• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

Yes, I did, because I felt that your portrayal of the "pacifist screechers" was completely one-sided. Just because I feel that the debate over numbers is relatively unimportant doesn't mean I'm not going to call someone out on their bull**** when they put forward a ridiculous and one-sided assertion. For the exact same reason that I would, for example, comment on how it's stupid for someone to say that Stalin is responsible for 100 million deaths.

If "one-sidedness" were really your concern, you would have said so from the beginning. But alas, you did not. You chose instead to challenge my use of "pacifist screecher groups."

Besides, if you actually don't care how many died, it wouldn't concern you at all. Not to mention that my point didn't have anything to do with "your views" as you present them, so nothing I said warranted commented from you on those grounds.

Nor did the point I was making necessitate that I impugn pro-war groups.

Still want to help out?
 
That's a pretty stupid analogy. If someone robbed me, it is the robber's fault. When they get caught they go to jail because they shouldn't have robbed me in the first place.

The Iraq war turned into a regime change operation. And over a hundred thousand Iraqis have lost their lives while millions have seen their lives turned upside down. Why do people keep defending this war?

Speaking of "stupid analogies," where did I "defend" the war?

The responsibility for the people that the insurgents killed lies with the insurgents. No righteous indignance on your part will change that.
 
Once they are released, they will be.

Funny, you said they are NOW. (Besides, you said public domain, when what you really mean is public RECORD. Not the same thing.)
 
You can find a copy of Inception on any torrent site, but that doesn't mean it's in the public domain.

So is the U.S. government going to go and shut down any news agency that posts details?

Too bad. Suck it up. The truth is out.
 
So is the U.S. government going to go and shut down any news agency that posts details?

I'm not sure how you got this from my post.

Too bad. Suck it up. The truth is out.

So because someone succeeded in breaking the law once, the government shouldn't make efforts to prevent people from breaking the law in the future or to punish those who broke the law in the past?
 
So because someone succeeded in breaking the law once, the government shouldn't make efforts to prevent people from breaking the law in the future or to punish those who broke the law in the past?

I understand why the U.S. would want to move quickly to cover this up, but that doesn't mean I support it.

This is about more than revealing strategic information. It is about letting the public know exactly what is going on in the war. The early details seem to indicate that we are all being lied to. If our officials can't be honest about their intentions, then they do not deserve to hold office.
 
I'm sure if someone published Orion's private papers showing things he doesn't particularly want people to know, his reaction would be "well, I guess I have to suck it up."
 
I am somewhat disgusted by the level of hatred being exhibited by people towards whistleblowers. The notion that "people in authority" should have the sole responsibility to decide what is best for us to know and not know is antithetical to the idea of democracy. Dislike it though you may those "random people" are and always have been our best chance at uncovering abuse by authority.

The people in authority have every reason to conceal information that is damaging to them. Do not put stock in the fear-mongering rants of government PR propagandists. They **** bricks and spit fire if someone leaks a diplomatic cable.

While I have not yet looked at these documents as I understand many, if not all, of the Afghan war documents that named people were not actually classified documents and the names may have even been publicly released long before. Certainly I haven't seen a single report suggesting any person has actually been killed or harmed as a result of that leak.
 
Anyone want to remind me again why Bush pardoned Scooter Libby?
 
Speaking of "stupid analogies," where did I "defend" the war?

The responsibility for the people that the insurgents killed lies with the insurgents. No righteous indignance on your part will change that.
A much better analogy would be putting fox with the sheep and expecting them to get along. The Shia hated the Sunni and that was well known except by president Bush. After Desert Storm Bust 41 told the Shia to rise up against Saddam and the Sunni. They did and Bush didn't help them, Saddam mowed them down by the thousands and buried them in mass graves.
 
A much better analogy would be putting fox with the sheep and expecting them to get along. The Shia hated the Sunni and that was well known except by president Bush. After Desert Storm Bust 41 told the Shia to rise up against Saddam and the Sunni. They did and Bush didn't help them, Saddam mowed them down by the thousands and buried them in mass graves.

That may be a "better analogy" for an entirely different subject, sure.
 
I understand why the U.S. would want to move quickly to cover this up, but that doesn't mean I support it.

This is about more than revealing strategic information. It is about letting the public know exactly what is going on in the war. The early details seem to indicate that we are all being lied to. If our officials can't be honest about their intentions, then they do not deserve to hold office.

So you're arguing that the Obama administration is going out of its way to protect the Bush Administration from any criticism for their actions in regards to the war?
 
I'm sure if someone published Orion's private papers showing things he doesn't particularly want people to know, his reaction would be "well, I guess I have to suck it up."

If I was hiding the number of people I killed in combat in order to make it seem like I was fighting clean battles; or if I was trying to cover up the fact that I willfully turned a blind eye as my allies were torturing people in facitilies that I helped secure and fund, then yeah, I might be pretty pissed off.

The truth is a bitch when you're trying to run a tight PR campaign, aint it?
 
I am somewhat disgusted by the level of hatred being exhibited by people towards whistleblowers.

I am somewhat disgusted by the amount of support that is being offered for people who are doing everything in their power to undermine the US.

The notion that "people in authority" should have the sole responsibility to decide what is best for us to know and not know is antithetical to the idea of democracy.

And that's not really the same thing as having a system of classifying information, so I don't see the point.


The people in authority have every reason to conceal information that is damaging to them. Do not put stock in the fear-mongering rants of government PR propagandists. They **** bricks and spit fire if someone leaks a diplomatic cable.

With good reason.
 
I am somewhat disgusted by the amount of support that is being offered for people who are doing everything in their power to undermine the US.

The U.S. undermined itself when it a) withheld information that it knew could turn public opinion against the war; and b) had lax enough security that thousands of documents were able to be leaked in the first place.

Freedom of the press sucks, doesn't it?
 
If I was hiding the number of people I killed in combat in order to make it seem like I was fighting clean battles; or if I was trying to cover up the fact that I willfully turned a blind eye as my allies were torturing people in facitilies that I helped secure and fund, then yeah, I might be pretty pissed off.

The truth is a bitch when you're trying to run a tight PR campaign, aint it?

Where were the claims which were contrary to any of this? In order for "us" to have been "lied to," there would have to be some.

Can you think of any legitimate political reasons why some of these things might have happened? Can you be sure that these particular documents even represent the entire story? After all, the edited video Breitbart posted concerning Shirley Sherrod sure made her look bad. But it wasn't the whole story. You're acting as if these documents -- which you haven't even seen yet -- represent some sort of whole and complete truth.
 
You're acting as if these documents -- which you haven't even seen yet -- represent some sort of whole and complete truth.

I'm not delusional. There is always more to the story, but at least now the story can be told instead of covering up some pretty horrible details of war that we are paying for out of our pockets.
 
The U.S. undermined itself when it a) withheld information that it knew could turn public opinion against the war; and b) had lax enough security that thousands of documents were able to be leaked in the first place.

That's just stupid. You expect nations at war to maintain full divulgence of everything that happens? You think the mere fact of documents being leaked constitutes a prima facie culpable negligence?

I guess if your brother were to rummage through your home and publish your credit report, well, shame on you for having such lax security. So sad.

Freedom of the press sucks, doesn't it?

And this is doubly stupid, because no one impugned freedom of the press. Illegally leaking secret documents has nothing to do with it. At all.
 
I'm not delusional. There is always more to the story, but at least now the story can be told instead of covering up some pretty horrible details of war that we are paying for out of our pockets.

What was "covered up"? That's a loaded term. That implies nefarious intent. There's no evidence of that, at all.

I think you're rather giddy about all of this.
 
The U.S. undermined itself when it a) withheld information that it knew could turn public opinion against the war;

You're arguing that an entity "undermines itself" when it does not choose to publicize every tidbit of negative information that may cause people to be angry. I think you have that completely backwards.

and b) had lax enough security that thousands of documents were able to be leaked in the first place.

Sure.

Freedom of the press sucks, doesn't it?

You keep on making snarky comments like this, but I really don't see how any of them really bear on the issue. This has absolutely nothing to do with "freedom of the press," as we're not talking about whether newspapers have the right to print information that they receive. This is about an extranational group that has dedicated itself to obtaining and publishing classified information about the US with the goal of undermining the US. As a Canadian, you might find that fantastic. As an American, I find that extremely objectionable.
 
That's just stupid. You expect nations at war to maintain full divulgence of everything that happens? You think the mere fact of documents being leaked constitutes a prima facie culpable negligence?

How about something far more basic than that? Allow the international press free access to the war zone. That's what war correspondents do. They take the risks and go into dangerous areas to let the world know what is happening. But oops, we already let them do that in Vietnam, and look what happened: people stopped supporting the war.

I don't expect the government to divulge its classified operations. I expect it to honour BASIC public access to the region so that it can do its own fact collecting.

I guess if your brother were to rummage through your home and publish your credit report, well, shame on you for having such lax security. So sad.

Are you still trying this line of argument? Please.

And this is doubly stupid, because no one impugned freedom of the press. Illegally leaking secret documents has nothing to do with it. At all.

The press has restricted access to both Afghanistan and Iraq, by order of the U.S. It's for their "safety". :roll:
 
You keep on making snarky comments like this, but I really don't see how any of them really bear on the issue. This has absolutely nothing to do with "freedom of the press," as we're not talking about whether newspapers have the right to print information that they receive. This is about an extranational group that has dedicated itself to obtaining and publishing classified information about the US with the goal of undermining the US. As a Canadian, you might find that fantastic. As an American, I find that extremely objectionable.

I'm not really interested in the intentions of the group. They don't seem to be altering the information, but simply making it available. If the information itself is damning then it's not because of any organization's agenda; it's because the info. itself is true. You can hide behind the guise of heinous actions all you want, just like your leaders are, but it doesn't change the fact that the raw details are about to be known.

And as a person (not a Canadian), I don't take pleasure in knowing the brutalities of war. It actually makes me angry, especially when the basic facts are watered down and the press is denied autonomous access to war zones so that the government can continue to manufacture consent on the home front. Assonge may be a dirt bag but his information is gold.
 
Back
Top Bottom