|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:32 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Can you give me some specific examples of positive things which have been gained for the American people which could only have been gained through secret diplomatic meetings, such that we diplomatic negotiations made my and your lives better? |
The Cuban Missle Crisis. We made a deal with the USSR to remove a certain type of missle from Turkey I believe. We did not announce this publicly. Had JFK been open about it, there would have been a huge outcry and people would have called him a sellout, etc. It was politically infeasible to openly give that much of a concession to the "commies". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Do those in the anti-transparency camp really trust governments enough to always make the decision of what information should or shouldn't be released to the public? There are times when sensitive information should not be released but generally I think it is far more dangerous for governments to have the right to complete secrecy- it just encourages a culture of lack of accountability and bad decision-making.
It's possible to come up with examples of where the leaking of sensitive information could cause harm but there are also plenty of examples of where it could have done a lot of good.
If Wikileaks had been around in the 1960's for example and leaked the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin distortion maybe the Vietnam War could have been averted and millions of lives could have been saved.
| Quote: |
It would take over thirty years for the truth to emerge that the Aug. 4, 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, where US warships were apparently attacked by North Vietnamese PT Boats � an incident that kicked off US involvement in the Vietnam war � was a staged event that never actually took place.
However, the records now show that at the time senators knew this was the case.
In a March 1968 closed session of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Albert Gore Sr. of Tennessee, the father of former vice president Al Gore, noted:
�If this country has been misled, if this committee, this Congress, has been misled by pretext into a war in which thousands of young men have died, and many more thousands have been crippled for life, and out of which their country has lost prestige, moral position in the world, the consequences are very great,� |
(This is a huge understatement- Total civilian dead as a result of the Vietnam War: ~2,750,000 � 3,050,000)
http://www.infowars.com/de-classified-vietnam-era-transcripts-show-senators-knew-gulf-of-tonkin-was-a-staged-false-flag-event/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Location: On your computer screen.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's another example of the nefarious plots that those who feel themselves safe from public scrutiny come up with:
| Quote: |
The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as hijacking or shooting down passenger and military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S. aircraft and shipping and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs. These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro's communist government. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nixed by John F. Kennedy, came to light through the Freedom of Information Act and was publicized by James Bamford.
|
Or from the US's erstwhile ally:
| Quote: |
| In 1954, the Military Intelligence Directorate of Israel launched a series of bombings against targets in Cairo which had British and American financial interests, in the hopes of alienating the U.S. and Britain from Egypt.[9] Codenamed Operation Suzannah, it was later dubbed the Lavon Affair, after Israeli Defense Minister Pinchas Lavon. Lavon and Israeli Military Intelligence head Binyamin Gibli had planned and carried out the operation in secret, and without telling Prime Minister Moshe Sharett in advance. Lavon and Gibli both lost their jobs as a result. Israel (where it is known as "The Unfortunate Affair") finally admitted responsibility in 2005.[10] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
With more transparency perhaps we could have more sensible diplomacy rather than cloak-and-dagger false flag operations and faking WMDs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
Well how about wikileaks discloses all information regarding its operations and who works for it and where they got their sources. |
It might be useful to point out that Wikileaks probably doesn't know who their sources are. The co-founder of Wikileaks (now estranged) was on RT saying that some of the information may well be from state agencies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| asylum seeker wrote: |
Or from the US's erstwhile ally:
| Quote: |
| In 1954, the Military Intelligence Directorate of Israel launched a series of bombings against targets in Cairo which had British and American financial interests, in the hopes of alienating the U.S. and Britain from Egypt.[9] Codenamed Operation Suzannah, it was later dubbed the Lavon Affair, after Israeli Defense Minister Pinchas Lavon. Lavon and Israeli Military Intelligence head Binyamin Gibli had planned and carried out the operation in secret, and without telling Prime Minister Moshe Sharett in advance. Lavon and Gibli both lost their jobs as a result. Israel (where it is known as "The Unfortunate Affair") finally admitted responsibility in 2005.[10] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag
With more transparency perhaps we could have more sensible diplomacy rather than cloak-and-dagger false flag operations and faking WMDs. |
Israel wasn't a US ally in 1954. Study your history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Konglishman wrote: |
I don't think it is an either/or proposition. I am all for greater transparency, but my point is that too much of anything can be bad. For example, generally speaking, drinking water is good for you, but in fact, if you tried very hard, you could make yourself sick by drinking too much water.
In this case, I am saying there are even some inherent problems with 100% transparency. Should we have more transparency in our governments? Yes, and like I already said, I think that wikileaks could play a potentially positive role. But should we have 100% transparency? And that in my opinion, is a bad idea. |
OK, you got tons of platitudes, and no concrete examples. Got it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
US says leaks are a crime, threatens prosecution
| Quote: |
| WASHINGTON � Striking back, the Obama administration branded the WikiLeaks release of more than a quarter-million sensitive files an attack on the United States Monday and raised the prospect of criminal prosecutions in connection with the exposure. The Pentagon detailed new security safeguards, including restraints on small computer flash drives, to make it harder for any one person to copy and reveal so many secrets. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Can you give me some specific examples of positive things which have been gained for the American people which could only have been gained through secret diplomatic meetings, such that we diplomatic negotiations made my and your lives better? |
The Cuban Missle Crisis. We made a deal with the USSR to remove a certain type of missle from Turkey I believe. We did not announce this publicly. Had JFK been open about it, there would have been a huge outcry and people would have called him a sellout, etc. It was politically infeasible to openly give that much of a concession to the "commies". |
Think about why it would have been politically infeasible, and why the public would have considered him a sellout. It's because the government constantly issued anti-communist, scaremongering propaganda. This is an example of why secretive, manipulative, "Cloak & Dagger" style government causes problems, not an example of how it resolves them.
The average American probably wouldn't have cared about Communism at all if the government hadn't done its best to freak them out about it. This would have freed the governments hands to engage in honest, open diplomacy with the USSR. It's like the Republicans with Obama; of course they can't meaningfully compromise with him after they've spent two years telling their constituents he's the devil and everything he does is job-destroying socialism. They've painted themselves into a corner with their lies. I think the same applies here.
Do you really disagree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Can you give me some specific examples of positive things which have been gained for the American people which could only have been gained through secret diplomatic meetings, such that we diplomatic negotiations made my and your lives better? |
The Cuban Missle Crisis. We made a deal with the USSR to remove a certain type of missle from Turkey I believe. We did not announce this publicly. Had JFK been open about it, there would have been a huge outcry and people would have called him a sellout, etc. It was politically infeasible to openly give that much of a concession to the "commies". |
Think about why it would have been politically infeasible, and why the public would have considered him a sellout. It's because the government constantly issued anti-communist, scaremongering propaganda. This is an example of why secretive, manipulative, "Cloak & Dagger" style government causes problems, not an example of how it resolves them.
The average American probably wouldn't have cared about Communism at all if the government hadn't done its best to freak them out about it. This would have freed the governments hands to engage in honest, open diplomacy with the USSR. It's like the Republicans with Obama; of course they can't meaningfully compromise with him after they've spent two years telling their constituents he's the devil and everything he does is job-destroying socialism. They've painted themselves into a corner with their lies. I think the same applies here.
Do you really disagree? |
One thing...how can we be sure that a "benevolent" and "transparent" government would ensure a good place to live? Aside from some small scale tribal examples its impossible to find a large scale government that
has existed in such a fashion. For all we know a transparent government may be a disaster.
EDIT- Apparently Assange wants to go after Big Business as well-
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/11/29/wikileaks-julian-assange-wants-to-spill-your-corporate-secrets/
ON the one hand there should be a place one can send reports of wrongdoing and cover-ups. On the other hand I doubt wikileaks would appreciate someone releasing all their private info...
And am I the only who finds something Palpatine-esque about this Assange character?
At what point does he transform from truthfinder to just some guy who uses private information for blackmail? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| [Give some examples of bad transparency. Real world bad examples, not hypotheticals. |
From The Economist October 30th 2010 Page 67 (International section)
"What is more, Mr Assange seems unwilling to reflect on the risks of what he is doing. Amnesty International has complained that documents in WikiLeaks's release on Afghanistan were not sufficiently edited and thus likely to endanger Afghans who had worked for the coalition. Even such supporters as Birgitta Jonsdottir, an Icelandic member of parliament, has expressed disappointment over how the documents were released." |
Since when did the West care about canon fodder for hire? Seems like the economist is grasping at straws to make wikileaks look bad. |
Who said anything about the West? This was Amnesty International and some SUPPORTERS of WikiLeaks.
Dispense with the red herrings if you would be so kind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| One thing...how can we be sure that a "benevolent" and "transparent" government would ensure a good place to live? |
We can't be sure of it, but we can ensure it, because full transparency provides all the information required to make informed political choices. I don't think there's any magical formula for making a perfect society; it's always going to be reliant on its citizen base striving to improve things. The best we can do is provide said citizen base with the tools it needs to be capable of improving things, and one of those tools is adequate information.
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Aside from some small scale tribal examples its impossible to find a large scale government that has existed in such a fashion. For all we know a transparent government may be a disaster. |
This is a fair potential objection. Anyone who wants to stand up and say, "My people and I are total buffoons who can't be trusted with information about where our tax dollars go, the motivating factors behind our foreign policy, and so forth because we're stupid, panicky animals," is expressing an opinion that may well be legitimate on a case-by-case basis. I personally am unable to accept that quality in any society I am a part of, though; even if it were to be the case at the present, that simply means it must be corrected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| because full transparency provides all the information required to make informed political choices. |
As long as decisions are being based solely off of that transparent information.
Unfortunately the limitation is that only recorded information can be used to make that decision.
Full transparency provides a good deal of information, but it does not provide all the necessary information.
In the end the deceptive would just shift their methods and resources that otherwise would be spent on gathering information or kaking a choice are instead spent on the "information and secrecy game"[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HijackedTw1light
Joined: 24 May 2010
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Foreign politicians (to say nothing of US politicians) often make public declarations while disclosing something else in private. As long as the world operates this way, the US will need diplomats to discover the difference between those public declarations and private truths. If we immediately publish those differences on public forums, it doesn't mean we're smart and open, it means we won't be privy to those disclosures in the future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Can you give me some specific examples of positive things which have been gained for the American people which could only have been gained through secret diplomatic meetings, such that we diplomatic negotiations made my and your lives better? |
The Cuban Missle Crisis. We made a deal with the USSR to remove a certain type of missle from Turkey I believe. We did not announce this publicly. Had JFK been open about it, there would have been a huge outcry and people would have called him a sellout, etc. It was politically infeasible to openly give that much of a concession to the "commies". |
Think about why it would have been politically infeasible, and why the public would have considered him a sellout. It's because the government constantly issued anti-communist, scaremongering propaganda. This is an example of why secretive, manipulative, "Cloak & Dagger" style government causes problems, not an example of how it resolves them.
The average American probably wouldn't have cared about Communism at all if the government hadn't done its best to freak them out about it. This would have freed the governments hands to engage in honest, open diplomacy with the USSR. It's like the Republicans with Obama; of course they can't meaningfully compromise with him after they've spent two years telling their constituents he's the devil and everything he does is job-destroying socialism. They've painted themselves into a corner with their lies. I think the same applies here.
Do you really disagree? |
Fox, question: do you think it really was the government that freaked them out or politicians freaking them out to help themselves win an election?
That is, one could argue that politicians short term interests prevent your ideal transparency to happen. Sure, if the government was strictly full of pragmatic bureaucrats and/or politicians who put their country's interests ahead of their own all the time, then yes, you're right. I think you're being overly idealistic though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
