howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
28 November 2010
20:5382175some astonishing stuff hittting the world's press tonight over leaked diplomatic documents.
the first ones that caught my eye were that saudi arabia wanted the americans to go to war in iran and president obama making it clear that he had no regard for europe and wanted to concentrate on the middle and far east.
lots more to come.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
28 November 2010
22:5182182howard,just looked on my web page,a lot of intresting stuff there.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
29 November 2010
08:0082194Yes the Saudis are concerned about Irans nuclear capability and who can blame them...Iran are both a powerful force and a powerful influence in the region but are not seen at this time in a positive way.
But Wikileaks are making the world a much more unstable place. In the beginning their revelations were quite an eye opener but yesteday on TV they said they have much more to come, on top of yesterdays revelations. So why are they doing it..why are they revealing all this stuff, private correspondences and so on. It puts lives in danger and in fact could put us all in danger. All this is achieving nothing good.
The internet is a new and powerful tool but alas it can be used wrongly as we know. My feeling is in the case of Wikileaks they are doing just that...using it wrongly. However, some people are interested in causing instability and subversion. But your overall view on this depends greatly on how you see the American role in the world. Are the Americans keeping us safe in our beds every night?
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
29 November 2010
08:1882198paulb,it makes america more transparnt.its nice to know what they think of us and other countrys around the world.
i know that the yanks have a dislike of the middle east,and i allways thought they treated us as lap dogs.
29 November 2010
09:1782202I saw the Guradian journalist on the news this morning - he appeared a smug and pleased-with-myself kind of guy happy to drip feed a panting nation some dangerous stuff (and some really boring stuff too by he look of it. Prince Andrew, apparently, sometimes behaves inappropriately. Who knew....). He actually said there would be some dangerous repercussions in the Middle East. Well done chaps.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
29 November 2010
09:4182210Totally irresponsible and dangerous.
Fortunately none of what I read was exactly a surprise but even so.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
29 November 2010
10:2882214If the leaks put the lives of people in danger then they are wrong
but when they show what others think behind closed doors they are justified. I would prefer to know what my 'friends' really thought so I would know how far to trust them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
29 November 2010
12:2782227Not just the Saudis now I hear, but other Arab nations as well were asking the Americans to bomb Iran. This is very revealing as one always assumes the Arabs to some extent as being a fairly united block, and one diplomatic expert Christopher Mayre, former GB Ambassador, speaking on R4 this morning admitted to being surprised by this. He didnt know. But again it shows how everyone seems to regard the US as the worlds police.
So yes, it is interesting to know all this...but...does it make the world a more stable place, the answer is no. If trigger happy Iran now know all this too, the situation could get very volatile in the gulf.
It's very unclear as to what Wikileaks motive is in all this.
29 November 2010
12:4082229Exactly - what does it achieve? Some things are best kept quiet, and people who protect us have to be safe and know that they can speak out without fear of exposure.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
29 November 2010
12:4282232Jan - do you really think that it helps the good working of government if a country's diplomats cannot express a view privately to their government about other heads of government?
There must be the scope for frank and honest exchanges between governments and their diplomats without fear that what is said will be broadcast far and wide.
These leaks are not so much damaging because of what is leaked but because of the fact of the leaks themselves.
29 November 2010
12:4982234Exactly. I am all for tranparency where possible, but some things are better - and safer - behind closed doors.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
29 November 2010
13:0382236rather than putting the blame at wikileaks, shouldn't countries be more security conscious about sensitive documents?
back to the iran/saudi issue, the shi'ite iranians are extremely miffed that the two main places of worship in islam are situated in sunni saudi arabia.
the saudis are very aware of this.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
29 November 2010
15:0182256You first point is 100% right Howard - the USA's security looks incompetent as a result.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
29 November 2010
15:1082257Bern, your spelling is atrocious. Everyone knows it's spelt Grauniad.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
29 November 2010
16:3282277i see that bahrain, dubai and the u.a.e. have all said the same, which will strengthen the iranian president's hand with his people.
he will love to be seen as the victim/martyr.
yemen have handed al qaeeda a bonus by being caught trying to get the americans to attack them then trying to claim the credit themselves.