3 ms·

"Spying has been around since the Romans, and probably before" The Romans were out for world conquest. I'd like to believe as somebody from the Netherlands, th

"Spying has been around since the Romans, and probably before" The Romans were out for world conquest. I'd like to believe as somebody from the Netherlands, that yes, we really are allies with our neighbours and the days of war are past us. Glorifying some Machiavellian competing states scenario is not of this time. Not only that, it's naive. The real benefit of this NSA information on it's allies is purely economic.

rayiner 13y ago
> I'd like to believe as somebody from the Netherlands, that yes, we really are allies with our neighbours and the days of war are past us. There are still people alive who remember a war in which Europeans killed 60 million of each other. Which came just a couple of decades after a war in which Europeans killed 15 million of each other. Which followed a century of violent European colonization of Europe and Asia. Which followed a few centuries of constant war (international and civil) in Europe (e.g. 30 years war, French revolution, etc). The history of Europe is a history of war. There were a lot of people who thought World War I was the war to end all war, and that with the league of nations it would never happen again.
dylangs1030 13y ago
I'm sorry to pick you out from the crowd on this, but this is exactly what's so frustrating about civil debate on Hacker News. You ignored the majority of the parent's point, instead electing to pick on one word ("Romans") and then strawman that half to hell. If it pleases you, and you'll read the rest of his argument before bashing out an angry rebuttal, put in some other example of your choosing. You literally missed his entire point about the purpose and necessity of intelligence gathering agencies in the global theater. People shouldn't have to worry about their exact word usage because someone -- like you -- will come along and nitpick it so the original point is buried under the burden of a disagreeable example. You responded to his post either without really reading all of it or understanding it. Allow me to summarize his point: Spying does not require nor dictate that two countries are enemies. Allies and spying are not mutually exclusive - your entire point about how you'd like to think about your allies as someone from the Netherlands is thus irrelevant. Next, allow me to address your second paragraph. All states are always competing. We don't live in an idealistic world where globalization has renderd us kumbayah with everyone else. Again, let me reiterate - that does not mean we are enemies. Finally, or course there is an economic benefit to all intelligence gathering agencies. This should be self-evident. But no, that's not the only one by any means. Intelligence gathering agencies also benefit their homelands with intelligence, which is obviously not just an economic benefit.

rayiner 13y ago

> I'd like to believe as somebody from the Netherlands, that yes, we really are allies with our neighbours and the days of war are past us. There are still people alive who remember a war in which Europeans killed 60 million of each other. Which came just a couple of decades after a war in which Europeans killed 15 million of each other. Which followed a century of violent European colonization of Europe and Asia. Which followed a few centuries of constant war (international and civil) in Europe (e.g. 30 years war, French revolution, etc). The history of Europe is a history of war. There were a lot of people who thought World War I was the war to end all war, and that with the league of nations it would never happen again.

dylangs1030 13y ago

I'm sorry to pick you out from the crowd on this, but this is exactly what's so frustrating about civil debate on Hacker News. You ignored the majority of the parent's point, instead electing to pick on one word ("Romans") and then strawman that half to hell. If it pleases you, and you'll read the rest of his argument before bashing out an angry rebuttal, put in some other example of your choosing. You literally missed his entire point about the purpose and necessity of intelligence gathering agencies in the global theater. People shouldn't have to worry about their exact word usage because someone -- like you -- will come along and nitpick it so the original point is buried under the burden of a disagreeable example. You responded to his post either without really reading all of it or understanding it. Allow me to summarize his point: Spying does not require nor dictate that two countries are enemies. Allies and spying are not mutually exclusive - your entire point about how you'd like to think about your allies as someone from the Netherlands is thus irrelevant. Next, allow me to address your second paragraph. All states are always competing. We don't live in an idealistic world where globalization has renderd us kumbayah with everyone else. Again, let me reiterate - that does not mean we are enemies. Finally, or course there is an economic benefit to all intelligence gathering agencies. This should be self-evident. But no, that's not the only one by any means. Intelligence gathering agencies also benefit their homelands with intelligence, which is obviously not just an economic benefit.