Is it just a "coincidence" that Assange is accused of sexually assaulting two Swedish women while he was in Sweden at the time? It would seem to be a necessary condition. Baseless? That is for a court to decide, not merely for Assange to declare. Or do you think he is above the law? Assange held accountable by the law of mere mortals? The horror!
Murdering democratically elected governments and replacing them with genocidal dictatorships that cused hundreds of thousands of victims doesn't sound like freedom to me,
And that is why we oppose Communism. Or were you going to try to make a mistaken point about somewhere else.... Iran maybe? You need to check the historical record - democracy in Iran was gone before the Shah was returned to power. Mosaddeq has dissolved the parliament and was ruling by decree, and ignored the constitutional power of the Shah to remove the Prime Minister, arresting those sent to him and causing the legitimate head of state, the Shah, to flee. Mosaddeq was a tyrant by definition.
The 70s are a long time ago, and South Korea is free now, isn't it? North Korea still isn't, and may not be in our lifetime. I don't believe that South Korea was ever as bad as North Korea, harsh though it may have been long ago. And North Korea certainly didn't help the South by tunneling, sending commandos to kill people, and various infiltrations. Selective memory and attention.
I have to wonder about the thought process of somebody who objects only to terror and repression to put down Communism, but not by Communism. What is it that actually troubles them, the terror, or the anti-Communism? There are far too many that object to terror only till their faction gets into power.
This is very easy to understand by looking at Korea. In South Korea, people protest against the government, the US, North Korea, or pretty much anything that they care to, and not much happens. In Communist North Korea, if you make a joke about the Great/Dear/New Leader, you and three generations of your family are likely to be sent to a prison camp where the one of the biggest questions you will face is will you be able to catch enough rats to eat, or pull enough kernels of corn from manure, to avoid death by starvation before death by overwork, abuse, or experimentation by North Korean scientists kills you.
Not as flashy as cartoons about robots and Richard Nixon's head, but a much more meaningful presentation of the question.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat should be no more loved a term than "Fascist Dictatorship," but for some reason it gets a pass. That should be the last thing that happens, given the record - 100,000,000 killed in the last 100 years. (And don't look now - North Korea might just be warming up.)
The 1970s, when many of the communications were written, were probably both the high point of Communist and Soviet Power and the struggle between Communism and freedom. It is unlikely that Communism would have collapsed as soon as it did in Eastern Europe, and most of the world, if freedom hadn't endured in the West to give aid and hope to the oppressed, and some remember that.
So, when will Wikileaks start releasing Soviet and Communist archive material? Thats right, Assange probably doesn't consider them "bastards" to be crushed. Well, he going to Ecuador if he can, isn't he?:
The following human rights problems continued: isolated unlawful killings and use of excessive force by security forces, sometimes with impunity; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; corruption and other abuses by security forces; a high number of pretrial detainees; and corruption and denial of due process within the judicial system. President Correa and his administration continued verbal and legal attacks against the independent media. Societal problems continued, including physical aggression against journalists; violence against women; discrimination against women, indigenous persons, Afro-Ecuadorians, and lesbians and gay men; trafficking in persons and sexual exploitation of minors; and child labor.
I'm afraid you've got a bit of a cock-up on the history front. You would benefit from reading a following, an excerpt of which is below: Who armed Saddam? - Some reality checks
Saddam's weapons came overwhelmingly from the Soviet Union & other Soviet Bloc countries (69% during this period), followed by France (13%) and China (12%) and a string of smaller suppliers. (For example, according to a 1984 SIPRI report, "During 1982-83, Iraq accounted for 40% of total French arms exports.") The figure for the US is 1%.
When it comes to Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, the picture is a little more complex. It seems clear that France was far and away the biggest supplier for the nuclear weapons program. Supplies for Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons (which included dual-use materials also suitable for making agricultural fertilizer, pesticides, medicines, etc.) were bought from a variety of sources, which seem to have been primarily western European or Russian and primarily private rather than governmental. For one discussion of the role played by German firms, for example, in supplying Saddam Hussein's poison-gas and biological-weapons programs, see The leading role of Germany in arming Iraq
-----
A lot of the serious trouble in the ME has snowballed from the "Iran hostage crisis",
Change "Iran hostage crisis" to Iranian Islamic Revolution and you'll be closer to the truth. You would have made a huge mistake if you overlooked the role of ambition and scheming on the part of Persian, Arab, Muslim, nationalist, and socialist in the Middle East.
Blaming the woes of the Middle East on the United States and flashing pictures of Rumsfeld may be great fun, but it is also greatly off the mark. No American made Saddam use Oil for Food money to buy influence, weapons, and build 20 odd enormous palaces instead of buying medicine and food for his people. No American made Arafat steal a billion dollars from the Palestinians. There are plenty more examples of that. Much of their misery is self-made.
They also moved their nuclear capable aircraft into position.
You mean the same sort of aircraft they've been using to drop only conventional bombs in war for the last 68 years, and only 2 nuclear bombs in the world war prior to that?
The US postures with nuclear weapons, so are they crazy as well? The US has an advantage in that no-one can tell exactly how many nukes it has pointed at NK
North Korea has explicitly threatened the United States with nuclear attack. Could you point out the US making an explicit reciprocal threat of nuclear attack any time in the last 10 years? 30 years?
Every year the US flaunts its power right off NK's coast. Posturing indeed.
If this causes them to attack. . . Then, well, it was inevitable anyhow and we might as well get it over with and kill them.
So then you think there is no foreseeable downside to delivering personal insults to the leader of a country in which he is revered as practically a god (pharaoh being out of style) and in which you and three generations of your family can be sent to a "prison camp" for making a joke about said leader? Why hasn't personal insult been part of the messaging by South Korea, Japan, the US, and the allied powers in Korea? But maybe you're right, so the more the merrier. Might as well start rounding up "Anonymous" as a threat to world peace (that's inevitable too, right?) - the Hague should be able to find plenty of room for them. Or, if sauce for the goose is your thing, then just publish their real names and addresses and let nature take its course.
Except that every Fox story is something like "Is Barack Obama the antichrist?" or "Do Democrats want to kill your grandmother?" or "Are liberals spineless cowards?" or "Is global warming actually good for you?"
It may be that they only answer the question with opinion and not facts 55% of the time, but 99% of their headlines are in that form, "asking a question" to make a statement.
That is a testable assertion on the web and video. It looks to me that you get both points wrong in both forms of media.
Nixon should have been hanged, as should Bush and Cheney be hanged.
and
No, I'd quite like to see Obama hanged as well.
And when asked, "So would you hang Obama, Clinton and Johnson too?"
Yes, yes I would.
So, you want to execute most, if not every, American head of state over the last 50 years*. You're a big fan of "peace" and "social justice" then? Maybe it's best that you don't have a say.
* You don't address Reagan here, but I seem to recall you aren't a "fan," so I trust it would be, "Off with this head!" That leaves Jimmy Carter. Will you be taking his head as well... if only to complete the set? Collect them all?
The difficult part about getting defense people to commit to decreasing the stockpile is that we have no idea when, if ever, we will be able to start producing new warheads.
Not only is there the question of are you allowed to make more, but can you actually accomplish it? Once you halt production of an item, disassemble the production line, the technical crew disperses for new homes, it isn't necessarily a snap that you will be able to recreate it. Electronic components may no longer be made, materials may not be available, a particular key recipe may be forgotten, the exact settings on a machine needed to successfully fabricate a critical part may not be documented, the needed type of machine may not be available, the documentation may be lost. There are plenty of things that can go wrong. And never confuse old with unsophisticated.
So, when the Iranian government imposes yet another new repressive measure to build on its existing repressive measures against the Iranian people that result in death, mutilation, torture, and other atrocities, your concern is that people on Slashdot don't criticize - don't say harsh things against the Iranian government? I think there is a word for that, Mr. Liberty.
If you think the Iranian government is for peace, you aren't listening carefully.
The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) said in a statement that Tehran's actions were threatening regional security and stability. The GCC said it "rejects and denounces" Iran's "continued interference" in their internal affairs and Tehran must "immediately and completely stop these actions and policies that increase regional tension and threaten security and stability".
Yes, as explained in the second line of the quote - you know, the one you omitted.
Both machine guns and landmines are pretty easy to avoid: Go where they are not. The game changes when the killing device can move itself around and decides (by itself) if it wants to kill you.
I suppose I should commend in at least a left handed fashion. You did manage to turn what is essentially an off-topic or redundant remark into a +5 insightful by showing instances of what the parent to your post directly stated and which you glossed over. I guess it must be time we rehash the whole violence / gun violence / "assault weapon" topic in this discussion on robotics / drones since I'm not sure it has otherwise come up today on Slashdot, has it?
That counter-coup nonsense has already been addressed by others. I don't buy it, in the least.
It has been addressed.... mainly by hand waving and denial.
There was a democratically elected government in place. . . . For the sake of money, we established that dictatorial puppet, in the process destroying a democracy.. ..But, Iran's government was a legitimate democracy, and we were hypocrites to topple that government.
I suggest you take another look. Iran's democracy was gone before the counter-coup removed the tyrant Mosaddeq. After securing the power to rule by decree he illegally dissolved the parliament and tried to cover his tracks with a fraudulent vote. He then refused to comply with the check and balance of the Shaw being able to remove the Prime Minister, making his overthrow of both the legislature and the executive complete while he remained to rule by decree. You don't have democracy if the parliament is dissolved, never to meet again and the ruler has no check and balance against him, and his whim is law. You are badly confused if you think that is democracy.
Democracy in Iran was overthrown by the tyrant Mosaddeq, not by the US, UK, and the Shaw.
Or do you deny the historical record?
The US spent considerable blood and treasure helping rebuild Iraq after 2003, and to protect the Kurds in the 1990s. The US spent blood and treasure driving Saddam from Kuwait, which he unjustly annexed.
The US did what it could to help stabilize Lebanon on several occasions (where is the oil in Lebanon?).
I'm afraid your history if faulty, and your understanding of the US is badly flawed.
The US has brought democracy or a return to democracy to many countries, including Germany, Italy, Japan, Haiti, Iraq, and others.
"Saudi Arabia has never given the US cause to invade it"
19 of the 20 aircraft hijackers on September 11th, 2001, were Saudi Arabian nationals.
I know you think that is meaningful, but it isn't. (And it is 15 of 19, by the way.) The hijackers were not acting on the behalf of the Saudi Government either directly or indirectly. The hijackers were outlaws, terrorists, that wanted not only to attack the United States but to overthrow the Saudi government as well. If the United States attacked Saudi Arabia for (probably) anything but the gravest threat in the most limited way, it would help them to accomplish their goals: the Saudi government would be gone, and the US would be at war with the Muslim world.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it just a "coincidence" that Assange is accused of sexually assaulting two Swedish women while he was in Sweden at the time? It would seem to be a necessary condition. Baseless? That is for a court to decide, not merely for Assange to declare. Or do you think he is above the law? Assange held accountable by the law of mere mortals? The horror!
Assange is fleeing to Ecuador because he apparently doesn't dare stand trial to face his accusers in court for multiple accusations of sexual assault.
Murdering democratically elected governments and replacing them with genocidal dictatorships that cused hundreds of thousands of victims doesn't sound like freedom to me,
And that is why we oppose Communism. Or were you going to try to make a mistaken point about somewhere else.... Iran maybe? You need to check the historical record - democracy in Iran was gone before the Shah was returned to power. Mosaddeq has dissolved the parliament and was ruling by decree, and ignored the constitutional power of the Shah to remove the Prime Minister, arresting those sent to him and causing the legitimate head of state, the Shah, to flee. Mosaddeq was a tyrant by definition.
The 70s are a long time ago, and South Korea is free now, isn't it? North Korea still isn't, and may not be in our lifetime. I don't believe that South Korea was ever as bad as North Korea, harsh though it may have been long ago. And North Korea certainly didn't help the South by tunneling, sending commandos to kill people, and various infiltrations.
Selective memory and attention.
I have to wonder about the thought process of somebody who objects only to terror and repression to put down Communism, but not by Communism. What is it that actually troubles them, the terror, or the anti-Communism? There are far too many that object to terror only till their faction gets into power.
This is very easy to understand by looking at Korea. In South Korea, people protest against the government, the US, North Korea, or pretty much anything that they care to, and not much happens. In Communist North Korea, if you make a joke about the Great/Dear/New Leader, you and three generations of your family are likely to be sent to a prison camp where the one of the biggest questions you will face is will you be able to catch enough rats to eat, or pull enough kernels of corn from manure, to avoid death by starvation before death by overwork, abuse, or experimentation by North Korean scientists kills you.
Not as flashy as cartoons about robots and Richard Nixon's head, but a much more meaningful presentation of the question.
'Fascist Dictatorship' is verging on hate speech.
Dictatorship of the Proletariat should be no more loved a term than "Fascist Dictatorship," but for some reason it gets a pass. That should be the last thing that happens, given the record - 100,000,000 killed in the last 100 years. (And don't look now - North Korea might just be warming up.)
The 1970s, when many of the communications were written, were probably both the high point of Communist and Soviet Power and the struggle between Communism and freedom. It is unlikely that Communism would have collapsed as soon as it did in Eastern Europe, and most of the world, if freedom hadn't endured in the West to give aid and hope to the oppressed, and some remember that.
So, when will Wikileaks start releasing Soviet and Communist archive material? Thats right, Assange probably doesn't consider them "bastards" to be crushed. Well, he going to Ecuador if he can, isn't he?:
The following human rights problems continued: isolated unlawful killings and use of excessive force by security forces, sometimes with impunity; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention; corruption and other abuses by security forces; a high number of pretrial detainees; and corruption and denial of due process within the judicial system. President Correa and his administration continued verbal and legal attacks against the independent media. Societal problems continued, including physical aggression against journalists; violence against women; discrimination against women, indigenous persons, Afro-Ecuadorians, and lesbians and gay men; trafficking in persons and sexual exploitation of minors; and child labor.
I'm afraid you've got a bit of a cock-up on the history front. You would benefit from reading a following, an excerpt of which is below: Who armed Saddam? - Some reality checks
Saddam's weapons came overwhelmingly from the Soviet Union & other Soviet Bloc countries (69% during this period), followed by France (13%) and China (12%) and a string of smaller suppliers. (For example, according to a 1984 SIPRI report, "During 1982-83, Iraq accounted for 40% of total French arms exports.") The figure for the US is 1%.
When it comes to Saddam Hussein's nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs, the picture is a little more complex. It seems clear that France was far and away the biggest supplier for the nuclear weapons program. Supplies for Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons (which included dual-use materials also suitable for making agricultural fertilizer, pesticides, medicines, etc.) were bought from a variety of sources, which seem to have been primarily western European or Russian and primarily private rather than governmental. For one discussion of the role played by German firms, for example, in supplying Saddam Hussein's poison-gas and biological-weapons programs, see The leading role of Germany in arming Iraq
-----
A lot of the serious trouble in the ME has snowballed from the "Iran hostage crisis",
Change "Iran hostage crisis" to Iranian Islamic Revolution and you'll be closer to the truth. You would have made a huge mistake if you overlooked the role of ambition and scheming on the part of Persian, Arab, Muslim, nationalist, and socialist in the Middle East.
Blaming the woes of the Middle East on the United States and flashing pictures of Rumsfeld may be great fun, but it is also greatly off the mark. No American made Saddam use Oil for Food money to buy influence, weapons, and build 20 odd enormous palaces instead of buying medicine and food for his people. No American made Arafat steal a billion dollars from the Palestinians. There are plenty more examples of that. Much of their misery is self-made.
They also moved their nuclear capable aircraft into position.
You mean the same sort of aircraft they've been using to drop only conventional bombs in war for the last 68 years, and only 2 nuclear bombs in the world war prior to that?
The US postures with nuclear weapons, so are they crazy as well? The US has an advantage in that no-one can tell exactly how many nukes it has pointed at NK
North Korea has explicitly threatened the United States with nuclear attack. Could you point out the US making an explicit reciprocal threat of nuclear attack any time in the last 10 years? 30 years?
Every year the US flaunts its power right off NK's coast. Posturing indeed.
I would say you've got posturing down pat.
If this causes them to attack. . . Then, well, it was inevitable anyhow and we might as well get it over with and kill them.
So then you think there is no foreseeable downside to delivering personal insults to the leader of a country in which he is revered as practically a god (pharaoh being out of style) and in which you and three generations of your family can be sent to a "prison camp" for making a joke about said leader? Why hasn't personal insult been part of the messaging by South Korea, Japan, the US, and the allied powers in Korea? But maybe you're right, so the more the merrier. Might as well start rounding up "Anonymous" as a threat to world peace (that's inevitable too, right?) - the Hague should be able to find plenty of room for them. Or, if sauce for the goose is your thing, then just publish their real names and addresses and let nature take its course.
Except that every Fox story is something like "Is Barack Obama the antichrist?" or "Do Democrats want to kill your grandmother?" or "Are liberals spineless cowards?" or "Is global warming actually good for you?"
It may be that they only answer the question with opinion and not facts 55% of the time, but 99% of their headlines are in that form, "asking a question" to make a statement.
That is a testable assertion on the web and video. It looks to me that you get both points wrong in both forms of media.
So, going back through your posts we have:
Nixon should have been hanged, as should Bush and Cheney be hanged.
and
No, I'd quite like to see Obama hanged as well.
And when asked, "So would you hang Obama, Clinton and Johnson too?"
Yes, yes I would.
So, you want to execute most, if not every, American head of state over the last 50 years*. You're a big fan of "peace" and "social justice" then? Maybe it's best that you don't have a say.
* You don't address Reagan here, but I seem to recall you aren't a "fan," so I trust it would be, "Off with this head!" That leaves Jimmy Carter. Will you be taking his head as well... if only to complete the set? Collect them all?
The difficult part about getting defense people to commit to decreasing the stockpile is that we have no idea when, if ever, we will be able to start producing new warheads.
Not only is there the question of are you allowed to make more, but can you actually accomplish it? Once you halt production of an item, disassemble the production line, the technical crew disperses for new homes, it isn't necessarily a snap that you will be able to recreate it. Electronic components may no longer be made, materials may not be available, a particular key recipe may be forgotten, the exact settings on a machine needed to successfully fabricate a critical part may not be documented, the needed type of machine may not be available, the documentation may be lost. There are plenty of things that can go wrong. And never confuse old with unsophisticated.
US Forgets How To Make Trident Missiles
China has no more ambition or motive to attack the US than Russia does.
Are you quite sure about that?
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
The CIA would love to stage another coup, but slashdot is always there, with simpsons quotes and star wars references, to shut them down.
And cavalry, don't forget the cavalry and infantry that sweeps all before it. Compared to that power, CIA is just another bunch of paper pushers.
Slashdot should stop the Iran bashing already
So, when the Iranian government imposes yet another new repressive measure to build on its existing repressive measures against the Iranian people that result in death, mutilation, torture, and other atrocities, your concern is that people on Slashdot don't criticize - don't say harsh things against the Iranian government? I think there is a word for that, Mr. Liberty.
If you think the Iranian government is for peace, you aren't listening carefully.
All Iran is saying,
is give cutting people into pieces a chance.
Iranian Women Prisoners Detail Torture
Iran as continual regional menace ...
Iran's Menace in Azerbaijan
15,000 Elite Iranian special-ops 'head' to Syria ---- Iran confirms it has forces in Syria
Gulf states lash out at Iran 'interference'
The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) said in a statement that Tehran's actions were threatening regional security and stability.
The GCC said it "rejects and denounces" Iran's "continued interference" in their internal affairs and Tehran must "immediately and completely stop these actions and policies that increase regional tension and threaten security and stability".
Iranian Bomb Suspects 'Targeted' Israelis, Thai Police Say ...
Report: Turkey thwarts Iran weapons shipment to Hezbollah
Why Hezbollah is sitting on 40,000 rockets and missiles
Iran and Hezbollah: The Balance of Power Shifts in Lebanon
Afghanistan war logs: Iran's covert operations in Afghanistan
Iran Steps Up Threats to Rub Out Israel
Discussing the record of Iran's actions and behavior doesn't constitutes "warmongering."
Soldiers and weapons link
Maybe there's more rape in North Korean prisons?
More of everything.
Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag
North Korea is Dark
Japanese families fear that North Korea is still abducting
Care to take a holiday?
The world's worst cruise holiday?
Two resources that they will apparently never run short of:
Nitwits that take up their cause.
Soldiers and weapons
Food, on the other hand....
The Cannibals of North Korea
Will sentient robots get the right to bear arms...
We've got some breathing space to think about it as strong AI or AGI doesn't seem much closer than it was 30 years ago.
And those people are wrong.
Not so much weird as off-topic.
Both machine guns and landmines are pretty easy to avoid: Go where they are not.
Like a movie theatre for instance? a School maybe? What about summer camp? Or the humble old supermarket?
Yes, as explained in the second line of the quote - you know, the one you omitted.
Both machine guns and landmines are pretty easy to avoid: Go where they are not.
The game changes when the killing device can move itself around and decides (by itself) if it wants to kill you.
I suppose I should commend in at least a left handed fashion. You did manage to turn what is essentially an off-topic or redundant remark into a +5 insightful by showing instances of what the parent to your post directly stated and which you glossed over. I guess it must be time we rehash the whole violence / gun violence / "assault weapon" topic in this discussion on robotics / drones since I'm not sure it has otherwise come up today on Slashdot, has it?
That counter-coup nonsense has already been addressed by others. I don't buy it, in the least.
It has been addressed.... mainly by hand waving and denial.
There was a democratically elected government in place. . . . For the sake of money, we established that dictatorial puppet, in the process destroying a democracy.. . .But, Iran's government was a legitimate democracy, and we were hypocrites to topple that government.
I suggest you take another look. Iran's democracy was gone before the counter-coup removed the tyrant Mosaddeq. After securing the power to rule by decree he illegally dissolved the parliament and tried to cover his tracks with a fraudulent vote. He then refused to comply with the check and balance of the Shaw being able to remove the Prime Minister, making his overthrow of both the legislature and the executive complete while he remained to rule by decree. You don't have democracy if the parliament is dissolved, never to meet again and the ruler has no check and balance against him, and his whim is law. You are badly confused if you think that is democracy.
Democracy in Iran was overthrown by the tyrant Mosaddeq, not by the US, UK, and the Shaw.
Or do you deny the historical record?
The US spent considerable blood and treasure helping rebuild Iraq after 2003, and to protect the Kurds in the 1990s. The US spent blood and treasure driving Saddam from Kuwait, which he unjustly annexed.
The US did what it could to help stabilize Lebanon on several occasions (where is the oil in Lebanon?).
I'm afraid your history if faulty, and your understanding of the US is badly flawed.
The US has brought democracy or a return to democracy to many countries, including Germany, Italy, Japan, Haiti, Iraq, and others.
"Saudi Arabia has never given the US cause to invade it"
19 of the 20 aircraft hijackers on September 11th, 2001, were Saudi Arabian nationals.
I know you think that is meaningful, but it isn't. (And it is 15 of 19, by the way.) The hijackers were not acting on the behalf of the Saudi Government either directly or indirectly. The hijackers were outlaws, terrorists, that wanted not only to attack the United States but to overthrow the Saudi government as well. If the United States attacked Saudi Arabia for (probably) anything but the gravest threat in the most limited way, it would help them to accomplish their goals: the Saudi government would be gone, and the US would be at war with the Muslim world.
Sorry, but that is rubbish.
CIA -- al-Qaeda controversy