4 ms·

The CIA has been shady far before the Snowden revelations, you can find plenty through the Freedom Of Information act. >And why do we assume that their actions

The CIA has been shady far before the Snowden revelations, you can find plenty through the Freedom Of Information act. >And why do we assume that their actions are in the national interest when it is not defined beyond platitudes about freedom. Are you saying supporting SA is in our national interest? I don’t need the CIA to release info about SA for me not to support them. I’m not going to change my stance because of some possible CIA motive.

fit2rule 8y ago
The CIA has been a traitorous organ of nefarious and evil deeds for decades. But it has also successfully duped generations of Americans into believing it is acting in their best interests - such is the nature of the dire evil possible when you've got the ability to keep anything you want, a secret. What we need is for the American public to rein in their military-industrial-pharmaceutical masters. But, they can't really do that, for as long as regimes such as Saudi Arabia have bought their country out from under them.
resters 8y ago
> Are you saying supporting SA is in our national interest? Not at all. But rather than focusing on something concrete (and falsifiable) like national interest, our leaders and officials moralize and stoke righteous indignation.
tyre 8y ago
> Are you saying supporting SA is in our national interest? I’m not who you’re replying to, but yes it absolutely is. We don’t support SA because we secretly like mean people. We have a vested interest in keeping oil flowing. Was interfering in the most recent political turmoils in Egypt in our national interest? When you look at how much oil moves through the Suez Canal, absolutely. Stabilizing access to oil is in our own selfish national interest (we need oil) and in our global interest of stabilizing the world. When countries don’t have access to the natural resources they need, they tend to invade other countries to get them. We want to avoid that. Considering the above, I really wish politicians in the US would frame clean energy as a national security issue. We are far less likely to be bumbling around in the Middle East if we don’t need their natural resources. Would we still sell hundreds of billions of dollars in arms to theocratic authoritarian nut jobs? Maybe. At the very least we should chip away at the reasons we have for doing so.
- resters 8y ago
  While I would characterize the word “stability” in this context as newspeak meaning “destabilize in our favor” the gist is true. Yet everything the US does must be framed as some kind of sacrifice for some group’s freedoms, its women, children, etc. I don’t know what would constitute a morally defensible national interest. That is not an easy question. But at least it is an honest question. Honesty is not the goal however when there is a need to gain consent of the masses to do violence against the innocent whose lives are deemed worthless by our national interest.
verylittlemeat 8y ago
Anyone who doubts this should read the book Legacy of Ashes
skrebbel 8y ago
> Are you saying supporting SA is in our national interest? This is "if you're not with us, you're against us". It was a bad argument then and it's a bad argument now. Can we try to keep such short sighted reasoning off of HN?
equalunique 8y ago
>Are you saying supporting SA is in our national interest Officially supporting Saudi Arabia has been the US position since Nixon was president for the purposes of lowering oil prices and assisting Israel. Supporting Saudi Arabia is undeniably in the national interest if you ask the people in this country who have been amassing power since that time. National interest and human rights are separate priorities. Change would be nice but don't hold your breath.
- resters 8y ago
  Nicely put comment. If the goal is oil prices, the options include full annexation of Saudi, supporting a favored group of Saudi elites/royals, and many other options. Each has its humanitarian ups and downs. It may be the case that national interest sometimes requires making humanitarian trade-offs, and there is nothing wrong with using the consent mechanisms of democracy to find a path for US policy amid those trade offs. But I am certain that creating a pretense that US actions are driven only by humanitarian concerns and framing the larger policy issues to the public as over-simplified good vs evil is extremely dishonest, and should not be funded by taxpayer dollars. It seems that much as the tooth fairy is practice for religion, religion is practice for politics.

fit2rule 8y ago

The CIA has been a traitorous organ of nefarious and evil deeds for decades. But it has also successfully duped generations of Americans into believing it is acting in their best interests - such is the nature of the dire evil possible when you've got the ability to keep anything you want, a secret. What we need is for the American public to rein in their military-industrial-pharmaceutical masters. But, they can't really do that, for as long as regimes such as Saudi Arabia have bought their country out from under them.

resters 8y ago

> Are you saying supporting SA is in our national interest? Not at all. But rather than focusing on something concrete (and falsifiable) like national interest, our leaders and officials moralize and stoke righteous indignation.

tyre 8y ago

> Are you saying supporting SA is in our national interest? I’m not who you’re replying to, but yes it absolutely is. We don’t support SA because we secretly like mean people. We have a vested interest in keeping oil flowing. Was interfering in the most recent political turmoils in Egypt in our national interest? When you look at how much oil moves through the Suez Canal, absolutely. Stabilizing access to oil is in our own selfish national interest (we need oil) and in our global interest of stabilizing the world. When countries don’t have access to the natural resources they need, they tend to invade other countries to get them. We want to avoid that. Considering the above, I really wish politicians in the US would frame clean energy as a national security issue. We are far less likely to be bumbling around in the Middle East if we don’t need their natural resources. Would we still sell hundreds of billions of dollars in arms to theocratic authoritarian nut jobs? Maybe. At the very least we should chip away at the reasons we have for doing so.

resters 8y ago
While I would characterize the word “stability” in this context as newspeak meaning “destabilize in our favor” the gist is true. Yet everything the US does must be framed as some kind of sacrifice for some group’s freedoms, its women, children, etc. I don’t know what would constitute a morally defensible national interest. That is not an easy question. But at least it is an honest question. Honesty is not the goal however when there is a need to gain consent of the masses to do violence against the innocent whose lives are deemed worthless by our national interest.

verylittlemeat 8y ago

Anyone who doubts this should read the book Legacy of Ashes

skrebbel 8y ago

> Are you saying supporting SA is in our national interest? This is "if you're not with us, you're against us". It was a bad argument then and it's a bad argument now. Can we try to keep such short sighted reasoning off of HN?

equalunique 8y ago

>Are you saying supporting SA is in our national interest Officially supporting Saudi Arabia has been the US position since Nixon was president for the purposes of lowering oil prices and assisting Israel. Supporting Saudi Arabia is undeniably in the national interest if you ask the people in this country who have been amassing power since that time. National interest and human rights are separate priorities. Change would be nice but don't hold your breath.

resters 8y ago
Nicely put comment. If the goal is oil prices, the options include full annexation of Saudi, supporting a favored group of Saudi elites/royals, and many other options. Each has its humanitarian ups and downs. It may be the case that national interest sometimes requires making humanitarian trade-offs, and there is nothing wrong with using the consent mechanisms of democracy to find a path for US policy amid those trade offs. But I am certain that creating a pretense that US actions are driven only by humanitarian concerns and framing the larger policy issues to the public as over-simplified good vs evil is extremely dishonest, and should not be funded by taxpayer dollars. It seems that much as the tooth fairy is practice for religion, religion is practice for politics.