The center core of a falcon heavy (the triple-core version) stages too far away in order to return to the launch site. It will be landing on that barge.
The Americans like this narrative a lot, probably because it's a good excuse for preemptive interventions.
However, I don't think "appeasement" changed anything in the course of events except for holding up the outbreak of the war for one year. If the other European powers and the US had tried to isolate Hitler at the time, do you really think Hitler would have been cowed? On the contrary, it would just have been better for his propaganda machine and he wanted to start the war earlier anyway. And the idea of a massive military intervention to throw Germany out of Czechoslovakia is something that you may justify in retrospect, but at the time it would have been an absurd move, even it had had with popular support.
It seems like what is happening here is that Tsvangirai is trying to cooperate with 'western' governments, and Mugabe is painting this as an evil action which needs to be stopped.
And is it impossible for Mugabe (regardless of anything else about him) to be right? (I refer you to Iran-Contra for an example of how covert US foreign policy operates)
Wrong how? WikiLeaks leaked private communications between a force for reform in Zimbabwe and western nations.
Those communications may have irreparably damaged efforts at reform by giving Mugabe and his thugs material to discredit reformers.
How do you know he is a force for reform? I am unaware of any period in history when American diplomats had identified and were helping a force for reform in a foreign country. Do/did US diplomats have secret cables with Ayn San Suu kyi? Garry Kasparov? Liu Xiaobo? Nelson Mandella? Hugo Chavez? Evo Morales? I am guessing not, because that's not how the US government operates. But I am sure we had plenty of "cables" to Saddam Hussein, the Shah of Iran, Pinochet etc.
If some US diplomat has had private communications with a foreign official, the onus is on you to show that he was a reformer, since that communication by itself can be taken as heuristic evidence against that fact.
Now you are just flat out lying.
I've seen internal redactions within the cables themselves (because unlike you, I don't talk out of my ass -- I've actually looked through several of them). The Pentagon Papers were not held back for any amount of time. Newspapers digested and published them immediately. The same thing is happening with the leaks (journalists gets first crack at them, in case there were failures to do proper redactions.)
Amnesty Intl., did *NOT* rip into Wikileaks. They were under the impression that civilian names were disclosed in the Afghanistan dump, without providing any evidence. As Assange himself points out, there is no evidence or even alleging of harm to anyone by any credible institution. So they asked wikileaks to do something they've always already done (redact names of innocent civilians).
Oh its outrage against a straw man. Assange himself is constantly asked whether or not he believes in a black and white view to transparency and he always answers no (his standard example is the medical secrets of a private citizen). His actions are consistent with his claims, and wikileaks has clearly redacted when it makes sense, and they have never released anything that amounts to a personal attack on a private citizen.
The simple fact is that Wikileaks has done a better job of public disclosure than any other existing institution on earth. That primarily includes the US government, private corporations and various other governments around the world.
Diplomacy does not include obtaining DNA evidence and phone tapping foreign officials.
You are projecting upon wikileaks things they did not do. They don't just go leaking random bank accounts info. They released two version of the Collateral Murder video; one edited and one not. The US government claimed that this video did not exist, in the investigation of the incident they found no wrong doing, even from the gunner that said "come on, just pick up a weapon".
The government works at our behest. We (Americans) pay taxes for those cables. Those cables *BELONG TO US*. Looking through some of them myself has been somewhat enlightening about how our government's foreign policy works in ways that deceptive election campaigns and government spokespeople and useless civics classes could never tell me.
There is no analogy to revealing the email of a private citizen.
So with my admittedly meager research (reading Slashdot and other sites), I can't figure out if the Wikileaks people are good guys or bad guys. Which is it?
You can't figure it out? You like governments and corporations around the world keeping secrets from citizens at their expense?
The only problem with this years Nobel Peace Prize is that Wikileaks was a better candidate for it. (Tianmen Square was limited to China, while Wikileaks has the potential to change the world.)
For Wikileaks to possibly be in a "bad" category, it would have to do something bad. By what twisted reasoning can you find anything that Wikileaks has done somehow fit into the category of bad? The only people who could possibly suggest that there was anything bad about Wikileaks are bad people who don't like their secrets revealed. They make up lies about the consequences of revealing the secrets. They even have resorted to a smear campaign against Julian Asange. But at the end of the day, you can't find any shred of anything that Wikileaks itself has done that could be in any way construed as "wrong" or "bad".
On the side of "good" it is almost a stupid question. They do the job of reporting what governments are too cowardly and craven to face the public on. They are the megaphone for a conscious' of the myriad whistle blowers who see corruption all around them and are exasperated by the fact that nothing can be done about it, short of this desperate attempt to let the world know what is happening. Wikileaks makes it possible -- it gives whistle blowers the anonymity they need to execute their exposures.
Your question is hardly recognizable as even remotely rational.
He started a war? Amazing, I didn't know he had his own country.
Well we declared war on terrorism and drugs. Doctors have declared war on cancer. I hardly see how countries are associated with these "modern" wars.