Hard News: Wikileaks: The Cable Guys
790 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 26 27 28 29 30 … 32 Newer→ Last
-
Sacha, in reply to
as the US is the world's sole superpower
too funny
-
I couldn’t help noticing a rather large Chinese war ship, covered in big satellite dishes, when I was last there
Although that, or one like it, is a fairly frequent visitor to Auckland. I see it moored up on the downtown docks every so often.
-
I don’t know how fiji’s communications work, but I presume some goes via satelite
Nowadays (fixed telecoms) satellites are only used where there isn't a cable alternative. Fiji is on Southern Cross so it's likely that most of their traffic would go that way.
Communication with other Pacific nations may use a satellite link.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
-
The Chinese ship was here
but left... -
James Bremner, in reply to
What has taken a bit of a hit? This conspiratorial view of the US:
For the European and Latin American left, just as for the Chinese or Russian nationalist right, it has long been all but assumed that whatever the Americans say publicly about their foreign policy is simply a cover story for some sort of secret agenda. What that agenda is can vary, according to taste – the interests of a powerful company (Halliburton!), the subversion of a leftwing government, the weakening of a rival nation. But whatever the Americans’ secret agenda was held to be, they definitely had one – only the absurdly naive could believe otherwise.
Specific examples would be US policy regarding Iran, where the fever swamps of the left have for many years been positing that the US, and particularly the evilchimpybushhitler was and is just looking for an excuse to go bomb/invade Iran, when the leaked cables showed many Middle Eastern countries are pressuring the US to go bomb Iran's nuke program while the US is the reluctant party. Another specific theory that has taken a bit of a hit would be Israel which is of course asserted by some to be, if not in charge of US foreign policy, then close to it. The lack of dirt on US/Israel revealed by the leaks is a major surprise to many.
How do I define “the left?” Simon, have you heard of Michael Moore? He makes ludicrous left wing conspiratorial movies like F 911. If you need to be reminded of silly left wing conspiracies, just watch that movie again. More broadly the term “the left” as I understand it and use it describes progressives or liberals, those significantly to the left of the political center. In the US context Moore, Kos, and Pelosi would be lefties or progressives, but Bill Clinton and other moderate Dems would not and are not described as “lefties’.
Speaking of Michael Moore and the Cuban health system that you have spoken positively of in the past Simon, an unexpected absolute gem in the Wikileak saga is the revelation that Sicko was banned in Cuba because (from the Guardian no less):
Authorities feared footage of gleaming hospital in Michael Moore's Oscar-nominated film would provoke a popular backlash
But the memo reveals that when the film was shown to a group of Cuban doctors, some became so "disturbed at the blatant misrepresentation of healthcare in Cuba that they left the room".
Castro's government apparently went on to ban the film because, the leaked cable claims, it "knows the film is a myth and does not want to risk a popular backlash by showing to Cubans facilities that are clearly not available to the vast majority of them.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/17/wikileaks-cuba-banned-sicko
So we can say that another left conspiracy, or more accurately a grotesque, obscene, bald faced lie (especially if you are Cuban) that has be peddled by many and varied lefties like Moore, Danny Glover, Oliver Stone, Sean Penn etc, and you Simon, that the Cuban health system is just swell, has been debunked by Wikileaks.
Regarding the comments about the term “sole superpower”, which country has by far the largest economy and military in the world? That would be the US. At this point in time could and any countries seriously challenge the US militarily? No, not a chance. Now that might change over time, but at this point in time it is an accurate description. -
Oh dear James - shame! The Guardian has already posted the below clarifying that this was a standard CIA porky, exposed in WikiLeaks cables, which their own journalists failed to investigate properly!
See below -
www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/18/wikileaks-us-diplomats-story-cuba-banned-sicko-film?INTCMP=SRCH
www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/viva-wikileaks
-
Sacha, in reply to
The lack of dirt on US/Israel revealed by the leaks is a major surprise to many.
Not anyone who bothered paying attention to the security classifications of released material. Most of the really sensitive stuff (and Israel would surely qualify) is still firmly hidden.
-
Oh Fun a right whinger Hi James B
but at the risk of stating the obvious, most of those voices inside or outside the US inherently most suspicious and critical of the USA are of the left.
All those fundamentalist muslims will be very upset with you for dismissing them so.
But then its not numerical superiority you're after izeet.many and varied lefties like Moore, Danny Glover, Oliver Stone, Sean Penn etc
Name dropper!
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
At this point in time could and any countries seriously challenge the US militarily? No, not a chance. Now that might change over time, but at this point in time it is an accurate description.
The price of freedom is eternal chickenshit pointscoring.
-
And also James - (re the movie Sicko NOT being banned in Cuba after all!) see:-
www.newser.com/story/107864/sicko-was-not-banned-in-cuba.html
www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/us-diplomats-damned-ottawa-for-being-soft-on-cuban-abuses/article1842985/
www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/viva-wikileaks-sicko-was_b_798586.html
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Oh dear James - shame! The Guardian has already posted the below clarifying that this was a standard CIA porky, exposed in WikiLeaks cables, which their own journalists failed to investigate properly!
Which goes to show, again, that these communications shouldn't necessarily be regarded as factual.
I'd be careful about accepting Moore's account without question though (in fact, you could call that a general rule). As this 2007 Guardian story explains, Cuba achieves very well on a relatively tiny health budget -- largely through an inspired public healthy strategy -- but the shiny new hospitals of the kind Moore showed off in Sicko are for officials and foreigners. It seems that part of the cable in question is not inaccurate.
So perhaps we could stop declaring everything we don't like to be a CIA plot.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
has been debunked by Wikileaks.
Except as pointed out by Sacha the debunking has been debunked. It looks like US diplomats (you know James, the ones who have come out of all this so well) telling lies to ingratiate themselves with their masters. I think the same is obvious in the Wellington cables concerning our anti-Nukes policy.
Specific examples would be US policy regarding Iran, where the fever swamps of the left have for many years been positing that the US, and particularly the evilchimpybushhitler was and is just looking for an excuse to go bomb/invade Iran, when the leaked cables showed many Middle Eastern countries are pressuring the US to go bomb Iran's nuke program while the US is the reluctant party.
You, I assume, have access to the high level cables - the very secret stuff - that have not appeared yet (and are unlikely to). Either that or you are just parroting a few paragraphs of unsupported gibberish without quite knowing what they mean. Do you seriously believe that any such talk if it exists is transmitted at this level?
The lack of detail on Israel - the Israeli-US communications go through a completely separate channel not captured in the wikileaks releases. Surely you knew that? Maybe you have access to that as well?
The superpower measures are just odd. Firstly size of military. China has almost four times the number of men and women in army uniform and an airforce with more aircraft. They do that with a budget, even by the biggest estimates, of about 1/10 the US military budget - non of which they have the need to borrow from potential enemies. Even if you take into account reserves and non-Army manpower they have a bigger military - a million more than the US. Given that they easily beat a US force to a standstill in 1953 I'd put my money on the Sino side in any brawl, not that I think they desire it because they stack up fairly well in what they see as the more important business of money. And there, the world's biggest economy (by turnover) only remains standing because the Chinese (and others) push money into it. I'd refer you to the (right leaning) historian of some reputation, Niall Ferguson, on this and why the serving of debt is about to swamp the US economy in a fatal way. There several videos / interviews that go into this - make of them what you will.
Challenge the US military? The ragtag insurgency in Iraq did exactly that and your forces only managed to extract themselves by paying vast amounts of borrowed money to the Sunni insurgents and then handing them the reigns (where they remain to this day) in the regions where the fighting was strongest. The insurgents won.
Afghanistan is going well, no? The Taliban seem to have been 'seriously challenging' the US military and the billions and billions of (borrowed) dollars worth of hi-tech equipment for a decade.
I wonder how well the fuss in Spain, which the editor of El Pais says is probably the biggest story this newspaper has ever been involved with has reflected on the US there. Or the story on the European Human rights 'irritant' yesterday has been received across the Europe. How about the storing of cluster bombs in the UK in breach of UK law?
I don't think that US diplomats as a mass have, at least to my eyes, ever, despite the drivel in that FT piece you've attached yourself to, been perceived as uniformly evil, incompetent or part of some grand scheme to pervert the planet. The cables confirm that - but neither do they remove the grave disquiet around the world, which, if polling is to be believed, is very widely held, over decades of US human rights abuses and a nation at war, often of its own creation, continuously since I was born. I'd argue that such disquiet (I'm thinking of the likes of my own parents - National Party voting/members since 1945 with a military background) is pretty mainstream and centrist.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
So perhaps we could stop declaring everything we don't like to be a CIA plot.
I don't think that's the case but there is enough evidence, indisputable stuff, of CIA involvement in the odd international incident that such should not be dismissed either. There is a body count.
-
Steve Parks, in reply to
has been debunked by Wikileaks.
Except as pointed out by Sacha the debunking has been debunked.
For the record, it was Seriatim who made that point.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I don't think that's the case but there is enough evidence, indisputable stuff, of CIA involvement in the odd international incident that such should not be dismissed either. There is a body count.
Oh, for fuck's sake Simon. Post hoc ergo propter hoc much?
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
Post hoc ergo propter hoc much?
A confusion of conflation on your part, Craig. You seem to be on endless loop in this thread.
Perhaps I am too, but you seem to offer some company.
But to be fair, I hadn't read the line Russell was quoting. CIA - no. Some junior diplomat scoring points - yes.
The idea that this cable was a CIA plot is just silly.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I don’t think that’s the case but there is enough evidence, indisputable stuff, of CIA involvement in the odd international incident that such should not be dismissed either. There is a body count.
A predisposition is not evidence though. It’s very possible there was a strategy to try and rebut Moore’s claims, but it’s worth bearing in mind that some of the rebuttal was correct.
And, of course, there’s pretty much any discussion in blog comments (not here, thankfully) about the rape allegations against Assange. Even after the police evidence has been published in some detail, even after Assange’s own Wikileaks colleagues have told journalists it is not a honeytrap or anything like it, people queue up to recite the same limited set of “facts” about the case. (And then of course, there’s John Pilger, in full Chris Trotter mode, on “the false tribunes of feminism”. WTF?)
Under this column, someone even accuses The Guardian of “persecuting” Assange. Yes, The Guardian: the paper whose editors put themselves on the line for Wikileaks, whose innovative work with Wikileaks data has shown there are new ways to tell stories. It’s crazy and unpleasant and speaks of a cult of personality.
They’re turning into the people they think they despise – only this time it’s Sweden they’re hating on, rather than the surrender monkeys of France. If this has been a CIA plot to make swathes of the “liberal” Left look hateful and conspiratorial, it’s been a brilliant success.
Again, that Guardian editorial I linked to upthread. It embraces a comparison between Assange and John Wilkes, who championed a free press in the 18th Century, but whose sexual activiies became news:
It is impossible to make judgments about what happened in private circumstances: that will be for the Swedish courts eventually to decide. But it is wrong that the notion that the allegations are simply a conspiracy or smear should go unexamined. Having been given access to the relevant Swedish police papers – including the womens’ claims and Assange’s rebuttal – we have felt it right to present a brief summary of the nature of the complaints, together with Assange’s response. It is unusual for a sex offence case to be presented outside of the judicial process in such a manner, but then it is unheard of for a defendant, his legal team and supporters to so vehemently and publicly attack women at the heart of a rape case.
As with Wilkes, none of this should have any bearing on the wider question of Assange’s role in bringing the cables into the open.
I must say, I deeply admire The Guardian’s approach to these matters.
-
Specific examples would be US policy regarding Iran, where the fever swamps of the left have for many years been positing that the US, and particularly the evilchimpybushhitler was and is just looking for an excuse to go bomb/invade Iran, when the leaked cables showed many Middle Eastern countries are pressuring the US to go bomb Iran's nuke program while the US is the reluctant party.
I'm partway through a book which quotes a senior adviser saying that Cheney was desperately looking through intelligence for an excuse to get into Iraq.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I’m partway through a book which quotes a senior adviser saying that Cheney was desperately looking through intelligence for an excuse to get into Iraq.
No! Really?
But yes. I think there's enough evidence now to establish that the making of the case for Iraq does amount to an actual conspiracy.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
I must say, I deeply admire The Guardian's approach to these matters.
I agree with that. They've become the online newspaper of record of recent, even before the leaks. And they, and The Independent, are not only even handed but often eager to bend far further than their critics give them credit for. Both John Bolton and Sarah Palin have had OpEds in the Guardian this year.
but it's worth bearing in mind that some of the rebuttal was correct
The central point in the cable was that the movie had been banned to protect the myth. This seems to be completely untrue.
One, too, could argue that given 60 years of quite brutal sanctions, the Cuban health system - and the care they offer freely to much of the third world - is in surprisingly good shape.
Under this column, someone even accuses The Guardian of "persecuting" Assange.
I make a point of not reading the comments on newspaper pages. I'm not sure doing so adds anything to my life, my understanding or my mood. Not doing so adds to all three.
They're turning into the people they think they despise
I'm not sure many of them weren't already - see my comment above. The Guardian comments threads have been hard work for a very long time as has many of its CIF columns. However, I appreciate that they give the space.
-
It looks like US diplomats (you know James, the ones who have come out of all this so well) telling lies to ingratiate themselves with their masters. I think the same is obvious in the Wellington cables concerning our anti-Nukes policy.
The truth if any particular cable is proportional to how much it supports pre-exising political views.
Either that or you are just parroting a few paragraphs of unsupported gibberish without quite knowing what they mean. Do you seriously believe that any such talk if it exists is transmitted at this level?
Saudi Arabia urging the US to bomb Iran was one of the first cables released.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
Saudi Arabia urging the US to bomb Iran was one of the first cables released.
Thanks Neil, but I think you rather miss the point on that. High level ME communications (or any high level communication) is not to be found in these cables.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
One, too, could argue that given 60 years of quite brutal sanctions, the Cuban health system – and the care they offer freely to much of the third world – is in surprisingly good shape.
Yes. At a quick glance at the figures, it seems like they do that by virtue of the kind of public health strategising that's hard to do in a fully private system. The latest drug or machine that goes ping isn't the be-all and end-all.
-
High level ME communications (or any high level communication) is not to be found in these cables.
so when the cables show the US in a good light, as James pointed out with Iran, then that can't possibly be true because there's the really secret stuff we don't know about.
Which of course could only show the US in a bad light.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.