You hit all the propaganda talking points in one comment. Usually such comments stick to one talking point. "China, china, china" or "russia, russia, russia" or ...
> Let me say that what the US government is doing wouldn't even be controversial in 99% of the world, including probably 90% of democracies.
That's a problem for most of the world. Not the US.
> People in other countries are much more clear eyed and pragmatic about these things.
Most of the people around the world don't have any problems with iran, russia, china and mexico. Maybe we should look into why we have conflicts with people all over the world.
You're not wrong about the propaganda talking points.
>Most of the people around the world don't have any problems with iran, russia, china and mexico. Maybe we should look into why we have conflicts with people all over the world.
In fact, most liberal democracies are at odds with Russia, Iran, China, and nearly everyone is concerned about Mexican Drug Cartels.
We can simultaneously acknowledge that we have an adversarial relationship as a country with Iran, Russia, and China and that it's not an excuse to extract data from the people.
Then the courts are wrong, as they often are when it comes to constitutionality. Domestic dragnet surveillance is a very obvious violation of the 4th amendment.
In what sense are they “wrong”? You don’t agree with them. But theirs is the final word on the matter until a new court or new law comes around. The interpretation of the Bill of Rights has varied greatly over the last 250 years even though the words have stayed the same. The law isn’t based on our ideas of what it is, the law is based on what is enforced.
Multiple revelations including Snowdens reveal that the data is not uncorrelated/anonymous, if it were I'd imagine it'd be of little use for intelligence purposes. Maybe I am too dismissive/cynical but I don't put much stock in what the courts decide or why on issues like this, they're all under somebody's thumb from what I can tell. They're the same folks that brought us such hits as "corporations are people and money is speech", call me crazy but I don't think they're making their decisions based on high-minded constitutional principles
> In fact, most liberal democracies are at odds with Russia, Iran, China
What's a liberal democracy? Oh you mean our vassals are at odds with the countries we are at odds with? I find that odd.
What is the "liberal democracies" problem with russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels. Take ireland for example. What's their beef with russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels?
Oh they have no beef. It's just that they have to follow orders. We say jump and they say how high. Maybe one day, these liberal democracies will be liberated and regain their sovereignty. Hey maybe russia, iran, china and the mexican cartels can help liberate them.
An influential and prominent bureaucrat once said america has no friends or enemies, just interests. Think about it.
Isn't it more insulting to call countries you firebombed and nuked "friends and allies". Imagine if china firebombed germany and currently occupies it. Would we not laugh if china called germany their friend and ally? Imagine if russia nuked japan and occupied it. Would we call them besties for life?
Edit: You still haven't answered what ireland's problem with iran is? What's ireland's problem with russia and china. And what issues do they have with the mexicans.
why isn't the west or the islamic world doing anything about this? isn't the forever war in the middle east over by now? why can't we redeploy some of those military assets to invade china next? certainly we can get support from saudi and israel and pakistan and the UK to support us, right?
If anything that has been the example the US has set for the rest of the world by "spreading democracy" through regime change and war. The correct way to spread democracy is to be a shining example of a free society by being prosperous without killing people that have done you no harm.
So then the liberal democracies were against the US when we invaded iraq? Are they against the occupation of germany, japan, korea, italy, etc? Or is it not conquest when we do it?
> China has concentration camps
"Concentration camps". Yes and liberal democracies have torture chambers all over the world. Strange. Did they disband these "concentration camps"? Have the ugyhers been genocided already? Why the complete radio silence on the "genocide" of the century? Because it turned out to be a lie and propaganda? Wasn't it 3 million died in the camps. Then it was 300K. Then 300. Then 3. Then 0. Now do you want to discuss palestine? Or do muslims in palestine not matter?
> Iran brutally oppresses women
No they don't. Just because they have their own cultural values doesn't mean they oppress women. No more than saudi arabia does. You support diversity right?
> The US and its allies are free democracies where people vote.
So is russia, iran, venezuela, etc...
> Spare us this sophomore in college "both sides are the same" nonsense
No. One side is clearly worse - the "liberal democracies".
Who invaded more muslim countries and destroyed more muslim lives? Liberal democracies or china, russia, iran, mexican cartels?
Which country is more oppressive to women? Saudi arabia ( liberal democracies favorite muslim country ) or iran?
Which country has waged more wars of conquest? Liberal democracies or russia, china, iran, mexican cartels?
By your own criteria, the liberal democracies are the worst.
> That's a problem for most of the world. Not the US.
The popular notion of civil rights in America and the historical reality are at odds. Americans have always been spied on, it was just less publicized in the past.
Russia is an existential threat to our democracy. Surveillance is necessary so no election can interfered by the Russians. Millions of lives have been lost because of an illegal president. We don't want that to happen again.
That's the Sinclair Broadcast Group forcing the news orgs they own to read from the same script. They also had "must run" news segments that include conservative commentary. That doesn't mean Russia isn't a threat to democracy world wide, it just means we have a problem with mega corps owning too much media. I don't think that gives the US an excuse to spy on our own citizens however.
Way to be ultimately dismissive and basically call PC a shill and with a smugness that is unnecessary. Different people have different interests and you can’t just ad hominem them as propaganda.
He expressed the most absolutely brainwashed take on why surveillance is necessary. It's difficult to take him seriously when his talking points couldn't have been written better by any three-letter agency PR department.
Do you have a good reason to be defending obviously bad talking points? In the free marketplace of ideas, this one has evidently been assigned a value less than zero.
Do I need a reason other than curiosity? Asking for a rebuttal that isn't a personal attack is hardly defending. It should be the base level of discussion according to site guidelines.
It's a 32-day-old account named after the bad guy from a Star Wars movie. I'd be suspicious of them before even reading the comment, which was fairly bonkers. As for substantive rebuttal of their statements, others have already done it elsewhere in the thread.
If I was in a room with someone who said "I think the world would be better off if everyone in this room except me were dead", I think you'd understand my nervousness around and dislike of the person.
You said there should be 6.9 billion less people on the planet and when asked if you'd be one of the 0.1 billion remaining people you said yes and basically acknowledged you'd already said too much. If that's what you left up, I shudder at whatever this [1] might have been
> If I was in a room with someone who said "I think the world would be better off if everyone in this room except me were dead", I think you'd understand my nervousness around and dislike of the person.
No, what you said was, you think the world would be better off if 6.9B people were dead and you were one of the remaining 100M. And what I'm saying is, those two statements are not very different.
1. Iran. Check.
2. Russia. Check.
3. China. Check.
4. Mexican drug cartel. Check.
You hit all the propaganda talking points in one comment. Usually such comments stick to one talking point. "China, china, china" or "russia, russia, russia" or ...
> Let me say that what the US government is doing wouldn't even be controversial in 99% of the world, including probably 90% of democracies.
That's a problem for most of the world. Not the US.
> People in other countries are much more clear eyed and pragmatic about these things.
Most of the people around the world don't have any problems with iran, russia, china and mexico. Maybe we should look into why we have conflicts with people all over the world.