Pages: 1 2

 

2010-08-14 21:18:22
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England
I'm having a really hard time deciding how I feel about Julian Assange and the way Wikileaks is handling it's newfound power.

On the one hand I can't help but feel anger because he has made the job of my former brothers and sisters in arms much more difficult in Afghanistan. He has also exposed them to increased danger in an environment already rife with it. In his effort to hurt the US, he has strengthened the Taliban. Now, I don't care how much hatred people have for the US, there isn't an educated person on the planet that would pick to live in Taliban-run Afghanistan.

But on the other hand I don't feel the war in Afghanistan is winnable. You can't make war on an idea unless you plan on wiping out entire portions of the planet while simultaneously destroying its history and guarding against its return in perpetuity. It's just not sane to think this is a real option. It's why we never had any shot at winning in Vietnam, it wasn't a linear 'capture the flag' kind of war where all you had to do was take the capital or knock out the leader and you've won. Wars on ideas are never hierarchical, and they're never rational. Afghanistan is indeed turning into another Vietnam so maybe this leak will either give us the cover to pull out, or wake people up to the fact that it's just not winnable.

While I can understand his belief that the government shouldn't be allowed to keep secrets from it's populace, he's going about it all wrong. He just seems like an angry petulant child mad at the world.



My feelings about the Army Specialist that leaked the documents remains unchanged though. He swore an oath, reneged on his oath and committed treason.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-14 21:33:08
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX
Assange had a social duty to be responsible, he could have published the intel and achieved his - perfectly reasonable and laudable - objectives without putting people at risk.

I don't see how he has 'strengthened the Taliban' he has weakened the US, the coalition and the pro-West Afghans though.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2010-08-14 21:38:31
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England
He strengthened the Taliban precisely by weakening the US and the pro-West Afghans. He made the job of the Taliban infinitely easier because now they have the intel required to exact vengeance on anyone who helped us. Do you think that the Afghanis will be willing to help us after they see their friends and relatives slaughtered for giving aid? No.

I see this release as the tipping point in the war. He has blood on his hands and because of his irresponsible 'journalism' he should be brought up on war crimes trials or at the very least treated like an enemy combatant.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-14 21:38:55
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA
There are ways to be a conscientious objector to a war instead of violating federal law and publicizing classified documents.

I agree that the Army Specialist that leaked the documents should, if proven in a military court, be brought up on charges of Treason.  Furthermore he should, if proven by the military court, be punished by death.

People are already are being targeted by the leaked documents...and may have already been killed - I don't know if that kind of information would be public.
2010-08-14 21:40:17
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6614|do not disturb

Afghanistan has a history of being very difficult to conquer. As far as I know, there's only two times you could say it was legitimately conquered. By Alexander the Great and by the British in the 1800's.
2010-08-14 21:40:38
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England
He isn't a US citizen so it doesn't matter if he violated federal law.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-14 21:41:29
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5236|Cleveland, Ohio

Phrozenbot wrote:

Afghanistan has a history of being very difficult to conquer. As far as I know, there's only two times you could say it was legitimately conquered. By Alexander the Great and by the British in the 1800's.
I don't think we are trying to conquer...cuz that can be easily done without many rules.
2010-08-14 21:41:40
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England

Phrozenbot wrote:

Afghanistan has a history of being very difficult to conquer. As far as I know, there's only two times you could say it was legitimately conquered. By Alexander the Great and by the British in the 1800's.
The British got kicked out and Alexander died during the invasion. The only successful invasion was by Genghis Khan and he wiped everyone out.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-14 21:43:46
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

He isn't a US citizen so it doesn't matter if he violated federal law.
Then he can be done for espionage.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2010-08-14 21:44:37
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA

Phrozenbot wrote:

Afghanistan has a history of being very difficult to conquer. As far as I know, there's only two times you could say it was legitimately conquered. By Alexander the Great and by the British in the 1800's.
We didn't go there to conquer...we went there to remove the Taliban and restore some kind of stable (somewhat friendly), government.

Like I said in a previous post...if we were serious about nation building in Afghanistan we would need to be there for 50 years - it'll take generations to get this country into the 19th let alone the 20th century.
2010-08-14 21:45:02
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

He isn't a US citizen so it doesn't matter if he violated federal law.
Then he can be done for espionage.
But he didn't spy on us, he was handed the documents.

Just about the only thing the US can do is treat him as an enemy combatant. Everything he's done is perfectly legal, just reprehensible.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-14 21:46:41
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

But he didn't spy on us, he was handed the documents
He was in communication with a spy, probably counts as spying.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2010-08-14 21:47:33
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

He isn't a US citizen so it doesn't matter if he violated federal law.
Then he can be done for espionage.
But he didn't spy on us, he was handed the documents.

Just about the only thing the US can do is treat him as an enemy combatant. Everything he's done is perfectly legal, just reprehensible.
Is it legal, under U.S. laws, for a foreign citizen to receive classified documents and then subsequently publish them to the public?

If this person was a journalist, an American citizen, I wonder if the journalist could be prosecuted now that his source is public?
2010-08-14 21:48:10
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England

Dilbert_X wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

But he didn't spy on us, he was handed the documents
He was in communication with a spy, probably counts as spying.
Guess we'll find out. Doesn't Australia still have troops in Afghanistan? I would say 'Doesn't he care about the lives of his own countrymen?' but he's a hacker and thus a social misfit anyway.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-14 21:49:56
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England

Harmor wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


Then he can be done for espionage.
But he didn't spy on us, he was handed the documents.

Just about the only thing the US can do is treat him as an enemy combatant. Everything he's done is perfectly legal, just reprehensible.
Is it legal, under U.S. laws, for a foreign citizen to receive classified documents and then subsequently publish them to the public?

If this person was a journalist, an American citizen, I wonder if the journalist could be prosecuted now that his source is public?
The US has no jurisdiction over foreign nationals. Especially not when the 'crime' is not even committed on US soil.

If he was a US citizen he could be tried for treason if the information he published led to the death of American citizens during wartime.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-14 21:53:04
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6614|do not disturb

JohnG@lt wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Afghanistan has a history of being very difficult to conquer. As far as I know, there's only two times you could say it was legitimately conquered. By Alexander the Great and by the British in the 1800's.
The British got kicked out and Alexander died during the invasion. The only successful invasion was by Genghis Khan and he wiped everyone out.
I stand corrected. I suppose you're right. Submit or show no mercy.
2010-08-14 21:54:32
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6614|do not disturb

Harmor wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Afghanistan has a history of being very difficult to conquer. As far as I know, there's only two times you could say it was legitimately conquered. By Alexander the Great and by the British in the 1800's.
We didn't go there to conquer...we went there to remove the Taliban and restore some kind of stable (somewhat friendly), government.

Like I said in a previous post...if we were serious about nation building in Afghanistan we would need to be there for 50 years - it'll take generations to get this country into the 19th let alone the 20th century.
That's nation building. Apparently the people of Afghanistan don't like being told how to live. Conquer, impose, subject etc.
2010-08-14 21:57:09
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England

Phrozenbot wrote:

Harmor wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Afghanistan has a history of being very difficult to conquer. As far as I know, there's only two times you could say it was legitimately conquered. By Alexander the Great and by the British in the 1800's.
We didn't go there to conquer...we went there to remove the Taliban and restore some kind of stable (somewhat friendly), government.

Like I said in a previous post...if we were serious about nation building in Afghanistan we would need to be there for 50 years - it'll take generations to get this country into the 19th let alone the 20th century.
That's nation building. Apparently the people of Afghanistan don't like being told how to live. Conquer, impose, subject etc.
You'd think an ultra conservative like Harmor would understand people like that

They want their land, they want their sheep, they want to live in peace if they can, and they want everyone to leave them alone. This includes their own zealots. Not everyone desires two cars in their driveway, color television connected to a satellite and a fridge full of coca-cola.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-14 22:16:12
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6614|do not disturb

Back to the OP.

So I've read that there people have died as a result of these leaks? Afghan leaders who have worked with the US? So I guess you could argue that this was detrimental to our cause, but if history has shown anything, our cause might have lost before we began (the nation building aspect), so shouldn't this encourage outrage at both the Bush and Obama administration for having soldiers fight a futile war, if that is what it is?
2010-08-14 22:19:16
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA

JohnG@lt wrote:

Phrozenbot wrote:

Harmor wrote:


We didn't go there to conquer...we went there to remove the Taliban and restore some kind of stable (somewhat friendly), government.

Like I said in a previous post...if we were serious about nation building in Afghanistan we would need to be there for 50 years - it'll take generations to get this country into the 19th let alone the 20th century.
That's nation building. Apparently the people of Afghanistan don't like being told how to live. Conquer, impose, subject etc.
You'd think an ultra conservative like Harmor would understand people like that

They want their land, they want their sheep, they want to live in peace if they can, and they want everyone to leave them alone. This includes their own zealots. Not everyone desires two cars in their driveway, color television connected to a satellite and a fridge full of coca-cola.
I'm not advocating that they live the American Dream.  Just whatever kind of government they come up with that it doesn't harbor terrorists I'm fine with (basically a country that won't threaten our safety).

We'll never be able to win the hearts of minds of the Afghan people because they know the Taliban will be able to wait us out and come in after we'll exhausted all our efforts. 

Our country is trying to fight a 21st century war in a 14th century country.  Our country doesn't have the stomach to fight the war on their terms (hiding among civilians among other things).  So we can kill 100 of their fighters but we kill 1 civilian and they still win.

Its only a matter of time we'll pull out and all the Islamofacists around the world will chalk another 9-11'like victory against The Great Satan.

I wonder if Pakistan didn't have nukes if we would had really taken this war seriously?
2010-08-14 22:23:26
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5357|London, England
We did the entire thing wrong. What started as a special operations invasion attached to the Northern Alliance with the goal of nabbing Bin Laden and replacing the Taliban is where it should have stayed. Turning it into a conventional war was the stupidest mistake we could've made. You can't fight a non-linear war with a linear thought process (which is pretty much all you will get out of the Pentagon because that is how they are trained).

It should've been our Special Forces in there training up the NA, giving them weapons and aid, and having them do the bulk of the fighting against the Taliban while our own teams went after Al Qaeda. Instead, we took over the fighting, let the NA grow fat and lazy and now we're stuck because they can't pick up the slack if we try to bring our troops home.

Any blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the Pentagon brass.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-08-14 22:34:41
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6547|San Diego, CA, USA
So you're basically saying:

https://img821.imageshack.us/img821/2227/huge16001.jpg
2010-08-14 22:44:46
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX

JohnG@lt wrote:

We did the entire thing wrong. What started as a special operations invasion attached to the Northern Alliance with the goal of nabbing Bin Laden and replacing the Taliban is where it should have stayed. Turning it into a conventional war was the stupidest mistake we could've made. You can't fight a non-linear war with a linear thought process (which is pretty much all you will get out of the Pentagon because that is how they are trained).

It should've been our Special Forces in there training up the NA, giving them weapons and aid, and having them do the bulk of the fighting against the Taliban while our own teams went after Al Qaeda. Instead, we took over the fighting, let the NA grow fat and lazy and now we're stuck because they can't pick up the slack if we try to bring our troops home.

Any blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the Pentagon brass.
Remarkable that a handful of guys in the CIA could beat the Russians but the entire Pentagon can't beat the Taliban.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-08-14 22:46:58)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2010-08-14 22:44:55
Phrozenbot
Member
+632|6614|do not disturb

Harmor wrote:

I'm not advocating that they live the American Dream.  Just whatever kind of government they come up with that it doesn't harbor terrorists I'm fine with (basically a country that won't threaten our safety).

We'll never be able to win the hearts of minds of the Afghan people because they know the Taliban will be able to wait us out and come in after we'll exhausted all our efforts. 

Our country is trying to fight a 21st century war in a 14th century country.  Our country doesn't have the stomach to fight the war on their terms (hiding among civilians among other things).  So we can kill 100 of their fighters but we kill 1 civilian and they still win.

Its only a matter of time we'll pull out and all the Islamofacists around the world will chalk another 9-11'like victory against The Great Satan.

I wonder if Pakistan didn't have nukes if we would had really taken this war seriously?
If you don't think predator drones killing a mass of civilians does not plant extreme hatred in those people's hearts you are sadly mistaken. Imagine a predator drone killing all your immediate family, close friends, and kinsmen. Trying to win their hearts? All it does it brew future terrorists, which doesn't make us any safer...

eh: typo

Last edited by Phrozenbot (2010-08-14 22:46:20)

2010-08-14 22:50:58
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6104|eXtreme to the maX

Harmor wrote:

We'll never be able to win the hearts of minds of the Afghan people because they know the Taliban will be able to wait us out and come in after we'll exhausted all our efforts.
Its more that the military is inept, and it shouldn't even be a military campaign at this stage.

Give every man, woman and child an AK and all the ammo they need, buy up every ounce of heroin they can grow at twice the price the Taliban can pay and they'll keep the Taliban out themselves.

It would be much cheaper and more effective than what we are doing now.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard