Slashdot Mirror
Military Steps Up War On Blogs
An anonymous reader writes "The military's war on blogs, first reported last spring, is picking up. Now the Air Force is tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read. One senior Air Force official calls the squeeze so 'utterly stupid, it makes me want to scream.'"
Is Bush going to come out in a month and give a 'mission accomplished' speech after we defeat all the blogs?
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
He should read the blogs that are out there... I see this as a way to keep military personnel from losing intelligence.
>One senior Air Force official calls the squeeze so 'utterly stupid, it makes me want to scream.'
Presumably he didn't post that on his blog...
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
First the embedded reporters disappeared, how can we get any thrustworthy information about the battlefield now? can't we handle the truth?
Bullets are ineffective and dropping a high voltage electrical wire onto blobs doesn't do anything. In fact, it sets diners on fire. A carbon dioxide fire extinguisher is the best way to stop ... oh, wait. You said 'blog'. Sorry.
It's ironic that in the "Land of the Free" by joining the organization tasked with defending it you lose your Freedom to virtually congregate and by extension freedom of thought among peers.
Shh.
The article is posted on http://blog.wired.com/ and is therefore blocked by the filter it's complaining about.
How many hundreds of hours of training do warfighters get on the operation and maintenance of their M16 rifle?
How many hours of training do they get on the topics of personal publishing, viral marketing, and information security awareness in today's age of instant global communication?
-516
-crack-
-sizzle-
This is your brain on blogs.
Does this remind anyone of China a little bit? It is somewhat different, but overall, blocking blogs and websites? Whats next? Making it illegal to discuss the things on these blogs too? What about our firs amendment? What about our freedom? The freedom of the troops? Did they sign anywhere that they would waive their rights? Did we?
This does however remind me of that story a while back about soldiers trading pretty grotesque pictures for access to pr0n sites.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
... when I clicked "Read More", I was told the article was unavailable. That's FAST censorship!
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Can these soldiers just use proxy websites to hide/mask/alter their IP addresses?
So lets list our favorites, or good ones, or whatever...
http://michaelyon-online.com/ - embedded reporter with no corporate sponsor, etc. Does it all on his own, takes *amazing* photos, and writes well...
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Looks like they learned something from Vietnam after all.
The American public is very happy to support war so long as 'war' is sort of an abstract thing happening "over there". They're more than happy to 'support the troops' and make grand speeches about the trials and tribulations and the suffering of "our boys overseas"--so long as they don't -see- it.
Once any given generation -sees- the dirty, bloody, nasty physical reality of war--the coffins coming home, the frontline reports with people getting blown up on camera, the interviews with the troops who have been worn down by months of stress--they stop supporting the 'cause' and start making ugly noises about bringing the troops home.
So they started with disguising the casualties--excluding people from photographing the coffins. No highly visible casualties? Then any losses are, for everyone outside the families--families that are, by and large, "in" the establishment itself (base housing and that sort of thing)--abstract. Just numbers.
Then quietly weed out the embedded reporters. Reasons of security, you know. Have to make sure the press stays 'safe'.
And now making sure that there's as little other information exchange between the armed services and the outside world as possible.
It's all to be expected, really.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
Incidentally, you might not have noticed it amongst all the great News happening around us, but oil is back knocking on the door of the all-time record high (yes, adjusted for inflation) set in April 1980. Strange the way timings go, isn't it.
Flamebait..... ooooookayyy....
For those of us who aren't related to Mr. Data, parent was actually a joke. Next time I'll post in binary...
Jesus was an invention of the Romans - watch "The Pharmacractic Inquisition" for something more credible...
One senior Air Force official calls the squeeze so 'utterly stupid, it makes me want to scream.'
If this person considers utter stupidity a thing to be avoided, then doesn't it rather seem that joining the military was a bit of a bad move?
In Soviet Russia the government limits what you can talk about. In contemporary America you are sheltered for your own good.
"you give away your Freedom to virtually congregate and by extension freedom of thought among peers."
The distinction is important, and not just semantically.
And I can't figure out how you think they're losing "freedom of thought", as far as I'm aware, the military has no way to know what you're thinking (I hope...) so that part of your post really doesn't make any sense.
Bear in mind I am not American, but from what I understand it is fairly costly to go to university there, and one of the easiest ways for people not born into money to finance themselves is to join the military for a bit before they go.
Now, centres of power have an uneasy relationship with academia. On the one hand, healthy universities are vital to maintaining a countries technological and scientific edge. On the other hand, putting lots of smart, young people with fresh ideas in one place and giving them free time often breeds 'disrespectful' thinking.
But the US government seems to have found a solution. Get the kids to join up so the military has first swing at their impressionable minds. Give them the states point of view and only the states point of view, and teach them that opposition to this point of view is treason. Create the us-and-them mentality cults use to make their victims hostile to information that might free them from the lies they have been told. Or, to save time, let Rupert Murdoch do it for you.
Now, this might be a bit tinfoil hat for you, but it doesn't require anything secret or anything that violates physics or the boundaries of current technology. It just requires that the people in charge of your country are totalitarian shits who will exploit any opportunity to control the environment and thus the minds of the people, especially young people.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Soldiers should form a union. The military treats them like garbage--they have no rights, inadequate health care, often inadequate equipment and are forced to perform immoral and illegal acts. When caught, it is *they* who go on trial and not the civilian and military leaders who ordered the crimes.
I'm sure plenty of people will argue that they shouldn't have a union because it will hurt "readiness" or something like that. After all, we need unquestioning killers to defend America, right? Wrong. I can't recall the last time the US military was actually used to defend America. Instead it is used around the globe to oppress and kill, and it only benefits our wealthy rulers to have their unquestioned obedience. If it actually came to defending the US from an invasion, the soldiers would have every reason to step up and defend their country. (But seriously, we spend more on our military than the entire rest of the world combined. What military would invade us?)
The Viet Nam war was ended because soldiers organized and refused to continue fighting the war. Already active-duty soldiers and veterans are organizing against the current wars. They deserve our support, and hopefully someday GI's will have some rights and real say in military policy.
How is it that the summary goes a little far by directly quoting the article? Unless the article is completely wrong, this is about limiting which blogs can be read.
Looks like some on the stargate project posted some info that should of not been put on the internet and this is a big cover up..........gfdsagdsdshds............ NO CARRIER
I can't read blogs, myspace, or facebook at work either. This is far from censorship.
They don't want the fly boys to know they are bombing camels not tanks!
"I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
and repercussions for going over the line.
I think the important part is that people forget that when you join the military (ex Air Force here) you give up a lot of your rights. You do so willingly. You do so with the expectation that it is for the common good. Don't take this as an ego trip, but for me today's soldiers are the people I look up to. To willfully put yourself in harms way in support of others, the majority of which will never know your sacrifice, is to be a true hero. Not some insipid hollyweird starlet, some sports player, or the latest American idol. These soldiers are of the same stock as firemen and policeman. They step up so the rest of us don't have to. Yet we don't always respect their contribution or what they give up. Some of them might not fully understand the later but I put this as coming from a society of entitlement viewpoint that comes to a screeching halt when you join.
So while I do not find too much wrong in limiting what they can say, especially with the fact that enemy of the day has near instant access to it, I think it does deserve a good amount of thought before it goes too far into restrictive. I know my friends letters from the first Desert Storm were monitored but that was easy to do, all mail went through the military. With the internet a big exposure is created and any attempt to close it appears as an affront. It is, but its one voluntarily entered. The military cannot afford to be all open and exposed. It doesn't work well in that environment. A good military works best when it can control the variables. There are some it can and this is one area where it can do something. Your there to do a job and the people around you don't need extra risk because you slipped up.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I work for the Air Force, both state-side and at deployed locations, and have not seen any message traffic on this at all...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
It's not government by the military, it is government by oil and weapons investors. The military just kills those who would not allow oil and weapons profits.
The only way to peace is to make relationships. Violence only breeds more violence.
This has never been the Land of the Free. There's always exceptions. People have fought and died to free Native Americans, blacks, women, immigrants, all of whom live inside the United States. We haven't had true equality among our own citizens - and I mean, in a purely legal capacity - until the 70s. Even now, Native American reservations aren't truly sovereign, as they are supposed to be.
Anyone who thinks the American military gives a shit about anyone's rights hasn't been paying attention. These are the same guys (currently, this is literal - half of the executive branch are old white men from the Reagan administration) who sold weapons to a sworn enemy during wartime in order to fund right-wing guerrillas who were busy raping and murdering everyone from indigenous people to other Americans daring to raise awareness about the genocide. (Read about Dianna Ortiz - she was a nun who was abducted, tortured, and gang-raped for twenty four hours at the direction of the CIA).
Hell, look at Palestine. We hem and haw about freedom, but if we don't like who you elect, we try to economically sabotage and militarily exterminate the new government. This has been consistent US policy since the 50s. (Chile, Guatemala, Iran, Iraq, Cuba, Argentina, Ecuador, Panama...) America isn't much better than the British Empire was in the 1700s. We just have a much better PR department. By the way, who's suspending habeas corpus now? Oh, that's right...
In short, America does not give a fuck about freedom. We care that you do what you're told. That's why Saddam Hussein is underground and the King of Saudi Arabia is making out with our president in Texas.
Don't you think they'd have blocked /. too?
(anybody know?)
This limit is not on what blogs a soldier can read, but on which ones the soldier can post. They don't care what information is coming into the soldier, they just don't want a solider inadvertently leaking classified info..
What is fascinating about the "War in Iraq" is that a "combat fatality" in Iraq occurs if the fatality occurs on the ground . If the fatality occurs during airlift, there is no combat fatality. A couple of the years ago the total combat deaths was rumored to be in the
12,000 to 17,000 range
What is shocking is that both the mainstream and non-mainstream media ignore it. .
I'm am work, in the Air Force, and I can still read Slashdot, and post to it to. And no, it's not cleared with my "superior officer." Which, by the way, is just equivilent to a supervisor. I don't have to snap to attention, salute, report, and say "Sir! The airman requests permission to proceed with blog post!" I don't see it as anything other then a company filtering because of "lost productivity." Which you may or not be against, but regardless, it's like people bringing up children when talking about crime. Saying it's "military" is supposed to make it more dramatic, but it need not be.
Take my love, take my land
Take me where I cannot stand
I don't care, I'm still free
You can't take my blogs from me...
with apologies to Joss Whedon
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/02/28/prison.population.ap/index.html
If you're an American adult, there's a 1% chance you're currently in jail. If you're a black male between the ages of 20 and 34, there's an 11% chance you're currently in jail.
As the article notes, that's more prisoners per capita than Russia or China.
now tell us how the track record of the usa on freedom in your mind compares to the track record on freedom of any other major power in the world at present and throughout history
no one expects the usa to be perfect, but it receives higher marks than most. well, i said no one expects the usa to be perfect, that's not true... there's you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The question is, is free speech actually a right or is it merely a privilege that the privileged are granted? If it is the former, then that is absolute and inviolate. There's no two ways about it. If it is the latter, then yes, certain jobs may withdraw certain privileges that would be granted to others.
What you can't have is it both ways. I honestly don't care which American society wants to define it as being, as it is using an ambiguous interpretation that is far too often more about convenience than about standards in life. Less ambiguity, even if more restrictive, can't be any worse.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
In yet another twist of Irony, the actual article was picked up by the Air Force's daily Aim Points news aggregation site that is recommended reading. http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=24302
From my stateside USAF-issue computer and connection I verified today that I was able to read the Wired blogs, and Michael Yon's blog mentioned later in this article as well without hitting the filter. Slashdot is unblocked, save for Ask Slashdot and the Games sections.
Posted AC for obvious reasons.
plenty of those offenses are lame (marijuana should be legal of course), but i think chinese and russians would complain about too many criminals running around the streets due to corruption and laziness, not celebrating their vast freedoms as compared to the usa
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"If something is truly a right, an inalienable right, then it cannot be given, taken or surrendered"
All right, then why can't I own nuclear weapons?
Even if this were some nearly 65-year-old government conspiracy, the number of active duty military in the US is currently less than one half of one percent of the total population. We maintain one of the smallest per-capita armed forces in the world.
No, the colleges are doing a fine job of stifling free thinking all by themselves, sadly. But do remove the tin foil hat in this particular case, please.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
after all, they're supposed to maintain discipline and allegiance and the internet is awash with temptations to be independent in deed and, most dangerously, in thought.
The last thing he military needs and wants it independent thinkers.
And all of this has come about as an unforeseen, uncontrolled and unwanted consequence to a system designer's answer to a simple question about increasing the survivability of communications networks in the event of nuclear war.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
America does not have to be a superpower in order to be a democracy. In fact, forming a global empire is as far from a constitutional republic as a nation can get.
Let's ask your question in a different way: Is there any country with more disregard for basic human rights than the United States or our "coalition" on the War on Terror?
Which, coincidentally, we are winning for the terrorists?
But then again, if we build opinions off of what they have to report and then those refined opinions return to them for further elaboration - who's to say whether there is or is not blunting of interpretation of the subject at hand?
Shh.
The DoD will just assume they can't read anyway.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Owning nuclear weapons is not a right and never has been. Under the NPT, it is a privilege granted only to very specific nations under very specific conditions. You weren't granted that privilege, but more importantly, it IS a privilege.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
"Owning nuclear weapons is not a right and never has been."
I have the RIGHT to bear arms. Nuclear weapons are arms.
Or are you going to claim one of the above isn't true? If you do, you're wrong. If you don't, you're also wrong.
In short, you're wrong.
Sorry, you misunderstood me. I don't claim this has been going on for 65 years, but that it is relatively new. And I don't mean to say the military has a poor relationship with academia, the government does, and they see the military as a tool to undermine dissent in universities.
Donald Rumsfeld himself spoke of 'putting starch in their collars' a few years back, which to me is a veiled reference to an intention to change the opinions of youth through military service.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
i would say most countries have worse freedoms and rights than the usa... for its citizens
and the usa DOES project its use of force...
against really vile regimes
what's the matter with that?
the top poster complains about a number of countries the usa picked on during the cold war. as if those crimes happened in a vacuum, without the ussr doing anything bad on the other side. not that that excuses the usa's cold war crimes, i just think it's intellectually dishonest to complain so vociferously about the usa, when there are and were other world players doing far worse, for much worse goals. why isn't the top poster screaming bloody murder about what china did/ does, and what the ussr/ russia did/ does?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
You know, I spent two years in Iraq and we never had to do this. During the second tour they tried, but there was a simple fix for all of us. We bought a satellite dish and a year's subscription to the internet from a company in Italy. Divided among 30 people it wasn't very expensive at all. The leadership tried to get in on it so they could censor, but a few "anonymous" whispers to embedded media later and they left us the fuck alone. Damn the leadership hated me.
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
"Sadly, the GP is correct."
No, he isn't, and neither of you have forwarded an argument to show otherwise.
Posting from an af.mil computer, I can assure you they aren't :)
Much Madness is divinest Sense --
To a discerning Eye --
Much Sense -- the starkest Madness
"Not > what a reasonable person would call costly In Massachusetts, it costs over $17000 per year to attend UMass / Amherst. "
Irrelevant, if you're going to worry about cost, you're not going to school in Mass.
"Where did you get your numbers from?"
Here
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/CutCollegeCosts/CollegeForHalfPrice.aspx
"The average cost for a full year of tuition and fees at a community college is just $2,360, compared with $6,185 at a public, four-year university"
Posted January 11th, 2008. As current as it gets.
"I'm including estimated housing costs"
And you shouldn't as you need housing regardless of your school situation.
It's not expensive to go to college, it's just that too many people think "college=4 year school of my choice" like you do, which is obviously wrong.
You're totally off the mark. When historical facts are "crap" the propogandists have done an excellent job of ruining your brain.
I do not just think about Americans when I consider the effects of our foreign policy. As a rational humanist (one who thinks about others in addition to himself) I consider what effects the actions of my government will have on the livelihood of others. We have overturned and destroyed so many democratic movements since WWII the damage we have done to world society as a whole is probably incalculable. Even when we think we are doing something good, we often fail completely and achieve the opposite result. Just look at our War on Terror to "defend" freedom. We've lost more rights and taken away more rights in 8 years than have been lost in the past two hundred.
America, in the context of world cultural development, has not done bad job until the 1940s. Everything has been going straight to hell since then, especially in regards to our foreign policy. We are now so backwards that conservative pundits will complain about helping neighbors through mass transit funding and public education, and turn around to defend our actions to destroy the infrastructure of Iraq, and then rebuild it. How is it acceptable to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on unjust, unnecessary, and aggressive war, and not spend far less to try to further a just and equitable society here at home?
In regards to people coming here, that's only been the case because of our economic prosperity, and our freedom compared to the military dictatorships that we sometimes explicitly support and prop up against repressed populations. Others flock from areas still recovering from our economic experimentation (Mexico, and almost every country south of it in the Americas).
People from Denmark aren't coming here in droves. They're choosing us over Ecuador and El Salvador. Whoopdedoo! Just watch those numbers as our currency continues to tank.
Now, I know you want to label me, and say I always want to "blame America first." The list of our fuckups is insanely large, and we are constantly cleaning up our own mess, most of it caused by our refusal to recognize that we do not have the right or the insight necessary to meddle in the affairs of other sovereign nations. You'll probably agree with me that you can't make someone go to rehab, but somehow you also believe that you can force an entire culture to ditch their own and accept ours without putting up a fight.
These are not hard things to understand. Just ask yourself what actions you would take, seeing a Chinese tank rolling by your front door, and burying family members every month. Now look at the actions of the Iraqis. Suddenly, they look more rational than we do.
I have to say I disagree with your idea that the U.S. Government is using the military to influence the minds of young men and women. I say this as a former U.S. Marine, I served on active duty from 2000-2004 and when we went into Afghanistan I was all for it. When we started building up for Iraq I thought that it was a dumb idea, even given the false information the President was using to bolster support for the war. I'll have you know I was not alone, a lot of people didn't think Iraq was a good move. Far from giving young minds the Governments point of view, the Marines helped me think for myself about what is right and wrong. It did the same for countless others as well. Of course there are some people in the Military who have a hard on for Fox news and believe the President can do no wrong, but those people exist everywhere. Now I serve in the reserves and am a grad Student in computer science, which wouldn't have been possible without the G.I. Bill, and I still think Iraq is wrong. So to summarize, the U.S. Military is not in the business of brain washing young people, in fact it usually teaches them to think for themselves.
print "Just another Perl hacker,\n";
I can't even scream this loudly enough if you were here in person. China is a communist dictatorship which I have no control over. Russia is a pseudo-democratic dictatorship that I have no control over. When my government is doing evil, I complain bitterly about it. What good does bitching about China or Iran do? Absolutely nothing! Which is the only thing these so called pundits and reporters do - bitch about things that we cannot control, while ignoring the fact that WE have a part to play in our own destiny.
Vile regimes? How about Saudi Arabia? How about Pakistan? How about our One China policy? You completely missed the point of my first post. America does not care if you're a vile regime, as long as you do what we tell you to do. That's why Saddam had our public support - we removed him from our Terrorist States list in the early 80s so we could sell him weapons. Weapons which he used to exterminate hundreds of thousands of people, which didn't bother us in the slightest. Like the slaughter of the people of East Timor, also in the hundreds of thousands, didn't even cause us to stop selling weapons to Indonesia.
You are paying attention to the smoke and the mirrors, and not the real issues. This is not a pissing contest. This is a matter of injustice, and what we can do about it. So, if saying that the US is as good as Russia helps you sleep at night, by all means, get back in front of the TV and tuck in. Celebrate your freedom by doing fuck all. Trust the government. Ignore the fact that the president today is asking the public to provide immunity to telcos to spy on the public. Ignore the blood in the streets in Baghdad. Ignore the cries of injustice in the inner city. Ignore the fact that we spend more money on the military than any other expenditure in our budget, and more than any other country by any measurement (per capita, GDP, whatever.)
The sad thing is, you are the perfect American citizen. Because you are listless, thoughtless, you follow orders, and you ask no questions. If this sounds familiar to communist ideals, perhaps that should be alarming?
It's good to know they can still read xkcd...
I don't doubt your word at all, but an anecdote like that doesn't really say much.
The U.S. Military, like all modern militaries, must by default be in the business of brainwashing people. A fascinating programme I saw on Channel 4 in the UK said that in WW2 only 15-20% of soldiers fired in the direction of the enemy and only 2% of them shot at a specific person. Uncomfortable with this, the military then developed psychological techniques to get those percentages up and were very successful in this regard. Turning ordinary people into killers is a major change in their personality, so like it or not the military is brainwashing. The only thing that is open for debate is the long term outcome of that brainwashing.
http://www.fmft.net/archives/000201.html (Bit of a dodgy website but the only source I could find with a synopsis of the programme)
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Not yet. ;-\
SB
It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
Whats the difference from a workplace policy on official use only for computer systems? You can go home and blog all you want.
The current Russian administration is incapable of controlling their crime. They are too corrupt, but are often referred to as a police state by the more dashing commentators. However, China has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. They achieve it through abuses of freedom and kangaroo courts (but not violence - there is only one province in China that has police who carry guns.)
My point is that the America of 2008 looks a lot more like China than the America of 1980. The fact that this doesn't alarm the supposed conservatives of this country is truly frightening.
Way to go, take away rights from the people who are fighting to protect them.
Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
(Besides which, the 2nd only permits militias to bear arms, it does not permit militias to bear ANY arms, and the reference to individuals is merely a prohibition of preventing individuals from being in a militia by preventing them from bearing those arms militias are permitted to bear.)
The only rights you have are those described in the Declaration of Independence as being rights. Those just are. They don't need the Declaration to be true, they ARE true simply by right of being. It is easy to confuse rights and permissions, but it is a grave mistake to do so. When a society assumes it has more rights than actually exist (or, indeed, fewer), you create hostility and instability. This is not to say that a person should like or appreciate the fact that those events/actions important to them can be taken away without notice or warning. A person should stand for what matters to them. But they should do so honestly, not under false pretenses.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The only part of /. that was blocked when I worked on air force computers was slashdot games. But then again, it blocked anything that had game in the URL string... so it wasn't Slashdot specific.
What the fsck is the Air Force doing deciding what outlets are "legitimate media"? That's not their call to make, anymore than they can define a "legitimate" political party or a "legitimate" religious affiliation.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I am a contractor for the Air Force: Go to Google Do a search for the Blog Open the Blog from Google's cached pages Voila, I am reading one of the blocked Blogs the authored mentioned. I am so sick of stupid Chair Force IT policies, promulgated by Generals who are too lazy and power hungry to make decisions that make sense. Welcome to the force of tomorrow.
Bear in mind I am not American, but from what I understand it is fairly costly to go to university there, and one of the easiest ways for people not born into money to finance themselves is to join the military for a bit before they go...
I don't think your argument would survive checking some basic relevant numbers, like, for example, what fraction of university students have previously been in the military (I would be very surprised if it is more than 5%).
There has been a lot of concern of late about how much information individuals are giving out online. The Air Force is particularly concerned, and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) has done a number of studies into just how much sensitive information is getting out, intentionally or no, via social media.
For me, it's kind of a mixed bag. We have people posting photos and information that are an OPSEC nightmare. Then we have the other end of the spectrum; the notion that one should never participate in any online communities or use any online "social networking" or Web 2.0 tools at all. I think there is a balance: be aware of what you are giving out, use privacy controls vigorously, and don't post anything to the internet, even "privately", that is sensitive or questionable from a security perspective. We already know that blogs, social networking, etc., are valuable tools, but it can also be a big problem. So where do we draw the line?
The key is awareness, and constant vigilance about what we're posting, and where.
Here are some great presentations and resources dealing with just this topic in a broader sense:
"Killer Keyboard" (.pps) - This short OPSEC lays out exactly an example scenario of how ignoring security directives combined with seemingly benign information posted online can be used for an influence operation.
Adversary Influence Operations Social Networking Case Study (.pdf) - This AFRL presentation is a case study of real information personnel have been giving out online, and then lays out some hypothetical scenarios. This is exactly what the Air Force is responding to. Even though there are probably better ways to handle this, this is viewed as a necessary interim solution.
There are numerous ways around any official restrictions. People act as if this is some kind of censorship. By definition as applied to personnel in their official role, it is not. I also notice the article is tagged "keepemdumb". Real nice. Shows you have pretty much no idea about the real concerns related to security and actually carrying out a mission.
Of course, if one's interest is in fundamentally crippling or limiting the military's ability to effectively carry out it's mission because one disagrees with a particular policy, I can see why such a person could not possibly see any legitimate reasons for any kind of internet restrictions on official networks, and would instead see it as either "proof" of trying to "hide" the grim realities of war, or to keep military personnel "brainwashed", neither of which are true.
I found one of the other posts in this thread amusing: that people would never support a war -- any war -- if all they saw were dead bodies and were constantly barraged with images of severed limbs and coffins. Does such a person believe it is possible for ANY military action, at any time, for any reason, to be warranted, reasonable, or necessary? If so, I wonder of that person want such a mission continually subverted by the actions of others as well?
Or would they want it to succeed?
It's quite frustrating fighting for other's liberties, in a sense, while yours are stripped away.
That was an incredibly unrelated and vapid comment. But, thanks for wasting your time. Lord knows how else you could have misused it.
At least they wont be occupied with vitriol at the taxpayer's expense. Should they come up with a countermeasure, reward those who find and report the countermeasures, then deal with those too.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
"My point is that the America of 2008 looks a lot more like China than the America of 1980. The fact that this doesn't alarm the supposed conservatives of this country is truly frightening."
this is called hysteria. i would say yes, america has moved down the road towards fascism... an inch. as compared to a mile for china. no, really. they machine gun their own protestors. please don't compare this to random cop abuses in the usa. if a cop shoots a bunch of people in the usa, he is condemned, maybe even fired, prosecuted and jailed. the machine gunning of protestors came on orders from the very top
you really haven't the slightest bit of scale or perspective if you compare the usa to china on any scale of freedoms
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
so you will criticize the usa because the usa listens and has a conscience. but the guy who is unaccountable, and doing far worse, you won't criticize
amazing. this is morality?
so if a guy jaywalks, and feels bad about it, you will crucify him. but if another guy murders, and won't listen to you, you'll give him a free pass
of course, you are saying basically you have no voice in a nondemocracy that you are not a citizen of. ok, got that. then, by logical implication, you must refrain from criticizing the usa in any realm that is not strictly a domestic realm. for if you criticize the usa on the international realm, then you must also consider the other players in that realm equally. otherwise, you are not being intellectually or morally honest about the problems you are attempting to comment on
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There are more pot heads than service members. If the gov't is trying to control our thoughts, they're doing a pretty poor job of it. Oh, and current military member speaking. Nothing has changed in my personality that wouldn't have changed as a result of having a high-pressure, dangerous job in any other field. I don't like it when people talk about members of the military (any nation's military) like we're drones or sub-normal miscreants or something. We're not stupid.
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
IF Military blocks access to all blogs on its networks:
The Good: Keeps network usage on military unclassified networks down, may in some cases prevent PVT Joe Stupid from posting classified info for everyone to see, keeps soldiers focused on their job by eliminating yet another thing they could be doing instead of working.
The Bad: Prevents soldiers from reading other people's opinions stateside, keeps communication down freedom of speech blah blah, doesn't even remotely come close to blocking out all classified info from leaking out.
Here's the deal I'm posting this from Iraq, I should probably be working right now, but instead I'm writing this. I don't know what Air Force is thinking of stepping up, everything depends on the unit and where the communications come from. Some nodes hardly block anything and count on soldier's integrity, other's block the hell out of everything to the point where you are only left with encyclopedia and some military websites.
I've been in both kinds of places. Even slashdot has been blocked as a blog from time to time, almost 1 month on 1 month off (this is the un-blocked-slashdot month I guess). I've been to bases whose comms nodes blocked political websites/blogs. That seemed pretty stupid... how is a soldier overseas supposed to know who to vote for if they can't read about the candidates?
BTW nobody reads soldier's emails... unless that's who they sent them to and even then it's not all the time. There's always the option of NOT using office computers and going to the nearest MWR - Morale Welfare & Recreation (unless you are at some remote s...hole FOB [Forward Operating Base], where you shower out of a 5 Gal water can, those suck BTW). Computers at MWR are mostly unblocked, they don't restrict access to anything short of porn, they run off of commercial sattellites/dishes.
Somebody wrote something about ways around blockages, sure there are, I may even know a few or have seen a few used around here, but it's difficult and there's a good chance of getting caught and punished, making it not worth it to most. Most well developed bases in Iraq, and pretty much all in Kuwait and other countries have commercial internet drops now, 35-75$ a month will buy most soldiers a wireless connection access from their tent. I wouldn't try to play CS online with it, but can blog all your heart desires.
Point is that I see why they decide to block so many things, and there are so many ways around it, legal and illegal, that it almost seems like not a bad idea. I don't like the inconvenience, but we're not exactly out here to be comfortable.
Just my 2 cents.
Sorry for AnonymousCoward, been reading slashdot for over 3 years now (whenever it wasn't blocked heh), never bothered to make an account.
Let me clarify this. This ONLY Applies to networks and computers you use at work.... You only use these when you are at work.. if you are not using these for work it is to kill time, and there are a MILLION ways to kill time on the internet, that the censors have not gotten around to blocking, so this is not really a big issue. If you want to read something, read it when you get home.
If anything can make you hate authority, it's gotta be serving in the military and dealing with a douchebag CO. Of course, taking orders from a douchebag is a valuable life skill, so there you go.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Are you sure the "putting some starch in their color" wasn't a reference to the universities that thought they could kick military recruiters off of and still receive the government money the defense department pumps into them.
There was a few rather larger court cases over it. The universities lost federal funding when they kicked the military off campus in protest over the wars but did so under the discrimination rules and claims of the military discriminating against gays. They lost their challenges to this too. The courts said that one could be linked to the other and of the government decided to pull one in reaction to their kicking the military off, it was legal.
A quick goolge search for the phraze only came up with people claiming Rumsfield was irritable because they put too much starch in his color. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen as you mention.
This led to most if not all of those universities allowing the military back on campus. It should also be noted that these money were paid directly to the universities. It wasn't some jacking around with student financing.
The article failed to mention that this would only apply to computers connected to Air Force owned and operated networks. It's not any different than a company you work for blocking access to blogs on official work computers. The article made it sound like they were trying censor ALL Internet activity...
The Article: "The Air Force is tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read..."
The Truth: "The Air Force is tightening restrictions on which blogs its troops can read while at work..."
When Pakistan Blocks Youtube, Islam is the enemy on Shashdot, along with calls for genocide of Muslims. Users like phoenix321 ask why the masses of Muslims do not rise up and protest.
So here is a little test: what happens when our own country starts blocking blogs, or bombs the free press like Al-Jazeera? Nothing but silence from phoenix321 and other bigots, who favour freedom when it involves killing minorities, but not when it involves improving their own country. No condemnations of Christianity or Judiasm.
Also see history of phoenix321, notice this individual never condemns this incident either!
The cause of the violence is people who have control over the U.S. government wanting to make a profit. I don't have time now to give a lot of links, but there are some below.
What started the violence between the U.S. government and Arabs was the U.S. government, not the Arabs. Having the U.S. taxpayer pay for violence to make a profit works only because most voters don't know the history of U.S. government action.
See, for example, Coups Arranged or Backed by the USA. Most or all of that corruption happened for profit, such as kickbacks of U.S. government foreign aid. When the governments of Israel or Pakistan buy weapons from U.S. manufacturers using money from "foreign aid", that is embezzlement of taxpayer money.
For one example of profiting from violence, read How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power or Bush-Nazi Link Confirmed: Documents in National Archives Prove George W. Bush's Grandfather Traded with Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor.
Apparently Slashdot editors agree with at least some of this, because now and for the last 2 months or more, this has been on the main Slashdot page, on the right, under Book Reviews: "The Creature from Jekyll Island is a compelling look at the history of the Federal Reserve system and asks if it's a system that has run it's course. (Michael J. Ross's review)"
"The Creature from Jekyll Island" discusses how the U.S. monetary system is manipulated by rich and powerful people for their own profit. It says that wars are started for profit.
The Cooperative Research History Commons is very valuable for those wanting to do their own research.
The poorly edited but very interesting free movie Zeitgeist explains in three parts that 1) People who believe in myths are easily manipulated. 2) It is common that people are manipulated through fear. 3) The U.S. monetary system is controlled for the profit of a few individuals. (Note that the movie used respected sources for the first part which were later shown to be somewhat in error. The underlying issues are correct, however.)
When you talk about U.S. government action, don't say "we". Whoever does the secret decision making would kill you and your family if they thought you would cause trouble for them.
When people try to calculate the total number the U.S. government killed, they arrive at figures like perhaps 3 million killed directly since the end of the 2nd world war, and perhaps 8 to 11 million total if the people killed by the destabilization the U.S. government caused are also included, not including the people killed in Iraq. Partly the killing happened as a result of the U.S. government invading or bombing 25 countries.
Now that would really suck.
"There's never enough time to do it right the first time, but there's always time to do it again."
No, the lesson from the Viet Nam war was different. What you are talking about was commonly done in the Korean conflict. That's just politics and propaganda. Common until the fighting gets really serious. Then it can't be hidden. Germany, Russia, China, Spain, everybody's done it. Most of the monuments of Egypt were about some minor military 'victory'. A couple of those 'victories' were actually total defeats. Spin isn't new either.
No,
The stark lesson from the Viet Nam conflict was different.
Never Never NEVER let the State Department run a war. Never!!!
Interestingly enough Sun Tsu told us the same thing over 2000 years ago.
By the way, who's running the Iraq thing now?
Everybody knows 3 people with my name.
What happens if you complain about China? Fuck all.
What happens if you complain about American foreign policy, and motivate one other person to vote? Not much, but more than fuck all.
You're caught in a cycle of anti-politics. You're arguing points that are irrelevant, and engaging spurious nitpicking. For what? To believe instead of know that we are doing the best we can? To shout from sea to shining sea, "Hey, at least we're not as bad as China!"
Also, your analogy is completely lost. I'm complaining about the guy from my representative government taking basic human rights away from others, and ignoring the fact that people in other governments - entirely outside my daily life or cultural influence - are committing crimes inside their own country! This isn't apples and oranges. This is spaceships and pomegranates.
Alright. As an American citizen, can you travel without papers (license, registration, proof of insurance)? Could you travel without papers twenty years ago?
As an American citizen, I am required to provide a Social Security Number to open a bank account, buy a car, get medical care (if I am conscious), and my bank account is flagged and reviewed by numerous government agencies if I ever deposit more than $10,000 in cash into one of my accounts.
Again, twenty years ago, was that the case?
Even as an American citizen, if I am apprehended and suspected of aiding and abetting known terrorists, I can be held without being charged for an indefinite period of time. I will neither have access to a lawyer or have the ability to contact my family and let them know that I am alive.
Again, twenty years ago, was this a possibility?
The FBI can obtain a secret warrant - which I can never see or have reviewed by my attorney - to tap my phone line, even if I happen to answer the phone when a "terrorist" is calling a wrong number.
The problem is that you aren't paying attention. You can label me hysterical, that's fine - I am hysterical. I'm pissed off that you aren't pissed off. I can't believe that it doesn't matter to you that, piece by piece, we are descending into a police state, where it's okay to trade freedom for security.
Soon, you won't be able to get any government services without a national ID card. You won't be permitted to leave the country without applying for an exit visa.
We have lost habeas corpus. We have lost the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. We have lost freedom of the press. And it's only the beginning as long as you sit there and throw names at people, content with whatever passes for existence in your tiny little world.
I mistakenly posted my response in another threat. In any case, Russia has been in turmoil since perestroika. That's no secret.
China, on the other hand, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. (That's nearly a verbatim description from the US State Department.) They may achieve that through extreme punishment, but you're simply wrong about it being "notoriously lawless."
If you were able to take off your rose-colored freedom glasses, you may note that in all international press, America is seen as the most violent western democracy in the world, given our violent crime rate, in addition to the many thousands of people we kill abroad, whether on purpose or through "collateral damage."
because I am in CHINA *cough commie cough fags*
"Community college generally means a two year college, which can grant AA degrees, but not BA or BS. At least it did when I was going to college."
... I'm not willing to accept anything from MicroSoft as authoritative."
That's true. Of course, after receiving your AA, you then transfer to a 4 year university to finish your BA/BS 2 years later.
I apologize, I assumed that people who would be discussing this subject would at least gain a basic understanding of it before they chose to share their opinions.
"Also, about your source
I'm not willing to pretend like I care. I gave a source, you gave nothing. You're free to post sources that disagree, instead of, honestly, cheap objections to facts you don't like because they're "from Microsoft".
Everything I said is true and verifiable, and all of your points are baseless.
You say it's
"China, on the other hand, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world."
I would say it's
"China, on the other hand, has one of the lowest REPORTED crime rates in the world."
They are not the same thing.
"If you were able to take off your rose-colored freedom glasses"
Ah I see, you're an asshole. Please tell me where I did ANYTHING but suggest that a comparison with two lawless countries may not make the point it was intended to?
I didn't. I'll await your apology.
"The only rights you have are those described in the Declaration of Independence as being rights."
Ok, I understand now. You simply have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
In case you're wondering, nothing you said in your post is accurate or true. You're wrong on every single point you make, so wrong in fact, that it makes me wonder if you actually have the reading comprehension necessary to understand what you're discussing.
"Your freedom to leave? To speak freely? Those certainly are taken away."
No, they aren't.
They are relinquished not taken away.
Your inability to grasp the difference does not negate the difference.
"Yes, the piece of paper..."
It has nothing to do with any paper and everything to do with the difference between relinquishing something of your free will and having it taken by force.
Most people are capable of understanding the difference.
the only intellectually and morally valid point of view on the subject matter you are commenting on is a global one
do human rights end at the rio grande? are humans worth less below the straights of bosporus? do you have less right to speak your mind south of the rock of gibraltar? of course not, of course not, of course not
but by your way of thinking, the governments north of those points you hold accountable and the governments south of those points you do not hold accountable. therefore, in your world, no real progress is made on the issues you care about. all you really have is a fancy blame game that doesn't actually solve the problems you see. do you honestly care about the problems you see? then apply your principles equally across the globe, or do not apply them at all. because selectively applying your principles only to the west is ethnocentric racism, frankly
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
America did not send troops to end genocide in Rwanda. America did not send troops to end genocide in East Timor. America did not send troops to end mass killings in Cambodia, nor will it send troops to end genocide in Darfur.
America did sell weapons to Indonesia while they were exterminating East Timorese. America did sell weapons to Saddam and train his forces, knowing full well that they would be used to repress and exterminate Kurdish rebels. (And most recently, we are allowing Turkey to do the same thing, even violating the sovereignty of Iraq.) America did send CIA forces to train genocidal guerrilla groups that killed tens of thousand of people all over central and south America, and to this day we have our own "anti-terrorist" (which, in reality, means "terrorist on our side") training camp at the School of the Americas.
You want to say you have done something about morality by saying, "China is EVIL! North Korea is EVIL!" You'd like to paint a gold throne and imagine yourself sitting in it. Well, it's a nice idea, if completely useless in reality.
I'm complaining bitterly about the fact that America is a nice place, if you happen to live inside of it. Otherwise, we are as bad, if not worse, than any other empire that the world has seen.
To summarize, and I'd like you to address this point directly if you decide to reply, America has no morality outside of it's own borders, as made clear by our military activities since the end of World War II. (I have given you examples a few paragraphs before.) I think we have to solve our own problems before we start trying to solve the problems of others.
I'm not asking whether troops should be able to send e-mail or post to blogs. I'm asking why they've been deployed in the first place.
Freedom and morality have no effect or influence on American foreign policy or use of our military. We have consistently used force to retain power around valuable resources, propping up regimes, regardless of their political structure, if they do what we tell them to, and obliterating them if they do not do what we tell them to.
These are not the acts of a disinterested republic, but that of a brutal empire.
If you'd like some insight on why we were in Vietnam, you should read the Pentagon papers.
I have started applying for work visas, just in case.
On the matter of injustice, one in nine of every young black male is currently in prison. Crime is rampant, underreported, and there are many bad apples in urban police departments. (Where I live, the gentlemen running for Sheriff on a platform of anti-corruption was assassinated in his front yard. And by assassinated, I mean shot with a rifle in the back of his head from some distance.)
If injustice is a laughing matter for you, then I do pity you for being unable to experience compassion for your own neighbors. It probably explains why you are incapable of feeling the same way for people who speak different languages, go to different places to worship, or wear turbans.
Publicly state that you are thinking about killing the president. See how long it takes to receive a visit from the Secret Service.
Oh, right, I'm just paranoid.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/170992_prosser28.html
so did china
so did russia
so did france
etc.
some of them did a lot worse
and yet your venom is only directed at the usa
why is that?
all i'm looking for is some intellectual honesty from you. i'm not defending the usa. fuck the usa. but i don't want to listen to you, who seems to care less about actual principles and morals and a human conscience, and seems to only care about prosecuting the usa. you're biased, and therefore a useless propaganda victim
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Christ I can't believe you people. Bitch and moan about insecure this or insecure that and when the military tries to secure their network people cry foul. For fucks sake it is a military network, people shouldn't be surfing the web to random places not needed for official business. They can go home and surf wherever they want, they just can't do it using governmetn assets. I mean what the hell, lets all get together and cry the government wastes our tax dollars, and then when they do something that would stop that (people wasting time and bandwidth) we all get together and cry louder. This is such bullshit and just another dumb excuse to cry about the military.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
I have said, time and time again, my opinion (you are free to call it venom, since action-based moral integrity is such a poisonous idea to you) can only affect the democracy of which I am a citizen and participant. Complaining about "the reds" or "the terrorists" or drug dealers or whatever invisible, endless enemy the government has these days, is participating in propaganda. Debating US foreign policy is called participating in a democracy. The distinction, to me, is crystal clear. I don't know why such a simple concept is eluding you.
China has not caused the deaths of anyone but their own subjects. They have not, to my knowledge, invaded any country since invasion of Mongolia. They have brutally repressed adjacent territories they believe "belong" inside of their own borders - I'm thinking here of Tibet. This does not excuse their brutal behavior towards their own people, but in my opinion, the Chinese people are in charge of their own destiny, and they have not violated any recognized national borders since the last time they were redrawn by the UN. Russia is so weak they can't even impose their will on the Ukraine. Other colonial powers have mostly given up on the mistake of attempting to militarily coerce other nations to bending to their will.
By contrast, the United States has had troops officially involved in combat operations in Guatemala, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Iran, Iraq, Haiti... (these are just off the top of my head.) This list does not include unofficial involvement by the CIA or other arms of our military. Currently, we have over 170 military bases spread out through the world. Can you name any other country that comes close to 10% of that number? How many foreign military bases are located inside the US? These are not the results of propaganda, but simple observation.
Now, you may, for some reason, think that America should be the police of the world. It's quite obvious to the rest of the world, however, that we are terrible at it. Furthermore, morals and principles have nothing to do with US foreign policy. Please re-read my earlier posts if you somehow think that's not the case.
selectively prosecute the usa on the global stage without considering the actions of the other players
you say you can, because you can only affect the usa
but this is not a moral argument, this is an argument of convenience
the jaywalker, you will prosecute with high holy indignation... because he listens to you. but the murderer you will ignore, because he won't listen to you
no. this is not valid
you must base your porsecutions on the scale of the crimes, not whether or not the criminal decides to listen to you. in fact, the worst defiler of human rights will never listen to you. so the regimes that you have the least control over, that no one has any control over: such as myanmar, north korea, zimbabwe, are in fact the worst criminals on the planet. strictly because they believe they are above the law. not the law of the usa, or the law of the un, fuck the usa or the un. they think they are above the law of the input of their own citizens. this is the starting off point for the worst crimes on the planet
you must take the fight to the worst offenders. you cannot beat up the usual suspects and ignore the darkest evils. this approach of yours "i prosecute whoever listens to me" does not make you a moral or just person, it just makes you a blowhard
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Alright, maybe english is your second language or you're trolling. You keep repeating the same analogies, which are worthless.
If you want to argue ideas that accomplish nothing, that's fine. Call yourself moral all you want. The only person who will listen to that is you, and if that's the only person you're trying to impress, please, continue.
Have you noticed how the American government, in comparison to the noise about terrorism, says next to nothing about Myanmar, North Korea, and Zimbabwe? Did you miss the point I've made over and over about how we have literally sold weapons to nations who we knew were using those weapons for genocide? In order to tell anyone to stop their crimes against humanity, by virtue of common sense, you must stop your own first in order to have any credibility.
You live in fantasy world, where the US is somehow forced into doing bad things. The fact is, we can stop, and the fact remains, we haven't because our government does not care about doing good. They only care about maintaining power. How can we "fight the worst offender" when we are the worst offender?
Hilariously you state, "they think they are above the law of the input of their own citizens. this is the starting off point for the worst crimes on the planet." Have you been paying attention to all of the Executive orders passed by the President, which say that their part of the government cannot even be subjected to the oversight of Congress?
Morality is maintaining a standard of behavior, regardless of the circumstances. America's morality, if you want to call it that, boils down to a single criteria: whatever action a foreign government engages in is acceptable, as long as they do as they're told. Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of Kurds? No problem. Genocide and strife in Rwanda, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Tibet, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Haiti? Who gives a shit. East Timorese being slaughtered in the street? Oh well, Indonesia needs weapons to kill them, and we're happy to provide them.
Saddam invading Kuwait without our permission? Problem. Cuba not allowing us to do whatever we want inside their borders? Problem. Palestine democratically electing people we don't like? Problem. Latin American countries daring to elect leaders who don't support US hegemony? Problem.
Stop using the word "morality." You have no idea what it means.
as you are making moral arguments
and yet you are applying your moral positions in unbalanced ways, which mean you fail at making an effective moral argument
i mean, if you want to say you are just spouting propaganda, ok then, fine. but i can see in the fury and emotion of your words you firmly believe in the morality of your words. and so i merely pointing out the moral inconsistencies in what you say
you have a bias agains the usa. which is fine, fuck the usa, i'm not defending the usa. but to prosecute the usa for crimes everyone commits, some worse than the usa, means you aren't really saying anything useful or valid
that's the simple truth dude
so i'll stop using the word morality, as soon as you stop making flawed moral arguments
now i await my list of american atrocities. conveniently forgetting atrocities of the same magnitude, and worse, committed by other players in the world
zzz
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
In my opinion, debating the morality of ideas in the context of foreign policy is a waste of time. It's the morality of actions that matter.
You seem to think that holding the United States to account somehow excuses the rest of the world. I have never said that. What I have stated, is that we must modify our own behavior before we can expect anyone else to do the same. It's called the Golden Rule, and is the basis for pretty much every system of morality in the world. Furthermore, in the context of the modern world, America has been the most brutal military empire since the end of WWII, in any measurement I can think of - foreign civilians killed, military bases established, the number of conflicts we've been involved with, the amount of troops we have deployed throughout the world... I would invite you to present some counter-examples to this, as I'd love to know about them.
If you want to war with ideas and do nothing in reality, that's your choice. I'd like to participate in my democracy and change things instead of staring off into space.
1. you present to me a crime the usa has committed
2. i am aware that this crime is also commited by most other countries in the world
3. therefore, i cannot hold this crime against the usa uniquely
is there anything in there you don't understand?
the golden rule "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an interesting observation on your part, because it reveals your confirmation bias: yourtendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms your preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs
namely,you wish to prosecute the usa on the basis of an idealized standard of behavior no one actually follows. meanwhile, i wish to prosecute the usa on the basis of its relative cleanliness or dirtiness as compared to other countries
which reveals a difference in our two goals. you wish to improve the behavior of the usa, and only the behavior of the usa. you only care how the maerican government behaves. you've stated this many times. but you don't care how the rest of the world behaves. meanwhile, i wish to improve the behavior of the entire planet. for you, if people are cnanibalizing each other south the rio grande, this is ok by you. but if the usa doesn't enforce handicapped parking rules, you are goign to scream high holy indignation. frankly, this bias of yours is incpoatible with a moral point of pview. because if anything else, morality teraches us that all huamns must be considered equally. your own point of view is that people are valuable only if they are american. remember: you are the one, as stated by you, interested in only the behavior of americans. so you only care about the usa. which reveals your ethnocentrism
you will excuse me, but i care about the entire world. i don't really care about fat people in north america. i care about the lives of poor africans, indonesians, brazilians. meanwhile, you don't really care about the suffering of these people. you only seem to care about the suffering of these people insofar as they are useful in your prosecution of the usa. because your goal, as stated by you and your focus on the golden rule, is only changing the behavior of the usa
which is why you are absolutely useless, to the subjec tmatter you are invovled in: global subject matter. you need to focus your criticism to american domestic issues, or you need to lose your american-centered point of view. because you cannot talk about global issues with an american-centered point of view. this makes you morally and intellectually dishonest and useless on the questions you are involving yourself in
because frankly, a lot of the issues you talk about are not uniquely american issues
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I forget to always put things in context, but sometimes that's important. I was in the realm of more modern Western colonial empires, excluding the Nazis and the Japanese. (I've read several accounts of the Rape of Nanking that still make me queasy.) And this also ignores atrocities committed inside borders - Rwanda, Stalinist Russia, etc.
I can think of only the Spanish and the British (pre-18th century colonialism) that have us beat off the top of my head, but I am not well versed in history before the industrial revolution.
I hope these qualifiers continue to be necessary. If we get involved with military action in Iran, I don't know if that will be the case.
1. you present to me a crime the usa has committed
2. i am aware that this crime is also commited by most other countries in the world
3. therefore, i cannot hold this crime against the usa uniquely
Incorrect.
1. America is ignoring international law and human rights.
2. I would like America to abide by international law and Geneva Conventions.
3. I complain.
If everyone is murdering civilians in the street (which they aren't) then I could see your point.
namely,you wish to prosecute the usa on the basis of an idealized standard of behavior no one actually follows. meanwhile, i wish to prosecute the usa on the basis of its relative cleanliness or dirtiness as compared to other countries
No, you wish to imagine the behavior of the United States instead of simply observing it in comparison to other nations. Again, if you can show me any country which has killed more foreign civilians in the past twenty years, please provide their name.
which reveals a difference in our two goals. you wish to improve the behavior of the usa, and only the behavior of the usa. you only care how the maerican government behaves.
Incorrect. I can only affect the behavior of my own government. Wishing for other countries to change their behavior is exactly that: wishing. Participating in American politics is something which may be very foreign to you: doing.
if people are cnanibalizing each other south the rio grande, this is ok by you. but if the usa doesn't enforce handicapped parking rules, you are goign to scream high holy indignation.
Nice strawman. However, totally incomprehensible in relation to what I've said. We are killing hundreds of thousands of civilians abroad. I'd like us to stop. That's a real atrocity - not an imagined one. Once we solve our own problems, we can start helping others solve their own. You seem to be of the opinion that I should help my neighbor put out a fire in their back yard while my entire house is engulfed in flames.
frankly, this bias of yours is incpoatible with a moral point of pview. because if anything else, morality teraches us that all huamns must be considered equally. your own point of view is that people are valuable only if they are american. remember: you are the one, as stated by you, interested in only the behavior of americans. so you only care about the usa. which reveals your ethnocentrism
So, I'm ethnocentric because I want my government to stop killing foreigners?
you will excuse me, but i care about the entire world. i don't really care about fat people in north america. i care about the lives of poor africans, indonesians, brazilians. meanwhile, you don't really care about the suffering of these people. you only seem to care about the suffering of these people insofar as they are useful in your prosecution of the usa. because your goal, as stated by you and your focus on the golden rule, is only changing the behavior of the usa
Caring is nice, but summarily meaningless. If you think otherwise, try "caring" about people who are sick in Brazil, versus actually helping someone who lives in your neighborhood. Which action do you think would be more effective?
which is why you are absolutely useless, to the subjec tmatter you are invovled in: global subject matter. you need to focus your criticism to american domestic issues, or you need to lose your american-centered point of view. because you cannot talk about global issues with an american-centered point of view. this makes you morally and intellectually dishonest and useless on the questions you are involving yourself in
Your argument is coming off the rails, here. How, as an American demanding that America stop atrocities committed in other countries, am I "absolutely useless"? Shouldn't that be my reaction? Should I instead focus on how "caring" about the children in Africa will solve the problem of the United States blowing f
you have incredibly creative lines of reasoning to find the usa responsible for some of your numbers
for example "We are killing hundreds of thousands of civilians abroad."
huh? how is this number arrived at?
my best guess is that it is like the usual impressive flight of fancy of say, including civilians killed by al qaeda in iraq. the usa is responsible for the atrocities of it's enemies. that's a nice trick. or going back and considering numbers from the cold war (and not include any numbers from any other powers in that era). there's some other propagandistic tricks you labor under too, but those are the big obvious ones
look, dude, i don't know how to get through the vast smog of propaganda in your mind. countering your "facts" one by one is a laborious process that doesn't actually convince you of anything, because your deductions are not made from facts, but from a bias that shades the reality of your so-called "facts". all i can do is pose little simple truthful observations that stand in contrast to your obvious bias and hope it pricks through the fog
here's one:
the usa disappears into a vast lake tomorrow. every single american military installation in the world evaporates off the face of the earth
what happens to the numbers you quote above friend?
go ahead, give me a scenario where the numbers go vastly down. after all, the usa is murdering hundreds of thousands, right?
because by the way you speak of the usa's actions in the world, it would seem the world would suddenly become a vast field of peace prosperity love and happiness. is that what you believe?
perhaps if that is not what happens (or perhaps if the deaths go up, might it be possible? you gotta be careful in the wording here because the partisan kneejerk reactions are trigger haired here for propagandized sheep like yourself) then the usa is not responsible for the atrocities you currently blame it for
now you will excuse me, i need to go back to drinking oil from the skulls of dead iraqi children and have a nice demonic laugh
(rolls eyes)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I get numbers from several different sources. The most conservative is the Iraq Body Count, which only counts civilian deaths reported in the media, and only reports Iraq. Their estimate is around 85,000 for civilian deaths from violence. From various reports, about 3500 civilians were killed in the first Gulf War in Iraq - who knows how many were snuffed out after we left. At least a few hundred were killed as we sat and watched Saddam strafe civilian Kurds with helicopters before the troops left Iraq.
Afghanistan is a bit tricker, but I think 4,000 would be a safe number, based on yearly reports from early on in the war. At least 150 people have been tortured to death in US custody according to the US military. (Note: they call it homicide.)
These are only the verified reports, which total 92,500, and that's only in Iraq and Afghanistan. As you might imagine in a warzone, the probability of more civilian deaths than what is reported is pretty close to 100%.
Now, here's where our morality separates us. Regardless of America's intent, our policy has caused certain events to transpire. These are just the people who have died due to direct violence - blood and brains splattering on the walls and on the ground kind of stuff. It doesn't touch the number of people who have died due to medical failure, since we destroyed the vast majority of infrastructure in Iraq. Who knows how many have died due to exposure or sickness. 2,000,000 Iraqis have fled their homeland in desperation, so I can't imagine it's all peaches and cream over there.
Let us now examine what happens when the US leaves theaters of war. For instance, in Vietnam, at least three million civilians and one million combatants died - just on the "communist" side. After we left, more violence took place between the warring factions that were left. Perhaps two million civilians and combatants died in Cambodia, and another hundred thousand in the ensuing Sino-Vietnamese war.
In answer to your question, less people died after we left. However, the real question is not how many died before and after. It is how many would have died if we had stayed out of the mess entirely.
when i demonstrate the convoluted logic that finds the usa responsible for deaths it is not really responsible for, the general idea would not be to reply to that comment by doing exactly that
you have an inflated sense of responsibility for the west, and deflated sense of responsibility for nonwesterners. this is racist and condescending of you
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If you set a house on fire, and it causes the death of your neighbors (through fire) and another neighbor dies due to medical complications because the power to their home is lost, explain how the deaths aren't your fault. If you had never started the fire, they would be alive. It's pretty damn simple.
Notice how I'm completely excluding American involvement in WWII and WWI, because we responded to blatant national aggression with clear tactical goals and real international support. Mostly - get Germany subdued, get them back within their original borders, and get out. What's the goal of the War on Terror? Defeat terrorism? David Cross put it best: "You cannot win a war on terrorism. It's like trying to win a war on jealousy."
I have a sense of responsibility for America as an American, because it's the only place I have a voice.
If you believe respecting someone else's responsibility to themselves and the international community should involve bombing their country or sending paramilitary units to try and overthrow their democratically elected government, to be blunt, you're just fucking stupid.
in a vacuum of considering the crimes of anyone else
;-)
thereby rendering your verdict of the usa useless
and i, of course, am fucking stupid, of course, because i accept every crime you accuse the usa of, look at the crimes of other countries in the world, and find myself thinking the usa as not so culpable as you command
i am the stupid one, of course, because my opinion considers more facts and players than your opinion
of course
(snicker)
or rather, i await the other shoe to drop: i await your gigantic huge tome of horrid crimes from russia, china, iran, the uk, france... etc... i await your blistering display of high holy moral indignation against these countries, i await your flinging of invectives against the vast evil these countries command upon the world. oh where is the casting of aspersions on moscow, beijing, tehran?
i'm still waiting
because the goal is to make the world a better place, is it not? the goal is progress, is it not?
we do that by finding people accountable for their crimes, do we not?
or is the goal simply to pillory the usa for its crimes and that set of crimes only. and stop there. regardless of whether the rest of the world is a better place. hmmm. that's an interesting agenda
huh?
we ignore the other players in the world and thereby achieve what exactly in your mind? what exactly is the point of this biased prosecution according to you?
this is incredible to me: using the crimes of the world and the suffering of the people therein as tools only insofar as they are useful in prosecuting the usa, rather than in the improvement of the world
that's a very interesting sense of "morality" to me
where "very interesting" is a code phrase for gee, i dunno, for "fucking stupid"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
And improve your reading comprehension.
"Perhaps if you hadn't lied demonstrably, I'd give a fuck what you thought.
But I don't."
Read that until you understand it, or if necessary, get someone smarter to read it to you.
You're a liar. That's all I need to know about you and what you think.
"You have no idea what a lie is."
Really?
"You're now in the army and will be shot if you try to leave"
THAT is a lie. You are court martialed, not shot. Even when convicted you are imprisoned. See that word "will" in there liar? It should be "can" but in your haste to rile people up, yo uthought a little white lie wouldn't matter.
Liars like you always do that.
"You care Sparky."
About making sure everyone knows you're a liar? Yes. About your opinion? Um, not so much.
"It must burn you up inside to be so incapable of even simple arguments. "
It must burn you up to have lied and gotten caught, why else would you follow me around insulting me when I've told you I couldn't care less about what you think.
I mean seriously, you want to talk about who cares? You've been trolling me for days after I told you I didn't give a fuck what you though.
What kind of loser has the time to do that?
Your kind of loser apparently.
"Desertion can lead to you getting shot"
CAN. NOT WILL like you claimed, you lied, I caught you. That was not your only lie, just the first one I chose.
"Trolling you? For days?"
That's what it's called when I tell you I don't give a fuck about what you think, and you respond in order to get me to reply. TROLLING, look it up. And yes days you fucking moron, you started trolling me a week ago.
"You evidently have no concept of the time it takes to write a Slashdot post"
ANd you evidently are still having trouble with reading comprehension
"by WNight (23683)on Friday February 29, @02:06AM"
So are you just incredibly stupid, or do you not understand what I'm telling you? Yes, you've been trolling me for days idiot.
"But no, you don't care. Not at all. "
I'm glad you finally get it, I guess there's a small chance you're not a stupid as your posts make you appear.
"If you weren't such an abominable asshole this wouldn't be so funny."
Why does the fact that I'm an asshole make you being a proven liar funny?
Of course, now is when you reply with your pathetic attempt to not look wrong and stupid. You've failed every time so far, but I'll give you permission to try again.
In fact, I'm telling you to reply and try again.
Of course, you'll make up a stupid excuse as to why you're not posting because I told you to, and try to make it look like you're not doing exactly what I said to.
But you'll reply anyway, because you can't stand that I proved you're a liar, and moreso, because I told you to.