About Largest leak in US military history tells the truth on the Afghanistan war
|July 26th, 2010||#1|
| || |
Largest leak in US military history tells the truth on the Afghanistan war info
Each of the news organisations has a slightly different take on the files.
For the Guardian the files reveal the futility of the conflict and the current strategy.
I'm all in favour of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters. Frank Lloyd Wright
|July 26th, 2010||#4|
| || |
Yes probably the Pentagon papers were more shocking since we are less naive nowadays and really suspected most of the above anyway!
I understand the same group that was behind the Piratebay site organises Wikileaks and it is diversified across various countries just like the Internet itself to avoid prosecution.
Despite this, I understand they were relatively responsible, censoring names from the files to for example to avoid compromising individuals.
|July 27th, 2010||#5|
| || |
So, any comments regarding the revelations?
I for one, am a bit surprised the US is tolerating these reports that the Pak ISI are helping AQ. I'd expected a more robust... "response" against them.
|July 27th, 2010||#7|
| || |
For me the scariest thing is that that such a large quantity of document s were leaked.
To me it reflects a lack of confidence in strategy, tactics and philosophy, by the troops on the ground, as well as general observers.
I think, from what I've seen so far, that Wikileaks has done the right thing, we need an independent press to keep the public informed, that doesn't happen. We need to be able to hold our govt's accountable for their decisions - that sort of happens. Whatever else, this shows that our young men and women are still willing to pu their lives on the line but are prepared to think and act for themselves. I think that this is a positive outcome.
|July 27th, 2010||#8|
| || |
Well, it appears that the vast majority of the leaks came from one person... some Private Bradley Manning.
The good news is that none of this information really seems to be anything new.
Also, this would be a great time for the US military to get it's SH1T together and make sure that no one below E-6 gets to see anything worth half a damn, as well as improve computer security. Technology is important but what's more important is how it's run by people. You can have the most sophisticated stuff but if your guy sets the password to "0000" and has it written on a post-it stuck under the monitor, it's really no good.
Also, honest to God there's got to be better ways to deal with rejects. This "treat them fairly" BS is going too far. If a commander sees a guy unable and unwilling to do his job, he should be able to give recommendations to have the guy dishonorably discharged in a hurry. Maybe an Officer's recommendation with signatures from two or three NCOs ranking E-5 and above should do the trick.
|July 27th, 2010||#9|
| || |
Respectfully, frankly I'm not too sure having soldiers think independently is a good thing for any army. They're supposed to follow orders, not think about them.
So, if this was known years ago, is there any truth to the "reports" on ISI involvement?