Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[RedKing]

RedKing:

I wasn't aware that you had stated these things before, and I apologize for doubting you. And I agree that there are probably a fair number of asshats, just like any profession. What I don't agree with is the constant insistence by certain members of the forum that every single person who holds a defense-related job has the mental capacity of a toddler. You yourself are living proof that the opposite is true. That, and the obvious fact that the country still exists and is still running, albeit not quite as smoothly as it could be.

I don't actually see that insistence myself. I see some intimations that military/law enforcement are evil, sneaky pricks but not so much idiots.

I have a fairly balanced view on the subject myself. There's nothing inherently bad or corrupt about the profession itself or the vast majority of people in that profession. But that's not to say that they're all white knights beyond reproach. There are plenty of documented instances of cops/soldiers/officers going beyond the pale, violating training, and committing actions for which they should be rightly held accountable.

That's complicated by the fact that their job requires a certain amount of secrecy, and the people who abuse their power in the first place are also likely to abuse that secrecy to hide their actions. It's even further complicated by the fact that prosecuting a war is itself an inherently distasteful activity. War requires good people to do bad things. Often legally, which does not mitigate them for those who find it distasteful to begin with.

And beyond even that, our notions of what is acceptable and unacceptable have definitely "civilized" over the years. Taken by today's standards, most of WWII was one big war crime. The Allies firebombed civilian population centers into ashes, carpetbombed indiscriminately, etc. The Axis....well, I think German and Japanese war crimes are pretty well documented. Both sides had multiple documented instances of massacreing surrendering POWs (which was a war crime even then).

Bottom line: Sometimes the military has good reasons to hide information. Sometimes they don't. In this particular case, based on what little we know, my personal opinion is that this is probably mostly valid. That's the extent of my opinion. It's not a blanket "CENSORSHIP IS BAD!" or "WHY DO YOU HATE OUR TROOPS!" screed.

[Footkerchief]

That hope being that the Department of Defence's attempts at information supression are so woefully bad that they'll never be able to keep a leaked secret down.

Way to go pentagon.

The term "utterly bereft of clues" applies to the Pentagon here.

Not seeing anything in those quotes about "every single person who holds a defense-related job".  Perhaps you were exaggerating your opponents' claims to make them look bad?

It is human nature to do what is most beneficial to oneself. What could possibly be more ethical than that?

Huh.  If you really believe that, then why would you have said this?

It's probably just my bias towards the military/defense, having lived from base to base for the first half of my life, but I have total faith in the DoD's motives for suppression. If the folks at the Pentagon are willing to go as far as to destroy hard copies of the book, it stands to reason that the information they were trying to suppress would endanger the lives of American citizens/government officials if released. I very much hope that some anti-government asshole doesn't get ahold of this info and spray it all over the web for everyone to see.

I mean, first you're saying that the Pentagon's actions were justified because they were protecting others (e.g. civilians), thereby implying that it was ethical for them to act unselfishly.  And now you're saying that selfish actions are actually more ethical than unselfish ones.  Am I wrong to see a contradiction here?

[Aqizzar]

Yes Footkerchief, you are wrong to see that contradiction.  You are wrong because it must never be seen, because acknowledging that the defense sector does in fact occasionally perform inexcusable and irrational actions would deflate his manlove of the military.

I know I'm not really helping, but that is basically where this argument is going to go.  One or way another, that's what it's going to boil down to - the military can do no wrong, because even when they're provably wrong if was for a "good cause", factual history be damned, and you're a bleeding heart pussy if you don't believe that.

[Neonivek]

The problem is we don't know if "Protecting" means actual protection... Or if it means protecting their jobs or reputation.

[Virex]

The problem is we don't know if "Protecting" means actual protection... Or if it means protecting their jobs or reputation.

And you're wondering where he gets the idea that some here insist that the entire military is nothing but a scam?

(Also before you or anyone replies with "Nobody is saying that", I would like to add that there are certainly phrases posted here that are implying it.)

[Grakelin]

Man, I wish Stephenie Meyer was a Navy SEAL.

[Aqizzar]

(Also before you or anyone replies with "Nobody is saying that", I would like to add that there are certainly phrases posted here that are implying it.)

See, that kind of assumption is the whole problem.  How about we stop the accusations of implication, and stick to saying what we fucking mean and expect the same.

Here's a hint - pretty much everybody is already saying exactly what they mean.

[Leafsnail]

"The military sometimes abuses its power in order to avoid leaking stuff that's of no national security concern, but which would be embarrassing to them.  This can undermine other censorship of stuff that would put their nation at risk, which could be dangerous".

I would like to eradicate any other implied statements in here, particularly that I "think they're morons".  I mean, perhaps suppressing this stuff works 9 times out of 10, and we only hear about the 1.  If that's the case, suppressing embarrassing stuff is quite a clever move.

[Impending Doom]

Footkerchief:

Okay, you've caught me red-handed: I'm a Southerner. Around here we use this thing called 'Southern Hyperbole' which means we exaggerate everything all the time.

Also, I must question how you can interpret this:

It's probably just my bias towards the military/defense, having lived from base to base for the first half of my life, but I have total faith in the DoD's motives for suppression. If the folks at the Pentagon are willing to go as far as to destroy hard copies of the book, it stands to reason that the information they were trying to suppress would endanger the lives of American citizens/government officials if released. I very much hope that some anti-government asshole doesn't get ahold of this info and spray it all over the web for everyone to see.

As being an example of selflessness on the part of the DoD. Selflessness means to act in direct opposition to one's own self-interest. A soldier could only be called 'selfless' if he acts in the defense of America when he would much rather see America burned to the ground. Because he genuinely desires to see his country prosper, he is acting in his own self-interest, or as you would put it, selfishly. The Department of Defense saw fit to destroy several thousand copies of a book containing state secrets because they wanted to protect American lives, ergo, they are by no means selfless.

EDIT:

"The military sometimes abuses its power in order to avoid leaking stuff that's of no national security concern, but which would be embarrassing to them.  This can undermine other censorship of stuff that would put their nation at risk, which could be dangerous".

I would like to eradicate any other implied statements in here, particularly that I "think they're morons".  I mean, perhaps suppressing this stuff works 9 times out of 10, and we only hear about the 1.  If that's the case, suppressing embarrassing stuff is quite a clever move.

Thank you. Once the argument is stripped of all implications, double-meanings, and other crap, it actually makes much more sense, and is much more agreeable.

[Aqizzar]

Yes, because the DoD couldn't possibly have considered the book's content from an even more selfish position, namely that they were afraid of being sued or investigated for something revealed in the printing.  Given everything else known about the war, the fact that a guy wanted to write a book about it and convinced a major publisher to pick it up, suggests to me that the content was probably something the DoD wouldn't want anyone outside the military to know about, if only to protect their own reputation.

I'll even be generous and say that it wasn't that at all.  The military and intelligence apparatus classify pretty everything that crosses their desks as a matter of routine course.  On the remotely off chance that something a guy publishes in a memoir years after the fact could somehow someway pose a problem, they'd rather see everything redacted than anything let go.  I don't believe for a moment anyone sat down with a highlighter and read through the book, picking and choosing which parts directly constituted a intelligence threat; rather, that they went through the book and blacked out everything they had on a list that was considered classified already, which means virtually all operation information.

[Leafsnail]

Appeal to semantics... I mean, ultimately, you can just say

"If you did something, you wanted to do something."
"If you do something you want to do, it's a selfish action."
"Therefore all real and theoretical actions taken by anyone at any time are selfish."

Selflessness does NOT mean to act in direct opposition to one's self interest.  That would be... I dunno... idiocy?

Selflessness is putting others before yourself, regardless of whether you do that because you get a good feeling out of helping others or whatever.  So a soldier can be selfless in that he puts the safety of his country before the safety of his own life (in other words, he's protecting something before his self).

Uh, just realised that's slightly irrelevant to the main topic at hand.  Whatever.  I just don't like it when people conflate selflessness and doing wrong.

[Jay]

You knew it was coming.

[Impending Doom]

Yes, because the DoD couldn't possibly have considered the book's content from an even more selfish position, namely that they were afraid of being sued or investigated for something revealed in the printing.  Given everything else known about the war, the fact that a guy wanted to write a book about it and convinced a major publisher to pick it up, suggests to me that the content was probably something the DoD wouldn't want anyone outside the military to know about, if only to protect their own reputation.

I'll even be generous and say that it wasn't that at all.  The military and intelligence apparatus classify pretty everything that crosses their desks as a matter of routine course.  On the remotely off chance that something a guy publishes in a memoir years after the fact could somehow someway pose a problem, they'd rather see everything redacted than anything let go.  I don't believe for a moment anyone sat down with a highlighter and read through the book, picking and choosing which parts directly constituted a intelligence threat; rather, that they went through the book and blacked out everything they had on a list that was considered classified already, which means virtually all operation information.

I'll concede that yes, that's entirely possible. It is quite plausible that the information was suppressed in order to save someone's skin. It is also possible that it was redacted to save our skin. Which is the truth? We don't know. We can't know. As a matter of fact, we shouldn't know, because it's classified, and neither of us has any business knowing or trying to find out. So you stick by your belief, I'll stick by mine, and in a few decades when IF it all gets declassified, maybe we'll see who's right.

Leafsnail:

What you attribute to selflessness, is in fact generosity, placing others before yourself 'out of the goodness of your heart' (Read: it makes you feel good/gives you a warm fuzzy feeling.) Making yourself feel good is still in your own best interest.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'll concede that yes, that's entirely possible. It is quite plausible that the information was suppressed in order to save someone's skin. It is also possible that it was redacted to save our skin. Which is the truth? We don't know. We can't know. As a matter of fact, we shouldn't know, because it's classified, and neither of us has any business knowing or trying to find out.

Did you seriously post that right after:

You knew it was coming.

Because what you posted is what that part of Ingsoc's slogan effectively means: Submission and trust of the state, a decline of knowlage because it makes you feel safe.

[Impending Doom]

You knew it was coming.

YESSS!!! FOR THE EMPEROR JESUS!!! PURGE THE XENOS COMMIES! SLAY THE HERETICS LIBERALS! CLEANSE! BURN! KILL!

Because even a heartless conservative sonovabitch like me can have a sense of humor

EDIT: Wait, THAT'S where this image came from? I was under the impression that Jay was referring to the Bible-thumping Branch-Dividian(sic) levels of closed-mindedness oft attributed to people like me.