By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 05 December 2010
Edit Thread
Badassbab said:
Kasz216 said:
Badassbab said:
Kasz216 said:

As for the actual leaks... this one is pretty hilarious.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11917398

 

It makes the UK government sound like... I dunno. 

 

"we're still super special best friends right?"

 

This is my point though, about stuff that's funny... but there was no real reason to release it.

Hello Kaz. I can see your once again defending democracy hating elite centres of power from criticism.

As for this post, this is one of the many thousands of documents released. I don't think WikiLeaks cherry picked what and what not to release. The fact that the UK state funded BBC decided to focus on this particular story well you have to take it up with the BBC.

Oh and you and I have quite different tastes in humour.

Democracy hating elite centers of power?  Huh?  I'm not even sure who you are referring to here.



Also, actually that's my point.  Wikileaks SHOULD cherry pick what to release and what not to realse.

The majority of this stuff being released serves nothing excpet making private conversations inside governments impossible... which is needed for diplomacy.

 

I mean, imagine a sports league like the NBA trying to carry out trades with other teams if everything they said had to be public at all times.  You'd never get any deals done.

A certain level of secrecy before the deals are public is needed for negotiating... the only kind of closed diplomacy that is bad is deals that STAY secret.

It's irresponsible to just post any and all secret information you gain, even if that information is not a crime.

So what your saying is Wikileaks should do what the corporate media do and impose on itself self censorship? One of the problems with our Governments is there is far too much secrecy and the public are barely involved in the decision making processes of our elected representatives. The contempt for democracy with the latest leaks is very revealing. Wikileaks is a some ways a response to the piss poor job the mainstream business orientated media is doing.


Really?  Let me ask you a couple questions.

How well do you think polticians would be able to talk to each other if their aids weren't aloud to give honest opinions about the other leaders to each other before they met?

How do you think nuclear negotiations  to stop the Iran nuclear weapons program would go if the US government published transcripts of the entire event?

A program they aren't even publicly admitting exists.  Do you think there would be any negotiatons?  Or that we would just be forced to go to war?

Why was it that open negotions couldn't get a peace deal done in WW1, but they got the deal shortly after the deal went quiet?  (Because nobody wanted to give in publicly, privately each could explain away why the harsh terms weren't harsher.)


Private negotions is the ONLY way to get MOST diplomacy done.  What's the difference just so long as the entire result and deal is published?


Public negotions and full transparency would only lead to much more military action needed to be taken, and for negotions to become more partisan and more deadlocked as the people of both nations end up demanding exactly what was initally offered.