ACor58 Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) This is going to make a good movie someday. Unfortunately I won't go see it. Especially because it will prbably star Nicolas Cage. It will also probably have a stupid title like World War Wiki. Edited December 1, 2010 by ACor58
GG Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 This faux-news line that "Everyone thought that Saddam had WMDs" is a bunch of BS. UN inspector Hans Blix was closer to the situation than anyone. And when he said there aren't any the Bush crew with the media co-conspirators attacked him. Bush and the neocons figured out what they wanted to do first, and the cherry picked the info that would support it. And when it didnt exist, someone just made it up for them like the bogus "Saddam's buying yellow cake from Niger" charge. Yes, that's exactly what happened. And all the other countries' intelligence agencies were in line with Blix (who never offered a definitive conclusion)
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 Yeah 2 years of Nixon's policies of justifiable crimes. His impeachment/resignation was a truly great moment in our democracy, if you don't see it or know about it, it is your loss. We repeated the mistake with Bush and are going to pay for it for a very long time. Talk about not learning from your past. Secrets are good for deception, the question would be is it useful to be deceptive about our public policies. If it is a secret they shouldn't make it so freaking easy to steal and release should they? I understand what you are saying but the free press is not living up to its name anymore. The wikileaks thing is a natural progression. Haha your kidding right? China cares about its boarder, like America does with Mexico. A war will flood that boarder with people running away. That is where Chinas "moderation" is coming from. The north knows it and uses it. If the north starts a war, they knew before now that China wasn't going to support them in much or maybe not at all. The Chinese like the south quite a lot, the government is not the issue, the money is. Plus they don't want any kind of military conflict with the US (their biggest trade partner and the fiscal basis of their economy in many ways). What you don't understand about Asian culture is the concept of "face", they can not turn on the north publicly in some ways but they can drop them with out losing face. I do admit it is a dangerous situation but it is not because "leaks". I lived in the South for a year and a half it is not hard to see the exchange that goes on in a fiscal and cultural way. The dear leader knows it and knew it before wiki leaks. He is crazy, not stupid. What you don't understand is that your own post contradicts your position. If "face" is such an important factor in Asian culture (which I'm not disputing), where does all this leave the DPRK and Kim Jong Il? Think on that for a little bit. And while you're thinking on that, think also on the importance of "discretion" to "face", you friggin' numbskull.
PromoTheRobot Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/wikileaks-julian-assange-wants-to-spill-your-corporate-secrets/ PTR Because raping a woman of legal age is ok? Oh he's guilty now? PTR
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 Oh he's guilty now? Of course not. This isn't Ben Rothlesberger we're talking about.
BB27 Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 Well, I just waded through this thread, and decided to post a response....... To the question of jurisdiction regarding the wikileaks documents being outside the USA, possession of stolen classified materials is a crime no matter where you might be, and as such is a prosecutable offense. Also, the release of these documents does grave harm to our national security, if you can't see it, or don't believe it, then I'm not going to explain it here. Later......
boyst Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 Maybe I should clear something up. The guy is not my hero, but for his courage you have to admire what he has done. To know that at any single moment he could taken out yet still presses on with his cause is remarkable. As PTR pointed out, he is not guilty until found guilty, and just like many other instances it does not mean he is totally incapable of other good. Vick used to kill dogs and play football very well, even if this guy raped goats it doesn't mean he has a good cause... Now, is that cause serving the greater good? That is questionable, just like ACORN or tax hikes. In the eyes of some it can be good in the eyes of others it is not. In my opinion we are a country founded with the fundamentals of a democracy, for better or for worse. We should be able to walk in to our government buildings and question what is going on but you cannot. As a democracy you can only question the puppet you elected (or didn't). He in turn is to raise your concerns up to a higher authority and service your needs as a whole. What I have seen of all of this information is pretty worthless, at best. Is any of this really that secret? Does everyone here truly believe that the Chinese are already not in our government computers or the Russians do not have loads of our documents on file? The part I am annoyed with is that we are looked at as Americans who are not deserving enough to know what is going on with our own government. I am not asking for secrets on the whereabouts of our nuclear submarines, or even how many soldiers are in a base in the middle of Afghanistan. I merely want to know what is going on with executive type actions. I hope that made sense.
BB27 Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that downloading classified material is also a crime, and you could get in trouble (remote chance) for going to Wikileaks and downloading material that is still classified. Just saying.......
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 Mister Assange...Mossad on line 1.
PromoTheRobot Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 (edited) Of course not. This isn't Ben Rothlesberger we're talking about. Unlike Ben these alleged molestation charges magically appeared after the first publicized WikiLeaks dump. How conveeeeeeeeenient. PTR Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that downloading classified material is also a crime, and you could get in trouble (remote chance) for going to Wikileaks and downloading material that is still classified. Just saying....... Also to make clear, WikiLeaks does not commit acts of espionage. If you read the Forbes article link I posted they are merely a conduit for materials provided to them voluntarily by thousands of anonymous sources. So people give Assange this stuff freely. He just posts it. So if you think taking Assange out stops anything you're probably mistaken. If anything WikiLeaks will continue without its public spokesperson. PTR Edited December 1, 2010 by PromoTheRobot
BB27 Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 Also to make clear, WikiLeaks does not commit acts of espionage. If you read the Forbes article link I posted they are merely a conduit for materials provided to them voluntarily by thousands of anonymous sources. So people give Assange this stuff freely. He just posts it. So if you think taking Assange out stops anything you're probably mistaken. If anything WikiLeaks will continue without its public spokesperson. PTR I don't disagree, but, possession of stolen classified material is a crime regardless of how you got it. You can't even try to make the argument that he didn't know that the materials were both classified, and stolen.
Guest three3 Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 Assange: "Let's tell the truth. Think of all the lives we could save in the future. This is our weapon against corruption. We will make the world a better place." ieatcrayonz: "Think of the consequences of telling the truth. Bad things could happen. Let's continue with the lies."
DrDawkinstein Posted December 1, 2010 Author Posted December 1, 2010 saying that it's Assange's fault if a war were to start is ridiculous. first off, these governments aren't learning anything about each other that they dont already know. secondly, ALL of the responsibility falls on those very same governments. he's just giving the information to the one group that always gets the shaft. the people.
Booster4324 Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 saying that it's Assange's fault if a war were to start is ridiculous. first off, these governments aren't learning anything about each other that they dont already know. secondly, ALL of the responsibility falls on those very same governments. he's just giving the information to the one group that always gets the shaft. the people. Like we needed any of that information. There wasn't even anything really corrupt there except for diplomats spying on diplomats. Who woulda thunk? Amazon kicks Weakyliks to the curb.
DrDawkinstein Posted December 1, 2010 Author Posted December 1, 2010 Like we needed any of that information. There wasn't even anything really corrupt there except for diplomats spying on diplomats. Who woulda thunk? Amazon kicks Weakyliks to the curb. and if there is nothing important, then that brings the argument full circle to "So whats the big deal then?" if nothing that critical has been leaked then it's even more reason to support wikileaks, so at the very least the governments know that the people are watching them. kinda like the new TSA procedures bring more of a deterrent than actually expecting to catch terrorists.
Booster4324 Posted December 1, 2010 Posted December 1, 2010 and if there is nothing important, then that brings the argument full circle to "So whats the big deal then?" if nothing that critical has been leaked then it's even more reason to support wikileaks, so at the very least the governments know that the people are watching them. kinda like the new TSA procedures bring more of a deterrent than actually expecting to catch terrorists. I said nothing really corrupt. Not that there weren't revelations that have the potential to be very important.
Booster4324 Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 Don't shoot the messenger What was his message? What relevant info did he disclose? I find myself in an odd position of defending the government, as most of this stuff is sheer embarrassment material. Maybe Hillary could be fired or forced to resign at best out of this whole dump. Possible consequences include war in Korea and at least increased tension in the Middle East. I did read one article that showed a few (from different papers and such) possible positive spins on the whole thing. Suggestions that with all of the cards on the table diplomacy might be easier in the future, which while possible, seems unlikely to me.
Pete Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 What was his message? What relevant info did he disclose? I find myself in an odd position of defending the government, as most of this stuff is sheer embarrassment material. Maybe Hillary could be fired or forced to resign at best out of this whole dump. Possible consequences include war in Korea and at least increased tension in the Middle East. I did read one article that showed a few (from different papers and such) possible positive spins on the whole thing. Suggestions that with all of the cards on the table diplomacy might be easier in the future, which while possible, seems unlikely to me. It wasn't his message. I beleive in freedom of press and freedom of speech. My guess is that is his message. But wikileaks he is merely the messenger and besides- I can't tell you wikileaks message- because some authoritarian entity shut it down
Booster4324 Posted December 2, 2010 Posted December 2, 2010 It wasn't his message. I beleive in freedom of press and freedom of speech. My guess is that is his message. But wikileaks he is merely the messenger So a diplomat's assessment of Merkel should be open to anyone. I assume it is fair game if all your e-mails are available to anyone? You beleive<sic> in freedom of press and freedom of speech.
Recommended Posts