America doesn't have the largest Army in the world, it has the strongest fire power.
-
Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Wikileaks
- Thread starter Toothache
- Start date
America doesn't have the largest Army in the world, it has the strongest fire power.
My issue over WikiLeaks is Assange's who treatment of issues. Although ironically, he chose one of the best major powers to attempt to intimidate. Unlike Russia, China, or even Israel, the US isn't going to go try to kill him. There might be a point where the US strongly attempts to have him arrested (these rape allegations started before the major US leaks occurred).
Assange is a consumate dirtbag, it is true, and he did release documents against the only major world power he knows is not going to make him "dissapear."
Then of course he got too bold for his britches and said he might release the documents of the Ruskies and the Chinese. That's the reason he turned himself into Scotland Yard, I'd wager. Oh, he still wants to bluff the US by saying if something happens to him more people will dump the documents he already promised to release, but lets face it, this coward knows he went a step too far.
Seeing as Assange isn't actually a US Citizen one can't really call him treasonous, but he's certainly done no favors to western democracies who by and large operate above the radar. Does anyone truly believe that after the Soviet Union collapsed America stopped having spies all over the world? Everybody already knew the gist of what was in the released documents, the problem is all the specific people he and his cohorts named who now have their safety compromised in addition to the untold diplomatic damage in general. Not that the UN was ever anything but a brood of vipers to begin with, but now they have a pretext to restart their bloviation on big bad bully America again.
The most important advice on all this for my compatriots comes from Glenn Beck. Basically, don't go balistic over these shocking revelations of stuff you already knew or could surmise by applying common sense. The entire point of Assange's document drop is to get the government to overreach by silencing and punishing this guy and in the process put in mechanisms far more effective at silencing and punishing you, the American citizen. Kind of like the new junk groping TSA procedures implemented after the panty bomber's failed attempt last Christmas.
Assange may be a collossal dirtbag who endangered untold numbers of people and undermined the security of western democracies, but the damage has already been done and anything further released will have diminishing returns. I am glad that Hillary Clinton in her role as Secretary of Scare does not let a single detail of the foreign ministers of friend and foe alike escape her sight. There is nothing hypocritical in protecting your nation's sovereignty by having full and complete information about both your allies and enemies. Unlike many nations, the US actually has global responsibilties to consider, and can't waste its Secretary of State's time on fat jokes and ethnocentric humor.
Then of course he got too bold for his britches and said he might release the documents of the Ruskies and the Chinese. That's the reason he turned himself into Scotland Yard, I'd wager. Oh, he still wants to bluff the US by saying if something happens to him more people will dump the documents he already promised to release, but lets face it, this coward knows he went a step too far.
Seeing as Assange isn't actually a US Citizen one can't really call him treasonous, but he's certainly done no favors to western democracies who by and large operate above the radar. Does anyone truly believe that after the Soviet Union collapsed America stopped having spies all over the world? Everybody already knew the gist of what was in the released documents, the problem is all the specific people he and his cohorts named who now have their safety compromised in addition to the untold diplomatic damage in general. Not that the UN was ever anything but a brood of vipers to begin with, but now they have a pretext to restart their bloviation on big bad bully America again.
The most important advice on all this for my compatriots comes from Glenn Beck. Basically, don't go balistic over these shocking revelations of stuff you already knew or could surmise by applying common sense. The entire point of Assange's document drop is to get the government to overreach by silencing and punishing this guy and in the process put in mechanisms far more effective at silencing and punishing you, the American citizen. Kind of like the new junk groping TSA procedures implemented after the panty bomber's failed attempt last Christmas.
Assange may be a collossal dirtbag who endangered untold numbers of people and undermined the security of western democracies, but the damage has already been done and anything further released will have diminishing returns. I am glad that Hillary Clinton in her role as Secretary of Scare does not let a single detail of the foreign ministers of friend and foe alike escape her sight. There is nothing hypocritical in protecting your nation's sovereignty by having full and complete information about both your allies and enemies. Unlike many nations, the US actually has global responsibilties to consider, and can't waste its Secretary of State's time on fat jokes and ethnocentric humor.
I come into a topic looking for intelligent conversation and get someone calling someone a dirtbag as his line of reasoning when I want to see people discussing an actual issue, all because my right to have Deck Knight on ignore was taken away against my will.
The man's character has nothing to do with the choices he made or the ramifications that will exist; a coward or a brave man could both have done it, someone incredibly hateful or joyful could have, someone who absolutely hates government or someone who loves freedom and hopes for some sort of improvement. His thought processes are not the same as yours, and your pejorative, bigoted, self serving commentary about why he did what he did have no hold on him.
The man's character has nothing to do with the choices he made or the ramifications that will exist; a coward or a brave man could both have done it, someone incredibly hateful or joyful could have, someone who absolutely hates government or someone who loves freedom and hopes for some sort of improvement. His thought processes are not the same as yours, and your pejorative, bigoted, self serving commentary about why he did what he did have no hold on him.
If "everybody already knew the gist of what was in the released documents", how exactly did Assange "[endanger] untold numbers of people and [undermine] the security of western democracies"? Was it simply the process by which these documents were released? Please note that I'm not attacking your reasoning; I'm simply trying to understand your views on this issue.
I personally believe that Assange's actions have been commendable.
I personally believe that Assange's actions have been commendable.
I'm pretty sure character has a lot to do with whether you release documents that could endanger hundreds of people in the service of their country which, whether your home or not, may have made a rational person question releasing these documents all over the internet. Though I might add from all accounts of his behavior in Sweden, whether he actually raped either of those women he certainly put on an impressive show.
I agree, giving you the ability to ignore other people has been a great benefit to discussion in general. You tend to go looking for discussion without ever starting any. Maybe you should fix that. You should also fix your habit of appending meaningless character assault words to your post, unless you believe "dirtbag" is an immutable characteristic one can be bigoted against.
Fizz said:
It's the difference between knowing the US has spies in their employ gathering information on the comings and goings of leaders in other nations and knowing that John Smith Wesson is stationed in Islamabad spying on Hamid Karzai's meetings with Taliban warlords. Knowing the latter means John Smith Wesson is now in serious danger.
It undermines diplomacy because diplomacy by it's nature requires discretion. "Loose Lips Sink Ships" as the saying goes, and if you can't trust a diplomat with information on one of your more unsprupulous leaders' recent activity then you never pass that information on in the first place. It breaks down the ability to solve disputes peacably before the violent radical can amass enough support behind the scenes to act.
He's not being charged with rape, he's being charged with having sex without a condom.
Free Speech is not a suicide pact. In fact, the First Amendment has been specifically interpreted not to protect speech that endangers other people's lives needlessly. You cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater unless there is an actual fire.
Well, tecnically you are able to yell it, but you will not recieve First Amendment protections.
I largely agree with this, but I do think it's worth knowing that we are spying on other leaders (which we would likely assume but often overlook had these documents not been leaked), but not precisely who's doing it, how they're doing it because it does compromise anything obtained. It's also rather irrelevant who exactly is doing spying, I don't care if it's John Doe or Joe Bloggs doing the spying, the important thing is that it's happening.
I'm divided on the wikileaks releases because while it does bring to the forefront actions that should be public, it also releases details that shouldn't be. Ideally the government would release the main points on their own, but we all know that won't ever happen.
This I'm not so sure about. If the comments released so far actually pose a problem to diplomacy then those countries may have some insecurities that are nonsensical anyway. While we may have to try to remain diplomatic with these countries, I'm not sure Wikileaks can be blamed in anyway for the lunacy of other leaders.
My character assassination of you is in reply to your needless character assassination of him (calling him a dirtbag instead of merely focusing on whether it is right or wrong). The bigoted, self-serving, et cetera parts are true though; your diatribe seeks to cement the man as a wretched criminal because it would go against your self-serving interests, in this case apparently as a war hawk. Since you are willing to invent fiction (that our economy is somehow robust right now and that two wars has not hurt it) to support your ardent war hawk principles, then it is not surprising you wanted to assassinate the man's character rather than actually stick to a moderate, intelligent discussion.
Ignoring people does help discussion when they make nothing but bigoted screeds. I only said it here because I have no idea who to complain to though.
Ignoring people does help discussion when they make nothing but bigoted screeds. I only said it here because I have no idea who to complain to though.
Pretty sure in this case the metaphoric fire actually did exist.
Personally I feel that Wikileaks should have used a little more discretion in what they released. I also think much of it was worthless noise like a political version of Gossip Girl than anything useful. However, there is still some things revealed that I think is important for the world to know. At the very least we have one organization doing actual journalism.
However, the way the United States has reacted to this is absolutely disgusting for a "free" democracy. It's something I'd expect from China. Putting pressure on Amazon to cease hosting? Putting pressure on MasterCard and Visa to stop donations going to them? DDoS attacks? This is the worst damage control I've seen.
Wikileaks is not a terrorist organization.
Its probably best we don't know what our governments do most of the time. I forget who said it, but as the saying goes, "laws [and other government policies] are like sausages, you don't really want to know how its made or whats in it." (that was heavily paraphrased as i cant be assed to look up the actual quote).
I don't really like the concept of Wikileaks though. If it was just like statistics or whatever stuff like that, I would be far more apt to say I support it, but the idea of some guy with a bug up his ass against big powers declassifying information which put people in [potential] danger, as in the example employed by Deck Knight I completely disagree with. I know people want to have complete transparency, but trust me, its probably best that we don't or we would hate the people we vote for.
Do I think Asange should be tried? Not really no, they can easily shut down his site if they really wanted to. Do I think what he is doing is right? Not completely either. I don't understand why people are so damned suprised about civilian casulties in war though, regardless of how they happen or why, its war people. If we thought like this during World War Two we would still be sending G.I.s to the Pacific theatre (Europe would obviously have fallen by now). I'm all for showing how "bad" or whatever our government is, although at this point I think everyone is well aware that our politicians are completely imcompetent, but I think it should be done within reason.
These leaks have confirmed suspicions that have been around for sometime - the international community spies on each other, its just good foreign policy in the long run. Whether Wikileaks is supported or not by sponsors is not the issue, the fact that they are leaking these documents is the real issue. What I'm suspicious of is the motive behind the people giving the leaks to Wikileaks, and the anonymous nature behind it. Of course, leaking documents will put people in big trouble, so I understand why they are hiding their names.
The fact that so few documents have been leaked so far, when in the last leak about Iraq there was a huge dump of information all at once, leaks me to believe they are being incredibly careful and cautious about what they do leak. Is there some government oversight to the leaks? Its not impossible to say, even though Wikileaks and Assange are being attacked publicly by the US government, behind the scenes it is hard to say what is really happening with the slow drip-drip of information. The rhetoric about how the information could cause more people to be in danger is false, since with the last two major leaks there has been no increase in putting troops and citizens in danger.
Another thing I'm suspicious of is the media attention on Assange's arrest, and how little coverage is given to the actual leaks. Whatever you feel about Assange's conduct towards women, it should not in any way detract from the information and the nature of the documents being leaked. So, maybe I'm being cynical, but the arrest is serving as a distraction from the true issue at hand - the content of the leaked documents.
The fact that so few documents have been leaked so far, when in the last leak about Iraq there was a huge dump of information all at once, leaks me to believe they are being incredibly careful and cautious about what they do leak. Is there some government oversight to the leaks? Its not impossible to say, even though Wikileaks and Assange are being attacked publicly by the US government, behind the scenes it is hard to say what is really happening with the slow drip-drip of information. The rhetoric about how the information could cause more people to be in danger is false, since with the last two major leaks there has been no increase in putting troops and citizens in danger.
Another thing I'm suspicious of is the media attention on Assange's arrest, and how little coverage is given to the actual leaks. Whatever you feel about Assange's conduct towards women, it should not in any way detract from the information and the nature of the documents being leaked. So, maybe I'm being cynical, but the arrest is serving as a distraction from the true issue at hand - the content of the leaked documents.
The reason noone's paying attention to the content is because it's boring. There's nothing really new or salacious there. Assange and Wikileaks doesn't represent a threat because of the content they have released, they represent a threat because of what they'll do with information in the future that could be a lot worse.
there is no case against julian assange. at this point, he's just being held because the usa doesn't like him.
free julian!
also
free julian!
also
I know this is off topic, but the actual quote was made back in the day before regulations in meat plants, so you probably wouldn't want to know. (Read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair if you haven't already its really disturbing but enlightening)
"Big trouble" is kind of a massive, massive understatement. Try "death"...
That seems a bit far fetched. If the Government's pulling the strings, why would they create such an elaborate illusion of dissent?
There are many, MANY more plausible reasons for not releasing everything immediately as it is received...
I'm no Wikileaks opponent, and I think the claim is suspect myself, but I really doubt the verifiability or validity of this statement. There's no statistic on "putting troops in danger" that the public could directly measure, so I wouldn't make such sweeping statements like that without any kind of source at all.
Other than major newspapers reprinting several of the leaks? (Most notably, the New York Times) I think you need to expand your definition of "media" a little bit...
A. Can you tell me which Supreme Court case carved out that exception to free speech? Bonus points if you can tell me the irony of that case?
B. Assange has not committed any action that is against any free speech loophole. It neither incites Violence, causes property damage, is a form of criminal speech, encroaches the rights of others, nor can we place time/manner restrictions on it as *GASP* he's not in America.
My view on the whole thing is that this is retarded. Forty years ago it was the Washington post that ran the Watergate story and caused Nixon's resignation. Nixon, and others argued that the story that was breaking was a threat to national security (like today). In today's world, we don't have this same investigative journalism, and Wikileaks is all that's left. Today, if Obama declared war on Canada, the newspapers would be on his nuts as how to best run the story, as opposed to finding the reasons that we shouldn't. The fact that Aasnge is being indicted for sex crimes I think is indicative of the police states we live in, in June/July a magistrate dismissed the charges against him as bullshit, but after he took a "wikileak" on the state department they want to investigate.
But lets look at some of the leaks themselves. China's involved in cyber-attacks on other nations, Saudi Arabia doesn't like Iran, embassies employ espionage tactics; nothing really new.
After Wikileaks was taken off Amazon servers and its paypal account was frozen, I think we need some perspective. The website of the Klu Klux Klan (shockingly, it's kkk.com) is still alive and kicking on the web and it hasn't been shut down or forced into mirroring. Moreover, while WikiLeaks contradicts PayPal's T&Cs, according to the statement released when the company shut down donations, you can still pay your entrance fee to the Klan (as long as you're white and male, of course!) safely and securely using PayPal or your shiny MasterCard.
That is a pretty stupid conclusion to come to. Knowing about war crimes, illegal assassinations, corrupt backdoor deals, et cetera is always a good thing. Governments are not holy vestiges who get to hover above the law because it will hurt a nation when the problems are exposed. People are precious and the horrible things governments do to betray that are always best known, not ignored.
i had to look it up, but i knew it it just wouldnt come to me Schenck v. United States (1919) I don't remember the irony though :( (was it something about how he was protesting being drafted and was getting sent off to war??)
I guess. I'm more of an out-of-sight-out-of-mind thinker on stuff like that. Which I know you will attack me on, so I'll let you get that out of the way.
