i think it's great. and i am not surprised that the US gov thinks the german foreign minister is an idiot - cause he is. lol

Berlin Efforts to Prevent Iraq Invasion
Classified Papers Prove German Warnings to Bush
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...730979,00.html

...

Don't even worry about it. Shits all fake info anyway. If Wikileaks were legit, they'd have all the top secret govt. docs posted about how the US govt. orchestrated the 9/11 attacks.

ironic, isn't it?

if i agreed with all the bs going on then i might agree with you.

Agreed...

It's a tough thing man because it's a fragile balance between the right to be informed what the government we appoint is doing and the duty that that government has to protect us and therefore keep some information private. And I would be on your side 100% if it was a United States that wasn't at war right now or if it was a United States that people truly felt was being run honestly and transparently. But the way things are now with the corruption, foreign political influences on national political policies and the war that was just started on false pretenses, people need to say that the government has overstepped their bounds and has become out of the people's control, and they need to know exactly why their country is in the situation it is in. If it means there are people's lives put in danger so be it - I'd rather a soldier's life be in danger that is fighting for my freedom over a soldier somewhere enforcing a policy that doesn't benefit me in any way while I'm at home clueless funding the operation.

I wonder why wikileaks releases all that huge data and doesn't release the real sources where data came from.
What is the reason I have to believe all that stupid (yes i think it's 99% stupid internal stuff) "top secret" stuff released by an unemployed aspiring world hero without a proof of serious source?
It's only a bait to become the next web hero and maybe make good money.

I forgot there was a war. I am more upset about Bristil Palin not winning "Dancing with the Stars".

I bet she didn't win because they hated he mother and orchestrated a grand conspiracy.

See what happens when we let the mindless share their opinions?

Maybe they don't want the source to be sent to Guantanamo for some water-boarding and rock music?

My clearance was very high, I was part of the weapons department on a nuclear fast attack submarine. We had enough firepower to wipe out most countries fleet with one attack. When the stakes are that high, it's that serious. The technology we had access to for the time was state of the art. The USSR had 3 times the submarines we had, but their technology was decades behind us, it was that technology race that ended the USSR because they couldn't afford to keep up.

So your telling me that wikileaks has the OK from you to put our troops in danger?

But who would make that call? It's simple, secret is dealt with as secret, period

=

most of the stuff is gossip (like which wife of which politician had too many plastic surgeries) - so stop whining

but it shows nicely for what reasons the US sends ambassadors - to collect gossip. and it also shows nicely what the US government thinks about others. and btw - the docs are mostly from the Bush times.

Its hosted in ireland

http://thenextweb.com/eu/2010/08/30/...uclear-bunker/

Wikileaks now hosted from an underground nuclear bunker

WikiLeaks describes itself as “an uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking”. WikiLeaks is hosted by PRQ, a Sweden-based company providing “highly secure, no-questions-asked hosting services.” PRQ is said to have “almost no information about its clientele and maintains few if any of its own logs.” The servers are spread around the world with the central server located in Sweden.[54] Julian Assange has said that the servers are located in Sweden (and the other countries) "specifically because those nations offer legal protection to the disclosures made on the site". He talks about the Swedish constitution, which gives the information providers total legal protection.[54] It is forbidden according to Swedish law for any administrative authority to make inquiries about the sources of any type of newspaper.[55] These laws, and the hosting by PRQ, make it difficult to take WikiLeaks offline. Furthermore, "Wikileaks maintains its own servers at undisclosed locations, keeps no logs and uses military-grade encryption to protect sources and other confidential information." Such arrangements have been called "bulletproof hosting."[56][57]
On 17 August 2010, it was announced that the Swedish Pirate Party will be hosting and managing many of WikiLeaks' new servers. The party donates servers and bandwidth to WikiLeaks without charge. Technicians of the party will make sure that the servers are maintained and working.[58][59] Some servers are hosted in underground cold war era nuclear shelters. The physical security layer is 30m White Mountains solid bedrock.[60]
WikiLeaks is based on several software packages, including MediaWiki, Freenet, Tor, and PGP.[61] WikiLeaks strongly encouraged postings via Tor due to the strong privacy needs of its users.[62]

I think more business gets done on wikileaks than on this forum!

and so wikileaks is worthless

Hey Vend, were you in the Navy and did you have a clearance? You never make that clear in your threads.

The leaked US embassy cables, published on the Wikileaks site and at length in newspapers including the New York Times and the UK's Guardian, also reportedly include accounts of:

Bargaining to empty the Guantanamo Bay prison camp - including Slovenian diplomats being told to take in a freed prisoner if they wanted to secure a meeting with President Barack Obama
Germany being warned in 2007 not to enforce arrest warrants for US Central Intelligence Agency officers involved in an operation in which an innocent German citizen with the same name as a suspected militant was abducted and held in Afghanistan
US officials being instructed to spy on the UN's leadership by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
The very close relationship between Russian PM Vladimir Putin and his Italian counterpart Silvio Berlusconi
Alleged links between the Russian government and organised crime
Yemen's president talking to then US Mid-East commander General David Petraeus about attacks on Yemeni al-Qaeda bases and saying: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours"
Faltering US attempts to prevent Syria from supplying arms to Hezbollah in Lebanon


Not exactly military secrets is it, more like just embarrasing revelations.

But then you have governments involved in drug trafficking, assassinations and starting wars without the interest of the people they serve. How do they people know who is at fault if everything is always secret?

What's the point of fighting for freedom if you're not fighting for freedom at all? Do you believe that people should just follow what the government tells them to do without questioning it? What if the government keeps saying 'sorry that's secret' then the people should just move on to other questions? How can you have so much faith in the government, it seems like you're better suited for a socialist government??

you just opened a can of worms..

I think it's excellent. A more informed populous = a better country / world.

This has caused a dilemma for Fox news as well. I was watching yesterday and they had a story about the counterfeit domains being seized by ICE, which they spun as more government takeovers and control.

Then they ran a story about wikileaks, and the guests and host all bashed Obama for not using his new cyberlaw power to take down the wikileaks site.

Can't have it both ways.

A kid pre high school figured out how to make a nuclear bomb.

Not exactly overly difficult information to find and compile.

You simpleton, that isn't even close to what he said.

Wikileaks did not put the troops in harm's way.

The government and the troops themselves put themselves in harm's way.

Last time I checked, Wikileaks didn't deploy any convoys to the middle east.

I don't like it...but on the other hand I cannot help but think that there is info/mis-info in the leaks that...what ever their reasons...the government wanted leaked...or they would have already stopped this from happening.

Hey shit for brains, I know what he said. And the answer stands, try using a fucking brain cell.
They are putting out secret documents, I'll make you a deal, if one person gets hurt over it, can I kick you in the balls with steel toe boots?
If you answer no, then you are not sure of your answer , just another shit for brains

What the fuck does this have to do with anything and how is Wiki putting troops in danger? You still have yet to answer this.

Or our president has no balls
Mass leaks like this look bad for all on this, loses respect, they have already lost a lot of that.

If it were just one thing, that I could accept, but so far, nothing has stuck out

Thing is again, it's not about what harm it does, who is to know, but secrets revealed can get our troops killed so no secrets revealed is better.

Kinda like the security of dinner at the white house, even they get crashed

how many soldiers killed by wikileaks so far - zero.

secrets get our troops killed! Wikileaks is killing our troops!

Yes, the good ole' days of "bring 'em on!" sure worked out well for everyone.

[QUOTE=Kiopa_Matt;17734047]Well...that policy has sent tens of thousands of Muslims to see their maker...now hasn't it. The U.S. military has a kill ration of 10-1 to 100-1 and sometimes higher.

you got that wrong - the world lost respect because of people like you who defend a position that has no backup - besides by a few nutcases that no one took seriously anyways. you have no idea how ridiculus your opinions look like from the point of view of the rest of the world. :2 cents:

To tell the truth I don't know if it's all good or bad, I'm more towards "the more info about dirty things our politicians do the better" I can already see how evil and dirty are our governments. From the other hand the more peace around the world the better, I'm not sure what future consequences of this might be, this would require long, detailed and wide analysis.

Yes, because its them who sent the troops to war not the president that YOU voted for.

Sounds like load of crap to me.

"US officials recently acknowledged for the first time that US submarines could not readily locate an Akula submarine operating off the coast of the USA. "It is difficult to find the most advanced Russian Akula class submarines when they operate at tactical speed or less," Admiral Jeremy Boorda said. Other military experts sounded the alarm as early as 1988. Anthony Batista, senior staff member of the Armed Forces Committee declared, "The Akula is the best submarine in the world today." A recent report from the Office of Naval Intelligence noted that the improved Akula submarines could indeed surpass the quieting of the Los Angeles class at tactical speeds. On August 9, 1995, during a lobbying effort on behalf of the Seawolf and the following Virginia class submarines, retired Vice Admiral E.A. Burkhalter announced that the $7 billion-per-year Russian program had produced "the Akula submarine, which is quieter than Seawolf." In an effort to raise public awareness, Martin Marietta, a leading defense contractor, ran ads featuring the Akula class in a number of newspapers including the San Diego Union-Tribune. While it may be difficult to separate the hype military supporters chronically use to "talk up a potential threat, in order to justify their own building programs" from the actual capabilities obscured by Russian secrecy, one impression remains: America can no longer claim uncontested dominance of the oceanic strata."