Reply #151: No, I didn't

[jeff47]

I'm trying to understand the people from the "Everything that was leaked was fantastic!!!!" side of the argument. Because that position makes no sense to me.

The stuff Manning leaked has fallen into three categories:
-Stuff we already new from traditional news sources
-Inconsequential information
-Stuff that harms diplomatic relations, where publicity doesn't do any good.

The case of Medvedev is the latter. We need Russia's assistance to avoid nuclear proliferation if we want to avoid solutions that involve high explosives. Publicly calling Medvedev a puppet obviously harms that goal. I'm trying to understand why, specifically, it's OK to let more countries get 'the bomb' just so we can confirm news stories from 2007 or that Castro likes cigars. I want to understand what in your head feels a significantly greater risk of Israeli bombs falling on Iran is worth it.

In addition, I want to talk about what Manning actually leaked. Not flail our hands about talking about war crimes, or illegal activities that were not revealed by Manning. I want to understand how you specifically feel about the consequences of what was actually leaked instead of waving your hands about "sunshine is always good!!!". Because the leaks have provided no worthwhile sunshine.

That means picking out "the smallest bit". Because the whole picture is built on those bits. Manning didn't leak a document saying "the US is EVIL!!!". He leaked hundreds of thousands of small bits.

And no, you didn't answer my question. Which is why I keep having to write these lengthy posts.