BF2S Forums Wikileaks - StateLogs

Ticia wrote:

Actually Portugal was more than embarrassed with the cables, since our Foreign Policy Minister lied to our faces about the Guantanamo detainees he's probably resigning. Not that accountability is that high here but we really don't like liars.

Defending your government, by saying that's just how diplomacy works, when they fucked up so badly could be even endearing had Americans not done it for so long and with such awful consequences now it's just deplorable...and yes here for the first time in this whole topic I am being a tiny bit condescending

It's a matter of faith in government though.  If you don't have much faith in government, your standards aren't as high.  This is why the corruption mentioned by the leaks doesn't really shock me much.

Any nation building operation is going to have problems, and diplomacy in general is more about keeping up appearances than it is sincerity.  Every country has strategic interests, and all the U.S. is doing is furthering their own just the same as how any other country would in our position.

If Germany had the world's largest military and the largest economy, they'd be the interventionists getting more involved in the Middle East.  They might differ in some of their decisions and in their style of intervention, but they'd probably be about equally as corrupt.

Ticia wrote:

BTW if any of you think I'm a US hater then it shows how truly ignorant you are about how the rest of the world sees you. Around this place if you're not an American you can't ever mention obvious US flaws without being called a troll

While considering the world's opinion is important in many respects, it's also worth considering that it's easier to criticize another country rather than your own.  It's especially easy to criticize one of the world's most dominant powers when your own country is too small to figure into the top of the global power structure.  It doesn't mean your opinion is invalid, but it's a matter of perspective.

For example, Canada has criticized a lot of our decisions in foreign policy, and while they have aided us with the Afghanistan occupation, they were adamantly against the Iraq War.  Still, the tone that some Canadians take against interventionism is somewhat of a luxury for them.  Why?  Because our interventionism will often inadvertently benefit their own interests.  By the same token, they never had to build up a large military during the Cold War because our own military was essentially their national defense.

By the same token, the U.K. is kind of in a similar position in Europe.  Their military isn't nearly as large as ours, but they are one of the most dominant militaries in the world and essentially serve as one of Europe's more significant defenders.  A smaller country like Portugal doesn't have to worry about that sort of thing because of the power of larger countries like the U.K.

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

Actually Portugal was more than embarrassed with the cables, since our Foreign Policy Minister lied to our faces about the Guantanamo detainees he's probably resigning. Not that accountability is that high here but we really don't like liars.

Defending your government, by saying that's just how diplomacy works, when they fucked up so badly could be even endearing had Americans not done it for so long and with such awful consequences now it's just deplorable...and yes here for the first time in this whole topic I am being a tiny bit condescending

It's a matter of faith in government though.  If you don't have much faith in government, your standards aren't as high.  This is why the corruption mentioned by the leaks doesn't really shock me much.

Any nation building operation is going to have problems, and diplomacy in general is more about keeping up appearances than it is sincerity.  Every country has strategic interests, and all the U.S. is doing is furthering their own just the same as how any other country would in our position.

If Germany had the world's largest military and the largest economy, they'd be the interventionists getting more involved in the Middle East.  They might differ in some of their decisions and in their style of intervention, but they'd probably be about equally as corrupt.

You know how so many American citizens praise their country as the best in the world and defend their government everytime some outsider criticizes it? Why would they if their faith in it lacks?

Germans would never openly allow their government to act as irresponsible, in fact with their back history their interventionist role would be nothing but peaceful.

Turquoise wrote:

Ticia wrote:

BTW if any of you think I'm a US hater then it shows how truly ignorant you are about how the rest of the world sees you. Around this place if you're not an American you can't ever mention obvious US flaws without being called a troll

While considering the world's opinion is important in many respects, it's also worth considering that it's easier to criticize another country rather than your own.  It's especially easy to criticize one of the world's most dominant powers when your own country is too small to figure into the top of the global power structure.  It doesn't mean your opinion is invalid, but it's a matter of perspective.

For example, Canada has criticized a lot of our decisions in foreign policy, and while they have aided us with the Afghanistan occupation, they were adamantly against the Iraq War.  Still, the tone that some Canadians take against interventionism is somewhat of a luxury for them.  Why?  Because our interventionism will often inadvertently benefit their own interests.  By the same token, they never had to build up a large military during the Cold War because our own military was essentially their national defense.

By the same token, the U.K. is kind of in a similar position in Europe.  Their military isn't nearly as large as ours, but they are one of the most dominant militaries in the world and essentially serve as one of Europe's more significant defenders.  A smaller country like Portugal doesn't have to worry about that sort of thing because of the power of larger countries like the U.K.

Oh yes because the Iraq war had to happen or else...

11 Bravo wrote:

oh shut it ticia.  the problem is people always talk about the US and never their own.  THAT is trolling.  nobody gave a flying fuck that aussie troops were involved in murders or that brit troops are accused of the same thing the US was in abu ghraib.  ya those threads died.  good figure.  call us ignorant?  pfftt shows how clueless you are.

You know who criticized the Australian and British troops? Australia, the UK and every other country. Because time and again Americans don't give a shit about what happens outside of their country, you missed it.

11 Bravo wrote:

Ticia wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

oh shut it ticia.  the problem is people always talk about the US and never their own.  THAT is trolling.  nobody gave a flying fuck that aussie troops were involved in murders or that brit troops are accused of the same thing the US was in abu ghraib.  ya those threads died.  good figure.  call us ignorant?  pfftt shows how clueless you are.

You know who criticized the Australian and British troops? Australia, the UK and every other country. Because time and again Americans don't give a shit about what happens outside of their country, you missed it.

you are so fucking wrong.  I had to make the thread about that.  nobody from those countries did.

jesus you fit in with the aussie trolls it is uncanny.

Never been but wouldn't mind. The US are closer to my heart though 

Oh you were referring to this place? My bad, I thought you were talking about the real world.

Ticia wrote:

You know how so many American citizens praise their country as the best in the world and defend their government everytime some outsider criticizes it? Why would they if their faith in it lacks?

I think you'll find that the latter of those two tendencies is common among all nationalities.

As for the former, that's a consequence of how loud our patriotic people are.  I used to believe that America was one of the most patriotic countries in the world until I started talking with people from India.  There are quite a few countries that are much more prideful than we are.

However, our status as the last "superpower" magnifies our flaws.  We are the world's biggest target, so people will pay more attention to our idiots than the idiots of India, for example.  We also have a bad tendency to give our idiots microphones more often than most.  We even have entire shows devoted to it (like Jersey Shore), because apparently people find stupid people entertaining.

It's a strange paradox, however, when you encounter certain patriotic people here.  In the same conversation, you can have someone wave their flag about the Afghanistan war while have them condemn socialized medicine (while probably benefitting from Medicare).

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I never said the average American was that bright (nor the average human for that matter).

Ticia wrote:

Germans would never openly allow their government to act as irresponsible, in fact with their back history their interventionist role would be nothing but peaceful.

Germany probably wasn't the best example I could use, but even so, with time, the guilt they collectively feel for WW2 will dissipate.  When it eventually does, so will their focus on staying out of world conflicts --- unless some other factor prohibits it.

I firmly believe that situations dictate behavior.  The more powerful your country is economically, the more likely you will feel the urge to meddle in foreign economies.  The more powerful your military is, the more tempting it is to intervene in conflicts that present certain strategic opportunities.  It can be a vicious cycle, but it is not a distinctly American trait.  It is a human trait.

Ticia wrote:

Oh yes because the Iraq war had to happen or else...

There was a time when the U.N. pushed hard for intervention in Iraq.  In the later years of Clinton's presidency, most of the U.N. was supportive of intervention.

All I'm saying is that interventionism is not something that is purely our fault.  Attitudes change regarding wars, and the stance a person takes is largely affected by the status of that person's country in world affairs.   In America, some people strongly support our interventionism because of our military power and the pride that comes with that.   Other people here have the opposite reaction and agree more with your stance because they feel we are oppressive in our influences.  In either case, however, these views are affected by their immediate perspectives.

I would imagine the average Portuguese citizen would not support much interventionism because of Portugal's lack of military significance and because of the big domestic issues currently present there with the economy.  If America's economy was in a state similar to that, our own support for interventionism would go down as well, so we aren't immune to domestic issues either.

I guess what I'm getting at is that our occupations aren't very relevant to Portugal, so there's no logical reason for a Portuguese citizen to take much interest in them or to be supportive of them.  Portugal has nothing to gain from these occupations.   If it did, then perceptions would likely be different.  Perceptions would also be different if 9/11 had occurred in Lisbon rather than NYC.

EVieira wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

that our occupations aren't very relevant to Portugal, so there's no logical reason for a Portuguese citizen to take much interest in them or to be supportive of them.  Portugal has nothing to gain from these occupations.   If it did, then perceptions would likely be different.  Perceptions would also be different if 9/11 had occurred in Lisbon rather than NYC.

World politics is releavent to the entire world. No country, no matter how small, will just ignore the rest of the world as if it had nothing to do with it. And if you have domestic issues, doesn't mean you can forget that are other countries around. We all have domestic issues to tend to.

But just because someone criticizes US policy, does not make him a US hater. This is a DEBATE forum, if everyone agreed to everything what would be the point?

And what the hell does 9/11 have to do with any of this? This thread is abou wikileaks...

I didn't say she was a U.S. hater.  Some other people are making that claim, and I know Ticia well enough to know that this isn't true.

I mentioned 9/11 because it changed American support for interventionism a lot.  It's hard to believe this, but W. originally ran on a platform of "no nation building."  Obviously 9/11 completely changed that.

I believe that any country having experienced a terror attack as significant as 9/11 would become more interventionist afterwards.  Because it happened to us, the natural reaction to this was a demand to hold someone accountable.  I'm not debating whether or not invading Afghanistan or Iraq was a wise idea, but the context for both invasions is irrevocably tied to 9/11 because of the retaliatory mood that it created.

Again, I realize that 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam.  Unfortunately, the same can't be said for certain other Americans.

How this translates to the wikileaks is that Americans will often defend their government's actions despite what was revealed in the leaks because of our interventionist leanings and the still present but waning belief that we are accomplishing something important with both occupations.

I'm pretty sure that most people will come to the defense of their government if a foreign citizen outs sensitive information regarding its military operations abroad.  It's a natural and somewhat logical reaction.

EVieira wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I'm pretty sure that most people will come to the defense of their government if a foreign citizen outs sensitive information regarding its military operations abroad.  It's a natural and somewhat logical reaction.

No, it doesn't matter if your a citizen or not. In a debate, I will critize my own country as much as any other if I am against its position. Such a blind defence of one's country is what put fascists in power. I absolutely abhor my countries closer relation to Iran. And it made me very pissed how in the past we did absolutley NOTHING to contain Hugo Chavez (at least politically, I know militarily there isn't Brazil can do...). And now look at whats becoming of Venezuela....

Then you're not the average person.  I admire that.  However, I would argue that what these recent leaks have revealed is less sinister than being close with Iran or siding with Chavez.

EVieira wrote:

Also, I havent seen any sensitive MILITARY information being outed, even if it has, its probably much to old to actually affect anything but diplomatic relations. I could be wrong, I haven't seen everything that has been leaked.

Read up on what happened with the last batch of leaks that came before this one.  The names of several of our Afghan allies were revealed, and the Taliban killed several of them afterwards -- and even went so far as to thank wikileaks for the info.

Ticia wrote:

11 Bravo wrote:

oh shut it ticia.  the problem is people always talk about the US and never their own.  THAT is trolling.  nobody gave a flying fuck that aussie troops were involved in murders or that brit troops are accused of the same thing the US was in abu ghraib.  ya those threads died.  good figure.  call us ignorant?  pfftt shows how clueless you are.

You know who criticized the Australian and British troops? Australia, the UK and every other country. Because time and again Americans don't give a shit about what happens outside of their country, you missed it.

You know who criticized...and prosecuted...American troops? Americans. More so than anyone else. Your blinders are on. Take them off for a bit, will you?

Turq hit the nail on the head earlier. Your blind faith in your own government blinds you to the fact that the kind of stuff you saw in the Wikileaks disclosure happens with every government in the world--to include your own. The fact that your own government was embarrassed collaterally by it--via its own actions--is proof.

For some reason, you refuse to believe that diplomats and diplomacy play this role--interfuckingnationally. Well, guess what? They do, and it does. Read a book on international diplomacy or take a class on it some time--so you can make an educated argument on the topic--rather than blindly flailing about squawking "'Murka's baaad!" It's fucking old.

"“This whole notion that Assange, who's an Australian, that we want to prosecute him for treason. I mean, aren't they jumping to a wild conclusion?” he added. “This is media, isn't it? I mean, why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/12 … oasC"

He wants to charge Assange for treason against the US? lol

Kmar wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

He wants to charge Assange for treason against the US? lol

And executed mind u

Go back and read the Politico article more closely, boys.

...the source who leaked to the Wikileaks founder should be tried for treason and executed if found guilty.

He's talking about PFC Manning. Words are important, fellas.

Neither Paul nor Huckabee are saying Assange should be prosecuted for treason or that he should be executed. Only Holder is looking into whether Assange can be charged with anything. My guess is probably not.

Both Paul and Huckabee are spot on, btw.

What a horribly worded paragraph...but that's what i get for followin ar's lead. I was more interested in what paul was saying.