Many European companies did business with Saddam's Iraq just as they do now with Iran, and other unsavory regimes.
Some of that business has been lucrative arms or technology business, or to strengthen the miliary or economy. Those are matters of interest to other governments that are being attacked by those countries.
People here keep claiming that government corruption is widespread, and their leaders can't be trusted. If that is so, don't you think other countries would like to know what is really going on? Country X says its policy toward country Z is A, but intelligence shows the real policy is B, a very dangerous B.
Bribery is an accepted common practice in some countries and cultures. Should it be unknown if it is bribery that is winning international contracts?
During the Cold War various German institutions were riddled with agents of the Warsaw Pact, especially East Germany. NATO secrets were always at risk. Would that be a matter of interest?

Not true. You're ignoring the help Assange and Wikileaks gave Snowden.

You keep spewing this rhetoric, but could you name exactly which corporations you're talking about, and what it is specifically that you think they control? That would be helpful since there are thousands of corporations, and they often hav conflicting interests. Doing any sort of coordination among them would be difficult, and there would be records that someone should have been able to produce by now. That is something you never address, so I'm asking: where is your proof of this massive puppet show that you think exists?

The speed of the growth of the internet is a separate question from general public awareness of it. I am correct in what I wrote that by 1986 the internet was spreading quickly, and no, that isn't just CS departments in colleges. The infamous internet worm was Morris, not Mitnick.

The internet was being used as a tool by people in industry, government, and educational institutions, and not simply by "specialists".

As to BBSs and beyond, ever hear of TYMNET, Compuserve, GEnie, The Source, BIX, Delphi, Micronet? There was a big world beyond your local BBS on an XT clone, some of which also offerered access to the internet in various forms.

The concern isn't about making good decisions, but about the behavior and use of the system's capabilities and emergent properties.

Teaching computers to beat humans at bluffing, decoying, and no doubt (now or in time) lying? Is that what we want AI to be capable of? I'm not sure that is a good idea, and the code to do that should never be among the "standard includes". I understand the utility of it in dealing with humans, but still ...

Won't someone think of the child...er vulgarity?

Thanks for the suggestion, but been there, done that.

The internet existed in 1983, and was spreading quickly in 1986. Computer crime has existed since at least the 1960s. How could you imagine that hostile foreign governments and other bad actors didn't obain Top Secret US intelligence information via Snowden since it was published in newspapers while the US is engaged in armed conflict and confronting various threats to NATO and other allies?

Being genuinely "anti-war" during a period of international strife isn't necessarily a wise position. Had the North capitulated to the demands of the South, would the US still be a nation with slavery? Where would the world be today if FDR had been anti-war and shrugged off the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor? Much of the British population was so opposed to war that it delayed Britains rearmament prior to WW2, which almost brought it to ruin. Had the Nazis met resistance in remilitarizing the Rhineland it might very well have prevented much grief later. More than one foreign leader has made the mistake of believing the US response would be weak if the US was attacked, including the Japanese and Bin Laden. Being weak in a world of predators such as them invites attack. It is generally a good thing to avoid war if possible, but not every war is avoidable.

You don't? That's funny .... having served as a state governor is generally considered a strong qualification for running for president, and a number of the Republicans either in or considering entering the race have served as such.

Do you think nobody is a serious candidate? Or is it just the Republican side you think is "lacking"? Or is it your views that are unserious?

You omitted punishing the offender for his or her crime. Surely that can be a consideration?

Does the victim have no interest in justice for the wrong done to them?

If the "quote" actually occurred there should be a source for it, and none is noted. On the other hand it appears to be a popular quote on various fringe web sites that are likely more open to fabrications, especially if they tend to demonstrate some sort of conspiracy involving Germany, Jews, and Churchill.

It seems highly likely that "quote" is spurious given the strange wording, the false contents, and the lack of any specific attribution. If you doubt it yourself it makes no sense to post it.

Why do you think Churchill was there?