It is quite a stretch to assign what is happening in Egypt to Wikileaks, certainly to Wikileaks alone. Tunisia is a far more relevant event, and while there were cables related to it again it is a stretch to put it all on Wikileaks or any one factor.I did use the words "contributed" and "remains to be seen" as a qualifiers.
Second, we have no idea what a different government in Egypt might look like. It could still be a strong US ally. Originally Posted by discreetgent
I did use the words "contributed" and "remains to be seen" as a qualifiers. Originally Posted by I B HankeringYou did, my bad on contributed.
I think that you should educate yourself a little more fully with regards to the current president of Egypt before you start pointing fingers anywhere.Without reading, I know Mubarak has been a real "saint!" Yet, he's been our "saint." Sometimes its better the devil you know than the one you do not know. For the record, let me again repeat: I did use the word "contributed" as a qualifier.
This is a good place to start
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosni_Mubarak
Here is another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptia...election,_2005 Originally Posted by SillyGirl
Revolution is afoot in the streets of Cairo. What ever else is said—pro or con—Julian Assange and his defenders can no longer claim that Wikileaks have caused no deaths. It remains to be seen whether the leaks have contributed to the fall of a valuable U.S. ally in the region. Originally Posted by I B HankeringWow, that is quite a claim.
I think what Julian Assange and his team did was great. It has been very interesting to know (what everyone knew anyway) that my country - a neutral country (Austria) - sells weapons to iran. Hello?? Said rifles were so called Panzer - killer which meant they were able to destroy the things that roll on the floor and are of metal. they cut just thru. A neutral country - especially one that has been freed from being overtaken by the russians with certain conditions (they have to support the USA) should not sell weapons at all.-Well maybe I am naive however, I personally feel that Julian Assange has done something good by exposing secrets that powerful officials want to keep secret, and for not so good intentions. I see wiki as a sort of checks and balances on the powers that be that we might not otherwise have in this country. With the internet comes free access to information and on bad government behavior.
Other than that i think austria is great, but the neutrality is a bit hogwash. Originally Posted by ninasastri
I see wiki as a sort of checks and balances on the powers that be that we might not otherwise have in this country. With the internet comes free access to information and on bad government behavior.We already have a set of checks and balances that has been in place for over 200 years, we don't need the internet and attention grabbing Assange doing it for us. There's a fine line between making politicians weekend expenditures transparent and putting confidential military information online that may endanger US lives. Personally I don't think the general public is ready to handle complete transparency. Riots have started over basketball games do you really think it prudent to allow masses access to information never intended for their consumption? Information always comes at a price.
The people who are most opposed to this site are the ones who don't want the dirty secrets to come out. Our government hides way to much from us as it is.
Secrecy breeds corruption and does little but foster suspicion from the whole world. Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange
We already have a set of checks and balances that has been in place for over 200 years, we don't need the internet and attention grabbing Assange doing it for us. Originally Posted by Sa_artmanI think it is naive of you to think we have real checks and balances with our government. Not in the way you would like to think. It is far too large and too much corruption already exists within it.
By the way, just finished watching the National News. This has nothing to do with wiki. The people and protestors interviewed said they want change in their country, that they are tired of the old 30 year regime that has existed. In addition to the human rights violations that have occurred. Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange
I think it is naive of you to think we have real checks and balances with our government. Not in the way you would like to think. It is far too large and too much corruption already exists within it. Originally Posted by Bebe Le Strange
Hi IB, that is not the point. The lack of one system does not justify the lack within another one.
Now you are going to argue that a Mubarak or a Gadhafi are going to offer more viable alternatives? Originally Posted by I B Hankering