Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 266 posts

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#151

Post by grandalf »

aristus wrote: post #127
drusenko wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"how completely disconnected Westerners are from the way the world actually works" Would you like to explain that, or are you just going to throw a nebulous assertion out there and expect it to mean something?

I would guess that the OP means realpolitik. Where there is power, there is corruption. Smuggling currency is a very (very) common hobby. Horse-trading (influence for money, trade deals for extradition, taking in inconvenient "no longer enemy combatants" in exchange for influence or money), etc, is a daily thing. To survive and thrive you need to think about practical considerations more than ideals or principles. Ta…

Isn't the realpolitik behind US tolerance of Pakistan simply that the US is not powerful enough to make war with Pakistan?

Such a war would draw in lots of other powers and would be a massive drain on the US. All we're left able to do is make nice with the military strongman in charge in exchange for Pakistan looking the other way while we invade its border country.

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#152

Post by jmtulloss »

sudonim wrote: post #79
ugh wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn’t everyone you want to lock up have the right to a trial? What’s your point?

The point is that _we_ are using a loophole to lock up people without a trial. Gitmo is that loophole and that's why we can't bring the prisoners to the united states.

That's not true. We can hold prisoners of war without trial in the US. It's just hard to find a state that wants them. It's a "not in my backyard" problem.

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#153

Post by grandalf »

potatolicious wrote: post #138
gnosis wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What good would assassinating him do? He's not the only one who runs Wikileaks or has access to the information. They'd need to "snatch" everyone who has access to it, which might be a very difficult proposition, not to mention a complete public relations disaster, considering Wikileaks is in the public spotlight right now. I very much doubt the CIA is holding back out of the goodness of their hearts. No. What we are…

He is clearly the leader though. While assassinating him will do nothing about the information WikiLeaks already possesses, it may well throw the organization into disarray and thus irrelevance. Assange is only a viable target if there is no other leader waiting at the wings if he dies. Our impression of WikiLeaks' organization structure is that no such "Assange" exists yet.

Assange serves both as the founder and as lightning rod. If he were to be assassinated, the organization would continue on with no interruption.

Of course Wikileaks is vulnerable to a variety of attacks, but killing Assange is not one of them.

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#154

Post by grandalf »

patrickgzill wrote: post #118
d2viant wrote: post #81

What surprises me most is that Julian Assange has lasted this long. This isn't OBL, where he's living in a cave somewhere -- this guy is known to travel between first world countries. I can understand those countries may not be willing to hand him over, but the US has lots of experience with rendition and I'm surprised some three-letter agency hasn't snatched him up yet.

For all you know he is controlled opposition. There is little reason to believe that the contents of these cables aren't already known to other governments, given that many soldiers from the rank of private on up had access to them; and that the UK, France, Israel, Germany, etc. also do extensive signals intelligence, crypto, and even good old fashioned human based spying.

Very true. I can't believe this point hasn't been raised elsewhere. The information has probably not been secret since it was made available to the wider audience after 9/11.

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#155

Post by grandalf »

rottencupcakes wrote: post #84
bl4k wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the US and Britian have turned a blind eye to the opium trade and the associated corruption in Afghanistan in order to appease the local anti-Taliban population. I watched footage last week of British soldiers fighting to free large opium fields from Taliban control so that the real owners can get back to farming. All par for the course. The war on drugs takes a back seat to the war on terrorism

As it should. Terrorists are an affront to freedom. Drugs are not.

Terrorism cannot be stopped (by definition). The affront to freedom is the response to terrorism.

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#156

Post by colinplamondon »

dkl wrote: post #143
nir wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure (btw, reworded it a bit, hope it's less inflammatory). A good example is the Iraq war: the pro-war side just assumed that, given the option, Iraqis will be happy to adopt the Western liberal democracy model. On the other hand, the anti-war side uses the "illegal war" argument, as if it has any meaning - the world isn't a modern nation with the UN as supreme court, determining the legality of various wars. Anothe…

> On the other side, the anti-war side uses the "illegal war" argument, as if it has any meaning - the world isn't a modern nation with the UN as supreme court, determining the legality of various wars. The left used this argument because it was the handiest they had. I think your criticism of it is absurd. It's like you're saying the left was right for the wrong reason, as if there is one reason all on the left oppo…

They tried to assassinate an American President, for one. They also gassed their own people and had a history of developing WMDs- that economic sanctions had slowed that development didn't materially change the intent.

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#157

Post by krschultz »

Alex3917 wrote: post #133
krschultz wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Until we have equal rights for {x} then America will never be safe." I'm quite certain you can't argue that "the terrorists" would stop attacking us if only we had equal rights for LGBT in this country. And the fact that 1 guy may or may not have have leaked the documents because he may or may not have felt discriminated against isn't much of a reason to argue FOR equal rights. I'd prefer to argue FOR equal rights o…

"I'd prefer to argue FOR equal rights on the basis of the that being the morally right position" This sounds like something that is true, but I'm not sure it actually is. The basic problem is that saying something is morally right is a statement, not an argument. If you read Jon Stewart Mill's essay On Liberty, he doesn't just say that free speech is morally right, but rather he proves it using practical examples. Fo…

I own On Liberty, and I've also read from the 150 years of subsequent books debating its merits.

I have a lot of arguments for equal rights, but HN is not the place for them. I just think that threatening is not the way to do it.

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#158

Post by grandalf »

ars wrote: post #49
jsz0 wrote: post #8

The excerpts the NYT is reporting in this story are pretty ho-hum. We'll have to wait and see what else is in there but it looks like another Wikileaks hype job to me. No doubt there's going to be some embarrassing sausage making details in here but it just confirms things we already knew. Pakistan is a complex situation, Karzai's government is corrupt, etc. Wikileaks would be better off releasing this material witho…

The rumors were there, but this is concrete evidence that Arab nations actually want a strike on Iran, but are too scared to say it out loud. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cable... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/arab-states-scor... By making this public it could significantly change what happens next with Iran.

I think it will put in context the silly, local squabbles that are behind all this. Iran is a western-style Democracy that has a radical faction thanks to decades of US meddling.

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#159

Post by ronnier »

vladocar wrote: post #148
ronnier wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup! That's really the intended use, for others to provide links to articles from within their apps. That's what I did for http://ihackernews.com (HN for iPhone/Android).

Nice work! Can I integrate this service with my HN Mobile Front Page Reader? http://www.vcarrer.com/2010/11/hacker-news-mobile-front-page...

Sure! I love to see others using it :)

Re: WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy

#160

Post by Zev »

nir wrote: post #120

As someone who grew in the Mideast and spent some time in the US/EU/Aus, I was often amazed how completely detached Westerners are from the way the rest of the world works. Left wingers or conservatives, so many guns & money have been sheltering the past 2-3 generations from reality that they genuinely believe most people share their values and goals, and that the world operates similarly to their own surroundings. I…

Left wingers or conservatives, so many guns & money have been sheltering the past 2-3 generations from reality that they genuinely believe most people share their values and goals, and that the world operates similarly to their own surroundings.

Not quite, but, its an easy mistake to make. There's a saying over here, "Politics stops at the water's edge." It means that with domestic politics, politicians can be as bipartisan as they like. But when it comes to international politics, politicians are united and present a similar set of ideals[1].

This idea goes back to America's founding, not just the end of WW2 and the rise of America as a superpower in the 20th century. Daniel Webster said it way back in 1814 and Arthur Vandenberg in the 1950's, when he was a Senator.

Anyway. My point is that if you (viewing from the outside in) look at American politics and use it to judge an entire nation, you're getting the wrong viewpoint. If you think that Americans are ignorant of other cultures because they are more occupied with what goes on in the states surrounding them than in countries an ocean away, you've got the wrong idea of America.

1. This is why it was such a big deal for Nancy Pelosi to meet with Bashar Assad from Syria a few years back. She said something different than what George Bush (the President at the time) was saying.

Post reply on HN