Should governments disclose ALL their actions?

[HowDidIGetPrem]

I was wondering this while reading about how ISIS would form its own governance of the areas it controlled. That through taxation, renting, and a few other ways, it'd make major bank to fund activities of both improving the city and furthering terrorism. The writer reaallyy tried to liken ISIS to a typical government with reference to how it attempted to improve the area, and the similarity is obviously there with how it has the laws/rules, and taxing down.
But then everything breaks down when considering that, unlike a typical government, no one agreed to who'd be setting their taxes or the rules. Yet there's still a similarity in these differences. No one agreed to support their terrorism either just as no one agreed to the terrorism we commit through proxies.
Ignoring the strict guidelines, would you support ISIS' rule over you if they gave you heaven itself in exchange for hell to others? Odds are no with you knowing this. But, in our case, can we really oppose what we're unaware of and should we have the ability to do that?

 

[Konno]

Riiiight, like the government will disclose ALL the information, that will never happen

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

Riiiight, like the government will disclose ALL the information, that will never happen

Yeah, I know it's pretty ridiculous to expect, but would you be for it? Maybe not ALL like who they're watching, but all else.

 

[wanderingcactus]

no..

one, it'll cause panic especially to near sighted people.
two, it'll help other people to destroy said country.
three, enemies will know your country's move so they can take appropriate actions against any retaliation.
four, the public can and will be stupid. just take a look at our current social problems and how many people whine over stupid stuff.

in conclusion, information passed on to EVERYONE is counterproductive.

one of the major reason why there will never be a real democracy or real communism because people's innate ability to be stupid or downright putting self first at the expense of others.

^which answers your question on whether or not we are ok with people suffering without our knowing. Even if we do know, we will choose to ignore it.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

no..

one, it'll cause panic especially to near sighted people.
two, it'll help other people to destroy said country.
three, enemies will know your country's move so they can take appropriate actions against any retaliation.
four, the public can and will be stupid. just take a look at our current social problems and how many people whine over stupid stuff.

in conclusion, information passed on to EVERYONE is counterproductive.

one of the major reason why there will never be a real democracy or real communism because people's innate ability to be stupid or downright putting self first at the expense of others.

^which answers your question on whether or not we are ok with people suffering without our knowing. Even if we do know, we will choose to ignore it.

Ok, I can see how much error there is with everything, but what about narrowing it down to military action in general. Nothing too specific like the wheres, but the who's of who is being supported and who isn't.

 

[Melanin]

No! Somethings I’m fine with my government keeping from me, especially when it comes the security of our troops.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

I was wondering this while reading about how ISIS would form its own governance of the areas it controlled. That through taxation, renting, and a few other ways, it'd make major bank to fund activities of both improving the city and furthering terrorism. The writer reaallyy tried to liken ISIS to a typical government with reference to how it attempted to improve the area, and the similarity is obviously there with how it has the laws/rules, and taxing down.
But then everything breaks down when considering that, unlike a typical government, no one agreed to who'd be setting their taxes or the rules. Yet there's still a similarity in these differences. No one agreed to support their terrorism either just as no one agreed to the terrorism we commit through proxies.
Ignoring the strict guidelines, would you support ISIS' rule over you if they gave you heaven itself in exchange for hell to others? Odds are no with you knowing this. But, in our case, can we really oppose what we're unaware of and should we have the ability to do that?

Whhaaaaat????

What exactly do YOU want from ISIS, and WHY?

And it'd be pointless to disclose all the information, only for people to interfere or misunderstand whatever's being disclosed. Ya'll are unfit, sorry to say.Americans feel too entitled.

You're not getting any information, unless they choose to do so.

 

[wanderingcactus]

Ok, I can see how much error there is with everything, but what about narrowing it down to military action in general. Nothing too specific like the wheres, but the who's of who is being supported and who isn't.

no, for the safety of your own, everything must not be disclosed to the public.

if it is a declaration of war or occupation, yes. Anything that is in terms of government intention must be disclosed and approved by its own public.

But as for your topic of government using third-party organization to indirectly affect another's country without your own government's involvement, it is unethical.
It is entirely situational for that to be ethical such as if we want North Korea to treat its citizens more humane, we would use a proxy like China. Same with the Middle East, use their own to influence change for the better of their own.

However, using it to destabilize the country so that you can reap the benefits, you are basically the one that did it just under a different name. Now will the government be dumb enough to think it's a good idea to disclose that information to its own public?

The answer is no. Do they do it? Absolutely!

Do they do it for the benefit of their own country, not just their own?

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

no, for the safety of your own, everything must not be disclosed to the public.

if it is a declaration of war or occupation, yes. Anything that is in terms of government intention must be disclosed and approved by its own public.

But as for your topic of government using third-party organization to indirectly affect another's country without your own government's involvement, it is unethical.
It is entirely situational for that to be ethical such as if we want North Korea to treat its citizens more humane, we would use a proxy like China. Same with the Middle East, use their own to influence change for the better of their own.

However, using it to destabilize the country so that you can reap the benefits, you are basically the one that did it just under a different name. Now will the government be dumb enough to think it's a good idea to disclose that information to its own public?

The answer is no. Do they do it? Absolutely!

Do they do it for the benefit of their own country, not just their own?

Spoiler

You must be registered for see images

it could be beneficial in the case that everyone knows who's rooting for who. it'd give a clear idea of standings.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

People think they know what's going on, but they really don't.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

it could be beneficial in the case that everyone knows who's rooting for who. it'd give a clear idea of standings.

You don't need the information, only for you to make an "issue" out of it, and spread gossip.That's exactly what people do with things that really have nothing to do with them.They just wanna "talk" and spread misinformation.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

You don't need the information, only for you to make an "issue" out of it, and spread gossip.That's exactly what people do with things that really have nothing to do with them.They just wanna "talk" and spread misinformation.

whats wrong with making an issue of it?

 

[BenjerminGaye]

No. Especially in this age. Not everything has to be public.

 

[Dreckerplayer]

whats wrong with making an issue of it?

jumping to conclusions.

Why dish information out, only to have people judge it and make false accusations about it, especially if you know they wouldn't understand, anyway.And it's not like your opinion of it, is gonna stop them from doing it. Also, it'd just spread FEAR.

They'd misuse the information, simply put. And if you allow us to know, someone on the other side can find out,aswell.And then counter-maneuver us.

You can't dish information out to a bunch of "wannabe" international spies. Seriously, their losers to them, and they act like they know what they're talking about. And this is straight up honesty.

 

[wanderingcactus]

it could be beneficial in the case that everyone knows who's rooting for who. it'd give a clear idea of standings.

counterproductive is in no means beneficial.

releasing the information of who your government representative "roots" for is dumb as they are in it for themselves first others last.

image is what matters most for them. that is the only thing that ever regulates government officials. that is why they use unethical tactics to promote their standings with either their own people or on others.

If you've watched V for Vendetta, it is basically the exact same concept. You have a government party/official who would destroy their own to push their agenda on people. Middle East used this tactic quite a lot with Scud missiles back then.

Then you have what is going on now. Africa and the Middle East is being destabilized for the benefit of other nations' businesspeople/officials. May it be through hiring Warlords or terrorist groups.


As for the "goodwill" bit, imagine if Israel suggest something to the Middle East that would actually be beneficial?
It would be downright rejected and anyone that would ever suggest that would be casted down as a traitor.
North Korea being dictated by the US or South Korea, again, if it came from the enemy, despite on whether or not it is actually beneficial for them is pointless.

It's like the story of the Good Samaritan, except instead of accepting help from a Samaritan, an enemy, the dying guy chooses to spit on him before dying an agonizing death than to receive help from a no good dirty Samaritan. Again, people are stupid. Thankfully, that is not how the story went. But if it does happen, that is normally how it would go down.

 

[UnderTheRedHood]

Who cares about this shit...

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

Who cares about this shit...

the asker

 

[UnderTheRedHood]

the asker

may the the asker ask the asker why?

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

may the the asker ask the asker why?

because I wanted to see if anyone could draw a line between revealing too much and being transparent enough.

 

[UnderTheRedHood]

because I wanted to see if anyone could draw a line between revealing too much and being transparent enough.

english please? and all im reading here is some codes, dont really understand anything