I saw that there isn't a thread about it. Anyway, I think that Israel won most than anyone else because that it shows that Isael isn't the one pressurising the US into attacking Iran.
It's unlikely that anything Wikileaks posts will lead to war, it isn't their intention.
Just because it is not their intention does not mean it won't happen. It is a form of irony. For example, let's assume the US sends food to a starving city in Africa. Their intention is good. Now, let us assume that, as a result, a warlord gets his hands on the food and uses it as currency as means of gaining more troops and weapons.
They just publish the truth of the immoral things America does in the war and now how bad your diplomacy is.
Just because it's righteous does not mean it is without consequence.
What the point of a bond that's built of fear, intimidation and lies? It will eventually break with disastrous consequences. It's better to fix it now than later.
A truce built off of lies is better than blocked trade routes, or worse, war.
I don't trust the government very much at all. I admit that there is some comfort that wikileaks brings, allowing us to figure out what the government is really up to. However, these documents may put us into danger or at least make it harder to negotiate with foreign nations.
Also is war that bad? Doesn't destruction lead to creation and most wars start out because of imbalances in the world? So the end result of such a war could be better than the start. I'm just saying.
Peace between nations is obtained through trade. If two nations depend on each other, they are less likely to go to war with each other. It is very important that we try to establish as many different trade routes as possible. I would like to avoid war at all costs.
No no, not just the wars your government is in the middle of, well if you think that a war is sending troops far away from your secure country to kill civilians who can't defend themselves...
I may not support the war, but I have to remind you that that's the way war works.
You can't fight a war without the loss of innocent lives.
well if you think that a war is sending troops far away from your secure country to kill civilians who can't defend themselves...
-logical fallacy
That is not the definition of war, but that is a result.
So people should just let your government do whatever they feel like doing, and ignore people who are actually posting the truth.
When it comes to war and foreign affairs, secrecy is had. Whether I support such secrecy or not depends on the situation and I admit that I can not draw a line as to what should and should not be shared.
On one hand, wikileaks has exposed how poorly a job our government is doing with foreign affairs. On the other, it has likely cost us many treaties that would benefit many civilians. As much as I distrust the US government, I believe I have to agree that wikileaks should not be allowed to expose classified documents that may strain future treaties.
You may not be a fan of America, but I am an American. You won't convince me that the solution for world peace is the fall of America.
I think America is ensuring its own downfall from the treatment it has given to the world over the past 100 years. Not saying they are the only deserving receivers of retribution but the rank up near the top (just so you know I think UK ranks a notch above them). There are very few countries that piss over human rights quite so well as America, but then America seems to be the best for covering up hideous acts of violence and greed whilst deceiving their population (the UK is, in fact, better than America at coverups but then we didnt feed our population lead on food cans till 20 years ago, we just murder people and make the world think it was someone else.)
I think its time to break the eggs of America and the middle east and fry the whole "war" thing that people think they have with each other. Hell we might as well chuck the whole "UK is USA's lapdog" thing in there as well.
There is no war. This is not... a war. Bill Hicks put it quite nicely the LAST time this exact thing happened. A war needs 2 armies fighting. All I see is a business in action and the middle east are just doing good business with America.
And considering the American corporations moving in to "rebuild" the middle east after shelling the cak outta it, I would say this is a corporate conspiracy as well. Not an American conspiracy, a Corporate one. Corporations have no countries or borders.
There are very few countries that piss over human rights quite so well as America
How does America piss all over human rights?
but then America seems to be the best for covering up hideous acts of violence and greed whilst deceiving their population
I guess you're talking about their greed when it comes to war, or are you talking about international trade?
(the UK is, in fact, better than America at coverups but then we didnt feed our population lead on food cans till 20 years ago,
What does that have to do with this?
we just murder people and make the world think it was someone else.)
They are unrelated, but I think I know what you're saying. Wait, did America put lead in their cans to intentionally harm the people? To be honest, I don't know about America's history when it comes to lead, such as when safety protocols were created to exclude lead from canned food and when it was discovered that lead was actually harmful to the human body.
There is no war. This is not... a war. Bill Hicks put it quite nicely the LAST time this exact thing happened. A war needs 2 armies fighting. All I see is a business in action and the middle east are just doing good business with America.
I would absolutely love to get some names here. What businesses are you talking about?
And considering the American corporations moving in to "rebuild" the middle east after shelling the cak outta it, I would say this is a corporate conspiracy as well. Not an American conspiracy, a Corporate one. Corporations have no countries or borders.
Corporations don't control the military, so even if a corporate take over did occur, it would be a corporation heavily supported and possibly funded by the US government. If it's a corporation, it will not be a private business.
Just because it is not their intention does not mean it won't happen. It is a form of irony. For example, let's assume the US sends food to a starving city in Africa. Their intention is good. Now, let us assume that, as a result, a warlord gets his hands on the food and uses it as currency as means of gaining more troops and weapons.
When the last time they posted something extremely sensitive information that could cause a war or a huge tragedy? Diplomats personally insulting each other is a problem that U.S.A brought on it's self for not being transparent where it should be. That's the whole idea behind it, it wouldn't have to be transparent if it was so corrupt and have arrogant people employed. Wikileads just shows the injustices as they are, so the U.S.A can fix it's problems accordingly. There is no currency or information that has any value except for the bad image it gives the U.S and to undermine their diplomats.
Just because it's righteous does not mean it is without consequence.
So to avoid war you would have an unrighteous society?
A truce built off of lies is better than blocked trade routes, or worse, war.
Maybe a short term solution but what happens when it the dam of lies bursts, you have an backwash and people take it personally? Citizens revolt against the government because of it's incompetence and not doing what it was supposed to do for citizens. Countries show extreme angry against whole other countries to the point of doing anything to complete eliminate them? Already weak or countries that only need a small intensive join make the already bad event even more lethal?
However, these documents may put us into danger or at least make it harder to negotiate with foreign nations.
There is no evidence of there being any documents that could be dangerous. Only to impede you diplomatic affairs and we all know that most of them are for capitalistic and secular reasons. Only a few are actually do with the environment, peace or benefiting the people. Taking the most expensive jets and using tax payers money for further their own ends. So the only damage they are doing is to the people. Proving that you need to get your government or at least diplomats in order.
Peace between nations is obtained through trade. If two nations depend on each other, they are less likely to go to war with each other. It is very important that we try to establish as many different trade routes as possible. I would like to avoid war at all costs.
I agree till you say that you would avoid war at all costs. Is a world that is at peace but only a few high up minority has power over the minority where they don't want it. Would you let up hatred build up over decade till it explosively blows up? Would you destroy a minority that threatens you ideals and result in a civil war?
You can't fight a war without the loss of innocent lives.
Yeah but most wars don't target the innocent that don't go out of their way to interfere with your operations. Even the peasant revolt was justified in some way since the peasant where being overly aggressive and didn't try other means of changing their situation. Where here now right? No lord that bind us to a manor to work for them. So it must work.
When it comes to war and foreign affairs, secrecy is had.
Yes but when it actually benefits not having secret leaking out to everyone that might cause actual damage. Not how badly you army treats captives and how horrible your countries diplomatic skills are. You mistake necessary secrete with complete cowpoo that needs to be fixed thus some transparency in your governments. Thus Wikileask doing you a favor.
You may not be a fan of America, but I am an American. You won't convince me that the solution for world peace is the fall of America.
Maybe you need a reformation of your government if it's doing such a bad job and people are questioning it.
There are very few countries that piss over human rights quite so well as America
How does America piss all over human rights?
Might not be that relevant but have you any idea how badly you country is controlled by a few mega-industries? You can't even test if your food are actually bad for you since Monsanto will literally sue you to oblivion for trying to put you in a contract that will nullify you ability to legally test the foods. They discriminate against their workers and will do anything to make sure they are making a business. This isn't unique in the world but since the U.S.A is a model for capitalism it should do better in controlling and regulating it's industry. Isn't it scary to you how much a few companies have power over what you eat? and there is nothing you can do about it?
There is no evidence of there being any documents that could be dangerous. Only to impede you diplomatic affairs and we all know that most of them are for capitalistic and secular reasons.
Capitalist reasons? You mean the government taking over a land and putting their own corporations up? That isn't capitalism. "Capitalist reasons" has nothing to do with the war.
I agree till you say that you would avoid war at all costs. Is a world that is at peace but only a few high up minority has power over the minority where they don't want it.
You obviously don't understand my political views at all then do you? Understand that I support a smaller government, but when it comes to the military, there are some things that should not be leaked. When it comes to foreign affairs, there are some things that could cause problems if leaked.
Might not be that relevant but have you any idea how badly you country is controlled by a few mega-industries?
Such as?
Monsanto will literally sue you to oblivion for trying to put you in a contract that will nullify you ability to legally test the foods.
Source.
They discriminate against their workers and will do anything to make sure they are making a business.
I have a job and my boss treats me quite well, thank you.
How can you be anti business and pro government while *****ing about government being too big?
U.S.A is a model for capitalism it should do better in controlling and regulating it's industry
Regulations? Do you know why people like me do not want more regulations? It's because these regulations harm SMALL businesses. This brings me to my point to righteous decisions having unintended effects.
Isn't it scary to you how much a few companies have power over what you eat
Not at all, considering there are many different companies that provide food! How little? Are you insane? What do you want? More regulations that end up hurting smaller businesses and smaller food chains?
and there is nothing you can do about it?
I can choose who I buy my food from!
When you hear the word capitalism, you associate it with greed. You don't associate it with freedom from government control, do you? You don't associate it with a free do-as-you-please market. You associate it with big business greed that makes deals with the government to enslave the people, which is unrealistic and utter BS.
to be brutally honest, I fail to see what anyone is gaining from this. The people, the USA, Wikileaks, other countries, that Assange guy, the guy who's suspected of leaking this information . . . why is this such a good ting? I fail to comprehend.
Capitalist reasons? You mean the government taking over a land and putting their own corporations up? That isn't capitalism. "Capitalist reasons" has nothing to do with the war.
Please read what I read entirely and don't take it out of context.
I have a job and my boss treats me quite well, thank you.
Again, taken out of context and taken personally.
How can you be anti business and pro government while *****ing about government being too big?
You obviously don't understand a strangers idea of proper business model?
I'm not anti-business I just don't like huge corporations controlling everything. I am pro government since there need to be social order but I don't support a corrupt government. Or one with member that only want to further their own gains.
You obviously don't understand my political views at all then do you?
Probably not since I don't know you.
Understand that I support a smaller government, but when it comes to the military, there are some things that should not be leaked.
I agree on this with you.
When it comes to foreign affairs, there are some things that could cause problems if leaked.
How else are you going to fix the bad management of you diplomatic apartment? These people and money and power only by stripping them of their secrecy can the U.S.A actually resolve the problem.
Not at all, considering there are many different companies that provide food! How little? Are you insane? What do you want? More regulations that end up hurting smaller businesses and smaller food chains?[/quote]
No need to angry over my opinions and yes I probably am socially deviant but that doesn't make my points less important and deserve less respect.
Yeah but how much of your food is produced by these mega-corporations like 90%?
Don't large corporation already hurt smaller businesses with cheaper modified foods and a larger industry? Also have you not watched food inc.? You can see how farmers are forced through debt and manipulations to conform to larger industries.
I can choose who I buy my food from!
[quote]
Not when it's the leading producer of your food and the only viable alternative it to buy local grown. But it's not possible for everyone to do that now is there? Also food you buy might be something that is totally changed from it's main form but is still primarily from Monsanto so you really don't have much of a choice.
NoNameC68 there is no reason take take this personally I am not insulting you, I'm just expressing my discontent with government politics and business. I respect you and your opinion and I would expect the same.
I guess you're talking about their greed when it comes to war, or are you talking about international trade?
Im talking more generally about human greed and America comes up high on that list as well so its worth a mention.
They are unrelated, but I think I know what you're saying. Wait, did America put lead in their cans to intentionally harm the people? To be honest, I don't know about America's history when it comes to lead, such as when safety protocols were created to exclude lead from canned food and when it was discovered that lead was actually harmful to the human body.
I agree the relation is vague but Im saying that the American businesses AND government (since both are practically the same, tho Im not pickin on usa for this, this is a worldwide thing now) are quite prepared to lie to make money. You should look into the facts about lead and when we found out it was harmful... it was not far under 100 years ago, yet companies used government power to keep lead in petrol amongs MANY other things. In other words, the "government" will try to shut you up not for a matter of security, but for their advantage regardless of the context, even when it comes to protecting their own populations health.
I would absolutely love to get some names here. What businesses are you talking about?
The well known Halliburton and the Bin Laden family who have direct dealings with the bush family. It goes far deeper than I care to imagine and has been going on for quite some time now.
Corporations don't control the military, so even if a corporate take over did occur, it would be a corporation heavily supported and possibly funded by the US government. If it's a corporation, it will not be a private business.
Who do the armies buy their weapons from, cos it aint government factories.
Who do the armies buy their weapons from, cos it aint government factories.
I don't think the government buys guns for the military from a private source. I could be wrong. Regardless, the person selling the guns do not control the military, they merely sell their product.
Understand that huge corporations are hardly dangerous by themselves. It is when the government starts making deals with them when things get messy.
I could be mistaken, but this is what I heard. 111 insurance companies will allow their customers to be exempt from paying NHC. Most of these companies supported NHC and poured money into bureaucrat's pockets supporting the new health care system, that way, they could keep their customers while other insurance companies go under.
I support a market free from government intervention. It seems that we can all agree that corporations that have the government's hands in their pockets are often corrupt, and I don't see how socializing these businesses (giving control to the government) will fix this problem. In fact, I see more problems that will arise.
We have really gone far off topic and I will gladly discuss these issues through profile comments.
Darkroot, I apologize for taking your arguments out of context.
I don't think the government buys guns for the military from a private source. I could be wrong. Regardless, the person selling the guns do not control the military, they merely sell their product.
The government hires the work out to defense firms, Boing, Lockheed Martin etc. The lowest bidder gets the job.
I don't think the government buys guns for the military from a private source. I could be wrong. Regardless, the person selling the guns do not control the military, they merely sell their product.
That's unless the government is corrupt or desperate. In the best case scenario they can just case unbalances in supply/demands and cause the government grief.
I support a market free from government intervention. It seems that we can all agree that corporations that have the government's hands in their pockets are often corrupt, and I don't see how socializing these businesses (giving control to the government) will fix this problem. In fact, I see more problems that will arise.
I mostly agree unless their is one huge business that has no competitors and the country would be desperate without or one that has laws in it's self interest created. But otherwise help the smaller businesses flourish and keep and eye out for the big ones. Heh I can almost see some kind of ecosystemic or botanic comparison but I can't think of one.
Darkroot, I apologize for taking your arguments out of context.
I don't mind that much unless it gets personal. This is for fun or intrinsic value also practice for the future (?). You also make solid points and are fun to argue against :P.
