I read the RT article, and got the impression that the Chinese were talking more about providing materiel assistance to the Iraqi military (IE selling/donating drones, missiles, maybe light strike aircraft) rather than direct military intervention. Unless someone's seen information to the contrary?
Although Manning could certainly be treated better, there's a quantitative and qualitative difference between Ellsberg and Manning.
Ellsberg selectively released information on the US involvement in Vietnam. It was precise, focused whistleblowing.
Manning did release some info on illegal activities in Iraq, but the vast majority of what he released was State Dept cables that had nothing to do with the war. It was a data dump rather than whistleblowing, and there is no way that he could've vetted the amount of data he released to make sure that lives were not endangered or national security significantly damaged.
I'm confused, are we supposed to be rooting for or against US global influence now?
I read the RT article, and got the impression that the Chinese were talking more about providing materiel assistance to the Iraqi military (IE selling/donating drones, missiles, maybe light strike aircraft) rather than direct military intervention. Unless someone's seen information to the contrary?
Although Manning could certainly be treated better, there's a quantitative and qualitative difference between Ellsberg and Manning.
Ellsberg selectively released information on the US involvement in Vietnam. It was precise, focused whistleblowing.
Manning did release some info on illegal activities in Iraq, but the vast majority of what he released was State Dept cables that had nothing to do with the war. It was a data dump rather than whistleblowing, and there is no way that he could've vetted the amount of data he released to make sure that lives were not endangered or national security significantly damaged.