American conservatives and Wikileaks.
Wedge wrote:
I just don't see the reason why foreign policy should be carried in such a secrecy. If the people elected the government they have the right to know what is the government's stance on foreign governments. Otherwise It gives the impression that the government is acting behind the people's back. And if they were carrying international chit chat about government leaders it is their fault.
While in most material from the embassys there was nothing out of ordinary there were some surprises. Like Saudi Arabia's intention to strike Iran.
While in most material from the embassys there was nothing out of ordinary there were some surprises. Like Saudi Arabia's intention to strike Iran.
And there, in two sentences (well, one sentence and a sentence fragment) you demonstrate precisely why foreign policy is carried out in secret--and why the Wikileaks fiasco has been so damaging to United States' interests.
Very often, the art of diplomacy (and it is an art) allows governments to develop compromises that diminish, mitigate or prevent conflicts. In 1967, Israel was quite prepared to take agressive action against Egypt and Syria, until the United States made it perfectly clear that they would not be in a position to support Israel if she fired the first shot. So they waited for Nasser to act. Had foreign policy been conducted in the open, the Soviets would have been much less likely to make their views known, and the United States would have been a much more uncertain position in advising Israel.
How likely are members of the Saudi Foreign Ministry to share information and intelligence with the United States now? What assurance can the United States that information received in confidence will remain in confidence. If the statement, "we want to strike Iran," is immediately made public, allowing the Iranian government to ask, "what was that you just said?" then a great many things would remain unsaid, to our collective peril.
A great deal of government policy must be created in secrecy. For every proposal that is adopted, there are policy choices that are rejected, and other proposals that never make it to the decision point. It is impossible for government to make the hard choices if it is continually second guessed at every turn. Government must be accountable for its decisions, yes--but that is not the same thing as throwing the doors open on the processes that are internal to government.
_________________
--James
I find it interesting that the "conservatives" think wikileaks is evil and the "Liberals" think it isn't.
A Conservative believes in smaller government. Leaked documents expose the corruption that goes on in governments. a smaller government is easier to manage and thus less likely to be corrupt.
Thus, the conservatives should be praising wikileaks because it supports the idea of having a smaller government and liberals should hate it because gives examples of how governments cannot be trusted with anything and liberals want to trust the government with everything.
It just goes to show you how out-of-touch the american political parties are with the ideological roots they pretend to champion.
phil777 wrote:
He (Lula) and Poutine (yes, suprisingly) are right on one thing. A government that claims to be in favor of democracy shouldn't hide information on its doings from its citizens.
Except in time of war. Military operations have to be kept secret until they are executed.
ruveyn
phil777 wrote:
i guess keeping your country in a constant state of war does justifies a few things then, heh Ruveyn?
That is the Dark Side. One of the less felicitous happening in the last fifty years is the pursuit of the Forever War taken by the U.S. government, regardless of which political party is in charge.
Americans, as a voting public, have to call a halt to this insanity, else this country will be ruined.
Rome engaged in the Forever War and look what happened to Rome.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
LKL wrote:
It does establish religion(s): monotheism(s). Thus it discriminates against wiccans, hindus, buddhists, shintoists, atheists, and a whole host of others I just don't know about. The fact that they're minorities is neither here nor there. If you look into the congressional record at the time it was made the national motto (displacing 'e pluribus, unum,' which is a much better motto for the U.S.), the motivations were explicitly to establish religion.
Monotheism is a belief, not a religion per se. Religion not only consists of beliefs and creeds, but customs, practices and organizations. Would you say a person who believes the universe is not an accident, but a planned thing is practicing or advocating a religion? I wouldn't.
ruveyn
For a government which claims to have a Bill of Rights, placing "In God We Trust" on its currency is clearly inappropriate.
pandabear wrote:
For a government which claims to have a Bill of Rights, placing "In God We Trust" on its currency is clearly inappropriate.
I agree. The "in God we trust" thing was something that arose during the Civil War. It was a bit of sloganeering to brace up spirits on the Union side which were flagging because the War was so bloody and it was dragging on, seemingly forever.
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
pandabear wrote:
For a government which claims to have a Bill of Rights, placing "In God We Trust" on its currency is clearly inappropriate.
I agree. The "in God we trust" thing was something that arose during the Civil War. It was a bit of sloganeering to brace up spirits on the Union side which were flagging because the War was so bloody and it was dragging on, seemingly forever.
ruveyn
It wasn't mandatory, it was simply allowed by the local mints who opted to do it on their coinage. What was originally done wasn't especially unconstitutional but rather a blurring of what was previously very strictly defined lines. It was up to the individual mint as to if they wanted to do it or not. And it was only allowed on coin money, not paper.
It became mandatory during the Cold War and McCarthyism where the politicians were trying to frame the war as godless USSR vs god-fearing USA. That's when you saw the motto be legally mandated on coinage and dollar bills and saw "under god" inserted into the pledge of allegiance. The Cold War, in many ways, represented the fall of the constitution in favor of statism and populism (though the populism that's used is almost always in a cynical sense that benefits the corporations first at the detriment of the population).
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
skafather84 wrote:
It became mandatory during the Cold War and McCarthyism where the politicians were trying to frame the war as godless USSR vs god-fearing USA. That's when you saw the motto be legally mandated on coinage and dollar bills and saw "under god" inserted into the pledge of allegiance. The Cold War, in many ways, represented the fall of the constitution in favor of statism and populism (though the populism that's used is almost always in a cynical sense that benefits the corporations first at the detriment of the population).
I learned that idolatrous pledge without the "under god" phrase. As it is the Pledge of Allegiance was cooked up by a Christian Socialist, Edward Bellamy in 1892. It is fascist jingoism with or without the "under God" nonsense.
ruveyn.
ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
It became mandatory during the Cold War and McCarthyism where the politicians were trying to frame the war as godless USSR vs god-fearing USA. That's when you saw the motto be legally mandated on coinage and dollar bills and saw "under god" inserted into the pledge of allegiance. The Cold War, in many ways, represented the fall of the constitution in favor of statism and populism (though the populism that's used is almost always in a cynical sense that benefits the corporations first at the detriment of the population).
I learned that idolatrous pledge without the "under god" phrase. As it is the Pledge of Allegiance was cooked up by a Christian Socialist, Edward Bellamy in 1892. It is fascist jingoism with or without the "under God" nonsense.
ruveyn.
Nationalist, not fascist. Nationalism tends to eventually lead down the road to fascism (as it is Nationalism's natural growth) but the element itself is more nationalistic than fascist. A minor point, I know...but I think it's important in understanding that nationalism is every bit important to be skeptical and wary of before it comes to the point of fascism.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson