Page 24 of 31 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 304

Thread: Assange Speaks to UN

  1. #231
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: Assange Speaks to UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    It is a high qualification. One that IS considered. Or did I read it wrong and its not considered at all?

    I know enough to know that the government does it far more than it should.
    No, it's not. Lesser qualifications need to exhibit- by an original classification authority- that they fall under that. And a general "This is a cover up!" isn't going to do it. Seriously, you don't know about this, at all, so why are you arguing about it? People can do that **** on Coast To Coast AM, but I thought this was a rather serious format.

    Under our supposed morals, yes they should. Otherwise they're being hypocritical.
    There are no morals in war. Just win.

    A "misdeed" is doing something that was wrong. And again, it is not the mistake itself that I am talking about. (for the third time) It is the covering it up instead of at the very least apologizing for it that was wrong. I find it very disturbing that you think that it is perfectly OK to make a mistake that costs lives and not have to, at the very least, apologize for that mistake.
    Then missing the target was also a 'misdeed', because it was a mistake. Are you sure you want your criteria to be "things done wrong"? People die. Ostensibly, you have zero experience with war. You may want to consider going full pacifist, because it seems as if the whole concept of war is distasteful to you.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

  2. #232
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    33,552
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Assange Speaks to UN

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Actually it does. That is, in fact, why we have Ambassadors there in the first place, to present our policies to them, and then to present them to us, with on-the-ground analysis for policy makers here in the states to take advantage of. Analysis which is and must be classified in order to be effective or useful.
    Why must it be classified?
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  3. #233
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: Assange Speaks to UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    It is a high qualification. One that IS considered. Or did I read it wrong and its not considered at all?

    I know enough to know that the government does it far more than it should.
    evidently you do not, as you do not even understand (by your own admission) the guidelines, nor the legal precedent or logic backing them. You seem to have approached this question with some kind of loose intelletually libertine notion of free information with very little consideration of the second and third order effects of deliberately inhibiting security and diplomatic functions oversees.

    Under our supposed morals, yes they should. Otherwise they're being hypocritical.
    you have no idea what you are talking about, and are making yourself look like an idiot to those who do. a warzone is not the same as diddy-bopping down your home street, and troops are legally required only to follow their orders and ROE's. Our "supposed morals" include the right to self defense, which is what you do when you think someone is pointing a weapon at you in combat.

    A "misdeed" is doing something that was wrong.
    A misdeed is deliberately doing something wrong. If I am in combat and you jump around a corner with something large and blocky on your shoulder and point it at me, you deliberately did something wrong, and sadly it is probably going to cost you your life.

  4. #234
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    01-17-18 @ 05:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,650

    Re: Assange Speaks to UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    I find it very disturbing that you think that it is perfectly OK to make a mistake that costs lives and not have to, at the very least, apologize for that mistake.
    Was it a mistake? A rogue (location unknown) journalist uses a human shield van and gets popped. I think the helicopter did everything right there. If there were mistakes, it was those who allowed themselves to be used as a human shield and the rogue journalist that took advantage of that human shield.

    We don't really know exactly what happened there. Do you believe in apologizing for the suicide of others?

  5. #235
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: Assange Speaks to UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Why must it be classified?

    Because otherwise we would be unable to conduct effective diplomacy. Diplomats are expected to provide honest assessment of host-nation intentions and capabilities, including when that is unflattering. As an ambassador, to publicly send back the message that the current president of Yemen (making this up) appears to be losing his grip, but that you think if a coup happens perhaps we can make a deal with the new commander of the air force to keep the country from descending into another civil war would be incredibly destructive to not only US diplomacy, but regional stability. You can't exactly (as an ambassador) make public statements to the effect that your chinese hosts told you that they were behaving themselves in Tibet, but that information available seems to suggest that they are instead lying, blood-thirsty little bastards, and expect to be able to fulfill the duties as Ambassador afterwards. Our diplomats will be too busy constantly being kicked out of their host nations to ever have a second meeting with the host government. Diplomats are also expected to be privy to US negotiating strategies, which are also classified, not least to keep us from getting rolled and often in the hopes of avoiding conflict. Their communications will reflect that, as well as information gathered through classified means.

  6. #236
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    33,552
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Assange Speaks to UN

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    No, it's not. Lesser qualifications need to exhibit- by an original classification authority- that they fall under that. And a general "This is a cover up!" isn't going to do it. Seriously, you don't know about this, at all, so why are you arguing about it? People can do that **** on Coast To Coast AM, but I thought this was a rather serious format.
    Again, they wouldn't deem it officially as a "cover-up". They would find a loop hole (which "interests of national security" is one HUGE loophole) to place it under.

    Tell you what...why was that video deemed classified? Explain it to me. It showed no tactical advantage. It showed nothing beyond the fact that civilians were killed.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    There are no morals in war. Just win.
    If the US government followed that mantra then I would agree with you. But the US government does not follow that mantra.

    Quote Originally Posted by OldWorldOrder View Post
    Then missing the target was also a 'misdeed', because it was a mistake. Are you sure you want your criteria to be "things done wrong"? People die. Ostensibly, you have zero experience with war. You may want to consider going full pacifist, because it seems as if the whole concept of war is distasteful to you.
    Yes missing a target is a misdeed. But not one worthy of critisizing.

    The concept of war should be distasteful to anyone. Are you saying that you WANT war? That you are happy when we are at war?
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  7. #237
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    33,552
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Assange Speaks to UN

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Because otherwise we would be unable to conduct effective diplomacy. Diplomats are expected to provide honest assessment of host-nation intentions and capabilities, including when that is unflattering. As an ambassador, to publicly send back the message that the current president of Yemen (making this up) appears to be losing his grip, but that you think if a coup happens perhaps we can make a deal with the new commander of the air force to keep the country from descending into another civil war would be incredibly destructive to not only US diplomacy, but regional stability. You can't exactly (as an ambassador) make public statements to the effect that your chinese hosts told you that they were behaving themselves in Tibet, but that information available seems to suggest that they are instead lying, blood-thirsty little bastards, and expect to be able to fulfill the duties as Ambassador afterwards. Our diplomats will be too busy constantly being kicked out of their host nations to ever have a second meeting with the host government. Diplomats are also expected to be privy to US negotiating strategies, which are also classified, not least to keep us from getting rolled and often in the hopes of avoiding conflict. Their communications will reflect that, as well as information gathered through classified means.
    I can accept this. For the simple fact that it is about strategy. So long as it only pertains to strategy only.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  8. #238
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    01-05-18 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,296

    Re: Assange Speaks to UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    I can accept this. For the simple fact that it is about strategy. So long as it only pertains to strategy only.
    Dude, it pretty much all pertains to position and strategy. that's what diplomacy is. warfare without shooting.

  9. #239
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    SE Asia
    Last Seen
    07-12-14 @ 10:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    2,333

    Re: Assange Speaks to UN

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    So, what your sayinh is that there are no controls in place to protect this information and there is no such thing as "need to know"?
    There are controls but they can vary from place to place and obviously they weren’t good enough. As you can imagine some changes were implemented as a result of this incident. As for need to know? That is a much broader term than it was pre-9-11. One of the issues that came up in the 9-11 Commission was the various intel agencies weren’t communicating with each other. So access was broadened. You still had to have a security clearance, but if you work in intel it is assumed you have a need to know. All the information on the SIPR and JWICS networks is “decompartmented” information. Which means that other than having the appropriate clearance and a logon you do not need to demonstrate a separate need to know to view it. SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information) is information that you must have as specific need to know in order to access. It often involves sources and methods. To the best of my knowledge no SCI information was included in the wikileaks dump. That is the kind of information that could do damage and get people killed and has tighter controls.

  10. #240
    Sage
    OldWorldOrder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    10-12-15 @ 12:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: Assange Speaks to UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Again, they wouldn't deem it officially as a "cover-up". They would find a loop hole (which "interests of national security" is one HUGE loophole) to place it under.

    Tell you what...why was that video deemed classified? Explain it to me. It showed no tactical advantage. It showed nothing beyond the fact that civilians were killed.
    Because it could be used to piece together a whole bunch of ****. In no order:

    #1- The distance the optics on the bird can see. If you know how fast an Apache can comfortably go (already online, probably thanks to people who think like you do), all you have to do is some high school math using the amount of time it took to complete an orbit to see how far away they were. Now you know: in 2006/2007, that's how far away a helicopter could be from a site to engage it. Do you think that's useful?

    #2- You can now start to piece together what birds look for and what process they go through to engage. You can start to avoid some practices or engage in others specifically to dissuade their attacking you while you engage in nefarious activities.

    If the US government followed that mantra then I would agree with you. But the US government does not follow that mantra.
    Sure it does. All governments do. And then they try to sell their populace on morality, and the moralists among us (you?) want to believe it. So some of you do.

    Yes missing a target is a misdeed. But not one worthy of critisizing.
    It depends on who you are. If you're supposed to be providing me overwatch and you miss repeatedly because of your own shortcomings, I'll feel okay criticizing you from my hospital bed.

    The concept of war should be distasteful to anyone. Are you saying that you WANT war? That you are happy when we are at war?
    I am, because I get paid more when I'm overseas. But you seem to have problems with the very fundamental aspects of war. Perhaps you should engage in some introspection.
    The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.
    -GK Chesterton

Page 24 of 31 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •