Wikileaks editor detained by US customs agents...

[Ringel05]

If true, then that is bad form by those who are releasing the names. it looks like Assange and co kept some documents back for that reason.

That aside, I don't have a problem with that information being let out. Sure, the names should be blacked out, but the operations carried out - both foul and fair - should be put in the public domain. The transparent military should be open to public scrutiny....

Yes and no. Ops procedures (boots on the ground making it happen) are sometimes included in DOD reports. If these were released then in reality it's called giving aid and comfort to the enemy, i.e. here's how we do it. I'd say that puts ours and allies troops in unnecessary jeopardy. It gives the enemy a leg up and potentially plants more of our boys in the ground.

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes and no. Ops procedures (boots on the ground making it happen) are sometimes included in DOD reports. If these were released then in reality it's called giving aid and comfort to the enemy, i.e. here's how we do it. I'd say that puts ours and allies troops in unnecessary jeopardy. It gives the enemy a leg up and potentially plants more of our boys in the ground.

That is true. I think that back end of all this, is that some (including me to a degree) have seen this as a 'bad' war from the get-go. Like nothing good could ever come from it (although I hope it does).

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters with these leaks is if troops have done certain things they shouldn't have that has caused loss of life. That could probably be on Assange and co to get that info out without jeopardising people on the ground. It's a fine line IMO....

 

[Reasoning]

This video sums up my opinion on the matter...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXzzYBhOi4E]YouTube - SA@TAC - Obama is a Threat to National Security[/ame]

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If true, then that is bad form by those who are releasing the names. it looks like Assange and co kept some documents back for that reason.

That aside, I don't have a problem with that information being let out. Sure, the names should be blacked out, but the operations carried out - both foul and fair - should be put in the public domain. The military should be transparent and open to public scrutiny....

You are a retard. The military should not be open to the public except for what competent Civilian GOVERNMENT leaders determine is acceptable. Go ahead fuck stain ask your own military what they think of these releases of classified information. Leaks that jeopardize troops and civilians lives. ALL SO SOME REJECT LIKE YOU CAN GET THEIR JOLLIES OFF.

 

[Ringel05]

Yes and no. Ops procedures (boots on the ground making it happen) are sometimes included in DOD reports. If these were released then in reality it's called giving aid and comfort to the enemy, i.e. here's how we do it. I'd say that puts ours and allies troops in unnecessary jeopardy. It gives the enemy a leg up and potentially plants more of our boys in the ground.

That is true. I think that back end of all this, is that some (including me to a degree) have seen this as a 'bad' war from the get-go. Like nothing good could ever come from it (although I hope it does).

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters with these leaks is if troops have done certain things they shouldn't have that has caused loss of life. That could probably be on Assange and co to get that info out without jeopardising people on the ground. It's a fine line IMO....

Unfortunately I don't see much good coming out of the current Afghan war now. The Afghans aren't the Iraqis (who I believe will eventually pull themselves up by the boot straps).
In reality Karzai is nothing more than the mayor of Kabul which is why he wants us there, to do his dirty work for him on a national level. If we leave he's dead, literally. The Afghans are not picking up the ball and will never, it's too tribal and corrupt. Graft is the way of life in that region. Maybe in a hundred years - give or take - that will change.

 

[Dr Grump]

If true, then that is bad form by those who are releasing the names. it looks like Assange and co kept some documents back for that reason.

That aside, I don't have a problem with that information being let out. Sure, the names should be blacked out, but the operations carried out - both foul and fair - should be put in the public domain. The military should be transparent and open to public scrutiny....

You are a retard. The military should not be open to the public except for what competent Civilian GOVERNMENT leaders determine is acceptable. Go ahead fuck stain ask your own military what they think of these releases of classified information. Leaks that jeopardize troops and civilians lives. ALL SO SOME REJECT LIKE YOU CAN GET THEIR JOLLIES OFF.

Shut the fuck up Fat man, adults are talking....

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes and no. Ops procedures (boots on the ground making it happen) are sometimes included in DOD reports. If these were released then in reality it's called giving aid and comfort to the enemy, i.e. here's how we do it. I'd say that puts ours and allies troops in unnecessary jeopardy. It gives the enemy a leg up and potentially plants more of our boys in the ground.

That is true. I think that back end of all this, is that some (including me to a degree) have seen this as a 'bad' war from the get-go. Like nothing good could ever come from it (although I hope it does).

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters with these leaks is if troops have done certain things they shouldn't have that has caused loss of life. That could probably be on Assange and co to get that info out without jeopardising people on the ground. It's a fine line IMO....

Unfortunately I don't see much good coming out of the current Afghan war now. The Afghans aren't the Iraqis (who I believe will eventually pull themselves up by the boot straps).
In reality Karzai is nothing more than the mayor of Kabul which is why he wants us there, to do his dirty work for him on a national level. If we leave he's dead, literally. The Afghans are not picking up the ball and will never, it's too tribal and corrupt. Graft is the way of life in that region. Maybe in a hundred years - give or take - that will change.

Yep, I've been saying as much before you guys even went in there....trying to put western values on a tribal society is a waste of time. Hell, putting any kind of outside values is a waste of time. Just ask the Russians. Pakistan is more or less the same.

 

[Ringel05]

That is true. I think that back end of all this, is that some (including me to a degree) have seen this as a 'bad' war from the get-go. Like nothing good could ever come from it (although I hope it does).

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters with these leaks is if troops have done certain things they shouldn't have that has caused loss of life. That could probably be on Assange and co to get that info out without jeopardising people on the ground. It's a fine line IMO....

Unfortunately I don't see much good coming out of the current Afghan war now. The Afghans aren't the Iraqis (who I believe will eventually pull themselves up by the boot straps).
In reality Karzai is nothing more than the mayor of Kabul which is why he wants us there, to do his dirty work for him on a national level. If we leave he's dead, literally. The Afghans are not picking up the ball and will never, it's too tribal and corrupt. Graft is the way of life in that region. Maybe in a hundred years - give or take - that will change.

Yep, I've been saying as much before you guys even went in there....trying to put western values on a tribal society is a waste of time. Hell, putting any kind of outside values is a waste of time. Just ask the Russians. Pakistan is more or less the same.

The problem for me is our attempt at westernization in the region. Destroying the Taliban is fine but our hands are tied. Wars aren't won and enemies aren't destroyed unless they are total wars against total enemies. (I'm not talking nukes!). That's been proven over and over. It may be harsh and cruel but history has proven it's true.
(BTW not saying I'm for or against it, just stating a fact).

 

[Modbert]

The problem for me is our attempt at westernization in the region. Destroying the Taliban is fine but our hands are tied. Wars aren't won and enemies aren't destroyed unless they are total wars against total enemies. (I'm not talking nukes!). That's been proven over and over. It may be harsh and cruel but history has proven it's true.

And it's not very likely that these people in these countries are going to stop hating us anytime soon. People tend to forget that even when we invaded Iraq, we were not seen as liberators to a great number of the people if not the majority and still aren't.

Who can blame them either after what we did in the past 12 years prior to the invasion?

 

[Ringel05]

The problem for me is our attempt at westernization in the region. Destroying the Taliban is fine but our hands are tied. Wars aren't won and enemies aren't destroyed unless they are total wars against total enemies. (I'm not talking nukes!). That's been proven over and over. It may be harsh and cruel but history has proven it's true.

And it's not very likely that these people in these countries are going to stop hating us anytime soon. People tend to forget that even when we invaded Iraq, we were not seen as liberators to a great number of the people if not the majority and still aren't.

Who can blame them either after what we did in the past 12 years prior to the invasion?

Link?
I'd like to see that, considering the news reports a large portion of the population (while not necessarily liking us) doesn't want us to leave. We protect them and when we're gone they have to take on that job themselves.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Ah, the squeeze of State Power rears its many heads, and accuses others for having blood on their hands.

 

[Modbert]

Link?
I'd like to see that, considering the news reports a large portion of the population (while not necessarily liking us) doesn't want us to leave. We protect them and when we're gone they have to take on that job themselves.

Sure.

Most Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year - World Public Opinion

This is Sept 2006:

A new WPO poll of the Iraqi public finds that seven in ten Iraqis want U.S.-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming majority believes that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the United States made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten. Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the U.S. government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.

Think it's been a little more than a year now. We also do in fact plan on having permanent military bases in Iraq.

Same time period:

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show - washingtonpost.com

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

This was in April 2004:

USATODAY.com - Poll: Iraqis out of patience

BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

It's clear the majority never wanted us there. And again, who can blame us for what we did to them for twelve years prior to the invasion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

If true, then that is bad form by those who are releasing the names. it looks like Assange and co kept some documents back for that reason.

That aside, I don't have a problem with that information being let out. Sure, the names should be blacked out, but the operations carried out - both foul and fair - should be put in the public domain. The military should be transparent and open to public scrutiny....

You are a retard. The military should not be open to the public except for what competent Civilian GOVERNMENT leaders determine is acceptable. Go ahead fuck stain ask your own military what they think of these releases of classified information. Leaks that jeopardize troops and civilians lives. ALL SO SOME REJECT LIKE YOU CAN GET THEIR JOLLIES OFF.

Shut the fuck up Fat man, adults are talking....

You, an adult? Hardly as you chortle over the release of information that will lead to troops death and informers death. You are one sick puppy. All cause you do not like the United States.

 

[daveman]

So you don't care if you military is held accountable for its actions?

Wrong.

These releases are from the beginning of last year and before that time. There is nothing in there that is current.

There's a reason why classified material stays classified long after it's no longer current. There's also a reason why names of human intel sources are NEVER released. Because they will be targeted.

 

[daveman]

If true, then that is bad form by those who are releasing the names. it looks like Assange and co kept some documents back for that reason.

That aside, I don't have a problem with that information being let out. Sure, the names should be blacked out, but the operations carried out - both foul and fair - should be put in the public domain. The military should be transparent and open to public scrutiny....

Yes, think how successful the D-Day invasion would have been if the Germans knew we were coming to Normandy.

You might want to re-think your position, although that's a poor choice of words. You haven't given it a single moment's thought so far. All you've got is touchy-feely moonbat shit that has no bearing on the real world.

 

[ConHog]

This "man" any of his accomplices and anyone who supports him should be shot for treason for supporting the release of information which could potentially endanger my brothers and sisters.

If you don't like that, who cares? You're a fucking traitor anyway.

 

[Ringel05]

Link?
I'd like to see that, considering the news reports a large portion of the population (while not necessarily liking us) doesn't want us to leave. We protect them and when we're gone they have to take on that job themselves.

Sure.

Most Iraqis Want U.S. Troops Out Within a Year - World Public Opinion

This is Sept 2006:

A new WPO poll of the Iraqi public finds that seven in ten Iraqis want U.S.-led forces to commit to withdraw within a year. An overwhelming majority believes that the U.S. military presence in Iraq is provoking more conflict than it is preventing and there is growing confidence in the Iraqi army. If the United States made a commitment to withdraw, a majority believes that this would strengthen the Iraqi government. Support for attacks on U.S.-led forces has grown to a majority position—now six in ten. Support appears to be related to a widespread perception, held by all ethnic groups, that the U.S. government plans to have permanent military bases in Iraq.

Think it's been a little more than a year now. We also do in fact plan on having permanent military bases in Iraq.

Same time period:

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show - washingtonpost.com

In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results obtained by The Washington Post.

This was in April 2004:

USATODAY.com - Poll: Iraqis out of patience

BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

It's clear the majority never wanted us there. And again, who can blame us for what we did to them for twelve years prior to the invasion.

Cool, now it's 2010, do you have anything more current than old information and talking points? I'm rather familiar with the region and what has been happening there for since the Iran/Iraq war. You might want to update your knowledge. Just a suggestion.

 

[Modbert]

Cool, now it's 2010, do you have anything more current than old information and talking points? I'm rather familiar with the region and what has been happening there for since the Iran/Iraq war. You might want to update your knowledge. Just a suggestion.

Old information and talking points?

I gave you evidence they never wanted us there. You say you're rather familiar with the region and what's been going on since the Iraq/Iran war, thats great. So I won't have to explain how U.S sanctions and bombings killed over 500,000 children throughout the 90's and early 00's in Iraq.

And people wonder why they hate us.

Do you have any information to the contrary of mine? After all, you seem to believe you know the situation so well.

 

[Dr Grump]

If true, then that is bad form by those who are releasing the names. it looks like Assange and co kept some documents back for that reason.

That aside, I don't have a problem with that information being let out. Sure, the names should be blacked out, but the operations carried out - both foul and fair - should be put in the public domain. The military should be transparent and open to public scrutiny....

Yes, think how successful the D-Day invasion would have been if the Germans knew we were coming to Normandy.

You might want to re-think your position, although that's a poor choice of words. You haven't given it a single moment's thought so far. All you've got is touchy-feely moonbat shit that has no bearing on the real world.

You are reading way too much into my posts. As I said, these papers are over 18 months old. By my reckoning 18 months after June 6, 1944 would be Dec 6, 1945 - well after both VE and Days.

You might want to rethink your post...

 

[daveman]

If true, then that is bad form by those who are releasing the names. it looks like Assange and co kept some documents back for that reason.

That aside, I don't have a problem with that information being let out. Sure, the names should be blacked out, but the operations carried out - both foul and fair - should be put in the public domain. The military should be transparent and open to public scrutiny....

Yes, think how successful the D-Day invasion would have been if the Germans knew we were coming to Normandy.

You might want to re-think your position, although that's a poor choice of words. You haven't given it a single moment's thought so far. All you've got is touchy-feely moonbat shit that has no bearing on the real world.

You are reading way too much into my posts. As I said, these papers are over 18 months old. By my reckoning 18 months after June 6, 1944 would be Dec 6, 1945 - well after both VE and Days.

You might want to rethink your post...

So you're okay with throwing the people who helped us to the wolves. No big deal to you.