[Closed] Wikileaks...

I'm not sure what to make of it to be honest - on one hand, I tend to agree with you. But on the other hand, I don't want my government to have secrets from me - why would they? They're supposed to do what's best for me, and I sort of wish to be at least informed of what's going on, if I can't directly take part in it.

Originally posted by Hadi
I'm not sure what to make of it to be honest - on one hand, I tend to agree with you. But on the other hand, I don't want my government to have secrets from me - why would they? They're supposed to do what's best for me, and I sort of wish to be at least informed of what's going on, if I can't directly take part in it.

Informing you also means informing that governments rivals though which is dangerous don't you agree?

Absolutely - but for example, one of the documents showed that the United States had a spy in the German "Bundestag", supplying them with vital documents about the German government. And even after that has come to light internally, nobody took it serious.

That's quite startling if you ask me.

Yea It's a pretty interesting situation... I agree with Hadi about having no clue how I feel about this... One half of me wants governments to be completely transparent... Other half of me feels like the government should be doing whats best for me... And keeping few secrets here and there.. Especially in dealing with foreign countries and policy's is probably whats best for me...

The average person does not need to hear about Saudi Arabia urging the U.S. to strike Iran.

This example is kinda weak tho... U.S. citizens really need to start to get explanations why they are entering wars... Once they at least blew up ships to give the public some "reason" ( Maine )...

This example is kinda weak tho... U.S. citizens really need to start to get explanations why they are entering wars... Once they at least blew up ships to give the public some "reason" ( Maine )...

I agree with you. It was a weak example. And I also agree that the citizens of nations need to know why they are going to war. But is the U.S. really all that different from any other nation in regards to what it tells the public regarding war? It seems that western nations are held to a higher standard in this matter.

What justification was given to the Iraqi people when Iraq invaded Kuwait? I'm pretty sure it wasn't the truth! Misinformation was so bad that Saddam later convinced the Iraqi people that they won the war against the U.S.! Or the justification that is given to Iranians over why they need nuclear technology? But people dismiss this blatant misinformation by non-western nations because it seems like a given. Why are western nations suddenly expected to be angels?

If every nation uses misinformation to inform its public about war, then the nation that is the most open is at the biggest disadvantage, because of internal strife. So perhaps Wikileaks is a tactical strike against the west? If that is what it is than they did a really good job.

This is a difficult topic to really get ones head around.

Those who are not dumb, know these things already, those who are ignorant, now they can read nice stories and believe in them. I didnt read a single shit on that site, but think a bit, it cannot be real, because how can you believe that everything that only the government knew untill now is made public..imagine that, the US government cant block the site or kill the guy who stole the documents in a day ? ofc they can, in a second they kill whoever they want, they shutdown any site they want...so, its obvious, what you can read there are not facts, its only a reason to make conflicts/war/coldwar...its easy, they put a document, secret and so on bullshit, which says... lets say north korea has nuclear weapon(or whatever they want to say) lets invade them..or..no.. got a better idea, why not supply south korea till every man of the country dies in the war with the north and we didnt even put our hand into the war with a finger...just supply, get profit, and say byebye...same shit as vietnam was.. same shit as pearl harbor...this site was made to generate anger/hate/rage/conflict... problem is, people are too fucking idiots to go in war...soldiers, without them government is a piece of shit...so..i dont blame the government for playing a good tactical game vs the people...i do believe, those who are so fucking ignorant they cant understand a shit of what their governments are doing, they should just simply die...

PS. if i said anywhere the word retarded, i meant, stupid/ignorant ppl. sry

Originally posted by hackbinder
I am personally disgusted by the whole concept. Governments should not be totally transparent, especially with regard to the way they deal with other countries because there is no unifying level of trust between so many different peoples with different value systems. If everyone thought the same way and had the same values than openness would work. That, however, is not the way the world is.

The reason behind the fact that there is no "unifying level of trust" may be found in the fact that countries hide so much from eachother. They don't tell the whole story. Seriously, these 'high placed officials' are all adults right ? If that is the case they might actually be intellectually capable enough to discuss with eachother about these "value systems".

I find it very irresponsible for the morons at Wikileaks, and their contributors, to do this. Do they know what it is like to be in high level international negotiations? Have they ever dealt with threats to national security on a high level? Have they EVER had to make difficult decisions that affect the everyday lives of millions of people on a daily basis? No. They are just idealistic morons who unfortunately have been given the ability to try and enact their vision of a perfect and transparent government. They are "shit disturbers" I think. I think they are trying to be pests, sitting back and laughing at the shit they have caused, like a hacker or malware programmer.

You seem to play the joker in the deck. How can you decide whether or not the Wikileaks guys know where they get involved in, do you know how the dice rolls in these "top level negotiations" ? These wikileak guys are no doubt truely idealistic, but they believe that transparancy will lead to a fairer world. Take as an example my country (The Netherlands). For years people here have asked question about whether or not there are nuclear weapons stored in our country. All our governments have dodged the question or said that the rumours were not true. Now we can all read on Wikileaks that our governments played with us, lied to us. And what for ? We choose them in a democratic way, why can't they say what they are doing, why do they have to lie ? I can answer this question for you: to keep/make the people dumb and let them stay quiet.

Parents do not tell everything to their kids for good reason. Kids are not able to comprehend the adult world. Same here... The average person HAS NO IDEA what the top level international world is all about, so why put this information in everyone's hands? My son does not need to hear when my wife and I talk about finances or retirement planning etc. The average person does not need to hear about Saudi Arabia urging the U.S. to strike Iran. How are top level diplomats suppossed to do their jobs if everything they say is open for everyone?

What you're stating here is truely outrageous. You are comparing the parent-kid relationship with government-citizen relationship. What you're saying is that citizens are ought to vote for politicians, but in fact they are not qualified to understand the world of politics and thus politicians keep certain things secret and lie to the people. Why is this ? Because they do not do as they say. During election campaigns they have an amazing story etc, but once they got their job, they forget what they said and will do stuff that contradicts to their campaign speeches. What the worst thing is, they try to keep it secret. Also I don't know the age of your son, but if he's any older that 15, I don't see a reason why he cannot hear about finances and retirement plannings.

They remind me of children playing with matches, not really aware of the power they really have and how once that power is unleashed, there is no way to stop it until the house burns down.

I do not need to know everything. I shouldn't know everything. ALL governments have secrets. Rightfully so.

You're not really giving decent arguments for this. You seem to play the "national security" card. But what if as I said, these "top level negotiators" just discuss their problems in an open, adult and intellectual way, wouldn't this be much better than keeping secrets and hiding things for other governments ? The actual situation reminds me of children trying to prank an other kid in the schoolyard without him realizing it at first.
This new wave of leaks is especially damaging because of the timing. You have a potential war brewing over in the Koreas, AND YOU DO THIS? They are playing with lives, these Wikileaks people and their contributors.

That's my opinion anywayz.

The reason behind the fact that there is no "unifying level of trust" may be found in the fact that countries hide so much from eachother. They don't tell the whole story. Seriously, these 'high placed officials' are all adults right ? If that is the case they might actually be intellectually capable enough to discuss with eachother about these "value systems".

I agree with you on idealistic terms. But I cannot escape the nature of the world and humans and thus I err on the side of pragmatics. What I mean is that since religion and racial hatred make up a huge part of the foreign policy of many countries, not to mention the "me me me" nature of humans when it comes to economics, one cannot assume that everyone can ever truly be "adult" about the whole thing. Is it possible to have an adult conversation with a country that has said it wants to blow another race of people, or religion, off the face of the earth? That's what I mean by different value systems. When one side cares more about a racial / holy war than peace, I think it is impossible to have a rational conversation.

As far as economics, I am a dyed-in-the-wool leftist. I believe that I should be taxed so that the rest of my society can be more equal on a social economic level. But one only needs to look at negotiations between unions and employers to see that since humans look to maximize themselves at all costs, it is very difficult for both sides to achieve something that is good for both sides, and the prosperity of the company long term. Each side, so paranoid of the other and so resigned to maximizing themselves, pursues their own good at the cost of the other side. General Motors is a good example. I personally belong to a union and work for an employer that seem to behave like children every four years (collective agreement renewal). I don't like it, but this is the way of the world. I don't know too much about Europe, but it seem like the European Union seems to be a step in the right direction - doing what is good for everyone. The rest of the world behaves like adversaries, and in many cases rightfully so because they HATE the other side!

What you're stating here is truely outrageous. You are comparing the parent-kid relationship with government-citizen relationship. What you're saying is that citizens are ought to vote for politicians, but in fact they are not qualified to understand the world of politics and thus politicians keep certain things secret and lie to the people. Why is this ? Because they do not do as they say. During election campaigns they have an amazing story etc, but once they got their job, they forget what they said and will do stuff that contradicts to their campaign speeches. What the worst thing is, they try to keep it secret. Also I don't know the age of your son, but if he's any older that 15, I don't see a reason why he cannot hear about finances and retirement plannings.

The reason politicians cannot always do what they say is because the average person is not privy to all the things that go on behind the scenes. As far as domestic policy, yes, things should be transparent, but I disagree regarding foreign policy. There is too much going on for the average person to make an informed decision. I do not want the average person, and the "groupthink" that occurs when masses are together, to lead my army! It is weird for me to say this, because I am a leftist, but I think you need to leave the jobs that require skill to those that have those skills, not to the average person and the masses. Oh, and my son is a baby!

You're not really giving decent arguments for this. You seem to play the "national security" card. But what if as I said, these "top level negotiators" just discuss their problems in an open, adult and intellectual way, wouldn't this be much better than keeping secrets and hiding things for other governments ?

This is the thing. an "open, adult and intellectual" way of speaking presupposses a value system that is not universal. Actually, it is also quite a western value system. I assume you mean that "rationality" and "the common good" should preside as the foundation of talks? Again, this is a very western assumption. Many people would not dream of discussing their national issues without first asserting religion, and all that stems from that, as the basis of their policies. That, coupled with the "me me me" human nature mixed with racial haterd, makes the foundation of "adult and intellectual" truly impossible.

I have really enjoyed the conversation.

Originally posted by hackbinder

The reason behind the fact that there is no "unifying level of trust" may be found in the fact that countries hide so much from eachother. They don't tell the whole story. Seriously, these 'high placed officials' are all adults right ? If that is the case they might actually be intellectually capable enough to discuss with eachother about these "value systems".

I agree with you on idealistic terms. But I cannot escape the nature of the world and humans and thus I err on the side of pragmatics. What I mean is that since religion and racial hatred make up a huge part of the foreign policy of many countries, not to mention the "me me me" nature of humans when it comes to economics, one cannot assume that everyone can ever truly be "adult" about the whole thing. Is it possible to have an adult conversation with a country that has said it wants to blow another race of people, or religion, off the face of the earth? That's what I mean by different value systems. When one side cares more about a racial / holy war than peace, I think it is impossible to have a rational conversation.

As far as economics, I am a dyed-in-the-wool leftist. I believe that I should be taxed so that the rest of my society can be more equal on a social economic level. But one only needs to look at negotiations between unions and employers to see that since humans look to maximize themselves at all costs, it is very difficult for both sides to achieve something that is good for both sides, and the prosperity of the company long term. Each side, so paranoid of the other and so resigned to maximizing themselves, pursues their own good at the cost of the other side. General Motors is a good example. I personally belong to a union and work for an employer that seem to behave like children every four years (collective agreement renewal). I don't like it, but this is the way of the world. I don't know too much about Europe, but it seem like the European Union seems to be a step in the right direction - doing what is good for everyone. The rest of the world behaves like adversaries, and in many cases rightfully so because they HATE the other side!

What you're stating here is truely outrageous. You are comparing the parent-kid relationship with government-citizen relationship. What you're saying is that citizens are ought to vote for politicians, but in fact they are not qualified to understand the world of politics and thus politicians keep certain things secret and lie to the people. Why is this ? Because they do not do as they say. During election campaigns they have an amazing story etc, but once they got their job, they forget what they said and will do stuff that contradicts to their campaign speeches. What the worst thing is, they try to keep it secret. Also I don't know the age of your son, but if he's any older that 15, I don't see a reason why he cannot hear about finances and retirement plannings.

The reason politicians cannot always do what they say is because the average person is not privy to all the things that go on behind the scenes. As far as domestic policy, yes, things should be transparent, but I disagree regarding foreign policy. There is too much going on for the average person to make an informed decision. I do not want the average person, and the "groupthink" that occurs when masses are together, to lead my army! It is weird for me to say this, because I am a leftist, but I think you need to leave the jobs that require skill to those that have those skills, not to the average person and the masses. Oh, and my son is a baby!

You're not really giving decent arguments for this. You seem to play the "national security" card. But what if as I said, these "top level negotiators" just discuss their problems in an open, adult and intellectual way, wouldn't this be much better than keeping secrets and hiding things for other governments ?

This is the thing. an "open, adult and intellectual" way of speaking presupposses a value system that is not universal. Actually, it is also quite a western value system. I assume you mean that "rationality" and "the common good" should preside as the foundation of talks? Again, this is a very western assumption. Many people would not dream of discussing their national issues without first asserting religion, and all that stems from that, as the basis of their policies. That, coupled with the "me me me" human nature mixed with racial haterd, makes the foundation of "adult and intellectual" truly impossible.

I have really enjoyed the conversation.

I was expecting a more defensive answer from your side, but in fact I can agree with most of the things you said. I really thought you would not agree with me on idealistic terms. I must agree with you from a pragmatic point of view, although I'd like to say different. Maybe I am a little naive, but I think that organizations like wikileaks can change the world in a good way.They're the ones who seem to go a bit out of line, but then again, a lot of now famous people have in the past gone out of line. And the things that seemed out of line at that time, are now regarded as genius findings. If there's no one that shouts for a change, nothing will change(no i'm not an Obama fan ;)). It are those extraordinary people/findings that change the world, be it in a good or a bad way.

Now I think that this whole transparency thing fits perfectly in the modern western way of thinking. The young people now seem to "dislike" authority when it's not strengthened by good arguments. In fact they seem to disregard anything that goes without motivation or solid proof. Examples of this questioned authority nowadays are I think the government, the church, but also some more closeby things, like schoolteachers(not directly pointing at you, coz I saw you are a teacher). At least that's from what I see around me. You can say it's a western kind of thinking, but if you watch different developing countries around the world, like China and India, the people there seem to look for this way of thinking aswell. Is the western way of thinking a byproduct from (upcoming) wealth ? Of does the western way of thinking typically lead to more wealth ? Interesting stuff to think about anyway..

I like these kind of conversations too, but they do not seem to occur often at poker forums. When someone writes quite a big piece, I always see people spamming stuff like "stop the rambling" or the poster even excuses him/herself for posting a long story..imo there's nothing wrong with a good discussion.