151–160 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You won't have much of a country if you let the enemy get the advantage. Sovereignty is maintained through force.
... or perhaps just hire security professionals familiar with formal verification, then design secure systems?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are dozens of countries murdering their own citizens. The US is not nearly as much as problem as people want to make it seem and Pax Americana has led to almost a century without major worldwide war.
The death sentence is the same thing, just with more decoration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are dozens of countries murdering their own citizens. The US is not nearly as much as problem as people want to make it seem and Pax Americana has led to almost a century without major worldwide war.
> There are dozens of countries murdering their own citizens. I assume you're including the US in this, too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US plays "fairly" in international relations? Honestly amazed if anyone truly stands by that statement. The irony of mentioning treaties too. That's some next level true believer stuff. Would love to have a chat about: * Chemical weapons convention * Mine ban treaty * Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court * Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty * Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty * Biological and Toxin Weapons Con…
> The US plays "fairly" in international relations? Honestly amazed if anyone truly stands by that statement. If you consider how much power the U.S. has and how often it does not use that power to its fullest advantage, it's pretty remarkable how much it holds back.
I don't understand a single bit from this article.
Rational people are often confused by the war media's agitation for war. The reason for the confusion is they are lying to us . Whenever I'm confused by the war media, I conclude they must be trying to start another war. They're pressing this button too often, though. Compare the results in Syria to those in Libya...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We hid this from the president because we were afraid he might issue a perfectly legal and constitutional order to stop doing it." Yes, way to bury the lede.
Sounds more like, "We hid this from the president because he's _at best_ an unwitting intelligence asset to a hostile foreign power."
What's the workaround to the new nyt ad blocker blocker?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Trump's base says that "the deep state" is trying to start a war between the US and Russia, it's quotes like these that will be used to bolster their claims.
Would they be wrong? Edit: AFAICT both sides are "technically not wrong", homomorphic to the basic "free speech" argument, "it's technically not illegal". I'm a bit flabberghasted that no one has constructed an ironclad technological solution to this wishy-washy dance of weak arguments, backed up by rhyme but not reason. Proof verifiers should come to politics.
Throwback to Madam Secretary. On a more serious note, does the US have red teams which try pen test our own power grid and other critical infrastructure? I don't believe I've ever heard of it, but I would have to assume at least one three letter agency does it right? (I hope)
Secondly, three letter agencies don't work for the citizens (in which case they might focus on defense) but for military industrial complex, so taxpayer money is spent attacking foreign countries.