from - The Guardian article - http://tinyurl.com/4wf2tb3

Last week, Comment is Free published a piece by James Richardson
claiming that WikiLeaks had put Zimbabwean prime minister, Morgan
Tsvangirai, at risk by releasing a US diplomatic cable that showed he had been
privately urging Washington to maintain sanctions against Harare, while taking
the opposite position in public. WikiLeaks and some commentators suggested
this was unfair because it was the Guardian, rather than WikiLeaks, which took
the decision to publish the document.

_______________________________________

seems certain interests want Morgan Tsvangirai out, most likely to make way
for a more pliant puppet - who knows?

that Le Monde, El Pais, The Guardian, Der Spiegel and the New York Times (all
MSM heavies) are so heavily involved in the ‘leaks’ is cause for questioning what
all this is really about

John Young’s opinion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMRUiB_8tTc
Gordon Duff’s opinion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKDNQfNZumI
Webster Tarpley’s opinion: http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/63211

What’s new? It was always the case that WikiLeakes provided access to the Guardian first and thereafter looked to that newspaper and its partners for assistance with the redaction of the content.

It has been unfortunate that in spite of this all the “grey ladies” have continued to refer to WikiLeaks as the publishing source—a semantic inaccuracy given WL only acted as conduit and not as first-time publisher.

The Guardian recently took care to correct the false allegation that it had been WikiLeaks which had been responsible for the publication of a report which was alleged to have endangered the life of Zimbabwe politician Morgan Tzvangirai.

Here is the link to that Guardian story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/help/insideguardian/2011/jan/13/wikileaks-morgan-tsvangirai-inside-guardian

Since then other journals have also taken care to correct the lie.

gerard,

Can and would you write about the military buildup in China, space weapon technology in China, health-care in China, the prison system in China, nuclear weapons in China, human rights in China and nationalism in China?

Are you able to do that?

GRYM:  Famous last words:  “The United States is not what’s wrong with the world.”
  How I wish this statement were true.  Unfortunately, we seem to have more enemies than most places, which we are able to use as a “reason” for the largest, most dangerous, expensive, out-of-control military build-up on the planet to fight the most wars, (including the most nuclear weapons), plus the most extensive system of resource exploitation and pollution, plus the poorest health care “system” of any modern nation, plus the most egotistical self-laudatory mind-set regarding the purported “American Century” and “exceptionalism” and “God bless America, Land of the Free” with a larger percentage of people in prison (many of them being tortured), plus more people packing pistols, AK47s, on their person than any other country in the world, and on and on.  Something must be wrong.  And you and I as Americans have the urgent duty to pay attention to what we are doing in the world, and help America crawl up out of the international moral gutter.  What other people do wrong doesn’t entitle us to do wrong!  “America, the Beautiful!”  What happened to that idea, anyway?  Of course it’s only a platitude!

gerard,

The spirit you display is commendable.  At the same time the dozens of issues in dealing with nuclear weapons are nearly identical and overlapping to wars being fought all over the globe.  Yet you exclusively write of the United States.  What you believe the United States must do to bring about peace.

All I’m saying is that you are always thinking and writing about a small, albeit powerful, portion of the globe.  There are over 190 nations and several power players who have their own best interest in mind.  I have never seen you address real world issues.  Only the platitudes of making peace.

The United States is not what’s wrong with the world.

Your “platitudes has never disarmed a reckless, murderous, nation” is a truism, silly because it is self-evident.  Further, nobody ever thought platitudes accomplished much of anything.
  Nevertheless, it is necessary to sometimes state the self-evident which in this case is that the United States, for one, should stop warring and start peace-making, including getting rid of nuclear weapons and advocating that others do likewise. 
  Platitudes be damned, it is necessary to keep affirming a belief in goals that one thinks (and has some evidence for believing)are achievable, even though they require huge changes in human behavior.
  If goals aren’t stated, kept in mind and believed to be possible, they soon give way to frustration and nihilism, as evidenced over and over in contemporary history. 
  Those who consider statements of goals and the possibility of achievement as “mere platitudes” seldom have any positive alternatives, but only furnish evidences of failure and throw people back on fatalism or some foolish religious proscription about the end of the world being ordained by some God who is going to save good people and throw bad people to the wolves.  Personally, I find this kind of religious platitude sickening. I also find fatalism to be equally sickening because it robs human beings of the main necessities for life—hope, plus the courage to actually work for a better world. Without hope, people refuse to take responsibility for doing what can be done.
  Further, there are in the world thousands of examples of human communities which have succeeded, are succeeding in establishing living arranements where human beings can survive as human—compassionate, helpful, peaceable, mutually supportive.  That’s proof enough that it can be done.  Nurturing the idea that it should be done is quite another thing.  Tearing down the possibility by assuming eternal pessimism, kills motivation and shrinks possibilities down to nothing.

gerard,

Who are these people who seek no agreements?  Try to be specific.

You make a mistake in believing we don’t hold the same goals.

grym:  You’re right:  Nuclear agreements are not workin as well as I wish they did,  and the demand for nuclear weapons is proliferating.  Too bad we have to work with the fact that partial agreements are better than no agreements.
  That means we have to work harder for more agreements—something which people who don’t see the value of present agreements won’t do.  They will quit.
  Then there will be no agreements at all.  That’s better?  Probably not.
  As to platitudes about peace:  At present we are all pretty well stuck with them, like them or not.  It’s all we got—until we get something better.
All I can say, with a twist of satire, is that platitudes about war are worse.  Furthermore, platitudes are usually things I don’t believe in because I don’t believe in them—not because they are wrong, or false. I have my own platitudes as you have yours.  Welcome to them.  Just don’t take me down with yours.  Mine will leave you standing—not only standing, but living to raise your children in peace, in a living world, uncontaminated with nuclear fallout. Hopefully, that is.  No guarantees, but—if—which has the potential to become the most hopeful word in any language.

gerard,

It’s a mistake to believe we don’t hold the same goals.  I believe it’s also a mistake to believe my perspective leads to death, while yours leads to peace and a nuclear-free globe.

My previous questions are, I think, the most fundamental to address. The first being that the system in place today is, in fact, not working.  It is unquestionable.  The numbers of nuclear states is rising.

How, for example, does President Obama and the Chinese, Japanese, Germans, Iran, Russia and Turkey convince India and Pakistan to disarm?  Particularly when all of the above don’t agree they should disarm.

India and Pakistan are each sovereign States.  It’s not correct to suggest Pakistan’s and India’s respective populations support disarmament.  They do not.  Their respective populations support their own nuclear ambitions by overwhelming numbers.

How will you rid that one region of nuclear weapons?  How will you police the region in order to prevent others from obtaining such weapons?  How will you verify participation from sovereign states?  Will military force be necessary?  Who will perform these tasks all while the world disagrees they should be performed at all?

You don’t actually address these questions with due gravity. 

Platitudes on peace are great.  The goal of peace should never be put aside.  But in all of human history platitudes has never disarmed a reckless, murderous, nation.

-

Even more fundamental to those issues is the issue of how you are unable to disagree with me without making me an enemy. 

I’ll end the way I began.  It’s a mistake to believe we don’t hold the same goals.

GRYM:  Sorry to refuse to take on further disputing your short-sighted and aggressive attitude, as evident from many of your posts.  Time is precious, and I have no time to waste.  I might just remind you of a home truth:  If you don’t want good things to happen, if you don’t believe they can happen, if you don’t work for them, they won’t happen.

Here, here.  What is that tickler lead supposed to intimate?

gerard,

Nuclear non-proliferation is not working.  The number of nuclear powers continues to grow. 

You write that the “problem is that ‘nukes’ have been allowd to become evidence of ‘superiority’ or “status” and this idea needs to be discredited. - How?  Change human nature?

You write that “people demand without stopping that the “nuclear powers” devote ongoing careful full-time efforts on getting mutually fair, unbiased agreements signed to forego nuclear weapons in order to prevent destruction of most or all of the human race.” - Really?  Which people?  According to intelligence reports, along with statements from official sources in N. Korea, the population almost fully supports N. Korea’s nuclear weapons capabilities.  The same appears to go for the populations of Japan, Iran, Britain, Germany, Pakistan, India, China etc.. The premise in your answer rings false.

In answer to your question; I support all efforts to denuclearize the world.  I do not, however, believe that being nice and simply talking to others will accomplish that goal (it’s not working).  Unlike yourself I do not assume a changed human nature is in our near future.

GRYM:  1.How will you rid the world of nuclear weapons?  2.How will you police the globe to prevent others from obtaining such weapons? 3. How will you verify global participation? 4. Will military force be necessary?
(These ideas are not original with me, nor am I the best qualified person to answer. The question is huge.  But here’s some starters. I suggest you go online and do further research yourself.

1.People demand without stopping that the “nuclear powers” devote ongoing careful full-time efforts on getting mutually fair, unbiased agreements signed to forego nuclear weapons in order to prevent destruction of most or all of the human race.  (So far, we have some agreements that are working, but we need many more, and need to have inspection support (probably through the U.N.) of present developers of weaponry and nuclear tech. (The fact that what we have has worked for some years is testimony to the fact that it can be done.
Problem is that “nukes” have been allowd to become evidence of “superiority” or “status” and this idea needs to be discredited. Taking the money and the prestige out of the picture would help a lot.
2 and 3. You create the kind of fair and caring world that takes away the impetus to kill (means stop wars). This will take years, but the more wars fail (as in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, and world awareness increases, the more likely war will become outdated. Awareness of worldwide essential needs works in favor of cooperation.
  Inspection has been partially achieved, which indicates that it might succeed if enough people wanted it to succed. The UN Inspection teams have done a creditable job in Iraq and elsewhere.
4.  The least military force possible.  Military force almost always ends up being “over-the-top” offensive, and therefore fails. Restraint is not a characteristic of militarism. Restraint is a primary necessity for the world’s ability to learn how to live together without militarism, greed, etc. The basis for success is not demand but mutual desire.

5. (My question to you)  What would cause you to have faith, believe in, work for, take local action to support any of hundreds of initiatives already working to help move people move away from war and toward peace?

gerard,

How will you rid the world of nuclear weapons?  How will you police the globe to prevent others from obtaining such weapons?  How will you verify global participation?  Will military force be necessary?

My observation is similar to that of par 4 above.

One main point that gets left out again and again is the fact that people need to know what is going on behind the scenes because their lives and the lives of their children are at stake.  Once knowing, however, then they have the responsibility to act wisely and fairly to correct their country’s behavior and direct future policies.

In a democracy, no matter how hard we may try to escape this responsibility, it is impossible. Democracy absolutely requires citizens’ intelligent participation.  The more sensitive and risky the behavior and the policy, the more vital is citizen awareness and intelligent participation.

Controlling and getting rid of nuclear weapons world-wide a.s.a.p. is obviously at the top of the list.

It is getting increasingly clear that any criminal case against wikileaks cannot be based on its
publishing these cables unless the other news operations partnering with wikileaks is included
in the criminality. Thus the torture of Bradley Manning continues to convince him to say that
wikileaks helped him steal the documents or asked him to steal them. I do think the USG is
disappointed that someone hasn’t been harmed as a result of these publishings so they are left
to erratic outbursts warning countries not to harm anybody and later will claim that it was only
through this pressure that no one was harmed. Holder must have been profoundly
disappointed in Joe Biden when, in an interview with Andrea Mitchell, he claimed that the cables
were more embarassing than anything else, so he was forced to go on Meet The Press the very
next day to complain that foreign govts won’t allow any of staff in the room during
conversations (and now lock purses and wallets in file cabinets so that light-fingered
diplomats don’t lift credit cards and check books.)

All this is just business as usual, approved by the Obama administration.