Naughty Naughty Americans

[Robert_S]

It all looks rather petty to me. I mean, you're going to dick around revealing secrets, which always has a chance of revealing the sources of the secrets, which could place people in grave danger...

Shouldn't there at least be something interesting and relevant going on before you do that? We already have fucking soap operas.

[Feck]

I think leaks should be made if someone is in information that should be seen ,If it exposes policies or incidents that we should know the truth of ..I have seen Little from Wiki leaks that fits that . Even the footage of the journalists getting killed by the Apache just showed me that the pilot and Gunner thought they were doing their job .

This recent stuff is just the day to day stuff any country's diplomatic/intelligence services gather ,we didn't need to know. All it has done is sour relationships .

[Gawd]

That case looks a bit strange Lozzer ,They dropped the case .....they re-opened it....... they didn't want him detained ...

That's what I initially thought, but then again, it's too credible that it should be a slur campaign and too good of an excuse for Assanage.

there must be a lot of pressure to get him .... it's not like they can arrange for an accident is it ... I don't know ,but If he is charged and found guilty I would be surprised .

Well a US politician wants Wikileaks labelled a terrorist organisation and Assanage arrested under America law, so.

What is it with Americans and terrorizing people?

[Feck]

That case looks a bit strange Lozzer ,They dropped the case .....they re-opened it....... they didn't want him detained ...

That's what I initially thought, but then again, it's too credible that it should be a slur campaign and too good of an excuse for Assanage.

there must be a lot of pressure to get him .... it's not like they can arrange for an accident is it ... I don't know ,but If he is charged and found guilty I would be surprised .

Well a US politician wants Wikileaks labelled a terrorist organisation and Assanage arrested under America law, so.

What is it with Americans and terrorizing people?

I think it's because beheading people is frowned upon ?

[Gawd]

Ah, but drones bombing civilians are not.

[Feck]

Ah, but drones bombing civilians are not.

Of course it's frowned on ,Do you know how much a Hellfire costs !

[sandinista]

That case looks a bit strange Lozzer ,They dropped the case .....they re-opened it....... they didn't want him detained ...

That's what I initially thought, but then again, it's too credible that it should be a slur campaign and too good of an excuse for Assanage.

there must be a lot of pressure to get him .... it's not like they can arrange for an accident is it ... I don't know ,but If he is charged and found guilty I would be surprised .

Well a US politician wants Wikileaks labelled a terrorist organisation and Assanage arrested under America law, so.

What is it with Americans and terrorizing people?

Their economy depends on it, war/terror economy.

[Feck]

That case looks a bit strange Lozzer ,They dropped the case .....they re-opened it....... they didn't want him detained ...

That's what I initially thought, but then again, it's too credible that it should be a slur campaign and too good of an excuse for Assanage.

there must be a lot of pressure to get him .... it's not like they can arrange for an accident is it ... I don't know ,but If he is charged and found guilty I would be surprised .

Well a US politician wants Wikileaks labelled a terrorist organisation and Assanage arrested under America law, so.

What is it with Americans and terrorizing people?

Their economy depends on it, war/terror economy.

That's not entirely true is it ?

[Trolldor]

Of course it's not.

[JimC]

Sandinista wrote:

Their economy depends on it, war/terror economy.

You could be implying 2 things here:

1. That the US gets such a huge amount of money from its arms sales (to overseas countries, that is) that it is economically dependent on them. I don't think so...
2. That the military objectives of the US are designed to aid its own economic advantage, perhaps by intimidation of rivals, seizure of vital materials etc. This is a more traditional leftist argument, the whole "Iraq is because of the oil" argument. However, even though all countries will use what power they have for their own self interest, it is a gross exaggeration to say that the American economy depends on exerting military force. It may well be that a world-wide naval prescence is a vital tool in keeping sea-lanes open for trade (and not just their own...), but this is surely a legitimate use of military power in anyone's book.

If anything, America's more recent, contentious miliary adventures (Iraq. mainly) have been a significant drag on their economy, rather than vital to it...

[sandinista]

Sandinista wrote:

Their economy depends on it, war/terror economy.

You could be implying 2 things here:

1. That the US gets such a huge amount of money from its arms sales (to overseas countries, that is) that it is economically dependent on them. I don't think so...
2. That the military objectives of the US are designed to aid its own economic advantage, perhaps by intimidation of rivals, seizure of vital materials etc. This is a more traditional leftist argument, the whole "Iraq is because of the oil" argument. However, even though all countries will use what power they have for their own self interest, it is a gross exaggeration to say that the American economy depends on exerting military force. It may well be that a world-wide naval prescence is a vital tool in keeping sea-lanes open for trade (and not just their own...), but this is surely a legitimate use of military power in anyone's book.

If anything, America's more recent, contentious miliary adventures (Iraq. mainly) have been a significant drag on their economy, rather than vital to it...

Think a little bigger. How many people are employed by the military in the US? How many jobs are military related? Now, I'm not just talking pawns/soldiers, look at weapons manufacturers, contractors, researchers, CIA employees, and all the other support staff. When the US can NOT be at war for a decade and close all their overseas bases I'll believe that their economy doesn't run on terrorism. To say that the recent bouts of US terror have been a drag on the "economy" is also only partly true. The rich are doing better than ever, and the weapons manufacturers and companies that sell them the oil to run the war machines are right pleased.

[Warren Dew]

We royally fucked up that security and need to take responsibility. Blaming it all on Wikileaks is kind of deflecting the important issue of security as far as I'm concerned. If Wikileaks hadn't leaked the information, somebody else probably would have.

Agreed. Wikileaks was just being part of the free press. They just received the information; the problem is how the information got leaked.

Given the volume of information, it's almost certainly someone who was in charge of the computers on which the information was stored. They probably gave that job to some random low ranking individual who didn't understand the issues around diplomatic communications.

Well, you might like at times to speak frankly amongst your fellow diplomats about some shortcomings you perceive in your allies, without wanting the criticism to be out in the open, where your enemies can laugh at your lack of unity...

They could talk about such things privately, without committing them to myriad emails which will be stored indefinitely.

[sandinista]

really though to wikileaks

[eXcommunicate]

Waiting to see if Hillary gets the axe over this. She probably won't, as long as there's an outside enemy (Assange) she can blame.

[Trolldor]

Sandinista wrote:

Their economy depends on it, war/terror economy.

You could be implying 2 things here:

1. That the US gets such a huge amount of money from its arms sales (to overseas countries, that is) that it is economically dependent on them. I don't think so...
2. That the military objectives of the US are designed to aid its own economic advantage, perhaps by intimidation of rivals, seizure of vital materials etc. This is a more traditional leftist argument, the whole "Iraq is because of the oil" argument. However, even though all countries will use what power they have for their own self interest, it is a gross exaggeration to say that the American economy depends on exerting military force. It may well be that a world-wide naval prescence is a vital tool in keeping sea-lanes open for trade (and not just their own...), but this is surely a legitimate use of military power in anyone's book.

If anything, America's more recent, contentious miliary adventures (Iraq. mainly) have been a significant drag on their economy, rather than vital to it...

Think a little bigger. How many people are employed by the military in the US? How many jobs are military related? Now, I'm not just talking pawns/soldiers, look at weapons manufacturers, contractors, researchers, CIA employees, and all the other support staff. When the US can NOT be at war for a decade and close all their overseas bases I'll believe that their economy doesn't run on terrorism. To say that the recent bouts of US terror have been a drag on the "economy" is also only partly true. The rich are doing better than ever, and the weapons manufacturers and companies that sell them the oil to run the war machines are right pleased.

That's not bigger, that's thinking wrong.