Communication is key. And, we can measure the belief of what a superpower such as America thinks of the importance of communication by witnessing and observing the fact it is one of the first resources they forcefully take out of the equasion when attacking their foes. They obviously put it on the top of their list every war. and negate the command centers's potential to communicate with their front line troops, usually the very first night of bombing attacks has been suffiecient to do this, utilizing their stealth, and the cover of darkness.

But, consider this: A worldwide communication system is the primary pre-requisite for global wide full disclosure, or full disclosure is not even an option. You want full disclosure? Promote worldwide communication. The overwhelming majority of humans on this planet do not have phones, computers, or TVs. So, the same thing you want most is now no where near an achievable task at this point. But, within 30 years it could be possible to ensure the 99% of Afghanis, and the 99% percent of Iraqis that do not have this communicational promoting technology will. Judge actions and behaviors and cause and effect when attempting to to judge intentions folks.

Just my thoughts on the subject. Just my opinion.

That all depends on what your definition of "full discolsure" really is.

You really can't expect "full disclosure" in the sense that I believe you are trying to convey unless all individuals on a global scale are asking the same quation as to what is needed to be disclosed. When this occurs then communication is no longer a problem as the means has been available from radio, to the internet and even by word of mouth.

Disclosure is only important to those who seek it and those who seek it can find a platform of communication to gain information regarding such subject. Those who are not aware of that which is to be disclosed have by the same token no need to have this information disclosed.

Years ago, I was posting on another message board. One of the posters lived in Sarajevo, and that was something that we all knew, and possibly found interesting, but was not at all significant, really, until the bombing started.

It was fascinating, and a good illustration of the point you appear to be making. While there was heated debate about virtually every aspect of politics and, to the point, international relations, with assertions being made by those on both sides of any issue and heated battles raging back and forth between them, there was, at least on that board at that time, virtually no debate about Bosnia. We simply read his posts, which outlined exactly what was happening from his eyewitness perspective, and digested them. There was of course some debate about the background of the war-- its legitimacy or lack thereof, the impact it had or did not have on international impressions of the US, that sort of thing. But there wasn't the heated debate that normally surrounds assertions, counter-assertions, guesswork, assumptions, innuendo, etc. regarding the specific actions that were taking place. There could be no such debate, since the truth was right there for all of us to read.

(snip)



(edit) Sorry, just finally figured out that this is about "full disclosure" in a very specific context, which means that my post here, while it might be obliquely related, is off topic and probably unwanted. But after writing it, I might as well leave at least the relatively pertinent parts here anyway. Feel free to entirely disregard it though.






[edit on 7-1-2006 by Bob LaoTse]

Good point Klepto. I could go back and edit my original post to say "A timely method of full disclosure", but I'll just say here that this is what I was thinking when I wrote this. And, besides: Even if a president came straight out and said with absolute conviction that this were the case (Not unlike what president Truman did 56 years ago), the truth is that people truly don't care, or they're not truly paying attention to the stagering slew of conflicting historical events. Again, this is merely my attention and my opinion of my experiences. I don't mean to sound judgemental, nor belittling, and certainly do not claim to know the hardships and personal obsticles each and every soul on the planet endures.

edited for typo

[edit on 7-1-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

Originally posted by Klepto
When this occurs then communication is no longer a problem as the means has been available from radio, to the internet and even by word of mouth.

After some further contemplation I regret to introduce this concept, but it is justified:

Most individuals in humanity are not aware of 99% of humanity's 7,000 years of recorded history, and usually they are aware of less than 1% of our recorded history. How could we possibly relay by word of mouth the recorded history of an alien race with hundred's of thousands of years of recorded history in any timely fashion to the multitudes of Earth when we don't even speak the same language throughout regions?

There would be so much information it would be overwhelming for the vast majority, and since we learn through the process of the "law of association", i doubt people would have the sufficent accumilation of pre-requisite pre-accepted truths to be consciously aware of the information being presented anyways. Furthermore, there would be many concepts that were so foriegn to anything known, there is no way of knowing we even have the words in our language to fully communicate many aspects of knowledge that we are attempting to relay.

In other words it may in fact be our language that prevents effective dialogue between our species, because we simply do not have the words to convey many concepts. This adds an interesting perspective to the concept/assumption that the aliens may have been altering our dna, altering it to promote effective communication with them.