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.
Only stating my opinion based on various observations. I'm not the only one here making things into something they aren't. Watch the video for a libertarian view of the situation from one of the few true libertarians in the government; Ron Paul.
I am a libertarian, even if I do question libertarian views on occasion (such as this one). What kind of person would I be if I never played the devil's advocate once in a while or if I never stood in the shoes of one who holds an opposing ideology? I shall follow no title blindly.
I do, as of now, support wikileaks. However, I also believe there may be negative consequences due to the leaked documents. I wish to understand what those consequences may be before I whole heartedly defend wikileaks.
Go ahead and tell me Ron Paul supports Wikileaks all you want. My views, my opinions, my beliefs are my own, not his.
Go ahead and tell me Ron Paul supports Wikileaks all you want. My views, my opinions, my beliefs are my own, not his.
I'm simply saying he represents a libertarian viewpoint on this point, I don't say you follow any viewpoint blindly simply that the summation of your views doesn't seem, to me, to be truly libertarian. Did you even watch the speech?
However, I also believe there may be negative consequences due to the leaked documents. I wish to understand what those consequences may be before I whole heartedly defend wikileaks.
I agree, but in this situation I find it very hard to see how the cons could outweigh the enormous pro of forcing government accountability.
But was every document released by wikileaks deal with corruption? Most were simply thing the government kept secret. Do secrets equal corruption?
Why?
I see him as simply someone else trying to use the internet to gain fame. In this case he does it by leaking secrets. He also isn't american so why should he care about our potential.
Oh wait I know. You dont get noticed by the world unless you involve america somehow
Australia haven't been involved in some of the worlds biggest wars.
If USA runs around telling other people how to run their country and then proves they are incapable of running their own without corruption and greed getting in the way then they painted a big, red target on their United states Forehead.
And I DO believe USA is capable of much much more, you just gotta get rid of that government. My government ain't very nice either but I don't wonder why people hate the UK now.
I mean the current process has become more like a republic than a democracy. There are way to many decisions made with the citizens of this country not even having the ability to know about them, some should remain secret but not many.
But was every document released by wikileaks deal with corruption? Most were simply thing the government kept secret. Do secrets equal corruption?
Some secrets do, wikileaks simply released all they were given.
I see him as simply someone else trying to use the internet to gain fame. In this case he does it by leaking secrets.
But he isn't the only person running wikileaks he's simply the face of the group.
He also isn't american so why should he care about our potential.
Being a human and America being a huge, wealthy, powerful nation of humans he should care very much.
After all is said and done, I suppose I would have to agree.
There are way to many decisions made with the citizens of this country not even having the ability to know about them, some should remain secret but not many.
This, I agree. However, I believe we can both agree that it is hard to be transparent when it comes to war and the people themselves can't really have a say in how a war is fought. Anything that happens during a war that should not have happened, should not, however, be covered up unless it threatens the well being of American soldiers or unless there's a chance the mistake will compromise future missions. I'm sure this is something you believe.
When it comes to foreign affairs, should the people also have a say? Are there any exceptions? If so, should any choices made by the government at least be made transparent?
When it comes to foreign affairs, should the people also have a say? Are there any exceptions? If so, should any choices made by the government at least be made transparent?
My biggest concern is the uninformed, or those who think they are informed and make rash, biased, or unintelligent decisions.
Things like troop placement, casualty reports, etc. are necessary to keep secret as information like this getting leaked could cost lives.
[quote]Being a human and America being a huge, wealthy, powerful nation of humans he should care very much
I fail to see this one. Being human does not equal liking america in fact it seems many humans dislike america simply for existing.[/quote]
The people that dislike USA for existing are merely jumping on a bandwagon imo. USA is a powerful country and like it or not, should be treated as such although "land of the free" is a title the country doesnt deserve anymore.
But he is the founder and he did suspend the german representative of the site so he does have some power and the fame that goes with it.
Someone has to have the power but Mr.Assange was and is a journalist, his job is to get the truth to the people.
I fail to see this one. Being human does not equal liking america in fact it seems many humans dislike america simply for existing.
Like and respect are to different things, even if you don't like America you have to accept that is a major player on the world stage.
I believe we can both agree that it is hard to be transparent when it comes to war and the people themselves can't really have a say in how a war is fought.
Yes, but ten years after the war is it so hard to be transparent about what happened? To reveal that some mistakes were made but to own up to those mistakes? Until the government is willing to release these documents on there own, at a safer time, they will be released on the wikileak's time frame.
When it comes to foreign affairs, should the people also have a say? Are there any exceptions? If so, should any choices made by the government at least be made transparent?
Should they have a say? I want to say yes but the fear of idiots over running the government precludes me. All I ask is for transparency, maybe when all become informed all can play a part in the workings of foreign affairs.
It does not matter if the war is justifiable or not, you can't expect the war to be fought so that innocent civilians are unharmed. War is an all or nothing deal.
Yeah but in some cases you can see how the deaths can be justified to the end means of saving more lives or destroying oppression. I believe we have come to an impasse on this topic due to both of us concentrating of different areas of this argument.
Because you can't pinpoint the number of people, you must talk as if all 100 people were in on the plan, even when it could have been a single person, or 10 people, or 20, or 50, or 99.
I'm not interested in absolute I am just stating the fact that they're are alot of people in on this. It doesn't matter how many of the 100 are participating it's how much they get done and what they have gotten done has required a surprising amount of people.
Anonymous never does something as a whole. It never did. Maybe a lot of anonymous members have done something, but they never do it as a whole. Most people on 4chan don't do squat.
I never said all of Anon does something I was just saying that a sizable amount of people did do something. Even if they polarized in their opinions or conformed to the group.
Just be careful when giving credit to anonymous. If 20 people who consider themselves anonymous impact the world, thousands of people behind the title of anonymous are looked at as if having a role. The only role those people play is that they were there to hide those who really did take action, and that's why anonymous is so powerful. If you can't spot the true numbers and names, you generally assume most of them are in on any given act.
Again you make it sound like I worship anon and think everyone does something. Also I don't think you really do understand what DDoS is, you need alot of people in a certain time and lot of different areas to be successful in that sort of attack. I don't care who started I just saying they are surprisingly effective because they have enough people to do it.
