5 ms·

What the US is doing is extraordinary, mainly because it is the only country with the resources to run the operation that it's running, but also because everybo

What the US is doing is extraordinary, mainly because it is the only country with the resources to run the operation that it's running, but also because everybody seems to be infected with fear. If we were talking about Georgia, or Israel, or Ukraine, or Japan, I would understand the fear. But the USA has no enemies, there are no threats. It's a tragic case of paranoia.

AndrewKemendo 12y ago
But the USA has no enemies, there are no threats. I am interested in how you came to this conclusion.
- alextgordon 12y ago
  I'd be interested to know who you think is a threat! The US has two borders. One with Canada, one with Mexico. Neither of these countries are likely to invade. The US has the largest naval force in the world. I believe the Coastguard is also the 13th largest. Again, nothing to fear. Of the countries that are "enemies", most would quite like to improve relations, for instance Cuba and Iran. Iran in particular has extended many an olive branch over the decades. The US keeps these countries around as notional enemies, in part because of political incompetence, and in part because of a lack of incentive to fix things. Who wants to be the President who made friends with an "Islamic Republic"? Either way, it's hard to see what particular danger the US is in. Compare this to any of the countries I mentioned, which are much less defended, and have active disputes with neighbouring countries.
  - pcrh 12y ago
    It might be more accurate to say that there are no existential threats to the US. The US certainly has competitors for geopolitcal influence (~enemies), as does any other nation.
    - marcosdumay 12y ago
      Are you really telling me that economical competitors and war enemies are the same thing?
      - pcrh 12y ago
        "Geopolitical influence" covers control of both purely economic assets (e.g. oil, markets), as well as territory. Economic competition has frequently been the underlying motivator for military action.
  - hueving 12y ago
    >most would quite like to improve relations, for instance Cuba and Iran. The ones that don't like to improve the relations generally get hung up on unstable countries developing atomic bombs.
  - fstephany 12y ago
    You're right. Territory invasion is unlikely but preserving the dollar is probably another story.
koonsolo 12y ago
> there are no threats. It's a tragic case of paranoia. Unless, of course, you have a non-US company competing with a US company, then you are targeted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Concerns "In the early 1990s, the U.S. National Security Agency intercepted the communications between the European aerospace company Airbus and the Saudi Arabian national airline. In 1994, Airbus lost a $6 billion contract with Saudi Arabia after the NSA, acting as a whistleblower, reported that Airbus officials had been bribing Saudi officials to secure the contract.[58] As a result, the American aerospace company McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) won the multi-billion dollar contract instead of Airbus." "The American defense contractor Raytheon won a US$1.3 billion contract with the Government of Brazil to monitor the Amazon rainforest after the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), acting as a whistleblower, reported that Raytheon's French competitor Thomson-Alcatel had been paying bribes to get the contract." "In order to boost America's position in trade negotiations with the then Japanese Trade Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, in 1995 the CIA eavesdropped on the conversations between Japanese bureaucrats and executives of car manufacturers Toyota and Nissan." And these are only the public cases of course. If you can eavesdrop on the conversations between your competitor and prospect, I don't have to tell you the huge advantage. You guys are pissing off friendly nations (I'm European).
- new299 12y ago
  Fascinating. Here's the Economist reference (one of the sources cited in the Wikipedia article): "According to a European Parliament report, published in 2001, America's National Security Agency (NSA) intercepted faxes and phone calls between Airbus, Saudi Arabian Airlines and the Saudi government in early 1994. The NSA found that Airbus agents were offering bribes to a Saudi official to secure a lion's share for Airbus in modernising Saudi Arabian Airlines' fleet." It would be interesting to see the European Parliament report, if anyone has a reference.
- chii 12y ago
  so basically, you're against the NSA using these tactics to oust their competition (who was already doing something illegal)? why isn't the bribery receiving an equal dose of your moral high horse? I m not saying what the NSA did was right, but that isn't really the issue i would have with their massive monitoring - it's that the information could be abused, or mis-used. The other part of the NSA problem is the National Security Letters (NSL), which is basically tyranny. I don't care that an american corporation managed to win more contracts this way, but that such powers could be abused.

AndrewKemendo 12y ago

But the USA has no enemies, there are no threats. I am interested in how you came to this conclusion.

alextgordon 12y ago
I'd be interested to know who you think is a threat! The US has two borders. One with Canada, one with Mexico. Neither of these countries are likely to invade. The US has the largest naval force in the world. I believe the Coastguard is also the 13th largest. Again, nothing to fear. Of the countries that are "enemies", most would quite like to improve relations, for instance Cuba and Iran. Iran in particular has extended many an olive branch over the decades. The US keeps these countries around as notional enemies, in part because of political incompetence, and in part because of a lack of incentive to fix things. Who wants to be the President who made friends with an "Islamic Republic"? Either way, it's hard to see what particular danger the US is in. Compare this to any of the countries I mentioned, which are much less defended, and have active disputes with neighbouring countries.
- pcrh 12y ago
  It might be more accurate to say that there are no existential threats to the US. The US certainly has competitors for geopolitcal influence (~enemies), as does any other nation.
  - marcosdumay 12y ago
    Are you really telling me that economical competitors and war enemies are the same thing?
    - pcrh 12y ago
      "Geopolitical influence" covers control of both purely economic assets (e.g. oil, markets), as well as territory. Economic competition has frequently been the underlying motivator for military action.
- hueving 12y ago
  >most would quite like to improve relations, for instance Cuba and Iran. The ones that don't like to improve the relations generally get hung up on unstable countries developing atomic bombs.
- fstephany 12y ago
  You're right. Territory invasion is unlikely but preserving the dollar is probably another story.

koonsolo 12y ago

> there are no threats. It's a tragic case of paranoia. Unless, of course, you have a non-US company competing with a US company, then you are targeted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Concerns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Concerns "In the early 1990s, the U.S. National Security Agency intercepted the communications between the European aerospace company Airbus and the Saudi Arabian national airline. In 1994, Airbus lost a $6 billion contract with Saudi Arabia after the NSA, acting as a whistleblower, reported that Airbus officials had been bribing Saudi officials to secure the contract.[58] As a result, the American aerospace company McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) won the multi-billion dollar contract instead of Airbus." "The American defense contractor Raytheon won a US$1.3 billion contract with the Government of Brazil to monitor the Amazon rainforest after the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), acting as a whistleblower, reported that Raytheon's French competitor Thomson-Alcatel had been paying bribes to get the contract." "In order to boost America's position in trade negotiations with the then Japanese Trade Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto, in 1995 the CIA eavesdropped on the conversations between Japanese bureaucrats and executives of car manufacturers Toyota and Nissan." And these are only the public cases of course. If you can eavesdrop on the conversations between your competitor and prospect, I don't have to tell you the huge advantage. You guys are pissing off friendly nations (I'm European).

new299 12y ago
Fascinating. Here's the Economist reference (one of the sources cited in the Wikipedia article): "According to a European Parliament report, published in 2001, America's National Security Agency (NSA) intercepted faxes and phone calls between Airbus, Saudi Arabian Airlines and the Saudi government in early 1994. The NSA found that Airbus agents were offering bribes to a Saudi official to secure a lion's share for Airbus in modernising Saudi Arabian Airlines' fleet." It would be interesting to see the European Parliament report, if anyone has a reference.
chii 12y ago
so basically, you're against the NSA using these tactics to oust their competition (who was already doing something illegal)? why isn't the bribery receiving an equal dose of your moral high horse? I m not saying what the NSA did was right, but that isn't really the issue i would have with their massive monitoring - it's that the information could be abused, or mis-used. The other part of the NSA problem is the National Security Letters (NSL), which is basically tyranny. I don't care that an american corporation managed to win more contracts this way, but that such powers could be abused.