Anonymous Organizes Global Protests For WikiLeaks 275
pafein writes "Internet collective Anonymous launched a global protest for January 15 in support of beleaguered WikiLeaks. Anonymous has a history of defending Internet freedom, beginning with Project Chanology against the Church of Scientology. The group gained recent attention for itself with DDOS attacks on Mastercard, Visa, Paypal and the government of Tunisia."
I didn't launch anything (Score:5, Funny)
It's sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's a sad comment on modern reality that my response to anything counter-culture or pro-liberty and freedom for the past 30+ years would have been a fist in the air and a "fuck yeah!" and, today, my gut response is "some people are going to be disappeared" and "better to keep my mouth shut and not even give vocal support or encouragement to anything which might seen to dissent from my government, because I can't afford the hassle of being eyeballed or investigated or put on a list somewhere". Not just for this, but things with even more credibility.
Hell, it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.
Re:It's sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair, that shift of perception is usually a sign of getting older.
Re: (Score:2)
OkCupid's blog OkTrends has a nice post about age vs. political ideology: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-democrats-are-doomed-or-how-a-big-tent-can-be-too-big/ [okcupid.com]
Re:It's sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Say again?
The Libertarian party is alive and well. Actual libertarian-focused groups like the EFF do just fine, too.
The problem you've got is that the Libertarian platform got co-opted by the other "big two" parties in such a way that Libertarians can't find a focus to get their foot in the door. Either they focus on social issues and get lumped in with the extremist wing of the Democrat party, or they focus on a number of law and tax issues and get lumped in with the extremist wing of the Republicans.
It'd be far better if we abolished the "direct election" of the US Senate and re-instituted state legislature appointment or even better, turned the Senate into a parliamentary body where the smaller parties (green, libertarian, etc) could actually get a minority voice with real representation present for debate. But that won't happen because the republicrats and demicans (who the fuck can tell them apart most days anyways while they betray their constituents?) don't want to give up their institutional stranglehold on the election process.
The difference between the US's "democracy" and the Chinese "democracy" isn't as great as we think these days. The Chinese get to vote in elections with only one candidate, US citizens get to vote in elections where both candidates are the two faces of the same fucking coin. The illusion of "choice" is about all we get.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem you've got is that the Libertarian platform got co-opted by the other "big two" parties in such a way that Libertarians can't find a focus to get their foot in the door.
Nothing new here. This has been happening for years (and by years, I mean centuries). It used to be the purpose of a 3rd party to have their platform adopted by one of the two big parties, now it seems the two big parties exist to trivialize the platforms of smaller more relevant parties. People simply assume that they need to either vote republican or democrat based on social policy that isn't going to change or tax issues that are just going to get worse. It's really a perception that needs to change pron
Re: (Score:2)
It would be even better if the smaller parties stopped trying to leap tall buildings in a single bound when they are barely capable of stepping over a wad of gum on the sidewalk.
Seriously, 9
Re: (Score:2)
What are they supposed to do, spread themselves thin over every single possible principal? The E stands for "Electronic".
And yes, it's essentially a libertarian organization which was founded by John Perry Barlow (a libertarian) and Mitch Kapor (also a libertarian, I believe?) and initially financially supported by John Gilmore (a libertarian) and Steve Wozniak (who, if not a registered libertarian, is awfully close to being one).
Of course, even if they weren't, that doesn't mean that the causes they work t
Re: (Score:2)
Livertarianism
Mod me offtopic (the post fully deserves it), but I couln't resist
Is it something related with the liver?
Le'me try:
"Civil liVertarianism is a strain of political thought that supports civil liVerties, or who emphasizes the supremacy of liver-rights and personal liverdoms over and against any kind of authority."
Nah, doesn't sound right. It is a typo for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I’m Canadian, so what happens in the US doesn’t directly effect me, however the shit that happens “down there” tends to roll back up here so this stuff tends to make me nervous.
What really disturbs me is that I suspect all these "slippery slope" arguments are about to be put to the test. The recent twitter thing is just the start. All the privacy issues that paranoids have been spouting about for years are becoming a reality. Admittedly I’ve made several snide “oh get a l
Re: (Score:2)
You might find it a bit easier to rest knowing that Internet Policies are one section that Canada has stemmed away from the States, in that we have simply put a tax on blank media to cover costs for artists who might feel they've lost sales through digital downloads of copyrighted material. This mostly keeps the RIAA and MPAA out.
I haven't personally read a news article where any member of Anonymous has been arrested for their activities online, but I can almost guarantee Canada won't be the place where it
Re: (Score:2)
You CAN do that - but you should probably point out one of the major reasons why it works so great in Canada and why it wouldn't work out so well in the states.
The biggest difference is our population and size. We've got about the same population of California spread across an area larger than the entire United States. As such, our major population centers are simply less crowded, the density isn't there, and that helps keep hospitals from being over-burdened. This means our health care costs are simply low
Re:It's sad. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.
Have you ever been fired for being a suspected libertarian? Have you ever been fired, and then all your potential employers informed that they shouldn't hire you because then they might be suspected as being libertarians too? Have you ever been called up in front of a congressional investigative committee for being a libertarian? Have libertarian leaders been imprisoned? All those things were happening to suspected communists during the 1950's: For instance, my grandfather went from being a highly respected academic musicologist to teaching a dozen piano students in his living room.
And if you want to know what the most risky group to be affiliated with right now in the US, it's not libertarianism, its Islam, which subjects you to regular harassment at airports, hate crimes, and in a few cases being disappeared.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering what Islamic countries do to those not, or insufficiently, Islamic, there really is logical ground to oppose people affiliated with it and consider them enemies. There is zero evidence, anywhere, I defy you to find it, of Islamic governments enhancing freedom by ensuring secular law and trying to keep religion out of government.
There is an ideological imperative in some quarters to consider religion "different" so one can ignore the outcomes its believers produce when they run the show.
Want a ta
Re: (Score:3)
So because we disagree with the laws in Islamic countries, we should ignore the rights of Muslim citizens of the U.S.?
It seems the same argument could be applied to support Japanese internment camps. Or hunting down and persecuting Communists and socialists.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you familiar with the tu quoque [wikipedia.org] fallacy?
Just because group A does something does not justify group B behaving the same way. If I commit a robbery and get arrested, "the other guy committed a robbery too, and he wasn't arrested" is not a valid defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Islam does tolerate Christianity and Judaism as long as they don't try "converting heathens", because they are "peoples from the book". What Islam doesn't really like is atheism...
A non-secular state won't make much difference which religion is backing it. There is plenty of historical/recent misdoing under "Christian/Jewish" rule...
The current islamophobia is promoted by the US/Israel gov because it suits their current interests, since the "communistphobia" faded away; and they need a faceless enemy to dri
Re: (Score:2)
I said it was almost to the point where it feels that way. Intentional hyperbole aside, I think it's clear that dissent of all flavors (particularly against actual government positions and actions) are slowly being vilified. Refer to recent Napolitano (and others) quotes over the last two months as an example of where they're headed.
Anyway, I'll see your Islam and raise you an Atheist.
+ Atheists are the least electable persons in the country (source: 2007 Gallup poll). [gallup.com]
+ Atheists are the least trusted people [umn.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
So you'd be happy to have a libertarian on your staff then, would you?
1. I don't have any staff, nor expect to acquire any.
2. When I was in that sort of role, I cared whether the prospective employee could do the job, and politics never came up in workplace discussions with them.
Imagine what damage such people might do, in positions of influence and authority.
You completely missed that my grandfather's profession was that of a music theorist, collector of folk music, and composer. Explain exactly how he would have caused political problems by writing a string quartet, writing down a mining song from Appalachia, or describing why humans find C major to be a
Re: (Score:2)
Howzabout if you try and grow a pair? Yeah some people are going to be disappeared. Yeah you might be one of them and once you go through the mirror the best you can hope for is to one day be dumped back, naked and stark raving mad, on some roadside in outer Albania. So? You're losing your freedoms because you're not using them. Being afraid won't help.
Re: (Score:2)
What, me? I'm already walking the walk. I'm experiencing no shortage of like-minded people, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Well played, sir or madam. I very nearly snorted coffee through my nose. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hell, it's almost to the point where it feels like calling yourself a "libertarian" or - worse - being a registered libertarian, is potentially as risky as calling yourself a communist or socialist in the 1950s.
No, its not even close. Been a lifelong Lib and I've never felt threatened.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live, North Korea?
Christ I live in CCTV land (the UK) and don't share these concerns. Things aren't good, but they're certainly not that bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Then, you are part of the problem.
Nope, no buts. If you know of something, and you let it pass silently and without protest, you are agreeing to it. If you think it's wrong, speak up. Now if you're truly at risk from doing so, by all means, speak up quietly and don't put yourself at unneeded risk. But don't be afraid to put yourself at needed risk.
I'll say it right here, and I've said it by writing to the President and Congress under my own name. What Wikileaks did was correct and necessary. We have every
Re: (Score:2)
i don't understand what you are trying to say. all i see is someone who has grown ashamed and cowardly about their own views
real life tyrants depends upon the reaction you seem to have developed recently
Re: (Score:2)
the only thing your post tells me is that a prerequisite for being a libertarian is having a persecution complex
NO ONE IS AFTER ANYONE IN THIS COUNTRY FOR BEING A LIBERTARIAN
(now i will get responses saying it is true, thus proving me correct about strange weirdos with persecution complexes calling themselves libertarians)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If I got a penny each time someone mentioned that quote in a crowd of people who have all seen it mentioned a hundred times before, I'd be able to buy all the liberty I wanted.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I got a penny each time I heard some idiot interviewed "man on the street" fashion who said "we have to give up some freedom to be secure", I'd be richer than you would be.
Re: (Score:3)
Screw that...if you had a penny for every time someone quoted it different than the last guy did, you'd be rich.
Seriously. It has to be the most differently-quoted quote to ever exist.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Wildly Wrong! In fact we had a great deal more political power than we have now! Those who had the franchise had jury nullification. Jury nullification included the right to judge contracts, speech issues, theft, etc.
The Constitutional Relationship of the Peop [tripod.com]
Re:then you deserve to be told the below (Score:5, Insightful)
How many of us throw that quote around along with "Give me liberty or give me death!" and really mean it? And if we haven't acted on your principals against the actions of our own government by now, exactly what is it going to take for us to ever do something? I mean, for fuck's sake, we slept through the suspension of Habeas corpus and endured several years of corporate welfare to provide economic speculators a safety-net that we've never before offered. We've tolerated questionable wars in our name, with shifting justifications given. One could generate a nearly endless list of significant concerns just from the past decade and while we still throw around quotes, we do nothing (I'm lumping myself in here as well, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
no sir. you are another one who doesnt deserve freedom. because you talk shit while not knowing anything. despicable. deplorable. no wonder america is in such a shitty state, wi
Re: (Score:2)
As tired as some of us may be of hearing the parent post, it is in no way irrelevant to the current discussion. It still rings as true today as when it was first put to paper.
Please don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be better if Wikileaks, which actually serves a valuable (although controversial) role, is not associated with Anonymous and their juvenile DDOS attacks and Rick-rolling.
and ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
anonymous is people. wikileaks serves people. anyone who tries to separate people with what serves them, are against people.
Oookaaaay... would you like some Soylent Green with that? I have my copy of "How to Serve Man" right here if you want to refer to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I buy it. Anonymous is just a name for a bunch of people who are doing as they see fit. Anonymous isn't necessarily the same people each time. It may help if you replace "Anonymous" with "a bunch of people who feel strongly on the subject".
The issue some of them are currently fighting against is the censorship of the Wikileaks website. The issue they were fighting against in the Scientology case was the Church's efforts to censor and shut down websites. I see no "flavour of the week" flip-flopping, they're
Re: (Score:2)
DDoSing might not be the most subtle, mature or democratic method to achieve their goals but it does seem to work. It also has the bonus of attracting a lot of attention which, when you're trying to expose internet censorship, is a helpful thing.
So, if I'm understanding this right, the end justifies the means. Isn't that the same argument people who support the US Govt use against wikileaks? Anonymous does attract a lot of attention, but you make the assumption that they speak for the unheard majority. Well if the unheard majority actually went out and voted, things might change. One can only assume that the unheard majority didn't vote, or they simply didn't vote for who you and anonymous wanted them to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the Netherlands, the website of the ministry of justice has been attacked because police arrested a scriptkiddy that was involved in DDoS attacks. It is arguable that Anonymous' attacks on M
You don't understand what "Anonymous" is (Score:3)
Being born in 4chan, Anonymous is much like a great party: it has no definite direction, no leader and will just keep on rolling as long as the people in it like what happens. Given that, Anonymous will continue having an impact for as long as it will, and after that everybody goes home and remember the good time they had.
The fact that Anonymous exists is a relief, because it shows that there is still a part of the people that can not only see that we have taken a wrong turn, but will act to change the co
Re: (Score:2)
However, a herd can also be defined as the sheep that decide to stick around. As long as the sheep decide to bite the farmer's hands when he tries to "steal" their wool, it's understandable and maybe even a noble effort. However, when the sheep start stampeding Mr. Joe's shop because he sold the sacks the farmer uses to store the wool, then the sheep have gone too far.
At
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, no matter how tenuous or even non-existent the association, it's trivial for the government and media to link them in the mind of the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Please don't. (Score:4, Interesting)
It would be even better if Wikipedia wasn't associated with this - its 10-year anniversary will be celebrated at the very same day [wikipedia.org]
Such coincidence seems like a purposeful effort at creating confusion...
Re: (Score:2)
This.
The whole "Anonymous" group is a bunch of idiot fourteen year old superhackers that downloaded a portscanner and used it to DDOS someone by having five of their friends run it with nmap -T5.
I have met these people on the net. They are basically huge assholes. The fact that scientology attracts huge assholes both as members and as bitter enemies does not change this. They're jumping on any big issue they can whine about so they can cry for attention.
Well...okay (Score:2)
A history for defending Internet freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anonymous is not for moralfaggots (Score:4, Insightful)
Anonymous has a well known history of cyber-bullying (do you like pizza and strippers?), vandalizing myspace and facebook pages etc. even though it might not qualify as DDossing.
*sigh* (Score:5, Informative)
I hate it when people say "Anonymous" are doing X. It makes it sound like its some sort of static group with a single leader who determines what the group will be up to this week.
Its never as simple as this. Anonymous are a bunch of individuals who decide whether doing X 'for the lulz' is a good idea or not. Who their leader is changes and doesn't really matter as much as in other cases.
Its pretty much a case of a totally distributed system which forms links on the fly.
The person who decided on the DDOS, and the people who followed him/her could be totally different from the people who will be out protesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, I don't see anything in the page this submission links to that mentions DDoS. I see a video full of people in Guy Fawkes masks protesting in meatspace with signs, like every other group has been allowed to do (though, some of them relegated to "free speech cages", recently). As far as I know, protesting with signs on the street is still legal (though I thought wearing a mask in public -- especially in an assembled protest -- was illegal in most places in America, now).
I guess that's the next
Re: (Score:3)
But flying under the banner of a group by your own admission (as many people do) is basically adjoining yourself to that group and (partly) condoning their actions and (certainly) being tarred with the same brush as everyone else in the group.
I don't support Anonymous because (apart from the fact that I think they are all idiots and follow pretty much only idiotic causes) if, tomorrow, they all decide that the issue of the moment is that nobody should have central heating, and they start DDoS'ing my energy
Re: (Score:2)
[..] But *joining* that group or *condoning* that group (or even acknowledging it's existence as anything other than a vague moniker under which to attack people) is *recognising* that group and thus agreeing with its policies and actions to some extent.[...]
WTF? If I recognise existence, I agree to its policies? Care to elaborate?
It's just a convenient moniker for doing shit that you want to hide.
I am not sure if you have noticed, but that kind of is the point of Anonymous. And I can support them or denounce them all I want, provided I point out for what exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
Who their leader is changes and doesn't really matter as much as in other cases.
Its pretty much a case of a totally distributed system which forms links on the fly.
The person who decided on the DDOS, and the people who followed him/her could be totally different from the people who will be out protesting.
Who takes charge DOES matter. Otherwise, your enemy may as well initiate any action in your name, that is, take charge and associate your cause with mob disorder. The aim and net effect of this would be to raise public opinion against your cause in order to push for web censorship policies...
Oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
Their leader is dynamic, in a sense. Not just dynamic in the sense of "Dynamic IP", but dynamic in the sense of "Dynamic personality." Think Dennis Leary's character in Demolition Man. He knows how to speak the language of the people he leads, even though he's not the "leader" per se.
To get "Anonymous" to take action, all you need is the following:
1) Willing and able bodies that can follow simple instructions. (They have this in large supply.)
2) Someone who has the technical skill to coordinate an event. (T
Re: (Score:3)
Whenever I see "Anonymous is doing X" my mind auto-translates it into "A large group of random people on the Internet have agreed on doing X"
I DOSSED paypal (Score:4, Funny)
But I did not DOS the government...
Re: (Score:2)
But I did not DOS the government...
Should have done it the other way around.
I mean, who's actually the sheriff? (hint: who tells you to kill it before it grows?)
You're a pirate (Score:5, Funny)
Do what you want, ‘cause a pirate is free,
YOU ARE A PIRATE!
Yar har, fiddle di dee,
Being a pirate is alright to be,
Do what you want ‘cause a pirate is free,
You are a pirate!
Song [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Please, something more... epic next time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0QfVDebLFg [youtube.com]
Do they even know what they're aiming at?? (Score:2)
Said before (Score:2, Insightful)
Why be anonymous? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
So when is wikileaks going to publish the identities, phone numbers, and home addresses of all the members of anonymous? There's no reason that any organization should keep anything secret after all. Right?
Well, you see, it's kind of hard to publish information that is not known -- even more difficult when the "organization" isn't one at all, and as such doesn't keep those types of records (let alone in a centrally accessible location).
You'd have as easier time expecting Wikileaks to release the personal information of everyone who has visited an arbitrary IRC chatroom (one that doesn't require authentication, you know, because the users are "Anonymous"), considering that "members" of Anonymous congregate in
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Why single out 4chan? At least they're doing something. More, I always get a kick out of how we say things like "Americans are too fat and lazy and content with their sports teams and iced coffees to bother ever standing up to their government or taking real action beyond singing songs while standing in a circle with rhyming picket signs", but the truth is that if you or I voiced any dissent against our government or even took some sort of action and were given the hell of a boot, we'd be bawling like little bitches, too.
We're all willing to kick Hitler's ass or storm Washington DC with torches and sidearms in our heads, but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess. No matter how justified we are in our principals and should do something, most of us really do have something to lose. It's not like we're mining "blood diamonds" and have nowhere to go but up.
That said, Anonymous has done some things I thoroughly support (Scientology related, in particular) and some things that make me grin, even though I know it probably isn't helping things, over all. Some of their recent actions seem to have definitely risked the real cause, on which their actions sometimes reflect.
Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game. As is just being an ass (though I, personally, have far exceeded the average years in which most people pursue that one!).
Re: (Score:2)
"sidearms in our heads"
I think you're doing it wrong...
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
We're all willing to kick Hitler's ass or storm Washington DC with torches and sidearms in our heads, but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess. No matter how justified we are in our principals and should do something, most of us really do have something to lose. It's not like we're mining "blood diamonds" and have nowhere to go but up.
WWII was 70 years ago. People in the US today are a lot different than back then. I'm not so sure they would make the sacrifices needed to go kick Hitler's ass, unless it was somehow threatening their consumeristic lifestyle. Even in their elections, the driving theme is are you better off today than you were four years ago, when the real question is where to we need to be tomorrow.
That said, Anonymous has done some things I thoroughly support (Scientology related, in particular) and some things that make me grin, even though I know it probably isn't helping things, over all. Some of their recent actions seem to have definitely risked the real cause, on which their actions sometimes reflect.
Anyway, if there is any time in your life where you can afford to be a snotty, spoiled, idealistic person rebelling against stuff, it's when you're a snotty little teen (and if you think these guys are even mostly teens, I think you're wrong). As soon as you're of age to be truly held accountable or persecuted and you have responsibilities and things to lose (your physical freedom, access to your cash, your home, your family, your job, your reputation, etc) -- you start falling into line. Idealism is a young man's game. As is just being an ass (though I, personally, have far exceeded the average years in which most people pursue that one!).
Anonymous is winning small battles in what they are doing, but ultimately will lose the war in whatever their perceived purpose is. The more they attack business interests, the more there will be laws enacted to crack down on actions like theirs. Before long, they will be labeled cyber terrorists with all of the negative government attention that will bring.
It's good to stand up for what you believe. It's even better to choose your fights carefully. Otherwise, you are really just being irresponsible because the consequences set in motion by indiscriminate action affect a lot more people than than the ones that signed on for your cause.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
If push can to shove and someone like hitler really did appear the response now would be the same as it was then. ignore it until they directly threatened us, and then mobilize in ways never before seen in warfare.
American's don't care about Afghanistan because it doesn't affect the average american. If you go for all out TOTAL War then you would be in for a surprise at just how not lazy American's can be when pushed hard enough. The thing is even Vietnam wasn't a Total war.
American's are lazy because they can be. We don't have to work hard. Just hard enough to maintain what is. When What is no longer exists we will moan and cry and then build it again.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Go fight Hitler? Did you miss History, or were you misinformed? The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.
It wasn't until the Japanese attacked the US that the Americans became involved - indeed, were it not for the pact whereby Germany and Italy were obliged to defend to Japan by declaring war on the US immediately after the US attacked Japan, there's a good chance we'd be speaking German in most of Europe today.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I think my point flew over your head.
People say things about how if they had been alive when the Nazi party was taking over Germany, they "would have done something". In reality, if you or I or anyone else who talk big about how much we'd stand up to oppression and violation of liberties and just plain "wrongness" would do no such thing if we stepped back in time.
If we were on the street and saw some brown shirts hauling a jewish family out of their home, making them get on their knees, and putting a gun to their head, you know what we'd do? We'd shut our fucking mouths and look the other way, because we don't want to be next.
My point with that given example was that we do an awful lot of talking about how we should stand up to injustice and fight on principal to retain those ideals that we've lived on for a couple hundred years (and of which many are now considered general "human rights" by the UN, even) . . . but none of us would ever be willing to take the risk of doing anything about it. Except maybe putting a bumper sticker on our cars, a little button on our websites, and if we're really "rebels", going out and standing outside a building with signs . . . on sticks!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think we are very much in agreement and I would mod you up, if I had any mod points left.
Re: (Score:2)
Go fight Hitler? Did you miss History, or were you misinformed? The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.
I know my history, what about you? Yes, the US sat out the first two years -- their own version of the Prime Directive, however, the next three and a half years, they made a major push in Europe that did change the outcome of the war.
It wasn't until the Japanese attacked the US that the Americans became involved - indeed, were it not for the pact whereby Germany and Italy were obliged to defend to Japan by declaring war on the US immediately after the US attacked Japan, there's a good chance we'd be speaking German in most of Europe today.
And how/why the US got there doesn't change the fact that, as you state, without them, we would all be speaking German in Europe.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, it should be pointed out that even while the US gov't was technically neutral, we were doing what we could to support the UK with things like Lend-Lease and deals like leasing otherwise useless UK bases in return for (admittedly old) destroyers. While, yes, technically the Germans were eligible for our material under some of the schemes, we knew they couldn't actually take advantage of it because the Royal Navy totally controlled use of the seas around Europe for the entire war.
Although I am sure tha
Re: (Score:3)
And how/why the US got there doesn't change the fact that, as you state, without them, we would all be speaking German in Europe.
Not necessarily. Germany wasn't really in a position to invade the UK. The Russian army would not have invaded as quickly without Germany being tied up on two fronts, but once Russian industry was on a war footing they'd have kept sending men and tanks at Germany until the won or ran out (and they had a lot of men that they considered expendable at that point).
The US involvement definitely shortened the war, probably by at least two years, but its biggest effect was to ensure that the Russian advance
You forgot what you were arguing about (Score:2)
You said:"I'm not so sure they would make the sacrifices needed to go kick Hitler's ass, unless it was somehow threatening their consumeristic lifestyle. "
You said as well:"And how/why the US got there doesn't change the fact that, as you state, without them, we would all be speaking German in Europe."
Well, a Japanese invasion would have threatened the US consumeristic lifestyle, wouldn't it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Go fight Hitler? Did you miss History, or were you misinformed? The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.
As they should have. Why should they have declared war on Axis powers until they were attacked? For "freedom and democracy"? Isn't that neo-con thinking? It never ceases to amaze me that many of the same people that criticize neocons for their doctrine of forcibly spreading democracy across the world also criticize the US for not jumping right into WWII in 1939.
We tried that, actually, just a couple of decades before. Woodrow Wilson committed this country to war with Germany in 1917. He was looking for a reason to get us in it, and finally got it when the Germans sank the Lusitania (which, yes Virginia, was carrying arms and ammo bound for the British, a violation of our neutrality policy). People were so disillusioned about "saving the world for democracy" precisely because we saw we were snookered in WWI.
So, have we got that straight? Bush was wrong for war with Saddam, but no no no, Wilson didn't send US troops to fight in what was basically a European pissing match over empires. It was making the world safe for democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Go fight Hitler? Did you miss History, or were you misinformed? The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.
I wish "not our business" was still our policy today.
Police action to correct human rights violations at the request of the UN? Yes.
Goin' around bustin' up countries because they're communist or they have a dictator? No.
If it's not our business, it's not our goddamned business.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Americans basically sat back saying "meh. Not our business." for two years.
No they basically said, "We'll give the Allies guns while we build our military and get the right political climate to enter the war."
Cash & Carry, Lend-Lease, peacetime draft, etc. all show the US was anything but a disinterested party prior to Pearl Harbor.
Re: (Score:2)
but the moment there's any risk -- even just the risk of losing our internet access or having a hassle at the airport security line -- we're all bitches. We're not really in a situation where we can afford to be anything else, I guess.
You weren't forty years ago.
http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=vietnam+war+protests&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=iRUrTc-uD6qAhAe7zszcCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=7&ved=0CGYQsAQwBg&biw=1345&bih=930 [google.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Giving into the status quo is not maturity. Knowing the consequences of your actions is maturity. Most people end up giving into the status quo because of the severe consequences of standing up for your rights. Many mature people stand up for rights, but only if they know they can handle the consequences.
On an aside note: our government is NOT mature. If they do realize the consequences of their actions, they are all assholes (on another aside note, they could still be assholes if they don'
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right, it's just Wikileaks. Every other violation (suspension of habeas corpus comes to mind, among many others) has been met with such active and significant response by the informed and caring American public. It's just this one isolated incident of Wikileaks where Americans said "you know, I usually put it all on the line to defend our liberties, but I'm gonna take a break today".
We're all part of a government that commits heinous violations on its own people and - often - even worse violations on others. As long as we have Starbucks, Jersey Shore, Facebook, and our mini-vans, we're content to permit it. Neigh, even to justify and defend it.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize in just about every war time scenario, habeas corpus is suspended and most people don't seem to mind. But yeah, the sky is falling.
Re: (Score:2)
Whinny posts lines like that I have just have to reply.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I believe GP on that though, it's straight from the horse's mouth!
Re: (Score:3)
LOL "massive power shifts" XD
Re: (Score:2)
The best offense is a good defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Members of a free society must not allow information to be suppressed simply because it inconveniences those in power. We share the responsibility to defend vital liberties. The vital liberties of being able to max out your credit card at Walmart, watch reality tv, become obese, go into debt slavery and work for the rest of your life.
The trick with a free society: if one wishes all the above, why not? However, in a true free society:
a. only because one wishes so this doesn't imply that all the others must choose the same.
b. if one wishes so, the one should be absolutely free to do it without being affraid to be ridiculed! (works both ways, actually)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know the rest of the world consider the same of CIA operatives? And you do know ALL US embassies have a CIA command post?
The cables are not really enlightening, they just confirm what everyone knew. Most of the secret/noforn things are boring, and not even accurate in many cases, its just "their view" of the situation, or the situation viewed by US sympathizers (not necessarily true) told to their home country and their fellow embassies elsewhere.
So the US is committing war crimes, and a soldier had
Re: (Score:2)