

Most Britons do love their country every bit as much as I do or you do yours.. most unlike me, have much pride in it and its history and its contribution to the world.. that I differ from them in that is because I find it difficult to think of myself as other than what I am.. someone born in a certain place and whose family has a certain history and heritage.. a quirk of circumstance.. that I am what I am is in itself nothing to feel pride in.. my passion and my belief is not in nation states, but in the immense capacity of humanity to better itself and for human beings live together in peace and harmony.. the things you believe in actively act against that just as all great powers throughout history have acted against that.. they have all claimed they want peace, and they probably did kind of.. peace on their terms and world built in their image.. the activities of the United States are no different from those historical great powers and in include in their number my own..

..and no your military does not defend my country or anyone elses... nor does it defend your constitution though you may like to think that to be the case.. it defends American interests, and those of the American capital and by its actions aims to extend those interests.. and it does so far away from your shores and sucks in stupid little nations such as my own to help it do so.. and in Afghanistan and Iraq, it and my own country attacked two nations who, whatever you may have thought of their regimes, bore no responsibility whatsoever for the atrocity of 11/9 as pay back..

[Hephaestion]

Clearly reasoned and supported argument is beyond the ability of some to comprehend. So much non-sequitor rubbish.

A precision strike in the wrong place is NOT a surgical strike. It is a massive blunder and that is what has been happening. There is a difference and examples have been given already. Keep trying, eventually the penny will drop.

'Sometimes' innocent people will die - really? Not 'mostly', as has been documented by our own official records which have been (Wiki)leaked? That's what the data shows.

Isn't this what terrorists argue with their strategies?

Has it not dawned? We have become terrorists. We wreck countries and achieve almost precisely the opposite of our stated intentions. As for the 9/11event, there was never any credible responsibility associated with Iraqi or the Afghanistan regimes of the time and none indicated since.

The allies may not be fighting Iraqis or Afghanistanis by intention but that is what is happening. Simply saying sorry for killing innocents is not acceptable no matter how many good deeds are done elsewhere. There is no credit voucher system in this to perform allowable wrongs. People die, irrevocably.

If the USA military is there to protect the Constitution of the USA then please keep it in the USA. It is certainly not doing that currently. It is busy pushing US interests for whatever reason - oil comes to mind. Slowly the military is dissipating itself because of the irrational campaigns that have been undertaken. In the process it is weakening the USA itself. We in the UK are similar in this last because we have been sucked in. Perhaps we had Hobson's choice as the last time we declined an offer, our economy was trashed and our PM was labelled as a Communist spy.

Reminder here that the military can only ever be blunt instrument with many side effects no matter what ambitious politicians and theoretcial tacticians would love to believe. Not accepting this has been the source of subsequent problems.

.

[tenni]

"If the USA military is there to protect the Constitution of the USA then please keep it in the USA."

If the US kept its military within its borders and closed hundreds and hundreds of military outposts of its empire, would wiki have anything to leak that the world would want to read?

[Pasadenacpl2]

We don't have an empire. You must be thinking of England.

We don't take land. We don't colonize. We rebuild what we broke, and make it better.

Your vilification of my nation is pathological. At least it's easy to disprove.

Pasa

[falcondfw]

If the USA military is there to protect the Constitution of the USA then please keep it in the USA.

Sorry. I know I said the last one was it, but I have to respond to this BS.

If we had done as you suggest, you would be speaking German right now so get off your damn high horse and show a little freakin respect!

[tenni]

Sorry. I know I said the last one was it, but I have to respond to this BS.

If we had done as you suggest, you would be speaking German right now so get off your damn high horse and show a little freakin respect!


UH, I'm confused as to what/how this has to do with these recent wikileaks?
Was this one of the documents within the leaks? I thought that it was written that the documents were between 2003 to 2009 or 2010? So, if the US had not invaded Iraq, "we" would be speaking German?

Once again, statements like this indicate the wide differing views about the world.

[NotLostJustWandering]

Darkeyes & Hephaestion: very well put. Darkeyes, I particuarly like your post-empire viewpoint. Sorry to think so many of my countryfolk will not open their eyes until we have definitively lost the world empire game and are eating humble pie. I would like to see my nation actually using its power to make peace while it still has it -- I really think it's imaginable -- but there's no salvation without repentance, and as we can see here, the chauvinist attitude is so alive and well repentance does not seem likely to come soon...

Coming late into this discussion, I find the two of you have made just about every point I would have. Just one caveat: can we put this term "American interests" to rest? What is meant by this statement is the short-term interests of the corporate oligarchs that actually run the USA. I am an American and I fail to see how militarism serves my interests, apart from keeping down the prices of the things I buy -- and even then I pay the bill in taxes whenever I work over the table, let alone whatever karmic price is hidden in the bill.

[NotLostJustWandering]

We don't have an empire. You must be thinking of England.

You must be totally ignorant of global economics.

[darkeyes]

Sorry. I know I said the last one was it, but I have to respond to this BS.

If we had done as you suggest, you would be speaking German right now so get off your damn high horse and show a little freakin respect!

This argument has been played out several times in these forums and is simply untrue... we talk of another time.. a time when the disparity in power between powerful nations was much less than today.. and that without the sacrifices of other nations.. many other nations.. the US may today be split between a Japanese occupied west, and the European (predominantly German) Axis occupied east.. no one disputes the immensely important role of the US in that conflict, but do you honestly believe that without the involvement of dozens of other countries, the US was certain to defeat the axis powers? And remember the US stayed out of the conflicts in Asia and Europe until it was attacked itself by the Japanese, and Germany foolishly declared war upon it.

That the US had supplied the wherewithal prior to that attack for my country to withstand the German onslaught was a reason we survived for without it it is quite possible, though not inevitable that the British would have had to either capitulate or make peace. That it did so was to make more certain the the British stayed in the war had as much for the defence of US interests abroad and the defence of homeland as it was for the defence or liberation of hard pressed and oppressed and occupied nations. In any case it is moot. Had Britain been forced out of the war at any time, it is not certain that the US could have survived an onslaught by the combined axis forces.. which relatively quickly may have been joined relatively quickly by former enemies such as my own country..

Broad statements are all very well.. but you have to consider the bigger picture at any moment in time.. for one small quirk, and the entire course of history could have been changed.. and the world would be a far different place to the one we know today..

And no.. even were we occupied we would not be speaking German.. nor would you, or Japanese for that matter. If Rome could not force its language on a world it conquered over hundreds of years it is extremely doubtful if this could be done in the space of 65.

I think you need to get down to some reading of other than government propaganda or tame lackey histories and start looking at things from a different perspective.. and if you lost your arrogant prejudices and certainties you would see I hope that things are not as you believe...

[darkeyes]

You must be totally ignorant of global economics.

Hahahaha. Yes... not all empires are political entities..

..and the claim that they repair what they broke? True in a sense.. but at a price very often of being a part of that economic empire and reliant on US "benevolence".. and military for that matter.. more defence to keep nasties away from the home shores..

[darkeyes]

Coming late into this discussion, I find the two of you have made just about every point I would have. Just one caveat: can we put this term "American interests" to rest? What is meant by this statement is the short-term interests of the corporate oligarchs that actually run the USA. I am an American and I fail to see how militarism serves my interests, apart from keeping down the prices of the things I buy -- and even then I pay the bill in taxes whenever I work over the table, let alone whatever karmic price is hidden in the bill.

Atiq, I use the expression American interests in much the same way as I use the word American when discussing political, economic and some cultural issues.. I do not use it to mean the interests of the small man in the street, but of those oligarchs of which you speak.. the interests of the US elite, not of the huge mass of ordinary American people who are used by that elite in much the same way as that elite uses millions across the globe (worse in some ways for not all cannon fodder is the front line soldier).. for its own ends... not for nation, humanity or the good of all.. but for the perpetuation and enrichment of itself.. when I criticise America I criticise its government and its elite corporate interests for the most part.

[Hephaestion]

Sorry. I know I said the last one was it, but I have to respond to this BS.

If we had done as you suggest, you would be speaking German right now so get off your damn high horse and show a little freakin respect!

Lovely!

If you had one fraction of a percent of the intelligence you claim then you would realise that English is a bastard tongue which does incorporate German. A reminder that the Angles the Saxons and the Jutes were Germanic tribes.

But to move on a little further. Anyone would think that keeping the Germans in check in WW2 would have resulted in their lack of present day dominence. Perhaps that is why we drive around in VW, Porsches etc. Bosch technology abounds, Miele and Osram are everywhere and our computers and electron microscopes are Siemens. Zounds the Germans might even be the financial powerhouse of Europe. Of course German scientists had nothing to do with the USA's space technology etc.

The Germans and the Japanese have shown remarkable moral courage, even leadership since WW2. Respect is owed them.

You demand respect? Not so dear friend. You may strive to earn respect in this present day and hopefully you will somehow succeed. But you may not demand it. That same criticism is applicable to the UK.

Why was the USA keen to enter WW2? It suited. The most plausible analysis encountered so far has been that it was a financial one. The USA economy was begining to re-enter another recession / depression and wars often mean territorial gain / influence and harvesting of profits. The USA's aim between WW1 and WW2 was to replace the UK as the world's leading trading nation. So that is why the USA gave the UK so much help that the UK only finished paying for it about 3-4 yrs ago.

As for repairing things after they are broken - don't break them to begin with. Lives especially cannot be repaired. Not everything may be weighed according to dogma.

[darkeyes]

Lovely!

If you had one fraction of a percent of the intelligence you claim then you would realise that English is a bastard tongue which does incorporate German. A reminder that the Angles the Saxons and the Jutes were Germanic tribes.



English is actually a germanic tongue.. that it has many infuences from the romance languages (primarily the french), latin, the celtic, norse (also germanic languages), and from the old British empire does not alter that fact. It remains a germanic language even today.. bastardised sure, Heph, because of those external influences, but primarily its roots are in German and that is what it is.. germanic. So while we may not speak pure german, we essentially speak a form of it.

So Falcon, dear, stick that in your pipe and smoke it... :)

[Nadir]

Wow... when I started this thread I didnt know things were going to get this high... however, I like that people are expressing their opinions here, and I can see that many people posting around here (including, but not limited, to Hephaestion, Darkeyes and Realist) have viewpoints similar to mine in how the world is. I must say I think the U.S. is an empire. Maybe not in the political sense but it actually is in the economic one. The U.S. government and companies (both public and privately owned) have multiple businness conections around the world (I remember an article in The New York Times that I read quite a long time ago in which they mentioned the dealings between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, and also the Royal Arabian Family...). Also, because it is actually the most powerful nation in the world, it pulled the rest of the world down into a recession when it fell from the top. I am not cristicising the American people here, because I know several of them and I respect them. But Im criticising several of their leaders incompetence and greed.

I dont like how the discussion has degenerating in something along the lines of "You should be grateful that we saved your ass in WW2"... well, Im sorry, but then was then and now is now. The Nazis were a worldly threat. The terrorists that the U.S. fight are a minority. A dangerous minority that had killed thousands of people, but a minority nonetheless. They lack help from the government, even on their own countries (unless the government is sympathetic to their cause, as it was in Afghanistan or so). The Nazis WERE the government, and they systematically carried out mass killings of people who didnt fit their ideal of "perfection". The terrorists, as bad as they are, are nowhere worse than that. So yeah, thank you for saving our asses, but it was for the greater good, and I think Roosevelt understood that.

Well, I actually dont have to thank you, because my country was under a fascist dictatorship at the time, and didnt enter the war because we had just actually finisehd our own one, and when you liberated Europe you basically forgot about us. And when the resistance asked for your help, you literally said to them : "Not my problem". So yeah, thank you for leaving us to rot under forty years of a military dictatorship that you could have easily toppled... or maybe you needed a "safeguard" in Western Europe in case communism extended. Whoever knows...

The U.S. is an empire, both cultural and economical. Who invented the things that everybody uses nowadays? Why do we have Internet today? The nationality of the guys who invented Myspace,Facebook,Youtube...?

[NotLostJustWandering]

Atiq, I use the expression American interests in much the same way as I use the word American.....

Yes, yes, I understand. However, part of the power of a word or phrase is in its implied meaning. Implied meanings shape consciousness in subtle ways regardless of the speaker's views or intentions. This is why conscious decisions are made about choices of words, as for example the argument about using the word "queer." Less famously, I shoot down the word "Anti-Semitic" every time it comes up in conversation and suggest "Judaeophobic" instead. Using the former term implicitly suggests that Jews are the only Semites in the world, when the truth is that the Jews' closest relatives are the Arabs. This truth, of course, is an uncomfortable one for Zionists and Jewish Arabophobes, so they love to use the term "Anti-Semitic." (The term was coined a few centuries ago in Europe to describe white supremacists who hated Jews as inferior non-Europeans living among "true whites".)

In the same way I feel the term "American interests" subtly perpetuates the myth that the things Washington does are for the good of the average American. That is why I protest its usage.

[NotLostJustWandering]

And no.. even were we occupied we would not be speaking German.. nor would you, or Japanese for that matter. If Rome could not force its language on a world it conquered over hundreds of years it is extremely doubtful if this could be done in the space of 65.

But Rome did succeed in getting millions of its subjects to speak Latin. Most of the languages of Western Europe are Romance, languages that began as pidgin Latin. Latin remained the language of the Church and the nobles of Western Europe long after Rome fell, and it continues to be the language of science and law to this day. I think long after the USA ceases to be the #1 military power in the world, English will continue to be the No. 1 "lingua franca" [heh heh, just look at that phrase; "French language" in Latin!]

But I agree with you about German and Japanese; even if the Axis powers had won the war, they more likely would be taking English lessons than trying to get the world to speak their languages. Who wants to learn a language that has more than one alphabet and hundreds of characters?

[tenni]

Notso
Well, you are wandering away from the OP but it is a more rationale area. I might point out that if it was truly "American interests" that it should include Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Venezula etc....lol :tongue: The word "American" has been co opted by your country. It might be clearer to state "US government interests" or as you point out US corporate/government interests?

I like your term Judaeophobic.

As as far as diversionary rants about "you woulda been speaking etc." It is very sad that a person would bring this up on a Day of Remembrance of such a tragic era.

[darkeyes]

But Rome did succeed in getting millions of its subjects to speak Latin. Most of the languages of Western Europe are Romance, languages that began as pidgin Latin. Latin remained the language of the Church and the nobles of Western Europe long after Rome fell, and it continues to be the language of science and law to this day. I think long after the USA ceases to be the #1 military power in the world, English will continue to be the No. 1 "lingua franca" [heh heh, just look at that phrase; "French language" in Latin!]

But I agree with you about German and Japanese; even if the Axis powers had won the war, they more likely would be taking English lessons than trying to get the world to speak their languages. Who wants to learn a language that has more than one alphabet and hundreds of characters?

Just as the French did many of theirs, and the British and Dutch many of theirs... but it never became the first language of the conquered peoples... I am not saying it would never be done.. it was in the main by the germanic invasions of the British Isles from the 4th and 5th centuries on.. thats why we speak as we do.. but it took many hundreds of years..

[NotLostJustWandering]

Notso
Well, you are wandering away from the OP

Yeeeaah... and I don't like it when other people do it. Thing is, I don't expect these little caveats on language to get followed up on; I expect the peacenik/jingoist war to resume and reclaim this thread. Should we start a new thread?


but it is a more rationale area. I might point out that if it was truly "American interests" that it should include Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Venezula etc....lol :tongue: The word "American" has been co opted by your country. It might be clearer to state "US government interests" or as you point out US corporate/government interests?


True, true. Pity how that term "American" has marginalized all but one country out of two continents and the land bridge between them. I think when the term "United States of America" was coined, it just happened that no one thought to ask, "hey, what are we going to call ourselves, United Statesians?" Fact is, the USo part of our name is very modern, corporate sounding and just doesn't lend itself to describing a nation or nationality. The Founding Fathers probably thought they were being very hip and modern as they innovated a new country in the New World, but it was inevitable that we would cling to a word coined in the Old and which sounds more like a country than a corporation.




I like your term Judaeophobic.

I didn't invent it. It's in the dictionary.

[Hephaestion]

Peculiar that the language of culture and science in the Roman empire was Greek.

Latin was what the lower orders spoke. When the Franks (really a western Germanic grouping) gained prominence and took over the western part of the Greco-Roman empire, they adopted the term Roman with passion to emphasise their legitimacy and gain credibility. In their rule, the term lingua Franca was adopted. Later, the term Franks was adopted by the group(s) who identified themselves as the French.

Sacre Blue! Nous somes des Allemands

'Fraid it's German - again (unless one traces back to the Hellenic period in which case it's all Greek - which incidentally shares some words with German)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My great big fat greek wedding

Gus Portokalos - Now, gimme a word, any word, and I'll show you how the root of that word is Greek. Okay? How about arachnophobia? Arachna, that comes from the greek word for spider, and phobia is a phobia, is mean fear. So, fear of spider, there you go.

Schoolgirl: Okay, Mr. Portokalos. How about the word kimono?

Gus Portokalos - Let me see. Ah yes I have it. Kimonas is Greek for winter and Kimono is what you wear to keep warm - in winter

Schoolgirl and Gus's daughter - Groan in disbelief at his stupidity

[Nadir]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My great big fat greek wedding

Gus Portokalos - Now, gimme a word, any word, and I'll show you how the root of that word is Greek. Okay? How about arachnophobia? Arachna, that comes from the greek word for spider, and phobia is a phobia, is mean fear. So, fear of spider, there you go.

Schoolgirl: Okay, Mr. Portokalos. How about the word kimono?

Gus Portokalos - Let me see. Ah yes I have it. Kimonas is Greek for winter and Kimono is what you wear to keep warm - in winter

Schoolgirl and Gus's daughter - Groan in disbelief at his stupidity

I love that movie... and my mom loves it too XD My favorite character is the grandmother, she is so funny... and there was that heartwarming moment when her mother and her gran give the jewellry on the box to her.

[darkeyes]

Yeeeaah... and I don't like it when other people do it. Thing is, I don't expect these little caveats on language to get followed up on; I expect the peacenik/jingoist war to resume and reclaim this thread. Should we start a new thread?


Is cool Atiq hun.. keep sayin that threads often take on a life of their own... and think for the most part, they are the more interesting for it..:)

[NotLostJustWandering]

Peculiar that the language of culture and science in the Roman empire was Greek.

Latin was what the lower orders spoke. When the Franks (really a western Germanic grouping) gained prominence and took over the western part of the Greco-Roman empire, they adopted the term Roman with passion to emphasise their legitimacy and gain credibility. In their rule, the term lingua Franca was adopted. Later, the term Franks was adopted by the group(s) who identified themselves as the French.

Fascinating. I didn't know this. Thanks for sharing.

[darkeyes]

After the Norman conquest, French was the language of the English court and aristocracy and it took several hundred years before English finally replaced it.. 600 years later funnily enough French was also the language of the Russian court and aristocracy and was so until the revolution..

[TaylorMade]

A little bit of a dissenting view:

Secret War at the Heart of Wikileaks... (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/secret-war-at-the-heart-of-wikileaks-2115637.html)

A civil war at the heart of Wikileaks has virtually paralysed the whistle-blowing website from publishing any new exposés outside of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs, say former staffers and volunteers.

The website's recent unveiling of more than 390,000 secret US military documents from the Iraq war – on top of the 77,000 Afghan war logs it published earlier this year – has been hailed as one of the most explosive intelligence leaks in living memory, providing an astonishing level of previously unknown detail on two deeply controversial conflicts.

But a number of former members say that the website's obsession with pursuing the US military has resulted in Wikileaks losing sight of its founding principle that all leaks should be made available to the public no matter how large or small.

And I bet very few of you that defend Wikileaks give a shit about the civilians that will be left exposed and in many cases killed. To them, I say, GFY. Go fuck your self-righteous double standards. Their actions aren't going to end the war. They're going to make it worse.

*Taylor*

[TaylorMade]

Wow... when I started this thread I didnt know things were going to get this high... however, I like that people are expressing their opinions here, and I can see that many people posting around here (including, but not limited, to Hephaestion, Darkeyes and Realist) have viewpoints similar to mine in how the world is. I must say I think the U.S. is an empire. Maybe not in the political sense but it actually is in the economic one. The U.S. government and companies (both public and privately owned) have multiple businness conections around the world (I remember an article in The New York Times that I read quite a long time ago in which they mentioned the dealings between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family, and also the Royal Arabian Family...). Also, because it is actually the most powerful nation in the world, it pulled the rest of the world down into a recession when it fell from the top. I am not cristicising the American people here, because I know several of them and I respect them. But Im criticising several of their leaders incompetence and greed.

I dont like how the discussion has degenerating in something along the lines of "You should be grateful that we saved your ass in WW2"... well, Im sorry, but then was then and now is now. The Nazis were a worldly threat. The terrorists that the U.S. fight are a minority. A dangerous minority that had killed thousands of people, but a minority nonetheless. They lack help from the government, even on their own countries (unless the government is sympathetic to their cause, as it was in Afghanistan or so). The Nazis WERE the government, and they systematically carried out mass killings of people who didnt fit their ideal of "perfection". The terrorists, as bad as they are, are nowhere worse than that. So yeah, thank you for saving our asses, but it was for the greater good, and I think Roosevelt understood that.

Well, I actually dont have to thank you, because my country was under a fascist dictatorship at the time, and didnt enter the war because we had just actually finisehd our own one, and when you liberated Europe you basically forgot about us. And when the resistance asked for your help, you literally said to them : "Not my problem". So yeah, thank you for leaving us to rot under forty years of a military dictatorship that you could have easily toppled... or maybe you needed a "safeguard" in Western Europe in case communism extended. Whoever knows...

The U.S. is an empire, both cultural and economical. Who invented the things that everybody uses nowadays? Why do we have Internet today? The nationality of the guys who invented Myspace,Facebook,Youtube...?

You're welcome. ;)

And I'll let the Brits summarize my thoughts about Empire. After all, they should know----------->What have the Romans ever done for us? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso)


*Taylor*

[Pasadenacpl2]

You must be totally ignorant of global economics.

Nope. Completely aware.

We are not an empire. Unless you change the definition of the word. In which case, you might as well call us a pecan pie. Once a word no longer means what it means any attempts at communication are fruitless.

Pasa

[Hephaestion]

Today, the BBC have finished the abridged biography of Mark Twain "....to be released 100 years after my death...."

The closing reading dealt with the Moro massacre in the Phillipines. Seems like the USA has a tradition to uphold.

"...I have read carefully the Treaty of Paris. I have seen that we do not
intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We
have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me,
be our pleasure and duty to make these people free and let them deal
with their own domestic questions in their own way; and so I am an
anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on
any other land....."

e.g. http://jackcarino.multiply.com/journal/item/16

[Hephaestion]

Nadir

".....Well, I actually dont have to thank you, because my country was under a fascist dictatorship at the time, and didnt enter the war because we had just actually finisehd our own one, and when you liberated Europe you basically forgot about us. And when the resistance asked for your help, you literally said to them : "Not my problem". So yeah, thank you for leaving us to rot under forty years of a military dictatorship that you could have easily toppled... or maybe you needed a "safeguard" in Western Europe in case communism extended. Whoever knows... ..."

OK. So no UK military, No ANZACS, free French, Poles, Belgians, Dutch....

During the civil war, wasn't Generalissimo Franco flown out to Spain to take over the military and prevent the 'communists' from gaining power. I believe he was being given asylum at the time by the British, His instatement was puportedly sanctioned by the USA. If the 'right man' was already in power perhaps there was no need to 'liberate' the country?

Food for thought.

[darkeyes]

A little bit of a dissenting view:

Secret War at the Heart of Wikileaks... (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/online/secret-war-at-the-heart-of-wikileaks-2115637.html)


And I bet very few of you that defend Wikileaks give a shit about the civilians that will be left exposed and in many cases killed. To them, I say, GFY. Go fuck your self-righteous double standards. Their actions aren't going to end the war. They're going to make it worse.

*Taylor*

Worse? I think not.. double standards? Not on my part... what I wonder would the attitude be of people such as yourself if it was some other country, such as Russia over Chechnya, or China over Tibet, Turkey over the Kurds, Britain over Ireland, which had been exposed in this manner? A different attitude entirely I would think.. and there have been exposes of one kind or another about all of those countries, and Americans have exclaimed shock horror and condemned and quite rightly.. double standards?? Sure.. but whose?

[tenni]

Maybe I missed someone's answer to this bit of information that has come forward with these most recent leaks.

What is the US given reason why it lied about not keeping track of the civilians that died in Iraq? ( now that it has been exposed that they lied)

[NW6942]

All that site does is bring to light what people allready know. Somethings are better left in the dark as it is a mad mad mad world.

[void()]

I look around at the thread and see why I asked it not be discussed. Threads like this one often lead to bitterness and resentment. We are a family. Shame to see us wind up divided over these sort of issues. And so, I asked to
curb the discussion.

America is indeed an empire. We're a hold over from Rome. The Romans conquered Egypt and bastardized that culture and theology. Romans assimilate everything to themselves. It is an adaptive means of wolves to survive. What does not kill only causes greater strength.

In that culture you'll find roots of Freemasonry and various other occult societies, the Golden Dawn being one example. It is only a breath away from the Illuminati. And curbing tin foil hats, these all came together with an order in England know as Knights Templar. These were the folks whom gave us the Magna Carta and declared each man a king in their own birth right.

Much of the U.S. Constitution evolved from the Charter of Free Men, a precusor to the Magna Carta. These were created to revolt against the Pax Romana, a highly diabolical doctrine enacted by The Holy Roman Catholic Church. The Church seeks to rule all. This is not ramblings of someone whom is merely tethered to sanity, look it up for yourself.

America is an empire, one born out of revolt to change the heading of people. Alas it was but illusion because we invited bankers and lawyers in. Lawyers here in the states take a bar exam, similar to the barrister's test found in England for solicitors. The English Court grants U.S. lawyers their titles. Again you can look it up on your own.

We changed nothing, new boss same as old boss. Poor get poorer, rich, richer. Song remains the same. And we send them off to die in war for a cause. To borrow from Terry Prachet, "you can find any number of causes to die for on any street corner." None are worth it, save love perhaps.

I'm tired. Keep hitting the same brick wall every day. Been trying to go around it, it keeps growing. Eventually, I'll be walled in altogether, probably am already. "grumble."

[darkeyes]

A wrong Voidie me luffly shud always be discussed...no matter how uncomfy it may be.. no wrong shud ever b kept in the dark. :)

[void()]

I can agree to not leaving it in the dark. But I'm left wondering the point of discussing it when such discussion doesn't profit any change. "You can beat a dead horse all day, at the end of the day the horse is still dead."

Seen plenty of wrong what ought be shown the light, but even so, nothing can change it. For example there was a journalist found dead in West Virginia. His death was ruled a suicide. Obviously it was, he had slashed both wrists, drank eight bottles of wine, slashed his throat, asphyxiated himself with a plastic bin bag over his head, and put a hair dryer on in a bathtub with himself, along with having taken a pharmacy's supply of sleeping pills and muscle relaxants. And the really wild part? There was no signs of blood, and a gun discharged on the nightstand by the bed.

He was researching how our government came to attain a piece of software that can mine data for specific items. The software had been developed by a private company, whom thought the government ought to pay fair market value for it. He wanted to discuss a wrong.

When I was entertaining a notion of writing a novel/story about a serial killer using a toxin, imagine my surprise upon seeing headlines indicating senators got mailed that toxin. And no it wasn't anthrax. I had emailed the CDC for more information on the toxin I had in mind, next day, "oh my freaking Gawd!!! Senators receive _toxin_name_ in the post!!!"

And gee might it have been a lurvely coinkindent some poor schmuck of a writer just happen to be studying this as a plot method. Hurm...? Lemme see here buddy, you were jus lookin at what?

So hopefully my reluctance can be excused on behalf of seeing what the 'light' can do.

[darkeyes]

I can agree to not leaving it in the dark. But I'm left wondering the point of discussing it when such discussion doesn't profit any change. .

So we ignore and stay silent and let it all go away? If one person on site, just one, is made aware and begins to think about an issue and question it, then there is profit in it, Voidie... that is change...

[Nadir]

I can agree to not leaving it in the dark. But I'm left wondering the point of discussing it when such discussion doesn't profit any change. "You can beat a dead horse all day, at the end of the day the horse is still dead."

Seen plenty of wrong what ought be shown the light, but even so, nothing can change it. For example there was a journalist found dead in West Virginia. His death was ruled a suicide. Obviously it was, he had slashed both wrists, drank eight bottles of wine, slashed his throat, asphyxiated himself with a plastic bin bag over his head, and put a hair dryer on in a bathtub with himself, along with having taken a pharmacy's supply of sleeping pills and muscle relaxants. And the really wild part? There was no signs of blood, and a gun discharged on the nightstand by the bed.

He was researching how our government came to attain a piece of software that can mine data for specific items. The software had been developed by a private company, whom thought the government ought to pay fair market value for it. He wanted to discuss a wrong.

When I was entertaining a notion of writing a novel/story about a serial killer using a toxin, imagine my surprise upon seeing headlines indicating senators got mailed that toxin. And no it wasn't anthrax. I had emailed the CDC for more information on the toxin I had in mind, next day, "oh my freaking Gawd!!! Senators receive _toxin_name_ in the post!!!"

And gee might it have been a lurvely coinkindent some poor schmuck of a writer just happen to be studying this as a plot method. Hurm...? Lemme see here buddy, you were jus lookin at what?

So hopefully my reluctance can be excused on behalf of seeing what the 'light' can do.

Void, would you be so kind of posting a link to an article about the journalist that you mentioned and the circunstances of his death? It certainly would be an interesting read. Certainly it doesnt look as a suicide, thats for sure. Anyway, I wanted to say that I agree in one thing with you. We are a community (or a family, as you put before). And families may bicker with each other, argue with each other (as anyone with siblings will know), but at the end of the day this doesnt mean that you are really angry with them. When a father and his child dont share the same ideals this doesnt mean that the father is going to disown his son or daughter just because he is a staunch conservative and his son a definite liberal. Families members love each other, regardless of consequences. So, if we are a family, then let us argue as a family. I would rather have it than being good all day.

And well, one of the good things about the Internet is that now you cannot go around killing people like the CIA or FBI used to do before... back in the day they could kill you, destroy the proof and cover up the death as an accident/suicide... but now most of the proofs are on the net... and when something is on the net it is very difficult to eliminate it, if not outright impossible. Just ask the Chinese government when they are trying to ban and block blogs.

[void()]

"And well, one of the good things about the Internet is that now you cannot go around killing people like the CIA or FBI used to do before... back in the day they could kill you, destroy the proof and cover up the death as an accident/suicide... but now most of the proofs are on the net... and when something is on the net it is very difficult to eliminate it, if not outright impossible."

See your private messages.

Also, do not be lulled into a false security with the Internet as insurance. If they seek to make you vanish, you will.

[void()]

So we ignore and stay silent and let it all go away? If one person on site, just one, is made aware and begins to think about an issue and question it, then there is profit in it, Voidie... that is change...

Silence can be used as a shield & weapon. Do we concur upon that?

And no I'm not saying we cower. What I am suggesting is mass confusion, the harbinger of Anarchy. Nero again, yet plays.

Some of us lose our vision of Hope. We are dashed unto the rock, left for the carrion what that surviving be not enough. Then a hand. A brother or sister to aid us back to high ground. A dagger awaiting behind their back for our throats. In Greece they whispered a curse, "spartan".

Rome, state borne of a bitch. Twin brothers, Romulus slaying Remus. Blood for gold and glory.

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." - Einstien

And probably the first war used sticks and stones.

Tired of blood for nothing. Freedom? "Keep dreaming, Alice. Wonderland is just 'round yon bend."

And no we need not a revolution. You see revolution means it will revolve, come back 'round again and again. We need to mutate and diverge, let us evolve and forsake war, fear, hatred. It's a straight line to the divine. And this from one who doubts divinity exists. If it does then we are to create it.
Yes, I'm using a circular argument but it returns the same line. I'll draw it again, let's evolve and forsake war, fear, hatred.

We have it in ourselves if we but try.

[darkeyes]

The United States is not an empire and it does not have an empire for a form of government.

Some people posting in this thread need to go back and study basic types and definitions of governments, read the actual Declaration of Independence, and read a history book instead of posting drivel full of nonsense and flawed circular arguments. :rolleyes:

An empire darling, is not a form of government... empires can have many different forms of government from totalitarian, absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy, representative democracy.. and arguably, just to contradict myself, it can be argued that a federal government system is in itself a form of empire..

..that the US has no empire within the terms of any accepted dictionary definition does not mean it is not so.. it is a massive military and economic empire with a vast number of client states..

Maybe you should read a few history books.. and not only histories which are tame and in accord with your own political viewpoint.. they may enlighten you..:)

[tenni]

I was the one to refer to the US Empire and questioned whether wiki would have anything to leak if the US withdrew its military from the apparently 65 countries and somewhere between 750 and 1000 military installations that are outposts for the US empire. It seems to me that wiki would have nothing to leak if the US was not attempting to add Iraq to its empire.

"This desire to be seen as a benign, positive influence on the world continues to the present. Even while America appears to behave as an empire, its leaders refute the idea as a motivation for their policy."

Perhaps there should be a separate thread about the controversial US Empire concept. Identifying the US as an empire based upon its international behaviour is controversial within the US..not necessarily as much outside the US. Some in the US apparently deny this and use definitions as a rationale. Others within the US and the rest of us see the US as an empire. That includes Mark Twain.

"I have read carefully the treaty of Paris, and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem. It should, it seems to me, be our pleasure and duty to make those people free, and let them deal with their own domestic questions in their own way. And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land.["
Mark Twain

"It (USA Empire) was first widely applied to the US by the American Anti-Imperialist League (including Mark Twain), founded in 1898 to oppose the Spanish–American War and the subsequent post-war military occupation and brutalities committed by US forces in the Philippines. " One hundred plus years later the US still has military installations in the Phillipines...hummm?

Empire two definitions applicable to the US system."
"The principle or spirit of empire; advocacy of what are held to be imperial interests. 3. Used disparagingly. 3a. In Communist writings: the imperial system or policy of the Western powers. 3b. Used conversely in some Western writings: the Imperial system or policy of the Communist powers"

Who would deny that Russia did not have an empire as the Soviet Union?

[Paragon]

As someone that has been a part of this war up close, and has had to work with in country locals, I couldn't agree any less with disseminating classified material.

People are people here and everywhere else. Most folks in Iraq want to live 'normal' lives and see that their families are taken care of. The situation there is far from ideal and people make good and bad choices because of the horrible conditions in their country.

For those who step forward to help the occupying power clean up the relatively few, rouge "terrorists" they need as much protection as is feasible. Any progress we have made over there is a direct result of their efforts and information and we owe them our gratitude and their safety.

Its easy to watch BS movies like Green Zone and not care one way or another, but life is not very much like the movies, or the media in general, portray it. I have been deployed more than once and worked with personnel from many countries, soldiers and civilians. Not one of their lives is worth less than any of ours. Leaking endangers more than it informs and it is wrong for that reason.

[Hephaestion]

Paragon

"...occupying power..." ?

Surely this should have been 'supporting power'. That's what we've ben told we are.

"....rouge 'terrorists'....."

Are the adversaries 'reds' i.e. communists? That's strange. Hasn't communism now become the new successful capitalism.

Surely those who step forward to help the supporting power would wish that their identity and contributions be known. After all, they are doing it for the well being of their country and countrymen. It's not as if they were collaborators such as in France in WW2 when their country was occupied by unwanted forces.

OK, so 66% of the attacks by the supporting power kill innocent civilians. It's for the greater good. Isn't it? That's why our gvernments like to announce these achievements to their voting public.

.

[darkeyes]

Paragon

"...occupying power..." ?

Surely this should have been 'supporting power'. That's what we've ben told we are.

"....rouge 'terrorists'....."

Are the adversaries 'reds' i.e. communists? That's strange. Hasn't communism now become the new successful capitalism.

Surely those who step forward to help the supporting power would wish that their identity and contributions be known. After all, they are doing it for the well being of their country and countrymen. It's not as if they were collaborators such as in France in WW2 when their country was occupied by unwanted forces.

OK, so 66% of the attacks by the supporting power kill innocent civilians. It's for the greater good. Isn't it? That's why our gvernments like to announce these achievements to their voting public.

.

.. yes.. well...:rolleyes:

[Paragon]

QUOTE=Hephaestion;187629]Paragon

"...occupying power..." ?

Surely this should have been 'supporting power'. That's what we've ben told we are.

Supporting? If you believe that pick up an M-4 and get over there. I suspect you will not see it the same if you get to leave.


"....rouge 'terrorists'....."

Are the adversaries 'reds' i.e. communists? That's strange. Hasn't communism now become the new successful capitalism.

Not sure how terrorist turned into communist. Odd trasnslation from English to English.

Surely those who step forward to help the supporting power would wish that their identity and contributions be known. After all, they are doing it for the well being of their country and countrymen. It's not as if they were collaborators such as in France in WW2 when their country was occupied by unwanted forces.

No, they really don't, that's just ignorant. If their identities are revealed not only is their life at risk but so is the life of anyone they care about. They wouldn't wear masks if they wanted to be recognized.

OK, so 66% of the attacks by the supporting power kill innocent civilians. It's for the greater good. Isn't it? That's why our gvernments like to announce these achievements to their voting public.

Did you just make that number up? If you are going to throw your hat into a debate, please pretend you want to actually want to do it.
[/QUOTE]

[Pasadenacpl2]

"....rouge 'terrorists'....."

Are the adversaries 'reds' i.e. communists? That's strange.

I LOLd.

I disagree with almost everything else you've posted in this thread. But, this was funny. That Paragon didn't get your joke is even funnier.

Pasa

[nakedheathen]

Same old, same old.

WikiLeaks is not telling the Iraqis or any other active adversary anything that they do not know already. They already see the allies as oppressors. That is why they are militant.

What WikiLeaks is telling is us (the collective objective pronoun so important in democracy) that our governments have been lying to us - about surgical strikes, about hearts and minds, liberators, WMD's,....and last in the list, winning. It is also costing a fortune we cannot afford.

Current topic of debate is whether the militant opposition in Afghanistan would be a better government than the present regime supported by the allies. The indigenous population appear to think so on the basis that they would be harsher but fairer. This contrasts with the perspective on the present supported regime who have been labelled as 'drug interested corrupt mafiosi'.

.

What the fuck are you talking about? The indigenous population only wants to make money and live in peace. Have you seen any of the UN polls on this subject or are you just talking out your ass? Have you spent any time in Afghanistan? I have. Have you lived among the indigenous population or are you just spewing some Guardian BS leftist propaganda that fits your narrow veiw of the way the world should be? I have lived with Pashtuns and Tajiks. They may not like Karzi, but they like stability a whole lot better than they like the destability that Mullah Omar and his ilk bring. Get a clue pal.

By the way, Afghanistan borders Pakistan. A large number of the tribesmen over there don't recognize the border and so they enable the Haqqani and Talaiban insurgents. They want to initiate a caliphate. Pakistan has nukes. If this doesnt scare you, you arent paying attention.

[nakedheathen]

An empire darling, is not a form of government... empires can have many different forms of government from totalitarian, absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy, representative democracy.. and arguably, just to contradict myself, it can be argued that a federal government system is in itself a form of empire..

..that the US has no empire within the terms of any accepted dictionary definition does not mean it is not so.. it is a massive military and economic empire with a vast number of client states..

Maybe you should read a few history books.. and not only histories which are tame and in accord with your own political viewpoint.. they may enlighten you..:)

the British government DEFINED empire. Do you want to start with Ireland? Scotland? Wales? Why do you think there are so many issues within the mid east? Do you know who Kitchner was? How did the british empire divide up the old Ottoman empire? Why were the lines drawn where the were? Yeah Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken has made inroads into the middle east. Is that empire? We sell, at the behest of the host governments military hardware to countries in the mid east. How about BAE? SAAB? No one's skirts are clean on this one my dear.

The US was attacked. We are big mean angry people when we are attacked. The world has felt our ire. Do you think for one minute, that if we are attacked from Indonesia we aren't goint to respond?

I am frankly tired of the apologists who just want to keep sweeping this whole jihad thing under the rug. THEY WANT TO KILL YOU. REALLY! You are an apostate for many reasons to them. If us killing them first is empire, then may the sun never set on Liberty's empire!

[darkeyes]

the British government DEFINED empire. Do you want to start with Ireland? Scotland? Wales? Why do you think there are so many issues within the mid east? Do you know who Kitchner was? How did the british empire divide up the old Ottoman empire? Why were the lines drawn where the were? Yeah Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken has made inroads into the middle east. Is that empire? We sell, at the behest of the host governments military hardware to countries in the mid east. How about BAE? SAAB? No one's skirts are clean on this one my dear.

The US was attacked. We are big mean angry people when we are attacked. The world has felt our ire. Do you think for one minute, that if we are attacked from Indonesia we aren't goint to respond?

I am frankly tired of the apologists who just want to keep sweeping this whole jihad thing under the rug. THEY WANT TO KILL YOU. REALLY! You are an apostate for many reasons to them. If us killing them first is empire, then may the sun never set on Liberty's empire!

If u care 2 read much of what Ive said, I have never defended, but am ashamed of and am critical of my country's oppression of nations and people's around the globe.. the British Empire was a shameful thing and I am as critical of my country's residual often wistful dreaming back to those days of shame... so slagging of the UK, Scotland or any one else for their imperial past is a waste of time.. most british people no longer believe that the empire was the glorious success they were taught of at school.. also, I am a pacifist and condemn the selling of weapons to any country for any reason.. so stuff that in your pipe and have a good smoke..

..and neither Iraq or Afghanistan even with brutal shitty regimes attacked the USA.. nor did they play any part in planning or facilitating its carrying out.. they were ignorant of it.. it can be argued that because Al Qaeda based itself in Afghanistan that the US could legitimately attack that country, yet few countries are innocent when it comes to the harbouring of criminals of all kinds who are wanted by other states.. is that a justification for attacking them and causing the deaths of untold millions of innocents? No I dont think so.. the wars were and are about vengeance, not about liberty.. both countries were just handy whipping boys for the US government to be seen to be doing something.. and imposing the will of the west upon two already very unhappy countries.. the wars have made the world far more unsafe by radicalising millions of Moslems and forcing many into the welcoming arms of Al qaeda and other groups bent on slaughtering any who stand in their way.. a bit of an own goal that.. and it is now accepted by political and military leaders that the war against the real perpetrators of 11/9, and probably the war in Afghanistan cannot be won... and Iraq is hardly a happier and more stable place than it was prior to the war there... so tell me.. what has been gained????

..and killing people is never justified.. not at any time by either side.. but especially not when the vast majority to die have not been combatants but hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who just happened to be around at the time and who are considered nothing more than "collateral damage" on one side and "acceptable losses" on the other.. what a fucking way to think of living beings..

[NEPHX]

.... is that a justification for attacking them and causing the deaths of untold millions of innocents..

Millions?? Really? Not so. You can hardly find millions of people in Afghanistan never mind kill millions in a war.

The reality is that the government and the people harbor terrorists (entire communities, camps, bases, provide weapons, political protection, money, food, communication, etc.) as well as many other things. The Taliban was the government that supported the terrorists and are seen as terrorists themselves.

The civilian populations of neither Iraq or Afghanistan were ever targeted or attacked.

In Iraq, we're never been fighting the Iraqi people. We've always been fighting what they call the insurgents which is just another name for the extremest out of Iran and elsewhere in the world. Reality is that if the US/coalition forces had not entered Iraq it would be called the Iraqi State of Iran today along with the Saudi Arabian State of Iran, the Jordanian State of Iran, the Egyptian State of Iran (continue with all countries in the gulf area - look at a map). The Bush administration just didn't know how to spin it the right way (but don't get me started on that one).

You think we were EVER fighting Saddam? NOOOOOO... IRAN IRAN IRAN.
And, all the extremest terroristic elements they represent, support and harbor. Maybe, we should all wait for the Iranian military to come marching into half the planet before we say its time to do something about it (I seem to recall another such happening in the 1930s and 1940s). If waiting for the Iranian people to stand up and do something is on your mind, read the papers over the past 2 years and see what happens to people that stand up to anything in Iran including high ranking religious leaders.

History repeats itself with far too much regularity. There will always be dictators who will rise to dominate - false kings/leaders. We can learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it. That is a historical fact.

[darkeyes]

Millions?? Really? Not so. You can hardly find millions of people in Afghanistan never mind kill millions in a war.

The reality is that the government and the people harbor terrorists (entire communities, camps, bases, provide weapons, political protection, money, food, communication, etc.) as well as many other things. The Taliban was the government that supported the terrorists and are seen as terrorists themselves.

The civilian populations of neither Iraq or Afghanistan were ever targeted or attacked.

In Iraq, we're never been fighting the Iraqi people. We've always been fighting what they call the insurgents which is just another name for the extremest out of Iran and elsewhere in the world. Reality is that if the US/coalition forces had not entered Iraq it would be called the Iraqi State of Iran today along with the Saudi Arabian State of Iran, the Jordanian State of Iran, the Egyptian State of Iran (continue with all countries in the gulf area - look at a map). The Bush administration just didn't know how to spin it the right way (but don't get me started on that one).

You think we were EVER fighting Saddam? NOOOOOO... IRAN IRAN IRAN.
And, all the extremest terroristic elements they represent, support and harbor. Maybe, we should all wait for the Iranian military to come marching into half the planet before we say its time to do something about it (I seem to recall another such happening in the 1930s and 1940s). If waiting for the Iranian people to stand up and do something is on your mind, read the papers over the past 2 years and see what happens to people that stand up to anything in Iran including high ranking religious leaders.

History repeats itself with far too much regularity. There will always be dictators who will rise to dominate - false kings/leaders. We can learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it. That is a historical fact.

Millions... I stand by it.. cos Afghanistan isnt the only nasty little war of the last decade... we simply do not know how many have died in either Afghanistan or Iraq.. but it is far more than a few thousand.. and we are no where near finished yet!!

As Pasa would say.. "kettle meet pot" when it comes to harbouring those you call terrorists.. the US has done it for decades and trained and armed and transported and directed... over Afghanistan with the Taliban and Nicaragua with the Contras being but two instances in the last 30 years.. so wheesht.. dont talk to me about harbouring "terrorists".

..and since the US helped the Taliban to power.. it also helped to power Saddam in Iraq, its interefering together with that of the UK helped overthrow the democratically elected governments of Iran back in the 1950's, and as with so much such meddling the dog turns and bites back... Iran is not a serious threat to world peace but it is a threat I agree.. saddam was a Bulwark against Iran and he has gone and his country now very unstable.. Jordan is hardly likely to support Iran, nor is either Saudi Arabia or Egypt however much your prjudices led you to believe otherwwise.. and it is at least arguable that the US is a much greater threat.. its meddling in the affairs of other nations is at least as much responsible for the unsafe state of the planet as any group of dictators or terrorists.. AND it has the power and wealth to be so.. something Iran lacks..

.. and when u go to war against a country.. you fight the people of that country however much you believe it to be otherwise.. simply saying that you are at war with one man does not alter the reality..and the costs of war with Iraq have borne this out... Saddam has gone and still thousands die..

Dictators rise and fall I agree.. but the holier than thou attitudes of many, in my country as well as yours about how offensive they are pales somewhat when we look at just who helped.put them their in the first place...

[Nadir]

the British government DEFINED empire. Do you want to start with Ireland? Scotland? Wales? Why do you think there are so many issues within the mid east? Do you know who Kitchner was? How did the british empire divide up the old Ottoman empire? Why were the lines drawn where the were? Yeah Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken has made inroads into the middle east. Is that empire? We sell, at the behest of the host governments military hardware to countries in the mid east. How about BAE? SAAB? No one's skirts are clean on this one my dear.

The US was attacked. We are big mean angry people when we are attacked. The world has felt our ire. Do you think for one minute, that if we are attacked from Indonesia we aren't goint to respond?

I am frankly tired of the apologists who just want to keep sweeping this whole jihad thing under the rug. THEY WANT TO KILL YOU. REALLY! You are an apostate for many reasons to them. If us killing them first is empire, then may the sun never set on Liberty's empire!

The U.S.A. was attacked, but by terrorists, not by a government (granted, one of the countries invaded by the U.S. in their so-called "War on Terror" was under a government that was sympathetic to the ideas of Al-Quaeda), but when you begin to think about the reasons for invading Iraq, then the whole thing falls apart. Besides from deposing a dictator as Saddam Hussein , I dont think many good things have come out from the Iraq War. You will just have to ask the Iraqui people. How do they feel better with? A dictatorship based on fear that at least made them feel sure of going out on the streets every day? Or a war where groups of insurgents are fighting each other or fighting American soldiers, all the while blowing up a car or two every day and taking dozens of Iraqui lives with them?

Funny thing, it reminds me of Iran in 1978. The Shah of Persia had an autocratic rule, but he was enough of a modernist to concede suffrage to women, secularising the state, nationalizing many natural resources and recognizing the state of Israel. Couples could go on the streets and kiss each other and hold hands without fear of being arrested or beaten up by the police, unlike now. Adultery wasnt punished by death. Apostasy wasnt punished by death. The people of Iran complained about him, and that leads to him being deposed on that year. However, do you think Iran is better off now than it was before? A country that literally prides himself of being barbaric (by Western standards, anyway) and waging war on whoever goes in its way?

[Hephaestion]

QUOTE=Hephaestion;187629]Paragon

"...occupying power..." ?

Surely this should have been 'supporting power'. That's what we've ben told we are.

Supporting? If you believe that pick up an M-4 and get over there. I suspect you will not see it the same if you get to leave.


"....rouge 'terrorists'....."

Are the adversaries 'reds' i.e. communists? That's strange. Hasn't communism now become the new successful capitalism.

Not sure how terrorist turned into communist. Odd trasnslation from English to English.

Surely those who step forward to help the supporting power would wish that their identity and contributions be known. After all, they are doing it for the well being of their country and countrymen. It's not as if they were collaborators such as in France in WW2 when their country was occupied by unwanted forces.

No, they really don't, that's just ignorant. If their identities are revealed not only is their life at risk but so is the life of anyone they care about. They wouldn't wear masks if they wanted to be recognized.

OK, so 66% of the attacks by the supporting power kill innocent civilians. It's for the greater good. Isn't it? That's why our gvernments like to announce these achievements to their voting public.

Did you just make that number up? If you are going to throw your hat into a debate, please pretend you want to actually want to do it.
[/QUOTE]


Irony Paragon, irony. However, the point is made. We are told that our forces are helping to build new countries, much blessed and improved. Who wouldn't want to be part of that? But on the news last night was a report on Iraq and Afghanistan and the verdict was the same from the majority of the population. . Corruption in the supported authorities pls our forces are seen as occupying and destroying normal everyday life. 'Things were better before we showed up' and 'could we please go home'

The 66% number is not made up. It is what has been revealed on analysis and aired on UK TV.

Your initial posting and subsequent response are respected. However, the revealed data indicates that we have all been taken for a ride - again.

[Hephaestion]

What the fuck are you talking about? The indigenous population only wants to make money and live in peace. Have you seen any of the UN polls on this subject or are you just talking out your ass? Have you spent any time in Afghanistan? I have. Have you lived among the indigenous population or are you just spewing some Guardian BS leftist propaganda that fits your narrow veiw of the way the world should be? I have lived with Pashtuns and Tajiks. They may not like Karzi, but they like stability a whole lot better than they like the destability that Mullah Omar and his ilk bring. Get a clue pal.

By the way, Afghanistan borders Pakistan. A large number of the tribesmen over there don't recognize the border and so they enable the Haqqani and Talaiban insurgents. They want to initiate a caliphate. Pakistan has nukes. If this doesn't scare you, you arent paying attention.

If you have spent time out there with the populations of the countries in which we have military action and you know that the populations merely wish to be left alone to get on with their lives then perhaps you could tell our governments of this so that we leave them alone to do just that instead of killing them 'by mistake' during some ordained mission of mystery (and then tying to conceal the fact).

If the people of a particular country want to have a caliphate then they are perfectly entitled to have one. It is their country and self determination is one of our Shibboleths.

As for nuclear weapons, regrettably that genie is already out of the bottle. Whereas the USA may be perectly safe, we in the rest of the world live with the possiblity of mishap, possibly induced by unecessary antagonism.

What are you suggesting, invading Pakistan now?

I am not your pal.

[NEPHX]

.... Jordan is hardly likely to support Iran, nor is either Saudi Arabia or Egypt however much your prjudices led you to believe otherwwise.. and it is at least arguable that the US is a much greater threat.. its meddling in the affairs of other nations is at least as much responsible for the unsafe state of the planet as any group of dictators or terrorists.. AND it has the power and wealth to be so.. something Iran lacks..



I didn't say anything about "support" ... the countries in the Middle East could easily be swallowed up by Iran. If you don't think Iran is a real threat to regional (and later World) peace, you are gravely mistaken. If one entity did manage to control the majority of the countries/governments, and therefore, the oil supply in the Middle East, that will have a major impact on world peace and the world economy. With the coalition forces (pronounced: standing army/air force) right smack in the middle of it all.... they certainly are a deterrent. You think they were not "busy" in Iraq for the past 7 years? The coalition forces were doing more than just fighting a war, I suspect the country is wired for everything.

You are correct that Saddam was a "bulwark against Iran." Once he was weakened to the point of being easily toppled, we couldn't wait for the Iranians to march on Iraq again. Once one of those countries in that region fall, the rest will fall - be it directly to Iran or to the countries own extremists supported by Iran. Egypt, Saudi Arabia and most of the rest (all non-theocratic) all have fundamentalists/religious extremists biting at their heals.

All the traditional issues are also in play most specifically, religion and OIL are the biggies.

[nakedheathen]

If you have spent time out there with the populations of the countries in which we have military action and you know that the populations merely wish to be left alone to get on with their lives then perhaps you could tell our governments of this so that we leave them alone to do just that instead of killing them 'by mistake' during some ordained mission of mystery (and then tying to conceal the fact).

If the people of a particular country want to have a caliphate then they are perfectly entitled to have one. It is their country and self determination is one of our Shibboleths.

As for nuclear weapons, regrettably that genie is already out of the bottle. Whereas the USA may be perectly safe, we in the rest of the world live with the possiblity of mishap, possibly induced by unecessary antagonism.

What are you suggesting, invading Pakistan now?

I am not your pal.

OK friendo, you still didn’t support your basic argument that I refute both anecdotally and with statistics. Over 70% of the Afghan population in UN polling supports the US presences in Afghanistan. Your prima facie attempt at revisionism falls on its pocked mark face. Further, the population of Afghanistan cannot self secure, so as soon as we leave, as is your desire, the crazies come rolling back in. Little girls get their faces burnt with acid for wanting to go to school. Remember the Buddhist Sand carvings that they blew off the side of a mountain? Or did your memory of convenience leave that part out. Didn’t you watch what went on in Afghanistan from the end of the Soviet era until the US / NATO invasion?

Secondly, the way I was brought up was minority rights within majority rules, that is an anathema to a caliphate. There is no dissent. Dissent is met with lopping off an appendage and or death by stoning or beheading. You want that to exist, fine. Establish that in your ivory tower and invite the willing to participate. Me, I would much rather have an open liberal society that has tolerance for other points of view up to violence. Then no tolerance.

Finally amigo, the Haqqani and Taliban networks along with the remnants of Al Quaida are attempting to destabilize Pakistan to the point where they can establish their caliphate and thereby not only have a home base, AGAIN, but also they will have control over nuclear weapons. Not sure where you think US is perfectly safe, we actually feel like we are the intended targets for any AQ nukes.

I appreciate liberal and pacifistic sentiments, Hell I wish I could be a pacifist, but I am a realist first and foremost and I know that there are really bad people out there who really want to kill me, and you, and everyone else that doesn’t worship in the manner that they do. But don’t worry my friend, I will protect you whether you want me to or not. Not thanks necessary, it is my pleasure.

[nakedheathen]

The U.S.A. was attacked, but by terrorists, not by a government (granted, one of the countries invaded by the U.S. in their so-called "War on Terror" was under a government that was sympathetic to the ideas of Al-Quaeda), but when you begin to think about the reasons for invading Iraq, then the whole thing falls apart. Besides from deposing a dictator as Saddam Hussein , I dont think many good things have come out from the Iraq War. You will just have to ask the Iraqui people. How do they feel better with? A dictatorship based on fear that at least made them feel sure of going out on the streets every day? Or a war where groups of insurgents are fighting each other or fighting American soldiers, all the while blowing up a car or two every day and taking dozens of Iraqui lives with them?

Funny thing, it reminds me of Iran in 1978. The Shah of Persia had an autocratic rule, but he was enough of a modernist to concede suffrage to women, secularising the state, nationalizing many natural resources and recognizing the state of Israel. Couples could go on the streets and kiss each other and hold hands without fear of being arrested or beaten up by the police, unlike now. Adultery wasnt punished by death. Apostasy wasnt punished by death. The people of Iran complained about him, and that leads to him being deposed on that year. However, do you think Iran is better off now than it was before? A country that literally prides himself of being barbaric (by Western standards, anyway) and waging war on whoever goes in its way?

I think that you and I are in violent agreement on about 90% of the whole argument.

Any and all attempts at empire are evil and should be opposed. No one should be able to subjugate another people. For whatever reason.

Iraq was a huge miss. (mistake, misunderstanding, miscommunication take your pick)

A caliphate is a disaster on a monumental scale because it deprives so many people of their basic human rights.

Finally I apprecieate your motivation, in that we need to approach problems like these from a perspective of peace and understanding as opposed to throwing the first punch. The problem, as I have stated in other posts, is that the bad guys don't come at you from peace or understanding.

We disagree on the means to the end. I have no problem bringing violence on assholes who so desperately deserve it. You however (don’t let me make your argument for you, if I am wrong say so) feel that violence is never the answer.

[Hephaestion]

OK friendo, you still didn’t support your basic argument that I refute both anecdotally and with statistics. Over 70% of the Afghan population in UN polling supports the US presences in Afghanistan. Your prima facie attempt at revisionism falls on its pocked mark face. Further, the population of Afghanistan cannot self secure, so as soon as we leave, as is your desire, the crazies come rolling back in. Little girls get their faces burnt with acid for wanting to go to school. Remember the Buddhist Sand carvings that they blew off the side of a mountain? Or did your memory of convenience leave that part out. Didn’t you watch what went on in Afghanistan from the end of the Soviet era until the US / NATO invasion?

Secondly, the way I was brought up was minority rights within majority rules, that is an anathema to a caliphate. There is no dissent. Dissent is met with lopping off an appendage and or death by stoning or beheading. You want that to exist, fine. Establish that in your ivory tower and invite the willing to participate. Me, I would much rather have an open liberal society that has tolerance for other points of view up to violence. Then no tolerance.

Finally amigo, the Haqqani and Taliban networks along with the remnants of Al Quaida are attempting to destabilize Pakistan to the point where they can establish their caliphate and thereby not only have a home base, AGAIN, but also they will have control over nuclear weapons. Not sure where you think US is perfectly safe, we actually feel like we are the intended targets for any AQ nukes.

I appreciate liberal and pacifistic sentiments, Hell I wish I could be a pacifist, but I am a realist first and foremost and I know that there are really bad people out there who really want to kill me, and you, and everyone else that doesn’t worship in the manner that they do. But don’t worry my friend, I will protect you whether you want me to or not. Not thanks necessary, it is my pleasure.

Are you suggesting that we now invade Pakistan?

Destroying ancient artifacts? No different to carpet bombing or storing munitions in the Parthenon or destroying Monte Casino (which turned out to be an observation post) or... the list goes on

Our data sources give diamtercally opposing indications. Your's tell you that the indigenous populations are happy whereas the data recorded by the armed forces themselves says that 66% of strikes have killed innocent people. The TV interviews tend to support the latter and the population is against the, which is it occupation or support? Could we please go home.

'Hobson's choice' really. Dead and maimed if the coalition forces are there (fact) or dead and maimed if the coalition forces leave (your assertion).

"...As soon as we leave... ...the crazies come rolling back in...."

So therefore this is an idefinite committment to an "unwinable cause" (military comment)

A caliph is merely a muslim ruler. If preventing a caliphate fom being established is the intention, then how does that square with the stated aims of the coalition that this is not a war on Islam (and its insitutions) but a war on terror.

Before the UK, USSR and then the USA got involved, the countries currently being ravaged seemed to be getting on with their lives. The ancient Persian empire which spanned Mediterranean to India seemed to do very well in its symbioses and kept art, science and philosphy alive for posterity whereas the Europeans (and latterly embracing the above three) seemed hell bent in conquest and inducing destruction. It used to be gold. What is it now? Is it oil, mineral resources, what? War on terror? All of them with differing emphasis? Oh I forgot, it is now spreading the word and liberating the weak - by killing them. Mission creep perchance? We are now terrorists.

USA nuked by Al Qaeda - with or without intercontinental missiles? However it is perfectly possible to drive a vehicle across land.

I don't want you to protect me (or spend money doing so). I can do that for myself - provided that you do not antagonise the 'opposition' beyond all reason.

Let us not deviate from the original discussion. WikiLeaks has revealed that our governments have been lying to us in our freedom and democracy which relies on keeping the voting population informed.

[darkeyes]

OK friendo, you still didn’t support your basic argument that I refute both anecdotally and with statistics. Over 70% of the Afghan population in UN polling supports the US presences in Afghanistan. Your prima facie attempt at revisionism falls on its pocked mark face. Further, the population of Afghanistan cannot self secure, so as soon as we leave, as is your desire, the crazies come rolling back in. Little girls get their faces burnt with acid for wanting to go to school. Remember the Buddhist Sand carvings that they blew off the side of a mountain? Or did your memory of convenience leave that part out. Didn’t you watch what went on in Afghanistan from the end of the Soviet era until the US / NATO invasion?

Secondly, the way I was brought up was minority rights within majority rules, that is an anathema to a caliphate. There is no dissent. Dissent is met with lopping off an appendage and or death by stoning or beheading. You want that to exist, fine. Establish that in your ivory tower and invite the willing to participate. Me, I would much rather have an open liberal society that has tolerance for other points of view up to violence. Then no tolerance.

Finally amigo, the Haqqani and Taliban networks along with the remnants of Al Quaida are attempting to destabilize Pakistan to the point where they can establish their caliphate and thereby not only have a home base, AGAIN, but also they will have control over nuclear weapons. Not sure where you think US is perfectly safe, we actually feel like we are the intended targets for any AQ nukes.

I appreciate liberal and pacifistic sentiments, Hell I wish I could be a pacifist, but I am a realist first and foremost and I know that there are really bad people out there who really want to kill me, and you, and everyone else that doesn’t worship in the manner that they do. But don’t worry my friend, I will protect you whether you want me to or not. Not thanks necessary, it is my pleasure.

Historically, Caliphates were remarkable for their tolerance, compassion and learning... for more so than the so called Christian nations of Europe.. not democratic sure, and never perfect, but then in those days who was democratic and perfect? Were it not for what went on in Caliphates, the west would not be as learned or as advanced as it is..

.. but we are not talking of a Caliphate.. we are talking of something completely different.. brutal men who wish to run a brutal religious non secular state.. and when I talk of making the world unstable.. just whose actions have been the actions to mke the world more unstable? Why is Pakistan having so much insurgency and why are various Islamic groups working from and within the country? Whose actions radicalised so many Islamic men and women that they feel bound to do such extreme acts to preserve their countries and religion? No side is innocent in this nasty little struggle... and the US and UK certainly bear much responsibility.. and if Pakistan falls to a Taliban style government and nuclear weapons fall into their hands... then they have no one to blame but themselves..

..just what do you propose in such a scenario? Nuke the place? Solves a lot of problems doesn't it?

[firefighter38111]

I wasn’t going to reply but even with degrees in Philosophy and History I obviously don’t have the rhetoric the above posters have but having served as a Navy Seal and another spec-ops group. You figure bout what I think about leaked info that may cause the death of a fellow soldier or individual in another country that’s helping us whether it’s right or wrong. War may seem too many about God and country but when you’re in war it’s about a personal caring for friend’s survival and serving your country.
Sorry if I seem to open but those leaking this information should have to suck on the barrel of a Glock 37 till the serial numbers are rubbed off. I didn’t say kill them did I?
Sorry if I opinionated as hell about this but if need be kick and ban me…….

[TaylorMade]

I wasn’t going to reply but even with degrees in Philosophy and History I obviously don’t have the rhetoric the above posters have but having served as a Navy Seal and another spec-ops group. You figure bout what I think about leaked info that may cause the death of a fellow soldier or individual in another country that’s helping us whether it’s right or wrong. War may seem too many about God and country but when you’re in war it’s about a personal caring for friend’s survival and serving your country.
Sorry if I seem to open but those leaking this information should have to suck on the barrel of a Glock 37 till the serial numbers are rubbed off. I didn’t say kill them did I?
Sorry if I opinionated as hell about this but if need be kick and ban me…….

<blink> I...uh... you have panties on. I don't know if it makes the bolded terrifying or hilarious.

*Taylor*

[firefighter38111]

I love the reading the rights and wrongs of war and why we should or shouldn’t but what it comes down to is; combat isn’t about governments anyway. What it comes down to it the men and women serving are what the stories are about. Whether it was the civil war or Vietnam, WWll, the Mideast or some other little countries I dropped into visit at night. It’s not the pomp and circumstance of the country but what we do. I don’t think I am any better than an individual that chooses to run to Canada to avoid war. Governments or their ideology don’t count when it comes to the real war. The real war is about the mud and heat and sand about getting a GSW to my right knee or holes so big in my ears I can barely hear and friends dying in my arms. The real heroes are the ones that gave their lives to their countries. In one hour you can experience ever emotion known to man
So I respect all your ideologies on whose and right and wrong and there are other vets in here also but from my point of view. “Freedom has a taste the protected will never know”
I come here because this group allows us the freedom to express views on all topics but this is one topic I should have kept my fucking mouth shut on. like I said if you don’t like it kick and ban me and I could give a shit less.
Forget it I don’t need this fucking dot.com site anyway

[TaylorMade]

I understand where you're coming from, and even sympathize / agree with you in places. I'm sorry that my attempt to diffuse the tension was such a failure. If you decide to take your rhetorical ball and go home, I respect that. But there are already few vocal bi SM's both active and retired on this forum... that opinions like yours are nice to hear. It's like Lynrd Skynnrd after hours of Coldplay. But...whatever.

*Taylor*

[nakedheathen]

Are you suggesting that we now invade Pakistan?

Destroying ancient artifacts? No different to carpet bombing or storing munitions in the Parthenon or destroying Monte Casino (which turned out to be an observation post) or... the list goes on

Our data sources give diamtercally opposing indications. Your's tell you that the indigenous populations are happy whereas the data recorded by the armed forces themselves says that 66% of strikes have killed innocent people. The TV interviews tend to support the latter and the population is against the, which is it occupation or support? Could we please go home.

'Hobson's choice' really. Dead and maimed if the coalition forces are there (fact) or dead and maimed if the coalition forces leave (your assertion).

"...As soon as we leave... ...the crazies come rolling back in...."

So therefore this is an idefinite committment to an "unwinable cause" (military comment)

A caliph is merely a muslim ruler. If preventing a caliphate fom being established is the intention, then how does that square with the stated aims of the coalition that this is not a war on Islam (and its insitutions) but a war on terror.

Before the UK, USSR and then the USA got involved, the countries currently being ravaged seemed to be getting on with their lives. The ancient Persian empire which spanned Mediterranean to India seemed to do very well in its symbioses and kept art, science and philosphy alive for posterity whereas the Europeans (and latterly embracing the above three) seemed hell bent in conquest and inducing destruction. It used to be gold. What is it now? Is it oil, mineral resources, what? War on terror? All of them with differing emphasis? Oh I forgot, it is now spreading the word and liberating the weak - by killing them. Mission creep perchance? We are now terrorists.

USA nuked by Al Qaeda - with or without intercontinental missiles? However it is perfectly possible to drive a vehicle across land.

I don't want you to protect me (or spend money doing so). I can do that for myself - provided that you do not antagonise the 'opposition' beyond all reason.

Let us not deviate from the original discussion. WikiLeaks has revealed that our governments have been lying to us in our freedom and democracy which relies on keeping the voting population informed.

You win. I cant argue with you because you cant be argued with. I sincerly hope that you are secure in you ivory tower and that you are able to at all times rearrange the facts to suit your opinion. In the mean time the rest of us are going to exist in the real world. You keep clinging to how you want the world to be, cherry pick and fabricate facts to support your view, and pontificate to the rest of us based on your narrow minded view of how the world should be. The rest of us will utilize critical thinking to discern the truth, make decisions and take action that logically supports our survival. Good Luck.

[nakedheathen]

Historically, Caliphates were remarkable for their tolerance, compassion and learning... for more so than the so called Christian nations of Europe.. not democratic sure, and never perfect, but then in those days who was democratic and perfect? Were it not for what went on in Caliphates, the west would not be as learned or as advanced as it is..

.. but we are not talking of a Caliphate.. we are talking of something completely different.. brutal men who wish to run a brutal religious non secular state.. and when I talk of making the world unstable.. just whose actions have been the actions to mke the world more unstable? Why is Pakistan having so much insurgency and why are various Islamic groups working from and within the country? Whose actions radicalised so many Islamic men and women that they feel bound to do such extreme acts to preserve their countries and religion? No side is innocent in this nasty little struggle... and the US and UK certainly bear much responsibility.. and if Pakistan falls to a Taliban style government and nuclear weapons fall into their hands... then they have no one to blame but themselves..

..just what do you propose in such a scenario? Nuke the place? Solves a lot of problems doesn't it?

I am not an advocate for the use of Nuclear weapons. Far from it. Again we violently agree that Western policies have radicalized much of the mid east. However, if you or I disagreed with the G7, IMF, world bank etc. We would demonstrate our disaffection by protest and or civil disobedience I do not think that we would blow ourselves up. That is a fundamental difference.
When I refer to a caliphate, I talk about a totalitarian government that enforces sharia law.
Finally, no I do not want a Taliban or Haqanni led government to get control of nukes, which is why they need to be engaged now both politically and militarily.
Again, we are both after the same things, we just have different ways to get there. Mine are violent, yours are not.

[Hephaestion]

You win. I cant argue with you because you cant be argued with. I sincerly hope that you are secure in you ivory tower and that you are able to at all times rearrange the facts to suit your opinion. In the mean time the rest of us are going to exist in the real world. You keep clinging to how you want the world to be, cherry pick and fabricate facts to support your view, and pontificate to the rest of us based on your narrow minded view of how the world should be. The rest of us will utilize critical thinking to discern the truth, make decisions and take action that logically supports our survival. Good Luck.


Critical thinking relies on all of the evdence. Part of that is accepting the disappointing revelations in the (Wiki)Leaks. Another part is realising that the theoretical approach of the west tends to put its military into what become dissipating futile conflicts.

It is not doubted for one second that the individuals in the front line are shouldering a terrible burden. They must continue to believe that they are there for good purpose (if only to survive). The rest of the home populations are trying to make sure that the latter is true.

How do we determine the above if our governments, who are supposd to be accountable to us the voters, lie to us?

.

[darkeyes]

Critical thinking relies on all of the evdence. Part of that is accepting the disappointing revelations in the (Wiki)Leaks. Another part is realising that the theoretical approach of the west tends to put its military into what become dissipating futile conflicts.

It is not doubted for one second that the individuals in the front line are shouldering a terrible burden. They must continue to believe that they are there for good purpose (if only to survive). The rest of the home populations are trying to make sure that the latter is true.

How do we determine the above if our governments, who are supposd to be accountable to us the voters, lie to us?

.

..and linked in a way is the news that the British Government are going to lock down all secret service files to stop people finding out just what they are up to.. as a consequence of MI5 and 6 giving help to the US in interrogation and torture of British citizens at Guantanmo and other places in the so called fight against terrorism.. large payouts to British citizens have been made to prevent any court cases exposing the activities of the secret services.. and of course the government say these payments are made without any acceptance of wrong doing..

..and so the secret British state becomes even more secret.. so it will be even more difficult exposing certain kinds of wrong doing.. no.. thats nonsense.. we are British.. we believe in fair play.. we wouldn't torture and kill people and lock them away without legal redress would we? Perish the thought..

..so the British secret services can do wtf they like and we will be told nothing.. and since the British secret service is, since the end of the cold war, increasingly concentrating on the activities of British citizens and giving aid to the police in dealing with any kind of subversive activity or civil unrest(including the activities of academics and trade unionists, pressure groups etc etc etc.. opposition politicians??) That has very very scary implications.. shades of Germany in the 1930's.. no Fran.. don't be silly.. your paranoid.. well.. I never did..:eek: Not we sporting nice Brits..:rolleyes:

[Hephaestion]

Don't be so silly Fran. This is the UK. Our government wouldn't exploit or be devious with anyone

[darkeyes]

Don't be so silly Fran. This is the UK. Our government wouldn't exploit or be devious with anyone

I'm sorry Heph.. thats just me.. opening me gob before putting me lickle brain in gear.. after all we have never had it so good..;)

[firefighter38111]

<blink> I...uh... you have panties on. I don't know if it makes the bolded terrifying or hilarious.

*Taylor*

i have never connected the two..sorry...in combat everyone is commando..so you dry quicker with all the rain..maybe hilarious...i dont care either