Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Organizes Global Protests For WikiLeaks

Posted by samzenpus on from the sun-it-burns-us dept.

pafein writes "Internet collective Anonymous launched a global protest for January 15 in support of beleaguered WikiLeaks. Anonymous has a history of defending Internet freedom, beginning with Project Chanology against the Church of Scientology. The group gained recent attention for itself with DDOS attacks on Mastercard, Visa, Paypal and the government of Tunisia."

49 of 275 comments (clear)

  1. I didn't launch anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm a coward.

  2. It's sad. by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's a sad comment on modern reality that my response to anything counter-culture or pro-liberty and freedom for the past 30+ years would have been a fist in the air and a "fuck yeah!" and, today, my gut response is "some people are going to be disappeared" and "better to keep my mouth shut and not even give vocal support or encouragement to anything which might seen to dissent from my government, because I can't afford the hassle of being eyeballed or investigated or put on a list somewhere". Not just for this, but things with even more credibility.

    Hell, it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.

    1. Re:It's sad. by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To be fair, that shift of perception is usually a sign of getting older.

    2. Re:It's sad. by Moryath · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Say again?

      The Libertarian party is alive and well. Actual libertarian-focused groups like the EFF do just fine, too.

      The problem you've got is that the Libertarian platform got co-opted by the other "big two" parties in such a way that Libertarians can't find a focus to get their foot in the door. Either they focus on social issues and get lumped in with the extremist wing of the Democrat party, or they focus on a number of law and tax issues and get lumped in with the extremist wing of the Republicans.

      It'd be far better if we abolished the "direct election" of the US Senate and re-instituted state legislature appointment or even better, turned the Senate into a parliamentary body where the smaller parties (green, libertarian, etc) could actually get a minority voice with real representation present for debate. But that won't happen because the republicrats and demicans (who the fuck can tell them apart most days anyways while they betray their constituents?) don't want to give up their institutional stranglehold on the election process.

      The difference between the US's "democracy" and the Chinese "democracy" isn't as great as we think these days. The Chinese get to vote in elections with only one candidate, US citizens get to vote in elections where both candidates are the two faces of the same fucking coin. The illusion of "choice" is about all we get.

    3. Re:It's sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I’m Canadian, so what happens in the US doesn’t directly effect me, however the shit that happens “down there” tends to roll back up here so this stuff tends to make me nervous.

      What really disturbs me is that I suspect all these "slippery slope" arguments are about to be put to the test. The recent twitter thing is just the start. All the privacy issues that paranoids have been spouting about for years are becoming a reality. Admittedly I’ve made several snide “oh get a life” type comments to the whole “the government will use your social network posts to identify you as counter to their views and have you dealt with” type mentality, but things really are approaching this.

      I just hope that enough people realize what this all means on the grand scale before it is too late.

    4. Re:It's sad. by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell, it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.

      Have you ever been fired for being a suspected libertarian? Have you ever been fired, and then all your potential employers informed that they shouldn't hire you because then they might be suspected as being libertarians too? Have you ever been called up in front of a congressional investigative committee for being a libertarian? Have libertarian leaders been imprisoned? All those things were happening to suspected communists during the 1950's: For instance, my grandfather went from being a highly respected academic musicologist to teaching a dozen piano students in his living room.

      And if you want to know what the most risky group to be affiliated with right now in the US, it's not libertarianism, its Islam, which subjects you to regular harassment at airports, hate crimes, and in a few cases being disappeared.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    5. Re:It's sad. by kellyb9 · · Score: 2

      The problem you've got is that the Libertarian platform got co-opted by the other "big two" parties in such a way that Libertarians can't find a focus to get their foot in the door.

      Nothing new here. This has been happening for years (and by years, I mean centuries). It used to be the purpose of a 3rd party to have their platform adopted by one of the two big parties, now it seems the two big parties exist to trivialize the platforms of smaller more relevant parties. People simply assume that they need to either vote republican or democrat based on social policy that isn't going to change or tax issues that are just going to get worse. It's really a perception that needs to change pronto. I, for one, would like someone who had an ounce of common sense, but rest assured, they'd never get elected.

    6. Re:It's sad. by couchslug · · Score: 2

      Considering what Islamic countries do to those not, or insufficiently, Islamic, there really is logical ground to oppose people affiliated with it and consider them enemies. There is zero evidence, anywhere, I defy you to find it, of Islamic governments enhancing freedom by ensuring secular law and trying to keep religion out of government.

      There is an ideological imperative in some quarters to consider religion "different" so one can ignore the outcomes its believers produce when they run the show.

      Want a taste? Bring a stack of Christian literature through Saudi customs and inform them you intend to convert the heathens.

      You can buy all the Qurans you like in the US, and even sects like Louis Farrakhans Nation of Islam are free to demonstrate on the street.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:It's sad. by Seumas · · Score: 2

      I said it was almost to the point where it feels that way. Intentional hyperbole aside, I think it's clear that dissent of all flavors (particularly against actual government positions and actions) are slowly being vilified. Refer to recent Napolitano (and others) quotes over the last two months as an example of where they're headed.

      Anyway, I'll see your Islam and raise you an Atheist.

      + Atheists are the least electable persons in the country (source: 2007 Gallup poll).
      + Atheists are the least trusted people in America (source: UMN study).

      Ninety percent of respondents thought whites and blacks could share their vision of society. About 80 percent said the same of Hispanics, Jews and conservative Christians. More than 70 percent said it of immigrants, and 64 percent said it of Muslims. Atheists had the lowest rating at 54 percent.

      Asked whether they would disapprove of a child's wish to marry an atheist, 47.6 percent of those interviewed said yes. Asked the same question about Muslims and African-Americans, the yes responses fell to 33.5 percent and 27.2 percent, respectively. The yes responses for Asian-Americans, Hispanics, Jews and conservative Christians were 18.5 percent, 18.5 percent, 11.8 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively. (source)

      I would certainly hesitate before letting anyone get the idea that I was an atheist. I probably wouldn't mention it to my neighbors. I wouldn't mention it to a girlfriend's family. I absolutely would not mention it to an employer or colleague or would avoid inadvertently giving the impression that I was. People react viciously and with great prejudice toward it and it is not a stretch to imagine that a "believer" would can your ass for it. Or at least, treat you with great disfavor within the work place.

      And, no, I don't necessarily buy that being associated with Islam makes you the most likely to be disappeared within this country. I steadfastly assert that it's anyone voicing too much dissent that crosses the attention of the wrong official. Now, you might be accused of ties to Islam or some terrorist group as part of the justification of harassing or disappearing you (like the guy in Portland a few years ago and several others in the last half decade), but that's more a scapegoat than a reason.

    8. Re:It's sad. by blueg3 · · Score: 2

      So because we disagree with the laws in Islamic countries, we should ignore the rights of Muslim citizens of the U.S.?

      It seems the same argument could be applied to support Japanese internment camps. Or hunting down and persecuting Communists and socialists.

  3. Please don't. by dangitman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would be better if Wikileaks, which actually serves a valuable (although controversial) role, is not associated with Anonymous and their juvenile DDOS attacks and Rick-rolling.

    --
    ... and then they built the supercollider.
    1. Re:Please don't. by Eraesr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the initial statement by Anonymous by attacking Mastercard and Paypal and such was a powerful one. However, the problem is that with a decentralized entity like Anonymous which lacks any chain of command or hierarchy to speak of, is that it always tends to go rogue. Maybe not even under the Anonymous banner.

      In the Netherlands, the website of the ministry of justice has been attacked because police arrested a scriptkiddy that was involved in DDoS attacks. It is arguable that Anonymous' attacks on Mastercard have some grounds of morality, but attacking a website of a ministry that simply does it's job does not. It's these kinds of uncontrolled offshoots of an initiative like Anonymous that kills the credibility of Anonymous.

      If Anonymous really wants to continue to have any impact then it should evolve beyond scriptkiddies firing TCP packets at websites and especially distance itself from uncoordinated rogue attacks which often are done out of sheer spite or a desire for vandalism.

    2. Re:Please don't. by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, no matter how tenuous or even non-existent the association, it's trivial for the government and media to link them in the mind of the public.

    3. Re:Please don't. by sznupi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It would be even better if Wikipedia wasn't associated with this - its 10-year anniversary will be celebrated at the very same day

      Such coincidence seems like a purposeful effort at creating confusion...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  4. A history for defending Internet freedom? by prezkennedy.org · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I thought they had a history of DDoSing anyone they disagree with.

    --
    It started back in Team Fortress Classic
  5. Re:Hmmm by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why single out 4chan? At least they're doing something. More, I always get a kick out of how we say things like "Americans are too fat and lazy and content with their sports teams and iced coffees to bother ever standing up to their government or taking real action beyond singing songs while standing in a circle with rhyming picket signs", but the truth is that if you or I voiced any dissent against our government or even took some sort of action and were given the hell of a boot, we'd be bawling like little bitches, too.

    We're all willing to kick Hitler's ass or storm Washington DC with torches and sidearms in our heads, but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess. No matter how justified we are in our principals and should do something, most of us really do have something to lose. It's not like we're mining "blood diamonds" and have nowhere to go but up.

    That said, Anonymous has done some things I thoroughly support (Scientology related, in particular) and some things that make me grin, even though I know it probably isn't helping things, over all. Some of their recent actions seem to have definitely risked the real cause, on which their actions sometimes reflect.

    Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game. As is just being an ass (though I, personally, have far exceeded the average years in which most people pursue that one!).

  6. *sigh* by Haedrian · · Score: 4, Informative

    I hate it when people say "Anonymous" are doing X. It makes it sound like its some sort of static group with a single leader who determines what the group will be up to this week.

    Its never as simple as this. Anonymous are a bunch of individuals who decide whether doing X 'for the lulz' is a good idea or not. Who their leader is changes and doesn't really matter as much as in other cases.

    Its pretty much a case of a totally distributed system which forms links on the fly.

    The person who decided on the DDOS, and the people who followed him/her could be totally different from the people who will be out protesting.

    1. Re:*sigh* by Seumas · · Score: 2

      Not to mention, I don't see anything in the page this submission links to that mentions DDoS. I see a video full of people in Guy Fawkes masks protesting in meatspace with signs, like every other group has been allowed to do (though, some of them relegated to "free speech cages", recently). As far as I know, protesting with signs on the street is still legal (though I thought wearing a mask in public -- especially in an assembled protest -- was illegal in most places in America, now).

      I guess that's the next step, though. The only avenue allowed to people who dissent these days is "peaceful protest" and even then you tend to need to petition the government for a permit to do so. And even then, what possibly be more impotent than a peaceful protest? Next step would probably be to somehow associate protesting with "radical dissent" and who are therefore a threat to the government and freedom and are therefore domestic terrorists yadda yadda yadda.

    2. Re:*sigh* by ledow · · Score: 2

      But flying under the banner of a group by your own admission (as many people do) is basically adjoining yourself to that group and (partly) condoning their actions and (certainly) being tarred with the same brush as everyone else in the group.

      I don't support Anonymous because (apart from the fact that I think they are all idiots and follow pretty much only idiotic causes) if, tomorrow, they all decide that the issue of the moment is that nobody should have central heating, and they start DDoS'ing my energy provider, then that's not something I agree with. With a changeable "group" such as Anonymous, condoning ONE of their actions is pretty much condoning the others too (or you'd be forming a splinter group that *DOESN'T* DDoS those people you don't want to, and thus supporting THAT group instead of Anonymous).

      The fact that different people who BOTH claim membership of the group can do two opposing things isn't my problem. It's just a convenient banner, then, to hide under whenever you do something, no matter what that is and whether the rest of the group condone your actions. But *joining* that group or *condoning* that group (or even acknowledging it's existence as anything other than a vague moniker under which to attack people) is *recognising* that group and thus agreeing with its policies and actions to some extent.

      If people don't want to be associated with those actions, they would be handing in their "membership" of such a group, or clarifying exactly where the boundaries of the group lie - every group has extremists who want to use it to stamp on the good name (just look at certain Muslim extremists) but their actions are always condoned and the separation between "Muslims" and "Nutters who want to blow people up in the name of Islam" is always made clear.

      Anonymous isn't a group. They don't have a cause. They don't have an agenda. They don't really have "members". It's just like saying "God made me do it" or "*THEY* made me do it". And just as convincing.

      Any group that's too shy to name it's member (e.g. British National Party), too scared to disown its own member when they do wrong, or in which ANY action is tolerated isn't a "group" at all. It's just a convenient moniker for doing shit that you want to hide.

    3. Re:*sigh* by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Whenever I see "Anonymous is doing X" my mind auto-translates it into "A large group of random people on the Internet have agreed on doing X"

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  7. and ? by unity100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    anonymous is people. wikileaks serves people. anyone who tries to separate people with what serves them, are against people.

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:and ? by dangitman · · Score: 2

      anonymous is people. wikileaks serves people. anyone who tries to separate people with what serves them, are against people.

      Oookaaaay... would you like some Soylent Green with that? I have my copy of "How to Serve Man" right here if you want to refer to it.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  8. I DOSSED paypal by AndGodSed · · Score: 3, Funny

    But I did not DOS the government...

    --

    Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity

  9. Re:then you deserve to be told the below by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I got a penny each time someone mentioned that quote in a crowd of people who have all seen it mentioned a hundred times before, I'd be able to buy all the liberty I wanted.

  10. You're a pirate by sourcerror · · Score: 4, Funny

    Do what you want, ‘cause a pirate is free,
    YOU ARE A PIRATE!
    Yar har, fiddle di dee,
    Being a pirate is alright to be,
    Do what you want ‘cause a pirate is free,
    You are a pirate!

    Song

    1. Re:You're a pirate by sznupi · · Score: 2

      Please, something more... epic next time.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0QfVDebLFg

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  11. Re:then you deserve to be told the below by Seumas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I got a penny each time I heard some idiot interviewed "man on the street" fashion who said "we have to give up some freedom to be secure", I'd be richer than you would be.

  12. You don't understand what "Anonymous" is by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 2

    Being born in 4chan, Anonymous is much like a great party: it has no definite direction, no leader and will just keep on rolling as long as the people in it like what happens. Given that, Anonymous will continue having an impact for as long as it will, and after that everybody goes home and remember the good time they had.

    The fact that Anonymous exists is a relief, because it shows that there is still a part of the people that can not only see that we have taken a wrong turn, but will act to change the course.

    --
    You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
  13. Anonymous is not for moralfaggots by sourcerror · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anonymous has a well known history of cyber-bullying (do you like pizza and strippers?), vandalizing myspace and facebook pages etc. even though it might not qualify as DDossing.

  14. Re:then you deserve to be told the below by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How many of us throw that quote around along with "Give me liberty or give me death!" and really mean it? And if we haven't acted on your principals against the actions of our own government by now, exactly what is it going to take for us to ever do something? I mean, for fuck's sake, we slept through the suspension of Habeas corpus and endured several years of corporate welfare to provide economic speculators a safety-net that we've never before offered. We've tolerated questionable wars in our name, with shifting justifications given. One could generate a nearly endless list of significant concerns just from the past decade and while we still throw around quotes, we do nothing (I'm lumping myself in here as well, of course).

  15. Re:Hmmm by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 4, Informative

    We're all willing to kick Hitler's ass or storm Washington DC with torches and sidearms in our heads, but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess. No matter how justified we are in our principals and should do something, most of us really do have something to lose. It's not like we're mining "blood diamonds" and have nowhere to go but up.

    WWII was 70 years ago. People in the US today are a lot different than back then. I'm not so sure they would make the sacrifices needed to go kick Hitler's ass, unless it was somehow threatening their consumeristic lifestyle. Even in their elections, the driving theme is are you better off today than you were four years ago, when the real question is where to we need to be tomorrow.

    That said, Anonymous has done some things I thoroughly support (Scientology related, in particular) and some things that make me grin, even though I know it probably isn't helping things, over all. Some of their recent actions seem to have definitely risked the real cause, on which their actions sometimes reflect.

    Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game. As is just being an ass (though I, personally, have far exceeded the average years in which most people pursue that one!).

    Anonymous is winning small battles in what they are doing, but ultimately will lose the war in whatever their perceived purpose is. The more they attack business interests, the more there will be laws enacted to crack down on actions like theirs. Before long, they will be labeled cyber terrorists with all of the negative government attention that will bring.

    It's good to stand up for what you believe. It's even better to choose your fights carefully. Otherwise, you are really just being irresponsible because the consequences set in motion by indiscriminate action affect a lot more people than than the ones that signed on for your cause.

  16. Re:then you deserve to be told the below by Pojut · · Score: 2

    Screw that...if you had a penny for every time someone quoted it different than the last guy did, you'd be rich.

    Seriously. It has to be the most differently-quoted quote to ever exist.

    --
    Living With a Nerd
  17. Re:Hmmm by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If push can to shove and someone like hitler really did appear the response now would be the same as it was then. ignore it until they directly threatened us, and then mobilize in ways never before seen in warfare.

    American's don't care about Afghanistan because it doesn't affect the average american. If you go for all out TOTAL War then you would be in for a surprise at just how not lazy American's can be when pushed hard enough. The thing is even Vietnam wasn't a Total war.

    American's are lazy because they can be. We don't have to work hard. Just hard enough to maintain what is. When What is no longer exists we will moan and cry and then build it again.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  18. Re:Hmmm by jimicus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Go fight Hitler? Did you miss History, or were you misinformed? The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.

    It wasn't until the Japanese attacked the US that the Americans became involved - indeed, were it not for the pact whereby Germany and Italy were obliged to defend to Japan by declaring war on the US immediately after the US attacked Japan, there's a good chance we'd be speaking German in most of Europe today.

  19. Re:Is EFF libertarian? by Seumas · · Score: 2

    What are they supposed to do, spread themselves thin over every single possible principal? The E stands for "Electronic".

    And yes, it's essentially a libertarian organization which was founded by John Perry Barlow (a libertarian) and Mitch Kapor (also a libertarian, I believe?) and initially financially supported by John Gilmore (a libertarian) and Steve Wozniak (who, if not a registered libertarian, is awfully close to being one).

    Of course, even if they weren't, that doesn't mean that the causes they work toward are any different.

  20. Re:Hmmm by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think my point flew over your head.

    People say things about how if they had been alive when the Nazi party was taking over Germany, they "would have done something". In reality, if you or I or anyone else who talk big about how much we'd stand up to oppression and violation of liberties and just plain "wrongness" would do no such thing if we stepped back in time.

    If we were on the street and saw some brown shirts hauling a jewish family out of their home, making them get on their knees, and putting a gun to their head, you know what we'd do? We'd shut our fucking mouths and look the other way, because we don't want to be next.

    My point with that given example was that we do an awful lot of talking about how we should stand up to injustice and fight on principal to retain those ideals that we've lived on for a couple hundred years (and of which many are now considered general "human rights" by the UN, even) . . . but none of us would ever be willing to take the risk of doing anything about it. Except maybe putting a bumper sticker on our cars, a little button on our websites, and if we're really "rebels", going out and standing outside a building with signs . . . on sticks!

  21. Re:Hmmm by Seumas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're right, it's just Wikileaks. Every other violation (suspension of habeas corpus comes to mind, among many others) has been met with such active and significant response by the informed and caring American public. It's just this one isolated incident of Wikileaks where Americans said "you know, I usually put it all on the line to defend our liberties, but I'm gonna take a break today".

    We're all part of a government that commits heinous violations on its own people and - often - even worse violations on others. As long as we have Starbucks, Jersey Shore, Facebook, and our mini-vans, we're content to permit it. Neigh, even to justify and defend it.

  22. Re:Hmmm by Xelios · · Score: 2

    Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game.

    This is called maturity. I didn't realize this when I was young. I thought a big part of maturity was caring enough and having the will to change things for the better. Boy was I wrong. We all like to pretend it's not like this, but the truth is you're considered mature when you've given in to the status quo. You've accepted the world for what it is, realized there's not a damn thing you can do about it and decided to just try to make the best of it for yourself and your family.

    It's sad really. I think we could all do with a little more of those 'immature' rebellious tendencies we had when we were going through "that phase" as teenagers. But without millions of others standing by your side, ready to do the same, you just end up making life difficult for yourself.

    --
    Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
  23. Do they even know what they're aiming at?? by des_irl · · Score: 2

    hi there, Long time reader, first time poster... what the hell are Anon doing? Last night they took down the website of one of our political parties (Fine Gael), the replacement cover notice stating something about freedom and press and internet.. or something like that... But the party they targeted isn't even a member of the running government!! They are currently running quite high in the polls and will do better in the upcoming elections that the current party (Fianna Fail) "running" the place... A party that is VERY corrupt and who only technically has a mandate to be in government! Well done lads! (sarcasm)

  24. Re:Hmmm by tnk1 · · Score: 2

    Also, it should be pointed out that even while the US gov't was technically neutral, we were doing what we could to support the UK with things like Lend-Lease and deals like leasing otherwise useless UK bases in return for (admittedly old) destroyers. While, yes, technically the Germans were eligible for our material under some of the schemes, we knew they couldn't actually take advantage of it because the Royal Navy totally controlled use of the seas around Europe for the entire war.

    Although I am sure that the people of Britain were brave enough to resist the Germans all by themselves, having the US propping them up from the sidelines certainly helped.

  25. Re:Hmmm by danbert8 · · Score: 2

    I disagree. Giving into the status quo is not maturity. Knowing the consequences of your actions is maturity. Most people end up giving into the status quo because of the severe consequences of standing up for your rights. Many mature people stand up for rights, but only if they know they can handle the consequences.

    On an aside note: our government is NOT mature. If they do realize the consequences of their actions, they are all assholes (on another aside note, they could still be assholes if they don't know the consequences).

    --
    Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
  26. Re:Hmmm by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

    And how/why the US got there doesn't change the fact that, as you state, without them, we would all be speaking German in Europe.

    Not necessarily. Germany wasn't really in a position to invade the UK. The Russian army would not have invaded as quickly without Germany being tied up on two fronts, but once Russian industry was on a war footing they'd have kept sending men and tanks at Germany until the won or ran out (and they had a lot of men that they considered expendable at that point).

    The US involvement definitely shortened the war, probably by at least two years, but its biggest effect was to ensure that the Russian advance stopped after they got to Germany. Without the US intervention, it's a lot more likely that people in Europe would be speaking Russian than German. It's also quite likely that the USA would then have gone on to lose the Cold War.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  27. Re:Hmmm by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go fight Hitler? Did you miss History, or were you misinformed? The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.

    As they should have. Why should they have declared war on Axis powers until they were attacked? For "freedom and democracy"? Isn't that neo-con thinking? It never ceases to amaze me that many of the same people that criticize neocons for their doctrine of forcibly spreading democracy across the world also criticize the US for not jumping right into WWII in 1939.

    We tried that, actually, just a couple of decades before. Woodrow Wilson committed this country to war with Germany in 1917. He was looking for a reason to get us in it, and finally got it when the Germans sank the Lusitania (which, yes Virginia, was carrying arms and ammo bound for the British, a violation of our neutrality policy). People were so disillusioned about "saving the world for democracy" precisely because we saw we were snookered in WWI.

    So, have we got that straight? Bush was wrong for war with Saddam, but no no no, Wilson didn't send US troops to fight in what was basically a European pissing match over empires. It was making the world safe for democracy.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  28. Re:Hmmm by hairyfeet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sorry, but I gotta call bullshit. You see if you would have studied your history you'd know that Hitler was ALREADY fucked long before a single American put boots on the ground. look up his "planning" around Operation Barbarossa and you'll see that by Stalingrad he was ALREADY fucked, and fucked HARD. He split his forces into THREE groups after having to stop several time for the supplies to catch up (fuckup #1) and sent the majority south after the oilfields with NO rest (fuckup #2) while at the same time sending a weakened Sixth Panzer after Stalingrad (fuckup 3 and you're out!) .

    If you look at the man's plans he was basically boned with no help from the Americans by Stalingrad. His having to stop several times telegraphed his EXACT plan, which allowed Stalin to move the vital tank and warplane factories (which I would argue the combination of the rugged T-34 which could be argued was the best all around tank of the war backed up by the Katyusha which was cheap to manufacture AND devastating and having the Germans unable to mount an armored offensive thanks to the IL-2 sealed Hitler's fate in the east) left Hitler with NO WAY to stop Stalin's war production, and the weakening of his forces by splitting left him unable to secure the oil fields while at the same time leaving his northern flank exposed.

    If the USA stayed out of the war in Europe the only changes would most likely be that Hitler might have taken England (which even then would have been doubtful as the "cash and carry" would have still allowed England to use the USA for manufacturing) but would have still fallen ultimately to Stalin. The USSR simply had plenty of raw materials with which to work, much of which was out of Hitler's reach, and a VERY large populace with a fanatical hatred of Germans (and rightly so) with which to wage total war. Read some of the books out there on Stalingrad and Barbarossa or even watch the excellent BBC "The World at War: Stalingrad" to see that Hitler's "strategy" in the east was one critical blunder after another.

    The USA could have never set a single boot on the grounds of Europe and simply kept selling to the allies and I doubt anything would have come out differently, and this is coming from an American that had multiple family members fight in WWII in Europe. The simple fact is reading his communiques and plans Hitler bet everything on Russia being another France and Stalin proved him DEAD wrong. Hell the man didn't even have adequate winter gear for his troops! He was SO fucked!

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  29. Re:Hmmm by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

    Oh, I believe GP on that though, it's straight from the horse's mouth!

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  30. Why be anonymous? by Oxdeadface · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So when is wikileaks going to publish the identities, phone numbers, and home addresses of all the members of anonymous? There's no reason that any organization should keep anything secret after all. Right?

    1. Re:Why be anonymous? by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      So when is wikileaks going to publish the identities, phone numbers, and home addresses of all the members of anonymous? There's no reason that any organization should keep anything secret after all. Right?

      Well, you see, it's kind of hard to publish information that is not known -- even more difficult when the "organization" isn't one at all, and as such doesn't keep those types of records (let alone in a centrally accessible location).

      You'd have as easier time expecting Wikileaks to release the personal information of everyone who has visited an arbitrary IRC chatroom (one that doesn't require authentication, you know, because the users are "Anonymous"), considering that "members" of Anonymous congregate in many different unrelated places.

  31. Re:Hmmm by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

    I guess where you missed the United States shipping millions of tons of raw materials and weapons to the United Kingdom and Commonwealth from September 1939 to June 1941, then come July 1941 the United States shipped millions of tons of raw materials and weapons to the United Kingdom, Commonwealth, Free Dutch, Free Norway Free French and Soviet Union every year till the fall of 1945.

    No, the United States didn't sit back and say "meh, not our business", the United States took a side and started building up the military from the summer of '39 on. In the spring of 1941, even before the invasion of Russia, the United States repealed the Neutrality Act and started to openly coordinate with the United Kingdom.

    The United States took over the occupation of Iceland on 16 June 1941 and occupied the country completely by 12 July 1941, well before Japan attacked.

    Had the US declared war in September 1939 what would the 17th largest Army have accomplished? Nothing, the US needed time to build up the military and in the meantime they patrolled the western the Atlantic

  32. Re:Hmmm by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    LOL "massive power shifts" XD

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel