When worlds collide..... http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...-nsa-monitoring-could-have-prevented-911?lite Cheney says NSA monitoring could have prevented 9/11 The United States might have been able to prevent the deadly Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington had controversial National Security Agency surveillance practices been in place at the time, former Vice President Dick Cheney said Sunday. The former No. 2 in the Bush administration defended the NSA's ability to monitor phone and email data, and labeled as a "traitor" the analyst who has admitted to having leaked details about the classified program. "As everybody who's been associated with the program's said, if we had had this before 9/11, when there were two terrorists in San Diego — two hijackers — had been able to use that program, that capability, against that target, we might well have been able to prevent 9/11," Cheney said on "Fox News Sunday." And Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C., a hawkish Republican who's vocally defended the NSA practices, suggested another attack is even made more likely if the monitoring is curtailed. "I believe we should be listening to terrorists, known terrorist emails, following their emails and following their phone calls. And if they're emailing somebody and the United States or calling a number in the United States, I would like to get a judge's position to monitor that phone call," Graham said on "Meet the Press" on NBC. "If we don't do that, another attack on our homeland is very likely."
In the history of the United States, the only thing that has been clearly more successful than any other strategy in combating terrorism attempts at Americans has been: focusing your politicians on solving domestic issues, and having a neutral non-aggressive foreign policy. TSA, NSA/Patriot, Prism, disposition matrix, war, bribery, drug trade, weapons sales, choosing sides, setting up bases with nukes, etc. These have all failed at least significantly more than just behaving like most other countries i.e. use our money and your resources to solve home issues, and leave everyone else alone. The biggest atrocity that America has possibly ever faced while minding its own business is Pearl Harbor. Compare that to all the other terrorist attacks you've had to deal with.
How did the isolationism work out for everyone? We had one country who was out to conquer Europe and another who bombed us in fear of us becoming directly involved. Isolationism doesn't work. Nor does being a global cop. You can't be the global power house and have the most thriving economy by minding your business. This has become the problem with America; We want all the gratification but none of the responsibilities and/or repercussions.
If you go by what Bill Binney says then yes it could have if they actually monitored everything in the fashion that they should.
No, the problem is that you want to become THE global powerhouse, and that means having influence in the lives of people who do not vote in your elections, and sometimes not even their own elections for the same reason. History has taught you and me that to exercise influence over people who do not have any role in self-determination ultimately leads to chaos in the form of desperate attempts to change things. It is fundamentally criminal, and you should start viewing it this way just like you (and I) do when any other group or country claims that it wants to be THE - not A, but THE - global powerhouse in the world. You should view it the same way you do as when, for example, the Chinese government pursues an interest to be the sole dominating force and most thriving economy and to remove the US from that position. It is the exact same thing.
Thought you guys would appreciate this video: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7BmdovYztH8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
History has also taught that if we don't have said influence, world wars tend to start and tens of millions of people end up dead. So I'm not sure you want to point to THAT as the successful route to pursue. Since the US has been the global powerhouse - and even when the US and USSR shared that role - you haven't had any wars that killed 50 million people.
One thing I can't help but wonder, Mathloon, is whether our wildly divergent views are a result of our very different cultural backgrounds - while there have been some and starting to grow problems, Japan has done very well out of American hegemony while the Middle East, well, hasn't. In that regard, when you talk about the wonders of isolationism, you look at how the Middle East may benefit ( and a huge emphasis on the "may": I think Syria is a better description of what things would really look like, and can you imagine the effect on the American economy if these sorts of things happened routinely in the oil-producing countries?) and thus ignore the truly global consequences of such an action. I have no problem with China seeking dominance. It is natural, historical, and I would be all the more confused if they didn't try to get it. But that doesn't mean we sit aside and let them remove America from their seat. I've said the same thing about Iran - I understand why they're building nukes, and it's not because they're insane gibbering loons seeking to suicidally launch a nuke at us, but once again that doesn't mean the US should just let them.
Let's assume your absurd characterization of post-war events is true.. Would you support a world where the US and Russia switch roles? One murderer is better than 4 or 5 murderers. He's still a murderer. We're not going to be thankful that we have fewer murderers once the other murderers are gone. All that happened is that one person won, and when you're the only one left standing then fear is much more effective and murder much less necessary. This state of affairs is one you would never dream of arguing for unless you were in a privileged position - and you are. You are the most privileged citizen in this disgusting state of affairs. You would not be saying these vile things if you were an average Saudi Arabian. You can only say that without mass criticism because you are saying it as an American, on an American message board, in an American dominated world. History will ridicule these positions, as they do today to the arguments that British imperialists made in their murderous conquests. You also think that the consequences of this state of affairs has been revealed. That is the biggest joke of all. Ignoring the tens of millions that the United States has killed or supported to kill post WW2, there is still unfortunately plenty of death to come - and this time at the hands of a single country - than we could ever consider acceptable in a society which is more civilized than it was in the 40's.
Not really. My cultural background would, if I accepted it, dictate that I hold the same position as you - one of absolute seizure of power to then implement whatever ideology I arbitrarily assume is best for the world. Moreover, I am from and live in a country which you could reasonably argue has benefitted more from American foreign policy than any country in the world. Are you kidding? Honestly, most people in the world, including America, could not dream of the materialistic opportunities available to a citizen of this country. The issue here is that while I recognize my opinions as opinions, you take yours as factual as evidenced by you use of "truly global consequences" here. Regarding China, you've made my point for me. You would not sit aside and watch China hold dominance regardless of the "success" of that dominance and therefore my view seems to hold true: it is absurd to make the argument that the non-murder of 50 million people in a decade long world war legitimizes American dominance.
Intelligence officials and members of the Senate Intelligence Committee have said that Snowden is lying about the things he said he could and that he never had access to the information he says he had access to.
Your argument really comes straight out of Henry Wallace's playbook. When the Soviets were marching on Europe, Asia, and everywhere, Wallace advocated that the United States do nothing, because it was more important that the United States keep its moral integrity than it was for Communism to march over the world - never mind the people who would die to Communism, as long as America kept its hands clean of blood, everything was fine and dandy with the world! You may choose to deny reality in the name of your ideals, Mathloon, but just as humans are not equal to one another, neither are nations. Some country is going to rule, as order inevitably asserts itself. The question should not be: by what right does the United States assert hegemony? The question should be: why should the United States not assert hegemony? Because people will die from its rule? People will die whether the Chinese rule, the Soviets rule, or whether we rule. The United States implementing the sort of foreign policy you want would truly have significant global consequences. That is a fact. It's one you believe yourself. Remember, Major and I may be on the same side in this debate, but we're not using the exact same arguments - I freely admit I'm a lot nastier than him.
Which absurd characterization are you referring to? The only one I see I mentioned was that no wars that killed 50 million people have started since. Do you disagree with that? If so, can you point me to the war(s) you're referring to? Of course not - I am American. Why would I trust a government that doesn't conform to my values? Sorry, I don't fear the US, so none of this is particularly relevant to me. I don't think Saudi Arabia was better off when they were in WW2 than they are now. Blaming their problems on the US is kind of silly - they might want to look at their own government for that. That may be the case. I, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of knowing the future. What I *do* know is that isolationism has never worked very well. And while the world is certainly ugly right now, it has been more peaceful over the last 50 years than at any time in previous human history. You seem to believe that there's this magical fairy tale world where if the US wasn't involving itself in things, everyone would be happy and prosperous. I simply understand that that's not reality. I don't think anyone knows the consequences of any of actions in the long-term. I think if you think you do, you're a delusional fool. Societies of every type of government with every foreign policy stance have been tried, and all have failed over time. The US surely will eventually too. It doesn't mean that what it does is not the best of a bunch of bad options. Of course there is more death to come - that is the reality of human existence. If you can point me to the time and government that successfully eliminated that, I would be happy to hear you out.
Henry Wallace is an awesome guy, but my views are hardly similar unless we're talking strictly about a vague disinterest in going to war. It's interesting you should mention him btw given he was f***ed out of legitimately being selected by US citizens to become the IIRC vice president. Try as much as you like to paint my views as some idealist utopian world, but I am merely prescribing what your country did its entire life prior to emerging more victorious than it ever thought it would be following WW2. Incidentally, it is also the foreign policy that all but a handful of countries in the world today pursue. Not only is that realistic, but it is so dull and normal that I would expect US foreign policy to be at the forefront of mastering such a policy by making it more effective for its own citizens than it has been for others. Once again and most of all, it's phrases like "deny reality in the name of your ideals" that make me skeptical of your views. I could make that exact same argument. None of us would be right. Everyone denies other people's reality in the name of their ideals - the likelihood that your ideal utopia is the status quo does not make your ideals more realistic. Would there be global consequences to a withdrawal of US imperialism? OF COURSE. There would be humongous power vaccuums to fill. Many of the countries have had their political institutions anihilated by or during this imperialism. In the ensuing power grab, many people would die and many countries would spiral into an ideological black hole. For some it will be taking a step back. For others it will be the same, or a step forward. Egypt is a fantastic example. Remember, Egypt was a huge investment destination and its economy was growing at 5-6% just before the revolution. Morsi is horrendous, perhaps even worse than Hosni, but almost no Egyptians would have it any other way. That's because they know that while the state of affairs is terrible now, their control over their country has gone from almost 0 to SOME POSITIVE NUMBER in the meantime. That positive number is going to improve. That may not be soon - as has been the case with Iran - but you can be damn certain that like Iran, it is only a matter of time before people want to increase their control over their own country. We have also seen that - almost without exception - that humans will resort to violence unless that control increases or that control has reached a sort of maximum possible control given the intricacies of ideological bias. I think at the core of our different views is our beliefs about humans. I THINK, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that you believe humans have a natural imperialistic intent to ignore boundaries and seek power. On the other hand, I really don't believe humans have any interest in such things unless they are provoked to do so. In the case of America, I think the government has structured the country's finances such that each American has a financial interest in going to war. I believe it unfair to then characterize Americans as naturally war-loving (as many do), when it is clear that influential Americans live in a place where going to war is good for their pockets, and not going to war is bad for their pockets.
1) Referring to the way you stated those numbers - you realize the US had a large part in killing millions of those 50 million, killed at least millions since, and has specifically supported/funded/trained groups that bring that number up to tens of millions since? Not to mention the rights. Remember that thing America is about? Liberty, freedom, justice? Yeah, a lot of that gone. But you wouldn't know. 2) You think your values just happen to conform to "American" values, that's interesting and I must admit very funny. Does your government conform to all your values? Or do you mean a constitution and set of laws which roughly conform to your values? Because there are plenty of those. I doubt, just as a current example, that prosecuting more whistleblowers than all presidents in US history combined conforms to your values (correct me if I'm wrong). 3) Of course you don't fear the US. The point was in response to your assertion that things are more secure or safer now because of US dominance. 4) What a silly argument. How on earth would a country be better off 70 years ago than today? They should be much better off now than they currently are. But again, you are deflecting the issue. You are a privileged person in the world, and your arguments could only come from a privileged position, much like they did for the British when they colonized so much of the world. At that time, in the exact same way as it is today, most of the media, intellectuals and domestic public opinion was that the British were doing what's best for its subjects. Your ideals are tied to your nationality, and that's something which should be pointed out, even if you seem blind to the fact that your country's ideals (liek any other country) are not static. 5) There's no magical fairy tale world. At least try to put some meat in your arguments. The world should have and easily could have been more peaceful in the last 50 years if American foreign policy more closely matched the ideals of its people or the American constitution. 6) I've already stated no one knows exactly how things will turn out. But to whitewash history as if everything has been tried and failed, and we know now that this is the best possible option - that's a cop out. Not everything has been tried. Everything that has been tried has not been tried in the same way or the same amount. Failure in this case is about perspective more than anything. The world is not neat like that. What we are doing now has been tried for centuries. The only difference is that today we have one superpower with the ability to drag the world into nuclear warfare if it doesn't get its unchallenged desires satisfied. This is the last phase - and who knows what the next phase will bring or what it will be - but we are still in the phase where citizens of an empire make absurd arguments for their empire. 7) This seems to be a recurring error I made in clarity -- sorry about that. There is more death to come than should come given why the death is happening.
the question we need to ask---is at the American government's peak of hiding things---what are in the TOP SECRET folders hidden from people like Snowdon, if the Senate claims he did not have that much access?
If there is a legitimate need to have secrecy, then wouldn't whatever is in the top secret files be considered the least of anyone's worries? Maybe I misunderstood your question.
