Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by yaxomoxay, Feb 16, 2017.
bet you the French woman told her, ****we onto you girl, we know all about you spying ****** and of course M.O is like.......
Interesting as to the details behind it. Still, I wouldn't expect a whole lot less.
Honestly, I don't see any wrong doing. I suspect Britain, Germany and Russia had people spying during the French election as well. If he had told spooks to stir the masses or rig the election, I would have issues with that.
Isn't Russia spying on everyone and everything.
like Egypt? Syria? Libya?
This isn't news. Obama is black so everything his administration did was fine. Don't even question it.
As long as the CIA didn't interfere we're god to go
If you spy your allies the interference is by definition, as you can condition them (be their elections or their policies) by adjusting your own policies/statements in a way that is more appropriate to your own goals.
The information shows that the US was spying because of concerns over policy, which means that the US was ready to adjust its own foreign policy in order to prevent or cause political events during the national elections. That is, the French policy was constrained to the direct result of US political decisions.
Adjusting your policies is not interfering
It is if you base your policies on spying with the goal of conditioning their policies in a way that benefits you.
Context. From the article:
I'm quite certain that Britain's intelligence services prepared for their Government, in the run-up to the US Presidential election, a report detailing
I'm sure Israel's intelligence services prepare similar reports about the Governments of the US; Britain; Germany; France and Russia. And there is nothing wrong with them doing that.
That is what intelligence services do. The provide political leaders with information about the likely intentions, policies, and positions of the leadership - current and future - of foreign countries.
More context: This piece of Spielmaterial was courtesy of Putin-Puppet and fugitive rapist Julian Assange.
I found it more interesting how Obama had the government spy on Trump's campaign staff before the election.
Still not interfering with the election
I realize it's not easy to understand this type of interference.
You forgot the /s, other wise people might think you're a racist.
I don't think you really appreciate the difference between understanding what a foreign politician might do, and actively taking steps to influence how voters in a foreign election vote.
Maybe that is a distinction too subtle for you to appreciate.
It seems that what happens is too subtle for you, or that you just dismiss it because it was Obama's thing (in this case; I do not expect Reagan, Clinton, or even Trump to do differently in this kind of stuff). The fact that the US is also so politically powerful with its allies should also be taken into consideration.
And reporters before that.
The FBI and CIA catching Flynn are a bit different though.
Ugh, the Palmer Report. That guy and Greg Palast are loons.
News: it's always good to put up some sort of commentary along with a link when you create the original post for a thread. Just assuming the thread title amounts to sufficient comment is a stretch. When one replies to a post, the thread title is not included in the quote for the reply.
LOL on the other hand in this case, seeing "wikileaks releases..." in the link does sort of speak for itself.
You used to be more of an independent thinker, man.
It's a known thing that allies spy on allies all the time (e.g. Israel spies on the USA and vice versa).
It's not new…. nor surprising. Hell, I spy all the time on my allies when playing Civilization 5. If nothing else, spying on allies allows your nation to easily steal technology from them. Sometimes they catch you, but it's rarely a big deal.
Civ5….. hehe…. I'm such a nerd.
I don't see that supported by your article, which specifically said ...
"Post-election" being the key word.
Your claim isn't supported in the article. Is it supported elsewhere?
If so, please share your information.
Yeah I should've included some commentary, I agree with you. In my defense... I am just lazy at times
As for the independent thinker... who knows. I was just reporting an interesting piece of news. I remember that a few years ago the German government got really pissed at the US about this.
And misinterpreting it according to what I read. I saw no indication that the intelligence was intended to affect or sway the election. It was meant to prepare key American policy makers for what they'd have to deal with after the election was over.
Well, I would hope that they would not be so stupid as to write on an order that they intend to interfere with the free elections of a great democracy and a strong ally!!!!
Let me give you an example of what could happen:
US spies on French candidates.
US finds out that the top French candidate might not fully support a policy that the US fully supports (let's say a carbon tax). US finds out that the French candidate thinks that the carbon tax should not be on the table for the electoral discussions for whatever reason, maybe because the topic is too hot and more governmental studies are needed.
US releases a statement - maybe during a presidential press conference - thanking the French for their support of the studies on the carbon tax, also thanking France for the long lasting friendship, possibly inflated with aesthetically designed sentences such as "moving forward together etc.".
Instantly, carbon tax becomes a French electoral subject.
The opposite is also true. US might decide not to act because the top candidate (expected to win) is doing whatever the US wants.
--- Post Merged, Feb 17, 2017 ---
Extra points for you
--- Post Merged, Feb 17, 2017 ---