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

261–266 of 266 posts

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

#261

Post by grandalf »

aristus wrote: post #182
grandalf wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's a bit more deep, especially given our prior history with Afghanistan and General Zia, and the complicated role of AQ Khan in nuclear proliferation. stratfor is a good place to dig into those kinds of questions.

I'm a big fan of Stratfor. My comment was intended as a very high level synopsis of the situation, but I agree it lacks nuance.

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

#262

Post by anamax »

bh42 wrote: post #251
jwhite wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Christopher Reeve delivering the line "Truth, Justice and the American Way" as Super Man is one of the defining memories of my childhood. I worry that once Americans become cynical and scared enough to stop aspiring to that line, it will then be a short trip to a fascist or pseudo-fascist state. Naive? Perhaps, but if you don't have high and lofty ideals, then what is to be the counter weight to doing everything and…

> I worry that once Americans become cynical and scared enough to stop aspiring to that line, it will then be a short trip to a fascist or pseudo-fascist state.

Ah yes, "fascism is falling on America"

> Naive? Perhaps, but if you don't have high and lofty ideals, then what is to be the counter weight to doing everything and anything in the name of safety?

but it always seems to land somewhere else (typically Europe).

Fascism lands where it is like what has been before and the US hasn't been govt-authoritarian (yet).

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

#263

Post by anamax »

glenstein wrote: post #218
aneth wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was an honest mistake and arresting CIA officers for making a mistake in their job, one which they corrected and admitted to, would hardly be without implications.

Being kidnapped, flown to a prison for five months and possibly tortured, possibly sodomized is more than a "mistake." And merely admitting to having committed a human rights violation is not a substitute for following due process of law. Threatening a country with "implications" for wanting to bring the people to justice who wrongfully detained one of their citizens does not make the United States look good. Plus th…

> Plus there are other examples, like Hilary Clinton ordering diplomats to collect private information on the U.N. Secretary General, which was likely a violation of international law. This does not make the U.S. look good.

Actually, collecting such information makes HC look "not stupid".

The UN represents govts, most of which are corrupt bastards killing their citizens. The UN aids and abets such activities.

You can't blackmail an honest man.

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

#264

Post by yters »

archgoon wrote: post #179
yters wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus, a couple of those countries will wipe Assange and his organization off the face of the earth. Assange is only picking on the US because we're more civil. It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity, instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them. Really, Assange is merely perpetrating a sophisticated form of bullying.

> It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity, instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them. This would perhaps be a reasonable argument if they _never_ picked on Islam (I assume that's what you were referring to). This would indicate some actual fear of reprisals. However, this isn't actually the case. Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, and most other figures have all 'picked…

Yeah, that's good they sometimes point out the flaws in Islam. But, still most venom is focused on the least harmful religions because there is the least reprisal.

And insofar as the atheists' goals are humanitarian they should join forces with the most humanitarian ideologies, which tend to be certain religions. The least humanitarian took root in atheistic thought (whether atheism is a direct cause or merely an enabler is a different debate).

Compared to the Nazis and Communists the radical Islamists are a bunch of puppy dogs.

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

#265

Post by archgoon »

yters wrote: post #264
archgoon wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's like how the anti-religioun crowd tends to pick on Christianity, instead of one of the actually vicious religions that will kill them. This would perhaps be a reasonable argument if they _never_ picked on Islam (I assume that's what you were referring to). This would indicate some actual fear of reprisals. However, this isn't actually the case. Dawkins, Hitchens, Myers, and most other figures have all 'picked…

Yeah, that's good they sometimes point out the flaws in Islam. But, still most venom is focused on the least harmful religions because there is the least reprisal. And insofar as the atheists' goals are humanitarian they should join forces with the most humanitarian ideologies, which tend to be certain religions. The least humanitarian took root in atheistic thought (whether atheism is a direct cause or merely an ena…

>But, still most venom is focused on the least harmful religions because there is the least reprisal.

You have no evidence that's why they post more about Christianity. I have already presented several other explanations. To be explicit it could be because they don't want to feed biases against minority groups, they might want to target something which is a visible problem (evolution denial in the states), they might want to target the beliefs of people who have power to abuse (local officials), they might want to clean up their own house before they figure out how to deal with other countries and religions which they are less familiar with, etc.

Furthermore PZ Myers _has_ received death threats from Christians, so the idea that all Christians are just a bunch of friendly folks who would never hurt a fly, is absurd (though a lot of Christians do commonly make this argument). If you're making yourself a target, you expose yourself to every nutcase in the country.

> Compared to the Nazis and Communists the radical Islamists are a bunch of puppy dogs.

What do the Nazi's and Communists have to do with this?

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

#266

Post by yters »

archgoon wrote: post #265
yters wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that's good they sometimes point out the flaws in Islam. But, still most venom is focused on the least harmful religions because there is the least reprisal. And insofar as the atheists' goals are humanitarian they should join forces with the most humanitarian ideologies, which tend to be certain religions. The least humanitarian took root in atheistic thought (whether atheism is a direct cause or merely an ena…

>But, still most venom is focused on the least harmful religions because there is the least reprisal. You have no evidence that's why they post more about Christianity. I have already presented several other explanations. To be explicit it could be because they don't want to feed biases against minority groups, they might want to target something which is a visible problem (evolution denial in the states), they might…

This sentence: "The least humanitarian took root in atheistic thought (whether atheism is a direct cause or merely an enabler is a different debate)."

Also, Christianity is the least problematic of all major religions, and most in line with the agenda of humanist atheists, per its explicit laws about the best way of living. Those who don't follow the laws are hard pressed to claim the title "Christian." So, it is disingenuous and ineffective to target Christians.

Target ideologies that explicitly make anti-humanitarian claims. That is most in line with the atheists' claim that religion is anti-humanitarian.

Post reply on HN