Assange an "enemy"...US Defense Department

[ASUG8]

Uhhh...you can build a nuclear bomb with information from the local library. You can build all sorts of biological weapons from information in libraries. You can use todays RC vehicles to deliver ordinance.

So, let's just start banning libraries and toys, shall we?

"Classified" information...yeah, just like Obama's college records.

If what you say was true, why would Iran be spending so much time and money on developing one? Is it because they can't read the language of infidels?

I would agree that the general principles of it may be available but the details of actually pulling it off are not and should not be publicly available. If your RC controllers can go inter-continental, what kind of toys are you playing with because I want in on them!

What do you mean? I picked up a six pack of 90% enriched uranium at Publix during lunch today.

[YoUDeeMan]

If what you say was true, why would Iran be spending so much time and money on developing one? Is it because they can't read the language of infidels?

I would agree that the general principles of it may be available but the details of actually pulling it off are not and should not be publicly available. If your RC controllers can go inter-continental, what kind of toys are you playing with because I want in on them!

I have access to some advanced toys.

Having information versus having the materials and the expertise to build something are two different things. And developing a nuclear weapon is also different than developing an accurate, long, range misile to deliver such a weapon. As you know, one doesn't need an ICBM to deliver a nuke...a cargo ship sailing into NYC harbor would do just fine.

The information is out there, except for the most advanced stuff. And that brings us back to the fact that only a fraction of what is classified is actually important. The rest is just bullshvt.

[Seahawks08]

Seriously, the way we do things invites far more problems than any information that Assange revealed. We do things to protect the interests of a small minority of movers and shakers...we don't do things to protect American in general. If we did, we wouldn't have had 2,125 of our soldiers die (so far) in Afghanistan.

so we aren't in afghanistan to protect amerians? in what world do you live in? apparently 9/11 never happened. it's not like al-qaeda was based in afghanistan or anything...

[Chizzang]

More like you have an incomplete picture. Wikileaks caused damage nobody will know about, until the next time we have a major intelligence failure because foreign nationals are too afraid to tell us things. The damage runs deep and it is substantial.

Because you're from the government and you're here to help? (Or something like that...?

Bingo..!!!!

[YoUDeeMan]

Seriously, the way we do things invites far more problems than any information that Assange revealed. We do things to protect the interests of a small minority of movers and shakers...we don't do things to protect American in general. If we did, we wouldn't have had 2,125 of our soldiers die (so far) in Afghanistan.

so we aren't in afghanistan to protect amerians? in what world do you live in? apparently 9/11 never happened. it's not like al-qaeda was based in afghanistan or anything...

You do know that our super secret decoder ring guys declared that there were only, at most, about 150 AQ operatives in all of Afghanistan...and that was considered a high estimate...several years ago, don't you? We probably have more than that in the US, and there are certianly more than that in Saudi Arabia, but you don't see us bombing the crap out of our or our "ally's" infrastructure to root them out, do you?

Going into Affy to dismantle AQ training grounds and slapping the Taliban on the nose was one thing...it was a mission that was needed and we had very few casualties. But hanging around for 11 years supporting and/or fighting third world goat herding opium dealers is quite another.

Seriously, have you read anything about the Taliban and AQ relationship over the last decade? The Taliban engaged with AQ because AQ provided money and training. Afghans could care less about the US, most are just trying to eek out a living and avoid getting shot by various warlords (now more heavily armed than ever, thanks to us). Heck, Clinton wants to negotiate with the prevously untouchable Taliban...how is that possible if they are the scourge of Afghanistan? There's a very easy answer to that question.

There is no protection of Americans going on in Afghanistan. You are believing crap being spewed out by this administration that counters what several people within our armed forces have already been saying for years.

[Chizzang]

so we aren't in afghanistan to protect amerians? in what world do you live in? apparently 9/11 never happened. it's not like al-qaeda was based in afghanistan or anything...

You do know that our super secret decoder ring guys declared that there were only, at most, about 150 AQ operatives in all of Afghanistan...and that was considered a high estimate...several years ago, don't you? We probably have more than that in the US, and there are certianly more than that in Saudi Arabia, but you don't see us bombing the crap out of our or our "ally's" infrastructure to root them out, do you?

Going into Affy to dismantle AQ training grounds and slapping the Taliban on the nose was one thing...it was a mission that was needed and we had very few casualties. But hanging around for 11 years supporting and/or fighting third world goat herding opium dealers is quite another.

Seriously, have you read anything about the Taliban and AQ relationship over the last decade? The Taliban engaged with AQ because AQ provided money and training. Afghans could care less about the US, most are just trying to eek out a living and avoid getting shot by various warlords (now more heavily armed than ever, thanks to us). Heck, Clinton wants to negotiate with the prevously untouchable Taliban...how is that possible if they are the scourge of Afghanistan? There's a very easy answer to that question.

There is no protection of Americans going on in Afghanistan. You are believing crap being spewed out by this administration that counters what several people within our armed forces have already been saying for years.

^ truth

[CID1990]

More like you have an incomplete picture. Wikileaks caused damage nobody will know about, until the next time we have a major intelligence failure because foreign nationals are too afraid to tell us things. The damage runs deep and it is substantial.

Because you're from the government and you're here to help? (Or something like that...?

No, I'd love to have a substantial conversation about this, but I can't. I would also like to possibly agree or disagree wholeheartedly with CluckU's well thought-out and thought-provoking reply, but I am sworn to support the foreign policy of the United States without prejudice, and therefore have no opinion on Cluck's insightful epistle.

[Seahawks08]

But hanging around for 11 years supporting and/or fighting third world goat herding opium dealers is quite another.

What happened was Bush took his foot off the pedal and allowed al-qaeda and the taliban to regroup. Again, this all comes back to the Iraq War. If Afghanistan was the focus for Bush, I would argue that we could have been out of there by 2008. Whether you or I agree or not, 2014 is the Afghan deadline.

[Seahawks08]

One more thing, cluck, did you write the headline story currently on huffpost?

[Pwns]

Julian Assange simply revealed the true character of some of our Agencies...They don't like that

What specifically? That that they call people bad names off the record? I'm wondering what Assange has done that you seem to think is so heroic? There are no "smoking guns" in anything he has released. All he has done is put people in danger and screwed up our intel network. It's a JOKE that people think this guy is a whistle blower.

[Chizzang]

Julian Assange simply revealed the true character of some of our Agencies...They don't like that

What specifically? That that they call people bad names off the record? I'm wondering what Assange has done that you seem to think is so heroic? There are no "smoking guns" in anything he has released. All he has done is put people in danger and screwed up our intel network. It's a JOKE that people think this guy is a whistle blower.

Who said he's heroic..?
He is neither a hero nor a villain
And are you asking me what specifically did he reveal about our character
or are you asking me what's in the Wikileaks

I'll ask you a question:
Do you prefer our leaks to come from Dick Cheney - you know when he exposes CIA agents identities because their husbands made him angry - is that more acceptable..? Should we throw Dick Cheney in Prison or did FOX News spin that up for you so that it was not important

Until we standardize our process for indicting those involved in leaks - I'll stick with my original assessment

Thanks

[Pwns]

Who said he's heroic..?
He is neither a hero nor a villain
And are you asking me what specifically did he reveal about our character
or are you asking me what's in the Wikileaks

I'll ask you a question:
Do you prefer our leaks to come from Dick Cheney - you know when he exposes CIA agents identities because their husbands made him angry - is that more acceptable..? Should we throw Dick Cheney in Prison or did FOX News spin that up for you so that it was not important

Until we standardize our process for indicting those involved in leaks - I'll stick with my original assessment

Thanks

Why are you bringing up Dick Cheney? Saying that he had anything to do with the Plame affair is expando territory, and has nothing to do with Assange and that fact that he hasn't done anything good.

[Chizzang]

Who said he's heroic..?
He is neither a hero nor a villain
And are you asking me what specifically did he reveal about our character
or are you asking me what's in the Wikileaks

I'll ask you a question:
Do you prefer our leaks to come from Dick Cheney - you know when he exposes CIA agents identities because their husbands made him angry - is that more acceptable..? Should we throw Dick Cheney in Prison or did FOX News spin that up for you so that it was not important

Until we standardize our process for indicting those involved in leaks - I'll stick with my original assessment

Thanks

Why are you bringing up Dick Cheney? Saying that he had anything to do with the Plame affair is expando territory, and has nothing to do with Assange and that fact that he hasn't done anything good.

My point is consistency in who we're angry at...
Reasonable consistency in our "outrage"

Correction:
Okay, so not Dick Cheney but "The Bush Administration" exposed V. Plame - and that's fine with me too
But:
Assnge is the least of our problems and I think it's silly that "we're after him" because our crappy character and vile intent was exposed... I give the whole thing a big old "whatever"
Sure it probably would have been nice had he not leaked the data - but it wasn't lies - it was truth

[CID1990]

- but it wasn't lies - it was truth

That's why it's called intelligence and not misinformation.

[houndawg]

Seriously, the way we do things invites far more problems than any information that Assange revealed. We do things to protect the interests of a small minority of movers and shakers...we don't do things to protect American in general. If we did, we wouldn't have had 2,125 of our soldiers die (so far) in Afghanistan.

so we aren't in afghanistan to protect amerians? in what world do you live in? apparently 9/11 never happened. it's not like al-qaeda was based in afghanistan or anything...

We're in Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden, they said so on TV.

[houndawg]

Who said he's heroic..?
He is neither a hero nor a villain
And are you asking me what specifically did he reveal about our character
or are you asking me what's in the Wikileaks

I'll ask you a question:
Do you prefer our leaks to come from Dick Cheney - you know when he exposes CIA agents identities because their husbands made him angry - is that more acceptable..? Should we throw Dick Cheney in Prison or did FOX News spin that up for you so that it was not important

Until we standardize our process for indicting those involved in leaks - I'll stick with my original assessment

Thanks

Why are you bringing up Dick Cheney? Saying that he had anything to do with the Plame affair is expando territory, and has nothing to do with Assange and that fact that he hasn't done anything good.

Somebody on the inside exposed an agent the CIA said was covert. I think that did more damage to potential future human intelligence than Assange.

[kalm]

Because you're from the government and you're here to help? (Or something like that...?

No, I'd love to have a substantial conversation about this, but I can't. I would also like to possibly agree or disagree wholeheartedly with CluckU's well thought-out and thought-provoking reply, but I am sworn to support the foreign policy of the United States without prejudice, and therefore have no opinion on Cluck's insightful epistle.

Fair enough Cid. With your experience and insight we probably sound like a bunch of idiots on most of these things. The "if you guys only knew" factor has to be amusing.

But you gotta admit the Reagan line was a good one...

[CID1990]

Why are you bringing up Dick Cheney? Saying that he had anything to do with the Plame affair is expando territory, and has nothing to do with Assange and that fact that he hasn't done anything good.

Somebody on the inside exposed an agent the CIA said was covert. I think that did more damage to potential future human intelligence than Assange.

?

[YoUDeeMan]

But hanging around for 11 years supporting and/or fighting third world goat herding opium dealers is quite another.

What happened was Bush took his foot off the pedal and allowed al-qaeda and the taliban to regroup. Again, this all comes back to the Iraq War. If Afghanistan was the focus for Bush, I would argue that we could have been out of there by 2008. Whether you or I agree or not, 2014 is the Afghan deadline.

You do realize that 2014 is a deadline, but not a deadline, don't you?

"White House press secretary Jay Carney on Sunday said the U.S. would transfer security to Afghan troops by the end of 2014 and that recent statements from President Obama did not mean that U.S. troops would be out of the country by that date. Carney’s remarks came after President Obama said on Saturday that he had a “specific plan to bring our troops home from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.”
“We are in the process of doing that right now," Obama had said at a campaign rally in Sioux City, Iowa.
But on Sunday, Carney clarified those remarks, saying that Obama had “never said that all the troops would be out.”'
http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/259568.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What is preventing Obama from leaving now...after all, he got Osama 16 months ago? Instead, we are staying, according to Obama, until the END of 2014...well over 2 years from today...but then his staff held a press conference to clarify that Obama didn't really mean what he said.

Mission Accomplished, Part Deux.

And you argue we could have been out of there by 2008. Why not 2007? How about 2004? How about...oh, I don't know, pick any date after the initial few months?

We don't need to be fighting the Afghan people....they aren't our enemy. Then again, maybe you are one of those people who believed that if we lost in Vietnam, the Vietnamese were going to take part in the willful destruction of America. How'd that work out?

[YoUDeeMan]

One more thing, cluck, did you write the headline story currently on huffpost?

I have no idea of what you are talking about. What Huffington Post story (I'm not interested enough to Google it...and you were too lazy not to link it)?

[Seahawks08]

What is preventing Obama from leaving now...after all, he got Osama 16 months ago? Instead, we are staying, according to Obama, until the END of 2014...well over 2 years from today...but then his staff held a press conference to clarify that Obama didn't really mean what he said.

Mission Accomplished, Part Deux.

And you argue we could have been out of there by 2008. Why not 2007? How about 2004? How about...oh, I don't know, pick any date after the initial few months?

We don't need to be fighting the Afghan people....they aren't our enemy. Then again, maybe you are one of those people who believed that if we lost in Vietnam, the Vietnamese were going to take part in the willful destruction of America. How'd that work out?

First, I'm going to give him until 2014 to bring the troops home before I would be willing to protest in public.

Second, there are probably a number of factors from keeping the U.S. from leaving today. For example, a commitment to train Afghan military.

Third, I said 2008 to be the latest possible date. It would give Bush time to get Osama, take out al-qaeda in nothern pakistan, and train the afghan military.

FInally, no I was not one of those people who thought that about Vietnam. Sorry to disappoint you.

[Seahawks08]

I have no idea of what you are talking about. What Huffington Post story (I'm not interested enough to Google it...and you were too lazy not to link it)?

I assumed you were still on when I posted yesterday.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/2 ... _ref=world

[BlueHen86]

What is preventing Obama from leaving now...after all, he got Osama 16 months ago? Instead, we are staying, according to Obama, until the END of 2014...well over 2 years from today...but then his staff held a press conference to clarify that Obama didn't really mean what he said.

Mission Accomplished, Part Deux.

And you argue we could have been out of there by 2008. Why not 2007? How about 2004? How about...oh, I don't know, pick any date after the initial few months?

We don't need to be fighting the Afghan people....they aren't our enemy. Then again, maybe you are one of those people who believed that if we lost in Vietnam, the Vietnamese were going to take part in the willful destruction of America. How'd that work out?

First, I'm going to give him until 2014 to bring the troops home before I would be willing to protest in public.

Second, there are probably a number of factors from keeping the U.S. from leaving today. For example, a commitment to train Afghan military.

Third, I said 2008 to be the latest possible date. It would give Bush time to get Osama, take out al-qaeda in nothern pakistan, and train the afghan military.

FInally, no I was not one of those people who thought that about Vietnam. Sorry to disappoint you.

Why set a date? Either stay until "mission accomplished" or come home now.

[Seahawks08]

Either stay until "mission accomplished" or come home now.

What is "mission accomplished"? The timetable has been set and combat operations end next year. Followed by removal of most troops in 2014. The question now is how many troops will remain for the "support" role like in Iraq. And to be honest, I think it should stay that way so that we don't rush into another war with Iran. If the Afghan war ended today, there could possibly be more urgency to attack Iran.

[BlueHen86]

Either stay until "mission accomplished" or come home now.

What is "mission accomplished"? The timetable has been set and combat operations end next year. Followed by removal of most troops in 2014. The question now is how many troops will remain for the "support" role like in Iraq. And to be honest, I think it should stay that way so that we don't rush into another war with Iran. If the Afghan war ended today, there could possibly be more urgency to attack Iran.

Good question. I said a while ago that I think Obama should explain why we are still in Afghanistan. I thought the mission was to get Bin Laden, but we did that and we are still there.

That said, arbitrarily picking a dealine to leave is just dumb. Either stay long enough to complete the mission (whatever it is), or come home now.