Hacker News Reader

Comment by devoply | Hacker News Reader

What does Assange want to replace the conspiracy with? A true democracy. There is no such thing. Have you seen the Game of Thrones. That's how the world is without a super power. All that this will end up doing is cause the US to lose its place as a super power. Which will enable other powers play more freely. Which will in the end cause different types of chaos in the world rather than that which the US causes. These things don't go away. Problems are not solved, they just move, wiggle, and multiply.

View on HN

That goes against everything sensible and is FUD(tbh, I don't watch Game of Thrones, I don't care much for fiction and prefer reality, history, etc). I'd like to see you make this offer with a straight face to all that have been affected by the imperialist policies. We don't even need to go too far, to the other side of the Atlantic, we can start with Mexico, central America, Honduras and Latin America.

The best painfully-funny bit I've seen recently is "Foreign power undermines election to install right-wing authoritarian; CIA outraged".

I'd challenge that poster to tell anyone from South America, East Asia, or the Middle East (or North Africa, or Eastern Europe, or...) that superpowers are a way to preserve effective democracy.

Well it's not to bash the person individually, but obviously it you think this through there's clearly double standards. Anyway, there's no morality here, it's all about power and control, I don't delude myself. But yeah, the US could at least own up to it, or be coherent with the values it says it defends(I guess it's too late for that tho). The hipocrisy is getting uglier with each passing day :/

They are not a way to preserve effective democracy. That's not what I was getting at. I was getting at the fact that it would be someone else who would install dictators instead. It would be Russia or China. The outcome will be different, but the problems will not get solved. In fact it may be worse. When you have many people playing, then the jockey for position and cause even more chaos.

Maybe a better democracy would do? Even if the US maintains its status as a world order keeper (which I'm not entirely opposed to, despite all criticism they've played the role remarkably well), we can/should all wish for more transparency from the government. Prevent another WMD fiasco, maybe?

His objective is to reduce their power of nuisance. Trump can't do anything on the international level because of ... Trump. On the other hand Clinton would be terrible in his logic because she is backed by everyone. The problems don't disappear but they can't grow much in those type of conditions. I'm just explaining the idea and not approving it.

But I watched Game of Thrones, and chaos was a ladder...

You do know Game of Thrones is fiction written by someone who has no experience in international politics, right?

Centralizing power insures that all are dominated by the most brutal. When power is decentralized, abuses are quarantined.

That's a bit naive. If you look at World War 1, you see a series of decentralized conflicts and power struggles that snowballed into a global conflict killing millions.

If you look at World War II you'd maybe see the point that was trying to be made.

It snowballed because of treaties - many secret - that linked the nations into huge sides. It was a series of "conspiracies" which were mostly not democratically decided. If Austria-Hungary had gone to war with Serbia and maybe Bulgaria, it would have been terrible but it wouldn't have been WWI.

I think you're discounting the the interest the general public in Great Britain, Russia, and Turkey(Ottoman Empire) for score settling and imperial expansion. Treaties were only part of the issue. The power vacuum was a large driving force.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com