US diplomatic cables released

[Phantasee]

I think I know why there's nothing meaty out there yet: Wikileak's own website (thanks Xisi) says that only 220/251,287 cables have been released.

I wonder if he's following the camwhore route and not showing any more until he gets more donations?

[Xisiqomelir]

I think I know why there's nothing meaty out there yet: Wikileak's own website (thanks Xisi) says that only 220/251,287 cables have been released.

I wonder if he's following the camwhore route and not showing any more until he gets more donations?

Topics:

Today: "ratings" of foreign politicians
Tuesday: North/South Koreak, Guantanamo
Wednesday: Pakistan, anti-piracy missions in Djibouti
Thursday: Relationship US-Canada
Friday: corruption in Afghanistan
Saturday: Yemen
Sunday: China

Thursday is it! Here come the megatons!

[Thanas]

*snip rant*

Quite frankly, I don't much care for you first saying the US are no special perpetrators of reprehensible things, then trying to support that argument by bringing up deeds from dictatorships and eventually equating letting the USA refuel on German soil (which we got an agreement about due to some treaties after WWII) to actually torturing people. You should take a step back and think this over clearly. No other nation in the EU has opened up a Gulag like Guantanamo. The mere continuing existence of it and of the practice of rendition does indeed make the USA "special" among civilized nations.

As pointed out, this could make international diplomacy more difficult and war more likely - is it really worth getting this information sooner, that you'd risk a war or two breaking out?

Yeah, I am sure war is going to break out over this. Like I said, take a step back and calm down before going off your rockers again.

[MarshalPurnell]

Oh, so you meant 'the paranoid'. You could have just said so!

PS mad props for the outragous strawman of Thanas's post, by the way. You look really clever now.

Oh man... I laughed so hard at the implication the US improves 'human rights and the spread of liberal institutions'. :V

It will exacerbate the problems in the Middle East, in Korea, and between the US and China. None of those are good for anyone with even the slightest sense, though I shall of course excuse you from understanding that for lacking such sense.

Thanas made the claim "The US is currently the only western democracy which tortures and flaunts international law and human rights so outrageously." That is a false claim, disproved by only a single counterexample, the French Republic. There are of course others within the European Union that also violate human rights in more or less similar ways; and one merely has to go back to the 1980s to implicate even more in accused abuses of the rights of terrorists. He did not say that Europe represented an alternative, but as the only other Western democratic force with anything like the potential to exercise the scale of influence and power as the US it was certainly implied.

[Kane Starkiller]

Something about missile defence in Europe: link
Nothing new here either, basically they switched from GBI to SM-3 because Iran was rapidly developing a large number of short and medium range missiles rather than small number of ICBMs.

Talks with French policymakers over various subjects: link
French on Russia:

Galharague described Russia as a state with the
trappings of democracy but without any mechanisms for the
public to influence government decision-making. "The root of
the problem is the regime," he said. Presidential advisor
Loras added Russian leaders lacked sufficient, long-range
vision for their country and instead, focused on a six-month
time horizon and their business interests. Galharague

PARIS 00001254 003 OF 004


described the French strategy as finding a balance between
treating Russia as if it is too important or treating it like
an enemy. The French observed that some in Russia have
concluded their interests are served by keeping the west
"tied down in an Afghanistan quagmire" and by sustaining the
status quo in Iran. He elaborated that a solution that
thwarts Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions and restores Iran as
a normal member of the international community could
undermine Russian regional and energy interests. Loras noted
of late the Russians have been unhelpful on Iran. Moreover,
they appear to have concluded they can pocket a projected
U.S. decision to scale back or abandon the Bush
administration's Missile Defense initiative without paying
any cost.

¶9. (C) Looking ahead on the energy front, Loras predicted
that substantial Russian under-investment in energy
extraction infrastructure was such that Russia would not be
able to meet European demand in four or five years. He
observed this created an opportunity for Russia to have even
more leverage over a Europe that has not prepared to
diversify its energy supplies.

Talks about Russia-Georgia:

Levitte stressed the importance of
maintaining the Geneva process, while noting that it may take
a generation before the Russian public will be able to accept
their loss of influence, from Poland and the Baltics to
Ukraine and Georgia. Unfortunately, the Russian tendency is
to view "good neighbors" as totally submissive subordinates.
On the other hand, Paris is closely watching Medvedev, who is
more frequently taking public stances in opposition to Putin.
Medvedev is more open to the occidental powers and more open
to modernization and rule of law issues that Russia must
face. A/S Gordon observed that President Obama had spent a
good deal of time with Medvedev on his trip to Russia, and
had specifically targeted Russian youth in his public
outreach event. In his meeting with Galharague and others,
A/S Gordon noted that the U.S. pursues a policy to support
Georgia in the face of Russian pressure without encouraging
President Saakashvili to act in ways that are unhelpful.

French on Venezuela:

(C) Levitte observed that Venezuelan President Hugo
Chavez is "crazy" and said that even Brazil wasn't able to
support him anymore. Unfortunately, Chavez is taking one of
the richest countries in Latin America and turning it into
another Zimbabwe.

This could be called a little more spicy in terms of language and frankness but doesn't really change the underlying relations France has with those countries.

[Bakustra]

*snip-snip*

Wait, what? Did the modifier "so outrageously" become meaningless recently or something? The US is pretty unique in that we are so blatant about it. If I said that Russia was the one of the few nations to so outrageously commit assassinations, would you start whining about how other nations do it and ignore the modifier as well? If you didn't, would it be for nationalistic reasons? You also seem to assume that the US is a force for democracy in the world. Pardon me for assuming that you must be dishonest with this statement, because you seem otherwise intelligent.

*stuff about la belle France*

Levitte seems to be somewhat hypocritical towards Russia if he accepts the concept of a national sphere of influence, or of a French sphere of influence in Africa.

[SirNitram]

Something about missile defence in Europe: link
Nothing new here either, basically they switched from GBI to SM-3 because Iran was rapidly developing a large number of short and medium range missiles rather than small number of ICBMs.

I'm curious about why they suspected Iran would go for ICBMs. Short and medium cover their country, plus most everywhere they'd like to hold hostage. 'You want to bomb us, US? Okay, we level the oil fields all around us.'

[Kane Starkiller]

Meeting between French and US ministers of defence on ABM, Iran on 8 February 2010: link

E.O. 12598 DECL: 02/12/20

A little sooner than you expect actually.

On NATO:

Morin
also stated his belief that NATO needed to bring some clarity to its
area of operation so that NATO did not end up extending to the Pacific.
He added that, in his view, extending the Alliance to Georgia would
weaken Article 5.

On ABM:

(S/NF) Responding to SecDef's discussion of MD, Morin asked why
there was a need to shift from theater to population defense. SecDef
said the systems the U.S. was deploying have broader applications. For
example the THAAD system, which the U.S. had deployed to Hawaii as a
measure against North Korean threat, protects both the theater and the
population. Gates offered the Aegis ship-borne SM-3, which was used to
shoot down a defunct satellite, as a second example of a system that
could also have broader applications and deter Iran from holding us
hostage by threatening missile launches.

On Russian objections to ABM and relationship with Iran:

(S/NF) Recalling that Russian Prime Minister Putin once told him
Iran was Russia's greatest threat, SecDef noted that Russia could plug
into the new system. SecDef highlighted two Russian objections to the
former system: first, the radar in the Czech Republic would have been
so powerful that it could see into Russia; second, Russia believed that
the three-stage Ground-Based Interceptor could have been converted
easily to an offensive weapon. The SM-3 missiles in the new approach
can only be defensive in nature, however. For these reasons, the U.S.
believed partnering with Russia is once again potentially possible.

On Israel strike on Iran:

(S/NF) Morin asked SecDef if he believed Israel had the capability
to strike Iran without U.S. support. SecDef responded that he didn't
know if they would be successful, but that Israel could carry out the
operation. SecDef told Morin that he believed a conventional strike by
any nation would only delay Iranian plans by one to three years, while
unifying the Iranian people to be forever embittered against the
attacker.

On French Mistral sale to Russia:

(S/NF) Morin told SecDef pointedly that he had pushed hard for the
sale. He conceded that it was indeed a warship for power projection.
But Morin asked rhetorically how we can tell Russia we desire
partnership but then not trust them. Morin told SecDef that he
understood the U.S. position on considering Central and East European
Allies' concerns about the perceived threat from Russia. Morin argued,
however, that this single ship would not make any difference with
respect to Russian capabilities, as Russia's naval production ability
was severely degraded.

[MarshalPurnell]

*snip-snip*

Wait, what? Did the modifier "so outrageously" become meaningless recently or something? The US is pretty unique in that we are so blatant about it. If I said that Russia was the one of the few nations to so outrageously commit assassinations, would you start whining about how other nations do it and ignore the modifier as well? If you didn't, would it be for nationalistic reasons? You also seem to assume that the US is a force for democracy in the world. Pardon me for assuming that you must be dishonest with this statement, because you seem otherwise intelligent.

It is pretty damned meaningless in any sort of moral or practical sense. Not that French activities in Africa are "low profile" save that they rarely if ever make the nightly news. Ditto with the rampant discrimination against Roma in certain parts of the EU. And of course Europe's record of dealing with domestic terrorist threats, from as late as the 1980s and even into the 1990s, is not exactly spotless.

And "force for democracy" is a pointless term. States exist in the real world, not an ideal plane of abstract concept. Raison d'Etat will be resorted to as needed to further their interests and invariably is. No nation has ever sacrificed anything for abstract principle, and if it has ever appeared to do so it either had no choice or it did serve their longer interests to do so. Many of the completely inoffensive states of Europe, like Sweden and Belgium and so on, exist under an umbrella of security protection and economic structure provided by the United States and thus have no need to engage in dubious actions to create either- and would lack the power to do so anyway. Those European states with the power to contribute to such, like France and Britain, or which have suffered more social instability, have hands just as stained as those of the US and have pursued the same policies and actions in different times; or, as with the French in Africa, continue to do so or even go one better when it comes to cynical power politics.

That said the world order created by the United States is inherently friendly toward the spread of democracy and liberalism in areas where that serves the American interest. Of course the US also props up dictators in areas like the Middle East in the name of national interest, not that one could expect democracy and liberalism to go hand-in-hand as the Iranian Revolution proved rather decisively. (Expect comment about Mossadegh, ignorance of actual circumstances around his removal and the structure of Iranian society in response.)

In any case one can strongly contrast American willingness to see democratic movements prevail, even at the cost of a loss of influence, with say... the Brezhnev Doctrine. American dominance will not be replaced with European influence, much less a utopian world order governed by law and courts under the UN. It will be replaced by more ruthless players still. And in the short term the damage this does to American diplomatic positions in very sensitive parts of the world will make things worse for everyone, since no one benefits from more instability in the Middle East or on the Korean peninsula.

[Bakustra]

Nations never sacrifice anything for abstract principles? That's one of the things you assholes love to spout out while ignoring that the US sacrifices a hell of a lot for the abstract principle of hegemony. You also love to talk about how ruthless the Chinese and Russians are, in order to pressure some fraction of the educated into supporting a never-ending spiral of military-industrial-intelligence domination over the country in order to frantically stave off any sort of decay of our power and influence. Frankly, you're a pack of madmen and a few madwomen, trying to hold back the tide of history with hands and feet.

I'm curious as to how you can say that a) a revolution hijacked by religious leaders constitutes a clearly democratic rejection of liberalism, b) that the US is blameless in the downfall of Mossadegh or that his fall was a good thing because CREEPING SOCIALISM or similar garbage and c) why you fixate upon Iran rather than any of the many other places where we destroyed democracy, often because of abstract ideologies rather than any sort of cold self-interest that you pseudo-intellects have derived from the theory of political supermen.

You also don't show how this leads to instability, nor did you respond to my earlier post, directed at both you and Broomstick:

This is hilarious, to be honest. The idea that international diplomacy would be shut down by the revelation that the US is essentially a cowardly bully, like the majority of large nations, is ludicrous at best. If there is a general understanding among diplomats that this is how diplomacy is conducted, then there is no problem with other national governments, since they do the same thing and understand the rules of the game. If this is failed to be understood by the populace of these nations, or of the US, then tough shit. These people are part of the political elites, and this is just chickens coming home to roost, finally. They decided to wreck educational systems, they decided that ignorance was better than knowledge, they demanded that we trust them completely and with no real guarantees, and they blew it.

But if it would harm international relations, then that suggests that this isn't business as usual, or rather that this wouldn't be accepted in other nations as normal. I challenge the people criticizing WikiLeaks with this: do you really support hiding the fact that the US is a bully amongst nations, a coward unwilling to deal with its self-inflicted problems, from its population? Do you really believe that the balance between openness and security lies at the point where no significant fraction of the voterbase really understands how we treat other nations?

[MarshalPurnell]

Blah blah hyperbole buzzwords blah blah

Do you seriously want to argue the Russians and Chinese have not behaved more ruthlessly than the United States, and with far less respect for human rights? Because that's just a stupid foundation to build your criticism of American foreign policy on. And if you want to discredit my characterization of international politics, find a counterexample.

PROTIP: Influence and power over other nations are very concrete things.

As far as the US and democracy overseas goes, it has some failings. Rather less so than the alternatives, which most certainly were not some peaceful federation of law-abiding entities. What law indeed in the absence of any enforcement mechanism except the stronger military? The end result is still that the world order centered around American power is more hospitable to improvements in political rights than not. To expect anything more would be absurd.

As far as damage goes, this is so utterly elementary I am unable to believe you are making a serious inquiry.

Leaders who spoke to the US candidly will feel betrayed by the leaks. They may very well be put in political jeopardy or even physical danger in some countries. General diplomatic practice is hidden from internal politics by a veneer of customary lies. Strip away the lies and internal politics can exploit leaks and appearances. Friends of the United States will be upset and rendered vulnerable to domestic enemies. No one will trust the US to keep things secret and that will limit their willingness to deal directly and forthrightly when that is most needed. That damages ongoing negotiations around trouble-spots like Iran and North Korea, harming efforts to resolve those issues through diplomacy. Really, only a complete moron could be unable to see how this isn't a serious problem; but I will credit you with that rather than direct duplicity in your posting.

[Broomstick]

*snip rant*

Quite frankly, I don't much care for you first saying the US are no special perpetrators of reprehensible things, then trying to support that argument by bringing up deeds from dictatorships and eventually equating letting the USA refuel on German soil (which we got an agreement about due to some treaties after WWII) to actually torturing people.

The German government knows about those flights. "It's in the treaty" is no real excuse at all, no justification for pretending Germany has no part in it. At the very least protest loud and long. Sure, not as bad as directly torturing people, but it's still supporting the action. Stop pretending either Europe or Germany has some virginal purity - which is what you did. If you had claimed that the US is simply dirtier I would have no qualms with that but you claimed your country had no part in this sort of thing, which is untrue. If Germany is so virtuous why aren't there people protesting every time one of those "torture flights" refuels? Or at least whenever the public finds out it has happened, as I expect it's all kept very hush-hush when it actually is occurring.

You don't care for my saying that? Alright, everyone has an opinion. Apparently we disagree. Noted.

You should take a step back and think this over clearly. No other nation in the EU has opened up a Gulag like Guantanamo. The mere continuing existence of it and of the practice of rendition does indeed make the USA "special" among civilized nations.

Right... and Germans are interrogating people in Uzbekistan under suspicious circumstances so they can continue to claim no such thing happens on German soil. According to Amnesty International, not according to me, and not according to the US. Just thought you'd appreciate it coming from a third party. Or maybe you do it that way so you can claim you don't do such things, wag your fingers at the barbarians, then turn around and say pssst... we have another person to interrogate... like Saudi Arabia talking about how all the Muslims are great friends then asking the US to bomb Iran on their behalf. Or maybe you don't. We don't know because WikiLeaks hasn't downloaded and broadcast a pile of shit from your country. Yet.

You're so busy trying to point out how awful my nation is you can't see you're standing in mud yourself. Again, I am in no way claiming my country is better, I am in no way denying the US does awful things. You act as if getting me to admit something (none of which I've denied) somehow absolves your country of sin. It doesn't. YOU are the one in denial. Get down off your pedestal, Thanas. Your country isn't perfect, far from it.

As pointed out, this could make international diplomacy more difficult and war more likely - is it really worth getting this information sooner, that you'd risk a war or two breaking out?

Yeah, I am sure war is going to break out over this. Like I said, take a step back and calm down before going off your rockers again.

This was done to harm US foreign diplomacy. Bravo. Let's make international diplomacy harder. You truly don't see that as at least a potential risk?

[Broomstick]

*snip-snip*

Wait, what? Did the modifier "so outrageously" become meaningless recently or something? The US is pretty unique in that we are so blatant about it. If I said that Russia was the one of the few nations to so outrageously commit assassinations, would you start whining about how other nations do it and ignore the modifier as well?

Yeah, actually I would. Israel has a pretty long record of assassinating people in foreign countries, for example, and they're pretty up front about it, even proud. And the US puts prices on the heads of foreign nationals. Granted, I don't think anyone else has used polonium for killing people, but while a pretty flashy way to kill someone it's hardly the only assassination performed of late.

Maybe you wanted to select a different example?

If you didn't, would it be for nationalistic reasons?

I doubt it. I'm not Russian.

You also seem to assume that the US is a force for democracy in the world. Pardon me for assuming that you must be dishonest with this statement, because you seem otherwise intelligent.

Maybe the problem is that democracy can't be imposed by force... or at least not effectively.

[Broomstick]

Something about missile defence in Europe: link
Nothing new here either, basically they switched from GBI to SM-3 because Iran was rapidly developing a large number of short and medium range missiles rather than small number of ICBMs.

I'm curious about why they suspected Iran would go for ICBMs. Short and medium cover their country, plus most everywhere they'd like to hold hostage. 'You want to bomb us, US? Okay, we level the oil fields all around us.'

Perhaps the concern was the Iran might want to bomb the US. They have viewed us as an enemy since 1979 or so. For that they need an ICBM if they're going to do it by missile.

[Bakustra]

See, the difference is that Russia and China don't invade other nations, nor do they claim a moral high ground. I would prefer that a nation that teaches its citizens that it is the only free nation on Earth live up to some sort of moral standard, or else stop lying to its citizens about how it does things for reasons of right and wrong. Either justify the fucking high horse or get off it.

I provided a counterexample. The US has sought domination, the hegemony your types so love, over the nations of the Earth. In so doing, we have harmed our reputation and built a great deal of animosity amongst other nations. It would seem to be in our interest to avoid pissing people off needlessly, but then again, people like you tend to define our interests in such a way that we can never actually take actions against our interest. It's almost as though you twist facts to support theories.

Your argument ignores my actual post, but well done on that. Golf clap, everybody! But what you have said is interesting. It suggests that your ideal democratic governments are built upon ignorance and lies. Well, I cannot help but support the overthrow of this regime, in part or in whole, and can only hope for an honest age to come. You inadvertently agreed that this is not business as usual, so thank you for answering.

*snip-snip*

Wait, what? Did the modifier "so outrageously" become meaningless recently or something? The US is pretty unique in that we are so blatant about it. If I said that Russia was the one of the few nations to so outrageously commit assassinations, would you start whining about how other nations do it and ignore the modifier as well?

Yeah, actually I would. Israel has a pretty long record of assassinating people in foreign countries, for example, and they're pretty up front about it, even proud. And the US puts prices on the heads of foreign nationals. Granted, I don't think anyone else has used polonium for killing people, but while a pretty flashy way to kill someone it's hardly the only assassination performed of late.

Maybe you wanted to select a different example?

If you didn't, would it be for nationalistic reasons?

I doubt it. I'm not Russian.

You also seem to assume that the US is a force for democracy in the world. Pardon me for assuming that you must be dishonest with this statement, because you seem otherwise intelligent.

Maybe the problem is that democracy can't be imposed by force... or at least not effectively.

Thank you for continuing to be a dolt. Notice that I said one of? That was to guard against nitpicks, but I forgot to make it idiot-proof! I'll know better next time.

Maybe the problem is that the US only rarely tries to foster democracy at all, and when we do so we do it in such a poor way that it looks like we're not even trying. Maybe the problem is that people like you shield the alphabet-soup agencies for some unfathomable reason. Maybe the problem is that said agencies are inherently anti-democratic.

[Broomstick]

See, the difference is that Russia and China don't invade other nations

China invading Tibet? Ring a bell? How about Russia rolling tanks into Czechoslovakia? How about when the Russians invaded Afghanistan?

Oh, you mean in the last couple years. Let's just forget that the Taliban in Afghanistan were sheltering those directly responsible for an actual attack on US soil - or are you going to claim that the US doesn't have a right to defend its citizens? Yes, yes, we've all said numerous times Iraq was a mistake. Some of us were saying that before it even happened.

Wait, what? Did the modifier "so outrageously" become meaningless recently or something? The US is pretty unique in that we are so blatant about it. If I said that Russia was the one of the few nations to so outrageously commit assassinations, would you start whining about how other nations do it and ignore the modifier as well?

Yeah, actually I would. Israel has a pretty long record of assassinating people in foreign countries, for example, and they're pretty up front about it, even proud. And the US puts prices on the heads of foreign nationals. Granted, I don't think anyone else has used polonium for killing people, but while a pretty flashy way to kill someone it's hardly the only assassination performed of late.

Maybe you wanted to select a different example?

If you didn't, would it be for nationalistic reasons?

I doubt it. I'm not Russian.

You also seem to assume that the US is a force for democracy in the world. Pardon me for assuming that you must be dishonest with this statement, because you seem otherwise intelligent.

Maybe the problem is that democracy can't be imposed by force... or at least not effectively.

Thank you for continuing to be a dolt. Notice that I said one of? That was to guard against nitpicks, but I forgot to make it idiot-proof! I'll know better next time.

Maybe the problem is that the US only rarely tries to foster democracy at all, and when we do so we do it in such a poor way that it looks like we're not even trying. Maybe the problem is that people like you shield the alphabet-soup agencies for some unfathomable reason. Maybe the problem is that said agencies are inherently anti-democratic.

Let me phrase it differently - no, I don't think Russia's assassinations are "outrageous" in the sense of being unusual or of unusual quantity. If you mean "outrageous" in the sense of murder being a reprehensible act, sure, it's outrageous.

And you should know by now that nit-picks are standard on this board.

[Bakustra]

See, the Chinese considered Tibet part of their country, so they would not consider it an invasion, especially since the Dalai Lama seceded following the Republic of China's efforts to reintegrate Tibet in 1910, and he only held power while China was embroiled in civil and external war. No nation recognized him as an independent country either during this time, so it is doubtful as to whether it was an invasion at all. China would not, out of the blue, attempt to annex India or even Nepal.

The USSR, meanwhile, established Czechoslovakia as a puppet buffer state against the West. Had the US and Western Europe not been so ideologically committed to crushing communism, it is quite, quite possible that greater autonomy and liberalization would have been permitted, especially after the death of Stalin, which is when the Prague Spring happened. Indeed, the opinions of the pro-interventionists in the USSR were that the reforms would have weakened the Warsaw Pact, not that "The Czechs are ours, now and forevermore!".

Meanwhile, the Soviets were invited into Afghanistan by the ruling government, which had established itself without overt Soviet assistance. This is ignoring that the USSR and Russia are distinct bodies with distinct attitudes as well.

To contrast, the US invaded Grenada and Iraq, attempted to depose a legitimate government in Nicaragua, and did do so in Chile. There are other deprivations, but you really cannot say that Russia and China carry out more invasions than the US does.

[Omega18]

But if it would harm international relations, then that suggests that this isn't business as usual, or rather that this wouldn't be accepted in other nations as normal. I challenge the people criticizing WikiLeaks with this: do you really support hiding the fact that the US is a bully amongst nations, a coward unwilling to deal with its self-inflicted problems, from its population? Do you really believe that the balance between openness and security lies at the point where no significant fraction of the voterbase really understands how we treat other nations?

This of course is rather nonsensical and stupid as stated.

To repeat what should be pretty obvious, one aspect of private diplomatic communications is frank evaluations of other political leaders. If newly elected Prime Minister X of a friendly county clearly is an idiot whose judgment can't be trusted for anything based on an ambassador's personal dealings with him, (assuming this judgment is accurate) than this is in fact important information the US government should know. If he is afraid to communicate this information for fear it could be leaked, this could lead to negative consequences down the road. (I.E. it could actually lead to a war since the US government made the mistake of trusting the Prime Minister's judgment on a particular issues.) A significant element of what WikiLeaks leaked was this sort of information. (Avoiding these sorts of observations becoming public is a basic aspect of diplomacy between countries.)

Even if its known in practice that this information gets communicated, leaders are still human and being angry at the US over actually learning what was said about them in private could affect their judgment and the decisions they make. In some cases this is not about about embarrassing the US as all, but embarrassing foreign countries such as with the revelation Saudi Arabia wanted the US to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Fair or not, the Saudi King may be angry at the US for failing to prevent this info from being leaked. The issue is the German Prime Minister or the Saudi King is if they are still angry at the US, in the future they may a decision which is not in either countries best interest because they want to get at the US at a certain level and don't want to take a helpful action. In plenty of cases this could be an action that isn't in the world's best interest either. (The cables apparently have information about how Kim Jong-Il has epilepsy, if anger about this information being leaked causes North Korea's leader to make a decision which actually leads to a full scale war on the Korean peninsula again, obviously that's clearly not in the world's best interest.)

You appear as noted to be taking a rather irrationally extreme anti-US position which simply ignores some basic facts.

[Bakustra]

So? That ignores much of what I was saying, and besides, if this happens and yet nobody will acknowledge it nor be able to handle it if it's leaked, no wonder the world is in such a crappy shape. We're run by motherfucking prima donnas who have no perspective nor ability to handle critique. That's something that probably should be exposed to the public eye, in hopes of getting somebody with a little thicker skin in office, then. You basically insist that this is the best of all possible worlds without even the comic charisma of Doctor Pangloss.

[Omega18]

See, the Chinese considered Tibet part of their country, so they would not consider it an invasion, especially since the Dalai Lama seceded following the Republic of China's efforts to reintegrate Tibet in 1910, and he only held power while China was embroiled in civil and external war. No nation recognized him as an independent country either during this time, so it is doubtful as to whether it was an invasion at all. China would not, out of the blue, attempt to annex India or even Nepal.

In the case of India, this may very well be due to the practical problems with doing so. In the case of Nepal, to a great extent along with geographic issues it may well have been to avoid a full scale conflict with India, especially after the Sino-Soviet split with the USSR's reasonably good relations with India. (An obvious reason China may have avoided invading Nepal earlier was the need to absorb Tibet to a degree first with its historical ties taking priority along the the calculation of a lower risk of serious foreign intervention, especially if powers like the US and UK were working with India.)

China did invade Vietnam the most recently in 1979, and while we can debate their intentions we certainly can't rule out China intended to seize at least some territory if they found Vietnamese resistance weak enough. For the record, you can at least technically argue the Us intervention in Vietnam was entirely about supporting the ruling government of South Vietnam. In reality, there are plenty of cases in Latin America where the USSR was trying to give support to Communist revolutionary movements at least indirectly through Cuba. (You can to a significant degree argue the distinction was that the US was generally more successful in its efforts than the USSR was.)

[Omega18]

So? That ignores much of what I was saying, and besides, if this happens and yet nobody will acknowledge it nor be able to handle it if it's leaked, no wonder the world is in such a crappy shape. We're run by motherfucking prima donnas who have no perspective nor ability to handle critique. That's something that probably should be exposed to the public eye, in hopes of getting somebody with a little thicker skin in office, then. You basically insist that this is the best of all possible worlds without even the comic charisma of Doctor Pangloss.

You apparently are dealing with the desire for some sort of utopia where people are perfect.

In real life people are human and "honey you look like a fat cow in that dress" is not an acceptable answer even if accurate. Part of diplomacy is absolutely about being able to honestly give these observations to a country's leaders in private. I'm not saying that this is the best of all possible worlds, just that leaking all this information without any selectivity at is really indefensible unless you believe the US is some sort of almost entirely evil nation which should be hurt in almost any way that is possible to manage.

[Drone]

So? That ignores much of what I was saying, and besides, if this happens and yet nobody will acknowledge it nor be able to handle it if it's leaked, no wonder the world is in such a crappy shape. We're run by motherfucking prima donnas who have no perspective nor ability to handle critique. That's something that probably should be exposed to the public eye, in hopes of getting somebody with a little thicker skin in office, then. You basically insist that this is the best of all possible worlds without even the comic charisma of Doctor Pangloss.

Who exactly do you think has a big enough ego to honestly believe that they deserve to run a country? Egomanical primadonnas. You seem to be extremely naive about the way the world actually works, and handwaving away Omega's post reinforces that.

[B5B7]

The Americans, meanwhile, suggested that accepting more prisoners would be “a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe".

For decades USA has been naive in the foreign relations sphere. This is exemplified in this quote. Firstly, the idea that a European nation is like some savage island where you can give some natives a few beads to make them somehow more influential to the other tribes on the island. Secondly, Brussels, the capital of the EU is in Belgium - that is much greater prominence. This also raises the question as to any meaningfulness one can apply to the term "attain prominence".

Another problem USA has is that it is great at gathering information, not so good at intelligently assessing the relevant bits of that information. Also, of course, everything they (the government and the power elite) gather is processed through a heavily ideological prism, so what comes out often bears little relationship to reality.

[Guardsman Bass]

I'll have to second Kane - none of this stuff so far seems pretty surprising. Arab leadership wants the US to take on Iran? It's not like that hasn't come up before. US talking shit about and recording shit said by other countries' politicians? Embarrassing, but not exactly surprising - I suspect most countries do that in their own circles.

[Shroom Man 777]

This stuff is awesome. I support Wikileaks' war on terror, and their effort to bring freedom of information, and data democracy, to the axis of evil. You're either with Wikileaks, or against Wikileaks in the struggle against terror. Wikileaks has just shown great support towards its European allies and has aided in defending them, and in providing them with reliable and accurate intelligence on weapons of mass deception. May the Europeans join Wikileaks in its war, and may freedom and democracy and truth be victorious, while those who oppose and hate freedom, democracy and truth be cast aside by the shock and awe of Wilikeaks' decisive campaign, the Operation American Freedom. God bless Wikileaks. God bless us all.