wiki leaks - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/30/2010 02:25:02 PM · #26

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

You may be shocked to learn that spies spy, I am not. Every country has spies that gather information that they see as being essential for them to formulate policy.

We learned that "The United States has been secretly trying to convince Pakistan to allow it to remove the uranium because of fears the nuclear material might be stolen or diverted for use in a nuclear device, the New York Times reported in its coverage of the WikiLeaks release of U.S. embassy cables.

But Pakistan has refused visits from American experts, according to a May 2009 report by former U.S. Ambassador Anne W. Patterson, because "If the local media got word of the fuel removal, 'they would certainly portray it as the United States taking Pakistan's nuclear weapons,'"

So this exposure proves that Pakistan was right. For their internal politics it is better to risk having nuclear material fall into the hands of terrorists than to give it to the US because the US can't keep it secret, while Al Quieda certainly will. Until they use it.

or they could have said to their people: the US is giving us billions of dollars every year that we are taking supposedly looking for Bin laden, the least we can do is let them remove the uranium so it doesn't fall into the hands of terrorists and when used against them, so they definitely don't "retaliate" in kind and send us back into the dark ages.

sometimes honesty works best.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/30/2010 02:51:06 PM · #27

Originally posted by mike_311:

sometimes honesty works best.

Wouldn't it be pretty to think so.

Lets look at what the leak says about out good friends in the house of Saud. They are the primary funders of Al Quieda. Their king wants us to bomb Iran.

If we did take out the nuclear program in Iran, do you think King Fahd and his Wahaib mullahs would cheer us, or condemn our actions against the faith, and give even more to groups that plot the death of our people?

Truth and honesty are a lovely goal but do not always result in the desired outcome, as Will Rodgers said "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock."

Message edited by author 2010-11-30 14:51:46.

bohemka

Nikon D700

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

11/30/2010 03:05:57 PM · #28

Originally posted by Jac:

The rape charges are what governments can do do put someone in jail that they fear can divulge secrets about diplomacy, etc.

We need Wikileaks more than you think people.

Are governments really that far behind the times that they think the loss of one man can stop what wikileaks does? No, I don't think so. It's not like he's the secret agent that gets all this stuff. He's just the figurehead. So it's time for him to face honesty. I'll never respect him (nothing to do with what wikileaks does, mind you) until he does. If anyone would get a fair trial, and have all of the documents revealed for the world to see, it'd be him.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

11/30/2010 03:07:42 PM · #29

To brother Bear: possibly we would be less naive if there were MORE wikileaks? Possibly instead of making school children pledge allegiance every morning we would make them study Machiavelli?

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for Pentax

11/30/2010 03:09:07 PM · #30

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by mike_311:

sometimes honesty works best.

Wouldn't it be pretty to think so.

Lets look at what the leak says about out good friends in the house of Saud. They are the primary funders of Al Quieda. Their king wants us to bomb Iran.

If we did take out the nuclear program in Iran, do you think King Fahd and his Wahaib mullahs would cheer us, or condemn our actions against the faith, and give even more to groups that plot the death of our people?

Truth and honesty are a lovely goal but do not always result in the desired outcome, as Will Rodgers said "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock."

and what does any of that have to do with the price of oil in china? wait.

northebound

Pentax K20D

11/30/2010 03:10:26 PM · #31

What does the pledge of allegiance have to do with being naive?

rooum

11/30/2010 03:11:43 PM · #32

Well, if nothing else, it is reassuring to know the the U.S government thinks as little as i do of our current Prime Minister.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

11/30/2010 03:29:24 PM · #33

What does the pledge of allegiance mean, exactly?

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

11/30/2010 03:40:06 PM · #34

Imo, this is basically the same result as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

11/30/2010 04:34:57 PM · #35

Originally posted by tnun:

What does the pledge of allegiance mean, exactly?

this is probably the best explanation of the pledge of allegiance

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/30/2010 05:17:07 PM · #36

Originally posted by tnun:

What does the pledge of allegiance mean, exactly?

dacrazyrn

Nikon D300

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

11/30/2010 05:37:33 PM · #37

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by tnun:
What does the pledge of allegiance mean, exactly?

See Skip's post. Great find Skip!!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/30/2010 05:49:32 PM · #38

Originally posted by dacrazyrn:

See Skip's post. Great find Skip!!

I would, but my primitive computer doesn't work with most YouTube video and there's no sound ... :-(

FWIW I checked with my son every year in public school to see if he understood either the individual words or the overall meaning, and it wasn't until about the fourth or fifth grade that it started to have real meaning.

If a child of ten is not considered competent to enter into a contract or drink a beer, then asking them to pledge their "lives, fortune, and sacred honor" in defense of a government they don't elect is irrational, and probably should be illegal.

VitaminB

Nikon D800

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/30/2010 07:14:59 PM · #39

If Julian Assange ran for president, and won, would he publish his email on WikiLeaks???

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/30/2010 07:42:51 PM · #40

To think that transparency and more information is always going to lead to better results is foolish. Sometimes secrecy is needed. Take North Korea. China is their ally. They may listen to China. Apparently we find out that China is annoyed with their antics. Possibly North Korea did not know this. Now North Korea feels even more isolated. North Korea is known for provocative actions to get attention. North Korea owns a nuclear weapon. You fill in the rest.

As a doctor I can identify with diplomats and their need to be able to be frank and candid. Wikileaks has caused a big step backward and that is to all our detriment. I was on their side previously, but with this latest releast I say, "boo wikileaks!"

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/30/2010 08:20:30 PM · #41

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

and you ca also make the argument that North Korea was only acting out becuase they had big china behind them, now they now they no they have no support and may cave.

Look we can argue all day whether wikileaks is good or bad. the point is what it is not and should not be considered a crime. The governments need to look at who is supplying the water not spraying the hose.

if information no matter how detrimental falls into the hands of the reporters they should feel safe and obligated to report it without fear or prosecution.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

11/30/2010 08:28:20 PM · #42

Originally posted by mike_311:

if information no matter how detrimental falls into the hands of the reporters they should feel safe and obligated to report it without fear or prosecution.

Bullshit. They should look out for the best for their country and/or humanity. Nobody wants a nuclear bomb going off. Obligated to report it? I think not. Reporters, like everybody else, should weigh the consequences of their actions and act accordingly, and if that means sitting on a story to keep something secret, then they should do it.

northebound

Pentax K20D

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for Pentax

11/30/2010 08:32:26 PM · #43

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by mike_311:
if information no matter how detrimental falls into the hands of the reporters they should feel safe and obligated to report it without fear or prosecution.

Bullshit. They should look out for the best for their country and/or humanity. Nobody wants a nuclear bomb going off. Obligated to report it? I think not. Reporters, like everybody else, should weigh the consequences of their actions and act accordingly, and if that means sitting on a story to keep something secret, then they should do it.

You're arguing with people who have no loyalty towards any one country (or people that are not American). The idea of "country" is trying to be erased with a sense of trans-modernity and general unity amongst all "nations".

Patriotism has developed a negative connotation, and nationalism only leads to Nazism.

Even the pledge of allegiance is seen as "indoctrination" which children have no control over and are seen as zombies that cannot think for themselves. But, I suppose I can also trace my "patriotism" and "national identity" to the pledge of allegiance...

I'm just another mindless sucker.

mgarsteck

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

11/30/2010 08:35:13 PM · #44

Whats the sense of freedom of press if you arent allowed to say certain things. It is a principal yes, but its an important one. If the government is doing bad things, then it doesnt matter for what reasons, to me thats what it seems like. Im done with being told we are fighting for freedom and all this different crap. I think most Americans are tired of being lied to.

Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED

11/30/2010 09:43:02 PM · #45

im about to go on to a long winded rant.

i love living living in the US becuase i can say whatever the hell i want about my country, i believe whatever the hell i want and i can pretty much do whatever the hell i want.

but i dont for a second trust my government to do what is in the best interest of me or rest of the people who live here.

this country is and always will be controlled by the flow of money.

our goverment choses who to help in this world, not based on what is going on but whether or not their land offers some sort of resource that we covet.

we have picked and chosen our battles in this world for many reason but the one that came back to bite us was becuase of oil. we decided to fund afgan fighters against the soviets over oil, we armed them, trained them, and then when russia bailed, we abandoned them and left them to fester against this country until someone else probably came along and said "hey look at the americans stealing our oil, they are the reason we are a poor nation, they dont pay enough for the oil", their soldiers are occupying our holy land." so now this group that we built up and funded and armed, who has nothing to do but cause trouble, is now funded and further armed (secretly), they attempt to bomb buildings and finally hijack planes and take down the WTC, all while destabilizing the middle east, and driving up the cost of oil.

So instead of seeing the error in our ways and heeding the warnings that were given to us as to why we were attacked. We go and invade and occupy other sovereign nations, and continue the viscous cycle with yet another group of pawns.

all this while our governments put in place new "security" measures to make us feel safe.

we don't need our governments to keep us safe, we need them to stop f-ing around with these games they play. they are the reason we are unsafe.

but they wont because too many powerful people stand too much to lose. and right now the powerful people are freaking out and are trying to put the kibash on one site who has to balls to take them on.

MrsBillyJack

Nikon D80

11/30/2010 10:06:42 PM · #46

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
To think that transparency and more information is always going to lead to better results is foolish. Sometimes secrecy is needed. Take North Korea. China is their ally. They may listen to China. Apparently we find out that China is annoyed with their antics. Possibly North Korea did not know this. Now North Korea feels even more isolated. North Korea is known for provocative actions to get attention. North Korea owns a nuclear weapon. You fill in the rest.

As a doctor I can identify with diplomats and their need to be able to be frank and candid. Wikileaks has caused a big step backward and that is to all our detriment. I was on their side previously, but with this latest releast I say, "boo wikileaks!"

and you ca also make the argument that North Korea was only acting out becuase they had big china behind them, now they now they no they have no support and may cave.

Look we can argue all day whether wikileaks is good or bad. the point is what it is not and should not be considered a crime. The governments need to look at who is supplying the water not spraying the hose.

if information no matter how detrimental falls into the hands of the reporters they should feel safe and obligated to report it without fear or prosecution.

One thing not being mentioned is this information was illegally obtained........ If someone gets ahold of your credit card information because you throw it away & don't shred it, wouldn't you be furious they had it.. Lets say they never use it.. But, you don't know this.. You have no idea when they will use your information or for what purpose..Identity theft IS a crime.. Why wouldn't this be??.. The soldier who is being acused of releasing the latest information will face court martial.. There are such things as security clearance for a reason... It's intersting to me to know how many people think this is just "free speech" have actually served their country... Said that I will give my life to allow you to live in a time where you are afforded the right to "free speech"..
This is NOT JOURNALISM...imho.. My husband is active duty and is about to deploy for 18 months.. If the information being leaked causes additional crisis and situations around the world and it puts any humans in harms way, you'd be a sadist to believe it was worth it... Regardless of your home country, your countrymen within your government keeps secrets.. They do things you can't imagine.. It's not going to go away or keep people "honest" just because of this website... It's only going to eventually cost human lives..

11/30/2010 10:23:05 PM · #47

journalists always write stories where they wont name sources, how is this any different?

as i said before, take issue with the people that are leaking the info, not the ones making it public.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/30/2010 10:29:27 PM · #48

One would hope that the people releasing the information have taken the time to read the documents to ensure that the release of same will not endanger anyone. However, this factor notwithstanding, as some have indicated before, the onus for providing an adequate level of protection rests solely with the group or individuals that created and stored this material.

The bits of information I have seen so far, while embarassing, are not anything that will affect national security... albeit I am not privy to all the information released.

Time will tell,

Ray

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/30/2010 10:38:22 PM · #49

Originally posted by RayEthier:

One would hope that the people releasing the information have taken the time to read the documents to ensure that the release of same will not endanger anyone.

According the the people from the NY Times I've heard interviewed so far, they not only read the documents carefully, they went over what they were going to publish with representatives of the State Department to make sure that no one would be in danger of arrest, assassination, etc., before publishing, and either withheld or redacted any truly compromising information.

You can hear significant discussions of both the political effects and the ethics/legalities of the situation on the Monday and Tuesday installments of Talk of the Nation at NPR ...

RayEthier