

Why the Internet is America’s greatest weapon - nextparadigms
http://gigaom.com/2011/07/04/why-the-internet-is-america%E2%80%99s-greatest-weapon/

======
dean
What a strange title for this story "Why the Internet is America’s greatest
weapon". It implies a lot about the mindset of the author. Clearly, the author
still sees America as a shining beacon of democracy for the world, and
believes that America should spread democracy everywhere it can.

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.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Syria and Libya are not comparable examples. Libya has a much smaller
population (less than 1/3rd of Syria's), and Gaddafi's army is much smaller
and less well armed than Assad's. More importantly Syria is known to have
stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, especially mustard and nerve
gas.

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.

~~~
dean
I agree with you. The cost in lives and treasure of mounting a military
campaign against some of these dictatorships would be very high. And
practically speaking, it's not necessarily worth it for America (as cold as
that sounds).

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.

~~~
diogenescynic
Happy 4th of July to you, too. America is not obligated to topple every
dictator around the world. You sound exactly like the same people who would
angrily criticize them for doing so even if they did and accuse them of
imperialism. You seriously cannot win.

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?

~~~
jstevens85
|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.

~~~
diogenescynic
You didn't answer the question: if the US is so bad--who is better?

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...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/01/06/us-usa-aid-factbox-
idUSTRE6054DT20100106)

This does not support your argument and you still haven't answered my original
question.

~~~
wnight
> Military intervention should only be used when our nation's interests are at
> risk.

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.

~~~
diogenescynic
|...it's pretty obvious you're only in this for yourselves.

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.

~~~
wnight
> 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...

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?

~~~
diogenescynic
You still can't answer the question or cite any facts.

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".

~~~
wnight
You're allergic to facts. Whenever I use them you blank out the entire
section.

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.

~~~
diogenescynic
Go get some mental help for your own sake. I'm not allergic to facts you just
haven't cited any and you're still avoiding answering my original question.
Why are we in Afghanistan? 9/11. Why are we flying drones? Because your
governments are corrupt/inept and incapable of eliminating terrorists. Any
innocents who have died are collateral damage. Your country should have done a
better job of preventing terrorists like Osama Bin Laden from launching
attachs at the US. Remember before 9/11 we weren't attacking you, until you
killed 3,000 civilians (including American Muslims).

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.

~~~
wnight
BTW Your quotes are unclear.

> 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...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War)

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.

~~~
diogenescynic
You won't cite facts because you can't cite them using any reliable sources.

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".

~~~
wnight
> Your examples are from HUNDREDS of years ago.

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.

~~~
diogenescynic
"Why don't you go to Iraq and demand thanks for the benefits you've given
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.

~~~
wnight
> We don't get any oil from Iraq.

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.)

~~~
diogenescynic
You're an absolute hypocrite. If America is so bad leave.

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?

------
dreamux
I think people are overcomplicating the issue, social media simply gives
community to people who may have otherwise thought their ideals lacked popular
support. This was previously done with outspoken radicals speaking to the
masses, but is now accomplished with a general consensus of individuals.

Interestingly, I see the same effects promoting atheism instead of political
change here in the west.

------
galactus
It is a bit cynical to mention the role of the internet in the uprise against
Mubarak as an example of the internet being "america's greatest weapon" given
Mubarak's position as a longtime US ally.

~~~
astine
"Cynical?" That seems like a strange word choice to me.

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.

~~~
zeemonkee
" 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)

------
Lost_BiomedE
I was hoping this was an economics article. It is a politics article on
protest organization. Me sad.

------
joelhaus
Democratic forms of government are best represented by the internet.

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.

------
cies
tcp/ip was developed by the military in the first place, wasn't it?

a bit of a long term payoff, but now we have: a new battle field to rule :)

------
maeon3
The power of the internet comes from anonymity, Eben Moglen talks about how
the internet is going to lose what made it great when you are unable to
connect to it without an authority tracking your every query, every click and
every mouse rollover:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gORNmfpD0ak>

