*dons boxing bloves*
Queensbury rules, sir?
(Apologies in advance for possible spelling mistakes. I'm on holiday this week and have decided to spend today colosally pissed =) )
I'm going to need some sort of source on the whole NK being a nuclear power thing. The last I heard they'd claimed to have detonated a single test nuke, which the rest of the world said was just a shipping container full of high explosives. Even if they are a nuclear power however, they'd have to be cataclysmically stupid to use them. If they did, the rest of the world would come down on them so hard the country wouldn't exist as a nation within a week, and Kim Jong-Il would effectively have signed his own death warrant. He may be scared and feel his back is to the wall, but is he likely to be insane enough to authorise a nuclear strike on SK or Japan, knowing the consequences? I doubt it.
On to Mr. Rudd. I think you're over-estimating the impact that his comments will have on Chinese attitudes towards your country. The CHinese government aren't idiots - far from it. They may use this as leverage on something economic to get a better deal (which is unlikely to be huge in the long run), and may find some Aussie nationals to imprison. On that subject, one thing I've noticed about the Chinese, they're actually surprisingly fair for the most part, and don't generally do something without justification (like you said).
I agree on diplomats needing to have completely secure communications channels to their governments. One of the major points that most people seem to have overlooked is the fact that these communiques were leaked en masse in the first place. Hopefully one of the results of this fiasco is that the US will tighten the security of their diplomatic communications channels.
You assume that that's what the "insurance" file Assagne posted contained. Since it's not been cracked open and the password hasn't been released yet, no-one knows for sure. yes, encryption can be cracked, but that file's encrypted with AES256. Without the password, getting into that file would take millennia, even if you managed to co-opt every single computer on the planet (and that's taking Moore's Law into account too). Chances are by the time the encryption on that file is cracked the contents will either already be known, or no longer be relevant. Personally I think he was reasonably wise to put a file like that up. The threat of a "massive information leak" is enough to stop the CIA from having him and his colleagues killed, which I have no doubt would have happened by now otherwise (yes, the CIA really are that unsubtle).
I see your point on Wikileaks not revealing the name of their source, and it could be viewed as hypocritical. If they did though, no-one would be willing to release information to them in the future for fear of their lives and/or livelyhoods, would they? Journalists have held the same code of conduct for decades now, why should Wikileaks be any different?
Finally, I agree entirely on the rape allegations. IMO it's another example of the CIA's "hob-nailed boots" approach to their profession.
Over to you, sir! =)
(
Kerrisis There's someone in my head, but it's not me., Tue 7 Dec 2010, 12:25,
Reply)
Oooh..
This is gonna get messy..
It's almost midnight here in Oz and it's bedtime for me. But, I'll reply to you on this thread tomorrow and by Gaz in case it drops down too far.
I do love a good argument. Especially ones where we can fundamentally disagree yet not descend into personal insults.
*Doffs hat*
Cheers
(
Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Tue 7 Dec 2010, 12:51,
Reply)