I'm not comfortable with this

Mrleft8

Super Anarchist
27,458
4,070
Suwanee River
If you don't tell me it's a secret, then I can tell anyone. If you ask me to keep it secret, then you shouldn't have told me, but I'll use my judgement on whether to tell or not.

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
Oh FFS, RIF.
Yeah, I read your disclosure. So what?

You wrote that press shouldn't report "this stuff." The whole point of the press is to "report this stuff." If something was leaked, then maybe it needed to be leaked. Maybe the U.S. Government and military now need to accept that they operate in a world where they need to make ethical decisions that can no longer be hidden from the public eye.

Perhaps you may not have noticed, but I'm not a huge fan of the New York Times. But if you think that their editorial board didn't consider the ramifications of printing it, and you assume they are some classroom of barely intelligent typists, unable to make decisions on their own, then you're wrong. I know from direct experience in the news industry that there is A LOT of news and ESPECIALLY video that never, ever makes it to the public eye. It sits in the tape libraries, and you don't know it even exists. 

For every story they do publish, there are at least a few that they don't. I'm glad they published this story because we need to know what kind of Dulles Brothers shit our government is up to these days. I'm sorry that you don't side on ethical decisions based on public transparency.

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,764
2,196
Back to the desert
Yeah, I read your disclosure. So what?

You wrote that press shouldn't report "this stuff." The whole point of the press is to "report this stuff." If something was leaked, then maybe it needed to be leaked. Maybe the U.S. Government and military now need to accept that they operate in a world where they need to make ethical decisions that can no longer be hidden from the public eye.

Perhaps you may not have noticed, but I'm not a huge fan of the New York Times. But if you think that their editorial board didn't consider the ramifications of printing it, and you assume they are some classroom of barely intelligent typists, unable to make decisions on their own, then you're wrong. I know from direct experience in the news industry that there is A LOT of news and ESPECIALLY video that never, ever makes it to the public eye. It sits in the tape libraries, and you don't know it even exists. 

For every story they do publish, there are at least a few that they don't. I'm glad they published this story because we need to know what kind of Dulles Brothers shit our government is up to these days. I'm sorry that you don't side on ethical decisions based on public transparency.
Fuck awf, miky.  I have no doubt the NYT editorial board doesn't make these decisions lightly.  I've never said or implied otherwise.  I said I was "uncomfortable" with the decision.  As in I don't agree.  Not that I wanted to burn down the building and string all the reporters up in central park and light their corpses a flame as examples.  

Perhaps it was a deliberate leak by the gov't to get info out to make the remaining live Generals look over their shoulder.  I don't know.  But my fear is that it was a leak by someone who wanted to translate that "power" of being a source into access.  And my bigger fear is that if gives pooty political cover at home to escalate this.  Or it could make him make an irrational decision, depending on his mental state.  The ingrained Russian mentality is that everyone is out to get them.  There's no point in publishing information that essentially says the "US is out to get them".  

 
Last edited by a moderator:

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,914
3,681
I think any serious observer knew this was going on, and that Russia has been saying we’ve been doing far more than this relatively straightforward assist for weeks.

So for the US to kinda sorta acknowledge we are giving info is lost in all the other armament shipments and Speaker of the House and Defense, State Dept visits noise.

We are supporting Ukraine because Russia invaded them.

Everybody knows the headlines, even if the story has some new deets today.

OpSec is nearly religious to the military and the CIA, but neither of them are America. They just work for us. 

Show some resolve, bitches

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zonker

Super Anarchist
10,202
6,396
Canada
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/06/opinion/biden-ukraine-leaks.html

Not coming from the top. Overly enthusiastic types leaking...Biden very pissed off
 

"As a journalist, I love a good leak story, and the reporters who broke those stories did powerful digging. At the same time, from everything I have been able to glean from senior U.S. officials, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, the leaks were not part of any thought-out strategy, and President Biden was livid about them. I’m told that he called the director of national intelligence, the director of the C.I.A. and the secretary of defense to make clear in the strongest and most colorful language that this kind of loose talk is reckless and has got to stop immediately — before we end up in an unintended war with Russia."

 

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
Fuck awf, miky.  I have no doubt the NYT editorial board doesn't make these decisions lightly.  I've never said or implied otherwise.  I said I was "uncomfortable" with the decision.  As in I don't agree.  Not that I wanted to burn down the building and string all the reporters up in central park and light their corpses a flame as examples.  

Perhaps it was a deliberate leak by the gov't to get info out to make the remaining live Generals look over their shoulder.  I don't know.  But my fear is that it was a leak by someone who wanted to translate that "power" of being a source into access.  And my bigger fear is that if gives pooty political cover at home to escalate this.  Or it could make him make an irrational decision, depending on his mental state.  The ingrained Russian mentality is that everyone is out to get them.  There's no point in publishing information that essentially says the "US is out to get them".  
Okay, so the inventory ...

  1. You're not comfortable with the NYT's decision to run the story,
  2. You think the people who leaked the story should be investigated and potentially punished,
  3. You have not made any mention to the ethics of the United States providing superpower-level intelligence that is used for assasinations.

Could the newspaper that published this, and the person/people who leaked it have done the right thing? The Ukraine is at war with Russia, we should support them in open, transparent and ethical ways. I believe that our economic sanctions against Russia accomplish this, and so does our humanitarian aid to the Ukrainian people. Supplying the Ukrainian people with armaments, sufficient to even the playing field against their invaders? Maybe, but we should be open about it, and we seem to have been open about it because it's hard to hide that kind of thing; when Russians find the traces of U.S. artillery, they will figure it out. Economic incentives like what were used in Bosnia to move toward ceasefires and peace? That's good too.

But the problem you have with this is the public "optics" of the USA as a superpower targeting and assassinating (by proxy) leaders of another country. Yeah, you probably should be concerned about that, it's the kind of thing that escalates wars and pulls us in deeper than perhaps we should be, with -- as you noticed -- questionable benefit as it puts some wind into Russia's sails, that the USA is now assassinating Russian leaders. If we are not at war with Russia, then should we be targeting Russian leaders? But the problem you have with this isn't that we did it, but that we didn't keep it a secret.

What if our foreign policy only consisted of actions of which we didn't need to hide from the rest of the world?

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Olsonist

Disgusting Liberal Elitist
30,042
4,581
New Oak City
Jeff, the article says according to senior American officials. That means we (the US of Fucking A) want them (the Big Red Machine) to know that we’re offing their senior boys. I don’t understand why we want this but it is a press release and not a leak. Besides, it’s pretty obvious anyways. Even a moronical idiot such as myself figured out that we targeted the Moskva. I’m sure they could figure it out too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

AJ Oliver

Super Anarchist
12,894
1,806
Sandusky Sailing Club
I think this is the biggest danger of all.  If stuff like this whips up public support for pootain, then it will be that much harder to dislodge him from power and from the notion that the UKR is a lost cause.  That political sort of stuff leads to bigger wars.  
You must have missed it when I posted the NYT article by Tom Friedman about 

how stupid it was/is for Biden/Austin/Blinken etc. to now declare that the aim of the was is to gravely weaken Rus, regime change,  ..  

Friedman pointed out that even if that IS the US goal, it is really stupid to say it publicly. 

And have I reminded you yet today what a contemptible slime you are ???  

 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
45,584
10,273
Eastern NC
Jeff, the article says according to senior American officials. That means we (the US of Fucking A) want them (the Big Red Machine) to know that we’re offing their senior boys. I don’t understand why we want this but it is a press release and not a leak. Besides, it’s pretty obvious anyways. Even a moronical idiot such as myself figured out that we targeted the Moskva. I’m sure they could figure it out too.
Goes right to the top. When we let Putin know that we are offing his generals (assuming he reads the news himself, rather than have underlings assure him "yes yes, we are winning bigly") that tells him in a visceral way that he is losing; and that he's on track to lose a lot more. It's the psychological stick prodding him toward the offramp.

It also tells all the generals that obeying Putin's orders is not healthy.

- DSK

 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,914
3,681
I love how the internet makes everyone an expert.

AJ… Russia knows EXACTLY what the US and the west is up to, because it’s working.

Why do you think we are sanctioning them? Providing Ukraine with arms? Speaking out against Putin’s war crimes? Told everyone in advance of their plans?

The US is fucking opposed to Putin’s Russia and the world knows it. Not everything needs to be done in secret, and our intentions have been clear.

Russia has been waging a low-intensity conflict against us for a decade at least, with propaganda and crime. It’s time they got q straightforward punch in the nose.

Go Joe. Ignore the sissies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

bridhb

Super Anarchist
3,950
1,206
Jax, FL
The US  Biden Administration is fucking opposed to Putin’s Russia and the world knows it. Not everything needs to be done in secret, and our intentions have been clear.
Fixed.  If TFG or one of his minions gets elected in 2024, expect a drastic change in foreign policy.  Heck, if congress / senate flip in less than a year things could change in a hurry.

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,764
2,196
Back to the desert
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/06/opinion/biden-ukraine-leaks.html

Not coming from the top. Overly enthusiastic types leaking...Biden very pissed off
 

"As a journalist, I love a good leak story, and the reporters who broke those stories did powerful digging. At the same time, from everything I have been able to glean from senior U.S. officials, who spoke to me on condition of anonymity, the leaks were not part of any thought-out strategy, and President Biden was livid about them. I’m told that he called the director of national intelligence, the director of the C.I.A. and the secretary of defense to make clear in the strongest and most colorful language that this kind of loose talk is reckless and has got to stop immediately — before we end up in an unintended war with Russia."
The bolded is exactly my point.  And to @phillysailor's point that "everyone" already knew...... of course they did.  But having it in print changes the dynamics and could result in some unintended consequences that the leaker likely didn't consider.  

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,764
2,196
Back to the desert
Jeff, the article says according to senior American officials. That means we (the US of Fucking A) want them (the Big Red Machine) to know that we’re offing their senior boys. I don’t understand why we want this but it is a press release and not a leak. Besides, it’s pretty obvious anyways. Even a moronical idiot such as myself figured out that we targeted the Moskva. I’m sure they could figure it out too.
According to Zonker's article, that is not the case.  The ONLY "Sr official" who can approve that leak is the POTUS.  And it sounds like he did not. 

You and others continue to miss the point..... OF COURSE we targeted Ukes onto the Moskv and those generals.  But we lose the plausible deniability aspect that is important and necessary to this game when leaks like this occur.

 

phillysailor

Super Anarchist
8,914
3,681
Who really cares about the plausible denials America might offer?

We are obviously not truthtellers when it suits our interests. And in this war, we’ve picked sides.

If Putin wants to shoot at us,he will order his troops to shoot at us.

As long as we don’t attack him, he’s still the aggressor. 

Personally I like the new American no-nonsense tactics and strategy involving intelligence. Don’t sell our spin in the UN, give away our data selectively to achieve goals. 

No one is gonna believe a Colin Powell again. But Putin invaded right as scheduled, and now a few ships &armored columns are no more.

Hard to argue with accurate intel.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

mikewof

mikewof
45,868
1,246
You and others continue to miss the point..... OF COURSE we targeted Ukes onto the Moskv and those generals.  But we lose the plausible deniability aspect that is important and necessary to this game when leaks like this occur.
I hope that this isn't the future of our country ... a line of choices that we can't stand confidently and proudly behind.

If we can't make our actions openly and notoriously, then we shouldn't make those actions. Yeah, some like the subterfuge, it's the refuge of cowards. In this case, assassinating leaders by proxy is a clear act of war, and it's something we never should have done.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,764
2,196
Back to the desert
I hope that this isn't the future of our country ... a line of choices that we can't stand confidently and proudly behind.

If we can't make our actions openly and notoriously, then we shouldn't make those actions. Yeah, some like the subterfuge, it's the refuge of cowards. In this case, assassinating leaders by proxy is a clear act of war, and it's something we never should have done.
So you're saying it was wrong for the Ukies to use our intel to whack those generals or to sink their flagship?  Or wrong of us to provide it to them?  Or both?

Asking for a friend.

 


Latest posts



Top