Why us furrrners get upset at some US foreign policy etc

[Clinton Huxley]

Grenada? Damnable incursion into Imperial Territory.
Libya? Remains to be seen how that works out. My hopes are not high.

[Mysturji]

... like Obama, Hollande's governing socialist philosophy is that of ...

Yeah. Obama's a socialist.

[Mysturji]

For you education, Collector, the "center" of politics in the US is considered the Right in most of the rest of the developed world. The Democrats are a centre-right party. The Republicans wouldn't exist in most of our countries, outside of perhaps a tiny number of members, due to them being batshit fruitcake insane racist homophobic sexists.

Russia is part of the developed world, and they are much farther right of the U.S. than the E.U. is left of the U.S. By any reasonable measure, the U.S. is left of center.

[JimC]

... like Obama, Hollande's governing socialist philosophy is that of ...

Yeah. Obama's a socialist.

Warren is relatively reasonable here - at least he's not going the whole Sethian hog, and calling him a Marxist...

[Svartalf]

... like Obama, Hollande's governing socialist philosophy is that of ...

Yeah. Obama's a socialist.

As much as hollande is... the difference is that he did not take the label to get elected.

[Mysturji]

... like Obama, Hollande's governing socialist philosophy is that of ...

Yeah. Obama's a socialist.

Warren is relatively reasonable here - at least he's not going the whole Sethian hog, and calling him a Marxist...

Agreed. (as evidenced by the post I quote below) ... But I still call bullshit when I hear/see it, whatever the source.

The liberty vs security argument will always be there, but I prefer to see a reasonable balance rather than ALWAYS leaning towards the liberty side. I think the balance today is still reasonable. And as someone who has personally calculated the blast radius between his office desk and the White House, I'm not open to too much compromise on this.

When I worked for the military, I worried about that blast radius too. However, I also figured that risk was part of what I was being paid for.

When you sacrifice the liberty of the entire population to improve the safety of a relatively small number of government functionaries, the government is no longer serving the people - it is only serving itself. At that point, the concept of liberty becomes meaningless and you have a police state.

Government employees who feel they aren't being paid enough to take their risks always have the option of leaving and working in the private sector in a safer location instead.

Good point well said.

[pErvinalia]

Warren Dew wrote:

The Cold War as a whole was much more morally justified than WWII. Much of Eastern Europe was freed from repression and the yoke was made lighter in Russia and China as well, without ceding vast swathes of the world to dictatorship, as we did in WWII.

The first sentence is utter and complete revisionist nonsense. If ever a war had to be fought, it was WW2. The fact that it had unfortunate consequences in Europe, as Soviet power waxed post war, does not change that at all. One can assess the mistakes of Yalta, for example, without that changing the relative morality of the war.

The Cold War is, of course, poor nomenclature that refers to a period of super-power rivalry, not a war that can be assessed for morality. The US and its allies stood firm, to be sure, but as much to maintain their power base as to spread freedom and liberty among the oppressed, good PR though that may have been. Having been blocked militarily, the Soviet Union and its allies slowly collapsed through the failure of totalitarian Marxism to deliver anything of real value to its people. They were not "freed" by the direct actions of the West (although its strong defensive position was a necessary pre-condition)

Can you name one place except Korea where the US and its allies spread freedom and liberty?

Coit's head?

[pErvinalia]

... like Obama, Hollande's governing socialist philosophy is that of ...

Yeah. Obama's a socialist.

It's just ridiculous, isn't it? Some of these clowns need to stop watching Fox News and actually visit some other countries.

[Svartalf]

... like Obama, Hollande's governing socialist philosophy is that of ...

Yeah. Obama's a socialist.

It's just ridiculous, isn't it? Some of these clowns need to stop watching Fox News and actually visit some other countries.

Man, but they might get dirty in the boonies.

[Mysturji]

A question for Ian:

I'm pretty sure that as a member of the US armed forces, you took an oath with words to the effect of "I swear to... defend the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic..."

As a US government employee working for the security/intelligence services, I'd be surprised if Edward Snowden didn't also take a similar oath.

Bearing in mind the contents of the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically the fourth amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It seems to me that the NSA's activities which Snowden blew the whistle on, (specifically, blanket spying on any/all US citizens' communications) place the NSA rather decicively in the "domestic enemy" category. Their activities were unconstitutional, and directed against the American people. ALL of them, not just specific individuals suspected of criminal activity, and there was no warrant, probable cause, oath or affirmation.

So when Snowden blew the whistle on those activities, he was doing his sworn duty as he saw it, knowing that he was breaking the law by doing so, and that this would have very serious consequences for him personally.

I think it is perfectly reasonable and justified to be upset by the fact that Snowden had to break the law in order to do his sworn duty. What is harder to understand is why someone would be upset with HIM.

So my question is this: If you had to break the law in order to do your sworn duty to defend your country against a domestic enemy (such as the government of the United States, or one of its agencies), would you? And would you please explain the reasoning behind your decision?

(I'm about to go away on holiday, but I'll read your reply with interest on my return.)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, he was a contract employee and wasn't required to swear any kind of oath. He very likely did have to sign a non-disclosure form, probably a DOD9918-A.

[Mysturji]

No, he was a contract employee and wasn't required to swear any kind of oath. He very likely did have to sign a non-disclosure form, probably a DOD9918-A.

OK, take out "sworn".
He still did his duty.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, he was a contract employee and wasn't required to swear any kind of oath. He very likely did have to sign a non-disclosure form, probably a DOD9918-A.

OK, take out "sworn".
He still did his duty.

Maybe by his definition of duty. But did he do it such a manner as to be the most effective means of dealing with the situation?

[Mysturji]

His choice of destinations so far has been... strange.
Apart from heading straight to Ecuador before spilling the beans, what would you suggest?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

His choice of destinations so far has been... strange.
Apart from heading straight to Ecuador before spilling the beans, what would you suggest?

I'd start with a Congressman that wanted to make headlines and could afford protection.