AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2010-11-30, 05:03   Link #10181
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
I never said you're American, just that that's what it would look like to an American

And you're right in saying that someone who would feel hurt because someone talked behind his back shouldn't be in politics, but that's also an idealistic pov and history taught us that politicians care about what people say behind their back regardless. There's more than just a few politicians who cared about that kind of thing both historically and in present day (especially present day). What you said means that pretty much everyone in politics right now shouldn't be in politics

You say the leaks damaged your enemies more than the US, yet you say Assange wants to hurt the US. But doesn't that little fact about Assage's leaks show you that perhaps Assange's purpose isn't to hurt the US but simply put info out there that orthodox media would not?

While you're correct in saying that other countries will think twice before revealing some personal things like the ones you mentioned in future, the US should also do the same because they did the exact same thing here. The fact of the matter is that this will hurt all sides in diplomatic relations because everyone will be extra careful now. How it will affect the level of trust other countries place on each other (not just trust in the US) depends entirely now how the country wants to be affected. Australia, for instance, openly claimed it did not damage their interests. How other people will consider the leaks will be seen in future.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganbaru View Post
@Tsuyoshi I was more thinking of a commercial's move from China, a way to get more cards for negotiation.
Detaining him would certainly give them something to negotiate with, but from China's pov, I would imagine this is a real case because like anyone else, they want to protect their personal interests.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 05:27   Link #10182
bladeofdarkness
Um-Shmum
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi View Post
You say the leaks damaged your enemies more than the US, yet you say Assange wants to hurt the US. But doesn't that little fact about Assage's leaks show you that perhaps Assange's purpose isn't to hurt the US but simply put info out there that orthodox media would not?
i said that the leak damaged my enemies worse then it damaged ME
not the US. (again, not american)
the US was clearly the one damaged most by these revelations.

and there is a reason why the "orthodox" media doesn't get classified diplomatic information.
its classified diplomatic information.
I.E, none of our business.
you won't expect a doctor to expose his patients medical records, and you won't expect a lawyer to expose his clients criminal confessions.
somethings have to remain confidential in order to work.

Quote:
While you're correct in saying that other countries will think twice before revealing some personal things like the ones you mentioned in future, the US should also do the same because they did the exact same thing here. The fact of the matter is that this will hurt all sides in diplomatic relations because everyone will be extra careful now. How it will affect the level of trust other countries place on each other (not just trust in the US) depends entirely now how the country wants to be affected. Australia, for instance, openly claimed it did not damage their interests. How other people will consider the leaks will be seen in future.
it will result in very shallow diplomatic discussions in the future, for fear that anything "exciting" you might discuss will find its way to the mass media.
its a severe blow to international diplomacy.
__________________
bladeofdarkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 05:31   Link #10183
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
I'll say it again... only idiots write things down they don't want published later in politics and government. Even the most classified data has an "expiration date". Obviously, the leadership of the human race is rife with idiots.

Here's an interesting tidbit about China's off-the-record thoughts on North Korea

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11871641
Vexx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 05:34   Link #10184
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Ah ok, I thought you meant that more in a general sense than a personal one, my mistake.

The way I had understood it, classified meant secret because they didn't want people to know about it because it would compromise them. A doctor doesn't reveal medical records not because it would compromise him, but because it would compromise his patients. The same goes for the lawyer because his client's criminal confession would compromise his client more than himself. That's a different kind of classified information. The classified information Assange leaked out compromised the US itself more than anything, it compromised the doctor, the lawyer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness View Post
it will result in very shallow diplomatic discussions in the future, for fear that anything "exciting" you might discuss will find its way to the mass media.
its a severe blow to international diplomacy.
That's also what I expect to happen because people do care about what's said behind their back. There is no telling at this stage but this is the most likely thing to happen.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 05:42   Link #10185
bladeofdarkness
Um-Shmum
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 30
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi View Post
The way I had understood it, classified meant secret because they didn't want people to know about it because it would compromise them. A doctor doesn't reveal medical records not because it would compromise him, but because it would compromise his patients. The same goes for the lawyer because his client's criminal confession would compromise his client more than himself. That's a different kind of classified information. The classified information Assange leaked out compromised the US itself more than anything, it compromised the doctor, the lawyer.
now assume that the Doctor/lawyer is the US.
and the patient/client is a foreign diplomat.

because thats what many of these diplomatic cables discuss.
what the patient told the doctor under the belief that his words are under the protection of doctor-patient confidentiality.
now that the medical records are all over the internet, along with pictures of the patients Penis and the doctors opinion about the patients personal hygiene, the willingness to trust doctor-patient confidentiality goes out the window
__________________
bladeofdarkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 05:48   Link #10186
Noctis Lucis
It's how you think.
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Anywhere.
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi View Post
Ah ok, I thought you meant that more in a general sense than a personal one, my mistake.

The way I had understood it, classified meant secret because they didn't want people to know about it because it would compromise them. A doctor doesn't reveal medical records not because it would compromise him, but because it would compromise his patients. The same goes for the lawyer because his client's criminal confession would compromise his client more than himself. That's a different kind of classified information. The classified information Assange leaked out compromised the US itself more than anything, it compromised the doctor, the lawyer.



That's also what I expect to happen because people do care about what's said behind their back. There is no telling at this stage but this is the most likely thing to happen.
The more I think about this, the more I think that the latest diplomatic cables belong on The Sun, The New York POST (not the Times), and other tabloids, given that they're mere mudslinging. Very little important issues emerge, that of North Korea and Iran (again, looks more like a Murdoch thing than anything else.)

Could this really be Fox feeding info to Assange?
Noctis Lucis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 05:50   Link #10187
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by bladeofdarkness View Post
now assume that the Doctor/lawyer is the US.
and the patient/client is a foreign diplomat.

because thats what many of these diplomatic cables discuss.
what the patient told the doctor under the protection of doctor patient confidentiality.
The US was still the one who was damaged more. As I said, confidential information between a patient and a doctor or a client and a lawyer is meant to protect the client's/patient's interest more. The confidential information that was leaked was concerning the US more than anyone, not the foreign diplomat, for the diplomat would then question whether to trust speaking to the US out loud. Sure, their interests were compromised to an extent but it was information that compromised the US more than anyone.

That being said, however, I do see what you're trying to get at because the documents reveal information about other countries and their activities which they preferred to keep in the dark but this information, which was kept by the US like medical records are kept by a doctor, and it compromised them. However, I still believe these are of a different nature as it hurt the reputation of the US more than it did the foreign diplomats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis Lucis View Post
The more I think about this, the more I think that the latest diplomatic cables belong on The Sun, The New York POST (not the Times), and other tabloids, given that they're mere mudslinging. Very little important issues emerge, that of North Korea and Iran (again, looks more like a Murdoch thing than anything else.)

Could this really be Fox feeding info to Assange?
Truth be told, part of me does think Assange is in fact a tool of higher figures working in the shadows (ohh, conspiracies ) and is being paid to feed the gullible false info or unimportant info but in such a way to make it look like it's important. It's the free Masons all over again in a way.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 05:55   Link #10188
bladeofdarkness
Um-Shmum
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: at GNR, bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts
Age: 30
i'd love to continue this discussion, but i have to go
__________________
bladeofdarkness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 05:56   Link #10189
Noctis Lucis
It's how you think.
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Anywhere.
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi View Post
The US was still the one who was damaged more. As I said, confidential information between a patient and a doctor or a client and a lawyer is meant to protect the client's/patient's interest more. The confidential information that was leaked was concerning the US more than anyone, not the foreign diplomat, for the diplomat would then question whether to trust speaking to the US out loud. Sure, their interests were compromised to an extent but it was information that compromised the US more than anyone.

That being said, however, I do see what you're trying to get at because the documents reveal information about other countries and their activities which they preferred to keep in the dark but this information, which was kept by the US like medical records are kept by a doctor, and it compromised them. However, I still believe these are of a different nature as it hurt the reputation of the US more than it did the foreign diplomats.
Yes, that's true, given that they were US cables, but given the inordinate focus on China, it's not too far behind in the hurt scales... and then the UK.

Quote:
Prince Andrew bats for Britain - at taxpayers' expense

As special trade representative, the Duke of York trots the globe seeking business for British companies.




And yet, in recent years, the repeated, graceless remarks. He probably thinks of them as an attempt to emulate his father, although he lacks the Duke of Edinburgh's frustrated intelligence, wit or strange ethereal charm.



Thus, there was the attempt to lecture America on its imperial shortcomings – "those in responsible positions in the US should have listened to the British and learned from our experiences as a colonial power", he said in 2008, shortly before embarking on a trade tour (by private jet) to woo Republican businessmen in the deep south.


And then there was his assertion last year that bankers should not be demonised because "bonuses in the scheme of things are minute". Or, just a few weeks ago, castigating the Ministry of Defence for "sitting on their fat backsides" by insisting on additional safety checks on the armoured vehicles made by a Dorset firm he was visiting. So his remarks in Kyrgyzstan are just par for the course. "You have to take the bashes with the good bits and I've got a thick skin," he told CNN.




Palace observers believe that the duke may be embarrassed by his lack of wealth compared with those he visits in the Middle East and former Soviet republics in the hope of boosting trade with Britain.
Andrew receives an annuity of about £250,000 a year from the Queen and the cost of his official trips is borne by the taxpayer. There were more than 600 trade-related engagements in Britain and abroad in 2008 and he visited more than 20 countries. Expenses averaged £4,000 a week.
And for a chuckle...

Noctis Lucis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 05:56   Link #10190
Kagayaki
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 24
FYI, something to keep an eye out for:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010...robiology.html

Quote:
NASA SETS NEWS CONFERENCE ON ASTROBIOLOGY DISCOVERY; SCIENCE JOURNAL HAS EMBARGOED DETAILS UNTIL 2 P.M. EST ON DEC. 2

WASHINGTON -- NASA will hold a news conference at 2 p.m. EST on
Thursday, Dec. 2, to discuss an astrobiology finding that will impact
the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life. Astrobiology is the
study of the origin, evolution, distribution and future of life in
the universe.
I doubt they discovered alien life or anything like that ... but it could be something else that's still interesting.
__________________
Kagayaki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 06:02   Link #10191
MeoTwister5
Komrades of Kitamura Kou
 
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Where I can learn to be lonely.
Age: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tsuyoshi View Post
The US was still the one who was damaged more. As I said, confidential information between a patient and a doctor or a client and a lawyer is meant to protect the client's/patient's interest more. The confidential information that was leaked was concerning the US more than anyone, not the foreign diplomat, for the diplomat would then question whether to trust speaking to the US out loud. Sure, their interests were compromised to an extent but it was information that compromised the US more than anyone.

That being said, however, I do see what you're trying to get at because the documents reveal information about other countries and their activities which they preferred to keep in the dark but this information, which was kept by the US like medical records are kept by a doctor, and it compromised them. However, I still believe these are of a different nature as it hurt the reputation of the US more than it did the foreign diplomats.



Truth be told, part of me does think Assange is in fact a tool of higher figures working in the shadows and is being paid to feed the gullible false info or unimportant info but in such a way to make it look like it's important.
But the problem here is that Assange seems to have moved from just revealing skeletons in the American closet to (in)directly exposing those of other countries. This further causes stress on the balancing act between the Right to Know and the Need for Secrecy and Security, because these two will always pretty much be in some sort of opposition. He has now involved a lot of other nations in unraveling the backdoor activities of the United States. Previously, most other countries were indirectly affected due to revealed secrets regarding the diplomatic actions of the US government, but now countries who get named and called out in the documents are now directly affected because they share the same state secrets. As blade has mentioned, with direct identification on specific players of the diplomatic sphere, tension will now be generated between nations and not just within the US itself.

If Assange hadn't already opened a Pandora's Box before, documents detailing other countries directly certainly will. Even if you could argue that his focus was on the US government, he has now pulled countries mentioned in the leaks into the entire issue, which will obviously just magnify probably exponentially the problems the leaks will generate.

So the question, again: At what cost? If Assange thinks that the Right to Information is absolute, then I call him naive and dangerous.
MeoTwister5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 06:05   Link #10192
Noctis Lucis
It's how you think.
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Anywhere.
Age: 34
More on Assange:

Quote:

Ecuador offers Assange residency

November 30, 2010 - 2:06PM
Ecuador has offered Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder who has enraged Washington by releasing masses of classified US documents, residency with no questions asked.

"We are ready to give him residence in Ecuador, with no problems and no conditions," Deputy Foreign Minister Kintto Lucas told the Ecuadorinmediato website on Monday, local time.

"We are going to invite him to come to Ecuador so he can freely present the information he possesses and all the documentation, not just over the internet but in a variety of public forums," he said.


An international arrest warrant was issued in mid-November against Mr Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, on suspicion of rape and sexual molestation of two women in Sweden.

The United States, for its part, has a criminal investigation under way into the release of about 250,000 diplomatic cables, the most recent of three huge document dumps by the self-styled whistleblower website.

The White House branded those who released the documents "criminals, first and foremost", but so far US authorities have publicly filed no charges against Mr Assange.

The documents, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to news organisations in the United States, Britain, France and Germany, have shone a bright light on the behind-the-scenes conduct of US diplomacy.

Ecuador's leftist government is one of several in the region that have often been at odds with Washington.

Mr Lucas said even though Ecuador's policy was not to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries, it was "concerned" by the information in the cables because it involved other countries "in particular Latin America".
Noctis Lucis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 06:16   Link #10193
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeoTwister5 View Post
But the problem here is that Assange seems to have moved from just revealing skeletons in the American closet to (in)directly exposing those of other countries. This further causes stress on the balancing act between the Right to Know and the Need for Secrecy and Security, because these two will always pretty much be in some sort of opposition. He has now involved a lot of other nations in unraveling the backdoor activities of the United States. Previously, most other countries were indirectly affected due to revealed secrets regarding the diplomatic actions of the US government, but now countries who get named and called out in the documents are now directly affected because they share the same state secrets. As blade has mentioned, with direct identification on specific players of the diplomatic sphere, tension will now be generated between nations and not just within the US itself.

If Assange hadn't already opened a Pandora's Box before, documents detailing other countries directly certainly will. Even if you could argue that his focus was on the US government, he has now pulled countries mentioned in the leaks into the entire issue, which will obviously just magnify probably exponentially the problems the leaks will generate.

So the question, again: At what cost? If Assange thinks that the Right to Information is absolute, then I call him naive and dangerous.
That's why I find it doubtful he's solely against the US (as blade also mentioned), but more because he simply wants to reveal what traditional media outlets don't let people in on. I do agree that there's a fine line between the right to know and the need for secrecy. It also depends on how you define the two. What does need to be kept secret? Projects detailing a new product or weapon that would give them an edge in military defense? Sure, such information, placed in other's hands, would compromise the defense of the country. Bad opinions of other countries? It's dishonorable to speak ill of foreign countries and their plans/policies if you want to maintain good relations with them in the first place, so no, this does not need to be kept secret. It compromises diplomatic relations, also because of the direct involvement of the other countries, but it doesn't destroy them the way a nuclear war would. The situation here isn't irreparable, especially if all sides are able to negotiate.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 06:55   Link #10194
Noctis Lucis
It's how you think.
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Anywhere.
Age: 34
To get my feet deep into the debate.

Obviously, this is a debate between the freedom of information vs state sovereignty.

As much as this is so, most democratic nations have a system in place for an ordinary person to obtain information. In the UK and Australia, this is known as the "Freedom of Information" request process, where the government will release information when it is requested, while cancelling out any sensitive information. Therefore, the information released gives salient information, yet not giving up state sovereignty.

That usually works.

However, if one looks at the quality of the cable documents leaked by Assange, they obviously provide more information than your usual FOI request. However, most of this information is of the kind that you'd tell your friend in confidence. How'd feel if that person then told it to someone else? Not the most pleasant feeling, I'd tell you.

Anyways, that aside, the fact that the information was dug out without permission or knowledge of the authority concerned, is clearly trespass. That in itself is a crime, whether you agree with it or not.

Additionally, we're talking about somebody who jumped off Australia to run off the the US, as an indirect result of membership of the group International Subversives going by the pen-name "Mendax" (derived from a phrase of Horace: "splendide mendax," or "nobly untruthful"). as he was the subject of a 1991 raid of his Melbourne home by the Australian Federal Police.

He purportedly advocates a "transparent" and "scientific" approach to journalism, saying that "you can't publish a paper on physics without the full experimental data and results; that should be the standard in journalism. Obviously, he's confused politics with academics.

Look, I do agree with what he's done previously, on the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the "Collateral Murder" video he dd with Icelandic MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir.

But the diplomatic cables are ONE STEP TOO FAR. Diplomacy is about relationships with other nations, and having someone pry into such relations, while fully morally justified, is ethically flawed. Maybe he's trying to bring Australia against the US.
Noctis Lucis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 07:14   Link #10195
Roger Rambo
Sensei, aishite imasu
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hong Kong Shatterdome
Well these wiki leaks documents put an interesting spin on all the symbolic overtures of support, or at least understanding and cooperation in North korea.

Quote:
New documents posted on the websites of the Guardian and The New York Times suggest Chinese officials are losing patience with long-time ally North Korea. Senior figures in Beijing have even described the regime in the North as behaving like a "spoiled child."

According to cables obtained by WikiLeaks, South Korea's then vice foreign minister, Chun Yung-woo, said earlier this year that senior Chinese officials (whose names are redacted in the cables) had told him they believed Korea should be reunified under Seoul's control, and that this view was gaining ground with the leadership in Beijing.

Chun was quoted at length in a cable sent by the U.S. ambassador in Seoul, Kathleen Stephens, earlier this year. He is reported as saying that "the North had already collapsed economically and would collapse politically two to three years after the death of (leader) Kim Jong-il."

CNN has viewed the cables posted on the newspapers' websites and on the WikiLeaks website.

Chun, who has since become South Korea's National Security Adviser, dismissed the prospect of China's military intervention in the event of a North Korean collapse, noting that "China's strategic economic interests now lie with the United States, Japan, and South Korea -- not North Korea."

He said that younger generation Chinese Communist party leaders no longer regarded North Korea as a useful or reliable ally and would not risk renewed armed conflict on the peninsula, according to a secret cable to Washington.

In a separate cable from January this year, then-South Korean Foreign Mnister Yu Myung-Hwan is quoted as telling U.S. diplomats that "the North Korean leader [Kim Jong Il] needed both Chinese economic aid and political support to stabilize an 'increasingly chaotic' situation at home."

The cables suggest China is frustrated in its relationship with Pyongyang. One from April 2009 quoted Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei as saying that "North Korea wanted to engage directly with the United States and was therefore acting like a "spoiled child" in order to get the attention of the "adult." The cable continued: "China therefore encouraged the United States, 'after some time,' to start to re-engage the DPRK."

In October 2009, a cable sent from Beijing recounted a meeting between U.S. diplomats and Chinese State Councillor Dai Bingguo, who had recently met Kim Jong Il. According to the leaked cable, Dai noted that Kim had lost weight when compared to when he last saw him three years earlier, but that Kim appeared to be in reasonably good health and still had a "sharp mind."

Dai also spoke about Kim's liking for alcohol. The cable continued: "Kim Jong-il had a reputation among the Chinese for being 'quite a good drinker,' and, Dai said, he had asked Kim if he still drank alcohol. Kim said yes."

The North Koreans told Dai that they wanted to have dialogue with the United States first and that they would consider next steps, including possible multilateral talks, depending on their conversation with the United States. North Korea held "great expectations for the United States," said Dai.

Further evidence of China's unease at Pyongyang's behavior came in a cable in June 2009 from the U.S. ambassador to Kazakhstan, Richard Hoagland. He reported that the Chinese envoy there was "genuinely concerned by North Korea's recent nuclear missile tests," and saw its nuclear activity a 'threat to the whole world's security.'" Hoagland reported that China's objectives were "to ensure they [North Korean leaders] honor their commitments on non-proliferation, maintain stability, and 'don't drive [Kim Jong-il] mad.'"

It seems the Russians were similarly frustrated by North Korean obduracy. In April 2009, a U.S. diplomatic cable quoted a senior Russian official as saying that "Foreign Minister Lavrov had a difficult trip to North Korea that did not reveal any flexibility in DPRK's position." The Russian official assessed that Pyongyang was "hunkering down for a succession crisis."
I always did think the official Chinese line on Korea was a bit odd, considering all the shenanigans that North Korea was stirring up was most definitely not in their interest. The idea of North Korea acting as China's puppet never made sense to me. This might explain allot of North Korea's desperation OTOH. The only major state in the world that supports them is growing frustrated with them, and wouldn't be saddened at all if their regime collapsed completely and was taken over by their long time arch enemies.

Jeez. Matt Stone and Trey Parker really DID hit the mark in Team America.




Well, I suppose this is good in the long term. The Norks will be less likely to do anything like wage all out war if they know that the Chinese won't lift a finger to help them...even worse, to cement an image of themselves as good world citizens (and to expedite the withdrawal of any major US forces) they might infact invade the DPRK from the North in conjuncture with the ROK and US military.


edit:Another thing to consider. These documents all seem to be pre-2010...meaning that they don't cover ANY Chinese reactions to the sinking of the Cheonan and the shelling of that Island by North Korean artillery. I don't imagine the Chinese would be very happy with anything that gets an US Aircraft carrier battlegroup practicing war games in their back yard though.
Roger Rambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 07:29   Link #10196
Noctis Lucis
It's how you think.
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Anywhere.
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Rambo View Post


Well, I suppose this is good in the long term. The Norks will be less likely to do anything like wage all out war if they know that the Chinese won't lift a finger to help them...even worse, to cement an image of themselves as good world citizens (and to expedite the withdrawal of any major US forces) they might infact invade the DPRK from the North in conjuncture with the ROK and US military.
Uh, no. Actually, given North Korea, they're more likely to just go crazy, knowing that they're squeezed. It's going to be likely that North Korea now focuses on "reunification" by force - closing the DMZ permanently, total militarization of its population, and generally taking a more aggressive stance than it has already. Remember, there's a successor in grooming, and he would more or less be able to do whatever he wants, given that he does not have the same limitations, physically, as his father.

Also, it seems that China is more interested in Japan than Korea or Taiwan.
Noctis Lucis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 07:56   Link #10197
Tsuyoshi
Disabled By Request
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Great Justice
Send a message via AIM to Tsuyoshi Send a message via MSN to Tsuyoshi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis Lucis View Post
However, if one looks at the quality of the cable documents leaked by Assange, they obviously provide more information than your usual FOI request. However, most of this information is of the kind that you'd tell your friend in confidence. How'd feel if that person then told it to someone else? Not the most pleasant feeling, I'd tell you.
I agree with this. It was what I was trying to get at earlier, and the reason I said that the US had it coming because they shouldn't have put it in writing as it would eventually be leaked (as Vexx said), maybe not by Assange, but eventually by someone in time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis Lucis View Post
Anyways, that aside, the fact that the information was dug out without permission or knowledge of the authority concerned, is clearly trespass. That in itself is a crime, whether you agree with it or not.
It's hard to argue against this, but part of me thinks he dug them out with permission of people in power behind the scenes rather than those who are visibly in power. But putting that bit aside, the real criminal should be the one who dug it out, and there's no evidence that Assange was indeed the one who has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noctis Lucis View Post
He purportedly advocates a "transparent" and "scientific" approach to journalism, saying that "you can't publish a paper on physics without the full experimental data and results; that should be the standard in journalism. Obviously, he's confused politics with academics.

Look, I do agree with what he's done previously, on the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including the "Collateral Murder" video he dd with Icelandic MP Birgitta Jónsdóttir.

But the diplomatic cables are ONE STEP TOO FAR. Diplomacy is about relationships with other nations, and having someone pry into such relations, while fully morally justified, is ethically flawed. Maybe he's trying to bring Australia against the US.
Trying to dig into his motivations is no better than speculation so I won't delve in that. What I will say is that people do have the right to know, and as I said, if the US wants to maintain good relations with these countries, speaking behind their back is not more morally justifiable than Assange prying into said relationships. Also, as I said before, none of this is irreparable. The US and all the other countries could come clean if they give each other a chance to negotiate.

Last edited by Tsuyoshi; 2010-11-30 at 08:34.
Tsuyoshi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 08:32   Link #10198
Sumeragi
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
"Interesting" things about China. They're all information that has been revealed quite often. Basically, PRC is in a squeeze where DPRK is a buffer against a nationalist reunified Korea, but at the same time DPRK is being ultrarational to the point it's making PRC pissed off.

And oh yes, the worst case scenario for everyone is a nuclear reunified Korea. Nationalism is already a big part of Korean society, and if a reunified Korea is nuclear..... expect to see a constant struggle to reclaim Manchuria. This is most likely the reason why PRC is supporting DPRK: They can't risk a reunified Korea being the worst possible enemy for China. Forget Japan, forget Russia, forget the United States: Reunified Korea is the deadliest foe the state capitalist regime would face militarily and economically.


Still, what makes me sigh is people thinking DPRK was ever a puppet of any state. It was never a puppet, just like PRC and Vietnam were neither puppets.
Sumeragi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 09:42   Link #10199
Noctis Lucis
It's how you think.
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Anywhere.
Age: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
And oh yes, the worst case scenario for everyone is a nuclear reunified Korea. Nationalism is already a big part of Korean society, and if a reunified Korea is nuclear..... expect to see a constant struggle to reclaim Manchuria.
Only if Pyongyang is in control. If DPRK gets subsumed into the Rep of Korea, it'd be more or less to Asia what France is to Europe. Then Japan will finally become Asia's Italy, forgotten and failing.

Taiwan becomes the UK - USED to be powerful (as the Republic of China), but now culturally fixated.

And Singapore FINALLY becomes Switzerland: neutral zone.
Noctis Lucis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2010-11-30, 13:33   Link #10200
Kamui4356
Aria Company
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sumeragi View Post
"Interesting" things about China. They're all information that has been revealed quite often. Basically, PRC is in a squeeze where DPRK is a buffer against a nationalist reunified Korea, but at the same time DPRK is being ultrarational to the point it's making PRC pissed off.

And oh yes, the worst case scenario for everyone is a nuclear reunified Korea. Nationalism is already a big part of Korean society, and if a reunified Korea is nuclear..... expect to see a constant struggle to reclaim Manchuria. This is most likely the reason why PRC is supporting DPRK: They can't risk a reunified Korea being the worst possible enemy for China. Forget Japan, forget Russia, forget the United States: Reunified Korea is the deadliest foe the state capitalist regime would face militarily and economically.


Still, what makes me sigh is people thinking DPRK was ever a puppet of any state. It was never a puppet, just like PRC and Vietnam were neither puppets.
Wait what? How would a reunified Korea be the worst threat for China? They have roughly 17 times a unified Korea's population. Not to mention Korea would take decades rebuilding the north and fully integrating the economies. Look at Germany. Twenty years later, and the east still lags behind the west, and the economic gap between them was far less than the gap that exists between North and South Korea. Further, aggressive action would alienate them, much like the North currently is. Say this unified Korea invades China to try to seize Manchuria. Who do you think the US, Japan, Russia, and EU are going to side with, the invader or invaded? Not that China would need the help.

Well looking at your location, you are proving the nationalism part correct.
__________________
Kamui4356 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
current affairs, discussion, international, news

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:31.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.