WikiLeaks strikes again -- U.S. diplomacy stripped naked

It's not up to the Washington correspondent for the New York Times to decide what is and what is not a journalistic organization. It's not up to anyone to decide that about someone or any organization.

Just like yours, it is an opinion. He gives a reason for his opinion.

AiR
Yeah people who listen to NPR like to think they are reporting neutrally. I don't think that him having a political motivation makes his opinions and decisions less worthy of mention.

The main reason I posted this was to show that that the leaked cables don't show the American foreign policy as being that far away from what they say it is. Not as "big evil America" as some portray it.

I hear they have kennels filled with small kittens that they kill every day for fun.
 
So would you mind telling me how WWII would have ended if the gov'ts of the Allies didn't work in secrecy?
With regards to the leak itself, the premise of my answer is on wether or not the leak itself is good or bad.

With respect, the war on terror is NOT WW2. The current wars are in no way equal, comparable or share any likenes what-so-ever apart from them being wars. Let's not forget that the allied announced they were invading high and low days, in some cases weeks before they actually did. The invation of Iraq wasn't D-day, and this is not WW2.

I've stated before, I'm not crazy about the leaks. But then again, that's not relevant for Wikileaks.

Just like yours, it is an opinion. He gives a reason for his opinion.
Like Wikileaks having a political agenda? And the New York Times doesn't? Glenn Beck doesn't? This guy doesn't? Most journalists in the world don't? Bullshit.

Wikileaks is a journalistic organization. They are because they define themselves as journalists, and because their activity closely resembels journalism, heck, it is journalism.

Perhaps I'm not a journalist either? Perhaps a doctor isn't a doctor if he's got a political agenda? And what about authors? Are they authors if they're maoists? No? What about neocons?

It's not up to him, it's not up to the US government and it's not up to anyone to define a journalist negatively.
 
According to US law, the request for extradition must be reviewed by the Justice Department's Office of International Affairs then the US Attorney Office, and finally by the Secretary of State. So if I were to commit such an act, how do you think these offices will rule? In the eyes of the gov't, I'd be doing them a huge favor, why would they release me to Sweden?
The issue of extradition has been pretty well covered; with a nation such as Sweden it's largely reciprocal and always a bureaucratic nightmare. But you assume that because you were acting "in the State Dept.'s interest" they wouldn't agree to extradite you. No matter their personal feelings, it would be very difficult for them to publicly come off as protecting a suspected criminal. All Jack Ruby got was the death penalty, even though most of America loved him.

Yes, I understand that. It is unfortunate that he cannot be charged with any real crime but that is the harsh reality of the situation. I don't agree with the US for making up a crime to have him arrested but their needs to be some action so this doesn't happen again.
So you think it's unfortunate he can't be charged with a "real crime", but you're okay with something being trumped up against him? What about the numerous newspapers, shows, bloggers, etc that are further circulating the leaks? By your logic, they are just as culpable as Wikileaks and Assange.

On top of all this, I feel sorry for all future and current employees of the US gov't as the added bureaucracy due to this bullshit will suck big time.
I don't know how much bureaucracy this will add, but they're certainly going to cut down on the number of people who have access to this information. Hell, there's a very real possibility that less of this information, candid and cynical cables such as these, will be generated in the first place. That's a real shame if you ask me.

I have been hearing that you guys think of Wikileaks as a Journalistic organization. The Washington correspondent for The New York Times does not believe that to be the case.
I think the most apt description of Wikileaks would be a news/information aggregator. Though they do make some editorial calls with the info they release. Not that any of that means they should not be afforded full protection under the 1st amendment.

In my opinion, that's a horrible conversation to start. Like nomix said, we don't want the government trying to determine who is a journalist or what institutions have full protection under the law.

You know what? Glenn Beck is a journalist. And it doesn't hurt me to say that.
I think that's a bit ... generous? :lol:

I don't think that him having a political motivation makes his opinions and decisions less worthy of mention.
No, but it's valuable to keep in mind. It provides context for what he's saying. To know where he's coming from.

The main reason I posted this was to show that that the leaked cables don't show the American foreign policy as being that far away from what they say it is. Not as "big evil America" as some portray it.
But it does expose a gap between political rhetoric and reality. Not that that's really news. It's just disappointing that politicians refuse to be as candid as these cables.
 
With respect, the war on terror is NOT WW2. The current wars are in no way equal, comparable or share any likenes what-so-ever apart from them being wars. Let's not forget that the allied announced they were invading high and low days, in some cases weeks before they actually did. The invation of Iraq wasn't D-day, and this is not WW2.

THIS. Cellos, i'd highly recommend reading the two books i recommended to MacGuffin the other day before comparing apples and oranges again.

Of course, the ability to plan in secret is important in New Wars, too.

Which is exactely why it is a catastrophy and an embarassment for the whole U.S. diplomatic corps that some lousy private in a war zone has been able to gain access to all this material in the first place.

Whoever set up a database accessible from a war zone with whatever security clearance a low-ranking enlisted man (even if working in intelligence) has should be fired. And probably put on trial. This is grossly negligent.

But one can't blame Wikileaks for making the information public?(in cooperation with The New York Times, Spiegel, El Pais etc) once the U.S. diplomatic corps failed that epically. But we've been over this a dozen times in the last 18 pages.
 
Last edited:
With respect, the war on terror is NOT WW2. The current wars are in no way equal, comparable or share any likenes what-so-ever apart from them being wars. Let's not forget that the allied announced they were invading high and low days, in some cases weeks before they actually did. The invation of Iraq wasn't D-day, and this is not WW2.

The "war on terror" is not a war either. There were no formal declarations of war to any particular state. Afghanistan and Iraq were more like armed conflicts. The "war" in Afghanistan has been going on for almost twice as long as WW2, almost the same with Iraq.
It's just called war because that seems to be the only concept people grasp as a struggle against something despite most of the times not containing any bullets. The war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on obesity, the war on cancer...

That said, the invasion of Iraq is not a war, it's not legal, the US had no business going there and if you ask me they bug is starting to bite their backsides. I just hope the other countries who followed them into this dirty scummy economic driven illegality are not the targets for their actions, mine included.
 
Whoever set up a database accessible from a war zone with whatever security clearance a low-ranking enlisted man (even if working in intelligence) has should be fired. And probably put on trial. This is grossly negligent.
Nah. There's relevant information in the database for everyone from diplomats to soldiers. Diplomats in Baghdad would want to know what's going on in the country. Soldiers need to know what's going on diplomatically to avoid stepping on too many toes, especially in a nation like Iraq.
 
I don't know where the idea the "it's not a war unless declared" comes from.

It is wrong. Starting a war without a formal declaration is against international law (and philosophical ius ad bellum). But it still is a war. Otherwise, World War II would not have been a war until England declared War on Germany, as Germany invaded Poland without declaring war.

But it shows one of the main differences between "new" or "asymmetric" wars and traditional inter-state wars: When a government has lost control over parts of it's territory or there is no government in place (or several groups claiming to be the government), and still there's good reason to intervene militarily, maybe even with a UN mandate (which the U.S. had for the Iraq invasion, making it perfeclety legal, except for the forged evidence used), there is no one you can declare war to, no ambassador to deliver the declaration to.

"Armed conflict" is a chickenshit term to calm a public that's opposed to joining a war (the German case) or to circumvent treaties governing the conduct under arms (the U.S./British case).

EDIT:
Nah. There's relevant information in the database for everyone from diplomats to soldiers. Diplomats in Baghdad would want to know what's going on in the country. Soldiers need to know what's going on diplomatically to avoid stepping on too many toes, especially in a nation like Iraq.

That's true. That kind of information should be available to them. But that does not mean all diplomatic communications worldwide have to be available to every enlisted man. Cables regarding russian credit card laws or the competence of German leaders are not within the scope of this - the idea of having just one clearance level, without regard to geographical relation or contents of the information is stupid.

Give a Private First Class all the acess he wants to Iraq-related cables, maybe even to those marked "secret", he'll need them working in intelligence - Diplomats will need a more widespread access, they should be on a higher clearance level (as the commanding officer of a Pvt should be, so he could authorize additional information to be given to his enlisted men). Even in the fantasy warfare of "Baa Baa Black Sheep" there are different security clearances among officers, not even touching the issue of enlisted men.
 
Last edited:
What is war if not a large-scale armed conflict?

dictionary.com said:
war


?noun 1. a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
 
It is wrong. Starting a war without a formal declaration is against international law (and philosophical ius ad bellum). But it still is a war. Otherwise, World War II would not have been a war until England declared War on Germany, as Germany invaded Poland without declaring war.

It's called being a gentleman and having some balls. And if you check history books, yes indeed, WW2 started the day Britain and France declared war on Germany.
I don't know if you've noticed but life hasn't changed much for Americans. They're not in a state of war, at all.
Before WW2 wars were all out. Then came nuclear bombs and super powers decided to fight each other in proxy wars, not directly declaring war at each other cos that'd mean using their nuclear arsenal which wasn't in either one's interest. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (in the 90s, not now).

About this war on Afghanistan, I'm sure there was an official government accepted by the UN. If that government seems to be losing hold on it's territory and that land being used to train so called "terrorists" (most of them came from Saudi Arabia, but since S.A. sells oil to America, whatever right?), that government could be offered help in military terms to deal with it and that'd been a total different ball game. What the US claimed is that the Talibans were in control of Afghanistan and they had to be driven out.

Germany didn't even go to Iraq because like most educated people they knew it was an illegal war. Let's steal their oil, that's all it was. Faking evidence like this resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands should be enough grounds to be stripped of their UN council seats, for Britain and the US. The world is not their playground and I'm hoping there are some leaked documents in here to give people some hard evidence to speak up about their government's bullshit.

Also,
Merriam-Webster said:
Definition of WAR
1
a (1) : a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations (2) : a period of such armed conflict (3) : state of war
b : the art or science of warfare

And since we are expanding our vocabulary, this is what the UN barely had for Afghanistan, and never had for Iraq:

Definition of CASUS BELLI
: an event or action that justifies or allegedly justifies a war or conflict
 
Last edited:
It's called being a gentleman and having some balls.
"Being a gentleman" and "having some balls" are no valid terms in international law, international relations, political science, the philosophy of law or moral philosophy of war. These are the categories in which what is a war and what is not a war can be definied, so your criterias are irrelevant.
And if you check history books, yes indeed, WW2 started the day Britain and France declared war on Germany.
Actually, you're wrong here. Depending on who you ask, the beginning of World War II is given either September 1st, 1939 (Germany's Invasion in Poland) or, even earlier, with the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War in the Pacific Theater. I have yet to see a source giving September 3, 1939 as the beginning of the war.
I don't know if you've noticed but life hasn't changed much for Americans. They're not in a state of war, at all.
Some people, including top U.S. military personell, polticians from both Partys, and anti-war activists would disagree here.

I don't have a textbook definition for a "state of war" in a homeland with a war being fought overseas right now, but i don't think the life of Joe Sixpack was influenced by World War II in a significantly different way. Of course World War II was a larger-scale operation, meaning more people being drafted, more of the production going into the war effort, Donald Duck selling war bonds, but that's a gradual difference.
Before WW2 wars were all out. Then came nuclear bombs and super powers decided to fight each other in proxy wars, not directly declaring war at each other cos that'd mean using their nuclear arsenal which wasn't in either one's interest. Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan (in the 90s, not now).
I'm with you on this. But i don't know what it has to do with asymmetrical warfare in a post-block situation.
About this war on Afghanistan, I'm sure there was an official government accepted by the UN. If that government seems to be losing hold on it's territory and that land being used to train so called "terrorists" (most of them came from Saudi Arabia, but since S.A. sells oil to America, whatever right?), that government could be offered help in military terms to deal with it and that'd been a total different ball game. What the US claimed is that the Talibans were in control of Afghanistan and they had to be driven out.
The Taliban have been in control of most of Afghanistan and were the formal rulers since the late nineties. The UN granted the USA permission to attack Afghanistan as an act of self-defense in resolution 1368. If you've been attacked, you don't have to declare war yourself, you are free to defend yourself (this is not necessarily my position, but the position of international law).
Germany didn't even go to Iraq because like most educated people they knew it was an illegal war.
Rhetorics aside Germany did not go to Iraq mostly because NATO did not declare Iraq a state of defense and Germany's politicians are, by the German constitution, not allowed to use the army for anything except defense.
Let's steal their oil, that's all it was. Faking evidence like this resulting in the deaths of hundreds of thousands should be enough grounds to be stripped of their UN council seats, for Britain and the US.
You're right in so far as that it is disputable if resolution 1441 allowed the U.S. to invade Iraq. On top of that we know ex post that evidence was forged to get resolution 1441 passed. In an ideal world, the people responsible would be prosecuted, now that this is clear.

That does not change the fact that ex ante the only matter of debate was if resolution 1441 legalized the invasion. A forgery that was then-unknown could not have been basis of judgements made then.
The world is not their playground and I'm hoping there are some leaked documents in here to give people some hard evidence to speak up about their government's bullshit.
I case you've missed it, i was arguing in favour of Wikileaks, too :p
 
Last edited:
It is a very hard question to answer. I could make for an interesting discussion, but the way you approached it (with the quote you pulled out) feels nearly like trolling.

Well, of course I was being provocative. But there is a difference between being provocative and make forum members question their own opinions, and trolling.

You see, I gathered from the discussions here, that at least some forum members seem to believe, that the people as a mass are too uneducated, too stupid or too uninterested to be trusted in terms of what kind of information they get or, in other words, that there has to be an authority that decides what the people need to know and what they do not need to know.

So I picked a piece of writing from a historical figure for discussion, who believed just that. But I suppose too many smelled the trap and were cautious enough to not get involved ;)

So before I go on, here's what I think:

1. Was it illegal to steal those cables and give them to WikiLeaks? YES.

2. Was it illegal or at least morally wrong for WikiLeaks and the newspapers all over the world to release the information in these cables, after they got heir hands on it? NO.

You see, the responsibility for keeping classified information secret, lies with the government, not with the press or WikiLeaks or simply anyone, who get their hands on them. The theft of those cables may be illegal, because laws were broken. But the publication was not. Freedom of press means, that every piece of information, that gets into the hands of journalists, may be made public. The journalist decides. That's his job. If a journalists gets such stuff into his hands and decides to not publish it and to give it back to the government, he failed in his job. And I mean total and completely fail.

And one thing must be said very clear: Whoever calls for government control over what information is being released to the public, involuntarily calls for censorship and promotes government-driven propaganda. Because only absolute freedom of press and complete freedom of information guarantees the transparancy of government actions and prevents the elite from becoming too powerful.

The publication of those diplomatic files has been embarrassing for the United States, yes. But getting embarrassed is not a crime. It's ridiculous to say that it endangered lives. Ridiculous and unbelievably stupid, when you look at the past 60 years and see, how many people have died because of secret and stupid decisions of governments.

What I believe is, that many Americans are simply hurt in their national pride by what happened and therefore take it personal. That poisons the whole discussion and many do not really think about what they say or write anymore, because they are pissed.

But personal feelings shouldn't be taken into consideration in this discussion. Because otherwise you're getting into danger to become fodder for those, who don't trust the people and call out for more control and less freedom in order to "make life safer for everyone" but in fact only seek to secure their power.

That's where the text comes in, which I posted. The author's thesis is, that the people as a mass are too dumb and ignorant to make important decisions and that a strong leadership, an "elite" group of people, should make all the decisions. In essence the text says, that democracy is bad, because only the best and brightest should be involved in running a country.

I will paste the text again here now but completed, with the missing paragraph at the end and also the source of the text:

Journalistic circles in particular like to describe the press as a 'great power' in the state. As a matter of fact, its importance really is immense. It cannot be overestimated, for the press really continues education in adulthood.

Its readers, by and large, can be divided into three groups:

First, into those who believe everything they read;

second, into those who have ceased to believe anything;

third, into the minds which critically examine what they read, and judge accordingly.

Numerically, the first group is by far the largest. It consists of the great mass of the people and consequently represents the simplest-minded part of the nation. It cannot be listed in terms of professions, but at most in general degrees of intelligence. To it belong all those who have neither been born nor trained to think independently, and who partly from incapacity and partly from incompetence believe everything that is set before them in black and white.

To them also belongs the type of lazybones who could perfectly well think, but from sheer mental laziness seizes gratefully on everything that someone else has thought, with the modest assumption that the someone else has exerted himself considerably.

Now, with all these types, who constitute the great masses, the influence of the press will be enormous. They are not able or willing themselves to examine what is set before them, and as a result their whole attitude toward all the problems of the day can be reduced almost exclusively to the outside influence of others.

This can be advantageous when their enlightenment is provided by a serious and truth-loving party, but it is catastrophic when scoundrels and liars provide it.

The second group is much smaller in number. It is partly composed of elements which previously belonged to the first group, but after long and bitter disappointments shifted to the opposite and no longer believe anything that comes before their eyes in print.

They hate every newspaper; either they don't read it at all, or without exception fly into a rage over the contents, since in their opinion they consist only of lies and falsehoods.

These people are very hard to handle, since they are suspicious even in the face of the truth. Consequently, they are lost for all positive, political work.

The third group, finally, is by far the smallest; it consists of the minds with real mental subtlety, whom natural gifts and education have taught to think independently, who try to form their own judgment on all things, and who subject everything they read to a thorough examination and further development of their own.

They will not look at a newspaper without always collaborating in their minds, and the writer has no easy time of it. Journalists love such readers with the greatest reserve.

For the members of this third group, it must be admitted, the nonsense that newspaper scribblers can put down is not very dangerous or even very important. Most of them in the course of their lives have learned to regard every journalist as a rascal on principle, who tells the truth only once in a blue moon.

Unfortunately, however, the importance of these splendid people lies only in their intelligence and not in their number- a misfortune at a time when wisdom is nothing and the majority is everything! Today, when the ballot of the masses decides, the chief weight lies with the most numerous group, and this is the first: the mob of the simple or credulous.

It is of paramount interest to the state and the nation to prevent these people from falling into the hands of bad, ignorant, or even vicious educators. The state, therefore, has the duty of watching over their education and preventing any mischief. It must particularly exercise strict control over the press; for its influence on these people is by far the strongest and most penetrating, since it is applied, not once in a while, but over and over again. In the uniformity and constant repetition of this instruction lies its tremendous power. If anywhere, therefore, it is here that the state must not forget that all means must serve an end; it must not let itself be confused by the drivel about so-called 'freedom of the press' and let itself be talked into neglecting its duty and denying the nation the food which it needs and which is good for it; with ruthless determination it must make sure of this instrument of popular education, and place it in the service of the state and the nation.

Here's the source

Of course I?m not so naive to believe that nobody googled the text I posted, to find out about who the author was.

But that doesn?t matter. What matters, is the effect of it. I?m quite sure that some people here were quite surprised and hopefully even shocked to find themselves so close to the mindset of Adolf Hitler in the 1920?s. That text was a wake-up call for us in school and I hope it can still function as such.

The key question of this whole WikiLeaks affair is not, if releasing those documents was illegal or dangerous of if it even put people into danger.

No, the real core of this whole discussion, is the fact that the elite of a country has been stripped of what means the most to them: Insider knowledge. Power comes from knowledge. Without their secret knowledge, governments lose power over their people. Make it public and they stand before the nation naked and humiliated.

The government, a.k.a. the ?elite?, fears the people. They like the people to be quiet and peaceful. It doesn?t matter, if it?s a democracy or a dictatorship. Inner peace is essential. Therefore all governments have a tendency for secrecy and shutting out the public.

A democracy gets into danger, when people start to not care anymore. When they become ignorant and ?intellectual lazybones?. That?s when propaganda and populism can come in. You can see signs of all of that in the USA of today. What frightens me most, is when people actually fall for the propaganda and think that freedom of press is a bad thing.

You see, Hitler was of course wrong. But he didn?t know any better anyway. He forgot the 4th group in his tirade: The responsible, vigilant citizen. That group makes all the difference. It didn?t exist in Germany in the 1920?s, though, because people were fed up with their country and democracy.

That should be different today, though. Actually it is essential for any democracy to have responsible, vigilant citizens. They can only exist, when people identify themselves with their countries? political system and are proud of its achievements.

From what I gathered as a reaction to the whole WikiLeaks affair, many people in the USA think that freedom of press mustn?t be total, because it could endanger the state or destabilize its authority. They call out for more control now and stricter law enforcement. That?s rubbish. It comes dangerously close to what Hitler wrote in 1925. We should know better today.

If you really argue against total freedom of press, beware of opening Pandora's box. Because when you let it slip once, it will start to slip completely very soon.

I really don't understand the Americans sometimes. They claim that constant vigilance is part of their national character. That every citizen has to keep a watch on the government. They even say that's why they're all keeping guns at home. But one incident like the WikiLeaks affair and all those principles seem to be forgotten. Really strange.

Most journalists are intelligent people, too (in fact I believe there are more intelligent journalists, than intelligent politicians). They are able to determine, which information is for the benefit of the people and which is better held back, because it would really be a threat. They do not need to be told what to write or release. And a really free country doesn?t even try to hinder them.

And indeed our free press still works, because in spite of all the hate WikiLeaks receives from rightwingers today, nobody so far has seriously accused the New York Times, Der SPIEGEL, Le Monde, The Guardian or El Pais for printing the information.

I will try to address the issue, though. As I have mentioned before, the US government, specifically, is created as an employee of the public, and has a responsibility to inform the public of its doings and change them if the majority says to do so. As a nation, though, we want to be as strong on the world stage as possible in all aspects. Just like companies hold product details secret so that their competitors do not get an upper hand (See Coca-Cola), there are some things that governments need to keep to themselves so that others do not have the same advantage. This is mostly relevant in the diplomacy and military aspects. When the govt contracts the development of a highly sophisticated aircraft, it is with the intent of retaining military supremacy. If the details of this aircraft are not kept secret, it leaves them open to be used by any other nation, friend or foe. It also allows those other nations to learn the weaknesses and gain an advantage on the battlefield. In diplomacy, it is often necessary to feign a friendly face for the sake of progress and peace. I'm certain China does not have a good reputation in the White House, but it is necessary to at least be polite in the public forum so that no party is offended. The US and China being at odds is not good for the world. What the WH discusses within itself in regards to China is useful if kept secret.

To keep details such as those mentioned, it is unfortunately necessary to hold them secret from the nation's citizens, for if the citizens know the secrets, then non-citizens can know, which means other nations can know. To this point, everything has been of my personal opinion, which can be debated. But now I will address the main question, who decides what is secret.

When we elect a President and congressmen, we do so with the understanding that these people are responsible, intelligent, and working towards what is best for us. As a representative democracy, we are putting our trust in these few so as to create a streamlined government process, and in doing so, we are indirectly giving up the opportunity to personally and directly affect the govt process. Essentially, we are giving these people to make decisions for us. Because of this, it would be logical to assume we are giving them the ability to determine what is necessary to keep secret and what isn't. If we do not like what is being kept secret, then it is our duty as citizens to vote somebody into office that will make the topic public, and bring to justice those who keep illegal/unethical/immoral acts/programs secret from us. This is obviously a problem because, if it is secret, how would we ever know about it? One answer is that it is a trust issue. We must hold some level of trust in politicians, otherwise we shouldn't vote for them. Another answer as that we have trust in our fellow citizens who do get involved in govt as hired workers, who make public things that should be public (whistle blowing).

This is where Wikileaks and Private Bradley Manning. They did exactly that, made public what [they thought] should be public. What should be the issue of focus is whether any of the information leaked was helpful for the public to know (does it affect our view on what the govt is doing) and whether any of the information is damaging for people outside the US to know (military strategy, internal diplomatic cables, etc). IMO, the majority of the leak is unnecessary, unhelpful, and perhaps slightly damaging. Is it getting anyone killed? Probably not. Is it hurting diplomatic talks? Possibly. I find the leak irresponsible on Wikileaks side partly because Wikileaks is not a US institution. It should be up to citizens of the US to determine what other US citizens need to know. Obviously outsiders won't care what comes to light, it doesn't affect them poorly. The same cannot be said for US citizens.

TL;DR We put out trust in politicians by voting for them, we should trust them to do the right thing until we do not think they are, and then we vote them out. I applaud anyone who lets the public know of any wrongdoings withing govt, but look down upon those who let confidential information known just for the sake of leaking it. Julian Assange is irresponsible, and Bradley Manning should be investigated and brought to court to be tried by a jury of his peers.

That may be all true but then you also have to blame the government for making classified material accessable for 2.5 million people in the first place, and not only some internet activists or journalists for publishing it.

Or in other words: Don't blame the messenger, when the message is bad.

It's only a short step from keeping things secret out of national interest and keeping things secret to cover up misdeeds.

So as a conclusion I say: In dubio pro freedom of information. Because paternalism of the people is definitely the wrong way in a democracy.
 
Last edited:
And if you check history books, yes indeed, WW2 started the day Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Every history book I've ever seen sets the first day of the war as September 1st, 1939 - not September 3rd.
 
Grip you're arguing the war on terror is a war, which is NOT by any definition. It's closer to "America waving it's prick and stealing the oil" than a war, by conventional, or unconventional means.
The so called war on terror is a series of intelligence and black ops at most, on targets that are believed to threaten "national security" (and america stretches national security's definition so much that almost anything can be a justified target based on that).

I stand corrected on the exact day that WW2 'started', but the official war was declared Sept 3rd. There is still no official war declarations for most of the following of America's conflicts and that's what's chickenshit, to be honest.
 
Last edited:
THIS. Cellos, i'd highly recommend reading the two books i recommended to MacGuffin the other day before comparing apples and oranges again.

Of course, the ability to plan in secret is important in New Wars, too.

Which is exactely why it is a catastrophy and an embarassment for the whole U.S. diplomatic corps that some lousy private in a war zone has been able to gain access to all this material in the first place.

Whoever set up a database accessible from a war zone with whatever security clearance a low-ranking enlisted man (even if working in intelligence) has should be fired. And probably put on trial. This is grossly negligent.

But one can't blame Wikileaks for making the information public?(in cooperation with The New York Times, Spiegel, El Pais etc) once the U.S. diplomatic corps failed that epically. But we've been over this a dozen times in the last 18 pages.

I merely brought up that point to refute those who support and ENTIRELY transparent gov't. I wasn't trying to compare the two wars, I was just merely highlighting an example where secrecy and confidentiality are necessary in order for a gov't to conduct business to support the interest of its citizens.

My problem with wikileaks is the idea that people believe they are entitled to know about every confidential document that gets created by their gov't. That idea is bullshit and goes along the ideological belief for a utopian democratic society which, I'm sorry to break it to many people out there, will never exist.
 
Russia wants Assange to get a Nobel.

Care to open up your diplomatic cables Russia?
 
Russia wants Assange to get a Nobel.

Care to open up your diplomatic cables Russia?

I would so love that, as a Russian. Not only cables, all the corruption, shady deals, preferably with names. I will donate $1000 to them if they release 250k Russian ones.
 
Grip you're arguing the war on terror is a war, which is NOT by any definition. It's closer to "America waving it's prick and stealing the oil" than a war, by conventional, or unconventional means.
The so called war on terror is a series of intelligence and black ops at most, on targets that are believed to threaten "national security" (and america stretches national security's definition so much that almost anything can be a justified target based on that).

I never argued that the so-called "War On Terror" would be a just war, neither in the moral nor in the legal sense of the word.
That does not stop it being a war. A nation invading another country for economic or territorial gain, in fact, is the textbook definition of a (illegal, amoral) war of aggression. So even if your "America waving it's prick and stealing the oil" assumption is correct, it still is a war.

But i'd like to end the topic of what is a war and what's not here and can only, once more, recommend the books by Kaldor and especially M?nkler - they cover the subject at a length that is not suitable for a forum like this.

My problem with wikileaks is the idea that people believe they are entitled to know about every confidential document that gets created by their gov't.
That, of course, is bullshit. A government is entitled to keep secrets secret, at least for some time (that's why documents get declassified after some time - so the government can be reasonably transparent and still keep secrets). But the government has to make sure their secrets stay secret. They can't count on a third party to do their job.

So blaming Wikileaks (and calling for hacking them or for framing Assange) like you did is bullshit, too. Wikileaks did the reasonable thing when being delivered with a bunch of confidential documents highlighting government wrongdoing: They co-operated with some of the most respected Newspapers worldwide to make sure whatever is in there gets into public in a responsible way, with sensible information being filtered out and guidance through the cables being provided by top political writers.

But most of all, MacGuffin.

My girlfriend is a vegetarian and a non-smoker. Would you say she shares Hitler's mindset? While i found your "Mein Kampf" thought experiment enlightening, accusing people here of "sharing Hitler's mindset" is just Godwining this thread. It was about time, 20 pages in, eh?
 
Last edited:
My girlfriend is a vegetarian and a non-smoker. Would you say she shares Hitler's mindset? While i found your "Mein Kampf" thought experiment enlightening, accusing people here of "sharing Hitler's mindset" is just Godwining this thread. It was about time, 20 pages in, eh?

Oh, come on. You cannot be serious about that. I'm not talking about preferences in lifestyle here but of political and social views. You can do better than that. There are already too many unfitting comparisons and analogies in this thread. No need to add one more :rolleyes:

And if you read my text carefully, then you realized that I'm not suggesting that anyone here is sharing Hitler's mindset, but that you can get quite close to it, when you let personal feelings of anger dominate over your rational mind. You don't need somebody like me to tell you that, or?

Also it's symptomatic how everything I wrote is completely ignored and only the one point is being picked, where an attack seems possible.
 
Last edited:
But that's not the war on terror there, what are you talking about? All operations were deemed finished in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's just occupation now, and the US is still scared shitless of terrorists, or so they seem to be. So it's not "won" or "lost" cos the actual war on terror is still going on. The illegal war on Iraq is a totally different thing and I think you should not mix, in this case, not apples with oranges, but more like rotten apples with cashews.
 
Top