[Mr. Vega]

Then it ain't middle enough. Keep pushing it.

What's too bad is that Wikileaks doesn't seem to have much other than diplomatic cables. Which have some value, but not enough compared to noise or genuinely sensitive material that could bring harm. What we need are internal policy documents, like the Pentagon Papers.

[Flipside]

I think it's more a question that releasing those documents wholesale in a sort of '**** You' manouvre isn't really going to make a difference. At least, certainly not a positive one.

If there were some way to assure that this information only reached American eyes, so the American public were aware of what their Government were doing, that would be one thing, but it's been thrown open to the entire planet, so it's not really a question of what it is healthy to release so much as what is dangerous to release to those outside the US.

[Scotty]

Firstly, I'd like to point out a discrepancy; "the world as we know it". That assumption there leaves open a wide range of different worldviews that are possible.

Secondly, only discussing the world as it is currently, instead of what it could also be is, I feel, shortsighted.

It's also the only discussion we can have because it's the only discussion based on fact.  What the world could be is a magical place of fairy dust where everyone gets along and we all sit around the fire, eat chocolates, and sing koombaya until we pass out into diabetic comas, but that's not what the world is and thus does not warrant a place in a rational discussion.

Ok... I choose to take the stance that people are generally good and function well in a well functioning society, based upon my personal experiences which I use as fact.

Confirmation that UT doesn't live on the same planet we do.

[Mr. Vega]

Suppose some American diplomatic stuff is leaked and it leads to a international scandal. It harms the foreign policy aims of the US government, which may or may not be a good thing.

But, buuuuut, as a side effect, suppose it also leads to a public reaction in favor of greater transparency and honesty. Not just in America, but internationally. Put in widely reported transparency reforms and peoples of other nations will ask their government why they don't enjoy the same access. Result: net positive to the human race.

[NGTM-1R]

Confirmation that UT doesn't live on the same planet we do.

I wouldn't go that far, but he's proposing something that, as I've observed elsewhere, only works with all-or-nothing while making a statement that denies the possibility of all or nothing.

[Mr. Vega]

Firstly, I'd like to point out a discrepancy; "the world as we know it". That assumption there leaves open a wide range of different worldviews that are possible.

Secondly, only discussing the world as it is currently, instead of what it could also be is, I feel, shortsighted.

It's also the only discussion we can have because it's the only discussion based on fact.  What the world could be is a magical place of fairy dust where everyone gets along and we all sit around the fire, eat chocolates, and sing koombaya until we pass out into diabetic comas, but that's not what the world is and thus does not warrant a place in a rational discussion.

Ok... I choose to take the stance that people are generally good and function well in a well functioning society, based upon my personal experiences which I use as fact.

Confirmation that UT doesn't live on the same planet we do.

Let's not mistake cynicism with wisdom here. That things are as they are does not mean they are as they must. A total lack of imagination does not make you realistic. It makes you enslaved to a nebulous status quo.

[NGTM-1R]

But on the other hand, it establishes limits on what is sane and accomplishable, whereas unrestricted imagination simply leads you to wasted, often even counterproductive, effort.

[Mr. Vega]

I said a total lack of imagination. Don't strawman me. My opponent is not gravity; it's people who pointlessly place weights on themselves, as if there's virtue in not being able to move.

[NGTM-1R]

On the contrary, you accuse him of a total lack, which is itself a strawman of his argument and of MP-Ryan's; a discussion grounded in the facts is actually a discussion. If you dislike it then being applied to you, then you should be more careful in your own phrasings.

[Mongoose]

This condemnation of wikileaks seems in general to be rooted in their belief that the US government is a wholly angelic organization that knows what's best for us, and that there's no greater benefit to promoting general transparency. This belief is totally contrary to democratic ideals.

Or maybe we just believe that there are significant portions of international diplomacy that need to be conducted in confidence as a matter of course, and that exposing said portions directly harms our national interests.

[Mars]

I personally think that the US government is generally both incompetent and sometimes downright criminal, but I'd rather the Chinese or North Koreans didn't know every facet of our intelligence. Somehow I think that could be detrimental to my personal interests in the long run.

EDIT:

Note, I'm not saying that the Chinese are anything LIKE North Korea, but they're certainly a rival to the US.

[MP-Ryan]

Suppose some American diplomatic stuff is leaked and it leads to a international scandal. It harms the foreign policy aims of the US government, which may or may not be a good thing.

But, buuuuut, as a side effect, suppose it also leads to a public reaction in favor of greater transparency and honesty. Not just in America, but internationally. Put in widely reported transparency reforms and peoples of other nations will ask their government why they don't enjoy the same access. Result: net positive to the human race.

You are displaying the same confusion as UT.

Transparency in government is not the same thing as transparency in governance of foreign policy.

Exposing your foreign policy means, rather than the normal message of objectives, is a quick and easy way to get yourself royally screwed.  NGTM and I have furnished ample examples of this throughout the discussion.  If you want to take the position that all of this should be transparent, you'd best back up and start addressing the very real and harsh historical lessons that both of us have highlighted.  Else, you're just posting idealistic fluff.

EDIT:  And to counter one of your earlier statements - I'm not American.  The fact that these are US cables is utterly irrelevant to me.  What is relevant is that NATO is generally comprised of fairly reasonable, democratic, and more-or-less secular nations concerned with their own security.  Contrast this with countries like Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea, all of which are ideologically-motivated, non-democratic (I realize someone may take exception to Pakistan being lumped in there, to which I say go read about the ISI), and totalitarian... and happily willing and able to destroy those who disagree with them for no reason other than they disagree.  So, I take exception to a release of ANY information that compromises HUMINT sources used by NATO because it has a direct effect on the security and well-being of myself, my family, my country, and virtually all of YOU.

Unlike you, Aardwolf, and UT, I have living memory of the Cold War (as you'll find do several other people arguing similarly to me) and a healthy knowledge of 20th century history.  Thinking that transparency and openness is the answer to the world's diplomatic problems is a commendable position, but it just isn't grounded in reality, and neither is the idealistic belief that you can make international politics change virtually overnight by setting a precedent.  Transparency in intelligence and diplomacy would be a disaster that would destroy the ability of NATO countries to defend themselves both externally, and from internal extremist activities, because the nations we are defending ourselves from have absolutely no qualms about using information as a means of conducting war.  If we stopped, the nations I've named (and dozens of others) would say thankyouverymuch and carry on stronger than ever.

EDIT2:  I should also say I recognize the position you fellows are taking as one fairly common to young university students, often those taking liberal arts courses.  I explored similar ideas at much the same time.  I also explored a great deal of history [as options], particularly 20th century history, which tends to take all those wonderful sociological and social psychological theories and grind them into dust crushed under jackboots and tank treads.  For every Enlightenment/liberal ideal for the evolution of society, there is a conflict that demonstrates it just doesn't work in practice unless its tempered under the forge of realistic thinking.  That, I think, is the bit of information that all three of you are missing in this thread.

[zookeeper]

And once again your simplistic view of the world conflicts with a far from simplistic reality.

What is this simplistic view of the world that I have? As far as I can tell, I expressed no views about the world.

If you put away your gun, then people will menace you with theirs. This does not effect only you; it will affect all your friends and family as people extort stuff from you at gunpoint. Putting away your gun is not merely your action, but has tangible and negative affects upon not just you, but everyone else. Your friends are weaker for your action, your enemies are strengthened, those who would use force to achieve their goals or oppress you and others are empowered.

You have made the world a worse place.

Of course I haven't, as all I did was put away my gun, nothing more. What other people choose to do after that is their choice and certainly no fault of mine: if they do as you predict, then they made the world a worse place, not me.

To summarize my stance: I don't think one can ever do wrong by doing that which would be good if everyone did the same. If everyone put away their guns then that'd be good, therefore one guy putting down their gun cannot be wrong.

[Mika]

EDIT2:  I should also say I recognize the position you fellows are taking as one fairly common to young university students, often those taking liberal arts courses.  I explored similar ideas at much the same time.  I also explored a great deal of history [as options], particularly 20th century history, which tends to take all those wonderful sociological and social psychological theories and grind them into dust crushed under jackboots and tank treads.  For every Enlightenment/liberal ideal for the evolution of society, there is a conflict that demonstrates it just doesn't work in practice unless its tempered under the forge of realistic thinking.  That, I think, is the bit of information that all three of you are missing in this thread.

My God, do we really start to sound like the geezers back then?

Anyways, the personal history of the most of the philosophizers from 1850s to 1900s is also quite damning. Most of what they said has been to please the king or the the next best thing after the king in exchange for food, wine and women, possibly also money. Few of them ever lived by anything close to what they said. No wonder the general population (here) regards them as "ass-kissers".

[Grizzly]

What if the US actually tried to return to the "moral high ground" that they used to lay claim to (and many disgusting individuals twist to use as justification for their undesirable deeds).

To return would imply that they, at some point, had been there. The only moral high grounds the US has stood on are the ones they erected themselves in order to charge down screaming upon everyone else because they had different interpretations.

[NGTM-1R]

What is this simplistic view of the world that I have? As far as I can tell, I expressed no views about the world.

The one that you're using in your simplistic analogies?

Of course I haven't, as all I did was put away my gun, nothing more. What other people choose to do after that is their choice and certainly no fault of mine: if they do as you predict, then they made the world a worse place, not me.

Incorrect. You are both morally and legally culpable for the predictable consequences of any actions you take. This is a highly predictable consequence, one that I can see, that everyone around you will see, and that you don't even deny will happen.

You knew, when you put down your gun, that this would happen. People told you that it would happen; people of no small means or intelligence. All your allies and friends warned you it would happen, pleaded for you to reconsider, if not for your sake then for theirs.

You did it anyway, against the best advice available, in the full awareness that it would make things worse.

You honestly believe that it's not your fault?

[zookeeper]

What is this simplistic view of the world that I have? As far as I can tell, I expressed no views about the world.

The one that you're using in your simplistic analogies?

Well, I really don't see how I'm using my view of the world, whatever it is, in my simplistic analogies. Maybe you could give a little hint as to what you think my view of the world is like?

Of course I haven't, as all I did was put away my gun, nothing more. What other people choose to do after that is their choice and certainly no fault of mine: if they do as you predict, then they made the world a worse place, not me.

Incorrect. You are both morally and legally culpable for the predictable consequences of any actions you take. This is a highly predictable consequence, one that I can see, that everyone around you will see, and that you don't even deny will happen.

You knew, when you put down your gun, that this would happen. People told you that it would happen; people of no small means or intelligence. All your allies and friends warned you it would happen, pleaded for you to reconsider, if not for your sake then for theirs.

You did it anyway, against the best advice available, in the full awareness that it would make things worse.

You honestly believe that it's not your fault?

Yes, I do. I'll try to explain:

I would be at fault if I knew of and ignored the predictable consequences of, for example, a piece of machinery which as a result of my actions would maim someone. The machine cannot be blamed for what it does, therefore the blame is on me who set it in motion. However, if we replace the machine with another person, then that person can be blamed for what they do since they're as free to make their own choices as I am. I can't be responsible for what choice they make.

If you say that it's probable and predictable that switching my gun to an ukulele would get my teeth kicked in and my ukulele broken by everyone else, then sure, I won't disagree with that. However, the difference is that whereas you'd think that the fact that it was predictable makes it (partially) my own fault, I'd think it merely demonstrates how everyone else is a bad guy. If the other people were truly forced into breaking my ukulele when given the chance, then fine, fine, they'd be machines and I'd be responsible if I'd let them. However, if I can manage to switch my gun to an ukulele then that pretty much proves that it's an entirely possible to make that choice, and thus they must be responsible if they decide to break my ukulele.

Would you agree that my view is at least internally consistent, even if you don't agree with it?

[Bobboau]

you know I would like them a lot more if they would spoil a few terrorist attacks, or break some sort of severely debilitating scandal about Ahmadinejad, or something about China, or North Korea, or hell even Russia.

that said, as everyone seems to have ignored from my first time mentioning it, Wikileaks was not the one who dumped it this time it was the Guardian, they are just posting information someone else publicly posted already.

[jr2]

<snip>

That's only true if your gun is not covering your allies' back as well as yours.  NATO is a mutual defense treaty, yes?  An attack on one is an attack on all.  This makes picking off member nations one by one difficult and costly, hence not worthwhile.  As a result, the safety of members against would-be aggressors is increased.  If you put down your gun, your allies will most likely have to use theirs, decreasing their ability to defend themselves.  Also, there is the loss of life and resources to defend you.

But don't worry; be happy.

At least your ukelele will give them something to listen to.  If they get time while frantically trying to cover for you, that is.

Ask yourself how many nations were fed to Hitler to appease him.  France and England did nothing.  Surely, the Germans will get the resources they want and settle down, right?  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... so those other nations will just have to live as Germans now.  No big deal.

You somehow think that if an aggressive nation has all that it needs and possibly wants, that it will be satisfied... that they will be satisfied to co-exist with you in peace and harmony, for the benefit of all... and it would benefit all.  The problem is, those nations at this point at least, would like nothing better than to consume and expand with no end in sight.

Simplistically, put it this way:

How do you pacify a spoiled rotten 3 or 4-year old bully?  He is bigger than all of his classmates.  When the others have one or two toys, and he has three or four toys, he still isn't happy.  He attacks and hits those around him and prevents them from enjoying their toys, too... he is the only one allowed to be happy.  This makes him happy, because then he feels powerful at the center of attention.

Now, the others can keep the bully in check by forming a team... if the bully attacks one, they all defend the person being attacked.  Now the bully sees that he / she cannot get what they want.  After a while, they stop trying to attack the others, as it is harmful to their own self-interest.

Now, to change the behavior of the child... he / she must learn that such behavior is unacceptable and will lead to undesirable consequences for him / her.  Say, for example, if the bully attacks, one of the bully's toys gets taken away by the group, until the bully has behaved without incident.  Then, after a while of behaving acceptably, maybe you could try to convince them that you really want them to be on your side... try sharing a toy, maybe giving them one.  If they see this as weakness and attack, take back the toy and take one of theirs until they behave.  Eventually, perhaps they will see the light.  But then again, perhaps not.

Of course, this is a very simplistic comparison and I'm sure all sorts of holes can be picked in it.  But you do see what I'm getting at?  Bullys can't be tamed by acquiescing to their unreasonable demands.

[zookeeper]

<snip>

That's only true if your gun is not covering your allies' back as well as yours.  NATO is a mutual defense treaty, yes?  An attack on one is an attack on all.  This makes picking off member nations one by one difficult and costly, hence not worthwhile.  As a result, the safety of members against would-be aggressors is increased.  If you put down your gun, your allies will most likely have to use theirs, decreasing their ability to defend themselves.  Also, there is the loss of life and resources to defend you.

But don't worry; be happy.

At least your ukelele will give them something to listen to.  If they get time while frantically trying to cover for you, that is.

Ask yourself how many nations were fed to Hitler to appease him.  France and England did nothing.  Surely, the Germans will get the resources they want and settle down, right?  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few... so those other nations will just have to live as Germans now.  No big deal.

You somehow think that if an aggressive nation has all that it needs and possibly wants, that it will be satisfied... that they will be satisfied to co-exist with you in peace and harmony, for the benefit of all... and it would benefit all.  The problem is, those nations at this point at least, would like nothing better than to consume and expand with no end in sight.

Simplistically, put it this way:

How do you pacify a spoiled rotten 3 or 4-year old bully?  He is bigger than all of his classmates.  When the others have one or two toys, and he has three or four toys, he still isn't happy.  He attacks and hits those around him and prevents them from enjoying their toys, too... he is the only one allowed to be happy.  This makes him happy, because then he feels powerful at the center of attention.

Now, the others can keep the bully in check by forming a team... if the bully attacks one, they all defend the person being attacked.  Now the bully sees that he / she cannot get what they want.  After a while, they stop trying to attack the others, as it is harmful to their own self-interest.

Now, to change the behavior of the child... he / she must learn that such behavior is unacceptable and will lead to undesirable consequences for him / her.  Say, for example, if the bully attacks, one of the bully's toys gets taken away by the group, until the bully has behaved without incident.  Then, after a while of behaving acceptably, maybe you could try to convince them that you really want them to be on your side... try sharing a toy, maybe giving them one.  If they see this as weakness and attack, take back the toy and take one of theirs until they behave.  Eventually, perhaps they will see the light.  But then again, perhaps not.

Of course, this is a very simplistic comparison and I'm sure all sorts of holes can be picked in it.  But you do see what I'm getting at?  Bullys can't be tamed by acquiescing to their unreasonable demands.

Sure, I mostly agree with what you're saying. Your plan of how to change the behaviour of a bully is something I certainly subscribe to, but what I'm arguing for is that the bullying isn't anyone's fault except the bully's. NGTM-1R is arguing that if I believe that the bully is going to keep bullying and I don't do my best to prevent that, the bullying is going to be my fault. That's quite a separate issue than the question of what's a good way to deal with a bully.