No, Mcgrew, it is not his job to severely censor his message back to superiors.
I will agree, 100% though, that the US is at fault for not protecting sensitive documents better. Our 60-person shop does a better job of that, apparently, than the U.S.
We hire politicians to be upfront and honest. We don't hire them to be two faced.
Huh? Whut? Diplomats have to be two faced to a certain extent. Should a diplomat tell Mugabe that he is a festering idiot who is destroying his country? Or should he be polite while keeping superiors up to date on what is going on in Zimbabwe? Should a diplomat chide Russia for how it is backing organized crime, or should he keep his ear to the ground and let superiors know what is going on.
Your "upfront and honest" policy might work in your makebelieve land, but not in reality.
What makes you think that another country wasn't behind leaking the info to wikileaks? Do you think wikileaks has a staff that actively acquires the documents?
Please tell why a diplomat's private communication to superiors about his assessment of Russia's leadership should be public knowledge? There certainly should be less secrecy, but nothing positive was served about this type of leak.
Why should a diplomat's views on the quality of leadership of another country become public info? If everything he says become public knowledge, then the diplomat has to severely censor what he is going to say. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how the public benefits from this release of information
I supported wikileaks up until now... the information they shared this time makes me think they really jumped the shark.
Ummmm. no. We could win a war against Afghanistan without putting one person on the group. We could bomb a country like that until not a structure stayed standing and the few who lived would be reduced to living in caves and living off of grass.
We somehow today equate winning a war with winning over the people and making them love us.
I logged in to post almost the same thing. If we were not a liberal democracy but had the same military firepower, we could wipe out Iraq and Afghanistan and not devote 1% of our firepower. Not that I want to see that.
I was about about to respond with a "woosh", then I read the rest of Doc's posts. He really is that stupid. I really didn't think anyone could be that blatantly dumb and still be able to create an account on Slashdot.
Excuse my ignorance, but what would you legislate besides behavior? Except for some moronic attempts at thought legislation, I am not sure what type of legislation would apply to non-behaviors.
Just read it backwards, word for word. I have to admit it was a bit harder, but it was still legible for me. Considering that this is maybe three point font, I find it pretty noteworthy.
Slashdot Mirror
It is called a figure of speech. But having read through your other posts, I think you are just a troll.
And nuclear launch codes should be public too since it was our tax dollars that built those nukes...
Um... no. The diplomat should be frank as hell when reporting back to superiors.
No, Mcgrew, it is not his job to severely censor his message back to superiors.
I will agree, 100% though, that the US is at fault for not protecting sensitive documents better. Our 60-person shop does a better job of that, apparently, than the U.S.
We hire politicians to be upfront and honest. We don't hire them to be two faced.
Huh? Whut? Diplomats have to be two faced to a certain extent. Should a diplomat tell Mugabe that he is a festering idiot who is destroying his country? Or should he be polite while keeping superiors up to date on what is going on in Zimbabwe? Should a diplomat chide Russia for how it is backing organized crime, or should he keep his ear to the ground and let superiors know what is going on.
Your "upfront and honest" policy might work in your makebelieve land, but not in reality.
What makes you think that another country wasn't behind leaking the info to wikileaks? Do you think wikileaks has a staff that actively acquires the documents?
Please tell why a diplomat's private communication to superiors about his assessment of Russia's leadership should be public knowledge? There certainly should be less secrecy, but nothing positive was served about this type of leak.
Why should a diplomat's views on the quality of leadership of another country become public info? If everything he says become public knowledge, then the diplomat has to severely censor what he is going to say. For the life of me, I cannot figure out how the public benefits from this release of information
I supported wikileaks up until now... the information they shared this time makes me think they really jumped the shark.
Exactly how does leaking information about how the Saudis want to see military action against Iran expose the "out of line" US government?
Ummmm. no. We could win a war against Afghanistan without putting one person on the group. We could bomb a country like that until not a structure stayed standing and the few who lived would be reduced to living in caves and living off of grass.
We somehow today equate winning a war with winning over the people and making them love us.
I logged in to post almost the same thing. If we were not a liberal democracy but had the same military firepower, we could wipe out Iraq and Afghanistan and not devote 1% of our firepower. Not that I want to see that.
I was about about to respond with a "woosh", then I read the rest of Doc's posts. He really is that stupid. I really didn't think anyone could be that blatantly dumb and still be able to create an account on Slashdot.
I added the sig months ago based quoting an AC's comments. So, yes it is prescient.
Please see my sig.
And beyond the mechanical grammar errors is the stylistic one. The sentence should be divided into two or restructured to make it more clear.
His objection effectively stop its current passing forcing it to be introduced again if the bill is continue.
English, please?
Yet another example of legislating our behavior
Excuse my ignorance, but what would you legislate besides behavior? Except for some moronic attempts at thought legislation, I am not sure what type of legislation would apply to non-behaviors.
s/sights/sites
So in your mind, originating a threat via twitter is the same as re-tweeting a joke about protesters? Clearly they are identical situations.
It is also identical where the threatener received a fine versus getting locked up for a year of hard labor.
Yup, identical situation.
I wasn't sure whether to ding them for the lack of commas around "at the moment". Are there other errors?
"There are at the moment the smallest legible fonts in the world."
I will give you all about 10 seconds to spot the glaring error.
Just read it backwards, word for word. I have to admit it was a bit harder, but it was still legible for me. Considering that this is maybe three point font, I find it pretty noteworthy.
ts;dr
I just copy/paste... none of the comments are mine.
This joke gets funnier with every passing year. ~