WikiLeaks...Thoughts?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

A few thoughts:

  1. As Assange has stated a few times, Wikilieaks prioritizes the material that they receive. There are plenty of good reasons why a massive trove of diplomatic cables from the US would take precedence over other leaks. To jump to the conclusion that releasing them before something else reflects a particular resentment towards the US is childish and myopic. Wikileaks has released all sorts of materials before this that had little or nothing to do with the US. In fact, for anyone who cares to take a few seconds to confirm this, you can see all of the leaks they have released on their About page:
    http://213.251.145.96.nyud.net/about.html

  2. As to the value/ethics of releasing these cables. Consider the response… What we see in these cables is a systemic lack of professionalism in the part of some of our most important and empowered government employees. This to me is the reason why their release is not only valuable but necessary. Staying consistent to the message that Assange has been delivering for a few years now, this release exposes competency and ethical issues that we as citizens should be very concerned about.

Diplomacy and foreign policy in the age of WMDs should not be undertaken with such a low level of maturity. This is THE issue that these cables should raise. Instead we are arguing at a public an private level about how we can get back at this guy for exposing our dirty laundry.

  1. Assange is a fucking hero. The world needs more people like him who are willing to take the kind of personal risk he does to pursue a greater ethic. From where I sit, governments and business people in the Western world at least have become increasingly driven by a self-centered and selfish lack of ethics. Wikileaks is the best way that I can imagine to offer some accountability.
102

[quote]skaz05 wrote:

Does anyone think that this is just downright dangerous and irresponsible? I don’t know what this guy is trying to prove, or what his ultimate goal is, but this just seems pointless.[/quote]

Well… let’s see. Digging into that list a bit an inquisitive person might start scratching their head and wondering what makes certain assets valuable and others not valuable.

The first thing that jumps out at me is the undersea cable crossings that are listed. I would like to spend a few hours with it, but at a quick glance the list does not seem to include ALL of the major cables, only selective ones. What does this mean? Why are certain corporate (and in some instances state-sponsored) assets more important than others? I can think of at least one transatlantic cable that I did not see on this list which likely carries as much if not more communications traffic than all others combined.

I think that there is an enormous amount of value in these leaks. Unfortunately, I don’t think that the critical thinking skills of most people, pundits, etc… are sharp enough to realize it.

103

Another thought in regards to the danger to personnel posed by some of these releases.

The leaks are about exposing the behaviors of key officials and systems. These officials and systems have a far greater impact on the safety of personnel, sovereign states, our citizens, etc… than the leaks could ever have. Here, now, we have the opportunity to evaluate the behaviors and competency of the people we employ.

Instead, we are going to be goaded into arguing about the motivations we imagine that we can assign to Assange, regardless of what he has written and often in ignorance of all of his actions.

104

i don’t want to ruin the show but :

*wikileaks is not a diplomatic cataclysm.
everyone in the field know what the king of Marocco (and most Sunni leaders) think about Iran.
everyone know that Sarkozy is an hysterical dwarf
everyone know that Pakistan gouvernment is corrupt
etc

nothing really knew, or even remotely interresting.

*wikileaks is not an anti-american conspiracy
wikileaks is probably doing America a service.

Wikileaks show a gray truth.
which is probably way better than the darker rumors people already believed.

do not underestimate the preexisting hate.

*Assange is not a hero either

it’s a deluded ideologue, and an objective ally of the western states.

because of these leaks, the states will realize they need to reinforce their informational security.
they will do it.

in the not-so-long run, it’s the only thing Assange will really accomplish.

105

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
How can you say that power has no place in a fee society? Power what ALLOWS us to have that free society! Are you naive enough to believe that our (relatively) free society would exist if it weren’t for the military might of the United States? LMAO! Why don’t we all just roll around in candy cane fields with fanny-packs filled with rainbow dicks while puppy dogs lick our fucking ears holding hands singing “we are the world”?[/quote]

You love to reach don’t you? It gives you the ability to argue against points that don’t exist. Straw man incarnate.

106

[quote]Dijon wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
How can you say that power has no place in a fee society? Power what ALLOWS us to have that free society! Are you naive enough to believe that our (relatively) free society would exist if it weren’t for the military might of the United States? LMAO! Why don’t we all just roll around in candy cane fields with fanny-packs filled with rainbow dicks while puppy dogs lick our fucking ears holding hands singing “we are the world”?[/quote]

You love to reach don’t you? It gives you the ability to argue against points that don’t exist. Straw man incarnate.[/quote]

Reaching? Really? Show me just ONE example in history where an Empire as big and economically viable as the United States (in reality, that’s what we are) have been able to maintain a peaceful society without the means to defend it, or the political wherewithal to formulate an effective foreign policy strategy.

Hell, show me any COUNTRY or CITY-STATE to EVER thrive without the above criteria!

Having a strong military and effective foreign policy are the FOUNDATIONS of civilization.

107

[quote]Regular Gonzalez wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]brnforce wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
By the way maybe this is a naive question, but what did Wiki gain from doing this?

Did they make money?

Did they make friends?

Did they somehow gain enough power to make money in the future?

Are they working for a terrorist organization?

I don’t understand their motivation, someone help me out.[/quote]

It’s an ego/ideology thing. They believe that they are being altruistic.[/quote]

There’s nothing altruistic about their actions. It’s purely selfish and the soldier who stole these files in the first place should be tried for treason.

Take a look at the example of Yemen. Pres. Ali Abdullah Saleh only allows the U.S. military to bomb the shit of al Qaeda there if HE gets the credit for it. Naturally the U.S. says “By all means, as long as we kill terrorists we don’t care who gets the credit.” But these leaks have exposed that and will now lessen the chances that Saleh continues to give the U.S. military such latitude there. Not only that, al Qaeda now knows the extent to which Saleh has cooperated with the U.S. and this will probably lead to all sorts of attempts to remove a leader from power who had successfully worked with the U.S. to kill terrorists. This could be a big blow to the war on terror.
[/quote]

So Saleh insists on taking the credit for bobming the shit out of al Queda, yet the only reason they will try to remove him is because of what wikeleaks has exposed?

The whole bombing the shit out of them thing wasn’t enough insentive for al Queda to attempt to remove him, but this new information from wikileaks is where they will draw the line.[/quote]

What this does is offer even more incentive to al Qaeda. Actually, what it really does is just make it easier for al Qaeda to recruit disillusioned teenagers into their organization. Most people in Yemen and other parts of the region already basically knew that Saleh was letting Americans bomb al Qaeda, but now they have proof and now they know even further what makes not only Saleh tick, but how America plans to go about destroying al Qaeda’s safe havens.

108

Here’s the analogy I would make about this whole thing:

You have a large group of friends. Some of them you really like, others you tolerate and still others you really don’t like at all, but you work with them or your friends are dating them or whatever. The bottom line is that these people are all in your lives on a regular basis for various reasons. Now suppose you are all part of a church group or a 12-step program or something like that, in which honesty in all of your affairs is some sort of driving ethical force.

What Assange has done is nothing more than started to tell all of these friends EVERYTHING about each other based on stolen diaries or supposedly confidential conversations, emails, phone calls etc. He’s telling Dick that Jane said he has a small cock, he’s telling Bob that Nancy was complaining about his body odor, he’s telling Jill that Jack said she’s a klutz for falling down the hill and so on.

Now everyone in the group is wary of each of each other, even the ones who had good relationships, and they are ALL mad at Assange. But Assange is mystified at this sentiment because he’s “just trying to be honest because there shouldn’t be any secrets between friends.”

109

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The reality of life is that in order to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs - I’m fine with that.
[/quote]

No you are not.

YOu are fine with it when the US government does it, but not if Assange does it.

[/quote]

I was speaking of a country’s foreign policy. ANY country. It isn’t pretty all the time. Last time I checked, Assange and Wikkileaks are NOT a country, he is a radical with an agenda to harm the United States, a country of which I am a citizen of and where my family and I reside. So why would I be OK with someone putting my self and my family at risk? This isn’t something small and insignificant!

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

All it takes is one of our allies (or “borderline” relationships that were affected by this) finding out a critical piece of data and NOT sharing it with us because they don’t trust us anymore because of this incident. What if that piece of data were the time and location of a terrorist attack? Or a name? Or a flight number? Or any one of a hundred seemingly insignificant details that could lead to the prevention of a terrorist attack?

Are you people that are supporting this asshole so blind that you can’t see the implications here?

110

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Instead, we are going to be goaded into arguing about the motivations we imagine that we can assign to Assange, regardless of what he has written and often in ignorance of all of his actions. [/quote]

But if we understand the motivations we may be able to take them away thus circumventing another incident like we just suffered.

111

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

Are you people that are supporting this asshole so blind that you can’t see the implications here?
[/quote]

It’s not a matter of them being blind - It’s a matter of them either not caring about (or enjoying those antagonizing) the US. Or, they just don’t have the political savvy to understand the impact of such things on world affairs.

112

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
How can you say that power has no place in a fee society? Power what ALLOWS us to have that free society! Are you naive enough to believe that our (relatively) free society would exist if it weren’t for the military might of the United States? LMAO! Why don’t we all just roll around in candy cane fields with fanny-packs filled with rainbow dicks while puppy dogs lick our fucking ears holding hands singing “we are the world”?[/quote]

You love to reach don’t you? It gives you the ability to argue against points that don’t exist. Straw man incarnate.[/quote]

Reaching? Really? Show me just ONE example in history where an Empire as big and economically viable as the United States (in reality, that’s what we are) have been able to maintain a peaceful society without the means to defend it, or the political wherewithal to formulate an effective foreign policy strategy.

Hell, show me any COUNTRY or CITY-STATE to EVER thrive without the above criteria!

Having a strong military and effective foreign policy are the FOUNDATIONS of civilization.[/quote]

I quoted you directly.

113

From the general aura of the leaks/this thread it seems to be the case that no country trusts any other countries. I don’t think this is any revelation.

114

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The reality of life is that in order to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs - I’m fine with that.
[/quote]

No you are not.

YOu are fine with it when the US government does it, but not if Assange does it.

[/quote]

I was speaking of a country’s foreign policy. ANY country. It isn’t pretty all the time. Last time I checked, Assange and Wikkileaks are NOT a country, he is a radical with an agenda to harm the United States, a country of which I am a citizen of and where my family and I reside. So why would I be OK with someone putting my self and my family at risk? This isn’t something small and insignificant!

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

All it takes is one of our allies (or “borderline” relationships that were affected by this) finding out a critical piece of data and NOT sharing it with us because they don’t trust us anymore because of this incident. What if that piece of data were the time and location of a terrorist attack? Or a name? Or a flight number? Or any one of a hundred seemingly insignificant details that could lead to the prevention of a terrorist attack?

Are you people that are supporting this asshole so blind that you can’t see the implications here?
[/quote]

I do see the implications.

In this day and age governments have a hard time keeping secrets.

Awesome.

Since I do not think that teh Amercian empire makes you or your family any safer and regularly costs the lifes of other people I have no real problem if someone pisses on their parade either.

115

[quote]Dijon wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Dijon wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
How can you say that power has no place in a fee society? Power what ALLOWS us to have that free society! Are you naive enough to believe that our (relatively) free society would exist if it weren’t for the military might of the United States? LMAO! Why don’t we all just roll around in candy cane fields with fanny-packs filled with rainbow dicks while puppy dogs lick our fucking ears holding hands singing “we are the world”?[/quote]

You love to reach don’t you? It gives you the ability to argue against points that don’t exist. Straw man incarnate.[/quote]

Reaching? Really? Show me just ONE example in history where an Empire as big and economically viable as the United States (in reality, that’s what we are) have been able to maintain a peaceful society without the means to defend it, or the political wherewithal to formulate an effective foreign policy strategy.

Hell, show me any COUNTRY or CITY-STATE to EVER thrive without the above criteria!

Having a strong military and effective foreign policy are the FOUNDATIONS of civilization.[/quote]

I quoted you directly.
[/quote]

Alright, maybe I’m a little slow. What points don’t exist? Could you break it down for me? What does “straw mane incarnate” mean and how is that relevant to anything we are discussing?

What is YOUR point?

116

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Alright, maybe I’m a little slow. What points don’t exist? Could you break it down for me? What does “straw mane incarnate” mean and how is that relevant to anything we are discussing?

What is YOUR point?[/quote]

My point is the following:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
So I guess you think that if you saw a criminal stealing an old woman’s pocketbook, you should just keep walking because it’s none of your business, right?[/quote]

I never said this and I don’t believe this. You are extending your argument to a generalization and forming it into a personal attack. Both of which are logical fallacies.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Let’s take another look at history when we tried your “isolationist” policy.[/quote]

I never said I was an isolationist. Wanting the United States to give up policies and practices that harm us is not isolationism.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
How can you say that power has no place in a fee society?[/quote]

I never said that. I said that there are levels of power which exist that have no business being present in a free society. Again more extrapolation on your part that gives you the ability to argue a point that I didn’t make.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You probably think that it’s a good idea in youth sports to give the fucking LOSERS a trophy - because “they did their best”. Fucking pathetic. [/quote]

You are again drawing conclusions that are irrelevant to the argument on hand and you are trying to fit them into some sort of personal attack.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
(let me guess, we should all “think loving thoughts” about our enemies and invite them all here for a free education and let them enjoy the benefits of western society by stealing money from successful people and “redistributing” it to those who just couldn’t hack it?) [/quote]

More of the same.

“Straw man incarnate”… based on nearly every response you have given to my points meets the definition of a Straw Man argument.

117

[quote]Dijon wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Alright, maybe I’m a little slow. What points don’t exist? Could you break it down for me? What does “straw mane incarnate” mean and how is that relevant to anything we are discussing?

What is YOUR point?[/quote]

My point is the following:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
So I guess you think that if you saw a criminal stealing an old woman’s pocketbook, you should just keep walking because it’s none of your business, right?[/quote]

I never said this and I don’t believe this. You are extending your argument to a generalization and forming it into a personal attack. Both of which are logical fallacies.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
Let’s take another look at history when we tried your “isolationist” policy.[/quote]

I never said I was an isolationist. Wanting the United States to give up policies and practices that harm us is not isolationism.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
How can you say that power has no place in a fee society?[/quote]

I never said that. I said that there are levels of power which exist that have no business being present in a free society. Again more extrapolation on your part that gives you the ability to argue a point that I didn’t make.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
You probably think that it’s a good idea in youth sports to give the fucking LOSERS a trophy - because “they did their best”. Fucking pathetic. [/quote]

You are again drawing conclusions that are irrelevant to the argument on hand and you are trying to fit them into some sort of personal attack.

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
(let me guess, we should all “think loving thoughts” about our enemies and invite them all here for a free education and let them enjoy the benefits of western society by stealing money from successful people and “redistributing” it to those who just couldn’t hack it?) [/quote]

More of the same.

“Straw man incarnate”… based on nearly every response you have given to my points meets the definition of a Straw Man argument.[/quote]

Fair enough. What levels of power do you find acceptable in a free society? What policies and practices would you like the United States to give up?

118

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
The reality of life is that in order to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs - I’m fine with that.
[/quote]

No you are not.

YOu are fine with it when the US government does it, but not if Assange does it.

[/quote]

I was speaking of a country’s foreign policy. ANY country. It isn’t pretty all the time. Last time I checked, Assange and Wikkileaks are NOT a country, he is a radical with an agenda to harm the United States, a country of which I am a citizen of and where my family and I reside. So why would I be OK with someone putting my self and my family at risk? This isn’t something small and insignificant!

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the message was lost
For want of a message the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

All it takes is one of our allies (or “borderline” relationships that were affected by this) finding out a critical piece of data and NOT sharing it with us because they don’t trust us anymore because of this incident. What if that piece of data were the time and location of a terrorist attack? Or a name? Or a flight number? Or any one of a hundred seemingly insignificant details that could lead to the prevention of a terrorist attack?

Are you people that are supporting this asshole so blind that you can’t see the implications here?
[/quote]

I do see the implications.

In this day and age governments have a hard time keeping secrets.

Awesome.

Since I do not think that teh Amercian empire makes you or your family any safer and regularly costs the lifes of other people I have no real problem if someone pisses on their parade either.

[/quote]

I don’t agree with everything that the United States government does either. But given the CURRENT way things are structured, right or wrong, Wikkileakes has moved our security in a negative direction.

Do you disagree with that?

119

Alot of people here are argueing the whole, the truth is the best we need all the truth blahblahblahblah. While i partly agree, in becoming a citizen and to support the troops over seas we are bound by a social contract ever since the beginning of civilizations or even organized tribes. The basis is: We give up some rights in order for all other rights to be protected for the common good.

Going off that I think Wikileaks has the potential to be very detrimental to current operations going on. If it were things about the past or recent past that had no connections to current operations, more power to it, but the mere fact that it can danger military personell (a little bias being in the military) and all those political arrangements.

Deceptiveness and cunning is the political game. Look one way move the other. People say this is lying and all which is true but without these back room deals and etc.a lot of things would’nt pass.

Just to reiterate, Wikileaks can be either good or bad, good showing to the truth since people now a days are all truth thirsty and want everything fixed without giving up anything or paying more taxes, and can be bad, revealing “secrets” (for what its worth) in an already unstable middle eastern situation while Americans, some 19 or 18 right out of highschool, serve there time there and standing next to the danger.

Just for shts and giggles everyone who is saying stay neutral, and isolate and etc. We did that in the past and we got spanked by the Japanese. And furthermore the other countries in WTO, NATO, ASEAN, NAFTA already said the expetations for america to help the world , aka, world police, and being the founder and head chair in NATO we are the only ones who can do that. Also pulling out of all these places would do this:

  1. Stumble us further down the recession (even though we are in a recovery right now): we have a couple hundred thousand people in the middle east and most prob some more hundred thou around the world. Now bring back that many people to America and due to not being deployed you can expect a large cut of military personell. Great now we have couple hundred thousand people unemployed in america! YAYYY!
  2. America is able to get cheaper prices just because we are in occupational status in some countries. Prices for some things would naturally go back up, and everyone would complain.
  3. America is the target for many countries, having such a large military and more allies than enemies, America is able to defend itself by pure reputation but take away that military prowess and then watch the bees come. Im sure more than one country will attack us.
  4. Going of the world police thing, many countries with our military presence ask for our help. Yes they like us there. Even in Iraq, the Sunni muslims were on America’s jock for freeing them from SADAM, Shiite were a little more against America just because they were part of sadams royal guard.

If you really think we are doing bad over there in the middle east i sugggest taking a read of what we are doing. I think if we take a good hard look we are doing more good than anything over there in the middle east.

120

WikiLeaks lists sites key to U.S. security - WikiLeaks lists sites key to U.S. security - CNN.com

This is what I don’t get. I can understand the argument that Assange wants to reveal the ‘dirty workings’ of a government, and I can see why people support it. But what does WikiLeaks revealing key sites for U.S. security (manufacturing plants, ports, mines, Panama Canal, etc) have to do with dirt on the government? What’s dirty about that this document? If anything, it hurts us by revealing that information to terrorists.

It seems that Assange revealed this classified information FOR THE SAKE OF REVEALING CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, not for transparency in the government or getting rid of corruption. This to me just shows Assange is an egotistical fuckhead and is revealing classified information to make a name for himself and for WikiLeaks… regardless of how he thinks what he is doing is ethical.