Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Did Bradley Manning succeed?

AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 8:24:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
'Manning said... that he leaked information, ... in order to "spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy." '

Some (a very small percentage of) revelations from his disclosure were;

"During the Iraq War, U.S. authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape, and murder by Iraqi police and soldiers, according to thousands of field reports."

"There were 109,032 "violent deaths" recorded in Iraq between 2004 and 2009, including 66,081 civilians."

"The U.S. Embassy in Paris advised Washington to start a military-style trade war against any European Union country that opposed genetically modified crops, with U.S. diplomats effectively working directly for GM companies such as Monsanto."

"British and American officials colluded in a plan to mislead the British Parliament over a proposed ban on cluster bombs."

"The U.S. threatened the Italian government in an attempt to influence a court case involving the indictment of CIA agents over the kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric."

'Separately, U.S. officials were revealed to have pressured Spanish prosecutors to dissuade them from investigating U.S. torture allegations, secret "extraordinary rendition" flights, and the killing of a Spanish journalist by U.S. troops in Iraq.'

"In apparent violation of a 1946 U.N. convention, Washington initiated a spying campaign in 2009 that targeted the leadership of the U.N. by seeking to gather top officials" private encryption keys, credit card details, and biometric data."

Bearing this in mind;

"Although Manning"s disclosures totaled some 720,000 records"the largest security breach in U.S. history"the leak still amounted to less than 1 percent of the almost 77 million documents reportedly classified by U.S. government agencies in 2010."

And now, PRISM comes to light.

What does the U.S public make of this?

The worrying thing is, the U.S government may be one of the better governments when it comes to this. The U.K could be worse...
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 9:29:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Oh and the link... whoops.

http://www.slate.com...
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 1:17:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ya that collateral murder video was really eye opening.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 1:48:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Did Bradley Manning succeed IN WHAT?

The kid was psychologically disturbed. He had issues with his sexual orientation and acted out on his frustrations in multiple manners well before he committed his alleged act of heroism. There was even a reported incident of him lunging for a M-16 when cautioned for discipline well before he even considered leaking information.

Bradley Manning succeeded in becoming a grade #A nutjob. The military and the government failed to recognize this, and let him continue forth with unfettered access to classified information.

Had Manning ONLY released information consistent with whatever cause he championed, then I would think differently. However, that simply does not seem to be the case given what we know of his disciplinary record. It is difficult to ascertain what purpose was inherent in his indiscriminatory leaking of a wide range of classified information.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2013 1:51:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Manning himself admitted his actions were inappropriate:

"The judge, Col. Denise Lind, pressed Private Manning to explain how he could admit that his actions were wrong if his motivation was the "greater good" of enlightening the public. Private Manning replied, "Your Honor, regardless of my opinion or my assessment of documents such as these, it"s beyond my pay grade - it"s not my authority to make these decisions" about releasing confidential files."

http://www.nytimes.com...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 9:52:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/23/2013 1:17:41 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Ya that collateral murder video was really eye opening.

I'm interested in knowing what made the video "eye opening" to you.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:09:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 9:52:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/23/2013 1:17:41 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Ya that collateral murder video was really eye opening.

I'm interested in knowing what made the video "eye opening" to you.

I'd never seen an apache gunship slaughter people before that. IEDs are cowardly tools of insurgents but mowing people down untouchable in the sky is valiant. Listening to the chopper pilot and gunner laughing and joking makes you sick. The dying reuters reporter crawling to get away and getting mowed down again by the 30 mm cannon.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:17:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:09:37 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 9:52:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/23/2013 1:17:41 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Ya that collateral murder video was really eye opening.

I'm interested in knowing what made the video "eye opening" to you.

I'd never seen an apache gunship slaughter people before that. IEDs are cowardly tools of insurgents but mowing people down untouchable in the sky is valiant. Listening to the chopper pilot and gunner laughing and joking makes you sick. The dying reuters reporter crawling to get away and getting mowed down again by the 30 mm cannon.

Think about any work center. Think about the joking and laughing that comes after a full day's work. A lot of it is simply blowing off steam, or just demonstrating a thick skin.

The crews in these helicopters thought they were in imminent danger. They saw what they thought was an RPG. They got worked up, as I would easily imagine you and I would be if you thought you were the target of an imminent attack. They joked and laughed off their own mortality, which is under severe question each and every day you're in a war zone.

Is it somewhat sadistic to want someone to pick up a weapon so that you could put another bullet into them? Possibly. However, it is also tactically and strategically justifiable, because why let what you thought was a combatant in arms flee the scene of a battle? So that they could be more prepared next time to actually take your helicopter down?

Did they want to shoot at children? No. They didn't even know children were in the van, until after the ground crew advised for immediate medivac to a hospital for the children. They saw the van as full of people aiding and abetting combatants in the field, and clearly stated that it was their fault for bringing children into a gun fight, which is how they saw the situation as it occurred.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:21:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I also believe IEDs are not tools of cowards. It is a combat technique aimed to minimize casualties of the combatants.

What I do believe are tools of cowards is strapping an IED onto an innocent civilian, so that you would elicit more sympathy from soldiers that would do more to free the civilian from his/her macabre fate thereby potentially killing more US soldiers when the IED actually goes off, the soldiers being the true intended target.

In such a situation, it is not the IED that makes the technique cowardly, but the deliberate use of an innocent in order to maximize casualties among your intended target.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:32:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:17:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:09:37 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 9:52:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/23/2013 1:17:41 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Ya that collateral murder video was really eye opening.

I'm interested in knowing what made the video "eye opening" to you.

I'd never seen an apache gunship slaughter people before that. IEDs are cowardly tools of insurgents but mowing people down untouchable in the sky is valiant. Listening to the chopper pilot and gunner laughing and joking makes you sick. The dying reuters reporter crawling to get away and getting mowed down again by the 30 mm cannon.

Think about any work center. Think about the joking and laughing that comes after a full day's work. A lot of it is simply blowing off steam, or just demonstrating a thick skin.

The crews in these helicopters thought they were in imminent danger. They saw what they thought was an RPG. They got worked up, as I would easily imagine you and I would be if you thought you were the target of an imminent attack. They joked and laughed off their own mortality, which is under severe question each and every day you're in a war zone.

Is it somewhat sadistic to want someone to pick up a weapon so that you could put another bullet into them? Possibly. However, it is also tactically and strategically justifiable, because why let what you thought was a combatant in arms flee the scene of a battle? So that they could be more prepared next time to actually take your helicopter down?

Did they want to shoot at children? No. They didn't even know children were in the van, until after the ground crew advised for immediate medivac to a hospital for the children. They saw the van as full of people aiding and abetting combatants in the field, and clearly stated that it was their fault for bringing children into a gun fight, which is how they saw the situation as it occurred.

You can blow off steam by laughing with your buds in a cubicle, while you're mowing down human beings there should be at least the pretense of humility. There's a reason suicide rates are higher than combat deaths and its because the military creates dehumanized, killing machines with no regard to the value of life.
You can try to defend them all you want but seeing first hand what a modern battlefield looks like brings a new appreciation to the magnitude and true cost of war. And its not the black and white good vs evil narrative put on by the govt or the media.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:35:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also forget the fact that they can't discern between a video camera and an RPG, a single RPG doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of hitting an apache.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:39:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:21:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I also believe IEDs are not tools of cowards. It is a combat technique aimed to minimize casualties of the combatants.

What I do believe are tools of cowards is strapping an IED onto an innocent civilian, so that you would elicit more sympathy from soldiers that would do more to free the civilian from his/her macabre fate thereby potentially killing more US soldiers when the IED actually goes off, the soldiers being the true intended target.

In such a situation, it is not the IED that makes the technique cowardly, but the deliberate use of an innocent in order to maximize casualties among your intended target.

Those aren't combatants, they're terrorists. Suicide bombers in Iraq don't discriminate theyre just as happy to kill anyone as to target us soldiers. Mosques and cafes are being hit by the terrorists, not us checkpoints.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:46:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:32:42 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:17:02 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:09:37 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 9:52:23 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 6/23/2013 1:17:41 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Ya that collateral murder video was really eye opening.

I'm interested in knowing what made the video "eye opening" to you.

I'd never seen an apache gunship slaughter people before that. IEDs are cowardly tools of insurgents but mowing people down untouchable in the sky is valiant. Listening to the chopper pilot and gunner laughing and joking makes you sick. The dying reuters reporter crawling to get away and getting mowed down again by the 30 mm cannon.

Think about any work center. Think about the joking and laughing that comes after a full day's work. A lot of it is simply blowing off steam, or just demonstrating a thick skin.

The crews in these helicopters thought they were in imminent danger. They saw what they thought was an RPG. They got worked up, as I would easily imagine you and I would be if you thought you were the target of an imminent attack. They joked and laughed off their own mortality, which is under severe question each and every day you're in a war zone.

Is it somewhat sadistic to want someone to pick up a weapon so that you could put another bullet into them? Possibly. However, it is also tactically and strategically justifiable, because why let what you thought was a combatant in arms flee the scene of a battle? So that they could be more prepared next time to actually take your helicopter down?

Did they want to shoot at children? No. They didn't even know children were in the van, until after the ground crew advised for immediate medivac to a hospital for the children. They saw the van as full of people aiding and abetting combatants in the field, and clearly stated that it was their fault for bringing children into a gun fight, which is how they saw the situation as it occurred.

You can blow off steam by laughing with your buds in a cubicle, while you're mowing down human beings there should be at least the pretense of humility. There's a reason suicide rates are higher than combat deaths and its because the military creates dehumanized, killing machines with no regard to the value of life.

If you thought your cause was just, that you were fighting a just war, then IMHO there's every reason to consider your actions to be just, more than likely much more just than an office worker in a cubicle, much more laudatory, etc.

I would also turn your argument here against you, that by denying soldiers the chance to laugh off their own mortality, you dehumanize them and trivialize very human aspects of their lives.

You can try to defend them all you want but seeing first hand what a modern battlefield looks like brings a new appreciation to the magnitude and true cost of war. And its not the black and white good vs evil narrative put on by the govt or the media.

I agree it's not black and white, but intent is everything. The soldiers here displayed justifiable intent, before during and after the shooting.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:50:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:39:26 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 10:21:35 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I also believe IEDs are not tools of cowards. It is a combat technique aimed to minimize casualties of the combatants.

What I do believe are tools of cowards is strapping an IED onto an innocent civilian, so that you would elicit more sympathy from soldiers that would do more to free the civilian from his/her macabre fate thereby potentially killing more US soldiers when the IED actually goes off, the soldiers being the true intended target.

In such a situation, it is not the IED that makes the technique cowardly, but the deliberate use of an innocent in order to maximize casualties among your intended target.

Those aren't combatants, they're terrorists. Suicide bombers in Iraq don't discriminate theyre just as happy to kill anyone as to target us soldiers. Mosques and cafes are being hit by the terrorists, not us checkpoints.

Terrorists are simply another type of combatant. We are at "war" with terrorists. In another realm of combat, a "terrorist" would simply be a guerrilla soldier utilizing more drastic means to achieve the same end. In this case, the "end" is to demonstrate the incapacity of the US to secure their charge, the country of Iraq. Any formal military force opposed to the US occupation of Iraq via combat would have that exact same end.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 10:57:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 10:35:10 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Also forget the fact that they can't discern between a video camera and an RPG, a single RPG doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of hitting an apache.

Neither would small arms fire, but if it was your life on the line, would you take that risk? What if you were mistaken?

"During the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent counterinsurgency campaign the US Army experimented with a range
of tactics, including the use of the AH-64D Longbow Apache to
directly attack targets in the manner fighter aircraft would do, but
suffered heavy losses in airframes due to concentrated gunfire.
The insurgents in Iraq had an abundant supply of Soviet supplied
SA-7 SAMs and Chinese clones, and there are claims that newer
Russian SA-16 and SA-18s may have been used. These have
generally proven less than effective since much of the coalition
helicopter fleet was equipped with infrared exhaust suppressors,
active infrared jammers and flare dispensers. Many larger
helicopters were also equipped with missile approach warning
systems to cue countermeasures deployment. The most prominent
kills achieved by MANPADS were transport aircraft, spurring the
deployment of infrared jammers across coalition fleets.
While MANPADS have not produced the losses many anticipated,
mostly due to good pre-emptive installation of countermeasures,
losses due to larger calibre gunfire and rocket propelled grenades,
from the RPG-7 upward, have remained a consideration. Tactics
for the evasion of MANPADS involve low flying, which exposes
helicopters to gunfire and RPG fire.
"


http://www.ausairpower.net...
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 1:33:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The point is that it opened my eyes, that's not debatable, and I'm sure the eyes of many others. When you see what war really is it impacts you. If that video had remained classified I wouldn't have the same view of war I do now. There was absolutely no reason the American public should be shielded from that and similar videos. If you, as a country, go to war, you should be forced to see what that all entails. You should at the very least have access to video like this.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 1:48:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 1:33:00 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The point is that it opened my eyes, that's not debatable, and I'm sure the eyes of many others. When you see what war really is it impacts you. If that video had remained classified I wouldn't have the same view of war I do now. There was absolutely no reason the American public should be shielded from that and similar videos. If you, as a country, go to war, you should be forced to see what that all entails. You should at the very least have access to video like this.

I sort of agree with this, but at the same time has it ever been a secret that war is horrible? Did it really come as a surprise to people in America that atrocities were committed by their side too? That's just an inevitability of war. Nobody has ever said otherwise. There have been wars before. This has all happened before.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 1:51:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 1:48:46 PM, rross wrote:
At 6/24/2013 1:33:00 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The point is that it opened my eyes, that's not debatable, and I'm sure the eyes of many others. When you see what war really is it impacts you. If that video had remained classified I wouldn't have the same view of war I do now. There was absolutely no reason the American public should be shielded from that and similar videos. If you, as a country, go to war, you should be forced to see what that all entails. You should at the very least have access to video like this.

I sort of agree with this, but at the same time has it ever been a secret that war is horrible? Did it really come as a surprise to people in America that atrocities were committed by their side too? That's just an inevitability of war. Nobody has ever said otherwise. There have been wars before. This has all happened before.

It's one thing to have it in the back of your mind, it's another to be able to watch firsthand on youtube.
The point is that the govt. shouldn't be able to keep everything about war secret. They sterilize what's released and purposely shield citizens from the truth.
In short it's not a secret but the military is doing it's best to make it a secret.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 1:59:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 1:51:55 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 1:48:46 PM, rross wrote:
At 6/24/2013 1:33:00 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The point is that it opened my eyes, that's not debatable, and I'm sure the eyes of many others. When you see what war really is it impacts you. If that video had remained classified I wouldn't have the same view of war I do now. There was absolutely no reason the American public should be shielded from that and similar videos. If you, as a country, go to war, you should be forced to see what that all entails. You should at the very least have access to video like this.

I sort of agree with this, but at the same time has it ever been a secret that war is horrible? Did it really come as a surprise to people in America that atrocities were committed by their side too? That's just an inevitability of war. Nobody has ever said otherwise. There have been wars before. This has all happened before.

It's one thing to have it in the back of your mind, it's another to be able to watch firsthand on youtube.
The point is that the govt. shouldn't be able to keep everything about war secret. They sterilize what's released and purposely shield citizens from the truth.
In short it's not a secret but the military is doing it's best to make it a secret.

It should be a secret, though. It's not fair to scapegoat individual soldiers for what the country and the government has decided to do. I think the decision to go to war was terrible, but once it's committed to, you have to try and finish it as quickly as possible. It's not going to help having it public. Isn't there some quote about the first casualty of war being truth, by some ancient person? None of this is new.
rross
Posts: 2,772
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:05:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 1:59:56 PM, rross wrote:
At 6/24/2013 1:51:55 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 1:48:46 PM, rross wrote:
At 6/24/2013 1:33:00 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The point is that it opened my eyes, that's not debatable, and I'm sure the eyes of many others. When you see what war really is it impacts you. If that video had remained classified I wouldn't have the same view of war I do now. There was absolutely no reason the American public should be shielded from that and similar videos. If you, as a country, go to war, you should be forced to see what that all entails. You should at the very least have access to video like this.

I sort of agree with this, but at the same time has it ever been a secret that war is horrible? Did it really come as a surprise to people in America that atrocities were committed by their side too? That's just an inevitability of war. Nobody has ever said otherwise. There have been wars before. This has all happened before.

It's one thing to have it in the back of your mind, it's another to be able to watch firsthand on youtube.
The point is that the govt. shouldn't be able to keep everything about war secret. They sterilize what's released and purposely shield citizens from the truth.
In short it's not a secret but the military is doing it's best to make it a secret.

It should be a secret, though. It's not fair to scapegoat individual soldiers for what the country and the government has decided to do. I think the decision to go to war was terrible, but once it's committed to, you have to try and finish it as quickly as possible. It's not going to help having it public. Isn't there some quote about the first casualty of war being truth, by some ancient person? None of this is new.

No, I've changed my mind. Maybe, yeah, if people didn't realize they should be brought to. It annoys me that they didn't realize, though.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:10:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 1:33:00 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The point is that it opened my eyes, that's not debatable, and I'm sure the eyes of many others. When you see what war really is it impacts you. If that video had remained classified I wouldn't have the same view of war I do now. There was absolutely no reason the American public should be shielded from that and similar videos. If you, as a country, go to war, you should be forced to see what that all entails. You should at the very least have access to video like this.

Question for you: Have you watched/read "Life of Pi"?

If you have, and without going into any spoilers, can you see the relevance of that movie's central point to how you perceive warfare here?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/24/2013 2:12:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/24/2013 1:51:55 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 6/24/2013 1:48:46 PM, rross wrote:
At 6/24/2013 1:33:00 PM, lewis20 wrote:
The point is that it opened my eyes, that's not debatable, and I'm sure the eyes of many others. When you see what war really is it impacts you. If that video had remained classified I wouldn't have the same view of war I do now. There was absolutely no reason the American public should be shielded from that and similar videos. If you, as a country, go to war, you should be forced to see what that all entails. You should at the very least have access to video like this.

I sort of agree with this, but at the same time has it ever been a secret that war is horrible? Did it really come as a surprise to people in America that atrocities were committed by their side too? That's just an inevitability of war. Nobody has ever said otherwise. There have been wars before. This has all happened before.

It's one thing to have it in the back of your mind, it's another to be able to watch firsthand on youtube.
The point is that the govt. shouldn't be able to keep everything about war secret. They sterilize what's released and purposely shield citizens from the truth.
In short it's not a secret but the military is doing it's best to make it a secret.

IMHO the military is doing its best to make it palatable, because the lesson learned from Vietnam was that an unpalatable war could cause rioting at home.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?