If we're going to topple every barbaric dictatorship, we're going to be going to war with a whole lot of countries.
Fortunately it's just a post hoc rationalization for one war that everyone now knows was launched on a false pretext and another one that utterly failed in its honest objective.
So you don't cónsider the removal of a barbaric religious dictatorship cause in and of itself?
BTW, I meant to ask... Did we invade Afghanistan to remove a barbaric religious dictatorship? Is that why we're there now? Should we stay until we're sure they won't get a new one in the future?
Surely. I do, as well. However, the public view is that the U.S. military is covering up "stupid deaths" to keep up support for the war. I don't doubt that this is the case, I'm just saying that the "consoling grieving mothers" argument might be considered as a supporting factor.
Yeah, if novels and movies are any guide then saying "your son died a hero" when he actually slipped and broke his neck in a whorehouse is kind of a longstanding tradition.
OTOH, when the grieving mother discovers the truth it's worse than if they hadn't lied to begin with.
And FWIW, I'm one of those who subscribe to the view that the US military is doing that and everything else in its power to keep up support for the war.
Where is it written that previous failures of principle require continued failure? I'm not addressing any other aspect of the conversation, just calling b.s. on what seems a logical fallacy of foolishly consistent... er, hobgoblins... or something.
It doesn't, and I didn't mean to imply that it does.
However, if we think is right and proper and our job to knock off religious dictatorships, then we should start being consistent about it *now*.
So you don't cónsider the removal of a barbaric religious dictatorship cause in and of itself?
I'll leave that to the ethicists. But if we decide that's what we should do, we have to be consistent about it.
To take a different example. Saddam Hussein was a murderer, a warmonger, a war criminal, and all-around asshole. Did that justify us going in and nailing him? Perhaps so, but look how many other dictators behave the same way while we totally ignore them - if not actively giving them our blessing. (Hussein pretty much had our blessing until he f'kt up with Kuwait.)
If we're going to appeal to principle to justify our actions, we have to be consistent about it. Otherwise "principle" is just a convenient string to pull.
I support ONE war and no occupation. Our sole mission in Afghanistan should have been to remove the Taliban, period.
Even before doing that, we should have provided them with the evidence they requested when we asked them to hand the murderer over.
Perhaps they still wouldn't have handed him over, in which case we would have had just cause for enforcing the rule of law ourselves. But instead we just did the angry cowboy thing and started shooting, as if no one has a right to question anything we do.
History isn't going to be kind to this generation of USAian leadership.
The elected representatives are elected to be our representatives so they can know for us. It's not a direct democracy.
Yes, but when our elected representatives tell us they are waging a just war on our behalf, waging it well, and not killing very many innocent bystanders, we need some knowledge of how truthful they are being so we'll know when to vote them out.
No, really they don't have a right to know about the operational details of the war until it is over. That's not a new stance, it's pretty much how operational security in a theatre of war has happened for a couple thousand years.
Does that make it right?
I a state where the people supposedly run the country via elected representatives, there is a whole lot of "need to know" if the system is even going to half-ass work.
My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks is how it divides us. We now have the privilege of mostly being sorted into two rather neat piles
There is always a tension between the need for secrecy on various matters of governance, law enforcement, and military capabilities/plans/activities. The problem is that the people who make the decision on what is kept under wraps aren't neutral parties, so it easily becomes a method of hiding incompetence and corruption.
I don't know a solution. Maybe our system should include an elected review board with the authority to release whatever they think was improperly hidden. But how long until that became as corrupt as the rest of our political system?
"Supporting the troops" is simply a way to voice that you understand that they are in harm's way on your behalf
Well, that's one use. Another is to make people's knees jerk, so that e.g. anyone who disagrees with a war or the manner it is being waged looks "un-American".
Maybe you were around during the Bush/Cheney administration?
So if you really believe there are people who need to be indicted, then let's here specifics.
Waterboarding has been recognized as torture for over a century. We've prosecuted and imprisoned enemies, our own troops, and even civilian US citizens.
Also, if we hold ourselves to the same standard we held the Germans at Nuremburg, gratuitous war-making and conspiracy toward same are war crimes.
If you are just grandstanding and/or talking without understanding what a war crime really is, then please stuff it.
What kind of idiot are you not to be aware of all of this?
There has been quite an outcry from various humanitarian organizations who think the documents were not redacted well enough to hide the identities of civilians who may now become targets of reprisals.
How does a little egg on the Governments face = endangering troops? Seems to me sending them to Afghanistan and Iraq puts them in more danger than anything wikileaks could ever publish.
Because it's actually about the egg. The troops are just an excuse.
To put that in perspective, the sequence '123456789' is found within the first 10^9 digits of pi, which, if you don't take all the statistics into account, seems pretty incredible.
It's not actually all that improbable. If you independently select 9 random digits you have a 1/10^9 chance of getting that string. Try it almost 10^9 times, and you stand a fair chance of getting it.
very very easy... every time I here about someones brother or uncle got caught with it on their computer I always try and explain how easy something like this would be and we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Given how many compromised computers there are out there, I'm surprised it's possible to convict anyone on the basis of anything on the computer.
How many of us know what's on our computer? Yours might be serving up kiddie porn, stolen credit card numbers, or trade secrets right now.
Slashdot Mirror
If we're going to topple every barbaric dictatorship, we're going to be going to war with a whole lot of countries.
Fortunately it's just a post hoc rationalization for one war that everyone now knows was launched on a false pretext and another one that utterly failed in its honest objective.
So you don't cónsider the removal of a barbaric religious dictatorship cause in and of itself?
BTW, I meant to ask... Did we invade Afghanistan to remove a barbaric religious dictatorship? Is that why we're there now? Should we stay until we're sure they won't get a new one in the future?
Surely. I do, as well. However, the public view is that the U.S. military is covering up "stupid deaths" to keep up support for the war. I don't doubt that this is the case, I'm just saying that the "consoling grieving mothers" argument might be considered as a supporting factor.
Yeah, if novels and movies are any guide then saying "your son died a hero" when he actually slipped and broke his neck in a whorehouse is kind of a longstanding tradition.
OTOH, when the grieving mother discovers the truth it's worse than if they hadn't lied to begin with.
And FWIW, I'm one of those who subscribe to the view that the US military is doing that and everything else in its power to keep up support for the war.
Where is it written that previous failures of principle require continued failure? I'm not addressing any other aspect of the conversation, just calling b.s. on what seems a logical fallacy of foolishly consistent... er, hobgoblins... or something.
It doesn't, and I didn't mean to imply that it does.
However, if we think is right and proper and our job to knock off religious dictatorships, then we should start being consistent about it *now*.
So you don't cónsider the removal of a barbaric religious dictatorship cause in and of itself?
I'll leave that to the ethicists. But if we decide that's what we should do, we have to be consistent about it.
To take a different example. Saddam Hussein was a murderer, a warmonger, a war criminal, and all-around asshole. Did that justify us going in and nailing him? Perhaps so, but look how many other dictators behave the same way while we totally ignore them - if not actively giving them our blessing. (Hussein pretty much had our blessing until he f'kt up with Kuwait.)
If we're going to appeal to principle to justify our actions, we have to be consistent about it. Otherwise "principle" is just a convenient string to pull.
I support ONE war and no occupation. Our sole mission in Afghanistan should have been to remove the Taliban, period.
Even before doing that, we should have provided them with the evidence they requested when we asked them to hand the murderer over.
Perhaps they still wouldn't have handed him over, in which case we would have had just cause for enforcing the rule of law ourselves. But instead we just did the angry cowboy thing and started shooting, as if no one has a right to question anything we do.
History isn't going to be kind to this generation of USAian leadership.
The elected representatives are elected to be our representatives so they can know for us. It's not a direct democracy.
Yes, but when our elected representatives tell us they are waging a just war on our behalf, waging it well, and not killing very many innocent bystanders, we need some knowledge of how truthful they are being so we'll know when to vote them out.
I wonder how many relatives/friends of MIA soliders will comb through these archives looking for clues as to their fate.
Or find out that their loved one was actually killed by friendly fire, as opposed to what they were told.
There was NOT ONE MENTION of poppies, heroin, or opium in the released documents. What are the odds of that?
I suppose it would depend on the nature of the documents. Not everything pertaining to Afghanistan and the war has been released.
No, really they don't have a right to know about the operational details of the war until it is over. That's not a new stance, it's pretty much how operational security in a theatre of war has happened for a couple thousand years.
Does that make it right?
I a state where the people supposedly run the country via elected representatives, there is a whole lot of "need to know" if the system is even going to half-ass work.
My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks is how it divides us. We now have the privilege of mostly being sorted into two rather neat piles
There is always a tension between the need for secrecy on various matters of governance, law enforcement, and military capabilities/plans/activities. The problem is that the people who make the decision on what is kept under wraps aren't neutral parties, so it easily becomes a method of hiding incompetence and corruption.
I don't know a solution. Maybe our system should include an elected review board with the authority to release whatever they think was improperly hidden. But how long until that became as corrupt as the rest of our political system?
They are already risking the lives of our soldiers by simply posting their tactics and secrets.
Examples?
now we have security and empire, but our empire sure doesn't seem to be doing anything for the average citizen.
Did empires ever?
Turns out we're not the only animal that uses tools so there's no reason why it would have appeared recently in human evolution.
The only surprise would be if the most recent common ancestor of ourselves and chimps *didn't* use tools, some six million years ago.
"Supporting the troops" is simply a way to voice that you understand that they are in harm's way on your behalf
Well, that's one use. Another is to make people's knees jerk, so that e.g. anyone who disagrees with a war or the manner it is being waged looks "un-American".
Maybe you were around during the Bush/Cheney administration?
So if you really believe there are people who need to be indicted, then let's here specifics.
Waterboarding has been recognized as torture for over a century. We've prosecuted and imprisoned enemies, our own troops, and even civilian US citizens.
Also, if we hold ourselves to the same standard we held the Germans at Nuremburg, gratuitous war-making and conspiracy toward same are war crimes.
If you are just grandstanding and/or talking without understanding what a war crime really is, then please stuff it.
What kind of idiot are you not to be aware of all of this?
Wow, who is being alienated?
There has been quite an outcry from various humanitarian organizations who think the documents were not redacted well enough to hide the identities of civilians who may now become targets of reprisals.
How does a little egg on the Governments face = endangering troops? Seems to me sending them to Afghanistan and Iraq puts them in more danger than anything wikileaks could ever publish.
Because it's actually about the egg. The troops are just an excuse.
for bringing our own war criminals to justice.
they'll be all over it. And you won't hear anything else on the news for a month.
But the farther you are from "little blonde girl", the less you matter.
To put that in perspective, the sequence '123456789' is found within the first 10^9 digits of pi, which, if you don't take all the statistics into account, seems pretty incredible.
It's not actually all that improbable. If you independently select 9 random digits you have a 1/10^9 chance of getting that string. Try it almost 10^9 times, and you stand a fair chance of getting it.
control.
very very easy... every time I here about someones brother or uncle got caught with it on their computer I always try and explain how easy something like this would be and we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
Given how many compromised computers there are out there, I'm surprised it's possible to convict anyone on the basis of anything on the computer.
How many of us know what's on our computer? Yours might be serving up kiddie porn, stolen credit card numbers, or trade secrets right now.
trying to pervert the course of justice
No pun intended.
how many governments get rid of "undesirables" by planting child porn on their computers.
Throwing a baggie of pot behind your toaster is just so passé these days...