Kasz216 said:
Badassbab said:
Kasz216 said:
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.
|
I don't really care about what aides say about other political leaders. In fact no one really should if we are being serious. The only people who would care are egotistical politicians and dictatorial monarchs. What I do care about is the blatent contempt for democracy the leaks reveal.
The nuclear negotiations weren't going well way before the current leaks at all so I'm not sure what your point is. And why should we go to war? If the public had a say with a fair free press at the helm with all the facts laid out on the table in front of them without the usual bullshit propaganda and double standards then I very much doubt anyone would want war. In fact even with all the anti Iran rhetoric the world wide public is still anti war.
I'm not sure what your point is about WW1 deals. A time when women couldn't vote in most countries and ethnic minorities were treated as second class citizens. We've moved on from then, we are much more civilised and better informed. And for your information Germany was still very severly punished (which in some ways lead to WWII), Ottomon Empire was broken up and distributed amongst the victors (the effects of which are still being felt today) and the Austrian Hungary empire was no more. So not sure what concessions the victorious Allies made to the defeated Axis powers.
Unlike you I think people should have a say in what deals our elected representatives make. We are not all war mongerers, that's the politicians and the mainstream corporate media.
|
People are condeming wikileaks specifically for publishing things like how absassadors refer to eladers, and as you said... those leaders do care... and it does effect neogtations.
And no... we havent moved on from there. If all negotiations were purley open, we'd never make deals... at all... and yes people would be for going to war with Iran. Right now the only reason people DON'T support bombing Iran is because they expect the negotiations to go well. If they don't go well? Guess what will happen?
Guess how impossible negotiations would be, if we had to do it in public where they even refuse to admit what they are doing?
You are naive if you don't think 70-80% of the stuff wikileaks is releasing only makes diplomacy harder, and conflict more likely.
Also, you do realize that opinion poles that most people DO favour and attack on Iran if they don't give up their program right?
http://www.zogby.com/news/readnews.cfm?ID=1379
This is without the american people being fully informed about all those extra steps that Iran is doing to make Nuclear weapons like the russian rockets document wikileaks released and this was before we knew they had state of the art advanced power plants, back when we thought they were 1970's era plants.
There are plenty of other polls in general that show if Iran refuses to give up it's weapons most people support attacks.
|
Many people support wikileaks. People are sick to the stomach of our so called leaders making decisions totally detrimental to the well being of the majority. Those most opposed to Wikileaks are those who are in positions of power with a privilaged status and/or in the pockets of powerful business pressure/focus groups. Like I said before I really don't care for what aides have to say about aides. I mean all it's revealed to the majority of the worlds population is American embassy staff don't think too highly of the rest of the world. But to the worlds secret service agencies it's probably nothing new.
The leaks haven't really released much about the negotiations, I'm not sure why the tpic moved that way. We don't really know much about the very top secret stuff. As for negotiations that were done quite publically....don't really know any unless you know of one. And negotiations that have been done in private...pretty much all of them and the US has invaded two countries over the last decade. And your point is.....
And I'm not really talking about being in favour of open negotiations....I'm talking about negotiations that adhere to the whims of the public. I mean take for example a Saudi monarch calling for the bombing of Iran. Is that receptive to what his people want? I very much doubt it and yet Hillary Clinton uses it to rally support against Iran. The sayings of an absolute monarch indeed....
The link to the poll is interesting. For starters it's back in 2007 when Bush/Cheney were still in power and itching to bomb Iran and hence using the media to once again whip the public into a frenzy. But it didn't work quite so well this time around for various reasons such as the Iraq/Afghan quagmire. Second of all even with all the anti Iran rhetoric the majority is slim (52%) and last but not least the wording is ' US Military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon' NOT ' US Military strike to prevent Iran from deveoping nuclear power for peaceful civilian energy purposes'.
There are plenty of polls that show the world opinion does not support a military strike against Iran. But I guess in your world the US is the world and the rest of the other world doesn't matter.
As for state of the art power plants as opposed to 1970's era tech when did we discover Iran had state of the art power plants? We know North Korea has revealed a recent state of art nuclear facility but Iran? They have power plants that are of US/German and Russian origin and all well known.
