I did answer that actually.  In this very thread.  It's sad you've regressed to bigoted ways and actions.  Care to refer to the class what you called the women?  Also perhaps care to refer to the charges he is charged for which includes foricbly holding someone down for sex?  Yet you still want to claim innocence for someone, based on nothing but your own love for his celebrity and damn anyone who accuses him facts be damned.

Some good reading http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41990.html

I have to wonder you list Assange and Wikileaks as the 'winner', you've partially explained what is means to be the winner but you haven't explained what it means to be the loser. And a winner to whom? To every man women and child on the face of this earth? Certainly not to US diplomats (and you I suspect). And I'm not sure which people you are referring to when you say 'people' always side with the accused on rape. Rape is a very serious crime, this is well understood in virtually all circles. Don't know who you've been hanging around with!

Society.  I mean, do you know what the rape conviction rate is in Sweden.  8% of trials that go to court.

How many rape cases does Sweden prosecute?  13%.  What is the false reporting rate of rape?  2%.

So of the best 13% of cases involving rape... only 8% of that 13% are found guilty.

So for every 100 rapes reported... 1 person is found guilty. 

Also, umm.... have you missed this entire thread where everybody has jumped on the accusors with absolutely no proof of a conspiracy or even a hinting of it being the case, using every tabloidesque half truth reporting thing they've seen to try and protect an accused rapist?

This pretty much sums it all up.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41990.html

The article and links it provides pretty much show why most people should be ashamed of themselves.

Also, as for the  losers...

In every case America and Sweden look like losers... because they either look like successful vindicitive dicks... or really incompetant vindicitive dicks.

Many people support wikileaks. People are sick to the stomach of our so called leaders making decisions totally detrimental to the well being of the majority. Those most opposed to Wikileaks are those who are in positions of power with a privilaged status and/or in the pockets of powerful business pressure/focus groups. Like I said before I really don't care for what aides have to say about aides. I mean all it's revealed to the majority of the worlds population is American embassy staff don't think too highly of the rest of the world. But to the worlds secret service agencies it's probably nothing new.

The leaks haven't really released much about the negotiations, I'm not sure why the tpic moved that way. We don't really know much about the very top secret stuff. As for negotiations that were done quite publically....don't really know any unless you know of one. And negotiations that have been done in private...pretty much all of them and the US has invaded two countries over the last decade. And your point is.....

And I'm not really talking about being in favour of open negotiations....I'm talking about negotiations that adhere to the whims of the public. I mean take for example a Saudi monarch calling for the bombing of Iran. Is that receptive to what his people want? I very much doubt it and yet Hillary Clinton uses it to rally support against Iran. The sayings of an absolute monarch indeed....

The link to the poll is interesting. For starters it's back in 2007 when Bush/Cheney were still in power and itching to bomb Iran and hence using the media to once again whip the public into a frenzy. But it didn't work quite so well this time around for various reasons such as the Iraq/Afghan quagmire. Second of all even with all the anti Iran rhetoric the majority is slim (52%) and last but not least the wording is ' US Military strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon' NOT ' US Military strike to prevent Iran from deveoping nuclear power for peaceful civilian energy purposes'.

There are plenty of polls that show the world opinion does not support a military strike against Iran. But I guess in your world the US is the world and the rest of the other world doesn't matter.

As for state of the art power plants as opposed to 1970's era tech when did we discover Iran had state of the art power plants? We know North Korea has revealed a recent state of art nuclear facility but Iran? They have power plants that are of US/German and Russian origin and all well known.

Yeah... except you know... Iran is building Nuclear weapons.

And 2007 was back was you know... back when everyone hated Bush and was sick of wars.

As for when we found out they had state of the art nuclear power plants?  Like 3-4 weeks ago.

Also, you know... you're wrong on that too.

There is world opinon polls that state "Should there be an attack on Iran" in which it is answered now.

If you phrase the question "If negotiations fail to get Iran to stop it's nuclear plans should there be an attack".

The answer is yes.  Most people trust in the negotiations.

The majority of EU states population agree to an attack.

And why should the USA attack a country that poses no threat to its homeland security?

Well for one because nuclear weapons are a threat to homeland security.  More proliferation is a HUGE threat to homeland security, hell there is already a pretty big homeland security threat with people like Pakistan having nuclear weapons.  You don't see the security risk in a place like Iran developing nuclear weapons?  What with their funding of terrorist orgizations, the revolutionary guard, and the fact that they could be taken down at anytime by the population who hates them leading for a free for all for nuclear bombs?   So the answer is, because it already poses a threat to homeland security, and nuclear weapons would be a further threat.

Two, because Iran is a threat to Europe.  The Wikileaks cables pretty much show as much (for those paying attention) due to them buying missles used for nuclear weaponry that are mid-range and could strike and threaten europe.  Most of europe is in NATO, it probably wouldn't even be a US airstrike but a joint US/EU airstrike.

Let's be realistic, USA poses a bigger threat to any country than viceversa. Reasons for Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam wars? Was it really necessary that the USA had to step in and attack without previous attacks from the other parts? Why is it that the USA is always at war, always with countries that are far away from it's borders and without a solid reason?

Let's get real, if the USA decides to attack Iran for the supposed nuclear weapons, we know it's not the reason, just like with Iraq, where the sole reason was oil, as there were no weapons of mass destruction ever found, not even traces of it. And like Afghanistan, an absurd war in all means.

Imperialism comes to mnd when I see people defending unsustained wars like the one in Iraq. USA is not the World Judge, nor the World Police. And there have been very serious war crimes commited by the US forces but they always get away with it. They should step aside and let the ones "threatened" act.