US hacking hypocrisy

[dosxuk]

The thing that staggers me most of all is that the supposedly world leading secret services are unable to keep even the most secret secrets secret.

 

And yet there's "obvious" secrets they've managed to hide without a single leak, like the moon landings and chemtrails. Whatever methods of communication they use to discuss those types of project, it seems silly they don't use for everything since it appears to be unhackable.

[OWII]

More people like Snowden will appear, with more pooring light USA will have to change their methods

[Harleyman]

Harleyman, You & I are going to have to disagree on the Major General. To me a man who continues to think & to question throughout his life -despite the discomfort which it may bring - is an admirable person.

You on the other hand appear to be of the opinion that once a course of action is embarked upon there is no room to question or have a change of heart.

People such as you make a useful tool for the power hungry.

 

You have attacked Smedley Butler on a personal level but I notice you are unable to deny his statements. Difficult to deny the truth isn't it?

 

As for Kennedy the Russians were proved wrong about him weren't they?

 

Do you ever bother to vote? I get the impression that you're something of an anarchist when it comes to politics. It's like"Anyone who seeks power or leadership must be corrupt and only in it for what he can gain"

It's a kind of whacko philosophy if you dont mind me saying so, something that the hypocrite John Lennon and his weird little Yoko expounded back in the 60s to the young and gullible

 

As for Kennedy? Well he faced down Kruschev and the missiles were withdrawn. It was all made out to be a great big victory for Kennedy but very few knew that Kennedy had agreed to pull out the Jupiter missiles that the US had in Turkey pointed at the Soviet Union. This was hushed up until six months later.

 

I still believe that if Nixon had won in 1960 instead of Kennedy Kruschev would never have placed missiles in Cuba.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2013 at 22:20 ----------

 

It's not hypocrisy. There hasnt been a terrorist act in the US in a decade and that's due in no small measure to intelligence gathering. Do you know how many potential terrorist attacks have been foiled by listening into phone calls and E-mails? You seem to be the expert on such matters so take a guess.

 

Well thanks for re-classifying the Boston bombing Mr Encyclopedia, great to know your depth and breath of knowledge is up to the usual standard on would expect from a tabloid consumer.

 

You're welcome Mr Twit. Anything else I can elighten your befuddled, conspiratorial fixated mind with just let me know

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2013 at 22:22 ----------

 

More people like Snowden will appear, with more pooring light USA will have to change their methods

 

They all want to end up living in Russia then? Enlighten us all on your ideas for a change of methods

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2013 at 22:26 ----------

 

The French soldier, le poilu, never lacked courage. THe fault lay in a military organization who thought the war would be fought in the way the first one was fought. Their belief in the Maginot Line was tragic. But no tank could ever get through the Ardennes, malheureusement, they did.

 

There wasn't much that could stop a Panzer divison on the move backed by air power except running out of fuel which they eventually did during the Battle of the Bulge

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2013 at 22:34 ----------

 

Any Man? Will that include Snowden?

 

He's going to risk the sacrifice of his life by doing what he's done, I'm glad he did it. But I'd be surprised should the us ever not persecute him for it.

 

There's already rumblings in the press of a bit of a U-turn by the US. I'm curious to know how many allies you'd have to estrange before a country is regarded as a pariah?

As information travels the world at ever faster speeds by channels not in control of governments, the world becomes wiser, faster and the scandals emanating from the US (and other places it should be mentioned) do nothing to convey the idea its the 'home of the brave& land of the free' any more. It's starting to come across as the home of the oppressor, the untrustable and the unbelievable.

 

Obviously this has little to do with the majority of people in the US/uk, but when the NSA and the GCHQ act like a bunch of 1st class cu*** you and I should know better than to swallow the terrorism line and defend them.

 

As history has shown estrangement only lasts as long as the next call for help.

Anyway I live life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness very much so. Hope you do too.

 

---------- Post added 03-11-2013 at 22:40 ----------

 

Really? That's harley to a tee. The only thing different is he's usually a little bit more ambiguous about it.

The irony for me is that harley is the exact sort of person who waves his flag and encourages the usa to continue doing as it does, while all the time it's moving in completely the opposite direction from it's founding principals.

 

All the wise quotes from dead presidents are lost on those who think their country to be superior. You're targeted by terrorists precisely due to the sheer arrogance you display so regularly.

 

Not so. It's because the US is the only country at this present time that can effectively wage a war on the spread of Islamic extremism through violence and intimidation.

[mjw47]

Dear me Harleyman they've really got you 'with the program' your definitely 'singing off the - establishments - hymn sheet'.

Do I bother to vote? well yes I used to, but have decided next time not to bother. You see the British voting system is a complete waste of everyone's time, as I understand it, no government has been formed with even 50% of the vote since the Second War.

 

I have lived in my house for 31 years, & the same party has been returned each & every time, & will be on the next occasion also. So cannot be arsed.

The system suits the politicians so won't be altered.

 

Am I an anarchist? Well I did try to set up an anarchist society once, but when we held our first meeting no bugger would obey the rules.

 

As to your comment that I believe 'anyone who seeks power or leadership must be corrupt & only in it for what he can gain'.

Please explain how the actions of the majority of politicians over many years has contradicted that viewpoint?

Over 52% of politicians in this country were proven to be submitting false expense claims. A recent report in the Times claims they are still doing it with increased amounts.

Thatcher, £20 million payed to Mark Thatcher following her signing a £486 billion arms deal with the Saudis.

Churchill, Burmah oil, now BP.

Rumsfeld, Cheney,Halliburton etc.

Charlie Haughey Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland owned his own island off the coast of Kerry & a Stately home outside Dublin.

 

Do I think a lot of politicians are in it out of self interest & are dodgy? That would be a yes, & if you don't I can only say that I can get you A hell of a deal on the old cooling towers that used to stand alongside the M1. They'll look great in California alongside the golden gate bridge. Please PM me your bank details.

[Phanerothyme]

More people like Snowden will appear, with more pooring light USA will have to change their methods

 

Just because its public knowledge about the NSA and GCHQ doesn't mean any of the other secret services worldwide can claim the moral high ground.

 

We're all at it.

 

This is a question of capacity and technology, not morality. If a country doesn't monitor all its population's communications, it's because their secret service can't, rather than won't.

 

People who have the technology and the capacity are frantically hoovering up as much raw data as they can, because processing unimaginably large datasets is now a bagatelle, whereas only five years ago.

 

a) the speed of computers was lower

b) there was a lot less information.

 

And there is new information contained in old data. People with capacity and technology to do this, and the contacts required to plug in at the deepest level to worldwide communications, can use this data to find stuff out about people and groups of people they don't even know themselves.

 

The fact that they (NSA/GCHQ) have the technology, capacity and contacts is somewhat ameliorated by the fact they are demonstrably incompetent when it comes to computer security.

 

If it weren't so tragic, it would be hilarious.

 

 

I blame Jello Biafra. His battle cry to the young white rich kids who came to his gigs was "get a good job in defence and screw up the barstewards from the inside, instead of standing outside waving placards".[i've paraphrased him a bit].

 

On reflection, Snowden's a bit young to be a DK fan.

[Harleyman]

Dear me Harleyman they've really got you 'with the program' your definitely 'singing off the - establishments - hymn sheet'.

Do I bother to vote? well yes I used to, but have decided next time not to bother. You see the British voting system is a complete waste of everyone's time, as I understand it, no government has been formed with even 50% of the vote since the Second War.

 

I have lived in my house for 31 years, & the same party has been returned each & every time, & will be on the next occasion also. So cannot be arsed.

The system suits the politicians so won't be altered.

 

Am I an anarchist? Well I did try to set up an anarchist society once, but when we held our first meeting no bugger would obey the rules.

 

As to your comment that I believe 'anyone who seeks power or leadership must be corrupt & only in it for what he can gain'.

Please explain how the actions of the majority of politicians over many years has contradicted that viewpoint?

Over 52% of politicians in this country were proven to be submitting false expense claims. A recent report in the Times claims they are still doing it with increased amounts.

Thatcher, £20 million payed to Mark Thatcher following her signing a £486 billion arms deal with the Saudis.

Churchill, Burmah oil, now BP.

Rumsfeld, Cheney,Halliburton etc.

Charlie Haughey Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland owned his own island off the coast of Kerry & a Stately home outside Dublin.

 

Do I think a lot of politicians are in it out of self interest & are dodgy? That would be a yes, & if you don't I can only say that I can get you A hell of a deal on the old cooling towers that used to stand alongside the M1. They'll look great in California alongside the golden gate bridge. Please PM me your bank details.

 

You named a few politicians and that's it? There are many politicians who are not grafters. They do good things for the ordinary middle class people but being what they are they never get mentioned in the national media.... only the media in their local districts perhaps. You tar every politician with the same brush and is that reasonable or fair?

 

You have a poor regard for the British electoral system but you fail to realize that compared to many countries it is one of the fairest and most democratic systems in the world, copied by many and even the US for that matter

 

Don't forget too that many shed their blood to protect the right of one person one vote.

 

I've heard people whinge about the California government and have asked one or two if they bothered to vote. The answer was "no"

 

My stock answer is "Then you deserve the government you have"

 

Never underestimate the power of one vote. It was one vote in Congress that passed the bill to start the draft of all able bodied men for military service in 1940. Imagine if the reverse had happened. The US wouldn't had an army of any sort to prepare for combat after Pearl Harbour.

Churchill would have had to wait a lot longer for the liberation of western Europe and given the Germans a lot more breathing space to perfect many of their deadly new weapons that were coming into the field by 1944

[mjw47]

You named a few politicians and that's it? There are many politicians who are not grafters. They do good things for the ordinary middle class people but being what they are they never get mentioned in the national media.... only the media in their local districts perhaps. You tar every politician with the same brush and is that reasonable or fair?

 

You have a poor regard for the British electoral system but you fail to realize that compared to many countries it is one of the fairest and most democratic systems in the world, copied by many and even the US for that matter

 

Don't forget too that many shed their blood to protect the right of one person one vote.

 

I've heard people whinge about the California government and have asked one or two if they bothered to vote. The answer was "no"

 

My stock answer is "Then you deserve the government you have"

 

Never underestimate the power of one vote. It was one vote in Congress that passed the bill to start the draft of all able bodied men for military service in 1940. Imagine if the reverse had happened. The US wouldn't had an army of any sort to prepare for combat after Pearl Harbour.

Churchill would have had to wait a lot longer for the liberation of western Europe and given the Germans a lot more breathing space to perfect many of their deadly new weapons that were coming into the field by 1944

 

Harleyman, you keep making assumptions based upon your own imagination.

Can you recall that in the earlier discussion we had about teaching history I provided you with a list of British, American & Irish politicians who I considered to be honourable exceptions to the corrupt norm?

 

Unfortunately, I believe there are- generally speaking - more politicians at whatever level, local council to government who are 'out for number one' than there are paragons of virtue who put the people first.

 

Your comment about the voting system is demonstrable nonsense. One vote makes absolutely no difference in the current voting system in this country.

The same party will be returned in my constituency whether I vote or not.

 

One vote in Congress made a difference? Well yes it would, wouldn't it? It was taken in Congress!

 

Proportional representation is the only true democratic voting system devised. Under that system each party receives the percentage of seats proportionate to the percentage of votes it received.

What could be fairer or more democratic?

 

The politicians don't want it though so it won't happen. Why don't they want it? Because it would mean they would lose an element of power & be forced to actually do their job, cannot have that can we?

 

Because broadly speaking people tend to be split relatively equally in their political views PR would result in more coalition governments. This would mean that instead of being able to ride roughshod over all opposing views & implement whatever policy they wish, they would have to persuade others as to the rights & wrongs of their argument. You know, indulge in actual democratic politics!

 

Tony Blair took this country into an illegal war using lies & misinformation when his party had gained no more than 42% of all votes cast, despite which he had an overwhelming majority & could do what he wished.

 

People argue that coalition governments make it difficult to get things done.

To which my retort would be that Germany has had coalition governments since the War & it doesn't appear to have prevented them getting things done.

 

And yes Harleyman I am aware that other countries are in a worse position, but that does not mean that I, or anyone else for that matter, should accept the status quo here if we feel it is wrong, does it?

[Harleyman]

Harleyman, you keep making assumptions based upon your own imagination.

Can you recall that in the earlier discussion we had about teaching history I provided you with a list of British, American & Irish politicians who I considered to be honourable exceptions to the corrupt norm?

 

Unfortunately, I believe there are- generally speaking - more politicians at whatever level, local council to government who are 'out for number one' than there are paragons of virtue who put the people first.

 

Your comment about the voting system is demonstrable nonsense. One vote makes absolutely no difference in the current voting system in this country.

The same party will be returned in my constituency whether I vote or not.

 

One vote in Congress made a difference? Well yes it would, wouldn't it? It was taken in Congress!

 

Proportional representation is the only true democratic voting system devised. Under that system each party receives the percentage of seats proportionate to the percentage of votes it received.

What could be fairer or more democratic?

 

The politicians don't want it though so it won't happen. Why don't they want it? Because it would mean they would lose an element of power & be forced to actually do their job, cannot have that can we?

 

Because broadly speaking people tend to be split relatively equally in their political views PR would result in more coalition governments. This would mean that instead of being able to ride roughshod over all opposing views & implement whatever policy they wish, they would have to persuade others as to the rights & wrongs of their argument. You know, indulge in actual democratic politics!

 

Tony Blair took this country into an illegal war using lies & misinformation when his party had gained no more than 42% of all votes cast, despite which he had an overwhelming majority & could do what he wished.

 

People argue that coalition governments make it difficult to get things done.

To which my retort would be that Germany has had coalition governments since the War & it doesn't appear to have prevented them getting things done.

 

And yes Harleyman I am aware that other countries are in a worse position, but that does not mean that I, or anyone else for that matter, should accept the status quo here if we feel it is wrong, does it?

 

Coalition governments work effectively in Germany because the Germans are what they are.

Their class system was completely destroyed by 1945 whereas in British politics class issues still play a major part. The "us against them" mindset still very much exists.

Compare Germany to Britain in the matter of industrial relations over the past 60 years. Industrial strife is practically unknown in Germany. Labour and management effectively work together in the best interests of industry as a whole.

For a coalition governmental system to work there needs to be that kind of political maturity that the Germans had to adopt through citcumstances that were forced on them.

 

So I say No. Your ideas of a coalition system of government in Britain wouldn't work. It would only snarl up the works even more

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2013 at 06:38 ----------

 

Harleyman, you keep making assumptions based upon your own imagination.

Can you recall that in the earlier discussion we had about teaching history I provided you with a list of British, American & Irish politicians who I considered to be honourable exceptions to the corrupt norm?

 

Unfortunately, I believe there are- generally speaking - more politicians at whatever level, local council to government who are 'out for number one' than there are paragons of virtue who put the people first.

 

Your comment about the voting system is demonstrable nonsense. One vote makes absolutely no difference in the current voting system in this country.

The same party will be returned in my constituency whether I vote or not.

 

One vote in Congress made a difference? Well yes it would, wouldn't it? It was taken in Congress!

 

Proportional representation is the only true democratic voting system devised. Under that system each party receives the percentage of seats proportionate to the percentage of votes it received.

What could be fairer or more democratic?

 

The politicians don't want it though so it won't happen. Why don't they want it? Because it would mean they would lose an element of power & be forced to actually do their job, cannot have that can we?

 

Because broadly speaking people tend to be split relatively equally in their political views PR would result in more coalition governments. This would mean that instead of being able to ride roughshod over all opposing views & implement whatever policy they wish, they would have to persuade others as to the rights & wrongs of their argument. You know, indulge in actual democratic politics!

 

Tony Blair took this country into an illegal war using lies & misinformation when his party had gained no more than 42% of all votes cast, despite which he had an overwhelming majority & could do what he wished.

 

People argue that coalition governments make it difficult to get things done.

To which my retort would be that Germany has had coalition governments since the War & it doesn't appear to have prevented them getting things done.

 

And yes Harleyman I am aware that other countries are in a worse position, but that does not mean that I, or anyone else for that matter, should accept the status quo here if we feel it is wrong, does it?

 

Coalition governments work effectively in Germany because the Germans are what they are.

Their class system was completely destroyed by 1945 whereas in British politics class issues still play a major part. The "us against them" mindset still very much exists.

Compare Germany to Britain in the matter of industrial relations over the past 60 years. Industrial strife is practically unknown in Germany. Labour and management effectively work together in the best interests of industry as a whole.

For a coalition governmental system to work as it should there needs to be that kind of political maturity that the Germans had to adopt through circumstances that were forced on them.

 

So I say No. Your ideas of a coalition system of government for Britain wouldn't work. It would only snarl up the works even more

 

As for Tony Blair whether you like it or not PMs can and do decide in the matter of projecting war into foreign policies.

 

If there is any body that would have the say in deciding if a war was illegal or not that would be the United Nations and to my knowledge they have never ruled the Iraq war as being an illegal war

[mjw47]

Harleyman. I am inclined to agree with you with regard to Germany being a grown up country not handicapped by the nonsense of class divide. Somewhat ironic when you consider that the Sax-Coburg-Gotha's rule over here!

 

That does not make my points regarding the superiority of PR over other voting systems & the non democratic nature of our voting system incorrect though, does it?

 

You appear to be saying that because we are a backward thinking country, still accepting an anachronistic, archaic system, which should have been consigned to history long ago, then we deserve ,& should accept, the nonsense we are saddled with.

 

The current coalition in this country is working with no major difference to previous governments, other than perhaps managing to keep us out of involvement in any further wars.

A plus point in my book.

As no party is currently filling the electorate with confidence there is every chance, as it stands, that we may wind up with another coalition next time.

 

The United Nations? Seriously Hayleyman, just how far was your tongue stuck into your cheek when you wrote that?

 

Perhaps if the veto power were to be removed from the five permanent members the organization may start to actually achieve the role which was intended for it.

Until then it will continue to be viewed as the ineffectual talking shop it is.

 

Tony Blair & George W Bush should be tried for war crimes. They knowingly led their country's into war based on misinformation, subterfuge & outright lies.

As a result of which hundreds of thousands of innocent people died & their blood is on Bush & Blair's hands.

Doesn't seem to bother either of them, & American Oil is receiving 75% of Iraqi oil profits for the next 30 years, so all's well that ends well ,as Shakespeare put it.

[Harleyman]

Harleyman. I am inclined to agree with you with regard to Germany being a grown up country not handicapped by the nonsense of class divide. Somewhat ironic when you consider that the Sax-Coburg-Gotha's rule over here!

 

That does not make my points regarding the superiority of PR over other voting systems & the non democratic nature of our voting system incorrect though, does it?

 

You appear to be saying that because we are a backward thinking country, still accepting an anachronistic, archaic system, which should have been consigned to history long ago, then we deserve ,& should accept, the nonsense we are saddled with.

 

The current coalition in this country is working with no major difference to previous governments, other than perhaps managing to keep us out of involvement in any further wars.

A plus point in my book.

As no party is currently filling the electorate with confidence there is every chance, as it stands, that we may wind up with another coalition next time.

 

The United Nations? Seriously Hayleyman, just how far was your tongue stuck into your cheek when you wrote that?

 

Perhaps if the veto power were to be removed from the five permanent members the organization may start to actually achieve the role which was intended for it.

Until then it will continue to be viewed as the ineffectual talking shop it is.

 

Tony Blair & George W Bush should be tried for war crimes. They knowingly led their country's into war based on misinformation, subterfuge & outright lies.

As a result of which hundreds of thousands of innocent people died & their blood is on Bush & Blair's hands.

Doesn't seem to bother either of them, & American Oil is receiving 75% of Iraqi oil profits for the next 30 years, so all's well that ends well ,as Shakespeare put it.

 

Whatever you say about Blair, Bush and the Iraq war one thing should be made clear. Neither can be held responsible for the thousand's of deaths that have taken place in Iraq since the coalition pulled out several years ago

 

The Iraqis had a chance to rebuild their country and lay the foundations for a secular democracy but instead chose to go the path of sectarian warfare which only goes to show that they are a backward people wallowing in superstition and ignorance. The Iraqi leader currently in Washington for talks with Obama is hinting that perhaps coaltion or more than likely US troops should once more return to Iraq to help stabilize the situation. This man meanwhile has forced out the Sunnis who were part of his government and played along with Iran's mischief making and meddling in Iraq's affairs which now means that the Shi'ites hold all the ruling power which was what Iran wanted all along

 

I'm still unsure why Bush chose to invade Iraq. It's too easy to say it was just for the oil.

Saddam did after all invade Kuwait and use chemical weapons against the Iraqi Kurds. Was there some concern after 9/11 that Saddam might just be planning on selling chemical weapons to the likes of Bin Laden and Al Qaeda?

It wasnt until after the Iraqi army had been defeated and the coalition forces had done a search that it was found out that there were no chemical weapons. Was that fact a dead cert before the invasion?

 

I know you are anti-monarchist but really do you think that the Queen holds all that much power? I know she doesn't.

Would replacing the monarchy with some politically orientated President work?

Certainly Britain would be a duller far less colorful place with some Herbert as a figure head President unless of course the whole parliamentary system were to be dissolved and an American type Republican form of government replacing it. And oh the cost just for a national referendum alone