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

I know the American Empire is in decline. I find it kinda funny how we are turning toward a more agricultural society and moving away from manufacturing.


You should always question Palin. You'll always be right to disagree with her on concepts and ideas. ;)

But, ...... But, she can see Russia. :p
 
As I have said many times before, it is within all of our interests that the United States remains powerful.

And as you've been told many times before, you are incorrect.
 
You genuinely think the US is the only country that can be hypocritical? You don't see any hypocrisy in, say, China and Saudi Arabia and Russia holding seats on the United Nations Human Rights Council? Open your eyes...there's hypocrisy wherever there are politicians, regardless of their nationality.

Edit: And Libya! How could I forget Libya (sorry, "the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya"...seriously) is on the United Nations Human Rights Council?
That's the benchmark you want to compare yourself to? A communist dictatorship, a islamic sharia dictatorship, a corrupt post-soviet rubble and a communist islamic sharia dictatorsip? These nations hardly go around proclaiming how they're bastions of freedom and liberty, the US does, hence the hypocrisy.

And for some more real hypocrisy, there's Norway! I talked about this many months ago and then a bunch of americans came and said that my accusations that the deal was rigged was completely false, the only reason Norway picked F35 was because it was better. Better as in more expensive, bulkier, less suited to Norways needs, etc.

Norway?s plan to buy Swedish fighter jets a hoax
WikiLeaks docs: The U.S. used political pressure on its NATO ally to turn down Saab's Gripen.

Sweden was lured by both the United States and Norway in connection with the milti-billion dollar deal for the Swedish fighter jet Gripen, according to revelations from the Wikileaks. Norway?s interest in buying the aircrafts, made by defense company Saab, was just a false show.

The Aftonbladet tabloid reports that the Norwegians gave tips to the U.S so the sale would go to its F-35 fighter. According to the American diplomatic cables, the U.S. embassy in Oslo called on Washington to use political pressure on its NATO ally to choose the F-35.

In November 2008 Norway's defense ministry opted for the Lockheed Martin-led F-35 as its future fighter. For the Swedes it came as a shocking surprise, making Saab executives publicly denounced Norway for choosing the American-made aircraft over Gripen, claiming the decision was based on ?faulty analysis?.

"We are really surprised about how this was handled, what happened yesterday, and about the justification," Jan Nygren, who served as Saab?s deputy CEO prior to the decision, told the TT news agency at the time. "And besides, we are just a tad surprised to say the least that they so unabashedly chose to criticize the Gripen, despite the fact that all of us involved know that the Gripen is a better fit for the functional demands laid out in the documentation included in the proposal request."

Sweden's Gripen NG by Saab, US-made F/A-18 Super Hornet by Boeing and France's Rafale by Dassult are all on the shortlist for Brazil's multi-billion-dollar fighter jet tender.
[video=youtube;QXWtP-vzKBo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXWtP-vzKBo[/video]
 
Last edited:
I know the American Empire is in decline. I find it kinda funny how we are turning toward a more agricultural society and moving away from manufacturing.




But, ...... But, she can see Russia. :p
In Soviet Russia, Palin sees you!
 
Great success!

WikiLeaks cables claim first scalp as German minister's aide is sacked

The WikiLeaks revelations have claimed their first political scalp in Europe with the sacking of the German foreign minister's chief of staff, who acted as a mole for the Americans, keeping the US embassy in Berlin posted last year on the confidential negotiations to form Angela Merkel's new government.

Amid a mood of increasing anger in the German political class at the disparaging observations on the chancellor's cabinet from US officials, a liberal MP today demanded the withdrawal of the American ambassador in Berlin, Philip Murphy.

Guido Westerwelle, the German foreign minister and leader of the liberal Free Democrats, the junior partner in the Merkel coalition, is described unflatteringly in the US cables from Berlin as inexperienced, "exuberant" and "wild".

The cables relate how an FDP insider ? "a fly on the wall, a young, up-and-coming party loyalist who was taking notes during the marathon talks" ? delivered documents to the US embassy and kept US diplomats informed on the new government formation in October last year.

On Monday Westerwelle dismissed the reports as false and insisted there was no mole. But Helmut Metzner, his chief of staff, was sacked after admitting he was the source of the US intelligence.

"The staff member of the FDP's federal headquarters, who has admitted his contacts with the US embassy in Berlin, has been relieved of his duties as chief of staff for the FDP chairman," said a party statement.

Hans-Michael Goldmann, an FDP MP, told the Bildzeitung newspaper today that a German ambassador abroad behaving like Murphy would be promptly "called home". He added that Murphy had failed to apologise for the scandal.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-first-scalp-german-aide
 
And for some more real hypocrisy, there's Norway! I talked about this many months ago and then a bunch of americans came and said that my accusations that the deal was rigged was completely false, the only reason Norway picked F35 was because it was better. Better as in more expensive, bulkier, less suited to Norways needs, etc.

So, basically, they're really pissed off at BAe/Saab that despite their long and friutful experience with corruption, someone else has beaten them to it...
 
And for some more real hypocrisy, there's Norway! I talked about this many months ago and then a bunch of americans came and said that my accusations that the deal was rigged was completely false, the only reason Norway picked F35 was because it was better. Better as in more expensive, bulkier, less suited to Norways needs, etc.
All the JAS had on the F35 was a lower initial purchase price. The F-35 outperforms the JAS on all other parameters, the JAS is an inferior plane. We don't want it, never will. Quit whining, get over it...

Also add to the fact that pretty much everyone inside the Airforce thought the Departement of Defense were out of their mind for even considering the JAS, as to them (who actually know their stuff) it offered no real upgrade from our current updated F16's performance. The F35 belongs to a new generation of fighter jets that started with the awesome F22, the JAS is basically yesterday's technology.

The JAS would also require gigantic costs to be adopted to use targeting and weapons systems widely used in other NATO aircrafts. Another argument against the JAS is the further R&D and maintainance; With the F35 those costs will be shared by many countries, with the JAS it will only be shared by a few. My dad for instance who works with guided weapons systems estimated that the costs of actually adapting the JAS to the tech used by other NATO countries would be pretty much the same as the purchase price, as we would then have to carry that cost alone. But of course, you won't read about this in Swedish newspapers...
 
The JAS is also 500 kph faster than the F-35. In that respect, the JAS is better. Other than that, I guess I'm no expert on either plane. It does look like the F-35 is better suited to the ground attack fighter role that the RNAF has in reality been relegated to. The F-16's a good fighter, but it's by no means an air superiority fighter. Just like the F-15 filled that role when the F-16s was purchased, the F-22 fills that role today, the F-35 fills the role of the fighter bomber.
 
The JAS is also 500 kph faster than the F-35. In that respect, the JAS is better. Other than that, I guess I'm no expert on either plane. It does look like the F-35 is better suited to the ground attack fighter role that the RNAF has in reality been relegated to. The F-16's a good fighter, but it's by no means an air superiority fighter. Just like the F-15 filled that role when the F-16s was purchased, the F-22 fills that role today, the F-35 fills the role of the fighter bomber.
What they didn't mention was that said top speed was unloaded and with no payload (No missiles, bombs, external tanks etc). But the most important key detail that most of the "critics" have ignored is the F-35's stealth capability. In a hypothetical dog fight, the JAS would have an AMRAAM or JSM coming for it before it ever detected the F-35. Which makes it a better air superiority fighter than anything short of the F-22. The F-35 is a multi role fighter, not a dedicated bomber or air superiority fighter.
 
Last edited:
You're fine to throw away how much money you wish (in this case twice as much as the Gripen cost according to norwegian defence analysts) on planes you will never use, but be honest about it instead of squandering our money by a pretend show and spreading false information regarding the performance of our product.

The little brother complex shines through, you want to distance yourself from big brother by buying more expensive toys. If your government had been sincere and straightforward about it there wouldnt have been any problems. This is a good piece: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10027798
I wonder how much public support Barth Eide and his use of norwegian taxpayers money for his own personal gain will cost AP.

Now for something non-norway.
NYT said:
Americans just had what they call an ?election.? Best we could tell it involved one congressman trying to raise more money than the other (all from businesses they are supposed to be regulating) so he could tell bigger lies on TV more often about the other guy before the other guy could do it to him. This leaves us relieved. It means America will do nothing serious to fix its structural problems: a ballooning deficit, declining educational performance, crumbling infrastructure and diminished immigration of new talent.

The ambassador recently took what the Americans call a fast train ? the Acela ? from Washington to New York City. Our bullet train from Beijing to Tianjin would have made the trip in 90 minutes. His took three hours ? and it was on time! Along the way the ambassador used his cellphone to call his embassy office, and in one hour he experienced 12 dropped calls ? again, we are not making this up. We have a joke in the embassy: ?When someone calls you from China today it sounds like they are next door. And when someone calls you from next door in America, it sounds like they are calling from China!? Those of us who worked in China?s embassy in Zambia often note that Africa?s cellphone service was better than America?s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/01/opinion/01friedman.html?src=me&ref=general
 
Last edited:
Actually, he was not "sacked" but moved to another position within the party's headquarters, out of the limelight.

What i find remarkable is that Westerwelle himself was one of the major critics of internal investigations into the indentity of the mole, which together with the now-revealed identity makes one question his role in the whole thing.

And on a completely unrelated note, i can't see any wrongdoing on Mr. Murphy's part.
 
And on a completely unrelated note, i can't see any wrongdoing on Mr. Murphy's part.

Imagine it the other way round. Imagine for a moment, the German ambassador in Washington had a mole within Obama's cabinet, who told him that "Hillary Clinton is an ambitious bitch but doesn't know much of the world." And imagine he'd cabled that to Guido Westerwelle and it somehow would have leaked out to the BILD-Zeitung.

How do you think would the American reaction be?

I can tell you that no matter how the US reaction would be, I suppose the German ambassador would take the next flight home. His career would be over once and for all. That's how we handle such scandals. Our local media would see to it. Heck, people here get fired from public jobs, when they say the Autobahn is a great achievement of the 1930's!

Remember Hertha D?ubler-Gmelin's unfortunate comparison of George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler?

That's because WE as a country feel ashamed of such things. In fact we as Germans are already ashamed of ourselves, when somebody says Germany has ecome a great country today.

The German reflex action to such an approval or admiration isn't "Oh, thank you for the compliment" with a shy smile but rather "Oh, wait, think twice, before you say that. There's bad things here, too, and you surely haven't seen them yet, so don't praise us too much or we feel embarrassed!"

We have become world champions of humility and self-criticism. Playing unfair on the international stage is as alien to us, as playing Cricket or Baseball. It sometimes sucks but we have to keep a low profile, because if we'd act more vigorous, our neighbours would get nervous :rolleyes: They already get nervous, when we say that we're not willing to pay for everybody's financial sloppiness.

To put that into perspective: When you say that America is great, the reaction of an American is a simple "Yeah, we know" with a smirk. Immoral behaviour by their representatives is simply shrugged off.

Besides, no matter how many examples of us "having been bad, too" you bring, it will never really be the same.

Comparing the civil war in former Yugoslavia for example, where genocide and "ethnic cleansing" happened, to George W. Bush's unprovoked annexation of the country of Iraq, is comparing apples with oranges. The circumstances and conditions were completely different. For instance the Kosovo conflict wasn't one man's single vendetta on some third-world dictatorship.

But to lighen this thread up a bit again:
'Nature Is Good, as Long as It Is Controlled'

US Diplomats Analyzed Death Of Bruno the Bear

By Sebastian Fischer and Ralf Neukirch


The US diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks have generated a commotion around the world. In addition to reporting on the internal workings of global governments, the dispatches also include some oddities, like the 2006 shooting of Bruno, the first wild bear to wander into Germany in 170 years.

It was one of those great moments in Bavarian politics. When Bruno the wild brown bear wandered over the Alps from Italy into the southern German state, then-Governor Edmund Stoiber was quick to address the matter. Actually, Bavaria was pleased to welcome bears to the state, he said. Provided they are normal bears. Stoiber's definition at the time: "The bear that normally resides in the forest, doesn't leave it and kills perhaps one or two sheep per year."

So far, so good. But Bruno, who wandered over from Italy's Trentino province, had a well-documented penchant for killing livestock, pets and other animals. "And we see a difference between the normal bear, the malicious bear and the problem bear," Stoiber explained. And, yes, "it is very clear that this bear is a problem bear," he concluded.

The government of Bavaria ultimately gave permission for the bear to be shot by hunters. Bruno, the first wild bear to arrive in Bavaria for over 170 years, was killed on June 26, 2006, in the mountainous K?mpflalm area above Spitzingsee lake in the Alps.

US Diplomats Wax Poetic about Bruno


Of course, American diplomats stationed in Munich, the capital of Bavaria, and in Berlin didn't miss any of this. Information about the bear hunt was promptly cabled back to Washington. In the newly-leaked US diplomatic dispatches, one can find detailed information about Bruno the brown bear. That summer the US Consulate, located near Governor Stoiber's offices in Munich, registered some fundamental thoughts on the German understanding of the natural world.

They noted with some amusement that Bruno had even pushed the football World Cup, which was being held in Germany, into the background. The diplomats described the wild bear chase that ensued and the doomed mission undertaken by Finnish bear hunters who had been specially flown in for the task. They were almost poetic in their writing: "Early in the morning of that same day, Bruno met his demise at the hands of an (as yet) unnamed hunter."

According to the US diplomats, Bruno had forfeited his right to Bavarian hospitality because he was not "willing to adapt to German culture and traditions," as former Bavarian Interior Minister G?nther Beckstein had often required of every other foreigner. And obviously the diplomats did not omit Stoiber's classification of Bruno as a "problem bear."

Germans Prefer Their Nature Tame

The end of a June 30 dispatch from Munich offered the following shrewd analysis: The greatest insight to be gained from the whole Bruno affair was that, although German society liked to appear environmentally friendly and "green," modern Germany still had difficulty relating to untamed nature.

There had not been genuine wildlife in the mountainous parts of Bavaria for generations, the report said. "Nature is good, as long as it is controlled, channeled and subdued," it concluded. The diplomatic prognosis was dim. "If the saga of Bavaria's 'Problem Bear' is any indicator, the strategy of reintroducing wild bears to the Alps, at least the German Alps, may be doomed to failure -- that is, unless the bears are willing to cooperate by not being too wild."

After the death of the bear, the Bavarians occupied themselves in a very Prussian manner with possible successors to Bruno. A "Management Plan for Brown Bears in Bavaria" was developed, complete with concrete tips for hikers, should they happen to accidentally encounter another Bruno at some point in the future. "Under normal circumstances a bear will not attack," one tip helpfully offers. "They will smell you and judge you not to be dangerous." Regardless, hikers should make their presence known to bears by, for example, singing loudly.

But, since Bruno, there hasn't been a single brown bear to have wandered into Germany from abroad. Apparently it didn't take access to the confidential US diplomatic dispatches to get that message across to Italy's bear population.

Source: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,732532,00.html
 
Last edited:
You're fine to throw away how much money you wish (in this case twice as much as the Gripen cost according to norwegian defence analysts) on planes you will never use, but be honest about it instead of squandering our money by a pretend show and spreading false information regarding the performance of our product.

The little brother complex shines through, you want to distance yourself from big brother by buying more expensive toys. If your government had been sincere and straightforward about it there wouldnt have been any problems. This is a good piece: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10027798
I wonder how much public support Barth Eide and his use of norwegian taxpayers money for his own personal gain will cost AP.
If anyone's guilty about spreading false information about the other bid, then it's JAS' representatives in Norway who constantly tried to smear the F-35 project as a dedicated bomber, and that it's unsuitable for us, but mostly by ignoring the other costs that I explained above. And if they felt the bidding and specifications was staged to favor the F-35, why didn't JAS' representatives see that, and that their offering could not match the criteria specified in that bid?

There's also a lot of misinformation going on about the F-35 project. Most of the delays and extra costs are regarding the (STOVL) F-35b, not the ordinary F-35a, that Norway and most others have announced to buy. Actually, the F-35a development is ahead of schedule.

As for the little brother complex, I wouldn't be so sure we're actually little brother anymore...
 
Last edited:
Imagine it the other way round. Imagine for a moment, the German ambassador in Washington had a mole within Obama's cabinet, who told him that "Hillary Clinton is an ambitious bitch but doesn't know much of the world." And imagine he'd cabled that to Guido Westerwelle and it somehow would have leaked out to the BILD-Zeitung.

I fully expect cables from our Diplomats in Washington, D.C. to include statements like that. There is nothing in Murphy's cables (especially about Westerwelle being a joke) that has not been written in numerous German papers. Just like this, i expect to read all this things like "Petreaus is a brilliant strategy expert, but no team player" or "George W. Bush is not the brightest person and XYZ is the driving force behind his agenda" i read in the press in Germany (without any outcry, btw) in this cables, too.
 
check out the facebook page... tens of people more "like it" each couple of seconds. 16 hours ago they wondered when they would reach 500 000, now it's almost 550 000
 
Comparing the civil war in former Yugoslavia for example, where genocide and "ethnic cleansing" happened, to George W. Bush's unprovoked annexation of the country of Iraq, is comparing apples with oranges. The circumstances and conditions were completely different. For instance the Kosovo conflict wasn't one man's single vendetta on some third-world dictatorship.

We don't know how much of the "ethnic cleansing" in Kosovo was happening before Germany attacked and how much was a reaction about it.
If you got some time tonight, i'd recommend reading this:
Was wissen Sie ?ber Kosovo? (PDF)

Apart from this, no matter if the Iraq invasion was one man's (more like "one administration's") vendetta, it still had UN permission, while Kosovo, morally justified or not (see paper above) had no UN permission.

On a more general note, if you're interested in so-called "new wars", "humanitarian interventions", "pacification wars" (like Iraq), there are two standard books on the subject:

Mary Kaldor: New & Old Wars (the available German translation sucks)

Herfried M?nkler: Die neuen Kriege (available in english, too!)

While Kaldor is a bit left-leaning, her work is certainly groundbreaking. She focuses almost exclusively on Yugoslavia, though. M?nkler is more of a hard-headed realist.

Warning: You can try fighting my view on U.S. policy on any subject, but i'm writing my Ph.D. about war, so i got a slight advantage there :)
 
Last edited:
Well, either you don't get the points I want to make or you simply ignore them... Hey, that qualifies you to participate in a political talk show :D

Anyway, this topic it not about wars but we can get back to that another time and place :)
 
Last edited:
If anyone's guilty about spreading false information about the other bid, then it's JAS' representatives in Norway who constantly tried to smear the F-35 project as a dedicated bomber, and that it's unsuitable for us, but mostly by ignoring the other costs that I explained above. And if they felt the bidding and specifications was staged to favor the F-35, why didn't JAS' representatives see that, and that their offering could not match the criteria specified in that bid?
Because it was rigged! Because the US withheld crucial equipment, like the radar until after the deal was official! The Norwegian government claimed to, and I quote Anna-Grete Str?m Erichsen, "believe in free competition, the competition is real and fair in this case", after the deal was already sealed. It was an outright lie. As AP is still in government, they should apologize for wasting our time. I propose we stop selling you ribbe until they do. :yes:

As for the little brother complex, I wouldn't be so sure we're actually little brother anymore...
Thankfully times have progressed since 2009 :p
 
Last edited:
That's it. I propose marcos_eirik and AiR take out their battle axes and fight to the death. To the victor goes glory on the YouTubes!
 
Top