Reply With Quote
OK...
I'm busted...
What penalty are you giving me?
you ing moron. that soldier leaked because he wanted to. jesus, you're stupid.
OK...
I'm busted...
What penalty are you giving me?
I would agree, but generally have difficulties marrying the WikiLeaks problem to the issue of transparency. There's a huge difference between willing, open, and honest disclosure/discourse, which is what I would consider true transparency to be, and the spread of questionably acquired state secrets (or whatever else). The ability to find a glut of information doesn't make the government any more transparent than it would be if that information remained hidden away.
Sorry, I'm not into that.
Some people charge for that. WC just asked for one on the house.
Lucky for him, abuse is free around here.
(Frau Blucher)
I don't disagree with that. How did he have all that information available? With need to know... at least how it was practiced in the past, how did he ever get that much information?
This wasn't only his fault, but a breakdown in security measures.
Abuse here is sometimes something I wish I could pay to stop!Some people charge for that. WC just asked for one on the house.
Lucky for him, abuse is free around here.
I'm very hesitant to trust the claims of damage that the government usually puts forth.
Now, I haven't read the actual do ent, so maybe there is some stuff in there that could potentially damage a party. Anything like that would, preferably, be redacted. (Names, locations, etc etc.)
But the government will always spin it any way they can. Look at Hilary's press release. On one hand she says these do ents show America is doing the right thing; on the other she says it's extremely damaging.
And I don't think it's necessarily about educating the American public, as much as it is sending a message to governments that they can't hide everything. A humbling, as it were. I think all governments could use that at times. I'm not sure if this was the "proper" way to do it, but I think it's a good message in general (the strategy may be right while the tactics aren't).
I don't think I can begin to express how ironic that statement is.
I guess I could try.
"I wish we could forcibly remove the people who think America sucks so they can see how awesome it is to have freedom and liberty in America!"
How about for just a week or two?
It doesn't cost a thing to stop saying dumb like this:
Two things to take from this:
1) It does show where weak spots are in the government's ability to protect information (after all, this is just one leak... how much more info may other nations know about us that we aren't aware of), and hopefully improves the process to keep these secrets safe
2) The current administration has shown that it only wishes to be transparent when it looks favorable upon them, which pretty much negates the whole idea of transparency in the first place. Transparency is created whether voluntary or not, in my eyes.
I think that's the same thing as wondering why all the citizens of the countries we bomb/cause upheaval in can't figure out why we're the good guys.
Agreed. If you're going to punish someone, punish the person who leaked it, as well as the people who were responsible for the security there.
Would you agree or disagree that we have a large number of liberals who despise us for our prosperity? That they think the rich nations steal from the poor, rather than it being the fault of the poor nations, and their executive structure?
what happened to the good ole days when you sell information and nobody gets caught?
I don't know. how about telling us Natasha.
or of course its an elaborate scheme to confuse diplomatic ties with other countries in preparation of some radical change of diplomatic strategy in 2011.
I think you'd have to define large. Do you mean a great number, or a great percentage?
As far as the whole "fault of the poor nations"... do you mean the fault of the people living in them? Or the fault of the property they live on? Certainly, some poor countries WERE screwed over by richer nations in the past. (Ahem, Britain, ahem.)
I think the word "despise" is a bit much as well. I disagree with a lot of decisions that America has made; I don't despise them though.
I disagree slightly, but am willing to admit it might be largely due to nuance/semantics; my definition of transparency vs. the definition of transparency.
The difference for me lies within a portion of your first point, actually. This is just one leak, as you mentioned, and its existence begs the question of how much else is out there, positive or negative, waiting to be leaked. If anything, this website threatens the notion of transparency, rather than reinforces it. Not only does it contribute to an increasingly su ious public (good when su ion leads to a demand for accountability, bad when su ion leads to jaded cynicism or complete disengagement), but likely scares the government toward increased caution, rather than increased openness.
I think we have a small number of liberals who have issues with our nation's prosperity based on such general and uninformed terms.
I think we have a large number of liberals, however, who are frustrated and/or angered by specific, measurable, verifiable policies and practices through which our nation has increased its wealth at the expense, directly, of poorer nations and poorer citizens within our own nation.
This is one of my biggest problems with it. The almost immediate reaction was the likelihood that the enforced "greater sharing of information between agencies" that was one of the results of the aftermath of 9/11 would be diminished. Agencies will say they didn't or won't share info. with others because they are afraid of leaks, and then that reality of less sharing will actually damage the nation's ability to protect itself.
What would you know about poor nations and their executive structure to have an opinion on the subject?
What do you know about vulture funds that siphon resources from some of said countries? Or the IMF strongarming countries into who should be favored in deals and who shouldn't based on their own opinion of what democratic countries should be or do?
Now, I don't think ALL the problems in poor nations are a direct result of rich nations. But you can't simply entirely discount the influence of external capital on those countries and the ability to prey on their oftentimes delicate situations.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
