What do you think of Wkileaks?

[MrPopo]

So you obviously have a high level of paranoia regarding our government

It's not paranoia when the danger is real. I've shown several times in this thread how the US government has cost more Americans their lives than middle eastern terrorists have. Those are factual numbers, and if you choose to ignore them you're just naive.

If the government sends a soldier to a hotbed of terrorist activity and he gets killed by a terrorist who is responsible, the government or the terrorists?

And as for the invading bit, that's just short sighted. Let's say for the sake of argument that Canada decided they want to invade us. They push in a bit and capture some of our states on the border. We then push them back to the original borders. Are you suggesting that we stop the conflict there with no reprisals for the invasion?

There's a big difference between self-defense and the colonialism we've been engaged in for the past decade.

Explain how it is colonialism when we attack them after we are attacked.

Again, I'm not advocating total secrecy. I'm arguing that some things need to remain secret for some amount of time because there are very specific people who's lives are at risk.

I'm sympathetic in principle, but the government has proven untrustworthy.

And the military is in the BEST position to determine if a piece of information should get out or not.

The military also has the most to gain by covering up bad deeds.

This just in: human beings make mistakes and abuse power. News at 11.

Let's say a hiker is lost on a mountain. Should we only send one person to look for him, so only one person is at risk? Do you truly see no value in risking many lives for a few?

Depends on the odds. If there's a better than 50% chance that the guy you send out will come back with the guy you lost, then the odds work out in favor of searching. If, on average, you lose more men then you get back then you should stop.

I figured you answer would be something like this. You don't seem to believe in doing something based on principle.

[ZeroAX]

, but only one that has been there is qualified to judge a soldier's actions in battle.

tell that to the relatives of the dead civilians

EDIT.

now that I've read the entire thread some thoughts.

It was really dumb to release information about stuff like Pakistan which can make it harder for your army.

BUT information about the army being underfunded during the afghan war is not an issue if it's released to the public.



And I'm sorry but whoever says that the info about the amount of civilians killed by NATO soldiers shouldn't have been released is a freaking NAZI/Stalin USSR supporter.

There is a reason this war is so hard to win. You are an invading force, and you have made things worse for them. And killing civilians does not help. besides people usually prefer a home bred dictator. This war just can't be won with brute force.

and for those who think this isn't colonization (at least the iraq war when it comes to america and the entire middle eastern campaign when it comes to Europe)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10207180



still I believe the afghanistan war for the US is justified. If someone slaps you and you don't do something about it, next time he's going to punch you.

and imo if the occupation of Iraq hadn't happened this war would have been over by now.

[Hatta]

If the government sends a soldier to a hotbed of terrorist activity and he gets killed by a terrorist who is responsible, the government or the terrorists?

Both of them. The soldier himself bears some responsibility as well. That is the only way I can think of in which the US casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq are less tragic than those on 9/11. But then we've killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and Afghanis. Bin Laden has only killed a few thousand innocent Americans. By that measure he's still not as bloodthirsty as the US government.

Explain how it is colonialism when we attack them after we are attacked.

When it lasts longer than any war in US history, and we hang around for the sole purpose of propping up the government we installed, it looks a hell of a lot like colonialism.

The military also has the most to gain by covering up bad deeds.

This just in: human beings make mistakes and abuse power. News at 11.

That's my point! That's why we can't trust them with secrecy!

I figured you answer would be something like this. You don't seem to believe in doing something based on principle.

So? I'm pragmatic.

[crux]

Democracy is nearly insubstantial as to the importance of transparency. We demand transparency because we demand culpability. We demand transparency because there are rules to war. I can't even remotely relate to someone that doesn't understand that without transparency, culpability is taken on nothing else than faith. Faith in a government that has and will continue to lie to us.

[MrPopo]

We demand transparency because there are rules to war.

No, there really aren't. We have created an artifical set of "rules" that govern war soley to try and prevent the other side from using tactics against us that we'd happily use against them. Remember Sherman's March to the Sea? That was very effective, but that kind of tactic is now frowned up in "civilized warfare".

I can't even remotely relate to someone that doesn't understand that without transparency, culpability is taken on nothing else than faith. Faith in a government that has and will continue to lie to us.

The fundamental problem is that transparency can be extremely harmful for a nation-state's operations. Everything your citizens know your enemies know as well. As I mentioned in another thread, the whole purpose of government is to give up some personal liberties in exchange for security. Why you would willingly hobble that security I cannot understand. Now you've given up some liberties and gained nothing.

[ZeroAX]

No, there really aren't. We have created an artifical set of "rules" that govern war soley to try and prevent the other side from using tactics against us that we'd happily use against them. Remember Sherman's March to the Sea? That was very effective, but that kind of tactic is now frowned up in "civilized warfare".

The fundamental problem is that transparency can be extremely harmful for a nation-state's operations. Everything your citizens know your enemies know as well. As I mentioned in another thread, the whole purpose of government is to give up some personal liberties in exchange for security. Why you would willingly hobble that security I cannot understand. Now you've given up some liberties and gained nothing.

True there are no rules to war. That's why people hate it when a war is not justified (aka a defensive war).

and

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
- Benjamin Franklin

and I repeat. some stuff like military operations should be kept secret. But keeping a secret the number of dead NATO soldiers and dead civilians, so the public opinion isn't against the war, is a tactic used a lot by every evil regime in the history of man kind, with the most high profile case being the NAZIs and Stalin USSR

[MrPopo]

and I repeat. some stuff like military operations should be kept secret. But keeping a secret the number of dead NATO soldiers and dead civilians, so the public opinion isn't against the war, is a tactic used a lot by every evil regime in the history of man kind, with the most high profile case being the NAZIs and Stalin USSR

You act like that tactic hasn't been used by every regime in history, good or evil. Civilians just don't truly understand the cost and horrors of war unless they're experiencing it themselves. And these days with the accessability of fast media the government really needs to downplay things for the public or we'll end up with another fiasco like Vietnam. Every war is terrible, but only in the last 50 years has the public really started to understand that.

[ZeroAX]

You act like that tactic hasn't been used by every regime in history, good or evil. Civilians just don't truly understand the cost and horrors of war unless they're experiencing it themselves. And these days with the accessability of fast media the government really needs to downplay things for the public or we'll end up with another fiasco like Vietnam. Every war is terrible, but only in the last 50 years has the public really started to understand that.

yes you are right. human kind should not evolve. Human rights? What are those? During medieval times they did not have those and life was better.

And really it's a very childish argument to say "He did it, so I will do it as well"

[MrPopo]

You act like that tactic hasn't been used by every regime in history, good or evil. Civilians just don't truly understand the cost and horrors of war unless they're experiencing it themselves. And these days with the accessability of fast media the government really needs to downplay things for the public or we'll end up with another fiasco like Vietnam. Every war is terrible, but only in the last 50 years has the public really started to understand that.

yes you are right. human kind should not evolve. Human rights? What are those? During medieval times they did not have those and life was better.

And really it's a very childish argument to say "He did it, so I will do it as well"

Humans have no more rights than what we come up with in order to form a functioning society. There is nothing "moral" about it; it's simply something that allows us to form larger groupings without devolving into chaos. And let me bring up what you said earlier:

some stuff like military operations should be kept secret. But keeping a secret the number of dead NATO soldiers and dead civilians, so the public opinion isn't against the war, is a tactic used a lot by every evil regime in the history of man kind

The point I was trying to make is that public opinion will always be against war if they know everything about a war. If you're going to play the "human rights" angle then all wars are a violation of human rights.

[Hatta]

The point I was trying to make is that public opinion will always be against war if they know everything about a war.

Good! I'm glad you've come around and can see why absolute transparency is the best policy.