Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 20

 

2010-11-30 05:20:00
EVieira
Member
+105|6719|Lutenblaag, Molvania

Turquoise wrote:

Mekstizzle wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

No, it's not dramatic at all. He might as well be working for the Taliban and Al Quaeda and should be treated as at the very least an enemy combatant at this point.
Americans start two wars/all sorts of shit around the world and then will always use any opportunity to blame everyone else except themselves and the enemy for their men dying.

The info being leaked makes some peoples jobs abit harder, that's all. If any deaths do occur I'm sure it would be just as easy to not blame the leaks as it is to blame them. Like I said, doing stupid shit around the world leads to stupid shit coming back, leaks or no leaks.

I sort of hope the US does get pissed off enough to designate Wikileaks as a terror organisation and go crazy on them, it would just be very interesting.
While some of the blame we've thrown around is misplaced, Assange is not one of those cases.

There's a very easily definable connection between what he is doing and how it aids our enemies.  That's not often the case with some of the other people we've targeted.  At this point, Assange is fair game.
It weakens US positions on the world, yes. So are US enemies jubilent? Yes. Does that make it harder for some people to do their jobs in the US goverment? Yes. Does it kill any more soldiers? Nope. Does it endanger the troops? Come on, this card has already been played too many times...

Its a big intelligence and political setback in some cases. In others, nothing really new. And you do have to wonder what were the real motivations of those that leaked the documents. But I do agree with Meks: "...doing stupid shit around the world leads to stupid shit coming back, leaks or no leaks."

Last edited by EVieira (2010-11-30 05:23:14)

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2010-11-30 07:02:07
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6646|North Carolina

Wreckognize wrote:

I like how everyone here is portraying Assange like some super villain bent on bringing down the US.  Wikileaks releases what is leaked to them.  They don't control what leaks they get or where they come from.  The United States will naturally attract the most leaks because we are the biggest player on the world stage.  I respect what Assange is trying to do; corporations and governments will never be voluntarily transparent.  Speaking of corporations, the next leak is apparently related to a major bank.
I don't respect him.  Assange clearly was clueless in how he handled the major leaks concerning Afghanistan, because the lack of editing out names allowed the Taliban to kill some of our Afghan allies.

What Assange is doing is reckless as hell, and he's too arrogant to give a damn, apparently.

Releasing corporate secrets is one thing.  Releasing war secrets is quite another.

Last edited by Turquoise (2010-11-30 07:03:14)

2010-11-30 07:17:55
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6646|North Carolina

EVieira wrote:

It weakens US positions on the world, yes. So are US enemies jubilent? Yes. Does that make it harder for some people to do their jobs in the US goverment? Yes. Does it kill any more soldiers? Nope. Does it endanger the troops? Come on, this card has already been played too many times....
The argument I was making is that it was endangering our allies -- like the Afghani elders mentioned in a previous leak that the Taliban targeted immediately afterwards.

EVieira wrote:

Its a big intelligence and political setback in some cases. In others, nothing really new. And you do have to wonder what were the real motivations of those that leaked the documents. But I do agree with Meks: "...doing stupid shit around the world leads to stupid shit coming back, leaks or no leaks."
Well, the biggest problem with America's current position in the world is that we get blasted for not intervening in conflicts, and then we get blasted for intervening.  We can't win with some people.

Ideally, we'd only trade with the world and wait until the world was begging for our intervention, which is basically what we did back during WW2.

Maybe it's time to return to that.
2010-11-30 07:49:44
11 Bravo
Banned
+965|5478|Cleveland, Ohio

EVieira wrote:

But I do agree with Meks: "...doing stupid shit around the world leads to stupid shit coming back, leaks or no leaks."
stupidist shit i have ever heard
2010-11-30 08:21:22
Ticia
Member
+73|5576

FEOS wrote:

Ticia wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

They know exactly what was leaked. They've known since the day he was caught. The US government isn't surprised by these leaks, they're just rightfully pissed off.
Pissed? Try scared shitless. Sure is no surprise that duplicity is the very basis of US <INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE> foreign policy, we all know it but proof like this is what we all wanted.
So as of now anyone who opposes this exposure is in fact supporting duplicity.
Fixed. Diplomacy is not about transparency. Never was, never will be.
In the only country in the world where international treaties are ruled as national laws therefore are under constitutional transparency? Really?

I can't help but remember how If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear was frequently used by the American government just a few years back.
2010-11-30 08:27:00
Ticia
Member
+73|5576

FEOS wrote:

Ticia wrote:

He's aiming for the easiest target since US intelligence is not smart enough to hide this documents in the first place.
PFC Numbnuts pulled the documents off of a classified network and walked out of a secure area with them. They were "hidden". Until someone who was wrongly trusted violated that trust..
What about there are more than 3 million people using Siprnet and how that alone is a huge risk? Plus Manning even admitted how fickle are those servers and passwords.

FEOS wrote:

Ticia wrote:

When it becomes so clear that your foreign policies have been made for the benefit of ignoble countries instead of your own...all you focus on is Assange.
This statement makes zero sense. Maybe as I continue reading the thread you will clarify in some way...

Edit: You were talking about "doing Saudi and Israeli dirty work". News flash: We're not. In fact, one of the "leaks" is King Abdullah pleading for us to do MORE regarding Iran. Then there's the whole European position regarding Iran that mirrors our own. But facts like that are inconvenient when it comes to bashing American foreign policy, I guess.
Is just a matter of asking nicely, isn't? maybe Abdullahs offer wasn't appealing enough...yet.

Oh and I'm sure after reading how highly US diplomacy thinks of their own allies, the EU can't wait to side with the US again.

Last edited by Ticia (2010-11-30 08:28:34)

2010-11-30 08:28:23
EVieira
Member
+105|6719|Lutenblaag, Molvania

Turquoise wrote:

EVieira wrote:

Its a big intelligence and political setback in some cases. In others, nothing really new. And you do have to wonder what were the real motivations of those that leaked the documents. But I do agree with Meks: "...doing stupid shit around the world leads to stupid shit coming back, leaks or no leaks."
Well, the biggest problem with America's current position in the world is that we get blasted for not intervening in conflicts, and then we get blasted for intervening.  We can't win with some people.

Ideally, we'd only trade with the world and wait until the world was begging for our intervention, which is basically what we did back during WW2.

Maybe it's time to return to that.
No one blasting the US for anything, its just that the rotten part of diplomacy is now exposed for everyone to see. Things from trading Guantanamo prisioners for 20 minute sessions with Obama, the diplomatic lobbying for american companies, to the courting of high oficials in other countries for intel.

Some of this is new, others is really nothing exceptional, but it mostly stinks the deeper you go in it. But thats politics. In this case, world politics. There is no "danger to the troops..."
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2010-11-30 08:31:38
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5599|London, England

Ticia wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ticia wrote:

He's aiming for the easiest target since US intelligence is not smart enough to hide this documents in the first place.
PFC Numbnuts pulled the documents off of a classified network and walked out of a secure area with them. They were "hidden". Until someone who was wrongly trusted violated that trust..
What about there are more than 3 million people using Siprnet and how that alone is a huge risk? Plus Manning even admitted how fickle are those servers and passwords.
The fact that you even know about SIPRNet is a huge breach Most people only have access to NIPRNet.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-11-30 08:32:23)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-11-30 08:45:41
EVieira
Member
+105|6719|Lutenblaag, Molvania
On some cases, the leaks might actually help. If Lula is paying any attention to this (which he probably isn't...) he might see that even the arab countries codemn Ahmadinejad and MAYBE he'll get a hint...
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered;  the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei  (1564-1642)
2010-11-30 09:13:26
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6646|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ticia wrote:


Pissed? Try scared shitless. Sure is no surprise that duplicity is the very basis of US <INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE> foreign policy, we all know it but proof like this is what we all wanted.
So as of now anyone who opposes this exposure is in fact supporting duplicity.
Fixed. Diplomacy is not about transparency. Never was, never will be.
In the only country in the world where international treaties are ruled as national laws therefore are under constitutional transparency? Really?

I can't help but remember how If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear was frequently used by the American government just a few years back.
This is a good point.  FISA and the Patriot Act ask us to trust the government and stress the idea that you should only fear these things if you have something to hide.  Meanwhile, the reality of the matter is that our government (and any government in general) hides a lot of things.

In that respect, there is a bit of a double standard.  Also, how can you trust something that hides things from you?

Granted, following that logic leads us to question why we should trust the government with our retirement and possibly our healthcare.
2010-11-30 09:17:52
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6646|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Is just a matter of asking nicely, isn't? maybe Abdullahs offer wasn't appealing enough...yet.

Oh and I'm sure after reading how highly US diplomacy thinks of their own allies, the EU can't wait to side with the US again.
Well, again, FEOS is correct that even most of Europe doesn't like Iran.  While you have a legitimate argument that we are too close with Israel, sanctioning Iran is something that the majority of the world now supports.  Most of the world doesn't want a nuclear Iran, just like how most of the world is getting sick of North Korea.
2010-11-30 09:55:09
Ticia
Member
+73|5576

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Fixed. Diplomacy is not about transparency. Never was, never will be.
In the only country in the world where international treaties are ruled as national laws therefore are under constitutional transparency? Really?

I can't help but remember how If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear was frequently used by the American government just a few years back.
This is a good point.  FISA and the Patriot Act ask us to trust the government and stress the idea that you should only fear these things if you have something to hide.  Meanwhile, the reality of the matter is that our government (and any government in general) hides a lot of things.

In that respect, there is a bit of a double standard.  Also, how can you trust something that hides things from you?

Granted, following that logic leads us to question why we should trust the government with our retirement and possibly our healthcare.
Wouldn't the answer be us demanding more transparency and not turning against those who are helping us figure out the truth?
Completely trusting your government will always be impossible but instead of a conspiratorial suspicion, knowing what happens behind close doors is a right step, don't you agree?
2010-11-30 09:58:49
Ticia
Member
+73|5576

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Is just a matter of asking nicely, isn't? maybe Abdullahs offer wasn't appealing enough...yet.

Oh and I'm sure after reading how highly US diplomacy thinks of their own allies, the EU can't wait to side with the US again.
Well, again, FEOS is correct that even most of Europe doesn't like Iran.  While you have a legitimate argument that we are too close with Israel, sanctioning Iran is something that the majority of the world now supports.  Most of the world doesn't want a nuclear Iran, just like how most of the world is getting sick of North Korea.
Most of the world doesn't want another war period.
What is amazing is after what happened with the WMD in Iraq the US and friends are falling for it again.
2010-11-30 10:00:46
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5599|London, England

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:


In the only country in the world where international treaties are ruled as national laws therefore are under constitutional transparency? Really?

I can't help but remember how If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear was frequently used by the American government just a few years back.
This is a good point.  FISA and the Patriot Act ask us to trust the government and stress the idea that you should only fear these things if you have something to hide.  Meanwhile, the reality of the matter is that our government (and any government in general) hides a lot of things.

In that respect, there is a bit of a double standard.  Also, how can you trust something that hides things from you?

Granted, following that logic leads us to question why we should trust the government with our retirement and possibly our healthcare.
Wouldn't the answer be us demanding more transparency and not turning against those who are helping us figure out the truth?
Completely trusting your government will always be impossible but instead of a conspiratorial suspicion, knowing what happens behind close doors is a right step, don't you agree?
I don't think any of us are upset about diplomatic cables. It was the prior 'leaks' that dumped a bunch of war intel into our enemies laps.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-11-30 10:06:08
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6646|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:


In the only country in the world where international treaties are ruled as national laws therefore are under constitutional transparency? Really?

I can't help but remember how If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear was frequently used by the American government just a few years back.
This is a good point.  FISA and the Patriot Act ask us to trust the government and stress the idea that you should only fear these things if you have something to hide.  Meanwhile, the reality of the matter is that our government (and any government in general) hides a lot of things.

In that respect, there is a bit of a double standard.  Also, how can you trust something that hides things from you?

Granted, following that logic leads us to question why we should trust the government with our retirement and possibly our healthcare.
Wouldn't the answer be us demanding more transparency and not turning against those who are helping us figure out the truth?
Completely trusting your government will always be impossible but instead of a conspiratorial suspicion, knowing what happens behind close doors is a right step, don't you agree?
Transparency is only possible to a degree.  Assange isn't exactly about transparency though.  Wikileaks is starting to look more and more like his own version of attention whoring.
2010-11-30 10:06:31
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6240|...
As do these, Yemen leaks f.ex.

Or letting NK know that they're completely isolated and by doing so (releasing the info) trying to destroy China's way of handling the situation.

Or letting Iran know that everyone hates them.

Yep, truth never hurts.

Last edited by dayarath (2010-11-30 10:06:59)

inane little opines
2010-11-30 10:09:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6646|North Carolina

Ticia wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Is just a matter of asking nicely, isn't? maybe Abdullahs offer wasn't appealing enough...yet.

Oh and I'm sure after reading how highly US diplomacy thinks of their own allies, the EU can't wait to side with the US again.
Well, again, FEOS is correct that even most of Europe doesn't like Iran.  While you have a legitimate argument that we are too close with Israel, sanctioning Iran is something that the majority of the world now supports.  Most of the world doesn't want a nuclear Iran, just like how most of the world is getting sick of North Korea.
Most of the world doesn't want another war period.
What is amazing is after what happened with the WMD in Iraq the US and friends are falling for it again.
I don't think any nation wants to truly go to war with Iran other than maybe Israel.  Actually invading Iran would be completely unpalatable to the American public.
2010-11-30 10:11:39
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6240|...
Didn't the leaks reveal that Israel & Saudi set a deadline of 18 months before they'd take action against Iran?

No need for mericans in that equation.

Last edited by dayarath (2010-11-30 10:11:52)

inane little opines
2010-11-30 10:59:47
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6873|949

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

One could argue that the bosses in charge are the ones putting our countrymen in danger; Wikileaks is just exposing it.
Those diplomatic cables--when written and transmitted--did not put anyone in danger.

Publishing them to an unintended audience did.
In regards to strictly 'diplomatic' matters, the cables didn't put anyone in danger.

Speaking specifically of the released conversations between Yemeni and US diplomats regarding the bombing of a village that killed many civilians - the cables 'exposed' the acknowledgement of Yemeni and US officials that civilians were killed in the bombing.  That action (the bombing/death of civilians) put our countrymen in danger because it increases activity of AQAP in the region.  The cables are exposing the coverup, and that causes public discontent.  It's the initial action that 'puts our countrymen in danger'.
2010-11-30 11:14:06
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6646|North Carolina

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

One could argue that the bosses in charge are the ones putting our countrymen in danger; Wikileaks is just exposing it.
Those diplomatic cables--when written and transmitted--did not put anyone in danger.

Publishing them to an unintended audience did.
In regards to strictly 'diplomatic' matters, the cables didn't put anyone in danger.

Speaking specifically of the released conversations between Yemeni and US diplomats regarding the bombing of a village that killed many civilians - the cables 'exposed' the acknowledgement of Yemeni and US officials that civilians were killed in the bombing.  That action (the bombing/death of civilians) put our countrymen in danger because it increases activity of AQAP in the region.  The cables are exposing the coverup, and that causes public discontent.  It's the initial action that 'puts our countrymen in danger'.
Bombing civilians is sometimes inevitable when fighting a guerilla war.  That action in and of itself furthers the goals of the war if the right amount of discretion is practiced.

Because that discretion is now gone, then it increases the danger to our forces.  Otherwise, it wouldn't have.
2010-11-30 11:24:51
KEN-JENNINGS
I am all that is MOD!
+2,979|6873|949

Sure I guess it's inevitable - but so is the backlash resultant from it.
2010-11-30 17:39:54
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6652|'Murka

Ticia wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ticia wrote:


Pissed? Try scared shitless. Sure is no surprise that duplicity is the very basis of US <INSERT COUNTRY NAME HERE> foreign policy, we all know it but proof like this is what we all wanted.
So as of now anyone who opposes this exposure is in fact supporting duplicity.
Fixed. Diplomacy is not about transparency. Never was, never will be.
In the only country in the world where international treaties are ruled as national laws therefore are under constitutional transparency? Really?

I can't help but remember how If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear was frequently used by the American government just a few years back.
So you're essentially stating you don't grasp the role of diplomacy in the defense of national interests, regardless of which nation owns those interests.

You're acting as if the US is the only country whose diplomats act/talk in this fashion. It's not. It's just the only country that has had it's diplomatic correspondence exposed for the world to see. Hence the <insert country name here> quip. Nor is it the only country who treats treaties as national law.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-11-30 18:56:46
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6652|'Murka

Ticia wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ticia wrote:

He's aiming for the easiest target since US intelligence is not smart enough to hide this documents in the first place.
PFC Numbnuts pulled the documents off of a classified network and walked out of a secure area with them. They were "hidden". Until someone who was wrongly trusted violated that trust..
What about there are more than 3 million people using Siprnet and how that alone is a huge risk? Plus Manning even admitted how fickle are those servers and passwords.
Manning was an intel troop. He had access to far more than SIPRNET. SIPRNET is a pretty far-spread network that's used for day-to-day operations for the military and other US government branches. Not a "huge risk" by any stretch, as the highest classification on there is SECRET, and every person in the DoD and DoS has a SECRET clearance (for the most part).

Ticia wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ticia wrote:

When it becomes so clear that your foreign policies have been made for the benefit of ignoble countries instead of your own...all you focus on is Assange.
This statement makes zero sense. Maybe as I continue reading the thread you will clarify in some way...

Edit: You were talking about "doing Saudi and Israeli dirty work". News flash: We're not. In fact, one of the "leaks" is King Abdullah pleading for us to do MORE regarding Iran. Then there's the whole European position regarding Iran that mirrors our own. But facts like that are inconvenient when it comes to bashing American foreign policy, I guess.
Is just a matter of asking nicely, isn't? maybe Abdullahs offer wasn't appealing enough...yet.

Oh and I'm sure after reading how highly US diplomacy thinks of their own allies, the EU can't wait to side with the US again.
Again, learn a bit what diplomacy is for and how it actually works.

Those cables were providing blunt assessments, via secure diplomatic channels, regarding various aspects of world leaders and their approaches to various issues--directly and indirectly relevant as well as irrelevant to US interests in the region and abroad. Go to any country's State Dept equivalent and you'll see the same kind of traffic (probably about the US), focused on that country's interests. You're from Portugal, right? Portugal's Foreign Ministry (or whatever it's called) has identical embarrassing traffic...I guarantee it. Of course, the US has some other traffic that some will not have due to its status as sole superpower. I'm sure Russia, the UK, and China have similar "embarrassing" traffic...and are glad they don't have some 20-year old fuckwit Lady Gaga fan who's enamored with Julian Assange working for them right now.

See, diplomacy is an instrument of national power. It is wielded to achieve national security objectives, just as military power, economic power, and informational power are--most effectively in concert with the other three. Those national security objectives are for the country in question, not for some other country, so the frank diplomatic cables going back and forth in (what they believe to be) secure channels are slanted in that regard--toward understood national objectives/interests. They aren't concerned about wounding some other country's inner fucking child because they aren't ever supposed to be disclosed and they are focused on one's own country's national interests...and nothing else.

Is that clear enough?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2010-11-30 19:01:44
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5599|London, England

FEOS wrote:

Ticia wrote:

FEOS wrote:


PFC Numbnuts pulled the documents off of a classified network and walked out of a secure area with them. They were "hidden". Until someone who was wrongly trusted violated that trust..
What about there are more than 3 million people using Siprnet and how that alone is a huge risk? Plus Manning even admitted how fickle are those servers and passwords.
Manning was an intel troop. He had access to far more than SIPRNET. SIPRNET is a pretty far-spread network that's used for day-to-day operations for the military and other US government branches. Not a "huge risk" by any stretch, as the highest classification on there is SECRET, and every person in the DoD and DoS has a SECRET clearance (for the most part).
I haz secret clearance
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2010-12-01 13:54:51
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6240|...
media over here was talking about getting that guy (Assange) up for a pulitzer prize...

.....
inane little opines

 

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 20

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard