|
On October 03 2012 03:48 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 11:41 LuckyCharms45 wrote:
This entire thread is so disrespectful to the men and women who server their country, and I'm not just talking about the United States here... that's because serving your country and protecting that country's freedom are not the same thing, as much as you'd like to think that. i'm not going to be nice to every service man and woman for the sole reason they were in the military. it's like an unwritten rule or something that as a service man/woman, you can hide from all scrutiny for the sole reason that you were in the military. if i think that what they fought for was wrong, the us gov't gives me the right to state my opinion.
I agree with some of what you said. I knew many scumbags in the military and I don't respect them and I don't expect to be respected by everybody just because I was in. You do have the right to state your opinion, but I think you should give credit where credit is due. People have died so the us gov't can give you that right. There wasn't just magically one day a us gov't that grants people freedoms, many brave men fought and died in the past for you to enjoy those freedoms today.
|
On October 03 2012 03:55 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 03:48 Silidons wrote:On October 02 2012 11:41 LuckyCharms45 wrote:
This entire thread is so disrespectful to the men and women who server their country, and I'm not just talking about the United States here... that's because serving your country and protecting that country's freedom are not the same thing, as much as you'd like to think that. i'm not going to be nice to every service man and woman for the sole reason they were in the military. it's like an unwritten rule or something that as a service man/woman, you can hide from all scrutiny for the sole reason that you were in the military. if i think that what they fought for was wrong, the us gov't gives me the right to state my opinion. I agree with some of what you said. I knew many scumbags in the military and I don't respect them and I don't expect to be respected by everybody just because I was in. You do have the right to state your opinion, but I think you should give credit where credit is due. People have died so the us gov't can give you that right. There wasn't just magically one day a us gov't that grants people freedoms, many brave men fought and died in the past for you to enjoy those freedoms today.
I just want to add that the people who fight (I respect their choices but I'm not going to join them) don't decide where to go. The higher-ups sometimes use the military to protect freedom and sometimes not.
Ex. Revolutionary/civil wars-arguably pro-freedom, whereas iraq/afghanistan are probably not as pro-American freedom as some may say (yet this says nothing about the motivations, good or bad, of the soldiers).
|
On October 03 2012 04:09 jorge_the_awesome wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 03:55 kmillz wrote:On October 03 2012 03:48 Silidons wrote:On October 02 2012 11:41 LuckyCharms45 wrote:
This entire thread is so disrespectful to the men and women who server their country, and I'm not just talking about the United States here... that's because serving your country and protecting that country's freedom are not the same thing, as much as you'd like to think that. i'm not going to be nice to every service man and woman for the sole reason they were in the military. it's like an unwritten rule or something that as a service man/woman, you can hide from all scrutiny for the sole reason that you were in the military. if i think that what they fought for was wrong, the us gov't gives me the right to state my opinion. I agree with some of what you said. I knew many scumbags in the military and I don't respect them and I don't expect to be respected by everybody just because I was in. You do have the right to state your opinion, but I think you should give credit where credit is due. People have died so the us gov't can give you that right. There wasn't just magically one day a us gov't that grants people freedoms, many brave men fought and died in the past for you to enjoy those freedoms today. I just want to add that the people who fight (I respect their choices but I'm not going to join them) don't decide where to go. The higher-ups sometimes use the military to protect freedom and sometimes not. Ex. Revolutionary/civil wars-arguably pro-freedom, whereas iraq/afghanistan are probably not as pro-American freedom as some may say (yet this says nothing about the motivations, good or bad, of the soldiers).
He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.
Albert Einstein
This is how I feel with regards to the Iraq/Afghan wars. It's one thing to fight for a reason or for freedom but it's an entire different story to be marching into the Middle East. This goes for Canadians alike, it's a damn shame so many kids played in their sandbox with toy soldiers and watched war movies and decided to advocate their time in the regression of society instead of the prosper. To many proud soldiers and not enough thinking ones from what I've personally seen. Like the quote from Lord of War goes, "Never go to war, especially with yourself."
Maybe the pacifist in me is outdated, maybe everyone craves another global conflict to keep themselves busy.
|
On October 02 2012 08:36 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 07:41 Voltaire wrote:
Personally I think Julian Assange is a hero. So much good information has come out of the release of these cables. A great example is that the Chinese are actually in favor of a reunification of Korea (with the South's government taking over).
I also don't think that any lives were threatened by the release of these cables. There aren't any examples of people who were attacked because of information released by wikileaks. Sure, there are sensitive military documents that should remain secret until the war is over, but the US government was declaring 16 million+ documents a year as "top secret". There was no accountability whatsoever. Something had to be done. That "something" should not have involved releasing tons of sensitive diplomatic cables and war documents. Those things should remain classified.
... No they shouldnt, the only reason they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them, the greater good of all humanity needs the release of all these documents, at the cost of national security, political plots and soldiers lives.
If we truly want freedom and progress for the world, we cant cower behind fear, and should let it all out.
Since goverments are desperate for control, and wont hand us anything free, we must take it from them.
|
What a naïve and stupid post. You don't see wikileaks posting classified documents on NBC warfare methods do you? Everyone has standards for secrecy even those that make their revenue off releasing others secrets.
|
On October 03 2012 04:35 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 08:36 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 07:41 Voltaire wrote:
Personally I think Julian Assange is a hero. So much good information has come out of the release of these cables. A great example is that the Chinese are actually in favor of a reunification of Korea (with the South's government taking over).
I also don't think that any lives were threatened by the release of these cables. There aren't any examples of people who were attacked because of information released by wikileaks. Sure, there are sensitive military documents that should remain secret until the war is over, but the US government was declaring 16 million+ documents a year as "top secret". There was no accountability whatsoever. Something had to be done. That "something" should not have involved releasing tons of sensitive diplomatic cables and war documents. Those things should remain classified. ... No they shouldnt, the only reason they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them, the greater good of all humanity needs the release of all these documents, at the cost of national security, political plots and soldiers lives. If we truly want freedom and progress for the world, we cant cower behind fear, and should let it all out. Since goverments are desperate for control, and wont hand us anything free, we must take it from them.
that sounds pretty stupid mate.
would you care to explain that weird worldview?!
|
On October 03 2012 05:13 sCuMBaG wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 04:35 D10 wrote:On October 02 2012 08:36 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 07:41 Voltaire wrote:
Personally I think Julian Assange is a hero. So much good information has come out of the release of these cables. A great example is that the Chinese are actually in favor of a reunification of Korea (with the South's government taking over).
I also don't think that any lives were threatened by the release of these cables. There aren't any examples of people who were attacked because of information released by wikileaks. Sure, there are sensitive military documents that should remain secret until the war is over, but the US government was declaring 16 million+ documents a year as "top secret". There was no accountability whatsoever. Something had to be done. That "something" should not have involved releasing tons of sensitive diplomatic cables and war documents. Those things should remain classified. ... No they shouldnt, the only reason they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them, the greater good of all humanity needs the release of all these documents, at the cost of national security, political plots and soldiers lives. If we truly want freedom and progress for the world, we cant cower behind fear, and should let it all out. Since goverments are desperate for control, and wont hand us anything free, we must take it from them. that sounds pretty stupid mate. would you care to explain that weird worldview?!
Lol @ "they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them". Really? Care to share your credentials? I had a TS/SCI military clearance, there actually is a protocol for how things are classified.
|
On October 03 2012 05:21 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 05:13 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2012 04:35 D10 wrote:On October 02 2012 08:36 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 07:41 Voltaire wrote:
Personally I think Julian Assange is a hero. So much good information has come out of the release of these cables. A great example is that the Chinese are actually in favor of a reunification of Korea (with the South's government taking over).
I also don't think that any lives were threatened by the release of these cables. There aren't any examples of people who were attacked because of information released by wikileaks. Sure, there are sensitive military documents that should remain secret until the war is over, but the US government was declaring 16 million+ documents a year as "top secret". There was no accountability whatsoever. Something had to be done. That "something" should not have involved releasing tons of sensitive diplomatic cables and war documents. Those things should remain classified. ... No they shouldnt, the only reason they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them, the greater good of all humanity needs the release of all these documents, at the cost of national security, political plots and soldiers lives. If we truly want freedom and progress for the world, we cant cower behind fear, and should let it all out. Since goverments are desperate for control, and wont hand us anything free, we must take it from them. that sounds pretty stupid mate. would you care to explain that weird worldview?! Lol @ "they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them". Really? Care to share your credentials? I had a TS/SCI military clearance, there actually is a protocol for how things are classified.
As a follower of Jesse Ventura I happen to remember a little on the classification of documents, here is an except from the book "64 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to Read"
In our country today are almost 900,000 individuals with top secret security clearances. The precise number is 854,000. In 1996, the government withheld from public inspective about 5.6 million documents labeled top secret. By last year that number had expanded to a mind boggling 55 million documents. There are 16 million new ones labeled top secret every year.
I'm sure all of those are done by protocol lol...
|
On October 03 2012 05:40 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 05:21 kmillz wrote:On October 03 2012 05:13 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2012 04:35 D10 wrote:On October 02 2012 08:36 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 07:41 Voltaire wrote:
Personally I think Julian Assange is a hero. So much good information has come out of the release of these cables. A great example is that the Chinese are actually in favor of a reunification of Korea (with the South's government taking over).
I also don't think that any lives were threatened by the release of these cables. There aren't any examples of people who were attacked because of information released by wikileaks. Sure, there are sensitive military documents that should remain secret until the war is over, but the US government was declaring 16 million+ documents a year as "top secret". There was no accountability whatsoever. Something had to be done. That "something" should not have involved releasing tons of sensitive diplomatic cables and war documents. Those things should remain classified. ... No they shouldnt, the only reason they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them, the greater good of all humanity needs the release of all these documents, at the cost of national security, political plots and soldiers lives. If we truly want freedom and progress for the world, we cant cower behind fear, and should let it all out. Since goverments are desperate for control, and wont hand us anything free, we must take it from them. that sounds pretty stupid mate. would you care to explain that weird worldview?! Lol @ "they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them". Really? Care to share your credentials? I had a TS/SCI military clearance, there actually is a protocol for how things are classified. As a follower of Jesse Ventura I happen to remember a little on the classification of documents, here is an except from the book "64 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to Read" Show nested quote +In our country today are almost 900,000 individuals with top secret security clearances. The precise number is 854,000. In 1996, the government withheld from public inspective about 5.6 million documents labeled top secret. By last year that number had expanded to a mind boggling 55 million documents. There are 16 million new ones labeled top secret every year. I'm sure all of those are done by protocol lol...
You do realize that in 1996 we didn't have high speed internet and faster access to information right? That number seems completely normal to me, given how many different countries we are involved in and the fact that if one sentence in one page of a book has something top secret, the whole book has to be labeled top secret. You also realize that just because something is top secret, it doesn't mean it is definitely going to cause damage if it is leaked, it just means that it could be a very small piece of a larger puzzle that when put together could cause serious damage.
|
On October 03 2012 05:42 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 05:40 Silidons wrote:On October 03 2012 05:21 kmillz wrote:On October 03 2012 05:13 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2012 04:35 D10 wrote:On October 02 2012 08:36 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 07:41 Voltaire wrote:
Personally I think Julian Assange is a hero. So much good information has come out of the release of these cables. A great example is that the Chinese are actually in favor of a reunification of Korea (with the South's government taking over).
I also don't think that any lives were threatened by the release of these cables. There aren't any examples of people who were attacked because of information released by wikileaks. Sure, there are sensitive military documents that should remain secret until the war is over, but the US government was declaring 16 million+ documents a year as "top secret". There was no accountability whatsoever. Something had to be done. That "something" should not have involved releasing tons of sensitive diplomatic cables and war documents. Those things should remain classified. ... No they shouldnt, the only reason they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them, the greater good of all humanity needs the release of all these documents, at the cost of national security, political plots and soldiers lives. If we truly want freedom and progress for the world, we cant cower behind fear, and should let it all out. Since goverments are desperate for control, and wont hand us anything free, we must take it from them. that sounds pretty stupid mate. would you care to explain that weird worldview?! Lol @ "they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them". Really? Care to share your credentials? I had a TS/SCI military clearance, there actually is a protocol for how things are classified. As a follower of Jesse Ventura I happen to remember a little on the classification of documents, here is an except from the book "64 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to Read" In our country today are almost 900,000 individuals with top secret security clearances. The precise number is 854,000. In 1996, the government withheld from public inspective about 5.6 million documents labeled top secret. By last year that number had expanded to a mind boggling 55 million documents. There are 16 million new ones labeled top secret every year. I'm sure all of those are done by protocol lol... You do realize that in 1996 we didn't have high speed internet and faster access to information right? That number seems completely normal to me, given how many different countries we are involved in and the fact that if one sentence in one page of a book has something top secret, the whole book has to be labeled top secret.
That has no correlation with how many documents are published by the gov't every year, the more secret documents can only mean 2 things: either more documents are being labeled secret, or we have increased how many documents we are producing three-fold.
You also realize that just because something is top secret, it doesn't mean it is definitely going to cause damage if it is leaked, it just means that it could be a very small piece of a larger puzzle that when put together could cause serious damage.
So now you say that some documents don't cause harm when leaked? Only if they are part of a larger puzzle? Then by your own admission, you do support that not all classified documents are harmful. We're simply saying those that are not harmful should not be secret in the first place.
|
On October 03 2012 05:49 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 05:42 kmillz wrote:On October 03 2012 05:40 Silidons wrote:On October 03 2012 05:21 kmillz wrote:On October 03 2012 05:13 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2012 04:35 D10 wrote:On October 02 2012 08:36 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 07:41 Voltaire wrote:
Personally I think Julian Assange is a hero. So much good information has come out of the release of these cables. A great example is that the Chinese are actually in favor of a reunification of Korea (with the South's government taking over).
I also don't think that any lives were threatened by the release of these cables. There aren't any examples of people who were attacked because of information released by wikileaks. Sure, there are sensitive military documents that should remain secret until the war is over, but the US government was declaring 16 million+ documents a year as "top secret". There was no accountability whatsoever. Something had to be done. That "something" should not have involved releasing tons of sensitive diplomatic cables and war documents. Those things should remain classified. ... No they shouldnt, the only reason they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them, the greater good of all humanity needs the release of all these documents, at the cost of national security, political plots and soldiers lives. If we truly want freedom and progress for the world, we cant cower behind fear, and should let it all out. Since goverments are desperate for control, and wont hand us anything free, we must take it from them. that sounds pretty stupid mate. would you care to explain that weird worldview?! Lol @ "they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them". Really? Care to share your credentials? I had a TS/SCI military clearance, there actually is a protocol for how things are classified. As a follower of Jesse Ventura I happen to remember a little on the classification of documents, here is an except from the book "64 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to Read" In our country today are almost 900,000 individuals with top secret security clearances. The precise number is 854,000. In 1996, the government withheld from public inspective about 5.6 million documents labeled top secret. By last year that number had expanded to a mind boggling 55 million documents. There are 16 million new ones labeled top secret every year. I'm sure all of those are done by protocol lol... You do realize that in 1996 we didn't have high speed internet and faster access to information right? That number seems completely normal to me, given how many different countries we are involved in and the fact that if one sentence in one page of a book has something top secret, the whole book has to be labeled top secret. That has no correlation with how many documents are published by the gov't every year, the more secret documents can only mean 2 things: either more documents are being labeled secret, or we have increased how many documents we are producing three-fold.
Well another thing to keep in mind is that these classifications have 40 years until they expire, a lot of the material is old but still not expired and really not that important anymore, but it is still labeled as TS because at one time it was important. If something new is published that has old information on it, and that old information is labeled TS, the new document must also be labeled TS. Personally I would say that I have only see a few things that may even really be that relevant. Alot of it has to do with keeping our technology and capabilities a secret. Anything to do with crypto is classified TS, even if the crypto technology is common knowledge.
|
On October 03 2012 05:50 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 05:49 Silidons wrote:On October 03 2012 05:42 kmillz wrote:On October 03 2012 05:40 Silidons wrote:On October 03 2012 05:21 kmillz wrote:On October 03 2012 05:13 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2012 04:35 D10 wrote:On October 02 2012 08:36 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 07:41 Voltaire wrote:
Personally I think Julian Assange is a hero. So much good information has come out of the release of these cables. A great example is that the Chinese are actually in favor of a reunification of Korea (with the South's government taking over).
I also don't think that any lives were threatened by the release of these cables. There aren't any examples of people who were attacked because of information released by wikileaks. Sure, there are sensitive military documents that should remain secret until the war is over, but the US government was declaring 16 million+ documents a year as "top secret". There was no accountability whatsoever. Something had to be done. That "something" should not have involved releasing tons of sensitive diplomatic cables and war documents. Those things should remain classified. ... No they shouldnt, the only reason they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them, the greater good of all humanity needs the release of all these documents, at the cost of national security, political plots and soldiers lives. If we truly want freedom and progress for the world, we cant cower behind fear, and should let it all out. Since goverments are desperate for control, and wont hand us anything free, we must take it from them. that sounds pretty stupid mate. would you care to explain that weird worldview?! Lol @ "they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them". Really? Care to share your credentials? I had a TS/SCI military clearance, there actually is a protocol for how things are classified. As a follower of Jesse Ventura I happen to remember a little on the classification of documents, here is an except from the book "64 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to Read" In our country today are almost 900,000 individuals with top secret security clearances. The precise number is 854,000. In 1996, the government withheld from public inspective about 5.6 million documents labeled top secret. By last year that number had expanded to a mind boggling 55 million documents. There are 16 million new ones labeled top secret every year. I'm sure all of those are done by protocol lol... You do realize that in 1996 we didn't have high speed internet and faster access to information right? That number seems completely normal to me, given how many different countries we are involved in and the fact that if one sentence in one page of a book has something top secret, the whole book has to be labeled top secret. That has no correlation with how many documents are published by the gov't every year, the more secret documents can only mean 2 things: either more documents are being labeled secret, or we have increased how many documents we are producing three-fold. Well another thing to keep in mind is that these classifications have 40 years until they expire, a lot of the material is old but still not expired and really not that important anymore, but it is still labeled as TS because at one time it was important. If something new is published that has old information on it, and that old information is labeled TS, the new document must also be labeled TS.
A lot of classifications are indefinite actually. JFK assassination are still secret for example, which has a few hundred thousand documents. That was 49 years ago
|
On October 03 2012 05:53 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 05:50 kmillz wrote:On October 03 2012 05:49 Silidons wrote:On October 03 2012 05:42 kmillz wrote:On October 03 2012 05:40 Silidons wrote:On October 03 2012 05:21 kmillz wrote:On October 03 2012 05:13 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2012 04:35 D10 wrote:On October 02 2012 08:36 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 07:41 Voltaire wrote:
Personally I think Julian Assange is a hero. So much good information has come out of the release of these cables. A great example is that the Chinese are actually in favor of a reunification of Korea (with the South's government taking over).
I also don't think that any lives were threatened by the release of these cables. There aren't any examples of people who were attacked because of information released by wikileaks. Sure, there are sensitive military documents that should remain secret until the war is over, but the US government was declaring 16 million+ documents a year as "top secret". There was no accountability whatsoever. Something had to be done. That "something" should not have involved releasing tons of sensitive diplomatic cables and war documents. Those things should remain classified. ... No they shouldnt, the only reason they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them, the greater good of all humanity needs the release of all these documents, at the cost of national security, political plots and soldiers lives. If we truly want freedom and progress for the world, we cant cower behind fear, and should let it all out. Since goverments are desperate for control, and wont hand us anything free, we must take it from them. that sounds pretty stupid mate. would you care to explain that weird worldview?! Lol @ "they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them". Really? Care to share your credentials? I had a TS/SCI military clearance, there actually is a protocol for how things are classified. As a follower of Jesse Ventura I happen to remember a little on the classification of documents, here is an except from the book "64 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You to Read" In our country today are almost 900,000 individuals with top secret security clearances. The precise number is 854,000. In 1996, the government withheld from public inspective about 5.6 million documents labeled top secret. By last year that number had expanded to a mind boggling 55 million documents. There are 16 million new ones labeled top secret every year. I'm sure all of those are done by protocol lol... You do realize that in 1996 we didn't have high speed internet and faster access to information right? That number seems completely normal to me, given how many different countries we are involved in and the fact that if one sentence in one page of a book has something top secret, the whole book has to be labeled top secret. That has no correlation with how many documents are published by the gov't every year, the more secret documents can only mean 2 things: either more documents are being labeled secret, or we have increased how many documents we are producing three-fold. Well another thing to keep in mind is that these classifications have 40 years until they expire, a lot of the material is old but still not expired and really not that important anymore, but it is still labeled as TS because at one time it was important. If something new is published that has old information on it, and that old information is labeled TS, the new document must also be labeled TS. A lot of classifications are indefinite actually. JFK assassination are still secret for example, which has a few hundred thousand documents. That was 49 years ago
There ya go :\ I will agree with you that we do have way more documents that are classified than documents are actually detrimental to our security, but it isn't about the government hiding "more things" necessarily, it is more to do with excess labeling of things that really don't matter anymore.
Also, even if you have a security clearance, most things that you see are going to be on a need-to-know basis, so I never really got to see any of the cool stuff, only things pertaining to my job.
|
On October 03 2012 02:57 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 02:39 sam!zdat wrote:On October 03 2012 02:33 kmillz wrote:On October 03 2012 02:08 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 11:49 DreamChaser wrote:On October 02 2012 11:22 Euronyme wrote:On October 02 2012 11:12 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 10:30 radscorpion9 wrote:On October 02 2012 03:11 kmillz wrote:On October 02 2012 03:04 Caihead wrote:
[quote]
What do you mean by "serving your country" there exactly, are you talking about serving your government's interests? Serving the interests of the American people? Or acting on behalf of a vague nationalist idea? Surely serving your country means representing and listening to the views of American citizens, and American citizens among rational people would rather their military not hide its war crimes and murder of civilians regardless of whether or not it's collateral damage.
The journalists and intelligent services men who exposed Watergate, the pentagon papers, and operation northwood have been proclaimed as heroes standing for the public's right to know the actions of its own governing body whom claims to represent them, and for truth, justice and the American way, quite literally. America heralded itself as the front runner in civil liberties and transparent government actions as the world's biggest super power. Surely serving your country also means abiding by moral ruling ideology that your country prides itself on? How about joining the military in a time of war in a time of war? I didn't realize you had to explain what you mean when you say you serve your country these days. You never really effectively addressed Calihead's argument. Just because you "serve your country" doesn't mean you're doing a good thing. Its true that just because some bad things happen in a war, that shouldn't imply that soldiers always do bad things. Because you do have to look at the broader picture...but this is precisely what we're asking you to do and you don't seem to be willing to do when looking at the reasons your government is sending soldiers overseas. There are soldiers in Syria who are "serving their country" right now, there were soldiers in Libya who also served their country. Obviously Nazi germany is another example. You could say that those aren't examples because their government is no longer legitimate...but firstly that's all relative - those soldiers would probably justify their actions in a similar way that you do - more or less a thoughtless "I'm supporting my country, that's all that matters, and I won't feel sorry for doing it". More broadly though, there are many other subtler cases where just because you serve your country doesn't mean you're doing good...you have to think and take personal responsibility, and have a personal moral stance on *what it is that you are doing*, because you could be doing something profoundly wrong that not only hurts/kills innocents but also puts people back at home at greater risk. Afghanistan and Iraq can probably be argued to be positive in the long run. But it kind of is important that you recognize the point that Calihead was making. I get the feeling that you do...as it is more or less a form of common sense. But still just in case I wanted to say it  . Every country needs a military to defend itself. You can argue about how big that military should be and how it should be run, but it doesn't change that particular fact. "Serving the country" generally involves making an enormous sacrifice (putting one's life in danger). That is why it is viewed upon so favorably by the poster and by myself personally. Sure, there are some bad soldiers out there, but I respect the hell out of anyone who is willing to go fight and possibly die in some desert so that I don't have to. Also, while the U.S military has been involved in some particularly awful and horrific acts, it still has done a lot of good things. Considering that it's essentially the defense force for the entire Western world, I think people sometimes tend to not appreciate its significance as much as they should. You can't make the comparison between American soldiers and Syrian soldiers because American soldiers are not sent in with express orders to kill civilians like the Syrian army has been doing. Yes, civilians do get killed when we invade, but that's not a part of our military policy and unfortunately is "collateral damage" (as callous a term as that is). I also don't really see the Nazi comparison, because the U.S is not out trying to conquer the world here. We invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban was harboring Al-Qaeda, and we invaded Iraq because we thought they had WMD's (which was a huge mistake, I think most Americans will agree on this one). I agree with you that blind patriotism is not a good thing and that it can make people think and act irrationally. But by no means do I think "serving the country" or supporting the troops in the U.S military fall into that category. Do you have any suggestions to the people of the next innocent (relatively speaking) country that is accused of having WMDs, have UN inspectors sent over who find nothing and a few days later are declared war upon? Christ dude you should just stop posting at this point clearly you have given up arguing and have just decided to try and bait people into raging more. Yeah I'll admit I kind of lost it after the guy said that the US was defending itself against Iraq >_> Nice try, if you actually read what I posted I said September 11th was what led to the invasion of Iraq. Bush started the war on terror in response to that attack and the bad intelligence of WMD's in Iraq. Yes, we didn't go to Iraq until 2003 and yes, Iraq didn't have WMD's, but I didn't write the history books I'm just telling you what happened because you said we were never attacked. Our motivations for going to Iraq also have a great deal to do with spreading neoliberalism around the world. Bush wanted to go to war, he was looking for an excuse. edit: the strategic goal of American foreign policy is the promotion of "free trade" (i.e. the opening up of developing countries to exploitation by foreign capital) I think most Americans would agree that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, but to say that we were never attacked is just wrong. Initially most Americans were fooled into believing we were making the right choice by going to Iraq because of the attack on our soil in 2001, terrorism throughout the world, stupid scares like the anthrax one, among many other things.
My view would be that we had a great deal to do with provoking such attacks. We were (and still are) asking for it.
|
It's a sweeping generalization to say the fact that there should be some provision for state secrets for security and so forth (a reasonable point) implies that every classified document unequivocally deserves to remain secret regardless of the fallibility of the people who wrote and classified it. You have all your work ahead of you to show that the specific US documents Wikileaks released have done anyone any harm.
|
|
|
On October 03 2012 05:13 sCuMBaG wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 04:35 D10 wrote:On October 02 2012 08:36 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 07:41 Voltaire wrote:
Personally I think Julian Assange is a hero. So much good information has come out of the release of these cables. A great example is that the Chinese are actually in favor of a reunification of Korea (with the South's government taking over).
I also don't think that any lives were threatened by the release of these cables. There aren't any examples of people who were attacked because of information released by wikileaks. Sure, there are sensitive military documents that should remain secret until the war is over, but the US government was declaring 16 million+ documents a year as "top secret". There was no accountability whatsoever. Something had to be done. That "something" should not have involved releasing tons of sensitive diplomatic cables and war documents. Those things should remain classified. ... No they shouldnt, the only reason they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them, the greater good of all humanity needs the release of all these documents, at the cost of national security, political plots and soldiers lives. If we truly want freedom and progress for the world, we cant cower behind fear, and should let it all out. Since goverments are desperate for control, and wont hand us anything free, we must take it from them. that sounds pretty stupid mate. would you care to explain that weird worldview?!
Im glad you asked.
I believe in a world where people speak one language, use one currency, follow one global government (hopefully the UN).
If we are to ever get there as one true global unity, we need the american hegemony to be destroyed, simple as that, as long as america can bully everyone, it will bully everyone.
Bush already helped the world on that front, by diluting your military and forcing you to keep spending high with little results, and what better way to crush the american imperialism than to publish what they dont want to be published, to show the world how everyone is being manipulated into what they want when they want.
With regards to it endangering the lives of people, everyone who servers a government should be prepared to die for it and therefore revealing secrets that endager these people is totally acceptable since they should be prepared to die for their country I assume they are prepared to live the risks that being someone whose name is on classified documents entails, they have chosen to be soldiers, and its pathethic that so many desk jobbers believe they are immune to the horrors of war because they are geografically far from them.
Every secret that gets revealed is a huge victory for all humanity, and bit by bit, secret by secret, the american empire will collapse from their position of sheriff of the world, and be relegated to their rightful position, of another amazing country that composes our planet.
What Julian Assange is doing is ultimate martyrdom to me, he is dedicating his life, to making this planet a better place for everyone, one classified document at a time.
But whistle blowers make the most noble sacrifice of them all.
|
You'll have to clarify what you're talking about, why your link is relevant to the current discussion, and why you repeated "sweeping generalization" without it being the least bit relevant to the point I made.
|
On October 03 2012 02:25 DeepElemBlues wrote:That's ridiculous and stupid. A good example of the ridiculous and stupidly ignorant things that foreigners believe about the US. Civil Rights in the US are about the same level as in East Germany? Put down the pipe and back slowly away from your keyboard, and please pick up a real history book, okay?
With the patriot act the CIA has the same authority as the Stasi. Have you ever picked up a history book in your life?
|
On October 03 2012 08:50 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2012 05:13 sCuMBaG wrote:On October 03 2012 04:35 D10 wrote:On October 02 2012 08:36 RJGooner wrote:On October 02 2012 07:41 Voltaire wrote:
Personally I think Julian Assange is a hero. So much good information has come out of the release of these cables. A great example is that the Chinese are actually in favor of a reunification of Korea (with the South's government taking over).
I also don't think that any lives were threatened by the release of these cables. There aren't any examples of people who were attacked because of information released by wikileaks. Sure, there are sensitive military documents that should remain secret until the war is over, but the US government was declaring 16 million+ documents a year as "top secret". There was no accountability whatsoever. Something had to be done. That "something" should not have involved releasing tons of sensitive diplomatic cables and war documents. Those things should remain classified. ... No they shouldnt, the only reason they are classified is because someone has the capacity to classify them, the greater good of all humanity needs the release of all these documents, at the cost of national security, political plots and soldiers lives. If we truly want freedom and progress for the world, we cant cower behind fear, and should let it all out. Since goverments are desperate for control, and wont hand us anything free, we must take it from them. that sounds pretty stupid mate. would you care to explain that weird worldview?! Im glad you asked. I believe in a world where people speak one language, use one currency, follow one global government (hopefully the UN).
Well, as someone who is broadly sympathetic to utopianism in general, you would want neither one language nor one currency. Large currency regions are disastrous (witness EU) - you need currency barriers in order to stabilize global economic systems. What we actually want is many small currencies, with transaction taxes for exchange. Also, it would be far better to have many languages, and have each person speak several of them. The reasons for this are analogous to currency - you want to separate out different cultures and discourses, so that the "biodiversity" of your global culture remains healthy. Making everything one language would have the effect of creating a discursive landscape in which the most virulent memes would stomp out the less aggressive ones (and it's the less aggressive ones we want around). Basically if you had one language you would be stomping out polyglossia, which is a terrible idea. You would want a unified government to deal with global issues, but you would also want that government to stay out of local business as much as possible, simply because local affairs can be most effectively administered by local government.
If we are to ever get there as one true global unity, we need the american hegemony to be destroyed, simple as that, as long as america can bully everyone, it will bully everyone.
Bush already helped the world on that front, by diluting your military and forcing you to keep spending high with little results, and what better way to crush the american imperialism than to publish what they dont want to be published, to show the world how everyone is being manipulated into what they want when they want.
Sure, bin Laden's attacks were a masterstroke and Bush played right into his hands.
I would offer the caveat that it is not so much american hegemony as the hegemony of transnational capital - we have turned the colonization back upon the homeland. (edit: the term "american hegemony" has the unfortunate implication that america acts in the interest of americans)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
