Wtf... They can die for our country... But cant use a Computer for more than E-Mail.

They can get shot..But cant drink a beer. HAH!

If you have ever been in a warzone, or on a military post, you would understand why this is an issue. In the deployed zone, bandwidth is highly limited. I dont think you want a commander to not be able to get word of a pending attack because the pipe was clogged with myspace requests.

I agree that those sites are extremely bandwidth intensive, especailly when you have thousands of off duty soldiers watching you tube video's or uploading 500 5MB pictures etc.

However if you think about it those should be allowed, I mean what do those thing do? provide a little bit of humor or a taste of home? I mean back to back tours in iraq are hard enough, block basic good time, interesting, humorous and social sites that like that is pretty cruel.

As for being in Iraq, it's on the same level as vietnam. Let's just be happy though its only in the 3k range after years and not in the 30k.

I think the troops should be brought home, the second weapons of mass destruction were ruled out, Bush should of apologized and brought the troops home. We all know its for oil, it makes perfect sense. Terrorism is all over the globe, Iran, Saudi Arabia, lets not forget our problems with North korea. Think were going to occupy those countries as well and replace the government with ones we think are good? I think not, so its a lost cause bring our troops home, save some lives and the money.

If it's all for oil, why is gas at almost $4/gal?

Wouldn't the goal have been to get gas for a cheaper amount of money?

The price per barrel has gone steadily up - we don't own the oil fields, nor do we control them, yet we are paying more for them.

This is total and utter bulls***. If our men and women in uniform are doing multiple tours to defend a country that isn't worthy of our help to begin with, then they deserve full and free access to whatever they want, especially since they get lots of support via myspace and sites like it. I think the our miserable, piss poor excuse for a government can waste billions of dollars on a country that won't even help itself stand on it's own feet, then I think they can spare the bandwidth to give our soldiers access to sites that matter to them. I mean, how dare our government expect men and women to give up their lives for the military and them limit them on what they can do with their internet access. It's not even like were fighting for our own country and freedom...it's for a bunch of ungrateful Muslims who would rather take two months off after accomplishing NOTHING while Americans die for their so called "freedom". GOD this pisses me off. Pull our people out, let the Iraqi sects blow each other to hell and then sort it out.

Got off topic there, didn't I? Whoops

Nice rant...sadly I can't say I disagree with your political view point.

to defend a country that isn't worthy of our help to begin with

Does a Country has to be worthy of defense?

Do a People have to be worthy?

Does *anyone* have to be *worthy*?

...and who decides that worth?

Your insensitivity and arrogance knows no bounds.

Do you know why Saddam was in power? Interference from America. There is a long history of interference by western countries in the Middle East. Some major problems there are our fault.

Heh...

Don't blame the man, whatever you do. He may have killed thousands, he may have laughed as his political opponents were paraded in front of him and beheaded, but it wasn't *his* fault.

No sir.

America put him there, held a gun to his head, and *forced* him to renege on promises made and oaths taken. We *forced* him to slaughter those men, women, and children.

/sarcasm

The blame on us only goes so far. Free will exists and the most well-laid plans can become nothing more than wishful thinking.

Who decides the bounds?

Latz, SB

indeed as long as we are doing some good. although with the media spreading FUD and censoring things its hard sometimes to judge what is going on anyway

According to the constitution? The Executive Branch.

Not the Senate.

Not the House.

Once they give their go ahead (and both parties did), it's all the Executive.

I've given up on the media. Even on some of the conservative media, lately. I'm lucky enough to have a few family members over there so I get regular updates "From the horses mouth".

I'd rather not turn this into a political site, but I'll say my statement was only meant to suggest that every action has a consequence. If the interference hadn't taken place to begin with, things may have turned out differently.

My response was stirred particularly by the original person stating "it's for a bunch of ungrateful Muslims". And you could see why they may be "ungrateful" given the history of things. Iraq was used as a political pawn in the 80s.

"America put him there, held a gun to his head, and *forced* him to renege on promises made and oaths taken. We *forced* him to slaughter those men, women, and children."

But if we're going to bring sarcasm into the deal...

I never stated that the US Government had to take all the blame; not in the least. However, I did say some major problems were caused by interference - and to be fair, the US wasn't the only country guilty of such a thing.

If we want to talk about the killing of many, is the Iran-Iraq war any better by your estimation? And remember, it was Iraq who struck first without prior warning. But why is this relevant?

Back in the 1980s Saddam was supported during that war by the US Government (as well as the UK, France, and a few others I can't recall), through funding and the supplying of weapons. Estimates suggest the number of deaths it caused was nearly a million people.

Further more, some of the funding Saddam received was actually given after certain atrocities happened there, yet it was fine to turn a blind eye at the time. You have to ask yourself why.

I'm not excusing Saddam's actions at all, but equally please don't be blind to just how much Western interference has also ruined the lives of people there, and how very hypocritical our "politics" can be.

[For the record, when I refer to the US, I refer to those who were in charge at the time.]

And all this from the DoD blocking 13 websites. Well, what can you say. Politics is never very far away from things.

If the interference hadn't taken place to begin with, things may have turned out differently.

And how *would* that have been, Nostradamus? Better? Or worse?

No, actually you are right in regards to our dealings with him *after* he came into power. There was, I believe a struggle there as to what we should do after we put him there and he broke from the deals we'd made. The Government decided to continue to honor our deal with him in hopes that it was only a temporary disconnect. In hindsight, obviously, that was bad judgment.

I'm not excusing Saddam's actions at all, but equally please don't be blind to just how much Western interference has also ruined the lives of people there, and how very hypocritical our "politics" can be.

Heh... 2 parties, a vastly divided people, what do you expect? :p

And all this from the DoD blocking 13 websites. Well, what can you say. Politics is never very far away from things.

No-one should be surprised, the DoD is a part of our Government, after all.

The real reason is in line two of the article. They want to control what the military members might post on a site. It has far less to do with bandwidth, as few people are allowed to cruise the internet when on duty. The soldiers still have the right to go to any of these sights on their own computers during off duty time. If you allow them to intimidate you they will take away all your rights including the freedom to think on your own.

Exactly.

Right.

We should just allow them to post details of their next assignments. I mean, It's not like they'd beat the NYT to the punch by much, right?

Let's just make sure everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan who wishes to harm our soldiers know exactly when and where we'll be. Hey, less soldiers requires less funding anyway, right?

/sarcasm

Exactly? Exactly what? "If you allow them to intimidate you they will take away all your rights including the freedom to think on your own"

I'm sorry but this is a ridiculous statement - I haven't met a person or institution yet that can take away "the freedom to think on your own" unless you let them.

Again, I'm not sure why this is "newsworthy" - they are talking DoD networks only - surely they have the right to restrict access to anything they want. That's not taking away freedom, it's smart business, especially the business they are in.

Anyone who's ever served knows we don't have all of the "freedoms" that non-military members enjoy (certain political activities to name one) but that's known, and accepted by those who join, going in.

First porn sites, now this? our freedoms are diminishing by the minute!!

What a waste of space - must be a slow news day.

As someone who serves in the army, I can only say its about time. I cant count how many times I've had to discipline my soldiers for wasting time when other pressing issues had to be resolved.

Job vs. wasting time. It's a constant battle...

I hate to disappoint you there bub, but our being in Iraq is a waste of time in and of itself. We have no business being in the middle of their civil war and it's a waste of American lives. If we were defending our country and our freedom that would be one thing...but this is for what? A people who don't even like us or want us there to begin with? And don't give me that "we'll have to fight them here if we don't fight them there" crap. They are already here, they're just biding their time, and let's face it...the Bush party has been wrong about everything...it stands to reason they would be wrong about that as well and ain't nothing gonna happen if we leave Iraq. Our being there has *increased* terrorism, not decreased it. Once we go, they will blow themselves up anyway.

Sorry, got off topic again. Leave our soldiers alone and let them get the comfort they need from loved ones via whatever site they need to get it from...Lord knows out pitiful excuse for a president and his poodles are not doing them any favours.

And where oh where did I make mention of being in wartime? Why dont you get off your high horse and stay on topic. I am not getting into an argument over the war where it doesnt belong. But thanks for your "obvious" support. Its giving ingreatful people like you the freedom to express your opinion as to why I serve with the US Army. So please, enjoy your freedom, however, do it on a forum where it is more appropriate like an anti-war website, not on a beta software forum.

If we were defending our country and our freedom that would be one thing...but this is for what?

Answered your own question there, bub.

Defending our country. You, the libs, and the news organizations can deny it until you're blue in the face, but we have a *lot* at stake in the outcome of the civil war in Iraq and the stability we are working towards.

Freedom. Not just ours. The insurgents and the hate they breed doesn't just harm us, it harms every other inhabitant in the countries in which they operate. If you cannot see that, you're blind.

A people who don't even like us or want us there to begin with?

...you know this how? What people are you referring to? The insurgents? Of course they hate us. We're there to kill them. The Iraqi people? Spoken to any lately? Know anyone who has? Have you gotten *any* information on what's going on over there than what you've been fed by the libs and their media? Doubtful.

...ain't nothing gonna happen if we leave Iraq.

Maybe to *you*. Apparently that being your only concern...

Our being there has *increased* terrorism, not decreased it. Once we go, they will blow themselves up anyway.

Of all the short-sighted, narrow-minded....

Where are you serving right now (if you can say)?

I know this isn't the place for it, but since it's been brought up...

I have family in Iraq right now, and more going over in the next few months.

Best wishes, there or not. Wherever you serve, you're doing myself and the Country I love a great service.

Many thanks.

I serve at Ft. Bragg in a non-deployable unit providing communications support for the deployed soldier. I am hoping to get moved to another unit soon so that I may deploy. I may not have first hand experience of how things go overseas in regards to networks, but I do help deployed soldiers troubleshoot them and I do see what they get for services (internet, phones, etc) and this move makes all sorts of sense.

Thanks for your support. Its truely appreciated.

Cali? lmao.. you lucky SOB. :p

It's good you get to talk to them over there. Let 'em know a lot of us are still proud of the job they're doing.

Actually, NC ;-) www.bragg.army.mil although my home unit is based out of Ft. Detrick MD

My bad... What the hell base am I thinking of? Northern Cali....

I'll have to look it up.

Let me second that. Thank you for everything, and do pass it on to the rest of men and women over there.

We know you're fighting the good fight and appreciate it beyond compare.

I will continue to pray for all of you.

The LORD bless you and keep you!
The LORD let his face shine upon you, and be gracious to you!
The LORD look upon you kindly and give you peace!

FREEDOM is not FREE

Apparently, it's not FREEDOM either.

Ah, you can just smell the "freedom" they're fighting for, or at least that's what we amerikans are told every time Bush shoves his maw on TV. Heckuva job there, Bushie!

lmao...

Always *so* dependable.

We ban most of those sites here. Why? Because we're here to do a job. Ya know? Work.

The soldiers have a job to do and it doesn't include watching YouTube vids.

They'll just use proxies, like everyone in the 90s did.

Hardly everyone. People here seem to forget that the majority of the worlds users are not computer geeks.

As for the military using proxies, I'm sure the systems they use to access the net are scanned regularly (hopefully by those knowledgeable enough to figure it out, but that's pushing it).

Speaking of childish, there is a possibility that the DoD is as concerned about some of the insane videos being posted on these sites by some people we have put in uniform and given guns....who have the I.Q. of a flea.

Here's a couple of examples.....then ask yourself if they are "winning hearts and minds," either in Iraq or here at home........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9yRzoOB1C4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGi8jr_CBE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25F6HY5YtFA

Pentagon concern may reach much further than "bandwidth" or "military security."

4 words for DoD. GIVE OUR SOLDIERS A BREAK!!!

Hey.. that's five. But yes, I agree. Billions on war is more important than a little bandwidth to give them some comfort. As if it would even cost that much.

You sir, obviously have no idea how DoD networks work in a deployed zone. Garrison is one thing, but in country is a totally different thing.

I'd wave a white flag and admit defeat - you're right, I don't.

...add the NYT, Washington Times, and anything related to NBC to that list.

The last thing our troops need to see is the childish bickering that's going on right now about their job.

Allow them to get it done, and then bring 'em home.