Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ain't NOTHING ethical about the United States Government.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but dont you also support giving the US Government more power to do things like demand people buy healthcare, increase peoples taxes, call for the expansion of the very same government you just called unethical?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but dont you also support giving the US Government more power to do things like demand people buy healthcare, increase peoples taxes, call for the expansion of the very same government you just called unethical?
Where would you get that idea?
Republicans stink, but that doesn't make me a Liberal.
Republicans stink, but that doesn't make me a Liberal.
Ok, I stand corrected, didnt have time this evening to research your previous postings, I just could have sworn you were always supporting an increase in the size of government..
You seem to be running around in circles hoping no one catches you, but I'll be your huckleberry.
Motivation? Please, take the time to re-read and digest the words, only then can we have a discussion. I'm not sure what you're trying to play or if you simply do not know, but the reasons for the different disclosures are two completely different things. One was for a personal and political vendetta. The other to expose corrupt and obtuse government actions/inter-actions.
Now, to your base premise-do I believe what wikileaks has done is right? No, I do not. But nor do I think my government's actions 'within' the cables and their actions in response to the cable's is just either. If they had not acted in a wrong manner in the first place, there would be nothing to hide.
Now as far as the bank information...I await that with baited breath. And then the real infowar begins.
LOL, I guess it depends on your perspective I view them as opposites. I think Wilson was playing politics and Armitage was trying to point that out. I also believe the Wikileaks dump was pure politics aimed at damaging the US.
I'll take "Government that violates its own laws by attempting to illegally crack secure networks in an effort to censor an open Internet" for $1000, Alex.
This is the thing that gets lost in the shuffle of all the Wikileaks outrage (no matter what side of the outrage you're on): The fact that our government, as a matter of procedure, violates its own laws and actively attempts to hack into secure networks or disable access to those networks because they are embarassed about what those networks have.
How is that a contradiction? You don't want total clarity do you? Should we publish troop movements? How about the SS numbers, bank numbers, and pin numbers of everyone in the country?
Are you suggesting this leak was done to expose some unethical behavior? If so would you please point it out.
You even said it yourself, spying on and picking information off of UN diplomats is less than ethical. Without this leak we wouldn't have known about that. Without earlier leaks we wouldn't have known that when US troops destroyed a building full of "insurgents", that those "insurgents" were actually civilians. Or that when an air strike in Yemen killed 22 "terrorists", those "terrorists" were actually...you guessed it...civilians.
What's the proper balance between transparency and opacity? I don't know. Now is a good time for the debate and we should thank Julian for bringing it to us. But I definitely lean more on the side of transparency simply because our government and military have throughout history displayed a disposition towards less than ethical behaviour.
Or that we're in Spain working to get GE that contract, or in Brazil trying to sell jets for Boeing.
Are corporations now using US Embassies as their global marketing offices ?
LOL, I guess it depends on your perspective I view them as opposites. I think Wilson was playing politics and Armitage was trying to point that out. I also believe the Wikileaks dump was pure politics aimed at damaging the US.
What government actions so disturb you?
Perspective is all about which side of the gun your on.
Wilson was trying to show the Bush Administration was lying and using false intel (as we all know now to be true), and Armitage was trying to push that point by thinking he was releasing the name of a covert field agent. Thank goodness, even though it's bad, her cover corp. was burned 8 mo.'s earlier by Ass't. Sec of State for European Affairs Marc Grossman in late 2001 and was engaging in selling nuke secrets on the black market. She however was still on the NOC list, but now operating within the U.S.
Wikileaks, I think was a pure attempt to embarrass the U.S.
Or that we're in Spain working to get GE that contract, or in Brazil trying to sell jets for Boeing.
Are corporations now using US Embassies as their global marketing offices ?
Or convincing Spain not to continue to investigate our rendition flights through Spanish territory using CIA planes, and U.S. State Dept. passports/covers to conduct the flights.
All of which has been disclosed by these cables.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
