Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Seriphyn]

If you do not like being an ally of the United States, go be an ally of Russia or China so we, the United States, can stop worrying about the defense of Europe (outside of Russia).

"You're either with us, or against us"? Europe can't be an ally of neither, huh? You also don't need to worry about defending Europe, because they're not in the business of antagonizing other nations to the point of starting wars with them anymore. Sort of stopped doing that, beginning 1945. Europe is certainly not worried about Russia invading us, or China, or whoever, because Europeans would much rather acknowledge them as a serious rival, and compete with them peacefully instead. There's a reason that many schools in Europe are teaching their kids Russian and Mandarin; no, they're not being spineless and pussying out to their rising status. Instead, they're giving their citizens the opportunity to compete with them in the international economic system.

[Jade Constantine]

The Intelligence Community has already made its play and won.
Assange is paranoid to the point of making decisions like running to the Ecuadorian Embassy versus going to Sweden to answer questions regarding the two sexual encounters.  Does a Swedish conviction of being a sexual predator matter in Australia?
He was targeted and the threat of extradition was put in place (for him and those in the wings) to build paranoia.  Mission complete, threat neutralized.

So ... if USA (via Sweden) don't really want to extradite Assange for some kind of extra-legal detention in a hole in the ground somewhere - why won't USA or Sweden offer his legal team the assurance they want that he won't be surprise-extradited?

If they offered that assurance then Assange would no longer be able to (credibly) resist calls to go to Sweden for questioning on the potential charges he (might) eventually face.

Only reason I can see (following your logic) is that USA (a superpower) is somehow still playing mindgames and essentially fucking with him.

So my question to you mr Orange - is this.

Is it really paranoid to be a bit worried about things when a SUPERPOWER with enough nuclear weapons to cinder the planet many times over has nothing better to do than fuck with your head?

[orange]

The Intelligence Community has already made its play and won.
Assange is paranoid to the point of making decisions like running to the Ecuadorian Embassy versus going to Sweden to answer questions regarding the two sexual encounters.  Does a Swedish conviction of being a sexual predator matter in Australia?
He was targeted and the threat of extradition was put in place (for him and those in the wings) to build paranoia.  Mission complete, threat neutralized.

So ... if USA (via Sweden) don't really want to extradite Assange for some kind of extra-legal detention in a hole in the ground somewhere - why won't USA or Sweden offer his legal team the assurance they want that he won't be surprise-extradited?

If they offered that assurance then Assange would no longer be able to (credibly) resist calls to go to Sweden for questioning on the potential charges he (might) eventually face.

Only reason I can see (following your logic) is that USA (a superpower) is somehow still playing mindgames and essentially fucking with him.

So my question to you mr Orange - is this.

Is it really paranoid to be a bit worried about things when a SUPERPOWER with enough nuclear weapons to cinder the planet many times over has nothing better to do than fuck with your head?

Stepping back to the "Why won't the United States of America or the Kingdom of Sweden offer assurances that Assange will not be extradited for political crimes?"

He has not actually be charged with any crime in the United States, political or otherwise.  If he was at a later date actually charged with a crime, political or otherwise, neither the USA or Sweden want to tie their hands in that regard.

But as this Australian article points out, why extradite through Sweden?

As (Australian) Foreign Affairs Minister Bob Carr has said, it might well have been easier, pre-Ecuador, to extradite him from Britain.

As to the "why fuck with his head" question - its not just his head that is being fucked with.  It is anyone who wants to get into the spy game freelance with the USA as their primary target of opportunity.

[Ken]

Is it really paranoid to be a bit worried about things when a SUPERPOWER with enough nuclear weapons to cinder the planet many times over has nothing better to do than fuck with your head?

As Dex more or less said, this is the basic premise of psychological operations.  Whether or not there is an intentional psyops campaign being conducted with Mr Assange as its centerpiece, I think we can agree the fact you are worried about it means that future "Assanges" may be discouraged from following suit.

[orange]

If you do not like being an ally of the United States, go be an ally of Russia or China so we, the United States, can stop worrying about the defense of Europe (outside of Russia).

"You're either with us, or against us"? Europe can't be an ally of neither, huh?

That is fair.  You don't have to be actually allied with them and I honestly don't care if you are or not.

You also don't need to worry about defending Europe, because they're not in the business of antagonizing other nations to the point of starting wars with them anymore. Sort of stopped doing that, beginning 1945.

You stopped antagonizing each other sufficiently to stop having wars between UK, France, & Germany and left your crumbling empires in a mess, but kept attempting to have enough influence to piss off the locals and get your previously isolationist ally involved.

Europe is certainly not worried about Russia invading us, ..., because Europeans would much rather acknowledge them as a serious rival, and compete with them peacefully instead.

Go talk to Georgia Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania about their feelings on Russia.  Or are they not part of Europe?

[GoGo Yubari]

Go talk to Georgia Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania about their feelings on Russia.  Or are they not part of Europe?

Georgia being in Europe is up for some kind of debate. I say 'no' for the record.

But your point is essentially correct and I'd add Finland to the list. Sharing a border (a rather long one in the case of Finland) with Russia means having to be very aware of what goes on in that country. Then again, being aware and maintaining amicable relations is more than just waiting for an attack of course. Hopefully it's about more than Cold War era style Finlandization too, which is probably why Estonia joined NATO for example and why a certain segment of politicians (the same group inclined to take their guidance from Americans in any case) in Finland has always wanted to.

My own feelings about that are mostly negative, though also somewhat mixed because NATO was changing as an organization. Now with a more belligerent and active Russia though, maybe NATO is really re-realizing its function. But I think it would be colossally stupid for Finland to join NATO - at least right now. It would not protect it from attack, while undoing a long legacy of good relations and an essentially non-military stance in the region. With St. Petersburg so close, keeping Finland closed to military intervention is one of the corner stones of Russia's defensive doctrine.

Anyway, major detour!

Grabbing him does nothing for the US and is a waste of resources better spent on finding the next information broker and his sources before they leak stuff that matters.

The Intelligence Community has already made its play and won.

I agree at least partly, though I'm curious what you mean by the community having made its move. I do think the US realizes that nabbing Assange will not end the Internet's power of spreading leaked documents, an issue that has to be confronted at the source, so there is likely to be no reason to go full tilt after him and risk negative PR. That doesn't mean that having their Swedish lap dogs do a character assassination on him is beyond a reasonable use of resources, though.

[orange]

Grabbing him does nothing for the US and is a waste of resources better spent on finding the next information broker and his sources before they leak stuff that matters.

The Intelligence Community has already made its play and won.

I agree at least partly, though I'm curious what you mean by the community having made its move. I do think the US realizes that nabbing Assange will not end the Internet's power of spreading leaked documents, an issue that has to be confronted at the source, so there is likely to be no reason to go full tilt after him and risk negative PR. That doesn't mean that having their Swedish lap dogs do a character assassination on him is beyond a reasonable use of resources, though.

The character assassination is underway and Assange has aligned himself with governments not known for their support of things like Freedom of the Press or Speech.   MI6, CIA, etc do not need to do much to further discredit him and reduce his threat as a broker of leaked documents.

[hellgremlin]

Georgia also totally provoked the kerfuffle with Russia, not vice versa.

[Natalcya Katla]

Authoritarian Russia under Putin is a lot less scary than Kleptocratic Clusterfuck Russia under Yeltsin was, tbfh.

[Lyn Farel]

Bleh. The more I read on this thread, the more I pity US nationalists.

You are as disgusting as your russian imaginary threat.

Grow up.

[orange]

Bleh. The more I read on this thread, the more I pity US nationalists.

You are as disgusting as your russian imaginary threat.

Grow up.

I think you are misinterpreting my presentation as wanting to maintain the alliance.  I honestly don't.

I want the United States to pull out of the Middle East and Europe and withdraw from NATO and withdraw forces from the Korean Peninsula, Japan, and Australia.

I want the United States to focus on defense of its borders and not worry about North African or Middle Eastern dictators or a resurgent Russia.

I want to reduce US Military spending by 50%.

I was presenting data as to why western European leaders are interested in maintaining the Alliance.

[Katrina Oniseki]

Can we get some moderation in here?

[Vikarion]

Bleh. The more I read on this thread, the more I pity US nationalists.

You are as disgusting as your russian imaginary threat.

Grow up.

I think you are misinterpreting my presentation as wanting to maintain the alliance.  I honestly don't.

I want the United States to pull out of the Middle East and Europe and withdraw from NATO and withdraw forces from the Korean Peninsula, Japan, and Australia.

I want the United States to focus on defense of its borders and not worry about North African or Middle Eastern dictators or a resurgent Russia.

I want to reduce US Military spending by 50%.

I was presenting data as to why western European leaders are interested in maintaining the Alliance.

This. I am a nationalist, as in, I want what is best for my nation, largely because I'm in it. But, frankly, I'm tired of the United States either carrying the burden for other countries, or trying to "help" them. The United States, has the economic capability to be the most powerful and pre-eminent nation in the world without firing a shot, and we can stay that way for a long, long time if we don't keep bleeding ourselves out with pointless alliances, worthless (for us) military actions, and ham-fisted attempts at "nation-building". If Russian wants to pave a highway for their tanks through London and Paris (and they don't), the only care we should have is whether they'll buy asphalt from us. And if China decides to take over Japan, Korea, and Australia (and they won't), we should see if they'd like to buy yachts for all those new harbors.

Trying to be the policeman of the world was a terrible idea. Trying to be unselfish and a civilizing force was a terrible idea. Trying to take advantage of the uncivilized, when we did, was a terrible idea. For the most part, trying to keep your own corner of the map from going to hell is the best you can do.

[Ken]

For the most part, trying to keep your own corner of the map from going to hell is the best you can do.

Isolationism wasn't compatible with the imperatives of the 20th Century, and I have a sneaking suspicion it has already obsolesced in the 21st.

Fascinating topic, especially since we have such a widely-spread user base here to talk about it, but I'm with Kat.  Can we have a thread split.  Keep the Assange/wikileaks stuff in the original and split the NATO stuff off?

[Vikarion]

For the most part, trying to keep your own corner of the map from going to hell is the best you can do.

Isolationism wasn't compatible with the imperatives of the 20th Century, and I have a sneaking suspicion it has already obsolesced in the 21st.

Fascinating topic, especially since we have such a widely-spread user base here to talk about it, but I'm with Kat.  Can we have a thread split.  Keep the Assange/wikileaks stuff in the original and split the NATO stuff off?

I'm not isolationist, nor do I think that watching Hitler run over Europe would have been a good idea. My view is rather that the United States shouldn't hop into most conflicts, whether it is invited or not. It's not a matter of "we don't belong over there", it's a matter of how much we can afford to invest in fighting wars. Wars that don't provide economic or security benefits over and above the cost of the war should not be engaged in. Alliances in which the United States obtains the least benefit and the most burden should be dissolved.

Currently, there is precious little to recommend Europe, in the long term, to the U.S. It isn't a threat, and terrorist attacks against Europe cost us nothing. A major war with, say, Russia, might devastate Europe, but defending Europe or a European country against Russia or another foe would likely cost the United States more than simply watching from the sidelines. Japan is more useful as an ally, but the only potential threat to Japan is China, which is a more valuable trading partner than Japan.

Therefore, considering the costs versus the benefits to the United States, we are better off at this time pursuing a more "isolationist" policy. That doesn't mean that an isolationist position is always a good thing, just that at this time, any threat that the world would need the United States to combat would be a nation that the United States should probably allow to pursue its own aims.

Furthermore, the risk of such incidents is low. Europe is unlikely to be attacked by any power. While China is flexing its muscles, it is unlikely to pose a major threat to any neighbor anytime soon. This reinforces the benefits of removing ourselves from the obligations which we currently possess, and redirecting the time, money, and energy towards ourselves. We owe Europe and Asia no moral obligation to protect them, and we owe the Middle East no obligation to try to "save them from themselves" (as if we could). Nor can we "enforce" democratic governance (a contradiction in terms if there ever was one).