|
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 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bucheon bum wrote: |
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. |
I see what you're saying, and I don't disagree; like I said in response to Steelrails, full transparency certainly can't guarantee positive results. All it can do is help the citizen base work towards them. There will always be politicians willing to screw the country for their own benefit if people let them; I think more information makes citizens more able to detect and reject them, rather than less able, but I agree that it certainly does not ensure that they will reject them.
Perhaps I am being overly idealistic, but yet, when I converse with people -- whether I agree with them or disagree -- I'm rarely left with the impression that their thinking is hindered by having too much information. Conversely, I'm often confronted with people who I suspect are mistaken due to having too little information, and when I personally make mistakes, it's often because I was insufficiently informed at the time as well. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007 Location: On your computer screen.
|
Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
northway wrote: |
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. |
Where did I say that they were an ally in 1954? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fox wrote: |
bucheon bum wrote: |
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. |
I see what you're saying, and I don't disagree; like I said in response to Steelrails, full transparency certainly can't guarantee positive results. All it can do is help the citizen base work towards them. There will always be politicians willing to screw the country for their own benefit if people let them; I think more information makes citizens more able to detect and reject them, rather than less able, but I agree that it certainly does not ensure that they will reject them.
Perhaps I am being overly idealistic, but yet, when I converse with people -- whether I agree with them or disagree -- I'm rarely left with the impression that their thinking is hindered by having too much information. Conversely, I'm often confronted with people who I suspect are mistaken due to having too little information, and when I personally make mistakes, it's often because I was insufficiently informed at the time as well. |
Well at least we agree with the principle: transparency is ideal. Throughout my life I've seen how a lack of transparency has hindered organizations, relationships, etc. It is amazing how people can be their own worst enemies and how many problems would be resolved (or not even begin) if there was more open communication between parties. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
asylum seeker wrote: |
northway wrote: |
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. |
Where did I say that they were an ally in 1954? |
Quote: |
Or from the US's erstwhile ally: |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 Location: Retired
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="asylum seeker"]
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] . |
Erstwhile means in the past or formerly. This is not the case as at PRESENT Israel is still an ally of the USA. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
catman

Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Conspiracy theorists are now claiming wikileaks to be a CIA front.
Guess they've been disappointed in the content. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Where to go from Wikileaks?
The Peace Movement Responds
Oakland, Ca: While only a tiny fraction of the U.S. diplomatic cables scheduled for publication by Wikileaks have thus far been made available, some conclusions can already be drawn. These cables and the Iraq and Afghan War Diaries provide an opportunity for Americans to see our government for what it is.
Our government is seen here as controlling a global military and espionage empire that impacts every region of the globe and deceives its own population. Secrecy, spying, and hostility have infected our entire government, turning the diplomatic corps into an arm of the CIA and the military, just as the civilian efforts in Afghanistan are described by Richard Holbrooke, who heads them up, as "support for the military." Secret war planning, secret wars, and lies about wars have become routine. The United States is secretly and illegally engaged in a war in Yemen and has persuaded that nation's government to lie about it. The United States has supported a coup in Honduras and lied about it.
We have long known that the war on terrorism was increasing, rather than diminishing, terrorism. These leaks show Saudi Arabia to be the greatest sponsor of terrorism, and show that nation's dictator, King Abdullah, to be very close to our own government in its treatment of prisoners. He has urged the United States to implant microchips in prisoners released from Guantanamo. And he has urged the United States to illegally and aggressively attack Iran. Congress should immediately block what would be the largest weapons sale in U.S. history, selling this country $60 billion in weapons. And Congress should drop any idea of "updating" the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force to permit presidents to unconstitutionally launch more wars. We see what sort of wars our allies urge on our presidents.
We learn that while dictators urge war, other branches of the same governments, the people, and the evidence weigh against it. We learn from a cable from last February that Russia has refuted U.S. claims that Iran has missiles that could target Europe. We learn from September 2009 that the United States and Britain planned to pressure Yukiya Amano, the then incoming head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to produce reports suggesting Iranian nuclear developments, whether or not merited by the facts, and that National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones proposed the propaganda strategy of baselessly tying Iran's nuclear program to North Korea's.
Much of the pressure for war appears to come from within the United States, whose representatives treat the entire world as a hostile enemy to be spied on, lied to, and exploited. The secrecy that permits this behavior must be broken if the United States' approach to the world is to change. Those who have helped to fulfill President Obama's campaign promise of transparency must be protected from his vengeance, while those who have abused positions of diplomatic trust to advance agendas of espionage and war planning must be held accountable.
While other countries may offer residency and protection to Wikileaks' Julian Assange, it is the United States that has most benefitted from his work. We encourage U.S. cities to offer him sanctuary.
Our Department of Justice has granted immunity for aggressive war, kidnapping, torture, assassination, and warrantless spying, while pursuing the criminal prosecution of Bradley Manning for allegedly leaking materials to Wikileaks. Were our government to indict Assange or support the extradition or rendition of Assange from anywhere in the world to Sweden, while maintaining that his work and not the Pentagon's has endangered us, our nation's moral standing would reach a new low.
Our government should cease any actions it is taking to prosecute Julian Assange for absurd criminal charges, to pressure Sweden to do so, or to sabotage Wikileaks' servers. Cover-ups of leaks have a history in Washington of backfiring in the form of larger leaks and scandals. Our State Department should focus on diplomacy and mutually beneficial partnerships with the world community.
The undersigned express our gratitude to those doing the job a representative government and an independent media are each supposed to do. We demand an end to all overt and covert wars, a ban on the use of State Department employees and contractors in spying or warfare, and a full investigation of the facts revealed in the Wikileaks cables.
Signed,
Cindy Sheehan Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox
Medea Benjamin CODEPINK
Leslie Cagan
Tim Carpenter Progressive Democrats of America
Gael Murphy United for Peace and Justice
David Swanson WarisaCrime.org
Debra Sweet World Can't Wait
Kevin Zeese Voters for Peace
Ann Wright Veterans for Peace |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wikileaks and Tibet
Quote: |
The New York Times (which had an advanced look at the cables, along with The Guardian, Le Monde, El Pais, and Der Spiegel) has already reported that a contact in Beijing informed US Embassy officials there that GhostNet, a global computer spy ring originating in China which targeted among others, the office of the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan government-in-exile and Google, was a project controlled by the CCP�s Politburo (a group of 24 people who lead the Party).
A separate cable available on Wikileaks from the American Embassy in Beijing, dated May 2009, reports that China requested that the UK government deny permission for the Dalai Lama to transit London, only to back down and ask that UK officials not meet with the Tibetan leader during his time in the UK.
And while Beijing�s displeasure with the Elys�e over the issue is already well known, the same cable tells of China�s formal protest to French officials and the Beijing city government�s threat to end its sister-city relationship with the French capital over the decision by the city of Paris to award the Dalai Lama honorary citizenship (the Dalai Lama accepted the award from Parisian mayor Bertrand Delanoe on June 7, 2009 and Beijing�s familial civic ties with Paris remain firmly in tact). Somewhat surprisingly, the cable also reports that China had not made similar demands on the German government, at least at the time, despite the Dalai Lama�s frequent visits to Germany. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
asylum seeker
Joined: 22 Jul 2007 Location: On your computer screen.
|
Posted: Thu Dec 02, 2010 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="TheUrbanMyth"]
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] . |
Erstwhile means in the past or formerly. This is not the case as at PRESENT Israel is still an ally of the USA. |
OK thanks. I completely didn't know erstwhile had that meaning; for some reason I thought it meant something else along the lines of 'loyal'.
For the record, I know that Israel was not always the ally of the US. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2010 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
The best analysis I have come across of the significance of the publication by Wikileaks of the diplomatic cables is given by 30-year CIA professional and founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity Ray McGovern during the first half hour of the Nov. 29th edition of Talk Back! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
What do you take as the significance of Assange's assertion? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Steelrails

Joined: 12 Mar 2009 Location: Earth, Solar System
|
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Space Bar wrote: |
What do you take as the significance of Assange's assertion? |
That all the sheeple (Ironic because all those sheeple see Bushco. supporters as sheeple) who saw Assange as some sort of enlightened freedom fighter are bread of the same strain that voted for Palin and believed that Obama could wave a magic wand and cure every problem in the world. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 9:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Space Bar wrote: |
What do you take as the significance of Assange's assertion? |
Quote: |
It was in Assange's best interest -- philosophy be damned -- to roll out the documents at a pace that would keep press coverage at a maximum level. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005 Location: Easy Street.
|
Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
John Pilger tells it straight:
Quote: |
What Wikileaks is doing is what journalists should have been doing. |
Quote: |
The public has a right to know the secrets of government that impinge on our democratic rights. |
Watch the whole thing here:
http://www.johnpilger.com/videos/john-pilger-defends-julian-assange |
|
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
|
|