US News Wikileaks: what the leaked State Department cables say

[sqrage]

Because if the citizens knew everything, nothing would get done. The citizens would protest almost every single action the government takes.

And? That's the point of a democracy. Do you know what the word means?

And things would get done... everything that gets majority vote.

 

[Romek]

Sarah Palin: hunt WikiLeaks founder like al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders

The founder of WikiLeaks should be hunted down just like al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, according to Sarah Palin.

Julian Assange was branded “an anti-American operative with blood on his hands” by the prominent Republican, who asked why he has not yet been caught by the authorities.
She accused the Obama administration of “incompetence” and a “strange lack of urgency” in not stopping the release of 250,000 leaked diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks, given that it had already published sensitive information about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The former Governor of Alaska and vice-presidential nominee suggested that “cyber tools” should be used to shut down the whistle-blowing website permanently. It has twice been the subject of targeted attacks by hackers to bring it offline this week.

Read On

 

[Slapshot136]

Because if the citizens knew everything, nothing would get done. The citizens would protest almost every single action the government takes.

I think people already protest almost every single action the government takes (maybe MORE people would protest, but I don't think it will have a huge effect either way on how the government operates)

to me it only seems fair - the government spies on people, and people spy back on the government

 

[seph ir oth]

The founder of WikiLeaks should be hunted down just like al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders, according to Sarah Palin.

Julian Assange was branded “an anti-American operative with blood on his hands” by the prominent Republican, who asked why he has not yet been caught by the authorities.
She accused the Obama administration of “incompetence” and a “strange lack of urgency” in not stopping the release of 250,000 leaked diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks, given that it had already published sensitive information about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The former Governor of Alaska and vice-presidential nominee suggested that “cyber tools” should be used to shut down the whistle-blowing website permanently. It has twice been the subject of targeted attacks by hackers to bring it offline this week.

Read On

Sounds like Sarah Palin is hiding something :thup:

 

[Sevion]

And? That's the point of a democracy. Do you know what the word means?

And things would get done... everything that gets majority vote.

What I mean by "nothing would get done" is that the government wouldn't be able to do the "best" thing for the situation. Think about it, if the government wants to do X which will yield better end results than Y, but is less morally sound, the majority vote will probably vote it down and go with Y that yields worse results.

Just a question, do you know how our government works? We don't have a direct democracy. It's a representative democracy. The people don't actually vote on those things. Representatives we vote into office do.

I think people already protest almost every single action the government takes (maybe MORE people would protest, but I don't think it will have a huge effect either way on how the government operates)

to me it only seems fair - the government spies on people, and people spy back on the government

Of course people do.

However, you have to agree that there are some things that the government has to do in order to avoid devastating consequences.

While it may seem fair, some secrets should stay secrets. Some secrets can cause a lot of damage. Say some secret released on WikiLeaks causes World War III. It could happen.

That's why I completely disagree with his actions.

 

[sqrage]

>>Just a question, do you know how our government works? We don't have a direct democracy. It's a representative democracy. The people don't actually vote on those things. Representatives we vote into office do.


No we don't, we don't have a democracy at all, we're just supposed to.

 

[Slapshot136]

While it may seem fair, some secrets should stay secrets. Some secrets can cause a lot of damage. Say some secret released on WikiLeaks causes World War III. It could happen.

have you noticed what kind of countries keep the most secrets as far as how the government is run and stuff like that? countries that limit the knowledge of the people? (especially by limiting what the press can say) - I think those countries are the ones more likely to start a war (ok I mean an actual WWIII type war, not some stupid war on drugs/etc.)

 

[Sevion]

Every government keeps secrets. Some more than others, yes. The goal isn't to limit the knowledge of the people, but to keep the people happy. Happy citizens makes a happy government.

Since when is the (US) government limiting what the press can say? If they were, then they'd get their asses sued in a heartbeat.

The countries most likely to start a war, in my opinion, are: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, South and North Korea, and Russia.

I seriously doubt China or the US will start a war. The Chinese economy and the US Economy are like two cards in a house of cards. They require each other and thus will never openly conflict with each other.

North Korea, Russia, and Iran (and Saudi Arabia) on the other hand, don't really give a rat's ass about us and would rather see the US eat shit and die.

Also, I don't really 100% understand your reply, Slapshot. This post is just a reply to what I think you're saying.

 

[Jedimindtrixxx]

The countries most likely to start a war, in my opinion, are: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, South and North Korea, and Russia.

slapshot was talking bout who starting ww3, and im pretty sure isreael doesnt have the means to start a world war. theyve been at war for the past like bajillion years, sure, but i fully do not see them starting ww3. their fighting has been limited to their grounds and the surrounding area.
russia as well has had major cuts in its military funding and since the fall of the soviet union i doubt theyd be the ones to actually start a ww3. north korea and south korea MIGHT sta.. no wait continue their war in which case countires would be backing them up sure but i dont think it would start a world war. iran and saudi arabia im not sure about cuz of the whole wmd situation (actually north korea might be the same).

im not however saying that US would start a world war either, im not sure who would start one IF it were started.

 

[Sevion]

Israel has the means to start a war. We sell them tons of military equipment.

Russia does have enough to combine with North Korea to attack South Korea which is why I listed them as a possibility. I see no other option for Russia though.

Iran is in the process of developing nuclear warheads. Israel has nuclear warheads. Saudi Arabia is just itching to pull the Muslim countries around it into war, isn't it? With its plead to the US to attack Iran, it's not going to get very comfortable for the Saudi king.

When I say "start" a war, I mean the spark that starts the flame.

 

[Slapshot136]

so on the scale of countries likely to start a war are North Korea, Russia, and Iran (and Saudi Arabia), countries that also limit information/press/speech

personally I would put china somewhere in the middle, but w/e

and the U.S. on the other side (the less likely to start a war side) because of how the press/etc. are still relatively open

see where im getting at? things like wikileaks prevent the U.S. from becoming similar to the first list of countries, consider it (wikileaks) like a resistance to the U.S. becoming a government that regulates the internet and invades peoples privacy by spying on them and taking information for no real reason, because the more wikileaks or similar finds out and publishes stuff, the bigger the backlash/etc. - it's like a deterrent, and it also reduces propaganda/lies from spreading and controlling the people

imagine if it was common knowledge that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq/Afghanistan before the U.S. invaded - would there have been any invasion at all?

what if information regarding the pearl harbor attack was leaked? (the top U.S. officials knew of the attack, but let it be a surprise in order to increase the damage/get the people angry/get the U.S. into war vs japan)

I view this type of manipulation of the people by the government with lies as bad, for any reason - it's just an abuse of power and trust - I don't know about you, but I would prefer to trust my government, rather then fear it and hide from it

 

[Sevion]

I view this type of manipulation of the people by the government with lies as bad, for any reason - it's just an abuse of power

So would you have had the Allies lose WWII? If not for the US, the Allies would have most likely lost. IF* they had won, then Russia would have swooped up a ton of territory and made much of the world Communist.

Regarding WikiLeaks, I don't think you fully understand what I'm saying. It is inevitable for governments to hide secrets as they do.

It is a fundamental part of foreign affairs.

Propaganda is good (to an extent).

Do you really think a government wants/needs a country that doesn't back its decisions?

The world isn't black and white. You can't walk into a decision with exactly two options. One "good" morally and one "bad" morally and vice versa in terms of "effectiveness".

One thing I don't understand about your reasoning is the link between limiting information and starting a war.

In my mind, that has very little (if anything) to do with it.

 

[Slapshot136]

One thing I don't understand about your reasoning is the link between limiting information and starting a war.

In my mind, that has very little (if anything) to do with it.

ok then, what types of governments limit information, and what types of government are likely to start a war? I think there is a correlation there

and I agree that while it isn't black and white, I believe that the more (true) information the better - not perfect, but better, since anything less is exploiting off of those who never had a chance to know the truth

Propaganda is good (to an extent).

I disagree completely - Even if the end result is the same, I think its better to tell the truth

what do you think would have happened in scenario 1 (weapons in Iraq/Afghanistan)? - I think we would not have invaded, and that would have been a good thing

now what about scenario 2 (pearl harbor)? - we still would have been attacked, but we would have been prepared, suffered less losses, still gone to war because we were attacked, and ended the war sooner and with less overall losses - I also think that would have been better then how it happened, scapegoating the person in charge of the base and blaming them for being unprepared when they were given orders to do certain things that made them unprepared

Do you really think a government wants/needs a country that doesn't back its decisions?

if the government needs to lie to its people in order to gain their approval, don't you think there is something wrong? I would say that in that case there is a need for a revolution, the government should exist for the people, not the people existing to blindly support the government - it's not the government that chooses it's country/people, it's the people/country that choose the government, so in reverse, do you really think the people want/need a government that disregards their will?

 

[Sevion]

I disagree completely - Even if the end result is the same, I think its better to tell the truth

Lies are told for a better outcome. To an extent, the ends justify the means.

what do you think would have happened in scenario 1 (weapons in Iraq/Afghanistan)? - I think we would not have invaded, and that would have been a good thing

now what about scenario 2 (pearl harbor)? - we still would have been attacked, but we would have been prepared, suffered less losses, still gone to war because we were attacked, and ended the war sooner and with less overall losses - I also think that would have been better then how it happened, scapegoating the person in charge of the base and blaming them for being unprepared when they were given orders to do certain things that made them unprepared

First off, I would like to see proof of the US knowing of the Japanese attack before hand.

I've searched around for some proof of either argument and there seems to be a hell of a lot of evidence of us simply not believing the Japanese would attack us.

Though, there was one about the US leaders receiving assurances that the Japanese show now aggression towards the US.

All together, I'm not sure what I could say.

The Japanese attacked on a Sunday. Something that would be unimaginable to Americans.

However, all's fair in love and war. I say ignorance was a big factor in the "surprise" attack.

Regarding scenario 1, I'm willing to bet we would have invaded regardless with other "reasons".

if the government needs to lie to its people in order to gain their approval, don't you think there is something wrong? I would say that in that case there is a need for a revolution, the government should exist for the people, not the people existing to blindly support the government - it's not the government that chooses it's country/people, it's the people/country that choose the government, so in reverse, do you really think the people want/need a government that disregards their will?

The government doesn't need to lie for approval. It lies for less opposition. I see nothing wrong with that.

Do you seriously believe that any government, ANY government, could last one day giving out every last secret they have? No. There is no way in hell they could.

If you seriously believe there should be a revolution, then be my guest. I doubt many would join up.

The people don't blindly support the government. Its representatives support the people.

Disregarding their will? Please. Would you open your eyes? If we listened to every little moral conflict that the people have with the government actions then the people would be left with NO will. In all honesty, it's best for their will that there is SOME disregarding.

 

[Icyculyr]

Israel has the means to start a war. We sell them tons of military equipment.

Russia does have enough to combine with North Korea to attack South Korea which is why I listed them as a possibility. I see no other option for Russia though.

Iran is in the process of developing nuclear warheads. Israel has nuclear warheads. Saudi Arabia is just itching to pull the Muslim countries around it into war, isn't it? With its plead to the US to attack Iran, it's not going to get very comfortable for the Saudi king.

When I say "start" a war, I mean the spark that starts the flame.

Israel's been trying for peace for ages, giving up land, agreeing to some things arab countries are wanting (which I disagree with), etc., it is unlikely they will initiate any war unless provoked on a very large scale, I imagine sometime in the future Israel will be attacked though, Iran (and all those other countries) going nuclear worries me a fair bit.

This guy has some guts, I heard his mother was being "hunted" down, I hope they end up being all right.

 

[Sevion]

Icycyclyr. You do realize that Israel will never ever ever ever ever rest until the Jews have control of Jerusalem right?

 

[Icyculyr]

Icycyclyr. You do realize that Israel will never ever ever ever ever rest until the Jews have control of Jerusalem right?

Of course, it belongs to them. They shouldn't even have to fight to get control of it, the Palestinians should just back off, but they won't, they want it -- heck, they want Israel gone.

 

[Sevion]

Do you know their religion? They're Muslim.

The city of Jerusalem is both the "holy land" for the Jews AND the Muslims. Ever heard of the Dome of the Rock?

You should check it out.

 

[Icyculyr]

Do you know their religion? They're Muslim.

The city of Jerusalem is both the "holy land" for the Jews AND the Muslims. Ever heard of the Dome of the Rock?

You should check it out.

The Palestinian religion? Yes, I know. Israel is the holy land for the Jews, just because the Muslims have the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem doesn't mean it's their holy land (it might be a holy site to them), Israel belongs to the Jews, through and through.

I think it's ridiculous for the Muslims to want Jerusalem or even a part of it, as their own.

 

[Slapshot136]

Lies are told for a better outcome. To an extent, the ends justify the means.

and how do you know that they aren't told for other reasons or as an abuse of power for personal gain?

First off, I would like to see proof of the US knowing of the Japanese attack before hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate

I would say the fact that the U.S. lost/refuses to show documents is proof enough that they were up to something, but perhaps you can explain why they still need to keep secrets even 60+ years after the fact

Regarding scenario 1, I'm willing to bet we would have invaded regardless with other "reasons".

perhaps, but I say doing something for something that exists is better then doing something for something that does not exist

The people don't blindly support the government. Its representatives support the people.

support the people? and what do the people want if they are misinformed by propaganda? the people are led like blind sheep and only support the government because of lies - don't you see the potential for abuse of power? the government can do anything they want and get away with it here because they can find some sort of lies/propaganda to spread to back them up, and the people won't know any better (unless wikileaks/etc. gives them contradicting information, which then makes the people think, and when people think, they arrive at a better conclusion)

why don't you look into governments that control the people by propaganda and see how those governments are bad? Nazi Germany comes to mind, the propaganda justified the holocaust, and the end result was rather devastating

while the U.S. isn't there yet, it is getting closer and closer as far as how it regulates information/speech