Wiki Leaks, Good or Bad for the US?

About Us

Tour

FAQ

Signup

Login

Welcome to our New Political Community - Take a Quick Tour of our Features including our Discussion Forums custom designed for U.S. politics. SIGN UP today to join in the discussion.

Forums > All Posts > Wiki Leaks, Good or Bad for the US?

Displaying all 3 Forum Posts

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

2010-12-04 09:32 PM

LLBarry
Beverly, MA
Posts: 299

So I've been talking about the wiki leaks and people's reactions. But now I stop and ask myself, are the wiki leaks actually bad? Or all bad? Yes, with all good things there can be bad and with all bad things there can be good. But I guess the real question now, does this really cause a lot of bad things or is this going to be something we look back on and say, wow somehow that really worked out to our advantage.

This article states 3 ways that show that the wiki leaks may be useful and good for the United States. It also points out that many or the leaks are nothing more than simple gossip that you could get from a local newspaper.

First, ...It was no secret that Arab leaders detest Iran... cleared away some of the obstacles to the US achieving one of its top foreign policy goals...[and] greatly increases political cover for any US military strike – previously seen as very difficult, but which can now be said to be supported by Muslim leaders. It thereby also increases pressure on Tehran to enter serious negotiations...

The second way the leaks benefit America is that they emphasise and dramatise familiar US problems in a way which might help deal with them...

The third way the leaks help America is that they show its secret face to be reasonably attractive."

What do you think, good or bad?

2010-12-05 10:13 PM

LLBarry
Beverly, MA
Posts: 299

Since I gave you some reasons why wikileaks are good. I felt that I should give you a few reasons why they are bad. Check out this article.

"By breaching the privacy of diplomatic cables WikiLeaks has compromised the fundamental nature of what diplomats do -- they translate the feelings, passions, prejudices, inadequacies, ambitions and aspirations of real people in positions of power into language that at its best, prevents us from blowing each other up. The "diplomatic set" is arguably a big part of why we don't have more conflict in our world."

I would agree with this statement. After all diplomats are paid to negotiate and keep the peace at the very basic level. They may need help sifting through all that material and need to be bluntly honest to those people helping them. Maybe they never really believed the item they wrote about, maybe they were just getting a second opinion.

What do you think? Good or bad?

2011-01-07 08:12 PM

LLBarry
Beverly, MA
Posts: 299

In furtherance of this discussion, heres how some of this is playing out: See article.
*Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry called the release a "reckless action which jeopardizes lives by exposing raw, contemporaneous intelligence."

*In Libya, the longtime U.S. ambassador there, Gene Cretz, was recalled to Washington last month after his name was attached to a cable revealing embarrassing personal details about Col. Muammar Qaddafi, the Libyan leader. Officials say he is unlikely to return.

*An American diplomat in Central Asia said recently that one Iranian contact, who met him on periodic trips outside Iran, told him he would no longer speak to him, the Times reports. Sarah Holewinski, executive director of the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, said people in Afghanistan and Pakistan had become more reluctant to speak to human rights investigators for fear that what they said might be made public, according to the report.

You must be logged in to reply to a post.

About Us

FAQ

Advertise

Links

Login

Sign Up

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

OBAMA ACCOMPLISHMENTS - REPUBLICAN DIVORCES - REPUBLICAN INFIDELITY & AFFAIRS - REPUBLICAN SCANDALS & CONTROVERSIES