Wikileaks

[Roamy]

Maybe you guys can enlighten me. Who leaked the info on the international cables?

If the info was pirated then I will just laugh. Anyone "dumb" enough to try and use Windoze as a secure platform should not be disappointed with pirated information. Sadly to say our government uses microsoft. And this is a leaking bitch all by itself.

[Ghostwalker]

Roamy, what system you use doesnt matter since all systems will leak sooner or later.

Howver regarding the WL documents. They have not been retrieved via hacking/pirating but rather that soembody who had access to them have handed them over to WL.

read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower

[N. Jones]

I listened to the last part of Democracy Now! and they seemed to say that Bradley Manning did so because a number of months ago he predicted that the diplomatic leaks that would eventually come out were going to be a huge embarrassment for the US and other countries.

[BDunnell]

And this is pretty much all the leaks are — embarrassing. Certainly not security-endangering. There is a lot of pomposity and paranoia that surrounds the keeping of classified/confidential information out of the public domain. Much of it has little to do with security and more to do with avoiding embarrassment.

[ArrowsFA1]

Depending on who you listen to Wikileaks are:

psychological warfare against Iran[/*:m:2ssnb484]
"reckless" and put the lives of diplomats at risk.[/*:m:2ssnb484]
a threat to democratic authority[/*:m:2ssnb484]
a terrorist organisation[/*:m:2ssnb484]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11861458

[Cooper_S]

It also provides an insight to how much pressure is placed on one administration/government by another and how they are resisted, The Iranian Nuclear programme being a case in point... I commend the revelation that the USA has not bowed to pressure from some quarters to strike at Iran, despite the influence they yield.

A lot of what was published is the kind of stuff I would have thought went on anyway, this just confirms it... of course only a tiny fraction of the alleged 250,000 intercepted cables have been published.

[Hondo]

The Wikileaks files were downloaded by a US enlisted soldier that either had access, or figured out how to get access to the data. He turned the data over to Wikileaks. The soldier has been arrested but has not been put on trial yet. I can easily see where some of these leaks could have rather severe implications, especially at the local or national levels. It is one thing to suspect that something is going on but it becomes an entirely different matter once confirmed in print.

Amongst other things, al-Qaeda will become larger, stronger, and more powerful once their potential recruits learn the big Arab names behind their financing and that certain governments won't crack down on them out of fear of reprisal.

It's not going to be good and it will have a terrible effect.

[N. Jones]

Amongst other things, al-Qaeda will become larger, stronger, and more powerful once their potential recruits learn the big Arab names behind their financing and that certain governments won't crack down on them out of fear of reprisal.

It's not going to be good and it will have a terrible effect.

Did I miss something when looking through the documents? I don't remember seeing anything about how this rag tag organization is going to become larger.

[BDunnell]

It also provides an insight to how much pressure is placed on one administration/government by another and how they are resisted, The Iranian Nuclear programme being a case in point... I commend the revelation that the USA has not bowed to pressure from some quarters to strike at Iran, despite the influence they yield.

Me too.



A lot of what was published is the kind of stuff I would have thought went on anyway, this just confirms it...

Again, I very much agree. It doesn't take Wikileaks for us to know that Angela Merkel is 'risk-averse', for instance!

[BDunnell]

Amongst other things, al-Qaeda will become larger, stronger, and more powerful once their potential recruits learn the big Arab names behind their financing and that certain governments won't crack down on them out of fear of reprisal.

Again, I'd say that they should be able to work this out for themselves without documents being leaked, no matter how secret.

[Roamy]

so far this is way overrated. Who gives a craps - we should be more concerned about the EU bailout

[Ghostwalker]

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/spooks-and-soldiers-seconded-to-examine-secret-cables-20101129-18e12.html

isn't this the same attourneygeneral that was revealed by WL when he tried to impose a very biased website block list?
Isn't this type of ordering a way more serious offense then the actual leaks?

and what anout this then?
http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-wikileaks-business-media-assange_lander.html

[ioan]

The Wikileaks files were downloaded by a US enlisted soldier that either had access, or figured out how to get access to the data. He turned the data over to Wikileaks. The soldier has been arrested but has not been put on trial yet. I can easily see where some of these leaks could have rather severe implications, especially at the local or national levels. It is one thing to suspect that something is going on but it becomes an entirely different matter once confirmed in print.

Amongst other things, al-Qaeda will become larger, stronger, and more powerful once their potential recruits learn the big Arab names behind their financing and that certain governments won't crack down on them out of fear of reprisal.

It's not going to be good and it will have a terrible effect.

Afraid of the truth? Living in denial? Brainwashed?
I guess this is what describes today's 'democracies'.

[ioan]

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/spooks-and-soldiers-seconded-to-examine-secret-cables-20101129-18e12.html

isn't this the same attourneygeneral that was revealed by WL when he tried to impose a very biased website block list?
Isn't this type of ordering a way more serious offense then the actual leaks?

and what anout this then?
http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-wikileaks-business-media-assange_lander.html

The leaks are not an offense IMO, unless someone has something to hide in the closet, and public persons should be squeaky clean with nothing to hide!

As far as I am concerned transparency is the only way to save the paranoid society we are living in before we start throwing nukes on each others.

[Bob Riebe]

Afraid of the truth? Living in denial? Brainwashed?
I guess this is what describes today's 'democracies'.

You seem so ignorant.
These leaks are harmless, maybe even for the better, but if any causes someone to be killed, your rhetoric will sound as not only ignorant bur obtuse.

[Mark in Oshawa]

This stuff is embarassing and just pointless. The guy who was the source of the leaks however was in Iraq, and was apparently a troubled guy who had run in's with the military over his being involved in an assault and his loss of rank. In short, this guy had an axe to grind.

Most leaks come from petty little morons who cant fit in with the organization and usually are on the carpet for one reason or another. They do however do their share of damage....

For me personally, I think this is going to be much ado about nothing. Hillary Clinton said it best, an unnamed country had her counter part phone her up and tell her that they were glad their cables were not hacked, since some of the stuff said there was worse! It is human nature....we unload and say nasty stuff behind closed doors with friends but in the end, it is much ado about nothing.

Julian Assange isn't as honest as a porn peddler. Unlike the guy selling the dirty mags, this guy really thinks he is doing something noble.....he isn't...he is just taking anything he thinks is a secret and dumping it in the public domain.

[BDunnell]

You seem so ignorant.
These leaks are harmless, maybe even for the better, but if any causes someone to be killed, your rhetoric will sound as not only ignorant bur obtuse.

It is fanciful to suggest that the death of one individual could ever be put down to these leaks. And even if it could, the good that you rightly suggest could come out of them may well cancel that out by saving other lives.

Oh, by the way, obtuse is not the right word to use in this situation.

[BDunnell]

This stuff is embarassing and just pointless. The guy who was the source of the leaks however was in Iraq, and was apparently a troubled guy who had run in's with the military over his being involved in an assault and his loss of rank. In short, this guy had an axe to grind.

Most leaks come from petty little morons who cant fit in with the organization and usually are on the carpet for one reason or another. They do however do their share of damage....

True, but there are plenty of other whistleblowers — whether in public or private — who do so for more, shall we say, genuine reasons. And I don't think there's anything petty or moronic about the releasing into the public domain of embarrassing classified information. It is an important thing to be doing, though the significance of that information beyond some short-term embarrassment does vary. When it's done by means of genuine investigation, research or Freedom of Information requests, no-one has a problem with it except those who are embarrassed or exposed as a result. I therefore don't quite understand the fuss being made about this information being leaked in this manner.



For me personally, I think this is going to be much ado about nothing. Hillary Clinton said it best, an unnamed country had her counter part phone her up and tell her that they were glad their cables were not hacked, since some of the stuff said there was worse! It is human nature....we unload and say nasty stuff behind closed doors with friends but in the end, it is much ado about nothing.

This is my sole problem with the Wikileaks 'revelations'. A lot of them are little more than, basically, internal e-mails between work colleagues. I would not want all my private thoughts and comments in e-mails or other forms of communication to be brought into the public domain, purely in the name of good personal relations. Of course, the level of importance of the matters under discussion is a bit different in the case of international diplomacy, but the principle still holds. So I would question the merit of releasing some of the comments made by ambassadors, etc, about the leaders of the countries in which they work. We have learned little from them, though they are unquestionably interesting and sometimes amusing. The details of torture, deals over prisoners and so on are a different matter.



Julian Assange isn't as honest as a porn peddler. Unlike the guy selling the dirty mags, this guy really thinks he is doing something noble.....he isn't...he is just taking anything he thinks is a secret and dumping it in the public domain.

How is this different from making Freedom of Information requests which end up with that information being placed in the public domain? After all, the end result is the same, except that via Wikileaks we have gained access to much that those responsible for handling FoI disclosures would never have allowed out. I think this is a good thing, given the levels of paranoia about classified information.

[Eki]

Most leaks come from petty little morons who cant fit in with the organization and usually are on the carpet for one reason or another.
In the old Soviet Union and other communist countries, those were called dissidents.

[Azumanga Davo]

dissidents

The Russian word for "deceased".

[Eki]

The Russian word for "deceased".
Leaking out classified information was sometimes dangerous, as Bob Riebe pointed out.

[555-04Q2]

Who leaked the info on the international cables?

It is believed a private is responsible for the leaks. He has been taken into custody for questioning, which means he is currently being tortured.

[Camelopard]

In the old Soviet Union and other communist countries, those were called dissidents.


And in the good ol' USA they are called members of the CIA.

I'm off to see "Fair Game" as soon as it is released here as I learn all my history by watching hollywood blockbusters and I dare say I will not be disappointed........................... :)








Plamegate: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s3068122.htm



aaaahhh, when you have 'these' sort of people backing you as a covert operative it doesn't matter what wikileaks releases. 'nough said.....................................

[BDunnell]

Anyone who believes that anything communicated via email is privileged or private information either doesn't understand how the internet works or is a very foolish person.

Of course, but that doesn't mean to say that I'd want mine published.

[555-04Q2]

Of course, but that doesn't mean to say that I'd want mine published.

Not to worry, you are publishing it yourself right now :D

[Bob Riebe]

[quote="BDunnell"]. I therefore don't quite understand the fuss being made about this information being leaked in this manner.
It could be because, if one has security clearance, or access to that which is not to be released without approval, and one breaks that trust, it would mean that one can not trust any, as one does not know how many are breaking the trust.

How is this different from making Freedom of Information requests which end up with that information being placed in the public domain? That is done in a legal manner. No rules are broken. It is a difference of day and night.

After all, the end result is the same, except that via Wikileaks we have gained access to much that those responsible for handling FoI disclosures would never have allowed out. That is a rationalization. (OK, what is a "FoI disclosure" and how could it have allowed anything out?)

I think this is a good thing, given the levels of paranoia about classified information.With all the bull**** and damned lies politicians dump on the general populace, often because they think the masses are to stupid or ignorant to handle the truth, a disclosure can be a good thing, and may have been done with good intent, but he was/is playing with a version of Pandora's box.

[BDunnell]

How is this different from making Freedom of Information requests which end up with that information being placed in the public domain? That is done in a legal manner. No rules are broken. It is a difference of day and night.

Of course, but in the FoI case the likelihood is that the authorities will not release any information which is in any sense embarrassing (or even, dare I say it, interesting). What the Wikileaks disclosures ought to do is make them, no matter which country we're talking about, realise that they can be far freer with confidential information without there being any consequences. But, of course, the very opposite is likely to be the case.

[N. Jones]

Not sure where this thread is heading but I want to say that I see nothing wrong with these files being released. It is about time that people see where their money goes and what those in power are doing.

[ioan]

You seem so ignorant.

At least I am not brainwashed like you guys. Take care, take good care the whole world is after you Amis! :laugh:

[ioan]

It is believed a private is responsible for the leaks. He has been taken into custody for questioning, which means he is currently being tortured.

Tortured?!
Nah, they are teaching him how to surf! I hear the waves are great in Guantanamo!

[ioan]

Not sure where this thread is heading but I want to say that I see nothing wrong with these files being released. It is about time that people see where their money goes and what those in power are doing.

I wish people like you were given more power! :up:
However it is more likely that control freaks and indoctrinated people like our Bob Riebe will get to it and hold on to it with their teeth. :( And they will call terrorist anyone who tries to show how much of a joke they are.

[BDunnell]

At least I am not brainwashed like you guys. Take care, take good care the whole world is after you Amis! :laugh:

As much as you and I may dislike the excesses of right-wing American politics, I don't think there is any need at all for comments like that.

[ioan]

As much as you and I may dislike the excesses of right-wing American politics, I don't think there is any need at all for comments like that.

Someone who goes ahead calling others ignorant and obtuse deserves no better.

[Ghostwalker]

I wish people like you were given more power! :up:
However it is more likely that control freaks and indoctrinated people like our Bob Riebe will get to it and hold on to it with their teeth. :(
i agree about the first sentence.
However people like Bob Riebe will claim that this is dangerous, threatening and etc becasue they've got something to hide.
This also is why people like the Aussie attorney general is trying to find something that they could use to "get rid" of J.A.

The same goes for the USA, the more they trying to stop WL the more suspicious people are getting to why they are so afraid about revealed material.

In a similar manner the two right-wing most parliament parties are trying to stop a law suggestion that would force all political parties to reveal where their funding are coming from.
The other six parliament parties have no problem with this so assumable the two parties refusing have something to hide.

[BDunnell]

Someone who goes ahead calling others ignorant and obtuse deserves no better.

He, though, cannot be considered representative of literally 'all Amis', as you put it.

[ioan]

However people like Bob Riebe will claim that this is dangerous, threatening and etc becasue they've got something to hide.

The Church also did try to hide the truth and knowledge for centuries, labelled the intelligent peoples as witches and burned them alive.
Knowledge is always dangerous if it can expose the cheaters. ;)

[Bob Riebe]

At least I am not brainwashed like you guys. Take care, take good care the whole world is after you Amis! :laugh:
As you wish, of course, if talk is cheap, yours comes out of the bargain basement.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I just find it amusing that people find Bob the extremist. Bob isn't extreme, he is just asking for a little common sense here. The reality is, all governments say and do things that are embarassing, and is there any real purpose to dumping it all in the public domain? As I am very quick to point out, when I see Wiki Leaks with the cables of the North Koreans, the Russians, the Chinese or Hugo Chavez for that matter; I will then accept that Wikileaks is performing a useful service.

The reality is, most of the stuff that was "leaked" was basically stolen.

As Bob pointed out, it is one thing to get it from a FOI, it is another to just assume you have moral authority on your side and dump it in Julian Assange's lap, where he will play traffic cop with the information to suit his own politcial end.

The world is complicated enough without smarmy know it all's with cloudy pasts like Assange playing games ...

[Bob Riebe]

The Church also did try to hide the truth and knowledge for centuries, labelled the intelligent peoples as witches and burned them alive.
Knowledge is always dangerous if it can expose the cheaters. ;)
Prove that the burned the intelligent people for centuries, or is this more cheap flatulence from your keyboard.

Now competing dogmas did kill those from the other side and there were a few, very few, supposed witches burned in the U.S. but you said for centuries, please give specifics.

As this thread is about gov. leaks and you have now grabbed for a branch involving religion, you must be getting desperate.

[Malbec]

I just find it amusing that people find Bob the extremist. Bob isn't extreme, he is just asking for a little common sense here. The reality is, all governments say and do things that are embarassing, and is there any real purpose to dumping it all in the public domain? As I am very quick to point out, when I see Wiki Leaks with the cables of the North Koreans, the Russians, the Chinese or Hugo Chavez for that matter; I will then accept that Wikileaks is performing a useful service.

The reality is, most of the stuff that was "leaked" was basically stolen.

I realise I'm clearly in the minority here but I happen to believe that governments have the right to conduct many of their affairs (though not all) in secret to perform effectively. I'd put diplomatic communications in this category.

Clearly there's a need for the press to ensure that government stays within its remit through investigative journalism but I'm afraid this wikileak release isn't it. Had the leak demonstrated that US diplomats were in fact involved in shady assassinations, arm deals and torture then matters would be entirely different but all I see here are opinions shared between diplomats that are of little real interest to the public but could cause great harm to US (and our) relations with certain countries. Here I'm thinking of China's attitude towards North Korea or Pakistan's paranoia regarding the outside world and its nuclear weapons.

I'm just glad that the raw material was passed not to the public but to intermediary newspapers that have chosen to carefully filter the information to prevent too many details being released.

[Malbec]

Prove that the burned the intelligent people for centuries, or is this more cheap flatulence from your keyboard.

Now competing dogmas did kill those from the other side and there were a few, very few, supposed witches burned in the U.S. but you said for centuries, please give specifics.

ioan did not specify that the witchburnings were limited to the US. In Europe witchburning was mainly performed by representatives of the church or members of the public pertaining to act on the church's behalf and the killings did indeed carry on for centuries.

[Eki]

I just find it amusing that people find Bob the extremist. Bob isn't extreme, he is just asking for a little common sense here. The reality is, all governments say and do things that are embarassing, and is there any real purpose to dumping it all in the public domain? As I am very quick to point out, when I see Wiki Leaks with the cables of the North Koreans, the Russians, the Chinese or Hugo Chavez for that matter; I will then accept that Wikileaks is performing a useful service.

So when the Wikileaks leak something bad or embarrassing about the North Koreans, the Russians, the Chinese and Hugo Chavez, it's a useful service, but when they leak something bad or embarrassing about the USA and Americans, it's harmful? Double standards, or does the end simply justify the means?

[BDunnell]

So when the Wikileaks leak something bad or embarrassing about the North Koreans, the Russians, the Chinese and Hugo Chavez, it's a useful service, but when they leak something bad or embarrassing about the USA and Americans, it's harmful? Double standards, or does the end simply justify the means?

Exactly what I was going to ask.

[ioan]

Bob isn't extreme, he is just asking for a little common sense here.

He sure needs some. What can he offer in exchange though? A heap of swear words?

[ioan]

Prove that the burned the intelligent people for centuries, or is this more cheap flatulence from your keyboard.

Now competing dogmas did kill those from the other side and there were a few, very few, supposed witches burned in the U.S. but you said for centuries, please give specifics.

As this thread is about gov. leaks and you have now grabbed for a branch involving religion, you must be getting desperate.

Does 'Christian heresy' ring a bell? What about witch hunt, or witchcraft trials?
Ever heard about Giordano Bruno?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

PS: There is life on Earth outside the US.

[ioan]

ioan did not specify that the witchburnings were limited to the US. In Europe witchburning was mainly performed by representatives of the church or members of the public pertaining to act on the church's behalf and the killings did indeed carry on for centuries.

Thanks. :)

[Mark in Oshawa]

So when the Wikileaks leak something bad or embarrassing about the North Koreans, the Russians, the Chinese and Hugo Chavez, it's a useful service, but when they leak something bad or embarrassing about the USA and Americans, it's harmful? Double standards, or does the end simply justify the means?

No, but it will be when I take WikiLeaks somewhat seriously. I have no problem with the leaks if Julian worked as hard to attain the dirt on Chavez and the like as he does on Obama's minions, and the like. Lets face reality, if you think the Americans are talking smack, can you imagine some of the stuff some of these tinpot nations are on about?

[Mark in Oshawa]

I realise I'm clearly in the minority here but I happen to believe that governments have the right to conduct many of their affairs (though not all) in secret to perform effectively. I'd put diplomatic communications in this category.

Clearly there's a need for the press to ensure that government stays within its remit through investigative journalism but I'm afraid this wikileak release isn't it. Had the leak demonstrated that US diplomats were in fact involved in shady assassinations, arm deals and torture then matters would be entirely different but all I see here are opinions shared between diplomats that are of little real interest to the public but could cause great harm to US (and our) relations with certain countries. Here I'm thinking of China's attitude towards North Korea or Pakistan's paranoia regarding the outside world and its nuclear weapons.

I'm just glad that the raw material was passed not to the public but to intermediary newspapers that have chosen to carefully filter the information to prevent too many details being released.

I am thinking you are right Dylan. The sad reality of it is, the dirt that people want to find really isn't there.....instead we get to hear how one diplomat in the US thinks of some Russian.....or how they think Canada is out to lunch on terrorism...ya..well duuuh.....we kind of knew that was being said before!

[ioan]

So when the Wikileaks leak something bad or embarrassing about the North Koreans, the Russians, the Chinese and Hugo Chavez, it's a useful service, but when they leak something bad or embarrassing about the USA and Americans, it's harmful? Double standards, or does the end simply justify the means?

Double standards? No way, there is only one standard and it says that the US are always right, and it can always be demonstrated using force.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Double standards? No way, there is only one standard and it says that the US are always right, and it can always be demonstrated using force.

No..as per usual you miss the point. I am saying that Wikileaks is run by a man with an agenda, and I again ask you how anxious would he be to publish the inside information on the Russians or Chinese? How long would he live afterwards???

[BDunnell]

No, but it will be when I take WikiLeaks somewhat seriously. I have no problem with the leaks if Julian worked as hard to attain the dirt on Chavez and the like as he does on Obama's minions, and the like. Lets face reality, if you think the Americans are talking smack, can you imagine some of the stuff some of these tinpot nations are on about?

I must say I don't agree with your reasoning on this. After all, it depends on who is offering the information, for a start.

[ioan]

I am thinking you are right Dylan. The sad reality of it is, the dirt that people want to find really isn't there.....instead we get to hear how one diplomat in the US thinks of some Russian.....or how they think Canada is out to lunch on terrorism...ya..well duuuh.....we kind of knew that was being said before!

What is interesting is the reaction of the various factions.

The Russian said no big deal, everyone knows and talks about everyone anyway.
The Amis call it terrorism!

Are war and terrorism the only words in the US diplomatic vocabulary?

[ioan]

No..as per usual you miss the point. I am saying that Wikileaks is run by a man with an agenda, and I again ask you how anxious would he be to publish the inside information on the Russians or Chinese? How long would he live afterwards???

Everyone has an agenda, isn't it?
Everyone has one thing in mind, their own well being. We are all human beings and most of us are like that.
However do these hidden agenda's make the society any better?
Is it possible to call democratic a society where the powers elected by popular vote are hiding their agenda from those who elected them?
Is it great when everyone is spying on everyone and people are kept in a constant state of tension, and every 2nd news is about terrorists?!

Wouldn't it be a better world if everyone knew what their neighbor wants by simply asking them and getting a honest answer?

But than again what would all those people that work for special service, CIA and Co do? There will be no need for them, nor for maintaining nuclear weapons and other such. No need for having the power anymore.

However this would mean that Mrs Clinton and co give up the power they got gifted by the US citizens, they become mere mortals again, who can not menace anyone with trials for terrorism etc...
Can you see them giving up what they thrived for such a long time? I can't see that happen.

[Mark in Oshawa]

As for Wikileaks, it was started by Chinese dissidents looking for dirt to spread about China. Since Assange took over, he has targeted the US and UK almost exclusively and has exposed more than just diplomatic cables, he has published information that was meant to be used against the Taliban. IN short, he published information that will allow the Taliban to kill NATO soldiers in Afghanistan more efficiently. Tell me....is this a man who cares really about peace? I suspect not..he wants the West to lose actually...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Ioan, you can rant your anti American bile all you like, but this guy running Wikileaks has an agenda that isnt' on the side of what is fair, what is noble or peace....

[Bob Riebe]

So when the Wikileaks leak something bad or embarrassing about the North Koreans, the Russians, the Chinese and Hugo Chavez, it's a useful service, but when they leak something bad or embarrassing about the USA and Americans, it's harmful? Double standards, or does the end simply justify the means?It would be a useful service depending on which side of the matter one is.

In this particular leak, the leaker probably did more good than harm, without exception, but Wikileaks, is not doing it as a service for good, as the current leaker probably thought he was.
Why is it being done, is something that should be considered sooner rather than later.

[ioan]

Ioan, you can rant your anti American bile all you like, but this guy running Wikileaks has an agenda that isnt' on the side of what is fair, what is noble or peace....

And what exactly is his agenda?
As far a I am concerned they are exposing things that are hidden by other people with an agenda, a very dark agenda.

[Bob Riebe]

Afraid of the truth? Living in denial? Brainwashed?
I guess this is what describes today's 'democracies'.

The leaks are not an offense IMO, unless someone has something to hide in the closet, and public persons should be squeaky clean with nothing to hide!

As far as I am concerned transparency is the only way to save the paranoid society we are living in before we start throwing nukes on each others.

Double standards? No way, there is only one standard and it says that the US are always right, and it can always be demonstrated using force.

What is interesting is the reaction of the various factions.

The Russian said no big deal, everyone knows and talks about everyone anyway.
The Amis call it terrorism!

Are war and terrorism the only words in the US diplomatic vocabulary?

I thought maybe you had been over-whelmed by your naïveté, but having re-read your words, it seems you are just a spite filled blow-hard.

[Bob Riebe]

Does 'Christian heresy' ring a bell? What about witch hunt, or witchcraft trials?
Ever heard about Giordano Bruno?!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

PS: There is life on Earth outside the US.
Then start a thread on it, and leave this one to the proper topic.

[Mark in Oshawa]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/30/in-pursuit-of-the-man-behind-wikileaks/

A good article on how even people who would on paper support Assange are seeing him as a wild man on an agenda....

[ioan]

Then start a thread on it, and leave this one to the proper topic.

Don't feel like doing it as the analogy about the tries to keep people away from knowledge is valid.

Back to the US now and their inabilities. They can't stop leaking info and they can't fool everyone with their terrorism claims anymore => exposed.

[ioan]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/30/in-pursuit-of-the-man-behind-wikileaks/

A good article on how even people who would on paper support Assange are seeing him as a wild man on an agenda....

Yeah, like this part:


Jeffrey H. Smith, a former CIA general counsel, said: ‘I’m confident that the Justice Department is figuring out how to prosecute him.’

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/30/in-pursuit-of-the-man-behind-wikileaks/#ixzz16ob7BFMY

Which means they have nothing to charge him with but they will figure a way to do it anyhow, setting up some false charges in order to have him extradited shouldn't be so difficult for uncle Sam. I wonder if these are the defining signs of a 'democracy'?!

[Ghostwalker]

i agree with you ioan, regarding your second quote why do you think he was charged with rape when he was in Sweden?

Regarding that before he left the country he had asked the prosecutor if he needed to speak with JA.
The prosecutor said no but the day after he put out a wanted via interpool for JA. So imo its very suspicious and in it self proves why WL is needed.

[Roamy]

he is now wanted by interpol

[Roamy]

Well it looks like we will be sending "Dog the Bounty Hunter" to Ecuador.

[Bob Riebe]

Yeah, like this part:


Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/11/30/in-pursuit-of-the-man-behind-wikileaks/#ixzz16ob7BFMY

Which means they have nothing to charge him with but they will figure a way to do it anyhow, setting up some false charges in order to have him extradited shouldn't be so difficult for uncle Sam. I wonder if these are the defining signs of a 'democracy'?!
Until so called leakers, are severely prosecuted, it is just the thing that the last leaker wanted to expose, political bs, otherwise, past leakers would be in the crow-bar motel.

[Eki]

As for Wikileaks, it was started by Chinese dissidents looking for dirt to spread about China. Since Assange took over, he has targeted the US and UK almost exclusively and has exposed more than just diplomatic cables, he has published information that was meant to be used against the Taliban. IN short, he published information that will allow the Taliban to kill NATO soldiers in Afghanistan more efficiently. Tell me....is this a man who cares really about peace? I suspect not..he wants the West to lose actually...
If he leaked info on the Taliban that could be used against them and put Taliban fighters in harm's way, you'd say it's a good thing. Double standards.

[Hondo]

If he leaked info on the Taliban that could be used against them and put Taliban fighters in harm's way, you'd say it's a good thing. Double standards.

His leak about Hezbollah using Red Cresent ambulances and medical aircraft to smuggle weapons was kind of cute.

I do believe it endangers lives, especially when maybe 8 people were present at an event. Things like that allow someone in a really bad mood to narrow down the leak in their own organization rather quickly and the next thing you know, there's an empty place at the dinner table. On the other hand, the argument could be made that it's a risky business and if you betray those that take you into confidence you've started a dangerous game.

[Ghostwalker]

an essay about WL

http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/#

[Bob Riebe]

If he leaked info on the Taliban that could be used against them and put Taliban fighters in harm's way, you'd say it's a good thing. Double standards.

Not really. If the standard is the Taliban are bad, then what helps one is good but what helps them is bad.
If it were the Taliban are bad, but my cousin Ninny who is a Taliban is just misguided so leave him alone, that is a double standard.

[ioan]

Not really. If the standard is the Taliban are bad, then what helps one is good but what helps them is bad.
If it were the Taliban are bad, but my cousin Ninny who is a Taliban is just misguided so leave him alone, that is a double standard.

Sweet denial.

[Mark in Oshawa]

If he leaked info on the Taliban that could be used against them and put Taliban fighters in harm's way, you'd say it's a good thing. Double standards.

Not sure if you figured it out Eki, but the Taliban only have supporters amongst themselves...they are the "bad" guys. I know in your world of moral equivalance no one is bad or because they are the underdogs, you have to stick up for them, but at last glance, the Taliban were for attacks on civilians, killing people for sending women to school, banning kite flying and supporting organizations that send airplanes into sky scrapers. Even a liberal minded chap like you can figure you don't want the Taliban running the world....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well it looks like we will be sending "Dog the Bounty Hunter" to Ecuador.

Dog couldn't catch a cold in an epidemic once he leaves the US...lol

[Bob Riebe]

Sweet denial.Wrong.

[ioan]

Wrong.

:laugh: Based on what? Purest American standards?! :rotflmao:

[Bob Riebe]

:laugh: Based on what? Purest American standards?! :rotflmao: No, simply wrong.

[Dave B]

I can thoroughly recommend fake Julian Passage @julian_ass

[ioan]

No, simply wrong.

Straight from the holder of the absolute truth, eh?! :rotflmao:

[Bob Riebe]

Straight from the holder of the absolute truth, eh?! :rotflmao:
If you so say.

[BDunnell]

What a shame what was an interesting thread containing some very welcome debate has degenerated into a farce, with almost a whole page of comments — barring those from Mark and Eki — that are barely decipherable and have nothing to do with the matter in hand.

[Eki]

Not really. If the standard is the Taliban are bad, then what helps one is good but what helps them is bad.
If it were the Taliban are bad, but my cousin Ninny who is a Taliban is just misguided so leave him alone, that is a double standard.
I'd bet that the Taliban and their supporters think they're are good and the foreign troops in their country are bad.

[Ghostwalker]

some comments about a possible charge of Julian Assange:

N.Y. Times:
U.S. Weighs Prosecution of WikiLeaks Founder, but Legal Scholars Warn of Steep Hurdles, (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/02/world/02legal.html?_r=2)

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/h/eric_h_holder_jr/index.html?inline=nyt-per) has confirmed that the Justice Department is examining whether Mr. Assange could be charged with a crime, but legal scholars say that such an effort would encounter steep legal and policy difficulties.further down in thew article it says that if JA is charged it might lead to that media (like the N.Y. Times) that have published the information also have to be charged for publishing leaked information.


Reuters:
Analysis: Hard case for U.S. against WikiLeaks's Assange (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B00F020101201)

(Reuters) - U.S. authorities could face insurmountable legal hurdles if they try to bring criminal charges against elusive WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange, even if he sets foot on U.S. soil.
New York Law School:
http://www.lasisblog.com/2010/11/12/wikileaks-has-committed-no-crime/


Since August, when Wikileaks first published 91,000 classified documents relating to the Afghanistan War, and in October, when they published approximately 400,000 more relating to the War in Iraq (http://warlogs.owni.fr/),
many conservative commentators have been clamoring for the Justice Department to prosecute Wikileaks for publishing classified information.
But in the United States, generally publishing classified information is not a crime. The sort of information that a news organization can be prosecuted for publishing is limited to:
nuclear secrets (Atomic Energy Act (http://vlex.com/vid/sec-communication-restricted-data-19250721)), the identities of covert agents (Intelligence Identities Protection Act (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/50/15/IV/421)), and certain forms of communications intelligence (Section 798 of the Espionage Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000798----000-.html)).

[Cooper_S]

Thomas Jefferson the third President of the United States of America, a principal author of the Declaration of Independence , and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism in the United States said:



"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty"



“Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day.”



"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”


I’m guessing he would not be as welcomed in today’s United States of America with such views.

[Ghostwalker]

i think this quotes show that the world really have changed that much the past 200 years.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Thomas Jefferson the third President of the United States of America, a principal author of the Declaration of Independence , and one of the most influential Founding Fathers for his promotion of the ideals of republicanism in the United States said:





I’m guessing he would not be as welcomed in today’s United States of America with such views.

No..he would have..because he also understood the basic tenets of the Constitution were good, and didn't require this myth that it must evolve.....

Most of the hard core people on the right in the US take great care to ask for the Constitution to be respected. Most of the changes to US governence have meant more government, not less, and Jefferson was of the opinion a bare minimum of government is also a tenet of good governence.

That said, on this Wikileaks thing, I think it is a lot of noise, but not much of subtance. It is however just a slimy, crappy thing to do.....

When it puts people in danger for some self proclaimed "noble" goal, that is when I get pi$$ed....

[Mark in Oshawa]

What a shame what was an interesting thread containing some very welcome debate has degenerated into a farce, with almost a whole page of comments — barring those from Mark and Eki — that are barely decipherable and have nothing to do with the matter in hand.

There is an effort on my part to entertain and inform you Ben, although it seems I rarely convince you!

Eki's points are valid, except again for the reality that he always defends people who despise his way of life, his right to speak his mind and have no respect for the values HE holds dear. That has always made me scratch my head....

[glauistean]

I thought maybe you had been over-whelmed by your naïveté, but having re-read your words, it seems you are just a spite filled blow-hard.
Every post by this guy is an insult. Great< you read the post. Now give an articulate answer. There is quite a lot in there to challenge ,if you can.

[Ghostwalker]

.

When it puts people in danger for some self proclaimed "noble" goal, that is when I get pi$$ed....

What people are in danger?

The people in USA? yes because of their politicians behaviour but not because of leaked information about the abysmal behaviour of US/nato forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Assange? yes most certainly. Especially since high politicians in Canada and USA wants to see him dead. Several politicians have siad that Julian Assange should be executed.

Reactions like we've seen from US, Canada, Australia and the USA's 51st state Sweden is because they are afraid that the their lies and frauds will be revealed, they are afraid that they cannot "control" the information (=propaganda). The politicians are afraid that their corruption will be brought to surface.

The same people that excuses the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with "we are there to convert them to "democracies" (=puppet states) are now attacking the right of free speech just because it might harm their credibility.

Imo its the obligation of people to reveal crimes committed by politicians and military forces. Just because they are politicians doesn't mean that they are untouchable.

And finally as i wrote in one of my previous posts. According to US laws Julian Assange and WL have not done anything illegal by publishing the leaked information.

[glauistean]

It's a shame they did not put as much energy into the of outing Valerie Plame as they are with these Wikileaks.

The danger of her being made a public figure was far greater than what has so far been exposed through this Assange(sic) guy.

Another issue I would like to address is the comments about these "tin pot" or something governments in South America. South America is developing rapidly through co-operation from other countries. No need for leaks there.

The biggest leak they ever had was Milton Friedman and his "vision" that was nothing more than smoke and mirrors and the Ollie , Ronnie boy that destroyed Nicaragua by supplying arms ("we did not supply arms") to the Contras and any other despot in the region.

[Mark in Oshawa]

What people are in danger?

The people in USA? yes because of their politicians behaviour but not because of leaked information about the abysmal behaviour of US/nato forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In this recent release, no one is in danger, but Wikileaks in the past was putting up information on how the NATO coalition was dealing with IED's and locations of their troops. You don't think the Taliban didn't get some use out of that?


Mr Assange? yes most certainly. Especially since high politicians in Canada and USA wants to see him dead. Several politicians have siad that Julian Assange should be executed.

As for Assange, no one in government in the US or Canada is seriously advocating his assasination. The fact they are spouting off this way says to me it isn't an option and it is frustration and glibness. No one officially in the employ of the Canadian Government has advocated this even in jest. We don't have the death penalty. Even the political right in this country is measured in their response to what has been released. There is nothing released that is really harmful to Canada. I suggest you discern the difference between US foreign policy and Canada's. They are different....



Reactions like we've seen from US, Canada, Australia and the USA's 51st state Sweden is because they are afraid that the their lies and frauds will be revealed, they are afraid that they cannot "control" the information (=propaganda). The politicians are afraid that their corruption will be brought to surface.

The same people that excuses the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with "we are there to convert them to "democracies" (=puppet states) are now attacking the right of free speech just because it might harm their credibility.

Free speech is one thing, taking conversations that are merely cables of communication between two people conversing at the diplomatic level may sound like good sport, and it is amusing, but if the conversation is being held with the understanding it is a "secret" and "private" conversation protected by government law (yes, it is lawful for secrets to be kept on what people REALLY think of other nations when they are in the diplomatic service), then outing it means someone has decided they are the judge and jury. Last I looked, the leaker wasn't given this power by law, he took it upon himself. So he is going to go to jail, and funny, I don't see Julian Assange paying his legal bill. Julian is making money and "prestige" off someone else going to jail.


Imo its the obligation of people to reveal crimes committed by politicians and military forces. Just because they are politicians doesn't mean that they are untouchable.

And finally as i wrote in one of my previous posts. According to US laws Julian Assange and WL have not done anything illegal by publishing the leaked information.

Crimes? Half of what is there is nonsense. What the US Embassy thinks of Canadian culture was some of the stuff relasesed. I read it, and went Duuuuh....like no kidding the CBC doesn't portray America in a good light. That said, it was a private conversation between diplomats that is protected. The principle of diplomatic channels to communicate in private is a legal protection all nation states pay respect to. IF caught spying on another nations diplomats, spys know they are going to be prosecuted. It is just that simple. Assange didn't break the laws? Ya..he did. You can say it is wrong or whatever, but if you print classified information, you likely are in violation of the law. Whether or not the law prosecutes you is another thing. The guy who basically took all this diplomatic traffic wasn't doing it for noble purposes, he was a misfit who is going to see 50 years in jail. I doubt Julian Assange is going to help this chap...

Assange is a leech on the freedoms he proposes to protect. He isn't releasing anything in this last release that is anything but embarassing but much ado really about nothing. That said, he is a slime ball of the first order, because his noterity and high minded rhetoric is built on people who are either misguided or just criminal themselves giving him information. I don't see him as noble at all....and what is more, if he had such dirt on the slime balls who run many other countries such as China, Russia or wherever, he would be worm food by now. It is why he picks on the West...because he knows THEY have laws and due process.

He is a coward...pure and simple.

[Roamy]

What people are in danger?



Mr Assange? yes most certainly. Especially since high politicians in Canada and USA wants to see him dead. Several politicians have siad that Julian Assange should be executed.

.

And what is wrong with the above. He should be popped. Sooner the world starts doing this the sooner this crap will stop. So if you can stand the consequences then go ahead. The private in custody should be waterboarded until we are comfortable he had no accomplice. Freedom does not mean the right to act illegally and get away with it.

[Eki]

And what is wrong with the above. He should be popped. Sooner the world starts doing this the sooner this crap will stop. So if you can stand the consequences then go ahead. The private in custody should be waterboarded until we are comfortable he had no accomplice. Freedom does not mean the right to act illegally and get away with it.
I'd bet that's what Stalin, Hitler, Saddam et al thought too.

[Roamy]

hey EKI those are all you buddies

[Ghostwalker]

And what is wrong with the above. He should be popped. Sooner the world starts doing this the sooner this crap will stop. So if you can stand the consequences then go ahead. The private in custody should be waterboarded until we are comfortable he had no accomplice. Freedom does not mean the right to act illegally and get away with it.

Can you specify what crimes JA and WL have commited.
becausde from what i understand WL is protected in the same way as media.

Its not crap, what is the crap is the s*it that the US cowardly forces are doing in Iraq. Killing innocent people for fun and then laughing at them?

The same governments that wants to "Liberate" Iraq, Afghanistan and impose free speech are now cowardly turning the west world in to a dictatorship where people who reveal corruption and war crimes are considered criminals. This have showed that the "land of the free and home of the brave" rather is the "Home of the un-free and land of the corrupted and paranoid". It is nothing different then what dictatorship countries like Nazi Germany, Stalin Soviet, China and Iran were/are doing.
People with information are "removed" because they are "uncomfortable" for the government because their hidden agendas (stealing oil and valuable minerals) might be revealed.

This whole incident has showed the need for someone to reveal the corruption and the filthy a**es of the worlds politicians.

then

http://www.lasisblog.com/2010/11/12/wikileaks-has-committed-no-crime/

But in the United States, generally publishing classified information is not a crime. The sort of information that a news organization can be prosecuted for publishing is limited to: nuclear secrets (Atomic Energy Act (http://vlex.com/vid/sec-communication-restricted-data-19250721)), the identities of covert agents (Intelligence Identities Protection Act (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/50/15/IV/421)), and certain forms of communications intelligence (Section 798 of the Espionage Act (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000798----000-.html)).
Perhaps lamenting that the U.S. does not have (http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1026/Will-WikiLeaks-nudge-US-toward-tougher-laws-to-guard-secrets) an Official Secrets Act like the United Kingdom, right wing columnists have consistently misinterpreted these Acts, or have cited other provisions of our espionage laws which almost surely do not apply to Wikileaks.
The most commonly cited statute by those who advocate prosecuting Wikileaks is Section 793(e) (http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793) of the Espionage Act. In August, former Bush speechwriter Marc Theissen linked to this section in an article for the Washington Post when he wrote (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080202627.html) that Wikileaks is “a criminal enterprise” whose founder, Julian Assange, should be arrested by U.S. forces on foreign soil, international law be damned.
But this provision does not apply to those who publish information.
Section 793(e)reads “Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document…relating to the national defense…willfully communicates… the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it…[s]hall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
As made clear in the Pentagon Papers case (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0713_ZS.html), the word “communicates” was never meant “to encompass publication” or to affect the press. Congress included the word “publish” in three other sections of the Act but intentionally left it out of 793. As the legislative history of this provision states, “Nothing in this Act shall…in any way to limit or infringe upon freedom of the press or of speech as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.”
Justice Douglas referenced the legislative history in his concurring opinion, when he wrote of Section 793 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0403_0713_ZC1.html), “it is apparent that Congress was capable of, and did, distinguish between publishing and communication in the various sections of the Espionage Act.”Since WL is juridically considered press a prosecution of it and JA would means that they are violating the same law they say they protect.

[Eki]

hey EKI those are all you buddies
So? You're my buddy too.

[ioan]

When it puts people in danger for some self proclaimed "noble" goal, that is when I get pi$$ed....

There are occasions when principles have to take priority over a few lives, I know it sounds macabre but that's how the society obtained it's freedom back in the 18th and 19th centuries.

[ioan]

Eki's points are valid, except again for the reality that he always defends people who despise his way of life, his right to speak his mind and have no respect for the values HE holds dear. That has always made me scratch my head....

I can understand Eki, and what he does is simply respect the ones who are and/or think different.

[ioan]

What people are in danger?

The people in USA? yes because of their politicians behaviour but not because of leaked information about the abysmal behaviour of US/nato forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr Assange? yes most certainly. Especially since high politicians in Canada and USA wants to see him dead. Several politicians have siad that Julian Assange should be executed.

Reactions like we've seen from US, Canada, Australia and the USA's 51st state Sweden is because they are afraid that the their lies and frauds will be revealed, they are afraid that they cannot "control" the information (=propaganda). The politicians are afraid that their corruption will be brought to surface.

The same people that excuses the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with "we are there to convert them to "democracies" (=puppet states) are now attacking the right of free speech just because it might harm their credibility.

Imo its the obligation of people to reveal crimes committed by politicians and military forces. Just because they are politicians doesn't mean that they are untouchable.

And finally as i wrote in one of my previous posts. According to US laws Julian Assange and WL have not done anything illegal by publishing the leaked information.

:up:

[ioan]

Assange is a leech on the freedoms he proposes to protect. He isn't releasing anything in this last release that is anything but embarassing but much ado really about nothing. That said, he is a slime ball of the first order, because his noterity and high minded rhetoric is built on people who are either misguided or just criminal themselves giving him information. I don't see him as noble at all....and what is more, if he had such dirt on the slime balls who run many other countries such as China, Russia or wherever, he would be worm food by now. It is why he picks on the West...because he knows THEY have laws and due process.

He is a coward...pure and simple.

:down:

How can you call coward someone who's got the balls to take on this world's superpowers?! Isn't that a clear case of contradiction? Just asking.

[Eki]

I can understand Eki, and what he does is simply respect the ones who are and/or think different.
Exactly. Dissidents aren't only in communist dictatorships.

The Chinese political prisoner (what's his face?) got the Nobel Peace Prize this year and China is pissed off. Maybe some year Assagne and the Wikileaks gets the Nobel Peace Prize and the US will be pissed off.

[BDunnell]

There are occasions when principles have to take priority over a few lives, I know it sounds macabre but that's how the society obtained it's freedom back in the 18th and 19th centuries.

To that I would add that there is an inherent contradiction in the attitude of many, especially in the USA, who believe in the concept of the so-called 'war against terrorism'. When civilian casualties occur in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of coalition activity, they quite rightly state that, sadly, a certain death toll is to be expected. I agree with this — if a country's troops are to go to war, it is a fact of life. However, there is increasingly little tolerance of the notion that, if their country is at war, there may be casualties closer to home, hence the levels of paranoia surrounding what the USA refers to as homeland security.

[BDunnell]

The Chinese political prisoner (what's his face?) got the Nobel Peace Prize this year and China is pissed off. Maybe some year Assagne and the Wikileaks gets the Nobel Peace Prize and the US will be pissed off.

A very good point. While I would far rather live in the US than China because of the restrictions the latter places on democracy, free speech and its citizens, one cannot apply one argument to one country and another to another. If we wish US-style freedoms (in the literal, non-emotional sense of the word so rarely used by right-wing Americans themselves nowadays) upon China, a laudable aim, then we should have greater confidence in our own society and political processes. This includes swallowing some home truths once in a while.

[BDunnell]

In this recent release, no one is in danger, but Wikileaks in the past was putting up information on how the NATO coalition was dealing with IED's and locations of their troops. You don't think the Taliban didn't get some use out of that?

They seemed to be managing perfectly well without such information.



Free speech is one thing, taking conversations that are merely cables of communication between two people conversing at the diplomatic level may sound like good sport, and it is amusing, but if the conversation is being held with the understanding it is a "secret" and "private" conversation protected by government law (yes, it is lawful for secrets to be kept on what people REALLY think of other nations when they are in the diplomatic service), then outing it means someone has decided they are the judge and jury...

On this, as I intimated earlier, you do have a point. It's that old 'public interest v interesting to the public' question again, isn't it? But it is, to me at least, most intriguing to see laid bare the content of this material. I am a firm believer in open government, and I have never seen it opened up further than this. Little damage has been done, there have been some genuinely notable revelations (like the US 'mole' in the German foreign ministry — deemed serious enough for him to be sacked) and it goes to prove that there should be far greater disclosure of confidential material than many governments, e.g. the UK's, currently allow. Having made numerous Freedom of Information requests of the UK government myself and often been denied access, I am more than ever convinced that the reasoning behind these refusals to release these, and other, documents into the public domain must be unjustifiable.


I don't see him as noble at all....and what is more, if he had such dirt on the slime balls who run many other countries such as China, Russia or wherever, he would be worm food by now. It is why he picks on the West...because he knows THEY have laws and due process.

For one thing, I would hope we all expect the West to have higher standards than China, Russia et al. That these are not always maintained, for instance in the treatment of prisoners, is more notable than are similar abuses in the countries you mention. And for another, it's not as if Russia for one has exactly got off lightly in the release of the recent lot of cables. After all, they contained some damning, and surely accurate, indictments of the Russian regime.

[Eki]

They seemed to be managing perfectly well without such information.

True. You have to remember the delay between the actual happenings and the publishing of the information. Most, if not all, of the information is moot when it's published. Hindsight 20/20. This just gives information on the reasoning abilities of our politicians, nothing else.

[Mark in Oshawa]

They seemed to be managing perfectly well without such information.



On this, as I intimated earlier, you do have a point. It's that old 'public interest v interesting to the public' question again, isn't it? But it is, to me at least, most intriguing to see laid bare the content of this material. I am a firm believer in open government, and I have never seen it opened up further than this. Little damage has been done, there have been some genuinely notable revelations (like the US 'mole' in the German foreign ministry — deemed serious enough for him to be sacked) and it goes to prove that there should be far greater disclosure of confidential material than many governments, e.g. the UK's, currently allow. Having made numerous Freedom of Information requests of the UK government myself and often been denied access, I am more than ever convinced that the reasoning behind these refusals to release these, and other, documents into the public domain must be unjustifiable.



For one thing, I would hope we all expect the West to have higher standards than China, Russia et al. That these are not always maintained, for instance in the treatment of prisoners, is more notable than are similar abuses in the countries you mention. And for another, it's not as if Russia for one has exactly got off lightly in the release of the recent lot of cables. After all, they contained some damning, and surely accurate, indictments of the Russian regime.

Good points all Ben. My first reaction to Assange was to have him shot...lol...but seeing some of the bits and pieces that are coming out I think most of this stuff really isn't anything more than titillating. I do think though any information that COULD put someone in danger however has to be classified and stay that way. It isn't Julian's call to decide either. I dislike intensely his general idea that it is his call on what to release. There needs to be some sort of filter on a lot of stuff...and I don't think Julian is the guy I want as the filter.

As for the Russians, they are still likely slimier than most of the stuff that has been released. Being a journalist in that country has to be fraught with peril.....those are the tellers of truth I admire the most.

It just also irritates me to no end that this guy is basically making his name on others who will go to jail for giving it to him. Leaker's are essentially making the call that they are above the government they are sworn to. On stuff like this, a lowly private doesn't make that call...

[N. Jones]

I think that these leaks will open more minds to how the US, as the only "superpower" is trying to control the world.

Money and Power is all the wealthy in this country care about. The rest of us can get stuffed according to them.

[Eki]

It just also irritates me to no end that this guy is basically making his name on others who will go to jail for giving it to him. Leaker's are essentially making the call that they are above the government they are sworn to. On stuff like this, a lowly private doesn't make that call...
But it's OK when a guy from the safety of his oval office in a white house sends thousands of those privates to Iraq and Afghanistan to die for him? Don't you think those privates and their families should at least have the right to know what they're dying for?

[Malbec]

On this, as I intimated earlier, you do have a point. It's that old 'public interest v interesting to the public' question again, isn't it? But it is, to me at least, most intriguing to see laid bare the content of this material. I am a firm believer in open government, and I have never seen it opened up further than this. Little damage has been done, there have been some genuinely notable revelations (like the US 'mole' in the German foreign ministry — deemed serious enough for him to be sacked) and it goes to prove that there should be far greater disclosure of confidential material than many governments, e.g. the UK's, currently allow. Having made numerous Freedom of Information requests of the UK government myself and often been denied access, I am more than ever convinced that the reasoning behind these refusals to release these, and other, documents into the public domain must be unjustifiable.

Is it really unjustifiable to not release these documents?

People talk to US diplomats (or any other diplomat) on the understanding that there is secrecy involved, that what they said won't reach back to their bosses. This is especially true in dictatorships which don't deal with leaks kindly. Given that this trust has now been shattered thanks to the leaks don't you think that diplomacy would be affected negatively?

Assange did a write-in interview on the Guardian late last week. I noticed that he had little difficulty in answering sycophantic questions such as "it must be so hard to cope with the stress of being targetted by the worlds greatest superpower" but refused to answer point blank an eloquently written question by a former diplomat as to whether he would take responsibility for any negative impact the latest leak would have on future diplomacy.


For one thing, I would hope we all expect the West to have higher standards than China, Russia et al. That these are not always maintained, for instance in the treatment of prisoners, is more notable than are similar abuses in the countries you mention. And for another, it's not as if Russia for one has exactly got off lightly in the release of the recent lot of cables. After all, they contained some damning, and surely accurate, indictments of the Russian regime.

Not to mention Italy ;)

[Malbec]

I think that these leaks will open more minds to how the US, as the only "superpower" is trying to control the world.

Money and Power is all the wealthy in this country care about. The rest of us can get stuffed according to them.

Not really.

I doubt similar level diplomatic cables from any other major power would read that differently. American diplomats should be working in their national interest, thats what they are paid to do. What does surprise me is how little local knowledge many of these diplomats seem to have.

[Eki]

American diplomats should be working in their national interest, thats what they are paid to do.
Of course, but it's debatable what the national interest is. Long time or short time interest? They could be different. Is it better to ruthlessly accumulate as much money and power as you can while making enemies, or to settle for little less and live in peace and harmony with the rest of the world?

[ioan]

Is it really unjustifiable to not release these documents?

People talk to US diplomats (or any other diplomat) on the understanding that there is secrecy involved, that what they said won't reach back to their bosses.

They are very naive if they believe that anything is 100% sure.
What I do not understand and I hope someone can explain is why is these secrecy needed?! What is the point and the benefits for our society in having so much secrecy?

[Malbec]

Of course, but it's debatable what the national interest is. Long time or short time interest? They could be different. Is it better to ruthlessly accumulate as much money and power as you can while making enemies, or to settle for little less and live in peace and harmony with the rest of the world?

You're mistaking the direction of US foreign policy which is set by the presidency with the bread and butter work of the American diplomatic core. Diplomats do not set policy.

[Malbec]

They are very naive if they believe that anything is 100% sure.
What I do not understand and I hope someone can explain is why is these secrecy needed?! What is the point and the benefits for our society in having so much secrecy?

So a Chinese dissident risking his life talking to a US diplomat about what is going on behind closed doors in China shouldn't expect there to be any effort made for secrecy? Right Ok.

[BDunnell]

Is it really unjustifiable to not release these documents?

People talk to US diplomats (or any other diplomat) on the understanding that there is secrecy involved, that what they said won't reach back to their bosses. This is especially true in dictatorships which don't deal with leaks kindly. Given that this trust has now been shattered thanks to the leaks don't you think that diplomacy would be affected negatively?

Assange did a write-in interview on the Guardian late last week. I noticed that he had little difficulty in answering sycophantic questions such as "it must be so hard to cope with the stress of being targetted by the worlds greatest superpower" but refused to answer point blank an eloquently written question by a former diplomat as to whether he would take responsibility for any negative impact the latest leak would have on future diplomacy.

As I've said in previous posts, this is the very aspect of these disclosures with which I am somewhat uncomfortable. But let's not pretend that those countries whose leaderships have been the subject of the leaked comments ought not to have had some idea what others might potentially think of them.

[Eki]

So a Chinese dissident risking his life talking to a US diplomat about what is going on behind closed doors in China shouldn't expect there to be any effort made for secrecy? Right Ok.
And why does that Chinese dissident leaking information seem to be OK for many and Assagne and the Wikileaks be villains when they leak information?

[BDunnell]

They are very naive if they believe that anything is 100% sure.
What I do not understand and I hope someone can explain is why is these secrecy needed?! What is the point and the benefits for our society in having so much secrecy?

Let's equate the international community to the workplace. Would your work be harmonious if you told your colleagues and associates exactly what you really thought of them? To do so would be unwise, unless one wishes for an unharmonious day-to-day existence. The same goes for diplomatic relations, which is, as I said before, why there should be a degree of circumspection about leaking such things. I agree very much that there is an undue culture of secrecy and non-disclosure on the part of politicians, authorities, etc, in general, but it is probably sensible to keep within certain bounds when making disclosures against their wishes.

[Eki]

Let's equate the international community to the workplace. Would your work be harmonious if you told your colleagues and associates exactly what you really thought of them?
Maybe not, but it wouldn't be harmonious with that kind of back-stabbing, gossiping and squealing to the boss about every detail that the Wikileaks have revealed either.

[ioan]

Let's equate the international community to the workplace. Would your work be harmonious if you told your colleagues and associates exactly what you really thought of them? To do so would be unwise, unless one wishes for an unharmonious day-to-day existence. The same goes for diplomatic relations, which is, as I said before, why there should be a degree of circumspection about leaking such things. I agree very much that there is an undue culture of secrecy and non-disclosure on the part of politicians, authorities, etc, in general, but it is probably sensible to keep within certain bounds when making disclosures against their wishes.

I always tell people what I think about them and I think it helps on the long term, each of us knows exactly what to expect next time. no secrets no bad surprises.

What society needs to build on is respect and honesty, and secrecy doesn't go well with any of these.

This is my opinion and how I do things.

[ioan]

Maybe not, but it wouldn't be harmonious with that kind of back-stabbing, gossiping and squealing to the boss about every detail that the Wikileaks have revealed either.

Exactly. It only equates to a time bomb that on one knows when will get ignited.

[BDunnell]

I always tell people what I think about them and I think it helps on the long term, each of us knows exactly what to expect next time. no secrets no bad surprises.

What society needs to build on is respect and honesty, and secrecy doesn't go well with any of these.

This is my opinion and how I do things.

I would suggest that you may come across as boorish and rude. In the workplace it very rarely does to utter one's unchecked opinions of one's colleagues, unless one is very lucky and has a uniformly excellent group of co-workers, as I once had.

[markabilly]

The actual question is whether this constitutes treason by giving aid to the enemy.

Seems beyond a reasonable doubt that it does.

Further the people who initially leaked this stuff, are no doubt clearly in violation of the law. By assisting them, Wilikleaks is a co-conspirator or a party to the crime.


Will anything be done?
No, because it is too big of a political, freedom of the press, type of issue, and we have Obama who will only do something if his back is to the wall. OTOH, I guess with enough pressure, something might happen.....no accident that his website has now become a target whereever it goes.


Is it good for all of us that this stuff is leaked?
That is a totally different question.

Time will tell I suppose.

[glauistean]

Damn. It's laughable the furore that these leaks have caused.

When Valerie Plame was outed by the Bush Administration and their "in the pocket" journalists there was not half the fuss.
The right wing totally forgot that a covert CIA agent was working for everyone and that many people as a result had and still have their lives in jeopardy. All for political means. "Damn the cost in lives. We will win somehow"

Libby, Cheney, Rice,Bush, Wolfovitz(sic) Yoo, Aldridge, Gonzalez and all the apologists around the country who defended an agent whose purpose was to make sure there was no further proliferation of nuclear weapons.

And now the hissyfit over Wikileaks. Give me a break.

[markabilly]

Damn. It's laughable the furore that these leaks have caused.

When Valerie Plame was outed by the Bush Administration and their "in the pocket" journalists there was not half the fuss.
The right wing totally forgot that a covert CIA agent was working for everyone and that many people as a result had and still have their lives in jeopardy. All for political means. "Damn the cost in lives. We will win somehow"

Libby, Cheney, Rice,Bush, Wolfovitz(sic) Yoo, Aldridge, Gonzalez and all the apologists around the country who defended an agent whose purpose was to make sure there was no further proliferation of nuclear weapons.

And now the hissyfit over Wikileaks. Give me a break.

dude, that must be some excellent mushrooms you been honking on.....

[glauistean]

dude, that must be some excellent mushrooms you been honking on.....
Enlighten me/us.

[glauistean]

The actual question is whether this constitutes treason by giving aid to the enemy.

Seems beyond a reasonable doubt that it does.

Further the people who initially leaked this stuff, are no doubt clearly in violation of the law. By assisting them, Wilikleaks is a co-conspirator or a party to the crime.


Will anything be done?
No, because it is too big of a political, freedom of the press, type of issue, and we have Obama who will only do something if his back is to the wall. OTOH, I guess with enough pressure, something might happen.....no accident that his website has now become a target whereever it goes.


Is it good for all of us that this stuff is leaked?
That is a totally different question.

Time will tell I suppose.

You talk to me about mushrooms and then state treason! He can't be charged with treason as he is not a US citizen.

Go get yourself some mushrooms.

[ioan]

I would suggest that you may come across as boorish and rude. In the workplace it very rarely does to utter one's unchecked opinions of one's colleagues, unless one is very lucky and has a uniformly excellent group of co-workers, as I once had.

I believe that being open will ultimately drive the team in the direction of a more united team where everyone will give his/her best.

[AAReagles]

What a shame what was an interesting thread containing some very welcome debate has degenerated into a farce, with almost a whole page of comments — barring those from Mark and Eki — that are barely decipherable and have nothing to do with the matter in hand.
:up:

Indeed, which makes the thread a bit dull at times.





...Imo its the obligation of people to reveal crimes committed by politicians and military forces. Just because they are politicians doesn't mean that they are untouchable.

And finally as i wrote in one of my previous posts. According to US laws Julian Assange and WL have not done anything illegal by publishing the leaked information.

:up: :up:
This may sound strange coming from a conservative American, but everything you said here, I am right on line with.

I think it’s bloody outrageous that heads of state, much less a wolf-pack media would suggest bringing him up on charges of “treason”, not to mention some low-intelligent life-forms advocating his assassination.

I just hope the people in my country realize that knowledge is power, and useful to keep the powers that be in check – before a time comes when it's too late.

Consider me a Wiki-Freak.

[BDunnell]

I believe that being open will ultimately drive the team in the direction of a more united team where everyone will give his/her best.

True, but there are limits.

[BDunnell]

I just hope the people in my country realize that knowledge is power, and useful to keep the powers that be in check – before a time comes when it's too late.

I couldn't agree more. In many ways, the powers-that-be in any country are by far the worst people to be deciding what information should be released and what shouldn't. Whether Wikileaks is quite the right method is another matter, of course.

[AAReagles]

I couldn't agree more. In many ways, the powers-that-be in any country are by far the worst people to be deciding what information should be released and what shouldn't. Whether Wikileaks is quite the right method is another matter, of course.

Well as long as Wikileaks doesn't become another company bought out by a large corporation with particular interests - such as control of information.

This J. Assange may not be the most ethical character in cyberland, but at least his work let's it be known that anyone and anything can be exposed to the masses.

... more importantly, he's illustrated - without much effort I might add - the mentality of those in power who wish to shut him down by any means necessary. Hence the powerful are causing more damage to themselves judging the reactionary remarks they're making to the "legal" media right now.

[ioan]

True, but there are limits.

You are right however that's down to individual cases that should not be generalized.
Let's just say that I am an extreme believer in freedom of systems, of any kind, that will tend towards equilibrium on their own if not constantly tampered with.

[ioan]

... more importantly, he's illustrated - without much effort I might add - the mentality of those in power who wish to shut him down by any means necessary. Hence the powerful are causing more damage to themselves judging the reactionary remarks they're making to the "legal" media right now.

True that.
Still I think that only a privileged part of the society really understand what is going on, I wish this would be the majority one day.

[AAReagles]

True that.
Still I think that only a privileged part of the society really understand what is going on, I wish this would be the majority one day.

It can be. If people are open-minded enough.... which lies the problem. People (over here anyways) get stuck on stupid, from listening to (and believing) major network talking heads or the other pseudo-rational factions, such as limosine-liberals and red-rooster-preaching right-wingers.

There needs to be moderation on both sides... or get out and see what the real world is like.

[ioan]

... or get out and see what the real world is like.

I think this is the best way to do it, and best is before one becomes indoctrinated by the media (left or right one) and only judges through predefined stereotypes.
It is also a question of will, as it is easier to do nothing than to do anything good or bad.

[markabilly]

You talk to me about mushrooms and then state treason! He can't be charged with treason as he is not a US citizen.

Go get yourself some mushrooms.
then he is a spy, no different than any other spy and should be executed as with any other spy.......up against the wall.....oh opps we don't do that anymore, we trade them.... :rolleyes:

And Ioan lives in France, a country with a screwed up justice system far worse than the USA.
but the mushrooms in France, ah, oh me oh me



And let him start publishing some Putin secrets and see what happens.....No doubt, leakey would be squeaky as they lined him up....
yep find out real quick what the real world is like

[glauistean]

then he is a spy, no different than any other spy and should be executed as with any other spy.......up against the wall.....oh opps we don't do that anymore, we trade them.... :rolleyes:

And Ioan lives in France, a country with a screwed up justice system far worse than the USA.
but the mushrooms in France, ah, oh me oh me



And let him start publishing some Putin secrets and see what happens.....No doubt, leakey would be squeaky as they lined him up....
yep find out real quick what the real world is like



Markabilly, this is a very lame response. You inferred that the Valerie Plame

case was of no consequence and proceeded instead of giving a reason as

to why you did a Bill O'Reilly or a Sean Hannity. You went off in a tangent

about French Law.

Accusing me of using mind altering drugs while posting my thoughts is the

height of juvenile ignorance.

Why are you posting a response when you are contributing nothing.

Again, I state that the outing of Valerie Plame was/is worse than anything

these past few Wikileaks have shown.

[Rollo]

And Ioan lives in France, a country with a screwed up justice system far worse than the USA.

The French justice system is just terrible isn't it? All of that droit public which are pretty well much the same as common law principles, and that annoying matter of the principle of equity which exists in France (as well as the British Commonwealth) but which doesn't in the USA.

Then there's that simply ghastly suggestion of due process. Why bother when you can simply arrest foreign nationals on the basis of laws which haven't yet been written, and then hold them without trial on something that isn't technically US soil?
Obtaining information by torture? How delightful. Then supposedly standing for the highest principles of justice in the world, but refusing to sign an internationally agreed human rights agreement. Far better than the French justice system.

[ioan]

The French justice system is just terrible isn't it? All of that droit public which are pretty well much the same as common law principles, and that annoying matter of the principle of equity which exists in France (as well as the British Commonwealth) but which doesn't in the USA.

Then there's that simply ghastly suggestion of due process. Why bother when you can simply arrest foreign nationals on the basis of laws which haven't yet been written, and then hold them without trial on something that isn't technically US soil?
Obtaining information by torture? How delightful. Then supposedly standing for the highest principles of justice in the world, but refusing to sign an internationally agreed human rights agreement. Far better than the French justice system.

Couldn't have said it better! :up:

[ioan]

And Ioan lives in France, a country with a screwed up justice system far worse than the USA.

Not anymore.
Now I often live in hotels in countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia, where I can only dream of having the French justice system.

France is a great country, minus Sarkozy but he'll be out of office one day and everything will be OK again.

[ioan]

I bet most other teachers would envy your gig though.

One has to live some stuff before understanding it for what it is.

Being a teacher certainly had it's many positive sides, like 4 months vacation per year, however the pay was not enough to be away from home for 4 months! :D

Now the pay is great but I barely manage to take 2 weeks off a year, even though I have the right to 5 weeks.

I guess next step will be to find a compromise! ;)

[AAReagles]

... And let him start publishing some Putin secrets and see what happens.....No doubt, leakey would be squeaky as they lined him up....
yep find out real quick what the real world is like


In all reality, Assange wouldn't have no need to go after Russia, or China for that matter, at least not yet anyways.

Regrettably, as an American, I must admit that he has a point. Since we're still operating on the Pax Americana mentality.

I don't know about you, but I've been tired of this body-bag politics, playing Capt. Save-A-Ho' of the world for quite some time now.

Yes, I do believe in going after Bin Laden

Yes, I do believe in taking out Saddam Hussien

But appeasing other gov'ts with financial aid & arms sales just so they'll stick to our geopolitical arena of 'democracy' - which it is not - is not only fiscally detrimental in the long run, but morally unnacceptable as well.

Mr. Assange - or Wikileaks if you will - is a necessary evil at this stage of the game. This country is long overdue for transparency of how are tax dollars are being utilized by the people, you and I have hired via voting. The gov't won't provide it, so us Americans have to rely on a globe-trotting Australian instead. Which says a lot if you ask me.

Also, I don't know about you, but I sure as hell don't want to wait for some Whitehouse braintrust like Robert McNamara to come out 30-odd years later and say "Uh, well, we were wrong. The war was a mistake."

Our global enterprise is done. Time to put the toys away.

[Zico]

Every attack on Mr Assange by the powers in Washington from having him wanted by interpol on regurgitated rape charges, freezing his swiss bank account, removing his mastercard and paypal facilities on allegations of him using them for criminal activities (with no charges as yet made against him in this regard) makes it look more like the plot from the movie 'Enemy of the state' prompting a backlash from hackers worldwide using 'Denial of service' attacks on both the Mastercard and Paypal websites.

He must have known this would happen yet seems ready and prepared to be the sacrificial lamb. I have a feeling this could prove to be an own goal for his prosecutors/persecutors.

Opinions?

[ioan]

Every attack on Mr Assange by the powers in Washington from having him wanted by interpol on regurgitated rape charges, freezing his swiss bank account, removing his mastercard and paypal facilities on allegations of him using them for criminal activities (with no charges as yet made against him in this regard) makes it look more like the plot from the movie 'Enemy of the state' prompting a backlash from hackers worldwide using 'Denial of service' attacks on both the Mastercard and Paypal websites.

He must have known this would happen yet seems ready and prepared to be the sacrificial lamb. I have a feeling this could prove to be an own goal for his prosecutors/persecutors.

Opinions?

It just proves the stupidity of those who are after him (i.e. Mrs Clinton and Co).

[Roamy]

Why do you people think you can receive stolen property and do what ever you want with it???

[Eki]

Why do you people think you can receive stolen property and do what ever you want with it???
Define "property"? I understand that patents and such are and can be called "intellectual property", but they have to be examined and published first by outsiders before you can call them your property. Wikileaks has revealed information that also concerns other people and nations than Americans and the US. In fact some may even claim that the US diplomats/spies have stolen information from the likes of Karzai, Gaddaffi and Putin.

[Roamy]

Define "property"? I understand that patents and such are and can be called "intellectual property", but they have to be examined and published first by outsiders before you can call them your property. Wikileaks has revealed information that also concerns other people and nations than Americans and the US. In fact some may even claim that the US diplomats/spies have stolen information from the likes of Karzai, Gaddaffi and Putin.

there is really no way to spin this EKI as much as you would like to. Yes and most of the time spies are punished if caught. We need to pop this guy and move on. If you can prove the diplomats were spies pop them too. See I am a equal opportunity "Popper"

[Eki]

there is really no way to spin this EKI as much as you would like to. Yes and most of the time spies are punished if caught. We need to pop this guy and move on. If you can prove the diplomats were spies pop them too. See I am a equal opportunity "Popper"
Fousto, the Big Popper.

[Eki]

there is really no way to spin this EKI as much as you would like to. Yes and most of the time spies are punished if caught. We need to pop this guy and move on. If you can prove the diplomats were spies pop them too. See I am a equal opportunity "Popper"
He didn't steal the info, he just publishes it. No one can call that spying. Spies don't publish their information. Spying equals secrecy, not publicity.

[donKey jote]

Why do you people think you can receive stolen property and do what ever you want with it???
are investigative journalists entitled to freedom of speech ? I thought it was part of what makes your country great. Still, I guess Nixon would probably agree with you.

[AAReagles]

Every attack on Mr Assange by the powers in Washington from having him wanted by interpol on regurgitated rape charges, freezing his swiss bank account, removing his mastercard and paypal facilities on allegations of him using them for criminal activities (with no charges as yet made against him in this regard) makes it look more like the plot from the movie 'Enemy of the state' prompting a backlash from hackers worldwide using 'Denial of service' attacks on both the Mastercard and Paypal websites.

He must have known this would happen yet seems ready and prepared to be the sacrificial lamb. I have a feeling this could prove to be an own goal for his prosecutors/persecutors.

Opinions?

Mr. Assange also reintroduced the term 'feudal system' during one of his interviews - and rightly so I might add. Since none of the biased, corporate media (over here at least) has any integrity to mention it.

[Eki]

Apparently the US and Russia plotted against Finland:

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/08/09STATE81957.html


1. (S/NF) On the same week as the successful U.S.-Russia
Presidential Summit in Moscow, the United States and Russia
held their sixth Experts Meeting under their bilateral
Man-Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) Arrangement July
9-10 in Washington. Several items of interest were covered,
including: 1. a framework for the exchange of information on
domestic MANPADS destruction; 2. the risk of diversion of
MANPADS from Venezuela to the FARC; 3. illicit MANPADS
proliferation from Eritrea; 4. potential cooperation on
MANPADS destruction projects with other states; and 5. next
steps to facilitate the transfer of Russian-made Finnish
MANPADS to the U.S. for countermeasures testing. The Russian
side again requested U.S. help preventing the spread of
MANPADS in the Caucasus, in particular information on
Polish-supplied MANPADS to Georgia that were discovered in
Chechnya following the August 2008 conflict. In response to
our non-paper on the subject, the Russian MFA informed us it
had begun a dialogue with the Polish government. The next
Experts Meeting was tentatively scheduled for fall 2010 in
Moscow, at the earliest. The U.S. delegation was co-chaired
by Steven Costner (Deputy Director of PM/WRA) and Anita
Friedt (Director of EUR/PRA). The Russian delegation was
chaired by Col. Oleg Skabara from the MOD. See para 31 for a
full delegation list. End Summary.

Reminds me of the Molotov-Ribbentropp Pact of 1939:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact


On August 19, the 1939 German–Soviet Commercial Agreement was finally signed.[68] On 21 August the Soviets suspended Tripartite military talks, citing other reasons.[38][69] That same day, Stalin received assurance that Germany would approve secret protocols to the proposed non-aggression pact that would place half of Poland (border along the Vistula river), Latvia, Estonia, Finland, and Bessarabia in the Soviets' sphere of influence.[70] That night, Stalin replied that the Soviets were willing to sign the pact, and that he would receive Ribbentrop on 23 August.[71]

[Valve Bounce]

Why do you people think you can receive stolen property and do what ever you want with it???

There is this funny thing called:"Freedom of the Press", not to mention the "First Amendment" , but I guess the US Govt. thinks that these little details should not apply to an Australian citizen.

[Valve Bounce]

He didn't steal the info, he just publishes it. No one can call that spying. Spies don't publish their information. Spying equals secrecy, not publicity.

THIS :up:

[ioan]

There is this funny thing called:"Freedom of the Press", not to mention the "First Amendment" , but I guess the US Govt. thinks that these little details should not apply to an Australian citizen.

:up:
IMO the US govt thinks that the above amendments and rights should not be applied to anyone but themselves.

[555-04Q2]

Valve, ioan and Eki hit the nails on the head.

The USA should be the last one to complain about the leaked information. At least the world is now able to see exactly how countries and politicians screw us on a daily basis. Some of the war crimes extracts are just plain sickening and hopefully something will be done about it to prevent them from happening agian. Only someone who has something to hide wants you to stay out of their laundry, and some countries have big laundry rooms they want to keep locked. Keep on nailing them Wiki.

[Dave B]

The US air force has blocked employees from accessing the websites of the Guardian, the New York Times and other news organisations carrying the WikiLeaks US embassy cables.

At least 25 sites that have posted WikiLeaks files had been barred, said Major Toni Tones of the US air force's space command in Colorado. Tones said the action was taken in accordance with a policy that "routinely blocks air force network access to websites hosting inappropriate materials".

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/15/wikileaks-cables-us-air-force

The USA appears to be inching towards internet censorship. They can no longer take the moral high ground when dealing with the Great Firewall of China, I guess.

[BDunnell]

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/15/wikileaks-cables-us-air-force

The USA appears to be inching towards internet censorship. They can no longer take the moral high ground when dealing with the Great Firewall of China, I guess.

Quite incredible.

[Retro Formula 1]

Valve, ioan and Eki hit the nails on the head.

The USA should be the last one to complain about the leaked information. At least the world is now able to see exactly how countries and politicians screw us on a daily basis. Some of the war crimes extracts are just plain sickening and hopefully something will be done about it to prevent them from happening agian. Only someone who has something to hide wants you to stay out of their laundry, and some countries have big laundry rooms they want to keep locked. Keep on nailing them Wiki.

There have been some fascinating opinions on this thread but much as I hate to admit it, Wikileaks has emerged as the governer on our governments.

There is little accountability of our leaders any more and if it wasn't for Wikileaks, we would be even more in the dark than we are now.

[BDunnell]

There have been some fascinating opinions on this thread but much as I hate to admit it, Wikileaks has emerged as the governer on our governments.

There is little accountability of our leaders any more and if it wasn't for Wikileaks, we would be even more in the dark than we are now.

Precisely. My concerns about it and its methods still stand, but surely this should be a wake-up call to governments the world over regarding the need to be far more open and honest, and far readier to bring previously classified material into the public domain sooner? Instead, it seems to be having the polar opposite effect, with ever more desperate attempts being made to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

[Retro Formula 1]

Anyone that doubts the value of wikileaks need to spend 17mins looking at the following.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0

Nobody has been arrested apart from Bradley manning, the whistle blower, who is still incarcerated in Kuwait.

Truly sickening :(

[Rollo]

There is this funny thing called:"Freedom of the Press", not to mention the "First Amendment" , but I guess the US Govt. thinks that these little details should not apply to an Australian citizen.

It doesn't.
Neither does the Sixth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment which is why David Hicks was held in Gitmo for so long, facing cruel and unusual punishment.

Assange is a) not on US soil and b) not a US citizen; therefore none of the rights contained in the Bill of Rights apply to him.

Then is the little issue of the Bill of Rights 1689 which does apply to him being both an Australian Citizen and being in the UK, and there also is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but the US recognises neither of these.

[Dave B]

Is this woman protesting or suggesting something? :p

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/15/article-1338468-0C7B7090000005DC-22_634x357.jpg

[Retro Formula 1]

I don't know if he's guilty of sex crimes or not and don't really care. Hopefully there is so much publicity that it will be impossible to have a Kangaroo court so the truth will out.

It does concern me that he went voluntarily to a police station and has been pursued so ardently by the Swedish government. I could understand him being detained if he was refusing to co-operate but he's hardly trying to do a bunk, has arranged surety, surrendered his passport and arranged accommodation. It also concerns me that our country is kow-towing to this international persecution by allowing the disclosure of his address. Are you, or are you not innocent until proven guilty? If some western Governments would have their way, he would already have been hanged and it's surprising he's still breathing.

I think that wikileaks has moved past it's creator and hopefully he will get justice, whatever that may be.

[Eki]

Is this woman protesting or suggesting something? :p

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/12/15/article-1338468-0C7B7090000005DC-22_634x357.jpg
If she hadn't covered her mouth, maybe she now wouldn't have to complain about her ar$e.

[Roamy]

Well you obviously wouldn't have to rape the above one. She would drop to the ground faster that a lead brick :)

[Retro Formula 1]

Well you obviously wouldn't have to rape the above one.

Funny thing about those charges in Sweden.

One of the charges relates to a condom that split during consensual sex. Both claim the act was consensual and indeed, both parties spent the next day together, but retrospectively, Miss A went to the police and with the other woman, claimed Assange split the condom on purpose. Apparently this is sexual molestation. Mind you, a man like Assange might have thought twice about touching Miss A if he had of known she had worked in the Swedish Embassy in the US and is suspected of being on the payroll of the CIA. Her University Thesis is also quite interesting :laugh:

The other one is just as intriguing who after going down on the accused in a Cinema and making 'love' to him, then claimed he raped her while she slept?

This is all just heresy and I cannot corroborate these claims or even swear they are real or fictional but the charges seem to be more serious than the evidence at hand......

I don't know what it's all about but there is more to this than what we can see. Both women have stated that they do not see Julian Assange as a threat but it seems they feel he should be taught a lesson???

As one website claims; "Man of Mystery or a website geek with a hard on?"

[Dave B]

The rape claims are certainly fishier than Captain Birdseye's old gloves. Just as well he only pissed of the Americans, I guess. If he'd upset the British government I believe the correct procedure is to go for a countryside walk and commit suicide :s

[Valve Bounce]

I'm surprised that this guy hasn't been taken out. The leaks have obviously embarrassed governments from quite a few countries, including Australia, the latest ones here have identified members of the Labor party as US Government informers.

[Rollo]

What I found very hard to believe was that one of the cable supposedly had Senator Mark Arbib passing secrets to the Americans. I mean he's suuuch a reliable source of news:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/minister-cant-explain-green-jobs-plan/story-e6freonf-1225756499702
has admitted he doesn't know if a green jobs program unveiled today will create 10,000 paid jobs or work-for-the-dole training.
Mark Arbib couldn't provide key details of the program, despite Prime Minister Kevin Rudd having described it as a "26-week environmental training program'' for unemployed people aged under 25.

The man barely knows where his own office is. The thought that he'd be implicated in secrets of international import is laughable.

[Valve Bounce]

What I found very hard to believe was that one of the cable supposedly had Senator Mark Arbib passing secrets to the Americans. I mean he's suuuch a reliable source of news:

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/minister-cant-explain-green-jobs-plan/story-e6freonf-1225756499702
has admitted he doesn't know if a green jobs program unveiled today will create 10,000 paid jobs or work-for-the-dole training.
Mark Arbib couldn't provide key details of the program, despite Prime Minister Kevin Rudd having described it as a "26-week environmental training program'' for unemployed people aged under 25.

The man barely knows where his own office is. The thought that he'd be implicated in secrets of international import is laughable.

Mark Arbib knows how to handle knives, especially how to plant them in some guy's back.

Also the Green Jobs program was a dud, and it's better to claim ignorance on this. Make no mistake, Arbib is as cunning as a shytehouse rat.

[Retro Formula 1]

We will soon see some leaks deliberately released by Governments for political purposes or that are misleading to discredit Wikileaks.

[airshifter]

As you wish, of course, if talk is cheap, yours comes out of the bargain basement.


We will soon see some leaks deliberately released by Governments for political purposes or that are misleading to discredit Wikileaks.

Wikileaks has already done more than enough to discredit themselves, something that will be overlooked by those that see them as a saviour of sorts.

The majority of information relased through Wikileaks is nothing that should surprise anyone that looks at the realities of diplomatic relations between countries. Such relations are as often as not simply efforts for two groups that distrust each other to project trust outward, yet inwardly retain their distrust of the other.

A great deal of the information they have released is also edited or otherwise selected information that really doesn't provide the big picture of the issues at hand regardless. IMHO it isn't much difference from the radical news names, often cherry picking facts that suit their agenda, and ignoring the other facts in the matter.

[ioan]

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/15/wikileaks-cables-us-air-force

The USA appears to be inching towards internet censorship. They can no longer take the moral high ground when dealing with the Great Firewall of China, I guess.

They will do whatever to keep their citizens away from the truth.
Obama you're a failure. :down:

I wonder why some people still believe that the US can offer them more than their own countries?!

[ioan]

Then is the little issue of the Bill of Rights 1689 which does apply to him being both an Australian Citizen and being in the UK, and there also is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but the US recognises neither of these.

Which puts the US on the exact same level with China.

[Roamy]

In about a year the headlines will read "Julian and Bubba are Lovers" :)

[Eki]

In about a year the headlines will read "Julian and Bubba are Lovers" :)
Maybe you should send Julian some buttplugs, being the equal opportunity popper that you are.

[Hondo]

My simple guesses are:

Assange and others like him have an axe to grind against certain powers that be, for grievances real or imagined. This is not being done with the sole altruistic purpose of bringing light to the world.

Assange is probably not a completely clean, upstanding citizen himself and there is certainly no reason to make him disappear or you'd already be looking for him. He'll get a couple of million off of book and movie deals, become a blown out of proportion cult hero like Che, and recede into obscurity.

He practises the very same censorship he claims to oppose by deciding what to release and when to use the black marker. You can bet he won't release anything that sheds a critical light on any cause or organization he supports.

All things considered, he's just another fad.

[Valve Bounce]

Keep on guessing.

[Malbec]

Funny thing about those charges in Sweden.

One of the charges relates to a condom that split during consensual sex. Both claim the act was consensual and indeed, both parties spent the next day together, but retrospectively, Miss A went to the police and with the other woman, claimed Assange split the condom on purpose. Apparently this is sexual molestation. Mind you, a man like Assange might have thought twice about touching Miss A if he had of known she had worked in the Swedish Embassy in the US and is suspected of being on the payroll of the CIA. Her University Thesis is also quite interesting :laugh:

The other one is just as intriguing who after going down on the accused in a Cinema and making 'love' to him, then claimed he raped her while she slept?

This is all just heresy and I cannot corroborate these claims or even swear they are real or fictional but the charges seem to be more serious than the evidence at hand......

I don't know what it's all about but there is more to this than what we can see. Both women have stated that they do not see Julian Assange as a threat but it seems they feel he should be taught a lesson???

As one website claims; "Man of Mystery or a website geek with a hard on?"

Funny thing about these rape conspiracy theories.

If the Americans wanted Assange the last thing they would do is to have him extradited from the UK to Sweden. Thanks to the extradition treaties between the US and the UK if the Americans wanted him extradited they wouldn't have to present the case and evidence against him in a British court. The Americans however wouldn't be treated anywhere near as leniently in a Swedish court where they would have their case rigorously tested.

By all accounts Assange was a bit of a ladies man and used his reputation as the public face of wikileaks to bed quite a few women. He was warned that this would get him into trouble by some of his friends and colleagues but clearly couldn't keep his pants on.

If he truly had nothing to fear from the Swedish allegations he'd do well to go there and face them. As I wrote above he'd be far safer in Sweden than he would be in the UK if he really fears extradition to America.

[Retro Formula 1]

It doesn't matter if he is in Sweden or not. If the US want to extradite him from Sweden, they would need togo through the UK as they maintain juristriction of him, not Sweden.

[555-04Q2]

I'm surprised that this guy hasn't been taken out. The leaks have obviously embarrassed governments from quite a few countries, including Australia, the latest ones here have identified members of the Labor party as US Government informers.

The problem for the US is if he is taken out, the world would know exactly who did it. That would worsen their public relations than the Wiki leaks have. Either way, they are s@rewed.

[Hondo]

The problem for the US is if he is taken out, the world would know exactly who did it. That would worsen their public relations than the Wiki leaks have. Either way, they are s@rewed.

The USA has no reason to have him whacked. As far as public relations are concerned, the leaks have probably done more good than harm. For decades, every time the USA has gotten involved in various causes, especially in the Middle East, complete bozos all over the Internet regurgitate their tired old mantra about us doing all this for their oil. Oil may indeed be a part of it, but only to stabilize the world's oil supply. The USA has never taken over any of the oil fields for exclusive USA production, does not control to whom the oil is sold, and doesn't even receive any kind of discount on oil purchased. Do you really think other major users would be willing or capable of doing the same?

Far too many people fail to realize how naive the US government remains about other, especially tribal, cultures in it's efforts to spread what it sees as the benefits of an elected, representative republic form of government. In short, we really do undertake causes for purely altruistic reasons.

What these leaks really expose is the silly, petulant behaviour of other countries or world leaders that would otherwise never see a headline because it's easier or more popular to blame the USA.

I hope they keep on releasing what they have. Let it all see the light of day.

[Valve Bounce]

The USA has no reason to have him whacked. As far as public relations are concerned, the leaks have probably done more good than harm. For decades, every time the USA has gotten involved in various causes, especially in the Middle East, complete bozos all over the Internet regurgitate their tired old mantra about us doing all this for their oil. Oil may indeed be a part of it, but only to stabilize the world's oil supply. The USA has never taken over any of the oil fields for exclusive USA production, does not control to whom the oil is sold, and doesn't even receive any kind of discount on oil purchased. Do you really think other major users would be willing or capable of doing the same?

Far too many people fail to realize how naive the US government remains about other, especially tribal, cultures in it's efforts to spread what it sees as the benefits of an elected, representative republic form of government. In short, we really do undertake causes for purely altruistic reasons.

What these leaks really expose is the silly, petulant behaviour of other countries or world leaders that would otherwise never see a headline because it's easier or more popular to blame the USA.

I hope they keep on releasing what they have. Let it all see the light of day.

I don't think that even fousto believes this tripe.

[Eki]

The USA has never taken over any of the oil fields for exclusive USA production, does not control to whom the oil is sold, and doesn't even receive any kind of discount on oil purchased.
I think they do control. Most of the embargoes in the world are initiated and lead by the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargoes

The US even controls the trade of private companies in other countries, like the submarine business of Finnish Rauma-Repola:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIR_(submersible)


Production of the two MIR units was a prime example of Finnish-Soviet economic and technical co-operation during the Cold War. Bids from Canada, France and Sweden to construct the submarines had been retracted most likely due to political pressure. In a later interview with STT the then Rauma-Repola department head Peter Laxell said he believed that "Finland got the permit to deliver the crafts to the Soviets on the basis that the CoCom officials in the USA believed the project would be a failure . . . Once it became clear to them we actually had accomplished the engineering feat there was a huge uproar about how such technology could be sold to the Soviets, enough for many visits to the Pentagon.". [3]
Because of the CoCom restrictions, most of the technology used had to be developed in Finland. The electronics was developed by Hollming. The syntactic foam was produced in Finland by Exel Oyj, as 3M, the leading producer, refused to supply their product.[1]
The level of technology flowing into the Soviet Union raised concern in the USA and Rauma-Repola was privately threatened with economic sanctions. For example, one concern of the Pentagon was the possibility that the Soviet Union would manufacture a pioneer submarine fleet that could clear the ocean floor of U.S. deep sea listening equipment[1]. With the possibility of losing its lucrative offshore oil platforms market Rauma-Repola yielded, and submarine development ceased in Finland. One project that was abandoned was the development of a fuel cell based air-independent propulsion system.

[Hondo]

I think they do control. Most of the embargoes in the world are initiated and lead by the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_embargoes

Other countries are free to vote against or ignore embargos. It seems to me I remember some of the leaks involved countries that wanted the US to strengthen some embargos. Again, you've got all these other wormy little players wanting the USA to do in public that which they are afraid to do in public.

[Hondo]

I don't think that even fousto believes this tripe.

No tripe to it. It's the way it is.

[Retro Formula 1]

I don't think that even fousto believes this tripe.

Hardly a constructive comment :rolleyes:

At least Hondo has expressed an opinion that is open to discussion rather than a negative one-liner.

[Eki]

Other countries are free to vote against or ignore embargos. It seems to me I remember some of the leaks involved countries that wanted the US to strengthen some embargos. Again, you've got all these other wormy little players wanting the USA to do in public that which they are afraid to do in public.
"Free" is relative. If the US retaliates when someone goes against their will, I wouldn't call that "free". It could be very costly to companies and/or countries that go against the US will. It's like the Chinese are "free" to talk against their government and their government is "free" to send them to a prison camp for it.

[Hondo]

"Free" is relative. If the US retaliates when someone goes against their will, I wouldn't call that "free". It could be very costly to companies and/or countries that go against the US will. It's like the Chinese are "free" to talk against their government and their government is "free" to send them to a prison camp for it.

It might be or might not be. It depends on how much value you put on the principle involved. You never saw the USA invading the Soviet Union or China over human rights. That would have been stupid. The USA has had domestic trade sanctions placed upon both however. The world isn't perfect, isn't ever going to be perfect, and the USA is not the Great Satan you so desperately want it to be.

[Eki]

It might be or might not be. It depends on how much value you put on the principle involved. You never saw the USA invading the Soviet Union or China over human rights. That would have been stupid. The USA has had domestic trade sanctions placed upon both however. The world isn't perfect, isn't ever going to be perfect, and the USA is not the Great Satan you so desperately want it to be.
No, I just want the world to know if the US does something unscrupulous instead of them being quiet about it and pretending to be a squeaky clean World Police with a white hat. I value honesty.

[Hondo]

No, I just want the world to know if the US does something unscrupulous instead of them being quiet about it and pretending to be a squeaky clean World Police with a white hat. I value honesty.

Complete and total honesty would be the downfall of this world. There would be a blood bath. I doubt there is a marriage or relationship out there that could survive total honesty. You have previously voiced some disdain and contempt for outlaw bikers. When was the last time you ventured into a biker bar to honestly share your viewpoint about them, with them? Did they thank you for your opinion? Or is it still on your "to do" list?

[Mark in Oshawa]

No, I just want the world to know if the US does something unscrupulous instead of them being quiet about it and pretending to be a squeaky clean World Police with a white hat. I value honesty.
Once again, you hold one nation to a far higher standard than any other, and while I admit their propensity for acting as the world's policeman at times does dictate they be held to a higher standard in your eyes, it condemns the rest by not expecting better.

The real story of Wikileaks? After two or three weeks of agonizing over this BS, most of what I have read confirms that the Americans, while having other opinions behind closed doors that are different from the public positions, are still in many ways better. AS it was pointed out by something in the all these articles and tree's that have given their all for this crap, most nations were telling Hillary Clinton after her apologies "that's ok, you should read about what we say about you guys!".

And that my friends is why we don't need Julian Assange leaking miles of diplomatic cables. It serves no real purpose. Nation states wont change their foreign policy, they will just put ciphers and codes on their stuff and crack down harder on any leak, and in reality, Julian will have less to work with.

[Eki]

Once again, you hold one nation to a far higher standard than any other,
That's only because they themselves seem to do that. Their holier than thou attitude irritates me. They are like a drunkard adulterous pastor who tells his congregation "Don't do what I do, do what I tell you to do"

[Valve Bounce]

Hardly a constructive comment :rolleyes:

At least Hondo has expressed an opinion that is open to discussion rather than a negative one-liner.

There are many reasons why I consider it futile to go into details how the US Govt. controls certain leaders of different countries for some "altruistic" reasons, like :Ngo Din Diem, Allende, Saudi's "Royalists", Sadam's WMD's, Haiti, Sudan, Osaka, etc. In fact, I can go on with details like: Where is the only Catholic chappel in Saudi Arabia?, Where do they brew Sidiqui in Saudi Arabia?, or Where can women drive in Saudi Arabia?, or even Where can you walk into a Supermarket and buy Pork Chops and Pork Bacon in Saudi Arabia?. Sure, I can be positive, but what's the use in arguing with a one-eyed citizen of the USA?

[Mark in Oshawa]

That's only because they themselves seem to do that. Their holier than thou attitude irritates me. They are like a drunkard adulterous pastor who tells his congregation "Don't do what I do, do what I tell you to do"
So if Finland was a super power, this would be ok because of course Finn's are more morally superior?

How about Canadians? America is a brash and outspoken nation now because when they turn inwards, the rest of the world gets far worse than if they are not there standing for something. Not sure why America should care about the rest of the world, considering the grief they get. They aint perfect, and god knows they have their moments as a nation where they collectively don't understand the rest of the world, but they are the 800 lb gorilla still and lucky for most of us, most of their posturing is that for a good reason.

Assange attacks them but basically an attack on America is an attack on most modern democratic states....

[Eki]

So if Finland was a super power, this would be ok because of course Finn's are more morally superior?

How could it be? It's logically impossible. Nobody could simultaneously be like that and be morally superior, only pretending to be morally superior.

[Mark in Oshawa]

How could it be? It's logically impossible. Nobody could simultaneously be like that and be morally superior, only pretending to be morally superior.

The point is Eki, that there is always going to be the alpha dog, and for the last 100 years the USA has been that for most of it, and unlike other nations who have pushed for that status, the USA's motives have been more in their own self interest than you might like, but far less so than if the USSR or Mao's China have gotten the upper hand.

The Leaks have not done anyone really any favours, including the public. What did we learn that was so shocking really? That the rest of the Arab world is desparately behind the scenes hoping like hell the USA can protect them from Iran? That to me was obvious to anyone who knows the nature of the cowards who run places like Saudi Arabia.....

[Eki]

The Leaks have not done anyone really any favours, including the public. What did we learn that was so shocking really? That the rest of the Arab world is desparately behind the scenes hoping like hell the USA can protect them from Iran? That to me was obvious to anyone who knows the nature of the cowards who run places like Saudi Arabia.....
I haven't heard Iran has threatened them. Not even from the Wikileaks. They're probably just paranoid.

[Valve Bounce]

I haven't heard Iran has threatened them. Not even from the Wikileaks. They're probably just paranoid.

Just for your information, Iran has been considered a threat by quite a few countries in the area, especially in the Arabian Peninsula. Of course they are not paranoid - Iran has a loose canon for a president, and when I was last there 7 years ago, many of the moderates hated the mullahs and the lopsided power they hold.

I think you may be missing some of the important Wikileaks correspondence concerning Iran.

[Retro Formula 1]

There are many reasons why I consider it futile to go into details how the US Govt. controls certain leaders of different countries for some "altruistic" reasons, like :Ngo Din Diem, Allende, Saudi's "Royalists", Sadam's WMD's, Haiti, Sudan, Osaka, etc. In fact, I can go on with details like: Where is the only Catholic chappel in Saudi Arabia?, Where do they brew Sidiqui in Saudi Arabia?, or Where can women drive in Saudi Arabia?, or even Where can you walk into a Supermarket and buy Pork Chops and Pork Bacon in Saudi Arabia?. Sure, I can be positive, but what's the use in arguing with a one-eyed citizen of the USA?

All of which have zero to do with the thread or the post you responded to.

I share your frustration with the poster but he does make some reasonable points.... sometimes.

[Retro Formula 1]

I haven't heard Iran has threatened them. Not even from the Wikileaks. They're probably just paranoid.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AP06Z20101129

It seems that Iran isn't that popular with anyone.

[airshifter]

A morning show was talking about the entire Wikileaks thing the other morning, and the strange actions of Assange and his attornies. It seems they are very upset that they feel information about the sexual misconduct charges were leaked before being reviewed by the attornies.

I think it's comical that they are upset because they feel information was leaked, and it serves them right if it was. :laugh:

[Mark in Oshawa]

I haven't heard Iran has threatened them. Not even from the Wikileaks. They're probably just paranoid.

you haven't heard? For a guy who loves Assange, you should read the "leaks" from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the like. All are pointing to being worried about a nuclear Iran. It seems only you think they are benign. This from a nation that routine kills and tortures its own citizens just to keep the peace...

Last time I looked, no western power did that....

[Eki]

you haven't heard? For a guy who loves Assange, you should read the "leaks" from Saudi Arabia, Jordan and the like. All are pointing to being worried about a nuclear Iran. It seems only you think they are benign. This from a nation that routine kills and tortures its own citizens just to keep the peace...

Last time I looked, no western power did that....
Yes, they told they are scared, but as far as I know, even the Wikileaks haven't published any threats from Iran. Some people are afraid of dark, even if the dark hasn't threatened them.

[Valve Bounce]

Yes, they told they are scared, but as far as I know, even the Wikileaks haven't published any threats from Iran. Some people are afraid of dark, even if the dark hasn't threatened them.

Eki! if you went to Iran, you'll find that much of the poeples there are afraid of much more than just the dark.
And half the population hates the mullahs.

[Eki]

Just for your information, Iran has been considered a threat by quite a few countries in the area, especially in the Arabian Peninsula. Of course they are not paranoid - Iran has a loose canon for a president, and when I was last there 7 years ago, many of the moderates hated the mullahs and the lopsided power they hold.
And how does concretely concerns Saudi Arabia? Those are Iranian internal affairs.


I think you may be missing some of the important Wikileaks correspondence concerning Iran.
Such as?


I don't believe Iran is a threat to anyone except maybe to themselves.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yes, they told they are scared, but as far as I know, even the Wikileaks haven't published any threats from Iran. Some people are afraid of dark, even if the dark hasn't threatened them.

You I guess didn't hear their President on an almost yearly basis promising to wipe Israel off the map. I guess the funding of Hezbollah and their terrorist activities are just good will? Your naivety is truly breathtaking....

The nations in that part of the world have good reason to be wary of Iran, Iran has persecuted its Sunni majority in ways that a good Nazi would admire in their persecution of the Jews. Sunni vs Shiite is a story that will always lead to bloodshed without much effort in Muslim nations. I guess the Iranian nuclear program doesn't bother you Eki, but that's ok, most of the world has your back allowing you to have these naive notions...everyone has pretty much joined in on the sanctions against Iran. With luck, that will be one of the vises that will cause cracks in the Mullah's theocratic dictatorship.

[Eki]

You I guess didn't hear their President on an almost yearly basis promising to wipe Israel off the map. I guess the funding of Hezbollah and their terrorist activities are just good will? Your naivety is truly breathtaking....
Enlighten me then. What has that got to do with Saudi Arabia?

[Malbec]

Yes, they told they are scared, but as far as I know, even the Wikileaks haven't published any threats from Iran. Some people are afraid of dark, even if the dark hasn't threatened them.

As others have stated you clearly haven't read the wikileaks reports about Iran, like their funding Shiite opposition movements in Iraq (obviously), Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, movements that seek to at least reform and often overthrow the governments they are aimed at.

As well as funding Hisbollah and certain elements of the Taliban with both seriously undermining (to say the least) the legitimate governments of Lebanon and Afghanistan respectively.

The Arabs feel threatened, probably more than the Israelis do, by Iran's nuclear project because its a direct threat to them and they don't have a deterrence or the confidence that the Americans would strike back on their behalf.

[Roamy]

Yes, they told they are scared, but as far as I know, even the Wikileaks haven't published any threats from Iran. Some people are afraid of dark, even if the dark hasn't threatened them.

I am not afraid of the dark - I am afraid of what is in it !!

[Eki]

I am not afraid of the dark - I am afraid of what is in it !!
And I'm not afraid of falling down, I'm afraid of hitting the ground. But luckily guns don't kill, people do. Hey, it just occurred to me, nuclear weapons don't kill, people do! There should be enough for everybody, so that if someone uses nukes, everybody can join.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Enlighten me then. What has that got to do with Saudi Arabia?

First off, you said you heard no threats from Iran. Well there is the threats. Secondly, if you think the Saudi's are down with a nuclear exchange on either side of them, you obviously are not looking at a map. The Saudi's claim no love for the Israeli's, and likely don't really care if Hezbollah wants to keep attacking them, but only an idiot would advocate they will sit there when Tehran starts lobbing nukes down on Israel and the Isreali's lob a few back. Fallout, political turmoil, war...ya...Cant figure out why the Saudi's wouldn't see THAT as a threat.

C'mon Eki you used to be at least somewhat challenging....

[Retro Formula 1]

And I'm not afraid of falling down, I'm afraid of hitting the ground. But luckily guns don't kill, people do. Hey, it just occurred to me, nuclear weapons don't kill, people do! There should be enough for everybody, so that if someone uses nukes, everybody can join.

You disregard all points that were raised and just post nonsensical rhetoric.

Is it too difficult to accept that Iran poses a threat to stability in the region?

[Eki]

You disregard all points that were raised and just post nonsensical rhetoric.

Is it too difficult to accept that Iran poses a threat to stability in the region?

I think it's Israel and oil that pose a threat to stability in the region.

[Malbec]

I think it's Israel and oil that pose a threat to stability in the region.

Both Israel and Iran threaten the stability of the region.

Your view of the Middle East is so simple and therefore so inaccurate. As is Marks btw, but his view is closer to the reality.

What Mark missed out is that whilst Iran's president previously talked about what Iranian missiles could do about Israel (although recently he has refused to comment further on Israel) Iranian diplomats routinely taunt their Gulf state counterparts by referring to the flight time of a ballistic missile across the Persian Gulf. That is a far more direct threat than a throwaway remark about Israel in a speech designed to appeal to the more extreme part of the Iranian electorate.

Hisbullah IS a threat to Lebanese democracy but more importantly is a Shia powerbase in the middle of the predominantly Sunni Arab Middle East. While Hisbullah serves some Lebanese interest by keeping the Israelis out they have also set up a state within a state. This threatens the surrounding Arab states to the extent that when Israel invaded Hisbullah territory several years ago and tried to destroy that organisation the other Arab countries refused to broker a ceasefire or assist. The aim being to covertly assist Israel in destroying Hisbullah, although ultimately they failed.

Think about why the surrounding Arab states would prefer to see the Israelis win and destroy Hisbullah at the expense of Arab lives. Do you really think that the Arabs therefore don't view Iran and its influence in the Middle East as a threat?

And how about RG influence in Iraq? Think the Iran government is so innocent now?

[Eki]

Both Israel and Iran threaten the stability of the region.

Your view of the Middle East is so simple and therefore so inaccurate. As is Marks btw, but his view is closer to the reality.

What Mark missed out is that whilst Iran's president previously talked about what Iranian missiles could do about Israel (although recently he has refused to comment further on Israel) Iranian diplomats routinely taunt their Gulf state counterparts by referring to the flight time of a ballistic missile across the Persian Gulf. That is a far more direct threat than a throwaway remark about Israel in a speech designed to appeal to the more extreme part of the Iranian electorate.

Hisbullah IS a threat to Lebanese democracy but more importantly is a Shia powerbase in the middle of the predominantly Sunni Arab Middle East. While Hisbullah serves some Lebanese interest by keeping the Israelis out they have also set up a state within a state. This threatens the surrounding Arab states to the extent that when Israel invaded Hisbullah territory several years ago and tried to destroy that organisation the other Arab countries refused to broker a ceasefire or assist. The aim being to covertly assist Israel in destroying Hisbullah, although ultimately they failed.

Think about why the surrounding Arab states would prefer to see the Israelis win and destroy Hisbullah at the expense of Arab lives. Do you really think that the Arabs therefore don't view Iran and its influence in the Middle East as a threat?

And how about RG influence in Iraq? Think the Iran government is so innocent now?
We weren't talking about innocence, we were talking about threats. As long as they haven't directly threaten Saudi Arabia, I don't think they are a threat. One must also remember that Iran hasn't attacked and invaded their neighbors like Iraq, so there isn't even a precedent.

[Malbec]

We weren't talking about innocence, we were talking about threats. As long as they haven't directly threaten Saudi Arabia, I don't think they are a threat. One must also remember that Iran hasn't attacked and invaded their neighbors like Iraq, so there isn't even a precedent.

So to tell Saudi Arabian diplomats that their country is less than five minutes away from a missile attack isn't threatening? To fund Saudi groups that want to overthrow their government isn't threatening?

To turn their neighbour Iraq into a puppet Shia state isn't threatening?

Woah Eki, you must be pretty tolerant. I guess if someone put a gun to your head and asked for your money that wouldn't be threatening either.

[Bob Riebe]

We weren't talking about innocence, we were talking about threats. As long as they haven't directly threaten Saudi Arabia, I don't think they are a threat. One must also remember that Iran hasn't attacked and invaded their neighbors like Iraq, so there isn't even a precedent.
Those that make direct threats are half of the time, blowing smoke, anyone that waits for a direct threat to react, is a fool deserving what ever misery comes the ones way.

[Eki]

Those that make direct threats are half of the time, blowing smoke, anyone that waits for a direct threat to react, is a fool deserving what ever misery comes the ones way.
Some see paranoia as a mental disorder, you seem to think it's a virtue. Do you think Stalin and Hitler were right when they eliminated potential risks (real or imagined) for their rule before they materialized?

[Bob Riebe]

Some see paranoia as a mental disorder, you seem to think it's a virtue. Do you think Stalin and Hitler were right when they eliminated potential risks (real or imagined) for their rule before they materialized?

By your logic, anyone who goes in for a health check-up is paranoid.

Hmm, more or less correct than "Peace in our time" Neville Chamberlain?

On The McLaughlin Group, a conservative pundit, when asked about the Wikileaks concern, said Assange and Wiki is not the concern that should be being addressed, the fact the leaks exist is what should be, being addressed.
The fact Assange seems to have been exposed as sleaze incorporated, acutally only obscures the real faults.

[Eki]

By your logic, anyone who goes in for a health check-up is paranoid.

Anyone who goes though a major operation, just because of fear there's something wrong even if it's just hypochondria is paranoid. There's a line between healthy suspicion and paranoia and you should act according to the estimated risk. Saudi Arabia wanted the US to attack Iran just because of a potential risk. That's paranoia. Keeping an eye on Iran, would be healthy suspicion. The US attacking Iraq because of alleged WMDs was paranoia too (or the WMDs were just a smoke screen to cover up more sinister motives).

About Chamberlain: If the British had attacked Germany before the risks materialized or were clear to everyone, they'd be now the villains instead of the Nazi-Germany and the outcome would still have been a world war. A preemptive attack is a bad idea unless you're almost 100% sure of an impending attack by the opposite side. Blaming or ridiculing Chamberlain now is hindsight 20/20. He may have been right, and we may have prevented WWII.

[Bob Riebe]

Blaming or ridiculing Chamberlain now is hindsight 20/20. He may have been right, and we may have prevented WWII.

LOL, that is the most gross example of a rationalization to protect faulty logic I have ever seen.

[Rollo]

About Chamberlain: If the British had attacked Germany before the risks materialized or were clear to everyone, they'd be now the villains instead of the Nazi-Germany and the outcome would still have been a world war.

No. The outcome would have been total annihilation of the UK. Chamberlain dithered for as long as he possibly could because the UK's defence forces in 1936 were a chap in Swindon with a pitchfork, his dog Gavin and three chickens.

[Malbec]

Anyone who goes though a major operation, just because of fear there's something wrong even if it's just hypochondria is paranoid. There's a line between healthy suspicion and paranoia and you should act according to the estimated risk. Saudi Arabia wanted the US to attack Iran just because of a potential risk. That's paranoia.

You're right, there is a big difference between paranoia and healthy suspicion.

The Saudis have more than adequate reason to fear the Iranians which I have listed and which you conveniently ignore again and again.

Why exactly do you persist in refusing to address points that are inconvenient for you? You come across as being as bigoted as the rednecks you so hate if not more.

[janvanvurpa]

Those that make direct threats are half of the time, blowing smoke, anyone that waits for a direct threat to react, is a fool deserving what ever misery comes the ones way.

Why do you hate American soldier's and sailor's memories?
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/h50000/h50472.jpg

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/images/g30000/g32691.jpg

The following is a list of how many people were killed on Dec. 7, 1941 as a result of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

* US Navy: 2,008 KIA
* USMC: 109 KIA
* US Army: 218 KIA
* Civilians: 68



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_died_in_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor #ixzz19nzq8f8L

Your words are that they were fools and deserved what every misery that came their way.

Go hang yourself. Rolleyes

[Eki]

The Saudis have more than adequate reason to fear the Iranians which I have listed and which you conveniently ignore again and again.

So you think the Saudis have so much reason, that the US should invade Iran?

[Roamy]

So you think the Saudis have so much reason, that the US should invade Iran?

I think the saudis and iraqis should invade iran

[Malbec]

So you think the Saudis have so much reason, that the US should invade Iran?

Hmmm I think you really should read wikileaks more carefully.

The Saudis have never suggested the US invade Iran. They've suggested the US bomb Iran's nuclear programme to stop it which is a different thing entirely.

And yes, I think they are right to fear Iran's nuclear programme enough to want to bomb it. After all they are as likely to be nuked by Iran as Israel is, if not more because they don't have their own deterrent.

So Eki why do you think Iran's neighbours have so little to fear? Do you know anything about Iran's history interfering in its neighbours affairs?

[Eki]

Hmmm I think you really should read wikileaks more carefully.

The Saudis have never suggested the US invade Iran. They've suggested the US bomb Iran's nuclear programme to stop it which is a different thing entirely.

And yes, I think they are right to fear Iran's nuclear programme enough to want to bomb it.
So you want the US to bomb Iran's nuclear programme? Even when Iran claims it's just for peaceful nuclear energy, and there's no real evidence of the opposite.

[Koz]

So you want the US to bomb Iran's nuclear programme? Even when Iran claims it's just for peaceful nuclear energy, and there's no real evidence of the opposite.

Except that their leader constantly threatens a certain neighboring state...

Would you take the chance that he never meant a word of it and it's just his propaganda... We are talking here about the possibility of nuclear weapons...

[Bob Riebe]

Why do you hate American soldier's and sailor's memories?

Why do you make baseless asinine remarks?

[janvanvurpa]

Why do you make baseless asinine remarks?


Read your broad unqualified words---or do you have a version of Tourettes syndrome that you type brain-farts without control.

Here, let me quote you since youve forgotten:

Originally Posted by Bob Riebe View Post
Those that make direct threats are half of the time, blowing smoke, anyone that waits for a direct threat to react, is a fool deserving what ever misery comes the ones way.

By your own words you have said that those Americans who waited for a direct threat to react were fools deserving whatever misery which came their way...nearly 2400 dead, thousands more injured..

Or doesn't your blustering big talk apply to Americans?

Or---the most likely scenario---you're just running your mouth as usual and typing words unhindered by the thought process.

So which is it, Riebe?
Thoughtless blather, or hate for Americans who died because they didn't react to threats?

[Rollo]

Thoughtless blather, or hate for Americans who died because they didn't react to threats?

There wasn't a "threat". The attack on Pearl Harbour was made before any formal declaration of war was made by Japan and without threat. It was pretty well much an undeclared lightning strike.

[Eki]

Except that their leader constantly threatens a certain neighboring state...

Would you take the chance that he never meant a word of it and it's just his propaganda... We are talking here about the possibility of nuclear weapons...
1. He was talking about Israel, not Saudi Arabia. I don't think the Saudis love Israel that much that they'd act on their behalf.

2. The Iranian President doesn't have the authority to use nuclear weapons, even if there were any.

[Malbec]

So you want the US to bomb Iran's nuclear programme? Even when Iran claims it's just for peaceful nuclear energy, and there's no real evidence of the opposite.

I am not Saudi Arabia Eki, nor am I a member of its royal family who made the comments. And while I would not like so see an attack on Iran I can see why others do, like the Saudis or the Israelis. Can you understand the principle that while I may not agree with someone I can see why they hold their opinion?

No real evidence for the opposite? If the nuclear project was truly peaceful the Iranians would have no problem whatsoever with IAEA inspections. Nor would Iran be rejecting diplomatic proposals which would see them supplied with low enriched uranium which cannot be used in nuclear weapons as long as they stopped enriching uranium themselves which could be producing highly enriched uranium which can only be used in nukes. Nor would Ahmadinejad be making speeches aimed at his domestic audience that talk of the powers that would come only with having nuclear weapons.

Then there is Iran's long history of threatening neighbouring countries on all sides both under the Shah and a policy continued under the Islamic Republic.

Again Eki, you seem to be extremely tolerant of Iran, willing to interprete anything and everything they do in a nice benign light. A little knowledge might be helpful I think.

[Malbec]

1. He was talking about Israel, not Saudi Arabia. I don't think the Saudis love Israel that much that they'd act on their behalf.

The Saudis wouldn't act on Israel's behalf? Thats a beautiful one. Don't make me laugh.

Who blocked any attempt to broker peace between Israel and Hisbullah a few years back in a vain attempt to buy the Israelis more time to finish the job? Who helps the Israelis keep Hamas strangled in Gaza by cutting off funds and shipments together with Egypt?

I think you need to look at whats actually going on on the ground instead of looking merely at internet headlines. Israel and the Saudis work well together when they have a common enemy.

[Eki]

No real evidence for the opposite? If the nuclear project was truly peaceful the Iranians would have no problem whatsoever with IAEA inspections.
How about national pride and considering the inspections to be humiliating and an attack against their sovereignty, or distrust? Iraq had problems with IAEA inspections, yet no signs of nuclear weapons were found after the invasion. I doubt the US would let Iranians and North Koreans roam freely in American nuclear facilities.

[Malbec]

How about national pride and considering the inspections to be humiliating and an attack against their sovereignty, or distrust? Iraq had problems with IAEA inspections, yet no signs of nuclear weapons were found after the invasion. I doubt the US would let Iranians and North Koreans roam freely in American nuclear facilities.

How about my other points? Ignoring them because its inconvenient again?

And why allow IAEA inspections until Iran started the enrichment process? Why is it not an attack on national pride up to that point but unacceptable after?

Many other countries are happy to buy in low enriched uranium because they aren't interested in developing nuclear weapons, not to mention that its actually cheaper to buy in that uranium instead of developing the process yourself. So why does Iran absolutely have to do it itself when it doesn't make financial sense to do so?

And why wouldn't Iran's neighbours not view that entire process with suspicion? Why exactly Eki should countries like Saudi Arabia be reassured with Iran's behaviour?

[Eki]

And why wouldn't Iran's neighbours not view that entire process with suspicion? Why exactly Eki should countries like Saudi Arabia be reassured with Iran's behaviour?
Not being reassured is healthy, asking the US to bomb Iran is paranoid. Even if Iran is building nuclear weapons, so what? Many countries, including Israel, have nuclear weapons and they have not used them. Actually both Israel and Iran having nukes might stabilize the region. Balance of terror and all that. It worked between the Soviet Union and the US, why not between Iran and Israel?

[Malbec]

Actually both Israel and Iran having nukes might stabilize the region. Balance of terror and all that. It worked between the Soviet Union and the US, why not between Iran and Israel?

You really are having difficulty coping with the fact that there's more to the Middle East than Israel vs everyone else.

You realise that Saudi and Israel are two different countries right? You also realise that Saudi doesn't have nukes? Are you with me so far? So how exactly are the Saudis going to counteract Iranian nukes if they are threatened with them?

And bear in mind that Iran is the only country to recently actively threaten Saudi Arabia with missile attack.

[janvanvurpa]

There wasn't a "threat". The attack on Pearl Harbour was made before any formal declaration of war was made by Japan and without threat. It was pretty well much an undeclared lightning strike.

The "threat" was clear already in 1895 when China was defeated by the Japanese.

It was clear the USA was building a Asia Empire when they moved from defeating the Spanish as colonial masters in the Philippines to murdering local Philippinos demonstrating for Democratic elections in only 3 weeks.
And then to a multi-years long war suppressing any resistance to US power---and killing 300,000 locals in order to "Pacify' the place....
This put USA on collision course with Japan.

It was clear to the whole world by 1905 with the Japanese victory over Russia.

USA was expanding across the Pacific, US Army officers stationed in Philippines were dispatched all over the East Asian theatre on "Holidays", photographing and noting and mapping.
The later famous US General Stillwell was one of those who was sent to China at the start of the Xinhai Revolution in 1912-13 which led to the founding of the Chinese Republic....it was clear who the US would eventually bumping heads with.

Then in '31 with the Japanese seizure of Northern China, more clearly in '37 with the outbreak of open warfare between China and Japan and endless "incidents" with Western forces--see Panay Incident.
The ever increasing aggression of Japan meant inevitable conflict with everybody, and the US was in the same area..

The "threat" was clear.
The Philippines garrison had been reinforced during 40-41, additional air elements moved there both fighter and bombers. It was considered Americas forward base..Look at a map of the area.
Then in 1940:
US stopped export of airplanes, parts, machine tools, and aviation gasoline,
which pissed the Japanese off.
Much of the US navy stationed at US West Coast bases were moved forward during '40 and early '41.
USA, UK, and NL engineered in '41 iron embargo, then a credit embargo and oil embargo--war was nearly enevitable then.

And further, US code breakers had broken Japanese Naval codes..

There was ample obvious warnings.

The victors write history, and nobody n America reads.
They watch TV so naturally the extent of their analysis is to paraphrase what the heard while watch TV.
Thus the average American's view that "It was an unprovoked SURPRISE ATTACK" implying there was no hints no previous 20 years of increasing friction.

hoooey

Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Orange
War Plan Orange (commonly known as Plan Orange or just Orange) refers to a series of United States Joint Army and Navy Board war plans for dealing with a possible war with Japan during the years between the First and Second World Wars. The plans were begun informally in 1919 and formally adopted by the Joint Army and Navy Board beginning in 1924.[1] Predating the Rainbow plans, which presumed the assistance of allies, Orange was predicated on the U.S. fighting Japan alone. It anticipated a withholding of supplies from the Philippines and other U.S. outposts in the Western Pacific (they were expected to hold out on their own), while the Pacific Fleet marshaled its strength at bases in California, and guarded against attacks on the Panama Canal.

[Malbec]

The "threat" was clear already in 1895 when China was defeated by the Japanese.

It was clear the USA was building a Asia Empire when they moved from defeating the Spanish as colonial masters in the Philippines to murdering local Philippinos demonstrating for Democratic elections in only 3 weeks.
And then to a multi-years long war suppressing any resistance to US power---and killing 300,000 locals in order to "Pacify' the place....
This put USA on collision course with Japan.

It was clear to the whole world by 1905 with the Japanese victory over Russia.

USA was expanding across the Pacific, US Army officers stationed in Philippines were dispatched all over the East Asian theatre on "Holidays", photographing and noting and mapping.
The later famous US General Stillwell was one of those who was sent to China at the start of the Xinhai Revolution in 1912-13 which led to the founding of the Chinese Republic....it was clear who the US would eventually bumping heads with.

Then in '31 with the Japanese seizure of Northern China, more clearly in '37 with the outbreak of open warfare between China and Japan and endless "incidents" with Western forces--see Panay Incident.
The ever increasing aggression of Japan meant inevitable conflict with everybody, and the US was in the same area..

The "threat" was clear.
The Philippines garrison had been reinforced during 40-41, additional air elements moved there both fighter and bombers. It was considered Americas forward base..Look at a map of the area.
Then in 1940:
US stopped export of airplanes, parts, machine tools, and aviation gasoline,
which pissed the Japanese off.
Much of the US navy stationed at US West Coast bases were moved forward during '40 and early '41.
USA, UK, and NL engineered in '41 iron embargo, then a credit embargo and oil embargo--war was nearly enevitable then.

And further, US code breakers had broken Japanese Naval codes..

There was ample obvious warnings.

The victors write history, and nobody n America reads.
They watch TV so naturally the extent of their analysis is to paraphrase what the heard while watch TV.
Thus the average American's view that "It was an unprovoked SURPRISE ATTACK" implying there was no hints no previous 20 years of increasing friction.

hoooey

A few more details there though, both the US and Japanese navies were clearly wargaming scenarios where the opponent could only be the other for years. Japanese battleships were designed specifically to be more powerful than the largest ship that could conceivably pass through the Panama canal because they knew that that would be the largest any American ship could be.

Then there were continued tensions due to Japanese protests about the treatment of ethnic Japanese in states like California throughout the 20s and 30s and the American refusal to force the states to give Japanese equal rights.

And finally Cordell Hull refusing to carry on negotiations with Japan merely days before Pearl Harbour, insisting on a full withdrawal from both Indo-China and China or a continued oil embargo, both of which the Japanese were clearly not going to accept.

Pearl Harbour was years in the making and as you say anyone who followed the diplomatic shenanigans in the build up could see thats where things were going.

[cali]

Back to the topic?

[Bob Riebe]

Read your broad unqualified words---or do you have a version of Tourettes syndrome that you type brain-farts without control.

Here, let me quote you since youve forgotten:


By your own words you have said that those Americans who waited for a direct threat to react were fools deserving whatever misery which came their way...nearly 2400 dead, thousands more injured..

Or doesn't your blustering big talk apply to Americans?

Or---the most likely scenario---you're just running your mouth as usual and typing words unhindered by the thought process.

So which is it, Riebe?
Thoughtless blather, or hate for Americans who died because they didn't react to threats?
Do you have a brain?

[janvanvurpa]

Do you have a brain?

Obviously, do you?
Not too obvious.
Also no balls to address your own words.

What's the matter Riebe?

Ashamed how moronic your words are?

You should be ashamed and should really be ashamed at your cowardly attacks on me in a hopeless effort to avoid explaining why the Americans way back in '41 deserve whatever...

And the obvious question, not really a question but an application of YOUR WORD, bub, clearly you think all those who were murdered on 9/11 were:

Originally Posted by View Post
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe View Post
anyone that waits for a direct threat to react, is a fool deserving what ever misery comes the ones way.


Al Quaida said they were going to attack. repeatedly.

Now I think most of your right wing extremists are like your recent heroes Bush and Cheney, purely Chickenhawks, but you, you won't even defend your own statement...

Do you have any morals?

Here it is again:

Originally Posted by View Post
Originally Posted by Bob Riebe View Post
Those that make direct threats are half of the time, blowing smoke, anyone that waits for a direct threat to react, is a fool deserving what ever misery comes the ones way.


Do you have any sense of shame?

[Bob Riebe]

Obviously, do you?
Not too obvious.
Also no balls to address your own words.

What's the matter Riebe?

Ashamed how moronic your words are?

You should be ashamed and should really be ashamed at your cowardly attacks on me in a hopeless effort to avoid explaining why the Americans way back in '41 deserve whatever...

And the obvious question, not really a question but an application of YOUR WORD, bub, clearly you think all those who were murdered on 9/11 were:



Al Quaida said they were going to attack. repeatedly.

Now I think most of your right wing extremists are like your recent heroes Bush and Cheney, purely Chickenhawks, but you, you won't even defend your own statement...

Do you have any morals?

Here it is again:



Do you have any sense of shame?
Do you have any sense period?

[Eki]

This is getting senseless.

[Bob Riebe]

This is getting senseless.Badda-boom!

[janvanvurpa]

This is getting senseless.

Senseless is a obnoxious lout making stupid comments and when the gross stupidity is gently pointed out to him, not even acknowledging his own statements and
acting as if he never wrote what he wrote.

But I do agree, any dialog with people like Reibe is by its very nature senseless.

His crowd cannot defend indefensible utterances, and according to themselves, can never do or say, or write anything wrong.

[AAReagles]

Back to the topic?

Sounds reasonable to me….




Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/15/wikileaks-cables-us-air-force

The USA appears to be inching towards internet censorship. They can no longer take the moral high ground when dealing with the Great Firewall of China, I guess.

:up: Which is a nice exhibition of frustration and desperation by the US.

Guess the vain Espionage Act resurrection, media smear campaign, and political grandstanding wasn’t enough.




Wikileaks has already done more than enough to discredit themselves...

…. And this would compensate for the disgrace of the US government?




… Assange and others like him have an axe to grind against certain powers that be, for grievances real or imagined. This is not being done with the sole altruistic purpose of bringing light to the world.

Assange is probably not a completely clean, upstanding citizen himself …… He'll get a couple of million off of book and movie deals, become a blown out of proportion cult hero like Che, and recede into obscurity.

All things considered, he's just another fad.

I hope he is another fad. One of many hopefully. To be replaced by others willing to expend their resources and make good of any opportunity to monitor governments, corporations and other forms of hierarchy.



... The real story of Wikileaks? After two or three weeks of agonizing over this BS, most of what I have read confirms that the Americans, while having other opinions behind closed doors that are different from the public positions, are still in many ways better....

As far as foreign ‘diplomacy' goes? Yeah, but that's about it. It sure isn’t about ‘national interests’, otherwise this country wouldn’t be so dysfunctional on so many fronts; particularly the social-economical elements.

Whether it’s Wikileaks, some other medium or a lone hacker - as long as they’re not disclosing how to make bombs or advocating violence - then I’m fine with it. I don’t care if it’s cable leaks from international affairs or behind the big-money scenes of conducting ‘business’. The more people know, the better off we are. Considering how decades of malfeasance ran this country into the ground to the point that just about everyone is affected in some way - it’s about time more people became aware of what’s going on.... and actually took some interests.

Wonders never cease... :dozey: