Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Detonator]

I blame the troops.

[SCD]

You seem to be under the assumption that the war would stop without this man.

Agreed, or that this man lacks the moral integrity to go against his chief.

[Royal☭]

Is he still picking up a paycheck for helping wage a war?  That goes a long way towards my thinking he's a hypocritical shit.

No, I never thought Gates could stop the war by himself.  But that doesn't mean he has to be complicit in it.  And don't get me wrong, I don't think this is an either/or situation.  Julian Assange may have fucked up by failing to redact names, but that makes the reality of the actual masters of this war no less horrifying.  In the last four years, Robert Gates is responsible for more Afghan deaths than Assange will ever be.

[Mongrel]

My biggest beef with Assange is that while I largely agree with his ideas and even most of his actions, by refusing to redact names, not only has he possibly killed some folks (not to trivialize that), he has also provided every opponent who might ever criticize Wikileaks with the beat possible ammunition they could ever have against them.

[Brentai]

Is that really a problem though?  They've basically proven that they can't be trusted to do what they're doing responsibly.

You can agree with an entity's goals and disagree with their methods.  And vice versa.

[Mongrel]

They've basically proven that they can't be trusted to do what they're doing responsibly.

I can't decipher this. Do both of those 'they's refer to Wikileaks? I mean, if someone is doing something responsibly, how can they also not be trusted to do that same thing?

You can agree with an entity's goals and disagree with their methods.  And vice versa.

Well, yes. That's basically what I said. But I was also saying they were damned stupid for choosing that particular method, since it's pretty self-defeating.

[Detonator]

Is he still picking up a paycheck for helping wage a war?  That goes a long way towards my thinking he's a hypocritical shit.

No, I never thought Gates could stop the war by himself.  But that doesn't mean he has to be complicit in it.  And don't get me wrong, I don't think this is an either/or situation.  Julian Assange may have fucked up by failing to redact names, but that makes the reality of the actual masters of this war no less horrifying.  In the last four years, Robert Gates is responsible for more Afghan deaths than Assange will ever be.

Isn't the commander-in-chief more responsible for this?  After all, he had every opportunity to fire Gates and end the war.

[Royal☭]

Did I ever say Obama wasn't responsible?  The point of my calling Gates a hypocrit is that he is a part of the institution that is currently waging war in Afghanistan, killing civilians and soldiers alike, and he has the temerity to accuse of others of having moral failings as long as this war is going on.

After all, he had every opportunity to fire Gates and end the war.

I'm not sure if you meant this to be as as it sounds.  Are these two separate thoughts, or causation?

[Brentai]

Itt two instances of the perils of relying on text as a communication medium.

I'll explain later when I'm not quickly ducking out just to get away from a pair of conflicting, massive problems.

[Detonator]

Did I ever say Obama wasn't responsible?  The point of my calling Gates a hypocrit is that he is a part of the institution that is currently waging war in Afghanistan, killing civilians and soldiers alike, and he has the temerity to accuse of others of having moral failings as long as this war is going on.

So would you be this aghast at Obama if he said the same thing?  Do you think he would say something different?  I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to understand your logic.  Your anger at Gates seems to stem from his role in the war, not just from his statement.  Shouldn't you have this same anger at Obama regardless of the statements he makes?  If not, why?

After all, he had every opportunity to fire Gates and end the war.

I'm not sure if you meant this to be as as it sounds.  Are these two separate thoughts, or causation?

It's part of the same thought: Obama is the commander in chief and Gates' boss, so he should bear responsibility for anything that goes on in the war.  It just feels to me that you're singling out Gates because he's a Bush appointee and it's much easier to get angry at him than at the President who's the "good guy".  I sincerely apologize if I'm mischaracterizing you, but it bothers me when people get attacked just because it's easy to make them the villain.  I really don't want to be accusing you unjustly, that's why I'm asking questions to clarify your point, I just wanted to clarify why I'm questioning you in the first place.

[Royal☭]

No, I'm singling out Gates because he has the stupidity to open his mouth and try to take the moral high ground as he plays his part in waging a war.  Don't get me wrong, I blame Obama for the ongoing of the war as much as I blame Bush for starting and maintaining it, I was just singling out Gates for saying something stupid.

Also, I'm not sure where the impression that I was blaming Gates solely for the war came from.  I only meant to call him a dumb hypocrite for trying to act moral and righteous against WikiLeaks.  I was never trying to blame him for the entire war.

[SCD]

Lets be clear, there is nothing hypocritical about a military chief denouncing the enabling of the opposite force to murder NATO-assisting translators or other aides and their families through an intermediary who hides in the shadows. 

While it would be hypocritical for a military chief to denounce an attack like this one, dismissing the attackers as cowardly and without ethics would fall under this definition as would the same chief denouncing the use of force to vaporize the insurgents, as which happened. 

You have failed to explain your accusation in a fashion which is sound.  It stands refuted. 

[Royal☭]

I think you mean '/debate'

[Royal☭]

Lets be clear, there is nothing hypocritical about a military chief denouncing the enabling of the opposite force to murder NATO-assisting translators or other aides and their families through an intermediary who hides in the shadows. 

Turns out the Pentagon had refused to help WikiLeaks when it asked for help in redacting the documents, then flat out lied about it

But yesterday, the DoD itself released a letter -- dated August 16 (two days before the Newsweek article) -- which makes clear that WikiLeaks did exactly that which DoD officials denied they did:  namely, they asked DoD for help redacting these remaining documents.  That letter, written by DoD Legal Counsel Jeb Charles Johnson to WikiLeak's counsel, Timothy Matusheski, explicitly recounts -- contrary to the emphatic denials in Newsweek -- that WikiLeaks' lawyer had contacted the Pentagon and requested help in the "harm minimization" process.  The DoD, however, is explicitly refusing to offer any help whatsoever

[Mongrel]

That, uh... kind of turns this whole thing on it's head.

Whoopsie!

[Royal☭]

And, just to put the WikiLeaks thing to a close (via CNN):

Gates: Leaked documents don't reveal key intel, but risks remain

The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded.

...

The assessment, revealed in a letter from Gates to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), comes after a thorough Pentagon review of the more than 70,000 documents posted to the controversial whistle-blower site in July.
The letter, provided to CNN, was written August 16 by Gates in response to a query by the senator regarding the leak of classified information.

...

But a senior NATO official in Kabul told CNN that there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak

Just in case there was any lingering doubts as to why I consider Robert Gates to be a scumbag.

[Brentai]

That's rational.  The justification you set out before was more along the lines of "Because he is connected in any way shape or form to the United States military."

[Royal☭]

Well, you'll forgive me for thinking that when people who are a vital part of the "bombing and killing" portion of the government start accusing others of being responsible for killing, I find that more than a little bit hypocritical.

That's rational.  The justification you set out before was more along the lines of "Because he is connected in any way shape or form to the United States military."

I also gripe on Gates and others because they're more than just "connected in any way shapre or form".  The guy is top brass, and one of the main components of helping the government wage what I consider to be illegal, violent campaigns against other countries.  Gates isn't just some grunt stationed in Indonesia or something, his decisions everyday, in one form or another, help shape the predator drone strikes that kill civilians.

[Joxam]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/19/pentagon.gays.recruiting/ Not sure if this is 'NEWS' or if we already talked about it, and I'm not sure if this is the right place, move it around however you like.

Oh yeah, its a link about the don't ask don't tell ruling.

[Mongrel]

For those of you following the latest round of Wikileaks releases, but who are too lazy to actually read thousands of diplomatic cables yourselves, here's the highlight reel.

Most of it is unsurprising "Well, no shit." stuff, but it's still interesting.