The NSA doesn't "protect" anyone. They are an intelligence agency. Their mandate is to collect information. The group you're thinking of, the one that's actually supposed to "protect" the network, is US Cyber Command: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cyber_Command
NSA did this to advance their mission, not to make a few extra bucks.
It is also why my generation (I'm 27) will eventually have to fight a nuclear war that pits Iran against Israel and possibly the US.
That war will potentially kill millions. And whose fault will it be? Obama's and Bush's. They will (if history is just and we don't change course) go down in history as potentially making mistakes that killed millions, just as Stalin and Hitler did.
Or we could insist now (or, ideally, a few years ago) that Iran not develop nuclear weapons capability, if necessary fighting a minor tactical war to stop them.
(There is NO reason to have Vietnam IV, where Afghanistan and Iraq are Vietnam II and III. Except of course socialism for defense contractors and altruism as we throw away trillions "re-building" the latter two countries.)
You should have hedged with "can be" instead of "is." Fighting preemtive wars can be disastrous too.
> my generation (I'm 27) will eventually have to fight a nuclear war that pits Iran against Israel and possibly the US
Do you seriously believe that? Sure, Iran will get to throw their weight around a bit more with nuclear power, but they're not that desperate or stupid.
> Obama and Bush ... will go down in history ... just as Stalin and Hitler did
No.
> a minor tactical war [would] stop [Iran from developing nuclear weapons]
Maybe. You complain about "throwing away trillions" fighting silly wars and re-building countries. You do realize that the exact same sell (fight a minor war, stop the terrorists!) was used for the last two multi-trillion-dollar debacles, right?
Either we give them a bloody nose and they just try again (keeping their cards closer to their chest this time) or we spend trillions trying to install another puppet government.
Iran has lost the war vs Iraq a some years ago. As a European, I don't see Iran as a threat. But you probably do...
My personal view is that the USA was interested in the oil sitting there. End of story. Same thing with Ghadafi. The rest is politics to justify a war that doesn't make any sense.
Indeed the Iraq war was Blair's political destruction in the UK. Why do you think no one wants to attack Syria? Out of lack of evidence ? At that level you don't need evidence, you create them...
>>> Why do you think no one wants to attack Syria?
Because attack presumes you need to achieve something. There's nothing in Syria that can be achieved right now that would be a desirable target. Assad is evil, islamic fundamentalists that battle him are evil too, US has no power and no political will to reform Syria and make anything good out of that mess. Neither does anybody else. That's why Assad is not being removed - because after removing him nobody knows how to clean up the mess.
World War 2 started when Germany decided to invade Poland in late 1939. Germany was never given Poland.
You get even the most basic history wrong and then proceed to say that Bush and Obama are historically equivalent to Stalin and Hitler?
Never let facts get in the way of a good dogma.
Germany and the Soviet Union. Sure, the Soviets attacked after the Germans, but they split Poland between them before the invasion.
PS You forgot Clinton bombing pharmaceutical plants in Sudan, then taking his eye off the ball to play his sax, schmooze with Hollywood and chase skirts, while the wheels of 9/11 were set inexorably in motion.
No, we won't. There is simply no geopolitical logic to Iran and Israel going to war.
There's even logic to its foreign relations, underneath the ideological veneer. Imagine if someone thought US policy actually worked literally as presidential speeches suggest; you'd think they're an ignorant tool. "Everyone knows that speeches are just speeches," you'd say, with no connection to the actual practice of governance. It may surprise you to learn that it's like that in any state, including Iran.
Disclaimer: US citizen living in Armenia, NW of Iran. None of the very numerous Iranians here leave one with the impression that they are from a place with "no logic". Turn off Fox News.
I don't agree with this at all. For instance, Obama has done what he promised: More big government programs and spending, nationalized healthcare. People knew what they were getting with Obama when he ran for President. There are a lot of problems with America but I can't stand it when people attack it for reasons that it actually doesn't deserve.
> None of the very numerous Iranians here leave one with the impression that they are from a place with "no logic".
I was referring to the government, which was pretty explicit. Fundamentally, there is a tradeoff between religiosity and logic in any religious government. The two are opposites. We cannot assume that Iran will never instigate a war for religious reasons, or that no rogue element of its government will ever share its weapons with outside religious groups.
> Turn off Fox News.
We can discuss the issues, but you cannot dismiss me by trying to claim I'm ignorant. I actually don't even watch Fox News, but I disagree with maligning Americans who do.
I can point you to a litany of campaign and post-inaugural promises that are widely perceived to be broken by a large cross-section of people, from closing Guantánamo to definitively and swiftly ending American involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
2. "We cannot assume that Iran will never instigate a war for religious reasons, or that no rogue element of its government will ever share its weapons with outside religious groups."
So, factionalism exists within the Iranian state? And what is the American state, a univocal monolith? For an overplayed but relevant example, I give you Iran Contra, or, for that matter, the runaway intelligence apparatus that Snowden helped put into sharper relief.
The point being that there are semi-autonomous appendages to any non-trivially-sized state. It should come as no surprise to anyone that there are extremist elements within Iran. Indeed, I would be willing to grant you that the extremist elements are more prominently positioned and influential within Iran's state. That's a far cry from "there is no logic to Iran". What does that even mean?
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/04/do-cyberatta...
As for the article, it claims that Stuxnet "opened the Pandora box", but it did nothing of the sort. Stuxnet by itself did not enable anything that wasn't possible before - it was possible for malicious actors to create attacks on US networked infrastructure, and it still is. Stuxnet changed nothing there. Criminals and security professionals know the possibilities for a long time. And are using them. Making it sound as if the evil US has again spoiled the paradise for everyone makes no sense, and the author, being the expert in the field, should have known better, but looks like his political views overcame his professional judgement here.
(A ground war between Israel and Iran is a practical impossibility, by the way - neither country has the strategic reach for that).
According to their experts, a nuclear Iran is a good idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shah_of_Iran_building_two_...
Besides that, that Iran doesn't exist anymore.
It will run out, though. The only questions are when, and what the contingencies will be once it does.
>>> basing threat levels on previous actions?
That would be stupid because it means that only the second action can be countered. Given how first action can cause devastating consequences, limiting oneself to only reacting to a second one would be terminally stupid. American administration, for example, was justly criticized for sleeping through 9/11, and acting unprepared when it happened. Generals like to prepare for the past wars, it is much easier, but there's no reason to condone such behavior.
>>> who invades countries most often?
Invasions can differ. If Nazi Germany invaded Poland once, and Britain invaded Nazi Germany once, they are not equal.
>>> who's military kills the most people?
Again, depends on the people. If Al-Qaida kills 3000 Americans in 9/11, and then Americans kill 10000 Al-Qaida fighters after that, I'd say good job, they only should have done it earlier, so we would have 3000 less victims.
>>> That saga ended with almost everyone looking bad.
It looks bad to you because you take an impossible position that fighting evil should be done without hurting anyone. It would be nice if there was a nice, fluffy, unicorn-land evil that you could fight by issuing a strongly-worded declaration of condemnation and maybe refuse to send them a Christmas card next time. Unfortunately, real evil is much harder and messier to fight.
I know. People that thought if USA sees no evil, hears no evil and refuses to speak about evil then all troubles would happen to somebody else existed since there was such thing as USA. They were wrong then and are still as wrong now.
>>> The question that never seems to be asked, is why did September 11 happen
You must be kidding me. One has to be unusually dense or unwilling to hear to ignore the deafening choir of non-interventionists and generic America-is-root-of-all-evil crowd blaming America for what happened at 9/11. Of course, it only tells us about them, not about why this heinous atrocity has really happened. The solution there is simple - these terrorists saw America as their enemy, and given the opportunity to deal a heavy blow to the enemy - opportunity enabled in some measure by complacency of the American administration, who for a long time thought terror is something that happens in bad places like Middle East but can't happen in America, despite many warnings to the contrary - given that opportunity, they struck their blow. One doesn't need any more complicated theory than that. As for why they chose America as their enemy - one doesn't need too much theory in that either, given that ideologists of Al-Qaeda explain it all by themselves. Their goals as religious fanatics dreaming of subjugating other people to their rule are incompatible with America's role as a world power strategically and with America's support of people unwilling to accept radical islamist rule tactically. Of course Al-Qaeda is the enemy of America - what else could they be, given that their premises are diametrically opposed to every premise this country is built on?
>>> Bombing and invading hasn't worked.
What you're calling "worked"? To make the strategy, you first have to define the goal. If the goal is "to ensure America is never the target of a terrorist attack", the solution is simple - America must cease to exist. If America exists, it can be target of a terrorist attack, and there's no known way to prevent it with 100% certainty. One, however, can make it harder to do, and for that there are many various plans, both good and bad.
So strictly speaking, the US is the bigger evil because it is doing all those things right now, and has the capability of destroying the world through nuclear holocaust.
> Again, depends on the people. If Al-Qaida kills 3000 Americans in 9/11, and then Americans kill 10000 Al-Qaida fighters after that, I'd say good job, they only should have done it earlier, so we would have 3000 less victims.
This line of reasoning. This here. That is evil.
"Depends on the people", oh my god.
By the way the US has already killed far more than 10,000 in response to the WTC attacks. And not just "fighters" either.
And if you still somehow can say this was warranted--I have no (nice) words if you do--ask yourself why they hijacked those planes in the first place. It wasn't because "mwuahaha let's do something evil against those unfaithful white men dogs" (the hijackers themselves maybe were told something like this, a variation on your "it depends on the people"), but the actual cause was the US' meddling in the Middle East in earlier decades (during the Gulf Wars and before) that ended up killing their guys. Which made them decide that a mission like this was a completely reasonable response. Someone might have even claimed something ridiculous like "we should have done a 9/11-type attack much earlier, and save all those victims" (which makes about as much sense as your claim that killing 10,000 AQ fighters sooner would somehow have prevented 9/11).
They have about as much claim of being the "good guys" as the US. Which is, none whatsoever.
No, it is not.
>>> This line of reasoning. This here. That is evil.
But I if under "evil" you understand "defending yourself against attack" then I can understand why you call the US "evil". However, it is your private meaning of the world "evil", unknown to the rest of the world.
>>> "Depends on the people", oh my god.
Of course it does. One is justified to use violence in defense against attack. I'm surprised it needs to be explained.
>>> By the way the US has already killed far more than 10,000 in response to the WTC attacks.
The US killed people in war, it is true. That, unfortunately, the only way to fight wars. If you invent some way to win wars without killing anybody, be sure to tell, it would be most wonderful invention. Until you do that, that's the way we have. When attacked, there's only two ways to behave - submit to the attacker or fight back. I don't think submitting would be a good option.
>>> the actual cause was the US' meddling in the Middle East
Very funny word that "meddling". Like "I shot this guy because he was meddling with my robbery and was trying to stop me, so I'm completely in the right". Of course US is "meddling" - without that "meddling" real evil - you know, guys like Hitler, Hussein, Pol Pot, etc. - would feel much freer to perpetrate their evil deeds. "Meddling" is the only moral thing to do if you see people's rights violated and freedoms infringed.
>>> Which made them decide that a mission like this was a completely reasonable response.
The fact that it seemed reasonable to them means nothing. Everybody thinks their behavior is reasonable - murderers, robbers, rapists, thieves, serial killers - all of them think they're very reasonable people in unusual circumstances that make them do those things. There are very few people that say "I'm evil to do this, but I will still do it". Yet it is evil to do what they do, and your relativism and attempt to present it as if there's no right and wrong but only somebody's opinion can only lead to a moral bankruptcy.
> No, it is not.
??? Yes it is!
It's replaced countries leaders with ones more suitable to US interests. Thrown entire countries into a state of war. That's destabilizing.
I'm going to hope we can agree that throwing bombs on people is hurting them?
Finally, if providing terrorist organisations (AQ was an "ally" back then) with weaponry isn't "inciting violence", then I don't know what is. Also quite destabilizing to the region btw.
> Of course US is "meddling" - without that "meddling" real evil - you know, guys like Hitler, Hussein, Pol Pot, etc. - would feel much freer to perpetrate their evil deeds. "Meddling" is the only moral thing to do if you see people's rights violated and freedoms infringed.
I'm going to ask you to be a bit more skeptical than that. You do know that the US gov / military has routinely lied about their intents to the US people right? So you should at least give some consideration to the following:
Saving the poor people of the Middle East from those evil dictators was not the reason for getting involved at all.
Gaining political and military control over one of the largest deposits of fossil fuels, of course is.
Why do I believe this is the case? Because there's TONS of terrible evil being committed to poor people all over the world, many of these things would be quite the low hanging fruit to get involved with. But instead, the US picks this rich and relatively well-armed hornet's nest to get sucked in by. Oops.
Judging that in the category of "saving people from evil / having their rights violated and freedoms infringed", it's pretty much an abject failure. With those very same resources they could have saved so much more lives if they really cared for that, at the cost of so much less lives of American soldiers, if they even cared for THAT.
There are so many really real evil guys in the world, committing really really bad atrocities on the people they sit on top of, in countries you really never hear about because they're poor and far away and not really interesting (untrue, Tajikistan is super interesting).
Also it's super easy propaganda-wise to paint the cause for fighting in a far-away country as something heroic and moral, when it's really about oil, power and control. There's a few more motivating factors besides those, but none of them amount to "because we're the good guys".
Finally to address your point about relativism and moral bankruptcy. IF I could truly and honestly believe that the US primary goal in the Middle East is to save these people from evil dictators and provide them with freedom and human rights (c'mon! it can't even provide those to US citizens at home!), if I could believe that to be true, then I'd probably be mostly in agreement with you, really. Doing good is a good thing.
It's just that, from the outside, it seems pretty obvious that the US is not there with the intent to do good to the people, but to control the natural resources and sources of power.
Every time you seen people all "yay! the evil dictator is gone!" it turned out to be a photo-op, didn't you notice? Didn't you see the zoomed-out version of that well-directed scene where they toppled Saddam's statue? Tanks! Cameras! Action! Most non-actor people were instead wondering "when will the US stop occupying our country". The REAL celebrations you won't see, will happen when your soldiers finally leave (aka, never).
Then offense is just offence.
In actual life, the 800-pound gorilla is beating the shit out of monkeys, invades their villages, pushes them diplomatically, installs his lackey-monkeys in power in their jungles, and steals their resources.
And he counts any nick or scratch on his body (inflicted by the monkeys tiny hands) as worthy of the lives of 10,000 monkeys -- which he considers almost subhuman and even talks openly of "bombing them back to stone age".
Oh, and he maintains that he's the righteous and good one in all this, and it's doing it for their own good.
The best solution is to prevent the problems; I hope you understand while reading this article (which went here on HN some time ago):
http://news.yahoo.com/german-police-used-only-85-bullets-aga...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/white-house-nsa-a...
Conspiracy doesn't mean aliens and Disney being frozen.
It just means people/organisations doing something together in secret.
What the NSA and partners have done is very much a conspiracy -- by definition.
As the great writer Gore Vidal once put it, "Americans have been trained by media to go into Pavlovian giggles at the mention of 'conspiracy' because for an American to believe in a conspiracy he must also believe in flying saucers or, craziest of all, that more than one person was involved in the JFK murder."
Money is a powerful conditioning force, and humans miss the "obvious" things that are influencing them all the time.