Its a bit more complicated than that - the partition of Korea only happened in 1948, two years before the Korean War started, and *both* sides were making aggressive noises and movements toward the other, it was simply the North that first moved en mass south of the border to reunite the country. The South at that point was still building its military in preparation for its own invasion of the North...
And it is not as simple as you suggest. While both sides claimed to be the legitimate government of all of Korea and desired reunification, only one side had the actual capability to force reunification. The North, far better armed than the South due to Chinese and Soviet support, had the capability to completely overwhelm the South. The South had no such capability.
By the start of the Korean War in 1950, the South had imprisoned 30,000 communists, and had interred 300,000 more in "reeducation camps". They had also killed more than 60,000 of their own citizens in various quellings of uprisings by disowned groups. The North were doing their own similar thing, sure, but I concentrate on the South here because they are always the side which gets white washed when it comes to the Korean War...
Failing to indicate that the North engaged in such practices on a far larger and even more brutal scale is a whitewashing of the North.
Their claims for what the test showed is false. Successfully detonating a weak nuke doesn't indicate that it's been standardized, or it will function on a ballistic missile. (Rockets have no guidance, so only a total F'ing moron would put one on a rocket.)
V2 rockets hit London from French territory during WW2. North Korea could hit Seoul, its only 35 miles from the border.
Umm...it's not quite so simple as that. Before the Korean war there was no concrete North Korea and South Korea. Neither government recognized the border or each other. Poor old Korea split up due to the meddling of the super powers.
Actually it is quite simple. In 1950 and today North Korea does not recognize the legitimacy of the South Korean government and considers reunification by force to be a legitimate option. There is no peace treaty ending the Korean War, just a Cease Fire. North Korea has occasionally conducted raids into South Korea and killed South Korean over the decades of this Cease Fire.
Can we assume that one day North Korea will attack something? I've always thought that they're just posturing, but this most recent "test" makes me hesitate...
You mean attack something again? There was the North Korean invasion of South Korea back in the 1950s, before a prepared US military and a prepared South Korean military were sitting on the border.
North Korea says it has tested a nuclear warhead and that the test showed the warhead "has been standardized to be able to be mounted on strategic ballistic rockets."
This can't have happened, Bill Clinton signed an agreement with North Korea.
Depends on one's definition of decadence. I don't consider anything beyond the puritanical to necessarily be decadent. However there is a point where self indulgence can go beyond personal enjoyment and cause harm to others, that's about where I draw the decadence line. I think various emperor's crossed that line. I may be wrong but I don't think the Roman ideal of virtue was necessarily puritanical given household paintings and mosaics that have been discovered.
My question was really about whether the leadership's decadence peaked or greatly exceeded the publics in the centuries closer to the fall. Decadence of leadership could contribute to the civil wars and problems with the Germans and hence have a role. Consider if the leadership of those respective time frames was closer to a Cincinnatus than Caligula, just making a point, I don't know if later rulers went that far. I'm more interested in the Republic era with respect to my readings.
Extracting a portion and embedding it in your content without quote or citation does not seem like fair use, it actually seems like plagiarism.
Let me add that a link is a citation.
Wrong. The link is not visible to the casual reader, it is buried in the HTML source. Hence it does not count.
A link is not the content, a link is a reference to the content.
In a "programming" sense (to use the word "programming" very loosely), not in a "inform the reader" sense. Hence it does not count.
(Again, read Berners-Lee's document. He is the creator of the hyperlink, and he makes this point very clear.)
Apparently not clear enough, you seem to misunderstand it. Note how he repeatedly refers to linking to a *page*. A link to a complete page is something very different than an embedded link to a fragment of a page's content. It is only the former being discussed here, and the plagiaristic nature of unmarked unidentified (from the reader's perspective, not the html client's perspective) embedding of someone else's work. Keyword: "embedding", that is something different than "linking", taking a reader to someone else's web page.
Yes, but this is in character with CA politicians. Recently when the Bay Bridge was constructed they used Chinese steel.
If the CA politicians put in a "Made in USA" provision into the contract and it cost the project more money, you would be complaining about crony capitalism.
Cronyism is contracting to "friends" who have not fairly won the contract. "Made in USA" is not cronyism. When money is spent it has a second life contributing to the economy where it is spent, that benefit can occur in the USA or China. Which is better to the interests of the CA? Those financial contributions can exceed your hypothetical extra costs. More importantly, the project is costing more money because of defective materials and workmanship, cables rusting already, etc. The cost saving by going with a Chinese supplier are already evaporated.
Nationalism is never a particularly rational argument.
However there is a much more reasonable argument. Part of the reason we pay taxes is because they are good for the economy, as they keep money flowing in the economy and increases employment in the public sector thus increasing consumption by the working class (which in turn feeds businesses). But if that work goes offshore, then that tax is going offshore and stops being useful to the taxpayer from an economic perspective.
Your alternative argument is absolutely nationalistic. Nationalism, like Libertarianism, is not defined by its extreme fringe. Nationalism at its core is giving your country's interests a high priority. This can manifest in rational economics as you discussed.
Horrible insult to the USA, our students, and our educators. Terrible.
Yes, but this is in character with CA politicians. Recently when the Bay Bridge was constructed they used Chinese steel.
Do you think the jobs of white collar IT workers are any more valuable than blue collar steel workers to CA politicians? That being a UC employee makes any difference to them? And don't kid yourself about the administrators of the UC system being politicians. Funds must be cut to fund their political payback projects and their vanity projects.
FWIW, I have seen behind the scenes of UC politics a little, spent some time on two campuses.
For example when US helicopters kill some journalists in Iraq they will remove the early parts of the video showing these journalists traveling down the street with a group of armed militants only blocks from where US ground forces are engaged in combat.
And whether that's true or not isn't even the point. It's not the journalists we care about in that encounter.
Actually it is entirely the point. The point of this thread is not the justifiability of the attack, its the credibility of Wikileaks' reporting on the attack. And given their editing their credibility is suspect. Wikileaks has an agenda, and just like politicians and advocacy groups they selectively offer the facts that support that agenda.
Did those 100 arrested people crash their cars at a statistically significantly higher rate than the population of 'normally' licensed people? If not, what was the benefit?
From the first sentence of the summary: "leading to 100 arrests for fraud and identity theft, plus another 900 open cases." The benefit is not letting an identity thief get a valid official identification card from the government.
I was not aware they ever did any vetting, and if they did, what their standard of care was
Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" and "curation". They will edit things to remove facts contrary to the narrative they wish to promote. For example when US helicopters kill some journalists in Iraq they will remove the early parts of the video showing these journalists traveling down the street with a group of armed militants only blocks from where US ground forces are engaged in combat.
Bernie's strength was in getting the message out, and nothing is stopping him from delivering more messages. If H doesn't push for the reforms she promised to push for, you'll probably hear it from Bernie. He's giving her a fair chance, first.
Bernie has no influence anymore. He is now dependent upon the good graces of the Democratic establishment for his senatorial career. Offer more than a few token complaints and goodbye committee assignments, caucusing with the other Democrats, finding cosponsors and support for any bills, etc.
Bernie has no "pulpit" anymore. The media is done with Bernie, he won't get the news coverage he has enjoyed.
Hillary won. Her vision will dominate. The Clinton political machine will support that vision. Bernie is once again irrelevant, a political footnote.
I know lots of Bernie supporters like myself who are disgusted that our vote doesn't count at all and are now more likely to vote for Trump or not vote at all. If all Bernie supporters fail to vote at all, that is still a vote for Trump. It will take all of us Bernie supporters to bring a democrat to the white house. I don't see that happening.
The anger of Bernie supports will fade and by November they will be good little Democrats and vote for their party's choice. They are just going to complain for a while but come November they will vote for Hillary. Her and he supporter's actions will be vindicated.
Platforms are nothing. They are universally ignored once in office. Its a placebo offered at conventions to "give a voice" to fringe elements. Nothing more. A "voice" that lasts about as long as the convention.
Bernie bowed to protect his Senate position. He would have been ostracized, a pariah. No good committee positions, no role in caucusing when legislation is being drafted or considered, few if any Democrats willing to work with him, etc. He had a choice, the "revolution" or his "career". He chose "career".
And another example of rewarding the faithful, and the Clinton Foundation operating in concert with her government office.
"Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton received monthly missives about the growing unrest in Libya from a longtime friend who was previously barred by the White House from working for her as a government employee, according to emails received on her personal account.
The messages show the role played by Sidney Blumenthal, who was working for the Clinton family foundation and advising a group of entrepreneurs trying to win business from the Libyan transitional government. Mr. Blumenthal repeatedly wrote dispatches about the events in Libya to Mrs. Clinton, who often forwarded them to her aides at the State Department.
Mrs. Clinton’s earlier efforts to hire Mr. Blumenthal, who has spent nearly two decades working for the Clinton family, as a State Department employee were rejected by Obama administration..." http://www.washingtontimes.com...
They are being rewarded not fired. Like Debbie Wasserman Schultz has already done, they are probably moving from the DNC to Hillary's campaign
DWS's position is a "honorary chair of the campaign's 50-state program". She has no responsibilities or voice in the campaign.
You mean her name will appear on no official document or email. She has access to Hillary, she is there to advice Hillary.
She was given a desk and told to STFU to limit additional fallout.
She is given a desk because they think she still has things to contribute to Hillary. Otherwise she wouldn't be at the campaign, Hillary is not being publicly hypocritical for no gain.
Once the election is over she'll not be part of the administration nor will she possibly have a senate seat. Not exactly a reward.
Criminal actions and embarrassing the Clintons is no barrier to continued employment by the Clintons. The loyalty displayed by these acts is valued, there will be more such acts so people of extreme loyalty are highly valued.
Oh, and I consider the Clinton Foundation to be an extension of a Hillary administration. So if she winds up there that counts too.
"Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01 Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism... Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them." http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
"Berger served as a foreign policy adviser to Senator Hillary Clinton in her 2008 presidential campaign." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
When you fire the entire executive staff for rigging a primary...
They are being rewarded not fired. Like Debbie Wasserman Schultz has already done, they are probably moving from the DNC to Hillary's campaign, and ultimately on to positions in the Clinton administration. Like Tim Kaine, another former DNC chair who has supported the Clintons for many years.
Hillary's been nominated, the DNC's main work is done. The important folks move on to the presidential campaign. The less important folks stay behind at the DNC and work on state and congressional stuff. These people are leaving on schedule. Washerman Schultz had to leave a few days ahead of schedule, nothing more.
They fear no repercussions for any of this since Bernie's followers will be good little Democrats and vote for Hillary in the end. That is all that matters. The revolution is dead despite Bernie's claims to the contrary. He got on board with Hillary so he will not lose the committee positions and other advantages he has in the Senate. To go against her would mean he would be ostracized, so he plays ball. He talks of the platform, platforms never mean a damn thing. They are just symbolic appeasements for the fringe elements of the party. Always has been, now Bernie's revolution joins those ranks.
A Hillary victory means everything Bernie fought for was for nothing, everything Hillary and company did vindicated. Hillary and the party machine will have forgotten Bernie in a matter of days, any pain or embarrassment he caused fading by the day, soon to be forgotten. Soon to be remembered as nothing more than a defeated tough opponent. What he stood for forgotten, just that he was somehow a "tough opponent", no one remembering precisely why.
I still have not seen you back up your opinion with any sort of real world example. Instead of me proving you wrong with countless other examples, how about you show me one example where congress has stopped a military operation with funding cuts, or the supreme court with judicial rulings.
You seem confused on history, the record is one of Presidents going to Congress over large scale military operations not avoiding it. As for the Supreme Court there again we have the record of history saying the Court does have jurisdiction over the military to ensure adherence to the Constitution.
History has proven time and time again that these ideological checks & balances are not working as well as they should.
Actually history shows Presidents, Congresses and Courts agreeing to make the same mistake, as in the Japanese internment case. That is something quite different than checks and balances not existing.
Slashdot Mirror
Its a bit more complicated than that - the partition of Korea only happened in 1948, two years before the Korean War started, and *both* sides were making aggressive noises and movements toward the other, it was simply the North that first moved en mass south of the border to reunite the country. The South at that point was still building its military in preparation for its own invasion of the North ...
And it is not as simple as you suggest. While both sides claimed to be the legitimate government of all of Korea and desired reunification, only one side had the actual capability to force reunification. The North, far better armed than the South due to Chinese and Soviet support, had the capability to completely overwhelm the South. The South had no such capability.
By the start of the Korean War in 1950, the South had imprisoned 30,000 communists, and had interred 300,000 more in "reeducation camps". They had also killed more than 60,000 of their own citizens in various quellings of uprisings by disowned groups. The North were doing their own similar thing, sure, but I concentrate on the South here because they are always the side which gets white washed when it comes to the Korean War ...
Failing to indicate that the North engaged in such practices on a far larger and even more brutal scale is a whitewashing of the North.
Their claims for what the test showed is false. Successfully detonating a weak nuke doesn't indicate that it's been standardized, or it will function on a ballistic missile. (Rockets have no guidance, so only a total F'ing moron would put one on a rocket.)
V2 rockets hit London from French territory during WW2. North Korea could hit Seoul, its only 35 miles from the border.
Umm...it's not quite so simple as that. Before the Korean war there was no concrete North Korea and South Korea. Neither government recognized the border or each other. Poor old Korea split up due to the meddling of the super powers.
Actually it is quite simple. In 1950 and today North Korea does not recognize the legitimacy of the South Korean government and considers reunification by force to be a legitimate option. There is no peace treaty ending the Korean War, just a Cease Fire. North Korea has occasionally conducted raids into South Korea and killed South Korean over the decades of this Cease Fire.
Can we assume that one day North Korea will attack something? I've always thought that they're just posturing, but this most recent "test" makes me hesitate...
You mean attack something again? There was the North Korean invasion of South Korea back in the 1950s, before a prepared US military and a prepared South Korean military were sitting on the border.
North Korea says it has tested a nuclear warhead and that the test showed the warhead "has been standardized to be able to be mounted on strategic ballistic rockets."
This can't have happened, Bill Clinton signed an agreement with North Korea.
I'm not commenting on the court decision. I'm commenting on the false meme that linking to a page and an embedded link are equivalent.
Depends on one's definition of decadence. I don't consider anything beyond the puritanical to necessarily be decadent. However there is a point where self indulgence can go beyond personal enjoyment and cause harm to others, that's about where I draw the decadence line. I think various emperor's crossed that line. I may be wrong but I don't think the Roman ideal of virtue was necessarily puritanical given household paintings and mosaics that have been discovered.
My question was really about whether the leadership's decadence peaked or greatly exceeded the publics in the centuries closer to the fall. Decadence of leadership could contribute to the civil wars and problems with the Germans and hence have a role. Consider if the leadership of those respective time frames was closer to a Cincinnatus than Caligula, just making a point, I don't know if later rulers went that far. I'm more interested in the Republic era with respect to my readings.
This is a test. They are failing.
This is an indicator, the bubble is about to burst. Just like it did at the end of Bill Clinton's presidency.
Roman decadence peaked in the 1st century AD, but the downfall didn't happen till nearly 400 years later.
The decadence of the people or the decadence of the leadership? The leadership can do more damage.
Extracting a portion and embedding it in your content without quote or citation does not seem like fair use, it actually seems like plagiarism.
Let me add that a link is a citation .
Wrong. The link is not visible to the casual reader, it is buried in the HTML source. Hence it does not count.
A link is not the content, a link is a reference to the content.
In a "programming" sense (to use the word "programming" very loosely), not in a "inform the reader" sense. Hence it does not count.
(Again, read Berners-Lee's document. He is the creator of the hyperlink, and he makes this point very clear.)
Apparently not clear enough, you seem to misunderstand it. Note how he repeatedly refers to linking to a *page*. A link to a complete page is something very different than an embedded link to a fragment of a page's content. It is only the former being discussed here, and the plagiaristic nature of unmarked unidentified (from the reader's perspective, not the html client's perspective) embedding of someone else's work. Keyword: "embedding", that is something different than "linking", taking a reader to someone else's web page.
Yes, but this is in character with CA politicians. Recently when the Bay Bridge was constructed they used Chinese steel.
If the CA politicians put in a "Made in USA" provision into the contract and it cost the project more money, you would be complaining about crony capitalism.
Cronyism is contracting to "friends" who have not fairly won the contract. "Made in USA" is not cronyism. When money is spent it has a second life contributing to the economy where it is spent, that benefit can occur in the USA or China. Which is better to the interests of the CA? Those financial contributions can exceed your hypothetical extra costs. More importantly, the project is costing more money because of defective materials and workmanship, cables rusting already, etc. The cost saving by going with a Chinese supplier are already evaporated.
Nationalism is never a particularly rational argument.
However there is a much more reasonable argument. Part of the reason we pay taxes is because they are good for the economy, as they keep money flowing in the economy and increases employment in the public sector thus increasing consumption by the working class (which in turn feeds businesses). But if that work goes offshore, then that tax is going offshore and stops being useful to the taxpayer from an economic perspective.
Your alternative argument is absolutely nationalistic. Nationalism, like Libertarianism, is not defined by its extreme fringe. Nationalism at its core is giving your country's interests a high priority. This can manifest in rational economics as you discussed.
Horrible insult to the USA, our students, and our educators. Terrible.
Yes, but this is in character with CA politicians. Recently when the Bay Bridge was constructed they used Chinese steel.
Do you think the jobs of white collar IT workers are any more valuable than blue collar steel workers to CA politicians? That being a UC employee makes any difference to them? And don't kid yourself about the administrators of the UC system being politicians. Funds must be cut to fund their political payback projects and their vanity projects.
FWIW, I have seen behind the scenes of UC politics a little, spent some time on two campuses.
For example when US helicopters kill some journalists in Iraq they will remove the early parts of the video showing these journalists traveling down the street with a group of armed militants only blocks from where US ground forces are engaged in combat.
And whether that's true or not isn't even the point. It's not the journalists we care about in that encounter.
Actually it is entirely the point. The point of this thread is not the justifiability of the attack, its the credibility of Wikileaks' reporting on the attack. And given their editing their credibility is suspect. Wikileaks has an agenda, and just like politicians and advocacy groups they selectively offer the facts that support that agenda.
Did those 100 arrested people crash their cars at a statistically significantly higher rate than the population of 'normally' licensed people? If not, what was the benefit?
From the first sentence of the summary: "leading to 100 arrests for fraud and identity theft, plus another 900 open cases." The benefit is not letting an identity thief get a valid official identification card from the government.
I was not aware they ever did any vetting, and if they did, what their standard of care was
Wikileaks absolutely does "vetting" and "curation". They will edit things to remove facts contrary to the narrative they wish to promote. For example when US helicopters kill some journalists in Iraq they will remove the early parts of the video showing these journalists traveling down the street with a group of armed militants only blocks from where US ground forces are engaged in combat.
Bernie's strength was in getting the message out, and nothing is stopping him from delivering more messages. If H doesn't push for the reforms she promised to push for, you'll probably hear it from Bernie. He's giving her a fair chance, first.
Bernie has no influence anymore. He is now dependent upon the good graces of the Democratic establishment for his senatorial career. Offer more than a few token complaints and goodbye committee assignments, caucusing with the other Democrats, finding cosponsors and support for any bills, etc.
Bernie has no "pulpit" anymore. The media is done with Bernie, he won't get the news coverage he has enjoyed.
Hillary won. Her vision will dominate. The Clinton political machine will support that vision. Bernie is once again irrelevant, a political footnote.
I know lots of Bernie supporters like myself who are disgusted that our vote doesn't count at all and are now more likely to vote for Trump or not vote at all. If all Bernie supporters fail to vote at all, that is still a vote for Trump. It will take all of us Bernie supporters to bring a democrat to the white house. I don't see that happening.
The anger of Bernie supports will fade and by November they will be good little Democrats and vote for their party's choice. They are just going to complain for a while but come November they will vote for Hillary. Her and he supporter's actions will be vindicated.
Platforms are nothing. They are universally ignored once in office. Its a placebo offered at conventions to "give a voice" to fringe elements. Nothing more. A "voice" that lasts about as long as the convention.
Bernie bowed to protect his Senate position. He would have been ostracized, a pariah. No good committee positions, no role in caucusing when legislation is being drafted or considered, few if any Democrats willing to work with him, etc. He had a choice, the "revolution" or his "career". He chose "career".
And another example of rewarding the faithful, and the Clinton Foundation operating in concert with her government office.
..."
"Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton received monthly missives about the growing unrest in Libya from a longtime friend who was previously barred by the White House from working for her as a government employee, according to emails received on her personal account. The messages show the role played by Sidney Blumenthal, who was working for the Clinton family foundation and advising a group of entrepreneurs trying to win business from the Libyan transitional government. Mr. Blumenthal repeatedly wrote dispatches about the events in Libya to Mrs. Clinton, who often forwarded them to her aides at the State Department. Mrs. Clinton’s earlier efforts to hire Mr. Blumenthal, who has spent nearly two decades working for the Clinton family, as a State Department employee were rejected by Obama administration
http://www.washingtontimes.com...
DWS's position is a "honorary chair of the campaign's 50-state program". She has no responsibilities or voice in the campaign.
You mean her name will appear on no official document or email. She has access to Hillary, she is there to advice Hillary.
She was given a desk and told to STFU to limit additional fallout.
She is given a desk because they think she still has things to contribute to Hillary. Otherwise she wouldn't be at the campaign, Hillary is not being publicly hypocritical for no gain.
Once the election is over she'll not be part of the administration nor will she possibly have a senate seat. Not exactly a reward.
Criminal actions and embarrassing the Clintons is no barrier to continued employment by the Clintons. The loyalty displayed by these acts is valued, there will be more such acts so people of extreme loyalty are highly valued.
... Berger spoke falsely last summer in public claims that in 2003 he twice inadvertently walked off with copies of a classified document during visits to the National Archives, then later lost them."
Oh, and I consider the Clinton Foundation to be an extension of a Hillary administration. So if she winds up there that counts too.
"Friday, April 1, 2005; Page A01 Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, a former White House national security adviser, plans to plead guilty to a misdemeanor, and will acknowledge intentionally removing and destroying copies of a classified document about the Clinton administration's record on terrorism
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
"Berger served as a foreign policy adviser to Senator Hillary Clinton in her 2008 presidential campaign."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
When you fire the entire executive staff for rigging a primary ...
They are being rewarded not fired. Like Debbie Wasserman Schultz has already done, they are probably moving from the DNC to Hillary's campaign, and ultimately on to positions in the Clinton administration. Like Tim Kaine, another former DNC chair who has supported the Clintons for many years.
Hillary's been nominated, the DNC's main work is done. The important folks move on to the presidential campaign. The less important folks stay behind at the DNC and work on state and congressional stuff. These people are leaving on schedule. Washerman Schultz had to leave a few days ahead of schedule, nothing more.
They fear no repercussions for any of this since Bernie's followers will be good little Democrats and vote for Hillary in the end. That is all that matters. The revolution is dead despite Bernie's claims to the contrary. He got on board with Hillary so he will not lose the committee positions and other advantages he has in the Senate. To go against her would mean he would be ostracized, so he plays ball. He talks of the platform, platforms never mean a damn thing. They are just symbolic appeasements for the fringe elements of the party. Always has been, now Bernie's revolution joins those ranks.
A Hillary victory means everything Bernie fought for was for nothing, everything Hillary and company did vindicated. Hillary and the party machine will have forgotten Bernie in a matter of days, any pain or embarrassment he caused fading by the day, soon to be forgotten. Soon to be remembered as nothing more than a defeated tough opponent. What he stood for forgotten, just that he was somehow a "tough opponent", no one remembering precisely why.
Perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I still have not seen you back up your opinion with any sort of real world example. Instead of me proving you wrong with countless other examples, how about you show me one example where congress has stopped a military operation with funding cuts, or the supreme court with judicial rulings.
You seem confused on history, the record is one of Presidents going to Congress over large scale military operations not avoiding it. As for the Supreme Court there again we have the record of history saying the Court does have jurisdiction over the military to ensure adherence to the Constitution.
History has proven time and time again that these ideological checks & balances are not working as well as they should.
Actually history shows Presidents, Congresses and Courts agreeing to make the same mistake, as in the Japanese internment case. That is something quite different than checks and balances not existing.
Here you go. The explanation laid out for you.
TL;DR: revenge.
Well, that is why he dislikes her, there isn't much in the way of his fearing her. Not quite the same thing.