3 ms·

> No, that was never in dispute though, strawman argument? Well that was the point that I was trying to convey, I'm glad that we are in agreement. > Treason i

by rijoja 3y ago

> No, that was never in dispute though, strawman argument? Well that was the point that I was trying to convey, I'm glad that we are in agreement. > Treason is betrayal as it applies to aiding an enemy, not a trusted ally. And almost never in times of peace. The specific term is espionage not treason. But still a betrayal of trust. Usually assets are just waiting to be bought, it's better for an ally to buy them instead of a hostile country/agent. Lookup the CIA MICE acronym on how to develop assets. The person who sells the classified information would obviously be the one that commits treason, not the spy agency. > Are you saying if the US president was nicer, US spying would be acceptable? Or are you making my argument for me that precisely for the reasons you mentioned, european intel agencies are spying in/against the US? What I am trying to say is that since there is no guarantee that the next president will be good it would be wise never to accept intrusive spying. No I don't think spy agencies should wiretap the phones of their allies leaders, if they are allies. That would be dishonorable and shameful. Collecting intelligence can still be done through other means of course. The information in the link below, for instance is probably not collected trough wiretapping: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/angola/summaries/ https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/angola/summ... > Think about it this way, not much has changed between EU and US relations even after snowden reveals and trump. Yeah which I think reflects really unfavorably on the politicians in both the EU and the US. > Ultimately the interests of both parties are largely aligned and intertwined and embarassments like the US spying solved diplomatically. Diplomacy can still be based on threats of violence, so that doesn't really impress me very much. > But what concerns me is much of both US and EU is too many generarions removed from the chaos of the old world. They are not aware of the treasure of peace and friendly relations we all enjoy. We are debating over a website instead of with bullets from foxholes and the current state of spying is largely a reaction to WW2 and the cold war. It can change both for better and worse, so vote for foreign ministers that will relfect your views and priorities so they can solve this stuff. People in Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan, Yemen and many more, might not agree with that. Furthermore Europe is being overrun by refuges created by the turmoil which also seem to point to the fact that things aren't that stable. You could also argue that during the USSR all the countries in that sphere where living in peace, others would say that they where living in fear of the secret police.

_8j50 3y ago
> What I am trying to say is that since there is no guarantee that the next president will be good it would be wise never to accept intrusive spying. No I don't think spy agencies should wiretap the phones of their allies leaders, if they are allies. That would be dishonorable and shameful Criminals are not usually ashamed, I think the part you don't get is that clandestine arms of spy agencies are essentially state sponsored criminal agencies. Like APT hackers for example, every country hacks other countries (major ones anyways), and of course that is criminal and dishonorable but it is the norm and you have consented to it by your votes. > Yeah which I think reflects really unfavorably on the politicians in both the EU and the US. In my experience it is also the people. Most regular people don't care or it is at least not a big deal so long as their economy and security is improving. Politicians are merely representing the people. > Diplomacy can still be based on threats of violence, so that doesn't really impress me very much Yes, but people don't bleed or die when threatened, so point still stands. > People in Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan, Yemen and many more, might not agree with that. Furthermore Europe is being overrun by refuges created by the turmoil which also seem to point to the fact that things aren't that stable Yes, but speaking of Ukraine, who is the main military support preventing a russian invasion? And do you recall trump being impeached over not helping Ukraine? Did the US owe them that? Who drew the maps in palestine? Brits! Who left sudan in shambles mixing christians and muslims in one country? That's right.. brits. The world is a complex place, my point is not to blame europe or morally justify the CIA. The point is history, context and intentions are plenty and the norm of spying and world relations now has resulted in peace, improvement of poverty by an insane margin and much less wars and death. Despite nukes being a thing, they so far have only been used once! That's not an accident. Wars were very common and frequent. Maybe things can improve but only if we don't forget history. Europe is being overrun because of immigration policy, similar to the US. > You could also argue that during the USSR all the countries in that sphere where living in peace, others would say that they where living in fear of the secret police. I would say in relative peace but with little liberty and quality of life. Stalin and Mak were arguably on the same murderous level as hitler and the japanese emperor.
- rijoja 3y ago
  > I think the part you don't get is that clandestine arms of spy agencies are essentially state sponsored criminal agencies I'd go beyond that and say that they are state sponsored terrorists, which is why I think it's obvious for the US to keep them away from their allies, unless their allies aren't really their allies. > Yes, but people don't bleed or die when threatened, so point still stands. I wouldn't be surprised if your state sponsored criminals have killed European citizens in order to bully people into submission, making them enact policies that then would lead to people dying... > Yes, but speaking of Ukraine, who is the main military support preventing a russian invasion? Speaking of Ukraine how did a government that provoked the Russians into attacking them come into power? > And do you recall trump being impeached over not helping Ukraine? Why would Trump be impeached over helping Ukraine? The US can't even protect it's own border. > Did the US owe them that? Well I suppose the US wouldn't want to have military bases that close to Moscow. > Who drew the maps in palestine? Brits! Who left sudan in shambles mixing christians and muslims in one country? That's right.. brits So you are saying that two wrongs make a right, and it's okay for the CIA to wiretap German politicians because brits did something bad decades earlier? > Stalin and Mak were arguably on the same murderous level as hitler and the japanese emperor. Way worse which is why I don't really like your Pax Americana argument, since it means justifying terrorizing innocent people for economical benefit, and then saying it's a good thing since the subjugated population can't resist any more and there'll be "peace". Either way you haven't managed to change my mind, and made me believe that its a good thing that the CIA wiretaps its allies and that it would make sense for European nations to start looking elsewhere for allies.

by rijoja 3y ago

_8j50 3y ago

> What I am trying to say is that since there is no guarantee that the next president will be good it would be wise never to accept intrusive spying. No I don't think spy agencies should wiretap the phones of their allies leaders, if they are allies. That would be dishonorable and shameful Criminals are not usually ashamed, I think the part you don't get is that clandestine arms of spy agencies are essentially state sponsored criminal agencies. Like APT hackers for example, every country hacks other countries (major ones anyways), and of course that is criminal and dishonorable but it is the norm and you have consented to it by your votes. > Yeah which I think reflects really unfavorably on the politicians in both the EU and the US. In my experience it is also the people. Most regular people don't care or it is at least not a big deal so long as their economy and security is improving. Politicians are merely representing the people. > Diplomacy can still be based on threats of violence, so that doesn't really impress me very much Yes, but people don't bleed or die when threatened, so point still stands. > People in Ukraine, Palestine, Sudan, Yemen and many more, might not agree with that. Furthermore Europe is being overrun by refuges created by the turmoil which also seem to point to the fact that things aren't that stable Yes, but speaking of Ukraine, who is the main military support preventing a russian invasion? And do you recall trump being impeached over not helping Ukraine? Did the US owe them that? Who drew the maps in palestine? Brits! Who left sudan in shambles mixing christians and muslims in one country? That's right.. brits. The world is a complex place, my point is not to blame europe or morally justify the CIA. The point is history, context and intentions are plenty and the norm of spying and world relations now has resulted in peace, improvement of poverty by an insane margin and much less wars and death. Despite nukes being a thing, they so far have only been used once! That's not an accident. Wars were very common and frequent. Maybe things can improve but only if we don't forget history. Europe is being overrun because of immigration policy, similar to the US. > You could also argue that during the USSR all the countries in that sphere where living in peace, others would say that they where living in fear of the secret police. I would say in relative peace but with little liberty and quality of life. Stalin and Mak were arguably on the same murderous level as hitler and the japanese emperor.

rijoja 3y ago
> I think the part you don't get is that clandestine arms of spy agencies are essentially state sponsored criminal agencies I'd go beyond that and say that they are state sponsored terrorists, which is why I think it's obvious for the US to keep them away from their allies, unless their allies aren't really their allies. > Yes, but people don't bleed or die when threatened, so point still stands. I wouldn't be surprised if your state sponsored criminals have killed European citizens in order to bully people into submission, making them enact policies that then would lead to people dying... > Yes, but speaking of Ukraine, who is the main military support preventing a russian invasion? Speaking of Ukraine how did a government that provoked the Russians into attacking them come into power? > And do you recall trump being impeached over not helping Ukraine? Why would Trump be impeached over helping Ukraine? The US can't even protect it's own border. > Did the US owe them that? Well I suppose the US wouldn't want to have military bases that close to Moscow. > Who drew the maps in palestine? Brits! Who left sudan in shambles mixing christians and muslims in one country? That's right.. brits So you are saying that two wrongs make a right, and it's okay for the CIA to wiretap German politicians because brits did something bad decades earlier? > Stalin and Mak were arguably on the same murderous level as hitler and the japanese emperor. Way worse which is why I don't really like your Pax Americana argument, since it means justifying terrorizing innocent people for economical benefit, and then saying it's a good thing since the subjugated population can't resist any more and there'll be "peace". Either way you haven't managed to change my mind, and made me believe that its a good thing that the CIA wiretaps its allies and that it would make sense for European nations to start looking elsewhere for allies.