WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

Post by bh42 » Mon, Nov 29, 2010, 3:17 PM UTC

jwhite wrote: post #240

aneth wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As helium said, my point is not that there is a perfect record. What is not there - a sinister plot to monopolize the world's oil, destroy Muslim society, or assassinate world leaders - is more important. That said, a broader point is in order - I don't think anyone expects perfect adherence to "international law" by the USA. Despite the weight of the phrase "international law," the actual concept is deeply ambiguous…

> I don't think anyone expects perfect adherence to "international law" by the USA. > The phrase "violation of international law" tastes meaty, but it's just tofu. Good and valid points, but mildly tongue-in-cheek my response to your first assertion is "I do!" I'm not an American, but I deeply appreciate what America has done to move the whole world towards a system that values innate human rights, the rule of law, a…

Post by lwhi » Mon, Nov 29, 2010, 3:51 PM UTC

zemaj wrote: post #195

It seems to me that Wikileaks is disruptive to Governments in the way that Napster was disruptive to the Music Industry. While Wikileaks may not survive in the mid term, I believe what it represents may have far reaching, long term consequences. The internet has democratised information to the point that an unhappy individual with mid level trust in an organisation can expose the organisation's "sensitive" informatio…

Post by misterm » Mon, Nov 29, 2010, 4:19 PM UTC

misterm wrote: post #249

aneth wrote: post #173

The most interesting thing about reading these cables is how the US comes out well - reasonable, rational, and analytical - not the nefarious evil satan that it is portrayed by our enemies and domestic extremists. This snapshot of the inner workings of American diplomacy actually make me feel much better about how things are being managed, and should undermine efforts to portray some nasty plot to dominate the world.…

If you think the United States "try to act ultimately for good and that there be minimal self-enrichment", then I am just going to have to frown. American foreign policy has a very rich history of being very abusive to other countries when their agenda is at odds with ours. The irony of us going after Saddam Hussein recently was thick enough to cut with a knife, after all, we did in fact forcefully put him into power…

Post by dantheman » Mon, Nov 29, 2010, 4:42 PM UTC

gloob wrote: post #210

anamax wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMHO these are reasons to regulate it carefully, not to eliminate it. You don't get to assume regulation that does "the right thing". Instead, you have to accept regulation as it works in practice. When buying and selling are regulated, regulators are bought and sold.

When buying and selling are regulated, regulators are bought and sold. Surely, in that case, the market will make certain these valuable resources (regulators) are distributed in such a way as to maximize value, yes?

Post by anamax » Mon, Nov 29, 2010, 6:33 PM UTC

gloob wrote: post #210

anamax wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMHO these are reasons to regulate it carefully, not to eliminate it. You don't get to assume regulation that does "the right thing". Instead, you have to accept regulation as it works in practice. When buying and selling are regulated, regulators are bought and sold.

When buying and selling are regulated, regulators are bought and sold. Surely, in that case, the market will make certain these valuable resources (regulators) are distributed in such a way as to maximize value, yes?