Why the Internet is America’s greatest weapon
gigaom.com
gigaom.com
Equally clearly, America does not act this way. While they are willing to send in the army to spread democracy in Iraq, and they are willing to send fighter jets to support the rebels in Libya, they are clearly reluctant to help the people of Syria, who also suffer under a brutal dictator.
To paraphrase Thomas Huxley, all it takes is one ugly fact to ruin a beautiful theory.
If we were to set up a list of brutal dictatorships based on the order of which are most deserving of being toppled then likely North Korea would be on the top, perhaps even above Libya right now. However, the cost and sacrifice (in civilian lives as well) of such actions must be taken into account, and for both North Korea and Syria it's highly questionable whether that math adds up. We could overthrow North Korea or Libya's government if we desired. But without an imminent external threat the question remains whether it would be worth the hundreds or thousands of lives of american troops lost, and the perhaps tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands (in the case of North Korea) of innocent civilians that would die in the conflict.
Who knows: if Iraq actually did have some WMD, perhaps Hussein could still rune.
On the other hand, some dictatorships are 'friendly' to America, and would never be considered for an invasion anyway.
But my point was more the mindset of the author, who appears to believe that America's goal really is to spread democracy around the world.
And in the case of Syria, American silence is deafening. Assad reportedly tortures even the children, and there is not a peep of protest from America, let alone a threat of military intervention.
Please tell me, what other country is out there doing more to defend freedom?
| Assad reportedly tortures even the children, and there is not a peep of protest from America, let alone a threat of military intervention.
We have no cards to play with Assad. We're already in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and you want us to threaten war with a fourth Muslim country? Bizarre, arrogant, and extremely unwise.
| And in the case of Syria, American silence is deafening.
There have been daily reports on CNN, MSNBC, and probably even Fox. There are stories on ABC, NBC, CBS, and 60 Minutes. What do more do you expect?
Again, what other country is out there doing more to defend freedom?
Examples of the US defending freedom.
1973 Chilean coup d'état
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
The US supports a coup of the democratically elected President Salvador Allende who is replaced by the dictator Augusto Pinochet. Chile lived under a military dictatorship until 1990. Pinochet was responsible for the death and torture of tens of thousands of Chileans.
1953 Iranian coup d'état
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
The US overthrows the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh and have him replaced with the Shah of Iran, who acts as a proxy for US interests and uses the Iranian Intelligence Agency to crush political opposition.
US support of Saudi Arabia
Saudia Arabia is an absolute monarchy with no political parties or elections. It was rated in the Economists 2010 Democracy Index to be the seventh most authoritarian country in the world, and ranked higher than both Iran and Libya. The Saudia Arabian monarchy has given hundreds of billions of dollars to the US in exchange for military weaponry and the building of military infrastructure. Recently, Obama approved the biggest arms sale in US history, $60.5 billion in arms sold to Saudia Arabia.
Now, I'm getting a bit tired, so I'm not going to go into a lot of detail for the rest, but you can look into US support for King Abdullah in Jordan, US support of Murbarak in Egypt, US support for Suharto in Indonesia, the list goes on.
Sometimes the US supports democratic governments, often they support brutal tyrannical dictators. Generally it has to do with whether or not the policies of theses countries are in alignment with US economic interests.
WW I/II, Vietnam, Korean War, Gulf War, intervention in Kosovo, among others were all conveniently left out.
All your examples are from 2-3 generations ago. Get real, all countries make compromises with their philosophies/ideologies when it comes to national interest. What country has done better?
Military intervention should only be used when our nation's interests are at risk. We are not the world's police force. We're already spending $4million/day in Libya and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will cost $4trillion. Not to mention 6,026 US soldiers who have died. We cannot afford anymore wars.
Now here are some facts:
The biggest portion of U.S. aid goes to Iraq ($4.27 billion), Afghanistan ($1.46 billion), Sudan ($725 million), Colombia ($562 million), Egypt ($541 million), Nigeria ($514 million), Democratic Republic of Congo ($486 million) and Pakistan ($465 million).
(Figures are for Gross Bilateral Official Development Assistance, 2006-2007 average)
* The United States has always been the world's largest donor, except in the mid-1990s when Japan briefly topped the list.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/06/us-usa-aid-factbox...
This does not support your argument and you still haven't answered my original question.
Or when you caused threat to others and now need to take care of it. Or where you'd want others to help you, and thus should help them.
But yeah, it's pretty obvious you're only in this for yourselves.
> We are not the world's police force.
Strange, you say otherwise when it comes to wiretapping the world, enforcing your drug laws around the world, forcing your patent system on others, etc.
> We're already spending $4million/day in Libya and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will cost $4trillion.
What of it? You've not only blow more on crooked bank bailouts, but you easily gain more value than that in ensuring American control of Iraq and Afghanistan's resources and in permanent military bases in more countries.
Financially your wars are a huge win, as soon as the world forgets you started them and lets you profit.
> Not to mention 6,026 US soldiers who have died.
No, not to mention them. They've killed and participated in the deaths of over a million people. At a thousand-to-one kill ratio, when you're the aggressor nation, you need to quit whining.
That the war was predicated on false pretenses was known long before troops got overseas. The virtuous among them had plenty of time to refuse to fight.
> The biggest portion of U.S. aid goes to Iraq ($4.27 billion), Afghanistan ($1.46 billion), Sudan ($725 million), Colombia ($562 million), Egypt ($541 million), Nigeria ($514 million), Democratic Republic of Congo ($486 million) and Pakistan ($465 million).
So you spend less fixing up Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, than you did on ammunition, let alone bombs, to destroy them and you want thanks? You give (to cronies) about as much aid money as you spend air-conditioning your soldiers.
> We cannot afford anymore wars.
You don't even begin to suffer from your wars. When you say things like that remember the countless dead who cannot afford your war anymore, either.
Yeah because not intervening in one marginal conflict invalidates all the good America has done in WWI/II, Israel, Korea, Thailand, Philippines, Kosovo, Africa and the fact we already do more than the rest of the world... you're still claiming we're the worst. You would never be happy and we don't have to please psychotics like yourself.
|you easily gain more value than that in ensuring American control of Iraq and Afghanistan's resources and in permanent military bases in more countries.
More conspiracy theories, devoid of logic, reality or facts.
|Or where you'd want others to help you, and thus should help them.
Syria would never help the US under any circumstances, but the US is a better country than Syria and yes like I've pointed out Obama has already spoken out against it.
You wouldn't be happy no matter what. So why did I even bother? You're clearly mentally imbalanced/unstable and have some issues with conspiracy theories.
And like I've asked repeatedly: If the USA is so bad who is better? I'm taking you repeated avoidance as tacit admission that the USA has done the most good to the world and received the least back from it.
And please explain to me our world 24-7-365 everyone/everywhere wiretapping program you referenced?
Also in case you haven't noticed, PG/Y-Combinator are from the USA? You're commenting here on their site. Ironic.
You've made many ridiculous accusations without backing them up with facts. It's 4th of July. Have a nice life.
The Philippines, where US soldiers slaughtered almost everyone over ten on an entire island, as retribution for attacks from fighters upset at being invaded by the USA. In total hundreds of thousands of people, likely over a million were killed - as usual, mostly civilians. Or is this not what you were thinking of?
Africa like how you stood by and watched Rwanda butcher itself, quibbling over using the word 'genocide' to avoid hurting your allies, and own, historical images.
Or how WW2 the USA waited out much of the war while its allies were getting pummeled. Joining the war only when the USA was attacked. As spoils the USA has military bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, etc, and joint political control of much oil-rich and strategically important territory.
As I said, intent is key. The hugely egregious wrongs 'you' have committed show yours as being to help yourselves at all costs.
> you're still claiming we're the worst.
No, but for the standards you purport to uphold, you're still doing a horrible job. Torture? Really?
> You would never be happy and we don't have to please psychotics like yourself.
Ahh yes. My dissenting view clearly labels me psychotic. Never mind that it's the view (That the USA manufactured the Iraqi war on totally false pretenses) held by your allies' leaders, many foreigners, and anyone else who knows the facts.
>> you easily gain more value than that in ensuring American control of Iraq and Afghanistan's resources and in permanent military bases in more countries. > More conspiracy theories, devoid of logic, reality or facts.
The facts are the military bases you've got in nearly every country you've gone to war for or against, and that this gives you tremendous military and intelligence assets, as well as political clout - dictating beneficial treaties and policies.
>> Or where you'd want others to help you, and thus should help them. > Syria would never help the US under any circumstances,
Syria the country/regime, or Syria the people? The regime already helps you constantly, such as by torturing your detainees. The people might help you if you hadn't been a key ingredient in their plight.
> You wouldn't be happy no matter what.
Sure I would. But not as long as you feel you have a right to go to war such as against Iraq or Afghanistan.
> So why did I even bother?
To justify or evade your country's crimes, and thus minimize your perceived role in them.
> You're clearly mentally imbalanced/unstable and have some issues with conspiracy theories.
Yes, clearly I'm psychotic. Remember?
> And like I've asked repeatedly: If the USA is so bad who is better?
As others have asked repeatedly: What kind of person, when taken to task for their actions, points at another to avoid the question?
> I'm taking you repeated avoidance as tacit admission that the USA has done the most good to the world and received the least back from it.
The USA has done much good - liberating areas held by the Nazis for instance. But this is self-serving - literally. To serve/save yourselves. If you could have safely driven the Germans into continental Europe and left them bottled there - harmless to you, you would have.
And as for receiving the least back from it, not only does the USA occupy incredibly rich land it won through deceit and conquest, but it has control of many valuable resources around the world that it has gained in 'rescuing' others, or has itself taken directly by force.
> And please explain to me our world 24-7-365 everyone/everywhere wiretapping program you referenced?
Which countries do you think you don't wiretap and otherwise spy on?
> Also in case you haven't noticed, PG/Y-Combinator are from the USA?
So? WW2 didn't make Germans racially evil, being American doesn't mean PG supports unjust wars.
> You're commenting here on their site. Ironic.
Alanis?
As anamax says: while it's clear that America is far from perfect, it's unclear who, if anyone, is anywhere near as close. Suggestions? (Note - the answer has to have significant capacity. Otherwise I'll nominate some random church group in Texas. Come to think of it, random US church groups do more good than most countries.)
Until you've got something better, the appropriate response is "thank you".
Note how you never ask if anyone wants you to help, or what they'd rather you did to help. All you do is harp on this supposed help you provide whenever anyone points out a problem you caused.
Your country has killed millions in wars of aggression. That cancels out the good you accidentally do while fighting dictators you've installed. Some good is being done but it's not your primary intent.
How many roads do you think you'd have to build to cancel out the drone-guided bombing on an entire wedding party? If someone killed your family, how big of a check would they have to hand you before you agreed it was a good thing?
You might want to think about how "But I ended up helping some people" is not a defense against murder - a crime your country commits at an average rate of 500+/day in the Middle-East.
You only have yourselves to blame.
"Your country has killed millions in wars of aggression."
Cite this please?
This is where I stop responding since your argument is based on the fantasies/voices in your head and not on facts/reality. You clearly have made up your mind that America=evil, but you still can't even answer if America is so bad, who is any better?
And if you can't offer up any country that does more good, then just be grateful and say "thanks".
You are welcome.
> I'm not allergic to facts you just haven't cited any
Right. I've only mentioned them and left it to you to do some research.
>> "Your country has killed millions in wars of aggression." > Cite this please?
Okay, but next time will you try to look it up first?
Estimates of deaths in Iraq due to the war are up to 1.5M: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/iraq
That's more than one million so technically I can stop there, but
In the Philippine-American war between .6 and 1.4M died: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Philippine%E2...
Then consider Vietnam, the American Indian wars, etc
> You clearly have made up your mind that America=evil
Just those of you who support unjust war (murder). You've clearly decided you must justify all their actions.
> but you still can't even answer if America is so bad, who is any better?
Anyone not fighting unjust wars. Anyone who doesn't murder innocents on false pretenses. One unjust killing is too many.
You can't fall back on past deeds (especially when they're largely propaganda) to justify current atrocities. Nobody cares if your grandfather was selfless (newsflash, he wasn't - see the Philippines/American war) when you clearly are not.
Your examples are from HUNDREDS of years ago. A little out of date no?
You're just pathetically complaining about America while you're here reaping the benefits. Why not move if the USA is so bad? As anamax says: while it's clear that America is far from perfect, it's unclear who, if anyone, is anywhere near as close. Suggestions? (Note - the answer has to have significant capacity. Otherwise I'll nominate some random church group in Texas. Come to think of it, random US church groups do more good than most countries.)
Until you've got something better, the appropriate response is "thank you".
One example was from a current war, another from fifty years ago, another from one-hundred years ago, and the last from two-hundred or more. It shows a pattern.
> A little out of date no?
What's the statute of limitations on murder?
> Until you've got something better, the appropriate response is "thank you".
How about "No, thank you"?
You're in Iraq under false pretenses, and in Afghanistan on unsound reasoning. I don't know what you think you're achieving but nobody wants it, so knock it off.
If you're asked for help, as you have been by Egyptians, Syrians, etc, then by all means, you should expect thanks after - if you'd actually go help that is. This is the fundamental problem - you're looking out for yourselves and you don't see anything in it for you. Fair enough I guess, but then you've got to stop pretending to be everyone's buddy.
> You're just pathetically complaining about America while you're here reaping the benefits.
Why don't you go to Iraq and demand thanks for the benefits you've given them.
> it's unclear who, if anyone, is anywhere near as close [to perfect as America]
You'd have to be psychotic to suggest otherwise!
> random US church groups do more good than most countries
In that they rarely kill people, yes. By merely being mostly harmless they come in far above (almost?) all countries.
Of course they'd do a lot more good if they just fed people instead of indoctrinating them.
We don't get any oil from Iraq. Here are America's 4 largest suppliers: Canada is #1 Saudi Arabia is #2 Mexico is #3 Venezuela is #4
Absolutely nothing you've said makes any sense because you're cherry picking your examples and being completely unreasonable. We also fought the Civil War, WWI/II, Philippines (who last time I was there were quite fond of Americans), created Israel, stopped genocide in Kosovo, Korea (look at N.Korea and tell me the USA's actions were pointless), Vietnam. We pressured Mubarak also...
And like I pointed out the United States has always been the world's largest donor: The biggest portion of U.S. aid goes to Iraq ($4.27 billion), Afghanistan ($1.46 billion), Sudan ($725 million), Colombia ($562 million), Egypt ($541 million), Nigeria ($514 million), Democratic Republic of Congo ($486 million) and Pakistan ($465 million).
(Figures are for Gross Bilateral Official Development Assistance, 2006-2007 average).
Yes we have messed up a few times, but we've gotten it right more often than not and you still count point out an example of anyone else doing it better. You don't live in reality.
The Syrians do not want US intervention, that is bullshit and like I already pointed out--we're already "liberating" three other Muslim countries and that isn't going out so well.
---
Where are you from that is so great? And you might want to go get some help for your True Believer Syndrome. It must be painful to have to live in a country you hate so much. If so, why not move? Why are you here? You clearly hate America, so why stay?
---
So...while it's clear that America is far from perfect, it's unclear who, if anyone, is anywhere near as close. Suggestions? (Note - the answer has to have significant capacity. Otherwise I'll nominate some random church group in Texas. Come to think of it, random US church groups do more good than most countries.)
Until you've got something better, the appropriate response is "thank you".
---
Oh and you're welcome for the freedom our country extends to you because if you were living wherever you came from I'm doubtful your own government would extend the same freedoms.
You're in control of it. Even if you don't buy it, specifically, you've inserted American companies into its production and can decide who receives it, what currency it's sold in, etc.
> Absolutely nothing you've said makes any sense because you're cherry picking your examples and being completely unreasonable.
Not at all. You're responsible for the horrible deaths of millions. As long as you keep thinking that some good deeds justify murders you're killers.
Do you know what they kill a faithful 20-year librarian who only killed one innocent kid? A murderer.
Do you know what they call a dedicated doctor who only raped one anesthetized patient? A rapist.
> We pressured Mubarak also...
Ohhh, "pressure". That's like doing something but it's guaranteed not to cost you anything. How... bold.
> And like I pointed out the United States has always been the world's largest donor: The biggest portion of U.S. aid goes to Iraq ($4.27 billion) [...]
And also the largest proportion of your ordnance.
And like I pointed out, that money is less than you spend on bombs, ammo, or air-conditioning for your soldiers. You pay trillions to flatten some place and a pittance on fixing them up. More-over, much of the aid, not only isn't, but gets delivered by profiteering American companies and comes right back to you.
> Yes we have messed up a few times, but we've gotten it right more often than not
You're blind to your failures - if we listen to you you've never gotten it wrong.
People who excuse their mistakes can't cherry-pick and claim credit for their successes. As long as you're running around justifying killing any innocents and covering it up, you aren't doing good the rest of the time even if your rose-colored view was accurate, which it is not.
> you still count point out an example of anyone else doing it better. You don't live in reality.
Did Scientologists kill tens of thousands last year? No? Well then they're better than you. Because as long as you're unabashed killers who reserve the right to fight war for profit you're not being anyone's friend.
> The Syrians do not want US intervention, that is bullshit and like I already pointed out--we're already "liberating" three other Muslim countries and that isn't going out so well.
You're attacking two on false pretenses. That's not liberation and your intentional blindness to this is the issue.
Perhaps the Syrians are more afraid of you than their dictator.
> It must be painful to have to live in a country you hate so much. If so, why not move? Why are you here?
The land and resources are as much mine as yours.
> You clearly hate America, so why stay?
You hate America - you refuse to admit errors, learn from your mistakes, and adapt.
Nobody outside really cares about the USA. If you weren't invading people you could quietly go do your own thing.
> Oh and you're welcome for the freedom our country extends to you
Oh yes, the freedom to be apprehended and shipped off to Syria for years of waterboarding and electroshock. (The same Syria you claim to have no influence over.)
Scientologists are better? Laughable.
And please what country/government hasn't committed some wrong? You're holding the USA to the most unreasonable hypocritical standard. Why are you not condemning Russia for Stalin or China for Mao or N. Korea or Iraq for Saddam etcetera? They've all killed tens of millions more. Your silence speaks volumes.
Is America the only country who has done wrong?
> Please tell me, what other country is out there doing more to defend freedom?
I hate questions like this because it treats freedom as a 1-bit entity when it has many dimensions.
> We have no cards to play with Assad. We're already in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya and you want us to threaten war with a fourth Muslim country? Bizarre, arrogant, and ignorant.
I don't think he wants to go to war with Syria but the lack of government denouncement and threats appears hypocritical given our other actions. Did you make this exact same argument before we started bombing Libya? It sounds like a counting argument.
> What do more do you expect?
Personally, I'd like to see the government do some action, though preferably non-military. It seems like the gov. has been more outspoken about Israel than Syria lately, which is surprising to me.
His comments are borderline trolling and clearly accuse the US of indifference to the Syrians and are also intellectually dishonest. We didn't invade Iraq to spread democracy, we invaded in the post-9/11 WMD debacle. You are defending revisionist history.
| Personally, I'd like to see the government do some action, though preferably non-military
Specifically what? What leverage does the US have in Syria? Will UN sanctions work there any better than in N. Korea/Iran?
| seems like the gov. has been more outspoken about Israel than Syria lately, which is surprising to me.
They have more leverage. They are actually on speaking terms with Israel.
If the US and the UN literally have no pressures on Syria, then I guess we ought to give a credible threat of military action. Historically Syria has backed down from such threats. I'm much more ambivalent about the actions in Libya compared to Iraq or Afghanistan considering we aren't using any ground troops (apart from when a pilot rescue is needed), I don't see why we would necessarily need ground troops in Syria either, especially if we're just starting out with bomb threats.
Edit: a little Googling suggests that a simple embargo on their oil exports (which make up a huge portion of their revenue), or damage to those facilities, or using Lebanon's current weakness, might be enough.
Why is it our obligation and how are we going to afford a 4th war in a Muslim country (financially and politically)? You're feeding all the anti-American rhetoric by giving them what they want--acting like an imperialist.
| a simple embargo on their oil exports
Totally, a simple embargo. But we don't use/buy Libyan oil.
Are you starting to see why it's so hard to do anything? We have no/negligible leverage/influence in Syria. We are already militarily over-extended. We cannot afford it financially. Politically it would be disaster for the US to attack another Muslim country and it would look like another war for oil. There are no good options.
Military intervention should only be used when our nation's interests are at risk. We are not the world's police force. We're already spending $4million/day in Libya: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/05/air-force-libya-war... and the Iraq/Afghanistan wars will cost $4trillion. Not to mention 6,026 US soldiers who have died. We cannot afford anymore wars.
Just the ones you installed and supported.
> You sound exactly like the same people who would angrily criticize them for doing so even if they did and accuse them of imperialism.
Depends. Did they topple the dictator to install a more favorable one, or because they were horrified at the abuses, came at the people's request, and left peacefully after?
Intent has a lot to do with it and we're not stupid. We see your (country's) tricks. It'll take a lot of honest work to erase your legacy of political manipulation.
"In a statement, President Barack Obama strongly condemned "the abhorrent violence" committed by the Syrian government. "I call upon the Syrian authorities to refrain from any further violence against peaceful protestors," said President Obama. "Furthermore, the arbitrary arrests, detention and torture of prisoners that has been reported must end now, and the free flow of information must be permitted so that there can be independent verification of events on the ground." -- http://www.voanews.com/policy/editorials/Syrians-Call-For-Fr...
We're already in 3 (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya) wars in the Middle East and basically flying drones in 2 others (Somalia and Yemen). How many more Middle Eastern/African/Muslim countries can we afford to attack before we risk serious blowback, much less afford these wars?
For the USA to promise to provide logs from their worldwide wiretapping to an international war-crimes tribunal. That, combined with records from within the country, would be enough to prove the criminality of, and thus remove the cloak of legitimacy from, abusive leaders. Once the leader was identified as a criminal loyalist troops can defect without bloodshed, instead of fighting the people as their oaths would otherwise require.
A consistent and strong American voice presenting the facts would change everything, even if the enforcement was left to others. At least the legitimacy of the rebels would be clear and they'd be able to get support.
Comical. You think the USA is wiretapping all phones everywhere? How does this work? How has this massive conspiracy not been exposed?
You missed my point and misunderstood my question. What do you expect the US to do in Syria? We don't hold any leverage there. We're already militarily over-extended. Politically we have no appetite for another war with another Muslim country.
|A consistent and strong American voice presenting the facts would change everything, even if the enforcement was left to others. At least the legitimacy of the rebels would be clear and they'd be able to get support.
Done and done as GHFigs points out:
"In a statement, President Barack Obama strongly condemned "the abhorrent violence" committed by the Syrian government. "I call upon the Syrian authorities to refrain from any further violence against peaceful protestors," said President Obama. "Furthermore, the arbitrary arrests, detention and torture of prisoners that has been reported must end now, and the free flow of information must be permitted so that there can be independent verification of events on the ground." http://www.voanews.com/policy/editorials/Syrians-Call-For-Fr...
Not all, everywhere. Just most, most everywhere. And it has been exposed, and been lost under Britney's sex scandals and such. Domestic wiretapping was exposed in 2003 or so. Massive signal-gathering was exposed in the 'room641' case. PBS Frontline did a show about it. There was a lawsuit against it until the FISA was used to quash it. The US government is a member of the ECHELON program, a sat-call sniffing program, and has been for 20+ years. Leaks show the USA has access to many foreign telephone networks (Pakistan, etc) and can snoop on most cellular networks. And that's just some of what we know about.
With the reciprocation of a few allies the USA has access to probably 90% of the digital communication outside of China and a few other countries.
> You missed my point and misunderstood my question.
No, I did not. Though obviously you missed my reply.
> What do you expect the US to do in Syria? We don't hold any leverage there.
First, stop funding or participating in abuses there. Second, acknowledge past and present abuses, and offer a world court use of its surveillance to identify as many criminals in the government as possible.
Enable those who do have leverage to point to specific events in dealing with Syria, and make it easier for the oppressed to get help.
> Politically we have no appetite for another war with another Muslim country.
Politically there was no will for the other ones. That's why the government lied about the reasons.
> Done and done as GHFigs points out: President Barack Obama strongly condemned [...]
Soft and useless. Unless the USA acknowledges its crimes - for instance delivering prisoners to Syria for torture, they can't push too hard for fear of the backlash. Offer Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld to the Iraqis as the start of an apology for the war and you might start to seem serious.
The USA has the ability (through electronic surveillance and local intel assets) to specifically identify many of the crimes committed, the army/police officer who killed the civilian, the officer who ordered it, a recording of the order being sent, who authorized it, etc. Even spotty records would help collaborate local reports.
| Not all, everywhere. Just most, most everywhere.
Did Batman build it? This is hilarious, but also a waste of my time.
As anamax says: while it's clear that America is far from perfect, it's unclear who, if anyone, is anywhere near as close. Suggestions? (Note - the answer has to have significant capacity. Otherwise I'll nominate some random church group in Texas. Come to think of it, random US church groups do more good than most countries.)
Until you've got something better, the appropriate response is "thank you".
For someone supposedly so concerned with fact you're hilariously incapable of looking anything up.
You know all those HN stories about that Google company and their social networking thingy 'Plus'? Turns out that they also run something called a search engine. Navigate to http://google.com and type in a phrase, like "NSA warrantless wiretapping" or "ECHELON surveillance" and see what comes up.
You know, even if you were miracle workers and just saved 1000 people, it wouldn't excuse killing one innocent. As long as you keep pointing to theoretical good you've done to excuse things you'll never get forgiven because you obviously aren't sorry.
So now Google/NSA are running a global wiretapping program? sigh How naive and gullible are you?
"You" have cooked up false evidence against Iraq, both in linking it to 9/11 and WMDs.
In revenge for 9/11 you've killed over 500 times more innocent people. You've almost perpetrated a 9/11-squared, killing an entire 9/11 death-toll for every US citizen who died. A 9/11 every week for the last ten years.
It's as if I'm rumored to have killed your friend so you go to my last known address and shoot the current tenants, then cook up a story about the neighbors and shoot them, then start drone-bombing their neighbors, etc.
> a global wiretapping program? sigh How naive and gullible are you?
Do you believe the NSA is not running quasi-secret wiretapping programs? Or do you just believe that it's not worldwide?
> You're clearly mentally unhinged
Oh, obviously. Psychotic, you said. You on the other hand are well hinged.
You're just pathetically complaining about America while you're here reaping the benefits. Why not move if the USA is so bad?
As anamax says: while it's clear that America is far from perfect, it's unclear who, if anyone, is anywhere near as close. Suggestions? (Note - the answer has to have significant capacity. Otherwise I'll nominate some random church group in Texas. Come to think of it, random US church groups do more good than most countries.)
Until you've got something better, the appropriate response is "thank you".
Does not ALWAYS act that way.
However, while it's clear that America is far from perfect, it's unclear who, if anyone, is anywhere near as close. Suggestions? (Note - the answer has to have significant capacity. Otherwise I'll nominate some random church group in Texas. Come to think of it, random US church groups do more good than most countries.)
I note that whenever there's a natural disaster, the first thing that goes through everyone's mind is "How soon will the Americans show up?"
Until you've got something better, the appropriate response is "thank you".
Interestingly, I see the same effects promoting atheism instead of political change here in the west.
Either way, I agree that saying the Internet is somehow America's weapon, as if the US government was somehow the architect of these revolts or that they are specifically in the US's interest, seems to be a misnomer. Maybe the OP means 'America' as in the spirit of democracy which America represents, but it's been a long while since America was really the single shining beacon of democracy for the world (if it ever was.) The US government has, for a long time now, preferred alliances of convenience to alliances of ideology. I'm not even sure that this is a bad thing.
Actually, it's been a pretty awful thing and led the US to create enemies were none existed before. The alliance with the Mujehaddin in Afghanistan in the 80s is a good example.
(BTW as interesting a discussion as this is it really belongs in Reddit)
Dictatorships are best represented by television.
The internet best reflects American values and therefore, poses all sorts of problems to dictatorships. E.g. organizing protests, consuming/producing non-approved messages and images, economic productivity gains.
It is a no-win perdicament for dictators unless they are willing to be completely totalitarian and hold back almost all economic progress for their nation. It makes one wonder if flooding a country with cheap smartphones combined with a satelite based network would be a better long-term tactic than sending in an Army.
The effectiveness of the internet in facilitating change truely does make it America's best weapon.
a bit of a long term payoff, but now we have: a new battle field to rule :)