Right, better to take the other side where anyone who appears to be a fame seeker who raped his wife couldn't plausibly have been setup by a standard CIA maneuver.
You can say what you like about the competency of our intelligence community, but I think if they were setting him up they might have come up with something slightly more damning than "might have taken a condom off once or twice".
I had a friend. 10 year ago he said that will meet NATO tanks with open hug. Years later, seems I got what he said. What is better, some death in short war or long tortures and years long killings of several generations in North korean style?
Are you calling for a US invasion of Venezuela because it would be overall less violent, in an utilitarian point of view?
Because I don't think it can work. The last time it was tried, we got Libya. Militaries have too much power nowadays, you can't invade and do a regime change without death and suffering for years until you have a strong and local insurgent force on the ground that you trust will leave the power once the coup is done. And Venezuela's rebelsare weak, poorly organised, and very few.
The Balkans weren't invaded. That's why it worked, it was local separatism, local armies, very few international support (UN banned selling weapons and at the time, it mostly worked), and i think one offensive strike from the UN to liberate Sarajevo. Just one, after 3 years of war. And it was for humanitarian reasons. And still, Serbs talked about a "US coup" and Serbs neo-nazis blamed the jew for the loss, so revanchism was high (still is in the older generation)
The only example where it "worked" without local resistance are Japan and Germany, and again, with Japan is highly debatable.
Venezuela is a jungle, and has tanks, APCs, and a lot of missiles. The military isn't one block, but it would react as one in case of an invasion. This also isn't Irak, with flat, arid places, and multiple insurgent group. Without the Kurd resistance in the north and local Shia resistance group, the operation would have fail. You ought to see Venezuela like Afghanistan, with less mountains. And invasion would last a decade, or rather, until the next presidency, the US troops will go back, and a similar (or even worse) regime will be put in place.
> he will meet NATO tanks with open hug... I got what he said... better death in short war [than] long tortures.
That's the same argument suicidal maniacs use: "kill yourself now to avoid the problems of life" - otherwise known as the "silver lining of shit".
However, it's not clear why that should happen at the expense of NATO taxpayers, they are better off without maniac-serving wars.
Assange is the man though, sometimes I wonder if he's the only man in the West. Far too many don't seem to understand that sooner or later, the morbid obsession with wars is going to get back at them and bite their heads off.
nato taxpayer prefers paying for consequences of drugs smuggling, cyber warfare, terrorism and drones? bad regimes seems like to do that to nato countries.
i was living in the same country with him, but i did not get any political context back then. my brain was washed by propaganda of ussr, usa and eu, and in state general ignorance of well fed burgeosy.
now i see how bad things going to north korea scenario.
so what is better to live 4 generations of people in north korea or few years of turbulence?
for person who was intrested all was clear 25 years ago, were country was going. from these, 20 years were pleasing dictator by world. after is not better (even after his is not pleased anymore).
Which is in Norway.
He's a clown.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Nobel-Foundation
Don't care about him anymore.
Because I don't think it can work. The last time it was tried, we got Libya. Militaries have too much power nowadays, you can't invade and do a regime change without death and suffering for years until you have a strong and local insurgent force on the ground that you trust will leave the power once the coup is done. And Venezuela's rebelsare weak, poorly organised, and very few.
and what you say about balkas invaded? was it good or not? some of countries here are better now.
50 years of suffering vs few years of violent turbulence. what is better?
The only example where it "worked" without local resistance are Japan and Germany, and again, with Japan is highly debatable.
Venezuela is a jungle, and has tanks, APCs, and a lot of missiles. The military isn't one block, but it would react as one in case of an invasion. This also isn't Irak, with flat, arid places, and multiple insurgent group. Without the Kurd resistance in the north and local Shia resistance group, the operation would have fail. You ought to see Venezuela like Afghanistan, with less mountains. And invasion would last a decade, or rather, until the next presidency, the US troops will go back, and a similar (or even worse) regime will be put in place.
That's the same argument suicidal maniacs use: "kill yourself now to avoid the problems of life" - otherwise known as the "silver lining of shit".
However, it's not clear why that should happen at the expense of NATO taxpayers, they are better off without maniac-serving wars.
Assange is the man though, sometimes I wonder if he's the only man in the West. Far too many don't seem to understand that sooner or later, the morbid obsession with wars is going to get back at them and bite their heads off.
I don’t get it. Please explain?
now i see how bad things going to north korea scenario. so what is better to live 4 generations of people in north korea or few years of turbulence?
for person who was intrested all was clear 25 years ago, were country was going. from these, 20 years were pleasing dictator by world. after is not better (even after his is not pleased anymore).