Let's put some lipstick on this pig....

For years now we've heard about how our enemies were eating the USA alive via cyber-warfare.  They (N Korea, China, Iran, Russia, Russia, Russia) have been relentless in getting into every nook and cranny where we might hide our intellectual jewels.  They long ago mastered corporate espionage, stealing plans for everything we design and make.  And now they've hacked into our CIA, revealing our most sensitive national security secrets.  They say the most recent WikiLeaks information dump dwarfs anything Edward Snowden ever thought about handing over to the bad guys.

Throughout all this I've wondered, "So what are WE doing to THEM?  Surely we're not gonna just sit still while they bend us over?  Please tell me our nerds are better than their nerds."

Our nerds are better than their nerds.  

Our nerds long ago figured out how to hack into every TV, tablet, cell phone, hearing aid, picture frame, Viagra bottle, and toaster in the world.  Our spooks can listen in on every two-bit terrorist in the sandbox as he whispers sweet nothings into his camel's ear.  The night shift at CIA HQ probably makes prank phone calls to the Kremlin and makes it look like it's coming from Kim Jong Fatty Fat Fat's little pink princess phone on his nightstand.  Yes, we're THAT good!

Now the bad guys have figured out how to get into our secret stuff.  Scary, but at least I now know we have nerds that can go toe-to-toe with anyone, anywhere, anytime.   Game on!  More lipstick?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Republican's new health care plan, whatever they care to call it, has already crashed and burned.  They're just putting on a show to make it look like they're at least trying.  Besides Speaker Ryan and Donnie John Trump, virtually no one else wants to be seen anywhere near it.

The Tea Party says it doesn't cut deep enough, that there are still too many poor swine getting gubment freebees.  The Liberals say they aren't about to turn poor people away from getting life-saving healthcare they otherwise can't afford.  Libertarians say "no" to any further "entitlements".  The American  Medical Association and various hospital groups are against it because they say poor people will lose their insurance and will all show up in emergency rooms again demanding to be seen for free.  The Old Folks...er...AARP says its members can't afford premiums 5-times as expensive as the younguns, on and on.

The only ones who like it are the US Chamber of Commerce, because their members will save a buttload, and those making over $200,000 a year who will save an even bigger buttload.

Even lipstick isn't going to sell this wagon load of shit manure.

D....O....A

S

Do the ends ever justify the means?

I've been reading a book about the Israeli Mossad, their version of our CIA, titled Gideon's Spies. It tells the behind-the-scenes stories of some of the exploits of that fabled intelligence service, including many of the details about the numerous assassinations they've carried out.  They're pretty brutal, for sure.  Which begs the question, do the ends ever justify the means?  Is assassination ever right / justified?

Let's be clear here:  This isn't something that only the Israelis, with their backs to the sea, do to stay alive.  James Bond ^, the legendary British MI6 agent does it all the time....I've seen him!  The fact is, the British do it, the French do it, the Russians certainly do it, and so do many, many other countries.  Including your good 'ol USA.  

Our difference is we are rich enough and powerful enough that we can (usually ?) pay others to do our dirty work, enabling us to maintain "plausible deniability".  Just like we don't torture terror suspects....but we do send them to Jordan, or Egypt, or Kazakhstan for a pleasant visit with those nice folks. 

I remember my mom telling me "two wrongs don't make a right".  True, but if one of those wrongs is so heinous, and the consequences will be so catastrophic, THEN would another "wrong" be justified?

Yes, Israel has whacked scientists from Syria and Pakistan and Iran (and probably elsewhere) who were actively working on perfecting nuclear weapons, weaponized germs, etc, weapons those countries have vowed to use to "wipe Israel off the map".  And all indications were they weren't just idle threats.  Honestly, I can grudgingly understand the Israeli's  actions.

To use that same logic, if the US or the UK or France or Germany knew of a dastardly plot about to come to fruition, and if the country harboring the plotters couldn't be trusted to squash it, should we go in and "neutralize" the threat?

And where is that fine line between "yes", and "let's wait and see"?  And if "let's wait and see" prevails, what happens if they're wrong and the result is another 9/11?  Do those who erred on the side of restraint deserve responsibility for the catastrophe?  Would you have the cojones to "wait and see"?  And if you were too quick to say "go for it" (think GW Bush vs Iraq), what then? 

Let's face it, making leadership decisions is a tough business!  (That's why they all leave office with gray hair.)

To you, is this a black and white issue, or is there a big gray area?  (Pun intended.)

S

Somebody please refresh my memory....

Why are the US and other allied nations fighting in Afghanistan?  As I recall from 12 years ago, the US was pissed at the Taliban government of Afghanistan because it wouldn't close the terrorist training bases there and turn over Osama bin Laden and friends to stand trial for 9/11.  So we sent in a few dozen special forces with some communications equipment and CIA agents with suitcases full of cash.

We bribed the various tribal leaders to pull together (the Northern Alliance), at least temporarily, to fight their common enemy the Taliban.  They did, the Taliban abdicated, the terrorist bases were closed, and Osama went underground.  So why didn't we just have a parade, declare victory, and come back home?

Why did we stay and try our hand at "nation building"?  First of all, Afghanistan, like most Middle Eastern countries, isn't really a "country" at all.  It's just a bunch of tribes that were arbitrarily fenced in together by a line drawn on a map by their colonial "protectors" a century ago.  Their loyalties are to their tribe.  Period.

The three richest men in Afghanistan?

And now the Afghan Supremo Crooko, el Presidente Humid Carbide, is telling us he is breaking off "long-term security talks" with the US because we dissed him.  Well cry me a river, Humid.

Why do we keep sending him his monthly shakedown?  As with most of the foreign aid we send to Mid-East "leaders", little makes it to the people.  Most stops with the leaders and their families and cronies.

Listen up Humid...."long term" to you means about 30 seconds after the last US soldier gets back on the plane and comes home.  That's about how long it will take for your Afghan "security detail" to sell you out for a couple of goats and whack you and return life to the tribal warfare that has been the Afghan way for eons.  The Brits didn't change it.  The Rooskies didn't change it.  And neither did we.

We can just keep an eye on any terrorist activity that might pop up there and impact us.  If we find any we can just send in another CIA agent with another suitcase full of cash to bribe the appropriate warlord, things "happen", and the problem goes away.  Easy.  Then they can go back to living their life however they want.  Live and let live I say.  Er....

I call it "Scott's Foreign Policy".  I doubt they'll be teaching it at the Harvard School of International Relations.  They should.  What they're teaching now isn't working.

S