What do you think of Wkileaks?

[MrPopo]

Except that they still aren't making an informed choice. They might be aware that there are X number of civilian casualties without actually understanding how combat goes down or the general tactical and strategic situation.

If the public values avoiding civilian casualties more than victory, that's their prerogative. The fact that military commanders have engaged in wholesale slaughter through history in the name of victory is a great reason why they can't be trusted to choose which wars to fight and how to fight them.

The military may be more skilled at making war than the general public. But they do not possess superior morality.

I've got news for you; if you're going to win a war people are going to have to die. Learn to deal with it.

Can you admit that a country on the scale of the United States CANNOT operate as a true democracy and let us move forward?

I suppose you'd prefer a military dictatorship?

No, I'd just prefer a little less naive idealism.

[Hatta]

No, I'd just prefer a little less naive idealism.

Thinking that you can trust government officials with power and not have it be abused is naive idealism.

[MrPopo]

No, I'd just prefer a little less naive idealism.

Thinking that you can trust government officials with power and not have it be abused is naive idealism.

I fully expect it to be abused. I just don't care.

[Hatta]

And here I thought you were arguing from some sort of principled position. Guess I shouldn't have even bothered. How sad.

[MrPopo]

And here I thought you were arguing from some sort of principled position. Guess I shouldn't have even bothered. How sad.

And what position did you think that to be? I'm just a realist; people in power will abuse it, war is hell, and sometimes people need to be blown up. I joined the thread because I think that wikileaks is distributing information that shouldn't be distributed; total transpancy is no way to run a nation-state.

[Hatta]

Nah, I'm done. There's no point in arguing with someone who simply doesn't care what kinds of atrocities his leaders commit.

[MrPopo]

Nah, I'm done. There's no point in arguing with someone who simply doesn't care what kinds of atrocities his leaders commit.

So collateral damage == atrocities now?

[ZeroAX]

So collateral damage == atrocities now?

if it wasn't there wouldn't be a need to hide it.

[MrPopo]

So collateral damage == atrocities now?

if it wasn't there wouldn't be a need to hide it.

Again, just because the public doesn't understand the nature of collateral damage doesn't make it an atrocity. Now, if the military starts rounding up civilians and mass executing them, THAT is an atrocity.

[ZeroAX]

So collateral damage == atrocities now?

if it wasn't there wouldn't be a need to hide it.

Again, just because the public doesn't understand the nature of collateral damage doesn't make it an atrocity. Now, if the military starts rounding up civilians and mass executing them, THAT is an atrocity.

AHEM. Jut a small note.

True collateral damage: The defending army hiding among civilians and the invading army having to attack them and by chance they kill some civilians running through the battlefield.

Atrocities called collateral damage: marines with low I.Q playing too much call of duty and attacking some reporters for carrying a video camera, and of course killing the civilians who tried to help them afterwards, while making fun of said civilians and reporters.