It's a lot to digest so take it slow.
Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks
Two Faces of American Diplomacy
It's a lot to digest so take it slow.
Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
On a related note, wikileaks is currently suffering from a massive DDOS attack.
this leak is pretty amazing. 75 year-old American escaped Iran riding a horse over a freezing Turkish mountain range
After all the hype, this is really disappointing and boring.
Today we appear to have learned:
Diplomats are rude in private
Prince Andrew is rude in public
Israel is worried about Iran
Saudi Arabia is worried about Iran
Russia is a big country with a lot of trees
Dog bites man
And that US diplomats are encouraged to gather any info they can find about diplomats from other countries (including things like logins, credit-card info, creepy personal stuff). Not to mention "genetic material", unspecified
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Eh? I only skimmed the news summaries, but I missed that one...
When America does something stupid in the future because it wasn't able to get honest views from relevant actors, I'm sure the WikiLeaks people will be very happy.
Hope is the denial of reality
Maybe the relevant actors we want honest answers from will help us decide who the America is they will give the answers to.Originally Posted by Loki
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Please name a single "relevant actor" who's been honest until now but won't be going forward. Not generalities, just one individual would be fine.
The political elites from the Gulf and other parts of the Middle East who now have egg on their face and will likely have to quell domestic unrest over what they said in private (and this has the potential to worsen relations between several countries in the Middle east, whose leaders are already known for having fragile egos). I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that they'll be less willing to offer information in private that they wouldn't want to see in print. There's absolutely no excuse to reveal information said in private unless it was criminal in nature (which it was not). If people don't think the views they share with American diplomats will stay private, they'll think twice about offering those views.
Hope is the denial of reality
Might be we need officials who don't show their arrogance publicly in cables. You can have the thought, just don't ever let anyone in on it.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Name please.
The kings of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan for starters. Ditto for the president of Yemen and the Crown Prince of the Saudis. This will definitely spook lower-level officials in those countries who don't want to be on record saying something that is contrary to their country's professed foreign policy.
Hope is the denial of reality
Middle Eastern leaders begging us/the Israelis in private to bomb Iran is pretty bad, can't really argue with that.
They weren't public, that's the fracking point. How would you like all your internal work e-mails scrutinized by people you deal with externally? Candor is not arrogance, BTW.
I don't say anything in an email that I wouldn't say to anyone who wanted to listen.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
So diplomats shouldn't tell their superiors anything that they're not willing to see in print?
Hope is the denial of reality
Not in an email.So diplomats shouldn't tell their superiors anything that they're not willing to see in print?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Ah, they should use possibly tapped phones or only provide the information every 2 years (i.e. when they get rotated out of their position and get to visit D.C.)? And it's not like there would be any problem with only a handful of people (i.e. those who'd get called with a phone) knowing any given piece of information, right? Who needs information sharing, right?
Hope is the denial of reality
So would you rather everything be communicated by phone? Or that our government keep no records? I'm sorry but your expectations here are patently nonsensical if not insane.
What's new?
Did you follow the thread? It's etiquette I was talking about bean brains...not secrets.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
I wouldn't say any of this is sensitive material. If it was, then it would be compartmentalized so that someone with a general password would not be able to get to it.
I like the bit where they won't let Obama visit your country unless you agree to take in Gitmo prisoners. Hopey changey if you agree to violate human rights! It's such an American thing, ugh.
In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.
So your opinion of those guys is that they're "honest people" in the past. Funny, I didn't think you thought that.
They say what they want, that's not going to change.
But who's shocked?
I don't put anything in writing that could be used against me, it's common sense. It's not news either that emails get leaked and are not a secure mode of communication.They weren't public, that's the fracking point. How would you like all your internal work e-mails scrutinized by people you deal with externally? Candor is not arrogance, BTW.
Nothing is new today, even the idea of leaks aren't new. This is news because of the scale of it, but all in all its rather boring and predictable.
Diplomats, for once. Will you give your honest opinion as a diplomat - or will you try to phrase it differently, knowing full well that it may end up in public?
That's the problem here. For instance, our own foreign minister Westerwelle was labelled as being "incompetent", it's the honest truth, even we Germans know that - but that's not something to be carried into the public arena.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Pre-wikileaks: Phrase it knowing full well that it may end up in public.
Post-wikileaks: Phrase it knowing full well that it may end up in public.
And?That's the problem here. For instance, our own foreign minister Westerwelle was labelled as being "incompetent", it's the honest truth, even we Germans know that - but that's not something to be carried into the public arena.
President Obama tried to avoid having a face-to-face meeting with Gordon Brown while Brown's team desperately tried to organise one. That was leaked, over a year ago, nothing to do with Wikileaks.
This isn't new.
Erm, what? They seemed to be offering pretty honest opinions in the story, ones that would bring them a lot of heat if they said them in public. They don't say those things in public for obvious reasons, and now they have even less incentive to tell us what they really think.
It's also interesting that for all the talk of transparency, WikiLeaks provided the information first to a handful of elite Western newspapers.
Last edited by Loki; 11-29-2010 at 02:09 PM.
Hope is the denial of reality
Arab leaders say one thing to one audience and something else to another ... again, what is new? This is not the first time you've said that.
Again, nothing new there.
Wikileaks is far from a transparent organisation. But that's the thing, all this mass hysteria is playing right into their hands, you're playing into their hands.It's also interesting that for all the talk of transparency, WikiLeaks provided the information first to a handful of elite Western newspapers.
On the left you've got the Grauniad etc cherrypicking their favourite stories and saying how massive this is. On the right you've got people going on about how awful this is and again how massive this is. I view myself as of the right but I don't intend to play into the lefts hands, this is a damp squib. There was the potential for really shocking things to be said, the truth is that if you're honest there's nothing shocking here. Take Khen "it's the honest truth, even we Germans know that".
Assange is playing people for fools and dragging this out as much as possible. Come back when there's some interesting stories, all this has done is create tremendous publicity for wikileaks but I've yet to see anything ground-shattering here.
Spoken like a man who grew up under a totalitarian government. Moar secrecy!
Everything the local paper has printed so far is stuff the public already understood or suspected (print media being worth what it is). Except now we have slightly more concrete proof.
Like China's politburo directing the attack on Google.
Apparently one of the cables was a complaint/warning to British Government (last, Labour) that one of the ministers was a sex-pest who had been sending sexually aggressive text messages to members of staff.
News? Well, not exactly. Not often I'd like to the Daily Fail but see this article from September 2008: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/mailonsun...l-aide-24.html
Has anyone actually learned anything new from this yet?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote