3 ms·

It seems you've decided that US hegemony is a "good thing" regardless of the moral implications for ourselves and the world. However, some find actions like the

It seems you've decided that US hegemony is a "good thing" regardless of the moral implications for ourselves and the world. However, some find actions like the following to be dangerous, immoral, unnecessary: * "the US and Israel had the director assassinated" * "we won offshore drilling" * the blase assertion that a nuclear Iran is any worse than the existing nuclear powers (especially Israel!!!) "Energy security" is oil company nonsense, hilarious considering their tireless efforts to block any kind of clean alternative. The OPEC crisis saved us from gas guzzlers, and now we're back to having SUV's everywhere. We could use some "energy insecurity" but with fracking we're now an exporter. Oil forever!! Climate be damned. I disagree also with attempts to close off the discussion by saying "geopolitics are important." The US does not have to subvert governments, install dictators across the globe, prop up Saudi Arabia, blindly support Israel, be the muscle for Big Oil (and assassinate and imprison folks at home, too). The moral hazards that have created this situation are to blame, but it doesn't help that our leaders are as a group paranoid and uncreative, all too willing to let militaristic fascists (accurate, not name-calling here) drive their decision-making. Edward Snowden is a hero, full stop. You can't do enough damage to the NSA, these types must be resisted at all times.

BugBrother 12y ago
>> the blase assertion that a nuclear Iran is any worse than the existing nuclear powers Iran has one of the worst dictatorships around, it exports weapons and ammunition everywhere. The regime support groups that as SOP fire rocket artillery at civilians. The regime even support the politicians which organized the genocides/rapes of millions in Sudan. And so on. Iran's priests is just not the kind of regime that should be immune to military threats, like Russia is now with Ukraine. The really scary thing with that religious dictatorship, with both a fin de siecle attitude and nuclear weapons, is that they might get most of the Iranian population killed. Probably a majority of the Iranians really hates their priests and are a bit more west oriented than the average European. They have worked hard to push off their yoke, but their junta was ready for it. (I come from Sweden, there are lots of Iranian refugees there.) That said, to use spying for economic reasons ("offshore oil drilling locations" in the GP comment) do deserve a total lack of trust. They lower themselves to the Chinese dirty level.
xnull2guest 12y ago
> It seems you've decided Nah that's not what I think or believe. I'm trying to explain broader context. The US is not hacking in a vacuum. It has to make strategic decisions. We can arm chair the US strategic command all we want. There seems to be a presumption that the US is doing these things 'just because'. What I believe is that the US is making decisions based on incentives, costs, benefits and other tradeoffs. I believe that if we don't participate in cyber intelligence warfare, we'll lose. There are certain principles I don't want to give up in the process for sure - civil liberties of all people everyone is #1.
- lazaroclapp 12y ago
  Presumably, I could better my negotiation position on pretty much any deal by spying or sabotaging the other party. Say I am negotiating a salary offer from a company, having access to the CEO email and that of other key decision makers (even just the prospective team and the HR reps) would presumably give me information I can use to secure a higher comp package, no? Without disrupting their operations in general, if I don't make a mistake in the process. Is the previous an ethically valid way of conducting business? Should I not expect to be scrutinized if/when I got caught doing that, because it might imperil my interests? If I do the same, not for me but for a collective (a company, a union), would that be any less unethical? If not, why would it be different if I did it for my country? Why is it that we consider that sort of behavior pathological for individuals, criminal for organizations and "just the way things are" when talking about (advanced, inter-dependent, presumably-friendly) nations?
  - xnull2guest 12y ago
    These are all really good questions and I don't have answers other than to say there's a 'prisoner's dilemma'/'tragedy at the commons'/'cold war' situation. If you do no espionage and no sabotage, even though it is a higher moral ground, you don't exist for very long as a country. So it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.
    - lazaroclapp 12y ago

BugBrother 12y ago

>> the blase assertion that a nuclear Iran is any worse than the existing nuclear powers Iran has one of the worst dictatorships around, it exports weapons and ammunition everywhere. The regime support groups that as SOP fire rocket artillery at civilians. The regime even support the politicians which organized the genocides/rapes of millions in Sudan. And so on. Iran's priests is just not the kind of regime that should be immune to military threats, like Russia is now with Ukraine. The really scary thing with that religious dictatorship, with both a fin de siecle attitude and nuclear weapons, is that they might get most of the Iranian population killed. Probably a majority of the Iranians really hates their priests and are a bit more west oriented than the average European. They have worked hard to push off their yoke, but their junta was ready for it. (I come from Sweden, there are lots of Iranian refugees there.) That said, to use spying for economic reasons ("offshore oil drilling locations" in the GP comment) do deserve a total lack of trust. They lower themselves to the Chinese dirty level.

xnull2guest 12y ago

> It seems you've decided Nah that's not what I think or believe. I'm trying to explain broader context. The US is not hacking in a vacuum. It has to make strategic decisions. We can arm chair the US strategic command all we want. There seems to be a presumption that the US is doing these things 'just because'. What I believe is that the US is making decisions based on incentives, costs, benefits and other tradeoffs. I believe that if we don't participate in cyber intelligence warfare, we'll lose. There are certain principles I don't want to give up in the process for sure - civil liberties of all people everyone is #1.

lazaroclapp 12y ago
Presumably, I could better my negotiation position on pretty much any deal by spying or sabotaging the other party. Say I am negotiating a salary offer from a company, having access to the CEO email and that of other key decision makers (even just the prospective team and the HR reps) would presumably give me information I can use to secure a higher comp package, no? Without disrupting their operations in general, if I don't make a mistake in the process. Is the previous an ethically valid way of conducting business? Should I not expect to be scrutinized if/when I got caught doing that, because it might imperil my interests? If I do the same, not for me but for a collective (a company, a union), would that be any less unethical? If not, why would it be different if I did it for my country? Why is it that we consider that sort of behavior pathological for individuals, criminal for organizations and "just the way things are" when talking about (advanced, inter-dependent, presumably-friendly) nations?
- xnull2guest 12y ago
  These are all really good questions and I don't have answers other than to say there's a 'prisoner's dilemma'/'tragedy at the commons'/'cold war' situation. If you do no espionage and no sabotage, even though it is a higher moral ground, you don't exist for very long as a country. So it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.
  - lazaroclapp 12y ago