The original ARPANET in its heyday was only a minuscule fraction of the size of the modern Internet. If you have figures that show us the total cost of developing ARPANET and its protocols, post them.
Without a government, the piece of paper that says you own something would be worthless. Not only does the government have a concept of ownership, it actually creates all ownership.
If what you said was true, government could simply invalidate all private property rights with the stroke of a pen, instead of finding it necessary to use massive amounts of violence and terror to enforce such a decree.
Private property rights are innate in human nature.
"In a purely capitalist economy, the market solution to a famine is a lot of dead people.
Except that ever since the 20th century, we don't see famine in more capitalist places. We only see it in places that are either at war, or under socialism.
As someone who's described himself in the past as an "anarcho-syndicalist" (so perhaps I should have described you as closer to fascist), it's obvious what you intend. That, and your demonization of people who've been successful at buying, selling and trading stuff tells us all we need to know, I suppose.
I would say rather, it has changed, to a high water mark in the 1950s, when the top tax bracket was 90%, but has changed back as the monsters fought back. Of course, I'm sure we all agree that we need to stop them at all costs. One can not bargain nor reason with monsters.
That is the true purpose of government, the people banding together to protect themselves from those who would oppress and abuse them. It is our duty, as individuals and citizens, to do everything in our power to stop them.
I understand that you're a socialist, and would like to see people like Bill Gates (or anyone who buys, sells and trades stuff for that matter) terrorized and murdered, but how exactly does Bill Gates "oppress" me by the mere fact of him possessing wealth? Furthermore, what makes him a "sociopath" in the first place?
Hi ! I'm a non-sequitur and I'm here to describe your argument.
It's completely relevant. To some, you are "super-rich". So again, why should you be able to keep all your stuff when there's someone else who needs your wealth more than you do?
No, a very small proportion of (super-rich) people have colluded together to bribe and/or threaten governments into creating laws that enable them to become even more rich, at the cost of everyone else.
So in other words, you believe that wealth is zero-sum, and that it simply falls from the sky.
In fact, the "super-rich" people have no power whatsoever to threaten or bribe governments, except maybe by relocating to places less hostile to private wealth. Some governments have decided that they will not punish successful people too much, and they end up reaping greater economic growth as a result. Wealth isn't finite, so it's impossible to become wealthy at the "cost of everyone else".
Exhibit A: the current global financial crisis.
The current financial crisis in the US was caused by affirmative-action lending, mandated and encouraged by the government. The coming financial collapse will be caused by trillions and trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities, specifically, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.
What I propose is the epitomy of modern, civilised society. It's called progressive taxation.
Modern civilization is not defined by the level of taxation. Civilizations crumble under high taxation and socialist economic policies. Argentina, for example, went from first-world to third world under national socialism, or take those wonderful bastions of economic growth, such as Cuba and North Korea as extreme examples.
The world is not going to fall apart because the unfeasibly rich have to get by with only a dozen houses instead of twenty. All that "wealth" isn't going to just disappear.
Instead, it will be used wastefully and inefficiently to undermine and smash society and civilization.
The problem is political, not scientific. Exxon & Co. have managed to convince the tin-foil-hat gang that all scientists are united in a vast conspiracy against people who own SUVs.
Simply accusing your opposition of being funded by "Exxon & Co." is intellectually lazy, and quite stupid, considering the very small pittance Exxon has (allegedly) given out.
Scientists are scientists, not marketeers, how can they convince people who believe the world is 6000 years old that CO2 does absorb infrared radiation?
It must be nice and convenient to invent beliefs and positions for those you hate.
In fact, the so-called "scientists" do not even know how they "adjusted" their data.
"So what the hell did Tim do?!!"
When people attempted an honest reconstruction, using what data was available, any "global warming" disappeared.
Hi! I'm from sub-Saharan Africa, and, since you're wealthy enough to be posting on Slashdot with a computer, I think you have too much. I'll be sending some Social Justice goons over to your house to make sure you're equal with the rest of us.
The rest of society, which is why we (used to) have extremely high tax rates for the super-rich.
Wrong. Society is the sum of voluntary interactions between individuals. Lots of people obviously decided that what was produced by the "super rich" was worth money. Therefore, "society" has approved of the amount of wealth these individuals possess.
What you propose is using a violently coercive, involuntary institution to seize wealth above an arbitrary amount. That is the antithesis of society.
I suppose Democrats are better than Republicans if you believe smashing the economy, creating huge, bankrupting entitlement programs, getting involved in wars with no intention of winning, and concessions and capitulation to the Soviet Union are "not so bad" things.
Liberty is two wolves getting together to pick off the sheep one by one, because the sheep are so conscious of their own liberty that none of them will make common cause with the others.
Finding common cause with others in a voluntary manner is perfectly consistent with liberty. In any case, an individual with maybe two good personal firearms is in a better position than even several others trying to attack him.
The fairness doctrine promotes more speech. More accurately, it promotes availability of more viewpoints.
Except when radio stations change formats instead of adding the logistical overhead to make sure that Democrat-mandated socialist, communist and jihadist "viewpoints" are heard.
The fairness doctrine doesn't suppress speech
Yes it does; any host deemed to be "conservative" will have Democrat-mandated "balance" added to their show, thereby taking away from the host's airtime.
Since the megaphone is government sponsored, this is entirely reasonable.
No, it is not reasonable. The government arbitrarily claimed exclusive ownership over the airwaves, something that never needed to happen, as common law would have sorted out disputes (this was starting to happen in 1926, with an Illinois court case, Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station).
As a result of government ownership and regulation, broadcast over the airwaves is the most censored, restricted, and unfree of any medium.
the "shocking" realization for the libertarian free market fundamentalist is that the friend of the true capitalist is a strong central government with lots of regulations.
So why are those places with stronger governments and more regulations places of economic centralization and stagnation, while places with less government and fewer regulations, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, are places of decentralization and innovation?
Free markets would work, but unfortunately they don't exist, at least not for long. The inevitable state for a mature market is monopoly or cartel, and the price of freedom is eternal regulation.
This is Marxist fantasy. Real monopolies only arise out of government intervention.
The great crime against humanity that Standard Oil - one of the poster-children for evil, oppressive monopolies - was guilty of was using rapidly advancing technology to greatly reduce the price and time it took to produce refined petroleum, giving rise to the automobile. While there was a period where nobody could compete with Standard Oil on price, this "monopoly" eventually evaporated when refining technology stabilized.
How many people who worked in sweat-shops graduated to management? Before the industrial revolution shirts and shoes were made by middle class skilled tailors, after they were made by lower class unskilled factory workers.
Far more middle class jobs were created than were destroyed.
Ultimately, the industrial revolution morphed into the modern industrial economy and the largest expansion of the middle class in history - but only after labor reforms had taken hold. Labor dragged the the industrialists into modernity kicking and screaming and shooting and beating.
Like I said, industrial society oiled it's machine by offering better conditions than agricultural society - but only just. So the standard of living for the lower classes rose, but only by a small amount - an efficient market in action.
Living standards for the lower classes did not rise "only a small amount". Their living standards increased dramatically before the government got involved, and continued despite government getting involved.
So, the principles the army fought for had no prior history as popular movements? I guess the abolitionists and tea partiers and revolutionaries demanding the right to self-rule were just coincidental precursors.
My point is that both were achieved through war, not through voting.
The federal government oversteps its bounds all the time. It's a flawed human institution, and will always be so. Krister had ten metric tons of sodium metal stored improperly, according to the government.
The sodium metal was completely enclosed in 3/8 inch thick reinforced stainless steel containers that an expert witness said could safely contain it "indefinitely". It was stored under lock and key.
It looks like he got the book thrown at him, and that is unjust, especially since there was no damage to the environment - just the potential. However, it's not unique to governments. Abuses of power occur in the Catholic Church, in corporations, and anywhere humans are. I personally don't like centralized federal governments, but I recognize their necessity for keeping state and local justice systems in line.
The potential for and damage caused by abuses of power in government is far greater than that caused in churches and private organizations.
The freedom to pay $100,000 to save your newborn infant's life [cbsnews.com], due to BCBS denying coverage due to preexisting conditions - even though one of the parents had BCBS - is not something I'd be proud of.
But they were able to obtain the needed surgery, and BCBS now says they will cover the infant.
I was unable to find any news articles on Canadians getting shot for paying for medical procedures.
What happens when you set up a private medical clinic in Canada, accept private payments in "violation" of their "laws", and then rightfully defend yourself when the government comes in to shut you down?
Over anything they want which you possess.
And Microsoft isn't making an offer to buy it because...?
And if a company sucks the aquifer dry that used to supply your farm with water, how are you going to pursue legal recourse?
You sue them.
Is the court local and regularly bribed by the company?
How many local courts are bribed by large companies?
The answer is in a question: How much are you willing to pay for electricity? How much are you willing to pay for running water? How much are you willing to pay to access the roads you use in order to get to work?
If those services were privatized, please explain how the prices would go down.
Prices would behave in much the same manner as in any other reasonably free market. Some would go up because the prices would no longer be artificially low due to political control, and some would go down due to increased competition.
Looks like you're confusing the Sandanistas for the US backed Samoza dictatorship, which we left after we occupied the country from 1912 to 1933 [wikipedia.org]. The Sandanistas were no saints, but they were Nicaraguans.
The Sandinistas were worse than Somoza. Between 1937 and 1979, Somoza's regime murdered around 15,000 people. The Sandinistas murdered 5,000 in around eight years. Somoza's secret police was some 400 people. The Sandinistas expanded it by ten-fold.
Even if what you're saying was remotely true, you'd still be advocating direct material support for one terrorist organization to combat another terrorist organization.
I am not advocating support. The US began aiding a left-of-center military government which then transitioned into a centrist civilian-led government. However terrorist Salvadoran military forces and death squads were, they were fighting against a terrorist organization that probably would have killed more civilians and non-combatants in "peacetime" than were killed by the military and death squads during war.
I read the declassified "Growth and Prospects of Leftist Extremists in El Salvador", I believe from 1980, and the USSR is not even mentioned (though it may be in a redacted portion.) Leftist support is mentioned from throughout Central America, but that's to be expected. It did tally the death toll of leftist extremists at 450 from 1978 to 1979. After the US got involved in propping up the government against the largely native movement, the death toll eventually reached 75,000.
Actually, the timeline of US withdrawal is the one that matches more completely with moves towards peace. Turns out when you aren't having the CIA train every evil shithead at the School of the Americas, and then arming him to the teeth with drug money and weapons sales to sworn enemies in Iran, peace does have a chance.
US aid for anti-communist groups followed Soviet and Cuban aid to pro-communist groups. The anti-Sandinista forces in Nicaragua were fighting a totalitarian regime before they were aided by the US government. Absent external funding for one side or another in Nicaragua, it was the anti-communist side that won free and fair elections. After the civil war ended in El Salvador, it was the anti-communist side that won elections. This indicates that it was the pro-communist forces that were being propped up in the face of popular resistance.
And now, without further explanation, I will say that any political leader of any democratic and sovereign nation accused of anything can be overthrown by the American government because... well, just because.
I stated US rationale for overthrowing Mosaddegh, and it was hardly "just because".
Does mike know how to accidentally throw in the towel or what? But you still managed to even fuck that one up in three, two, one...
Chile 1973
The article alleges "Chile 1973", not "Chile 1970". The CIA opposed Allende, but was not involved in the 1973 coup.
I'll provide the links to the rest. Maybe you care to read them, but I kinda doubt it. Your perspective hinges entirely on things that you wish were true.
Argentina 1976
The Wikipedia article states that the big crime of the US was knowing about the coup two months ahead of time, with the junta being diplomatically supported by the US. No evidence that the CIA orchestrated and executed the coup.
Turkey 1980
Again, the big crime of the US here is being tipped off beforehand. No evidence that the CIA orchestrated or executed the coup
Yes, given their record, some 120 million killed outside of war over the course of the 20th century, I would say that people had damn good reason to be afraid.
They're teaching children to read in Nicaragua
Now that we're talking about post-1980 events with you issuing a nice, pleasant whitewash of Sandinista terror, I'd also like to point out that the Sandinistas were also enslaving the populace, silencing newspapers, kidnapping said children from their families to "educate" them, expanding the secret police, creating neighborhood spy networks, forcibly relocating, torturing and murdering Indians for being Indian (because all Indians were supposedly "CIA agents" or somesuch), etc.
and kicking out our corporations in El Salvador! Quick, someone rape and kill some nuns! For freedom!
People in El Salvador were fighting against the imposition of an alien political ideology and economic system responsible for the deaths of millions and millions, against the clear will of the vast majority of Salvadorans, by those who were armed, funded by, and in the service of the Soviet Union.
Notice how after the USSR fell, these wars in Latin America ended, and democracy was restored. That should tell you who caused these wars, and who was keeping them going.
Is it different from overthrowing a democracy in Iran in 1953 and installing the Shah?
I notice that you're attempting to redirect the conversation, but I'll continue answering your "points".
Mosaddegh came to power after his predecessor was murdered for opposing Mosaddegh's policies. Once in power, Mosaddegh continued to rule without holding elections, as required by the Iranian constitution at the time.
Or funding coups throughout central and south America and in fact, all over the world?
At least three of those examples during the Cold War are pure bullshit, Chile 1973, Argentina 1976 and Turkey 1980 (the only source apparently being Noam Chomsky, and hence, a very high probability that this is a lie). The ones after the Cold War are all bullshit.
Is it different from hand-picking Saddam Hussein to rule the Ba'ath Party,
Bullshit.
In 1963, Saddam Hussein was an obscure student radical that nobody had heard of. He wasn't a rising star in the Baath party until around the 1968 coup, and didn't come to rule over Iraq until 1979.
support his rise to power, removing him from the State Sponsors of Terror in order to arm him with chemical weapons, and then claim America had nothing to do with it when he stops following orders?
Yes, the US did lift export restrictions against Iraq so US companies could sell him dual-use items that he probably used to develop chemical weapons. Many other countries did the same. It was the US, however, that eventually overthrew him.
You're a fucking liar. Again.
All you've shown me is evidence that the Ford administration was guilty of knowing about the invasion beforehand, and not "caring" enough about it. Indonesia has been on and off of US sanctions lists for decades, and weapons sold to Indonesia after the invasion were sold with the stipulation that they not be used in East Timor.
You're an apologist for depraved violence as long as the person holding the gun is wrapped in an American flag and saying some nice words that you don't really comprehend.
Let's compare the "depraved violence" directly committed by America's government throughout the 20th century (the vast majority being in response to real totalitarian threats) with the massive amounts of terror, slavery and mass-murder directly committed by America's enemies against innocent, disarmed people during the s
Slashdot Mirror
The original ARPANET in its heyday was only a minuscule fraction of the size of the modern Internet. If you have figures that show us the total cost of developing ARPANET and its protocols, post them.
Absent government, law abiding people are generally able to put together spontaneous posses outnumbering any lightly organized criminal gang.
If what you said was true, government could simply invalidate all private property rights with the stroke of a pen, instead of finding it necessary to use massive amounts of violence and terror to enforce such a decree.
Private property rights are innate in human nature.
So how many billions of dollars were spent by the US government on the Internet, and how many billions of private dollars were spent on the Internet?
My guess is that private investment far exceeds government funding.
Except that ever since the 20th century, we don't see famine in more capitalist places. We only see it in places that are either at war, or under socialism.
If you think NPR leans "well to the right", you probably also think Pol Pot was a moderate.
The key word here is 'Feds'. No corporation on Earth has a monopoly of violence that governments do.
As someone who's described himself in the past as an "anarcho-syndicalist" (so perhaps I should have described you as closer to fascist), it's obvious what you intend. That, and your demonization of people who've been successful at buying, selling and trading stuff tells us all we need to know, I suppose.
I understand that you're a socialist, and would like to see people like Bill Gates (or anyone who buys, sells and trades stuff for that matter) terrorized and murdered, but how exactly does Bill Gates "oppress" me by the mere fact of him possessing wealth? Furthermore, what makes him a "sociopath" in the first place?
Hi ! I'm a non-sequitur and I'm here to describe your argument.
It's completely relevant. To some, you are "super-rich". So again, why should you be able to keep all your stuff when there's someone else who needs your wealth more than you do?
No, a very small proportion of (super-rich) people have colluded together to bribe and/or threaten governments into creating laws that enable them to become even more rich, at the cost of everyone else.
So in other words, you believe that wealth is zero-sum, and that it simply falls from the sky.
In fact, the "super-rich" people have no power whatsoever to threaten or bribe governments, except maybe by relocating to places less hostile to private wealth. Some governments have decided that they will not punish successful people too much, and they end up reaping greater economic growth as a result. Wealth isn't finite, so it's impossible to become wealthy at the "cost of everyone else".
Exhibit A: the current global financial crisis.
The current financial crisis in the US was caused by affirmative-action lending, mandated and encouraged by the government. The coming financial collapse will be caused by trillions and trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities, specifically, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.
What I propose is the epitomy of modern, civilised society. It's called progressive taxation.
Modern civilization is not defined by the level of taxation. Civilizations crumble under high taxation and socialist economic policies. Argentina, for example, went from first-world to third world under national socialism, or take those wonderful bastions of economic growth, such as Cuba and North Korea as extreme examples.
The world is not going to fall apart because the unfeasibly rich have to get by with only a dozen houses instead of twenty. All that "wealth" isn't going to just disappear.
Instead, it will be used wastefully and inefficiently to undermine and smash society and civilization.
The problem is political, not scientific. Exxon & Co. have managed to convince the tin-foil-hat gang that all scientists are united in a vast conspiracy against people who own SUVs.
Simply accusing your opposition of being funded by "Exxon & Co." is intellectually lazy, and quite stupid, considering the very small pittance Exxon has (allegedly) given out.
Scientists are scientists, not marketeers, how can they convince people who believe the world is 6000 years old that CO2 does absorb infrared radiation?
It must be nice and convenient to invent beliefs and positions for those you hate.
In fact, the so-called "scientists" do not even know how they "adjusted" their data.
"So what the hell did Tim do?!!"
When people attempted an honest reconstruction, using what data was available, any "global warming" disappeared.
This describes socialists, who see themselves as the planners, and the rest of us as the planned.
Hi! I'm from sub-Saharan Africa, and, since you're wealthy enough to be posting on Slashdot with a computer, I think you have too much. I'll be sending some Social Justice goons over to your house to make sure you're equal with the rest of us.
Wrong. Society is the sum of voluntary interactions between individuals. Lots of people obviously decided that what was produced by the "super rich" was worth money. Therefore, "society" has approved of the amount of wealth these individuals possess.
What you propose is using a violently coercive, involuntary institution to seize wealth above an arbitrary amount. That is the antithesis of society.
I suppose Democrats are better than Republicans if you believe smashing the economy, creating huge, bankrupting entitlement programs, getting involved in wars with no intention of winning, and concessions and capitulation to the Soviet Union are "not so bad" things.
So when do we get to see them cut your head off?
Finding common cause with others in a voluntary manner is perfectly consistent with liberty. In any case, an individual with maybe two good personal firearms is in a better position than even several others trying to attack him.
Except when radio stations change formats instead of adding the logistical overhead to make sure that Democrat-mandated socialist, communist and jihadist "viewpoints" are heard.
Yes it does; any host deemed to be "conservative" will have Democrat-mandated "balance" added to their show, thereby taking away from the host's airtime.
No, it is not reasonable. The government arbitrarily claimed exclusive ownership over the airwaves, something that never needed to happen, as common law would have sorted out disputes (this was starting to happen in 1926, with an Illinois court case, Tribune Co. v. Oak Leaves Broadcasting Station).
As a result of government ownership and regulation, broadcast over the airwaves is the most censored, restricted, and unfree of any medium.
Good. We don't want censorship.
I can't say that I care much about the government deciding not to regulate ISPs.
I don't care about democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
I prefer liberty.
So why are those places with stronger governments and more regulations places of economic centralization and stagnation, while places with less government and fewer regulations, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, are places of decentralization and innovation?
This is Marxist fantasy. Real monopolies only arise out of government intervention.
The great crime against humanity that Standard Oil - one of the poster-children for evil, oppressive monopolies - was guilty of was using rapidly advancing technology to greatly reduce the price and time it took to produce refined petroleum, giving rise to the automobile. While there was a period where nobody could compete with Standard Oil on price, this "monopoly" eventually evaporated when refining technology stabilized.
Give us some examples of such "consumer protections, with teeth" you think are needed.
Far more middle class jobs were created than were destroyed.
Living standards for the lower classes did not rise "only a small amount". Their living standards increased dramatically before the government got involved, and continued despite government getting involved.
My point is that both were achieved through war, not through voting.
The sodium metal was completely enclosed in 3/8 inch thick reinforced stainless steel containers that an expert witness said could safely contain it "indefinitely". It was stored under lock and key.
The potential for and damage caused by abuses of power in government is far greater than that caused in churches and private organizations.
But they were able to obtain the needed surgery, and BCBS now says they will cover the infant.
What happens when you set up a private medical clinic in Canada, accept private payments in "violation" of their "laws", and then rightfully defend yourself when the government comes in to shut you down?
And Microsoft isn't making an offer to buy it because...?
You sue them.
How many local courts are bribed by large companies?
Prices would behave in much the same manner as in any other reasonably free market. Some would go up because the prices would no longer be artificially low due to political control, and some would go down due to increased competition.
http://hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM
The Sandinistas were worse than Somoza. Between 1937 and 1979, Somoza's regime murdered around 15,000 people. The Sandinistas murdered 5,000 in around eight years. Somoza's secret police was some 400 people. The Sandinistas expanded it by ten-fold.
I am not advocating support. The US began aiding a left-of-center military government which then transitioned into a centrist civilian-led government. However terrorist Salvadoran military forces and death squads were, they were fighting against a terrorist organization that probably would have killed more civilians and non-combatants in "peacetime" than were killed by the military and death squads during war.
US aid for anti-communist groups followed Soviet and Cuban aid to pro-communist groups. The anti-Sandinista forces in Nicaragua were fighting a totalitarian regime before they were aided by the US government. Absent external funding for one side or another in Nicaragua, it was the anti-communist side that won free and fair elections. After the civil war ended in El Salvador, it was the anti-communist side that won elections. This indicates that it was the pro-communist forces that were being propped up in the face of popular resistance.
I stated US rationale for overthrowing Mosaddegh, and it was hardly "just because".
The article alleges "Chile 1973", not "Chile 1970". The CIA opposed Allende, but was not involved in the 1973 coup.
The Wikipedia article states that the big crime of the US was knowing about the coup two months ahead of time, with the junta being diplomatically supported by the US. No evidence that the CIA orchestrated and executed the coup.
Again, the big crime of the US here is being tipped off beforehand. No evidence that the CIA orchestrated or executed the coup
Yes, given their record, some 120 million killed outside of war over the course of the 20th century, I would say that people had damn good reason to be afraid.
Now that we're talking about post-1980 events with you issuing a nice, pleasant whitewash of Sandinista terror, I'd also like to point out that the Sandinistas were also enslaving the populace, silencing newspapers, kidnapping said children from their families to "educate" them, expanding the secret police, creating neighborhood spy networks, forcibly relocating, torturing and murdering Indians for being Indian (because all Indians were supposedly "CIA agents" or somesuch), etc.
People in El Salvador were fighting against the imposition of an alien political ideology and economic system responsible for the deaths of millions and millions, against the clear will of the vast majority of Salvadorans, by those who were armed, funded by, and in the service of the Soviet Union.
Notice how after the USSR fell, these wars in Latin America ended, and democracy was restored. That should tell you who caused these wars, and who was keeping them going.
I notice that you're attempting to redirect the conversation, but I'll continue answering your "points".
Mosaddegh came to power after his predecessor was murdered for opposing Mosaddegh's policies. Once in power, Mosaddegh continued to rule without holding elections, as required by the Iranian constitution at the time.
At least three of those examples during the Cold War are pure bullshit, Chile 1973, Argentina 1976 and Turkey 1980 (the only source apparently being Noam Chomsky, and hence, a very high probability that this is a lie). The ones after the Cold War are all bullshit.
Bullshit.
In 1963, Saddam Hussein was an obscure student radical that nobody had heard of. He wasn't a rising star in the Baath party until around the 1968 coup, and didn't come to rule over Iraq until 1979.
Yes, the US did lift export restrictions against Iraq so US companies could sell him dual-use items that he probably used to develop chemical weapons. Many other countries did the same. It was the US, however, that eventually overthrew him.
All you've shown me is evidence that the Ford administration was guilty of knowing about the invasion beforehand, and not "caring" enough about it. Indonesia has been on and off of US sanctions lists for decades, and weapons sold to Indonesia after the invasion were sold with the stipulation that they not be used in East Timor.
Let's compare the "depraved violence" directly committed by America's government throughout the 20th century (the vast majority being in response to real totalitarian threats) with the massive amounts of terror, slavery and mass-murder directly committed by America's enemies against innocent, disarmed people during the s