goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: michigancat on October 22, 2015, 09:26:17 AM
-
So EmailGate has got me thinking, beyond the fact that Hillary is a bad person who shouldn't be president.
Why doesn't anyone question why we have so many secrets we are afraid of our taxpayers knowing? To me, that's a much bigger and scarier concern than Hillary breaking the law. We have a right to know what the eff we're paying for AND/OR we shouldn't be getting into crap like regime overthrowing and clandestine wars.
Thoughts without pitting this up?
-
Kind of ruins the point of clandestine if the entire world knows about it
-
Why do our citizens think clandestine wars are ok?
-
Probably more efficient than real wars
-
It would be much more tolerable if the defense budget wasn't so gigantic. Cut it in half and we could fund all of our ideas on solving domestic social issues.
-
Probably more efficient than real wars
How would we ever know?
-
Why do our citizens think clandestine wars are ok?
our citizens are given as much information as they want to know.
-
It would be much more tolerable if the defense budget wasn't so gigantic. Cut it in half and we could fund all of our ideas on solving domestic social issues.
This is OT, but here's a few rhetorical questions for you to ponder: To what social issues are you referring, how will they be solved with more money, and how much more money? We've spent trillions on welfare since LBJ expanded it in the "War on Poverty," and now we've got more poverty and more welfare dependence.
While cutting the defense budget "in half" is insane, I'd be all in favor of cutting the budget by 10%, closing some bases and reducing infantry, but those savings should be directed at balancing the budget - not flushing down the welfare toilet.
As to Rusty's question, I think most people on both sides would agree that the government has a transparency problem with over-classifying information. But I also think there is plenty of information that is in our national security interest not to divulge to the world. That is just common sense. It is the same reason we keep criminal investigations private at home. It jeopardizes out covert intelligence (spies), allows enemies/criminals to evade us, etc.
-
As to Rusty's question, I think most people on both sides would agree that the government has a transparency problem with over-classifying information. But I also think there is plenty of information that is in our national security interest not to divulge to the world. That is just common sense. It is the same reason we keep criminal investigations private at home. It jeopardizes out covert intelligence (spies), allows enemies/criminals to evade us, etc.
Without knowing what we're hiding, you can't say "that is just common sense". The US has a history of unexcusable dumbfuckery exposed when classified information is released. We also have a right to know what spies have been doing and criminals have been captured via classified information. Maybe let classified info be declassified sooner?
-
It would be much more tolerable if the defense budget wasn't so gigantic. Cut it in half and we could fund all of our ideas on solving domestic social issues.
This is OT, but here's a few rhetorical questions for you to ponder: To what social issues are you referring, how will they be solved with more money, and how much more money? We've spent trillions on welfare since LBJ expanded it in the "War on Poverty," and now we've got more poverty and more welfare dependence.
While cutting the defense budget "in half" is insane, I'd be all in favor of cutting the budget by 10%, closing some bases and reducing infantry, but those savings should be directed at balancing the budget - not flushing down the welfare toilet.
As to Rusty's question, I think most people on both sides would agree that the government has a transparency problem with over-classifying information. But I also think there is plenty of information that is in our national security interest not to divulge to the world. That is just common sense. It is the same reason we keep criminal investigations private at home. It jeopardizes out covert intelligence (spies), allows enemies/criminals to evade us, etc.
By what measure?
Also- cutting the defense budget in half would be insane, because it is one of the best anti-poverty programs we have as a country. However, a LOT of the R&D and defense contracting (F-35 is a complete debacle) should be shored up because it is an enormous waste.
-
As to Rusty's question, I think most people on both sides would agree that the government has a transparency problem with over-classifying information. But I also think there is plenty of information that is in our national security interest not to divulge to the world. That is just common sense. It is the same reason we keep criminal investigations private at home. It jeopardizes out covert intelligence (spies), allows enemies/criminals to evade us, etc.
Without knowing what we're hiding, you can't say "that is just common sense". The US has a history of unexcusable dumbfuckery exposed when classified information is released. We also have a right to know what spies have been doing and criminals have been captured via classified information. Maybe let classified info be declassified sooner?
Yes I can. It is common sense that some stuff is worth hiding, and some of it isn't. Nobody can say how much is worth hiding unless they see the information, and we can't allow just anyone to see it because it might be worth hiding. The only practical solution is to elect leaders who you think will be more transparent.
-
As to Rusty's question, I think most people on both sides would agree that the government has a transparency problem with over-classifying information. But I also think there is plenty of information that is in our national security interest not to divulge to the world. That is just common sense. It is the same reason we keep criminal investigations private at home. It jeopardizes out covert intelligence (spies), allows enemies/criminals to evade us, etc.
Without knowing what we're hiding, you can't say "that is just common sense". The US has a history of unexcusable dumbfuckery exposed when classified information is released. We also have a right to know what spies have been doing and criminals have been captured via classified information. Maybe let classified info be declassified sooner?
Yes I can. It is common sense that some stuff is worth hiding, and some of it isn't. Nobody can say how much is worth hiding unless they see the information, and we can't allow just anyone to see it because it might be worth hiding. The only practical solution is to elect leaders who you think will be more transparent.
Is this common sense based on history?
-
As to Rusty's question, I think most people on both sides would agree that the government has a transparency problem with over-classifying information. But I also think there is plenty of information that is in our national security interest not to divulge to the world. That is just common sense. It is the same reason we keep criminal investigations private at home. It jeopardizes out covert intelligence (spies), allows enemies/criminals to evade us, etc.
Without knowing what we're hiding, you can't say "that is just common sense". The US has a history of unexcusable dumbfuckery exposed when classified information is released. We also have a right to know what spies have been doing and criminals have been captured via classified information. Maybe let classified info be declassified sooner?
Yes I can. It is common sense that some stuff is worth hiding, and some of it isn't. Nobody can say how much is worth hiding unless they see the information, and we can't allow just anyone to see it because it might be worth hiding. The only practical solution is to elect leaders who you think will be more transparent.
Is this common sense based on history?
I really think our plans for the D-Day invasion were worth hiding. Our work on the atomic bomb was worth hiding. Our intelligence work in hunting for OBL was worth hiding. I could give you a hundred other examples of things worth hiding. Are you really arguing this?
-
D-day was part of a war approved by congress (wars approved by congress would be a good exception to my idea of declassifying thing)
Atomic bomb shouldn't have happened
The OBL hunt was a waste of time/money
-
It would be much more tolerable if the defense budget wasn't so gigantic. Cut it in half and we could fund all of our ideas on solving domestic social issues.
This is OT, but here's a few rhetorical questions for you to ponder: To what social issues are you referring, how will they be solved with more money, and how much more money? We've spent trillions on welfare since LBJ expanded it in the "War on Poverty," and now we've got more poverty and more welfare dependence.
While cutting the defense budget "in half" is insane, I'd be all in favor of cutting the budget by 10%, closing some bases and reducing infantry, but those savings should be directed at balancing the budget - not flushing down the welfare toilet.
As to Rusty's question, I think most people on both sides would agree that the government has a transparency problem with over-classifying information. But I also think there is plenty of information that is in our national security interest not to divulge to the world. That is just common sense. It is the same reason we keep criminal investigations private at home. It jeopardizes out covert intelligence (spies), allows enemies/criminals to evade us, etc.
Please note I send they would fund our ideas; I never speculated that they would work or not.
We spend 4 and a half rough ridin' times what the number two country (China) spends. Looking at the list of the top 15, of the other 14, 12 are allies. Half is perhaps less insane than you think.
-
If they started declassifying everything, what would the weird conspiracy theory guy in my office talk about everyday?
-
The stuff too secret to even classify :Wha:
-
Regime Change is good: As long as it's efficient . . . Your Democratic Party
They should just come out and admit that they were running weapons and recruiting "freedom fighters" and a bunch of this stuff would just go away.
Of course that doesn't at all mitigate the egregious mishandling of classified information and the totally inadequate security on the FSOS's email server . . . of course the most salient point, as it always has been. Why in the world was she allowed to have a system operating outside of the U.S. Government's IT professional and systemic purview to begin with?
I am also of the firm belief that the Clinton Foundation was either a front organization for U.S. intelligence or was buying and selling influence with foreign governments, if not both.
But it's good to see the Democrats on the committee repeatedly bringing up the costs of this investigation . . . just waiting to hear how American (Democrats) just don't care next.
-
D-day was part of a war approved by congress (wars approved by congress would be a good exception to my idea of declassifying thing)
Atomic bomb shouldn't have happened
The OBL hunt was a waste of time/money
:lol: Ok. So any intelligence gathered before congress authorizes a war should unclassified? And I guess we should just disband the NSA and CIA entirely, huh? How's your tinfoil supply?
Also, sad that people have become so ignorant about the atomic bomb. If you were one of the tens of thousands of lives saved by not invading Japan, or one of the hundreds of thousands of their descendants, you would feel differently.
-
Oh and anyone that holds Sidney Blumenthal near and dear should be immediately disqualified from presidential candidacy. We are talking about a snake that even the Obama administration wanted to nothing to do with. That's about as damning as it get.
-
Is dax the most partisan person on this blog?
-
Is dax the most partisan person on this blog?
Just wondering why the FSOS won't just come out and admit that the Ambassador and CIA were engaged in clandestine activities to help perpetuate another regime change in Syria . . . and that one of the primary purposes of regime change in Libya was so it could serve as a jump off point for regime change in Syria.
-
D-day was part of a war approved by congress (wars approved by congress would be a good exception to my idea of declassifying thing)
Atomic bomb shouldn't have happened
The OBL hunt was a waste of time/money
:lol: Ok. So any intelligence gathered before congress authorizes a war should unclassified? And I guess we should just disband the NSA and CIA entirely, huh? How's your tinfoil supply?
tinfoil supply? because I don't think the CIA secrets are particularly useful? Like I said, throughout their history, they have been run by mostly useless loons. It isn't some hair-brained conspiracy theory.
Also, the atomic bomb saving hundreds of thousands of lives is convenient revisionist history. Japan had no allies and were under a naval blockade. They were done.
-
Why in the world shouldn't the atomic bomb have happened?
-
Also, the atomic bomb saving hundreds of thousands of lives is convenient revisionist history. Japan had no allies and were under a naval blockade. They were done.
This is really sad. Yes - if the tinfoil fits...
-
No way of proving it at all, but I have to think that the atomic bomb has prevented much more loss of life than it ever took, to date. I mean, if we, and a select few others, didn't have them, I would bet there would have been a lot more war than there already was. :dunno:
-
No blockade or lack of allies was going to make Japan surrender, they were counting on the fear of an invasion so they could sue for peace on much more agreeable terms. Oh but who cares if a lot of people may have remained enslaved by the Japanese once the war was over, right cRusty?
Plus we wouldn't have all those sweet ass military bases in Japan, like we do now. Imagine that, U.S. forces "occupying" Japan for six decades now, where's the outrage from Generation Outrage?
-
Why in the world shouldn't the atomic bomb have happened?
are you serious?
-
Why in the world shouldn't the atomic bomb have happened?
are you serious?
Absolutely. It was for sure a net positive.
-
Why in the world shouldn't the atomic bomb have happened?
are you serious?
Absolutely. It was for sure a net positive.
It is absolutely not for sure a net positive. I mean, we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians. It's possible that was a positive, but far from definitive. Even if it was a net positive, could we not tell people "we are working on the most destructive weapon known to man" and make sure everyone is OK with it?
-
i can't tell if rusty is being contrarian for contrarian's sake or if it's his amazingly rosy view of human nature. it's certainly not familiarity with history.
-
Why in the world shouldn't the atomic bomb have happened?
are you serious?
Absolutely. It was for sure a net positive.
It is absolutely not for sure a net positive. I mean, we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians. It's possible that was a positive, but far from definitive. Even if it was a net positive, could we not tell people "we are working on the most destructive weapon known to man" and make sure everyone is OK with it?
Well ignoring the first part of your post...
Let's say we did share it...part of the strategy was our enemies believing we had a lot of these devices. They might still have held fast after the second was dropped if they knew we were spent.
-
Why in the world shouldn't the atomic bomb have happened?
are you serious?
Absolutely. It was for sure a net positive.
It is absolutely not for sure a net positive. I mean, we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians. It's possible that was a positive, but far from definitive. Even if it was a net positive, could we not tell people "we are working on the most destructive weapon known to man" and make sure everyone is OK with it?
Well ignoring the first part of your post...
Let's say we did share it...part of the strategy was our enemies believing we had a lot of these devices. They might still have held fast after the second was dropped if they knew we were spent.
I wasn't suggesting to share the formula or quantity, just let the public know that we were working on it.
-
i can't tell if rusty is being contrarian for contrarian's sake or if it's his amazingly rosy view of human nature. it's certainly not familiarity with history.
Rusty is a firm believer in "if we left them alone, they would leave us alone" when it comes to foreign policy and battling terrorism. I wish that was actually viable
-
i can't tell if rusty is being contrarian for contrarian's sake or if it's his amazingly rosy view of human nature. it's certainly not familiarity with history.
Rusty is a firm believer in "if we left them alone, they would leave us alone" when it comes to foreign policy and battling terrorism. I wish that was actually viable
I'm not even saying that. I just think we do a lot of stupid things under the guise of "protecting sensitive information."
-
Why in the world shouldn't the atomic bomb have happened?
are you serious?
Absolutely. It was for sure a net positive.
It is absolutely not for sure a net positive. I mean, we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians. It's possible that was a positive, but far from definitive. Even if it was a net positive, could we not tell people "we are working on the most destructive weapon known to man" and make sure everyone is OK with it?
Well ignoring the first part of your post...
Let's say we did share it...part of the strategy was our enemies believing we had a lot of these devices. They might still have held fast after the second was dropped if they knew we were spent.
I wasn't suggesting to share the formula or quantity, just let the public know that we were working on it.
You should read the Art of War.
-
i can't tell if rusty is being contrarian for contrarian's sake or if it's his amazingly rosy view of human nature. it's certainly not familiarity with history.
Rusty is a firm believer in "if we left them alone, they would leave us alone" when it comes to foreign policy and battling terrorism. I wish that was actually viable
I'm not even saying that. I just think we do a lot of stupid things under the guise of "protecting sensitive information."
I can agree with you generally, but not in this (Japan/A-bomb) instance. Maybe focus on other points? Or maybe it's the arguing that's the fun part.
-
i can't tell if rusty is being contrarian for contrarian's sake or if it's his amazingly rosy view of human nature. it's certainly not familiarity with history.
Rusty is a firm believer in "if we left them alone, they would leave us alone" when it comes to foreign policy and battling terrorism. I wish that was actually viable
I'm not even saying that. I just think we do a lot of stupid things under the guise of "protecting sensitive information."
I can agree with you generally, but not in this (Japan/A-bomb) instance. Maybe focus on other points? Or maybe it's the arguing that's the fun part.
I also really don't think dropping the atomic bomb is a very good example of classified information being protected. We told anyone who would listen we had the bomb and were ready to use it.
-
i can't tell if rusty is being contrarian for contrarian's sake or if it's his amazingly rosy view of human nature. it's certainly not familiarity with history.
Rusty is a firm believer in "if we left them alone, they would leave us alone" when it comes to foreign policy and battling terrorism. I wish that was actually viable
I'm not even saying that. I just think we do a lot of stupid things under the guise of "protecting sensitive information."
I can agree with you generally, but not in this (Japan/A-bomb) instance. Maybe focus on other points? Or maybe it's the arguing that's the fun part.
I also really don't think dropping the atomic bomb is a very good example of classified information being protected. We told anyone who would listen we had the bomb and were ready to use it.
Then it seems we did exactly what you thought we should have done, yet you still disagree with the result? :confused:
-
i can't tell if rusty is being contrarian for contrarian's sake or if it's his amazingly rosy view of human nature. it's certainly not familiarity with history.
Rusty is a firm believer in "if we left them alone, they would leave us alone" when it comes to foreign policy and battling terrorism. I wish that was actually viable
I'm not even saying that. I just think we do a lot of stupid things under the guise of "protecting sensitive information."
I can agree with you generally, but not in this (Japan/A-bomb) instance. Maybe focus on other points? Or maybe it's the arguing that's the fun part.
I also really don't think dropping the atomic bomb is a very good example of classified information being protected. We told anyone who would listen we had the bomb and were ready to use it.
Then it seems we did exactly what you thought we should have done, yet you still disagree with the result? :confused:
I don't think the world is a better place because of the creation of the atomic bomb. It's really irrelevant to the topic, though.
-
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-unlikely-struggle-of-the-family-whose-neighbor-is-a-1741346156
-
Rusty makes a damn good point here, I've often wondered why poker isn't played with all the cards face up.
-
^
That's prolly the best post I'll ever make.
-
^
That's prolly the best post I'll ever make.
You got that right, at least.
-
I agree with the spirit of Rusty's argument. But overwhelmingly disagree with the notion that there is no government information worth keeping secret.
-
We absolutely over classify a lot of information, and secondly it's a miracle we haven't blown ourselves up yet with the A now H bomb.
-
I think our use of the A bomb in Japan has prevented the use of nukes later on.
-
I agree with the spirit of Rusty's argument. But overwhelmingly disagree with the notion that there is no government information worth keeping secret.
I agree that in war approved by congress, war plans are OK to remain secret.
-
What is secret today that shouldn't be secret?
-
What is secret today that shouldn't be secret?
The drone program comes to mind, also NSA mass intelligence gathering.
-
What is secret today that shouldn't be secret?
The drone program comes to mind, also NSA mass intelligence gathering.
What is the drone program?
-
Rather than try to guess what current classified information should be declassified, you can look at declassified information that see what kind of clandestine operations we ran in the past. Analyze events like the Iranian coup, the Nicaraguan coup, Bay of Pigs, mishandling of Iraq war intelligence, etc., and you realize that people running these programs aren't smarter than the average person and they need to be held accountable.
Look at Area 51 history in dax's article. How much money did we spend on spy planes (and trying to keep them secret), and for what?
-
I agree with you mcat to some extent. But, also, a lot of the defense spending of our generation was intended to fight the USSR and similar foes. Thankfully, that never happened. And in part because how much we spent.
-
What is secret today that shouldn't be secret?
How many times your picture is taken on the turnpike
-
Why kind of surreal experience would it be to have armed guards come and lock you into your own home and tell you that you can't go outside until they say you can??
Thinking of the time frame and being a bit of an airplane enthusiast I imagine they did not want them seeing the SR-71 and its variations.
One day you're just headed out to your land and blam-o a military security checkpoint is there on the only road in . . . next thing you know, you have to ask permission in advance to go visit your property.
-
The feds should have bought that family out 60 years ago. They should get paid a lot more than the value of their land at this point.
-
I agree with you mcat to some extent. But, also, a lot of the defense spending of our generation was intended to fight the USSR and similar foes. Thankfully, that never happened. And in part because how much we spent.
This thread isn't about defense spending, it's about the government keeping secrets from the public. Post WWII we got rough ridin' looney and out of control with the crap.
Defense spending should be reviewed by the public to a greater extent than is currently allowed - there shouldn't be $60 billion "black" budgets.
-
I agree with you mcat to some extent. But, also, a lot of the defense spending of our generation was intended to fight the USSR and similar foes. Thankfully, that never happened. And in part because how much we spent.
This thread isn't about defense spending, it's about the government keeping secrets from the public. Post WWII we got rough ridin' looney and out of control with the crap.
Defense spending should be reviewed by the public to a greater extent than is currently allowed - there shouldn't be $60 billion "black" budgets.
Well like give me some examples of the secrets man.
-
Hunam's chilli oil
-
I agree with you mcat to some extent. But, also, a lot of the defense spending of our generation was intended to fight the USSR and similar foes. Thankfully, that never happened. And in part because how much we spent.
This thread isn't about defense spending, it's about the government keeping secrets from the public. Post WWII we got rough ridin' looney and out of control with the crap.
Defense spending should be reviewed by the public to a greater extent than is currently allowed - there shouldn't be $60 billion "black" budgets.
Well like give me some examples of the secrets man.
Are you trying to be clever or just ignoring what I post?